PDA

View Full Version : A note to the 'my plane is undermodelled' crowd



Xiolablu3
04-18-2006, 12:10 PM
I posted this on another forum and thought I may as well post it here as it may stop a few of the daft posts we see.

One thing to remember is that everyone thinks their favourtite ride is undermodelled.

The 109 guys complain that the controls get stiff much too fast and that the Mk108 should rip every plane apart every time with 1 hit.
The FW190 guys complain that the plane is terrible at low speeds and the view is awful.
The Mustang guys say the 50 cal is undermodelled, the plane spins out much too easy, and is not the uber plane they thought it should be.
The Spit guys complain that if the Lufties have 109 at 1.98 ATA then they should have a Spit 14 to fight it as the MK9 is 1943 plane and so slow.
The La guys complain that their plane breaks apart whenever they try to go at anything near hi speed.

And so on. Ayone can find a WW2 quote by a pilot to support their argument that 'this plane should turn better' or 'X plane should be a better climber than Y plane'

You can never please everyone because everyones perceptions of a WW2 plane is different.

Do we listen to every pilot account from WW2 and trust it? If so then we have so many conflicting views its impossible to make the game. Its a no brainer that we shouldnt trust every pilot quote, they can however give us a general picture and be helpful if we filter out the obviously wrong ones. (but which are the wrong ones? again another big debate)

Making realistic flight models must be so unbeleivabley hard to be almost impossible, but 1C and Oleg try, using real world Physics data where he can, listening to experts on planes, riding in the real planes etc. But how do you know when an 'expert' is actually a 'fanboy' who boosts up his data and picks and chooses quotes to make 'his' plane' look better than it actually was? Very tough thing to do.

The sim will never be 100% spot on, but I think it gets better each patch and is 100x better effort than any other sim I have tried. Oleg must be very careful when listening to 'experts' and I am sure more than once he has discovered that actually the 'expert' is no more than a dishonest fanboy. Can you imagine the amount of **** and misinformation he has to filter through in his inbox? Brave man.


Just a few things to think about before you complain 'X plane is over/under modelled. Make sure you KNOW this for fact, or your post is useless.

Xiolablu3
04-18-2006, 12:10 PM
I posted this on another forum and thought I may as well post it here as it may stop a few of the daft posts we see.

One thing to remember is that everyone thinks their favourtite ride is undermodelled.

The 109 guys complain that the controls get stiff much too fast and that the Mk108 should rip every plane apart every time with 1 hit.
The FW190 guys complain that the plane is terrible at low speeds and the view is awful.
The Mustang guys say the 50 cal is undermodelled, the plane spins out much too easy, and is not the uber plane they thought it should be.
The Spit guys complain that if the Lufties have 109 at 1.98 ATA then they should have a Spit 14 to fight it as the MK9 is 1943 plane and so slow.
The La guys complain that their plane breaks apart whenever they try to go at anything near hi speed.

And so on. Ayone can find a WW2 quote by a pilot to support their argument that 'this plane should turn better' or 'X plane should be a better climber than Y plane'

You can never please everyone because everyones perceptions of a WW2 plane is different.

Do we listen to every pilot account from WW2 and trust it? If so then we have so many conflicting views its impossible to make the game. Its a no brainer that we shouldnt trust every pilot quote, they can however give us a general picture and be helpful if we filter out the obviously wrong ones. (but which are the wrong ones? again another big debate)

Making realistic flight models must be so unbeleivabley hard to be almost impossible, but 1C and Oleg try, using real world Physics data where he can, listening to experts on planes, riding in the real planes etc. But how do you know when an 'expert' is actually a 'fanboy' who boosts up his data and picks and chooses quotes to make 'his' plane' look better than it actually was? Very tough thing to do.

The sim will never be 100% spot on, but I think it gets better each patch and is 100x better effort than any other sim I have tried. Oleg must be very careful when listening to 'experts' and I am sure more than once he has discovered that actually the 'expert' is no more than a dishonest fanboy. Can you imagine the amount of **** and misinformation he has to filter through in his inbox? Brave man.


Just a few things to think about before you complain 'X plane is over/under modelled. Make sure you KNOW this for fact, or your post is useless.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
04-18-2006, 12:21 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

danjama
04-18-2006, 12:26 PM
yea.....

Irish_Rogues
04-18-2006, 12:31 PM
Nice effort and well said.

Nick_Toznost
04-18-2006, 12:34 PM
There was a thread a couple of weeks ago on here about a luftwaffe veteran who flew Me109s and FW190s during the war trying out this game. I recall that he said that the Me109 was "stiffer". Can't remember the rest..hang on...

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&f=23110283&m=9951084814

There you go.

Anyway, I'm here to say that I think this game is fine the way it is. Just remember how far sims have come since something like "wings" or whatever. The only flight modelling issue I think I have is with the TB-3, which is still full of helium. A Zvenowhiner.

faustnik
04-18-2006, 12:43 PM
Xiolablu3,

Judging by the responses in the "other forum" you might as well just beat your head against the wall. It would be more productive. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Great attempt though. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

stathem
04-18-2006, 12:51 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

IBTL

danjama
04-18-2006, 01:35 PM
No need for IBTL IMO

Chuck_Older
04-18-2006, 01:43 PM
Well sure, but that doesn't mean that every plane is correctly modelled

I can name one plane we have- the H81A-2- that I can argue is undermodelled, because of it's default skin, it's not the 'standard' H81A-2, it's the model that got hand-fit engines with higher output, and more reduction gear failure in the field

But do you see me whinig tnat Erik Shilling said X Y and Z and that the following AVG veterans all saw 370 mph after correction at altitude in level flight?

Nope. You can disagree with FM interpretation without childishness and temper tantrums. I've got all the evidence I need to convince me that the H-81A-2 we have is about 20% underpowered.

But I'm happy to just have the plane. I don't think you've ever seen a post from me that says "this or that plane is undermodelled, Oleg, fix it"

This doesn't mean that I beleive the FMs we have are infallible.

I'm not part of the "my plane is undermodelled crowd" but I do know that some planes are too good in some areas, while other planes aren't good enough in others. But that's the nature of flight sims

MLudner
04-18-2006, 01:55 PM
Mostly http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

But, then, you did not say it was perfect, either. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I think it's a well done game over all and agree how astounding how well it all works when you consider what must be going on to allow the computer to do what it is doing.

My main complaints are the P-47 (I admit, my favorite ETO USAAF fighter) and Tempest. The P-47 is off: Roll is too slow and dive too slow. Frankly, there wasn't an FW-190 ever built that could stay with a 47 in a dive, but it happens to me in game all the time (Though, a 190 is the one ETO aircraft that rolls faster). I don't think the P-47 was an uberplane, just a really good one with three really good strong points I can't exploit in game: Dive speed, roll rate, ruggedness (But, I don't think it's far off there). Back in my Jane's WWII Fighters days I had much trouble landing the P-47D. Then I researched the historical landing speed and found out it was 120 MPH and realized my problem was I was trying to land at too low of a speed. After that my problem was solved. Tried landing at that speed in this game and my landing gear went bouncing every which way.

The Tempest may yet be that I still have not figured it out yet. Still, I can't out-run much of anything at any altitude so far. My computer says prop pitch is auto and unadjustable.

ATLAS_DEATH
04-18-2006, 02:28 PM
I admit I am not that high in the ranks of WWII tech data on planes... but I find myself flying an mayn differen't AC from both sides. I try to concentrate on flying and shoot well rather than thinking the other guy has a better plane... I just try to adapt and know that not everyone has the same skills. It's a dog eat dog world that those that can push it to the limit come out on top. Use what you got and bring it on.

danjama
04-18-2006, 02:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ATLAS_DEATH:
I admit I am not that high in the ranks of WWII tech data on planes... but I find myself flying an mayn differen't AC from both sides. I try to concentrate on flying and shoot well rather than thinking the other guy has a better plane... I just try to adapt and know that not everyone has the same skills. It's a dog eat dog world that those that can push it to the limit come out on top. Use what you got and bring it on. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats a great way to play the game!

VW-IceFire
04-18-2006, 03:26 PM
Spot on Xiola...

But don't tell the masses...they get confused when their limited point of view gets a spotlight put on it. They just don't get it.

Aaron_GT
04-18-2006, 03:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Tempest may yet be that I still have not figured it out yet. Still, I can't out-run much of anything at any altitude so far. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


It's modelled with +9 boost performance whereas +11 was standard.

crazyivan1970
04-18-2006, 03:45 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Copperhead310th
04-18-2006, 04:43 PM
Well said. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif
I agree totally.

LStarosta
04-18-2006, 05:32 PM
FANBOI!


http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Megile_
04-18-2006, 05:33 PM
Hey staro, your avatar is dancing to my music

Tangled up in plaid - Queens of the stone age

LStarosta
04-18-2006, 05:33 PM
j/k

I agree. Il-2 is a heckload of fun to play, and its characteristics are a lot more credible than your average over-the-counter flight simulator's.

I, however, stand by my long standing opinion, therefore making it even longer standing, that the grass in Il-2 is overmodelled.

LStarosta
04-18-2006, 05:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile_:
Hey staro, your avatar is dancing to my music

Tangled up in plaid - Queens of the stone age </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sweet, I will have to illegaly pirate that song and get my leprechaun to join the dance party!

danjama
04-18-2006, 05:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
j/k

I agree. Il-2 is a heckload of fun to play, and its characteristics are a lot more credible than your average over-the-counter flight simulator's.

