PDA

View Full Version : Highly anoying (old) bug showed up in PF



Nubarus
10-19-2004, 05:40 PM
This was also a bug in FB some time ago.

Constant speed prop planes are very very hard to slow down when landing.

It's pretty amazing that this old bug wasn't cought by the beta testers since it's presence is well, pretty much slapping you in your face.

Even with the canopy open, radiators open, flaps in landing position, gear and hook down and prop pitch to 0% they actually gain speed with the slightest nose down position.

This was highly anoying when landing on an air strip so imagine this when you try and land on a carrier.

This bug was pointed out before and it was fixed in a patch so why the hell is it back in again?

Nubarus
10-19-2004, 05:40 PM
This was also a bug in FB some time ago.

Constant speed prop planes are very very hard to slow down when landing.

It's pretty amazing that this old bug wasn't cought by the beta testers since it's presence is well, pretty much slapping you in your face.

Even with the canopy open, radiators open, flaps in landing position, gear and hook down and prop pitch to 0% they actually gain speed with the slightest nose down position.

This was highly anoying when landing on an air strip so imagine this when you try and land on a carrier.

This bug was pointed out before and it was fixed in a patch so why the hell is it back in again?

ElAurens
10-19-2004, 05:56 PM
This "bug" has never gone away. Sad to hear it is still alive in PF.

Smokin256
10-19-2004, 06:01 PM
Not to split hairs but 0% prop pitch is the last thing you want when in the landing patern and/or trying to slow down. Normal procedure for landing in planes with CSP is high RPM but not max. Something on the order of 90-95%. This is in case the pilot had to abort & go around. Too sudden or too overzelous application of throttle could cause over rev.

Yes I think it's been agreed that the planes don't slow down enough at low throttle & high PPM but it's a limitation of the game/physics engine. I don't think it has been or ever was fixed.

Cheers.....Smokin256

Future-
10-19-2004, 06:09 PM
Well, so you know you have to bleed off some speed a little earlier than you'd feel comfortable with... so what? lol

Nubarus
10-19-2004, 06:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Future-:
Well, so you know you have to bleed off some speed a little earlier than you'd feel comfortable with... so what? lol <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Nubarus
10-19-2004, 06:21 PM
If you have no idea what you are talking about Future it's best to don't say anything at all.

Cajun76
10-19-2004, 07:14 PM
I fly the P-47 quite a bit, and as long as I approach at something resembling RL speeds and glide slope angles, slowing down is not a problem, even when descending. I don't think some of you know how a CSP operates. It is not an airbrake. I work on T-56 turboprops installed on the C-130. The engine should always drive the prop. When the prop drives the engine, bad things start to happan. If you have no idea what you're talking about Nubarus, it's best...... well, you know the rest. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Future-
10-19-2004, 07:18 PM
@ Nubarus: Oh, forgive me, your highness, for posting my opinion!

And I DO know what I'm talking about, I noticed too that some planes don't bleed off speed that fast.

But I ask again, so what? Are you too stupid or too stuborn to compensate that by factoring it in?

S!

Nubarus
10-19-2004, 07:22 PM
Well Cajun, then please explain to me how a plane can gain speed with engine set to 0% input, flaps fully deployed, canopy open, radiator fully open and gear and hook down with a slight nose down position.

You, like some others here stare yourself blind on just the CSP thing and forget about all else that is said.

Maybe you guys should actually read what is posted, then understand what is written down before hitting the reply button.

Besides, I didn't talk about the P47 since it cannot land on a carrier and I haven't flown it in PF yet.
Like I said before, I didn't have this problem in EAP.

So please read the whole post next time before hitting the reply button.

Nubarus
10-19-2004, 07:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Future-:
@ Nubarus: Oh, forgive me, your highness, for posting my opinion!

And I DO know what I'm talking about, I noticed too that some planes don't bleed off speed that fast.

But I ask again, so what? Are you too stupid or too stuborn to compensate that by factoring it in?

S! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, it seems you have a slight problem in understanding how you are supposed to land on a carrier Future, so therefore it is a problem.
But it's pretty obvious you have no idea after reading your second response so I see no reason to take your opinion serious regarding this.

Future-
10-19-2004, 07:27 PM
I did read your posting, I know what you are talking about, I did understand it.

Now I ask for the THIRD time: SO WHAT? It may be incorrect, but apparently they either didn't want or were unable to fix it.
Factor it in by first losing some alt and then bleeding of some speed... or do you need special instrucions how to land such planes?
I can host a "Beginner Landing Practice" game for you, you know? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

EDIT: Maybe I don't know exactly how I am SUPPOSED to land on a carrier; however I do know how I can do it in PF, I did it several times today successfully. You on the other hand obviously have problems with that.


S!

heywooood
10-19-2004, 07:32 PM
Nubarus - which plane are you flying?

I have Il2 original and now FB and AEP all patched up and while there are planes that are more slippery than others, and so less inclined to descelerate, I usually have to get low and then do a series of 90 deg. climbing turns into the pattern with the power down near idle to scrub the airspeed...soviet pilots used to use the 'crossed controls' method..full right rudder deflection countered with left aileron input..the plane sideslips and scrubs airspeed.

BtW - the lowest RPM stting I ever use is 80 percent in FB.

It does seem that the engine races a little in some planes so which one is causing you grief?

Nubarus
10-19-2004, 07:33 PM
Like I said before, you have absolutely no idea what so ever how you are supposed to land a plane on a carrier.

What's the use of making a carrier ops game and then release it with a bug that renders you to use a modified landing procedure?

And when I post this here as a bug report you start whining about it.

So with your logic it's pretty easy to dismiss your bug report about the A20's para-bombs.
Why post a bug report about it, you can fly the B25 to compensate for that bug Future?

PB0_Roll
10-19-2004, 07:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>prop pitch to 0% <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

setting 0% pitch is being closest to feathered position, so less drag than 100% (tested and re-tested)

try 100% instead, reduce speed to 120mph, all drag features out,prop pitch set to 100%, drop nose less than 10â? under horizon and say how much speed you gain.

then do the same on your cessna, boeing, airbus or whatever and say the result plz.

