Poll

Do you like the way planes fly in 2.2

Yes
No
Liked them better in 1.5
Its ok in 2.2

Author Topic: Plane Flight.  (Read 4437 times)

Offline HappyFunBall

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 428
    • View Profile
Re: Plane Flight.
« Reply #30 on: 08-10-2009, 18:10:54 »

While I agree with your statement of fairs-fair, I've noticed there are more and more 'griefers' and some of these griefers adopt that as the style of play for all FH2 rounds they play...  I know what you are going to say, "tell the server admin" well many times they aren't about...

I feel for ya. We've all been there. Playing with juvenile minds who can't accept getting things anything but their own way. All I can say is learning to live with idiots like that helps make you a better person. Small consolation, I know, but its all I can offer.

Offline djinn

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 5.723
    • View Profile
Re: Plane Flight.
« Reply #31 on: 08-10-2009, 19:10:02 »
Well, the NA maps are alot more featureless so distances WILL feel a tad greater, hence flying may feel more laid back, and there seems to be as many bases in Normandy maps as there are in the most flag-potched desert maps, which, is quite a number, so that also adds a sense of urgency. In a few secs, you've flown over two bases.. but this is just my theory

Personally, I don't get why anyone gripes... The devs have already told us all that the engine does NOT supoprt propeller engines and will always lack some related physics, but its always a work in progress...

Even in Fh1, planes flew quite differently between version 0.6 and 0.7 - And sure, some changes might not be the best... and will need to be reverted or seen as a step back in the long trek the best flying possible

Personally, I feel ok with the way planes fly, but then again, I haven't flown enough in Fh2.2

Offline phillip

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 349
    • View Profile
Re: Plane Flight.
« Reply #32 on: 08-10-2009, 19:10:37 »
I am 100% for making planes very difficult to fly, enough so they do keep crashing into trees and windmills.  If it keeps them from strafing my flagzone, all the better.  ;)

Offline Strat_84

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Lemming Chieftain
    • View Profile
Re: Plane Flight.
« Reply #33 on: 08-10-2009, 19:10:35 »
Personally, I don't get why anyone gripes... The devs have already told us all that the engine does NOT supoprt propeller engines and will always lack some related physics, but its always a work in progress...

This is a fair statement and I don't think anybody has something to tell against it. The problem is that the current update made the situation worse than it was before on a realism point of view  ;)

The Africa planes all feel heavier, turn on a much wider radius, do not climb as well, do not recover from a dive as well, take longer to get off a runway, take longer to land, and are certainly not capable of pulling off the bizarre maneuvers you can with the Normandy planes. I seriously doubt this is all due to the representation of their respective models and the developments over the years.

They are radically different. For example, the Typhoon runways on Totalize are exceptionally short and you can pull into an almost 90 degree climb immediately. You'd not even dream of doing this in a Hurricane or 109. The basic principle is, all craft have to adhere to a set rule of game physics and the differences are too vast to dismiss. The Normandy planes don't even seem to apply to any kind of rules set by the physics in this mod.

I agree with you, the Africa planes seem more right than the Normandy ones in 2.2. However all of them are now able to climb 90° once taken off and more manoeuvrable, from the Hurricane to the Stuka. The plane on which everything is the most noticeable is the Me109 to me.
I tested all the planes on the Gazala map to be sure of this.


Offline flyboy_fx

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2.132
  • rockets,rc stuff,and collecting/making ww2 models
    • View Profile
Re: Plane Flight.
« Reply #34 on: 09-10-2009, 05:10:19 »
Man look at that poll!
Don't hate the forum, hate it's users...


Offline Torenico

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 5.620
  • ¡Viva la Revolución!
    • View Profile
Re: Plane Flight.
« Reply #35 on: 09-10-2009, 08:10:24 »
Hmm let me see.

Many people, who calls themselves "Born to Fly" are getting pwnd in 2.2 by New people?


Now you are trying to get the 1.5 Physics back because Flying is for everyone and not for a few?

You cant compare "Pro" pilots and Pro Tankers. Tankers is, basically, the one who knows more than the other, shoots first, etc. If you are a WW2 Maniac, then you understand that the 20mm Gun from the PzII will no nothing against M4A1 Sherman front armor. Noob tankers usually fires their puny 20mm Cannon on Shermans front armor, giving away his cover. And making the Sherman tanker laugh.

In flight, the one who turns better and has less Ping, Flying sucks in all Combined Arms games. Its not good in ANY game, exept for games like Lock On and IL2 Sturmovik. I always hated airplanes on FPS, they were for "Pro Only", unlike tanks. In BF42 u got pwnd in a couple of seconds because of "He has a Joistick" or a Pad whatever. while you have to use your Mouse.

It would be cool if we could have Weight in this game, like, a Stuka fully loaded, with 2 50KG bombs and 1 250KB bomb, plus the thousand of 7.62 Bullets, will fly more slower than a Stuka with empty ammo and no bombs. Agility will be altered also.

