PDA

View Full Version : maddox 1c do you think these suggestions are ok



LeadSpitter_
05-24-2004, 04:22 AM
some non bias suggestions

Ever since you added the super snap roll ability the yaks 190s and ki84 are making the most unrealistic movement which is not jinking, a jink is a sharp quick left to right movement. In fb people stick yank making the stupidest looking moves, honestly im sure you seen them being done in the 190 ki84 and yaks and have done them yourself to avoid a enemy on your tail until the run out of ammo.

The things i think AEP 2.01 needs are

Longer visability and accuracy at distance .50 along with less dispurtion. And ability to use staggered convergence for .50cal as wep1 wep2 convergences. I know you tested it before and it was excellent i dont know why you took it away.

reduced snap roll rate in the 190 yak and ki84 and ability to catch stalls so easily.

reduced high speed elevator effect in the me262 and p51

Put compressibilty on all aircraft elevators depending on which craft from 650-750kmph, having to use combat flaps and trim to recover from steep bnz dives.

It makes no sense to just have them on a couple aircraft 109 la mig and a few others. I know the b239 p40 and p47 use to have it badly as well and we suffered for a long time with it. Now it seems the 109s are suffering now

Reduce the 109 g2 manueverability, the f2 and f4 should be able to out turn the g2.

bring 120-100 mix back to all US aircraft for below 3000m increased accelaration.


Cannon should be harder to hit targets at distance compaired to smg. In FB cannon is incredably easy to aim and accurate at farther distances

maybe add a higher sensativity filter level as the defualt 0 filter level to all aircraft to stop the arcadish looking stick stiring instant snap stall and razor sharp catch of snap stall.

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif

LeadSpitter_
05-24-2004, 04:22 AM
some non bias suggestions

Ever since you added the super snap roll ability the yaks 190s and ki84 are making the most unrealistic movement which is not jinking, a jink is a sharp quick left to right movement. In fb people stick yank making the stupidest looking moves, honestly im sure you seen them being done in the 190 ki84 and yaks and have done them yourself to avoid a enemy on your tail until the run out of ammo.

The things i think AEP 2.01 needs are

Longer visability and accuracy at distance .50 along with less dispurtion. And ability to use staggered convergence for .50cal as wep1 wep2 convergences. I know you tested it before and it was excellent i dont know why you took it away.

reduced snap roll rate in the 190 yak and ki84 and ability to catch stalls so easily.

reduced high speed elevator effect in the me262 and p51

Put compressibilty on all aircraft elevators depending on which craft from 650-750kmph, having to use combat flaps and trim to recover from steep bnz dives.

It makes no sense to just have them on a couple aircraft 109 la mig and a few others. I know the b239 p40 and p47 use to have it badly as well and we suffered for a long time with it. Now it seems the 109s are suffering now

Reduce the 109 g2 manueverability, the f2 and f4 should be able to out turn the g2.

bring 120-100 mix back to all US aircraft for below 3000m increased accelaration.


Cannon should be harder to hit targets at distance compaired to smg. In FB cannon is incredably easy to aim and accurate at farther distances

maybe add a higher sensativity filter level as the defualt 0 filter level to all aircraft to stop the arcadish looking stick stiring instant snap stall and razor sharp catch of snap stall.

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif

Kwiatos
05-24-2004, 07:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:

The things i think AEP 2.01 needs are

reduced snap roll rate in the 190 yak and ki84 and ability to catch stalls so easily.

reduced high speed elevator effect in the me262 and p51

Put compressibilty on all aircraft elevators depending on which craft from 650-750kmph, having to use combat flaps and trim to recover from steep bnz dives.

Reduce the 109 g2 manueverability, the f2 and f4 should be able to out turn the g2.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes i agree with these and few more:
- reduce slow speed turn rate and climb rate P-51 (in 1.2 FB P-51 FM was better )
- reduce climb rate Lagg3 43, P-40 E
- reduce roll rate and elevator response at high speed in Ki-84

LeadSpitter_
05-24-2004, 06:26 PM
Kwiatos the mustang was an excellent turn fighting aircraft downlow especially with out its wing tanks full.

