PDA

View Full Version : Corsair Email reply from oleg



CHAV_
12-31-2004, 10:30 AM
S! I sent an email to the oleg maddox team regarding the corsairs performance, I didn€t offer any data or opinions I merely asked if he could inform us what had actually changed regarding the Corsairs fm and asked if it would be ok to post it on the forums this is OLEGS REPLY please no obvious I don€t believe the source replies & no negativity, Constructive Criticism and input only please, the guy actually replied on new years eve which is fantastic!

OLEG MADDOX

Changed the climb at different angles and speeds. More greater changes beween low and high speed climb as was "requested"
this was don by changes in FM formulas for all aircraft at once.
So the specifications for optima climb are not changed, but changed in critial modes of climb.
So it isn't just for Coupel of carrier based aircraft but for all in the sim.
We willl evaluate with F4 nd for some reports F6F... We can here in office take off from moving carrier with full loadout ....
It seems some users - not.
Anyway if we got the bug there with several aircraft - we will correct it in future in 3.04, but it will be not early than 3 weeks from now.

Tailgator
12-31-2004, 11:33 AM
OH NOOO

3.04 is at least 3 more weeks!!

hehe

stelr
12-31-2004, 11:48 AM
Again...one of the best reasons for staying with 1C. The designer actually answers questions and posts in the forums. Good business to keep good customer relations, and ultimately keep good customers. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

georgeo76
12-31-2004, 12:05 PM
Dido

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stelr:
Again...one of the best reasons for staying with 1C. The designer actually answers questions and posts in the forums. Good business to keep good customer relations, and ultimately keep good customers. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

VBF-83_Hawk
12-31-2004, 12:17 PM
I am still not quite sure I understand whats been going on. I undestand that Oleg made some climb model changes to be more acurate with thier realistic counterparts as per requested by Corsiar Drivers?....anyway...This is good but from what he said here: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You asked for one, but forgot the result in other areas <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>- How does the climb model effect take-off performance. Sounds like a load of garbage to me. Nevertheless, I am glad to see more realistic changes...no matter how they are justified or implemented. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Hopefully some other than USA aircraft performance models will be corrected in 3.04

Daiichidoku
12-31-2004, 12:40 PM
I KNEW something felt different in my Jug!

clint-ruin
12-31-2004, 01:00 PM
Is it that since there's less lift at low speed, there's less picking up of the aircraft weight by the wings, making your tyres contact the ground more, or something?

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
12-31-2004, 01:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VBF-83_Hawk:
I am still not quite sure I understand whats been going on. I undestand that Oleg made some climb model changes to be more acurate with thier realistic counterparts as per requested by Corsiar Drivers?....anyway...This is good but from what he said here: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You asked for one, but forgot the result in other areas <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>- How does the climb model effect take-off performance. Sounds like a load of garbage to me. Nevertheless, I am glad to see more realistic changes...no matter how they are justified or implemented. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Hopefully some other than USA aircraft performance models will be corrected in 3.04 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

so RoC has nothing to do with getting a plane of Ground ?
sounds like a load of garbage to me.

BuzzU
12-31-2004, 02:07 PM
This is the part that troubles me.

"Changed the climb at different angles and speeds. More greater changes beween low and high speed climb as was "requested"

If Oleg thinks he has it right the first time after all his research and testing. Why does he change it, because he gets requests?


I remember before the P-51 came out it was stated that more information was available for it than any other plane he's modeled in the game. He also had a real P-51 pilot testing it. If this is the case. Why has the FM changed in the patches? How are we to believe the FM's are right now? Which patch will be the right one?

I also don't understand if you want to change the FM on one plane, you have to change them all?

Fliger747
12-31-2004, 02:46 PM
Oleg hits the 'nail on the head', identifying the real problem, which is WIND over the DECK, in the case in the office, a MOVING Carrier.

Whether or not this is currently fixable for online PLAY is debateable. Here, in the sancity of my own flight deck, "moving" solves a bunch of problems, though tradewinds modeled into the game (probably not in the engine) would introduce some interesting factors as to fleet manuver as well!

CFS2 suffered from the same wind problems online, ones ameliorated at 'home'. FS9 can have carrier ops, but the 'ships' cann'a move, but you can crank up just as much wind over the deck as you need, for a fairly accurate representation of near ship operations.

Should the accuracy of the planes suffer because of the WIND problem?

Wind, we really need WIND.

heywooood
12-31-2004, 02:52 PM
.sounds to me like they tried to address one issue and it adversely affected some other aspects of the overall FM for all planes....it also appears that Oleg is aware of the problem and that patch 3.04 will correct it....

I love the new waiting period...3weeks, be sure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

WUAF_Badsight
12-31-2004, 03:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stelr:
Again...one of the best reasons for staying with 1C. The designer actually answers questions and posts in the forums. Good business to keep good customer relations, and ultimately keep good customers. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
what stelr said

Cherokee_Brave
12-31-2004, 04:41 PM
Well, something is wrong. Even the AI can't consistantly get off the carrier in the training carrier take off mission with the Corsiar.

DakaDakaDaka
12-31-2004, 05:14 PM
i think the number of patches available, (free, not bundled into constant mission packs) and that 1c seems to actually listen to the fans is brilliant.

if only every piece of software i own had such A Grade support.


bravo.

VBF-83_Hawk
12-31-2004, 05:20 PM
That is correct Jabo, RoC has nothing to do with GETTING the plane in the air. It is a RESULT when the plane gets into the air. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

fordfan25
12-31-2004, 05:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by heywooood:
.sounds to me like they tried to address one issue and it adversely affected some other aspects of the overall FM for all planes....it also appears that Oleg is aware of the problem and that patch 3.04 will correct it....

I love the new waiting period...3weeks, be sure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"I love the new waiting period...3weeks, be sure " LOL you noticed that to hu?

DRB_Hookech0
12-31-2004, 06:18 PM
I would have banged my head on the desk if he had said 2 weeks!

I dont fly the Hellcat so all my concern is the "Hawg". I was wondering, the fuel gage in the -1d at 100% fuel reads 75%. Is this due to the removal of the 63 gal. wing tanks when they added the 2 drop tank stations under the inboard wings?

Bearcat99
12-31-2004, 07:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BuzzU:
This is the part that troubles me.

"Changed the climb at different angles and speeds. More greater changes beween low and high speed climb as was "requested"

If Oleg thinks he has it right the first time after all his research and testing. Why does he change it, because he gets requests?


I remember before the P-51 came out it was stated that more information was available for it than any other plane he's modeled in the game. He also had a real P-51 pilot testing it. If this is the case. Why has the FM changed in the patches? How are we to believe the FM's are right now? Which patch will be the right one?

I also don't understand if you want to change the FM on one plane, you have to change them all? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah.... and if you recall the FB 1.0 Mustang was awesome.

VBF-83_Hawk
12-31-2004, 07:19 PM
Thanks Buzz, you say it politicaly correct, I dont...argh!!

LEXX_Luthor
12-31-2004, 07:25 PM
VMFHawk:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I am still not quite sure I understand whats been going on. I undestand that Oleg made some climb model changes to be more acurate with thier realistic counterparts as per requested by Corsiar Drivers? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, I think that was Kwiatos "requesting" here at ubi and the simhq boards about not finding any best rate of climb speed. Kwiatos claimed that aircraft could get max climb rate at best rate of climb speed all the way down to stall speed. If so, and Oleg did something, the carrier planes' takeoff may be hit.

Note that Kwiatos has gone safely into hiding since 3.03. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

VBF-83_Hawk
12-31-2004, 07:40 PM
So Oleg knew this but elected not to change it, due to the departure performance, untill someone claimed the flight model was not realistic?

If so then my statement that everyone so hates is still valid.

However, I will say that the bogging down engine noise is now wrong and needs to be fixed. As it is it sounds as if the pilot pulls the props back on the take-off roll instead of after airborne http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

AFJ_Locust
12-31-2004, 07:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fordfan25:
"I love the new waiting period...3weeks, be sure " <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


LMBO

Ya 2 weeks was oldhat

Three weeks is COOOL & New ! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VBF-83_Hawk
12-31-2004, 07:44 PM
It is two weeks, he will be out of the office for one week .

three weeks, minus one week vacation equals TWO WEEKS

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=8921044852

AFJ_Locust
12-31-2004, 07:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VBF-83_Hawk:
It is two weeks, he will be out of the office for one week .

three weeks, minus one week vacation equals TWO WEEKS

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=8921044852 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ya Its alwayes 2 weeks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

but worth the wait http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

JG51Beolke
12-31-2004, 10:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
OLEG MADDOX

Changed the climb at different angles and speeds. More greater changes beween low and high speed climb as was "requested"
this was don by changes in FM formulas for all aircraft at once.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't understand. Someone "requested" the flight models be changed and Oleg did it? I can understand if it made the flight models more realistic though but if it didn't, then "Why"???

Would it be possible, Oleg, to put out a quick fix for this if the change was incorrect?

Best Regards

RocketDog
01-01-2005, 03:06 AM
I think the translation from Olegish is that people pointed out (correctly) that all aircraft were achieving their best climb rates at unrealistically low speeds. The 1C FM people agreed and corrected the model.

All of which is absolutely fine. It brings in an issue with small carriers and no catapults, but that's an unfortunate side effect and will no doubt get corrected shortly.

Regards,

RocketDog.

Kwiatos
01-01-2005, 04:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BuzzU:
This is the part that troubles me.

"Changed the climb at different angles and speeds. More greater changes beween low and high speed climb as was "requested"

If Oleg thinks he has it right the first time after all his research and testing. Why does he change it, because he gets requests?


I remember before the P-51 came out it was stated that more information was available for it than any other plane he's modeled in the game. He also had a real P-51 pilot testing it. If this is the case. Why has the FM changed in the patches? How are we to believe the FM's are right now? Which patch will be the right one?

I also don't understand if you want to change the FM on one plane, you have to change them all? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

P-51 was good moddelled when first time came into FB - these time real pilot test it and said that is good modelled. After some patches became more arcadish and too good in slow speed turn rate and dofghight comparing to BF 109. Before 3.02 p-51 turn equal and even little better than Bf 109 ( except G-2) at slow speed. Its good that Oleg M. change these thing and now P-51 is no more uber in slow speed turnfight.

Kwiatos
01-01-2005, 04:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
VMFHawk:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I am still not quite sure I understand whats been going on. I undestand that Oleg made some climb model changes to be more acurate with thier realistic counterparts as per requested by Corsiar Drivers? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, I think that was Kwiatos "requesting" here at ubi and the simhq boards about not finding any best rate of climb speed. Kwiatos claimed that aircraft could get max climb rate at best rate of climb speed all the way down to stall speed. If so, and Oleg _did something_, the carrier planes' takeoff may be hit.

Note that Kwiatos has gone safely into hiding since 3.03. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfotrunatelly in 3.03 planes still climb like helicopter - climbing neat stall speed at high AoA without loosing to much climb rate. Best climb speed dont work like should. I dont make detaliled test but its enough to get any plane and start climbing watching speed and climb rate. Planes even at 160 km/h climb very good. So i dont see any difference here between 3.03 and 3.02. Dont check carriers plane at take off so i dont know if there are some problems with these.
And i dont hide just im tired writing still the same bugs http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=4941001752

TX-EcoDragon
01-01-2005, 05:55 AM
Well, "Requested" or otherwise, the fact is that there was an issue with the climb behavior of aircraft that resulted in incorrectly high climb rates when at speeds that were well below Vy (best rate of climb speed) and there was in fact very little increase in induced drag with high alpha flight. For anyone who hopes to have good relative performance between aircraft in the vertical, or to employ tactics like the climbing spiral these factors are critical. So while I see that the way the reply is phrased does sound as if "whines" in the forums shift the FMs not towards the way it should be, but the way people want it to be, from my perspective this is not the case, if the whines are legitimate, thusly I am thrilled that the issue is being looked at. Despite the unfortunate side effects.

And to those who don't understand how this impacts takeoff performance, understand that before, flight at minimal speed would still afford controllability and fairly good climb capability, even when in effect well behind the power curve. In reality this would not have been the case. The issue was that at low speeds the climb rate was too high, decreasing that, or more aptly, increasing the speed required to climb will adversely affect the ability to get off the deck at the speeds attained within the length of a carrier. This is a tough issue for Oleg and 1C because if they have the perfect FM in the Corsair, and Carriers the proper length, but then required you to takeoff with no wind and with a stationary carrier you would find what we have now. I think that FM tweaks are not the only way to make stationary carrier takeoffs with a loadout easier, I for one thing that FMB controlled wind would solve most of the issues that we have, with no need to massage FMs to make it possible. (assuming of course that carriers couldn't simply be made to move in a df, like they do in coop, perhaps in a box pattern for infinity for those running dedicated servers)