You think airplanes were "realistic" in 1.5? lol. they arent. They were the same as 2.2 but more "Heavier", you could stillpress Down Arrow for hours and making 0's so the enemy/AAs wont get you.

If i were Lobo, i would thank the guys who worked on airplanes and i will, simply, delete them.


Offline Paavopesusieni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.401
  • Spongebob
    • View Profile
Re: Plane Flight.
« Reply #36 on: 09-10-2009, 12:10:56 »
Reason is that now there is no difference between planes. Pro pilots still pwn. And pro pilots are comparable to pro tankers. Pro pilot knows that P-51 mustang has better climb radius than BF109.

Please don't even comment if you don't know there real difference between new and old physics or know anything about flying at all. We all know planes weren't realistic, most of us ain't stupid.

Planes sucks in combined arms games as much as tanks, tanks actually suck even more. The guy who has the best tank wins <-- See its matter of opinion.

Tanks are as unreal in this mod as planes are. It doesn't matter from which angle do you shoot, you can shoot pnzIII with 2 pounder from 10 degree angle, yeah so realistic. Maybe we should delete tanks as well, oh wait infantry is unreal as well, mg42 is 600 rpm shotgun, guns cant jam, barrels cant be changed, bipod cant be rested on windows and sway is fake. Damn we need to delete infantry as well. Don't worry we can still roam around maps with freecam.

Offline Schneider

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.694
  • Ofw.Josef_Schneider
    • View Profile
Re: Plane Flight.
« Reply #37 on: 09-10-2009, 15:10:18 »
The poll doesn't seem to indicate that there is a big necessity to roll the wheel back to 2.15.
You guys might be right that the planes are now less realistic as in 2.15 (I'm not a flyboy, except for the big-boom-stuka on Prokhorovka  ;)), whoever, they seem to be more playable with focus on the new normandy maps. The fact that non-elitist pilots can handle them somewhat better is not necessarily a contra-point at all.

Offline Strat_84

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Lemming Chieftain
    • View Profile
Re: Plane Flight.
« Reply #38 on: 09-10-2009, 16:10:07 »
The fact that non-elitist pilots can handle them somewhat better is not necessarily a contra-point at all.

Well, I wouldn't say this is the major drawback (if even it can be considered as a drawback). I would say the problem is that the limits in "what you can do with a plane" are stretched too far that way.
That means so called "noobs" fly easier but a "flyboy" also benefits from this, and is even more a pain for ground players.

I overcame my aversion to play most of a round with a FW190 on Totalize yesterday. I have to admit the overmanoeuvrability was more a challenge to me as it made more difficult to aim accurately a ground target with a joystick. But on the other hand this, combined with the vertical fast climbing allows to come back on a target 2 or 3 times when the old physics obliged you to make slow manoeuvers and carry out only one attack in the same duration.
Plus the fast climbing rate allows to reach the "clouds" area very fast and hide, to just slaughter again the poor spit or typhoon coming back.
Well, I told the word, it's more a slaughter than a real fight, not that interesting to me.

BTW I was struck by one fact, that may be an interesting improvement for the "keep planes in map" problem. Nothing to do with the plane behavior, but the way it reacts to speed decreases. Between the time you set the engine on 0 on your joystick and the time it actually starts loosing speed there are something like 5 or 10 seconds. If this delay could be lowered without drawbacks it would make landing much easier.  ;)
« Last Edit: 09-10-2009, 16:10:16 by Strat_84 »


Offline TheLean

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Plane Flight.
« Reply #39 on: 09-10-2009, 16:10:58 »
Reason is that now there is no difference between planes.

This quote makes me think you havent played 2.2 at all. Last time I checked the difference between the planes on totalize was huge, typhoon turns like a oil tanker compared to the FW. I think you are pissed because the new 1.5 hitboxes makes it possible to kill planes from every angle, not just the old way of right behind. Learn some new strategies instead of crying here all the time.

Offline Zoologic

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4.141
  • In FH Since 0.67
    • View Profile
Re: Plane Flight.
« Reply #40 on: 09-10-2009, 16:10:06 »
Scoring an "ace" (at least 6 kills) with only 1 life in BF1942, mastering only the spits... its killer turning radius and its arsenal. I don't consider this a pro or an "elitist". Every player do what they have to do: kill other planes and prevent it from raping my team mates below. I have less to complain when seeing the earlier Spits (Mk. II) Merlin coughing when i dive them down, or going off when i inverted them (still using the carburetor) in games, even those which claimed to be realistic.

I understand the lack of characteristics between planes in new physics... all of them just fly like... oh i dunno, like spacecrafts? Even in FH2.2's North Africa SP i can feeeeel the difference. I can point out thousands more unrealistic things from FH2.2's airplane, but pointless it is. Finally i can get that rudder kick in effect on FH2.2 (pretty unrealistic in Flight Simulator series, and even Il-2 as compared to the real 6-axis Level-D ones), but a bit too much, the real thing would break apart if the rudder slams that plane yawing really hard.

The Gravity-less environment. I think it won't be much problem, since the effect can be added. In MS Flight Simulator, you can make any 3-D objects fly, given you configure them right. Let's say, put a Panzer 4G model, give it Boeing 747-400's characteristics, complete with Rolls-Royce RB211-524T thrust setting characteristics. It flies on the program just like the 747-400, the only strange thing is that when you switch outside views, it shows Pz4G flying! Otherwise, you might want a bit propeller feeling, just swap the flight dynamic envelope files with Piper J-3 Cub's one. Your Panzer will lift off at 30 knots even in dead winds condition.

I reaaaallly can excuse the utterly poooor physics, since there is a lack of aviation knowledge besides scattered historical accounts (which says Spits turn better, 109 climb better, 109 do zoom and boom, P-51 is the king of mid alt, P-39 aircobra pwns lower alt, Zero pwns all, etc, etc).
Boeing 757 outclimb them all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVUDMkBfds4&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50BRFzVxDH8&feature=related
(well, yes the plane was empty, and it had 2 huge RR RB211-535, kinda Zero-ey)
Just to forgive the pooor physics.

Offline Paavopesusieni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.401
  • Spongebob
    • View Profile
Re: Plane Flight.
« Reply #41 on: 09-10-2009, 17:10:52 »
Reason is that now there is no difference between planes.

This quote makes me think you havent played 2.2 at all. Last time I checked the difference between the planes on totalize was huge, typhoon turns like a oil tanker compared to the FW. I think you are pissed because the new 1.5 hitboxes makes it possible to kill planes from every angle, not just the old way of right behind. Learn some new strategies instead of crying here all the time.
And makes me think you didn't play 2.15 at all, i am comparing it to 2.15 physics. "Common sense" ever heard?

In 2.15 the difference between BF109 and Spit was huge compared to 2.2. And totally isn't only the new hitboxes that make you hit better, those has much less to do with hitting the enemy than new physics. Its so easy to hit from every angle because planes are so slow now.

Planes would have been much better with 2.15 physics and 1.5 hitboxes.
« Last Edit: 09-10-2009, 17:10:43 by Paavopesusieni »

Offline THeTA0123

  • The north remembers
  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 16.840
    • View Profile
Re: Plane Flight.
« Reply #42 on: 09-10-2009, 17:10:29 »
The bf109 vs spitfire battles in 2.15 where fantastic


But the bf109 won most of the times, because of the crappy gun harmonization of the spitfire
-i am fairly sure that if they took porn off the internet, there would only be one website left and it would be called bring back the porn "Perry cox, Scrubs.

Offline Paavopesusieni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.401
  • Spongebob
    • View Profile
Re: Plane Flight.
« Reply #43 on: 09-10-2009, 17:10:33 »
The bf109 vs spitfire battles in 2.15 where fantastic


But the bf109 won most of the times, because of the crappy gun harmonization of the spitfire
Well spit was better in my opinion, if BF109 started climbing you just needed to follow. You just needed to climb in different angle, then when BF109 stopped climbing you just shot it.

Offline flyboy_fx

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2.132
  • rockets,rc stuff,and collecting/making ww2 models
    • View Profile
Re: Plane Flight.
« Reply #44 on: 09-10-2009, 17:10:42 »
Hmm let me see.

Many people, who calls themselves "Born to Fly" are getting pwnd in 2.2 by New people?


Now you are trying to get the 1.5 Physics back because Flying is for everyone and not for a few?

You cant compare "Pro" pilots and Pro Tankers. Tankers is, basically, the one who knows more than the other, shoots first, etc. If you are a WW2 Maniac, then you understand that the 20mm Gun from the PzII will no nothing against M4A1 Sherman front armor. Noob tankers usually fires their puny 20mm Cannon on Shermans front armor, giving away his cover. And making the Sherman tanker laugh.

In flight, the one who turns better and has less Ping, Flying sucks in all Combined Arms games. Its not good in ANY game, exept for games like Lock On and IL2 Sturmovik. I always hated airplanes on FPS, they were for "Pro Only", unlike tanks. In BF42 u got pwnd in a couple of seconds because of "He has a Joistick" or a Pad whatever. while you have to use your Mouse.

It would be cool if we could have Weight in this game, like, a Stuka fully loaded, with 2 50KG bombs and 1 250KB bomb, plus the thousand of 7.62 Bullets, will fly more slower than a Stuka with empty ammo and no bombs. Agility will be altered also.

You think airplanes were "realistic" in 1.5? lol. they arent. They were the same as 2.2 but more "Heavier", you could stillpress Down Arrow for hours and making 0's so the enemy/AAs wont get you.

If i were Lobo, i would thank the guys who worked on airplanes and i will, simply, delete them.


Well we all should know that the planes in FH/BF2/PR Are nothing like real flying.  ;)


See I voted I liked them better in 2.15 ans its "ok" in 2.2

Don't hate the forum, hate it's users...