Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Widewing on September 19, 2014, 03:31:14 AM
-
421 mph at sea level, better than 5,600 fpm climb with full fuel load... If it were introduced in Aces High, it would need a huge perk price.
(https://scontent-a-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/10653576_10204816037066119_4986752944623919123_n.jpg?oh=df12f84a0304a2dfbf81126dfd825adf&oe=54C74049)
-
I want it... Badly!
-
421 mph at sea level, better than 5,600 fpm climb with full fuel load... If it were introduced in Aces High, it would need a huge perk price.
(https://scontent-a-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/10653576_10204816037066119_4986752944623919123_n.jpg?oh=df12f84a0304a2dfbf81126dfd825adf&oe=54C74049)
You forgot to mention 4x20 hizookas...
-
Give one of those to Greebo......It would be like Bruce Bannor turning into the Incredible Hulk :lol
-
Give one of those to Greebo......It would be like Bruce Bannor turning into the Incredible Hulk :lol
:rofl
Although it's a plane I'd love to see, it would be a horror show for anything else and definitely need to be perked, probably even higher than the 262.
Wiley.
-
Tempest killer. That thing would be a hoot in the MA but would never find a slot in an event.
-
I bet the torque if you slammed on full-WEP while slow would surprise and throw a lot of people off though.
Bring it, perk it, hot rods attract the masses and people need more stuff to spend points on anyway. :aok
-
Mike Williams has the entire document up on his site....
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/F8F/F8F-1_Standard_Aircraft_Characteristics.pdf (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/F8F/F8F-1_Standard_Aircraft_Characteristics.pdf)
-
One other fact to keep in mind... The F8F-1's turn radius was just a few feet greater than that of the FM-2. It's actually a bit smaller than the FM-2.
The best description of flying the Bearcat that I've heard, was that it was like flying an angry Bumblebee.
My friend, Chris Fahey, who flies for the Planes of Fame, says that no other prop fighter comes close to the Bearcat in terms of overall performance. He flies the F6F, P-38J, P-51D, P-47G (Curtiss built), P-40 and F4U-1A on a regular basis...
Just think, the Bearcat was in theater aboard ship, just about a week from combat ops when Japan tossed in the towel. Four squadrons of F8F-1s flew the surrender fly-over during the signing aboard Missouri in Tokyo Bay. F7F night fighters were on Okinawa, and the first P-51H Mustangs were beginning flight ops from Iwo Jima at the surrender. More and more F4U-4s were entering combat. I can only imagine what the air war over Japan would have become had the Emperor not decided for peace....
-
Four squadrons of F8F-1s flew the surrender fly-over during the signing aboard Missouri in Tokyo Bay. F7F night fighters were on Okinawa, and the first P-51H Mustangs were beginning flight ops from Iwo Jima at the surrender. More and more F4U-4s were entering combat. I can only imagine what the air war over Japan would have become had the Emperor not decided for peace....
I guess there would have been very little actual 'air war' anyway. Mostly massive ground pounding by Allied air forces with occasional slaughter of kamikaze waves with a handfull escorts (for the most part badly trained ones).
Even the good old Hellcats, Thunderbolts, Mustangs, Lightnings and so on would have had little trouble to clear the skies. I doubt those new wonder birds would had made that much of a difference in the air war at that time as there was hardly an enemy left for them to shine against.
-
It was the Bearcat's climb to 10k feet record (from brakes off) that always blew me away. :eek:
-
It was the Bearcat's climb to 10k feet record (from brakes off) that always blew me away. :eek:
A few more facts gleaned from the data sheet...
2,750 HP at sea level in WEP!
Two 1,000 lb bombs on the wings and one 1,600 lb bomb on the center line... 3,600 lb!
I don't think there's a prop fighter in Aces High that has any chance at all against this thing... Assuming equal pilots.
-
I don't think there's a prop fighter in Aces High that has any chance at all against this thing... Assuming equal pilots.
What about the Sea Fury?
-
What about the Sea Fury?
Toast.... :)
Sea Fury is rated at 380 mph at SL, and 1/4 less climb rate than the F8F. There's nothing it can do with it down low. Even at altitude (20k), it's only a little faster than the F8F-1, (450 mph, vs 434 mph) and about even with the F8F-2 (447 mph).
Speed is just one part of the equation. The tiny Bearcat makes 300 hp more than the Sea Fury, and weighs 3,000 lb less. Turns circles like the FM-2, but a much faster rate of roll... Grumman set out to take Kurt Tank's design concept to the next level, and they surely did....
-
I'm curious why the USN and USMC gave up on the Bearcat but kept the aging Corsair going into the Korea conflict. Any ideas?
Simple reason, because they had lots of Corsairs left over?
-
F8F had a strange wingtip design. They were designed to break off under high-g's. But in the few instances in flight where they did break, usually only one would break. So they set about putting explosive charges on the wingtips. A ground crewman was killed doing maintenance on an F8F so they did away with the explosive charges. Weird concept.
-
I'm curious why the USN and USMC gave up on the Bearcat but kept the aging Corsair going into the Korea conflict. Any ideas?
Simple reason, because they had lots of Corsairs left over?
The F8F was the fleet interceptor... When the Korean War broke out, the Navy had already accelerated the deployment of jets. When the F9F-3 began to deploy to fleet carriers, the F8Fs were sent ashore or sold off. And yes, there were a lot more Corsairs in service than Bearcats, although the Navy and Marines had 37 total squadrons equipped with -1s and -2s. The French Navy bought about 200 of them and they saw extensive combat in SE Asia, where they were highly effective.
(http://www.zargos-skins.net/images/post_skin/f8f-wip-02.jpg)
-
An unusual design feature incorporated into both prototypes and production aircraft was the provision for breakpoints at the wingtips. Thus, if a pilot exceeded operating g restrictions, the outboard 3 ft of each wing would fail near simultaneously, thus maintaining symmetrical configuration. Not withstanding earlier tests with a modified F4F-4, the so-called 'Safety Wing Tip' was not as safe as expected. Following a December 1945 accident in which an F8F-1 crashed after only one breakaway tip seperated during violent manuevering, the fittings were modified and brazier head rivets replaced countersunk rivets in the 251st and subsequent aircraft. Notwithstanding a later modification providing for the use of explosive bolts to ensure simultaneous seperation of the tips, the breakaway tips continued to be a source of concern. In 1949, a service change provided for local strengthening of the wing to eliminate the breakpoints."
Grumman Aircraft: Since 1929 Rene Francillon, page 244-245
-
Thank you so much for your wisdom over the years WW, much much appreciated good sir. :salute
On a secondary note, i call my cat eff' eight eff, bear cat. "his names really smokey the bear, bear for short"
If anyone would ever ask me what aircraft i could take into battle, it would be the F8f.
And shuddup, i have a black and white lab, so im clearly a dog lover too. ;)
-
I want the f4u5 if I gotta deal with this thing.
But in all reality I would love to get a picture of myself in a f4f killing a bearcat. Almost as satisfying as bringing down a b29 with a p40c or killing a 262 with a ju87.
-
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Dauntless%20SBD/grum1149F8F-1inhangergunpods1_zps6197554c.jpg) (http://s1002.photobucket.com/user/barneybolac/media/Dauntless%20SBD/grum1149F8F-1inhangergunpods1_zps6197554c.jpg.html)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Dauntless%20SBD/F8Fgunpodpicturered_zpscc12df8b.jpg) (http://s1002.photobucket.com/user/barneybolac/media/Dauntless%20SBD/F8Fgunpodpicturered_zpscc12df8b.jpg.html)
-
Grumman set out to take Kurt Tank's design concept to the next level, and they surely did....
I dont know much about this plane, but it looks like a love child of a 190 and a Hellcat.
-
I want the f4u5 if I gotta deal with this thing.
But in all reality I would love to get a picture of myself in a f4f killing a bearcat. Almost as satisfying as bringing down a b29 with a p40c or killing a 262 with a ju87.
I wonder what could have been made of the F2G had development continued and Goodyear had the time to iron out the problems in the design.
-
The F8F was the fleet interceptor... When the Korean War broke out, the Navy had already accelerated the deployment of jets. When the F9F-3 began to deploy to fleet carriers, the F8Fs were sent ashore or sold off. And yes, there were a lot more Corsairs in service than Bearcats, although the Navy and Marines had 37 total squadrons equipped with -1s and -2s. The French Navy bought about 200 of them and they saw extensive combat in SE Asia, where they were highly effective.
(http://www.zargos-skins.net/images/post_skin/f8f-wip-02.jpg)
Yeah, just seems like it would have seen success in the same role as the Corsair. Nearly the same payload; It's also smaller than the Corsair, seems like it would be a plus for CV deployment over the Corsair and would be a much harder target to hit.
-
Yeah, just seems like it would have seen success in the same role as the Corsair. Nearly the same payload; It's also smaller than the Corsair, seems like it would be a plus for CV deployment over the Corsair and would be a much harder target to hit.
Corsair was just more available than the f8f by the time the Korean war broke out. Not like you need the latest and greatest when what you already have will be sufficient. You could also argue that the Corsair was a war tested and proven air frame while the Bearcat was a brand new design.
Always loved the idea of the F2G, but I'm not to familiar with it. Anyone have any details on how far prototype designs got or how close it came to production?
-
There were five of each type built (land-based F2G-1 and carrier-capable F2G-2). According to Wiki there were lateral control issues and speed wasn't up to expectations, though the civilian racers seemed to have eliminated these issues so it wasn't something that couldn't have been fixed.
However in the post-war climate there wasn't need to further development.
-
One version of the F4U, which was an armored ground attack version, could not even break 300mph. Edit: Found the name F4U-AU.
-
One version of the F4U, which was an armored ground attack version, could not even break 300mph. Edit: Found the name F4U-AU.
The AU-1, redesignated from F4U-6, was capable of 390 mph with all of the external bomb and rocket racks installed. It had less HP that the F4U-5, but a lot more armor.
http://www.avialogs.com/en/aircraft/usa/vought/f4ucorsair/au-1-corsair-standard-aircraft-characteristics-1-june-1953.html#download (http://www.avialogs.com/en/aircraft/usa/vought/f4ucorsair/au-1-corsair-standard-aircraft-characteristics-1-june-1953.html#download)
-
421 mph at sea level, better than 5,600 fpm climb with full fuel load... If it were introduced in Aces High, it would need a huge perk price.
(https://scontent-a-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/10653576_10204816037066119_4986752944623919123_n.jpg?oh=df12f84a0304a2dfbf81126dfd825adf&oe=54C74049)
It would need a whole new arena. The 'World at war 1946' arena.'
-
The AU-1, redesignated from F4U-6, was capable of 390 mph with all of the external bomb and rocket racks installed. It had less HP that the F4U-5, but a lot more armor.
http://www.avialogs.com/en/aircraft/usa/vought/f4ucorsair/au-1-corsair-standard-aircraft-characteristics-1-june-1953.html#download (http://www.avialogs.com/en/aircraft/usa/vought/f4ucorsair/au-1-corsair-standard-aircraft-characteristics-1-june-1953.html#download)
Pretty sure it carried some of the first air to ground missiles.
-
It would need a whole new arena. The 'World at war 1946' arena.'
Yet, the F8F-1 was operational in squadron strength by May of 1945.... It is not a post war fighter, like the Tempest II.
The biggest issue I have with the "saw combat" argument is that it favors aircraft that never really attained much if any serial production status. Yet, it excludes aircraft, that due to the war being 12,000 miles distant, didn't get to combat until the logistical base was established half a world away. Let's look at it through the eyes of reality. Grumman was building more F6Fs in a single day, than total Ta 152H types delivered. However, the Ta 152 is considered acceptable because it saw combat (because combat was right over Luftwaffe airfields). Grumman delivered many more F8F-1s in April of '45, than total Ta 152 production. This arbitrary "saw combat" stipulation is a bit off the mark, and I have always thought so. A handful of Ta 152s saw combat... Yet, by July of 1945, 14 Navy squadrons were equipped with the F8F-1, with 8 of those squadrons aboard ships, with four carriers steaming for Japan or headed to Pearl Harbor. Yet, this aircraft is considered as unacceptable, even post war, even though it was in service for 6 months prior to the war ending.
It took much longer to move carrier aircraft into combat. Pilots had to train aboard ship, get qualified. Logistics had to be in place. 10,000 miles of ocean separated these carrier aircraft from the enemy. In Europe, the enemy was on your doorstep. From factory, to squadron, to combat was a very short cycle. Especially for Germany.
Inasmuch as I can't envision any new fighters being introduced to Aces High that would not be sub-types of existing aircraft, or hole plugging aircraft (meaning early or mid war), there's nothing exciting to look forward to. A few new bomber types, such as the A-26 or Beaufighter might be interesting, but there isn't much left there either. The Luftwobbles have the special fuels, but where are the 150 octane fuels for the Allies? What about the F7F-1, F7F-2N and P-51H? All were operational before Japan surrendered? Perk them very high. But, excluding them doesn't build excitement for current or potential players.
Going forward, it's going to take more than improved graphics to bump up interest in Aces High. Game play changes and new aircraft will also be needed to bring back former players, keep current ones and draw new people. Without some exciting change of direction, I see it as SSDD, with prettier graphics.
-
The Japanese were continuing to build and convert a considerable # of aircraft (many obsolete but not all) intended for Kamikaze attacks against an invading fleet against Japan. The USN needed an interceptor with a very fast climb rate and speed at low-med alts. The atomic bomb brought an abrupt end to the war in the Pacific but that does not mean that the IJN and IJAAF had no more planes or attack boats to throw into the fray.
For Korea you didn't need the F8F to bomb and strafe troops...and it's not going into air combat against MiGs. It's stellar air to air abilities as a prop fighter were just not needed by the Navy by 1950.
It's one of those great warplanes that just didn't get its chance but in reality that's all for the best.
Yet, it excludes aircraft, that due to the war being 12,000 miles distant, didn't get to combat until the logistical base was established half a world away.
I agree to some extent but we all know the inclusion of F8Fs would start the inevitable slide towards "AH 1946" to placate the Xbox crowd.
-
http://www.warbirdsforum.com/topic/716-f4u-4-corsair-vs-f8f-2-bearcat/
A good read if anyone is interested In seeing others scwable about airplanes
-
Sure would be a fun plane to fly. It is all debatable on the technicalities to add it or not.
My vote = yes. +1
-
Yet, the F8F-1 was operational in squadron strength by May of 1945.... It is not a post war fighter, like the Tempest II.
Yet it did not see action in said war. Had that war gone on through 1946 (or later) then that plane would have seen action
(as would many other aircraft that just missed and some others). Hence the widespread fantasy alter-reality of WWII 1946.
Then it may not even be a perk ride. It may still be popular one. And HTC could populate the arena with a lot of the 1945
rides as, ironically, perk farming planes. 1946 would be a home better suited to the Temp Mk II, as well. The only problem is,
if the trend we've seen to date holds, the LW arena would then die off.
Having said that, I agree that the F8F was indeed a monster.
-
The big problem of adding the F8F is that it starts a pretty significant slippery slope. The game is already so late-war monster focused as it is, and adding machines like the F8F, F7F, P-51H and P-63 isn't going to help.
There's a lot of other things HTC can do to improve the arena experiences. Finishing updates of the older models and plugging gaps (especially the glaring early/mid-war holes, workhorses like the Beaufighter, etc.) should be a priority over adding beasts like the Bearcat. And then the game mechanics THEMSELVES should get a looking at.
I don't mean the upcoming graphics engine upgrade, though that update is pretty long overdue.
I mean stuff like modernizing the damage modeling (IE progressive rather than "all or nothing" damage modeling, flaps that CAN actually be shot away entirely rather than just "jammed", interior components like fuel, hydraulics, cooling and oil lines, control wires, etc.). Expand the ordinance system with more types of ordinance (Tiny Tims, parafrags) and a means of enforcing more realistic ordinance loadouts (IE, I'm not aware of Corsairs taking off from carriers with 2x1000lber AND a full load of rockets) IE through limiting the available loads depending on the launch base or adding perks for the extremely heavy loadouts on fighters to give dedicated attackers like the TBM a real purpose.
The strategy system could also stand tweaking, and there's a lot that can be done with the ground and surface war (IE, adding deployable infantry, battleships, expanding the types of ships beyond the late-war US fleet, etc.) Tweak AAA and object hardness in the EW and MW arenas to better reflect those arenas. Fix the way puffy ack is handled (I'd still prefer it actually be FIRED from its source rather than randomly generating around the target, which has been demonstrated to actually work in FAVOR of large aircraft formations).
There's a LOT of things that can be done to the game without resorting to more late-war uber rides.
-
The strategy system could also stand tweaking, and there's a lot that can be done with the ground and surface war (IE, adding deployable infantry, battleships, expanding the types of ships beyond the late-war US fleet, etc.) Tweak AAA and object hardness in the EW and MW arenas to better reflect those arenas. Fix the way puffy ack is handled (I'd still prefer it actually be FIRED from its source rather than randomly generating around the target, which has been demonstrated to actually work in FAVOR of large aircraft formations).
There's a LOT of things that can be done to the game without resorting to more late-war uber rides.
Agreed. If ground and sea units are expanded (and done well) this may draw two other dedicated player niches.
-
For surface fleets, I would add several classes of each ship type, covering the Early, Mid and Late war periods, and include vessels from the four main navies (USN, RN, Kriegsmarine, and IJN). I'd expand the types of fleets as well. IE:
Carrier Battle Group - Surface fleet essentially as it is now (CV, CA and DD escorts) but remove LVTs and PTs, cannot pass within 25 miles of shore.
Light Battle Group - Surface fleet with a CVL and CL in place of the CV and CA.
Bombardment Group - Surface fleet replacing CV with a BB.
Landing Group - Consisting of 1 CVE (limited plane set; TBM, F4F, FM2, A6M, B5N, D3A, etc.) 1 LST (LVTs) and escorts of DEs.
Removing landing craft from the CV and BB groups means those two battle groups will now be a bit more realistically used, especially if you increase their closest approach to shore out to 25 miles (distance chosen since that's how far two bases on land should be) for the CV, and perhaps 15 miles for the BB (should still place it in guns range of shore targets). The landing group will be able to approach close enough to deploy LVTs (with the LST acting as a VH; destroy that and the group can't launch LVTs), but the reduced AAA capability means defenders don't have to deal as much with enemy AAA OVER THEIR OWN BASE (which I know frustrates EVERYONE).
Include a couple different classes as appropriate for each ship type from each country and for each arena. Say, an EWMA American-style CV group would consist of one Yorktown-class carrier, one Brooklyn-class cruiser, and several Clemson-class destroyers (I went with the four-pipers because numbers -- 156 of those were built -- and because the four-pipers would be visually distinctive).
This would have the ADDED bonus of providing more options for scenarios and special events. Imagine a Midway scenario where the Japanese fleet is made up of Hiryu, Soryu, Akagi and [/i]Kaga[/i]-class ships vs. three American Yorktowns (have fun with those starboard-side islands on Hiryu and Akagi, kids). ESPECIALLY if the new decal system HTC added to show the chess pieces could be extended to displaying a deck number based on arena settings, instead (so Yorktown, Enterprise and Hornet could all be properly numbered).
-
As for the ground war, I had this thought just now:
Rather than introducing an FPS game for infantry, have each "Army" act sort of like a CV. Armies deploy from a new base type (Camp), which can also launch GVs. Going to the army takes you to the Command Post. From the CP, the player can either spawn in a GV from the "motorpool," or issue orders to the army itself (move to a position, entrench, or attack a position). Say, an army that's moving or attacking will be shown in groups of fire teams, say with riflemen, mortars, bazookas, etc. An entrenched army would have machine gun nests, entrenched riflemen, mortarmen, etc. I'd also give tankers the ability to "dig in." It takes so many seconds to go into effect, and once dug-in the tank can't move (except, obviously, its turret). A dug-in tank decreases its icon distance, making it harder to spot, maybe even earthen berms around it to protect it from enemy fire. In order to move again, the tank has to first take so many seconds again to take down its camo netting, sandbags, etc.
Armies can capture Fields, Bases and Camps, which would also be defended by AI ground troops (these defending troops would not be player-controlled). The number or availability of AI ground troops would be determined by the condition of troops at the base. IE, knocking out the barracks at a base means the base doesn't have troops available to defend itself (or deploy additional troops if there are already defenders spawned). Progress of the ground war would then be affected by these factors:
1) Directly attacking and/or defending infantry positions via air or ground.
2) Interdiction of supply convoys or destruction of supply depots.
3) Attacking/defending strategic positions (bridges, etc.)
The army would have a given number of troops. If enough troops are destroyed, the army is destroyed. The army is reinforced by supply convoys (which would launch from supply depots) or player-delivered supplies via air-drops, M3s, etc. The players would also be responsible for providing armor support to the ground troops.
Now, I would NOT eliminate the ability to capture bases via C-47s and other troop carriers. HOWEVER, bases behind enemy lines would suffer penalties, such as:
1) Unable to repair itself/doesn't receive AI supply convoys.
2) Random enemy AI troop spawns at the perimeter (you're behind enemy lines, do you REALLY think the enemy isn't going to try to take it back)?
That means that if players capture a base behind the lines, the PLAYERS have to take responsibility for defending it.
-
We may ought to discuss these ideas (rehash them, somewhat) in another thread out of respect for WW's f8F thread. :)
-
I'd love to fly the bearcat in the game but not in the MA as the rules stand now without a big perk price,, it would be great to have tho, much like the RV8 , that said,, if it was flying in groups on VJ Day, I'd be for it,, heavily perked
-
http://www.warbirdsforum.com/topic/716-f4u-4-corsair-vs-f8f-2-bearcat/
A good read if anyone is interested In seeing others scwable about airplanes
Well, there was enough ignorance and crappy sources in that thread to make granite bleed...
-
Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water...
... J.A.W.
-
...
A few new bomber types, such as the A-26 or Beaufighter might be interesting
...
ahhmm... "Beaufighter"... not a bomber, it is right there in its name.
As much as I love the bearcat and Grumman birds, I do not want to see this one in the MA. Ta152 I agree that its numbers in service are ridiculous and it saw combat so fast mostly because it was being vulched on the productions line. The difference is that the 152 is not that impressive, but the F8F is not what I want to fight in my 1943 birds - 109K, F4U-4, LA7s and wonder Yak3s are plenty to deal with. A 262 with hispanos and the turn radius of an FM2 cannot be perked high enough.
-
Well, there was enough ignorance and crappy sources in that thread to make granite bleed...
Yes, lots of sorting through crap and fanboy "facts".
-
Well all that is pretty logical and not bad ideas Sax. However, two things attract the masses I'd say: Eye candy and hot-rods. How many kills and deaths in the LWMA last year compared to 2010 again?.
I think that is a slippery slope HTC should consider falling down. The monsters can be controlled via perks and/or their own arena. Or, considering it is now 100 years since the Great War broke out, they could go the OTHER way in what they choose to add. Either way, stagnation is death.
The big problem of adding the F8F is that it starts a pretty significant slippery slope. The game is already so late-war monster focused as it is, and adding machines like the F8F, F7F, P-51H and P-63 isn't going to help.
There's a lot of other things HTC can do to improve the arena experiences. Finishing updates of the older models and plugging gaps (especially the glaring early/mid-war holes, workhorses like the Beaufighter, etc.) should be a priority over adding beasts like the Bearcat. And then the game mechanics THEMSELVES should get a looking at.
I don't mean the upcoming graphics engine upgrade, though that update is pretty long overdue.
I mean stuff like modernizing the damage modeling (IE progressive rather than "all or nothing" damage modeling, flaps that CAN actually be shot away entirely rather than just "jammed", interior components like fuel, hydraulics, cooling and oil lines, control wires, etc.). Expand the ordinance system with more types of ordinance (Tiny Tims, parafrags) and a means of enforcing more realistic ordinance loadouts (IE, I'm not aware of Corsairs taking off from carriers with 2x1000lber AND a full load of rockets) IE through limiting the available loads depending on the launch base or adding perks for the extremely heavy loadouts on fighters to give dedicated attackers like the TBM a real purpose.
The strategy system could also stand tweaking, and there's a lot that can be done with the ground and surface war (IE, adding deployable infantry, battleships, expanding the types of ships beyond the late-war US fleet, etc.) Tweak AAA and object hardness in the EW and MW arenas to better reflect those arenas. Fix the way puffy ack is handled (I'd still prefer it actually be FIRED from its source rather than randomly generating around the target, which has been demonstrated to actually work in FAVOR of large aircraft formations).
There's a LOT of things that can be done to the game without resorting to more late-war uber rides.
-
Much as I'd love spending 10 years worth of perks flying a Bearcat in the MA I don't think it or other "borderline post-war" rides would be good for the game.
IIRC the F8F-1s deployed on carriers at the end of the war had four 0.5 in guns and the Hispano-equipped version was introduced post-war.
-
If the Bearcat enters the game it is all you will ever see.
-
Much as I'd love spending 10 years worth of perks flying a Bearcat in the MA I don't think it or other "borderline post-war" rides would be good for the game.
Why not? IMO more planes=good, more planes people will actually be excited to try=great!
-
If the Bearcat enters the game it is all you will ever see.
Yeah, the same thing will happen if the F4U-C/-4, Tempest, or 262 are ever added to the game...HEY WAIT A MINUTE...A thing called "the perk system" exists. I guess we both forgot about that for a minute. :D
-
You guys are making good points on both sides of the discussion. :salute
I say perk it like a 262.
I think more planes is better than less. Wow would this be fun to fly!
-
Yeah, the same thing will happen if the F4U-C/-4, Tempest, or 262 are ever added to the game...HEY WAIT A MINUTE...A thing called "the perk system" exists. I guess we both forgot about that for a minute. :D
I want mirage III and F4-phantom to be added. Just perk them. The more the better no?
Actually, no. There is a limit to how far you can stretch the disparity between the planes. The F8 will be a much greater horror than any 262. The tempest and f4u-4 do not even come close. Sure, a great addition to a dedicated arena.
-
I want mirage III and F4-phantom to be added. Just perk them. The more the better no?
Actually, no. There is a limit to how far you can stretch the disparity between the planes. The F8 will be a much greater horror than any 262. The tempest and f4u-4 do not even come close. Sure, a great addition to a dedicated arena.
The version we would likely get, would come with four .50 caliber guns. It would hardly be as disruptive as a Tempest or 262, due to the comparative lack of firepower. It would have to do more saddling up, slowing it down and giving P-51s and such a chance to catch it and put it on the defensive.
Fast, four cannon birds don't really need to slow down. One shot, one kill.
-
...Inasmuch as I can't envision any new fighters being introduced to Aces High that would not be sub-types of existing aircraft, or hole plugging aircraft (meaning early or mid war), there's nothing exciting to look forward to. A few new bomber types, such as the A-26 or Beaufighter might be interesting, but there isn't much left there either. The Luftwobbles have the special fuels, but where are the 150 octane fuels for the Allies? What about the F7F-1, F7F-2N and P-51H? All were operational before Japan surrendered? Perk them very high. But, excluding them doesn't build excitement for current or potential players.
Going forward, it's going to take more than improved graphics to bump up interest in Aces High. Game play changes and new aircraft will also be needed to bring back former players, keep current ones and draw new people. Without some exciting change of direction, I see it as SSDD, with prettier graphics.
A controversial idea:
Twenty Years of Combat Aviation 1914-1933
1914-1918 WWI arena
1919-1926 arena
1927-1933 arena
Twenty Years of Combat Aviation 1934-1953
1934-1938 including Spanish Civil War types
1939-1945 WWII arena
1946-1949 Cold War arena
1950-1953 Korea arena
Probably the second suggestion 1934-1953 is most reasonable if the WWI arena population is any indicator of general interest in biplanes. A Cold War arena would be interesting for monster lovers, Bearcats, Fury's and Sea Fury's, etc.
Actual combat is not required as long as the aircraft was produced in squadron strength. Aircraft in squadron strength were theoretically combat ready, even if they did not see combat. If a plane actually saw combat, even if produced in fewer numbers than squadron strength, then add it.
As far as "fantasy" goes, the MA has plenty, Corsair's shooting down P-47's etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.
Then after that. . .
Twenty years of Combat Aviation 1954 -1973, woohoo!
Actually I doubt if any of this will really work, but I thought it might stimulate better ideas. Have at it.
-
No way it deserves being perked like a 262. It's awesome, but not THAT awesome.
-
I want mirage III and F4-phantom to be added. Just perk them. The more the better no?
Because jet fighters with afterburners, missiles, complex radars and targeting avionics are clearly the same as a really hot prop fighter? You're being a bit silly Boz. I think it would make more sense for Hitech to work their way forward with more prop plane and maybe Korean-era jets than to jump right to Vietnam-ish era jet simulation, although it might be pretty cool if they someday went there. :D
I already proposed a speculative "1946" arena. BUT, such an arena is probably pointless, come to think of it. If they added such, it would probably just become the arena with the vast majority of players by default, player inclinations being what they are and they'd have to control the best planes like the Bearcats through lots of perks anyway.
There is a limit to how far you can stretch the disparity between the planes.
When it comes to prop fighters, the laws of physics were already drawing that line by the end of WWII. The F8F, P-51H, Sea Fury, etc are not THAT much greater than the hottest LW fighters like the LA7, 47M, F4U4, 109K, simply because there's not all that much farther that prop planes development can go within the laws of physics. The fastest speed EVER attained by piston-engined aircraft, a highly modified, souped-up F8F, is 528mph...not all that much faster than the 480-490 attributed to the fastest WWII fighters, all things considered.
The F8 will be a much greater horror than any 262.
The version of the F8F we are most likely to get would have a top speed of 421 mph, while the 262 can fly level at speeds that most prop fighters can barely dive to without entering compression. And the quad 30MMs, while being hard to use against fighters, shred bomber formations. So huh????? :huh
The tempest and f4u-4 do not even come close. Sure, a great addition to a dedicated arena.
Really? Both of them have a max speed higher than that of the Bearcat, and the Tempest has 4xHizookas against the 4x.50s available on the F8F-1 we are most likely to get.
-
Per WW, That 421mph was at sea level.
-
Per WW, That 421mph was at sea level.
I've read F8F specifications before, and 421 is often given as the *max speed* for the F8F-1 at about 19K in diverse places, such as this
http://www.aviation-history.com/grumman/f8f.html (http://www.aviation-history.com/grumman/f8f.html)
But indeed, converting the SL speed shown on Widewing's document from 366 *knots* to MPH yields 421 mph on the deck, which is almost hard to believe. I'm half wondering if the speed were measured in MPH and listing them in knots on this document was an oversight.
-
Hm. On that document, max level speed for the F8F at altitude is only about 7mph faster than on the deck...
-
Hm. On that document, max level speed for the F8F at altitude is only about 7mph faster than on the deck...
Yes, I noted that oddity. 372knots=~430mph at 18,000, good for but not amazing by WWII standards. Nowhere near as incredible as attaining 421 at SL.
Most planes seem to gain a lot more than that by getting nearly 20,000 feet higher.
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=0&p2=11&pw=1>ype=0&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
-
Just found another pdf with data for the F8F-2. http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F8F-2_Bearcat_SAC_-_1_September_1949.pdf
Max speed at seal level is given as 336 knots, not 366. (At altitude, it's 388 knots)
Almost looks like a typo in the first document to me.
-
Just found another pdf with data for the F8F-2. http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F8F-2_Bearcat_SAC_-_1_September_1949.pdf
Max speed at seal level is given as 336 knots, not 366. (At altitude, it's 388 mph)
Almost looks like a typo in the first document to me.
387mph? That seems more in line with common sense. :aok
-
I'd still love to fly it!
:airplane:
-
387 mph at sea level and the 0.5's armament instead of the hispanos would make it something that the MA can swallow given a hefty perk cost. 421 mph sea level, quad hizookas, and the beast's climb and turn rates on the other hand would make it a total horror. Still, just to put thing in perspective, 387 is about the max speeds of the Mosquito VI and the F6F - attained at 22,000 feet...
I have about 12,000 fighter perks with almost nothing to spend them on. How high can HTC perk it?
-
Perk it double or triple that of a 262 since it never saw combat.
Or perk it @ the same level as a 262 to fly it but one must wager all of their points if they do fly it.
I think it could be a fantastically fun addition to the game.
-
Thing would still be a unrivaled monster considering most of the fighting takes Place under 15k and it would have the static climb rate of a k4 and the diving ability of the other american planes.
Its also important to remember that the f8f was armed with newer m2 Browning which had a improved rate of fire over the ones that equip the majority of American rides. Now from what I hear, the new machine guns had reliability issues, but that wouldn't be modeled in the game.
If we see the f8f than I think the p63 should also be introduced.
Did the Corsair and F6F ever fly with higher octane fuels like the p51 and p47?
-
Just found another pdf with data for the F8F-2. http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F8F-2_Bearcat_SAC_-_1_September_1949.pdf
Max speed at seal level is given as 336 knots, not 366. (At altitude, it's 388 knots)
Almost looks like a typo in the first document to me.
Not a typo...F8F-2 had a different version of the R-2800, supercharged for medium altitude performance. The -1 was engineered for the anti-kamikaze mission, whereas that need disappeared before the -2 was engineered.
You gents need to do a better job reading the data sheets, because the answers to everyone's questions are right there....
F8F-1
(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/afb5/h8l8hruyw338qwzfg.jpg)
F8F-2
(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/785c/a7r66xtw2s7537mfg.jpg)
Both courtesy of Mike Williams.
-
Perk it double or triple that of a 262 since it never saw combat.
This makes not a lick of sense. Perks should be based on performance, not rarity. If rarity were a standard we'd have to perk the Ta-152, P47M, and 3 cannon LA7s.
-
had four 0.5 in guns and the Hispano-equipped version was introduced post-war.
So our version would just have 4 x .50 cals. Hardly a huge perk monster threat.
+1 to add it.
-
I already proposed a speculative "1946" arena. BUT, such an arena is probably pointless, come to think of it. If they added such, it would probably just become the arena with the vast majority of players by default
Agreed.
I suppose that AH doesn't have to be a WWII game, but if it is to remain such, you have to draw the line somewhere. Operational makes as much sense to me as any other standard.
- oldman
-
AH isn't just a WWII game. There's WWI as well. A Korean War arena wouldn't be out of place.
-
AH isn't just a WWII game. There's WWI as well. A Korean War arena wouldn't be out of place.
Yuck. I would not stick around if they put in a Korean war arena. If it was up to me I'd only ever fly mid war and early war.
-
Yuck. I would not stick around if they put in a Korean war arena. If it was up to me I'd only ever fly mid war and early war.
So, you would quit if they made a Korean War Arena? I'm searching for the logic in that.... :headscratch: Are they compelling you to fly in it?
By the way, it IS up to if you want to only fly early and mid war arenas. Who else determines where you fly?
-
The reason I don't fly in the Mid and Early war arena is because they are both empty. The Late War is the only Arena that sees a relatively consistent amount of traffic throughout the day. If a Future "Korean/1946 Arena" was to inherit the MA population than I would probably try my luck in other sims that don't cost a monthly subscription.
the best performing Planes aren't very interesting to me. Id rather fight ki-43s with a P40 than fight Ki-84s in a P51, Spit1/5/9 VS 109E/F rather than Spit8/14/16 vs 109G14/K4.
If I'm forced to have to deal with f86s and mig15s when all I want to fly is a P40C p47d11 f4u-1 etc, than I might as well do it for free in a game like War Thunder.
Probably could have made myself Clearer, but I made that other post from my phone on the train.
-
Just found another pdf with data for the F8F-2. http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F8F-2_Bearcat_SAC_-_1_September_1949.pdf
Max speed at seal level is given as 336 knots, not 366. (At altitude, it's 388 knots)
Almost looks like a typo in the first document to me.
387mph on the deck, ~440 at altitude, 5500+ft/min climb rate... that would be something unique.
Turn rate like an FM2... not too much. As far as i can remember, a simple 109G6 can give an FM2 a really hard time in the scissors, both in the flat and in the rolling. Thats quite good but absolutely nothing special.
4*50cals... meh... this plane would have to slow down - be vulnerable - to get a kill. BnZ or hin-n-run isnt all that easy with 4*50cals.
IMO this aircraft wouldnt be a game breaker at any level. Especially when perked around 30.
-
You gents need to do a better job reading the data sheets,
You hurt my feelings :cry
;)
-
You hurt my feelings :cry
;)
My deepest apologies!
:aok
-
Widewing you should know by now that Lusche struggles with graphs and tables.....
-
.
If I'm forced to have to deal with f86s and mig15s when all I want to fly is a P40C p47d11 f4u-1 etc, than I might as well do it for free in a game like War Thunder.
Probably could have made myself Clearer, but I made that other post from my phone on the train.
I don't believe that the LWMA will have Korean War jets in it. They would require their own arena....
-
Widewing you should know by now that Lusche struggles with graphs and tables.....
LOLOLOL
-
Widewing you should know by now that Lusche struggles with graphs and tables.....
I can call myself lucky that my own charts so rarely get checked for errors by other players ;)
(Seriously, I'm the King of Oversight :bhead)
-
So our version would just have 4 x .50 cals. Hardly a huge perk monster threat.
+1 to add it.
With the concentrated firepower that nose mounted center line guns bring to the table, 4x .50s pack a nice punch.
ack-ack
-
With the concentrated firepower that nose mounted center line guns bring to the table, 4x .50s pack a nice punch
Nose mounted center line guns? :headscratch:
-
Nose mounted center line guns? :headscratch:
got it confused with the F7F that had the nose mounted machine guns.
-
got it confused with the F7F that had the nose mounted machine guns.
F7F... Another beast.
More firepower than the Mossie, much faster, much better climb and acceleration. If the F7F were to be modeled, it would need to be perked at least as much as the Tempest. 2,000 lb bomb on center line, and two 1,000 lb bombs under the wings. That's 4k added to the stout fire power...
394 mph at SL, climb in WEP approaching 5,000 fpm. Add to that four 20mm and four .50 cal... Potentially more dangerous than the Tempest at the hit and run game....
-
F7F... Another beast.
More firepower than the Mossie, much faster, much better climb and acceleration.
Our mossie VI is a 1943 plane. If you want to compare F7F it to the 1946 Mossie offspring - try the Hornet.
-
Our mossie VI is a 1943 plane. If you want to compare F7F it to the 1946 Mossie offspring - try the Hornet.
The Hornet was post war, the F7F-1 and F7F-2N were fully operational before Japan surrendered... IE: NOT post war.
-
I don't believe that the LWMA will have Korean War jets in it. They would require their own arena....
He was saying there would be a new arena, but it would be the death of the current WWII arenas, and I agree. Adding a Korean War arena would, I think, lead to everyone flying in that arena and abandoning the current WWII arenas, which I think would be a very sad ending to what a lot of us love about Aces High.
-
He was saying there would be a new arena, but it would be the death of the current WWII arenas, and I agree. Adding a Korean War arena would, I think, lead to everyone flying in that arena and abandoning the current WWII arenas, which I think would be a very sad ending to what a lot of us love about Aces High.
I don't think the Korean war would be as popular as WWII, as most of the WWII plane set would not be appropriate to Korea and thus not available. For instance, the P-51H would be a great nearly-made-it-into-combat plane to introduce as a highly perked ride in the LWMA, but it was not used in Korea, so putting it in there as a (presumably) un-perked plane would be iffy. Thus the best niche for it and many planes of roughly the same kind (advanced prop planes and very early jets from the end of war till 1950 or so) would be as very perked "what-might-have-been" planes in the LWMA.
-
I don't think the Korean war would be as popular as WWII
It certainly wasn't in AW.
- oldman
-
For reasons stated I vote we add the F8F at some point. Did not see combat but clearly in squad strength. The Ta-152 saw combat though, if I remember correctly, not what you would call squad strength.
Down the road yes. Marketing plan to get up numbers associated with the release of eye candy first.
boo
-
It certainly wasn't in AW.
- oldman
This is why it should not be labeled "Korea", which is very limiting. Instead it should be "cold-war" or something and can include all jets and the last prop fighters/attackers from the 50s and early 60s - the kind with no significant radar and guns as their main weapon (crappy 1st generation, 40 deg aspect, IR missiles still require ACM). Later than that it becomes switches combat.
-
I disagree. If it doesn't involve a guns on solution then leave it out.
WWI
SCW
WWII
KOREAN WAR
Leave 'missles high' to some Eastern European outfit.
Now, WWII surface ships .....
-
I disagree. If it doesn't involve a guns on solution then leave it out.
WWI
SCW
WWII
KOREAN WAR
Leave 'missles high' to some Eastern European outfit.
This is why I said till early 60s.
Missiles were pretty much useless against fighters till the late 60s or even into the 70s. It did not prevent planes from carrying them and lobbing a few of them around, but the vast majority of the kills in that period were with cannons.
-
This is why I said till early 60s.
Missiles were pretty much useless against fighters till the late 60s or even into the 70s. It did not prevent planes from carrying them and lobbing a few of them around, but the vast majority of the kills in that period were with cannons.
Leave 'Sam I Am' to dem otha guyses. ;)
-
With Hispano's it would be that awesome.
No way it deserves being perked like a 262. It's awesome, but not THAT awesome.
-
Spanish Civil War arena(or a 1920s/30s Arena) would be cooler than a 1946 or Korean War arena.
-
(http://steadystate.org/wp-content/uploads/slippery-slope.png)
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/Untitled_zps077d9f0f.png~original)
-
Spanish Civil War arena(or a 1920s/30s Arena) would be cooler than a 1946 or Korean War arena.
An uber-bipe/early hotrod mono dogfighter's paradise. :D
-
Yes, the F8F is a beast and would be able to pwn just about anything else flying here now. That said, it is rather short legged as it was designed for the fleet interceptor role. Once you dump off all those external tanks and get into a fight, you'd better keep your eye on the fuel gauge. Frankly, introducing another perked plane into the game probably wouldn't do much - we don't see hordes of F4U-4s running around, and that is definitely the hottest thing you can take off a deck right now.
I'd rather hitech spend the time getting all the rides we have now up to spec - it is frankly embarrassing to have the spits and typhoons with a nice cockpit while the tempest looks like it does. Once that is done I'd like to see a couple more axis rides (maybe a J2M and Fiat G.55) so that the FSO's get a little more varied.
-
What EagleDNY said.
Great bird. Should be added. A squadron of them flew over the signing of the peace treaty already!
Add other needed planes first please.
-
F8F is a neat bird. I would never fly in AH again if it were added. The level of helplessness most aircraft in AH would have against it, four BMG .50s are plenty, make it a game killer. Me262 is pathetic in comparison.
-
F8F is a neat bird. I would never fly in AH again if it were added. The level of helplessness most aircraft in AH would have against it, four BMG .50s are plenty, make it a game killer. Me262 is pathetic in comparison.
Dude, seriously? Four fifties are enough 1v1 but in a normal MA environment, an F8F is going to have to fly more like a Tempest because everyone will be gunning for him. Uber four cannon birds are going to be far more dangerous to your Mossie. In a 1v1 scenario, most LW fighters will crush the Mossie in short order. How would things be any different with an F8F?
-
Dude, seriously? Four fifties are enough 1v1 but in a normal MA environment, an F8F is going to have to fly more like a Tempest because everyone will be gunning for him. Uber four cannon birds are going to be far more dangerous to your Mossie. In a 1v1 scenario, most LW fighters will crush the Mossie in short order. How would things be any different with an F8F?
F8fs 4 fifty's would have a higher rate of fire than the 6 fifties found in the f6f.
-
Uber four cannon birds are going to be far more dangerous to your Mossie. In a 1v1 scenario, most LW fighters will crush the Mossie in short order.
Hmmm... Believe me - no they don't.
-
In a 1v1 scenario, most LW fighters will crush the Mossie in short order. How would things be any different with an F8F?
I have performance advantages over most Luftwaffe birds, and for the few that have total performance advantage over the Mossie the margins are at least narrow in some areas. The F8F is as fast as a Tempest, climbs much better than the Bf109K-4/Spitfire Mk XIV and turns better than the Spitfire Mk IX. The four .50s are a bit light, but they are also well more than enough to get the job done. No fighter in AH comes close to making fights this lopsided. A highly perked Tempest would be helpless to it.
With an F8F on me I may as well just bail out.
I can dodge an Me262 at least.
-
:bhead :bhead :bhead
The F8F could put out the same amount bullets as a p47. Its guns had a higher rate of fire.
-
F8F is a neat bird. I would never fly in AH again if it were added. The level of helplessness most aircraft in AH would have against it, four BMG .50s are plenty, make it a game killer. Me262 is pathetic in comparison.
In a game that already has the Spit16, F4U-4, and Tempest, that is fairly freaking silly.
-
In a game that already has the Spit16, F4U-4, and Tempest, that is fairly freaking silly.
Those are all tame compared to the F8F.
Most fighters have at least some performance edges on the Spit XVI, F4U-4 and Tempest. Few fighters have any performance edge on the F8F, and other than the Me163 and Me262 the only edge is turn capability of the planes with exceptionally low wing loading.
To pretend the F8F is remotely in the same category as the Spit XVI, F4U-4 and Tempest is absurd.
-
To pretend the F8F is remotely in the same category as the Spit XVI, F4U-4 and Tempest is absurd.
A FM2 which outclimbs a 109K and just walks away from a Tempest would truly be in a leage of it's own. Nothing here would be comparable.
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/quickcompf8f_zps397b019e.jpg)
(As per this thread, I took the FM2 turning data to stand in for the F8F)
On the deck, the F8F has about the same speed advantage over the Tempst as the Tempes has over the Spitfire 16.
-
I have performance advantages over most Luftwaffe birds, and for the few that have total performance advantage over the Mossie the margins are at least narrow in some areas. The F8F is as fast as a Tempest, climbs much better than the Bf109K-4/Spitfire Mk XIV and turns better than the Spitfire Mk IX. The four .50s are a bit light, but they are also well more than enough to get the job done. No fighter in AH comes close to making fights this lopsided. A highly perked Tempest would be helpless to it.
With an F8F on me I may as well just bail out.
I can dodge an Me262 at least.
So when I'm flying a P-40 and encounter a F4U, should I bail out?
The F4U is faster, accelerates faster, climbs faster, zooms higher, turns better, rolls better, dives better, more durable and has a much better field of vision.
-
So when I'm flying a P-40 and encounter a F4U, should I bail out?
The F4U is faster, accelerates faster, climbs faster, zooms higher, turns better, rolls better, dives better, more durable and has a much better field of vision.
The margin of performance difference is much narrower between the P-40 and the F4U on some of those metrics. I don't have a problem with an uphill fight, I will and have taken on Bf109K-4s and La-7s which do to my Mossie what the F4U does to your P-40. We do this because the difference in performance in some aspects is close enough to be overcome. The F8F is so much better that to have a chance, not win, just a chance, the F8F driver would need to be completely, absolutely incompetent. As opposed to just not as good. I don't think you are appreciating how very superior the F8F is.
-
The margin of performance difference is much narrower between the P-40 and the F4U on some of those metrics. I don't have a problem with an uphill fight, I will and have taken on Bf109K-4s and La-7s which do to my Mossie what the F4U does to your P-40. We do this because the difference in performance in some aspects is close enough to be overcome. The F8F is so much better that to have a chance, not win, just a chance, the F8F driver would need to be completely, absolutely incompetent. As opposed to just not as good. I don't think you are appreciating how very superior the F8F is.
Most of those margins are not even close P-40 vs F4U. The only way I can beat one is if I have the drop on him and he is slow on the deck, or just plain not very good.
If perked accordingly, you won't find too many F8Fs slowing down to dance with P-40s or Mossies in the MA. I think you are overestimating how many Bearcats you will have to fight.
-
Be funny if they give it the F4F icon, just to see it run down a typhoon icon with ease. :ahand
To be honest, I don't think the F8F would be that interesting of an addition. If anything it would make me appreciate the other Grumman birds more. If we added the P-63 it would just make me want to fly the p39 more. I really don't think the Bearcat should be a priority, mostly because it would make for a pretty unintresting plane to fly and fight.
-
The Spixteen just plain owns the Focke Wulfe A5. Therefore, the spixteen should not have been added to the game. The F4u4 out-runs, out-climbs, out-rolls, and out-turns a whole long list of different planes. Therefore delete. Etc. ''The Bearcat is better than my favorite plane'' isn't an argument for not adding it, just for perking it as appropriate. I'm sure if is added HTC will watch usage and kill death ratio and adjust as needed, in no more than a decade :rofl
-
'Participated in combat' (shot down a plane, strafed a truck, dropped a bomb, deployed troops, shelled the shore, shot a tank, was shot by a tank, launched aircraft into battle, etc.) during WWII (before it ended) should be a hard line qualifier. This whole 'operational' (and argument over what that means) seems to bring out the most fervent Buck Rogers fans. ;)
-
Thing is, they've already added most of the things that participated which are particularly interesting to the masses. And getting to see the absolute zenith prop planes as highly perked options will be very interesting. Come on...you telling me you have NO interest in seeing how a Spiteful stacks up against an F7F, or the like?
'Participated in combat' (shot down a plane, strafed a truck, dropped a bomb, deployed troops, shelled the shore, shot a tank, was shot by a tank, launched aircraft into battle, etc.) during WWII (before it ended) should be a hard line qualifier. This whole 'operational' (and argument over what that means) seems to bring out the most fervent Buck Rogers fans. ;)
-
Thing is, they've already added most of the things that participated which are particularly interesting to the masses. And getting to see the absolute zenith prop planes as highly perked options will be very interesting. Come on...you telling me you have NO interest in seeing how a Spiteful stacks up against an F7F, or the like?
No, I'm not. I'm more into historical event play than MA chesspiece run-popping anyhoo. My stats reflect that all too well. I'm not against the MA. AAMOF, a corsair squadron will get more time in its bird there than anywhere. But this 'we've run out of interesting uber that fought in WWII so lets bring in those that missed the fight' thing isn't as appealing to me as a steady progression of gap filling and potential expansion of the ship and ground sets that'll entice players intrigued by that, as well.
-
Maybe some just don't want the UFO-4 knocked off it's "uberest prop fighter" perch.
-
-4 sucks. -1 is better.
-
Maybe some just don't want the UFO-4 knocked off it's "uberest prop fighter" perch.
In the context of the MA, the U4 ain't the 'uberest' fighter anyway.
-
Maybe some just don't want the UFO-4 knocked off it's "uberest prop fighter" perch.
I wouldn't miss the F4U-4 if it disappeared today. Probably wouldn't notice unless someone brought it to my attention. But then, this ain't about subtraction. :)
-
As a fan of the Grumman aircraft, on one hand I'd like to see the F8F added but on the other hand there's still a lot more important work to do under the current inclusion criteria.
I guess some of you no longer want to see the Beufighter, A-26, a true British tank, expanded naval warfare, updated AHI models, etc., etc., etc.
If it was up to me I'd rather see the F3F added.
(http://hsfeatures.com/features04/images/DSC06409.jpg)
-
No love for the Italians? A single bomber? A single tank? :D
-
If the F8F is added, just make sure the wingtips break off at 7.5G's. That was a big design incorporation to keep the wing structure light.
-
The Spixteen just plain owns the Focke Wulfe A5. Therefore, the spixteen should not have been added to the game. The F4u4 out-runs, out-climbs, out-rolls, and out-turns a whole long list of different planes. Therefore delete. Etc. ''The Bearcat is better than my favorite plane'' isn't an argument for not adding it, just for perking it as appropriate. I'm sure if is added HTC will watch usage and kill death ratio and adjust as needed, in no more than a decade :rofl
The margin of superiority the Mk XVI has over the Fw190A-5 (not the best fighter in AH) is minuscule compared to the margin of superiority the F8F holds over the F4U-4 and Tempest (the best fighters in AH) so your comparison is 100% bullcrap. The Spit doesn't even hold a speed advantage over the A-5.
-
So maybe it could be added for some other reason than the MA,, much like the RV8?
-
Why have Post war fighters when we can have Even better Pre-war fighters :x I15 anyone?
-
Why have Post war fighters when we can have Even better Pre-war fighters :x I15 anyone?
Not entirely sure its a pre.
-
Thing is, they've already added most of the things that participated which are particularly interesting to the masses.
Which sets me to wondering: How much does an expanded plane set really matter? Seems to me that the vast majority of people find one plane, perhaps two or three, and stick with it/them forever and ever. I just don't hear many people saying "Hey, I've flown every plane in AH, and now I'm bored because I'm master of all of them and there are no new planes to present me with a challenge."
- oldman
-
Why have Post war fighters when we can have Even better Pre-war fighters :x I15 anyone?
This also sounds great to me. However, the hot rods are more likely to attract new players.
-
The margin of superiority the Mk XVI has over the Fw190A-5 (not the best fighter in AH) is minuscule compared to the margin of superiority the F8F holds over the F4U-4 and Tempest (the best fighters in AH) so your comparison is 100% bullcrap. The Spit doesn't even hold a speed advantage over the A-5.
You should not accuse me of "100% bullcrap" while making a statement that shows you to be unfamiliar with your charts.
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=86&p2=23&pw=1>ype=0&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
The fact that the F8F is superior to the F4U-4 and Tempest is again irrelevant and does not constitute a logical argument. Shall we delete the F4U4, Temp, as well as the La7 and 109K4 because they simultaneously out-run, out-turn, and out-climb many other aircraft?
-
The fact that the F8F is superior to the F4U-4 and Tempest is again irrelevant and does not constitute a logical argument.
No plane currently in AH, including Tempest, F4U, La-7, SPit 16 or 109K, has that much of an edge above the whole plane as the F8F would have. It's almost 40mph faster on the deck than the next fastes plane, yet still turning better than almost all others and outclimbing everything.
These combination of traits is what would result in an absolutely singular performance.
And by the way, I do not think that at this point, any reasonable number of players would be attracted to AH just because plane X or Y would had been added. I have not seen any surge in players because of the additions in the past years, not even when the B-29 was added (at that point IIRC AH was the only combat sim where you couzld actively fly one?).
-
No plane currently in AH, including Tempest, F4U, La-7, SPit 16 or 109K, has that much of an edge above the whole plane as the F8F would have. It's almost 40mph faster on the deck than the next fastes plane, yet still turning better than almost all others and outclimbing everything.
These combination of traits is what would result in an absolutely singular performance.
Thus it would demand a singular perk price. At the end of the day though, it would attract a lot of attention and fall to pieces from a diving picker's cannon blast in about the same way anything else does.
Plus, I have to say I am *still* a little :huh about the performance. It is EXTRAORDINARILY fast on the deck compared to just about everything, including similarly hot-rodded flying engines, but by 18K it is still fast but not really amazingly fast? :headscratch:
-
Question on turning: Wik lists a loaded weight for the Bearcat of 9,600 pounds, and a wing area of 244 square feet. That works out to a wing-loading of 39.3 pounds per square foot. This is not extraordinarily light for a late war piston fighter. By comparison from the same source, the F4U-4 has a wing area of 314 square feet, loaded weight of 12,405. That works out to 39.5 pounds per square foot. How then, can the F8F be expected to out-turn everything?
-
Another question:
Climbing-Dividing the horsepower given for the F8F-1 (2,750) by the loaded weight of 9,600 pounds yields a ratio of .29 horsepower per pound.
By comparison, the SpitXIV's Gryphon produces 2,050 HP for a 6700 pound airplane. That yields a power/weight ratio right at .3 horsepower per pound. How then does the Bearcat out-climb the SpitXIV?
-
You should not accuse me of "100% bullcrap" while making a statement that shows you to be unfamiliar with your charts.
I made my comment after looking at that exact chart, and I stand by it. For most of the AH combat altitudes they are essentially the same speed. WEP favors the 190 by a wide margin.
Another question:
Climbing-Dividing the horsepower given for the F8F-1 (2,750) by the loaded weight of 9,600 pounds yields a ratio of .29 horsepower per pound.
By comparison, the SpitXIV's Gryphon produces 2,050 HP for a 6700 pound airplane. That yields a power/weight ratio right at .3 horsepower per pound. How then does the Bearcat out-climb the SpitXIV?
Climb test here:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14climbchart.jpg
shows the Spitfire XIV at 8,500lbs, not 6,700lbs.
Honestly, 6,700lbs looks like the empty weight for a Mk IX perhaps, maybe the normal load for a Mk V.
-
Question on turning: Wik lists a loaded weight for the Bearcat of 9,600 pounds, and a wing area of 244 square feet. That works out to a wing-loading of 39.3 pounds per square foot. This is not extraordinarily light for a late war piston fighter. By comparison from the same source, the F4U-4 has a wing area of 314 square feet, loaded weight of 12,405. That works out to 39.5 pounds per square foot. How then, can the F8F be expected to out-turn everything?
I don't think it can out-turn everything in the sense of minimum turn radius.
A Navy document compared all late war fighters against the Ki-61. The F8F-1 and F7F-1 were added to the test. However, these aircraft were flown not using combat power (WEP). So keep that in mind. This document places the F8F-1 in between the FM-2 and F6F-5 in turn radius.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/Tony-I.pdf (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/Tony-I.pdf)
Despite the above, the F8F-1's true advantage is in its ability to maintain E better than any other fighter. It's tremendous excess power means that it will dominate tighter turning fighters, because it utterly owns the vertical.
-
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14climbchart.jpg
shows the Spitfire XIV at 8,500lbs, not 6,700lbs.
You are correct sir. Me culpa.
As to the A5 versus Spixteen, the A5 has virtually no chance in a fight against a competently driven Spixteen. The Spixteen's higher acceleration and better energy retention means the A5 cannot expect to engage and then be able to disengage, much less get away if a Spixteen is diving on it with alt.
But yes, the F8F would definitely demand a very high perk price. What can I say, when American engineers set out to apply the same design philosophy as the La7, WOWZERS. :O
-
BnZ, the bearcat will have next to bill value in attracting new players. It is not famous as the mustang or the spitfire (most new player will probably not know what is an F8f) and the need to perk it high means the new players cannot fly it anyway.
-
And by the way, I do not think that at this point, any reasonable number of players would be attracted to AH just because plane X or Y would had been added. I have not seen any surge in players because of the additions in the past years, not even when the B-29 was added (at that point IIRC AH was the only combat sim where you couzld actively fly one?).
Spanish Civil War .... arena. :D
(http://vonoben.free.fr/Saw/sawac.jpg)
-
Spanish Civil War .... arena. :D
(http://vonoben.free.fr/Saw/sawac.jpg)
oh my god that would be so cool.
He111s would be the B29s of that arena, and the i16 the tempest.
-
BnZ, the bearcat will have next to bill value in attracting new players. It is not famous as the mustang or the spitfire (most new player will probably not know what is an F8f) and the need to perk it high means the new players cannot fly it anyway.
The average Joe has not heard of the F8F, you are correct, but the kind of person who might sign up for this game is likely to have heard of and be interested in the Bearcat and other other slightly-post war types, as they were the hottest piston engine fighters ever built.
-
But yes, the F8F would definitely demand a very high perk price. What can I say, when American engineers set out to apply the same design philosophy as the La7, WOWZERS. :O
Actually the F8F was heavily influenced by Kurt Tank. Many of the things that made the 190s so revolutionary are found in the Bearcat. Big reason why its loved by warbird enthusiasts. The mating of Kurt tanks revolutionary approach to aircraft design, and the proven evolutionary methods that made Grumman so sucessful.
-
The average Joe has not heard of the F8F, you are correct, but the kind of person who might sign up for this game is likely to have heard of and be interested in the Bearcat and other other slightly-post war types, as they were the hottest piston engine fighters ever built.
1946 area. However, if it is considered evidence, the LW is more popular then the MW and the EW. 1946 will draw away from LW.
And .... 'slightly' is as post war as the stealth fighter is. make exceptions and you're really advocating a whole new game. Lets just ask HT to model every aircraft, ship and tank ever conceived from 1900 to now and put it all in one arena.
-
Actually the F8F was heavily influenced by Kurt Tank. Many of the things that made the 190s so revolutionary are found in the Bearcat. Big reason why its loved by warbird enthusiasts. The mating of Kurt tanks revolutionary approach to aircraft design, and the proven evolutionary methods that made Grumman so sucessful.
I understand this, but I was referring to the "little airplane as possible attached to as big a radial engine as possible" concept, of which the La7 seems like the purest example we have.
-
1946 area. However, if it is considered evidence, the LW is more popular then the MW and the EW. 1946 will draw away from LW.
And .... 'slightly' is as post war as the stealth fighter is. make exceptions and you're really advocating a whole new game. Lets just ask HT to model every aircraft, ship and tank ever conceived from 1900 to now and put it all in one arena.
We already have advanced prop fighters and an early jet, so the F8F or P-80 wouldn't be qualitatively different the way a modern jet would be.
-
I would like to experience this as modeled by HTC. Perk it 1,000 points if needed.
http://www.airbum.com/pireps/PirepBearcat.html (http://www.airbum.com/pireps/PirepBearcat.html)
-
We already have advanced prop fighters and an early jet, so the F8F or P-80 wouldn't be qualitatively different the way a modern jet would be.
You're not getting me. There is no 'slightly' post-war. It's either post-war or it isn't. There's either a set qualifier or there isn't. Once you cross the line, why even have different arenas for different eras, at all?
-
You don't think there is a difference between adding a propeller-driven fighter that actually flew over the peace signing and the stealth fighter you mentioned? That's not very reasonable.
-
You don't think there is a difference between adding a propeller-driven fighter that actually flew over the peace signing and the stealth fighter you mentioned? That's not very reasonable.
What I'm saying is there's a logical line already drawn ... not a 'well this is close enough, lets add it' which will invariably be followed by 'well they added that, they may as well add THIS because it will be cooler!' ad infinitum. You finding that unreasonable or even irrational doesn't change what it clearly is ... which is a whole new game from:
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/What_Aces_High_IS_zpse2fefc70.png~original)
F8f didn't fight in the war. Get over it. You can. :) :cheers:
-
If the "saw combat in WWII" rule is absolute that is one thing. But the P-51H was on a plane poll once...*shrug*.
A second thing to think about regarding the "saw combat in WWII" is that we have one jet, one rocket plane, and that rule would allow for at least one more jet fighter, the Meteor. Yet some advanced prop planes would be too much?
-
Heh, it could be added as an "evil con" plane.
-
If the "saw combat in WWII" rule is absolute that is one thing. But the P-51H was on a plane poll once...*shrug*.
A second thing to think about regarding the "saw combat in WWII" is that we have one jet, one rocket plane, and that rule would allow for at least one more jet fighter, the Meteor. Yet some advanced prop planes would be too much?
Gimme a choice that saw combat in WWII. I may get on board (after the Sparviero). :D
-
Gimme a choice that saw combat in WWII. I may get on board (after the Sparviero). :D
The Me-262 is already in game. The Meteor was used to oppose buzz bombs in WWII, and thus could conceivably be added under the operational usage rule. The Me-163, a rocket-plane whose performance makes the F8F look pale by comparison, is actually in the game. But some very high-performing prop planes would be too much? Is your objection based on pure historical integrity? In that case, well and good. Otherwise it doesn't hold water.
-
Is your objection based on pure historical integrity? In that case, well and good.
It only took me a dozen posts to get that across, if I have. :D
-
It only took me a dozen posts to get that across, if I have. :D
It's always prudent to verify. So, how do you feel about Mustangs fighting Spitfires, Fireflies shooting T-34s, and the always problematic combo of an La7 and a Zero winging together?
-
It's always prudent to verify. So, how do you feel about Mustangs fighting Spitfires, Fireflies shooting T-34s, and the always problematic combo of an La7 and a Zero winging together?
It is an established part of the game. I prefer historical scenarios. But I also like flying the F4U. It is a persona/fan thing ever since I first read about the Jolly Rogers of WWII and I've stayed a loyal JR since AW (which also had that arena format). The MA becomes an 'evil necessity' in that case. My squad is coming back to the MA because of our desire to fly the F4U more oft. That being the case, we will be shooting down enemy captured Ponies, B-17s, Spitfires, etc over an alien landscape for the honor of whatever chess piece country 'pays' us best for our service (be it comradeship, us recognizing a numbers shift and all of us being able to switch, or just being there to finish a specific fight). This is Aces High and all that is part of it.
:) :cheers:
-
What I'm saying is there's a logical line already drawn ... not a 'well this is close enough, lets add it' which will invariably be followed by 'well they added that, they may as well add THIS because it will be cooler!' ad infinitum. You finding that unreasonable or even irrational doesn't change what it clearly is ... which is a whole new game from:
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/What_Aces_High_IS_zpse2fefc70.png~original)
F8f didn't fight in the war. Get over it. You can. :) :cheers:
Arlo, that arbitrary distinction lacks any truly valid reasoning. It favors those nations who were totally defensive at the end of the war. By any standard I have ever heard of, the Ta 152H was not operational. Not even close. It saw combat because the combat came to it... Any flyable fighter, including prototypes and very limited production types saw combat out of desperation, not because they were combat ready.
Hundreds of F8F-1s were in squadron service before the war ended. It is NOT a post war fighter. The accident of Japanese surrender doesn't make it a post war fighter. They were in the combat zone, just days from flight ops.
Arbitrary rules as to what qualifies for inclusion is one of the factors that makes me wonder if I want to continue my subscription (which, to support HTC, I pay every month, whether or not I actually play).
The market has evolved (and will continues to do so), and competition seems to be growing. The new graphics engine is a big step, but it offers nothing the other guys already offer in terms of eye candy. Will this increase market share? Likely not. What may be needed is a fundamental change in game play, and abandoning of arbitrary, and maybe narrow-minded, thinking.
Same for the F7F-1 and F7F-2N, although in lesser numbers.
-
Nothing arbitrary about it. A WWII fighter plane is a fighter plane that fought in WWII.
F8F is cool. It's a monster. But you said it yourself - " ... just days from flight ops." Like some planes were just weeks. Some just months. But ... it either fought in WWII or it didn't. Almost doesn't count. A flyover when the papers were signed doesn't count. Being the second plane flown by the Blue Angels doesn't count (even if I think it was the coolest).
If not getting the F8F seems like grounds for cancelling your sub, i got nothing to say about that since it seems more arbitrary than anything discussed in this thread to date.
Wait, I do have something to say. I like you. I'd miss you being in the game even though neither of us fly a whole helluva lot, lately. I relate to you even out of game. I don't understand why you'd use that as an excuse to quit.
P.S. Blame the A bomb. I'm pretty sure the Japanese didn't surrender just to keep the F8F out of AH, though. (J/K) ;) :cheers:
-
Wait, I do have something to say. I like you. I'd miss you being in the game even though neither of us fly a whole helluva lot, lately. I relate to you even out of game. I don't understand why you'd use that as an excuse to quit.
Likewise.
Any cut-off is going to be arbitrary. The Ta-152 has been an outlier forever; it should not have been added at the beginning of the game, simply because it crosses the line to "what if."
That doesn't make it sensible to compound the initial error.
HTC could have made a hard cut-off of January 1, 1945. We would have had one - one - plane less. And we wouldn't have to be arguing about what's operational, what's seen combat, whatever.
But you can't leave, WW. So it is written.
- oldman
-
I once came up with an AVA setup that was based on the A Bomb not being developed in time to end WWII. I believe we didn't have the B-29 so something went wrong with its development, as well. The islands were surrounded. It was going to be a tough nut to crack. The Japanese had their entire AH plane set plus we did up skins for the 262 (as the Kikka) and the 163 as the "Shusui-kai." I did it for selfish reasons. Pac setups with F4Us were literally shunned by pro-axis players. The Corsair was just considered too overwhelming. Back then, VF-17 would often take to flying IJ planes to enjoy any PAC setup with Corsairs just to have a Japanese opponent. But, iirc, the "Second Wind" AvA setup enjoyed a fair amount of participation and nobody felt 'overwhelmed.'
This was a makeshift event. I never thought it would lead to the development of a Japanese jet or rocket plane for AH (and rightly, it didn't). 'Second Wind' was never set up again.
Why do I mention this? Because it was fun thinking outside the box.
Is it worth HTC spending time modeling planes that didn't see combat in WWII? My opinion is no. Would I fly in a '1946' arena if they did? Probably. I'd fly in a Korean War arena.
But I don't see limiting the planes being modeled to ones that saw combat in WWII (or earlier) as 'arbitrary' at all. It sounds like a very clear and thought out decision. Going outside of that parameter sounds like a Pandora's Box to me.
Just thought I'd add that. :cheers:
-
Arbitrary rules as to what qualifies for inclusion is one of the factors that makes me wonder if I want to continue my subscription (which, to support HTC, I pay every month, whether or not I actually play).
I'm sorry, WW, as much as I respect your knowledge of WWII aviation and enjoy the information you post, if you're willing to quit the game over something as minor as where HTC draws the line at aircraft inclusion, I HAVE to say, "So long."
I don't fly much myself lately. It's not because of what aircraft are or are not present. It's because in many ways things feel stale with the mechanics. There's SO MUCH MORE I'd rather see them work on than modeling aircraft that didn't fire a single round in anger:
A modernized and more detailed damage model. Seriously, it's 2014. We're LONG past the time that the all-or-nothing major components only damage model is sufficient. Introduce gradual degradation of flight and control surfaces. Put in oil and fuel lines, control wires, hydraulics, electrical systems, and other components that can be shredded by enemy fire. Fuselage fires, engine fires. Set it up so that damage to the wing spar may reduce the G forces it takes to rip it off.
Improve the flight physics and flight system modelling. I, for one, would love to see more accounting for the pilot and control layout of each aircraft, which those of us with HOTAS setups take for granted. People complain about F4U hoverflaps? Then do something to represent that the pilot physically can't drop the flaps while simultaneously managing throttle and trim (but compensate by giving the Corsair and Hellcat their spring-deployed flaps so players can opt to "set and forget" the first two notches), and that will certainly alter how the Corsair is flown. Take away the nerf on torque effects. Add some more complexity to engine management (not to Il-2's artificial engine overheat level, but the simplified management we have takes away one of the big advantages German iron had over Allied rides). Remove trim from control surfaces on aircraft that didn't have them (or, like in the Tony docs you posted, have some that can only be set when the aircraft is on the ground and stopped).
People complain about how ridiculously easy gunnery is? Add slipstreams, prop wash, thermals, turbulence, and other environmental factors that would impact gunnery through their effects on flight characteristics.
Increase the options for ordinance and ground attack. Add parafrags for the B-25s and Tiny Tims, get the perked ordinance system for heavier-than-standard loads up and running. Update the physics to allow skip-bombing.
Do something to update the ground and surface campaign, improve the strat system and base/territory mechanics, expand naval and ground combat in a way that makes it much more significant for the "Win the War" crowd.
THESE are the sorts of things that most need attention. As has already been said throughout this thread, there's not much more in the way of aircraft that have enough "wow" factor to lure in new players or lure back transients for that to be any sort of solution.
-
I do agree about the damage modeling.
Remove trim from control surfaces on aircraft that didn't have them (or, like in the Tony docs you posted, have some that can only be set when the aircraft is on the ground and stopped).
The reason the trim system is as it is in AH is because being out of trim is a much bigger headache and cause of bouncy-bouncy in a sim flown with a plastic joystick than in a real plane. Especially if a player doesn't have a good set of rudders.
People complain about how ridiculously easy gunnery is? Add slipstreams, prop wash, thermals, turbulence, and other environmental factors that would impact gunnery through their effects on flight characteristics.
I do not complain about how "easy" gunnery is, because it isn't. Some people in this game simply have vastly more practice at gunnery under combat conditions than any pilot could ever have gotten in real life. I do not think the complexity of adding the effects you mention would be worthwhile, indeed I think those factors would tend to compound the age-old problem in flight sims I mention above, namely the greater difficulty of flying in a stable manner using a small joystick with small throws and springs versus an actual stick with real control forces one can feel.
-
By the "standards" for entry as we know it, it seems to me the Beafighter or P-61 stands a better chance of being modeled than either the F8F or F7F.
-
By the "standards" for entry as we know it, it seems to me the Beafighter or P-61 stands a better chance of being modeled than either the F8F or F7F.
For that matter, the P-61 would be a solid add for a heavy fighter even without night.
-
By the "standards" for entry as we know it, it seems to me the Beafighter or P-61 stands a better chance of being modeled than either the F8F or F7F.
I've been around for just over 2 weeks now and something I have never seen is a definitive "standard" for inclusion!
The only thing I have ever seen stated by HTC is that no 1off's and no prototypes.
Everything else is just conjecture,I have never seen HTC state"it had to have seen combat",I have seen it stated that they would like it to have been in service but thats it.
I challenge anyone to post a link,snip a quote,anything that shows HTC stating anything other than what I already said.
We have a perk system in place to deal with overly dominate planes,if the F8f and or the F7f were added fine just perk them like the 262 and if that doesnt work,just increase the perk cost till it does. Threatening to quit whether it's introduced or not,while it does show passion I think is a little over the top!
Besides we could use Widewing in the trainers corps.......... He was among the best of the best in that regard!
:salute
-
Philosophical question: If a fighter didn't see combat during WWII .... was that fighter a 'WWII fighter?'
-
I've been around for just over 2 weeks now and something I have never seen is a definitive "standard" for inclusion!
The only thing I have ever seen stated by HTC is that no 1off's and no prototypes.
Everything else is just conjecture,I have never seen HTC state"it had to have seen combat",I have seen it stated that they would like it to have been in service but thats it.
I challenge anyone to post a link,snip a quote,anything that shows HTC stating anything other than what I already said.
We have a perk system in place to deal with overly dominate planes,if the F8f and or the F7f were added fine just perk them like the 262 and if that doesnt work,just increase the perk cost till it does. Threatening to quit whether it's introduced or not,while it does show passion I think is a little over the top!
Besides we could use Widewing in the trainers corps.......... He was among the best of the best in that regard!
:salute
You may be right - I don't recall a definitive ever published by HTC in that regards, although there have been a few posts by Pyro and HT. But, take a look at the current plane set and tell me what you would deduce is the "standard"
-
You may be right - I don't recall a definitive ever published by HTC in that regards, although there have been a few posts by Pyro and HT. But, take a look at the current plane set and tell me what you would deduce is the "standard"
I would deduce.... the standard to be an A/C that was in service.
Dont get me wrong,I think there are plenty of planes I would rather see ingame before the bear or tigercats,the beaufighter comes to mind but that doesnt mean I cant see the F8 or F7 included at some point.
:salute
-
I'm all for it. The MA isn't a WWII reenactment... It's a game where we play for chess piece countries on mostly rather silly fictitious maps with ludicrous terrain elevations. I wouldn't mind including "1946" what-if aircraft as long as they're appropriately perked. For historical scenarios the historical rides are there to choose from. That said, there are still real WWII aircraft that needs adding, and old models that need updating, and perhaps expanding the range of sub-models (Bf110 comes to mind...).
-
I'd rather not see AH try to be IL-2 STURMOVIK™: 1946. But then, wasn't that the banner that lead the charge for the graphics change.
-
I'd rather not...
Why?
-
Why?
D4Y
B6N
SB2C
TBD
Beaufighter
B-25J
J2M
Ki-45
Ki-100
MiG-3
Yak-1
A5M
Ki-27
Ki-44
Swordfish
Pe-2
LaGG-1
THAT'S why.
@#$% WWII 1946. Fill the gaps in the plane set that actually matter.
-
Why?
It isn't 'late war' .... it's after the war. That redefines the arena. It muddies the water. It becomes an endless cycle of adding the 'what-ifs' and accelerates the process of hangar queening the 'actually dids.' And if an arena segregates the 1946 set it'll suck away players and the LW arena becomes like the MW and EW. And yes, Don't crack open Pandora's box to rain havoc on historical squads that fly the LW just so they can get regular play in their preferred historical rides (but now there's this whole new perkie set that didn't even fight in the war that was asked for by uberfixators that wanted to one up the ante of 'How would THIS match up?').
It's a selfish wish with no forethought on how it can affect the overall game, environment and community.
No offense, any-yas. :)
-
Rationally controlled by perking, the addition of such planes effects the MA no more than the addition of the Me-163. Yes, it actually saw limited service in the war, BUT its performance is far more singular relative most WWII fighter planes the F8F, Sea Fury, or any other post-war piston hot rod one might consider introducing.
It isn't 'late war' .... it's after the war. That redefines the arena. It muddies the water. It becomes an endless cycle of adding the 'what-ifs' and accelerates the process of hangar queening the 'actually dids.' And if an arena segregates the 1946 set it'll suck away players and the LW arena becomes like the MW and EW. And yes, Don't crack open Pandora's box to rain havoc on historical squads that fly the LW just so they can get regular play in their preferred historical rides (but now there's this whole new perkie set that didn't even fight in the war that was asked for by uberfixators that wanted to one up the ante of 'How would THIS match up?').
It's a selfish wish with no forethought on how it can affect the overall game, environment and community.
No offense, any-yas. :)
-
Rationally controlled by perking, the addition of such planes effects the MA no more than the addition of the Me-163. Yes, it actually saw limited service in the war, BUT its performance is far more singular relative most WWII fighter planes the F8F, Sea Fury, or any other post-war piston hot rod one might consider introducing.
If you call riding a boat and never actually getting to do air operations against the enemy at all 'service in the war.' We could model the supply logistics office in Norfolk, as well.
-
Give us the Do335!
-
If you call riding a boat and never actually getting to do air operations against the enemy at all 'service in the war.' We could model the supply logistics office in Norfolk, as well.
I am not calling that service in the war at all. I am pointing out the the Me-163 DID see service in the war, and that it is a frikkin' rocket plane that makes the F8F's performance look a little insipid by comparison. Yet, its presence in the MA does not bring on some doom scenario for those who like to fly the various prop planes because its effect on the MA is strictly controlled, as presumably the presence of the F8F would be.
Scholz has it right, in an arena which already contains so many a-historical elements, complaining about the a-historical nature of the F8F just doesn't make sense.
-
D4Y
B6N
SB2C
TBD
Beaufighter
B-25J
J2M
Ki-45
Ki-100
MiG-3
Yak-1
A5M
Ki-27
Ki-44
Swordfish
Pe-2
LaGG-1
THAT'S why.
:aok :aok :aok :aok
-
Philosophical question: If a fighter didn't see combat during WWII .... was that fighter a 'WWII fighter?'
simple answer is yes,, if it was built to fight ww2, during or before ww2, it was a ww2 fighter, it did or didn't fly in combat, irrelevant , it did or didn't fly in squadron strength ,irrelevant it is what it was built to be, circumstances may have kept it from completing its role, but it is what it was built to be!
I'd like to fly the bear, in our out of late war,, wouldn't matter,, we have a boatload of arenas we don't use now, I'd bet they'd see use with the bear waiting to be flown, but if it flew in squadron strength during the war,( before Japan surrendered) it meets that criteria weather it shot anyone down or not!
I agree with Morfiend tho,, I've never seen anything that said it has to be this or it has to be that, setting a mark to meet is fine,but I have t seen it yet!
-
I am not calling that service in the war at all. I am pointing out the the Me-163 DID see service in the war, and that it is a frikkin' rocket plane that makes the F8F's performance look a little insipid by comparison. Yet, its presence in the MA does not bring on some doom scenario for those who like to fly the various prop planes because its effect on the MA is strictly controlled, as presumably the presence of the F8F would be.
Scholz has it right, in an arena which already contains so many a-historical elements, complaining about the a-historical nature of the F8F just doesn't make sense.
It's a game that uses WWI and WWII equipment. If it was about performance it would probably feature drones, as well.
-
it did or didn't fly in combat, erelevant,
Not irrelevant at all.
-
Nothing arbitrary about it. A WWII fighter plane is a fighter plane that fought in WWII.
F8F is cool. It's a monster. But you said it yourself - " ... just days from flight ops." Like some planes were just weeks. Some just months. But ... it either fought in WWII or it didn't. Almost doesn't count. A flyover when the papers were signed doesn't count. Being the second plane flown by the Blue Angels doesn't count (even if I think it was the coolest).
If not getting the F8F seems like grounds for cancelling your sub, i got nothing to say about that since it seems more arbitrary than anything discussed in this thread to date.
Wait, I do have something to say. I like you. I'd miss you being in the game even though neither of us fly a whole helluva lot, lately. I relate to you even out of game. I don't understand why you'd use that as an excuse to quit.
P.S. Blame the A bomb. I'm pretty sure the Japanese didn't surrender just to keep the F8F out of AH, though. (J/K) ;) :cheers:
So, how is an aircraft in active service in significant numbers for up to 6 months before the war ends, not a WWII aircraft? Of course it is! :rolleyes:
Understand, I'm not threatening to quit because the F8F may not be added... That's a ridiculous stretch.
I'm considering unsubscribing because I'm bored chitless with the game as it exists now. Game play is stagnant, nothing changing in a very long time. The only interesting fighter aircraft added in recent times was the Yak-3. What people are crying for is,"fill the gaps in the planeset!" With what? More boring subtypes that offer almost no difference from what was already in the game? Wasting resources "filling gaps" that very few give a damn about is contributing to the exodus. I have no doubts that the events players can't sustain this business with their meager numbers.
A new graphics engine will help, but if the game play and selection of aircraft remains as it is, the improved graphics won't accomplish much. The market is evolving and Aces High has to evolve with it.
-
I loved the Rolling Plane Set of Warbirds. Planes get added to the game over a 30 day period like they were in the war. Then it all starts over again.
-
Not irrelevant at all.
well at least you can spell! Lol. My bad
Now,, I was answering your question about if it was built as a fighter, was it a fighter? Yes,, fighter jets are fighter jets if they saw combat or not.
why wouldn't a ww2 fighter not be a ww2 fighter? No combat needed for a plane to be what it was meant to be.
-
-1
Come on already, putting this in will just open the door to everything else that almost flew and almost scored a victory. This isn't a fantasy game, it is about actual planes that saw actual combat. That involves fighting, not just flying the airplane just before the war ended. We don't need it, you guys just want it. You say you are bored with the plane set, then in a couple of months you will be bored again and asking for another "almost saw combat" aircraft to be added. We going to set up fantasy scenarios too so you can fly this and other "almost" aircraft?
-
It's a game that uses WWI and WWII equipment. If it was about performance it would probably feature drones, as well.
I don't think you comprehend what I am trying to get across. My point is that we already have at least one plane in this game that makes the F8F's performance pale by comparison. If that plane (the 163) can be controlled to the point that it doesn't unduly effect the game, so can the F8F.
-
I don't think you comprehend what I am trying to get across. My point is that we already have at least one plane in this game that makes the F8F's performance pale by comparison. If that plane (the 163) can be controlled to the point that it doesn't unduly effect the game, so can the F8F.
We've been through this before and you seemed to understand that I'm not having a 'performance' discussion with you or anyone. :)
-
I don't think you comprehend what I am trying to get across. My point is that we already have at least one plane in this game that makes the F8F's performance pale by comparison. If that plane (the 163) can be controlled to the point that it doesn't unduly effect the game, so can the F8F.
Really? So you want the F8 to have 6 minutes of fuel, available at only one base, unable to re-arm, and have a high perk? Pfffffffffft
-
-1
Come on already, putting this in will just open the door to everything else that almost flew and almost scored a victory. This isn't a fantasy game, it is about actual planes that saw actual combat. That involves fighting, not just flying the airplane just before the war ended. We don't need it, you guys just want it. You say you are bored with the plane set, then in a couple of months you will be bored again and asking for another "almost saw combat" aircraft to be added. We going to set up fantasy scenarios too so you can fly this and other "almost" aircraft?
Oh come on, Zoney, the whole premise of the game is fantasy! Spitfires fighting P-51s and 109s intercepting Betty bombers. Less than a dozen Ta 152Hs ever flew, much less saw combat. Yet, we could find 200 of them in the MA at any point in time, if people so elected... That isn't fantasy?
I've merely suggested that "combat" is not a valid reason to exclude a common type of aircraft that saw service in the war.
A simple case: Was the aircraft in service with active combat units prior to the end of the war? If the answer is yes, how can it be excluded?
This isn't very difficult to understand, is it?
The only slippery slope is this... Any business that fails to adapt to the ever changing market, fails. Period. HTC knows this and is working hard to upgrade the graphics. A Very good thing. However, it cannot be the only change as it alone will be not be enough. Why? Because many players feel like I do, in that graphics are secondary to game play. Game play is stale. The plane set is boring.
There's many ways to consider in changing that... But,no matter what, it will require change, and the biggest resistance seems to come from those who are happy with the status quo... To quote a Greek warrior, "status quo only leads to death".
A quick edit here... Keep in mind that the graphics update is far more important for tankers than fliers. The armor aspect of Aces High is very significant to HTC's business. This part of the game seems to be healthy and growing, and HTC is going to devote whatever resources it requires to keep that success going.
-
I've merely suggested that "combat" is not a valid reason to exclude a common type of aircraft that saw service in the war.
To me, it absolutely is.
The F8F did absolutely play no role in WW2. It would never even had come to my mind to call the Bearcat a WW2 plane, to me it's a WW2 era plane. What if planes like this would require a new arena.
And I doubt a new arena with planes like the F8F, F7F, Do335 or other stuff would actually increase player numbers in the long term. And just throwing another plane into the LW arena will be even less changing gameplay and numbers in the long run at all. Be it a hotrod or another mid war bomber.
If you really think gameplay is an issue (an assessment I actually do agree with in large parts), the basic gameplay design would have to be changed, or adjusted at least. I would like to hear if you got something specific in mind.
-
Pershing!
-
I loved the Rolling Plane Set of Warbirds. Planes get added to the game over a 30 day period like they were in the war. Then it all starts over again.
Agreed
-
simple answer is yes,, if it was built to fight ww2, during or before ww2, it was a ww2 fighter, it did or didn't fly in combat, irrelevant , it did or didn't fly in squadron strength ,irrelevant it is what it was built to be, circumstances may have kept it from completing its role, but it is what it was built to be!
Then I will enjoy piloting a B-36.
Really: Where do you draw the line? Any line is going to be arbitrary.
- oldman
-
Spit1 is so much more interesting to fly than the spit16
-
Then I will enjoy piloting a B-36.
Really: Where do you draw the line? Any line is going to be arbitrary.
- oldman
The B-36 didn't fly until August of 1946, and didn't enter service until mid 1949.... How does this relate to aircraft already in combat units months before the war ended?
Defining what constitutes a WWII aircraft is anything but arbitrary. Arbitrary is defined as: Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
Was the aircraft in full production, and in operational combat units before the end of the war? How is that arbitrary? It's a very simple and easy to understand logic.
-
And I doubt a new arena with planes like the F8F, F7F, Do335 or other stuff would actually increase player numbers in the long term. And just throwing another plane into the LW arena will be even less changing gameplay and numbers in the long run at all. Be it a hotrod or another mid war bomber.
Agreed, and I'll refer back to one of my previous posts:
Improved flight and damage modeling, better surface and ground combat, and a more robust "war" system (seriously, we need SOMETHING more engaging than "bomb field to rubble, cap field, drop troops on town, lather, rinse, repeat" to move the lines and capture territory). You can add the F8F, Kikka, Do-335, P-80, Hornet, and whatever other aircraft that just missed you can think of, and it's not going to change anything.
Gameplay needs to be addressed as THE main priority once the graphics engine overhaul is finished. Gap-fillers for events would follow because they at least serve two purposes. The very LAST thing that should be looked at is adding machines that would only present yet another late-war uber ride to a Main Arena already choked with late-war uber rides, and which would add NOTHING to the other aspects of the game.
And the F8F is undeniably in that last category. It would add NOTHING outside the Mains, because it DID absolutely nothing during the war. It would just be another perk plane.
-
Rationally controlled by perking, the addition of such planes effects the MA no more than the addition of the Me-163. Yes, it actually saw limited service in the war, BUT its performance is far more singular relative most WWII fighter planes the F8F, Sea Fury, or any other post-war piston hot rod one might consider introducing.
The 163 performance is indeed singular and this is why it is also restricted to rear fields next to HQ. It would be a nightmare if it was available at all fields.
-
Are we ever going to get the Beaufighter?
-
The B-36 didn't fly until August of 1946, and didn't enter service until mid 1949.... How does this relate to aircraft already in combat units months before the war ended?
Defining what constitutes a WWII aircraft is anything but arbitrary. Arbitrary is defined as: Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
Was the aircraft in full production, and in operational combat units before the end of the war? How is that arbitrary? It's a very simple and easy to understand logic.
I was responding to the poster who suggested that if a plane was built to fly in WWII, it should be in the game. The B-36 clearly fills that description (and the first one was completed on August 20, 1945, clearly before the end of the war). So do others (Douglas Skyraider comes to mind).
What constitutes a "WWII aircraft?" Your requirements of full production and operational combat unit status are fine. So is "any plane that saw combat at least once in WWII," or even "any plane that was constructed between 9/1/39 and 9/2/45." So is the other poster's suggestion of "any plane designed to fly in WWII." There are various stages in between. Picking one of them is going to be arbitrary.
- oldman