PDA

View Full Version : F4U-1D vs Other flight model



VBF-83_Hawk
12-27-2004, 10:25 PM
Hey Oleg,

If you are going to hit the F4U performance stats on the numbers then maybe you should correct other models that may be wrong.


Whats so funny is that I have been flying thses flight sims for some years now and every designer swears his flight/damage model is THE ONE! but yet every flight sim's models are different. Prove to me that they are correct. Screw playability, are they or are they not correct?

I certainly dont mind correctness but if you are going to make one model correct, you need to make them ALL CORRECT!!

I still think this is the best flight sim. I hope things will get better and PF will be an equal to AEP.

Let me just say again that I like realistic performance. I am not really complaining about the correctness if it is correct. I do dislike the inconsistentcy....dang I cant spell!

Regards,
VBF-83_Hawk

!!

VBF-83_Hawk
12-27-2004, 10:25 PM
Hey Oleg,

If you are going to hit the F4U performance stats on the numbers then maybe you should correct other models that may be wrong.


Whats so funny is that I have been flying thses flight sims for some years now and every designer swears his flight/damage model is THE ONE! but yet every flight sim's models are different. Prove to me that they are correct. Screw playability, are they or are they not correct?

I certainly dont mind correctness but if you are going to make one model correct, you need to make them ALL CORRECT!!

I still think this is the best flight sim. I hope things will get better and PF will be an equal to AEP.

Let me just say again that I like realistic performance. I am not really complaining about the correctness if it is correct. I do dislike the inconsistentcy....dang I cant spell!

Regards,
VBF-83_Hawk

!!

CV8_Dudeness
12-27-2004, 10:48 PM
wow

BlitzPig_DDT
12-27-2004, 10:50 PM
You're blaming Oleg for the abuse of the players?

The AI rarely, if ever, takes shots when burning. They run, or bail (or cook).

A hell of a lot of planes went down with very little damage. And even more went down when the pilot froze in stunned terror.

That is not the case online. Are you going to try to blame Oleg for that too?

And BTW - the Corsair already enjoys a bogus firepower advantage over other 6 gunned US planes (both branches) (even 8 gunned).

p1ngu666
12-27-2004, 11:17 PM
try flying a zero against the uber corsairs.

also if u flying a corsair, chances are your flying against later zeros, which have some fuel protection and armour. and thicker gauge skin too.

your corsair is the better plane, and u got tons of ammo

Stanger_361st
12-27-2004, 11:22 PM
I have no problem with the damage problem of the Zeke now. Wings fold and flame easy. What I cant understand the ufo FM of the AI. On a merge with co e the zeke will do a bat turn and be on your six And stay with you on a dive then while you do a high speed turn with combat flaps at 350 mph with a Hellcat or Corsair, The Zeke will pull lead and flame your ***. What a immersion killer. Totally unrealistic. Oleg himself says the the AI have the same FM. I guess blackouts, mushy or stiff flight controls do not pertain to them. How can I fight historical when I have no chance to do it.
You cant out dive them or out high speed turn them. Or am I wrong about this Scenario. I thought the Zeke is mushy control after 260 mph according to Japenese Ace pilots.

VBF-83_Hawk
12-27-2004, 11:30 PM
I blame Oleg for inconsistencies in flight/damage models.

If the .50s are better in the Corsair than the F6F then it is a designer's inconsistent designs!!!!

-HH-Quazi
12-27-2004, 11:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VBF-83_Hawk:
Hey Oleg,

Prove to me that they are correct. Screw playability, are they or are they not correct?

Regards,
VBF-83_Hawk

!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's not how it works m8. You must prove that it isn't correct. And good luck doing that if you even attempt to.

VBF-83_Hawk
12-27-2004, 11:50 PM
I did prove it. ALL GAME DESIGNERS SAY THAT THIER FLIGHT MODELS ARE CORRECT. They are all different so they are ALL WRONG!!!! Prove to me that it is right! They wont admit to anything beacuse.......

The flight models are designed to make the game competitive, not be realistic. If it was realistic and correct, most would not BUY the game. The flight models are designed to produce INCOME. Therefore, most are incorrect.

Majoruty rules. When the majority of the community call his bluff, things change. Its buisness.
If the F4U is modeled correctly...BRAVO, now lets get the rest corrected.

I just hate Bullcrap...it smells up the place.

LLv26_Morko
12-28-2004, 02:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VBF-83_Hawk:
I blame Oleg for inconsistencies in flight/damage models.

If the .50s are better in the Corsair than the F6F then it is a designer's inconsistent designs!!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What next... you want aim 9L:s and radar on the
american planes ...cause you cant shoot down zeros otherwise???
c`mon now... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

sapre
12-28-2004, 03:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VBF-83_Hawk:
I did prove it. ALL GAME DESIGNERS SAY THAT THIER FLIGHT MODELS ARE CORRECT. They are all different so they are ALL WRONG!!!! Prove to me that it is right! They wont admit to anything beacuse.......

The flight models are designed to make the game competitive, not be realistic. If it was realistic and correct, most would not BUY the game. The flight models are designed to produce INCOME. Therefore, most are incorrect.

Majoruty rules. When the majority of the community call his bluff, things change. Its buisness.
If the F4U is modeled correctly...BRAVO, now lets get the rest corrected.

I just hate Bullcrap...it smells up the place. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

JG54_Arnie
12-28-2004, 03:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VBF-83_Hawk:
I did prove it. ALL GAME DESIGNERS SAY THAT THIER FLIGHT MODELS ARE CORRECT. They are all different so they are ALL WRONG!!!! Prove to me that it is right! They wont admit to anything beacuse.......
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So what did you prove? That some designers got it wrong, then who has got it wrong and why? This makes no sense man, if you want something changed you first need to be sure its wrong and then comes the hard job of actually proving why and what exactly is wrong.
Just shouting that designers say they do it correct but are wrong because they do it different doesnt mean anything to Oleg. What do you suggest he should do with information like that? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

VC81_Jazz
12-28-2004, 03:47 AM
Nice reflection on your squadron, VBF-83. Don't they teach you to be polite?

http://home.hccnet.nl/kasper.hanselman/jazz+signature.jpg

Wotan_4JG53
12-28-2004, 04:48 AM
Hawk has a history of whines and complaints. His history of 'flying thses flight sims for some years now' are full of these types of posts that are usually followed up with 'that's it I quit'.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The A6M should blow apart if you even think about shooting at it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ami Farmboi'ism at its best (if you don't know what that means don't respond to it. No need for angry farmers with pitch forks feigning offense)...

Wotan mit uns!!!

VBF-83_Hawk
12-28-2004, 05:50 AM
Thats what I get for posting when I shouldn't.

A.K.Davis
12-28-2004, 07:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VBF-83_Hawk:
Thats what I get for posting when I shouldn't. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually you should get much worse. Read the ORR forum rules!

ZG77_Nagual
12-28-2004, 08:41 AM
The a6m DOES blow apart with just a whiff. ONce in a great while one keeps flying on fire for a bit - but zeros are very very fragile - just a tap on the trigger and you can pretty much bank on them being all gone. The myth of the 'inconsistent fifties' is one I just don't see. The corsair has a great rudder and elevator - and is a very easy bird to track in - but it's guns are no better than the mustangs or hellcat. Personally I like the p38 because of the lack of disperson.

BlitzPig_DDT
12-28-2004, 09:09 AM
They are better on the Corsair *because* of a lack of dispersion.

I don't know how you don't see it. Maybe you are so close when you fire that it doesn't matter. But I damage zeros with the Hellcat all the time. In those same siutations, I kill them with the Corsair.

Again, crappy shooting or not, it's the same skill level. I don't suddenly become William Tell when I fly the Corsair. But the results make it look like I do.

geetarman
12-28-2004, 09:41 AM
I fly US planes only, but, come on! Sounds like your more than a little P.O.'d that your Corsair didn't take out that Zero like all the ones you watched in "Victory at Sea."

there are no guarantees in this game. Each plane possesses sufficient lethality to down any other if skill, and a healthy bit of luck, are on your side.

ZG77_Nagual
12-28-2004, 09:56 AM
Maybe so on the proximity thing - mostly allways within 200meters. But I find the corsair easier to aim that the hellcat - mostly because of that monster rudder.
I like the navy planes - and the corsair is probably my fav (though that little fm2 is an interesting beast - slow with a monster climb) but the p38 has replaced the 190 as my hands-down fav.

As for zeros - whatever I'm in it's mostly a matter of avoiding debris. I'd say you definitely need to work on aim if you are having any trouble bringing down zeros - just talking gunnery here - not tactics etc.

crazyivan1970
12-28-2004, 10:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VBF-83_Hawk:
I did prove it. ALL GAME DESIGNERS SAY THAT THIER FLIGHT MODELS ARE CORRECT. They are all different so they are ALL WRONG!!!! Prove to me that it is right! They wont admit to anything beacuse.......

The flight models are designed to make the game competitive, not be realistic. If it was realistic and correct, most would not BUY the game. The flight models are designed to produce INCOME. Therefore, most are incorrect.

Majoruty rules. When the majority of the community call his bluff, things change. Its buisness.
If the F4U is modeled correctly...BRAVO, now lets get the rest corrected.

I just hate Bullcrap...it smells up the place. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You got an hour to come up with better argument then this http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Cause it`s rather..umm - laughable?
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

VBF-83_Hawk
12-28-2004, 12:50 PM
How many times have the flight models changed in each patch?

The A6M and Corsair have changed. My argument here is not if the change is good or bad, but that the model changed. If the models were correct, they would never change.