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
01-01-2005, 06:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VBF-83_Hawk:
That is correct Jabo, RoC has nothing to do with GETTING the plane in the air. It is a RESULT when the plane gets into the air. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

rofl.

ok what do you need to get a plain airborne:

lift
lift increases with speed

what do you need to make a plain climb?

lift ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

RxMan
01-01-2005, 06:36 AM
The MAN said the adjusted the rate of climb for different angles and speed. I have no doubt he did so after 'proof' something was wrong. To me I interpret this as increasing drag at high AOA which would be correct. This will make a high AOA takeoff from carrier less likely to succeed. I'm now practicing getting 'all' aircraft adjustments correct for takeoff before releasing chocks, and being careful not to try forcing climb with a high AOA. I Went back and carefully watched some old movie clips of carrier ops and a high AOA does not seem like the way to go. Maybe I (we) just need to try a different sop (standard operating Procedure)to take off than we are used to. It did seem to be too easy with some planes before, and BTW with this change, landing should also have become a little more difficult (which it has IMO). Even with todays planes and catapults, watch the elevators of planes at takeoff, at the moment of release the plane is in an almost level flight mode even though they have the power to force a climb if desired, they go for speed first.
Oleg says they are able to launch with full load and I'll take his word for it, and get back to work on a sop that works.

clint-ruin
01-01-2005, 06:44 AM
Yeah, I was mentioning to people that just from a software development perspective - the carrier take off thing absolutely had to work, and be achievable by most people who would buy the game in most circumstances for the 3.0 release. Not surprising to see a little generosity left in the FM just so that you could roll off the deck at all.

DuxCorvan
01-01-2005, 06:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VBF-83_Hawk:
It is two weeks, he will be out of the office for one week .
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oleg has left the building! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

FI_Macca44
01-01-2005, 07:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CHAV_:

OLEG MADDOX

We willl evaluate with F4 nd for some reports F6F... We can here in office take off from moving carrier with full loadout ....
It seems some users - not.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


So why even the AI can't tke off the F4U quite often??????

|CoB|_Spectre
01-01-2005, 09:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH-BlackSheep:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VBF-83_Hawk:
That is correct Jabo, RoC has nothing to do with GETTING the plane in the air. It is a RESULT when the plane gets into the air. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

rofl.

ok what do you need to get a plain airborne:

lift
lift increases with speed

what do you need to make a plain climb?

lift ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not quite sure what amuses you about Hawk's explanation. Yes, you do need lift to get an plane airborne, but lift does not necessarily increase with speed...it is dependent on angle-of-attack (AoA). It is a fact that an aircraft can be stalled (loses lift) at any airspeed and at any attitude if the critical AoA is exceeded. Doesn't matter if it's rightside up, upside down, nose high or nose low, Vso or Vmax. You forgot another important ingredient in your reply...you need thrust. Without it, where are you going to ge the speed? Hawk is simply pointing out that Rate of Climb is a measurement, not an aerodynamic law that makes an airplane get into the air.

Maple_Tiger
01-01-2005, 09:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bearcat99:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BuzzU:
This is the part that troubles me.

"Changed the climb at different angles and speeds. More greater changes beween low and high speed climb as was "requested"

If Oleg thinks he has it right the first time after all his research and testing. Why does he change it, because he gets requests?


I remember before the P-51 came out it was stated that more information was available for it than any other plane he's modeled in the game. He also had a real P-51 pilot testing it. If this is the case. Why has the FM changed in the patches? How are we to believe the FM's are right now? Which patch will be the right one?

I also don't understand if you want to change the FM on one plane, you have to change them all? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah.... and if you recall the FB 1.0 Mustang was awesome. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Bear lol, we never had the Mustang in 1.0

ZG77_Nagual
01-01-2005, 10:31 AM
As I understand it.
This flight simm uses a global physics model - not 'tables' as in cfs2, janes, etc. etc. There was much outcry that the corsair's climb was overmodeled in certain regimes - as with all the a/c in the simm - by climbing outside of normal flight parameters once could greatly exceed the published rates. Being an ongoing issue Oleg decided to address it. This changed climb behavior across the board for all a/c and, in the case of the corsair - rendered the takeoff behavior more realistic as well. Whether this is now too much the other way is obviously something they are looking at.

To say takeoff and climb performance are completely unrelated is absurd. Once again the developers show us they are listening, and working dilligently to maintain the high quality and integrity of this simm.

Diablo310th
01-01-2005, 10:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
I KNEW something felt different in my Jug! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Same here...couldn't quite put my finger on it but something felt different.

VBF-83_Hawk
01-01-2005, 10:47 AM
I'm not sure if it is new or old news (IN THE GAME) but I may have just noticed that the F4U will not become airborne if you keep it in the three point attitude(WHICH IS REALISTIC AND WHY I NEVER TRIED IT BEFORE) and may be why many are not able to get off the deck of a moving carrier with minimal fuel and ammo load outs. The F4U is already at the stall attitude in the three point position, unlike other fighters) and will remain that way unless you push the nose down a bit or let it fly off the ground on its own. If you try and force it off in the three point attitude by pulling the nose up, it aint gonna work folks.

With the flaps down, when you add full power, the tail should come right up so there is no drag to hinder exceleration. Keep the tail up and at the end of the carrier, apply only a slight nose up attitude and get that gear up.

The wing's angle of attack exceeds the angle at which lift will accure, at ANY SPEED, while sitting on the ground.

In other words, if you maintain aft pressure on the stick while trying to take off on the ground or on the carrier, you are keeping the wings stalled. While flying at any speed, if you yank back on the stick you will cause the wings to exceed the angle of attack to the relative wind and stall....this is called a high speed stall.

I never was good at explaining anything so I hope this helps.

Loki-PF
01-01-2005, 01:12 PM
****Late breaking news****

Whatever changes Oleg and co made to *climb* charecteristics seems much less important than the changes in *acceleration* that were made in 3.03. The worst part is that these changes seem to strangely only affect US radial engine planes. Not inlines and not radial engined axis or soviet planes. Here is the thread with the proof link (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=26310365&m=8211010852)

Mind you well.....I'm not saying that anything is wrong or right about 3.03. But we do have to aknowledge that changes were made to acceleration that affect only US radial engine planes. Granted we havent tested *every* plane in the game yet...

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
01-01-2005, 03:37 PM
maybe oleg is biased, but just compare the FW-190A8/9 with the corsairs.

both have about 2000hp but the corsair is much heavyer, thus the acceleration should be worse.
however the FW's needed some 550m for lift-off (armed and fully equipped without external's), lift off was done at about 180kph.

now the Corair, it has the greater wing and the wing generates more lift so the speed is maybe less, but still you need to accelerate that heavy wight champion.

TX-EcoDragon
01-01-2005, 04:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VBF-83_Hawk:
I'm not sure if it is new or old news (IN THE GAME) but I may have just noticed that the F4U will not become airborne if you keep it in the three point attitude(WHICH IS REALISTIC AND WHY I NEVER TRIED IT BEFORE) and may be why many are not able to get off the deck of a moving carrier with minimal fuel and ammo load outs. The F4U is already at the stall attitude in the three point position, unlike other fighters) and will remain that way unless you push the nose down a bit or let it fly off the ground on its own. If you try and force it off in the three point attitude by pulling the nose up, it aint gonna work folks.

With the flaps down, when you add full power, the tail should come right up so there is no drag to hinder exceleration. Keep the tail up and at the end of the carrier, apply only a slight nose up attitude and get that gear up.

The wing's angle of attack exceeds the angle at which lift will accure, at ANY SPEED, while sitting on the ground.

In other words, if you maintain aft pressure on the stick while trying to take off on the ground or on the carrier, you are keeping the wings stalled. While flying at any speed, if you yank back on the stick you will cause the wings to exceed the angle of attack to the relative wind and stall....this is called a high speed stall.

I never was good at explaining anything so I hope this helps. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep! In many critical takeoffs you want to minimize induced drag and this means not *forcing* the aircraft to do anything for the most part, usually you can actually feel the elevator pressures change though and keeping things in the minimal drag situation is possible. In more powerful aircraft you really feel it in the acceleration when the pitch attitude is best, and just like you said, getting that wing away from lift generation on the roll is a smart idea, adding lift adds drag at a greater rate, so getting the tail up once at 30~40 kmh in the Corsair when it is already light will reduce the overall induced drag. This is true in all cases, it is also true that the 3 pt attitude is usually very near to the critical angle of attack, and not a very friendly place to be getting wheels up! I have done this many a time in the real world, and the aircraft will pretty much not climb at all without a very high power-weight ratio, even in an aircraft with the power to weight ratio of the Edge 540 it's a risky move, with 0 tolerance for errors.

Oh and if you want to see some sluggish acceleration try out a 190 A9!

Edit: I see that we've already gotten to that issue ;-)

Fliger747
01-02-2005, 12:17 AM
Indeed the most noticable change to the F4U is in poor initial acceleration, even when only moderatly or lightly loaded. This may or may not represent an accurate acceleration for this aircraft.

Operation off of a carrier with a realistic 'wind over the deck' (30 knots or more) seems to be within normal parameters.

Perhaps what we need is WIND!

F4U_Flyer
01-02-2005, 12:32 AM
" Indeed the most noticable change to the F4U is in poor initial acceleration, "

You are correct. I did a little comparison between fb,aep,pf 303m and pf 301 standalone.

On the carrier takeoff mission 1 for the f4u1a with 100% fuel , default loadout and with the same takeoff procedure , flaps landing , 110% throttle full , tailweel locked , launch from chocks , the pf 301 speed at the end of the carrier was just at the edge between i30 and 140 km/ph. On the merged 303 i was lucky to get 110 , mostly 100 so there either needs to be a change in the fm for the first 150 in speed if thats possible or a 30 km/ph headwind increase over the carrier. Hopefully this can be modelled for online play also. Guess it is so , not that i didnt already know this!

ps , still havent been able to get up in 303 from the carrier but im still trying , seems to be an interesting challenge so when i finally make it , it will be like clearing the 1st hurdle. Ain't this game a whoot!!

Blackdog5555
01-02-2005, 01:45 AM
Official Navy Stats...tried to paste the data but the data file buts in gif format.

F4U-1 take off with full load of 14,300lbs at 30% Flaps..hard surface.

wind MPH Ground run in feet

0 mph....... 1110 ft
15 mph...... 720 ft
30mph........ 430 ft
45mph........ 260 ft.

Big carriers go 30 mph while the CVEs jeeps go 20mph. The big carrier are from @900-1000ft long and CVEs are 475 feet long. most CVEs that i researched had Compressed air launch. But it seems that the planes should get off the deck well in front of the drop off. and in a good breeze could get off a CVE.. dont know but falling off the deck would be wrong according the the above official Navy Data.

Fliger747
01-02-2005, 02:03 AM
40 knots or so over the deck was considered optimal for most carrier ops of the era. That works out to 46 mph (kph is not used in nautical evaluations....). With a typical 15-18 knot tradewind carrier speed into the wind needed not to be excessive.

Typical first aircraft launch position was abeam the Island, such that a deckload strike could be launched in fairly short order. Aircraft with heavier fuel and ordinance loads were spotted further back in the pack.

Catapults of the era (on carriers) were steam driven. Some on Cruisers and Battleships were driven by an explosive charge.

I have no hard data to back this up, but some 30+ years of flying airplanes suggests that the initial acceleration rate of the F4U MAY be a bit flacid. Just an observation, whatever is most accurate to historical performance is what I would like to see. I am sure they are attempting to head in that direction.

Without sufficent WIND over the deck, carrier ops will always be problematical.

MiszaNC
01-02-2005, 07:13 AM
Thanks for very detail description of the problem. Looks like what we need is just a WIND. Slightly breez of 8-10 mph makes about 40 mph initial "speed" (wind over the deck) on the CV with its own 30 mph. In that case take of distance would be probably less than 400 ft. (according to data by Blackdog5555 for full load F4U-1) which means HALF of the deck or so. In CVE with their 20 mph speed, over deck wind would be some 30 mph which means lighter plane should be able to take off rather easy, comparing what we have now.
So WIND WIND WIND or rather WIND-DEVASTATOR-WIND-KATE-WIND-AVANGER-WIND

rurik
01-02-2005, 08:00 AM
If I can do it with a loaded Dauntless, I should be able to do it with a default loaded Corsair! (which I haven't yet on a CVE) Don't ya' think?

J_Weaver
01-02-2005, 09:38 AM
I'm sure that this has been discussed else where but the problem effects more than just carrier based planes.

Check out my post about it here: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=5081000952

BigKahuna_GS
01-02-2005, 11:02 AM
S!

I think the problem is more than just wind related accross a carrier deck.

If you look at RD's Navy chart on take off's there should be no problem taking off with restricted bomb loads with 25% fuel. As is with most US fighters, the fuel load makes up the bulk of the loaded weight.

I think the thrust has been reduced too much.

__________________________________________________ _____________________
Official Navy Stats...tried to paste the data but the data file buts in gif format.

F4U-1 take off with full load of 14,300lbs at 30% Flaps..hard surface.

wind MPH Ground run in feet

0 mph....... 1110 ft
15 mph...... 720 ft
30mph........ 430 ft
45mph........ 260 ft.

Big carriers go 30 mph while the CVEs jeeps go 20mph. The big carrier are from @900-1000ft long and CVEs are 475 feet long. most CVEs that i researched had Compressed air launch. But it seems that the planes should get off the deck well in front of the drop off. and in a good breeze could get off a CVE.. dont know but falling off the deck would be wrong according the the above official Navy Data.
__________________________________________________ _____________________


_

Fred_77
01-02-2005, 11:36 AM
Getting a loaded Corsair of the deck isn't too much trouble if you can get around 50km/h wind over the deck, you can even get a normally loaded one off of a CVE. The real problem is that it is such a hassle to get the 50km/h wind over the deck in the sim. First, all the carriers can do only 35km/h in the new patch, which works out to around a pathetic 12 knots. At least in 3.0, the carriers would go 56km/h. Second, the only way to get any decent wind is to set weather to either rain or T-storm. Even then, you still can't choose which direction the wind comes from, which becomes a pain in trying to create a scenario. For example, in the Pearl Harbour map, the wind comes out of the south, so you are pretty much forced to have all the carriers steaming that direction for the whole mission.

What is needed to fix the problems is for the carriers to be speeded up to normal speeds, and to give us some more control over the wind, or at least give high winds with weather conditions which aren't rain/T-storm.

S!
Fred.

joeap
01-02-2005, 11:41 AM
Umm the carriers can go at 56 kph...with 3.03, you sure you are not talking about CVEs? I also have a request...how can you tell which direction the wind is coming from??

TX-EcoDragon
01-02-2005, 02:09 PM
I have modified my online df maps that included ground attack from carrier based aircraft to Thunderstorm conditions and placed the carriers on more or less south heading (wind on the pacific maps seems to come from the south). This gives 10-30 kmh wind over the deck and will allow for 25% fuel and any armament I have thus far selected. Using a taxi back to gain more usable takeoff area gives you more leeway. Of course the beauty of the maps is mostly lost with teh murky weather, and the guys on the land bases complain that they have a hard time taxiing :-D

Fred_77
01-02-2005, 03:07 PM
After screwing around with my waypoints I was able to get the carriers back up to speed. Selecting a CVE reducded the speed to 35km/h, and switching back required editing all the way points back. The Saratoga type ships steam a little faster at 63km/h and it was no problem getting a Corsair armed with a 1000lb bomb and two droptanks into the air. Add in the the extra 20-30km/h you get from wind, and it should be really quite easy. I still think that 56km/h seems a little slow for an Essex class carrier.

Determining wind direction is pretty easy. Start off at an aerodrome and just rev the engine up enough to start moving. The plane will weathervane into the wind. The wind direction seems to vary from map to map, so you will have to test it for each one. Would be much nicer if we could get seperate wind controls.

S!
Fred.

ElAurens
01-02-2005, 03:46 PM
OK I posted these in another thread the other day... The specs for the USN Carriers in the game.

Remember, speeds are given in KNOTS.

Casablanca Class:
* Displacement: 10,982 tons (full load)
* Length: 512'3"
* Beam: 65' at water line
* Draft: 22'4"
* Speed: 19 knots
* Armament 1 5"/38 DP, 8x2 40mm, 20 20mm, 28 planes
* Complement: 860
* Skinner Unaflow reciprocating engines, twin screws, 11,200 h.p.
* Max cruising radius: 10,200 miles @ 15 knots; 7,200 miles @ 19 knots

Essex Class, Short-Hull Group:
* Displacement: 27,100 tons
* Length: 874'
* Beam: 93' at water line
* Draft: 28'
* Speed 33 knots
* Armament: 12 5"/38, 10-18x4 40mm, 56-62 20mm, 103 planes
* Complement: 3448
* Geared turbines with four screws, 150,000 hp
* Max cruising radius: 10,700 miles at 25 knots; 16,900 miles @ 15 knots

Lexington Class:
* Displacement: 33,000 tons
* Length: 910'
* Beam: 105'
* Draft: 35'"
* Speed 34 knots
* Armament: 12 5"/38 DP, 2x2 40mm, 23x4 40mm, 16 20mm, 86 planes
* Complement: 3373
* Turbines with electric motor, 4 screws, 180,000 hp
* Max cruising radius: 4,600 miles @ 25 knots; 9,500 miles at 15 knots
* Converted from Battle Cruisers while building

ElAurens
01-02-2005, 03:55 PM
For our friends who deal with the metric system here are the speeds of US carriers in KPH.

1 Knot = 1.85 KPH

CVE 19knots = 35.15kph

Essex Class 33knots = 61.05kph

Lexington Class 34knots = 62.9kph

jrowland96
01-02-2005, 04:25 PM
well, I'm pretty new to the sim (played orig. IL2 a lot a couple years back). I was just doing the carrier takeoff single missions, and I couldn't get airborne with the Corsair (even the F4F was hard and stuck it in the water a few times). Wasn't like this before the patch. This is just with the default loadouts. hmmmm... kind of takes the fun out of the game if you can't take off.

e5kimo
01-02-2005, 04:42 PM
seems like 2 weeks is their development cycle.
when at the end of the cycle the result is something they dont feel comfortable releasing due to issues, irregularities and problems that may have arisen while changing parts on a complex piece of software then i am well happy to wait another 2 weeks for a better attempt.

if anything they should just not talk about patch dates and content and rather explain changes more in depth in the read me, maybe even quickly reason them.

_54th_Target
01-02-2005, 08:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If you look at RD's Navy chart on take off's there should be no problem taking off with restricted bomb loads with 25% fuel. As is with most US fighters, the fuel load makes up the bulk of the loaded weight.

I think the thrust has been reduced too much. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree.

Its isnt just getting the Corsair off a carrier deck that is a problem. Today, I was outrun by a P39 in level flight. This is with 100% prop pitch, 110% throttle and radiator shut. Then he went into a climb and just walked away from me. Huhn??

Unfortunately Zero's seem to walk away from the 'sair too, in level flight. The only way to catch them seems to be to come down on them from altitude. As far as diving away from a zero? forget it. It takes so long to build airspeed in a dive that it seems the the zero will gain on you.

C'mon, this is a Corsair with a 2000 HP engine. It is also much heavier than the zero, if you point the nose down it should run away from the zero. Wildcats were doing that in real life from the beginning of the Pacific Theater.

_54th_Target

jrowland96
01-02-2005, 10:37 PM
well, if the p-39 is so fast, that must be why we gave them to the soviets! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif From everything I've read the P-39 was UNDERpowered, hence the lend-lease giveaway...

Aaron_GT
01-03-2005, 04:48 AM
Target: at what altitude were you? Those who have been doing speed tests on the Corsair on the Crimea map seem to be getting figures that are around +/- 10km/h of the correct values.

Were the P39s and Zeros AI or human? Also were they coalt with you for long enough to negate any possible higher energy state before being level with you? It's possible to set up a DF (Crimea map) and test relative level performance against those 3 planes relatively easily.

It might be that the level speed of the Corsair is fine, but is overmodelled for the others.

ElAurens
01-03-2005, 05:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by _54th_Target:
it should run away from the zero. Wildcats were doing that in real life from the beginning of the Pacific Theater.

_54th_Target <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

remember that the dive speeds, and/or accelaration for the Zeke and Wildcat are still not correct in game. The Wildcat breaks up way too soon, and the Zeke's dive acceleration is so good that it can catch an F4F long before it (the Zeke) reaches it's VnE.

And do be careful about making performance comparisons based on experience in dogfights. You have almost no way to know the true energy state of your opponenet, or his skill level. Remember that some real Naval Aviators, after the battle of Midway estimated the top speed of the Zeke to be in the neighborhood of 500mph.

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