PDA

View Full Version : 4.02 worst patch ever



MD_Smoky
11-17-2005, 04:24 AM
4.02 is the worst patch that came out since the original IL-2... **** Oleg for turning my beloved porsche (bf109) into a friggin Yugo..

WOLFMondo
11-17-2005, 04:28 AM
All the 109 jocks I know still enjoy it. The 109 was the rally car of IL2, now its slightly toned down but its still a real killer.

cueceleches
11-17-2005, 04:32 AM
Is 4.02 the worst patch because the 109 is not super uber anymore??? It´s just more real, so instead of crtizising the patch, you´d better relearn how to fly the 109...

MD_Smoky
11-17-2005, 04:44 AM
Ah yea.. I could have expected these kinds of comments... Thoughtless ones..
It's totally absurd that a p40E is a better plane than the bf 109 emil and ferdinand..

I'm a bf109 jock, and I say it sucks big time..
Hartmann would have turned around in his grave if he knew Oleg's vision of the BF109..

So you superb bestest greatest aces should just shut the **** up..

MD_Smoky
11-17-2005, 04:45 AM
They didn't just tone it down.. they made it the worst plane in the game..

cueceleches
11-17-2005, 04:53 AM
Not really...it was rather unusual to see a 109 turn into a Yak or a La...except maybe for the F4. With the new patch, the 109 is still a beast, but much more according to what it should be: it still climbs excpetionally well, it is fast and has excellent acceleration, though its turning ratio has been downed a bit, which for me is rather perfect. The 109 is a B&Z one, not a T&B plane, so now, when I fly it, I feel much better when I stall while trying to turn with a La5.

MD_Smoky
11-17-2005, 05:02 AM
pfff... the la7 or yak- pilot must have been an exceptional bad pilot if it doesn't know how to get the advantage over a bf109 and I now understand your frustration... The climbrate of most bf109's has gone to **** and the few advantages it has over some of the uber**** you mentioned has totally disappeared.. Like i said even the p40 is better than the bf109 emil and ferdinand which is totally unrealistic.. The p40 was one of the worst planes in the early war.. It wasn't until later in the war that the allies were catching up..

I never used the bf109 as a turn and burn plane.. and it's totally unfit for Z&B now.. so the few strong points it had are reduced to zero.. The bf109 is a sitting duck now..

MD_Smoky
11-17-2005, 05:05 AM
So there we go again.. **** oleg for turning my plane into a yugo

WOLFMondo
11-17-2005, 05:10 AM
Originally posted by MD_Smoky:
Ah yea.. I could have expected these kinds of comments... Thoughtless ones..
It's totally absurd that a p40E is a better plane than the bf 109 emil and ferdinand..

I'm a bf109 jock, and I say it sucks big time..
Hartmann would have turned around in his grave if he knew Oleg's vision of the BF109..

So you superb bestest greatest aces should just shut the **** up..

Pleasant. Thoughtless comments? Like your highly accurate scientific approach to whining.

'F' stands for Friedrich BTWhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

jds1978
11-17-2005, 05:14 AM
The p40 was one of the worst planes in the early war.. It wasn't until later in the war that the allies were catching up..

wrong

cueceleches
11-17-2005, 05:21 AM
Well, i.e. the Hurricane was quite inferior to the 109E/4, nevertheless, it shot down hundreds of them.So, it´s possible: an inferior plane being dangerous to a superior one.It´s a question also of knowing how to take advantage of its pros. And I find the P40E a bit superior to the Hurricane in terms of firepower, acceleration and climbing rate. I would not be suprise of a P40 shooting down an early 109...but not a late version...

ElAurens
11-17-2005, 05:39 AM
http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/bunny.gif

Maple_Tiger
11-17-2005, 05:40 AM
Good God, this thread makes me laugh.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

cueceleches
11-17-2005, 05:47 AM
Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
Good God, this thread makes me laugh.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Why so?? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

MEGILE
11-17-2005, 05:57 AM
Originally posted by cueceleches:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
Good God, this thread makes me laugh.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Why so?? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because someone's 5 year old figured out the password to his daddies UBI account.

Flying_Nutcase
11-17-2005, 06:08 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by cueceleches:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
Good God, this thread makes me laugh.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Why so?? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because someone's 5 year old figured out the password to his daddies UBI account. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif Nice one. I like the 109.

Maple_Tiger
11-17-2005, 06:36 AM
Five might be too generous; in fact, I was leaning toward 4.

That wasn't nice, I'm sorry.

cueceleches has hit the nail on the head me thinks. 109 jocks will have to rely more on climb rate to beat there opponents.

As for the P-40 and emil, I think there both pretty close in turn ability at lower altitude. However, if you drag the P-40 to med or high alt, the 109 should have the advantage.

Bearcat99
11-17-2005, 07:31 AM
Originally posted by MD_Smoky:
4.02 is the worst patch that came out since the original IL-2... **** Oleg for turning my beloved porsche (bf109) into a friggin Yugo..

Actually Smoky.. it isnt the patch... or the 109... it's just you. So suck it up and give it a few weeks... or dont fly 4.02.... but save the crying for someone who cares because it wont change unless you take it off your drive.

ronnied316
11-17-2005, 09:07 AM
I completely agree that the whining is over the top and is absolutely pointless; as is the pseudo-cussing out of Oleg. That being said, everytime a new patch comes out and someone has any questions (whether they're trolling or not) that person is told that he/she will "have to re-learn how to fly their favorite plane". That's my only gripe with the patches. I finally got a grip on 4.02 last night, but I'd like to be able to apply a patch and not have to re-learn how to fly a certain plane.

/mini-rant http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

SeaFireLIV
11-17-2005, 09:17 AM
Yawn. Guess smoky had to have his vent. Learn to fly the plane. Thnx.

cueceleches
11-17-2005, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Yawn. Guess smoky had to have his vent. Learn to fly the plane. Thnx.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Equilizer
11-17-2005, 10:12 AM
Posted by MD_Smoky
I don't understand how to use the 109s strengths vs other planes weaknesses

Indeed.

Beirut
11-17-2005, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by MD_Smoky:
4.02 is the worst patch that came out since the original IL-2... **** Oleg for turning my beloved porsche (bf109) into a friggin Yugo..

Oh goodness! You have our complete sympathy. I guess you have no choice at at - you must remove IL2-PF from your hard drive at once and stop flying it. That means you'll be leaving these forums as well.

We'll miss you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

Chuck_Older
11-17-2005, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by MD_Smoky:
4.02 is the worst patch that came out since the original IL-2... **** Oleg for turning my beloved porsche (bf109) into a friggin Yugo..

Shift+F1

roybaty
11-17-2005, 11:17 AM
There are many more things in life to get upset about Smokey. If you have an issue state it in a calm civil manner otherwise ya sound like a fool even if you may have a valid argument.

In otherwords take a chill http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

gthgrrl4game
11-17-2005, 11:20 AM
Say to yourself slowly-
"its just a game, its just a game"
That being said I note that ace level AI's are just as cpable of killing me while I fly P-39's as they were before.
As for the later versions with the MK108's
*shudders*
They still are lethal opponents.

Brain32
11-17-2005, 11:27 AM
ONLY thing that I really have doubts about 109 is it's elevator stiffnes, it annoys the hell out of me.
About 109 being a Yugo - http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

BTW Smokey, where would you rate it? Yugo Coral 45, 55, or even Florida?

Rebel_Yell_21
11-17-2005, 11:32 AM
Hate to do it, but....
Got Track?

Stigler_9_JG52
11-17-2005, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by ronnied316:
I completely agree that the whining is over the top and is absolutely pointless; as is the pseudo-cussing out of Oleg. That being said, everytime a new patch comes out and someone has any questions (whether they're trolling or not) that person is told that he/she will "have to re-learn how to fly their favorite plane". That's my only gripe with the patches. I finally got a grip on 4.02 last night, but I'd like to be able to apply a patch and not have to re-learn how to fly a certain plane.

/mini-rant http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

This is getting close to the heart of the matter.

Yes, the lashing out and bad language of the original post author is over the top. But, it doesn't mean you can't complain about the FM and actually have a point.

If the FM were any good, "patches" to it would not whipsaw the capabilities of planes around like it does in this sim. No other sim EVER has had such wild swings in changes to the flight, damage and other model characteristics. The net effect: it all seems like one wild-a** guess to me. How can you feel there's any accuracy, real, imagined or even desired, when the delta is so wide between versions? Nobody's come up with an answer for that one.

I mean, come ON: one of the biggest fanbois on this website, Tagert, who still bleats on and on about "Got Track?" to deflect any criticism of the modeling, did his roll tests and found, surprise, surprise: almost all planes are widely off (compared to NACA data) in roll, both at the low- and high-speed ends of the envelope; in most cases off by between 10% and 20%!!!. And that's just ONE facet of the model. Many of us have always suspected that energy retention and acceleration have been big problem areas too, both of which have dramatic effects on any matchup. With all due respect to Tagert's considerable efforts to quantify all this stuff, you don't need to go that far to intuit that this modeling isn't even CLOSE. (You do need Tagert-style testing to be more exact and perhaps find out by how much 1c has screwed the pooch this time).

