Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Ruah on November 02, 2011, 11:15:42 PM

Title: 109 damge Q
Post by: Ruah on November 02, 2011, 11:15:42 PM
So I am not a long time 109 expert like some of you out there, but the past 2 days I have been experiencing a lot of one ping engine outages (radiator too. . .the worst kind).  Am I the only one, or am I just flying a lot worse.  I know I am not that great to begin with, but its just been really frustrating.

anyway, not a cry, not a whine, just wondering if I am the only one - or - maby I was just lucky until now.
Title: Re: 109 damge Q
Post by: curry1 on November 02, 2011, 11:19:46 PM
I always felt like 109s were susceptible to radiator hits.
Title: Re: 109 damge Q
Post by: Tank-Ace on November 02, 2011, 11:27:53 PM
Well the engine makes up a fairly large percentage of the target profile in high angle of attack shooting, and in turn fights. If you've been doing a lot of HO'ing, thats also probably part of the issue.
Title: Re: 109 damge Q
Post by: MachFly on November 02, 2011, 11:43:42 PM
That's one of the main reasons why I never fly the 109, seems like every hit takes out the radiator or fuel.
Title: Re: 109 damge Q
Post by: Ruah on November 02, 2011, 11:56:24 PM
no HOing - I don't ho.  its a matter of pride.  I will even pass on 3/4 shots sometimes because I would rather take the loss then the possibility of that perfect shot.

No this has really been in the past 2 days.  Every ping i take has all been radiator shots.  Just wondering if its become worse somehow. . .  I guess I have to become even more defensive.   
Title: Re: 109 damge Q
Post by: Tank-Ace on November 03, 2011, 12:07:40 AM
I haven't noticed many more radiator or engine hits than if I was flying, say, a P-51 or a Ki-61, MachFly.

Yeah, a few more maybe, but it probably turns out to be in the range of 17/100 pings = engine/radiator hit instead of 12/100.




I don't know what to tell ya Ruah. I've never expierenced any of the problems people so often encounter. I've never had a rubber bullet problem, I've never had non-kill tater hits, I've never had one-hit problems.

Might just be a problem with your perception or something.
Title: Re: 109 damge Q
Post by: MachFly on November 03, 2011, 12:43:44 AM
I haven't noticed many more radiator or engine hits than if I was flying, say, a P-51 or a Ki-61, MachFly.

I don't really fly those two so I would not know. Quite possible that it's just me (and Ruah).
Title: Re: 109 damge Q
Post by: sunfan1121 on November 03, 2011, 01:27:50 AM
When flying a 109 it's better not to get shot at.  :aok
Title: Re: 109 damge Q
Post by: PR3D4TOR on November 03, 2011, 05:44:30 AM
I wonder if the in-game "damage box" covers the whole radiator housing including the flaps, or just the radiator itself.

(http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/techref/systems/cooling/f_airflow.jpg)
Title: Re: 109 damge Q
Post by: pervert on November 03, 2011, 10:29:37 AM
Its cliche damage modelling the 190 d is actually worse for rad hits I have had 8 sorties in a row ended with speculative sprays and 1 hit pings, you might as well go psycho and all out attack whats attempted to ho you, you have about 2 minutes tops before your engine fails. 109 could divert to run on one radiator but thats not modeled in game.
Title: Re: 109 damge Q
Post by: MachFly on November 03, 2011, 01:02:45 PM
I wonder if the in-game "damage box" covers the whole radiator housing including the flaps, or just the radiator itself.

(http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/techref/systems/cooling/f_airflow.jpg)

Is that "damage box" made to actually absorb fire or is it just there for the airflow?

I'm thinking it's probably for the airflow.  :headscratch:
Title: Re: 109 damge Q
Post by: Slade on November 03, 2011, 02:42:06 PM
Quote
a lot of one ping engine outages (radiator too. . .the worst kind)

Concerning engine outages (radiator etc.), I don't see 109 as being any worse than other planes.

As a baseline, one plane that is very suceptable to radiator hits is a Tiffy.  109 does not compare.  Tiffy is like a magnet for radiator hits!
Title: Re: 109 damge Q
Post by: curry1 on November 03, 2011, 05:27:48 PM
Concerning engine outages (radiator etc.), I don't see 109 as being any worse than other planes.

As a baseline, one plane that is very suceptable to radiator hits is a Tiffy.  109 does not compare.  Tiffy is like a magnet for radiator hits!

Its got dat bullet scoop.
Title: Re: 109 damge Q
Post by: STEELE on November 03, 2011, 05:40:58 PM
Its cliche damage modelling the 190 d is actually worse for rad hits I have had 8 sorties in a row ended with speculative sprays and 1 hit pings, you might as well go psycho and all out attack whats attempted to ho you, you have about 2 minutes tops before your engine fails. 109 could divert to run on one radiator but thats not modeled in game.
I agree, the Dora is almost COMICAL with rad hits.  I've gotten pinged from DEAD six, not 1 degree off angle, and the rad goes out.  More than 20 times.  :bhead :bhead :bhead
In the War, a 109 would never blow an engine from a lucky 50 cal rad ping, it was so easy to bypass the damaged radiator with a quick turn of a valve.
I say any plane built with a radiator bypass should absolutely have it modeled in AH, otherwise it's just completely inaccurate.
  A few of German rides are already hit with       (http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b36/legionaires/thm_41724.jpg)   (190A8 with its 1.58 ata boost instead of the 1.65 that was used on every single A8 springs to mind)
Title: Re: 109 damge Q
Post by: Krupinski on November 03, 2011, 05:43:53 PM
I want my two radiators modeled in the 109, for the spits too.  :neener:
Title: Re: 109 damge Q
Post by: STEELE on November 03, 2011, 05:46:33 PM
I want my two radiators modeled in the 109, for the spits too.  :neener:
Sure! put em in anything that had em.  Then cut WEP use when 1 side of the system is hit.
Title: Re: 109 damge Q
Post by: Krupinski on November 03, 2011, 05:50:38 PM
Sure! put em in anything that had em.  Then cut WEP use when 1 side of the system is hit.

Yes, limit engine output on one radiator, maybe anything over 50% throttle and your engine starts to heat up.
Title: Re: 109 damge Q
Post by: Tank-Ace on November 03, 2011, 06:17:23 PM
Sounds like a good system. And wouldn't be impossible to model or anything, given that we have multiple fuel tanks in planes that had them.
Title: Re: 109 damge Q
Post by: PR3D4TOR on November 03, 2011, 07:09:16 PM
Is that "damage box" made to actually absorb fire or is it just there for the airflow?

I'm thinking it's probably for the airflow.  :headscratch:

The "damage box" is the invisible area in the game-model that registers damage to the radiator. These damage "sensors" registers a hit when a virtual "projectile" intersects with it. They are usually modeled as boxes or other simple geometric shapes. The box in the drawing is the actual radiator.
Title: Re: 109 damge Q
Post by: Owlblink on November 04, 2011, 05:59:40 PM
Sounds like a good system. And wouldn't be impossible to model or anything, given that we have multiple fuel tanks in planes that had them.

I concur!
Just for the sake of making future modeled planes a bit more realistic. I dont think we need ultra engine manigment realism, that would probably take away from the game, but maybe a self adjusting radiator system for when one is blown, and a reduced throttle rule; or risk the same engine blowout that happens now if you keep it at full power for too long.
Title: Re: 109 damge Q
Post by: Ruah on November 09, 2011, 07:02:44 AM
Again, not complaining - its just the way it is but -

I think both radiators are there for damage purposes because just last night I took a .50 in the right wing - radiator, same night, different situation, a .50 in the left wing - radiator. 

is it possible that both sides would register a radiator hit but with no redundancy from the other wing?
Title: Re: 109 damge Q
Post by: PR3D4TOR on November 09, 2011, 03:19:19 PM
Yes that's exactly how it is. Having multiple radiators is a liability in AH rather than an advantage.
Title: Re: 109 damge Q
Post by: Ruah on November 09, 2011, 06:39:08 PM
oh. . . ouch