PDA

View Full Version : P51: Fuselage fuel tank/COG bobble problem



GR142_Astro
01-10-2006, 03:55 PM
After all my joystick calibration and getting to know the planes over again, I still find that I cannot control the P51 Mustang.

With the spate of recent posts that seem to agree, I am compelled to ask if you could move the fuel from the fuselage tank to the wings upon selecting 25% fuel?

Or is there some other reason the P51 is handling so poorly in 4.02?

GR142_Astro
01-10-2006, 03:55 PM
After all my joystick calibration and getting to know the planes over again, I still find that I cannot control the P51 Mustang.

With the spate of recent posts that seem to agree, I am compelled to ask if you could move the fuel from the fuselage tank to the wings upon selecting 25% fuel?

Or is there some other reason the P51 is handling so poorly in 4.02?

crazyivan1970
01-10-2006, 04:00 PM
This question addressed to....?

luftluuver
01-10-2006, 04:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
This question addressed to....? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is in ORR so Maddox Games perhaps? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

GR142_Astro
01-10-2006, 04:11 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

crazyivan1970
01-10-2006, 04:30 PM
Well, normally people adress other people by name, Unless you guys do it differently http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

luftluuver
01-10-2006, 04:33 PM
Can we have a list of names that can be used to address this problem to?

robban75
01-10-2006, 04:37 PM
There are other planes that wobble just as badly as the Mustang. At least on my computer. It doesn't appear to be a fuel issue.

VW-IceFire
01-10-2006, 05:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by robban75:
There are other planes that wobble just as badly as the Mustang. At least on my computer. It doesn't appear to be a fuel issue. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
True...

It seems like several aircraft have a COG that is back further than it should be. It feels that way...can't quite put a solid finger on it but the P-51, the F4U, and some others just seem like the COG is back in the tail or something...

Something is off. I come up with a new theory each week about it...but something is off.

berg417448
01-10-2006, 06:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by robban75:
There are other planes that wobble just as badly as the Mustang. At least on my computer. It doesn't appear to be a fuel issue. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
True...

It seems like several aircraft have a COG that is back further than it should be. It feels that way...can't quite put a solid finger on it but the P-51, the F4U, and some others just seem like the COG is back in the tail or something...

Something is off. I come up with a new theory each week about it...but something is off. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I have to agree. I've tried the "tweaks" and adjusted my stick settings a half dozen times. Those 2 planes in particular give me a hard time.

edgflyer
01-10-2006, 10:09 PM
Could it be US planes. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

GR142_Astro
01-10-2006, 11:09 PM
Agreed, the F4U also suffers from this. I notice it to a lesser degree with the P47, and even a little bit less with the F6F. At least the last two are manageable.

p1ngu666
01-11-2006, 07:59 AM
its like side area on some planes isnt calculated properly for some planes, when sliding into the air, the air would push the plane straight, depending on airspeed, side area etc. im not sure how big the effect is, but it is what they did to fix stability issues, that and adusting mechinical things..

Kwiatos
01-11-2006, 08:21 AM
P-51s dont know why have the bigest wobbilng problem. No metter of fuel load and speed. Aiming in these plane is horrible which cause that these plane is not useful as a fighter plane.

BigKahuna_GS
01-11-2006, 08:53 AM
S!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Kwiatos
Posted Wed January 11 2006 07:21
P-51s dont know why have the bigest wobbilng problem. No metter of fuel load and speed. Aiming in these plane is horrible which cause that these plane is not useful as a fighter plane </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Agree
All of these planes were known for being stable gun platforms; P51, F4U, F6F, P47. The more yaw swing and nose bob the less bullets on target. Might as well leave the plane in the hanger. Even the docile flying Spit has got some twang in it's get along in this sim that it didnt have in real life.

Just make these planes fly stable and give them what they were known for --terrific gun platforms.


__

GR142_Astro
01-11-2006, 10:43 AM
Agreed 100% Kahuna. On a rare occasion yesterday, I jumped into a 109G2 to even up sides and was blown away by how rock-solid the nose is. Makes gunnery almost an automatic.

109 is lighter than P51/F4U, yet more stable?

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

http://sport.ard.de/sp/radsport/news200507/01/img/duell7_dpa_400.jpg

ElAurens
01-11-2006, 10:56 AM
It is my understanding that the current global FM is a beta for BoB. Is this not true?

Betas have flaws.

GR142_Astro
01-13-2006, 10:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:


Betas have flaws. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, and betas are the opportunity for fixes.

ElAurens
01-13-2006, 10:44 AM
Indeed.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Grey_Mouser67
01-13-2006, 03:26 PM
Yes...I don't think it was Olegs intention to nerf a bunch of planes in the process of adopting the new FM...now there is a bunch of work ahead of him....

I'd add one more plane type to the list of unstables and that being a Spitfire while firing its guns...it yaws terribly. If the Fw and some of the other wing cannoned varieties yawed too, I would not say anything...but no reason for one plane out of the group to be affected so....

As far as the oscillations go, I think the F4U is the worse, followed by Jug, Mustang, Hellcat in that order...fat planes seem to be the ones suffering most but the Jug is the fattest and teh Corsair seems to me to be a bit worse.

VW-IceFire
01-13-2006, 06:24 PM
Thing I've noticed with the Mustang...flying perfectly straight and level at speeds under 500kph and roll (no other control input) to the left or right and notice as the nose moves around alot. By several degrees even...just by rolling the plane say 45 degrees. Or even half that...

II_JG1Schpam
01-13-2006, 07:27 PM
Icefire,

That phenomenom is normal. It's called adverse yaw. The down wing is having it's AoA increased by the roll, causing the lift to increase, causing an increase in drag on that wing while the other wing is having its AoA decreased leading to a decrease in drag. The plane will yaw into the up wing. Maybe the "new" FM tried to model that better and overdid it.

VW-IceFire
01-13-2006, 07:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by II_JG1Schpam:
Icefire,

That phenomenom is normal. It's called adverse yaw. The down wing is having it's AoA increased by the roll, causing the lift to increase, causing an increase in drag on that wing while the other wing is having its AoA decreased leading to a decrease in drag. The plane will yaw into the up wing. Maybe the "new" FM tried to model that better and overdid it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Right right...I know something of adverse yaw (didn't know to call it that so obviously not a huge amount http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif) but I'm questioning the severity of it...particularly when some planes have it and others only slightly (probably more realistic in my guess).

WWMaxGunz
01-13-2006, 07:50 PM
I know that from a ways back that Oleg posted about fuel level being for all tanks.
You have a P-51 at 50%, the rear tank is 50% full while wings are 50% full too which
means the wings lose weight at the same rate the rear fuse does, the effect is more
as the average weight is distributed farther rear of the CoG due to the position of
the rear tank.

The "all tanks same level" is an integral part of the sim engine until next level.
BoB, I guess.

What I'd love to see would be a 2nd set of P-51's that as modelled the rear tank is
empty. How hard could that be? I think it might be as simple as changing a value
in a copy of a 3D model. How hard though I can't guess, it depends on the code.
A low-fuel set that would do for every circumstance of combat at long range
after the rear tank and droptank were empty and/or gone (hey the droptank may not be
empty if you drop it because of combat) or just close to home field.

ElAurens
01-14-2006, 12:47 AM
All we need is a P51 A or B/C, before the inclusion of the aft fuselage tank.

As I recall, when the P51B and C were just rumors, Skychimp observed that a good solution would be to have the B without the tank and the C with it.

That would have given us some very good options.

Of course an A model or an A-36 Apache would also work, and be very cool besides.

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/images/a36apache-6.jpg

WWMaxGunz
01-14-2006, 04:25 AM
But, but, but, but....

heywooood
01-14-2006, 12:04 PM
Yeah - everyone needs to remember that we're beta testing for BoB as far as FMs go.

It would be nice to have access to fuel selector valves though.

Aux - Main - Wing tanks being the choices or in the 'difficulty' screen you have the option to let the sim handle it like it does now.

Too bad it wasn't programmed into the FMs from the start this way. Now it would be way too much work to go back and correct it.

II_JG1Schpam
01-14-2006, 02:49 PM
I decided to see what you are all talking about with the wobble. I went to WarClouds and played in the P-51D. I noticed no wobble when cruising about but i did see it when rolling back and forth. If I was say right wing down, rolled left, and stopped to hold a bank angle the nose wandered back and forth for a handful of oscillations.

I then took the Fw190D-9 off line and looked for the same behavior. It's there but no where near as much as the P-51D. I did notice that the P-51D has a lot of rudder trim change with speed/power changes. Maybe my trim technique is off to some of the more experienced Mustang players. That phenomenom may not be ahistorical but I don't know. Oh by the way that gyro sight on the -20 is nice.

Grey_Mouser67
01-14-2006, 07:07 PM
Believe me, the Fw and Bf 109 have the phenomenom too...I fly them all. The difference is in the severity of it and the dampening. The Luftwaffe aircraft above just settle in real quickly and i can make abrupt control inputs and the plane settles right in and the accuracy is superb...I love flying a fw...it is such a great gun platform.

When you fly the US fat planes, they keep on wobbling...it is excessive and undampened. In a good dogfight, I'll get the nose of a Corsair litterally circling the object I'm firing at. Most who read literature about Jug, Mustang, Hellcat and Corsair will read numerous words indicating what a stable gun platform they were and how well they controlled at speed etc...the Hellcat had the best slow speed handling properties with the Mustang having the best high speed handling...based on stuff I've read.

Pitch and yaw need to be toned down and dampened...not eliminated. Based on what I've read, the Mustang really aught to fly a heck of a lot like a Fw except faster, not as good of a roll rate but better in turn and not so easy to bleed energy....most aerodynamic plane. Not as good of guns either, but plenty destructive for one pass kills if the pilot connects.

It is connecting that is difficult. Still don't think this is a fuel tank modelling issue, but rather a plane modelling issue...or rather a class of planes with the new FM.

I believe the above planes to be the least dampened of all the aircraft and due to the increased inertia effects, they are suffering badly....gigo...garbage in = garbage out. The new FM just highlighted an aspect of the modelling that was not appropriate for the aircraft.

VW-IceFire
01-14-2006, 09:39 PM
I have to agree with Mouser. The difference is that some aircraft have a fair amount of dampening...the aircraft flies mostly the way you want it but you do see slight nose wandering just not alot.

With the Corsair or Mustang (or others) you can have the nose wobbling and bobbing back and forth in an osscillation just because you rolled to the right a few degrees. You can litterally wobble your aim around the target aircraft.

Another set of examples...the P-40M and the P-39D-1. I was flying both of these tonight. The P-40M has a nose wandering problem like the Mustang...but the P-39D-1, the one that you'd expect to be slightly more unstable, has a very nicely dampened feel to the nose movement.

My personal feeling is that the real WWII warbirds did not move like the P-40/51/F4U/etc but more like the P-39/FW190/A6M/etc. Not that all planes flew the same but some things you'd expect to be relatively similar and not wildly different in this regard. They didn't use to be...

BadA1m
01-14-2006, 10:19 PM
I've been flying the 51 lately, just to see what you guys are talkimg about. I have to agree that this doesn't seem right, it's almost like the thing is swinging about on a gimbal or something, not interacting with airflow. The strange thing is that going to 50% fuel makes little, if any, difference. I'm going to check out some of these other birds, you all have my curiosity piqued now. Did any one notice it seems to be the newer additions to the game that are effected the worse? Hmmmmmmmmm

NonWonderDog
01-15-2006, 12:57 AM
I was under the impression, I don't remember why, that fuel and ammo weights were applied directly at the center of mass of the aircraft. This, of course, would mean that changes in fuel and ammo levels would have no affect on the center of mass.

This seems to be the case with the p51; balance seems about the same at 100% fuel and 0% fuel. If this is the case, what fuel configuration does the P-51 center of gravity setting assume?


External stores definitely change the center of mass, though. The Yak-9B with a full bomb load is just as dangerously unstable as one would expect. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

WWMaxGunz
01-15-2006, 02:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
I was under the impression, I don't remember why, that fuel and ammo weights were applied directly at the center of mass of the aircraft. This, of course, would mean that changes in fuel and ammo levels would have no affect on the center of mass.

This seems to be the case with the p51; balance seems about the same at 100% fuel and 0% fuel. If this is the case, what fuel configuration does the P-51 center of gravity setting assume?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So the center is set regardless of fuel amount and it was determined as for rear tank full,
possible drop tank as well? That would explain a lot.

And if it's a set in concrete part of the model then all the more reason to have models
with empty rear tanks and centers to match. The rear tank was emptied first for reason.

Artificial handicaps of the models and choices made of how to use them by the makers that
can be gotten around simply and easily... it does make wonder as to why and it does affect
sales in places.

GR142_Astro
01-15-2006, 04:33 AM
Bud Anderson, on the subject:

"The fuselage fuel tank mounted behind the pilot was always a problem, and you had to take it into consideration on any combat mission. The full tank gave the Mustang an aft center of gravity, and it was actually unstable. Flying instruments with the tank full required careful attention, and with any heavy maneuvering, you could get a stick force reversal. Imagine pushing forward on the stick to control your turn with a 109 across the circle from you! It happened to me.

We had to manage our fuel according to the mission. On a long mission for which you needed all of your fuel, you started on an internal wing tank and then switched to the external tanks as soon as possible after takeoff. Once you dropped your empty external tanks, you switched to the fuselage tank. The Mustang flew like a dream after you had burned half of the fuel from this tank. You were taking a chance that you would not have to engage in combat until you were ready. On a shorter mission, you could consider using the fuel from the fuselage tank after takeoff. Once you were down to half, you went to the external tanks. That way, when you dropped your wing tanks, you were ready to fight."

Hmmm. turning circles with 109s...........hmmmm. Soooooo, the P51 would actually turn so tightly that it could even swap ends with a full fuse tank.

WWMaxGunz
01-15-2006, 10:21 AM
With Bud Anderson at the stick and an unknown LW pilot in the 109 which means....

p1ngu666
01-15-2006, 11:23 AM
max, i dont think the fuel is shared equaly between the tanks, think its a % ie take 50% and each tank is at 50% capacity, but im not sure..

fuel is then taken from each tank at the same rate..

ive certainly noticed some emputy tanks on p38/b25 while rtbing, others still have fuel.

the rear tank, i think that is the last to emputy.

i dont think thats the reason tho, as our spits are similerly unstable, and they dont have the rear tanks..
VIII should, IX maybe, but the V series just have the tanks behind the engine..

Aviar
01-15-2006, 03:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
Believe me, the Fw and Bf 109 have the phenomenom too...I fly them all. The difference is in the severity of it and the dampening. The Luftwaffe aircraft above just settle in real quickly and i can make abrupt control inputs and the plane settles right in and the accuracy is superb...I love flying a fw...it is such a great gun platform.

When you fly the US fat planes, they keep on wobbling...it is excessive and undampened. In a good dogfight, I'll get the nose of a Corsair litterally circling the object I'm firing at. Most who read literature about Jug, Mustang, Hellcat and Corsair will read numerous words indicating what a stable gun platform they were and how well they controlled at speed etc...the Hellcat had the best slow speed handling properties with the Mustang having the best high speed handling...based on stuff I've read.

Pitch and yaw need to be toned down and dampened...not eliminated. Based on what I've read, the Mustang really aught to fly a heck of a lot like a Fw except faster, not as good of a roll rate but better in turn and not so easy to bleed energy....most aerodynamic plane. Not as good of guns either, but plenty destructive for one pass kills if the pilot connects.

It is connecting that is difficult. Still don't think this is a fuel tank modelling issue, but rather a plane modelling issue...or rather a class of planes with the new FM.

I believe the above planes to be the least dampened of all the aircraft and due to the increased inertia effects, they are suffering badly....gigo...garbage in = garbage out. The new FM just highlighted an aspect of the modelling that was not appropriate for the aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right on the money. The P-51 is bad. The P-47 is worse and the F4U is so bad it's almost funny.

Sorry, but the FM still needs a lot of work in some areas.

Aviar

italianofalco
01-15-2006, 04:55 PM
it's from 4.01 that FM of all planes especially when firing -but not only- is PORKED- this is the realty. and I think thay it's time that Mr.Oleg turn back to previous FM 3.03, 3.04 even 3.00 I personally I'm tired to be obliged when on-line to fly -funky- with this crappy 4.02 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif -Falco

II_JG1Schpam
01-15-2006, 05:14 PM
I liked the 4.01 FM. It's the only one in which endless turning was the path to doom, energy-conscious fighting ruled the day.

Grey_Mouser67
01-15-2006, 06:18 PM
If Oleg offered the old FM and the new FM to all with the same objects and the same aircraft...I'd bet a significant number of people, me included, would go back to the old model. I'll bet people who fly offline alot would go there and folks that like to fly Fat planes too.

And its not because the old FM is "better". I think the new FM has the potential to be really cool, but when a significant portion of the aircraft handle like the GeeBee racer then who wants to fly it....I assure you that 4.02 is no more realistic than 1.0 at this stage of the game for many aircraft...a huge step backwards.

If only I could go back in time and keep all the goodies...I wouldn't be saying this but it seems Oleg is unwilling to take us into the future with this game by tuning and fixing the wrongs that are plainly visible....so give me back the old FM and if BoB is going to be like this, keep it.

Brain32
01-15-2006, 06:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> If only I could go back in time and keep all the goodies...I wouldn't be saying this but it seems Oleg is unwilling to take us into the future with this game by tuning and fixing the wrongs that are plainly visible.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And what was the cause of such conclusion, 4.02 is not the last patch so why did you conclude Oleg & Co wan't fix missing/wrong parts?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> so give me back the old FM and if BoB is going to be like this, keep it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Problems flying? Wan't an air start? We should have a sticky in ORR called: "Blaim Oleg(for my bad flying)"

Grey_Mouser67
01-15-2006, 07:07 PM
I think you need a new name...it doesn't fit.

My flying skills are what they are...I'll not comment on them as they have nothing to do with the comments.

I draw my conclusions based on many patches and some of the tooth and nail arguments that have already happened to be where we are. I am expecting a lack of support at any moment (Oleg has stated that not me)...maybe have already happened except for third party folks and I also base my conclusion on people leaving the online community...its already happening. An aweful lot of people from this community have moved to other games like BF2....

Anyways, I am stating my opinion and I even took the time to explain why...how about that!

Brain32
01-15-2006, 07:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> My flying skills are what they are...I'll not comment on them as they have nothing to do with the comments. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agree 100%
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I draw my conclusions based on many patches and some of the tooth and nail arguments that have already happened to be where we are. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The fact is 4.xx patches introduced many things that we did not had before, and they all exist in RL(appart from apparently the wobble which btw did not afect me and many others nearly as much as some people). Essentially we have to ask ourself what do we want; a bit more advanced game(3,xx) or a simulation(4,xx(Did I said: "Apart from wobble already http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif?"))?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I am expecting a lack of support at any moment... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Don't know about you, but I'm waiting for a patch currently...

WWMaxGunz
01-15-2006, 10:23 PM
Some people should try relaxing the realism a bit, cut the gyro effect or whatever and
see if they can live with that. Oh wait, THAT wouldn't go well with Mr. Ego would it?
EDIT: Sarcasm Mode ON
Better to have a simpler FM at FR settings than a harder one at RR that you can learn
to handle later, or not.
EDIT: Sarcasm Mode OFF
And it's not because I think that 4.x is just right but it's
because it's a definite turn in the right direction and should not be dropped when there
are simple solutions to some people's problems. If enough people feel like doing it then
there will be servers with those settings because who runs the servers anyway?

Turn CEM off, the FM is enough different that it's no good for player testing according
to what I was answered on just that topic. I dunno just what the differences are but
instead of crying for 3.02, why not at least try adjusting your game to suit yourself?

Tator_Totts
01-15-2006, 10:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
I think you need a new name...it doesn't fit.

My flying skills are what they are...I'll not comment on them as they have nothing to do with the comments.

I draw my conclusions based on many patches and some of the tooth and nail arguments that have already happened to be where we are. I am expecting a lack of support at any moment (Oleg has stated that not me)...maybe have already happened except for third party folks and I also base my conclusion on people leaving the online community...its already happening. An aweful lot of people from this community have moved to other games like BF2....

Anyways, I am stating my opinion and I even took the time to explain why...how about that! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am one of those who left and some other squad mates too.

jds1978
01-16-2006, 09:39 AM
i would be very surprised if we don't get a more stable P51 in the next patch. I don't think the Spit FM is as bad as the Mustang is currently.

overall i prefer 4.02 FM

Remeber: At this point we are all BoB Beta testers. Things change. Plus 1c has been known to listen to reasonable community requests in the past....i'm confident this will be fixed.

neural_dream
01-16-2006, 01:01 PM
Tired http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif.
Why aren't you just a little more patient and wait for the next patch? You have 100 planes and make a fuss for the last 4 months because the FM of some looks to be inaccurate http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif. Have you flown the P51 in another simulator and it was much better? Imagine the P51 in BoBWoV. No better don't imagine that. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif.

p1ngu666
01-16-2006, 05:02 PM
well, wobble badly effects most planes

the 109, 190 arent greatily effected, nor some japanease aircraft, some yaks are ok, so are alarming. la is okish i think

WWMaxGunz
01-16-2006, 07:54 PM
Is any of this head wobble?

Is any of this tied to how fast you change direction while trying to correct aim?
IRL when I did fly, you make an adjustment and then wait for the plane to finish
and settle. Would flying the gunsight be a smart idea? Maybe a bit better than
flying the needle (of a guage like VSI or IAS) as the needles tend to lag a bit
but if the movement of the plane lags than constant correction while forces are
still in motion and with a very responsive model is probably a bad idea anyway.
Adding FILTER to your axis may help. IMO, Oleg did overamp the P-51 elevator in
response to a lot of emails. Did the fanboys do that for all US planes? I'd
like to say thanks if they did, thanks for screwing things up!

Grey_Mouser67
01-16-2006, 08:06 PM
I never got the impression that Oleg changed the elevator due to e-mail responses...there was a point in the game that the Mustang was out turning 109's...or so lots of people claimed and its turning ability was reduced in the next patch...either that one or the series after it turned it into what it currently is today... and the new FM seems to exagerate some things.

It has an elevator on steroids...it shouldn't. All planes in this game should get less effective after a certain point, only the Mustang gets less, less effective. The things that really drive me nuts are the loss of wing..I attribute that to the elevator, the bobble...this is really bad at high altitude where the plane is supposed to rule. I don't think we hear about that much because so little online fighting happens up there....and the weird flip stall...plane flips on its back instantly...probably elevator authority again with an overzealous stall modelling job. Very common for me to be B&Z an opponent and try to manuever out of the way at the last second only to flip on my back at what seems to be very low AOA...don't know how to measure it...but I know in a Fw I can pull that manuever all day...it will flip on its back at slow speed, but not at high speed....the Jug can and will do the same thing too.

Fix those three things, dampen the controls and the Mustang will be ready to rock and roll again...it doesn't need to out turn a Zeke, it just needs to hold together, fly straight and handle well under combat conditions....all will be well with Mustang pilots then!

WWMaxGunz
01-16-2006, 08:21 PM
Throw in a bunch of filter and reduce the sensitivities when flying the P-51 and if that
fixes it then you'll know. Fool Trottle has a good stick utility that can save your
settings and allow quick switches pre-game.

Sorry, it's the best I can do! For years now though I can tell serious and experienced
players as the ones who will try and adjust around any problems from system to controls.
The root desire is a good gaming experience at least for many of us. You too, huh?

VW-IceFire
01-16-2006, 08:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Throw in a bunch of filter and reduce the sensitivities when flying the P-51 and if that
fixes it then you'll know. Fool Trottle has a good stick utility that can save your
settings and allow quick switches pre-game.

Sorry, it's the best I can do! For years now though I can tell serious and experienced
players as the ones who will try and adjust around any problems from system to controls.
The root desire is a good gaming experience at least for many of us. You too, huh? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I've adjusted the bejeezus out of my control sensitivities but the handling issue remains. For instance, if you roll the Mustang the nose wobbles about on its own without control input. Corsair, Hellcat, Jug, and others too.

I'm fairly certain that you can have the same problem with your sensitivity low, high, and using a keyboard.

Tator_Totts
01-16-2006, 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 WWMaxGunz:
Throw in a bunch of filter and reduce the sensitivities when flying the P-51 and if that
fixes it then you'll know. Fool Trottle has a good stick utility that can save your
settings and allow quick switches pre-game.

Sorry, it's the best I can do! For years now though I can tell serious and experienced
players as the ones who will try and adjust around any problems from system to controls.
The root desire is a good gaming experience at least for many of us. You too, huh? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fly the P-51 then the 109 with the same stick settings and you will see a huge difference in the handling between the two. This is not a stick setting issue. There should be a difference between the two just not the big gap that there is. I see other people in this post and other post came to this conclusion too.

Tator_Totts
01-16-2006, 09:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
I never got the impression that Oleg changed the elevator due to e-mail responses...there was a point in the game that the Mustang was out turning 109's...or so lots of people claimed and its turning ability was reduced in the next patch...either that one or the series after it turned it into what it currently is today... and the new FM seems to exagerate some things.

It has an elevator on steroids...it shouldn't. All planes in this game should get less effective after a certain point, only the Mustang gets less, less effective. The things that really drive me nuts are the loss of wing..I attribute that to the elevator, the bobble...this is really bad at high altitude where the plane is supposed to rule. I don't think we hear about that much because so little online fighting happens up there....and the weird flip stall...plane flips on its back instantly...probably elevator authority again with an overzealous stall modelling job. Very common for me to be B&Z an opponent and try to manuever out of the way at the last second only to flip on my back at what seems to be very low AOA...don't know how to measure it...but I know in a Fw I can pull that manuever all day...it will flip on its back at slow speed, but not at high speed....the Jug can and will do the same thing too.

Fix those three things, dampen the controls and the Mustang will be ready to rock and roll again...it doesn't need to out turn a Zeke, it just needs to hold together, fly straight and handle well under combat conditions....all will be well with Mustang pilots then! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

luftluuver
01-17-2006, 04:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
....and the weird flip stall...plane flips on its back instantly...probably elevator authority again with an overzealous stall modelling job. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

From the P-51 thread in GD

The airplane is very maneuverable and response to the controls in aerobatics is excellent. It has a fairly short radius of turn, and there is no tendency to tighten up in steep turns. However, <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">if the turn is pulled in too violently, the airplane will stall abruptly with little warning.</span> Abrupt use of the controls at slow speeds will cause the airplane to stall preceded by sharp elevator buffeting, but there is no tendency to spin. It has an exceptionally fast rate of roll with excellent lateral control at all speeds.

WOLFMondo
01-17-2006, 04:34 AM
Has anyone actually tried to get all the original North American design data, notes, wind tunnel data, test data etc?

I bet all these issues could be solved with this information. Designers do not build planes without fully working out how well it flies. YOu can't go to a government with a new aircraft and not have absolutly everything worked out to the finest degree.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aviar:
Right on the money. The P-51 is bad. The P-47 is worse and the F4U is so bad it's almost funny.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd disagree about the P47. This can be tamed by adjusting your controller. The P51 and Corsair are the worst of the wobblers but I do not experiance this in a P47D or FW190's, both which I have individual control setups for.

The BF109 doesn't wobble for me either. For others aparently it does.

Brain32
01-17-2006, 05:07 AM
You have to be a freakin' maniac to rip off it's wings,and even if Oleg would go with overriding rules of fizics on P51's wings, you would black out instantly and got your wings ripped anyway(mg151/20http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif).

Bearcat99
01-17-2006, 06:06 AM
I think the P-51 accelerates a little too slow..... the wing thing is no where near as bad as it used to be.... it would be nice if there were some warning though... from all accounts I have read pilots would hear the rivets popping.. or feel them... if they over stresses the plane.... they all said that it was a distinctive sound that you could even hear over the engine.... I find that If I am lighter on the stick the plane is a little more stable as well.... I hope fuel depletion is modelled better in BoB.

WWMaxGunz
01-17-2006, 11:29 AM
Wouldn't it depend on how fast you overstressed the plane BC? Same as blacking out.
It's very easy to cross the line at high speed with P-51.

I do have a hard time putting metal on target with the P-51's. It's very hard to tell
where the bullets are going and the shots go out in waves that screw the odds of hits
in deflection. When they hit, maybe half hit and I've gotten one pass kills... just
rarely.

There's possibly a system level element involved since I haven't felt nearly as bad
about the nose wandering as others and don't see such a big problem in the amount.

All slats-equipped planes I tried are very good flying and maneuver stability in this
sim. Not just 109's. I wonder if Maddox Games is still working on small FM changes
or tweaks? If so then it's not fair or polite to pass judgements, try working on
something tricky with someone right behind you pestering you the whole time. You know
there's a problem or you wouldn't be working on it. But you also have your head and
hands into the thing which is more than your back seat driver does.

GR142_Astro
01-17-2006, 11:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
I never got the impression that Oleg changed the elevator due to e-mail responses...there was a point in the game that the Mustang was out turning 109's...or so lots of people claimed and its turning ability was reduced in the next patch...either that one or the series after it turned it into what it currently is today... and the new FM seems to exagerate some things.

It has an elevator on steroids...it shouldn't. All planes in this game should get less effective after a certain point, only the Mustang gets less, less effective. The things that really drive me nuts are the loss of wing..I attribute that to the elevator, the bobble...this is really bad at high altitude where the plane is supposed to rule. I don't think we hear about that much because so little online fighting happens up there....and the weird flip stall...plane flips on its back instantly...probably elevator authority again with an overzealous stall modelling job. Very common for me to be B&Z an opponent and try to manuever out of the way at the last second only to flip on my back at what seems to be very low AOA...don't know how to measure it...but I know in a Fw I can pull that manuever all day...it will flip on its back at slow speed, but not at high speed....the Jug can and will do the same thing too.

Fix those three things, dampen the controls and the Mustang will be ready to rock and roll again...it doesn't need to out turn a Zeke, it just needs to hold together, fly straight and handle well under combat conditions....all will be well with Mustang pilots then! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

I think that's a bingo. I also agree with Bearcat about acceleration. Back when the Mustang was supposedly out-turning 109s and the shrieks and cries rang out, it was simply a matter of a number of really good pilots getting proficient with the Mustang and whipping a few LW tails....and they didn't like it.

If you set things up right, maintained good speed and dropped combat flaps at the right moment you could pull lead on a 109 down in the weeds. After about 4-5 turns you could feel the 109 starting to gain an advantage. Seems to match up with the history books quite well.

Grey_Mouser67
01-17-2006, 11:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
....and the weird flip stall...plane flips on its back instantly...probably elevator authority again with an overzealous stall modelling job. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

From the P-51 thread in GD

The airplane is very maneuverable and response to the controls in aerobatics is excellent. It has a fairly short radius of turn, and there is no tendency to tighten up in steep turns. However, <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">if the turn is pulled in too violently, the airplane will stall abruptly with little warning.</span> Abrupt use of the controls at slow speeds will cause the airplane to stall preceded by sharp elevator buffeting, but there is no tendency to spin. It has an exceptionally fast rate of roll with excellent lateral control at all speeds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly! The Mustang did have an abrupt stall...1) it is a primarily low speed issue 2) abrupt use of controls is required....now think from a relative standpoint(relative to other aircraft in sim)...due to elevator modelling, an abrupt use of control in a Fw is not the same as an abrupt use of elevator in a Mustang...if you define "abrupt use" as a control movement that creates a stall...especially an accelarated, high speed stall.

You can tone the wing issue down with control inputs, or Oleg can just address the issue. The wobble and instability can not be programmed out...I've done it and I know it can be effective.

The Mustang and a few others aught to have abrupt stalls...it is the flipping on the back and the high speed accelarated stalls I take issue with....the Mustang, Jug, Lightning should be able to "mush" their aircraft due to high wingloading causing a form of an accelarated stall (the lightning could do it without torque penalty, hence the Cloverleaf manuver)...the Fw can do it now and has always been able to do it...that is how they get their snap shots (I kill lots of guys with a Fw doing this, head on passes are murder and this allows fw pilots to kill well dispite the obstructed view)...but they will only stall and flip over if they are going slow and there is lots of warning...again, the Mustang and Fw really aught to handle very similar except for the rate of roll going to the Fw, the speed and E retention/dive to the Mustang, firepower to the fw, visibility and turning circle to the Mustang.

Grey_Mouser67
01-17-2006, 11:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Has anyone actually tried to get all the original North American design data, notes, wind tunnel data, test data etc?

I bet all these issues could be solved with this information. Designers do not build planes without fully working out how well it flies. YOu can't go to a government with a new aircraft and not have absolutly everything worked out to the finest degree.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aviar:
Right on the money. The P-51 is bad. The P-47 is worse and the F4U is so bad it's almost funny.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd disagree about the P47. This can be tamed by adjusting your controller. The P51 and Corsair are the worst of the wobblers but I do not experiance this in a P47D or FW190's, both which I have individual control setups for.

The BF109 doesn't wobble for me either. For others aparently it does. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't have it quantified...but I'd say the P-47D is more stable than the -10, -22 and -27. It just doesn't swing and yaw with control inputs for me as much which seems odd, but again I don't have a way of quantifying.

fordfan25
01-17-2006, 12:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by robban75:
There are other planes that wobble just as badly as the Mustang. At least on my computer. It doesn't appear to be a fuel issue. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i agree. the p-47,corsair and hellcat is much worse.

II_JG1Schpam
01-17-2006, 01:14 PM
I found the P-51D to be much worse than the Corsair or Hellcat. In fact I was able to keep the Hellcat pretty steady by keeping the ball centered. As long as I was proactive with the rudder the wobble was minimal.

But I couldn't repeat it with the Mustang. In fact I noticed that in right turns I had to put in a lot or right rudder to start then once the bank was established I had to put in left rudder to keep the ball centered even though I was in a moderate right turn. Seems a bit odd to me.

Kwiatos
01-17-2006, 02:58 PM
Make short test:

- flying straight -&gt; maximum stick forward for a while (like in dive) -&gt; stick neutral -&gt; watch what is going with plane nose


P-51 -&gt; springing nose like the hell

II_JG1Schpam
01-18-2006, 11:07 AM
I tried that Kwiatos and I didn't get any nose springing like hell. In fact in two dives in a P-51D-5 from 5000m to 3000m I didn't see it. I see it when I'm rolling like in a scissors but not as you desribe. But then again I used nose down trim, too.

WWMaxGunz
01-19-2006, 02:59 AM
I find that as a plane gets slow and out of trim it gets harder to control since day 1,
but just how it reacts and what the speed is has changed version to version with the
major modelling and FM steps.

So when you have a fast heavy plane, the meaning of slow is higher than for a slower plane.
And trim in a zoom, your speed changes faster than you can accurately tap it in... unless
you have a dial. I finally got one and it's sensitive to the point where it taps my time
and attention trying to get it right. That's alright. I'm trying to get to where I know
just how far I turned the wheel. ;^) And then the plane reacts and then I touch the trim...

Trying to keep the sights on target if I slow down for trigger time... and then the plane
wobbles. I try and learn those speeds. Them's to be avoided!

Grey_Mouser67
01-19-2006, 05:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I find that as a plane gets slow and out of trim it gets harder to control since day 1,
but just how it reacts and what the speed is has changed version to version with the
major modelling and FM steps.

So when you have a fast heavy plane, the meaning of slow is higher than for a slower plane.
And trim in a zoom, your speed changes faster than you can accurately tap it in... unless
you have a dial. I finally got one and it's sensitive to the point where it taps my time
and attention trying to get it right. That's alright. I'm trying to get to where I know
just how far I turned the wheel. ;^) And then the plane reacts and then I touch the trim...

Trying to keep the sights on target if I slow down for trigger time... and then the plane
wobbles. I try and learn those speeds. Them's to be avoided! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I agree...the wobble gets worse with loss of speed...particularly IAS which is probably correct...if you fly high enough, often enough you will find that the Mustang, Jug and Corsair are particularly unstable at high altitudes when fighting begins....when IAS is real low.

Not that I've ever flown a fighter aircraft at that altitude, but it is hard for me to imagine a plane getting the reputation that the Jug and Mustang did for altitude performance etc...with handling so diminished by altitude! I rarely fly offline above 8000 meters any more and often keep it below 6000 meters just because the planes are horrid relative to the AI