PDA

View Full Version : You killed the P-51s Highalt perfomance. Why Oleg?



XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 09:00 AM
Its a dog now at 8,000meters and above where it should shine. 1.2b (leaked) was great but this is very upsetting. I really hope it is corrected by final release. And the Ki can hang with and dive with the Mustang from 10,000 meters. The performance for the P-47D27 has also been reduced. Why?

http://www.angelfire.com/ab4/airplanes/P47_Thunderbolt/P47.jpg






Message Edited on 11/11/0303:00AM by VMF-214_HaVoK

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 09:00 AM
Its a dog now at 8,000meters and above where it should shine. 1.2b (leaked) was great but this is very upsetting. I really hope it is corrected by final release. And the Ki can hang with and dive with the Mustang from 10,000 meters. The performance for the P-47D27 has also been reduced. Why?

http://www.angelfire.com/ab4/airplanes/P47_Thunderbolt/P47.jpg






Message Edited on 11/11/0303:00AM by VMF-214_HaVoK

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 09:03 AM
And so it begins........

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 09:05 AM
Oleg already stated earlier that the P51 supercharger modeling was not complete in 1.2b, hence excessive speed at high altitude. What speed are you attaining???

Barfly
Staffelkapitan
7./JG 77 "Black Eagles"

http://www.7jg77.com

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 09:05 AM
Which aircraft in FB does perform accurately at 8,000m?

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 09:10 AM
A.K.Davis wrote:
- Which aircraft in FB does perform accurately at
- 8,000m?
-
---AKD


Bingo!

Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

"No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down." Ivan Kozhedub

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 09:27 AM
Panelboy wrote:
- Oleg already stated earlier that the P51
- supercharger modeling was not complete in 1.2b,
- hence excessive speed at high altitude. What speed
- are you attaining???
-
- Barfly
- Staffelkapitan
- 7./JG 77 "Black Eagles"
-
- http://www.7jg77.com
-

Good question, some numbers would definitely be a better argument

I flew in a dogfight yesterday evening, and I went through it without a scratch (except some light damage from AAA after a strafing run). Right now, the P51 seems to perform extremely well, IMHO.





Message Edited on 11/11/0308:28AM by TooCool_12f

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 10:31 AM
Ahemm, Mustang was too fast at altitude before RC patches.

<center>http://easyweb.globalnet.hr/easyweb/users/ntomlino/uploads/sig.jpg

Fw 190 durbatulūk
Fw 190 gimbatul
Fw 190 thrakatulūk,
agh burzum-ishi krimpatul

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 02:07 PM
Controls are a bit heavier now...although I can live with it. And the P-47 D27 has a stall bug I think. It stalls for absolutely no reason with no warning in the slightest manuver at only certain speeds.

It was flying PERFECTLY in 1.2Beta.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig.jpg
"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." - Winston Churchill

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 02:17 PM
For me, it's the low altitude perfs that I don't understand!

Yes, it's possible to get to 570 km/h TAS (rad closed). But after some flying (and no overheating), it happens sometimes that the Mustang get stuck at 510-520 km/h at O meter!

Also energy retention (even with a light hand on the stick) seems to me not so good.

To say the truth, I played some dogfights with Mustang against D9 with the pirated beta which were a PURE JOY!

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 02:48 PM
VW-IceFire wrote:
And the P-47 D27 has a stall bug I think.
- It stalls for absolutely no reason with no warning
- in the slightest manuver at only certain speeds.

that's all p-47's. watch the training video at Zeno's & watch what the p-47 pilot does. the stall charteristics of the p-47 are way too low. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

And if any one want to argue that point i'll punch em in the mouth! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif lol

<CENTER>
http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p1022.jpg

<FONT COLOR="White">Ghost Skies Matches Starting soon!
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="blue">
Please visit the 310th FS & 380th BG Online @:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="orange" http://members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron/
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="RED">
A proud member Squadron of Ghost Skies Forgotten Battles Tournament League.
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="orange"> 310th VF/BS Public forum:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW"> http://invisionfree.com/forums/310th_VFBG/
<CENTER><CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW"> Get my USAAF 8th AF Squadron Insignia Files @ IL-2Skins ('http://www.il2skins.com/?action=display&skinid=4206')
<FONT COLOR="purple">Slainte Mhath- Good Health to you!

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 04:13 PM
Im not having any proubloms since i reverted back 1.2beta.

