PDA

View Full Version : Pacific online dogfights =).



Atomic_Marten
08-24-2004, 05:40 PM
Last time when I was online I figure what planes we will be getting when PF comes in our homes http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif and hmmmm.... Currently, please correct me if I am wrong, but I really do not see anything but almost total Japanese domination in fighters over US models when online -- you know on what one I'm aiming -> KI84 the unoficially titled dogfight champion http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

And then I have this thought on my mind (rather question that can be answered by those with proper knowledge): what type of US fighter will be good enough to oppose KI84's(online) in upcoming PF?

Fly brave http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/93.gif

Atomic_Marten
08-24-2004, 05:40 PM
Last time when I was online I figure what planes we will be getting when PF comes in our homes http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif and hmmmm.... Currently, please correct me if I am wrong, but I really do not see anything but almost total Japanese domination in fighters over US models when online -- you know on what one I'm aiming -> KI84 the unoficially titled dogfight champion http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

And then I have this thought on my mind (rather question that can be answered by those with proper knowledge): what type of US fighter will be good enough to oppose KI84's(online) in upcoming PF?

Fly brave http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/93.gif

warweapon2
08-24-2004, 05:49 PM
LOL.. That thing can be taken apart easy in a P-51 Mustang or a P-47 (even a P-38j for that matter).. It all depends on who is piloting it.

BlakJakOfSpades
08-24-2004, 08:45 PM
sure japanese planes are better at dogfighting, which is why u use their inferior armor to boom and zoom them in the superiorly armed american planes, as a rule of thumb

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v344/BlakJakofSpades/sig.jpg
You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake.
Jeannette Rankin (1880 - 1973)

VW-IceFire
08-24-2004, 09:18 PM
Its simple tactics and its very much a design consideration when you put together a dogfight map. If your airbases are less than 1 minute apart flight time then you are just asking for domination by manuverable types. I forsee lots of Oscars, Zero's, Georges, and Franks to be around and maybe a few less of the Tony or the Nick (if thats flyable..).

I also forsee lots of whining about the undermodeled Corsair that obviously won the war and its obviously undermodeled. Just you wait http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

On the other hand, the Hellcat is apparently one of the most responsive and manuverable US fighters of the war so it should be around in very good numbers.

I hope server admins spread the bases out a bit...give pilots time to use their planes to best advantage. On both sides.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RAF No 92 Squadron
"Either fight or die"

VMF-214_Pappy
08-24-2004, 10:17 PM
I have no problem dispatching Ki-84's with P51 or P47 in dogfights. Us planes are energy and boom and zoom fighters not turn and burners. Didnt you ever here of us fighter pilots being told never turn 90degrees with a Japanese plane. Instead we use our superior speed and zoom climb to kill those nazty zero's and ki84's. As well japanese fighters were known to fall apart from us .50cals because of use of little or no armour to keep there planes light.

http://www.flightjournal.com/images/plane_profiles/corsair/history.jpg

www.vmf-214.net (http://www.vmf-214.net)
Semper Fi
(The Original BlackSheep Squadron of IL-2/FB/AEP/PF)

VW-IceFire
08-24-2004, 10:44 PM
Thats exactly the right idea. But I'm sure we'll get plenty of people new to the ideas of ACM who will have some complaints.

Our job is to teach them history http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RAF No 92 Squadron
"Either fight or die"

LEXX_Luthor
08-24-2004, 11:47 PM
FP will have the most historically realistic 1942 servers. All USA fighters recieved hysterical Whining by pilots who tried to turn with Japanese in 1942, except the Flying Tigers who ignored Chenault's training during their first combat sortie, after which they listened to the Boss instead of Whining.

Atomic_Marten
08-24-2004, 11:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Its simple tactics and its very much a design consideration when you put together a dogfight map. If your airbases are less than 1 minute apart flight time then you are just asking for domination by manuverable types. I forsee lots of Oscars, Zero's, Georges, and Franks to be around and maybe a few less of the Tony or the Nick (if thats flyable..).

I also forsee lots of whining about the undermodeled Corsair that obviously won the war and its obviously undermodeled. Just you wait http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

On the other hand, the Hellcat is apparently one of the most responsive and manuverable US fighters of the war so it should be around in very good numbers.

I hope server admins spread the bases out a bit...give pilots time to use their planes to best advantage. On both sides.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with you. To those claiming that US fighters are dominating or are superior over KI84 that is very unlikely because of results (read=points) that may be seen in HL. What is the point of choosing pure BnZ high-alt plane if the bases are close to each other (which they usually are). One other thing, I may say that I don't have a 30 or more mins available to get myself in P-51 and climb to appropriate altitude where KI84 isn't so superior over it. And more, just to find nobody's on my alt and I have to lower alt where I'm becoming vulnerable.... nah... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/351.gif

Because KI84 is not my kind of ride, I'm just hoping that things will be different when PF comes out, and that there will be decent US fighter opponent available to fly. Otherwise, we can continue with this quake-like gaming because nothing is going to change if all US planes that we are going to get will be BnZers. On non-limited by planes DF server (well maybe jets are out http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif), out of zillion planes flyable, I see 20 ppl on server to constantly fly 4-5 planes only. Ridiculous.

VFA-195 Snacky
08-25-2004, 07:32 AM
This is so funny. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

I can't wait to dive in on some of these "My KI will dominate anything" types.LMAO

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

michapma
08-25-2004, 08:38 AM
I might avoid dogfight servers quite a bit in PF. Coops also won't catch the spirit of the Pacific conflict, at least not any that don't require patience.

But it could be interesting to see whether people set up dogfight maps with Zero versus the Wildcat. I'd be interested to know whether pilots of the Wildcat would be able to pull themselves together enough to use team tactics against the Zeke. I wouldn't be too optimistic, it took life-or-death situations to get American pilots to adopt these tactics, so dogfight pilots will probably just avoid such servers.

http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap/fileadmin/Image_Archive/badges/69giap_badge_chap.jpg (http://giap.webhop.info)

The ongoing IL-2 User's Guide (http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~chapman/il2guide/) | Forgotten Skies (http://www.forgottenskies.com/)
But we are all that way: when we know a thing we have only scorn for other people who don't happen to know it. - Mark Twain, Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc

actionhank1786
08-25-2004, 10:52 AM
Michapma, you should join a squad. Then you're atleast guarenteed some degree of teamwork. The one i'm in right now is just getting started, so i can't really tell you a whole lot about it, but you should think of joining one.
The idea of a squad seems great to me

go to www.VF-11.com (http://www.VF-11.com) and check the site out

http://img18.photobucket.com/albums/v54/Halfwayhank/Actionsig.png

Actionhank
~Aaron White

LEXX_Luthor
08-25-2004, 11:06 AM
For 1942 servers, USA airplane internet dogfighters turning with Zeroes and Ki~43 will be Full Real historical. The hysterical Whining that results will also be historical Full Real.

(exception is 1942 Flying Tiger servers http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif )

Baco-ECV56
08-25-2004, 04:22 PM
MAybe a "generic FM " button could be added to the dificultis menue to allowd more balanced games in DF ONLLY. That way everybody would be happy.

Not that I would play at those servers but it would be a grate thing to aliviate whinning that might deform our historical acurate sim, right?

We have all sort of dificulty settings that are way unrealitic so whats wrong withb adding a feature that would keep the pure Dogfighters happy?

Atomic_Marten
08-25-2004, 04:39 PM
Petition to Oleg for dive/zoom differences! (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=141100606&p=1)

Please guys take look at this thread (in Oleg Maddox's Ready Room).

Speco
08-25-2004, 04:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Baco-ECV56:
MAybe a "generic FM " button could be added....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Lost me there.... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/238_1090101031_morbo.jpg
"All humans are vermin in the eyes of Morbo!"

LEXX_Luthor
08-25-2004, 05:55 PM
He must be talking about hitting the generic Autopilot button.

Owlsphone
08-25-2004, 06:05 PM
I think he's referring to all aircraft having the same generic TnB flight model, everyone just picks a Hellcat "skin" for example to tool around in against the Ki-84 "skins".

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Owlsphone/Sig.jpg
Vertically challenged since 1984.

LEXX_Luthor
08-25-2004, 06:41 PM
Got it. Ki~43 has same FM as P~38 and B~25.

Awsum

9th_Spitin
08-25-2004, 06:55 PM
Yea , do that and ruin the game, instead, go buy a arcade game and play it on your x-box and leave our flight sim alone.

http://flyingknights.lordsofwar.com
http://www.lordsofwar.com/public_uploads/Bloodfist/spitinfinalsig.jpg

JG53Frankyboy
08-25-2004, 07:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VFA-195 Snacky:
This is so funny. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

I can't wait to dive in on some of these "My KI will dominate anything" types.LMAO

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



<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't wait to turn in on some of these "My F.. will dominate anything" types.
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

LEXX_Luthor
08-25-2004, 07:55 PM
Spitin_9th:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>play it on your x-box and leave our flight sim alone.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That may be sig worthy http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

JG7_Rall
08-25-2004, 10:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Baco-ECV56:
MAybe a "generic FM " button could be added to the dificultis menue to allowd more balanced games in DF ONLLY. That way everybody would be happy.

Not that I would play at those servers but it would be a grate thing to aliviate whinning that might deform our historical acurate sim, right?

We have all sort of dificulty settings that are way unrealitic so whats wrong withb adding a feature that would keep the pure Dogfighters happy?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL whats next, a "gravity off" switch? Oh wait, the spit already has that...

http://home.comcast.net/~nate.r5388/16502.jpg
"Son, never ask a man if he is a fighter pilot. If he is, he'll let you know. If he isn't, don't embarrass him."
Badges!? We don't needs no stinkin' badges!
Flying online as Hutch51

LStarosta
08-26-2004, 01:43 PM
This guy's a fricken genius.


I wholeheartedly agree.

http://home.comcast.net/~l.starosta/sig2.jpg
Spacer nad Berlinem!

Baco-ECV56
08-26-2004, 04:59 PM
Aw Come ON fellows I don´t want that option for myself, I allways fly full real.

I am very afarud that when all the whining strats someone at 1C or UBI m,ight want to make some changes, fix thsi aircraft and that aircraft and leave us with super turning Corsiairs, or supper climbing Zeros.. See what I mean?

I rather tehy fiddle with FM´s in an arcade mode, or whatever and leave the realistic FM´s alone.
In IL-2 FB weve seen lots of FM´s changes due to whining nad stuff, and lets be honest, some FM´s are way to ¿inflated?

Come on if Spits flew the way they do againts every german machine in FB, i wonder whya the hell the USA came up with the Mustangs, the Spit was the way to go ¿right? Or even betterm copy the LA-7, its unbeatble, ¿right?

What I want os that if they´re going to balance things out doit with out touching the realistic FMs.

Yes what I don´t get is why all those poeple that want to kill everything in the skys, and become a one mission ace, don´t play FB in arcade mode, instead of traying to change the realistic FMs, to their likeing...

Maybe it´s an Ego thing, I am a super pilot, in my super machine and I have my dificulties settings in full real..I don´t know....

For the record: I want realistic FM´s and not to have ANY concesi³n no matter how popular the modified aircraft is.

if they´re going to start changing FM{s in every patch, i radder see it in a Toggle mode, and leave the realistic FM´s alone.

That was the point of the "Generic FM toggle button" (meaning that every plane turns and climbs and looses energy in the same manner) To PROTECT the realistic FM´s so they are done right, no matter how many people like it that way or not.

Hope I made myself clear http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Atomic_Marten
08-26-2004, 08:53 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif. I don't know anyone or at least I have not see anyone claiming in his post that he/she don't want historical (proper) FM's. If that is the case with someone, that person really don't want to play this game at the first place IMO.

I think we have 99% majority on positive acceptance to question of historical FM's. At least http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

But real question is not do we want historical FM's, but rather HAVE we historical FM's. IMHO we have not. My conclusion is based on simple fact that whenever is new patch available, there's changes of FM on some A/C.

Excellent reading in this post Petition to Oleg for dive/zoom differences! (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=141100606&p=1) about IMO top priority subject for PF (hmmm.... I'm starting to repeat myself http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif). Thx to lbhskier37 and other guys.

Fly nice http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/93.gif

WUAF_Badsight
08-27-2004, 12:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:

I think we have 99% majority on positive acceptance to question of historical FM's. At least http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


you are joking right ?

anyone who tests & reads what others have found out from testing & who also actually learn about WW2 history doesnt think FB has historic FM's

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:
But real question is not do we want historical FM's, but rather HAVE we historical FM's. IMHO we have not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

why
dont
you
go
&
T.E.S.T

only then will you actually have something to go on

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
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

CrazyDonut
08-27-2004, 01:22 AM
Interesting read all this

I just hope there will be a balance in planes so no side will have the upper hand in pure plane models, like FB with no effective German attack plane (HS129)

One prob will deffently be that mecanical failures isnt modeled, this is a prop with the current KI-84 and when the George comes around things will not be better. The A6M7 "reppu" hopefully doent come into the game but on the other hand the KI-21 sally and the nell would be great

In all a balanced game where both sides have the state of art planes late war, but where the realism in plane set before 44 hopefully will be great, one thing allied pilots even forgot in cfs2 was that radio and tactics wasent good for the japanese doing the war, but with 200 sites on ww2 tactics and teamspeak/ventrillo..some of the more important things in the outcome of aerial combat in ww2 is not present, im werry convinced that it not will be a wark in the park fighting the Japanese planes online, and those who are blind on there favorite bird might be up for a surprise

well just a few words lol http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif se you all soon in the pacific....hopefully

michapma
08-27-2004, 02:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by actionhank1786:
Michapma, you should join a squad. Then you're atleast guarenteed some degree of teamwork.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actionhank, check out our squadron site in my sig. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I'm just interested to see whether folks will set up servers with the disadvantages and one-sidedness of many of the fights. It won't bother me so much if they don't; because I'm part of a squadron I have the opportunity for teamwork. But I'd generally love to see a recognition of the historical aspect of air combat that complete disadvantage was common.

The common attitude in online flying is that the sides should be balanced and fair; each side should have an equal chance to win. The battles weren't like that, how many times did pilots go up knowing that their machines were obsolete and they were more than likely going to be shot down. I have been saying this for at least a year--I can't understand why so many (not all) harp endlessly about getting historical flight models when they have no intention to use historical tactics in a historical setting. In this sense online flying is truly a game and not a simulation.

What I would love to see is historical settings, mismatches included. This is not even present in the online wars I have participated in. Fighter pilots want to see themselves succeed, this is only natural. I want to be able to show great stats: how many missions I've survived, how many planes I've shot down. But then we extend that to feeling we need to create a sense of fairness and balance. Balance? Fairness? Hogwash! War doesn't know the meaning of these words. Commanders strove to create imbalance in their favor, to guarantee victory, and they often achieved it. I would rather see pilots willing to humbly accept such roles as pitting a handful of P-40s and Buffalos against an onslaught of Zeros, Vals, Kates and Bettys. The pilots might know they are going to be wiped off the map. The real pilots did, too. And when there were no more planes to throw at the enemy, the remaining pilots and mechanics joined the trenches.

I have to admit though, that in dogfight maps there is nearly no possibility of a historical setting. They're set up for quick action, not historical engagements. When there is imbalance in a dogfight map, you just have one side ganging up and vulching (or intercepting immediately after takeoff) the other side. This is completely uninteresting for the receiving side. Dogfight maps are meant to just be full of dogfights, that's fine.

So let me rephrase: it will interest me to see whether servers are created that recreate such naval action as inferior Wildcats against Zeros, whether they be dogfight, coop or online war/coop. My hopes are not high though. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap/fileadmin/Image_Archive/badges/69giap_badge_chap.jpg (http://giap.webhop.info)

The ongoing IL-2 User's Guide (http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~chapman/il2guide/) | Forgotten Skies (http://www.forgottenskies.com/)
But we are all that way: when we know a thing we have only scorn for other people who don't happen to know it. - Mark Twain, Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc

michapma
08-27-2004, 03:15 AM
<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 Atomic_Marten:

I think we have 99% majority on positive acceptance to question of historical FM's. At least http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


you are joking right ?

anyone who tests & reads what others have found out from testing & who also actually learn about WW2 history doesnt think FB has historic FM's
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Badsight, if you read his post carefully, you'll notice that he is saying that there is a 99% acceptance of the desire to have historical flight models. His point is that in his humble opinion we do not.

I'd like to add that testing for yourself whether a flight model is historically accurate is a tremendous undertaking. I recognize that I don't have the knowledge to do it competently. Very few in this community do, and many many don't who think they do. I don't know whether you have what it takes to be able to do this, I'm just saying that it's easy to underestimate how difficult it is. How can you advise someone who doesn't know how to do it to just go and test for themselves?

Atomic_Marten, you say your "conclusion is based on simple fact that whenever is new patch available, there's changes of FM on some A/C." All that the changes in FMs point out is that the flight models are not 100% accurate. Did you really expect them to be? There's no way they can be, for one thing, although actually the differences go beyond just that. What I mean is that they can't be 100% accurate, because no current PC simulation can allow for that; there have to be tradeoffs in the modeling. But the differences we see from patch to patch reflect more than just that. These differences reflect what is described as model tweaking. As I understand it, the flight-model engine exists as it is, and the aircraft are tweaked to achieve performance under this model. They may actually alter the flight-model engine from time to time (this was done at least between IL-2 and FB), but most of the changes come from altering the parameters of the individual aircraft under the flight-model engine. So there is a flight-model engine with which all the aircraft are modeled, and then the individual flight models. That's important to recognize.

I think, and it seems to me to be generally acknowledged, that FB has a pretty decent flight-model engine, one that works well with the damage modeling (not just the graphical side of things). The FM engine is not perfect or 100% accurate, but it allows for exciting re-enacting of flight and provides a good feeling of flight. I don't think that the majority of the criticisms are really leveled at the FM engine itself, most complaints are directed at the flight (and damage) models of individual aircraft.

Without having thoroughly tested the flight models and compared them in a competent manner to objective historical data (which I don't have) and objectively observing whether the result is reconciled to historic accounts of recorded combat records and accounts (what a monumental task), I personally conjecture (not conclude) that the flight models of the individual aircraft have not reached their full potential for historical accuracy under the available FM engine. In short, yeah, I figure the flight models could be better. Why? Because I think some strong arguments have been made by some in the community who are aware of the performances of the historical, actual aircraft, especially relative to other aircraft against which they performed. You can't use some of the aircraft in the game the way they were recorded as being used historically. (This has much to do with the relative performance of the aircraft.) However, it is very tricky to make such comparisons, which if I understand right is why Oleg discounts pilot accounts. There are several deciding factors that play into how the aircraft performed on this or that occassion. The aircraft that we have are rather based on testing results, something often quite removed from actual combat conditions and performance.

It's my guess that some things--such as dive performance--could be made better. Again, it's just a supposition, a feeling if you will, as opposed to a conclusion, because it would require far too much of my time and energy to even learn to truly evaluate a single flight model, much less to actually go and do it.

Do I think that the 1C:Maddox team is competent to do this? Yes, I'd say they're pretty close. So why isn't it better? Personally, I think that it's due to the enormous load that they've taken on themselves. There are too many aircraft to be able to do all of them justice. It's great having so many aircraft, but I figure that the price is that we have a lot of aircraft that have fairly representative flight (and damage) models, as opposed to a few aircraft of such a high fidelity that they truly allow for historic performance. The difference is fairly slight though, I honestly think that not all too much is required. I'm not sure whether the FM engine can actually allow for "absolute" fidelity of the models.

But even if we had that, be sure that most would complain about how off it is. After all, like in my last post, most are not really searching for historical accuracy as much as they might suppose.

Regards,
Mike

http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap/fileadmin/Image_Archive/badges/69giap_badge_chap.jpg (http://giap.webhop.info)

The ongoing IL-2 User's Guide (http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~chapman/il2guide/) | Forgotten Skies (http://www.forgottenskies.com/)
But we are all that way: when we know a thing we have only scorn for other people who don't happen to know it. - Mark Twain, Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc

WUAF_Badsight
08-27-2004, 06:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by michapma:
I'd like to add that testing for yourself whether a flight model is historically accurate is a tremendous undertaking. I recognize that I don't have the knowledge to do it competently. Very few in this community do, and many many don't who think they do. I don't know whether you have what it takes to be able to do this, I'm just saying that it's easy to underestimate how difficult it is. How can you advise someone who doesn't know how to do it to just go and test for themselves?_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

basic testing is simple & only requires time by the tester to do it properly

most misinfomation & complaints come from people who take their impressions from DFing instead of carefull testing

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
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

Atomic_Marten
08-27-2004, 07:58 AM
I think we all want as historical as one FM in this sim can be. I do not think we have historical FM's now. After all patches, differences and changes in them (changes are however undertaken mostly on actually already working stuff to make them more "historical", realistic... whatever), as complete noob on subject, I have came up to this conclusion. And how can I end up on different conclusion?

And what is also very, very important and I have posted that link already two times, is to have properly simulated dive characteristics of A/C's. And that would benefit the BnZ planes significantly. Very nice for the coming PF simulation http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

And one other thing: I don't have a slightest intention to undergo any test in this game. I have fairly paid for it and I expect the dev's to test it in case anything is wrong with it.

I do not expect to have totaly historical FM's 'cos I figure that is impossible. But IMHO possible is to came up with acceptable degree of historical FM in this sim.

Allow me to put things this way: I bet you 5$ that in next patch FM of some already existing A/C in ver.2.04 will be changed. One way or another. Do we have a bet? O.K... I hear 10$.... all right keep 'em coming folks... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

Fly 'realistic' http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/93.gif

Atomic_Marten
08-27-2004, 11:41 AM
Since nobody's wanna bet on this one http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif, I wish to back to my previous question which is, I believe unanswered (except for a few unsuccesful joke-attempts http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif). Without any attempt/desire for whine. Because I'm not familiar with Pacific theatre planes (exceptions are planes that we already have in IL-2) I would like to ask my initial question again: if anyone knows, what type of U.S. fighter plane under this (IL-2) conditions will be able to stand up against Japanese fighters (KI84's mostly)? Maybe Corsair? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

BTW some guys are mention Bearcat before... but I dunno if we're gettin' this bird and also how good was this A/C...

Fly nice http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/93.gif

JG7_Rall
08-27-2004, 12:57 PM
The Bearcat was sick.

http://home.comcast.net/~nate.r5388/16502.jpg
"Son, never ask a man if he is a fighter pilot. If he is, he'll let you know. If he isn't, don't embarrass him."
Badges!? We don't needs no stinkin' badges!
Flying online as Hutch51

Baco-ECV56
08-27-2004, 01:05 PM
Well To respond that question, the Corsair should, if flown maximizing its advantages and minimizing its deficiencies... Zoom and Boom baby. No matter how good the Ki is, the Corsair should out climb it.

Regardin FM´s we agree that 100% hisrtorical performance is imposible, so I think that the FM´s should center on making a difference between the advantages and disadvantages of each aircraft. So if you have an energy fighter, it should outclimb and oitdive any turning fighter, and an agile fighter should not be out turned by ANY energy fighter.

In this way you can still use historical tactics.

That´s why I see as whinning the "My plane" should fly x kts faster or turn x degrees faster. etc..
That is imposible having a "survey" (40+ aircrafts) sim, instead of a "Study" (1 aircraft exactlly reproduced) sim.

FM´s shouldn´t center on exact figures but on recreating the advantages and disadvantages of each aircraft in a belivable way.

To represent an acurate flight performance of just 1 aircraft you need at least a Cray computer, or a series of about 20 PCs http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. Then you need a hole buch of other computers to calculate weapons performance, atmospheric conditions etc, etc...

But hey I will still be flying Flight sims in 2020, so there is still hope http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

And by the way too many young people here, I remember flying SWOTL and Their Finest Oure.. FM´s?, yea right, http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

We´ve come a long way, but the newer generations can´t notice it, we have been spolied badlly people http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

There´s my 2 cents http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WUAF_Badsight
08-27-2004, 03:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:
if anyone knows, what type of U.S. fighter plane under this (IL-2) conditions will be able to stand up against Japanese fighters (KI84's mostly)? Maybe Corsair? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ive shot down Hayates that sustained turn fought me with Brewsters . . . . .

. . . . & P-40s & Yak1s so go figure

the bearcat wasnt the best turning US Fighter but it had climb like no other prop

P51-H (the most awsome Mustang 2200 Hp) had a bet with Bearcat pilots which climbed better . . ..

this might be a story only , but the story goes that they took off together & after wheels up the Bearcat entered a loop & re-caught the climbing P51-H & overtook it . . . . .

was very manouverable (roll & turn) & there was a model which had four 20mm cannon , the initial model had four.50cal HMG's

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
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

Tvrdi
08-28-2004, 10:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:
Last time when I was online I figure what planes we will be getting when PF comes in our homes http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif and hmmmm.... Currently, please correct me if I am wrong, but I really do not see anything but almost total Japanese domination in fighters over US models when online -- you know on what one I'm aiming -&gt; KI84 the unoficially titled dogfight champion http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

And then I have this thought on my mind (rather question that can be answered by those with proper knowledge): what type of US fighter will be good enough to oppose KI84's(online) in upcoming PF?

Fly brave http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/93.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

u must be kiddin..anyway, whats about F4U Corsair??? is that good enough against ki84? not to mention that Ki84 would be, IMO, tuned down in PF http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

WUAF_Badsight
08-28-2004, 01:41 PM
you do realise that the Corsair were not the best turning A/C ?

on their side is very good climb & good roll

not great turning

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
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

Atomic_Marten
08-29-2004, 04:15 AM
Nice. In 2.04 we have lot of good BnZ planes and KI84. I use to play around with KI84c using him exclusively as BnZ fighter A/C. And guess what? It is EXCELLENT. Not to mention when speed is gone you will still have good turn rate. I think that no other pure BnZ fighter can match that kind of performance. I'd say it is a big problem when you have on one side, opportunity to use good turn fighters as BnZers, and on the other side BnZers are to be used only in BnZ manoeuvres. It is no problem to climb in KI84 all the way up and then... blow everything up since almost all advantage is on one side. Since there is no better U.S. fighter plane than Mustang to arrive in PF I can not think of other option than to turn KI84 performance severaly down. Otherwise it will be unfair battle IMHO.

And Tvrdi I am not joking. Sorry if you understand this thread that way since it was not my intention to fool you around.

Fly nice http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/93.gif

Giganoni
08-29-2004, 04:39 PM
The Ki 84 has always had a good vertical climb. In other sims as well it had the best vertical climb. It is armored and has good firepower. The only thing that needs to be changed is its speed must be tuned down. Although it rolls quite fast, and perhaps too fast I have not seen any evidence supporting either side so it should not be changed until then. The FB/AEP is equipped with one of the more powerful types of the Ha-45 engine and therefore has that advantage in FB/AEP. There is no reliability factor and so there is that advantage. With no disadvantages it had in real life of course it should do quite well. It is a Jack of all trades aircraft and I see no problem with it being able to BnZ (that is the only way I can kill La-7s in a Ki-84 without risk). Yet people whined and whined, how many Ki-84 threads were there guys 20? 30? I'm sure there will be an equal number once PF comes about and the Ki-84 has already suffered enough from peoples whines.

http://img74.photobucket.com/albums/v225/giganoni/IL2/giganoni2.jpg

Tvrdi
08-30-2004, 06:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
you do realise that the Corsair were not the best turning A/C ?

on their side is very good climb & good roll

not great turning
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yeah, and Ki84s were better BnZ-ers than turners also, or Im wrong?....

Corsair:
"Much time was spent trying to improve the handling of the XF4U-1. Numerous changes were made to the ailerons, with success, as these were later known to be very effective. However, the low-speed handling characteristics left much to be desired. The F4U had a troubling tendency to drop a wing when it stalled. And this was a critical factor for a shipboard fighter, which would have to make dangerous deck landings"..."The view straight forward over the engine cowling was poor, even more so than common in single-seat fighters of the day. View too the sides was reasonable, although the cockpit canopy was heavily framed. No concessions were made to rearward view, the aft of the cockpit being faired into a gentyly sloping fuselage decking"

so Corsairs werent without probs..they werent so superb planes at all...just like mustang

Ki84:
"With better manoeuvrability and climb rate than the redoubtable North American P-51H Mustang and the Republic P-47N Thunderbolt operating in the Pacific zone, it was encountered in all operational theaters and was effective at all altitudes. Allocated the Allied codename 'Frank" the Ki-64 would have posed considerable problems for the USAF had it appeared earlier and in larger numbers. In that event, Allied numerical superiority meant that the Japanese army overworked its Ki-84's, bringing unserviceability and maintenance problems that would not have arisen with more moderate usage"

al this and more at http://www.kotfsc.com/

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/93.gif

[This message was edited by Tvrdi on Mon August 30 2004 at 05:23 AM.]

VF-3Thunderboy
08-31-2004, 05:24 PM
What you REALLY need is the ability to go up to High Altitude immediately. YOu can do this in CFS2 with the program CFO. This allows high altitude starts so you dont fight the PTO war at deck - 3000 Ft. which would be a total waste of time. And I can tell you with 10 guys at high altitude starts it is a BLAST!!! Some people on THIS board can attest to that!


You need to be able to program in 20,000 ft for one side, and 25,000 ft for the other etc. I will personaly be doing only high altitude starts, so if I host a game, it will always be GOOD!! My only problem is I have 56Khttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/cry.gif.Not sure if ill bump up to cable just for this sim. If there are lots of serious pilots, I sure will!!!

Lowboys, dust eaters, flathatters and silliness are not welcomed where Thunderboy flys~!

OldMan____
09-01-2004, 06:45 AM
LOL. it is happening!!! The Prophecy is comming true!!!

The come of PF will bring the diving and zooming working on my beloved FW190 , and that is the only reason I will buy PF... to continue flying my FW190 with BnZ capabilites created by PF Corsair flyers whinning (no.. I will nto fly thi stheather since find it nothing interesting).

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

Atomic_Marten
11-28-2004, 04:57 AM
Now it is time for some of you guys to review your posts here. I wonder if you still stand by your words.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>VMF-214_Pappy(2.04):
I have no problem dispatching Ki-84's with P51 or P47 in dogfights. Us planes are energy and boom and zoom fighters not turn and burners. Didnt you ever here of us fighter pilots being told never turn 90degrees with a Japanese plane. Instead we use our superior speed and zoom climb to kill those nazty zero's and ki84's. As well japanese fighters were known to fall apart from us .50cals because of use of little or no armour to keep there planes light. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>VMF-214_Pappy(3.02):
Well it seems the F4u's are slower than ever before, there topspeed was never correct at any altitude, now the forum whiners succeeded in the beta to pork it. I had zero's, oscars and tonys all catch me in level flight after a flyby on stage 2 super charger over 8200ft. Well i dont care about roll rates climb rate, but one thing needed for this plane is correct top speed and dive speeds. Extending and diving was a tactic used my sair pilots to get a IJN pilot off there six and zoom climb back to altitude. I am sure the Ki84c is still fine in 3.02b though aint it <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't want to say "well m8 I told you..", but http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif..

Maximus_Raptor
11-28-2004, 06:50 AM
This is all very interesting. One of the reason I stay away from late war servers is that everyone is going to fly the most powerfull aircraft and depend on the aircrafts abilities more than there own skills. From what I've seen on the latewar servers, the guy who gets shot down in his so called superior aircraft will start claiming that the other guy is flying a UFO. Until recently I was stuck flying on Late War servers with limited production aircraft buzzing around all over the place. Take the 109k-4 . From what I understand, there only about 200 that did see combat. But you can go on one of the more popular servers and see that aircraft by the dozen. There was even a guy begging for a bearcat.... I bet I know what will happen if that thing were to find itself on a latewar server. It just never ends. Thats why I enjoyed Greatergreen and P-40s vs Zeros and Birds of Prey so much.
I've been hunting good earlywar servers since PF was released. If you guys want close matchups with historic plane sets, I would suggest that you try the "Wildcat Vs Zeke" server. I must say that the Wildcat drivers on that server know how to handle their aircraft and can hold their own against the Zeros.

BRUTAL_MAXIM