Author Topic: 109s seem nuetered now? (Read 1604 times)

justin_g · « **Reply #15 on:** November 22, 2005, 03:21:25 AM »

Quote

The 190's have been porked for along time but fun to fly anyway untill the view was porked. The "The view is the best yet seen by this unit" that the RAF put in the test report about the 190 makes no sense if it was this bad.

I believe the actual words used were "search view" - which does make sense considering it was the first fighter they would have flown with a frameless, "teardrop" hood.

Crumpp · « **Reply #16 on:** November 22, 2005, 07:56:20 AM »

Quote

I believe the actual words used were "search view" - which does make sense considering it was the first fighter they would have flown with a frameless, "teardrop" hood.

The "sighting" view was better than the Spitfire as well.

All the best,

Crumpp

wrag · « **Reply #17 on:** November 22, 2005, 08:26:17 AM »

Something else I've recently noticed.

DRAG! Used to when I came in to land I cut throttle and then had to side slip with the rudder to lose speed. Now seems like all I need to do is cut throttle.

k4 and g14 seem to Bleed E fast now!

TexMurphy · « **Reply #18 on:** November 22, 2005, 08:55:08 AM »

The question Id see as most important would be...

"Are the remade planes more historically correct then the old ones?"

If the answer is "Yes" and a plane got nerfed then I would say "AWSOME!!" regardless of what plane it was.

If someone suspects that a planes characteristics (speed, climb, turn what ever) are incorrect then I would sudgest to dig out the data to prove it and post it. AH planes arnt modelled for ballanced or one sides increased or decreased enjoyment, they are modelled for historical accuracy.

Though one thing is important and that is bias. Everyone when interpreting history is biased. The allies won the war, its the "allies" that make the games. This is why it is so important to find historical evidence to compare to the implementation.

Tex

Crumpp · « **Reply #19 on:** November 22, 2005, 09:04:50 AM »

I noticed that too. I reduced throttle to increase drag, bleed excess energy, and cut the corner to gain angle for a gun solution.

Tried that with a Bf-109G2 against an La5 and went from having too much energy to immediately flopping in the stall the moment I reduced throttle. Very frustrating. Like slamming the brakes.

All the best,

Crumpp

Crumpp · « **Reply #20 on:** November 22, 2005, 09:06:21 AM »

Quote

If someone suspects that a planes characteristics (speed, climb, turn what ever) are incorrect then I would sudgest to dig out the data to prove it and post it. AH planes arnt modelled for ballanced or one sides increased or decreased enjoyment, they are modelled for historical accuracy.

That has already been done and AFAIK HTC has said they will correct the speeds.

All the best,

Crumpp

Wilbus · « **Reply #21 on:** November 22, 2005, 09:41:15 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by TexMurphy

If someone suspects that a planes characteristics (speed, climb, turn what ever) are incorrect then I would sudgest to dig out the data to prove it and post it. AH planes arnt modelled for ballanced or one sides increased or decreased enjoyment, they are modelled for historical accuracy.

Good idea. I don't think that has been tried yet...

As for

Quote

"Are the remade planes more historically correct then the old ones?" If the answer is "Yes" and a plane got nerfed then I would say "AWSOME!!" regardless of what plane it was.

Well, nurfed was really ment towards the 109 and 190's I think. Comapare those two where both of them have gotten big a** bars in the cockpits, deflection shot have been made damn hard because of lack of the front view.

The Pony was remade, the Jug aswell and the Spit, non of them got baloon bars. They all have as good or better views still. That is why wrag said "nurfed", well one of the reasons.

Kweassa · « **Reply #22 on:** November 23, 2005, 12:08:34 AM »

I can confirm that the 109s and Spits didn't change at least in terms of turn performance. Some slight changes, but nothing I'd say really serious.

Oh, one interesting bit, is that all the G variants turn about the same now. That doesn't necessarily mean they all feel or handle the same, but when doing the tightest turns possible, their turn circles are mostly simular. The G-2 and G-14 is almost the same, and the G-6 has a very slightly larger turning circle than others.

Will post the results soon in my turn performance thread.

Masherbrum · « **Reply #23 on:** November 23, 2005, 12:15:56 AM »

I fly the F-4 or G-2, this thread doesn't affect me

Karaya

Guppy35 · « **Reply #24 on:** November 23, 2005, 01:37:52 AM »

Flew the 109G6 tonite. I really liked the way it flew. It felt right, but then again I'm not a 109 pilot so what do I know

It sure looked like it would compete just fine

Wilbus · « **Reply #25 on:** November 23, 2005, 01:40:13 PM »

the 109 FM hasn't change at all.

HT Popped into another thread and said so

wrag · « **Reply #26 on:** November 23, 2005, 06:56:28 PM »

Oh well.........

guess it's just my preception then...........

Seems like all planes wallow or waddle longer after a manuver.

But probably just my preception too.

wrag · « **Reply #27 on:** November 23, 2005, 06:57:45 PM »

Wait!!!

Are the ponys FASTER?????

109 haven't changed, BUT are the ponys faster?

ghi · « **Reply #28 on:** November 23, 2005, 07:13:04 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by wrag
Wait!!!

Are the ponys FASTER?????

109 haven't changed, BUT are the ponys faster?

Faster than 109s yes, and i'm afraid soon are going to be faster than Me262s:)

Crumpp · « **Reply #29 on:** November 23, 2005, 08:05:21 PM »

Ahhhem....

Listen up Gentleman. Click on the image below, insert the CD, and repeat after me:

There is no change to the Flight Model

There is no change to the Flight Model

Ewwww weeeeeeee oOOOOOOOOO