PDA

View Full Version : Overmoded Allied Planes



Pauker
11-06-2004, 05:42 AM
I understand, that somehow the much bigger amount of allied Planes has to find a way in every Sim, but why in the properties of the planes? I would like to see that the axis handicaps are shown in getting online-points for taking down an allied plane.
For example: just 50 points for shooting down a spit, yak or whatever and double or triple points for taking down a 109 or 190. I also don´t apprechiate, that superior planes like the me163 or other german jets are banned from many servers. The germans lost the war in reality, but how often does they has to lost it vitually? Isn´t it a big discrimination? Aren´t they now a fully respectet member in the European Community and the NATO now?
And if the germans planes was really that worse, how comes, they could overtake such huge territory?

the_soupdragon
11-06-2004, 05:58 AM
AS far as I know the Late war jets are removed from most servers because their numbers cannot be limited. If this was possible and say 4 out of the 16 enemy aircraft wearer 262's or 163's then fine. But, the problem is when they are included everyone takes a 262 and they then rule the skies as noting in the allied armoury can catch them up, unless they are being flown by morons.
If people want to fly jets fine, I don't have a problem with it, it just needs to be a limited number per side. Or Jets v Jets, but that's another matter altogether.

SD

VW-IceFire
11-06-2004, 07:08 AM
Oh...here we go....

1) Your information about the points system is incorrect. You score 100 points for a fighter, regardless of nationality, type, or side. It doesn't matter if its a bi-plane or a high altitude interceptor with turbosupercharging.

You score (I believe it is) 300 points for a medium bomber and I think you get a higher score for heavy bombers but I'm not sure about that.

Your points are awarded when you land and click refly. If you are damaged, or if you screwed up the landing you get points subracted. If you get shot down...you may get 10 points instead of 100. I forget all of the rules but your information here is very wrong.

2) All jets are banned from most dogfight servers (there are exceptions). That includes the YP-80 and the Bi-1 as well as the Me-262, He-162, and Me-163. In general, the Me-163 seems to cause lag and when its not...its pretty untouchable anyways. In dogfight servers, the limitations of these aircrafts deployment is generally less seen. So this is a consideration for even balance or its just because the server admins want to see prop fighters only. So its not descrimination against the Axis players or something like that...

3) The 190 and the 109 are two of the best aircraft in the game. The reason there are more types of Allied aircraft is because there are simply more types of Allied aircraft. The Luftwaffe poured its resources into two supplemental fighter designs and a small number of bombers. The 109 in particular is a catch all type of fighter...with excellent firepower, excellent agility (depending on version), excellent climb (again depending on version G-2 and K-4 being best), and in general good handling. But I don't like the 109 as much as I love the 190. Its fast, its fairly tough, it has an awesome roll rate that no Allied plane can beat and the recent changes for PF make it an excellent aircraft in any situation. It does require skill to fly effectively. If you took it up for the first time last week and got whupped by an experienced Thunderbolt driver...that has more to do with your pilot experience than the balance between planes.

4) Winning a war, overtaking large amounts of territory in a war, and that specific point you bring up doesn't have much to do with the specific performance of Luftwaffe planes (or anyones really). It has more to do with an overall picture of the war. The lack of experience in the Soviet officer corps (having being purged before the war started for political reasons), the poor organization of the system, the Nazi ideology and determination in the initial attack, the crumbling leadership in the opening days of Operation Barbarossa,etc. These are the things you must study if you want to see why Germany did so well initially...and then lost so completely later on. So these things have little to do with just one plane.

Are some things innacurate or potentially wrong? Yeah. Do these things sometimes seem to favour the Allied side? Maybe...but rarely. Are these things that seem to be not quite 100% accurate things that are difficult to model in the extreme? Yes.

If you want tips on how to fly the 109 or the 190 into combat...please ask. I count myself as an experienced FW190 driver...there are many who are even better than I am and many who are excellent on the 109 as well. Of course the new Japanese planes add some excitement as well. These will pose new challenges and they have different strengths and weaknesses.

Good day.

geetarman
11-06-2004, 07:23 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Danschnell
11-06-2004, 07:35 AM
The Americans won in the Pacific, and I have no problem with their late war planes being brilliant, as they probably were in real life.

However, I was annoyed to find that the early war American aircraft, like the P40 especially, are modelled to be far far better than they were in real life, and modelled better than their later and more advanced Japaneese opponents.

For example, the P40B and P40C outperform the Ki61 in nearly every respect on the game. This shouldn't be. I sincerely believe that they got the flight models of the P40 and Ki61 mixed around. They assigned them to the wrong planes.

The P40 in PF retains energy well, is fast, and doesn't stall easily. The Ki61 is the opposite. Its incredibly slow, bleeds all its energy in seconds.

From everything I've read, the P40 should retain energy poorly, stall easily, and fly slow like a snail. The Ki61 on the other hand was built for performance.

In my opinion a direct swap of the Ki61 flight model onto the P40object would put the game into much better perspective.

VW-IceFire
11-06-2004, 02:00 PM
Mmmm if the P-40's are overmodeled please provide the data so that they may be corrected. All I see is a vague assumption.

Reading about the P-40 and then actually looking at the data shows two different things. The P-40 was not a bad plane, it had a very good turn rate (just not as good as Japanese planes), it was tough, well armed, had a good dive...the only trick was that it had a nasty stall if you got into one. That seems reflected...at least as of AEP 2.04. I haven't flown the PF P-40 yet but I understand its virtually the same.

Also, comparing the Ki-61 to the P-40 right now is a very flawed thing. The Ki-61, as has been mentioned by Oleg, has a bad set of numbers on it...a mistake made by a programmer that wasn't intentional and did not get caught till after release. The patch is supposed to solve this problem. The Ki-61 should be able to stay with a P-40 in a dive, out turn it (by a small margin), match rolls, etc.

The trick with the USAAF in the Pacific was that traditional dogfight tactics were initially employed by pilots with little experience in air combat. They learned as they went along. Proper tactics were evolved to deal with the Japanese and then the P-40 came into being as a very good fighter. But ironically enough, we always hear about the P-40s reputation from either the beginnings as a fighter that wasn't capable of turning with Japanese aircraft and being inferior that way. Or from its ending where no ammount of minor modification would make up for the fact that it was obsolete by 1945.

Now...if we come post patch and the Ki-61 isn't demonstratably better than the P-40 then something is wrong. But in P-40 VS A6M matchups things seem to be right on. The P-40 can roll faster, dive faster, and has better durability...meanwhile the A6M can out turn and out climb the P-40. If the P-40 driver gets into a horizontal turn...he's done for. If he tries to climb away...he's going to get it. Depends on the situation.

Chuck_Older
11-06-2004, 05:41 PM
deleted

WWMaxGunz
11-07-2004, 08:24 AM
P-40... do a search for what Peter Schilling and other AVG pilots have to say
about that plane and versus Japanese planes. After fighting for China, many
of those same pilots went into the US forces, Pacific Theater.

Funny how people latch onto good or bad words the the other isn't heard.

P-40 should out turn P-51 in normal combat conditions according to many good
and experienced WWII pilots. But just where is that true and not, I dunno.

F16_Sulan
11-07-2004, 08:40 AM
Correct me if I´m wrong (about the jets and stuff in the first 2 posts), but the number of planes from a specific base can be limited to 4.
By making the homebase diameter-thingie as small as it goes in FMB...

Allthough I have no idea really, I think the P-40 seams more agile than I would have thought from reading about it and stuff...

k5054
11-07-2004, 10:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

However, I was annoyed to find that the early war American aircraft, like the P40 especially, are modelled to be far far better than they were in real life, and modelled better than their later and more advanced Japanese opponents.

For example, the P40B and P40C outperform the Ki61 in nearly every respect on the game. This shouldn't be. I sincerely believe that they got the flight models of the P40 and Ki61 mixed around. They assigned them to the wrong planes.

The P40 in PF retains energy well, is fast, and doesn't stall easily. The Ki61 is the opposite. Its incredibly slow, bleeds all its energy in seconds.

From everything I've read, the P40 should retain energy poorly, stall easily, and fly slow like a snail. The Ki61 on the other hand was built for performance.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Well, here's how to compare aircraft from the known, rather than the anecdotal. This is not meant to be definitive, but the hard figures you can look up will give an indication of how the aircraft should perform. If there is a discrepancy, then there ought to be some kind of reason for it. When we compare WW2 prop monoplane fighters we are really comparing similar aircraft, they mostly don't differ by much...
The best indicator of energy retentionin the utrn is the span loading. Divide the weight by the span. In the case of P-40B vs Ki-61, P-40 is 7325/37.7 = 194 lb/ft. Forthe Ki-61-1 it's 7650/39.33 = 191 lb/ft. Lower is better, but these two are near enough to make no difference being within the normal variatin of weight. so the actual sustained turn performance will depend on engine power at the chosen altitude, meaning the 40 would be better low and the 61 higher up.

Instantaneous turn ability is roughly indicated by wing loading, P-40 31 lb/sqft, Ki-61-1c 35.5.
Different models would give different results of course, but these two a/c are in the same ballpark turnwise, the Ki-61 does however have a clear advantage in speed performance at altitude, and climb anywhere. P-40 probably rolls better.
All this stuff is derived from known measurements. The conclusions may or may not be right, but they give a starting point for comparison. In this case they lead one to believe that the two a/c were similar. As they never met in real life (nearly all the Hawk 81's combat careeer was in other than USAAF service) that's as near as we can get. Later P-40s did meet the Hien, the Japanese thought they established superiority, the US forces thought they were doing OK but the 61 was worthy opposition. IMO running the numbers the later P-40s would have lost any turn advantage but gained low alt performance because they now had WEP. They were also tougher and better armed than P-40B.

SeaFireLIV
11-07-2004, 01:03 PM
Excellent first post, VW-IceFire. It explains everything clearly, simply and even delves into the historically reasons for the planes we have as well as the logic of flying online, which obviously the uninformed poster knew absolutely nothing about. With luck he`ll be wise enough to heed your words rather than pointlessly argue on!

Korolov
11-07-2004, 02:02 PM
Nitpick about the scores - You get 100 points for each engine. Take down a 4 engined plane and you'll get 400 points and vice versa. This is why you don't want to get shot down while flying a P-38... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
11-07-2004, 03:17 PM
None of that addresses why the 262 is banned from servers.

We all know why - it's because it is effective against allied aircraft - overmodelled or otherwise..

Cheers,
Norris

VW-IceFire
11-07-2004, 08:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
None of that addresses why the 262 is banned from servers.

We all know why - it's because it is effective against allied aircraft - overmodelled or otherwise..

Cheers,
Norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm not against having the Me-262 in dogfight servers. I support it...but I know I'd be flying it too. And so would everyone else. Because its so much faster than any prop fighter...so unless you have overwhelming advantage and speed to spare you aren't going to shoot down any competent jet driver.

If you look at most late war prop fighters they are all within a little bit of each other for performance. If you then throw the Me-262 into the mix its better than all of them in nearly every way...by a large margin. So thats why you don't see it.

@Korolov: Ahh thats how it works http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

@Seafire: Not sure if you're being sarcastic or legitimately thanking me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. I'll admit, I was having a bad day and I'm not sure if this original post is one of those deliberate attempts to spark those nastly flamewars so I put it all on the table. Hopefully...he'll have a look at what I said and start reading. I encourage everyone to...I have a blast learning new things...especially if someone on here challenges me and sounds like they know more than I do. It prompts me to go out and find the information myself and have a look.

WWMaxGunz
11-07-2004, 08:40 PM
People put up their own servers. They pay the cost and make the decisions.
Players don't pay, just play. So if people want to see this or that then
they should get together and pay to have it. If you can't host it yourself
then you might be surprised at the price to get it done commercially, one
member of my squad has done just that by himself -- he is not really rich.
Check around where they offer web hosting, it may be cheaper than some pay
for full ISDN.

BfHeFwMe
11-08-2004, 02:31 AM
You don't have to shoot planes down any more, simple scratch will do. One flak ping in a plane and it logs you as 'killed' by AAA when you land 30 minutes later after completing your mission. Simple mg bullet in the wing is credited as a kill, rediculous, whole system is FUBAR.

Please make an off switch for this absurd scoring system, it's an embarrassment. There's no simularity with any recorded history awarding RTB's or combat damaged as kills. What ever happened to the sim side, used to have a working system, has it all gone circus side show now?

SeaFireLIV
11-08-2004, 02:33 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by VW-IceFire:

@Seafire: Not sure if you're being sarcastic or legitimately thanking me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. I'll admit, I was having a bad day and I'm not sure if this original post is one of those deliberate attempts to spark those nastly flamewars so I put it all on the table. QUOTE]

Not sarcasm at all - did it sound sarcastic? Maybe getting a genuine compliment was a bit of a shock? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Anyway, it`s just that you said almost what I would have done and when i read the first post, I too felt it was some thinly-veiled excuse to try and start a flame-war. He got what he needed.

I would just like to add that I also have nothing against jets in servers, but they MUST reflect the historical composition at the time of the war. As many have already pointed, and I`ve experienced, what will happen is a couple of pilots take the jets and dominates every one else...

Then everyone else takes a jet and you end up with only jets flying around - and the whole WWII feel is lost. I`ve tried flying on in a prop and even against relatively noob flyers it`s impossible to last for any length of time or get a kill. (Also being one of 2 guys in props against 7-10 jets just ain`t right!) Yes, the me262 WAS this good, but NO, it was NEVER, EVER able to own the field in this way. Why? Well, it`s in the books, read up on it.

They need limiting to 1 or 2 per server. Probably 1 in a competent pilot`s hands.

The argument that we should have have Jets around freely as props is really another way of saying, `I want to fly jets and everyone else fly props, please!`

Not going to happen.

WWMaxGunz
11-08-2004, 05:20 AM
There would need to be at least two or don't you allow a wingman? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Beyond that; if I throw a party with food, drink and music then someone comes
up to me and says the food must be this other, the drink another and change
that music then I show that person to the door. I don't ask when that one
will be throwing a party either, I wouldn't go.

You like a party then stay, you don't then leave. The community is full of
parties, all kinds. Maybe most have rock music and beer, that is what they
like and lots of people come. Who wants steak and wine and classic may find
it harder to find the right door unless it is their own door.

Internet content is what anyone makes it. MP servers are internet content.
Why is that so hard a phenomenon to grasp? Phenomenon because it is what
happens, not by special rules.

NorrisMcWhirter
11-08-2004, 06:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
None of that addresses why the 262 is banned from servers.

We all know why - it's because it is effective against allied aircraft - overmodelled or otherwise..

Cheers,
Norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm not against having the Me-262 in dogfight servers. I support it...but I know I'd be flying it too. And so would everyone else. Because its so much faster than any prop fighter...so unless you have overwhelming advantage and speed to spare you aren't going to shoot down any competent jet driver.

If you look at most late war prop fighters they are all within a little bit of each other for performance. If you then throw the Me-262 into the mix its better than all of them in nearly every way...by a large margin. So thats why you don't see it.

@Korolov: Ahh thats how it works http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

@Seafire: Not sure if you're being sarcastic or legitimately thanking me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. I'll admit, I was having a bad day and I'm not sure if this original post is one of those deliberate attempts to spark those nastly flamewars so I put it all on the table. Hopefully...he'll have a look at what I said and start reading. I encourage everyone to...I have a blast learning new things...especially if someone on here challenges me and sounds like they know more than I do. It prompts me to go out and find the information myself and have a look. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Ice,

I wasn't having a go at you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I was just pointing out that the 262 is banned for ridiculous reasons (smoke causing lag was the classic) when it's just because it is superior without being overmodelled itself.

Of course it is up to the server 'owner' to decide what aircraft/balance should be permitted and the server I admin on does have a map with the 262 on it.

Is it, itself, uber? No.
Is it strong? No, the engines flame easily.
Is it unbeatable? In the hands of a good pilot, it's a tough one to beat but with teamwork it's not impossible. Then again, that's true of any plane.

I just find it ironic that certain planes are claimed to be uber and so are banned (Ki84/262) when they are very often not so. But that, again, comes down to the server owner's choice.

Cheers,
Norris

SeaFireLIV
11-08-2004, 06:43 AM
Talking about banning planes, I once went on an early war server where the I16 type 24 was banned! Apparently this was because the cannons of the I16 were considered too `uber` for the period.

Well, hello, the I16 cannons WERE the best at that particular time and place of the war. And there were LOTS of those I16s too. The I16 has many other weakness` (eggshell skin, neg `g` low power climb) though and I felt it was bad form to ban the plane, but I didn`t give the Host any trouble about it. I just flew a bit and went elsewhere.

WOLFMondo
11-08-2004, 06:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
I wasn't having a go at you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I was just pointing out that the 262 is banned for ridiculous reasons (smoke causing lag was the classic) when it's just because it is superior without being overmodelled itself. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree although you get 15 guys flying it vs 15 or so prop plane guys it sort of makes it a little unrealisic and I can't see 15 random guys on a DF server getting organised enough to take em all down. Just imagine a 128 player late war ETO server (when it arrives). 64 guys in 262's and 64 guys get pwned...allot.

If one day the amount of a type of planes could be predermined like maximum amount of plane X can be flown at any one time on a server then I think they would be un banned.

I don't personally see why the KI-84's are banned on any server, yeah they got big guns but there not invincible.

Bearcat99
11-08-2004, 07:54 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif.................sigh*

VW-IceFire
11-08-2004, 08:07 AM
@Seafire: Gotcha. I wasn't sure...I did come across as a bit hostile I think to the original poster so I wasn't sure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

@Norris: Oh I definately agree with you there. The "smoke causing lag" is absolutely hilarious in my view http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif And you are certainly right...the Me-262 isn't overmodeled. Its pretty much right on from what I can tell. Its just that "right on" with the 262 is a quantum leap above everything else http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

What they really need to do is have a plane limiter option. So only 4 Me-262's in a server of 20 are allowed for instance. Then you get a more historical mix. One of the UK-Dedicated maps allowed the Me-262 at one of the bases. It was a real shock for the Yak-3/La-7 guys when they were facing opponents that were supremely faster and better armed than they were http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
11-08-2004, 09:59 AM
Hi,

Yep, that's something that would be solved with a 'co-op' style dialog for DF servers where people have to pick what they are given and quotas are predefined.

Quite why that wasn't implemented, I don't know, but I've seen several calls for it in ORR now.

I wonder if it's possible to achieve such a thing via an external tool....which brings me to BBB_Hyperion; will the tool you are developing permit quotas to be enforced?

Cheers,
Norris

crazyivan1970
11-08-2004, 10:58 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
11-08-2004, 11:34 AM
^ Is there a problem, mods?

Cheers,
Norris

crazyivan1970
11-08-2004, 11:43 AM
No, why?

NorrisMcWhirter
11-08-2004, 12:05 PM
Ah, nothing....just wondered why you were floating about without saying much http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cheers,
Norris

faustnik
11-08-2004, 12:30 PM
Ivans always looking for ways to increase the size of his post count. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JG77Von_Hess
11-08-2004, 12:38 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Brilliant Faust.

crazyivan1970
11-08-2004, 12:45 PM
Spamming is my specialty http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
11-08-2004, 02:26 PM
Hi,

Perhaps I made it on the FB..er..UBI most wanted list?

Cheers,
Norris

crazyivan1970
11-08-2004, 03:25 PM
Not really, unless you insist Norris http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
11-08-2004, 04:30 PM
You can ban me if you like, Ivan. On quite what grounds, I'm not sure, but it's up to you.

Cheers,
Norris

crazyivan1970
11-08-2004, 04:37 PM
Any particular reasons to ban you Norris? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
11-08-2004, 04:44 PM
You're the mod - you tell me.

Cheers,
Norris

Gato__Loco
11-09-2004, 02:50 PM
Now... children....

clint-ruin
11-09-2004, 03:24 PM
ARE YOU A BAD ENOUGH DUDE TO RESCUE OLEG?

NorrisMcWhirter
11-09-2004, 03:35 PM
Just a bit of leg pulling http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Cheers,
Norris

faustnik
11-09-2004, 04:21 PM
Norris,

Fix your sig, the Spit overheats now. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
11-09-2004, 05:59 PM
Hi,

You're quite right, squire. The Seafire certainly cooks nowadays but does the Mk (Saturn V) IX still have a cryogenic cooling plant on board? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Another part out of date is the old 190 fuel bug caper; I actually had one trailing a little brown smoke the other day that didn't run out of fuel 30s later. Anyone else noticed that change?

Cheers,
Norris

VW-IceFire
11-09-2004, 09:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Hi,

You're quite right, squire. The Seafire certainly cooks nowadays but does the Mk (Saturn V) IX still have a cryogenic cooling plant on board? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Another part out of date is the old 190 fuel bug caper; I actually had one trailing a little brown smoke the other day that didn't run out of fuel 30s later. Anyone else noticed that change?

Cheers,
Norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No more cryogenic cooling. Infact, the Mark IX now has a nifty heater system with which you can roast chicken, turkey, and other delights!

WUAF_Badsight
11-10-2004, 12:00 AM
that Spit had huge wind dragging rads under the wings

i for one dont think it should have over-heated eaisly

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v18/Badsight/Big_rad_Spitfire_Mk9.jpg

WOLFMondo
11-10-2004, 03:22 AM
I totally agree, they overheat quicker than anything else now, especially the VIII but that pic is of an XIV which had even bigger rads than the Merlin powered versions.

Not sure what it means but there also fully open on the ground while taxiing.

k5054
11-10-2004, 05:34 AM
Practically no plane in the game ought to overheat at high speed. Maybe in the climb, or taxying. Unless they are badly designed, like an early 190, or damaged.
Overheating in flight sims is merely a device to stop people running around at WEP all day. As such, it should a) not exist or b) apply equally to all a/c.

NorrisMcWhirter
11-10-2004, 06:24 AM
Hi,

I've not really flown the IX since PF but it's a shame to see that it overheats too quickly now; that's just as bad as overheating too quickly.

Ah, the perilous see-saw of patching...

Cheers,
Norris

SeaFireLIV
11-10-2004, 06:38 AM
Yea, I think I`ll steer away from saying anything on the Spit now. The see-saw thing is not good. I can cope with it like this. Reminds of an old Aesop fable and at the end the whole thing got destroyed.

I`m happy with the Spit.

WOLFMondo
11-10-2004, 06:40 AM
The perilous see-saw of whining more like http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Check out the VIII on Okinawa, you can put the power to full and wep on for probably 25-30 seconds before overheat if you engines absolutly at its coolest then unless you seriously cut back on the throttle for along time you'll get overheat messages continually even flying at 80% power and using the wep again or using 100% power isn't really an option unless you want to break the engine.

I've flown it a bit now in quick missions and the wep power is only useful for very short bursts then you have to cut back on it and reduce power.

The oddest thing though is the P47 on Okinawa, take it to 6000+ and keep the rads closed and keep the power up enough for the wep to work and it doesn't overheat at all.

Bearcat99
11-10-2004, 06:43 AM
It didnt take much for these planes to overheat. P-51s (Merlin) were known to overheat on the runway while waiting to take off if not kept at a low idle with the radiator open.

VW-IceFire
11-10-2004, 07:04 AM
True Bearcat...the same can be said for the Spitfire...including the Mark V.

But when they are in the air, where they are meant to be, with air being streamed into the radiator(s) I would imagine that things would be cooler. I've even read that Spitfire pilots had to sometimes close the radiator to prevent supercooling when too much air was rushing in to cool the engine.

Whatever the case is, and perhaps some didn't understand this before, I'll still be flying the Spitfire as often as I can. I love the plane...its performance is in a sense secondary (although we'd like it to live upto its history).

k5054
11-10-2004, 08:35 AM
Yeah, like I said, they overheat taxying, or maybe in the climb. But at full speed, no. That's how the radiators are sized in the design. Then the flaps/gills are sized to cope with slower speeds. The faster you go, the better the cooling.
Anyone who ever had an overheating car will be familiar with that, stuck in traffic, red lights, on the open road, fine.

Anybody EVER read a memoir where the pilot complains of overheating in fast flight? No.

Why don't the AI fly faster? Are they afraid of overheating?

WOLFMondo
11-11-2004, 12:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bearcat99:
It didnt take much for these planes to overheat. P-51s (Merlin) were known to overheat on the runway while waiting to take off if not kept at a low idle with the radiator open. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It would be nice to have some continuity though, some planes overheat rapidly while others don't and with some altitude seems to impact more than others as does speed but that Spit overheats way more quickly than anything else. If it is correct it seems odd that Supermarine would have built a plane that they knew would be going to the tropics and the med that didn't have adequate cooling to run the engine full power+wep for at least a few minutes.

k5054
11-11-2004, 10:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> If it is correct it seems odd that Supermarine would have built a plane that they knew would be going to the tropics and the med that didn't have adequate cooling to run the engine full power+wep for at least a few minutes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spitfire that were expected to go to the tropics, MkVc, MkVIII and Seafire III all had up-rated rads and oil coolers. They also had tropical trials to OK the cooling. They didn't overheat at speed, and nor did anything else, with a few exceptions, early FWs, planes with the Wright Cyclone 9 early versions.

Monty_Thrud
11-11-2004, 02:06 PM
*SIGH!* http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif...way to go LuftWhiners, one porked Spit delivered...forget boost, its to risky for what it was intended for, overheats far to soon and you have to throttle back to 75% before she'll even begin to cool down http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

hop2002
11-11-2004, 04:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Check out the VIII on Okinawa, you can put the power to full and wep on for probably 25-30 seconds before overheat if you engines absolutly at its coolest then unless you seriously cut back on the throttle for along time you'll get overheat messages continually even flying at 80% power and using the wep again or using 100% power isn't really an option unless you want to break the engine. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've got the cooling report on the Spit IX (basically the same as the VIII), done at 25 lbs, a much higher power setting than in game.

They carried out the tests by running at cruising speed for at least 10 minutes, followed by runs at maximum throttle in level flight for 5 minutes, with the radiators closed.

Under both temperate or tropical summer conditions, at altitudes of 3000 ft and 13,500 ft, the temperatures at the end of 5 mins at this much higher power setting came nowhere near the maximums.

In fact, the only test that exceeded maximum temperature was to climb at full power from 2000 ft to 32000ft with the radiators closed.

Climbs from 2000 ft to 32000ft at full throttle (again much higher than the power in game) with the radiators open did not exceed maximum temperature, even under tropical summer conditions.

Korolov
11-11-2004, 04:25 PM
One question: Have you performed same/similar tests in the game with the temperature guage?

I find the "Overheat" warning is inaccurate at best.

ImpStarDuece
11-11-2004, 11:39 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

I tend to find that the overheat HUD message a little misleading in some planes.

A little strange too when i can chop my throttle from 100 to 75% in the Spit 5 and have the engine return to 'normal' in less than 3 seconds.

Kurfurst__
11-12-2004, 07:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
I've got the cooling report on the Spit IX (basically the same as the VIII), done at 25 lbs, a much higher power setting than in game.

They carried out the tests by running at cruising speed for at least 10 minutes, followed by runs at maximum throttle in level flight for 5 minutes, with the radiators closed.

Under both temperate or tropical summer conditions, at altitudes of 3000 ft and 13,500 ft, the temperatures at the end of 5 mins at this much higher power setting came nowhere near the maximums.

In fact, the only test that exceeded maximum temperature was to climb at full power from 2000 ft to 32000ft with the radiators closed.

Climbs from 2000 ft to 32000ft at full throttle (again much higher than the power in game) with the radiators open did not exceed maximum temperature, even under tropical summer conditions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



I have that report too. But it doesnt state ANY measured engine temperatures. I dont know from where exactly Hop taken wheter the engine temperatures exceeded a given level or not. The report certainly does not state such, it merely says the radiators are suitable for tropcial/temperate conditions. I love to see a temperature curve for that report, but Hop said IIRC such doesnt exists, so I have no idea how this report could prove the engine dont overheats on the Spitfire. AFAIK Hop claims something surreal like with closed rads, maximum power and a slow speed climb would only increase the temperature by something like 4 degrees during a 45 minute period(!!!), or something along these lines... certainly he would not like to see the Spitfire to overheat in the same manner as any other prop plane.

WOLFMondo
11-12-2004, 09:28 AM
"Climbs from 2000 ft to 32000ft at full throttle (again much higher than the power in game) with the radiators open did not exceed maximum temperature, even under tropical summer conditions."

I don't think the VIII in PF will get to 10,000ft before it overheats but I'll take what Korolov says and give it a try. I don't have the setup, know how or experiance to do accurate tests though.

hop2002
11-12-2004, 10:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I have that report too. But it doesnt state ANY measured engine temperatures. I dont know from where exactly Hop taken wheter the engine temperatures exceeded a given level or not. The report certainly does not state such, it merely says the radiators are suitable for tropcial/temperate conditions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It does state that Isegrim, in the form of a very simple equation.

Suitability = (permissible coolant temp - standard summer temp) / (observed coolant temp - actual air temp)

It really is a very simple formula, and for the suitability to be greater than 1, the coolant temp has to be below permitted maximum. (unless you start using truly stupid air temperatures)

Maths obviously isn't your strong point Isegrim, because you keep claiming the report doesn't say the temperatures don't exceed maximum, when it clearly does.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>AFAIK Hop claims something surreal like with closed rads, maximum power and a slow speed climb would only increase the temperature by something like 4 degrees during a 45 minute period(!!!), or something along these lines. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Straw man argument. I have never said that. In fact, the report quite clearly shows that a rad closed full power climb will begin to overheat within the period of the climb, which would be well under 10 mins.

faustnik
11-12-2004, 10:30 AM
Who says the Spit IX overheats too quickly now in PF 3.0? I flew it the other day and it took quite a while to overheat. You better post some actual test before claiming it overheats too quickly. It does overheat now, so maybe people are talking relative terms.