PDA

View Full Version : New patch FM tunings



geetarman
11-26-2004, 11:05 AM
It appears the FM to the Corsair and Hellcat have been adjusted in the brand-new beta patch. Can anyone comment on the changes that have occurred?

SeaFireLIV
11-26-2004, 11:16 AM
How old is this new patch? 1, maybe 2 hours old, surely it`ll take longer than that for anyone to find out for certain?

geetarman
11-26-2004, 11:22 AM
Well a post is a post. People will see it all day and into the future and can post then. Thanks for the non-answer

Voidable
11-26-2004, 04:20 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif don't start http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif everything is fine

VVS-Manuc
11-26-2004, 04:50 PM
No "allied/axis - planes porked again"-statements?

Sig.Hirsch
11-26-2004, 04:57 PM
Just a question , not whining :

Is that normal that the P-47 D27 has a faster rollrate than P-51 ??
i checked the object viewer in IL-2 and it says P47 at SL = 534 km/h
in the game it flies at 560 km/h , is that normal ?

chris455
11-26-2004, 05:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:
Just a question , not whining :

Is that normal that the P-47 D27 has a faster rollrate than P-51 ??
i checked the object viewer in IL-2 and it says P47 at SL = 534 km/h
in the game it flies at 560 km/h , is that normal ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I fly the Jug 99% of the time. All is well with the Jug, no changes I could discern. She is always the FIRST aircraft I check for changes after each patch.

chris455
11-26-2004, 05:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by geetarman:
It appears the FM to the Corsair and Hellcat have been adjusted in the brand-new beta patch. Can anyone comment on the changes that have occurred? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Initial imprssion only: F6F seems to handle ALOT more damage now, and P-39/ P-400 seem a little less forgiving in turns and vertical maneuvers. Less E-retention, lowered accleration. Again, first impressions.

Skalgrim
11-26-2004, 05:25 PM
p47d is not bad turner new patch,

turn with 280-290km/h sealevel same good as
the p51 and dora

Sig.Hirsch
11-26-2004, 05:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chris455:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:
Just a question , not whining :

Is that normal that the P-47 D27 has a faster rollrate than P-51 ??
i checked the object viewer in IL-2 and it says P47 at SL = 534 km/h
in the game it flies at 560 km/h , is that normal ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I fly the Jug 99% of the time. All is well with the Jug, no changes I could discern. She is always the FIRST aircraft I check for changes after each patch. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thx for answer , but do you think it's correct ?
it said 534 Km/h at SL in IL-2 object viewer, and now it's 560-570 Km/h at SL !!

it's more than 30 Km/h ubber , i wonder how many tons of posts there would be if the Dora was doing 610 Km/h at SL http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Besides i thought that the Mustang had a better rollrate than the Jug , am i wrong ?
cause it's not the case in FB from what i've noticed so far
regards ,

VF-29_Sandman
11-26-2004, 05:34 PM
so far i've noticed: f4u-d: engine fragile. 1 ping from an a-20 reverts it to glider status. other models of corsair not quite as delicate.

p-40's: all models. engine still rather vunerable. lights up with few hits, engines will seize quickly as well as catch on fire.

a-20: flying zippo. wing tanks light up quick with short bursts.

p-38: no change. still rough to shoot deflections in http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

hellcats: might be me, but seems the glass has been cleaned up just a tad.

chris455
11-26-2004, 05:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:
Just a question , not whining :

Is that normal that the P-47 D27 has a faster rollrate than P-51 ??
i checked the object viewer in IL-2 and it says P47 at SL = 534 km/h
in the game it flies at 560 km/h , is that normal ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hirsch,
Whatever P-47 you are flying, I'll trade you:

100% fuel, Crimea map, defaut loadout, water injection, 1000m atitude:
530 km/hr

As for rollrate, I don't fly the Mustang alot. But I do know that the Jugs roll seems the same as it has been since it was corrected several versions ago. Moreover, the Mustang was not exactly renowned for it's rollrate, while the Jug is regarded as a great roller. Go figure.
I tested the Jug; D27 rolls slightly faster
than D10, should probably be the other way around. Both roll slightly faster than the P-51, but nothing to holler about.

Hope this helps-

Sig.Hirsch
11-26-2004, 07:20 PM
Ok , thx for your answer Chris ,
i tested on Okinawa map 110% rad closed P-47 D27 560km/h SL ,
I'll ask my friend to host the track for me tommorow and will post the link , for you can download and see it , i was very surprised too of that
regards ,

chris455
11-26-2004, 07:26 PM
Hirsch, FYI most testing in the community is done in the Crimea map for consistency purposes.
Air temperature will affect density hence readings, it is modelled in the game.
Also, are you refering to TAS or IAS?
560 kph @SL sounds really high to me-
Chris

Sig.Hirsch
11-26-2004, 07:28 PM
IAS mate , i'll post the track tommorow in this thread http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Nubarus
11-26-2004, 07:41 PM
As was stated many times before, even by Oleg himself several times: All speed tests have to be done on the Crimea map

If you don't believe this Sig.Hirsch then by all means mail that track to PF@1C.ru with the mention that the P47 D27 is too fast at sea level and see what the response will be.

LuftLuver
11-26-2004, 07:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:
IAS mate , i'll post the track tommorow in this thread http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

By all means let's jump all over this huge problem. I mean, we wouldn't want the thunderbolt to be historically fast.

SigHeil, don't you have something burning in your EasyBake oven?

steiner562
11-26-2004, 07:57 PM
Have you tested it luftloser?http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gifI hope it hasnt improved as the orgingal whiner said otherwise you will you"LL be telling me its a p47-N http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif ,ahh well thats only for the pacific servers if it ever arriveshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Hunde_3.JG51
11-26-2004, 08:03 PM
I believe Oleg said it was an error before and that the object viewer is wrong. P-47D-27 got a speed boost a long time ago down low.

Just did test at SL, same result as before:

P-47D-27 radiator closed, 110% throttle, default loadout, 100% fuel, noon over Crimea water:

571km/h

Humble pie anyone? Its actually faster than 560km/h. It's been that way for awhile this is nothing new. Whether it is right or wrong, I don't know.

Maple_Tiger
11-26-2004, 09:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:
Just a question , not whining :

Is that normal that the P-47 D27 has a faster rollrate than P-51 ??
i checked the object viewer in IL-2 and it says P47 at SL = 534 km/h
in the game it flies at 560 km/h , is that normal ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Yes, the P-47 in real life had a good roll rate. At higher speeds, the P-51's roll rate is better.

