PDA

View Full Version : What has happened to the F-4U?



ChuckSG
12-28-2004, 01:32 AM
Hi all ~S~

What have they done to the F-4u's? I have been trying out some missions that i made with 3.02bm patch and they are all no good. The F-4U weighs a tonne now. Why? Why? Why?

ChuckSG
12-28-2004, 01:32 AM
Hi all ~S~

What have they done to the F-4u's? I have been trying out some missions that i made with 3.02bm patch and they are all no good. The F-4U weighs a tonne now. Why? Why? Why?

LLv26_Morko
12-28-2004, 01:41 AM
Because its more realistic now..
it actually did weight a lot.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

VMF-214_HaVoK
12-28-2004, 02:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LLv26_Morko:
Because its more realistic now..
it actually did weight a lot.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was lighter then the P-47 and had 50 less HP. The Corsair now accelerates like it has been robbed of a 1000 HP or so. And you would know its more realistic in acceleration based on what? You extensive experience as a F4U-1D combat fighter pilot? The large amount of data you have collected over the years? Please tell me its one of those. If not you leave me no choice but to see you for what you are...a happy axis whiner.

AFJ_Locust
12-28-2004, 02:07 AM
P38 also lost alot of speed

LLv26_Morko
12-28-2004, 02:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LLv26_Morko:
Because its more realistic now..
it actually did weight a lot.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was lighter then the P-47 and had 50 less HP. The Corsair now accelerates like it has been robbed of a 1000 HP or so. And you would know its more realistic in acceleration based on what? You extensive experience as a F4U-1D combat fighter pilot? The large amount of data you have collected over the years? Please tell me its one of those. If not you leave me no choice but to see you for what you are...a happy axis whiner. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i dont have to prove anything here...
you are whining so you go ahead and prove why
you think fm is unrealistic right now,i do not have problems when flying corsair,you just have to learn to fly it differently now..
and im not axis whiner... though i fly usually
lw planes i have a special place in my heart for corsair..

pendragon1984
12-28-2004, 03:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LLv26_Morko:
i dont have to prove anything here... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Incorrect. You made a statement about the F4U as though it were fact (specifically, that the flight model as presented in 3.03 is more "realistic" than those presented in prior versions) and didn't bother explaining what you were basing this statement on. How are we to know the current version is more realistic? What information did you use to come to this conclusion? Further, what is your definition of "more realistic"? (Some people want the flight models to be as close as possible to their real-life counterparts, for instance, while others are happy so long as the relative performance matches up with the other simulated planes.)

LLv26_Morko
12-28-2004, 03:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pendragon1984:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LLv26_Morko:
i dont have to prove anything here... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Incorrect. You made a statement about the F4U as though it were fact (specifically, that the flight model as presented in 3.03 is more "realistic" than those presented in prior versions) and didn't bother explaining what you were basing this statement on. How are we to know the current version is more realistic? What information did you use to come to this conclusion? Further, what is your definition of "more realistic"? (Some people want the flight models to be as close as possible to their real-life counterparts, for instance, while others are happy so long as the relative performance matches up with the other simulated planes.) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
no no no my statement wasnt a fact..it was my opinion..and i belong to the group of people
who wants the fm to be as realistic as possible..so if somebody can prove that the flight model is porked.. i will cladly join the whining.. if not.. then im happy the way it is now!

so let me rephrase my case:
to me the flight model in 3.03 FEELS more realistic than before...

WildeSau
12-28-2004, 04:40 AM
why don't you guys go and get your source of information confirming what you say and then report that to Oleg as a bug or something that should be changed.

It's possible that if it's proofed by sources that are credible and if enough people say the same thing, they gone change it in patch 3.04 which should be out soon.

WildeSau

FF_Trozaka
12-28-2004, 05:07 AM
LOL.. everyone keeps comparing the F4U to the p 47... you guys are right again. HEY OLEG! WE GOT ANOTHER ONE FOR YOU TO SLOW DOWN!
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif jk
I am a zero driver, but i fly corsair for comparison every once in a while. If you fly it like you are supposed to fly it you shouldnt have any problems.
(that is my opinion http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif)
S!

Nubarus
12-28-2004, 06:15 AM
Never post bugs or incorrect FM topics here, just mail em to Oleg with all the proof you can find, that way petty little crybabies won't get on your case.