Jaws2002
11-17-2005, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by MD_Smoky:
4.02 is the worst patch that came out since the original IL-2... **** Oleg for turning my beloved porsche (bf109) into a friggin Yugo..


I understand your pain Smoky, but there is good news......
I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by switching to Geico. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

ColoradoBBQ
11-17-2005, 12:05 PM
Pfft, between 400 to 500 kph, the Bf-109s are very mean mothers.

OMK_Hand
11-17-2005, 01:53 PM
Oh dear. How Sad. Never mind...

willyvic
11-17-2005, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by MD_Smoky:
4.02 is the worst patch that came out since the original IL-2... **** Oleg for turning my beloved porsche (bf109) into a friggin Yugo..

2004 registration + 7 posts + common rant + numerous replies = We have fish for dinner.

Chuck_Older
11-17-2005, 02:27 PM
Willy, it's got to be my PC. Your avatar pic is red and green again!

Professor_06
11-17-2005, 03:31 PM
wow! Is it getting boring in here, or what?

and BTW its a Beemer, not a Porsche.

mortoma
11-17-2005, 04:25 PM
Holy krap, this stuff never fails to amaze me!!
Every time a new patch comes out, people like to blame the patch and new FM which is only different by a miniscule degree. Blame the patch that they suck as a pilot and are not getting better anyway. I rarely notice much difference and the 109 was no exception. Only difference is it's slightly harder get and keeps your guns on target, but that's true of all planes. And it's barely noticable!!! My ability and my kills per mission ratio has not changed in the 109 at all.

One misconception is that this new patch toned down the turn rate of the 109. This is a pile of horse do-do. The turns rates of most planes were compiled from data that Oleg collected a long time ago, so turn rates are rarely changed from patch to patch. Except in a rare exception where he gets better data on a plane. Plus I have not noticed an decrease in turn rate in my own experience.

And another thing, some people in here have stated that the 109 was never T&B plane, only a B&Z'er! Who says?? The Germans did adapt more of a B&Z tactic of flying high and pouncing down on the enemy but this does not mean that it was not good at turning, nor does it mean that if the Germans had adopted a turn fight tactic instead, that it would have sucked at it. In reality the 109 could be flown either way, they just adopted an official doctrine on how to fly it and the 190 both. Many Spitfire pilots commented that the Emils were near equals at turning to their Spitfires. Just because there were a few Russian planes that turned harder does not mean the 109 was a poor turner. It was an EXCELLENT turning aircraft, especially up to the early G series.
Even some Russian pilots said they thought it was a hellacious turning/manuevering plane. Most of the people in here think they are some kind of expert on WWII aircraft and I'm getting my fill of it.

ImpStarDuece
11-17-2005, 05:16 PM
Its fine. Learn to play.

DIRTY-MAC
11-17-2005, 05:39 PM
the P-40 was not that catastrophy some of you say,
it was very capable down low against 109s
fast manouvreble and a hell of a diver,

chris455
11-17-2005, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
the P-40 was not that catastrophy some of you say,
it was very capable down low against 109s
fast manouvreble and a hell of a diver,

What Dirty Mac said.

Stigler_9_JG52
11-17-2005, 06:58 PM
Yeah, but the problem with the P-40 was, early on, it was tasked with climbing to 15,000+ feet to get at Japanese bombers, which it sucked at, until Chennault came up with tactics to address it.

ElAurens
11-17-2005, 07:09 PM
Check the records of the "Checker Tail Clan" when they flew P40s in the Med.

Here (http://www.325thfg.org/index.html)

http://www.325thfg.org/images/p-40.jpg

The 325th., while flying P40s in the Med, shot down 133 enemy aircraft, the vast majority of which (95) were Bf 109s, for a total loss of 12 aircraft in air to air combat, and a loss of 43 P40s total due to all causes. (flak, mechanicals, weather).

So there!

Treetop64
11-17-2005, 07:20 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/bunny.gif

OMG! LMAO! Cute bunny!

BTW, is it just me, or is it that the ones with a post tally that are in the single digits usually gripe the loudest and most vulgar?

Treetop64
11-17-2005, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MD_Smoky:
4.02 is the worst patch that came out since the original IL-2... **** Oleg for turning my beloved porsche (bf109) into a friggin Yugo..


I understand your pain Smoky, but there is good news......
I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by switching to Geico. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


LMMFAO!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

-HH-Quazi
11-17-2005, 08:50 PM
I do not fly the 109 that often. But it seems I do better in it now than I ever have. Actually, I am liking it so much better that I just started an offline campaign with it. And it has been over a year since I had the inkling to start a long, drawn out, offline campaign. Something may be wrong with the thread starters stick, rig, or something.

carguy_
11-18-2005, 02:19 AM
After many fixes the Me109 is one of the best aircraft in the game given that the enemy plays its game.

People don`t mention it but one of the patches changed fuel consumption which GREATLY enhanced the 109.A G6 can now fly for a very long time and earlier models give me impression of the P51 range.
If you know when combat starts you can set your 109 to fight with 17% fuel left which means horizontal combat is not so big risk(although I think it is stupid anyways).

The 109 also has been lately given a tougher DM which I get to experience in about every 4th mission.From time to time I get hit with 20mm but I still can run and I can land safely.Ofcourse the combat is over for a damaged 109 but its tough nonetheless...well maybe if the engine section isn`t taken into account.

Personally I wonder why an MK108 equipped Gustav flies worse than armed with 20mm even if it is like 7kg difference in real life.

One question hangs there constantly.Why are the Antons so bad compared to the 109?
Why only very good pilots can make a FW190A deadly whereas 109 is friendly for n00bs?

The Anton is nothing like said in tests(both sides) when compared to the 109.It is a mediocre aircraft.
Why have Antons so restricted tactics whereas 109 are all around good fighters?

I have been flying both planes since 2002 and it always stays the same - you don`t want to pick the Anton over the 109....unless your only enemies are bombers.

WOLFMondo
11-18-2005, 04:22 AM
In a 1943/44 scenario with only planes from that period I'd pick the A6 over any other aircraft. It has some excellent attributes which embarrises other aircraft. Namely its speed, high speed climb, visibility, survivability and roll rate.

I would never say any 109 is superior than a 190 of the same period.

109 is more n00b friendly because it allows people to turn and burn in it. You can't do that in a 190, you have to stalk and think about energy a whole lot more, and you have yo use prop pitch to get the most out of the Antons.

Basically you need to be patient and learn more complicated evasion manouvers. Not saying the 109 is in anyway a n00b plane but in the same regards as a Spitfire or Laggs and Yaks, its an accessible aircraft to everyone. The 190's are not.

Brain32
11-18-2005, 05:25 AM
One question hangs there constantly.Why are the Antons so bad compared to the 109?
Why only very good pilots can make a FW190A deadly whereas 109 is friendly for n00bs

I've been flying for a long time, but I can say I'm 10 times better in a FW190A9 than in any late ME109 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif And I have atleast twice more flying hours in 109's. Why is that? Because you simply can not afford to dive with anything, or I'm bad at handling elevator stiffnes which I think is much overrated and even ridicolous...
Actually, I would like a tip, but I'm too frustrated to ask politely http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

gthgrrl4game
11-18-2005, 07:05 AM
Originally posted by Treetop64:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/bunny.gif

OMG! LMAO! Cute bunny!

BTW, is it just me, or is it that the ones with a post tally that are in the single digits usually gripe the loudest and most vulgar? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My tally is still low and all I do is ask questions, never get vulgar or flame anyone http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

chris455
11-18-2005, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
Yeah, but the problem with the P-40 was, early on, it was tasked with climbing to 15,000+ feet to get at Japanese bombers, which it sucked at, until Chennault came up with tactics to address it.

Possibly, but the problem that the Allies had with the P-40 was nothing compared to the problem that the Axis had with the P-40. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

ElAurens
11-18-2005, 10:50 AM
Be sure.

crazyivan1970
11-18-2005, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by MD_Smoky:
4.02 is the worst patch that came out since the original IL-2... **** Oleg for turning my beloved porsche (bf109) into a friggin Yugo..


ПлоÑ...ому Ñ"?нÑ"*ору ²Ñµ³´? я'Ñ"*? мµÑˆ?ÑŽÑ"

Stigler_9_JG52
11-18-2005, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by chris455:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
Yeah, but the problem with the P-40 was, early on, it was tasked with climbing to 15,000+ feet to get at Japanese bombers, which it sucked at, until Chennault came up with tactics to address it.

Possibly, but the problem that the Allies had with the P-40 was nothing compared to the problem that the Axis had with the P-40. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It bears some research, but I'd think that there were many other units that didn't have such success with the P-40, both in the Pacific and in N. Africa. Marseille had field days with P-40s, and I recall many stories of 'Hawk drivers complaining about how 109s always seemed to enjoy alt advantages over them.

IMHO, the P-40 was a very average aircraft which acquitted itself quite well despite some real shortcomings; sort of like "the American Hurricane".

berg417448
11-18-2005, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by chris455:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
Yeah, but the problem with the P-40 was, early on, it was tasked with climbing to 15,000+ feet to get at Japanese bombers, which it sucked at, until Chennault came up with tactics to address it.

Possibly, but the problem that the Allies had with the P-40 was nothing compared to the problem that the Axis had with the P-40. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It bears some research, but I'd think that there were many other units that didn't have such success with the P-40, both in the Pacific and in N. Africa. Marseille had field days with P-40s, and I recall many stories of 'Hawk drivers complaining about how 109s always seemed to enjoy alt advantages over them.

IMHO, the P-40 was a very average aircraft which acquitted itself quite well despite some real shortcomings; sort of like "the American Hurricane". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Marseille had field days with everything!

LeadSpitter_
11-18-2005, 12:24 PM
besides the rudder wobble the 4.02 patch is the most accurate we have ever got for all plane types, device link plots are still a bit off but closer then they ever were for all planetypes.

4.01 was the worst and most inaccurate bias patch we have ever recieved and 100$ bias to german ac

the p36 h75 hurricane yak la mig3 at 3000m p39 p40 and spit were all able to outturn the 109 but the 109 had a slightly better climb, then you have the lagg3 which was slower then the p40e and 66 which was a tiny bit quicker only at sealevel. The lagg3 could not turn with any of the above but in game out turns them all and is faster. It would be nice to have a late war p40 N which was lightened version it also dont make sence how the ligher p40b c and hawk81 as well as the tomahawks are not more manueverable then the e m and have a better roc, they were slower but lighter. If anyone noticed this patch the p40m is now more manueverable vs the e which changed.

Why the allies considered the p400 p39 p40s obscelete was range and high alt performance.

In north africa p-39s p40sb c e m ns did extremely well as well in the med and aluetian islands, same for the raaf also in burma.

you cant compair any german or russian ac to the manueverability low speed of the japanese aircraft nor climb rate they had, even late war the japanese had the superior ac nothing compairs to the ki84 which in my book was definatly one of the best performing single engine prop fighters of wwii.

4.01 was the biggest blue whiners patch exploding any enemy in one burst into nothing 109s winning the low alt turn fight as well as the high speed combat, same for antons in thier energy management would not bleed off speed like all the other ac except russian gaining an extra 200kmph in a 50m dive and holding the 600+kmph speeds for many minutes. then you had the insane 190dm which took 250-450+ hits with gunstat to bring down, it was rather ridiculous and why the eastern front and pto were the most popular in 4.01 becuase it was the only close fight

time for a deletion of this whine thread

ashley2005
11-18-2005, 12:49 PM
man i wish i could of had the hours all you guys must of had in these planes to know how they should realy fly ..(insert witty remark here)

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

fordfan25
11-18-2005, 02:09 PM
im sorry to the thread starter but i cant feel sorry for you and your 109....you see i fly p-47s http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif .

Stigler_9_JG52
11-18-2005, 02:19 PM
Leadspitter wrote:

the p36 h75 hurricane yak la mig3 at 3000m p39 p40 and spit were all able to outturn the 109 but the 109 had a slightly better climb,

I don't know how you can say this in the same post as, "4.02 is the most accurate".

For starters, the 109 should enjoy MARKED climb rate advantages over all but the [contemporary] Spit and the MiG-3. So, right there, you've blown all credibility with the "accuracy" of this FM out of the water with one salvo.

The one thing that frustrates me the most with this sim (especially in comparison with others) is the excrutiatingly high % of bull**** results I get when I "fly smart" and simply try to use historically proven tactics.

The infallible tail gunners destroying your engine with the very first hit. The tendency to lose a wing in a collision more often than score a hit with nose mounted guns. Getting dewinged by flak as a LONE plane that hasn't stayed straight and level for more than 3 seconds. The aircraft swiveling about their CoG in turns and defying what physics tell us about energy bleed. It all adds up to "end of sortie" results that just make you shake your head and say, "Whaaaaaaaa...?" rather than think, "This might be what it was like".

IL-2 may look the best by far, but as far as any semblance of accuracy, it's becoming a laughing stock. It doesn't even agree with itself, as is evidenced by the wild performance swings of planes from one version to the next. 4.02, I think, represents the lowest nadir of arcade-level buffoonery ever.

Jaws2002
11-18-2005, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
im sorry to the thread starter but i cant feel sorry for you and your 109....you see i fly p-47s http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif .

Nothing wrong with P-47 this days. So I won't feel sorry for you either. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

IceWolf_Awde
11-18-2005, 07:08 PM
I'm not that familar with IL2 but I do have a couple of points
First the BF109E had a turn radius smaller than either the spitfire and the hurricane at the time
Secondly several British shootdowns of 109's were only the result of the 109 starting to run out of fuel and gave up their advantage to head home

Chuck_Older
11-18-2005, 07:13 PM
I hesitate to equate sheer turn radius with manueverability http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

chris455
11-18-2005, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by IceWolf_Awde:
Secondly several British shootdowns of 109's were only the result of the 109 starting to run out of fuel and gave up their advantage to head home

So, one or two guys ran out of gas, and the other 800-odd Me109s shot down duting BoB were lost due to (insert answer here).

Not sure what your point is.

Treetop64
11-18-2005, 10:57 PM
Originally posted by gthgrrl4game:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Treetop64:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/bunny.gif

OMG! LMAO! Cute bunny!

BTW, is it just me, or is it that the ones with a post tally that are in the single digits usually gripe the loudest and most vulgar? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My tally is still low and all I do is ask questions, never get vulgar or flame anyone http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course, there are exceptions, my friend!

BSS_CUDA
11-19-2005, 11:23 AM
well since we're whinning here.
heh 109's ROFL. try flying the 38.
it still doesnt match its real life climb rates, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif
it will still depart a wing in hard turn on a no torque plane http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
I need 2 clicks right aileron for level flight on a no torque plane http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
it still cannot do the cloverleaf. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif
it has the weakest DM in the game. 95% failure of the control cables or the whole boom assembly. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif
it fire's the invisible tracer 50's kinda hard to zero in on a target that way.
it fire's the 50's period. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

yet I still fly it and ONLY it. I must admit tho I am getting dissilusioned with it since the 4.02 patch. 4.01 I was killing at a 3.1 rate. 4.02 I'm at a 1.2 rate, hell even with the 3.04 I was killing at a 1.8 clip and that was before our new and "improved" FM http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif of course the wobbles havent helped things. so dont complain to us about your 109 wondershot planes. unless you start losing your tail's at a 95% rate. then I might listen.

Grey_Mouser67
11-19-2005, 11:32 AM
Yesterday, Friday, when I got home from work at about 5:00 pm Central US time, there were about 900 players online....by about 7:30pm there were only 350 or so.

I don't think there are many Americans flying this sim anymore compared to what there was. There are only a couple of servers that I can expect to fly on during a weekday evening....when I come home for lunch, European evening, the place is loaded.

I wonder if Oleg notices. He is wide open to competition from another sim developer for the US market due to some dubious choices in DM's, FM's and weapons....I'll leave it at that.

BTW Cuda...I agree 100%. The lightning is my favorite plane of WWII and it really stinks in this game. Give us a little elevator authority too...it was a premier B&Z aircraft!

EnGaurde
11-19-2005, 11:34 AM
not looking for a fistfight, but cuda, some of the thngs you mentioned about the 38...

climb rates? dont know, seems ok but testing may indicate otherwise.

departing a wing in hard turn... i thought torque had less of a par in spinning than tip stall due to angle of attack. I dont see how the 38 is immune to this.

aileron clicks for level flight? hmmm i dont get that but it could be a controller thing.

cloverleaf? never tried.

DM.... ive hosed it again and again and i find it quite tough. But i may not be hitting the right areas. I flame engines much more often.

tracers... i read somewhere you should never fall into the trap of aiming with tracer but use the gunsight instead. That Horrido! book has it detailed.

the 50s... so much has been said, who really knows for sure anymore eh? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

i dont seem to have those issues but i dont fly it as regularly as yourself.

AFJ_Locust
11-19-2005, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by MD_Smoky:
4.02 is the worst patch that came out since the original IL-2... **** Oleg for turning my beloved porsche (bf109) into a friggin Yugo..


LMAO

German ac still rule the skys

BSS_CUDA
11-19-2005, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by EnGaurde:
not looking for a fistfight, but cuda, some of the thngs you mentioned about the 38...

climb rates? dont know, seems ok but testing may indicate otherwise.

departing a wing in hard turn... i thought torque had less of a par in spinning than tip stall due to angle of attack. I dont see how the 38 is immune to this.

aileron clicks for level flight? hmmm i dont get that but it could be a controller thing.

cloverleaf? never tried.

DM.... ive hosed it again and again and i find it quite tough. But i may not be hitting the right areas. I flame engines much more often.

tracers... i read somewhere you should never fall into the trap of aiming with tracer but use the gunsight instead. That Horrido! book has it detailed.

the 50s... so much has been said, who really knows for sure anymore eh? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

i dont seem to have those issues but i dont fly it as regularly as yourself.

Tagert has already proved that the 38 isnt up to climb specs

as for departing the wing in a hard turn, that what made the 38 so great and where the Cloverleaf originated, the cloverleaf was an accelerated stall turn, the aircraft would pull hard into a turn and stall without departing a wing, they would let off the yoke allowing the plane to comeout of this controlled stall and then do it again. the 38 was able to turn inside the Spit by using the cloverleaf. if memory serves the the 38 had a lower stall speed than all but the Zero. easily in the 80 MPH range.

from dead 6 without any evasive it will take a few hits, but anything from any angle and its almost a 100% boom or control surface failure. I have the traks if you want.

yes I understand that you aim with your gunsite, but when you cannot tell where your shots are going, you cant tell if your leading or shooting from behind. Ironic that its ONLY from in cockpit that you cannot see the 50 tracers, they show up fine at an angle or a distance

as for the hitting power of the 50's agreed who's to say. I'm not sure that it's the 50's thats the problem, I REALLY feel that its the DM of all aircraft.. when 6 50's would cut a train boxcar in half at 100yd, they should EASLY rip an aluminum plane to shreads. but then what fun would that be getting blown apart like the 38 all the time http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

dizeee
11-19-2005, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by chris455:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by IceWolf_Awde:
Secondly several British shootdowns of 109's were only the result of the 109 starting to run out of fuel and gave up their advantage to head home

So, one or two guys ran out of gas, and the other 800-odd Me109s shot down duting BoB were lost due to (insert answer here).

Not sure what your point is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol typical post-war perception of actual ww2 events, influenced by movies and fancy novell style pilot stories.

during the timeframe which is nowdays widely acapted as bob, the lw 109 units racked up a ~ 3:1 kill to loss ratio. this stat improved to over 4:1 during the channel fighting in 41-42. some gruppen had transitioned to the 190 during those years ofc.

german industrial single engine fighter output, in late 40, had reached a record low, with only about a quater to third, cant remember exactly, compared to the british output.

if idd 800-900 109´ers would have been lost, the lw jg´s would have ceased to exist as a effective fighting force, by early 41.

Chuck_Older
11-19-2005, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by dizeee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by chris455:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by IceWolf_Awde:
Secondly several British shootdowns of 109's were only the result of the 109 starting to run out of fuel and gave up their advantage to head home

So, one or two guys ran out of gas, and the other 800-odd Me109s shot down duting BoB were lost due to (insert answer here).

Not sure what your point is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol typical post-war perception of actual ww2 events, influenced by movies and fancy novell style pilot stories.

during the timeframe which is nowdays widely acapted as bob, the lw 109 units racked up a ~ 3:1 kill to loss ratio. this stat improved to over 4:1 during the channel fighting in 41-42. some gruppen had transitioned to the 190 during those years ofc.

german industrial single engine fighter output, in late 40, had reached a record low, with only about a quater to third, cant remember exactly, compared to the british output.

if idd 800-900 109´ers would have been lost, the lw jg´s would have ceased to exist as a effective fighting force, by early 41. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm going to have to look up stats on those numbers; this seems like claimed kill ratios, not actual kill ratios. 3:1 in favor of the Luftwaffe in the Summer of 1940 seems optomistic. I wonder if this info is in my 'Right of the Line', probably not as it doesn't key on the Battle of Britain specifically. 'Duel of Eagles' might have it. I'll take a look later on. Right now I'm much too busy cooking, baking, and guzzling scotch whisky. And making a huge mess http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Nubarus
11-19-2005, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by dizeee:
lol typical post-war perception of actual ww2 events, influenced by movies and fancy novell style pilot stories.

during the timeframe which is nowdays widely acapted as bob, the lw 109 units racked up a ~ 3:1 kill to loss ratio. this stat improved to over 4:1 during the channel fighting in 41-42. some gruppen had transitioned to the 190 during those years ofc.

Can you back that statement up with actual figures?

I just looked over the whole month July 1940 in the daily report section of BoB and the LW lost more fighters then the RAF did, and I only counted the confirmed kills.

Unknown-Pilot
11-19-2005, 05:48 PM
Funny - I played 4.01 on and offline alot, and while I was spending most of my time in blue planes (not blue side - USN), I can certainly say that it was not even close to a LW bias.

And in 4.02, I really like the 109. As some have said, it's about the closest to accurate we've had (with the possible exception of FB1.0).

In fact, overall, this is probably the best (most accurate) patch to date.

Regarding 190 vs 109 - '42-'43, I'd rather the 190. It tends to have the advantage over opponents when used properly, has a great roll rate, awesome fire power, and is much tougher than the 109. That's not to say the 109 isn't good, but I prefer the high speed game to the vertical stall fight game. (plus with 6 guns, it's easier to hit with lol)

The 190A9 is a bit of a conundrum. It's certainly the best Anton, but it's advantages in speed, dive and zoom are so erroded, it's almost dangerous to use. Since the D9 is a '44 plane as well, it doesn't make much sense to use the A9. Although, Eric Brown claims that the Dora had "all the handling of the Antons", and in this game, it clearly does not.

In fact, overall all the 190s are penalized in areas of e-bleed from changing AoA. That, pluse the abysmal (and incorrect) forward view and low speed guns make it difficult to use for a beginner. Whereas, the 109 doesn't have the fire drop off (to such an extent), and can turn better. So in a sim, it's certainly going to be the more 'n00b friendly' plane. (take turning and low e-bleed to ridiculous lengths with laser-like guns and you have IL2/FB/AEP/PF soviet craft - the ultimate in n00b pleasure)

One of the reasons the 190 was known as a good plane for regluar (non-experten) pilots was it was so automated, with a wonderful, well organized cockpit, good control response at high speeds, excellent visibility (you'd never know it from this game series, but the real thing was reknowned for it's visibility, over the nose and otherwise), fully automated engine, extreme firepower, high speed, and low drag (it was exceptionally well fitted, and a clean design overall).

Much of that isn't really replicable in a PC sim (yet). And some of it doesn't get attempted in this series, given the focus of it's physics engine.

The Hellcat has been screwed since the first patch of PF. It was closest to accurate out of the box. And we don't have anything even resembling and accurate cockpit for either F6F. Wasn't "accuate cockpits" one of the driving forces for Oleg and the reason for many planes to be denied (not enough data to make an accurate one)? What we have is a piss poor kludge of the -3 and -5. And, while we did get rid of the piss stains on the front glass, we still have some on the side with an odd break. Look out the side, at the wing and notice a color change on the wing about half-way up, then open the canopy and see the change. That is most bizarre. And of course, lets not forget that the guns, the SAME guns as on the UFOrsair, don't have as much punch and are harder to use. Even though the Hellcat was known to be the better weapons platform. Oh, and the P-39 in 4.02 can fly slower, full dirty, power off, than the Hellcat can. I'd love to hear an explanation for that one....

Unknown-Pilot
11-19-2005, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
I'll take a look later on. Right now I'm much too busy cooking, baking, and guzzling scotch whisky. And making a huge mess http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

I'll learn to work the saxophone
I'll play just what I feel
Drink Scotch whisky all night long
And die behind the wheel
They got a name for the winners in the world
I want a name when I lose
They call Alabama the Crimson Tide
Call me Deacon Blues

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Chuck_Older
11-19-2005, 06:14 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

ImpStarDuece
11-19-2005, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by dizeee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by chris455:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by IceWolf_Awde:
Secondly several British shootdowns of 109's were only the result of the 109 starting to run out of fuel and gave up their advantage to head home

So, one or two guys ran out of gas, and the other 800-odd Me109s shot down duting BoB were lost due to (insert answer here).

Not sure what your point is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol typical post-war perception of actual ww2 events, influenced by movies and fancy novell style pilot stories.

during the timeframe which is nowdays widely acapted as bob, the lw 109 units racked up a ~ 3:1 kill to loss ratio. this stat improved to over 4:1 during the channel fighting in 41-42. some gruppen had transitioned to the 190 during those years ofc.

german industrial single engine fighter output, in late 40, had reached a record low, with only about a quater to third, cant remember exactly, compared to the british output.

if idd 800-900 109´ers would have been lost, the lw jg´s would have ceased to exist as a effective fighting force, by early 41. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

German losses at the front for the Battle of Britain period were 1804 aircraft, including operational and non-operational accidents. There were 604 Bf-109s lost and 271 Bf-110s lost. There were 170 Bf-109s damaged.

British losses, including bomber, costal and fighter commands, for the whole of the UK were 1603 aircraft, including operational and non-operational losses. Fighter Command lost 901 aircraft, 50 of which were Blenhiems, Defiants or Beaufighters.

So the loss ratio is slightly in favour of the British for the July 10 to October 30 period. British losses were in excess of German losses both before and after the Battle period, but never at the 3:1 ratio suggested, except for a short period when initially faced with the Fw-190. After alterations of tactics, British losses fell to around 1.5:1. This includes large operations like Dunkirk, where the loss ratio was around 9:1.

British losses during WW2 were 9,163 aircraft in Bomber Command, 3,558 in Fighter Command, 2,115 in the Tactial Air Forces, 1,579 in Costal Command and 70 in Army Co-operation Command for a total of 16,485 lost in all theatres. These include all aircraft that returned to base but were written off as non-repairable.

jds1978
11-19-2005, 07:03 PM
They call Alabama the Crimson Tide


so thats what that line reads! i never knew that

Badsight.
11-19-2005, 07:06 PM
ive knowen MD_Smokey since 2003 , hes a good stick & good fun host to online games

if this wasnt a (poor) attempt at UBI trolling , im genuinely surprised he stated what he has in the way he has

Unknown-Pilot
11-20-2005, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by carguy_:
Personally I wonder why an MK108 equipped Gustav flies worse than armed with 20mm even if it is like 7kg difference in real life.

One question hangs there constantly.Why are the Antons so bad compared to the 109?
Why only very good pilots can make a FW190A deadly whereas 109 is friendly for n00bs?

The Anton is nothing like said in tests(both sides) when compared to the 109.It is a mediocre aircraft.
Why have Antons so restricted tactics whereas 109 are all around good fighters?

I have been flying both planes since 2002 and it always stays the same - you don`t want to pick the Anton over the 109....unless your only enemies are bombers.

I'm not picking on this comment, I just wanted to relate some experience on this.

First off, excellent point about the 108 vs 20mm. Difference in handling should be slight to negidgible, one would think. But I haven't done direct comparisons in game to see the difference.

But 109 vs 190 (again, not harping on it, it's just been on my mind and found something I wanted to mention), I did some offline playing around.

Before I go any further, I want to stress something. Don't get hung up on it being offline. AI is not an issue here. Not at all. This is a comparison of how 2 different planes fly, from the perspective of flying them, against a known and consistent quantity. But using AI as the opponent, and keeping all settings (plane, flight sides, sides, map, starting alt, AI level, fuel loads, etc) the same, you can remove all of that from the equasion and deal just with flying the 2 planes being looked at.

Having said that - I played around with 4 avg. 190A4s, vs 4 avg. Spit VB's, non-CW, from '42, on the Crimea map, (flying the 190s as Axis), with 50% fuel in the 190 and 25% fuel in the Spits. Starting alt was 2Km, at high noon, with clear skies and no AAA.

I always beat them, and found a pleasant surprise in that they seemed to match up against one another as I'd expect. Usually it was a 3-0 (remaining standing) result for my 190s, but once it as a 2-0.

Then I tried the G2s, and it felt much easier to blast them 4-0. At first this troubled me because the 190s were a struggle by comparison (yet I felt more comfortable in the 190s and would prefer them in such a scenario).

After thinking about it a bit, it occured to me - it's the QMB. NOT the fact that it's offline, but rather the way the QMB sets up, head to head, at just under ideal climb speed. A plane that accelerates faster and climbs better will have an advantage.

And knowing the turning deficiet with the 190s, I'd zoom at hte start to try to get an alt advantage. But it just wasn't enough.

I didn't do this with the 109 because I was more confident about it's climb and turn. And this is what caused these results - I had more speed in the 109 at merge and was able to use it's strengths to capitolize more quickly.

So I went back and tried for a more reasonable matchup - I got back in the 190s, and set the situation to advantage and did not zoom at the beginning.

You know what? It was a cakewalk. Far easier than the 109s.

Let's not forget that many experten did prefer the 109s. Even if they started out on it, someone flying in combat isn't going to let sentimentality or "being used" to something color his decision. He wants the most potent weapon possible. And the experten just felt they could do more with the 109. Logically there was a reason for that, and it shouldn't be forgotten.

And in an online situation, with everyone flying solo, at low level with little patience to use energy tactics, it's no surprise that the 109 is the preferred and more successful plane.

Put the 190 in groups, with proper tactics and patience, and they will eat everyone alive and be far more effective and deadly. But they are poor at 1v1 duels, the 109 is much better there.

So I would say that it's about right. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Sorry for the novel. lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

danjama
11-20-2005, 06:24 PM
But they are poor at 1v1 duels, the 109 is much better there.

I agree with everything u said but this. Fockes are great for Duels, at least as good as the 109. The only time i worry in my Focke is when i am in a fight and another enemy comes and joins in. Then i am screwed. Of course this wouldnt happen in QMB caus u know its 1on1.

Anyway, 4.02 is best patch ever!

Unknown-Pilot
11-20-2005, 07:15 PM
Depends on who you're fighting and the initial context I guess.

What I mean is, when you're both on the deck with low (and co-)E, then the 109's better turn, but mostly, it's climb rate, will make it the better 1v1 dueler.

If given an E advantage of considerable margin and 2-3Km fight start alt (enemy alt), then I'd take the 190 hands down and call it better in a duel in that case.

Of course, year makes a difference too. '44/'45 all bets are off. I don't think I could choose between a D9 and a K4, and they'd both probably be about equal in 1v1 (each having advantages over the other).

danjama
11-21-2005, 05:06 AM
Yep that's good to me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

WOLFMondo
11-21-2005, 05:54 AM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
The 190A9 is a bit of a conundrum. It's certainly the best Anton, but it's advantages in speed, dive and zoom are so erroded, it's almost dangerous to use. Since the D9 is a '44 plane as well, it doesn't make much sense to use the A9. Although, Eric Brown claims that the Dora had "all the handling of the Antons", and in this game, it clearly does not.


100% disagree. The Dora does everything better.

IMHO the Dora is the best A/C in this sim. The Mustang MkIII, P47D and Spitfire VIII come close.

The A9's advantage is firepower and ordanance. The A9 is still one of the best rollers, high speed climbers and fastest planes going. Its acceleration isn't to bad either.


Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
In fact, overall all the 190s are penalized in areas of e-bleed from changing AoA. That, pluse the abysmal (and incorrect) forward view and low speed guns make it difficult to use for a beginner. Whereas, the 109 doesn't have the fire drop off (to such an extent), and can turn better. So in a sim, it's certainly going to be the more 'n00b friendly' plane. (take turning and low e-bleed to ridiculous lengths with laser-like guns and you have IL2/FB/AEP/PF soviet craft - the ultimate in n00b pleasure)


e-bleed isn't that bad. The 190's retain speed very well but you have to constantly look at the aritifical horizon and make steady manouvers to make sure the AoA is good. E-bleed on the P47 is way worse but then it does weight 5000lbs more than a FW190 with the same engine output with a worse radiator design and those pylons.


IMHO the 190 is really well modelled. Its not over or undermodelled but accuratly modelled. High speed roll is undermodelled but I can live with that.


Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
One of the reasons the 190 was known as a good plane for regluar (non-experten) pilots was it was so automated, with a wonderful, well organized cockpit, good control response at high speeds, excellent visibility (you'd never know it from this game series, but the real thing was reknowned for it's visibility, over the nose and otherwise), fully automated engine, extreme firepower, high speed, and low drag (it was exceptionally well fitted, and a clean design overall).


All these things are reflected in this sim. The only issue is lack of head movement to take advantage of the front view but side and read view is great, as is the downward view. The automation is great on the Dora but I like using the prop pitch on the Anton.

Unknown-Pilot
11-21-2005, 08:18 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
The 190A9 is a bit of a conundrum. It's certainly the best Anton, but it's advantages in speed, dive and zoom are so erroded, it's almost dangerous to use. Since the D9 is a '44 plane as well, it doesn't make much sense to use the A9. Although, Eric Brown claims that the Dora had "all the handling of the Antons", and in this game, it clearly does not.


100% disagree. The Dora does everything better.

IMHO the Dora is the best A/C in this sim. The Mustang MkIII, P47D and Spitfire VIII come close.

The A9's advantage is firepower and ordanance. The A9 is still one of the best rollers, high speed climbers and fastest planes going. Its acceleration isn't to bad either. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know how far you push planes, but the simple fact of the matter is, at low speeds, the Dora turns much more poorly than the A's (A4/5/6/9). Only at high speeds are they the same, and in that case, blackout is the bottleneck, and all planes turn the same (from Yak3 to P-51).

Therefore, the statement that the Dora's have "all the handling of the Antons" is simply not reflected in this game.




Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
In fact, overall all the 190s are penalized in areas of e-bleed from changing AoA. That, pluse the abysmal (and incorrect) forward view and low speed guns make it difficult to use for a beginner. Whereas, the 109 doesn't have the fire drop off (to such an extent), and can turn better. So in a sim, it's certainly going to be the more 'n00b friendly' plane. (take turning and low e-bleed to ridiculous lengths with laser-like guns and you have IL2/FB/AEP/PF soviet craft - the ultimate in n00b pleasure)


e-bleed isn't that bad. The 190's retain speed very well but you have to constantly look at the aritifical horizon and make steady manouvers to make sure the AoA is good. E-bleed on the P47 is way worse but then it does weight 5000lbs more than a FW190 with the same engine output with a worse radiator design and those pylons.


IMHO the 190 is really well modelled. Its not over or undermodelled but accuratly modelled. High speed roll is undermodelled but I can live with that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>[/quote]

There are 2 types of e-bleed. One is pure drag, and in that case, it's not too bad off, the other is from changing AoA (ie, pitching, be it turning or split-S'ing or climbing). In the latter it bleeds fiercly.

In both cases it bleeds not just worse, but significantly worse than the La5FN and 7. There is no justification for that that I have ever seen - beyond the red-whiners in this forum of course.



Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
One of the reasons the 190 was known as a good plane for regluar (non-experten) pilots was it was so automated, with a wonderful, well organized cockpit, good control response at high speeds, excellent visibility (you'd never know it from this game series, but the real thing was reknowned for it's visibility, over the nose and otherwise), fully automated engine, extreme firepower, high speed, and low drag (it was exceptionally well fitted, and a clean design overall).


All these things are reflected in this sim. The only issue is lack of head movement to take advantage of the front view but side and read view is great, as is the downward view. The automation is great on the Dora but I like using the prop pitch on the Anton. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>[/quote]

The visibility is not even close to being reflected in this sim. It's more than just the extremely oversized canopy framing, it's the lack of refraction in the front. The view over the nose was regarded as quite good - it's not in this game. Yet, we have a plane that was known for poor over the nose vis, especially on landing - the UFOrsair, that has spectactular vis in this game. So much so that it's actually easier to see and land with than the Hellcat - completely opposite reality.

Automation is irrelevant in a sim where everything is automated. Only with CEM did the Komandogeraet have any hint of being present, and even in 4.02, it's benefit is minimal at best. And just how many pilots used manual prop on 190s? The whole point was a single engine control, the throttle, everything else was done for you. Using the manual pitch to eek out extra performance might work, but it's gaming the game.

WOLFMondo
11-21-2005, 10:19 AM
We'll have to agree to disagree. I fly the Dora, A5, A6 and A9 very very regularly and I'd say the Dora is by far the best of them in every way apart from firepower. Even at low speeds its surpases the Antons in all ways.

As for e-bleed compared to La's, I don't know. I don't fly the Dora slow and I don't do things that bleed energy unless I want a overshoot but I do disagree about climbing, it has great zoom climb. I've fought La7's recently online (better than against the AI but not perfect I'll grant you) but looking back at tracks I was beating La7's after me in high speed climbs.

Corsair a UFO? What sim you playing? I don't know how one should fly IRL but what we have in PF hasn't exactly given me a hard on! I'll stick with my Dora, P47 and Mustang MIII for late war action.

Unknown-Pilot
11-21-2005, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
We'll have to agree to disagree. I fly the Dora, A5, A6 and A9 very very regularly and I'd say the Dora is by far the best of them in every way apart from firepower. Even at low speeds its surpases the Antons in all ways.

I s'pose so. Which would be all the easier if not for comments like yours starting out your 3rd paragraph below.

I know that in DF's, the Antons will get around easier. At 450kph the A9 isn't buffetting, yet riding the onset of black out, the Dora however, is buffetting. The Dora also has more difficulty getting over the top in a loop.

However, it's extra speed and climb make that less of an issue, and when used "properly", these problems are more than compentsated for. I'm not saying that makes the A's better than the D's in this game, I hope you don't think I am (that could be the source of conflict if so). As I said in an earlier post, if the D9 '44 is offered, then short of bomber busting, there is absolutely no reason to use an A9, and in fact, I think it would be much more dangerous to try to do so. Just as I wouldn't use the A8 if the A9 was available. (actually, I try to avoid the 8 at all costs. lol)

I too spend a fair amount of time in the 190s. I am a plane wh0re. I will fly anything and everything with the exception of ring handled soviet ****, and anything with a yoke in it. In fact, I tend to stay away from ring handles overall, the only exception being the Spits and Hurris, and those are rare exceptions. (personal preference thing)

In IL2 (and why the hell to people insist on calling PF IL2? but n/m), I was a dedicated 190 jock (after doing time in the 109 trying to make it work and at that patch level it just wasn't happening). Like many LW pilots who were in slumps in the 109, I had greater success in the 190. I went back in FB 1.0 as, while the 190 had demonstrably improved, so did everything else, but just more so, so the relative performance dropped.

When flying blue online, I grab for a 190, when flying red online, I grab for an F6F-5 first, followed by a P-47D (new one). Only if I start to get frustrated will I venture into anything else anymore. (It's so nice to see the Jug finally be worth a ****. I love using it. And since my Grumman is so often missing, I tend to use the Jug most of all anymore)

Offline, where I also do a lot of flying, I use the 190 a lot. Lately I've been enjoying 4v4 matches against Spits using various 190s.




As for e-bleed compared to La's, I don't know. I don't fly the Dora slow and I don't do things that bleed energy unless I want a overshoot but I do disagree about climbing, it has great zoom climb. I've fought La7's recently online (better than against the AI but not perfect I'll grant you) but looking back at tracks I was beating La7's after me in high speed climbs.

What was your initial speed vs his? This is where all this stuff gets complicated and causes fights, so let's not go there. What I mean is, from flying them first hand (well, in game), pulling up with a given amount of stick deflection at a given speed, the 190 is worse off.

This is the nature of the physics engine more than just an issue of the 190 itself. The 109 suffers from it, as does the P-47, and Mustang. IOW - this sim is made for TnB planes, E-fighters have always gotten somewhat hosed, going back to IL2. It's better now (MUCH better, thank god - I'll re-iterate in case readers may have gotten the wrong impression, 4.02 is the best patch so far), but it's still present.




Corsair a UFO? What sim you playing? I don't know how one should fly IRL but what we have in PF hasn't exactly given me a hard on! I'll stick with my Dora, P47 and Mustang MIII for late war action.

There's no need for **** like that.

In 4.02 I've not used it too much, but in all previous patches, it has been. It handles too good and is too fast in comparison to the Hellcat (more precisely, the Hellcat has been screwed since the first patch for PF). It's guns are supremely easy to use, and have more punch and are easier to hit with, than the Hellcat. And then there is the view over the nose for landing. Pure fantasy and laughable as presented in PF.

Has it been toned down in 4.02? I certainly hope so. (And FWIW, I've gotten most of my kills on Aerial Thunder in the Jug against Corsairs. That doesn't change my view on it though. IOW - it's not about being able to beat it or not)

EDIT - Wow, you can't say c r a p here. Bleedin' commie word filter.....

gthgrrl4game
11-21-2005, 12:33 PM
Has it been toned down in 4.02? I certainly hope so. (And FWIW, I've gotten most of my kills on Aerial Thunder in the Jug against Corsairs. That doesn't change my view on it though. IOW - it's not about being able to beat it or not)

Offline I have had Ki-46 Kai's at Ace level giving me TnB heartburn! The Corsair is NOT easy to fly. I cannot say what it was like before 4.02 since I stated this whole thing with 4.02. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WOLFMondo
11-21-2005, 01:13 PM
Unknown-Pilot, the Corsair I find incredibly slow, on the deck and at altitude. If you look at real world data though the Corsair is so much faster at all heights than the Hellcat. The F6F is one slow plane for a late war fighter, it can't even top 400mph at altitude.

I really have tried to like both the Corsair and Hellcat but just can't. Apart from there endurance, toughness and ordanance I cannot find anything I like about these planes. I always feel vulnerable in them. They both overheat like they've got nuclear reactors installed in them.

I really don't know if there modelled badly or I just can't fly them but I do know I don't like them too much.


Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
What was your initial speed vs his? This is where all this stuff gets complicated and causes fights, so let's not go there. What I mean is, from flying them first hand (well, in game), pulling up with a given amount of stick deflection at a given speed, the 190 is worse off.

I agree, its very difficult to tell, as in real pilot accounts, the person telling the tale doesn't have information specifically about the opponent.

Either way, I like the Dora as it is. Sort the high speed roll out and its perfect. As you say, you like almost all teh planes apart from the VVS ones which is pretty much a similar opinion to mine but out of all the pure fighters the Dora is my absolute favorite to fly.

As for the Antons, I will take the A9 as a defensive fighter or attack plane. Its good at defending targets because of its firepower and its now slouch when it comes to top speed and durability.

leitmotiv
11-21-2005, 01:13 PM
I LOVE 4.02! As for invoking Erich Hartmann against it, all I can say is that, since this patch I have been able to mimic his favorite tactic against the Il-2 (come from under and blast the rad) with greater facility than I could with any previous incarnation of Oleg's sims---in fact, I find I can deliver snap shots in the midst of rolls and other such Ernst Udet barnstorming maneuvers and hit with startling regularity. I believe the control of the 109 to be refined with the new patch, not degraded. I am doing wild things with the 109, not just the same old boom and zoom.

gthgrrl4game
11-21-2005, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Unknown-Pilot, the Corsair I find incredibly slow, on the deck and at altitude. If you look at real world data though the Corsair is so much faster at all heights than the Hellcat. The F6F is one slow plane for a late war fighter, it can't even top 400mph at altitude.

I really have tried to like both the Corsair and Hellcat but just can't. Apart from there endurance, toughness and ordanance I cannot find anything I like about these planes. I always feel vulnerable in them. They both overheat like they've got nuclear reactors installed in them.

I really don't know if there modelled badly or I just can't fly them but I do know I don't like them too much.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
What was your initial speed vs his? This is where all this stuff gets complicated and causes fights, so let's not go there. What I mean is, from flying them first hand (well, in game), pulling up with a given amount of stick deflection at a given speed, the 190 is worse off.

I agree, its very difficult to tell, as in real pilot accounts, the person telling the tale doesn't have information specifically about the opponent.

Either way, I like the Dora as it is. Sort the high speed roll out and its perfect. As you say, you like almost all teh planes apart from the VVS ones which is pretty much a similar opinion to mine but out of all the pure fighters the Dora is my absolute favorite to fly.

As for the Antons, I will take the A9 as a defensive fighter or attack plane. Its good at defending targets because of its firepower and its now slouch when it comes to top speed and durability. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I actually like the 'Cat in this game. Of course this is the one and only sim I have done.
It is slow but quite agile and well-behaved. And Durable http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

gthgrrl4game
11-21-2005, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
I LOVE 4.02! As for invoking Erich Hartmann against it, all I can say is that, since this patch I have been able to mimic his favorite tactic against the Il-2 (come from under and blast the rad) with greater facility than I could with any previous incarnation of Oleg's sims---in fact, I find I can deliver snap shots in the midst of rolls and other such Ernst Udet barnstorming maneuvers and hit with startling regularity. I believe the control of the 109 to be refined with the new patch, not degraded. I am doing wild things with the 109, not just the same old boom and zoom.

I have just started the 109, the scary fast climb rate rocks. Up high, it is great. Down low, give me the '39 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Unknown-Pilot
11-21-2005, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Unknown-Pilot, the Corsair I find incredibly slow, on the deck and at altitude. If you look at real world data though the Corsair is so much faster at all heights than the Hellcat. The F6F is one slow plane for a late war fighter, it can't even top 400mph at altitude.

I really have tried to like both the Corsair and Hellcat but just can't. Apart from there endurance, toughness and ordanance I cannot find anything I like about these planes. I always feel vulnerable in them. They both overheat like they've got nuclear reactors installed in them.

I really don't know if there modelled badly or I just can't fly them but I do know I don't like them too much.

The real thing could hang with Zeros down to about 200mph and only start losing the turn at around 180mph. Zero's of all things.

I wish search was working because much of this stuff was posted long ago, and I don't have it easily at hand right now.

The roll was only slightly slower than the Vought, and this was due to the inherent stability of the Grumman design, which made it a better gun platform than the Corsair. Not so in this game.

The view over the nose was simply amazing, even while taxi-ing. This further helped for deflection shots, as well as watching the LSO.

The stall speeds, both power on and off were extremely low. It's take off run distance was extremely short (about 600ft IIRC like I said, been awhile and I can't search for the posts where there were oringally listed - and by me, so I know the sources, I just don't have easy access to them right now).

It did not have any significant overheat problems. And it's speed was actually quite close to the Corsair, at all alt's. Some of the perceived speed difference is thought to be attributed to the pitot placements.

One of the reasons the Hellcat is slower is the radiator design. Grumman was asked by the Navy to mimic the Vought design and he refused. You see, the Vought had icing problems that the Grumman design avoided.

It was so rugged on landing, that the Navy asked Grumman to see what it would take to break it. So they dropped it onto it's gear from a hoist in the Grumman hangar at progressively higher points. They stopped at 21feet because that was as high as they could lift it. A static 21 foot drop onto it's gear did not break it.

It was a pilot's plane, and a naval one at that, through and through. Supremely easy to land on a carrier. Fast. Rugged. Heavy punch. Great gun platform. Great diver. Good high speed control. Comfortable. Ergonomic. And highly maneuverable. (take a look at wing loadings, it's better than an La7 and close to a Yak3)

Go back to unpatched PF if you can. That's the most accurate representation of the Hellcat we've had - except for the pi$$ stains on the glass and the fact that even then the stall speeds were still too high (and even then the guns were still less effective than the Corsair's, and the view over the nose on landing was worse (even without the seat jack), and the pit was (and still is) wrong).

I would bet money that the reason we didn't get the F7F and F8F had nothing to do with copyright, if you get my drift. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif (certainly couldn't be date, war use, or number built when we have the I-185, Bi-1, Go-229, and Bf-109Z - which I'm glad we do, extremely, I'm just sayin')

And as recently as 3.04 the Corsair was a TnB plane. I got out of messing with it because it's so **** over popular (which is why its always been overmodeled) by the time 4.01 came out and had a long break since then. So as I said, it may be a bit more believable in 4.02. I certainly hope so anyway.

gthgrrl4game
11-21-2005, 02:13 PM
Go back to unpatched PF if you can. That's the most accurate representation of the Hellcat we've had

I am not an experienced sim'er, and may have missed some discussion, but does all this apply to the 4.02 cat? I ask 'cause I REALLY like flying them. If they are seriously under modelled then they must really rock...

Unknown-Pilot
11-21-2005, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by gthgrrl4game:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Go back to unpatched PF if you can. That's the most accurate representation of the Hellcat we've had

I am not an experienced sim'er, and may have missed some discussion, but does all this apply to the 4.02 cat? I ask 'cause I REALLY like flying them. If they are seriously under modelled then they must really rock... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To an extent.

They do turn quite well right now, but they bleed too much speed compared to everything else in the process of doing so.

They are also a bit slower than they should be, comparitively, to other planes.

The guns shoot low for some reason, and are more spread out and seem to have more drop off. These are the exact same guns that the Corsair uses, but the Corsair hits things more easily and does more damage (particularly to Zeros). However, this problem has been around for a long time, in FB, the 4 gun Mustang had more hitting power than the 8 gun Jug. Go figure. So I'm just saying it's nothing new and not just an isolated issue for the USN planes.

The cockpits are still wrong.

The stall speeds vs other planes are still too high (and too high overall IIRC - I need to spend more time in it).

And apparently many IJA/IJN flyers are saying they ignite easily too.

And it is too fragile on landing as well.

Now, as with the 190s, I'm not saying it sucks. It's quite good. But relative aspects are off.


Yes, it did really rock. In every way you could imagine - it was less expensive, was more easily produced, was a phenomenal performer, eminently suited to carrier ops (took a long time for the over priced, over budget, late, hard to produce Corsair finally got carrier qualified), it was instrumental in the Marrianas Turkey Shoot and helped turn the tide of war, facing the best of the Japanese pilots and planes (leaving only the rabble for the Corsair to clean up, much like how the P-47 broke the LW while the Mustang got the 10hour pilots to fight against with 10:1 odds (exaggeration but you get the point)), AND it did so while managing a 19:1 kill ratio and made more aces than any aircraft in US history (possibly in any nations history), earning itself the nickname - Ace Maker. Pilots who flew it have said that if it could cook, they would have married it. Japanese aces respected it and did not ever take it lightly. Whereas they viewd the Corsair with disdain because the only thing it did (or could do really) was slashing BnZ runs (of course the Japanese grunts feared the Corsair.... lol).

It was slower than the Corsair, can't deny that. But not as much as many think - at least according to those who knew how to get the most out of it, like Corky Meyer. It was this extra drag and lower ordnance capability that allowed the Corsair to continue in post war service over the Hellcat. And the replacement, the Bearcat, was pure fighter and nothing but. It rocked the Corsair's world. But it had virtually no ordnance capabilities, and by that time the Navy wanted jets for fighters, so if it couldn't move mud, it wasn't much use.

gthgrrl4game
11-21-2005, 03:18 PM
The guns shoot low for some reason, and are more spread out and seem to have more drop off. These are the exact same guns that the Corsair uses, but the Corsair hits things more easily and does more damage (particularly to Zeros). However, this problem has been around for a long time, in FB, the 4 gun Mustang had more hitting power than the 8 gun Jug. Go figure. So I'm just saying it's nothing new and not just an isolated issue for the USN planes.

The cockpits are still wrong.

The stall speeds vs other planes are still too high (and too high overall IIRC - I need to spend more time in it).

And apparently many IJA/IJN flyers are saying they ignite easily too.

And it is too fragile on landing as well.

Now, as with the 190s, I'm not saying it sucks. It's quite good. But relative aspects are off.


Yes, it did really rock. In every way you could imagine - it was less expensive, was more easily produced, was a phenomenal performer, eminently suited to carrier ops (took a long time for the over priced, over budget, late, hard to produce Corsair finally got carrier qualified), it was instrumental in the Marrianas Turkey Shoot and helped turn the tide of war, facing the best of the Japanese pilots and planes (leaving only the rabble for the Corsair to clean up, much like how the P-47 broke the LW while the Mustang got the 10hour pilots to fight against with 10:1 odds (exaggeration but you get the point)), AND it did so while managing a 19:1 kill ratio and made more aces than any aircraft in US history (possibly in any nations history), earning itself the nickname - Ace Maker. Pilots who flew it have said that if it could cook, they would have married it. Japanese aces respected it and did not ever take it lightly. Whereas they viewd the Corsair with disdain because the only thing it did (or could do really) was slashing BnZ runs (of course the Japanese grunts feared the Corsair.... lol).

It was slower than the Corsair, can't deny that. But not as much as many think - at least according to those who knew how to get the most out of it, like Corky Meyer. It was this extra drag and lower ordnance capability that allowed the Corsair to continue in post war service over the Hellcat. And the replacement, the Bearcat, was pure fighter and nothing but. It rocked the Corsair's world. But it had virtually no ordnance capabilities, and by that time the Navy wanted jets for fighters, so if it couldn't move mud, it wasn't much use.

I had noticed the 47 seemed to lack the hitting power one would expect.

The 4.02 Corsair, at least in Ace level Offline play, doess exactly what you say, BnZ. I have flown all the IJN/IJAAF fighters against it and survived or won. As I mentioned earlier in a stall fight the Ki-46Kai *Fighter Dinah* was giving me fits. I had to extend and then BnZ until the fragile fuel tanks on the Dinah blew.
I am not sure, as a Japanese flyer, if I think the IJ fighters burn too easily.
I *know* the Ki-84 is very tough!!!!
Of course a 37mm hit from a P-63 ruins its day all the time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
That being said the 4.02 Hellcat is one of my favorite allied fighters.

Chuck_Older
11-21-2005, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by gthgrrl4game:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Go back to unpatched PF if you can. That's the most accurate representation of the Hellcat we've had

I am not an experienced sim'er, and may have missed some discussion, but does all this apply to the 4.02 cat? I ask 'cause I REALLY like flying them. If they are seriously under modelled then they must really rock... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I suggest you think about the source of this advice before you accept it as Gospel. Don't beleive everything that every simmer says. It could even be true that the unpatched PF F6F is more accurate than what we have in 4.02, but please, don't assume it's true because just you read it here. Research the plane's performance, look up the data, it is out there

It's too bad that you didn't quote the poster's name in your quote, I would like to ask how he or she knows how the F6F should really perform and in what respect the original F6F in PF is close to correct in performacne, and in what repects it is not correct

ElAurens
11-21-2005, 04:14 PM
Lets get someting cleared up right now.

The F6F could about stay with an A6M for 180 degrees of turn. Thats it. If the F6F pilot continued to try to keep up with a Zeke beyond more than half a turn he would quickly find himself on the wrong end of a Mitsubishi.

What the F6F gave US pilots was the ability to initially evade a Zeke, then use it's speed and dive advantage to turn the tables.

I love it online when I see an F6F doing the TnB thing...

I really do.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Unknown-Pilot
11-21-2005, 04:49 PM
"when you see them doing it online", yes, because it has been hampered since initial PF release (that is, from the first patch on).

180* of turn is usually enough, however, at what speed? Given that over 250mph the control forces of the Zero prevented it from matching the USN planes, and given that the SL speed was well above that, and that they never flew at SL so also had room to dive, you can see that that is not hard to do.

Now, if flat turning and speeds drop below 180, yeah, it's toast. But.... who flat turns long enough to slow down that much? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

gthgrrl4game
11-21-2005, 05:14 PM
Hmmm now is probably NOT a good time to mention that on of my favorite mounts against the Hellcat is the Zeke http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
LOL, actually it is a pretty challenging match then.

ElAurens
11-21-2005, 06:45 PM
Unknown,

I agree with your assesment of the F6F's abilities in the real world. The problem for it in the sim is that it regularly is flown well under 250mph by the majority of pilots I have encountered. It is a rare day when you find someone flying it like a 190 is typically flown in the ETO. Which works for me, as I am flying for the Emperor almost exclusively these days.

When properly flown the F6F is a very fun match agianst my Ki100, but 9 times out of 10 it is simply meat on my table, and I don't pretend to be any kind of ace pilot either.

Be sure.

brimigus
11-21-2005, 07:06 PM
it just takes a little while to get used to the flight model.I like the way lower throttle settings have made the AC easiser to fly level flight.

leitmotiv
11-21-2005, 11:01 PM
So much depends on the individual skill of pilots, the state of their aircraft, and the tactical situation that one should be careful about assertions regarding capability. Not only that, real aircrew often did things which flew in the face of simworld conventions. A year ago I was stunned to be told by a WWII Hellcat pilot ,who operated from carriers, that they never used trim tabs except on long distance flights over the U.S. If a simpilot made such an admission, he would be pilloried. Further, they flew with hood open and goggles always down (in the event of a fire). To him the greatest sin against safety was to remove goggles and gloves which left pilots in danger of burns. Johnny Johnson relates at least one incident in his autobiography of an early mark Fw190 out-turning his Spit V. Conventional wisdom would declare against this. A very hot pilot like Johnson would not make an admission like that lightly. During the Battle of Britain, the Ministry of Aircraft Production ran air tests on many Hurricanes to determine how well they matched the standard performance figures. The mean was so broad they came to the conclusion the standard stats had to be considered useless. Statistics are indications, not set in marble.

jds1978
11-22-2005, 04:14 AM
So much depends on the individual skill of pilots, the state of their aircraft, and the tactical situation that one should be careful about assertions regarding capability. Not only that, real aircrew often did things which flew in the face of simworld conventions. A year ago I was stunned to be told by a WWII Hellcat pilot ,who operated from carriers, that they never used trim tabs except on long distance flights over the U.S. If a simpilot made such an admission, he would be pilloried. Further, they flew with hood open and goggles always down (in the event of a fire). To him the greatest sin against safety was to remove goggles and gloves which left pilots in danger of burns. Johnny Johnson relates at least one incident in his autobiography of an early mark Fw190 out-turning his Spit V. Conventional wisdom would declare against this. A very hot pilot like Johnson would not make an admission like that lightly. During the Battle of Britain, the Ministry of Aircraft Production ran air tests on many Hurricanes to determine how well they matched the standard performance figures. The mean was so broad they came to the conclusion the standard stats had to be considered useless. Statistics are indications, not set in marble


Good observations. It's like Churchill said-there are "Lies, d@mned lies, and statistics."

Unknown-Pilot
11-22-2005, 09:35 AM
There are always odd exceptions, such as "factory freaks", or maybe a bolt not being tightened properly, or a tool left behind, or who knows what.

But the fact is that a given design will give a given performance, and tolerances and mistakes aside, all copies of that design will have roughly the same performance (within a margin).

Sims just need to decide if they want to recreate the design potential, or a rough approximation of actual use/potential.

The latter causes problems in cases where pilots universally adopt a certain tactic, such as the 109. So we have a modern myth that the 109 was a poor turner.

If going by the design itself, with the use of CFD and the like, we might end up with something that can appear counter to history, and that creates another problem.

The real trick is just getting to the bottom of what really happened, why, and what was really possible.

Dismissing this stuff as "just statistics" is a cop out.

leitmotiv
11-22-2005, 02:05 PM
Not in favor of relativism (throw out all statistics), but am not in favor of statistical dogmatism, and over-reliance on performance charts. Always best to leaven any documentary-statistical evidence with as much evidence from contemporary users as possible (and as fresh as possible). I learned how to use the 109 from reading about Hartmann and reading Knoke's autobiography. When I read Knoke's spring '44 diary entry about suddenly being unable to use his favorite evasion (an upward spiral) against Thunderbolts, I knew he had run into a bunch of Jugs with the new paddle prop (which Bob Johnson claimed allowed him to outclimb a Spit IX). Of course eyewitness evidence is full of pitfalls, too, but one should avoid dogmatism at all costs. I think Oleg and his rascals have sincerely tried to produce the world's best WWII aerial combat simulator and have succeeded to a degree that is truly amazing. Try something atrocious like the new BATTLE OF BRITAIN II to see the alternative.

Chuck_Older
11-22-2005, 05:01 PM
Anyone remember when 4.01 was the Worst Patch Ever, and everyone moaned and complained about it being so horrible, Oleg what have you done, you're the Devil, etc, etc

Now I read about how 4.01 was so great, why'd Oleg have to ruin it with 4.02 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

danjama
11-22-2005, 05:25 PM
Its called the patch cycle http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

GT182
11-22-2005, 06:43 PM
The main thing that gets my goat with 4.02m is the fact that when online you no longer can see:

1.the AI heads move tracking other a/c.

2. Rudder, elevator and aerilon movement on other players a/c but you can on AI a/c.

To me it totally sucks. But on the other hand, for those on dialup, it might be a blessing. I can see 4.03 now, no tracers and no gauges working. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif