PDA

View Full Version : Fw 190D-9 speedbug in 3.03.



robban75
12-30-2004, 03:56 PM
I have made some speedruns at altitudes ranging from 1000m to 5000m. And it seems like the topspeeds are off between 1000m and 3000m. I'm sure other Doraphiles have noticed this drop in performance while flying online, perhaps not being able to outpace other fighters that was possible to outpace before. And there might even be those who fly against the D-9 and been surprised that the D-9 has been unable to escape during high speed chases.

Below is a comparison between a real speed chart versus the current in-game performance.

Link to speedchart.

http://jagdhund.homestead.com/files/DoraData/horizontalgeschwindigkeiten.htm

Crimea map, full fuel, full armament and boost, radiator closed.

D-9 '44

Alt ---- RL --game
1000m - 639 - 619
2000m - 656 - 633
3000m - 667 - 647
4000m - 685 - 670
5000m - 702 - 704

D-9 '45

Alt ---- RL --game
1000m - 631 - 624
2000m - 650 - 617
3000m - 659 - 640
4000m - 675 - 674
5000m - 691 - 697

As you can see speeds are most accurate at high alt, whereas at low alt, speeds are mostly way off.

It would be really really great if this could be fixed. As you know, for the D-9, speed truly is life! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Thanks!

//Robert

TX-Zen
12-30-2004, 04:02 PM
I think this is still related to the supercharger issue that was discovered recently and as I recall Oleg mentioned that it will take a rework of that part of the game engine to fix. Being the Doraphile that you are, I'm probably not saying anything you don't already know, but my .02 rupees is thats its not a new thing with 3.03, but rather the existing problem carried over. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<S!>

JG5_UnKle
12-30-2004, 04:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I think this is still related to the supercharger issue that was discovered recently <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought that was fixed in 3.03?

robban75
12-30-2004, 04:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TX-Zen:
I think this is still related to the supercharger issue that was discovered recently and as I recall Oleg mentioned that it will take a rework of that part of the game engine to fix. Being the Doraphile that you are, I'm probably not saying anything you don't already know, but my .02 rupees is thats its not a new thing with 3.03, but rather the existing problem carried over. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<S!> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are right Zen. I just felt I needed to shout it out once more, so that everyone knows that the bug still is present! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

TX-Zen
12-30-2004, 04:07 PM
lol, I'm with you as always http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Shout!

Sig.Hirsch
12-30-2004, 06:00 PM
Have you emailed Oleg Robban ?

robban75
12-30-2004, 06:06 PM
No I haven't, but I know Faustnik has. There's a similar bug on the late war Anton's aswell, and Oleg knows about it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

p1ngu666
12-30-2004, 06:28 PM
it is quiet a speed drop http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

JG7_Rall
12-30-2004, 06:52 PM
Holy ****, its Zen! Wait...ITS TX ZEN!!! whoa!

VOL_Hans
12-31-2004, 12:22 AM
Interesting...

So the 1944 Dora is actually a faster plane than the 1945 Dora with MW-50...

As for the late war Antons, I've heard that the A-8 and A-9 have equal speeds, but the A-9 dosen't turn as well?

robban75
12-31-2004, 04:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VOL_Hans:
Interesting...

So the 1944 Dora is actually a faster plane than the 1945 Dora with MW-50...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The '44 Dora uses C3 fuel, which allows for a higher manifold pressure compared to the B4/MW50 slurping D-9 '45.
So the '44 D-9 should be superior in all respects.

In-game however it's only superior in climb performance. But in level acceleration between 200km/h and 500km/h both types are spot on to eachother, at low alt the '45 version is faster when it should be the other way around.

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
12-31-2004, 11:09 AM
you know what comes now?
do you?

