PDA

View Full Version : The Great Pork Debate



Fenris459
01-09-2005, 10:07 PM
Ladies and Gentleman,

It has occurred to us that in the great debate that has raged on this forum over what aircraft have been over modeled, under modeled, uberized, unuberized, porked, deporked and generally messed with from inception no one has asked the question.

How is it possible that arguably the most well documented aircraft set that we have flying in PF could get changed so drastically from patch to patch? I€m talking about the current crop of American fighter aircraft and specifically American radial engine aircraft.

I€d really like to hear from Oleg and company on why American radial engine planes have had their acceleration changed so drastically from the original release of PF to the current patch. I€m not implying that the current flight models are incorrect but if we take the position that they are in fact an accurate representation, the original flight model and the patched flight models prior to release 3.03 was in fact incorrect.


Oleg has made statements to the effect that climb modeling/performance has changed, but it has been obvious from our testing (see Loki€s official F4U acceleration test thread, specifically the replies of Halfpint) that acceleration has been drastically affected. We performed tests on a variety of aircraft types from various nationalities and found the loss of acceleration performance limited to American radial engine aircraft. (Sorry Jug drivers, looks like your bird felt the affect as well)

We wonder;

Were the flight models in the earlier releases simplified to allow new pilots a chance to get up to speed on carrier ops? If this is true why hasn€t the same treatment been given to IJN aircraft and why would other non carrier aircraft be affected? (P47 Series)

Or rather, is there some obscure principle of physics that only affects American radial engine aircraft?

kyjko
01-09-2005, 10:33 PM
I ain't trying to flame you, but these discussions just come up all the time about all the darn planes in IL2. You do bring up a good point though. If the flight models are supposed to be correct, then how come they constantly changing in between patches?

Unfortunatley, it's always impossible to have any constructive debate because the people who always fly for side "A" think their planes are undermodeled and the planes are overmodeled for side "B" and side "B" always thinks the planes for side "A" are overmodeled and that their planes are undermodeled. So, all your really going to do is start another flame war.

If you have some data or something to prove your point that something is incorrectly modeled in the game than email it to Oleg or 1C. But posting on the forums is just going to get you labeled as a whiner or a troll or something a long those lines. I'm not saying your wrong or right about the American radial engines, it's just that these discussions on the forums never really produce anything other than insults. Good luck getting your point across, I'm sure you'll have a lot of fanboys of American planes agreeing with you and the luftwhiners will rip you apart.

The best way to enjoy this game inspite of the constant flight model changes and claims of porking and ubering is simple.

When you log onto a server just go to the side that has the least amount of players whether it is RED or BLUE. Pick a plane from that side and have fun and enjoy flying all the different planes that Oleg and 1C has made for us to play.

cheers

VBF-83_Hawk
01-09-2005, 10:36 PM
Thats what I keep saying but keep getting flamed for it.

WUAF_Badsight
01-09-2005, 11:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fenris459:
I€m not implying that the current flight models are incorrect but if we take the position that they are in fact an accurate representation, the original flight model and the patched flight models prior to release 3.03 was in fact incorrect. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
they have never gotten things 100% correct first time out

patches alter performance bringing them closer to what is accurate

Athosd
01-10-2005, 12:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kyjko:
If the flight models are supposed to be correct, then how come they constantly changing in between patches?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Probably because the flight model is as accurate as they could make it in that version of the program. As they refine the algorithms to make the overall simulation more accurate some variances become apparent. Perhaps the high performance US radials have suffered as a result.
Note that the IL2 series does not use a table based flight model (such as in EAW and CFS et al) - it is many times more complex and subtle changes can have significant impact (sometimes unexpected).

Cheers

Athos

Blackdog5555
01-10-2005, 12:21 AM
Oleg has stated on more than one occasion that when he fixes one aspect of a FM it usually screws something else up.(paraphrasing his Russlish). I, for one expect too much out of this off the shelf sim/game. But now realize their are limitaion are far as FM algorithms go. For example to get the F6F to fly correctly in level flight, Per the developer, takeoff accelleration is pooched.( I.E. the F6F cant takeoff carriers per specs). Dive accelleration was never modeled correctly which screws all US radials as that was one of their best aspect because the rumor is that screwing with dive accelleration throws off the AI planes.(but an F6F, F4U cannot outdive a zero) Inertia, dive accelleration, gravity, and moment of ineria are aspect that still need work, IMO. "see ORR". Oleg stated in his forum that if the all the correct FM variables where used in the programming that we would have to upgrade all our computers. There are some glaring errors that have have been posted ad-nausium i am hoping they will be somewhat "fixed". Holding my breath, waiting patiently. cheers..

WUAF_Badsight
01-10-2005, 12:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
Oleg has stated on more than one occasion that when he fixes one aspect of a FM it usually screws something else up. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
got a link ? id like to see that quote

i havent seen him say that

i have yet too see any Zero out-dive a Corsair or a Hellcat in FB like you just said they can either , you were meaning FB/PF i know , but it dont happen in this game

WOLFMondo
01-10-2005, 12:33 AM
Dive acceleration is modelled, correctly or not it works. AI has a simple FM and DM so offline it doesn't work very well but come play online and see just how well the P47's or Fw190's dive acceleration works.

Loki-PF
01-10-2005, 09:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
Oleg has stated on more than one occasion that when he fixes one aspect of a FM it usually screws something else up. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
got a link ? id like to see that quote

i havent seen him say that

i have yet too see any Zero _out-dive_ a Corsair or a Hellcat in FB like you just said they can either , you were meaning FB/PF i know , but it dont happen in this game <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Badsight,

did you miss this thread? Link (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=26310365&m=8281056742&p=1)

Haven't tested the hellcat or corsair yet, but I have tested the wildcat against early war zero's. As diving and roll rate at speed were the *only* things the wildcat has in its corner as far as ACM is concerned, don't you think it's pretty important that it can dive away from a zero?

Loki-PF
01-10-2005, 09:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If you have some data or something to prove your point that something is incorrectly modeled in the game than email it to Oleg or 1C. But posting on the forums is just going to get you labeled as a whiner or a troll or something a long those lines. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

kyjko,

Did you read his post? There is evidence for this and it has been well documented. Link (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=26310365&m=8211010852&r=8211010852#8211010852)

People like Fenris don't start threads like this to flame or troll, but rather out of love of this sim and a desire to make it better. And FYI he does fly every night and quite often as an Axis pilot. He's lit up my tail feathers with FW fire on a number of occasions. (don't go getting a big head Fenris)

VBF-83_Hawk
01-10-2005, 09:34 AM
so if the problem is the Zero outdiving the F6F and F4U, then why doesnt the Zero's ubber dive speed get worked on?

I have not been able to out dive a zero with equal energy in the F4U. I do get a dive speed of over 400 mph. Maybe it doesnt accelerate fast enough or something but should the zero even be able to dive at 400 mph?

However, I have been in an equad dive with a zero at 400 mph, level off and the zero catch me. This has happened many times.

fordfan25
01-10-2005, 10:08 AM
well the way i look at it is Olge is biased he hates the US planes. no just kidding. i think thay have done a pretty good job, remeber how hold this engien in these games are. also it was first intended as a ground pounding focused sim wasnt it? i think some of the US fighters are geting a bum deal in a few aspects. but thats just IMO http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif maby well see a change in BoB but then again well all be flying those butt ugly spits and 109s hehehe http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

J_Weaver
01-10-2005, 11:38 AM
I agree that there are several thing that need work and I'm sure that Oleg and crew are doing the best they can.
As for dive modeling, yes I think it needs work. Just yesterday while playing offline I chased a Zero into a dive I was in a F4U. When we pulled out we were doing over 700kph, (it scared me when I saw the airspeed)I had not gained on the Zero. Wouldn't a real Zero have came apart trying to pull out of a dive that fast?

Yes I also beleive that the latest flight model changes have caused trouble for the US radials. After stumbling onto a problem and doing some testing I've found that a fully loaded ai P-47D-22 can't get off a paved runway. I can get up ok but the ai can't. I posted a thread with the results of my findings and prepaired to be flamed. But to my suprise it got little response. I guess an post about a FM problem with test results scaes people away. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

horseback
01-10-2005, 11:57 AM
Just American radials? Even the Jug? Hmmm. Must be the drag induced by that Dupont paint. It's the only thing they might all have in common, because a change in coding that created a 'global change' due to, say, a conversion error from mph to kph or something along those lines in the earlier version would have an effect upon all radial engined fighters, or all western allied fighters...

Yeah, that's the ticket!

cheers

_54th_Target
01-10-2005, 12:30 PM
I have had similar experiences to J Weavers. I have been travelling in excess of 600Kph in an F4U and not gained on a zero. All I could do was shake my head and say WTF?

And yes the Jug doesn't dive like it used to. I'll agree with that one.

As an aside: flight models in a sim can be very subjective. I remember flying with RAF_Yank in CFS2 and asked him about the flight model of the P47. He said something that I will always remember "If the real aircraft were so difficult to fly, we wouldn't have had to worry about the Germans, we would have killed ourselves long before that".

Now I listened very closely whenever Yank said aything because Yank actually flew P47's in combat over Europe. More Yank stories can be found here:
>>>CLICK HERE<<< (http://www.raf662.com/modules.php?name=Sections&op=listarticles&secid=1)

_54th_Target

Blackdog5555
01-10-2005, 12:46 PM
There is a big thread at Sim HQ reguarding dive accelleration for all fB/Pf planes. Should go check it out. Its been talked about ad-nausium and Beta Tested to death. Its well documented that the (all)planes in FB/PF accellerate in this game in a dive the about same. What The Developer did to attempt to help the better divers e.g., K4, Jug, and Pony was to give them a higher Vne number (velocity not acceed)i.e. wings break. Test them yourself. The Jug can go 850Kph in a dive, but it gets to 800 (accellerate to) about the same time other 800+ planes do. Its just a Global problem with all the planes. It only a factor for US planes because that was just about the only thing they all did well. I play Co-ops on line and last time i played, i chose a Zero against F6F. I got on an F6F's tail, but The F6F couldnt outdive me, I chased it to the deck,.. I could easily keep up it in a dive. Even to the potential Vne of the Zero, which is an incredible 440mph in the game.(I was out of Ammo so i chased it for fun) An F6F will eventually out run a zero at top speed (in this game) but not if the F6F trys to turn. (pardon my platitudes) Everyone knows this. The Vne on the Zero is way off. Maybe oleg does this to keep the game "playable." Who knows. I dont have access to the source code. Anyone who says they are accellerating faster in a steep dive hasn't tested them with a stopwatch. Its just part of the FM that need work. Its not a Conspiracy to pork the US planes. No other sim models dive accelleration well either, IMO. Cheers..

walsh2509
01-10-2005, 01:21 PM
Im no expert on these things, but the poster who talked about patches screwing up other parts of the code, fix one thing damage another!

This happened with the patches for Lock On and the little I do know from my time in IBM hanging about with code engineers that this happens more often than not!

You have a problem witha system, they write a fix and a week down the line you just happen to notice faults in other parts of the system and a lot of the time these new faults were down to the fix they put in.


Now I was running with the F6F-5 and got the manufacturing specs for this aircraft off the net, and top speed was supposed to be 380mph/611Kmh I take that would be level flight so with no weapons or ammo on broad I tried to see what speed I could get ( I take it, that meant level flight ) so starting at a default 350kmh in Quick mission setting easy flight, I slide the throttle forward to 100% power and after about 5 or 6 mins I got up to about 450kmh. I then push it to 110% power for a few minutes and got it to (with a bit of work) 490kmh, I pulled back to 100%, even as a novice I knew that I couldn't keep 110% running, but even if I did I could tell that there was no way to get anywhere near this "top speed" 380mph/611kmh..

I did read some of the early posts after 3.03 and someone did say that the speed of the F6F-5 had been tagged about 300mph, which would be about the speed I reached 490kmh.

How long should it take sitting at 100% to get to top speed in a F6F-5? level flight 5mins? or more? would be intrested to know

horseback
01-10-2005, 01:38 PM
Generally WWII fighters acheived their cited top speeds at altitudes of 20,000 ft or more, where the air is thinner and the superchargers are able to be most effective.

Top speed at lower alts tended to be quite a bit slower, with few exceptions.

US fighters generally had their top speeds listed clean, that is without drop tanks or external ordnance, but with (at takeoff) a full load of internal fuel and standard ammo load and guns. A climb to altitude would usually burn off enough excess fuel to permit the aircraft to reach top speed (with WEP, Emergency Overboost or whatever 'extra' the engineers put in to get you out of a particularly tight spot) at the optimum height. For Merlin equipped Mustangs, the fuselage tank probably was not filled due to the CG/safety issue (otherwise, you'd have to fly around for two or three hours before trying your speed run).

In the Il-2 series, the ideal map to test for top speeds is the Crimean Map, which is supposed to model the 'ideal' air pressure, humidity and other salient factors. Climb to the desired altitude, make sure your supercharger is properly set, your aircraft is well trimmed for level flight, and let'r rip.

cheers

horseback

DRB_Hookech0
01-10-2005, 02:30 PM
I perfer mine with a thin "Carolina" style sauce, but only on the pulled pork. I like my ribs dry.

I'm going to wait until the 3.04 patch before I get deep into this. If it is still broken after that...I might as well go play something else, because the frustration levels in PF will become to great.

faustnik
01-10-2005, 03:28 PM
The pork issue is an old debate, but, I'll weigh in anyway. I prefer pork instead of plastic on my jigs in water colder than 60 degrees.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/jigspot.jpg

WUAF_Badsight
01-10-2005, 03:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Loki-PF:
Badsight,

did you miss this thread? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
no ive followed that

but you did see that i mentioned the Hellcat & corsair no ? not the Wildcat

planes in FB do not accellerate in dives exactly the same

you dive at 35 degrees ? yes or no ?

because the hellcat & Corsair will not be beaten in diving performance in any way shape or form by any Zeros we have in game

in other words , this forum member here :

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
but an F6F, F4U cannot outdive a zero <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
is lying

maybe intentionally , maybe because the difference isnt as big as he would like , but its still a falsehood

i think people want to be able to seperate a kilometers from just short dives so they can use it in DF senarios

it was an escape manouver that was used when you messed up & had no other option . . . . .

WUAF_Badsight
01-10-2005, 03:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by walsh2509:
How long should it take sitting at 100% to get to top speed in a F6F-5? level flight 5mins? or more? would be intrested to know <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
you shouldnt

it was the maximum that was possible to get from the Hellcat . . . . i.e. full power , not just Military power

Blackdog5555
01-10-2005, 04:01 PM
Badsight, generally i dont post responses to your post because you are a ******. You post all over the place like some kind of "thread monitor" with your little flamers completely devoid of factual statement. Reading your post makes me feel like im back in grade school listening to some insipid dork babble about how smart his is. Tell me you are not some 12 year old girl, please. And, i'm not going to argue with you because i dont think you have the education to understand the difference between "maximum dive speed" or VNE and diving accelleration. you dont post facts, you dont "beta test," you just like to call names. You are obviosly one who likes to get tough online. Safe for you moron. anyway i'm still laughing. Go play with your dollies, the men are talking here. LOL

WUAF_Badsight
01-10-2005, 05:26 PM
yea thats the response your left with , as you cant prove what your trying to claim , because the opposite happens in FB

try to stick to the topic instead of character assumptions

the Corsair & the Hellcat have both better accelleration in a dive & a higher dive speed than any Zero in FB

it might not be as much as you would like , & it isnt much , but saying they cant dive better than Zeros right now is a lie

which is what you were doing , posting BS trying to make out as if its fact

AFJ_Locust
01-12-2005, 11:20 PM
Ive been wondering this same thing for a while now !!!

DarkCanuck420
01-13-2005, 09:21 AM
Whether the pork is well-done or medium rare, we have to remember that they are working with a video game, its not real life. Hence, simulation. Being that they are working with software to try and get as close as possible to the real thing there is bound to be some mis calcs. Sure they have data, charts etc. but they do have to translate that into their rendition of the data collected. There is bound to be some discrepancies when compared the real thing. If you compared the PF sim to another pacific theatre flight sim, the planes would not be exactly the same as each other.
At least they are always trying to get as close as possible to get the right "feel" of the planes. Most of us have not flown these planes before so we will just have to take their word for it.


================================================

EnGaurde
03-13-2005, 02:39 AM
to answer the original question, im so concerned too.

i think theres a flaw, to be honest, in Olegs listen-to-the masses approach.

i dont want a game that the clueless loud mouthed minority has forced.

i want a FM that an aeronautical engineer who has researched the aircraft decides.

**** the idiots, i can handle educated guesses, not the results of uninformed childish laments.

google, BTW, isnt an informed source.

i fea the almighty $$$ has won over harsh but honest although ultimately predicted, reality.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
03-13-2005, 04:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
i fea the almighty $$$ has won over harsh but honest although ultimately predicted, reality.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The penny drops.

Norris

Flakenstien
03-13-2005, 05:13 AM
This topic is not Kosher http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Tully__
03-13-2005, 08:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
Oleg has stated on more than one occasion that when he fixes one aspect of a FM it usually screws something else up. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
got a link ? id like to see that quote

i havent seen him say that <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have, on a number of occasions. I don't have a link to any though I'm afraid.

Tully__
03-13-2005, 08:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by walsh2509:
Now I was running with the F6F-5 and got the manufacturing specs for this aircraft off the net, and top speed was supposed to be 380mph/611Kmh ....so starting at a default 350kmh in Quick mission setting easy flight, I slide the throttle forward to 100% power and after about 5 or 6 mins I got up to about 450kmh. I then push it to 110% power for a few minutes and got it to (with a bit of work) 490kmh, I pulled back to 100%, even as a novice I knew that I couldn't keep 110% running, but even if I did I could tell that there was no way to get anywhere near this "top speed" 380mph/611kmh.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

At what altitude?

Were you using the cockpit instruments? If so they're indicated airspeed. Max speed specifications are quoted as true airspeed and will be considerably faster if you're anywhere near the altitude at which that aircraft's max speed is quoted.

Tully__
03-13-2005, 09:08 AM
Never mind, I pulled the numbers off the net and ran the test myself. F6F-5 results below. Note the discrepancy between the indicated speed on the speedbar (250mph / 402km/h) and the true speed on the arcade no cockpit instrument (383mph / 616km/h). Also note that the top speed of the F6F-5 is a little high, as this speed was achieved in level flight at approximately 90% throttle, starting at full fuel/ammo at 1000m and climbing to test altitude on the Crimea map.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/F6F5speed.jpg

Loki-PF
03-13-2005, 01:10 PM
@Tully

I can also confirm that in the latest patch that the relative dive speed of the Wildcat compared to it's contemporary Japanese rivals has been bettered... Control authority at higher speeds still seems off but I'm a happy early war pilot (flying for both sides)

Jex_TG
03-14-2005, 05:58 AM
Hi Guys,

I'm fairly new to PF. I owned IL2/FB/Aces but never played it much and never on HL. Recently I've been getting into the PF stand alone and getting into combat. I've got a few kills but my ACM's need much improvement.

I posted about tactics with the F4 v the Zero and the ki-42. Someone told me to outdive, or dive on a zero, Ki, but reading this thread, I'm now thinking that's pointless.

Whilst I enjoy the game, I know I am at the mercy of the FM's. If the FM's are not modelled correctly, then what, as a pilot in an F4, can I do against these 2 planes? It seems now that I have no advantage in any area and that I'm simply going to get blown out the sky.

To me this seems very inept. The whole Il2, pf etc have hundreds of different planes. If we cannot use the advantages of their real life counterparts, how are we to achieve victory. If my plane requires a high dive speed that my opponent planes cannot match, and yet that speed is not available to me because all other planes have the same, then I see very little options open to me.

Surely it is of paramount importance to have these FM's correct so we can fly as they were flown IRL? It's annoying to read about a plane, and then find out that in PF, that plane cannot do the things you want it to.

Thx,

J.

Hendley
03-14-2005, 07:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jex_TG:

I posted about tactics with the F4 v the Zero and the ki-42. Someone told me to outdive, or dive on a zero, Ki, but reading this thread, I'm now thinking that's pointless.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, in the mano a mano, low-alt free-for-all dogfights that occur in FB/PF, the Zero and Ki-43 probably ARE better fighters than the Wildcat, and deserve to win most of the encounters, pilots/situation being equal.

One problem with the "plane x is porked" crowd is that they assume that success in RL for their favorite plane should translate into dogfighting dominance in-game. FB/PF models a _limited_ aspect of WW2 aerial combat; logistics, maintenance, radio communciation, ground support, training, gasoline quality, manufacturing QA, tactical development and theory mean a lot less (=nothing) whereas turn radius, armament and climb rate mean a LOT more.

So when uber-plane X with RL 100:1 k/d ratio doesn't act so uber in-game, it doesn't necessarily mean it's "porked". It might just mean it wasn't as good as you thought it was.

(Incidentally, you should still dive against a Zero if you have lots of alt, because above a certain (low) speed, the Zero loses just about all it's maneuvaribilty.)

Jex_TG
03-14-2005, 09:10 AM
Thx and I'll still give it a go. I'd prefer to find a way of making the F4 a success against these planes 1 v 1. First I think I'll need to brush up on my spotting skills - one dot on the ocean below me looks like all the rest - I'll probably dive on my own plane lol.

Of course the other option is to team up with someone on TeamSpeak. I'm thinking not too many do this and we could employ the Thatch-weave manouvre, which I believe was specifically designed against such opponents.

It certainly makes you wonder how the war would have gone for Wildcat pilots if the Japs had better comms and the weave wasn't thought up. Playing PF makes you shudder sometimes when you planes a burning wreck and you're falling to the ocean floor and knowing in RL that actually happened to someone. The game certainly lets you appreciate what those guys on all fronts had to go through...

BigKahuna_GS
03-14-2005, 11:44 AM
S!


To be honest I have never experienced the Corsair/Hellcat dive problems vs the Zeke. I have never had any problems in that area. Oleg has for the most part corrected the overdone roll rate and high speed authority of the early Zekes. There are limitations to the Sim.

What I do notice for the Corsair/Hellcat/P47 are slow intial speed acceleration when aiming the nose down past 30 degrees and excessive "E" bleed while at tremendus speeds. I have been doing close to 500mph IAS near the deck with a Corsair and with gentle change of directions watched about 250mph bleed off very rapidly.

The Jug in Americas Hundred Thousand was second in acceleration and should rapidly accelerate in a dive, it can now be caught from behind while in a long dive by 109G-10 and 109K4--totally incorrect !

I emailed Oleg about this and he said it can be and should be caught be 3 axis aircraft(not including jets).

Too this I replied :

Oleg please consider what Gunther Rall stated in front of an audience from Finland:

P47 Dive Speed (being caught from behind)

What is the difference of structural strength between a 109G6 and a 109K4 ? ---nothing but the engine and engine mountings.

Notice what Rall says about structural strength of the 109: ("You couldn't stand that you know?" 109)

Read the whole interview : http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-GuntherRallEnglish.html

Q: Mr. Rall, what was the best tactic against the P-47?

A: Against the P-47? Shoot him down! <Laughter from both Mr. Rall and audience, applause>

P-47 was not a big problem. The problem was if you were chased by the P-47, he was fast in a dive, had a higher structural strength. You couldn't stand that you know? And they came closer in a dive, because she was faster. But P-47 was a big ship, you know? No doubt. But in a position where you chase him, there was no equivalent condition.

Key point---Rall--"But in a position where you chase him, there was no equivalent condition".

The biggest problem I see with US radial fighters is the dive acceleration is too slow and excessive energy bleed. The P47's best defensive manuever of diving away at high speed is now effectively obsolete against late model luftwaffe aircraft. The P47 rained supreme in being able to dive away against german prop planes--that is a historical fact.


___

mortoma
03-14-2005, 03:22 PM
There's a difference between dives between AI piloted planes and humans piloted ones. The AI can for sure dive a Zero with any American aircraft. But when I fly the Zero myself, the Hellcats and what have you can and do dive away from me. If I try to push it and keep up, I will lose parts of my plane. The AI are immune to this type of stuff.
I hate it because I'm an offline player almost exclusively.

Stanger_361st
03-14-2005, 03:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
There's a difference between dives between AI piloted planes and humans piloted ones. The AI can for sure dive a Zero with any American aircraft. But when I fly the Zero myself, the Hellcats and what have you can and do dive away from me. If I try to push it and keep up, I will lose parts of my plane. The AI are immune to this type of stuff.
I hate it because I'm an offline player almost exclusively. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Mortoma I am with ya. When I posted the same thing Oleg respnded to me with this. See sig.

EnGaurde
03-14-2005, 04:00 PM
i fly zeros constantly, youll never see me in an american plane.

i can say with a clear conscience that wildcats and p40s consistently outdive me online. Theres no discussion about this, they simply do. In a group situation, this can be very dangerous as they zoom back above you, and next thing its a group effort diving on me. Its virtually impossible to dodge as youre flying constantly looking over your shoulder to turn into each diving p40 or wildcat hosing in shots from long range for that lucky flamer hit.

the a6m2-n-21 zero tops out in level flight at about 430kmh full throttle. Usually with turns thrown in, youll get about 350 to 380 kmh. It climbs steeply very well but doesnt seem to zoom climb all that well in comparo.

my advice, even though i dont believe im saying this http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif is to never turn your wings past 45 degrees chasing a Zero kill.

get height early, and attack with your speed over 450khm, and if you miss with the first diving attack, dive a couple thou ft lower at full throttle and zoom back up to height.

when you get sucked into low speed low turns, its only a matter of accuracy until you get shot down.

dont dogfight them, ever.