PDA

View Full Version : Serious question - How would I know?



Waldo.Pepper
06-23-2005, 03:14 PM
If it is true that some who installed 4.0 then went to 4.01 are experiencing diminished torque - then how would I know if I were one of these unfortunate souls?

I don't think I am - but all the people posting and whinging about all the trouble they are having taking off, landing etc. etc. have got me wondering that maybe I am.

So how would I know, without going to all the trouble of installing a second copy of 4.01M and doing some tests?

Waldo.Pepper
06-23-2005, 03:14 PM
If it is true that some who installed 4.0 then went to 4.01 are experiencing diminished torque - then how would I know if I were one of these unfortunate souls?

I don't think I am - but all the people posting and whinging about all the trouble they are having taking off, landing etc. etc. have got me wondering that maybe I am.

So how would I know, without going to all the trouble of installing a second copy of 4.01M and doing some tests?

Chuck_Older
06-23-2005, 03:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
If it is true that some who installed 4.0 then went to 4.01 are experiencing diminished torque - then how would I know if I were one of these unfortunate souls?

I don't think I am - but all the people posting and whinging about all the trouble they are having taking off, landing etc. etc. have got me wondering that maybe I am.

So how would I know, without going to all the trouble of installing a second copy of 4.01M and doing some tests? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You need to do a little soul-searching first.

If you find that you cannot find your soul after a bit of searching, then you can start complaining about things that you can only guess at http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

elephant_il2
06-23-2005, 03:43 PM
I am one of them probably. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
In 4.0 I was sweting trying to fly my Bf109 sraight, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif not to mention the ground loops,in take offs and landings.
After installing 4.01 over 4.0 it flies like before, there is some torque modelled but like in 3.04 patch.I can fly formation without even touching the stick nor add slight right rudder all the time!!!
But I'm too lazy to reinstall now. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Chuck_Older
06-23-2005, 04:16 PM
If it's that different in the 109, it *would* be obvious, I suppose

Waldo.Pepper
06-23-2005, 04:57 PM
I am not having too much trouble at all.

I didn't think things were too hard in 4.0.

I managed to land a Corsair on the Illustrious after about three tries. (Short enough learning curce I figured.)

Then I installed 4.01 and it seems the same to be. NOt any harder not any easier than 4.0

So how would I know? Dammit! I guess I have to install a test copy after all.

steve_v
06-23-2005, 06:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
So how would I know, without going to all the trouble of installing a second copy of 4.01M and doing some tests? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You've answered your own question with your own question. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Installing Multiple versions of FB/AEP/PF (http://www.airwarfare.com/guides/multivers.htm)

Maple_Tiger
06-23-2005, 07:46 PM
I would install multiple copies myself; however, this would just confuse maple. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

actionhank1786
06-23-2005, 08:11 PM
I saw "f-it"
I can't feel a difference in 4.0 and 4.01...and i don't really care http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
If anything it's a miniscule difference

EnGaurde
06-23-2005, 08:17 PM
men often reach a stage where they become confused, life is not as clear as it once was and lose sight of the way forward. As change is ineveitable and men are but human, this is not meant to be feared, but indeed expected.

these lost souls wander thru life clinging to anything that seems to have a predetermined path in an effort to regain perspective.

the danger lies in mistaking new direction for merely being carried along by the aimless drifting of others. This is not unlike the particular kind of gratitude the lone animal is flooded with after finding the centre of a, but not necessarily the, herd.

this naturally leads of a solid worthwhile conclusion: if you are lost, it is pure folly to expect others cannot be, most perilously the one or ones you rely on as saviours.

It is no use casting out for hands to hold if those hands are sinking with you. You will be comforted, but as you descend to your destruction.

it is best, even if seen from a viewpoint of no worse, that you strike out on your own path.

You rely by chance on the kindness of strangers for salvation, yet trust not your own advice?

Make a path in any direction you decide, often if you ask yourself the question you ask others you will have an answer of some sort. This is where the seeds of self reliance and utter confidence are sown. It is how we overcome mistakes that defines us, not the mind consuming, impossible Atlean task of avoiding every single one.

For as many have said before, it is often during the journey we discover our true destination.

And lo and behold, you indeed have answered your own question, Waldo.

You have your path. Find the courage to embark and the wisdom to never look back.

Never suffer in regret. Only grow in learning.

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

horseback
06-23-2005, 08:50 PM
I saved a copy of Forgotten Battles/AEP/PF 4.0 in another folder, and I flew identical missions from the Single Missions for comparison.

The fact is that after a few years of patching and FM adjustment, we tend to learn new FMs fairly quickly.

However, I am having a heck of a time getting used to how few rounds it takes to shoot down the AI. This has led to my own premature 'demise' when I followed my victim down in his death spiral, waiting for him to recover and attempt to escape, allowing some other sneaky AI bastage to slip in behind me unawares and take me out with a few quick bursts...

cheers

horseback

EnGaurde
06-23-2005, 08:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> how few rounds it takes to shoot down the AI </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i read a combat report somewhere that described a tempest shooting down a dora.

in between the pursuit he mentions about 3 half second bursts.

seems quite low, but apparently its kosher. And keep in mind i have absolutely no idea how many 20mm rounds it took to actually down a fw190D.

i suppose i have a solid idea.... that being one, if it hits the pilot? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

and at the other end, a full magazine if the rounds dont hit anything vital.

a sliding scale i suppose.

horseback
06-23-2005, 09:37 PM
It's possible that most of the 'new' DMs are more accurate; I read somewhere (believe me I'm wracking my brain to pull up where I read it) that a postwar Allied study indicated that it took an average of a little over 4 lbs (2 kg) of ordnance to bring a single engined aircraft down. Brings a whole new intensity to the expression 'weight of fire' doesn't it?

Obviously, this depended a bit on where that ordnance impacted, but from the photos we've seen, hits from any distance tended to scatter from gun/wing shake, poor aim, or long deflection shots. Cannon, being generally slower firing with greater recoil/vibration per shot, would provide greater dispersion from any angle save 12 or 6 o'clock, but give you heavier hitting power, even with solid rounds. MGs, with a higher rate of fire, but less punch per round, have to find the pilot, the fuel tanks, or a critical component or two. In a close range deflection shot, a fast firing set of machine guns might serve you better; more rounds on (all over) the target.

If that was the case, either we're all freaking unbelievably good shots in the context of this sim, or the gunnery model is too forgiving, or some combination of the two.

cheers

horseback

Waldo.Pepper
06-24-2005, 08:32 PM
OK so here is how I tested it.

I had burned a DVD of my game directory that still had a copy of pf merged 3.04

So I copied the whole thing to a directory that I had called historical. Then I applied 4.01 patch to it.

So after an evening of flying around, I cannot see any difference at all.

Therefore, I must be a flying god as I have not had much trouble getting used to the 4 series flight physics at all.

Now I know.

AerialTarget
06-25-2005, 12:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
a postwar Allied study indicated that it took an average of a little over 4 lbs (2 kg) of ordnance to bring a single engined aircraft down. Brings a whole new intensity to the expression 'weight of fire' doesn't it?

If that was the case, either we're all freaking unbelievably good shots in the context of this sim, or the gunnery model is too forgiving, or some combination of the two. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Four pounds of ammunition is a very small amount. A fifty caliber bullet with the cartridge weighs around one thousand eight hundred grains. There are seven thousand grains in a pound. Therefore, a fifty caliber bullet is roughly a fourth of a pound. Four pounds of fifty caliber ammunition is about sixteen rounds!

Therefore, I will assume that the study meant bullet weight and not the weight of the entire cartridges. The bullet itself weighs about two hundred and fifty grains. That leaves us with about three hundredths of a pound. Therefore, a pound is thirty three bullets, and four pounds is about a hundred and forty rounds - not at all far from the average number of fifty caliber rounds needed to down a single engined aircraft in the game!

As most everyone here knows, Oleg has said that the fifty calibers are too powerful, and he only made them that way because of the whining. I actually believe that he is correct, and that the fifty calibers do too much damage per bullet. However, this is roughly outweighed by the equally well known fact that Oleg's fifty caliber machine guns fire in syncronized banks, when the real things were naturally and also deliberately desyncronized. This means that instead of the "packets" of bullets that we have in the game, which airplanes can easily fly through, the real fifty caliber machine guns had a constant stream of lead that could not be flown through without being hit by at least a few bullets.

Think of it this way. In the game, if you oscillate wildly on the pitch axis while firing at a target for a few seconds, you will likely not hit it at all, even if the aircraft is in the center of your line of oscillation. With desyncronized banks, however, the constant stream of lead would hit the target every time your wild oscillations brought the nose over the target.

So, in short, the fifties do too much damage per bullet, but it's too difficult to get those bullets to hit! I personally have no problem making kills with six fifties. However, the fact remains that they are wrong.

mtnman4
06-25-2005, 01:23 PM
You may be on the right track but some of your info is incorrect. A WWII .50 bullet weighed 750 grains with a muzzle velocity of 2800 FPS.
I think some people under estimate the power of that round. A 20mm cannon round (albeit very effective) is roughly .79 caliber. So it is essentially a little over 3/4 of an inch across whereas the .50 is 1/2 inch across. The difference in what amount of damage it can inflict really depends on what it hits. Exploding rounds cannot be compared with these two.
I suppose what I'm saying is that the .50 is capable of as much damage (at times) as the 20mm cannon. I think the DM is close to reality but because they are not as impressive as the uber german guns. Folks seem to downplay their effectiveness. We've all seen the footage of fifties chewing up chunks of german & japanese aircraft.That unto itself should be proof enough for most anyone that the "little" .50 isn't overmodeled here.