Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: bloom25 on December 04, 2000, 03:02:00 PM
-
After being amazed at what the n1k can do immediately after takeoff; and never having actually flown the plane myself, I decided a little test would be a good idea. My intention was to see just how well the n1k held it's E, that way I would know what it could do.
Here's what I did:
Offline, pick n1k, 50% fuel. (I figured for base defense this is what they would pick.) Immediately after takeoff, try to loop. Well guess what, I was able to loop the N1k immediately after takeoff! I then continued to loop 10 more times before I decided the N1k holds it's E well enough to loop infinately many times. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/eek.gif) At the top of the 11th loop I pulled negative gs and then tried to continue into an outside loop. Had I 50 more feet of altitude I would have been able to pull it off. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
loops.ahf (http://www.engr.orst.edu/~bloom/loops.ahf)
Now tell me, is this accurate? Could any WWII fighter loop immediately after a 170 mph takeoff and loop continuously? Note, I was pulling 5 gs at the bottoms of the loop. I tried this with the p51 and it couldn't even finish 1/2 a loop.
I've decided now that something is definately amis with the N1k FM.
------------------
bloom25
THUNDERBIRDS
[This message has been edited by bloom25 (edited 12-04-2000).]
[This message has been edited by bloom25 (edited 12-04-2000).]
-
La-5FN can do it w/100% fuel. Was actually flight tested by the VVS, and could do loops at 186mph.
Incidently, USA fighters were generally the biggest, heaviest fighters among combatant nations in WWII. Not surprised a P-51 couldn't do loops, since no American fighters were known for their power loading, and in fact had the worst figures of the lot.
[This message has been edited by leonid (edited 12-04-2000).]
-
I did a quick check at Joe Baugher's page on the N1K2-J. Loaded weight was 8818lbs, wing area of 252.95 sq/ft, which comes out to 34.86 lbs-sq/ft. Power loading, using the given engine rating of 1825 hp at 5740 ft, comes out to 4.83 lbs-hp. That wing loading is about the same as a loaded Bf-109 E7. Either this thing is a Japanese Bf-109 E, or something funny is goin on here.
As a reference, a P-51D has a wing loading of 43.34 lbs-sq/ft and a power loading of 5.95 lbs-hp. Again, according to Baugher's figures on his pages.
Baugher's N1K2 specs (http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/n1k.html#RTFToC4)
-----------------------
Flakbait
Delta 6's Flight School (http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6)
"During the Battle of Britain the question 'fighter or fighter-bomber?'
had been decided once and for all: The fighter can only be used as a bomb carrier
with lasting effect when sufficient air superiority has been won." Adolph Galland
(http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6/htbin/custom1.jpg)
[This message has been edited by flakbait (edited 12-04-2000).]
-
Hard data and exhaustive tests only,
dont whine!
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
In practice loops are more like a lower case "e" where you loos a bit of altitude with each loop due to the lose of energy reqiured to make the plane perform the loop. If you can take it off and get to 170 then i will assume (and it is an assumption) you would have been no more than 1K of the deck, now to do 11 consecutive loops without hitting the ground you cant have been loosing any more than 90 feet per loop. This to me seems a bit strange.
BTW, the N1K2 was not a light fighter - it was quite big and heavy for a japanese fighter.
-
Bloom,
base defenders and short legged quakers takes 25% fuel (Niki's tanks carry a lot of fuel). Try it again and do 20 loops.
RAM, when the hell are you going back home? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
------------------
Gatt
4° Stormo Caccia - Knights (http://www.4stormo.it)
Macchi C.202's sting (1,9MByte film) (http://web.tiscalinet.it/gatt/breda.avi)
-
The Niki also has an incredible roll rate. Just take off, get level with some speed, then chop the throttle, kick full right rudder and yank the stick back (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
I almost hit the ground on the first loop, but actually seemed to gain altitude on each successive loop. If I had decided to continue looping, I'm sure I could have continued to loop until my fuel was gone. After loop 11 I pulled -3 Gs until pointing straight up. I then tried an outside loop, but unfortunately I was 10 ft too low to finish the loop. (Plane was pulling out when it hit the ground.)
Guys, these weren't lazy loops either, I was pulling from 4 to 5.5 Gs at the bottoms on every loop. Unless I had a greater than 1 to 1 thrust to weight ratio, I should have lost altitude. I'm quite convinced that I could actually have slowly climbed gained altitude by continuously looping.
Take a look at the film...
------------------
bloom25
THUNDERBIRDS
-
Link didn't work for me.
-
The link is fixed, it's called loops.ahf, NOT loop.ahf. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
------------------
bloom25
THUNDERBIRDS
-
This time, just like last time, I looped immediately after the wheels left the ground. This was followed by 26 more loops before I decided this was pointless. I then hammerheaded, noting the n1ks amazing low speed characteristics (torque?). After that I decided to test how big of a hole the n1k could make in the ground. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
You guys should note that I actually was gaining altitude until my wep ran out. (Field runway is at 500 ft, bottom of loops increased to around 580 ft. Does this mean the n1k actually gains more E than it loses in a loop? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) Um, unless the n1k has greater than 1 to 1 thrust to weight, is this even possible? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) ) The hammerhead that took only 1.5 seconds to do was fun too.
27loops.ahf (http://www.engr.orst.edu/~bloom/27loops.ahf)
Enjoy! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
bloom25
THUNDERBIRDS
-
Nothing new here.
Nikis doesnt lose E---------->we already knew that
Nikis dont have torque-------->we already knew that (take a look at the tiffie too, pliz)
Nikis do have nearly same low speed handling as A6M5--------->we already knew that.
The only thing I didnt know was the N1K2 performance over 20K. Maybe because I rarerly went over that altitude and didnt care to see how did the UFO act there.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
(BTW If you find my attitude a bad one, take a look at those films. The BS of the UFO is leaking out of each one of them. some of us have been saying this since 1.04 came out, and had to stand against whiner calls. Now tell me why doesnt a N1K2 burn E in a 5G loop).
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 12-04-2000).]
-
Hey RAM, with 25% fuel and wep left, it actually gains E in a 5g loop. Get your fact right please. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
bloom25
THUNDERBIRDS
-
LOL bloom...
Sorry...you are right (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
The a6m can do an immelman at 120-130mph and then keep looping.
The Spits have similar performance.
Of course the N1K is modelled correctly.
Fix the 190A8's climbrate and turn ability - it is way too good compared to these planes. I mean, it can abrely take off and fly level for the first 30 seconds.
------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
while(!bishRookQueue.isEmpty() && loggedOn()){
30mmDeathDIEDIEDIE(bishRookQueue.removeFront());
System.out.println("LW pilots are superior");
myPlane.performVictoryRoll();
}
-
Not to ruin a good N1K whine (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)...but there are several planes that can do the same thing in AH..and much easier. So if you have a beef, it's with the AH FM, not the N1K.
Having said that, can anybody reading this thread that actually knows about the "real thing", tell us that the real versions of the N1K, Spit, Zero, etc. couldn't do this?
bowser
-
Gentlemen a question for my more learned brethren,how would the automatic flap system affect the planes ability to do such "continuous looping"?....in other words does this help to make it so?
Also were these test done with WEP?, if so would this not explain it's stellar low level performance, at least compared to some of the other fighters who don't preform so well at lower altitude?
Brady
-
A plane will gain e if it is flying below it's maximum sustained turning speed, no matter how much you pull on the stick.
-
George made the wings fall off my plane! Witchcraft! Burn him!
-
Juzz ROFL (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Best bet to really tell if the N1K2 is porked lies within the auto-combat-flap system.
Historically, this is what allowed it's insane manuverability, i.e. minimum pilot load, he didn't have to monitor them to use them to his advantage.
Given that most flaps produce noticable drag once deflected past a certain degree point I think there in lies the problem.
But without any hard data on how exactlly the auto-system worked, it's hard to draw a judgement on them. At the time, they were said to be "the most advanced flap system ever used during the war" but that is of little help.
However, even with the automatic flap system apparently in place within AH, there is still manual flap system (and a hinged flap given how it deploys in AH, as were the auto-flaps) that does offer mostly drag that does not appear to be correct. I have heard the N1K2 had a split flap system as well, that was part of the combat flaps, but I really have no clue if it did. That and manual flaps you can watch deploy are NOT split flaps.
I believe this could be a left over from when we had flaps that contributed no lift and has simply never been revisited with the N1K2 since we finally did get correct flaps, for one reason or another, and the N1K2's flap system was so much different then the most of the other planes. The problem also seems to be there with the 109, while not as big of deal, but I would like to have the plane shudder as the slats popped out (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
- Jig
-
I think what we have here as someone has already stated is a E-retention problem with AH itself. Compare this to WB and tell me which one is accurate? Didn't HiTech also program WB? Was he accurate then? Is he accurate now?
I don't think any one plane is intentionally overmodelled, rather I think HT just needs to work on his E-retention code so that all planes will be affected equally.
Strange you can do some amazing maneuvers in AH that you could never think about doing in WB, yet it was programmed by the same guy....
fscott
-
Hi there,
I don't get involved much in FM disputes but this one caught my eye. I got the film and looked at it. I had tried it and couldn't duplicate it until I watched the film again. Then I noticed that the takeoff was very long on the ground, meaning no auto takeoff. I also saw combat trim was not lit. So I went back and decided to try again. I held the planes on the ground until gear started to groan (almost all at 170mph except for the F4), then pulled back while the gear was coming up.
Guess what! I could do it in the niki. I also did it in the following planes.
LA5
Yak
109G10
109G6
190A5
190A8 (very sloppy here)
Spit V
Spit9
P38L (everyone's favorite turn fighter) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
F4UD (I won't do the C!) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Typhoon (yep even the tiffie did it)
I didn't try others as I was getting bored doing this. Each fighter did at least 3 loops before I intentionally augered. Nt all the loops were pretty but they were controllable. There is a technique but it is easy to learn. It would have to be for me to be able to do it. I did this in TA and not offline. I didn't film it but anyone can duplicate it. Just be smooth and have a non spikey stick. Rudders WILL be needed for at least a couple of the planes including the Niki.
Gee, I guess this means ALL the FM's are porked.
Guess it's time for a new whine......
Mav
-
Well done Maverick (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Brady
-
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 12-05-2000).]
-
I guess there's a few bugs to iron out with the new FMs. With such major changes in the last revision this isn't too unexpected. I honestly don't think any of the planes (except maybe the zero) should be able to do this, E just isn't being lost very fast. I'm thinking maybe it's because torque doesn't make you lose control like it did <1.03. I tried the p51, but couldn't get it to do this continual looping trick, so I just assumed the majority of the set couldn't do it.
My intention wasn't to post another whine thread without any evidence to back it up. Instead I wanted to post evidence and let others come to a conclusion. I think AH has, for the most part, excellent FMs. There are, IMO, a few bugs that need fixed in the E retention department.
------------------
bloom25
THUNDERBIRDS
-
Your film was not well developed, then your a bunch of whiners.
And no, endless loops at low speed and flip turns dont affect at all the arena dogfighting style.
Again, your a bunch of misinformed whiners. Stop it or you'll be burned by witch-hunters and BBS cops.
------------------
Gatt
4° Stormo Caccia - Knights (http://www.4stormo.it)
Macchi C.202's sting (1,9MByte film) (http://web.tiscalinet.it/gatt/breda.avi)
-
Fscott, last I checked, the WB P-38L would loop off the runway and loop indefinitely thereafter... with 100 % fuel and 2 x 1000 lb bombs. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
In any case using other flight sims as references is not productive. The only references of value are real life flight tests and engineering analysis.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 12-05-2000).]
-
A plane will gain e if it is flying below it's maximum sustained turning speed, no matter how much you pull on the stick.
OK wells, so a Spit IX has a sustained turn speed of, say, 160 mph. I'm tooling along in a Spit IX at 150, and go into a hard horizontal left bank and pull the stick back in my gut.
And I'll GAIN energy?
Now for the FM question (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Personally, I have no problems with the FM's of any of the AH aircraft... but I DO have a real problem with the pilot modelling. Never having flown a high performance piston engined aircraft, I'll defer to those on this board who have.
So tell me, what would be the effect on the pilot (disorientation, g-loc etc) of doing 27 consecutive 5g loops?
I have a sneaking suspicion the real problem is twofold:
1. The aircraft don't have the particular vices the real aircraft used to have.
2. The pilots are uber in so far as they have unlimited strength and g recovery abilities. Fer gawd sake.... even ASir Warrior had cumulative G effects back in 1985... but we don't have similar effects in a year 2000 sim?
------------------
=357th Pony Express=
Aces High Training Corps
[This message has been edited by Jekyll (edited 12-05-2000).]
-
Ok, so the much praised and realistic 1.04 FM seems wrong as a whole?...
Really, HTC, why not give a step back and recover 1.03 until the current FM is REALLY ready to be implemented?...methinks it was MORE realistic than 1.04 even with the high e-burning. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) (I'm completely serious in this thing. with 1.03 maybe planes did burn too much E but at least you rarely saw SUCH roadkill moves as are seen in 1.04. For realism sake, please bring back 1.03 FM until the new FM is fixed!!!)
Originally posted by wells:
A plane will gain e if it is flying below it's maximum sustained turning speed, no matter how much you pull on the stick.
A plane that is pulling a 5G turn and still gains E...Nikis have afterburner? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
I guess you are kidding wells, I am currently flying falcon4 (RP4), and let me assure you, at 170mph and 5G turn, and with A DAMNED AFTERBURNER in my tail, if I keep pulling I DONT ACCELERATE!
And nikis can do it?! ROFLOL!...roadkill, I say.
BTW I agree on the flap thing. If combat flaps are modelled, then model the drag too. If the drag is not modelled, then dont model the automatic flaps.
Originally posted by Maverick:
Typhoon (yep even the tiffie did it)
Only by reading this I know the 1.04 FM has a serious trouble, and not related to the high E-keeping of the planes.
A tiffie doing a loop just after a takeoff??? LOL!!!!!!! Thats plain ridiculous.!
In real life, a tiffie whould play the helicopter trying to do "that" (if it doesnt crash into the right side hangars of the airfield on the takeoff, I mean (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif) )
The lack of torque is another BS thing in the new FM.
I am serious, 1.04 is SERIOUSLY FLAWED. if not in E-retaining (that imo it clearly is), for sure it is in torque modelling. PLEASE bring back 1.03 FM until the new FM is correctly modelled.
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 12-05-2000).]
-
I wonder if you can do this in WB?
Not that it matters, justcurious.
FWIW, I think this benefits the planes which require low speeds for looping/turning the most, as speed is rapidly lost at higher speeds.
I.e spits, zekes and n1k's.
a8 and tiffie should be the worst planes in this regard, especially the a8 with its high stall speed.
------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
while(!bishRookQueue.isEmpty() && loggedOn()){
30mmDeathDIEDIEDIE(bishRookQueue.removeFront());
System.out.println("LW pilots are superior");
myPlane.performVictoryRoll();
}
-
.
[This message has been edited by gatt (edited 12-05-2000).]
-
What burns me most is that the HT team will swear by whatever the latest version number is. Oh this one is accurate, or this one is accurate...well seeing that each version has modifications made, which one is accurate?
Also, I get a kick out of the people who actually defend the modelling be it the damage model or the gun model or the fm model. They too will swear by it and say this is accurate. And then when the next version comes out, they too will swear by it. Face it, there are many improvements that need to be made. TO ever say that this is accurate is farfetched and wishful.
fscott
-
Additionally, I think modelling so mnay planes is a difficult matter to get right. The problem is that you have to also rely upon pilot stories, but this too is can be in error.
It is natural that many pilots exagerate their experiences, saying that their plane did this at this speed. Perhaps it did but the truth is that it probably didn't. Just because someone flew a P47 for a few sorties in WW2 does not make him an expert on all the aspects of planes performance. Disagree if you like but we are all human and tend to exagerate in almost every aspect of our life.
It seems logical then that HT team uses these testimonies as a basis for some of their modelling. One example is the Niki's amazing ability to take damage. How do you know how much damage it could take? You have to rely on pilot stories from American pilots who shot the Niki's down. Obviously their account will be somewhat exagerated because they were used to shooting down brittle zeke's.
Just a thought.
fscott
-
fscott,
Anybody can claim things are "wrong" and should be "fixed". What does that mean? On what do you base your conclusion that it's wrong, and exactly how should it be "fixed".
I'm not saying it's accurate. I'm just pointing out that even if you suspect something is wrong you don't know for sure. Even if you do, how do you fix it? Pyro does his best, but he is not some all-knowing god who can wave a magic wand and have all be "fixed". Pyro just does his best to make the flight models match the data he has. The best thing we can do is test the game to see if it's performance matches the data. We can also dig up our own flight test data to see what we think it should be in case Pyro doesn't have the right data.
I've never heard the HTC gang claim that everything was accurate, have you? I know Pyro gets as much data as he can, and then tries to get the game to match that test data as best he can. He has also shown repeatedly that if the users can demonstrate that for some reason the game does not match the test data, he will try and fix it when he can.
What more could you expect of a developer?
------------------
Lephturn - Chief Trainer
A member of The Flying Pigs http://www.flyingpigs.com (http://www.flyingpigs.com)
"A pig is a jolly companion, Boar, sow, barrow, or gilt --
A pig is a pal, who'll boost your morale, Though mountains may topple and tilt.
When they've blackballed, bamboozled, and burned you, When they've turned on you, Tory and Whig,
Though you may be thrown over by Tabby and Rover, You'll never go wrong with a pig, a pig,
You'll never go wrong with a pig!" -- Thomas Pynchon, "Gravity's Rainbow"
-
Don't go misreading what I said.. I didn't say I expected them to be accurate. I said that when it comes to certain things tey have to rely on pilot stories for their data. Odds are these things are inaccurate, of course its the best they have.
Also, I have never agreed that anything was accurate. I get a kick from those who swear by the altest version. The rule of thumb it seems is that "your" ride is accurate, all others need tweaking. I say all models need a good E-retention tweaking. I think common sense will tell you that ALL these WW2 planes could not do loop after loop on takeoff. No flight test data needed, common sense takes front stage on that one. Maybe a few planes could, but not ALL the ones that others are doing it with.
fscott
-
OK wells, so a Spit IX has a sustained turn speed of, say, 160 mph.
I'm tooling along in a Spit IX at 150, and go into a hard horizontal
left bank and pull the stick back in my gut.
And I'll GAIN energy?
Yep, you'll *accelerate* to 160
RAM, none of these planes can pull 5G's in a sustained turn.
-
Originally posted by fscott:
What burns me most is that the HT team will swear by whatever the latest version number is. Oh this one is accurate, or this one is accurate...well seeing that each version has modifications made, which one is accurate?
Please point out the post where we swear to whatever it is you think we're misleading you on.
Aside from the changes we made in 1.03, what are all these version to version modifications that have been made post-beta?
If we do make a change, why wouldn't we think the change is more accurate? Isn't that the point?
