PDA

View Full Version : F2A



TheGozr
12-28-2004, 02:45 AM
Gunsite a shame.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif worse than CSF2/3 how can it be possible.

WHere are the beta tester? they really need to wake up.

My coffee grounder is making a better sound as well..

weird feeling on yak's turning ??? what's going on?

SkyChimp
12-28-2004, 06:32 PM
The Finns didn't rip out the tube sights and install reflector sights for nothing. Tube sights sucked. Just like in the game.

Von_Zero
12-28-2004, 06:49 PM
the problem is more weird, it seems like the sight on the F2A doens't have a "telescopic" mode. It should look like the ki43's one, if you don't get what i mean... BUT it looks like when the shight is in "off" possition, the pilot is looking through the "other sight" placed above that one. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

JG53Frankyboy
12-28-2004, 07:04 PM
i wish the Ki43-I would have the same "system" !
because in the normal view (not in telescopic view, wich actually is NONE ! the planes have the same size! ) you cant see anything behind you, the headrest is to close !

in F2A-2 you have not this proplem. in gunsight view you can still check your six because the headrest is far away enough now.

Wert4562
12-28-2004, 07:40 PM
The gunsight is fine for me, I have no problem using it...


Anyway, here's a bug I found.

http://img75.exs.cx/img75/3646/bugfront4yr.jpg
http://img75.exs.cx/img75/2685/bugport4kp.jpg
http://img159.exs.cx/img159/3592/bugstarboard9ly.jpg
http://img159.exs.cx/img159/5682/bugbottom5al.jpg


Happens occasionally when I fly this plane...

VW-IceFire
12-28-2004, 08:15 PM
Not that I fly the F2A much at all...but thinking the gunsight was a bit off, I switched to the other cockpit view and just visuall sight the tracers onto target. Its doable because the second position sits you a bit up in the seat so you can see over the gunsight.

TheGozr
12-29-2004, 03:22 AM
The pixel are way to big just damed hugly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Ruy Horta
12-29-2004, 05:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TheGozr:
Gunsite a shame.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif worse than CSF2/3 how can it be possible. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The design team made one of those odd decisions, that do not make sense.

1. The Ki 43 has a good Gunsight for a fighter in terms of the pilot's position when its in normal mode. Yes, during maneuvers the alignment suffers, but its workable at medium zoom distances. Once you use the Gunsight view, the developers assumed that this means you have your face AGAINST the sight, this is not true. In RL practice the Japanese held their face some distance (could look up the exact distance) from the gunsight. A more authentic Shift-F1 view would thus be a little more drawn back and less zoomed in.

2. The F2A tries to do two things at the same in the regular cockpit mode. Its useless in combat, but it puts the pilot's view higher (as in better view over nose). This way the view is better for Carrier Ops, not as good as the a dedicated Carrier landing view like the F4F, but useless in combat. So you HAVE to use Shift-F1 in combat to track your target with a medium of accuracy. But with this type of sight it means that its hard to track well.

Answer - shift the regular cockpit view down a little so that has a clear view through the Aldis sight. Ideally add a high cockpit view mode like the F4F, which looks missing at the moment.

For those who answer the latter request with some BS on pilot seat settings, just look at it as straightening your back or changing the vertical position of your head relative to the sight.

It can easily be done and remain authentic...

JG53Frankyboy
12-29-2004, 06:00 AM
yes, give both , the Ki-43-I and F2A-2, the same view system.

the normal view , in which you cant look through the telescop and the rearview is bad.
than the aiming view (Shift-F1) in which you can look through the sight (like in F2A2 now) but still can check your six. with a much better result because the headrest is now farer away.

there can be added a Telescopic View (like Oscar now) with an extra button - but no need.

Ruy Horta
12-30-2004, 11:31 AM
If they took exactly the same approach in the F2A as they did in the Ki-41-I they'd have a far more effective setup compared to what they have right now.

But we can probably forget any work on the art of an aircraft once it has been released, a shame since the setup in the F2A would only take a little extra work to perfect.

Was surprised to read in a dutch book that according to a combat report they regarded the Mod.339D as practically even to the Zero in the horizontal and with reduced fuel and .50 ammo load (2/3 - 1/2) an equal in the horizontal turn.

This observation is (in this form) annecdotal, but it might also illustrate why the Finns loved the type. If it was close to the Zero in agility, it would have been equal to more agile compared to many of the Soviet types as well. If the Brewster had some failings it was especially in terms of a piss poor climb and relatively low top speed. Brewster also seemed to have had a VERY poor production standard, which made for very demanding a/c in terms of maintenance.

Maj_Death
12-31-2004, 12:02 PM
It is a shame, the Ki-43, SBD and Val sights are great but the F2A's sight appears that they forgot to include the gunsight view. Even if you prefer the worthless sight it is still exceptionally ugly due to high pixelation. I would need 500x AA to smooth that out.

BlakJakOfSpades
01-02-2005, 12:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maj_Death:
Even if you prefer the worthless sight it is still exceptionally ugly due to high pixelation. I would need 500x AA to smooth that out. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
u crack me up http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

GerritJ9
01-06-2005, 04:09 PM
The A6M2's max speed is generally quoted as about 330-340 mph in most publications. F2A Buffalo in Action, by Jim Maas, quotes the F2A-1's speed as 311 mph at 18,000 feet; the F2A-2's speed is quoted as 344 mph at 16,500 feet, the B339D was basically a denavalized version of the F2A-2 so its performance would be approximately the same. The overloaded B339E, as used by Commonwealth forces, has a top speed of 330 mph; the F2A-3 is is even worse at 321 mph.
I have tested the B239 and F2A-2 as regards top speed and both achieve no more than 350 kph at 5,000 metres; the A6M2 reaches approximately 400 kph at the same altitude. The F2A-2 should be at least as fast as the A6M2-21, yet clearly isn't; I suspect the same flight data was used for both B-239 and F2A-2. This should, in my humble opinion, be corrected. Until it is, I'll stick with the B-239; at least it has a decent gunsight.

p1ngu666
01-06-2005, 04:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GerritJ9:
The A6M2's max speed is generally quoted as about 330-340 mph in most publications. F2A Buffalo in Action, by Jim Maas, quotes the F2A-1's speed as 311 mph at 18,000 feet; the F2A-2's speed is quoted as 344 mph at 16,500 feet, the B339D was basically a denavalized version of the F2A-2 so its performance would be approximately the same. The overloaded B339E, as used by Commonwealth forces, has a top speed of 330 mph; the F2A-3 is is even worse at 321 mph.
I have tested the B239 and F2A-2 as regards top speed and both achieve no more than 350 kph at 5,000 metres; the A6M2 reaches approximately 400 kph at the same altitude. The F2A-2 should be at least as fast as the A6M2-21, yet clearly isn't; I suspect the same flight data was used for both B-239 and F2A-2. This should, in my humble opinion, be corrected. Until it is, I'll stick with the B-239; at least it has a decent gunsight. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i think the production ones where worse, and the zeros where considered the better plane in terms of flight, turn, climb, speed etc

Seahawk89
01-06-2005, 05:30 PM
I would like to see the F2's sight work like the Ki-43's sight.

JG53Frankyboy
01-06-2005, 05:48 PM
and me that the Ki43-I sight would work like the F2A-2s , that i could check my six better without having the headrest alway in front of my nose http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

GerritJ9
01-07-2005, 02:33 AM
The A6M2 was superior to the B339E and F2A-3 in nearly every respect, except for protection (no armoured windscreen, or armour protection for the pilot, no self-sealing fuel tanks etc, but both could outdive the A6M2 easily.
As regards the B339D and F2A-2, the matter is not so clearcut. Straight line speed was almost identical; and where the A6M2 could also outclimb and outturn thse Brewsters, it could not outdive them- here the Brewster, like the F4F, was superior. Furthermore, all Brewster variants were more ruggedly built that the A6M2 (or Ki43) and could take punishment that would bring down either of its opponents and still bring its pilot home.

Ruy Horta
01-07-2005, 12:43 PM
Dutch Brewsters did not have selfsealing fuel tanks and were as prone to fire as the Zero, although more ruggedly build.

GerritJ9
01-07-2005, 03:13 PM
The ML-KNIL did order protective equipment and other items such as reflector gunsights for their B339Cs and Ds, but delays in delivery meant that not all aeroplanes received those items on the assembly line and some of the stuff was shipped to the NEI to be fitted there by the ML's Technical Department. Unfortunately it is now almost impossible to discover exactly which aeroplanes received what- certainly 2-VlG-V's Brewsters were fitted with armour glass windscreen protection after arrival at Singapore in December 1941. The glass was removed from written-off Commonwealth Buffalos.
In PF, the B-239, F2A-2 and A6M2-21 are all way too slow- the 350 km/h I obtained with both B-239 and F2A-2 translates to about 220 mph; the Zero's 400 km/h means a top speed of about 250 mph. Both are totally incorrect, and this should be rectified. Also, the F2A-2's speed should be more in line with that of the A6M2-21's. There is more than enough documentation to prove this.

JG53Frankyboy
01-07-2005, 05:04 PM
you know the difference of IAS (that shows up in cockpit gauges and speedbar) and TAS ( that you can read in books, manuals and on the "comic" gauges in "no cockpit view) ??

A6M2-21, 100% fuel, 110%power, cooler closed, level acceleration after climb on Crimea map:
~530km/h TAS (PF 3.03m)

on my PC http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

F2A-2 was slower, didnt test exact.

GerritJ9
01-08-2005, 02:00 AM
FB, AEP and PF don't model production tolerances, historically known engine unreliability etc, the only exception I have discovered so far is the Me262's engines which will spontaneously catch fire if you are even slightly heavy-handed with the throttle- as they did in real life. Otherwise we would have the Ki61's engine unreliability as well! So since "factory" data is used for everything else, it should also be applied to the F2A-2's straightline speed, which is clearly undermodeled and should be approximately at least the same as the A6M2-21's. The difference I have obtained in my testing between the B-239 and the A6M2-21's speed is approx. 40-50 kph, or 25-30 mph, which is acceptable since the B-239 was much slower than either F2A-2 or A6M2-21. The F2A-2 having the same top speed as the B-239 is, however, totally incorrect and this should be corrected, hopefully in the next patch.