PDA

View Full Version : Insane plane!



HotelBushranger
03-05-2006, 12:35 AM
The La-5FN! What the hell?!?! I dived on one that was just on take off, from 1000m, I can only extend to .50 away from it afterwards till it starts to overtake me. From just having took off = no energy! Same thing happened several times, I had height of it and no matter what, even using later planes still beat me. Can anyone give me some specs for this damn fantasy plane? Far out!

HotelBushranger
03-05-2006, 12:35 AM
The La-5FN! What the hell?!?! I dived on one that was just on take off, from 1000m, I can only extend to .50 away from it afterwards till it starts to overtake me. From just having took off = no energy! Same thing happened several times, I had height of it and no matter what, even using later planes still beat me. Can anyone give me some specs for this damn fantasy plane? Far out!

ColoradoBBQ
03-05-2006, 01:59 AM
That warplane is very powerful down low that all you can do is dive real fast and hit it hard on the first pass and try to climb back up to 3000 meters.

Genie-
03-05-2006, 02:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Can anyone give me some specs for this damn fantasy plane? Far out! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only oleg can answer on that question...

Doug_Thompson
03-05-2006, 02:46 AM
It has, IIRC, the best horsepower to weight ratio in the game.

CUJO_1970
03-05-2006, 02:47 AM
It's a training airplane, think of it as your first bicycle - only with a big fat pair of pink training wheels on the back.

It's basically there to welcome new ones to the community.

HotelBushranger
03-05-2006, 02:51 AM
Fair enough...far out! No way to win against it, even speed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

robban75
03-05-2006, 03:21 AM
The La-5FN is fast and very manouverable. Top speed at sealevel with wind of is 584km/h(590 with wind on). It has a good climb rate. On a whole it is slightly inferior to the La-7. But like the La-7 it can be used up high as well. It has a better climb rate at 10,000m than the P-51.

carguy_
03-05-2006, 03:28 AM
A universal fighter.

Capable at any altitude.
Performs B&Z as well as T&B.
Two 20mm cannons with plenty of ammo.
Simplified DM.
Easy CEM.
Moderate range perfect for front-to-front engagements.
Very good rear view.
Medium-to-Fast top speed.
Moderate acceleration.


Russian Spitfire.

anarchy52
03-05-2006, 04:31 AM
Do not forget that La-5FN exceeds real life La-7 performance.

SeaFireLIV
03-05-2006, 04:46 AM
Was this an AI La5?

Da_Godfatha
03-05-2006, 04:50 AM
Welcome to Oleg's World ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

HotelBushranger
03-05-2006, 05:00 AM
Nah mate! Fair dinkum online, someone from this forum - won't say who though http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

JtD
03-05-2006, 05:17 AM
What plane were you in?

Willey
03-05-2006, 06:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
It's a training airplane, think of it as your first bicycle - only with a big fat pair of pink training wheels on the back.

It's basically there to welcome new ones to the community. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In short: Lame-5ForNoobs http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

msalama
03-05-2006, 06:51 AM
Sour grapes anyone?

LStarosta
03-05-2006, 06:55 AM
Sweet thx, I will have to try this plane. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

anarchy52
03-05-2006, 08:01 AM
Our La-5FN in game outperforms real life La-7 above roughly 2400m.

Basically you could use La-5 or maybe La-5F for historical coops as La-5FN and La-5FN as La-7...or maybe La-9?

JtD
03-05-2006, 08:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
Our La-5FN in game outperforms real life La-7 above roughly 2400m.

Basically you could use La-5 or maybe La-5F for historical coops as La-5FN and La-5FN as La-7...or maybe La-9? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What a bunch of BS.

anarchy52
03-05-2006, 08:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
What a bunch of BS. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As expected, BS comes from ignorant ones.
TsAGI charts, tracks and devicelink data:
http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/testing/La (http://marvin.kset.org/%7Eriddler/testing/La)

http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/testing/La/FN_La-7_comparison.gif
http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/testing/La/noob.jpg

JtD
03-05-2006, 09:03 AM
So just because the climbrate is off at some altitudes, this makes the 5 a 5-FN and the 5-FN a 7 or even 9 substitute? Complete and utter BS. Like I said. And you even suck so bad you can't spell "you" but insert it in an oversized pic. How am I to believe that poly line even if I assume you tried to be correct (which you very obviously weren't)?

You know these tests were done with 100% power at altitude? You know there are better charts for La-7 planes? Why don't you compare a late 5-FN to a late 5-FN chart? Why don't you try to keep a steady climb rate and leave that funny poly line out? You know the differences between late 5-FN's and 7's were minor?

danjama
03-05-2006, 09:08 AM
Arguments are useless, La series planes are ubbarized and nuuberized, their doomed to the same fate as the ki84c

F6_Ace
03-05-2006, 09:26 AM
La5-FN is airborne equal of F6 press

Daiichidoku
03-05-2006, 09:38 AM
maybe they need 600lbs of ballast? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

HotelBushranger
03-05-2006, 09:39 AM
I didn't know it was this bad http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Stigler_9_JG52
03-05-2006, 10:41 AM
I'll say it even before TAGERT can:

"Got Track?" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif With this situation, most people wouldn't bother hitting their record button before diving in, thinking, "It's just too easy".

Actually, one shouldn't need a track to describe the awful flight modeling in this sim. The La5FN is just ONE example.

It hasn't been for a while, and several patches ago.... but I remember having almost exactly this same thing happen to me: a wheels-just-up La5 somehow finds the energy to stay in a zoom climb with a plane that dove on it from several km higher.

There is no WWII aircraft with the power/weight ratio to do that. What you're describing requires a jet engine and 3rd generation avionics.

SnapdLikeAMutha
03-05-2006, 11:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
You know the differences between late 5-FN's and 7's were minor? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't say that man, you'll have people petitioning for some spurious 'La5FN Late' model to be included in the next patch http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

anarchy52
03-05-2006, 11:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
So just because the climbrate is off at some altitudes, this makes the 5 a 5-FN and the 5-FN a 7 or even 9 substitute? Complete and utter BS. Like I said. And you even suck so bad you can't spell "you" but insert it in an oversized pic. How am I to believe that poly line even if I assume you tried to be correct (which you very obviously weren't)?

You know these tests were done with 100% power at altitude? You know there are better charts for La-7 planes? Why don't you compare a late 5-FN to a late 5-FN chart? Why don't you try to keep a steady climb rate and leave that funny poly line out? You know the differences between late 5-FN's and 7's were minor? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tests were done at maximum power (forsazh = WEP). Although real La-5 couldn't keep it up for long, or above 2k. It also had larger turning circle then 109G. I'm sorry to say but:
http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/testing/La/TsAGI_La-5FN.JPG

http://www.digitalsec.net/stuff/fun/misc/noob.jpg

JtD
03-05-2006, 11:34 AM
Well, whatever.

GreyBeast
03-05-2006, 11:42 AM
whoa! down, doggie, down!

danjama
03-05-2006, 12:03 PM
Woohoo the whiners won, lets take this to ORR http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Hartford688
03-05-2006, 12:07 PM
STFU Noob? Nice. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Lazy312
03-05-2006, 01:31 PM
I saw La-5FN going to 5km in 4,5 minutes on full power on the track. What's "insane" here?

SeaFireLIV
03-05-2006, 01:48 PM
Open season on the LA5fn again, is it? When it happens online, you need more than this to prove the Las are so wrong. Come on, this is old. To me, they seem fine online (and off) and certainly are not uber...

tigertalon
03-05-2006, 01:50 PM
I wonder how it comes then that on every server Fws have by far positive K/D ratios versus contemporary Las.

(Please, don't reply it's the pilots, it's such a cheap predictable excuse. Take 16 equal pilots, and sat 8 of them in Fws and others in Las. Anyone up for a bet? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif)

robban75
03-05-2006, 02:05 PM
La-5FN climb 4.03 vs La-7 climb 4.03.

In m/sec

Alt -- La5 -- La7

1000 - 23.8 - 27.0
2000 - 21.3 - 23.8
3000 - 18.2 - 19.6
4000 - 14.9 - 17.5
5000 - 15.6 - 18.9
6000 - 14.5 - 17.9
7000 - 11.4 - 14.5
8000 -- 9.1 - 11.5
9000 -- 8.4 -- 8.3
10000 - 4.8 -- 6.7

F6_Ace
03-05-2006, 02:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Hey whiners! Oleg's statement on FMs: "Not all is possible to tune with 0% difference to real. For some we agreed to have up to 15% for some most important up to 5 in Il-2 series." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

red +15%, blue -15% ?

Hartford688
03-05-2006, 02:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F6_Ace:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Hey whiners! Oleg's statement on FMs: "Not all is possible to tune with 0% difference to real. For some we agreed to have up to 15% for some most important up to 5 in Il-2 series." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

red +15%, blue -15% ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Boo hoo. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

danjama
03-05-2006, 02:27 PM
As far as im concerned, im just havin a good ole' fashion whine http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

F6_Ace
03-05-2006, 02:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hartford688:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F6_Ace:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Hey whiners! Oleg's statement on FMs: "Not all is possible to tune with 0% difference to real. For some we agreed to have up to 15% for some most important up to 5 in Il-2 series." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

red +15%, blue -15% ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Boo hoo. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Must be Spit pilot

Hartford688
03-05-2006, 02:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F6_Ace:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hartford688:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F6_Ace:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Hey whiners! Oleg's statement on FMs: "Not all is possible to tune with 0% difference to real. For some we agreed to have up to 15% for some most important up to 5 in Il-2 series." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

red +15%, blue -15% ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Boo hoo. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Must be Spit pilot </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

FW190 actually.

Hartford688
03-05-2006, 02:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
As far as im concerned, im just havin a good ole' fashion whine http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fair shout http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

3.JG51_BigBear
03-05-2006, 07:08 PM
I don't think the performance of the La5FN is unrealistic, Oleg just needs to change its year from 43 to 44 in game. Its performance characteristics are much more in line with the 44 FN model produced alongside the La-7, it is not the 43 version.

Stigler_9_JG52
03-05-2006, 09:17 PM
How can he even proffer a number like 15%, when he hasn't gotten to within 15% of anything, while his FMs whipsaw all over hell's halfacre and back? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

But, the +15 for VVS and -15% for Luftwaffe probably is closer to the mark...

Xiolablu3
03-05-2006, 09:58 PM
<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:
How can he even proffer a number like 15%, when he hasn't gotten to within 15% of anything, while his FMs whipsaw all over hell's halfacre and back? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

But, the +15 for VVS and -15% for Luftwaffe probably is closer to the mark... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Every post I see from you is a whine about Il2/FB? Its starting to annoy me.

I dont understand why you still come here? Is it just to have a go at the developers/people who enjoy the game? I see from other forums that you are now having a go at the flight models/Plane choices in your 'sim of choice' TargetWare.

This thread is showing the worst aspects of this forum. That Anarchy bloke calling JTD a noob just tops it off. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

F6_Ace - Were you on record breakers for your F6 ability? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Jetbuff
03-05-2006, 10:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
[About Stigler].. Every post I see from you is a whine about Il2/FB? Its starting to annoy me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
He would be a real giant PITA too if he weren't so undermodelled! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Badsight.
03-05-2006, 10:36 PM
whatever you think about Stigler - a lot of what he says is close to the mark , he has a good grasp of what adds immersion to CFS games especially

La-5FN came in 2 stages in its life

released for feild use in 1943

then , 2 months before the La-7 was released the -5FN got upgraded

ever since Fb v1.0 - the La-5FN has hit the performance figures , or better , for the 1944 upgraded La-5FN

(i havent bothered to test it since v3.04 tho)

the -5FN doesnt worry me really (although its an awesome ride) - whats really amazing is the standard La-5 for 1942 , its a crazy plane . it could be argued that the G2 is their in the blue side for 42 as well tho

when ive had the option , ive taken the -5FN instead of the -7 in the past , peeps who dont know better think its not as bad being shot down by the -5FN model

MG15120
03-05-2006, 11:28 PM
Hi Stiggy,

I bet some of these guys would die if they had an idea how long you have been at this type of thing.

&lt;S&gt; fli

Xiolablu3
03-05-2006, 11:44 PM
Maybe he has been here a long time, but all his posts recently seem to be very boring...

Might just be cos I'm newish.

carguy_
03-06-2006, 12:05 AM
Hahah where we meet an "optimistically" modelled La5 we have G2/G6 early,both `43.

It`s not a problem.REAL fight starts with G6vsLa5FN.Only LW aces can handle those.The advantage the La5FN has over the G6`43 is halfway to that of the SpitIXc which means the fight can be won on proper altitude.

Stigler eh he`s just whining cuz he`s bored it seems.Performance is not on the mark,so basically there`s a reason to whine.Stigler is just suggesting he has a perfect way to straight things out,am I right? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Badsight.
03-06-2006, 01:04 AM
Carguy - that might have been true in previous patches , but please do give the -7 & the -5FN a good go up over 4K

seriously - in v4.04 they are good altitude fighters now too

alert_1
03-06-2006, 01:58 AM
with such fighter as La5 series no wonder that VVS crushed LWs badly from autumn '42 till '45. the best VVS aces had over 300 victories (but due to very strict rules, only about 60 were credited) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

Xiolablu3
03-06-2006, 01:59 AM
I find the G6 the hardest to handle of all the G's. Am I right in thinking the 109G2 is the definitive fighter of the G2 to G6 late? I read its climb is better than the G6's (not including A/S) and its speed about the same. Maybe this is wrong, but I saw more advantages for the G2 than any G6 when covering bombers or dogfighting La5's/Spitfires.

I always take the G2 rather than the G6 or G6 late, just because I seem to be able to handle La5's a little better.

I always try and drag them up over 3000m if I can, running is not an option however in a G2 and it usually takes team tactics to counter an equal number of La5's on the server I play most on.

Although the 109G is supposed to climb better than the La5, I dont see much difference and often have them gaining on me in a climb.

I agree we all whine sometimes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Its just when all posts beome whines it gets a little tiresome. I find flight models are so 'opinion based' that its almost pointless to argue about it too much. Its certainly not worth worrying about so much that it stops you playing. We either trust Olegs knowledge - or we dont. And if you dont then why not find a new game to play? Oleg has to decide if the guy presenting the information is trustworthy/misinformed or not, a very hard job to do.

Overall I think people expect too much out of this sim right now, computers just arent powerful to get anything but a rough approximation of flight models/gravity/gun effects etc. I think this game is a fantastic acheievement in programming. (Just how the hell would you go about changing something like a planes 'zoom climb'? I cant even comprehend how to program it and I did comp studies at University, it must be really hard to do)

Just my opinion, dont take too much notice of it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Max.Power
03-06-2006, 03:05 AM
It's a combination between the demands of the FW and the type of pilot that the FW produces.

When you are flying with the FW, the aircraft almost demands you to plan an escape after an attack run. FW pilots learn very quickly that low and slow, their aircraft is about as dangerous as a newborn kitten. FW pilots fight very hard to keep their energy. It is their life. The FW seems to be geared for fast, easy, cheap runs. It can dive at incredible speeds, and can pull maneovers at high speeds that other aircraft can't follow.

LA pilots can mix it up on the deck. They know that if they don't get the best of their enemy, they can usually escape. The flight envelope of the LA at low to medium speeds is insane.

There is no way that a FW pilot would feel confident in hanging around, doing horizontal low-speed scissors with an LA.. so they don't. The get in, shoot, get out, climb back up to over 3000m where the LA can't catch them on equal terms, then start again. This controls the encounters, and removes a certain amount of the element of risk to air to air engagements.

The FW punishes you dearly for taking risks, and rewards you generously for flying like a mathematician. Less oppotunities for hitting a FW = less opportunities for shooting one down = greater k/d ratio.

If there was a 4 vs 4 match, I would probably bet on the Las, depending on the rules. The FW's have to get up to 3000m really fast in order to stand a chance, and the Las are faster climbers. Really, the match would have to get close to about 6000m without much contact in order to be a for sure FW in-the-bag win.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
I wonder how it comes then that on every server Fws have by far positive K/D ratios versus contemporary Las.

(Please, don't reply it's the pilots, it's such a cheap predictable excuse. Take 16 equal pilots, and sat 8 of them in Fws and others in Las. Anyone up for a bet? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

SeaFireLIV
03-06-2006, 04:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Maybe he has been here a long time, but all his posts recently seem to be very boring...

Might just be cos I'm newish. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, Xiolablu3, Stigler`s always been like this, non-stop in over 2 years. I think there was only one period, a year and a half ago, (one small post) were he, grudgingly, said something good about FB, then he was back to hating it again.

He only ever posts to critise or join in critism. I don`t even believe he flies FB/IL2 any more since a few patches ago, so he probably only knows what`s going on from what he reads here (the negative stuff, of course). Anything to diss IL2/FB. I`m surprised he hasn`t joined my rant against 4.04 AI, but then I`d probably tell him to shut up.

Lazy312
03-06-2006, 04:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Although the 109G is supposed to climb better than the La5, I dont see much difference and often have them gaining on me in a climb. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
nope, G2 outclimbs (0-5000m) all La series, La-7 including.

F6_Ace
03-06-2006, 06:02 AM
<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:
How can he even proffer a number like 15%, when he hasn't gotten to within 15% of anything, while his FMs whipsaw all over hell's halfacre and back? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

But, the +15 for VVS and -15% for Luftwaffe probably is closer to the mark... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oleg within 15% of real life climb if you plot chart from data on previous page.

+15%

If you count high alt model, +110%

Record breaker? Who needs roy castle when you have oleg as new record breaker for 'most optimistic fm'

also, forum needs more stiglers to prevent 'fanboy' critical mass condition and total game meltdown.

msalama
03-06-2006, 07:42 AM
More Stiglers, a.k.a. obsessive whiners who just keep on spewing their opinions - and opinions only, never a shred of proof _anywhere_ - regardless of how many times we've already heard of them _not_ liking the game?

Hey, surely we can do better than that.

msalama
03-06-2006, 07:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">red +15%, blue -15%? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey, believe whatever you want by all means.

Xiolablu3
03-06-2006, 08:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F6_Ace:
<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:
How can he even proffer a number like 15%, when he hasn't gotten to within 15% of anything, while his FMs whipsaw all over hell's halfacre and back? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

But, the +15 for VVS and -15% for Luftwaffe probably is closer to the mark... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oleg within 15% of real life climb if you plot chart from data on previous page.

+15%

If you count high alt model, +110%

Record breaker? Who needs roy castle when you have oleg as new record breaker for 'most optimistic fm'

also, forum needs more stiglers to prevent 'fanboy' critical mass condition and total game meltdown. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

SO now saying you love the game is being a Fanboi? And EVERY post constantly complaining about the game is great? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Kuna_
03-06-2006, 08:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
I wonder how it comes then that on every server Fws have by far positive K/D ratios versus contemporary Las.

(Please, don't reply it's the pilots, it's such a cheap predictable excuse. Take 16 equal pilots, and sat 8 of them in Fws and others in Las. Anyone up for a bet? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is true.

Anyone making any other excuses please by our guest go online and make a good positive score in LA-5FN vs. FW-190As (and other axis) on historical server if you can. Come back and say "I've pwned them big time, because my LA-5FN is so uber".

n00b days, Spitfires, LAs & Bf109s talks are so obsolete. So yesterday news.

Continue.

mynameisroland
03-06-2006, 08:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
I wonder how it comes then that on every server Fws have by far positive K/D ratios versus contemporary Las.

(Please, don't reply it's the pilots, it's such a cheap predictable excuse. Take 16 equal pilots, and sat 8 of them in Fws and others in Las. Anyone up for a bet? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This isnt about K/D or about team tactics or numbers its about one vs one UFO performance. Put an average pilot in a La 5FN against a good Fw 90 pilot and the La 5FN pilot has a better than evens chance.

BlitzPig_DDT
03-06-2006, 08:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Max.Power:
It's a combination between the demands of the FW and the type of pilot that the FW produces.

When you are flying with the FW, the aircraft almost demands you to plan an escape after an attack run. FW pilots learn very quickly that low and slow, their aircraft is about as dangerous as a newborn kitten. FW pilots fight very hard to keep their energy. It is their life. The FW seems to be geared for fast, easy, cheap runs. It can dive at incredible speeds, and can pull maneovers at high speeds that other aircraft can't follow.

LA pilots can mix it up on the deck. They know that if they don't get the best of their enemy, they can usually escape. The flight envelope of the LA at low to medium speeds is insane.

There is no way that a FW pilot would feel confident in hanging around, doing horizontal low-speed scissors with an LA.. so they don't. The get in, shoot, get out, climb back up to over 3000m where the LA can't catch them on equal terms, then start again. This controls the encounters, and removes a certain amount of the element of risk to air to air engagements.

The FW punishes you dearly for taking risks, and rewards you generously for flying like a mathematician. Less oppotunities for hitting a FW = less opportunities for shooting one down = greater k/d ratio.

If there was a 4 vs 4 match, I would probably bet on the Las, depending on the rules. The FW's have to get up to 3000m really fast in order to stand a chance, and the Las are faster climbers. Really, the match would have to get close to about 6000m without much contact in order to be a for sure FW in-the-bag win. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

190s, A's in particular, run out of breath around 4 to 5Km. They won't be any good at 6, and will take forever and a day to get there.

I find the 190 to be best down on the deck. I know that sounds crazy, but it has a definite issue from 2 - 3Km where power drops off disproportionately so it's dangerous to be there. Over 3Km the Spitfires (especially the HFs) are just too fast and agile to deal with. And trying to get above them at that point means nearing the cieling.

Instead, I fly low-ish and fast. Energy isn't BnZ. You don't have to be above the other guy to have more energy than him.

By staying low and at optimal maneuvering speed, I stay relatively safe from the high flying Spitfires who will risk breakup diving all the way down on me, or get too stiff to follow me (and blow their E in the process).

Keeping speeds over 400kph IAS, and using yo-yos and roll, it can mix it up quite well. Not as well as it *should* be able to, but still fairly well. Which is to say that it does not require one to fly in orbit, and make screaming dives and run away like a scared deer. Of course, the fact that so many people do have this idea shows the problems inherent in our 190s.

As for Laughin's, I'd rather fight an La7 with an A9, than a Laughin' with an A9. And forget about anything earlier. I wouldn't even want to take a chance against a Laughin' in anything less than a D9, and even then I'd be flying, as you put it, like a mathematician, whereas I'd feel almost cocky against an La7 in a D9.

I think that says a lot about the Laughin' (La5FN for the newer guys).

That thing is a ridiculous joke and deserves all the derision it gets. Actually, it deserves much more and ought to be perma-banned on all online servers. It's presense signifies either a new map maker, or a red-biased host.

mynameisroland
03-06-2006, 08:42 AM
Hey I kicked you yesterday Blitz for ignoring rules http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif how ya doin ?

BlitzPig_DDT
03-06-2006, 08:44 AM
No, you kicked me without breaking any rules. Really speaks poorly of you. Surprised you haven't checked your PTs yet. lol

tigertalon
03-06-2006, 08:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
I wonder how it comes then that on every server Fws have by far positive K/D ratios versus contemporary Las.

(Please, don't reply it's the pilots, it's such a cheap predictable excuse. Take 16 equal pilots, and sat 8 of them in Fws and others in Las. Anyone up for a bet? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This isnt about K/D or about team tactics or numbers its about one vs one UFO performance. Put an average pilot in a La 5FN against a good Fw 90 pilot and the La 5FN pilot has a better than evens chance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed.

Still, wasn't it like this IRL?

Xiolablu3
03-06-2006, 09:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
No, you kicked me without breaking any rules. Really speaks poorly of you. Surprised you haven't checked your PTs yet. lol </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have never known Boemher to do this? Are you sure mate?

anarchy52
03-06-2006, 09:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lazy312:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Although the 109G is supposed to climb better than the La5, I dont see much difference and often have them gaining on me in a climb. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
nope, G2 outclimbs (0-5000m) all La series, La-7 including. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It does not, but it should (at least according to Finns). La-7 according to Russians has peek climb rate of 23m/s below 2k. Las in game don't lose performance with altitude as they should. As you can see from the charts and both mine and Robban's testing Las are overmodelled in climb especially above 3k.

