PDA

View Full Version : Going back to the 3.02bm patch, this one is porked.



mortoma
12-26-2004, 09:02 PM
My frame rates are no longer as good and Flak/AA leaves me with a sideshow again. Even worse, I tried to continue on with my Corsair Mk.IV career flying from the Illustrious CV but can no longer take off with full fuel and two little 500 pounders like I could easily do before the patch. And the carrier is going 27 knots!!! I just can't make it no matter what I try. And even if I could, it should not be that hard and I should not have to go through ehll to get it off a carrier under normal circumstances. The Corsair no longer accelerates fast enough. Another thing that sucks is that I will have to totally reinstall the game. Not looking forward to it. They can have the F2A-2 Buffalo, it's not worth all this junk.

VF-29_Sandman
12-26-2004, 09:20 PM
already told u how to get the sair up. ur just too lazy to follow procedure. doubt that when 3.04 is released, it will be much better. then what...u wuss out and go back to cfs2? adios. http://smiley.onegreatguy.net/banghead.gif

mortoma
12-26-2004, 09:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VF-29_Sandman:
already told u how to get the sair up. ur just too lazy to follow procedure. doubt that when 3.04 is released, it will be much better. then what...u wuss out and go back to cfs2? adios. http://smiley.onegreatguy.net/banghead.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I read your instructions but it's not the way they took off in RL. No monkey business with throttle should be needed. Besides I have no trouble with the torque at all, I have rudder pedals!!! I get the nose perfectly aligned right away. In real life, I know for a fact that a real Corsair could get off a carrier with full fuel and 1000 pounds of bombs with little or no trouble. Should not have to jump through hoops to get her in the air. All those gyrations you go through is bogus and not the way they did it, it's absurdity at it's most entertaining. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Fact is it's just not right and harder than it should be. Why resort to ridiculous nonsense??

Von_Zero
12-26-2004, 09:30 PM
2 tracks of F4U-1D taking off from USS Lexx with 100% fuel and 2x500lb (http://www.d13-th.com/user/toppy/F4U-1D_takeoff.zip)
a little tricky, but it can be done http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Edit: the carrier was cruising at precisely 27 knots, dunno from where the wind was blowing, tho...

mortoma
12-26-2004, 09:33 PM
Thanks but was it that tricky in RL?? I doubt it and I think they just took away too much acceleration from it. I used to get up to 140 or more KPH at the end of the deck, now only 120 if I'm lucky.

mortoma
12-26-2004, 09:36 PM
Whether or not something is realistic or not is the question. Hypothetically, if they made a patch which made it hard to get a 109 into the air by the end of a surface runway, but some simmers came up with some stunt with all sorts of gyrations to go through to do it. Would that make it right or should they fix the problem instead??? I mean people just need to think and use common sense here. If I had a cylinder go bad in my car, but figured out how to drive it anyway, would it be sensible to fix it or continue jumping through hoops to run it like that?? God gave us brains for a reason.

mortoma
12-26-2004, 09:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Zero:
http://www.d13-th.com/user/toppy/F4U-1D_takeoff.zip
a little tricky, but it can be done http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Edit: the carrier was cruising at precisely 27 knots, dunno from where the wind was blowing, tho... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Besides, the Lex is longer than the Illustrious, my career is British, not american flying from a mile long carrier!!! This proves little, I bet I can do it from the Lex too. Does that make it right that they porked the acceleration?? The British really did operate the Corsair from that carrier and I bet they didn't hit or nearly hit the water with a 100 pound load and full fuel. I'll try it wit the Lex, bet I can do it too.

BlitzPig_DDT
12-26-2004, 09:53 PM
mortoma, they couldn't do it AT ALL from a static deck IRL. Get over it.

And there is something odd with the Illustrious. Always has been. Check your altimiter in feet. 0ft indicated. Look at the Lex - 50ft indicated.

The Seafire in 3.02bm from the Illustrious in a DF server actually splashed a few times for me till I realized what was going on. Didn't do that from the Lex or Sara.

It's not the plane.