And yes I also say bugs, since there are even crybabies in here that cr@p in your thread because the bug is not important enough to them so it should not even be discussed here. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

J_Weaver
12-28-2004, 07:22 AM
If the way the Corsair is now is more realistic than great, I can live with that. But speaking for myself only I would rather have it the way it was before 3.03 if for no other reason than gameplay. This new flight model, as realistic as it may be is gonna be a pain or at least more difficult until we get catapults and/or wind over the deck.

Flyby_99
12-28-2004, 08:08 AM
S~! re complaints about the Corsair's fm model: I never test FMs. I wouldn't know an accurate FM if it came up and offered to give me a hum job for free. So I don't expect to experience an accurate FM from 1C. Why? Because through out the IL2 series, from the beginning, 1C seems not to use data in a manner by which to consistently provide accurate FMs. I reason this by the changing performance of (any) aircraft after a patch. If the data application is consistent (and accurate), why would the FMs cahnge from patch to patch? Why, for instance did the Jug not have the so-called proper roll rate from it's introduction to the series? Didn't I read in these forums that high altitude modelling was limited to 30000ft?

So, since we can't get CFS-style 1% models imported into this series, we should not look for accurate models with the FM-producing processes currently in use by 1C. Rather, I propose that we accept what we have, and fly these virtual planes to their demonstrated strengths rather than expect their historic strengths (and weaknesses). Experience will come help us deploy these models best in virtual combat.

FMs aside, 1C has given us a sim where we can immerse ourselves in all sorts of dogfights, coops, and air-combat derring-do. Use comms, and the sim gets even better. Be sure to increase the speed of the carriers to 60kph, and takeoffs with the Corsair are exciting with rockets, and 1500lbs of bombs, but very doable. Same for landing, the carrier should be up to speed. I ncrease the speed of the carriers in the single missions/ landings, and improved my success rate quite nicely. So... ENJOY!!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BTW I am not a combat pilot, and would not know an accurate FM if it came up and offered me a...OH! This is where I came in! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif But you get the ideahttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Flyby out

Po-cat
12-28-2004, 08:17 AM
Hmmm...
So many Christmas presents already tossed out of the pram!
I just went and tried a carrier take-off from the single missions, and had the pleasure of watching 3 AI corsairs fly their way straight into the drink http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif What could I do but follow??!!
It rather does look like a real problem http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

I'm off to drain my tanks before the next attempt - so to speak;-)

ZG77_Nagual
12-28-2004, 08:47 AM
hmm.. Level speed of the corsair - on the deck - is spot on. In the 1v10 setup I use to test dogfighting the Corsair gives me no problems. Climb seems a little diminished but I have no trouble with the 10 ace ai.(j2m,ki84,n1k1)Just have to watch those j2ms a little more closely.

I don't see a reduction in the p38s speed however - Locust - can you elaborate? It actually seems to accelerate better to me - the thing just slide when you put the nose down a bit.

VW-IceFire
12-28-2004, 08:51 AM
Numbers? The Corsair too slow? The P-38 too slow...dig up the numbers.

Believe you me, if the Tempest V turns out to be improperly modeled I will grab all the details I have and make the case. But there will be performance data...

I'm not sure on carrier takeoffs but in terms of air combat the Corsair is pretty much the same as before. Feels like there is a little more weight to it than before...which feels pretty good. Its trucking along quite nicely.

mortoma
12-28-2004, 09:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LLv26_Morko:
Because its more realistic now..
it actually did weight a lot.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes but it alos had a lot of power for that weight. They call it 'power to weight ratio', in case you are totally ignorant of aeronautical knowledge, which would seem to be the case.

Skalgrim
12-28-2004, 10:32 AM
skychimps had post the acceleration,

f4u-1d was one of the weak plane, therefore climb she too so bad

almost all plane that weak accelerates climb too weak, f4u-1d is one of those weak acceleration plane too 190a5 was better climber from american test., and 190 had too better acceleration, and therefore probable better climb.

By the way, 190a5 had too same zoomclimb as f4u-1d from american test, although much less weigh.

Is not right that heavy plane has better zoomclimb, too acceleration is important for zoomclimb and air drag.

Therefore have la-7 and k4 so good zoomclimb.

Bull_dog_
12-28-2004, 11:13 AM
All I can say about the F4U is that the A and D model, when I tested them wanted to rest between 575-577km/hr at sea level on the Crimea map at noon over water with 100% fuel, 120% mix, rad closed and 100% ammo...

I don't know what the exact sea level performance is supposed to be, but I do know that the D model had a little more speed and a little better climb.... I also know that every patch has decreased the payload that I can take off of a static carrier with which I do not know is historically correct.

What I do know is that, regardless of historical accuracy, my online experience has been seriously diminished...and there you have it...100mb of frustration

LLv26_Morko
12-29-2004, 05:33 AM
found this on the vought website...

any help?
http://www.vought.com/heritage/products/html/f4u-1spec.html

LLv26_Morko
12-29-2004, 05:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LLv26_Morko:
Because its more realistic now..
it actually did weight a lot.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes but it alos had a lot of power for that weight. They call it 'power to weight ratio', in case you are totally ignorant of aeronautical knowledge, which would seem to be the case. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
wow..boy.. if you think only thing that affects
planes acceleration is power to weight ratio in aeronautical issues or otherwise
i think you should go back to school...

Nubarus
12-29-2004, 06:19 AM
Morko, quit being an Ahole and just move along.

Your BS adds nothing to this thread since the new patch does bring problems to the F4U and Corsairs since the AI are completely unable to take off since the acceleration has been reduced.

All the F4U and Corsair missions I build are completely useless now as well as the Corsair campaign I was playing.

Mission generator makes a mission, you are unable to change fuel loads and weapons because you don't want to start at the top and you already loose over half of the AI planes because they all plunge into the drink during take off.

So you truly feel that it should stay this way?

Well, then a lot of potential new customers will toss PF in the bin if all they see is AI take a swim when they are supposed to fly a mission.

Better stop being a jerk and actually help in finding a solution to this problem and if you can't then please stay out of threads like these and take your high horse BS elsewhere.

LLv26_Morko
12-29-2004, 06:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nubarus:
Morko, quit being an Ahole and just move along.

Your BS adds nothing to this thread since the new patch does bring problems to the F4U and Corsairs since the AI are completely unable to take off since the acceleration has been reduced.

All the F4U and Corsair missions I build are completely useless now as well as the Corsair campaign I was playing.

Mission generator makes a mission, you are unable to change fuel loads and weapons because you don't want to start at the top and you already loose over half of the AI planes because they all plunge into the drink during take off.

So you truly feel that it should stay this way?

Well, then a lot of potential new customers will toss PF in the bin if all they see is AI take a swim when they are supposed to fly a mission.

Better stop being a jerk and actually help in finding a solution to this problem and if you can't then please stay out of threads like these and take your high horse BS elsewhere. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I try not be an A-hole http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gifbut i think that making f4U accelerate like a tie-fighter isnt a solution to the problem! as i see it imho
is that if they could/would somehow model a catapult
on a carrier which would give some extra push during takeoff would solve this problem...
and it would be historically accurate since they were used irl...
And yes i think it isnt right that AI goes straight to the drink when taking off...
im not an programmer so i dont know which could be more easily done..modeling catapult or tuning the AI so that it can take-off from an carrier...

Nubarus
12-29-2004, 06:52 AM
Making a catapult isn't possible, Oleg stated this some time ago, maybe that will change at some point, maybe not.

Making the AI theat to take off isn't a solution either because once you advance in rank and move up the starting line you will be unable to take off with bomb loads.

Unless you plan to change the loadout and take less fuel and hope you will make it back and smaller bombs but this is not a solution either.

Simple fact is they changed something and it completely busted the game.

That is pretty poor planning and testing on the developers part.

I find it rather strange that there are even people such as yourself that actually defend a stupidity like that Morko.

superjohnny
12-29-2004, 07:09 AM
Hmm jut flown a mission with the new F4U and found it to be much better than before, superb machine. Can't see the problem.

LLv26_Morko
12-29-2004, 07:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nubarus:
Making a catapult isn't possible, Oleg stated this some time ago, maybe that will change at some point, maybe not.

Making the AI theat to take off isn't a solution either because once you advance in rank and move up the starting line you will be unable to take off with bomb loads.

Unless you plan to change the loadout and take less fuel and hope you will make it back and smaller bombs but this is not a solution either.

Simple fact is they changed something and it completely busted the game.

That is pretty poor planning and testing on the developers part.

I find it rather strange that there are even people such as yourself that actually defend a stupidity like that Morko. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
yeah..right. whos the A-hole now?
and your suggestion is that changing planes fm to something it really wasnt is the answer??...
come on...
maybe the flaw is in mission generator..
it gives unrealistic ordnance loadouts to carrier operations...
and i too havent had any problems with f4U in 3.03 its amazing how many whiners emerge when their uber-aircraft turns to more realistic...
hoh...

Nubarus
12-29-2004, 08:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LLv26_Morko:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nubarus:
Making a catapult isn't possible, Oleg stated this some time ago, maybe that will change at some point, maybe not.

Making the AI theat to take off isn't a solution either because once you advance in rank and move up the starting line you will be unable to take off with bomb loads.

Unless you plan to change the loadout and take less fuel and hope you will make it back and smaller bombs but this is not a solution either.

Simple fact is they changed something and it completely busted the game.

That is pretty poor planning and testing on the developers part.

I find it rather strange that there are even people such as yourself that actually defend a stupidity like that Morko. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
yeah..right. whos the A-hole now?
and your suggestion is that changing planes fm to something it really wasnt is the answer??...
come on...
maybe the flaw is in mission generator..
it gives unrealistic ordnance loadouts to carrier operations...
and i too havent had any problems with f4U in 3.03 its amazing how many whiners emerge when their uber-aircraft turns to more realistic...
hoh... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Reading issues Morko?

What I said was they fixed something that broke something else, poor testing by whoever was in charge.

Besides, reading over at SimHQ made me realize that you have absolutely no idea what is realistic at all Morko.

Read the topic posted by HammFist, he knows more about it then you, that is rahter obvious to me now.

stelr
12-29-2004, 10:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LLv26_Morko:
Because its more realistic now..
it actually did weight a lot.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually weight is relative. Your statement that the F4U "did weigh alot" is accurate when compared to say...a Ford Mustang or a Lincoln Continental, but it is actually lighter than the F6F and much lighter than the P-47D, all of which had the same power plant: a Pratt & Whitney R-2800 (-8, -10,and -12 respectively), producing 2000 HP!

Also, in a comparitive analysis of the above 3 A/C, the F4U had a greater climb rate...not less. The F4U-1A is listed as 3250 ft/min; the F6F was 3240 ft/min; and the P-47 was 2084 ft/min.

Not sure what you mean by "it feels more accurate" but for my money I'd prefer the aircraft is modeled IAW the actual specifications, not what "it feels like." I've never flown any of these IRL, so I may be at a disadvantage to you. If you have flown these A/C, then I can understand your opinion.

JaggedRaven
12-29-2004, 02:30 PM
LMAO...Morko and Nubarus are really going at it...they remind me of an old swashbuckler movie like they're dueling. I can almost see them with sabers in their hands! HAHA!!! HAVE AT THEE SWIIINE!!!!

P.S.
WHO NEEDS JERRY SPRINGER?

fordfan25
12-29-2004, 04:19 PM
lol. there is always two sides of an issue. it was the same with the cockpit of the fw190 the 50 cals, there were even people who said the p47s roll rate was spot on in FB 1.0 lol. and some people are not happy unless the planes thay dont like are flying bricks with BB guns. you could reduce the speed of the p51 to a top of 200mph and youd have some one say "Well that seems right to me". lol. of course please note that im not talking about anyone inpertecular. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif just saying.

LLv26_Morko
12-30-2004, 04:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaggedRaven:
LMAO...Morko and Nubarus are really going at it...they remind me of an old swashbuckler movie like they're dueling. I can almost see them with sabers in their hands! HAHA!!! HAVE AT THEE SWIIINE!!!!

P.S.
WHO NEEDS JERRY SPRINGER? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
That saved my day!!! thanks!!!
hmm...the force is strong with this nubarus one... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Nubarus
12-30-2004, 04:34 AM
I guess Morko is unable to back up his previous statements and can only resort to comedy to hide it.

Typical.

LLv26_Morko
12-30-2004, 04:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nubarus:
I guess Morko is unable to back up his previous statements and can only resort to comedy to hide it.

Typical. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Keep guessing..thats what youre good at!
somebody tested the acceleleration and that aint the problem!
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=26310365&m=8211010852

WUAF_Badsight
12-30-2004, 05:10 AM
Morko , give it up

your trying to save face

youve said your peice now let the thread be about corsairs instead of whose arguing with you

rurik
12-30-2004, 09:10 AM
I certainly have never flown a real Corsair nor can I speak to Aeronautical performance data, but I am pretty sure that if 95% of pilots could not take the bird off from a carrier w/ no ordanance, 100% fuel and 10kts over the deck, it would have NEVER been authorized for carrier operations.
I still haven't succeeded with the above specs eventhough I can do it fine with a loaded out Dauntless!