PDA

View Full Version : New Patch Gonna Make You Have To Learn



LuckyBoy1
05-07-2005, 01:43 PM
Yep, it's gonna make you all have to learn to fly again, but actually, that's the good news. From what I hear, you will no longer be able to slam the throttle open on a P-51 and other aircraft and not suffer the downside of it. I think this is great and really will add to the true immersion factor, not the barnyard one!

LuckyBoy1
05-07-2005, 01:43 PM
Yep, it's gonna make you all have to learn to fly again, but actually, that's the good news. From what I hear, you will no longer be able to slam the throttle open on a P-51 and other aircraft and not suffer the downside of it. I think this is great and really will add to the true immersion factor, not the barnyard one!

VW-IceFire
05-07-2005, 01:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LuckyBoy1:
Yep, it's gonna make you all have to learn to fly again, but actually, that's the good news. From what I hear, you will no longer be able to slam the throttle open on a P-51 and other aircraft and not suffer the downside of it. I think this is great and really will add to the true immersion factor, not the barnyard one! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm looking forward to this. I've already been learning the fine art of smooth throttle controls and whatnot...this won't be much of a problem for me. Others maybe.

TAGERT.
05-07-2005, 01:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LuckyBoy1:
Yep, it's gonna make you all have to learn to fly again, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Not so much *learn* as much as un-learn some bad habbits you may have pick up along the way due to a simplfied method of simulating something. Flight is flight, I look forward to the more detailed methods of simulation that the new FM is *supose* to provide.

F0_Dark_P
05-07-2005, 01:59 PM
i fly the 262 often so it is nothing new http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

no serious that is a really nice touch

ytareh
05-07-2005, 03:08 PM
I presume/hope all us noobs/slow learners will be able to dumb things down as much as before...?!

carguy_
05-07-2005, 03:11 PM
Have some experience with 262.No problem here.

Bremspropeller
05-07-2005, 03:16 PM
Those things sound pretty good.

Can't wait to try it out http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

FoolTrottel
05-07-2005, 03:23 PM
Talking 'bout new FM?

Still haven't learnt to 'fly', using current FM ....
Still having fun ... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I am looking forward to it..
To have some more fun!

Te_Vigo
05-07-2005, 08:34 PM
So does this mean we "may" be able to torque our way out of a flatspin??????? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Chuck_Older
05-07-2005, 08:37 PM
I'll worry about the new FM when it's on my PC

p1ngu666
05-07-2005, 08:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ytareh:
I presume/hope all us noobs/slow learners will be able to dumb things down as much as before...?! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

u dont need to dumb it down currently tbh, im capable of flying currently, so, u should easly be able too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

best tip i can give u is be calm, and a certain amount of not caring about what happens http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

GAU-8
05-07-2005, 09:09 PM
i agree chuck.

Hydra444
05-07-2005, 09:12 PM
Wow....Immersion...Woopie-freaking-ding-****.It won't matter what they do in the patch,things won't change.In fact,I see that when the patch does come out (HA!like that'll ever happen in this lifetime) it'll just allow the no life critics around something else to whine about and thus the cycle of whining and crying will contiue as it has.

Fennec_P
05-07-2005, 09:24 PM
I don't get it. What downside will I suffer if I slam the trottle open on a P-51?

LuckyBoy1
05-07-2005, 09:29 PM
Well, if it reacts like in real life, at a stand still, like when you are getting ready to take off, if you slam the throttle full open all at once, the torque will make the plane first lean onto the right wing and then nose over forward dinging the prop.

VW-IceFire
05-07-2005, 09:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ytareh:
I presume/hope all us noobs/slow learners will be able to dumb things down as much as before...?! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Its not a matter of dumbing things down...its really a matter of doing things that were largely impossible or highly improbable.

A few pilot, coming to 4.0 only, will just learn how to fly like the rest of us have. Old pilots will have to unlearn and then relearn some of the details.

We already have the ability to turn stalls, torque, wind effects, and the like off...so the 4.0 FM really isn't going to hurt the new player. But many of us are really hoping that some of the stupid things that online players are able to do (like stand on their prop for ages blasting away) will no longer be reasonably possible. Plus I think some of it may end up being that unquantifiable feeling of flight that the IL2 series does so well at and is likely to propell forward.