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 04:37 PM
"To say the truth, I played some dogfights with Mustang against D9 with the pirated beta which were a PURE JOY!"

I'd feel pure joy to, when the plane I'm riding could woop the opponent's a$$ anyway I wish.

Felt the same way when the Bf109K-4 was some 30km/h faster than it should be, wasn't effected by high speeds in maneuvering, could exploit the 103% throttle bug.

Ah well. All that joy's gone now.





-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!


Message Edited on 11/12/0312:40AM by kweassa

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 04:39 PM
A.K.Davis wrote:
- Which aircraft in FB does perform accurately at
- 8,000m?


Ikarus, the Pilot's 3D model /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://franz.lampl.bei.t-online.de/toryusig.jpg (http://www.virtual-jabog32.de)

http://franz.lampl.bei.t-online.de/toryusig2.jpg (http://www.jg68.de.vu)

When once you have tasted flight,
you will always walk the earth
with your eyes turned skyward;
to where you have been
and to where you always want to return.

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 05:36 PM
Why do you compare things with the beta? The 1.2b did not have all the numbers introduced in the equation. And about high alt performance, the pony was way too fast. Mr. Maddox said it.

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 05:42 PM
yes. ppl are complaining about the P51s performance now. not with statistics, not with charts, not with quotes....NO. They complain that they liked the unfinished, overmodelled FM in an unfinished, leaked BETA patch better than the more detailed FM. that's it. This is nothing but whinning to get a superplane.

2 things we need in FB:
The 110 and the desert!!!
http://exn.ca/news/images/1999/04/23/19990423-Me110coloursideMAIN.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 06:03 PM
It was too fast at altitude in the "leaked" beta, however now it is too slow by 45 Kph. Some of us are testing against proper data and putting it up. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
~S!
Eagle
CO 361st vFG

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center> <center> www.361stvfg.com</center> (http://www.361stvfg.com</center>)
<center>
http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1003.jpg

</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 06:15 PM
The elevator responce of the P-47 in FB has increased over the previous patch. Basically, it's now possible to pop the aircraft to 30 or 40 degrees AoA very easily. That's what's causing what seems to be a stall bug.

As for the P-51's top speed, I can mangage 670km/h TAS at 7600m, but that's about it.

In the P-47 I can manage 680 km/h TAS at 9100m (listed speed 689), so the P-47 is pretty close.

In the Ki-84-Ia reaches 680 km/h TAS at 6100m, and 580 km/h TAS at sea level. At 7600m it reaches 670km/H TAS

Interestingly enough, the P-47D-27 can also manage 670 km/h TAS at 7600m, but it can only manage 520 km/h TAS at sea level.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 06:27 PM
Gershy wrote:
- yes. ppl are complaining about the P51s performance
- now. not with statistics, not with charts, not with
- quotes....NO. They complain that they liked the
- unfinished, overmodelled FM in an unfinished, leaked
- BETA patch better than the more detailed FM. that's
- it. This is nothing but whinning to get a
- superplane.


is wanting the correct top speed for the P-51 a whine?

At 25% fuel, alt 7600m. she would not go past 675km/h TAS.
Top speed at 7620m is 703km/h TAS.

At sea level top speed is 578km/h TAS. i havent tested the spead yet at sea level.

So in your opinion, wanting correct US FM's, is asking for a supreplane?

we know the D27 had a slower roll rait then the D10 and 22, but 50% slower. it's a joke.

D27's 3000 combat RPM? lol. still not fixed.


Also, At sea level, top speed for the Ki-84 is 524km/h. P-51's top speed at see level is 587km/h.

I can go on and on and on about incorrectness.


Should i stop here, or should keep going?

Correct FM's is all i want, not a superplane.

Regards 361stMaple_Tiger.

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 06:59 PM
Harry,

At sea level you got the Ki-84 up to 580km/h.

I havent tested the top speed for the Ki-84 yet at sea level or at 6120m.

but it is listed at 524km/h at sea level. So it does seem that the KI-84 is too fast at sea level. Illl also test the Ki-84 today at sea level and see what i can get.

At 6100m you got the Ki-84 up to 680km/h.

We know it is listed at 631km/h at 6100m.

so it does seem too fast even at 6100m.

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 07:01 PM
I understand you maple. and i want correct Fm for all planes if possible. what i hate is ppl screaming around that the P51 was much better in 1.2b not because they can prove that with data but because they think it's easier to get a kill. didn't want to offend you. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

2 things we need in FB:
The 110 and the desert!!!
http://exn.ca/news/images/1999/04/23/19990423-Me110coloursideMAIN.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 07:05 PM
There is always the risk if you use something that wasnt even official you can get comfortable with a plane they may not be correct. My opinion, as is Olegs and others specifically in regards to the P-51 was that the leaked patch was not correct, way too much E and overall high alt. performance beyond the actual plane.


Of course many other planes seem to act strange at high altitude (109, 190) but thats a different story........

<center>http://www.blitzpigs.com/john/BP-johann-9-4-03.gif <center>

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 07:05 PM
"At sea level top speed is 578km/h TAS. i havent tested the spead yet at sea level."


What propeller pitch setting you use for that?

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 07:08 PM
"At sea level you got the Ki-84 up to 580km/h.

I havent tested the top speed for the Ki-84 yet at sea level or at 6120m.

but it is listed at 524km/h at sea level. "


Yep, 325 mph in my doc at sea level for the Ki-84!

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 07:42 PM
If one person reaches 703kph in level flight in the Mustang post your track. You Luftwhiners cried till no end once you seen the Mustang could possibly be modeled correctly...and now that is not you will do and say anything to keep it that way.

http://www.angelfire.com/ab4/airplanes/P47_Thunderbolt/P47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 08:01 PM
CHDT,

At sea level the P-51 is listed at 578km/h TAS. Meaning it is suppose to get up to this speed at sea level.

As i said before, i havent tested the P-51 yet at sea level.


Also the P-51 has a constant speed propeller. Meaning that changing the prop pitch will not give you any extra performance. It will just lower the RPM. thats all i know on the contsant speed propeller.

CHDT wrote:

What propeller pitch setting you use for that?


Well CHDT i would guess that you would use 100% prop pitch.

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 08:06 PM
I can't get 703km/h. Far from it, 680km/h is the closest I can get. It needs to get fixed, or I just don't know how to fly her!

<center>


http://members.chello.se/unni/rote3.JPG



'When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!'

</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 08:09 PM
Very good point Gershy:

I myself am an average sim pilot. I dont worry about how many kills i get.

I guess mayby we are taking it too far. I mean the beta was just a test and the RC01 is also a test. Meaning FM will not be correct any way right.

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 08:15 PM
Maple_Tiger wrote:
- CHDT,
-
- At sea level the P-51 is listed at 578km/h TAS.
- Meaning it is suppose to get up to this speed at sea
- level.
-
- As i said before, i havent tested the P-51 yet at
- sea level.
-

I get 585km/h.

<center>


http://members.chello.se/unni/rote3.JPG



'When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!'

</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 09:31 PM
Low altitude is very close to RL gents, it's the high altitude performance that is severly lacking, even at 5K I tested with 100% pitch, closed rad and 110% throttle and managed a wimpy 649 Kph. It should be closer to 690 kph. So Robban it's not just you it is too slow at altitude period.
~S!
Eagle
CO 361st vFG

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center> <center> www.361stvfg.com</center> (http://www.361stvfg.com</center>)
<center>
http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1003.jpg

</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 09:53 PM
LEXX_Luthor wrote:
- And so it begins........
-
-
-
-
-
-



Better couldnāĀ“t be say.... it is a beta .....

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 10:14 PM
S!

My observations :

When subtle changes are needed in Flight Models, it seems that TOO DRASTIC of a change occurs instead. That is why these F/M's are allways flip/flopping back and forth.


Saburo Sakai on the Mustang
vs (On the Zero)
During the war, I was convinced the Zero Model 21 was the best fighter plane anywhere. It was always number one with me. Then a few years ago, at Champlin, I had the chance to fly in a Mustang and take the controls for a while. What an incredible plane! It could do anything the Zero could, and many things the Zero can't, like a high-speed, spiraling dive. In the Zero, the stick would be too heavy to control the plane at those speeds. The Mustang's number one with me now, and I'm afraid the Zero's number two!

_______



Flew the Mustang up to around 8000m against BobCat (beta tester ?) last night in a 109k4. The 51 is so gutless now up high, it was all I could do to keep from getting shot down-totally defensive. The K4 is able to zoom climb away at will. That was with a 25% fuel load too in the 51.

The 1.2beta version of the Mustang was 98-99% percent right. The 51 at low alt could NEVER turn with a Ki84 Frank or a Zero--I dont know who started that falsehood. The 109G2 flew circles around the 51 at low alt. The low alt performance of the 51 in the beta form was nothing spectacular and if you got in a turning fight you usually lost.

Now top end speed at alt is reduced way too much-another drastic change again. I am only able to get 672kph at 7500m and thats with a gentle dive and leveling out and 25% fuel. From a standing start-no dive-just level flying, I barely achieve 650kph @ 7600m with 25% fuel.

As a result of the speed reduction, dive acceleration and zoom climb back up are also reduced. The Mustang and the Jug were the king of the dive and the zoom climb that resulted from the dive acceleration(IRL).

Speed test RESULTS : -- How are they performed by FB testers?
Is there a standerized way for all of us to test and know for sure we are comparing results the same way ?

2 stage supercharger on auto-- I like being able to manually shift it. Did not hear any differance in engine at altitude with 1.2RC version. The 2nd stage shifted best at around 5500m in 1.2beta. The Jug needs to be able to manually shift the SC also.

_____________

The roll rates of the P40 and P47-D27 are still to slow.
Initial elevator control of the P40 is rather sluggish as compared to the size of the elevator.


_____________


Never thought I would say this, just being honest :

The 190 is TOO easy to bring down now with 6 .50cals. The 190 just needed a subtle change in D/M--not a drastic change.

The 109 is too tough from the 6 o'clock position to bring down now--.50cals do not shred the 109 like before. In real life they did.

Park yourself on the 6 of each plane and fire--see which holds up longer with the .50cals.



Just my observations.



_____________


Braveheart's William Wallace said it best:
"I see a whole army of my countrymen, here in defiance of tyranny. You have come to fight as free men, and free men you are. What will you do without freedom? Will you fight? Fight and you may die. Run, and you'll live, at least a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willing, to trade all the days from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies, that they may take our lives, but they'll never take our FREEDOM!"

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 10:20 PM
VMF-214_HaVoK wrote:
- If one person reaches 703kph in level flight in the
- Mustang post your track. You Luftwhiners cried till
- no end once you seen the Mustang could possibly be
- modeled correctly...and now that is not you will do
- and say anything to keep it that way.
-
Havok,
I agree to some of your points. Try being less shrill, and posting some NUMBERS in ORR. That's the best way to start turning this thing around. Oleg has changed stuff before.



http://members.cox.net/miataman1/WAR-08.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 10:44 PM
Your right Eagle.

I re installed RC01 today and ran some test's. Like we are suppose to do. I should not of reverted back to 1.2 Beta.

I ran some speed tests at sea level to. Fuel 25%

P-51 should be able to reach 578kmh TAS. I managed 575kmh. That is without going into a dive by the way.

P-47D27 should be able to reach 534kmh. I managed 535kmh.
without going into a dive.

Ki-84 should reach 524kmh. I managed with Web to reach 575kmh. she seems 50kmh to fast at sea level.

Ill try out some other planes as well.

But how would you test the dive and zoom climb of a plane?

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 11:01 PM
BigKahuna_GS wrote:

- The roll rates of the P40 and P47-D27 are still to
- slow.
- Initial elevator control of the P40 is rather
- sluggish as compared to the size of the elevator.


I agree, somehow I think they should take the rollrate from the P-39 and put it on the P-40, and vice versa.

-
- Never thought I would say this, just being honest :
-
- The 190 is TOO easy to bring down now with 6
- .50cals. The 190 just needed a subtle change in
- D/M--not a drastic change.

It's as fragile as a wet cracker now, and a single bullit can tear a wing off./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif


<center>


http://members.chello.se/unni/rote3.JPG



'When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!'

</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 11:04 PM
Maple_Tiger wrote:
- P-51 should be able to reach 578kmh TAS. I managed
- 575kmh. That is without going into a dive by the
- way.

Since 578km/h is supposed to be the absolute topspeed it takes some time reaching it. I've managed to reach 585km/h at 30m, but it takes a looong time getting there. Same with the D-9, she can reach 612km/h now, but she sure takes her time.

<center>


http://members.chello.se/unni/rote3.JPG



'When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!'

</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 11:20 PM
"Speed test RESULTS : -- How are they performed by FB testers? "


It would be interesting that some official beta testers describe their testing methods, so that we could try to do the same testings.

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 11:30 PM
BigKahuna, glad to see someone admit that the 190 is way too weak now. I already e-mailed Oleg about how weak the wings and the rear fuesalge section is currently. 190's were very tough IRL, now they are one of the most fragile planes in FB and that ain't right.

The simplified DM is to blame. If they keep it as a simplified DM I hope they find a balance between 1.11 and RC01/2. It was too tough before now it is too fragile.

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.



Message Edited on 11/11/0310:31PM by kyrule2

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 11:31 PM
Agree with you Kyrule, the PK's are also back!

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 12:06 AM
CHDT wrote:
- "Speed test RESULTS : -- How are they performed by
- FB testers? "
-
-
- It would be interesting that some official beta
- testers describe their testing methods, so that we
- could try to do the same testings.
-
- Cheers,
-
-

Excellent point CHDT, I would love to hear how they are doing it, so we can therefore do the same tests.
~S!
Eagle
CO 361st vFG

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center> <center> www.361stvfg.com</center> (http://www.361stvfg.com</center>)
<center>
http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1003.jpg

</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 12:32 AM
I ran another test. this one on the BF-109K4.

At sea level it is suppose to do 580kmh TAS. I managed 575kmh TAS.

So far all the planes i tested so far at sea level are about right on the money. Except for one plane, the Ki-84.

At sea level it is suppose to do 524kmh. i managed 575kmph.

I also tested the P-51 and BF-109k4 at 10,000m alt.

BF-109K4 680kmh TAS at 10,000m alt.

P-51 would not go past 580kmh TAS at 10,000m alt. in fact, when i had it straight and level at 570kmh she would not gain any speed. Ill have to try this test again with the P-51 just to make shure. my arm was getting very tired lol.

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 01:55 AM
BigKahuna

Just for the record I stated that I knew a beta tester and that that your observations would be forwarded - that was done almost as soon as I left the server.

IMHO this sort of communication is invaluable to the FB community.

I have carried out my own tests this morning (along with others) at various altitudes and your concerns appear valid.

BobCat

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 03:19 AM
I just hope you forwarded his observation about the 190 being more fragile than the 109. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 06:28 AM
Try 703kph at alt..you will not even come close. In 1.2Beta we had it.

http://www.angelfire.com/ab4/airplanes/P47_Thunderbolt/P47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 12:06 PM
Also, what happened to the P-51's ceiling? I know that it had an incredible service ceiling (40,000 + meters), but what gives? It couldn't reach 12k in my tests...

Anyone who finds diferently plz post about it.



At any rate... to hell w/ the 51... It was good right up untill RC_01 was released... I'll just fly the D9 for god sakes.

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 12:11 PM
40,000 m sounds a bit optimistic to me , perhaps you meant 40,000 ft ?

BadHat.

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 04:02 PM
I'm not an expert at flight models, but judging by all the complaints, how come the flight models can't ever be fixed correctly? I know I see and read ton's of posts with FM Info on this forum for Oleg to read. Are the Flight Models made by plane type or is it a global FM? Otherwise, I can't see why planes can't be corrected individually based on data already supplied.

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 04:25 PM
Isnt this rc patch still a beta patch...not final?

<CENTER>http://www.world-wide-net.com/tuskegeeairmen/ta-1943.jpg <marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"Straighten up.......Fly right..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee> http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat

<CENTER><FONT COLOR="ORANGE">vflyer@comcast.net<FONT COLOR>
<Center><div style="width:200;color:red;font-size:18pt;filter:shadow Blur[color=red,strength=8)">99th Pursuit Squadron

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 04:27 PM
With "Wind and turbulence" off, starting from 7500m with a slight dive (to gain some initial speed) I managed 692km/h at 7000m.

AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 04:36 PM
hi,
true..that's .. I thought this uggly stupid pilot + gunsight view prgrammed in FB.. FW 190..
and even in P-51..gyroscopic like...hmm.. Maddox...

..anyway.. give a chance to learn...



...just follow my wingman...
http://www.ss.iij4u.or.jp/~jime/images/Me109G6Anim/messer04LAN2.wmv ( <a href=)" target=_blank>http://www.ss.iij4u.or.jp/~jime/images/Me109G6Anim/messer04LAN2.wmv</a>" target=_blank>http://www.ss.iij4u.or.jp/~jime/images/Me109G6Anim/messer04LAN2.wmv</a>
BigKahuna_GS wrote:
- S!
-

...just follow my wingman...
http://www.ss.iij4u.or.jp/~jime/images/Me109G6Anim/messer04LAN2.wmv

...just follow my wingman...
http://www.ss.iij4u.or.jp/~jime/images/Me109G6Anim/messer04LAN2.wmv

ZG77_Nagual
11-12-2003, 04:37 PM
The k4 now turns with the p39 at around 400kph

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/whiner.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 06:53 PM
ZG77_Nagual wrote:
- The k4 now turns with the p39 at around 400kph
-

K4 has always turned with the P-39 at 400km/h, except the Q-10. Q-10 has a very slight edge at that speed with no combat flaps. If both use combat flaps, the K4 outturns all P-39s at that speed.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 07:10 PM
Yeah that's true. You just need to refer to il2compare. That's all.

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 07:41 PM
Speed Test P51

Map Crimea 100 % Fuel

Wind and Turbolences OFF

Raditor Closed
100 % pitch
110% with Boost

SL Top Speed 591 KM/H TAS indicated Database 578 KM/H within 5 % margin so ok but to be precise about 10 km/h too fast .

Topspeed 7600 m reached 691 TAS km/h (Trimming limits and Stick precision were not able to archieve more but there was still something left)

Indicated Database 703 km/H withhin 5 % margin .about 10 km/h too slow but was still something left duo bad stick and trimm precision.

Seems pretty accurate for me not like it was in 1.2b where you could archieve 760 Km/h topspeed at 7600 m



Regards,
Hyperion

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 07:43 PM
you are not alone...

see here

http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=ztwqn


BBB_Hyperion wrote:
- Speed Test P51
-
- Map Crimea 100 % Fuel
-
- Wind and Turbolences OFF
-
- Raditor Closed
- 100 % pitch
- 110% with Boost
-
- SL Top Speed 591 KM/H TAS indicated Database 578
- KM/H within 5 % margin so ok but to be precise about
- 10 km/h too fast .
-
- Topspeed 7600 m reached 691 TAS km/h (Trimming
- limits and Stick precision were not able to archieve
- more but there was still something left)
-
- Indicated Database 703 km/H withhin 5 % margin
- .about 10 km/h too slow but was still something left
- duo bad stick and trimm precision.
-
- Seems pretty accurate for me not like it was in 1.2b
- where you could archieve 760 Km/h topspeed at 7600 m
-
-
-
-
-
- Regards,
- Hyperion
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-



http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_07.gif


She turned me into a newt, but I got better.

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 10:05 PM
BBB_Hyperion wrote:
- Speed Test P51
-
- Map Crimea 100 % Fuel
-
- Wind and Turbolences OFF
-
- Raditor Closed
- 100 % pitch
- 110% with Boost
-
- SL Top Speed 591 KM/H TAS indicated Database 578
- KM/H within 5 % margin so ok but to be precise about
- 10 km/h too fast .
-
- Topspeed 7600 m reached 691 TAS km/h (Trimming
- limits and Stick precision were not able to archieve
- more but there was still something left)
-
- Indicated Database 703 km/H withhin 5 % margin
- .about 10 km/h too slow but was still something left
- duo bad stick and trimm precision.
-
- Seems pretty accurate for me not like it was in 1.2b
- where you could archieve 760 Km/h topspeed at 7600 m
-
-
-
-
-
- Regards,
- Hyperion



I have run four speed tests with the P-51.

Sea level 25% fuel. 100% prop, 110% power Web.

I got to. 570kmh TAS seconf time u got 575kmh TAS.


Next two tests where 50% fuel. samew settings.

Sea level 565kmh TAS. next one i got 567kmh TAS.


At 7600m 100% prop pitch. 110% power.

1st test. 675kmh TAS. 2nd test 680kmh.

Im testing using RC01.

I have yet to uptain to correct speed that is is suppose to uptane.

What patch are you using?

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 11:26 PM
WUAF_Mj_Hero wrote:
- Also, what happened to the P-51's ceiling? I know
- that it had an incredible service ceiling (40,000 +
- meters), but what gives? It couldn't reach 12k in my
- tests...
-
- Anyone who finds diferently plz post about it.
-


This is the second time this was posted and it shows just how intelligent some of the pony-whiners are(I admit there are some with valid points like the speed at altitude being a little off) Have you found any other plane in FB that flys good above 12000m? The mustang was good and have a high service ceiling but not that much higher than its contemporaries. This should be you first tip-off that it shouldnt go to 40k meters. Now lets look at other planes, the service ceiling of a U-2 spyplane is 70,000ft or about 21,000m, so your saying the mustang should have a ceiling over twice that of a U-2? The service ceiling of the mustang should be around 40,000ft, which magically translates to 12000m. I know it is a simple unit mixup, but it just illustrates the intelligence of some of you whiners.




"Ich bin ein Wuergerwhiner"

"The future battle on the ground will be preceded by battle in the air. This will determine which of the contestants has to suffer operational and tactical disadvantages and be forced throughout the battle into adoption compromise solutions." --Erwin Rommel

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/Mesig.jpg
--NJG26_Killa--

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 11:41 PM
the P-51 is not undermodelled in any way in the public beta

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 11:45 PM
yep relax guys.. high alt perfomance for most planes in this game is way off anyway.. Im sure Oleg will fix the max speed for your Pony in the Final.. I would be more concerned how Planes like I-16 and I-153 can effectivily fight Pony on altitude of 7000 ..

____________________________________



<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/sig3.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 11:52 PM
More and more people are claiming accurate speeds.

1 problem is this 5% rule. +5% for 1 plane and -5% for another in the same regime makes a big difference and a problem.

That aside, here's the real question, to me at least. Why has the E retention gotten so bad? Why is a Yak and La7 (a radial! with inherently more drag from a larger frontal cross section and from cooling) zooming right along with the Mustang now?

The turn claims from 1.2B are patently ridiculous. Anyone who makes those claims is so full of $hite their breath stinks. The turning was about right according to sources (others have posted them already), and to someone who has flown the real deal. It sucks that the kvetching has cliped those wings, but, what matters to me is the Zoom. I E fight, I don't turn fight. Sources I have come across leave the distinct impression that it was one of, if not the, cleanest fighters of the war, and best zoomer as a result.

Zoom has come down for the P-47 too. Why? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 12:37 AM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- More and more people are claiming accurate speeds.
-
- 1 problem is this 5% rule. +5% for 1 plane and -5%
- for another in the same regime makes a big
- difference and a problem.

Okay, other than maybe the 262, which aircraft in FB are overmodelled by 5% at 7600m? Which aircraft are causing a problem with the P-51 at that altitude?

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 12:46 AM
A.K.Davis wrote:
- Okay, other than maybe the 262, which aircraft in FB
- are overmodelled by 5% at 7600m? Which aircraft are
- causing a problem with the P-51 at that altitude?

You're twisting the comment. A little too much zeal in your defense of Oleg. Calm down.

And, given that Oleg himself claimed the 262 was too slow up there and specifically addressed it to speed it up, I have my doubts it's too fast. I don't fly it, and don't care, just sayin'.

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 01:33 AM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- A.K.Davis wrote:
-- Okay, other than maybe the 262, which aircraft in FB
-- are overmodelled by 5% at 7600m? Which aircraft are
-- causing a problem with the P-51 at that altitude?
-
- You're twisting the comment. A little too much zeal
- in your defense of Oleg. Calm down.
-
- And, given that Oleg himself claimed the 262 was too
- slow up there and specifically addressed it to speed
- it up, I have my doubts it's too fast. I don't fly
- it, and don't care, just sayin'.
-
-
-
-


How am I twisting the comment? Basically, we've whittled it down to there likely being a less than 5% error in its top speed (if there is an error at all). Because complaining about such a small degree of error looks an awful lot like unnecessary whining, now the "but a 5% error is not the real problem, it's when the other aircraft are in error 5% the other direction" justification has been brought forward. Sure, that's a legimitate issue, now tell us which aircraft you are referring to.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 01:57 AM
Thought better of responding to you. This is ridiculous. Stuff your "whining" comments and Oleg worship up your arse.

If anyone else can answer the zoom question without trying to defend Oleg with all the fervor of a religious zealot, it would be appreciated.

A.K.Davis wrote:
- How am I twisting the comment? Basically, we've
- whittled it down to there likely being a less than
- 5% error in its top speed (if there is an error at
- all). Because complaining about such a small degree
- of error looks an awful lot like unnecessary
- whining, now the "but a 5% error is not the real
- problem, it's when the other aircraft are in error
- 5% the other direction" justification has been
- brought forward. Sure, that's a legimitate issue,
- now tell us which aircraft you are referring to.
-
---AKD

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 02:21 AM
A.K.Davis wrote:
-
- BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
-- More and more people are claiming accurate speeds.
--
-- 1 problem is this 5% rule. +5% for 1 plane and -5%
-- for another in the same regime makes a big
-- difference and a problem.
-
- Okay, other than maybe the 262, which aircraft in FB
- are overmodelled by 5% at 7600m? Which aircraft are
- causing a problem with the P-51 at that altitude?

From testing the BF109-K4, i know she is faster very high alt then the pony. youl notice a very big differance at 10,000m alt. I would say in FB right now at 10,000m the K4 is almost 100kmh faster then the mustaing.



Message Edited on 11/13/0301:21AM by Maple_Tiger

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 04:11 AM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- Thought better of responding to you. This is
- ridiculous. Stuff your "whining" comments and Oleg
- worship up your arse.
-
- If anyone else can answer the zoom question without
- trying to defend Oleg with all the fervor of a
- religious zealot, it would be appreciated.
-
- A.K.Davis wrote:
-- How am I twisting the comment? Basically, we've
-- whittled it down to there likely being a less than
-- 5% error in its top speed (if there is an error at
-- all). Because complaining about such a small degree
-- of error looks an awful lot like unnecessary
-- whining, now the "but a 5% error is not the real
-- problem, it's when the other aircraft are in error
-- 5% the other direction" justification has been
-- brought forward. Sure, that's a legimitate issue,
-- now tell us which aircraft you are referring to.
--
----AKD

I thought you would avoid answering that. Cease the personal attacks right now.


--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 04:16 AM
After you cease the zealotry. Or is it that you simply need a dictionary (among other books)?

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 04:23 AM
johann_thor wrote:
- the P-51 is not undermodelled in any way in the
- public beta
-
-

Which one?

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 04:30 AM
Better a zealot than a pedant.

<center>
Read the <a href=http://www.mudmovers.com/sturmovik_101/FAQ.htm>IL2 FAQ</a>
Got Nimrod? Try the unofficial <A HREF=http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=4&sid=4870c2bc08acb0f130e5e3396d08d595>OT forum</A>

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 04:32 AM
Gershy wrote:
- yes. ppl are complaining about the P51s performance
- now. not with statistics, not with charts, not with
- quotes....NO. They complain that they liked the
- unfinished, overmodelled FM in an unfinished, leaked
- BETA patch better than the more detailed FM. that's
- it. This is nothing but whinning to get a
- superplane.
-
- 2 things we need in FB:
- The 110 and the desert!!!
<img
- src="http://exn.ca/news/images/1999/04/23/19990423
- -Me110coloursideMAIN.jpg">
-
-

Curious statement, unfinished in what manner, obviously the numbers were right, why would they stick in all wrong numbers to start off with? What was unfinished, no roll axis added in yet?

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 10:46 AM
holy crap, i meant 40,000ft.

It's a pretty obvious typo, as NO PLANE IN WWII went that high.. since you now know that: my point stands, it should be able to climb higher.. it struggles terribly to get over 10k.

Oh, and if you don't care because you don't fly high, and you view it as unimportant, then... F*** off, because frankly, no one needs a troll telling BnZ'ers that alt. caps aren't important. Also funny how you didn't notice the coincidence between it's ACTUAL ceiling being 40k ft. and what i said being 40k meters. Way to pick up on the typo.


lbhskier37 wrote:
- This is the second time this was posted and it shows
- just how intelligent some of the pony-whiners are(I
- admit there are some with valid points like the
- speed at altitude being a little off) Have you
- found any other plane in FB that flys good above
- 12000m? The mustang was good and have a high
- service ceiling but not that much higher than its
- contemporaries. This should be you first tip-off
- that it shouldnt go to 40k meters. Now lets look at
- other planes, the service ceiling of a U-2 spyplane
- is 70,000ft or about 21,000m, so your saying the
- mustang should have a ceiling over twice that of a
- U-2? The service ceiling of the mustang should be
- around 40,000ft, which magically translates to
- 12000m. I know it is a simple unit mixup, but it
- just illustrates the intelligence of some of you
- whiners.

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 10:59 AM
Maple_Tiger wrote:
- From testing the BF109-K4, i know she is faster very
- high alt then the pony. youl notice a very big
- differance at 10,000m alt. I would say in FB right
- now at 10,000m the K4 is almost 100kmh faster then
- the mustaing.

But results at 10,000m are bogus as Oleg has already
said that the FM is all wrong at that altitude, so I
wouldn't put any stock in figures at that altitude.
Sadly, although the FM is bogus up there, you can still
fly up there!