PDA

View Full Version : After fixing the carrier takeoff problem with patch 3.04...



VVS-Manuc
01-19-2005, 01:40 AM
...please fix the terrible unrealistic "wobbling" of planes during taxiing now. P-40 B and C are nearly uncontrollable, the heavy P-47 is staggering like an UL-plane on a rocky road etc.

269GA-Veltro
01-19-2005, 03:28 AM
Taxi without flaps extended...and use power carefully. You want a game or a sim?

Unrealistic? Have you ever taxi or takeoff with a G50 or CR 42?

p1ngu666
01-19-2005, 04:49 AM
early p40 wobbles horribly, id say 1 or 2 in 8 take offs end in crash because of it

Extreme_One
01-19-2005, 05:04 AM
Surely you just learn to control the wobble...?

That's what I've been doing with the Spitfire since we got it.

VF-29_Sandman
01-19-2005, 06:11 AM
p-40 was notorious for being a real pita on a takeoff roll. ummm....why are u trying to launch a p-40 from a flattop?

DangerForward
01-19-2005, 06:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VF-29_Sandman:
p-40 was notorious for being a real pita on a takeoff roll. ummm....why are u trying to launch a p-40 from a flattop? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Simulating takeoffs from the USS Ranger for Torch?

LEXX_Luthor
01-19-2005, 06:59 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

VELTRO:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Taxi without flaps extended...and use power carefully. You want a game or a sim?

Unrealistic? Have you ever taxi or takeoff with a G50 or CR 42? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
They don't know what a G50 or CR42 is. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Kadin1
01-19-2005, 07:21 AM
Manuc, I routinely "lock my tail wheel" on take off. I just tried a P40C for a lexinghton. No wobble what so ever. What is your weather setting?

joeap
01-19-2005, 07:27 AM
I think there is something a bit overdone here, with the P-40B at least...it is a bear to control on take off. Does anyone have any link to footage of a P-40 or Spit taking off??? Like we had for the Corsair?

Amon26
01-19-2005, 07:35 AM
No footage of P40s taking off, but I've seen a lot p-40s flipped over shortly off the runway with crew standing around it. So im figuring the wobble is pretty dead-on.

joeap
01-19-2005, 07:47 AM
OK then so much the better. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

McMurk
01-19-2005, 09:35 AM
Surely you just learn to control the wobble...?

That's what I've been doing with the Spitfire since we got it

Looking forward to seeing this. Camera rolling. No pressure at all http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

S.taibanzai
01-19-2005, 10:19 AM
and also the carier take of

is fixed by whiners "i can take of with my F4u fully laod " whine :kotz:


unrealistik take of now http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

VVS-Manuc
01-19-2005, 04:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VF-29_Sandman:
p-40 was notorious for being a real pita on a takeoff roll. ummm....why are u trying to launch a p-40 from a flattop? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
who tried this?

VVS-Manuc
01-19-2005, 04:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kadin1:
Manuc, I routinely "lock my tail wheel" on take off. I just tried a P40C for a lexinghton. No wobble what so ever. What is your weather setting? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
ah..the old "learn to fly" thing? I never said I take off from a carrier in a P-40....just try the P-40 B on the desert map for example..sure with no wind !

joeap
01-19-2005, 05:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by S.taibanzai:
and also the carier take of

is fixed by whiners "i can take of with my F4u fully laod " whine :kotz:


unrealistik take of now http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am so F@#$%^ sick of nimrods like you, have you ever tried taking off in a loaded plane from a carrier???? AI PLANES HAD PROBLEMS FROM MOVING CARRIERS BEFORE. Ok I had no god**** problems with the Lexington in a loaded Corsair before...but listen carefully IT WAS VERY VERY DIFFICULT IN A MOVING ILLUSTRIOUS. Look at the **** footage from the war: here go ahead.
proof (http://pauke.ee.ethz.ch:8732/oberstguncam/Frameset/index2.htm)
Look at the "Pacific Carrier Landings" you see a Corsair with a drop tank take off before crossing the bow. Do you guys see it or not??? Even now it doesn't happen because there is no real wind!!! I really hope the 1C guys add soem wind or we'll have this go on forever.