Jumoschwanz
05-07-2005, 09:35 PM
You had to be going 80 to 100 mph in a P-51 on take-off before you gave it WOT, or it would do it's best to kill you. Lots of guys bit it this way.

This is what a WWII Mustang pilot who flew out of England told me anyway. S!

Jumoschwanz

BuzzU
05-07-2005, 09:54 PM
I'm not slamming the throttle now. Are you?

LuckyBoy1
05-07-2005, 10:03 PM
Yep, I am, just for laughs mostly, but also, it gets you in the air about 1 second faster.

BuzzU
05-07-2005, 10:05 PM
Good deal. You're a blink ahead of me.

LuckyBoy1
05-07-2005, 10:08 PM
It may not seem like much, but I believe in the old Nathan Bedford Forrest saying that...

He who's the firstist with the mostest wins!

In a way, I'm looking forward to a more challenging FM, but I'm afraid it will come at a hit in frame rates by making us even more CPU bound than we are now.

Zacast
05-07-2005, 10:14 PM
I'm wondering if the new FM is going to make any changes when it comes to the dive and zoom characteristics of our planes.

As it is right now birds like the P-47 and FW-190 that were well known for their very fast dive acceleration and zoom climb out of the dive don't enjoy those advantages. I have never seen a noticeable difference between a P-47, a FW-190, a 109, or anything else in how fast you pick up speed in the dive.

Hopefully the BnZ birds get a little upgrade in the patch.

Franzen
05-07-2005, 10:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Te_Vigo:
So does this mean we "may" be able to torque our way out of a flatspin??????? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Capable or able? It works in the 109's now.

We are able. Practice makes capable.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Fritz

TAGERT.
05-07-2005, 11:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zacast:
I'm wondering if the new FM is going to make any changes when it comes to the dive and zoom characteristics of our planes.

As it is right now birds like the P-47 and FW-190 that were well known for their very fast dive acceleration and zoom climb out of the dive don't enjoy those advantages. I have never seen a noticeable difference between a P-47, a FW-190, a 109, or anything else in how fast you pick up speed in the dive.

Hopefully the BnZ birds get a little upgrade in the patch. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>too bad you missed the P47, Fw190, and Bf109G dive tests I did awhile back that proved the P47 dover better than them two.

PBNA-Boosher
05-07-2005, 11:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LuckyBoy1:
you will no longer be able to slam the throttle open on a P-51 and other aircraft and not suffer the downside of it. I think this is great and really will add to the true immersion factor, not the barnyard one! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Finally we will see the advantages of the radial engine over the liquid-cooled.

psychobabbler
05-08-2005, 12:56 AM
does this mean we finally get properly modeled
cup holders?.

Capt.LoneRanger
05-08-2005, 02:37 AM
Wonder what the P38 will be like....

Chuck_Older
05-08-2005, 06:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by psychobabbler:
does this mean we finally get properly modeled
cup holders?. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the instant you can prove to me that WWII aircraft had cupholders that we currently have improperly modelled, I will spearhead the effort to get it corrected for you http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Pirschjaeger
05-08-2005, 11:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by psychobabbler:
does this mean we finally get properly modeled
cup holders?. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the instant you can prove to me that WWII aircraft had cupholders that we currently have improperly modelled, I will spearhead the effort to get it corrected for you http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey Chuck, the cigarette lighter doesn't work in the 109. Can you help? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Fritz Franzen http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

FI-Aflak
05-08-2005, 12:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by psychobabbler:
does this mean we finally get properly modeled
cup holders?. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the instant you can prove to me that WWII aircraft had cupholders that we currently have improperly modelled, I will spearhead the effort to get it corrected for you http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey Chuck, the cigarette lighter doesn't work in the 109. Can you help? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Fritz Franzen http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just run boost for a minute or two . . . you should be able to lite your cig off the dashboard, what with the heat you get off that powerplant.

Zacast
05-08-2005, 02:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zacast:
I'm wondering if the new FM is going to make any changes when it comes to the dive and zoom characteristics of our planes.

As it is right now birds like the P-47 and FW-190 that were well known for their very fast dive acceleration and zoom climb out of the dive don't enjoy those advantages. I have never seen a noticeable difference between a P-47, a FW-190, a 109, or anything else in how fast you pick up speed in the dive.

Hopefully the BnZ birds get a little upgrade in the patch. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>too bad you missed the P47, Fw190, and Bf109G dive tests I did awhile back that proved the P47 dover better than them two. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Got a link to that? How much better was the P-47? I imagine it wasn't that great a difference if at all.

The only dive tests I remember seeing a while ago were the ones that showed that there was a problem.

In any case, if there is a difference the difference is small at best and not what it should be. It isn't something you can hope to exploit in actual combat. I would never try to beat a 109 in a flat out dive to the deck in game in a thunderbolt and definitely not a spitfire with a FW-190. The dive and zoom climb characteristics of our planes, at the very least, have room for improvement.

Tachyon1000
05-08-2005, 02:20 PM
Aimed at the original poster and those who have flown the new FM.

Frankly, I am tired of hearing about the new FM. If you are a beta tester and have experience with it, keep it to yourself. We already know what the new FM entails on a conceptual level. Those who post with experience with the new FM at this point sound to me as if they are lording it over the rest of us. If you aren't a beta-tester and don't have any experience with the new FM, then you are either talking through your hat or repeating what you have already heard which we all have heard.

If you aren't a beta-tester and you somehow are one of those lucky few who have gotten to mess with the new FM, then likewise you can kindly shove it up your bum, so to speak, as I don't particularly appreciate those in a privledged position telling me that they are in a privledged position.

TAGERT.
05-08-2005, 02:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zacast:
Got a link to that? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Nope, but it is here somewhere.. good luck what with the lame search eng.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zacast:
How much better was the P-47? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>It was about three sundays better.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zacast:
I imagine it wasn't that great a difference if at all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Imagination is relitive.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zacast:
The only dive tests I remember seeing a while ago were the ones that showed that there was a problem. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Guess I missed that one.. Or it may have been that one that motivated me to do the test that proved not all planes dive the same.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zacast:
In any case, if there is a difference the difference is small at best and not what it should be. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Define small and best and Ill let you know if I agree with you or not.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zacast:
It isn't something you can hope to exploit in actual combat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>For some.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zacast:
I would never try to beat a 109 in a flat out dive to the deck in game in a thunderbolt and definitely not a spitfire with a FW-190. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Roger, for some.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zacast:
The dive and zoom climb characteristics of our planes, at the very least, have room for improvement. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Based on? Data? Track Files? Do you got anything to support your Imagination that we can test for?

PBNA-Boosher
05-08-2005, 03:55 PM
w00t for Zaboomafoo

robban75
05-08-2005, 03:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zacast:
How much better was the P-47? I imagine it wasn't that great a difference if at all.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've done quite a bit of dive testings, and I can tell you this. The P-47's dive is unbeatable if your bogey is trying to escape by diving. There is no other prop in-game that can reach as high diving speeds as the Jug. Its initial dive acceleration is average. You wont find it useful against a Fw 190 or a Bf 109, not even a Spitfire. The Jug really shines at higher speeds though. I don't have exact numbers avaliable but above 600km/h only the Mustang and probably the D-9 can match its dive acceleration.

So, in all, don't try to escape a 109/190/Spit/La/Yak/P-51 by diving at speeds below 500km/h.

I'm off to bed! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Pirschjaeger
05-08-2005, 09:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FI-Aflak:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by psychobabbler:
does this mean we finally get properly modeled
cup holders?. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the instant you can prove to me that WWII aircraft had cupholders that we currently have improperly modelled, I will spearhead the effort to get it corrected for you http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey Chuck, the cigarette lighter doesn't work in the 109. Can you help? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Fritz Franzen http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just run boost for a minute or two . . . you should be able to lite your cig off the dashboard, what with the heat you get off that powerplant. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That reminds me, in the first FW190's they had a problem with the cockpits heating up to 45 degrees celcius. I can imagie that was a comfortable ride. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz Franzen

LuckyBoy1
05-08-2005, 09:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tachyon1000:
Aimed at the original poster and those who have flown the new FM.

Frankly, I am tired of hearing about the new FM. If you are a beta tester and have experience with it, keep it to yourself. We already know what the new FM entails on a conceptual level. Those who post with experience with the new FM at this point sound to me as if they are lording it over the rest of us. If you aren't a beta-tester and don't have any experience with the new FM, then you are either talking through your hat or repeating what you have already heard which we all have heard.

If you aren't a beta-tester and you somehow are one of those lucky few who have gotten to mess with the new FM, then likewise you can kindly shove it up your bum, so to speak, as I don't particularly appreciate those in a privledged position telling me that they are in a privledged position. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Huh? I never said I was a beta tester and really, you need to increase the dosage of that anti-psychotic, because you obviously are not at a therapudic dose at this time.

I'm just passing along reliably learned information for everyone to know... not to make anyone feel bad about anything.

-HH-Quazi
05-09-2005, 12:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tachyon1000:
Aimed at the original poster and those who have flown the new FM.

Frankly, I am tired of hearing about the new FM. If you are a beta tester and have experience with it, keep it to yourself. We already know what the new FM entails on a conceptual level. Those who post with experience with the new FM at this point sound to me as if they are lording it over the rest of us. If you aren't a beta-tester and don't have any experience with the new FM, then you are either talking through your hat or repeating what you have already heard which we all have heard.

If you aren't a beta-tester and you somehow are one of those lucky few who have gotten to mess with the new FM, then likewise you can kindly shove it up your bum, so to speak, as I don't particularly appreciate those in a privledged position telling me that they are in a privledged position. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then stop reading any threads that have the word "Patch" in the title. Believe it or not, there are those here that don't mind, or even enjoy, discussing the changes that will be made with the release of the "Patch". Expectations and interest are at an all time high. If threads about what to expect from the upcoming patch bothers you, why even read any thread pertaining to the patch release? You surely have nothing positive to add to this discussion. No one forces you to click on that link to enter and read any thread. Are you a gluten for punishment? If you are tired of hearing about the patch, why even open threads discussing it. Doesn't make sense. And telling the original poster to stick it up his bum? Bad form m8, bad form. LB is one of the finest individuals I ever ever known, and has become my friend. I know him well enough to know he didn't start this thread to cause any ill will towards anyone. You are wrong in your assesment of this thread, and wrong for coming off towards him the way you did. If threads about the patch bother you in this way, don't read them.

Zacast
05-09-2005, 01:23 AM
RE - Dive acceleration.

There seems to be some confusion from my post. It is very obvious that all the planes in game have different maximum dive speeds that they can achieve and that a plane like a P-47 can beat say, a 109, in a dive by exceeding the 109s max dive speed.

The problem I have with the FM is the difference in how fast the different planes *accelerate* to their maximum speeds in a dive.

It takes you all of 5 minutes of testing in the QMB to see that, diving from 3000M into the ground, a Spitfire IX will achieve (on average) about 850 KPH before hitting the ground. A P-47 Thunderbolt, on average, will get about 870-880 KPH before it hits the ground. A FW-190 is somewhere in between the two, and a P-51 actually reaches around 880-890 KPH.

Now, I am not an aeronautical enginer, nor do I consider myself to be a complete expert on all WW2 planes, but I find it very hard to believe that a P-47 thunderbolt, diving from 10000 FT, only achieved about a 20 MPH advantage in speed over the spitfire IX by the time it hit the ground. I also find it hard to believe that a P-51 was, on average, as fast if not faster by the time it hit the ground compared to the P-47.

The difference in how FAST the planes *GAIN* speed in the dive does not appear (to me) to be what it should be, and I base that statement on every account I've ever read concerning the P-47s ability in the dive compared to the spitfire in particular. I would expect the Thunderbolt to have more than a 20 MPH advantage over the spit and would not expect the P-51 to have been as fast if not quicker than the Jug.

Just my 2 cents. =)

Pirschjaeger
05-09-2005, 05:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by -HH-Quazi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tachyon1000:
Aimed at the original poster and those who have flown the new FM.

Frankly, I am tired of hearing about the new FM. If you are a beta tester and have experience with it, keep it to yourself. We already know what the new FM entails on a conceptual level. Those who post with experience with the new FM at this point sound to me as if they are lording it over the rest of us. If you aren't a beta-tester and don't have any experience with the new FM, then you are either talking through your hat or repeating what you have already heard which we all have heard.

If you aren't a beta-tester and you somehow are one of those lucky few who have gotten to mess with the new FM, then likewise you can kindly shove it up your bum, so to speak, as I don't particularly appreciate those in a privledged position telling me that they are in a privledged position. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then stop reading any threads that have the word "Patch" in the title. Believe it or not, there are those here that don't mind, or even enjoy, discussing the changes that will be made with the release of the "Patch". Expectations and interest are at an all time high. If threads about what to expect from the upcoming patch bothers you, why even read any thread pertaining to the patch release? You surely have nothing positive to add to this discussion. No one forces you to click on that link to enter and read any thread. Are you a gluten for punishment? If you are tired of hearing about the patch, why even open threads discussing it. Doesn't make sense. And telling the original poster to stick it up his bum? Bad form m8, bad form. LB is one of the finest individuals I ever ever known, and has become my friend. I know him well enough to know he didn't start this thread to cause any ill will towards anyone. You are wrong in your assesment of this thread, and wrong for coming off towards him the way you did. If threads about the patch bother you in this way, don't read them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's better for all if the "privaledged few" post their experiences. This creates feedback from the community(some know a lot)and will help the beta testers find possible flaws. It's better than those totally annoying "the ***** is uber!" or "My ****** has been porked" threads that always seem to be one day behind the patch. The good of the community outweighs the whiners. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

Fritz Franzen

TgD Thunderbolt56
05-09-2005, 06:14 AM
Change your name Fritz? or just posting from a different rig?



TB

Pirschjaeger
05-09-2005, 09:58 AM
Changed my name. I got tired a people referring to me by my surname. Just think, it only took me about three years to come up with one. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

BTW, "Pirschjaeger"(Stalker) is my fighting style, not my dating style. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz

robban75
05-09-2005, 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 Zacast:
RE - Dive acceleration.

There seems to be some confusion from my post. It is very obvious that all the planes in game have different maximum dive speeds that they can achieve and that a plane like a P-47 can beat say, a 109, in a dive by exceeding the 109s max dive speed.

The problem I have with the FM is the difference in how fast the different planes *accelerate* to their maximum speeds in a dive.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Planes like the Fw 190 and Bf 109 had an excellent initial dive acceleration, the P-47 did not AFAIK. The Spitfire in-game does appear to have a too good a dive acceleration if you compare it to the Fw 190 at least.
Like I said, the P-47 does not a have a good dive acceleration at the lower speeds. At high speed the P-47 will leave anything behind. Do not try this against the AI though, they cheat so much it's not even funny.
If we look at the Fw 190D-9 and P-51, the D-9 will outaccelerate the P-51 initially, when speeds around 600-700km/h is reached the P-51 will begin to close the distance thanks to its lower drag airframe. Pretty realistic if you ask me. However, some planes seems to dive much too well. I'm guessing that most of the turnfighters with their high lift wings needs a looking into. But that's just me speculating. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

OldMan____
05-09-2005, 10:43 AM
Well in our onin teste, me, Ice amd Pingu stated that ina dive from 6K. FW190 A8 can open about 150 meters froman SPIT 9 and a little bit less from a 109G6.


Also P38 accelerates better tahn P51 in dive until around 730 IAS. Also P47 out accelerate P51 by FAR during whole dive.

Slickun
05-09-2005, 12:30 PM
The P-51 was an outstanding plane in the dive. Both in acceleration and top speed.

"America's 100,000" as well as my Dad's own rememberances, are very clear. The P-51 accelerated VERY rapidly in a dive, and stayed controllable at high speeds. It reached very high mach numbers, was still controllable, and could be pulled out at high G's.

The P-47 was basically a match. My Dad said the Pony would pull away to a slight lead at first, then the Jug would SLOOWWWLY gain on it as the dive and speeds increased.

The main advantage the Jug had was that the pilot knew the plane would hold together no matter what.

robban75
05-09-2005, 12:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slickun:
"America's 100,000" as well as my Dad's own rememberances, are very clear. The P-51 accelerated VERY rapidly in a dive, and stayed controllable at high speeds. It reached very high mach numbers, was still controllable, and could be pulled out at high G's.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Mustang in-game seems to match this really well IMO. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif