1. #1
    http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/t...761038533/p/13


    why was this thread ever locked?

    isnt this thread a perfect example of just what ORR is, or should REALLY be about?

    the P 38 is STILL porked...please fix it sometime in the next patch or 2, or 3, pretty please???
    Share this post

  2. #2
    LEBillfish's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    6,101
    Porked?....as in rinds, chops, or lewd activities? Or do you mean climb rates?.......

    If climb rates are off hope they can fix them
    Share this post

  3. #3
    You know, that IL2FB doesn't natively support 2-engined planes and we can be happy they implemented them at all? Not even DARING to speak about props rotating in opposite direction, etc.

    It's not a question of patches - you can't get much closer with the current engine.
    Share this post

  4. #4
    Share this post

  5. #5
    Xiolablu3's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    8,755
    Maybe becasue Oleg answered with reasons why people think the P38 climb is wrong. In his opinion it is correct :-

    http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/573...611010453#6611010453

    Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:

    For all.

    1) In USA used up to 3 types of calculations for standard athmosphere conditions. Using them in all cases will be different result and as more higher - more diffrent.

    2) In 99% US sources which method used is unknown.

    3) In trials say in Germany and UK for one the same aircraft used diferent calculations of the standard athmosphere. Its from where are different results.

    4) etc.

    5) It is known that in trials in SU and UK the declared manufacture performance of P-51B (in SU) and P-51D (in UK) wasn't confirmed.
    I think its probably due to different methods of measurements and using different methods for calcualtion of standard atmospheric conditions.
    I would ebven say that measurements for performace say P-39 and P-51 in US was different.... its why so different result in comparison with measurements in Russia for both aircraft.

    6) However Measurement for Bf109s in SU and Germany are identical for most of them...


    Think youself.
    3 different methods of testing were used in the US P38 climb tests, each one will have different results. Which method is used in each test is unknown, so he could never get it right with these tests.



    Result, it is not wrong in his opinion, it is correct , Case closed.
    Share this post

  6. #6
    Roger that Xi.
    But perhaps I'm not that good in reading between the lines. Because I don't see the point where Oleg said that our current P-38 is correct. He said that the issue is foggy as far as I can see it.

    Not only that, Oleg Maddox, in fact never said anything about P-38 specifically in that post.
    Share this post

  7. #7
    Xiolablu3's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    8,755
    I am not sure Kuna, I just found that in one of the threads. I really dont know much about the P38 myself.


    I THINK he said that he used Russian and German data which matches, rather than the US data which has lots of different results along with no standard conditions (meaning its unusable).

    I could be wrong tho.

    As the last sentence says 'Think yourself' , its hard to say what he means. (maybe some clever soul can tell us)

    It is apparantly already possible to exceed the real P38's climb rate in game, by not climbing at the real P38's best climb speed.
    Share this post

  8. #8
    Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
    You know, that IL2FB doesn't natively support 2-engined planes and we can be happy they implemented them at all? Not even DARING to speak about props rotating in opposite direction, etc
    You know, that the issue of the game engine not reproducing true torqueless flight from contra-props has absolutley NOTHING to do with climb rate? Not even DARING to speak about B(e) S(ure) compressability, stall speeds, and tail-boom DM bugs,too)
    Share this post

  9. #9
    Great, so now we regurgitate a P38 rant here cos we aren`t happy with the answer we got?
    Share this post

  10. #10
    Originally posted by Kuna_:
    Roger that Xi.
    But perhaps I'm not that good in reading between the lines. Because I don't see the point where Oleg said that our current P-38 is correct. He said that the issue is foggy as far as I can see it.

    Not only that, Oleg Maddox, in fact never said anything about P-38 specifically in that post.
    this may also shed more light on the situation:

    http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=F...ostorder=asc&start=0
    Share this post

Page 1 of 6 123 ... Last ►►