Nubarus
10-19-2004, 07:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by heywooood:
Nubarus - which plane are you flying?

I have Il2 original and now FB and AEP all patched up and while there are planes that are more slippery than others, and so less inclined to descelerate, I usually have to get low and then do a series of 90 deg. climbing turns into the pattern with the power down near idle to scrub the airspeed...soviet pilots used to use the 'crossed controls' method..full right rudder deflection countered with left aileron input..the plane sideslips and scrubs airspeed.

BtW - the lowest RPM stting I ever use is 80 percent in FB.

It does seem that the engine races a little in some planes so which one is causing you grief? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not talking about FB or EAP but about PF planes in regards of carrier landings.
Right now you have to use a modified landing procedure in order to land your plane then a "by the book" carrier landing.
This is what's bugging me, I can land the planes on a carrier without any problems but I cannot use the correct historical procedure because of this bug.

heywooood
10-19-2004, 07:37 PM
..hmmm - maybe I should have just pulled up a chair and warmed my A$$ next to the fire you guys have started... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Future-
10-19-2004, 07:38 PM
@ Nubarus: Comparing two totally different problems like this doesn't really improve your point.

But since I admittedly don't know how I'm SUPPOSED to land on a carrier, enlight me! Tell me how it should be done.
Then I can tell you how you mostly have to do it in PF now - maybe we both LEARN soemthing here.

EDIT: Made this posting a little nicer to read.

heywooood
10-19-2004, 07:38 PM
Nablus -
right - which is why I asked 'which plane in PF'

maybe someone will know the correct approach method etc.. for that PARTICULAR plane and we can cease the pi$$ing contest.

I also hope to qualify your concern...are you also the type that expects to down every othr type aircraft on single pass? ...

Nubarus
10-19-2004, 07:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PB0_Roll:
setting 0% pitch is being closest to feathered position, so less drag than 100% (tested and re-tested)

try 100% instead, reduce speed to 120mph, all drag features out,prop pitch set to 100%, drop nose less than 10â? under horizon and say how much speed you gain.

then do the same on your cessna, boeing, airbus or whatever and say the result plz. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tried that already, 100% and 95%, 90% down to 80% pitch but even in a less then 10% under the horizon dive you loose hardly any speed.

JG7_Rall
10-19-2004, 07:44 PM
Landing is easy despite this bug. If you can't get your speed down to land on a carrier the "bug" isn't the problem.

Nubarus
10-19-2004, 07:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Future-:
@ Nubarus: Comparing two totally different problems like this doesn't really improve your point.

But since I admittedly don't know how I'm SUPPOSED to land on a carrier, enlight me! Tell me how it should be done.
Then I can tell you how you mostly have to do it in PF now - maybe we both LEARN soemthing here.

EDIT: Made this posting a little nicer to read. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Eh? reading problems again?

I already said that I don't have to learn how to land the planes on a carrier, all I wanted to do is report a bug but somehow you felt the need to thrash up this thread because you are you or something.

Beirut
10-19-2004, 07:46 PM
I understand the Kamikaze method was the best for coming to a dead stop on an aircraft carrier.

Those things could stop on a dime. Flips, flaps, CSP, radiators and nose angles be ****ed.

Only worked once per plane though as far as I've read.

JG7_Rall
10-19-2004, 07:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Beirut:
I understand the Kamikaze method was the best for coming to a dead stop on an aircraft carrier.

Those things could stop on a dime. Flips, flaps, CSP, radiators and nose angles be ****ed.

Only worked once per plane though as far as I've read. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL! nice

LStarosta
10-19-2004, 07:49 PM
Nubarus, do you fly in real life?


I really have a hunch that you don't. You have absolutely NO idea what the hell you're talking about.

Nubarus
10-19-2004, 07:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG7_Rall:
Landing is easy despite this bug. If you can't get your speed down to land on a carrier the "bug" isn't the problem. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like I said before, landing the planes is not the problem, just the way how.

Nothing has changed on this forum, almost every bug report thread has to turn into ****.

Better stop posting bugs here and return to emailing Oleg directly like I used too.

LStarosta
10-19-2004, 07:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Beirut:
I understand the Kamikaze method was the best for coming to a dead stop on an aircraft carrier.

Those things could stop on a dime. Flips, flaps, CSP, radiators and nose angles be ****ed.

Only worked once per plane though as far as I've read. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I experimented with near supersonic landings without undercarriage on a carrier deck with Rall this afternoon. Results were very similar to your findings.

JG7_Rall
10-19-2004, 07:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nubarus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG7_Rall:
Landing is easy despite this bug. If you can't get your speed down to land on a carrier the "bug" isn't the problem. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like I said before, landing the planes is not the problem, just the way how.

Nothing has changed on this forum, almost every bug report thread has to turn into ****.

Better stop posting bugs here and return to emailing Oleg directly like I used too. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ok, sorry

JG7_Rall
10-19-2004, 07:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LStarosta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Beirut:
I understand the Kamikaze method was the best for coming to a dead stop on an aircraft carrier.

Those things could stop on a dime. Flips, flaps, CSP, radiators and nose angles be ****ed.

Only worked once per plane though as far as I've read. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I experimented with near supersonic landings without undercarriage on a carrier deck with Rall this afternoon. Results were very similar to your findings. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, it was a kamikazee in disguise. can you say SPLAT!?

Nubarus
10-19-2004, 07:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LStarosta:
Nubarus, do you fly in real life?


I really have a hunch that you don't. You have absolutely NO idea what the hell you're talking about. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure, then can you please explain why Oleg agreed with me regarding this bug in the past when I send him a mail about it?

Like I said before, this forum is a waste of time regarding bug reports.

Future-
10-19-2004, 08:03 PM
Nubarus, bug reporting is important, however the way you approach others in here that don't fully agree with you is questionable.

Maybe you just put up a thread in Oleg's ready room about this, if you haven't already.

You don't need to think that I don't get your point - I do, but I just don't see the big problem in it as you do. It's a little annoying sometimes, yes.

It shouldn't be that way, agreed. But I can live with it - you too?

LStarosta
10-19-2004, 08:10 PM
Yes, to keep RPM constant at lower power settings, the propeller will turn flat against the airflow. Give it a fricken rest, though, I've flown several types of aircraft which for some odd reason happened to have constant speed propellers (coincedence, I think not!). The relationship between the reduction in power and increase in negative acceleration is not as significant as you make it out to be, Nubarus. In IL2 I find the negative acceleration due to power reduction with CSP to be adequate in respect to my experiences. In real life, I find myself performing slides and sometimes even high AoT maneuvers when I notice an overabundance in airspeed. CSP's ARE NOT AIRBRAKES, and should not be expected the perform as such.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Sure, then can you please explain why Oleg agreed with me regarding this bug in the past when I send him a mail about it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why are you wasting your precious time posting about this here if you've already gotten your point across to Oleg, and furthermore he agreed with you?

Maybe you shouldn't post "bugs" here when you respond to people the way you did to some of the first people to respond to your topic. Pardon my agitation and my ungentlemanlike demeanor, but I found it hard to respond in a courteous manner when I read your responses.

Nubarus
10-19-2004, 08:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LStarosta:
Yes, to keep RPM constant at lower power settings, the propeller will turn flat against the airflow. Give it a fricken rest, though, I've flown several types of aircraft which for some odd reason happened to have constant speed propellers (coincedence, I think not!). The relationship between the reduction in power and increase in negative acceleration is not as significant as you make it out to be, Nubarus. In IL2 I find the negative acceleration due to power reduction with CSP to be adequate in respect to my experiences. In real life, I find myself performing slides and sometimes even high AoT maneuvers when I notice an overabundance in airspeed. CSP's ARE NOT AIRBRAKES, and should not be expected the perform as such.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Sure, then can you please explain why Oleg agreed with me regarding this bug in the past when I send him a mail about it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why are you wasting your precious time posting about this here if you've already gotten your point across to Oleg, and furthermore he agreed with you?

Maybe you shouldn't post "bugs" here when you respond to people the way you did to some of the first people to respond to your topic. Pardon my agitation and my ungentlemanlike demeanor, but I found it hard to respond in a courteous manner when I read your responses. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And we have yet ANOTHER person that is focused on just one thing.

Can you actualy read?

Where did I say the CSP was an airbrake? NOWHERE so next time actually read before you reply.

Here it is for you again: Landing flaps, open radiator, open canopy, extended gear all at the same time are pretty much airbrakes, THAT is what I posted about.

Besides, that was the bug report I send to Oleg, that all this drag is not modelled correctly on some planes, most of those just happend to be CFP planes.

Or is that too difficult to understand for you?

Nubarus
10-19-2004, 08:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Future-:
Nubarus, bug reporting is important, however the way you approach others in here that don't fully agree with you is questionable.

Maybe you just put up a thread in Oleg's ready room about this, if you haven't already.

You don't need to think that I don't get your point - I do, but I just don't see the big problem in it as you do. It's a little annoying sometimes, yes.

It shouldn't be that way, agreed. But I can live with it - you too? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you agree that it is a bug but because it's a little bug to you you have to laugh about it and make a snotty remark about it as well?

Pretty logical. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

LStarosta
10-19-2004, 08:26 PM
Allow me to revisit your post:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Mood of the topic. posted Tue October 19 2004 16:40
This was also a bug in FB some time ago.

Constant speed prop planes are very very hard to slow down when landing.

It's pretty amazing that this old bug wasn't cought by the beta testers since it's presence is well, pretty much slapping you in your face.

Even with the canopy open, radiators open, flaps in landing position, gear and hook down and prop pitch to 0% they actually gain speed with the slightest nose down position.

This was highly anoying when landing on an air strip so imagine this when you try and land on a carrier.

This bug was pointed out before and it was fixed in a patch so why the hell is it back in again?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Then, perhaps you should rephrase your argument. You said that due to a CSP "bug" your aircraft did not slow down sufficiently, EVEN with all your other means of increasing drag. That implies that there is something wrong with the way CSP operates in terms of generating drag. And something that generates drag in a significant manner, like you expected it to, is considered an airbreak in most circles.


Or perhaps your argument defies logic?


Anyway, I could sit here 'till midnight responding to your "YOU CAN'T READ" posts, but I have to get my beauty sleep, you know.

Tschüs.

heywooood
10-19-2004, 08:29 PM
noobierus -
well all I asked you was which planes specifically and to give a more detailed example of your approach method - still waiting..

What altitude and airspeed do you have at what distance from the boat?

What turns do you make? what power settings?

Which friggin' airplane specifically?

instead you roll with vindictive and hostility

I would have thought PF would make all but the most morose types very happy...for at least a week. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

Aeronautico
10-19-2004, 08:30 PM
Cajun, I know knothing too, but turbo prop work *slighly* differently than what piston engines do, don't they? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

To my very little knowledge, Nubarus is perfectly right on this (beside that I pitch 90/100% to slow down).

Aeronautico
10-19-2004, 08:31 PM
Ops! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

You guys have posted a bit since I opened the page just after Cajun reply... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Nubarus
10-19-2004, 08:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LStarosta:
Allow me to revisit your post:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Mood of the topic. posted Tue October 19 2004 16:40
This was also a bug in FB some time ago.

Constant speed prop planes are very very hard to slow down when landing.

It's pretty amazing that this old bug wasn't cought by the beta testers since it's presence is well, pretty much slapping you in your face.

Even with the canopy open, radiators open, flaps in landing position, gear and hook down and prop pitch to 0% they actually gain speed with the slightest nose down position.

This was highly anoying when landing on an air strip so imagine this when you try and land on a carrier.

This bug was pointed out before and it was fixed in a patch so why the hell is it back in again?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Then, perhaps you should rephrase your argument. You said that due to a CSP "bug" your aircraft did not slow down fast enough, EVEN with all your other means of increasing drag. That implies that there is something wrong with the way CSP operates in terms of generating drag. And something that generates drag in a significant manner, like you expected it to, is considered an airbreak in most circles.


Or perhaps your argument defies logic? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or perhaps you should re-read the original post since I already pointed that out pretty clearly, but somehow you only want to hear about the CSP airbrake remark I never made in the first place. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

LStarosta
10-19-2004, 08:34 PM
Things are implied without being explicitly stated. Being the literature major that you are, you should know that. Your argument logically implies that the CSP is in some way supposed to slow down your aircraft at low power settings. And something that slows an aircraft down via aerodynamic means is an airbrake. Or would you like to pull a Spock on me and tell me that my logic is flawed.

Anyway, as I said, nighty night.

And BTW.

IBTL http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Weather_Man
10-19-2004, 08:35 PM
I'm pretty sure you mentioned using 0% prop pitch to slow the plane.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Even with the canopy open, radiators open, flaps in landing position, gear and hook down and prop pitch to 0% they actually gain speed with the slightest nose down position. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think this is the point of contention, as this is not the purpose of prop pitch. I don't consider this a bug. Some planes are just hard to slow during a decent. Compensate for it. It seems you are expecting plane A to work like plane B, and they don't. You need to use other methods of slowing down along with the flaps, etc. Side-slip, 90 degree turns, etc. I think your primary problem is not giving enough room to manuever to bleed speed. Start your approach further out so you can set up to land at a proper speed.

heywooood
10-19-2004, 08:38 PM
weatherman -

exactly - but so far Nubarus has not been very specific...If you deploy flaps and cut the engine and then assume a vertical dive attitude you will accelerate. So what is your method?

then maybe you will see more informed responses
however I do not question the ones you have gotten so far...you give nothing to work with here.

Nubarus
10-19-2004, 08:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LStarosta:
Things are implied without being explicitly stated. Being the literature major that you are, you should know that. Your argument logically implies that the CSP is in some way supposed to slow down your aircraft at low power settings. And something that slows an aircraft down via aerodynamic means is an airbrake. Or would you like to pull a Spock on me and tell me that my logic is flawed.

Anyway, as I said, nighty night.

And BTW.

IBTL http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, I am so sorry that my English is not up to your standard.

Aeronautico
10-19-2004, 08:46 PM
I've not read it all yet but guys... I believe that Nubarus is just pointing out a less-than-perfect behaviour of the physics engine, which detract from the simulation experience. Although not a huge fault, I agree with him. I also noticed that auto-prop planes don't loose speed as I would expect, setting pitch & revs high. I wondered myself whether this was historically accurate.

Aeronautico
10-19-2004, 08:48 PM
Oh, and want to see how to perform a plain plane dead stop?

Check this: http://www.big-boys.com/articles/concreteplane.html

Willi_Wombat
10-19-2004, 08:52 PM
Nubarus,

You are acting more and more childish as you try to justify your initial post. It's getting embarrassing, you are dragging the members into the mud and you are sounding more and more like a jerk. You're point is made. Quit before you are remembered for this dumb thread.

WW

Nubarus
10-19-2004, 08:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by heywooood:
weatherman -

exactly - but so far Nubarus has not been very specific...If you deploy flaps and cut the engine and then assume a vertical dive attitude you will accelerate. So what is your method?

then maybe you will see more informed responses
however I do not question the ones you have gotten so far...you give nothing to work with here. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I already said a less then 10 degree "dive", 0% power, 80% pitch (due to another response in this thread) and flaps fully depoyed, canopy open, gear down, radiator open.

I have no idea how far away I am away of the carrier but I come in from pretty far so I have enough time to bleed more speed if needed but even in a 1/4th of a turn it doesn't bleed any speed, I start my aproach at around 190km/h IAS and with the settings stated above and in a less then 10 degree "dive" holding the far end of the carrier in my gunsight.

A plane should bleed more speed with all that stuff sticking out in a 10 degree "dive" then it does in PF.

The Corsair is a good example that has this bug, the F6F-5 on the other hand doesn't have it as bad as the Corsair does.

Nubarus
10-19-2004, 09:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Willi_Wombat:
Nubarus,

You are acting more and more childish as you try to justify your initial post. It's getting embarrassing, you are dragging the members into the mud and you are sounding more and more like a jerk. You're point is made. Quit before you are remembered for this dumb thread.

WW <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't have to justify anything.
Just because some people here have a reading problem and have to act like a bunch of a-holes so being rude is the only way they understand you.
It's the only way people are able to get their points across on this forum, it has been like that for years and it will not change.

ColoradoBBQ
10-19-2004, 09:01 PM
The Corsair is a big heavy airplane and will accelerate even with all the airbrakes deployed at a 10 degree dive, regardless of prop pitch. The Navy rejected the first revision plane due ot this handling problem.

BSS_Vidar
10-19-2004, 09:04 PM
Just a note to some of you Monitor Jockeys out there. On approach, prop pitch is in the cruise configuration all the way down till you reach, or pass the final approach point. At that time the pitch goes full forward (Highest RPM) which is when the blades are at the flatest pitch. This also aides in slowing the plane down because they act like big spinning speed brakes. The reason why is just incase you have to do a "go-around" or "missed approach" during IMC conditions. You do NOT want your pitch set to where your manifold pressure will exceed it or you'll blow your engine.

Ubisoft has never had prop pitch an manifold operations completely correct. You want to see how it's suppose to work without climbing into a real plane? Fly FS2002/04.

S!

Nubarus
10-19-2004, 09:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ColoradoBBQ:
The Corsair is a big heavy airplane and will accelerate even with all the airbrakes deployed at a 10 degree dive, regardless of prop pitch. The Navy rejected the first revision plane due ot this handling problem. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the info, but I assume that this handeling problem was fixed in the later versions?
Those are the ones we have in PF.

heywooood
10-19-2004, 09:06 PM
Nubarus -

Ahhh.. Ok thanks - Corsair is a heavier bird than Hellcat...

do you fly a standard circa 1940's US Navy carrier approach?

You can find it illustrated in a few websites I have seen.. it is illustrated in an old Flight Journal mag. that I have.

The point being that these approaches are designed to reduce airspeed rapidly for fighters that dont want to be hanging in the pattern for a long time as it makes them vulnerable and they dont usually have much juice left in the tank.

Just so we are clear - I have noted that some planes' engines seemed to maintain high revs for a period that seems longer than it should be.. maybe a bug - maybe correct for that type - I dont have much actual warbird time so I don't know.

oh and Vidar - please dont slide into the 'toe brake' thinger again http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

BtW - Vidar - maybe you can post a link to your site for training purposes.. or maybe you have an illustration of the proper approach for most carrier fighters of the day..it will maybe reduce some similar complaints to a duller roar. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

like this illustration (http://224thvmfs.50megs.com/Carrierops.html)

heres one specific to the 'sair (http://boards.historychannel.com/threadedout.jsp?forum=101&thread=5388)

Nubarus
10-19-2004, 10:00 PM
"do you fly a standard circa 1940's US Navy carrier approach?"

Yes, just like illustrated in your first link and like the PF training missions.

Nice stories in the 2nd link btw.

Bearcat99
10-19-2004, 10:01 PM
I use pitch to slow down in all the planes I fly.. especially the p-47. You just have to maintain a very shallow AOD... I kick the pitch back up on my final and then drop it again when I land to slow down... it is slight but sometimes it can mean the differenct between landing and going off the runway and tipping.

heywooood
10-19-2004, 10:03 PM
BC -

So do I but I guess thats 'armchair flyin'

drop down to 80 percent + - and the engine calms right down with the throttle reduced.

heywooood
10-19-2004, 10:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nubarus:
"do you fly a standard circa 1940's US Navy carrier approach?"

Yes, just like illustrated in your first link and like the PF training missions.

Nice stories in the 2nd link btw. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


____________________________________________

Agreed - I liked that article too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ColoradoBBQ
10-19-2004, 10:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You do NOT want your pitch set to where your manifold pressure will exceed it or you'll blow your engine. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does this mean that you can't go 100% power at a low prop pitch?

Snootles
10-19-2004, 10:27 PM
Sorry Nubarus if we all seem a little snitty. There's just some misunderstanding as to what the real problem is (I as an American do not have access to a copy of PF for some time).

Yes, I always thought planes took a little too long to bleed speed. Of course, I was aways an impatient lander with a very steep descent and not much of an approach. And I kept pitch at 0% as a rule (until now, that is).

You want a plane that's a hideous beast of a job to land? Try the Me 262! Like many early jets, it has trouble decelerating from high speeds, trouble accelerating from low speeds, very bad low-speed stall qualities, and very temperamental engines. The result: you glide to base on idle throttle just to keep yourself from accelerating, undertake a series of crazy twists and turns to lose some speed, just manage to get the plane slow enough to drop your gear, and then realize that even though you're going 250 km/h, you're dangerously approaching the stall threshold. Problem is, even at full throttle the engines won't get you going fast enough in time, and to get to full you have to treat the engines like sleeping babies through 6000 rpm, otherwise they start on fire and/or explode. If you do touch down, you'll find yourself running out of runway pretty soon.

Let me tell you, I feel terribly proud when I can put that plane down cleanly.

VFA-195 Snacky
10-19-2004, 10:41 PM
I agree 100%



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cajun76:
I fly the P-47 quite a bit, and as long as I approach at something resembling RL speeds and glide slope angles, slowing down is not a problem, even when descending. I don't think some of you know how a CSP operates. It is __not__ an airbrake. I work on T-56 turboprops installed on the C-130. The engine should always drive the prop. When the prop drives the engine, bad things start to happan. If you have no idea what you're talking about Nubarus, it's best...... well, you know the rest. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BfHeFwMe
10-19-2004, 11:07 PM
Why don't you hold the nose 10 degrees up and fly a sink rate, like a pilot would............

Baffles me why anyone would expect anything to slow down once in motion on a 10 degree dive.

ElAurens
10-19-2004, 11:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ColoradoBBQ:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You do NOT want your pitch set to where your manifold pressure will exceed it or you'll blow your engine. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does this mean that you can't go 100% power at a low prop pitch? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Colorado... the prop pitch/manifold pressure model is completely wrong in the game. You can set either one anywhere you want in anythng but a 109 and never have difficulties in the engine room.

Nubarus
10-19-2004, 11:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Why don't you hold the nose 10 degrees up and fly a sink rate, like a pilot would............

Baffles me why anyone would expect anything to slow down once in motion on a 10 degree dive. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because then you cannot see where you are going since the carrier is a lot smaller and moving.
You only pull out at the last end to make sure your tail hook catches the cable.

It baffles me that you find it normal that a plane gains speed with all that stuff hanging out all over the place since full flaps, gear down, radiator full open, tail hook down and open canopy all add a lot of drag, with no throttle input.

Besides, as I said earlier, it gains speed with less then a 10 degree "dive".

JG27_Arklight
10-20-2004, 12:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nubarus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Future-:
@ Nubarus: Oh, forgive me, your highness, for posting my opinion!

And I DO know what I'm talking about, I noticed too that some planes don't bleed off speed that fast.

But I ask again, so what? Are you too stupid or too stuborn to compensate that by factoring it in?

S! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, it seems you have a slight problem in understanding how you are supposed to land on a carrier Future, so therefore it is a problem.
But it's pretty obvious you have no idea after reading your second response so I see no reason to take your opinion serious regarding this. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



I've never landed on a carrier in a real WWII fighter.

What's it like?

Come to think of it, I have never landed on a carrier in real life at all.

Apparenty, a lot of you know how to do it. I was unaware we had so many carrier qual'd pilots here.

As long as I can still do it and do it "somewhat realistically", I could give a flying **** what my airspeed gauge is reading.

And Future is right. Why complain about **** like this? So the aircraft are too fast....fly a wider pattern. Done. Easy.


But to each his own I guess. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

TX-EcoDragon
10-20-2004, 12:15 AM
In carrier ops you want to be pretty much "behind the power curve" once established on your final approach course. What this means is that once you are configured and on speed, slowing down any more will require a power increase, and of course in order to do this in even a draggy aircraft (ie. not a fighter) you must raise the nose at least to a level attitude in the descent. In order to set this up you must not be so high as to need a steep descent (and if you do, use a slip to increase the descent rate without increasing airspeed), or so fast as to make getting on speed impossible. If you are flying your downwind at about 600-800 feet alt, and far enough way such that you can just see the carrier off your wing, and you are at ~80-85 KIAS then you should expect to have to add power to maintain that on the final aproach (oh and generally you cant see forward very well in this situation which is why in many taildraggers a circling approach, or a slip is used up until near the touchdown point even when not landing on a carrier). Your nose should not be 10 degrees below the horizon, if you want a steep approach for some reason you can add a bootfull of rudder and slip it down (note that a 10 degree nose down attitude will be and even steeper glideslope closer to 15 degrees.)

Having said all that, I do tend to think at least some aircraft in FB float a looong time without much effect of drag from the landing configuration, the 190A's come to mind, but again, be *on speed*, and it's not a problem. . . come in hot and you will float, just like you will in a fowler flap equipped Cessna 182 drag machine.

JG27_Arklight
10-20-2004, 12:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TX-EcoDragon:
In carrier ops you want to be pretty much "behind the power curve" once established on your final approach course. What this means is that once you are configured and on speed, slowing down any more will require a power increase, and of course in order to do this in even a draggy aircraft (ie. not a fighter) you must raise the nose at least to a level attitude in the descent. In order to set this up you must not be so high as to need a steep descent (and if you do, use a slip to increase the descent rate without increasing airspeed), or so fast as to make getting on speed impossible. If you are flying your downwind at about 600-800 feet alt, and far enough way such that you can just see the carrier off your wing, and you are at ~80-85 KIAS then you should expect to have to add power to maintain that on the final aproach (oh and generally you cant see forward very well in this situation which is why in many taildraggers a circling approach, or a slip is used up until near the touchdown point even when not landing on a carrier). Your nose should not be 10 degrees below the horizon, if you want a steep approach for some reason you can add a bootfull of rudder and slip it down (note that a 10 degree nose down attitude will be and even steeper glideslope closer to 15 degrees.)

Having said all that, I do tend to think at least some aircraft in FB float a looong time without much effect of drag from the landing configuration, the 190A's come to mind, but again, be *on speed*, and it's not a problem. . . come in hot and you will float, just like you will in a fowler flap equipped Cessna 182 drag machine. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I agree, some of the planes do have a tendancy to "float". But I'm certainly not going to devote any time out of my day to research and file a complaint about it. lol

Nubarus
10-20-2004, 05:36 AM
The typical Ubi forum responses.

Just because a bug is not important to you nobody else can mention it or they get all snotty about it.

What a joke. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

JG27_Arklight
10-20-2004, 07:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nubarus:
The typical Ubi forum responses.

Just because a bug is not important to you nobody else can mention it or they get all snotty about it.

What a joke. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



The question is not whether it is important to me, the question is whether it is important at all. Your complaint has an easy workaround. A wider pattern.

And my responses aren't "typical". I hardly even come around this forum any more.

If you are waiting for this game to be accurate in every way shape and form then bring some food, water, and clothes because you are going to be waiting a LONG time.

Nubarus
10-20-2004, 07:57 AM
LMAO @ Arklight, well well, how funny is that.

You should see the posts written all over GD and ORR about planes not bleeding enough speed in turns and how it should be fixed because it was giving you LW boys a lot of greef. (I bet you even agreed in those threads as well)

So now it's posted from the other side of the coin and now it's not important at all.

Still typical snotty response.

But this happend here as well back then when I posted about it in regards to landings and inside loops, being at a disadvantage in a plane that doesn't bleed speed.

Funny thing was that the same people who wanted to get it fixed as an advantage jumped in and started pooping in the thread, just like you are now, how stupid is that? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Cajun76
10-20-2004, 08:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aeronautico:
Cajun, I know knothing too, but turbo prop work *slighly* differently than what piston engines do, don't they? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

To my very little knowledge, Nubarus is perfectly right on this (beside that I pitch 90/100% to slow down). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They do indeed. Instead of a piston engine turning a CSP at a near constant 100% rpm, a jet turbine turns a CSP at near constant 100% rpm. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Think of it this way, the prop is a rpm limiter for the engine. The result is thrust. Even when you ****** the throttle, the prop maintains a high blade angle to limit the engine revs because of forward speed. You don't want the prop to turn the engine. The whole piont of a CSP is to have rapid power when you need it. You don't need to wait for the engine to increase rpms. It's already there. What increases is torque. More fuel, the faster the engine wants to turn. The prop limits this and torque increases. In fact, that's one of the main things the pilots of C-130s use for engine operation. The other is Turbine Inlet Tempurature. (That's "Tee Eye Tee", not "tit" you twits.) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

As for "typicl ubi forum responses", this thread started out as a typical ubi forum whine. No track, no proof, no specifics of procedure. The first "snotty" post was a response by the original poster. It seemed rather out of proportion to me, hence my less than polite response. My apoligies, I usually don't let things like that draw my ire. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Aeronautico
10-20-2004, 09:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cajun76:
They do indeed. Instead of a piston engine turning a CSP at a near constant 100% rpm, a jet turbine turns a CSP at near constant 100% rpm. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, and it's nothing! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

What I meant Cajun (and thanks for the explainations), is that I expect a piston engine to be tougher than a turbo prop, and can consquently be used to slow down the aircraft overevving a bit as much as I do with my car (note I drive manual gear)?

DuxCorvan
10-20-2004, 09:22 AM
It's a... gngng... bug... ugh! oof! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif
http://www.terra.com.mx/Galeria_de_Fotos/images/100/198830.jpg

Cajun76
10-20-2004, 09:26 AM
Please reread, Aeronautico. The CSP is automatic. It's designed to keep the engine at a constant rpm by limiting revs. Your analogy isn't approipriate because the CSP is an automatic transmission of a sort. What your talking about might be possible with manual or fixed props. And imho, if you use the manual gear to slow down your car constantly, you've got more money than I do to spend on car maintainence. Brake components are cheaper than drivetrains and engines. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Btw, the T-56 is a beast. One of the ways they used to do a thorough cleaning on the compressor was to use broken walnut shell peices tossed into the intake. Most straight jet engines (thinking about F-16 type engines, not turbofans) won't take this kind of abuse. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif It was before my time, and it could only be done a few times due to a reduction in engine life from what I hear. Knowing engine troops as I do, it was most likely overused to try and raise efficiency to acceptable values on low power engines. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Rata18
10-20-2004, 11:27 AM
Of course the road signs in mountainous regions warning to switch to a low gear for descending safely are there precisely because it is *better* to use the engine as a ******er than to rely on brakes that can fail if they overheat - There is no fundemental problem with driving an engine from the drivetrain, so long as the difference in speed, and power absorbed by the engine are reasonable, and are not 'suddenly' applied.

The same arguement can be applied to a reciprocating prop (but not usually a free-turbine turbo-prop).

JG27_Arklight
10-20-2004, 12:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Funny thing was that the same people who wanted to get it fixed as an advantage jumped in and started pooping in the thread, just like you are now, how stupid is that? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


When did I say I wanted it fixed?

The only complaining I ever did about the 109s was when the FMs seemingly changed every patch. In fact, for the most part, I don't even like the LW planes except for the 110.

In addition, those arguments about the 109s are directly related to how people can DF in them. This is a fighting simulator, you know. Not, "Pacific Fighters: Landing in the Pacific".

Now take your assumptions concerning my LW posts elsewhere and stop trying to dodge the issue. People have tried to tell you workarounds but you seem content on *****ing.

Nubarus
10-20-2004, 12:33 PM
Like I already posted in this very thread many times before, I already use the work arounds available.

read for once Ark, it's not that hard you know.

Nice of you to step in and poop in this thread Ark, I always like to be reminded why I hardly post bug reports here.

It has been a while so I kind of hoped people here matured enough.

I guess I was wrong.

Bug submitted via mail and guess what, I didn't get a dumb *** response from people like you.

BuzzU
10-20-2004, 12:37 PM
I agree that some planes glide to fast at a high drag state. I've learned to make my final turn at almost stall speed, and then try to hold it all the way in. I've also tried to side slip it all the way in with good results. However, I haven't tried a carrier landing yet, so I have no opinion on that.

BfHeFwMe
10-20-2004, 12:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rata18:
Of course the road signs in mountainous regions warning to switch to a low gear for descending safely are there precisely because it is *better* to use the engine as a ******er than to rely on brakes that can fail if they overheat - There is no fundemental problem with driving an engine from the drivetrain, so long as the difference in speed, and power absorbed by the engine are reasonable, and are not 'suddenly' applied.

The same arguement can be applied to a reciprocating prop (but not usually a free-turbine turbo-prop). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, that could be true, but you'd need an awful powerful engine to get that aircraft airborne. Everything is minimal weight, they deliberatly design the prop gearboxes and torque shafts for maximum strength with minimal weight for one direction of rotation only. Otherwise it's to heavy to fly. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Yellonet
10-20-2004, 12:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG27_Arklight:
The question is not whether it is important to me, the question is whether it is important at all. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's your oppinion, nothing else. If you don't agree with this being a problem, just say so and explain why you think it is not.
What you're saying now is basically: I don't care about this problem that's why no one else should care either.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And my responses aren't "typical". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Your comments are typical for the forum. There are many a troll here...

LStarosta
10-20-2004, 01:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nubarus:
The typical Ubi forum responses.

Just because a bug is not important to you nobody else can mention it or they get all snotty about it.

What a joke. Roll Eyes <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dub thee Stiglr II, Queen Of The Whine.



Can we all STFU and talk about sex or something?

DuxCorvan
10-20-2004, 01:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LStarosta:
Can we all STFU and talk about sex or something? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope. You'd be the whiner then. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

And in sex, bugs are a serious higienic and medical concern. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

FF_Trozaka
10-20-2004, 01:49 PM
wow, most of you guys agree with the man that planes do not slow down correctly, but you still beat him over the head?!?! shheeesh! Remind me not to point out flaws in flight aerodynamics and concentrate only on important issues like size of muzzle flashes.
You guys need an intervention, I'm calling Dr. Phil

Kasdeya
10-20-2004, 02:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FF_Trozaka:
wow, most of you guys agree with the man that planes do not slow down correctly, but you still beat him over the head?!?! shheeesh! Remind me not to point out flaws in flight aerodynamics and concentrate only on important issues like size of muzzle flashes.
You guys need an intervention, I'm calling Dr. Phil <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It wasnt that he pointed something out, it was the way everything else unfolded. If you find something point it out, but now you must also bring proof. Tracks, real historical data... stuff like that. Its understandable that people need proof, its just that some push it a bit for sometimes.

My opinion on all this, many people here are a lil bit uptight about certain things. He has a good point, but some of these planes were built for speed and that doesnt help when you want to slow them. I have flown in this sim, the 47 and the 51 and they dont like to lose speed but I do things abit differently. I dont have to set up longer I just set up slower. I havent gotten my hands on PF, so I cant tell you about the 'sair or the hellcat. That is why I stayed out of this and will stay out of this.


As for the rest of you, carry on.... but wait until my popcorn finishes, will ya. http://www.houseofkasdeya.com/muncht.gif

BTW cherry and IBTL

JG27_Arklight
10-20-2004, 02:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nubarus:
Like I already posted in this very thread many times before, I already use the work arounds available.

read for once Ark, it's not that hard you know.

Nice of you to step in and poop in this thread Ark, I always like to be reminded why I hardly post bug reports here.

It has been a while so I kind of hoped people here matured enough.

I guess I was wrong.

Bug submitted via mail and guess what, I didn't get a dumb *** response from people like you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


You're the one using the harsh words towards people and I'm the immature one?

Nice try.

Great way of helping your cause.

"What a joke".

TX-EcoDragon
10-20-2004, 02:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nubarus:
The typical Ubi forum responses.

Just because a bug is not important to you nobody else can mention it or they get all snotty about it.


.....You should see the posts written all over GD and ORR about planes not bleeding enough speed in turns and how it should be fixed because it was giving you LW boys a lot of greef. (I bet you even agreed in those threads as well)

So now it's posted from the other side of the coin and now it's not important at all.

Still typical snotty response........

What a joke. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First of all the issues with induced drag, vs parasite drag are not related, and there certainly are issues with induced drag being very slight in many aircraft over the years, this is quite a different thing than parasite drag in the manner in which it acts. I am only working with what you gave, and if you think your nose should be down on approach once configured and on speed you are simply mistaken, and doing it that way will result in the problems you mention not only in the sim but in actual aircraft as well. I don't have PF yet, so things may be changed dramatically now, but if that posted technique is used, problems should result. As I said before, in some instances the drag that the landing configuration imparts is not as much as would be expected in particular at higher speeds, but at pattern speeds I usually find it pretty reasonable. These are very slippery aircraft, slowing them down is a chore! So my point isn't that it is perfect or that your observation is *wrong* but that it is close when flown properly. No sim out there has a chance at perfect fidelity, and using non-standard procedures will augment the improper FM response even further. . . and given the technique you describe, the FM could be 100% accurate and give the results you are talking about. Don't put the prop in the lowest drag configuration (0%), don't dive to the runway unless you are slipping at teh same time, and get on speed and things might shape up a bit.

Read the post and try it out. I am not talking about a game technique, I am talking about real techniques. . . those are the ones I use when I fly these sorts of aircraft in the real world, and those I employ in this sim. . . if telling you those is snotty then what can I say. When I test FM's if the sim rewards me with what is an expected and realistic response, I consider it a pretty good component of the FM. . . If I play test pilot and start trying things out that are non-standard and peculiar I also usually find that this sim does a pretty good job (such as aerobatics), but not always!

Oh and I have to say that in many instances the CSP does in many aircraft give a nice braking effect when at idle power and max rpm. Of course in many aerobatic aircraft I fly it is by design of the prop (gives longer vertical downlines and generaly more control), but even in the large proped warbirds a prop windmilling against the engine at max rpm(100% in game) can be quite a healthy dose of drag. If any of you get the chance to fly such a bird try pulling the prop from high RPM towards low when in a trimmed power off descent. . . you will see your nose rise tomaintain the trimmed airspeed. . .don't do it too fast or the stored energy in the blades will amplify the sensation of acceleration and you will pitch up, but even if you don't you will stabilize in a flatter attitude.

In aircraft like the Extra 300 or the Raven, you will actually be pulled forward rather sharply into your shoulder harness when you abruptly cut power! This will vary by type, but the big blades on a P-51 will do it a bit also! So In my view this area could use the most work with regard to this aspect of the FM.

Nubarus
10-20-2004, 03:43 PM
You guys act like I am diving my plane down like a bird of prey.

This is not the case at all, the nose is only slightly below the horizon and I keep the far end of the flight deck just above the nose so I can still see where the carrier is.
I hardly call that diving.

It may have escaped you that I am way passed the 0% pitch control since I stopped using that when this thread was still on one page.

The corsair is build for speed but even with all that "garbage" hanging out and I also tested with the dive brakes deployed today as well it still doesn't bleed any speed in a shallow dive.

You can't come in with the nose upwards on a narrow landing area like a carrier unless you enjoy crashing into the ship/tower or take a dive into the Pacific.

So even without the landing bit taken into consideration a plane should bleed speed during certain actions but it doesn't.
This is a bug and it should be reported but somehow there are people around here that feel the need to whine about it.

crazyivan1970
10-20-2004, 03:47 PM
So, who wants to go on vacation... please stand up..please stand up...

Nubarus
10-20-2004, 03:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LStarosta:
Can we all STFU and talk about sex or something? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why don't you take your own advice and STFU and go whine about someone else.

And why bother talk about sex?

That is pretty boring.

NegativeGee
10-20-2004, 04:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FF_Trozaka:
wow, most of you guys agree with the man that planes do not slow down correctly, but you still beat him over the head?!?! shheeesh! Remind me not to point out flaws in flight aerodynamics and concentrate only on important issues like size of muzzle flashes.
You guys need an intervention, I'm calling Dr. Phil <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It goes to show how important careful choice of words are. Post a topic which sounds annoyed and exasperated and expect responses in kind.

Aeronautico
10-20-2004, 06:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rata18:
Of course the road signs in mountainous regions warning to switch to a low gear for descending safely are there precisely because it is *better* to use the engine as a ******er than to rely on brakes that can fail if they overheat - There is no fundemental problem with driving an engine from the drivetrain, so long as the difference in speed, and power absorbed by the engine are reasonable, and are not 'suddenly' applied.

The same arguement can be applied to a reciprocating prop (but not usually a free-turbine turbo-prop). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do I need to say I couldn't agree more? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

And I have always been driving combining brakes and engine to slow down, resulting in safe and controlled drive, lower brakes' components consumption and no harm done to the engines to date, at all (but am only talking about 15 years' driving times 30'000 kms/year = 450'000 kms)! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I get the automatic vs manual matter concerning CSP Cajun, and I do/did agree on that after all.
So my remark should rather be that CSP is somehow less efficient than manual propellers? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Aeronautico
10-20-2004, 06:17 PM
Anyway, talking about gliding speeds and no energy loss?

What about the BI-1 and the Me 163? Are they not "a bit " overdone? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Aeronautico
10-20-2004, 06:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LStarosta:
Can we all STFU and talk about sex or something? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope. You'd be the whiner then. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

And in sex, bugs are a serious higienic and medical concern. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

You crack me Dux! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Snootles
10-20-2004, 06:32 PM
Sometimes you people and your arguments really do scare me...

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

And while we're on the subject of sex and bugs, I believe my "variable-pitch prop" is undermodelled, re****ing in an inability to slow down in time for landing!

heywooood
10-20-2004, 06:52 PM
good lord - never have sex with bugs...how many times do I have to say it?

what is up with the people 'round here. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif