Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Steve on March 20, 2010, 12:48:27 PM

Title: Plane performance not right?
Post by: Steve on March 20, 2010, 12:48:27 PM
The pony seems off.... seems slow(er) in acceleration..maybe top end. It's subjective I know.  I've heard others mention similar comments regarding other rides.
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: TwinBoom on March 20, 2010, 12:49:44 PM
i have noticed something is a miss
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: kamori on March 20, 2010, 12:52:16 PM
Its your sound card...post DxDiag and install newest drivers..if thats no it then call your ISP  its your connection...If thats not it its your powersupply...Are you running AMD?
 :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:

Kam
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: TwinBoom on March 20, 2010, 12:53:28 PM
Its your sound card...post DxDiag and install newest drivers..if thats no it then call your ISP  its your connection...If thats not it its your powersupply...Are you running AMD?
 :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:

Kam

huh
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: MachFly on March 20, 2010, 01:04:06 PM
The pony seems off.... seems slow(er) in acceleration..maybe top end. It's subjective I know.  I've heard others mention similar comments regarding other rides.

I still can't catch up to that thing  :old:
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: Lusche on March 20, 2010, 01:23:01 PM
The pony seems off.... seems slow(er) in acceleration..maybe top end. It's subjective I know.  I've heard others mention similar comments regarding other rides.

I did test level flight acceleration @ 500ft, 150-200-250-300-350 mph and found nothing has changed. I'm getting the same results as before. I can't judge dive acceleration though.
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: crazyivan on March 20, 2010, 01:28:25 PM
I still can't catch up to that thing  :old:
Yup, The after burners on the pony at 6k seemed fine. All I could do is waive. :bolt:
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: Ruler2 on March 20, 2010, 02:07:51 PM
Its your sound card...post DxDiag and install newest drivers..if thats no it then call your ISP  its your connection...If thats not it its your powersupply...Are you running AMD?
 :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:

Kam

Blame everything on AMD why don't ya!  At least I'll have money in my pocket at the end of the day!  :devil  Not trying to be personal in the least  :salute
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: Saxman on March 20, 2010, 05:51:24 PM
I've heard several complaints about different aircraft, (the F4U-1A being sluggish seems to come up pretty often, although I've found no difference) and a number of people are claiming guns in WWII aren't as effective as they were before.

The only issue I've had is that my rudder won't stay calibrated since Patch 4 came out....
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: mensa180 on March 20, 2010, 05:55:10 PM
It seems like whenever I look out the side of my plane I'm missing an engine.
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: infowars on March 20, 2010, 06:04:55 PM
Yeah there's weird stuff going on.  The other night I watched Grizz TnB with multiple cons and win decisively.  I knew there was something fishy....  :noid
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: kamori on March 20, 2010, 06:10:23 PM
Its your sound card...post DxDiag and install newest drivers..if thats no it then call your ISP  its your connection...If thats not it its your powersupply...Are you running AMD?
 :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:

Kam

Wow, you would think I sent this at 30,000 feet..How it went over everyones head...LOL

Those are some of the most common Support answers when problems arise after patches start coming out preceeding a new version.. :x

Ive learned to NOT make a change or complain...cus they will fix the problem and its rarely related to our individual machines. If planes seem slow a patch will fix it even though it may not be listed in the readme file.

Kam
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: Tarstar on March 20, 2010, 06:12:46 PM
It seems like whenever I look out the side of my plane I'm missing an engine.

Yeah, and whenever I look out the back there's a con on my s..... oh wait, that's normal..  :bolt:
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: ozrocker on March 21, 2010, 06:30:26 PM
<S> I flew the B Pony a few days ago. It seemed kind of sluggish, did not want to get speed. Seemed to be slow in manuevering also. I don't know maybe it was me.

                                                                                                                                         <S> Oz
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: Traveler on March 21, 2010, 06:49:52 PM
The pony seems off.... seems slow(er) in acceleration..maybe top end. It's subjective I know.  I've heard others mention similar comments regarding other rides.


Version 2.18 Patch 2
======================

Fixed an issue that caused WW2 planes to fly too fast.

Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: Krusty on March 21, 2010, 06:58:05 PM
They had only been "too fast" since the previous patch, though. Steve's been flying ponies for years. I think he means compared to "before the WW1 patch"
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: WMLute on March 21, 2010, 07:01:43 PM
Me and Dedalos took up some ponyDs today.

Something is diff. from pre-patch/update for sure.

I would be curious if the "fix" was to revert it back or if they changed the new modeling and it is just a tad bit "off".
(betting on the latter)
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: Krusty on March 21, 2010, 07:03:56 PM
Who'd'a thunk a WW1 inclusion would have changed so many other things?

I'm wondering what they had to do to the overall game physics to allow the WW1 planes to be added. You'd think they wouldn't touch any of the pre-existing aircraft speeds, damage models, trim tables, but it seems all of that and maybe more was affected by adding 4 bi/triplane.

Makes me curious what went on behind HTC's doors!
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: skribetm on March 21, 2010, 07:17:05 PM
Its your sound card...post DxDiag and install newest drivers..if thats no it then call your ISP  its your connection...If thats not it its your powersupply...Are you running AMD?
 :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:

Kam

did you mean this amd?

(http://valid.canardpc.com/cache/screenshot/1087463.png)

see sigs.

Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: DREDIOCK on March 21, 2010, 08:06:12 PM
I havent noticed any difference with any of the planes I've flown till last night. When I was consistently cutting planes in half or making them go BOOM and only getting assists.

Had ta check to make sure I wasnt in a 109F LOL
(http://www.avatarsplus.com/d/13594-1/1076-shrug.gif)
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: grizz441 on March 21, 2010, 08:11:35 PM
I think the dive accelerations are off.
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: Mar on March 21, 2010, 08:26:48 PM
Think maybe HT should get back into his RV-8 for a little while? :joystick:
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: Ruler2 on March 21, 2010, 08:59:02 PM
did you mean this amd?

(http://valid.canardpc.com/cache/screenshot/1087463.png)

see sigs.



5.2 GHZ!!!!!!!  :x :x :x
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: Scherf on March 21, 2010, 11:57:38 PM
^ It won't download porn any quicker, but you should see the Space Invaders!
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: 321BAR on March 22, 2010, 12:10:53 AM
Yeah there's weird stuff going on.  The other night I watched Grizz TnB with multiple cons and win decisively.  I knew there was something fishy....  :noid
uhh....the pony can TnB quite nicely for a heavy ZnB AC
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: Krusty on March 22, 2010, 01:24:36 AM
The pony is not overly nimble, but the point is he was making a funny. He was getting in a dig at a pal.
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: groundfeeder on March 22, 2010, 07:57:08 AM
I think they still run away as fast as always :joystick:
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: Sunka on March 22, 2010, 08:21:18 AM
I think they still run away as fast as always :joystick:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v449/ssssnake/smileys/Face_Palm_by_Mirz123.gif)
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: Saurdaukar on March 22, 2010, 08:41:36 AM
Quote from: While it should have read...15392

Version 2.18 Patch 2
======================

Fixed an issue that caused WW2 planes to fly too fast... except the Fw-190A-5, which was too slow to begin with.  Thanks for pointing that out, guys.
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: Warchief on March 22, 2010, 09:12:31 AM
The heard various complaints mine is that the guns dont work as well. I have flown many aircraft and some days I am able to do same damage as before and others day no luck. Before says it is your connection. One night I fought a Spit 16 with a Hurr IIC took 3/4 of my ammo to kill him and switch to his friend a Spit 8 and unloaded with 80% of the rounds fired hitting there target no damage to him. The same night I up a Spit 8 and hit the guy ripping him in half with just the .303 of course a few seconds later his buddy decided to his my Spit 8 in his recreation of Swiss CHeese
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: Ardy123 on March 22, 2010, 12:38:00 PM
I've seen weird things with the guns... last night I hit Grizz with a tater and instead of usually killing his plane, it took of half his horz stabilizer and his right aileron??  the right aileron isn't even next to the horz stab.

