PDA

View Full Version : What's going on?



GR142-Pipper
06-10-2004, 01:38 AM
Fellow Sim Pilots:

I'd like to offer some general observations based on recent play on different servers. If you agree, great. If not, that's what makes the world go around so feel free to say your piece either way. Keep in mind that these are general comments that certainly are subject to exceptions.

1. It seems to me that the total number of on-line players is decreasing rather than increasing. Right up front I'll state that I have nothing scientific to back this up other than my own gut feel based on two years of fairly consistent playing.

2. I feel that the different aircraft are consciously being programmed to be less and less historically accurate and more and more the same. The performance of aircraft which should be markedly dissimilar no longer are (to wit: Yak-3 vs 109, P-51 vs 109/190, etc.). Conversely, aircraft which in real life were optimized for particular environments (i.e. high altitude) now perform down low with new found (and quite unreal) capability (to wit: 109, TA-152, even the 190). My view is that this is being done for strictly commercial reasons. "Historical accuracy" in Allied vs Axis environments is meaningless if the relative performance of the aircraft aren't historically accurate. Some aircraft do better down low while others excell up high. Be straight up about it and model the aircraft accordingly.

3. Even though their aicraft performance has increased (significantly), blue players seem to be increasingly unwilling to engage. They seem to hug their bases, make a pass or two and then run. It makes for a thoroughly boring experience. It's a game folks...mix it up a bit. If you go down, no biggie. That's why there's a refly button.

4. This last one is more serious and I make no apology for it. Based on the evolution of the various patches, there seems to be conscious programming gimmicks at work (to wit: blackout occurring differently for different aircraft, utterly ficticous power application/reduction characteristics, non-turning aircraft all of a sudden being able to execute eye-watering turns, U.S. 50 cal. machine guns that simply lack any kind of realistic punch, aircraft suddenly not being able to take a hit, etc.). One thing gets fixed while two other capbilities "break". This is an indicator of suspicious programming, IMHO.

It should be noted that I absolutely have thoroughly enjoyed playing IL-2/IL-2FB. However, the game simply just doesn't seem as fun as it used to be and it's unfortunate to see that.

Could it be just me that feels this way? Sure it could and I readily accept that. Anyway, there are many good pilots out there so feel free to support or contradict my remarks. They're being offered strictly in the spirit of being constructive toward overall play and increasing the appeal of this fine sim.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
06-10-2004, 01:38 AM
Fellow Sim Pilots:

I'd like to offer some general observations based on recent play on different servers. If you agree, great. If not, that's what makes the world go around so feel free to say your piece either way. Keep in mind that these are general comments that certainly are subject to exceptions.

1. It seems to me that the total number of on-line players is decreasing rather than increasing. Right up front I'll state that I have nothing scientific to back this up other than my own gut feel based on two years of fairly consistent playing.

2. I feel that the different aircraft are consciously being programmed to be less and less historically accurate and more and more the same. The performance of aircraft which should be markedly dissimilar no longer are (to wit: Yak-3 vs 109, P-51 vs 109/190, etc.). Conversely, aircraft which in real life were optimized for particular environments (i.e. high altitude) now perform down low with new found (and quite unreal) capability (to wit: 109, TA-152, even the 190). My view is that this is being done for strictly commercial reasons. "Historical accuracy" in Allied vs Axis environments is meaningless if the relative performance of the aircraft aren't historically accurate. Some aircraft do better down low while others excell up high. Be straight up about it and model the aircraft accordingly.

3. Even though their aicraft performance has increased (significantly), blue players seem to be increasingly unwilling to engage. They seem to hug their bases, make a pass or two and then run. It makes for a thoroughly boring experience. It's a game folks...mix it up a bit. If you go down, no biggie. That's why there's a refly button.

4. This last one is more serious and I make no apology for it. Based on the evolution of the various patches, there seems to be conscious programming gimmicks at work (to wit: blackout occurring differently for different aircraft, utterly ficticous power application/reduction characteristics, non-turning aircraft all of a sudden being able to execute eye-watering turns, U.S. 50 cal. machine guns that simply lack any kind of realistic punch, aircraft suddenly not being able to take a hit, etc.). One thing gets fixed while two other capbilities "break". This is an indicator of suspicious programming, IMHO.

It should be noted that I absolutely have thoroughly enjoyed playing IL-2/IL-2FB. However, the game simply just doesn't seem as fun as it used to be and it's unfortunate to see that.

Could it be just me that feels this way? Sure it could and I readily accept that. Anyway, there are many good pilots out there so feel free to support or contradict my remarks. They're being offered strictly in the spirit of being constructive toward overall play and increasing the appeal of this fine sim.

GR142-Pipper

BBB_Hyperion
06-10-2004, 02:27 AM
With some exceptions the 190 was always a lower alt performer i agree.

The Marketing issues are quite obvious.

ta152 600 km/h sea level turntime reduced.
Where is the 697 km/h Combat power at 10000 m.

P51 turns like mad at high aoa at low speed and flys 600 km/h at sea level.

P40m turns like it had engine power for it.

50s power doubled didnt solve dispersion problem.

DMs all odd not corresponding with Gun Effects.

Main problem is there is no alternative sim yet.

on 3. Aircraft performance is not increased it decreased for blue. No Autopitch/Manual (still manual possible but tricky) trick anymore on 109. all csp can overev now with manual pitch on 190 for example(more realistic). While running by use of normal speedadvantage is not possible anymore since all top planes reach 600 km/h at sea level even when they are build for high alt performance like ta152 or p51 or p47. So mixing it up means death for the pilot. Considering both pilots equaly good.

I agree that most of the top planes tend to get more and more closer in the fm. If that is wrong on all aspects i dont know but planes loosing character is a bad thing.

Regards,
Hyperion

macedk
06-10-2004, 02:30 AM
totally agree http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

what i also see is alot of cheaters http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif.

a plane is is in a dogfight and when u start to fire on the chasing bandit, he then warps all over the place. its gettin to a point where people warp so bad that they end up behind you http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif. if this is a lag exploit then it kills the game for everybody IMO.

OLEG this is a great game and 90% of the software and patches has been on time and content great. please have a hard look on the lag exploit or what the cause is of this cheat.

http://www.mace.dk/pics/sig5.jpg


kitty #1157

Hoarmurath
06-10-2004, 03:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Fellow Sim Pilots:

I'd like to offer some general observations based on recent play on different servers. If you agree, great. If not, that's what makes the world go around so feel free to say your piece either way. Keep in mind that these are general comments that certainly are subject to exceptions.

1. It seems to me that the total number of on-line players is decreasing rather than increasing. Right up front I'll state that I have nothing scientific to back this up other than my own gut feel based on two years of fairly consistent playing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i disagree, HL is full almost every evening, the number of gamers have much increased since FB release.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>2. I feel that the different aircraft are consciously being programmed to be less and less historically accurate and more and more the same. The performance of aircraft which should be markedly dissimilar no longer are (to wit: Yak-3 vs 109, P-51 vs 109/190, etc.). Conversely, aircraft which in real life were optimized for particular environments (i.e. high altitude) now perform down low with new found (and quite unreal) capability (to wit: 109, TA-152, even the 190). My view is that this is being done for strictly commercial reasons. "Historical accuracy" in Allied vs Axis environments is meaningless if the relative performance of the aircraft aren't historically accurate. Some aircraft do better down low while others excell up high. Be straight up about it and model the aircraft accordingly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

dissimilar flying characteristics. I would have liked more precise examples.
even the 190... describing the 190 as a high alt fighter is quite laughable. It wasn't.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>3. Even though their aicraft performance has increased (significantly), blue players seem to be increasingly unwilling to engage. They seem to hug their bases, make a pass or two and then run. It makes for a thoroughly boring experience. It's a game folks...mix it up a bit. If you go down, no biggie. That's why there's a refly button.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Too bad the blue players try to win... They should try to lose to keep historical accuracy. Maybe you should try to fly in servers with japanese planes, so the situation would be reversed.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>4. This last one is more serious and I make no apology for it. Based on the evolution of the various patches, there seems to be conscious programming gimmicks at work (to wit: blackout occurring differently for different aircraft, utterly ficticous power application/reduction characteristics, non-turning aircraft all of a sudden being able to execute eye-watering turns, U.S. 50 cal. machine guns that simply lack any kind of realistic punch, aircraft suddenly not being able to take a hit, etc.). One thing gets fixed while two other capbilities "break". This is an indicator of suspicious programming, IMHO.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While there can be some issues with a software as complex as FB/AEP, your seem to react to "feelings" rather than to facts. I don't know what you call "suspiscious programming". I disagree also with your opinion being humble.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It should be noted that I absolutely have thoroughly enjoyed playing IL-2/IL-2FB. However, the game simply just doesn't seem as fun as it used to be and it's unfortunate to see that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's your opinion. Personnally i still enjoy the game, and the increasing number of people online (who represent only a small fraction of total FB/AEP gamers) seem to indicate i'm not the only one.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Could it be just me that feels this way? Sure it could and I readily accept that. Anyway, there are many good pilots out there so feel free to support or contradict my remarks. They're being offered strictly in the spirit of being constructive toward overall play and increasing the appeal of this fine sim.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure about how constructive these remarks were. If you think something is really wrong with the game, try to point more precisely at it. General feelings don't allow the development team to know what they should work on to increase the quality of their product.

I didn't put all the necessary smileys where i was sarcastic in my comments... Fell free to use these as needed to see my comments as humorous, as it was my intent :

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

If you need more smileys, i can post more later...

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/)

Functio
06-10-2004, 06:50 AM
I'd suggest that you play more co-ops, or join one of the better scripted dogfight servers (for example, those hosted by Virtualpilots). You're going to get a warped view of the game, who plays it, and various other factors from taking part in dogfight servers.

WRT what you said about planes that should be dissimilar - IMHO they pretty much still are. Perhaps you're just encountering more people who know how to handle their aircraft?

Hunter82
06-10-2004, 07:59 AM
It's summer here in the states....most people at this time are doing more things outside and with their families IMO.. I know I am. There are also a lot of serving military personal from all countries who at this time are on duty overseas without the ability to play.

There are many reasons why some may not be around, there are also alot who are playing lock on.


The comments on the programming and 'balance' issues are for lack of a better term laughable. I do agree the P40 is a bit overmodelled but that is just from my reading accounts on the AC and pilot comments. Ineffective 50's? You only need to point in the general direction with those things...a true spray and pray AC if it has 50's onboard...a point*****s delight.

==============================
Mudmovers (http://www.mudmovers.com)
ATI Catalyst Beta Tester
Catalyst Feedback (http://apps.ati.com/driverfeedback/)
Catalyst Driver Download (http://www.ati.com/support/driver.html)
Magnum PC (http://www.magnum-pc.com)

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

Cossack13
06-10-2004, 08:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
...there seems to be conscious programming gimmicks at work (to wit: blackout occurring differently for different aircraft...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, my Squadron CO showed us how this was a total fiction.

The problem occurs when you attempting too aggressive of a pursuit and are actually attempting a tighter turn/climb then the plane you are trailing. Try easing into a less aggressive lag pursuit and the problem will go away.

http://www.tolwyn.com/~cossack/Coss110Sig.gif

ZG77_Nagual
06-10-2004, 08:30 AM
I agree with Hoarmurath etc. The only problem I see online is with lag and warp - which seems worse than it has been - but there are way too many variables to blame the code. I find the planes to be very accurate and quite different from one another. I've done alot of offline flying in and against the various types. The primary differences with online are warping and lag - and online flyers are less conservative than the ai - basically you have to increase your extensions by about a third in the vertical when online. The lag is a drag because it takes away the precision - you might be just edging out of your opponents guns in a turn and still get hit because his aspect is not accurately represented. Like I said though, I can't blame that on the code - other times it's spot on. The 'flight model conspiracy theory' is ridiculous.
My best online experiences lately have been in coops and scripted servers.

[This message was edited by ZG77_Nagual on Thu June 10 2004 at 07:39 AM.]

LuftLuver
06-10-2004, 02:21 PM
If you can't see that the aircraft are being evened out or balanced, then you are just not paying attention, or more likely are looking the other way.

A few nights ago on ForgottenServer, I took an Fb109 6/AS up against a very competent Yak3 driver, and put him down in a few moves. We were below weedtop level. In real life, the Yak would have gobbled the 109 up, having been designed to do JUST that.

That is only an example and not a rant of us vs blue. To that end, the P39 no longer resembles anything of the history books or even the days of original IL2. How many Cobras have you seen flip over and tumble in lately? I haven't spun one in a long time, but I watched a TA go in on Warclouds just last night. Seems backwards to me.

Give the planes their character back please.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
"All your bases are belong to us."

Hoarmurath
06-10-2004, 02:57 PM
Luft, you seem to be defending the "it's the plane, not the pilot" point of view about the relative capacities of the planes.

Your example is funny... if you are good, and the yak pilot is as good as you with its plane, explain how the "balance" came in effect to let you bag him easily? This don't seem balanced to me.

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/)

BSS_Vidar
06-10-2004, 03:22 PM
I see a marked difference from one flight model to the next. Speeds, climbs, turn radiuses are all different.
But I do agree that Blackouts occure differently at the same speed and arces from one plane to the next. That's the only thing that should be consistant in every aircraft, but isn't. G loads are a constant and irrelevent to the aircraft design.(except for structual integrity).
I also think some planes have the ability to exceed the standard critical angle of attack without departing which is roughly 17 degrees on every wing design ever made (+ or - a few tenths of a degree) Some planes can exceed this and that is wrong.

BSS_Vidar

Renegade_50
06-10-2004, 04:09 PM
Well to start with the G- rate blackout thing yer nuts period. different planes will have different G-load points. pilots will suffer from G-stress's at different points in the same manuver. example An F-16 pilot will be able to pull an negative 3.5 g-trun much easier than a F-15 pilot because the plane is made differently. and as far as the planes being made more equall that may have some truth to it. looks like the whinners can get any plane they want in the game so why not equll power and such... Iknow Ivan im banned again bye.

Hell's Angel 50
303rd BG (H) 358th BS
"Might in Flight"

crazyivan1970
06-10-2004, 04:29 PM
I donno guys, to me each plane seem to be as a character.

@HA50 do you think i ban people just for the hell of it? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

GR142-Pipper
06-10-2004, 04:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by H_ells_Angel_50:
Well to start with the G- rate blackout thing yer nuts period. different planes will have different G-load points. pilots will suffer from G-stress's at different points in the same manuver. example An F-16 pilot will be able to pull an negative 3.5 g-trun much easier than a F-15 pilot because the plane is made differently. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually, the difference in G-tolerance in your example is that the pilot is semi-reclined in the F-16 and is not so in the F-15. In the case of the aircraft in FB, all the pilots are in standard seated position. Given this, the effects of G (blackout) for aircraft that are in the same general airspace and are travelling at or very near the same airspeed should be the same...but they're not. There should be no exceptions to this rule as Vidar has correctly pointed out.

GR142-Pipper

IV-JG51_L.Z
06-10-2004, 05:24 PM
I disagree with everything you stated 100% Pipper, but it was a very entertaining read, so Salute to you for that!

Here's a tip that might change your feelings: fly P-40 on greatergreen on the "Kunming 1941" or "New Guinea 1943". If you don't have fun on those maps, then you may be beyond help LOL.

http://www.jg51.net/downloads/squadbanner.bmp

ivankuturkokoff
06-10-2004, 05:26 PM
Blackout occurs at Different G for each aircraft.... No it Doesn't !...... IvanK waves BS flag

Just done a series of wind up turn tests with 3 different aircraft
BF109G2,P51D20, and YAK3.

In all tests I had UDPSPD running through device link with continuos G read out displayed.

Test Methodology
Start at 3000m , 480Kmh IAS
Power WEP
Overbank to approx 135 degrees

Smoothly apply backstick with G increasing at approx 0.5G/sec until Blackout occurred.
Using smooth small Roll inputs to maintain required nose position to maintain performance/IAS
Repeat each test 3 times
Average G for blackout for each aircraft

Result Blackout occurred at 6.0G +- 0.2 G for all aircraft.

BSS_Vidar
06-10-2004, 06:38 PM
Guys, 1 G = 1 G no matter what you fly in. Same as any G-forces above that. And the statement that Pilots can pull more G's before black out in the F-16 because they're reclined is absolutly a factual statement.
I've pulled 7.5 G's in a Hornet in real life.. How about you?

BSS_Vidar

IV-JG51_L.Z
06-10-2004, 06:56 PM
I could only pull 5 Gs in my Hornet, probably because the lever to recline the seat back was busted.

http://www.1motormart.com/gallery/73amc01.jpg

GR142-Pipper
06-10-2004, 07:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IV-JG51_L.Z:
I could only pull 5 Gs in my Hornet, probably because the lever to recline the seat back was busted.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Typically the high G action occurs after the seats are reclined. Too bad your "recliner" was broken http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

(Sorry...I couldn't resist.)

GR142-Pipper

ivankuturkokoff
06-10-2004, 07:53 PM
Yes I have too Vidar in FA18A/B and Mirage IIIO/D
spent 12 years doing it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Dont know if we are crossed lines here but the facts are. In FB Pilot Blackout is a constant for all aircraft. If you reach this G threshold you will black out in game. Testing in FB shows it to be close to 6g.

Each aircraft 6G Corner speed varies so you will be able to achieve 6G at slower speeds in some aircraft than others. However Blackout G level is the same in all types in FB.

Agree with Vidar ref lean back seats ala F16,Rafale providing higher G tolerance ... thats fact.

No aeroplane in FB has a lean back seat. The purists might argue that the lower seat pan to floor relationship in the Fw190 and 109 should provide increased G tolerance....well the idea doesnt follow the same logic as the lean back seat F16.

[This message was edited by ivankuturkokoff on Thu June 10 2004 at 07:11 PM.]

[This message was edited by ivankuturkokoff on Thu June 10 2004 at 07:12 PM.]

[This message was edited by ivankuturkokoff on Thu June 10 2004 at 07:13 PM.]

BSS_Vidar
06-10-2004, 08:57 PM
In the game I think G effects differ from one plane to the next. They are not suppose to. I was in a P-51 trailing close behind a 190 maintaining the same speed and same arce he was. I was not trying to close or get inside him, but rather waiting him out. I asked if he blacked out and replied "not even close". In that same turn my pilot lost it an completely blacked out leaving the plane unresponsive to control inputs. That really made me wonder what the heck is goin' on.
G forces are G forces no matter what your crate is. They are all the same value with regards to speed and rate of turn. It's the only "constant" in all aircraft there is. Some airframes can take more, but that doesn't mean the pilot can too. Unless you have a reclined seat and Jet-Jeans on.

U.S Hornet pilots have to get rated in the centrefuge at 7 G's. F-16 pilots have to be rated in the same device at 9 G's just because to the seat is reclined.

BSS_Vidar

LEXX_Luthor
06-10-2004, 09:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I asked if he blacked out and replied "not even close".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'd say the same thing lol haha http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif



__________________
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

RAAF_Edin
06-10-2004, 09:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
Guys, 1 G = 1 G no matter what you fly in. Same as any G-forces above that. And the statement that Pilots can pull more G's before black out in the F-16 because they're reclined is absolutly a factual statement.
I've pulled 7.5 G's in a Hornet in real life.. How about you?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually you are wrong here. Black Outs occur becuase of the blood getting out of the head (principle of centrifugal force) because the heart is not strong enough (doesn't have enough pressure) to pump the blood into the pilots brain. It is a scientifically proven fact that declined position reduced the vertical distance from the heart to the brain making it easier for the heart to pump the blood.

Finally, blackouts can be described in geometrical terms easily (with drawings) and it all comes down to relative position of the heart/brain and centrifugal force acting.

--------------------------------------
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

patch_adams
06-10-2004, 10:29 PM
laughable post.

GR142-Pipper
06-10-2004, 10:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAAF_Edin:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
Guys, 1 G = 1 G no matter what you fly in. Same as any G-forces above that. And the statement that Pilots can pull more G's before black out in the F-16 because they're reclined is absolutly a factual statement.
I've pulled 7.5 G's in a Hornet in real life.. How about you?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Actually you are wrong here. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No he's not.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Black Outs occur becuase of the blood getting out of the head (principle of centrifugal force) because the heart is not strong enough (doesn't have enough pressure) to pump the blood into the pilots brain. It is a scientifically proven fact that declined position reduced the vertical distance from the heart to the brain making it easier for the heart to pump the blood.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No one is disputing that a reclined position is more G-tolerant. The issue here though is that all the pilots in THIS sim aren't reclined and the impact of G-forces should be the same. However, it seems that blackout onset is a programming variable that can be tweaked on an individual aircraft basis.

GR142-Pipper

WUAF_Badsight
06-11-2004, 12:27 AM
about point 1) : dont notice any drop / increase here

about point 2) : Ta was a great A/C down low ...... Pony was not

about point 3) try BnZ & E-fighting over 5K for a change

about point 4) i think FB is about as full as the game can be ....... it shows evidence of a universal FM that alters when some planes are tweaked

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WUAF_Badsight
06-11-2004, 12:31 AM
Pipper i understand you were a RL pilot

surely you know that certian planes can pull more G at different speeds & more eaisly than other A/C

the reason you can B/O so easy in a KI compared to the similer FW190 is that the KI turns so much better

IvanK has the ability to test this out

he said that it happens in Fb when you get close to 6G

6G is achievable at different speeds/AoA in different A/C

Mustang also has great Elevator authority at high speeds

its a plane that also blacks you out easy

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Takata_
06-11-2004, 04:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Fellow Sim Pilots:

I'd like to offer some general observations based on recent play on different servers. If you agree, great. If not, that's what makes the world go around so feel free to say your piece either way. Keep in mind that these are general comments that certainly are subject to exceptions.

1. It seems to me that the total number of on-line players is decreasing rather than increasing. Right up front I'll state that I have nothing scientific to back this up other than my own gut feel based on two years of fairly consistent playing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

- Not sure about that for the last 12 months.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
2. I feel that the different aircraft are consciously being programmed to be less and less historically accurate and more and more the same. The performance of aircraft which should be markedly dissimilar no longer are (to wit: Yak-3 vs 109, P-51 vs 109/190, etc.). Conversely, aircraft which in real life were optimized for particular environments (i.e. high altitude) now perform down low with new found (and quite unreal) capability (to wit: 109, TA-152, even the 190). My view is that this is being done for strictly commercial reasons. "Historical accuracy" in Allied vs Axis environments is meaningless if the relative performance of the aircraft aren't historically accurate. Some aircraft do better down low while others excell up high. Be straight up about it and model the aircraft accordingly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

- Any tweak to FM is frustrating for experienced pilots. I don't think it is due to "commercial" reasons.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
3. Even though their aicraft performance has increased (significantly), blue players seem to be increasingly unwilling to engage. They seem to hug their bases, make a pass or two and then run. It makes for a thoroughly boring experience. It's a game folks...mix it up a bit. If you go down, no biggie. That's why there's a refly button.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

- Late 109's pilots are, from my point of view, less boom and zooming and more dogfighting than before because of 109 improved turnrate.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
4. This last one is more serious and I make no apology for it. Based on the evolution of the various patches, there seems to be conscious programming gimmicks at work (to wit: blackout occurring differently for different aircraft, utterly ficticous power application/reduction characteristics, non-turning aircraft all of a sudden being able to execute eye-watering turns, U.S. 50 cal. machine guns that simply lack any kind of realistic punch, aircraft suddenly not being able to take a hit, etc.). One thing gets fixed while two other capbilities "break". This is an indicator of suspicious programming, IMHO.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

- Here is the point I agree. I noticed weird behavior in combat of very few people. Almost only Bf-109K-4 drivers. I just can't reproduce myself the handling of this plane and wonder how K4 could sustain such a high energy state in turn fight even when it starts with less altitude/speed.

By the way, my online gameplay is worst than before with eratic ghost gunnery/engine sounds and unheard plane's hits.

I have already gave up to fix my video stutters and other graphical issues like those jvm.dll crashes I'm facing almost every flying session.

S~
Takata

BSS_Vidar
06-11-2004, 11:56 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
surely you know that certian planes can pull more G at different speeds & more eaisly than other A/C

the reason you can B/O so easy in a KI compared to the similer FW190 is that the KI turns so much better [QUOTE]

That's a true statement. All aircraft have a different value of "G Availability" at different speeds, however, that's not what we're talking about here. We're talkin' about aircrew physiology with the pilot, not aircraft performances.
For instance, if you have a 190 in a 400kph 6 G turn arce and a P-51 is in trail matching both speed and arce, it also is in a 6G turn. Both pilots should be experiencing Tunnelvision/blackout, but they don't. In trail on the edge of blackout, I've seen 190's and other A/C continue to pull inside AND accelerate in that turn and not black out. The increase in speed and decrease in arce should have made the odds of TV/BO even more inevitable, but they don't.
When hovering on the edge in tunnel vision you see the bogey you were trailing pull inside you like a UFO and fly away, that is very frustraiting and "Aero-Physiologicaly" incorrect. Maybe the plane still had some G availability, but the pilot sure shouldn't have.

BSS_Vidar

[This message was edited by BSS_Vidar on Fri June 11 2004 at 11:13 AM.]

BfHeFwMe
06-11-2004, 03:40 PM
The real problem is no top end to tolerence at all, it pays off to do the hardest and quickest instantaneous turn you can. You'll get more G for less blackout time in effect using fast pulls, and that's plainly wrong. Using the G readout from UDPS it's easy to rack an La-7 up to 13 G's for an instant with very little blackout penalty. The Comet will hit just shy of 16 G in a quick instantaneous pull with no long lasting G-lock. That's absurd, the pilots in both aircraft should be prime candidates for G-lock with total pass out to unconsciousness.

Meanwhile, the guy that has limited elevator pull and can barely manage to pull 5 G has to remain at lower G longer to compete. Guess who suffers G-lock effects worse with controls locked out longer. Pure Bullocks.....

CV8_Dudeness
06-11-2004, 03:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:

For instance, if you have a 190 in a 400kph 6 G turn arce and a P-51 is in trail matching both speed and arce, it also is in a 6G turn. Both pilots should be experiencing Tunnelvision/blackout, but they don't. In trail on the edge of blackout, I've seen 190's and other A/C continue to pull inside AND accelerate in that turn and not black out. The increase in speed and decrease in arce should have made the odds of TV/BO even more inevitable, but they don't.
When hovering on the edge in tunnel vision you see the bogey you were trailing pull inside you like a UFO and fly away, that is very frustraiting and "Aero-Physiologicaly" incorrect.

BSS_Vidar
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

planes dont pull the same G at the same speed

but pilots in FB all seem to B/O at the same G

i didnt believe this because some A/C seem to black you out eaiser , but IvanK posted on the first page

now with the ability to accuratly get numbers being generated in FB into a read out display he said all planes he tested blacked out at 6G or close too

now what your talking about is that different planes load the pilot Less or More at a certian speed & AoA

which is accurate

WWMaxGunz
06-11-2004, 04:20 PM
It takes time to black out even at high G's. The blood in your head is not like
a barometer or weight on a spring. People have pulled very high G's for fractions
of a second without blacking out. If you are at 5G's and holding then you will
go quicker with a push to 10 G's than if you are at 1 or 2G's to start, but blood
flow is not instantaneous and veins to have valves of their own.

As far as judging how many G's another plane is pulling in combat... please that is
so often a joke it's not funny any more. Fly with a friend and when the follower
is sure they are pulling the same G's in pursuit have the leader turn smoke on and
give his speed or agree on a speed before starting. If the follower does not find
himself travelling right along the smoke path at the same speed, he is not pulling
the same G's. If you are following a target and your nose is even close to his tail
let alone leading him, you are pulling more G's even co-speed. In fact, it is damn
hard to pull the same G's and the better pilot will lag pursuit or go out of plane to
use gravity assist in beating that turn rather than holding and trying to judge who
is going to black out first.

There are many sites where these things have been posted for years. All it takes is
reading and --paying attention--, which is beyond so many people the state of the
world gets understandable. Get a copy of EAW just for the Ground School part of the
CD (did even 10% of the people who had EAW know it was there? doubtful!) and learn,
the material there is excellent.


Neal

aGunfighter
06-11-2004, 05:30 PM
I don't know man, I blackout nasty in the FW, its a serious concern in that plane. And other planes still are able to remain glued to my 6.
I just expect that they were a little less aggressive with their manuvering.

ivankuturkokoff
06-11-2004, 07:21 PM
Just done some more tests with UDPSPD running. The tables below are the UDPSPD log files. The point of blackout is the first entry. These were flown using Windup turns, about 135degress bank angle approx 15degrees nose down, smoothly pulling to 5.5G on the UDPSPD G meter then slowly increasing G till blackout ocurrs. It seems 6.2G is about the Blackout threshold. G is read in the second last column.

P51D Blackout
12/06/2004 11:12:24 AM Alt: 1267.98 Hdg: 226.0 "G": 6.33 IAS: 542.1
12/06/2004 11:12:25 AM Alt: 1240.49 Hdg: 240.0 "G": 5.71 IAS: 542.5
12/06/2004 11:12:26 AM Alt: 1240.49 Hdg: 240.0 "G": 5.71 IAS: 542.5
12/06/2004 11:12:27 AM Alt: 1240.49 Hdg: 240.0 "G": 5.71 IAS: 542.5

LA7 Blackout
12/06/2004 11:01:49 AM Alt: 2139.41 Hdg: 146.0 "G": 6.35 IAS: 498.7
12/06/2004 11:01:50 AM Alt: 2105.05 Hdg: 169.0 "G": 6.31 IAS: 496.6
12/06/2004 11:01:51 AM Alt: 2069.31 Hdg: 193.0 "G": 6.24 IAS: 494.5

FW190A8 Blackout
12/06/2004 10:58:09 AM Alt: 2120.24 Hdg: 238.0 "G": 6.21 IAS: 485.1
12/06/2004 10:58:10 AM Alt: 2100.61 Hdg: 260.0 "G": 5.92 IAS: 475.4
12/06/2004 10:58:11 AM Alt: 2088.61 Hdg: 281.0 "G": 5.64 IAS: 465.5

(Ivankuturkokoff = III/JG11_IvanK)

WWMaxGunz
06-11-2004, 08:29 PM
S! Ivan!

I am interested in how you get those logged, mostly if and how you can start
and stop logging data but also setting up to log as well. This is not just
for me, btw. Perhaps also the link for others to get UPDSpeed.zip if it's not
too much? I have it but some others don't.

I copy and appreciate all your directions, only english for me since 1972 and
then was only some Francais but I could read that well back then, not now.


Neal

ivankuturkokoff
06-11-2004, 08:46 PM
Gday WWMaxGunz.

The UDPSPD log file goes on forever. Each time you start UDPSPD and FB it simply tacks on to the end of the existing Log file. What I do for each test is delete the previous Log file. Do the test then copy the log file. Delete it then re do the test, and repeat as required.

To keep a log file you need an entry in your UDPSPD main Config ini something like this:

[Log]
Write=1
Name=D:\Program Files\udpspeedfb\logfb.log

You cannot selectively start and stop the log file or flag events. So you need to accurately keep record of the time of each event. In the casse of Max G it was simple. At blackout G starts reducing straight away and can be seen on the log file data as a "Max G Point". I also Paused the game at the moment of Blackout exited and read the log files.

For those interested on where to get and setup UDPSPD check the topic Simple Device link autopilot. I posted in this thread how to set it up
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=217109224&r=950106834#950106834

Charlie901
06-11-2004, 09:36 PM
Welcome to the UNREAL II of WWII flight sims http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

BfHeFwMe
06-12-2004, 03:40 AM
At 15 G's it's not your blood you have to worry about. La-7 and a few others easily reach it with little to no lasting effects. Still highly laughable. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

VVS-Manuc
06-12-2004, 07:27 AM
It would be better, if Oleg remove all flyable planes except the IL-2 variants as it was planned with the first IL-2 project. Would be a very quiet place here. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/93.gif

WWMaxGunz
06-12-2004, 10:37 AM
As Frank Zappa used to sing "the Torture Never Stops"

LuftLuver
06-12-2004, 02:48 PM
In these forums, we have a few pilots. Of these, a very small percentage are/were military pilots. Follow me now. A tiny fraction of these are/were single/2-seat fighter pilots. I will tend to believe them first.

That is all.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
"All your bases are belong to us."

BfHeFwMe
06-12-2004, 04:27 PM
You mean like Captain Eric M. Browns review, and the thread full of a whole bunch of ya'll calling him full of it? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif

LuftLuver
06-12-2004, 05:43 PM
um, I wouldn't call Capt. Brown or any other Vet full of anything. Btw, your post is one of the few in this thread that I agree with.

&lt;S&gt;

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
"All your bases are belong to us."

faustnik
06-12-2004, 06:01 PM
I don't know if it is correct or not, but, all a/c seem to have "easier" stall/spin characteristics now. Maybe this is where the "all FMs becoming more similar comes from".

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)