Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Mitsu on February 12, 2002, 02:04:32 PM
-
U.S. Army.......it has P-51D.
U.S. Navy.......it has F4U-4.
RAF...............it has Tempest.
Luftwaffe.......it has Ta152 and Me262.
USSR.............it has La-7.
Jpn Navy........it has N1K2-J.
Jpn Army........it has nothing. :(
So, I want Ki-84 Hayate!
and HTC, recheck this poll please. ;)
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43129
Thanks.
------------
Mitsu
Stab./JG1 "Oesau" (http://www.dd.iij4u.or.jp/~nobo/jg1/)
"Let me fly Tony, it's an Axis plane!"
-
Agreed, no IFs or BUTs !
-
I'd love to fly that bird in AH.
-
Frankly I'd like it.
But show me the Shoki first. :)
-
Argh, yes germany has 2 but the 152 really isnt a perk ride IMO lol. I would love for the ki-84 to be in here.
-
Me too! Pile on!
-
I'd love the Ki-84-Ia Hayate to be added to AH. 3,500 of them were built, so there can't be any "It wasn't produced in enough numbers" whining like there is about the N1K2-J.
Sachs,
Germany actually has 4. Mitsu left out the Bf109G-10 and Fw190D-9 which are also 2nd half 1944 super birds.
-
YES PLEASE:)
(http://bradys5.50megs.com/images/frank_me.jpg)
-
Beautiful and deadly fighter :) Bring it to AcesHigh!
-
http://www.warbirdsalive.com/wblist/japanese/ki84/ki-84%20Chiran.htm
There is really nice pictures.
Ki-84 has flown at IRUMA JSDAF Base Oct. 1973.
That was first, and last flight after the end of the war in Japan...
------------
Mitsu
Stab./JG1 "Oesau" (http://www.dd.iij4u.or.jp/~nobo/jg1/)
"Let me fly Tony, it's an Axis plane!"
-
The only downside to adding the Frank is that both of the Hein fliers would probably garage the Tony and we'd never see it again.
-Sikboy
-
i see we missing planes for the USairforce :D
P38 D-J
what plane is this ki-84?
a mustang with turnradius ala zero and superguns ?
o yeah forgot to mention very tough too ?
do we need that?
i like to see that white zero (early version) and
the oscar
if so than add the wildcat. so we can make a cool midway scenario.
i really don't know what the ki-84 would be like, but if it is like above hell i don't wanna see it.
i hope the ki- 84 is just fast something the japanese plane set is missing. :cool:
BUG322
=Twin Engined Devils=
-
WOW THANKS FOR THE PICS MITSU!!!
I saw a flying Reisen at Chino a few years ago. Man I would love to see Hayate fly too. :(
-
Mitsu, hope you are looking for good engine sounds for the Frank in case we get lucky...
-
Yup I definitely agree. The Ki-84 is THE biggest missing gap in our late war planeset.
-
Frankenstein gets my vote too. I agree with Funked...Shoki would be a very interesting ride, but if I had to choose, I'd take Frankie. I also want the Ki-100 and J2M3. A Ki-43 would be nice too. Hell, we just need more Japanese planes in general. Lotsa gaps in their planeset.
-
FRANKENDWEEB ! I can just hear TAC now .... lol
-
Ki84 = La7 pilots worst nitemare :)
whels
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
i see we missing planes for the USairforce :D
P38 D-J
what plane is this ki-84?
a mustang with turnradius ala zero and superguns ?
o yeah forgot to mention very tough too ?
do we need that?
i like to see that white zero (early version) and
the oscar
if so than add the wildcat. so we can make a cool midway scenario.
i really don't know what the ki-84 would be like, but if it is like above hell i don't wanna see it.
i hope the ki- 84 is just fast something the japanese plane set is missing. :cool:
BUG322
=Twin Engined Devils=
-
Yes. There are these sort of planes everybody wants, but nobody knows
for sure what it is like. In the contrary examples of 109s and Spits, there
are many pilot's anecdotes, documentations, footage, and huge popular
"image" conceived within the hearts of the masses that everybody tends
to agree in a certain way. "Yes, 109s would be agile, climb awesome but
bad at roll" "Yup, Spitfires would outturn 109s, but the 109s would climb
better and be at a BnZ advantage.." etc etc.
But two planes still escape from these sort of speculations and consensus
that many people agree on: The Spitfire MkXIV and Ki-84 Hayate.
As Bug_EAF322 asked: What exactly are these planes like?
The only known factor people seem to agree on seems that they are fast
planes. The issue of maneuverability, which people fear the most, are so
very different in so many references that all that people have is just some
sort of wild imagination and fear of it. There is always a certain tendency
in fighters, a sort of a 'golden rule' that if a plane is slow, it turns good, and
if a plane turns bad, it is at least fast(generally that is).
I think people fear that if Ki-84s or Spit14s are introduced, it might become
a plane that catches most of the 'fast' planes, and also turns so well that
flying any other sort of plane might become meaningless.
So, what exactly is the Ki-84 like?
The reference on armament seems that it'd become one of the most
formidably armed planes in AH. The speed recorded also suggests
that it might catch up with most of the AH planes with relative ease.
...
Then, how will it maneuver? Like a Zero? Like a Spit? Or maybe this is
over rated?? It'd turn just about like a Yak-9U? Or maybe about 109G-2s?
Once, on a thread about Spit14, I was very surprised to see Karnak
estimate the Spit14 would turn about as good as AH Yak-9U. It sort
of shattered my conception and worries that Spit14 will be the ultimate
'dweeb machine :rolleyes: (sorry)' that out runs, out turns and out guns
most everything else in AH planeset.
So..... what are your estimates, guys? :)
-
Well.... (note the performance data is scarfed from Buaghers page)
The speed recorded post war with a captured Ki-84 in Pennsylvania with US 100 octane fuel, with all wartime equipment (minus ammo), was almost 425 mph at around 20k.
However the "consensus" (ie Japanese wartime fuel) says that max speed is 392 at 20k. I will have to check around to see what its Sea Level max speed is.
It climbs well reaching an altitude of 16,405 feet in 5 minutes 54 seconds. An altitude of 26,240 feet could be attained in 11 minutes 40 seconds.
Weights: 5864 pounds empty, 7955 pounds loaded. And it has a wing area of 226.04 square feet. Compare that to other planes in AH, and you should see that it will turn very well, and that it will accelerate very well.
Armament: Two fuselage mounted 12.7-mm Type 1 (Ho-103) machine guns and two wing-mounted 20-mm Ho-5 cannon (Ki-84-Ia). Two fuselage-mounted 20-mm Ho-5 cannon and two wing-mounted 20-mm Ho-5 cannon (Ki-84-Ib). Two fuselage-mounted 20-mm Ho-5 cannon and two wing-mounted 30-mm Ho-105 cannon (Ki-84-Ic). Even the standard armament is very formidable, comparable to a Spits armaments. With the 4 x Ho-5 cannons, it will be a beast of a killer surpassing the N1K2, any of the Fw190's, but being slightly behind the F4U-1C and Hurricane IIC. The Japanese 30mm's will be effectively useless, and should be avoided, unless your hunting slow moving buffs.
I guess at a quick glance, the Ki-84 will be similar to a Yak-9U (slightly slower, but better turning), but with much better guns and alot more ammo. In WB's it was a great ride.
Edit: One final note. This plane will make the Niki dweebs look minor in comparison, imo. Look to see a new "Frankenstein Scourge" when this plane is introduced.
-
Originally posted by Vermillion
Edit: One final note. This plane will make the Niki dweebs look minor in comparison, imo. Look to see a new "Frankenstein Scourge" when this plane is introduced.
Count upon me to be one of the first Frankenstein Dweebs. I like the N1K2-J, but I prefer the Ki-61 for various reasons. Since I fly all of the Japanese fighters, the Ki-84 would be especially welcome. Currently, my K/D ratio in Japanese aircraft is 40/15, or 2.67:1 (well over 3:1 in the Ki-61). I would expect that to improve markedly with the Hayate added to the planeset.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Sachs,
Germany actually has 4. Mitsu left out the Bf109G-10 and Fw190D-9 which are also 2nd half 1944 super birds.
Remove the Ta and you got it. G10 and D9 will eat a Ta's lunch everytime...as will every other E-fighter.
*brought to you by the committee to un-perk the Ta-152*
;->
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Once, on a thread about Spit14, I was very surprised to see Karnak
estimate the Spit14 would turn about as good as AH Yak-9U. It sort
of shattered my conception and worries that Spit14 will be the ultimate
'dweeb machine :rolleyes: (sorry)' that out runs, out turns and out guns
most everything else in AH planeset.
So..... what are your estimates, guys? :)
The RAF did some comparissons between the Spit IX and Spit XIV. These are partially documented in "Late Marque Spitfire Aces 1942-1945." Here's brief snippets of their test conclusions...
Weight: Spit XIV weighed in at 8400lbs compared to IX's 7480lbs
Range & Endurance: Range was about the same but Endurance of the XIV was slightly less (it burnt fuel at 1 1/4 the rate of the IX, but was faster).
Speed: 30 to 35mph faster at most alts. The exception being 15,000ft and 25,000 to 32,000 where the two were quite even.
Climb: XIV had superior ROC at all alts and slightly better zoom climb at all alts.
Dive: XIV pulled away from IX in dive test
Turning Circle: As quoted from the text..."The turning circles of both aircraft are identical."
Rate of Roll: Same
Search View & Rear View: Similar, although their is mention that the slightly longer nose of the XIV impedes that view a bit in comparisson.
Conclusions: Well, pretty obvious. They conclude that in every respect the XIV is the better plane.
Certainly the XIV would be a hot ride. You'd need some perks in place for this one to be sure, probably along the lines of the Tempest. Basically we'd have a plane that handles like a Spit IX and packing the speed of a Typhoon (roughly)...and dives better than a Spit too (Ouch!). That's a pretty nasty combination.
-
Vortex,
The Spit XIV has nothing like the speed of the Tiffie.
Depending on the source the Spit XIV does either 357mph or 363mph at sea level. That is slower than quite a few freebie aircraft in AH. Perked at the level of the Tempest the Spit XIV would be nigh useless. It'd get gangbanged (happens to all perk planes) and couldn't get away.
The Spit XIV would clearly need to be perked, but I'd say more in the 15 to 30 point range. This is an aircraft that was more common (957 built) and earlier (entered squadron service on Jan. 2, 1944) than either the Tempest of Fw190D-9.
The Ki-84 may end up having to be perked at something like F4U-1C levels simply to control it, but I think that it should be introduced as a freebie and see if that is really required before jumping in and perking it.
I reiterate that I would like to see the "perk labels" go away. Let people have fun with their perk points by allowing them to use the aircraft without being gangbanged. The Ta152H-1 should be labeled "190" not "152" and the F4U-4 should be labeled "F4U" not "F4U4".
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Vortex,
The Spit XIV has nothing like the speed of the Tiffie.
Depending on the source the Spit XIV does either 357mph or 363mph at sea level. That is slower than quite a few freebie aircraft in AH. Perked at the level of the Tempest the Spit XIV would be nigh useless. It'd get gangbanged (happens to all perk planes) and couldn't get away.
*snip*
I reiterate that I would like to see the "perk labels" go away. Let people have fun with their perk points by allowing them to use the aircraft without being gangbanged. The Ta152H-1 should be labeled "190" not "152" and the F4U-4 should be labeled "F4U" not "F4U4".
Indeed, its not faster than the Typhoon, but its close (hence "roughly"). We're looking at 360-365 on the deck for the XIV and 370-375 for the Typh. So pretty close. At the mid-teens I'd wager the XIV is as fast if not faster, as well as 25k+. Even at the more conservative speeds it would have ample umph to run down pretty much everything short of the 51D, D9, La7, Typh, and G10. That's pretty quick when you get right down to it. Throw into the equation a climb rate that would be in the top 3 and a good excelleration and I'd think one would have a good chance of dictating when and where you fought.
I guess a big part of the "perked at the level of a Tempest" is when one compares it to the Ta 152. The XIV would eat this thing alive in every category below 30k. I just don't see how one could perk it at or below that level.
That having been said I quite like your suggestion about removing the unique identifiers for things like the F4U4 and Ta 152. The labels themselves are sufficient enough that perk points are something I have absolutely no use for. The few planes I would fly with the perks points I refuse to due to the fact that you attract every dweeb ride within a 10 sector radius once they see your icon.
-
Are KI 84 cannons different than those of the Niki ?
Ki 84 is the only non LW plane I'd like to fly. I remember once in one of WB arenas I was flying 109s and 190s, against P51s and F4Us. Pretty evenly matched. Then I tried the Ki 84 and could forget about any SA or safe flying. The Ki got me kill after kill, all low on the deck. As well as 'dweeb plane' remarks on open channel.
In WB H2H, it turned somewhere between Spit IX and Spit XIV.
-
Yes Hristo the Ki-84 cannons are different from the N1K2.
The N1K2, a Navy fighter, has the Type 99 model cannon.
The Ki-84, an army fighter, has the HO-5 cannon. The Ki-61 already in AH also has the HO-5 cannon, which is one of the more effective cannons in the game.
-
Ok guys, time to release Ki-84! (or Ki-61-II!)
I can't escort this new fast bomber well in Ki-61-I-KAIc!!! :D
-Mitsu
-
A flight of Ki.67s escorted by Ki.84s! Now that would be one tough strike force to deal with.
It woudl also look awesome!:D
-
Originally posted by Karnak
I'd love the Ki-84-Ia Hayate to be added to AH. 3,500 of them were built, so there can't be any "It wasn't produced in enough numbers" whining like there is about the N1K2-J.
Sachs,
Germany actually has 4. Mitsu left out the Bf109G-10 and Fw190D-9 which are also 2nd half 1944 super birds.
hehe u think the UFO whines are bad about teh niki, u havent seen nothin yet. Ki84 will put them all to shame. Ki84 will
be the most feared plane under 15k, even the la7 pilots
will quake in thier boot.
whels
-
IMO, htc should really consider what gameplay impact a plane will have before introducing it. Spit14 (if its true its coming next)... there's already a fuggin crapload of spit population (and 4 spit models IN game now), god knows what they will do with a far superior spit model. Ki84? Sigh, itd become the spit and n1k packaged into one.
"There is always a certain tendency in fighters, a sort of a 'golden rule' that if a plane is slow, it turns good, and if a plane turns bad, it is at least fast(generally that is)."
Imo that should be the golden rule for balancing planeset in any game.
I'd much rather have a P-40, P-39, Pe2, Ki-102,Ki-46 or more italian aircraft (and why not, some checz or rumanian rides) than to keep getting more powerplane rides.
-
Tac,
How abouts they take out the P-38L and replace it with a P-38D and P-38F.
That'd make you happy. It gets rid of an easy to use, high population aircraft and replaces it with older models that are out of place in the current planeset.
The Spit XIV will be perked (evidence: its icon says "Spit14", not "Spit"), but for the CT and scenarios there will now be an actuall 1944 Spitfire instead of just the 1942 Spitfire that we Spit fans have been soldiering on with.
The Ki-84 will probably need to be a cheap perk, but even a cheap perk price will control it. Just look at the F4U-1C. The Japanese built 3,500. That is an awful lot for them, their highest production fighter, the A6M, just pushed past the 11,000 mark, IIRC. The Ki-84 has an honest place in AH, maybe perked, but it has a place.
-
Considering AH 38 is barely a slow J model for all purposes, I wouldnt mind karnak. Heck, that may even get rid of one of the mismodeling issues (D-F had no dive flaps.. sort of like now anyways) the easy way. As long as you put more than 1 model in :D
ki84 perked? Somehow I doubt it. SPit14 perked? who cares, SpitIX is more than capable of fighting late 1945 planes. Personally, im just fed up with powerplanes all over.
-
this is essentially a repost of something I wrote about the Mig3, but I changed it to address the Ki-84
Everyone has thier own rational for how to advance the plane set. Some Choose National Balance (Build the Itlalian Airforce up) Others choose historical numbers/Role (Build the P-40e) Others choose MA utility (Build the Ki-84) Others Choose Scenario/CT Utility (Build the Mig-3) I think its best to try and find the plane that best fits as many of the above criteria as possible (and any other criteria that might might be suggested). For example:
1. the Ki-84 Helps National Balance, giving Japan another Fighter.
2. The Ki-84 was important in the Pacific, as it was one of the few Japanese Planes that could keep up with contemperary US planes.
3. The Ki-84, as many have mentioned might be TOO utilized in the MA. I think that this is a valid consideration, if we are to assume that this plane will be so good/heavily used that it will be perked.
4. The Ki-84 would help add balance to late war scenarios in the pac. The plane set as it stands foces any pac scenario/TOD to take place in the late war era. Adding the Ki-84 would help us out, by giving the Japanese another plane, and allowing for greater use of the perked Hogs, while keeping the odds close.
Anyhow, that's how I see it.
-Sikboy
-
The Ki-84 doesn't scare me. I can't see any reason that it'd have to be perked. In fact it should fit in pretty well with the existing planeset.
Speed? Fast but not fastest, about equal to the FW-190A-8 at most altitudes.
Turning ability? Probably on par with the F6F and Spt9 (fuel/ammo load would make the difference here).
Climb would be good but not great. It's no 109.
Sure it'd have effective guns, but like the Ki-61 and Spitfire it had only a small amount of cannon ammo. It's no C-hog in this regard. The Spit would still have the better gun package of the two although the Frank carried more MG ammo.
Performance would badly drop off at altitude, not unlike the FW-190A8, Typhoon, and LA7.
Compared to the Spit 14, the Ki-84 wouldn't be as fast, wouldn't climb as well, wouldn't dive as well, and wouldn't perform anywhere near as well over 15K.
The Japanese need a decent Army fighter that can compete on equal footing with the rest of the arena; the Frank is about the only real choice they have.
J_A_B
-
Considering AH 38 is barely a slow J model for all purposes
*cough* roadkill! *cough*
Where do these "urban legends" start in AH, and why do they get constantly propagated thru the community, with no basis what so ever in fact ???
Please, provide one single scrap of evidence that shows that the P-38L in Aces High is too slow.
This is something like the 5th time I've heard this crap in the past couple of days on this BBS, but not a single person will back it up. Its like there's a little circle of P38 fanatics sitting around and one of them mumbles under his breath that the P-38 in AH is too slow. Then all of the sudden the rest take this as gospel, and spout it out continuously as fact on the BBS.
*takes a deep breath*
Ok sorry.
I over reacted, but please show the rest of the ignorant world how the P-38L in Aces High is too slow.
-
Was there much performance difference besides range and boosted flaps between P-38 models? They all seemed close. Didn't the very first one go over 400 mph?
-
Verm, read again. I said the AH 38 (aka, L) is a slow J for all purposes. The 38J was faster than the L. The J had no dive flaps (except the last batch which had them).
And there has not been any argument about the 38's speed that im aware of.
Now kindly return to the issue on topic, the Frankenweiner- 84
-
Ah... sorry :)
I guess I'm a little sensitive because BigCrate keeps complaining that the P-38L is too slow. And its getting excessively old.
But I still disagree with what you said.
If its a late block P-38J its performance will be the same as the P-38L, because as you know its essentially the same plane.
If its the early P-38J, it may be slightly faster (I would have to check the data I have) but then it wouldn't have dive brakes and boosted ailerons, which would be considerably different in combat.
And to get back on topic :D YES! I want the Ki84 as well !!!
-
I'd love to see the Ki84 added. IJA needs a good late war plane. Some other late war Japanese planes I'd like to see: Ki100, J2M
-
KI84 would definately need to be perked. Probably about 25 perks.
-
Actually even the late P-38J's were likely a bit faster than the P-38L because they didn't have the draggy "christmas tree" rocket racks. Most P-38 drivers would probably much prefer the P-38J with 5-10 MPH faster speed and 4 less rockets.
Perk the Ki-84? Only if it's modeled with American fuel :) Modeled properly (with Japanese gas) it'll fit right in with our current unperked fighters. Since the N1K2 is modeled with Japanese gas, I've no reason to think the Ki-84 won't be similarly done.
J_A_B
-
ki84 would be great addition.
-
I want to play the historical duel with you, cit. :D
-
Is there anything we can do to help get this aircraft modelled in AH?
-
While I don't know what effect it might have, I would suggest providing as much primary source material on the aircraft as possible. I think that the CASE has been made for the Ki-84, but the information necessary for modeling isn't going to compile itself. So if you know of any official records from WWII relating to the Ki-84, send them on to HTC. I imagine that would go a long way towards getting it modeled. But try not to get sucked into the trap of the "definitive source" trap. The only data worth a damn is compiled from multiple sources, so as much info as possible should be gathered. Anyhow, that's probably the best way to get a plane modeled. But then, Im not in HTC, so Im just talking out of my ass.
-Sikboy
-
Sikboy said:
Everyone has thier own rational for how to advance the plane set. Some Choose National Balance (Build the Itlalian Airforce up) Others choose historical numbers/Role (Build the P-40e) Others choose MA utility (Build the Ki-84) Others Choose Scenario/CT Utility (Build the Mig-3)
You forgot the method that SHOULD be the most important, both to HTC and its customers, because we have to live with whatever HTC does.
That method is simply: what effect will turning this ride loose have on gameplay in the MA? This is, after all, where almost all AH action is and will be.
This question is the most important because it's what actually affects how much we enjoy playing AH. Having X planes for Y country doesn't mean toejam when anybody can fly every plane. As a result, that method should never be considered at all.
With 1.09, AH now has a total of 43 different fighters (counting all models), of which 38 are un-perked. Of these 38, however, only a few get any real use and totally dominate play in the MA. These planes are (in order of popularity in TD 25): spit9, N1, 51D, La7, spit5, P38, F6F, Typhoon, and Dhog. Together, these 9 planes (less than 25% of the total available) account for over 50% of the total sorties in a TD. In fact, the spit9, N1, and 51D by themselves usually account for about 25% of all sorties. Throw in the La7 and you've got a bit more than 30% of sorties flown in less than 11% of the available planes.
Why these planes and not the others. Simple. The 5 most popular planes have the best combinations of speed, maneuverability, and firepower for typical MA combat: low-alt furballs. The rest of the top 9 offer the best of these qualities when combined with a useful jabo load. IOW, they at least bend, if not altogether break, the rule Tac posted up above.
As it stands, the situation offers at least some minimum of variety. At least we see 4 or 5 different types of planes on a regular basis instead of just 1 or 2. This is because these planes are competitive with each other when flown by the average dweeb.
If you upset this limited balance, however, by introducing a plane that bends Tac's rule even further, or actually breaks it, then that plane will subplant the other popular rides. Such, IMHO, would be the case with the Ki84. At the low alts in which the vast majority of MA fights take place, the Ki84 combines the speed of the 51D with the maneuverability of the spit9. At least that's what it had in AW and WB. If one guys brings a Frank to the fight, others will have to do likewise or accept a disadvantage. This isn't something dweebs naturally do, so I figure the Frank would become as popular as the spit9, N1, and 51D combined are now.
For this reason, the Ki84 should not be introduced into the MA. At least not as a free ride.
-
You're absolutly right about that Bullethead. I mention this in point 3, MA utility. By saying that it may be too utilized, and have to be perked, I do acknowledge that it will likely be perked, and perking is how HTC controls game ballance.
Personally, like many others, I'd like to see earlier planes modeled, but the problem with choosing between old planes and perked planes is the same: They stand a good chance of becoming hangar queens.
In the end, I don't think that this reason supersedes the others. If for no other reason, than because through perking it can be controlled, and while the MA is the bread and butter for most players, there is the CT and SEA to consider.
-Sikboy
-
Sikboy said:
Personally, like many others, I'd like to see earlier planes modeled, but the problem with choosing between old planes and perked planes is the same: They stand a good chance of becoming hangar queens.
Yup. Outside of scenarios and the CT, early planes won't be used unless they can compete with the un-perked rulers of the MA. Or unless AH gets an RPS. However, if that happens, I hope at least they do it different than WB. That compressed the early war so much and so extended the late war that it was effectively like not having an RPS.
In the end, I don't think that this reason supersedes the others. If for no other reason, than because through perking it can be controlled, and while the MA is the bread and butter for most players, there is the CT and SEA to consider.
HTC makes its money on the MA. I expect HTC loses money on the CT and SEA, considering the insignificant numbers in CT and the periodic nature of the SEA. IOW, the CT and SEA exist only as long as the MA makes enough money to cover their costs and still keep HTC solvent. If the MA becomes less popular, the 1st things to suffer, therefore, will be the CT and SEA. Thus, adding planes simply to fill roles in these arenas isn't a good business strategy.
-
I dissagree with your stance if for no other reason than this: failure to continue to grow the planeset (especially to include aircraft which may not have the highest MA utility) may lead to loss of market share to their competitors. This might not be the biggest problem right now, because the main competition is going to release their latest version in the imediate future. But if the competition continues to improve their product, it would help HTC to have as large a stable as possible. I think that any aircraft which meet the four conditions I set fourth would be worth modeling to fill that out.
This is good stuff though. I've asked about what people feel should qualify an aircraft as a modeling candidate, but this is the first real feedback I've gotten on the subject. Thanks Bullethead
-Sikboy
-
Sikboy said:
I dissagree with your stance if for no other reason than this: failure to continue to grow the planeset (especially to include aircraft which may not have the highest MA utility) may lead to loss of market share to their competitors.
Well, I got a counter-argument for that, too :). HTC is a very small firm so the amount of development hours it can muster per day is quite limited. I don't know how they divide up the work but I'm sure HT has to do something fairly significant whenever planes get added. The time he spends on adding planes is time he can't spend adding new game features, improving old ones, and patching bugs.
As I see it, plane selection isn't a real customer draw. I mean, look at AH now: 43 fighters of which 3 or 4 get way more use than any of the others, and of which 9 get as much use as all the other 34 put together. The market has spoken there, IMHO. Nobody much wants to fly planes that can't hang with spits and N1s in the low-alt landgrabbing vulchfest that is the MA.
Therefore, IMHO, developing features of the game itself is more important at this juncture than adding more planes. HTC should add more realism, add more things for players to do, etc., and maybe enhance the graphics (which are fine with me but you know how that goes). This is what draws and keeps customers IMHO. Any added planes should be done very carefully. And given the limited manhours HTC has available, it's just counterproductive to spend a lot on planes that won't get much use.
I think 1.09 had about the right mix of stuff. The emphasis was on features, although the new planes got all the notice. But look at the new integral vox that now works, the way cool film viewer, the new strat system, the improved padlock (I have a handicapped squaddie who loves this), etc. The added planes were good choices, too. The whole BoB set of fighters for the scenario crowd, a new buff with a good balance of strengths and weaknesses, and a new heavy fighter that's quite useful without being dominating. I'd like to see more updates along these lines.
This is good stuff though. I've asked about what people feel should qualify an aircraft as a modeling candidate, but this is the first real feedback I've gotten on the subject. Thanks Bullethead
Back at ya. Nice to be able to discuss this with somebody for a change, without it degenerating into dweebs whining about wanting plane X because it's better than existing plane Y, and inventing some BS, insincere PC argument to justify it ("it's unfair that country Z doesn't have an uberplane like the other countries") without realizing that they'll never be able to spank plane Y because the nme will all be flying plane X, too.
As for my own choices for additions to the planeset.... Very hard to say, at least for fighters. Any new fighter added must IMHO meet the following criteria:
- it must be good enough to hang with the usual MA suspects (spit, N1, et al)
- it must not be significantly better than the usual MA suspects
If the plane fails the 1st test, the plane won't get used much if at all, outside of the occasional scenario that calls for it. So this rules out most early war planes, at least doing new ones from scratch. OTOH, if the plane fails the 2nd test, it will get used too much until it gets perked, at which point it won't get used much at all. There just ain't any fighters I can think of off the top of my head that meet these criteria and ain't already in the game.
But AH fortunately has more things in it than fighters. There are buffs, boats, ships, and GVs. New things can be added in all these areas to enhance overall gameplay without upsetting balances. Some of these will be perk jobs, but we need more perkies in these areas anyway.
Buffs:
- C46: perked transport, capable of carrying multiple sets of troops, supplies, or some combination of both.
- SB2C: we need a late-model divebomber.
- A20 and Pe2: light bombers with decent speed
- A26: perked vulchasaurus rex :)
Boats:
- E-boat of the S100 class: alternative to current PT, trading guns and 2 immediate torp shots for more speed and some armor.
Ships:
- Submarines and ASW weapons on DEs
- Allow players to control DEs individually to conduct ASW and torp attacks. Also let players man more guns on them.
- Convoys of transport ships for strat supply
- Player-controlled LSTs that can spawn player-controlled GVs on the beach.
GVs
- SdKfz 7/1: unarmored flak halftrack with 4x20mm.
- T34/76: a match for the Pz4H in gun and armor (both can kill each other at normal battle ranges), with higher speed compensated by lack of commander hatch view (commander was gunner, open hatch blocked frontal view, and doctrine was to fight buttoned anyway)
- SU-85: a gun dangerous to the perked tanks but with limited traverse and armor of unperked thickness. Built on T34 hull so might be easy to do along with the T34/76.
- Sherman M4A3(75): weaker gun than Pz4H or T34/76, but carries more ammo and climbs hills better.
- JPz IV/70: Pz4 hull with Panther gun in limited traverse mount and nasty armor up front.
- T34/85: slightly perked tank. Good gun, slightly better armor than T34/76, and no view restrictions.
- Panther G: medium perked tank. Better gun than other tanks and frontal armor proof against other tank guns at normal ranges, but sides and rear are vulnerable to even the M8. Thus, it's not invincible, as a King Tiger might prove to be.
- JS-2: medium perked tank. monster gun and massive armor, but very slow and with an extremely low rate of fire.
- King Tiger: highly perked tank. Great gun and good armor all around, but slow.
-
I've heard people talk about how fast the Frank will be, but I'm not sure where this is coming from. I do recall the quote:
"Forget it - it's a Frank." It is said that this comment was made frequently by USAAF personnel watching radar screens on Okinawa in the closing weeks of the Pacific War. It was customary to watch for a contact to appear and then to scramble P-51 Mustangs to intercept the enemy aircraft. But when the blip was moving so fast that it was inferred to be one of the advanced new Japanese Hayate fighters it would be assumed that the P-51s would stand no chance of catching the intruder. From http://www.angelfire.com/fm/compass/Hayate.htm
I've read similar accounts in other sources as well. I think that some people take this to mean that the Hayate was as fast or faster than a P-51. I'm pretty sure that this isn't the case. In fact, I've never read anything that lists the Ki-84 speed at or over 400mph at any altitude. I think the above quote indicates that by the time the P-51s launched and reached altitude, the Hayate would be halfway back to Kyushu. The Hayate was only SUPERFAST when compared to the Zeke I think.
Anyhow, does anyone have a source, even the cheesiest "little golden book of WWII Airplanes" citation, that would list the Hayate at 400mph?
-Sikboy
-
Sikboy said:
Anyhow, does anyone have a source, even the cheesiest "little golden book of WWII Airplanes" citation, that would list the Hayate at 400mph?
400 ain't the magic number. The magic number is the difference is speed between the Frank and other planes in the key altitude band where the vast bulk of MA combat takes place: 0-10k. The fastest planes only reach 400 at the upper end of this zone, so what's of interest is speeds in the upper 300s between 0-10k. The plane might be faster or slower above 10k, but that doesn't have much effect on gameplay.
Because of this, just looking at stats that show absolute max speed isn't really important. These numbers are almost always taken at somewhere above 20k, where hardly anybody ever goes in the MA except orbital buffs and the few who bother to hunt them. What we really need is a chart for the Frank like we have for most planes in AH, that shows speed at all altitudes.
I don't have such a chart these days. I used to back when I flew AW, however, as well as AW's chart for the 51D. I assume that AW's charts were based on good numbers, even if in the actual game the inaccuracies of the flight model might have made some planes act differently. Anyway, IIRC, AW's charts showed that from 0-10k, the Frank was always within +/- 5-10 knots of the 51D. It was a bit slower from 0-3k, a bit faster from 3-5k, and a bit slower again from 5-10k. But none of these differences were large enough to have any real effect in combat, due to differences in fuel load, starting conditions, etc. For all intents and purposes, the 51D and the Frank had the same speed in the critical 0-10k region. Above 10k, however, the 51D started building up a significant speed advantage.
This was certainly how things worked in the AW arena, too. Below 10k, the 51D couldn't catch a co-alt Frank that didn't want to be caught. The Frank, however, come sometimes catch a co-alt Pony because the Frank had much better acceleration. Apart from the 51D, the Frank had no trouble at all running down every other prop plane in the game below 10k. And when it caught them, it could out-turn them. Things were pretty much the same in WB, if not worse.
The only real limits the Frank had in other games were a relatively short clip of cannonballs and serious compression problems at relatively low speeds (low as opposed high 400s). In AW, the ammo limit was significant due to the rapidity with which ammo was used there combined with a lack of pieces coming off the target. In AH, where you can kill nmes with minimal ammo by removing key pieces, and where you can fire bursts of well less than 1 second's duration, a little cannon ammo goes a long way. Also, the compression problem really isn't a factor in the low-alt furballs that dominate the MA. So in AH, the Frank would be that much more formidable than in AW.
Anyway, I've seen the Frank in 2 games already. In both, in the critical 0-10k zone, it combined the speed of a 51D with the maneuverability of a spit9. Is that something we really need to have in the MA? I don't think so, but that's just my opinion.
-
It seems to me that the Frank would have simliar speed to the La-7, 109G10, Yak-9u and P51D, even under 10k. All of these can exceed my magic 400mph number, even under 10k (admittedly, some of them have to use WEP). I remember the Ki from AW, and I never did understand why it was so fast there either. I'm just trying to figure out where the data comes from.
-Sikboy
-
FYI...
The AW version of the KI-84 was modeled using the best possible figures for this plane--in other words, from the post-war USAAF flight test data using high quality American fuel. Unlike AH, AW was not very good in regards to airplane modeling and many of the planes in AW performed nothing like their real-world counterparts.
The AW Ki-84 had a top speed of 353 MPH at sea level--this is comparible to the AH FW-190A-8. The AW Ki-84 would do about 420 MPH at 20,000 feet. I never tested it at high altitudes other than 20K so it might be slightly faster at some other altitude (I bet it reaches 427 at some altitude).
This is only speed data. Although I don't feel like digging up my climb data, suffice it to say the AW Ki-84 (even with its over-modeled performance) wasn't a very good climber. Average at best. It particularly sucked in a zoom climb.
If modeled in AH the Ki-84 would likely conform to Japanese data, which would make it slower than the speeds it achieved in AW (especially at high altitudes). And, it still couldn't quite turn with a Spit 9. So it should fit into AH quite nicely.
J_A_B
-
Hi Bullethead,
I presume you are Bullethead of the Bullethead Air Warrior tactics pages? Great work! The best pages on that topic that I ever found (and lost :-), and I consider myself lucky that I had them to guide my through my clueless newbie days!
>I used to back when I flew AW, however, as well as AW's chart for the 51D. I assume that AW's charts were based on good numbers, even if in the actual game the inaccuracies of the flight model might have made some planes act differently.
The numbers of a US intelligence report someone posted here on this board a while back match the Air Warrior speed numbers quite well, so I think this report probably was the basis for the Ki-84's portrayal.
These numbers are: 348 mph @ sea level, 422 mph @ 21000 ft. That's performance slightly superior to that of the Fw 190A, but not quite up to the Fw 190D-9 or the P-51D.
However, the report is only a calculated estimate based on the assumed engine power combined with the aerodynamic characteristics of the Ki-43 Oscar, apparently prepared without the benefit of even a wrecked example for checking them. (Still, a good approach :-)
>Anyway, I've seen the Frank in 2 games already. In both, in the critical 0-10k zone, it combined the speed of a 51D with the maneuverability of a spit9.
However, in the end, the Ki-84 lacked the edge in speed to compete with a P-51, and it didn't have the high-speed handling to really benefit from the speed either. In Air Warrior, the margin was narrower than in Warbirds, but in both games, I'd rather have been at the controls of the P-51 than the Ki-84 in any fight.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
J_A_B said:
The AW version of the KI-84 was modeled using the best possible figures for this plane--in other words, from the post-war USAAF flight test data using high quality American fuel.
And you don't think the Kesmoids took that into account? Also, how was it modeled in WB?
Unlike AH, AW was not very good in regards to airplane modeling and many of the planes in AW performed nothing like their real-world counterparts.
Hehehe, you don't have to remind me of that. Hell, it just got worse as time went on. But no flightsim gets things completely right. Remember the WB P39? And judging from these boards, there are quite a few people who take exception to how AH models the performance of various planes. I don't claim to be an expert on the subject of knowing plane performance to a gnat's bellybutton so I stay out of such fights. But I do know, from having built, fixed, and sometimes flown real airplanes for many years, that no 2 planes of the same type will ever fly exactly the same, and none ever exactly match theoretical projections.
So the question for game designers becomes: what numbers do we use? All designers try to get the best numbers and make the best flight models to use them, but there are inaccuracies, approximations, conflicting data, and swags all along the line. Thus, I doubt it will ever be possible to make a sim where planes perform "everything" (as opposed to nothing) like their real counterparts. Game designers come close, but there's plenty of room for argument with the results.
If modeled in AH the Ki-84 would likely conform to Japanese data, which would make it slower than the speeds it achieved in AW (especially at high altitudes). And, it still couldn't quite turn with a Spit 9. So it should fit into AH quite nicely.
As I said before, the differences in speed between the 51 and the Frank, which were not very big in absolute terms, vanished completely in the circumstances of arena combat. Both are wicked fast planes, pure and simple. It doesn't really matter if one was 5-10 knots faster in real life. In the arena, such small differences are totally washed out by situational differences. The same goes with turn performance. In other games, a spit pilot could outturn a Frank pilot of equal skill, under co-E circumstances. In all other situations, however, it was a toss-up.
So in the practical terms you have to deal with day-to-day in the arena, the Frank is as fast as a 51D and turns as well as a spit9. That on paper it might be a tad slower than the 51, or a tad less turny than the spit, doesn't matter a bit. The differences are too small to notice in the circumstances of the arena.
-
HoHun said:
I presume you are Bullethead of the Bullethead Air Warrior tactics pages? Great work! The best pages on that topic that I ever found (and lost :-), and I consider myself lucky that I had them to guide my through my clueless newbie days!
Thank you. Glad you found it helpful. Although these days, saying so is like telling me I used to chip a pretty good flint spearpoint :D The damn thing is still up at http://people.delphiforums.com/jtweller/training/train.htm if you want to visit it for nostalgic reasons ;). One of these days, I'll update it for AH, but that'll be some ways down the road.
However, the report is only a calculated estimate based on the assumed engine power combined with the aerodynamic characteristics of the Ki-43 Oscar, apparently prepared without the benefit of even a wrecked example for checking them. (Still, a good approach :-)
Heheh, that's what I meant in my reply to JAB about there being all kinds of room for argument about what numbers a game designer choses to use.
However, in the end, the Ki-84 lacked the edge in speed to compete with a P-51, and it didn't have the high-speed handling to really benefit from the speed either.
In real life, or in scenarios, I'd agree. In the MA, planes ain't usually going as fast as they can. The high speed handling therefore doesn't become an issue--most planes only push the red line in a straight line during a chase. What matters is having good acceleration to a top speed that's effectively as fast as there is. This the Frank has got.
In Air Warrior, the margin was narrower than in Warbirds, but in both games, I'd rather have been at the controls of the P-51 than the Ki-84 in any fight.
Me too, but that's just my style. I refuse to fly planes that are both very fast and very maneuverable. Such planes are crutches for dweebs. However, there's way more dweebs than people who feel like me, by a damnsight. So if the crutch is availalbe, I'll be beaten over the head with it every time I turn around.
-
Keep these things in mind:
1. The AW P-51D was 10 MPH too slow at low altitudes until version 3.5 of AW3 (aka AWMV), after which point it was completely FUBAR. Using it as a comparison is therefore pointless. The AH P-51D has a top speed on the deck of 368 MPH, which is 15 MPH faster than AW's Ki-84. This IS a signifigant difference. Nobody ever accuses the AH FW-190A-8 of having too much speed!
2. AH may not use the same data set that AW used when the Ki-84 finally is added to AH. According to the Japanese themselves, the Ki-84's top speed at alt was a little under 400 MPH, which is noticably slower than the 420+ posted by the USAAF's post-war tests. This means that if the AH were to use the "right" data set (Japanese), it wouldn't be as fast as the AW version was. The reason for the discrepancy between USAAF and Japanese data is fuel quality--Japan simply didn't have good fuel. Essentially the Ki-84 in AW wasn't modeled as a WW2 fighter, but as a post-war hotrod testbed airplane.
Yes, the Kesmoids took into account which data set they used. However, there reasons for using the best possible data had little to do with WW2 and everything to do with the fact that the Ki-84 was added to AW because a Japanese firm paid Kesmai to add Japanese aircraft to AW. HTC is not affected by such "political" situations and so it's safe to assume that when the Ki-84 is added to AH, it'll better reflect its WW2 counterpart.
I've not done enough flight testing in WarBirds to be able to say much about that game, except the Ki-84 doesn't seem as good there as it was in AW.
Yes the Ki-84 could turn fairly well (about on par with the F6F). However, if modeled with Japanese data (which IMO is the only way it should be modeled), it will have an average top speed and average rate of climb, with utterly horrible performance over 20,000 feet. Its gun set will be about equal to the Ki-61. It won't be able to maneuver well at high speeds. What again is so "uber" about it? Seems to me like it'd be a great, competative addition to AH. Now if HTC decides to go with USAAF data like AW did.....then there might be a problem.
So I guess it all boils down to whether HTC ends up modeling the Ki-84 as a WW2 Japanese fighter, or a post-war hotrod that never fought for anyone. They WILL eventually model it, one way or another. The only question is when.
J_A_B
-
You know what bugged me about the Ki-84 performance enigma? What exactly WERE the test numbers to the Ki-84 shown here, which was obviously tested by the Allies using 92 octane Japanese fuel.
(http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/franckwagner/ki84us.JPG)
-To add more to the pot, I have also heard the Japanese had a tendancy to not list their planes maximum speeds like the Allies, but rather a more conservative suggested speed. The 388mph often quoted as a Japanese top speed for the Ki-84 and the 427 mph post war trial is too great a gap to simply say it was US fuel. Also the Ki-84 used four different engines under the Ki-84-1a designation. The earlier 1800hp and not the common 2000 hp engines yielded the 388mph (or so I have heard)
-To further complicate things, the TAIC tested the J2M2 top speed at 405mph at its critical altitude. However, the Japanese say 371mph. There were also graphs made for the Raiden illustrating speed curves and engine power ratings by the TAIC. Were those graphs and charts estimated as well?
-Yet even more mystery, what exactly were the testing prcedures used by the Japanese? How did (if at all) their tests differ from other countries?
-I also often wonder if the low-gloss IJ paint schemes had a perfromance impact as well. The F4Us shinny blue paint added about 8-10 mph to its top speed over the older flat colors and tri tone schemes. If the planes tested by the TAIC and later the US at Clark were bare aluminum finish, that could account for such a high speed (427mph @ Clark).
-If we consider all factors involved starting from 427mph @ 100 octane using a 2000hp engine, we can subtract 10mph for the paintjob. Now I am not sure how much of a difference 100 vs 92 octane fuel would make. I would leave it to those more mathematically inclinded to clue me in here :) I will make a laymen estimate and say -10mph for the sake of conversation. We are down to 407 mph now. Now, if the Japanese tested the 3rd or 4th production Ki-84-1a's with 1800hp engine and the Allies tested a more common 1990hp engined Ki-84, could that finish the gap between the 388mph Japanese number, and our estimate of 407mph??
Who knows. I dont :) But these are things to consider when dealing with such varied performance numbers like what we see with the Ki-84.
>>Pardon my longwindedness and bad spelling :p<<
-
Originally posted by Bullethead
As I see it, plane selection isn't a real customer draw....
...I think 1.09 had about the right mix of stuff. The emphasis was on features, although the new planes got all the notice.
If new planes aren't the draw, then why did they get all the notice?
Also, I think may be flawed logic to assume that because the Spit IX and the N1K get alot of use in the MA, the market has spoken.
For example, let's say I fly in the MA twice a week for a couple hours each. I fly a variety of planes, and a fly to live, so my sorties last longer and I get fewer kills than a typical MA Spit/N1K flyer. In a typical tour I might get 30 kills on 16 sorties, but the Spit/N1k guy gets 300 kills because he flys more and shorter sorties than me. The stats would show an overwhelming bias toward Spits/N1Ks - but he and I pay the same amount to HTC each month. So how has the market spoken?
Finally, I don't think its insincere to want to see more national balance in the planeset. I like historic matchups, and PTO settings are hobbled right now by the tiny Japanese planeset.
-
Early Ki-84s did not have the water injection but the one tested during war at Clark field by the TAIU-SWPA had water injection (did something like 422mph using Japanese 92 octane fuel). After war another Ki-84 was tested at Wright field using grade 140 fuel (did that 427), probably high octane fuel was used to substitute water injection.
gripen
-
Punt!
Gimme hayate, I wanna kill Boston Mk.III in it! :D
-Mitsu
-
Mitsu,
I sincerely hope you get the Ki-84. I look forward to fighting more planes from Japan in my F6F. Nothing like fighting a historical enemy.
-Math
-
yeah, my ki61 cannot win from your f6f. :mad:
:)
-Mitsu
-
Here is an interesting try.
I think that if TAIC Ki-84 is modelled in Aces High, perhaps Speed Performance Graph would be like this.
I consulted a TAIC Report and AH N1K2-J's speed graph.
TAIC Ki-84 Speed:
348mph at Sea Level
422mph at 21000ft
396mph at 30000ft
Wow... maybe it can chase after P-51 and La-7. :)
Bring Ki-84-I-a to Aces High!!!
-Hermit
-
i agree with the points silkboy made about an aircraft fitting certain criteria before being alloted to the plane set, not just because it was there ...I'm sure every one can come up with an aircraft or sub-varient of one that will almost never be reproduced in AH. On the matter of perking aircraft, i think it is not good for the overall game. I personaly would like to see 2 main arenas.
MA .1. 1939-1944
MA.2. 1943-1945
with perkpoints reduced to say 70 for the 262 and 15 for the tempest.. i think thias would have a good effect on the game.
:)
-
Where are you getting this water injection from? I have 4 book on the Hayate and NONE of them mention water injection. Well one of them might because it's written in Japanese. Ok about the 388mph that everyone is throwing around as the official number for top speed here is a little clarification on that.
From Rene Francillon's book "Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War"
ISBN 0-87021-313-X
page 231
During flight trials the Ki-84 reached a top speed of 624 km/h (388 mph), climbed to 5,000 m (16,405 ft) in 6 min 26 sec and reached a service ceiling of 12,400 m (40,680 ft).
Keep in mind this data is from the first service trial aircraft (prototypes). Various changes were made to the aircraft before production aircraft started rolling off the line. The prototype aircraft had 1,800 hp Nakajima [Ha-45] 11 engines with a single exhaust port on each side. While production aircraft had a 1,900 hp engine (11, or 12) with a more efficient multi-port exhaust outlet. These engines were rated for 1,800 hp and 1,825 hp for take off. Later produciton aircraft had [Ha-45] 21 engines rated at 1,990 for take off.
As to the questions about octane ratings the higher octane rated fuel allowed the test aircraft to operate with MUCH higher blower settings and thus higher horsepowers. I've seen pictures of at least 2 of the test aircraft and one was the natural metal scheme shown above, but later this was painted olive drab. The other aircraft was olive drab. There is no mention if the US tests were performed on a natural metal finish aircraft or a painted aircraft.
I'm not saying that the water injection never existed on this aircraft, but none of my references mention it. Vermillion would probably have more info on this subject.
I'd like to see the Frank as well, but the fuel quality question is a bugger for sure. If you're going to put fuel constraints on the Frank then you are going to have to put fuel constraints on all late war luftwaffe aircraft as well. Not to mention the fact that you would almost to be forced into taking into consideration the quality control or lack there of for materials and workmanship for the axis aircraft. So then we would need to see random equipment failures and stuff like that. It would be kind of hypocritical to say lets only model poor quality control for fuel but not for anything else.
my 2 cents,
Spritle
-
Spritle, I'll have to check to be sure, but I think the aircraft tested in the US were painted.
I have a aviation magazine from the 70's (can't remember which one) which talk quite a bit about the Ki-84 tests in the US (but no real hard data other than the 427mph at critical altitude number). I'll have to dig the magazine out of my shelves and see if it has many pics.
I'm not sure if the engine had water injection or not, but I do know that the Ki84 and the N1K2-J used the same Homare engines. I have one book that might have info on that, so I'll check.
On fuel quality, I feel sure that any Ki84 in AH would be created using the 388 mph manufacturers data. Sinces thats the conditions under which it operated during the war.
-
Wow..you guys are like...ate up. If I ever want some techie info on a plane I know where to post...
Bring the KI84... it'll be no different than the swarmsof other late war planes seen. In fact it'll add some variety and I bet w/its low ammo load the infatuation will eventualy wear off so the die hard "meatball" lovers can enjoy their ride.
xBAT
P.S. Besides...Mitsu and his homies deserve some luven from HTC...them and those spagettie boys!
-
Vermillion,
I'm not so sure that the 388 mph figure would be accurate. As Francillon states that was achieved with the lower horsepower engine. Now how much 100 horsepower is going to get you in top speed I have no idea, but it's got to mean something.
Also as to the conditions it operated during the war well that is what I was addressing with my QA statement. Why stop at fuel? It seems kind of rediculous to say well they only had XX octane fuel, but all other parts were NOT affected by the relentless bombing of the allies. Or here is another take on that argument. Since the entire object in the MA is to capture airbases shouldn't all airbases be equiped with the same octane fuel? If not then if you capture a base shouldn't you get the fuel that was still there? (Especially since P-51's are fighting side by side with Fw190's, and N1K2's)
Anyway obviously there are plenty of things not modeled. Here is a little anecdotal quote by Saburo Saki on the N1K2.
"Take that idiot [Minoru] Genda. He could barely fly, but he jumped up and down about the Shiden-kai ["George"], so everybody else pretended to like it, too. That plane was a piece of crap, put together by a third-rate firm [Kawanishi]."
Now obviously HE didn't think all that much of the N1K2, but as it stands in AH, the George is a pretty ferocious aircraft. So who was correct? Saki or the AH flight model?
You can read the rest here.
http://www.danford.net/sakai.htm
-
There is an epidemic of narrative showing up as evidence lately. I'd point out two things in that Article (Which I've read before, and is a great read): 1. the Author states that these are his memories of the interview and that he did not take notes. He also asks that no quotes be attributed to Sakai in "any published forum." While I'm not sure that this qualifies, it certainly decreases the weight of his comments.
2. in the interview Sakai also says that "the mustang could do anything that the zero could do..." So, the pony can turn with a zeke at low speeds? Who is right, Sakai or the AH Flight model?
-Sikboy
-
Well now that would be taking what he said a little out of context. Not that he actually believed that the mustang could turn with a Zero. I imagine he ment that statement more on the lines of the mustang was as good a dogfighter as the zero and better in many areas.
I used the quote more to point to the fact that he felt that the George wasn't a good aircraft yet in AH that couldn't be further from the truth.
Now obviously at the point in the war in which the George came into production the state of manufacturing in Japan was at an all time low. (the elderly and children made up a majority of the labor force) It would be obvious then that quality was sub-par to say the least, yet this is NOT modeled by AH, but it IS the condition in which it (the George) operated during the war. And since Saki flew the aircraft at that time he would be a better judge of the quality of the aircraft. It would seem that putting a limit on the quality of fuel available is somewhat arbitrary when you completely ignore the thousands of other factors that make up the performance of an aircraft. Remember it takes more than just fuel to make an aircraft go.
Here is some more info on the Ki-84. In August 1943 the second pre-production example was reported to have achieved 394 mph (643 kph) level speed at 21,800 ft (6,645 m) piloted by Tachikawa test pilot Funabishi. In diving trials the same aircraft achieved 496 mph (798 kph). I'm trying to firm up the source on this.
Spritle
-
I would go so far as to say that you're also taking his comments out of context (at least to the extent that I was). The quote you supplied was in the context of "Japanese Leadership" and was more a comment on the Bad promotion system within the military than it was about the abilities of different aircraft. I've not read Samurai! so I don't know what Sakai's experience was with the George. We also don't know what he's refering to when he says that it is "Junk" Could it be a reference to the reliability of the egnines? Perhaps he was dissastisfied with it's low speed turning as compared to the Zeke? Or was he comparing it to what was comming out of the US by that time (experience gained from fighting against them). We don't know. He doesn't elaborate.
I too want the Ki-84 to be added to the plane set, but I'm very leary of using the American numbers. I mean, giving the engine a major boost from hi quality fuel is different, IMO, than not modeling reliability issues. There is also the added confusion of conformity of data. For example, are the Ki-61 and N1K2 modeled from US tests using moonshine? What about other planes? Luftwaffe planes? I'd prefer to stick with either company specs or an average of available data. But that's just me.
-Sikboy
-
How can you model a the Ki-84 w/ 1990hp injected engine to go only as fast a 1800 hp engine with no injection and not hitting full RPMs.
I have seen a more reasonable (but cant recall where) number of 415-7 mph tossed around for 1990hp Ki-84s.
-
Sikboy,
Given the authors constraints about not taking notes one has to ask themselves this question. Without taking notes would you actually put in your account of an interview terms like crap, and third rate if you felt the interviewee had just a ho-hum attitude towards the aircraft in question? No more than likely Saki really thought the George was a bad aircraft. I would imagine based on the detail of the rest of the interview that if Saki had a beef with the engine or the turning ability or climbing ability or just one particular aspect of the George then he would have said as much. I get the impression he thought the George was a poor aircraft and not just in one characteristic.
I would like the Ki-84 modeled too, but I think it would be unfair to limit the top end to the 388 mph which has already been established as a prototype aircraft with an engine that was rated at least 100 hp less than the production aircraft.
By the way the second set of figures that I quoted are out of the development history of the type in Green & Swanborough 1977.
I also have a source quoting hand written captured documents that list the speeds ranging from 409 to 430.
I'm just concerned that the 388 speed is being accepted as the end all be all in the Frank top end. I think it's pretty clear that it wasn't. Now more than likely the 427 mph test from the captured Clark Field aircraft is a little optimistic, but I think 388 is completely pessimistic.
Spritle
-
You guys are talking like the Frank is really coming. Do you know
something I don't know?
-
Gentlemen,
My two cents on this last bit of discussion...
Aces High is a game, and it models under the best conditions the aircraft is in. Under the current modelling concept, other factors like production reliabilities, fuel octane, etc is not considered because this is not a total re-enactment of what happened in the war.
If we are to argue that these other factors should be considered, then the designers at HTC should consider them as parameters that can be added into the arena settings, for example for scenario purposes.
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
Yes, the Kesmoids took into account which data set they used. However, there reasons for using the best possible data had little to do with WW2 and everything to do with the fact that the Ki-84 was added to AW because a Japanese firm paid Kesmai to add Japanese aircraft to AW. HTC is not affected by such "political" situations and so it's safe to assume that when the Ki-84 is added to AH, it'll better reflect its WW2 counterpart.
J_A_B,
Excuse me, I find this comment funny. Are you suggesting that the Japanese firm who sponsored Kesmai actually asked or vaguely or even remotely implied to Kesmai to sup up the Ki-84 so it has better performance? Or did Kesmai actually felt obliged to sup up the Ki-84?
Nahhhhh. True, a Japanese firm did sponsor, but I believe Kesmai was actually left to its own devices to find the necessary and comparable data they saw fit.
-
Originally posted by FDutchmn
Aces High is a game, and it models under the best conditions the aircraft is in. Under the current modelling concept, other factors like production reliabilities, fuel octane, etc is not considered...
I don't know that. As I mentioned before, if the Ki-61, N1K2, or any other plane is modeled after the manufacturers data, it WOULD be modelling factors like fuel octane.
Spritle,
I think you and I are closer to agreement than it appears. I'm not simply advocating the 388mph data. Rather, I'm advocating a consistant modeling practice. If they model this bird on the "highest performance data recorded" I think that will be "unfair" to other planes that have been modeled after more commonly accepted data sources. There is already a long line of people who are convinced that they have data showing thier favorite plane is too slow. I guess that it's kinda pointless to argue what should be modelled. Since no matter what the final numbers are, we're going to argue about them when they come out.
Oh, and no, we don't know that the Frank is coming to AH. Some of us would like to see it. This discussion probably will have no effect on its being modelled or not, but at least we keep making noise without begging for it :)
-Sikboy
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
If they model this bird on the "highest performance data recorded" I think that will be "unfair" to other planes that have been modeled after more commonly accepted data sources.
Well, as you pointed out, it is an endless discussion. But I do not think it is unfair in anyway as you feel because the commonly accepted data for the other planes is considered the best they do. Oh btw, I didn't say "highest performance data recorded". Just under the best conditions.
If there are people who think otherwise as you mentioned, let them make their case.
-
Originally posted by FDutchmn
Oh btw, I didn't say "highest performance data recorded". Just under the best conditions.
Um... oh, btw, I didn't say you did.
-
FDutchmn,
You said:
Aces High is a game, and it models under the best conditions the aircraft is in. Under the current modelling concept, other factors like production reliabilities, fuel octane, etc is not considered because this is not a total re-enactment of what happened in the war.
This is not entirely true. The A6M5b, Ki-61-I-KAIc, Ki-67 and N1K2-J are all modeled with the performance given by the inferior Japanese fuel. Even given that handicap look at what a monster the N1K2-J is. The Ki-84 is better.
Bring on the Ki-84-Ia Hayate!
(Actually, given the screenies today, bring on the A6M2 Zero, Ki-44-IIb Shoki and B6N2 Tenzan)
-
Originally posted by Karnak
The A6M5b, Ki-61-I-KAIc, Ki-67 and N1K2-J are all modeled with the performance given by the inferior Japanese fuel.
Hiya Karnak,
Oh my this is something new to me... where can I get hold of this information?
-
Yeah...Ki-44 is not released in other sims yet.
It would be like Japanese Fw190. :)
-Mitsu
-
Originally posted by Karnak
This is not entirely true. The A6M5b, Ki-61-I-KAIc, Ki-67 and N1K2-J are all modeled with the performance given by the inferior Japanese fuel.
Hmmm, sounds so familiar :)
Thank you Karnak for stringing the words together and making them easy to understand lol.
-Sikboy
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
Hmmm, sounds so familiar :)
Thank you Karnak for stringing the words together and making them easy to understand lol.
-Sikboy
well this is good but can I refer to something to confirm this is so? (just an honest question... not a troll)
-
Sikboy,
I've felt all along that we were pretty close to agreement on the Ki-84 subject. My personal belief is that the top speed should be somewhere between the 388 figure and the 427 figure, but probably closer to 388. I would be happy with a 395-400 figure as the final say in the mater, but I don't have a say in the mater.
Another somewhat interesting topic is which version should be modeled? The Ki-84 1a with 2x20mm & 2x12.7mm or the Ki-84 1b with 4x20mm? Historically probably the 1a would be the way to go, but the 1b would a monster. Now the 1c with 2x20mm & 2x30mm would be a poor choice just because very few were made. In fact I can't find any production numbers on this particular varient.
Spritle
-
Originally posted by FDutchmn
well this is good but can I refer to something to confirm this is so? (just an honest question... not a troll)
It can't be confirmed because we don't know what data HTC uses for the other models. But if the HTC models of the Japanese Manufacturers data, they would have been using Japanese fuel. If, on the other hand, HTC models after post war american tests using high high octain gas, then one would assume that they would continue this policy with the Frank. The best way to confirm this would be to get a few data samples from either source and compare them to HTCs published data for each airframe.
-Sikboy
-
I wouldn't introduce the Ki-84 unless there was some way to balance it out, either with a small ammo load or some sort of performance inhibitor, and since I'm not a programmer, I can't make any suggestions about which way to go.
When I flew AW (and AW2, and AW3, and AW ME) in FR Pac, the Ki-84 pretty much was the #1 choice of ride because it combined the best parts of a fighter: speed and maneuverability with a flight model that was easy to fly. The Corsair and Hellcat were 2nd and 3rd, with the P-38 and Niki close behind. It wasn't unusual for 2 or 3 Kis to be going into a furball against 2 or 3 other Kis, with maybe a Niki or Corsair thrown into the mix. It got kind of old, but the Ki was just such a superplane that us mediocre pilots had to rely on it just to be competitive.
One of the things I like about AH is that its library of planes is pretty well set up so that no one type dominates the arena. I fly the Spit IX and P-51D (depending on what I want to do that night), and its nice to be able to fight against LAGGS, Niks, Hellcats, Corsairs, and FWs on any given flight. Sure, all of those planes may be better than the others in the library, but at least its a variety. In AW FR Euro it was mostly Spits, FWs, and Mustangs. In AW FR Pac it was Ki-s, Corsairs, and Hellcats.
What I'd really like to see is a P-40 of some sort. And a P-61.
-
Originally posted by gofaster
I wouldn't introduce the Ki-84 unless there was some way to balance it out, either with a small ammo load or some sort of performance inhibitor, and since I'm not a programmer, I can't make any suggestions about which way to go.
Yeah, the main thrust of this second page has been about wheather or not the data the Kesmoids used to model the Frank in AW was porked. If the Frank were only a 400mph plane I don't think it would be any worse than the La-7 we have in AH now. And of course, there are always perk points to leverage in case it does turn out to be uber.
-Sikboy
-
disagreed, gofaster.
-
FDutchmn,
The N1K2's performance matches the Japanese numbers.
You don't get a 8,800lb fighter with a 1,900hp engine maxing out at 369mph without something holding it back. That thing is its fuel.
-
Can someone explain exactly how fuel octane affects engine performance?
I am not clear on this. If an engine is rated at 1990hp using 92 octane, wouldln't higher octane fuel mean it would just hit it's max power rating at a lower altitude. How would this create any great increase in the max speed (at any altitude) of an airplane?
-
Silo,
As I understand it, the higher the octane the higher the boost can go without causing detonation in the cylinders. Also, higher octane fuel is better at higher altitude. Thus, more power is produced at altitude. More power = more speed. Higher altitude = less drag = more speed. More power at altitude = best speed.
I could be entirely mistaken, but that is how I understand it.
-
Hmm okay... higher octane fuel raises the engine power curve at altitude.
So would raising the engine hp curve mean worse lower altitude hp output?
-
Silo,
I think the term 'curve' gets tossed around a little too carelessly. With respect to octane and hp it works like this. An engine is rated at 1,900 hp at max performance using a given octane rated fuel. If at a later point a higher octane fuel is available the engine "can" make more power however only if certain changes are made with respect to it's operation. The easiest changes are boost and ignition advance.
With boost you increase the amount of fuel/air mixture that each cylinder receives resulting in more power. This is at all altitudes.
The second thing I mentioned is ignition advance. Advance is the amount of time in degrees of crank rotation that the spark plug fires before the piston actually reaches top dead center (it's highest point before it starts its journy back down the cylinder). The reason that this is important is that it takes a certain amount of time for the flame to propegate from the spark plug throughout the combustion chamber. During that time the piston is busily traveling up the cylinder. Now if you can fire the spark plug a little earlier you can make a little more power. This is because by the time the fuel air mixture actually combusts the piston should be just at the brink of starting it's decent in the cylinder (power stroke). If you waited too late to fire the spark plug the piston would already be traveling downward and you would be losing efficiency. The reason being that the volume of the fuel air mixture in the combustion chamber would be increasing thus decreasing the pressure. That decrease in pressure will have a corresponding decrease in the amount of power that is released when it combusts.
There are programs now that mathmatically model the entire combustion process in an engine taking every possible event into consideration. Using the latest super computers it can take several hours of calculations before the final results of just a few revolutions of the crank can be output. Pretty amazing stuff, but they can predict with a fair amount of accuracy how much power an engine will make without ever putting it on a dyno.
So anyway a given engine can make more power with a higher octane fuel, but NOT without making some changes to its operation. The increase in power would be seen throughout the entire rpm range and at all altitudes.
Spritle
-
I think that Ki-84 of the Japanese Record wasn't with 2000hp engine. maybe 1800hp around...so, if HTC models "Homare 21" engine as 2000hp one, they should use Ki-84 Data which has been tested by USA.
-Hermit
-
Hope you get it Mit.
I would love to have had it with the old AH FM. Flying on the edge of that nasty spin would have been big fun.
-
I loved old FM.
N1K2-J was just "cool" plane in it.
-
Hey guys the Ki-84 carries 142 liters of methanol-water, this is how it gets an extra 200-250 hp on the deck but the engine is really a 1700 hp (if it's a lucky engine). You can't run more than 5 minutes at its WEP rating anyway and at 20000ft you only have about 1300-1400hp in max continuous power...
Its CuIn is 2185inches at 3000rpm and it is pushing it to its limit to produce 2000hp
Look at the BMW801D 2560Cuin at 27-2900 rpm with petrol injection comes close to 1900 hp and with MW50 is credited with 2100 hp