JtD
03-06-2006, 09:31 AM
Soviet designs empahsized on very good dogfight abilities at low to medium alt. If built to perfect specs, they should very much beat any opposition in a 1 vs 1. Quickly, and easily. I really don't get why some people keep bashing the FN's performance.

Note: Bashing is different from questioning. The former is about ignorance, the latter about (justified) doubt.

F6_Ace
03-06-2006, 09:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F6_Ace:
<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:
How can he even proffer a number like 15%, when he hasn't gotten to within 15% of anything, while his FMs whipsaw all over hell's halfacre and back? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

But, the +15 for VVS and -15% for Luftwaffe probably is closer to the mark... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oleg within 15% of real life climb if you plot chart from data on previous page.

+15%

If you count high alt model, +110%

Record breaker? Who needs roy castle when you have oleg as new record breaker for 'most optimistic fm'

also, forum needs more stiglers to prevent 'fanboy' critical mass condition and total game meltdown. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

SO now saying you love the game is being a Fanboi? And EVERY post constantly complaining about the game is great? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

you are perplexed by taking something to an extreme when you have just done the same?

there is a tendency for 'support the game' no matter what is wrong with it by some people.

think about it in terms of when people think there is nothing wrong, nothing gets better.

remember: if people didn't question things, we'd all think the world was still flat

anarchy52
03-06-2006, 09:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
Soviet designs empahsized on very good dogfight abilities at low to medium alt. If built to perfect specs, they should very much beat any opposition in a 1 vs 1. Quickly, and easily. I really don't get why some people keep bashing the FN's performance.

Note: Bashing is different from questioning. The former is about ignorance, the latter about (justified) doubt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So which part do you find ignorant?
Climb test tracks?
Original TsAGI charts?
Aircraft specs in general?
Comparative trials?

msalama
03-06-2006, 09:51 AM
If something's wrong - and has been proven wrong - then it should be fixed. Whether it does depends on (at least) these criteria:

1) How hard it is to fix.
2) Are there resources for fixing it.
3) Does the game engine allow for fixing it.
4) What happens after the fix has been applied.
5) What are the devs concentrating on at the moment.

How do I know, I hear you ask? Well _I_ don't, of course. My common sense does.

Lazy312
03-06-2006, 09:54 AM
just tested climb to 5000m quickly, Crimea, full tank, closed radiator, full power, about 250 kph IAS:

Bf 109 G-2 ..3.6min
La-5FN ..4.4min
La-7 ..4.1min

F6_Ace
03-06-2006, 09:55 AM
think that is a bit optimistic - quite a few things still wrong from a long time ago

aha! we got new planes to divert our attention though

BaronUnderpants
03-06-2006, 10:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
Soviet designs empahsized on very good dogfight abilities at low to medium alt. If built to perfect specs, they should very much beat any opposition in a 1 vs 1. Quickly, and easily. I really don't get why some people keep bashing the FN's performance.

Note: Bashing is different from questioning. The former is about ignorance, the latter about (justified) doubt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And who decides wich post is wich...you?

P.S. Same thing happend to me, zoomed past a airfield ( Fw A-6 ) just as a La5 took of ( Not to shoot him i might ad ). Was doing about 450 km/h and of course within 1 k he is gaining on me. Im not a self proclaimed expert and NO i dont have track and charts, but that seem just outright wrong....but hey! what do i know.

Stigler_9_JG52
03-06-2006, 10:19 AM
Xiobalu3 wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Its just when all posts beome whines it gets a little tiresome. I find flight models are so 'opinion based' that its almost pointless to argue about it too much. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's tiresome to hear this rote cr*p from the fans of this sim, too. No, the flight models CAN be fairly accurate, it's just that the ones here aren't, and it's the fault of the design team; period. Their work is sloppy, haphazard, and their underlying physics must be from another planet, cuz it sure ain't Earth.

Other sims manage to go through many versions and upgrades without the wild swings that you see in the models of this one. This suggests that at no time are they correct.

As for people who get tired of hearing it, well, I get tired of planes with docile stall characteristics entering unrecoverable spins for no reason at all. I get tired of bomber gunners who can shoot a fly off the tail of a horse while the aircraft they're in is pulling a break turn or doing a barrel roll. I get tired of the politicized modeling of certain darling planes, all the while with little PR snippets being released about which Axis plane is Oleg's "favorite". http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif I get tired of the favoritism shown to turning planes (by dint of their lack of proper energy bleed) and the penalties heaped on B&Z type planes. I get tired of the poor visiblity that takes away the advantage of altitude and gives it to any plane in the weeds. The list goes on, and it's been about the same list since v1.x. Progress? NONE at all, except to add new planes that are just as poorly modeled. (Oh, but it looks good, so everything must be just peachy, think all the fanbois http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif )

Why does it seem like a broken record? Because none of these glaring problems ever get fixed, that's why. Take off your rose colored glasses, fanbois, plant your nose in a book or two, and you'll come to the same conclusion I have. Even TAGERT, fanboi that he is, "did the math" on just roll rates and found that the modeling in this sim stinks on ice.

Thanks, Badsight, for the backup. It seems to be so easy for my detractors to just center on me, and not the content of my posts.

Stigler_9_JG52
03-06-2006, 10:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I don`t even believe he flies FB/IL2 any more since a few patches ago, so he probably only knows what`s going on from what he reads here (the negative stuff, of course). Anything to diss IL2/FB. I`m surprised he hasn`t joined my rant against 4.04 AI, but then I`d probably tell him to shut up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't really care what you believe, but it sure sounds like you don't KNOW much, because I fly the sim periodically, especially after new patches appear, to see if anything's changed.

Just last weekend I flew a Hurricane, which went into an unrecoverable stall/spin for no reason at all, after I'd taken a nice squirt at a 109 I surprised over one of those little postage stamp islands on the Med map. I had nose up, and was well throttled back, so it shouldn't have been torque. The thing just cartwheeled over onto its nose and spun in from 3km. Even after I used the standard Oleg stall recovery technique (which isn't the right thing to do in RL, by the way), it'd stabilize for a quarter second, then spin in the other direction; just like with any other IL-2 plane; because the whole process is just canned. a Hurricane should be rock solid, and you wouldn't spin it in unless you entered the spin close to the deck.

These days I find I can stand two, three sorties at most of IL-2 before I run afoul of one of its glaring modeling faux pas, and then I just can't take it any more; I yearn for some realistic flight modeling.

JtD
03-06-2006, 10:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
And who decides wich is wich...you? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As far as I am concerned, I decide. But feel free to make your own decision, mine are only valid for me.

anarchy52
03-06-2006, 10:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lazy312:
just tested climb to 5000m quickly, Crimea, full tank, closed radiator, full power, about 250 kph IAS:

Bf 109 G-2 ..3.6min
La-5FN ..4.4min
La-7 ..4.1min </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As You can see from my track I made 3:57 to 5k in La-7 and 4:25 in La-5FN (close to your result although I think I messed up on the compressor switching) 100% fuel , rads open with suboptimal speed (~230 IAS).

JtD
03-06-2006, 10:33 AM
<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:
These days I find I can stand two, three sorties at most of IL-2 before I run afoul of one of its glaring modeling faux pas, and then I just can't take it any more; I yearn for some realistic flight modeling. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you walk outside to take a spin with your very own collection of WW2 warbirds?

BaronUnderpants
03-06-2006, 10:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
And who decides wich is wich...you? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As far as I am concerned, I decide. But feel free to make your own decision, mine are only valid for me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Totaly agree. I for one have a issiue with the fact that Fw have a slower acceleration than a VW Beetle at take of, is more or less the only ac in game that needs an actual runway to take of ( or u brake of the under carrige ) and the fact that the only time Fw DOESNT loose speed is when u throttle down to 0 % when landing.

Theese kind of issiues is inhanced when other pet planes seems way of in the other derection.

Dont get me wrong, iv been a Lala flyer to and reacted the exact same way when people screamed "noobplane". Differance now is that to me personaly La seems to easy, no challenge what so ever.

As someone said before. La will proppably suffer the same fate as Ki81c, Im just suprised its been arround for so long, on the other hand La is a good beginners plane for thoose who just starting out.

fordfan25
03-06-2006, 11:01 AM
<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:
Xiobalu3 wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Its just when all posts beome whines it gets a little tiresome. I find flight models are so 'opinion based' that its almost pointless to argue about it too much. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's tiresome to hear this rote cr*p from the fans of this sim, too. No, the flight models CAN be fairly accurate, it's just that the ones here aren't, and it's the fault of the design team; period. Their work is sloppy, haphazard, and their underlying physics must be from another planet, cuz it sure ain't Earth.

Other sims manage to go through many versions and upgrades without the wild swings that you see in the models of this one. This suggests that at no time are they correct.

As for people who get tired of hearing it, well, I get tired of planes with docile stall characteristics entering unrecoverable spins for no reason at all. I get tired of bomber gunners who can shoot a fly off the tail of a horse while the aircraft they're in is pulling a break turn or doing a barrel roll. I get tired of the politicized modeling of certain darling planes, all the while with little PR snippets being released about which Axis plane is Oleg's "favorite". http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif I get tired of the favoritism shown to turning planes (by dint of their lack of proper energy bleed) and the penalties heaped on B&Z type planes. I get tired of the poor visiblity that takes away the advantage of altitude and gives it to any plane in the weeds. The list goes on, and it's been about the same list since v1.x. Progress? NONE at all, except to add new planes that are just as poorly modeled. (Oh, but it looks good, so everything must be just peachy, think all the fanbois http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif )

Why does it seem like a broken record? Because none of these glaring problems ever get fixed, that's why. Take off your rose colored glasses, fanbois, plant your nose in a book or two, and you'll come to the same conclusion I have. Even TAGERT, fanboi that he is, "did the math" on just roll rates and found that the modeling in this sim stinks on ice.

Thanks, Badsight, for the backup. It seems to be so easy for my detractors to just center on me, and not the content of my posts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+1 but with more focus on the porked P-51 LMAO....o and we need a f4u-4 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

tigertalon
03-06-2006, 11:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
Totaly agree. I for one have a issiue with the fact that Fw have a slower acceleration than a VW Beetle at take of, is more or less the only ac in game that needs an actual runway to take of ( or u brake of the under carrige ) and the fact that the only time Fw DOESNT loose speed is when u throttle down to 0 % when landing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

While I do agree with most of your post and with general "feeling" that "something is wrong with Fw190A", check this:

From a report of a full trial of Arnim Fabers Fw190A3 by Air Fighting Developement Unit at Duxford:

The aircraft has a wide speed range which greatly assist in regaining formation, but care must be taken to avoid overshooting, as its clean lines make deceleration slow.

F6_Ace
03-06-2006, 11:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Thanks, Badsight, for the backup. It seems to be so easy for my detractors to just center on me, and not the content of my posts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

why argue about facts when ad homnium can prevail?

F6_Ace
03-06-2006, 11:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
Totaly agree. I for one have a issiue with the fact that Fw have a slower acceleration than a VW Beetle at take of, is more or less the only ac in game that needs an actual runway to take of ( or u brake of the under carrige ) and the fact that the only time Fw DOESNT loose speed is when u throttle down to 0 % when landing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

While I do agree with most of your post and with general "feeling" that "something is wrong with Fw190A", check this:

From a report of a full trial of Arnim Fabers Fw190A3 by Air Fighting Developement Unit at Duxford:

The aircraft has a wide speed range which greatly assist in regaining formation, but care must be taken to avoid overshooting, as its clean lines make deceleration slow. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

no, no. faber report was RAF propaganda borne out of wanting an improved spitfire. u should not consider it valid even if many non-armchair aviation historians consider otherwise.

Luftkillier
03-06-2006, 11:24 AM
<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:
Xiobalu3 wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Its just when all posts beome whines it gets a little tiresome. I find flight models are so 'opinion based' that its almost pointless to argue about it too much. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's tiresome to hear this rote cr*p from the fans of this sim, too. No, the flight models CAN be fairly accurate, it's just that the ones here aren't, and it's the fault of the design team; period. Their work is sloppy, haphazard, and their underlying physics must be from another planet, cuz it sure ain't Earth.

Other sims manage to go through many versions and upgrades without the wild swings that you see in the models of this one. This suggests that at no time are they correct.

As for people who get tired of hearing it, well, I get tired of planes with docile stall characteristics entering unrecoverable spins for no reason at all. I get tired of bomber gunners who can shoot a fly off the tail of a horse while the aircraft they're in is pulling a break turn or doing a barrel roll. I get tired of the politicized modeling of certain darling planes, all the while with little PR snippets being released about which Axis plane is Oleg's "favorite". http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif I get tired of the favoritism shown to turning planes (by dint of their lack of proper energy bleed) and the penalties heaped on B&Z type planes. I get tired of the poor visiblity that takes away the advantage of altitude and gives it to any plane in the weeds. The list goes on, and it's been about the same list since v1.x. Progress? NONE at all, except to add new planes that are just as poorly modeled. (Oh, but it looks good, so everything must be just peachy, think all the fanbois http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif )

Why does it seem like a broken record? Because none of these glaring problems ever get fixed, that's why. Take off your rose colored glasses, fanbois, plant your nose in a book or two, and you'll come to the same conclusion I have. Even TAGERT, fanboi that he is, "did the math" on just roll rates and found that the modeling in this sim stinks on ice.

Thanks, Badsight, for the backup. It seems to be so easy for my detractors to just center on me, and not the content of my posts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't believe it, but I agree with ya 100%. Oleg's treatment of some planes has been pathetic. The original jug was totally off and until he faced the fact he would have open rebellion he only then changed it. Now the Mustang has been reduced to a flying underarmed target. I can't see how anyone looking for accuracy can stomach that pile of steaming c--p. You are not alone in seeing through the roses. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

msalama
03-06-2006, 11:29 AM
OK Stig, you say it's cr*p. Fair enough, that's your opinion, and it is to be respected as much as anyone's.

But we've _heard_ all that some 10000 times already, so why the h*ll do you STILL keep coming back with that same old s**t day in day out? Because hey, I'm sure Oleg has heard of your opinions some countless ruddy times already TOO, and he STILL hasn't fixed the bugger to your liking after all these sordid whiney years! So WHY.THE.F**K.BOTHER, because all you're doing is putting people OFF, developers undoubtedly included?

So WTF??? Are you just too thick to get it, or what the _f**k_ is it?

I've met some obsessive personalities in my time, sure, but YOU're the one who f**king takes the cake. And do you know what else, buddy-roo - do you REALLY think this behaviour of yours does _any_ good for the sim you're associated with? You really think negative whiney bad-personality arrogant a**eholes are good mannequins for whatever products they're into, huh?

OK, rant off. But Stig, you really have to do much much better, or failing that, at least please shut the f**king door when you p*ss off...

JtD
03-06-2006, 11:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
Totaly agree. I for one have a issiue with the fact that Fw have a slower acceleration than a VW Beetle at take of, is more or less the only ac in game that needs an actual runway to take of ( or u brake of the under carrige ) and the fact that the only time Fw DOESNT loose speed is when u throttle down to 0 % when landing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

WRT the Fockes acceleration, I have very much the same impression. But my testing showed, my impression was wrong:
0-200 kph, gear down, throttle up, tailwheel locked, chocks released:
La-5FN: 17.1 seconds
FW 190 A-4(M): 19.3 seconds
FW 190 A-6: 20.1 seconds

Considering that the Focke has an about 20% worse power/weight ratio, these figures seem very reasonable to me.

But guess what, my perception of the Fockes take off acceleration has not changed a bit. It still seems to take ages.

Xiolablu3
03-06-2006, 11:59 AM
<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:
Xiobalu3 wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Its just when all posts beome whines it gets a little tiresome. I find flight models are so 'opinion based' that its almost pointless to argue about it too much. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's tiresome to hear this rote cr*p from the fans of this sim, too. No, the flight models CAN be fairly accurate, it's just that the ones here aren't, and it's the fault of the design team; period. Their work is sloppy, haphazard, and their underlying physics must be from another planet, cuz it sure ain't Earth.

Other sims manage to go through many versions and upgrades without the wild swings that you see in the models of this one. This suggests that at no time are they correct.

As for people who get tired of hearing it, well, I get tired of planes with docile stall characteristics entering unrecoverable spins for no reason at all. I get tired of bomber gunners who can shoot a fly off the tail of a horse while the aircraft they're in is pulling a break turn or doing a barrel roll. I get tired of the politicized modeling of certain darling planes, all the while with little PR snippets being released about which Axis plane is Oleg's "favorite". http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif I get tired of the favoritism shown to turning planes (by dint of their lack of proper energy bleed) and the penalties heaped on B&Z type planes. I get tired of the poor visiblity that takes away the advantage of altitude and gives it to any plane in the weeds. The list goes on, and it's been about the same list since v1.x. Progress? NONE at all, except to add new planes that are just as poorly modeled. (Oh, but it looks good, so everything must be just peachy, think all the fanbois http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif )

Why does it seem like a broken record? Because none of these glaring problems ever get fixed, that's why. Take off your rose colored glasses, fanbois, plant your nose in a book or two, and you'll come to the same conclusion I have. Even TAGERT, fanboi that he is, "did the math" on just roll rates and found that the modeling in this sim stinks on ice.

Thanks, Badsight, for the backup. It seems to be so easy for my detractors to just center on me, and not the content of my posts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So who is right, you who says 'This is how it should be' , The US reports on German planes, The GErman reports on planes, The Russian reoprts on planes, The Japanese reoprts on planes, the US pilot who says the P51 could outturn the FW190, the FW190 pilot who says he could outturn the P51., CHuck Yeager who says this, some guy who read a report saying that, guys who come with fact but leave out bits to tailor them to say what they want.... and on and on...all which often say different things, no matter how 'official'

This report is propaganda, no its not its real, who decides...

Should the slats on a 109E enable the 109 to outurn the Spitfire Mk1? Yes I hear you say? but THIS guy says no....

Should the FW190 be able to hold energy better? YES says you (blue flyer) NO says the red flyer its fine.

Should the 50 cals be stronger? Hell of COURSE says the red flyer. NOPE they are strong enough say others..


Can you still not understand what I mean when I say its massively opinion based???

You canb get a general picture, but it will NEVER be perfect for you because there are so many different opoinons.

This is Olegs sim, he is going to make it how he sees things and thats the end of it. Sure we can all add things and show him facts we BELIEVE to be real, but it up to him to make the choice if he belieives it or not.

The most important issues that need fixing are different for everyone, again OPINIONS

If you dont agree with his decision then find another game and get over it. (Which I gather you have done, one with YOUR opinons of the flight model gun strength etc etc etc, )

I guess if you are right about this game going off the rails a long time ago, and you knowing all, then everyone will flock to your 'perfect' flight model Targetware sim.

Overall I trust Oleg to keep tweaking things every patch to make the game better and closer to reality, which is being done. If you know anything about how a game like this is made then you know the flight models will be constantly altered to try and get a btter effect. Things will be tried and some will fail. But in the end it will get closer and closer to the real thing.

Xiolablu3
03-06-2006, 12:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Luftkillier:
<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:
Xiobalu3 wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Its just when all posts beome whines it gets a little tiresome. I find flight models are so 'opinion based' that its almost pointless to argue about it too much. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's tiresome to hear this rote cr*p from the fans of this sim, too. No, the flight models CAN be fairly accurate, it's just that the ones here aren't, and it's the fault of the design team; period. Their work is sloppy, haphazard, and their underlying physics must be from another planet, cuz it sure ain't Earth.

Other sims manage to go through many versions and upgrades without the wild swings that you see in the models of this one. This suggests that at no time are they correct.

As for people who get tired of hearing it, well, I get tired of planes with docile stall characteristics entering unrecoverable spins for no reason at all. I get tired of bomber gunners who can shoot a fly off the tail of a horse while the aircraft they're in is pulling a break turn or doing a barrel roll. I get tired of the politicized modeling of certain darling planes, all the while with little PR snippets being released about which Axis plane is Oleg's "favorite". http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif I get tired of the favoritism shown to turning planes (by dint of their lack of proper energy bleed) and the penalties heaped on B&Z type planes. I get tired of the poor visiblity that takes away the advantage of altitude and gives it to any plane in the weeds. The list goes on, and it's been about the same list since v1.x. Progress? NONE at all, except to add new planes that are just as poorly modeled. (Oh, but it looks good, so everything must be just peachy, think all the fanbois http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif )

Why does it seem like a broken record? Because none of these glaring problems ever get fixed, that's why. Take off your rose colored glasses, fanbois, plant your nose in a book or two, and you'll come to the same conclusion I have. Even TAGERT, fanboi that he is, "did the math" on just roll rates and found that the modeling in this sim stinks on ice.

Thanks, Badsight, for the backup. It seems to be so easy for my detractors to just center on me, and not the content of my posts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't believe it, but I agree with ya 100%. Oleg's treatment of some planes has been pathetic. The original jug was totally off and until he faced the fact he would have open rebellion he only then changed it. Now the Mustang has been reduced to a flying underarmed target. I can't see how anyone looking for accuracy can stomach that pile of steaming c--p. You are not alone in seeing through the roses. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont understand why you two are still here? Surely if you think something is that bad, you just leave it.

msalama
03-06-2006, 12:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Surely if you think something is that bad, you just leave it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly... but hey, this is _not_ the first game in history attracting neurotic idiots like s**t flies, so maybe it's just that, huh?

BlitzPig_DDT
03-06-2006, 12:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Luftkillier:
Now the Mustang has been reduced to a flying underarmed target. I can't see how anyone looking for accuracy can stomach that pile of steaming c--p. You are not alone in seeing through the roses. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe it's from coming from a 190 perspective, but the P-51 rocks. Period. It's better than the Spitfire as far as I'm concerned. (and I mean from flying it, not against it)

I'm not sure what you expect, but it's fast, fast accelerating, lots of zoom, good control at high speed, and with combat flaps at 230-250mph IAS is a turning beast (for laminar flow wings, they sure react well to high AoA..... )

I can only think that the P-51 whiners either A - can't fly, or B - expect it to be an 门揵er-plane because "it won teh w4r".

Stigler_9_JG52
03-06-2006, 12:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
So who is right, you who says 'This is how it should be' , The US reports on German planes, The GErman reports on planes, The Russian reoprts on planes, The Japanese reoprts on planes, the US pilot who says the P51 could outturn the FW190, the FW190 pilot who says he could outturn the P51., Chuck Yeager who says this, some guy who read a report saying that, guys who come with fact but leave out bits to tailor them to say what they want.... and on and on...all which often say different things, no matter how 'official'

This report is propaganda, no its not its real, who decides...

Should the slats on a 109E enable the 109 to outurn the Spitfire Mk1? Yes I hear you say? but THIS guy says no....

Should the FW190 be able to hold energy better? YES says you (blue flyer) NO says the red flyer its fine.

Should the 50 cals be stronger? Hell of COURSE says the red flyer. NOPE they are strong enough say others..


Can you still not understand what I mean when I say its massively opinion based???

You can get a general picture, but it will NEVER be perfect for you because there are so many different opinions.

This is Oleg's sim, he is going to make it how he sees things and thats the end of it. Sure we can all add things and show him facts we BELIEVE to be real, but it up to him to make the choice if he believes it or not.

The most important issues that need fixing are different for everyone, again OPINIONS

If you don't agree with his decision then find another game and get over it. (Which I gather you have done, one with YOUR opinons of the flight model gun strength etc., etc., etc. )

I guess if you are right about this game going off the rails a long time ago, and you knowing all, then everyone will flock to your 'perfect' flight model Targetware sim.

Overall I trust Oleg to keep tweaking things every patch to make the game better and closer to reality, which is being done. If you know anything about how a game like this is made then you know the flight models will be constantly altered to try and get a btter effect. Things will be tried and some will fail. But in the end it will get closer and closer to the real thing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Xiolablu3, I totally understand your point about "whose stats do you listen to?"... but the fact is, Oleg doesn't really get close to any of them. So many of the planes bear almost NO relation to their historical counterpart in their most trademark characteristics... that's what's sad.

And I keep repeating it to counterbalance the "manna from heaven" fanbois who treat it as though the model for every plane is not to be questioned, argued with, or even examined to see if it's even close to what it ought to be.

That's what the msalamas of the world don't understand: criticism and critical thinking tend to increase the likelihood things get BETTER, rather than to get complacent or get worse.

As for your "trust" of Oleg, what's he done to pay it off for you? Whipsawing flight and damage models wildly from one version to the next, listening to unsubstantiated whining and player blocs when whichever data he chooses to believe should be the sole arbiter (and you'll notice half the time the data won't even be stated by Oleg's team; it's yet another BS dodge they employ to avoid criticism--can't argue with facts that aren't laid on the table for all to see and debate, can you?)

BlitzPig_DDT
03-06-2006, 12:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by msalama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Surely if you think something is that bad, you just leave it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly... but hey, this is _not_ the first game in history attracting neurotic idiots like s**t flies, so maybe it's just that, huh? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

WTF? Are you for real? or just a fanboi that doesn't want anything to change or anyone to dare challenge your precious idol?

"Like it or leave it" is BS. In the first place, it requires something better to go to. And despite what Stigler says, there isn't anything better out there. In the second place, it means that positive changes won't happen because they will be accepted and left alone.

Personally, I want to see this sim get better, even if you don't. I want to see this sim continue to improve *more* than I want to see a better alternative because I appreciate what Oleg has done, and all the support he has provided. I would prefer to continue to support him and his products with my dollar. But that can only ever go so far. The fanbois really make this an issue, not to mention are irritating as hell. But then I've never been one to take suffering the fools lightly.

danjama
03-06-2006, 01:01 PM
10 more posts max until i say:

I_B_T_L http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Chill everyone!

msalama
03-06-2006, 01:04 PM
Yeah, but there's provable (i.e. valid) criticism, and then there's the other kind.

And the other kind is what we hear mostly around here, and from _that_, the _absolute_ worst is what we hear from parties unnamed who base _everything_ they say on their *feelings* and tirelessly keep on spewing that BS in the vain hope of getting _heard_ at some point by someone in power, regardless of the fact that they've never _ever_ presented _any_ concrete and unambiguous PROOF of what-the-f**k-ever it is they happen to be so upset about.

Which was my point. You gents have a problem with that?

Xiolablu3
03-06-2006, 01:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Luftkillier:
Now the Mustang has been reduced to a flying underarmed target. I can't see how anyone looking for accuracy can stomach that pile of steaming c--p. You are not alone in seeing through the roses. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe it's from coming from a 190 perspective, but the P-51 rocks. Period. It's better than the Spitfire as far as I'm concerned. (and I mean from flying it, not against it)

I'm not sure what you expect, but it's fast, fast accelerating, lots of zoom, good control at high speed, and with combat flaps at 230-250mph IAS is a turning beast (for laminar flow wings, they sure react well to high AoA..... )

I can only think that the P-51 whiners either A - can't fly, or B - expect it to be an 门揵er-plane because "it won teh w4r". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

These two post illustrate the point I am trying to make exactly. Opinions are 50% of a flight model, whether we like it or not. I dare say none of us have flown these planes in combat so whos to know who is right.

I am starting to understand your points of view , Stig, I understand the flightmodel has to be tweaked but can we try and do it in a constructive way rather than just ****ging everything off?

I dont mean to be a fanboy, but I still love this game (I play it far more than any other game the value for money is astounding) and I trust Oleg to keep tweaking things to try and get a better game. I guess some of you have just lost faith because the things you want changing havent been changed.

SOrry for going off topic.

I'll get back on topic now.

BF109G2 roxxors ur boxxors , LaFN is teh suck. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

msalama
03-06-2006, 01:17 PM
...and no, I'm not a fanboi of any kind. I'm perfectly aware that there're things incorrect in this game. But that doesn't take away from the fact that obsessive, rude, arrogant and childish yelling of how everything in this game is soooooo f**ked DOES.NOT.HELP. It only makes things worse, if anything.

Am I making myself understood here?

msalama
03-06-2006, 01:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That's what the msalamas of the world don't understand: criticism and critical thinking tend to increase the likelihood things get BETTER, rather than to get complacent or get worse. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Look who's f**king talking. And this gem coming from a man-boy whose sole contribution to this game has been his opinion of how all things IL-2 are soooo:

A) f**ked
B) f**ked
C) you guessed it - f**ked.

And all this with an attitude of a spoiled six-year old brat. Sheesh...

You gonna get all those charts, measurements and calculations lined up soon Stig, so that you can try your hand in CONVINCING someone of your agenda for a change? Or you still gonna spew out those BS _opinions_ only?

F6_Ace
03-06-2006, 02:06 PM
<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:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
So who is right, you who says 'This is how it should be' , The US reports on German planes, The GErman reports on planes, The Russian reoprts on planes, The Japanese reoprts on planes, the US pilot who says the P51 could outturn the FW190, the FW190 pilot who says he could outturn the P51., Chuck Yeager who says this, some guy who read a report saying that, guys who come with fact but leave out bits to tailor them to say what they want.... and on and on...all which often say different things, no matter how 'official'

This report is propaganda, no its not its real, who decides...

Should the slats on a 109E enable the 109 to outurn the Spitfire Mk1? Yes I hear you say? but THIS guy says no....

Should the FW190 be able to hold energy better? YES says you (blue flyer) NO says the red flyer its fine.

Should the 50 cals be stronger? Hell of COURSE says the red flyer. NOPE they are strong enough say others..


Can you still not understand what I mean when I say its massively opinion based???

You can get a general picture, but it will NEVER be perfect for you because there are so many different opinions.

This is Oleg's sim, he is going to make it how he sees things and thats the end of it. Sure we can all add things and show him facts we BELIEVE to be real, but it up to him to make the choice if he believes it or not.

The most important issues that need fixing are different for everyone, again OPINIONS

If you don't agree with his decision then find another game and get over it. (Which I gather you have done, one with YOUR opinons of the flight model gun strength etc., etc., etc. )

I guess if you are right about this game going off the rails a long time ago, and you knowing all, then everyone will flock to your 'perfect' flight model Targetware sim.

Overall I trust Oleg to keep tweaking things every patch to make the game better and closer to reality, which is being done. If you know anything about how a game like this is made then you know the flight models will be constantly altered to try and get a btter effect. Things will be tried and some will fail. But in the end it will get closer and closer to the real thing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Xiolablu3, I totally understand your point about "whose stats do you listen to?"... but the fact is, Oleg doesn't really get close to any of them. So many of the planes bear almost NO relation to their historical counterpart in their most trademark characteristics... that's what's sad.

And I keep repeating it to counterbalance the "manna from heaven" fanbois who treat it as though the model for every plane is not to be questioned, argued with, or even examined to see if it's even close to what it ought to be.

That's what the msalamas of the world don't understand: criticism and critical thinking tend to increase the likelihood things get BETTER, rather than to get complacent or get worse.

As for your "trust" of Oleg, what's he done to pay it off for you? Whipsawing flight and damage models wildly from one version to the next, listening to unsubstantiated whining and player blocs when whichever data he chooses to believe should be the sole arbiter (and you'll notice half the time the data won't even be stated by Oleg's team; it's yet another BS dodge they employ to avoid criticism--can't argue with facts that aren't laid on the table for all to see and debate, can you?) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

wasting your time pal. the planes they fly are obviously to their 'expectation' and to what they subscribe to be 'historical accounts'.

I'm with you - yo-yo FMs have been the chef's choice since 2 years ago and, if you plot the average between the two yo-yo extremes, you will observe only a marginal improvement.

in general, devs prefer quantity over quality. like 'super sizing' at mcdonalds instead of attending a decent restaurant. fills you up for a very short time but you end up wishing you'd had something more fulfilling in the first place.

BlitzPig_DDT
03-06-2006, 02:15 PM
F6, are you going to come out with a Print Screen Defender, to supplement your Ace Maker? Would be perfect. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Luftkillier
03-06-2006, 02:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Luftkillier:
Now the Mustang has been reduced to a flying underarmed target. I can't see how anyone looking for accuracy can stomach that pile of steaming c--p. You are not alone in seeing through the roses. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe it's from coming from a 190 perspective, but the P-51 rocks. Period. It's better than the Spitfire as far as I'm concerned. (and I mean from flying it, not against it)

I'm not sure what you expect, but it's fast, fast accelerating, lots of zoom, good control at high speed, and with combat flaps at 230-250mph IAS is a turning beast (for laminar flow wings, they sure react well to high AoA..... )

I can only think that the P-51 whiners either A - can't fly, or B - expect it to be an 门揵er-plane because "it won teh w4r". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well let me try to put it in terms that you can comprehend. Most of us that drive the Stang are upset because in each version of the patch since it came into the game, it gets porked one aspect or another.

The first version was probably the most accurate, it had the proper .50cal power,dive speed, e-retention etc... Then the 190 bloc whinners got what they wanted and the dive speed was decreased and the overall stability was made over twitchy, .50cals were decreased etc...

The next patch saw the introduction of the mysterious wings flying off BUG along with other decreases in accleration and e-retention etc..

Fastforward to now, the .50cals are highly ineffective compared to how they were, the e-retention is nowhere near what it was, but at least the wings don't fall off anymore mysteriously. Not really exciting since you can't out dive anything and forget trying to catch a 109 in a zoom climb etc...

No, I'm not alone in these views, ask someone else that has flown it from the start like say, Bearcat. He is not known as a whinner, yet he has said the same things.

For the LAST TIME, this is not about having an UBER STANG, it "is" about having the Stang we once had in this game, period.

BTW, no need to try to insult someones flying ability, thats not the issue either, but good try. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Max.Power
03-06-2006, 02:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
190s, A's in particular, run out of breath around 4 to 5Km. They won't be any good at 6, and will take forever and a day to get there.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What are you talking about? They are best at 6000m. THat is their optimal altitude. Their peformance drops of considerably from the deck until 2500 meters, at which point the supercharger kicks in. They get strong again at about 4000m, and at 6000m they are at their most powerful.

BlitzPig_DDT
03-06-2006, 02:32 PM
It IS about having an "门揵er-plane", and that IS what it once was.

The guns are very powerful right now and easy to hit with.

The E-retension is phenomenal.

The turn rate is almost certainly too good.

The acceleration is very good.

The wings coming off is not a bug. Learn to use your plane. It's spiking Gs. All planes will do it, but few have the level of elevator authority that the P-51 does at the needed speeds. THAT is either a bug or poor modeling, but either way, it means it's *over-modeled*. Stop being so ham-fisted and you'll be ok.

Oh - did I mention that I was a dedicated Jug Jock for a long time? And that the Hellcat is my favorite plane? Since you're automatically assuming I have a blue bias, I thought I might point that out.

And for the record, the P-51 has always had much better performance than it should have *compared* to the Jug. So much so that it was sickening at times. It's nice to see it's finally coming back to the realm of (relativistic) reality.

It's already better than the Spitfire, yet you claim you don't want it 眉berized. Sure. And I'm the pope.

F6_Ace
03-06-2006, 02:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
F6, are you going to come out with a Print Screen Defender, to supplement your Ace Maker? Would be perfect. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

excellent idea. i could link it into device link so that we had a logical 'and' condition when pilot is flying La5FN.

p q r
0 0 0
0 1 0
1 0 0
1 1 1

p = La5FN
q = Printscreen
r = whether it operates or not

La5 + printscreen + F6 = ace greater in magnitude than RBJ with trim on slider

jds1978
03-06-2006, 02:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
10 more posts max until i say:

I_B_T_L http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Chill everyone! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+2.5 million

Xiolablu3
03-06-2006, 03:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F6_Ace:
<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:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
So who is right, you who says 'This is how it should be' , The US reports on German planes, The GErman reports on planes, The Russian reoprts on planes, The Japanese reoprts on planes, the US pilot who says the P51 could outturn the FW190, the FW190 pilot who says he could outturn the P51., Chuck Yeager who says this, some guy who read a report saying that, guys who come with fact but leave out bits to tailor them to say what they want.... and on and on...all which often say different things, no matter how 'official'

This report is propaganda, no its not its real, who decides...

Should the slats on a 109E enable the 109 to outurn the Spitfire Mk1? Yes I hear you say? but THIS guy says no....

Should the FW190 be able to hold energy better? YES says you (blue flyer) NO says the red flyer its fine.

Should the 50 cals be stronger? Hell of COURSE says the red flyer. NOPE they are strong enough say others..


Can you still not understand what I mean when I say its massively opinion based???

You can get a general picture, but it will NEVER be perfect for you because there are so many different opinions.

This is Oleg's sim, he is going to make it how he sees things and thats the end of it. Sure we can all add things and show him facts we BELIEVE to be real, but it up to him to make the choice if he believes it or not.

The most important issues that need fixing are different for everyone, again OPINIONS

If you don't agree with his decision then find another game and get over it. (Which I gather you have done, one with YOUR opinons of the flight model gun strength etc., etc., etc. )

I guess if you are right about this game going off the rails a long time ago, and you knowing all, then everyone will flock to your 'perfect' flight model Targetware sim.

Overall I trust Oleg to keep tweaking things every patch to make the game better and closer to reality, which is being done. If you know anything about how a game like this is made then you know the flight models will be constantly altered to try and get a btter effect. Things will be tried and some will fail. But in the end it will get closer and closer to the real thing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Xiolablu3, I totally understand your point about "whose stats do you listen to?"... but the fact is, Oleg doesn't really get close to any of them. So many of the planes bear almost NO relation to their historical counterpart in their most trademark characteristics... that's what's sad.

And I keep repeating it to counterbalance the "manna from heaven" fanbois who treat it as though the model for every plane is not to be questioned, argued with, or even examined to see if it's even close to what it ought to be.

That's what the msalamas of the world don't understand: criticism and critical thinking tend to increase the likelihood things get BETTER, rather than to get complacent or get worse.

As for your "trust" of Oleg, what's he done to pay it off for you? Whipsawing flight and damage models wildly from one version to the next, listening to unsubstantiated whining and player blocs when whichever data he chooses to believe should be the sole arbiter (and you'll notice half the time the data won't even be stated by Oleg's team; it's yet another BS dodge they employ to avoid criticism--can't argue with facts that aren't laid on the table for all to see and debate, can you?) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

wasting your time pal. the planes they fly are obviously to their 'expectation' and to what they subscribe to be 'historical accounts'.

I'm with you - yo-yo FMs have been the chef's choice since 2 years ago and, if you plot the average between the two yo-yo extremes, you will observe only a marginal improvement.

in general, devs prefer quantity over quality. like 'super sizing' at mcdonalds instead of attending a decent restaurant. fills you up for a very short time but you end up wishing you'd had something more fulfilling in the first place. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But yet you are still here, under ANOTHER new name.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

You are so easy to spot...

F6_Ace
03-06-2006, 04:03 PM
hide? i doubt i could really make it more obvious

the name provides me with opporuntities for one of my favourite pastimes....taking the p*ss http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Luftkillier
03-06-2006, 05:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
It IS about having an "门揵er-plane", and that IS what it once was.

The guns are very powerful right now and easy to hit with.

The E-retension is phenomenal.

The turn rate is almost certainly too good.

The acceleration is very good.

The wings coming off is not a bug. Learn to use your plane. It's spiking Gs. All planes will do it, but few have the level of elevator authority that the P-51 does at the needed speeds. THAT is either a bug or poor modeling, but either way, it means it's *over-modeled*. Stop being so ham-fisted and you'll be ok.

Oh - did I mention that I was a dedicated Jug Jock for a long time? And that the Hellcat is my favorite plane? Since you're automatically assuming I have a blue bias, I thought I might point that out.

And for the record, the P-51 has always had much better performance than it should have *compared* to the Jug. So much so that it was sickening at times. It's nice to see it's finally coming back to the realm of (relativistic) reality.

It's already better than the Spitfire, yet you claim you don't want it 眉berized. Sure. And I'm the pope. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The plane was not ever uber. You should also learn to read, there was a BUG in the P-51 wings that was changed, and the change had nothing to do with hamfists, it had to do with Oleg changing the FUBAR code.

As for the rest of your statement, I'll just ignore it as it is obvious that you don't know what you are talking about. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/353.gif

BlitzPig_DDT
03-06-2006, 05:09 PM
lol, ok. Sorry you suck and can't use a hot performer to any effect.

Just another red-whining loser who can't stand to see his over popular glory hound corrected.

Before you suggest others bone up on their reading, you ought to do it yourself. That would save you the trouble of getting all worked up in threads like this. Knowledge is a wonderful thing. Even you might be able to get some and enjoy the feeling. (well, maybe, but I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt here lol)

Luftkillier
03-06-2006, 05:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
lol, ok. Sorry you suck and can't use a hot performer to any effect.

Just another red-whining loser who can't stand to see his over popular glory hound corrected.

Before you suggest others bone up on their reading, you ought to do it yourself. That would save you the trouble of getting all worked up in threads like this. Knowledge is a wonderful thing. Even you might be able to get some and enjoy the feeling. (well, maybe, but I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt here lol) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can "think" you are a hot pilot or whatever, but your hyperlobby performance and attitude here shows that you are acting just like a wannabe troll that likes to name call and pick fights. So now you are a big man behind your computer. BFD. Eat it pig.

F6_Ace
03-06-2006, 05:41 PM
Goodness.

This thread now has an offical score of 8.2 on the "handbags at 30 paces" scale.

http://www.robertaweissburgleathers.com/images/photos/Brighton-handbags.jpg

Badsight.
03-06-2006, 10:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Luftkillier:

The plane was not ever uber. You should also learn to read, there was a BUG in the P-51 wings that was changed, and the change had nothing to do with hamfists, it had to do with Oleg changing the FUBAR code. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>guess again Luftkiller , you could be more wrong - but you would have to try really hard

everything DDT posted is in the 100% catagory , as in truthfull

jermin122
03-06-2006, 11:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
I wonder how it comes then that on every server Fws have by far positive K/D ratios versus contemporary Las.

(Please, don't reply it's the pilots, it's such a cheap predictable excuse. Take 16 equal pilots, and sat 8 of them in Fws and others in Las. Anyone up for a bet? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have to say its the pilots. Most LW pilots are far more skilled than the Alled. That is the reason why there are so many Red Whinners here. They ruined this sim.

jermin122
03-06-2006, 11:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Maybe he has been here a long time, but all his posts recently seem to be very boring...

Might just be cos I'm newish. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stigler is one of the best pilots in the community, be sure. What he has said is just the fact, not whinnings. He, as many other people in this forum, is trying his best to make this sim realistic. Why you feel boring maybe because you cant see what he is seeing.

jermin122
03-07-2006, 12:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by msalama:
More Stiglers, a.k.a. obsessive whiners who just keep on spewing their opinions - and opinions only, never a shred of proof _anywhere_ - regardless of how many times we've already heard of them _not_ liking the game?

Hey, surely we can do better than that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You know what? Many many people have left the sim since 4.0x patches came out. Just look at the pacific-fighters site traffic: http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=&ur...pacific-fighters.com (http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=&url=www.pacific-fighters.com). Dropping rapidly. FM is now just a ****. 109=BZee. Mk108,151=BB pellets. Spits,las=rockets...too many examples. But why dont we leave the game? Why are we "whinning" here? Because we still have hopes, hoping things will become better. After all this sim is the most prospective wwii sim. But if there wont be any improves, I will certainly leave the game. Remember, graphics doesn't mean everything. But I really dont wish to see this happening.

Luftkillier
03-07-2006, 01:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Luftkillier:

The plane was not ever uber. You should also learn to read, there was a BUG in the P-51 wings that was changed, and the change had nothing to do with hamfists, it had to do with Oleg changing the FUBAR code. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>guess again Luftkiller , you could be more wrong - but you would have to try really hard

everything DDT posted is in the 100% catagory , as in truthfull </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is really hard to tell if you are DDT's brokeback buddy, an overzealous fanboi or an Oleg bootlicker. Get off your knees and get that out of your mouth. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

msalama
03-07-2006, 02:09 AM
PS. Hey Stig! You got that paper proving Oleg's game all f**ked written already? Or what's next - are we gonna hear that touchy-feely BS of yours _again_ for the 10000th time, huh?

msalama
03-07-2006, 02:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">FM is now just a ****. 109=BZee. Mk108,151=BB pellets. Spits,las=rockets...too many examples. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, sure. Hey, by all means let's say you're right and I'm just another Oleg fanboi... anything to make you feel better darling http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

OK? Feeling better? Now be a good boy and go _prove_ those claims... Best of luck and please take the trash out when you leave http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

HotelBushranger
03-07-2006, 02:29 AM
What have I unleashed??? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

msalama
03-07-2006, 02:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What have I unleashed??? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hang in there, buddy. We might be approaching the truth - however sordid it may be - soon http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

HotelBushranger
03-07-2006, 02:58 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif Suuuure...

Get this pot-head outta here!

mynameisroland
03-07-2006, 03:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
No, you kicked me without breaking any rules. Really speaks poorly of you. Surprised you haven't checked your PTs yet. lol </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I warn someone for swearing and you correct me for by saying its stupid to tell him off then you are wrong in my book. Its bad enough trying to keep kill stealers and team killers in line, I dont want to spend my limited gaming time arguing with players who dispute basic, clearly outlined server rules.

msalama
03-07-2006, 03:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Get this pot-head outta here! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You talking to me?

Hey, all I've done - albeit in so many words - is I've stated that if you _claim_ something, you gotta _prove_ your claim if you want to get those things looked at. This a problem to you?

And yeah, if that gets me banned or whatever then so be it. No biggie.

HotelBushranger
03-07-2006, 03:13 AM
Haha nah mate, just takin the mickey outta ya http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Haven't read through any of these pages, after the first graph came up they lost me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

msalama
03-07-2006, 03:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Haven't read through any of these pages, after the first graph came up they lost me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif But I assure you you haven't lost much - been just another common Ubi s**t-slinging match, that's all...

jermin122
03-07-2006, 03:23 AM
It turns out that some Alled whinners are boobs despite noobs.

Brain32
03-07-2006, 04:06 AM
In all 7 pages of this thread anarchy52 is the only one who actually contributed this discussion and tried to make a real point backed up by real data, but he was slammed by whiners.
This is exactly the best reason for sending relevant data to 1C by mail, because we can not have a reasnoble discussions here anymore http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Badsight.
03-07-2006, 04:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
This is exactly the best reason for sending relevant data to 1C by mail, because we can not have a reasnoble discussions here anymore http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>well not when you have new guys like msalama who feel the need to try & discredit any negative discussion of the game , as if its working perfectly or above criticism<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Luftkillier:
It is really hard to tell if you are DDT's brokeback buddy, an overzealous fanboi or an Oleg bootlicker. Get off your knees and get that out of your mouth. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>must bite musnt it

reality that is . . . . . . .

carguy_
03-07-2006, 05:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
It IS about having an "门揵er-plane", and that IS what it once was. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It`s close but it`s not the same as in when first released with FB.I remember all P51 had a very smooth control at all speeds and could maneuver very well at low speed.The plane was better in every single aspect than the 109G and that was wrong.

Agree on the matter.Those who can`t do better with P51 really want the first version of it,as in ownorz-everything-aceyankeemaker.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
The guns are very powerful right now and easy to hit with. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Certainly most powerful than ever,given fired below 250m.As for easy to hit with ,for most it is not.An individual who pressed Oleg to implement point convergence is responsible for this.50cal requires very high gunnery skills.Bullet stream hits an exact point,not a certain zone how it was in real life.
Since 4.01 it seems the 50cal has also so flat trajectory that deflection shots are as hard as in FW190 because all fired shells (in deflection) disappear below the nose.

As a result the P51/P47 are good for hitting only straight flying planes,namely bounced planes.You either hit or not,so the beviour of the weapon is similar to cannon where you have to place a good shot whereas with 6/8 machineguns should be spread over a given zone of attacked airplane.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
The E-retension is phenomenal. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

2nd best just behind the Spitfire.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
The turn rate is almost certainly too good. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It`s very well modelled from what I read and saw.Above 250kph it can fight even with a Spitfire.The Spitfire extends only at continous vertical maneuvers(endless loop - no plane can beat a Spit in that,maybe Ki41/I153/I16)P51 B and C are a match for a 109 too.Turning,zooming,climbing,whatever.

Although the D has a VERY bad stall with almost no warning hence no turning is recommended at all.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
The acceleration is very good. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Better than the Spitfire.You can get away from anything besides jets.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And for the record, the P-51 has always had much better performance than it should have *compared* to the Jug. So much so that it was sickening at times. It's nice to see it's finally coming back to the realm of (relativistic) reality. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Jug was enhanced severall times recently.The P47M can take anything on.Both are now very good at moderate to low alts and ABSOLUTELY rule above 6500m.The B17 busting missions for LW pilots are a nightmare.FW190 runs out of lungs above 5500m,109 above 6500m.LW planes can`t do better than 340kh at those alts whereas P51/P47 can easily go by 450kph.

You should try it.Fisting P51/P47 up there where they rule like in real life.Nothing but swarms of those buzzing around your head and there`s nothing you can do to catch`em.Go straight for bombers,unload all ammo,get out of there.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
It's already better than the Spitfire, yet you claim you don't want it 眉berized. Sure. And I'm the pope. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It`s the 3rd best ever fighter IMO behind Spitfire and La.

La is more universal,Spitfire can pull the hardest maneuvers and ALWAYS comes out on the top.

Unlike those two planes thogh,it needs skills to get around in.You don`t just pull the stick and fire.Every single time I see a human P51 it goes into a diving spiral with me.The pilot wakes up @230kph and 1700m when my guns are already blazing.No matter how much advantage you give them,they will not extend,position and boom you.They will follow you in every maneuver,lowering throttle and applying flaps.

I do not understand what problems people have with the P51FM/DM.50cal bugs me,but that`s another story.

TX-Zen
03-07-2006, 07:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
It's a training airplane, think of it as your first bicycle - only with a big fat pair of pink training wheels on the back.

It's basically there to welcome new ones to the community. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LMAO

+1

Xiolablu3
03-07-2006, 08:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
No, you kicked me without breaking any rules. Really speaks poorly of you. Surprised you haven't checked your PTs yet. lol </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I warn someone for swearing and you correct me for by saying its stupid to tell him off then you are wrong in my book. Its bad enough trying to keep kill stealers and team killers in line, I dont want to spend my limited gaming time arguing with players who dispute basic, clearly outlined server rules. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dont take this too harshly DDT, I have seen how annoying it is for the admins when they just want to fly, but have to deal with swearing/teamkilling/whatever while being shot at. Listening on TS it sounds very frustrating. The normal flyer dont realise what a chore it is. There is usually a lot of debate on TS before anyone is kicked, but if the admin is the only one and hes in the middle of action, he hasnt time to debate it.

You have to remember that all the admins are fans of the server who pay for its upkeep and just like to fly on it without any hassle.

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

msalama
03-07-2006, 01:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">well not when you have new guys like msalama who feel the need to try & discredit any negative discussion of the game, as if its working perfectly or above criticism </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sir,

You haven't been following the discussion closely enough. May I therefore be so bold as to courteusly remind you of what I posted into this thread just a couple of pages ago:

{START QUOTE}

Posted Mon March 06 2006 08:51

If something's wrong - and has been proven wrong - then it should be fixed. Whether it does depends on (at least) these criteria:

1) How hard it is to fix.
2) Are there resources for fixing it.
3) Does the game engine allow for fixing it.
4) What happens after the fix has been applied.
5) What are the devs concentrating on at the moment.

How do I know, I hear you ask? Well _I_ don't, of course. My common sense does.

{END QUOTE}

Now Sir, which part of the above-written comment you fail to understand so badly as to claim that I somehow think this game is above criticism? Feel free to ask, and I promise I will give you every assistance imaginable.

Thank you, Sir.

robban75
03-07-2006, 01:59 PM
Climb rate comparison between the real La-5FN and the 4.03 La-5FN and La-7.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/robban75/chart17.jpg

danjama
03-07-2006, 02:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F6_Ace:
Goodness.

This thread now has an offical score of 8.2 on the "handbags at 30 paces" scale.

http://www.robertaweissburgleathers.com/images/photos/Brighton-handbags.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

F6_Ace
03-07-2006, 02:19 PM
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f332/F6_Ace/climbchart.jpg
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f332/F6_Ace/Climb.jpg

Conclusion(s):
Meets expection of +ve % modelling.
Engine does not model high alt very well.

F6_Ace
03-07-2006, 02:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jermin122:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by msalama:
More Stiglers, a.k.a. obsessive whiners who just keep on spewing their opinions - and opinions only, never a shred of proof _anywhere_ - regardless of how many times we've already heard of them _not_ liking the game?

Hey, surely we can do better than that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You know what? Many many people have left the sim since 4.0x patches came out. Just look at the pacific-fighters site traffic: http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=&ur...pacific-fighters.com (http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=&url=www.pacific-fighters.com). Dropping rapidly. FM is now just a ****. 109=BZee. Mk108,151=BB pellets. Spits,las=rockets...too many examples. But why dont we leave the game? Why are we "whinning" here? Because we still have hopes, hoping things will become better. After all this sim is the most prospective wwii sim. But if there wont be any improves, I will certainly leave the game. Remember, graphics doesn't mean everything. But I really dont wish to see this happening. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting site statistics. Trend is undeniably downwards.

diabloblanco1
03-07-2006, 03:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Luftkillier:
It is really hard to tell if you are DDT's brokeback buddy, an overzealous fanboi or an Oleg bootlicker. Get off your knees and get that out of your mouth. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ROTFL! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Now this is the best post in this entire thread http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Xiolablu3
03-07-2006, 03:40 PM
The end is nigh, The end is nigh!

Repent!, Repent as you will be judged!



But seriously, those graphs seem pretty close to the real thing for a game.

They will get closer to real as time goes on and computers get more powerful, flight models get tweaked.

I think the 109's also climb too fast dont they? SOme too fast, some planes too slow. Things will be corrected as time goes on.

msalama
03-07-2006, 11:11 PM
OK folks, there we see it.

The La-5FN (among others) is of course NOT spot on, and that's only to be expected. We're talking about a ruddy $40 PC _game_ here, people, NOT a level D simulator!

So much ado about nothing once AGAIN, right?

msalama
03-07-2006, 11:24 PM
Xiola: what U said...

faustnik
03-08-2006, 12:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:


But seriously, those graphs seem pretty close to the real thing for a game.


</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The shape of the curve looks really good. I wonder how closely weights in the historic test matches the weight modeled in PF? A little weight seems to maek a big difference. Also, there was a fairly broad variation in flight tests in general. +/- 7% is a number that I remember as a accepted range. The in-sim La falls close to that.

F6_Ace
03-08-2006, 06:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
But seriously, those graphs seem pretty close to the real thing for a game.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What looks alright on a graph doesn't tell the story - check the absolute figures for the more expected +10% overmodelling.

"Figures will get closer to normal with improved flight model/more powerful computer yada yada yada" - the La5FN has been in this game for a very long time (much longer than you've been playing it, be sure). A time in which there have been lots of 'improvements' to the flight model due to, in part, increases in processing power of the host computers (well, especially if you count unnecessary eye candy).

And it's *still* wrong.

But, maybe we will see the devs mysteriously add 300kg to the La5 in a future patch? Who knows what yo-yoing there is still to come.

But never mind Oleg - the fanbois fanbase doesn't mind so why should you?

msalama
03-08-2006, 06:50 AM
Yeah, so f**king what? Go play Targetware today and make Stig a happy bunny!

msalama
03-08-2006, 06:52 AM
But, maybe we will see a**eholes taking their el cheapo computer games all too seriously disappear in the future? Who knows what yo-yoing there is still to come.

But never mind Ace - us common folks don't mind so why should you?

JtD
03-08-2006, 09:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Robban: posted charts
Norris: posted charts
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please let's not get reasonable.

Besides that, I'd like to point out both of you compared to La-5FN data from 43. It at least suffered some weight penalty from the wooden wing spar. The in game La-5FN has to be a 44 plane and it's performance should very much match the La-7 data posted earlier in this topic. A climbrate in the range of 24m/s at low altitude and 10m/s at 7000 meters is absolutely possible for a 5-FN. Keep in mind not to use Forsazh above 3000 meters, the climb test were done without. I'd also like to know how you determined the roc at a certain altitude. Best way would be to show a time to altitude chart. To me it looks as if you were using the lower 1000 meters as a reference, i.e. from 6000 to 7000 I needed 87 seconds for a climbrate of 11.5 meters @ 7000 meters. But this would be wrong, this is the roc for 6500 meters if anything.

I needed 9.6 seconds @ 100% throttle from 6950 to 7050 meters for a climbrate of 10.4 meters @ 7000 meters.

Could you maybe point out your testing details?

HayateAce
03-08-2006, 09:28 AM
Same old story.

1 - Blue crybabies get whacked online by better pilot, or pilot with advantage

2 - Blue runs kicking and screaming to the forums

3 - Oleg adjusts said Red plane down for G A M E P L A Y

4 - Blues look for the next Red plane to be neutered

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

F6_Ace
03-08-2006, 09:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Robban: posted charts
Norris: posted charts
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please let's not get reasonable.

Besides that, I'd like to point out both of you compared to La-5FN data from 43. It at least suffered some weight penalty from the wooden wing spar. The in game La-5FN has to be a 44 plane and it's performance should very much match the La-7 data posted earlier in this topic. A climbrate in the range of 24m/s at low altitude and 10m/s at 7000 meters is absolutely possible for a 5-FN. Keep in mind not to use Forsazh above 3000 meters, the climb test were done without. I'd also like to know how you determined the roc at a certain altitude. Best way would be to show a time to altitude chart. To me it looks as if you were using the lower 1000 meters as a reference, i.e. from 6000 to 7000 I needed 87 seconds for a climbrate of 11.5 meters @ 7000 meters. But this would be wrong, this is the roc for 6500 meters if anything.

I needed 9.6 seconds @ 100% throttle from 6950 to 7050 meters for a climbrate of 10.4 meters @ 7000 meters.

Could you maybe point out your testing details? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I used Robban's data vs the chart posted by your new 'friend'. I accept that there will be a margin of error in

a. Robban's test data
b. The "after a few pints" interpretation of the real chart.
c. The real data in the first place.

I'm also curious as to why the La5FN we have is labelled '43 when it's actually '44. Surely Oleg would realise this and be able to apply the correct year to the model.

Either way, there is something wrong with the plane we see...whether it's the optimistic climb or it being mislabelled.

F6_Ace
03-08-2006, 09:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by msalama:
Yeah, so f**king what? Go play Targetware today and make Stig a happy bunny! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Run out of arguments, pal? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Put your rusks down and consider what's been said.

Obviously, you're happy with the way it is. I do trust that you won't ever be posting a complaint about the modelling or the game in the future as it's clearly entirely to your satisfaction.

Also, do you use F6?

robban75
03-08-2006, 09:54 AM
Problem is, when one plane is undermodelled and another overmodelled, the impact can be devastating. For example, the real life Mustang did not have stellar climb performance. But its climb rate ingame is actually lacking 200-500ft/min at some altitudes. And if a 109 ingame can achieve a climb rate 500ft/min higher than a real 109, then,, well, disaster.

Here's a La-5FN and D-9 comparison. First, a real life comparison,,,,

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/robban75/chart19.jpg

,,, and then, an ingame comparison.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/robban75/chart18.jpg

jermin122
03-08-2006, 09:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by msalama:
OK folks, there we see it.

The La-5FN (among others) is of course NOT spot on, and that's only to be expected. We're talking about a ruddy $40 PC _game_ here, people, NOT a level D simulator!

So much ado about nothing once AGAIN, right? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But some other ruddy PC_games do far better than this one, which has proved that its not the PC power's problem.

And, if Oleg has made LW A/Cs accurate enough, it's OK La is 15% uber. But now LW ones are actually -15% uber, then the diffrence will be 30%, this is what make this game unplayable. The same situation on spit.

Edit: The main problem is la and spit's superb enegy retension ability. Actually, their energies increase when doing level turn. Amazing!

faustnik
03-08-2006, 10:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jermin122:
But now LW ones are actually -15% uber, then the diffrence will be 30%, this is what make this game unplayable. The same situation on spit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What sim are you talking about? Not PF 4.04.

Really Jermin, I don't see that at all.

JtD
03-08-2006, 10:47 AM
Robban, in my tests the D-9 climbs 3m/s better than the 5-FN from 6000 to 7000 meters. Frankly, it matches the shown "real" chart with 14.7 m/s @ 6500 meters. My time to 7km is 5:57 min for an average of 19.6 m/s. This very much matches the chart you posted. In terms of climb the D-9 is not a bad performer - and outclasses the 5-FN everywhere above 3000 meters.

Maybe you need to check the 404 version, I think the D-9 might have recieved a boost.

The 5-FN is not the only plane with a wrong year, or better put, not the only plane that has later performance modelled on an early year designation. Also, it is only my assumption, but that would be the best explanation for it's in game performance.

robban75
03-08-2006, 11:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
Robban, in my tests the D-9 climbs 3m/s better than the 5-FN from 6000 to 7000 meters. Frankly, it matches the shown "real" chart with 14.7 m/s @ 6500 meters. My time to 7km is 5:57 min for an average of 19.6 m/s. This very much matches the chart you posted. In terms of climb the D-9 is not a bad performer - and outclasses the 5-FN everywhere above 3000 meters.

Maybe you need to check the 404 version, I think the D-9 might have recieved a boost.

The 5-FN is not the only plane with a wrong year, or better put, not the only plane that has later performance modelled on an early year designation. Also, it is only my assumption, but that would be the best explanation for it's in game performance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are your numbers for the '45 version? If not, then it's really interesting! Although I really don't hope that the D-9 has received a boost up high, as it was/is(?) pretty accurate. My time to 7000m is 6:37(4.03), and this when climbing at historically correct 280km/h IAS. But a boost would be most welcome 1500 and 3000m. It's still over 20km/h too slow at 2000m in 4.04.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/robban75/chart7.jpg

JtD
03-08-2006, 11:09 AM
I tested the 44 D-9, if you used the 45 that may explain a lot. I did climb slower than 280 IAS, esp. as higher altitudes. It is still worst between 1-3 km, but I get it past 20 m/s. Would it always go 614 on the deck? I was surprised because that's faster than the La-7, the Soviet only manages 611.

[Disclaimer: All results from my testing. That does not have to be "THE TRUTH".]

TX-Zen
03-08-2006, 11:19 AM
Robban,

Have you done any testing at speeds below 280km/h?

My feeling is that sim is still poorly modelled for Vy, allowing all aircraft to achieve maximum climb rate at speeds that are too low.

I have been able to sustain 30m/s+ in the 109K4-C3 at speeds as low as 200km/h, but I haven't actually tested it specifically, just made observations while flying online from time to time.

One thing I've felt for ages now is that the D9 is very well modelled and has had a consistent FM for most of it's time in the sim. This chart shows that, minus the ongoing problem of the supercharger bug down low. What bothers me about the sim in general is that while adhering to real life climb methods often give a pretty good or even very accurate result, it's also possible to get the same results at improper speeds, which distorts the already quirky energy physics we have...a good example is the hanging on the prop zoom climb that so many planes can do, where they just keep motoring on up after you.

It would be interesting to see the results of a less than optimal climb rate test for the major types.


What do you think Robban?

msalama
03-08-2006, 11:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Obviously, you're happy with the way it is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Obviously, I'm happy _enough_ with the way it is. Meaning I don't sh*t my pants whenever I see an error somewhere in the game, unlike many others here.

Because I, my friend, cannot be a**ed really. Life's too short for that kind of BS. Which is why I've been answering the way I have here, because hey-hey-whatta-hey, I ALSO like taking a pish every now and then like your good self. I just take it on some narrow-minded pretend WWII pilots - read weenies - who get all heated up over how their bunch of pixels perform when compared to _another_ bunch of pixels.

Because that kind of behaviour is in all honesty a bit laughable, isn't it?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I do trust that you won't ever be posting a complaint about the modelling or the game in the future as it's clearly entirely to your satisfaction. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If and when I ever do, I most certainly WILL take all possible care that my proof for the said complaint is NOT of the usual "WTF??? t3H m0ssi3 i$ p0Rk3D b3cuz I $aY s0!!!!" variety so boringly prevalent here. Be sure.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Also, do you use F6? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I fly full difficulty only. And you?

msalama
03-08-2006, 11:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But now LW ones are actually -15% uber, then the diffrence will be 30%, this is what make this game unplayable. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

F6_Ace
03-08-2006, 11:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by msalama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Obviously, you're happy with the way it is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Obviously, I'm happy _enough_ with the way it is. Meaning I don't sh*t my pants whenever I see an error somewhere in the game, unlike many others here.

Because I, my friend, cannot be a**ed really. Life's too short for that kind of BS. Which is why I've been answering the way I have here, because hey-hey-whatta-hey, I ALSO like taking a pish every now and then like your good self. I just take it on some narrow-minded pretend WWII pilots - read weenies - who get all heated up over how their bunch of pixels perform when compared to _another_ bunch of pixels.

Because that kind of behaviour is in all honesty a bit laughable, isn't it?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I do trust that you won't ever be posting a complaint about the modelling or the game in the future as it's clearly entirely to your satisfaction. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If and when I ever do, I most certainly WILL take all possible care that my proof for the said complaint is NOT of the usual "WTF??? t3H m0ssi3 i$ p0Rk3D b3cuz I $aY s0!!!!" variety so boringly prevalent here. Be sure.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Also, do you use F6? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I fly full difficulty only. And you? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're getting excited about your thinking that I care too much about this ?

You're sadly mistaken - I stopped *caring* about it a very long time ago when I realised that this is just a game and *not* a sim. Objects that look like WW2 planes that have some relative performance (or not, in some cases) vs each other. In other words, like Crimson skies where planes have star ratings for speed, turn etc..but with WW2 models.

However, that doesn't mean that I'm not going to get involved in highlighting the inadequacies of it to those that think it's a simulation. Or, maybe I'll just point them out because I feel like it. Or maybe just because I find it funny when people over-react to posts.

In short, I'm free to do what I like

As to settings, I'm a self-styled F6 ace although I have recently seen the errors of my ways and migrated to more "difficult" (not realistic, I might add because that is impossible with this game) surroundings pilots have to actually employ SA to stay alive.

Regardless, we see that the La5FN is overmodelled relative to the FW190D at the altitudes where the most action is at. Hmm, or maybe the Focke is undermodelled by 15%? I'm sure those La5FN pilots won't mind too much...after all, it's only a game.

msalama
03-08-2006, 11:57 AM
Hey, OK, I'll STFU now. Because enough BS is enough BS, no?

BTW, what Robban and other tech-head guys are doing is very interesting. I've never ever had anything but respect towards anyone who's willing to do the measurements and draw their conclusions from them, because that's exactly the kind of critique that helps developing this game! Unlike the other sort I've been attacking here...

OK, over and out.

F6_Ace
03-08-2006, 12:02 PM
I'm sorry but don't include me in that - I posted a comparison in terms of % that showed the non-conformance between the real life and in game data as opposed to the apparently good match of the initial graph.

Same shape, significant difference.

msalama
03-08-2006, 12:02 PM
Ach... didn't notice this one while I was writing my ooh-so-noble parting words there...

But yes, I seriously do think people shouldn't take this game so bloody seriously. Or if they do, then at least prepare the cases so that they're pretty much airtight, because they most definitely WON'T get looked into if they aren't... comprende?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Or maybe just because I find it funny when people over-react to posts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif We all do, one way or another, don't we? I mean over-react... and yes, it is humorous http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In short, I'm free to do what I like </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most definitely!

Brain32
03-08-2006, 12:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Edit: The main problem is la and spit's superb enegy retension ability. Actually, their energies increase when doing level turn. Amazing! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Spot on comment, the biggest offender being Spitfire +25lbs. That bird is insane it needs FM, I thought it will simply be a faster Spitfire with better climb ability, but we got an UFO.

msalama
03-08-2006, 12:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm sorry but don't include me in that - I posted a comparison in terms of % that showed the non-conformance between the real life and in game data as opposed to the apparently good match of the initial graph. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey, nothing personal, be sure! And if and when this discussion changes into something approaching an _engineering_ debate, I promise you I'm all ears and ears only. Because that's always interesting...

robban75
03-08-2006, 01:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
I tested the 44 D-9, if you used the 45 that may explain a lot. I did climb slower than 280 IAS, esp. as higher altitudes. It is still worst between 1-3 km, but I get it past 20 m/s. Would it always go 614 on the deck? I was surprised because that's faster than the La-7, the Soviet only manages 611.

[Disclaimer: All results from my testing. That does not have to be "THE TRUTH".] </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The D-9 '44 has always outclimbed the '45 version in this sim. It has also always been faster at alt. But, for some strange reason there is no difference in level acceleration between the two. But at the lower alts the D-9 '45 begins to walk away at around 570km/h, simply because it can reach a higher top speed at sealevel.

The '44 should be faster at all altitudes, not just up high. It should be able to reach 621-622km/h at sealevel, and it should also outaccelerate the '45 version as well.

Ingame, with wind and turbulence on, the D-9 '44 can reach 614km/h at SL, and the '45 version can reach 621km/h. But if you switch off wind and turbulence, top speed drops by about 8km/h. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

The La-7 has been detuned in the speed department, especially at 3000 and 4000m. However, it is still extremely overmodelled in climb rate. Currently only the K-4, Spitfire and Ta 152 can outclimb it up high.

robban75
03-08-2006, 01:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TX-Zen:
Robban,

Have you done any testing at speeds below 280km/h?

My feeling is that sim is still poorly modelled for Vy, allowing all aircraft to achieve maximum climb rate at speeds that are too low.

I have been able to sustain 30m/s+ in the 109K4-C3 at speeds as low as 200km/h, but I haven't actually tested it specifically, just made observations while flying online from time to time.

One thing I've felt for ages now is that the D9 is very well modelled and has had a consistent FM for most of it's time in the sim. This chart shows that, minus the ongoing problem of the supercharger bug down low. What bothers me about the sim in general is that while adhering to real life climb methods often give a pretty good or even very accurate result, it's also possible to get the same results at improper speeds, which distorts the already quirky energy physics we have...a good example is the hanging on the prop zoom climb that so many planes can do, where they just keep motoring on up after you.

It would be interesting to see the results of a less than optimal climb rate test for the major types.


What do you think Robban? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Zen! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Yes, I'll see if I can do some tests later. I believe it is the lack of torque that allows light low wingloaded planes to climb at extreme angles. I reckon all planes can climb at too steep angles, but it is most noticable with lighter planes. For example, with the P-39Q-10 I can climb at 130km/h IAS at an nose up angle of over 30 degrees without too much fuzz, only small rudder inputs is needed. Where's the torque I wonder?

Some positive news. I tested the Tempest, and I climbed it at a much lower speed than what the manual suggest, but to my surprise I could actually reach higher climb rates if I followed the speeds from the manual. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif It seems the sim has been better tuned for climbs at IAS instead of previous TAS. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Btw, I wouldn't go too much by the VSI in the cockpit, it's not all too accurate.

jermin122
03-09-2006, 12:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
Same old story.

1 - Blue crybabies get whacked online by better pilot, or pilot with advantage

2 - Blue runs kicking and screaming to the forums

3 - Oleg adjusts said Red plane down for G A M E P L A Y

4 - Blues look for the next Red plane to be neutered

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exact situation with reds. Always remember, 109 pilot is the best. Obviously you never fly a 109.

msalama
03-09-2006, 01:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Always remember, 109 pilot is the best. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

Yeaaaaaah, sure. And their usual mindset of "t3H 1o9 r0Xxorz m3 sOxx0rZ!!!1!" only supports that claim, doesn't it?