Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
my profile | register | search | faq | forum home

 
next oldest topic   next newest topic
»  COMBATSIM.COM Forum Archive   » Archives   » EAW Archive 1   » Biased flight models/ AI ?

   
Author Topic: Biased flight models/ AI ?
Edwin Rommel
Member
Member # 357

posted 09-28-1999 12:50 AM     Profile for Edwin Rommel   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
Guten Tag Meine Herren!

I had ze opportunity to fly zum of the Tommy and Ami Fliegmasjine with KG200, and wonder if the flight models are slightly biased toward the Ami's- Ze Deutsche fliegmasjine were not to be sneezed at (in reality), but I have been amazed at the "ability" of some planes such as the P38H- what is the historical perspective on this?

I believe zat ze AI, dynamic campaign and even flight models might be very generous towards ze AMI's, nein?

Zis is meant as a topic for debate, not in any way taking away from an exellent game!

Danke!
Viel Gluck


Posts: 4399 | From: Dusty Oasis, Nord Afrika | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Tannethal
unregistered

posted 09-28-1999 02:22 AM       Edit/Delete Post
AI Pilots never suffer engine overheating,
so they can outrun you in most cases.
Try to catch up with a 110c in BOB. It's hard
even when one of his engines is damaged.
But AI cheating not this worse as in Aces over Europe, AI got triple ammo load.

IP: Logged
Kraut
Member
Member # 513

posted 09-28-1999 04:19 AM     Profile for Kraut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
Hehe!!! In most, if not all WW1 or 2 sims, I get much higher kill rates & less getting shot down/up if I fly Allied Iron. Even my beloved CFS has this "quirk" although, M thinks, EAW is a little more "fair"
FWIW,
Good Hunting!

Posts: 754 | From: Kitchener Ont. Can. | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged
Nashwan
Member
Member # 91

posted 09-28-1999 03:01 PM     Profile for Nashwan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
This couldn't be because allied planes were better, could it?
IMHO Germany stopped building fighters in the middle years of WWII and concentrated on bomber destroyers, which had too much armour and too many guns to be good fighters.

Posts: 514 | From: | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Karnak
Member
Member # 139

posted 09-28-1999 03:09 PM     Profile for Karnak   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
In my opinion, the best fighters in the game are as follows: Spitfire Mk IX, Spitfire MK XIV, Tempest Mk V, Fw 190A-8 and Fw 190D-9. The Bf 109G is a good fighter. I do not like the performance of any of the USAAF fighters. Due to familiarity, I do best in a Spit, but I have found the 109G and 190A to be easy to use as well.
Posts: 461 | From: San Rafael, California, USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Kraut
Member
Member # 513

posted 09-28-1999 06:39 PM     Profile for Kraut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
I must admit, it takes a pretty good sim pilot to succeed, on a regular basis, mit a 109G6 or FW A8 in ATA. Most kite killers stay out of them in WBs, me included. The MKIX Spit is real nice with few vices except red or grey outs. The A4 & F are different stories & hold their own, & in some ways, superior to what the Allies had @ that time frame.
FWIW,
Good Hunting!

Posts: 754 | From: Kitchener Ont. Can. | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged
VonGunn
Member
Member # 313

posted 09-28-1999 08:54 PM     Profile for VonGunn     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
/RANT ON
And IMHO, there inlies the problem with most online ata combat, all you ever see is a Spit MK something. hardly anyone ever flies a 47, or a 38 or something else. I wish I could find people who are willing to take up a 410 against a 47. The few guys I try to fly with on a regular basis are willing to do this, but the majority is not.........Oh well....thats how it goes i reckon..

/RANT OFF

Sorry bout my ranting

Respectfully
VonGunn


Posts: 377 | From: Nebraska | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Kurt Plummer
Member
Member # 358

posted 09-29-1999 03:17 AM     Profile for Kurt Plummer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
Hey Herr Rommel,

The 190A series, as a group had two 'guut spotten' IIRC, 3-5K and 17-19K. The one for the raw power available, the other for the 'light air' which made it's acceleration even more phenomenal.

In all other areas, the lack of supercharger optioning made the aircraft VERY vulnerable.

The 109G is another basket case. Sleek and Smooth at slow speed, it's 'escort' role obviously implies a need to GO FAST (dangit! , yet it falls short due to airframe reasons and indeed compresses /waaaaay/ to soon. At high altitude, above 300mph, it took /4 seconds/ to roll -45 degrees-. Baaah.

As soon as the Jug and '51 were available to give proper chase, the ein oh nine had had it, /except/ (IMO) really late in the war when the K had both a speed and a climb edge at -low level- again, when the bigger worry was the fighter bombers 'raging' across the countryside.

Spitfires, what can I say, the penultimate, -short range-, fighters. I find the XIV to be a bit 'torquey' in the turn and harder to settle-on as a guns machine but both will really latch.

The 47 is a tank, with bad roll emulation and general high altitude performance shortfalls, IMO. Since this is where it supposedly beat all comers, I'm a tad confused (of course EAW 'high altitude' is often below 20K and always below 30...

The 51 is too good a turner. All the stuff I've read says that the controls were also a tad heavy as speed built up and while not compressed, even at 550+mph, it's laminar wing design made it a better cruiser and dive-slash machine than a knife fighter. I find just the opposite with the even the G-Me's out accelerating me -all the time-. The 190 has sustained power edge and a roll rate that is, well, /awesome/.

The P-38 lacks power. The H had the earlier Alli's to be sure but was also a good 1.5Klbs lighter. Turning wise, at medium/low altitudes, according to _Forked Tailed Devil_, the H was surprising more than a match for the 109G6/R6 around 10-15K in the Med. Everyone seems to know about the compressibility problems in chasing down from on-high.

The J/L series solves this but should also be MUCH better rolling than is now present.
This is because of the power boosted ailerons which should do a LOT towards fighting the twin-massiness problem by simply setting the turn more quickly. In fact, the late P-38 was supposedly unsurpassed in this regard. I sure as heck don't see it.

I'm also critical of the topend. I had a friend out at the RC field who flew both the F-series reccers and the fighter versions and he said that in the few high-flight escort missions he did his unit often shared the high cover position with P-51's and was always having to 'throttle back' to keep the Mustangs in-place. He mentioned 427mph rather than the 414 I see mentioned in the game.

The 410 is simply too large a signature with too high a roll inertia. ALL twin aircraft have to fight the fish-tail syndrom wherein the wings say okay but the fuselage wallows in denial- 'No Way!'.

They do have superior climb power and lo-lo speed but after 1942, the overall topend differential of the (German) twins vs. the Allied singletons is just too great to make much of a difference. Better support-AI/bioware would be the key to winning any 'realistic' online encounter vs. just about any Allied ship but here too, you would have to 'get real' by supplying the allies with 4 to your 2, 12 to your 4 etc. etc. It works the other way too. My best 262 mission came at the end of the war against a lo-loing flight of Mossie-VI 'escorted' by another flight. I bagged almost the entire bunch and came home with 9 of 12 kills.

That said, I wouldn't mind having a Ta-154 to play with!

In general, I'd like to see MORE aggressive AI, not less, even if it meant adding to both sides. Saves on TAB presses in the heat of a dogfight.


KP


Posts: 672 | From: | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Edwin Rommel
Member
Member # 357

posted 09-29-1999 04:04 AM     Profile for Edwin Rommel   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
Herren, especially Herr Kurt

First- Danke for the extremely readable and interessante reply to my earlier statement- it is much appreciated- I would also not mind a more agressive AI- although when it gets to "overmodeling" flight characteristics of a particular allied A/C to achieve an "allied" superiority, rather than using a higher ratio of alied/axis, I start backing off

Herr Kurt - I am printing your reply off to go and study at liesure- great stuff !

Hals und Beinbruch!

E.R.


Posts: 4399 | From: Dusty Oasis, Nord Afrika | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged

All times are MST (US)  

   Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | COMBATSIM.COM Home

COMBATSIM.COM, INC. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
Ultimate Bulletin Board 6.04b

Sponsor
2014 COMBATSIM.COM - All Rights Reserved