PDA

View Full Version : Olegs' opinion of the P-47



chris455
01-27-2004, 11:51 AM
I'm posting this to give Oleg the opportunity to clarify his opinion of the P-47.

It has been stated that Oleg has described the Jug as "Not really a fighter"; most recently, he is quoted as saying "Also, Except the more grater speed the N model (sure that also M model) has no advantage over D. I wil say even in all other aspects of combat it will be EVEN WORSE" (emphasis mine).

Oleg is a pilot and a knowledgeable man regarding maters of aeronautics, I am sure he knows the tremendous contribution to the allied air effort the P-47 made. I beleive there are some who regard his stated opinions as some form of bias; I am doubtful of this, and would like to hear Oleg's reasons for his feelings about the jug from Oleg himself.

I for one LOVE the way the P-47 is modelled in FB; only the D27's rollrate is truly undermodelled. All other aspects give us the BEST P-47 in any recent flight sim IMO.

So, if Oleg doesn't feel the plane was up to snuff, here is an oportunity for him to say why he feels this way. Not that he HAS to for any reason; it's just that some of us would like to hear it for ourselves.
S! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

chris455
01-27-2004, 11:51 AM
I'm posting this to give Oleg the opportunity to clarify his opinion of the P-47.

It has been stated that Oleg has described the Jug as "Not really a fighter"; most recently, he is quoted as saying "Also, Except the more grater speed the N model (sure that also M model) has no advantage over D. I wil say even in all other aspects of combat it will be EVEN WORSE" (emphasis mine).

Oleg is a pilot and a knowledgeable man regarding maters of aeronautics, I am sure he knows the tremendous contribution to the allied air effort the P-47 made. I beleive there are some who regard his stated opinions as some form of bias; I am doubtful of this, and would like to hear Oleg's reasons for his feelings about the jug from Oleg himself.

I for one LOVE the way the P-47 is modelled in FB; only the D27's rollrate is truly undermodelled. All other aspects give us the BEST P-47 in any recent flight sim IMO.

So, if Oleg doesn't feel the plane was up to snuff, here is an oportunity for him to say why he feels this way. Not that he HAS to for any reason; it's just that some of us would like to hear it for ourselves.
S! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Zen--
01-27-2004, 01:13 PM
Little bump here, I'd be interested to hear his answer, if any.

Nice way to ask the question btw, I think you came across pretty well.

S~~

-Zen-
Formerly TX-Zen

kubanloewe
01-27-2004, 01:44 PM
sry but the climbirate of the D10 is far to high; better than 190 A4 and nearly 109 G6 .

that´s bull****

"Finde den Feind und schiesse ihn ab alles andere ist Unsinn"
Rittmeister Freiherrr Manfred von Richthofen

MachineII
01-27-2004, 01:53 PM
Oleg has stated, on more than one occasion, his views on the P-47. They are as reported elsewhere. They are also, I might add, hardly based in reality.

He may be a pilot (not that that has anything to do with designing a WWII sim), and a gifted game designer, but when it comes to research, he's lacking.

http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig7.jpg

SeaFireLIV
01-27-2004, 01:57 PM
So, has Oleg got now explain himself on every plane he likes or dislikes? Is he going to be accused of being anti-American if he says he doesn`t like it? Or anti-English if he doesn`t like Brit planes? Or whatever nationality?


If anything`s inaccurate in a big way the technically minded will usually correct him and if they provide the evidence he`ll usually change it with the next patch.

As long as he makes them so they`re reasonably accurate and do the job, it doesn`t matter if he personally likes them or not IMHO.


SeaFireLIV...

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/Dark.jpg

[This message was edited by SeaFireLIV on Tue January 27 2004 at 01:13 PM.]

LW_lcarp
01-27-2004, 02:56 PM
As far as the P-47 being a good Dogfighter or not, I think the only one who know for sure are the ones that flew it like this chap here...

http://www.acepilots.com/usaaf_gabby.html

"If winning isnt everything why do they keep score"
Vince Lombardi

Willey
01-27-2004, 03:13 PM
LOL

The 47M is slightly heavier than the D, but it has 2800hp instead of 2300. How can it be WORSE in all aspects except of speed??? It should climb better, turn better sustainedly, accelerate better... you name it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

XyZspineZyX
01-27-2004, 03:15 PM
Providing evidence *usually* works, but not always.

