PDA

View Full Version : Upcomming patch news. ( US planes STILL Suck.)



XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 11:01 AM
well after what i've seen tonight none of us usaaf pilots should get there hopes up. nothing changes for the better for the P-39/p-40/p-47. all of the FMs are still WRONG and way off base. As it stands from what i've seen tonight....
we're gonna get creamed at every corner every time you sit your butt in the **** pit of a us fighter in FB.
I'm to the point know to where i'm abought ready to give up. the p-40 seems to be worse than it ever was. the p-47 still stalls unrealisticaly. the stall charteristics are still wrong for the p-47. the p- 39 hasnt changed much but still isn't what it's supposed to be. AS for the mustang i have little hope that it will perform as it should. But you can bet your sweet arse that those G-Damd german planes will be Uber as F*CK! IMO

i'm so mad i could spit nails.

All i'm at liberty to say at this time is that the 109's overheating problem has been addressed for all models. Bf-109 weights and speeds after the G-2 model have been adjusted.Bf-109 controls toughness has been corrected.
Soften RPM restriction and overheating for Bf-109 has been fixed. P-39 weights and speeds have been adjusted.

I'll leave it to other to interprit the true meanings to these changes. CFS is looking reasl good....yep real good.

<CENTER>http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p837.jpg
<CENTER>><FONT COLOR="blue">Please visit the 310thVF/BS Online at our NEW web site @:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="orange"> http://members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron/
<CENTER>A proud member Squadron of IL-2 vUSAAF
<CENTER>310th VF/BS Public forum:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW"> http://invisionfree.com/forums/310th_VFBG/
<CENTER><CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW">
Proud Sponsor of IL-2 Hangar Forums
<CENTER> Visit the Hangar at:
http://srm.racesimcentral.com/il2.shtml
<FONT COLOR="Green">Slainte Mhath- Good Health to you!

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 11:01 AM
well after what i've seen tonight none of us usaaf pilots should get there hopes up. nothing changes for the better for the P-39/p-40/p-47. all of the FMs are still WRONG and way off base. As it stands from what i've seen tonight....
we're gonna get creamed at every corner every time you sit your butt in the **** pit of a us fighter in FB.
I'm to the point know to where i'm abought ready to give up. the p-40 seems to be worse than it ever was. the p-47 still stalls unrealisticaly. the stall charteristics are still wrong for the p-47. the p- 39 hasnt changed much but still isn't what it's supposed to be. AS for the mustang i have little hope that it will perform as it should. But you can bet your sweet arse that those G-Damd german planes will be Uber as F*CK! IMO

i'm so mad i could spit nails.

All i'm at liberty to say at this time is that the 109's overheating problem has been addressed for all models. Bf-109 weights and speeds after the G-2 model have been adjusted.Bf-109 controls toughness has been corrected.
Soften RPM restriction and overheating for Bf-109 has been fixed. P-39 weights and speeds have been adjusted.

I'll leave it to other to interprit the true meanings to these changes. CFS is looking reasl good....yep real good.

<CENTER>http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p837.jpg
<CENTER>><FONT COLOR="blue">Please visit the 310thVF/BS Online at our NEW web site @:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="orange"> http://members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron/
<CENTER>A proud member Squadron of IL-2 vUSAAF
<CENTER>310th VF/BS Public forum:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW"> http://invisionfree.com/forums/310th_VFBG/
<CENTER><CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW">
Proud Sponsor of IL-2 Hangar Forums
<CENTER> Visit the Hangar at:
http://srm.racesimcentral.com/il2.shtml
<FONT COLOR="Green">Slainte Mhath- Good Health to you!

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 11:09 AM
Maybe you should take your complaint to Republic regarding P-47?

I find quite ok(over modelled in few aspects, under modelled in one). Why don't you like it?


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 11:21 AM
can you say that you know exactly how these planes flew?
have you flown them yourself?
If you have not,
then I dont think you should complain
about it,



something tells me that you arent objective on this matter.


please try to enjoy the game instead. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


VICTOR MAY HAVE BEEN A WEIRDO,BUT HE WAS A DAMN GOOD FIGHTERPILOT.
<ceter>http://www.boners.com/content/788904.1.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 11:23 AM
Copperhead310th wrote:

- P-39 weights and speeds have been
- adjusted.


I think P39 is quite uber now, hope Oleg will fix it.


- I'll leave it to other to interprit the true
- meanings to these changes. CFS is looking reasl
- good....yep real good.


I would recommend you Counter-Strike, I think it suits much better your style.






|TAO|


http://www.geocities.com/dangdenge2004/omdx.txt



Message Edited on 10/02/0310:24AM by TAO-Squadron

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 11:23 AM
Copperhead310th wrote:
- abought, charteristics, interprit, looking reasl good

Gibberish alert! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
I guess you've never flown a P-39/40/47 or whatever. So either it's a) nothing produced by the US can perform badly, and Oleg is just an evil post-Commie with a vengeanze, b) you have the data to prove you're right and you're just about to post it here and send it to Oleg, or c) you're just a whiner who really should go play CFS instead.

Which is it?

cheers/slush

http://dk.groups.yahoo.com/group/aktivitetsdage/files/Eurotrolls.gif

You can't handle the truth!
Col. Jessep

Cpt.LoneRanger
10-02-2003, 11:24 AM
Agreed, Jippo01!

I fly the P40 most of the time and I can't say they're undermodelled now, in any aspect and the P47, my second favourite a/c is a killer, used in the right way.


The P39 is uber at the moment, IMHO. I flew it in IL2 the most and it was really fun, but now the FM is much to arcadish. The P39 is a deadly a/c, but it definately had it's flaws, that aren't modelled in Il2FB, at the moment.


However, since I'm still trying to master German planes, too, I've got to say, that most of them, especially G2 are a death sentence the moment you chose them.

I'm really looking forward to that patch, since it will make online-playing a lot more interesting and challenging for both sides. (Besides the fact, I'll probably fall in love with the Zero /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif )

greets
Cpt.LoneRanger


http://www.cptloneranger.privat.t-online.de/SIG2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 11:29 AM
Enjoy your time flying CFS, there you can rest assured that the FM/DM will never change, bugs never fixed, users never listened to and wrap yourself in the warm glow of a really caring software company.

<p align="center">
<A HREF="http://mudmovers.com/sturmovik_101/FAQ.htm" TARGET=_blank>
Unofficial IL-2 Community FAQ</font></A>

<fontsize=2>Hunter82's Tech Pages (http://mudmovers.com/tech/tech_pages.htm)
Forgotten Battles Reality Check (http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_065a.html)
</font></p>

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 11:34 AM
I dont know what patch you been playing with. P-39 dives a LOT better, but stalls a bit more now. Ya, P-47's are still flying bricks with pea shooters, and P-40 still have more firepower then the P-47, but the P-40 flew quite well! Did not play with the 109 at all, but the 109 jocks say they love it and they "finally put the balls back" into the 109 series. I for 1 love the P-39 and its FAR from some noobie "uber" aircraft. Its been toned down a bit every patch. It still slower then any 1944 aircraft and cant climb with anything and it wont turn on a dime. I dont know how ANYONE can call it uber. Anyways, its still alpha, and has a LONG ways to go. Things change.

Gib

No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 11:38 AM
I had some of my best time online when flying a P-47. But than I simply don't care about stall charateristics in this plane.

And for the P-39: It should be available as stationary plane only for the next patch to compensate for it's current performance. A 100% to much plus a 100% to little makes an average of totally correct. ;-)

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 11:53 AM
Russian P-39s were not the same as the americans, they
were modified, in weight and center gravity.
they were better then their American twin.

VICTOR MAY HAVE BEEN A WEIRDO,BUT HE WAS A DAMN GOOD FIGHTERPILOT.
<ceter>http://www.boners.com/content/788904.1.jpg </center>


Message Edited on 10/02/0310:54AM by fjuff79

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 11:54 AM
It's the man, not the machine. The overwhelming success of US Fighters against the Luftwaffe may to a large proportion be credited to the highly trained US Pilots. Their Luftwaffe counterparts were hastily trained and inexperienced. Whereas a US "noob" had more than 100 hours flighttime before entering combat German "noobs" had only about 30 hours before being sent into the hostlie skies over western Europe. So, even if they piloted a competitive fighter like the FW190D-9, they stood little chance of surviving. This is different from IL2 FB, were ppl piloting US Fighters encounter other experienced FB-players in axis aircraft. Some will not like, that the outcome here differs sometimes from the dogfights, that they watched on TV history channel with its sometimes quite biased views. So, stop whining and learn to exploit the advantages of the A/C that u are using. Noone should blame his plane or a FM for beeing shot down after entering combat from an inferior position.

Cpt.LoneRanger
10-02-2003, 11:56 AM
The P47 has more firepower than the P40. You just have to get closer to the enemy, cause it sprays it's deadly load over a wider area.

I agree, that P47 still could use some work, but it's quite a good plane, now.

P39 is too deadly at the moment. Even with the reworked FM, it's still closer to the FM of the LAs, than to what it should be. (the P39 was primarily used as a ground attack a/c and against bombers, not to outrun, outcircle and outdive an Bf109K!)

greets
Cpt.LoneRanger


http://www.cptloneranger.privat.t-online.de/SIG2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 11:58 AM
Copper what are you talking about? Where are you getting your information from? Just curious.
S~
47|FC

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 11:58 AM
fiesetrix wrote:
- It's the man, not the machine. The overwhelming
- success of US Fighters against the Luftwaffe may to
- a large proportion be credited to the highly trained
- US Pilots. Their Luftwaffe counterparts were hastily
- trained and inexperienced. Whereas a US "noob" had
- more than 100 hours flighttime before entering
- combat German "noobs" had only about 30 hours before
- being sent into the hostlie skies over western
- Europe. So, even if they piloted a competitive
- fighter like the FW190D-9, they stood little chance
- of surviving. This is different from IL2 FB, were
- ppl piloting US Fighters encounter other experienced
- FB-players in axis aircraft. Some will not like,
- that the outcome here differs sometimes from the
- dogfights, that they watched on TV history channel
- with its sometimes quite biased views. So, stop
- whining and learn to exploit the advantages of the
- A/C that u are using. Noone should blame his plane
- or a FM for beeing shot down after entering combat
- from an inferior position.
-
the best thing i have read in a loooooooooooooooong time
its so right
BUMP

VICTOR MAY HAVE BEEN A WEIRDO,BUT HE WAS A DAMN GOOD FIGHTERPILOT.
<ceter>http://www.boners.com/content/788904.1.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 12:00 PM
I was just Flying the P-47, and it don't have pea shooters thats for sure. I'm flying v1.11 and it seems fine to me, I have a P-47 training vid, and the stalls seem right to me, if ya were expecting it to be able to keep up with 190's in the turn at low alt, or with 109's at all, your mistaken anyway.

When YOU (not Microsoft) come up with something better, then feel free to gripe, untill that day, shut your piehole you bloody crybaby.

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 12:06 PM
Copperhead, I have flown in 2 REAL P40's,E & M models. Please believe me when i say that the performance of the FB P40's feels pretty close to what i felt riding in those planes. Ok, the roll rate should be a touch faster but otherwise its as real as it gets./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/aeroart/images/hunhunter-texas_sig2a1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 12:30 PM
Those US planes are hard to get a handle on for sure

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 12:41 PM
fiesetrix wrote:
- It's the man, not the machine. The overwhelming
- success of US Fighters against the Luftwaffe may to
- a large proportion be credited to the highly trained
- US Pilots. Their Luftwaffe counterparts were hastily
- trained and inexperienced. Whereas a US "noob" had
- more than 100 hours flighttime before entering
- combat German "noobs" had only about 30 hours before
- being sent into the hostlie skies over western
- Europe. So, even if they piloted a competitive
- fighter like the FW190D-9, they stood little chance
- of surviving. This is different from IL2 FB, were
- ppl piloting US Fighters encounter other experienced
- FB-players in axis aircraft. Some will not like,
- that the outcome here differs sometimes from the
- dogfights, that they watched on TV history channel
- with its sometimes quite biased views. So, stop
- whining and learn to exploit the advantages of the
- A/C that u are using. Noone should blame his plane
- or a FM for beeing shot down after entering combat
- from an inferior position.
-
-

That is so right, I've tried drafting a post like this a few times, but could never get it to sound right. I think that you've just hit the nail on the head here and some people who believe that their planes are uber should take note of the historic facts.

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 12:47 PM
http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_01.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 12:50 PM
Cpt.LoneRanger wrote:
- I fly the P40 most of the time and I can't say
- they're undermodelled now, in any aspect and the
- P47, my second favourite a/c is a killer, used in
- the right way.

There are reasonable arguments that some of the
details of the performance are off (e.g. climb rate,
which seems to be a bit weird for all planes) and
roll rate being a bit low, but overall the P40 seems
to be a fairly decent plane. It's certainly not
totally outclassed or anything. The modelling may
not be perfect, but isn't so massively wrong that
the thing is unplayable - it's not at pre patch P47
levels of wrongness. On the other hand we have the
P39 and B239 which are on the other side of the spectrum
in terms of modelling, if anything. Hopefully it will
all settle down by patch 1.2, fingers crossed.

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 01:07 PM
über this, über that, über those, über him etc etc... It's the pilot, not the machine.

Sure maybe not all planes are correct in all aspects, but hey! - what do we know?! As far as i heard none here has ever flown any of these aircraft - and certainly not in combat(!). Seems to be that the FM isn't totally wrong (i.e P-11 performing like a F-15) so i just enter the planes and try to use their abilities (as modeled in the current FM) to my advantage. Thus i don't often turnfight in the FW190 and i don't use the Z&B tactic in the YAK-9/9D.

Just my 2 cents.

Cheers!

//F16 =txmx=
http://www.f16vs.tk

Hawgdog
10-02-2003, 01:13 PM
EURO_Snoopy wrote:
- Enjoy your time flying CFS, there you can rest
- assured that the FM/DM will never change, bugs never
- fixed, users never listened to and wrap yourself in
- the warm glow of a really caring software company.

I laughed so hard I dont have the strength to find the smiley key.

Its now my understanding that flight simmers, especially WWII combat flight simmers are about 9% of the market.

Whats that tell you. We the few in the vast majority only whine and drive off potential investors. This forum has since FB gone to pot.
I'm sticking around hoping it comes back again. I have talked with moderators and ex mods who got tired of it and left.
I think the game is great. Yeah the P-47 doesnt fly like I like so I picked on that does! The p-39!!

<center></script>The original HawgDog, dont be fooled by fneb imitations
~W~ cause S! has become USELESS
When you get to hell, tell 'em Hawgdog sent you
http://users.zoominternet.net/~cgatewood/assets/images/sharkdog.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 01:16 PM
Yes they crapped on the p39 as well in 1.due,

the p47 gets out rolled by the he111 and you blame it on republic jippo comon its oleg not testing his changes correctly in this game.

And the 8 .50s are like marshmellows and on alot of the top props, which is not the case in reality. But they tear apart il2s and 109s easy but not a b239 i16 p11s las yaks p39s 190s

The jug cant even stay on a 190s la yak mig il2 he111 tail for 2 seconds. the 190 and many other fish flopper stall snappen immunity to energy bleed manuevers, unlimitied rolling abilty with no enery bleed red out or black out to slow controls down to the me262s and b1s 750-940kmph L ability turns plus many more and honestly tell me Im wrong jippo

In my opinion oleg dislikes america with an extreme passion and just put the planes in the game and dogged thier fms for when il2 was released in the US as marketing just like what hes going to do to jpn. I have no faith in the p38 or p51s.

I wonder what hes going to do with gibbages models becuase the majority of them are american

something needs to be done about .50 strenghts rolls of the d27 and p40 and spread and recoil in the jug which used muzzle dampeners

Hunhunter which airworthy p40s did you fly, pm me it is definatly the most realistic plane in the game and I know from exp as well.

http://www.freewebs.com/leadspitter/lead.txt
Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter



Message Edited on 10/02/03 12:26PM by LeadSpitter_

Message Edited on 10/02/0312:33PM by LeadSpitter_

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 01:32 PM
lead . i think some of what you say is not right...i have no problem shooting down a il-2 with a p-47 even as i see bullets deflecting all over the place( yes i think the .50 cal in fm is a little under powered)...i think oleg is not anti american or anti anything , i think thats just how the model works out. there are more facters then me or you can imagine........hopfully your d27 will be fixed

U.S INFANTRY 84-91

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 04:43 PM
Anyone claiming that the P-47 is overmodeled doesn't know anything about the real plane.

At most, one could possibly point to the low speed roll rate of the razorbacks. However, given the drop off at high speed, it's actually suffering. And, more to the point, it has been pointed out that an alternate linkage was in development that did provide almost exactly what we have in terms of roll vs speed. It's quite possible that it's not overmodeled at all, we just have slight different internals that might be expected.

The list of problems is too long to get into here, and won't likely convince anyone anyway.


However, the thread starter was also very lacking in knowledge. The LW plane are hardly overmodeled, much less "œber" (BTW - when are people going to score some dictionaries around here?). The LW planes are actually quite close to where they should be. The VVS planes are the UFOs and will likely remain that way.

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 04:59 PM
Dontcha just love these threads? They surface at a rate of at least one day, and all state the same crud. Just the names of the planes are changed.
The flight sim market is small, FB is only a part of that market, and the online players of FB are about 5% of that. Yet this is where most of the whiners originate.

I have no ambition to be an online ace. I fly online and offline and enjoy both very much, but there is another world outside of this room.

Also, I don't give a monkey's arse if the roll rate or FM of something is slightly off. I have an imagination and can still pretend that I am flying a WW2 plane thanks to IL-2/FB. If the (insert name of plane here) is modelled so that it looks like a steak and kidney pie then I might not be so happy, but at the moment, fine.

I shan't bother reading another plane whiner thread you'll be pleased to hear, I get greyer every day and there's no time to lose!

Rant over,
Cheers!



<CENTER>


<IMG SRC="http://www.apqa16.dsl.pipex.com/airplane1.3.jpg"


Ladies & gentlemen, this is the captain speaking. Thankyou for choosing to fly Mandarin Airlines. Those passengers sitting on the left-hand side of the aeroplane please make yourselves comfortable. Those sitting on the right... please look to your left!

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 05:01 PM
I said .50s work very well against the il2's and 109s but more then tough to shoot down other planes I listed above.

And any fully loaded il2 does seriously out manuever the empty jug 10 22 27. P40 also is.




http://www.freewebs.com/leadspitter/lead.txt
Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter

Cpt.LoneRanger
10-02-2003, 05:03 PM
AaronGT wrote:
- There are reasonable arguments that some of the
- details of the performance are off (e.g. climb rate,
- which seems to be a bit weird for all planes) and
- roll rate being a bit low, but overall the P40 seems
- to be a fairly decent plane. It's certainly not
- totally outclassed or anything. The modelling may
- not be perfect, but isn't so massively wrong that
- the thing is unplayable - it's not at pre patch P47
- levels of wrongness. On the other hand we have the
- P39 and B239 which are on the other side of the
- spectrum
- in terms of modelling, if anything. Hopefully it
- will
- all settle down by patch 1.2, fingers crossed.

Absolutely!

I think they're closer to the real than ever. Some minor things are still to be done, but it's really fair fun, after this last patch. I hope we'll see these minor flaws corrected, soon, but I'm very confident.

And I'm really looking forward to that Addon /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



greets
Cpt.LoneRanger


http://www.cptloneranger.privat.t-online.de/SIG2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 05:12 PM
The US whiners are stealing our thunder LW whiners unite! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif LMAO!

Roy Baty
IV/JG51 M¶lders

"Be happy in your work!"
- Col. Saito

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_henry_blake.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 05:23 PM
LeadSpitter_ wrote:
- And any fully loaded il2 does seriously out manuever
- the empty jug 10 22 27. P40 also is.
-



/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

=======================================
<font size = 1>
Athlon XP 3200+, FIC AU13 MOBO, DDR 1024M, GeForce4ti4200,
MCP-T SoundStorm, Barracuda IV 7200rpm 60G HDD,
Yes,I got TrackIR/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif , Two M$ SW Pr2(weird but good HOTAS.Bill,let sticks be made!)

=815=Squadron in South Korea
http://cafe.daum.net/il2sturmovik
</font>

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 05:25 PM
Dunkelgrun wrote:
- Dontcha just love these threads? They surface at a
- rate of at least one day, and all state the same
- crud. Just the names of the planes are changed.
- The flight sim market is small, FB is only a part of
- that market, and the online players of FB are about
- 5% of that. Yet this is where most of the whiners
- originate.
-
- I have no ambition to be an online ace. I fly online
- and offline and enjoy both very much, but there is
- another world outside of this room.
-
- Also, I don't give a monkey's arse if the roll rate
- or FM of something is slightly off. I have an
- imagination and can still pretend that I am flying a
- WW2 plane thanks to IL-2/FB. If the (insert name of
- plane here) is modelled so that it looks like a
- steak and kidney pie then I might not be so happy,
- but at the moment, fine.
-
- I shan't bother reading another plane whiner thread
- you'll be pleased to hear, I get greyer every day
- and there's no time to lose!
-
- Rant over,
- Cheers!

It's responses like these that I "love". People who care nothing about anything beyond visuals. CS looked great, I'd recommend giving it a try. You sound like you'd really enjoy it. MSFS also looks good when you have it all built up.

With all the great looking, but arcade, flying games out there, why do you come here and defecate on those who seek a simulation and wish changes to be made to reflect the actual aircraft? If you truly don't care about how it flies in the game, then such behavior makes even less sense.

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 05:26 PM
Copperhead310th wrote:
-
- I'll leave it to other to interprit the true
- meanings to these changes. CFS is looking reasl
- good....yep real good.
-


Valuable info leaked out to troll's hands.


=======================================
<font size = 1>
Athlon XP 3200+, FIC AU13 MOBO, DDR 1024M, GeForce4ti4200,
MCP-T SoundStorm, Barracuda IV 7200rpm 60G HDD,
Yes,I got TrackIR/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif , Two M$ SW Pr2(weird but good HOTAS.Bill,let sticks be made!)

=815=Squadron in South Korea
http://cafe.daum.net/il2sturmovik
</font>

Cpt.LoneRanger
10-02-2003, 05:27 PM
LeadSpitter_ wrote:
- And any fully loaded il2 does seriously out manuever
- the empty jug 10 22 27. P40 also is.

ROFLOL!

If you'd really mean it, I'd suggest checking your joystick setup! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

greets
Cpt.LoneRanger


http://www.cptloneranger.privat.t-online.de/SIG2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 05:38 PM
even calibrating your joystick in a small circle also having elevator and alierons all at 100 and the il2 still will out roll the d27. Oleg needs to get rid of that exploit also http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Thats not the problem, its the fm and oleg doesnt factor in the people who calibrate in a small circle and the result in stickyank avoid fish flops which is a complete different problem.



http://www.freewebs.com/leadspitter/lead.txt
Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter



Message Edited on 10/02/0304:39PM by LeadSpitter_

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 05:52 PM
LeadSpitter_ wrote:
- Yes they crapped on the p39 as well in 1.due,
-
- the p47 gets out rolled by the he111 and you blame
- it on republic jippo comon its oleg not testing his
- changes correctly in this game.

How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you post patent BS like this?


--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 08:19 PM
Look while I admittedly have very little knowledge of the actual flight performance of the real US fighter aircraft...
I know that there is now same way in hell that you could do 10 consecutive loops in a freaking tb-3. Nor was a pe-8 ever able to out roll a P-47. I love this game...but I just feel like the US planes are getting the short end of the stick as far as FM & DM are concerned. To top that of the 109's just dropped about 1000KG in weight. The were about 1000 kg over weight. From what I understand some one presented Oleg with actual messersmidt documents and he relented and reduced the weight of all the bf-109's accordingly. So yes I think that they are overly uber.
In comparison I would compare it to fighting a Brewster against a p-51D. Since...for my own reasons I don't fly the German planes much this is important to me that the planes I doe fly are as the UK guys say "Spot on"


<CENTER>http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p837.jpg
<CENTER>><FONT COLOR="blue">Please visit the 310thVF/BS Online at our NEW web site @:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="orange"> http://members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron/
<CENTER>A proud member Squadron of IL-2 vUSAAF
<CENTER>310th VF/BS Public forum:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW"> http://invisionfree.com/forums/310th_VFBG/
<CENTER><CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW">
Proud Sponsor of IL-2 Hangar Forums
<CENTER> Visit the Hangar at:
http://srm.racesimcentral.com/il2.shtml
http://www.brunching.com/images/hellweather.gif (http://www.brunching.com/toys/hellweather.html)
<FONT COLOR="Green">Slainte Mhath- Good Health to you!

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 08:23 PM
Copperhead doesn't know what he's talking about .

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_trapper.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 08:27 PM
Copperhead are you talking about 1.2 alpha?????


<center><img src= "http://homepage.ntlworld.com/n.bulger/Emil_Bug.jpg">

AKA JG5_Emil

"I wish we all had the courage to confine our defence to three simple words....LICK MY A*S!" Herman Goering

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 08:47 PM
Copperhead310th wrote:
- Look while I admittedly have very little knowledge
- of the actual flight performance of the real US
- fighter aircraft...
- I know that there is now same way in hell that you
- could do 10 consecutive loops in a freaking tb-3.
- Nor was a pe-8 ever able to out roll a P-47. I love
- this game...but I just feel like the US planes are
- getting the short end of the stick as far as FM & DM
- are concerned. To top that of the 109's just dropped
- about 1000KG in weight. The were about 1000 kg over
- weight. From what I understand some one presented
- Oleg with actual messersmidt documents and he
- relented and reduced the weight of all the bf-109's
- accordingly. So yes I think that they are overly
- uber.
- In comparison I would compare it to fighting a
- Brewster against a p-51D. Since...for my own reasons
- I don't fly the German planes much this is important
- to me that the planes I doe fly are as the UK guys
- say "Spot on"
-

lol. if i get that right you think that when a plane which was not modeled correctly will be corrected it's "ueber"???? lol. Looks like you are trying to say that the game has to be US biased to make it good for you? IMHO many pilots I've seen online with the P40 did quite well, same for the P47. rollrae is one of the main issues to be fixed i think. and those .50ies are prety dangerouse for a LW pilot believe me. but i think it's useless to talk about such things with you as all you want is US ufos as far as I see. oh i'm pretty sure you'll soon join the pony whiners because you can't join an online game, take off in the P51, go watch TV , come back and see that your plane killed 60 LW planes all by itself while you've been watching the Superbowl, right?

2 things we need in FB:
The 110 and the desert!!!
http://exn.ca/news/images/1999/04/23/19990423-Me110coloursideMAIN.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 08:53 PM
Brewster is American ? I love flying it
P-40 is American ? I love flying it
P-47 is American ? I love flying it
P-39 is Ameri....???

I love to fly them all & I make kills in them
I love those Russian planes & I kill..
I love whatever German plane or version..& I kill alot

To me its just a game and as such I enjoy it very much.

How could one EVER think this is about REAL flying ??

Sorry I dont understand the complaining..but you must have good reasons for it

btw I liked what Dunkelgrun said
ps I get shot down as much as i kill

Tschüß, Suzanne

/i/smilies/16x16_woman-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 09:01 PM
US .50cals dispersal is all wrong. But VVS .50cals are like freaking lasers able to take out controls and cause fuel leaks to the P-47 from well over 1000 meters!!! This is crazy. Am I wrong? I think not.
S~
47|FC

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 09:11 PM
If there are subsatntive issues with certain areas of the game's performance, then why not make some tracks, get some data together and send Oleg an email asking for corrections to be made? Just like Wastel did for the 109s and others did for P47 before 1.11.

With respect, whining here isn't going to change much.

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_07.gif


She turned me into a newt, but I got better.

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 09:17 PM
It really sounds like this guy is having trouble competing.
P-39 is not uber, it stalls and it does not turn on a dime. I do enjoy flying it because of the excellent view, decent dive speed and the finishing touch 37mm.

P-47? If you want to tango with fighters D-10 will do some nice BnZ. D27 is best left to ground pounding.

P-40? Great guns, good low-mid speed handling (high speed sucks..low speed stall king) Need faster roll rates? Use the rudder

P-51 will probable be modeled as it should be, complete with instant fire engines.

And give me a 109G2 any day. Climbs, Turns and with some gunpods bombers do not stand a chance.

Flying online I've learned that it comes down to the pilot. I've gone online and taken down 4 planes(2 P-39's, 1 hurricane,1 mig) in one flight in a G2
In that same G2 I've been outflown by a P-39 (and shot down)
A P47 (how the heck did he catch up to me?)
A P-40 (out flew me completely)
Same goes the other way around (me in P39/P40/P47).
It's all about working the engine through CEM and throttle, knowing which airspeeds are best for which manuevers and when to disengage/engage in a fight.
If I'm above 3000 in a P39 looking for someone to bounce and I see a 109/190 at the same height or higher heading my way...I'm going to either run or try and drag him down to below 2000 where I know I'll have a better chance in a one on one engagement. If I'm in a G2 and I have P-39 on me I'll try and drag him higher where he looses manueverabilty.

patience and practice is what is needed. Not new flight models in most cases.

(La-7 is uber until you out dive it or get a bullet in the rudder come to think of it the only time I'll fly a LA-7 is if my home base is under attack and I need something that will climb quickly)

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 09:26 PM
LeadSpitter_ wrote:
- the p47 gets out rolled by the he111

No it doesn't. I saw this claim before, and did
the tests and posted the results. At 400kph
the He111 (from memory) manages about 32 degrees/second
roll rate. This is very much lower than even the
apparently unpatched P47D27 version. Go and look
for my post. The suggestion that the P47 is outrolled
by the He111 in the game is just pure rubbish.

- something needs to be done about .50 strenghts rolls
- of the d27 and p40 and spread and recoil in the jug
- which used muzzle dampeners

The P47 does seem to have a big spread. Maybe this
was accurate due to wing flex? (I've asked this question
before but noone seems to know).

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 09:29 PM
VMF-214_HaVoK wrote:
- US .50cals dispersal is all wrong. But VVS .50cals
- are like freaking lasers

The VVS .50s had a higher muzzle velocity and higher
rate of fire (but lighter rounds). At short range
they should be easier to target due to a better
trajectory for about the same overall recoil. At
longer ranges the relative lack of mass compared
to surface area of the round would mean a faster
degradation of trajectory relative to the M2 .50
rounds. It's hard to hit anything reliably over
300m with anything, though.

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 09:32 PM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- Dunkelgrun wrote:
-- Dontcha just love these threads? They surface at a
-- rate of at least one day, and all state the same
-- crud. Just the names of the planes are changed.
-- The flight sim market is small, FB is only a part of
-- that market, and the online players of FB are about
-- 5% of that. Yet this is where most of the whiners
-- originate.
--
-- I have no ambition to be an online ace. I fly online
-- and offline and enjoy both very much, but there is
-- another world outside of this room.
--
-- Also, I don't give a monkey's arse if the roll rate
-- or FM of something is slightly off. I have an
-- imagination and can still pretend that I am flying a
-- WW2 plane thanks to IL-2/FB. If the (insert name of
-- plane here) is modelled so that it looks like a
-- steak and kidney pie then I might not be so happy,
-- but at the moment, fine.
--
-- I shan't bother reading another plane whiner thread
-- you'll be pleased to hear, I get greyer every day
-- and there's no time to lose!
--
-- Rant over,
-- Cheers!
-
- It's responses like these that I "love". People who
- care nothing about anything beyond visuals. CS
- looked great, I'd recommend giving it a try. You
- sound like you'd really enjoy it. MSFS also looks
- good when you have it all built up.
-
- With all the great looking, but arcade, flying games
- out there, why do you come here and defecate on
- those who seek a simulation and wish changes to be
- made to reflect the actual aircraft? If you truly
- don't care about how it flies in the game, then such
- behavior makes even less sense.
-
-


Oh great, thanks for that. Most complimentary.
Of course I want IL-2/FB to perfect in EVERY detail. And by every I mean the planes, the maps, the ground units, the historic scenarios, the weather, the AI behaviour, every nut, bolt rivet and every leaf on the trees. And I want it all, now, for less than 30.
I can't have it, and neither can anyone else.
Moreover 99.9% of posters in these threads have no idea of a) how to achieve this or b) whether what they whine about is actually true or just some personal grievance based on their poor flight-sim skills or a set of performance figures gleaned from a book.

Someone posted earlier in this thread, who, having actually flown one of these planes that the whining is about, said that it was pretty close to the real thing. That's the guy I'll take notice of, whther he says whether it's for or against the FM and modelling.

My point is, if you are smart enough to see it, that I don't have this specialist knowledge, so have to be happy with what I pay for. Which as I far as I can tell, is a damn fine WW2 sim and the best available at the moment.

And explain this if you can, for every whine about an aspect of FM in an a/c, someone has the 'facts' to prove exactly the opposite.

It's all just a load of bollocks, rather like your comments to me.
Cheers!

<CENTER>


<IMG SRC="http://www.apqa16.dsl.pipex.com/airplane1.3.jpg"


Ladies & gentlemen, this is the captain speaking. Thankyou for choosing to fly Mandarin Airlines. Those passengers sitting on the left-hand side of the aeroplane please make yourselves comfortable. Those sitting on the right... please look to your left!

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 09:38 PM
what did you see that tells you this?

Non Solum Armis

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 09:43 PM
Great...complaints about an alpha patch.

Copperhead, be more reasonable in your assertions. If you don't fly German planes, then don't try to tell me they're uber. Get some perspective for heaven's sake, post some figure, stats, anything!!!! We've barely heard the end of the whining about 1.11 and now this.

Geesh!



<CENTER>http://home.cogeco.ca/~jkinley/FB_JG27.jpg

Buzz_25th
10-02-2003, 09:45 PM
Copper,

I sort of agree with you on some of your points. The difference is I won't let it get to me.

It does appear after all this time that the Russian planes will always be a little overmodeled. It also seems the American planes will be a little undermodeled. It looks like the German planes have the best shot of ending up accurate.

Since this game is the Eastern front. I'm going to look at it as the Germans against the Russians. Since the 109 covers all the years of the war. I'm just going with that plane from now on. I'm just not going to worry about the rest of the planes. It will drive you crazy after awhile.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25th_Buzz
<center>
http://www.vfa25.com/sigs/buzz.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 09:46 PM
Look, you, US-whiners are tasting the same medicine LW tasted since IL2 release. You have to fight against the uber ruskie planes. Your planes might be close to "spot on" (P-40 and P-47 are pretty well done IMHO), but against UFO's you're toasted.

At least, you got the uber P39. Which is Uber not because it was american, its uber only because it was russian aces ride, be sure.



|TAO|


http://www.geocities.com/dangdenge2004/omdx.txt

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 09:49 PM
I'm sorry Copperhead. I can't help but disagree.

The P-47 feels right to me, especially the Razorbacks. The only thing I would change is the D27's roll, still too slow.
Speeds on the P-47 are PERFECT. I have tested this using IAS/TAS charts vs. altitude. They are spot on.

P-40:Better(more realistic, that is) now than ever. All it needs is it's mixture control back, and a little less susceptiple to overheating. Maybe a slight increase in top speed.Otherwise,right on.

P-39. OK, here I have to plead "stupid". If the P-39's in-game are supposed to emulate the stripped down Soviet models, than they should be toned down SOMEWHAT in vertical ability and resistance to stalling. If we are talking U.S. models, than the P-39's in-game are truly uber UFO's and in need of a MAJOR down-dumbing. U.S. Pilots are unanimous; the P-39 in U.S. service SUCKED.

In spite of the smallish faults I have named here, there are none I can't live with. Indeed, my greatest fear for any upcoming patches is that the dev team will engage in another of it's incomprehensible FM torquing exercises, as in the past. Your news about no changes in U.S. fighters was, to me, good news indeed. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Please note that I have included vitually no technical gobbledy-****. I have it, can post it, can point to others who have more of it and HAVE posted it; I have yet to see once where the Dev team has properly acknowledged it, inspite of Olegs insistance that he will pay attention to "knowledge on an engineering level".

However, let there be no doubt that this sim is as close to perfect as I have seen. Or anyone else for that matter.
S!


http://members.cox.net/miataman1/WAR-08.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 09:55 PM
Buzz_25th wrote:
- Copper,
-
- I sort of agree with you on some of your points.
- The difference is I won't let it get to me.
-
-
- It does appear after all this time that the Russian
- planes will always be a little overmodeled. It also
- seems the American planes will be a little
- undermodeled. It looks like the German planes have
- the best shot of ending up accurate.
-
-
- Since this game is the Eastern front. I'm going to
- look at it as the Germans against the Russians.
- Since the 109 covers all the years of the war. I'm
- just going with that plane from now on. I'm just not
- going to worry about the rest of the planes. It will
- drive you crazy after awhile.

I agree with Buzz. I think most of the U.S. planes are about as accurate as they're gonna get. My only complaint is the P-47. The D-27 rolls too slow,though it SHOULDN'T roll as fast as the D-10 or 22. The 50 cal dispersal needs to be toned down as well as engine vulnerability. The other U.S. planes are close enough.

47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 10:09 PM
Cpt.LoneRanger wrote:
- The P47 has more firepower than the P40. You just
- have to get closer to the enemy, cause it sprays
- it's deadly load over a wider area.
-
- I agree, that P47 still could use some work, but
- it's quite a good plane, now.
-
- P39 is too deadly at the moment. Even with the
- reworked FM, it's still closer to the FM of the LAs,
- than to what it should be. (the P39 was primarily
- used as a ground attack a/c and against bombers, not
- to outrun, outcircle and outdive an Bf109K!)
-
- greets
- Cpt.LoneRanger
-
-
<img
- src="http://www.cptloneranger.privat.t-online.de/S
- IG2.jpg">


The russions didn't use the P-39 as a ground atack aircraft very much. Im sorry but it's true.

Buzz_25th
10-02-2003, 10:13 PM
I can't believe guys are still saying the P-39 was used for ground attacks.

tip: The 2nd and 4th top scoring Russian aces flew the P-39. You don't become an ace shooting tanks../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25th_Buzz
<center>
http://www.vfa25.com/sigs/buzz.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 10:37 PM
I flew a P-39 the other day online and frankly the thing refused to stall I could just sit there and do loop after loop and pull as hard as I could in the horizontal.

Now as for the P-40 I had to hit the silk numerous time in my Bf-109 and yes it was P-40 that kept waxing my poor tail.

Yes I suck as an online pilot but still.


Happy hunting and check six!

Tony Ascaso, RN

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 10:58 PM
What's off with the US planes??

-Brewster damage model seems to be FUBAR... a MiG-3 is a king tiger compared to it. It can't stand some damage at all.
-P-40's got the same problem
-P-40E is pretty slow... hard to get above 250mph IAS on the deck although it should do 296 (E model)
-P-40 and P-47 climb a tad too well, but IMHO it's not that much, it's OK. There are planes that are much worse like La(GG) series or P-39 in that category
-P-40 roll rate is too low
-P-47D-27 roll rate too low
-P-39 climb way too good. Getting up to 4000ft/min in all 3 models. The Q-10 should get 3000 max and the N-1 should be around 2300-2500. Anyway they're great BnZers due to very good aerodynamics, so they should be still very dangerous if they have the E - just like it was back in Il-2.
-P-39s stall hardly above 320km/h IAS. But I think that's due to bad elevator response, like the FWs before the FB 1.1s. It can be quite b1tchy at 300 or below though.

I think, that's it /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif .

Cpt.LoneRanger
10-02-2003, 11:02 PM
The P39 was DESIGNED for ground support and bomber intercepts - it's only squadron remaining in service in the Pacific war theater was used as a ground attack unit.

Besides that, I didn't say it was ONLY used for that, just to make that point clear. But the Russians used it primarily for intercepting bombers, as I also wrote. If you quote me, do it right, plz. Thx.

(Infact it was designed around it's 37mm cannon from AAC, who impressed the lead engineer at Bell so much, he wanted to bring that cannon into a plane. That was in 1935 and it's first flight was in 1937. It took them until 1941 to bring large numbers to the european front, where they replaced the British Hurricanes. But they quickly realized, the P39 was no match for the German fighters, because they didn't have turbo-compressors and couldn't keep up in climb and turn rate. In 1942 Britains HomeDefense-P39 were replaced completely by the Spitfire and over 200 P39 were transfered to Russia, where they were constantly upgraded and refitet, mainly removing major parts of the armor, refitting it with a stronger engine and new propellers. The plane was still known for it's bad flight characteristics.
The P39 in the RoyalAirForce brought the most renown victories in the desert war, where they were used very successfully against Rommels tanks.)





greets
Cpt.LoneRanger


http://www.cptloneranger.privat.t-online.de/SIG2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 11:04 PM
These arguments will always degenerate into the same pointless name-calling as long as people adhere to nationalistic loyalties. I'm American but I fly just about anything besides Yaks and La5s. I used to love P-39s and Fw190s (when they were challenging in IL2), but I don't fly them much anymore (postpatch) because it feels like cheating. These two planes were once short-changed, but now both have been overcompensated.

The P-47 may still be lacking its historical roll rate, but it certainly does not suck. It is potentially the fastest, most dangerous, and survivable plane in the sim. I get shot down my fair share in any other plane, but I have never been shot down by a human when I'm in a jug. In most coops where I'm flying a P-47, I shoot down 2-4 planes. I wish I could say I did that well in any other plane. At convergence range, the Jug can easily shred off wings with a 1 sec burst, just like a cannon. And for high deflection shooting, nothing beats the P-47's spray and pray.

Cpt.LoneRanger
10-02-2003, 11:07 PM
Only thing I really don't like about P40 is the damage-model. Everytime you get hit in the fuselage aileron and rudder control's gone instantly. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

greets
Cpt.LoneRanger


http://www.cptloneranger.privat.t-online.de/SIG2.jpg

Buzz_25th
10-02-2003, 11:14 PM
Cpt.LoneRanger

Read the 'Attack of the Airacobra" to see that the P-39 was a match for the German fighters. The German pilots had a lot of respect for the Cobra.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25th_Buzz
<center>
http://www.vfa25.com/sigs/buzz.jpg

Cpt.LoneRanger
10-02-2003, 11:16 PM
Any plane is a match for it's enemy. Don't forget many German aces flew Emils /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

greets
Cpt.LoneRanger


http://www.cptloneranger.privat.t-online.de/SIG2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 11:21 PM
Copper, i have to disagree with you, sorry.

P-47D27:

We know the roll is not correct. Also the 50's are not correct either. A 50cal mg are able to pierce the armour of APC up to aprox. 200m away. Hence, the P47 has 8 50cal mg. Now is the FW as tuff as an APC?

Well i dont know. You would not think so lol.

But with each patch the 47 has been improved. It dose roll better, turns better, climbs a little better, and seems to be a a little faster. When the 47 or should i say D10 is flown right, it can be very effective. Just dont turn with a fighter, stay fast.

P-40:

She rolls a little slow for a fighter i admit, but wow can this plane turn. Shes's a good plane even in FB.

P-39:

I wont get into this one. lol.


Any way copper, when i was with your squad i noticed u in general flew russion planes. I beleave it was the La7 you flew most of the time.

Try this, quit flying that La7 and start flying the 47, 39 and P-40. Or just use the 47D10 for one full week, no other planes. Talk to some guy's that fly these beast's often and you will change you mind about some of what you said.

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 11:26 PM
Hmmm...i know the guy who was in the air for 50min straight in full real server flying P-47...and landed with 1700 points... is P-47 that bad?? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

"No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down." Ivan Kozhedub

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 11:40 PM
Ivan, I've done that on your map with an Emil. Took about 20minutes actually.

Of course.....I never encountered another plane in the process. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 11:45 PM
Cept this "guy" got about 5 consecutive air kills with each flight.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg


Oh yeah, I'm a P-63 whiner too! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 11:46 PM
crazyivan1970 wrote:
- Hmmm...i know the guy who was in the air for 50min
- straight in full real server flying P-47...and
- landed with 1700 points...

Aww shucks,Ivan. You didn't have to bring that up. I didn't want to brag./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 11:46 PM
necrobaron wrote:
- crazyivan1970 wrote:
-- Hmmm...i know the guy who was in the air for 50min
-- straight in full real server flying P-47...and
-- landed with 1700 points...
-
- Aww shucks,Ivan. You didn't have to bring that up. I
- didn't want to brag.<


/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

"No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down." Ivan Kozhedub

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 11:47 PM
Dunkelgrun wrote:
- Oh great, thanks for that. Most complimentary.

Yet true.


- Of course I want IL-2/FB to perfect in EVERY detail.
- And by every I mean the planes, the maps, the ground
- units, the historic scenarios, the weather, the AI
- behaviour, every nut, bolt rivet and every leaf on
- the trees. And I want it all, now, for less than
- 30.
- I can't have it, and neither can anyone else.
- Moreover 99.9% of posters in these threads have no
- idea of a) how to achieve this or b) whether what
- they whine about is actually true or just some
- personal grievance based on their poor flight-sim
- skills or a set of performance figures gleaned from
- a book.

So now books are no longer accurate or dependable sources of information? Are you related to Huck? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Nevermind that if this was true Oleg couldn't claim accuracy either. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


- Someone posted earlier in this thread, who, having
- actually flown one of these planes that the whining
- is about, said that it was pretty close to the real
- thing. That's the guy I'll take notice of, whther he
- says whether it's for or against the FM and
- modelling.

But will you bother to question anything about the plane he flew? Will you bother to question his credentials or credibility at all? Remember, on the web, we can be anything we want to be. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


- My point is, if you are smart enough to see it, that
- I don't have this specialist knowledge, so have to
- be happy with what I pay for. Which as I far as I
- can tell, is a damn fine WW2 sim and the best
- available at the moment.

Smarter than you apparently. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif You see, I'm smart enough to point out how illogical it is to come in here and complain when you claim not to care. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


- And explain this if you can, for every whine about
- an aspect of FM in an a/c, someone has the 'facts'
- to prove exactly the opposite.

I recommend a dictionary. I think the word you're looking for is actually "complaint". Of course, you'd have to not be interested in denigrating said posted grievances to use proper terminology.

I challenge your assertion either way. I submit that you exaggerated (most probably due to frustration) and can not back that statement up at all.

adlabs6
10-02-2003, 11:58 PM
crazyivan1970 wrote:
- Hmmm...i know the guy who was in the air for 50min
- straight in full real server flying P-47...and
- landed with 1700 points... is P-47 that bad?? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Absolutely. No other sight is so fearful for me as a 109 or a 47 up high...

<html>
<body>
<table cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="600" align="center">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><font color="000000">adlabs<font color="#ff9900">6</font></font>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" bgcolor="#42524e">
<div align="center"><font color="#999999">
http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/sigtemp.JPG (http://mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/fb_skins_historical_adlabs6.htm)
<small><font color="#ff6600">NEW</font> at mudmovers! Click the pic to download my skins from mudmovers.com!</small>
</font>
Skinner's Guide at mudmovers (http://mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/fb_skinnersguide.htm) | Skinner's heaven (http://www.1java.org/sh) | IL2skins (http://www.il2skins.com)
<font color="#999999">
My Forgotten Battles Webpage (http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/index.html) Current Wallpaper: <font color="#999999">Bf-109 Morning Run</font></font>

<A HREF="http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=zhiwg" TARGET=_blank>"Whirlwind Whiner"
The first of the few</A>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 12:18 AM
I'll throw a little something different in the mix. I didn't realize the D27 loses a bit from its predecessor, so I haven't flown the earlier version much. I was a bit suprised that a couple of rounds from a Ju-87 rear gunner always kills the engine. Being air cooled and supposedly tougher than a V, that seemed odd. I realize the oil cooler is right in the nose though and may contribute. The only other thing I noticed is that the 47 doesn't seem to fly the same way twice. I made an SP mission, mostly against Italian fighters, just for fun. Flew it about a dozen times before I got bored with it. Well, one time I would own them and save all my mates (even numbers for both sides). The next time, I'd lose everyone, have trouble staying out of the daisies, and would end up damaged or shot down. It was bewildering. I wonder if the FM contains a bug rather than actually being wrong.

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 12:29 AM
Here, I'll just make a few cut and paste paragraphs. That way, they wont have to go to so much trouble when complain about silly stuff..........


I'm an American and we DEMAND that all American aircraft have their flight models corrected to reflect the total superiority they exhibited in WW2. As everyone knows, our aircraft were the absolute best. After all, we won right, so our stuff was obviously better. Why is that so hard to understand?


I'm German and we DEMAND that all German aircraft have their flight models corrected to reflect the total superiority they exhibited in WW2. As everyone here knows, our aircraft were the absolute best engineered in the world. After all, we all know that given a little more time, our superior engineering would have eventually won the war.


I'm British and we demand that a Spitfire be brought into the game. We also demand that it be superior to any German aircraft. We've produced several television documentaries clearly illustrating its advantage over German aircraft of the same era.


I'm Italian and we demand that our airplane be included in the game. Enjoy!


I'm Russian and we demand,.... well actually we're pretty happy with the way thing are. We're tough, and we can deal with it.

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 01:03 AM
I never said I was an expert on actual flight models. But even an idiot can watch the training films for these planes (the p-47 in particular) and see that the stall rate is all wrong.

And I guess that would be my biggest complaint is that the stall rates are wrong on the p-40 & p-47. And some of you who are throwing flames my way may need to go dig up your history books and do some research of you own before you start slinging mud at anyone. As for me researching any thing I wouldn't even know where to begin. I'll leave that kinda stuff in the very capable hands of ppl like Skychimp who have proven themselves to be more knowable than the average flight sim junky when it come to the tech stuff on the real aircraft.

And Buzz is right to a point and I agree with 80% of what he's said so far. And thanks for stickin' up for me Leadspitter.I think I'll let this dog die now. No point in trying to change anything here...it's just not going to happen. By the way on the CD Case for FB says WWII 1941-1945. It says NOTHING about being an eastern front only sim. That was IL-2. Not for gotten battles. So get over it.

There is as always a lot of Anti-American sentiments here from other parts of the world. And it seems to have infected some people's better judgment. I for one will never understand why some of you out there want to use this sim to re-write history. That is the feeling I'm getting from some of the people that post here & that's just the way I see it. In the end all I want is the US planes to perform as they should. Good or bad. from what I little I know from reading, from 1st hand accounts, to pilot statements, to watching actual USAAF training films the US aircraft in FB are far from being as close to the real flight & damage models as some of you claim the LW aircraft are. In all fairness they should ALL be as accurate as is possible with current computer technology.

I'm finnished here.

<CENTER>http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p837.jpg
<CENTER>><FONT COLOR="blue">Please visit the 310thVF/BS Online at our NEW web site @:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="orange"> http://members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron/
<CENTER>A proud member Squadron of IL-2 vUSAAF
<CENTER>310th VF/BS Public forum:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW"> http://invisionfree.com/forums/310th_VFBG/
<CENTER><CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW">
Proud Sponsor of IL-2 Hangar Forums
<CENTER> Visit the Hangar at:
http://srm.racesimcentral.com/il2.shtml
http://www.brunching.com/images/hellweather.gif (http://www.brunching.com/toys/hellweather.html)
<FONT COLOR="Green">Slainte Mhath- Good Health to you!

Message Edited on 10/02/0307:07PM by Copperhead310th

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 01:28 AM
Well Copper. I do understand your complains somehow and your last post sounds quite reasonable. the first post was a bit overdone don't you agree?

I fly german planes all of the time but i want all other planes to be as accurate as possible so the fights will be interesting. I'd like to see the P47 perform as it should (roll rate) as well as i'd like the FW roll rate tuned down and the DM fixed for ALL planes. i don't think the US and german planes are too far way off IMHO. the late war german planes should climb better as they do now and the RPM with auto pitch should be corrected as well as speed of the P40, roll of the P47 and stalls of the P39.

I just don't understand your comment on LW planes being "ueber" as they are not. the only really overmodelled planes IMO are some red ones. DM of I16, Lagg and the FM of La7.

I don't like all this nationality bashing and i want good American planes as well as german and russian and and and. I just hate this: " I'm ... and our planes were the best." thing, cause it all turns out to be a flame war. but there are still some ppl saying that THEIR planes are the best. The pony for example. I'm already afraid of what will happen when we get it. There will be more whining than ever before. The P51 was a great plane for example, best long range escort fighter in WW2 IMHO. Was it the best DF plane in WW2? i doubt that. It was great in it's role and it was great defending the bombers. the P47 was a better fighter imo. but there will be ppl saying: i was always told it's the best and it has to be. same goes for the FW190 or for Yaks. such statements just spoil the nice discussions going on here. the problem with roll rate is a serious one. will it be solved like this? i doubt.

nice evening all

2 things we need in FB:
The 110 and the desert!!!
http://exn.ca/news/images/1999/04/23/19990423-Me110coloursideMAIN.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 03:11 AM
You is WRONG! I CANT out run a 109K, I CANT out dive a 109K, and a good 109K pilot CAN turn with me. The only chance I have when flyign the P-39 against 44 and later aircraft is to OUT THINK them. Use stratigy and my mind. ITS NOT SOME UBER AIRCRAFT! IT takes a lot of skill to learn how to use it. Any 1944 aircraft out classes it it almost every way. Stop trying to cop out on excuses of why you cant shoot down a 39 flown by a good pilot.

Gib

Cpt.LoneRanger wrote:
-
- P39 is too deadly at the moment. Even with the
- reworked FM, it's still closer to the FM of the LAs,
- than to what it should be. (the P39 was primarily
- used as a ground attack a/c and against bombers, not
- to outrun, outcircle and outdive an Bf109K!)
-
- greets
- Cpt.LoneRanger
-


No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 03:24 AM
Wrong. The P-39 was DESIGNED as a bomber intervepter along with the P-38. The 37MM did NOT have the velocity or power to damage any tank, and they only used HE rounds. Try again. Sure the pilots did straif stuff, but so did P-51's and P-47's with there .50 cals after they could not find any air targets or after a patrole. But the main roll of the P-39 was a fighter.

Gib

Cpt.LoneRanger wrote:
- The P39 was DESIGNED for ground support and bomber
- intercepts - it's only squadron remaining in service
- in the Pacific war theater was used as a ground
- attack unit.


No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 06:16 AM
I've always looked at the P47 the following way as to why it was an effective aircraft in europe..

- P47 is escorting bombers

- 109's/190's climbing to intercept bombers (not p47's)

- P47's dive onto the germans and tear them into little peices using a massive energy advantage.

Basically, the only real performance attribute a fighter in that position needs to be succesful is to be able to dive like a bat out of hell and put a lot of lead into its target.

Even if they missed, they'd just zoom up and dive again, after all, the germans were after bombers, not fighters.

The P47 is a quite a fearsome beast in FB if you take some time to climb up an altitude were you can dive, either to get out of or into a situation. From altitude it can choose what fights it wants to participate in, a very important way to get home in one peice.

Too bad people don't get kills for suckering lavochkin's into dives, then you wouldn't have to fire a shot.

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 07:06 AM
Interesting thread to say the least. To be in agreeance here with many,

The JUG is undermodeled. The roll rate is still to low and it should be about the fastest piston engine aircraft ina dive in game.The .50 calibre Brownings are far to light in both damage modeling and sound (lest to say that most American fighters seemed to cary 6 to 8 of them). Funny though...The Hurricane was just raped in the patch to the point that its virtually a target now unless someone comes across your nose , and there isnt much complaint by most agreed it was overmaodeled but to take the flaps to a "ON or OFF " setting is silly. My question is this...

Why on Earth arent the patches releases publicly for a few months to beta test and then info sent into the design team to gather the responses from all of us and tweak the patch before a release? Why would'nt Oleg contact someone like =353=MUNROE about a Jugs abilities as he flew the damn things?

It appears that there is one or 2 guys working on a specific plane at a time, tweaking this or that variable and then the fix is sent to Oleg to approve of it. This isn't condusive to a good balanced testing of the aircraft, and in the games design teams defense, there were "pigs" with wings and should'nt have a hope in hell of going toe to toe with most aircraft. There seems to be too much emphasis on the upcoming aircraft and not enough on making what we have now available to us correct or let alone most of the AI stuff flyable in cockpit.

What are your thoughts?

Cpt.LoneRanger
10-03-2003, 07:35 AM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- Wrong. The P-39 was DESIGNED as a bomber
- intervepter along with the P-38. The 37MM did NOT
- have the velocity or power to damage any tank, and
- they only used HE rounds. Try again. Sure the
- pilots did straif stuff, but so did P-51's and
- P-47's with there .50 cals after they could not find
- any air targets or after a patrole. But the main
- roll of the P-39 was a fighter.

Speaking of the initial plans and the use by the Russians, yes, it was a fighter. I also agree, that the P39 isn't uber in FB, but compared to IL2 and most readings about it, it was a complicated a/c to fly and it had to rely on tactics and energy, as most a/c had, in Russian service. Don't forget, at the end of the war, it was stripped of 2 12,7mm HMGs and all armor except the cockpit and instead fitted with self-sealing tanks and high-efficiency compressor to keep up with the developement of Europe front fighters.
I'm not saying P39 was a bad fighter, but you can't deny the fact, that it was quickly put out of service by the USAAF and by the RAF, too, who BOTH converted it to a ground attack fighter with dogfight capability. That is from the books (an American book, btw), not my personal opinion, so don't flame me! (P39 in action, Nr43)

Back to the roll-rates:
Yes, the roll-rates are off, no doubt (especially the P47).
But the HP-values and weight of most German fighters is, too, and while all American planes at least made steps to be more flyable, Bf's have been degrade, continuously.
So, because I'm one of those, flying ALL planes in IL2FB, I wonder how someone can say these are unfairly off, while others are okay, being a sitting duck.

(Besides that, on the long run, P39 outruns Bf109K, because all Bf109 have a terrible heat problem, that no allied plane has. I fly the P39 myself and if you push her to the limit, you'll get the K, if not sooner, then surely later.)

greets
Cpt.LoneRanger


http://www.cptloneranger.privat.t-online.de/SIG2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 07:48 AM
I agree to the point that the US planes are not worth flyin in DF servers, especially when the Yaks, La's and late 109/190's are there. From everything I have read in books and from so called experts in these forums. The Russians did not like the P-40, P-47, Hurricane, and Spitfire. They liked the P-39 because of it's fire power. So which one of these planes is the best to fly if you want to survive?.......P-39. The dislike of the other planes has caused lack of attention to detail. They are there for the hook to make you buy the game. The Spitfire will be wrong and so will the P-51 when it gets here. Honestly, when I can outroll a P-47D-27 with a fully loaded He-111 something is truly fishy......sniff..
But to give credit where credit is due, this is an Eastern Front War Sim...not a ETO sim.. and I'm just happier'n a Pig in.....well you know what. When flying Russian fighters. What we need is a correctly modeled
Pe-2/3 Medium bomber. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 07:54 AM
YOU CANNOT OUTROLL A P-47 WITH AN HE-111!

Next someone will be in here telling us that the TB-3 outrolls the P-47.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

Cpt.LoneRanger
10-03-2003, 07:59 AM
A.K.Davis wrote:
- YOU CANNOT OUTROLL A P-47 WITH AN HE-111!
-
- Next someone will be in here telling us that the
- TB-3 outrolls the P-47.

Nah, of course TB-3 cannot. At 90? it looses it's main instrument: the pencil /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

greets
Cpt.LoneRanger


http://www.cptloneranger.privat.t-online.de/SIG2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 09:02 AM
when is the last time you did 10 conseutive compleate loops in a P-47 with out stalling out?

I CAN DO THAT IN A TB-3!!!!

So by your reasoning you can pull off such a feat in a heavy bomber but NOT in a P-47....A FIGHTER!?
you must be joking.

The tb-3 & p-47 had the close to the same roll rate before patch 1.11 was released.
and it's not so much the roll rate with the p-47 it's the stall rate.

want evidence? here watch this......

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/P-47.html

Film 1 from Zeno's war birds drive in.
How to Fly the Republic P-47 "Thunderbolt (1943, B&W)
Ground Handling, Takeoff, Normal Flight and Landing

Film 2 from Zeno's war birds drive in.
High Altitude Flight and Aerobatics

Film 1 show's the true stall rates of the p-47 and it IS NOT what is modled in FB. A picture says a thousand words.

A.K.Davis wrote:
- YOU CANNOT OUTROLL A P-47 WITH AN HE-111!
-
- Next someone will be in here telling us that the
- TB-3 outrolls the P-47.



<CENTER>http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p837.jpg
<CENTER>><FONT COLOR="blue">Please visit the 310thVF/BS Online at our NEW web site @:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="orange"> http://members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron/
<CENTER>A proud member Squadron of IL-2 vUSAAF
<CENTER>310th VF/BS Public forum:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW"> http://invisionfree.com/forums/310th_VFBG/
<CENTER><CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW">
Proud Sponsor of IL-2 Hangar Forums
<CENTER> Visit the Hangar at:
http://srm.racesimcentral.com/il2.shtml
http://www.brunching.com/images/hellweather.gif (http://www.brunching.com/toys/hellweather.html)
<FONT COLOR="Green">Slainte Mhath- Good Health to you!

Message Edited on 10/03/03 03:04AM by Copperhead310th

Message Edited on 10/03/0303:06AM by Copperhead310th

Cpt.LoneRanger
10-03-2003, 09:19 AM
Yepp.

Sad but true, you can really do things with the TB3, where the fuselage would say "bye, bye" very quickly in reality.

IMHO the problem with this is with the physics-engine of the game. It simply allows all a/c to do that and while no sane beta-tester tries these maneuvers, it's still possible and within the large community of IL2FB, there's somebody who uses these flaws for sure.
Especially online, those flaws can really suck. I got shot to pieces on the runway several times, but not by strafing a/c, bombs or rockets, but by the gunners of a slow flying He111. A single He111 was circling above our airfield and for more than 10 minutes none of us was able to take off without at least a smokin' engine.
I know it must be a difficult task, but if all a/c in the game were tested against each other, those flaws should become more obvious.


PS: Didn't believe it, but fully loaded IL2 DOES roll faster than empty P47 (very obviously). I knew it rolled slower than it should, but this is really a point, that could be solved with comperative testing. Don't you think so?

greets
Cpt.LoneRanger


http://www.cptloneranger.privat.t-online.de/SIG2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 09:48 AM
Copperhead310th wrote:
- when is the last time you did 10 conseutive
- compleate loops in a P-47 with out stalling out?
-
- I CAN DO THAT IN A TB-3!!!!
-
- So by your reasoning you can pull off such a feat in
- a heavy bomber but NOT in a P-47....A FIGHTER!?
- you must be joking.
-
- The tb-3 & p-47 had the close to the same roll rate
- before patch 1.11 was released.
- and it's not so much the roll rate with the p-47
- it's the stall rate.


Then u better not fight a TB-3. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
What in the above argument says the P-47's got a bad FM and not the TB-3?



Copperhead310th wrote:
- There is as always a lot of Anti-American sentiments
- here from other parts of the world. And it seems to
- have infected some people's better judgment. I for
- one will never understand why some of you out there
- want to use this sim to re-write history. That is
- the feeling I'm getting from some of the people that
- post here & that's just the way I see it. In the end
- all I want is the US planes to perform as they
- should. Good or bad. from what I little I know from
- reading, from 1st hand accounts, to pilot
- statements, to watching actual USAAF training films
- the US aircraft in FB are far from being as close to
- the real flight & damage models as some of you claim
- the LW aircraft are. In all fairness they should ALL
- be as accurate as is possible with current computer
- technology.

Here we go again. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
Your pro-american sentiments infected your judgement.
There has been whines about every a/c in this sim but u interpret this thread as an expression for anti-american sentiments?
Bad argument!


Btw I thought Beta-testers were bound by a NDA.



http://members.chello.se/ven/behave.jpg


http://members.chello.se/ven/milton.jpg

Cpt.LoneRanger
10-03-2003, 10:41 AM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- Wrong. The P-39 was DESIGNED as a bomber
- intervepter along with the P-38. The 37MM did NOT
- have the velocity or power to damage any tank, and
- they only used HE rounds. Try again. Sure the
- pilots did straif stuff, but so did P-51's and
- P-47's with there .50 cals after they could not find
- any air targets or after a patrole. But the main
- roll of the P-39 was a fighter.

Other than the British- and USAAF-P39 the M4 of the Soviet AirForce was never supplied with the M80 ArmorPiercing ammunition. In the early years of the war, this was effective enough for panzers of that time, since it was able to punch through 2.5cm+ of steel at about 500m. This was still enough for APCs in later AfricanWar-theater. (From what I know, they used mixed loads with He and AP rounds)
Instead of M80, Soviets used the M54 HE-Shell, that was most effective against a/c.
However, the P39 was not build for maneuverability and speed, but with the somewhat different warfare on the eastern front, with low and slow flying He111 and StuKas, searching for the Soviet air-bases and especially ground troops, they often fell easy prey to the devastating firepower of the P39. In high altitude, high speed air combats over the channel and over the pacific, the P39 only achieved little success.

Don't be lead to quick conclusions by numbers! The AVG was the most successfull group in early WW2 with 294 victories in just 6 month! But they had to admit they were fighting undefended transporters and WW1-class fighters.

greets
Cpt.LoneRanger


http://www.cptloneranger.privat.t-online.de/SIG2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 11:03 AM
I find only 2 things wrong in US planes..

1) P-40 top speed somewhat too low

2) The Ridiculous modelling of P-47 gun dispersion..

3) Brewster topspeed some 20-30 kmh too low

IF I would not count these things , then I never have understood Yank-whiners, as their planes are other than these rather good. P-39 is exceptional, and overmodelled in many ways.. P-47 is good now (well maybe D-27 roll rate is bit low; but it is a very minor flaw).. And you just have to set gun convergence to 100-150 meters to get better results with the Jug.

And sure Yank-whiners can play with the P-51, and P-38.. so be happy. Us Luftwhiners, still have to fly with cramped FW-190 gunsight, and crappy late 109 versions /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



____________________________________



<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/sig3.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 11:13 AM
Cpt.LoneRanger wrote:
- The P39 was DESIGNED for ground support and bomber
- intercepts - it's only squadron remaining in service
- in the Pacific war theater was used as a ground
- attack unit.

Actually it was designed to fulfill the same specification
for which the P38 and P40 were created. AFAIK that
specification required only interception capabilities
(and at high altitude). All of those aircraft ultimately ended being powered by the same base engine, but with
different supercharging options. I think the P47 was
originally designed to fulfill a similar role, but to
a slightly later specification, although the P47 ended
up being nothing like the original concept of a light
interceptor.

- It took them until 1941 to bring large numbers to
- the european front, where they replaced the British
- Hurricanes. But they quickly realized, the P39 was
- no match for the German fighters, because they
- didn't have turbo-compressors and couldn't keep up
- in climb and turn rate.

Actually the RAF had a number of issues with the P39
(I've now found my 1942 book which has some info about
the P39 and what the official line was then, so I'll
see about scanning some pacges. I thought I'd given the
book away, but it seems not), one of which was the muzzle
flash, and another was build up of CO gas in the cockpit,
and a third issues with oxygen equipment. Bell seemed
pretty good at addressing these issues, so I presume that
they were addressed prior to shipments to the USSR, or
perhaps the VVS were less fussy, or the P39 was better in
these areas than existing types they had in service.

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 11:16 AM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:

- Dunkelgrun wrote:

-

Post removed because I got bored of the whole thing!
Cheers!

Message Edited on 10/03/0302:10PM by Dunkelgrun

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 11:30 AM
Maple_Tiger wrote:
- We know the roll is not correct. Also the 50's are
- not correct either. A 50cal mg are able to pierce
- the armour of APC up to aprox. 200m away. Hence, the
- P47 has 8 50cal mg. Now is the FW as tuff as an APC?
-
- Well i dont know. You would not think so lol.

If you look at Ogre's site, it basically indicates
that at about 200 yards, with no aiming inaccruacies
and with perfect convergence, you can expect about
one in three rounds hitting the target from wing mounted
guns. If you add in the possibility of firing out
of convergence, imperfect targeting, etc., you are
probably down to about 10% of rounds hitting (which
is about what I get when I check with sturmolog, etc).

A .50 hitting an APC with a 90 degree angle can
penetrate a good few mm of armour, but most of the
surfaces presented when on the 6 of a fighter are
at a very oblique angle, so the APC armour at 90
degree test isn't necessarily that informative.

So basically if you fire a one second burst (13 rounds
per gun) you actually have about 0.1*8*13, or about
10 rounds hitting the target, a few of which may hit
at a very oblique angle and may not penetrate. Of those
that do, some may not hit anything vital.

With a 6 gun plane, given the way the dispersion works,
the number of rounds on target probably won't be much
less than 10 (it isn't a 6:8 relationship) so the P40
should have almost the same amount of hitting power as
the P47.

If the wing shake from a P47 with 8 .50s is significantly
more than the P40 with 6, it could be that in real life
the number of rounds hitting from the P47 might be
less than in the P40. As I've said before, I haven't
seen any details about the relative flexibility of the
P40 and P47 wings and wing flex under the stress of firing.
I can look up wing thickness, but there are a lot more
variables involved.

By way of comaparsion, if we assume a little lower
hit chance from an Fw190 (higher recoil per gun from
20mm cannon, hence higher dispersion as seen on Ogre's
site) and a lower ROF, then from an Fw190 we'd
get about 0.08*4*10, or about 3 hits. That's about
the same level of destructive power as the P47, more
or less.

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 12:17 PM
Well the P-47's greater weight should offset the added recoil of the two guns. The P-47 was an extreamly stable gun platform, but the spread of the P-47's guns make it so you cant shoot a football stadium at 200 yards without half the rounds landing in the parking lot. Its just silly!

Gib

AaronGT wrote:
-
- If the wing shake from a P47 with 8 .50s is
- significantly
- more than the P40 with 6, it could be that in real
- life
- the number of rounds hitting from the P47 might be
- less than in the P40. As I've said before, I haven't
- seen any details about the relative flexibility of
- the
- P40 and P47 wings and wing flex under the stress of
- firing.
- I can look up wing thickness, but there are a lot
- more
- variables involved.


No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

Cpt.LoneRanger
10-03-2003, 12:36 PM
P39 and P40 were introduced as interceptors, mainly in the Pacific theater. It quickly turned out, that the P39 was not at all a match for the far more agile Zeros and they faced the same problems RAF had reported.
These problems included the reliability of the M4, that made it - due to official statements - useless in a2a-combat. (They wanted to give the P39 the title worst plane of WW2)

It then was redesigned in 2 ways:
1. a smaller cannon (20mm) for a2a-combat
2. a redesign with stronger engine and longer range for ground attack.

So far to the USAAF.

The Soviets used it primarily against dive-bomber and low-flying leve-bombers attacking soviet ground forces. It also was able to compete with early Bf109, and surpassed their characteristics in some areas. However, the unreliable trajectory of the cannon, was still a problem, making it's secondary armament the real threat for a fighter.

greets
Cpt.LoneRanger


http://www.cptloneranger.privat.t-online.de/SIG2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 12:47 PM
I don't get what you guys mean. I'm incredible with the P-40, the key is to B&Z. I use slightly different tactics with the 109's, but it's never been a problem for me, personally, I think the 109G-2 is the best version modeled in the game. I can rip P-40's apart anytime. Also, I fly the P-40M quite a bit, and I'd have to say in no way, except for a few small bugs, is it over or undermodeled. I can kill with it quite easily.

I do, however have a track I recorded last night of my P-40 missing it's rudder and one elevator and still flying perfectly with all three axes of control.

Boosher-PBNA
----------------
<center>It's your fault... <center>
Boosher-ProudBirds-VFW
http://www.uploadit.org/files/220903-Boosher%20Sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 01:40 PM
AaronGT wrote:
-
- VMF-214_HaVoK wrote:
-- US .50cals dispersal is all wrong. But VVS .50cals
-- are like freaking lasers
-
- The VVS .50s had a higher muzzle velocity and higher
- rate of fire (but lighter rounds). At short range
- they should be easier to target due to a better
- trajectory for about the same overall recoil. At
- longer ranges the relative lack of mass compared
- to surface area of the round would mean a faster
- degradation of trajectory relative to the M2 .50
- rounds. It's hard to hit anything reliably over
- 300m with anything, though.
-


What version of VVS 50 cal are we talking about here?



TX-Zen
Black 6
TX Squadron CO
http://www.txsquadron.com
clyndes@hotmail.com (IM only)


http://www.txsquadron.com/uploaded/tx-zen/Zensig2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 01:57 PM
Universal Beresins mounted on Yaks.

Probably the best heavy machine gun of the war compared to others with simular calibre between 12.7~13mm.




-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 02:00 PM
I'm curious, why do people wish to contend that adding weapons actually reduces hitting power, and, not only that, but that it would continue to remain in service on an aircraft?

Surely while in a war, each country wants an advantage over their adversary, right? And surely a fighter that can hit harder in a shorter amount of time is an advantage, right? Doesn't it stand to reason that if 8 guns reduced the hitting power over time vs 6 guns that the 8 gun concept would be scrapped? Doesn't it also stand to reason that if 8 guns offered no improvement over 6 that the 8 gun arrangement would be scrapped? (afterall, why spend more per plane and more in ammo for no added benefit?)

It's just mind boggling some of the things that get suggested around here.

Let's also not forget that the P-47 was known to be more heavily armed than the 6 gun fighters. That means, capable of wreaking more destruction upon the enemy, not just # of weapons.

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 02:08 PM
Removed in light of Dunk's action.

Message Edited on 10/03/0301:48PM by BlitzPig_DDT

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 02:34 PM
TX-Zen wrote:
- What version of VVS 50 cal are we talking about
- here?

UBK and UBS.

The M2 .50 has an ROF of 750 rpm, muzzle velocity of
835 m/s and a round mass of 49g.

The UBS has round mass of 48g, muzzle velocity of 860m/s
and an ROF of 800rpm. The UBK is similar, but with an
ROF of 1050rpm. (as far as I remember they are the same
gun, just the UBS has synchro gear).

Actually given that the round weights are not much
different the recoil would probably actually be greater
for the UBS and UBK (contrary to what I previously said
as I'd misremembered the round weights). However part of
the difference might be that the soviet guns tend to be mounted in the nose, and would be less prone to wing
vibration, relative roll, and convergence issues.

In theory it might be possible to test to some extent
using one of the Yaks and the P39Q1 (nose guns only),
as then the nose mounting issues are controlled for.

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 02:34 PM
AaronGT wrote:
-
- VMF-214_HaVoK wrote:
-- US .50cals dispersal is all wrong. But VVS .50cals
-- are like freaking lasers
-
- The VVS .50s had a higher muzzle velocity and higher
- rate of fire (but lighter rounds). At short range
- they should be easier to target due to a better
- trajectory for about the same overall recoil. At
- longer ranges the relative lack of mass compared
- to surface area of the round would mean a faster
- degradation of trajectory relative to the M2 .50
- rounds. It's hard to hit anything reliably over
- 300m with anything, though.
-
-
-AaronGT if you are going to copy my text then copy the whole thing please. I stated that VVs .50cals are like freaking lasers able to take out controls and cause fuel leaks to the P-47 from distances over 1000 meters!!! This is crazy.


And yes you can reliably hit and cause damage from over 1000meters with VVS .50cals. I have even lost my motor to once single .50 round from a Yak3 at 1.23...Rediculous! Not too mention the control loss in P-47D27 which had metal control rods, and those all to common fuel leaks.
-

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 02:46 PM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- I'm curious, why do people wish to contend that
- adding weapons actually reduces hitting power,

I don't know. Who has been saying that? I certainly
haven't. There would be an increase in hitting power
from a 6 gun P47 to an 8 gun one. In the little analysis
I did I assumed that, for the purposes of the argument,
that the number of rounds exactly scaled with the number
of guns. If you look at Ogre's very extensive statical
analysis you'll probably find that the R=f(N) where N
is the number of guns and R is the number of rounds that
is worse than linear.

- time is an advantage, right? Doesn't it stand to
- reason that if 8 guns reduced the hitting power over
- time vs 6 guns that the 8 gun concept would be
- scrapped?

Yes, but noone has said that it does what you seem
to think people have said it does...

- Doesn't it also stand to reason that if 8
- guns offered no improvement over 6 that the 8 gun
- arrangement would be scrapped?

Well, you are assuming that only sensible decisions
are ever made in war! But in this case 8 guns does
offer an advantage in terms of the number of rounds
that hit over 6 guns (unless the extra two produce
a massive amount of additional wing shake).

- It's just mind boggling some of the things that get
- suggested around here.

Well, you seem to be reading things in a way to cause
yourself affront rather than reading what was written.

- Let's also not forget that the P-47 was known to be
- more heavily armed than the 6 gun fighters.

It has more guns. It does not necessarily mean that
the guns/wing construction/X factor was such that they
were necessarily more effective than 6 guns in a different
plane in which other factors were different. It is almost
certain that an 8 gun P47 outguns a 6 gun P47, but
by how much is another matter. Certainly at various
stages a lighter 6 gun P47 was tried, presumably meaning
that the advantages of a lighter plane outweighed the
increased firepower of an 8 gun setup.

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 02:53 PM
VMF-214_HaVoK wrote:
- AaronGT if you are going to copy my text then copy the whole - thing please. I stated that VVs .50cals are like freaking -lasers able to take out controls and cause fuel leaks to the P-47 from distances over 1000 meters!!! This is crazy.

Sorry, I just thought I'd post a bit of info about the UBS/K
that's all. I thought my part about not being able to
hit anything over 300m indicated my scepticism about any
modelling in the game that might allow hits at 1000m being
accurate (or with my gunnery skills, even possible).

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 02:58 PM
AaronGT wrote:
-
- TX-Zen wrote:
-- What version of VVS 50 cal are we talking about
-- here?
-
- UBK and UBS.
-
- The M2 .50 has an ROF of 750 rpm, muzzle velocity of
- 835 m/s and a round mass of 49g.
-
- The UBS has round mass of 48g, muzzle velocity of
- 860m/s
- and an ROF of 800rpm. The UBK is similar, but with
- an
- ROF of 1050rpm. (as far as I remember they are the
- same
- gun, just the UBS has synchro gear).
-
- Actually given that the round weights are not much
- different the recoil would probably actually be
- greater
- for the UBS and UBK (contrary to what I previously
- said
- as I'd misremembered the round weights). However
- part of
- the difference might be that the soviet guns tend to
- be mounted in the nose, and would be less prone to
- wing
- vibration, relative roll, and convergence issues.
-
- In theory it might be possible to test to some
- extent
- using one of the Yaks and the P39Q1 (nose guns
- only),
- as then the nose mounting issues are controlled for.
-
-
-The posting of data found on the web does not justify the fact that the the US .50s rarely hit anything beyond 500 meters let alone do extensive damage and the fact that Yak .50s are able to take out controls, cause fuel leaks, and kill engines beyond 1200meters. If the data meant that much then the M2 had a maximum range from 5450 meters to 7400 meters. So does that mean that US .50s cals should hit at that range in the game? Ofcoarse not. The point of my argument is simple US .50s dispersal is rediculous while VVS .50s are like lasers. Try the Yak3 and see for yourself.
-

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 03:39 PM
I love this game.

I just spent about half an hour and read every post in this thread...*sigh* and would like to reflect the same sentiments others have already beaten to death.

IMHO, it "seems" some fallacy is in place on some of the aircraft FM/DM's....so what? I'm not suggesting they shouldn't be looked at and changed if possible, yet it's certainly not the end-all of the reason for it's existence.

The data and information is available to the developement team and I hope they use it both judiciously and fairly. I would like the P-47 to be more potent and roll better, but if it doesn't then I'll fly to its strengths or pick a different ride....you know this game allows that!

Until then...keep flying!

I love this game.





http://home.earthlink.net/~aclzkim1/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/il2sig2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 04:06 PM
First, the LW planes are far from uber. On balance I'd say they seem just about right.

What "sucks" in this sim is not so much the planes but how almost all of us fly them (and also how the AI fly them). We take chances, employ tactics, and use flying techniques that nobody in their right minds who actually flew these planes would have done.

In RL if a couple of P-47s made a high speed slash at you and your wingie in your 109s, you'd never try to turn and catch up to engage them. You'd beat hell out of there and hope they weren't gonna zoom up and take another slash at you. Meanwhile, the Jug pilots probably wouldn't be crazy enough to come back the way they came. And both sides would have their heads on swivels trying to see if the rest of the enemy's flight was in the immediate area waiting to pounce.

But no, we're crazy enough to turn with Ratas in 109s. Rata pilots are nutty enough to stick around when there's a swarm of 109s in the area (read Black Cross/ Red Star, I-16s and I-153s were for the most part death traps when confronted by properly flown 109s).

For some, as long as they are trying to do this crazy stuff in these planes they're never gonna be good enough. And as long as they're doing that stuff, then other planes are going to seem "uber" because they are playing into the hands of people (say I-16 fliers) who are doing crazy things themselves.

What results are skewed impressions of these planes that are strikingly different from what resulted in RL.

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 04:28 PM
VMF-214_HaVoK wrote:
--The posting of data found on the web does not justify the fact that the the US .50s rarely hit anything beyond 500 meters


My god - get a grip. Noone ever said it did. I posted
some info on the UBS/K that I thought someone might
find interesting, and all I get is abuse. Get some sense
of proportion!

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 04:31 PM
Quote:
P39 and P40 were introduced as interceptors, mainly in the Pacific theater. It quickly turned out, that the P39 was not at all a match for the far more agile Zeros and they faced the same problems RAF had reported.
These problems included the reliability of the M4, that made it - due to official statements - useless in a2a-combat. (They wanted to give the P39 the title worst plane of WW2)

It then was redesigned in 2 ways:
1. a smaller cannon (20mm) for a2a-combat
2. a redesign with stronger engine and longer range for ground attack.

So far to the USAAF.

The Soviets used it primarily against dive-bomber and low-flying leve-bombers attacking soviet ground forces. It also was able to compete with early Bf109, and surpassed their characteristics in some areas. However, the unreliable trajectory of the cannon, was still a problem, making it's secondary armament the real threat for a fighter.

greets
Cpt.LoneRanger
Russian Pilots might disagree with you Cpt Lone Ranger.
Qoute:
Drawing conclusions, it can be said that the debut of the Airacobra in the Soviet VVS was singularly successful. In skilled hands it was a powerful weapon, fully on a par with the enemy equipment. There was no "special" operational environment for the Airacobras-they were employed as normal multi-purpose fighters that fulfilled the same roles as Lavochkins and Yakovlevs: they contested with fighters, escorted bombers, flew on reconnaissance, and protected our ground forces. They differed from Soviet-produced fighters in having a more powerful armament, survivability, and a good radio, and fell behind our fighters in vertical maneuverability, capability to withstand excessive G-forces, and to execute acute maneuvers. The pilots loved their Airacobras for comfort and good protection. As one P-39 pilot expressed it, he felt like he was "flying in a safe". Airacobra pilots did not burn because the aircraft was metal and the fuel cells were positioned far away in the wing. They were not subject to jets of steam or streams of oil because the engine was behind them. Their faces were not beat up on protrusions of the gunsight. If the airplane should happen to flip over on landing, they were not turned into lump of flesh, as happened to twice HSU A. F. Klubov after transitioning from a P-39 to an La-7. There was a kind of mystical belief that a pilot attempting to preserve a damaged Cobra by belly landing it would almost always emerge not only alive, but also undamaged. But if he bailed out of the same airplane he often was seriously injured or killed by the stabilizer, which was on the same level as the door.

Quote:
One more quotation to conclude this matter. On 5 November 1943, the notes of a conversation of the ambassador of the USA A. Harriman with the People's Commissar of Foreign Affairs of the USSR, V. M. Molotov: "There is one type of airplane, namely the Airacobra, which is used very well by the Soviet air forces. Harriman says that the Russians use this airplane even better than the Americans. Therefore Vandenberg (General, one of the leaders of the US Army Air Force) would be wise to acquaint himself with the experience of Soviet pilots. In connection with this, Vandenberg would want to visit Soviet squadrons equipped with the Airacobra aircraft." Molotov responded that he considered such a meeting to be acceptable.


Source:
http://airforce.users.ru/lend-lease/english/articles/romanenko/part2.htm
Stanger out

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 05:28 PM
Vengeanze wrote:
What in the above argument says the P-47's got a bad
- FM and not the TB-3?
-

i knew sooner or latter some one was going to try and reverse it. lol
ok Ven...lets just go out on a limb & say that they're both wrong. Fair enough?

Vengeanze wrote:
- Here we go again.
- Your pro-american sentiments infected your
- judgement.
- There has been whines about every a/c in this sim
- but u interpret this thread as an expression for
- anti-american sentiments?
- Bad argument!

obviously you must be blind.
i dont have time to argue this point right now i'll pick it up latter.

Vengeanze wrote:
Btw I thought Beta-testers were bound by a NDA.


Ven at NO TIME have i ever claimed to be an offical beta tester. so NDA does not apply. Nor would i ever admit to haveing acess to any offical beta test patch. I never claimed to have a beta patch. & even IF i did have one i wouldn't tell you. lol
(Ven works for "THE MAN"/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif lol)

<CENTER>http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p837.jpg
<CENTER>><FONT COLOR="blue">Please visit the 310thVF/BS Online at our NEW web site @:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="orange"> http://members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron/
<CENTER>A proud member Squadron of IL-2 vUSAAF
<CENTER>310th VF/BS Public forum:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW"> http://invisionfree.com/forums/310th_VFBG/
<CENTER><CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW">
Proud Sponsor of IL-2 Hangar Forums
<CENTER> Visit the Hangar at:
http://srm.racesimcentral.com/il2.shtml
http://www.brunching.com/images/hellweather.gif (http://www.brunching.com/toys/hellweather.html)
<FONT COLOR="Green">Slainte Mhath- Good Health to you!

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 07:44 PM
AaronGT wrote:
-
- VMF-214_HaVoK wrote:
---The posting of data found on the web does not justify the fact that the the US .50s rarely hit anything beyond 500 meters
-
-
- My god - get a grip. Noone ever said it did. I
- posted
- some info on the UBS/K that I thought someone might
- find interesting, and all I get is abuse. Get some
- sense
- of proportion!
-
-
-LOL. Im not trying to abuse you but when you quote a persons thread you open yourself up for debate. Im sure most people here are aware of the ballistics for .50cals. After all we whine about it enough. I just found no context in what you said and how it related to my personal complaint is all. And since you quoted only half of my post I felt a correction was needed. You will be ok bud its just cyber chat/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
-
-