P38

[Urchin]

I'm not sure what the criteria are for the more "full" flap settings (as far as AH speeds for retraction vs RL "limits").  In fact, I don't even much care if the P-38 got changed as far as that goes... I don't fly it and odds are it wouldn't effect me even if I still flew.

I can see why the P-38 guys would like the "full" flaps retracting speed to be a little bit higher than it is, because it is fairly simple to see that your flaps retracting because your speed touched 150 mph (for instance) in a slow speed "turn fight" for an instant would mess you up.  

However, I also see the other point, which is if HTC decided to change it so they didn't retract till 160 you'd have people saying "This is BS HT, my flaps autoretract if my speed touches 160 for an INSTANT and then I lose the fight!", or if they were changed so they took damage it'd be "this is BS HT, my flaps got damaged because my speed went over 160 for a SECOND, in REAL LIFE flaps didn't break just because you went 5 mph over the "RECOMMENDED LIMIT" (NOTE RECOMMENDED), it needs to be changed!"

Edited for broken english lol

[Wotan]

Murdr: So your saying snapping the flaps off at the bottom of the loop does not take the control out of the pilots hands?

Or do you just wish the limit's raised so you can use flaps at higher speeds at the bottom of the loop?


HiTech

Your answer:

Add a 1-2 second delay between auto-retract/deploy and its even more common.

That in effect raises the limit, which is exactly what the original poster wants.

This is OIO's thread and his requests are the subject of discussion. At least he's honest enough to admit what he wants with out hiding behind some other pointless drivel.

Whether it be some grace period of 1 or 2 seconds or 50 – 80 mph its still all about limits.

[Murdr]

Originally posted by Murdr
Its a common experience for me to have the flap.wav playing double  because I was at the bottom when the auto-retract took over, and Ive already started the next loop and re-deployed them.   Add a 1-2 second delay between auto-retract/deploy and its even more common.

Read It!  Nowhere did I ask for a grace period.

here, ill make it easier. the pronoun "its" is defined in the first sentence "a common experience for me".  

Im describing my experience with the contrary ARF, not asking for something.

[Murdr]

Originally posted by Urchin
However, I also see the other point, which is if HTC decided to change it so they didn't retract till 160 you'd have people saying "This is BS HT, my flaps autoretract if my speed touches 160 for an INSTANT and then I lose the fight!", or if they were changed so they took damage it'd be "this is BS HT, my flaps got damaged because my speed went over 160 for a SECOND, in REAL LIFE flaps didn't break just because you went 5 mph over the "RECOMMENDED LIMIT" (NOTE RECOMMENDED), it needs to be changed!"

Edited for broken english lol

Hence the parameter "Make it (auto-retract) optional like auto take-off." Turn ARF back on if ya dont like it when the break.

[Cobra412]

No one is asking for an uber plane.  Frankly I don't even fly the P-38 at all.  What I do actually is work the flight controls systems on the F-15 and know first hand that "factory limits" are bent constantly.  Sometimes they are broken at a cost and sometimes they are broken with no adverse affects.  That is realism.

It is all about realism and not gaming the game.  To many folks here are trying to make this into an issue about wanting to press the limits to purely get a kill.  It's not that at all.  This isn't a one way street.  That is ofcourse how some of you view this subject though.

Yes unfortunately you will have those that will constantly press the limits to get a kill if it were implemented.  They will still pay dearly if it is abused though in the end.  Flying recklessly on the edge like that on a constant basis will cost them their "virtual lives" if their greed gets the best of them.  You would still be entering a danger zone if the limits are passed.  

Those who use it as a last ditch effort here and there are the ones we are talking about.  These are the same people who are concious about every aspect of flying and fighting during every engagement.  These are the people who will weigh the risks of attempting a maneuver that is risky and if it doesn't work then they will pay the price.  

The arenas we fly in are very dynamic.  Things change at the blink of an eye.  People will find out quickly that if such a system is implemented (which I doubt it will) and their greed gets the best of them them, it will come at a cost if used wrecklessly.  Next time they up they will be thinking about pressing the limit and will weigh the risks.  Some will choose to fly wrecklessly and some will choose to do as they do already and weigh the risks with everything they do in a fight.  People say head on attacks are realistic and they definately are if you read the history books.  Head on attacks are also very risky and in a split second can cost them their lives.  Realism means having the option of making a choice.  With realism also comes randomness.  There are very few things in this world that have guaranteed outcomes and pressing the limits of combat aircraft is not a guarantee that the outcome will be catostrophic.  What our aircrews do is called operational risk management.  They weigh the cost of everything they do.

[Kweassa]

The answer to your first scenario depends entirely on how good the pilot is, how good he thinks he is, and how agressive he is.

 Then that simplifies the problem enough. You guys that cannot accept autoretraction are;

1) agressive
2) thinks himself good enough  
3) but not actually good enough to contain speed within the boundaries of the border set all the time

 

A lot (at least more than a few) of pilots DID pursue in those situations, some succeeded, some died, and some barely escaped with their lives.

 Which, is exactly the same thing in AH, where sometimes one in a P-38, would be able to keep the speed under the limited levels and follow the target aggressively and succeed in shooting it down.. or in some cases, would fail by exceeding limitations.

But all had the choice, that is REALITY, whether YOU like it or not.

 And whether YOU refuse to see it or not, that is technical reality, not the wholesome reality itself. You see one side of reality which suits your immediate combat purpose. We see the other, which determines how real the game will stay in terms of overall situation.

He might even pull the split S, and when his speed dropped from the G's he pulled, drop MORE flaps to keep his speed down and his turn tight, knowing he can pull them up and dive away at full throttle, should the need arise.

 And one might also choose to do a suicidal JABO role by diving alone into a field with its defenses fully up, and create a spectacular crater after his run.

 Or, one might also do a 30 degrees angle divebombing in a four-engined Lancaster.

 Or, one might disregard all of the warnings and break over the sanctioned engine boost limit and risk reprimandation by manually overreving his engine just for the sake of single combat engagement.

 Those are choices that was possible in real life too.

As far as my statement, no, P-38 pilots are not saints. But good P-38 pilots are not fools. They are not going to drop the flaps at high speeds because there's no advantage to it.

 But they will want to deploy the flaps and let them work as dive brakes, over the recommended speeds?

The idiots in P-38's you'll kill anyway, especially when they do stupid things with their flaps.

 Who cares about the idiots?

Your problem is that you already hate the fact that the P-38 (and the P-47 for that matter) already have Fowler flaps that deploy at higher speeds, and make them more stable at lower speeds with more flap, and Axis planes, which were designed with a different philisophy, do not.

 If that was true, how come you don't see me asking for the same thing done to the Bf109s or Fw190s? Crumpp does mention the Fw190s being able to use their flaps upto a higher point but it remains a neutral interest to me because no real discussion has been made about it yet.

 Wouldn't you think if this was about your "nobody likes us Allied fanboys" thing, I'd be the first one to post about "waaaahhh I want my 109 flaps to not autoretract too.." whines?

 How low a point can one try to hit? Rabbit punches and low blows. Now you're trying biting and kicking too.

Those flaps make those planes more stable. Axis planes were designed to be lighter and more nimble, but along with the advantage of being more nimble comes the disadvantage of being less stable.

 Axis planes(and Soviet, Japanese, even RAF and Reggia Aeronautica and most of the other USAAF and USN planes for that matter..) use exactly the same philosophy towards 'flaps' as your P-38.

 The only difference is the P-38 saw some practical combat use of a certain intermediate position NAMED 'combat position', which in NORMAL FUNCTIONING FLAPS INTENDED FOR NORMAl FLAP EFFECT AS SECONDARY FLIGHT CONTROL in the fact that it was deployed in a fowler-type manner in that intermediate position.

 You think P-38 flaps are something special which makes the P-38 something that it was not. That's what this entire discussion is about.

 People don't use flaps over X speeds, when the manufacturers say, "don't use them. It might damage it(thus, increasing your chance of entering Kingdom Come)". However, you think the P-38 flaps are something special with a special purpose in its life that differentiates itself with every other plane in WW2, and thus, you should be allowed to make an unrealistic choice that leads to unrealistic situational results which would rarely happen in real life - because, the having the choice itself would be stil possible in real life(no matter how unlikely it is).

 Wake up.

So, in reality, when the Allied pilot had a choice about his flaps, even if the wrong choice would get him killed, in the game you want his choice taken away, because you don't have the same choice in your plane of choice.

 So what's the problem here? Is this some philosophical thing about the freedom of choice?

 Or are you arguing that your plane should be allowed to have that choice, BECAUSE YOU WANT TO ACTUALLY CHOOSE TO DO SO IN THE MA, FOR THE SAKE OF YOUR OWN COMBAT PURPOSE

 In other words, you don't care how unrealistic it is or not. You just want to do that, make an unrealistic choice,  if you think it can aid you in combat.

 That, is a good definition of "GAMING THE GAME" if I ever saw one.

But you want to call THAT reality. You've been bawling and whining about U.S. planes being more stable and Axis planes being less stable since the first time I saw you post.

 You're advocating an action for an unrealistic choice which would rarely be seen in real life, which results will change the game into a mandatory flap deployment in every maneuvering instance, and call that 'reality' in regards to the technical possibility, and yet total disregard to its outcome.

 You call that 'reality'.

 I advocate a limitation not only one plane has, but that is applied to every plane in the game despite the fact that it limits a pilots personal choice, because, with that limitation in place we have a game where pilots carefully choose their speeds in regards to flap deployment, and must intensely fight the possibility that they might go overspeed.
 
 I call that 'reality'.

 

This perpetual whine about keeping autoretract is simply an extension thereof.

 We're the ones whining now?

One more thing. The REAL complaint here is not the flaps autoretracting from one or two notches at 250MPH. The REAL complaint is the 3rd, 4th, and 5th notch retracting at lower speeds in high G maneuvers as speed momentarily rises 5MPH for an instant. The mere fact that you are arguing about one notch at 250MPH plus shows you don't know what you are actually arguing about.

 I know that you're arguing for a 5 miles per hour worth of slack, when no other plane pilot of all of the other countries, even your own USAAF, are allowed to do so, and complaining about it.

 HT was right all along.

 Twist it, warp it, reverse it, flip it all you want. The bottom line is still;

" I just want the limits raised. For my plane "

[Cobra412]

Random failures above critical limits should be implemented upon all airframes not just one.  It just so happens that the P-38 folks are here fighting for something that is realistic and should be implemented.  HTC is the one that will weigh the costs of making a random fail generator system for a system like this.   If they choose not to it's no different than them choosing not to implement complexed engine management systems or random failures of other systems.  

Realism versus playablity versus time to structure a failure generator.  Seems alot like operational risk management if you asked me.  Weighing the pros and cons to a particular subject to determine if the cost is worth the risks involved.

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by Wotan


As soon as your flaps start breakng or jamming you and the P-38 fan bois will be back whining about that. So it makes no difference what happens to your flaps if they are extended beyond the limits, its the limit (as OIO abmits) that you all are whining about.

You're wrong as you are about most things.  I'm pretty sure that I've been playing these sort of games longer than you have and in games where flap damage was modeled from over speeding and honestly that was probably the only aspects in those two games that I never heard a whine about.  Sure it sucked the couple of times I did jam my flaps but I chalked it up to a lesson learned.  

No, it basically sounds to me that you and your kind just enjoy being coddled.  Please be sure to come back when you actually have something productive to say.


ack-ack

[Kweassa]

Step out of the tech side Cobra.

 Realism is an amalgam of many different things, not just the technical side. Something which influences realism much more in terms of overall game play is how real life choices were limited by the burden of real life itself, despite the fact that the choices always remained.

 Because this is a game, where we do not risk our personal lives, or have to worry about the performance of our planes in the next sortie, we do wild and crazy stuff real WW2 pilots would frown upon.

 A keen reader might remember that in the older dicsussion about this issue, I've reached a certain compromise point with Murdr in the form of random failures with increased chance of damage the higher the speed goes over the limit. Critical risk high enough   to want the pilot to not want to engage his flaps over the limit.

 However, even that was an arbitrary assumption at best.

  How is HTC gonna model a random chance? Upon which factors? Are they going to have to measure the strength of the flap system, what type of metal it uses, and then run it through a super-sophisticated air flow simulation program, just to more-or-less accurately determine the chance of damage?

 Or, are they gonna have to use a random 'dice roll' type of determiners?

 
 Look at how 'randomness' effects the people in the MA - the 88mm puffy flak.

 It's something like one flak hit in 20 sorties type of thing, rare thing to happen in the first place, and still people can't stand the fact that random chance has hit them.

 So, are we really gonna ask for a random chance based on an arbitrary dice roll?

 People will be angry because player X's flap withstood upto 50mph higher than its recommended speed, and yet their own plane gets damaged when only 3~5mph has exceeded, just because of this random chance.

 So if HTC offsets the random chance so it is a highly unlikely thing to happen when the limits are only mildly crossed, then in effect it loses its randomness and becomes an 'raised limit' line in practicality.

 
 Randomness is a highly risky thing to throw into the game when the game is so high in the spirit of competition between players.

 That's something you can't figure out by technics and numbers alone.

[Cobra412]

Kweassa I'm not going to argue with you.  Seems you do it enough with everyone else on here.  The majority who wish not to see a random fail generator applied are the same ones who keep saying it's gamey and "unrealistic".  It is not gamey and it isn't unrealistic.  

I could make a list of gamey crap that goes on in the arenas and gamey easy mode functions that have been implemented by HTC.  Easy mode bombing calibrations, limited damage model on carriers(lack of damage modeling to direct hits on the carrier deck which would keep planes from launching), lack of damage modeling to airfield runways(see above for explanation), auto flap retraction, auto angle, auto speed, and auto combat trim.  Dive bombing buffs, vehicles hidding inside buildings which have no vehicle entries, dogfighting buffs, buffs landing on aircraft carriers,  suicide pork runners,  suicide 100 ft or lower buff formations, and porkers flying off map to hopefully avoid interception.  These are gamey.  

No offense to HTC it's what they've chose to model for with obvious reasons for some items.  I'll deal with these items just as I will deal with it if they dont' model a random fail generator.  People already game the game but I don't the same people complaining here about implementing a random failure complaining about them and their gamey ways.  It seems some pick and choose which fight they want to fight depending on whether or not it suits them in some way or another.  Just like the group who claim there is a conspiracy with the Axis modeling.  Some are more informed than others but the ones who aren't informed still complain because how it currently is doesn't suit their agenda.

I've worked combat aircraft long enough to know from experience that limits are broken and broken often.  The outcomes of these broken limits vary from one incident to the next.  Hence why I have said random failures above a particular limit is realistic.  Whether HTC chooses to take the time to try and make such a system is up to them.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Kweassa
Then that simplifies the problem enough. You guys that cannot accept autoretraction are;

1) agressive
2) thinks himself good enough  
3) but not actually good enough to contain speed within the boundaries of the border set all the time

The reason I cannot accept autoretraction is that it simply did not exist on the P-38. PERIOD. The plane did not have it. Further, autoretraction ASSUMES facts not in evidence. Not to mention it completely ignore the fact that there was by necessity a safety margin in the limits the flight manual did set. They didn't state that 250MPH was the limit because at 251MPH the flaps would structurally fail.

 


 Which, is exactly the same thing in AH, where sometimes one in a P-38, would be able to keep the speed under the limited levels and follow the target aggressively and succeed in shooting it down.. or in some cases, would fail by exceeding limitations.

Removing autoretract and replacing it with a properly designed damage model would not change that.

 And whether YOU refuse to see it or not, that is technical reality, not the wholesome reality itself. You see one side of reality which suits your immediate combat purpose. We see the other, which determines how real the game will stay in terms of overall situation.

The ONLY reality is this: The P-38 did not EVER have an autoretract function. The fact that you want it artificially limited by forcing an autoretract function has nothing at all with your desire for reality, and eveything to do with your desire to handicap a plane you don't want to face performing at its full potential.

 And one might also choose to do a suicidal JABO role by diving alone into a field with its defenses fully up, and create a spectacular crater after his run.

 Or, one might also do a 30 degrees angle divebombing in a four-engined Lancaster.

 Or, one might disregard all of the warnings and break over the sanctioned engine boost limit and risk reprimandation by manually overreving his engine just for the sake of single combat engagement.

 Those are choices that was possible in real life too.

And those choices have nothing to do with the object of discussion, they are merely straws you grasp at because you have no valid argument.

 But they will want to deploy the flaps and let them work as dive brakes, over the recommended speeds?

No one has advocating deploying flaps to use them as speed brakes. If you are already slow enough to use the flaps, if you deploy them far enough, the associated drag WILL keep you that slow, and besides, even if it allowed your speed to creep up a few MPH, the flaps wouldn't be damaged, nor would aerodynamics force them to retract.

 Who cares about the idiots?

I'll leave that one alone.

 If that was true, how come you don't see me asking for the same thing done to the Bf109s or Fw190s? Crumpp does mention the Fw190s being able to use their flaps upto a higher point but it remains a neutral interest to me because no real discussion has been made about it yet.

You've been squawling about instability issues in the 109 and other Axis rides for as long as I can remember.

The difference between you and me is I don't want artificial limits. If the 109 is too unstable, I want it fixed. If the flap limit on the 190 is too low, I want that fixed too. And the P-38 did not have autoretract, so I want that fixed.

 Wouldn't you think if this was about your "nobody likes us Allied fanboys" thing, I'd be the first one to post about "waaaahhh I want my 109 flaps to not autoretract too.." whines?

 How low a point can one try to hit? Rabbit punches and low blows. Now you're trying biting and kicking too.

Look, I'm not the one who feels compelled by some sort of obsession to infest every thread about other planes. You, Crump, and Wotan must live in total fear of the P-38 having autoretract removed. The mere mention of the P-38 in any thread draws you clowns like crap draws flies. I never said nobody likes those of us who prefer the P-38, and I really don't give a damn if they do or if they don't. As far as it goes, you should be the absolute last to complain about rabbit punches and low blows, never mind kicking and biting. You can't come up with any factual basis for your argument, the best you can do is grasp at straws. And you've humped the ankles of every P-38 fan here until they bleed. YOU simply MUST insert yourself into EVERY thread about the P-38. If I were as obsessed about planes I don't fly (like the 109 and 190) as you are about the P-38, I'd seriously consider seeking professional help. The only time I bother with posting in those threads is when you feel compelled to stoop to hurling immature insults at P-38 fans in a sad attempt to get your whine, err point, across about your instability issues with the Axis planes. Even when the P-38 is NOT the subject, you have to hurl the same insults about it.

 Axis planes(and Soviet, Japanese, even RAF and Reggia Aeronautica and most of the other USAAF and USN planes for that matter..) use exactly the same philosophy towards 'flaps' as your P-38.

No, in fact, they are not. The Axis planes were designed to be lighter and more maneuverable, and they sacrificed stability and protection to get it. U.S. planes were designed, with one or two notable excptions, to be heavier, more rugged, more stable and more powerful. They intentionally sacrificed a certain measure of maneuverability to achive those goals. SOME designs, like the P-38, had certain equipment specifically designed to make them a little more maneuverable at lower speeds. With regards to flaps, few of the Axis designs I've seen use Folwer type flaps for the specific purposes they were used on the P-38 for.

 The only difference is the P-38 saw some practical combat use of a certain intermediate position NAMED 'combat position', which in NORMAL FUNCTIONING FLAPS INTENDED FOR NORMAl FLAP EFFECT AS SECONDARY FLIGHT CONTROL in the fact that it was deployed in a fowler-type manner in that intermediate position.

The fact remains, the other flap settings WERE used by SOME pilots very successfully, and there never was an autoretract feature.

 You think P-38 flaps are something special which makes the P-38 something that it was not. That's what this entire discussion is about.

What this entire discussion is about is your morbid fear of a P-38 that is not artificially handicapped with an automatic function the real plane did not have.

 People don't use flaps over X speeds, when the manufacturers say, "don't use them. It might damage it(thus, increasing your chance of entering Kingdom Come)". However, you think the P-38 flaps are something special with a special purpose in its life that differentiates itself with every other plane in WW2, and thus, you should be allowed to make an unrealistic choice that leads to unrealistic situational results which would rarely happen in real life - because, the having the choice itself would be stil possible in real life(no matter how unlikely it is).

People exceed design parameters all of the time, especially in combat. Sometimes it works, sometimes it does not. Your argument that people don't use flaps above rated speeds has two problems.

1. People do use flaps at speeds higher than they are rated. That's a FACT. Just because you don't LIKE that fact does not keep it from being a FACT.

2. Flaps don't automaticly fail the instant the rated speed is exceeded.

The flaps on the P-38 WERE used in the manner some of us use them, by pilots in combat. They judged the risks, and they made their decision to take their chances. Yes Kweassa, they DID use full flaps in turn fights at low speeds, even when they were told it was very risky.

The choice is only unrealistic in YOUR OPINION. The FACT remains they WERE used in that manner and they DID NOT have autoretract. Just because you don't LIKE that fact, does not mean it is not a fact. Just because you THINK it is unrealistic for pilots in AH to have the same choices and options the men who flew the real planes had, does not MAKE it unrealistic.


To be continued in the next post

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

previous post continued here

 Wake up.

Yes, indeed you should.

 So what's the problem here? Is this some philosophical thing about the freedom of choice?

The PROBLEM here is YOU, and your fantasy belief that the P-38 should have an artificial function it did not have in real life in order to handicap it to suit YOUR fantasy idea of reality. THAT is the PROBLEM.

 Or are you arguing that your plane should be allowed to have that choice, BECAUSE YOU WANT TO ACTUALLY CHOOSE TO DO SO IN THE MA, FOR THE SAKE OF YOUR OWN COMBAT PURPOSE

It's not MY plane. But it should be as close to the real plane as is possible, whether YOU like it or not. I'm not saying the P-38 should be given ANYTHING it did not have. Or that it should be given any feature not given to planes who had the same feature in real life. See, that's your problem here. We're asking for the P-38 to be true to life. We're not asking for some sort of add on advantage that the real plane didn't have. We're only asking for the flaps to function EXACTLY as they do on the real plane. NO autoretract.

 In other words, you don't care how unrealistic it is or not. You just want to do that, make an unrealistic choice,  if you think it can aid you in combat.

 That, is a good definition of "GAMING THE GAME" if I ever saw one.

BULL! It is NOT an unrealistic choice. It is a choice made possible by the design of the plane, and an option exercised by real pilots who flew the real plane.

Gaming the Game is artificially handicapping a plane with a B.S. function it did not have in real life, in order to make it artificially unstable. YOU are the one gaimng the game, because you live in morbid fear if facing it without the artificial handicap. Sucks to be you. Life must be hard when you're paranoid.

 You're advocating an action for an unrealistic choice which would rarely be seen in real life, which results will change the game into a mandatory flap deployment in every maneuvering instance, and call that 'reality' in regards to the technical possibility, and yet total disregard to its outcome.

BULL. Again. I'm merely stating several facts. The fact is, the P-38 did not have autoretract flaps. The fact is, some pilots not only used the maneuvering setting, but also full flaps. It was not necessarily an every day occurrence, but that does not make it unrealistic.

And your argument that having it available changes the game into a manditory flaps deployment illustrates two things VERY CLEARLY.

1. Not every engagement results in speeds low enough to even consider flaps. Not every maneuver requires them, and some situations make the yse of flaps both unnecessary and undesireable. Evidently, you have some bizarre opinions about air to air combat.

2. The fact that you THINK every maneuver will result in "manditory" flap deployment clearly illustrates that you want to make sure that you can at least some what mitigate the advantage a P-38 has because of inherent design features, if not negate that advantage entirely, because it is "unfair" to planes that do not have the same design features.

 You call that 'reality'.

I call having the plane function as it was designed to, meaning that the equipment works exactly like it did on the real plane, reality.

 I advocate a limitation not only one plane has, but that is applied to every plane in the game despite the fact that it limits a pilots personal choice, because, with that limitation in place we have a game where pilots carefully choose their speeds in regards to flap deployment, and must intensely fight the possibility that they might go overspeed.
 
 I call that 'reality'.

See, what you call reality, forcing a limit on one plane because other planes have that limit, I call arcadish crap. How about we limit the dive speed on ALL planes to the same as that on the P-38? Why not? After all, you want to force an artificial limit on the P-38, to level the field, because some of the other planes have design characteristics that prevent them from using flaps the way a P-38 does. So, since the P-38 has a lower dive speed limit than most, let's lower all the dive speeds of all the other planes. That's what you are advocating.  An artificial limit on the P-38, to handicap it to the level of other planes in certain areas of the flight envelop.

 


 We're the ones whining now?

Yes, you certainly are. Not just now, but in every P-38 thread I can remember since I came to the AH BBS.

 I know that you're arguing for a 5 miles per hour worth of slack, when no other plane pilot of all of the other countries, even your own USAAF, are allowed to do so, and complaining about it.

I'm arguing for autoretract to be removed, because it wasn't on the real plane. I want it replaced with a realistic damage model. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Naudet]

The fact is, the P-38 did not have autoretract flaps.

Nor had any other plane represented currently in AH except the NIKI which had an auto-combat flap system if i remember right.
The FW190 btw has deployment limits modeled in AH that are below the specs given in the aircraft manual.

The problem here is HTC has to draw the line somewhere?
Where should this be? Manufacturer or handbook safety "recommendations" are the only way to go IMHO, cause otherwise we will have sheer chaos of "what should be" and "what could be".

The autoretract features is a nice compromise i think, it lets the pilots use the flaps up to their max modeled limits without damaging them.

Most other flightsims are not that generous, there the flaps get stuck once you exceed the modeled limits.
Do you really ask for this? Or would you than come back here in anger because you regulary overspeed your flaps and they are frozen in position.

Or is the real problem here that AH's P38 enters a spin when autoretract kicks in?

A solution maybe to soften up the line were autoretract kicks in, maybe something like "more than 5 seconds and/or 15mph IAS over max deployment speed".
That way flaps would not autoretract if you exceed the limits only for a brief moment.


@crumpp:

 

I RL the FW-190A could deploy take off flaps up to 500Kph according to the Flugzeug-Handbuch.

Crumpp in the FW190A8 manual i have there is no speed limit given for the take off position. Only the landing position of the flaps is limited to 300km/h max.
Do you have a different release of the FW190s manual than me?

[Kweassa]

The reason I cannot accept autoretraction is that it simply did not exist on the P-38. PERIOD. The plane did not have it. Further, autoretraction ASSUMES facts not in evidence. Not to mention it completely ignore the fact that there was by necessity a safety margin in the limits the flight manual did set. They didn't state that 250MPH was the limit because at 251MPH the flaps would structurally fail.

The ONLY reality is this: The P-38 did not EVER have an autoretract function. The fact that you want it artificially limited by forcing an autoretract function has nothing at all with your desire for reality, and eveything to do with your desire to handicap a plane you don't want to face performing at its full potential.

 Listen.

 Countless other examples of why a certain gameplay device is set in the model, despite the fact that they did not exist in real life, have been brought up in this long discussion. You're not listening to any of those arguments which this entire discussion is based on.

 In some areas you can't model a real plane into a game plane on a 1:1 ratio. It is actually not preferrable to do that in the first place. Do you think the stick pull forces we have in the game are accurate? Or do you think the all the planes had the generic RPM management system? Did any of the real life planes have semi-automatic combat trim?

 Ofcourse, I understand that since none of those are of any interest to you, you really haven't thought of that stuff. You're interest lies in the P-38, and that some features of it are limited as compared to the real life thing.

 However, the reason why HT persists in maintaining an autoretract system is on a higher level of consideration than just the single technical reality of your favorite plane. If the autoretraction was removed from the game, and the flaps wouldn't be damaged if it was about 10~15mph over its limit, it would actually benefit other planes even moreso than the P-38.

 The P-38 is already very lethal with its flaps. However, other planes, for example the German planes, are not. While the removal of autoretraction would benefit your plane in a very limited mistake instance where pilots like Ack or Tac complains about, it would benefit the 109 and 190s on a larger scale, since now they have a more lenient and effective speed-brake system to be used in close-quarters combat. The biggest weakness of the Ki-84 in the game(which is also a plane I enjoy flying) is the speed ranges 50 miles higher than the point where the first notch of its fowlers can be deployed. This weaknes would effectively be removed as a whole.

 If your accusations that the people who support HT's decisions are biased was true, then we'd be actually rooting for the autoretraction to be removed, instead of opposing it. It'd benefit 'our plane' more than yours.

 However, this is all over that.

The PROBLEM here is YOU, and your fantasy belief that the P-38 should have an artificial function it did not have in real life in order to handicap it to suit YOUR fantasy idea of reality. THAT is the PROBLEM.

BULL. Again. I'm merely stating several facts. The fact is, the P-38 did not have autoretract flaps. The fact is, some pilots not only used the maneuvering setting, but also full flaps. It was not necessarily an every day occurrence, but that does not make it unrealistic.

 
 Again, the 'fact' you state resides in terms of relativeness, not in terms of absoluteness. Some pilots may risk such intense flap use, but that is not what happened in most of the cases. If you refuse to consider this situational difference then the 'reality', or rather, the 'simulated reality' of the game is warped and distorted into something which it was not.

 In real life, if a real hot-shot pilot like that existed, he would have been able to do so because his confidence in skill was so great enough that he'd be thinking he can manage to step out of the set boundaries and still manage to survive. However, people like these were few and rare. Most of the normal pilots of normal fighting skills would stick to the initial principles laid out by their commanding officers and plane manufacturers, because their lives were on the line.

 I've said it before and I'll say it again. If something can be done in a game, then people will do it.

 The end result is certain range of action which would be considered very 'rare' in real life, becomes the 'norm' in a game because none of us risk as much as the real pilots would. Everybody in the game will know that they don't really have to be too careful with the flaps. They will know that they don't have to be very careful at the boundary line where the flap effects would disappear, so they will do it with ease everyday.

 I am barely average in a P-38, and I know I can't pull maneuvers Ack or Tac might do in the game. A Split-S tight enough to follow Spitfires is something I cannot do, or rather, will not choose to do, because I consider it much too dangerous considering my limited understanding of the P-38. However, if the autoretraction is removed, and I can just pull the tighest turn whenever I want by leaving the flaps down to act as stabilizers/air brakes, and just pull the stick hard(since the P-38 will refuse to stall in most cases during flight).. then by all means I'm gonna start doing it. If I can do that, so can everyone else. Careful management of flaps was something for the real veterans, but its gonna change into something everybody can do with relative ease.

 Is this the picture of reality you have? Every two-bit newbie pulling flaps down and just hovering in the air, just because its possible? As opposed to the reality which only the most confident of pilots would ever attempt something like that, since it required so much careful attention?

 I may add that, the 'picture' I just described, is what is actually happening in IL2/FB. The close quarters fights and stall fights are so damned easy in every plane. There is no real contest in overshoot maneuvering and such, because, everybody will just mandatorily pull flaps down when a closequarter fight happens. I see super low speed planes hovering and flopping around everyday, every newbie doing stuff which where in AH only the really experienced veterans can ever do, because in IL2/FB, once the flaps are down it doesn't have any limitations unless the speed grows really really high. (IIRC, the point where the flaps are damaged in most planes are something like 400~500km/h IAS).

 In Aces High, I can't do something like that in a 109, because the flaps will retract when it crosses over 190mph IAS or so, and the extra stability it offers disappears. I have to really carefully manange my plane so either I remain under the limit speed, or immediately correct my plane's attitude once the flap autoretracts, so I don't stall out, and can start deploy it again.

However, in IL2/FB, my 109 flies like a P-38 because I can use the speed brake and stabilizer effect in the 109 everytime I do a certain move. I can out turn Spitfires and La-5FNs, both, which in Aces High is very difficult thing to do. The reality there is so warped that different strengths of each aircraft like turn rates and low-speed stability is virtually meaningless.

 What am I afraid of? I'm afraid of that happening to AH.

[Kweassa]

You've been squawling about instability issues in the 109 and other Axis rides for as long as I can remember.

The difference between you and me is I don't want artificial limits. If the 109 is too unstable, I want it fixed. If the flap limit on the 190 is too low, I want that fixed too. And the P-38 did not have autoretract, so I want that fixed.

 Read the 109 stability issues thread I've posted, and take a good look at my attitude towards the issue, as compared to yours. I did all the tests I could, measured each plane's turn rate data and even asked HT to check if the method I use can be considered objective and correct. I did a controlled test with objective comparison and posted the data so everybody could see the point I had.

 Ofcourse, the issue I had with the 109s is relatively easier to display in numerical values, than the autoretract issue, which is a much more difficult situational balance issue. That I'd admit.

 Any other insults and accusations I could understand, since the debate is so heated between both sides. However, the 109 stability issues thread was something which I put a lot of work into to prove that my point was valid, and needed some consideration among the developers. Besides, even after the point was demonstrated, HT/Pyro did not respond. So, I dropped it there instead of go on and on.

 Don't compare it with any of the P-38 autoretract whines. That really is insulting.
 

See, what you call reality, forcing a limit on one plane because other planes have that limit, I call arcadish crap. How about we limit the dive speed on ALL planes to the same as that on the P-38? Why not? After all, you want to force an artificial limit on the P-38, to level the field, because some of the other planes have design characteristics that prevent them from using flaps the way a P-38 does. So, since the P-38 has a lower dive speed limit than most, let's lower all the dive speeds of all the other planes. That's what you are advocating. An artificial limit on the P-38, to handicap it to the level of other planes in certain areas of the flight envelop.

 Arcadish crap it may be to you. But that 'arcadish crap' is the key difference between the FM between IL2/FB and Aces High. In Aces High, that 'crap' is what makes it so worthwhile to learn the micromanagement and intense concentration required to manage a plane to its full strength. A flap wil refuse to stay deployed if you cross over its limit. So you have to learn to fly without flaps as major combat devices most of the time(which coincides with real life WW2 combat), and in those rare instances where a real slow fight occurs, you will learn to very carefully manage your flaps so your plane doesn't overspeed(which also coincides with real life WW2 combat).

 Why can't it be the same with autoretract removed? Because, if autoretract is removed, people won't pay attention to their speeds upto the point which they feel 'safe' (ie. 5~10 mph over the previous limit) and just leave the flaps hanging down, instead of be wary of what speed you are in.

I call having the plane function as it was designed to, meaning that the equipment works exactly like it did on the real plane, reality.

 The plane wasn't designed to withstand speeds over 250mph with its maneuvering flaps applied. If it was designed that way, the manual wouldn't mentioned that you shouldn't do that because it might damage it.

 The 'reality' you talk about has no connections whatsoever with the design concept. You're talking about the 'reality of free choice, in which pilots can willingly risk an unnecessary damage, if they feel upto it'. Despite the fact that allowing such reality in choice, may distort or warp the game into something that does not reflect reality at all.