PDA

View Full Version : Manoeuvrability of original and addon planes



koniygn
01-03-2004, 03:44 AM
I really appreciate the addon of this game and I enjoy it very much. But I think there is some problems about the manoeuvrability of the old and new planes. Just try the following in the QMB and set it into "average":

1a) P-40E*4 (player) vs Zeros*4 <-- the P-40s can out-maneuver the Zeros
1b) Zeros*4 (player) vs P-40E*4 <-- the Zeros often fly like a two-seater IL-2 and can't catch the P-40s' tail

2a) P-51 (player) vs Bf109 (any G models) <-- P-51s can hardly dogfight with Bf109s
2B) Bf109 (and G models)(player) vs P-51 <-- P-51s are a piece of easy meat

I have tried them many times. But the most important thing is that the maneuver of early-developed and late-developed planes seems are not measured by the same scale. In my experience, it seems that the planes in FB 1.11 have a higher maneuverbility than that both of original FB and 1.21. If it is possible, I hope Mr.Oleg should re-measure the maneuverbility of all the plane all over again and make the game closer to the reality.

koniygn
01-03-2004, 03:44 AM
I really appreciate the addon of this game and I enjoy it very much. But I think there is some problems about the manoeuvrability of the old and new planes. Just try the following in the QMB and set it into "average":

1a) P-40E*4 (player) vs Zeros*4 <-- the P-40s can out-maneuver the Zeros
1b) Zeros*4 (player) vs P-40E*4 <-- the Zeros often fly like a two-seater IL-2 and can't catch the P-40s' tail

2a) P-51 (player) vs Bf109 (any G models) <-- P-51s can hardly dogfight with Bf109s
2B) Bf109 (and G models)(player) vs P-51 <-- P-51s are a piece of easy meat

I have tried them many times. But the most important thing is that the maneuver of early-developed and late-developed planes seems are not measured by the same scale. In my experience, it seems that the planes in FB 1.11 have a higher maneuverbility than that both of original FB and 1.21. If it is possible, I hope Mr.Oleg should re-measure the maneuverbility of all the plane all over again and make the game closer to the reality.

pourshot
01-03-2004, 06:00 AM
I think you are incorrect but thats just IMHO.If you do a little research you will find that the flight models we have now are the best yet not perfect but not to bad.

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

VW-IceFire
01-03-2004, 07:54 AM
AI doesn't fly to the same rules as a player aircraft does. They sort of bend the FM a bit so that the AI can do it while the player is given the full thing largely because the player can deal with it (humans as so adaptable http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif).

Zero's manuverability was based largely at slower speeds and virtually all into the turn radius. The P-40 wasn't an unmanuverable plane, it just couldn't turn with a Zero over an extended period of time. In the high speed arena - the P-40 is largely the master over the Zero. The benefit of its tougher construction and flight controls.

- IceFire
http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/spit-sig.jpg

Maple_Tiger
01-03-2004, 01:02 PM
I agree with theses guys. Also you cant do these tests with just AI's.

ALso the P-51 will not do very well against a BF109 in a turn fight with 100% fuel. 100% fuel is an enormus amount of wheight.

Even 75% fuel is alot of wieght for the P-51 and to boot the P-51 is off balance with 75% fuel.

50% fuel, the P-51 is still off balance. With 50% fuel the Aux tank is full and its behind the C\P. Also there will be 20gal in the left wing where as the right wing will have no fuel.

IF you start the P-51's with only 25% fuel then they will not be off balance. Aux tank will be full while there is no fuel in the left and right wing fuel tanks.

Maple_Tiger
01-03-2004, 03:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
I agree with theses guys. Also you cant do these tests with just AI's.

ALso the P-51 will not do very well against a BF109 in a turn fight with 100% fuel. 100% fuel is an enormus amount of wheight.

Even 75% fuel is alot of wieght for the P-51 and to boot the P-51 is off balance with 75% fuel.

50% fuel, the P-51 is still off balance. With 50% fuel the Aux tank is full and its behind the C\P. Also there will be 20gal in the left wing where as the right wing will have no fuel.

IF you start the P-51's with only 25% fuel then they will not be off balance. Aux tank will be full while there is no fuel in the left and right wing fuel tanks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Lmao,

I have to reply to myself because im an idiot. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

I went into the QMB and took the P-51 for a quick spin with 75% fuel and there was an equal amount of fuel in each wing. How did i miss this? Same with 50% fuel bough wings had equal amounts of fuel. Mayby the last time i was doing this there was a bug or something.

I also set up 4 P-51's with 100% fuel against 4 BF109G10's that had 100% fuel. The P-51's lost. 75% fuel the P-51's still lost but lasted a bit longer. 50% fuel the P-51's did ok, bough sides lost 2 planes. 25% fuel the P-51's won.

How much fuel does a BF109G10 cary when at 100% and how much does the P-51 cary when at 100%. If bough planes caried an equal amount of fuel wich one would have the advantage? How much of an advantage?

LeadSpitter_
01-05-2004, 02:24 AM
the zeros roll rate is accurate to the charts, I find that the il2 he111 stuka and every aircraft out roll the zero with the exception of the tb3,

I think the margin between the worst rolling fighter "zero" and the best rolling ac "190" is too great even tho the numbers are pretty close and you can almost double the roll with a snap roll, and oleg has the roll rate work the same max roll speed at any angle, or reverse roll which is not as quick as the intial one way roll rate like in the test documents

correct rate of rolls has been a big issue in fb, even if the numbers are correct stick pressure and opposite rolling into a opposite bank are not slowed down which they should be, it would also stop the unrealistic flipping in all directions snap roll stick yank avoid looking manuevers which would have stressed the hell out of an aluminum airframe and cause severe panel crinkles and shed parts or snap a wood apart.

http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LSIG.txt
VIEW MY PAINTSCHEMES HERE (http://www.il2skins.com/?planeidfilter=all&planefamilyfilter=all&screenshotfilter=allskins&countryidfilter=all&authoridfilter=%3ALeadspitter%3A&historicalidfilter=all&Submit=+++Apply+filters++&action=list&ts=1072257400)

sauron6
01-05-2004, 03:10 PM
First off, P51's carry more fuel than 109's. Also, remember that a P51 ALOT longer than the 109.

The P-51 turns with the 190, as it should.
Comparing it to the 109 series isn't right.

Oh, and remember; unlike the other games you guys play, this isn't a game of equal counterparts, but a game of realism. P-51's can't beat 109's 1-on-1, but, as in real life, you can allways add more P-51's.