Let me degress....

[hitech]

fscott Said:
The main question is if this is what is required of an F4U takeoff, then why isn't it required in AH?

And what precisly do you think it is fscott.
Don't say not enof torque. Because that is way to vage of term.

Could it be we put to much trim in the air craft?
Could it be that we have to much slip stream on the wings,or to fast, or hits to much of the wings or at the wrong angle?
Could it be that the slip stream angle on the horzital stab is incorect?
Could it be that the departer line of the lift curve of the wings is not steap enough?
Could it be the ratio of rudder input to rudder movemnt?
Could it be the lift curve on the vertical stab?
Could be to much surface area on the fuse conatacting the slip stream?

If you realy want to get in to this fscott. Do me a real favor, ive been looking for a hp/torque/rpm curve on the wasp. If you want to help find one, id love to see it.


HiTech

[Sorrow[S=A]]

Which model HT, I have those diagrams but not a complete series and not for more than 1/4 of the variants they produced with different fuel grades ignition variants and fuel delivery systems. Please, can you tell me which engine /setup you are looking for maybe I can help.

[Rocket]

She got her name from killing ensigns at LOW speed on LANDING approaches on WAVE OFFs.  She was one of the first large HP monsters out there.  She has a huge vator, and the 1D has special mods done to it to help with the low speed torque effects.  I would think an early serial # -1A would be much more noticable but not the 1D.  Even the 1As were modified to correct early problems.  Spitfires were worse with torque problems due to the narrow gear and higher HP.  The P51 was a torque monster also.  
Do I think torque effect to the plane is perfect? I don't really know I haven't flown a mustang, corsair, or spitfire in real life. I can only go by what I read or watch from real life pilots.  I recently watched a check out flight of a 1D.  The pilot remarked how easy she was to handle on the ground.  But did note that flying most warbirds wasn't something to be done just for the fun of it, if you forgot what you were doing it could be fatal.

I think flying at low speeds most the planes seem to wing stall pretty (crashed the tbm x2 today).  I belly flopped a heavy 1D today on carrier take off.  

If you really want to help better the game then please provide HTC with #s and references to improve the game

S!
Rocket


------------------

VMF-115 Joe's Jokers-RD AH DIV
Fierce and Bold
With Honour and Courage
_______________________

 www.reddragons.de/aceshigh/

[Vladd]

 

Originally posted by Toad:
I'm a "branded" cheerleader. Doesn't bother me a bit. Know why?

Simply because HTC is TRYING to make a great online WW2 ACM sim. That effort wins my support.

...and all of them are trying to make games that emulate flying WW2 aircraft. Gotta love that.

Toad you talk far too much sense for this board  


Vladd

[Gadfly]

RAM, I would chalk that up to poor training, and line the TO's against the wall for letting an idiot that would ram the hanger sit in a seat and call himself an "aviator".

[fscott]

Ok outstanding HiTech. Until tonite I was unaware that you were attempting to fix the torque equations. All you needed to do was reply to my comment that you will be looking into torque effects, rather than say you heard me the first 100 times.

That's all I need to know. Sorry I have no curves or numbers. If I did you'd be the first to receive them.

fscott
 

[RAM]

I am simply tired about the people who think that when I try to point out what I think its porked, I am slamming the rest of the work in AH.

If I thought that AH was not worth my money then WTF I'm doing flying it right now?

I think that AH is great. That its fun. And I love it.

Still, each time I point what is, for me, screwed, Kaboom. Seems that, because I think that the Hispanos have Laser performance (wich they have), because I thikn that a couple of planes do strange things (wich IMO, they do), and because I think that the planes suffer too few effects from a heavy fast spinning propeller, I am slamming all the rest.

People call me whiner and slammer. Ok, then I have to call those people crybabies, kids that when someone says that something can be wrong in their favorite toy start to cry, to insult, to discredite, at any cost. Again I remember the thinks that Lazs and F4UDOA were called (especially the first, and yes, by me too) when they pointed out that 1.03 FM had way off drags. They were called slammers, whiners, and even worse things.

but they were right.

I dont claim to be right or wrong. I refer to my right to point out what I think its right or wrong. I can be waaaay off, but to critic THREE THINGS IN A WHOLE GAME IS NOT TO SLAM ALL THE F*/*ING GAME; DAMNIT!. and I critic the HIspano damage model, the FM of Hog and N1K2 and the lack of torque effects in the aircrafts.

That means I'm slamming the rest of your work, Hitech?...I'm discrediting AH while I am still bringing people to the MA to test the game?...People?...HTC?...can you answer me?...

Different than the rest of the people I DID receive the message of your answer in the other thread in the general forum. I am one of the leaders of the "fix it" in Aces High. You say that work is done in the torque department? OK! I am SATISFIED!,its MORE THAN ENOUGH for me, for I trust you and your work, damnit!...but why couldnt say that one month ago, when I asked it as an honest question?. Why do you turn defensive when people ask you questions like that?...why do you mute people in the main arena when they ask you about determinate things (I never was, but know people who has been)?

Maybe you are tired of people slamming AH. But once again, I point out what I think is wrong. BUT I DONT SLAM YOUR WORK!

I'm paying 30$/month, right?. That should be enough proof.

[juzz]

Something simple.

With full power, was it possible to lift the tail of any of these WW2 fighters while it was stationary?

No fighter in AH can currently do this.

I seem to recall the real Spitfire would do it unless a couple of erks sat on the tailplane.  

[Lephturn]

You don't get it RAM.  Explain all you want, but when you make roadkill statements like "hispano turbolasers" and "non E-losing turns" you ARE slamming HTC's work.  You mis-represent the facts constantly and for some reason you don't think folks should be pissed off about it.  What you do is classic FUD, and it's not good for the community.

Try to remember that HTC builds the game as best they can.  If you think there might be a problem, do some tests and provide some data.  Don't go making roadkill generalizations based on "examples" instead of data.  You just make a fool of yourself and insult HTC when you do that.  Get data, make your point, and that's it.  Repeating the same toejam for months won't help.

There is one sure way to avoid all of this.  Try shutting the hell up for once.

Lephturn

[Cobra]

You know, when I think I'm having a bad day or that life is treating me unfairly, I come here and read one of RAM's posts and realize that it could be worse!  

Cobra

[SKurj]

This mention of Typhoons...
Could it be related to the fact that the rotation was opposite to what they were used to and the pilot used the wrong rudder input to couteract?
I've heard several accounts of this very thing happening in RL.  
Ran into a guy who maintained Typh's in de war, if I find him again I will ask him about this..

AKskurj

[Toad]

Interesting to note that it was "Ensign Eliminator" not "Lieutenant J.G. or Lt. Commander Eliminator."

May we imply from this that newly minted nuggets with very low flying time total, almost no hi-performance aircraft time at all had some trouble with this aircraft?

May we imply that once you got a little actual experience it was no big deal?  

Just about any flight instructor will tell you that your first 200 hours after you get your wings are the most dangerous.

[Toad]

Indeed, Ram, you DO NOT get it.

You've read these boards. Why is some people (dozens, actually) can describe perceived problems with the FM or game, suggest improvements and/or supply data and NOT draw the negative reaction that you do? In fact, many are applauded for their work and the improvements rapidly implemented.

Why is it "Ram" that is in Duma's whine meter cartoon?

Do you think a host of people just unfairly have it in for you?

Could it possibly have any root cause in YOUR behavior here?

Perhaps it might be worth a bit of your time to review your more famous threads and compare them to threads started by other folks with suggestions to improve the game. I think you'll note a major difference in tone and most definitely in frequency of repetitive statements.

Allow me to suggest searches for "HO Dweeb", the aforementioned "hispano", "turbolaser", "F4U-1C", "N1K2" and "torque" with Ram as the author.

After you've re-read that huge anthology then reflect on why only a very, very few of the BBS posters (those that find fault with the game in some regard or those that don't) feel it is necessary to post on this BBS under one "name" and fly in the MA under another.

Who would be responsible for that situation?

[fscott]

Please can we stay on the subject for a few days? Sheesh!

Three things:

1) Ensign Eliminator. People making it sound like they put 2 yr old babes in these machines on takeoff. These were well trained pilots and most of them probably much better pilots right out of the academy than many of you "seasoned" pilots here. The behomoth eninges and props had tremendous torque. All you gotta do is READ. For instance get "America's Hundred Thousand" and it will tell you in black and white the Corsair's takeoff characteristics and what had to be done for a straight takeoff. Currently anyone can takeoff from a carrier with no rudder at all. Absolutley not accurate.

2) What's all this talk about "give us data and numbers"? You know, Chuck Yeager in his own words was NEVER able to provide flight test engineers with "data." He would simply fly the X-1, then come back down and talk in his own words about how it FELT wrong. He didn't provide charts, numbers, and data.

3) HiTech has already stated that they will now be working on the torque code, at least sometime in the future. Uhm doesn't this tell you folks that it, duh...needs worked on? So why in the world defend the Hog's current fm as saying it "might have been this way?"

fscott

[Rocket]

From what I have read and seen the hog we have isn't nearly the killer that the 1A was.
And I just tried takeoff with no rudder input. Off the side I went.
Try this .. take a loaded 1D up.  Turn and come around.  Drop gear and full flaps.  Try to hold less than 100 mph.  Firewall the throttle.  I wing stalled every time resulting in a death.  
I think compared to pre 1.04 releases she is much easier to handle but she still will put you in the dirt low and slow pretty fast if you aren't careful.  
Are they right on the money with the torque? Not sure I don't fly as much as Chuch Yeager and don't know the flight characteristics like he did when he was testing.  How many hours in the cockpit of real planes did he have when he gave them quality feedback after a flight.  I don't think that comparing real life flight of a person with 1000s of hours in a real cockpit counts much with a flight sim.  Here #s have to count becuase it will NEVER feel right.  
Kinda a trade off thing.  Do you want FM that is perfect based on #s of the real thing? Or do you want something that feels right based on the computers input?  There has to be a middle ground to get the feel but have the #s close.  When we look at feels right who do we look at?  Someone that has 1000 flight sim hours or give it to real life warbird pilots and have them fly it and tweak it till it feels right?
I am all for perfection in our flight models and don't dispute that there is tweaking to be done yet. But I think there should be hard #s to back up claims of it being wrong, not seat of our pants claims in order to get things fixed, becuase most of us aren't qualified as real warbird pilots who have 100s-1000s of hours in the real thing to give credit to the basis of it needs fixed badly.

S!
Rocket