PDA

View Full Version : OK...So What Planes ARE Accurate?



XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 09:11 PM
This is in no way a sarcastic question. I have followed a lot of the threads/debates here, SimHQ, etc, on how various planes' FM/DM's are screwed up, and how this should or shouldn't matter in the overall enjoyment of the game. I can tell that some people have spent a LOT of time on this with charts graphs etc. So I'm just curious what planes in the mix do you think are correct or nearly so in their perforemance specs? I'm not flying on-line yet, just QM and single mission and one thing I've noticed is that Stukas seem to be made of battleship steel unlike what I've read.

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 09:11 PM
This is in no way a sarcastic question. I have followed a lot of the threads/debates here, SimHQ, etc, on how various planes' FM/DM's are screwed up, and how this should or shouldn't matter in the overall enjoyment of the game. I can tell that some people have spent a LOT of time on this with charts graphs etc. So I'm just curious what planes in the mix do you think are correct or nearly so in their perforemance specs? I'm not flying on-line yet, just QM and single mission and one thing I've noticed is that Stukas seem to be made of battleship steel unlike what I've read.

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 09:51 PM
IL-2s are bout as accurate as can be. I don't see a whole lot of complaints about the I-153 and I-16 these days either.

Hmm. Bout all I can think of. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.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
09-27-2003, 10:48 PM
If that's true then it means that about 90% of the planes are off the mark. If that's so then it seems you can only look at this game as a whole and how it compares to CFS2,3,Warbirds etc. All the debate over individual FM's are just about how peoples favorite planes behave in the game.

fluke39
09-28-2003, 01:38 AM
psssst

people only like to talk about the ones that are off - so they can whine about something......

<center><img src=http://mysite.freeserve.com/Angel_one_five/flukelogo.jpg>

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2003, 01:50 AM
It's interesting to see how people determine "accurate" feel - some planes produce "accurate" results in game as compared to tests when flown in a way that differs from the original historical test methodology. Other planes can exceed their best available historical test data when pushed above normal flight conditons.

Not that I'm an expert on every single plane in FB - I don't think anyone qualifies as such, really - but these seem to be regarded by a few people as more or less 'right':

Hurricane II/IIb/IIc - Cubes test data shows a 10% increase on Object Viewer climb rate data, but certainly the plane seems to handle like a very early war fighter now :>

I-16 - Climb and acceleration still 'too fast' at low altitudes, but top speed and durability are now much more in the realms of possibility for the type.

Bf109G2 - Again, a little excessive in the climb, maybe a little too fast, but definitely seems highly regarded.

Bf109G6/AS - Other than minor overheat issues and perhaps some climb rate issues at <3000m altitudes, seems more or less OK

FW-190A series - more or less exactly right, all the way through, other than roll data in the very high and very low speed realm and durability. Slightly exceeds historical climb rate up to 5k but not massively so.

Any others?

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/worker_parasite.jpg

Need help with NewView? Read this thread. (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yzbcj)

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2003, 03:01 AM
clint-ruin wrote:
-
-
- Hurricane II/IIb/IIc - Cubes test data shows a 10%
- increase on Object Viewer climb rate data, but
- certainly the plane seems to handle like a very
- early war fighter now :>
-
-


Does it seem to you that the .303 ammo is a little too weak? Discovery last Sun. actually had a show where they compared th 20mm hits from a 109E to .303 hits from a Spit1 to show how the Spit was undergunned. But the RAF did shoot down a fair amount of 111's. Is it just good gunnery?

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2003, 03:21 AM
GSNei wrote:

Does it seem to you that the .303 ammo is a little
- too weak? Discovery last Sun. actually had a show
- where they compared th 20mm hits from a 109E to .303
- hits from a Spit1 to show how the Spit was
- undergunned.

One thing I know from years of hunting is ther is no acounting for the way chance plays a big part in how fast a target will go down when hit (ground test rarely account for this chance factor),and even though the 20mm looks like a killer (and it was) I feel that the .303 was given a bad rep as weak,sure this may be so against bombers as it's hard to get close enough to deliver a killing blow but against fighters I'am sure there is alot of damage happening that does not show so easily and a pilot kill was very common.You simply cant have a plane hit with dozens of rounds and not do some nasty things the airframes sytems or pilot /crew and even more so when firing at high angles of deflection.

Also If the guns on the spit had been grouped more closely like in the hurrie I'am sure they would have been much more effective.

So do I think it was under guned at the time of BoB, no not really as long as it was fighting 109's I think it was fine.

No1RAAF_Pourshot
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/CA-15%20Kangaroo.jpg

No1_RAAF

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2003, 06:55 AM
1.0 b239 "Tested by finnish wwii pilot"
1.1b p40e
1.1f p40m
1.11 p40m

The p40's have a very realistic feel to the real warbird, even with the roll rate being slightly slower then it should be.

The sealevel, 3000m with stage1 and 6000m with stage2 level flight speeds are slightly slower then they should be and overheat timing at 100% trottle should be reduced with rad closed. Its strange the climb rate it faster then it should be to 5000m

Gunnery strenght is another thing.






http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4jz7i/ls.gif

Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter




http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4jz7i/ls.gif

Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2003, 07:22 AM
I don't hear many complaining about one of my favs,the Ju-87...

47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2003, 12:58 PM
Well, Yak-3 engine does seem a little too powerful.

BF-109 acceleration in general seems to be too low, imo.

FW-190s are really crappy at maneuvering. Why?

Hurricanes climb so well with an indicated power of 950 hp.


..and here's a strange question. In the specs, the German planes usually have an indicated power, which is lower than the take off power. Russian planes sometimes just have one amount. For example, LA5FN and Yak-3 just have "1800 hp" and "1200 hp" ...How do I know is that the 'take off' power or the indicated power? If it's the indicated power, sure the Russian planes must be good. If it's the take off power, then I seriously think some Russian planes are overmodeled... Well actually they are..but anyhow.. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

You gurus probably have dozens of books with the right values and stuff?

Bah.. I don't understand anything. I'm an idiot. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2003, 02:17 PM
In answer to the discovery channels test with 303's and 20mm's.The one thing they should have done is have an enclosed target.All exit "wounds" are larger than entrance and it would have shown the explosive shell of the 20's compared to just comparing the entrance hole sizes of both.

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2003, 02:34 PM
clint-ruin wrote:
- Bf109G2 - Again, a little excessive in the climb,
- maybe a little too fast, but definitely seems highly
- regarded.
-
- Bf109G6/AS - Other than minor overheat issues and
- perhaps some climb rate issues at <3000m altitudes,
- seems more or less OK
-
- FW-190A series - more or less exactly right, all the
- way through, other than roll data in the very high
- and very low speed realm and durability. Slightly
- exceeds historical climb rate up to 5k but not
- massively so.
-
- Any others?
-

These are close to right like you say but when you match them up v the vvs UFO's they seem undermodled I still dont understand How I can be @ 4000m & dive in a p47 & an la7 can stay with me I should be able to out excelerate it easily & extend away but no that dosent happen very often

Lame !!! Im just saying.....

<center><font size="7" color="red">Dedicated Server.exe Ya right!!![/i]</font>

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2003, 03:18 PM
190 D9's pretty good. At altitude it's superb. AFAIK 190 as a rule wasn't very manoeuvrable was it? Wurgerwhiners seem a lot happier these days - that's a good sign. DM's a and high spped roll rate still a bit screwy but being fixed apparently.

Not so sure about VVS but they're more fragile, less, well, nimble, than they used to be so figure they're more or less OK. read somewhere here that 1C is aware of the La7's overperformance.

If you wanna check the VVS planes, go here for data (it's in Russian). I posted a quick translation on a thread in ORR.

http://ftp.23ag.ru/html/lavochkin_statistika.html

Apart from some of the G variants, most things are in good state and don't IMHO need huge amount of work doing, some for sure. But if you read some of these threads then you'd think the game has been rendered useless by last patch which is very far from the truth.




http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_07.gif


She turned me into a newt, but I got better.

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2003, 07:31 PM
I appreciate all the input, I have been spending a lot of time on this sim lately , (mainly trying to shoot straght), and every time I go to something else on the hard drive it just doesn't come anywhere near the overall feel of this game. Still think the Stukas are too hard to kill though...