Sadly I didn't film it... it was strange





Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: grizz441 on March 22, 2010, 12:41:11 PM
For the most part I haven't noticed much difference with the guns except for when you tater a horiz stabilizer now there is a chance only part of it will fall off.  Main thing that feels off for me is 1) Planes have a tendency to pull upward and 2) Dive accelerations seems to be slower
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: BillyD on March 22, 2010, 12:46:37 PM
I've seen weird things last night I hit Grizz instead of his  horz

Sadly I didn't film it... it was strange








Keep that pimp hand strong Ardavon.
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: uptown on March 22, 2010, 12:49:54 PM
 :rofl
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: Ardy123 on March 22, 2010, 12:51:57 PM

Keep that pimp hand strong Ardavon.

lol... seriously, it was strange, Grizz, if I remember correctly you got a pilot wound too...  The funny part about it, is finally in the end I stupidly overshot he hit me with one tater and killed me.... (after my tater shots had all slowly dismantled his plane).
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: whiteman on March 22, 2010, 12:52:41 PM
I've heard several complaints about different aircraft, (the F4U-1A being sluggish seems to come up pretty often, although I've found no difference) and a number of people are claiming guns in WWII aren't as effective as they were before.

The only issue I've had is that my rudder won't stay calibrated since Patch 4 came out....

haven't noticed much a speed difference in the -1A but have noticed a difference with the 50 cals. Not sure if it is just my head so i haven't mentioned it since i haven't heard anyone else mention it. Been laying into planes and not knocking the wings off any more, maybe just me.
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: MutleyBR on March 22, 2010, 01:02:44 PM
haven't noticed much a speed difference in the -1A but have noticed a difference with the 50 cals. Not sure if it is just my head so i haven't mentioned it since i haven't heard anyone else mention it. Been laying into planes and not knocking the wings off any more, maybe just me.

Happened to me also indifferent planes.

Hit enemies many times, with no effect.

Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: grizz441 on March 22, 2010, 01:04:39 PM
lol... seriously, it was strange, Grizz, if I remember correctly you got a pilot wound too...  The funny part about it, is finally in the end I stupidly overshot he hit me with one tater and killed me.... (after my tater shots had all slowly dismantled his plane).

Yes, I was wondering why some tard was flying the g14 with 20mms.
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: MutleyBR on March 22, 2010, 01:08:04 PM
The pony seems off.... seems slow(er) in acceleration..maybe top end. It's subjective I know.  I've heard others mention similar comments regarding other rides.

I fly different planes. And I don't use "Auto Take off".

There is the same noticeable difference in acceleration during take off run in all different planes I fly.

It seems all planes performance is affected.

Mutley
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: FALCONWING on March 22, 2010, 01:08:49 PM
i agree that the cannon planes guns don't seem to do as much damage with short bursts as they used to...could just be me but i have had similar episodes of unloading 1/2 a magazine into a spit/yak etc and usually they would be done...not anymore.  many comments like this over squad channel :salute
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: Lusche on March 22, 2010, 01:09:45 PM
There is the same noticeable difference in acceleration during take off run in all different planes I fly.

It seems all planes performance is affected.


Have you measured it?
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: MutleyBR on March 22, 2010, 01:21:52 PM

Have you measured it?

Donīt have to. :D

I donīt like Auto Take off, because it makes it easier for the vulchers. One is sitting duck using it.

I set Elevator Trim just a tad up from neutral.

I apply 100% power, and if the airplane has WEP, when it lifts the tail(meaning I have speed enough for adequate tail control, elevator and rudder), I apply WEP.

When I hear gear stress sound, I pull up, enough to raise gear.

When gear is up, I level plane and accelerate.

When I have excess energy, if no enemy around, I engage climb. If enemy close I do whatever necessary to avoid being shot.

Before patches, I was able to engage Auto Pilot level, just after gear up.

