PDA

View Full Version : CORSAIR problems since patch



HOTMUD
01-03-2005, 12:20 PM
hello all, i have made a few missions of which i usually play single player,just for my own fun.i had a flight of corsairs,start on deck,of a carrier traveling at 30.everything was fine when i made the mission,never had a problem.i would take off,and my wingmates would take off as well with me.NOW, since the patch,my corsair WILL NOT TAKE OFF FROM THE CARRIER.same mission,same EVERYTHING,just since i patched it,corsair dosnt get up to speed.i have tried all combinations of prop pitch,flaps,throttle settings,it will NOT achieve speed.it simply fights very hard,but will splash down.i have done much experimenting with trying to get airborn,but to no avail.i believe SOMETHING in the patch has changed the stats for the corsair that im using.BEFORE the patch,i had played my mission over 40 times and NEVER had a problem with take offs.i went into the editor,changed planes,and they take off FINE.WHAT THE HECK HAPPEND IN THE PATCH??and why didnt i get a read me file to tell me the changes? any help would be appreciated.

HOTMUD
01-03-2005, 12:20 PM
hello all, i have made a few missions of which i usually play single player,just for my own fun.i had a flight of corsairs,start on deck,of a carrier traveling at 30.everything was fine when i made the mission,never had a problem.i would take off,and my wingmates would take off as well with me.NOW, since the patch,my corsair WILL NOT TAKE OFF FROM THE CARRIER.same mission,same EVERYTHING,just since i patched it,corsair dosnt get up to speed.i have tried all combinations of prop pitch,flaps,throttle settings,it will NOT achieve speed.it simply fights very hard,but will splash down.i have done much experimenting with trying to get airborn,but to no avail.i believe SOMETHING in the patch has changed the stats for the corsair that im using.BEFORE the patch,i had played my mission over 40 times and NEVER had a problem with take offs.i went into the editor,changed planes,and they take off FINE.WHAT THE HECK HAPPEND IN THE PATCH??and why didnt i get a read me file to tell me the changes? any help would be appreciated.

Maple_Tiger
01-03-2005, 12:24 PM
Somes planes ecceleration have been reduced. You'l need to increase the speed of the carrier and mayby even use only 50% fuel.

HOTMUD
01-03-2005, 12:35 PM
thanks for such a speedy post,but..why in the heck was it SUCH A DRAMATIC change?and did a real corsair pilot have to sacrifice half of his FUEL to get airborn?? i doubt it.i didnt say that my corsair was using the default loadout too.no rockets or bombs.If the developers changed the spped THIS DRAMATICLY,then how did they miss it before release?? im getting VERY frustrated with this series..

Supr
01-03-2005, 12:38 PM
yes. after your whole 2 weeks here, you should know how frustrating it can be.

DRB_Hookech0
01-03-2005, 01:01 PM
Supr, it can be done.

A few things to keep in mind. IL2 as a series has no wind inherant to the game. Yes in RL a carrier would turn into the wind and go as fast as needed (up to maximum speed) to get the wind over the deck within limits. Being as we have no wind in the game, the carrier needs to be doing max speed. You can find the max speed by placing the carrier and setting a way point, then where it says Speed (Kph) put in 100 and it will default to the maximum speed for that class of carrier. I fly US corsairs so my squad uses the Essex class, which is 56kph or about 36 knots. At this speed you can get a fully fueled F4U-1D off the deck clean from the stock spawn point (1st row of parked planes). I have been able to gat a 100% fuel/3 500lb bomb load off an Essex....it's hairy but it works.

Remember that this game engine was designed for air to mud work on the eastern front, not carrier ops. We have to live within the limitations of the game engine. Sucks but thats the way it is.

Remember also that all the ships in your task force may not be able to keep up with a max speed carrier, so adjust your taskforce speedand layout for it, and set waypoints to take the speed into account for launching and recovering planes.

Gbsnplr1
01-03-2005, 01:08 PM
DRB that is great advice however as a noob here how do I do what you were talking about? Also I can't seem to get the F4u to launch. Seems the brakes are stuck on and the only way I can get rolling is turning the auto pilot on and off. Any ideas on this one?

Thanks

HOTMUD
01-03-2005, 01:08 PM
hmmmm real good point,mabye im using the wrong carrier,i will check that out..its possible.but id did have no problem before the patch..

HOTMUD
01-03-2005, 01:09 PM
yes..you need to "release wheel chocks" on all the carrier planes that START on deck

LilHorse
01-03-2005, 01:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Remember that this game engine was designed for air to mud work on the eastern front, not carrier ops. We have to live within the limitations of the game engine. Sucks but thats the way it is.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"...designed for air to mud work..."?

Just cuz the game is titled IL2 Sturmovik doesn't mean it "was designed for air to mud work". That's crazy. It has always excelled at both A2A and A2G. While it's true that it wasn't designed originally with carrier ops in mind you can bet your bippy that it does it better than anything that's ever come out.

DRB_Hookech0
01-03-2005, 01:36 PM
wasnt trying to take away from the orignal game. I have enjoyed the heck out of it since 2001. But it was designed as a low to medium altitude game. You have to admit that. Yes the A2A is very good, heck I think it has surpassed its expectations.

But we are seeing the limitations for the engine when it comes to carrier ops and the tactical environment of the South Pacific.

Bearcat99
01-03-2005, 01:52 PM
This issue will be addressed in the upcoming patch.

DRB_Hookech0
01-03-2005, 01:58 PM
no worries Bear..........

All I want in the "Big patch" are the maps of the Eastern Solomans....everything else to me is gravy...ummm gravy

LilHorse
01-03-2005, 03:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DRB_Hookech0:
wasnt trying to take away from the orignal game. I have enjoyed the heck out of it since 2001. But it was designed as a low to medium altitude game. You have to admit that. Yes the A2A is very good, heck I think it has surpassed its expectations.

But we are seeing the limitations for the engine when it comes to carrier ops and the tactical environment of the South Pacific. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, okay. Understood.

jrowland96
01-03-2005, 04:18 PM
I understand what everyone has said on this subject, but the apologists that say "shut up, and don't piss off Oleg" are missing the point. Sure, the engine was originally designed as low altitude AA/AG sim, but to say this wasn't designed for carrier ops is BS. It's PACIFIC FIGHTERS, and THEY put the carriers in. It's not like it was some user-made mod. They royally screwed up with the 3.03 patch, and they NEED to fix this SOON. If you're not designing your own mission and picking the carrier or it's speed, you can't take off. This is flat out broken! Didn't they user test this before releasing it?

I'm not some conspiracy theorist or anything, but it seems as though IC likes to make it seem like the Russian planes are far superior, and the US planes and the Luftwaffe planes suck, when every veteran I've ever heard, and every book I've ever read said the opposite. Why any Russian plane should be in the top 10 in performance is beyond me. The P-39 was UNDER-powered, and we GAVE to them because it was the worst plane we made and the military didn't want it.

Another thread said that the new "fixes" on the corsair now make it slower in level flight than the P-39??? PLEEEEEASE....

HOTMUD
01-03-2005, 06:28 PM
thats right....corsair is nuetered.im glad to read that someone else FEELS EXACTLY THE WAY I DO,thanks!the patch screwed me royally.if i didnt MERGE my install i would reintall the whole **** thing.the carriers are a pretty big letdown for me.we all got spoiled when IL-2 gave us SOO much,and every title and expansion thus far has givin soo little in terms of NEW gameplay.And i agree about how you feel towards the russian planes.i have MANY books with accounts,and statistics.the american planes,that were produced DURING the war,WERE,undeniably the best planes of the war.of course from the 30's,SOME of the prewar planes were obsolete.LIKE LOCK-ON,the american aircraft are VERY POORLY REPRESENTED.the russian aircraft are really overblown in game although a few DID preform comparably to the 109. i have read accounts from russian flyers,that because they could not shoot down the germans,they went so far as to ARMOR thier propellors so they could do maximum damage when ramming the enemy.

lbhskier37
01-03-2005, 06:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HOTMUD:
thats right....corsair is nuetered.im glad to read that someone else FEELS EXACTLY THE WAY I DO,thanks!the patch screwed me royally.if i didnt MERGE my install i would reintall the whole **** thing.the carriers are a pretty big letdown for me.we all got spoiled when IL-2 gave us SOO much,and every title and expansion thus far has givin soo little in terms of NEW gameplay.And i agree about how you feel towards the russian planes.i have MANY books with accounts,and statistics.the american planes,that were produced DURING the war,WERE,undeniably the best planes of the war.of course from the 30's,SOME of the prewar planes were obsolete.LIKE LOCK-ON,the american aircraft are VERY POORLY REPRESENTED.the russian aircraft are really overblown in game although a few DID preform comparably to the 109. i have read accounts from russian flyers,that because they could not shoot down the germans,they went so far as to ARMOR thier propellors so they could do maximum damage when ramming the enemy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hmmm, American books say that American planes were the greatest. Do you think there are a lot of books in the Ford museum that talk about how Chevrolet were the best? Lol

e5kimo
01-03-2005, 07:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HOTMUD:
snip... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
what new gameplay do you want ? ? ? foot soldiers and driveable tanks ? play bf1942.

i m not a regular to these forums , i do read them a fair bit now and again though.
you managed to annoy the **** out of me with your whines and whinges and it only took you what ? 2 days!! way to go. the corsair still takes off fine for me. maybe not with every possible bit of bomb and rocket strapped on but a reasonable load out works for me.

sapre
01-03-2005, 08:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jrowland96:
I understand what everyone has said on this subject, but the apologists that say "shut up, and don't piss off Oleg" are missing the point. Sure, the engine was originally designed as low altitude AA/AG sim, but to say this wasn't designed for carrier ops is BS. It's PACIFIC FIGHTERS, and THEY put the carriers in. It's not like it was some user-made mod. They royally screwed up with the 3.03 patch, and they NEED to fix this SOON. If you're not designing your own mission and picking the carrier or it's speed, you can't take off. This is flat out broken! Didn't they user test this before releasing it?

I'm not some conspiracy theorist or anything, but it seems as though IC likes to make it seem like the Russian planes are far superior, and the US planes and the Luftwaffe planes suck, when every veteran I've ever heard, and every book I've ever read said the opposite. Why any Russian plane should be in the top 10 in performance is beyond me. The P-39 was UNDER-powered, and we GAVE to them because it was the worst plane we made and the military didn't want it.

Another thread said that the new "fixes" on the corsair now make it slower in level flight than the P-39??? PLEEEEEASE.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah Yeah Yeah.
Show some real test data to prove that.
Not your personal feeling and bias toward russians.

Edit:
Sorry for the rude opening, but it really pisses me off when I see these "I know everything" type of person.

jrowland96
01-03-2005, 09:25 PM
I wasn't being a "know everything" at all, and I'm sorry you took it that way, because that's not what I intended. I wasn't saying anything bad about "russians", and if you think that, then I'm inclined to think it's more of a miscommunication/language barrier issue. I didn't make any personal attacks, just pointing out something in the GAME isn't working right... Not like I said your children are ugly! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif No hard feelings...

I'm not the first person on here to say taking off from a carrier is nearly impossible with a Corsair. Try a single mission from the trining missions, and it doesn't work anymore (then again, I can't specify my carrier or flank speed).

I'm not attacking anyone or anything... Geez, is everyon on here so friggin sensitive???

heywooood
01-03-2005, 09:34 PM
well - for my 2 cents worth - Just because certain loadout options are available for a given plane, that does not mean that that plane will perform in all flight regimes with those loadouts....sometimes those loads (for the Corsair for example) were intended for land-base operations only.
The Marines used alot more of that incendiary stuff than the Navy did for obvious reasons.
So - just because you can hang it under the wing does not mean you can launch off a carrier deck..moving or stationary.

ElAurens
01-03-2005, 10:15 PM
jowrland and hotmud,

I suggest you get copies of the F4U and F6F Pilot's Operating Manuals (for the real aircraft) and do a little studying. Then do a google on the speeds and sizes of US carriers.

Even if the carrier is doing maximum speed, into the wind, there is no way that a Corsair with an absolute max loadout is going to get off the deck without a catapult.

This is an interesting phenomonon called realism.

However, if you find that you don't like this level of realism, you can toddle back to one of the MS arcade shoot 'em ups.

jrowland96
01-03-2005, 10:17 PM
this is with the default loadout, no bombs, 100% fuel (I wouldn't think you'd have many carrier ops taking off with 25 or 50% fuel, cuz I sure as hell wouldn't want to run out of gas over the ocean! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )

If someone here that claims the Corsair is fine, and you can take off with it, then try carrier takeoff missions 1 and 2 that came with the game in the F4U. I'm not saying you can't, but I sure as hell can't... IF you can do it, send me the track, I'd love to see it

Bearcat99
01-03-2005, 10:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by heywooood:
well - for my 2 cents worth - Just because certain loadout options are available for a given plane, that does not mean that that plane will perform in all flight regimes with those loadouts....sometimes those loads (for the Corsair for example) were intended for land-base operations only.
The Marines used alot more of that incendiary stuff than the Navy did for obvious reasons.
So - just because you can hang it under the wing does not mean you can launch off a carrier deck..moving or stationary. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif the voice of reason.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

ElAurens
01-03-2005, 10:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
If someone here that claims the Corsair is fine, and you can take off with it, then try carrier takeoff missions 1 and 2 that came with the game in the F4U. I'm not saying you can't, but I sure as hell can't... IF you can do it, send me the track, I'd love to see it <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read my post about that realism thing again.

F4Us did not operate from Casablanca class CVEs in real life. (These were the smallest carriers in service with the USN in WW2). Only very late in the war did F4Us begin to operate from a longer class of CVEs and CVLs. The in game mission is historically incorrect.

As far as the Corsair's performance in game, it's 3.03m performance more accurately reflects it's real world abilities than the "uber" FM it had in previous versions.

Operate your Corsair from an Essex or Lexington class CV, choose your loadouts appropriately and there is no problem with the F4U.

Corsairs have no buisness on a CVE. Period.

DRB_Hookech0
01-03-2005, 11:10 PM
Well as I said, I had to max the carrier out to get a load off the deck. Now, I'd bet that the training missions for the f4u was made with the 3.00 FM inplace. This is understandable because thats what the mission builder had to work with.

When we started with this game 2 or so months ago, my squadron used static carriers for practice. We used these stationary carriers for both take off with loads and for landing practice and training. As the FM changed, we also had to change our training. Using COOP missions for carrier practice etc.

When the 303 patch came out and I read all these threads on the take off, I sat down for a few hours and worked on it. I have 2 flight manuals for the F4u along with various charts and books. I even turned to a book that is light on documented fact but was told from the side of experence for some help. After taking notes and setting up my knee board with key stats and stuff, I started testing. I went swimming more than I'd like to admit but I did get off the deck with a full fuel load and 1500 lbs of ordenace. One thing I did notice when flying the -D was that it seems to be modeled correctly in that it is minus the 2-62 gal. wing tanks. According to my reading, these were removed once they added the ablility to mount the Lockeed style 170 gal. tanks on the inboard wing mounts. Hence, even if you select 100% fuel loads, the gas gage in the only reads 75%. I may be off on this theory, as the wing tanks had no gages on them and the 50 gal. stand pipe reserve tank is also not gaged, somewhere that 25% is missing on the gage. I figured they didnt replace the gage in the cockpit when they di dthe modifications to the tanks. Again I may be off on this, but this shows you how much info is out there.

jrowland96
01-03-2005, 11:15 PM
ElAuren,

Thanks for the info... Why didn't someone say earlier that the carrier was the wrong type, the mission they made was incorrect, and it would have saved a lot of hassle. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I appreciate the info... Thanks!

Fliger747
01-04-2005, 06:38 AM
The biggest problem, and I don't know if it is fixable with the sim engine, is lack of wind over the deck. Indeed taking off from the CVE with in the current game, even a lightly loaded F4U is only a once in a while proposition without much more wind over the deck. Even if not the proper aircraft/carrier combination you should be able to get airborne 'dead az' empty with some wind.

The planes indeed should be modeled correctly, but do need (about 40 knots) wind over the deck for realistic carrier ops.

joeap
01-04-2005, 07:05 AM
No problems with realistic loadouts on the Hawgs for the US CVs and let me repeat for the 100th time no Corsairs were used on the class of CVEs we have in the game.(Just to beat the poor ol' dead horse) I did have problems with the RN carrier, even with the Seafire (esp. if it is over-loaded) so I want to know if anyone has info on what types of loadouts were used by the FAA? Anyone? Takes practice though.

ICDP
01-04-2005, 09:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DRB_Hookech0:
Well as I said, I had to max the carrier out to get a load off the deck. Now, I'd bet that the training missions for the f4u was made with the 3.00 FM inplace. This is understandable because thats what the mission builder had to work with.

When we started with this game 2 or so months ago, my squadron used static carriers for practice. We used these stationary carriers for both take off with loads and for landing practice and training. As the FM changed, we also had to change our training. Using COOP missions for carrier practice etc.

When the 303 patch came out and I read all these threads on the take off, I sat down for a few hours and worked on it. I have 2 flight manuals for the F4u along with various charts and books. I even turned to a book that is light on documented fact but was told from the side of experence for some help. After taking notes and setting up my knee board with key stats and stuff, I started testing. I went swimming more than I'd like to admit but I did get off the deck with a full fuel load and 1500 lbs of ordenace. One thing I did notice when flying the -D was that it seems to be modeled correctly in that it is minus the 2-62 gal. wing tanks. According to my reading, these were removed once they added the ablility to mount the Lockeed style 170 gal. tanks on the inboard wing mounts. Hence, even if you select 100% fuel loads, the gas gage in the only reads 75%. I may be off on this theory, as the wing tanks had no gages on them and the 50 gal. stand pipe reserve tank is also not gaged, somewhere that 25% is missing on the gage. I figured they didnt replace the gage in the cockpit when they di dthe modifications to the tanks. Again I may be off on this, but this shows you how much info is out there. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Didn't know that about the D fuel loads, that might explain the 75% fuel thing. I reported this as a bug but it might be realisitic. I can get of the RN carreir at full speed with Corsair MkIV and 2x1000lbs bombs, this matches up with the data I have on F4U1-D take-off distances perfectly.