How see the current FH veteran WB pilot... something to muse.

I find it alright.
When it tumbles, I deserve it. If I am careful pulling my stick, it is a lovely bird.
I look at it and can see the yaw instability without even looking at numbers. It is pretty obvious just looking at that little bird that a sideslip could get you killed.

 

a different view point.....I kinda like the variations that the damage models gives. ....from a lucky one round pilot kill to emptying all your ammo into a plane that still makes it back to base.
Once a round contacts with a plane surface there is no real telling what it may do...even a vital area.....the damage model gives a good flavour (imho).

 

i'll agree with you to a point oxosss, but when i put 26 20mm rounds into any plane, I expect him to be somewhat damaged

 

oh ya.. I should stop repeating all babbles I hear

 

Verical stabilizer or rudder in 109s was not trimmable which made 109 very hard to keep from slipping at speed. Your left leg would tire if you put constant push on left rudder which was only way to keep plane going straight.

Hstab element was trimmable in all 109 models afaik. It was very good feature since it wasnt dependant of control forces and could be trimmed at any speed unlike elevator controls via control stick.

190 didn't need cockpit operable vstab/rudder trim since it was well balanced through its flight envelope. Elevator trim (or hstab trim im not sure which) was electrically operated.

[edit] Sorry, i didn't realize you were talking about a6m. As you can see I know much nothing about it.

 

IMHO I-16 has one of best FMs in FH.

 

Here is my impression of FH.

Physics modeling is simplistic.

Theres no tendency to roll out from bank without control input which IRL happens on some planes more than others (due to gravity and wing profile). (Well modeled in FB). In contrast to FB torque is better modeled in FH where you cant hang from your prop on full power without rolling. (In FB torque seems to have no effect at no lift evironment.) Mach effects are modeled bad in FH. Altitude doesnt affect compression. Its only dependant of IAS in FH.


FMs performance wise are one of best in any sims, maybe only better is Aces High.

All planes are plagued by bad roll response. Otherwise most of planes have performance very close to real life.

Exceptions are IHMO:
Tempest speed. (much too low)
Li-2 climbrate.
190 sustained turnrate. (2-4secs too high)
P-39 stall charachteristics. (its one of easiest planes to recover from stall, and has great control at low speed. i don't think this matches what i've read.)


DM is simplistic with some annoying errors

Spits taking 20x20mm MG-FF/M rounds.
P-39s taking up to 30x20mm MG/FF/M rounds.
FxF taking up to 1500x7.9mm

I think MG-FF/M should have velocity of 690m/s(mine rounds) instead of 590m/s(AP rounds).

I think MG-FF/M should have same stopping power as MG151/20 when hit.

A6M 20mm cannon should be investicated. I don't believe it was so inefficient.

Holes in wings or fuselage should affect flight capabilities. Lower speed due to ruined aerodynamics and possibly add some sideslip. Holes in control sufaces should reduce control effects.



I dream if FH had DM like FB and equal physics modeling (including that stupid roll inertia). mmm..


Im quite happy about arena. Ofcourse sticking with big med and giving economy highest importance would atleast triple my flying time.

all are just my opinions. so useless to flame it.

 

i've got same dreams...

 

@Illo,

I read in one book (cant remember which because it was in a book store and it was too expensive for me but i was drueling for about half an hour when i saw tables and charts of WW2 guns ballistics) that MGFFM was less powerfull than MG151 and with less muzzle vel. However I agree with you that it should be more effective than it is currently on FH. Also Jap guns should be more effective since they are MGFFs copies.

As for FxFs taking 1500 7,9mms IMHO it is realistic, from what I read, Zeros were emptying their whole 7mm ammo into F4Fs from 200-150 yrds with no visible damage...
What I am concerned about is that P40s should also have similar (little less) durability, but in FH P40s have a very sensitive rear fuselage and tails, not to mention CFUEL that lights up ussually from 2x20mm. OK if you hit it directly with 20mm it should light up, but in FH it happens almost all the time, which makes me think that CFUEL dmg area is a bit too large.

If developers could tell us what alterations they did to several dmg models in FH 1.42 i hope it would prove my doubts.
Before 1.42 I also flew P40s and I died in them from much more various hits and damages...
Now, I cant remember last time i had an oil leak, fuel leak (without fire), wing blown off...
I die in P40 only after:
1. CFUEL fire
2. HSTAB or VSTAB damage or whole rear fuselage comes off (like spitfire tends to)

 

@ devill


http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

check this.. of course mg FF had worse ballistics because of lower muzzle velocity and so on, it has worse penetration ... but its power (as well as power of shells to mg151) was in explosion.. and that should be similar...

so.. dispersion, RoF, chance to hit... imho ok
destructive ability of hit... imho undermodeled

well I beleive that that happened.. I saw a pic of F6F5 -- there were more holes than left skin! however.. this was not the rule
vis S. Sakai... he described the fight with F4F over guadalcanal- he managed eventually to get onto wildcats six and from close D he shot several hundreds rounds into it (he says it could be 200 hits)... F4F was still flying to S amazement. however rudder and elevator were ripped off and pilots was wounded.. F4F went into zoom.. One ping from cannons into engine finished it

as for the story telling something else

---------------------------------

but.. imho no use to talk about DMG models of planes.. all are not accurate

 

@Manoce,

well thats the problem of FH dmg model; you either have or dont have control surfaces... nothing in between...