PDA

View Full Version : Ki-84 modelling. Who's kidding who?



chris455
03-05-2004, 03:01 PM
Let's get a few things out of the way first:

I don't usually fly online;

I know there were many excellent Japanese AC in WWII, the Ki-84 among them;

I know that many on these boards have developed an intense admiration for the Ki-84 series.

Having said that-

My disbelief has to do with two, and only two, aspects of the Ki-84's modelling, behold:

1. It's high altitude performance, and;
2. It's damage modelling

I beleive that below 21,000 ft the Hayate is modelled VERY accurately. I believe further still that above 21,000ft, it's performance is, well,......overstated. WAY too competetive with the P-47 and other marks that were known for their sterling high-altitude performance.
I understand this ship had only a single stage mechanical supercharger? Like the P-39 and P-40?
And it performs so spiritedly at +25,000 ft ?
If I am wrong about it's engine attributes, I'm more than willing to listen.

On to the damage modelling.

This is a plane that in FB has the best self-sealing tanks of any plane, rarely catches fire (and when it does, the fire goes out in a few seconds) almost never explodes, and in my experience, soaks up .50 caliber bullets like a construction worker slaking cold beer at 5:00 O'clock on a Friday afternoon. I have actually seen a Ki-84 take 5 20mm hits from 2 P-38s almost simultaneously (1 in each WING go figure!) and innumerable .50cal rounds at the same time.
If that affected it's ability to loop, zoom climb, and Chandelle, I was too busy trying get another bead on it to notice.

This is the aircraft that Thomas B. McGuire described as "lightly built, with it's gas tanks covered with a thin layer of the crudest leak proof material"?

I KNOW the Ki-84 was built to a much more rugged standard than the Zero. But in FB it gives the Jug a run for it's money in the tough department. This is contrary to what what we know about the Ki84's construction.

There is something amiss here. I'm not asking for a war, but if name calling and insults get used as a substitute for logical argument, may I thank you in advance for proving my point for me.
This A/C's damage and high altitude FM is simply not believable.
S!

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

chris455
03-05-2004, 03:01 PM
Let's get a few things out of the way first:

I don't usually fly online;

I know there were many excellent Japanese AC in WWII, the Ki-84 among them;

I know that many on these boards have developed an intense admiration for the Ki-84 series.

Having said that-

My disbelief has to do with two, and only two, aspects of the Ki-84's modelling, behold:

1. It's high altitude performance, and;
2. It's damage modelling

I beleive that below 21,000 ft the Hayate is modelled VERY accurately. I believe further still that above 21,000ft, it's performance is, well,......overstated. WAY too competetive with the P-47 and other marks that were known for their sterling high-altitude performance.
I understand this ship had only a single stage mechanical supercharger? Like the P-39 and P-40?
And it performs so spiritedly at +25,000 ft ?
If I am wrong about it's engine attributes, I'm more than willing to listen.

On to the damage modelling.

This is a plane that in FB has the best self-sealing tanks of any plane, rarely catches fire (and when it does, the fire goes out in a few seconds) almost never explodes, and in my experience, soaks up .50 caliber bullets like a construction worker slaking cold beer at 5:00 O'clock on a Friday afternoon. I have actually seen a Ki-84 take 5 20mm hits from 2 P-38s almost simultaneously (1 in each WING go figure!) and innumerable .50cal rounds at the same time.
If that affected it's ability to loop, zoom climb, and Chandelle, I was too busy trying get another bead on it to notice.

This is the aircraft that Thomas B. McGuire described as "lightly built, with it's gas tanks covered with a thin layer of the crudest leak proof material"?

I KNOW the Ki-84 was built to a much more rugged standard than the Zero. But in FB it gives the Jug a run for it's money in the tough department. This is contrary to what what we know about the Ki84's construction.

There is something amiss here. I'm not asking for a war, but if name calling and insults get used as a substitute for logical argument, may I thank you in advance for proving my point for me.
This A/C's damage and high altitude FM is simply not believable.
S!

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

BfHeFwMe
03-05-2004, 03:10 PM
AI or human, there's a difference, has to be. No AI is good at flying damaged planes, so takes much more damage to activate the modeling. Same with FM's, they simply couldn't compete with your FM restrictions.

Platypus_1.JaVA
03-05-2004, 03:15 PM
In case you haven't noticed, we fly this sim in the metric system. That means that alot of ppl on this forum doesn't understand your concerns if you talk about 'feet'. And 7km is pretty damn high in this sim.

All FM's are porked if you go much higher them 5km/15000ft. That means that the FB engine isn't really suited for high fighting.

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge,
ye shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be measured
to you again.

http://server5.uploadit.org/files/JaVAPlatypus-1java.JPG (http://www.1java.org)

lrrp22
03-05-2004, 03:32 PM
It's high speed handling is much too good at all altitudes. Quite simply, it is modeled with all of the Frank's FM/DM virtues (including a very genereous top speed) but none of its vices.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chris455:
Let's get a few things out of the way first:

I don't usually fly online;

I know there were many excellent Japanese AC in WWII, the Ki-84 among them;

I know that many on these boards have developed an intense admiration for the Ki-84 series.

Having said that-

My disbelief has to do with two, and only two, aspects of the Ki-84's modelling, behold:

1. It's high altitude performance, and;
2. It's damage modelling

I beleive that below 21,000 ft the Hayate is modelled VERY accurately. I believe further still that above 21,000ft, it's performance is, well,......overstated. WAY too competetive with the P-47 and other marks that were known for their sterling high-altitude performance.
I understand this ship had only a single stage mechanical supercharger? Like the P-39 and P-40?
And it performs so spiritedly at +25,000 ft ?
If I am wrong about it's engine attributes, I'm more than willing to listen.

On to the damage modelling.

This is a plane that in FB has the best self-sealing tanks of any plane, rarely catches fire (and when it does, the fire goes out in a few seconds) almost never explodes, and in my experience, soaks up .50 caliber bullets like a construction worker slaking cold beer at 5:00 O'clock on a Friday afternoon. I have actually seen a Ki-84 take 5 20mm hits from 2 P-38s almost simultaneously (1 in each WING go figure!) and innumerable .50cal rounds at the same time.
If that affected it's ability to loop, zoom climb, and Chandelle, I was too busy trying get another bead on it to notice.

This is the aircraft that Thomas B. McGuire described as "lightly built, with it's gas tanks covered with a thin layer of the crudest leak proof material"?

I KNOW the Ki-84 was built to a much more rugged standard than the Zero. But in FB it gives the Jug a run for it's money in the tough department. This is contrary to what what we know about the Ki84's construction.

There is something amiss here. I'm not asking for a war, but if name calling and insults get used as a substitute for logical argument, may I thank you in advance for proving my point for me.
This A/C's damage and high altitude FM is simply not believable.
S!

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

chris455
03-05-2004, 04:00 PM
I apologize Platypus.
I didn't mean to make it more difficult for people; I should have used metric. My bad.
S!

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

JimRockford
03-05-2004, 04:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chris455:
I apologize Platypus.
I didn't mean to make it more difficult for people; I should have used metric. My bad.
S!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The opinions of others notwithstanding... it's ok man. Most of the Non-USA can speak multiple languages, whereas most of the USA people can easily use both measurement units.

This is meaningless and just stated in a 'fun' nature.

WUAF_Badsight
03-05-2004, 04:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chris455:
This is a plane that in FB has the best self-sealing tanks of any plane,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

not true , false claim



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chris455:
But in FB it gives the Jug a run for it's money in the tough department,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well here we go again

the place to test DM is OFFLINE

online experience is wack

fact is the KI is eaisly hurt , small hits on the wings wont hurt its climb but reduce itsspeed & RUIN the turning ability

WUAF_Badsight
03-05-2004, 04:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
It's high speed handling is much too good at all altitudes. Quite simply, it is modeled with all of the Frank's FM/DM virtues (including a very genereous top speed) but none of its vices. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

& none of the other planes are either ,........ whats your point ??

VMF-214_HaVoK
03-05-2004, 04:52 PM
Ki is quite silly how can one disagree with that? I imagine the ones that do are the same ones that want to fly the most UBER plane they can to make up for lack of skill OR to collect alot of points. So they will say no the Ki is far from UBER...lol. And why do people keep saying that no other planes have accurate high alt flight models? What sim you playing? I find that high alt performance for most planes is quite good, certainly better then 1.0. The Ki is UBER and therefore will be classified as a n00b plane by most. So those who choose to fly this bird will just have to get use to it. Nothing you say will change the mind of the majority. IMHO
=S=

http://www.aviation-history.com/vought/98027.jpg

lrrp22
03-05-2004, 05:07 PM
I'm not talking about manufacturing defects, I'm talking about FM problems. Not all aircraft should handle as well as Mustangs and Fw 190's at high speed, most don't. The Ki-84 is one that does, but should not.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
It's high speed handling is much too good at all altitudes. Quite simply, it is modeled with all of the Frank's FM/DM virtues (including a very genereous top speed) but none of its vices. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

& none of the other planes are either ,........ whats your point ??<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

chris455
03-05-2004, 05:19 PM
Tell us Badsight, which plane in FB DOES have the best self-sealing fuel tanks in your opinion, if not the Ki84?

You've stated my opinion is false; now give us your rejoinder. Which plane would it be?
S!

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

Maple_Tiger
03-05-2004, 05:47 PM
it is known to have poor high altitude performance...

I wonder why.

Mayby becaues the Frank only had the 1 stage supercharger. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

It seems to fly around like it has two lol.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid78/pd6c878f0006c224805da6c9645408b41/fb291d3e.jpg

Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

Slammin_
03-05-2004, 06:11 PM
Who in their right mind flies at 21k ft anyway? I don't have time to get that high. If I ever get that high, please unplug my PC as I obviously had nothing better at all to do.

But the original poster is correct. Oleg must be Japanese! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Seriously, the Ki is a great La-7 equalizer and I hope it stays that way!

p1ngu666
03-05-2004, 06:12 PM
the C has 2x 20mm 2x 30mm
bit devistating

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg

03-05-2004, 08:21 PM
The burden of low air density applies same with all planes. If you can't out turn a Ki at deck, you won't be able to out turn it, be it at 25k or 35k. As a matter of fact, when it comes to handling, it becomes even tougher for the planes with bad turn rates as alt grows higher.

Having a "superior alt performance" merely means that at one point or another, the superior plane will SUFFER LESS from the consequences of altitude, than the inferior plane. It doesn't necessarily guarantee an immediate advantage in anything - in some cases, the difference in certain aspects of fighter quality may be so high in the first place, that suffering less from altitudes won't be enough to reverse the advantaged/disadvantaged position.

As a general rule of thumb, problems with altitude manifests itself in the form of climb rates, not speed or maneuverability. This means, when prolonged engagements occur, the inferior plane at alt, will generally be forced to go lower and lower.

It does not mean that you can go fight anything comfortably at high altitudes just for the fact that the enemy plane, is known to have "bad high-alt performance".

..

Fights at altitudes are very different from down below. It's just something people tend to misunderstand.

Destraex
03-05-2004, 09:05 PM
the wing shapes and weights etc greatly affect aircraft performance at different heights. Its to do with how efficient the wing is when the air is not as dense

St.G77_Sturm
03-05-2004, 09:17 PM
Before you accuse a plane of being overmodelled you got to get some charts , proof etc.Just stating "oh above 21000 feet the KI84 should have the performance of a WWI Spad is not going to help." I hope you know one of the main reasons for the KI84 being used was to intercept B29's at really high alt.It was called the B29 killer for a reason.I dont know if you are over - exaggerating the number of hits you got on the KI84 but I do NOT believe it.I've scored just a few .50 cal hits on the KI84's wing and it shears off fine.Unless you post a screenshot of those 5 simultaneous 20mm hits on the KI84 without any apparaent damage no one is going to believe you.Im not interested in waging a flame war against you but I am pointing out that merely posting your "opinion" is not going to help.

chris455
03-05-2004, 09:24 PM
My claim IS true.
I didn't save that track.
Believe what you will.
I'm not sure I've ever heard of the term "B-29 killer", where/when did you hear that one?
Applied to the Ki-84 and it's single stage SC?
S!

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

nearmiss
03-05-2004, 10:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chris455:
Let's get a few things out of the way first:

I don't usually fly online;

I know there were many excellent Japanese AC in WWII, the Ki-84 among them;

I know that many on these boards have developed an intense admiration for the Ki-84 series.

Having said that-

My disbelief has to do with two, and only two, aspects of the Ki-84's modelling, behold:

1. It's high altitude performance, and;
2. It's damage modelling

I beleive that below 21,000 ft the Hayate is modelled VERY accurately. I believe further still that above 21,000ft, it's performance is, well,......overstated. WAY too competetive with the P-47 and other marks that were known for their sterling high-altitude performance.
I understand this ship had only a single stage mechanical supercharger? Like the P-39 and P-40?
And it performs so spiritedly at +25,000 ft ?
If I am wrong about it's engine attributes, I'm more than willing to listen.

On to the damage modelling.

This is a plane that in FB has the best self-sealing tanks of any plane, rarely catches fire (and when it does, the fire goes out in a few seconds) almost never explodes, and in my experience, soaks up .50 caliber bullets like a construction worker slaking cold beer at 5:00 O'clock on a Friday afternoon. I have actually seen a Ki-84 take 5 20mm hits from 2 P-38s almost simultaneously (1 in each WING go figure!) and innumerable .50cal rounds at the same time.
If that affected it's ability to loop, zoom climb, and Chandelle, I was too busy trying get another bead on it to notice.

This is the aircraft that Thomas B. McGuire described as "lightly built, with it's gas tanks covered with a thin layer of the crudest leak proof material"?

I KNOW the Ki-84 was built to a much more rugged standard than the Zero. But in FB it gives the Jug a run for it's money in the tough department. This is contrary to what what we know about the Ki84's construction.

There is something amiss here. I'm not asking for a war, but if name calling and insults get used as a substitute for logical argument, may I thank you in advance for proving my point for me.
This A/C's damage and high altitude FM is simply not believable.
S!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's going to take an F8F or F4U to handle this little turkey. I'm not sure if an F6F can stay with it.

I haven't tried the P-51s, but whew! it'll be tough.

------------------ http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

03-05-2004, 10:49 PM
Having a single-stage or two-stage supercharger doesn't mean anything by itself. It is an irrelvant factor when it comes to short-term combat.

You should have read more carefully what I wrote down: planes that have problems at altitude, have problems when the fight is a long one.

....

Japanese fighters, generally did have problems at altitude, because like I said, the problems manifested itself as troubles in maintaining climb rates. However, that's not gonna stop a plane that is already high, from engaging the bombers and shooting at it.

The same sort of problems were to be seen with German fighters - where in case of the Bf109s with a normal DB605A/AM engine, would drop down in performance as the altitude passed 25k feet.

Think about it: how often do we hear people saying "the LW planes should be dogs at alt?". Yes, the performance drops in Japanese planes did tend to show a little earlier than German fighters; around 16~17k a sharp drop in climb rate could be noticed.

But in essence, the problems the German planes had, are exactly the same thing as Japanese planes. Nobody says "LW planes were dogs at high alts" in these forums. They only go as far as to make modest comments on how Fw190s or Bf109s "suffered a bit due to loss of power".

The point is this; the notoriety of "high alt performance" tends to be greatly exaggerated upon people's personal impressions of a plane, rather than based on solid facts.

People hear things about the shortcomings of Japanese planes, and then they immediately come up with a personalized conclusion before thinking about what that fact actually means. This tendency is highest, when it comes to public 'evaluation' on Japanese fighters.

In short, really, people just can't believe a Japanese manufacturer can make something like that. The same thing we've all seen when IL-2 first came out - people just refused to acknowledge the fact that communist Russians, built something that good.

If I say again, high alt combat, is something very different from low alt combat. The fights take a longer time. The amount of space the planes use become immensely larger. The average speeds the planes fight in, also goes way up. The requirements for speeds that need to be reserved for doing maneuvers, also goes up.

If a Ki-84 should be a dog in "handling" at that alt, than by all means P-51s or P-47s should be sloths. Like I said, if a plane can't out maneuver a Ki-84 at lower altitudes, it's not gonna out maneuver it at higher altitudes.

However, the drop in performance hits the plane in this sort of manner:

1) A Ki-84 meets a P-51 at 25k.
2) The two planes meet head on, and then swoosh! They pass by.
3) Both extend far away from each other, slowly reversing directions while climbing.
4) They turn towards each other again - swoosh! - they pass each other again.
5) Repeat the process as many times as necessaty, and by the time the P-51 reaches 35k, the Ki-84 is barely at 30k.

A crude, simplified example of combat I admit, but that's how high alt advantage works with planes. It doesn't work in the way which a turtle becomes a hare, and the hare becomes the turtle.

03-05-2004, 10:56 PM
As for the DM;

the first time I face a Ki-84-ko with the P-38L in a quick mission builder combat trial, I shot it down by setting the left wing tank on fire.

the first time I met a pilot in a Ki-84-te, with the P-38L in a multiplayer session, I shot it down by again, setting the left wing tank ablaze.

Not enough trials to say whether it's fubar or not, but one thing's for certain, is that I don't share the views that the Ki-84 is too strong.

HarryVoyager
03-05-2004, 11:26 PM
Well, the last time I tested the high altitude performance of the Ki-84, it was able to maintain it's ~430 mph TAS top speed to roughly 9km without problems. The only other aircraft in the game capable of so easily maintaining performance at such altitudes is the P-47, and that aircraft is equiped with possibly the most powerful turbo compression system of any aircraft that saw service in that war.

The Japanese never developed turbo or superchargers to the extent that the US, Britain, and Germany did. They simply didn't have the steels needed.

Then again, I don't have the Aces Pack yet, so I'm working with old data here.

Basically, it's speed should peak at 6100m at aroun 680 kmh TAS. By 9000m it should not still be going 670kmh IAS.

Harry Voyager

El Turo
03-06-2004, 03:36 AM
I flew AEP online for the first time tonight and while flying my new trusty steed, the P38L, I plugged a Ki-84 with a half dozen 20-mikeys and he just kept on trucking like nothing happened. It was bizarre.

It was the only time I encountered one that I was aware of anyway.

Most definately a kick *** plane with the 2x20 and 2x30 combined with the incredible performance and ability to soak up damage.

Wowee.

Callsign "Turo" in IL2:FB & WWIIOL

HarryVoyager
03-06-2004, 11:14 AM
The fact is, the Ki-84's performance peaked at 6100m, nearly 1500m below the nearest compairable USAAF fighter's maximum performance (P-51D 7600). By 8000m the P-51 and P-47 should have significant maximum speed advantages over the Ki-84. Last time I tested it, they did not.

The 6000m peak altitude indicates that the compressor could only maintain sea level engine performance up to around 6000m. Thus it is capable of doubling the pressure on the incoming air, in addition to any presurization required for the engine. Now, by 8000, the ambiant air pressure has dropped to only 40% of its sea level value. In other words, it has 20% less pressure than it did at 6000m. As the supercharger had cleared maxed out at 6000m, this indicates that the Ki-84 is operating with 20% less horse power at 8000m than it was at 6000m, or it has just lost 400 hp to lack of air.

By 9000m, the pressure is down to a mere 36% of sea level, or 72% of what is was at 6000, or about a 30% loss of incoming air to the engine. That's about 560 hp lost to altitude. By that point, the Ki84 has lost so much power that it has worse power loading that even a fully loaded P-47D-27.

That does not indicate an aircraft with sterling altitude performance.

Harry Voyager

BuzzU
03-06-2004, 11:22 AM
Everything i've read about the Ki-84 says it outperformed every allied plane. Especially the P-51/P-47. Have some of you actually read anything on the is plane? The plane had some quality control problems, but we know Oleg doesn't model those. He takes the best average performance he can find, and gives it to us. The Ki-84 was a deadly plane. It was built to be fast and tough with good armament. It was lucky for the US that Japan didn't have the Ki-84 earlier in the war.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buzz
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/eagles/4fg.jpg

chris455
03-06-2004, 12:06 PM
We're not discussing construction flaws or quality control issues.

This thread is about the surreal high altitude performance of an aircraft that by all accounts was a superb air supiority fighter at and below 5km but a mediocre performer above 7km.

It is about FACTS. Not personal attacks.

It is about a damage model that is extremely resistant to gunfire- so much so that many aircraft in-game, including such tough guys as the P-40, P47, and IL2 cannot typically absorb as much damage as the Ki-84 and remain in the air. This is contrary to EVERYTHING we have ever been told about WWII Japanese aircraft, even second generation WWII Japanese aircraft. Fact.

Harry's discussion on high altitude performance is, by an order of magnitude, more compelling from a logical standpoint than any of the attempts made in this thread to explain away the Ki-84's supernatural abilities at high altitudes in FB. Harry's post precedes this one. If you haven't yet read it, I suggest you do so. If you've read it already, I suggest you read it again.

As I stated at the beginning of this thread, there are many who have become enamoured with the Ki-84 in the community. Those among them who are well versed in the technical aspects of WWII aircraft performance will accept that the Ki-84 has been blessed with a generous flight and damage model when compared to the original.

It should, and I believe it will, be changed to reflect historical accuracy. Threads like this are the pathways of understanding that can lead us to a more historically accurate and enjoyable flight simulation experience.

S!
Chris

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

BuzzU
03-06-2004, 12:16 PM
Chris,

When I read everywhere that the Ki-84 outperformed the P-47/P-51, I assume they are talking at high altitude too since the American planes are high altitude planes. We also know the Zeros were fragile, so we think the Japanese can't build a study plane. They had goals on perfomance and strength when they designed the Ki-84.

I'm not sayin the Ki-84 isn't overmodeled in FB. I don't know for sure, but wouldn't be surprised since a lot of planes end up that way. I'm just saying the Ki-84 might be better than some of you think.

I'm flying the P-51 and i'm not happy going against the Ki-84. Just like they weren't happy in real life going against it.


btw..Where were the personal attacks from me?


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buzz
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/eagles/4fg.jpg

chris455
03-06-2004, 12:29 PM
Buzz,
Not at all.

The truth is, the Ki84 was an excellent aircraft. As far as the argument (lots of folks have mentioned this) that some of us are "Yankeecentric" regarding Japanese aircraft quality, I'm not one of them. I'ts no secret that my favorite WWII plane is the P-47, but most on these boards may not know that my second favorite is the Zero. I'm serious. Fell in love with that aircraft after I read "Cracking the Zero mystery", a book about the recovery and testing of the "Akutan" Zero crash site in Alaska.
What frustrates me is that these "Goose-eggs" in FB- the jet-like I-16s, the rhino tough Ki-84s, the "can't-roll-over-in-bed" P-47s- are such obviously non-historical phenomenon. It just bugs.
BTW where did you go all those weeks you were gone? Find a little cutie and go on a cruise or soemthing? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
S!
Chris

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

[This message was edited by Tully__ on Fri March 12 2004 at 08:27 AM.]

WUAF_Badsight
03-06-2004, 12:34 PM
Chris455 have you even bothered to fly the plane ?

its not this super tuff bird that you think it is

the place to test DM is O F F L I N E

online is meaningless as its all wack

if you take hits to its wings (which are not that strong) you ability to turn fight GOES OUT THE WINDOW

the point is that if you have trouble bringing one down online then it YOUR OWN AIMING ABILITY'S fault

& nothing else

BuzzU
03-06-2004, 12:40 PM
Chris,

I got on a beta team for Grand Prix Legends, and was doing tons of testing. Don't let anybody tell you being a beta tester is fun. It wore me out.

I actually made a thread saying how good the Ki-84 was, and I was going to fly it. That's when I started reading up on it. It didn't take me long to realize it was just too good, and would be the new noob plane. I gave up on it, and went back to my P-51. I'm still looking forwrd to the late Spits though. I just hope they arn't too good, just sort of good. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buzz
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/eagles/4fg.jpg

chris455
03-06-2004, 01:06 PM
Well Buzz, glad to have you back all the same. I've always thought you were a great guy, inspite of what everbody else says about you
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
(kidding about that last remark!)

Have you flown the Mark V Spits? they are as sexxy as hell. But I think I'm becoming a P-38 junkie, can't wait for some cool skins to come along.

Seriously, good to have you back BuZz-
S!

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

chris455
03-06-2004, 01:12 PM
BuZzu wrote (of the Ki84):
"......... It didn't take me long to realize it was just too good, and would be the new noob plane".

You nailed that one, Buzz. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

Skalgrim
03-06-2004, 01:18 PM
can live with ki84, only problem, need many time all my ammo

darkhorizon11
03-06-2004, 01:23 PM
One question???

Have you ever flown a Hayate? How would you know it its realistic below 20K or not or whatever you tried to say?

Its only a game, chill. Real flying is waaayyy different from this game anyways.
Leave it alone.

chris455
03-06-2004, 01:43 PM
That was..............helpful. I think? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

SithSpeeder
03-06-2004, 02:14 PM
Dunno about the damage modelling...haven't flown it much. But I can add this to the discussion....

My source (Enzo Angelucci and Paolo Matricardi) says: "The capabilities of the aircraft were studied in the spring of 1946, when the Americans tested a captured plane. With a full load simulating combat conditions, this plane weighed about 7,500 pounds. It reached a maximum speed of about 430 mph at 20,000 feet. This speed was better than that registered under identical conditions by two of the best American fighters--about 3 mph faster than the North American P-51D Mustang and about 20 mph faster than the Republic P-47D Thunderbolt."

* _54th Speeder *

http://members.cox.net/~ijhutch/_images/400x200sig.jpg

chris455
03-06-2004, 02:45 PM
Taken from an oft-cited website:

"In 1946, a captured late-production Hayate was restored and tested at the Middletown Air Depot in Pennsylvania. At a weight of 7490 pounds, the aircraft achieved a maximum speed of 427 mph at 20,000 feet, using war emergency power. This speed exceeded that of the P-51D Mustand and the P-47D at that altitude by 2 mph and 22 mph respectively. These figures were achieved with a superbly maintained and restored aircraft and with highly-refined aviation gasoline, and were not typical of Japanese-operated aircraft during the later stages of the war".

There's no doubt. At 20,000ft, the ki-84 was a very capable aircraft.

S!

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

BuzzU
03-06-2004, 02:50 PM
I just did a bunch of tests trying to down the Ki-84 with all the other planes. Even another Ki-84. The conclusion? It has to be the toughest plane in the game.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buzz
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/eagles/4fg.jpg

chris455
03-06-2004, 02:56 PM
http://members.cox.net/miataman1/2WWtogo.jpg
"You guys thought I was kidding, eh? We built that F***** tough!"

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

ajafoofoo
03-10-2004, 03:43 PM
The damage modeling on the ki84 isn't even close to right.

It's everyone's favorite ride now online.

They are high speed flying tanks with insane firepower.

Trying to shoot one down online sucks. They absorb a stupid amount of damage and by the time you have crippled one enough to finish it off, some other ***** in a ki84 comes behind to blast you to bits with cannon fire.

These things weren't this tough and they make for some bs gameplay online atm.

VMF-214_HaVoK
03-10-2004, 05:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BuzzU:
Everything i've read about the Ki-84 says it outperformed every allied plane. Especially the P-51/P-47. Have some of you actually read anything on the is plane? The plane had some quality control problems, but we know Oleg doesn't model those. He takes the best average performance he can find, and gives it to us. The Ki-84 was a deadly plane. It was built to be fast and tough with good armament. It was lucky for the US that Japan didn't have the Ki-84 earlier in the war.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buzz
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/eagles/4fg.jpg
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Below 6000 meters you bet it does. But the majority of the complaints including mine has to do with the KIs uberness above that alt.
=S=

http://www.aviation-history.com/vought/98027.jpg

arjisme
03-10-2004, 11:07 PM
I tried downing a Ki-84 with a variety of planes and agree, it is one tough plane to beat. I was able to dictate the fight with a YP-80, but my aim isn't good enough to hurt it badly. The only prop I was able to win with (not that I tried every plane) was a P-40. With that, though, I easily beat an AI opponent flying the Ki-84.

Mitlov47
03-10-2004, 11:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BuzzU:
I just did a bunch of tests trying to down the Ki-84 with all the other planes. Even another Ki-84. The conclusion? It has to be the toughest plane in the game.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Somebody apparently has never tried to shoot down a Jug...

---------------------------

"I hear the roar of a big machine; Two worlds and in between.
Love lost, fire at will; Dum-dum bullets and shoot to kill.
I hear dive bombers and Empire down, Empire down..."
--Sisters of Mercy

KI-84 -- "Kaoru's Bokken"
MiG-3 -- "Yes Anastasia"

chris455
03-11-2004, 12:00 AM
*************NEWSFLASH**********************

It's OK if the Jug is hard to shoot down!
That was reality!!!!
The Ki84 simply wasn't!!!
It burned and exploded like all Japanese planes!
12mm of seat armor and "self-sealing" (kinda sorta) tanks notwithstanding, it was easy to bring down with solid bursts of .50 caliber ammo. There was nothing magical about the Ki-84s construction that would explain it's supernatural toughness in FB. Period.

And BTW nothing personal Mitton.

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

gooseman1981
03-11-2004, 12:06 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
Ki is quite silly how can one disagree with that? I imagine the ones that do are the same ones that want to fly the most UBER plane they can to make up for lack of skill OR to collect alot of points. So they will say no the Ki is far from UBER...lol. And why do people keep saying that no other planes have accurate high alt flight models? What sim you playing? I find that high alt performance for most planes is quite good, certainly better then 1.0. The Ki is UBER and therefore will be classified as a n00b plane by most. So those who choose to fly this bird will just have to get use to it. Nothing you say will change the mind of the majority. IMHO
=S=

funny cus you and pappy are the only ppl that ever call ppl noobs and curse at ppl when they shoot u down becuase of the plane they fly.you need to grow up dude.btw that was me that kept shooting u down the other night when your buddy pappy wasnt looking.and on top of that when i shot you down u waited for me to die b4 ud hit refly lmao.and i bet u wouldnt fly the p47 all the time if u didnt have your friend flying at your side all the time.n00b!

03-11-2004, 12:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It is about a damage model that is extremely resistant to gunfire- so much so that many aircraft in-game, including such tough guys as the P-40, P47, and IL2 cannot typically absorb as much damage as the Ki-84 and remain in the air. This is contrary to EVERYTHING we have ever been told about WWII Japanese aircraft, even second generation WWII Japanese aircraft. Fact. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Ki-84 isn't all that resistant to gunfire at all. At least I don't notice anything particularly different with any other plane.

Wanna see me kill a Frank with a half-second shot with the P-38? Or how about the meagerly armed Bf109G-6/AS with a single MG151/20? For every "tough to kill" incidence, I could probably come up with an "easy to kill" incidence.

This whole thread is based on assumptions and impressions unconfirmable. Just look at the part I've quoted;

"It is about a damage model that is extremely resistant to gunfire"

- that's not what I see

"so much so that many aircraft in-game, including such tough guys as the P-40, P47, and IL2 cannot typically absorb as much damage as the Ki-84 and remain in the air"

- not what I see happening

"This is contrary to EVERYTHING we have ever been told about WWII Japanese aircraft"

- what, JP planes were made of paper?

"even second generation WWII Japanese aircraft."

- they were armoured and fitted with pilot protection?

"Fact."

- No, not a fact. An opinion. An impression. Which people beg to differ. You must come up with evidence enough to crush all other opinions, to pronounce it as fact.

So far, none of what I've seen from you contains anything worthwhile to be considered as a "fact".

Is this a personal attack? Not yet. But it's gonna be, if people keep up slinging accusations and assumptions without anything to go by.

LEXX_Luthor
03-11-2004, 12:30 AM
Ki~84 is porked at high altitude, at least in speed, slower than any P~51 up there. The weird thing I am having is that I am getting the early P~51s are about the same speed as the bubble top, but I thought the bubble tops were slower. Maybe I was wrong. I dunno. I don't fly either one of these much, just had to get some numbers so I can rebel against the Establishment culture. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


__________________
"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
"I don't have the V2 or B25s, so I'm going to reinstall" ~Bearcat99
:
"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

Willthisnamedo
03-11-2004, 12:56 AM
OK Guys, this is from a 'non-AEP equipped' european.

Can any of you comment on its damage model relative to the version in 1.22?

Because although I have no idea about high alt fm (I'm with the other poster in here on that one: who has the 2 hours to spend getting up there?? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif), I've flown it at low alt, and it is noticably vulnerable to incoming enemy fire: I remember the first online fight when I got hit, thinking that it was obviously modelled to be a 'weak Jap' plane - so can anyone say if it's any diff in AEP?

[This message was edited by Tully__ on Fri March 12 2004 at 08:32 AM.]

chris455
03-11-2004, 11:51 AM
KWEASSA1 [QUOTE]
"Wanna see me kill a Frank with a half-second shot with the P-38? Or how about the meagerly armed Bf109G-6/AS with a single MG151/20? For every "tough to kill" incidence, I could probably come up with an "easy to kill" incidence".

ANSWER: Yes, we do want to see it. You in your whatever versus 1 ace Ki84. Make us a track. Better yet, make us 2- one for each of your claims.Don't make us wait too long either. A man of your vast skills shouldn't take more than a couple of hours. A 1/2 second burst? Looking forward to it Kweassa.


http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

[This message was edited by Tully__ on Fri March 12 2004 at 08:34 AM.]

Mitlov47
03-11-2004, 11:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chris455:
*************NEWSFLASH**********************

It's OK if the Jug is hard to shoot down!
That was reality!!!!
The Ki84 simply wasn't!!!
It burned and exploded like all Japanese planes!
12mm of seat armor and "self-sealing" (kinda sorta) tanks notwithstanding, it was easy to bring down with solid bursts of .50 caliber ammo. There was nothing magical about the Ki-84s construction that would explain it's supernatural toughness in FB. Period.

And BTW nothing personal Mitton.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, I know. It was meant as a joke--I deliberately missed the point of his post and focused on his comment "Ki-84 is the toughest plane in the game."

I don't have enough historical documentation to get into the "was the Ki-84 really that tough" argument. All I know is that my Honda Civic and my Suzuki SV650 are absolutely invincible http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

---------------------------

"I hear the roar of a big machine; Two worlds and in between.
Love lost, fire at will; Dum-dum bullets and shoot to kill.
I hear dive bombers and Empire down, Empire down..."
--Sisters of Mercy

KI-84 -- "Kaoru's Bokken"
MiG-3 -- "Yes Anastasia"

JG26Red
03-11-2004, 01:54 PM
KI is the plane i hate to see the most on servers now, more so than the LA7 and Yak3s... if i get one behind me iam pretty much toast, especially with the C around... everything i have read about the KI leads me to believe it KICKED *** and took names... i have flown it and its awesome... here is a good read up about it... one thing, it says at speeds above 300mph its controls got rather heavy, I.E. the 109?????


"and the elevators tended to be heavy at all speeds. The ailerons were excellent up to about 300 mph, after which they became rather heavy. The rudder was mushy at low speeds for angles near neutral"

also top speed is 392mph(640kph?) at 21k(7k)
sea level top speed is 310-325(520kph area)?


is this properly modelled...?

i give the plane props for being good as it was, but i have been run down on the deck and up at that alt with planes that do go faster than that... if my numbers are wrong let me know...


http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki-84.html

[This message was edited by JG26Red on Thu March 11 2004 at 01:23 PM.]

[This message was edited by JG26Red on Thu March 11 2004 at 01:24 PM.]

JG26Red
03-11-2004, 02:51 PM
"When the Hayate using fuel of 140 octane rating and high-quality ignition plugs was tested in the United States after the war, it made a record of a maximum speed of 689 km/h, and was praised as "the best one of all Japanese fighters appeared in the Pacific War"

this test shouldnt come into the effect anyways... thats after war and pepping it up alot, where the japanese didnt, i know, dont make it break down, or have mechanic issues in game, but still should have stats of what the plane fought like, not a beefed up version with a test, heck, if you do that the P47 needs some work guys, as they did BEEF some up to fly!!! but seems we get the generic fuel usage ones etc etc etc... my point

the KI had great turning ability, was realitively tough, probably toughest japanese plane, good fire power... i dont know about the high speed handling, but it should turn sluggish at high speed and the overall speed of the plane, especially up high in FB is a bit too FAST... the A9 or D9 should out pace this plane in overall speed, but i constantly get caught, even by the C which is the slower of the KI 84s...

ZG77_Nagual
03-11-2004, 08:47 PM
Okay, I been working offline with this setup -
my plane with 50% fuel vs four ace ki84s with 25% fuel.
I can now reliably kill all four in the p38j.
Also in the L of course
Even more reliably in the p39q
likewise in the p63
takes a while but also in the 190a4 or dora.
Haven't done it much in the others just because these are my favs.

While they often detonate dramatically -even with .50 shots in the right spot - most frequently it's sheering a wing off. Killing the pilot is right up there too. Wings burst into flames fairly often as well.

I'm flying cockpit on with padlock and external views - but I can do it with no externals if you want - I just think externals are more fun - make for better tracks too - if you want any let me know and I'll whip em up for you.

Online it's harder - but I do pretty well in the p39 - haven't flown that much online since aep. The ki is a superlative dogfighter - I've heard the high alt thing is better since aep.

chris455
03-11-2004, 09:02 PM
@ Nagual:
Nagual, I would like a track, not because I doubt you (your skills are widely recognized) but because maybe I'll learn a trick or two! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

[This message was edited by Tully__ on Fri March 12 2004 at 08:36 AM.]

ucanfly
03-11-2004, 09:26 PM
I am not a very good sim pilot , but let us try to distinguish the difference between the discussion of performance of a particular plane when compared to other planes in the sim or reality, with the ability or inability to down multiple foes with any plane at your command.

What we need are repeatable tests that prove that KI-84 takes unreasonable damage or has X amount of roll rate or climbrate vs what is published data. I have often thought I was poring bullets into a plane when in reality I was spraying lead everywhere.

chris455
03-11-2004, 10:05 PM
That's what offline is all about Ucanfly. Repeated "tests" that show the "data" you describe.
If there are books or charts showing how many bullets or shells aircraft X can absorb and still fly, I am unaware of them. Such things would be well-nigh impossible to tabulate.What we have are construction data, pilot's accounts, and the actual experience of people flying the sim. I accept that there is a big difference between online and offline results, but why such a HUGE difference with the Ki? Here we have good folks who fly the Ki saying, "No, I take one hit in my left wing and it's all I can do to remain airborne" and just as many other good folks saying stuff like "I expended every last round into the Ki and he still flew away".
If there is that huge a discrepancy, than it deserves to be explored. Despite what some people (are you listening Badsight?) think, I don't give a hoot about how the plane performs online. That's NOT my bag. Let it remain the ubernoob spacecraft of all time for all I care.
I WANT IT TO BEHAVE HISTORICALLY OFFLINE.
And it doesn't. Period.

And no offense, Ucanfly, but if spraying bullets all over is your problem, then that is unique to you. It doesn't pertain to me, and it's not what's driving this debate. No offense intended.
S!

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

ucanfly
03-11-2004, 10:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chris455:
That's what offline is all about Ucanfly. Repeated "tests" that show the "data" you describe.
If there are books or charts showing how many bullets or shells aircraft X can absorb and still fly, I am unaware of them. Such things would be well-nigh impossible to tabulate.What we have are construction data, pilot's accounts, and the actual experience of people flying the sim. I accept that there is a big difference between online and offline results, but why such a HUGE difference with the Ki? Here we have good folks who fly the Ki saying, "No, I take one hit in my left wing and it's all I can do to remain airborne" and just as many other good folks saying stuff like "I expended every last round into the Ki and he still flew away".
If there is that huge a discrepancy, than it deserves to be explored. Despite what some people (are you listening Badsight?) think, I don't give a hoot about how the plane performs online. That's NOT my bag. Let it remain the ubernoob spacecraft of all time for all I care.
I WANT IT TO BEHAVE HISTORICALLY OFFLINE.
And it doesn't. Period.

And no offense, Ucanfly, but if spraying bullets all over is your problem, then that is unique to you. It doesn't pertain to me, and it's not what's driving this debate. No offense intended.
S!

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK fella let me clarify. One guy saying that he takes his whole ammo load to down a plane while another takes a short burst, makes one wonder. I am just saying that we need a controlled test to compare quantitative results, which can be given to OLEG as a bug report. He is not gonna change anything unless (maybe):

1) There i a deafening uproar from the community, or from someone Oleg trusts implicitly (if there is such a person).

2) Someone figures out how to devise a test (with FMB and tracks) that Oleg can take as proof that the KI-84 is ultra hard DM or too good relative to P-47. Otherwise he's just gonna think we are bad shots. Just read some of his past comments.

I am not calling you a bad shot (although you are apparently doing so to me) , I am just suggesting Oleg needs more than testimonials.

WUAF_Badsight
03-11-2004, 11:24 PM
do you have any actual tests about how strong the KI should be IRL ?

NO

just japanese bias that they all should be weak

Mitlov47
03-12-2004, 12:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
do you have any actual tests about how strong the KI should be IRL ?

NO

just japanese bias that they all should be weak<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it's common sense. Generally speaking, an aircraft can have at most TWO out of THREE of these categories:
1) Speed
2) Maneuverability
3) Durability
The BF-109 is fast and maneuverable, but its engine lights up like a firecracker. Same for the MiG-3 only more so. The Jug is fast and durable, but sluggish to turn. Same with the FW-190.

But the Ki-84 is fast AND maneuverable AND durable. That just doesn't seem right at a gut level. No bias here--I'd say the same thing about an American, Russian, or German aircraft that excelled in all three categories. And I've done some more experimenting in QMB and I've come to agree that the Ki-84 is at least as durable as the FW-190. And it's certainly fast, and it's one of the most agile late-war fighters. It excels in all three areas. That seems suspicious to me.

---------------------------

"I hear the roar of a big machine; Two worlds and in between.
Love lost, fire at will; Dum-dum bullets and shoot to kill.
I hear dive bombers and Empire down, Empire down..."
--Sisters of Mercy

P-63C -- "Jackie's Strength"
MiG-3 -- "Yes Anastasia"

chris455
03-12-2004, 12:28 AM
Badsight, I really am NOT biased against Japanese planes.
And I really wish you and I could "cease Fire" on this ugly, personal level, it gets us nowhere.
Not to ignore your question what exactly type of documentation did you have in mind?
You think Oleg really "knows" exactly how much punishment a plane can take? NOT.
Listen: I beleive you when you say "One hit in the wing and it's wacked".
You fly alot online, YOU FLY THE PLANE.
I fly AGAINST it. We're getting very different "feedback" from the same aircraft, I'd like to kmow WHY, and I don't think stating the diffference between FM's and DM's online vs offline is the complete answer. The same truth applies to ALL AC in FB; why with just this plane do we get such hugely different opinions?
Tha's what I would like to know. Really.

Maybe we can debate this more later, and in a more constructive way.

Have a nice evening, Badsight.
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/93.gif

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

kweassa
03-12-2004, 12:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What we have are construction data, pilot's accounts, and the actual experience of people flying the sim.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And chris, that is something typically considered a subject that rarely holds any value as objective account in regards to discussing a faulty doing in actual game construction, because the reports and impressions vary on a huge scale.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I accept that there is a big difference between online and offline results, but why such a HUGE difference with the Ki?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, you are making your personal impression/assumption something of a fact, when in reality it is not.

For instance, I myself really do not see any difference between online and offline - if I get an opportunity to slam in concentrated shots, I will shoot a Ki down, regardless if it's online or offline.

Just yesterday my first MP game opponent was a Ki-84-c, which I took down with a single controlled burst of a MG151/20 from a Bf109G-6/AS, which landed on the right wingroot and snapped the wing off. The only variance in many encounters I see, is whether the enemy pilot gives me the chance to ram in those shots easily or not. A good pilot rarely gives one enough time to land concentrated shots. A good plane, especially a very maneuverable and fast plane, rarely gives one enough time to land anything at all in the first place.

Differing situations bring out differing results. Examining just exactly what sort of a situation the engagement was under, is critical for solving this alleged "mystery" surrounding the Ki-84.

The problem is, everybody speaks of something fishy, and yet nobody comes up with anything solid. What you are asking is something like; "Is Nessie a dinosaur or a giant snake?", when people rarely have enough to prove that Nessie exists in the first place.

I believe we should first find out whether Nessie really exists or not, wouldn't you agree?

We need evidence. Tracks. Screenshots. Which none have surfaced so far. The rare occasions(such as the single track file posted in the MG151/20 discussions thread in ORR), were explained with simple logic and keen analysis.

We need more info. Repeating a same claim again and again and again does not make anything more or less real.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Here we have good folks who fly the Ki saying, "No, I take one hit in my left wing and it's all I can do to remain airborne" and just as many other good folks saying stuff like "I expended every last round into the Ki and he still flew away".
If there is that huge a discrepancy, than it deserves to be explored.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You need to realize that the discrepancy itself means that the DM is functioning normally. Complexity in modelling results in variety of results - according to the situation. If indeed, someone wishes to explore it, then we need the whole context of the incident protrayed in detail, instead of just a few wive's tales going "..last night this happened to me.."


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I WANT IT TO BEHAVE HISTORICALLY OFFLINE. And it doesn't. Period.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

According what I've seen so far, you have yet to prove it doesn't. Again I say, where's the proof?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And no offense, Ucanfly, but if spraying bullets all over is your problem, then that is unique to you. It doesn't pertain to me, and it's not what's driving this debate. No offense intended.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That remains to be seen. My long relationship with the flightsim world has taught me that flight sim gaming folk, are very proud folk. The first reaction to what they don't expect, is that they fault the game before they fault themselves.

So, post a track of this strange incidence, discrepancy, unhistoric performance, or whatever you wish to call it. So we may judge ourselves if indeed you do not share the same problem many others share. As it stands, us skeptics have a hard time taking your word for it.

WUAF_Badsight
03-12-2004, 12:54 AM
first of all WUAF is a ALL PLANE squad

i dont fly the KI that much as im not a fan of fast rolling planes

but the KI is no super insane strong plane , its wings seperate just as easy as any other plane

it doesnt have the best climb in FB

it doesnt have the best turn out of 1944 planes

it doesnt have the best dive in FB

the 20mm are no more powerfull than any other 20mm

it oils the pit & looses its gunsite just as easy as any other plane

its turning is severly hampered when it has a hit wing

its radial is not the most durable Radial motor in FB

its accelleration is only average for a 1944 plane

WHERES THE UBERNESS ?

the true UFO in FB is the amazing E Keeper LA-7

ZG77_Nagual
03-12-2004, 08:23 AM
chris - I'll try to get you that track - at work right now and, while I have a fairly relaxed job (usually) it's not THAT relaxed!
I actually made several last night - the one I like best is kinda long - but cool because once I downed his three buddies I actually dogfought the last one - broke my flaps and had to use negative trim to compensate - anyway - it's a bit sloppy but more varied in terms of tactics.

HOWEVER - included with aep is a track of a p38L flying brilliantly against several ki84s - Oleg is the one flying the 38L - if you go to manual on the views you'll be able to view it from different perspectives to see what he is doing - but It's a phenomenal bit of flying!

chris455
03-12-2004, 09:22 AM
Thanks Nagual.
I watched the P-38 track in passing when I first got AEP. Now the I know "the Old man" is flying the Lightning I'll watch it again. I would also like to see your track, there is always something new to learn when it comes to flying.
Thanks again-
S!

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

Tully__
03-12-2004, 09:44 AM
My meager contribution to the discussion:

Using FB 1.22, I just flew to QMB missions, P-51 and La7 v. Ki84. A quick burst of .50 from dead six did for the left had wing tank. A quick burst of 20mm from just off dead six did for the tail control surfaces. Both confirmed kills. I don't see the problem with the DM, though getting behind the thing in the first place can be an issue (at least the way I fly it can http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ).

P.S. Badsight, cool it. You too Chris. The last page or so has settled down a bit, please keep it that way.

=================================================


http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/Corsair.jpg (http://www.mudmovers.com/sturmovik_101/FAQ.htm)

IL2 Forums Moderator
Forum Terms of Use (http://www.ubi.com/US/Info/TermsOfUse.htm)

Salut
Tully

SithSpeeder
03-12-2004, 12:44 PM
Tully--

Agreed, the 1.22 Ki isn't so tough. I could get them to flame and blow apart fairly easily.

BUT, the "c" variant in AEP (which is where I think this thread came from) is quite tough. Doesn't burn or blow apart much except with a LOT more hits (from six 50 cals).

YMMV.

http://members.cox.net/~ijhutch/_images/400x200sig.jpg

chris455
03-12-2004, 08:59 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tully__:
My meager contribution to the discussion:

Using FB 1.22, I just flew to QMB missions, P-51 and La7 v. Ki84. A quick burst of .50 from dead six did for the left had wing tank. A quick burst of 20mm from just off dead six did for the tail control surfaces. Both confirmed kills. I don't see the problem with the DM, though getting behind the thing in the first place can be an issue (at least the way I fly it can http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ).

P.S. Badsight, cool it. You too Chris. The last page or so has settled down a bit, please keep it that way.



================================================

10-4 Tully.
S!

chris455
03-13-2004, 10:55 AM
Nagual,
Thanks for making the track,but when I click on it to save, it tells me "page not found". http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
Can you check the link?
Thanks Nagaul-

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

ZG77_Nagual
03-13-2004, 11:10 AM
Fixed it - sorry about that - tell ya what - four ac 109k4s offline are damn near impossible in the J!

chris455
03-13-2004, 11:30 AM
Thanks Nagual
I'll check it out when I get home (@work just now), looking forward to seeing your handiwork!
S!

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg