PDA

View Full Version : Please redo the flight models for planes



sugaki
04-07-2004, 08:41 PM
Flight models of the P40 and A6M were pretty off in FB: Aces. Zero maneuvered too well at high speeds and lost too much energy at low-to-mid while in turns, while the P40 didn't turn right at all. Most planes were too spin-stall prone.

Not to mention guns working too effectively on the Zeros; type 99 20mm cannons were pretty unreliable at long distances.

It's nice that IL2: FB Aces had a lot of planes, but if that comes at the price of inaccurate general flight models, it really detracts from the game. Felt a little arcadey.

-Aki

sugaki
04-07-2004, 08:41 PM
Flight models of the P40 and A6M were pretty off in FB: Aces. Zero maneuvered too well at high speeds and lost too much energy at low-to-mid while in turns, while the P40 didn't turn right at all. Most planes were too spin-stall prone.

Not to mention guns working too effectively on the Zeros; type 99 20mm cannons were pretty unreliable at long distances.

It's nice that IL2: FB Aces had a lot of planes, but if that comes at the price of inaccurate general flight models, it really detracts from the game. Felt a little arcadey.

-Aki

mike_espo
04-07-2004, 08:46 PM
How long you been playing? The zero is pretty good except roll rate is too slow at low speed. Other than than its OK. I agree with the type 99s though. Too much ammo also, Oleg will fix in patch.

"Fatte vede che ridemo!"http://www.flying-tigers.net/caccia%20WW%20II/g50.jpg

heywooood
04-07-2004, 09:03 PM
I was going to ask -"all the flight models?-or just the ones on the planes You like to fly"...

But you answered my question already.


please try to be objective and really learn to fly the planes you love the way they were flown.. not like you Want it to fly... they just dont all Turn and Burn.

Longjocks
04-08-2004, 12:31 AM
Sugaki, you are one lucky SOB! Unlike yourself, the rest of us haven't had the opportunity to fly the real thing for comparison. Are you a collector?

http://users.tpg.com.au/mpdeans/misc/midgesign2.gif "Thanks for the inspiration to rise above you all."

DONB3397
04-08-2004, 12:37 AM
Sugaki, how many hours exactly do you have in these a/c? The real ones, I mean.

If not, it seems unlikely your views are very credible. Perhaps you just need a little practice. Good luck, by the way.

sugaki
04-08-2004, 01:42 AM
In one ear and out the other.

Please find me any references in anything that say the Zero has a tendency to spin-stall in turns.

Nor did I ever say anything about turn and burn. It's a relatively slow plane, I never asked for better acceleration. So why bring it up?

"I was going to ask -"all the flight models?-or just the ones on the planes You like to fly"...

But you answered my question already."

Typical response. Lagg-3's climb rate's too good, La-7's overmodelled, P47D should roll better. Controls too responsive for Ki-84 at high speeds and/or high altittudes.

Is that an unbiased list enough?

I don't need to ride a Zero to know that it had docile stall characteristics, since they are historically recorded.

Nor do I understand how people put the game on this pedastal, and get greatly offended if somebody says anything to the contrary, as though I've angered the flight model gods.

It helps to read the post, rather than to fall back on assumptions of me being a flight sim newbie.

Your arguments basically go along the lines of "he's arguging against the defacto standard of flight sims, he must be wrong."

-Aki

clint-ruin
04-08-2004, 02:06 AM
Hi Sugaki,

I would be very interested in any data you might have for the T 99 cannons to go into Gibbages' dispersion conversation with Oleg.

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

luthier1
04-08-2004, 02:21 AM
In general, when having FM concerns it's very advisable to support your ideas with facts and not ideas. That's really the only way to make sure the development team can ever decide to investigate any incosistencies you claim exist.

http://www.il2center.com/PF.jpg

sugaki
04-08-2004, 02:21 AM
Here's an explanation for why the Zero had docile stall characteristics, since you're all so sure that I'm wrong (pretty sure it won't make a difference in your minds though).

The zero wing structure had a "Nejirisage" wing structure, which roughly translates as "lowered and twisted", which is called wash-out wings in U.S.

Wash-out is a wing that has a lower angle of attack at the tip compared to the base or middle of the plane. See link for diagram. (Red is wing-tip, blue is middle of wing)

http://dokmp2.hp.infoseek.co.jp/Dok/Study/08.htm

The wash-out corrects a plane's tendency to stall at the tips, hence the Zero had docile stall characteristics in turns. Wash-out wings stall toward the base of the wing, making it less prone to a spin stall.

A stall occurs when the airfoil is disrupted by the boundary layer moving forward. Increase in pressure causes drag, preventing the wings to generate lift. Wash-out wings generate the drag toward the base of the wing, hence are more stable.

The downside of this is that due to the uneven distribution of lift along the wingspan, there is an increase in induced drag, contributing to a slightly slower speed than what can be achieved with regular wings. Hence wash-out wings are seldom used.

Is that a thorough explanation enough of why a Zero should have docile stall characteristics, and rarely spin stall?

-Aki

arcadeace
04-08-2004, 02:30 AM
People have been complaining about flight models since this sim first came out. Many of us have heard it seemingly hundreds of times now. You should have included your facts in your original post to avoid some friction, you know a lot.

Are you claiming the Zero can't stall? How can you be so confident the P40 doesn't turn right at all and the designers completely washed it?

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/222_1080289735_2032.gif

michapma
04-08-2004, 02:55 AM
Sugaki,

Please read this thread (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=506105692&p=1). Flight sim models are necessarily incorrect. Maybe they (edit: i.e., individual aircraft models) can be improved, or maybe the engine and/or computer speeds are limited and we are left with a tradeoff. There are a faults and restrictions in every flight sim. I'm not claiming anything about the Zero, but you can be sure that in any case it's not as easy as "it's wrong, please fix it." Even if it's known to be wrong, it might from a practical point of view be unfixable. We can't have everything.

Obviously I'm not speaking for the developers, just offering my thoughts based on past observations and discussions. Thanks for supporting your thoughts with information. Hope to hear more from you on these topics. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Cheers,
Mike

http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap/fileadmin/Image_Archive/badges/69giap_badge_chap.jpg (http://giap.webhop.info)

The ongoing IL-2 User's Guide (http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~chapman/il2guide/) | Forgotten Skies (http://www.forgottenskies.com/)
But we are all that way: when we know a thing we have only scorn for other people who don't happen to know it. - Mark Twain, Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc

luthier1
04-08-2004, 02:55 AM
Thanks Sugaki for a calm, informative second post. The good news is, the Zero stall characteristics have already been corrected http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.il2center.com/PF.jpg

michapma
04-08-2004, 02:57 AM
...and that's why you should ignore my posts. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap/fileadmin/Image_Archive/badges/69giap_badge_chap.jpg (http://giap.webhop.info)

The ongoing IL-2 User's Guide (http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~chapman/il2guide/) | Forgotten Skies (http://www.forgottenskies.com/)
But we are all that way: when we know a thing we have only scorn for other people who don't happen to know it. - Mark Twain, Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc

Longjocks
04-08-2004, 07:19 AM
Hey! I don't remember anyone pointing out to the makers of Red Dwarf that toasters can't talk.

http://users.tpg.com.au/mpdeans/misc/midgesign2.gif "Thanks for the inspiration to rise above you all."

MornJW
04-08-2004, 08:43 AM
Well in regards to that thread you linked us too...

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/P-39.html
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/P-51.html Here, this video shows the stall and spin charactistic of these aircraft well, the web site features videos on most american fighters of the war too.
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/main.html
Hey, the P-51 seems to turn to the side in a stall, but not fast enough to get into a spin, the P-40 actually ends up in a spin in all stalls, though not as quick as in il2! The P-39 seems pretty stable in regards to turns and spins on cleans stalls, although in a turn it spin with ease. From what I see in these video's anyway. Clearly they aren't as stable as modern civillian aircraft but not as bad as in il2. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Gunner_361st
04-08-2004, 11:32 AM
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm - Handy link with information about the Type 99 cannons, version 1 and 2.

The second version seems to have had the same round but a larger cartridge, which gave it considerably higher muzzle velocity, increasing kinetic damage and making it easier to hit with.

As for its dispersion or accuracy, I don't have any factual information on that, just anecdotal, which I don't think is valuable as it pertains to this situation.

Major Gunner of the 361st vFG

P.S. - Will edit my sig size soon, Tully, sorry.

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg

clint-ruin
04-08-2004, 12:05 PM
Yup.

The reason I ask is that tests on the T99 were done by JTD.

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/fbg/range.html

Type 99
Range: 1.10Km
V 000m-200m ~482m/s
V 200m-500m ~412m/s
V 500m-999m ~310m/s

It does indeed appear to have crappy muzzle velocity in FB as it did in reality. In fact Anthony Williams credits the Type 99-1 20x72RB with 600m/s coming out of the barrel, even faster than JTDs tests show.

The reason I ask for data is that the T99 being as it is, Sugaki might have some other reason for thinking it should be worse than it is currently in FB.

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

heywooood
04-08-2004, 12:20 PM
sugaki -

Sorry about the attitude - you are right - it is out of place..

Over time, the capabilities of the programming to accurately and realistically represent the various FM's of so many planes has been brought up. Most of us have come to realize that for the most part and to a great degree - it is as close as the responsible parties can make it.

And I mean Responsible and responsive- these people work hard to tweak and refine the FM's all the time. So we have become loyal to the product and to the people (well - speaking for myself) as a result.

Sorry about my tone - it was not necessary.

sugaki
04-08-2004, 06:11 PM
Heywooood - I appreciate that, thanks.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The good news is, the Zero stall characteristics have already been corrected<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you referring to Pacific Fighters or FB: Aces?

I'm skeptical of this, as you kept blowing my comments off saying nothing is wrong with the Zero ...and all of a sudden after I explain why the modelling is wrong you say it's already fixed.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Are you claiming the Zero can't stall?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You didn't read my post on the Zero carefully. I said it had docile stall characteristics which means it still stalls. The negirisage wing structure however makes it very difficult to put the plane into a spin stall. However in this, the Zero abruptly jerks toward the ground even at a slight or no yaw at low speeds, which is very poor flight modelling.

I'll just take a wait-and-see approach with PF, not going to put much hopes into believing that all the FM flaws are going to be addressed ...dev response to feedback regarding FM issues has been abyssmal with IL2: FB.

For some reason there's always this vindictive attitude of "How DARE you say that a plane's modelled incorrectly!" Is it that shocking and maddening? Can't see why somebody has to be put in the seat of inquisition when saying these things. Some of you need to chill out.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Thanks Sugaki for a calm, informative second post.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ehh, as though the first post was so brash and rhetorically explosive? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Ironic you say that, since the posts that followed mine bascially said "learn to fly newbie!"

heywooood
04-08-2004, 06:31 PM
sugaki -

Regarding Luthiers post about the Zero having already been fixed, I think he may be saying that - in the as yet unreleased patch for AEP or for his project, PF - it has been remedied.

I am not certain of it - I don't want to speak for Luthier - but that might be what he meant...

As to the rest ... as I said .. A lot of people on this board are used to seeing this question posed almost daily in every way imaginable .. only sometimes is the person posing the question sentient...

The programmers ask that these questions be put forth in Olegs' Ready Room with good solid facts and or tracks to support the claims, but that is either not common knowledge -or the poster wants to get a "yeah, me too" response?.. dunno..

The topic is therefore usually Explosive and thoroughly toxic as a result. ~s~

LimaZulu
04-08-2004, 07:03 PM
Sugaki, please check private messages

ASH at S-MART
04-08-2004, 07:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sugaki:
Flight models of the P40 and A6M were pretty off in FB: Aces. Zero maneuvered too well at high speeds and lost too much energy at low-to-mid while in turns, while the P40 didn't turn right at all. Most planes were too spin-stall prone.

Not to mention guns working too effectively on the Zeros; type 99 20mm cannons were pretty unreliable at long distances.

It's nice that IL2: FB Aces had a lot of planes, but if that comes at the price of inaccurate general flight models, it really detracts from the game. Felt a little arcadey.

-Aki<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Let us know when you have one sliver of proof to back up anything you say other then your *feelings* and maybe we will bother discussing it

ASH HOUSEWARES
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

Longjocks
04-08-2004, 07:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASH_SMART:
Let us know when you have one sliver of proof to back up anything you say other then your *feelings* and maybe we will bother discussing it<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But it works for everyone else around here... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

http://users.tpg.com.au/mpdeans/misc/midgesign2.gif "Thanks for the inspiration to rise above you all."

Tully__
04-08-2004, 08:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASH_SMART:
...an analysis of the whole thread based on the first post...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now that you've read the rest of the thread ASH, maybe you'd like to tone down your comments a little?

=================================================


http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/sig.jpg

IL2 Forums Moderator
Forum Terms of Use (http://www.ubi.com/US/Info/TermsOfUse.htm)

Salut
Tully

ASH at S-MART
04-08-2004, 09:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tully__:
Now that you've read the rest of the thread ASH,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Now?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tully__:
maybe you'd like to tone down your comments a little?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nope! In that at the time of my orginal, I had allready looked that the rest and the orgianl statement still holds true!

ASH HOUSEWARES
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

heywooood
04-08-2004, 10:02 PM
I'll swallowyoursoul ! I'll swallowyoursoul! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gifahahahaha!


"whos LAUGHING NOW,HAH??!! WHO"S LAUGHING NOW!!!"

ASH w/chainsaw in the kitchen as he removes his own demon possesed hand.

[This message was edited by heywooood on Thu April 08 2004 at 09:20 PM.]

VF-3Thunderboy
04-08-2004, 10:41 PM
The Zero has a low speed roll rate of (4.5) seconds at approx 180KTS.(From Video) At high speeds the Ailerons get stiff. -Planes of Fame in Chino California have lots of flying WW2 airplanes. It may be good to consult them about FM accuracy! This looks like its gonna be a good sim!

sugaki
04-09-2004, 01:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Let us know when you have one sliver of proof to back up anything you say other then your *feelings* and maybe we will bother discussing it<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow. You still can't admit that there's a valid point. Pride getting in the way perhaps? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Feeling? It has nothing to do with feelings, it's physics. So unless you're telling me physics is a feeling, you would need to establish that the physics I've stated was incorrect.

http://142.26.194.131/aerodynamics1/Drag/Page2.html#Tuft Experiment

Please read that page. There's even a wash-out wing pic to show you how planes like Zeroes stall.

Since you didn't read the other posts that linked to a thread addressing the same issue (thanks for that link to that thread btw), fly the zero, cut the engine, pull the nose up, and you'll find that it corkscrews into a stall. This would mean that despite there being 0 yaw, and no torque from the engine, and despite the wash-out wing, that it's stalling at the wing-tips instead of the nose, and for some reason, it stalls to the right.

If I'm the one that's stating an A Posteriori Ash_smart, please indulge me and explain that phenomena.

Oh, feel free to talk to any pilot and ask if spin-stalls occur when you just pull your nose up.

-Aki

VF-2_John_Banks
04-09-2004, 10:29 AM
Hey Luthier. And what about the P-38? It is prone to spin stall in F B as well, although the counter rotating props eliminated all "bad" stall characteristics. The P-38 never spin stalled the way it does in FB right now, nor did it have any torque effect. I know that there is a generic "bug" in the FB engine, when it comes to 2 engine planes, but i hope the PF FM engine corrects that. Btw, the stall model in FB is crap on all planes!

JG7_Rall
04-09-2004, 10:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Longjocks:
Sugaki, you are one lucky SOB! Unlike yourself, the rest of us haven't had the opportunity to fly the real thing for comparison. Are you a collector?

http://users.tpg.com.au/mpdeans/misc/midgesign2.gif _"Thanks for the inspiration to rise above you all."_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL, like you or ANYONE from the 1C team has!?!?! I know this may come as a shock to you...but....AEP isn't perfect!!!! As great as it is, it DOES have it's faults! *runs and hides as angry hordes of AEP worshipers run at me with torches and pitchforkes*

"Son, never ask a man if he is a fighter pilot. If he is, he'll let you know. If he isn't, don't embarrass him."
Badges!? We don't needs no stinkin' badges!

Longjocks
04-09-2004, 08:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG7_Rall:
I know this may come as a shock to you...but....AEP isn't perfect!!!! As great as it is, it DOES have it's faults!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Precisely! And I think that a person's character can be defined how they take these faults. As much as this is a sim that tries to remain technically accurate, the important thing to the likes of me is that it is merely a form of entertainment... a distraction, not a way of life. Although IL-2/FB/AEP may not be technically accurate all the time, at least we can be thankful that they are extremely light on bugs unlike most titles these days.

But of course, this is coming from a guy who thought that Their Finest Hour on the Amiga was the greatest WWII sim of all time. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

http://users.tpg.com.au/mpdeans/misc/midgesign2.gif "Thanks for the inspiration to rise above you all."

MornJW
04-09-2004, 08:27 PM
It's more than entertainment to me, it's a chance to fly something and experience something I'd only read about. Accurancy is darn important. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BSS_Vidar
04-10-2004, 09:52 PM
I just finished some deep research in the performances of the IL-2 planes. I use to think the P-51 was undermodeled, but did some off line speed and climb tests. It's pretty darn close. The P-47 is a little too fast and climbs a bit too well for its britches, as well as the P-38. I also use to think the Yak's and La's were UFO's, but have discovered only their max speeds are off. The Yak 3 and 9's both climbed close to 5000 ft/min, faster than any plane is WWII. But the P-51 should still outrun anything signle engine prop (including quite a few twins too)in a flat run.
The planes that are WAY off are the German 109, 190 and 110's. The P-51 is almost 50 mph faster than a 109 at ANY altitude, and out climbs it in excess of 100 ft/min. IL-2 FB German fighters reflect this in no way at all. Many times I've been run down in a flat run with NO initial dive by 109's. That's just flat inaccurate. I hope they fix those flight models in the next patch and pay more attention to accuracy in PT. I hope its a stand alone so we won't see the German aircraft problems plaguing that sim too. It's more than likely I will not play FB anymore when PT comes out, because I love the Pac Theater.

S!

Vidar

Robus_P
04-12-2004, 05:51 PM
Actually the washed out wing shape is not to prevent a spin. A spin happens when one wing stalls more deeply than the other, typically because the airplane is flying sideways (uncoordinated) and the fuselage masks one wing causing it to receive less air flow. It can happen on most planes under the right conditions.

Like Sugaki wrote, the wash out is to cause the wing to stall from the root outward, rather than the tip inward. That is so the ailerons, which are located on the outer portion of the wing, will maintain their effectiveness deeper into the stall than would happen if the stall began at the tip.

In my opinion the main flaw in the FB flight dynamics is that planes lose aileron effectiveness too early in the stall, almost immediately in fact. It is almost as if the stall begins at the tip rather than the root.

Where I notice the problem most is on landings. Try to make a full-stall, three point landing. The technique is to hold the plane in off the runway in the landing attitude as speed bleeds off, slowing increasing angle of attack until the plane stalls onto the runway on all three wheels. I find it impossible to do in FB because the planes will always drop a wing in the stall rather than stalling straight ahead.

I don't care so much about the exact performance numbers but the inability to make a three-point landing is a biggie in a tailwheel sim.

JG7_Rall
04-12-2004, 07:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Longjocks:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG7_Rall:
I know this may come as a shock to you...but....AEP isn't perfect!!!! As great as it is, it DOES have it's faults!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Precisely! And I think that a person's character can be defined how they take these faults. As much as this is a sim that tries to remain technically accurate, the important thing to the likes of me is that it is merely a form of entertainment... a distraction, not a way of life. Although IL-2/FB/AEP may not be technically accurate all the time, at least we can be thankful that they are extremely light on bugs unlike most titles these days.

But of course, this is coming from a guy who thought that Their Finest Hour on the Amiga was the greatest WWII sim of all time. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

http://users.tpg.com.au/mpdeans/misc/midgesign2.gif _"Thanks for the inspiration to rise above you all."_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

S! My hat off to you sir! Best post I've seen in a while and I couldn't have said it better myself http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"Son, never ask a man if he is a fighter pilot. If he is, he'll let you know. If he isn't, don't embarrass him."
Badges!? We don't needs no stinkin' badges!

Merlin (FZG_Immel)
04-13-2004, 04:38 AM
Robus_P !!!

you said it all.

3 points are impossible.. there is no classic stalls allowed, and thats the pb.. they always drop you a wing 1st.

------------------------------------------------------------
Slot 2 pilot of the Virtual Haute Voltige team, and live video director

http://www.haute-voltige.com/virtualHVteam/concept.htm

MornJW
05-07-2004, 07:40 AM
QUOTE] The P-51 is almost 50 mph faster than a 109 at ANY altitude, and out climbs it in excess of 100 ft/min.[ [/QUOTE]

Which versions of these aircraft? Performance difference from 109E to 109K was massive. Every source I see says the 109K was decisively faster than the P-51D at all altitudes.
Don't underestimate the good old messerschmitt. I consider it one of the top 5 aircraft of the war. A G10 should be able to outfight a P-51 on deck, with speed and manverablity. High altitude was the P-51 main excellence, which was fortunate as it's task was an escourt fighter, and only the 109K could match it at high altitude.

Klatuu
05-08-2004, 10:29 PM
Not to mention guns working too effectively on the Zeros; type 99 20mm cannons were pretty unreliable at long distances.

This could use a little more specificity as well. As currently worded, it seems to be mixing reliability, a measure of a weapons functioning (does it go *bang* when you pull the trigger, and continue to go *bang* when you hold the trigger down), accuracy (consistent shot placement), and lethality (how hard does it hit, which is also affected by the ammuntion's reliabilty and accuracy).

When speaking of weapons the term reliability refers to the firing cycle, which includes cocking, chambering, firing, extraction, and ejection. In self-powered weapons, gas, recoil, or blow back as opposed to an electrically-driven weapon like a Vulcan or a chaingun, feeding problems (chambering, extraction and ejection) are the most commonly encountered reliability problems. "Reliabilty", therefore, has nothing to do with distance, at least not with the weapon itself. It could denote a problem with the ammo, though, especially if the ammo is an explosive round like in an automatic cannon. Does it explode when it is supposed to? On impact, or maybe shortly therafter depending on design, and does the explosive and or design give a consistent yeild? Sometimes it will work fine up close, but not so good after travelig a certain distace or number of revolutions.

Acuuracy is consistency, not "shooting straight" as is commonly misperceived. A weapon that shoots "crooked" is fine, as long as it shoots crooked to the same impact point every time. Minute of Angle (MOA) is the common measure here. Lower numbers are better, and a weapon that will shoot to 2 MOA is better than one that will only shoot to 5 MOA. Distance does matter here. If I shoot at the heart/lung area of a deer (lets call it an 8 in. tgt)at 200 yards with a weapon that will shoot to 3 MOA, as long as my skills are up to snuff, we eat venison tonight, and the animal died quickly. If I shoot at the deer at 800 yards, however, no matter how good my skills are, I cannot, with an acceptable degree of certainty, score a hit on that deer that will not only kill it, but do so humanely.

Lethality is a bit more subjective measure, and there have been many attempts over the years to quantify it. Reliablity in the terminal performance of the ammo plays a part here, as noted, but lets assume thats not a factor for the moment. Simply put, is the round/gun combo enough to ensure a kill at the "longer distance". Rate of fire matters, that's the gun's job, as does velocity and impact performance, that's the ammo's job.

A prime example of these factors coming together is the M-16. The early ammo for the gun caused problems with both accuracy and reliabilty. When the ammo was changed, along with a change in the barrel's rate of twist, the M-16 went from a mediocre weapon to a good one, both accurate and reliable.

So what was the nature on the Type 99's problems? Reliablity, accuracy, or lethality? All or some, and in what combination? Were the problems due to design, or manufacturing? If we can narrow that down, we could make a rational, specific plea for a modeling change.

VW-IceFire
05-09-2004, 09:31 AM
Most planes in this game spin when stalled. Its just the way the FM works...we can probably live with it for the most part.

Be nice if the P-38 spins less however and the Zero probably goes into that category as well...although I have NEVER spinned a Zero in this game. Its already very docile to me...but then I fly FW190's normally http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

sugaki
05-10-2004, 12:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>type 99 20mm cannons were pretty unreliable at long distances._

This could use a little more specificity as well. As currently worded, it seems to be mixing reliability, accuracy, and lethality by the ammuntion's reliabilty and accuracy).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I left it vague because I didn't want to go off on the cannon, merely state that overall it performs better than it should.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Acuuracy is consistency, not "shooting straight" as is commonly misperceived. A weapon that shoots "crooked" is fine, as long as it shoots crooked to the same impact point every time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you got that mixed up with precision. Precise means it hits something consistently, whether or not it's "crooked." Accuracy is how close it hits to the actual desired target.

As for the 20mm, it wasn't all that precise at long distances, hence the 7.92mm was preferred. In terms of lethality it also wasn't as good as 20mm from other countries.

Klatuu
05-10-2004, 03:57 PM
A weapon is accurate if it shoots consistently to the to the same POI. That might be 3 in. off bore in any given direction ("crooked"), but all that is relevant is MOA. That's why gunsights are made to be adjustable instead of barrels.

I've been shooting for 35 years, competitively so for 8 years, both Small Bore and Highpower, and my MOS in the Army was small arms (that's basically anything that doesn't require a vehical mount, which is pretty much everything that is not a rocket, arty, or the main gun on a tank). Precision is not a categorical term used to describe firearm performance. It's in the English language, it's a descriptive term, and it can be used anywhere applicable of course, but the three performance categories that firearms are judged are accuracy, reliability, and lethality.

When arguing for a change to something, especially something that will require the entry of specific and discrete data, vagueness is not a quality you wish to embrace. Your comments on the prefered usage on the Zero's guns seem to be , taken as you state them, leaning towards a indication of problems with accuracy, however I can find no indications that the gun was particulary inaccurate. I remember from Sakai's book that he thought the Type 97 7.7mm mg was a very reliable arm, and one of the Zero's strengths. There were two (that I am aware of) distinct incarnations of the Type 99, the -1 and -2, being essentially copies of the Swiss Oerlikon FF F and FF L, respectively, and firing the same cartiridges as the Swiss guns (although it's safe to conject that there were at least some small differences due to the mfg plants being 10,000+ miles from one another). The -1 (on the A5M2) fired a significantly less powerful cartridge than the -2 (at least as early as the A6M5). The -1 did not hit as hard, nor would it have shot as flat a trajectory. Niether have to do with the accuracy of the weapon, although the trajectory issue would have meant the the SHOOTER would have an easier time getting hits with the -2 because not as much lead was required (ROF concerns aside). It therefore would have not been able to acheive a killing shot as reliably (using descriptive terminology, not categorical) as the -2.

So it seems, after some extrapolation, you may be indicating that you believe the Type 99-1 cannons that are mounted on the ealry Zeros are too powerful (lethality issue) because it is easier to get hits, killing hits, than you think it should be. Too "reliably", if you will. If so, how are you determing this?

ZG77_Nagual
05-10-2004, 05:27 PM
in my perusals herebouts I've gathered changes to both the zero and the p38 are forthcoming. The developers put up a fairly stiff argument against change - I think partly to force a solid argument and partly because they are pretty sure they've done a good job. But they do listen and things do get changed - often without any official acknowlegements - I think most of the formative discussions take place via email. FB is definitely work in progress and when valid documentation and good argument is supplied changes do get made.

sugaki
05-10-2004, 05:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Precision is not a categorical term used to describe firearm performance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We were coming from two different lexicons, as I was using them in the sense used in science. Fired pistols, but not anything beyond that. So you're correct, and I was wrong. Accuracy it is.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>There were two distinct incarnations of the Type 99, the -1 and -2. &lt;snip&gt; The -1 (on the A5M2) fired a significantly less powerful cartridge than the -2 (at least as early as the A6M5). The -1 did not hit as hard, nor would it have shot as flat a trajectory. Niether have to do with the accuracy of the weapon,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I said accuracy over long distances, not just accuracy in general. Based on the 20mm cannon by Swiss-based Oerlikon, the effective range of the Type 99-1-3 (type 99-1-3 was the fixed type used in the A6M2) was 730m, with a muzzle velocity of 600 m/s. The longer barreled Type 99-20-2 (belt-loaded ammo increasing capacity to 125 from 60) had a muzzle velocity of 750 m/s and an effective range of 914m.

The type 97 fixed gun 3-1 (based on the British Vickers' machine gun) had a muzzle velocity of 810 m/s and was more effective at shooting accurately across longer distances.

-Aki