I guess so...

well here we go:

B http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif U http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gifM http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gifPhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

robban75
01-01-2005, 10:30 AM
And here's another BUMP! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Gwalker70
01-01-2005, 12:04 PM
yeah I have noticed mustangs catching me low level in a dora,, even when I have better energy to accelerate into flat speed... i have not tried the A series much.. but I do know that manual pitch was better than auto pitch when I did fly one

p1ngu666
01-01-2005, 12:53 PM
robban, can u pm me your 109 test results... any that are handy, i dont mind what, would like abit of k4 and climb, if u have that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

i dont wish to drag this offtopic http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Gwalker70
01-01-2005, 08:29 PM
you are going to need to send tracks to oleg as well as some official scanned reports and test done by various sources to fix the Dora,.,, and while you are at it, send him tracks of the Mustangs climb rate (which is over modeled)

Copperhead310th
01-01-2005, 10:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gwalker70:
you are going to need to send tracks to oleg as well as some official scanned reports and test done by various sources to fix the Dora,.,, and while you are at it, send him tracks of the Mustangs climb rate (which is over modeled) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

and what data do you have to support such a claim?
can you PROVE that the Mustangs climb rate is "overmodeld"?
Or is it that you just had a run of bad luck latey and ran into some very good p-51 pilots? Unless you can post eveidnce to support that claim then one can only conclude that your ententions would be to have the perfomance of the P-51 reduced to be less competative for you.
I very seldom fly the P-51. But i would say that you are compleatly incorrct in the assumption that it's climb rate is way of base from my time in that aircraft.

JG7_Rall
01-01-2005, 10:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gwalker70:
you are going to need to send tracks to oleg as well as some official scanned reports and test done by various sources to fix the Dora,.,, and while you are at it, send him tracks of the Mustangs climb rate (which is over modeled) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

and what data do you have to support such a claim?
can you PROVE that the Mustangs climb rate is "overmodeld"?
Or is it that you just had a run of bad luck latey and ran into some very good p-51 pilots? Unless you can post eveidnce to support that claim then one can only conclude that your ententions would be to have the perfomance of the P-51 reduced to be less competative for you.
I very seldom fly the P-51. But i would say that you are compleatly incorrct in the assumption that it's climb rate is way of base from my time in that aircraft. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jesus dude, if anyone dare say anything bad about a US plane, you flip out. You need to calm down. Maybe an enema would help? And don't call me a luftwhiner- I do fly German planes but I'm an American as well.

Gwalker70
01-01-2005, 11:14 PM
Copperhead... go F yourself .. if we lived next door to eachother.. I would walk over.. smack you in the mouth.. then after you stop bleeding.. we would make up and have a few beers.. dont luagh.. ive had to do that a few times in my life.. and its worked out just fine http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

OldMan____
01-02-2005, 04:00 AM
Oleg please, Coperhead complain ability is overmodelled.. correct that! he can outcomplain anyone but one other guy XxxxxxXxx.


Please copper.. give a break. The guy said to send TRACKS.. I suppose this mean sending proofs.

faustnik
01-03-2005, 12:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:

I very seldom fly the P-51. But i would say that you are compleatly incorrct in the assumption that it's climb rate is way of base from my time in that aircraft. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is interesting that although you admit to have very limited time in the PF P-51 you feel confident to judge that its climb rate is modeled correctly. Have you made any tests or looked at any data that would lead you to that conclusion, or is it just because the P-51 climbs better than those evil German planes like in the movies?

Please look at this climb comparison, done at war emergency power, between the P-51B and the F4U:

P-51/F4U Climb Comparison (http://web.cetlink.net/~howardds/id101.htm)

Now compare that with this F4U vs. Fw190A5 test:
F4U vs. Fw190 Climb Test (http://web.cetlink.net/~howardds/id90.htm)

This testing was done by the US Navy so hopefully there were no evil Nazis or Commies invloved. Given that even you Copperhead should be able to give it some weight. Now, please compare this to what we have in the sim and see if it matches up. The Merlin engined P-51s were very fast in level flight, dive and zoom climb but, sustained climb was not their strong point.

Endrju
01-03-2005, 01:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
I have made some speedruns at altitudes ranging from 1000m to 5000m. And it seems like the topspeeds are off between 1000m and 3000m. I'm sure other Doraphiles have noticed this drop in performance while flying online, perhaps not being able to outpace other fighters that was possible to outpace before. And there might even be those who fly against the D-9 and been surprised that the D-9 has been unable to escape during high speed chases.
//Robert <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So maybe it's time to change aircraft? There are so many others.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

OldMan____
01-03-2005, 04:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:

I very seldom fly the P-51. But i would say that you are compleatly incorrct in the assumption that it's climb rate is way of base from my time in that aircraft. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is interesting that although you admit to have very limited time in the PF P-51 you feel confident to judge that its climb rate is modeled correctly. Have you made any tests or looked at any data that would lead you to that conclusion, or is it just because the P-51 climbs better than those evil German planes like in the movies?

Please look at this climb comparison, done at war emergency power, between the P-51B and the F4U:

http://web.cetlink.net/~howardds/id101.htm

Now compare that with this F4U vs. Fw190A5 test:
http://web.cetlink.net/~howardds/id90.htm

This testing was done by the US Navy so hopefully there were no evil Nazis or Commies invloved. Given that even you Copperhead should be able to give it some weight. Now, please compare this to what we have in the sim and see if it matches up. The Merlin engined P-51s were very fast in level flight, dive and zoom climb but, sustained climb was not their strong point. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can you indicate any reliable source of not relative, but absolute climb data for these planes (specially Antons)

BBB_Hyperion
01-03-2005, 04:59 AM
http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/FW_DATA.jpg

When you need more detailed climbtimes say for which plane .)

p1ngu666
01-03-2005, 07:36 AM
hyperion, if u have one on k4 could u send it me? pm, i dont wanna drag this off topic, thanks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

BBB_Hyperion
01-03-2005, 11:51 AM
pt opened p1ngu666.

Copperhead310th
01-03-2005, 01:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gwalker70:
Copperhead... go F yourself .. if we lived next door to eachother.. I would walk over.. smack you in the mouth.. then after you stop bleeding.. we would make up and have a few beers.. dont luagh.. ive had to do that a few times in my life.. and its worked out just fine http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I doubt you would want to try that friend. I'm a 4th level black sash in Wing Chun.
My Si Gung- Teacher's Teacher or Grand Master (http://www.swiftwingchun.org/steveswift.html)
Oh and did i mention i have LOTS firearms?

Look guys.... anwser me this...

If some one posts a negative on an axis aircraft the must provide proof to support thier claim...and thethe axis guys never get called a troll for saying the same **** thing i just said?

and if they .....you know what..screw it. never mind. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

faustnik
01-03-2005, 02:10 PM
Copperhead,

Did you look at those tests I posted?

Fehler
01-03-2005, 02:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
I'm a 4th level black sash in Wing Chun.

Oh and did i mention i have LOTS firearms?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh yeah?

Well my pet Ferret would totally OWN your pet Guinea Pigs!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

But while we are on the topic:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gwalker70:
you are going to need to send tracks to oleg as well as some official scanned reports and test done by various sources to fix the Dora,.,, and while you are at it, send him tracks of the Mustangs climb rate (which is over modeled) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You will notice that he speaks of official scanned reports and test(s) done by various sources.

If he thinks the P-51 is overmodelled then obviously a report would have to be the bit of evidence he is needing to get a situation rectified. I personally dont possess these reports, and dont claim one way or the other about the P-51's climb rate, so how would I know (Post yours so I can do a test - if you have any) But I have read enough on this forum to understand that the D-9 should be faster than the P-51 at sea level. And it is not.

Now I have to ask you a question. Am I considered a Luftwhiner because I want the historical speed advantage this plane should have, so I can use it's advantages and disadvantages in an historical setting in this sim? If so, then what would a person (Allied flyer) be that didnt want that accuracy? I think he would be an arcade flyer that was more interested in scoring kills than learning how to fly the planes provided in an historical setting. In other words, a typical X-Box gamer that cares for nothing but points and shoot-'em-ups like quake.

So which one are you Copperhead? A Luftwhiner, or a X-Box gamer? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

p1ngu666
01-03-2005, 05:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
pt opened p1ngu666. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

cheers dude http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


fehler, i really have no idea which way ur arguements will go with copperhead, but it may give me some mild amusement http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

lrrp22
01-03-2005, 05:57 PM
faustnik,

While I am certainly not here to defend Copperhead (didn't Wang Chung break up some years ago?), it does bear pointing out that the climb and acceleration conclusions of the Navy test are not supported by the hard test numbers associated with either the P-51 or F4U-1.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Copperhead,

Did you look at those tests I posted? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OldMan____
01-03-2005, 06:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/FW_DATA.jpg

When you need more detailed climbtimes say for which plane .) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In fact I am trying to find out data for 43 FW´s. I find very little about the A5 and NOTHING about A6. Think they are not very popular so not many citation on them.

faustnik
01-03-2005, 08:13 PM
Here are some A5 tests Oldman:

http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/fw190.htm

faustnik
01-03-2005, 08:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
faustnik,

it does bear pointing out that the climb and acceleration conclusions of the Navy test are not supported by the hard test numbers associated with either the P-51 or F4U-1.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They are direct comparisons of production run aircraft (two P-51s were tested). Why would you doubt the Navy's tests? I have not seen any tests that show the P-51 as a great climber. Great at just about everything else but not sustained climb.

I realize some numbers might not match up exactly to factory tests, but, what better method of comparison is there than side-by-side flight? I would put more weight on this type of test than some controlled factory tests.

JG5_UnKle
01-04-2005, 02:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> So which one are you Copperhead? A Luftwhiner, or a X-Box gamer? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BUMPAGE! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

BBB_Hyperion
01-04-2005, 09:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/FW_DATA.jpg

When you need more detailed climbtimes say for which plane .) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In fact I am trying to find out data for 43 FW´s. I find very little about the A5 and NOTHING about A6. Think they are not very popular so not many citation on them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Will make some copys for A6 Data if available at archive next time . Will take some time tho.

A5 i saw there are already some charts posted on this site . A6 should be very similar except maybe 1 or 2 m/s lower climbrate thats maybe the reason why no one wants A6 Data .)

lrrp22
01-04-2005, 10:12 AM
faustnik,

No, the P-51 wasn't a great sustained climber, particualary at full fuel loads. However, neither was the Corsair. Both should climb pretty well at reduced fuel loads.

While a V-1650-3 P-51B and a WI-engined Corsair should have similar climb rates, the P-51B should be slightly superior at almost all altitudes. The claimed 750 to 1000 fpm advantage for the Corsair is exceedingly hard to believe. Was the Corsair climbing at ~4500 fpm, or was the Mustang climbing at ~2500 fpm? One of the two must be generally true if any of the numerous test data is to be believed- and I am referring to USAAF and RAF service tests, not just NAA testing.

Typically, this comparison report is lacking in specifics.


BTW, I don't believe for one minute that the Corsair rolled as well as the Fw 190, either.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
faustnik,

it does bear pointing out that the climb and acceleration conclusions of the Navy test are not supported by the hard test numbers associated with either the P-51 or F4U-1.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They are direct comparisons of production run aircraft (two P-51s were tested). Why would you doubt the Navy's tests? I have not seen any tests that show the P-51 as a great climber. Great at just about everything else but not sustained climb.

I realize some numbers might not match up exactly to factory tests, but, what better method of comparison is there than side-by-side flight? I would put more weight on this type of test than some controlled factory tests. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

faustnik
01-04-2005, 10:30 AM
Irp,

Why do you think the Navy test would be so far off then? Could the climb speeds have been too low? I figure the P-51 would climb best at high speeds like the Fw190.

I only point to this test as an indication of the relative climb ability of the Fw190. Just like the Farborough test, in a side-by-side comparison the Fw190 did very well.

In PF, a 190 (any version) attempting pull away from a Mustang in a sustained climb is dead meat. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

lrrp22
01-04-2005, 10:56 AM
faustnik,

I can't really explain the Navy's 750-1000 fpm claim. Climb speed and angle probably has something to do with it, but I think there is a certain degree of "Homerism" involved here, as well.

As for PF (online?), any Mustang you meet is likely to be at something less than 25% fuel. At that fuel state, even at 67" WEP, it's probably not a good idea to try and outclimb a Mustang in a 190.

Having said that, it does appear that the Mustang's sustained climb is a little too good for 100% fuel while many of the 190A's, particularly the A-9, seem to be undermodeled. I have suspected for awhile that AEP/PF's Mustang might be modeled with somewhat less than 85 gallons of fuel in the fuselage tank at 100%. This would be accurate for an operational example.

BTW, it's LRRP... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Irp,

Why do you think the Navy test would be so far off then? Could the climb speeds have been too low? I figure the P-51 would climb best at high speeds like the Fw190.

I only point to this test as an indication of the relative climb ability of the Fw190. Just like the Farborough test, in a side-by-side comparison the Fw190 did very well.

In PF, a 190 (any version) attempting pull away from a Mustang in a sustained climb is dead meat. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

faustnik
01-04-2005, 11:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:


BTW, it's LRRP... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Doh http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif sorry.

I also suspect that the 190 climb rate is relatively too low throughout the A-series.

Do you have performance charts for the P-51D Lrrp?

lrrp22
01-04-2005, 11:47 AM
I have the AHT charts for the P-51D. Both tests are for fully loaded D's (269 gallons internal) at 10,100 and 10,200 lbs, IIRC, and 67" hg combat power.

AHT includes charts for three seperate tests of the V-1650-3 equipped P-51B's, all of which show climb rates in the 3500 fpm at 10,000 ft range. Thanks to Neil Sterling, I also have a copy of an A&AEEE P-51B-1-NA\Mustang III test which shows a best climb of ~3650 fpm.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:


BTW, it's LRRP... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Doh http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif sorry.

I also suspect that the 190 climb rate is relatively too low throughout the A-series.

Do you have performance charts for the P-51D Lrrp? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

faustnik
01-04-2005, 11:56 AM
Yeah, I have AHT too. I would like to get the original test charts. I'm not 100% sure where the AHT charts come from.

What fuel is used with 67hg, I forget?

lrrp22
01-04-2005, 12:10 PM
100/130 grade. 67" is the most 'conservative' combat power setting.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Yeah, I have AHT too. I would like to get the original test charts. I'm not 100% sure where the AHT charts come from.

What fuel is used with 67hg, I forget? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

faustnik
01-04-2005, 12:17 PM
Got it, thanks. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

It gets confusing, USA used hg, UK used +pounds, and LW used ata. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

lrrp22
01-04-2005, 12:48 PM
...and the Japanese used mm of hg! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Got it, thanks. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

It gets confusing, USA used _hg_, UK used _+pounds_, and LW used _ata_. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hetzer_II
01-05-2005, 11:33 AM
bump

Hetzer_II
01-06-2005, 10:23 AM
Any news??

bump ;-)

E.J.Praecox
01-10-2005, 04:24 AM
bump

robban75
01-11-2005, 06:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hetzer_II:
Any news??

bump ;-) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No news...

Hetzer_II
01-11-2005, 01:04 PM
bump

JG5_UnKle
01-12-2005, 06:06 AM
Sorry for being thick but I couldn't tell from previous posts...

Are we talking Manual Prop Pitch or Auto http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Hetzer_II
01-12-2005, 06:30 AM
Historical speed numbers where flown with auto, so we should be talking about auto settings here.... Its sad enough sad blue planes cant use their advantages in cem...

Hetzer_II
01-13-2005, 10:21 AM
;-)

E.J.Praecox
01-15-2005, 05:30 PM
.

moksha
01-17-2005, 01:59 AM
^boing!^

KGr.HH-Sunburst
01-17-2005, 06:32 AM
Ding ****!!!

robban75
01-17-2005, 02:13 PM
Knock knock!

Hetzer_II
01-17-2005, 02:36 PM
bump

KGr.HH-Sunburst
01-18-2005, 08:23 AM
on top of it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BAG.LordDante
01-18-2005, 09:09 AM
Bumpdibump. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

GUARD4000
01-18-2005, 03:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
I have made some speedruns at altitudes ranging from 1000m to 5000m. And it seems like the topspeeds are off between 1000m and 3000m. I'm sure other Doraphiles have noticed this drop in performance while flying online, perhaps not being able to outpace other fighters that was possible to outpace before. And there might even be those who fly against the D-9 and been surprised that the D-9 has been unable to escape during high speed chases.

Below is a comparison between a real speed chart versus the current in-game performance.

Link to speedchart.

http://jagdhund.homestead.com/files/DoraData/horizontalgeschwindigkeiten.htm

Crimea map, full fuel, full armament and boost, radiator closed.

D-9 '44

Alt ---- RL --game
1000m - 639 - 619
2000m - 656 - 633
3000m - 667 - 647
4000m - 685 - 670
5000m - 702 - 704

D-9 '45

Alt ---- RL --game
1000m - 631 - 624
2000m - 650 - 617
3000m - 659 - 640
4000m - 675 - 674
5000m - 691 - 697

As you can see speeds are most accurate at high alt, whereas at low alt, speeds are mostly way off.

It would be really really great if this could be fixed. As you know, for the D-9, speed truly is life! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Thanks!

//Robert <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
OMG,DORA is a lot faster in RL than it is in the game?I mean in the game that thing is already really fast und almost uncatchable(the only thing that may catch Dora that the red guys now have is Mustang,and Dora have a much better acceleration and is a lot faster on the deck),its only disadvantages are the poor MG151/20s and the funny frontview,and i think both of them should be fixed. But if Dora get that fast as robban said(i think robban's speedchart may be true,but there are many materials around and Oleg has his too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif),then Dora is a lot faster than any prop A/C in the game(which i think maybe a truth in RL) and THAT will make a Dora a REAL UBER A/C(DORA will be totally uncatchable with that kind of speed and the super acceleration that it already has)and DORA WILL be banned by those famous servers like Warclouds(i dont think any red guys will accept THAT Dora before they get some late 44' A/Cs).
So does it make any sense? Dora get what it has in RL but cant be used online, and it is a pity that this beatiful,famous and deadly thing cant be seen on Warclouds.
I respect you Butcherbirds-lovers,but if you guys want get some changes to the Butcherbirds,you have to win other people's surport(you guys are a small group,so i dont think that Oleg will make any changes when these changes affect many other people.Anyway,if one of you buy the 1C,that will be a different story http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif).For example the post(MG151/20 SAGA) is a success,becaues it shows that almost anyone agrees that MG151/20 are undermodelled,so i believe it will be fixed. At least MG151/20 should be stronger than MG-FF.
In my opinion you guys should ask Oleg to fix this speed bug when the red guys get some late 44' A/C like spitfire XIV which i heard is UBER http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.By that time you may get a success because you may get some surpport.Right now you will get nothing or a banned A/C.
Salute to Butcherbirds-lovers.For me it is much harder to shoot down a 190 than to kill a 109.

robban75
01-19-2005, 02:40 AM
Oh I don't know. The La-7 can manage 646km/h at 2000m(which is realistic), and that thing can turn climb, reach higher topspeeds and accelerate much faster than the D-9 at most altitudes, and it's not banned.

I just tried the D-9 in 3.04m, and there's no change speedwise, it's still "slow", but it was somehow less easy to stall. Hmm.

Btw, if the P-51 and Spits get their 150 grade fuel, the D-9 will need all the speed it can get! The Mustang will go around 640km/h at SL with that super fuel and I seriously doubt it will get banned anywhere. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Hetzer_II
01-19-2005, 02:58 AM
There is no Space for balancing in a Sim...

VVS-Manuc
01-19-2005, 03:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hetzer_II:
There is no Space for balancing in a Sim... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

WOLFMondo
01-19-2005, 03:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:


Btw, if the P-51 and Spits get their 150 grade fuel, the D-9 will need all the speed it can get! The Mustang will go around 640km/h at SL with that super fuel and I seriously doubt it will get banned anywhere. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It will still be faster than a Spit at all altitudes with the 25lbs boosthttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Agreed though, the Dora needs to be fixed to its RL speeds.

Hetzer_II
01-19-2005, 09:07 AM
bumpibum

Von_Rat
01-19-2005, 12:32 PM
in the game itself maybe no balancing, but almost every server balances by not allowing me262.

lrrp22
01-19-2005, 12:50 PM
Probably not something you're going to have to worry about anytime soon... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:


Btw, if the P-51 and Spits get their 150 grade fuel... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

robban75
01-19-2005, 01:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Probably not something you're going to have to worry about anytime soon... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:


Btw, if the P-51 and Spits get their 150 grade fuel... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I guess you're right lrrp, It'd be nice option though. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

faustnik
01-19-2005, 01:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Probably not something you're going to have to worry about anytime soon... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Keep hoping for the Tempest in 3.05 lrrp. That will give the Allies their low altitude speed fix. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

robban75
01-19-2005, 01:25 PM
I just hope that the Tempest has a little more juice than what the IL2 compared shows.

faustnik
01-19-2005, 01:32 PM
That IL-2 Compare graph can't be correct. If it is, we will have a problem. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Hetzer_II
01-20-2005, 12:50 AM
No, we have a problem if im getting those pilot kills from dead 6 in the do335...

;-)

Hetzer_II
01-22-2005, 01:31 AM
bump

p1ngu666
01-22-2005, 01:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hetzer_II:
No, we have a problem if im getting those pilot kills from dead 6 in the do335...

;-) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

theres a part of me, that wants to get the biggest, badass ap fireing gun there is, and blast away at ya in do335 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

i have absolutly nothing against ya, i just think it would be funny http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Hetzer_II
01-22-2005, 02:42 AM
No problem.. try it ;-)

I wrote that after beeing killed in a h111 from a hurrican shooting from dead six when i was in bombing position.. shure 0.303 can shoot through a whole bomber.... And this happens also quiet often in other planes like there is no armour protection of the pilot...

p1ngu666
01-22-2005, 12:51 PM
ah yeah stuff like that sucks, but most bombers didnt have much armour at all, so a bullet and cannon could travel along fusealarge...

ive been on a b17, and its got a strong structure, but theres nothing to stop a bullet, really

Tvrdi
01-23-2005, 04:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GUARD4000:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
I have made some speedruns at altitudes ranging from 1000m to 5000m. And it seems like the topspeeds are off between 1000m and 3000m. I'm sure other Doraphiles have noticed this drop in performance while flying online, perhaps not being able to outpace other fighters that was possible to outpace before. And there might even be those who fly against the D-9 and been surprised that the D-9 has been unable to escape during high speed chases.

Below is a comparison between a real speed chart versus the current in-game performance.

Link to speedchart.

http://jagdhund.homestead.com/files/DoraData/horizontalgeschwindigkeiten.htm

Crimea map, full fuel, full armament and boost, radiator closed.

D-9 '44

Alt ---- RL --game
1000m - 639 - 619
2000m - 656 - 633
3000m - 667 - 647
4000m - 685 - 670
5000m - 702 - 704

D-9 '45

Alt ---- RL --game
1000m - 631 - 624
2000m - 650 - 617
3000m - 659 - 640
4000m - 675 - 674
5000m - 691 - 697

As you can see speeds are most accurate at high alt, whereas at low alt, speeds are mostly way off.

It would be really really great if this could be fixed. As you know, for the D-9, speed truly is life! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Thanks!

//Robert <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
OMG,DORA is a lot faster in RL than it is in the game?I mean in the game that thing is already really fast und almost uncatchable(the only thing that may catch Dora that the red guys now have is Mustang,and Dora have a much better acceleration and is a lot faster on the deck),its only disadvantages are the poor MG151/20s and the funny frontview,and i think both of them should be fixed. But if Dora get that fast as robban said(i think robban's speedchart may be true,but there are many materials around and Oleg has his too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif),then Dora is a lot faster than any prop A/C in the game(which i think maybe a truth in RL) and THAT will make a Dora a REAL UBER A/C(DORA will be totally uncatchable with that kind of speed and the super acceleration that it already has)and DORA WILL be banned by those famous servers like Warclouds(i dont think any red guys will accept THAT Dora before they get some late 44' A/Cs).
So does it make any sense? Dora get what it has in RL but cant be used online, and it is a pity that this beatiful,famous and deadly thing cant be seen on Warclouds.
I respect you Butcherbirds-lovers,but if you guys want get some changes to the Butcherbirds,you have to win other people's surport(you guys are a small group,so i dont think that Oleg will make any changes when these changes affect many other people.Anyway,if one of you buy the 1C,that will be a different story http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif).For example the post(MG151/20 SAGA) is a success,becaues it shows that almost anyone agrees that MG151/20 are undermodelled,so i believe it will be fixed. At least MG151/20 should be stronger than MG-FF.
In my opinion you guys should ask Oleg to fix this speed bug when the red guys get some late 44' A/C like spitfire XIV which i heard is UBER http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.By that time you may get a success because you may get some surpport.Right now you will get nothing or a banned A/C.
Salute to Butcherbirds-lovers.For me it is much harder to shoot down a 190 than to kill a 109. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

u forgot its a game...and 1C is satisfied when playability is on high level...those planes in the sim...all of them, theyr catchable arent they hehe? no fun if someone can escape like in RL....thats how they think.....but, right now this sim is way more realistic it was back then with the first release and they forgot we want realistic planes and we wont be angry if someone escapes from dog in p47 or Dora http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Hetzer_II
01-25-2005, 11:48 PM
bump

OldMan____
01-26-2005, 04:40 AM
But if you look to charts like the one in second page of this thread.. it states a sea level speed similar to the one D9 has in game.

Hetzer_II
01-28-2005, 09:36 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif