PDA

View Full Version : Looks like the F6F is porked for static carriers too!



x__CRASH__x
12-27-2004, 10:42 AM
I couldn't get the Hellcat off a static carrier deck, even if I taxied all the way back! This blows! I don't know if it's more real or not, but the loss of horsepower is going to ruin online DF play if there is no way to get the carriers moving.

Now I have to go into my all carrier map for Ghost Skies and add a runway because of this.

pffffffffft

FF_Trozaka
12-27-2004, 10:50 AM
this aircraft was already a pain in the **** to get off the deck with, lol, no change maybe?

S!

CKY_86
12-27-2004, 10:53 AM
as above no changes the hellcat was a b**ch to get off a static carrier from the start

VBF-83_Hawk
12-27-2004, 11:10 AM
If you guys will hook two carriers together, it will work. It looks bad but it works. PLus it gives you a secondary cable to hook to...lol

x__CRASH__x
12-27-2004, 11:15 AM
OMG! I never thought of that! I'll try that now!

chris455
12-27-2004, 12:43 PM
Now THAT'S realism for ya! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

VW-IceFire
12-27-2004, 01:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CKY_86:
as above no changes the hellcat was a b**ch to get off a static carrier from the start <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I always found it easy... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

t0n.
12-27-2004, 01:32 PM
My theory is that there was still one noob left who couldn't completely dominate the late war American junk with the Ki-84. The Ki-100 and Jack weren't ready yet, so Oleg just gave up and grounded everything except the Wildcat while we wait for 3.04. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

* Not to be taken seriously http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

VMF-214_HaVoK
12-27-2004, 01:38 PM
I agree with Crash. To me the Wildcat, Hellcat, Corsair feel the same in the air but takeoff from carriers seems like they have been stripped a few hundred horsepower. The Corsair with 25% fuel and no loadout has a difficult time just getting airborne now. It was bad before but now much worse. Once again I see no real power loss once airborne, its just carrier takeoffs seem to have been porked.

Franzonto
12-27-2004, 01:52 PM
I tried things out with both the Corsair and the Hellcat, and found no difficulties with 50% fuel without loadout, and 25% fuel with 500kg of bombload on each.
Sure that isn't much, but the carriers are _static_ thus not under historical conditions... so, as some others said: Root for a implementation of mobile carriers, rather than a change of the flight modelling.

The fighers shouldn't play Jabo in these maps anyway, we should wait patiently for the carrier torp-bombers.

J_Weaver
12-27-2004, 02:06 PM
After reading all the post about the flight models being porked I thought that everyone was overreacting. But I just tried and everyone is right. These birds are fubar right now. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

ICDP
12-27-2004, 02:42 PM
Never have I seen a thread with so many people who needed to be told, LEARN HOW TO FLY.

GRYPHON_401Cdn
12-27-2004, 04:58 PM
1) the performance of the carrier based ac on takeoff has indeed got worse
2) the Corsair and all the rest can get off clean with 25% gas (which is twice what you'll ever need in a DF server sortie)
3) one bomb or other light stores can be carried if you backtrack
4) remember takeoff flap, full run up prior to release, raise the tail early, and hold a steady nose up attitude as you leave the deck

ElAurens
12-27-2004, 05:26 PM
From the F4U-1 Operators Manual

Take Off Distance @ Sea Level with 0 wind.

@ 11,700lbs gross weight: 680ft. (Longer Than a CVE)

@ 13,100lbs gross weight: 910ft. (Longer than any carrier in game)

@ 14,200lbs gross weight: 1110ft. (Longer than any carrier in game)

Carrier ops are NOT EASY. Not in real life and not here. As it should be.

Here are the T.O. distances at the same weights as I posted above, with a 30 knot head wind.

11,700lbs. 260ft.

13,100lbs. 380ft.

14,200lbs. 480ft.

J_Weaver
12-27-2004, 05:35 PM
Well after a little research I must say that the flight models arn't porked. If anything there more realistic now. Yes, I too poped my cork when I went into the drink after installing the patch. It seems that the problem is that we have even more realistic flight models but don't have realistic carriers to go with them. I'm not sure that there is much that can be done about it. The question is do we want very realistic performance that creates some trouble for carrier ops or do we want flight models designed accomodate somewhat unrealistic carriers?

WUAF_Badsight
12-27-2004, 05:38 PM
the Hellcat & Corsair , they are both 2000 Hp A/C

yet they feel slow in DF's

sure they can hit their top speeds right

but there accelleration blows .. . . . . its what makes them feel slow

Snoop_Baron
12-27-2004, 05:40 PM
It sounds like there is nothing wrong with the flight models. I also have a lot of DF missions with carriers that I will now need to change. I'll probably go with the double carrier hack. It's not pretty and I really don't like it. But unless Oleg adds some sort of "head wind" option for DF servers to compensate for the fact that they are stationary then it looks like the only option if I want to support more than just a few limited ordnance options.

I know many of us are bumbed out about this, but it is important to keep in mind that flight model realism is very important. I'm not an expert in this area, but from what Oleg and others have said the new setup is more realistic in terms of flight model. Instead of empty claims that the FM is porked lets lobby to get some sort of option maybe a "head wind" to make up for the fact that carriers can only be static in dogfight servers.

Regards,
Snoop

BPLIzard
12-27-2004, 06:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:

I always found it easy... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have you actually tried it lately? Try the default take off mission in a Hellcat where the CV is stationary. It moves like a ground sloth. Give me some pointers on how to take off from that scenario.

TheGozr
12-27-2004, 06:27 PM
" 25 % gas is enough in DF."
When you play randomly in what ever server where everyone are shooting to each others.. shure! but when you start to do real competition combat. Taking 25% will handicap the whole team and may loose a plane or a pilot..
You want to turn quicker..better.. learn it.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Get a minimum or 50% for most of the planes.
P51's and other are an other subject.

VF-3Thunderboy
12-27-2004, 06:27 PM
If you can hit 70 knots you should be able to do it...???

x__CRASH__x
12-27-2004, 06:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chris455:
Now THAT'S realism for ya! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Static Aircraft carriers aren't real either. So you can blow the "realism" argument out your wazoo! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Doubleing up carriers is a simple and effective, albeit unrealistic, solution to an unrealistic problem.

And yes, I doubt the FM is "porked", but it sure did make carrier take-off's in a DF server a whole lot more frustrating.

roybaty
12-27-2004, 08:48 PM
It seems the problem is that the CVs on DF servers need to move. But I don't recall any talk of moving DF server CVs in the future.

Kinda blows for my squad as were are trying to use F6Fs for carrier ops. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif Oh well.

Papa_K
12-27-2004, 08:51 PM
Why is that people want to blame the operator when someone complains about trying to get a carrier-bourne aircraft off the deck with any kind of bomb load?

It COULDN'T BE a problem with the game...heresy!!!.

The 3.03m Corsair is a dog...looks like the F6F is its litter-mate.

Papa_K

x__CRASH__x
12-27-2004, 08:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by roybaty:
It seems the problem is that the CVs on DF servers need to move. But I don't recall any talk of moving DF server CVs in the future.

Kinda blows for my squad as were are trying to use F6Fs for carrier ops. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif Oh well. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read my other thread about hooking carriers together.

shieldsyy
12-27-2004, 10:36 PM
How about a catapult?
Please join in the discussion here:
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=9761071752

It can be done.

BPLIzard
12-28-2004, 05:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Papa_K:
Why is that people want to blame the operator when someone complains about trying to get a carrier-bourne aircraft off the deck with any kind of bomb load?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Papa_K, you don't even have to strap any bomb to make a Hellcat takeoff difficult now. As in 'zero' download.

oldschool1992
12-28-2004, 07:52 AM
Why not fix the code so the carriers do an elongated race track course at 30 or 40 knots cant be that difficult to do??

RoughRaider1
12-28-2004, 09:24 AM
If there was an ability to add wind, then you could use that to assist in static carrier takeoffs if you place the carrier pointed towards the wind. Even a 15 knot headwind would go a long way. However I've never seen anything to add wind in the FMB.

Iron_Hand1
12-28-2004, 09:28 AM
Porked. 3.03 is ****