If I do it now, planes go heavily nose down... They take a lot longer to accelerate even for level fight.
If I let them , they crash...

Thatīs why I donīt need to measure.

Am using the empirical method.  :aok

Mutley
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: grizz441 on March 22, 2010, 01:30:07 PM

Have you measured it?

Speaking of measure, any way you could compare the climb rate to 10k in a k4 and compare it to the standard value?  I'm just wondering if the dive accels are in fact screwed up and if that will translate to this measurable value.
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: Lusche on March 22, 2010, 02:06:17 PM
Donīt have to. :D

I donīt like Auto Take off, because it makes it easier for the vulchers. One is sitting duck using it.

I set Elevator Trim just a tad up from neutral.

I apply 100% power, and if the airplane has WEP, when it lifts the tail(meaning I have speed enough for adequate tail control, elevator and rudder), I apply WEP.

When I hear gear stress sound, I pull up, enough to raise gear.

When gear is up, I level plane and accelerate.

When I have excess energy, if no enemy around, I engage climb. If enemy close I do whatever necessary to avoid being shot.

Before patches, I was able to engage Auto Pilot level, just after gear up.

If I do it now, planes go heavily nose down... They take a lot longer to accelerate even for level fight.
If I let them , they crash...

Thatīs why I donīt need to measure.

Am using the empirical method.  :aok

Mutley


This method has its flaws..

The plane could nose down because it indeed has not accelerated quick enough in the same time span.
But it could also nose down, because there has something changed with combat trim. (Which it seems to have, considering the nose-up tendecy displayed by the 262 and other planes)

Fact is, the pony accelerates the same from 150-350 as before. But fact is also I have no hard data to compare acceleration 0-150. ;)

Speaking of measure, any way you could compare the climb rate to 10k in a k4 and compare it to the standard value?  I'm just wondering if the dive accels are in fact screwed up and if that will translate to this measurable value.


I will to a few climb tests later tonight.
I'm also thinking about reinstalling 2.17 for some dive & ground acceleration comparisons.


Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: Ardy123 on March 22, 2010, 02:20:20 PM
Yes, I was wondering why some tard was flying the g14 with 20mms.

lol  :rofl :rofl
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: MutleyBR on March 22, 2010, 02:21:41 PM
Take off acceleration is reduced, Iīm sure.

If a body attains 180 MPH from zero, in a given distance, then attains only 150, in the same distance, for the same conditions, the acceleration has decreased.

Since airplanes are not accelerating as before, if one engages auto pilot level, Auto pilot than noses airplanes down, to attain adequate speed for level flight.

It may happen that for conditions other than take off runs they behave differently.

Mutley
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: dedalos on March 22, 2010, 02:53:19 PM
The pony seems off.... seems slow(er) in acceleration..maybe top end. It's subjective I know.  I've heard others mention similar comments regarding other rides.

Did not read the rest of the thread but I did notice the lala acting strange last night.  First time in years that I got one to spin
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: Animal14 on March 22, 2010, 08:26:25 PM
 I'm a hack; however, I will say that it seems that the f4u-4 doesn't climb like it used to. Flew like a D model after the new version came out.  I noticed this before I read the MSG board about it.  Point being that I wasn't influenced by others opinions about the update. Anyone else notce this with the -4. IrishOne maybe?
Animal14 
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: grizz441 on March 22, 2010, 08:45:36 PM
Did not read the rest of the thread but I did notice the lala acting strange last night.  First time in years that I got one to spin

That's just you getting old and losing the edge.  :neener:
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: 5PointOh on March 22, 2010, 08:55:47 PM
I also feel something is off in the WWII set,  went into a dive with a B-Pony last night.  Right at the begining of compression, the ailerons seperated from the plane like a I was in a Ki84. First time I have ever shed parts in a 51 at dive speeds.
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: Lusche on March 22, 2010, 09:55:15 PM
Take off acceleration is reduced, Iīm sure.

If a body attains 180 MPH from zero, in a given distance, then attains only 150, in the same distance, for the same conditions, the acceleration has decreased.

Since airplanes are not accelerating as before, if one engages auto pilot level, Auto pilot than noses airplanes down, to attain adequate speed for level flight.


I now have tested & compared takeoff accelerations for the P-51D and 109K for versions 217.3 and 218.4
All tests at clean configuration, fuel=50%, fuel burn=0.
Using the film viewer, I noted acceleration to 100mph, time to climb to 1k & 5k (as well as speed at those points)

There was no notable difference between the versions. Both planes accelerated the same respectively.
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: Lusche on March 22, 2010, 10:24:08 PM
Testing dive acceleration is more difficult for me, as the ability to fly precisely the same way in both tests is very important here... a skill which I lack...

For a first impression, I took a PonyD to 5k and nosed down into a 45° dive, full MIL, starting at 219mph.
In 217.3 it took ~16 seconds until impact, speed was 447
In 218.4 it took me 18 seconds, speed at impact was 450

Flying not a perfectly identical dive may very well be the reason for the rather minor differences.
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: Animal14 on March 22, 2010, 10:25:26 PM
I noticed the difference from 2.13-2.14 before and after 2.14 was patched. I did miss one of the intermediate patches.
Animal14
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: Dace on March 23, 2010, 12:49:10 AM
Something feels off in the WWII set to me also. Noticed it most in Tempest and Pony, Jug seems little effected though :headscratch:.
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: grizz441 on March 23, 2010, 01:03:47 AM
Testing dive acceleration is more difficult for me, as the ability to fly precisely the same way in both tests is very important here... a skill which I lack...

For a first impression, I took a PonyD to 5k and nosed down into a 45° dive, full MIL, starting at 219mph.
In 217.3 it took ~16 seconds until impact, speed was 447
In 218.4 it took me 18 seconds, speed at impact was 450

Flying not a perfectly identical dive may very well be the reason for the rather minor differences.

That's still a 12% difference, but it's inconclusive.

What about going to the TA and diving down one of those steep mountains keeping it parallel to the side?  Start the timer right when you get to the edge and stop the timer when the speed dial hits 500 or 550.
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: Lusche on March 23, 2010, 01:10:40 AM
That's still a 12% difference, but it's inconclusive.

Yes it is, because even a rather minor variation in nosing down could easily make up for those 2 seconds, and also determining the start point is not very precisely.
But even if there actually were a difference of 1 second, we would hardly notice that in game.

What about going to the TA and diving down one of those steep mountains keeping it parallel to the side?  Start the timer right when you get to the edge and stop the timer when the speed dial hits 500 or 550.

Good idea, will try that later.

Another option would be using autoclimb set to a very high value.
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: Lusche on March 23, 2010, 01:30:27 AM
Oooops... disregard my runway, climb & dive accel tests... embarrasing bug *sigh*

(my 500ft pony accel tests still stands though)

Have to do them again.
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: Lusche on March 23, 2010, 01:54:07 AM
Ok, redid the runway acceleration and climb tests

Now comparing version 218.4 and 213.1 (version 217 test was bugged, I double checked 213 now  :o)

Same configuration again (50% fuel, FB 0, takoff at 0k).
Acceleration on runway to 100mph, climb time to 1k & 5k still identical.

Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: MutleyBR on March 23, 2010, 03:10:48 AM
Although we still have no conclusion, yet, I would like to thank Lusche, and all who put so much of their time and efforts in making a better gaming experience.

 :aok  :salute

Mutley
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: WMLute on March 23, 2010, 05:19:48 AM
Me too.

Thanks for the time spent on this Lusche
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: 321BAR on March 23, 2010, 05:57:23 AM
Something feels off in the WWII set to me also. Noticed it most in Tempest and Pony, Jug seems little effected though :headscratch:.
tempest and pony seeming uber as always to me. although with the p51D i was used to the 8 eny version last year not the uber uber 5 eny now in the game so maybe im just feeling more powerful in its cockpit... i love the 350mph flaps. i missed alot over the year i was gone
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: dedalos on March 23, 2010, 08:12:52 AM
That's still a 12% difference, but it's inconclusive.

What about going to the TA and diving down one of those steep mountains keeping it parallel to the side?  Start the timer right when you get to the edge and stop the timer when the speed dial hits 500 or 550.

 :furious :furious :furious :furious
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: Lusche on March 23, 2010, 08:59:08 AM
After a few hours of sleep, I did some more testing.
This time I compared 218.4 to 214.1 (my 213 had a bugged film viewer  :furious)

All tests made in Pony D, 6 gun version, 50% fuel, FB 0, same base for takeoff

Ground acceleration 0-100 mph: no difference
Level flight acceleration @500ft 150-350 mph: no difference

Dive acceleration: To reduce pilot error, I used autoclimb. Speed set to 400mph. Climbed to 10K, shut engine. When speed fell to 200 mph, I engaged autoclimb. Noted time to 300 & 400 mph.
Result: No difference.
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: grizz441 on March 23, 2010, 09:58:10 AM
Any chance you could get a pot of coffee brewing and test the Me262?   :pray
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: Lusche on March 23, 2010, 09:59:57 AM
Any chance you could get a pot of coffee brewing and test the Me262?   :pray

I'll skip the coffee (don't drink that disgusting stuff anyway) and will do the 262 immediately :)
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: LLogann on March 23, 2010, 10:02:01 AM
I've had two pots already today.  (and a few Redbull's)

Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: grizz441 on March 23, 2010, 10:02:29 AM
I'll skip the coffee (don't drink that disgusting stuff anyway) and will do the 262 immediately :)

Test maybe the time from 300-550?
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: waystin2 on March 23, 2010, 10:18:04 AM
Thank you Lusche. 

I hereby nominate Lusche as the Official Aces High Test Pilot and Chief Scientist! :aok 
Can I get a second?
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: Lusche on March 23, 2010, 10:19:06 AM
Thank you Lusche.  

I hereby nominate Lusche as the Official Aces High Test Pilot and Chief Scientist! :aok  
Can I get a second?

Sorry, that's Widewing or Badboy  :)
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: LLogann on March 23, 2010, 10:19:15 AM
Here here!
Thank you Lusche. 

I hereby nominate Lusche as the Official Aces High Test Pilot and Chief Scientist! :aok 
Can I get a second?
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: Steve on March 23, 2010, 11:00:26 AM
Quote
to the 8 eny version last year not the uber uber 5 eny now in the game

LOL. Uhhh there's no difference.
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: dedalos on March 23, 2010, 11:11:38 AM
LOL. Uhhh there's no difference.

Uhhhh  3?
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: LLogann on March 23, 2010, 11:14:51 AM
The Muppet isn't speaking about the ENY number young man.

Uhhhh  3?
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: dedalos on March 23, 2010, 11:20:24 AM
The Muppet isn't speaking about the ENY number young man.


The puppet was also smart enough to not respond to that  :P
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: Steve on March 23, 2010, 11:22:41 AM
The puppet was also smart enough to not respond to that  :P

Put the LLogan fish back, Ded.

 :D
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: 321BAR on March 23, 2010, 11:23:30 AM
LOL. Uhhh there's no difference.
you sure? cuz i feel a difference... maybe just learned to fly it right?  :lol  but i really do feel a difference like the P51D is better somehow...
The puppet was also smart enough to not respond to that  :P
that muppet aint a puppet mate :neener:
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: LLogann on March 23, 2010, 11:25:48 AM
 :lol
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: Lusche on March 23, 2010, 11:30:55 AM
Here are the results of my 262 tests.

Versions compared: 218.4 and 214.1
Setup: 50% fuel, FB 0, takoff same base (sea level)

Takeoff acceleration:
0-100 mph (no flaps): No difference


Level flight acceleration @ sea level:
250-350: same
350-450: same
450-500: 84 seconds (v218) to 88 seconds (v214). still less than 5%, and when looking at all data it more likely seem to be a testing inaccuracy imho

The amount of altitude gained during this acceleration test was about the same in both AH versions.


Dive acceleration:
This is the most inaccurate test, as the process of nosing down and getting the same angle of dive is somewhat difficult. I used the artifical horizon & auto-angle.
Did a ~45° dive with idle engines from 10k to impact (sea level), starting at ~300 mph.
v218: time 38 seconds, impact speed 547
v214: time 35 seconds, impact speed 552



Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: R 105 on March 23, 2010, 11:44:59 AM
Lusche.
Thank  you for taking the time to check the performance of the P-51D. I fly this plane all the time and almost nothing else for the last four yrs. However it still seems not to fly like it did just a short time back. I was ran down by an F4U-1A in level flight over about a half a grid. I don't even bother to wep up the 51-D most times and almost always make it back to the rearm pad. Can a problem on my end cause this? I have a 4GB computer with fiber optic connection with the GForce-8400 card. My frame rate is in the 60s mostly except in the WWI arena. In there it is in the teens for some reason.
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: Lusche on March 23, 2010, 12:04:05 PM
I was ran down by an F4U-1A in level flight over about a half a grid. I don't even bother to wep up the 51-D most times and almost always make it back to the rearm pad. Can a problem on my end cause this? I have a 4GB computer with fiber optic connection with the GForce-8400 card. My frame rate is in the 60s mostly except in the WWI arena. In there it is in the teens for some reason.


No, it's not a technical problem on your computer.

Was your chase ending up on the deck? If yes, it's no surprise that a F4U-1a was able to catch you. Both planes top speed under WEP is almost identical on the deck, so it's all about initial energy state as well as energy management (=skillful flying) during the chase. And the F4U is a heavy plane being able to retain its energy better than the 51.
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: MORAY37 on March 23, 2010, 12:22:52 PM
Lusche.
Thank  you for taking the time to check the performance of the P-51D. I fly this plane all the time and almost nothing else for the last four yrs. However it still seems not to fly like it did just a short time back. I was ran down by an F4U-1A in level flight over about a half a grid. I don't even bother to wep up the 51-D most times and almost always make it back to the rearm pad. Can a problem on my end cause this? I have a 4GB computer with fiber optic connection with the GForce-8400 card. My frame rate is in the 60s mostly except in the WWI arena. In there it is in the teens for some reason.

*hint*

 If you're being tail chased by a -1a and it's gaining.... just lift the nose by about 5-10 degrees.  Use his bulk against him, going uphill.  Don't zoom.... just put a little back pressure on the stick.  Even if he still closes, it's more than likely you will end up with a better E situation in a very short fight, unless he had vastly superior altitude to start.

It doesn't take long in a climb for that weight to start sapping his E state.

My second hint.... don't run. FIGHT.  (although there are times <5 minutes of fuel that you need to get home) Running, you rely only upon the plane, and provide a known flight plan for your foe to counter.  ( I will simply cut the corner to your airfield, and meet you about 2K from landing)

Fighting, you rely upon your plane and yourself.....though for some people that's a loss.
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: DREDIOCK on March 24, 2010, 07:07:27 AM
Ok I have noticed something.
When your in a sustained dive. All the planes now seem to want to nose up more.

I used to experience this only in a 262 and maybe a couple of other aircraft. but now it seems to effect all of them now
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: R 105 on March 24, 2010, 09:54:30 AM
Well something is wrong with the P-51 it was never a Zero when it came to turning but now it will not even respond to the rudder. I pull the sick to turn and the stall buzzer sounds. It ain't like I just started using the 51. It has been the main aircraft I used for yrs. Something is not right.
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: Saxman on March 24, 2010, 10:23:49 AM
Have you tried recalibrating your controls?
Title: Re: Plane performance not right?
Post by: grizz441 on March 24, 2010, 12:37:35 PM
Thx Snailman.

<shrugs>

The combat trim on the jet is 100% surely not working properly.  I guess it looks like the speeds are close enough from that test.  In any case, I'm sure HiTech is looking into it and that means it will be fixed very soon.  :rock