Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Gatr on December 29, 2002, 09:59:40 AM
-
I almost hate to ask????
Why is the 152 IMHO so Porked....
Gatr:confused:
-
How is it porked?
-
Ssssssssssssh!
Get under the cone of Silence first!
Then call Scully and Molders...... they have some clues. Maybe you can help them unravel the vast conspiracy.
-
Don't even bother Gatr, not worth it, it's porked in more ways then any other plane in the game, been up before. Not worth the time mate.
-
Gatr,
Like with any other plane in the game, if you feel there's something wrong, and have reliable data to prove it, HTC will listen.
SOB
-
I'm sorry SOB, but Wilbuz and even myself has posted on how porked the 152 is. HTC sure he will listen, but no offense HTC, but I don't think you really care about the plane.
~Wildkat/BlueiceJ~
-
Here's a hint... try not to use the word "porked" when attempting to get HTC's attention. Other phrases to try and avoid:
"I'm sick and tired of...."
"Its a conspiracy!"
"HTC doesn't care about..."
"I'll quit if this isn't changed"
"What BS!"
"Uber"
"Spitdweebs, Lame7s, and runstangs..."
Its funny that many people that start threads like this seem to believe HTC is obtuse, when HT has stated repeatedly that taking the whiney aproach is not the best method. Yet the threads continue to start with the above mentioned statements... over and over and over.
AKDejaVu
-
i have a new book that i got for Christmas. in it there's a story of Oberfeldwebel Willi Reschke and an engagement with a tempest in his Ta 152 H-1:
In the following dogfight at almost tree-top level, Sattler's comrade Oberfeldwebel Willi Reschke displayed the superior maneuverability of the Ta 152 by out-turning and shooting down the Tempest flown by Warrant Officer Mitchell, who had no chance to survive.
that is from the book: Luftwaffe fighter aircraft in profile by Claes Sundin & Christer Bregström
oh well my 2¢
-
152:
(http://www.enter.net/~kellys00/c152.jpg)
-
and ht has asked you to speak for him when ?
-
I thought all you luftwhi.....errrr.....luftwee nies knew that HT hates you. I mean....why else would he pork all your rides?:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
and ht has asked you to speak for him when ?
Never.
But, unlike a small minority on this bbs, I have actually learned enough to make the above observations. The line between being downright insulting to the game developers and making suggestions for improvement is not as fine as some would have people believe.
The text is there... you just have to read it and try to learn a thing or two.
AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu
The text is there... you just have to read it and try to learn a thing or two.
AKDejaVu
Exactly.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=74096
-
Ya the things are too small.
-
Uber 152 :D (2,000fpm)
-
Originally posted by SOB
Gatr,
Like with any other plane in the game, if you feel there's something wrong, and have reliable data to prove it, HTC will listen.
SOB
LOL!!
-
I was joking?!
SOB
-
You werent?
-
IMO the sequence of events is more like this:
1. Player feels something is wrong with, oh lets say the damage model for GVs.
2. Player makes lots of tests in the DA.
3. Player compares results of tests in DA with historical records and concludes that there is a difference between historical records and effects in game.
4. Player posts his findings on BB.
5. Fanbois appear, starting to ridicule player. Player is given funny names, some suggest that the player should try another game instead of whining.
6. Player gets frustrated. Asks fanbois if there is anything wrong with the tests the player made, or if the historical records are wrong.
7. Fanbois continue to ridicule player, completely ignoring the subject for players concern.
8. Player realizes BB might not be the best way to get the attention to the problem, so he mails his questions regarding the GV damage model to HTC.
9 Time passes without any answer either on the BB or via mail.
10. Player posts again on the BB, pointing out the dissimilarity between history and game.
11. Fanbois appear again to redicule player. More this time. Player is mentioned in a special thread by one of the fanbois.
Well...maybe I missed some step, but basically there you have it.
-
and where is this malicious little thread?
SOB
-
Do a search on GV damage model. There should be something like 10 or 20 :)
I think it was Brady who started the one Im talking about right now.
-
That seems like an awfully lot of work for a lazy bastard such as myself.
from news & announcements:
Adjusted turret traverse rates on vehicles.
Fixed a bug in the panzer where if the turret was turned it exposed the inside of the tank. This was what was causing the small arms deaths.
Adjusted some component hardness values on vehicles.
However, it looks to me like HT did some work to the GVs for this release.
SOB
-
Originally posted by SOB
However, it looks to me like HT did some work to the GVs for this release.
Yup. GV damage model is still screwed though.
-
I thought all you luftwhi.....errrr.....luftwee nies knew that HT hates you. I mean....why else would he pork all your rides?
Thrila, those comments are exactly what makes HTC think some people think there are stupid LW conspiracy theories. Of course, when telling him I (and others) don't think that at all I never get an answer, but stop saying it please, just unnecessary BS.
The Ta152 is wrong, it's been proven and lots of non LW fliers agree with it after seeing lots of evidence.
Gatr, like I told you before, don't bother with it anymore, not worth the time and frustration to constantly be made fun of by some stupid people who don't know S*** about the plane or what they are talking about, they come in here for one reason and it's to scream LW conspiracy and make fun of you and ruin the normal discussion. They don't know S*** about the Ta152 except that it was a predecessor to the 190 and that's about it.
Give it up and let it be, fly the plane (if you can call it that) as it is, I do, it sucks to not have it right but atleast it does look like a Ta152. The art crew have done a very nice job with it :)
-
Hey Wil, i'm just saying what gatr wants to hear.:D
-
OK... My 2 cents...
I do not feel that LW planes r porked overall nor do I feel HT has any sort of Hard-on about LW stuff in general!!!
Also I feel that HT is doing a GREAT job in majority of stuff.
They also provide a superior product in most all areas.
Now on the 152 subject....
I would pay higher perks for a plane that was faster turned better and climbed better... LIKE IT SHOULD ...>>>> from all accounts I have read... <<<<<
Fellas you gotta admit the D-9 performs almost as well in most circumstances.
I fly all sorts of stuff in the MA as you fellas know because you'all have killed me just about everything...
I don't think I'm a total "Luftwhinne".. or whatever you fellas call it?
Gatr
-
Originally posted by Gatr
I would pay higher perks for a plane that was faster turned better and climbed better... LIKE IT SHOULD ...>>>> from all accounts I have read... <<<<<
Gatr
fly rook, 152's are often on fire sale at 15 perkies.
:D
-
Do you like last night arounf 10pm est...lol
Gatr
-
Hortland missed several steps. Like the one where silly accusations are included in the data. Or where it is a follow up to a much more poorly worded thread that allready set the attitude of the poster.
But I aggree. Vehicle damage is still pretty porked.
-
I'm sorry SOB, but Wilbuz and even myself has posted on how porked the 152 is. HTC sure he will listen, but no offense HTC, but I don't think you really care about the plane.
Out of a huge list of things HTC's small staff has to work on, why should your items be the No. 1 priority, and why should HTC's not getting around to them immediately clearly indicate that they haven't considered the information, don't care about the information, and never will change the model if the data is correct? Do you think they are knocking off at 2:00 each afternoon to play golf? Frankly, I can recall a lot of threads concerning other aircraft that have not been dealt with immediately, or even in the past two updates (the Hellcat and various F4U's) spring to mind. I can only assume that they will get to these issues when they can, just as I prioritize a large list of things to do that I get to when I can.
If they solved every LW problem today, I have a feeling that there would be a new list tomorrow from the same people demanding immediate action on the FW-190A9 or whatever. I certainly won't speak for Pyro, or HT, but if I was in charge of the list and time budgeting, I might even put these changes off until last. Why reward tantrums? How easy is it to do business if the community, by and large, begins to understand that the way to successfully meet personal gameplay goals is to whine, screech, insult, subtly put down, etc. until they receive a reward?
Charon
-
Never mind...
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
Never mind...
Wilbus,
I think a large part of the problem is this. Pyro chooses the data based on sources that he does not divulge. Players on the board may not be using this same set of data when discussing FM accuracy.
This is what I think occurs at HTC:
A problem is posted to the BBS. Pyro checks his data for faults, then has HT check his model to see if it matches. If Pyro is satisfied that the model meets the specs of his chosen set of data, no fix, no answer.
If a problem is found, a fix is made.
The key being the data sets used by Pyro to devise the FM may not match user data sets. This does not make it wrong.
F.
-
Ummm how exactly is the 152 porked? honest question, I've flown the 152 maybe twice in over a year of flying AH.
-
Kaz,
From most of the things I have read it is way down on power.
There are other folks here that know well better than I, the other things not quite correct . For me I would consider it a LARGE step in the right direction if we could crank up the horsepower. I really have no clue from a programing side what this takes to do, but it would make me happy.... Give me more power I'll pay more perkies.... POWER POWER POWER..
ohhh wait that's another problem I have
Gatr
-
I don't know if it is 'porked' or not. I'm not real fond of it, the 190D-9 and 109-G10 are both more formidable (as are the P-51, La7, Yak9, Typhoon, F4U (any of em), Spit IX, N1K2, probably others that I can't pull off the top of my head).
I guess people expect it to be a 'world-beater' since it is the last of the 190s, and when it sucks they think somethings wrong with it. It really wasn't designed for the MA though, it was designed for fighting at 30k+.
-
Originally posted by Charon
If they solved every LW problem today, I have a feeling that there would be a new list tomorrow from the same people demanding immediate action on the FW-190A9 or whatever. I certainly won't speak for Pyro, or HT, but if I was in charge of the list and time budgeting, I might even put these changes off until last. Why reward tantrums? How easy is it to do business if the community, by and large, begins to understand that the way to successfully meet personal gameplay goals is to whine, screech, insult, subtly put down, etc. until they receive a reward?
Charon
Well said, Charon, and it bears repetition.
This is my perception as well. IMO, after having been here since Beta, it seems there is simply no satisfying this part of the player base. No matter what plane or vehicle is added, it is it is incorrectly modeled or "not enough". If another country gets any plane, the development time should have been spent on German equipment. Without doubt, they are the most vociferous unhappy element on the BBS and I think the continual negativism does have an effect on the BBS and the game itself.
IMO, of course.
Further, I agree with the importance of not rewarding undesirable behavior. Whatever you subsidize, you get more of. Most parents know that if you start giving into a tantrum-throwing 2 year old what you will get? More tantrums.
I'd like to see player polls upon entry to the online game that allowed you to prioritize 10 aircraft or vehicles with respect to what you'd like to see next. Let HTC pick the 10 choices. They know where the game is headed and what types will be needed.
After the introduction, if folks DO have questions or different data to offer, let them do so WITHOUT the "poor, poor pitiful me" aspect that is so common; without the accusations of bias.
Then let's all just play the game. Because it IS a game and a darn good one.
You want a "real" FW? They're selling some "new" ones for a real fair price.. but it's a bit more than $15 a month and you won't get to shoot at anyone.
Just my .02.
Flame on, Mein Herren.
-
"This is my perception as well. IMO, after having been here since Beta, it seems there is simply no satisfying this part of the player base. No matter what plane or vehicle is added, it is it is incorrectly modeled or "not enough". If another country gets any plane, the development time should have been spent on German equipment. Without doubt, they are the most vociferous unhappy element on the BBS and I think the continual negativism does have an effect on the BBS and the game itself."
Toad you speak as the LW contingent is the only one asking for changes and have FM concerns or that if they are the only ones who would come up with new ideas or requests in the future.
I guess you were never there when P47D11 was intrudced and everyone in that "part of the player base" complained about propellors.
I guess you were busy at work when Spit 14 was released.
I guess you were busy with house chores when A20 was being whined about for not having a belly gun.
Or that guy F4UDOA, very didicated guy but never seems very happy bout F4U FM. Just cant please him.
Or where were you when all the F6F stall concerns were raised
Or what abnout all those fellas who just wont leave HTC alone to choose his planes and always ask for some LF spit?
Now tell me how you missed all the complaints about choice of Kate and Val by our japanese plane fans. They really want late war models.
And there are all these guys who always wanths the name of a certain Japanes plane changed, how silly is that. I guess they will never be happy.
Surely you did not miss constant calls for special Japanese type torpedos?
And I'm sure we are all just dying to hear from what kept you away from the BBS during the months long P38 fiasco. Family emergency, I hope all is well now?
Looks like you are really a big Luftwaffe fan Toad, you never even bother to check out threads for any other countries planes. Tell me are you a Bf109 or FW190 fan, I'm just dying to know...
-
Sorry grun, most people missed those "other" posts because they were usually kept in the aircraft/vehicles forum and seldomely included an "I QUIT!" or "GODAMMIT HTC I'M SICK AND TIRED OF THIS BS!" title.
Oh... and most of the other problems were fixed. The stall on the F6F... the weak horizontal stab on the P-38... the F4u-1C weight problem... virtually any issue that had solid data and was presented in a non-threatening/non-insulting manner.
There are a few for virtually every type of plane that will never be happy. I think you are dillusional if you don't realize that the LW has, by far and away, the largest concentration of those disgruntled fans.
AKDejaVu
-
Why would we want to flame you Toad? To me it seams as if you want us to flame you thus give the Luftwhiners and everything you call us a bad rep, sorry won't happen, not this time.
This is my perception as well. IMO, after having been here since Beta, it seems there is simply no satisfying this part of the player base. No matter what plane or vehicle is added, it is it is incorrectly modeled or "not enough". If another country gets any plane, the development time should have been spent on German equipment. Without doubt, they are the most vociferous unhappy element on the BBS and I think the continual negativism does have an effect on the BBS and the game itself.
Uhmmm, well, let me see. IMO all 109's, the 262, Me163, Ju87, Ju88 and basicly all LW planes but the 190/Ta152 are great, the 109 kicks but in most fights, being able to climb, turn, fly slow, fly fast (although poor maneuverabilty) the G10 is possible the best all around airplane in the game for survivability, it's far from the easiest to get kills in and far from the most dangerous to engage but it has a high survivability. 262 kicks but no question about it. Me163 climbs like a rocket (it is a rocket). Ju87... well, it's a Ju87 as is the Ju88 a Ju88.
Charon, Ta152 issue have been going on a long time, lots of proof from authentic Focke Wulf documents have been posted. It's not as we have requested it to be fixed right away or tomorrow, just another asumption from your side.
Urchin . The Ta152 was indeed designed as a high altitude fighter/interceptor/escort fighter (thus the big tanks) but it beat about every opponent it engaged at tree top level aswell (where it fought the most), can read combat reports if ya don't believe me and all this while being VASTLY outnumbered AT ALL TIMES.
It climbs way too bad specially at alt, engine performance lacks more and more the higher it gets. It's top speed is reached at 35,000 feet instead of 41,000 feet. This easily proves that the plane lacks the Gm1 boost as, 35,000 was its maximum boost altitude and also the altitude where it gained the highest speed using the MW50 injection.
Combat reports also state that the maneuverabilty was supreme to all fighters it engaged, saying that they could with eas engage Yak 9's, turn hard and still come out with a good amount of E left, they compared it to the 190 A of which they said that it bled E terribly in turns.
The Ta152 in AH bleeds E in turns like a brick wall just like all other 190's.
So basicly... that's all that's wrong with it.
Furious good answer which kind of upsets me more IF you are right.
Quite obviously the data is based on post war allied documents (who didn't care to test much more then Jets after the war as they didn't need it). No time was spent evaluting the planes that weren't jet/rocket powered.
Lots of documents and combat/test reports by German surviving WW2 pilots state that the Ta152 was the best germany had, far superior to the 190 D9 and far superior to all enemy fighters they eno bigtoeered (P47, Yak, P51, Spit 14, tempest etc, they had kills of all of them). This is also suported by the fact that they were constantly flying totally outnumbered against impossible odds. It is allso suported by the fact that The Ta152's were the last planes except for the 262 to be taken out of action.
Just my opinion of course, and sorry to say, there is nothing that can convince me that the FM of the Ta152 in AH is anywhere near correct.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Toad you speak as the LW contingent is the only one asking for changes and have FM concerns or that if they are the only ones who would come up with new ideas or requests in the future.
No.
What I said was that imo after participating in and observing this BBS since Beta the most vociferous, unhappy element on the BBS are the "LW" contingent. And there is no satisfying them.
I'll stand by that.
Of all the rest of your diatribe, there's one important part to point out. Take a look at all F4UDOA's posts. Compare them to say Nath, Mandoble or Ram when he was at his "finest moment".
Note the tone of F4U's posts, the lack of accusatory, inflammatory wording and the ready availability of the source data he uses to make his case.
The same could be said of Mitsu and others.
Yes, there are some LW in this vein but there are FAR MORE of the negative ones in the LW group than any other "group".
IMO, of course. No one's saying not to make suggestions; all anyone's asking is to drop the persecution complex and be polite. I know that's hard for some; in fact, you seem to struggle with polite, gentlemanly debate.
You can assume that everyone jumped on the LW contingent without reason or you can think about why it came about and how you can change that perception of the LW.
I had an old friend who led the Union and one of his cautions was:
If one guy tells you you're a horse's a**, laugh it off.
If two guys tell you you're a horse's a**, stop and consider what you've been doing.
If three guys tell you you're a horse's a**, better go shop for a saddle!
You can go around crying that everyone is not nice to the LW or you can ask yourself how the LW got into that position.
Since you are clearly a sympathizer and have in fact participated in the LW hand-wringing if I'm not mistaken, feel free to have another opinion.
-
Everyone has opinions Toad... Just strange you never read anything but LW plane posts..
Anyway is it 109 or 190 for our our biggest LW fan?
-
I read the Aircraft and Vehicles Forum, Grun.
I still stand by what I said. After all, A&V is where the truth of the matter is on display.
The LW made their own bed, chum.
-
"The LW" ceased to exist in 1945...you are aware of that right?
Why are you grouping us together like that? Do you remember Festers post after 1.10 came out? Something along the lines of "No green P38 in this release, you all suck, I quit" (If I remember correctly). Does that mean that all allied flyers should be grouped together like a bunch of tards too?
-
I think the pony is porked.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
[BDo you remember Festers post after 1.10 came out? Something along the lines of "No green P38 in this release, you all suck, I quit" (If I remember correctly). Does that mean that all allied flyers should be grouped together like a bunch of tards too? [/B]
Fester was pretty much on his own with that one and took alot of heat from everyone on it.
I guess the big difference was that when fester posted an obnoxious insulting post to the folks at HTC, he didn't have a contingent there to support him with "he has a point".
One person did not give the LW fans their reputation.
AKDejaVu
-
How many times has Fester "whined then quit" ?
I bet he took his ball and went home a lot. lol
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu
Fester was pretty much on his own with that one and took alot of heat from everyone on it.
I guess the big difference was that when fester posted an obnoxious insulting post to the folks at HTC, he didn't have a contingent there to support him with "he has a point".
One person did not give the LW fans their reputation.
AKDejaVu
Did I give the "LW fans" their reputation?
My point is, whenever I post something about whatever I'm being grouped together with "the festers" just because I fly LW. It is unfair and extremely frustrating. If I post something about .50cals and their ability to penetrate PzIVH armor, no one cares one bit. Everyone just goes "oh my... :rolleyes: another luftwheiner...", and completely ignores my post.
-
Sorry Hortland, I've just gotta call roadkill on this one.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=61351
SOB
-
Call whatever you want, the post I was refering to was the one that led up to those tests, not the test-post in itself.
Bring that one here if you want, should be fun.
-
You mean this one?
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=61084
That's the only other one I could find.
SOB
-
That one and two others in the aircraft and vehicles forum.
-
Well, put up a link to 'em, because I don't think either of the ones I posted prove your point.
SOB
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
How is it porked?
Because someone's LW book said so.
Its not surprising that there are different numbers floating around for such a rare aricraft that was desperately put together with varying components and levels of build quality.
Of course, none of these luftwhiners has bothered to track down a copy of the tests performed at Wright Field by the USAAF.
-
Those tests were made without boost systems and with a bad engine Montezuma, not much to use.
Have you read the real Focke Wulf documents?
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
Those tests were made without boost systems and with a bad engine Montezuma, not much to use.
Have you read the real Focke Wulf documents?
I have seen the documents posted, the question was whether that one is the same version we have in AH.
I would be interested in a source that you have for stating the US test was with an incomplete or underperforming plane. The only problem I have read about with the test plane was with the wooden rudder and balance issues. The Wizzers said they had access to everything that they needed.
Rational discussion... what's next???
-
They performed some tests in Germany before they shipped it away. They never did tests with Mw50 and Gm1, I've read about the Wizzers, specially their 262 project and they were great indeed but like I said before, the planes they tested most were jets. Neither US nor UK cared to test prop planes much.
We have the H-1 in AH, same version as I have posted docs for (aswell as other versions).
But as for having what they needed, yes, as long as they were in Germany they even had some german pilots to fly the planes aswell as a bunch of german mechanics, most of them didn't come to US and UK to help though (except 262 pilots).
-
I have seen the charts on speeds at altitude, and they seem pretty darn close to the posted data on HTC's site. The only thing I think might be off in the 152, and maybe some others too, is acceleration. I have not seen any hard data on either side of the issue regarding acceleration - and this is the area where the pilot stories seem to differ from AH experiences in the 152.
If someone has figures like this, hard numbers, then this would be useful data.
All this name calling serves some other purpose, but it is not constructive and should be stopped.
-
maxtor you won't normaly see accaleration charts because it's a function of climb rates.
HiTech
-
I applaud everyone who seeks out relevant data and posts and just asks if this was the reference for which the plane was modeled by how accurate the test data is, etc. I.E., stick with the facts.
However, I have the same Ta-152 book and numerous books and accounts of dogfights between allies and axis pilots from either perspective and the whole idea that, for example, the Ta-152 is porked because of the dogfight on the deck where he shot down a Tempest pilot is ABSOLUTELY irrelevant. I say that because we don't know:
1) Were both pilots equal in skill and training both in terms of pilot proficiency and their knowledge of their aircraft.
2) What were the loadouts of the aircraft during the engagement? Do we have the ammo and fuel loads at the time of the engagement?
3) What were the conditions of both aircraft? Was one of them already damaged? Were they both operating nominally?
4) What were their respective turn rates? Their speeds? The corner speeds for the two aircraft are going to be different and without knowing where the planes were fighting in that regard, we can assume that in the fight, the Ta-152 was in the part of the flight envelope where his turn rate exceeded the Tempests, but without knowing the actual numbers, it is pure guess work. It does NOT mean the Ta-152 could out turn a Tempest OTD at all speeds (It might be able to, I haven't computed the actual numbers, I am just saying we don't know based on this account).
I'm not saying we can't get a feel for how planes handled, as with flight test data, or problems that were common based on combat pilot reports. But to use anecdotal information without access to the actual data at the time doesn't serve a constructive purpose. Now, if you said for for a Tempest on the Deck here is it's turn rate vs speed and for a Ta-152H here is the graph for turn rate vs speed OTD and could show where the two differed for given loadouts in AH, you could have a point. But, as such, you have to present it in an objective fashion.
I know some of you here have done exactly that. I am just posting this for those who aren't aware of that. I have always seen HTC respond to actual objective data when presented as such.
As for the Ta-152H otd, I wouldn't be caught OTD in one. Anyone who has a clue will just out scissor you and blow you away.
-
Gentlemen,
This series of posts on the subject of the 152 has been very informative for me.. Save a few Smart Arse remarks by the usal suspects ...
I must thank you all for the replys and facts in regard to my question. This question may have been in the wrong forum as I thought about it some more, however the exposure is much higher here than there. Thats why I posted it here.
Thanks for not bashing me to bad about this choice.
It seems to me that there are a wide range of views on this aircraft,and information is a little tough to come by in great detail.
One more thought if the 152 is modeled correctly...at this level of performance.. should it be perked at all?....
Wilbus
many thanks Gatr
-
Originally posted by SOB
Gatr,
Like with any other plane in the game, if you feel there's something wrong, and have reliable data to prove it, HTC will listen.
SOB
Not so, SOB. A month or two ago, Duedel had a good post about the 152, pointed out most of the things that are wrong with our 152. He had LW charts about plane specs; my memory fails me, but our model either had a secondary wep system, or didn't have wing tanks. This was all relevant data, and HTC did not listen.
-
Originally posted by wetrat
...This was all relevant data, and HTC did not listen.
Prove it.
Just because Pyro did not jump into the thread begging forgiveness for such an afront to the LW contingent does not mean it was not heard.
It may have been ignored. The information that was posted may not be in alignment with whatever docs Pyro used to design the FM. Or Pyro may be testing it and withholding comment until he is finished. Or whatever.
...the point being is that the above quote is a whiny roadkill statement.
thanks.
F.
-
Sure that wasn't me Wetrat? Think I've posted most charts needed to see what's wrong. Maybe Duedel did too, missed his post though.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
IMO the sequence of events is more like this:
1. Player feels something is wrong with, oh lets say the damage model for GVs.
2. Player makes lots of tests in the DA.
3. Player compares results of tests in DA with historical records and concludes that there is a difference between historical records and effects in game.
4. Player posts his findings on BB.
5. Fanbois appear, starting to ridicule player. Player is given funny names, some suggest that the player should try another game instead of whining.
6. Player gets frustrated. Asks fanbois if there is anything wrong with the tests the player made, or if the historical records are wrong.
7. Fanbois continue to ridicule player, completely ignoring the subject for players concern.
8. Player realizes BB might not be the best way to get the attention to the problem, so he mails his questions regarding the GV damage model to HTC.
9 Time passes without any answer either on the BB or via mail.
10. Player posts again on the BB, pointing out the dissimilarity between history and game.
11. Fanbois appear again to redicule player. More this time. Player is mentioned in a special thread by one of the fanbois.
Well...maybe I missed some step, but basically there you have it.
Isn't there a gameplay forum for issues such as you speak of?
-
Originally posted by Rude
Isn't there a gameplay forum for issues such as you speak of?
Dont even go there Rude.
-
Maxtor? Seen the actual FW charts of it? If not, then you can't really say it is right or wrong. Where the plane really is wrong is above 35k where the GM1 was set in.
HTC has removed the 30k+ charts from the webpage, why I don't know but it has been done thus you can't see it anymore. The Ta152H-1 in AH is pretty right when it comes to speed (not climb) bellow 35k. Above 35k it is pretty much worse then it actually was, either because of no GM1 modelled in AH at all or very undermodelled GM1. It could give out 410 hp extra with a 100 g/s consumption. It could also be run at 60 g/s and 150 g/s.
100 g/s was the most usual.
And yes, why is it perked? P51B has the same top speed at almost exactly the same alt (35k) but it maneuvers far better and accelerates far better.
-
it was perked so we wouldn't see an arena full of them...
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
IMO the sequence of events is more like this:
1. Player feels something is wrong with, oh lets say the damage model for GVs.
Alright2. Player makes lots of tests in the DA.
You've strayed already. Step two is to come to the BBS and post about how screwed up he thinks the damage model is. This is met with a "back it up". The poster then does or doesn't do the tests.3. Player compares results of tests in DA with historical records and concludes that there is a difference between historical records and effects in game.
4. Player posts his findings on BB.
Straying again here. The player posts that he has "evidence" that the damage model is porked citing a .ahf film and an anecdotal story from WW2 that he heard about from his third cousin. Then states that HTC should fix it or he'll quit5. Fanbois appear, starting to ridicule player. Player is given funny names, some suggest that the player should try another game instead of whining.
This occurs somewhere between the 7th and 8th time the poster posts the exact same thing.... stating the exact same things.... seldomely with any level of charm. Of course, the "fanboi" term isn't limited to people that ridicule the player, its thrown out to anyone that even disagrees with the findings.6. Player gets frustrated. Asks fanbois if there is anything wrong with the tests the player made, or if the historical records are wrong.
Yes, it always gets here. The innocent victim of the evil fanboi horde. This poor individual always has the data to back up what they say and never insults everyone and their mother prior to saying it. No, this is not the community reacting... it is fanbois hunting.7. Fanbois continue to ridicule player, completely ignoring the subject for players concern.
This should actually read "player feels that he wasn't sufficiently heard so he should say it louder and more obnoxiously... player then wonders why he gets an even worse reception the 10th time around"8. Player realizes BB might not be the best way to get the attention to the problem, so he mails his questions regarding the GV damage model to HTC.
As opposed to posting it in the Aircraft and Vehicles forum... and completely refusing to present the data in a non-combative format.9 Time passes without any answer either on the BB or via mail.
10. Player posts again on the BB, pointing out the dissimilarity between history and game.
Once again, building on the good will expressed in the previous posts... except now its war.11. Fanbois appear again to redicule player. More this time. Player is mentioned in a special thread by one of the fanbois.
My God! This explains ever WOW post to date! Innocent victims simply trying to make the game better for everyone... by insulting everyone... and demanding everything... then threatening to quit.Well...maybe I missed some step, but basically there you have it.
I think your missing a whole lot more than that.
AKDejaVu
-
AK...seriously, why are you all over my back on this one?
The sequence of events I presented there is pretty much EXACTLY what happened in the GV damage discussion before I was banned.
The problem seems to be that certain questions/issues have a history. For example, if ANYONE would be foolish enough to post any questions regarding the 190 roll rate, he would immediately get slaughtered. Because everyone has heard that discussion at least ten times. Problem is the poor guy who posts doesnt neccesarily know this.
As for your comments on my little list there, I can tell you right now that 1-4 is exactly what I did regarding the .50 cal and 7.92mm MGs ability to penetrate PzIVH armour. And I only posted those things once. I got no reply whatsoever from HTC, so I mailed the question to the Questions and answers forum (its gone now, but you remember it, right?).
No replies from HTC, plenty of replies on the BB though, some more interesting than others. Some posted fantastic stories about P47s bouncing their .50cals off the road to kill Panzers from underneath. At least 3 people swore that it was true and it indeed had happened, because they had seen it on TV. Others claimed that if you go by .50 cal penetration data, you will note that it is theoretically possible for .50 cals to penetrate turret top or hull top armor on a PzIVH, yet those same people fail to realize exactly how the US army defined "penetration" in their penetration tests. Or that the gun would have to be close to a 90 degree dive 200 meters from the target in order to penetrate.
So I went ahead and posted the results of a British ww2 battlefield study that examined all destroyed German PzV's from June 6th 1944 to Jan 30th 1945. Not one was destroyed by MG fire, a handful was destroyed by rockets.
You tell me AK, where in all this did I insult anyone? Where did I attack or whine? What was my motivation? Was it to make the PzIVH "uber"?
*****edit******
-
He's probably calling you on it because either your memory is faulty or you're full of toejam.
"As for your comments on my little list there, I can tell you right now that 1-4 is exactly what I did regarding the .50 cal and 7.92mm MGs ability to penetrate PzIVH armour. And I only posted those things once. I got no reply whatsoever from HTC, so I mailed the question to the Questions and answers forum (its gone now, but you remember it, right?)."
Well, if you only posted about it once, then this must be the thread:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=61351
SOB
-
Originally posted by SOB
He's probably calling you on it because either your memory is faulty or you're full of toejam.
"As for your comments on my little list there, I can tell you right now that 1-4 is exactly what I did regarding the .50 cal and 7.92mm MGs ability to penetrate PzIVH armour. And I only posted those things once. I got no reply whatsoever from HTC, so I mailed the question to the Questions and answers forum (its gone now, but you remember it, right?)."
Well, if you only posted about it once, then this must be the thread:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=61351
SOB
I only posted my test results once (as you can see) but at the time there were 3-4 threads going on simultaneously on the same subject. wtf I thought I told you that just a few posts earlier in this same thread? What is your problem exactly?
-
His point is that when you posted in the data people listened and HT even responded. This was due to the effort put in, and the non-biased presentation.
You said you only posted this data once, yet there were 4 threads going on. Wanna guess why the other three weren't nearly as nice?
AKDejaVu
-
Hortlund:
1. Why should you expect a modling question response from us?
Did you ever happen to think that we read the threads and choose not to get into it. Then you try to get a response by email.
Then you complain that we don't answere a modeling question , that is not realy our responciblity to give.
2. Did it ever occure to you that we do take complete angle penitrations into account with armor?
3. Hotlund wrote.
The GV damage model was flawed, it still is. But I have given up trying to influence the game. I know better now.
It couldn't be that you are wrong on penitration and THATS why it dosn't get changed? No you need to take the attitude while off course im correct and HTC won't change any thing.
This is the very crap that is the center of the great Luft Whine debate.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by hitech
But I have given up trying to influence the game. I know better now.
HiTech
???
What do you mean by this HiTech?
Thanks,
eskimo
-
Was a quote eskimo ill fix it
HiTech
-
Originally posted by hitech
Hortlund:
1. Why should you expect a modling question response from us?
Did you ever happen to think that we read the threads and choose not to get into it. Then you try to get a response by email.
Then you complain that we don't answere a modeling question , that is not realy our responciblity to give.
2. Did it ever occure to you that we do take complete angle penitrations into account with armor?
3. Hotlund wrote.
It couldn't be that you are wrong on penitration and THATS why it dosn't get changed? No you need to take the attitude while off course im correct and HTC won't change any thing.
This is the very crap that is the center of the great Luft Whine debate.
HiTech
I assumed that if I sent a question by email to HTC that question would be answered. Or that I at least would get some kind of acknowledgement that my mail had been recieved. I understand now that I was wrong in that assumption. That was my mistake, and fair enough, I had no right to expect a response either. Its just that alot of people were lookin for those answers, and several people actually encouraged me to get on the phone to HTC to ask those questions.
Over to the armor penetration model.
Hitech, in the tests I did before I was banned, I had the following results.
.50cal will penetrate hull rear of PzIVH from 100 m
.50cal will penetrate tracks of PzIVH from 100 m
.50 cal will penetrate turret side of PzIVH from 100 m
.50 cal will penetrate hull side of PzIVH from 100 m
I never had a chance to post those results though.
In v 1.11 the GV damage model has been changed, and there has been alot of improvement. I did the same test again and some of the effects remain though.
New results under 1.11
.50 cal will penetrate hull rear of PzIVH
.50 cal will penetrate tracks of PzIVH
.50 cal will penetrate tracks of PzVIB
.50 cal will penetrate tracks of Ostwind
7.92mm will penetrate tracks of PzIVH
7.92mm will penetrate tracks of PzVIB
7.92mm will penetrate tracks of Ostwind
.30 cal will penetrate tracks of PzVIB
.30 cal will penetrate tracks of PzIVH
.30 cal will penetrate tracks of Ostwind
37mm HE will penetrate turret side of PzIVH
37mm HE will penetrate tracks of PzIVH
37mm HE will penetrate tracks of PzVIB
(note, I did not test 37mm HE effect on PzIVH more than turret side, I suspect it will penetrate hull rear and side though)
Some peculiar results:
88mm AP will not penetrate Ostwind tracks (tried 10 shots)
88mm AP will not penetrate M8 Wheels (tried 6 shots)
88mm AP required 5 hits to take out M8 from side
88mm AP required 2 hits to take out Ostwind turret from front.
(I did not test any more 88mm AP penetration than those shots)
In my opinon, and according to my sources on armour and penetration, all these results should not happen. It should not be possible to shoot off the tracks on a Tiger using a 7.92mm MG. Nor should it be possible to not take out the Ostwind tracks with a direct hit from an 88mm AP.
Am I wrong about these penetrations?
-
Sorry..
who penetrated you again?
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
Maxtor? Seen the actual FW charts of it? If not, then you can't really say it is right or wrong. Where the plane really is wrong is above 35k where the GM1 was set in.
HTC has removed the 30k+ charts from the webpage, why I don't know but it has been done thus you can't see it anymore. The Ta152H-1 in AH is pretty right when it comes to speed (not climb) bellow 35k. Above 35k it is pretty much worse then it actually was, either because of no GM1 modelled in AH at all or very undermodelled GM1. It could give out 410 hp extra with a 100 g/s consumption. It could also be run at 60 g/s and 150 g/s.
100 g/s was the most usual.
And yes, why is it perked? P51B has the same top speed at almost exactly the same alt (35k) but it maneuvers far better and accelerates far better.
Not to nitpick, but why would anyone care if the plane is off a little above 35K? How many fights you gonna find up there?
-
I'm going to try to quantify this perk plane known as the Ta-152. The strong points are good rolling, good firepower, great range, and great turning (once the wing tanks are empty). In my opinion that is why it is perked.
It *will* out turn a Tempest on the deck, in a flat-turn. Ok, I've never actually tested them, but I've tested the Ta152 vs the La7 and the Tempest vs the La7. With a light fue load (50% or so), the Ta-152 out turns the La7 easily. At any fuel load, the La7 out turns the Tempest.
It isn't one of the super fastest planes in the game (at least not on the deck, where it counts), but it can out-run what it can't out-turn. The exception to this may be the Spit 14, that might be able to run one down at low altitude, I'm not sure.
The P-51 doesn't out turn OR out accelerate the Ta-152, as far as I know. The -152s acceleration isn't as good as the other German planes, but I don't believe it is as slow as the P-51 either.
Anyway, thats my 2 cents on the Ta-152.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Dont even go there Rude.
Go where? To the Vehicle forum?
-
Not to nitpick, but now that the damage model for the vehicles has been modified, wouldn't any tests done on the old model be useless?
SOB
-
Yes, hence the tests using the newest version. I thought I said those tests were in 1.11?
-
Hmmm, apparently I haven't learned how to read yet. I'll work on that.
SOB
-
Not to nitpick, but why would anyone care if the plane is off a little above 35K? How many fights you gonna find up there?
Considering I've been outclimbed at 35k by spits 9's it does matter Ammo. The Gm1 400 hp extra given by the Gm1 would have alowed me to climb away at that altitude. As it is now you might as well take a P51 or Dora for 20-25k work and a Spit 9 above 30k for climb or a P51B for some speed above 30k. Ta152 is totally useless at all altitudes as it is now.
-
But, seeing how this leads nowhere but to take alot of my time I won't post about it no more, will satisfie most people.
-
Hort: Please also retract your "I know better now post" It realy does deserve an apology.
What 50 cal are we talking GV or plane?
Also what sources are you using on the track stuff thats a tad different than just armor penitration.
On the rear shot, did it just take out the eng or the tank?
HiTech
-
Originally posted by Urchin
I'm going to try to quantify this perk plane known as the Ta-152. The strong points are good rolling, good firepower, great range, and great turning (once the wing tanks are empty). In my opinion that is why it is perked.
It *will* out turn a Tempest on the deck, in a flat-turn. Ok, I've never actually tested them, but I've tested the Ta152 vs the La7 and the Tempest vs the La7. With a light fue load (50% or so), the Ta-152 out turns the La7 easily. At any fuel load, the La7 out turns the Tempest.
It isn't one of the super fastest planes in the game (at least not on the deck, where it counts), but it can out-run what it can't out-turn. The exception to this may be the Spit 14, that might be able to run one down at low altitude, I'm not sure.
The P-51 doesn't out turn OR out accelerate the Ta-152, as far as I know. The -152s acceleration isn't as good as the other German planes, but I don't believe it is as slow as the P-51 either.
Anyway, thats my 2 cents on the Ta-152.
Thnx for the info...Gonna fly some 152's till I run outta perks this tour..:)
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
Considering I've been outclimbed at 35k by spits 9's it does matter Ammo. The Gm1 400 hp extra given by the Gm1 would have alowed me to climb away at that altitude. As it is now you might as well take a P51 or Dora for 20-25k work and a Spit 9 above 30k for climb or a P51B for some speed above 30k. Ta152 is totally useless at all altitudes as it is now.
This kind of statement demonstrates exactly the reason many of us don't take you very seriously, Wilbus.
You've been outclimbed at 35k by Spit IXs? Got systematic proof? Did you even bother filming the many times you claim to have been outclimbed or outrun or whatnot? With the film viewer, it's now very easy to ascertain the relative E states and actual altitudes of all parties involved. It should be a simple matter to figure out why or how the Spit IX was capable of doing what it could.
Then again this blanket statement that the Ta152 is worthless at all altitudes. It's hardly worthless, and even if it's arguably "porked," it's still an awesome plane. I can't honestly believe that someone would think otherwise of it other than as a matter of hyperbole because it doesn't match how they expect it would perform.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by hitech
Hort: Please also retract your "I know better now post" It realy does deserve an apology.
What 50 cal are we talking GV or plane?
Also what sources are you using on the track stuff thats a tad different than just armor penitration.
On the rear shot, did it just take out the eng or the tank?
HiTech
Alright, I edited it now. And I do apologize if you feel offended by my post.
the .50cal is the pintle gun on the M8
the .30 cal is the coaxial gun on the m8
the 7.92mm is the pintle gun or coaxial gun on the PzIVH
The rear shot only took out the engine.
As for the Tiger tracks, Im assuming you modelled it with the combat tracks? In that case the tracks are made of cast-manganese, and should have no problem to withstand MG fire, .50 cal fire, 37mm HE fire, or even 37mm AP fire for that matter.
Source for Tiger armor and tracks:
Tiger tanks, Michael Green ISBN 0-87938-954-0 (in case you guys doesnt have it already)
Source for armor and penetration discussion:
World war two ballistics, Bird and Livingstone (I dont have the ISBN number here, so I included a link to the book on amazon.
http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/ts/exchange-glance/Y02Y6682179Y8887379/qid=1041610791/sr=1-1/103-9425514-4002218#details
Steve
-
You can try it your self if you don't belive me. Nothing hard to try, nor do I still have the film as I have a new HD.
But whatever, you don't believe me, that's your problem, you might wanna open your eyes for what it can and can not do.
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
You can try it your self if you don't belive me. Nothing hard to try, nor do I still have the film as I have a new HD.
[/B]
Why should I have to try it? You're the one stating the case... prove it! Simply making statements about performance without proof, expecting us to prove it for ourselves, isn't going to win much support for your position.
But whatever, you don't believe me, that's your problem, you might wanna open your eyes for what it can and can not do.
It's not that I do or don't believe you, Wilbus. It's that you haven't shown me anything beyond anecdotal evidence in your earlier statement. I can't help but create in my mind any number of possible scenarios that could explain what happened beyond just the 152's flight model. You haven't systematically proven anything.
Plus you're still ignoring the fact that the 152 is an excellent plane regardless of whether or not it performs as you expect.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Wilbus....
Is it important that the 152 performs under it's potential at 35k and above? I mean, who fights at 35k, even 25k for that matter?
-
Still waiting on an answer from HTC about this:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=67504
(good post BTW Wil)
-
Wilbus: One more clasicc case of the super LW:
Per our data the spit 9 should climb better at 35k so what should we do lower the service selling of the spit 9 from 42K? The whine continues, not because you point that out, but you just blatently make the assumption in your post that it shouldn't, because of course we know the great ta152 should do everything better than spit 9 at 35k.
HiTech
-
And Rude ill answere your question. It is inportant to HTC that they perform correctly, if you going to attack at least attack with facts.
HiTech
-
Stinger!
-
From the Smithsonian, note the statistic on the operating altitude:
"Focke-Wulf Ta152H
Wingspan 14.5 m (47 ft. 6.75 in.)
Length 10.8 m (35 ft. 5.5 in.)
Height 4 m (13 ft.)
Weight 4,750 kg (10,472 lb.) gross
In 1944, the Reichluftfahrtministerium (German Air Ministry or RLM) decreed that all new fighter aircraft designations must include the chief designer's name. Thus was born the Ta 152, named for Kurt Tank, chief of design at the Focke-Wulf Flugzeugbau G. m. b. H. Except for designation, the Ta 152 series is directly related to, and a natural development of, the Fw 190. It was probably the fastest and most capable production, propeller-driven, fighter fielded by Germany during World War II.
In May, 1942, the RLM convened a meeting with representatives of Focke-Wulf and Messerschmitt to discuss the requirements for a Spezial Höhenjäger, a special, high-altitude fighter. Later, the RLM identified an offshoot concept known as the Extremer Höhenjäger, or extreme high-altitude fighter. To meet this need, the Messerschmitt designed the Me 155B and after a clumsy, protracted development period, this project evolved into the Blohm & Voss BV 155 (also in the NASM collection). Meanwhile, Tank hewed to the earlier Spezial Höhenjäger requirement a design called the Ta 152 began taking shape in 1943.
There were many technical challenges to overcome to field an airplane that could fight effectively at altitudes about one-third higher than either the Bf 109 or Fw 190 types already in production. By summer, the need for the new airplane was becoming acute. American heavy bomber raids were increasing and the bomber's fighter escort was operating at higher altitudes. The RLM pressed Focke-Wulf to modify existing designs to operate comfortably at about 12,500 m (40,000 ft). Relatively simple structural modifications were made to existing wings and fuselages to produce the Ta 152. Getting reliable performance from the various subsystems including the engine and supercharger, pressurization equipment, and even the landing flaps, proved much more difficult.
Kurt Tank chose the same workhorse Jumo 213 powerplant used in the Fw 190D. For the Ta 152H, he selected an uprated version, the Jumo 213E, equipped with a 2-stage, 3-speed mechanical supercharger and MW 50 engine boost. The MW 50 system used methanol-water mixture to boost engine output from 1,312 kw (1,750 hp) to 1,537 kw (2,050 hp) for short periods. Because of aluminum shortages, Focke-Wulf made the wing spars from steel and built the rear fuselage and empennage. The wing contained two steel spars. The front spar extended slightly beyond the landing gear attachment points but the rear spar spanned the entire wing. The wing twisted 3° from the root to the flap-aileron junction. This 'washout' prevented the ailerons from stalling before the center section. This allowed the pilot to maintain roll control during a stall. Armament consisted of one 30mm MK 108 cannon firing 90 rounds through the propeller hub and one 20mm MG 151 cannon firing 150-175 rounds from each wing root.
During the fall of 1944, Tank converted an existing Fw 190 prototype airframe (Werk-Nummer or serial number 0040) into the Ta 152H prototype. This aircraft and several other Ta 152 prototypes crashed early in the test program, due largely to intense pressure from the RLM to field production airplanes. Critical components suffered quality-control problems. Superchargers failed, pressurized cockpits leaked, the engine cooling system gave trouble, the landing gear failed to properly retract, and oil temperature gauges gave false readings. These problems, combined with Allied bombing attacks, which disrupted transportation and caused severe fuel shortages, slowed the whole program. Test pilots conducted just 31 hours of flight tests before full production started in November. By the end of January 1945 this figure had not climbed above 50 hours. This was not nearly enough time to refine subsystems and debug major components but production forged ahead.
Premature though it was, the Ta 152 had tremendous potential. Unlike the BV 155, a highly experimental, flying test-bed, Tank's design simply joined a powerful engine, already proven in the Fw 190D, to an existing airframe tweaked to perform at higher altitudes. The result was an airplane faster and more maneuverable than the P-51 Mustang and the P-47 Thunderbolt. Chief designer Kurt Tank was flight-testing a Ta 152H when he encountered a flight of roving Mustangs. He simply turned toward home, applied the MW 50 system to boost his engine, and gave his pursuers the slip.
Between October 1944 and February 1945 when production ended, Focke-Wulf managed to roll 67 completed Ta 152 aircraft (H-0, H-1, and C-1 models) off the line but these fighters put on a disappointing show. Some aircraft were lost to engine fires while a variety of other engine problems and spares shortages grounded most of the fleet. By April 30, 1945, only two Ta 152C-1s remained operational. The Luftwaffe had grounded all H-models--an ignominious end for combat aircraft with great potential.
The National Air and Space Museum's Ta 152 is the only extant example of this fighter in the world today. NASM is also the only museum in the world that has preserved examples of the three major Fw 190 variants: the Fw 190F-8, the Fw 190D-9, and the Ta 152H-0. Each aircraft was built by the same manufacturer, but at different stages of the war and for different missions. Together, the trio offers a unique insight into German fighter development during World War II. Definitive information about the NASM Ta 152 has always been lacking but research conducted late in 1998 may have revealed the airplane's true identity as Werk-Nummer (serial number) 150020, not 150003 or '010 as has been widely reported. This places the airframe toward the end of the range of pre-production H-0 models, a variant marking the transition from the Ta 152 prototypes to full production Ta 152H-1 airplanes. It was probably built at Focke-Wulf's production facility at Cottbus, Germany, in December 1944, and delivered to Erprobungskommando Ta 152 at Rechlin, Germany, for service testing. As with most Ta 152s produced, '020 was apparently transferred to Jagdgeswader (fighter squadron) JG 301 in early 1945. A green '4' was painted on the fuselage and this may have been the squadron identification and radio call sign "Green 4" but much remains unknown about this aircraft.
As the Soviets rolled over eastern Germany, many Luftwaffe pilots took off and steered their mounts west. They preferred to be captured by the West. The British recovered "Green 4" in Aalborg, Denmark, at the end of hostilities. They turned the airplane over to "Watson's Whizzer's, the U. S. unit charged with collecting German aircraft for further study. Lt Harold McIntosh flew '020 to Melun, France, where it was loaded aboard the British aircraft carrier HMS Reaper and shipped Newark Army Airfield, New Jersey. From Newark, McIntosh flew this Ta 152 to Freeman Field, Indiana. The airplane was later transferred to Wright Field, Ohio, to undergo extensive flight testing as Foreign Equipment number FE-112 (later changed to T2-112). After testing, the Army stored the aircraft and then turned it over to the National Air Museum in 1960.
In 1998 Museum restoration staff were treating deteriorated sections of the wooden aft fuselage, fin, rudder, and right elevator when they discovered several interesting items that offered tantalizing glimpses into the airplane's shadowy past
Extensive wood rot was found in where the horizontal stabilizer joins the vertical fin. The restoration staff speculated that during testing at Wright Field, pilots and engineers became concerned that the wooden tail may have been weakened by defective glues or sabotage. They strengthened the entire area with steel plate. However, this work may have compromised flight safety because it required moving the horizontal stabilizer forward several inches, exacerbating a tail-heavy condition already known to the Germans. The restoration specialist removed the steel plate and rebuilt the tail to the original German configuration.
After comparing photographs with the aircraft, the staff determined the British painted over some of the original German markings. The U. S. Army Air Force then stripped and repainted part of the airplane but NASM technicians carefully sanded through the layers of Allied paint to reveal previous markings and much of the original German paint. They found the old Foreign Equipment number, RAF markings, the Reich Defense tail bands of JG 301 (fighter wing 301), and the original Nazi swastika.
The staff also found 20mm MG 151 gun mounts and fittings in the upper cowling. However, these were not normally found in H-0 models, suggesting this airframe may have been destined to become a C-1 variant."
Psyco (German Iron lover)
-
hitech already explained that this is derived by formula - but it just seems that some of our AH planes don't accellerate very well. The p38, f4u, and the 152 come to mind (just ones I have flown a bit) and I don't have any data to back this and I don't know how to go about gettin it.
In the case at hand, from all those charts and graphs though AH does indeed have the 152 top speed right. But from stories you read about (for example the famous one of the 152 taking off and out accelerating some P51-d's) acceleration just doesn't seem to be spot on.
Anyway, that is my take on it - and the F4U is another one - it gives me the impression of being very slow to get to speed (some even call it a "slow" plane when it clearly is not). Again top speed is great, but sure takes a while to get there?
Maybe they never tested and came up with "time to speed" data in the war? You would think a pilot would find that useful data in combat - certainly you would in AH. I have looked and I have never seen such figures. If the data doesn't exist, what is HTC to do?
-
I've always been under the impression that climb rate directly related to acceleration, so if the climb rate is right the acceleration is right too.
-
How do you know what speed to set your climb for at the different altitudes? Maybe people are using different speeds/methods?
edit: I found this - I guess this is how NASA does it.
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Education/OnlineEd/Intro2Flight/nassawt.html
-
Originally posted by Montezuma
Because someone's LW book said so.
Its not surprising that there are different numbers floating around for such a rare aricraft that was desperately put together with varying components and levels of build quality.
Of course, none of these luftwhiners has bothered to track down a copy of the tests performed at Wright Field by the USAAF.
Would you care to explain the Ju88s that history record as having raided Scapa flow in the first days of the war, without having to be fitted with any special extra fuel tanks, whereas the AH Ju88 is completely incapable of making the same trip (from Denmark or Norway to the Orkney islands)?
Perhaps it'd be easier for you and others to apologise for being discourteous enough to take the easy route into attempted ridicule by using the term "luftwhiners" so freely and inappropriately. There are plenty of "whiners" that prefer US planes, and I've seen damned few that are seriously interested in historicity and have the evidence to back their claims. (I'd certainly agree that the Corsair Fm is amis, btw. bedamned if I'm going to call people "whiners" for pointing that out, though).
I'd point out that just because tests were done at Wright Field by the USAAF doesn't necessarily make them typical of what was achieved in combat. As you've sensibly pointed out above, build quality can affect things; so can wear and tear, and so can pilot and maintenance crew skill. Also, I doubt whether someone testpiloting a captured plane away from the fighting is likely to push a plane to the limits they might if they were fighting for their lives.
Now, then; the fact that at least one aircraft has nothing like its proper endurance when the data on that is readily available suggests to me that on occasion HTC slips up, or doesn't do its homework as well as we might like it to, or in the case of bombers, makes the mistake of thinking that so long as it has enough to stay airborne for a coupel of hours that that is OK (in other words, thinks "gameplay" rather than "historicity"). To err is human, after all, and we all get it wrong sometimes. But we are paying to play a game that promotes itself as being a pretty realistic simulation of WW2 air combat. So it's natural that folk interested in getting things right will complain about things that are wrong.
It's equally natural that sometimes HTC will have to prioritise other things than fixing something or other of particular interest to ourselves. If a new build of the game causes the servers to fall over every half hour, then I hope to heck HTC work on a fix to stop the servers going down before they fix the fuel load in the Ju88! But I WOULD like that fuel load fixed (yes, I have emailed the data to HTC. Took me, what, a couple of months to get my act together on it, but I got there in the end :-} PS, HTC: be nice to get the missing nose gun fitted too, and the beam guns that were usually fieldfitted... :-)) . I would also like to see the FMs of the other planes that arent right fixed, too.
Doubtless at some point they'll get to the top of the priority list and I for one, will be that bit happier :-) Just seems damned odd how long some of them have been amiss, is all. Still and all, I'll wait and see how things go. HTC have certainly been a damned sight more responsive in terms of releasing new things to make things interesting than Brand X was...
What I'd LOVE to see, and this is in the hands of the community, not HTC, is for the term "Luftwhiner" to be seen as an obvious mark of an ignorant geek. I like antique aircraft, especially those of WW2. I happen to prefer simulated flying of LW bombers, but that doesn't mean that I'm not interested in the accuracy of other aircraft modelled, including Allied ones.
A little more courtesy, everyone, please.
Esme
-
Originally posted by maxtor
How do you know what speed to set your climb for at the different altitudes? Maybe people are using different speeds/methods?
edit: I found this - I guess this is how NASA does it.
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Education/OnlineEd/Intro2Flight/nassawt.html
Having said that, two questions:
(1) How did people do testing around 1945? (Or more specifically, how did the maker of the performance chart do it?)
(2) Again as to what the german supplied historical charts are showing from a German perspective- this quotation troubles me greatly:
"A. S. Nikolay Gerasimovich, sometime relatively long ago I was speaking with a pilot—a frontline veteran. Right after the war they flew in captured aircraft. And no matter how hard they tried, they were unable to attain the speeds the Germans had written in their specifications. The shortfall in speed was significant. In the end, they prevailed upon a German, a high-level specialist, and asked him, “Why this shortfall in speed? Are we using the engine’s capability incorrectly?” His response was that they would never achieve the target speed, because the German specifications showed the theoretical speed, and they were attempting to attain that speed on their instruments."
http://airforce.users.ru/lend-lease/english/articles/golodnikov/index.htm
(3) Once you have a source of data, how is this data interpreted into context of AH? Are there technical limitations to the level of precision a sim (any sim) can apply this data?
Interesting stuff, if nothing else I am learning something about the science side of aviation.
-
Originally posted by Esme
Perhaps it'd be easier for you and others to apologise for being discourteous enough to take the easy route into attempted ridicule by using the term "luftwhiners" so freely and inappropriately.
Why are you dragging this up from two months ago? I'll play though.
There are plenty of "whiners" that prefer US planes, and I've seen damned few that are seriously interested in historicity and have the evidence to back their claims. (I'd certainly agree that the Corsair Fm is amis, btw. bedamned if I'm going to call people "whiners" for pointing that out, though).
F4UDOA has posted lots of data, and that is fine. But when he crossed the line he got slapped also.
I'd point out that just because tests were done at Wright Field by the USAAF doesn't necessarily make them typical of what was achieved in combat. As you've sensibly pointed out above, build quality can affect things; so can wear and tear, and so can pilot and maintenance crew skill. Also, I doubt whether someone testpiloting a captured plane away from the fighting is likely to push a plane to the limits they might if they were fighting for their lives.
The USAAF tests were probably BETTER than what the thing normally achieved in combat. 'Combat' for most of them consisted of sitting on the ground for whatever reason and then being blown up. Germany wasn't in very good shape in 1945.
And why, in this endless litany of woe about the Ta152, have none of these folks secured a copy of this test? Wouldn't it make sense to assemble all relevant data?
Now, then; the fact that at least one aircraft has nothing like its proper endurance when the data on that is readily available suggests to me that on occasion HTC slips up, or doesn't do its homework as well as we might like it to, or in the case of bombers, makes the mistake of thinking that so long as it has enough to stay airborne for a coupel of hours that that is OK (in other words, thinks "gameplay" rather than "historicity").
If it is wrong, then it should be fixed. But you make a good point, if the range is off, how is that going to affect game play? Even in events, has anyone ever run out of fuel in Ju-88? I don’t know, just asking.
It's equally natural that sometimes HTC will have to prioritise other things than fixing something or other of particular interest to ourselves. If a new build of the game causes the servers to fall over every half hour, then I hope to heck HTC work on a fix to stop the servers going down before they fix the fuel load in the Ju88! But I WOULD like that fuel load fixed (yes, I have emailed the data to HTC. Took me, what, a couple of months to get my act together on it, but I got there in the end :-} PS, HTC: be nice to get the missing nose gun fitted too, and the beam guns that were usually fieldfitted... :-)) . I would also like to see the FMs of the other planes that arent right fixed, too.
Maybe they will change it. But if they don't change it, don't blame it on the conspiracy.
Doubtless at some point they'll get to the top of the priority list and I for one, will be that bit happier :-) Just seems damned odd how long some of them have been amiss, is all. Still and all, I'll wait and see how things go. HTC have certainly been a damned sight more responsive in terms of releasing new things to make things interesting than Brand X was...
Which is why attacking them for having a 'bias', claiming that they refuse to fix known errors, or alleging that they make deliberate errors on German aircraft is dumb.
What I'd LOVE to see, and this is in the hands of the community, not HTC, is for the term "Luftwhiner" to be seen as an obvious mark of an ignorant geek. I like antique aircraft, especially those of WW2. I happen to prefer simulated flying of LW bombers, but that doesn't mean that I'm not interested in the accuracy of other aircraft modelled, including Allied ones.
No one would call you a luftwhiner for just posting your Ju88 stuff. It is all in the presentation. If you come back a week later and say, “Why hasn’t this been fixed? Nothing every gets fixed! HTC is biased against the LW!” Then, yes, you probably will get hit with that label. Of course, you would never do such a thing. But the people that do say that kind of stuff, who respond to questions about data with flames and trolls, are actually the worst enemies German plane fans.
Another problem is that German aircraft whiners are in EVERY WW2 GAME. Right now, someone is furiously typing a message on some IL2, WW2OL, FA, or AGW board about why 'x' German aircraft does not perform as well as it should. Why is this? Yes, we have whiners about all aircraft in these games, but the vast majority of these complaints revolve around German aircraft. I don't know why this is, there was a multipage thread about it recently.
I, like you, am interested in all of the aircraft of WW2. I think the FW190 is a fascinating and beautiful plane. But HTC has more experience doing computer flight models for FW190s than anyone else in the world, so in the absence of compelling evidence I give them the benefit of the doubt as to their modeling of its performance.
And if I do have a complaint about something, like I did with the old hellcat death stall, I'll make it in a calm manner and simply present the evidence that I have. And I'll try not to take it personally if someone says something derogatory about my favorite plane.
-
Originally posted by Montezuma
If it is wrong, then it should be fixed. But you make a good point, if the range is off, how is that going to affect game play? Even in events, has anyone ever run out of fuel in Ju-88? I don’t know, just asking.
Yeah, in the Sicily scenario my flight of Ju88s all ran out of fuel. Pretty frustrating since we were all undamaged and were rtb for more ammo and another bombing mission, instead we all had to ditch.
-
The mossie also as fuel problems. It as shorter endurance than the spit :eek:
If its wrong then it should be fixed. When HTC as the time of course :D .