People make a lot of arguments about stuff based on how it seems it should be to them. There's nothing wrong with that because that's usually going to be the first step to identifying a problem. Where to goes awry is when people expect us to enact changes based entirely on that rather than anything solid. It doesn't work that way, there has to be a scientific method or we're just changing stuff back and forth for whoever gripes the loudest.
In this case, we started off good with an observation but then most people skipped to the conclusion they'd like to see. I still have yet to see anybody state what exactly the results should be and why. There's been a couple of statements about thrust or hp to weight ratios, but that's not what this is about. It doesn't require a 1:1 thrust to weight ratio to maintain loops. An Extra 300 can probably loop all day and its HP/W ratio is about 6-7lb per HP. What you're really looking at is the ability of the engine to match the energy losses due to drag. If the engine can't do that, altitude is lost with each loop. If it can exceed it, altitude is gained.
P.S. Ram, are you trying to make sure that nobody misses your whining? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
-
Ummm...so is there any basis to the original question? Also, will the N1K2 gain a few pounds when it gets its proper ammo load next version? Or is it already at the right weight?
------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
-
As far as I remember some FM's have been fine tuned after the so called "whining" and "guts feeling". I mean the C.205 and C.202's FM. Poor hard data have been provided to support "whines", simply becouse a few reliable hard data were available.
The "whiners" simply said that max speed was clearly wrong (C.202), climb rate was probably wrong (C.205 and C.202) and that those fighters could not have had such horrible performances in comparison with others.
One of the three:
a) HTC got new Macchi data no one else owns (hmmmmmm, almost impossible);
c) HTC simply could not stand anymore whiners (hmmmmmm, again);
b) some FM recalculation have been done and something wrong discovered (now's better, uh?);
So, dont call idiots or whiners guys with doubts and not enuff time or skills to perform extensive tests. Sometimes they could be right in their "guts feelings", even if not scientists or FM gurus. 27 loops after gaining 170mph IAS allow everyone, idiot or scientist, to have some doubts.
Regards,
------------------
Gatt
4° Stormo Caccia - Knights (http://www.4stormo.it)
Macchi C.202's sting (1,9MByte film) (http://web.tiscalinet.it/gatt/breda.avi)
-
I read your words and I will have to believe you ,Pyro.
But, we still need to know a couple of things:
1-Where is the torque?. Dont tell me it is now at the level it should because it isnt. Historical problems with tiffies smashing against hangars because they had not enough lateral control at low speeds to overcome the torque are well documented. The planes now have few, if any , noticeable torque problems.
2-If the N1K2's combat flaps are modelled, is the correspondent drag added?. IF not (and after 27 low speed tight lopps I dont think that the drag is there), will it be added?.
3-Isn't N1K2's laminar flow wing very similar to that in the P51?. If yes (and I recall that laminar flow wings are optimiced fom hispeed low G environments and act badly-add a lot of drag- in a low speed hi-G enviromnent) then why is it able to pull so much low speed high G moves with so low E-burning? do I have the concept of laminar flow wings screwed?. If not, will this be looked into?.
Thanks.
-
Here's the problem Pyro... you are not afraid to come on here and put the burden of proof on us to state raw numbers and give "facts" as a basis for our argument, rather than just using the common sense approach or the feel of the aircraft. Our job is not to post raw numbers, that is the HT team's job.
Secondly, no one on the HT team is saying that they need to improve the flight model in these areas and we are actively looking to do this. If you don't state that E-retention is inaccurate in a forum where E-retention is the subject, then in essence you ARE claiming that the E-retention IS accurate.
Please put this all to rest now and state one of the following.
1) Our E-retention model is accurate.
2) Our E-retention model is inaccurate and we are working to make it more accurate.
I don't think there's any middle ground Pyro. It is #1 or #2. If you select #1, then our "baseless" argument is based on something very real.
fscott
-
A second point. When does the team decide to update a specific area of the modelling? You say that you will change areas when raw numbers are brought to light rather than "baseless" gut feelings.
So when you updated 1.03 to 1.04 did a huge pile of aircraft records suddenly drop from heaven and onto HT's desk? Now suddenly you had all this wealth of new information about aircraft performance.
I don't mean to sound so rash, but what bugs me is that you are defending the modelling. Well, it don't feel right and common sense says it ain't right.
Either the E-retention modelling is 100% PERFECT, or it is not. If it isn't then a answer that the team is working on it would be in order.
fscott
-
It's pretty simple Fscott. All simulations are inaccurate.
-
Originally posted by RAM:
3-Isn't N1K2's laminar flow wing very similar to that in the P51?. If yes (and I recall that laminar flow wings are optimiced fom hispeed low G environments and act badly-add a lot of drag- in a low speed hi-G enviromnent) then why is it able to pull so much low speed high G moves with so low E-burning? do I have the concept of laminar flow wings screwed?. If not, will this be looked into?.
Thanks.
Okay before I do write something stupid, how much did the wing change between the N1K1-J (mid wing, first land based fighter variant, NOT the float plane..) and the N1K2-Ja? I don't mean location, but the actual design of the wing. I know it was moved down to take care of the landing gear problems, but the N1K1-J has an almost gull-like (further out, past the section of the wing where airflow to the flaps pass, it is symmetrical) wing shape where the chord narrows towards the fuselage where the combat flaps are.
If anyone has any detailed information on how the flap system on the N1K2 works I'd greatly appreciate it as well (curious on how exactly the system worked). Given the size of the rudder on the N1K1-J (which obviously changed to the length of the entire vertical stabilizer in the N1K2-J)I don't see how they got it off the ground with a 2000 HP radial. Sadly ya never hear about this kinda stuff (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
-
Jig,
Here's a quote from "Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War" by Rene J Francillon...
The N1K1-Jb Model 11B was armed with four improved 20mm cannon inside the wings, was fitted with two underwing racks for bombs of up to 250kg (551 lb) ...
In 1943, while the N1K1-J was being evaluated by the Japanese Navy, preliminary design work on an advanced version of the aircraft had already begun at Kawanishi and the N1K1-J was placed in production only as a stop-gap measure pending availability of the new version designated N1K2-J. The prime reason for designing the N1K2-J was to eliminate the need for the long and complex undercarriage of the earlier version, and consideration was also given to simplifying construction and maintenance. To achieve this goal, the wings were moved to the lower fuselage, conventional main gear legs of reduced length were adopted and the fuselage and tail surfaces were entirely redesigned. The result was a virtually new aircraft retaining only the wings and armament of the N1K1-Jb.
Hope that helps a little. The only thing that it said about the combat flaps is that they were controlled manually on the Kyofu (float plane), they were automatic on the land based (N1K1-J and later).
SOB
-
Oh, and as for the N1K1-J and takeoff, it said the following, but unfortunately didn't go into much detail...
The company test pilot also complained of poor visibility during taxi-ing, resulting from the exceptionally long undercarriage, and of excessive propeller torque during take-off. However, in flight the aircraft possessed pleasant handling characteristics and was almost as manoeuverable as the Mitsubishi Reisen.
-
Dear SOB,
when I posted Francillon's data (I mean climb data, max speed at altitude and something more) I was told to *shut-up*.
They told me they had the official flight manual, I guess provided by Japanese guys, with different (read: better) performance figures. Have you ever seen them posted or explained?
Then, we Italian said that the Spitfire MkV FM was wrong. Too fast at altitude and too good climb performance. GAWD! We opened a can of worms, with all those Spitfire experten around. Then after some weeks the MkV FM has been tuned down.
Players can simply have gut feelings and playing experience. And, above all, they judge an aircraft against the one they fly for hundred missions. The burden of the proof is not on players. I guess that their monthly fee is more than enuff to entitle them to politely post their opinion without being called whiners by some self-appointed FM scientists.
How many films of F4U and P38 flying with half wing do we have to provide? Do we have to recalculate the lift factor of half-wing to avoid being called whiners? How many times do we have to describe bat-turns, instantaneous flip-turns, 180deg turns with less than 10% speed loss, endless loops, 1,000yds pings and so on. Do we have now to recalculate, retest, provide hard data and so on? Interesting indeed.
RAM, pupil, go to the blackboard and write again one hundred times: "The Niki's FM doesnt need tuning becouse flight sim cannot be accurate". Then go get a PHD on aeronautical engineering before posting here.
Shrug. More discouraged then pissed off.
-
Originally posted by RAM:
1-Where is the torque?. Dont tell me it is now at the level it should because it isnt. Historical problems with tiffies smashing against hangars because they had not enough lateral control at low speeds to overcome the torque are well documented. The planes now have few, if any , noticeable torque problems.
RAM did you take into account the increase of your ability ?
I've tried last night to take off a fully loaded Typhoon in version 1.03 and just after in version 1.04 I see no difference (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
To make the test more scientific (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) I've put my wife in front of the computer (she is not an flightsim addict and is like the perfect test monkey^h^h^h^h^h newbie (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif))
I've gived her a basic course about flying (usage of rudder and so on) and she was unable to take off with the Typhoon due to the torque ! she was quite upset (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) so she tried again and at 7th try she got the thing airborne !
It prove one thing for me : torque is present but I don't notice anymore as I'm more trained...
-
Gatt.. without a doubt that was the best post I've ever seen in any of these forums.
Salute!
-
OK wells, you've got me REALLY confused now (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK wells, so a Spit IX has a sustained turn speed of, say, 160 mph.
I'm tooling along in a Spit IX at 150, and go into a hard horizontal
left bank and pull the stick back in my gut.