Even AI planes had problems sometimes, and it was other planes too. So shut your trap.

p1ngu666
01-19-2005, 06:13 PM
keep it ontopic please http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

ThreeCrow
01-19-2005, 06:39 PM
I have found that handling the P-40 less problematic than dealing with the viscious right snap of the Brewster just as rotation speed is reached. I assume that this is derived from the "stubby" aerodynamics..... but I am researching.

Or it could be my faulty piloting or my failure to crank in some aileron trim (or too much elevator trim) before take off.

I made a mission for a P-40 carrier take off to North Africa (did happen.. as mentioned above) and found no problems at all.

ThreeCrow
01-19-2005, 06:52 PM
Many, many aircraft had their intrinsic quirks and the pilots of those had to adjust to them (the successful ones... the live ones).

Cheers

JG53Frankyboy
01-19-2005, 06:57 PM
propab√¬∂y the solution, carrier at 85knots !!
http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=127;t=000477

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

KGr.HH-Sunburst
01-19-2005, 07:51 PM
wasnt the 109 a bi@tch to taxi and take off with...or was that landing lol i dunno but in this sim both ways are pretty simple in the 109 campared to the P40B which is just a low rider with hydrolics installed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

joeap
01-20-2005, 04:37 AM
Again look at the clip please
proof (http://pauke.ee.ethz.ch:8732/oberstguncam/Frameset/RealDocumentaries6.htm)

Aaron_GT
01-20-2005, 09:54 AM
" AI PLANES HAD PROBLEMS FROM MOVING CARRIERS BEFORE. "

They have a different, simplified FM, though. It is entirely possible that human flown planes could have been correct with AI ones incorrect. Perhaps a physics engine change was made that affected human and AI FMs, the human FM was checked by the beta testers but noone though to check a campaign and a bug in the AI FM was let through. Or perhaps both AI and human FMs were wrong.

Aaron_GT
01-20-2005, 10:03 AM
joeap:
The footage proves that you can take a plane off a carrier in wind with no external ordnance. There was no footage I could see of operations from a static carrier or one with planes loaded with large amounts of ordnance. So I am not sure what the footage proves, exactly.

Da_Godfatha
01-20-2005, 10:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by S.taibanzai:
and also the carier take of

is fixed by whiners "i can take of with my F4u fully laod " whine :kotz:


unrealistik take of now http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It`s a game you know? Some of us want to have "Fun". BTW, I like the Hellcat and Seafire better than the F4U.

joeap
01-20-2005, 12:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
joeap:
The footage proves that you can take a plane off a carrier in wind with no external ordnance. There was no footage I could see of operations from a static carrier or one with planes loaded with large amounts of ordnance. So I am not sure what the footage proves, exactly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Corsair had a drop tank and did not sink down after crossing the bow. I NEVER said I wanted static carrier ops but every time I had any kind of load out I would sink down past the bow or plop into the sea. In a moving carrier...esp. the RN one. Why don't you guys listen?? Don't put words in my mouth that I was talking about DF online ops, never even played online. You are confusing me with someone else.

starfighter1
01-20-2005, 02:04 PM
hi,
have a look to some original Take_Off Climb and Landing Charts:

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/F6F.html
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/F6F/F6FTODIS.pdf

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/F4USTUFF.html
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/F4U/F4UTOCL.gif

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/B-25.html
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/B-25/B25TOC%26LC.pdf


and make Your decision http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

SeaFireLIV
01-20-2005, 02:45 PM
Whatever, the truth is, it is better to stay with realism than it is to start creating `unrealistic` situations to suit certain people. If you start down that road where does it end? Should we allow takeoffs with anything under any conditions , just cos some people want to be able to do it? If certain aircraft used catapults then why not give it a couple of months and design ships with Catapults (as in r/l)?

Do you fly this WWII simulation to emulate and experience what was actually POSSIBLE for the men in reality, what they COULD do and what they COULD NOT do? Do you respect that? Or is it that you simply do not care about following a pivotal time in our history and just flying UFOs?

Instead a lot of you would just whine until you had some strange alien/hybrid that was nothing like the real thing just for `fun`? And who`s kind of `fun` anyway? Realistic, historical immersive `fun` or `Star Wars` fun?


Then we might as well throw flight models out of the window and have Buck Roger spaceships, throw cannon effectiveness out and have Star Wars lasers and rename Forgotten Battles, Space battles.

Oh, well, do what you like. I know what I will do once I see that IL2/FB/PF has totally lost it`s way...

Hopefully, it will not come to this.

heywooood
01-20-2005, 08:27 PM
just play BeeGees takeoff track...

"well you can tell by the way I use my walk, I'm a ladies man no time to talk...etc.."

P40 "Stayin' Alive" remix....quasi-cool http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

joeap
01-21-2005, 03:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Whatever, the truth is, it is better to stay with realism than it is to start creating `unrealistic` situations to suit certain people. If you start down that road where does it end? Should we allow takeoffs with _anything _under _any_ conditions , just cos _ some_ people want to be able to do it? If certain aircraft used catapults then why not give it a couple of months and design ships with Catapults (as in r/l)?

Do you fly this WWII simulation to emulate and experience what was actually POSSIBLE for the men in reality, what they COULD do and what they COULD NOT do? Do you respect that? Or is it that you simply do not care about following a pivotal time in our history and just flying UFOs?

Instead a lot of you would just whine until you had some strange alien/hybrid that was nothing like the real thing just for `fun`? And who`s kind of `fun` anyway? Realistic, historical immersive `fun` or `Star Wars` fun?


Then we might as well throw flight models out of the window and have Buck Roger spaceships, throw cannon effectiveness out and have Star Wars lasers and rename Forgotten Battles, Space battles.

Oh, well, do what you like. I know what I will do once I see that IL2/FB/PF has totally lost it`s way...

Hopefully, it will not come to this. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seafire, please don't lump all of us in the same sack. Blunt question is it unrealistic to operate Corsairs from moving RN carriers?? Did the Brits use catapults all the time? What loads did they or did they not carry? I suspect not all the loadouts in the screen were actually used, esp. for naval ops. I didn't ask these questions and am sorry. But I am aksing you directly, someone like meyself who was used to flying Corsairs and Seafires off with loads in 3.02 then sees something change in 3.03 esp. who had little experience will get frustrated. Do you guys suggest not to have these careers as an option? Or perhaps not allow any/all loads? We often are in the dark here as to correct procedure as I believe Oleg and Co. put in general lots of realistic stuff so that the casual gamer really would get lost here. I learned the hard way not to attack bombers from the 6...even if in slow planes it is a pain to try to get ahead to attack from head-on or side...when I get lazy I pay. Now I really had problems with a simple load of full tanks and 2 500 pounders in 3.03...I jsut got told it was my technique and I did get it off but not consistently. NO-ONE showed me it was not RN practice to use that load or what loads were used or again under what conditions catapults were used or not. Me neither and I am sorry. I do suspect there may have been a problem with acceleration and we have the charts now. So please don't lump me in with the others.

BTW those charts are with no wind...how does wind figure into it??

Aaron_GT
01-21-2005, 08:46 AM
"The Corsair had a drop tank and did not sink down after crossing the bow. "

I must have missed that one in the section.

I've upgraded to 3.04m now so I can't say whether or not there was a drop when taking off in a Corsair with a drop tank. in 3.03m. I didn't test it then, and it is too late to test it now without lots of hassle.

Stanger_361st
01-21-2005, 09:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
" AI PLANES HAD PROBLEMS FROM MOVING CARRIERS BEFORE. "

They have a different, simplified FM, though. It is entirely possible that human flown planes could have been correct with AI ones incorrect. Perhaps a physics engine change was made that affected human and AI FMs, the human FM was checked by the beta testers but noone though to check a campaign and a bug in the AI FM was let through. Or perhaps both AI and human FMs were wrong. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not true by Oleg he said that AI have the same FM as breathers see my Qoute at Bottom.