4.11 F4U Performance

[sawyer692]

Any chance we could get the posts from the debugging thread moved over here??

[Sprsailor]

My squad flies carrier based USN planes almost exclusively on a regular basis. Many people would say that the F4U and F6F have always been under modeled in IL2, and many people would argue the opposite.

Regardless of anyone's opinions, the models up to 4.101 have been acceptable, with very few (if any) major problems or arguments from either point of view.

Here is my observation from testing both the F4U and the F6F in game. These tests were not for numbers or data. I was just flying the planes as I normally would in training missions that I am completely familiar with and fly on a regular basis. I wanted to test the "feel" of the new models.

I flew the F4U and the F6F both in Pacific Islands dog fight training missions that I fly on a regular basis. There were noticeable differences in speed and maneuverability, but those can no doubt be compensated for with more training.

The biggest single problem I had was engine overheating. It was a serious problem in the F6F. The engine literally overheated within seconds of engaging 2 zeros. Maneuvering was not a problem, but the zeros just walked away from the hellcat due to engine overheating. Impossible to dogfight with 50% throttle and radiator full open.

I had the same overheat problem with the F4U. It wasn't as bad. It did not overheat as fast, but it was still enough of a problem that it was impossible to engage the enemy for more than a few seconds, and of course there is no way to outrun them while cooling your engine.

These posts are not intended to insult or take away from anything TD has done with the 4.11 patch. Once the few bugs are worked out, most of it adds significantly to the experience, and everyone is very supportive and appreciative of the long hours of hard work put into it.

Rather than arguing about performance data and who's right and who's wrong, couldn't there be a compromise and just return the USN planes to 4.101? Most of the patch involves AI actions, 6dof, and adding new flyable aircraft anyway. Why change performance on just a few Navy planes, that only affect a few squadrons?

[F19_Klunk]

Originally Posted by Sprsailor

Rather than arguing about performance data and who's right and who's wrong, couldn't there be a compromise and just return the USN planes to 4.101? Most of the patch involves AI actions, 6dof, and adding new flyable aircraft anyway. Why change performance on just a few Navy planes, that only affect a few squadrons?

What kind of an argument is that? Sorry for beeing rude but do you actually think that you are the only ones that fly these planes? This affect ALL IL2 gamers and not only "pilots" who fly them exclusively. I fly each and every plane in IL2 depending on what server I fly on, what mission, what side has the overhand in numbers etc.
We are all anxious to have planes and FM/DM as close to reality as possible and TD has made it quite clear that they will listen and discuss the issue, but please.. use relevant arguments.... and a compromise is not by defintion when one side gets exactly what they want ( my mrs would of course disagree with that )

[sawyer692]

Originally Posted by F19_Klunk

What kind of an argument is that? Sorry for beeing rude but do you actually think that you are the only ones that fly these planes? This affect ALL IL2 gamers and not only "pilots" who fly them exclusively. I fly each and every plane in IL2 depending on what server I fly on, what mission, what side has the overhand in numbers etc.
We are all anxious to have planes and FM/DM as close to reality as possible and TD has made it quite clear that they will listen and discuss the issue, but please.. use relevant arguments.

That sounds like a very relevent argument to me. This guy obviously flys the hell out of the those planes and notices the same shortcomings I have mentioned in the other thread.

Those planes could leap off the carriers in real life. Now they struggle and with any heavy ordinance they just won't do it.

And I'm sure people do fly the Corsair and Hellcat quite a bit but the Navy squads fly them exclusively and will suffer the most from this change. Besides, these planes were not king of skys to begin with.

Do some testing, mainly off carriers, and I think you'll see a huge difference.

[Sprsailor]

Originally Posted by F19_Klunk

What kind of an argument is that? Sorry for beeing rude but do you actually think that you are the only ones that fly these planes? This affect ALL IL2 gamers and not only "pilots" who fly them exclusively. I fly each and every plane in IL2 depending on what server I fly on, what mission, what side has the overhand in numbers etc.
We are all anxious to have planes and FM/DM as close to reality as possible and TD has made it quite clear that they will listen and discuss the issue, but please.. use relevant arguments.... and a compromise is not by defintion when one side gets exactly what they want ( my mrs would of course disagree with that )

Look dude, I don't mean to be rude either, but it is obvious to me that you guys have no interest in listening to any negative feedback. Almost every response from you guys has been arrogant and condescending. When you are presented with real world data, you ignore it in favor of what you did in game "at sea level mid-morning in the Crimea.", or else you make pompous statements without providing one shred of real world data to back it up.

I didn't ask for the Navy planes to be 100% realistic. That really would be unfair. All I asked is could they be changed back to 4.101, which is still under powered and under modeled. Can't see how that is "one side getting exactly what it wants."

[F19_Klunk]

I asked for relevant arguments...that's all. Many guys have come up with loads in hard facts which is swell..you can't say that you presented "real world dara".. you just went by I qoute ""feel" of the new models and comparison how the FM was in 4.101. That does not say much about real performance.

Regarding people having hard time to take off... I have always suspected that the carriers have the wrong dimensions e.g too small, maybe as much as 10-15%... this could be a reason to the difficulties if correct

compare Enterprise CV6







couldn't find a picture on carriers from the game but think and compare yourselves

[sawyer692]

Originally Posted by F19_Klunk

I asked for relevant arguments...that's all. Many guys have come up with loads in hard facts which is swell..you can't say that you presented "real world dara".. you just went by I qoute ""feel" of the new models and comparison how the FM was in 4.101. That does not say much about real performance.

Regarding people having hard time to take off... I have always suspected that the carriers have the wrong dimensions e.g too small, maybe as much as 10-15%... this could be a reason to the difficulties if correct

couldn't find a picture on Enterprise from the game but think and compare yourselves

I feel relevent arguments have been made. Take a look at the video in post #17. That guy took off from midship with at least a drop tank. Granted we won't know the carrier's speed or his fuel load but, that take off can not be repicated in the game. That is a real world relevent argument. Set up the scenario and try it (btw the top speed of the Saratoga/Lexington was 33.25 knots).

Additionally, a Zero could never pull away from a corsair or a Hellcat. That's common knowledge.

My hope is this will be fixed and the "fun factor" of these planes restored.

The idea of the carriers not being modeled at a realistic length is a valid point that may need to be explored....

Another relevent argument: Thursday night, my squad ran a campaign with 12 Corsairs taking off from a carrier with various load outs. We ran 3 mission. 36 individual take offs without a single mishap on takeoff. That is how people trained in a Corsair can operate. To say we don't know what we're talking about is just sweeping us under the rug.

Anyone posting further regarding these plane should TRY them out first. Don't simple blame a lack of knowledge with prop pitch, powerband, radiator, or supercharger settings. WE know these planes, it's what we do.

[F19_Klunk]

Sweet mother of Joe.

Sawyer, when did I adress you about lack of evidence? You have come up with load of info which is GREAT, my only point was ANOTHER person's lack of facts other than his "feel".... undelsss u are the same person

now back to the discussin.. PLEASE!

[SaQSoN]

Originally Posted by sawyer692

The idea of the carriers not being modeled at a realistic length is a valid point that may need to be explored....

It is not.

[LesniHU]

Originally Posted by sawyer692

I feel relevent arguments have been made. Take a look at the video in post #17. That guy took off from midship with at least a drop tank. Granted we won't know the carrier's speed or his fuel load but, that take off can not be repicated in the game. That is a real world relevent argument. Set up the scenario and try it (btw the top speed of the Saratoga/Lexington was 33.25 knots).

Tried. I was able to take off from first try with F4U-1A, 100% fuel+178gal droptank from flag forward on Essex without dipping after leaving deck. That is +- deck length as on Saratoga from front side of biggest superstructure, noticeably less than half of its total length. You need better references and to be better pilot.