Still not convinced with 4.10 Seafire FM.

[SEE]

I see, , dumbass me! As in IL NT Tracks but where can I upload them for the experts to look at or do you mean using something like FRAPPS?

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by SEE

I see, , dumbass me! As in IL NT Tracks but where can I upload them for the experts to look at or do you mean using something like FRAPPS?

Any webspace will do. Record a NTRK file and then upload it wherever you have space. If you have a Hotmail account you have space (30GB of it actually). Or Rapidshare or whatever

RE: Your previous comment the energy fighting style doesn't require reaction times any quicker than turn fighting. In fact I've shrugged off turn fighting as it's too twitchy and I'm finding that I'm not reacting as fast as I used to. Also it's not as survivable... energy fighting is by far the best way to go unless the plane you fly prohibits it. The Spitfire is pretty good both ways but against the Zero and Oscar energy fight is the only way to go.

Reaction time isn't as important as precise and well calculated deflection shooting. My suggestion is to setup the QMB with a dozen C-47 transports and practice shooting them. The rule is that you have to be diving from a superior altitude or attacking from an angle. No sitting behind and chewing them up. You will positively suck at first but then you will get better. The C-47 is perfect because it's big, slow and the AI usually flies a straight line.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by SEE

I see, , dumbass me! As in IL NT Tracks but where can I upload them for the experts to look at or do you mean using something like FRAPPS?

The raw track file would be better in that one could than use one of the many DeviceLink utilities to ouput/log the flight data (altitude, IAS speed, engine temp, elevator deflection, throttle setting, etc) to a file.. Than we can not only see your test but your corsponding inputs and the planes outputs

[Former_Older]

I'd be curious to read the definition of "maneuverable" as defined by people in this thread.

Not a condemnation, just wondering if we are all talking about the same thing.

[SEE]

I don't think anyone has defined it as such but an interesting question that I would have to really think hard about before attempting to answer. At the most basic defintion I suppose 'how easy (or the reluctance) to move into various or different positions'. Pretty sure there may be very different interpretations from flying enthusiasts, particularly from an 'acrobatic' perspective which combines pilot skill with 'maneouverabilty'.

I have recorded a few track files so will find a webspace and get them uploaded asap.

[ElAurens]

SEE, don't take the descriptions in the aircraft viewer as the gospel truth.

The F4F was the tightest turning aircraft fielded in numbers by the United States in WW2, closely followed by the P40, which was far and away the most maneuverable aircraft fielded by the USAAF in WW2.

Yet both aircraft get a bad rap as being poor in maneuverability by "historians" that only compare them to the A6M or the Ki-43. Remember that a real life P40 will out turn a Spitfire below 15,000 ft, and out roll it at any altitude or speed, but neither of these planes can out turn a Zeke or Oscar at low dogfight speeds. It would take a biplane to do that, or an earlier Japanese monoplane fighter. (Ki-27 or A5M)

Fighting Japanese aircraft is all about keeping your speed up, which is how the Flying Tigers were so successful against the Ki-27 and Ki-43 over China, and how the Spits beat the Zekes in the Pacific, and why the F4F was replaced with the F6F and Corsair.

Speed is life.

[JtD]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

... Remember that a real life P40 will out turn a Spitfire below 15,000 ft, and out roll it at any altitude or speed ...

Both statements are contradicting real life data. Please link references to support them.

[SEE]

Here are two Tracks from last nights session in my Seafire Pacific Dgen camapaign. Rather than being offered on a 'test' basis I prefer to think of them as - ' has the poster listened to any of the advice given to him?'...............I hope so but feel free to say otherwise and I appreciate that AI are not anywhere near the same as MP !

The first track is pretty mundane as the enemy seem to be focussed on the Ground Attack F4's. Towards the end, I found difficulty matching the climb/speed of a fighter attacking the F4's and was pretty much flat out.

The second track I found my self simply trying to survive.

http://www.fileswap.com/dl/xH4TzZDN/...Gen1.ntrk.html

http://www.fileswap.com/dl/y08fLwp9/...Gen2.ntrk.html

[ElAurens]

Originally Posted by JtD

Both statements are contradicting real life data. Please link references to support them.

Please do so for your statement.

Also the Hawk 75 could do the same.

The Hawk 75, 81 and 87 could out roll any British fighter. Only the FW 190 was faster in the roll. Of course the P47 was better at high altitude, but the Hawks could not get there anyway.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Former_Older

I'd be curious to read the definition of "maneuverable" as defined by people in this thread.

Not a condemnation, just wondering if we are all talking about the same thing.

You have touched on the MAIN problem with ALL comments on flight model accuracy

Some folks comments are based on what they read in a book, be it historic or comic
Some folks comments are based on what they saw on TV, be it documentary or Hollywood
Some folks comments are based on what they have heard over the years and is now a miss mashed jumble of info that has no origin

Which is why I always stick with the number.. They may not be perfect, nothing is, but they are a lot closer to the truth than anything someone read in a book or saw in a movie or heard some where

And by numbers I mean real world test documents that were performed by test flight engineers and test pilots

Anything less than that is just opinion and nifty stories