And I'll GAIN energy?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, you'll *accelerate* to 160
With respect Wells, are you making this up as you go along? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) Your argument would seem to make sense only if the Spit driver was unable to pull more than the sustained G level at 150mph. After all, sustained level turn is a combination of a particular airspeed and a particular g loading, right? Say, 160mph at 3.2g's.
Now, are you saying that the Spit driver is completely unable to pull more than this theoretical 3.2g's at 160mph? Because, of course, if he CAN pull more than 3.2g's, then his airspeed must bleed off, and his total energy level MUST decrease.
I'm sure that all the AH pilots who have ever stalled while down low in an extended turnfight will be interested to learn that no matter how hard they pull on the pole, they will always have at least sustained turn airspeed.
-
To me torque seems to be alot lighter now than it was in 1.04 . While we're on the subject of fm's, does anyone have the compression speeds of the aircraft in AH. I can't seem to get the spitfire to compress .
[This message has been edited by Suave1 (edited 12-06-2000).]
-
Originally posted by gatt:
Dear SOB,
when I posted Francillon's data (I mean climb data, max speed at altitude and something more) I was told to *shut-up*.
They told me they had the official flight manual, I guess provided by Japanese guys, with different (read: better) performance figures. Have you ever seen them posted or explained?
Heh...no, but if they think they've got better data, it'd sure be nice to see it wouldn't it (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Players can simply have gut feelings and playing experience. And, above all, they judge an aircraft against the one they fly for hundred missions. The burden of the proof is not on players. I guess that their monthly fee is more than enuff to entitle them to politely post their opinion without being called whiners by some self-appointed FM scientists.
I think you're right, but I also sometimes agree that some people's "gut feelings" are posted as whines. Some people bring up things for discussion, and others just scream bulltoejam.
How many films of F4U and P38 flying with half wing do we have to provide? Do we have to recalculate the lift factor of half-wing to avoid being called whiners? How many times do we have to describe bat-turns, instantaneous flip-turns, 180deg turns with less than 10% speed loss, endless loops, 1,000yds pings and so on. Do we have now to recalculate, retest, provide hard data and so on? Interesting indeed.
I think it makes sense to have at least film of what you saw...there's too much room for speculation without it. Also, I've got no idea about what these planes can or can't do, which is why I usually don't get into it, unless it's about the Niki...since that's pretty much the one and only plane I fly when I'm not running Buff or tanking. And even then, I can only post what I see in books that may or may not be accurate, and call BS when I think I see someone posting more emotion than fact.
[/b][/quote]
RAM, pupil, go to the blackboard and write again one hundred times: "The Niki's FM doesnt need tuning becouse flight sim cannot be accurate". Then go get a PHD on aeronautical engineering before posting here.
Shrug. More discouraged then pissed off.
Some people will always call you a whiner for posting your opinion, even if you're just trying to calmly find out some facts. I hope that's not the impression you get from me. As for RAM, I'll always start out reading his posts expecting a whine, and do my best to be objective if it isn't...but that's a direct result of his many previous posts.
Good luck...if it's broke, I hope it gets fixed, even if it is the Niki.
SOB
-
Now, are you saying that the Spit driver is completely unable to pull more than this theoretical 3.2g's at 160mph? Because, of course, if he CAN pull more than 3.2g's, then his airspeed must bleed off, and his total energy level MUST decrease.
you CAN pull harder, but you would stall. Maximum sustained rate means you fly your plane at maximum angle of attack, maximum lift. Pull harder at your stick and you ll get into a stall.
-
Originally posted by straffo:
RAM did you take into account the increase of your ability ?
Come on, Straffo, for sure I did and it has nothing to do with ability...in 1.03 to put a tiffie in a low speed loop meant to spin because at the top the torque makes you seem a gyrocopter.
Now you can do low speed loops with no problem
To take off requred full rudder and the plane still showed a BIG tendence to yaw. Not now. Now you can take off with half rudder deflection, with no problem.
I guess that those smashed tiffies in real life because they weren't able to avoid the right side hangars of the field were crashed there because their pilots were AFK (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
On the FM, I still believe that it is way off, and that the 27loop thingie is an aberration. But so far I dont think that pyro has lied to us or cheated us in a single thing of his work ,so I will trust in his word.
Gatt...S!, sir, that was a hell of a wonderful post, I couldn't have said it better (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
(http://web.tiscalinet.it/gatt/gallonero.gif)
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 12-06-2000).]
-
RAM,
bad boy, you had forgotten the squad motto: "Whine-makers since 1.04" (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
SOB,
good post. I have absolutely no problem with your other posts and you are right, too many times opinions are posted as loud whines. Especially when on channel 1. But is is true that too many times our self-appointed-FM-engineers are a little too harsch and arrogant in their replies as well. Then the flame war begins, too bad.
Regards (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
(http://web.tiscalinet.it/gatt/gallonero.gif)
Whine-Makers Since 1.04
[This message has been edited by gatt (edited 12-06-2000).]
-
you CAN pull harder, but you would stall. Maximum sustained rate means you fly your plane at maximum angle of attack, maximum lift. Pull harder at your stick and you ll get into a stall.
Agreed niklas, but that's not what Wells is saying. He seems to be saying that no matter how hard you pull on the pole, if you are currently below sustained turn speed you will accelerate to that speed, and therefore build energy.
And that's just plain BS.
-
no jekyll, this is not BS. Of course Wells doesn't mean you can pull more than Clmax.
But when your sustained turn speed is 160mph, and you fly slower (somewhere between 100-160mph), then you can pull as hard as stall allows it- or let's better say: you can force your wing into any AoA in a flat turn below maximum AoA , and you ll accelerate with full engine power.
You see, Clmax is a limiter. It limits in a certain way also the amount of drag in a slow flight. In a flat turn below sustained turn speed you simply can't produce as much drag as your engine can produce. You're really forced to get faster when you open your throttle. Or you add a vertical component, and start flying a circle climb.
btw: when i'd say a typical ww2 fighter aircraft produces more total drag when it flies at 100mph compared to 150mph (normal 1G level flight), who believes this?
-
Fscott, there is no such thing as a 100% accurate simulation. You advocate common sense and feel over quantitative numbers. Please explain how one could even come close to accuracy, much less 100% accuracy, using this criteria. Who's common sense and feel is the most accurate? Yours?
Gatt, go back and read the exchanges. You know full well what happened and that's not what you're trying to portray here. I had nothing to say on the issue of whether the plane was too slow or not until a post was made with a real frame of reference showing that the speeds were off from our charts. Once that was done, the problem was immediately fixed.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
-
use this spreadsheet, tehres only like 6 values you have ito input and you can find out all sorts of info (can a plane climb in a given G load turn at a given airspeed or must it dive to retain speed?) etcera. accurate to within 10%
Actually, after doing some fiddling, I have found aces high flight models to be *extremely* accurate, within the 10% range of error of my program.
But do youw own tests and find out!
http://www.iit.edu/~buonmic/aircraft-test.xls (http://www.iit.edu/~buonmic/aircraft-test.xls)
-
PYRO, my rant was not against HTC and my english is bad. Still, I believe that players feedback, when posted in a polite way, should be very important for HTC and not considered always as a "whine against the plane that shot you down".
Zigrat,
how did you build the spreadsheet? Try not to be too much technical please ... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Ram, he didn't say that the Niki could do a continuous 5 g turn. He said that it could do loops with 5 g's only at the bottoms of the loops. At the top it's probably at around .5 g's or 1, and on the up and down portions maybe 1.5 or 2. If you figure the average G load it's probably around 2 or 2.5, which COULD be a sustainable situation. Another thing.. 175 miles per hour is a lot of speed. hell, from 125 mph in my Stinson 108 i can zoom climb to 500 feet agl. That has a power to weight ratio of about half of what a ww2 fighter has which works out to be 1500 lbs/165 hp = 9.09 lbs/hp. So double the horsepower per mass, and double the kinetic energy, and you've got a decent vertical zoom provided you are smooth with the entry.
Another thing to look at is that the aircraft is actually accelerating over the top of the loop, and is probably actually gaining energy on the up and down run. The only portion where it's actually losing energy is the bottom where the G load is 5. A good aerobatic glider can perform loops with little loss of altitude. It wouldn't take much of an engine to allow it to sustain energy, and so with the powerful engines in a ww2 fighter, I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to sustain loops from 175 mph.
Another thing about the comparison between the F-16 and the N1k. The nik would not generate nearly the amount of induced drag per mass, per G as the F-16 by virtue of it's planform, airfoil, and wing loading, so in order to sustain a given G load, it would need a much lower thrust to weight ratio than the F-16.
It seems entirely possible to me that these flight models are at least close. The ones in 1.03 simply burned energy too fast as was demonstrated with empherical data, and simply calling the capibilities of the aircraft as they are currently modeled "roadkill" is subjective, and I'm pretty sure it's also inaccurate. Going back to 1.03, in my estimation, would be a step backwards.
Originally posted by RAM:
Ok, so the much praised and realistic 1.04 FM seems wrong as a whole?...
Really, HTC, why not give a step back and recover 1.03 until the current FM is REALLY ready to be implemented?...methinks it was MORE realistic than 1.04 even with the high e-burning. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) (I'm completely serious in this thing. with 1.03 maybe planes did burn too much E but at least you rarely saw SUCH roadkill moves as are seen in 1.04. For realism sake, please bring back 1.03 FM until the new FM is fixed!!!)
Only by reading this I know the 1.04 FM has a serious trouble, and not related to the high E-keeping of the planes.
A tiffie doing a loop just after a takeoff??? LOL!!!!!!! Thats plain ridiculous.!