If the Corsair v3.03 change is correct, then it was wrong in earlier versions. Oleg basicly said because the comunity complained, he CORRECTED it. He is saying that he would not have messed with it, leaving it incorrect, if the comunity had not complained about certain items thus confirming my statement.

Oleg quoted, "All was asking about differences in climb at diferent anfgles and speeds... You gor it more precise, but the result is that we get also more realistic take off distance....

You aksed for one, but forget for result in other aireas..."


So....
"Result in Other Areas", an admittance that the previous flight model was wrong?

If this is the case I asure you that other flight models can be wrong and wont be fixed unless he wants it that way.

I am glad the F4U is more realistic..be glad when its......ok..99.9999% realistic.

ZG77_Nagual
12-28-2004, 01:15 PM
This is a little ridiculous but okay:
Homepc processing power is not capable of supporting anything approaching 100% realism.

Compromises and judgement calls are not an option when engineering a flight simm - they HAVE to be made. For example - oleg and co. made a call that made it much easier to takeoff from a carrier. A logical choice since PF is all about the pacific and aircraft carriers. People complained that certain a/c were overmodeled in certain aspects. Since this was true he made the changes - resulting in diminished ease of getting off a carrier because of the way the engine works in pf. In a simm it's more about relative performance than absolute numbers - because the numbers are allways subject to all kinds of conditions. It is relatively easy to make a simm based on strict performance statistics - if you exclude all other variables - simply by using the table approach used in cfs2 - thus your plane will allways do thus and such at whatever alt etc. But the feel of simms written that way is very crude compared to this one. As for inconsistency - I suppose thats in the eye of the beholder

Now, if you want to think in absolute terms - be my guest. But you will never get what you want. It is simply not possible.

VBF-83_Hawk
12-28-2004, 01:25 PM
Nagual what you say is correct, that I know of with the computer language, programming stuff. I know it will never be a realistic thing to a certain extent but thats not my point. These guys keep saying "prove it". There is nothing to prove. The designers do what they want when they want, correct or incorrect.

I dont have a problem with the corsair flight model change. I think its good to be "realistic" with the take-off distance. My point is that he made a change to something that was supose to already be correct. These guys dont get it and I cant explain it any better than that.

I dont know how a change in climb performance effects a delayed take-off run from the deck of a carrier as Oleg so says. He simply changed both. So now the corrected take-off distance was an accident due to a climb performance glitch?

BSS_Vidar
12-28-2004, 01:39 PM
I've come to the realization the the whole IL-2 line is focused on the Eastern Front i.e German vs Russian Air Forces. Anything added on after that is simply that... Add-ons and not up to the "Gamming" standardards held with the original plane-sets. Think I'm wrong? Check out the War Clouds WF room some time with a 3 death kick. You'll see dudes on the blue team in their with almost 2000 points before they either get killed for the first time, or just get bored and leave. Yeah, a few Red may get their, but they ususally do so going off somewhere taking on points bombing, instead of dogfighting.

You'll never get close to reality with the limited capabilities of home PC's. Even actual flight simms aren't completly acurate, but they are the closest to being so.

The main problem is making aircraft compatible in comparision to each other. Some are under-done and some are over-done; therefore not a reflection of what really happened in history... In short, it's just a game, not a flight sim.

hframpto
12-28-2004, 01:51 PM
You hit it right on the nose. It is a game and will always be just a game. Full real, arcade, this is right, this is wrong, hehe amazed how many full real pilots there are. Give me a break and play the game as a game. Rant and rave but it will always be a game. Real, will never be or even close to real. Give your heads a shake. :&gthttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ZG77_Nagual
12-28-2004, 02:06 PM
Well - I'd say it has a high order of relative fidelity FM wise-in fact the more I play it the more I appreciate the subtlty of the flight models. I'd say it is very good right now. This simm lives in a kind of no-man's land between games like cfs2 and actual flight simulators. In it's genre it is absolutely the best and, relative performance wise - seems very very good across the board. Now - if you come across something you really think is off - dig up some serious data and present it. But don't ascribe ulterior motives, ignorance or dishonesty to the developers. They are doing the very best job they can (best in the industry for this genre) As I mentioned - judgement calls are built into this kind of game. You may disagree with them - but don't accuse the developers of lying - they develop this thing out of real and sincere interest and make the decisions they think best for the users.

A.K.Davis
12-28-2004, 02:21 PM
God the "realism does not exist" argument is so old and tired. Realistic is an adjective, not an absolute term. There is, in painting, a style called "realism." We have all probably viewed paintings from the school of Realism. We all know when viewing these paintings, we are not actually viewing what the painting portrays. We all know we can not reach into the frame and pet the little sheep or steal the little shepherd's stick, yet we understand that the artist was attempting to convey a scene with as much accuracy as possible. The artist wished us to feel we had experienced the scene, not a representation of it.

To suggest that because the game is not absolutely realistic (i.e. the experience itself), the word realistic cannot be used to describe it is absurd. Just because the simulation is not an exact reproduction of reality does not invalidate the word as an adjective and make the game no more or less realistic than, say, Crimson Skies.

Loki-PF
12-28-2004, 02:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
Well - I'd say it has a high order of relative fidelity FM wise- <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You mean *besides* the part about the Zeros outdiving the wildcats? Or being able to reach a higher terminal dive speed without critical damage than a wildcat? Or *besides* the fact that the Corsair is accelerating slower than the P-47?

Believe me.... I'm not harshing Olegs Gig here. I love this game, but there are problems with flight models here and if the community stays alert and dilligent they sometimes get fixed.

But VBF-83_Hawk, I gotta say, going about it the way you did is no good. A better way is to ask some honest questions about other players impressions, record some tracks that illustrate what your talking about, start a dialogue and then if you have a good case submit it to Oleg.

We should all do jumps for joy that we love a sim that has a developer that will actually look at these types of things instead of getting pissy cuz the latest patch seemed to affect your fav bird.

Just my 2 pence

Fehler
12-28-2004, 04:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
Think I'm wrong? Check out the War Clouds WF room some time with a 3 death kick. You'll see dudes on the blue team in their with almost 2000 points before they either get killed for the first time, or just get bored and leave. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow, talk about a statement based totally on falacy.

The Truth is that the missions on WC go in cycles. 1 mission is a defend type, the next is a bombing type 0 depending on what side you like to fly with. With proper teamwork, it is not hard to see why a person couldnt rack up some points fast.. but aircraft kills are another story. (I often go into WC and do some bombing which will rack up points fast) Then perhaps some CAP for the other guys. I suppose if you popped in and saw my points at 1300 or so, you might think I shot down 13 planes, but the truth would be entirely different. Plus, remember that a B-25 is worth 200 points, and so many people love to fly those things on bombing missions. Your statement holds no water.

Besides, stop using on-line experiences about point whoring to act as a basis for your discussion on flight models... The two have nothing in common.

ICDP
12-28-2004, 05:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Loki-PF:
You mean *besides* the part about the Zeros outdiving the wildcats? Or being able to reach a higher terminal dive speed without critical damage than a wildcat? Or *besides* the fact that the Corsair is accelerating slower than the P-47? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

S! Loki,

First off great work on bringing to light the A6M high speed control issues, agree with you totally in this regard and hopefully it will really be fixed soon.

Secondly I must contest your quote regaring the acceleration of the P47 v the F4U. This has been suggested by a few people on this board and I must say it is totally unfounded.

I conduced quite a few acceleration tests on both aircraft and they are very equally matched. I tested on the Crimea map with full fuel at SL and started timing from 150mph. I made timings at 200mph, 250mph, 300mph and 340mph, here are the results.

P47D-27
Spd | Time (mph | seconds)
----------------------
200 | 9.10
250 | 22.21
300 | 44.53
340 | 89.52

F4U-1D
Spd | Time (mph | seconds)
----------------------
200 | 9.74
250 | 22.73
300 | 45.30
340 | 90.45

Both aircraft have an almost identical top speed at SL, I stopped timings at 340mph while both aircraft were still accelerating slightly. As can be seen the P47D does not outaccelerate the F4U1, they are almost identical in this respect. I am not sure if the Corsair should outaccelerate the P47, it was lighter but the P47D had higher horsepower.

ZG77_Nagual
12-28-2004, 05:18 PM
A.K.Davis - good point on the Realism issue. I suppose the phrase '100% realistic' is a sort of contradiction and that is what I was responding to.

My main gripe is with the more or less constant insinuations of various sorts directed at the developers. - they are the best listeners in this industry and they get wailed on for being available. I'm totally down with the whole civility and respect thing. And also hard data.

I like the simm, it gets better all the time (despite many who dislike 'change'). I can kill everything in my P38 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I can confirm sea level speed of the corsair and 47d-27 are virtually identical - I thought the 47 should be slower http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Maybe it is with both sans wep. I would not be surprised if the corsair should accelerate a bit better than it does - relative to the 47. In icdp's tests the variance is slight enough that it could be accounted for just by the 47 being flown maybe a tad more strictly level?

ICDP
12-28-2004, 05:44 PM
Nagual,

The variance is more likely caused by my old and slow reflexes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Loki-PF
12-28-2004, 08:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ICDP:
S! Loki,

First off great work on bringing to light the A6M high speed control issues, agree with you totally in this regard and hopefully it will really be fixed soon.

Secondly I must contest your quote regaring the acceleration of the P47 v the F4U. This has been suggested by a few people on this board and I must say it is totally unfounded.

I conduced quite a few acceleration tests on both aircraft and they are very equally matched. I tested on the Crimea map with full fuel at SL and started timing from 150mph. I made timings at 200mph, 250mph, 300mph and 340mph, here are the results.

P47D-27
Spd | Time (mph | seconds)
----------------------
200 | 9.10
250 | 22.21
300 | 44.53
340 | 89.52

F4U-1D
Spd | Time (mph | seconds)
----------------------
200 | 9.74
250 | 22.73
300 | 45.30
340 | 90.45

Both aircraft have an almost identical top speed at SL, I stopped timings at 340mph while both aircraft were still accelerating slightly. As can be seen the P47D does not outaccelerate the F4U1, they are almost identical in this respect. I am not sure if the Corsair should outaccelerate the P47, it was lighter but the P47D had higher horsepower. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ICDP,

Salute my friend! Happy new year! Hope your holidays were great. First let me say thank you for doing these tests. I truly believe we can't have meaningful discussions about flight models or more importantly relataive flight models until we get hard data out of the game engine as a basis for discussion.

That being said, your numbers prove my point exactly. Your chart shows a certain time for a certain speed. This is very misleading. What we need to do is show distance over time and you would see a very different story. Your chart clearly shows the P47 getting to every speed faster than the F4U. What it also shows is that for all of the ~90 seconds the P47 got to those speeds before the F4U.

Look at it this way: If you and I start walking down a long straight road at the same time, and we are both walking faster and faster but I get to the next highest speed faster than you, I will cross the finish line far before you. You see in your test there is no distance covered scale. My guess is that based on your numbers the P47 had a very healthy virtual lead on the corsair by the end of your test. I'll have to crunch some numbers or bettter yet do some side by side flight tests (you listening Fenris?) to illustrate.

ZG77_Nagual
12-28-2004, 08:57 PM
Interesting - I was thinking the 47 chugs along level a little easier than the corsair.
Another one I think is a little slow to get there - and maybe slow on the deck - is the 38.
But I have to agree - I think the corsair should out accel the 47 - particularly on the deck.

p1ngu666
12-28-2004, 11:24 PM
ya p38 is abit sluggish at actual flying speeds, like 250kph+
it was surposed to ahve good acceloration.

ki61 vs a zero was a real eye opener.

the p47 is a smidge faster than corsair in that test, nothing major

BSS_Vidar
12-29-2004, 02:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
Wow, talk about a statement based totally on falacy.

The _Truth_ is that the missions on WC go in cycles. 1 mission is a defend type, the next is a bombing type 0 depending on what side you like to fly with. With proper teamwork, it is not hard to see why a person couldnt rack up some points fast.. but aircraft kills are another story. (I often go into WC and do some bombing which will rack up points fast) Then perhaps some CAP for the other guys. I suppose if you popped in and saw my points at 1300 or so, you might think I shot down 13 planes, but the truth would be entirely different. Plus, remember that a B-25 is worth 200 points, and so many people love to fly those things on bombing missions. Your statement holds no water.

Besides, stop using on-line experiences about point whoring to act as a basis for your discussion on flight models... The two have nothing in common. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Look, I'm not going to get into a pissing contest over my opinion, however, IF what you say is true, then why is the Red team only winning about 20% of the missions? The numbers don't lie on the Greater Green stats page, and Warclouds_WF definatly shows the very same trend. The rotation should reflect the same successes on both sides. There are some good "Monitor Jockies" playing on the Red side. Some of which that jump the fence every once in a while.

Nuff said 'bout that. With that... LOMAC is the only thing close to being a simulator for PC gamers. BoB looks to be in the same catagory as LOMAC due to limited plane sets to concentrate on recreating accuracy... very much like LOMAC developers have done - short of the classified specifications left out of the weapons and aircraft.

ICDP
12-29-2004, 02:54 AM
Happy new year to you also Loki,

I carried these tests out with a slight variation. On the following tests I took timings at points of referrence on the ground. The referrences were roads, railways, farms and coastlines. There were five points (pos) in all and timings were started as soon as both aircraft crossed the end of the runway. No cockpit view was used and an approximate altitude of 200m was maintained thoughout. Rudder & elevator trim was used on both aircraft to help maintain level flight & heading. The timings were taken from recordings, I wanted to concentrate on keeping level flight & correct heading for both aircraft.

P47D-27
pos | seconds
-------------------
01. | 20.75
02. | 27.41
03. | 42.20
04. | 52.33
05. | 58.70

F4U-1D
pos | seconds
-------------------
01. | 20.50
02. | 27.12
03. | 41.48
04. | 52.32
05. | 58.65

I can assure that both aircraft have identical acceleration and reach the points on the map at identical times. The F4U in the above tests was very slightly faster according to the figures but considering maybe a variation of + or - .03 of a second reflexes there is no real difference.

Two more things I should mention, using 120% mixture makes no difference on the F4U1 and there is a bug in the fuel load of the F4U1D and Corsair Mk IV. Both aircraft show 75% fuel loaded despite 100% being selected, this is the reason the tests were carried out using the F4U1A and not the D.

I don't have real life acceleration figures for both aircraft, hopefully someone can provide us with some historical data.

Regards

Aaron_GT
12-29-2004, 08:54 AM
AFAIK with 100% fuel the F4U-1D should be 10,500 lbs with 2100 hp and the P47D27 should be 14,500 lbs with 2300 hp.

that gives the F4U 0.2 hp/lb and the P47 0.16

However this doesn't mean that the F4U should necessarily accelerate faster as there are issues with regard to the design of the wings. It might be that the F4U, being designed for carrier operations, has more parisitic drag than the P47 in comparasion to its weight. Given that the F4U-1 speed is 359 mph at sea level, and that of the P47D-27 should be about 355 (i.e. pretty much the same) with WEP then that tends to agree with this. Given the better powerloading of the F4U-1 you'd expect it to accelerate better when the drag is low, though, i.e. at lower speeds but this advantage to drop off as the maximum level speed is reached. If anyone has any take-off length figures for the P47 (there are ones around for the F4U) then that would probably indicate relative accelerations at low speeds.

stelr
12-29-2004, 04:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ICDP:
Happy new year to you also Loki,

I carried these tests out with a slight variation. On the following tests I took timings at points of referrence on the ground. The referrences were roads, railways, farms and coastlines. There were five points (pos) in all and timings were started as soon as both aircraft crossed the end of the runway. No cockpit view was used and an approximate altitude of 200m was maintained thoughout. Rudder & elevator trim was used on both aircraft to help maintain level flight & heading. The timings were taken from recordings, I wanted to concentrate on keeping level flight & correct heading for both aircraft.

P47D-27
pos | seconds
-------------------
01. | 20.75
02. | 27.41
03. | 42.20
04. | 52.33
05. | 58.70

F4U-1D
pos | seconds
-------------------
01. | 20.50
02. | 27.12
03. | 41.48
04. | 52.32
05. | 58.65

I can assure that both aircraft have identical acceleration and reach the points on the map at identical times. The F4U in the above tests was very slightly faster according to the figures but considering maybe a variation of + or - .03 of a second reflexes there is no real difference.

Two more things I should mention, using 120% mixture makes no difference on the F4U1 and there is a bug in the fuel load of the F4U1D and Corsair Mk IV. Both aircraft show 75% fuel loaded despite 100% being selected, this is the reason the tests were carried out using the F4U1A and not the D.

I don't have real life acceleration figures for both aircraft, hopefully someone can provide us with some historical data.

Regards <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good discussion here. There seems even more variations in tests done by someone in another post. He looked up the actual data showing the F4U-1 having an acceleration of 1.5 mph/sec but couldn't achieve that with the testing he did with version 3.03 model. I quote...

"After i posted above, i tested the F4U...and "Its porked." its is supposed to accelerate at 1.5 mph per sec.. but it doesnt. Also at 19,000 ft it is rated at 417mph. I could only get it to go 370mph. Sea level speed is close to ok."

From ICDP's tests, unless my math is off, he get about 5 mph/sec initially and by the end is getting 2.2 mph/sec.

Somebody is wrong, but not sure who. If ICDP's tests are accurate it is accelerating too fast. If, OTOH, the other guy's tests are accurate it is too slow. And if the former is true, then slowing the F4U's acceleration down even more with stop all CV operations for the F4U as it will not be able to get airborne under any circumstances. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Any other tester out there with corroberating data?

faustnik
12-29-2004, 04:51 PM
AHA has the following figures:

P-47D: Thrust/lb 2400, Drag/lb 1485 Accel ft/sec 2.15

F4U-1: Thrust/lb 2400, Drag/lb 1580 Accel ft/sec 2.08

p1ngu666
12-29-2004, 06:53 PM
d27 has 2500hp now, btw http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

WUAF_Badsight
12-29-2004, 07:22 PM
i thought the D27 was bumped up to 2600 Hp ? ! ?

up from 2300 Hp , that much i know

p1ngu666
12-29-2004, 08:06 PM
couldbe, i dunno *shrug*
has more anyways

clint-ruin
12-29-2004, 08:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
AHA has the following figures:

P-47D: Thrust/lb 2400, Drag/lb 1485 Accel ft/sec 2.15

F4U-1: Thrust/lb 2400, Drag/lb 1580 Accel ft/sec 2.08 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does AHT specify alt / engine settings etc for this? Has anyone tested acceleration at SL and at the optimum speed alt for the p47/f4u-1 in PF yet? Just trying to work out where the 1.5/sc and 2.08/sec figures come from exactly and how to try to best replicate them.

PFSamwise
12-29-2004, 08:48 PM
Looks like people have all different views. I will say this, I love flying IL2; it's the best WWII sim out there. (so far) The only thing that does bug me is the butchering of U.S. planes. P-51 still can't reach 427mph level flight at best altitude. P-47 still can't reach 425mph. Corsair......well, the dive now sucks, the top speed is slower. I dunno what's going on. I still have yet to see them fix the K4's F15 climb. I've seen K4's climb steadily at a nice 60 degree angle (at least). I know it was fast, but c'mon, no plane in reality can catch an enemy that just overshot from a 4K alt advantage. I've reached over 800 in a dive on a climbing K4 then pulled up into a hammerhead, only to see the K4 looking at me closing in. On another hand, too often can many planes dive and climb back to the original altitude, but yet managed to increase their original speed. ALL prop planes should have bled off some energy in the manuever. (physics 101)

Overall, I deal with it and just keep flying. The early model planes are really fun....for some reason they don't butcher those planes. Mig3 is great.

AlmightyTallest
01-10-2005, 09:38 PM
bump.. Anyone have any new results or got any of this data straightened out? Which acceleration value for the Corsair is correct?

WWMaxGunz
01-10-2005, 10:03 PM
Interesting things to do:

Make a track of your best dive and zoom then run the playback with UDPSpeed and log your
speed and alt data. Check how much you bleed during the transition, how fast you are going
when you are in the steady zoom climb. It is good info to know especially if you try for
optimizing that transition per the plane you used.

Now make another track in the plane you call target. Fly along level with good speed, more
than you might think just from looking above since under-estimating speed of target is a
big part of BnZ error -- go for near maximum level speed. Pull up in that like you are
following a plane that just bounced you and didn't ruin your day. Play that back again
with UDPSpeed and see what you get.

That plane does not have to make full transition. If you are blowing too much advantage
in the change from dive to zoom and if the target had more speed than you thought, then
other things like superior P/W will tell and more the longer you zoom and especially if
you go from zoom to "now I let it slow down to hammerhead instead of wingover". Zoom
ends when you hit best sustained climb speed if not before.

You want to say the 109K climbs too well then pull out 109K data and agree with a lot
of knowledgeable members, quote Robbans' climb tests too as he is pretty good about how
he does em -- he has had the practice. Then there is not much to argue. "I got caught
online when I thought I shouldn't." is one of the oldest stories on this forum!

OldMan____
01-11-2005, 04:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Interesting things to do:

Make a track of your best dive and zoom then run the playback with UDPSpeed and log your
speed and alt data. Check how much you bleed during the transition, how fast you are going
when you are in the steady zoom climb. It is good info to know especially if you try for
optimizing that transition per the plane you used.

Now make another track in the plane you call target. Fly along level with good speed, more
than you might think just from looking above since under-estimating speed of target is a
big part of BnZ error -- go for near maximum level speed. Pull up in that like you are
following a plane that just bounced you and didn't ruin your day. Play that back again
with UDPSpeed and see what you get.

That plane does not have to make full transition. If you are blowing too much advantage
in the change from dive to zoom and if the target had more speed than you thought, then
other things like superior P/W will tell and more the longer you zoom and especially if
you go from zoom to "now I let it slow down to hammerhead instead of wingover". Zoom
ends when you hit best sustained climb speed if not before.

You want to say the 109K climbs too well then pull out 109K data and agree with a lot
of knowledgeable members, quote Robbans' climb tests too as he is pretty good about how
he does em -- he has had the practice. Then there is not much to argue. "I got caught
online when I thought I shouldn't." is one of the oldest stories on this forum! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

exactly. And if you are diving from 4k above someone onto it. You are doing something plain dumb. In 1.5 k you get enough speed to reach your maximum efficiency speed. Diving further higher will only spend 1000m for a very few kph more. You will be passing on him about 600 kph not much more than that. If a K4 is near 500 level (NOT HARD FOR IT if it is in combat) and you make the plain dumb straight up extension.. he will for sur catch you, since it will not loose E during high G recover like you. Also its superior, but correct climb will give him advantage enough to reach you.


Also if you dive from 4k above me.. I see you and dive for 500 meters at same time.. we will be at almost SAME speed very soon.

Just make your extension quite horizontal too. I almost never am cought while BnZ in my FW190 A4.. and it climbs far worse than most of its enemies. Just never throw away all your energy in a futile move.

Fehler
01-11-2005, 09:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Interesting things to do:

Make a track of your best dive and zoom then run the playback with UDPSpeed and log your
speed and alt data. Check how much you bleed during the transition, how fast you are going
when you are in the steady zoom climb. It is good info to know especially if you try for
optimizing that transition per the plane you used.

Now make another track in the plane you call target. Fly along level with good speed, more
than you might think just from looking above since under-estimating speed of target is a
big part of BnZ error -- go for near maximum level speed. Pull up in that like you are
following a plane that just bounced you and didn't ruin your day. Play that back again
with UDPSpeed and see what you get.

That plane does not have to make full transition. If you are blowing too much advantage
in the change from dive to zoom and if the target had more speed than you thought, then
other things like superior P/W will tell and more the longer you zoom and especially if
you go from zoom to "now I let it slow down to hammerhead instead of wingover". Zoom
ends when you hit best sustained climb speed if not before.

You want to say the 109K climbs too well then pull out 109K data and agree with a lot
of knowledgeable members, quote Robbans' climb tests too as he is pretty good about how
he does em -- he has had the practice. Then there is not much to argue. "I got caught
online when I thought I shouldn't." is one of the oldest stories on this forum! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is one of the best posts ever for this or any other sim.

It should be made a sticky!

Being a 190 pilot, I had the same questions early on in this sim. How can I be diving, then pull up into a zoom and be caught by a plane that I had a 2k alt advantage on?

Well, before UDPSpeed, I discovered a little "Flight sim" advice site that allowed me to fully understand why this happens.

For one, although this sim is very nice, it is impossible to totally recreate depth on a 2d screen. So judging distance and speed of another plane without icons is very hard to do. Two, pulling up sharply after a dive will negate the advantage you gained in the first place. You will bleed in tight G maneuvers, as you should.

So what I thought I was doing all along was not what I was really doing at all. I would blow past a guy, and yank up into a zoom climb. He would pull less arc (And bleed less) and catch me in the zoom, all the while I was in his gun range and being pelted (Making me slower as well!) It took a long time to beat this into my head, but I finally got it.

Instead of pulling back once you miss your shot, pull gently, watch your speed and really try to make your plane bleed no energy. (It's going to bleed some, but you can make this very minimal with practice) Extend slightly before going into the zoom, and you will find that no plane can shoot you down if you start with an energy advantage. Also remember to think in the 3d not the 2d as you would on the ground. Eventually, if your plane is an inferior climber, you can be caught by the level plane you dove on, so you have to find that spot where you are once again at an altitude advantage, but have to extend further to give yourself enough distance to make a turn for another pass. In a 190 (Anton) this speed is around 320 KPH. To give an example of this, here I am in a 190, I dove on a spit. (He climbs better than me) I miss my shot and I continue to dive slightly as I gently pull back on the stick until I am in a zoom climb. I firewall the throttle and when I reach a speed of around 320KPH, I level off, extend for some distance, and reverse. He wont be able to touch me, and as long as I am not having one of those (I cant hit the broad side of a barn) days while shooting, he will be shot down.. no questions. I take particular enjoyment flying a lesser FW against a superior late model Spit when doing this because you know you really worked the advantage over him. But in all things, sometimes you have to know when to say "When." and just run away...

Online, most people grow too impatient to do this. They see the fight unfolding under them and want to get into the action. I am guilty of this as well at times. So it's human nature to want to get into the fight as fast as possible. The Attack-attack-attack method is not the proper way to B&Z. Atteck-parry-decide-attack, is! The whole idea is to maintain speed at all cost, even if that means disengaging instead of fighting.

Yes it gets frustrating. In a 190 this is especially so. If you blow your opportunity to kill at the first pass, more than likely some hotshot in a 109 will come by and finish your kill. That's why B&Z is a philosophy best executed with team members on comms. (Sharing kills with team members is far less frustrating than with people you dont know http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

Many times, on WC, I have gone into feirce odds with other members of JV44. 4-2, 6-2, etc. But superior technique will always win over superior aircraft. It was this way in WWII, and it is this way in the sim.

OK, I am rambling now... But the main point here is, learn to extend before pulling up into a zoom climb. You will maintain your energy far longer, and create distance between you and the guy you just overshot. If he is really dumb, he will try to follow you which creates even more advantage for yourself.

WWMaxGunz
01-11-2005, 11:27 AM
BnZ, never if you can exit in the direction the target is flying and not right in plain
sight. Get underneath especially if you have to go in front or make sure you shoot from
far enough away you never get as low as the target, he may be on the deck anyway. Since
you are changing direction so much, bend the curve on its' side a bunch at the bottom
and hit the target some higher than that, hopefully he doesn't see you coming and doesn't
know where you went until you are at least out of range and off his 9 or further back.

If you force him to turn then he may turn hard enough to lose some speed (there are
speeds and good turns where he will not) but even if not he will lose time and you
will gain seperation.

Hitting with deflection, you can always get that extra start angle on the turn towards
his rear. It's much harder lining up the shot especially with the lack of view angle
but 1 hit from 4 to 5 o'clock deflection is to me usually worth a few hits from near 6.

Extending level or climbing I think depends on how much speed for alt tradeoff you can
get. Put me in a 190 and I'd not hit at under 500kph and not shallow climb after extend
at less than 400kph especially from say Spit V that cannot climb so well even under 400.

faustnik
01-11-2005, 11:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
AHA has the following figures:

P-47D: Thrust/lb 2400, Drag/lb 1485 Accel ft/sec 2.15

F4U-1: Thrust/lb 2400, Drag/lb 1580 Accel ft/sec 2.08 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does AHT specify alt / engine settings etc for this? Has anyone tested acceleration at SL and at the optimum speed alt for the p47/f4u-1 in PF yet? Just trying to work out where the 1.5/sc and 2.08/sec figures come from exactly and how to try to best replicate them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry Clint, I missed this.

AHT states that the tests were done at COMBAT power at sea level with a start speed of 250mph..