I, however, stand by my long standing opinion, therefore making it even longer standing, that the grass in Il-2 is overmodelled. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sooooo true!

darkhorizon11
04-18-2006, 05:47 PM
I started a thread about this awhile back...

reverendkrv1972
04-18-2006, 05:52 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

how refreshing! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

do leprachauns dance more than they sit on mushrooms smoking pipes?

VW-IceFire
04-18-2006, 05:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Tempest may yet be that I still have not figured it out yet. Still, I can't out-run much of anything at any altitude so far. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


It's modelled with +9 boost performance whereas +11 was standard. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Definately undermodeled http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

(No really...)

WWMaxGunz
04-18-2006, 06:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I posted this on another forum and thought I may as well post it here as it may stop a few of the daft posts we see.

One thing to remember is that everyone thinks their favourtite ride is undermodelled. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My Heartfelt Appreciation for this thread, Xiolablu3!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">they can however give us a general picture and be helpful if we filter out the obviously wrong ones. (but which are the wrong ones? again another big debate) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I take the mass of quotes then throw out the ones without full conditions or stated in
blanket terms that can be disproved and then every one that is contradicted by another quote
(they must all be equally true since the writers were there and must know) then there won't
be so great a number left and that general picture has enough holes and raggedy sections to
be near useless for the exactness a sim should require.

What most everyone does is apply personal bias if at least on the what they learned before
level which lets them keep every quote that supports their personal picture. Pushing for the
picture becomes a game unto itself that in cases does span many sims. You can find whole web
sites and forums dedicated to such visions.

That's why I appreciate Oleg's efforts to stick to solid and original data. Not perfect but
better than so much that has come down the pike.

BfHeFwMe
04-18-2006, 06:52 PM
No one sees the disparity or irony of the opening shot and following views? On the one hand you wish to throw out the pilots views, yet swarm around the data. Apparently your unaware those very pilots logged and charted that data.

If your going to throw out everything the pilots have to say, than toss their data also. While your at it dump their tactics and doctrine too, after all, what did they know? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Viper2005_
04-18-2006, 07:20 PM
The biggest problem facing any flightsim isn't the accuracy of the flight model, but the accuracy of the pilot model.

A stronger man would probably get a few more degrees per second of pitch rate out of the Bf-109, or of roll rate out of the Spitfire at high speed.

A man with better eyesight would probably have a longer "dot range".

Some people have a higher "g" tolerance than others.

It's quite interesting that we don't see "I'm undermodelled" threads

Having said that, the same applies to aeroplanes. It is a well documented fact that not all aeroplanes are created equal. I've flown aeroplanes of the same type which vary quite dramatically in performance. Hang around the flightline and you'll rapidly discover that nobody wants to fly Zulu-Sierra...

You can't just say "the P-xx flies at yy mph at zz feet". It doesn't work like that. Reality features error bars.

The way I look at it, if it disagrees with the book figures by a considerable margin then I'll report it, but until it's fixed I'll just assume that it's either meant to be "a good one" or "a bad one" as the case may be.

Jumoschwanz
04-18-2006, 07:51 PM
I motion that this thread should be stickied.

everyone in favor say "I".

EiZ0N
04-18-2006, 09:32 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 Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Tempest may yet be that I still have not figured it out yet. Still, I can't out-run much of anything at any altitude so far. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


It's modelled with +9 boost performance whereas +11 was standard. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Definately undermodeled http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

(No really...) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I read about Tempests a little before they were added to the game.

I do think it is under modelled. I only really thought about this until earlier today in fact, when I was teaching a friend (recently got him into the game and he thinks it's great too).

I was telling him about the Tempest, and how it's a great fast plane. Then it hit me that I'd really been struggling hard to out run much in the game.

It's either me being rubbish, me having interpreted what I'd read about the the tempest, or it is under modelled. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

This isn't a complaint as such, I'm just happy to have a Tempest, and fly the wings off it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I'm curious as to why it has +9 boost as opposed to +11? How much difference would those 2 make?

WWMaxGunz
04-18-2006, 09:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
No one sees the disparity or irony of the opening shot and following views? On the one hand you wish to throw out the pilots views, yet swarm around the data. Apparently your unaware those very pilots logged and charted that data.

If your going to throw out everything the pilots have to say, than toss their data also. While your at it dump their tactics and doctrine too, after all, what did they know? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really? How many WWII era test pilots wrote books on WWII combat?
I've read many quotes from fighter pilots who never made the test pilot cut.
One exception is Chuck Yeager and he wasn't a test pilot until afterwards.
Most fighter pilots then were fighting or teaching if they survived fighting.

AKA_TAGERT
04-18-2006, 09:53 PM
I have created a monster

Bearcat99
04-18-2006, 10:14 PM
Hey.. I may not agree with The Pony.. but it is still the best Pony in any WWII combat sim... so Im flyin it as it is.

PBNA-Boosher
04-18-2006, 11:15 PM
Oh yeah? Well my Okha bomb didn't kill me when I hit an escort carrier with it. That must mean I'm overmodeled.

jermin122
04-19-2006, 01:35 AM
You are right, Xiolablu3.

But, do you think why we bought and play this game? We, human beings play games to entertain ourselves, to relax ourselves, to make pleasures. If all a game gives us are indignant and unhappy feelings, e.g. continuously be shot down due to A/C performance gap, not skills problem and this situation won't be changed in a long period, some of us of course will lose faith of this game and leave eventually. One side play happily while the other side painfully, you can imagine their feelings--just like the "whinners" cried in the forum. From the number change of each side, one can easily tells which side is "really" porked. Recently the num of blue pilots descends rapidly. Some of them had changed to the red side, but more of them just left this game because of their faith of the German fighters.

BGs_Ricky
04-19-2006, 01:45 AM
Nice post Xiola http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Max.Power
04-19-2006, 02:25 AM
I agree on certain points.

I think that relying on your feeling on how an aircraft should be- and expecting it to handle as if it just flew out of your wildest dreams and landed in your microprocessor- is stupid. Making arguments without data (or, to a lesser degree, presenting selective data to prove something after the fact) is not productive. I've seen some fairly convincing posts, though. To my surprise, some of them even included a null hypothesis!

There are some things that have been strongly argued, even without data. In the case of the FW190's obstructed view, I rememeber a post of an account from someone who flew it in combat. Commenting on the windowpane bar, he said that the gunsight was unobstructed as the aircraft flew with a slightly nose down angle of attack, and the view was quite good.

I think that the use of flight recording technology, logical arguments and detailed accounts that don't rely on pilot 'feeling' are good ways to get closer to how things were. I think 1C values this. Going off on a tyrade on how your aircraft is porked because you fall into a flat spin when you crank the yoke around like you're scrambling eggs is totally uncalled for, though.

Aaron_GT
04-19-2006, 04:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm curious as to why it has +9 boost as opposed to +11? How much difference would those 2 make? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

About 20mph.

Given that we also have unhistorical rocket loadouts on the Tempest V (it was cleared for them, but they were never fitted in combat) I'd say that in many ways we have a late production Typhoon in terms of performance and load carrying.

Xiolablu3
04-19-2006, 11:50 AM
Thanks for your responses guys, I understand the sim is not perfect, I was just trying to get a few people to understand that their 'perception' of their favourite WW2 plane is not necesarily the correct one.

Flight models obviously need tweaking and especially the US planes need a bit of work, but its getting better.

I saw Tagert painstakingly working out hundreds of sums and calculations to give him general idea of turn times of certain planes, and realised what a tough job all that is. Even after he had done that he said they were not correct and there were lots of other factors that could affect turn.

Then you get people posting 'OMG teh P51 is soooo undermodelled, and the guns suck!, Oleg hates the USA!'.


Funny stuff http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Xiolablu3
04-19-2006, 11:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
No one sees the disparity or irony of the opening shot and following views? On the one hand you wish to throw out the pilots views, yet swarm around the data. Apparently your unaware those very pilots logged and charted that data.

If your going to throw out everything the pilots have to say, than toss their data also. While your at it dump their tactics and doctrine too, after all, what did they know? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It seems like you have intentionally misread my post. It wasnt a 'Perfect way to get the flight models right' It was a few things to think about when complaining about flight models and stuff.

I did NOT say pilot quotes were to be totally disregarded and DEFINITELY not test data.

Is English your first language?

Xiolablu3
04-19-2006, 12:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jermin122:
You are right, Xiolablu3.

But, do you think why we bought and play this game? We, human beings play games to entertain ourselves, to relax ourselves, to make pleasures. If all a game gives us are indignant and unhappy feelings, e.g. continuously be shot down due to A/C performance gap, not skills problem and this situation won't be changed in a long period, some of us of course will lose faith of this game and leave eventually. One side play happily while the other side painfully, you can imagine their feelings--just like the "whinners" cried in the forum. From the number change of each side, one can easily tells which side is "really" porked. Recently the num of blue pilots descends rapidly. Some of them had changed to the red side, but more of them just left this game because of their faith of the German fighters. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Good points mate, but I think you are just talking about Warclouds here.

In 1940-42 Blue reign supreme,
1942-43 - Almost equal
1944-45 - Red getting the upper hand unless Me262 is available.

If you play 1944-45 all the time then yes Red probably has the upper hand.

Anyone worried that Blue is at a disadvantage should try Winds Of War or Ukdedicated servers with maps from every year of the war. They are overpowering in early war, especially vs Russia.

Also from 1941-1943 a FW190A pilot is almost untouchable unless there is a La5FN on the map. A pair of FW190's is lethal vs any plane.