In real life, a tiffie whould play the helicopter trying to do "that" (if it doesnt crash into the right side hangars of the airfield on the takeoff, I mean (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif) )
The lack of torque is another BS thing in the new FM.
I am serious, 1.04 is SERIOUSLY FLAWED. if not in E-retaining (that imo it clearly is), for sure it is in torque modelling. PLEASE bring back 1.03 FM until the new FM is correctly modelled.
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 12-05-2000).]
-
Well said CJ. FYI the loops on the film were about 4.5g at the bottom and 1.5g over the top.
-
Pyro, thank you, you answered my question and admitted that AH E-retention was not accurate. Although you didn't "say" it, you admitted it.
Now, let's work on it. Instead of defending the E-retention model, and blasting anyone who challenges it, then lets start with the planes we are most concerned with. I feel the entire E modeeling needs changed whereas others feel it's just in a few aircraft. But many do agree something "feels" wrong.
There is nothing wrong with going by feel. Chuck Yeager in his own words said he never understood how to explain an aircraft's performance in "real numbers", but he went on how it felt. He had one person who could interpret his words to the engineers.
fscott
-
Originally posted by RAM:
I read your words and I will have to believe you ,Pyro.
But, we still need to know a couple of things:
1-Where is the torque?. Dont tell me it is now at the level it should because it isnt. Historical problems with tiffies smashing against hangars because they had not enough lateral control at low speeds to overcome the torque are well documented. The planes now have few, if any , noticeable torque problems.
2-If the N1K2's combat flaps are modelled, is the correspondent drag added?. IF not (and after 27 low speed tight lopps I dont think that the drag is there), will it be added?.
3-Isn't N1K2's laminar flow wing very similar to that in the P51?. If yes (and I
recall that laminar flow wings are optimiced fom hispeed low G environments and act badly-add a lot of drag- in a low speed hi-G enviromnent) then why is it able to pull so much low speed high G moves with so low E-burning? do I have the concept of laminar flow wings screwed?.
No.. I think you're right about the laminar flow airfoils, but what you're missing is that at high AOA they become more like a non-laminar flow airfoil in performance. Some are better than others with respect to angle of attack sensitivity. As I recall, the P-51's airfoil was pretty sensitive to this, while modern laminar flow airfoils like those on Glassairs tend to have much better characteristics. I'm not sure what type the N1k has.
Also, Combat flaps would probably actually reduce drag in high lift situations since it simply optimizes the airfoil camber for the flight condition it that is required of it. Since it reduces the angle of attack at which the aircraft has to operate in order to generate the required lift, parasitic drag might also be reduced since the fuselage is not having to drag through the air at as large of an angle. Also the propeller blades would be more efficient since they prop disk is not as highly angled, and the elevator and rudder might also be more effective since the air flowing over them would be more direct and less disturbed by the fuselage. There are a lot of factors that i'm sure i missed that also take effect, so let me know what i missed.
CJ
-
Originally posted by CJ:
Originally posted by RAM:
I read your words and I will have to believe you ,Pyro.
But, we still need to know a couple of things:
1-Where is the torque?. Dont tell me it is now at the level it should because it isnt. Historical problems with tiffies smashing against hangars because they had not enough lateral control at low speeds to overcome the torque are well documented. The planes now have few, if any , noticeable torque problems.
2-If the N1K2's combat flaps are modelled, is the correspondent drag added?. IF not (and after 27 low speed tight lopps I dont think that the drag is there), will it be added?.
3-Isn't N1K2's laminar flow wing very similar to that in the P51?. If yes (and I
recall that laminar flow wings are optimiced fom hispeed low G environments and act badly-add a lot of drag- in a low speed hi-G enviromnent) then why is it able to pull so much low speed high G moves with so low E-burning? do I have the concept of laminar flow wings screwed?.
End of quote by RAM-------------------
I should have made the end of the quotation more clear
Ram,
No.. I think you're right about the laminar flow airfoils, but what you're missing is that at high AOA they become more like a non-laminar flow airfoil in performance. Some are better than others with respect to angle of attack sensitivity. As I recall, the P-51's airfoil was pretty sensitive to this, while modern laminar flow airfoils like those on Glassairs tend to have much better characteristics. I'm not sure what type the N1k has.
Also, Combat flaps would probably actually reduce drag in high lift situations since it simply optimizes the airfoil camber for the flight condition it that is required of it. Since it reduces the angle of attack at which the aircraft has to operate in order to generate the required lift, parasitic drag might also be reduced since the fuselage is not having to drag through the air at as large of an angle. Also the propeller blades would be more efficient since they prop disk is not as highly angled, and the elevator and rudder might also be more effective since the air flowing over them would be more direct and less disturbed by the fuselage. There are a lot of factors that i'm sure i missed that also take effect, so let me know what i missed.
CJ
-
LOL Fscott!
You're joking right?
-
CJ, your post is the most thorough and well-explained one I've read in quite a lot of time. Thanks and <S!> for that.
Now that we have discussed that the N1K2 seemed **able** to do what is shown on the film ,regarding aerodynamics, and flap drag,I have to say that I always thought that the laminar flow wing had serious drawbacks as I explained before. you say that depends on the concrete airfoil...but still a laminar flow wing adds more drag than a normal one in hi-G low speed maneouvers, am I wrong?.
Then I think there is somethine wrong there. Correct me if I'm wrong.
And there is still one thing unexplained:the lack of torque effects.
Thinking about it, after reading your post, maybe the 27 loop thingie is possible to do due the SERIOUS lack of torque the niki has. 2000hp must have more effect than what is shown in AH.
SAme goes with tiffie and even with G10 (although in the 109 the torque is more noticeable, it still is too few imo). In 1.03 I felt that the torque was OK, now I simply think is gone.
-
RAM I am thinking the same thing about torque. It seems like it should be stronger. But this is just my feeling. But I don't know how to model it myself, and I don't have any real life data, so I don't know if my feeling is correct.
For instance, recoil effects in AH feel too small to me. But I built my own mathematical model to predict what the recoil effect should be. And sure enough, AH recoil matched my model.
I do know that the AH engine model is pretty sophisticated. There appears to be:
1. Prop torque reaction (i.e. you need to trim roll differently at different throttle settings).
2. Gyroscopic effect (coupling of pitch/yaw motion caused by angular momentum of the engine/prop system)
3. Reactions from angular acceleration of the engine/prop system (i.e. the plane will "jerk" on the roll axis if you use throttle to change RPM suddenly at low speeds).
AFAIK these are all the important physical effects that would create our "feel" of torque. So maybe they just need some fine tuning? Or maybe it's like the recoil, i.e. it's physically correct but doesn't feel right because we are watching it on a screen instead of sitting in a real plane.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 12-06-2000).]
-
Hey fscott... that thing that went whistling past your head? That was Pyro's point.
------------------
Lephturn - Chief Trainer
A member of The Flying Pigs http://www.flyingpigs.com (http://www.flyingpigs.com)
"A pig is a jolly companion, Boar, sow, barrow, or gilt --
A pig is a pal, who'll boost your morale, Though mountains may topple and tilt.
When they've blackballed, bamboozled, and burned you, When they've turned on you, Tory and Whig,
Though you may be thrown over by Tabby and Rover, You'll never go wrong with a pig, a pig,
You'll never go wrong with a pig!" -- Thomas Pynchon, "Gravity's Rainbow"
-
I am not very familiar with the AH N1K2-J; I have never flown it and didn't see it enough in the arena to get to know it well.
However, I AM familiar with the N1K2-J of reality, and I find some interesting parallels between the AH universe and reality:
Some AH players complain about the N1K being able to do "impossible" things. This is much like F6F pilots reporting that the N1K2 made "impossible" turns.
N1K2-J's, on several occasions, single handedly took on 8-12 F6F's, F4U's and P-51's and sent them running. That can't be based solely on pilot skill. And the people in AH are, for the most part, much better than the average WW2 pilot (we can learn from our fatal mistakes).
The main weaknesses of the N1K2-J--unreliable workmanship and some structure problems (not to mention untrained pilots)--aren't modeled in AH. So, as one might expect, we have a killer.
Perhaps the N1K2 is SLIGHTLY overmodeled. However, I feel that it's likely the plane could perform incredible maneuvers. It is not surprising to me at all that this plane is a superb performer.
To be realistic, a well-flown N1K2 should be able to fight MANY enemies single-handedly. That is exactly what AH's N1K2 can do--and is the source of many complaints (much like the real plane).
Based on the complaints, AH's N1K2 seems about right to me, at least compared to the real plane. I am not generally a fan of Japanese planes, but I have to admit this one was an exceptional design.
Even if some of the exact numbers are off, the N1K2 is having the same effect in the arena as it did in reality. The main problem isn't so much the plane itself; rather, it's the unlimited availability of it.
J_A_B
-
Saburo Sakai fought 15 Hellcats on Okinawa, alone, and with one eye only.
He was in an A6M5b...
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
-
A note on the N1K2's flaps, I've read they drop down when deployed, leaving about a 2-3 inch gap between the leading edge of the flap and the trailing edge of the wing. It almost appears that these flaps are intended as a minature second wing that when deployed does not change the chambering of the wing very much.
-
However, I AM familiar with the N1K2-J of reality, and I find some interesting parallels between the AH universe and reality:
Some AH players complain about the N1K being able to do "impossible" things. This is much like F6F pilots reporting that the N1K2 made "impossible" turns.
N1K2-J's, on several occasions, single handedly took on 8-12 F6F's, F4U's and P-51's and sent them running. That can't be based solely on pilot skill. And the people in AH are, for the most part, much better than the average WW2 pilot (we can learn from our fatal mistakes).
In the hands of the pilots of the 343rd Air Corps, [the N1K2-J] was a deadly opponent, for these pilots were the IJN equivalent of the Luftwaffe's JV-44; commanded by Minoru Genda, the 343rd had almost all of the surviving "old hands" who could still fly combat.
One of these was Naoshi Kanno, who numbered an unprecedented 17 B-17s among his 52 Solomons kills, being the first Japanese pilot to perfect the "12 o-clock high" head-on attack against the B-17 later used by the Luftwaffe. Kanno was killed in combat against 16 F4Us (during which he shot down 3) in June 1945.
The N1K2 is known for the wartime production problems, lack of trainees, and poorly trained ground crew making it very hard to keep a significant number of them airborne.
just sayin'
- Jig
-
bah double post
[This message has been edited by Jigster (edited 12-06-2000).]
-
Pyro,
Are there going to be any modifications to any existing FMs in this upcoming 1.05 release?
If so, which FMs and why?
I think the changes in the FM that took place between 1.03 and 1.04 have, to varying degrees, shaken many peoples shared belief in the quality and accuracy of the flight models in AH.
Those of us without aeronautical engineering degrees or lacking the confidence to run established mathmatical formulas, rely soley on our quantitative knowledge based on years of amatuer study of this subject and as a result have a hard time reconciling perceived inequities between the various aircraft types.
This is why faith in the product is so important to me and I am sure, many of us.
Also having faith that the devlopers (you) will be fourthright when errors are found and explain, in as much detail as is possible, what is goin on behind the scenes so that we may continue to feel "in the loop".
Sorry if this doesnt make sense.....
Yeager
-
Torque is reduced. Want proof? I figured you did. Grab an F4U [either model] and take off. Sure there's a little torque at the start of your roll, but once the tail comes up you'll notice it torques to the RIGHT. Torque from the engine is so screwed up on the F4U that it actually reverses the torque direction once the tail comes up. If you use rudder trim it makes it worse.
Torque from the engine is there, but horribly reduced. I was under the impression that auto-takeoff was put in the game so you wouldn't have to fight the engine torque. If that is indeed the case, why reduce engine torque?
Pyro, I'm not sure if you still test using a "test" version. If you do, then stop. A bug in the release version may not crop up in the test version you use. I remember you saying something about a bug a while back. It didn't show up in the test version, only in the release.
-----------------------
Flakbait
Delta 6's Flight School (http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6)
"During the Battle of Britain the question 'fighter or fighter-bomber?'
had been decided once and for all: The fighter can only be used as a bomb carrier
with lasting effect when sufficient air superiority has been won." Adolph Galland
(http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6/htbin/custom1.jpg)
-
then you can pull as hard as stall allows it- or let's better say: you can force your wing into any AoA in a flat turn below maximum AoA , and you ll accelerate with full engine power.
"as hard as stall allows it ....."
Agreed Niklas. Shame Wells didn't say that in the first place. He simply seemed to be saying that you could pull as hard as you liked and would still accelerate to sustained turn speed. No mention of 'as hard as you like, so long as you don't stall'
Regards...
-
It is currently impossible to simulate a PERFECT enviroment based on physical laws where you just put in the specifications of an object and the world around it will react as it should. Even if someday we are able to simulate this enviroment on a computer, and make a simulation of WWII, there will still be complaining.
Hoever, Pyro you have to admit that the current plane-set is not balanced. But I have faith in your perk plane idea or whatever you will use; and planes like the niki, wich are exceedingly good, and you have faith is modelled correctly, can be controlled for the sake of balance. Right now I log in and take off in my favorite plane, the P-38, but guess what, i'm not having much fun because I will face a niki teamed up with an f4u who have no fear of losing since they can get a new plane of their choice.
-
Ok, I got home tonight and grabbed that loops.ahf film. I also tried some of my own testing.
First, let me point out that this test was done from an ELEVATED field. After about the third loop if you look at it with trails on from external looking back at the plane, it is clear that he goes BELOW the starting elevation at the bottom of each loop as he works off of the hill. Try this again from a 0 elevation field. So much for the "gaining E" theory.
Second, I did my own tests. Yeah, if you are really careful with the stick at the top, and let the N1k2 accelerate on the down side of the loops and zoom a bit on the up side, you can indeed loop pretty much indefinitely. However, ride the edge of the stall horn all the way around and you won't make 3 loops. I even tried it from a 300 Mph start and I STILL augered after a few loops.
The fact that no "real pilots" even tried to do infinite loops at ground level is simply due to the fact that they would have DIED if they did't make it. Nobody ever tried it, I guarantee it. Maybe the real plane could do exactly what we see. The overall accuracy of this simulation makes me think it probably could with pilots of equal skill and bravery. If they couldn't, I'd bet it was because of things like engine conditions, fuel flow, and torque effects.
Also, those are not perfect loops that were performed. They are decidedly oblique. The N1k2 has a tendancy to roll during high AoA maneuvers it seems. I'm guessing that's torque effects.
In short, the FM looks exactly right to me. I can't beleive this entire thread was generated from that film. Am I the only one who actually looked at it? Did anybody else actually try to duplicated it and watch your G meter?
------------------
Lephturn - Chief Trainer
A member of The Flying Pigs http://www.flyingpigs.com (http://www.flyingpigs.com)
"A pig is a jolly companion, Boar, sow, barrow, or gilt --
A pig is a pal, who'll boost your morale, Though mountains may topple and tilt.
When they've blackballed, bamboozled, and burned you, When they've turned on you, Tory and Whig,
Though you may be thrown over by Tabby and Rover, You'll never go wrong with a pig, a pig,
You'll never go wrong with a pig!" -- Thomas Pynchon, "Gravity's Rainbow"
-
Lephturn, letting aside the E-keeping thing, you think the torque is correctly modelled after your test?.
Its an honest question.
-
Lephturn,
Thanks. Thats what I saw as well.
RAM,
I agree with you that torque seems to be much to weak in AH 1.04
Sisu
-Karnak
-
Maybe I'm splitting hairs a little here Leph, but if you watch the altitude meter you will see that the runway level is 500ft. Until my WEP runs out, the bottoms of my loops are at no lower than 535 ft. After that, agreed, I am lower than runway level.
I'm now thinking that *maybe* this was possible for the real thing theoretically. I do think that if torque was the way it was in 1.03 this would be completely impossible though. I've also seen some good evidence that the flaps on the n1k are kind of messed up. (They are automatic for one thing, so dropping flaps in the n1k shouldn't be possible. Also, they don't seem to be generating extra drag from what I've read.)
I think if you factor in the lack of torque, and the drag-less flaps, this explains the endless looping.
The fact that the typhoon can also loop like this tells me that this problem (if it is one) isn't confined to the n1k alone. I'm thinking torque, rather the lack of it, is the main problem here. Sure, there is a little bit of roll at the tops of some of the loops, but that's actually because I was stalling the aircraft at the tops of a few of them. The fact that you can stand just about any fighter on it's tail in this version until you are at almost 0 airspeed tells me torque is much weaker now.
I've heard stories of planes flipping over on takeoff if you throttled them up too quickly. Tell me, can you flip ANY plane over in 1.04 by punching full power and wep right after the engine starts? When landing a F4u, n1k, typhoon, p51, 109, 190, etc there should also be large torque effects when suddenly throttling up, yet they don't seem that bad anymore. I remember when it used to be possible to flip the f4u-d when landing it by simply throttling up.
------------------
bloom25
THUNDERBIRDS
-
Animal wrote:
Hoever, Pyro you have to admit that the current plane-set is not balanced
How is it not balanced?
There isn't a plane in the planeset that doesn't have weakness's that can't be exploited by a decent pilot.
The N1K2 is slow, and the F4U-1c is a pig in acceleration, and E retention. And those are the two "uber" planes that everyone complains about.
Hell... I have been flying the lowly A6M5b some lately and I'm at something like 6-7 kills with no deaths. And I hadn't flown this plane since the 1.04 FM rework. Not to mention that my flying skills suck.
Fly to your strengths, exploit your enemy's weakness's, and there isn't a plane in the current planeset that is "unbalancing".
Give me a F4U-4 or a F2G, and I will show you "untouchable" (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
Now we are getting somewhere.
From an energy perspective, no, I didn't see anything that struck me as wrong. Bloom25, yeah it was the perspective thing that got me thinking you went below ground level. Doing it from a flat field would have made it easier to tell. Still, the point is that you CAN do endless loops, but only if you fly them in such a manner that you let the plane build E whenever possible. If you pull maximum turn all the time you'll lose E quickly and you won't make 3 loops.
From a torque perspective... yeah torque seems pretty gentle. In the N1k2 I really noticed it when doing loops. It is REALLY tough to do perfect loops in the N1k2 without seeing them become oblique.
One thing I always forget about is combat trim. Combat trim would automatically trim out that torque effect to a certain degree wouldn't it? Could this be why torque seems to have decreased so much? I don't know, it would be interesting to test it without combat trim. I suspect combat trim is a large part of the reason that we can do near-0 airspeed maneuvers easier than we could before.
RAM. I guess now that your point about E has been de-bunked, you have to switch to torque huh? To answer your question, I honestly don't know. I'd have to go back and run the tests with combat trim turned off. I feel like torque effects are too gentle, but I have nothing to compare it with. You also have to bear in mind that torque effects may be lower for <gasp> playability reasons. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) (Try not to let your head explode when you read that Ram.) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
------------------
Lephturn - Chief Trainer
A member of The Flying Pigs http://www.flyingpigs.com (http://www.flyingpigs.com)
"A pig is a jolly companion, Boar, sow, barrow, or gilt --
A pig is a pal, who'll boost your morale, Though mountains may topple and tilt.
When they've blackballed, bamboozled, and burned you, When they've turned on you, Tory and Whig,
Though you may be thrown over by Tabby and Rover, You'll never go wrong with a pig, a pig,
You'll never go wrong with a pig!" -- Thomas Pynchon, "Gravity's Rainbow"
-
Originally posted by Lephturn:
RAM. I guess now that your point about E has been de-bunked, you have to switch to torque huh?
No, lephturn. Lack of torque was an argument of mine since 1.04 went out. Check it if you dont believe it.
In the current posts about the FM and the N1K2's loops I have mentioned a lot of time the lack of torque as one of the wrong points in the FM.
When pyro came here and gave his explanation, I gave up the thing about FM. IMO Pyro has never lied to the customer base, and I dont think he will start doing it now. SO, althought I feel there is something weird in those 27 loops, I believe him.
And as I believe him, I dont insist in the E_keeping, but in my other arguments, torque and laminar flow wings in the N1K2. The second tihng was answered by CJ, the first is still to be answered.
Lephturn, For sure I wont like to know that torque is tuned down for "playability" reasons. We have an autopilot and a combat autotrim for just that and I see the torque tuning down as a redundant measure for playability, if its done for that purpose.
Lack of torque means more than better gameplay, means that some planes can do unrealistic moves that their counterparts in real life didnt. Typhoons looping at low speeds are an example. N1K2s looping 27 times in a row at 170mph entry are another (e-keeping aside, the torque should be nasty at the top, its a 2000hp engine)...etc
If it is turned down for playability, I want to know it. If it is screwed and needs a fix I want to know it.
But what I dont want is to Know that the torque is NOT there, and not knowing why. I WANT To know why.
Hope you get my point here.
-
RAM, at over 2600 posts I know all of your opinions far better than I want to. Luckily it means I can skip most of your posts without wasting time reading them.
You are "the little boy who cried wolf" at this point. Explain it however you want. You've talked enough that most of us don't bother listening to you anymore.
If you really want some answers you'll spend your time testing the flight model in AH to provide some data instead of posting a "wall of text" every day. Try providing some content instead of just muck-raking in your next post and maybe we'll have something to discuss.
And the beat goes on....
------------------
Lephturn - Chief Trainer
A member of The Flying Pigs http://www.flyingpigs.com (http://www.flyingpigs.com)
"A pig is a jolly companion, Boar, sow, barrow, or gilt --
A pig is a pal, who'll boost your morale, Though mountains may topple and tilt.
When they've blackballed, bamboozled, and burned you, When they've turned on you, Tory and Whig,
Though you may be thrown over by Tabby and Rover, You'll never go wrong with a pig, a pig,
You'll never go wrong with a pig!" -- Thomas Pynchon, "Gravity's Rainbow"
[This message has been edited by Lephturn (edited 12-07-2000).]
-
Typical.
To do some tests? ok. I will do a low speed loop in a tiffie later, film it and post it.
Better yet I will take off on a straight line, manually. That will be enough test about the lack of torque, if you dont believe me, go and read some WWII stories about typhoons, ok?.
Or do what flakbait said...try to trim your F4U manually on take off and see how you crash, ok?
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 12-07-2000).]
-
To make it VERY Clear. So called torque what RAM is reffering to, Realy he's talking about vortex effects,We have NOT tuned down any prop effect for playablity.
Just so everyone knows the effects from the prop. They are 5
1. Vortex / slipstream
2. Gyroscopic
3. Torque.
4. PFactor.
5. Thrust
We model all 5.
HiTech
-
Remember when your Teachers in school told you that some day all that math and science would pay off?
Well, it pays off right here!
OH.... you didn't listen to them and got a PolySci or liberal arts degree, instead of that Engineering degree?
Too Bad isn't it (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
< I'm kidding, I'm kidding hehehee >
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
Originally posted by RAM:
Typical.
To do some tests? ok. I will do a low speed loop in a tiffie later, film it and post it.
Better yet I will take off on a straight line, manually. That will be enough test about the lack of torque, if you dont believe me, go and read some WWII stories about typhoons, ok?.
Or do what flakbait said...try to trim your F4U manually on take off and see how you crash, ok?
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 12-07-2000).]
I've got a test for ya...take off without using your rudder or trim at all. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
SOB
-
SOB, please, I never said that torque is NOT there. I say only that it has been seriously tuned down in 1.04.
-
RAM said.
I see the torque tuning down as a redundant measure for playability.
Totaly incorect RAM.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by RAM:
I see the torque tuning down as a redundant measure for playability,if its done for that purpose
You missed the last part, Hitech. I dont know why was done, the torque SURE feels weaker in 1.04 than in 1.03. That was an answer to a previous post, and the part you quoted is out of context.
I dont know why was it tuned down. Hell, I dont know if it WAS tuned down on purpose. All I know is that torque now feels weaker than in the previous version.
[edit] and I am very happy to know its not done for gameplay (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)[/edit]
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 12-07-2000).]
-
but apparently something related to prop effects has been reduced, correct?
I know torque is definately still strong because of the corelation between power settings and trim settings, but the yawing effect is practically non-existant. And on some planes it starts in the wrong direction, but that might be a braking bug/issue.
-
Originally posted by RAM:
SOB, please, I never said that torque is NOT there. I say only that it has been seriously tuned down in 1.04.
I'm just flipping ya toejam RAM. My point was, since it is there, how do you know it's wrong as compared to 1.03? Just wondering (honestly), 'cause I don't agree with your reasoning that because rookies crashed tiffies into hangars and the hog was the 'ensign eliminator' that our torque, vortex, thingamajobby, whosefudge, and the other are off because we don't do the same thing. Sorry for the technical terms, but it's too much effort for me to look at what HT said was modelled (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
SOB
-edit- Jig, I notice that the Niki pulls a little to the right before coming back to the left when just starting up...wasn't sure what that was all about, but figured it had more to do with my ignorance of the subject than anything else.
[This message has been edited by SOB (edited 12-07-2000).]
-
It's some kinda bug SOB, alot do it, including the P-38 (which should have none (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/eek.gif) )
I might have something to do with wind, but it's still a bug (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Cause problems on landings too (the "insta-swap-ends" thingy)
[This message has been edited by Jigster (edited 12-07-2000).]
-
Just to pitch in on the idioting subject of torque on the take off in Tiffy and how "realistic" it was in 1.03.
I've flown a toejamload of missions in Tiffy, online and offline in 1.03 and take off in all of them was hairy.
Yeah, i knew about flaps, wep, full rudder and slowly advencing the throttle - still, there was usually 1 in 3 chance that i'll auger.
Now, for first 10 take offs - that's acceptable.
But if on 100th take off i'm still having those problems - it sounds to me like it was way out of whack.
If that was indeed how tiffy flew in RL - it would have never been mass produced, much less used operationaly.
Novice pilots managed to bang up any plane ever made - even something like gentle as hurricane. Just because there were Tiffies banged up, doesn't mean that it should be close to impossible to take off in it.
------------------
Bartlomiej Rajewski
aka. Wing Commander fd-ski
Northolt Wing
1st Polish Fighter Wing
303 (Polish) Squadron "Kosciuszko" RAF
308 (Polish) Squadron "City of Cracow" RAF
315 (Polish) Squadron "City of Deblin" RAF
Turning 109s and 190s into scrap metal since 1998
Northolt Wing Headquarters (http://www.raf303.org/northolt/)
-
Originally posted by fd ski:
I've flown a toejamload of missions in Tiffy, online and offline in 1.03 and take off in all of them was hairy. Yeah, i knew about flaps, wep, full rudder and slowly advencing the throttle - still, there was usually 1 in 3 chance that i'll auger.
Then,respectfully, I will have to teach you how to take off.
Because,few as they were, I flew some sorties in typhoon in 1.03, and only once augered, but not on take off, but landing. (landing I pressed the wrong rudder, happened to me a lot with yak too, I'm not used to the opposite torque)
Never augered in takeoff, even in the first release with the tiffie, the 1.02, the first plane I took was a tiffie and went airborne OK.
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 12-08-2000).]
-
I suspect combat trim is a large part of the reason that we can do near-0 airspeed maneuvers easier than we could before.
But wouldn't this mean that Combat Trim is just another name for the infamous Warbirds EZ-Mode?
Hmmm.. I seem to remember a number of posts by the old IMOL crew, saying words to the effect of "EZ Mode does not confer an advantage when flying. If anything, a pilot flying EZ Mode is at a disadvantage flying against Real Mode pilots".
Lo and behold, a change of crew and EZ mode is disabled in the WB Main Arena. Suddenly, a number of previously top-scoring pilots were revealed as 'EZ moders', and saw their scores plummet dramatically.
But of course, EZ mode never conferred an advantage, did it? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Hmmm I wonder who was responsible for EZ mode introduction in Warbirds?
-
This ain't EZ mode. Combat trim just gets you "close", not right on. The only time I an see it helping is at very low speeds where you might have to make LARGE trim adjustments to get full control authority and keep the attitude you want. IMHO, all that does is even the score partially between guys like me with my Sidewinder, and guys with full HOTAS setups that have fancy trim wheels. WB EZ mode kept you from stalling the plane by limiting the inputs when neccessary, if I remembery correctly. It is the complete opposite of combat trim, which helps you get full authority.
Also, do you really think that the changes to WB after Pyro and HTC left were for "accuracy"? They hacked it up according to whoever whined the loudest from what I saw. I'll take HT and Pyro's arena any day.
