PDA

View Full Version : Petition to Oleg and Luthier for dive/zoom differences!



lbhskier37
08-14-2004, 05:08 PM
Now I am sick to death of being called a luftwhiner when I get pissed because a spit with equal or less energy caught me in a zoom climb and killed me. The problem is not specific to german planes at all. Have any of you tried to fight a Yak in a P47? Good luck! How about when PF comes out and the only advantage the Wildcat had over the Zero doesn't exist in this game because all planes dive and zoom the same. Everyone keep bumping this if you want to see this issue fixed. Or at least tell us that its not possible to do in the current engine. I for one would pay $50 for a game add-on that included only a fix for this. Oleg PLEASE fix this! This is the single biggest problem with this game. When PF comes out I its going to be hell in this forum because all the american pilots are going to find out they cant use thier biggest advantage.(kinda like all us FW whiners now) American planes will all be relegated to hit and run tactics like the FWs are now. PLEASE Oleg PLEASE address this in PF, it would make you sim perfect!

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/2005VRSCSE.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"

"Big cannons are only for skilless pilots who can't shoot shraight enough to hit a target with a smaller caliber round."-310thcopperhead

lbhskier37
08-14-2004, 05:08 PM
Now I am sick to death of being called a luftwhiner when I get pissed because a spit with equal or less energy caught me in a zoom climb and killed me. The problem is not specific to german planes at all. Have any of you tried to fight a Yak in a P47? Good luck! How about when PF comes out and the only advantage the Wildcat had over the Zero doesn't exist in this game because all planes dive and zoom the same. Everyone keep bumping this if you want to see this issue fixed. Or at least tell us that its not possible to do in the current engine. I for one would pay $50 for a game add-on that included only a fix for this. Oleg PLEASE fix this! This is the single biggest problem with this game. When PF comes out I its going to be hell in this forum because all the american pilots are going to find out they cant use thier biggest advantage.(kinda like all us FW whiners now) American planes will all be relegated to hit and run tactics like the FWs are now. PLEASE Oleg PLEASE address this in PF, it would make you sim perfect!

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/2005VRSCSE.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"

"Big cannons are only for skilless pilots who can't shoot shraight enough to hit a target with a smaller caliber round."-310thcopperhead

CHDT
08-14-2004, 05:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>When PF comes out I its going to be hell in this forum because all the american pilots are going to find out they cant use thier biggest advantage.(kinda like all us FW whiners now) American planes will all be relegated to hit and run tactics like the FWs are now.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So true. I already hear the "learn to fly your Focke-Wulf" gang whining for more energy in their US birds!

And of course, they won't even realize the paradox of their situation http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif

Ok, time to go to bed, I've said enough stupid things this night http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Tater-SW-
08-14-2004, 06:02 PM
PUNT

tater

Fliger747
08-14-2004, 06:58 PM
An accurate (and different) flight model/airfile for each aircraft is an important (essential) part of being able to call this a "historical" simulation.

With some luck, work is being done on this as we speak.

Bull_dog_
08-14-2004, 07:32 PM
I doubt much will be said in 1943 aircraft and beyond...but those P-39D's, P-400's, P-40's and Wildcats only had one good thing going for them...point the nose earthward!

This energy/dive thing needs to be corrected in FB/AEP as well as PF.

I'm not holding my breath...the ailerons falling off my plane when I dive and the compressibility modelling makes me think Oleg looks at this aspect of flight modelling much differently than I do.

Fennec_P
08-14-2004, 08:01 PM
Maybe some numbers would help. You know, numbers?

In all the forum posts with people complaining their plane doesn't dive or zoom well enough (whatever that even means), I have not seen anyone put up actual performance figures.

The one exception being that the Me-262 can zoom 3000m from Vmax. In FB, it can.

For other planes, especially heavy ones with terrible T/W, these magical dive and zoom abilities are never explained, or even defined, other than to say it doesn't do either "well" enough compared to the words in their favorite history book.

heywooood
08-14-2004, 08:33 PM
Agree with Fennec - post numbers or quit biatching...errmm just quit biznatching period.



http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v250/heywooood/ac_32_1.jpg
"Check your guns"

VF-3Thunderboy
08-14-2004, 08:37 PM
In CFS2 with 1% models, I can (after tweeking) get the zeros to NOT dive past 320 kts or so. It took a while but its very relevant to the sim. Normally you need over 360 kts for over a minute to outrun them. Nothing is perfect, but Id make a peace with the 1% Avhistory team, and get the best flight models you can get!

This is really important! Good post! Where do I sign??

Fennec_P
08-14-2004, 11:16 PM
Since there seems to be a common misconeception that there is no differences in dive acceleration, I did a test.

The most common comparison is of the P-40 vs. A6M2, so I did those.

Crimea, 12:00, full fuel, 100% power, rad closed.

Aircraft start at 6000m and 300km/h TAS. Aircraft perform constant 30 degree dive. Record speeds every 5 seconds.

P-40/Zero
------------

5 -402/391
10-488/473
15-573/547
20-645/606
25-709/658
30-760/696
35-801/724
40-833/745
45-856/destroyed at 750kmh (2655m)
50-destroyed at 875km/h (1700m)

So there is a clear difference between the two, even in a shallow dive.

By the 20 second mark, the P-40 is going 50km/h faster than the zero, and has accumulated a lead of over 500m, well out of gun range.

At dive angles of 45 or 60 degrees, this time would be cut in less than half. You would be out of range in a count to five.

If this is not good enough for you, I really don't know what you are expecting, that the Zero would float like a parachute or disintigrate at 600km/h TAS, or that the P40 would fall like a rocket-propelled dart. There are no physics to justify this, given that the T/W and drag difference betwen the two planes is so small.

One more time, for the physics-challenged, heavy things do not fall faster than light things. Only drag/weight, drag/thrust and thrust/weight matter, like in a level acceleration.

If weight was key to diving, the TB-3 would outdive everything. It doesn't.

Note that I am testing the player flight model only. Everyone knows that the AI FMs are messed up, and you will probably see weird dive performance.

[This message was edited by Fennec_P on Sat August 14 2004 at 10:29 PM.]

lbhskier37
08-15-2004, 01:31 AM
Oleg I mean no disrespect if this issue has been addressed by you already, but for a dedicated FW pilot and soon to be dedicated Wildcat pilot this is a very important issue. If this really is a limitation in the code and truely is impossible then let me know and I wont bother about this issue anymore, but if it is indeed possible to fix somehow, I believe, and I think many agree with me, that this is one of the most important issue facing this sim right now. It is nice to get new planes, would be nice to get some climbs fixed, but this issue encompasses every plane and all their historical relationships to eachother in performance. To truely simulate air combat I believe this is essential, so if you find time in your busy schedule could you please look at a bit of Robbans data and give us a quick response. Thanks!

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/2005VRSCSE.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"

"Big cannons are only for skilless pilots who can't shoot shraight enough to hit a target with a smaller caliber round."-310thcopperhead

lbhskier37
08-15-2004, 01:35 AM
Fennec, I haven't had time to test myself in much detail, but Robban has and he has come to a different conclusion than that. Online at least all planes seem to dive with the same acceleration(offline seems like it may be different) and then when it comes to zoom, the planes that bleed no energy like Spits, zoom the best. If you look at physics, this isnt what would happen. Its not just about the weight of the plane, I never claimed that, but its a combination of many things. And I have yet to see a claim that a spit could dive and zoom with a 190, or that a 109 could dive and zoom with a P47 for that matter. Right now a spit outzooms basically everything (not knocking the spit, im using it as an example, you could stick a Yak in there too, or even a 109).

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/2005VRSCSE.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"

"Big cannons are only for skilless pilots who can't shoot shraight enough to hit a target with a smaller caliber round."-310thcopperhead

lbhskier37
08-15-2004, 01:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fennec_P:


One more time, for the physics-challenged, _heavy things do not fall faster than light things._ Only drag/weight, drag/thrust and thrust/weight matter, like in a level acceleration.



[This message was edited by Fennec_P on Sat August 14 2004 at 10:29 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I had a graph on here a while ago using the basic fluid dynamics equations showing how this works. The first factor effecting dive acceleration is thrust to drag ratio, of which the P47 and FW should be fairly dominant in their respective years at (late spits or 109s would be better though) but soon after weight to drag ratios dominate. If you look at drag coefficients of WWII fighters they dont differ nearly as much as the weights do, so heavy planes are generatlly going to do better in this aspect. If you really want I can get my fluids book and matlab out tomorrow, but its just reitterating what countless pilots and WWII military doctrine said.... If you are in a F4F-3 and a zero is on your six, dive dive dive! If I am wrong, can you explain how any of those wildcat pilots survived the war? Cause they sure as heck weren't going to outclimb or outturn those zeros.

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/2005VRSCSE.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"

"Big cannons are only for skilless pilots who can't shoot shraight enough to hit a target with a smaller caliber round."-310thcopperhead

CHDT
08-15-2004, 01:59 AM
At first, I think it's an error looking all this business ONLY by the numbers; they're important, but not enough, because FB and PF are only 40$ games, played on personal computers, on the contrary to real flight simulators which cost millions of dollars and needed very huge development work over the years. In a pc game, you can get perfect numbers for the aircraft performances from very accurate sources, if for instance the energy model of the game has weaknesses, in the end, you get a wrong picture of the real thing.

So, I think the most important thing is to have different aircraft which have credible performances RELATIVE TO EACH OTHERS. On a 40$ pc sim, this needs some subtle "tweaking" to be done.



At the second hand, just have a look at these pages:

http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/Shilling.html

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>However, if we were in trouble, we were free to leave the area having sufficient speed to escape<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Their airplane design sacrificed pilot protection for lightness of construction, and the ANTIQUATED tactic of the turning combat in mind.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/Shilling2.html

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Contrary to popular belief, the P-40's larger turning radius did not present a problem when understood, and proper tactics were used against the Japanese fighters. Also its lower rate of climb could easily be overcome. The P-40 which was more than 40 mph faster than the zero, could still climb at a speed that the zero was incapable of attaining. Pilots that tried to dogfight lost their lives. Whereas the hit and run tactic with a faster plane was the only way to fight the Hayabusa or Zero.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just hope that the PF flight model will allow us to use the hit and run aircrafts as they were used in real life againt the turn and burn fighters. Correctly flown, the hit and run aircrafts MUST simply dictate the fight and disengage at their will.

It's obvious (except for the Yes-men gang) this is not the case now in AEP, in which this "ANTIQUATED tactic of the turning combat" is de facto favoured.

Because even when flying hit and run aircrafts with proper tactics, it's not possible to see this situation:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The Americans were still using the suicidal "Dogfight," or turning combat. When the Lockheed P-38s were first introduced into the Pacific theater in 1943. Saburo Sakai says, "The Zeros were shooting them down in large numbers." Although the Lockheed had a 100 mile per hour speed advantage, this is what happened when the airplane wasn't being used properly. Saburo further states, "When the Americans changed their tactic, the Zero pilots became fearful of the P-38, because they were decimating the Zeros."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do hope we will have an energy model in PF which will allow correct hit and run tactics (1).

Cheers,



(1) That's vital for virtual pilots like me who are really not so good in "close-combat" fighting and who MUST so fly according to General Chennault tactics, simply to save their "virtual" lifes http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

CHDT
08-15-2004, 02:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>To truely simulate air combat I believe this is essential<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's perfectly true. The game flight model should allow the energy fighters, of course not to outturn the t&b aircrafts, but to outmanoeuver them, because of the speed and energy factors. This is the huge difference between maniability and manoeuvrability.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Aviation buffs always come up with the statement that the Zero was more maneuverable than the P-40. Emphatically not true. Flown properly the P-40 was an outstanding fighter, especially in the Chinese theater of war.

Actually the P-40 was more maneuverable than the Zero. Unfortunately, those that claim otherwise do not know the definition of maneuverability as defined by Webster's dictionary.

1. To perform a movement in military or naval tactics in order to secure an advantage.
2. An intended and controlled variation from a straight and level
flight path in the operation of an aircraft.
3. To make a series of changes in direction and position for a specific purpose.
4. Evasive movement or shift of tactics.
5. To manage into or out of a position or condition.
6. To bring about or secure as a result of skillful management.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

P.S. Has someone the General Chennault's docs about energy combat tactics?