PDA

View Full Version : We fought the good fight. But the P-47D-27 roll rate still wrong.



XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 11:46 PM
And it's a damned shame.

Plotting the FB P-47D-27 roll rate against the now famous "30lbs stick force" roll chart for the P-47D-30 we see that the FB D-27 does not even roll to that low standard. Nevermind that 50lbs could be applied for an even better roll rate.

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/screwedroll.jpg


I'm not sure of Oleg's motivation to refuse to correct this glaring error, but according to NACA's numbers, it ain't based in fact.

Have at it folks.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 11:46 PM
And it's a damned shame.

Plotting the FB P-47D-27 roll rate against the now famous "30lbs stick force" roll chart for the P-47D-30 we see that the FB D-27 does not even roll to that low standard. Nevermind that 50lbs could be applied for an even better roll rate.

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/screwedroll.jpg


I'm not sure of Oleg's motivation to refuse to correct this glaring error, but according to NACA's numbers, it ain't based in fact.

Have at it folks.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 11:53 PM
Relax Skychimp - it's probably for the best.

I mean, you've seen what happens when Maddox tries to "fix" anything in the FB codebase, right? :>

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 11:55 PM
I can see it is off still, but at least the D-10 and D-22 got theirs fairly close. We can hope that Oleg will fix it in time. If not I will still fly it as I have been, but the D-10 is still my preffered rig. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.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
09-09-2003, 12:07 AM
Since when is anything in it based in fact? Give up already, seriously, you expect an accurate P-47 in a sim in which planes like the I-16 exist? Don't even start on La series, some of these things are plain hillarious. Just accept it as a nice game, and retain your sanity.

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 12:10 AM
BfHeFwMe wrote:

- Just accept it as a nice game, and
- retain your sanity.
-
-

You're probably right.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 12:14 AM
It may not be as easy to correct as some think.

If Oleg's physics engine were table based it would be a case of slipping in the correct values at the appropriate points. As his engine is realtime it may be the case that all variables are linked to each other and that changing even a fraction of a number in one area could upset a lot more in another. The butterfly effect if you like.

Maybe it's the weight of the aircaft. Perhaps the sheer mass of the Jug is what is making the roll values a little stubborn to change. No doubt a great deal of the calculations going on are to do with mass and inertia. Oleg's physics engine may simply be struggling with a flight model that weighs X kg needing to be able to roll at Y degrees per second at Z kph.

I don't honestly think he's trying to nerf anyones aircraft.


Lixma,

Blitzpig.

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 12:23 AM
Lixma,

Oleg fixed the P-47D-10 and D-22 in short order. I just can't imagine what is so different about the D-27.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 12:30 AM
Ooopsy. My bad. Didn't realise it was just the '27 that was still buggered.

So the other two are fit to go ? If so i may give them some stick time.


Lixma,

Blitzpig.

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 12:57 AM
so does the D27 have the same rate with ordnance on the wings?

Barfly
Executive Officer
7. Staffel, JG 77 "Black Eagles"

http://www.7jg77.com

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 01:01 AM
Panelboy wrote:
- so does the D27 have the same rate with ordnance on
- the wings?


I haven't tried. I just rolling it clean.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 01:21 AM
Actually I think Lixma is close to the problem.

Look at the FW190's. Seems Oleg gave them better high speed turn, but now they have insane turn ability at very high speeds.

I just think the algorithms or FM engine doo-hicky just isn't complex enough yet to make flight realistic for every plane in every situation.

By the time Oleg's next sim is ready, I bet pcs will be able to handle much more complex FM engines while at the same time allowing for an insane increase in graphics.

I think the best we can expect for FM with IL2 right now are compromises.

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 01:36 AM
Its better and she has improved in other areas but I would like to see the damage model improved atleast for the 27s control loss issues as well as the engine model for all the P-47s. I still fly her no matter what though and I think Oleg knows this /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
S!
47|FC=-

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 01:38 AM
So, it's either his physics engine isn't up to the task of getting it right, or, he chooses not to.

Apparently he doesn't mind VVS planes going too far positive (or rather, planes the VVS liked - which includes the P-39). Wonder why it's just the VVS opposition and the ones they didn't like that he won't give the benefit to. Hmmm. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 01:46 AM
I don't buy that theory DDT. Look at the LaGG 3, not a popular ride amongst the VVS - it's fairly deadly in FB. Also the FW-190. Oleg has said many times he flys the 109 online but by most accounts it's the 109 series (G6 and above) that have suffered the most. I think it's just more tweaking required.


Lixma,

Blitzpig.

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 02:21 AM
The LaGG is a Sov design though.

The 190 was never really that good. It could be effective in IL2, and I even made the switch from the 109, but, it was born out of frustration, and I stayed for the cockpit more than anything else to be honest. That sounds fnebed up, but, it really is why I stayed with the 190.

Come FB I found my old ride to be hurtin. Improved over IL2, but, not enough to keep it in the same relative position. Got too frustrated and took my skills to the rocket, err I mean K4. Stayed with the 109 from that point because, even though the pit wasn't as good, it was more functional, the 109 was always my first WWII a/c love, and the proper climb and zoom modeling made it suit my style much more.

I got sidetracked, but the point is, the entire world agrees that the 190 was the better of the 2. Oleg said the VVS thought the opposite and the modeling has always matched that. If it's different now it might be because he dinally buckled.

The VVS hated the Jug. Look at how bad it was in 1.0. It's still too slow in speed and roll (at speed) and bleeds too much E (as of 1.1"F" - VFC Host is packed, can't test 1.11 yet).

The US and UK hated the P-39. The VVS loved it. Notice how none of it's negatives really exist?

Ever really look at a 190 and an La? FW had a cowling almost identical to the La's but ditched it because it heated things up a bit too much and didn't provide any real boost in speed. It was also reknowned for it's clean lines and extremely well fit panels. In spite of being a radial it had surprisingly little drag. But somehow it's a dog compared to the La. Go figure. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

I can't remember all the examples at this point, but this product line has followed a simple pattern. If they VVS liked it, it's good and does well. If they didn't, or at least didn't respect it, it sucks and does poorly. In cases where they didn't like their own planes, it still does better than the (opposing) competition.

Lastly, let's look at the 190 and roll. Big plane. Heavy plane. Snap your neck roll performance. Especially in FB. Let's look at the Jug in 1.0 and 1.1"F". D-10 and D-22 were improved remarkably in roll. The 27 wasn't. Clearly these changes are well within the realm of 1Cs capabilities. So why haven't they? Why is the Jug still too slow on the deck? Why does it bleed so much E as to make it's famous zoom and dive capabilities nothing more than legend in FB? Why are we missing control of the turbo?

All too coincidental for it to be a coincidence.

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 02:25 AM
"The difficulty we have, is our inability to convey to the wise man, that which should be obvious to the simpleton"

Once upon a time there was a plane called the P-47. It dove like a brick.

It could absorb damage that would destroy other aircraft, and brought it's pilot home.

And while it's roll rate wasn't the best of the war, it was
by far one of it's deadlier attributes, in the hands of a skilled pilot.

In FB, all planes dive within 20kph of each other. Adavantage: P-47 NOT!

In FB, one 7,9mm rifle bullet routinely destroys the giant Pratt & Whitney R2800 series engine of the Thunderbolt.
Advantage: P-47 NOT!

In FB, the Heinkel 111 bomber has a superior rate of roll to the Thunderbolt, as do MOST axis aircraft.
Advantage: P-47 NOT!

So our question becomes: WHY DID THEY BOTHER ???

Somewhat let down,
Chris

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

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 02:34 AM
chris455 gets Lance42's "Best Post of the Day" Award.





Message Edited on 09/09/0301:34AM by Lance42

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 10:31 AM
Chimp - see the tail end of the other P47 roll rate
thread. I just posted some roll rated for D10 and D27
for 1.11. (Didn't see this thread until afterwards).

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 10:32 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Oleg fixed the P-47D-10 and D-22 in short order. I
- just can't imagine what is so different about the
- D-27.

I presume that either something dramatic changed between
D22 and D27 (seems unlikely) or it was an oversight. The
D27 has sort of been out on its own for a couple of patches
now.

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 10:34 AM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- So, it's either his physics engine isn't up to the
- task of getting it right, or, he chooses not to.
-
- Apparently he doesn't mind VVS planes going too far
- positive (or rather, planes the VVS liked - which
- includes the P-39).

Or the B239 climb rate.. how many VVS people flew that?

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 10:42 AM
chris455 wrote:
- It could absorb damage that would destroy other
- aircraft, and brought it's pilot home.

I think that'took damage that would
have killed other pilots' is a factor.

The RAF did a survey of 845 downed aircraft in, I think,
1942, and pilot death was considered to be the biggest
single cause of an aircraft being shot down.

Thus if the pilot is well protected and survives to
bring the plane back, you have planes that are badly
damaged being returned, from which you might draw
the conclusion that the plane can survive damage that
would destroy other planes, when it might be the pilot
that is surviving. A counterexample would be the Zero,
which had virtually no pilot protection, and had a
reputation for fragility not really borne out by its
construction. But if you shoot at them and they go
down (pilot killed) you might tend to blame the plane.

To assess the strength of a plane you need to compare
the level of damage of planes that made it back against
those that didn't.

I'm not knocking the P47 - excellent pilot protection is
a superb asset - I am just being a bit pedantic, I suppose.

- In FB, the Heinkel 111 bomber has a superior rate of
- roll to the Thunderbolt, as do MOST axis aircraft.
- Advantage: P-47 NOT!

I'd be surprised. I'll maybe test that tonight, though.

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 07:46 PM
I'll bet Oleg rues the day he made the decision to make anything but the IL-2 flyable (as was the original intent).

You're right, I don't know why he even bothered...

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 06:07 AM
I just sent my old Nomex driving suit out to be cleaned in advance of the release of the P51.

It's really gonna be hot in here after the Mustang shows it's pretty face in FB....

BE SURE!



SkyChimp, I for one appreciate the efforts of all of you who tried so hard to make the P47 the plane it should be.

Thanks.....

<center><FONT color="red">[b]BlitzPig_EL</FONT>[B]<CENTER> http://old.jccc.net/~droberts/p40/images/p40home.gif
</img>.
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds, wake in the day that it was vanity:
but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act on their dreams with open eyes, to make them possible. "
--T.E. Lawrence

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 01:37 PM
SkyChimp,

Though perhaps the P47 will never change I'd like to send you my sincere thanks for the intelligent effort you put into expressing a valid FM concern. We all see people every day that come into the forum screaming this or that is not right and that have no concept of a moderate and well informed approach questioning the FM's. You on the other hand did none of that but instead came in armed with historical data, presented it in a reasonable manner and let the chips fall where they may.



Salute and thanks for being one of the more level headed people on this forum. I appreciate the efforts you make to contribute to the community and that you take the time to share your extensive knowledge.




TX-Zen
Black 6
TX Squadron CO
http://www.txsquadron.com
clyndes@hotmail.com (IM only)


http://www.txsquadron.com/uploaded/tx-zen/Zensig2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 07:17 PM
"You is wrong."

In all seriousness, you fought a valiant fight -- too bad it was in vain like many others.

I remember when it was announced they would model the Jug, many posted they thought it would get butchered, and they were shouted down for saying so. Well, maybe they weren't crazy after all.

For some reason, 1C simply doesn't do a good job with heavy E fighting type planes. I don't understand why everone's so excited about the '51 or the '38. You're not going to see anything close to the historical record.

Oleg's animosity towards the '51 is well documented. Every time the plane's mentioned he goes into a tizzy about how it was overrated and "inferior" to late model Laggs and Yaks. One time he even went so far as to claim it couldn't reach 400 MPH in level flight. (And please don't start with the "be nice to the developer lest he stop working on addons crap." Oleg doesn't care what we think, the 190 cockpit "debate" made that abundantly clear.)

Bottom line is visuals aside, when it comes to FM, DM and other things that really matter, you're at the mercy of his personal prefereces.

But at least you tried Chimp.

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 03:23 AM
BUMP!

This tread needs to ride the top of the listing until the 47's FM is fixed.

It boggles the mind...



6BL-idonno
REALISM RULES!

ZG77_Nagual
09-11-2003, 04:36 AM
I don't agree with 'oleg's animosity toward the '51' - last post I saw from him was from a sov test pilot and was VERY VERY favorable. If I'm not mistaken Oleg is modeling the 51 cockpit himself - and has remarked how much very accurate info they have on this bird due to living examples - pilots etc.

Overrated it is - but these statements about oleg being biased are absurd - look at the 190 for example! Even back in IL2 the a5 was an incredible dogfighter - I now - I flew it exclusively - now the 190s are even better.

True the d27s roll is slow - but the other two sure got a boost - and I believe the d10 was known as the better dogfighter. It was built before the '47 fell into the ground attack niche.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 06:16 AM
Could we put the D10 with paddle blade prop on some sort of variant available?

Anyway, I hope they model the M and N P-47's also, if not just to put cool skins on.

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 02:10 PM
ZG77_Nagual wrote:
- I don't agree with 'oleg's animosity toward the '51'

Of course you don't. lol It's amazing how many people want to give him the benefit of the doubt in spite of his track record.


- last post I saw from him was from a sov test pilot
- and was VERY VERY favorable. If I'm not mistaken
- Oleg is modeling the 51 cockpit himself - and has
- remarked how much very accurate info they have on
- this bird due to living examples - pilots etc.

Yeah? He says the same thing about every major flyable. Look at the 190, P-47, and 109s.

The 190s are being screwed of their actual FOV here, the Jug of it's proper roll, and the 109 of it's proper cooling (in specific), and they are all sub-par vs the historical record and docs in various ways.

Yet, we is wrong. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif


- Overrated it is - but these statements about oleg
- being biased are absurd - look at the 190 for
- example! Even back in IL2 the a5 was an incredible
- dogfighter - I now - I flew it exclusively - now the
- 190s are even better.

Can't see how. It is better, but, it is actually worse. Every plane got a boost from IL2 to FB. When looking at relative postion, the A5 was higher in IL2 than it is in FB. I too was an exclusive 190 pilot in IL2. Tried to make the transition and found it just wasn't competitive as it had been, so I went to 109s. Now they've lost some of their climb (falling below the historical record mind you), much of their zoom, and much of their cooling capacity.

Though, it is interesting that non of the sov planes get hampered like this.....


- True the d27s roll is slow - but the other two sure
- got a boost - and I believe the d10 was known as the
- better dogfighter. It was built before the '47 fell
- into the ground attack niche.

So far in 1.11, my limited testing indicates that the D10 spins too much to be any good as a DF plane. The D27 has given me much more success in that role. And, since that patch I have been flying the P-47 almost exclusively. Occasional hops in other planes only when the planeset demands it.

Some of that could be me or my stick. Have to try it some more. I do like the 27 better though, and with proper roll it would be more effective. But that still doesn't address the turbo, proper deck speed, or excessive E bleed the plane suffers from.

Like the previous poster suggested, the retro-fit paddle prop from the D-22 would be nice. Why is it we can't have it? Worried about it doing too well? Can't think of any other reason myself, you?

The M would rock. That's why I doubt we'll ever see it. And if we do.....well, look at what we have already. Would it really matter?

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 02:47 PM
ElAurens wrote:
- I just sent my old Nomex driving suit out to be
- cleaned in advance of the release of the P51.
-
- It's really gonna be hot in here after the Mustang
- shows it's pretty face in FB....
-
- BE SURE!
-

The Mustang LOL Good luck

<center> http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_109_1063229517.jpg </center>



Message Edited on 09/11/0308:49AM by cozmo_d

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 02:51 PM
If you can't dogfight with a P-47, ask yourself why, not Oleg.

Can't you understand the P-47 or the P-51 were NOT designed as low-level dogfighters and therefore it shouldn't be surprising if they are not flying as well in this type of fight as planes which were so (like the La-5FN, La-7, Yak-3,...).

I'm tired of all this stupid noise about Oleg favouring soviet planes, the 109s and 190s are dangerous opponents for all soviet types, and the P-39, the Hurricane, the P-40, and the Buffalo are good fighters (and one should remark the soviet pilots didn't like the Hurricane and had mitigated feelings towards the P-40).

FB provides the players with the best FMs seen so far (and we should all be gratefull to Oleg for that), but sometimes I wonder if it was worth introducing US fighters if it was to see people whining as soon as the first Thunderbolt was virtually shot down (or even before they had seen the first copy of the game in a shop).

BTW, personally, I like to fly P-40s and P-47s, and don't need to whine to enjoy those planes...

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 02:59 PM
Nagual,

when Oleg Maddox says that American a/c flight data is "manufacturer's advertzing" data, one does not have took to far to see that there is some bias. Note this was said, iirc, in a P-51 thread at SimHq in Il-2 days.

I don't expect the P-51, and the Spitfire, to be modelled correctly. If after 3 tries at the P-47,.... The 109 and 190 have been around since Il-2 days and even they have still errors - how many FM variations is that? Maybe 7 or 8 or is it 9?

Why could 1C/Maddox not get the P-47 correct from the start. They had lots of data. And they should have know with the wealth of P-47 data around, its FM would be disected.

One really has to question the testers at 1C/Maddox or do they not test fly the a/c when given new 'inputs'.

1C/Maddox made a gross error in saying the 'most authentic sim yet'. That just left themselves wide open to having the FMs picked apart. (side note. within 5% is OK with me) The FMs of a/c had been discussed, ad nausium, in other games/sims long before Il-2 came along and most knew where those FMs had been wrong. The word used should have been "best", not authentic.

Since you got me started,/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif the exclusion of some AI a/c such as the Bf110, Ju87D-5, MC200, B-25, SM79 and the Dornier bombers, and all seen on the EF, has to be questioned.

http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 03:21 PM
nicli wrote:
- If you can't dogfight with a P-47, ask yourself why,
- not Oleg.
-
- Can't you understand the P-47 or the P-51 were NOT
- designed as low-level dogfighters and therefore it
- shouldn't be surprising if they are not flying as
- well in this type of fight as planes which were so
- (like the La-5FN, La-7, Yak-3,...).

Who said anything about low level "dog fighting"?

Sounds like you are another who assumes that any attempt to kill an enemy plane is a dog fight, and that that is exclusively done on the deck via turns.


- I'm tired of all this stupid noise about Oleg
- favouring soviet planes, the 109s and 190s are
- dangerous opponents for all soviet types, and the
- P-39, the Hurricane, the P-40, and the Buffalo are
- good fighters (and one should remark the soviet
- pilots didn't like the Hurricane and had mitigated
- feelings towards the P-40).

Tired of it? Do you worship him, or, do you simply not follow the threads where he is proven wrong? I'm curious.


- FB provides the players with the best FMs seen so
- far (and we should all be gratefull to Oleg for
- that), but sometimes I wonder if it was worth
- introducing US fighters if it was to see people
- whining as soon as the first Thunderbolt was
- virtually shot down (or even before they had seen
- the first copy of the game in a shop).

Actually, this is not true at all. Clearly your sim experience isn't that extensive.

Certainly the best graphics though.


- BTW, personally, I like to fly P-40s and P-47s, and
- don't need to whine to enjoy those planes...

Finally, I'd like to point you to a dictionary as well. This is not "whining". Might do you good to look that word up, as well as complaint. They are not the same. You've been affected by this place.

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 05:21 PM
Maybe the bombracks in the wing decrease the roll rate just a bit? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Oleg used the info he could get at the time, VVS data...
Don't blame him, blame the VVS reporters for biasing their documents. The same way the US bias their documents and stories about their planes and the german documents praise their A/C. The only way to know if a plane FM is modeled correctly you should have a WWII pilot playing the game, and still they are no good anymore, because of the huge time it has been since they flyed his plane... He can't possilby remember correctly how his plane flew, if he liked his plane he will praise it, if he didn't he will flame it. I dunno if i'm expressing well, but what i'm trying to say is that there is no reliable source for the FM's anymore... The VVS says the P-39 is good, and argument it; The US says that the P-39 is crap, and they argument it too. The P-39 pilots are either dead or too old to remember how they plane flew EXACTLY. Hell, it's the same as when you remember a story that happened 10 years ago, and when you see it in video (supposing that you have it on video hehe) you see that it was completely or partially diferent of your memories. Now imagine how can you remember the feel of a plane that you piloted 60 years ago...
All wartime documents are biased.
Phew, it took time to express myself but I think I got it all /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/damned/reincarnation.jpg (http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/damned/)
Are you damned? (http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/damned/)
<

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 09:35 PM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- Who said anything about low level "dog fighting"?
-
- Sounds like you are another who assumes that any
- attempt to kill an enemy plane is a dog fight, and
- that that is exclusively done on the deck via turns.
-

I thought people told about dogfighting as, at high speed or high level, I don't feel the P-47 has problems fighting LW planes.

- Tired of it? Do you worship him, or, do you simply
- not follow the threads where he is proven wrong? I'm
- curious.

I didn't see any valuable proof in threads, in the one on the Fw-190 cockpit, I found Oleg's elements more significant than the "proofs he was wrong".

- Actually, this is not true at all. Clearly your sim
- experience isn't that extensive.
-

So, what sim provides better FMs for WWII fighters than FB (don't tell me about CFS3, I know what it's worth : not as good as FB) ?

- Finally, I'd like to point you to a dictionary as
- well. This is not "whining". Might do you good to
- look that word up, as well as complaint. They are
- not the same. You've been affected by this place.
-

So I'll say "complaining" but I still think that if you tried to learn how to fly the P-47 rather than "complaining", you wouldn't feel like having to do it.

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 09:45 PM
nicli wrote:
- I thought people told about dogfighting as, at high
- speed or high level, I don't feel the P-47 has
- problems fighting LW planes.

1 - I much prefer to shoot down VVS planes. FAR more satisfying (just because of what they are/represent - worse of 2 evils. lol)

2 - This is the sticking point that you and your kind fail to understand. It's not about success or failure. I know how to use it thank you very much. I do fairly well with it. It's still incorrect. The proof is all around us in various threads. Yet, you *choose* not to beleive it. Which means you've answered my question too.


- I didn't see any valuable proof in threads, in the
- one on the Fw-190 cockpit, I found Oleg's elements
- more significant than the "proofs he was wrong".

Don't see it huh? You choose not to. It's there, but you'd rather beleive Oleg. You are a cult member and probably don't even know it. Either than or you are blind.


- So, what sim provides better FMs for WWII fighters
- than FB (don't tell me about CFS3, I know what it's
- worth : not as good as FB) ?

Seen much in the FS-SDOE community these days? Not the prettiest thing, I grant you, but, top notch everywhere else.

Apparently Janes did a killer job on the Jug as well. (after modernization updates and all)

Those lack something FB has - online play (of this kind) and community size (and graphics to some degree).


- So I'll say "complaining" but I still think that if
- you tried to learn how to fly the P-47 rather than
- "complaining", you wouldn't feel like having to do
- it.

See above. I know how to use it. Why is it that you people can't understand that it's not about success online, it's about wanting it done right?

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 10:00 PM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- Don't see it huh? You choose not to. It's there, but
- you'd rather beleive Oleg. You are a cult member and
- probably don't even know it. Either than or you are
- blind.
-

His photographs were clear enough, didn't you see these : PHOTOGRAPHS, were these "reworked" shots or anything like that ?

- See above. I know how to use it. Why is it that you
- people can't understand that it's not about success
- online, it's about wanting it done right?
-

OK, if you say so...It's simply that the aggressiveness of many posts (including some of yours), and the continuous (and not always objective) comparison with russian planes makes me feel like some are frustrated their planes can't be better than the soviet ones in all areas, if that's not your situation, then I'm happy for you.

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 11:17 PM
nicli wrote:

- So, what sim provides better FMs for WWII fighters
- than FB (don't tell me about CFS3, I know what it's
- worth : not as good as FB) ?

CFS3 sucks as a game, but the P-47D-25 FM is closer to real than Oleg got it. And I've tested both. Sorry for that news.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 11:26 PM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- The LaGG is a Sov design though.
-
- The 190 was never really that good. It could be
- effective in IL2, and I even made the switch from
- the 109, but, it was born out of frustration, and I
- stayed for the cockpit more than anything else to be
- honest. That sounds fnebed up, but, it really is why
- I stayed with the 190.
-
- Come FB I found my old ride to be hurtin. Improved
- over IL2, but, not enough to keep it in the same
- relative position. Got too frustrated and took my
- skills to the rocket, err I mean K4. Stayed with the
- 109 from that point because, even though the pit
- wasn't as good, it was more functional, the 109 was
- always my first WWII a/c love, and the proper climb
- and zoom modeling made it suit my style much more.
-
- I got sidetracked, but the point is, the entire
- world agrees that the 190 was the better of the 2.
- Oleg said the VVS thought the opposite and the
- modeling has always matched that. If it's different
- now it might be because he dinally buckled.
-
- The VVS hated the Jug. Look at how bad it was in
- 1.0. It's still too slow in speed and roll (at
- speed) and bleeds too much E (as of 1.1"F" - VFC
- Host is packed, can't test 1.11 yet).
-
- The US and UK hated the P-39. The VVS loved it.
- Notice how none of it's negatives really exist?
-
- Ever really look at a 190 and an La? FW had a
- cowling almost identical to the La's but ditched it
- because it heated things up a bit too much and
- didn't provide any real boost in speed. It was also
- reknowned for it's clean lines and extremely well
- fit panels. In spite of being a radial it had
- surprisingly little drag. But somehow it's a dog
- compared to the La. Go figure. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
-
- I can't remember all the examples at this point, but
- this product line has followed a simple pattern. If
- they VVS liked it, it's good and does well. If they
- didn't, or at least didn't respect it, it sucks and
- does poorly. In cases where they didn't like their
- own planes, it still does better than the (opposing)
- competition.
-
- Lastly, let's look at the 190 and roll. Big plane.
- Heavy plane. Snap your neck roll performance.
- Especially in FB. Let's look at the Jug in 1.0 and
- 1.1"F". D-10 and D-22 were improved remarkably in
- roll. The 27 wasn't. Clearly these changes are well
- within the realm of 1Cs capabilities. So why haven't
- they? Why is the Jug still too slow on the deck? Why
- does it bleed so much E as to make it's famous zoom
- and dive capabilities nothing more than legend in
- FB? Why are we missing control of the turbo?
-
- All too coincidental for it to be a coincidence.
-


Good post totaly agree, just wish others would see it too....

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 11:31 PM
nicli wrote:
-
- BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
-- Don't see it huh? You choose not to. It's there, but
-- you'd rather beleive Oleg. You are a cult member and
-- probably don't even know it. Either than or you are
-- blind.
--
-
- His photographs were clear enough, didn't you see
- these : PHOTOGRAPHS, were these "reworked" shots or
- anything like that ?
-

You must be trully blind not to see the obvious modelling error in the Fw's cockpit.

http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"