109 advice needed (climb)

[drewpee]

After flying mostly 109s I have found on-line Reds have improved their tactics. Most of my loses have been due to pilot error and loosing track of EA in attempt to retain E. Most of my kills are from surprise 6 o'clock attacks.( It's getting harder to make a living in the Luftwaffe.)

I'm now trying to fly red when teams are uneven and I've had to go back to basics. My kill rate is way down, but I seem to be surviving more. Looking after the AC and E. If the flight model changes for better or worse ,I will have come out with better skills.

The fact that as a sim COD is still just a game. With allot of people if they can't rule the sky and rack up kills like in SP then blame the game/plane. Thing is, this game is less forgiving to those of us who refuse to adapt and learn. You are only going to get frustrated and angry at the game and others.
I'm still learning after too many years playing and that's just the way I like it. I'll leave the easy win games for my kids.

LONG LIVE COD

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by drewpee

After flying mostly 109s I have found on-line Reds have improved their tactics. Most of my loses have been due to pilot error and loosing track of EA in attempt to retain E. Most of my kills are from surprise 6 o'clock attacks.( It's getting harder to make a living in the Luftwaffe.)

Funny.. but while reading this I was struck with how much it sounded like an actual WWII account.. Which to me says the FMs are not as bad as some would have us belive! Long story short, you fly it like it is real and chances are you will get a real feeling experience! Fly it like it is a game where you are not worried about dying, thus you jump into a fight that a real pilot would not, and chances are you will NOT get a real feeling experience!

Originally Posted by drewpee

The fact that as a sim COD is still just a game. With allot of people if they can't rule the sky and rack up kills like in SP then blame the game/plane.

Bingo!

As my sig suggest! Most sim pilots are missing one key component in their personality that real WWII pilots had in spades.. The ability to look in the mirror and realize the source of the mistake!

Originally Posted by drewpee

Thing is, this game is less forgiving to those of us who refuse to adapt and learn. You are only going to get frustrated and angry at the game and others.
I'm still learning after too many years playing and that's just the way I like it. I'll leave the easy win games for my kids

Agreed 100%

[drewpee]

If it was more like RL, at 46 years of age I'd be lucky to be making Tea in the offices mess.

[AKA_Tenn]

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

A 6DOF flight model is a physics model!! Calculated on the fly (pun intended) in real time


Nope! 6DOF flight models have been in use on PCs for some years now.. First I know of was PACIFIC AIR WAR 1942 by Microprose.. Back than it used fixed point math, but it was a 6DOF FM. As you noted, the modern CPUs have no problem what so ever running a floating point 6DOF FM. Prior to that PC flight models were, what was commonly known as TABLE BASED (read lookup) flight models that had very little physics to them (SWOTL, RB, AOTP, AOE, etc)

if thats's the case why do people complain about flight models here? seems to me these guys just need to learn their plane instead of insist everything bends to their will...

[ElAurens]

At this point in my CLOD learning curve I consider it a successful sortie if I return to base and land safely, even if I never see the enemy. As this is pretty much what most real pilots felt, something must be fairly good with this sim.



Not that I have not made a few kills, I have, but because I fly a Hurri pretty much exclusively, most are against bombers. Again fairly consistent with history. Once again the sim delivers.

Now if we could just get the Spit jocks to stop flying over to France for rhubarbs and give the Hurris top cover like they should...

Oh, wait, now I'm dreaming...

[CaptainDoggles]

Guys the flight models are an approximation. Even the best gaming PC money can buy could not model the exact equations behind flight fast enough to run at playable speeds.

[AKA_Tenn]

yea see for me, i don't care about the flight model all that much as long as its not a rubber-band sim like aces high or fsx... where ur plane feels like its suspended between two rubber bands...

but it would be nice to have the actual plane itself and all its parts be modeled physically instead of just visually

guess its too unrealistic to ask someone to model just all of one materials attributes into a physics engine, never mind hundreds that would be in a airplane

one day... before i die hopefully... someone will make a general purpose physics engine that models every element on the periodic table, then we can all build our own 109s for free

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by AKA_Tenn

if thats's the case why do people complain about flight models here? seems to me these guys just need to learn their plane instead of insist everything bends to their will...

There is a lot of truth in that

The problem is typically two fold, one the sim pilot does not know what the value should be, and two they preformed the test wrong. Which is why it is so important to record a track file of any so called 'test'

Which is not to say there can not be an error in the FM! Just that typically it is in the sim pilot!

The FM, like any program, follows the rule of garbage in garbage out

With that said know that the 'math' of the FM is the same for all planes (subtle differences for say single vs. twin, etc). What makes a P51 fly like a P51 is when the P51 parameters are used as inputs to the FM. For a simple example say the 'math' of the FM was as follows

y = CL*x

Where

y is the output (result)
x is the input
CD is the 'drag' parameter (coefficient)

Say

x = 3
CD = 5 for a P51
CD = 5.5 for a Bf109

Than the output y would be for the given x input

y = 15 for a P51
y = 16.5 for a Bf109

Lets assume that the value of CD is not 'known' for the WWII plane we want to simulate.. In such a case you could just pick a value of CD based on other know values of similar planes (happens a lot in RL) or maybe they calculate it offline using another another program (say simulated wind tunnel) that uses some 3D model to calculate CD

In either case, a sanity check of the value you pick can be check by comparing some of the simulation results to real world results.. In this case say top speed.

Problem with most sim pilots is they don't even know what value they should obtain during a test! Let alone able to record 'all' the values that can affect your speed. For example, to test for top speed you have to be able to hold your alt within around +/-100ft.. Most sim pilots 'think' they can do this no problem.. I can tell you how many sim pilots were amazed at how much the alt varied during their flight! Which I was able to show them by using DeviceLink to record the values of altitude and speed and plot them.. And sure enough.. Most of the guys who said the plane was too fast, where actually loosing alt (shallow dive) when the obtained that max speed, and visa versa, sure enough the guys who said the plane was too slow, where actually gaining alt (shallow climb( when the obtained that max speed.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

Guys the flight models are an approximation. Even the best gaming PC money can buy could not model the exact equations behind flight fast enough to run at playable speeds.

Actully PCs have been capable of calculating a 6DOF FM in real time for some time now.. As noted the first that advertised a 6DOF FM was PAW 1942 by Microprose back.. Gezzz.. I want to say 15 years ago?

[ATAG_Doc]

That's a lot of info Ace.