Proof:

the 190 gunsight and overall visibility

Muzzle flashes

Late 109 canopies

Various versions of different planes flight models, all said to be totally accurate ("be sure") at different points in time before they were changed.

Overall, I'd say Oleg's team has done a *fairly* good job... but they're not perfect by any means.

kyrule2
01-27-2004, 03:16 PM
I don't think he has a very high opinion of the FW-190A either, if that is any consolation. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I doubt Oleg will respond because he knows it will incite a riot. It's his game after all, and attempting to explain the way things are would probably do more harm than good.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors" by Nicolas Trudgian

XyZspineZyX
01-27-2004, 03:21 PM
What I posted above being said...

I will add that the P-47 is not flown by many in FB like it was used in real life. Those expecting it to be a worldbeater down low below 2km (which accounts for about 90% of its use in DF servers) are totally ignorant of what made the P-47 excel. It kicked butt at 6 - 9km altitudes, breaking up German intercepter gaggles. Down low, it was strafing trains and shooting up airfields in "one pass, haul arse" raids, not sticking around the area doing break turns.

The *main* reason why the Jug seems to suck in FB is because of its PILOTS: they have that "John Wayne", I-have-a-God-given-*RIGHT*-to-win-cuz-I'm-flying-a-legendary-American-plane mindset rivaled only by Mustang pilots (and soon, by Spitfire pilots). I've shot down my share of Jug pilots online trying to be A6M5s. It's pathetic.

kyrule2
01-27-2004, 03:31 PM
Agreed Stiglr, the P-47 is out of its element in FB. If this sim was a Western front sim with high altitude battles with a detailed high altitude model I think the view of the P-47 would be much different. I think the Thunderbolt suffers more than any other plane from lack of high altitude battles/modelling.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors" by Nicolas Trudgian

WB_Outlaw
01-27-2004, 03:36 PM
I should have shut-up sooner. In the time it took me to write this Stiglr and Kyrule beat me to the point. I'll type faster next time.

Whether or not an aircraft is a "fighter" is a VERY subjective statement. I can see where Oleg is coming from since the Jug did not turn, climb, or accelerate (excepting the dive of course) as well as many of the contemporaries of the day.

Kill ratios alone do not determine how much of a fighter an aircraft was, just how well it fulfilled the role it was playing. The Jug was fast at high altitude, which means almost everything if you are escorting bombmers. Also, the Luftwaffe's main objectives were the bombers, sometimes to the point of "at all costs". Sitting a few thousand feet above the bombers and knowing that the Luftwaffe had to concentrate their main efforts on the bombers gave the Jugs (and other escorts) a tremendous advantage. The huge numbers advantage later in the war iced the cake.

There were very few dogfights in the war and probably none that even came close to a WW-I dogfight with many twists and turns and spins. It was very dangerous to try and turn fight with someone, even if you know you will win after two turns. You may beat him, but then you are left with no energy and at the mercy of any other enemy in the area. Spins are deadly dangerous in nearly all WW-II fighters and only test-pilots, the truly gifted, or truly desperate would ever want to get in one. Turning and burning is a VERY good way to get your aircraft into an unrecoverable spin. Most spin recovery techniques start out with, "if you are lower than xxx altitude, bail out", and usually have a statement like, "if the spin is not stopped after yyy turns, bail out", somewhere in them.



I'll shut-up now.

-Outlaw.

Gunner_361st
01-27-2004, 05:03 PM
Excellent point gentlemen. Pilots are the great equalizer... These planes don't fly themselves.

The P-47 Thunderbolt is one of the 361st mainly used fighter aircraft along with the P-51. We love the Jug. And all of our boys know too thats 100% an energy fighter... You can do a quick break to foil someone's pass, but what the Jug does is Boom and Zoom with the best of 'em http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

With 8 .50 caliber M2 MG's and up to 3800 rounds of ammunition (with extra) I'd say its one of the best armed Allied fighters of WW2, inferior to only the FW190 and the German jets and rockets.

It is a real shame when you see rookies flying her, like Stiglr said, as if she were a Zero.

But hey, hopefully the people who don't know how will learn sometime or another, yes?

My favorite aircraft are the Thunderbolt, the Zero, and the Flying Fortress. All exceptional at what they were designed to do, and seeing loads of combat action. I know its a pipe dream really, but imagine flying in a Fortress in FB. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

~S~

Captain Gunner of the 361st vFG

tagert
01-27-2004, 05:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
So, has Oleg got now explain himself on every plane he likes or dislikes? Is he going to be accused of being anti-American if he says he doesn`t like it? Or anti-English if he doesn`t like Brit planes? Or whatever nationality?


If anything`s inaccurate in a big way the technically minded will usually correct him and if they provide the evidence he`ll usually change it with the next patch.

As long as he makes them so they`re reasonably accurate and do the job, it doesn`t matter if he personally likes them or not IMHO.


SeaFireLIV...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well said!

TAGERT

VW-IceFire
01-27-2004, 05:22 PM
Big differences between the P-47N and the P-47D...so much so that we would see a considerable difference in the aircrafts abilities. I don't think Oleg was much aware of the 47N till it was brought to his attention. Frankly I wasn't even really aware of the N except that there was some "experimental long range P-47 near the end of the war". That perception is forever altered now after I've read what I've read. The N almost fought in good numbers in Europe missing the war by a few weeks and was used extensively in the last months of the Pacific war...wracking up over 200 confirmed kills and using rockets to attack shipping and ground targets.

Oleg's human...only so much one can know. Together all of us represent a very solid collection of historical data and knowledge. Such a concentration of knowledge probably has never happened before in history. Think about it in a collective sense.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
The New IL2 Database is Coming Soon!

Fillmore
01-27-2004, 05:33 PM
There were many less quoted pilots who did not think the P47 was a good fighter. Something along the lines of "pilots who thought it was havn't flown anything else". Some liked it alot, but many didn't. When switched from Spitfires to P47s many wanted the Spitfires back. Americans, British, Germans all aknowledged that the P51 was a first rate fighter plane, the same is not true of the P47.

Seems to me just the way it is in game, some few think the P47 does fine, many think it is useless as a fighter.

faustnik
01-27-2004, 05:39 PM
Uhh, I think Olegs opinion of the P-47 is outlined pretty well in the aircraft viewer:

Advantages: The powerful, rugged, reliable R-2800 engine guaranteed great high altitude performance, and in combination with a hefty fuel load and sleek lines gave it outstanding range. In combat, the Jugs fast dive speed allowed it to escape most enemies and the eight guns have it tremendous firepower without the need of cannons. The P-47D was also a very durable aircraft and required a lot of firepower to bring down.

Disadvantages: Particularly at lower altitudes, the Jug was not a good turn fighter. It was best suited to boom and zoom tactics. Additionally, the R2800 engine gave the Jug a sub-par climb rate.


This seems very close to the model in FB.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

XyZspineZyX
01-27-2004, 05:41 PM
I had the pleasure of attending a talk by one of the Tuskegee Airmen one time, and he flew the P-51 and the P-47. Asked which one was his favorite, he, with some hesitation had to admit it wasn't the Stang, it was the Jug.

Why? He pointed behind himself and mentioned how much armor was protecting his butt.

GR142_Astro
01-27-2004, 05:59 PM
Um, fix the roll rate in the D27 and let's move on.

Regards.

A.K.Davis
01-27-2004, 06:06 PM
Stiglr brings up a good point, which is often overlooked here due the limitations of simulation: confidence in the aircraft. While many USAAF pilots recognized the superior all around performance of the P-51, most highly valued the rugged airframe and reliable engine in the P-47. Because we're not typically that concerned about getting home in FB, it kinda skews our evaluations of WWII pilots' preferences.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

ZG77_Nagual
01-27-2004, 06:10 PM
I submit the reason for the to-many-people-but-not-me http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif dissapointing performance of the 190 compaired to it's rep in the west is the same problem a with the jug. very different combat environs. Also consider much of the oft-sited brit assessment refers to models a5 and earlier - these are lighter, more agile aircraft than the a8-a9.