Airmail109
04-19-2006, 12:16 PM
Im overmoddelled...ahem

darkhorizon11
04-19-2006, 12:17 PM
Oleg has also made it clear in the past that although first hand accounts are interesting for perspective and such he doesn't base his FMs and DMs off it so I wouldn't worry.

AFJ_Locust
04-19-2006, 12:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Well sure, but that doesn't mean that every plane is correctly modelled </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or even close.

Some ac over the years have had glareing errors & if we didnt point them out nothing would have been done, I rember once the German ac wouldnt overheat if you never touched the Radiator setting that you spawned in with.

Theres been tons more as well but overall its been fun. Killing you guys http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

GerritJ9
04-19-2006, 01:45 PM
I haven't tested every single aircraft in the sim so I can't comment on all of them. But I HAVE done fairly extensive testing on the B-239/F2A-2/Buffalo Mk.1 and as far as speed at altitude is concerned, they are too slow.
While I accept that both A6M2 and Ki.43 will easily outclimb and outaccelerate all three as they did IRL, it is beyond belief that the Ki.43 will outrun the F2A-2 and Buffalo Mk.1 since published official performance figures show that both were in reality faster (though in the case of the Buffalo Mk.1, the difference wan't much). The F2A-2 was even faster in level flight than the A6M2- yet in the sim it is not.
Other aircraft I have tested such as Hurricane IIB and Ki.61 do approximately match their published performance data. I can live with some difference between sim performance and RL, but a difference of some 50 kph IAS at 5000m for the F2A-2 is crazy.

carguy_
04-19-2006, 01:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I posted this on another forum and thought I may as well post it here as it may stop a few of the daft posts we see.

One thing to remember is that everyone thinks their favourtite ride is undermodelled.

The 109 guys complain that the controls get stiff much too fast and that the Mk108 should rip every plane apart every time with 1 hit.
The FW190 guys complain that the plane is terrible at low speeds and the view is awful.
The Mustang guys say the 50 cal is undermodelled, the plane spins out much too easy, and is not the uber plane they thought it should be.
The Spit guys complain that if the Lufties have 109 at 1.98 ATA then they should have a Spit 14 to fight it as the MK9 is 1943 plane and so slow.
The La guys complain that their plane breaks apart whenever they try to go at anything near hi speed.

And so on. Ayone can find a WW2 quote by a pilot to support their argument that 'this plane should turn better' or 'X plane should be a better climber than Y plane'

You can never please everyone because everyones perceptions of a WW2 plane is different.

Do we listen to every pilot account from WW2 and trust it? If so then we have so many conflicting views its impossible to make the game. Its a no brainer that we shouldnt trust every pilot quote, they can however give us a general picture and be helpful if we filter out the obviously wrong ones. (but which are the wrong ones? again another big debate)

Making realistic flight models must be so unbeleivabley hard to be almost impossible, but 1C and Oleg try, using real world Physics data where he can, listening to experts on planes, riding in the real planes etc. But how do you know when an 'expert' is actually a 'fanboy' who boosts up his data and picks and chooses quotes to make 'his' plane' look better than it actually was? Very tough thing to do.

The sim will never be 100% spot on, but I think it gets better each patch and is 100x better effort than any other sim I have tried. Oleg must be very careful when listening to 'experts' and I am sure more than once he has discovered that actually the 'expert' is no more than a dishonest fanboy. Can you imagine the amount of **** and misinformation he has to filter through in his inbox? Brave man.


Just a few things to think about before you complain 'X plane is over/under modelled. Make sure you KNOW this for fact, or your post is useless. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have a nice day http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

carguy_
04-19-2006, 02:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nick_Toznost:
There was a thread a couple of weeks ago on here about a luftwaffe veteran who flew Me109s and FW190s during the war trying out this game. I recall that he said that the Me109 was "stiffer". Can't remember the rest..hang on...

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&f=23110283&m=9951084814

There you go.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Good idea to point that thread.It shows how easy it is to manipulate the crowd.Everyone who agrees with that thread humiliated himself as the initial post is fake. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

Xiolablu3
04-19-2006, 02:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I posted this on another forum and thought I may as well post it here as it may stop a few of the daft posts we see.

One thing to remember is that everyone thinks their favourtite ride is undermodelled.

The 109 guys complain that the controls get stiff much too fast and that the Mk108 should rip every plane apart every time with 1 hit.
The FW190 guys complain that the plane is terrible at low speeds and the view is awful.
The Mustang guys say the 50 cal is undermodelled, the plane spins out much too easy, and is not the uber plane they thought it should be.
The Spit guys complain that if the Lufties have 109 at 1.98 ATA then they should have a Spit 14 to fight it as the MK9 is 1943 plane and so slow.
The La guys complain that their plane breaks apart whenever they try to go at anything near hi speed.

And so on. Ayone can find a WW2 quote by a pilot to support their argument that 'this plane should turn better' or 'X plane should be a better climber than Y plane'

You can never please everyone because everyones perceptions of a WW2 plane is different.

Do we listen to every pilot account from WW2 and trust it? If so then we have so many conflicting views its impossible to make the game. Its a no brainer that we shouldnt trust every pilot quote, they can however give us a general picture and be helpful if we filter out the obviously wrong ones. (but which are the wrong ones? again another big debate)

Making realistic flight models must be so unbeleivabley hard to be almost impossible, but 1C and Oleg try, using real world Physics data where he can, listening to experts on planes, riding in the real planes etc. But how do you know when an 'expert' is actually a 'fanboy' who boosts up his data and picks and chooses quotes to make 'his' plane' look better than it actually was? Very tough thing to do.

The sim will never be 100% spot on, but I think it gets better each patch and is 100x better effort than any other sim I have tried. Oleg must be very careful when listening to 'experts' and I am sure more than once he has discovered that actually the 'expert' is no more than a dishonest fanboy. Can you imagine the amount of **** and misinformation he has to filter through in his inbox? Brave man.


Just a few things to think about before you complain 'X plane is over/under modelled. Make sure you KNOW this for fact, or your post is useless. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have a nice day http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Am I missing something? Your post means nothing to me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Xiolablu3
04-19-2006, 02:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GerritJ9:
I haven't tested every single aircraft in the sim so I can't comment on all of them. But I HAVE done fairly extensive testing on the B-239/F2A-2/Buffalo Mk.1 and as far as speed at altitude is concerned, they are too slow.
While I accept that both A6M2 and Ki.43 will easily outclimb and outaccelerate all three as they did IRL, it is beyond belief that the Ki.43 will outrun the F2A-2 and Buffalo Mk.1 since published official performance figures show that both were in reality faster (though in the case of the Buffalo Mk.1, the difference wan't much). The F2A-2 was even faster in level flight than the A6M2- yet in the sim it is not.
Other aircraft I have tested such as Hurricane IIB and Ki.61 do approximately match their published performance data. I can live with some difference between sim performance and RL, but a difference of some 50 kph IAS at 5000m for the F2A-2 is crazy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Gerit can you give figures of top speed of each of these planes?

Where is your data from? I thought the Zero was supposed to be faster than the Wildcat.

Haigotron
04-19-2006, 03:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The sim will never be 100% spot on, but I think it gets better each patch and is 100x better effort than any other sim I have tried. Oleg must be very careful when listening to 'experts' and I am sure more than once he has discovered that actually the 'expert' is no more than a dishonest fanboy. Can you imagine the amount of **** and misinformation he has to filter through in his inbox? Brave man. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's why we trust him for this job! and he does a damn good job to deliver everything! Thanks Oleg and crew!

The only thing undermodelled in this community are the faces of those whiners...and no patch can save them...

mortoma
04-19-2006, 04:09 PM
I never expected this sim to be strong in the FM department, but it's reasonably close and close enough for me to have fun, that's about it.

It has been clear from the beginning, since the demo, that this is an eyecandy ( graphics is the strong suit ) sim. But I don't complain a bunch.

It's also clear that BoB will be an eyecandy sim, that's not even a secret. We are already flying precursor FMs for BoB now. But they may end up with a bit more fidelity, we hope. BoB might also bump up AI intelligence a bit, but don't expect miracles in this department either. 1C as a company, is more of a graphic centered sim company. Believe it. But as I said, I am still happy about everything anyway!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Good God, I just posted something Stigler would agree with, must be something wrong with me?? This would be the only thing we'd agree on though.

GerritJ9
04-19-2006, 05:10 PM
The data for the various Buffalo variants comes from:
F2A Buffalo in Action by Jim Maas.
Profile 217: the Brewster Buffalo.
Warplanes of the Second World war: Fighters Volume 4 by William Green.
Le Brewster Buffalo by Jean-Louis Couston.

Even the lowest quoted top speed for the Buffalo Mk.1, in Green's Fighters, is 313 mph at 13,500 ft altitude, faster than the best top speed I have found for the Ki.43-I of 308 mph.
Jim Maas lists the F2A-2 as having a top speed of 344 mph at 16,500 ft and the F2A-3 (not in sim yet) as 321 mph which is the same as in Green's book.
The F2A-1, from which the B-239 was derived, is listed by Maas at 311 mph at 18,000 ft.
Try as I might, none of the Buffs will reach anything like those speeds. The B-239 is closest, but is still some 25 kph IAS short, tested on both the Crimea and Pacific Islands maps with no difference in speeds between maps.

The F4F-3 was faster than the F2A-3 (Green quotes 328 mph at 21,000 ft) but appreciably slower than the F2A-2. Generally accepted figure for the A6M2 is 332 mph top speed. So Zero is faster than F4F-3, but not much.
The F4F-4 is listed by Green at 318 mph at 19,400 ft- almost the same as F2A-3 and considerably slower than A6M2.

WWMaxGunz
04-19-2006, 06:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jermin122:
You are right, Xiolablu3.

But, do you think why we bought and play this game? We, human beings play games to entertain ourselves, to relax ourselves, to make pleasures. If all a game gives us are indignant and unhappy feelings, e.g. continuously be shot down due to A/C performance gap, not skills problem and this situation won't be changed in a long period, some of us of course will lose faith of this game and leave eventually. One side play happily while the other side painfully, you can imagine their feelings--just like the "whinners" cried in the forum. From the number change of each side, one can easily tells which side is "really" porked. Recently the num of blue pilots descends rapidly. Some of them had changed to the red side, but more of them just left this game because of their faith of the German fighters. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I see you are forgetting how much of the same quit because of not having 20+% advantage they
need enough to believe in.

Early IL2, 1.02 and 1.03 in competition the LW planes were we clearly superior as VEF was
early war and players for VVS were hard to find. When the midwar shift came about and the
VVS planes were close to parity but still not even, whole squads left blue side for red.
WW's have flown blue ever since just to help the balance. Before even 1.04 patch of IL2
the what you say above was cried out. From 1.04 on the noise is only louder.

jermin122
04-20-2006, 03:31 AM
Not only late war, even in early war, luftwaffe is porked, I-16, I-153 can easily outzoom any German fighters below 3000m even in disadvantages while turn much better than zero. And spit V can catch up with F4 in a zoom climb and a spiral climb. Marseille would have been shot down millions of times if he fought in the F4 in the game. Keep in mind that most blue's skills are higher than the red and they can get more kills if they fly red planes. If blue players have been disappointed and forced to leave the game, you can imagine how terrible the situation is.

If I recall it right, German is not defeated due to fighter's low performance. Finaly, Luftwaffe players is the necessary group in every wwii combat sim. If none of them play this game, who do you think will fight the red?

msalama
04-20-2006, 08:14 AM
Catching any?

LilHorse
04-20-2006, 10:33 AM
Meh. I've never been one to bizatch about my favorite ride (early to mid-war 109s). Never thought they were uber, never thought they were under. It is what it is and I do the best I can with it.

mortoma
04-20-2006, 11:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jermin122:
Not only late war, even in early war, luftwaffe is porked, I-16, I-153 can easily outzoom any German fighters below 3000m even in disadvantages while turn much better than zero. And spit V can catch up with F4 in a zoom climb and a spiral climb. Marseille would have been shot down millions of times if he fought in the F4 in the game. Keep in mind that most blue's skills are higher than the red and they can get more kills if they fly red planes. If blue players have been disappointed and forced to leave the game, you can imagine how terrible the situation is.

If I recall it right, German is not defeated due to fighter's low performance. Finaly, Luftwaffe players is the necessary group in every wwii combat sim. If none of them play this game, who do you think will fight the red? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You must not be flying the 109 right or you're just a troll trying to elicit an argument or get attention. The reason being is that every time I fly an I-16, against either human or AI, I can hardy "outzoom" the 109s of any stripe. Not even the weakest one, which is the 109E-4 Jabo version. When flying an I-16, I feel like I'm in a slow and cumbersome aircraft that is outclassed by 109s, period. That was true in RL.

Xiolablu3
04-20-2006, 12:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GerritJ9:
The data for the various Buffalo variants comes from:
F2A Buffalo in Action by Jim Maas.
Profile 217: the Brewster Buffalo.
Warplanes of the Second World war: Fighters Volume 4 by William Green.
Le Brewster Buffalo by Jean-Louis Couston.

Even the lowest quoted top speed for the Buffalo Mk.1, in Green's Fighters, is 313 mph at 13,500 ft altitude, faster than the best top speed I have found for the Ki.43-I of 308 mph.
Jim Maas lists the F2A-2 as having a top speed of 344 mph at 16,500 ft and the F2A-3 (not in sim yet) as 321 mph which is the same as in Green's book.
The F2A-1, from which the B-239 was derived, is listed by Maas at 311 mph at 18,000 ft.
Try as I might, none of the Buffs will reach anything like those speeds. The B-239 is closest, but is still some 25 kph IAS short, tested on both the Crimea and Pacific Islands maps with no difference in speeds between maps.

The F4F-3 was faster than the F2A-3 (Green quotes 328 mph at 21,000 ft) but appreciably slower than the F2A-2. Generally accepted figure for the A6M2 is 332 mph top speed. So Zero is faster than F4F-3, but not much.
The F4F-4 is listed by Green at 318 mph at 19,400 ft- almost the same as F2A-3 and considerably slower than A6M2. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I also see top speeds for the Buffalo as 340mph.

You did use TAS when you tested, right?

If you feel you have a definite case you should email Oleg at his email address for correct plane data.

Xiolablu3
04-20-2006, 12:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jermin122:
Not only late war, even in early war, luftwaffe is porked, I-16, I-153 can easily outzoom any German fighters below 3000m even in disadvantages while turn much better than zero. And spit V can catch up with F4 in a zoom climb and a spiral climb. Marseille would have been shot down millions of times if he fought in the F4 in the game. Keep in mind that most blue's skills are higher than the red and they can get more kills if they fly red planes. If blue players have been disappointed and forced to leave the game, you can imagine how terrible the situation is.

If I recall it right, German is not defeated due to fighter's low performance. Finaly, Luftwaffe players is the necessary group in every wwii combat sim. If none of them play this game, who do you think will fight the red? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think this guy must just be very new to the game or flying on Arcade servers. The I16 and I153 are underpowered POS whenever I try and fly them, they wont 'zoom' climb at all. ALl they do well is turn ont he horizontal, its so easy to stay out of danger in early war LW planes. Are you trying to turn fight with them Jermin?? I think you must be a pretty bad pilot if you are saying I16s are superior to 109's. Most experienced pilots, I think, would choose a 109F4 over a Spitfire 5. (well I would)

Put me in a 109E or F any day even over a Yak1.

faustnik
04-20-2006, 01:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jermin122:
Not only late war, even in early war, luftwaffe is porked, I-16, I-153 can easily outzoom any German fighters below 3000m even in disadvantages while turn much better than zero. And spit V can catch up with F4 in a zoom climb and a spiral climb. Marseille would have been shot down millions of times if he fought in the F4 in the game. Keep in mind that most blue's skills are higher than the red and they can get more kills if they fly red planes. If blue players have been disappointed and forced to leave the game, you can imagine how terrible the situation is.

If I recall it right, German is not defeated due to fighter's low performance. Finaly, Luftwaffe players is the necessary group in every wwii combat sim. If none of them play this game, who do you think will fight the red? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

Uhhh...hmmm...maybe you missed a patch or something? Try reinstalling or buy a new computer? My blue planes sound nothing like your your blue planes.

WWMaxGunz
04-20-2006, 01:09 PM
Perhaps by flying 109 at I-16 and I-153 speeds you would get those ideas about zoom.

carguy_
04-20-2006, 01:17 PM
Jermin is correct in terms of zoom climb.All T&B planes are as good or better than their B&Z counterparts.If you`re experienced virtual pilot you know well that zoom climbing is a no-no,sometimes even if made with certain speed advantage.The truth is the Spitfire and planes alike zoomclimb unrealistically good.Same with spiral climb.I have a 3.04 track where I climb against a human I16 from 3400m and ends at about 8600m where the distance is still the same.Described situation is nothing unusual online.
Zoombclimb,dive and spiral climb is virtually not modelled as all planes that should fall off stay or gain on you.Those advantages do not exist.

GerritJ9
04-20-2006, 02:04 PM
I have sent scans from the above-mentioned publications regarding the speeds at altitude of the various Buffalo variants to 1C last year, but so far they have remained unchanged. But since the F2A-3 is still on the list of planes that may be introduced, perhaps 1C are waiting until it is ready and will correct the speeds when the F2A-3 is released.

Xiolablu3
04-20-2006, 02:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
Jermin is correct in terms of zoom climb.All T&B planes are as good or better than their B&Z counterparts.If you`re experienced virtual pilot you know well that zoom climbing is a no-no,sometimes even if made with certain speed advantage.The truth is the Spitfire and planes alike zoomclimb unrealistically good.Same with spiral climb.I have a 3.04 track where I climb against a human I16 from 3400m and ends at about 8600m where the distance is still the same.Described situation is nothing unusual online.
Zoombclimb,dive and spiral climb is virtually not modelled as all planes that should fall off stay or gain on you.Those advantages do not exist. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You still havent explained your last post to me.

I understand there may be problems between the contemporary fighters, but a I16 and 109E in this sim seem eons apart, there is no question which plane I would take.

Zoom climbing still works as long as you dont stray into powered climb. I can out zoomclimb Spitfires in a Dora.

faustnik
04-20-2006, 03:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Zoom climbing still works as long as you dont stray into powered climb. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, a fine line to walk. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

stathem
04-20-2006, 03:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
Jermin is correct in terms of zoom climb.All T&B planes are as good or better than their B&Z counterparts.If you`re experienced virtual pilot you know well that zoom climbing is a no-no,sometimes even if made with certain speed advantage.The truth is the Spitfire and planes alike zoomclimb unrealistically good.Same with spiral climb.I have a 3.04 track where I climb against a human I16 from 3400m and ends at about 8600m where the distance is still the same.Described situation is nothing unusual online.
Zoombclimb,dive and spiral climb is virtually not modelled as all planes that should fall off stay or gain on you.Those advantages do not exist. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A I-16? at 8600 metres? Seriously?