PDA

View Full Version : Dogfight Tactics And Realism



JakeFontana
07-22-2006, 09:17 AM
Hello all

I was just wondering about some of the realism in Il2 FB. Sorry I know I'm a one of those god-awful newbies but I just have some general questions.

One of the things that was wondering about was the physics modelling of the aircraft themeselves. Obviously a plane, low on fuel and ammunition has a lighter load than a plane that is full loaded. Consequently its maneuverabilty will increase, and stall speed will decrease. Is this modelled in Il2?

One of the other questions I had was does anybody know good websites for dogfight tactics and tutorials. I'm getting sick of flying in multiplayer and getting swatted out of the sky like bluebottle fly by some slick pilot with a fancy skin called "BigSlick" or something like that anyway. How can I stop my plane from stalling every two seconds in a dogfight?

Crash_Moses
07-22-2006, 09:40 AM
Well, I know for certain that the amount of fuel you have will affect your top speed but I'm not sure how it affects your COG and such.

A great site for guides of all sorts is www.airwarfare.com (http://www.airwarfare.com)

As for dogfighting you just have to keep your speed up. A lot depends on the type of plane you fly but that is a good general rule. If you're in a turn fight and find yourself losing energy just extend (run away) gain some speed and altitude and try and position yourself for another attack.

It also helps to pick one plane and stick with it. Learn its strengths and weaknesses and, most importantly, practice, practice, practice.

S!

Manu-6S
07-22-2006, 09:41 AM
Originally posted by JakeFontana:
Is this modelled in Il2?

Yes it is.


Originally posted by JakeFontana:
One of the other questions I had was does anybody know good websites for dogfight tactics and tutorials. I'm getting sick of flying in multiplayer and getting swatted out of the sky like bluebottle fly by some slick pilot with a fancy skin called "BigSlick" or something like that anyway. How can I stop my plane from stalling every two seconds in a dogfight?

Stay high, keep your energy, make always the situation awareness and don't swap planes too often.

Bye

EDIT: I forgot, attack enemy only if your flight is numerically superior.

Dew-Claw
07-22-2006, 10:16 AM
If I see a furball, I like to Orbit above it at a distance.
Figure out who's who if I can and wait for a mistake(Usually I'm the one that makes it but thats another story).
I'll try and drop on someone who breaks from the fight, or a team mate who attempts to run so I can cover his retreat.

Pick your fights carefully and avoid the urge to jump in a fight. There are times I fly over an hour and never engage because conditions arnt favorable.
I'm selfish that way.

I have 1 rule that works for me.
"When facing multiple enemies, run away screaming like a school girl."

Works for me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

sudoku1941
07-22-2006, 11:54 AM
All this is good advice, to be sure, but with the poor way this sim deals with energy bleed, acceleration and (canned) performance near the stall speed, it's very problematic to be "fine" with your maneuvering decisions and your use of tactics.

Put more simply, these energy bleed problems favor tight turning planes, and punish those who need to keep speed up. BASIC boom and zoom principles do apply, such that if you have a LARGE advantage to exploit, you can count on success, but it's very hard to apply them with discipline and "work" an energy advantage in a situation where your advantage is more marginal, without losing that advantage to a T&B plane.

Other factors are in play here as well, such as the "no icon" visibility problems that make it much harder to see planes from a good perch than history indicates was the case. An energy fighting pilot often has to shed his altitude (and much of his stored energy advantage) just to get to a position to have any chance to see lower-flying planes. So, by the time they "magically appear" our energy pilot is down low with them, and suddenly in a position of disadvantage.

Xiolablu3
07-22-2006, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by sudoku1941:
All this is good advice, to be sure, but with the poor way this sim deals with energy bleed, acceleration and (canned) performance near the stall speed, it's very problematic to be "fine" with your maneuvering decisions and your use of tactics.

Put more simply, these energy bleed problems favor tight turning planes, and punish those who need to keep speed up. BASIC boom and zoom principles do apply, such that if you have a LARGE advantage to exploit, you can count on success, but it's very hard to apply them with discipline and "work" an energy advantage in a situation where your advantage is more marginal, without losing that advantage to a T&B plane.

Other factors are in play here as well, such as the "no icon" visibility problems that make it much harder to see planes from a good perch than history indicates was the case. An energy fighting pilot often has to shed his altitude (and much of his stored energy advantage) just to get to a position to have any chance to see lower-flying planes. So, by the time they "magically appear" our energy pilot is down low with them, and suddenly in a position of disadvantage.

Oh geezus.

Any excuse to moan.


Jake, take no notice of this guy, he got upset with the designers of this sim and doesnt miss a chance to **** it off. Rather than give any advice, he would rather whine about the game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Read some of the good topics about dogfighting in this forum, there are a few.

Try and keep fast at all times, you will stall if you try and push your plane further than it wants to go. You are probably trying to turn too tight, or turn at a slow speed.

Try and stay in the vertical so that you can dive down on targets and then zoom back up to safety. Try to stay out of horizontal turnfights as this is how you get low and slow and turn into a sitting duck.

Try flying the easier planes like the SPitfire and the Zero which were historically good turners and great for beginners. When you learn a bit more about speed and energy fighting move onto the Bf109 and the Tempest and finally when you are very confident move onto the FW190A and the Mustang.

The latter 2 require a good knowledge of real fighter tactics to fly them well. Spitfires and Zeros are very forgiving on the new pilot, as they historically were.

This sim is so rewarding, come and fly on a server with us, which version do you have? We will help you out.

sudoku1941
07-22-2006, 01:48 PM
Xiolablu says:


Try and stay in the vertical so that you can dive down on targets and then zoom back up to safety. Try to stay out of horizontal turnfights as this is how you get low and slow and turn into a sitting duck.

But, see, there's the problem. You lose a lot of your advantage "staying in the vertical" while those that turn in the horizontal are less penalized (by the miscalculated energy bleed and acceleration); far less; and so, for every pull up you make to recover from a shot you can't pull lead on, you waste precious energy on the pullup itself; whether it's the misapplied stick forces, capricious blackouts, or whatever.

And, at the same time, the break turns your enemy makes to dodge your gunpasses... he is penalized less, increasing the chance that he can raise his nose and get a squirt at you as you attempt to zoom away at some point; whether your zoom is steep or shallow, your danger increases exponentially each pass you make; whereas, for the sage B&Zer, he knows how to use the zooms to keep the pressure on the T&Ber, knowing that he can't turn forever and must start losing altitude to keep his speed up.

But, with these phenomena out of whack in IL-2, this is where you start getting what I call the "bullsh*t results". You try to wear an opponent down on energy, and you have only a tiiiiiiny margin of error, where you should have considerable latitude. If your B&Z plane is not versatile enough to be able to start attempting to win a turn battle at some point, you're hosed.

You can really see this at work in a matchup like 109E vs. I-16s. Combine it with the fact that an on-the-perch Bf109 pilot can't even see these little buggers in a no icon situation without blowing half his energy diving in amongst them first... well, suddenly, it looks more and more like the Rata is not the cannon fodder it was in 1941 at the onset of Barbarossa.

That's just one matchup that gets skewed by the poor physics modeling here. FW190 vs. Spit would be another. Zero M2 vs. F4F would be a third.

Nubarus
07-22-2006, 02:37 PM
Why do they always have to make a new forum account to whine about this sim?

Hiding behind a new nic sure shows a lot a character............... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

slipBall
07-22-2006, 02:42 PM
Here are a few that you could practce, and learn. You will find yourself knowing instinctively when to use them in combat, enjoy

from original IL-2 manual, short and to the point, these, and other's have helped me alot

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f394/SlipBall/IL-2_manual_UK.jpg


http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f394/SlipBall/IL-2_manual_UK2.jpg



http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f394/SlipBall/IL-2_manual_UK3.jpg


http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f394/SlipBall/IL-2_manual_UK6.jpg



http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f394/SlipBall/IL-2_manual_UK6.jpg


http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f394/SlipBall/IL-2_manual_UK7.jpg

Bearcat99
07-22-2006, 04:00 PM
This stuff might help too. You might also want to hit the Sturmovik Essentials thread in my sig. Like Moses said... Airwarfare.com is THE resource for flight simming at the moment. Go through that Essentials thread in my sig thoroughly.

In Pursuit: An Online Pilot's Guide to Aerial Combat (http://web.comhem.se/%7Eu85627360/)
Joint Ops (http://www.joint-ops.com/) An Online Virtual Flight Training School
Neural Dreaml's Aircraft Reference Guide (http://www.airwarfare.com/Sims/FB/fb_essential_files.htm#001)
IL2 Wingman (http://airwarfare.com/AWX/Files/IL2Wb-60.zip)this little baby is like having Hardball's Viewer, a log parser, Youss' tool and more...... PLUS a dot range tool all in one!!!
Hardball's Aircraft Viewer (http://www.airwarfare.com/Sims/FB/fb_essential_files.htm#014) an online version of the guide basically.. both are very good.
<span class="ev_code_red">U</span>ber <span class="ev_code_red">Q</span>uick <span class="ev_code_red">M </span>ission<span class="ev_code_red">G</span>enerator (http://www.airwarfare.com/Sims/FB/fb_essential_files.htm#043) - This tool will help you to create more diverse quick missions to practice with. It comes with an extensive help file and is pretty easy to use once you doit a few times.
Fraps (http://www.airwarfare.com/Sims/FB/fb_essential_files.htm#010)- A quick and easy way to measure your frames per second
IL2 Manager 5.0 (http://www.airwarfare.com/Sims/FB/fb_essential_files.htm#022) This utility will allow you to make certain adjustments within the config file.. like graphics setting etc. on a gui. While it is highly recommended that you learn where these things are in the config file, once you know that... easy and quick is the way to go. It also has a stick editor which will allow you to set up different profiles for your joystick sensitivity settings.
IL2 Stab (http://www.airwarfare.com/Sims/FB/fb_essential_files.htm#024) Similar to IL2 Manager but without the stick editor and with a Diary feature.
VAC (http://www.airwarfare.com/Sims/FB/fb_essential_files.htm#047)- <span class="ev_code_red">V</span>oice <span class="ev_code_red">A</span>ctvated<span class="ev_code_red">C</span>ommands - This utility is very similar to SHOOT.. it allows you to interact with your PCand thus the sim with voice commands. Very usefull in coops. A bit tricky.. but a good program.
COOP Generator (http://www.airwarfare.com/Sims/FB/fb_essential_files.htm#005) - A random COOP genrator. I have yet to use it but it looks interesting.
Sniper's Corner (http://ourworld.cs.com/Abra772/SC_2_Eng.zip) a nice utility to help get the angles aspect of A2A gunnery in your head - Gunnery at AW.C (http://www.airwarfare.com/tactics/tactics_fwgunnery.htm)-A good explenation of the tool and what is does. Also this entire section at AW.C is a really good resource.

Can_Goose
07-22-2006, 05:54 PM
Re constant stalling, I never use more thn 25% fuel if I don't have to it helps a lot.When engaging in a dog fight and you are going to turn hard, use combat flaps the will keep you from stalling.Keep your speed up by keeping level or diving.Slow planes have a one advantage over faster ones, they can usually turn out of the way of a faster attacking plane, again using combat flaps or even landing or full flaps if you are really slow or under 200 klicks.Practice with your ai, it is actually quite good, I find after practising with ai for a while my tactics improve when I go back to live game play.

VW-IceFire
07-22-2006, 06:58 PM
Originally posted by JakeFontana:
Hello all

I was just wondering about some of the realism in Il2 FB. Sorry I know I'm a one of those god-awful newbies but I just have some general questions.

One of the things that was wondering about was the physics modelling of the aircraft themeselves. Obviously a plane, low on fuel and ammunition has a lighter load than a plane that is full loaded. Consequently its maneuverabilty will increase, and stall speed will decrease. Is this modelled in Il2?

One of the other questions I had was does anybody know good websites for dogfight tactics and tutorials. I'm getting sick of flying in multiplayer and getting swatted out of the sky like bluebottle fly by some slick pilot with a fancy skin called "BigSlick" or something like that anyway. How can I stop my plane from stalling every two seconds in a dogfight?
As far as fuel and ammo go...yes. Not sure how much the ammo counts towards it but the fuel is a definate yes. I tend to fly planes like the Hellcat, Corsair, P-51, P-38 and so forth with only 25% fuel. You can REALLY feel the difference because each of these packs so much fuel onboard its a huge difference in performance. Particularly in turns.

What I don't think it affects at this stage is the center of gravity. Some planes got more stable as fuel was used up (the P-51 in particular) while they were prone to stalling when some tanks were still full. This I don't think is modeled at this point. Maybe in the future.

I would just recommend practicing and learning the basic manuevers. Start doing Google searches for 'boom and zoom' 'split-s' 'high yo-yo' and other manuever names.

Von_Rat
07-22-2006, 07:25 PM
Originally posted by sudoku1941:
Xiolablu says:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Try and stay in the vertical so that you can dive down on targets and then zoom back up to safety. Try to stay out of horizontal turnfights as this is how you get low and slow and turn into a sitting duck.

But, see, there's the problem. You lose a lot of your advantage "staying in the vertical" while those that turn in the horizontal are less penalized (by the miscalculated energy bleed and acceleration); far less; and so, for every pull up you make to recover from a shot you can't pull lead on, you waste precious energy on the pullup itself; whether it's the misapplied stick forces, capricious blackouts, or whatever.

And, at the same time, the break turns your enemy makes to dodge your gunpasses... he is penalized less, increasing the chance that he can raise his nose and get a squirt at you as you attempt to zoom away at some point; whether your zoom is steep or shallow, your danger increases exponentially each pass you make; whereas, for the sage B&Zer, he knows how to use the zooms to keep the pressure on the T&Ber, knowing that he can't turn forever and must start losing altitude to keep his speed up.

But, with these phenomena out of whack in IL-2, this is where you start getting what I call the "bullsh*t results". You try to wear an opponent down on energy, and you have only a tiiiiiiny margin of error, where you should have considerable latitude. If your B&Z plane is not versatile enough to be able to start attempting to win a turn battle at some point, you're hosed.

You can really see this at work in a matchup like 109E vs. I-16s. Combine it with the fact that an on-the-perch Bf109 pilot can't even see these little buggers in a no icon situation without blowing half his energy diving in amongst them first... well, suddenly, it looks more and more like the Rata is not the cannon fodder it was in 1941 at the onset of Barbarossa.

That's just one matchup that gets skewed by the poor physics modeling here. FW190 vs. Spit would be another. Zero M2 vs. F4F would be a third. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

very good post, i agree 100 percent.

this games physics and the invisable dots favor the tnb plane over bnz.

but theres hope, i have a feeling that bob will solve, at least partially, these issues.

sudoku1941
07-22-2006, 07:41 PM
Flying with a marginal fuel load to "improve performance" is a gamer ploy, pure and simple.

Pilots almost always took off with a full load, if not drop tanks, in most theatres; Russia comes to mind as one front where perhaps bombers would not need to, as the distances on average were shorter between bases and the front, and to targets.

However, fighters did not get to choose their fuel state when combat began, and it's "gaming the game" to be a fuel dweeb. You're pretty much just admitting you can't last long enough to fly a full mission.

Learn the BASIC lessons of flying and fighting, and you'll get the best performance out of your plane, whether at 75% or 10% (in which case, you might not have enough avgas to get back home!)

Kernow
07-23-2006, 03:16 AM
Originally posted by sudoku1941:
Flying with a marginal fuel load to "improve performance" is a gamer ploy, pure and simple.


Yes, the first thing I thought when I saw that advice was, 'But the thread title was "Dogfight Tactics and Realism."

The P-51 was limited to straight & level only with fuel in the fuselage tank. They would escort the bombers over a certain 'zone' and hand-over to another group when the bombers had passed through. They would take enough fuel to be down to 'fighting weight' by the time they reached their zone. You're certainly not limited to straight & level with 100% fuel in the P-51, but I'm not sure that the actual fuselage tank is modelled in the first place. I don't think it is, because - at least under previous patches - both the P-38 and P-47 had a greater range on internal fuel alone.

Ice Fire, you sure you can get away with 25% in an F6F or F4U? To get a useful bombload off the deck in the 'Tarawa' mission on Zekes v Wildcats I can only take 25% fuel; my Hellcat is practically empty when (if) I get back about 30 mins later. I also find the Corsair runs out quite quickly too, although I think there is one version that has a different fuel capacity to the others. Having said that, 30 mins on a qtr tank is about twice as good as some aircraft (eg Yak-3).

WWSensei
07-23-2006, 04:52 AM
but I'm not sure that the actual fuselage tank is modelled in the first place. I don't think it is, because - at least under previous patches - both the P-38 and P-47 had a greater range on internal fuel alone.


It is modelled. In fact, rather than being the first tank emptied and changing the CoG it is the last tank to empty and IMHO one of the problems with the 51. In real life the 51 was squirrely with that tank filled and you can never truly empty it in game.

As for 25% fuel not lasting in the 51 part may be that most people fly at a much higher throttle setting in game than in real life. It varies by aircraft but for most cruising (not dogfighting) they seldom went above 70% in order to save fuel and wear and tear on the engine.

SeaFireLIV
07-23-2006, 05:01 AM
I hate it when some use an honest answer as a whinefest for their own personal chip. I was going to respond in detail to some of it, but I`ve seen it so many times before, I just, at present, can`t be bothered.

9 times out of 10 it`ll be a Luftwaffe-wannabe-Ace whining too. So rather than look at the historical issue, they`ll nearly always just focus on the plane performance itself and nothing else to vindicate their claim that Oleg`s sim is `screwed`.

mynameisroland
07-23-2006, 05:34 AM
Originally posted by Kernow:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sudoku1941:
Flying with a marginal fuel load to "improve performance" is a gamer ploy, pure and simple.


Yes, the first thing I thought when I saw that advice was, 'But the thread title was "Dogfight Tactics and Realism."

The P-51 was limited to straight & level only with fuel in the fuselage tank. They would escort the bombers over a certain 'zone' and hand-over to another group when the bombers had passed through. They would take enough fuel to be down to 'fighting weight' by the time they reached their zone. You're certainly not limited to straight & level with 100% fuel in the P-51, but I'm not sure that the actual fuselage tank is modelled in the first place. I don't think it is, because - at least under previous patches - both the P-38 and P-47 had a greater range on internal fuel alone.

Ice Fire, you sure you can get away with 25% in an F6F or F4U? To get a useful bombload off the deck in the 'Tarawa' mission on Zekes v Wildcats I can only take 25% fuel; my Hellcat is practically empty when (if) I get back about 30 mins later. I also find the Corsair runs out quite quickly too, although I think there is one version that has a different fuel capacity to the others. Having said that, 30 mins on a qtr tank is about twice as good as some aircraft (eg Yak-3). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I find the same with the Hellcat, Corsair and Thunderbolt 25% gas isnt enough. I usually take 50% or even 75% in some cases. You really shouldnt be in close turning combat with these aircraft anyway, 50/75% gas lets you fly around at high throttle settings for the majority of the map duration Ive had to glide back to friendly lines and ditch once or twice after taking 25%.

If you fly Spitfire IX Id take 50% gas and 30 gal drop tank jettison tank once you engage. In Fw 190 or Bf 109 I take 75% fuel always - the Bf 109 guzzels fuel and in the Fw 190 you should be flying around all day waiting for your guns to run dry , you need the fuel load to match that.

Ratsack
07-23-2006, 06:10 AM
Originally posted by sudoku1941:
Flying with a marginal fuel load to "improve performance" is a gamer ploy, pure and simple.



Complete donkey squat. Get some perspective, please.

In most real situations, most of the flight time was just transit. Well, I can see that going over really well in a PC game: transit three hours to rendezvous with the bombers to escort for 40 minutes, then a three hour plus return flight. Great.

I'd wager most flight sim fanatics don't have enough time to fly six to eight hour sorties. We may have to settle for something a little shorter, in which case we may take a little less fuel.


cheers,
Ratsack

Deedsundone
07-23-2006, 07:03 AM
About energy bleed and another "sim" game.The P47 in that game really holds it energy well,I think too well.I can climb with full pullback on my joystick at 100mph with three fueltanks on it without the slightest shudder.Do 360 turns with two 1000lbs,rocketstubes and a fuletank underneath its belly between 150-200mbh without any slightest stall or height loss,this also with a full pullback on joystick.
Now,go check your stick you say and that´s the first thing I did,heck I even stalled at 450km/h in the FW 190 so I do not think it´s the stick.
So....anything that is designed to do more than one thing can't do any of them well http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Disclaimer:
The information on this reply is for informational purposes only.Deedsundone and its affiliates and content licensors assume no liability for any inaccurate, delayed or incomplete information, nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon.Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future performance.Prior to making any replies , it is recommended that you consult directly with the individual or firm and seek advice from a qualified forum member.

BaronUnderpants
07-23-2006, 08:40 AM
Originally posted by JakeFontana:
Hello all

I was just wondering about some of the realism in Il2 FB. Sorry I know I'm a one of those god-awful newbies but I just have some general questions.

One of the things that was wondering about was the physics modelling of the aircraft themeselves. Obviously a plane, low on fuel and ammunition has a lighter load than a plane that is full loaded. Consequently its maneuverabilty will increase, and stall speed will decrease. Is this modelled in Il2?

One of the other questions I had was does anybody know good websites for dogfight tactics and tutorials. I'm getting sick of flying in multiplayer and getting swatted out of the sky like bluebottle fly by some slick pilot with a fancy skin called "BigSlick" or something like that anyway. How can I stop my plane from stalling every two seconds in a dogfight?

If u tend to stall alot its most lightly from 2 things: not enough speed but more importantly the way u use the stick. Dont yank and tear, be gentile and smooth. Yanking the stick http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif doesnt make u turn faster..it makes u stall faster.

Maby u should look up some differant stick settings? Lots of people that can point u in the right direction on that subject.

sudoku1941
07-23-2006, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sudoku1941:
Flying with a marginal fuel load to "improve performance" is a gamer ploy, pure and simple.



Complete donkey squat. Get some perspective, please.

In most real situations, most of the flight time was just transit. Well, I can see that going over really well in a PC game: transit three hours to rendezvous with the bombers to escort for 40 minutes, then a three hour plus return flight. Great.

I'd wager most flight sim fanatics don't have enough time to fly six to eight hour sorties. We may have to settle for something a little shorter, in which case we may take a little less fuel.


cheers,
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're missing the salient point. Even taking transit into account, when combat happened, the pilots were usually at somewhere at the 50% to 2/3 of the fuel, since they needed much the same amount of avgas to get back as they used getting to the point where combat occured.

So, they did not fight at 25% often enough to devise their maneuvering around it.

Doesn't take much grey matter to figure that out. Fuel-dweebing is a gamer ploy. The solution is to know your plane well enough to fight it with a full tank, and then you know as you burn off gas and weight, your prowess can only improve.

Ratsack
07-23-2006, 08:40 PM
Originally posted by sudoku1941:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sudoku1941:
Flying with a marginal fuel load to "improve performance" is a gamer ploy, pure and simple.



Complete donkey squat. Get some perspective, please.

In most real situations, most of the flight time was just transit. Well, I can see that going over really well in a PC game: transit three hours to rendezvous with the bombers to escort for 40 minutes, then a three hour plus return flight. Great.

I'd wager most flight sim fanatics don't have enough time to fly six to eight hour sorties. We may have to settle for something a little shorter, in which case we may take a little less fuel.


cheers,
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're missing the salient point. Even taking transit into account, when combat happened, the pilots were usually at somewhere at the 50% to 2/3 of the fuel, since they needed much the same amount of avgas to get back as they used getting to the point where combat occured.

So, they did not fight at 25% often enough to devise their maneuvering around it.

Doesn't take much grey matter to figure that out. Fuel-dweebing is a gamer ploy. The solution is to know your plane well enough to fight it with a full tank, and then you know as you burn off gas and weight, your prowess can only improve. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That€s a bit simplistic.

Consider the Germans doing a short-range fighter sweep over Normandy, for example. Flight time from patrol to base could be so short that bingo fuel for them might be as low as 10-15%, even with a safety margin. Taking 25% or 50% fuel merely simulates the situation where they€ve been on station for 30-40 minutes.

Similarly, only the long-range Mustangs carried that tank in the rear fuselage, but we€ve got it modelled for all purposes in this game. If we flew a tactical sortie, in reality we€d be flying a bird without that tank (or without that tank filled). Under these circumstances it€s completely legitimate to load out well under the full fuel load, since the full fuel load in the game is the long-range load. When you take into account the flying times from base to patrol area (as above), it€s not unrealistic for these planes to be engaged with a fuel state well under 25% if you€re performing a sweep or CAP mission.

This is not €˜gaming the game€. I just think you€re being unnecessarily rigid €" and consequently unrealistic €" in your thinking.


cheers,
Ratsack

sudoku1941
07-23-2006, 08:53 PM
No, I'm not being simplistic, or rigid.

FACT was, because so many things could go wrong in any flight (including a hit to the fuel tank) no pilot in his right mind would take off with a low tank with performance in mind. His higher-ups, not to mention his fitters and ground crew wouldn't let him.

He might eschew any optional fuel tanks or might have less so he can really load up on bombs... but unless the fuel situation at his base was so severe as to cause rationing, there's NO WAY he's taking off with a dweebed fuel load. NO....WAY.

And yes, I also know that most pilots didn't take off from a base 5 minutes distance from the enemy at less than 1,000 feet and dive into three times his number of planes like some morons do all the time online http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif ... but again, that's another gamer choice, rather than application of any kind of tactics.

DmdSeeker
07-24-2006, 09:21 AM
Originally posted by sudoku1941:
No, I'm not being simplistic, or rigid.

FACT was, because so many things could go wrong in any flight (including a hit to the fuel tank) no pilot in his right mind would take off with a low tank with performance in mind. His higher-ups, not to mention his fitters and ground crew wouldn't let him.

He might eschew any optional fuel tanks or might have less so he can really load up on bombs... but unless the fuel situation at his base was so severe as to cause rationing, there's NO WAY he's taking off with a dweebed fuel load. NO....WAY.

And yes, I also know that most pilots didn't take off from a base 5 minutes distance from the enemy at less than 1,000 feet and dive into three times his number of planes like some morons do all the time online http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif ... but again, that's another gamer choice, rather than application of any kind of tactics.

How is any of this helping the original poster's question?

JG7_Rall
07-24-2006, 09:27 AM
To the original poster --

Just take up a Spit IX. Be sure. Spit Vb is porked, but the former ensures invincibility against all but the toughest opponents.

I'm trying to figure out a way to throw 2 weeks into the mix, but I'm lacking creativity. Darn.

Bearcat99
07-24-2006, 10:01 AM
I would say as far as fuel consumtion goes tat and convergenceis something I set foreach plane and missionI fly...Iconsiderthat my preflight. In PTO missions I prefer more fuel since it is very frustrating to get back to the ship and run out of fuel on approach.... I sometimes take 25 & tanks.. depending on the plane amnd mission..it varies. When it comes to realism in a flight sim a lot of that is subjective. How much relism is a matter of choice. If I am in a server where I know most of my opponents will be as light as possible.. I am not going to cripple myself with a full tank for realisms sake.... especially in the P-51 where as previously stated the COG issue is off IMO. I am hoping that BoB will model full controls and even limited RRR...

Xiolablu3
07-24-2006, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by JG7_Rall:
To the original poster --

Just take up a Spit IX. Be sure. Spit Vb is porked, but the former ensures invincibility against all but the toughest opponents.

I'm trying to figure out a way to throw 2 weeks into the mix, but I'm lacking creativity. Darn.

Errmm, SPit Mk9 is just a faster more powerful MkV. Just like it was...

How can the SPit V be porked but the Spit IX not be? Its the same plane with less power.

WWMaxGunz
07-24-2006, 12:27 PM
Uhhhh, BC? The P-51 at 50% is a normal full load and still 2+ times some others at 100%.
Problem for the P-51 as modelled is that the balance is still very close to the center of
lift, which does IRL shift forward in turns as CL is both main wings and horizontal stab
which differ in AOA during pitch-up. That is real, I'm not sure but it seems to be in the
modelling as well.

Kernow
07-24-2006, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by WWSensei:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">but I'm not sure that the actual fuselage tank is modelled in the first place. I don't think it is, because - at least under previous patches - both the P-38 and P-47 had a greater range on internal fuel alone.


It is modelled. In fact, rather than being the first tank emptied and changing the CoG it is the last tank to empty and IMHO one of the problems with the 51. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah thx for that info Sensei. Everyday an education http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

To the original poster although I think it's best to try all the planes, you may prefer to stick to one initially. In that case try the Spits or Yak series fighters. They're available pretty much whatever the time period and are simple enough to fly. Many people fly them for T&B, but they can also B&Z and are better when used that way. Don't be put of by 'noob' taunts or talk of 'beginners' aircraft that you might see online; contrary to some opinion simplicity and ease of use are qualities not drawbacks.

Do you know which style you prefer? Some advice I had several years ago was to fly a couple of weeks using the unnatural style as a learning exercise. I tend to prefer B&Z, so I spent a week or so just jumping in to every fight in a Spit, Ki-43 or Zero. I died lots http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif but soon I started to kill lots too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif.

From your comments about stalling I suspect you might be a T&B type by nature. Try to fly a few missions as a 'lone wolf' hunter looking for the unsuspecting enemy just flying to/from the fight and not paying enough attention. It may be frustrating at first, perhaps even boring sometimes, but try to stick with it and avoid just jumping into fights for a while. When you think you are getting somewhere with B&Z then it's time to revert to type, on occasion, so ong as you don't discard all the hard won B&Z experience.

I_KG100_Prien
07-24-2006, 01:21 PM
Ice Fire, you sure you can get away with 25% in an F6F or F4U? To get a useful bombload off the deck in the 'Tarawa' mission on Zekes v Wildcats I can only take 25% fuel; my Hellcat is practically empty when (if) I get back about 30 mins later. I also find the Corsair runs out quite quickly too, although I think there is one version that has a different fuel capacity to the others. Having said that, 30 mins on a qtr tank is about twice as good as some aircraft (eg Yak-3).

Wish they had found a way to make carriers in Multiplayer at least able to follow some kind of "path". The lack of a good headwind from a carrier going 25kts really makes getting a loaded plane off her decks a pain. Anyway...

I don't think taking off with less than 100% fuel on online maps in this sim is "gaming the game". However, I always take a full load of fuel whenever I lift off because honestly, I don't ever know how long I'm going to be in the air. I may get shot down in the first 5 minutes, or be in the air for an hour.

I'll never forget the time I took off with 25% fuel.. Patrolled around for awhile before I got into a dogfight, and ran out of fuel mid swing. Bad ju ju http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

Though, I will say.. Getting a Ju-88 off the dirt with full tanks and 2x2000kg bombs can whiten the knuckles a bit http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

sudoku1941
07-24-2006, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by DmdSeeker:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sudoku1941:
No, I'm not being simplistic, or rigid.

FACT was, because so many things could go wrong in any flight (including a hit to the fuel tank) no pilot in his right mind would take off with a low tank with performance in mind. His higher-ups, not to mention his fitters and ground crew wouldn't let him.

He might eschew any optional fuel tanks or might have less so he can really load up on bombs... but unless the fuel situation at his base was so severe as to cause rationing, there's NO WAY he's taking off with a dweebed fuel load. NO....WAY.

And yes, I also know that most pilots didn't take off from a base 5 minutes distance from the enemy at less than 1,000 feet and dive into three times his number of planes like some morons do all the time online http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif ... but again, that's another gamer choice, rather than application of any kind of tactics.

How is any of this helping the original poster's question? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not; if you bother to read the thread, it is a response, to a challenge, of a first response I made that was about tactics and realism.

Someone tried to make a "tactic" out of taking a light fuel load, and I pointed out the fallacy of this notion from a "realism" standpoint. Somebody else challenged that, and this was a response to that challenge.

It's a branching of the topic. Follow along, won't you?

slipBall
07-24-2006, 02:03 PM
From a pilot's concern of fuel supply. I can tell you that all aircraft, most likely had their fuel tank's filled, right after returning from the previous mission. Water condensation in fuel, is a primary worry for pilot's. All aircraft sit, and wait, with 100% fuel. Not to say that some may break this rule, but it is best to have full tank's. Even then, tank's must be drained of water, on pre-flight check.



edit:
Forgot to give my gaming view. In game fuel level chosen, should allow for safe return to base. So I think that it is up to the pilot, after considering overall flight time, map distance to action, and the hopefull return to base.

cawimmer430
07-24-2006, 02:50 PM
Whatever you do, do not fly the BF-109 with 25% fuel. http://www.my-smileys.de/smileys2/naughty.gif

Oh, and I started out flying the Zero, and now I excel at it. I know its positives and negatives and I use these to my advantage. The Zero is one hell of a maneuvrable plane (and carries a lot of fuel). I can even win over faster planes like Mustangs or P-38's. The downside? Try not to get hit, the Zero has ZERO armor and fuel tank protection. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Ratsack
07-26-2006, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by sudoku1941:
No, I'm not being simplistic, or rigid.

FACT was, because so many things could go wrong in any flight (including a hit to the fuel tank) no pilot in his right mind would take off with a low tank with performance in mind. His higher-ups, not to mention his fitters and ground crew wouldn't let him.

He might eschew any optional fuel tanks or might have less so he can really load up on bombs... but unless the fuel situation at his base was so severe as to cause rationing, there's NO WAY he's taking off with a dweebed fuel load. NO....WAY.

And yes, I also know that most pilots didn't take off from a base 5 minutes distance from the enemy at less than 1,000 feet and dive into three times his number of planes like some morons do all the time online http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif ... but again, that's another gamer choice, rather than application of any kind of tactics.

You still haven't seen the point, which is that to simulate the conditions underwhich combat was joined, you must take less than the full fuel load. It's quite simple. There is no 'dweebing', there's just you inability to understand facts and analysis.

You are indeed being overly rigid, and extremely unrealistic.

End of story.

cheers,
Ratsack

JakeFontana
07-27-2006, 08:55 AM
Surely a lot of fighter pilots, especially USAF pilots in P51's, would have found themselves in dogfights midway through their missions and thus would have had something like 50%-70% fuel?