Mossie = Brick - FSIC Messageboard

FSIC Messageboard

SDOE General

Mossie = Brick

profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Author	Topic: Mossie = Brick
3dp Pilot	posted 01-23- 02:08 PM I seem to recall someone else saying this, but is it me or does the Mossie in PP6 fly like a brick? Other planes virtually leap into the air, but the Mossie is hard pressed to get off the ground! This seems odd for a plane which relied on outrunning its opponents! If there is somthing wrong, should we report it to the PP website, or are they already aware of it? I can't think of anything I might have done to cause the problem. ------------------ Be seeing you, 3dp Visit RAF Harkness! IP: Logged
Pachy Pilot	posted 01-23- 06:45 PM This has already been discussed in length here http://www.fightersquadron.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/003602.html I would just like to warn you, when you ask this kind of question it can quickly re-ignite the realism-vs-playbility flamewar. Take care Basically Talislide calibrated the Mosquito's climb to alt and top speed, because the Mossie climbed unrealistically well. But now, the AI can't fly it any more. In fact, the Mosquito is flyable. Just don't try to climb at all (I mean keep the propellers cutting the grass) until you reach 300 mph, them climb. Then it climbs pretty well. I believe (and hope) this can be corrected. One year ago the 109's had terrible ground handling problems, but the FM gurus eventuallty fixed this behaviour without introducing unrealistic FM characteristics. So we all hope the Mosquito's FM can be made both realistic and playable, but this requires more and more painful FM calibration work. It seems only a handful of talented OP developers can do this, so the best way you can help them is download the PP betas send meaningful, precise and polite bug reports I had downloaded the betas myself, but since I had not tested the Mossie, I take partial responsability for the bug I did not spot so I did not complain when the final version shipped with the defect. Then again, I hope this can be fixed... I can't do it myself, that's all... IP: Logged
Ground Pounder Pilot	posted 01-23- 09:04 PM Commented on this when flying on line. there are some msn where it flys like it should. the only thing I noticed is , it flys like a brick, when it has bombs everywhere(ie pylons, bay, rockets= HEAVY load). could just be the way the msn is set up. IP: Logged
Tailslide Pilot	posted 01-23- 11:01 PM Not sure about the mossie, but with the Do17 it did not carry a heavy bomb load and full fuel capacity. It was an either-or thing. TS IP: Logged
spin Pilot	posted 01-23- 11:39 PM Just a reminder, there were NO changes to the mossie between pp5.3b and pp6.0. I'm not trying to minimize what you're suggesting, I just want to be clear that it is not a new phenomenon you are noticing. Spin ------------------ Spin Visit Spin's Planepack Site to learn more about planepack V6.0 and ongoing development of the planepack IP: Logged
3dp Pilot	posted 01-24- 12:13 AM My sincerest apologies if my post offended anyone. I had no idea it might be a touchy subject and I have nothing but utter admiration for all of the plane makers. They keep this game's heart beating, stronger and stronger every day! I do not even venture into the Flame Wars section! Again, sorry if my original post came off as anything more than inquisitive. Thanks to everyone who responded and filled me in. ------------------ Be seeing you, 3dp Visit RAF Harkness! [This message has been edited by 3dp (edited 01-24-2001).] IP: Logged
Jeeves Pilot	posted 01-24- 10:37 AM 3dp... Not to worry....it is a subject which still needs to be addressed, not buried. I have the utmost respect for TS and Zur...the primary FM people. and they know that I do. I agree with you-- the Mossie is sloooooow in taking off. It did used to be a rcoket, but this is the other extreme...I have tried to help by looking at what I can do with OPS or FM's...but I gave up long ago...I don't have the time or energy- and I know that mission making is my talent in this game- so I do that instead. I always try to start the planes in my missions on the ground as I feel taking off is half the fun...but I am guilty of starting Mossies in the air due to the feeling that I am taking off in air filled with syrup. I don't know the correct solution--- it seems strange that realistically, it would be so hard to take off in....BUT....I trust and respect the work of TS and Zur and know they struggle with getting things right for everyone involved...it isn't easy to please everyone- and you can burn out trying! I am glad these guys have stuck with it despite our pig-headedness. ------------------ Brought to you by the campaign for a better Dauntless! Jeeves =FC= IP: Logged
Jeeves Pilot	posted 01-24- 11:51 AM OK...I take part of that back. Yes, with a full bomb load, the Mossie is tough to get off the ground....but it is doable. I have been using the standard Take Off mission- taking off from Eastbourne. I get to about 105-110 and lift off...and in the past, I have always tried to climb over the hills to get to the Channel...that's my problem--- forget the hills!! I instead today circled back around and headed technically down the hill instead and gained enough speed after a while to get some momentum...and was able to climb slowly. Now I realize that this is the way it should be...it's a bomber for God's sake Although it seems a tad bit underpowered enginewise, it may just me the lunkhead (me!) flying it ------------------ Brought to you by the campaign for a better Dauntless! Jeeves =FC= IP: Logged
Sunray Pilot	posted 01-24- 12:06 PM Geez, 3dp, you should read the Flame Wars. Grown-ups arguing over all kinds of stuff. Funny as hell. Saucers of milk for everybody. On me. hahahaha IP: Logged
spin Pilot	posted 01-24- 05:00 PM I think the current Mossie is actually faster taking off than a version in between the original fm and a version relased with one of the early plane packs. Jeeves I've found if you do that with the lanc as well you get excellent climb performance. Get your speed up and then climb. It kind of makes sense when you think about it. Why try to climb at a rate just above stall speed. Following this get your speed up strategy, I've been able to outrun german fighters (not sure if 190 or 109s) crossing the channel reaching my target and returning. ------------------ Spin Visit Spin's Planepack Site to learn more about planepack V6.0 and ongoing development of the planepack IP: Logged
Snickers Pilot	posted 01-24- 05:05 PM The version in 5.1 was almost impossible to get off the ground. (Even worse than the current one.....) 5.2 was the one that was too fast, 5.3 and 6.6 are the same (what we have now). ------------------ Snickers =FC= [This message has been edited by Snickers (edited 01-24-2001).] IP: Logged
Spoonman Pilot	posted 01-24- 08:36 PM I'd like to take a crack at it guys if you don't mind (spin - anyone looking into it?).. I want to check the airfoil, weights for specific aircraft components, and engine torque. I found that sometimes by tweaking a few elements like increasing torque, reducing engine power, makes a good combo - it's how I started on the first Zero for SDOE. I reduced horsepower, reduced weights in proper areas to reflect the real Zero, and then I increased engine torque. What I'm saying, I don't want to improve the performance of the aircraft so that it's a joke of a flight model. I would like to improve certain elements to retain climb/speed performance, but increase acceleration rates and to allow the AI to takeoff (AI can't takeoff right now). Anyone else working on the Mosie? Spoon IP: Logged
Tailslide Pilot	posted 01-24- 09:08 PM Everything including horsepower, weights were carefully set to historic values by Elric. If you would like to increase low speed acceleration just increase the width of the inner portion of the prop blade. TS IP: Logged
Tailslide Pilot	posted 01-24- 09:12 PM Everyone LOVED the mossie when it had 3x the real climb rate. There are a lot of planes that are way overmodelled in the game. Its why I don't play online much anymore. It just takes one superplane to ruin the whole mission, I wish someone would look at them TS IP: Logged
Jeeves Pilot	posted 01-24- 09:33 PM Again TS.....I am not complaining....I like a challenge. It just takes me a bit to adjust from having it have 3X it's power to not I appreciate all you guys do, bro. And yes spin, I realize that you need to build speed before increasing angle of attack, but when you are on that Eastbourne runway that leads to the hills, it's hard not to pull up if you don't want to become part of the hill I don't have this problem w/ the 17 or the Lanc-- I usually get to lift off speed before the end of the runway, but if what TS says is true and these planes are overpowered, then not only do we need someone to fix them, but we had better either get longer runways or less hills around the present ones ------------------ Brought to you by the campaign for a better Dauntless! Jeeves =FC= IP: Logged
3dp Pilot	posted 01-25- 12:04 AM Hey, I just noticed that I've graduated to Pilot! With that bit of levity, I now move on to the main reason for my post. Apparently, I have innocently set off a bit of a brush fire here. Whoops! If what I'm about to say has been said before, I apologize, but it seemed appropriate. One thing about non-verbal communication which must be kept in mind at all times is that one does not have the benefit of hearing the other person's voice, which is often crucial to clearly understanding anything remotely questionable. While perusing old posts here, I have read things, said "Isn't that interesting", and then read the reply and it is really steamed at what was percieved to have been said in the previous post, which in many cases, I did not pick up on at all! In short, my point is please give folks the benefit of the doubt. I have composed many emails which I have thought were light-hearted and witty, only to have them interpreted as upset and sarcastic! If it's not clear from the above, the intended tone of this post is apologetic, sincere, and cautionary. It's just that my wife was on a wonderful bulletin board for new moms (I could not have gotten through the pregnancy without her having that outlet!) which I saw disintegrate due to this sort of thing, and I would hate to see anything even remotely similar happen here. In other words, please stop replying to this post and let is quickly fade into oblivion down the list! ------------------ Be seeing you, 3dp Visit RAF Harkness! IP: Logged
Tailslide Pilot	posted 01-25- 02:32 AM I recently out-flew a 109 with a lancaster.. he chased me up to 40,000 feet and couldnt catch up.. then I doubled back and swooped down on him over and over until he was dead. TS IP: Logged
Jeeves Pilot	posted 01-25- 09:14 AM Uhhh Ts.... You could be in the Pelacanus and shoot most of us down with the wind from your wings 3dp...don't worry about it. This topic has come up before, and it will come again...we have our storms here and there, but we have always weathered them. This board is quite unique, and while we have lost some valued members, there are always valued people to replace them! For almost 2 years and still going... ------------------ Brought to you by the campaign for a better Dauntless! Jeeves =FC= IP: Logged
Bishop Pilot	posted 01-25- 09:32 AM Great site for detailed data on the Mossie: http://www.home.gil.com.au/~bfillery/index.html including pilots notes and a little blurb about the difficulty of getting an accurate FM without engine performance at altitude and supercharges modeled (written about FS5 but still pretty valid for SDOE). PS This is the third time I have seen Tailslide write: "Everything including horsepower, weights were carefully set to historic values by Elric. If you would like to increase low speed acceleration just increase the width of the inner portion of the prop blade." Hmmmmm.... I find it amazing that nobody actually has actually tried increasing the inner portion yet... it's like everybody is waiting for somebody else to do it... ... well???... I'm waiting... [This message has been edited by Bishop (edited 01-25-2001).] IP: Logged
Spanky the Mad Dog Pilot	posted 01-25- 10:41 AM Spanky here... All I know is I refuse to fly it. I can never get anywhere. I can't get to a fast speed before trying to get up cause I can barly stay in the air, and if there is any hills around i'm screwed. I'm not asking for an uber plane, just one that can attain a bit of alt. IP: Logged
bolillo_loco Pilot	posted 01-25- 10:15 PM what perplexes me is how people fly the same planes and get different rates of climb, speed etc, it has only happened to me with this game. other games I can always get data close to what other people do. I am not saying anybody is lying. It is just amazing that there are such differences. If I test a plane and get 3,500fpm climb initial and it does 350 mph tas at sea level, then somebody else says they get 3,350fpm climb initial and it does 345mph, well then I say it is close enough, but I have seen people post that they get more than 1,000fpm climb better than I do with the same plane. I test all planes with wind turned off. I find it very hard to test any of the planes because of the small map. my planes keep turning into space shuttles. IP: Logged
Nat Pilot	posted 01-26- 09:05 AM well what can I say.. after working on the La5 I can more than understand the problem here, there's nothing harder, and at the moment more imposible, than to get an aircraft that has powerful engines to have the correct speeds at altitude, low level, but still have the correct rate of climb. I don't know how maney of you have read my post over in the tech forum, but basicaly, if you get the speeds right then the climb rate is to high, if you get the climb rate right, then the speeds are way to low. Tailslide knows better than most how much this is like banging your head against a brick wall, and in the end it's down to game code, the engines don't lose power in thinner air even though the props "lose grip". I dare say that with work it could be gotten closer to how it should be, but I wouldn't put money on it either, cause basicaly if you get the climb right, you're going to lose something somewhere, and then we'll have posts about that in the future. 3dp, there's nothing wrong with your post, it's right that these things should be brought up, and just as right that the problems get explained so you and others understand the almost futility of being able to get things spot on, we keep on trying though ~Nat~ IP: Logged
Tailslide Pilot	posted 01-26- 12:29 PM Did you try the process for calibrating climb, speed in the FM FAQ ? IP: Logged
jedi Pilot	posted 01-26- 03:02 PM There are a couple of places where the FM FAQ seems to stop working, or not go far enough. I've had a couple of planes where I could change the parameters all the way to their limits (i.e. prop max pitch 90+) without any significant impact to the numbers. There is also one "missing" combo in the "HLC" calibration method. Can't recall which one it is now, but there is one combination of speed/climb error that is not defined. In addition, it is sometimes possible to get high and low altitude speed "dead on" and have a climb rate that is way too high. In this case, anything you do to fix the climb will cause the speed to be off, and the only way to fix the speed is to undo the climb correction. I've had some success in just "detuning" the engine by reducing its horsepower to a non-historic value (or raising it if necessary to speed up a plane) but that always leaves a bad taste in my mouth (I'll still do it tho) I think the Holy Grail, to some extent, is the prop modeling. Seems to me that a combination of tweaking the prop shape and changing the drag values should allow the plane to be calibrated using the historical data for power, weight, etc to the max possible, and only "cheating" on the prop settings. Maybe a new FAQ, with some insight as to what the prop airSections and propElements do, and how they affect high and low altitude speed and climb would help out? I know I don't have a clue about that stuff tho... ------------------ --jedi-- IP: Logged
Tailslide Pilot	posted 01-26- 05:09 PM If you come across the missing entry again I can update the FAQ. One thing I never got into was adjusting the twist of the prop or its airfoils. It helps loading up the debug version of SDOE and looking at the forces on the prop.. which parts are generating lift, drag at what altitudes. Its really time consuming and tedious stuff tho TS IP: Logged
Tailslide Pilot	posted 01-26- 05:10 PM I was always of the opinion that we should stick to historic values whenever possible so that when SDOE gets 'patched' we won't have a bunch of hacked planes that will get broken by the patch. However, it looks like the patch will never come so maybe thats not such a good approach anymore. TS IP: Logged
Nat Pilot	posted 01-26- 06:38 PM the one thats missing is the one thats my problem funnily enough LOL hlC low alt speed to low, high alt speed to low, climb rate to high. But I could also do with one that explains what to do when the high alt speed is dead on, low level speed is dead on, and climb is worng (in my case to high) And yes Tail, I worked through the FAQ, it's very good, but just lead me in circles really, thats not the FAQ's fault though. I am getting closer to a favourable result now though thank god Jedi: "There is also one "missing" combo in the "HLC" calibration method. Can't recall which one it is now, but there is one combination of speed/climb error that is not defined. In addition, it is sometimes possible to get high and low altitude speed "dead on" and have a climb rate that is way too high. In this case, anything you do to fix the climb will cause the speed to be off, and the only way to fix the speed is to undo the climb correction." Thats been my problem exactly Jedi.. tradeoff called for I think (I even have an almost completely flat prop now) Oh, whats the debug version?? is it one of those beta patches from MH? IP: Logged
Tailslide Pilot	posted 01-26- 10:14 PM Yeah it shows little force lines with direction and magnitude of drag and lift for each airfoil in game. You can also dump the data out to a log file which I found can be imported and graphed in a spreadsheet pretty nicely. TS IP: Logged
Tailslide Pilot	posted 01-26- 10:26 PM Nat, double check your plane weights.. if your plane is too light it could explain the speeds being on and the climb rate being too high. Published climb figures are for fully fuelled planes. Also if the gear ratio is wrong it can cause your climb rates to be off. TS [This message has been edited by Tailslide (edited 01-26-2001).] IP: Logged
Nat Pilot	posted 01-26- 10:45 PM I know the weight is right from from the information I got, it weighs 6334Lbs. I let the AI do the climb test using waypoints set to force the AI to climb as hard as it could at a sustained rate, this is with a full fuel load of 740Lbs. The La5 by all accounts realy was a very light aircraft with the most powerful engine they had droped in the nose, I haven't read maney pilot reports, but she must have been a bit of a bitch to keep straight with all that power, hell, if I hadn't turned 3 of the engines round she would roll hard to the right if you pushed the throttle up hard in flight. I'll get it close though Tail, I've used all the reported data I could find, all I haven't found is the gear ratio really, so thats been another major test and tweak point, right now I've settled for 2.2, it's all a learning curve and I've learnt alot these past few days lol IP: Logged
jedi Pilot	posted 01-26- 11:47 PM The "missing link" in the FM FAQ is "hlC," i.e. too slow down low, too slow up high, but climbs too fast. I've had this one occur several times. ------------------ --jedi-- IP: Logged
Tailslide Pilot	posted 01-27- 02:01 AM What plane had more than 3 engines and weighed 6000 pounds ?? IP: Logged
Nat Pilot	posted 01-27- 04:54 AM oh, maybe I should explain the engine, the actual engine is a 14 cylinder 1850hp engine, using my advanced engine DM this is broken down into 7 engines with the engine max hp and SFC split between each engine, giving you your total back, this is the way the new engine DM works (and in pronciple is also how the advanced wing DM works), basicaly each engine becomes a set of 2 cylinders, you can now damage/destroy a set of cylinders and only lose the power releated to them, if you hit this set of engines and destroy 1, then the aircraft loses the correct proportional amount of thrust, also, as they take damage, it's passed along the damage chain to the base engine (6 engines are children of 1 engine), this allows for the engine to take catastrophic damage to kill it (kill the base engine, all the others die cause they are children), the engine will fail if it takes enough damage across the board. Each engine has it's own oil supply, damage this and the part of the engine it supplies will die after a while. So anyway, my La5 has 7 engines, but they all form a single 14 cylinder rotary engine Hey, er.. Jedi.. I said that already LOL Yeah though, this seems to be one of the main ones. ~Nat~ IP: Logged
Tailslide Pilot	posted 01-27- 06:17 AM Is your plane is climbing too well because it has 14 engines ?!?! Do each of those engines have an invisible propeller? If so a configuration like that would have much better climb. TS IP: Logged
Nat Pilot	posted 01-27- 06:28 AM I'm just posting on this in the tech forum, but to answer, no, the way the engine is built up there's no gain in power or climb, in general all power is supplied to a single prop (the La5 uses 2 props, one backwards to counter torque roll) but both props have the same effect as a single and engine power is split between them. I know this seems unusual to most, but this is a well tried and tested engine setup as I and Tailgunner can swear to, and if the damn messageboard would let me modify the damn post in the tech forum there would be a pic aswell... gggggrrrrrrrrrrr IP: Logged
3dp Pilot	posted 01-28- 12:54 AM Wow, first I "graduate" to Pilot and now I have my first "Burning" post! The irony of course is that things went way beyond me over a dozen posts back! Hope all the give and take remains friendly and constructive! ------------------ Be seeing you, 3dp Visit RAF Harkness! IP: Logged

All times are CT (US)	next newest topic \| next oldest topic
Administrative Options: Close Topic \| Archive/Move \| Delete Topic
	Hop to:

Contact Us | Fighter Squadron Information Center