PDA

View Full Version : Anti G cheat?



TheMasticator
09-04-2004, 09:02 AM
Even though I do OK dogfighting in IL2FBAEP most of the time, there is one, maybe two individuals I have encountered that seem to defy the G forces of tight/fast turns. In spite of the fact that we were in identical P-51's, he would out-turn me even as I was blacking out; when I regained vision he was now behind me, and there is no way he could have pulled out from a tight spot without losing his vision! We were on the same radius turn, at the same speed, and as I blacked out he just kept flying!
I must therefore conclude that this sporting fellow must have an anti-G cheat. Surely the majority of IL2 flyers are much better than me, and I am sure that 99% are cheat-free, but this one sportster is just too good to be true. Is there any such cheat available, and on the server side are there any programs to stop it?

Thanks,

Jorge

TheMasticator
09-04-2004, 09:02 AM
Even though I do OK dogfighting in IL2FBAEP most of the time, there is one, maybe two individuals I have encountered that seem to defy the G forces of tight/fast turns. In spite of the fact that we were in identical P-51's, he would out-turn me even as I was blacking out; when I regained vision he was now behind me, and there is no way he could have pulled out from a tight spot without losing his vision! We were on the same radius turn, at the same speed, and as I blacked out he just kept flying!
I must therefore conclude that this sporting fellow must have an anti-G cheat. Surely the majority of IL2 flyers are much better than me, and I am sure that 99% are cheat-free, but this one sportster is just too good to be true. Is there any such cheat available, and on the server side are there any programs to stop it?

Thanks,

Jorge

Maple_Tiger
09-04-2004, 09:11 AM
They were proubly cutting throttle, not going quite as fast, not blacking out as much, and turning inside you.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.
-----------------------------
The more less you'r travelling, the further back in time you go.


I am hear,
but not quite there.
I am near,
Come if you dare.

TgD Thunderbolt56
09-04-2004, 09:12 AM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif All isn't always as it appears.


Our FB server info: http://www.greatergreen.com/il2

Chuck_Older
09-04-2004, 09:13 AM
How do you know you were in the same radius turn? In my opinion, you were almost certainly flying inside his turning circle, or at least trying to, with predictable results.

fast turns don't mean tight turns http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/BBB3.jpg
Killers in America work seven days a week~
Clash

lil_labbit
09-04-2004, 10:16 AM
This is way too little information to reach any conclusion...

What settings did the game have... (externals allowed? - then it's simple - use external padlock and you won't black out).

Maybe the speed was high and he only used trim http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Maybe he was upside down chasing you down - you'd get the earth g's first then http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Anyway - just some posibilities - you dont need a program http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://members.home.nl/lil.labbit/lilseesya.jpg
Question: Did you back-up your files?
Answer: I didn't know they had a reverse...

GR142-Pipper
09-04-2004, 11:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TheMasticator:
Even though I do OK dogfighting in IL2FBAEP most of the time, there is one, maybe two individuals I have encountered that seem to defy the G forces of tight/fast turns. In spite of the fact that we were in identical P-51's, he would out-turn me even as I was blacking out; when I regained vision he was now behind me, and there is no way he could have pulled out from a tight spot without losing his vision! We were on the same radius turn, at the same speed, and as I blacked out he just kept flying! (...snip...)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is my belief based on quite playing IL-2/IL-2FB that different aircraft have different G tolerances. It is a programming variable assigned to each aircraft. Of course, this should not be but I'm afraid it is. The same holds true for energy loss/gain when power is cut. Watch a 109 cut power and see how fast his energy is depleted while most other aircraft cut power and virtually nothing happens. Oh well, it's a game and quite different from real life aircraft flying characteristics.

GR142-Pipper

BinaryFalcon
09-04-2004, 12:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The same holds true for energy loss/gain when power is cut. Watch a 109 cut power and see how fast his energy is depleted while most other aircraft cut power and virtually nothing happens.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's not necessarily inaccurate. Different planes will bleed e at different rates once the power is cut. The 109 has that external bracing on the tail, which would be fairly draggy compared to an aircraft without it. I don't know if the numbers used in IL-2 are strictly correct in this case, but it's not unreasonable or unrealistic for different aircraft to decelerate at different rates.

Just by looking at something like GA aircraft the differences become very obvious. A C172 is a flying brick compared to a Mooney, despite being similar in size, weight and engine output.

As for claimed G differences modeled for each type, I doubt that's the case. More likely, it's a matter of control effectiveness. Aircraft with elevators that are more effective at higher speeds will appear to have a lower G tolerance in the sim because you can pull more G much more rapidly and therefore the onset of blackout seems to come a lot more quickly. If it were possible to feel the Gs you were pulling like you would in real life, it would be clear that the sim models them the same way.

That's not to say that some aircraft couldn't be designed to buy the pilot an extra G or two in combat (such as the F-16's reclined seat that should add about 1 G of extra tolerance over another aircraft that doesn't have that kind of seat), but I don't believe any such aircraft existed during the time period and therefore would not be modeled in IL-2.

TheMasticator
09-04-2004, 02:08 PM
Maybe I just suck!

fast turns don't mean tight turns http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/BBB3.jpg
Killers in America work seven days a week~
Clash[/QUOTE]

LuftLuver
09-04-2004, 02:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BinaryFalcon:


That's not necessarily inaccurate. Different planes will bleed e at different rates once the power is cut. The 109 has that external bracing on the tail, which would be fairly draggy compared to an aircraft without it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only early model 109s have bracing. For discussion sake just consider the G2 and newer. True that aircraft will have varying decel rates, BUT the 109 has an invisible drag chute.

It's unfortunate, but the 109 has whine-morphed into to some goofy kiddie ride. The proof is in the way lufties have changed their flying. It's obvious. Instead of E-fighting or BnZ, you'll fine entire servers of 109s at weed top levels yanking and banking.

109 drivers used to be a snobby elitist bunch who turned their noses up at Yak drivers and chided them for their TnB. The truth is, they wanted to TnB all along, and enough whine and cheese was posted on these forums to get what they wanted.

As the experten poster Nortie McWhortie says: Enough whining and $$$$$ and you can get what you want. This has proven true with the 109.

β"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Ά
http://members.cox.net/kinetic/SigImages/tonystewartchevy.jpg
"All your road courses are belong to us."

PF_Coastie
09-04-2004, 02:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lil_labbit:

What settings did the game have... (externals allowed? - then it's simple - use external padlock and you won't black out).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is not true labbit. You will still loose control of your stick. You can still see him with F6, but you won't be able to maneuver because your stick will become unresponsive in a blackout.

PF_Coastie

Coasties Place (http://www.angelfire.com/ultra/coastie0/)

Coasties FB and ATI settings (http://www.angelfire.com/ultra/coastie0/IL2setup.html)

Coasties Tips on Page files, CPU's and RAM (http://www.angelfire.com/ultra/coastie0/CoastiesTweakGuide.html)

http://home.earthlink.net/~bmcoastie/images/FS_SIG.jpg
Click here to find out more about FIGHTER SWEEPS 2 (http://66.237.29.231/IL2FS)


OFFICIAL ATI BETA TESTER

TheMasticator
09-04-2004, 03:40 PM
Me again!

I tried decreasing the throttle on tight turns and I am able to stay AWARE longer.
You see even an old Masticator like me can learn somethin' new once in a while!
BTW coastie, what do you like for a joystick? The Logi...Extr 3D Pro I have is very "loose" feeling.

SithSpeeder
09-04-2004, 04:34 PM
...and of course, RECORD A TRACK! Then, you can play it back at your convenience and actually SEE what he is doing to get on your tail.

Just an idea http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

* _54th_Speeder *

http://members.cox.net/~ijhutch/_images/360x200signew.jpg (http://www.fiftyfourth.com/)

HarryVoyager
09-04-2004, 04:45 PM
I believe the main drag problem of the 109 was its heavily riveted aft fuselage. It's the aerodynamic equivalent of sandpaper, and as far as I can tell, they never changed that part of the aircraft. The F4F Wildcat had similare drag problems, and Gruman went to a very different manufacturing process for the F6F Hellcat, as did nearly every other aircraft manufacturer.

Harry Voyager

lil_labbit
09-04-2004, 04:50 PM
Don't try to turn at top speed http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif lol
You need to trade-off speed-turn and find the right "spot" (each plane differs) http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

A turn will loose energy (=speed) the tighter it is... at some determined speed (for each plane) turn rate is maximal (and never at top speed) - if you want to turn fast find that speed and keep flying at it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Disassemble the Logi - LOL - you will find all axis-sensors fit loose in their place - glue em ! - or better - buy a Saitek

Logi don't make sticks - they make disasters !

http://members.home.nl/lil.labbit/lilseesya.jpg
Question: Did you back-up your files?
Answer: I didn't know they had a reverse...

GR142-Pipper
09-04-2004, 05:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BinaryFalcon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The same holds true for energy loss/gain when power is cut. Watch a 109 cut power and see how fast his energy is depleted while most other aircraft cut power and virtually nothing happens.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's not necessarily inaccurate. Different planes will bleed e at different rates once the power is cut. The 109 has that external bracing on the tail, which would be fairly draggy compared to an aircraft without it. I don't know if the numbers used in IL-2 are strictly correct in this case, but it's not unreasonable or unrealistic for different aircraft to decelerate at different rates.(...snip...)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, different planes do have different energy loss characteristics but the 109's nothing less than a joke. As soon as power is pulled, energy loss is not only instantaneous but it's significant as well. Pull power in virtually any U.S., British or Russian aircraft and nothing happens for several seconds. Power does NOT get reduced, energy does NOT decrease....nothing. In a close=in fight, these issues are significant. Ficticious G tolerances and ficticious energy gain/loss characteristics are tools that Oleg and his programmers use to homogonize the flight characteristics of different aircraft. Dive a P-51, drop the flaps to combat and gently pull the stick back. Watch what happens...near instant blackout. I really enjoy IL-2FB/AEP but this programming trickery detracts from game play. G tolerance is G tolerance, regardless of aircraft. The same holds true when power is cut for ANY aircraft...not just 109s. It's just not the way the game is currently modeled. ...just my take.

GR142-Pipper

WUAF_Badsight
09-04-2004, 05:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
It is my belief based on quite playing IL-2/IL-2FB that different aircraft have different G tolerances. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

you know Pipper that there is a way to check that know pipper . . . . . its called Devicelink & all the info you need for it is in your Read-me

BTW all planes blackout at 6G


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Watch a 109 cut power and see how fast his energy is depleted while most other aircraft cut power and virtually nothing happens.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

that is merely a CSP problem Pipper

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WUAF_Badsight
09-04-2004, 05:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Dive a P-51, drop the flaps to combat and gently pull the stick back. Watch what happens...near instant blackout.

GR142-Pipper<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lower your stick settings if you are going to fly the P-51 Mustang

it has more elevator authority than most other fighters

you will reack BlackOut G much quicker if you run with the same settings as you do in a Yak-3 for instance

with your stick set-up right you will hardly ever snap a wing & B/O will be the same for other A/C

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

ZG77_Lignite
09-04-2004, 05:48 PM
Pipper, what you are describing is the difference between the constant speed props of American aircraft, and the 'prop governor' of the Bf109 series. When the 109 pilot 'pulls power' he is literally using his engine (through the prop) to brake his airplane. This is not possible with a constant speed prop, as the it constantly attempts to maintain the best blade angle (highest thrust efficiency).

Whether it is implemented correctly in FB or not is certainly arguable, but the effect is at least attempted to be correctly modeled.

And further, I believe it has been proven with the 'DeviceLink' programs that all aircraft and pilots have the same G tolerances, it just depends from aircraft to aircraft how these tolerances are reached (for example the P51 can exceed tolerance easy due to its high speed and huge highspeed manueverability).

Maple_Tiger
09-04-2004, 06:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TheMasticator:
Me again!

I tried decreasing the throttle on tight turns and I am able to stay AWARE longer.
You see even an old Masticator like me can learn somethin' new once in a while!
BTW coastie, what do you like for a joystick? The Logi...Extr 3D Pro I have is very "loose" feeling.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Told ya it works.

Now if you can learn not to turn, you'l live longer. Not that turning is bad mind you.

Once you bleed all you'r E, just to get behind an enemy plane, you'r a sitting duck.

Hit and run tactics work. You'l be amazed how long you will survive. However, learning to score a kill going 800km/h takes practice.

You want to out think you'r enemy, not out turn him and bleed all you'r energy.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.
-----------------------------
The more less you'r travelling, the further back in time you go.


I am hear,
but not quite there.
I am near,
Come if you dare.

Platypus_1.JaVA
09-04-2004, 06:57 PM
To go fast through the turn, you have to actually cut the throttle. Extend your flaps and try to turn at the slowest speed you dare. The dude that has not such a good feeling for his A/C will either spin out of control and crash or, will make a bigger circle, gets his @$$ shot up and also crash.

But then again, I would like to have the speed advantage, you'll be able to dictate the dogfight, hit where ever and when ever you can. For this, you'll need a heavy engine, heavy weapons wich unfortunatly comes in heavy (and not so good turning) aircraft.

Nothing wrong with turn fighting, when you can get kills that way.

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge,
ye shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be measured
to you again.

Placed 3rd, with team, in the official european championship Il-2/FB

heywooood
09-05-2004, 01:11 AM
ahhh cheatwhine...so flavorfull, so plentifull.


http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v250/heywooood/ac_32_1.jpg
"check your puns"

crazyivan1970
09-05-2004, 01:16 AM
Next time record the track mate. Tough crowd over here ya know..

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/band.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

WUAF_Toad
09-05-2004, 01:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Lignite:
Pipper, what you are describing is the difference between the constant speed props of American aircraft, and the 'prop governor' of the Bf109 series. When the 109 pilot 'pulls power' he is literally using his engine (through the prop) to brake his airplane. This is not possible with a constant speed prop, as the it constantly attempts to maintain the best blade angle (highest thrust efficiency).

Whether it is implemented correctly in FB or not is certainly arguable, but the effect is at least attempted to be correctly modeled.

And further, I believe it has been proven with the 'DeviceLink' programs that all aircraft and pilots have the same G tolerances, it just depends from aircraft to aircraft how these tolerances are reached (for example the P51 can exceed tolerance easy due to its high speed and huge highspeed manueverability).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

higher blade angle brakes the engine not the plane. Better deceleration should be able to achieve with lower (flatter) blade angle. In theory, the 109 should decelerates faster if you go manual to raise eng RPM during the deceleration period... Oh damn did I just tell you guys how to slow down even faster in the 109...ehehe

GR142-Pipper
09-05-2004, 03:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Lignite:
Pipper, what you are describing is the difference between the constant speed props of American aircraft, and the 'prop governor' of the Bf109 series. When the 109 pilot 'pulls power' he is literally using his engine (through the prop) to brake his airplane. This is not possible with a constant speed prop, as the it constantly attempts to maintain the best blade angle (highest thrust efficiency).

Whether it is implemented correctly in FB or not is certainly arguable, but the effect is at least attempted to be correctly modeled. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The issue that I'm describing has absolutely nothing to do with constant pitch props whatsoever. It has to do with the addition and subtraction of power. I personally have flown high performance prop aircraft. In ALL instances, when power is reduced, the effect of that reduction is felt immediately. It doesn't matter of the prop is fixed pitch or constant speed. That's not what occurs with the Allied aircraft.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And further, I believe it has been proven with the 'DeviceLink' programs that all aircraft and pilots have the same G tolerances, it just depends from aircraft to aircraft how these tolerances are reached (for example the P51 can exceed tolerance easy due to its high speed and huge highspeed manueverability).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>When aircraft are being flown at the same airspeed, flight path and altitude, the G levels should be the same for both aircraft, regardless of type. If this is true (and it is), then blackout should occur at the same time for both pilots...and it doesn't. Why? Game programming, pure and simple. There is NO way that G application is uniform across all the aircraft platforms. I enjoy this flight sim very much but it's a weakness that has been programmed into the game...and not by accident.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
09-05-2004, 03:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Toad:
(...snip...) higher blade angle brakes the engine not the plane. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's correct. In this sim, it incorrectly breaks the plane (109, 190).

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
09-05-2004, 03:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Watch a 109 cut power and see how fast his energy is depleted while most other aircraft cut power and virtually nothing happens.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

that is merely a CSP problem Pipper <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Badsight, it's a programming problem. It has nothing to do with an aircraft's prop...it has everything to do with the application of power. Many here equate having a constant speed prop with providing constant power. The two are very much not the same.

GR142-Pipper

Fehler
09-05-2004, 04:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
It is my belief based on quite playing IL-2/IL-2FB that different aircraft have different G tolerances. It is a programming variable assigned to each aircraft. Of course, this should not be but I'm afraid it is. The same holds true for energy loss/gain when power is cut. Watch a 109 cut power and see how fast his energy is depleted while most other aircraft cut power and virtually nothing happens. Oh well, it's a game and quite different from real life aircraft flying characteristics.

GR142-Pipper<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My daughter believes in the tooth fairy and Santa, but like you, she is incorrect.

In Olegs world, the 109 loses energy very fast in a turn fight compared to say, a Spit and a P51 (And now, even a P47). That is what Oleg calls drag. Let's all say it together class... drag.

The same thing that slows the German planes down so fast in a turn (Which you like) is the same thing that makes it slow down when the throttle is reduced (Which you dont like). Perhaps in another flight sim, the 109 will be slippery in the air, only when allied guys like it, but for now, it produces a lot of drag with all those radiators open and the square canopy, and the buldges on the wings, and cowling.. again class... drag. Kind of like the wingloading thing. The thing that makes a plane turn poorly (High wingloading) is the same thing that makes it extremely stable at high speeds. I like cake, and I eat it too, but for some things in life, we cant have both.

It has also been PROVEN, do we know what proven means class? Proven that all planes black out at certain G limits, and wings snap at the same stress limits. All planes identical, and this has been proven with devicelink.

Now to the original poster, I used to be fooled by the blackout thing in the past as well. But in actuality, he was not pulling as many G's as you were, or his G load was more sudden, thus he didnt have a build up of G force like you had. I bet he was at the edge of blackout as well.

If you were flying on a server with externals, this whole question is a moot point, as he probably just shifted to external view which will not show blackout to him.

Fehler
09-05-2004, 04:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
When aircraft are being flown at the same airspeed, flight path and altitude, the G levels should be the same for both aircraft, regardless of type. If this is true (and it is), then blackout should occur at the same time for both pilots...and it doesn't. Why? Game programming, pure and simple. There is NO way that G application is uniform across all the aircraft platforms. I enjoy this flight sim very much but it's a weakness that has been programmed into the game...and not by accident.

GR142-Pipper<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, lesson 2:

You know when you fly that pretty little mustang and are flying along really fast? Got that picture in your head? Now you yank on the stick and do such a nice turn.. weeeee!

Now, in a 109 (Everything the same) you yank on the stick and it doesnt turn as fast... Boooooo!

That's because the 109 elevator has stick force modelled into it. You cant get full deflection as fast as you can in the mustang.

Ahh, but there is a little side effect... You can pull G's faster in a mustang... Booooo!

You like to take advantage of the quick maneuvering at high speed, but you dont like it when you pull too hard and black out. LOL!

Well, fly the 109 lawn dart then, and you will never have to worry about elevator effectiveness again. ROFL

You did say something correct in your post, however... well, maybe not totally correct. Something is not universally applied across all aircraft platforms... elevator authority and stick forces. And they shouldnt be, otherwise all planes would be the same... they werent in real life as far as I know.

GR142-Pipper
09-05-2004, 10:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
[QUOTE](...snip...)In Olegs world, the 109 loses energy very fast in a turn fight compared to say, a Spit and a P51 (And now, even a P47). That is what Oleg calls drag. Let's all say it together class... drag.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well no ****, **** Tracey. Everyone knows what drag is. If you bothered to read the post (or better yet, understand it) you'd know that this matter extends quite a bit beyond a discussion of drag. I'm talking about two things: 1) differing blackout characteristics when two aircraft are co-speed, co-flight path, and co-altitude and 2) energy loss after POWER is pulled and how quickly this is dissipated in some aircraft and NOT AT ALL for several seconds in others. Friendly advice, next time before offering your remarks, take a little time and really read the specifics of the subject being presented.

GR142-Pipper

BinaryFalcon
09-05-2004, 01:33 PM
Best suggestion I've got then is to turn off CEM.

It's pretty much broken in the sim and always has been, which is why I don't use it.

The allied planes (at least the P39), do dump speed a lot faster when the power is pulled with CEM off. I was actually surprised when I started flying on a CEM required server, because the 'Cobra was constantly carrying a LOT more energy than I was used to. In most cases typical speeds were usually about 100-200kph higher than I was used to for any given situation, as it just didn't bleed e the way I was used to it doing.

If that's what you're getting at, I won't argue that CEM is busted. However, I still disagree on the G modeling bit.

GR142-Pipper
09-05-2004, 03:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BinaryFalcon:
Best suggestion I've got then is to turn off CEM.

It's pretty much broken in the sim and always has been, which is why I don't use it.

The allied planes (at least the P39), _do_ dump speed a lot faster when the power is pulled with CEM off. I was actually surprised when I started flying on a CEM required server, because the 'Cobra was constantly carrying a LOT more energy than I was used to. In most cases typical speeds were usually about 100-200kph higher than I was used to for any given situation, as it just didn't bleed e the way I was used to it doing.(...snip...)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a good suggestion for a solution that I hadn't thought of and that makes sense.

GR142-Pipper

ZG77_Lignite
09-05-2004, 04:49 PM
I agree about 'flat' (fine) blade angle both increaseing RPM, and increasing drag (braking).

However, the fact remains when 'pulling power' in a Bf109 (while in 'automatic', the historical operating procedure), the blade governor (similar to a constant speed unit, but NOT a constant speed unit) does not only attempt to to lower the blade angle, it also reduces manifold pressure which is, imho at least, the major motivator for lower engine RPM. The blade angle governor does not adjust the same as a constant speed unit, and is not required to go 'courser' (higher blade angle) to lower engine RPM, thus it has an increased braking effect over constant speed units (P51, La5FN, Spitfire etc).

The FW190 has a similar function, but is even more complex in that it has a true constant speed prop, conjoined to a similar manifold/RPM controller, it too should have a different 'feel' when 'pulling power', as compared to a P51.

If you say the loss of speed is incorrect for constant speed props, I won't argue because I wouldn't know. What I do know is the Bf109 (and to a lesser extent the FW190) should operate much differently from a P51, and it does in game.



As regards to 'G bias' created by the designers, thats simply hooey, and is now proveable with the Devicelink program (or actually the programs written for Devicelink). If you are so sure, simply install these programs and document it, I'm sure proof would serve you much better than bile.

GR142-Pipper
09-05-2004, 07:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Lignite:
(...snip...)
If you say the loss of speed is incorrect for constant speed props, I won't argue because I wouldn't know. What I do know is the Bf109 (and to a lesser extent the FW190) should operate much differently from a P51, and it does in game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Respectfully and once again, this entire matter is NOT one that is related to props or RPM. It is entirely a matter of POWER.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As regards to 'G bias' created by the designers, thats simply hooey, and is now proveable with the Devicelink program (or actually the programs written for Devicelink). If you are so sure, simply install these programs and document it, I'm sure proof would serve you much better than bile.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Respectfully, I honestly could care less about some programming device called "Devicelink". What I am describing regarding both the G tolerance and power matters are entirely observable (as well as obvious) when playing this game to anyone who has experience with real aircraft. FB, while certainly a lot of fun, simply falls short in these important areas. (IMHO, of course.)
It wouldn't matter if it was a bomber sim but in a fighter sim it does matter.
GR142-Pipper

WUAF_Badsight
09-06-2004, 03:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Respectfully, I honestly could care less about some programming device called "Devicelink". What I am describing regarding both the G tolerance and power matters are entirely observable (as well as obvious) when playing this game to anyone who has experience with real aircraft.

GR142-Pipper<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

you need to look in your FB folder

in it you will see a read-me on "devicelink" . . . . . unless your willing to at least learn what it makes possible , dont go posting about your Mustang being G intolerant

Devicelink allows you to see what numbers the planes generate IN-GAME

so if you bothered top do any testing at all youll find that the Mustang generates "G" a hell of a lot more eaisly than other planes

lower your stick setings for your elevator & fly it with more care

cause it doesnt blackout any sooner than other planes Pipper

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

GR142-Pipper
09-06-2004, 11:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Respectfully, I honestly could care less about some programming device called "Devicelink". _What I am describing regarding both the G tolerance and power matters are entirely observable_ (as well as obvious) when playing this game to anyone who has experience with real aircraft.

GR142-Pipper<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

you need to look in your FB folder

in it you will see a read-me on "devicelink" . . . . . unless your willing to at least learn what it makes possible , dont go posting about your Mustang being G intolerant

Devicelink allows you to see what numbers the planes generate _IN-GAME_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Like I said, I'm not interested in it because it merely parrots what the code is telling it. Actual experience tells me that that in this flight sim, G tolerance is dissimilar between different aircraft (in other words, it's become a programming variable). The same is true regarding the addition or subtraction of power (to wit: some planes don't react for several seconds when power is reduced while others react immediately). If you choose to put your faith in "Devicelink", that's certainly your right but I just don't see its worth. What's more, what I've described is so easily observable and repeatable in an actual fight.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>so if you bothered top do any testing at all youll find that the Mustang generates _"G"_ a hell of a lot more eaisly than other planes<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, Badsight, it doesn't. The P-51 suffers from the EFFECTS of heavy G (to wit: blackouts) but it doesn't generate them more easily than many aircraft in the sim (which don't suffer from the P-51 oversensitivities in this area). All I've done is switch to the P-47 which doesn't share the P-51's many (programmed) frailties. That works just fine for me.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>lower your stick setings for your elevator & fly it with more care<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> All that does is turn a 6 G aircraft into a 3 G aircraft.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>cause it doesnt blackout any sooner than other planes Pipper<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Respectfully, we'll just have to agree to disagree on these points.

GR142-Pipper

WUAF_Badsight
09-07-2004, 01:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Like I said, I'm not interested in it because it merely parrots what the code is telling it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

actually devicelink puts out info as its generated , your will see how eaisly the Mustang with its massive elevator authority generate G much more eaisly than other planes


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Actual experience tells me that that in this flight sim, G tolerance is dissimilar between different aircraft<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well your experience would be wrong , planes have already been tested pipper , & they all develop blackout at or just about on 6G

your mustang , which you think is wrong just has a much better elevator authority than other planes in FB , it generate g force quicker , more eaisly than other planes

you can generate B/O Gforce almost instantly in the P-51 because of the elevator working too well

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
If you choose to put your faith in "Devicelink", that's certainly your right but I just don't see its worth.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well the devicelink is simply FB being able to spit out info that planes in FB are generating , it gives info on a wide range of things that are coded into planes in FB

youd have to be simple to not see how this can give far more accurate data & allow for far more accurate testing than merely "flight experience'

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
The P-51 suffers from the EFFECTS of heavy G (to wit: blackouts) but it doesn't generate them more easily than many aircraft in the sim.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ok thats simply wrong

the Mustang can be made to snap its wing very eaisly . . . . . why ?

it reaches the 15g limit much more eaisly than other planes in FB

many times (& this is repeatable pipper) i have snapped off my wing without being blacked out

so what is happening &gt;?

the Mustang can reach max g limit without generating Blackout

do i need to spell it out ?

here goes . . . . :

the Mustang has a much more effective elevator than most other planes in FB . . . . it generates G much more eaisly than other planes

i can get to blackout eaisly in a Bf109 & not snap my wings off . . . . its hard to make a bf109 snap its wings

it still generates blackout easy tho . . . the mustangs problem IS ITS ELEVATOR

i dont see many saying the elevator needs to be toned down , just complaing that its 'porked"

what is needed is that you . . . . ALTER YOUR JOYSTICK SETTINGS if you want to fly the mustang

then you wont be making the elevator work so hard , so quickly

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
All that does is turn a 6 G aircraft into a 3 G aircraft..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

for real ? . . . . you can back that up can you ?

i can lower my joystick & still reach blackout level

you know what that means dont you ? im pulling 6G is what that means Pipper

face it . . . . you have a better elevator than all other fighters & want a better Blackout level over all other planes to suit it

well tuff

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WTE_Galway
09-07-2004, 01:42 AM
are you sure its not something as simple as a server with externals enabled and he hit F2 ??

I assume blackouts still have no effect in external view

WUAF_Badsight
09-07-2004, 02:02 AM
you lose turning ability due to blackout even if you go to external view in FB

might have happened in IL2:Sturmovik , but i never tested Sturmovik

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

GR142-Pipper
09-07-2004, 02:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
(...most of rant snipped...)you know what that means dont you ? im pulling 6G is what that means Pipper<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nah, it means that if you want to stay awake in a Mustang during a fight, don't plan on doing much hard maneuvering.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>face it . . . . you have a better elevator than all other fighters & want a better Blackout level over all other planes to suit it

well tuff<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quite the contrary, Badsight. All I want is for the energy characteristics and the G tolerances to be accurately modeled and consistent. Currently they're not as they differ significantly from plane to plane.

As I previously mentioned, I took care of these phoney progrmming issues with the P-51 by simply switching to the P-47. Problems solved.

GR142-Pipper

AFJ_Skyghost
09-07-2004, 02:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
are you sure its not something as simple as a server with externals enabled and he hit F2 ??

I assume blackouts still have no effect in external view<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Even with outside views as F2 or F6, once you are in blackout, the plane will not respond to the joystick, no matter what view you re using at that moment. You ll be able to see but you won't be able to control your plane.
S!!

http://skyghost.home.sapo.pt/imagens/PortugalFans_RK.jpg

clint-ruin
09-07-2004, 08:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
As I previously mentioned, I took care of these phoney progrmming issues with the P-51 by simply switching to the P-47. Problems solved.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you mean to say, HURF BLURF CONSPIRACY ? Just asking.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

BinaryFalcon
09-07-2004, 09:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Like I said, I'm not interested in it because it merely parrots what the code is telling it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Think about that for a second.

It makes no sense whatsoever!

You don't trust devicelink because it listens to "what the code is telling it."

The same code that is responsible for triggering the onset of G effects.

The same code that is used for all of the aircraft.

In other words, you've admitted that devicelink refutes your statements, but you refuse to believe it because it tells you exactly what the code is doing and that doesn't jive with your opinion about how the code works.

Congratulations, you're now doing the internet equivalent of covering your ears and yelling "I'm not listening!" when someone tries to explain things to you.

The problem isn't with the Mustang specifically. It's not that different aircraft are held to different G standards than others.

If there is a problem, it's likely with how rapidly the code slaps you with G effects once you actually reach the hardcoded, universal threshold. For the sake of arguement let's say that FB has the pilot start to gray out at 5.5 G, start to go dark at 6G, and put you out completely at 7G.

The Mustang, with it's powerful elevator response, will take a hamfisted pilot to that threshold faster than any other aircraft in the game. It's not that a P39 or 109 can't generate 7G when you haul back on the stick, it's just that it takes a lot more work to get there than it does in the Mustang.

As modeled, the P-51 has enough authority to pretty much break the airframe at any appreciable speed if you yank on the stick. That means that the half second pull that gives you 5.5G in a 'Cobra might take you straight to 7G in the Mustang.

From your point of view, since you can't feel what you're pulling in your desk chair, you think you've input the exact same deflection. In the P39 you'd end up at 5.5G and immediately start to go gray, but the P51 with it's much greater elevator authority blows right past 5.5G and ends up at 7G, which immediately puts you out. All with the exact same amount of joystick travel.

I suspect this is where you're not quite understanding things, if you aren't just trolling at this point. With flight sims, and this one especially, a given amount of joystick travel does not equal a universal amount of control reaction from one aircraft to the next. It's unique for each plane, and half deflection in one will not give the exact same results as half deflection in another.

Some aircraft just require a bit more care than others.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Nah, it means that if you want to stay awake in a Mustang during a fight, don't plan on doing much hard maneuvering.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here I disagree completely. I've yet to fully black out or cause a structural failure in a Mustang due to the use of excessive control forces, and I've done plenty of hard maneuvering with it. It can yank and bank with the rest of them, it just takes significantly less stick travel to make it do it.

And as far as I can tell, I've got a fairly sensitive setup, since I'm using the stock FB curves. Maybe the 8lb springs on the Cougar help, but mostly I'm just careful.

Keep an eye on your rate of control input. That more than anything is likely what's screwing you up. Small corrections.

[This message was edited by BinaryFalcon on Tue September 07 2004 at 08:49 AM.]

WUAF_Badsight
09-07-2004, 02:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:

Quite the contrary, Badsight. All I want is for the energy characteristics and the G tolerances to be accurately modeled and consistent. Currently they're not as they differ significantly from plane to plane.

GR142-Pipper<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol your not listening are you

planes in FB black out at 6G

all of them

although i find it funny how the Mustang can reach max G (which is 15 in FB) & not blackout

its because the elevator is way overboosted

you havent replied about lowering your joystick making the planes limited in G yet either pipper . . . . cause your full of it . . . . cause it doesnt

face it , the Mustang has a way overboosted elevator & you want the rest of the plane overboosted to handel & compensate for it ! ! !
.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WUAF_Badsight
09-07-2004, 02:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BinaryFalcon:
Congratulations, you're now doing the internet equivalent of covering your ears and yelling "I'm not listening!" when someone tries to explain things to you.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

thats the other way of saying it

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

GR142-Pipper
09-07-2004, 02:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BinaryFalcon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Like I said, I'm not interested in it because it merely parrots what the code is telling it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Think about that for a second.

_It makes no sense whatsoever!_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I've thought about it quite a bit and it sure does make sense if one has had actual flight experience upon which to base an opinion on.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You don't trust devicelink because it listens to "what the code is telling it."

The _same_ code that is responsible for triggering the onset of G effects.

The _same_ code that is used for all of the aircraft.

In other words, you've admitted that devicelink refutes your statements, but you refuse to believe it because it tells you exactly what the code is doing and that doesn't jive with your _opinion_ about how the code works.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>True. It doesn't jive with my opinion based on experience. If it comes down to basing my opinion based on what some programmer says is "reality" and what experience tells me, I'll go with experience every time. Furthermore and unless you have direct access to the game code itself, you have no idea whether or not the issues being discussed are programming variables or not.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Congratulations, you're now doing the internet equivalent of covering your ears and yelling "I'm not listening!" when someone tries to explain things to you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, I'm saying that my (and others) actual experience differs from what is represented in this game and we're trying to find out why this is the case. "Devicelink" is not the answer.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The problem isn't with the Mustang specifically. It's not that different aircraft are held to different G standards than others. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That IS exactly what the problem is which is why I bothered to post. I agree with you that it's not specific to the P-51 (which I happened to use as an example). My contention regarding these matters is that they're programming variables that each aircraft posseses.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If there is a problem, it's likely with how _rapidly_ the code slaps you with G effects once you actually reach the hardcoded, universal threshold. For the sake of arguement let's say that FB has the pilot start to gray out at 5.5 G, start to go dark at 6G, and put you out completely at 7G.

The Mustang, with it's powerful elevator response, will take a hamfisted pilot to that threshold faster than any other aircraft in the game. It's not that a P39 or 109 can't generate 7G when you haul back on the stick, it's just that it takes a lot more work to get there than it does in the Mustang.

As modeled, the P-51 has enough authority to pretty much break the airframe at any appreciable speed if you yank on the stick. That means that the half second pull that gives you 5.5G in a 'Cobra might take you straight to 7G in the Mustang.

From your point of view, since you can't feel what you're pulling in your desk chair, you think you've input the exact same deflection. In the P39 you'd end up at 5.5G and immediately start to go gray, but the P51 with it's much greater elevator authority blows right past 5.5G and ends up at 7G, which immediately puts you out. _All with the exact same amount of joystick travel_.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The problem is one of relativity. It's that when some planes that are co-speed/co-altitude/co-flight path are prone to blackout while others under the same circumstances are not.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I suspect this is where you're not quite understanding things, if you aren't just trolling at this point. With flight sims, and this one especially, _a given amount of joystick travel does not equal a universal amount of control reaction from one aircraft to the next._ It's unique for each plane, and half deflection in one will not give the exact same results as half deflection in another.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I have no time for trolling so let's dispense with that. My view is to simply ask the developers to provide behavioral consistency from a laws of physics point of view.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Some aircraft just require a bit more care than others.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Completely agree with you on this one.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Nah, it means that if you want to stay awake in a Mustang during a fight, don't plan on doing much hard maneuvering.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Here I disagree completely. I've yet to fully black out or cause a structural failure in a Mustang due to the use of excessive control forces, and I've done plenty of hard maneuvering with it. It can yank and bank with the rest of them, it just takes significantly less stick travel to make it do it.

And as far as I can tell, I've got a fairly sensitive setup, since I'm using the stock FB curves. Maybe the 8lb springs on the Cougar help, but mostly I'm just careful.

Keep an eye on your _rate_ of control input. That more than anything is likely what's screwing you up. Small corrections.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Respectfully, your suggestions are certainly worthy but the issues that I'm presenting have nothing to do with player technique. Again, this may be one of those issues where we'll have to agree to disagree.

GR142-Pipper

BinaryFalcon
09-07-2004, 03:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I've thought about it quite a bit and it sure does make sense if one has had actual flight experience upon which to base an opinion on.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not to be a pain, but I do, and I've got to say it still doesn't make sense to me.

I could understand if what you were saying here were true:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It's that when some planes that are co-speed/co-altitude/co-flight path are prone to blackout while others under the same circumstances are not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But it's not. Or at least, it has not been proven that it is.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Furthermore and unless you have direct access to the game code itself,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But we do. It's called Devicelink. So far as I'm aware, it's designed to look directly at the code and output the results to a format that can be used for something like a home built cockpit. It reads the G level directly from the code and could then display that on the G meter you have installed in your cockpit. It doesn't get any more direct than that, and it's why you're finding so much resistance here.

Devicelink isn't making up some random number and showing it to you, it's displaying what the code is saying the plane is doing. Apparently, according to tests that have been done, every aircraft will black out as soon as it hits 6G as indicated on the devicelink output.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I have no time for trolling so let's dispense with that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No problem, I didn't think that you were, but sometimes it's hard to tell. Written communications and all.

In any case, I've got to cut this short for the moment. More later (probably).

WUAF_Badsight
09-07-2004, 03:01 PM
Pipper . . . . . IRL planes generate G more eaisly or less eaisly than other planes

they are not all the same

devicelinks readouts have showen planes in FB get blackout at or just about on 6G

you want the Mustang to be more Gtolerant over all other A/C in FB ? ! ? ! ? ! ? !

wtf why ?

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

BinaryFalcon
09-07-2004, 05:33 PM
Okay, picking up somewhat where I left off, if I remember correctly...

RE: G loads for different planes and some, like the P51, seeming to cause blackouts more quickly:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It's that when some planes that are co-speed/co-altitude/co-flight path are prone to blackout while others under the same circumstances are not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You seem to keep coming back to this, so I think I might be starting to follow what you're getting at.

Now, it has been a little while since my aero/performance and physics classes, but as I recall, if you have two aircraft that are co speed, altitude and flight path, they must also be under the same G loads, correct?

Assuming that to be true, it would then follow that if two aircraft appear to be co speed/altitude/flight path, yet one is under a different G load than the other, they absolutely can not be truly co speed/altitude/flight path, no matter how they may appear. Correct?

Assuming both of the above, devicelink clearly establishes that all aircraft in FB will cause a blackout at 6G. It's universal, and I personally trust the numbers that devicelink is reporting, because it's read from the same code that the flight model is using.

We also know that some planes are more sensitive than others, and will load up on Gs at different rates. The P51 seems to be more capable of generating excessive G loads than any of the other aircraft in the sim. That suggests that due to the elevator authority and pitch sensitivity of the Mustang, that it is unlikely you'll ever be truly co speed/altitude/flight path with the other aircraft, because it's a lot easier for you to pull more G more rapidly, all other things being equal. If you could feel it in your seat like you can in real life, it'd be a lot easier to judge, but unfortunately, due to the nature of the sim we're denied one of the key forms of pilot feedback.

So if we assume all of the above are true (and so far, all the documented evidence I've seen suggests that it is), it suggests that if there is a problem with different aircraft causing blackouts at different G, then the problem exists in the code somewhere else in the flight model, and not specifically with the universal 6G limit that's is applied to all aircraft equally (or is supposed to be).

I guess what I'm saying is that if there is really a problem, you may be in the right forest here but you're barking up the wrong tree. I don't think there are different G levels built into different planes, and if there is a difference, it's likely due to something else that's probably unintentional.

Eh. I'm not sure if any of that even made any sense. I'm having a hard time putting it into words at the moment and I'm running on about 3 hours of sleep, so my train of thought is... odd at the moment.

GR142-Pipper
09-07-2004, 07:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BinaryFalcon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I've thought about it quite a bit and it sure does make sense if one has had actual flight experience upon which to base an opinion on.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Not to be a pain, but I do, and I've got to say it still doesn't make sense to me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not to worry. To be straightforward, all I think any of those of us who enjoy FB is the assurance that these basic matters are consistent and not matters of manipulation on a per-plane basis.

I could understand if what you were saying here were true:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It's that when some planes that are co-speed/co-altitude/co-flight path are prone to blackout while others under the same circumstances are not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But it's not. Or at least, it has not been proven that it is.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Furthermore and unless you have direct access to the game code itself,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But we do. It's called Devicelink. So far as I'm aware, it's designed to look directly at the code and output the results to a format that can be used for something like a home built cockpit. It reads the G level directly from the code and could then display that on the G meter you have installed in your cockpit. It doesn't get any more direct than that, and it's why you're finding so much resistance here.

Devicelink isn't making up some random number and showing it to you, it's displaying what the code is saying the plane is doing. Apparently, according to tests that have been done, every aircraft will black out as soon as it hits 6G as indicated on the devicelink output.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I have no time for trolling so let's dispense with that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No problem, I didn't think that you were, but sometimes it's hard to tell. Written communications and all.

In any case, I've got to cut this short for the moment. More later (probably).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>By having access to the code, I'm talking about having access to the FB source code. What DeviceLink appears to be is a monitoring piece of software that is a describer of what the executables are doing. That's a far different proposition than having access to the FB source code itself. You see this is the ONLY way that it can be proven to me that the aircraft don't perform as I have described based on what I and others have seen in game play.

I think I've made it pretty clear where I stand. If others care to offer their views on this matter, great. However, I think I've said my piece on it.

GR142-Pipper