PDA

View Full Version : The word "Corrected" has been used again!



VBF-83_Hawk
01-18-2005, 03:06 PM
quoted from v3.04 read me.

"1. Corrected take off acceleration of the carrier based aircraft. Now it is easier to take off with the fully loaded aircraft."

Once again a correction of an already corrected correction from a previous already correct flight model.


Nevertheless, thanks!

Stiglr
01-18-2005, 03:35 PM
The part of this that makes my eyebrows raise is the explanation that "now, it's easier to take off with fuly loaded aircraft."

Does that mean it's simply been made easier, but the physics are wrong? Or that is was wrong before, but now it's right?

Doesn't inspire confidence in the solution, whatever it is...

Jester_159th
01-18-2005, 03:43 PM
Well obviously we want the flight models as realistic as they can be.

BUT

Do you want them realistic...Or do you want to be able to get a fully loaded plane of a stationary carrier's deck (especially with no wind)?

I suppose this is a case of doing the best that's possible within the confines of a PC game. I'm sure that if they can find a more realistic compromise we'll get it.

Till then I refer you back to my original question...Cos you can't have both.

GoToAway
01-18-2005, 03:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jester_159th:
Well obviously we want the flight models as realistic as they can be.

BUT

Do you want them realistic...Or do you want to be able to get a fully loaded plane of a stationary carrier's deck (especially with no wind)?

I suppose this is a case of doing the best that's possible within the confines of a PC game. I'm sure that if they can find a more realistic compromise we'll get it.

Till then I refer you back to my original question...Cos you can't have both. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is a flight simulation, not a "flight sort of realistic except when it inconveniences people doing unrealistic things online."

There shouldn't even be carriers on dogfight maps. Oleg said all along that it would be problematic, but people whined and got him to include them even when they were made aware of the fact that they'd have to be static.

Now they whine because they got what they asked for...

I really hope that Oleg hasn't catered to them...

VMF-214_HaVoK
01-18-2005, 04:02 PM
1. He said corrected which I see as it was wrong before.

2. Do you know what he meant as fully loaded? There are many loadouts. Pobably 100% fuel and some bombs or rockets.

3. The Corsairs acceleration was too slow historically in previous patch. It top speed was too slow as well.

4. Have you even tried it out for yourself to see what has changed? Probably a good idea before you start a whine about whiners highjack.

3.JG51_BigBear
01-18-2005, 04:09 PM
Reality 3.04 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Its always the correct version. Its been this way for three years. I just stopped reading the readmes because they take all my fun away. I find myself obsessing over the changes and trying to figure out what other secret changes have been made that I don't know about. This is the reason I stopped speed testing, because I just don't want to know. I find I'm enjoying the game a lot more this way.

SeaFireLIV
01-18-2005, 04:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
Reality 3.04 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Its always the correct version. Its been this way for three years. I just stopped reading the readmes because they take all my fun away. I find myself obsessing over the changes and trying to figure out what other secret changes have been made that I don't know about. This is the reason I stopped speed testing, because I just don't want to know. I find I'm enjoying the game a lot more this way. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. That`s probably the best way to look at it. But I hope it wasn`t corrected to please whines, rather than historical accuracy. Not that I fly PF much (a nice break sometimes), i`m more a BOE/IL2FB flyer...

RxMan
01-18-2005, 04:55 PM
I don't think there is any 'historically accurate' situation where a fully loaded plane would take off of a stationary carrier (with no catapults) with no wind.

SeaFireLIV
01-18-2005, 05:15 PM
Well that`s what I thought. But then why would Oleg make an historically inaccurate Patch just to ensure planes can take off easier... I myself thought it was pretty good as it was before. And others did say it was accurate that some planes couldn`t take off with some loads.

*sigh* I`m going to bed.

whitetornado_1
01-18-2005, 05:32 PM
The U.S. market is probably what pays
the most.So the planes better get off
those carriers well and those 50's better
hit hard!

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

Weather_Man
01-18-2005, 06:09 PM
I think it's more a practical issue. Online play was limited by aircraft that couldn't take off from carriers. It's been corrected. What's wrong with that?

BTW, does better acceleration off carrier apply to better overall, or only when wheels are down?

aerick2
01-18-2005, 06:26 PM
The word that annoys me is "tuned". For example: they "tuned" the maximal speed of the F2A in this patch. What the heck does that mean? All that the word "tuned" really tells us is that *something* was changed in *some* way. Sheesh.

BlitzPig_DDT
01-18-2005, 06:35 PM
Oh. So it sounds like all the whining brought back the F4UFO. If so, great. Good going guys. Shows your true colors too. And would prove my earlier charge that the only reason it was so good in the game was because of the whining brigades.

VBF-83_Hawk
01-18-2005, 07:25 PM
Pretty good replys.

First, I was not refering to a spacific aircraft per quote.

Second, since the F4U was mentioned in most replies.........
a. previous climb issue was a "correction" to an already correct flight model!
b. take-off distance was a inadvertent correction to an incorrect climb issue that was supose to have been orginally correct. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif
c. the take-off distance issue has again been changed...but for what reason? The "read-me" claims is was a correction!

Maybe Oleg and crew should say either they were wrong about the flight model or they changed the flight model for better game play. However, the read-me implies they were wrong because it says something was corrected.

How about this.........

1. Take-off performance has been changed on some flight models for better gameplay due to the issues with static carriers for dogfight maps. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

RocketRobin__
01-18-2005, 07:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
Oh. So it sounds like all the whining brought back the F4UFO. If so, great. Good going guys. Shows your true colors too. And would prove my earlier charge that the only reason it was so good in the game was because of the whining brigades. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hit 'em with your steel hanky, Politenessman!

BlitzPig_DDT
01-18-2005, 07:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RocketRobin__:
Hit 'em with your steel hanky, Politenessman! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol! You must be new.



As for "correct", it's pointless to get hung up on that word. It's always right. Yes. That's not a paradox. It's "right" at hte time for what was available - data, internal resources, PC resources, etc. And each change seems to change everything else, so sometimes corrections are needed for corrections.

What's so odd about that?

Guess I'm just confused over the fuss. Fact is it was corrected in 3.03. But it pissed everyone off. Call me crazy, but it wasn't because of an apparent paradox around the word "correct". It was because it wasn't so ├┼ôberized anymore.

Jester_159th
01-19-2005, 01:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GoToAway:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jester_159th:
Well obviously we want the flight models as realistic as they can be.

BUT

Do you want them realistic...Or do you want to be able to get a fully loaded plane of a stationary carrier's deck (especially with no wind)?

I suppose this is a case of doing the best that's possible within the confines of a PC game. I'm sure that if they can find a more realistic compromise we'll get it.

Till then I refer you back to my original question...Cos you can't have both. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is a flight simulation, not a "flight sort of realistic except when it inconveniences people doing unrealistic things online."

There shouldn't even be carriers on dogfight maps. Oleg said all along that it would be problematic, but people whined and got him to include them even when they were made aware of the fact that they'd have to be static.

Now they whine because they got what they asked for...

I _really_ hope that Oleg hasn't catered to them... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry pal. If you think I'm whining then either I wasn't too clear or you missed the point of my post.

All you've done is repeated exactly what I said, just in a slightly different way.

joeap
01-19-2005, 08:46 AM
DDt did you try taking off from the Illustrious in a loaded Corsair? A moving carrier? (Not a CVE) Have you seen the Carrier footage on the Wiley Guncam site showing a loaded Corsair's wheels leaving the deck before crossing the bow? Didn't do that in 3.03. Have any of you notieced how loaded TBFs would crash when taking off from moving CVEs? Happened in another mission I downloaded which wad fine pre 3.03. Now I would have preferred real wind, and I haven't flown online so am not concerned with stationary carriers which is very arcadish but unavoidable with the current engine. I really don't know about acceleration figures etc...but do know it is not that easy now either. Before, at esp. on the Brit carrier with any ordanance it was bloody difficult.

Have any of you ETO land based only flyers tried it? Have any of you "sair" whiners ever read that F4Us were not used in general from CVEs? I'd just like some answers to these questions.

joeap
01-19-2005, 05:33 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 RocketRobin__:
Hit 'em with your steel hanky, Politenessman! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol! You must be new.



As for "correct", it's pointless to get hung up on that word. It's always right. Yes. That's not a paradox. It's "right" at hte time for what was available - data, internal resources, PC resources, etc. And each change seems to change everything else, so sometimes corrections are needed for corrections.

What's so odd about that?

Guess I'm just confused over the fuss. Fact is it was corrected in 3.03. But it pissed everyone off. Call me crazy, but it wasn't because of an apparent paradox around the word "correct". It was because it wasn't so ├┼ôberized anymore. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did you look at my post and the video at Wiley's site? There were problems with all carrier planes on moving carriers...even Kates sink down too low IMO. Look at the video and tell me it was right before.

TAGERT.
01-19-2005, 05:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
4. Have you even tried it out for yourself to see what has changed? Probably a good idea before you start a whine about whiners highjack. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nah.. that makes too much sense.. That and it requires work.. You have to actually read a little and find some real world data... Then set up a test in the sim to see how close it is to those real numbers.. Then post your results here along with the real world data and the source you got it from.. And hopfully the track files you saved during the test so others can see what you did..

NOPE! WAY TOO MUCH WORK for these guys! Must easier to just sit back and whine about it! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT.
01-19-2005, 05:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
Oh. So it sounds like all the whining brought back the F4UFO. If so, great. Good going guys. Shows your true colors too. And would prove my earlier charge that the only reason it was so good in the game was because of the whining brigades. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>A perfect example of no proof.. just whine.. so easy to whine.. So hard to do a test to back up what they say.

SKULLS_CoyMS
01-19-2005, 06:15 PM
With all the complaining going on its a wonder that we get any patches at all. My only remark....Thanks Oleg , for all your work and effort in supporting a rather thankless community. Just know that there are some of us who do appreciate your efforts in our behalf
S!

Tiger27
01-20-2005, 02:25 AM
Personally I would rather fly the sim than deliberate over each small change in max this or that, Im sure they do there best to keep as many of the flight models as possible as close to the real thing as current computing power will allow.
What really brings this sim to life for me is flying with a squad and using tactics that are similar to those used in the real thing, if your wanting to turn fight in a '51 or '47 then it really doesnt matter what FM they produce because you've already thrown any hope of enjoying a realistic experience out the window

Daiichidoku
01-20-2005, 03:03 AM
DDT, ...."F4UFO" hahaha....was I out to lunch not hearing this before?...seems appro for the 3.0 Corsair

I have no idea how accurate the Corsair has ever been in the game....but I bet if it was UFO'd from 3.0, a lot of ppl got upset it was "porked" later...perceptions, sheesh

OM shouldnt have been smart, especially about such a popular type....initial release, make it a TOTAL hog (no pun intended) on purpose, sustain a short period of whines to be ignored anyhow, then "improve" it to what is most accurate....make the ppl happy, hehehe

Guess that brings the problem of those who would now think that its been Ubered.....sigh just cant win

WOLFMondo
01-20-2005, 03:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
The part of this that makes my eyebrows raise is the explanation that "now, it's easier to take off with fuly loaded aircraft."

Does that mean it's simply been made easier, but the physics are wrong? Or that is was wrong before, but now it's right?

Doesn't inspire confidence in the solution, whatever it is... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It could possibly mean the previous 'correct' was correct to the data at that time and limits of the engine. Now its correct due to new data or new feature in the game engine.

Don't be hard on Oleg/1C, he tries to please people but keep historical fact at the same time.

BlitzPig_DDT
01-20-2005, 07:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
DDT, ...."F4UFO" hahaha....was I out to lunch not hearing this before?...seems appro for the 3.0 Corsair

I have no idea how accurate the Corsair has ever been in the game....but I bet if it was UFO'd from 3.0, a lot of ppl got upset it was "porked" later...perceptions, sheesh

OM shouldnt have been smart, especially about such a popular type....initial release, make it a TOTAL hog (no pun intended) on purpose, sustain a short period of whines to be ignored anyhow, then "improve" it to what is most accurate....make the ppl happy, hehehe

Guess that brings the problem of those who would now think that its been Ubered.....sigh just cant win <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was an accurate description for everything save 3.03.

Although, ridiculous as it sounds, I have to give you credit for being able to read at least. Tragically, many who post here, can't read, like Tagert, for example.

But I digress - in 3.03 people were b|tching a storm because they could not do unrealistic things when saddled with realistic take off distances. And as we see, enough b|tching will work apparently. Guess it all depends on how attatched to it Oleg is (we won't bring up a certain bar again lol).

So rather than face facts relating to take off capabilties, or looking at oddities relating to a certain UK Carrier (I've given up pointing that one out, the cry babies don't want to hear it, so they can't hear it), it seems now a change has been made to accomodate them.

El says it's not as bad as it sounds, and I hope he's right.

joeap
01-20-2005, 01:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:

It was an accurate description for everything save 3.03.

Although, ridiculous as it sounds, I have to give you credit for being able to read at least. Tragically, many who post here, can't read, like Tagert, for example.

But I digress - in 3.03 people were b|tching a storm because they could not do unrealistic things when saddled with realistic take off distances. And as we see, enough b|tching will work apparently. Guess it all depends on how attatched to it Oleg is (we won't bring up a certain bar again lol).

So rather than face facts relating to take off capabilties, or looking at oddities relating to a certain UK Carrier (I've given up pointing that one out, the cry babies don't want to hear it, so they can't hear it), it seems now a change has been made to accomodate them.

El says it's not as bad as it sounds, and I hope he's right. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

DDT, I went back and read your posts on the "Corsair" 3.03 thread...and have been playing around a bit.

I don't want to fight so let us just try to get some facts straight. 1st I have never played online, maybe someday. So am not concerned with static carriers any we can stick two together.


I am usually an ETO guy but really like naval stuff so enjoy the sim. I like the USN but am very pleased we can fly for the RN as well, and I really like the IJN.

So when you point out the RN used catapults fine, but you have to admit that is not to encouraging to RN flyers who want to fly with bombloads. So I asked for wind but understand the kind of wind we want is only slated for BoB. What I can't understand is, first dismissal of the problem that many had...and alos that the loadouts are unrealistic. I wish we could implement a catapult somehow.

Of course you might add many loadouts are probably unrealistic but how do we know?? I can add bomb weight but really don't know about drop tanks anyone got info?? Second point how do you know takeoffs were 100% realistic...I have tried to post the link to the "Pacific Carrier Landing" on Wiley's site...real film from WWII. Here it is
link (http://pauke.ee.ethz.ch:8732/oberstguncam/Frameset/index2.htm)
There is a shot of a Corsair with a drop tank taking off near the island without sinking past the bow. Never seen that in the game except with Japn. planes. I sometimes think we never should have added carriers to listen to you guys. What do you suggest? BTW no big problems with the Lex...though again with a load on any plane I sink down a bit. The other thing is all planes were affected again...Japn. much less but even F4Fs with a load were very difficult to take off from moving CVEs.

How about a list of overloads for the ordance/fuel choices we can select??

Last point, got the book "Fleets of WWII" by Richard Worth next to me... on page 88 a pic of the British CVE Puncher with Corsairs and Avengers, so they could operate from CVEs...though this class is actually a bit bigger than what we have in the game. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

VBF-83_Hawk
01-20-2005, 07:02 PM
The bigest problem here is that guys in here dont understand how aircraft operated on carriers.

A photograph shows whats there or what is going on but it doesnt tell you why. For example, I have a photograph of aircraft lined up on the deck of about 35 aircraft (Air Group 84 of CV4) ready to depart a carrier. Thier wings are folded up in order to get them all on deck. As one aircraft departs, other roll foward and unfold wings (unlike the game). Up front are the escort F6Fs. Light and loaded to escort the F4Us, TBMs and Helldivers (just like Air Group 83 CV9). Then the Corsairs, in this particular photo, loaded with a right wing drop tank and eight rockets. The corsairs are followed by the TBMs and then the Helldivers. What we dont know from the photo is WHY ! Where are they going and what kind of fuel loads are they taking. Just because the F4U has a single external tank does not mean the fuselage tank is full...or even that the drop tank is full. In other photos I see the F6Fs with a C/L tank but does not mean it is full or that the fuselage tank is full.

The Corsairs may use fuel from thier drop tanks while flying with a heavy load that may demand high power settings which burns more fuel, then drop them after they drop thier loads in order to fly CAP or escort the bombers back home at a lower power setting using less fuel. These guys did not fly balls-to-the-walls- like guys do in this game. The drop tanks could be used to jetison unwanted fuel or fuel that was no longer needed.

Unlike this flight sim, some other flight sims have fuel burn multipliers that demand the pilot use good fuel management. Seldom did I or do I, ever take more that 25% fuel in the main tank. I fly off the drop tanks and jet them when its time to fight or when they are empty. You also have to manage the 25% for the trip home!!

In real life some corsair pilots used a cruise setting of 1,350 rpm and 29" of maifold pressure to get a fuel consumption of only 45 gph. Thier airspeed was only about 185mph. This is great to be able to get home but you are screwed if you get jumped by a 300 mph Zero! Also I tried this power setting in the game but could hardly keep it flying. Slow flying for fuel consumption in this game is a waist since the fuel consumption is not right....but thats another whine!!!