Hunde_3.JG51
11-26-2004, 09:19 PM
In addition to above, same conditions:

FW-190A-9: 597km/h
FW-190A-6: 578km/h
P-38J: 582km/h
P-63C: 601km/h
P-51D: 590km/h
F4U-1A: 572km/h

I don't think the P-38J should be faster than the A-6 down low, but no big deal. If anyone has a right to complain it may be Corsair fans, though I can't say.

I would like to see sea-level comparisons among U.S. planes (no enemy aircraft) to see how these match up.

VF-29_Sandman
11-26-2004, 09:37 PM
my bad, i was using wrong map for tests. like them, i was at okinawa. should go back and try 38's again since they seem slightly lower in climb rate as before

chris455
11-26-2004, 10:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:
IAS mate , i'll post the track tommorow in this thread http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aha, here is the problem. Not only are you on the wrong map, my friend, you are confusing IAS with TAS.

Under the conditions I described for testing, I get 576kph TAS. IAS is around 530kph, for reasons well known already.
This is normal for the P-47 @ SL.

Nothing to see here folks-

Sig.Hirsch
11-27-2004, 04:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuftLuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:
IAS mate , i'll post the track tommorow in this thread http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

By all means let's jump all over this huge problem. I mean, we wouldn't want the thunderbolt to be historically fast.

SigHeil, don't you have something burning in your EasyBake oven? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

....
Sigfried Hirsch is my nickname , it's not what you wrote , i leave you the responsibility of what you wrote .
you should see a psychologist .

Chris , it 's 560 Km/h IAS Okinawa rad closed , i'll post the track later when my friend can host it for me .
i test and play always in Full real , it's IAS m8 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
regards ,

joeap
11-27-2004, 04:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuftLuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:
IAS mate , i'll post the track tommorow in this thread http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

By all means let's jump all over this huge problem. I mean, we wouldn't want the thunderbolt to be historically fast.

SigHeil, don't you have something burning in your EasyBake oven? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

....
Sigfried Hirsch is my nickname , it's not what you wrote , i leave you the responsibility of what you wrote .
you should see a psychologist .

Chris , it 's 560 Km/h IAS Okinawa rad closed , i'll post the track later when my friend can host it for me .
i test and play always in Full real , it's IAS m8 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
regards , <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sig.Hirsch don-t let that stupid comment get to you, but liek the others said, all tests should be done on the Crimea map...if you want the test to be valid. Glad to see you know the difference between IAS and TAS. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

OldMan____
11-27-2004, 05:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
In addition to above, same conditions:

FW-190A-9: 597km/h
FW-190A-6: 578km/h
P-38J: 582km/h
P-63C: 601km/h
P-51D: 590km/h
F4U-1A: 572km/h
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yeap same result here , only slight differences.. reached 592 in P51D, 583 in P-38J and 581 in A-6 (disregarding that sometimes present loadout bug) and 600 in A9 and 607 in D9


At least no one can complain about p38 speed anymore. It is also teh fastest to reach 570km/h (leave Me262 outside of this one)

Sig.Hirsch
11-27-2004, 05:15 AM
Ok , thank you Joeap ,it's kind from you , i'll post one track on Okinawa , and one of Crimea map (speed will be different for sure ) .

Besides , my nickname is from a game named Hidden and Dangerous 2 , of a german who joined the SAS forces , S.Hirsch was taken on Ubi , and Hirsch was taken too , so i took this nick , i wonder how can somebody can be so paranoid
regards ,

Nubarus
11-27-2004, 05:22 AM
Doing a speed test and then report IAS is no good since it's the TAS that is needed, not the IAS.

The WWII flight test records have TAS values written down during speed trails.

Hunde_3.JG51
11-27-2004, 05:35 AM
Me and Oldman posted results using Oleg's test formula. Those numbers are TAS taken from wonder-woman view and I can easily reproduce any of them 100% of the time. Sig.Hirsch is a character from H&D2 as he said, but he gets jumped all over for saying P-47D-27 can do 560km/h at SL, when in fact it can do 571+km/h. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Sig.Hirsch
11-27-2004, 05:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nubarus:
Doing a speed test and then report IAS is no good since it's the TAS that is needed, not the IAS.

The WWII flight test records have TAS values written down during speed trails. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



At Sea level , IAS and TAS are exactly the same http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

regards ,

OldMan____
11-27-2004, 05:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nubarus:
Doing a speed test and then report IAS is no good since it's the TAS that is needed, not the IAS.

The WWII flight test records have TAS values written down during speed trails. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


At Sea level , IAS and TAS are exactly the same http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

regards , <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

not in game. In criemia IAS is about 14 km/h slower than TAS (at that range of high 5xx km/h)

In moscow IAS is 17 km/h HIGHER than TAS at same range.

All that at 10 meters high.

Nubarus
11-27-2004, 06:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nubarus:
Doing a speed test and then report IAS is no good since it's the TAS that is needed, not the IAS.

The WWII flight test records have TAS values written down during speed trails. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



At Sea level , IAS and TAS are exactly the same http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

regards , <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not in this game, I thought by now you figured that out but I guess I was wrong.

Nubarus
11-27-2004, 06:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
Me and Oldman posted results using Oleg's test formula. Those numbers are TAS taken from wonder-woman view and I can easily reproduce any of them 100% of the time. Sig.Hirsch is a character from H&D2 as he said, but he gets jumped all over for saying P-47D-27 can do 560km/h at SL, when in fact it can do 571+km/h. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So far all test posted here deviate from each other.
Oldman was able to get even higher speeds out of the FW190's then you so I don't see what the big issue is since no test done here has the same result.

OldMan____
11-27-2004, 06:19 AM
That is usually a matter of how stable you can keep your joystick and how hard you may want to improve speed. I manage to get extra few kph in EVERY plane when compared to hunde, because I consider max level speed what I can sustain at sea level.. even if I need a very brief very shallow nose down to get the extra few kps and then return to level flight keeping them. Probably hunde just counted to wich speed can be reached .. not sustained.

chris455
11-27-2004, 07:07 AM
It will be interesting to see S. Hirsch's .trk, just to see if the Okinawa map is capable of such a large difference in TAS from the Crimea map. If true, (as he has stated) that would be 40kph difference than what I was able to acheive on the Crimea map.

Sig.Hirsch
11-27-2004, 07:21 AM
yes , Chris , i have two tracks , one on Crimea map , and one on Okinawa map :
Okinawa : 110% rad closed : SL speed : 560 Km/h IAS
Crimea : 110% rad closed : SL speed 550 Km/h IAS

the first track is 153 kb and the second is 80.8 kb

I am waiting for a friend to host it for me , so i can post the link here , if you want i can send it to you Chris , if you send me your email http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

besides , i love the Jug , the P-38 , the FW-190 , i love all heavy planes and fly almost only those planes , i was just surprised by these results as a sim amateur . i'll post the track tonight (CET) for sure
Regards ,

Aaron_GT
11-27-2004, 07:44 AM
". If anyone has a right to complain it may be Corsair fans, though I can't say."

572 km/h is pretty much spot on at sea level. Very close anyway, depending on my 1 mph = 1.6 km/h conversion

chris455
11-27-2004, 08:56 AM
Sig, check your private messages- http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

geetarman
11-27-2004, 10:05 AM
Getting away from the 47 for a sec., I noticed the Corsair and Hellcat have not changed drastically. If anything, they seem to be a bit more forgiving.

No major changes noted though in the planes I usually fly (P-38, Corsair and Hellcat)

Sig.Hirsch
11-27-2004, 11:00 AM
As promised , i post the link to the track of the P-47 speed :

http://h.ds.free.fr/Sig.Hirsch/


P-47 D27 110% rad closed , Crimea , Sea level = 550 Km/h Ias 571 Km/h TAS
P-47 D27 110% rad closed , Okinawa , Sea level =
555-560 Km/h IAS 575 Km/h TAS
IL-2 FBAEPPF v.3.02bM

Normally this plane should be able to reach 534 Km/h at the very best rad closed Sea level according to various sources + Il -2 object viewer

Note that i very often fly the Jug , and have no unhonest intentions , but care about realism , and i encourage you to test it by yourself , as Hunde , Old man etc.. did

I honestly think there is a problem , up to 40Km/h more than real data is really exagerated
Regards ,

Sig.Hirsch
11-27-2004, 11:14 AM
Oh yes , thx Chris , the mail is sent http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

chris455
11-27-2004, 12:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:
Oh yes , thx Chris , the mail is sent http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I received your e-mail, but no .trk file attached my friend- http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Sig.Hirsch
11-27-2004, 12:40 PM
Chris , i just sent you again the mail in case , but i left the link in page 2 before :

here are the tracks anyway http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://h.ds.free.fr/Sig.Hirsch/

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

WWMaxGunz
11-27-2004, 01:27 PM
If you RAR or even ZIP tracks, it helps a lot.

Cyrano
11-27-2004, 03:24 PM
The FM's have been "tweaked" so many times I don't know how anyone can have any confidence in them anymore. Who's to say that plane X's flight model wasn't more accurate 6 months ago or last year or now?

OldMan____
11-27-2004, 03:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cyrano:
The FM's have been "tweaked" so many times I don't know how anyone can have any confidence in them anymore. Who's to say that plane X's flight model wasn't more accurate 6 months ago or last year or now? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

because changing this is a lot of work and why would them do that if not to improve fidelity?

OK sometimes they fall to pressure, but is not a 1 rule.. is more a .5 rule http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

crazyivan1970
11-27-2004, 04:21 PM
OMG, civilized discussion about FM.... are you guys insane??? Somebody pinch me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BlitzPig_DDT
11-27-2004, 05:32 PM
The Hellcat seems way too draggy now.

On a runway, it won't lift off till about 170/180mph when it should lift off at 70ish.

It's top speed was not all that much slower than the Corsair, and was mostly due to the intake setup which was a bit draggier (but safer as it prevented the icing that happened to the Corsair periodically).

I'm still working on acquiring numbers, and am only posting impression, but it seems either the Corsair is too slick, or the Hellcat is too draggy.

Certainly in turns it bleeds off ridiculous E. It's acting as though it were a P-47. Something's just not right. :/

Cyrano
11-27-2004, 05:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cyrano:
The FM's have been "tweaked" so many times I don't know how anyone can have any confidence in them anymore. Who's to say that plane X's flight model wasn't more accurate 6 months ago or last year or now? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

because changing this is a lot of work and why would them do that if not to improve fidelity?

OK sometimes they fall to pressure, but is not a 1 rule.. is more a .5 rule http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe you're right Oldman, perhaps it's the cynic in me. I just get the sense that game balance is the 1 rule and the other's are the .5 ones. My biggest wish would be to get the references Oleg uses published so we could all easily compare what we get in game vs the respected references.

OldMan____
11-27-2004, 05:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
The Hellcat seems way too draggy now.

On a runway, it won't lift off till about 170/180mph when it should lift off at 70ish.

It's top speed was not all that much slower than the Corsair, and was mostly due to the intake setup which was a bit draggier (but safer as it prevented the icing that happened to the Corsair periodically).

I'm still working on acquiring numbers, and am only posting impression, but it seems either the Corsair is too slick, or the Hellcat is too draggy.

Certainly in turns it bleeds off ridiculous E. It's acting as though it were a P-47. Something's just not right. :/ <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

please try the FW190A8.. then come back to the hellcat. You will noticed that the E bleed disapeared http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

For me it bleeds some reasonable amount of E (reasonable means.. beliavable.. not EXACTLY THE CORRECT NUMBER..that I do not have)

OldMan____
11-27-2004, 05:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cyrano:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cyrano:
The FM's have been "tweaked" so many times I don't know how anyone can have any confidence in them anymore. Who's to say that plane X's flight model wasn't more accurate 6 months ago or last year or now? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

because changing this is a lot of work and why would them do that if not to improve fidelity?

OK sometimes they fall to pressure, but is not a 1 rule.. is more a .5 rule http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe you're right Oldman, perhaps it's the cynic in me. I just get the sense that game balance is the 1 rule and the other's are the .5 ones. My biggest wish would be to get the references Oleg uses published so we could all easily compare what we get in game vs the respected references. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

you did not get the joke on the .5 did you.. .5 =.50 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif :P

Cyrano
11-27-2004, 05:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cyrano:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cyrano:
The FM's have been "tweaked" so many times I don't know how anyone can have any confidence in them anymore. Who's to say that plane X's flight model wasn't more accurate 6 months ago or last year or now? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

because changing this is a lot of work and why would them do that if not to improve fidelity?

OK sometimes they fall to pressure, but is not a 1 rule.. is more a .5 rule http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe you're right Oldman, perhaps it's the cynic in me. I just get the sense that game balance is the 1 rule and the other's are the .5 ones. My biggest wish would be to get the references Oleg uses published so we could all easily compare what we get in game vs the respected references. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

you did not get the joke on the .5 did you.. .5 =.50 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif :P <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Now I get it. See not only am I a cynic but I'm slow too. I have an excuse that all of you will understand though...too much PC/FB/AEP/IL2 and waaaay too little sleephttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Gosh, good thing I have a love/hate relationship with this game sometimes or I would have died from lack of sleep a long time ago.

BlitzPig_DDT
11-27-2004, 06:05 PM
Beleivable based on what? Comparing it to the 190 in this case is meaningless.

Hunde_3.JG51
11-27-2004, 08:33 PM
Something that I noticed with new FM tweak was that I had a hard time pulling nose up and my controls felt less responsive. After some time I noticed the effect of trim may be more important. It still pulls up hard at high speeds but seems to pull down harder at low speeds if this makes sense. I also tried the Yak-3 and noticed I could yank the stick all the way back but I was not turning as hard as before (3.00). I adjusted trim and it began to hold its turn better, but when I picked up speed again it had to be adjusted again. It feels like the changes applied to the planes in PF in 3.01 carried over to 3.02 for the older planes. Most planes seem to stall a little easier than before or just have different flight characteristics, especially at slow speeds. For example the Yak could turn quite well but a very hard, sustained turn resulted in much trickier handling when speed bled away and required a much more careful touch. Planes near stall seem to dip more unexpectedly and can bite you at times. Only a few planes seem to be able to turn very hard and sustain it without needing to back off to avoid trouble. The Spitifre V is an example but it was an excellent turner in RL, man can that thing turn. I think this effects near stall speeds in climb as well, some planes don't seem to be able to hold the nose up as well when getting real slow, or at least the effects I described above concerning trim seem to pull the nose down so you have to adjust or pull harder. IMHO I think it feels great and requires a more concious, learned pilot.

Hope I made sense. Ayway, try adjusting trim more as IMO it exerts a greater effect in 3.02. This may help with the feeling of less responsive controls. I noticed after 3.02 that I was using a longer range of pull with my joystick, but trimming lessened this effect if adjusted for.

Of course all of this could just be my imagination as I have only flown a handful of planes through hard maneuvers.

As a note one of the strengths of the FW-190 was that "it does not require re-trimming under all conditions of flight, is a particularly good point." Just had to get that in there http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

VF-29_Sandman
11-28-2004, 04:44 AM
havent re-installed 3.02b again just yet, was makin simple look-see's on my fav bird vs what i clearly remember from 3.02b. p-38's climb rate is reduced by an estimated 40%. climbs like a rocket in 3.01m. will that wind up bein in the final, dunno. but i do think the 38 was gettin very close to climb spec's in 3.01m.

as far as control response, maybe ur usin close to what oleg was usin for his stick; and it is quite a difference from the usual 90-100% across the board 'onwhine' jazz.

OldMan____
11-28-2004, 05:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
Beleivable based on what? Comparing it to the 190 in this case is meaningless. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Just saying that your E bleed increase is not a SPECIFIC PLANE.. its present on all planes.. and of corse.. much more in FW190 than in other plane.

Nubarus
11-28-2004, 06:08 AM
Same old tactic being played here, turn every report about possible Allied plane bug into a "Look, our Axis planes are even worse" direction.

Sig.Hirsch
11-28-2004, 06:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:
As promised , i post the link to the track of the P-47 speed :

http://h.ds.free.fr/Sig.Hirsch/


P-47 D27 110% rad closed , Crimea , Sea level = 550 Km/h Ias 571 Km/h TAS
P-47 D27 110% rad closed , Okinawa , Sea level =
555-560 Km/h IAS 575 Km/h TAS
IL-2 FBAEPPF v.3.02bM

Normally this plane should be able to reach 534 Km/h at the very best rad closed Sea level according to various sources + Il -2 object viewer

Note that i very often fly the Jug , and have no unhonest intentions , but care about realism , and i encourage you to test it by yourself , as Hunde , Old man etc.. did

I honestly think there is a problem , up to 40Km/h more than real data is really exagerated
Regards , <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Please Oleg , this is a sim , fix this bug , as well as the FW-190 bug with speed , i can post the the track as well : FW-190 A4 supposed to reach 540 Km/h at SL , and reaching only 520 Km/h in Crimea , that is not normal , also , there is a bug with the SC 500 bomb , even when released , it flies like it still had it .

Some of us are clearly losing faith , please Oleg and 1:C , take a look at those issues .

Best regards and all my thanks for the work you give for us ,

Hunde_3.JG51
11-28-2004, 07:29 AM
Nubarus, just noticed your comment before. Are you seriously saying that because me and Oldman's tests results are different by 2-3 km/h that they are "deviating" from eachother. This is easily explained on how you want to interpret results. Some use slight dive and hold (Oldman), I use turn to bleed then accelerate to top speed.

Why don't you try it for yourself instead of pointing fingers, it takes all of 2 minutes. Instead of pointing out other people's errors why don't you test it yourself? I assume you do have the game?

And from my end there is no "tactic", I never said it was a bug, I specifically said that Oleg mentioned that previous P-47D-27 speed at SL was wrong and that if anyone, Corsair pilots might have reason to be upset but I don't know proper speed at SL for F4U.

ICDP
11-28-2004, 07:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:
As promised , i post the link to the track of the P-47 speed :

http://h.ds.free.fr/Sig.Hirsch/


P-47 D27 110% rad closed , Crimea , Sea level = 550 Km/h Ias 571 Km/h TAS
P-47 D27 110% rad closed , Okinawa , Sea level =
555-560 Km/h IAS 575 Km/h TAS
IL-2 FBAEPPF v.3.02bM

Normally this plane should be able to reach 534 Km/h at the very best rad closed Sea level according to various sources + Il -2 object viewer

Note that i very often fly the Jug , and have no unhonest intentions , but care about realism , and i encourage you to test it by yourself , as Hunde , Old man etc.. did

I honestly think there is a problem , up to 40Km/h more than real data is really exagerated
Regards , <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Please Oleg , this is a sim , fix this bug , as well as the FW-190 bug with speed , i can post the the track as well : FW-190 A4 supposed to reach 540 Km/h at SL , and reaching only 520 Km/h in Crimea , that is not normal , also , there is a bug with the SC 500 bomb , even when released , it flies like it still had it .

Some of us are clearly losing faith , please Oleg and 1:C , take a look at those issues .

Best regards and all my thanks for the work you give for us , <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sig.Hirsch,

Post your trak file along with a description of the problem to.

pf@1c.ru

If there is a problem Oleg WILL fix it, of that you can have no doubt. There are a lot of planes to model in FB+AEP+PF so getting each on perfect is not an easy task.

GR142-Pipper
11-28-2004, 10:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
In addition to above, same conditions:

FW-190A-9: 597km/h
FW-190A-6: 578km/h
P-38J: 582km/h
P-63C: 601km/h
P-51D: 590km/h
F4U-1A: 572km/h <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Interesting. I've never been able to come close to these speeds in my testing.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
11-28-2004, 10:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
Me and Oldman posted results using Oleg's test formula. Those numbers are TAS taken from wonder-woman view and I can easily reproduce any of them 100% of the time. Sig.Hirsch is a character from H&D2 as he said, but he gets jumped all over for saying P-47D-27 can do 560km/h at SL, when in fact it can do 571+km/h. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There is another important ingredient to this....rate of acceleration. If you're trying to put distance between two aircraft, this is critical as well.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
11-28-2004, 10:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
The Hellcat seems way too draggy now.[/quot] Completely agree. Power seems reduced.

[quote]On a runway, it won't lift off till about 170/180mph when it should lift off at 70ish.

It's top speed was not all that much slower than the Corsair, and was mostly due to the intake setup which was a bit draggier (but safer as it prevented the icing that happened to the Corsair periodically). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You're right. The Hellcat is slow now. I'm having trouble (on-line) sustaining more than about 440 k/ph (SL, Pacific maps). Basically, it's worthless. In 3.0 it was a very reasonable performer. Not sterling but definitely reasonable. No longer.

GR142-Pipper

BlitzPig_DDT
11-28-2004, 11:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
Beleivable based on what? Comparing it to the 190 in this case is meaningless. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Just saying that your E bleed increase is not a SPECIFIC PLANE.. its present on all planes.. and of corse.. much more in FW190 than in other plane. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This statement is also completely off base.

butzbeast
11-28-2004, 11:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
The Hellcat seems way too draggy now.

On a runway, it won't lift off till about 170/180mph when it should lift off at 70ish.

It's top speed was not all that much slower than the Corsair, and was mostly due to the intake setup which was a bit draggier (but safer as it prevented the icing that happened to the Corsair periodically).

I'm still working on acquiring numbers, and am only posting impression, but it seems either the Corsair is too slick, or the Hellcat is too draggy.

Certainly in turns it bleeds off ridiculous E. It's acting as though it were a P-47. Something's just not right. :/ <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Hellcat takes off at 170 km/h, not 170 mph ! better you check your speedbar setting before whining

Voidable
11-28-2004, 12:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by butzbeast:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
The Hellcat seems way too draggy now.

On a runway, it won't lift off till about 170/180mph when it should lift off at 70ish.

It's top speed was not all that much slower than the Corsair, and was mostly due to the intake setup which was a bit draggier (but safer as it prevented the icing that happened to the Corsair periodically).

I'm still working on acquiring numbers, and am only posting impression, but it seems either the Corsair is too slick, or the Hellcat is too draggy.

Certainly in turns it bleeds off ridiculous E. It's acting as though it were a P-47. Something's just not right. :/ <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Hellcat takes off at 170 km/h, not 170 mph ! better you check your speedbar setting before whining <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LEAVE THE CORSAIR OUT OF THIS ITS FINE http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

ICDP
11-28-2004, 01:40 PM
The best speed I could get in the F6F (both versions) was 523kph at SL. This is 10kph faster than listed top speeds at SL for the F6F-5.

Edited: I initially felt it was too slow but after reading USN test data it was found to be slightly fast (well within acceptable limits IMHO)

Hunde_3.JG51
11-28-2004, 02:32 PM
Pipper, then you are doing something wrong.

Test conditions should be:

-Crimea map
-12:00pm
-Flying over water
-Radiator closed (not auto)
-100% fuel
-Default armament
-Auto prop-pitch if available, 100% manual if not
-Make sure supercharger is at stage one
-Check fuel mix.
-Use True Airspeed by switching to no-cockpit view

I can get the results I posted 100% of the time under these conditions, its pretty simple.

DDT, as for the Hellcat feeling like a P-47 they were very similar in terms of weight and power. The Hellcat should handle better and I think it does without question. The Hellcat did excellent work in WWII and was a solid airplane, but in a gaming online world where the intangibles are left out and much comes down to pure performance, the Hellcat will suffer somehwat IMHO. It shouldn't have trouble with Zeros or Ki-43's, which I don't believe it does, but a plane like the Ki-84 will out-perform it as it did in RL. Shiden's, Tony's, and Raiden's had similar performance and FB/AEP/PF has always seemingly rewarded T&B type aircraft more, so I think the Hellcat has it pretty rough in-game. I'm not saying everthing is fine with it, just a thought and my opinion. As for the Corsair I think it feels great now, much more believable than before and it is my favorite plane in PF.

BlitzPig_DDT
11-28-2004, 03:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Voidable:
LEAVE THE CORSAIR OUT OF THIS ITS FINE http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh really..... based on what?

There is a problem. Could be the Hellcat is undermodeled, or it could be the Corsair is overmodeled, or, some combination of the 2.

I suspect the Hellcat is pulling a drag chute in code still, to be honest. It's also lacking in lift. Stall speed is still too high in all power on conditions, and take off speed is also too high. On a carrier for example, even when static, it drops untill about 110mph is attained. Given that the real thing would lift off in a 3 point attitude at 70ish, this makes no sense. Crossing the edge of the deck at 80mph should see it climbing. It doesn't. And this is with 25% fuel load, not the standard military 100%. No bombs or rockets. And 70MPH is the no flap speed (IRL).

It needs more lift and less E bleed. Regardless of what the haters want.

BlitzPig_DDT
11-28-2004, 03:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
DDT, as for the Hellcat feeling like a P-47 they were very similar in terms of weight and power. The Hellcat should handle better and I think it does without question. The Hellcat did excellent work in WWII and was a solid airplane, but in a gaming online world where the intangibles are left out and much comes down to pure performance, the Hellcat will suffer somehwat IMHO. It shouldn't have trouble with Zeros or Ki-43's, which I don't believe it does, but a plane like the Ki-84 will out-perform it as it did in RL. Shiden's, Tony's, and Raiden's had similar performance and FB/AEP/PF has always seemingly rewarded T&B type aircraft more, so I think the Hellcat has it pretty rough in-game. Just my opinion. As for the Corsair I think it feels great now, much more believable than before and it is my favorite plane in PF. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Comparing the P-47 and F6F indicates you aren't really familar with the F6F. Therefore, you don't really have any place calling it into question as being too good, or claiming it is "right".

The Jug was a good deal heavier, and had much less wing.

The Hellcat and Corsair are much closer in weight, than the F6F and P-47. The Japanese held the Corsair in contempt and didn't really fear it all that much. They feared and respected the Hellcat.

Why?

Because it could dance with their fighters. It was the equal of or better than everything they had in every category prior to the Ki-84. Over 10,000 feet, contemporary Zeros were out mathced totally, in all performance regimes.

It would out turn contemporart Zeros, at any altitude, at or over about 230mph. And hang with them down as low as 200 or so. With a sea level speed of 276kias (317.6mph), that is not very fast. To put it more plainly, it would have no problem at all outclassing the vaunted Zero, even at sea level.

It certainly out turned the Corsair IRL. Haven't seen that reflected in game however.

Furthermore, simple logic will tell you that, with the E bleed as bad as it is now, there is no way to deal with enemies beyond a single pass. It can't BnZ like the Corsair because it bleeds too much E. And it can't turn to fight because it bleeds too much E. A few turns or zooms and you're done. In more ways than one.

While the stall and take off speeds being too high are mostly related to non-combat, they are still important and would reflect in combat as well, making it a bit more accurate overall. However, the most important thing is the ridiculous e-bleed.

I know I've mentioned this many times by now, but it goes in one eye and out the other because so many people wish to beleive otherwise. Don't ruin a sim (or potential sim) because of your preferences.

Hunde_3.JG51
11-28-2004, 03:32 PM
Read more carefully, I said I'm not saying it is right. Ease up tiger. I said the Hellcat has it rough because the way FB/PF has always been. I've always flown the 190 so I know about e-bleed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. Also, I don't think dive and zoom are handled very well and that hurts the Hellcat, P-47, FW-190, etc., at least IMO.

And P-47 weighed about 10,000lbs empty, whereas Hellcat F-3 was about 9,100lb.s, 9,250 for F-5. So yes there is a difference but P-47 had more power. I still think they fall under the similar category, relatively speaking.

ICDP
11-28-2004, 03:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Voidable:
LEAVE THE CORSAIR OUT OF THIS ITS FINE http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh really..... based on what?

There is a problem. Could be the Hellcat is undermodeled, or it could be the Corsair is overmodeled, or, some combination of the 2.

I suspect the Hellcat is pulling a drag chute in code still, to be honest. It's also lacking in lift. Stall speed is still too high in all power on conditions, and take off speed is also too high. On a carrier for example, even when static, it drops untill about 110mph is attained. Given that the real thing would lift off in a 3 point attitude at 70ish, this makes no sense. Crossing the edge of the deck at 80mph should see it climbing. It doesn't. And this is with 25% fuel load, not the standard military 100%. No bombs or rockets. And 70MPH is the no flap speed (IRL).

It needs more lift and less E bleed. Regardless of what the haters want. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is it possible you might be mixing up mph with knots?. The stall speed (power on) of the F65 was 72.2 knots (not mph), this gives it a stall speed of over 80mph. When taking off from an escort carrier the F6F reaches 70mph (in PF), this means it would require the use of flaps to get airborne. The take-off distance in calm weather is 799ft, in 25kn headwind it is 384ft. At 18kn it would be slightly more than the 400ft that is available to take off from on the CVE in PF (take off weight is 13,797lb).

Regards.

BlitzPig_DDT
11-28-2004, 03:52 PM
3.0 was much closer to accurate. A number of people were pitchin' a fit about it however. So this extreme e-bleed is not endemic to the engine.

Don't tell me to read more carefully and imply you didn't say something you did. If you did not mean to imply the fact that it's ok because they were similar, then you mis-spoke. I'm just taking you at your word. (all we can do with text only mediums)

Finally, emtpy weights aren't very relevant. Take off weight is all that matters. I'll get that in a bit and be back. They aren't as similar as you suggest. And taking loading into consideration, there is a massive difference between the 2. They aren't even in the same class. So again, bringing the P-47 up in any discussion of the F6F is seriously wide of the mark.

TheGozr
11-28-2004, 03:59 PM
Ok speed now it's suppose to be seen on the NO INDICATED system.
so make shure you fly in the wonder woman cockpit and watch at the speed... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

BlitzPig_DDT
11-28-2004, 04:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ICDP:
Is it possible you might be mixing up mph with knots?. The stall speed (power on) of the F65 was 72.2 knots (not mph), this gives it a stall speed of over 80mph. When taking off from an escort carrier the F6F reaches 70mph (in PF), this means it would require the use of flaps to get airborne. The take-off distance in calm weather is 799ft, in 25kn headwind it is 384ft. At 18kn it would be slightly more than the 400ft that is available to take off from on the CVE in PF.

Regards. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Incorrect. I am NOT confusing units. Amazzing how everone jumps to that cliche so quick.

The stall speed with power on and no flaps or gear (clean) is 62kias. With power off it's still only 65kias.

Full dirty it's 53kias power on, and 58kias power off in that condition.

62kias is 71.3483258mph.
65kias is 74.8006641mph

And for full dirty,
53kias is 60.9913107mph
58kias is 66.745208mph

Take off distance in calm winds is as low as 600feet. However the Navy lists it as about 625-650feet. In a 25knot wind they list it as about 300feet. This is at combat weight. 100% fuel + ammo, no ordnance.

Hunde_3.JG51
11-28-2004, 04:30 PM
Whatever DDT, you need to lighten up.

What I said,

"I'm not saying everthing is fine with it, just a thought and my opinion."

So don't tell me I'm saying something that I didn't. Yes, I edited this in there, but well before your reply. Nor did I say anywhere that the hellcat was correct. As for the P-47 comparison, I really don't care, I just meant that they are not worlds apart. In game the Hellcat handles much better anyway. I was actually offering a form of support but you are obviously too defensive to talk about it.

ICDP
11-28-2004, 04:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
Incorrect. I am NOT confusing units. Amazzing how everone jumps to that cliche so quick.

The stall speed with power on and no flaps or gear (clean) is _62_kias. With power off it's still only _65_kias.

Full dirty it's 53kias power on, and 58kias power off in that condition.

62kias is 71.3483258mph.
65kias is 74.8006641mph

And for full dirty,
53kias is 60.9913107mph
58kias is 66.745208mph

Take off distance in calm winds is as low as 600feet. However the Navy lists it as about 625-650feet. In a 25knot wind they list it as about 300feet. This is at combat weight. 100% fuel + ammo, no ordnance. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then the official test document I am reading right now must be telling lies then. In the document I am reading the power on stall speed of the F6F is given as 72.2 knots. The take off distance in a 25kn headwind is given as 384 feet (84ft more than your "about 300ft"). Why such a massive discrepancy betwen two official sources?.

It also seems strange that the take-off speed you listed as "70ish" is also the same speed you claim the aircraft will stall (power on). Hardly seems feasible for an aircraft to risk taking off at stall speed now doesn't it?. It is not good practice to take-off at stall speeds as this is usually fatal.

Edit: I am not claiming you ar wrong, just curious as to why our numbers are so different. Also you are contradicting yourself with your numbers, you are essentially stating you feel the F6F should be able to take off without flaps at 70mph. You also give the stall speed as 71.35mph, it just seems strange that the take off speed is almost indentical to the stall speed in the same configuration.

BlitzPig_DDT
11-28-2004, 05:20 PM
The US Navy document does not list exact numbers for take off distances. It has graphs and maps weight vs distance. Thus the "about" part.

I'm also using training data on stall speeds. If anything, they would be conservative.

I'm really not contradicting myself. "Power on" clean stall speed is stated as 62knots indicated. The level of power is not indicated. Take off procedure states that at 45-50" of MP and 2000rpm will fly herself off at a speed of "about 60 knots".

"About 60 knots", that could be 62, or 63. It stands to reason however that it is not as high as 65. And MP and rpm are not listed at the stall speed. However, stall speed and take off speed are naturally close. As that is the point where lift starts to generate, or stop, depending on if your are accelerating or decelerating.

Hunde, I don't know you. I don't know if English is not your fisrt language. I'm not being rude, uptight, insulting, or any other label you may wish to use. I'm being blunt. There is a difference. And, regarding language, your comments, as I quoted, read as I described. So again, if that is not what you meant, then your meaning wasn't clear enough in your actual statement. And the point still stands that drawing a comparison to one of the worst turning planes in the war is a disservice to the Hellcat. It was better than people here realize.

Hunde_3.JG51
11-28-2004, 05:47 PM
Think whatever you like DDT.

Again,

"I'm not saying everthing is fine with it, just a thought and my opinion."

Can't be any clearer than that. All I was saying is that the Hellcat has it rough due to the way the game has always been. And show me how my comments read as "the Hellcat is accurate." I'm not saying it is correct as it is. The Hellcat handles better than the P-47, I ALREADY said that it should so again don't put words in my mouth saying that I think they should handle the same. Again, this does not mean everything is fine with the Hellcat, I never said it was. Obviously you like the Hellcat, which is cool, but if you feel there is a problem put something together and present it to Oleg through bug report as many of us have done.

ZG77_Nagual
11-28-2004, 06:21 PM
Well, I just took a hellcat up - fully loaded I got off the ground at about 80mph

GR142-Pipper
11-28-2004, 09:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
Pipper, then you are doing something wrong.

Test conditions should be:

-Crimea map
-12:00pm
-Flying over water
-Radiator closed (not auto)
-100% fuel
-Default armament
-Auto prop-pitch if available, 100% manual if not
-Make sure supercharger is at stage one
-Check fuel mix.
-Use True Airspeed by switching to no-cockpit view

I can get the results I posted 100% of the time under these conditions, its pretty simple. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree that it's pretty simple to set up and I did so as you have described above. The best I could get was 500 kph under the conditions you've listed above. (The best that I could get in on-line play was 440 kph, btw) The airplane was trimmed properly. Now, I was accelerating from around 300 kph to the fastest speed I could get (500 kph, in my testing). Did you also do this or did you decelerate to a speed after diving?

GR142-Pipper

WWMaxGunz
11-28-2004, 09:45 PM
It might be a good time to either post scans (links to scans) or even the document ref
numbers and dates just to get people able to see and refer to the same things.

80mph takeoff is pretty short for later war fighters in the sim, ain't it?

GR142-Pipper
11-28-2004, 10:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
It might be a good time to either post scans (links to scans) or even the document ref
numbers and dates just to get people able to see and refer to the same things.

80mph takeoff is pretty short for later war fighters in the sim, ain't it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would say that seems a bit low if they were fully loaded. What may be being ignored is the fact that aircraft carriers turn into the wind to launch the aircraft and come to about 25 knots (or more, depending on ambient conditions). So each aircraft is starting out with 25 knots worth of flying speed just by sitting there.

GR142-Pipper

Hunde_3.JG51
11-28-2004, 11:44 PM
"The best I could get was 500 kph under the conditions you've listed above. (The best that I could get in on-line play was 440 kph, btw) The airplane was trimmed properly."


Pipper, for which aircraft?

I test by doing QMB on Crimea, noon (default), fly directly over the water, 100% fuel, rad closed, auto-pitch when available, default loadout, etc. Like I said the results come back the same 100% of the time with a deviation of 1km/h max.

I test by flying down to sea-level over water. Usually when I get there I am over max speed so while I am trimming, checking rad, etc. I deccelerate (ease back on throttle) to about 20km/h below expected speed then accelerate to max speed. I must have done over 100 of these by now and the test are very reliable. Test setup comes from Oleg himself. I can provide track for any number I post, and I adjust so it is visible that rad is closed, max throttle, auto-pitch, etc.

ICDP
11-29-2004, 01:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
It might be a good time to either post scans (links to scans) or even the document ref
numbers and dates just to get people able to see and refer to the same things.

80mph takeoff is pretty short for later war fighters in the sim, ain't it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Use the following link to download PDF files with official declassified USN test data documents. The F6F-5 is listed as well as the F4F and F4U.

http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/fighter.htm

ZG77_Nagual
11-29-2004, 08:23 AM
Testing to overheat at sealevel I get

Hellcat 310mph
Corsair 340
Mustang 330-340
P38 330-340
ki84 350

This is just a speedbar readout on the deck - actual speeds are slightly higher - which puts the hellcat within 5mph of it's stated SL combat speed of 276k or 318mph

Corsair is lighter and more aerodynamic than the hellcat - with the same power. The hellcat freaked out the japanese because they were used to wildcats. It was purpose-built to defeat zeros. The diff in turn with the corsair is not huge. I find it very agile - but not terribly fast. It is very good against zeros and tonis but has a harder time against the late-war planes such as the j2m and ki84 unless you get into a turn party with them at lower speeds.

According to the docs above the corsair is more undermodeled in sea level speed - it makes about 340 and should be able to do around 375 mph on the deck. Power on stall for the corsair with a droptank is actually lower than the hellcats! In fact I'm pretty amazed how much better than the hellcat the Corsair is in the areas of speed and climb - and that it is within a couple mph in the stall regimes.

GR142-Pipper
11-29-2004, 12:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
"The best I could get was 500 kph under the conditions you've listed above. (The best that I could get in on-line play was 440 kph, btw) The airplane was trimmed properly."


Pipper, for which aircraft? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> F6F-5

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I test by doing QMB on Crimea, noon (default), fly directly over the water, 100% fuel, rad closed, auto-pitch when available, default loadout, etc. Like I said the results come back the same 100% of the time with a deviation of 1km/h max.

I test by flying down to sea-level over water. Usually when I get there I am over max speed so while I am trimming, checking rad, etc. I deccelerate (ease back on throttle) to about 20km/h below expected speed then accelerate to max speed. I must have done over 100 of these by now and the test are very reliable. Test setup comes from Oleg himself. I can provide track for any number I post, and I adjust so it is visible that rad is closed, max throttle, auto-pitch, etc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have no doubt that your testing is giving the results you're seeing. We're doing something different which accounts for the disparity. Try going down to sea level at about 300 kph. Then accelerate straight and level to as fast as you can go (110%, rad closed, 100% prop pitch, etc.). Let me know what you get. I couldn't get more than 500 kph.

GR142-Pipper

Cyrano
11-29-2004, 03:20 PM
Pipper,

I got 525km/h at SL Crimea map, etc..

GR142-Pipper
11-29-2004, 04:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cyrano:
Pipper,

I got 525km/h at SL Crimea map, etc.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Given that there are about three (or more) people seeing 525 kph at SL and I'm the one not getting the same performance, it's definitely got to be something that I'm doing (or not doing). I've checked and rechecked...I'll look yet again to see what it might be on my side.

GR142-Pipper

Hunde_3.JG51
11-29-2004, 07:13 PM
Pipper, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif, I didn't post results for F-6F5.

I will if I get a chance later but in PF 3.00 I could get 524km/h at SL IIRC.

GR142-Pipper
12-01-2004, 11:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
Pipper, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif, I didn't post results for F-6F5.

I will if I get a chance later but in PF 3.00 I could get 524km/h at SL IIRC. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, in 3.0 I was able to get in the 520-530 kph range.

GR142-Pipper

ICDP
12-01-2004, 01:02 PM
Pipper, my appoligies if this seem like a condescending qustion it is not intended as such. When doing your flight testing are you using the no cockpit view?

The speedbar shows 500kph but the TAS shows as 524kph during my tests. Just curious to see how we are getting different results.

Regards

uhoh7
12-01-2004, 01:44 PM
"Comparing the P-47 and F6F indicates you aren't really familar with the F6F. Therefore, you don't really have any place calling it into question as being too good, or claiming it is "right".

The Jug was a good deal heavier, and had much less wing.

The Hellcat and Corsair are much closer in weight, than the F6F and P-47. The Japanese held the Corsair in contempt and didn't really fear it all that much. They feared and respected the Hellcat.

Why?

Because it could dance with their fighters. It was the equal of or better than everything they had in every category prior to the Ki-84. Over 10,000 feet, contemporary Zeros were out mathced totally, in all performance regimes.

It would out turn contemporart Zeros, at any altitude, at or over about 230mph. And hang with them down as low as 200 or so. With a sea level speed of 276kias (317.6mph), that is not very fast. To put it more plainly, it would have no problem at all outclassing the vaunted Zero, even at sea level.

It certainly out turned the Corsair IRL. Haven't seen that reflected in game however.

Furthermore, simple logic will tell you that, with the E bleed as bad as it is now, there is no way to deal with enemies beyond a single pass. It can't BnZ like the Corsair because it bleeds too much E. And it can't turn to fight because it bleeds too much E. A few turns or zooms and you're done. In more ways than one.

While the stall and take off speeds being too high are mostly related to non-combat, they are still important and would reflect in combat as well, making it a bit more accurate overall. However, the most important thing is the ridiculous e-bleed.

I know I've mentioned this many times by now, but it goes in one eye and out the other because so many people wish to beleive otherwise. Don't ruin a sim (or potential sim) because of your preferences. " From DDT's post

Can you give some non-anecdotal sources for any of this?

Not trying to be rude, just blunt.

uhoh7

ICDP
12-01-2004, 02:09 PM
I have tested the F65-5 in both climbrate and top speed.

At SL I reached 524kph (325mph)
At 20100ft I reached 613kph (380mph)

Climb to 20000ft - 6 minutes 55 seconds (averaged over three tests). Climb was at 130kts (best climb speed for F6F-5 according to USN tests)

I find the figures match the official data spot on. I have seen tests that show the tops speeds better by about 10mph so if it was improved by this amount I would be happier but it does match official data as it stands in 3.02b.

I certainly don't get the impression that it bleeds off speed any worse than most other fighters (some have dubious ability to retain energy IMHO).

All in all it is matching very well with official data and it is certainly a superior fighter than any A6M Zero.

uhoh7
12-01-2004, 02:21 PM
to me the current hellcat is far more interesting to fly.

the original version seemed totally arcadish.

thanks to all those who documented the unrealistic aspects of the 3.0 hellcat and thanks to Oleg for responding so quickly.

BTW the new FMs have totally resurected both the JUG and the Dora. The latter is awesome at the moment in vertical Z@B.

GR142-Pipper
12-01-2004, 07:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ICDP:
Pipper, my appoligies if this seem like a condescending qustion it is not intended as such. When doing your flight testing are you using the no cockpit view?

The speedbar shows 500kph but the TAS shows as 524kph during my tests. Just curious to see how we are getting different results.

Regards <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No apology required as we're just trying to sort this matter out. As a matter of fact, I think you just have for me....I was, in fact, reading the 500 kph off of the speedbar as you probably guessed. I went back to check and, sure enough, Hunde clearly did suggest to conduct the test with the no cockpit view.

So as it turns out, our results are the same. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Thanks for taking the time to post.

GR142-Pipper