The problem is all the germans are compairing 100 fuel tests to try to prove the mustang was a horable turning aircraft downlow. Which it was fully fueled and with drop tanks the mustangs always took off with for long missions

All 109s are able to outturn the mustang with 50-75 fuel when the mustang has 25 fuel in it, the 109s are just having compressibility issue at around 650kmph and thats where all the complaints are coming from.

The luftwhiners wont be happy until the 109 is moving like the ki84 im sorry to say. Right now the 190s a d ta152 and 109s are wrecking the us side with the 1 hit one kill fixed guns

I been flying the 109 and 190s mostly since the new patch and ill tell you i have no problems at all shooting down the new spit9 p51 p47 p39 and p38 and im able to turn inside them with the exception of two even in the g14 75 fuel.

The spitfire9 and p39 have alot better turn rate of course then any 109 but the mustang certainly does not.

The only problem i see is in the p39s turning ability low and high compaired to the 109s which is better then the spit and mustang but why all the complaints directed at the mustang only.

I think its because the k4 cant easily get 5-6 mustang kills anymore online

Before in the k4 you didnt even have to worry about .50 cal hitting you just it damaging your control cables but you could blow up a mustang in 3-6 108 shots


now the k4 can be shotdown in 2-3 short bursts from .50cal and now 1 mk108 will explode a mustang or rip a wing off, even mg131 can cripple all a mustangs cables in a short burst and take out the engine.

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif

crazyivan1970
05-24-2004, 08:41 PM
Sounds like you looking for game balance

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, 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.

MAstaKFC
05-24-2004, 09:20 PM
I don't play much of the German planes, but I can tell you, I think the Ki-84 roll rate is pretty unbelievable. Please fix for the sake of realism and balance!!

xTHRUDx
05-24-2004, 10:35 PM
i'd prefer real over balance

SodBuster43
05-24-2004, 10:46 PM
I think 1C maddox should contract replicas to be built of all the aircraft featured in IL-2 FB and extensive flight envelope testing by a qualified test pilot be performed to varify all flight models. Following this I think static gun and cannon testing be performed as well.

The last testing should be to shoot these replica aircraft with live ammo and inspect the damage for comparison to ingame damage modeling. Of course several replicas of each plane may be required to do this http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

ucanfly
05-24-2004, 11:32 PM
I have to say I really have to agree with most of what Leadspitter said on the first post. Some planes are performing unrealistically (for any prop plane) and that is all that he is trying to fix. YOu don't need charts and graphs to tell you that a real pilots brain would crushed with some of these excessive maneuvers. It is not for parity but realism that we argue, in that all planes should obey the laws of physics, not just some.
WE can go back to arguing charts and graphs once the obvious anomalies have been fixed.

Kwiatos
05-25-2004, 05:02 AM
Sry LeadSpitter but in my opinion P-51 at slow speed dogfight should be worse than BFs beacuse of his laminar profil wings, weight, no slots and worse roll rate. See what Mark Hanna said about comparing in dogfiht BF - Spit - P-51:

" So how does the aeroplane compare with other contemporary fighters ? First, let me say that all my comments are based on operation below 10,000 feet and at power settings not exceeding +12 (54") and 2700 rpm. I like it as an aeroplane, and with familiarity I think it will give most of the allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a close, hard turning, slow speed dog-fight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight, the roll rate and slow speed characteristics being much better. The Spitfire on the other hand is more of a problem for the '109 and I feel it is a superior close in fighter. Having said that the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot abilty would probably be the deciding factor. At higher speeds the P-51 is definitely superior, and provided the Mustang kept his energy up and refused to dogfight he would be relatively safe against the '109. Other factors affecting the '109 as a combat plane include the small cramped cockpit. This is quite a tiring working environment, although the view out (in flight) is better than you might expect; the profuseion of canopy struts is not particularly a problem."

http://www.bf109.com/frameset.html


I was in ILA Berlin AirShow 2004 and spoke with real pilot of Corsair and P-51. He said that P-51 wasn't good at slow speed his main adventage was speed and high speed handling, he said for example that Corsair was more manouverable than P-51.

Tetrapharmakoi
05-25-2004, 05:50 AM
Leadspitter , come with numbers , that's what the people you call Luftwhiners do , and that's why they help to improve the game .
Your statements are too subjective , and it sounds like US whining .
German weapons were A LOT more powerful than US planes , so it is normal that they easily down US planes (unlike Japanese planes) .
FW-190 roll rate was the fastest of the world for such a powerful fighter and was a notable asset of this plane vs US, RAF and VVS planes , in the game it is not really an advantage.
I think your propositions are made to make the planes performances equal and it is Definetely NOT what 1C has to do ,as in real life , they were NOT equal at all in performances, at least if they care of the realism of their Sim.

MAstaKFC
05-25-2004, 06:23 AM
What about the Ki-84 though? Do people here believe it needs to be toned down, roll rate wise?

Future-
05-25-2004, 06:40 AM
I have one suggestion too:

- increase the overall turnrate of gunners/turrets on planes again. In it's present state, the ai gunners are hardly capable of providing any useful defense. If requested, I can make a few screenshots and post them on this issue.

I'm not only asking on behalf of all ground-attackers/bombers, but also on behalf of some fighter pilots.
I occasionally enjoy flying a fighter myself - and I'm not all that good in it. Still, attacking a bomber is very easy for me, even if I just use a "stupid" dead 6 approach, and pass the target at medium speed on a parallel heading.

S!

- Future

Commanding Officer of the 530th Bomb Squad
380th Bomb Group 5th AF USAAF

http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p1083.jpg

Visit us at http://www.310thvfs.com , home of the 310th FS and the 380th BG

Diablo310th
05-25-2004, 06:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by xTHRUDx:
i'd prefer real over balance<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I totally agree THRUD.......give me realism not fake jsut to have balance.

http://img54.photobucket.com/albums/v166/310thDiablo/Diablos20Sig.jpg

LeadSpitter_
05-25-2004, 10:00 PM
balance? wtf im talking about realism.

All aircraft suffered from compressibility not just some.

Im looking for realism the p39 wasnt really able to out turn all 190s 109s and spitfires. I love flying them but comeon the float turning ability and climb rate of them.

The p39 was a ground attack aircraft noway a turn fighter like it is in fb. Im disapointed you people think thats called game balance.

Im love the mustang but theres noway the elevator was that responsive speaking to airshow pilots and fb prior 2.01. And reading many book, yes the p51d sustained higher speeds before compressibility then most wwii piston engined fighters but all aircraft suffered from it having to trim to ease stick pressure to pull out of the dives that does not happen at all in this game.

what i want to see fixed are dive speeds and compressibility added to all aircraft of course at different speeds

Initial roll rate to reverse roll rate slowed down

And accurate dive speed accelaration, all aircraft dive accelaration are within a seconds of each other only being able to outrun by passing the other aircrafts breakup speed.

Reduced ability to instantly catch flopping stalls, and snap rolls with razor sharp effectiveness. It does seem they did some work where before you would have to center the stick to get out of any stall now you have to use opposite rudder and nose down like you should.

Rudder is just doing tailslides then whipping back to the point you started from.

Also forward stick movememnt alot of the aircraft in fb can roll inverted and loop using forward stick pressure. but the gull wing which was suppost to have the best forward stick movement into dive doesnt?

To me these are the basic issues that need being worked on, especially when they are making PF with these issues still unresolved but oleg likes to pay attention to realism so maybe they will look into these issues or maybe theres nothing that can be done. If you call that looking for game balance you are sadly mistaken.

Airframe Overstressing but dont think it could be done with this engine as oleg said its a limitation, I think could be simulated like max dive speeds loosing control surfaces and wings and fuselage snaps. also the way damage modeling is it has all the breaking points modeled so i dont see how it cant be done. Maybe its just to much work which I understand and heard bob will have it modeled.

To me thats some basics of flight

let oleg comment on this and see what he says im sure he has more data and charts that i cannot get, i just have when the public can get from museums, some NACA records and other information from NARA.

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif

[This message was edited by LeadSpitter_ on Tue May 25 2004 at 09:13 PM.]

Giganoni
05-26-2004, 02:22 AM
Well, at least people aren't complaining about the DM for the Ki-84 anymore even though it was a tough plane. As for roll rate? Eh, I don't care..It was fast and manuverable, need to provide data on its roll rate for them to change it, "if" it is wrong.

As for cannons...here is the thing. For me, cannons are easier for me to use. Is it because the cannons are "overmodelled"? No. It is because I can see the tracer round of a cannon easier than a mg. Why? Because it is slower and I have an easier time seeing its trajectory and therefore correcting my aim. Which all leads to me hitting more often with cannon fire.

xanty
05-26-2004, 02:52 AM
Fly early **** planes... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://www.silence.plus.com/xanty/stuff/fb_sig.jpg

Oleg_Maddox
05-26-2004, 04:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Diablo310th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by xTHRUDx:
i'd prefer real over balance<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I totally agree THRUD.......give me realism not fake jsut to have balance.

http://img54.photobucket.com/albums/v166/310thDiablo/Diablos20Sig.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its what we really try to bring, but some don't agree and try to present some stories, that show countervise.... and really ask to make arcade balance...
You have different behavior and performance of each flyable aircrat. Now and in the past. FM gets more complex calculations from time to time, when you are able to buy new hardware (take it in account and read last words with attention).

Oleg_Maddox
05-26-2004, 05:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
balance? wtf im talking about realism.

All aircraft suffered from compressibility not just some.

Im looking for realism the p39 wasnt really able to out turn all 190s 109s and spitfires. I love flying them but comeon the float turning ability and climb rate of them.

The p39 was a ground attack aircraft noway a turn fighter like it is in fb. Im disapointed you people think thats called game balance.

Im love the mustang but theres noway the elevator was that responsive speaking to airshow pilots and fb prior 2.01. And reading many book, yes the p51d sustained higher speeds before compressibility then most wwii piston engined fighters but all aircraft suffered from it having to trim to ease stick pressure to pull out of the dives that does not happen at all in this game.

what i want to see fixed are dive speeds and compressibility added to all aircraft of course at different speeds

Initial roll rate to reverse roll rate slowed down

And accurate dive speed accelaration, all aircraft dive accelaration are within a seconds of each other only being able to outrun by passing the other aircrafts breakup speed.

Reduced ability to instantly catch flopping stalls, and snap rolls with razor sharp effectiveness. It does seem they did some work where before you would have to center the stick to get out of any stall now you have to use opposite rudder and nose down like you should.

Rudder is just doing tailslides then whipping back to the point you started from.

Also forward stick movememnt alot of the aircraft in fb can roll inverted and loop using forward stick pressure. but the gull wing which was suppost to have the best forward stick movement into dive doesnt?

To me these are the basic issues that need being worked on, especially when they are making PF with these issues still unresolved but oleg likes to pay attention to realism so maybe they will look into these issues or maybe theres nothing that can be done. If you call that looking for game balance you are sadly mistaken.

Airframe Overstressing but dont think it could be done with this engine as oleg said its a limitation, I think could be simulated like max dive speeds loosing control surfaces and wings and fuselage snaps. also the way damage modeling is it has all the breaking points modeled so i dont see how it cant be done. Maybe its just to much work which I understand and heard bob will have it modeled.

To me thats some basics of flight

let oleg comment on this and see what he says im sure he has more data and charts that i cannot get, i just have when the public can get from museums, some NACA records and other information from NARA.

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif

[This message was edited by LeadSpitter_ on Tue May 25 2004 at 09:13 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I think I need to say you that you are wrong in very many items you list.

compressibility - modelled.
P-39 can't outtern 190 or 109? You better look for actual tests (for example in so loved by many TsZAGI book, there is a table with turn rate of Cobra) and finally Pokryshkin, Rechkalov, etc http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
You have wrong knowledge about P-39 design. P-39 was designed as a fighter and cenral placement of engine was done especially that to get aircraft more maneuverable (that to minimize the moments of inertion - uidea to move the heavy engine in a center of gravity) and finally designers got it, even too much... Its why it was hard (or impossible for low level experience pilot) to recover this plane from a spin. It was kid's illness of P-39 that was step by step almost solved in P-63 (which had better turn rate than P-39 on higher speeds!).
P-39D (P-400 on Pacific) had 17-18 sec sustained turn rate at 1,000 m..... Just reworked N and Q had it a bit worse, but it was due to many positive factors, not just becasue of more weight...

etc.
etc,
etc,

And you should ask many real pilots what they think about what we model. Please ask especially these that were and are our beta testers for FM, there are many real pilots that fly now and even fly WII planes now.

Overstrassing... Ok it is modelled in AEP for the first time.. Sorry if you didn't find that. But many peole were noticed that their plane damages with recover from a dive..... and they didn't understand that it is critical overloading of airframe with up to 15 G in a peak (depends of aircraft). Of course it isn't the full modelling of overstressing or continues in time oversress for airframe. But something very important was done in AEP.... More will come in BoB in that area its why we now model so precise the internal construction of aircraft using manufacture blueprints and list of used materials...

As for too much work... here you are absolutely right. AEP for the current moment in my very personal opinion in code is one of the most complex program in the world. And fantastic - it works... Percentage ratio of bugs to amount of code is way less than in most other modern games... Even more less http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Sad that many players really don't understand it. And in niche of WWII sim I think we won from all... At least for the current moment. But we don't stay on one place and are not lazy. Instead we continue to support the 3 years old product and improve it from time to time working in parallel over two new products - Picific Fighters and BoB. Also some of my guys continue to help third party developers to make more and more even when they do it at home already... Trust me, we totally overloaded and there are not any ways to increase our team in two times currently that to make more and better... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

LEXX_Luthor
05-26-2004, 06:07 AM
Great work Oleg http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

FB most smooth working computer game I had since DOS Flaker 1.0 and DOS Master of Orion I.

...and FB the only Windows game I ever had that worked out of my CD box (last year, and with Trident motherboard video too!!).

---

Did Leadspitter just get The Smack Down? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif



__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

LeadSpitter_
05-26-2004, 06:22 AM
thanks for the great post and I am addicted to this game as you see by my posts.

What im saying is the lowspeed handling of the p39 compaired to the spitfire 109f and G and zero. I didnt mean to type 190 what i ment was the ki84.

I was hoping you would comment on the dive speed accelaration if you had a chance to and opposite roll rate and please tell me the many things im wrong about besides the p39 im all ears. And I look forward to PF and BOB. Btw I been flying since 16 and im 28 now. So since you gave me a smackdown heres a peoples elbow http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Also thanks for the new patch it has improved the game in many areas and is by far the best patch yet, so thanks for the hard work. I have noticed the explosion of the planes from high g manuevers or shedding wings but around 750kmph should the controls be almost locked up from stick pressure forcing the use of trim to use them. Theres no feeling of getting forced in the dive by compressibility/stick pressure exceeding you past the max speed where the aircraft shedds parts. we have almost full elevator use the will explode the plane from doing it now.

Full trim two hands on the stick to recover as most pilots say I just feel that adding more stick pressure at those high speeds would simulate being forced into an unrecoverable dive then the plane explodeing into nothing from a quick movement.

Is TsZAGI book in russian or english? And i just found information saying the p39 was used as high box cover for the russians as well as for ground attack.

Re the P-39: It was put into production before all the bugs were worked
out. And, yes, it certainly should have retained the turbo-supercharger it
was originally equipped with (which gave it a top speed of 390 mph at
20,000 ft when it was first flown in 1939, making it much faster than any
European fighter of that era). The P-63 was the aircraft the P-39 should
have been. The early versions of the P-39 were underpowered. The Q
version was actually quite good, performance-wise, but still suffered from
over-sensitive controls and the rearward movement of the center of gravity
once the nose ammo was expended. This made the plane susceptible to flat
spins. Experienced pilots could handle it. But most service pilots first
got their hands on a P-39 with less than 300 hours in their logbooks.
It was an easy plane to bail out of: merely jetison the door and roll
out. It was actually easier to bail out of that most other fighters.
That's not really saying very much. The chances of a successful bailout
averaged between one in four and one in two, regardless of aircraft type.
The chances of successful bailout varied based on the reason you had to
bail out, the attitude of the aircraft and its motion, and what the
altitude was. P-39s were notorious for killing their pilots because they
used an unreliable electric propeller that often ran wild. At altitude, no
problem. The pilot merely exited and floated to safety. But if it
happened at low altitude--and it seemed to happen most often when pilots
were practicing touch-and-goes in the landing pattern--the pilot usually
died. This was because the pilot tried to do something to bring the prop
under control, all the while losing altitude and airspeed. He often stayed
with the plane until it stalled and then it was too late. Veteran P-39
pilots got the hell out at the first sign of a runaway prop.

An interesting book on the P-39 in Soviet Air Force service is "Eagles East" by
Richard Lukas. Apparently, the Russians dumped the wing guns, which is what
the AAF boys in New Guinea did, in order to improve performance. The Russians
also dumped radio equipment for the same reason. And, apparently, they mostly
used the P-39 as a fighter. The Germans, also apparently, chose to fly most of
their missions at low and medium altitudes, putting the P-39 right at its prime
fighting height.

Within its altitude envelope the Bell was, yet again apparently, competitive
with the 109, so using it as a fighter made sense. Seventy-five percent of US
lend-lease fighters sent to the USSR were P-39s and P-63s, which the Soviets
specifically requested. So they must have liked them.

In New Guinea, the AAF did not like the P-39 because the Japanese bombers came
over at around 22,000 ft., sometimes higher, sometimes as low as 18,000 ft.,
but in any case well above the optimum fighting altitude of the P-39. The P-39
also had to climb over high mountain ranges, not fight over Iowa-like terrain.
And to reach the enemy it had to fly to the very limit of its fuel
capacity--sometimes, as it would prove, beyond it.

Also, at any altitude the
P-39 was not competitive as a fighter with the Ki-43 or Zero. And the 37mm was
useless against such agile fighters, leaving the P-39 to fight with only its
two cowl .50s.

I also wonder about pilot skill. The Soviets must have had a leavening of
Spanish Civil War veterans in their air units, while the AAF kids coming up
against veterans of the war in China and the Soviet border incident, were
pretty green.

The P-39 pilots who went to Guadalcanal were pure green peas. Their group, the
58th, had only been formed at the beginning of 1941. It didn't get any pilots
until that fall, kids fresh out of flying school. It had no veteran officers.
It was shipped overseas way understrength in Feb, 1942, to Australia, then sent
to New Caledonia. It's 40 pilots had 45 P-400s delivered to them, all neatly
packed in crates, but with no manuals or assembly equipment, and no ground
crews. The kids spend the next weeks unloading the planes, dragging them to
the airstrip, figuring out how to assemble them and doing that. Only then
could they, for the very first time, fly a P-39. About the time they had got
the planes put together, learned how to navigate the pattern with them and
land, they were sent to Guadalcanal, where the Japanese Navy's Zeros ate them
alive. Big surprise.

The USAAF needed fighters with range, and the P-39 simply didn't carry enough
fuel internally to be useful for much of the war.

Also, the old axiom has it that the bombers deterimine the altitude at which
fighters must fight. In the SWPA, the Japanese sent their bombers over
generally at between 18,000 and 22,000 ft., sometimes substantially higher.
While the P-39 could get that high, it took it a long time to do so, so the
opportunities for high altitude intercepts were few. Effectively, it was all
done by about 17,000 ft. It was at its best below about 12,000 ft. Considering
that the mountains in New Guinea rose to over 14,000 ft., and in the early days
of the conflict both sides were going back and forth over those mountains to
get at each other, the P-39 was at an instant disadvantage. Fortunately for
P-39 drivers, the Japanese bombers had a habit of dropping into a shallow
descent as they approached their objective, so they could increase speed and
so, presumably, reduce the risks associated with AAA and also complicate
fighter intercept, as well as increase accuracy by bombing at a lower altitude.

This practice, however, often put them and their escorts into prime 'Cobra
fighting space.

The Soviets fought over terrain much like that of Iowa, were based close to the
enemy, and the Germans chose to send their bombers over at medium and low
altitudes. So none of the factors that worked against the P-39 in New Guinea
were present on the Eastern Front.
Also worth noting. An RAF Duxford comparison test of a captured Me 109E and
P-39C showed the Bell outperforming the 109 in every category except rate of
climb when below 15,000 ft. The P-39 could easily out-turn the 109--it took
the 'Cobra less than 720 degrees to get on the tail of an Me that was planted
on its tail.

So the P-39 should have had no trouble dealing with the 109 at the altitudes
common in the East.
In the SWPA, however, the P-39 not only had to fight at altitudes above where
it was best, it had to contend with fighters that were much, much more
maneuverable than it was. P-39 squadrons routinely stripped off the wing guns
to get more performance, and some even ripped out the armor plating (which
weighed about 750 pounds) to get yet more performance, prefering to reduce
their susceptibility to battle damage (as the Japanese did) at the expense of
vulnerability to it.
That said, the P-39 was not a failure in New Guinea. The two groups equipped
with it--the 8th and 35th--performed quite effectively. The two squadrons of
the 8FG that relieved RAAF 75 Squadron at Port Moresby at the end of March,
1942, were the only fighter force available to stop the Japanese air onslaught. This they did, although at great cost.



http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif

[This message was edited by LeadSpitter_ on Wed May 26 2004 at 06:28 AM.]

Kwiatos
05-26-2004, 07:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Diablo310th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by xTHRUDx:
i'd prefer real over balance<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I totally agree THRUD.......give me realism not fake jsut to have balance.

http://img54.photobucket.com/albums/v166/310thDiablo/Diablos20Sig.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its what we really try to bring, but some don't agree and try to present some stories, that show countervise.... and really ask to make arcade balance...
You have different behavior and performance of each flyable aircrat. Now and in the past. FM gets more complex calculations from time to time, when you are able to buy new hardware (take it in account and read last words with attention).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice to see Oleg M. here again after long absent http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Im wonder you opinion about P-51 slow speed performance (expecially turn rate). Now in AEP P-51 handle good at slow speed and could stay in turn with BF's. As i remebmer in version 1.21 P-51 had much harder handling at low speed dogfight and had worse climb rate what in my opinion was more correct.

Other queston is about turn rate difference between Bf F-4 and G-2. IN FB still G-2 turn better than F-4. F-4 has better wing loading than G-2 and near the same powerloading so should turn better like in old IL2 Sturmovik (in data from FB Bf F-4 has 19 sec 360 turn and G-2 20 sec.)
Climb rate Bf F is also too weak. BF F-4 climb rate in FB is 17.5 m/s - should be about 21 m/s. IN FB Lagg 43 climb the same like F-4 to 5 km. Lagg should have near 900 m/min climb rate and Bf-4 1200 m/min.

Next question is about Spitfire MKV overheating. Is these correct that SPit stop overheat above 4km flying continously from deck at full power with BOST?

And about Ki-84 - its roll rate and elevator effectivity is correct expecially at high speed?

dadada1
05-26-2004, 07:33 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Great work Oleg http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

FB most smooth working computer game I had since DOS Flaker 1.0 and DOS Master of Orion _I_.

...and FB the _only_ Windows game I ever had that worked out of my CD box (last year, and with Trident motherboard video too!!).

---

Did Leadspitter just get _The Smack Down_? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif


Answer; Think he did, and not at all

LeadSpitter_
05-26-2004, 07:37 AM
the mustang with 25% fuel has no heavy wingload, the wing tanks are modeled as empty with 25 fuel which means better sustained turn rate.

Please ask your questions in another post since oleg replied here he will not respond if everyone keeps asking questions. In this thredd

BTW im wondering what you though of the photomanipulation of you luthier and avg burnin if you seen it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif

Kwiatos
05-26-2004, 07:40 AM
Im wonder Oleg opinion LeadSpitter i know yours and i know Mark Hanna too. And i dont know whay but i belive more Mark Hanna words than LeadSpitter opinion http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LeadSpitter_
05-26-2004, 07:50 AM
I have all marc hannas airshow flight videos and movies he was in that he piloted, you know he passed away right.

Im still a fan of marc hannas accomplishments and was sad when he passed away in the hispano 109. Of course anyone would listen to what marc had to say same with his father ray over what I have to say look at thier experience. Quit trolling in here kwiatos you have some brown stuff on your nose.

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif

Kwiatos
05-26-2004, 07:57 AM
But i don't have P-51 in my avatar http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Hoarmurath
05-26-2004, 09:23 AM
Oleg, your flightsim is indeed the best warbirds sim available today.

Its initial success was not only due to its stunning graphics, but also to the realism of the flight models.

I could only encourage you to continue the good job done, and not listen to those trying to obtain unrealistic performances only seen in hollywood movies.

The amount of actual whiners is nothing compared to the number of customers, and this is a clear indication that the vast majority of AEP gamers are confident in the quality of the job done, and in the quality in the job to be done as well.

You have always proved to be listening to people pointing at what they thought were mistakes in the sim, and always used this feedback to improve the sim, when you found they were right. But you also proved to stand on your point of view when you thought they were wrong, and i hope you will keep this way of working on your current and future products.

Don't give up in regard of any whining if you are convinced you are right, as the majority of your customers are behind you, even if they are not speaking as loudly as the few whiners around.

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/)

starfighter1
05-27-2004, 04:32 AM
re:
http://www.microcockpit.com/

starfighter1
05-27-2004, 04:43 AM
re,
the interface as an Option/update to Home Cockpit Builders..

[QUOTE]Originally posted by starfighter1:
re:
http://www.microcockpit.com/

http://www.eichhorn.ws/assets/images/thunderbird.gif

starfighter1
05-27-2004, 04:47 AM
re the link:http://www.simpits.org/


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
re,
the interface as an Option/update to Home Cockpit Builders..

[QUOTE]Originally posted by starfighter1:
re:
http://www.microcockpit.com/

http://www.eichhorn.ws/assets/images/thunderbird.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.eichhorn.ws/assets/images/thunderbird.gif

IIJG11_Spreckels
06-30-2004, 06:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
thanks for the great post and I am addicted to this game as you see by my posts.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LeadSpitter - almost 4400 posts since May 2003!! When do have time to play the game? I think you are addicted to the forum, not the game. Go play the game - sheeeeeeesh http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif