PDA

View Full Version : Petition: reducing mustang's elevator authority



FatBoyHK
01-23-2006, 12:57 PM
It is far too easy to lose a wing on a mustang. I can trim 20 clicks head-heavy but still be able to lose a wing at 350MPH..

Please reduce Mustang's elevator authority. Right now Mustang has the worst high-speed turning ability in the weatern front planeset, not becase it can't turn, but ironically because it turn too well and break the 15G limit even you are fully aware and extremely careful.

I can live with the wobbling, I can live with the synced 50cals, but I really can't believe Mustang can break its wing that easy IRL. Please fix it.

FatBoyHK
01-23-2006, 12:57 PM
It is far too easy to lose a wing on a mustang. I can trim 20 clicks head-heavy but still be able to lose a wing at 350MPH..

Please reduce Mustang's elevator authority. Right now Mustang has the worst high-speed turning ability in the weatern front planeset, not becase it can't turn, but ironically because it turn too well and break the 15G limit even you are fully aware and extremely careful.

I can live with the wobbling, I can live with the synced 50cals, but I really can't believe Mustang can break its wing that easy IRL. Please fix it.

AustinPowers_
01-23-2006, 12:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FatBoyHK:
but I really can't believe Mustang pilots could pull 15gs by blowing on the joystick </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

fixed.

Texan...
01-23-2006, 01:04 PM
Why live with wobble, bobble and salvo guns?

The P51 is a very important aircraft in the scheme of WW2, there is tons of data available and I'm sure Oleg wants his FB P51 to be accurate.

Have faith and email testing/relevant data to 1C.

faustnik
01-23-2006, 01:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FatBoyHK:
It is far too easy to lose a wing on a mustang. I can trim 20 clicks head-heavy but still be able to lose a wing at 350MPH..

Please reduce Mustang's elevator authority. Right now Mustang has the worst high-speed turning ability in the weatern front planeset, not becase it can't turn, but ironically because it turn too well and break the 15G limit even you are fully aware and extremely careful.

I can live with the wobbling, I can live with the synced 50cals, but I really can't believe Mustang can break its wing that easy IRL. Please fix it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just backoff your input profile.

gx-warspite
01-23-2006, 04:55 PM
No way!

Good elevator authority is what makes an aggressive high-speed scissors against a 109 possible.

faustnik
01-23-2006, 05:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gx-warspite:
No way!

Good elevator authority is what makes an aggressive high-speed scissors against a 109 possible. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right, so adjust your inputs, don't nerf the plane.

Grey_Mouser67
01-23-2006, 06:19 PM
If done correctly, the plane will have excellent elevator authority without losing a wing.

I understand the joystick input argument, however it shows that the plane is really screwed up just the same....the Mustang should have desync'd guns, should be stable in yaw and pitch and it should turn/handle really well at high speed and only suffer a sudden stall at slow speeds...and then, probably not flip on its back.

I will hope that Oleg sees the issue and fixes it. I think the issue has gotten plenty of attention and most of the folks that are actually interested in making the game better/more accurate agree too....now, does Oleg see it as important enough to address and will the pendulum swing too far if it is addressed.

Hawgdog
01-23-2006, 06:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:


Just backoff your input profile. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm running 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,5 and it still happens

Texan...
01-23-2006, 10:07 PM
Faustnik, I have also set the inputs from 0 -100 and everything in between. I know you think input settings are the cure, but respectfully I don't think this is the correct fix at all.

Coding of certain aircraft should be investigated for unstable tendencies.

Stackhouse25th
01-23-2006, 10:49 PM
*grabs a bag of popcorn and sits down*

VF_12_Bostimax
01-23-2006, 11:45 PM
(Brings a six pack-hand ones to Stack-takes a seat and helps himself to some popcorn)

Texan...
01-24-2006, 12:38 AM
*Turns on the game while we wait*

http://www.cennydd.co.uk/Assets/NFL.JPG

WOLFMondo
01-24-2006, 05:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gx-warspite:
No way!

Good elevator authority is what makes an aggressive high-speed scissors against a 109 possible. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right, so adjust your inputs, don't nerf the plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

I agree but the P51 does seem to be overly sensitive no matter how slight your input curve is.

p1ngu666
01-24-2006, 05:33 AM
probable with adusting your joystick too much, as soon as u step in say a zero or 109, then above 2mph u will stuggle to turn at all http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

edgflyer
01-24-2006, 11:44 AM
Do you realy think that we will ever have accurate American planes. Come On, the Russian Government will not allow it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Sorry, could not help myself

Brain32
01-24-2006, 11:52 AM
http://rapidshare.de/files/11734540/P51aerobatics.rar.html
I rest my case.

TheGozr
01-24-2006, 12:33 PM
Adjusting joystick settings to your liking is a good fix.

NonWonderDog
01-24-2006, 01:00 PM
I find that it's best to start your joystick curve at 50 or so, instead of zero. With the standard curve your joystick becomes exponentially more sensitive halfway through its throw, which can make it really easy to overcontrol your plane in a turn.

Flatten out your input curves, and you'll be less likely to break the wings off on accident. You'll still be able to do it if you try, though, and the big trade-off to this setup is less precise aiming at low joystick deflections.

If you really don't want to be able to break the wings, try turning filtering to max. It's sudden pulls that break the wings off, after all.

faustnik
01-24-2006, 01:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Texan...:
Faustnik, I have also set the inputs from 0 -100 and everything in between. I know you think input settings are the cure, but respectfully I don't think this is the correct fix at all.

Coding of certain aircraft should be investigated for unstable tendencies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem here is that if Oleg reduces the P-51 elevator authority I can guarantee everyone who flys it will be pissed off at its "porked" maneuvering ability. If it is unstable for many, a fix would be great, I just don't think that nerfing the elevator is a good cure. Be careful what you ask for.

faustnik
01-24-2006, 01:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
probable with adusting your joystick too much, as soon as u step in say a zero or 109, then above 2mph u will stuggle to turn at all http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree P1ng. I would like to see an system that has an input profile tied to each a/c for BoB.

TX-EcoDragon
01-24-2006, 03:38 PM
Signed.

I'd suggest adjusting CG to a more combat representative position in the absence of the means to avoid filling the fuselage fuel tank.

Kocur_
01-24-2006, 03:49 PM
Let Oleg do whatever he wants, but may he model P-51 not to lose wings that easily. Current state is just grotesque.

crazyivan1970
01-24-2006, 03:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by edgflyer:
Do you realy think that we will ever have accurate American planes. Come On, the Russian Government will not allow it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Sorry, could not help myself </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Want to turn this thread into the circus, i can help you not to.... Sorry, could not help myself either http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif


I`m with Faustnik on this one. We tested P-51 together back in the day. At first me, after flying 109s all these years, was snapping wings left and right trying to follow his 190... untill i found golden middle where i could still follow and not lose the wings. Bottom line is, you can adjust controls all you want...but if you are heavy on the still, wings will snap no matter what http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I think Eco makes a very good point.

jds1978
01-24-2006, 04:31 PM
i do not *think* the elevator authority is the main problem with 4.02 Mustang....desynch tracers and do whatever is necessary to correct nose yaw when firing guns (same applies for F4U and, to some degree, Spitfire)

BigganD
01-24-2006, 04:31 PM
No problem with the p51 for me.

Chuck_Older
01-24-2006, 05:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
probable with adusting your joystick too much, as soon as u step in say a zero or 109, then above 2mph u will stuggle to turn at all http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree P1ng. I would like to see an system that has an input profile tied to each a/c for BoB. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

It's funny, we have all this talk about models for this and that are wrong, but we all seem to fly every plane with the exact same joystick profile, and then decide the FM is wrong! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Doesn't distinct modelling by definition demand attention to what your inputs are asking of the FM? Regardless of the P-51 situation!

Von_Rat
01-24-2006, 07:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
probable with adusting your joystick too much, as soon as u step in say a zero or 109, then above 2mph u will stuggle to turn at all http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree P1ng. I would like to see an system that has an input profile tied to each a/c for BoB. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

It's funny, we have all this talk about models for this and that are wrong, but we all seem to fly every plane with the exact same joystick profile, and then decide the FM is wrong! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Doesn't distinct modelling by definition demand attention to what your inputs are asking of the FM? Regardless of the P-51 situation! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


good point, but i find that on the p51 to keep from losing wings, i have to lower my joysticks elevator input to such a low level that aiming at a evading target is almost impossiable.

on no other plane do i have to lower the inputs to such a ridiclous low level.

now im aware the p51 had a very effective elevator, but it couldn't be all that much more effective, to force me to lower inputs this much.

karost
01-24-2006, 09:17 PM
Chuck_Older:
I agree that , joystick's profile for each plane is a major point.


Hey... why we don't open new topic for share our idea about... what a joystick's profile will going to looklike in BOB, how about many feature and effect to setup joystick profile for each plane, where is a good reference information to support this idea..

ok friend's now is your turn

Regard's....

p1ngu666
01-24-2006, 09:26 PM
well, if i remmber, the pilot to plane interface ingame is the amount of force the pilot can put on the stick at a certain deflection, if its not enuff, then its not enuff, if its too much, ull stall or break your wing.

now the p51 wouldnt have controls so light irl, given that we have the same pilot in every plane, the stick in the p51 would haveto have hardly any resistance at all, it would be dangerous, very dangerous.

its far too direct, imagine if something surprised u, u jump, jurk stick and pop goes teh weasle erm wing.

the theory of the PF pilot/stick/plane interface is that its fair, and u can jump in any plane

wonder how many times the p51 elivator is stronger compaired to zero, spit, p47

guderian_ente
01-25-2006, 05:57 AM
"I would like to see an system that has an input profile tied to each aircraft for BoB."

This is a really good idea.

"I'd suggest adjusting the P-51's center of gravity to a more combat representative position in the absence of the means to avoid filling the fuselage fuel tank."

Another good idea, although I've personally haven't had too many problems with the P-51.

Kwiatos
01-25-2006, 06:10 AM
I havent problem with P-51 too if i dont fly it of course.
The big P-51 problem is its springing nose (wobbling???) causing by any move of plane (pitch or roll or yaw). It cause that aiming is horrible in P51 - many 0,50 bullets dont hit target. Springing connecting with not strong 0,50 cal casue that P-51 is not effective as a fighter plane. Of course wing broking is also problem in P-51 if someone is not carefuly with pitch but i think big problem is springing nose.

Chuck_Older
01-25-2006, 10:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by karost:
Chuck_Older:
I agree that , joystick's profile for each plane is a major point.


Hey... why we don't open new topic for share our idea about... what a joystick's profile will going to looklike in BOB, how about many feature and effect to setup joystick profile for each plane, where is a good reference information to support this idea..

ok friend's now is your turn

Regard's.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would support that idea http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

FatBoyHK
01-25-2006, 10:52 AM
If the elevator authority isn't the root cause that it must be this:

In online environment you can suffer wing break at a mush lower speed then in offline, at about 350MPH.... I have reported that to ORR some months before.

I have just tried some experiment on WarClouds, and yes, I can't break my wing above 10K FT even I pull as hard as I can, if I trimmed 25 clicks down and don't exceed 400MPH.

I think it may be related to the netcode of lag. In an empty server, and with a good connection, which both are true when I conduct the experiment, you can fly like what you can do in offline. But once server lag and network latency kick in, you may suffer wing failure at a much lower speed and G.

I am thinking, if the game lags for 0.1 seconds when you are turning hard, once the game resume in its normal speed, the game need to compensate what its missed during the lag, and to do that it will make you turn even harder, and due to mustang's very good elevator response, it is already very close to the 15G limit, and with this sudden "booat" it exceed the 15G limit, and BOOM!

It is the only other reason I can think of

JG5_UnKle
01-25-2006, 12:00 PM
I use IL-2 sticks and have a slightly different profile with the 190 vs the 109.

OK I fly COOP mostly but if the Pony is your main ride why not just setup a few profiles in IL-2 sticks and then it is quick and easy to swap them.

Not great for DF servers where you switch planes, or COOP's where you don't know your ride but it might help some guys.

I use the 190 profile with the Pony and it helps. I break wings on the 190 too, but I wouldn't petition for reduced elevator authority.

To quote Faustnik, be careful what you wish for.

Edit: A link would be good, wouldn't it?
IL-2 Sticks (http://www.airwarfare.com/Sims/FB/fb_essential_files.htm#087)

lrrp22
01-25-2006, 12:03 PM
I'm with TX-EcoDragon on this- I think it is a center of gravity issue more than a stick force problem.

The P-51 *did* have dangerously light elevators with the aft CG caused by more than 30-40 gallons in the fuselage tank. With the aft CG and trimmed into the dive, stick forces averaged an extremely low 4 lbs per G at 440 mph IAS. Yank back with 50 lbs of force and you can see that it would be small matter to pull the wings off with that kind of acceleration possible. The airplane was longitudinally unstable in that condition as well.

RAF report on Mustang III handling with a full fuselgae tanks:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
With the fuselage tank full, the aircraft is suitable for straight and level flying by day only. In any form of even moderately violent manouevre, excessive 'g' builds up rapidly and might assume dangerous proportions before the pilot could check it. Except in very still air, the aircraft has to be "flown" the whole time and, until a minimum of 30 imperial gallons has been used from the fuselage tank, the aircraft should be treated with the greatest care and respect.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sound familiar? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I suspect that the current FM is modeling the CG at a too-far aft CG even with 25% fuel. If that is the case, then we should be shedding wings like crazy. Even with the CG shifted forward, the Mustang still had light enough elevator stick forces to overstress the airframe- you just had to be a bit ham-handed to do it.

LRRP

Sintubin
01-25-2006, 12:27 PM
Oh boy

AGain i cant do X and Y with plane Z thread http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Learn to fly http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Texan...
01-25-2006, 12:39 PM
Yeah terrific.

Anyway,I agree that messing with the elevator response is not the first thing to start monkeying around with. The CoG is what I believe to be causing the problems.

As Kwiatos says, "Springing Nose."

http://www.todo-aviones.com.ar/usa/p51mustang/p51-m005.jpg

WWMaxGunz
01-25-2006, 01:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
I'm with TX-EcoDragon on this- I think it is a center of gravity issue more than a stick force problem.

The P-51 *did* have dangerously light elevators with the aft CG caused by more than 30-40 gallons in the fuselage tank. With the aft CG and trimmed into the dive, stick forces averaged an extremely low 4 lbs per G at 440 mph IAS. Yank back with 50 lbs of force and you can see that it would be small matter to pull the wings off with that kind of acceleration possible. The airplane was longitudinally unstable in that condition as well.

RAF report on Mustang III handling with a full fuselgae tanks:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
With the fuselage tank full, the aircraft is suitable for straight and level flying by day only. In any form of even moderately violent manouevre, excessive 'g' builds up rapidly and might assume dangerous proportions before the pilot could check it. Except in very still air, the aircraft has to be "flown" the whole time and, until a minimum of 30 imperial gallons has been used from the fuselage tank, the aircraft should be treated with the greatest care and respect.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sound familiar? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I suspect that the current FM is modeling the CG at a too-far aft CG even with 25% fuel. If that is the case, then we should be shedding wings like crazy. Even with the CG shifted forward, the Mustang still had light enough elevator stick forces to overstress the airframe- you just had to be a bit ham-handed to do it.

LRRP </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Completely new install and patches here plus a new stick (old one worn out badly) and this
is what I see with P-51 is any nose movement has extra inertia I don't find on older planes
at all. It's got me terribly bummed about the whole series even worse than 190 gunsight
view, I don't even want to try Corsair or other wobble-planes. Oh yeah, I can back off the
stick early in any and every move just to wait and see where the nose will stop but it burns
me that a sometimes trait associated with fuel loading that was not commonplace in combat
for this plane got linked into the all the time model in the sim. WTF?

I could see if the trait was for fuel over 75% or 67% or whatever was real but this is BS.
We have people asking for "game balance" when really whenever a very dangerous plane gets
modelled, it also has a handicap preventing real use, one eye covered or arm tied behind
kind of things. I might as well go fly some rah-rah US jet sim where all Russian jets have
the same, something superlative but never able to really use (Jetfighter series?) except
that I don't just because those kind of sims suck.

Throw in the "your guns fire in waves, others fire in streams" and I have to say the entire
US fighter line is as good as not in the sim at all, well really HALF there. The 190 view
is bad but at least I can control the plane as long as I don't ask too much pitch change.
I'm tired of this. I'm about done pouring money into something that may never be right.
It's more than the cost of the series, the cost of upgrades and hardware is way beyond that.

One question from me: what things are due for change before patches end and about when?
Please answer from Maddox Games so I know IF I come back and how many months to wait.

Kocur_
01-25-2006, 02:39 PM
Similar feelings here too Max...

LEXX_Luthor
01-25-2006, 03:14 PM
Max:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Please answer from Maddox Games so I know IF I come back and how many months to wait. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yough Max, don't forget its all a BoB Beta. But, I don't like the late war planes to begin with, and I never did, so I can't "come back" to them -- I never left, I was never there. If Oleg had made Spanish Civil WAR instead of AEP 1944 Western Microsoft theater, we'd have a different FB simulation today and a more interesting ubi.com to talk on. But that is hindsight even for me. I have great hindsight. Do the 1939 thing as best you can until BoB Poland/France, we have a few planes from back then. Oleg does his best work when he follows the Forgotten Theme.

anarchy52
01-25-2006, 03:21 PM
mustang FM is dodgy.
Elevator is insanely effective and it goes into an weird spin if you pull the stick abruptly. Now comes even more strange: to get out of the spin just push the stick forward full and it instantly recovers without alt loss.

As for the wbbles, it reacts to abrupt rudder like the other planes...nothing special. At least for me.

Sintubin
01-25-2006, 03:44 PM
I ask also to put feul laod flight model too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

The pony was now to act ver strange to feul changes and consumption

Dont see that in your request

Oh maybe you cant handle real FM thats the problem

to manny arcade players around these days

that puts flight sims down

Texan...
01-25-2006, 04:10 PM
You really don't want a more realistic P51 to come back to this sim, do you? Your sig material says it all.....

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

Brain32
01-25-2006, 04:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Your sig material says it all..... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So does yours http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

p1ngu666
01-25-2006, 05:19 PM
max, not all other guns fire in waves.

hispanos dont, many types of mg dont, japanease cannons dont, but this is a seporate issue.

im not sure its cog *entirely*, im wondering if the elivator gets overly powerful as speeds go up, opposite of zero for example

AustinPowers_
01-25-2006, 05:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sintubin:
I ask also to put feul laod flight model too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

The pony was now to act ver strange to feul changes and consumption

Dont see that in your request

Oh maybe you cant handle real FM thats the problem

to manny arcade players around these days

that puts flight sims down </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And torque on the BF-109 is where? You don't seem to concerned with that.

Brain32
01-25-2006, 06:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> And torque on the BF-109 is where? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I hope you are not implying that torque on 109 is too weak. I developed a few muscles on my hand that I never knew existed due to twist stick...

Grey_Mouser67
01-25-2006, 06:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> And torque on the BF-109 is where? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I hope you are not implying that torque on 109 is too weak. I developed a few muscles on my hand that I never knew existed due to twist stick... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I doubt that was from flying a 109 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Texan...
01-25-2006, 06:57 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

BfHeFwMe
01-25-2006, 08:49 PM
He he he, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Games gotten to where it's all about some kind of wacky voted reality, wondering whats left of the little fun there used to be. It's getting downright painful to mess with. Anyone still have copies of the good beta's? May have to try one and stick with it, seems a new pile of poo every patch to contend with gameplay wise.

Close that book and never look again. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

WWMaxGunz
01-25-2006, 11:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sintubin:
I ask also to put feul laod flight model too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

The pony was now to act ver strange to feul changes and consumption

Dont see that in your request

Oh maybe you cant handle real FM thats the problem

to manny arcade players around these days

that puts flight sims down </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The pony was known to act so up until the fuselage tank was half empty. Not ALL the time.
And the planes were fueled as per the mission to fly, the greatest part of the time those
planes were not in combat with overbalanced fuel but sometimes it happened. Sometimes.

Maybe since Germany was in fuel shortages in late war, all LW planes have greatly reduced
fuel and run out quickly if run over 90% throttle? Just as screwy as always unbalanced
fuel condition of P-51's. Just as real.

OTOH if Maddox Games would make the CG shift with fuel amount counting rear tank to be
used in proper sequence then the sim would be more real instead of less.

OTOOH if you fly against USAAF then quick, come up with some garbage to keep your arcade
advantage. And say THANK YOU to those in this thread who discussed and fought for the
151/20 ammo mixes to be made right. You can start with Faustnik and somewhere thank me
as well. No, don't thank me -- I'm a Red Whiner according to Isegrim the 'Leader'.

AKA_TAGERT
01-25-2006, 11:15 PM
No need really, simply

http://www.whatonearthcatalog.com/graphics/products/regular/AU2352.jpg

And dont jerk the stick.

WWMaxGunz
01-26-2006, 01:09 AM
I went from no problem really to a new full install and now I do a smooth and slow nose
up barely covering 2 sight rings and the nose keeps on going up for another. I'm trimmed
and see this at 350+ kph though it's worse at 300 and it don't get better at all with 400+.

No, I'm not jerking the stick. This is with what amounts to sitting ducks target practice
only to get used to where the shots are going and smooth gun laying. I even see it when
I'm not shooting but just trying to maneuver.

I have no such problems with 109's, 190's, or La's. Gotta try Yaks, Wildcats, and many
more but truthfully I am bummed over this so I don't want to spend the time getting more
of a burned feeling, RL handing out enough of that.

The behaviour is very much like a quote I've read here on P-51's with over half-full rear
tank, corrective action seems to indicate reversing the stick at some point while trying
to bring the nose to anywhere as easing up is not a good solution. That is correct when
the rear tank is over half full but it was not a sought-after combat condition when real
missions were planned. What we have for at least some people but not others is always the
overbalance condition.

Maybe I do another wipe and reinstall or something but I find out what file is wrong first
unless the people with the 'bad' installs are the ones without problems. It is a problem
one way or another, just not for everyone which is much like Dots and perhaps LOD's.

Asus A7V8X-X Mobo, 2500+ AMD, 1G 333 RAM, GF5200FX-256MB, SB-PCI, Saitek X52, 17" monitor.

AFJ_Locust
01-26-2006, 02:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FatBoyHK:
It is far too easy to lose a wing on a mustang. I can trim 20 clicks head-heavy but still be able to lose a wing at 350MPH..

Please reduce Mustang's elevator authority. Right now Mustang has the worst high-speed turning ability in the weatern front planeset, not becase it can't turn, but ironically because it turn too well and break the 15G limit even you are fully aware and extremely careful.

I can live with the wobbling, I can live with the synced 50cals, but I really can't believe Mustang can break its wing that easy IRL. Please fix it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I gota tottaly agree with Fatboy here the p51 is botched at the moment, when it was first released it was too dam good, now its been patchedtodeath I never fly that pos anymore because of the wings snapping of like twigs ITS BULLCRAP........

Brain32
01-26-2006, 04:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I doubt that was from flying a 109 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Well, thanks to new FM, and Saitek's rudder on a twist a virtual 109 pilot doesen't drop a smile from his face even when he spends a night alone. If you guys would have this maybe you wouldn't be so cranky http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

p1ngu666
01-26-2006, 05:54 AM
109s dont have much torque really,

il2s have much more torque

Kurfurst__
01-26-2006, 06:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
No, don't thank me -- I'm a Red Whiner according to Isegrim the 'Leader'. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

People judge you from your own words.
I've seen you dozens of times to be strangely attracted to whatever fix LW-FM threads, where you immidiately ticked yourself off, and started the mantra about bias, conspiracy, arcade and that's sort of stuff, arguing for that FMs should not be fixed or even made worser. And people take you as a 'Redwhiner'? It ain't surprise me, you know. And btw, I don't think i ever called you a red whiner, I think that's your little story, I noticed you are very busy in all your posts attacking my person, I guess I must have corrected you too many times in the past and you just can't bear it. Tough!

Oh come on, at least don't be a hypocrat abou what you do here. After all, we all seen your response to 109 roll rates, you were running around madly screaming EXTRAPOLATED! EXTRAPOLTED! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif That was a classic, glunzy. You worked up yourself so bad you lost all self control. Evil 'Luftwaffa'!

p1ngu666
01-26-2006, 07:05 AM
vintage kurfy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

ECV56_Rolf
01-26-2006, 11:57 AM
It appears that easying the throtle while aiming reduce the wooble.

Could anyone confirm this?

I don´t have much trouble myself with wing braking at high speeds, but that may be why I'am an easyer kill against more maneuver agresive pilots! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Sintubin
01-26-2006, 01:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
No, don't thank me -- I'm a Red Whiner according to Isegrim the 'Leader'. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

People judge you from your own words.
I've seen you dozens of times to be strangely attracted to whatever fix LW-FM threads, where you immidiately ticked yourself off, and started the mantra about bias, conspiracy, arcade and that's sort of stuff, arguing for that FMs should not be fixed or even made worser. And people take you as a 'Redwhiner'? It ain't surprise me, you know. And btw, I don't think i ever called you a red whiner, I think that's your little story, I noticed you are very busy in all your posts attacking my person, I guess I must have corrected you too many times in the past and you just can't bear it. Tough!

Oh come on, at least don't be a hypocrat abou what you do here. After all, we all seen your response to 109 roll rates, you were running around madly screaming EXTRAPOLATED! EXTRAPOLTED! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif That was a classic, glunzy. You worked up yourself so bad you lost all self control. Evil 'Luftwaffa'! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WWMaxGunz
01-26-2006, 05:39 PM
Well, the game does have some reasonable models that are very usable. We just avoid
most US planes, the Spits because they're overmodelled and make people cry, the 190's
because of the front view, are the La's and LaGG's too good? 109's? In fact, take
out *every* disputed plane and we'd still have what, maybe 4 good ones? Or possibly
none since there are some people who play strict sides.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
No, don't thank me -- I'm a Red Whiner according to Isegrim the 'Leader'. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

People judge you from your own words.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not that you don't have a reputation of your own.
There's also why you had to come back under a different name to keep up your campaign.

And then the usual BS. Please stand at attention.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I've seen you dozens of times to be strangely attracted to whatever fix LW-FM threads, where you immidiately ticked yourself off, and started the mantra about bias, conspiracy, arcade and that's sort of stuff, arguing for that FMs should not be fixed or even made worser. And people take you as a 'Redwhiner'? It ain't surprise me, you know. And btw, I don't think i ever called you a red whiner, I think that's your little story, I noticed you are very busy in all your posts attacking my person, I guess I must have corrected you too many times in the past and you just can't bear it. Tough!

Oh come on, at least don't be a hypocrat abou what you do here. After all, we all seen your response to 109 roll rates, you were running around madly screaming EXTRAPOLATED! EXTRAPOLTED! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif That was a classic, glunzy. You worked up yourself so bad you lost all self control. Evil 'Luftwaffa'! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some hurts just never quit Kurfy?

Nothing 'Evil', just some jerk with a one-way agenda for LW superplanes and subpar Allieds.

Go look up my posts in the thread to fix the 151/20 ammo as I mentioned before.
I've supported over issues to benefit LW planes and I'm still unhappy about the 190 gunsight
view.

Please, where ever have you supported any fixes or improvement on any Allied planes?

Somehow I also manage not to carry on little personal campaigns via sig lines like freaking
political posters.

I'm not on any 'side' or especially for any 'sides' planes. Nor against them except in the
eyes of a few extremists.

LEXX_Luthor
01-26-2006, 05:51 PM
Max:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Nothing 'Evil', just some jerk with a one-way agenda for LW superplanes and subpar Allieds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Wait, hold the theory for newer observational data, which is....

Recently, the Fw community savaged Kurfurst when he/she maintained that Fw-190A4 was never "boosted" or "uprated," and equally stunning, hop jumped in on the side of Kurf. That makes two new data points that blow the theory, and it takes only one. Or, I missed something (most likely). http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

WWMaxGunz
01-26-2006, 06:17 PM
Look, I've seen enough data that *I'm* convinced that there should be a fully rated
FW190A-4 or at least a Western Front version that is. Didn't Butch post the dates when
derate and rerate occurred? Wasn't there A-4's in operation past mid-43 or whenever
the rerate date? Did they somehow not get uprated to full 1.42ATA?

Does that sound like any kind of shock I would write that to anyone here? If so then
your eyesight or deeper is entirely selective in what you even see.

I think I have to see that thread though to catch the conditions. Was that *ever*?

I don't agree that we should have the highest boost that every plane was ever run at but
only if the majority was used that way. And if there was anywhere near an even split
then doesn't that deserve an extra model only different in FM?

Kurfurst__
01-27-2006, 07:01 AM
Actually what I said re190's boost that the Notleistung was appearantly not released in mid-1942 yet. I have no idea when it was cleared, never seen anything definitive on it, but it seems in the 2nd half of 1942.

Glunzy probably didn't notice times when I argued for more pronounced torque on the 109s, and that the G-6/AS is too fast low levels, unless it's really a G-14/ASC.

As you said, kinda ruins glunzy's accusations.

faustnik
01-27-2006, 03:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Look, I've seen enough data that *I'm* convinced that there should be a fully rated
FW190A-4 or at least a Western Front version that is. Didn't Butch post the dates when
derate and rerate occurred? Wasn't there A-4's in operation past mid-43 or whenever
the rerate date? Did they somehow not get uprated to full 1.42ATA?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Neal,

Please check out some really interesting info here:

http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=F...ile=viewtopic&t=7952 (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=7952)

Some interesting items pointed out there:

- There was no blanket derating. Fully rated and derated Fw190A3s ran side by side from ealry '42 until Summer '42. Planes were derated on an individual basis.

- The Fw190A4 was prodiced from June '42 after the issues had been solved. Fighter versions would be fully rated but, some Jabos were limited to 2400rpm. So, our current model in PF is valid according to that info.

- RPM was limited by a screw that restricted throttle movement.



*************************

Kurfust,

EN boost was not a factory installed item until mid-1943. It should allow 1.65ata below 1km altitude for the jabo versions starting mid-43 and for the fighter versions starting '44.

There was no EN boost equipped BMW801s operating in '42, as far as I know.

WWMaxGunz
01-27-2006, 04:22 PM
Thanks for the straight answer Faustnik! The one we have is East Front Jabo?
IMHO it would be very good to have a West Front Fighter/Interceptor version as well,
would there have to be any changes in the 3D model or could they just copy that and
no work needed there at all?

EDIT:
BTW, back when the derating was first discussed and Butch and Oleg were posting there
was information about overheating and exhaust stacks burning up as the reason. I did
not see that in the CWOS discussion, did I miss it somewhere in there? As it was left
years ago the derating was more than just break-in time. Really, when there is masses
of datum it becomes all too easy to not see missing points but still feel good about
how much there is and the presentation.
END EDIT:

I don't follow Kurfy's posts, don't search, chase or look em up as cleaning lint would
be a better way to spend time so no I really don't know every little thing he types.
We need Kurfy to balance Buzzsaw anyway, don't we?

Jetbuff
01-27-2006, 04:54 PM
One for the insomniacs along the "if a tree falls in a forest..." line of thought:

If all 190A-4's were de-rated, why would they be called "de-rated"? Wouldn't they be "normal-rated" then? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

carguy_
01-27-2006, 05:12 PM
I`m quite surprised with replies.P51 doesn`t wobble too much but it`s useless at making defl shots @520kph.This plane feels like it had nothing in the nose.

Now I`d like to have this changed cuz Mustangs was stable back in early days of FB.

faustnik
01-27-2006, 05:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
...when there is masses
of datum it becomes all too easy to not see missing points but still feel good about
how much there is and the presentation.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with you Neal. I think that might have been the case when this was was first discussed. Some statements were made as "the whole truth" when they were only part of the story. Finding info on this small issue has become a silly hobby of mine since those first discussions on this forum. I'm still looking for more data, and asking more questions. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif