PDA

View Full Version : p-47 roll rate



XyZspineZyX
10-07-2003, 09:52 PM
I've been flying my "JUG" for a long time now with my squad,
allthough Oleg and his team have done an excellant job, there is still a problem with the roll rate especially at a relatively high speed.We all know the a P47 does not do well in a one on one horizontal D.F. but we would do better in a D.F. situation if the Roll rate was more true to the real thing.
Just a little sniglet to throw your way.

Xabre 361st vFG HOO HAA!

XyZspineZyX
10-07-2003, 09:52 PM
I've been flying my "JUG" for a long time now with my squad,
allthough Oleg and his team have done an excellant job, there is still a problem with the roll rate especially at a relatively high speed.We all know the a P47 does not do well in a one on one horizontal D.F. but we would do better in a D.F. situation if the Roll rate was more true to the real thing.
Just a little sniglet to throw your way.

Xabre 361st vFG HOO HAA!

XyZspineZyX
10-07-2003, 09:59 PM
You have to be more specific - its not the low speed roll rate, its the high speed roll rate! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg


Oh yeah, I'm a P-63 whiner too! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 12:18 AM
Oleg has to know its wrong. The data has been posted over and over again. Will it be fixed remains the question. Also lets not forget the engine damage model, the easy loss of controls, and the way to common fuel leaks. I wont even talk about the .50cal dispersion/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
S~
47|FC
51|FC



Message Edited on 10/07/0307:21PM by VMF-214_HaVoK

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 12:51 AM
Let's also not forget none of the issues you brought up are in any way proved. In my view only the dispersion of the .50s might be susceptible to slight adustments - and I'm sure I'm not the only one who has different opinions all around, not all of them being simplistic.





-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 03:50 AM
All the evidence is there for the roll rate. The D-10 and the D-22 seem to have been mostly fixed...the D-27 is the same as ever...I know its a bit different due to the bubble...but it seems odd.

On the .50 cals...I want to know if they disperse more than the .303's do on the Hurricane. If they do...then its probably accurate...if they disperse in the same way then something I think is wrong.

We'll probably need for one of the dev team to give us some indication as to what the dispersion is set at and how it matches other guns.

http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/icefire/icefire_tempest.jpg
"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." - Winston Churchill

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 12:43 PM
As far as dispersion:

Have you tried turning on the arcade mode and viewing the hits of both ac?

roll rate - how far do you think it's off?



S!
609IAP_Recon

Forgotten Skies Virtual War
Forum: http://fogwar.luftwaffe.net/forums/index.php
Website: http://www.forgottenskies.com
Visit 609IAP at http://takeoff.to/609IAP

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg

Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 01:05 PM
Recon_609IAP wrote:
- As far as dispersion:
-
- Have you tried turning on the arcade mode and
- viewing the hits of both ac?
-
- roll rate - how far do you think it's off?
-
-

Roll rate of the D-10 and D-27 seems pretty reasonable.
They roll a bit too fast (compared to the C-1) at low
speed, a bit too slowly at high speed, but minor
differences in FM parameterisation in the sim, and/or
brtween C-1 and D-10 probably account for those differences.
Largely correct.

D-27 - looks like it was simply missed in the tweaks applied
to the D-10 and D-22 for patch 1.11.

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 11:37 PM
Yeah...D-27 seems to have been forgotten or something. I don't know.

I did some more tests with the .50 cals. Seems like the fire is definately more concentrated with the conversion set at 400 meters rather than closer in around 200 or 280 meters like I had it at before.

Its very strange but that seems to be ideal. There's still lots of possibilities for not doing much damage...but even FW's can melt under that kind of firepower. I'm gaining new respect for the guns...but it takes practice and fiddling with the convergence.

http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/icefire/icefire_tempest.jpg
"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." - Winston Churchill

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 12:12 AM
"Its very strange but that seems to be ideal. There's still lots of possibilities for not doing much damage...but even FW's can melt under that kind of firepower. I'm gaining new respect for the guns...but it takes practice and fiddling with the convergence."

It's an optical illusion. At 400m conv. distance, you don't see the bullets converging, then diverging again. You only see them converge to a spot.

At closer convergence, you see the tracers converge, and diverge at the same time at a given view.






-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!