PDA

View Full Version : My 1.1b Impressions



XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 12:57 PM
Some observations and opinions of the 1.1b patch:

I like the adjusted glide ratios and drag modeling.

I like the ground handling - it seems to be more realistic.

Overall, I think the changes to the flight models are good and accurate.

The adjustments to selected weaponry seems to bring them more into line with reality.


Changes I have questions about:

There doesn't seem to be a realistic reduction in thrust when the throttle is cut. It feels like the CS prop governor is holding the engine at a higher output than it should. On a CS system, when the prop is at full fine pitch (max RPM) and the throttle is cut, the prop should act like an airbrake.

Stick force modeling is different and less realistic than the original in that the stick is forced to center even under no aerodynamic load. It should have virtually no resistance or centering tendencies while sitting on the ground.

Even though it wasn't totally realistic, I liked the way rough ground movement was transmitted through the stick in the original version (missing in 1.1b).


Opinions on individual flight models:

Most of this is a carryover from the original release since I can't notice a change in the patch.

Relative roll rates for several aircraft don't gibe with historical comparisons.

The FB P-39s significantly out-roll the P-40s - this shouldn't be. The P-40 was notably more responsive and agile than the P-39 and was one of the reasons it was preferred by US pilots in the SW Pacific. Buzz Wagner submitted a report in 1942 to USAAF HQ with quite a detailed comparison of the two types. I can provide a copy if desired.

As noted frequently elsewhere, FB's P-47 roll rate is significantly lower than the actual plane. I don't have charts, but lot's of pilot reports and video of the plane in action that make it clear FB's Jug is lacking in this regard.

-Bill

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 12:57 PM
Some observations and opinions of the 1.1b patch:

I like the adjusted glide ratios and drag modeling.

I like the ground handling - it seems to be more realistic.

Overall, I think the changes to the flight models are good and accurate.

The adjustments to selected weaponry seems to bring them more into line with reality.


Changes I have questions about:

There doesn't seem to be a realistic reduction in thrust when the throttle is cut. It feels like the CS prop governor is holding the engine at a higher output than it should. On a CS system, when the prop is at full fine pitch (max RPM) and the throttle is cut, the prop should act like an airbrake.

Stick force modeling is different and less realistic than the original in that the stick is forced to center even under no aerodynamic load. It should have virtually no resistance or centering tendencies while sitting on the ground.

Even though it wasn't totally realistic, I liked the way rough ground movement was transmitted through the stick in the original version (missing in 1.1b).


Opinions on individual flight models:

Most of this is a carryover from the original release since I can't notice a change in the patch.

Relative roll rates for several aircraft don't gibe with historical comparisons.

The FB P-39s significantly out-roll the P-40s - this shouldn't be. The P-40 was notably more responsive and agile than the P-39 and was one of the reasons it was preferred by US pilots in the SW Pacific. Buzz Wagner submitted a report in 1942 to USAAF HQ with quite a detailed comparison of the two types. I can provide a copy if desired.

As noted frequently elsewhere, FB's P-47 roll rate is significantly lower than the actual plane. I don't have charts, but lot's of pilot reports and video of the plane in action that make it clear FB's Jug is lacking in this regard.

-Bill

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 01:16 PM
Oh - and the P-47 shouldn't drop a wing in a stall - power on or off.

-Bill

ZG77_Nagual
08-13-2003, 03:18 PM
'more agile' can mean alot of different things - be great to see that report - keep in mind it is almost certainly about very early variant of the 39 - but even then - when you read the reports of vvs pilots - they liked it.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 03:30 PM
Yeah, the force feedback IS somewhat strange... Does anyone know how to "change it to the previous format"? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



-----------------
Online cheating kills online gaming! Death to all online cheating suckers!

Yes, your death equals to your fault! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Or your fault equals to your death? The result is six feet under, anyway... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Greetings to all who fly better than me, honor to all who ate my lead.

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 05:27 PM
Hawkmeister, regarding your observation of prop drag, I'm a little confused. Were you flying a German aircraft with manual pitch control selected? If you were flying a CS prop equipped plane, then it won't be a very effective speed brake as speed builds. To maintain constant RPM as aircraft speed builds in a dive with the throttle back at idle, a CS prop will drive to coarse pitch to keep the RPM at the setting you've set. At low speeds, the prop will have to be near full fine pitch to keep RPM high, and thus will have a good braking effect. But as speed builds, the prop goes more coarse and drag (coefficient, if not total drag force) is actually reduced. German "brainbox" setups do this regardless of speed. Watch the prop pitch gauge when you pull the power back in a 109... it drives to full coarse, reducing drag automatically. To get the prop to act as a drag device in the German planes, go to manual pitch control, and be careful not to over-rev the motor. One of the changes I've noticed with 1.1b so far is that fine pitch really is fine. It's a lot easier to over-rev motors now.

Blotto

"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter craft, no matter how technically advanced." - A. Galland

"Look, do you want the jets, or would you rather I slap the props back on?" - W. Messerschmitt

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 06:22 PM
OK - I was in error on these points:

"Stick force modeling is different and less realistic than the original in that the stick is forced to center even under no aerodynamic load. It should have virtually no resistance or centering tendencies while sitting on the ground.

Even though it wasn't totally realistic, I liked the way rough ground movement was transmitted through the stick in the original version (missing in 1.1b)."


I reapplied my force setting in my Control Panel stick config and it all works as before now. That was weird. The settings hadn't changed, but I figured what the heck. It worked. Ain't computers great?


Now, about prop pitch. As your speed increases in a power-off dive, the prop governor would have to reduce pitch to maintain your RPM setting, causing an increase in drag. A higher prop angle of attack would cause an increase in RPM. Constant speed props are quite useful in steepening the approach angle of aircraft - GA airplanes do this all the time.

-Bill

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 04:30 PM
Ok - I did some checking on the prop pitch thing and I was wrong. Sorry about that.

-Bill

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 07:35 PM
Thanks Bill.

Your discussion of roll rates in the p40 and p47 is clear and obvious.

If you ever get the chance, I would like to read that document.

Thanks again

S!
609IAP_Recon

Forgotten Wars Virtual War
Forum: http://fogwar.luftwaffe.net/forums/index.php
Website: http://forgottenwars.dyndns.org
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



Message Edited on 08/14/0306:35PM by Recon_609IAP

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 10:27 PM
You know what, I must be going brain-dead in my middle age. I scanned through every reference I have on the P-39 and the report I referenced in my previous post does not elaborate on specific handling traits. Lt. Col. Wagner's report only has this to say in comparison to the P-40...

"Comparatively speaking, in performance the P-39 is believed to be about 10 percent better in every respect than the P-40, except in maneuverability, in which case the P-40 is slightly better."

He was comparing the P-39D with the P-40E.

I don't believe any changes were made during the P-39's production that changed it's basic handling in any way, with the exception of lightening in the later Q models. I'm referring to control surfaces and their actuating mechanisms.

Damn my memory!

Sorry for the misleading information.

-Bill