PDA

View Full Version : Any chance macchi fms will be fixed in 4.06?



Pages : [1] 2

pdog1
06-12-2006, 04:45 PM
eh?

lbhskier37
06-12-2006, 05:04 PM
way to be specific there, I'm sure they will get right on that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

anarchy52
06-12-2006, 05:07 PM
Take a 202 for a spin, no further explanation needed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WWMaxGunz
06-12-2006, 05:35 PM
Obviously. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

There are: what you don't like.
And should be: what you do like.

Fix is whinespeak for: this doesn't match my expectations that everyone should know.

What I've gotten from the last Change The Macchis Thread:
Yeah, yeah, they should outturn a Spit because recounts say so without specific conditions
so if they were able to outturn a Spit one way then they should always outturn Spits. It
doesn't matter who was going faster or slower or holding alt or not, outturn is outturn...
right? And who was piloting those Macchis as well as those Spits had no bearing on the
matter at all. The ONLY thing that matters is what YOU can do with them doesn't match
what you have read in stories.

Geez guys, nothing like a solid argument showing just WHAT changes should be and why with
specific data to back it up. I'm sure that Oleg will rush team members to make things just
the way you say... Easier.

KraljMatjaz
06-12-2006, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Geez guys, nothing like a solid argument showing just WHAT changes should be and why with
specific data to back it up.

I would really like to see solid argument that confirms current FM of Mc202 is right. They had to model it based on something... or should we all just switch to Crimson Skies?

WWMaxGunz
06-12-2006, 05:56 PM
No, not all of us.

I like your counter of 'prove to me' but I doubt that you'd understand what Oleg could
throw back at you if he chose to do so. I'm not sure if there are 2 active members here
who could, and I'm not one of them. You only want the end result anyway.

This should be simple. Someone made a combat flight sim and claimed that it is the MOST REAL
made. There has never been any claim of perfection or so close that you can't tell different.
Only most real and that is an overall score type of thing. That is craftsmanship. You ever
make a thing and get a raft of unqualified criticism?

The sim maker has changed parts of the sim in response to solid evidence and data both that
it should and the changes were possible in code, hardware and reasonable budget (since with
unlimited time things can be improved more towards the ultimate possible of the hardware).

The sim maker does not make free with his data. You accept that or don't. Nowhere is he
required to do so. Nowhere is he required to kiss your tush either. The man is an aero
engineer, he uses what he knows and what tools he has plus data he buys rather than surf
the web for fan site 'data' or going by stories ---
So far in the face of arguments to 'fix' the FM I think that I'll take his representation
over the others who make poor arguments whether they actually are right or not. At least
I am sure that he can back his results up with more than 'the story says'.

Daiichidoku
06-12-2006, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
The sim maker has changed parts of the sim in response to solid evidence and data

please explain the 109Z and Go-229



Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
The man is an aero engineer, he uses what he knows

"the P-47 is NOT a Fighter"



Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
what tools he has plus data he buys rather than surf
the web for fan site 'data' or going by stories ---


please explain why Lockheed, USAF and NACA data on 38 are rejected as "propaganda", and favorable British P-38 testing is ignored, as "data from country of origin should be used" while Russian data (the all-time experts on the development and operation of Lightings) is taken as gospel

WWMaxGunz
06-12-2006, 06:38 PM
The rules for what-if planes are stretched and you know it. See many servers with them?

I don't know about the P-38 data. I also see claims of all kind of things I know are untrue
but P-38's I have followed some threads and see that there is a lot of grief. Since I don't
know all what has gone between Oleg and the people who feel it is wrong I can't say where
the problems really seem to be. I've seen posts showing that P-38's and others are able
to go mach 1+ in dives at some alts less than 9km as well --- I don't know but expect that
there are deeper issues at high speed than just a single FM.

VW-IceFire
06-12-2006, 06:50 PM
Sure...the P-38 has its problems. Like the elevator at low altitudes responding like the elevator at high altitudes. In reality the P-38s elevator was very effective except when it went into compressability at high altitudes and then it was totally useless.

The Macchi's are unusual...the MC.200 is an absolute joy to fly. Very agile. The MC.202 seems to have a very nasty stall and a horrible roll rate. I don't know enough about it or the MC.205 to be able to indicate how they should subjectively feel either way. Their turn rate is quite good if you don't stall it and the stall is sudden and very abrupt...worse than the FW190.

The worst part is the guns for me...except on the MC.205.

269GA-Veltro
06-13-2006, 05:06 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
The Macchi's are unusual...the MC.200 is an absolute joy to fly. Very agile. The MC.202 seems to have a very nasty stall and a horrible roll rate. I don't know enough about it or the MC.205 to be able to indicate how they should subjectively feel either way. Their turn rate is quite good if you don't stall it and the stall is sudden and very abrupt...worse than the FW190.

The worst part is the guns for me...except on the MC.205.

I agree 100%.

I don't like kid for my Macchi as italian, BTW this is better than any comments...nobody fly the Macchi...

http://ourworld.cs.com/veltrof2/269/TRISTEZZA.jpg

Macchi 200 is a pleasure to fly, and i'm sorry we don't have the fighter-bomber version flyiable.

Pdog, i hope in the MED after BoB.....

HotelBushranger
06-13-2006, 05:30 AM
I would say the Macchi FM's definitely need fixing. Any combat fighter that behaved like that would have never gotten past the prototype in real life! It's shocking. It does have a good climb though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

joeap
06-13-2006, 05:41 AM
I'd like to see the Macchis fixed, but I'd also like to see some concrete testing and data. I am most frustrated by the guns...maybe they were the poorest of the lot we have IRL anyone know?

JG53Frankyboy
06-13-2006, 05:48 AM
the Breda-Safat had realy a bad reputation among the heavy MGs in WW2

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-pe.html

but as you can rad there its ammo, espacially the HE shell, was effective........

annyoing is its tracer, very long time visible.

"fortunatly" they forgot the Cr.42 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif , it still has its effective italain "Brownings" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

269GA-Veltro
06-13-2006, 06:20 AM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
the Breda-Safat had realy a bad reputation among the heavy MGs in WW2

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-pe.html

but as you can rad there its ammo, espacially the HE shell, was effective........

Exactly...

Snark7
06-13-2006, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by HotelBushranger:
I would say the Macchi FM's definitely need fixing. Any combat fighter that behaved like that would have never gotten past the prototype in real life! It's shocking. It does have a good climb though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Just look at the sorry excuses for a tank in which the poor italians had to fight.

HotelBushranger
06-13-2006, 08:34 AM
Touche' http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JG53Frankyboy
06-13-2006, 08:59 AM
sure, mostly the italian weapons are not well suited for the WW2 combat.
but the main proplem of the Mc202/205 was
-to late
-to few


and im still wondering why a Mc202 differs so much in flight behaviour form the Mc200........because there is a heavier engine in the nose ?!

joeap
06-13-2006, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by 269GA-Veltro:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
the Breda-Safat had realy a bad reputation among the heavy MGs in WW2

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-pe.html

but as you can rad there its ammo, espacially the HE shell, was effective........

Exactly... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That link is a bit unclear, says the gun was poor yet was accurate with good ammo, WTF? What was wrong with it exactly?

269GA-Veltro
06-13-2006, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 269GA-Veltro:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
the Breda-Safat had realy a bad reputation among the heavy MGs in WW2

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-pe.html

but as you can rad there its ammo, espacially the HE shell, was effective........

Exactly... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That link is a bit unclear, says the gun was poor yet was accurate with good ammo, WTF? What was wrong with it exactly? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The SAFAT in IL2 doesn't have explosive ammunition, but the italians fighters had it and fired it.

joeap
06-13-2006, 12:11 PM
Ok thx. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WWMaxGunz
06-13-2006, 12:20 PM
Anybody flying the 202 (and maybe P-51D) with an FFB stick?

JG53Frankyboy
06-13-2006, 12:23 PM
i do, and i can never say, im close to spin in the Mc202/5 - it happens without warning.

nevertheless, im always flying them when they are available !

WWMaxGunz
06-13-2006, 12:58 PM
I don't have feedback stick. Is there any change of force at departure?

Flakwalker
06-13-2006, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
sure, mostly the italian weapons are not well suited for the WW2 combat.
but the main proplem of the Mc202/205 was
-to late
-to few

Late, few? altough this can be aplicable to the MC.205 on some way, the MC.202 was a 1942 fighter, was ok for the time and was available in nice numbers.

Regarding fixes, along the FM fix requested before I will add that some glass faces on the canopy dont apear smoothed on both MC.202 and MC.205.

About Breda-SAFAT, HE are needed, now it have only tracers-AP.

actionhank1786
06-14-2006, 01:44 AM
If you're going to make a request saying "Is it going to be fixed" atleast include some info as to why you think it's off to begin with.
You can be as vague as you want, and i'm sure you'd be pissed if Oleg responded with "The problem you're refering to is fine".
You need to prove somehow, with data, graphs, pilots accounts, anything besides "This is how i hear/think/know it should be"

269GA-Veltro
06-14-2006, 05:06 AM
Originally posted by actionhank1786:
If you're going to make a request saying "Is it going to be fixed" atleast include some info as to why you think it's off to begin with.
You can be as vague as you want, and i'm sure you'd be pissed if Oleg responded with "The problem you're refering to is fine".
You need to prove somehow, with data, graphs, pilots accounts, anything besides "This is how i hear/think/know it should be"

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

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

joeap
06-14-2006, 05:44 AM
Originally posted by 269GA-Veltro:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by actionhank1786:
If you're going to make a request saying "Is it going to be fixed" atleast include some info as to why you think it's off to begin with.
You can be as vague as you want, and i'm sure you'd be pissed if Oleg responded with "The problem you're refering to is fine".
You need to prove somehow, with data, graphs, pilots accounts, anything besides "This is how i hear/think/know it should be"

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There was nothing wrong with his request.

269GA-Veltro
06-14-2006, 06:02 AM
Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 269GA-Veltro:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by actionhank1786:
If you're going to make a request saying "Is it going to be fixed" atleast include some info as to why you think it's off to begin with.
You can be as vague as you want, and i'm sure you'd be pissed if Oleg responded with "The problem you're refering to is fine".
You need to prove somehow, with data, graphs, pilots accounts, anything besides "This is how i hear/think/know it should be"

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There was nothing wrong with his request. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For you we have sent the Macchi without data, pilot accounts and other references? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Come on guys....

FB is gone, i hope in the BoB serie.

Abraxa
06-14-2006, 06:09 AM
Originally posted by actionhank1786:
If you're going to make a request saying "Is it going to be fixed" atleast include some info as to why you think it's off to begin with.
You can be as vague as you want, and i'm sure you'd be pissed if Oleg responded with "The problem you're refering to is fine".
You need to prove somehow, with data, graphs, pilots accounts, anything besides "This is how i hear/think/know it should be"

I think that the best and most reliable among the available data in terms of tests and accounts have been collected and sent to Oleg.
Obviously, the main aim is to put Oleg in the conditions to work on some reliable reference, not to create scandals and useless flames in the ORR...

joeap
06-14-2006, 06:20 AM
Originally posted by 269GA-Veltro:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 269GA-Veltro:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by actionhank1786:
If you're going to make a request saying "Is it going to be fixed" atleast include some info as to why you think it's off to begin with.
You can be as vague as you want, and i'm sure you'd be pissed if Oleg responded with "The problem you're refering to is fine".
You need to prove somehow, with data, graphs, pilots accounts, anything besides "This is how i hear/think/know it should be"

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There was nothing wrong with his request. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For you we have sent the Macchi without data, pilot accounts and other references? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Come on guys....

FB is gone, i hope in the BoB serie. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok I am just curious I am not a red-whiner or a blue whiner, or a Oleg is god whiner. I am interested in Italian planes and how they really flew regardless of what is in the sim. I would like to see any problems fixed as we do have a few patches yet!

@ Abraxa, I understand you don't want flames in the ORR, but it is too bad.

Cheers guys.

269GA-Veltro
06-14-2006, 06:42 AM
NP joeap, i understand what you say.
We don't kid for the maccaroni...we have them, it's ok....

That it.

What we need is a very good sim about Malta campaign, with credible italian fighters, no more...no less, after BoB of course.

Abraxa
06-14-2006, 06:49 AM
Joeap, what I'm trying to say is that to debate here the material sent to Oleg would be of no use, if not worse, righ now. It would easily lead us into a typical and reciprocal "no, you is wrong!" 190view-like situation.

Please, consider that my answer is not polemical at all. Btw, Bruno, who mainly collected and ordered all the info on the FM of the Macchis is an engineer. I can hardly think of a better and more competent person for a positive confrontation with Oleg.
Just let'em work on the subject, far from the public discussions.
All the necessary info will be provided. Then it will be up to Oleg only to implement them.

Cheers

Willey
06-14-2006, 08:37 AM
I take the 205 over the G-6 anytime as the latter is an outright POS, one of the worst, if not the worst, planes in all FB http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
The 205 late series has 2 good cannons, is a lot faster and climbs almost as good as a G-2, though it doesn't turn so well - but I'm a Focke driver anyway http://www.ubisoft.de/smileys/3.gif
Even the early one with the not-so-good armament is a take over the G-6 if you want to survive...

It's similar with the 202s + 109F. Beeing a bad shot, I really know what I did if I down someone with those peashooters http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

And the Macchis just have the better cockpits... http://www.ubisoft.de/smileys/3.gif

BTW: I gave Target Tobruk a try, and the Re.2005 is a dream... I wonder why we don't have it in FB, wasn't it in the works, too? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Daiichidoku
06-14-2006, 10:40 AM
i get the feeling that if correct (including a NOT-ridiculus engine DM), the 202 and particularly the 205 will become the go-to 43 noob-mobile klown wagons

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


dont get me wrong, i love em and fly em...next to the Jug, the 205 is my favorite high altitude ride as well

i think most or many avoid them due to its not being the best turner, and far more for its lame roll and its severe and seemingly out of place stall and recovery characteristics

dgaggi
06-14-2006, 12:06 PM
The 205 is one of my favorite birds of all time. All of your accounts are on the money. It will not turn with a Spit, but the turning is not horrendous by any means. It does have a nasty tendency to stall, and stall quick. A majority of the stalls are recoverable with sufficeint altituted. I think that a lot of the problems can be attributed to speed and high speed stalls in turns. I've been playing with the pitch adjustment setting on my joystick to try and reduce that tendency with mixed results. Finding a happy medium between performance and killing myself has been difficult. The bottom line is that I'm happy to finally have these planes in this game http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif. The 202/205 have quirks like all planes. I don't know or have read enough about it's handling tendencies to know that the FM isn't correct. For that matter, I don't think that anyone here has flown any of these planes and reading about how a plane flew or the comparisons can be pretty subjective. The trick is to fly the plane(as is any other plane), learn it's limmitations and positive attributes. Use the positive attributes in your favor and aviod the situations were your are in the nasty end of the spectrum with your bird. I think that once you do that apply it with the Macchi's you'll find them to be very deadly platforms. In general, I think Oleg and his team have done a great job with this Sim and I don't know of any other software producer that has been as proactive with thier product as he has. Where there was a legit problem, he has been willing to fix it. It's a game http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif. Enjoy it, realize that it's a SIMULATION and will never be perfect.

269GA-Veltro
06-14-2006, 12:15 PM
Yes...i agree.

We are talking about FB, not MED...not again.

We will see....

joeap
06-14-2006, 12:58 PM
Guys, I am looking forward to the Med most of all in BoB-SoW. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

pdog1
06-14-2006, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
Take a 202 for a spin, no further explanation needed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LOL you win the thread. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VW-IceFire
06-14-2006, 06:32 PM
I've managed to gain some more experience in the MC.205 and I like some of it and not other parts. I had a fight with a P-51B at 3000M average altitude and the MC.205 is surprising in how well it managed to keep up. The Mustang isn't the most agile but in 4.05 it is quite decent in manuevering and the pilot I was facing was quite good. We actually fought to a draw as both broke off before we could land the final blows.

The MC.205 in this context rolled much slower and was not able to keep up with the Mustang's scissors manuever. Neither plane rolls very fast but the Mustang was far better. It seems that above about 250kph the ailerons get extremely heavy in the MC.205...much worse than the Spitfire does at 450kph. I stalled it once and not during this fight...but the stall is nasty, it quickly becomes a spin, and recovery takes a long time.

The MC.205s speed I was impressed with...at low altitude with the P-51B it was a very close contest. Even at medium altitude it was very close.

The sudden stall and roll rate are two areas I question...it sounds like work is being done behind the scenes with people who actually know what they are talking about and I'm pleased to hear that. We'll see what we can get when those discussions are complete.

onebox33
06-15-2006, 11:41 AM
i waited mc205 for a very long time but honestly i can't pilot a flying tank instead of a fast manovrable fighter... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Bolt40
06-15-2006, 08:20 PM
I have a simple solution to the plane FM woes ..if it aint Russian , German or Japanese...don't fly it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

anarchy52
06-16-2006, 01:51 AM
Well there is something strange IMHO because compared to Macchi 202, P-39 is an excellent training plane for novice pilots. 202 is more dangerous to it's pilot then the opponent. First time I flew it, I took off and after gaining about 1500m tried out some basic manuevers. I stalled, stall immediatelly developed into spin, I regained control, but just couldn't pull out of the dive. Seems that it's critical AoA is very low.

Akula_73.IAP
07-03-2006, 07:51 PM
Many posts missing from this thread?? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

berg417448
07-03-2006, 07:56 PM
Originally posted by Akula_73.IAP:
Many posts missing from this thread?? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Not just this thread...The recent forum problems caused losses on many threads.

S4rus
07-05-2006, 05:35 AM
Btw, is this a known issue?
http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/4712/macchi202016la.th.jpg (http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/4712/macchi202016la.jpg) http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/9991/macchi202038zy.th.jpg (http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/9991/macchi202038zy.jpg)

WWMaxGunz
07-05-2006, 07:34 PM
Known issue, there will always be some small group complaining of how a plane turns.
Or climbs. Or both. Or something else, big favorite is 'isn't fast enough' tied with
'too fast' on average and always for the same plane.

The less well defined the more the explanations tend to come across as a flat, high pitched
noise such as rotary saws or babies crying for milk are know to make.

Munch, munch, munch... hey, got any peanuts? I got popcorn and mt. dew. Hope they don't
wind down till I'm about out.

Deadmeat313
07-06-2006, 04:32 AM
I think S4rus is referring to the piccies on his post that show a dial changing face if the dashboard lights are on.

That is weird. I'd email that to Oleg if I were you mate. Well spotted. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

T.

onebox33
07-06-2006, 04:36 AM
Known issue, there will always be some small group complaining of how a plane turns.
may be you never try it...or may be you don't understand so much about planes...believe me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

p1ngu666
07-06-2006, 05:29 AM
flying italian in this sim is like walking along a cliff edge on a windy day. nice views, sometimes some little scare.

then u fall off and die.

i remmber cr42 used to have a death/stall spin too.. get in a spin, little chance to get out. and little warning of spin.

most planes ingame are easier to fly on the limit. its complete BS when u consider historical stuff, and simple comen sence.

it is wrong to say some nations planes fly very well and not others.. there are exceptions. yaks, and zero (specialy later ones) arent that great..

269GA-Veltro
07-06-2006, 11:18 AM
Well there is something strange IMHO because compared to Macchi 202, P-39 is an excellent training plane for novice pilots. 202 is more dangerous to it's pilot then the opponent. First time I flew it, I took off and after gaining about 1500m tried out some basic manuevers. I stalled, stall immediatelly developed into spin, I regained control, but just couldn't pull out of the dive. Seems that it's critical AoA is very low.

Perfect.....the best post here about the Macchi "problem". You got the point. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif Italian pilots (ICAF) after the 8th september had to fly the P-39, and they did come from the Veltro's line...a dream fighter compared to the P-39. They couldn't believe they had to fly that killer pilots.

Macchi should be fix in the 4.06...should be; if not.....NP, Macchi 202 and 205 are very nice as static objects for the FMB.

WWMaxGunz
07-06-2006, 07:59 PM
I don't know about you guys. Just tried MC.205 last model 43 and MC.202 42 model.
Does none of you detect the pre-stall shudders? Or do none of you fly coordinated or
even close? 205, I did climbing turns at very low speeds like 170kph and still over
10 m/s and banked right 30 degrees with no stall-out and spin. I had to yank the
stick back fast to force a spin that 1/4 way around I let go of the stick and the
spin ended of itself in 3/4 turn total.

Right turns I easily pulled BOTH MODELS into greyout with no spin but yes much buffets.
Do you guys bother pulling INTO a turn rather than snap the stick around to point where
you want to go?

I did fly the planes by the ball and not do much looking around. I don't know them so
well but if I wanted to campaign with them I would get to know the feel enough to not
have to watch the guages over half the time. By keeping the ball near center I managed
not to spin unexpectedly. I could push it insanely and get flat or near-flat spins if
I did not let way up on the stick right then. Letting go completely instantly seems to
be the best way to deal with Macchi spins as they don't develop into killers without
a couple seconds PIE.

Daiichidoku
07-07-2006, 10:09 AM
fly it in combat smartie

WWMaxGunz
07-07-2006, 02:00 PM
Now you want me to head into either "make it do what I read about except flying my way"
or "game balance" as some kind of proof of the FM and no, sorry I won't take the bait.
If you can't keep a Macchi short of spin you sure don't get the most out of it so you
should be doing more watch-the-instruments aerobatics than get-yourself-confused combat!

On right turns I could grey out easily. Left turns I needed to go nose low to grey out
in either plane. Perhaps if I had dropped pitch or power it would have slid right into
the turn, I only spent about 45 minutes pulling maneuvers that by what I read in this
thread should have had me spinning with no hope of recovery, etc. Funny but I know the
signs and I know that flying the edge is the best I can do so I don't snap it up into a
stall when developing a turn. If you needed to turn harder than you could then your own
tactics are more to blame regardless of plane choice.

The stall has warning buffets, plenty of that. How do you pull through all of that and
right into a spin? Hehe, it's maybe because you don't get much warning by flying out of
coordination by a good bit.

Do the Macchi's turn fast enough is a matter of test condition data, not uncontrolled
conditions and then parts remembered and stated without relative speeds, distances,
whatever. Can you in particular fly the Macchi models to their best is another point.

Rickustyit
07-08-2006, 12:19 AM
The fact I have never understood is why the C.202 Folgore's flying characteristics are so different from the C.200 Saetta. The wing and most of the airframe were the same, so why is the C.202 so unstable and so difficult to aim something with, while the C.200 is a joy to fly, very stable and accurate in flying?

I am not an expert, but, looking at another thread where there is a discussion about the different flying specs. of the FW190D and A versions (who had the same wing), I thought that maybe it was the same problem with the Macchis.

I am not an expert , so I don't know the matter, but was there a BIG difference between two airplanes with the same wing and even similiar airframe but different engine?

In game, the C.202 still wobbles a lot, it's quite unstable, but very fast.
The C.200 instead is a real pilot's fighter, very precise , stable and agile.

R

http://www.vvs-regia-avions.com/Regia/MC205-001.jpg

berg417448
07-08-2006, 09:12 AM
Originally posted by Rickustyit:



I am not an expert , so I don't know the matter, but was there a BIG difference between two airplanes with the same wing and even similiar airframe but different engine?




Sometimes there was. The Curtiss Hawk 75 had excellent control and handling qualities which were commented on favorably by most who flew it. For example, When the British tested the Hawk 75 they were impressed by its maneuverability.

By adopting the Allison engine in place of the Hawk's radial engine the follow on P-40's speed was greater than the Hawk 75 but handling and climb rate suffered.

UF-Josse
07-08-2006, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by 269GA-Veltro:
Macchi should be fix in the 4.06...should be; if not.....NP, Macchi 202 and 205 are very nice as static objects for the FMB.

So, perhaps fixed.... or not... but never for me just static objects http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif I positively love this birds, style, cockpit, all is very nice, real beauties...

DB engine, Dora armament and....... italian styling.... what for ingredients http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I am not italian people, but french.
However, Veltro , folgore and saetta are just my prefered planes with the poor IAR. Simply, i like them and fly those birds with a real and great pleasure... with qualities and defaults...

I would just say thanks to all italian team for this great addition ..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

I am working on a full template for next skins.... and , first, veltro, then folgore...

heywooood
07-08-2006, 01:24 PM
looking forward to those skins, Josse...I love Italian birds also....and the planes are cool too.

tigertalon
07-08-2006, 07:47 PM
I have flown macchis extensively last times. What I find surprising is the difference in dogfight capability between 202 and 205 against their adversaries. It's enormous IMO, and not only consequence of cannons. With 202, whenever stumbled across a spitV, my only hope is to RUUUUUN my a$$ out, while with 205 it happened a few days ago I sucsessfully tangled with two spitsIX, shooting them both down at the end.

In a nutshell, I find 205 more than on a par with 43 109s, while 202 is completely dominated in 41 not only by 109F4, but also E4.

269GA-Veltro
07-09-2006, 02:43 AM
Some time ago i prepared this mission for the C-205. It would be great fun if we could have a credible DM.....
The C-205 engine DM is quite ridiculous, and the mission against the bombers (the primary target for the ANR Veltro) are ruined...
I attack the bomber at 700 Km/h (snap shoot only), but one only shoot and my engine is out....everytime, as for all the others Veltro. I would like see the hit boxs for the Macchi 202 and 205. The same for the pilot protection, for the fuel lack.....fire ecc. ecc....

http://ourworld.cs.com/VeltroF/FB-AEP-PF/B17formazione.jpg

http://ourworld.cs.com/veltrof2/ANR/REGGIO0.jpg

http://ourworld.cs.com/veltrof2/ANR/REGGIO3.jpg

http://ourworld.cs.com/veltrof2/ANR/TEST2.jpg

AKA_TAGERT
07-09-2006, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Fix is whinespeak for: this doesn't match my expectations that everyone should know. Agreed 100%! It would be funny.. it is wasnt so true. You would think after 5+ years these Stigler types would reailse it takes hard data not stomping your feet hard to impress Oleg

AKA_TAGERT
07-09-2006, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
No, not all of us.

I like your counter of 'prove to me' but I doubt that you'd understand what Oleg could
throw back at you if he chose to do so. I'm not sure if there are 2 active members here
who could, and I'm not one of them. You only want the end result anyway.

This should be simple. Someone made a combat flight sim and claimed that it is the MOST REAL
made. There has never been any claim of perfection or so close that you can't tell different.
Only most real and that is an overall score type of thing. That is craftsmanship. You ever
make a thing and get a raft of unqualified criticism?

The sim maker has changed parts of the sim in response to solid evidence and data both that
it should and the changes were possible in code, hardware and reasonable budget (since with
unlimited time things can be improved more towards the ultimate possible of the hardware).

The sim maker does not make free with his data. You accept that or don't. Nowhere is he
required to do so. Nowhere is he required to kiss your tush either. The man is an aero
engineer, he uses what he knows and what tools he has plus data he buys rather than surf
the web for fan site 'data' or going by stories ---
So far in the face of arguments to 'fix' the FM I think that I'll take his representation
over the others who make poor arguments whether they actually are right or not. At least
I am sure that he can back his results up with more than 'the story says'. Agreed 100%!
That is the best summary I have seen in a long time.. This responce is a keeper! In that it applies to 90% of all the FM threads posted here.. As a mater of fact, Im going to cut-n-paste that into a pdf and just post a link to this reply in future FM whines of this nature

Put Up or STFU (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/STFU/PUSTFU/pustfu.pdf)

WWMaxGunz
07-09-2006, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by Rickustyit:
The fact I have never understood is why the C.202 Folgore's flying characteristics are so different from the C.200 Saetta. The wing and most of the airframe were the same, so why is the C.202 so unstable and so difficult to aim something with, while the C.200 is a joy to fly, very stable and accurate in flying?


Maybe the 202 has more weight and different distribution, possibly rigged different because
of that? Empty 200 at 1778kg, 202 at 2357kg, over 32% more mass on the SAME BASIC WINGS!
Guess which one will turn easier at low to medium speed?

I'm looking at going from an old design radial engine to an inline DB601A to start. It was
supposed to have very well harmonized controls and be a match against 1941 Spitfire and first
Mustangs. That is __IF you fly it right!__ Just because trained Italian AF pilots found the
plane delightful (considering the upgrade alone, yeah!) doesn't mean that Johnny Jerk-the
Joystick will. Really, the 200 engine does look to be just a tad bit draggy compared to 202
nose where you don't even see the engine.

Funny but I didn't have wobbles when flying any of the Macchis. But then I stayed coordinated
and wasn't judging my path by a jinking target in the reticle.

Gas mileage? What is the time in air of a real 202 flown in typical onwhine mode? That would
be engine rpms maxed out 95% of the time, right?

I have seen it posted many times how these models are supposed to spin so easily, what I read
leads me to believe these players think there's no warning else whay pull past the most
efficient flight you can get and right into a spin? I see the posts about wobbles too.
If you don't fly coordinated then both of those will result.

The models don't have the behaviour I've seen complained of except for "won't outturn any
Spit in the game under the same conditions" (or, gasp, even match any Spit which means the
Spit 25lb boost, not exactly a 1941 model) which until I see test data I'm not buying that.

So where's the data?

Flakwalker
07-09-2006, 04:08 PM
Italian pilots was very exigent with their aircraft, on years before the MC.202 was on production the Italians liked the biplane concept in comparation with the monoplane. For example when the Breda Ba.65 apeared and pilots who previously flew the CR.32 where converted to that attack plane they didnt liked the vicious spin tendences of the Bredas and that was reported of course.
The Ba.65 was somewhat ok (not good) as attack plane and test pilots showed that when used to the monoplane concept and with care it was posible to made some decent maneuvers, also it was used it in combat in North Africa, however pilots didnt liked it and that was of great influence on its discontinued production.

So, WWMaxGunz, can you explain me why the current MC.202/205 spins tendence is not reported and the pilots liked it a lot, as mentioned above, in comparation with the P-39D?.
Also on a test made the G.55 was show inferior on handling to the MC.205, and that aicraft was great.

tigertalon
07-09-2006, 08:10 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
It was
supposed to have very well harmonized controls and be a match against 1941 Spitfire and first
Mustangs. That is __IF you fly it right!__

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif r u for real?

NonWonderDog
07-09-2006, 09:55 PM
Ya know, though, go to fly-by view when you get the Macchi into a spin. The new Macchis look almost perfect when they spin. They spin correctly. Planes in this sim used to do horridly fast flat spins that didn't quite look right. In 4.01 we got odd herky-jerky spins that made it seem like the plane was perched on the tip of a needle. I think they might have finally gotten it right in the Macchis.

Of course, I can't vouch for the frequency of spins, but Max is at least partially right. If you fly it coordinated, it's not too much of a problem. The rudder pedals are there for a reason.

WWMaxGunz
07-10-2006, 12:38 AM
Originally posted by Flakwalker:
Italian pilots was very exigent with their aircraft, on years before the MC.202 was on production the Italians liked the biplane concept in comparation with the monoplane. For example when the Breda Ba.65 apeared and pilots who previously flew the CR.32 where converted to that attack plane they didnt liked the vicious spin tendences of the Bredas and that was reported of course.
The Ba.65 was somewhat ok (not good) as attack plane and test pilots showed that when used to the monoplane concept and with care it was posible to made some decent maneuvers, also it was used it in combat in North Africa, however pilots didnt liked it and that was of great influence on its discontinued production.

Same thing nearly happened to the I-16 in Russia. So many pilots not ready for shift to
monoplanes and many, many accidents. They had to be learned and then they were 'good'.
Nothing changed, same plane, was bad and then good. Only fix was the pilots.


So, WWMaxGunz, can you explain me why the current MC.202/205 spins tendence is not reported and the pilots liked it a lot, as mentioned above, in comparation with the P-39D?.
Also on a test made the G.55 was show inferior on handling to the MC.205, and that aicraft was great.

I don't have any problems with spins on any of the Macchis. I have to deliberately pull the
planes past stall with stall buffets all the way through +and+ turn the nose out of
coordinated flight to get a spin. I have to HOLD the spin at least one full revolution to
get it going to where it is hard to get out of and if I just hang on a couple revs then
I can get a flat spin that maybe with enough alt I could break.

Somehow I can't imagine those trained Italian pilots riding stall buffets in mock or real
combat let alone pushing the planes into spins. As far as handling, I believe that you are
translating or defining that term to your own ideas. I'd be very interested in more DEPTH
than what has been presented in this thread or what is on the web no matter how it is couched.

P-39 for the pilots that took the time to learn the differences in mid-engine handling was
not a problem. They loved it. Others who did not hated it. The difference was not complete
so you could be okay one minute and in a flat spin the next .. if you flew it wrong .

I just took 41 202 for a ride and while pushing the stall buffets in an extended hard left
turn find myself thinking that someone with no clue at all might call that wobbles since
the nose was bumping pretty hard. And still no spin but then I kept the ball close to center.

Learn the plane itself alone and you can avoid the E-burning practices that come from fixating
on a maneuvering target... maybe. Oh what a drag that it takes days out of your precious
lives! The real problem seems to be that the sim planes don't have push-buttons for each
direction, you hit the button and the plane does the wildest, hardest turn in that direction
with no regard to speed or other conditions and the outcome is like the storybook says every
time.

I ain't screwing around. Flown coordinated those models have a well defined region of stall
buffets that NOT ANY OF YOU has mentioned IN ANY POST IN THIS THREAD. I see posts about bad
spins, easy spins, and wobbles all of which I can't get without flying very poorly or worse.
True wobbles I can't get at all but the stall buffets might get mistaken for those. I guess
I could yank the freaking nose all over the place while leaving rudder for afterthought and
get the plane weaving here and there. If it didn't then I'd complain about the FM being on
rails while I guess you lot would be happy as clams.

Should the Macchis turn better needs data and players who can detect a stall (just for a start)
to run any 'tests'. Because if you can't tell the stall then you won't get the best turn.

Next time you start to spin a Macchi, before even 1/4 turn let go of the stick and see the
killer spin. But don't tell anyone, it's a secret.

WWMaxGunz
07-10-2006, 12:42 AM
Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
Ya know, though, go to fly-by view when you get the Macchi into a spin. The new Macchis look almost perfect when they spin. They spin correctly. Planes in this sim used to do horridly fast flat spins that didn't quite look right. In 4.01 we got odd herky-jerky spins that made it seem like the plane was perched on the tip of a needle. I think they might have finally gotten it right in the Macchis.

Of course, I can't vouch for the frequency of spins, but Max is at least partially right. If you fly it coordinated, it's not too much of a problem. The rudder pedals are there for a reason.

You fly IRL. Tell me how much warning you have to cross to get one spinning? Do these guys
pull through a turn or just cram the stick into their guts right off?

F19_Olli72
07-10-2006, 03:30 AM
It was
supposed to have very well harmonized controls and be a match against 1941 Spitfire and first
Mustangs. That is __IF you fly it right!

Hmmm but wasnt the same argument made for the Cr42 vs Gladiator back when the Cr42 had vicious spin tendencies? Some said it felt plain wrong while others said "use energy tactics". Ultimately the Cr42 FM was changed, with spin tendencies toned down a lot. So i guess something was wrong with it.

Just remembering a very similar situation, and that some made a case for a change while others were content with the old FM. The only question is who is right and who is wrong?

Also speaking of Cr42... semi swiveling tailwheel wasnt added until a few patches later. Before that, taxiing was a nightmare in the Falco. So thanks to whoever provided that info to Oleg & Co http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

WWMaxGunz
07-10-2006, 08:58 AM
That's just it Olli, someone provided data.

Please check out some or all of the Macchis and tell me you can't find the stall buffets.
Please tell me you find the spins to be sudden with no or little warning.
Please tell me you let go of the stick and the spins develop on their own.

I find none of those to be the case. I have to do what I know is wrong to get a spin and
I have to hold the stick to get a self-sustaining spin. But then I do keep the ball near
center.

All I do is treat them like other planes. Not fly them the same but find out how they work
and where the limits are then make my plans accordingly. I have no special internal data
that says pull the stick so far instantly, this plane should handle that since the target
just did. Nothing that says to ignore buffets or changes in speed in the pursuit of pursuit.
I move the stick only as I get response and loosen up when what I'm doing is slowing the
plane down more than it should unless I want to stall badly or spin and then I've got to
fly it poorly or wrong.

NONE of that says how fast or easy or whatever these planes should turn. Anyone who can't
see the difference should not be judging anything about FM's. And you as a pilot should
know fairly well what I mean.

IL2-chuter
07-11-2006, 04:26 AM
Will we ever get the flaperons the Macchis had?



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

269GA-Veltro
07-11-2006, 05:22 AM
The spin problem was solved in the C-200 adding to it a new wing....the C-202 wing.
Btw, Macchi had this problem but at the high speeds (C-205 first of all) with high G.

The real problem is the roll rate and, as said above, it's very difficult to provide data i agree, but we have tried to do it, taking all the data (ailerons surface ecc. ecc..) directly from the Macchi aircrafts.

joeap
07-11-2006, 07:09 AM
Originally posted by IL2-chuter:
Will we ever get the flaperons the Macchis had?



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

Err what are flaperons? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif

WWMaxGunz
07-11-2006, 11:52 AM
Flaps that do not just go up and down but also have different angle as ailerons.

Seeing as how the models were made from blueprints that should have been hard to miss.
Perhaps find the model makers for the Macchis and ask?

pdog1
07-12-2006, 03:03 PM
As Veltro said the 202/205 DM is really stupid. One hit and the engine smokes thick black smoke and goes on fire. There is not even the intermediate phase when you get a hit and only have light smoke like in the 109/other planes... first hit engine is thick black smoke and on fire. Nice!

And about the FM.

Heres what Macchi's chief test pilot Guido Carestiato said about the C202.

"the true fighter, healthy, safe, without surprises" From C202 Ali D'Italia number 2

LOL yea 202 is more dangerous to it self than enemy fire... and if you get hit once your FINITO because of bootleg DM.

WWMaxGunz
07-12-2006, 05:34 PM
It's a he11 of a lot easier to keep any Macchi coordinated than the Spit IXe! Or level.

pdog1
07-22-2006, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
It's a he11 of a lot easier to keep any Macchi coordinated than the Spit IXe! Or level.

lol?! You fly Spit 9? You can fly the Spit with one hand tied behind your back with one eye closed and still stay with macchi really easy.
Spit flies easy

WWMaxGunz
07-23-2006, 01:50 AM
I tried the Spit IXe to check out some claims being made about Spits.

Just as I tried out a 200, 202 and 205 three different times to see what the squawking
is about. And I really tried them out with full attention to the plane and flight, not
some dodging, turning target instead.

And you either don't read or just blow off whatever words and ideas you don't understand.

What part of coordinated flight do you not understand?
I can tell you quickly that if you don't keep the ball centered in the Macchis, which is
very much easier than keeping that Spitfire straight, then you will have trouble with
departure from flight. And if you do keep the Macchis coordinated then you will only get
spins when you've let the speed get way too slow into the stall region and it becomes as
with every plane impossible to hold straight.
If you don't understand the importance of keeping the ball at or near center then you will
maybe think there is a problem with the plane rather than your own ignorance being at fault.
That is, if you fail to consider that you are doing something wrong and have so much ego as
to go making a big deal out of it before you find out the bug is self attached to the stick
and rudder.

Another part of the Macchis I checked was how hard the spins are. And I find that if I
let go of the stick the instant the spin starts then the rolling motion stops and the
plane becomes responsive very soon. I didn't even have to chop the throttle before all
of them were lessening spin rapidly. I did have to hold the stick to get into a bad spin.
Of course if I had tried to regain control after the spin stopped without getting the
plane straightened out, ie coordinated the stick and rudder then I'd be right back into
spin which reminds me of y'all posting those woes.

Do you even notice the stall buffets? Or is that to you some kind of instability bug?
Probably so when you are turning slow, uncoordinated circles trying to stay on the six
of a close target. I say close because flying and shooting with slip the shots will all
be a few degrees off so you need to be close... but perhaps you think the correction you
make is deflection shooting as you are so 1337 with your grate skillez.

Would a real Macchi pilot fly uncoordinated? No way. So when you are ignoring the ball
and have not spent nearly the time with the model to get a feel for when it is flying
straight then you are not flying as those historic pilots did and will not get the same
results --- it is not then the model at fault, but you will not understand.

If you ever do figure it out then try out the Spit IXe just flying around with view to
include the slip and turn needles at the bottom right of the panel. Tell me how easy it
is to keep the slip needle centered.

It does come out that a dweeb who disregards slip will find the Spitfires more forgiving.
So the same ignorant dweeb will go saying that the Spitfire is too easy, the Macchi too
hard and perhaps the 109's just right. A dweeb is someone who no matter how long he plays
will not try to learn and correct his own actions but just whines that things are not
right. You wouldn't know anyone like that, would you? Someone who has played sims that
kinda automatically keep the planes straight or perhaps don't model well at all slip and
the consequences so thinks that is realistic?

The dweeb should read the books because that is as close to real as he will get in a sim
where you have to fully control the plane.

pdog1
07-23-2006, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I tried the Spit IXe to check out some claims being made about Spits.

Just as I tried out a 200, 202 and 205 three different times to see what the squawking
is about. And I really tried them out with full attention to the plane and flight, not
some dodging, turning target instead.

And you either don't read or just blow off whatever words and ideas you don't understand.

What part of coordinated flight do you not understand?
I can tell you quickly that if you don't keep the ball centered in the Macchis, which is
very much easier than keeping that Spitfire straight, then you will have trouble with
departure from flight. And if you do keep the Macchis coordinated then you will only get
spins when you've let the speed get way too slow into the stall region and it becomes as
with every plane impossible to hold straight.
If you don't understand the importance of keeping the ball at or near center then you will
maybe think there is a problem with the plane rather than your own ignorance being at fault.
That is, if you fail to consider that you are doing something wrong and have so much ego as
to go making a big deal out of it before you find out the bug is self attached to the stick
and rudder.

Another part of the Macchis I checked was how hard the spins are. And I find that if I
let go of the stick the instant the spin starts then the rolling motion stops and the
plane becomes responsive very soon. I didn't even have to chop the throttle before all
of them were lessening spin rapidly. I did have to hold the stick to get into a bad spin.
Of course if I had tried to regain control after the spin stopped without getting the
plane straightened out, ie coordinated the stick and rudder then I'd be right back into
spin which reminds me of y'all posting those woes.

Do you even notice the stall buffets? Or is that to you some kind of instability bug?
Probably so when you are turning slow, uncoordinated circles trying to stay on the six
of a close target. I say close because flying and shooting with slip the shots will all
be a few degrees off so you need to be close... but perhaps you think the correction you
make is deflection shooting as you are so 1337 with your grate skillez.

Would a real Macchi pilot fly uncoordinated? No way. So when you are ignoring the ball
and have not spent nearly the time with the model to get a feel for when it is flying
straight then you are not flying as those historic pilots did and will not get the same
results --- it is not then the model at fault, but you will not understand.

If you ever do figure it out then try out the Spit IXe just flying around with view to
include the slip and turn needles at the bottom right of the panel. Tell me how easy it
is to keep the slip needle centered.

It does come out that a dweeb who disregards slip will find the Spitfires more forgiving.
So the same ignorant dweeb will go saying that the Spitfire is too easy, the Macchi too
hard and perhaps the 109's just right. A dweeb is someone who no matter how long he plays
will not try to learn and correct his own actions but just whines that things are not
right. You wouldn't know anyone like that, would you? Someone who has played sims that
kinda automatically keep the planes straight or perhaps don't model well at all slip and
the consequences so thinks that is realistic?

The dweeb should read the books because that is as close to real as he will get in a sim
where you have to fully control the plane.

OK noob, i'm going to look down at the little ball and needle in the middle of a dogfight and stop paying attention to the enemy a/c flying around or me stop looking through the gunsight and trying to hit the target. You don't need keep the Spit "centered" to fly it correctly, the spit will always correct it self and you have to some kind of super moron to stall a spit in the first place.
The Macchi FMs are all wrong. The Fiat G50 handles ten fold better than the Mc200.
And historically the G50 was the worse machine, the C200 being much better.
But i guess i should go read a book.

WWMaxGunz
07-23-2006, 11:27 AM
Noob? I've been flying computer sims since 1981.
I've been a regular member of the community since 1998.

No, you don't have to watch the ball continually once you've got enough stick time watching
it that you know when you are flying coordinated and if that seems like something trivial to
you then you are the freaking bweebish noob here as it is real piloting and not arcade skillz
at work.

$#!+ you just blew off more info on flying and changes to the sim than you are worth.

Yeah, I --CAN-- stall the Spit IXe. And you can't? And that makes me the dummy?
pdog, yer ignerance is showing like stains on yer pants seat.

As above, if you don't fly either type correct then the Spits will be more forgiving than
the Macchis. Flown wrong the Macchis will bite ya. Fly em right and it's very different.

It is a freaking JOKE for you to come on here and say the model is wrong because you don't
get the results that the Italian pilots did when you can't be bothered to learn to fly em
right in the first place. Fix your own bad habits before complaining about the models!
That or go back to 3.x or find something less realistic than what we have now, you have
proven your own errors through your forum mouth.

WWMaxGunz
07-23-2006, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by pdog1:
But i guess i should go read a book.

Yeah you have to start with books in ground school to get far enough to go up for lessons.
But maybe you can shortcut that if perhaps you know a real pilot. Just tell that person
you ain't got time to check instruments so things like slip don't matter.
After that you may have to hum to yourself for a while so you don't hear the answer.

Hello stupid, I have controlled planes in flight. And I did pay attention to what I was
taught and did read what I was told. Have you done either or just played games?

VW-IceFire
07-23-2006, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by IL2-chuter:
Will we ever get the flaperons the Macchis had?



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

Err what are flaperons? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Flaps that can work as ailerons aiding in the roll rate. I didn't know that Macchi's had these...I thought they were a post war thing. Also....spoilerons are a nifty little thing. I noticed recently that the 737-700 I was a passenger in had them and the pilot didn't use the ailerons till we were under roughly 20,000 feet.

VW-IceFire
07-23-2006, 11:58 AM
I took the MC.205 up against the best of the AFJ server (http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif) (Spit IX's and the like) and I had a decent time of it. The MC.205 doesn't pull that hard...feels similar to the 109 in that regard. I had a pretty good time of it flying it co-ordinated (I'm still learning how to do this well) and blasting a couple of guys out the sky.

The biggest problems I had was the roll rate and the stall. When the plane does stall, I don't know if this is correct, but when you do stall it the response is into an immediate spin. A stall seems to end with the nose out of position and you end up in a spin or a flat spin. It takes about 1500m to break out, nose level, gain speed, and pull out again. Once you stall a MC.205 its very nasty. While recovery is quick for a Spitfire (which everyone seems to fly) its very long for a MC.205...Thunderbolts, Tempests, and FW190s recover much quicker from this.

So I'm no aeronautical engineer or anything...I just question on if this is right or not. Were Macchi's spin prone in stall positions? Did they have a slow roll rate?

pdog1
07-23-2006, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Noob? I've been flying computer sims since 1981.
I've been a regular member of the community since 1998.

No, you don't have to watch the ball continually once you've got enough stick time watching
it that you know when you are flying coordinated and if that seems like something trivial to
you then you are the freaking bweebish noob here as it is real piloting and not arcade skillz
at work.

$#!+ you just blew off more info on flying and changes to the sim than you are worth.

Yeah, I --CAN-- stall the Spit IXe. And you can't? And that makes me the dummy?
pdog, yer ignerance is showing like stains on yer pants seat.

As above, if you don't fly either type correct then the Spits will be more forgiving than
the Macchis. Flown wrong the Macchis will bite ya. Fly em right and it's very different.

It is a freaking JOKE for you to come on here and say the model is wrong because you don't
get the results that the Italian pilots did when you can't be bothered to learn to fly em
right in the first place. Fix your own bad habits before complaining about the models!
That or go back to 3.x or find something less realistic than what we have now, you have
proven your own errors through your forum mouth.

Oh i'm not flying right, please Master Elite Pilot tell me how to fly. When i take Spit 9 in DF servers, i never stall and can turn and turn until my eyes turn red and not look at any needles or such. The macchi stalls to quick and spins to violently. Same thing with all italian planes except G50.
Real piloting? You forgot this is a game?
Or arcade skillz.
Shutup and take your elitist flying snoobery somewhere else like FS2004.

tigertalon
07-23-2006, 06:58 PM
WWMaxGunz:

No offense ment here, but how many spits did you shoot down with comparative Mcs? (spitV:202 and spitIX:205) I have a habit of picking the hardest planes to fly air to air as it gives me more satisfaction to combat succsessfuly in them. I have been flying 202/5 extensively for last weeks and while situation is not THAT bad with 205_III, the 202 simply stands no chances versus average 41 fighter, let alone spitV/early mustang. No chance at all. U will bleed your speed so fast, spit will catch up on you in a single vertical turn if you had 500m alt adv. initially. Try it, find an online server with spitsV on one and F4 and 202 on the other side. UKD2 runs a nice map with this flyables, come along and try. The only thing u will be succsessful in will be running your a$$ out to friendly base, trying to use that tiny tiny low level speed advantage. If you get a single hit in your wing, or engine, just forget it and bail. I have really been trying to find the best in this plane, to be succsessful in, I was trying to convince myself:"naah, it's just the rumors, 202 is more than a match for MkV." However, when in a dogfight I stood no chance versus a pilot who 5 minutes later asked: "how do I take off from a carrier and why is my D3A gunsight black?" I just had to accept it. Mc202 is seriously porked. Or everything other is uber. No other way. Come online, mix it up with spitVs, yaks, laggs, hurris, early mustangs, and then post tracks here. Mc202 is definitely useless as a fighter as it is now.

Daiichidoku
07-23-2006, 07:09 PM
deccerating with a featehred prop through about 500 kph in the Veltro is loads of fun, too

that "torque flip" thing certainly improves upon regular Veltro RoRhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

(it has also happened to me in a Jug, with a stopped engine [btw, ty for the historically correct insta-stop(TM) R-2800 DM, Oleg])

WWMaxGunz
07-23-2006, 08:14 PM
Originally posted by pdog1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Noob? I've been flying computer sims since 1981.
I've been a regular member of the community since 1998.

No, you don't have to watch the ball continually once you've got enough stick time watching
it that you know when you are flying coordinated and if that seems like something trivial to
you then you are the freaking bweebish noob here as it is real piloting and not arcade skillz
at work.

$#!+ you just blew off more info on flying and changes to the sim than you are worth.

Yeah, I --CAN-- stall the Spit IXe. And you can't? And that makes me the dummy?
pdog, yer ignerance is showing like stains on yer pants seat.

As above, if you don't fly either type correct then the Spits will be more forgiving than
the Macchis. Flown wrong the Macchis will bite ya. Fly em right and it's very different.

It is a freaking JOKE for you to come on here and say the model is wrong because you don't
get the results that the Italian pilots did when you can't be bothered to learn to fly em
right in the first place. Fix your own bad habits before complaining about the models!
That or go back to 3.x or find something less realistic than what we have now, you have
proven your own errors through your forum mouth.

Oh i'm not flying right, please Master Elite Pilot tell me how to fly. When i take Spit 9 in DF servers, i never stall and can turn and turn until my eyes turn red and not look at any needles or such. The macchi stalls to quick and spins to violently. Same thing with all italian planes except G50.
Real piloting? You forgot this is a game?
Or arcade skillz.
Shutup and take your elitist flying snoobery somewhere else like FS2004. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well that's just the thing you turkey, I am not a master elite pilot at all. Just someone
with some training and stick time able to point out that your mad arcade skillz screw you
from understanding let alone properly using these models that you claim are buggy.

You are repeatedly doing the flying equivalent of saying 2 + 2 = 5 and when I do the flying
equivalent of saying 2 + 2 = 4 not 5 you come back with the equivalent of calling me a
math professor. It doesn't take a math professor to point out that 2 + 2 = 4. It doesn't
take a master pilot to point out that uncoordinated flight will get you less than full
performance and into serious trouble on occasion.

Take the hint you are going about it wrong Mr. Arcade.

The sim is not at fault to nearly the extent that you claim.
It is not the plane model to nearly the extent that you claim.
The fault starts with YOU and until YOU change then YOUR claims are no good.

However it seems that you cannot accept that your own actions make any difference let alone
a big one so just keep to your arcade style and complain that it's the sim that's unreal.

WWMaxGunz
07-23-2006, 08:54 PM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
WWMaxGunz:

No offense ment here, but how many spits did you shoot down with comparative Mcs? (spitV:202 and spitIX:205) I have a habit of picking the hardest planes to fly air to air as it gives me more satisfaction to combat succsessfuly in them. I have been flying 202/5 extensively for last weeks and while situation is not THAT bad with 205_III, the 202 simply stands no chances versus average 41 fighter, let alone spitV/early mustang. No chance at all. U will bleed your speed so fast, spit will catch up on you in a single vertical turn if you had 500m alt adv. initially. Try it, find an online server with spitsV on one and F4 and 202 on the other side. UKD2 runs a nice map with this flyables, come along and try. The only thing u will be succsessful in will be running your a$$ out to friendly base, trying to use that tiny tiny low level speed advantage. If you get a single hit in your wing, or engine, just forget it and bail. I have really been trying to find the best in this plane, to be succsessful in, I was trying to convince myself:"naah, it's just the rumors, 202 is more than a match for MkV." However, when in a dogfight I stood no chance versus a pilot who 5 minutes later asked: "how do I take off from a carrier and why is my D3A gunsight black?" I just had to accept it. Mc202 is seriously porked. Or everything other is uber. No other way. Come online, mix it up with spitVs, yaks, laggs, hurris, early mustangs, and then post tracks here. Mc202 is definitely useless as a fighter as it is now.

Salute TT!

I make no claims that the Macchis have the right speed or turn rate even flown correctly.
I make no claims on the Spitfire speeds and turns. But I do see enough that whatever those
are is not so far off at all. I don't have real data on the Macchis.

What I do say is what I've found when checking those planes out just for characteristics.
The Macchis give me a wide region of stall shudders before any chance of spin for example.
Whenever I did force a spin and immediately let the stick go the spin stopped in about one
full second. At that point I nose down slowly and rebuild speed before any levelling off.
That is while keeping the ball near center. With a lot of slip all bets are off.

I can hang that plane in a flat stall turn as long as I have speed without spinning out.
If the speed goes low enough then I can't keep the ball centered, if I hold the stick
then it will spin. In a descending spiral I can hang in a stall turn as long as I have
alt to burn and keep the ball centered, shuddering all the way.

I could spend a week easy just getting used to one model and then stick to that. By then
I would only need to check the ball once in a while as I'd mostly have got the feel of
flying with the nose actually pointing when the plane is actually going which is what the
ball tells me.

Things I do not do in combat is let the plane stay in stall. I try like H to not stall
at all. Those shudders mean I am losing E at a high rate. Back off the stick when you
get the shudders. If you shoot deflection from farther back then even a turn on a pin
enemy will not escape all chances of being shot since you have less angle to turn through
by far than he does.

What you can shoot down and how you fight is not limited to how hard you can turn.

TomTheYak posted his scores at WC using an FW and a 205 just out seeing what he could do
with both 'looser' planes. Go check his thread out in GD just for laffs if it is results
that sell for you.

With my hookup I don't bother online any more and tell the truth that FM testing is not
something done online. To suggest that the plane must win online to be right is to suggest
that it is being flown as expertly as the real pilots did to begin with in conditions that
it was used in history and not partial on either of those. AFAIK the situation online is
a long way from how things went in WWII.

I can say from testing that I get no sudden spins without I already knew it was coming.
Anyone who can't tell a spin is coming in a Macchi is doing one plus things wrong and
ignoring the warnings all the way through. That much is very clear to me and I have
again and again posted HOW I checked and HOW I know. It is entirely repeatable.

Have fun. We have a sim that is less arcade than before. The models need to be retrained
in order to get good performance on but then as long as many people online do not bother
then it won't show so much to the kills = skillz mentality set. Well, errrr, at least
until someone else who did train shows up and then something is wrong with whatever they
are flying since I see again and again how the PLANES do the flying and the MODELS are
either good or bad. All I can see is that the Spits are more friendly to wrong handling
than the others and there are people (TomTheYak is one, go try out any WW's you see online
for more) out proving that.

pdog1
07-24-2006, 11:34 AM
You're a loser Gunz, get a life please.
Wtf are you talking about 2 + 2 = 5, you are really ******ed i stoped reading after that because you don't make any sense.
Ok so let me get this straight.
When someone else says the 202 is useless (tigertalon) its OK but when i say the 202 is useless i'm ignorant and that my "claims" are no good and that i'm arcade. Is that right?
Get bent you moron hypocrite.

WWMaxGunz
07-24-2006, 11:56 AM
2 + 2 = 5 makes JUST AS MUCH SENSE as I don't need to keep the ball centered to get the
same results as the real pilots did.

Yeah, very ******ed.

I drew an analogy that went right over your head it seems. And yet you are wise enough
to criticise the FMs? Oh puh-leeeze!

Other things you don't bother to get straight. What I have been pointing out is that if
you fly them correctly, the Macchis we have do not have bad stall or spin tendencies.
That says nothing about correctness of turn rate or suitability for circle-jerk DF fights.

WWMaxGunz
07-24-2006, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by pdog1:
When someone else says the 202 is useless (tigertalon) its OK but when i say the 202 is useless i'm ignorant and that my "claims" are no good and that i'm arcade. Is that right?


No. But then what little you did read, you still did not comprehend worth... you.
Are you really that dumb?

Here's a clue. When the words you look at are too grown up for you, don't just skip
over them. Just stop reading and STFU.

People like you can only convince developers that there is a market for arcade sims.
In fact, people like you may convince developers that anything better is a waste.

pdog1
07-24-2006, 01:18 PM
I like how you keep saying arcade when its you that doesn't even play online and its me that flies VEF/VPF/CAD etc. online wars all in full real. But i guess i'm just another arcade leet hacker mad skillz pilot.
There's two facts you have to face here.
1) The Macchi is clearly porked
2) You're an idiot for not seeing it and continuing this debate when you are so painfully wrong.

joeap
07-24-2006, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by pdog1:

There's two facts you have to face here.
1) The Macchi is clearly porked


pdog, I was just wondering why you were never specific on what is wrong with the plane? Sure some others came up with information, but I really want to know what concretly you think is wrong with it. For example, I can never hit or damage anything with the 202 or 205 guns...at elast much harder than other planes....I wondered if this is accurate or not. Some info was given. No BS, your opinion matters like everyone else. Maxgunz too.

WWMaxGunz
07-24-2006, 03:27 PM
I have not stated that the Macchi is correct or un-porked so why do you say I am?
You are the idiot.

I have stated that if you keep the ball near center and don't let the plane get too slow
that the Macchis as modelled do not have bad stall or spin tendencies.
I even stated just how to see that.
But you keep dragging things around to something else.

I've flown online enough to know there are those who never learn anything new and they are
the ones who always b!tch over changes. Funny how every last one is so expert but still
can't-do. It must be the plane, you are perfect. Everyone else must be lying or something.
You get the bad spins because you fly half-fast and half-***ed and only do so well as you
think because you meet players as bad or worse than yourself. Mudhens and dweebs.

As long as you think that slip is not critical you are wrong and will get bad results.
I've tried the planes and the only way they behave as you say with regards to spins is if
I fly into stalls with more than a small amount of slip.

Your BS complaints give you away. Your post replies confirm it.
Your ignorance is only matched by your arrogance. Both are crass.

pdog1
07-24-2006, 05:33 PM
I've never had to look at the ball in the center EVER before. Why should i start now?
I get the bad spins because the FM is bad.
I never spin in a 109. I never spin in a 190.
I never spin in a spit or P40 or whatever.
Slip is far from critical, its meaningless.
I fly a macchi and i spin spin spin. Must be, i'm such a noob i can't keep the ball centered. But in the other planes im not even looking at the ball and i don't manage to spin them.
Who is crying over changes? This is the macchi's first FM so there is nothing to compare it to.
The Macchi FM and DM is wrong, period.
You are the one that is ignorant if you fail to see it. But i know the FM won't be changed so its futile and its even more useless talking about with it snobs like you who think you know it all.

tigertalon
07-24-2006, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Salute TT!

I make no claims that the Macchis have the right speed or turn rate even flown correctly.
I make no claims on the Spitfire speeds and turns. But I do see enough that whatever those
are is not so far off at all. I don't have real data on the Macchis.

What I do say is what I've found when checking those planes out just for characteristics.
The Macchis give me a wide region of stall shudders before any chance of spin for example.
Whenever I did force a spin and immediately let the stick go the spin stopped in about one
full second. At that point I nose down slowly and rebuild speed before any levelling off.
That is while keeping the ball near center. With a lot of slip all bets are off.

I can hang that plane in a flat stall turn as long as I have speed without spinning out.
If the speed goes low enough then I can't keep the ball centered, if I hold the stick
then it will spin. In a descending spiral I can hang in a stall turn as long as I have
alt to burn and keep the ball centered, shuddering all the way.

I could spend a week easy just getting used to one model and then stick to that. By then
I would only need to check the ball once in a while as I'd mostly have got the feel of
flying with the nose actually pointing when the plane is actually going which is what the
ball tells me.

Things I do not do in combat is let the plane stay in stall. I try like H to not stall
at all. Those shudders mean I am losing E at a high rate. Back off the stick when you
get the shudders. If you shoot deflection from farther back then even a turn on a pin
enemy will not escape all chances of being shot since you have less angle to turn through
by far than he does.


So, does this mean Mc202 could have a FM of a Me323 and it would seem OK?


Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
What you can shoot down and how you fight is not limited to how hard you can turn.


I am aware of that VERY well, P51, P47, Fw190, F4U are my all time fav air to air fighters with newest addition of tempest. While they also turn bad compared to most of adversaries, they can be butchers in a dogfight server, especially Fw190 that even turns worse than 202/205. Still, macchi is nowhere in their league. Again, cannon equipped 205 is capable to some extent, but 202...


Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
TomTheYak posted his scores at WC using an FW and a 205 just out seeing what he could do
with both 'looser' planes. Go check his thread out in GD just for laffs if it is results
that sell for you.


I am completely with Boemher on this one - going versus spitsMkIII in a 205_III is not exactly something to brag with. And about a dora? I have managed to reach 1:50 kill/death ratio in this plane. Best plane for air to air in sim hands down.

Again, I don't have that much of a problem with 205_III, it's the 202 that's problematic.


Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
With my hookup I don't bother online any more and tell the truth that FM testing is not
something done online. To suggest that the plane must win online to be right is to suggest
that it is being flown as expertly as the real pilots did to begin with in conditions that
it was used in history and not partial on either of those. AFAIK the situation online is
a long way from how things went in WWII.


Well, the problem is that it is ONLY Mc202 that so utterly doesn't fit into its historical place IMO.


Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I can say from testing that I get no sudden spins without I already knew it was coming.
Anyone who can't tell a spin is coming in a Macchi is doing one plus things wrong and
ignoring the warnings all the way through. That much is very clear to me and I have
again and again posted HOW I checked and HOW I know. It is entirely repeatable.


Agreed 100%. Still, this shuddering, e-bleed or whatever we may call it, happen at so WAAAY smaller AoAs that 202 is useless as a fighter compared to historicaly comparable fighters. That's the point.

It is like comparing two wrestlers, that have the rule to only make eachother fall on the ground, but one of them is standing on ice. Yes, he can tell very well, when he is about to slip, but he stands no chances against the adversary.

Whatever maneouver you are trying to execute, you will bleed enormous quantities of E compared to opponent. Your plane will start to shudder at way smaller AoA. It is like saying that you can beat an F1/Indycar driver in a agricultural tractor if you drive it right. There simply is no way that, comparatively speaking Mc202 is from the same planet as all other 41 fighters we have here.

joeap
07-25-2006, 02:00 AM
Thanks for a great explanation TT. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

WWMaxGunz
07-25-2006, 03:03 AM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Salute TT!

I make no claims that the Macchis have the right speed or turn rate even flown correctly.
I make no claims on the Spitfire speeds and turns. But I do see enough that whatever those
are is not so far off at all. I don't have real data on the Macchis.

What I do say is what I've found when checking those planes out just for characteristics.
The Macchis give me a wide region of stall shudders before any chance of spin for example.
Whenever I did force a spin and immediately let the stick go the spin stopped in about one
full second. At that point I nose down slowly and rebuild speed before any levelling off.
That is while keeping the ball near center. With a lot of slip all bets are off.

I can hang that plane in a flat stall turn as long as I have speed without spinning out.
If the speed goes low enough then I can't keep the ball centered, if I hold the stick
then it will spin. In a descending spiral I can hang in a stall turn as long as I have
alt to burn and keep the ball centered, shuddering all the way.

I could spend a week easy just getting used to one model and then stick to that. By then
I would only need to check the ball once in a while as I'd mostly have got the feel of
flying with the nose actually pointing when the plane is actually going which is what the
ball tells me.

Things I do not do in combat is let the plane stay in stall. I try like H to not stall
at all. Those shudders mean I am losing E at a high rate. Back off the stick when you
get the shudders. If you shoot deflection from farther back then even a turn on a pin
enemy will not escape all chances of being shot since you have less angle to turn through
by far than he does.


So, does this mean Mc202 could have a FM of a Me323 and it would seem OK?


Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
What you can shoot down and how you fight is not limited to how hard you can turn.


I am aware of that VERY well, P51, P47, Fw190, F4U are my all time fav air to air fighters with newest addition of tempest. While they also turn bad compared to most of adversaries, they can be butchers in a dogfight server, especially Fw190 that even turns worse than 202/205. Still, macchi is nowhere in their league. Again, cannon equipped 205 is capable to some extent, but 202...


Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
TomTheYak posted his scores at WC using an FW and a 205 just out seeing what he could do
with both 'looser' planes. Go check his thread out in GD just for laffs if it is results
that sell for you.


I am completely with Boemher on this one - going versus spitsMkIII in a 205_III is not exactly something to brag with. And about a dora? I have managed to reach 1:50 kill/death ratio in this plane. Best plane for air to air in sim hands down.

Again, I don't have that much of a problem with 205_III, it's the 202 that's problematic.


Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
With my hookup I don't bother online any more and tell the truth that FM testing is not
something done online. To suggest that the plane must win online to be right is to suggest
that it is being flown as expertly as the real pilots did to begin with in conditions that
it was used in history and not partial on either of those. AFAIK the situation online is
a long way from how things went in WWII.


Well, the problem is that it is ONLY Mc202 that so utterly doesn't fit into its historical place IMO.


Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I can say from testing that I get no sudden spins without I already knew it was coming.
Anyone who can't tell a spin is coming in a Macchi is doing one plus things wrong and
ignoring the warnings all the way through. That much is very clear to me and I have
again and again posted HOW I checked and HOW I know. It is entirely repeatable.


Agreed 100%. Still, this shuddering, e-bleed or whatever we may call it, happen at so WAAAY smaller AoAs that 202 is useless as a fighter compared to historicaly comparable fighters. That's the point.

It is like comparing two wrestlers, that have the rule to only make eachother fall on the ground, but one of them is standing on ice. Yes, he can tell very well, when he is about to slip, but he stands no chances against the adversary.

Whatever maneouver you are trying to execute, you will bleed enormous quantities of E compared to opponent. Your plane will start to shudder at way smaller AoA. It is like saying that you can beat an F1/Indycar driver in a agricultural tractor if you drive it right. There simply is no way that, comparatively speaking Mc202 is from the same planet as all other 41 fighters we have here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now finally someone who can move on with this!

My point has not been about suitability of 202 but about how the errors were described as
being and ways to get better performance out of those models in game. I feel sure that
must be of some interest to anyone who can get past their own ego, easy for someone facts
oriented and willing to try things.

So let us for now leave off with what Macchi should be and get a clear picture of how the
model is please? And if flown the right way it is not prone to bleed and spins I promise.

When you write "this shuddering, e-bleed or whatever we may call it" I do see that there is
need for more understanding on your part but hey everyone has to learn we are not born with

WWMaxGunz
07-25-2006, 03:19 AM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Salute TT!

I make no claims that the Macchis have the right speed or turn rate even flown correctly.
I make no claims on the Spitfire speeds and turns. But I do see enough that whatever those
are is not so far off at all. I don't have real data on the Macchis.

What I do say is what I've found when checking those planes out just for characteristics.
The Macchis give me a wide region of stall shudders before any chance of spin for example.
Whenever I did force a spin and immediately let the stick go the spin stopped in about one
full second. At that point I nose down slowly and rebuild speed before any levelling off.
That is while keeping the ball near center. With a lot of slip all bets are off.

I can hang that plane in a flat stall turn as long as I have speed without spinning out.
If the speed goes low enough then I can't keep the ball centered, if I hold the stick
then it will spin. In a descending spiral I can hang in a stall turn as long as I have
alt to burn and keep the ball centered, shuddering all the way.

I could spend a week easy just getting used to one model and then stick to that. By then
I would only need to check the ball once in a while as I'd mostly have got the feel of
flying with the nose actually pointing when the plane is actually going which is what the
ball tells me.

Things I do not do in combat is let the plane stay in stall. I try like H to not stall
at all. Those shudders mean I am losing E at a high rate. Back off the stick when you
get the shudders. If you shoot deflection from farther back then even a turn on a pin
enemy will not escape all chances of being shot since you have less angle to turn through
by far than he does.


So, does this mean Mc202 could have a FM of a Me323 and it would seem OK?


Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
What you can shoot down and how you fight is not limited to how hard you can turn.


I am aware of that VERY well, P51, P47, Fw190, F4U are my all time fav air to air fighters with newest addition of tempest. While they also turn bad compared to most of adversaries, they can be butchers in a dogfight server, especially Fw190 that even turns worse than 202/205. Still, macchi is nowhere in their league. Again, cannon equipped 205 is capable to some extent, but 202...


Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
TomTheYak posted his scores at WC using an FW and a 205 just out seeing what he could do
with both 'looser' planes. Go check his thread out in GD just for laffs if it is results
that sell for you.


I am completely with Boemher on this one - going versus spitsMkIII in a 205_III is not exactly something to brag with. And about a dora? I have managed to reach 1:50 kill/death ratio in this plane. Best plane for air to air in sim hands down.

Again, I don't have that much of a problem with 205_III, it's the 202 that's problematic.


Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
With my hookup I don't bother online any more and tell the truth that FM testing is not
something done online. To suggest that the plane must win online to be right is to suggest
that it is being flown as expertly as the real pilots did to begin with in conditions that
it was used in history and not partial on either of those. AFAIK the situation online is
a long way from how things went in WWII.


Well, the problem is that it is ONLY Mc202 that so utterly doesn't fit into its historical place IMO.


Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I can say from testing that I get no sudden spins without I already knew it was coming.
Anyone who can't tell a spin is coming in a Macchi is doing one plus things wrong and
ignoring the warnings all the way through. That much is very clear to me and I have
again and again posted HOW I checked and HOW I know. It is entirely repeatable.


Agreed 100%. Still, this shuddering, e-bleed or whatever we may call it, happen at so WAAAY smaller AoAs that 202 is useless as a fighter compared to historicaly comparable fighters. That's the point.

It is like comparing two wrestlers, that have the rule to only make eachother fall on the ground, but one of them is standing on ice. Yes, he can tell very well, when he is about to slip, but he stands no chances against the adversary.

Whatever maneouver you are trying to execute, you will bleed enormous quantities of E compared to opponent. Your plane will start to shudder at way smaller AoA. It is like saying that you can beat an F1/Indycar driver in a agricultural tractor if you drive it right. There simply is no way that, comparatively speaking Mc202 is from the same planet as all other 41 fighters we have here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now finally someone who can move on with this!

My point has not been about suitability of 202 but about how the errors were described as
being and ways to get better performance out of those models in game. I feel sure that
must be of some interest to anyone who can get past their own ego, easy for someone facts
oriented and willing to try things.

So let us for now leave off with what Macchi should be and get a clear picture of how the
model is please? And if flown the right way it is not prone to bleed and spins I promise.

When you write "this shuddering, e-bleed or whatever we may call it" I do see that there is
need for more understanding on your part but hey everyone has to learn we are not born with
knowing.

Stall is about the airflow over the top of a wing breaking away from the surface. There
is still air on the top surface but it is not flowing smoothly and causes ruckus with the
air flowing above it. That makes the shudders, as the wing loses lift and falls a bit
only to regain and rise to where it loses yet again in a cycle the speed = bumpy. Part
of the picture is that.
Even before the stall with any AOA is induced drag. Induced drag with clean airflow goes
in practical as AOA squared, speed squared and wing area constant. 50% more AOA at the
same speed is 225% the drag, 10% more AOA is 21% more drag. Those increases hold true
with more speed and AOA the same. But for that drag you also get your increased lift so
as long as the engine and prop can match the drag, you can turn better.
And then comes AOA into the stall region and there you have even higher AOA and drag
penalty with at first still a bit more lift but deeper into stall you lose lift as well.

These relations are not easy to see if the thrust is less than enough to keep the speed
constant. It is possible to get better understanding in a descending spiral where you
can keep constant speed but also remember that then the plane is flying at less than one
G so the load on wings is less, the drag is less etc -- only thing is don't compare direct
to flat turns but the pattern of behaviour is the same so learning becomes clearer.

When you get the shudders note your speed and angle at the very start. At that point you
are getting the most from the wings or perhaps a tiny bit less. If the plane is slowing
down then loosen the stick a bit and your turn rate will recover a bit. Pilots will do
this, walking the stick a small bit back and forth trying to find and ride the edge that
is between drag and power for the most lift. They don't pull into and through the shudders.

That is what the plane is capable of if you do the other things neccessary as well, all the
engine management and controlling of stick and rudder. There is one book I do not have that
covers it all better than I ever can named Stick and Rudder: An Explanation of the Art of
Flying, by Wolfgang Langewiesche written originally in German that is THE work on the
subject. Understand (as opposed to only reading) that book and your sim flying will be
sure go to the next level.

So here is the part about the ball. When you are turning the plane does not want to point
where it is going. Wing on the outside of the turn is getting more lift and also drag,
the nose is pulled away from the turn. The body of the plane then makes more drag and I
will leave it there though there is other lesser things I cannot put values on. But do
consider that when the nose points away from the turning path then also the thrust is
no longer fully efficient. 10 degrees of slip though only loses 1.5% thrust vector. But
less is less and bad piloting can make worse amounts.

You have to use proper amount of rudder to counter this and keep the plane flying straight.
And more with sims than in real it takes practice to do. In real you can feel difference
from how you are faced and how you are moving while in sims it takes other clues and more
checking the guages. My favorite thing about Mustang is the ball in the gunsight! I also
feel that the speedbar should have some kind of slip indicator to make up for lack of the
feel. But anyway the shortcoming can be much made up for by spending time just flying
while watching the ball until the mind and hand (and feet if you have pedals) learn the
correct 'picture', how things should be and only sometimes then need anyone look to check.

When you drive a car your eyes do not stay on the speedometer. If you have manual shift
you do not always watch the tachometer either. But when learning it is proper to look
more often than when you have been driving a long time, especially the tachometer unless
you are sloppy with the gears. Try driving a motorcycle to the shop with a broken clutch
cable some time and you will know exactly what I mean if you can do it at all! There is
one rpm where the gears are synchronized and you can shift without clutch at all. Good
and experienced riders know by engine sound when they have that rpm. I went through rush
hour traffic one the main highway in Dover Delaware many lights and a good few miles doing
just that, the cable broke while I was traffic and if I stopped it would be hard to get
started as there are no hills!

So your train by flying solo and watching the ball till you have the right amount of the
right direction of rudder most all of the time and you will have the edge over those who
do not.

Home stretch is the spins.

When the plane is flying along in your turn and you have slip then the wing on the outside
of the turn is getting more lift and better airflow. Lose speed down near stall and the
tendency of the plane to not roll is lost and suddenly one wing having more lift than the
other makes the rolling movement of spin. The inside wing loses lift faster, stalls deep
quicker. As soon as you roll a plane anyway, the wing going down has a higher AOA than
the wing going up so even near stall speed you can see perhaps how having slip will make
this much worse? Very much worse!

And the last bit is stall speed in turns. It is higher than level stall speed since you
are pulling more G's and have increased your wing loading perhaps many times over. So the
stall comes quicker as will the spin and slip will multiply that.

In all the Macchis I am able to turn hard with beginning shudders at very low speeds without
spinning at all. Can I match the Spitfires? I dunno. I can find out if I spend perhaps a
week or more with each to become good enough to fly them well enough to do flat turn tests
that I would have confidence may represent if not the best then at least both the same
closeness. I don't just jump in, do what I can and ignore the rest! OTOH I could have a
look at the latest IL2Compare and save a lot of time.

How does wingloading of the Macchis compare to same year Spitfires? Consider the G's in
turns do multiply the loading and thus differences. Really though it should be weight on
the wings divided by lift of the wings at speed and AOA but I am too lazy to work that out
even grossly simplified... how much AOA must each plane pull to counter the G's and who will
find the stall of his wing first? THAT is what I fly sims for, the dynamic FM solves it for
me! Factors of the planes though can help indicate results but only as complete as the
factors used... what is weight divided by wing area if one planes wing is more efficient
at lift?

The turn is lift vector pointing into the turn. More lift equals better turn. It is not
totally about AOA and pulling harder at all. Best turn will be outside the slowest and
tightest one. Skidding around with a load of slip will get the smallest radius but that
is not how the killers flew at all. So please learn to fly without slip!

269GA-Veltro
07-25-2006, 08:32 AM
All the data, pilot reports and more about the Macchi ARE in the Oleg hands, and i'm talking about a professional work.

Period.

We'll see in the 4.06.

Period.

WWMaxGunz
07-25-2006, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by pdog1:
I've never had to look at the ball in the center EVER before. Why should i start now?


Because the sim has changed and the newer models got the changes first. As patches come the
rest will be updated, as it has been for 5 years now.

Some people would welcome added realism. Others just can't handle it.

If I jump in a real Formula-1 racer and don't get the same lap times as the pros do then
does that mean the car has been porked? After all, I have driven sportscars before and
left other cars behind on twisty backroads.

WWMaxGunz
07-25-2006, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by 269GA-Veltro:
All the data, pilot reports and more about the Macchi ARE in the Oleg hands, and i'm talking about a professional work.

Period.

We'll see in the 4.06.

Period.

Hope by then you have someone trained to use them properly, as the real Italian pilots did!

joeap
07-25-2006, 01:41 PM
My last word on this thread, I think may be both are right, I mean TT and Veltro that the performance is not as close or polished of the Macchis as other planes in the sim, and Maxgunz that we should learn to fly them, missed Pdogs comment about never having to keep the ball centered before. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

pdog1
07-25-2006, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Because the sim has changed and the newer models got the changes first. As patches come the
rest will be updated, as it has been for 5 years now.


None of the new jap planes have this new fm change.

JG53Frankyboy
07-25-2006, 02:58 PM
my experince this evening flying a Mc202 at Winds of War:
after a long run chase low i was able to catch a Spitifre MkVc (4C) . i gave him a short burst at around 150m - well, you know the 12,7mm SAFAT http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .
the Spit made a full 360? turn, i zoomed up because i know it woul make no sense to turn with him.
the Spit than also climbed, after the turn !
i began a climb to right , the Spit catched me and came in fire range. he shoot me down........

btw, what the mirror in the Mc is showing , the sky above you like in the IARs or the area behind you ?

WWMaxGunz
07-25-2006, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by pdog1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Because the sim has changed and the newer models got the changes first. As patches come the
rest will be updated, as it has been for 5 years now.


None of the new jap planes have this new fm change. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really? How you know? You will swear that it makes no difference in Spitfires as well!
How much detail differences you know about those planes?

Contrary to the TW trolls, not all the planes fly the same.
Some are fine control and others are not, compare Bf109 to FW-190 and then go find the quotes.
You have any Italian or Japanese pilots tales that tell how to fly those planes? Nooooooo.
You take the little you care to get and pull out the pieces you like then make claims on the
planes. Only thing that matters to you is what happens to you online is justified.
Go find the effect of 109 slats on slip-roll coupling and tendency to spin, it is less.
You want to bet that is the only case?
When the water is over your head then swim or hold your breath. To do the latter you have to
shut your mouth.

sudoku1941
07-25-2006, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Contrary to the TW trolls, not all the planes fly the same.

No one talking about Targetware has made the charge that IL-2 planes "all fly the same".

We've said they fail to match up to what history tells us, and that's true.

We've said that the IL-2 FM has whipsawed so often that all of them couldn't have been right all the time, if ever. That's certainly true.

But we haven't said "they all fly the same". It's as obvious that that's not true as it is that you don't know what the h3ll you're talking about.

So perhaps you should take some of the same advice you give to pdog to heart, hmm?

Daiichidoku
07-26-2006, 12:37 AM
hmmmm

i have been to nUBIe less and less

Stiglr? zat chu?

u get banned or something? lol

if so, what for?

anyhow, i certainly agree with you, esp. about the FMs etc flip flopping so wildly at times

it is SO telling

WWMaxGunz
07-26-2006, 02:03 AM
Originally posted by sudoku1941:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Contrary to the TW trolls, not all the planes fly the same.

No one talking about Targetware has made the charge that IL-2 planes "all fly the same".

We've said they fail to match up to what history tells us, and that's true.

We've said that the IL-2 FM has whipsawed so often that all of them couldn't have been right all the time, if ever. That's certainly true.

But we haven't said "they all fly the same". It's as obvious that that's not true as it is that you don't know what the h3ll you're talking about.

So perhaps you should take some of the same advice you give to pdog to heart, hmm? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right, you didn't 'say' that in the GD Semi-OT:---opinion on Targetware--- thread and on
page 4 you even post that while ****ging the IL2 FM's. From page one post one it is
CMorris who says they all feel the same and no one from Targetware camp moves to correct
that except very indirectly on page 4. Never waste a cheap negative impression on the
competition, right? I'd like to know how you know for sure so much as to state that the
stalls, etc, of IL2 series are canned and where you get the nerve to make the cheap shot
BS that you do even to calling Oleg Maddox names?

Stiglr, what are YOUR quals in evaluating flight models?
Only thing I see you qualified at is mouthing off.

JG52Uther
07-26-2006, 06:58 AM
This is Olegs ready room,so I can definately see this heading for a lock!
From discussing Macchi fm's (justified) to personal abuse in a few pages (unjustified)
What is wrong with some of you? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

sudoku1941
07-26-2006, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
it is CMorris who says they all feel the same and no one from Targetware camp moves to correct
that except very indirectly on page 4. Never waste a cheap negative impression on the
competition, right? I'd like to know how you know for sure so much as to state that the
stalls, etc, of IL2 series are canned and where you get the nerve to make the cheap shot
BS that you do even to calling Oleg Maddox names?

cmorris is rather new around Tware (although very helpful and an asset). And, also, I'm not a TW staffer, either, just a contributor and player. So, no one from the TW staff has ever weighed in on the IL-2 FMs. Also, their failure to comment on them doesn't exactly make that a comment by itself, does it? They don't really have to, as the inadeqacy of IL-2 FMs speak for themselves. I mean, even I can see it, and, for the umpteenth time, nobody here waving pom-poms seems to be able to account for it. Perhaps try that instead of your usual personal attacks tactic; that just ain't getting it done. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


...what are YOUR quals in evaluating flight models?

And what are YOURS? Actually, don't bother answering, because it's irrelevant. Anyone can give their viewpoints on the sim if they want. Whether it's an aeronautical physics degree, published historical data, pilot anecdotes, the historical record, or in your case, Max, pom poms, almost everyone's got some kind of credential to weigh in; that's what a forum is for.


Only thing I see you qualified at is mouthing off.

Pot, meet kettle. I see a lot more spittle flying from your rants than from my posts. I tend to stick to the facts and impressions mostly, you just go to the provocation. Really makes you look desperate, frazzled and unibrowed...

WWMaxGunz
07-26-2006, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by sudoku1941:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...what are YOUR quals in evaluating flight models?

And what are YOURS? Actually, don't bother answering, because it's irrelevant. Anyone can give their viewpoints on the sim if they want. Whether it's an aeronautical physics degree, published historical data, pilot anecdotes, the historical record, or in your case, Max, pom poms, almost everyone's got some kind of credential to weigh in; that's what a forum is for.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This may be too straight for you but you see, I don't make claims against the FM. I ASK if
there is something I don't understand.

I also don't expect perfection or even really close everywhere or have to insult the product,
the maker and anyone who doesn't take my view.

Please, show us all how you can state that the stalls and spins are canned, which you did
state. I'm real interested. For sure you can back up your claims? Not just 'seems like'
or 'feels' please, you made a definite statement so qualify it.

sudoku1941
07-26-2006, 09:13 PM
That's an easy one.

Just get any plane's Pilot Manual; the real one, the one they gave pilots to learn to check out in it and run the systems. Or, sometimes you'll find the same info in a flight test.

Find the part where they talk about the stall speed. Often, they'll go into specifics about what happens when you stall it. Some will "rattle". Some will "mush" and wallow and sag towards a nose down position. Some will drop a wing, and the severety and "warning time" of the wing drop will be noted. And some, the bastards, they'll snap you over, arse over teakettle and leave you on your back.

Also, some stalls will be just that, stalls. Others will quickly develop into spins for the unwary or unexperienced pilot.

Now... with IL-2 planes, it's almost always the same: a sudden left wing drop and snap. There's some tendency for a few of the worst planes to snap over a bit further, and to develop the spin faster, but by and large they ALL snap; even the ones that the Pilots Manual and Test Pilots said had docile stalls that would just sag a bit and give all but the most ham-handed pilot plenty of warning and plenty of opportunity to be sure no spin developed.

I noticed that some planes with very forgiving stall behavior, for example, Zeros and Bf109s snap a whole lot near the stall envelope in IL-2. In some versions of the 109 FM, a stall would yank you out of a full right bank/turn all the way back over to the left, like a Focke Wulf might be much more likely to do if you manhandled it. Totally wrong; 109s tended to fit into the "sag" class of stalls; docile and controllable for the most part. Ditto the Zeros, which were a dream at very low speeds; in IL-2 they, too snap around like nobody's business.

So, this leads one to believe the stalls (or more correctly, the snap-spin-stalls) in IL-2 are CANNED; they're not a part of each plane's personality, they're really just one or a very few mild variations on the same effect.

So...that's my in game observation, based on what published evidence of plane manufacturers and test pilots say should happen.

Next question....

As for the troublesome Macchis that are the subject of debate here, I will say for pdog's edification that I notice the Macchi 200 series in cough other sims are also a bit squirllier than most, and will snap some in uncoordinated turns... not enough to make them useless, but if you don't know to keep that spirit ball centered, it sure might seem that way. I have to watch my rudder moves in Macchis like a hawk or I'll snap out of many breaks and maneuvers.

Gatt59
07-27-2006, 04:56 AM
I can confirm the general higher instability of the C202/205 in other (cough-cough) sims compared to many other aircraft. As far as the C205 is concerned, this matches some pilot reports who describe how "nervous" was the Veltro. Judging from her wing load it *could* be true.

Not even the C202 was *so easy* to fly (real words from an italian ace), not compared with the C200 or the Re2001. No experienced italian pilot would have followed a Spitfire MkV (even Trop) in a turn fight.

BUT, at least other sims model a decent roll ratio. IL-2's Macchi roll rate is simply awuful and since the main C205 tactic should be Hit&Run and Hit&Climb it affects deeply his combat ability.

269GA-Veltro
07-27-2006, 05:47 AM
- Roll rate;
- Explosive ammo for the 12,7mm;
- BF-109 DM for the engine DB605 and DB601

I don't ask more....

I don't kid about the spin problem. As Gatt says Macchi had this problem and for sure we don't have to engage the Spitfire in a turn fighting.

BTW, the IL2 C-202 seems to be really outclassed by all the aircrafts of its time in the game, P-40, Hurricane and of course the Mark Vc. This is problably due to the B-52 roll rate....coul be..so i would like see the Macchi with a credible roll rate before say "C-202 is porked".
If Macchi were nervous fighters, for sure they were however very manouvrable. In the game for ex, you should be able to easly disengage from an enemy attack...

If we'll have in the MED this C-202, we could only fly over Malta for a trip....for sure we couldn't fight there, first of all gainst the Spit, Mark Vc included.

tomtheyak
07-27-2006, 06:59 AM
Originally posted by sudoku1941:
That's an easy one.

Just get any plane's Pilot Manual; the real one, the one they gave pilots to learn to check out in it and run the systems. Or, sometimes you'll find the same info in a flight test.

Find the part where they talk about the stall speed. Often, they'll go into specifics about what happens when you stall it. Some will "rattle". Some will "mush" and wallow and sag towards a nose down position. Some will drop a wing, and the severety and "warning time" of the wing drop will be noted. And some, the bastards, they'll snap you over, arse over teakettle and leave you on your back.

Also, some stalls will be just that, stalls. Others will quickly develop into spins for the unwary or unexperienced pilot.

Now... with IL-2 planes, it's almost always the same: a sudden left wing drop and snap. There's some tendency for a few of the worst planes to snap over a bit further, and to develop the spin faster, but by and large they ALL snap; even the ones that the Pilots Manual and Test Pilots said had docile stalls that would just sag a bit and give all but the most ham-handed pilot plenty of warning and plenty of opportunity to be sure no spin developed.

I noticed that some planes with very forgiving stall behavior, for example, Zeros and Bf109s snap a whole lot near the stall envelope in IL-2. In some versions of the 109 FM, a stall would yank you out of a full right bank/turn all the way back over to the left, like a Focke Wulf might be much more likely to do if you manhandled it. Totally wrong; 109s tended to fit into the "sag" class of stalls; docile and controllable for the most part. Ditto the Zeros, which were a dream at very low speeds; in IL-2 they, too snap around like nobody's business.

So, this leads one to believe the stalls (or more correctly, the snap-spin-stalls) in IL-2 are CANNED; they're not a part of each plane's personality, they're really just one or a very few mild variations on the same effect.

So...that's my in game observation, based on what published evidence of plane manufacturers and test pilots say should happen.

Next question....

As for the troublesome Macchis that are the subject of debate here, I will say for pdog's edification that I notice the Macchi 200 series in cough other sims are also a bit squirllier than most, and will snap some in uncoordinated turns... not enough to make them useless, but if you don't know to keep that spirit ball centered, it sure might seem that way. I have to watch my rudder moves in Macchis like a hawk or I'll snap out of many breaks and maneuvers.

Ok, your point is very valid, but it also depends on the type of stall; is it a level, slow speed stall or an accelerated stall?

Often stalling characteristics in pilots notes are defined by the low speed level stall because -excluding dogfights - the most likely place in normal operations a pilot will encounter the stall is at landing and the characteristics of stall behaviour is critical here.

However, when in a hard turn with full power plus unspecified control inputs (especially rudder or aileron) and most importantly torque the effect of a stall can be far more violent.

sudoku1941
07-27-2006, 11:30 AM
Yeah, I know...

trouble is, whether it's a "sag" type stall from raising the nose at too low a speed, or an uncoordinated attempt to break turn at high speed (and exceeding AoA), the CANNED stall is almost always the same: snap left.


In other words, there is no docile sag stall to IL-2 FMs at all.

Also, the spins tend to be canned too, in two varieties: the nose down spiral spin and the frisbee, almost-no-hope-of-recovery-flat-spin-of death. Most annoying of all is the type of spin where you center the stick, give reverse rudder full, like you're supposed to, and you end up in a spin in the *other* direction; rinse and repeat until you hit the ground. The other thing that's wrong is, you're supposed to back off the throttle as part of spin recovery, but in IL-2 that can make it worse; it's more effective to leave the engine full up or increase power while you do the "center-stick-reverse rudder" standard stall recovery technique.

WWMaxGunz
07-27-2006, 12:50 PM
A left twist is not necessarily from anything 'canned' at all. But that's the worst arcadey
term you could think of so that's the leap from observation to sour-grape conclusion you make.

I just tried out a couple planes at both power and pitch as low as possible and ignition off
with prop stopped. One thing is that in lessened G's and/or quick changes, the ball is not
digital-watch reliable. It will hang on one side and take it's good time to change, well
after rudder change should be done. When I quit trying to fly the ball in the 109F-2 and
just ruddered into the tilt, I was able to keep the plane upright even while losing alt at
a not fast pace and still nose high. The harder I pulled back, the squirrelier it got but
I was able to ride it for over 1km alt loss. It would try and roll to either side but yes
the left tendency was more by a small amount. The key was ruddering by horizon, into the
roll and not by the ball which tended to be on the left. Following the ball I would have
spun out very soon to the left. That is with the prop stopped. Power idle and manual
pitch set full coarse it was easier to handle. How I might tend to hold the stick has a
good deal to do with it since I did shift around when I saw that I was resting some arm
weight on the stick and got better results. What I really need is pedals.....

Non-Wonder-Dog has spotted a tendency with prop stopped to get what he calls full torque
effect. This is maybe a more accurate description. On some planes it is worse. Such a
thing is not the same as completely seperate code for a flight mode which is what 'canned'
means. The most blatant canned behaviour in a sim I have seen since 1998 is the EAW stall
and spin behaviour. It is nothing approaching that with this sim but then EAW ran on
300mz and less processors with laughable by today's standards RAM and still had major
numbers of planes up offline so on balance and overall features it was the best for the
time before IL2, IMO.

They can't model everything and neither can TW so forget any theatrics Stiglr.

Hopefully this is something that time can be put to but importance of stopped prop handling
in a combat flight sim is what, perhaps 2% to 3% if you get your engine shot A LOT and feel
always the need to ride it down? Well, guess what? I can! It's just that as now I do not
feel that the torque should be the way it is based on reading including words directly
about the situation from Don Stackhouse in piloting discussions.

I'm more wondering about the ball. I don't expect something that had real weight and did
roll to be photon-fast but I do wonder if the code is keeping up. It is good for regular
flying such as turns, except for fast reversals and then the thing will get stuck at one
end but again that may be simulation of real behaviour. And if the G's drop then hey yeah
a physical ball may just roll up one side, duh. So is it simulation or slow code I cannot
and will not claim but people with cheapshot agendas will I am sure pounce on any shadow.

NonWonderDog
07-27-2006, 01:52 PM
I believe the thing with the ball happens becase you're probably at less than 1G. The little ball is exactly that -- it's a little ball suspended in fluid in a curved tube. At less than 1G it doesn't have enough centering force and bounces around a lot (and when you're upside-down it doesn't work at all). At greater than 1G it has too much centering force and likes to just stay in the middle. This is the first sim I've ever seen that's actually tried to simulate that... but I think it's still a bit exaggerated at low G. It's REALLY squirrelly at 0.8G for some reason.

In real life, you really don't pay that much attention to the inclinometer in VFR conditions. It's much easier just to pick a point right in front of you on the horizon and use the rudder to keep it from moving sideways (assuming low winds). That doesn't really work in IL2 because the terrrain is kind of featureless and because we lack a bunch of little depth perception type cues. I don't really know what it is, but trying to determine yaw by looking to the horizon in sims just doesn't work for me.

Flakwalker
07-27-2006, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
btw, what the mirror in the Mc is showing , the sky above you like in the IARs or the area behind you ?

The mirrors on the Macchi was designed to show behind you, the razorback had space for that and no glass covered them (is more noticiable on the Re 2001), this allowed to fast check the six.

WWMaxGunz
07-27-2006, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
I believe the thing with the ball happens becase you're probably at less than 1G. The little ball is exactly that -- it's a little ball suspended in fluid in a curved tube. At less than 1G it doesn't have enough centering force and bounces around a lot (and when you're upside-down it doesn't work at all). At greater than 1G it has too much centering force and likes to just stay in the middle. This is the first sim I've ever seen that's actually tried to simulate that... but I think it's still a bit exaggerated at low G. It's REALLY squirrelly at 0.8G for some reason.

In real life, you really don't pay that much attention to the inclinometer in VFR conditions. It's much easier just to pick a point right in front of you on the horizon and use the rudder to keep it from moving sideways (assuming low winds). That doesn't really work in IL2 because the terrrain is kind of featureless and because we lack a bunch of little depth perception type cues. I don't really know what it is, but trying to determine yaw by looking to the horizon in sims just doesn't work for me.

The only horizon checking I was doing while riding the stall was seeing the roll http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
and ruddering toward that to get back to level. I think I may have to lower the sliders
for rudder a bit and the 109 is so far the easiest to control at power off that I've tried.

I was doing a bit of reading about Macchis and one site claimed that due to the higher
torque of the DB engine, the 202 left wing was lengthened about 8 inches (20 cm) for
extra lift on that side to kill the roll at cruise. Full power/rpms at low speed and
for sure the plane should torque left then... if the claim is true. Does that help explain
the much easier right turns at speed? I had a hard time pulling to grey-out in left turns
while it was easy to grey-out deeply turning right, at least with good speed. Let them
get slow and ... not good. I'd keep it over 300kph but then I'd want at least that much
in any fighter in a combat zone and really 360+ even through turns. Speed is Life.

sudoku1941
07-27-2006, 04:00 PM
Well, Gunz, it seems you just don't know a bit of what you're talking about, even though you accuse me of the same thing...

For one, power on and off doesn't matter much for the discussion of the canned stalls; FACT is, the flight manual and the test flights all make their observations on stall behavior with the engine running, not stopped, or they would mention it. So, checking to see what happens with the prop stopped is introducing a whole different aerodynamic condition. Apples and oranges.

Also, while the presense of torque will doubtless have an effect on what happens during a stall (it's no accident that most torque effect is to the left, and that it exerts forces that tend to pull aircraft around), it doesn't necessarily mean your plane will snap out whenever you stall, especially if you happened to be banked right. Still, that's what happens with IL-2 planes, across the board.

But, I did notice you toned down your hystrionics somewhat. Is it because a few others have chimed in on my side, noting the same things wrong with the FMs as I did? What happened to your, "How dare you even question the FM" attitude? Drowned out with information, I suppose.

WWMaxGunz
07-27-2006, 10:34 PM
Quote the manual then. I know that the FAA has different stall speed categories but the
main two are power off clean and dirty. I guess that can mean power idle.

It's not the torque that makes the difference, it's the propwash on the wings and tail
that at low speed is not insignificant. The torque at idle is not significant.

And what I wrote but you must have missed, that at power idle and prop full coarse it
was much easier to keep the 109 level, that doesn't fit anything from your manuals?
Can't you hold the nose until it falls? Either the nose falls or if you keep pulling
up then a wing will. How you dance on the rudder makes the difference. It did for me.

Fact is I was able to and can keep the 109 and I am sure after learning to stop following
the ball exactly, pretty much any other plane in a straight stall just with rudder. Ifi don't have to stop the engine then it's easier than if I do.

So much for 'canned' behaviour. Canned code would give me no choice, I would spin.

But you make the leap. Perhaps given what I've seen of your attitude I could apply
the same bent logic and conclude that you were abused as a child? It might not be true
but WTH, I would be using your narsty little method.

So how about sticking to real things? Back in 2.0x and 3.0x you could not ride a stall
down at all and now at least some people can. Back then there was also a sense of auto-
rudder noted by many seasoned pilots that participated in the discussion on stall
behaviour. And even then no one was spouting BS on canned code that I saw, and I did
keep up with that thread as it was a good one for info.

I do need to make a list of prop direction for as many planes as I'd care to try out
and find out about washout differences, etc, as I don't have a dozen or more pilots
manuals for WWII fighters laying around. And I do keep in mind some relevant facts:
1) that I am not in the plane and can't feel how it is moving. 2) That I am not as
good as a well trained pilot in his type nor do I have controls to match what he had.
3) that I am not as good as a test pilot and probably never will be.
So all I can do is try the planes out and not make claims as if me behind a desk with
a non-FFB twisty stick can really do or feel what the real test pilots did no matter
how much I might want. But once I have that understanding then I can have a lot more
fun with both the sim and game aspects and approach the planes with an open mind to
what they and I do.

A factor out of place in an FM does not make the code pieced out if indeed that is what
I'm seeing. There may also be a universal left torque if NWD is right. Between his
education, experience and non-attitude-driven approach I find he is easier to work along
with and trust.

You might want to read up on the section on spins at John Denker's See How It Flies pages.

sudoku1941
07-28-2006, 10:29 AM
Well, at least your level of information seems to be getting better...you debate so much better without that short cheerleader pleated skirt! Bravo.

But, still, I point to various Bf109s over various IL-2 versions and note that at times, the stalling Bf109 would yank you out of a coordinated right bank and flip you to the left, when it shouldn't. My "shouldn't" is supported by what flight tests on the plane under normal combat conditions, would be expectd to do. And again, I'm then comparing it with what tends to happen in the game under the same conditions (not engine idle, prop coarse or any other test condition). One tends to get the "canned" behavior common to almost all the other planes.

Your ability to control the plane is simply your "avoiding the stall". Sure your nose will drop if you're at low speed, it's your plane's inability to keep that nose up and maintain controlled flight. Dropping the nose to keep control is not the same as a stall, where the nose will drop regardless (or, whatever other stall behavior should happen).

Anyway, we can debate whether or not either of us can control plane x or y and not agree, just as pdog can maintain the Macchi is uncontrollable, when we have better rudder and ball control and thus can keep it simply "squirrely". That's for any of us to decide based on our experience, whether they agree that the stall and spin behavior are canned. I stated my case, you stated yours. Everyone else will decide based on that.

pdog1
07-28-2006, 06:20 PM
Macchi is controllable... just don't move the stick and your control is fine.

onebox33
07-28-2006, 07:36 PM
max you use too much words to have also some good reasons... may be that you are a simmer from 81' but i am not impressed by your feeling as a pilot ...don't you see a too much slow roll rate in macchi after all those years?

WWMaxGunz
07-28-2006, 09:36 PM
Since I don't know the roll rates for the Macchis, how can I judge?
But I do know how to avoid spins in them.
And I don't credit myself so highly as to think that I get the most from them but at least
I can avoid nasty spins I keep reading about. Just a little rudder is all it takes.
I sure as H do not think 'the plane' flies itself which is all I can figure many of the
forums members must either believe that or in their own expert abilities, those 1337
skillez where you don't need to bother with rudder and still expect what you do is all
there is to it!

"The plane should do better"... depends on "the pilot". Who is it with the quote in his
sig about flying planes being like playing violins? Even a Stradivarius can sound like
garbage.

Stiglr, I ride the stall in the 109. I avoid the spin but the plane is stalled. Not being
able to keep level as in 1 G flight is stall definition. Yeah I could keep pulling the
nose up and guarantee a spin, but why? And when riding the stall I can let it go when it
is rolling right and spin in that direction.

NWD has already a handle on one factor that should not be and it depends on prop stopped
for him to see.

And Macchis... anyone have an answer on the 202 left wing being longer some 20 cm?

JG53Frankyboy
07-29-2006, 04:35 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
..........And Macchis... anyone have an answer on the 202 left wing being longer some 20 cm?

to reduce the torque effect.

berg417448
07-29-2006, 02:31 PM
From this source: http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/macchi.htm

"Chief designer Castoldi employed a unique method of counteracting the torque and P-factor (propeller factor) generated by the engine. These aerodynamic phenomena often cause airplanes to swing on take off, sometimes uncontrollably. Castoldi made the left wing 21 cm (8 3/8 in) longer than the right wing. The larger wing created more lift which tended to roll the fighter right, opposing and thereby counteracting the torque and P-factor."

WWMaxGunz
07-29-2006, 05:11 PM
Pretty much what I had read. I'm just not 100% sure it is true... for everyone.

Well most all the high-power and torque prop fighters have some kind of correction to them
to deal with the problems and in every case those make other problems in other phases of
flight, either less critical problems or less critical phases. Usually it's difference in
wash and/or tail twist and with the Corsair I dunno if there is wash but there had to be
added a short section of IIRC lamination on the leading edge of the right wing that did
make level flight less balanced than without but hey ya gotta land sometime!

Those are things expected by the real pilots but not by the gamers who live in worlds where
everything goes by their interpretations of 'war stories'.

BM357_Sniper
07-31-2006, 05:10 PM
I'm not trying to feed fuel to the fire and I tend to keep out of the forum fights, however, there has been A LOT of talk about keeping the ball/needle centered. While this IS correct, it is WAY overmodeled in this sim. After takeoff and passing Vx or Vy and you reach cruising speed, the ball does not move much or often. It's a rare thing that I ever have to use rudders in a turn, given sufficient speed.

Two things to be remembered here:

1: The ball moving around so much with every change in speed in this sim isn't correct to me. Thats being drawn from my personal experience.

2: As far as people stalling, in any aircraft, in this sim I think the main problem is "no feel". Pilots IRL always complain in a non-motion simulator that it is a lot harder to fly when you have nothing moving under your pants. Keep in mind you may be able to yank the stick a bit harder on one aircraft in here than the other, although yanking really isn't a good technique and is probably why you're stalling. Your AoA is overlimit. Other than that, I can't comment on Olegs FM on the Italian plane, I've never been in one. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Just my 2 cents......

For those that care, I'm working on my commercial instructor's rating and have been flying for years.

mortoma1958
08-02-2006, 03:46 PM
I don't have any problem with controlling or turning in general with any of the Machis. They turn just as well as they should according to the historical specs too. They are a bit better at high speed dogfight but do ok at slow knife fights too if you take it easy. If you are gentle with the stick they don't stall and turn very tightly. I think Pdog is just too ham-fisted with his stick. His joystick that is. Some people are just yanking too hard when trying to turn.

I have many hours in Machis already and have done well with them. Even despite the weak ammo. I can't vouch for the roll rate as there is seemingly a lack of data on their roll rate. Few complaints from me, I'm satisfied with them overall.

WWMaxGunz
08-02-2006, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by BM357_Sniper:
I'm not trying to feed fuel to the fire and I tend to keep out of the forum fights, however, there has been A LOT of talk about keeping the ball/needle centered. While this IS correct, it is WAY overmodeled in this sim. After takeoff and passing Vx or Vy and you reach cruising speed, the ball does not move much or often. It's a rare thing that I ever have to use rudders in a turn, given sufficient speed.

Two things to be remembered here:

1: The ball moving around so much with every change in speed in this sim isn't correct to me. Thats being drawn from my personal experience.

2: As far as people stalling, in any aircraft, in this sim I think the main problem is "no feel". Pilots IRL always complain in a non-motion simulator that it is a lot harder to fly when you have nothing moving under your pants. Keep in mind you may be able to yank the stick a bit harder on one aircraft in here than the other, although yanking really isn't a good technique and is probably why you're stalling. Your AoA is overlimit. Other than that, I can't comment on Olegs FM on the Italian plane, I've never been in one. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Just my 2 cents......

For those that care, I'm working on my commercial instructor's rating and have been flying for years.

I see the ball/slip being worse by far in some planes than others and dunno it may be that
due to geometry, power and mass that some planes were more prone to being so squirrelly.

Imagine Sniper, or ask a pilot with huge experience what it was like to fly the BeeGee racer?
And we have no feel in the sim so perhaps we are late with the feet?

I'm not sure that the movements of the ball are updated very often either. Certainly not
when near level stall, the ball is useless to me then, I watch the horizon and only that
way can I correct with rudder... following the ball will roll me over generally to the left.
What I should do and am too lazy is to make a track with smoke on and run playback at 1/4
speed and pausing just to check if the ball and the slip (it may show in the smoke:wingtip
angle?) match to any degree but well, in quick reversals it does not which you can say more
than I can if this is real. If not then I guess it's a guage-modelling problem... it may
also vary from PC to PC depending on speed of the PC's as this is a sim prone to hardware
limits.

In steady movement it works as I'd expect. But cutting the nose back and forth the ball
does travel sometimes seeming to stick and then jerk to one side or another and stick again
until I overcontrol trying to swing it back. That is where the smoke track and playback
may tell me more about is it my flying (surely some as I reverse direction in a complex way
with no feel at all) and how much. It'd be interesting to see if the slip goes likewise or
if movement of the plane is completely seperate from the ball... but then graphics 'tweens'
might cover even that up. I am sure that position and attitude is not updated at framerate.

VW-IceFire
08-02-2006, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by berg417448:
From this source: http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/macchi.htm

"Chief designer Castoldi employed a unique method of counteracting the torque and P-factor (propeller factor) generated by the engine. These aerodynamic phenomena often cause airplanes to swing on take off, sometimes uncontrollably. Castoldi made the left wing 21 cm (8 3/8 in) longer than the right wing. The larger wing created more lift which tended to roll the fighter right, opposing and thereby counteracting the torque and P-factor."
Could be wrong but I think the same technique is applied on some or all of the Yak series.

NonWonderDog
08-02-2006, 10:26 PM
Yep, exactly the same method. Same wing, too, since they both have counterclockwise propellers.

I don't know about the inclinometer movement during accelleration, myself. It does seem a bit much, but my flying experience is in Cessnas. If I had 10x the horsepower up front I can imagine getting 10x the inclinometer movement.

Also, like I said before, this sim tries to simulate the effects of gravity on the inclinometer and magnetic compass. I think the effect of slightly less than 1G on the ball is a bit overstated in the sim, making the thing near useless during stalls. It's like the viscocity of the virtual kerosene the ball's floating in is too low, or something.

Watching the ball IS useless when you're flying inverted or pushing through negative Gs in the sim, and that makes me very happy. I don't even think FS9 does that in the stock planes. I still get the feeling that we'll see lots of questions if that aerobatic plane has a dual inclinometer when BoB comes out, though.

BM357_Sniper
08-04-2006, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I see the ball/slip being worse by far in some planes than others and dunno it may be that
due to geometry, power and mass that some planes were more prone to being so squirrelly.

Imagine Sniper, or ask a pilot with huge experience what it was like to fly the BeeGee racer?
And we have no feel in the sim so perhaps we are late with the feet?

I'm not sure that the movements of the ball are updated very often either. Certainly not
when near level stall, the ball is useless to me then, I watch the horizon and only that
way can I correct with rudder... following the ball will roll me over generally to the left.
What I should do and am too lazy is to make a track with smoke on and run playback at 1/4
speed and pausing just to check if the ball and the slip (it may show in the smoke:wingtip
angle?) match to any degree but well, in quick reversals it does not which you can say more
than I can if this is real. If not then I guess it's a guage-modelling problem... it may
also vary from PC to PC depending on speed of the PC's as this is a sim prone to hardware
limits.

In steady movement it works as I'd expect. But cutting the nose back and forth the ball
does travel sometimes seeming to stick and then jerk to one side or another and stick again
until I overcontrol trying to swing it back. That is where the smoke track and playback
may tell me more about is it my flying (surely some as I reverse direction in a complex way
with no feel at all) and how much. It'd be interesting to see if the slip goes likewise or
if movement of the plane is completely seperate from the ball... but then graphics 'tweens'
might cover even that up. I am sure that position and attitude is not updated at framerate.
While that surely is true, that some aircraft are more squirly than others, given sufficient speed, people shouldn't stall out because they didn't center the ball. I took your advice and asked someone with more experience, my father. He stopped logging hours in his book after he reached 25,000 hours. What he said was that basically the samething I mentioned earlier. I'm glad too, I learned it all from him. lol

I do think that you're correct in saying that the instruments in game aren't as accurate as we'd like them to be. I even believe that oleg mentioned this before, at least with manifold pressure. I hope that in BoB this becomes more of a sim than arcade game. I'm by no means the know all of aviation, but I do have a good resource to refer too. I hope we can get things figured out. S!

tigertalon
08-04-2006, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by BM357_Sniper:
I took your advice and asked someone with more experience, my father. He stopped logging hours in his book after he reached 25,000 hours.

OMG, that's (assuming ur father is 60 or 70) one hour per day on average, from birth on!! That's a lot!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

WWMaxGunz
08-04-2006, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by sudoku1941:
Also, while the presense of torque will doubtless have an effect on what happens during a stall (it's no accident that most torque effect is to the left, and that it exerts forces that tend to pull aircraft around), it doesn't necessarily mean your plane will snap out whenever you stall, especially if you happened to be banked right.

If you are banked right but slipped left IRL you can still spin left.
It depends on how far banked right plus how far slipped left, your speed, torque, propwash, etc.
For somebody who knows only the bank I don't expect to see more 'formula' than you've shown.
Perhaps that is how TW works or is the handling of every plane totally custom by any 'maker'?

Hard part in a sim is knowing you are in slip or not.

WWMaxGunz
08-04-2006, 04:00 PM
Sniper, it's all simulation as far as the working parts. Look up the word I guess.
The crux point is the quality of simulation. Aircraft training simulators like the ones
at Flight Safety Intl centers are of very high quality and yet none of those I have used
will tilt past not really many degrees for example even though the view would, could even
invert totally as at least one simtech would 'fly' a Gulfstream 3 upside down under a big
local bridge in the simulated at night Savannah... but I wouldn't call the 5-mil simulator
there arcade even if the move was unreal as all get-out. Nothing's perfect or you can do
that, take yer pick.

To the limits of the hardware and the demands of all aspects including graphics, AI and
projectiles, IL2 series really pushes the quality but IMO a super team of coders and AE's
could get more with only a few extra years maybe by optimising the machine code totally.
And then it would play only on a small range of PC hardware but yes, very well. High level
compilers might be 20% less efficient but the results are transportable.

What can I say? I 'flew' those sim boxes as part of a coding job making training carrels
for FSI, LOL! So goes my exposure to both at once.

Really, even the old boards and cardboard counter wargames are simulations. War sims.
Honest!

WWMaxGunz
08-04-2006, 04:14 PM
202 has extra length on the left wing to make lift to counter more powerful torque of the
Daimler engine. It is set for needs exactly at some speed and mode of flight. Outside
that it is less than exact and at some attitudes and speeds combined it cannot be good
as no solutions of wash or twist or whatever can be. The 202 solution is good in that
measure perhaps.

Extra length making extra lift also makes extra drag which is easily countered by rudder.
Getting into higher AOA and G's of a turn where rudder is needed or in the roll where the
plane will naturally slip (slip-roll coupling) the amount of rudder must change. So when
I see posts saying why bother with rudder when before it was no problem I just gotta laugh
that the same person says the sim has gotten less real. No, it is finally so much more
real when these things matter.

It is an insult to those Italian pilots to expect sloppy bad practices to achieve the same
results that they did by flying skillfully. Next thing it will be 14 year olds who should
match Olympic champions at skiing just because they strapped on high quality skis.

pdog1
08-06-2006, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
It is an insult to those Italian pilots to expect sloppy bad practices to achieve the same
results that they did by flying skillfully. Next thing it will be 14 year olds who should
match Olympic champions at skiing just because they strapped on high quality skis.

Saying that is like saying anyone who gets in a Spitfire can fly it like George Beurling or Jonnie Johnson... but that is true though. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

joeap
08-06-2006, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by pdog1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
It is an insult to those Italian pilots to expect sloppy bad practices to achieve the same
results that they did by flying skillfully. Next thing it will be 14 year olds who should
match Olympic champions at skiing just because they strapped on high quality skis.

Saying that is like saying anyone who gets in a Spitfire can fly it like George Beurling or Jonnie Johnson... but that is true though. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is true??? That anyone can fly like Beurling?

pdog1
08-06-2006, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by pdog1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
It is an insult to those Italian pilots to expect sloppy bad practices to achieve the same
results that they did by flying skillfully. Next thing it will be 14 year olds who should
match Olympic champions at skiing just because they strapped on high quality skis.

Saying that is like saying anyone who gets in a Spitfire can fly it like George Beurling or Jonnie Johnson... but that is true though. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is true??? That anyone can fly like Beurling? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, with the spit in the game you can fly better than Beurling.

WWMaxGunz
08-06-2006, 02:29 PM
In a Spitfire, anyone has a good chance of beating a chump won't-learn dweeb who thinks he's
hot. The same person may get pwned by a competent flyer in any other plane regardless.

pdog1
08-06-2006, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
In a Spitfire, anyone has a good chance of beating a chump won't-learn dweeb who thinks he's
hot. The same person may get pwned by a competent flyer in any other plane regardless.

Ever try bnzing spits? After 2 runs they'll be at my level or above. Funny since i can bnz yaks or most any other plane all day and still stay above them except for the spit and ufo la7.

VW-IceFire
08-06-2006, 10:16 PM
BNZing in what. I never find them to be any more serious than the other top 1944 fighters. The 109 stand on its tail and blast away with lucky MK108s is just as bad I find. Maybe worse.

Few online can be like Beurling. Most Spit pilots you see haven't a clue about shooting and it shows. You know there's a real pilot back there when he hits you in the first burst or two.

WWMaxGunz
08-07-2006, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by pdog1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
In a Spitfire, anyone has a good chance of beating a chump won't-learn dweeb who thinks he's
hot. The same person may get pwned by a competent flyer in any other plane regardless.

Ever try bnzing spits? After 2 runs they'll be at my level or above. Funny since i can bnz yaks or most any other plane all day and still stay above them except for the spit and ufo la7. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well since you have admitted you don't bother with rudder to correct slip and since you
have shown that you don't know when you're stalled until you've gone into a spin, I am
not in the least surprised that you have energy management problems esp at higher speed
than your target.

It's not the plane. It's the pilot.
Find someone *really* good in a FW and just try to keep on his or her wing, back a bit.

ITA_5SA_Tecnico
08-08-2006, 02:10 AM
Hi everyone!!
Normally,i don't post in "english" forum,because my bad wrotten English,but in this case i must.Max,you are saing that we don't fly Macchi or other plane correctly,yes it's possible,but you don't give us "the proof",i've a little hint for you: try QMB 1vs1 against "ace" Spit MkVb flying a 202 at same altitude and none advantage,and show them that 202 if flown correctly,doesn't spin and can win.........give us the "proof"!!

pdog1
08-08-2006, 03:10 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by pdog1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
In a Spitfire, anyone has a good chance of beating a chump won't-learn dweeb who thinks he's
hot. The same person may get pwned by a competent flyer in any other plane regardless.

Ever try bnzing spits? After 2 runs they'll be at my level or above. Funny since i can bnz yaks or most any other plane all day and still stay above them except for the spit and ufo la7. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well since you have admitted you don't bother with rudder to correct slip and since you
have shown that you don't know when you're stalled until you've gone into a spin, I am
not in the least surprised that you have energy management problems esp at higher speed
than your target.

It's not the plane. It's the pilot.
Find someone *really* good in a FW and just try to keep on his or her wing, back a bit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your a moron and a dweeb, did you read what i said? I said have no problems bnzing planes except for spit and ufola7. Read, comprehend, post. Also the macchi doesn't stall first before going into a spin. Well maybe it does for a half a millisecond before going into a violent spin, of which i can't get the same result for any other plane.
You have nothing to compare it to anything anyway since you don't fly online so all this fancy talk of slip and e-retention means nothing to you because you don't use it.

WWMaxGunz
08-08-2006, 11:57 AM
EDIT:ADD
BTW, I get a real kick out of yer idea that the only people who can discuss FM are the
Air Quake players like yerself. What a joke!
EDIT:END

I use it offline. I have used it online with this sim as well, just not since PF which
does mean not since proper use of rudder by the player is necessary. But I know that
from offline use where I do work on rudder use. It's kinda like learning to trim all
the time after years of sims where I never had to and still got maximum performance.
In IL2 1.0 and since that changed. You don't have to trim but you won't get the most
if you don't which IRL you change your flight regimin then you change trim, again and
again if necessary until your speed is stable. Increase power for more speed, trim
some nose down which picks up your speed so you trim more nose down which... etc.
That is IRL and so is using or trimming the rudder as well.

I also don't compare the most powerful turnfighters with other planes.

Fancy talk of slip and e-retention? Don't ever grow up, okay? Don't talk to real pilots
and whatever you do, stay away from serious aviation sites where even for GA, energy
management is a real topic. Just keep yanking yer stick and equating stall to spin.

You do know that while the plane is in slip you are not shooting straight? But I guess
the dweeb solution to that is post about how weak your guns are!

It's NEVER your fault. It's ALWAYS the sim that's wrong. It's the plane, not you right?

Some planes need to be controlled more than others but you hold them all to one standard.
How cool. Dimensions of the planes, balances and lever-arms mean zilch to you so that
means they really don't matter? And the TW guy came here starting a thread on how all
the planes in this sim fly just about the same.

If you fly with a load of slip then you will hit into accelerated spins easy. I know
because I checked. Keeping the ball near center I had to deliberately push to spin at
all even in turns. So I know that you screw it up for yourself and I know from your
posts that you blame the FM for what you do. Classic "I am great, I don't need to learn
or change, it's the sim that's wrong, whaaa!" dweeb-defining behaviour. You CAN change
but you'll come up with every excuse you can why not to. Fly right and Macchi does not
spin at all. Push it while ignoring everything you don't care for and augur it in.

sudoku1941
08-08-2006, 10:50 PM
WWGunz distorts and lies:
[quote]And the TW guy came here starting a thread on how all
the planes in this sim fly just about the same.
[/quote

Get it right, Gunz.

I said (and pretty well proved a good case) that the stall and spin behavior were canned; that's not the same as saying "all IL-2 planes fly the same". It's not even the same as saying the stall and spin behavior happen for the same input; what it IS saying is, that once a stall happens, that's where it's the same. All hard left snap, no 'sags', no 'gentle wing dips' and no difference in pre-stall warning. You know that's the case, as we went round and round arguing that; I shouldn't even have to post this clarification.

Don't put words in people's mouths; you seem to have enough problems forming those of your own.

sudoku1941
08-08-2006, 10:51 PM
Originally posted by sudoku1941:
WWGunz distorts and lies:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And the TW guy came here starting a thread on how all
the planes in this sim fly just about the same.


Get it right, Gunz.

I said (and pretty well proved a good case) that the stall and spin behavior were canned; that's not the same as saying "all IL-2 planes fly the same". It's not even the same as saying the stall and spin behavior happen for the same input; what it IS saying is, that once a stall happens, that's where it's the same. All hard left snap, no 'sags', no 'gentle wing dips' and no difference in pre-stall warning. You know that's the case, as we went round and round arguing that; I shouldn't even have to post this clarification.

Don't put words in people's mouths; you seem to have enough problems forming those of your own. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

joeap
08-09-2006, 05:27 AM
Actually "sudoku" (like those puzzles too?) I think Gunz has some valid points. Planes do need to be controlled correctly, with rudder(I have rudder pedals on my list, the twist won't do anymore) and watching the ball. The particulars for each plane change, but that is or should be constant.

Noew about canned stalls, yes, I want more variety, but I thought fighter planes were more prone IRL to these type of stalls? I also understand stalls and spins are one fo the more difficult things to model since they are rather chaotic, I have read (tried but I am not a real pilot) only a couple of FS models, like the Real Air Cessna I had a while back, had decent spins modelled and this after a lot of effort by addon teams for a particular plane. Most MS default models are rather poor.

WWMaxGunz
08-09-2006, 05:42 AM
Originally posted by sudoku1941:
WWGunz distorts and lies:
[quote]And the TW guy came here starting a thread on how all
the planes in this sim fly just about the same.
[/quote

Get it right, Gunz.

I said (and pretty well proved a good case) that the stall and spin behavior were canned; that's not the same as saying "all IL-2 planes fly the same". It's not even the same as saying the stall and spin behavior happen for the same input; what it IS saying is, that once a stall happens, that's where it's the same. All hard left snap, no 'sags', no 'gentle wing dips' and no difference in pre-stall warning. You know that's the case, as we went round and round arguing that; I shouldn't even have to post this clarification.

Don't put words in people's mouths; you seem to have enough problems forming those of your own.

YOU GET IT RIGHT STIGLR. YOU are not the only TW Troll that's posted here.

WWMaxGunz
08-09-2006, 06:31 AM
I emailed Oleg about the slip guages as modelled and he replied that they do model the
movement as the originals did move. The fluids were glycerin or special oil. He wrote
special oil and then corrected to glycerin but my email did throw in Macchi 202 so maybe
(likely) the fluid differs by plane. He did write that the fluid used is what people who
have the historic planes have in their guages... Maddox Games went out and checked, not
just jumped over to Wikipedia and some fansites.

The speed of movement is supposed to be as real but that of course does not count stutter if
you get stutter.

It's a PC sim so it can't be perfect. PC runs calculation serially on limited factors where
reality is totally in parallel with near infinite speed rate and everything as factors.
That is great news for trolls, something always to pick at and magnify with lens of ego.

I wonder if TW slip balls have such delay or just show the exact difference between attitude
of the nose and path of movement?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are factors that affect slip ball movement. If you managed to bank the plane without
any turn and so no side force then the ball would be a bank indicator with slow movement.
Add in turn and those side forces and if the plane is aligned correctly in a smooth turn
the ball will be at center as the turn force will cause the center to be 'down'. If you
wobble all over and run lower G's then the ball will be indeterminate. If you turn steady
with slip mostly steady then the ball will not be centered. It moves nicely enough when I
rudder during turns.
At lowspeed stall the plane banks easily, roll damping is at a minimum and with enough AOA
will go very unstable according to Richard Denker. We have torque becoming a larger factor
in proportion than in normal flight and we have inertia of the nose mass between swings
of slip as the pilot swings the rudder in the slower air. The plane is not made of rice
paper and thin sticks after all, you push a control and at low speed there is a lag in the
movement even as you continue to push.
Bank is not slip. Yet I push the pedals by the wing bank I see over the nose at stall to
get the plane started to righting itself. And funny enough despite what Trollglr asserts
I can let the plane go when it is banked right and get a clockwise rolling spin if the
plane is not slipped leftwards which does take time to reverse. At or very near stall the
wings can be banked and the plane is not turning, that will affect the ball with the lack
of sideways force.

I'd really like to hear from TX-EcoDragon as he is an aerobatics pilot with experience in
weird and quickly changing maneuver situations of all kinds. And still, I don't expect
perfection. There's times I know for sure not to go by the ball in the sim and others
where I need to learn when not to go by the ball. I bet that's real enough.

269GA-Veltro
08-09-2006, 08:47 AM
Personally now i'm waiting for this Macchi:

http://www.gennadich.com/img/dev/scr13j.jpg

IL2 is definitly not a sim for the italian aviation....forget about it, it's only a waste of time.

Period.

ElAurens
08-09-2006, 11:08 AM
Looks like a Neuport to me.

Now an Ansaldo...


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

269GA-Veltro
08-09-2006, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Looks like a Neuport to me.

Now an Ansaldo...

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

Macchi - Nieuport 17 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Some differences, is a licensed Nieuport.

http://www.finn.it/regia/immagini/prima/baracca_nieuport.jpg

http://www.finn.it/regia/immagini/prima/nieuport_macchi11.jpg

Col._King
08-09-2006, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by 269GA-Veltro:
- Roll rate;
- Explosive ammo for the 12,7mm;
- BF-109 DM for the engine DB605 and DB601

I don't ask more....

I don't kid about the spin problem. As Gatt says Macchi had this problem and for sure we don't have to engage the Spitfire in a turn fighting.

BTW, the IL2 C-202 seems to be really outclassed by all the aircrafts of its time in the game, P-40, Hurricane and of course the Mark Vc. This is problably due to the B-52 roll rate....coul be..so I would like to see the Macchi with a credible roll rate before say "C-202 is porked".
If Macchi were nervous fighters, for sure they were however very manouvrable. In the game for ex, you should be able to easly disengage from an enemy attack....
************************************************
I agree 110% !!

All other flaming I had read here in this topic is a waste of words and time.

And the personal offences that were used by someone toward someone else and vice-versa, are not worth of Gentlemen's behavior required from everyone who wants to be part of this Community. If wanting to go for personal offences there is something called Private Message. It is like two Gentlemen that are going outside the town to resolve their reciprocal problems by the sword or pistol. This is acceptable. The insults on an open forum are not.
I'm surprised the Admin or Moderator didn't intervene.

sudoku1941
08-09-2006, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by joeap:
Actually "sudoku" (like those puzzles too?) I think Gunz has some valid points. Planes do need to be controlled correctly, with rudder(I have rudder pedals on my list, the twist won't do anymore) and watching the ball. The particulars for each plane change, but that is or should be constant.

Noew about canned stalls, yes, I want more variety, but I thought fighter planes were more prone IRL to these type of stalls? I also understand stalls and spins are one fo the more difficult things to model since they are rather chaotic, I have read (tried but I am not a real pilot) only a couple of FS models, like the Real Air Cessna I had a while back, had decent spins modelled and this after a lot of effort by addon teams for a particular plane. Most MS default models are rather poor.

I'm in lockstep agreement with you and with Gunz on this. Of course you have to have some stick and rudder coordination. No argument from me on that.

I was merely reacting to Gunz's misguided attempt to discredit my accurate assesment on IL-2's canned stalls while he's lambasting pdog's unwillingness to coordinate his turns. Two different things, one on which he's right, and the other, he's dead wrong.

Also, it's not about wanting "variety" in stall behavior, it's simply wanting the right stall behavior (and spin behavior, too, if it comes to that) to happen in each aircraft. It's part of their personality. A FW190 or a Corsair should snap violently at a stall, others, like Zeros, Spits, 109s, etc. should have gentler behavior. And some aircraft will nearly unspin themselves, while others, like in a P-39 are going to take quite a bit of work to get out of.

WWMaxGunz
08-09-2006, 05:41 PM
You say it always spins left and I have had otherwise. What canned?
You give your evidence and call it proof and to that I do not begin to agree.
Macchi 202 has that extra drag on the left wing, tends to slip left, tends to spin left.
Tends is not the same as canned. Macchi 202 is not the only plane with built-in torque
and wash correction.
If I let the stick go the very second any Macchi starts to spin then the spin immediately
slows and stops. Is that canned? I don't think so at all. If I hold the stick then the
spin will build rapidly and usually go flat. If I hold the stick but move to push the
nose down and counter rudder to the spin, etc, it may clear up as fast as if I just let
go and it may not depending on just how I do the counter moves. All this is at idle power.
It really looks to me as if my inputs affect the spins completely. Not a closed routine.

And plane to plane it differs though more for some than others.

Doesn't the FW snap stalls happen when high power is operating at low speeds as I have read?

Why don't you feel that the 109 is easier to handle near stall than the C.202 or... P-51D's?
I find all the slats equipped planes to be different in near stall, stall, turns and climbs.
I find the planes with narrow wings and higher wingloading to bleed more speed as AOA increases
yet run a bit better at low AOA.

And yeah, if anyone doesn't coordinate then they shouldn't expect good results.

I get burned seeing people come here in public and post false claims in generally rude fashion.
Yeah they can be taken to PM where my experience is nothing comes of it. In the meantime any
new people checking out the sim see a load of unchallenged bull and take it for truth. That
is BAD.

Them that makes claims needs to back em up and the record set straight or at least not left
slanted. Get rude about the sim and you've set the tone, call the tune then dance to it.

sudoku1941
08-09-2006, 08:08 PM
You're getting confused, Max.

Look: all planes did not have a tendency to snap left as behavior when they stall. But all planes in IL-2 DO; despite the FACT that many of the real aircraft had a tendency to do a variety of things at the stall: simply mush, judder a bit or wallow, drop the nose straight, or perhaps drop a wing to varying degrees and severity. You do NOT get that variety of stall behavior in IL-2. Just left snaps, developing quickly into spin if not corrected. Also suffice it to say various planes had various requirements for forstalling the spin, ranging from self correction to instant spin-of-death if the pilot didn't have his wits about him.

That is not the same as saying all the IL-2 planes FLY the same when in unstalled flight, which is something you constantly misquote me on. It's rather obvious that the planes, by and large, exhibit different the proper relative overall characteristics like "good turner", "poor turner", "fast", "slow", "climbs well", "climbs poorly". It's usually the degree to which the planes exhibit their personalities, especially vis a vis their historical adversaries, that the FM fails the most miserably. Then, there are the universal faults like totally WRONG energy bleed and acceleration, as well as AoA that allow "certain planes" to hang on their prop well too long after expending energy in a climbing maneuver. These are the things that tend to cause the most "whipsaw effect" among the planes between versions.

As for you "getting burned" when people uncover IL-2's faults, tough. As far as delivery and attitude, you're as rude as the next guy. So, that factor's a wash, too.

And the evidence speaks for itself.

BM357_Sniper
08-09-2006, 09:29 PM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BM357_Sniper:
I took your advice and asked someone with more experience, my father. He stopped logging hours in his book after he reached 25,000 hours.

OMG, that's (assuming ur father is 60 or 70) one hour per day on average, from birth on!! That's a lot!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, he's 70 and has flown everything from a Piper Cub, Mig 15, DC3, 4, Connie, B727.....on nearly every continent. He was shot down in Africa once. lol

maheikki
08-10-2006, 01:49 AM
Personally I think Machhis 205s are better than contemporary Spits ( Vb series ). They can dictate the fight if flown properly. Only thing is that if you pull stick too fast without compensating with rudder it spins violently.

Faster, better climb, only worse guns ( except 205 MK 3)

269GA-Veltro
08-10-2006, 01:58 AM
C-205 contemporary Spit is the Mark IX...the Mark Vc is the C-202 contemporary Spit...

269GA-Veltro
08-10-2006, 02:09 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Macchi 202 has that extra drag on the left wing, tends to slip left, tends to spin left.

Wrong....absolutely wrong! Macchi has that extra drag on left wing because of the torque effect, and because we didn't have the trim on the wings to correct it. The extra drag was a different solution for the trim...no more no less.

Macchi, as said...and i repeat it again, had these problems...but:

1) C-200 spin problem was solved adding to it the new C-202 wing design. Period.

3) C-202 was a very manouvrable fighter, a pleasure to fly but you have to be carefull at the high speed. It was definitly not a turn fighter.

3) C-205 was a dogfight stallion, a pure dogfighter very competititve but also very nervous as said above. You need to be an experten pilot to fly it, and we know it could spin during the turning at the high speed and g. It was definitly not a turn fighter.

You don't know what are you talking about. With his C-202 we could fly over Malta only for a trip....for sure not to fight.

BTW, the real problem in these Macchi C-202 and C-205 is the ROLL RATE not the spin. You can easly avoid it if you fly fast and if you don't turn left. On the Macchi you have also to use a lot the rudder.

As said above:

- roll rate first of all;

- engine DM;

- explosive ammo for the 12,7;

- wrong cockpit for the C-202....incredible, and they'll never fix it in spite of they have the fixed version.

The spin is the last problem for the IL2 Macchi.....

pdog1
08-10-2006, 02:43 AM
Your safer in Malta with a C200. If you have a little alt atvantage over hurricanes there easy to kill in C200. With C202 you can only fly PR sorties at 30,000ft to stay alive.
With G50 its even easier although its a bit slower. FUnny how g50 handles better than c200 though. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Fiat propaganda still works 60 years later. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

269GA-Veltro
08-10-2006, 03:13 AM
He he...
Pdog but...could we encounter also these birds over Malta? If yes...is better don't take off at all with a C-202.

http://www.ecplanet.com/pic/2004/08/1091352239/gabbiani.jpg

I'm trolling... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

WWMaxGunz
08-10-2006, 03:38 AM
C 202 left wing is longer than the right one. Period. TINY bit of rudder and it is no
problem at all. A delight to fly esp compared to C 200 lack of power.

Stiglr when I quote that a TW troll has stated that all the planes fly the same that is
not the Sudoku troll but rather another TW troll who started a thread with that BS. So
what am I making up again? Will you be claiming that years from now?

I know that in the FB 2.0x and 3.0x you could not ride a stall down and there was a long
discussion about that in GD with many long time pilots and some aero guys pointing out
the important bits. The major conclusion was that it wasn't a big deal, btw. Others had
pointed to the semi-auto-rudder tendency that has been lost with 4.0x as a probable cause.

There's a HUGE difference between factors and shortcuts that make a tendency and canned code.
You have come far short of proving any assertion of canned code which requires seperate
actual flight code to cover some aspect of flight in the flight engine. The biggest example
of canned code I can point to in the last 8 years is the EAW spins. Canned code may start
with such an abrupt transition or may not, I can't say if CFS departures had it or not.
I don't find the in-and-out behaviour changes in IL2 and I can get spins to the right though some planes spins will tend to go left which factors of wing, torque and wash alone may
create such a balance condition. Big deal, it's not a fixed direction.

You say with TW that the user makes the FM? Clear down to the flight code?

onebox33
08-10-2006, 08:21 AM
sorry Max, you don't see the big point.
It is a very slow roll rate for 202/205...
you don't need processions of words and calculations, if you fly a 109 and a 205 FEEL the difference and go considering it ...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Yes, i haven't macchi's roll rate tables but i have confiance in my feeling and i am not wrong with it...or at least this is what i believe http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WWMaxGunz
08-10-2006, 10:27 AM
Nowhere did I say that the Macchis have correct roll rate, or speed or climb for rate of turn
for that matter. More than once I have posted in this thread that I do not contest that the
Macchis do or do not meet historic data.

I have contested that the Macchis as modelled are spin prone when flown correctly. I know
because I checked them carefully flying only tests while watching guages and speedbar.
Keep em coordinated and esp on turns right I at least can pull any of them well into greyout
without spin. If I spiral downwards to keep speed up then I can hold em there. In left
turns it is much, much harder to get greyout and I need more speed to hold it. How much
harder a turn can be I just dunno and for roll rate... I know that ruddering into a roll
will speed one up so those who pay no attention to rudder may slow the roll with opposite
control if they do not notice, which is easy with twisty stick I know because so far that
is what I have.

The excitement of Air Quake, aka DF, is no place to be judging flight models but I am sure
that you have historic Macchi roll rate charts and have made careful tests and sent tracks
in to Maddox Games so I bow to your proven facts.

onebox33
08-10-2006, 02:09 PM
know that ruddering into a roll
will speed one up so those who pay no attention to rudder may slow the roll with opposite
control if they do not notice, which is easy with twisty stick I know because so far that
is what I have.

no, the rudder does nothing of important, we are talking about a big gap and about macchi roll rate charts... it's a joke ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

WWMaxGunz
08-10-2006, 04:21 PM
Oh good, you have Macchi rollrate charts to show us!

Even if you don't know what a snaproll is....

EDIT:ADD Also if you try rolling while in slip, it does not work as well.
I remember when the P-47 rollrate was a big issue and people sent in tracks.
What Oleg had to say first was that most of those people did not know how to
properly roll a plane. Turns out they did not roll coordinated, the rate did
suffer. Then there was a change anyway, IIRC. Just how did that go?

onebox33
08-10-2006, 05:28 PM
i haven't macchi's roll rate tables but i have confiance in my feeling
someone said this yet...read,understand and reply.
I can add only don't say stupid argumentations like macchi roll rate charts...if you know what you are talking about

...so it isn't a joke http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
end of comunication...

Gatt59
08-11-2006, 12:16 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Nowhere did I say that the Macchis have correct roll rate, or speed or climb for rate of turn
for that matter. More than once I have posted in this thread that I do not contest that the
Macchis do or do not meet historic data.

I have contested that the Macchis as modelled are spin prone when flown correctly.
The excitement of Air Quake, aka DF, is no place to be judging flight models

Well, you should judge a correct FM first from his comparison with his historical data: climb to altitudes times, acceleration and speed at various altitudes, istantaneous and sustained turn performances at various speeds and alts ... roll rates ... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

With the absence of a good (climb and level) autopilot (like in AH2 and the old WB I knew) feature you cannot judge times and speeds very well. Thats a smart move from Oleg, justified by the FM realism http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif He could have simply make this feature allowable or not, depending on flight model level, like many others features in IL-2.

AFAIK, there are no roll charts available so far for the Macchi's but only a cheerleader could judge as realistic the IL-2's ones. Better, only a cheerleader could not understand that a porked roll rate could destroy the whole FM and aircraft ability to fight. The 205 should be a fast 1943 hit&climb energy fighter at medium altitudes. The spin? Drive a 205 as you have to and the spin is no more the first of the problems. Only 205 dweebs close-turnfight against contemporary foes like Spitfire IXs and P-38s. Fix the roll rate and we all could forget that damned spin thing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

WWMaxGunz
08-11-2006, 02:41 AM
EDIT: MY ERROR Onebox... comment about no charts is directed at the one without data but
still says he knows sim model rolls too slow.
ADD MORE: oh wait, it is you! Fine then, don't make stupid
argumentations about Macchi roll rates when YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE!
That means - it is you who does not know what he is talking about since I MAKE NO CLAIMS
OF THE ROLLRATE SO I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT ROLLRATE. You want to say about it then show
something more than your unqualified opinion.


Originally posted by onebox33:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">i haven't macchi's roll rate tables but i have confiance in my feeling
someone said this yet...read,understand and reply.
I can add only don't say stupid argumentations like macchi roll rate charts...if you know what you are talking about

...so it isn't a joke http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
end of comunication... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is it your joke to say the roll rate is wrong when you don't have data to show?

WWMaxGunz
08-11-2006, 03:05 AM
Originally posted by Gatt59:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Nowhere did I say that the Macchis have correct roll rate, or speed or climb for rate of turn
for that matter. More than once I have posted in this thread that I do not contest that the
Macchis do or do not meet historic data.

I have contested that the Macchis as modelled are spin prone when flown correctly.
The excitement of Air Quake, aka DF, is no place to be judging flight models

Well, you should judge a correct FM first from his comparison with his historical data: climb to altitudes times, acceleration and speed at various altitudes, istantaneous and sustained turn performances at various speeds and alts ... roll rates ... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

With the absence of a good (climb and level) autopilot (like in AH2 and the old WB I knew) feature you cannot judge times and speeds very well. Thats a smart move from Oleg, justified by the FM realism http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif He could have simply make this feature allowable or not, depending on flight model level, like many others features in IL-2.

AFAIK, there are no roll charts available so far for the Macchi's but only a cheerleader could judge as realistic the IL-2's ones. Better, only a cheerleader could not understand that a porked roll rate could destroy the whole FM and aircraft ability to fight. The 205 should be a fast 1943 hit&climb energy fighter at medium altitudes. The spin? Drive a 205 as you have to and the spin is no more the first of the problems. Only 205 dweebs close-turnfight against contemporary foes like Spitfire IXs and P-38s. Fix the roll rate and we all could forget that damned spin thing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I tell you that I only checked against claims about spins and found them false. I found out
why some people have this problem. I found out details of the 202 that do lead in that
direction if someone does not correct with rudder. Tell me if the angle of the tail to
deal with propwash had also been changed when the left wing was made longer to counter
torque because at the low speeds of AirQuakeDF the propwash is an problem if not countered.

In response you tell me that I must prove the FM is historically real and provide no data
on what that real is? Only tales from war stories that you cannot duplicate and will not
accept that your own piloting may be the difference?

Who is the cheerleader? I only checked and found that this "damned spin thing" is pilot
error. Simple as that. Drive any of those models as you should and spin is not a problem.
Don't go hanging your frustrations of ANYTHING ELSE on my message as that is insane on your
own part... it is not an off/on switch that **either** the Macchis are undermodelled and
spin too easy **or** whoever does not think so must believe they are totally correct.
Well I guess it works for you since that way you make claims with no need for data, just
your ideas from reading stories backed by your inability to match those ideas.

Oh yes, Oleg should adjust all Macchis until you give approval based on your own skills
which if you have problems with spin then hey Oleg just arcade those models down to CFS
or less and save time and aggravation. Until you can fly straight and keep the planes
straight then your own results will be less.

BTW, tracks made can be played back through devicelink and show amount of slip and precise
roll along with much other data sent to log file. Send your efforts in to Maddox Games
and if you have flown correctly and results are as bad as you say then they will see it.
Oleg is an aero engineer and pilot with experience as professional. He will know. You
want to play mistrust then look at your basis of why first.

Gatt59
08-11-2006, 03:43 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
.........
Who is the cheerleader? I only checked and found that this "damned spin thing" is pilot
error. Simple as that. Drive any of those models as you should and spin is not a problem.
Don't go hanging your frustrations of ANYTHING ELSE on my message as that is insane on your
own part... it is not an off/on switch that **either** the Macchis are undermodelled and
spin too easy **or** whoever does not think so must believe they are totally correct.
Well I guess it works for you since that way you make claims with no need for data, just
your ideas from reading stories backed by your inability to match those ideas ...

Look, I like helping the two main groups of guys who have been searching, studying and supplying data about italian planes during the last 6 years for Warbirds, Aces High, Targetware's "Target Tobruk" mod and eventually IL-2. So I've been flying online and offline many different Macchis for a long time for four different sims. I can tell you one thing: the best one is modelled by AcesHigh, even if rollrate charts arent available. How we know? First becouse she doesnt roll like a four-engined bomber and (jokes apart) becouse her roll rate is someway compatible with her other flight performances. Yes, we dont have hard data about roll but for sure we can say when a roll rate is so low to be weird, and above all doesnt allow you to use well his combat style.

BTW, *I*'ve no frustration or any problem of cheerleading since after trying the IL-2's Macchis for some weeks I deleted the whole thing from my HD. I am just upset for the missed chance and the wasted work of many italian guys.

joeap
08-11-2006, 03:47 AM
Originally posted by Gatt59:
BTW, *I*'ve no problem of cheerleading since after trying the IL-2's Macchis for some weeks I deleted the whole thing from my HD. I am upset for the missed chance.

Cripes, that is drastic!! Just because of one type of plane when there are some other good ones? Well anyway I am fed up with this thread...Veltro said at the beginning he had some data he and others sent to Oleg ... otherwise we are going in circles.

onebox33
08-11-2006, 04:33 AM
no way...it is easier to find macchi's roll rate tables than don't leave him the last word...
Prof.Max please teach us the correct way to fly them...Max do you know the delta for roll rate of 205 compared to the most similar 109 in the sim? Try to say a number?
Macchi roll rate charts... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif
if you haven't better argumentations silence is gold and anyway before talking try to figure out something of less ordinary...

WWMaxGunz
08-11-2006, 05:09 AM
English must be a foreign language to you. Logic as well.
Perhaps you only speak 'emotion'.

Point where I have stated roll rates are right or wrong for Macchis please.

Simple logic: you want to say they are wrong then it is up to you to prove. Not me. You.

Someone provided data to Oleg even if it is complete blueprints to run a model through a
software wind tunnel and derive approximate characteristics.

I do not argue roll rate correctness. I tell you straight though that if you cannot keep
the fuselage pointed where the plane is going then you will not turn or roll at best rate
nor will you make best speed or climb or dive and even your shooting will be off target
for every bit you fly with slip. I tell you straight that through devicelink the data
of how you fly is available not only flying offline but in track records you make.

And I know from posts that at least some of the ones who complain do fly crooked.

I point these things out that people may understand and possibly shut up about ONLY the
things I point out they do wrong. NOTHING about what may be achieved in those models
when they are flown right. Even I only getting slip close to center can turn the Macchis
right into greyout without spinning, and I do it consistent without being perfect. Can
you? By your posts it looks like not.

I don't care much for 57 post Gatt. He compares sims that he has DIRECTLY INFLUENCED.
Sims that do not require the same piloting abilities as this one. His ability with
those is no measure of this one. He has thrown his fit instead of learning. Big deal.
I am sure that a fan-made CFS2 Macchi flown by a 12 year old noob will beat the Spitfires
in that sim so I guess it is more real? Whatever it takes for you, boys.

WWMaxGunz
08-11-2006, 05:19 AM
Originally posted by onebox33:
no, the rudder does nothing of important, we are talking about a big gap and about macchi roll rate charts...

Perhaps in sims where slip/roll coupling is not modelled you can ignore rudder.
In REALITY is does matter and since 4.0x the FB planes do not align themselves for you so
yes it does matter.

EDIT:
And then there is the maneuver known as snap roll where yes, hard rudder is the difference
since the plane is slipped *into* the roll rather than *out of* which you get not using
rudder. Snap roll uses spin in the direction of the desired roll and is an advanced move.

Welcome to the next level, if you ever make it.

onebox33
08-11-2006, 05:54 AM
Welcome to the next level, if you ever make it
Max, just a suggestion if i can...let lose macchi and twisty stick... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Gatt59
08-11-2006, 06:20 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I don't care much for 57 post Gatt. He compares sims that he has DIRECTLY INFLUENCED.
Sims that do not require the same piloting abilities as this one. His ability with
those is no measure of this one. He has thrown his fit instead of learning. Big deal.
I am sure that a fan-made CFS2 Macchi flown by a 12 year old noob will beat the Spitfires
in that sim so I guess it is more real? Whatever it takes for you, boys.

Fan made? Directly influenced? Just the opposite. Data were sent and discussed with developers. Then the FM came out from them, not from us. Guess what, the 205 is not an uber plane at all but some of those FM are still quite good, with no huge holes or weird behaviours.

I've beta tested since the first IL-2 and no, IL-2 doesnt requires more combat flying skills than some of those other sims. Stop this funny cheerleading for a while.

WWMaxGunz
08-11-2006, 06:35 AM
What data?

Gatt59
08-11-2006, 06:50 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
What data?

Well, the aircraft manual, parts list and WW2 test results published in Italy by Aerofan magazine and abroad by Profile Publications. The author of the latter, G.Cattaneo, has been working at AerMacchi for many years. These are mainly speeds at various altitudes and climb to altitudes times. Recently we have discovered even the wing and propeller tech draws of the C205.

onebox33
08-11-2006, 07:05 AM
Max just to understand, i firstly said that i haven't macchi roll rate tables (you must know this by yourself if you are so expert...)
and reply was:
"oh God you have macchi roll rate charts to show us..."
then you said that English must be a foreign language to me and it is true...so can you explain me the meaning of dweeb and moron that someone addressed to you...
regards

Col._King
08-11-2006, 08:08 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

sudoku1941
08-11-2006, 10:42 AM
Isn't it hilarious how Head Cheerleader Gunz will say that a sim fan can't possibly create an accurate flight model (even when they have access to historical and authoritative data)...

and yet puts his complete faith and trust behind Oleg's "super secret, can't-be-named sources". He also thinks Oleg is the only aerodynamic engineer anywhere, and only he can do physics calculations. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

The icing on the cake, however, is that despite Oleg's credentials, despite his expensive and well-guarded data sources; despite all that... IL-2 planes still DON'T hit the numbers, they change dramatically between versions, and in fact, fail to even simulate the personalities of the aircraft in question. Still waiting for the answer to the big question: "So, which version's models are the correct ones?" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Perhaps, Gunz, instead of playing Head Sycophant, you might go and find some of this data yourself and see the error of Oleg's ways.

I can't speak for CFS, but I do know that other sims' flight models do come closer than the IL-2 series to approximating the numbers, and to illuminating the various personality traits of these planes. But, you already knew that, eh?

WWMaxGunz
08-11-2006, 02:53 PM
No, dingleberry, I say the average sim fan can't make a realistic -handling- FM whether what
that fan does hits numbers or not. That's because the average sim fan knows very little
about actual flight despite having minimal basic data, "best" numbers.

Big difference. Tabled sims all hit the numbers they wanted EXACTLY so why don't you tell
me how realistic the Aces series models actually "flew".

What Oryx wrote to me while waiting for his PhD in Aero Engineering papers to come in, yeah
the 1% group at CFS is within 1% for everything they know which is a long way from everything.

I understand that PC flight sims can't be perfect. The ones that work from endpoints back
are almost as on-rails as pure-table-driven sims. The ones that work from factors up in
free-run force-based have the most feel but don't meet all the numbers and when they get
warped to meet numbers the handling suffers. You can have the numbers or you can have the
handling and feel and in some cases you can fool people who know no better into thinking
a few performance points is all there is to it.

We have gotten upgrades called patches regularly and quickly. All the changes to all the
planes are never all at once. There's too much work for a couple guys part time to do it.
No I never said the IL2 series is perfect. I'm kinda leaning towards it may be over half
of ++everything++ but hey that's far more than anything else I've tried that runs on a PC.
So when an upgrade comes in with some extra realism I do understand that the process is
not a straight line where you can say 60% is here and 65% is there and 65% will always be
this way with these things. That's for simple-minded ***** to think like. I look at
better is better and maybe something is lost that is smaller than another thing gained.

Unlike you I don't make half-fast, half-baked claims and push agendas. If not supporting
a bunch of unfounded spew but instead pointing out the faults in the presentations of that
or just acting reasonable about what can't be due to hardware and time limits makes me a
cheerleader then... well it's just another of your quick-call no-good exaggerations.

How long has TW been in development? Are they up to 1.0 yet? How many planes did THEY do
and how many are users ideas of what should be? Why aren't you there... oh yeah, you need
to do whatever it takes to get customers, errr, beta testers, errr, other customers. If I
go over to their forum and trash every little detail real or imagined then how long before
I can get banned? Can you help me sneak back in? I'd have to lie about my name, wouldn't
I? You know, like you must have doen to get back in here and start your (rap again.

You couldn't twist this sim the way you wanted and you've been a jerk ever since even after
you find one where you do get listened to and can roll your own models when you want. You
ain't here to help, that's for sure. But hey, you gotta satisfy you troll-mental urges and
no way you'll be doing that on a TW forum! So you get it out here instead. You've been
banned here already but here you come sliding back in with your same gut-crawlin ways.

History book and charts don't tell far more than the do but you just fill in the rest how
you think it is. It's not like the real thing takes years in college to understand well
enough to design planes or make commercial grade flight software is it? Oh... wait......

WWMaxGunz
08-11-2006, 02:56 PM
BTW Stig, what level of calculus are you up to lately?
How much RT-RW software have you written?

WWMaxGunz
08-11-2006, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by onebox33:
Max just to understand, i firstly said that i haven't macchi roll rate tables (you must know this by yourself if you are so expert...)
and reply was:
"oh God you have macchi roll rate charts to show us..."
then you said that English must be a foreign language to me and it is true...so can you explain me the meaning of dweeb and moron that someone addressed to you...
regards

You say the roll rates are too low so I say not 'oh God' but oh good you must have data.
That is sarcasm which I guess you have not enough command of english to figure out.

Dweeb is a term from way back in flight simming much used by Air Warrior players.
A dweeb is someone who will always complain rather than learn or change. A dweeb will get
online in a plane the dweeb feels should win and when the dweeb loses he complains loud
and long that the plane should have won. That's the kind of things that dweebs do. In
AW the plane was almost always a Spitfire and the special dweebs in those are known as
Spitdweebs. They are not to be confused with a good player in a Spitfire. They are
poor pilots and even worse at tactics. The mark of a dweeb there is they never try
anything different. They fly low and fight in tight circles. Ever seen anything like it?

EDIT:
Moron is a term for sub-average IQ of some measured amount, ******s are I think smarter.
In slang though, moron is someone who refuses to understand simple things.

I can discuss reasonably but please don't credit me with arguments I don't make or I
will say fair enough and return the same. Sauce for goose is sauce for gander.

BTW, I do see the Macchis are slow to begin a roll even to about 180 degrees. But then
I have the stick sliders well down and filter at halfway up, the stick graphic in the
cockpit moves just as slow. I put the sliders up and the plane wobbles as I'm not as
steady as I should be... it's me not the plane though I only used the 1941 MC-202 this
time.

If I keep speed up 320 and higher in turns then I get the best turn rate with the stick
about halfway back. Right into greyout and bleeding speed as hey there is no WWII prop
fighter I know of that can sustain more than 3 G's in a flat turn. If I spiral down
then I can hold that turn till I run out of alt though. When I pulled more stick the
turn slowed down, I was over the edge and starting into stall. The signs were all there
too. Loss of turn rate, accelerated bleed and wing buffets. But I said to heck with it
and kept right on pulling as if that would get me more turn rate. Below 310 kph somewhere
I pulled the last 1/4 of the stick throw while ignoring the roughness of the buffets and
bang I had me an accelerated spin that went flat really quick even though I had the ball
centered or about so. Right turn with small amount of right rudder got spin to the right
and left turn with small amount of left rudder (I did back the yaw sliders down too for
better control, Macchi does not need much rudder but it does need it) and wham I got the
accelerated (high-G) stall and spun left very hard. It is I note on my PC very hard to
be sure of the spin direction, the ground seems to jump by I have a GF5200FX card only.
So I paused, then turned time down to 1/4 speed and watched from external to make sure
of the direction of spin and for coordinated right turn spin was not to the left. I did
have to ignore speed and buffets and pull back not snap fast but pretty quick (1/2 sec
for final 1/4 stick pull) for the situation to get that bad spins. Only once could I
get out and regain control and that was difficult.

I don't know of the real Macchi but the ones in IL2 I would never try turning hard at lower
speeds. They work well, best really at 360+ and less than full stick pulled to in a steady
manner. If I could not track a turning plane then I would rise or drop the nose if it was
a close thing and cut inside his circle using my lowered G-force in the slight dive that
lessens my wingloading and allows a bit more turnrate from my wings then come back up and
either get the shot or duck, reverse my turn and extend away.

I can't say you'll beat a well flown SpitVB every time in the game. I am aware that the
SpitVB 41 we have is really a mid 1942 model though with error in the label. I can say
that with not too great an advantage that I could see getting one since turning at grey
out is the best he will do without monitor cheat. At least I can see it if the turn does
not go too long before I get my shots in at least to damage him. If I see my speed drop
then again it's time to extend. Those tactics suit the model we have as I can fly it.

How many flat turns do the Italian pilots say they did with the Spitfires anyway? And
how far did each have to fly just to meet? Did one side have pilots who were already up
defending for long before the others showed up? Who was more tired? Book stories that
don't tell, you can't assume either way. And people who pull short passages and say proof
are even worse as they are dishonest where the story was written in whole for what it is.

I really would like to know the data you ahve and the reasoning that leads to your ideas
of roll rate. If it is because the turn rate then consider that the fastest rolling planes
are some of the worse turning planes many times. Examples are P-47 and FW-190!


worse

onebox33
08-11-2006, 05:28 PM
I can discuss reasonably but please don't credit me with arguments I don't make or I
will say fair enough and return the same
so try to avoid your un-wanted sarcasm, first we aren't in a courthouse Max and then you can't ask for something, that just before i said is unavaiable...
and again, snap roll is an evasive manouver so what is the relation with a normal roll manouver i don't know, i am not interested in spin, snap roll or anything else, i said about my opinion and impression, it's a too much slow roll rate for 202/205, can i have my opinion?
without lessons from a twisty stick handler?

p.s. Max i appreciate your intents to find the best way to fly them but in the italian community we talked about this for a very long time (months) with many users and conclusions were all the same....so i gave my opinion but honestly i have not yet much interest about them, i consider them lost...and i am afraid for all the work done.

WWMaxGunz
08-12-2006, 04:15 AM
First thing you say is avoid unwanted sarcasm yet how you end your post? Okay. Fine.
Sorry Mr. Pedals who makes the juevenile ***** reference twice now. So I guess you jerk
your joystick to get the best roll. Are we done with such? Was it fun for you? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Yeah, you can feel however you want. You make statements then expect to see criticisms.
Nowhere did I say Macchi rollrates are historic and yet you had no trouble jumping on me!
Why you do that when you don't want to discuss ANYTHING I was? Why you jumped in? When
you said roll rate I explained I don't make claims on roll rate and you still tell me
I'm wrong. I think you are yanking more than the joystick but don't try to yank me!

I am sorry you have no respect for Oleg Maddox and his abilities. You must know better
than him? There are many here who do always. The good ones send information that Oleg
does credit well and builds or changes FM's on. He is not inflexible but it takes more
than "I think" or "I feel" to get a change.

But you worked with the ones who did send information on Macchis before the FM was made
and yet you seem to have not only nothing on roll rate but you won't show anything of the
information you claim to base your ideas of what it should be upon since I did ask about
that. Until you can show reason I will class you as an agenda-driving little troll whining
to have his fan-favorite planes uberized in the worst tradition here at The UBI Zoo.

onebox33
08-12-2006, 04:23 AM
Max consider the last ps as a reply i am not interested to go on with the discussion...
Don't take twisty handler as a offence, it is a different way to fly (as you said about rudder problems) but i suggest you to try with not-rotating sticks anyway http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
...and i jumped in with rollrates because this is the problem with macchi's fm, processions of people said this....but no way to understand it?

NonWonderDog
08-12-2006, 11:33 AM
So, although you have no data either way and no facts behind you, you're argueing vehemently that the Macchi roll rates are wrong because... someone else said they were wrong? Someone else who may or may not have had any facts to back them up?

Personally, if I know nothing about an issue -- and especially if I admit repeatedly that I know nothing about an issue -- I don't take an inflexibly strong stance and spit vitriol at everyone around me that either disagrees or prefers not to take a stance. That just seems... well, nevermind. I have no euphemisms for how I feel about that mentality.

onebox33
08-12-2006, 01:16 PM
Mr. Perry Mason i didn't nothing of this... i only reported my impressions. The data are sent to Oleg not to the nOOb forumers, but you are sure about a right roll rate for macchi...so have you some data to support this point or are you saying this assuming that Oleg never makes errors... or simply may be you are a fanboy that speaks only to keep attention...
if not you can show me your data, since you guys are talking only of this, i believe that you have alot of them... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

WWMaxGunz
08-12-2006, 02:30 PM
The ones that makes the CLAIMS needs to be showing the PROOF.

I make no claim about rollrate correct. NWD makes no claim about rollrate.

Only ones who do give no data of any kind, no reasoning backed by data as OneBox Troll say
he has but then shows... nothing but opinion "too slow" and demands a change to faster.

We can have opinions... IMO OneBox has nothing but desire to roll faster no matter how he
flies. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

NWD, given the shape and all of the wings from aircraft plans, how hard is it to find the
effects of changes in lift when having the ailerons at different angles? This is a force
based sim, not a table-and stick-position driven sim. Even if there is rollrate data, the
factors have to be figured into simulated parts and effects.

onebox33
08-12-2006, 03:03 PM
Yes, i haven't macchi's roll rate tables but i have confiance in my feeling and i am not wrong with it...or at least this is what i believe
Is this a claim or an opinion?
You guys have some problems, believe me!
To have an opinion or to report an impression what is the reason that i must support this with the data?
Data are sent to Oleg not from me but from people who worked at it...before someone said to you also some kind of documentation that were sent...but are you able to read?
Are you able to understand? Don't you think that others people judge you from your words?
As said before we aren't in a courthouse and you are simply ridicolous!

WWMaxGunz
08-12-2006, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by onebox33:
no way...it is easier to find macchi's roll rate tables than don't leave him the last word...
Prof.Max please teach us the correct way to fly them...Max do you know the delta for roll rate of 205 compared to the most similar 109 in the sim? Try to say a number?
Macchi roll rate charts... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif
if you haven't better argumentations silence is gold and anyway before talking try to figure out something of less ordinary...

Easier to find macchi's roll rate tables than....

Funny little troll, I never challenged anything about Macchi rollrates and stated just so.
It was YOU who pushed the issue.

You don't have the data but that does not stop you from pushing the issue, does it?
Oh no! Pushy little troll wants to steer things into his little no-data troll trap.

And I STILL have made no claim about Macchi roll rates.

WWMaxGunz
08-12-2006, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by onebox33:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">know that ruddering into a roll
will speed one up so those who pay no attention to rudder may slow the roll with opposite
control if they do not notice, which is easy with twisty stick I know because so far that
is what I have.

no, the rudder does nothing of important, we are talking about a big gap and about macchi roll rate charts... it's a joke ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You make no statement here? No claim at all?

Oh no, just backpedal as needed.

WWMaxGunz
08-12-2006, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by onebox33:
sorry Max, you don't see the big point.

So now you will tell me what I should accept. That my checking of claims on spins is just what?
Once I can show the spins claims are FALSE it is time to channel discussion into your contention.


It is a very slow roll rate for 202/205...
you don't need processions of words and calculations, if you fly a 109 and a 205 FEEL the difference and go considering it ...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

And there is the claim along with admission it is based on FEEL.


Yes, i haven't macchi's roll rate tables but i have confiance in my feeling and i am not wrong with it...or at least this is what i believe http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The Troll has Spoken and no one should contest.
The Troll is confidant and says "i am not wrong with it" and immediately backs off a step.
The Troll in true troll style wants to make a point and never need to back it up.
That tripe belongs in GD, not ORR.

onebox33
08-12-2006, 03:54 PM
ok Max...you changed my opinion, now i feel macchi rolling better http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

onebox33
08-12-2006, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by pdog1:
Your a moron and a dweeb
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif +1

joeap
08-12-2006, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by onebox33:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by pdog1:
Your a moron and a dweeb
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif +1 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

-1 very mature guys.

onebox33
08-12-2006, 06:25 PM
1 very mature guys.
thanks daddy but you know...when it's needed it's needed...since i can say that only a
FOOL can see a claim based on FEEL...
As i said again and again and again
the claim is gone (but not from me) to Oleg with the documentation. I was talking only about my feeling, my impressions, my opinions...i think that the rollrate is slow and what a unlucky decision when i decided to post here.
Here you need the proof to have an opinion...

...let you see but from a brave one!

ElAurens
08-12-2006, 07:28 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
NWD, given the shape and all of the wings from aircraft plans, how hard is it to find the
effects of changes in lift when having the ailerons at different angles? This is a force
based sim, not a table-and stick-position driven sim. Even if there is rollrate data, the
factors have to be figured into simulated parts and effects.

Max, as I understand it, and as my trusted Pt 17 instructor tells me, there is no way to predict roll rate. I has to be measured.

As an example I would give the Hawk 75 and first series P40s. There is simply no way you could predict from looking at their specifications that they would have roll rates that could only be bettered by an FW 190, and not by much at that.

Perhaps we should let this one go Gents. Without credible data we are just wasting bandwidth here.

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

onebox33
08-12-2006, 08:10 PM
Without credible data we are just wasting bandwidth here
i believe that very few ww2 planes have roll rates charts...anyway as i said, some credible documentation (not sure but i think some pilots and testers reports and some project's documentation) has been sent to Oleg ...
we'll see the next patches.
At now we can only say that macchi are not very used on hl statistics... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

WWMaxGunz
08-12-2006, 08:24 PM
game balance time .............

sudoku1941
08-12-2006, 10:32 PM
Forget it, guys...

For some people, the discussion can't rise above a certain level...

http://www.ipsumdolor.net/screenies/cheerldr.JPG

"Yaaaaaay....OLEG!!!!"

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

Daiichidoku
08-12-2006, 11:03 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

WWMaxGunz
08-13-2006, 01:01 AM
Originally posted by sudoku1941:
Forget it, guys...

For some people, the discussion can't rise above a certain level...



And you're one of the a-holes that drags discussions down to yours.

Why are you here?

joeap
08-13-2006, 04:19 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sudoku1941:
Forget it, guys...

For some people, the discussion can't rise above a certain level...



And you're one of the a-holes that drags discussions down to yours.

Why are you here? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+1 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

joeap
08-13-2006, 04:19 AM
Originally posted by sudoku1941:
Forget it, guys...

For some people, the discussion can't rise above a certain level...

http://www.ipsumdolor.net/screenies/cheerldr.JPG

"Yaaaaaay....OLEG!!!!"

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
-1

+1 for the pic

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

joeap
08-13-2006, 04:22 AM
Mods time to lock this one down. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

pdog1
08-13-2006, 05:05 AM
Originally posted by sudoku1941:
Forget it, guys...

For some people, the discussion can't rise above a certain level...

http://www.ipsumdolor.net/screenies/cheerldr.JPG


I see you

http://www.ipsumdolor.net/screenies/cheerldr.JPG

and i raise you

http://content.crazyphotos.com/85311.jpg

Brain32
08-13-2006, 05:22 AM
Please continue, mod's don't lock http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

onebox33
08-13-2006, 05:31 AM
eheheh...i can smell her flowers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

onebox33
08-13-2006, 07:53 AM
ah Max...just to complete MY OPINION
also spins and dm are a bit strange http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
but as i said in my "claim" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif...
i can live with it because i have not yet so much interest in them...not after all these years...not after all these problems http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif
do you see a claim in my point?

WWMaxGunz
08-13-2006, 08:24 AM
I see no point in your claim Onebox.

And Stiglr has shown that he has no point either.

onebox33
08-13-2006, 08:41 AM
no Max you don't understand the difference between an opinion and a claim http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

anyway sorry at all...and let lose twisty stick for a min. of realism at least with the cloche http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WWMaxGunz
08-13-2006, 08:57 AM
The difference is you. No claim, no backing up, no point. And no discussion.
You are only trolling to make it look like you have a point. Keep backpedalling out.

onebox33
08-13-2006, 09:22 AM
Keep backpedalling out.
yes if i wish, since i paied the software exactly like you, dear MaxConfusedGuns and imo you are the troll and the nOob...
So it's only a POV question... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

joeap
08-14-2006, 04:04 AM
Originally posted by onebox33:
no Max you don't understand the difference between an opinion and a claim http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

anyway sorry at all...and let lose twisty stick for a min. of realism at least with the cloche http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Pdog, best post you've made with that pic.

onebox, sorry I was joking around, let me say again you both have good points, feel has its place in sims and I am goint to buy pedals when I can as it is much more effective for flying.

269GA-Veltro
08-14-2006, 04:57 AM
We will see in the 4.06 addon.....but now the Macchi project has been only a waste of time...nobody fly them, nobody enjoy with them. This is what happens online....

We only hope they could use all the stuff we have sent them for the MED sim, but IL2 is gone...at least for the italians.

http://ourworld.cs.com/veltrof2/269/TRISTEZZA.jpg

269GA-Veltro
08-14-2006, 07:04 AM
This is directly from an italian pilot who fought also in the Ukrainian sky (all this stuff with several italian pilots interviews has been sent to Oleg), i post only some words...i can't post all.

Q: Torque effect (none, weak, hard)

A: It was weak on C200 and C202, a bit harder in C205. Anyway it was easy to correct with the right foot.

Q: Turn behaviour;

A: Macchi 202 and 205 were wonderful, you could paint very neats turn with both of them. C200 could be a nasty plane in the step turns, but it was easy to recover plane's control.

Q: Stall behaviour;

A: You could feel the stall coming from the wing's vibration, on every plane. Italian pilots had a pretty good acrobatic preparation.

Q: Control's sensivity at high speed;

A: Well...what do you mean when say high speed...at full throttle and level filght you had full sensitivity and Macchi had quick responses. But when you were in an extended dive the stick was incredibly tough.

Q: Energy saving;

A: Of course manouvreing would make you loose energy. You had to be genlte witht the stick.

Q: Roll rate;

A: Normal not impressive.

This pilot flew Macchi, Spitifre after the 8th september and P-47 after the war.

Q: How were them in aerobatics;

A: Macchi 202-205 and Spitfire were wonderful aerobatics planes; P47 had a short of agility at high altitude. About C200...well as i told you it could be nasty, but i loved that plane it was sturdy and saved my life more than once, a C200 in goods hands could be extremely monouvreable.

Q: Can you describe Macchi C200?

A: C200 was a beautiful plane, and was the only modern fighter we had in the beginning of WW2. In Russia, C200 worked well and proved to be a safe and reliable plane, it was much better than I16 and a good match for the LaGG3 that had a strong armament, most of times we dogfight with those planes, but i think we had better pilots than the Soviets. C200 best quality was, in my opinion, his sturdniess, he could substains a lot of damaged.

Q:Which has been the best fighter of the WW2, in your opinion?

A: Among the ones i flew....Spit, no doubt.

Q: What's about C205?

A: MC205 was faster, much faster than 202, with an extremely strong firepower but with just one fault... 205 arrived to late.

Thank to my friend who has drived around Italy to take this interview and the others.

sudoku1941
08-14-2006, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by 269GA-Veltro:
We will see in the 4.06 addon.....but now the Macchi project has been only a waste of time...nobody fly them, nobody enjoy with them. This is what happens online....

We only hope they could use all the stuff we have sent them for the MED sim, but IL2 is gone...at least for the italians.

http://ourworld.cs.com/veltrof2/269/TRISTEZZA.jpg

Kind of stupid to see the entire coast of North Africa squeezed into something like 40km wide, isn't it? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

This map, along with the half sized ones for PF, show just what a lack of understanding the design team really has for its subject. But, hey, it looks purty, so....

sudoku1941
08-14-2006, 09:18 AM
Originally posted by sudoku1941:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 269GA-Veltro:
We will see in the 4.06 addon.....but now the Macchi project has been only a waste of time...nobody fly them, nobody enjoy with them. This is what happens online....

We only hope they could use all the stuff we have sent them for the MED sim, but IL2 is gone...at least for the italians.

http://ourworld.cs.com/veltrof2/269/TRISTEZZA.jpg

Kind of stupid to see the entire coast of North Africa squeezed into something like 60km wide, isn't it? And "Malta" is HUGE in comparison, plus it's conveniently right off the coast so you don't have any inconvenient transit times. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

This map, along with the half sized ones for PF, the "islands" off Normandy... they show just what a lack of understanding the design team really has for its subject. But, hey, it looks purty, so.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Col._King
08-14-2006, 01:39 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif
(Grabbing the Popcorn pot and a huge bottle of Coke...This seems to go ahead. More Babes, please....)

Actually I can point out the final solution for this thread:

In Italy still exist a Macchi C. 205 Veltro in perfect Flying Conditions. It wears the Cobelligerant markings, as far as I know.
Someone contact the pilot of this plane, and make him sit at the controls of the Il2 Sim Macchis, to see what we have. Then, he will have to fly the real thing once again, making all what is needed to have a comparation between the real aircraft and the Simmed Variant of it we all can fly, and his opinion will be the final point, taking to an end this diatribe. So we will know if our Macchis are faithful to the FM of the original thing, or not....

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

pdog1
08-14-2006, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by Col._King:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif
(Grabbing the Popcorn pot and a huge bottle of Coke...This seems to go ahead. More Babes, please....)

Actually I can point out the final solution for this thread:

In Italy still exist a Macchi C. 205 Veltro in perfect Flying Conditions. It wears the Cobelligerant markings, as far as I know.
Someone contact the pilot of this plane, and make him sit at the controls of the Il2 Sim Macchis, to see what we have. Then, he will have to fly the real thing once again, making all what is needed to have a comparation between the real aircraft and the Simmed Variant of it we all can fly, and his opinion will be the final point, taking to an end this diatribe. So we will know if our Macchis are faithful to the FM of the original thing, or not....

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

I think that Macchi either crashed or is retired from flying... so either way that won't work.

edit: Just did a quick google search... this Macchi flew in 1981 but is now on display at a musuem in Milano.

http://www.museoscienza.org/english/aereo/mc205.asp

tigertalon
08-14-2006, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by sudoku1941:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 269GA-Veltro:
We will see in the 4.06 addon.....but now the Macchi project has been only a waste of time...nobody fly them, nobody enjoy with them. This is what happens online....

We only hope they could use all the stuff we have sent them for the MED sim, but IL2 is gone...at least for the italians.

http://ourworld.cs.com/veltrof2/269/TRISTEZZA.jpg

Kind of stupid to see the entire coast of North Africa squeezed into something like 40km wide, isn't it? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

This map, along with the half sized ones for PF, show just what a lack of understanding the design team really has for its subject. But, hey, it looks purty, so.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who said that's north african map? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif (It may look like one, but it's map designers problem if he uses it as such.)

On a serious note, I agree completely.

Gatt59
08-14-2006, 02:43 PM
Right guys, the only flying Veltro crash landed years ago.

Onebox, as you probably know, pilots memories are seldom used by FM makers. Too much subjective. However, knowing the 205 wing and aileron shapes and areas, and distribution of weights it should not be impossible to build a decent FM. At least an FM you dont feel porked as soon as you roll your Macchi during a fight. Italian planes have probably suffered for shortage of time and/or designers during the patch/add-on development.

WWMaxGunz
08-14-2006, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sudoku1941:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 269GA-Veltro:
http://ourworld.cs.com/veltrof2/269/TRISTEZZA.jpg

Kind of stupid to see the entire coast of North Africa squeezed into something like 40km wide, isn't it? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

This map, along with the half sized ones for PF, show just what a lack of understanding the design team really has for its subject. But, hey, it looks purty, so.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who said that's north african map? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif (It may look like one, but it's map designers problem if he uses it as such.) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It has a somewhat passing resemblance to the section of the North African coast where the
operation was when the US first met with the Germans, the east end of Vichy controlled NA
if you figure that yellow dot in C4 with the mountains below as Tunis though the islands
sizes and placements are way 'off' to be Sardinia and Sicily. No Malta there either,
perhaps that would be in column G?

Not a bad attempt for a make-do until the mapmakers add an accurate one of that mid-coast
area and maybe Tunis to Tobruk with South Italy to Rome, then Tobruk to Suez with the top
including Athens? Big maps yes but mostly not having towns and such much like Pacific
maps where fullness of map seems to be more about permanent 3D objects.

I like the quotes Veltro. I see that pilot quality is his factor of all maneuver performance.
C200 could be nasty, but with a good pilot, as all Italian pilots were trained. Does that
match arcade aces of previous sims and versions who balk at "easy to correct with the right
foot"? And if you ask him what was the best plane? He says the Spit. So maybe some players
do have expectations too high and things are *not so far wrong* as they think? I do not say
they are right or wrong, just that quotes and articles I read do not lead me to the conclusions
of drastic error I keep seeing posted and of course the behaviours that I only get if I fly
very badly.

Hey, I have some issues with just about every plane but I don't let that screw the whole thing
for me. I can always go back to EAW for about an hour...........

faustnik
08-14-2006, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by 269GA-Veltro:
but now the Macchi project has been only a waste of time...nobody fly them, nobody enjoy with them.

Veltro,

I fly the MC.200 a lot offline, I love that little plane! I enjoy the 202 as well. So, for me at least, the project was not a waste, and I really apprecciate all the hard work. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

onebox33
08-14-2006, 05:12 PM
At least an FM you dont feel porked as soon as you roll your Macchi during a fight
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gifthey made an error using a bomber rollrate model...

i am joking don't ask me the proof http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

sudoku1941
08-14-2006, 06:46 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
It has a somewhat passing resemblance to the section of the North African coast where the
operation was when the US first met with the Germans, the east end of Vichy controlled NA
if you figure that yellow dot in C4 with the mountains below as Tunis though the islands
sizes and placements are way 'off' to be Sardinia and Sicily. No Malta there either,
perhaps that would be in column G?

Not a bad attempt for a make-do until the mapmakers add an accurate one of that mid-coast
area and maybe Tunis to Tobruk with South Italy to Rome, then Tobruk to Suez with the top
including Athens?

You must be high on pom-pom polyester, Gunz. Come ON... Tunis to Suez in 60km???? Please. Not to mention Tunisia is much less desert than Libya/Cyrenaica is.

That map is a cartoon, a farce. Not even a passable attempt at the Mediterranean. If you took all the Russia maps and squeezed them onto one with the same scale, you'd end up with an abomination like this one, or the Swiss Alps joke map. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

WWMaxGunz
08-14-2006, 07:12 PM
It's not any attempt at the Med at all, someone just subbed in a map that somewhat fit
a PIECE of the region around Tunis. It don't have to be perfect.

I'm not aware that the maximum for map sizes is 60km. How many of the Pacific maps are
limited to 60km? Funny but I have flown some very long out and backs on Pacific maps
so I think that the mostly unpopulated NA and don't everything have to be fit in Med
can also have some very large maps. You are aware that there are maps being announced
and released pretty regularly? Note that >> I << never said 60km. That's your idea
I guess just to have something to jerk-mouth about.

Compared you, anyone who's not got a hate on for the series is a freaking cheerleader if
they speak up to your constant stream of diarrhea or tries to straighten the record on
any other BS brought up so go ahead with your special treatment, I don't much care. Get
yer jollies however gets you off, you sick sack.

Frequent_Flyer
08-14-2006, 07:23 PM
We will see in the 4.06 addon.....but now the Macchi project has been only a waste of time...nobody fly them, nobody enjoy with them. This is what happens online.... The Italian aircraft have some of the best looking pits in this sim. If I could find some more info(in English) on the Mc-200 and 202 in Russia( we have the maps) I would make even more offline missions. You did not waste your time.

sudoku1941
08-14-2006, 08:41 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
It's not any attempt at the Med at all, someone just subbed in a map that somewhat fit
a PIECE of the region around Tunis. It don't have to be perfect.

I'm not aware that the maximum for map sizes is 60km. How many of the Pacific maps are
limited to 60km? Funny but I have flown some very long out and backs on Pacific maps
so I think that the mostly unpopulated NA and don't everything have to be fit in Med
can also have some very large maps. You are aware that there are maps being announced
and released pretty regularly? Note that >> I << never said 60km. That's your idea
I guess just to have something to jerk-mouth about.

Compared you, anyone who's not got a hate on for the series is a freaking cheerleader if
they speak up to your constant stream of diarrhea or tries to straighten the record on
any other BS brought up so go ahead with your special treatment, I don't much care. Get
yer jollies however gets you off, you sick sack.

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

Wow, that's the closest yet I've seen you to just totally falling to pieces, Gunz. And your weakest attempt at cheerleading to date.

The map's called, MT, as in Med. Theatre. So much for that dodge....

I didn't say IL-2 maps were limited to 60km, either. But this one IS. And, if you were going to do any justice to the Med, you sure wouldn't try to cram Tunisa, Libya, and most of Egypt into 60km either. c'mon, even YOU know that.

WWMaxGunz
08-14-2006, 10:26 PM
No way that is the whole Med Theatre. A piece of it and not very accurate. A lable makes
only so much and that... perhaps it is not even the Tunis region but just a generic DF
play-map like 'Islands' except with Mediterranian terrain.

Try taking it as seriously as it is and not as evaluation of the best they can do.
No, wait, if you did that then you wouldn't be able to act cr@ppy.

If Ian Boys bothered to come here, or Luthier, then they might have something to say.

NonWonderDog
08-14-2006, 11:06 PM
Err... it's just a generic dogfight map. "MT" does not mean it's supposed to be the entire Mediterranean! It's just a generic dogfight map with 5 airfields that kinda sorta looks like something you might find somewhere in North Africa.

Before Stiglr here, I don't think anyone's ever claimed it to be anything else. IL2/FB/AEP/PF aren't focused on the Mediterranean. There are a couple planes that flew over Africa thrown in as a bonus, so there's a map that kinda looks like somewhere in Africa thrown in as a bonus as well. I fail to see how this is a "lack of understanding of the subject."

269GA-Veltro
08-15-2006, 02:58 AM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">We will see in the 4.06 addon.....but now the Macchi project has been only a waste of time...nobody fly them, nobody enjoy with them. This is what happens online.... The Italian aircraft have some of the best looking pits in this sim. If I could find some more info(in English) on the Mc-200 and 202 in Russia( we have the maps) I would make even more offline missions. You did not waste your time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here there are some info, but it's not enough i'm afraid for the fighting operations.

BTW i post it...IT & ENG txt.

http://www.150gct.it/users/150GCT_Veltro/CSIR.zip

There is a new french book about the italians Macchi in the ETO:

http://users.libero.it/f.damico/veltro/Karlenko1.jpg

pdog1
08-15-2006, 07:54 AM
Originally posted by 269GA-Veltro:

http://users.libero.it/f.damico/veltro/Karlenko1.jpg

Propaganda! No way Macchi 200 can damage a super armoured Lagg with only 2 mgs!!!

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

I was actually working on an offline campaign called Saetta's in the Snow but stoped after 2 missions because its impossible to kill a Lagg.
Same thing with I-16 unless you get lucky and get a PK. Maybe i should just replace laggs with hurricanes?! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WWMaxGunz
08-15-2006, 08:34 AM
Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
Err... it's just a generic dogfight map. "MT" does not mean it's supposed to be the entire Mediterranean! It's just a generic dogfight map with 5 airfields that kinda sorta looks like something you might find somewhere in North Africa.

Before Stiglr here, I don't think anyone's ever claimed it to be anything else. IL2/FB/AEP/PF aren't focused on the Mediterranean. There are a couple planes that flew over Africa thrown in as a bonus, so there's a map that kinda looks like somewhere in Africa thrown in as a bonus as well. I fail to see how this is a "lack of understanding of the subject."

It's a deliberate misunderstanding for the troll to try and get people who don't know better
to get upset over. That's what trolls do.

A map of Sicily and Medina perhaps with Taranto would be as full size as what, Crimea map?
Sicily alone is hundreds of km wide and about half that tall with a nice volcano cone for
vertical element. Really a major effort. It was the scene of the perhaps the worst airborn
and glider assault tragedy in all history, but we have no gliders anyway.

pdog1
08-15-2006, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
Err... it's just a generic dogfight map. "MT" does not mean it's supposed to be the entire Mediterranean! It's just a generic dogfight map with 5 airfields that kinda sorta looks like something you might find somewhere in North Africa.

Before Stiglr here, I don't think anyone's ever claimed it to be anything else. IL2/FB/AEP/PF aren't focused on the Mediterranean. There are a couple planes that flew over Africa thrown in as a bonus, so there's a map that kinda looks like somewhere in Africa thrown in as a bonus as well. I fail to see how this is a "lack of understanding of the subject."

It's a deliberate misunderstanding for the troll to try and get people who don't know better
to get upset over. That's what trolls do.

A map of Sicily and Medina perhaps with Taranto would be as full size as what, Crimea map?
Sicily alone is hundreds of km wide and about half that tall with a nice volcano cone for
vertical element. Really a major effort. It was the scene of the perhaps the worst airborn
and glider assault tragedy in all history, but we have no gliders anyway. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL who cares about gliders anyway? And we do actually have gliders, G-11 russian glider that can be towed by a C-47/Li2 whatever.
But if there was a sicily map it wouldn't be made to model gliders being shot by allied convoys it would used to model huge aerial battles over island.
8 macchis and 8 109s vs 20 spits, 20 p40s and 20 p38s escorted 50 B-25s. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG53Frankyboy
08-15-2006, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
Err... it's just a generic dogfight map. "MT" does not mean it's supposed to be the entire Mediterranean! It's just a generic dogfight map with 5 airfields that kinda sorta looks like something you might find somewhere in North Africa.

Before Stiglr here, I don't think anyone's ever claimed it to be anything else. IL2/FB/AEP/PF aren't focused on the Mediterranean. There are a couple planes that flew over Africa thrown in as a bonus, so there's a map that kinda looks like somewhere in Africa thrown in as a bonus as well. I fail to see how this is a "lack of understanding of the subject."

It's a deliberate misunderstanding for the troll to try and get people who don't know better
to get upset over. That's what trolls do.

A map of Sicily and Medina perhaps with Taranto would be as full size as what, Crimea map?
Sicily alone is hundreds of km wide and about half that tall with a nice volcano cone for
vertical element. Really a major effort. It was the scene of the perhaps the worst airborn
and glider assault tragedy in all history, but we have no gliders anyway. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yep, with this huge area of operation
http://www.naval-history.net/ww2mC4045Med.GIF

im looking forward how the maddox team will handle that when SoW will going south.............

WWMaxGunz
08-15-2006, 08:56 AM
Not as one map I think.

sudoku1941
08-15-2006, 08:57 AM
Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
Err... it's just a generic dogfight map. "MT" does not mean it's supposed to be the entire Mediterranean! It's just a generic dogfight map with 5 airfields that kinda sorta looks like something you might find somewhere in North Africa.

Before Stiglr here, I don't think anyone's ever claimed it to be anything else. IL2/FB/AEP/PF aren't focused on the Mediterranean. There are a couple planes that flew over Africa thrown in as a bonus, so there's a map that kinda looks like somewhere in Africa thrown in as a bonus as well. I fail to see how this is a "lack of understanding of the subject."

Just a generic dogfight map? Riiiiiiiight....

So how come the basic shape of the N. African coast between Agedabia and Cairo (notice where Tobruk is "located", as just about the only city/town on the coast. Gunz shows his ignorance of geography with his Tunisia remarks, since that area is NOT desert, while Cyrenaica/Libya certainly is.

http://www.ipsumdolor.net/screenies/medmaplet.gif

Look at the MT map and make the comparison yourself.

As for misunderstanding their subject, that shows most clearly in PF, where the maps are cut up in such a fashion that you can't simulate at all any of the historical missions that "fall through the cracks" between map areas, and thus miss some of the biggest challenges of that theatre: navigating the Solomon Islands.

JG53Frankyboy
08-15-2006, 09:06 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Not as one map I think.

this would be "my" choice of MTO maps in a possible SoW:Med

http://www.franky.fliegerhospital.de/MTO%20map-eingeteilt.jpg

and even these are huge. but fortunatly not with a city like London on them.

pdog1
08-15-2006, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Not as one map I think.

this would be "my" choice of MTO maps in a possible SoW:Med

http://www.franky.fliegerhospital.de/MTO%20map-eingeteilt.jpg

and even these are huge. but fortunatly not with a city like London on them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

thats good but need crete and greek bases and also adriatic coast for balkan campaign and aegean island campaign.
And spain wouldn't hurt too for SCW addon. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WWMaxGunz
08-15-2006, 10:06 AM
Also Corsica into Italy. US, French and Brits all based planes on Corsica to hit the
German supply lines leading down to Southern Italy during the invasion and to support
those attacks and the ground troops south. I've got a video of the operations from
there that's nothing so bad as later postwar productions... they stuck mainly to facts
and show everything from pilot life at base to in action and guncams. Title is
Thunderbolt that I picked up on a discount rack years ago but hey, Zeno's has it.
Focus is on the one group but you see others are there also and everyone tries to
look more strak than the others.