place your vote... fix the turn rates in AH?

[Karnak]

Erm, F4UDOA, RAM, banana and everbody else, I'm pretty sure this was a general thread about something that may be affecting ALL aircraft in AH.  So lets discuss all aircraft vs their documented performance, not one AH FM against another AH FM.  OK?

Sisu

[F4UDOA]

Wells,

You the man. Remember my turn radius post? The data I was quoting you was from the "Report Of Joint Fighter Conferance". It is exactly why I said I thought the turn radius were porked a long time ago. The 3G stall speeds are way too high for most A/C and the straight ahead stall speeds are also too high with flaps. Thats why I am dying to know, as I have requested from Pyro many times what they are using for lift coeficients for their FM's
 http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum9/HTML/000443.html  remember this post?
I have been seeking the anwswers too this question for a long time. Flight test data may not be consistant but it is closer too gospel than anything else we have. Even in a perfect test envirement like a computer simm(AH) you will get varied results. The goal should be to get the simm to fly like the airplane did not like a physics model. I wouldn't pay $30 a month to fly a calculation. I have a Grumman report on the design of the F6F. Their physics model was very different from how the A/C actually performed in air. They no doubt used the same technique to calculate the A/C performance as you are using. So you see the physics model may be in error as well. I would rather base at least part of the FM on actual flight test data than leave it completely to a desktop calculation on how we think it should have flown. Especially when the testing of these A/C is so available.

Lazs, read my previous post. I have been looking at the same thing for a long time.

Thanks F4UDOA

[RAM]

 

Originally posted by F4UDOA:
RAM,

First thanks for taking a post personally that was addressed to banana. If I'm so stupid why can't you read? My email was pointing out to banana that there are only a limited amount of people that are interested in the FM of the F4U and other Naval A/C. There is only one USN A/C in the game albeit two versions. You see RAM you have over 750 post on this message board which means you run your mouth non-stop about the Luftwaffe and how great it would be to start the third reich again right here in AH. Well my friend not everybody has a picture of Herman Goreing hanging in their living room. So why don't back off about what other people post.
This thread is about turn radius comparisions. Until you and your buddy banana decided that wasn't a good enough topic to post anyway. I know the Nazi's painted pretty airplanes, I just don't give a rat's ass. I know the MW-50 probably existed in some 190 versions. I just don't want to talk about it again. There are 4 versions of the 109 and the second 190 coming out soon. I don't think 2 versions of the F4U will kill you althought you LW boys have been crying in you laderhosen since the 1C came out. If you want it gone so bad do some offline testing and prove it's porked. There is plenty of data in this thread about turn radius comparisons but I know your not interested. By the way, the FW-190A8 is porked because the Nazies porked it. It was too heavy to turn or climb. The A-5 is better but not by much. It still has one of the highest wing loadings in the game. I guess you can cry about that too. Who knows. Maybe you can make a thousand post by the end of this thread?

WAAAAAHWAAAAAWAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

F4UDOA  

I regard this guy as a fly. or is a McFLY?  

"Stupids are like flies. They are everywhere but are easy to kill".

You say you didnt a personal attack for me. True you did to ALL 190 fans...

 

Originally posted by F4UDOA:

banana your tired of hearing someone complain about the F4U FM being porked? Have you noticed how many threads there are complaining about obscure details of FW-190 paint schemes and MW-50 boost weather it had it or not and Blah, blah, blah.

Humm...that sounds quite generical.

Ah, BTW if you go to Off topic,Help and training and Jg2's forums you will learn why do I have so many posts. McFLY!  

I will forget your mention to nazi relations. I will because I want to laugh, and I wont let myself foul by a stupid like you.




[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 06-02-2000).]

[RAM]

Ah, BTW, McFly...learn to read  . Or quote me if you find this;

1-Where do I say that Fw190A8 is porked?
2-Where do I say that F4U is overmodelled?

I DO say that Hispanos are turbolasers. But the plane itself is OK. Maybe a little easier than it should be, yes. But in essence OK.

So, buddy, go to school and learn the alphabet. Maybe someday you'll learn to read.

[-lazs-]

Now ram... You know what the doctor said about all that head butting!
lazs

[RAM]

 

Originally posted by -lazs-:
Now ram... You know what the doctor said about all that head butting!
lazs

Oh...hello,Mr. Spammer. Have a nice day.

[funked]

Lazs, I haven't found very much sustained turn data.  The only thing I have is the NII-VVS stuff that Oleg posted and that is in the books by Gordon & Khazanov.  I took my best crack at a flight test of the two planes that are in our set and I got the figures I posted above, which show 10-20% variation from the alleged NII figures.  These two aircraft do not exist in WB so I have no way of comparing the two sims.

IMHO 10-20% is pretty damn close.  Considering how much variability we have seen in historical and sim flight test data, I don't think it's worth arguing about, and certainly not worth starting a player revolt.  

If someone produces evidence that other aircraft have more severe errors my opinion might change.  Haven't seen that yet.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 06-02-2000).]

[funked]

RAM, Ron Jeremy was an actor who was known for his ability to "perform" consistently and on cue.

[Wanker]

F4UDOA, why all the hostility towards me?

The truth is that Lazs loves the F4U(nothing wrong with that), and he will climb any mountain and posts as many threads as it takes until the F4U performs the way he wants it to.

Don't be fooled by him. He really doesn't care about the turning radius of the other planes. He's just using that as a springboard for getting his beloved F4U "fixed".

You seem to be under the notion that I have something against the F4U or their drivers. That couldn't be farther from the truth, my friend. I like flying every aircraft in the AH planeset, and you'll never hear me crying about the Cannon-Hawg.

When people like Hooligan, Vermillion, FunkedUp and Wells have discussions about aircraft performance, the discussions stay civil and very "geeky". But when Lazs starts to walk that same walk, instead of facts & figures, he uses sarcasm and hyberbole.

So, yeah, I'm a banana. But at least I don't spend my AH BB time constantly second-guessing HTC and crying about everything that I don't like about a particular plane.

 

[Pongo]

 

Originally posted by funked:
P.S.  If anybody wants to meet me in training, I can crank out 22 second G-2 turns on demand.  You can ride as observer and run the stopwatch.

If you trim the plane right it's easy.  I'm like Ron Jeremy with wings.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 06-01-2000).]

Sort of an inside loop version of the midguard serpent!



------------------
"Stupids are like flies. they are everywere, but are easy to kill"
RAM

[bashwolf]

Why cant I be as smart as you guys?  

Just signing in and saying that I read all threads and sitting in backseat and watching the whole thing.  Keep it up guys its free country express your feelings and ideas.


AirWolves

Bash

hoowwwwwwwwwwllllllll
 http://fly.to/airwolves

[Hangtime]

WTF? Why do I always get to the BBQ too damn late??

As for turn rates... we are all flyin the same AC filght models.. I mean if I run into Sox in his stang, me in mine; we got the same FM; yes?? Wanna bet if I can get the plane to outperform the MFG's (in this case; Pyro's) specs?? Same goes fer Sox.. he's got some moves...  

Yah can take the reams of data and MFG and field objective/subjective observations & tests and toss 'em in the crapper. What it comes down to is the pilot... and he don't give a DAMN what the MFG said the 'top speed' was; or what the 'best sustained turn speed or rate' was.. he cares about the guy he's workin on; and NOTHIN else.. and will do WHATEVER he thinks he's gotta do to get to a solution... and if he knows his AC he WILL outperform the MFG's data. MFG 'limits and restrictions and specifications' be damned!

So; the real question is "Are the RELATIVE performance charteristics for the planes in this sim good enuff to emulate their real life counterparts??"

Hell yes!

Hang

[RAM]

Good point, Hang.

[Cobra]

Well said Hang......now give Hairball back the keyboard and flight controls!  

<walks away wondering how the hell that cat taught Hang so much, and wishes he had that cat>

Cobra

[Karnak]

Hangtime, that would be true if all aircraft used the same tactics.  If there is a problem with turn times, then that would affect planes like the A6M5b and Spitfire a whole lote more than planes like the F4U and Mustang, which use boom and zoom.  That creates a relative imbalance in performance.  Planes should all perform as close as possible to their historical counterparts.

If there is a turn problem, it would favor the boom and zoom fighters which don't rely on turning.  Imagine if the P-51 could only get 15Mph over the Spit instead of the proper 30Mph?  That would really hurt its ability to fight in its boom and zoom style.  The reverse is also true, if the Spit isn't as agile as it should be, then it is at a non-historical disadvantage when it comes to avoiding the boom and zoom.

Sisu