------------------
Lephturn - Chief Trainer
A member of The Flying Pigs http://www.flyingpigs.com (http://www.flyingpigs.com)
"A pig is a jolly companion, Boar, sow, barrow, or gilt --
A pig is a pal, who'll boost your morale, Though mountains may topple and tilt.
When they've blackballed, bamboozled, and burned you, When they've turned on you, Tory and Whig,
Though you may be thrown over by Tabby and Rover, You'll never go wrong with a pig, a pig,
You'll never go wrong with a pig!" -- Thomas Pynchon, "Gravity's Rainbow"
-
Originally posted by RAM:
Then,respectfully, I will have to teach you how to take off.
And you wonder why everyone feels you're an agnorant bellybutton ?
Oh please show us the way all knowing one !!!
------------------
Bartlomiej Rajewski
aka. Wing Commander fd-ski
Northolt Wing
1st Polish Fighter Wing
303 (Polish) Squadron "Kosciuszko" RAF
308 (Polish) Squadron "City of Cracow" RAF
315 (Polish) Squadron "City of Deblin" RAF
Turning 109s and 190s into scrap metal since 1998
Northolt Wing Headquarters (http://www.raf303.org/northolt/)
-
Well, Fd-ski, you are the one who says that out of 3 takeoffs augered in one with 1.03 torque... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif) Of course I dont believe it,was an irony, you DIDNT crash once each 3 takeoffs.
I take anyone who augers one of 3 times as someone who doesnt know to take off. And dont tell me that it was because the tiffie's torque, because I took off in it with no big trouble.
So ,either your post about your augers with 1.03 tiffie is a blatant lie, or you need training on how to take off.
I didnt say anything ,you said it all.
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 12-08-2000).]
-
To me, torque feels reduced as well, especially in the TYPHOON ans F4U. I find it much easier to take off in these planes now.
Of course, it was so redicuously hard to take off in a TYPH under the old model, I have to wonder which one really is more accurate. I have never flown a WW2 warbird, and probably never will. I will accept whatever HTC feels is best in this manner. Either way, torque doesn't add anything to the game--it's just some "added coloring"
If I use no trim or rudder in a TYPH now when taking off, I end up about 50 degrees off course to the left--that sounds about in line with pilots accounts. However, i CANNOT flip the F4U on the runway with the throttle, as supposedly happened in RL.
Of course, to my knowledge none of HTC has ever flown a real F4U, so none of them can be certain how to model it correctly. Modeling a force you've never felt is a lot like a blind man trying to imagine colors--it's just a best guess.
ALSO--combat trim is a needed feature of the game. Not everyone has (or can afford) a nice HOTAS, or even a SIDEWINDER. Try playing this game using only a two-button joystick without using combat trim. No hat, no pedals, no throttle. Believe me, it is hard. Unfair, really. Why should some players get an automatic advantage just because they have more disposable income?
It is possible to be successful using only a two-button stick, but with such a setup your workload is VASTLY increased. I think a lot of people with nice controller setups tend to forget this.
The addition of combat trim went a long way towards making the game more playable for those of us using minimal controllers.
J_A_B
-
It is kinda silly arguing about stick quality when you play 30$ a month for a sim with a 10$ joystick. (and I do use a CH Jetstick, a cheap 2 button job with the best handle ever made in conjunction with a HOTAS occasionally)
This thread is getting severely hijacked (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
what is to weak about the prop modelling?
torque reaction effect: Newton's Law of action and reaction.
there are some real problems here. this effect is almost unnoticable even with massive rapid power changes at near stall speed.
this effect is less evident the heavier the aircraft is simply due to the energy needed to displace a heavier object even with a high horsepower engine spinning a large diameter prop.
so the p47 may be enough of a whale to be able to resist the rolling tendency at stall speed and lower created by the prop spinning at full throttle but what about the typhoon?
its prop is almost the size of a small helicopters yet in a stall climb it maintains near complete roll control far past stall speed until its nose falls earthward with very minimal torque reaction.
remember force x arm = moment... ie: the further the distance of the force applied to the aircraft from the center of gravity the larger the impact on the airplane that force will create.
what about the n1k2?
everyone is so happy about how lightwieght it is yet it has so much power with its 2000hp engine.
but it has no torque at all.
somthing is amiss.
or maybe this is what HTC wants...
easy game for the newbie.
but it is very weak reaction for such high powered aircraft.
[This message has been edited by Citabria (edited 12-08-2000).]
-
Try playing this game using only a two-button joystick without using combat trim.
Geez JAB, why don;t we all petition HTC to make AH easy enough so that you don't even need a joystick? Maybe we should all just fly around with a mouse, or using the keyboard, OK? And lets make sure that it runs in no resolution other than 640*480 .. don't want to disadvantage those guys who only have 14" monitors (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
And how about HTC implement an 'auto-lag' feature, where everyone gets the same connect quality no matter where they are in the world?
Sheesh.. live with it, OK?
Now with regard to Combat Trim, don't get me wrong guys.. I happen to think Combat Trim is a good idea.
After all, Aces High is the only sim my 3 year old boy is able to take off and fly around in.
He's still a bit rough on the landings, and hasn't even managed to nail one of the drones yet though.
Maybe by the time he's 4 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
[This message has been edited by Jekyll (edited 12-08-2000).]
-
What citabria said.
------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://www.geocities.com/nirfurian/stSanta.jpg)
-
Cit, you made me bail at 25k today... but still agree to the outermost with ya! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
As for FdSki: I crashed the Typhoon the first time I took it off with full bomb load pre 1.4 - but neversince. (I only had a few sorties though - all for bombing purpose before I discovered the beauty of the A8) So RAM has a point telling you that you do something wrong when still augering after 100 sorties... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
You know, except for a few flames, I think this thread is actually going somewhere. Based on what I've read (take it for what it's worth) I would say torque is too weak in 1.04. I can't get any plane to flip on the runway by rapidly throttling up. I've also noticed that as soon as the tail comes off the ground that the plane suddenly tracks perfectly straight. I remember that in previous versions, you had to maintain rudder pressure until the plane was completely off the ground. I can't count the number of times during big jabo raids in 1.03 that at least 2 of the planes lost it on takeoff and crashed.
I need to say here that I've never flown a real airplane. IMO however torque was probably too strong in 1.03. In 1.04 though, it is hardly a factor. We need to find some way to find out which model is more accurate; that way if something is wrong we can prove it.
------------------
bloom25
THUNDERBIRDS
-
This is OFF TPOIC, so skip it if your only interested in the thread's original topic.
Okay Jekyll, I'll bite (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
"Geez JAB, why don;t we all petition HTC to make AH easy enough so that you don't even need a joystick? "
"Sheesh.. live with it, OK?"
On the same level of sarcasm, I could ask--"Why don't we all petition HTC to make AH REQUIRE a full HOTAS? That way people who aren't rich wouldn't even be able to soil AH with their presence."
Just because you can afford state-of-the-art controllers doesn't mean the game should cater to you and handicap people who don't have them. And there is NO reason why your money should buy you an unfair advantage.
There are times I DO play AH in the MA, when I scrape up the money needed for a month's payment or two. It is an excellent game, but up until recently it was very difficult to play due to the large number of keyboard inputs required. A real pilot wouldn't have this problem since the controls are provided. So why create an artificial handicap which benefits rich people? If the problem is uncontrollable, like connections, then obviously nothing can be done. But every reasonable measure should be taken to make the game equally playable for everyone.
Combat trim does not make AH "easy". Heck, a WB's-style EasyMode still wouldn't make it easy, because of the level of the competition (and no I am not advocating an easymode). All CT does is, essentially, simulate a nice controller system. It is NOT as good or accurate as the real thing, so its no advantage.
Unlike you rich folks, $30 is quite a chunk of money to some of us. Believe it or not, some people simply cannot aford to buy a $2000 PC, and a $200 control system, and a $500 monitor. Price is the ONE reason I don't subscribe to AH on a constant basis.
Once again, I challenge you--Fly AH with only a two button stick. No pedals, no throttle, no hat, nothing else. You would probably be shocked at how complex everything becomes. It is still possible to fly and get kills, but it is quite a bit harder. Try maneuvering, working the view keys, throttle, trimming AND working the rudder all at once. NOT easy. You will be forced to make concessions you wouldn't otherwise have to make.
We are on a computer. NOT a real plane. Therefore, some concessions have to be made for the sake of playability. CT is one concession. ICONS are another.
You said "Live with it"
I reply: You should try to look at things from somebody else's prespective. Just because a problem doesn't affect you doesn't make it unimportant.
J_A_B
P.S. ---> Sorry for this off-topic post; I felt the need to reply to this guy.
-
I'm not saying your problem is unimportant JAB ... I'm saying that your argument is illogical.
Like it or not, there will ALWAYS be people who have faster computers, larger monitors, better connections or fancier joystick setups.
Whining about 'rich people' isn't the way to go I'm afraid.
Living as I do in Australia, I have to put up with crappy US connections, and peripheral prices at least 4 times what they are in the States. A Saitek X36 USB setup in the US can be had for as little as $50 ... here in Australia its $250.
But whining about how poor you are is not the way to win people over to your way of thinking.
BTW, I'd love to see a Head to Head with Citabria on one side with a crappy two button joystick and a rank newbie on the other side with the best HOTAS rig money could buy.
I know who I'd be backing to win the fight (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Originally posted by Jekyll:
Living as I do in Australia
Ohh are you aussie?...
Jekyll we are going to kick aussie ar$e on the Davis Cup finals (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
GO SPAIN GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)