Every time I make a case to get Japanese planes improved on this Forum, I am told to take it to aike, as rgreat "has no contact" with him. However, every time I see aike log on to Warbirds, he tells me to take my case to rgreat, as "rgreat is responsible" for those matters. Isn't it convenient for FH to have a plan to stop any attempt to change the modeling in Warbirds, even if it is a righteous and majority-supported venture? It seems the FH process is like some medical loops. If a health problem is encountered a call is placed to the office. The office links your call over to a diagnosis clinic, which in turn patches your call back to the office. The tracks to prove the relative undermodeling of Japanese planes: ME-109F2 Take Off 10.22 Seconds A6M5a Turn 16.77 Seconds A6M5a Take Off 13.25 Seconds I-153 Turn 11.80 Seconds I-153 Take Off 10.67 Seconds KI-43 Turn 14.88 Seconds KI-43 Take Off 11.06 Seconds Spitfire 9 LF 360 Turn 15.37 Seconds Spitfire 9 LF Take Off 11.59 Seconds I remember the "good old days." ...The days when an A6M pilot did not have to worry about an F4U or a Spitfire turning on a dime and getting on an A6M's 6. Please no whining about this thread. I have heard enough whining about those who want to change planes that it almost makes those whiners hypocrites. This thread is intended to address a problem about FH bureaucracy and the modeling on Japanese planes. If this problem had been addressed when it should have been (long ago) we would have nothing to talk about here...
But didnt you know that the p39 could outperform the a6m in ALL ASPECTS? Im just shitting ya, jappenese planes have been butchered and neutereed and the reds know it. Just last night a red told me "early war golds get the uber planes" and I retorted with "you mean uber a6m" and simply put, he just said "no, a6m sucks but......" Reds know the a6m isnt a threat anymore, and its so sad that we not only lost japanese planes for their great qualities IRL, but now, for the sake of balance, we have lost the biggest majority of our planes that have the ability to make short rolls, take off, and defend a field. But the i153 sticks around untill what? 1943 something right? Plus the spitfire, p40, i16, f6f, f4u, and a few other red planes all have the ability to roll get their wheels of the ground, and go strait into tight turning combat. Not to mention the f6f and f4u have the ability to close a small field with just one plane, but that alot of the spitfire and american CV planes didnt have the best construction on securing the wings to the body, "gull wings just added to stability at speed" but they manage to pull intense g turns with dozens of 7mm, 12mm or even a mass of 20mm.......while about 1x20mm from d5 in a 2g turn rips the wing off a 190. Finally, to show the poorness in jap planes, or maybe just the overmodeling of red planes. Last night I flew a n1k2 from the CV to f13, I jumped a few planes, but other 30mm toting golds got the kills, finally I jumped a f6f and put about 18x20mm into him from d2......NOTHING! nothing flew off, no smoke, he just kept pulling in our 3g+ turn. Then a friend of his got on my 6 and blew of alot of my controls and got me leaking all 3 tanks with 16x12mm, I forced myself into the turn and put a grand total of 32x20mm into this f6f, half from d2, the other from d1.2, and the end result? He kept making the turn, but right before his friend finished me off, I saw his vator come off "MIND YOU HES STILL NOT EVEN SMOKING!" then I die, and 30 seconds later I guess that f6f met the ground........ridiculous.
Something I did notice was that the take-off time for the 109F-2 appears ludicrous. To be able to beat a bi-plane, or several other planes in that list, is strange to say the least. As to the topic at hand, no arguments from me. The zero is a pale shadow of what it should be (and used to be, even though it has been undermodelled for years). These days, it's a coffin with wings. Bureaucracy? I think most of us are used to it by now
The apocalypse is coming......glas agrees with us....EVERYONE BREAK OUT YOUR BIBLES! All we ask for is that jap planes get more than a shred of their old abilitys back.....for god sakes, the p40 rules the ki61- which is just sad to say the least. And the ki43 struggles with its flaps down at any speed just to tuck its tail so the spitfires cant blow it off....its a sad sad world.
Glas, the 109F-2 is most likely overmodeled. I am willing to support the "more realistic modeling" of gold planes because I often fly red (when ros demands it). It goes to show that the overmodeling is not completely one-sided. What I am concerned about is the modeling escalation between the 109/190 and the Spitfire/P-39. While those planes get a large amount of attention, other neglected planes stay the same or have their performances reduced. The result is self-evident: we all see that golds fly a homogeneous mixture of 109/190's while reds fly mostly Spitfires or P-39's. I liked the FH when one was able to compete in almost any plane. Now it is almost like a clash of the titans: 109/190 against Spitfire with only a few stubborn pilots flying other aircraft.
http://forum.wbfree.net/forums/showthread.php?t=25351 btw, the word "paradox" means the phenomenon that is ruled by laws, but contradicts with human expectations.
Phenomenon "modeling" laws "performance designated by admins" contradicts human expectations "modeling is entirely opposite what history dipicts shows, claims and is recognized as" sounds like a paradox to me.
Oh, by the way, the link to another thread is almost entirely irrelivant to the fact that the i15 takes 15x20mm to go down or that the ki61 is bested in a turn at any speed by a p39. That equation from my understanding just involves a principal based on an individual planes ability depending on fuel, not how fuel is the one source of all performance....Simply put, a shitty plane will continue to perform like crap even when fuel is low, just on a different level of shitty. While a good performing plane on full fuel "say spitfire" will only become better with less fuel. Now to put it in even more simplistic terms - Poor quality is poor quality regardless of a variable.
As additional information to confirm my statements, I did some offline tests this morning. The tests were done at 50% fuel with flaps if they helped turning and WEP if it helped. The tests were run at 5000 feet. Warbirds 2.77 (no FH) Spit 9e 360 Turn Sustained ~19 Seconds Ki-61 360 Turn Sustained ~16 Seconds A6M3 360 Turn Sustained ~ 14 Seconds Warbirds FH 1.63 Spit 9c and LF 360 Turn Sustained ~ 14 Seconds Ki-61-Ib 360 Turn Sustained ~ 17 Seconds A6M3 360 Turn Sustained ~ 14 Seconds These numbers are shocking! The Spitfire9 series can turn 5 seconds faster in 1.63 than in 2.77. The Ki-61 becomes slightly less nimble and for the most part the A6M3 stays the same. What does this mean? It means that the improvement of the Spitfire has made the modeling such that the Spitfire can now turn with an A6M with almost no risk. A 4 second improvement makes the Spitfire a better turner than the Ki-61 and right on par with the A6M. There is more to this, however. What if the Spitfire started with a speed advantage? (this is not a 'what if', it is always this way) With a speed advantage, the Spitfire would be able to out turn the A6M3. In addition, the Spitfire holds speed longer, further adding to the Spitfire's advantage. The A6M5a is a write-off as its sustained turn time is much higher than the Spitfire9's, making it incapable of winning a turn fight with a Spitfire9. In addition, the Spitfire holds speed longer, further adding to the Spitfire's advantage. So after testing the planes in question, it would seem that it is not so much that the Japanese planes are undermodeled (although they could use some work), but that the Spitfire is overmodeled in the region of turn performance at least. Again, the overmodeling is not one-sided, which is why I might post test data from the Me-109 F2. By the way exec, a paradox is something that seemingly cannot happen, yet it does happen. The example dictionary.com gives is the "standing is more tiring than walking." Another more common example of a paradox would be the act of traveling back in time and killing your granparents. Using circular logic, one can determine that such a thing cannot be done, but yet it happened. In the case of FH, one cannot get rgreat to work on flight models because it is aike's responsibility; when in actuality is is not aike's resonsibility because aike tells people to speak with rgreat on the matter... It is a paradox, or in other parlance "catch-22."
I wonder, Red Ant, when was one able to compete in almost any aircraft? What version of FH was that, like 1.43 or 1.50? In any case, it was a long time ago.
Japenese planes do need to be repaired, the only one worth anything is the ki61b. so fix the japanese....................and the p38 thank you
I ran tests on the Me-109 F-2 and the Spitfire Vb. In both tests I used full throttle with WEP and full flaps, as flaps helped in both tests. The tests were performed with the same amount of effort. Both tests were run at field 16 in the test arena at roughly the same altitude. Both planes had 50% fuel and had no extra weapons on board, all of the original ammunition on the planes was on board. The verdict I have reached based upon the results of these tests is that the Me-109 F-2 is overmodeled. A 109 F2 right now is able to defeat a Spitfire Vb in a turn fight if the pilot of the 109 gets his flaps down completely. A 109 F2 might even be capable of out turning a Spitfire Vb without getting his 109's flaps down all the way. 109 F2 Loaded Weight: 2750 kg (6063 lbs.) Spitfire Vb Loaded Weight: 3004 kg (6622 lbs.) 109 F2 Wing Area: 16.20 sq. m (174.4 sq. ft.) Spitfire Vb Wing Area: 22.5 sq. m (242 sq. ft.) 109 F2 Wing Loading: 170 kg/sq. m (34.8 lbs./sq. ft.) Spitfire Vb Wing Loading: 133.5 kg/sq. m (27.4 lbs./sq. ft.) 109 F2 Power Loading: 2.3 kg/hp (5.05 lbs./sq. ft.) Spitfire Vb Power Loading: 2.04 kg/hp (4.50 lbs./sq. ft.) The lower the wing loading, the better turner the aircraft is. The lower the power loading, the better the aircraft retains energy. I know there are other factors, but these two factors are the heavyweights when it comes to statistics that describle dogfighting ability. The Spitfire is the clear winner when it comes to these numbers. Granted the 109 F2 might be faster, but that ability stems from its higher wing loading. Higher wing loading means less turning ability. Design trade-offs work that way. The tracks below are the tracks which provide the evidence of this error in flight modeling.
if you are interested, rgreat minimised his presence in development team, working only as consultant. actual responsibilities are: -bw- (with help of rgreat): FE flight model, FE ammo load aike: SVR damage model, SVR game rules, SVR scoring paradox of "aike's flight model" is in your head only. i never noticed rgreat referred to aike in the questions of FM. irl performance data is usually given with full internal fuel. we did not met yet the reports on influence of fuel expenitures. however, we can give you indirect sample of dalniy (long range) versions of yak with the same aerodynamics. Stepanets, Yakovlev fighters of Great Patriotic War, 1992, ISBN 5-217-01192-0 Yak-9, two fuel tanks 440L = 320kg, flight weight 3050kg. Yak-9D, four fuel tanks 650L = 480kg, flight weight 3117kg: +164kg fuel over Yak-9 +12kg oil over Yak-9 +5kg oil tank... +16kg armour... +47kg console fuel tanks... speed is increased by 20-23km/h due to aerodynamical refinements after fuel exhaust down to Yak-9 weight, Yak-9D had no differeneces in performance and pilotage with Yak-9. Yak-9DD, eight fuel tanks 845L 630kg, flight weight 3387kg. some structural enforcements (e.g. chassis). pilotage is heavy, speed advantage over Tu-2 did not reached required level of 120-130% over bomber's. anyways, Yak-9DD was produced in 399 samples and found usage for some specific operations, like Frantic. however, we can consider Yak-9D and Yak-9 as Yak-9DD with less fuel. we have Yak-9 3050kg (320kg), 17s Yak-9D 3117kg (480kg), 20s Yak-9DD 3387kg (630kg), 26s due to very similar aerodynamics and the very same engine, we can remake table this way: Yak-9DD 630kg/3387kg, 100%fuel, 100%weight, 26s Yak-9DD 480kg/3117kg, 76%fuel, 92%weight, 20s Yak-9DD 320kg/3050kg, 50%fuel, 90%weight, 17s or Yak-9D 480kg/3117kg, 100%fuel, 100%weight, 20s Yak-9D 320kg/3050kg, 66%fuel, 97%weight, 17s now you can see the influence of fuel quantity to sustained turn time. and 50% of fuel gives 9seconds of advantage over 100%fuel in case of Yak-9DD, and 66%fuel gives 3s of advantage over 100%fuel in case of Yak-9D. so having 19s/100%fuel of Spitfire turn time, i consider 50%fuel/15.5s as expected result. _______________________ can you measure turn time of Zeke and Oscar under the same conditions which you tested spitfire and Bf? could it be 95%fuel, 50%fuel and 5%fuel? be sure, if you find any FM bug, it will be reported to -bw- and fixed. _______________________ http://www.britannica.com "Paradoxes typically arise from false assumptions, which then lead to inconsistencies between observed and expected behaviour."
I am almost certain that having anywhere from 5% to 100% fuel in both planes in a test is accurate. No matter what the percentage of fuel carried is, the ratio of weight gained is always the same. For example if Plane A has a tank capacity of 200 liters and Plane B has a capacity of 400 liters, Plane B will always have twice the extra weight from fuel when compard to Plane A (leaving out fuel consumption). So if Plane A gains one second of turn time for every 10% fuel while Plane B gains two seconds of turn time, the two planes should have very similar margins in turn times (the percentage changes only slightly). Isn't it fair to assume, then, that both planes will have roughly the same margin of turn performance at any fuel level as their extra weight follows a set ratio? Thank you for the interest exec. I will try to run the tests at the fuel levels described in your post but I am leaving town today and I will not return until next weekend. You can expect an update around that time.
np. since i ain't fighter, i'm not interested in. i'm just trying to move you from paradox way to more constructive discussion with -bw- or rgreat. Plane A is for example Yak-9, and plane B is for example Yak-9DD? Stepanets says that with the same absolute amount of fuel (for example 320), all planes, Yak-9, Yak-9D, Yak-9DD perform roughly equally. some corrections could consider weight of fuel tank construction itself, and aerodynamics improvement with later versions. so, speaking strictly, i mean substracting +47kg of tank weight of Yak-9D. Yak-9 320kgfuel, 17s Yak-9D 320kgfuel-47kgfuel+47kgtanks=273kgfuel will develop 17s/360° too, because Yak-9D 273kgfuel = Yak-9 320kgfuel. but actually i'm demonstrating you the influence of (fuel) weight to turn time. Yak-9D 273kgfuel gives 17s/360°. Yak-9D 480kgfuel gives 20s/360°. as for fairness, it's hard to say. any pilot can have time aside to burn his fuel out, or just take-off with 5%. some people in fh-staff believe that scrambling fighter with 5% is not realistic.
Seeing as how rgreat, bw, and aike never seem to reply "sometimes bw" or even communicate to a member of FH, I dont see any change will happen in the near future,and even if the development is taken up I would have to think its progress would be like the "2 weeks untill brewster buffalo availible"....
Allsop, fuck off. As far as possible. Seeing how you post without reading, this is the only thing I can tell you. FUCK OFF!!
Allsop, has it ever crossed your mind that the admins watch the forums and see what the general trend or feedback is on the changes they make? Rather than getting sucked into endless arguments and discussions with immature small minded highly opinionated individuals. Malino
