PDA

View Full Version : P-40E - What's changed?



hawkmeister
05-20-2004, 09:40 AM
Just curious. Haven't flown the patch long enough to notice a difference. Anyone know exactly what mods were made?

-Bill

hawkmeister
05-20-2004, 09:40 AM
Just curious. Haven't flown the patch long enough to notice a difference. Anyone know exactly what mods were made?

-Bill

XyZspineZyX
05-20-2004, 10:55 AM
According to the ReadMe *cough*...

they fixed the supercharger to reflect the fact that it's a one stage supercharger.

Sounds like maybe it was a 2- or 3-stager before, I dunno...

Harry_M
05-20-2004, 11:00 AM
All it says in my readme re: P-40...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
9. Reworked flight models of the following aircraft: LaGG-3IT, LaGG-3 of 1943, P-38s, P-40e, A6M2, A6M5, Bf-110G-2.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hawkmeister
05-20-2004, 12:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Harry_M:
All it says in my readme re: P-40...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
9. Reworked flight models of the following aircraft: LaGG-3IT, LaGG-3 of 1943, P-38s, P-40e, A6M2, A6M5, Bf-110G-2.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep. That's all mine says, too. Hence {cough}my question.

-Bill

Stalker58
05-20-2004, 01:34 PM
Oleg apparently touches P40 FM, it's still good but there is nasty stall at low speed }even with flaps) that I feel like "new feature"...

Altitude, speed, manoeuvre and.... CRASH!

Vortex_uk
05-20-2004, 01:46 PM
i've been flying it quite alot since 2.1,I think it seems better after we got the patch.well maybe because i mainly fly the field mod. but there shouldn't be that much difference between the two Es,should there?

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/Vortex_uk/zerosaburo.jpg


"We are not retreating, we are advancing in another direction. " ~ Gen. MacArthur

HyperLobby name : Vortex_uk

XyZspineZyX
05-20-2004, 02:08 PM
When they say they adjust the FM, if there's no further detail, it basically means they tweak it to fit their preconceived idea of what the plane should be.

Whether that has anything to do with the numbers it ought to hit... well, that's for the *next* patch to sort out.

LeadSpitter_
05-20-2004, 02:30 PM
it stalls out very easy now and its climb has been slowed down even more. The mustangs climb was slowed down alot too the p47 can climb slighty faster now

I hate how they give us the story of the i185 but they cant even make a list of everything changed fm wise. They just say planes changed but no freaken details


I still cant believe they did not reduce the g2s turning ability. Same with the bf110 and ki84 and thier climb rates.



http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif

Stalker58
05-21-2004, 02:11 AM
Last night I was little dancing with P40M on Virtualserver1 andwas for some nasty surprises.While in FB 2.0 I was able to keep in turning fight with Bf109G easily and often comeout upwards, now with 2.01 was experiencing sudden wing drop and recovery is very hard now..

Altitude, speed, manoeuvre and.... CRASH!

VFA-195 Snacky
05-21-2004, 02:27 AM
Somebody must have complained that they were being dogged by the P40 so they put it on a leash.lol http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Seriously though I flew the P40E and P40M last night for about an hour and it seemed to be fine to me. I did a flat spin low I was unable to recover from, but I still racked up a couple of kills in one sorte.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/531seawolf/b_a_presidential_first.jpg
"Navy1, Call the Ball- Roger Ball."


**Opinions expressed are not those of UbiSoft or Eagle Dynamics**

Kannaksen_hanu
05-21-2004, 02:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I still cant believe they did not reduce the g2s turning ability. Same with the bf110 and ki84 and thier climb rates.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dunno anything about Ki-84, but G2's turn has been correct for a long time (compared to La-5's series at least, they should be quite equal) and 110 feels much heavier to me now, but as you said sustained climb seems to be same as earlier (from IL-2compare 2.4)

pourshot
05-21-2004, 03:30 AM
I fly the p40 alot and I feel the turn rate has been reduced, Perhaps somebody dont like being killed by a lowly p40 *cough* luftwhiners *cough*

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/mybaby.jpeg.JPG
Ride It Like Ya Stole It

LeadSpitter_
05-21-2004, 04:13 AM
yup now if they would make the g2 stall like that its more manueverable then the p40 with a 500 pound bomb, gunpods or drop tank now.

I dont get how they can constantly listen to the luftwhiners, I fly the german planes mostly and they are far easier to fly then vvs or us aircraft.

Especially with the prop pitch instant stop manuever which has still not been fixed it does it even more now that 0 pitch seems to slow you down eveen quicker then before.

Look at the bf110 the things out manuvering most fighters, only thing that changed is its dm seems alot weaker, its still out accelarating the p38 low alt and off the ground even with bombs or the nose cannon.

it seems oleg made bombs and rocket racks add alot more drag and weight to the p38 but they have no effect on german or russian aircraft just US and british.

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif

Fennec_P
05-21-2004, 04:50 AM
I tested bf-109G2 turn time at 1000m. It is 20 seconds, just like it is supposed to be.

Can you explain how to make the plane instant stop? I cannot replicate this. When I reduce pitch to 0%, and throttle to 0%, the plane decelerates normally.

For the Bf-110G I get turn time of almost 30 seconds. It is much worse than even a P-47 or FW-190.

I tested acceleration for bf-110G and P-38J. 110% power, on the deck, from 300km/h to 500km/h.


P-38J: 0:41
Bf-110G: 1:16
Bf-110G w/2xSC500: 475km/h in 1:50+

Bf-110 accelerates just over half the rate of the P-38. With bombs, it can not even top 475km/h.

Are you just making this stuff up at random, or did you just have a particularly bad day on Hyperlobby?

http://members.shaw.ca/fennec/urban.jpg

Kwiatos
05-21-2004, 05:13 AM
I think Bf 110 G-2 is more accurate now in patch ( i know even who is behind it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) But still i think is problem with turn rates beetween Bf's. The main problem i think is with BF G-2. Bf G-2 should turn slighty worse than Bf F but near equal with La5. In FB G-2 turn equal with La5 but much better than F-4 which is incorect. The same problem is with new Spitfire MK IX comparing it to Bf G-2. Spit should turn better than G-2 but in AEP have similar turn rate. In my opinion Oleg should slighty decrase turne turn rate Bf G-2, the same La5 and slighty incrase turn SPit MK IX.
So we should start to waiting for next patch?

mswantak
05-21-2004, 05:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
When they say they adjust the FM, if there's no further detail, it basically means they tweak it to fit their preconceived idea of what the plane should be.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now Allen, when did you become such a cynic? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Seriously, it'd probably be better if they'd briefly describe just how an FM was adjusted, and endure the slings and arrows of everyone who disagreed with it. By simply saying it was 'adjusted', 20 different people are apt to come to 20 different conclusions about precisely what was adjusted -- not to mention why it was adjusted.

LeadSpitter_
05-21-2004, 05:31 AM
lol 20 seconds?? more like 3-4 seconds with gunpods.
http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/quick0008.zip

I also dont have my saitek trottle hooked up now which you can get a even tighter turn and over rev bck to 560 in a matter of 2-3 seconds.

and for you bf110 tests do it from the ground with a friend from airrace start to 400kmph and you will see what im talking about. Dont you feel bad how easily the b17 is shot down compaired to the pe8 condor and tb3? No tactics needsed at all to shootdown large numbers of b17s

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif

LEXX_Luthor
05-21-2004, 05:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Are you just making this stuff up at random, or did you just have a particularly bad day on Diaperlobby?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

They need to turn on Stall Option too.


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

LeadSpitter_
05-21-2004, 05:42 AM
look at the track you can see the settings stall is on

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif

LEXX_Luthor
05-21-2004, 05:45 AM
I saw this Debate earlier, when that weirdo from some Noob Squad came here to claim Spit~5 would never stall. I tried it and if you jerked the stick it rolled right over asleep like male dogfighter.

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

LeadSpitter_
05-21-2004, 06:14 AM
did you look at the track luthor

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif

hawkmeister
05-21-2004, 02:50 PM
Still haven't got enough time in the patched P-40E to get a feel for what's changed, but as far as turning goes - the P-40E SHOULD be able to easily out turn any 109. That was just about it's only performance advantage. A good P-40 pilot should be able to own any 109 or 190 below 10,000 feet that's not being flown in a tactically-correct (dive and zoom) manner.

For that matter, the same goes for the P-39 series, which even had a heavier wing loading than the P-40.

Anyone flying a German fighter in a turn fight with a P-40 or P-39 deserves to get their butt shot off.

-Bill

LeadSpitter_
05-21-2004, 06:09 PM
whats the point of me making a track on the 109g2 with gunpods doing a 3-4 second complete turn from 650+

suppost to be 20 right

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif

Fennec_P
05-21-2004, 07:27 PM
Damn it Leadspitter, what does you diving to 650, then doing a trim turn while jiggling the prop pitch have to do with the Bf-109g2s 20 second sustained turn rate?.

What you "tested" in that track is the plane's instantanous turn rate at 650km/h with full trim. Guess how long it took to do a 360 turn in the track. 15 seconds! Not "3-4" seconds, 15 seconds. You can count, right?

I can't find any info specifying the bf-109g2s instantaneous turn rate at 650kmh, but a 15 second value is far from mind boggling. Some monoplanes in AEP can do 11 or 12 second instantaneous turns. In general, a plane can do its fastest max-rate turn in about 2/3-3/4 of its sustained turn rate, and this fits. To be sure, you'd need date to compare it to.

Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying the bf-109 is perfect. That prop pitch thing you were doing may or may not improve turn rate. But you have to do a real test to find out. Perhaps, test the sustained turn rate using the prop pitch thing and see if you can exceed the correct value.

I will try that too.

http://members.shaw.ca/fennec/urban.jpg

[This message was edited by Fennec_P on Fri May 21 2004 at 06:56 PM.]

Fennec_P
05-21-2004, 07:51 PM
Here is test for sustained turn. Crimea, noon, 100 fuel, 1000m, 110% power. I used manual pitch at 95% (highest I could get it without breaking down). Turn speed 270-280 TAS.

track (http://members.shaw.ca/fennec/quick10.ntrk)

I tried it 3 times, and always still get 20 second turn time.

I did also with 100% power, auto pitch. This also yields a 20 second turn time. If there is a difference between auto and manual pitch, it is less than a second.

I tested also with pods, and the sustained turn rate was increased to 22 seconds. The plane showed a tendancy to stall at level turn speeds below 275 TAS.

If the pitch "hack" produces more power, it does not seem to affect the turn rate much, if at all. This is affected more by weight, as seen by how pods markedly increase the sustained turn rate. A bomb would have greater effect still.

If you are adamant about demonstrating the pitch hack, maybe the effect would be more noticable in an acceleration or climb test. I remember someone commenting earlier that auto pitch improves climb rate, but it was never demonstrated.

[This message was edited by Fennec_P on Fri May 21 2004 at 07:00 PM.]

LeadSpitter_
05-21-2004, 08:03 PM
Did you see my track fennec?

I looked at your track and notice your not using any flaps, your wings are not flush with the ground, and Indicator is at an angle not vertical to the ground | your at / that angle.

and your obvioysly not using all your elevator. Im guess that your elevator has filtering or your controls are not being used to thier full effect 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 effect.

I would like you to comment on my track turn time compaired to yours. Also look at the speed im entering the turn at 670 and your doing a slow wide turn at slower speed

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif

BennyMoore
05-21-2004, 10:14 PM
The P-40E's roll rate is greatly increased. While this is to my advantage since I am a P-40E pilot, I am fairly certain that this is unrealistic. I have seen P-40s fly in real life, and the old Aces Expansion Pack P-40E roll rate seemed to be perfect.

Man, though, nothing can beat watching that P-40 fly in perfect formation with an A-10.

VW-IceFire
05-21-2004, 10:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
The P-40E's roll rate is greatly increased. While this is to my advantage since I am a P-40E pilot, I am fairly certain that this is unrealistic. I have seen P-40s fly in real life, and the old Aces Expansion Pack P-40E roll rate seemed to be perfect.

Man, though, nothing can beat watching that P-40 fly in perfect formation with an A-10.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Seems exactly the same to me. P-40 was known for a terrible low speed stall (or even high speed with the right throw of the controls). This seems to be consistent...many pilots were lost during training on this fighter due to spin/stalls so it doesn't surprise me.

Still a pleasure to fly.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Fennec_P
05-21-2004, 11:12 PM
your wings are not flush with the ground

A 90 degree bank would cause a loss of altitude. Turn rate must be measured while mantaining a constant altitude.

I watched your track, but I dont understand what it is supposed to be testing. The track shows a max rate instantaneous turn, while dumping lots of altitude (basically a slice). No conclusions can be drawn, because all of the variables are changing. All it shows is that a Bf-109G2 in a descending max rate turn will complete 360 degrees in 15 seconds, which means all of nothing.

To test sustained turn rate, you turn as quickly as possible, at a constant speed and at a constant altitude. You can't start the turn at 670kmh and end it at 250, nor can you lsoe any altitude. The figures you see in the object viewer are generally at 1000m, so that makes sense to use. For speed, you would find out the planes best turn speed. Its generally just above the speed at which the plane stalls. The number of seconds to complete 360 degrees at a constant speed at a constant altitude is the sustained turn time.

For testing an instantanous turn, the process is the same, except for the fact that the speed changes. This is what you tested, sort of. You start the turn at a higher speed, and end it at a lower speed, the idea being to complete the required number of degrees in the fastest possible time. For example, a B-239, starting at 350m/h while maintaining 2000m, can do a 180 degree turn in 7 seconds. Thats an instantaneous turn rate.

Loss of altitude during either one of these tests would add energy to the plane, and invalidate the results.

I didn't use flaps because they don't improve the sustained turn rate. The Bf-109G2 with combat flaps has a turn time of 22 seconds, worse than without flaps.

Some planes do turn at a faster rate with flaps (Bf-109E for example), but most don't.

[This message was edited by Fennec_P on Fri May 21 2004 at 10:24 PM.]

LeadSpitter_
05-21-2004, 11:33 PM
are you smoking crack???? i dove to get to 670, used opposite rudder to keep the wings at 90 degrees in the turn not loosing altitide

as you see the turn is level and matches up with the wingtip smoke on a level plain

btw how did you get 15 seconds my watch shows 3.6sec for wingtip smoke to connect.

after i completed the turn, flew level for a bit then dove down and crashed to end the record

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif

Fennec_P
05-22-2004, 12:18 AM
I don't know what track youre looking at, because I find the results much different.

The turn begins at 0:29, you are going 602km/h TAS, at 811m. Heading is 84 degrees.

The turn ends at 0:44, you are going 256km/h TAS, at 795m, back to 84 degrees.

44 seconds - 29 seconds = 15 seconds.

So the turn took 15 seconds in total, and about 350km/h of speed was lost. Where are you getting 3 seconds?

This proves that the Bf-109G2 has an instantaneous turn time of 15 seconds at 600km/h at 800m. My question is, what is the significance of this result? You appear to be implying that it is incorrect.

Ivank
05-22-2004, 12:38 AM
Well read all the posts on this and clearly Fennec has a handle on this. Great posts Fennec.

Leadspitter if you consider using opposie rudder to hold the constant altitude at 90 degrees bank you are demonstrating a dramatic lack of knowledge on the entire concept of Sustained and instantaneous turn rates, and how to achieve max turn performance.

VF-2_John_Banks
05-22-2004, 03:06 AM
I flew the P-39 N1 on a 1942 server 2 days ago and i had absolutely no problem to outturn the 109s. You can even outturn the 109s with a P-51B, C or D down low now. I noticed that the P-63 has been slowed down a bit. Before the patch, it was very easy to reach 560 kph on the deck, now it seems to be about as fast as the P-38.

hawkmeister
05-22-2004, 03:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VF-2_John_Banks:
I flew the P-39 N1 on a 1942 server 2 days ago and i had absolutely no problem to outturn the 109s. You can even outturn the 109s with a P-51B, C or D down low now.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly as it should be. The 51s (all of them) should out turn the 109s at just about any alt without the need for flaps.

-Bill

LeadSpitter_
05-22-2004, 07:26 AM
maybe im counting slow http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

btw i cant do the over rev exploit anymore in 2.01 i tried with he x45 trottle and manual pitch oleg removed the exploit which would sky rocket you back to 600+kph

Do you fly offline only fennec?

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif

Skalgrim
05-22-2004, 08:06 AM
turn time was make with 1,3ata 100%



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fennec_P:
Here is test for sustained turn. Crimea, noon, 100 fuel, 1000m, 110% power. I used manual pitch at 95% (highest I could get it without breaking down). Turn speed 270-280 TAS.

http://members.shaw.ca/fennec/quick10.ntrk

I tried it 3 times, and always still get 20 second turn time.

I did also with 100% power, auto pitch. This also yields a 20 second turn time. If there is a difference between auto and manual pitch, it is less than a second.

I tested also with pods, and the sustained turn rate was increased to 22 seconds. The plane showed a tendancy to stall at level turn speeds below 275 TAS.

If the pitch "hack" produces more power, it does not seem to affect the turn rate much, if at all. This is affected more by weight, as seen by how pods markedly increase the sustained turn rate. A bomb would have greater effect still.

If you are adamant about demonstrating the pitch hack, maybe the effect would be more noticable in an acceleration or climb test. I remember someone commenting earlier that auto pitch improves climb rate, but it was never demonstrated.

[This message was edited by Fennec_P on Fri May 21 2004 at 07:00 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Vipez-
05-22-2004, 10:24 AM
uh Lead,, can't you be just happy the way american planes are now? P-51D is hugely overmodelled now, and still you would like to take a knive and tear the balls of from 109-series.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif .50 cal is killer, P-51D outturns 109F-4.. what more do you want....


__________________________


http://www.leosk.org/tiedostot/sig-pieni.jpg

LeadSpitter_
05-22-2004, 11:02 AM
get in a p51d and ill use an f4 out turn me, go into warclouds server and meet up.

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif

BennyMoore
05-27-2004, 11:09 PM
The P-40E roll rate IS much faster after the patch. I don't see how any P-40E pilot could miss it. It now rolls like the FW-190. Before it rolled like the (pre-patch) BF-109.

I, too, think that the P-51 is overmodelled, but only in terms of speed. I've read many, many things about the P-51's agility, but nothing of its speed. In this game, it can outrun a Lighting.