PDA

View Full Version : How Accurate is the flight model?



XyZspineZyX
12-14-2003, 12:53 AM
Pick one aircraft in IL2 FB's that you think has the MOST Accurate flight model and one that has the LEAST Accurate flight model?

Explain why you think your picks have the best and the worst flight models.



<center>http://www.cubpilot.com/Ryansig3.jpg
http://www.ubi.com/US/CommunityZone/Forums/guidelines
<a href="http://63.76.89.105/IL2" target="_blank
<center><FONT COLOR="black">UBI/IL2 Forum Moderator[/i]</FONT><center><center>
<center>


Message Edited on 12/13/0303:56PM by USMC_Tailspin

XyZspineZyX
12-14-2003, 12:53 AM
Pick one aircraft in IL2 FB's that you think has the MOST Accurate flight model and one that has the LEAST Accurate flight model?

Explain why you think your picks have the best and the worst flight models.



<center>http://www.cubpilot.com/Ryansig3.jpg
http://www.ubi.com/US/CommunityZone/Forums/guidelines
<a href="http://63.76.89.105/IL2" target="_blank
<center><FONT COLOR="black">UBI/IL2 Forum Moderator[/i]</FONT><center><center>
<center>


Message Edited on 12/13/0303:56PM by USMC_Tailspin

XyZspineZyX
12-14-2003, 01:01 AM
This is like that trick to catch monkeys right?
Food in narrow hole, monkey raches in and grabs food,
can't get clenched hand out, get's caught.

You're on a banning mission aren't you?

XyZspineZyX
12-14-2003, 01:13 AM
Accurate enough if it feels good. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
12-14-2003, 01:48 AM
Kinda hard to give a quantitative answer here as we are not privy to thw data on which the flight models are constructed.


"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg


Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

XyZspineZyX
12-14-2003, 01:54 AM
Uum my fav is Me109G6(43).It has everything I want my plane to have.Finally it`s a comparable opponent even against La5FN.V good climb,big energy loss average speed.According to stuff I saw here it`s very accurately modelled.


IMO the least accurately modelled plane is P39 series.It flies by itself. Again according to what I have read here it`s overall overmodelled.Even though Russians upgraded them,the P39 always had average climb and substained climb rate.In FB it`s almost as good as Me109`43Late in these terms.Moreover it`s energy loss in hard turns is just propostrous.It can do almost 300 deg and zoom up even gaining on me climbing.


"degustibus non disputandum"

<center>http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

<center>"Weder Tod noch Teufel!"</font>[/B]</center> (http://www.jzg23.de>[B]<font)

XyZspineZyX
12-14-2003, 02:53 AM
I dont know anything about the actual flight models except what I read on paper...and I dont know how to translate that into the "real" virtual world. All I know is that I can read a story by a WW2 pilot......and try some of the same tactics he used and in FB...for the most part they work. Thats all I need. IMO that is the best criteria for judging how accurate a sim's FMs are..... can you do stuf that is either close to or just like experienced pilots have said.

<CENTER>http://www.world-wide-net.com/tuskegeeairmen/ta-1943.jpg <marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"Straighten up.......Fly right..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee> http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat

<CENTER><FONT COLOR="ORANGE">vflyer@comcast.net<FONT COLOR>
<Center><div style="width:200;color:red;font-size:18pt;filter:shadow Blur[color=red,strength=8)">99th Pursuit Squadron

adlabs6
12-14-2003, 03:11 AM
Bearcat99 wrote:
- I dont know anything about the actual flight models
- except what I read on paper...and I dont know how to
- translate that into the "real" virtual world. All I
- know is that I can read a story by a WW2
- pilot......and try some of the same tactics he used
- and in FB...for the most part they work. Thats all I
- need. IMO that is the best criteria for judging how
- accurate a sim's FMs are..... can you do stuf that
- is either close to or just like experienced pilots
- have said.

This is largely my view also.

<html>
<body>
<table cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="600" align="center">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><font color="000000">adlabs<font color="#ff9900">6</font></font>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" bgcolor="#42524e">
<div align="center"><font color="#999999">
http://mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/images/skins/historical/OldCrowsig.jpg (http://mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/fb_skins_historical_adlabs6.htm)
<small><font color="#ff6600">NEW</font> at mudmovers! Click the pic to download my skins from mudmovers.com!</small>
</font>
Skinner's Guide at mudmovers (http://mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/fb_skinnersguide.htm) | Skinner's heaven (http://www.1java.org/sh) | IL2skins (http://www.il2skins.com)<font color="#999999">
My Forgotten Battles Webpage (http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/index.html) Current Wallpaper: <font color="#999999">Bf-109 Morning Run</font></font>
OMEGA SQUADRON (http://777avg.com/omegasquad/)
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

XyZspineZyX
12-14-2003, 03:25 AM
^
I concur.

XyZspineZyX
12-14-2003, 04:19 AM
i dont know, coz i dont know how to drive a plane specially WW2 planes /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

The Sun is Gone
But I Have a Light
<CENTER>http://images.flagspot.net/i/id%5eaforo.gif

XyZspineZyX
12-14-2003, 05:37 AM
The best FM : all AI http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Worse FM : All the planes I fly that get shot down
by AI that doesn't blackout or redout,
and other aberations. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif



Message Edited on 12/13/03 09:55PM by griego

Message Edited on 12/13/0309:58PM by griego

Hawgdog
12-14-2003, 05:43 AM
USMC_Tailspin wrote:
- Pick one aircraft in IL2 FB's that you think has the
- MOST Accurate flight model and one that has the
- LEAST Accurate flight model?
-
- Explain why you think your picks have the best and
- the worst flight models.


1)most accurate: Early model 262, just sounds the coolest
2)least accurate: P.11. Absolutely. If you say P-11 five times real quick it just sounds stupid.


Your actual results may vary, please see local Oleg for details and restrictions

<center></script>When your portfolio goes to hell, tell 'em HawgDog sent it!
http://users.zoominternet.net/~cgatewood/assets/images/sharkdog.gif

Irresponsibility:
No single raindrop believes it is responsible for the flood!

XyZspineZyX
12-14-2003, 06:13 AM
The best for me is the last one that got me home again.

Worst is the last one that I slammed into the ground and sploded to pieces!

Seriously, I fly and love them all for different reasons on different days and moods.

All the charts in the world are great but as I will never get to actually fly one of these birds, who am I to say The fill in the blank plane has a serious fill in the blank issue.



...................................
"I always have just enough fuel to arrive at the scene of my crash."

XyZspineZyX
12-14-2003, 09:06 AM
Recycled from a *previous post:

I've flown several aircraft also but most of my time is on floats which are far removed from fighter aircraft. I once flew a floatplane over a local strip and saw a Spitfire taking off at 2 oclock waaaay down below. The speed it zoomed up past my tail made me a bit nervous at the time.

Regarding spins, just fly the P-39 and yank back on the stick at almost any speed. The method for recovery is somewhat unorthodox: "stick full BACK, rudder WITH spin..." but it changes to a standard spin recovery when the rotation has slowed. I was a bit skeptical at these instructions for P-39 spin recovery as seen on the following page:

http://www.mudmovers.com/articles/P39.htm

until I watched this authentic P-39 training video at this link:

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/P-39.html

I was very impressed to discover that the P-39 in FB will recover just as described at both of these sources. My best recovery from a violent spin so far is 825 meters but I'm hoping to shave that by quite a bit.

My advice to you from one pilot to another is turn the stalls and spins on and "HAPPY SPINNING."



<center>OC
<img src=http://www.brennt.com/hoppers/images/oldcanuck.jpg></center>


<center>You don't stop playing because you grow old,
you grow old because you stop playing.</center>


Message Edited on 12/14/0308:08AM by Old_Canuck

XyZspineZyX
12-14-2003, 09:12 AM
Most accurate: FW190D9 1944
I fly the plane every night and it matches up with everything I have read about it for the last 20 years. It's been a slow process to get to the current FM, but it 'feels' right, performs as I would expect it to based on all I've read. (wish the refraction in the Revi was modelled properly but thats another issue)

Least accurate: Ki84
This is the twin ion engine fighter of FB for sure. Outclimbs darn near every plane in the game at any altitude, handles better and turns tighter than anything up to about 9K. Seems to retain energy like it has it's own nuclear powerplant. I'm no expert on Japanese planes but I find it very difficult to believe this plane was as good as portrayed in FB. The FM also 'feels' more simplistic, unlike many other planes in the game.



TX-Zen
Black 6
TX Squadron CO
http://www.txsquadron.com
clyndes@hotmail.com (IM only)


http://www.txsquadron.com/uploaded/tx-zen/Zensig2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
12-14-2003, 09:51 AM
IMO, in 1.21 all planes all pretty close (as for PC sim): best Bf109G2, worst I16 (it seems to easy). But it's only my feelings anyway....

XyZspineZyX
12-14-2003, 11:19 AM
Isn't that really impossible for anyone on here since ALMOST noone here has flown any of these planes for real. Even so how many people alive today have flown multiple world war two era planes? Kinda hard to say, in Maddox we trust!

Oh, my only real gripe about the accuracy is the lack of ground effect. Makes landing and takeoff too easy!!!

XyZspineZyX
12-14-2003, 11:59 AM
What TX-Zen said./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif The D-9 feels great.

<center>


http://members.chello.se/unni/rote3.JPG



'When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!'

</center>

XyZspineZyX
12-14-2003, 12:50 PM
Great thread - either 1.21 has corrected everything or people don't want to be put on the spot!

XyZspineZyX
12-14-2003, 12:56 PM
Hah, nice to see there are not alot of people who think they know how a WWII aircraft really flew.

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye
shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be
measured to you again.

http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/templates/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif (http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php)

XyZspineZyX
12-14-2003, 01:07 PM
USMC_Tailspin wrote:
- Pick one aircraft in IL2 FB's that you think has the
- MOST Accurate flight model and one that has the
- LEAST Accurate flight model?
-
- Explain why you think your picks have the best and
- the worst flight models.

I think almost all of the flyables are now within a reasonable distance of real life plane test behaviour.

Worst FMs in the game are still those of non-flyable bombers. Lots of workarounds needed in the .mis files to get around the weird things they'll do if left to their own devices.

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

Need help with NewView? Read this thread. (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_gd_temp&id=yzbcj)

XyZspineZyX
12-14-2003, 03:26 PM
I have found most, if not all of the planes to be pretty dang good. They are close enough to their real life charcateristics to allow us virutal pilots to use real life tactics employed with a particular plane. Thats really all i care about. Sure, there might be a few kph to shave off or add here and there but the FMs in Fb are close enough for me.

As far as bad FMs go, I am not sure in 1.21. In FB 1.0 the I-16 was laughably uber but in 1.21 I have not yet found a plane with an FM so bad it stands out without any testing or concrete knowledge of what it can do. Many have mentioned the Ki-84, but it seems just fine to me.

A point to make I believe is that my observations are based solely against other human pilots and my own experiences flying FB. I dont think using the AI planes to judge FM is best, as I have seen them do some crazy things not possible when you fly the plane yourself.



Your Post Could Not Be Completed Because:

Board is busy currently unable to post.

Please make any needed corrections and try again.

Fish itchy



Your Post Could Not Be Completed Because:

Board is busy currently unable to post.

Please make any needed corrections and try again.

Fish itchy

XyZspineZyX
12-14-2003, 05:03 PM
There is no accurate plane model in FB (otherwise they would not change as soon as some of us start whining).

Still fun to play this game though /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

lil_labbit
<center> http://members.home.nl/lil.labbit/lilseesya.jpg
Night is better than Day</center>

XyZspineZyX
12-14-2003, 07:10 PM
These boards have been filled with engineering charts and physics formulae. The writers seem to have researched their subject well.

My frame of reference is simpler. As an old simmer, the FMs in FB seem to match the characteristics described by pilots over the years -- P47s fly heavy and dive well, Bf109s can be difficult to land, etc.-- better than others (Flight Sims). For instance, you take off, fly and land the P51 differently in Janes WWII than you do in CFS3...and differently again in IL2:FB. And FMs are also different based on the settings assigned to controllers, and the rig you're using.

Given all the variables, IL2:FB's FMs for various planes still seem distinctive enough.

So which is best/worst? Personal frustrations include: 109 E-4s that stall and fallout in tight high-G turns, P40s that stop running when the first round hits the engine, Hurricane MK1s that cough and stop when you shove the nose down too fast.

Wait! Aren't these characteristics the pilots pointed out 60+ years ago?

Conclusion: 1C does a credible job. They should continue to model lift and stall characteristics in realistic ranges and offer complex engine management for those of us who like to tweak performance for different conditions.


.

XyZspineZyX
12-14-2003, 09:17 PM
I know i am going to be flamed...still...

1. I am not an expert on many planes but on 109s and they seem to be pretty much to the spot now. Especially the G2 is very much the plane it was supposed to be. They are not œber anymore but can keep up with their contemporarys if flown well...as it was in history...

2. Worst: I keep wondering about those P39s which are much much better then the way they are portrayed historically...too good agility and climbrate...energybleed=almost nonexistent. Similar to Ki84, but i dont know how this plane was supposed to behave, maybe it was this good ??
Still not content with the viewfield of the FWs...

Yours,
II/JG54_Zent

XyZspineZyX
12-14-2003, 10:22 PM
I'm gonna be killed for this, but I'll say.

1) I like P-51. It acts as it should, or as I read. Good in everything -even better at high altitudes- not the best in all. German planes are well modeled, although I don't like Fw 190 uncomfortable roll (but this isn't an issue, but a matter of taste)

2) Most Russian planes are really well-modeled except that they are too overpowered. Early LaGGs and Yaks above all, should be much more unpleasant given the poor manufacturing levels it achieved and how scarce was its power plant. And I-16 is too tough an opponent for a 1933 design. P.11s should be more able rivals, they were obsolescent, but not WW1 machines, and here they look like they are.

As for the guns and DM, the .303, even being the less powerful weapon, is still too feeble a punch. It has less penetration, but Hurricanes and Spitfires managed to bring down many LW bombers and fighters with short bursts of eight of them, and here you can spend out all your ammo from all angles on a steady flying nimble aircraft (not a sturdy P-47 or Il-2) and it still goes on as if nothing has happened.

Now I'm running for my life! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

- Dux Corvan -



http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612322300

</span></blockquote></font></td></tr>

XyZspineZyX
12-15-2003, 01:03 AM
I don`t know whhich is thhe most accurate flight model but would the BI-1 not be the least accurate due to lack of information on it?

I get the funny feeling if there wasn`t the report on it diving suddenly that,that aspect of the plane wouldn`t be in IL-2 oday.

/me jumps into time machine with a box of matches /i/smilies/16x16_robot-wink.gif

http://invis.free.anonymizer.com/http://designermagazine.tripod.com/BoSelectaPIC2.jpg

shamone WITNESS EEEEEH HEEEEE

XyZspineZyX
12-15-2003, 01:13 AM
Best: bf190g2 -flyes and feels right.
Worst: p.11- worst dm ever (takes more mk hits than a tank), wooden prop got pitch (but it shouldn't!!!)

---------------------------------------
<img="http://www.img.net/cliff-m/vvn/goringme.jpg" /img>

XyZspineZyX
12-15-2003, 02:03 AM
Salute

Oleg has done a great job of providing players with the feel of flight in this sim, and he should be congratulated for that.

Most aircraft modelled in the game have parts of their Flight Model done very well. However, some other aspects are not done quite so well. I don't believe I can pick a particular aircraft as the worst example.

Overall, high altitude performance for most aircraft needs to be adjusted. Those which had an advantage up high are not modelled to show that advantage, and those which lost performance at higher alts do not show that.

Speed bleed for aircraft, although improved over earlier versions of FB does not seem to follow what would be expected from drag coefficients and inertial effects.

Dive acceleration seems to take into account only level speed acceleration, and not drag coefficients and gravitational effects.

Other than that, I believe the following specifically need tweaks:

Ki-84: Too fast. The speeds it attains seem to be those of a test aircraft flown in the U.S. after the war, which was specially prepared, and using high octane fuel.

109's: Climbrate in manual pitch is too high. Engines can rev to 3100 rpm with no problem. Maneuverability at high speeds too good.

190's: Rollrate at high speed too high. High altitude climbrate and performance too good.

P-47: Rollrate for D27 too low. Overall, rollrate for Razorbacks too high at low speeds and too low at high speeds.

Yak's: Durability too high. Considering the lightness of their airframes, and armour, they should be much more vulnerable.

I-16's, I-153's: Durability seems too high considering the lightness of the airframe and armouring.


RAF74 Buzzsaw





Message Edited on 12/15/0305:22AM by RAF74BuzzsawXO

XyZspineZyX
12-15-2003, 03:15 AM
i also dont know how those old WW2 planes flew , but were the Yaks & Lavochkins made of wood or not >?

i can put 5 Mk108 shells into the LA-7

also i hear about the KI-84s climb & speed ......

it did have 1900 Hp & good flaps for turns

XyZspineZyX
12-15-2003, 03:17 AM
i have watched this forum for over 2 years now

the mustang has been the least complained about plane on release

it gets my vote for being the closest FM stright on release

XyZspineZyX
12-15-2003, 06:01 PM
- the mustang has been the least complained about
- plane on release

I've seen that FMs have been adjusted in accordance with
the amount of bleating that has occurred on the forums. It is my opinion that this a/c FM is a result of such activity [positive bleating] and I find know I am not alone in this from comments I hear online.

Cheers,
Norris

XyZspineZyX
12-15-2003, 06:20 PM
I would say...

MOST ACCURATE: Mig3UD series.

WHY: Fewest whines about it. Quite weak armour. Weak guns. Good engine. Bad at low altitude. Feels the most real. Germans shot them down with glee historically (happens in FB too!)



LEAST ACCURATE. hmmm.. tough one: possibly P39

WHY: I`ve never flown one in reality, but every other sim I flew it was always difficult to handle, with bad stalls. Also historical evidence seem to suggest even the Americans (and definitely the Brits) never liked it much. But in FB it`s almost a joy to fly!

There ya go.





"Tis better to work towards an Impossible Good, rather than a Possible Evil."

SeaFireLIV.
(Spitfire Whiner member).

XyZspineZyX
12-15-2003, 07:53 PM
Most accurate

BF109

Reason:

I only fly a few of the planes in the sim and this one is better than the other one.

Least accurate

FW190

Reason:

This one glides like a sail plane.


From:
Focke-Wulf Fw190
Aces of the Russian Front
by John Weal

ISBN 1-85532-518-7

page 9

"One word of warning was sounded, however. If, for any reason, the Focke-Wulf's engine did stop, the advice was to get out-quickly. Powerless, the Fw 190 had 'the glide characteristics of a brick. As soon as the engine faltered, the nose pointed earthwards, followed by the rest of the airframe in close formation'."



As to the claims that no one has flown any of these planes therefore no one can comment on their accuracy I must ask:

Why do you post here if that is your attitude?

Please allow us to delude ourselves in peace, we are having fun.

Seriously there is something odd about the FW concerning flaps, engine, prop, landing configuration glide ratio stuff.

Even with prop set to 0, Auto prop off, engine still on; the plane glides forever as if the prop does not cause drag.

It is a bit early to tell if relative plane performance reflects historical reference. The flight models are all new once again.



JG14_Josf

XyZspineZyX
12-15-2003, 08:15 PM
Oleg has said that FB fm is not realistic.I can see many things missing and hope they will be in next FM upgrade for BOB.Just for example the weight of the p[lanes is not taken into effect for dives and zoom climbs.Take a P47 vs a very light fighter and cut throttle and pouint nose down.They all reach same speed at same distnace and the same goes with engine off zoom climb.The very heavy P47 should drop like a brick and zoom climb like a bat out of hell from all that mass.The FM designers are working magic with a FM that doesnt model everything.This is to help out with short comings of FM.They have made it pretty believable and so I just fly it for now as it is the best there is and way more advanced than other sims.I feel that we should get a major boost in immersion FM'wise once BOB emerges/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Take the FW190 and its drop like a brick characteristic.This is due to high wing loading so that we should have a much higher stall speed than we have now for this plane.I wish Oleg would give us some hints as to how advanced the FM will be getting.

XyZspineZyX
12-15-2003, 08:39 PM
Well, it`s too much to expect as much as a lot us want, that`s partly why FMs don`t bother me as much as some others who become completely fixated by it (I believe a big mistake). Even when BOB comes out there will still be FMs that some will complain aren`t right and probably will never be. Any who think BOB will have perfect FMs are sadly mistaken.

As long as it gives me a believable WWII aircraft`s experience, as with IL2 and FB, I`m happy.




"Tis better to work towards an Impossible Good, rather than a Possible Evil."

SeaFireLIV.
(Spitfire Whiner member).

XyZspineZyX
12-15-2003, 09:57 PM
Most Accurate: I-153 (or any other plane without trim).
Least Accurate: All planes besided I-153 (and any other plane without trim).

Reasoning: The FM is wrong due to trim.

<font face="Courier New">

_____ | _____
_\__(o)__/_
./ \.

</font>

StellarRat
12-18-2003, 05:17 PM
Unless you've flown all the aircraft in combat in "real life" I don't think you're qualified to really say anything about the accuracy of the flight model unless it's so obviously wrong that it doesn't agree with any written material. However, they do seem to agree with what I've read about WW II aircraft and their various strengths and weaknesses. The tactics the various types used seem to work, so that's good enough for me.

LeadSpitter_
12-18-2003, 05:32 PM
All arcadish, but at least they all are now, as before some had realistic stick pressures and some didnt.

http://www.aviationartcentral.com/images/art/trudgian/trudgian-alpinethunder.jpg

tagert
12-18-2003, 07:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by StellarRat:
Unless you've flown all the aircraft in combat in "real life" I don't think you're qualified to really say anything about the accuracy of the flight model <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your confusing aircraft tatics... usage.. etc.. with the modeling of flight of said aircraft. You DONT have to have flown the real thing, let along flown it in combat, to determine if it models the aircraft correctly. What you DO NEED and we have very little of is real life DATA of WWII CONFIGURED to compair our simulation results to.

Alot of these aircraft still exist today.. but most of them are no longer configured as they were in WWII... For example the Ordwaybot goes on and on about how the P51 model does or does not compair to the simulation(s) based on his one hour flight of a TF51 mustang that is very VERY different from a WWII configured P51 mustang. Now.. the static things will be *close*... things like climb rate, top speed, dive speed, etc.. but most guys who own a mustang today are NOT going to let you push it to the limits like we do in the sim... The dynamic aspcets will most likly be very VERY different!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by StellarRat:
unless it's so obviously wrong that it doesn't agree with any written material.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In there lyes the rub... one man obviously is another mans DUUUH!

TAGERT

tttiger
12-19-2003, 07:04 PM
Hafta disagree with TX_ZEN on the Ki-84. I believe it's undermodelled rather than overmodelled.

The one they tested at Wright-Patterson AFB after the war was faster than the P-51 (using high octane fuel, which the Japanese did not have).

I tried one in a race last weekend flying against a Dora and several LA-7s. They left my Ki-84 far behind (and I could stay with them in an LA-7, so it wasn't my flying). I was very disappointed in how slow it was. The Dora was the winner in every heat, btw.

As to the best and worst, like others I have nothing in real life to compare them with, only what I've read in fighter jock memoirs.

With the 2.10 patch, the P-47 has become flyable and currently is my favorite ride. The roll rate is better but still not as good as I believe it should be (RL pilots like Robert S. Johnson said nothing could out-roll the Jug and lots of planes roll better in FB) but I really have no data to argue the point.

ttt

"I want the one that kills the best with the least amount of risk to me"

-- Chuck Yeager describing "The Best Airplane."

dragonhart38
12-19-2003, 08:33 PM
i like the yaks

http://www.nurple.com/graphics/animation/nurple-beeftumors.gif

Baderslegs
12-20-2003, 09:14 AM
Who knows?

To make a credible valuation I feel you would have to have flown the aeroplane for real then try the plane in the game. How many people can say they have done that?

I really have to laugh when I see people complaining about the flight model saying this is wrong and that is wrong because they have read this or that from a book. All I know is that Oleg Maddox hase created a terrific flight sim that feels pretty realistic (in a virtual sense) to me.

So hats off to Mr Oleg!