PDA

View Full Version : Are the Dora and TA152 modelled incorrectly at High altitudes?



Fish6891
11-24-2004, 01:57 AM
I, as well as others, find that the Dora starts to become quite handicapped at altitudes above 6km. I know that all fighters will suffer up there but the Dora suffers extensively, seemingly more than it should, I do beleive that it was designed for high alt fighting...0-6km, hmm, high altitude indeed. It may be a high altitude fighter whos ceiling was 12km without boost, but it sure doesn't perform like one. Same goes for the Ta-152H, especially with its crazy overheat.

I bring this up after flying on Warclouds earlier, when most allied pilots were lurking at 8km or above where they knew axis couldn't compete, and the limit of the high altitude performance of this simulator's luftwaffe aircraft became obvious.

We all noticed something fishy going on with the flight models at high alt, and when most of us decided to resort to the mighty Ta-152H (I tried taking my Dora up there) to counter those high alt Mustangs and Spits, we were dumbfounded by our aircrafts ineffectiveness up there.

Now if there's one negative thing I've noticed in my short time on these forums, its the ridiculous tendancy that people have to paste a label on people who point out anything they think seems wrong with luftwaffe aircraft(luftwhiner).

Well, call me a whiner all you want, but are you going to call anyone else who's ever mentioned this a whiner as well? Are you going to call everyone else who was on that server a whiner as well?(I wont name them, they can say something if they see this and decide to)

I don't want to start a 'flaming war' here, I have nothing against allied pilots and their aircraft, this is not an attempt to make an aircraft better than it should be, I'd rather have an aircraft accurately modelled than have it overmodelled. These two aircraft in particular just seem to be misrepresented at high altitudes.

By the way, I think the simulator is great, the best out there, this is just something I think should be addressed, I don't want anyone to think I'm a bitter Fish http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif.

Well thats all I have to say,

Regards,
Fish

P.S. (Btw Oleg, give us a D13 and/or 152C would ya?! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)

This Mortal Coil
11-24-2004, 03:04 AM
Hmm, I had no problem dominating P-51s and P-47s above 9000m in a Ta-152 on Warclouds the other day. I could out-turn and out-climb them, but you gotta remember the air is thin up there, you have to be smooth on the stick.

Energy fighting using lazy climbing turns and I ended up behind and above them everytime. Just remember you need at least a Co-E situation before you engage.

It's pretty fun also to BnZ the P-47s flying at 9000m, when you're at 11000m in the Ta-152. Hehe http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Zen--
11-24-2004, 09:32 AM
Interesting topic Fish, let me throw my subjective opinion in.



Consider that the game's origin was based on an eastern front low level ground attack plane and that most air battles in that theatre rarely went above 5k. At that time high altitude fighting was non existant in the game for many reasons but as each patch came out and each new version of the game the altitude model has appeared to get progressively better. There was a huge debate about this something like a year and half ago and IIRC thats about the time high altitude fighting started to become more prevalent overall, I think because global changes began to make it more feasable.

The current altitude model stops at 10k so anything above that is considered to be as though it were still 10k. As far as I can tell, there is no difference in overheat based on altitude, though in real life it is my understanding that planes flying up high had to sometimes close their radiators to keep the engine warm, rather than keep them wide open like we do in the sim. There are differences like that in the sim that contribute overall to the higher altitude fights being not as accurate as perhaps they might be, but again considering the origin of the sim it's doing pretty well now I think. Keep this in mind Fish, because the very architecture of the sim has historically been oriented around TnB at low altitude and only over years of refinement have we seen things shift to what we have now. It has improved since IL2 original, but it's still not perfect.


I personally don't think the Dora flies as well as it probably should past 6k but the difference is not extreme. It's close to what it probably should be, just a bit on the sluggish side. If it had a bit better handling, acceleration and E retention I think it would be right on. Frankly I think the Dora handles like the Anton supposedly did in real life and that we are missing the plane that was redesigned for high altitude fighting. (There was a reason they changed to the inline engine, and it wasn't low altitude performance) Then again, the D9 was an interim design pending Kurt Tanks new high altitude fighter, so maybe we do have what we are supposed to have. I don't think so, but thats just my opinion.

The Ta's performance up high is really nothing like I would expect based on it's design and historic anecdotes and is crippled by overheat during extended fights. It's definately gotten a heck of an improvement in 3.01, but my history tells me it's supposed to me the best extreme altitude fighter bar none. Does that mean it should dominate at 6k? Not sure, but imho it definately should fly better at 9-10k+. I find it strange that a P47 can not only be so competitive but hold the advantage in many ways over the Ta considering the Ta's design. If you ask me should the P47 be better than the Dora, I wouldn't argue against it, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to say the P47 was better up high, so I wouldn't rule it out. In fact because of anecdotal evidence on both sides, I am ok with the Dora being represented either way in game...better or worse than the P51 or P47 up high, the only question is by how much. For whatever it's worth, I think the planes were that close in performance and that it required alot of skill to fight that high period, so if Oleg wants to represent the P47 as being better than the Dora, I really won't argue that. It certainly doesn't contradict the history I've read, so I feel what we have now is pretty accurate overall.

In the case of the Ta152 though, it should probably stand alone because of it's design and thats where I think some of the flaws of the high altitude model come out. When you start introducing extreme aircraft designs the sim as a whole has some difficulty accomodating them to one degree or another. Some examples come to mind here: The P38 and the Ta152, both of which can be considered extreme designs and both seem to be missing abilities that they had in real life simply because of the architecture of the sim. Jets in general all seem to turn too well...based on their apparent wingloading it would seem they shouldn't, they should rather be excellent at BnZ for obvious reasons. However, take a look at the 262 which can be quite the handy turner under certain conditions, surprisingly so. Maybe they are correct, I don't discount that, but something in my gut doesn't sit well with things like this and the Ta is definately a plane that I don't think gets enough credit up high because of it's design and how the sim is constructed.

The Antons seem fine to me (I would expect them to handle poorly above 6k as they did in real life) and I have no opinion on the 109's overall, except that altitude seems to bother them less than it does the Dora. In many ways I think the 109 is too good compared to the 190 at higher altitudes though I don't think the 109 is necessarily overmodelled, it's more like the Dora is undermodelled in handling above 6k. Late 109's should have the climb advantage against the Dora and all other allied planes except perhaps certain models of the Spit IX and higher, but I doubt it should be able to turn as well as it does over 6k. Thats really part of the problem, turning at higher altitude still favors lower wingloaded aircraft which is why you see anomalies like you used to with La7's outflying D9's above 7k and the original freakish performance of the Ki84 and the Spit IX as they were both introduced to the game. Again, things have improved overall but to me SL turn rate doesn't drop off quite fast enough with altitude and by the time you hit 6-9k, things seem a bit off for some kinds of planes.

Likewise I don't think the P51 and P47 are overmodelled specifically, but imho the Dora is definately not competitive against them above 7k. You can succeed with it, but rarely at a co E state, and it requires phenonmenal concentration to achieve an advantage up high. Conversely when I fly the P47 or P51, it's really not difficult for me at all to get on top and stay on top of the Dora and by 8k in a P47 I don't worry about the Ta152 either. Naturally all this assumes a co E state, but frankly for me it's much easier to work out of an E deficit in a P47 or P51 than it is in the Dora...and I fly the Dora all time. Again I might be tempted to complain, but I've done enough reading that after all this time I still won't swear on who's supposed to have the advantage.


What all this means to me is that you just have to get up high first and accept that sometimes things won't go your way even when you fly right on the line. It's not like 190 pilots have never faced aircraft that held the advantage, at least now only a handful of planes hold it instead of everyone and their brother like the old days. Best of all, the sim now seems to reward those who fly higher instead of hiding in the weeds which to me is infinately more realistic than anything we've had before. It's unfortunate that the 190 is outclassed up high, but it's not necessarily unrealistic and it's not by an impossible margin either. The P47 and the P51 were the reason the Dora was created and they are historically well matched adversaries. The fact that we see so many of these battles now and that they are as reasonably matched as they are is totally a testimate to how the sim has evolved and is totally because Oleg does listen to what people say and cares about the game being realistic.

I think the D9 and the Ta152 need to be reworked, but if they never are what we have is close enough for me.

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
11-24-2004, 10:14 AM
good post Zen, i totaly agree.

problem is the "feel" of some planes up high.

gates123
11-24-2004, 10:46 AM
Two quick things to remember up high. Your true air speed is much higher then what your IAS speedbar is telling you. Also since the air is much thinner up there the use of your prop pitch is crucial in your acceleration and preformance.

dadada1
11-24-2004, 10:50 AM
Point taken about wing loading and the old game model, but surely if the P47 performs well at 8K, the Ta could be adjusted in a similar/better manner. I dont remember it flying that well at any altitude when it was first introduced let alone high altitude. It has obviously undergone a big tranformation since we first saw it in game, perhaps the amount of discussion on the P47 on these boards has influenced the games direction. Controversial, maybe but the AC we have seen the most improvements in have been those of the USAAF( and I m not suggesting they were right straight from the box). Perhaps if we saw the same level of pressure applied regarding both the D9 and Ta 152 we would also see significant change. Having said this as it stands my only real complaint with the Ta currrently is the ridiculous overheat, something Ta flyers have had to tolerate since it's introduction. Of course it should also outmanouver the P47 but I'm not expecting miracles, we can only be patient and hope that things will steadily improve with each future patch.

MOhz
11-24-2004, 11:37 AM
Fish, no kidding man, you have barely arrived on this forum and are already fishing like crazy! (Sorry if you do not understand what I am saying, aint important)

What I would like to know is what "IIRC" and "ROFL" stand for or mean.

WOLFMondo
11-24-2004, 11:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by This Mortal Coil:
Hmm, I had no problem dominating P-51s and P-47s above 9000m in a Ta-152 on Warclouds the other day. I could out-turn and out-climb them, but you gotta remember the air is thin up there, you have to be smooth on the stick.

Energy fighting using lazy climbing turns and I ended up behind and above them everytime. Just remember you need at least a Co-E situation before you engage.

It's pretty fun also to BnZ the P-47s flying at 9000m, when you're at 11000m in the Ta-152. Hehe http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very true. I was in warclouds the other day at 10k in a Jug with another Jug and a P51, there was a Ta152 running rings around us as we tried to catch him, we eventually got to a position where I could fire on him and he dived...and out dived my Jug. Im not the best Jug pilot but I can fly one and know its limits and where I can push it. Taking on a Ta152 is never easy and the Dora in the right hands is a total killing machine at that height.

Lots of LW planes are effective above 8K, Fish, you are gonna start a flame thing here because your claims are not true and totally anecdotal.

Skalgrim
11-24-2004, 11:44 AM
great altitude have 109 probable advantage over dora by turning, they have lower stall speed

"mark hanna" had say 109 is on of the most maneuver plane at low speed, and he means low ias,

great altitude has you most low ias, so long 109 has enough powerload could she too great altitude good maneuver

great altitude= low ias



one mistake is in il2/fb/pf,

that rollrate is real dependant ias, naca test are rollrate all base with ias

but not in game, there is rollrate model at tas

p51 had with 320km/h ias 70deg/sec rollrate,

190a/dora have almost 2,5 time better rollrate,

at great altidude with low ias, would it be a great advantage for the dora,

when she had doghfight against p51 or p47 and the rollrate would be dependant from ias and not like in game tas.



all plane with low rollrate at low ias like p51,p47,p38,p39 etc,

should especial at great altitude suffer with her rollrate

.

robban75
11-25-2004, 06:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MOhz:
What I would like to know is what "IIRC" and "ROFL" stand for or mean. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IIRC=If I Recall Correctly, and ROFL=Rolling On the Floor Laughing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

RocketDog
11-25-2004, 07:55 AM
Quick note:

Eric Brown in "Wings of the Luftwaffe" describes flying a Ta 152 and didn't rate it very highly in comparison to contemporary Spitfires. This surprised me quite a bit, but Brown had flown most Allied and Luftwaffe types and was in a good position to make informed comparisons.

I have the book at home and will dig out more details tonight, but from what I remember, the Ta was test flown in the UK without MW50, and on non-boosted power was good but not great. He thought that the aircraft would have needed to be running on MW50 to be competetive with Allied types. I don't want to start any flaming, but I wonder if the Ta's reputation as a super-fighter is a bit of a myth based on its strange appearence and the fact that it was never really used in action.

Regards,

RocketDog.

Skalgrim
11-25-2004, 08:13 AM
ta-15h has with 1750ps 20m/sec initialclimb

believe dora 17m/sec and that with less weigh,



what make ta-152h as the better climber,although more weigh


because her long wing make many more lift, powerload from the ta-152h is weaker as from the dora.

ta-152h had sure better liftloading and therefore too lower stallspeed as dora,

lower stall speed is important great altitude with low ias