VF-29_Sandman
12-26-2004, 09:57 PM
von-zero was in the d model. probably just a bit more hp than the 1a which we'll be running in the next round of the current squad war. only thing different that i noticed was...and didnt think of, was locking the tailwheel. definately helped in controlling the takeoff torque from what i see.

lexington is probably the longest carrier. i've walked the deck of the intrepid. not much time to get airborne off that tub.

mortoma
12-26-2004, 09:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Zero:
http://www.d13-th.com/user/toppy/F4U-1D_takeoff.zip
a little tricky, but it can be done http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Edit: the carrier was cruising at precisely 27 knots, dunno from where the wind was blowing, tho... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I too was able to do it from the Lexx. I just did and it was a little hard but I made it first try. But the Lexx is not the Ilustrious, is it?? Fact is I was able to take off from the Illustrious with the exact same load and now I can't after this patch. Can't continue career, impossible. I'd like to see tracks from you guys of take offs from the Illustrious, I may eat crow then. This challenge goes for you too, Sandman!! But even if someone does it, that don't mean it's realistic for it to be so difficult. Any takers?? It has to be full fuel and the Corsair Mk. IV with two 500 pound bombs.

mortoma
12-26-2004, 10:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
mortoma, they couldn't do it AT ALL from a static deck IRL. Get over it.

And there is something odd with the Illustrious. Always has been. Check your altimiter in feet. 0ft indicated. Look at the Lex - 50ft indicated.

The Seafire in 3.02bm from the Illustrious in a DF server actually splashed a few times for me till I realized what was going on. Didn't do that from the Lex or Sara.

It's not the plane. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Get over what?? Did you read this thread?? I'm talking about the HMS Illustrious going at 27 knots!! Try taking it off in a Corsair Mk. IV with full fuel and two 500 pound bombs. Who said anything about a stopped/static carrier???

BlitzPig_DDT
12-26-2004, 10:10 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

This is all part of the same ****.

Perhaps YOU should read the response and try to do a better job of hiding your guilty conscience.

Von_Zero
12-26-2004, 10:15 PM
I subscribe to this ideea also, there is something very strange here i made five attemps to get a Corsair Mk.IV in the air from HMS ilustruous, with 2x500lb, no luck, unless i lowered the fule load. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
One little thing i noticed:
50% fuel no bombs, 130km/h to the end of the deck (landing flaps)
75% fuel, no bombs, 120 km/h to the end of the deck
100% fuel, no bombs 110km/h to the end of the deck - here the element of luck is quite important http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
100% fuel, 2x500lb, 90km/h, no chance to get it up http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> only thing different that i noticed was...and didnt think of, was locking the tailwheel <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Flying a 109 for so long has it's advantages http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

VF-29_Sandman
12-26-2004, 10:27 PM
zero, vf-29_gull has a diff way of doing it. got off the saratoga with the d model, 50% fuel, no loadout. carrier static.
his way: flaps to takeoff. release chocks and hold the brakes. wind it up to wep and nose it down until level. trick is, dont bang the prop on deck. release the brakes and hold it steady. u'll be at 80mph at the end of the deck. if i knew how to post a track i would. mebby it would werk with a load out. he's gonna try it out now. details comin

Von_Zero
12-26-2004, 10:34 PM
I've tried that already, buti cannot keep the tailwheel back up, i keep hitting it on the deck. It may work, who knows, but even so, it is hard to believe it would be realistic...
To me it's no biggie, cuz i personaly like the brewster more than most allied planes, but this thing is very bad for the general gameplay. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
i would understand not being able to get it up easily from a static carrier, but this is quite exagearated...

mortoma
12-26-2004, 10:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

This is all part of the same ****.

Perhaps YOU should read the response and try to do a better job of hiding your guilty conscience. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Guilty conscience?? There you go not making any sense again. I'm not guilty about anything. The bug about the zero reading I think has nothing to do with it, because when you leave the deck of the Illustrious, you do go downward before you hit the water. If it were REALLY at zero feet altitude ( the deck ) then you'd hit the water as soon as you left the deck!!! Your zero altitude thing may indeed be a bug but it doesn't effect the Corsair at all. It's up high off the water, despite the bug that says you ain't. So your opinion is once again dismissed.

VF-29_Sandman
12-26-2004, 10:47 PM
in rl, i dont think u would try the 'tailstand'. too much of a risk smackin the prop into the deck that way.

mortoma
12-26-2004, 10:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Zero:
I've tried that already, buti cannot keep the tailwheel back up, i keep hitting it on the deck. It may work, who knows, but even so, it is hard to believe it would be realistic...
To me it's no biggie, cuz i personaly like the brewster more than most allied planes, but this thing is very bad for the general gameplay. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
i would understand not being able to get it up easily from a static carrier, but this is quite exagearated... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thanks for your agreement Zero, at least there are two of us in here making sense, maybe a few other guys. Haven't figured out the Sandman dude yet though.

Stanger_361st
12-26-2004, 11:11 PM
I sit and laugh at watching the AI cant even takeoff at just 100% fuel no ordanace on static deck. AI have a better FM then breathers. Boy is that a show stopper for imersion.

VF-29_Sandman
12-26-2004, 11:16 PM
if it works, use it. gull just sent me a track of him launching from the lex with a 2000 pound centerline bomb in the d model. if u porked the roll in pf, there's the respawn. u dont in rl, and there's no way in hell 99.9% of onwhine 'pilots' would dare do the things they do here if their *** was on the line. h2h passes was suicide, those that 'lone-wolfed' it were never heard from again...seems like that's most of the onwhiner's. zero teamwork. those got killed first.

even if u was able to strap into a real corsair, u'd never get it off the deck. u'd throttle up too much, nose over and chew the hell out of the deck. the corsair was a heavy plane. takin off from a standing carrier was suicide. they didnt have steam catapults to launch at sea back then. for a long time, the navy wouldnt even touch the charger. they dumped it off on the marines and they prefered the sair over the cats.

Von_Zero
12-26-2004, 11:27 PM
Who said anything about a static carrier? we are talking about HMS Ilustruous cruising at over 20knots (27 to be precise http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif ), for pete's sake! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

stathem
12-27-2004, 12:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> for a long time, the navy wouldnt even touch the charger. they dumped it off on the marines and they prefered the sair over the cats. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Until the British proved it could be used off carriers... even with a bit of wing missing.
Also note the shot with the Corsairs lined up with drop tanks on.



http://www.hms.vengeance.btinternet.co.uk/corsair.htm

Stanger_361st
12-27-2004, 12:29 AM
I made a coop with the 4 different carriers going 30mph. I can take off with 100% fuel and a 2,000lb bomb. I am american whiner but I have to post whay I actually can do. I do not know if 100% fuel and a 2000 lb bomb taking off at 30 mph is the real life maxium, but that is what I can do safely. Also I can take off with 2 Tiny Tims with 8 AP hvar and 50% fuel. Just barely on this one.
This was with a f4u-d
Thanks.

JG5_UnKle
12-27-2004, 03:30 AM
Edited for my own stupidity.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Von_Zero
12-27-2004, 03:49 AM
Stanger, you were able to takeoff from HMS ilustruous with a corsair mk IV 100% fuel and 2x500lb?

Stanger_361st
12-27-2004, 08:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Zero:
Stanger, you were able to takeoff from HMS ilustruous with a corsair mk IV 100% fuel and 2x500lb? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes this was alot more difficult I did 4 out of 7. I was almost skimming water. I do not think it was this tough in real life. Here is track. This was not static but 30mph
http://home.carolina.rr.com/squad/test.ntrk

Stanger_361st
12-27-2004, 08:10 AM
Does anybody know what the real life takeoff limits were? I can not find it anywhere in the internet.
Stanger

Oleg_Maddox
12-27-2004, 08:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stanger_361st:
I sit and laugh at watching the AI cant even takeoff at just 100% fuel no ordanace on static deck. AI have a better FM then breathers. Boy is that a show stopper for imersion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To remind you one thing. The planes that are flyable have the same FM when they are AI. There is simply imposible in principle such changes for replcement of FM flyabel for AI for one the same plane in a code..

Oleg_Maddox
12-27-2004, 08:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Zero:
I subscribe to this ideea also, there is something very strange here i made five attemps to get a Corsair Mk.IV in the air from HMS ilustruous, with 2x500lb, no luck, unless i lowered the fule load. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
One little thing i noticed:
50% fuel no bombs, 130km/h to the end of the deck (landing flaps)
75% fuel, no bombs, 120 km/h to the end of the deck
100% fuel, no bombs 110km/h to the end of the deck - here the element of luck is quite important http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
100% fuel, 2x500lb, 90km/h, no chance to get it up http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> only thing different that i noticed was...and didnt think of, was locking the tailwheel <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Flying a 109 for so long has it's advantages http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you wait for high rpm staying on the deck before to run or start right you get engine on and rpm increased?

tsisqua
12-27-2004, 08:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Zero:
I subscribe to this ideea also, there is something very strange here i made five attemps to get a Corsair Mk.IV in the air from HMS ilustruous, with 2x500lb, no luck, unless i lowered the fule load. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
One little thing i noticed:
50% fuel no bombs, 130km/h to the end of the deck (landing flaps)
75% fuel, no bombs, 120 km/h to the end of the deck
100% fuel, no bombs 110km/h to the end of the deck - here the element of luck is quite important http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
100% fuel, 2x500lb, 90km/h, no chance to get it up http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> only thing different that i noticed was...and didnt think of, was locking the tailwheel <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Flying a 109 for so long has it's advantages http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you wait for high rpm staying on the deck before to run or start right you get engine on and rpm increased? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, if we are discussing this as an official release, then I guess that it was. One question, though. Was it early? We have been wondering. Alot of us were concerned that we weren't supposed to get this patch yet.

Thanks
Tsisqua

Sagittario
12-27-2004, 08:48 AM
Hi.
I tried to take-off from a static carrier in a Corsair... no way. I usually wait for the engine high rpms, I tried lowering flaps in landing position, then... chocks away.... no way, I always meet the water.
Also AI are unable to take off.
Other side of the problem is that the planes taking off doesn't use the whole deck of the carrier but only a bit more than a half.
Regards

Von_Zero
12-27-2004, 08:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
Do you wait for high rpm staying on the deck before to run or start right you get engine on and rpm increased? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I kept the chocks in and pushed the engine to 98-100%, until the rpm stabilized, then, a little after the release of chocks i pushed it to 110%

Stanger_361st
12-27-2004, 09:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stanger_361st:
I sit and laugh at watching the AI cant even takeoff at just 100% fuel no ordanace on static deck. AI have a better FM then breathers. Boy is that a show stopper for imersion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To remind you one thing. The planes that are flyable have the same FM when they are AI. There is simply imposible in principle such changes for replcement of FM flyabel for AI for one the same plane in a code.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not doubting you Oleg just that it seems that way when a AI Zeke can do a 180 reverse on you on a merge and no lost of e. That was co e and same alttitude. Also they can turn on your six after a high speed dive with a Iellcat I am going 350 mph and drop combat do a horizontal turn and a Zeke going 350 mph stay with the Hellcat and get a lead shot for a kill. I thought a Zeke can not do a high speed turn.

I did not mean to derail topic.
Back to Corsair

ICDP
12-27-2004, 09:50 AM
Mortomo and Zero,

I have posted over on the other Corsair thread that I am able to take off from the Illustrious under the condidtions you describe. Full internal fuel, full ammo, 2x 500lb bombs, full throttle, full flaps. I can do the every single time and so can my AI wingman. I have tried the carrier at both 50kph and 56kph and am able to take off at both speeds with this loadout.

Just for the record, I am also able to take-off from the Illustrious with the following loadout on the Corsair MkIV: Full internal fuel, full ammo, 2x 500lb bombs and 8x HVARS. It is very difficult but it is possible (I was able to do it three times in a row), the AI wingman is also able to take off with this loadout.


I can e-mail traks for you to check this out.

Ala11_Kal
12-27-2004, 09:59 AM
I don't think this patch porked the Corsair FM.

IMHO what this great sim needs to be almost perfect is... catapults and crash barriers (don´t know if this is the right name in english, sry).

mortoma
12-28-2004, 02:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Zero:
Stanger, you were able to takeoff from HMS ilustruous with a corsair mk IV 100% fuel and 2x500lb? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I can do it myself now and I was one of the original complainers. I had to do like some suggested, which is to start at combat flaps and then drop to landing right at the end of the deck. I don't like this but given the fact that in real life the Illustrious used catapults to get heavy loaded Corsairs airborne, I guess I'll live with it. I am finally thinking that the Corsair performance probably is as Oleg stated, that it is fairly accurate. The difference is no catapults on short or medium length carriers..

ICDP
12-28-2004, 03:57 PM
There has to be some form of compromise if catapaults are not possible in PF. I don't think adjusting the FM is a viable option, possibly increasing maximum speed of the carriers by a few knots is easier.

Aaron_GT
12-28-2004, 06:40 PM
I've tried pushing the revs up to 110% and waiting a while (30 seconds) before pulling the chocks and then hitting full flaps just at the island. It's certainly challenging in 3.03!

DarthBane_
12-29-2004, 10:34 AM
I bet i could take from fishing boat with sair, mortoma you should practise more, for start try taking off from battleship, than submarine. Practise makes perfect.

DarthBane_
12-29-2004, 10:36 AM
Eventualy, you will be permited to jump from carriers deck dressed as chicken.

DarthBane_
12-29-2004, 10:39 AM
Dont forget to send us the track.