PDA

View Full Version : Simple exsplanation why many thinks here p-51 is porked



Sintubin
03-07-2006, 10:09 AM
the bad reputation of the 109 today is a result of the fact that the G6late was used a long time in 1944. Hard live for the pilots in this plane, and also for us. G10 was in use in autumn 44...
G14 maybe a bit earlier, but the low HP G6 in 1944 is the cause why many guys in the General Forum believe a P51 should do anything it wants with a 109.

SithSpeeder
03-07-2006, 10:14 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

* _54th_Speeder *

***
a2356efba3t4r7on4uy5d6[ui90[78-o.,[7pjmehj7vhgqtfb56ta56r2d
This is what happens when I roll my head on my keyboard.
***

Chuck_Older
03-07-2006, 10:15 AM
The problem is that folks don't have any clue how to fly it. We ALL fly these aircraft wrong sometimes. The sim allows you to do it. The concept of 110% throttle and less than 100% prop pitch is alien to many folks, for example

TX-Zen
03-07-2006, 10:20 AM
I'm a Dora pilot, what is this mysterious prop pitch you speak of?

Chuck_Older
03-07-2006, 10:21 AM
It's this thing on the P-51Dora

Bearcat99
03-07-2006, 10:35 AM
I know how to fly it... and it still IMO has serious flaws.... I fly it anyway.. it is what it is and it's the best P-51 out.... that can shoot anyway.... and it is in the only WWII sim that gets my time so I just deal..... but I still say it accelerates too slow.. it doesnt dive fast enough... and it has a poor zoom climb.... I use trim and pitch too.. and I hardly ever go to 110%.... unless it is a war emergency ....

TX-Zen
03-07-2006, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
It's this thing on the P-51Dora

Ahh yes, one of those antiquated manual systems, right? Let me guess, you have to pull a kob or something for supercharger settings too?

Awwwww, how cute!

danjama
03-07-2006, 02:12 PM
Bearcat has a good thread somewhere from a while back

robban75
03-07-2006, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
I know how to fly it... and it still IMO has serious flaws.... I fly it anyway.. it is what it is and it's the best P-51 out.... that can shoot anyway.... and it is in the only WWII sim that gets my time so I just deal..... but I still say it accelerates too slow.. it doesnt dive fast enough... and it has a poor zoom climb.... I use trim and pitch too.. and I hardly ever go to 110%.... unless it is a war emergency ....

Hmm compared to the real life acceleration of the P-51, the ingame P-51 actually accelerates a little bit better than it should.

And from my dive and zoom tests, the P-51 is clearly superior to the other planes tested. I'm rather more suspicious about the 109's diving and zooming abilities. Not even the mighty D-9 can outdive a late war 109. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

womenfly
03-07-2006, 02:33 PM
I agree with Bearcat's statement above. Love the P-51 but, the FM could be improved, more RL flight attributes .... to bad.

I fly her right to the limits, the best she will give me ... but push her beyond that and she will kick you right off .... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

P.S. I am not asking for a Uber aircraft here.

Kocur_
03-07-2006, 02:51 PM
I've been flying P-51 since 4.03 almost exclusively and enjoy it a lot! Just keep it fast and dont make turns of more than 90 deg and try to be easy at controls. I know those are cliches, but work actually. Anyone on my tail and Im not sure who has E advantage - I just dive shallowly and leave - and come back after any kind of vertical manouver, but definately without hurry http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. I dont seek firing solutions until my E advantage is established - unless solution is too close or too easy not to use it, i.e. it doest take making manouver too sharp.

Robban! I know P-51 with 100% fuel load accelerates a bit too fast, but I wonder: does P-51 with 25% fuel accelerate better at least exactly proportionally to its lower weight? It should - as I know after consultation with an aerodynamics experthttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LilHorse
03-07-2006, 02:52 PM
All I can say is after having been a long time 109 pilot in this sim, anytime I take up a Mustang I find it's abilities to be amazing. It's fast, dives fast, the .50s hit hard (I know from firing them and getting hit by them in the 109), zoom climbs well. Is it an La-5? No. But it's pretty dang impressive. I don't see how you can go wrong with it if you use it right. Meaning BnZ. Use that speed to haul empennage away.

VW-IceFire
03-07-2006, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by Sintubin:
the bad reputation of the 109 today is a result of the fact that the G6late was used a long time in 1944. Hard live for the pilots in this plane, and also for us. G10 was in use in autumn 44...
G14 maybe a bit earlier, but the low HP G6 in 1944 is the cause why many guys in the General Forum believe a P51 should do anything it wants with a 109.
I think this is the wrong way to go about the argument. I don't believe, or I hope not to believe, that the problem is that the Mustang is loosing to the 109. I don't think that is the issue at all.

The problem is that the Mustang doesn't match the performance figures it should and it handles like ****. 4.04 was an improvement in my book but its still not all that great. It was uber once, it was right on once, and its lost its ability since that point...when PF came out the Mustang lost alot of its ability.

I'm under no propoganda like illusions of its performance and ability. I don't believe it to be a super fighter that brought the Luftwaffe down singlehandedly like some of the people who post on here and say "yo, buddy, its porked man, WTF!". Thats not how I approach these things.

When you do the speed tests as some have done using the settings provided in the official documents (i.e. wing pylons installed and radiator set to automatic) you'd expect to be within +-10% or so. We're not there...its off by a great deal in terms of climb and top speed. I don't have the figures but I trust the people who did the actual numbers testing.

As far as handling goes you can calculate that somewhat and then you have to fudge the rest on pilot anecdotes as you can't quite quantify all aspects of flight in any meaningful and understandable fashion that is measureable. But you can make several very informed guesses.

My informed guesses tell me that the Mustang was fast, dove fast, retained speed in a straight line well, bled speed in turns, turned well at high speed, turned well with special combat flaps at medium speed, and turned like a dog at low speed. There's a great article in Flight Journal back several months ago comparing the Bf109G-10 and the P-51D. I should go and dig the pilots notes up about it...the comparison was fascinating and englightening. Both aircraft were high performance and capable aircraft...with divergent advantages. You'd expect to see something similar in the game.

Honestly in 4.04 I haven't flown it much yet so I can't say. But go and fly it for a while. Spend some serious time with it and see how it suits you. This can't be a one night thing...its got to be for a while.

Bearcat99
03-07-2006, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by robban75:
And from my dive and zoom tests, the P-51 is clearly superior to the other planes tested. I'm rather more suspicious about the 109's diving and zooming abilities. Not even the mighty D-9 can outdive a late war 109. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

It is interesting you should say that since more often than not 109s are what I am flying against.. although I have to admit.. I have also had Zeros catch me in a dive too.... maybe it's just me.... in any case I wont stop flying it justbecause it isnt as hot as i think it should be thats for sure.... after all it's still so d@mn sexy.......

Luftkillier
03-07-2006, 03:23 PM
Bearcat is 100% correct. Reasonable people can see exactly what he says given the proper seat time. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

VMF-214_HaVoK
03-07-2006, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by robban75:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
I know how to fly it... and it still IMO has serious flaws.... I fly it anyway.. it is what it is and it's the best P-51 out.... that can shoot anyway.... and it is in the only WWII sim that gets my time so I just deal..... but I still say it accelerates too slow.. it doesnt dive fast enough... and it has a poor zoom climb.... I use trim and pitch too.. and I hardly ever go to 110%.... unless it is a war emergency ....

Hmm compared to the real life acceleration of the P-51, the ingame P-51 actually accelerates a little bit better than it should.

And from my dive and zoom tests, the P-51 is clearly superior to the other planes tested. I'm rather more suspicious about the 109's diving and zooming abilities. Not even the mighty D-9 can outdive a late war 109. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats why I agree with you on a lot of issues Robban. You see things from both sides and never appear biased towards your plane of choice. Only a few like you. Leadspitter is another one.

Rjel
03-07-2006, 03:39 PM
Historically speaking, should any version of the 109 catch the P-51 in a flat out dive?? Or is that just the AI in the game doing more incredible things? I haven't flown this patch online yet.

Chuck_Older
03-07-2006, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by TX-Zen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
It's this thing on the P-51Dora

Ahh yes, one of those antiquated manual systems, right? Let me guess, you have to pull a kob or something for supercharger settings too?

Awwwww, how cute! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif You've never been in a P-51 in this sim, I see

diabloblanco1
03-07-2006, 03:42 PM
I don't know who is considered biased or who is not, but the P-51 in this game has all of the problems the regular pony drivers like Bearcat have stated. These jump in the plane a couple of times to prove the regular driver wrong types are some of the most bias people on this board. Most of the regular pony drivers just want a regular pony not the mini pony that is in game.

Chuck_Older
03-07-2006, 03:48 PM
I think the point's been made that perhaps in some respects the P-51 may be under-performing, while in some areas, it's historical advesaries are over-performing in others, resulting in a wildly inaccurate condition when the two meet

Mence
03-07-2006, 04:00 PM
I think you have a point there Chuck.

I wonder why when presented with this fairly obvious observation, Oleg has not made any move towards correction? The glaring inbalance in combat situations on and offline really has affected gameplay. Maybe it is something that will be addressed.

Hey Bearcat, have you sent Oleg an e-mail regarding your experiences and observations? Maybe he needs to hear it from someone that is better resepected here than some newer people?

danjama
03-07-2006, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by Mence:
I think you have a point there Chuck.

I wonder why when presented with this fairly obvious observation, Oleg has not made any move towards correction?

Obviously Oleg has tried to make changes towards correction, several times.

Targ
03-07-2006, 04:33 PM
Whats interesting is that people who fly German planes think they are messed up, wait it gets better.
People who fly Russian planes think that they are messed up as well!
This will shock you, people who fly British and American planes, (are you sitting?) think they are messed up!!
I wonder who is right and who is wrong?

Xiolablu3
03-07-2006, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by Targ:
Whats interesting is that people who fly German planes think they are messed up, wait it gets better.
People who fly Russian planes think that they are messed up as well!
This will shock you, people who fly British and American planes, (are you sitting?) think they are messed up!!
I wonder who is right and who is wrong?

I agree with you Targ, but I think that the P51 is near the top of the list, if not THE top for fixing right now.

If not fixing then at least tweaking a little each patch to try and get it closer to its real life specs and characteristics. The last patch addressed 2 of the most important things (the 50s and the wing break). As long as 1C addresses a few things each patch then give or take a few wrong decisions along the way, we should get a closer P51 each patch.

I fly ALL planes, picking the team with the least players, (usually means I'm flying the underdogs on maps) so I am not coming from a purely red flyer point of view.

tigertalon
03-07-2006, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Targ:
Whats interesting is that people who fly German planes think they are messed up, wait it gets better.
People who fly Russian planes think that they are messed up as well!
This will shock you, people who fly British and American planes, (are you sitting?) think they are messed up!!
I wonder who is right and who is wrong?

I agree with you Targ, but I think that the P51 is near the top of the list, if not THE top for fixing right now.

If not fixing then at least tweaking a little each patch to try and get it closer to its real life specs and characteristics.

I fly ALL planes, picking the team with the least players, (usually means I'm flying the underdogs on maps) so I am not coming from a purely red flyer point of view. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agree 100% Xiola. I tend to fly all sides in PF equaly and I do agree P-51 is way off (comparing it to what I read or saw).

Grey_Mouser67
03-07-2006, 07:07 PM
Of course there is an alternative theory that says the game is messed up! I really don't think so and for the most part I enjoy it, but not when I fly a Mustang....

Here are some combat assets to consider...

Speed
Rate of climb
Rate of roll
Turning circle
Stall/handling characteristics
View
Stability in gunnery
Weapons strength
Ability to take punishment
Control authority at speed
Dive ability/speed/accelaration
E Retention
Accelaration

Those are just a handful that I can think of off the top of my head. If all those things were accurate, then we'd have one heck of a sim!!! They are not and most reasonable folks agree that they likely won't be. Most aircraft in the sim enjoy some positives and some modelling negatives with respect to those characteristics....a very few aircraft are modelled accurately to positive in those attributes and a couple of aircraft are modelled accurately to negative in most of those attributes.....The Mustang fits into the last category.

Speed...it is slow in combat configuration and can not come close to its real speed at any altitude with radiators in auto

Rate of climb...from 200-600 fpm too slow at most altitudes

Rate of roll...can't tell, but it seems good at high speed as it should

Turning circle...it got no favors here...it is a pig and probably should be better...it had good wingloading and excellent flaps.

Stall/handling...abismal in this category according to pilot accounts etc...difficult category to rate though, but it did have a bit of a snap stall at slow speed, but was otherwise stable..although lots of trim input. Oleg did it no favors here...undermodelled

view...should be good..is pretty darn good in D until you look backwards...the B is a bit on the poor side based on things I've read....sims are limited in this arena though so the only thing that really peeves me is the rear armor.

stability...pitch, wobble etc...poorly modelled

weapons strength...looooonnng debate on this one, but the facts that I have been given say 20 rounds/kill...that makes the plane sorely undermodelled in this aspect.

Toughness...I think it is pretty good structurally in this aspect but poor in engine and don't forget the glass wing.

Control authority...real good...was too good with wing snap but it is one of the most overmodelled aspects of the plane...to a fault imho

Dive...modelled pretty good in dive...probably should have a faster terminal dive speed from a relative standpoint and I'll go back to the wing falling off thingy.

E retention...pretty good, but there is an opponent or two that is too good relatively speaking...what really should show up is decelaration after a high speed dive...the Mustang should declearate much slower than its opponents...not sure that is even modelled though.

Acceleration...I see a mix of posts some positive, some negative....I think the Mustang was average in this category and it seems average in game...no complaints here.


Soooo...nearly all aircraft have assets and deficencies...some are modelled more accurately than others...I can not think of a single combat asset that the Mustang is "overmodelled" in except perhaps control authority which really was soo bad that it became a combat deficiency....now it feels much better. We will debate endlessly on the subjective stuff, but the objective is objective...if the P-51B with -7 engine flew 366 mph with pylons and radiator in auto in real life and it flys at 329 mph in this game...then there is a problem.

FatBoyHK
03-07-2006, 08:42 PM
well I fly Mustang almost exclusibely so I should be qualified to have a say.

If I have some alt under me I have no problem outrunning anyboby. If I am fast enough I can outturn anybody. If I am in trouble I can outdive almost anybody given I am not to late. E-retention is excellent, I can keep my speed for a very long time after I dive. Zoom climb, while not uber enough to give me an upper hand in a dogfight, is excellent in my opinion and enough to bring me out of trouble after I finished my run. It is the way it is since v3.0, where I start playing this game.

And in v404 the wobbling problem is gone, and the 50cals is fixed, I can aim and kill without problem. My average hitrate is 6.5% and it usually take 20 hits to down a 109.

The only problem remaining is the top speed with plyon and with raditator on auto. But it is not the end of the world in my opinion.

I take 50% fuel and in average I can have one confirmed kill or two proables per sorties (in v404).

However I do strict BnZ most of the time, and I never do prolonged knifefight, therefore my experience may not be enough to enable me to make an accurate comparison.

Bearcat99
03-07-2006, 10:27 PM
Of course there is an alternative theory that says the game is messed up! I really don't think so and for the most part I enjoy it, but not when I fly a Mustang....

LOL...
It is what it is..... Mouser I think you pretty much hit it on the head... except the dive thing... I was actually chased down in a dive by a Zero.. which shouldnt happen.... and also.. and maybe this is the elevator authority thing.... it seems that I black out quicker in the Mustang than in any other plane I fly... I intend to learn to get the most of it as it is.... if it gets a tweaking then great... if not... well.. It is getting harder and harder to get a breathing wingman though in the coops..... LOL.. If I didnt know any better I would think the stall was a factor of altidude rather than speed since it often seems that I stall out when downlow no matter how fast i am going... I also realize that stalling is not a matter of speed but AoA... I try to keep it tight.. but it just seems to get away from me more down low... I can do the same thing at the same speed and not stall when at say... 100000... or recover quicker... higher... a quick correction and I am back in the paint.. but down low forget it.... the ground becomes a magnet and the stall or spin just will not even act likeits going to correct.. even if you had more alt.. Im going to work on tweaking my stick settings too. I remember when the jug first came out and it was so bad.... that helped a bit..

fordfan25
03-07-2006, 11:06 PM
yea iv been out ran in a dive by zeros as well lol. and i to picked up on the blacking out thing. even in a ki84,zero ect i have less black out. but i have given up on any chance of things changeing after all these patchs. i fly it when i get in the mood but mostly i stick with 38 and 47 though i do much better in a FW

OldMan___
03-08-2006, 04:43 AM
Originally posted by FatBoyHK:
well I fly Mustang almost exclusibely so I should be qualified to have a say.

If I have some alt under me I have no problem outrunning anyboby. If I am fast enough I can outturn anybody. If I am in trouble I can outdive almost anybody given I am not to late. E-retention is excellent, I can keep my speed for a very long time after I dive. Zoom climb, while not uber enough to give me an upper hand in a dogfight, is excellent in my opinion and enough to bring me out of trouble after I finished my run. It is the way it is since v3.0, where I start playing this game.

And in v404 the wobbling problem is gone, and the 50cals is fixed, I can aim and kill without problem. My average hitrate is 6.5% and it usually take 20 hits to down a 109.

The only problem remaining is the top speed with plyon and with raditator on auto. But it is not the end of the world in my opinion.

I take 50% fuel and in average I can have one confirmed kill or two proables per sorties (in v404).

However I do strict BnZ most of the time, and I never do prolonged knifefight, therefore my experience may not be enough to enable me to make an accurate comparison.


Think this is the best description.

When you do annalitical carefull tests you will notice how things really are. It does have some issues with speed at certain altitudes (as a few planes have) and radiator drag is a GENERALIZATION in whole sim. It is no where near true for ANY plane. This issue will not be solved in this series of game.. for any plane.

All planes loose 20 kph with rads open and that is it! (as an example, 190D9 should reach max speed with radiators slightly opened and loose more than 40 kph when full open!Each lane in real life had its own rad drag profile...)


P51 currently accelerates slighty more than it should and roll better (look at Target tests data) than it should. Its overall balanced on overmodeling and undermodelling. Nothing extremely more serious than other planes. Also 9 in 10 times I see a P51 online is is at sea level!!

panther3485
03-08-2006, 04:48 AM
Hi Bearcat,

Sorry I didn't come back with this on the other thread but you seemed to be getting plenty of answers from all sorts of folk here. Also, I never play online so I don't know how much my opinion would count for; however:

After flying the P-51 offline, for several weeks now I must say I am inclined to agree with you. In some ways, its kind of hard to put my finger on the specifics but the Mustang just doesn't feel to me, to be performing the way it should.

I expect it to be comparatively sluggish when fully loaded, but not when it's approaching empty. Maybe I'm doing something wrong but getting the sort of speed and acceleration I believe should be there seems difficult regardless of the situation.

These are just my subjective impressions, of course. If there is any substance to those impressions, I hope there will be a fix in the pipeline.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Best regards,
panther3485

JG5_UnKle
03-08-2006, 07:30 AM
Originally posted by OldMan___:
When you do annalitical carefull tests you will notice how things really are. It does have some issues with speed at certain altitudes (as a few planes have) and radiator drag is a GENERALIZATION in whole sim. It is no where near true for ANY plane. This issue will not be solved in this series of game.. for any plane.

All planes loose 20 kph with rads open and that is it! (as an example, 190D9 should reach max speed with radiators slightly opened and loose more than 40 kph when full open!Each lane in real life had its own rad drag profile...)


P51 currently accelerates slighty more than it should and roll better (look at Target tests data) than it should. Its overall balanced on overmodeling and undermodelling. Nothing extremely more serious than other planes. Also 9 in 10 times I see a P51 online is is at sea level!!

I Agree

I like to fly the Pony a lot as aggressor and find it an agreeable aircraft. But after years flying BnZ I would http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Most of the problems (OK I mean baseless whining from biased posters) are simply a case of not using the aircraft to its best potential.

My only real issue with it is the engine being killed by one hit (often) which I don't think is accurate in relation to the other aircraft in the sim.

TX-Zen
03-08-2006, 08:11 AM
Not agree or disagree with the modelling of the P51, but the faster blackout is because of MORE elevator authority in the P51 than in other planes.

The sim has a standard blackout threshold of 6g for all pilots. If you reach blackout faster than the other guy, it's because your elevators are generating enough force to get you to 6g faster than his are.

This is the same reason that the mustang loses its wings faster than other planes...higher elevator authority causes it to cross the generic 15g threshold faster pop the wings off.

In this case speed isn't the critical factor, G load is. For example if the mustang loses wings at approximately 650km/h, some will say that is too low, but really it's losing the wings because the elevators are able to pitch the aircraft hard enough to exceed the 15g stress limit, even at a speed of 650km/h.

Previous patches and previous versions of this game raised the debate and got the responses from Oleg. Many aircraft in FB had a tendancy to lose wings at what appeared to be low speeds and thats when the numbers came out to explain it.

I can't say if this is accurate modelling for the mustang or not, but it is the technical reason it's happening imho.

BaldieJr
03-08-2006, 08:13 AM
every plane i fly seems porked. i hate this game.

Abbuzze
03-08-2006, 09:04 AM
Originally posted by FatBoyHK:
well I fly Mustang almost exclusibely so I should be qualified to have a say.

If I have some alt under me I have no problem outrunning anyboby. If I am fast enough I can outturn anybody. If I am in trouble I can outdive almost anybody given I am not to late. E-retention is excellent, I can keep my speed for a very long time after I dive. Zoom climb, while not uber enough to give me an upper hand in a dogfight, is excellent in my opinion and enough to bring me out of trouble after I finished my run. It is the way it is since v3.0, where I start playing this game.

And in v404 the wobbling problem is gone, and the 50cals is fixed, I can aim and kill without problem. My average hitrate is 6.5% and it usually take 20 hits to down a 109.

The only problem remaining is the top speed with plyon and with raditator on auto. But it is not the end of the world in my opinion.

I take 50% fuel and in average I can have one confirmed kill or two proables per sorties (in v404).

However I do strict BnZ most of the time, and I never do prolonged knifefight, therefore my experience may not be enough to enable me to make an accurate comparison.

VERY well desctiption how the P51 should be used! That´s what Mark Hanna meant when he said the P51 was relative save against 109´s.

I remember a fight vs you that was - let´s call it historical I followed you for serveral minutes with reduced power, then disengaged because of low fuel. Was BaZ´ed by you and finally did what you done before - run away to land with the last drop of fuel... It was real great to see someone who uses the P51 right! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

SALUTE!

panther3485
03-08-2006, 09:11 AM
Hmmmmm, maybe that's part of the problem. Perhaps I'm just not flying it right.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Gotta say, although I like the P-51 very much IRL, it's not my usual in-game ride.

Interesting posts here.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif


Best regards,
panther3485

robban75
03-08-2006, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
Robban! I know P-51 with 100% fuel load accelerates a bit too fast, but I wonder: does P-51 with 25% fuel accelerate better at least exactly proportionally to its lower weight? It should - as I know after consultation with an aerodynamics experthttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Good question! It needs to be tested! One other thing I'd like to add is that the Mustangs climb rate is off at all altitudes, except between 3000 and 4000m, and excactly at 8000m. At 6000m, climb rate is off by as much as 3m/sec. This could probably mean that the Mustangs level acceleration performance is off at this alt as well. In the D-9(and all the other 190's), I've learned that at altitudes between 1000 and 3000m, the plane is very undermodelled, both in speed and climb rate. So this forces me to be extra cautious at those alts. I think it's good if Mustang drivers could learn at which altitudes the plane fail to perform according to real life charts. The D version is faster than both the B and C. But the B and C has much better climb performance. Above 3000m they can reach 2-3m/sec climb rates compared to the D. Although I must say that my numbers are from the 4.02 patch. I don't know if there has been any changes. I doubt it, since the 4.03 didn't show any differences in climb rates.

robban75
03-08-2006, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by robban75:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
I know how to fly it... and it still IMO has serious flaws.... I fly it anyway.. it is what it is and it's the best P-51 out.... that can shoot anyway.... and it is in the only WWII sim that gets my time so I just deal..... but I still say it accelerates too slow.. it doesnt dive fast enough... and it has a poor zoom climb.... I use trim and pitch too.. and I hardly ever go to 110%.... unless it is a war emergency ....

Hmm compared to the real life acceleration of the P-51, the ingame P-51 actually accelerates a little bit better than it should.

And from my dive and zoom tests, the P-51 is clearly superior to the other planes tested. I'm rather more suspicious about the 109's diving and zooming abilities. Not even the mighty D-9 can outdive a late war 109. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats why I agree with you on a lot of issues Robban. You see things from both sides and never appear biased towards your plane of choice. Only a few like you. Leadspitter is another one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks HaVoK! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I really try not to be biased. Of course I http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif the D-9 more than other planes, but I'd hate if it was overmodelled. However, I don't like when other planes are undermodelled either. When other people are upset about this I can relate to that, as I'm sure most other people can too. This sim is fantastic, and I know it will never be perfect. But I'm sure it can be "almost" perfect. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

FatBoyHK
03-08-2006, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:
VERY well desctiption how the P51 should be used! That´s what Mark Hanna meant when he said the P51 was relative save against 109´s.

I remember a fight vs you that was - let´s call it historical I followed you for serveral minutes with reduced power, then disengaged because of low fuel. Was BaZ´ed by you and finally did what you done before - run away to land with the last drop of fuel... It was real great to see someone who uses the P51 right! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

SALUTE!

Somehow I remember that fight. Nice fight with you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif (But I remember I should have downed you.... anyway http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

There are people who can knifefight very well even with a Mustang. They can do amazing thing that I think is impossible.... I trid to copy but failed misably.... So I can't say I am doing my flyng on a mustang CORRECTLY.... I would rather say HISTORICALLY... and somewhat SUCCESSFULLY http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

but granted I suck in knifefight even on a spit, I am not qualified to comment on anything about knifefight performance of any plane.

vanjast
03-08-2006, 11:04 AM
I think most of us are forgetting that later in the war planes like the FW190, P51, P47, P38, Spitfires, became more of 'interceptors' than dogfighters of 3-5 years earlier. Thus to expect them to do radical manuevers without consequence is a bit much.

Each plane had to be flown to it's advantages. I'm a FW190 fan and have over the years learn't almost every trick in the book with this plane, and it works wonders enabling me to take on anything and usually come out tops.

Who cares if this plane is porked here and that plane there, just don't fly it like that. Exactly the same as those in WW2 had to do.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

FatBoyHK
03-08-2006, 11:10 AM
robben can you post (again) the Mustang's RL vs InGame performance comparison ? Speed, accel, roll, turn, climb, dive? may be zoom climb?

can't really discuss without your data http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

womenfly
03-08-2006, 11:32 AM
Just a suggestion here .... I know someone documented a "How to Fly the P-51" for preivous patches.

How about a "How to Fly the P-51" for this patch 4.04. Seems there are enough differences from earlier patches to 4.04 on how she flys.

Any takers ????????? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

Vipez-
03-08-2006, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by robban75:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
I know how to fly it... and it still IMO has serious flaws.... I fly it anyway.. it is what it is and it's the best P-51 out.... that can shoot anyway.... and it is in the only WWII sim that gets my time so I just deal..... but I still say it accelerates too slow.. it doesnt dive fast enough... and it has a poor zoom climb.... I use trim and pitch too.. and I hardly ever go to 110%.... unless it is a war emergency ....

Hmm compared to the real life acceleration of the P-51, the ingame P-51 actually accelerates a little bit better than it should.

And from my dive and zoom tests, the P-51 is clearly superior to the other planes tested. I'm rather more suspicious about the 109's diving and zooming abilities. Not even the mighty D-9 can outdive a late war 109. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats why I agree with you on a lot of issues Robban. You see things from both sides and never appear biased towards your plane of choice. Only a few like you. Leadspitter is another one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LS Unbiased? Jeez, what mushrooms do you use ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

robban75
03-08-2006, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by FatBoyHK:
robben can you post (again) the Mustang's RL vs InGame performance comparison ? Speed, accel, roll, turn, climb, dive? may be zoom climb?

can't really discuss without your data http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Here's a link to my dive/zoom thread at ACWoS forum. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=F...ile=viewtopic&t=7760 (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=7760)

And some P-51 climb charts.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/robban75/chart9.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/robban75/chart6.jpg

tomtheyak
03-08-2006, 02:57 PM
I have recently been reading the Osprey Aviation Elite series book No.7 "354th Fighter Group" by William N Hess.

Previous to this book I had based my assumptions on the Mustangs prowess in the dogfight arena (in particular its ability to out-turn the LW interceptors) by a lot of the Roger A Freeman material I have read over the years - I'm a big Eighth Air Force nut!

However I'll relate a couple of interesting passages:

(p.27) "One of the victorious...pilots was Albert Redfern... who... ended up in turning fight an Fw190. Redfern stated that he and the Focke-Wulf pilot continued to turn into each other for a full ten-minutes before the American began to drop his flaps - first to ten degrees and finally to twenty, when he was finally able to take a shot... (the FW) went down in an uncontrollable spin."

The combat took place on 21st February 1944 on an escort mission to Brunswick. Redfern would have been flying an early or early-to-mid build P-51B. Altitude of combat is unknown.

This then shows that the Mustang was on a par for turning with a 190 (at least at some altitude - probably mid-to-high; the Fw190As engine power dropping off at hight alt).

However a well flown Mustang v. 109 was not exactly a one-sided arguement either...

p.92 "..Eagleston reported;
'...I sighted the bogies at.. nine oclock to our group and going in the opposite direction some 2,000ft above us. The bogies made a wide diving turn and came in on us at six o'clock from slightly above. when definite recognition as enemy Me109s had been made, I waited until the enemy gaggle had almost set itselffor a bounce and then called for a group turn of 180 degrees to the left to meet the attack head on. i ordered the group to jettison bombs and proceed to attack. E/A formation was well spread out and in semi-line abreast in flights of 4 & 8. Estimated strength 60+.
'... Observing a flight of 4 10s at 11'00ft I bounced these E/A and fired a one-second burst at the number four man, observing a few strikes on his fuselage. The E/A broke into me and started a climbing turn. This pilot was particularly aggresive and showed no desire to run. I was also amazedat the performance of the E/A, which showed climbing and turning ability far above any Me109 that I had ever encountered. I rat-raced this E/A for about 5 minutes without getting into a shooting position. Finally, this E/A pulled straight up and I closed to 100 yards and fired a two-second burst into him, scoring many strikes on the fuselage. The E/A started to smoke badly and pieces came off. I observed the aircraft crash and explode.
'... My wingman Lt Frederick I Crouch <span class="ev_code_RED">had been unable to release his bombs, yet in spite of all this he had stayed in an excellent covering position through severe and violent manoeuvring...</span>
'The enemy pilots varied from aggresive to very aggresive and appeared to be highly experienced. Instead of operating in their usual gaggle formation, they tried at all times to stay in four- or eight-ship flights.'
Eagleston had been accurate in his description of the opposition for the 354th had encountered the Stab. (headquarters flight) asw ell as II., III. & IV, Gruppen of JG 53. The air battle lasted about 35 minutes (!!!!-TTY) and the results were amazingly close to what was claimed. The mustang pilots were credited with 21 kills , which is exactly the number of Bf109s that JG 53 admitted losing!...compared with four lost by the group (354thFG)."

Eagleston scored three all told.

Now I'm not passing judgement here but I reckon if you tried to replicate that online, the results might be a little different...!

Viper2005_
03-08-2006, 02:59 PM
I haven't tested it extensively in this version but I think that the problem is probably related to the engine model. I think that there are some long standing errors as regards engine performance, and that the airframes have been tweaked to give "book" performance (eg level speed) which means that other stuff is wrong.

The solution is to embark upon a comprehensive test programme to pinpoint all of the issues, so that the bug report to end all bug reports can be sent and the aeroplane can be fixed.

In addition to the aircraft specific problems, there are some (almost) universal issues in need of a fix (cooling system performance, bomb rack drag).

Again, serious testing and a serious bug report are the solution.

Finally I note with interest that some members of the community suggest the use of "prop pitch" to improve performance. This simply doesn't make any sense. There's a deep engineering argument in this point, which I shall bypass.

However, at the end of the day, if the Pilot's notes say that War Emergency power is x boost at y rpm then those are the settings I should use to attain top speed. That's what the test data is based upon; I should be able to replicate it without "cheating" the rpm (or radiator settings for that matter).

The most stupid example of this is the Fw-190 which doesn't perform as advertised until you go to manual prop pitch and select 100%, completely defeating the purpose of the automation it so famously featured.

It also shares what I call the "fine stop bug" with the P-51; the CSU is unable to maintain rpm as advertised. In the case of the 190A5 1.65 ata you'll lose rpm if you fly below about 300 km/h which is rather silly.

In the case of the P-51 you'll lose rpm if you throttle back too far; this makes it impossible to fly a beam approach as per the pilot's notes.

In both cases the problem would be solved by making the fine pitch stop finer...

Part of the problem here is that the vast majority of the community never actually tries to fly their aeroplanes by the book. As such they don't even notice the vast majority of the errors in the sim, which makes it much more difficult to see the "big picture".

Another example of this is the Mosquito. The engine model is totally messed up; the pilot's notes are out there, but seemingly nobody has read them. It's got strange hybrid engine handling, incorrect FTHs (last I checked)... and it's got comedy single engine handling. Safety speed should be something like 180 mph, but you can go way below that if you're careful.

My personal feeling is that due to incorrect engine modelling and the need to hit the book figures for top speed (which is all that the majority are capable of testing accurately) various errors have crept into the drag model.

I've seen this sort of thing happen in X-Plane; you can quite easily have an aeroplane which hits its book speed performance and yet is totally wrong.

For example, I once flight tested a Corsair. It performed roughly as I would have expected until I tried to land it; its glide was way too flat, and it was almost impossible to scrub speed off it.

I looked at it in planemaker and found that the guy who built it had set it up direct drive. The prop was well and truely supersonic and very inefficient. I corrected this, and found that I had to massively increase its drag coefficient in order to keep its top speed accurately. As a result it became possible to fly a sensible approach...

The most obvious source of error in terms of overall engine performance (if we forget the glaring FTH errors with some engines) is exhaust thrust. It is a little known fact that the Merlin gained the equivalent of 150 bhp (give or take, depending upon the model, speed and altitude) via jet thrust from its exhaust in high speed flight, which is why Rolls-Royce never bothered themselves with Turbochargers for fighter applications (post war a Turbocharger was considered for a Maritime recce aircraft; at low speed shaft power is more valuable than exhaust thrust, though come to think of it they might have been turbo-compounding rather than turbo-supercharging; I can't be bothered to look it up right now).

Anyway 150 ehp (based upon 150 lbf @ 300 mph TAS assuming 80% prop efficiency) is pretty serious stuff; that 150 lbf is worth about 200 bhp at 400 mph, and gets progressively more valuable the faster you go. Which is essentially why eventually you end up with a turbojet for high speed flight; if you start a trade study based upon a turboprop, and up the speed, beyond about 500 mph the optimisation gives so little power to the prop (and so much to the exhaust) that you might as well throw the prop away and save the weight! But I digress... If you've read this far, well done. You're probably as bored as I am, so I'll leave it at that.

Kocur_
03-08-2006, 03:26 PM
Once Takata made a glide test of number of planes. Mustang Mk.III, which is nothing but P-51C airframe but with boosted engine glided to the same distance as P-51C, but faster than the latter. That seemed to me to indicate, that at least partially, Mustang Mk.III higher speed was modelled by lowering drag, rather than (purely) increacing power. I guess number of strange effects observed in the game might be connected with such a way of modelling speed, like P-51 hitting RL top speed (with rads closed...) but not climb, or Fw-190 being "the fastest on idle" and accelerating lousy at lower speeds.

GR142-Pipper
03-08-2006, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
When you do the speed tests as some have done using the settings provided in the official documents (i.e. wing pylons installed and radiator set to automatic) you'd expect to be within +-10% or so. We're not there...its off by a great deal in terms of climb and top speed. I don't have the figures but I trust the people who did the actual numbers testing. + or - 10% is a HUGE amount to be off on ANY aircraft. It's completely unacceptable if the developers are trying to present this as a sim and not a game. + or - 2% is more like it.

Regarding your other comments on the P-51, I would agree. It's a definite underachiever in just about all performance areas in this game (contrary to real life, of course).

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
03-08-2006, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by TX-Zen:
This is the same reason that the mustang loses its wings faster than other planes...higher elevator authority causes it to cross the generic 15g threshold faster pop the wings off. Zen, 15g's and the pilot never comes close to blackout or even gray out? Something's just not modeled correctly folks.

GR142-Pipper

tonyt1960
03-08-2006, 03:56 PM
After flying the game for a few weeks, the way i like to think of FB+AEB+PF is that it is the closest game available to a real "simulator" but still far from being a sim. In other words, if you were to rank this game based on the real thing, you would have flying the real plane being number 1, flying a Level D sim designed for the real plane a close 2nd, flying a Level B or C being a distant 3rd... SimCom non-motion sims as a distant 4th, then Olegs game being a FAR distant 5th behind SimCom.

So, it kinda looks like this:
1. Real plane
.
.
2. Level D
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3. Level B/C
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4. SimCom sims
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5. Oleg's game
.
.
.
.
6. CFS2
.
.
.
.
7. CFS1

With the large gap being various Frasca desktops etc...

Oleg will never get the flight models right... period. Its just too expensive. As far as procedural training, the game is probably the best out there (in terms of games), but it will never be a sim. Pilots like to call this type of device an FTD, or Flight Traning Device. Meaning, it doesnt matter how the flight model behaves, as long as the procedural motions are there (checklist, taxi.. switches move.. etc), it can be used as a training device, but never a sim. To give you an idea of different training devices real pilots use, a model airplane on a stick is a training device. A cockpit mock up in cardboard is a training device. A cockpit mockup made in cardboard with working switches is a training device. A software program with working switches and a type of flight model is a training device. This software is a game, not a sim and can be used as a procedural training device (but must be supplemented by flying a sim or flying the real thing). If you want a real sim, i can point anyone in the right direction, but it'll cost you more than 20 bucks and you wont be able to keep the software or hardware...lol

Also, for those using prop pitch and think they are getting added performance??? You're not....lol Prop pitch doesnt even behave in this game as it would in a real airplane with a constant speed prop..... (For those real pilots out there with high performance endorsements or above, pull your prop back to the pitch stop at high power settings and watch your MP...lol... edit: disclaimer, do this in the game only, not in the real plane...lol)

Edit: In conclusion:
Keep thinking GAME... and not SIM, and you wont be disappointed.....

Cobra-84
03-08-2006, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
+ or - 10% is a HUGE amount to be off on ANY aircraft. It's completely unacceptable if the developers are trying to present this as a sim and not a game. + or - 2% is more like it.

I've heard +/-15% thrown around here a few times. Still 10% off is really 20% if one plane is +10% and the other is -10% and +/-15% is 30%!

2 planes with a top speed of lets say 400mph at +/-10% one is 360mph the other is 440mph. Each percent is +/-4 mph which is huge considering the small difference between a worthless plane and a good plane. Would a P-40 at +15% be better than a P-51 at -15%?

Wasn't there a CFS2 mod group that had planes within 1% or so. They were unpaid and did better than the paid Il-2 team that thinks 10-15% is acceptable.

I know there are a lot of planes in this game. I don't really care if the B-17 or another bomber is off even by 20%. its not going to be faster or turn better comparied to the fighters trying to shoot it down so it doesn't matter much in the end. The flyable fighters need to be more accurate. It kill the game to have A6Ms diving with P-47 and La-7 with better high altitude performance of a P-51.

OldMan____
03-08-2006, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by Cobra-84:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
+ or - 10% is a HUGE amount to be off on ANY aircraft. It's completely unacceptable if the developers are trying to present this as a sim and not a game. + or - 2% is more like it.

I've heard +/-15% thrown around here a few times. Still 10% off is really 20% if one plane is +10% and the other is -10% and +/-15% is 30%!

2 planes with a top speed of lets say 400mph at +/-10% one is 360mph the other is 440mph. Each percent is +/-4 mph which is huge considering the small difference between a worthless plane and a good plane. Would a P-40 at +15% be better than a P-51 at -15%?

Wasn't there a CFS2 mod group that had planes within 1% or so. They were unpaid and did better than the paid Il-2 team that thinks 10-15% is acceptable.

I know there are a lot of planes in this game. I don't really care if the B-17 or another bomber is off even by 20%. its not going to be faster or turn better comparied to the fighters trying to shoot it down so it doesn't matter much in the end. The flyable fighters need to be more accurate. It kill the game to have A6Ms diving with P-47 and La-7 with better high altitude performance of a P-51. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are dreaming if you think these are better tahn IL2. They are not even physics force integrations, are just a simple set of data about each plane on specific characteristics.


Il2 has flaws, many of them beacuse there is NOT enough QUALITY reliable data on all variables!!! How many here have seen data on drag curve for radiator flaps at different altitudes and speeds? For all planes we have in game? Sure no one... So NO ONE IN UNIVERSE COULD make a pefect simmulation of this!


IL2 also uses an engien that is already old, quite old in fact and we are demanding too much from it. BOB will probably improve it a lot. But this won´t solve problems that arise due to lack od DETAILED data! I´ve made some physics engiens myself.. and NEVER in my life I saw data sources about any plane in quantity and quality enough to supply all that I would call REQUIRED to make a good simmulation. Don´t think that simple chrats you find on net with speed vs altitude and climb rate are enough...

ImpStarDuece
03-08-2006, 05:36 PM
The 1% stuff from CFS2/3 still can't get everything right, because the tests themselves don't always line up http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif The RAF made allowances of +/- 6-7% in speed in its testing regiemes and +/- 200-250 feet minute.

I flew the 1% planes in CFS2 for a LONG time. Most of them felt much more the same than the planes in IL-2. Handeling was very generic. And none of them simulated the illusion of flight nearly as well as IL-2 does. Tabluated flight data gets REALLY squirrley at the edges of the envelope, which is where you are most of the time in a combat environment. I'll never forget stalling and flipping my 1% P-38 upside down and watching it start to gain altitude http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif All well and good for MSFS, but no good for a combat flight sim.

Plane-for-plane, the best stuff I have flown is the "Wings of Power" FW-190A, FW190D and P-47 from Shockwave for MS2004. The level of cockpit and flight detail, plus the ability to fly the plane 'by the book' are what i'll be looking for in my next flight sim purchase.

Targ
03-08-2006, 09:02 PM
Tony, are you saying we take our self€s way to serious? Lol, you were correct in saying that we are passionate around her. For all of the crying and moaning and fighting going on in the IL2 community you would think we hate this game.
Many of us are addicted to it and know that all of the hair pulling and gnashing of teeth is nothing more than a huge compliment to the game and Oleg and crew.
PS, I revoke my endorsment on the CH stick you just bought, should have gotten the Cougar as it is far better.

M2morris
03-08-2006, 09:43 PM
I love the P-51, I feel very confident flying it, but it's cooling system is vulnerable to any slight damage, and will cause a quick end to a mission. When, for example, a P-47 can take more hits with that big air cooled radial.

M2morris
03-08-2006, 09:59 PM
Originally posted by tonyt1960:



Keep thinking GAME... and not SIM, and you wont be disappointed.....

Thanks tony, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Badsight.
03-08-2006, 10:01 PM
Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
Most of the problems (OK I mean baseless whining from biased posters) are simply a case of not using the aircraft to its best potential. grass level TnBers listen up

& re-read FatBoyHK's posts

Cobra-84
03-08-2006, 10:04 PM
Originally posted by M2morris:
I love the P-51, I feel very confident flying it, but it's cooling system is vulnerable to any slight damage, and will cause a quick end to a mission. When, for example, a P-47 can take more hits with that big air cooled radial.

Don't be too sure about that. The P-47's engine can be taken out with only 1-2 well placed shots, but It doesn't catch fire quickly like the P-51.

M2morris
03-08-2006, 10:19 PM
Originally posted by Cobra-84:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M2morris:
I love the P-51, I feel very confident flying it, but it's cooling system is vulnerable to any slight damage, and will cause a quick end to a mission. When, for example, a P-47 can take more hits with that big air cooled radial.

Ya, but I geuss my point was that a liquid cooled system is more vulnerable than an air cooled. But, off topic sort-of dumb question: I can't get the P-38s engines started when on the ground, how do you start those bad muthas?

Don't be too sure about that. The P-47's engine can be taken out with only 1-2 well placed shots, but It doesn't catch fire quickly like the P-51. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

M2morris
03-08-2006, 10:28 PM
Oops I screwed that up ^ But can anyone tell me how to get the P-38s engines started from at the ready on the runway? I hit 'I' to start any single engine planes, but I can't seem to get multi engine going.

msalama
03-08-2006, 11:07 PM
Keep thinking GAME... and not SIM, and you wont be disappointed.....

Spot on. To expect a $40 game to behave like a professional sim is just stupid IMO.

Xiolablu3
03-08-2006, 11:14 PM
STart them seperately, morris.

Choose 1 - start, then 2 - start, then finally all engines to 100%

GR142-Pipper
03-09-2006, 02:04 AM
Originally posted by tonyt1960:
After flying the game for a few weeks, the way i like to think of FB+AEB+PF is that it is the closest game available to a real "simulator" but still far from being a sim. In other words, if you were to rank this game based on the real thing, you would have flying the real plane being number 1, flying a Level D sim designed for the real plane a close 2nd, flying a Level B or C being a distant 3rd... SimCom non-motion sims as a distant 4th, then Olegs game being a FAR distant 5th behind SimCom.

So, it kinda looks like this:
1. Real plane
.
.
2. Level D
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3. Level B/C
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4. SimCom sims
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5. Oleg's game
.
.
.
.
6. CFS2
.
.
.
.
7. CFS1

With the large gap being various Frasca desktops etc...

Oleg will never get the flight models right... period. Its just too expensive. As far as procedural training, the game is probably the best out there (in terms of games), but it will never be a sim. Pilots like to call this type of device an FTD, or Flight Traning Device. Meaning, it doesnt matter how the flight model behaves, as long as the procedural motions are there (checklist, taxi.. switches move.. etc), it can be used as a training device, but never a sim. To give you an idea of different training devices real pilots use, a model airplane on a stick is a training device. A cockpit mock up in cardboard is a training device. A cockpit mockup made in cardboard with working switches is a training device. A software program with working switches and a type of flight model is a training device. This software is a game, not a sim and can be used as a procedural training device (but must be supplemented by flying a sim or flying the real thing). If you want a real sim, i can point anyone in the right direction, but it'll cost you more than 20 bucks and you wont be able to keep the software or hardware...lol

Also, for those using prop pitch and think they are getting added performance??? You're not....lol Prop pitch doesnt even behave in this game as it would in a real airplane with a constant speed prop..... (For those real pilots out there with high performance endorsements or above, pull your prop back to the pitch stop at high power settings and watch your MP...lol... edit: disclaimer, do this in the game only, not in the real plane...lol)

Edit: In conclusion:
Keep thinking GAME... and not SIM, and you wont be disappointed..... Completely correct on all counts. As a former military pilot this game is firmly in "gamedom" and getting more so by the day. The amazing thing is that Maddox continues to add more and more planes that they're not able to adequately support. Go figure.

Btw, when you pull the pitch back like many here do and apply a lot of throttle, the engine overboosts in the real world and bad things happen...in a hurry....but you already know that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

GR142-Pipper

panther3485
03-09-2006, 02:25 AM
If I didn't feel out of my depth by page 2, I most certainly do now. Maybe I should just stick to talking about tanks and shut up about the planes!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Then again, if I hang around a bit longer, it looks as if I could learn quite a lot here!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Very interesting stuff, guys. Thanks.
Keep it coming!


Best regards,
panther3485

msalama
03-09-2006, 02:40 AM
1) One should never _ever_ think PC games are more than PC games.

2) There is some truth in there being too many planes, but hey, it IS a game after all we're talking about innit? And you've got to throw some carrots to the casual gamer every now and then to keep the interest up...

3) That said, individual FM / performance errors should be fixed if unambiguous data proving them incorrect exists. This, however, is only possible within the limits of this game being a GAME, no?

4) Maddox Games should publicize their AC source data, or at least part of it, because everybody would then know why their planes behave the way they do & we'd probably see less c**p around the boards. A Good Thing(TM) if you ask me.

HellToupee
03-09-2006, 02:56 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TX-Zen:
This is the same reason that the mustang loses its wings faster than other planes...higher elevator authority causes it to cross the generic 15g threshold faster pop the wings off. Zen, 15g's and the pilot never comes close to blackout or even gray out? Something's just not modeled correctly folks.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

to black out u have to sustain high gs, if u yank stick too hard at high speed on some aircraft u get high gs for too short a time to blackout but crosses the g cut off and no more wing.

GR142-Pipper
03-09-2006, 04:37 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TX-Zen:
This is the same reason that the mustang loses its wings faster than other planes...higher elevator authority causes it to cross the generic 15g threshold faster pop the wings off. Zen, 15g's and the pilot never comes close to blackout or even gray out? Something's just not modeled correctly folks.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

to black out u have to sustain high gs, if u yank stick too hard at high speed on some aircraft u get high gs for too short a time to blackout but crosses the g cut off and no more wing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>It's a game shortcoming. The pilot gets ZERO feedback and all of a sudden...no wings. It's completely bogus. If that's the best the programmers can do, leave the wing shedding off for all aircraft.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
03-09-2006, 04:40 AM
Originally posted by msalama:
4) Maddox Games should publicize their AC source data, or at least part of it, because everybody would then know why their planes behave the way they do & we'd probably see less c**p around the boards. A Good Thing(TM) if you ask me. Maddox doesn't even provide what changes from patch to patch...like real software companies do.

GR142-Pipper

diabloblanco1
03-09-2006, 05:02 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by msalama:
4) Maddox Games should publicize their AC source data, or at least part of it, because everybody would then know why their planes behave the way they do & we'd probably see less c**p around the boards. A Good Thing(TM) if you ask me. Maddox doesn't even provide what changes from patch to patch...like real software companies do.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Careful, the the SATPD(Speech and thought police department) here in the forums will smite thee. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

msalama
03-09-2006, 05:13 AM
Maddox doesn't even provide what changes from patch to patch...like real software companies do.

Hey, they are a real SW company. They just have a bad or non-existent documentation and / or information-sharing policy. And they're NOT alone in this regard, as sad as it is!

But yes, their patch / update documentation DOES suck, if that's what you meant...

OldMan____
03-09-2006, 05:32 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by msalama:
4) Maddox Games should publicize their AC source data, or at least part of it, because everybody would then know why their planes behave the way they do & we'd probably see less c**p around the boards. A Good Thing(TM) if you ask me. Maddox doesn't even provide what changes from patch to patch...like real software companies do.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

what? Do Microsoft release Exactly what every update of them changes in your OS ? Lol.

diabloblanco1
03-09-2006, 06:34 AM
Originally posted by M2morris:
Oops I screwed that up ^ But can anyone tell me how to get the P-38s engines started from at the ready on the runway? I hit 'I' to start any single engine planes, but I can't seem to get multi engine going.

You need to maps the keys for multi engine start in the controls section.

JG5_UnKle
03-09-2006, 07:47 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
It's a game shortcoming. The pilot gets ZERO feedback and all of a sudden...no wings. It's completely bogus. If that's the best the programmers can do, leave the wing shedding off for all aircraft.

GR142-Pipper

Agree 75%

Tone down the P51 elevator authority, go on Oleg - you know it makes sense http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Or mention it happens on other aircraft too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

GR142-Pipper
03-09-2006, 08:40 PM
Originally posted by OldMan____:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by msalama:
4) Maddox Games should publicize their AC source data, or at least part of it, because everybody would then know why their planes behave the way they do & we'd probably see less c**p around the boards. A Good Thing(TM) if you ask me. Maddox doesn't even provide what changes from patch to patch...like real software companies do.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

what? Do Microsoft release Exactly what every update of them changes in your OS ? Lol. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Comparing this little game to Microsoft's Windows OPERATING SYSTEM family is not even a remotely legitimate comparison. (I'll give you a mulligan on that one. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

All Maddox needs to do (the bare minimum, btw) is spell out what got changed and which aircraft are affected. The bar just doesn't get any lower than that. For all the capability Maddox has a programmer (considerable, I might add), too much of it gets compromised by the amateurish way his company conducts itself as a business entity. It's not good for the company's long-term health.

...just my take.

GR142-Pipper

HOOTCHIE_MAMA
03-09-2006, 09:22 PM
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c15/HOOTCHIE-MAMA/p-51.jpg

msalama
03-09-2006, 09:45 PM
...just my take.

No, you're right. They're definitely harming _themselves_ worst in the long run with that non-existent documentation!


...is spell out what got changed and which aircraft are affected.

...and _why_ as well IMO.

crazyivan1970
03-10-2006, 01:54 AM
You should thank yourselves that nothing is being spelled out anymore, for quiet some time now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Then more info is provided then more whining occurs - fact. I think Oleg learned his lesson, if that makes you unconfortable in some way... ohh well http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif BTW... he came up with the great summary for FM changes - it`s called fine tuning http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

As far as non-exisitng documentation goes.... well, they pay alot of money for it quiet often and ABSOLUTELY under no obligation to provide it to anyone at their own expense, or...sometimes, they are not allowed to.

You guys should get off that horse that called "Customer is always right" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

vanjast
03-10-2006, 02:19 AM
Originally posted by HOOTCHIE_MAMA:
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c15/HOOTCHIE-MAMA/p-51.jpg

No no no... the german leadership won the war for you. You were just lucky to be there at the time. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

GR142-Pipper
03-10-2006, 03:00 AM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
You should thank yourselves that nothing is being spelled out anymore, for quiet some time now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Then more info is provided then more whining occurs - fact. I think Oleg learned his lesson, if that makes you unconfortable in some way... ohh well http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif BTW... he came up with the great summary for FM changes - it`s called fine tuning http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

As far as non-exisitng documentation goes.... well, they pay alot of money for it quiet often and ABSOLUTELY under no obligation to provide it to anyone at their own expense, or...sometimes, they are not allowed to.

You guys should get off that horse that called "Customer is always right" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif No one cares about what documentation Maddox has obtained as reference material for patch programming. What's being requested is IL-2 4.0x patch documentation which discusses what aircraft got changed and why. It's a perfectly reasonable expectation. Again, it's what real software companies do. Why does Maddox find this simplest of tasks so difficult?

GR142-Pipper

Brain32
03-10-2006, 03:25 AM
Bah, plain BS, you got what they changed in every readme, as for details, which company? You think all of them state everything that's changed in detail in their readme's? So far almost every software company whose products are used stated only major bugfixes, everybody use "some minor improvement and fixes" routine.
Why do you think and where did you read that you have the right to know every little change in smallest detail? Sure we would all like to know what was done and according to which sources, but will they tell us or not is only up to them.

bolillo_loco
03-10-2006, 04:03 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v358/bolillo_quemado/Olegmessage.jpg

luftluuver
03-10-2006, 04:47 AM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
It's this thing on the P-51Dora Noit is Dog for D. In other words, P-51D = Dog Pony. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

FatBoyHK
03-10-2006, 08:48 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
Bah, plain BS, you got what they changed in every readme, as for details, which company? You think all of them state everything that's changed in detail in their readme's? So far almost every software company whose products are used stated only major bugfixes, everybody use "some minor improvement and fixes" routine.
Why do you think and where did you read that you have the right to know every little change in smallest detail? Sure we would all like to know what was done and according to which sources, but will they tell us or not is only up to them.

in many good RTS and MMORPG games, the readme of their patches contain exactly what is being changed, for example, the weapon reload rate of a unit has been improved by 20%, the effect of a magic spell on certain monster has been reduced of 10%...etcetc..

but yes, this kind of exact detail is too much to ask for in this game, it is a sim and there are too much variable, think about reporting the change of performace across the whole altitute range ...

horseback
03-10-2006, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v358/bolillo_quemado/Olegmessage.jpg If Great Stalin had thought to send this comrade to ask for advanced Western fighters, the VVS frontal regiments would have had P-51Bs and Spit Mk IXs before the 8th AF and 11 group...

cheers

horseback

msalama
03-10-2006, 09:16 AM
If Great Stalin had thought to send this comrade to ask for advanced Western fighters, the VVS frontal regiments would have had P-51Bs and Spit Mk IXs before the 8th AF and 11 group...

True dat, Sir http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

GR142-Pipper
03-10-2006, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
Bah, plain BS, you got what they changed in every readme, as for details, which company? You think all of them state everything that's changed in detail in their readme's? So far almost every software company whose products are used stated only major bugfixes, everybody use "some minor improvement and fixes" routine.
Why do you think and where did you read that you have the right to know every little change in smallest detail? Sure we would all like to know what was done and according to which sources, but will they tell us or not is only up to them. I have no idea where you are coming from but a simple explanation that "aircraft x has had it's turn rate/power/energy retention/stall speed/(you pick it) increased/decreased" is hardly asking for minute detail. It's a basic expectation, particularly so given the extremely wide pendulum swinging in aircraft performance since the release of 4.0. Furthermore, if you look at ANY reputable company when they release patches they define what got fixed and how it affects their product's operation. If Maddox doesn't want to do that it's certainly his right but it's just not how professionally run software companies behave. It's just not.

GR142-Pipper

msalama
03-10-2006, 12:11 PM
It's just not.

Well, speaking as someone who's worked IT for the last 10 years or so I can assure you he's NOT the only one... but yes, I agree with you nevertheless. They _should_ inform us the clientele a bit better, even if - as CI said - they don't OWE us anything per se...

bolillo_loco
03-10-2006, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by FatBoyHK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Bah, plain BS, you got what they changed in every readme, as for details, which company? You think all of them state everything that's changed in detail in their readme's? So far almost every software company whose products are used stated only major bugfixes, everybody use "some minor improvement and fixes" routine.
Why do you think and where did you read that you have the right to know every little change in smallest detail? Sure we would all like to know what was done and according to which sources, but will they tell us or not is only up to them.

in many good RTS and MMORPG games, the readme of their patches contain exactly what is being changed, for example, the weapon reload rate of a unit has been improved by 20%, the effect of a magic spell on certain monster has been reduced of 10%...etcetc..

but yes, this kind of exact detail is too much to ask for in this game, it is a sim and there are too much variable, think about reporting the change of performace across the whole altitute range ... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah FatBoy speaks, first you must snatch the pebble from my hand Grasshopper.

=AFJ=FatBoyHK & Mantis official =AFJ= "training officers."

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v358/bolillo_quemado/Mantistrainingmetholds.jpg

bolillo_loco
03-10-2006, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v358/bolillo_quemado/Olegmessage.jpg If Great Stalin had thought to send this comrade to ask for advanced Western fighters, the VVS frontal regiments would have had P-51Bs and Spit Mk IXs before the 8th AF and 11 group...

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I only posted the pic because I thought she was cute and my connotation was pure sarcasim.

BM357_Sniper
03-10-2006, 01:47 PM
I only read half of this thread, but it seems to be pretty much the same complaint overall thats been going on since the 51 became "porked".

I can't put my finger on it, but I believe things like zero's catching a 51 in a dive is because the zero is diving way too fast and not because the 51 isn't diving fast enough.

I think my biggest peave here is that the fuel all goes in the aux tank and NOT in the wings. We all know the problem with this. The CG is too far rear and this causes it to depart too easily.

Bearcat99
03-10-2006, 08:23 PM
Yeah that too...

You arent the only oine who said something about the problem being the Mustang slightly but more related to the other planes.. maybe you are right...

I have noticed that you can get the speed up a bit quicker if you give it downward trim.... more than you might think..... it still has issues though.. but I am goiung to keep flying it till I master it.

danjama
03-10-2006, 09:44 PM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
You should thank yourselves that nothing is being spelled out anymore, for quiet some time now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Then more info is provided then more whining occurs - fact. I think Oleg learned his lesson, if that makes you unconfortable in some way... ohh well http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif BTW... he came up with the great summary for FM changes - it`s called fine tuning http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

As far as non-exisitng documentation goes.... well, they pay alot of money for it quiet often and ABSOLUTELY under no obligation to provide it to anyone at their own expense, or...sometimes, they are not allowed to.

You guys should get off that horse that called "Customer is always right" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

JG5_UnKle
03-11-2006, 01:11 AM
Originally posted by BM357_Sniper:
I can't put my finger on it, but I believe things like zero's catching a 51 in a dive is because the zero is diving way too fast and not because the 51 isn't diving fast enough.


Show me a track of a Zero outdiving a P-51 and I'll eat my hat. What you do see is a low speed acceleration advantage to a Zero.

But what are doing at low speed with a zero? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif


Originally posted by BM357_Sniper:
I think my biggest peave here is that the fuel all goes in the aux tank and NOT in the wings. We all know the problem with this. The CG is too far rear and this causes it to depart too easily.

This isn't modelled in the sim IIRC, the elevator authority in the P-51 makes you depart too early http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif