PDA

View Full Version : Torque settings



strewth
01-26-2005, 06:10 PM
I remember in the early IL2 that the torque settings for aircraft made you very cautious on takeoff in the higher HP planes.

Something that has been chewing me up for some time now is that I can jump into a spit or mustang and give it full throttle with minor effect on the AC.

This just isn't right. Everybody knows that if you tried this especially in a spit or mustang, that things would get very ugly very quickly. It has been documented many times throughout history along with the results.

So please could we please get back to a beast that you have to show some respect to in order to get her airborne.

VF-29_Sandman
01-26-2005, 06:44 PM
b-239 and f2a are 2 of em. p-40's to a lesser degree.

strewth
01-26-2005, 08:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VF-29_Sandman:
b-239 and f2a are 2 of em. p-40's to a lesser degree. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mmmmm, correct to a degree but not what I would call high performance or high HP AC.

If an F2A or P-40 shows it, then surely a Spit or Mustang should display it more true to form, but they don't.

You should not be able to throw them to full throttle from a standstill on a airstrip and survive it, let alone just cruise of into the wild blue yonder.

Don't get me wrong. I love this game and support it fully. But I do feel that this requires some attention.

Please look into it Oleg. Not just for the two AC stated, as they are probably just two of the more extreme cases, There are plenty more that seem to have this factor overlooked.

In a pressure situation like a fighter scramble, I love the extra challenge of trying to coax her off the ground ASAP without stuffing it all up. It sort of takes away from immersion when you can just jump into a Spit and go flat strap off the mark.

VVS-Manuc
01-27-2005, 01:09 AM
torque is reduced to almost nothing to please the weekend johnny joystick flyers

joeap
01-27-2005, 05:55 AM
Yes wierd that some planes have it more than others that were known to be difficult. 109? One thing I really miss from original IL-2.

VF-29_Sandman
01-27-2005, 06:05 AM
only torque i see is: buffalo, f2a, p-40, and maybe some of the il-2's. hi powered birds: p-47, 51, corsair; should have some noticeable torque during throttle up. a 2000 hp engine is not what u'd say...puny. tho the 38 is historically a non-torque bird, its acceleration for the day was phenominal; and if u were unlucky enough to lose an engine just after takeoff, ur a$$ would be grass. but if u were to 'lose' an engine in a 38 in the game, u'd still be able to gain alt instead of flippin over toward 'lawn dart city'

rurik
01-27-2005, 08:46 AM
Funny...I was just about to post regarding this same subject.
I think this is one of the major failings in the game engine that needs to be addressed. Being able to slam the throttle forward is just not right; I thought that's why there is a torque switch in the realism settings so the people who actually want to experience the aircraft can. Without the torque effect you really seem to lose the feeling of immense power that most of these planes had.
One strange thing I notice on the ground is that if anything, I tend to get a slight swing to the right??? Shouldn't it be to the left?
Don't get me wrong, I love this sim I just want it to be all that it can be!

chaikanut
01-27-2005, 12:13 PM
I read recently that oleg has commented that torque is lesser due to engine limitations.

TX-EcoDragon
01-27-2005, 03:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chaikanut:
I read recently that oleg has commented that torque is lesser due to engine limitations. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I don't think it's fair to say that it is simply a deliberate action to make it easier for anyone, though there are instances where that probably is the case, and compromises will have to made in sims, probably forever. In this instance though it seems to be more of a engine limitation, and look at other sims that place a large emphasis on it, and try to find one that does it any better overall. . . there isn't any.

The sim does seem to change a bit here and there over the many versions, and it's not always for the better if you look at individual aspects of the FM, but from what I can tell, these are usually the result of another change made to the FM that has far reaching effects, so a balance is being re-evaluated presumably for the overall betterment of the sim.

And about the P-51/Spit having more torque effects because it has higher HP. . . I have to say that it isn't a simple direct correlation, in particular when we are talking about ground handling. In fact the P-51 is very well behaved and docile on the ground relative to many of it earlier bretheren. Even when compared to say the US AT-6 Texan Advanced Trainer which has about 1/3 the horsepower, or the US Primary Trainer PT-17 with only 225 HP. Vertical and longitudinal axis of the CG relative to the gear, width of gear, Length of gear, rudder effectiveness, prop design and mass, power to weight (as you mention, but to a lesser extent than these other characteristics) and forward vis of the P-51 is "better" which reduces the need for s-turns (there is still the need though the turns are shallower than in the AT or PT). These are the main things that conspire to make an aircraft a burden to handle on the ground with respect to torque. The 109, the P-40, and the early designs tended to be more of a handful than the later ones. . . so the Gladiator, Chaika, I-16, F2A etc *should* generally present a greater torque response despite generating less actual physical forces of torque.

So while *proper* torque is generally lacking in any sim I feel that this sim line has done a better job of finding the best balance of effects than most of similar intent. Soem changes do appear to have been made for PF, changes that I for one would rather weren't made, but again. . . there is a balance between compromises that must be made, I can accept that.

So I agree that there are issues, but I trust that when the engine limitations are not there, then we will see an improvement. Now, inertia and torque effects won't be everyone's cup of tea, simply getting to the runway in a I-153 is probably a bit more of a challenge than most people will appreciate, but then, sims are a niche market in the first place, so hopefully the bulk of that niche will appreciate it, and the sim designers won't shy away from it just to please those who want flying these aircraft to be simplified! (that's what "Realism Settings" are for!!)

Time will tell.

JG5_UnKle
01-28-2005, 05:39 AM
Targetware does torque better IMHO - engine limitation or not, I don't know, but the Torque was reduced for FB from IL-2 IIRC.

TX-EcoDragon
01-28-2005, 01:38 PM
I would say Targetware does some aspects of torque "more", and in some ways it's better, in others, worse, but I can't say that it is closer to reality in the big sceme of things, though perhaps I should try it and see hwo the current version is! I think I will. In any case the attention to these effects that targetware pays is a good sign, add detail and smooth out the edges we'd really have something!(I would still lean on Il-2/FB more than TW though)

The trouble I see is that most sims have a select few things that they model with good fidelity, these things are always at the expense of another aspect of the sim. . .

Despite what I've said here, I do not disagree at all that torque effects need tweaking and a major boost (other than the instant rolling effects that seem to take gear position for granted, this much is overdone). . . as well as gyroscopic effects of the prop,CG relative to gear locations,induced drag, high Aoa aerodynamics, advancing blade effects, inertia, stall/spin dynamics, adverse yaw, as these are all the low points of this sim, but they are the low points of most sims, and I find this sim to be the best set of compromises. I also feel that in the takeoff and landing department, as well as climb and high aoa flight IL-2 was better. I guess my post sounds a bit contrary to the basic message of the first post, which I didn't intend.