The dora - in FB at least - is a real world-beater - it makes sense to me that it would be better than the a9 simply because of cleaner aerodynamics - better zoom, better dive accel etc. I've had to revise alot of my opinions since encountering this simm - but i have to say - when all the homework is done I come down pretty much in line with Oleg.

SeaFireLIV
01-27-2004, 06:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kyrule2:
I doubt Oleg will respond because he knows it will incite a riot. It's his game after all, and attempting to explain the way things are would probably do more harm than good.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. Kyrule`s got it in one and this is partly my worry. Oleg is in the position where it`s best for all that he does not give an opinion on what plane he likes or not. It could cause a very bitter forum flame riot. It wouldn`t take much to set some people off on wild accusations.

It`s best he don`t say.

SeaFireLIV...

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/Dark.jpg

Eagle_361st
01-27-2004, 07:28 PM
After having exchanged some emails with Oleg I have come to a conclusion that it is more a different view of what a fighter should be. I can't really say he dislikes it as an aircraft, but perhaps does not view it as a strict fighter. And that is fine, it is his opinion and as long as he continues to give the plane as much attention as he does the others and uses the correct FM/DM and data for it. I could care less if he likes it or not, as long as it is here for us to enjoy.

Some might say that the P-47 is out of it's element in this game, and I think they are very wrong. It belongs in this game as much as any other aircraft, it all boils down to one thing......The man in the cockpit. I really hate seeing people in a P-47 down low trying to slug it out in a DF server, but either they learn to fly it right or give up and move to the next a/c. Proper tactics, and most importantly flying the aircraft within it's designed perimeters is what makes or breaks a fighter, not what people think of it. Once you know how to fly a plane, no matter what it is, you will be the better for it. Some of the best pilots I have seen are the guys who have religously stuck with the FW's.

~S!
Eagle
Commanding Officer 361st vFG
www.361stvfg.com (http://www.361stvfg.com)
http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1003.jpg

kyrule2
01-27-2004, 08:21 PM
Hey Eagle, I have stuck with the FW. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

When I said the P-47 was out of its element, I was referring to the low altitude nature of online dogfights and the admitted poor high altitude modelling in FB. I certainly didn't mean it shouldn't be in the game.

Nagual I agree, the Dora is, and should be better than the A-9 in many aspects (though it seems the Dora's firepower is a bit anemic). My problem with the A-9 is its climb is the same as the A-8 and that is wrong. The A-9 had a significant increase in hp and a high efficiency prop designed for increase in climb-rate. Check Oleg's numbers in object viewer to see just how much better climb should be. Right now its climbs poorly, seemingly since patch 1.21. My other problem with the 190's in the medium altitude performance, particularly of the A-4. At 5,000 to 6,000m they are at their fastest but they handle sluggishly, and poorly overall. I expect this at high altitude, but not at medium altitude. The A-4 should also be slightly faster and it cannot reach its max speed at medium altitude. It seems to be down about 15+km/h (with manual prop-pitch). But I'm less worried about the speed as I am about the power/poor handling (no power, nose dipping, easy stall) where historically it was at its best.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors" by Nicolas Trudgian

chris455
01-27-2004, 08:22 PM
I have gone over my original post several times now. No where can I find any references stating that "Oleg must explain himself" or "Oleg should/shouldn't tell us what planes he likes".
Where do people come up with these distortions?

Please re-read the original post.

It is a matter of profound indifference to me if Oleg "likes" the Jug or not. Clearly, the man has issues concerning the plane's technical performance, or combat prowess, or call-it-what-you-will. I'm only asking him to state what these issues are, and what he bases them on, if he chooses to share them.
Thank you.

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

VW-IceFire
01-27-2004, 09:27 PM
Nagual...a very good point indeed. In the end I generally fall somewhere in line with what Oleg does. We've got alot of radical opinions on this forum and I'd be afraid with a good number of them doing the FM models because I'm certain things would definately be out of wack much much worse.

Oleg does a great job programming the FM's. He isn't perfect but he's very good. The more I pry into the performance of aircraft against the historical recorded numbers the more I appreciate how close FB actually comes to doing those things within the game engine. No small feat.

I'd still love to have a nice P-47 with HVAR's. Maybe a minor modification for a D-35 (I think thats the one with the larger tail and HVAR ability). I fly alot of single player P-47 in ground attack and rodeo missions over Normandy (mostly my own design). As a ground pounder its great fun...and it looks fantastic! Just asking for a slight fix. Its otherwise excellently modeled and the P-51 I couldn't hope for more either. Well done.

Lets hope the Tempest's strengths and weaknesses are done nicely as well http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
The New IL2 Database is Coming Soon!

VMF-214_HaVoK
01-27-2004, 10:54 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by kubanloewe:
sry but the climbirate of the D10 is far to high; better than 190 A4 and nearly 109 G6 .

that´s bull****[QUOTE]

And at what alt are you referring to? High alt above 6000 meters ofcoarse the P-47 D10 outclimbs them it is accurate. Check the charts.

http://www.aviation-history.com/vought/98027.jpg

chris455
01-27-2004, 11:05 PM
Ice-Fire, would you be willing to e-mail me some of your Normandy Jug missions? Sounds like alot of fun!
I made a pretty cool mission I call "Berlin" with 4 P-47-D27 and LOTS of trains, tanks, trucks, etc. Pretty neat flying overhead and delegating targets to your wingies!
S!

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

A.K.Davis
01-27-2004, 11:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by kubanloewe:
sry but the climbirate of the D10 is far to high; better than 190 A4 and nearly 109 G6 .

that´s bull****[QUOTE]

And at what alt are you referring to? High alt above 6000 meters ofcoarse the P-47 D10 outclimbs them it is accurate. Check the charts.

http://www.aviation-history.com/vought/98027.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, D-10 outclimbs Fw-190A-4, A-5 and A-8 at all altitudes in game.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

Korolov
01-28-2004, 12:02 AM
Why do I always feel like the D-27 is the best of the three? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Well, theres the visibility... But everyone here says the D-27 is the worst.

In any case, a later D model, most likely the D-35 is the one I'd like the most. A new gunsight and HVAR capability with only minor modification to the FMs and models.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

ShVAK
01-28-2004, 08:23 AM
I'm more than happy with the D10.

If however, they ever get around to repairing the roll-rate on the D22 and D27, it would also be nice to see these later marks receiving some low level performance boosts given by the "Curtiss Electric" and "Hamilton Standard" paddle props.

Introducing wake turbulence into this game would also give all P47s a boost.

XyZspineZyX
01-28-2004, 09:55 AM
VW-IceFire wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Oleg does a great job programming the FM's. He isn't perfect but he's very good. The more I pry into the performance of aircraft against the historical recorded numbers the more I appreciate how close FB actually comes to doing those things within the game engine. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's funny, my experience is just the opposite.

Overall, I feel that IL-2 has captured a very nice feel of flight. Most of the time it "feels right". But, when you get into the specifics of particular planes, or look at the results of fight, it's very hit or miss.

Witness the old "ueber" P-39s, La5s and 109Es of various older versions. All of these planes were, we were told, spot on with supportable numbers from reputable sources. Yet they weren't. And they were changed. Then you have the 109Fs suffering incredible snap stalls, when all evidence (even from British sources) say the 109 had very docile stall behavior.

Also, strange artifacts like AI planes turning (pivoting is a better word) about their center of gravity in tight turns minus inertia carrying them outside the turn (I've seen this time and again in tracks and in instant missions, and can't be convinced it doesn't happen), "can't miss" otto tail gunners, things of this nature.

It all combines, to create, at least for me, an unacceptably high % of unrealistic results. I tend to use historical tactics much of the time, and get "BS results" much more often than those that seem like "what should have happened". (I mean good and bad results, I'm not just saying I should win every time).

This was really brought home to me when I started playing more Targetware, where the opposite is true. Things happen there that gibe almost verbatim with published first person accounts. I remember vividly reading a passage from a book about the Dutch East Indies combat how an over-agressive Ki-43 pilot snapped his wings over an airfield, and then the very next day, having the same thing happen to me in Targetware when I pressed a dive too much. It was "deja vu"-ish. And it happens as the rule, not the exception with that flight modeling.

Also, how the interaction of historical adversaries brings out the "realistic" interplay. Like how P-40s can dive and roll, and Zeros can't follow and keep a gun solution. How Thach Weave tactics turn "gun fodder" F4Fs into competitive planes.

roachclip
01-28-2004, 10:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Uhh, I think Olegs opinion of the P-47 is outlined pretty well in the aircraft viewer:

Advantages: The powerful, rugged, reliable R-2800 engine guaranteed great high altitude performance, and in combination with a hefty fuel load and sleek lines gave it outstanding range. In combat, the Jugs fast dive speed allowed it to escape most enemies and the eight guns have it tremendous firepower without the need of cannons. The P-47D was also a very durable aircraft and required a lot of firepower to bring down.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The reference to outstanding range is an error. The P-47 could barely reach the German border without drop tanks and even with drop tanks, only gave it an extra 145mi. extention. The P-38 had twice that range.

The reference to great height performance was aided by the turbo supercharger. The RR and Packard Merlin performed at high altitudes reliably.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Just 2 minor errors in the FB's data viewer.

One has to ask, what does Oleg, or who ever made up that statement, really know about one of the primary a/c (with some 8000 built) used by the USA of WW2.

ShVAK
01-28-2004, 10:28 AM
Actually, the extra range depended on the size of the drop tank. The fuel capacity of the drop tank increased as the war progressed (at least twice anyway).

ZG77_Nagual
01-28-2004, 10:32 AM
Since the patch I've mostly been flying my old-time fav from il2 - the p39 - and have neglected my fav online plane - the 190 series. (back then the p39 was just too frustrating to fly online - for me anyway - so I settled on the a5)
Since I started online back in Il2 I've mostly flown the 190 and it's interesting to come back to it after a few months off. I like to practice offline vs four ace opponents so I started with the a8 vs yaks's then switched to la7s etc. In this highly subjective environment there seems little to choose between the a8 and a9 - I've been flying with the standard 20mm armament and the a9 is certainly stepped down from pre-1.21 levels - when it really pretty much felt like cheating to fly it online. Offline I'd practice with it vs 8 la7s (ace) just to keep it interesting. Now it's work - the yak3s are harder to hit, but the la7s seem to keep up better. With the dora - as noted - it's firepower - I've set cannon convergence down to 150m and my biggest problem is avoiding collisions with debri. The a5 is still an agile bird, and was my long time fav. The dora is pretty easy ride.
In the handling department the 190 now has competition - two planes exhibit comparable control harmony (allways the pull of the 190s for me) - The mighty brewster and the superb ki84 (though I think the ki's rudder is not quite so good). Still, the 190 is a great plane, and there is nothing that beats the feeling of winning in one of the most difficult birds in the simm.

Aaron_GT
01-28-2004, 10:38 AM
"With 8 .50 caliber M2 MG's and up to 3800 rounds of ammunition (with extra) I'd say its one of the best armed Allied fighters of WW2, inferior to only the FW190 and the German jets and rockets."

4 20mm cannon armed fighters such as the
Tempest didn't do too badly either, if with
about half the firing time. The likes of
the Tempest probably have the edge in
destructive power per second, at the expense
of less overall potential destructive power
due to shorter firing time.

The heaviest armed Allied fighters were
probably the Mosquito (4 20mm, 4 .303),
Beaufighter (4 20mm, 6 .303, or 4 20mm,
4 .50) and the P-61 (4 20mm, 4 .50). These
are all twin engined planes, though, so the
P47 does well as a single engined plane.

Zikky
01-28-2004, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:

"Oleg does a great job programming the FM's.He isn't perfect but he's very good".



I tend to agree

*But*
The Great man is influenced by a certain vocal minority on the views of how some aircraft *should* perform(namely the ones that this minority oppose in online battle).

In point of fact,he has openly stated here on these very forums that he has artificially reduced the performance of the allied fighters in the game to please this element.

MachineII
01-28-2004, 11:18 AM
I think the point here is that a good programmer does not make a good historian.

There are problems and holes in research at 1C:Maddox...that much is obvious. You cannot make a "historically realistic" game, like FB strives more to be than any other, and have shoddy research. They should hire a dedicated researcher, or fire the one they have.

http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig7.jpg

faustnik
01-28-2004, 11:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MachineII:
I think the point here is that a good programmer does not make a good historian.

There are problems and holes in research at 1C:Maddox...that much is obvious. You cannot make a "historically realistic" game, like FB strives more to be than any other, and have shoddy research. They should hire a dedicated researcher, or fire the one they have.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where is this coming from? I disagree completely. There are some arguments over specifics not errors, big difference.

Please list the "historical inaccuracies" you claim are in FB.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

tagert
01-28-2004, 11:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MachineII:
I think the point here is that a good programmer does not make a good historian.

There are problems and holes in research at 1C:Maddox...that much is obvious. You cannot make a "historically realistic" game, like FB strives more to be than any other, and have shoddy research. They should hire a dedicated researcher, or fire the one they have.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%

TAGERT

roachclip
01-28-2004, 12:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ShVAK:
Actually, the extra range depended on the size of the drop tank. The fuel capacity of the drop tank increased as the war progressed (at least twice anyway).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There was only one model of the P-47 that had oustanding range, the P-47N, which Oleg says is a non-entity. The only way the P-47D could even come close to range of normal d/t P-51s and P-38s was with max dt size. The P-47 was not know for its outstanding range except as for the version noted above.

ShVAK
01-28-2004, 12:20 PM
No need to get nasty - I was just looking for a clarification to your original post.

I'm also pretty sure that the comment made about the P-47s outstanding range was in comparison to most other fighter aircraft at that time (probably circa 1943).

Eagle_361st
01-28-2004, 12:41 PM
The P-47N is far from a non-entity and don't be suprised if you see it in a future add-on. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif That's all I have to say at this point. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

~S!
Eagle
Commanding Officer 361st vFG
www.361stvfg.com (http://www.361stvfg.com)
http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1003.jpg

roachclip
01-28-2004, 12:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ShVAK:
No need to get nasty - I was just looking for a clarification to your original post.

I'm also pretty sure that the comment made about the P-47s outstanding range was in comparison to most other fighter aircraft at that time (probably circa 1943).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif nasty http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
You call that nasty???? >shakes head in total disbeleif<


So Eagle, you have convinced Oleg that the N was not someones dream a/c and that it did see action in some numbers?http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

MachineII
01-28-2004, 12:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MachineII:
I think the point here is that a good programmer does not make a good historian.

There are problems and holes in research at 1C:Maddox...that much is obvious. You cannot make a "historically realistic" game, like FB strives more to be than any other, and have shoddy research. They should hire a dedicated researcher, or fire the one they have.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where is this coming from? I disagree completely. There are some arguments over specifics not errors, big difference.

Please list the "historical inaccuracies" you claim are in FB.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
http://www.7jg77.com

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps you should acqauint yourself with the recent 1C comments that started this particular thread?

The data, for example, for the P-47 is prolific. It was offered OVER and OVER again by members of the community (using NACA, Republic, manuals, Smithsonian archives). It was ignored. The model was incorrect. It's BETTER but still modeled on two seperate standards (30lbs. v. 50lbs.).

Or, dare I say it? The Fw190 gunsite. <shudder>

There's two interpretations for this: 1C is biased (one I choose not to accept) or that they are not very good at doing accurate historical research. AND, the later being the case, even worse at admitting it.

http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig7.jpg

faustnik
01-28-2004, 01:19 PM
The 190 gunsight issue is a differrence of opinion, not a historical error.

Oleg does not have the resources to include two versions if the P-47 which did not see extensive use in the ETO. How is that an error?

One P-47 version out of three has a roll-rate issue, so, you think the 1C historian should get fired???

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

roachclip
01-28-2004, 01:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
The 190 gunsight issue is a differrence of opinion, not a historical error.

Oleg does not have the resources to include two versions if the P-47 which did not see extensive use in the ETO. How is that an error?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well I won't comment on the Fw gunsight but will shake me head nad roll the eyes up.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Now how much use did the A6Mx and Ki-84 see in the ETO, MTO or the EF? How is that for an error?http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

faustnik
01-28-2004, 01:38 PM
The P-47 is in FB, it has not been ommitted. Can you really be that upset because the "M" model is not in the sim?

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

This useless 1C bashing sucks. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Oh, maybe I'm missing something and you guys are just trying to put the Luftwhiners to shame. I'n that case, keep it up, you're right on track!

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

MachineII
01-28-2004, 01:40 PM
Actually, the comment was that the "M" had "worse" performance and NEVER saw combat. Both wrong and dismissive. No opinion about it.

Yeah...if you're making "historical" flight sims you want to at least have a grasp on the history involved. OR, don't speak to it. One of the things you HAVE to do around here is look stuff up. I think no different of 1C:Maddox or Oleg himself.

And the 190? You don't that many pages over a difference of opinion. But, that can be MY opinion.

Also, there's a difference between BASHING and CRITICISM. This is criticism. Why? Because FB is a fantastic sim/game. It has problems though. The major systemic problem seems to be the research methodology. I want the problems FIXED so it's even better. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig7.jpg

p1ngu666
01-28-2004, 05:03 PM
bashing is omgusuk
critism is the same, but better put
constructive critism is what we should do http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

p1ngu666
01-28-2004, 05:03 PM
oh and range was pretty good, compaired to 109, spitfire etc

Maple_Tiger
01-29-2004, 01:59 PM
Oleg has a higher opinion of the P-39 then he does of the P-47, P-51 and FW.

In a roll rate chart it shows that the P-47 has a supuroir roll rate then the P-39. but do you notice this is not the case in FB?

I would rather see the game developers use actuale Data or facts then there opinions for FM's

VW-IceFire
01-29-2004, 02:15 PM
I think some of Olegs comments are being blown way out of proportion.

He said they would not have the time to do the P-47N. They are busy on several projects. Thats more than fair enough. In terms of us doing it and it implementation it'd be PERFECTLY suited for a PTO simulation which is part of what they are involved with. I also didn't believe at the time that Oleg knew how closely the P-47N was to being a frontline ETO fighter in the last stretch of the war. Evenmoreso I doubt that he knew that the M had served in England for some time chasing down V-1's. Now the M I'm not as interested in as the N which is a full fledged upgrade to the D.

This does not mean that Maddox games does shoddy research. Its just likely that he didn't know at the time. The roll modeling on the D-27 still mystifies me but thats about it...most other things are done to very good standards. You can't turn all that they do so well at around and suggest that they do terrible research - thats definately not the case from anything that I've seen.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
The New IL2 Database is Coming Soon!

A.K.Davis
01-29-2004, 03:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
Oleg has a higher opinion of the P-39 then he does of the P-47, P-51 and FW.

In a roll rate chart it shows that the P-47 has a supuroir roll rate then the P-39. but do you notice this is not the case in FB?

I would rather see the game developers use actuale Data or facts then there opinions for FM's<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know which roll rate chart you refer to, and it compares the P-39D to the P-47C. Find a chart comparing the P-39N or Q to the P-47D-27 and you will have a valid argument.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

MachineII
01-29-2004, 05:36 PM
There's a reason why there's only the P-39D roll-rate chart...

The only differences from the D to the N to the Q were props, engines, and reduction gears. Why should they display vastly different roll behavior?

Even if we include the negation of .30's from the N to the Q, the roll rate should still be the same for the D and the N.

Should be 4.7 deg/sec @ 235. But we all know it ain't.

http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig7.jpg

faustnik
01-29-2004, 05:40 PM
I thought the P-39D had wing fuel tanks which were not in later versions???

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

MachineII
01-29-2004, 06:05 PM
I only saw 120 gallon capacity for the D and the N...the original Q's had it cut to 81, or something, but a kit restored that later.

http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig7.jpg