PDA

View Full Version : What happen to the P38 in 408?



High-Flyer
02-11-2007, 06:58 PM
was just getting to love the 38.. I install 408 patch last night start flying and it buffets,,bucks.. kicks.. shudders.. fights you on even moderate turns,.,wants to flip stall.. also lost some HP.. took a while to get to 2000 meters versus 4071.. why does oleg do this to planes that are at least in the ballpark for being right

VW-IceFire
02-11-2007, 07:02 PM
There's dozens of other people who are saying its exactly the same as 4.071. Placebo? Bad day? Battle damage?

High-Flyer
02-11-2007, 07:05 PM
naw.ive been flying it now for like 2 months in WC.. I know what I can do and what it does very well.. I installed 408 last night after a few days off. (which I take here and there and before this never produced rusty results) man what a noticable difference.. its a shame.. back to teh 47 I guess .. why does oleg go back and forth on his FM.. 3 steps forward.. 5 steps back

crazyivan1970
02-11-2007, 07:08 PM
There are people who flew P-38 since it was released. They are happy and didnt notice change between 4071 to 408. Something they were afraid of. So, i`ll take their word for it.

High-Flyer
02-11-2007, 07:09 PM
dude.. Cuda I read,,, said the same thing.. also.. in hyperlobby,, people are complaining as well.. so please, I know you have to protect your interest here,.,. but something happen,, why would I dream this up

PFflyer
02-11-2007, 07:19 PM
It is funny to see gamers talking about when a WWII warbirds flight model is wrong or right. Get someone to try out your favorite plane who has time in the seat of the real thing, or at least time in some WWII aircraft, and see what they say about it.

The gamers here judge their planes flight model on how easy it is for them to fly and how fast it is compared to the other craft. IF they can out-turn their opponents and out run them or run them down they say the flight model is right on, if they cannot, then they piss and moan about how it is not REalistic, what a laugh.

Most whining this way are not real pilots, and don't have a friend who is a real pilot, they are gamers and the only thing they fly is their fat a sses to the refrigerator and back to the chair in front of their monitor.

What really makes you silly, is all the guys in 1944-45 planes I have shot down online while flying a 1939-1941 plane.

Yea, it is all because of their planes flight model for sure...........

High-Flyer
02-11-2007, 07:21 PM
thanks for calling me "silly" .. now I know why I post on simhq

tigertalon
02-11-2007, 07:22 PM
There were times when fish were jumping out of water and into your hands all by themselves!! Nothing changed I see. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BSS_CUDA
02-11-2007, 07:26 PM
flyer you cant win, so don't bother. you point out your observation and they call you names. thats why you don't post UBI for serious discussion, its either simhq or Cwos

High-Flyer
02-11-2007, 07:31 PM
yeha.. I figured I may as well post this.. been a lurker here for years.. the change kinda sparked me and I signed up and wanted to post the observation and see if there was some info I missed on changes.. what is CWOS.. ill have to check that out

papotex
02-11-2007, 07:32 PM
my favourite rides were perfect in 4.71

they should had left the FMs intact.

BSS_CUDA
02-11-2007, 07:34 PM
http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=index

there is a forum dedicated to the 38, several of us have done TONS of testing comparing the 38 ingame to the 38 RL. some very good discussion with little or no trolling. its moderated very tight to prevent it.

GR142-Pipper
02-11-2007, 09:39 PM
Originally posted by PFflyer:
It is funny to see gamers talking about when a WWII warbirds flight model is wrong or right. Get someone to try out your favorite plane who has time in the seat of the real thing, or at least time in some WWII aircraft, and see what they say about it.

The gamers here judge their planes flight model on how easy it is for them to fly and how fast it is compared to the other craft. IF they can out-turn their opponents and out run them or run them down they say the flight model is right on, if they cannot, then they piss and moan about how it is not REalistic, what a laugh.

Most whining this way are not real pilots, and don't have a friend who is a real pilot, they are gamers and the only thing they fly is their fat a sses to the refrigerator and back to the chair in front of their monitor.

What really makes you silly, is all the guys in 1944-45 planes I have shot down online while flying a 1939-1941 plane.

Yea, it is all because of their planes flight model for sure........... Yes, there are certainly those who fit the bill as you describe. However, there are many who can certainly tell when a plane doesn't live up to its well-documented heritage. If you take the P-38 as a specific example, the compressability issue that the in-game plane suffers from didn't exist in its real life counterpart (i.e. in real life the P-38 didn't exhibit compressability below 20k').

Friendly comment...you might not want to paint everyone with the same brush.

GR142-Pipper

joeap
02-12-2007, 03:30 AM
Originally posted by papotex:
my favourite rides were perfect in 4.71

they should had left the FMs intact.

The FMs were intact...I knew this would happen. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Anyway...look at joystick settings sounds like your profile got changed.

JG52Karaya-X
02-12-2007, 03:35 AM
Didnt notice any changes on the piston engined fighters in 408, only the jets have changed a bit compared to 4071m, the Ta183 accelerates slower now, Me262HG-II is a crazy speed demon, Mig9 still rules.

crazyivan1970
02-12-2007, 05:00 AM
CUDA, spill it out then, what has changed between 4.071 and 4.08?

BH-21
02-12-2007, 06:41 AM
It doesn't matter what version of the game you are playing, the P-38 in this sim is a shambles of sim programing. Gibbage made a beautiful model, but after that it is total junk. The supercharger are not modelled, flight model is joke ( based on an early experimental version evidently). The versions of the P-38s in the game should have a best speed above 7000m of near or over 600 kph and a ceiling of near 13,000m depending on version. In this game they run like dogs before you get to 3000m. The roll rate is to low, it looses to much speed in a turn. Later versions are missing their fowler flaps. When the plane spawns in an airstart at any altitude it is at or below stall speed. Then there is the damage model which is like tissue paper. Until a major overhaul, this plane in the game is best avoided.

crazyivan1970
02-12-2007, 06:46 AM
Those are all words BH-21, i need facts.

WWSensei
02-12-2007, 06:59 AM
I have a program I wrote using my DL wrapper. Essentially it is a "black box recorder" to measure output from devicelink. I recorded a track of the P-38J and P-38L taking off, climbing, various maneuvers, including some that brought me to the edge of the envelope.

If I play the track and run the recorder in 4.0.7.1m and 4.0.8 the numbers end up being identical (with the exception of when I stalled out, which I wouldn't expect it to be exactly the same). I could find no discernible difference.

The problem may be something else to look for. For example, in many cases patches have been known to reset joystick settings or in rare cases not actually replace key files. You might be experiencing one of these issues.

JG52Karaya-X
02-12-2007, 07:27 AM
Originally posted by BH-21:
It doesn't matter what version of the game you are playing, the P-38 in this sim is a shambles of sim programing. Gibbage made a beautiful model, but after that it is total junk. The supercharger are not modelled, flight model is joke ( based on an early experimental version evidently). The versions of the P-38s in the game should have a best speed above 7000m of near or over 600 kph and a ceiling of near 13,000m depending on version. In this game they run like dogs before you get to 3000m. The roll rate is to low, it looses to much speed in a turn. Later versions are missing their fowler flaps. When the plane spawns in an airstart at any altitude it is at or below stall speed. Then there is the damage model which is like tissue paper. Until a major overhaul, this plane in the game is best avoided.

1)Why do you think the superchargers are not modelled?

2)All 3 P38s reach speeds well beyond 600km/h at 7000m and above. The P38J reaches ~680km/h TAS at 8000m, the P38L ~660km/h TAS at the same altitude, the P38L_Late ~ 690km/h TAS at 7,5k. So where is the FM joke here? Do you even know the difference between IAS and TAS, ingame the speedbar and cockpit gauges only show IAS, and the higher you go the bigger the difference between indicated and true airspeed gets.

3) Dont know about the total ceiling but you can get them to 10.000m at least.

4) About the rollrates, the P38J didnt have any hydraulically boosted ailerons so its rollrate would drastically decrease as speed went up. The Ls both have hydraulically boosted ailerons and at speed are among the fastest rolling fighters ingame.

5) Dont know about the speed loss but the P38 is a big aircraft --> big frontal area --> lots of drag.


When the plane spawns in an airstart at any altitude it is at or below stall speed.

What kind of whine is that? Every plane that spawns in the air starts at a very low speed so whats your point?

6) Apart from the elevator section the P38 is a very rugged aircraft but of course also a rather big target so the probability of getting hit in one is quite higher than in a small and compact fighter such as a Zeke or Yak or whatever. Anyway I guess you wont stop until the P38 receives the old Kingcobra DM http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

AKA_TAGERT
02-12-2007, 07:41 AM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
There are people who flew P-38 since it was released. They are happy and didnt notice change between 4071 to 408. Something they were afraid of. So, i`ll take their word for it. Just to be clear Ivan

Saying you don't notice any change is no more valid than saying you did notice a change!

In that some folks maybe more sensitive to change than others.

The point is no one has provided any proof of a change good or bad! The fact is humans make terrible measuring devices! Thus without a track file to support a statement, the statement is nothing but an opinion. For example, any cop will tell you when he interviews ten people that have witnessed a crime he typically gets 10 different stories of what happened.

As for what is going on, it would be interesting to know if the people who are having this problem did a clean install vs. just inserting the new 4.08 files. Reason I ask is in the past I noticed once that I had to do a windows recalibration of my joystick before IL2 started acting normal again. Just a thought! That and a clean install would have wiped out their old 'config.ini' file with thier joystick settings. Hopefully they saved a copy of thier 'config.ini' file at some point! than they could simply cut-n-paste thier old settings into thier new 'config.ini'

AKA_TAGERT
02-12-2007, 07:46 AM
Originally posted by WWSensei:
I have a program I wrote using my DL wrapper. Essentially it is a "black box recorder" to measure output from devicelink. I recorded a track of the P-38J and P-38L taking off, climbing, various maneuvers, including some that brought me to the edge of the envelope.

If I play the track and run the recorder in 4.0.7.1m and 4.0.8 the numbers end up being identical (with the exception of when I stalled out, which I wouldn't expect it to be exactly the same). I could find no discernible difference.

The problem may be something else to look for. For example, in many cases patches have been known to reset joystick settings or in rare cases not actually replace key files. You might be experiencing one of these issues. Hey WWSensei!

I wrote a DeviceLink recorder too..

Mind sharing your track files with us to get a independed verfication of your work?

In that if that does not convice people, nothing will!

crazyivan1970
02-12-2007, 07:46 AM
Fair enough TAG.

Widowmaker214
02-12-2007, 11:07 AM
Cuda, Flyer, I agree.
I didnt even expect an FM change. I assumed they would leave the P-38 finally alone. SO I went out to fly it not even THINKING about the FM being altered...and then began to wonder what was up with my bird.
In subsequent flights it was loosing energy faster and turning much more doggedly.
Now Mr. Ivan, I know you want facts, but considering we are flying a simulation, how just exactly are we to GIVE You facts. That in itself is a pretty impossible feat.
There is no way to perfectly fly the same exact way twice and there for provide "factual" data.
We are not talking about top speed at a given altitude. Nor ground speed acceleration. We are talking about physics and effects on the airframe. A bit more difficult to factually inform. Impossible really. There will always be minor variances in trying to reproduce a flight path.
Whatever is stated, it is going to be an opinion.
And it appears that a good NUMBER of people are of the opinion that they humped the P38 again.
Its amazing as to how many people WERE happy with it in 407 that they messed with it.
Where were the kiddies then bashing people for saying it was so much better.? Now the opinion goes against oleg and the little boys with thier sticks pop out of the wood work to bash you.

COuld I be wrong, sure. But for these "people" and I use that term lightly, to harrass the others making observations... It gets tiring and juvenile to listen to them. I myself have been belittled for making observations. These children need to grow up.
We are making observations from what WE are seeing.
For someone to call that silly, is in fact assinine.

There ARE no facts, only what we see..
and I and others.. are seeing quite a difference in the aircraft.

She still seems, in my OPINION, to be carrying a good deal of smash in a dive. However.. in my OPINION When turning, she is now bleeding off energy quicker and the turn rate seems to be far less.

Oh and while we are on it, if some of the children want to bash this...
It was crazy to change the prop on the N1K2.
I dont know why, the animation of that prop was superb.

BSS_CUDA
02-12-2007, 12:48 PM
well I've flew it for a few hours yesterday. didnt do any specific testing just trying to get a feel for what was different in a combat situation. it <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">"FEELS"</span> like i'm flying at 100% fuel. I get serious buffeting in any turn or climb when my speed gets below 200MPH, I used to only get that at speeds below 120 in a hard turn with 25% fuel. I'm going to need to do a compare between 4.07 and 4.08 to see for sure.

AKA_TAGERT
02-12-2007, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by Widowmaker214:
In subsequent flights it was loosing energy faster and turning much more doggedly.
Ill come back to that statement in just a moment.. but first


Originally posted by Widowmaker214:
Now Mr. Ivan, I know you want facts, but considering we are flying a simulation, how just exactly are we to GIVE You facts. That in itself is a pretty impossible feat.
Not really


Originally posted by Widowmaker214:
There is no way to perfectly fly the same exact way twice and there for provide "factual" data.
If so than how did you come to your conclusion that something changed? Where you said you are loosing energy faster and turning more doggedly?

As for turning doggedly, I wont even bother to try an guess at what that means! In that I have no idea what the ˜units' of doggedly are measured in!

So let just focus on your determination of energy loss.

First things first.. How did you measure energy? Are you referring to potential energy (altitude) or kinetic energy (speed) or both?

Next tell us what values you obtained in 4.07 and what values you obtained in 4.08 and what the delta is. Are we talking about a 1%, 10%, 20% or more difference in energy?

Next tell us the test method you used during these flights? So others can attempt the test to see if it is repeatable, and if repeatable how much variation in the energy values there are due to different pilots. You know, per the scientific method!

Next provide us with the track files of your tests so others can check your results to insure there was no error in processing the data, again per the scientific method.

Or is this the part where you tell us you have not done any tests and your basing all this off of a few DF sorties where there are more variables at play than can be accounted for?


Originally posted by Widowmaker214:
We are not talking about top speed at a given altitude. Nor ground speed acceleration. We are talking about physics and effects on the airframe. A bit more difficult to factually inform. Impossible really.
Again, if it is impossible how did you come to your conclusion that something changed? As for the physics and effects on the airframe, it is more difficult than just stating your opinion! But hardly impossible!


Originally posted by Widowmaker214:
There will always be minor variances in trying to reproduce a flight path.
That is the neat thing about using DeviceLink in that it records your inputs and the outputs, so if you see a large variation in the outputs, you can than look at the inputs to see if they were the same as before or largely different. If the later, than your large variation in the output is due to your large variation in the inputs. This also highlights the fact that ONE TEST proves nothing! Two at a min, but the more you do the more valid your results will be.


Originally posted by Widowmaker214:
Whatever is stated, it is going to be an opinion.
Disagree 100%!


Originally posted by Widowmaker214:
And it appears that a good NUMBER of people are of the opinion that they humped the P38 again.
Opinions based on nothing by people who can not even describe what energy means let alone how they measured it.


Originally posted by Widowmaker214:
Its amazing as to how many people WERE happy with it in 407 that they messed with it.
It is amazing to me how many people don't realize there could be something else going on here other than an FM change.


Originally posted by Widowmaker214:
Where were the kiddies then bashing people for saying it was so much better.? Now the opinion goes against oleg and the little boys with thier sticks pop out of the wood work to bash you.
Well put yourself in their shoes..

It gets old!

Every time there is a new patch there is a wave of people saying something is BETER/WORSE based on nothing but a ˜FEELING'!


Originally posted by Widowmaker214:
COuld I be wrong, sure.
Not only sure, but most likely in that Oleg said nothing about making FM changes.


Originally posted by Widowmaker214:
But for these "people" and I use that term lightly, to harrass the others making observations... It gets tiring and juvenile to listen to them. I myself have been belittled for making observations. These children need to grow up.
Funny, because many of us think the same thing about people that make unfounded satements/observations!


Originally posted by Widowmaker214:
We are making observations from what WE are seeing. For someone to call that silly, is in fact assinine.
Funny, because many of us think it is asinine to make satements/observations with nothing to support those satements/observations!


Originally posted by Widowmaker214:
There ARE no facts, only what we see..
Not true


Originally posted by Widowmaker214:
and I and others.. are seeing quite a difference in the aircraft.
And there are others that say they see NO DIFFERENCE! So are you saying there unfounded observations are less valid than yours?


Originally posted by Widowmaker214:
She still seems, in my OPINION, to be carrying a good deal of smash in a dive.
What units is smash measured in?


Originally posted by Widowmaker214:
However.. in my OPINION When turning, she is now bleeding off energy quicker and the turn rate seems to be far less.
If the energy bleed and turn rate is big enough to be noticed by the naked eye than they are big enough to measure via DeviceLink


Originally posted by Widowmaker214:
Oh and while we are on it, if some of the children want to bash this...
It was crazy to change the prop on the N1K2.
I dont know why, the animation of that prop was superb.
Poor Oleg, dammed if you do, dammed if you don't!

Long story short, if you 'FEEL' something has changed, come up with a test method and provide the track file of the test and send it off to Oleg.

It is really that simple!

SeaFireLIV
02-12-2007, 05:02 PM
Didn`t I see a thread saying that the P38 was now great in 4.08? Now I see someone say the opposite?

And the moral of the story is:

Everyone has their own personal view of what`s great and what`s not, but almost no one seems to have anything to back this up except `I feel`.

Truth is, as long as everyone has their own personal `feel` opinion, Oleg can`t win.

Go figure, as they say.

AKA_TAGERT
02-12-2007, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Didn`t I see a thread saying that the P38 was now great in 4.08? Now I see someone say the opposite?
I have not seen that one yet


Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
And the moral of the story is:

Everyone has their own personal view of what`s great and what`s not, but almost no one seems to have anything to back this up except `I feel`.

Truth is, as long as everyone has their own personal `feel` opinion, Oleg can`t win.

Go figure, as they say.
Sad.. but true.

papotex
02-12-2007, 05:48 PM
I know the Mig3 feels better to me in version 4.71 then in 4.8

and so does the buffalo

the flight models were altered somewhat.
thats ok , the sim kicks mayor a$$ eader way

but im keeping my 4.71 along with 4.8

BSS_CUDA
02-12-2007, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Didn`t I see a thread saying that the P38 was now great in 4.08? Now I see someone say the opposite?


The thread "when did they Fix the P-38" was started before 4.08 was out

PFflyer
02-12-2007, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by WWSensei:
I have a program I wrote using my DL wrapper. Essentially it is a "black box recorder" to measure output from devicelink. I recorded a track of the P-38J and P-38L taking off, climbing, various maneuvers, including some that brought me to the edge of the envelope.

If I play the track and run the recorder in 4.0.7.1m and 4.0.8 the numbers end up being identical (with the exception of when I stalled out, which I wouldn't expect it to be exactly the same). I could find no discernible difference.

The problem may be something else to look for. For example, in many cases patches have been known to reset joystick settings or in rare cases not actually replace key files. You might be experiencing one of these issues.


Here is the only guy who did anything intelligent before he said anything.

Thumbs up to Sensei!

If the thread starter and others here did the same, well, there would be no thread at all would there? Maybe next time.

drose01
02-12-2007, 08:59 PM
What exactly IS Oleg's/1C's policy on publicizing changes in the flight model and other characteristics of various aircraft from game version to version?

Doesn't he mention when these changes are made, even if the description is vague?

Or does he really release a patch like 4.08, with a very specific and discrete change description in the "readme," and then secretly tweak a P38 here, a FW190 there, etc, and leave all the players guessing about what may have changed?

GR142-Pipper
02-12-2007, 11:37 PM
Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
[2)All 3 P38s reach speeds well beyond 600km/h at 7000m and above. The P38J reaches ~680km/h TAS at 8000m, the P38L ~660km/h TAS at the same altitude, the P38L_Late ~ 690km/h TAS at 7,5k. So where is the FM joke here? The joke is when you're fast below 20k' and want to pull the stick back....little to nothing happens.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
02-13-2007, 12:16 AM
Originally posted by drose01:
What exactly IS Oleg's/1C's policy on publicizing changes in the flight model and other characteristics of various aircraft from game version to version? The policy is to disclose nothing about what specific flight/damage/weapons model changes get made from revision to revision...which, of course, is contrary to what real software companies do.

GR142-Pipper

msalama
02-13-2007, 01:25 AM
That and a clean install would have wiped out their old 'config.ini' file with their joystick settings.

Now I'd ***GUESS*** this is the most likely reason. What I did was I took a copy of my old config, s**t-canned the old installation, clean-installed the bugger and dropped the old config in there. The outcome: no changes that I've noticed - apart from a couple of hunches maybe, but surely we won't go into that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

No track however http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif