PDA

View Full Version : Korea



Firelok
23-07-2007, 15:04
As discussed in the other thread...


RED
MiG-9FS=30
Il-10
La-73xB20
Yak-9UT
Ta-183=9,4x4;24r4m
BLUE
P-80A=40
F4U-1C
A-20G
F4U-1D
P-51D-20NA
TempestMkV
N1K2-Ja

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e150/firelokc/grab0001-3.jpg
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e150/firelokc/grab0002-3.jpg
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e150/firelokc/grab0005-3.jpg
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e150/firelokc/grab0003-2.jpg

More pics...
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e150/firelokc/grab0004-3.jpg
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e150/firelokc/grab0006-2.jpg
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e150/firelokc/grab0007-2.jpg
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e150/firelokc/grab0000-2.jpg

The targets are artillery for both sides and an armour/vehicle column for both sides too nothing that involved TBO and all within a tight area of the battlefield. MiG 9 and Ta183 are spawn limited (esp. the Ta183)

Theres a fair amount of non-involved detail scattered here and there to make things seem more appropriate for an Asian scenario. Abandoned temples, decayed fortresses, mountain villages etc.

It would be great to be able to bundle a lot of the skins/skinhacks shown by Irish on the other thread to really get a feel for this going. A link to a URL is possible we could add it to this thread.

irish
23-07-2007, 17:13
http://www.mission4today.com/index.php?name=Downloads&file=search&sa=300

there ya go fellas!:cool:

http://www.simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2270993&page=1#Post2270993

yet another F51 skin...follow the links

MajorDamage
23-07-2007, 17:38
Suicide is painless
It brings on many changes... etc.

Nice work Mr Firelok. You're in a right old prolific mapmaking frenzy at the moment. Interesting planeset and I can't wait to get out all the Korean skins I've got.

One little teeny minor suggestionette.... any chance we could do away with the pink fluffy clouds and have it in normal daylight?

/runs away and hides

Firelok
23-07-2007, 20:16
any chance we could do away with the pink fluffy clouds and have it in normal daylight?
It just doesn't look as good. Tried morning thru midday into afternoon.

MajorDamage
23-07-2007, 21:21
It just doesn't look as good. Tried morning thru midday into afternoon.

I knew you were going to say that. :D

Firelok
23-07-2007, 22:46
I knew you were going to say that. :D

It's not the clouds it's the mountains TBO they are more 'mountainy' with the low sun.

MD_Warlock
23-07-2007, 23:03
And you know, if they ain't mountainy enough, them mountains ain't worth climbin'. :D

But seriously, looks like a fun map, looking forward to seeing it!

MajorDamage
26-07-2007, 00:14
Didn't get to fly half the planes on here but had mucho fun in the ones I did. This works really well for me, I know you need to do some balancing with spawnpoints on the jets but basically it's a good early Korean War scenario. Plenty of atmos, and the nice thing is loads of peeps already have those Korean skins just waiting to be used. I'll try and fly red next time to get the other side's perspective.

Boemher
26-07-2007, 00:23
Loved flying it, very interesting plane set. I did not venture to the targets because I had my hands full dogfighting all of the time. Mig 9 is very dangerous because of its combination of very powerful armament that has a very straight trajectory. Its like imo having a Mk 108 cross bred with a Hispanno.

Once you get the spawn points sorted for them I think this map will find a natural balance.

Cant wait to try out flying the IL-10 and see how it copes against the targets and Aliied fighters the next time we test this.

Firelok
26-07-2007, 03:36
Unfortunately altering the radius of the spawns is a pretty hit and miss affair so well have to test each time I make an alteration to the Red Jet base.
I'm aiming at limiting the total numbers of Red Jets but increasing the amount of Ta183s compared to MiG9FS. If the reds are still dominating a lot then I'd be tempted both to scratch the Ta183 (sorry irish) and use the MiG9 (I300) which is slightly more unreliable. I don't intend a limit on the YP80s, engine fires, flameouts and a weak structure at high speeds make it a tricky plane to fly.TBO.

I've shifted the time to slightly earlier too. I am having a real issue with the Tempest here TBO, it looks nothing like the SeaFury. On searching most skinhacks are using the Ki84 as a stand-in for the SeaFury. Not that flying a Tempest here is fun, it's just stretching things a little perhaps. Some Leeway is in order though with this map idea. In every department.

Nightshifter
26-07-2007, 04:01
I've shifted the time to slightly earlier too. I am having a real issue with the Tempest here TBO, it looks nothing like the SeaFury. On searching most skinhacks are using the Ki84 as a stand-in for the SeaFury. Not that flying a Tempest here is fun, it's just stretching things a little perhaps. Some Leeway is in order though with this map idea. In every department.

I made this hack which is probably ones of the ones you saw:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v216/96th_Nightshifter/VR930small.jpg

I could always put this scheme onto a Tempest if you needed one for this Map.

Firelok
26-07-2007, 08:32
Considering making the offshore Carrier a British one. I put the F4UC on as an afterthough (thinking that a cannon armed version might be useful. But we could have Fairey Fireflies(seafire),the Seafury(Ki84)? Need not chuck out the Tempest but stretch things making them redeploy to Korea. They were used until 1951 by the Royal Indian Airforce (Operation Firedog in Malaya for example.)

MajorDamage
26-07-2007, 09:27
Nightshifter, if it isn't too much hassle I'd love to see that Sea Fury hack done for the Tempest. It's a beautiful skin but for my money the Tempest is a better Sea Fury representation than the Ki84. From a distance and at any angle except in profile a Sea Fury is easily mistaken for a Tempest, especially as the shape of the wings is so similar. The wing shape of the Ki84 just looks wrong. Design-wise the Sea Fury was a direct descendant of the Tempest.

Also when you sit in the cockpit of the Ki84 you're very much aware of the fact you're in a Japanese plane. I don't know what the Sea Fury's cockpit looked like but I imagine it was pretty similar in layout to a Tempest.

This image shows the similarity between the Tempest II (like the Mkv but with radial engine) and the Sea Fury:
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e320/matthill999/TempestSeaFury.gif

Nightshifter
26-07-2007, 09:57
Nightshifter, if it isn't too much hassle I'd love to see that Sea Fury hack done for the Tempest. It's a beautiful skin but for my money the Tempest is a better Sea Fury representation than the Ki84. From a distance and at any angle except in profile a Sea Fury is easily mistaken for a Tempest, especially as the shape of the wings is so similar. The wing shape of the Ki84 just looks wrong. Design-wise the Sea Fury was a direct descendant of the Tempest.

Also when you sit in the cockpit of the Ki84 you're very much aware of the fact you're in a Japanese plane. I don't know what the Sea Fury's cockpit looked like but I imagine it was pretty similar in layout to a Tempest.

I agree with everything you are saying, I thought a lot about this when deciding whether to use the Tempest or the Ki-84 for that hack the last time.
The deciding factor for me is that the Ki-84 actually could be hacked whereas the Tempest could only really be given a paint scheme if you get my meaning?

Everything forward of the cockpit of our Tempest cannot be "hacked" to look like a Sea Fury as it is just a totally different design forward of that area, actual exhausts would get in the way of where the "hacked" exhaust area would be as an example. The Tempest II however would be a great replacement if we had it :(

Our Tempest V:

http://user.tninet.se/~qbc513r/ctjn765.jpg

Tempest II:

http://user.tninet.se/~qbc513r/ctmw800.jpg


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v216/96th_Nightshifter/differences.jpg

Basically I can put the scheme on our Tempest but can't do all the hacked bits I would like to do so it'll just look like Tempest V in a FAA paint scheme when you see it close up (though that does sound quite cool actually so I'll make it regardless).

Anyway back on topic :)

Firelok
26-07-2007, 10:12
After downloading your Ki84 Seafury pack this morning I set up a little tester with Ki84c's (4 cannon) vs Yak9Uts and IL10s. I thought it worked very well, it takes a lot longer to get up to speed but it's no slouch has great guns and is fairly manouverable. I'm personally a lot happier with it as a SeaFury than the Tempest as a SeaFury.

MajorDamage
26-07-2007, 10:35
Where's Boehmer when you need him?

Boemher
26-07-2007, 11:54
I dont think it can be argued that the Tempest looks less like the SeaFury than the Ki84 does. Yes if we were showing someone who isnt a fan of WW2 airplanes perhaps if you painted a Ki84 in RN colours it would look more like a SeaFury than the Tempest does but not to anyone who has a real interest in the subject - as we all do.

Wing planform and aircraft size were amongst the two most important things when it comes to Vis ID ing aircraft in the sky. On both those counts the Tempest V looks much more like a SeaFury than a Ki 84 - because the SeaFury was developed from the Tempest. With Tempests flying around in SeaTempest skins the problem would be solved. In WW2 Typhoons were often getting shot down by RAF Spitfires because they mistook them for Fw 190s. This is because the squat fat nose of the Typhoon or the Tempest forward of its wing makes it look like a radial from many angles. The Ki 84 is no better a subsitute to the Tempest than the N1K2 or the Fw 190 A6, both the latter have radial engines too and frankly the Fw 190 has a better FM if you want to simulate a SeaFury. The KI 84's FM is more akin to a Spitfire or a La 7 it does not feel heavy and it doesnt like flying fast without bits of its airframe falling off.

To me the only important areas where the Ki 84 is a better match is that it has a radial engine and that it has a tail hook(or not). In every single other area the SeaFury would be better served by a SeaTempest or a SeaFw190 imo.

To put a different slant on it its kind of like trying to simulate a Fw 190 D9. Do you use the Fw 190 A9 because it is essentially the same aircraft bar the engine and a few minor modifcations or do you use the P 51 D because it has an inline engine?

Algorex
26-07-2007, 12:10
To me the only important areas where the Ki 84 is a better match is that it has a radial engine and that it has a tail hook.

Tail... Hook... Japanese army plane...

So the Ki-84 has similar engine, late war performance and similar weaponry although half of it is in the wrong place.

Boemher
26-07-2007, 12:15
Lol so you cant even land it on a carrier.

Ki 84 is quite a bit slower than the Tempest and a lot slower than the SeaFury too.

The main problem for me is that you cant land it on a stationary carrier very easily. Taking off from one may be a problem too but Im sure you can without ordinance - which kind of defeats the purpose as the SeaFury was a Fighter Bomber in Korea.

MajorDamage
26-07-2007, 12:21
Ah there he is :D

Firelok
26-07-2007, 12:24
which kind of defeats the purpose as the SeaFury was a Fighter Bomber in Korea.

Doesn't this apply equally to the Tempest?
I can't see why we couldn't have both anyway, jst have the tempest as a tempest :wall:

Chatanooga
26-07-2007, 12:24
I had good fun on this, started off in a Mig 9 (2 sorties) then had one sortie in the Ta-183 as the map finished. I managed 1 kill per sortie in the Mig 9, and 2 kills on the sortie in the TA-153.

For me the Mig 9 accelerated quicker, was faster overall and kept its energy better. Great guns, big bang, fly fast and straight with a nice gunsight, I pulled off one of the best deflection shots in my flying carreer against Firelok in his YP-80. Although if you spray and pray your ammo wont last long. In a dogfight against the YP-80 I found that I had the speed and energy advantage, but the YP-80 was out turning me.

The Ta-183 in comparrison felt slow but did chug along at quite a rapid rate. Much more manouverable and in the two fights against the YP-80 I was able to stay behind on their six quite easily. The guns, well 4 x 108 very nice but you have to be alot closer to the target than in the Mig 9, seemed to have more ammo than the Mig 9.

Looking forward to flying this again and trying some of the other planes. I would like to see what its like in a YP-80 vs the Mig 9 and Ta-183.

Boemher
26-07-2007, 12:31
Doesn't this apply equally to the Tempest?
I can't see why we couldn't have both anyway, jst have the tempest as a tempest :wall:

Maybe I wasnt very clear but I was actually refering to the Tempest V when I said that Firelok. You saw yesterday when I tried landing it and went straight of the edge of the deck at about 50 mph. If you are having trouble taking off from a stationary carrier in it adding 2 x 1000lb bombs will be pretty much impossible.

Saying that external load outs should figure in to this equation too, the SeaFury/Tempest bombs/rockets load outs are much more potent against ground targets.

Firelok
26-07-2007, 12:44
I think for run of the mill pilots (and I count myself as an excellent test subject for this group.) neither the Ki84 (any version.) or the Tempest is at all suitable for carrier operations. Getting off with or without ordinance is very very hard, I'm not saying it's impossible but probably too hard for most. I've yet to scrape the barrel and try 25% fuel and no bombs but as you say what is the point? We can leave them on the airfield.

Algorex
26-07-2007, 15:24
Me-262 as Gloster Meteor? :p

Nightshifter
26-07-2007, 16:46
No sweat guys, I'll be making a Sea Fury skin for the Tempest anyway so once they are both ready we can all (including me) see for ourselves how much more the Tempest looks right for the job I'll even take a screenie with them flying formation :).
BTW Tempest can take off from a Carrier with rockets and at least 50% fuel as far as I remember.

irish
26-07-2007, 17:21
Doesn't this apply equally to the Tempest?
I can't see why we couldn't have both anyway, jst have the tempest as a tempest :wall:


Because Tempests weren't in the Korean War
http://www.korean-war.com/KWAircraft/index.html

If Nightshifter will do the hack we'll have no problems (assuming there is a land base for it to land on)

Firelok
26-07-2007, 18:27
Der!:wall:


Because Tempests weren't in the Korean War
http://www.korean-war.com/KWAircraft/index.html

The only correct plane we have is the IL10 all the rest are wrong type, pretending to be something else or wrong model by years, let's not have some mass historical knicker twisting session at the last minute, come on.


Considering making the offshore Carrier a British one. I put the F4UC on as an afterthough (thinking that a cannon armed version might be useful. But we could have Fairey Fireflies(seafire),the Seafury(Ki84)? Need not chuck out the Tempest but stretch things making them redeploy to Korea. They were used until 1951 by the Royal Indian Airforce (Operation Firedog in Malaya for example.)

Gordano
26-07-2007, 18:55
I personally think adding the Tempest is taking things a little too far.

The aircraft being added are all representing one which actually took part, ie. Ki84 as a Seafury etc. The Tempest didn't take part and isn't being used to represent a different type, so should be left out as it's pushing the boundaries of psudeo-historicalness a little too far.

Boemher
26-07-2007, 19:13
I personally think adding the Tempest is taking things a little too far.

The aircraft being added are all representing one which actually took part, ie. Ki84 as a Seafury etc. The Tempest didn't take part and isn't being used to represent a different type, so should be left out as it's pushing the boundaries of psudeo-historicalness a little too far.

Except some here would like ithe Tempest as a SeaFury stand in, it does a better job of this, in my opinion, than the Japanese Ki 84. Both in exterior and interior looks, weapons - being identical, and in terms of performance.

The Hawker Sea Fury was developed from the Hawker Tempest. All the Ki84 has going for it is a nice skin hack made by NightShifter and a radial engine.

irish
26-07-2007, 20:55
Boehmer: That was in response to Fireloks's Tempest as Tempest comment, not a condemnation of the Tempest being included as a stand in with hack skin (as SeaFury).

Firelok
26-07-2007, 23:14
Well, Tempest in a teacup or what? :D

I think the Ki84c would be much better (and maybe a bit more dangerous for reds.) but I only made the map:rolleyes:
I accept I've lost out to the 'you can prize my Tempest from my cold dead hands' lobby, and retire irrationally grumbling bloody tempests to a corner and leave things as they are now and how we tested it with no changes except to the spawn areas of Red Jet Base.

but the Seafury would look better as a Ki84c. (and this matters a lot.) one of the proposed 'mission ideas' in another thread was Tempest vs late-war Japanese planes how this idea ends up less 'offensive' than Tempest in Korea I don't know.

Nightshifter
27-07-2007, 03:28
Ok guys, question regarding the Tempest Fury type thingy.

This is very early work in progress (about 30 mins so long way to go).

Should I attempt to fake the exhausts of the Sea Fury onto the Tempest (circled in red in the pic below). I had to at least try it but wanted to know if you lot thought it was worth the effort or just go ahead and skin the thing with the Sea Fury paint scheme instead and keep the faked parts to a minimum.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v216/96th_Nightshifter/TempFuryTests.jpg

NS-IceFire
27-07-2007, 03:34
I like the faked exhaust ports and dirt...looks good!

Nightshifter
27-07-2007, 03:40
Kinda happy with it Myself but the other part of me was wishing you said it looked crap and to just paint it instead :)

I'm a sucker for making the faked parts so if the overall majority think its worth it I'll be happy to put full effort into faking it good and proper.

Firelok
27-07-2007, 04:59
I think I've managed to sort out the spawn radius things for Red Jets base. Won't know until we do a full server test, as for the YP80 base providing some airstarts we are going to have to live with this I'm afraid and look on it as a sort of leveller against the rather capable 'Commie' Jets.

Chatanooga
27-07-2007, 08:35
YP80 base providing some airstarts

I dont think that will be a map breaker if a few of the YP-80 get airstarts, I think the distance to the targets will allow both sides to arrive at a hieght they want too.

Boemher
27-07-2007, 13:56
Well, Tempest in a teacup or what? :D

I think the Ki84c would be much better (and maybe a bit more dangerous for reds.) but I only made the map:rolleyes:

Your right you did make the map and your say should carry a lot of weight, there are enough Tempest maps for the Tempest not to even feature on this map at all and for there to be no reason for me or anyone else to gripe. Not that its inclusion will influence this map in anyway in terms of plane balance whether it is on it or not.

Major and I are just arguing on the principle that the SeaFury is best simulated by the Tempest and not the Ki 84. The Ki 84 doesnt have equivalent performance, appropriate guns, a British cockpit layout, the same wingshape, appropriate external stores, comparable handling - it doesnt have anything in common really. All it has going for it is a lovely skin and a radial engine.

While it makes sense for the Bearcat to be simmed by the N1K2 the SeaFury can only rationally be simmed by the Tempest imo because the two aircraft have so much commonality. Any other choice would prove irksome given that the SeaTempest is very much the next best thing to having a SeaFury.

Boemher
27-07-2007, 14:00
Kinda happy with it Myself but the other part of me was wishing you said it looked crap and to just paint it instead :)

I'm a sucker for making the faked parts so if the overall majority think its worth it I'll be happy to put full effort into faking it good and proper.

Initially Id have thought a SeaTempest would be better Shifter, but seeing your work in progress and the faked exhaust stubs makes me think twice about that. With some faked wing radiators and more markings it just prove to be an excellent stand in. Great work as per usual!

irish
30-07-2007, 13:08
Your right you did make the map and your say should carry a lot of weight, there are enough Tempest maps for the Tempest not to even feature on this map at all and for there to be no reason for me or anyone else to gripe. Not that its inclusion will influence this map in anyway in terms of plane balance whether it is on it or not.

Major and I are just arguing on the principle that the SeaFury is best simulated by the Tempest and not the Ki 84. The Ki 84 doesnt have equivalent performance, appropriate guns, a British cockpit layout, the same wingshape, appropriate external stores, comparable handling - it doesnt have anything in common really. All it has going for it is a lovely skin and a radial engine.

While it makes sense for the Bearcat to be simmed by the N1K2 the SeaFury can only rationally be simmed by the Tempest imo because the two aircraft have so much commonality. Any other choice would prove irksome given that the SeaTempest is very much the next best thing to having a SeaFury.

Well, actually the F8F Bearcat far outclassed the N1K2 in terms of performance. It just looks pretty darn cool in USN colors:p


An airstart with limited P80's could be used to simulate USN carrier-born AC

Boemher
30-07-2007, 13:20
Well, actually the F8F Bearcat far outclassed the N1K2 in terms of performance. It just looks pretty darn cool in USN colors:p


The N1K2 is closer in performance to the F8F Bearcat than the Ki 84 is to the SeaFury - besides I am talking about looks mainly. I think having the same wing, cockpit, fusealage, undercarriage ect makes the Tempest look like a Seafury. If it had a radial engine there wouldnt even be a debate about which one to sim it with.

Now this isnt directed at you Irish but I thought its worth talking specifically about the Bearcat. It holds a mythical importance amongst US WW2 historians as if it was the best plane of WW2 - aside from the P51 that is :)

The Bearcat was a good fighter:

F8F1

* Maximum speed: 421 mph (366 knots, 680 km/h)
* Range: 1,105 mi (1,780 km)
* Service ceiling: 38,700 ft (11,800 m)
* Rate of climb: 4,570 ft/min (23.2 m/s)
* Power/mass: 0.22 hp/lb (360 W/kg)

But for a 1945 fighter its performance wasnt astounding. A 1943 Spitfire IX Merlin 66 was only 12 or 13 mph slower but had a better rate of climb, a cannon armament, better turn rate and performed better at height. Ofcourse the Bearcat had longer range and was designed as a carrier fighter so that explains much of the performance similarity/difference.

I think the main reason it is viewed as some sort of uber fighter is largely due to the uber modified Bearcats that fly around Reno hitting 500mph and climbing at 15,000ft a minute ect

Its almost like a carrier borne La5FN

Here is a late 44 Tempest V for comparison

* Maximum speed: 435 mph at 17,000 ft (700 km/h at 5,180 m)
* Range: 1,530 mi (2,465 km) with drop tanks
* Service ceiling: 36,500 ft (11,125 m)
* Rate of climb: 4,700 ft/min (23.9 m/s)
* Wing loading: 37.75lb/ft² (184.86kg/m²)
* Power/mass: 0.21hp/lb (0.31kW/kg)

irish
30-07-2007, 15:21
It's apples and oranges to compare land based Spitfires and Tempests with a carrier born F8F1.



I'm specifically referencing the Bearcat to the N1K2 standin/hack vis-a-vis the proposed Ki84/Seafury stand-in/hack in support of using the Tempest as the SeaFury

For the record: the F8F1 was much faster than the N1K2 (421mph @ 19,700ft vs 370mph @ 18,370 ft) I should have been more specific.

Boemher
30-07-2007, 15:42
It's apples and oranges to compare land based Spitfires and Tempests with a carrier born F8F1.



I'm specifically referencing the Bearcat to the N1K2 standin/hack vis-a-vis the proposed Ki84/Seafury stand-in/hack in support of using the Tempest as the SeaFury

For the record: the F8F1 was much faster than the N1K2 (421mph @ 19,700ft vs 370mph @ 18,370 ft) I should have been more specific.

Irish as I said I wasnt specifically getting at you here. I also say in my comparison that its not fair to directly compare a Spitfire to a F8F1 because the Spitfire IX has neither the range or the ruggedness to operate reliably from Carriers.

I started talking about the Bearcat for two reasons, one that it is often very highly regarded perhaps too highly and secondly that the N1K2 better matches the F8F1 performance and flight model than the Ki 84 does the SeaFury :D

The N1K2 is 400 ft a minute roc out and 50 mph too slow compared to the F8F1
The Ki 84 is 600ft a minute roc out and 60 mph too slow compared to the SeaFury


Lol

Nightshifter
30-07-2007, 15:45
Well whatever gets used, I'll have the Tempest Hack ready today at some point. Got my replacement Track IR this morning so skinning will be on hold for an indefinite amount of time as I have not flown in 2 months so I have a lot to make up for :)

Basically, I either finish the skin today or it doesn't get finished at all so I'll be working hard to get it completed.

Boemher
30-07-2007, 15:49
You Da Man!

Hope your particulary productive today Shifter ! ~S~

Firelok
30-07-2007, 15:51
Well whatever gets used, I'll have the Tempest Hack ready today at some point. Got my replacement Track IR this morning so skinning will be on hold for an indefinite amount of time as I have not flown in 2 months so I have a lot to make up for :)

Basically, I either finish the skin today or it doesn't get finished at all so I'll be working hard to get it completed.

THese fellas are are still arguing even after I gave up the point two pages ago Nightshifter, there's no stopping them:D
Pre-view screenies of the FAA Tempest/Seafury look bonzer BTW Shifter.:)

irish
30-07-2007, 15:51
Irish as I said I wasnt specifically getting at you here. I also say in my comparison that its not fair to directly compare a Spitfire to a F8F1 because the Spitfire IX has neither the range or the ruggedness to operate reliably from Carriers.

I started talking about the Bearcat for two reasons, one that it is often very highly regarded perhaps too highly and secondly that the N1K2 better matches the F8F1 performance and flight model than the Ki 84 does the SeaFury :D

The N1K2 is 400 ft a minute roc out and 50 mph too slow compared to the F8F1
The Ki 84 is 600ft a minute roc out and 60 mph too slow compared to the SeaFury


Lol

Nevrmind Boehmer.

My bad. I performed a logical fallacy here. The meds just kicked in and I see what you are saying ;) (you would be amazed at how difficult certain lines of thinking can be before teh happy pills start to work their thing)

Ignore my last 2 posts:cool:

BTW: I've added another link for a cool F51 skin on the first page of this thread where i posted the other skin hack links

Nightshifter
30-07-2007, 20:51
Done :)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v216/96th_Nightshifter/MainTempSmall.jpg

Available Here: http://www.flying-legends.net/php/download...oad.php?id=6222 (http://www.flying-legends.net/php/downloads/download.php?id=6222)

MajorDamage
30-07-2007, 21:08
Nice job Shifter. Whatever you want to call the plane (I kind of like the concept of a 'Sea Tempest' ), the skin is just stunning. :)

KaiserB_uk
30-07-2007, 23:50
Can you do anything with this Shifter?

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1114/955457759_83eda8e037_o.jpg

Nightshifter
31-07-2007, 02:21
I already have a ton of pics of that AC, funnily enough if you look at the serial No. it's actually the same plane as I just skinned but with a different paint scheme :)

I'll maybe get around to it in the near future but with my return to flight status now well underway it may take me a while.

8 Air Kills, 9 ground kills and zero deaths, a good start...................will all change the next time though lol

Barney
31-07-2007, 02:31
That map was awesome. I had a very fun time flying and doing what I do best, even got a couple of planes in it. Like the server too!

Mastiff
How do I check my states?

Nightshifter
31-07-2007, 02:48
Right Here Mate (http://il2hq.com/stats_uk2/il2sc_stat/) Click on "Overall Statistics" and then do a pilot search for yourself.

Firelok
31-07-2007, 03:15
30 Red kills to 13 Blue has got me a little concerned about this last run of Korea, anyone got any morem detailed impressions of what happened?
Have the Red side got a far too strong line up?

Barney
31-07-2007, 07:12
By the way whats DISCO mean? Some one said this on Zekes V wildcats last night and I see on it the stats page too?
:wall:

Firelok
31-07-2007, 07:54
By the way whats DISCO mean? Some one said this on Zekes V wildcats last night and I see on it the stats page too?
:wall:

DISCO=Disconnected.

That is to say, left the game without pressing Escape etc. Either by connection problems or deliberately pulling the plug because they are angry.

Boemher
31-07-2007, 10:54
UN team made a good fist of hitting targets while the Red team concentrated on shooting down our fighter bombers, virtually base camping, and a few of the less sporting characters like Red Chico ;) tracked us down via comms. So Blue fighter bombers got hammered but they also took a heavy toll of the ground targets. I still dont think the P-80 is up for the task of counter balancing the threat posed by the Ta 183 and the Mig 9. The difference of the latter being able to down any target in one pass while the P-80 is hard pushed to down the IL10 at all is the main problem. The P-80 can dogfight the enemy Jets and come out on top but all they need to do is nose down and run away, usually killing a low fighter bomber with a snap shot while being chased by the pea shooter armed P-80.

The UN are overmatched here, if they are to focus on both ground attack and air combat they cant compete realistically with the Red side. But I dont think that is a huge problem. The UN were up against it in the air until the F-86 arrived and any successes they scored up until that point were usually due to better pilots rather than better planes. The Ta 183 is a nice Mig 15 representative. But Im going to ask a noobish question, wasnt the Mig 15 the only Russian jet in Korea ? Or were there earlier types too ?

It was well received and again people were asking for a time extension which I granted. I then went to bed but asked Major Damage to put the server back in the cycle. He may have been AFK when I asked because it seems to have carried on out of cycle. So there is going to be a chunk of maps missed out. I wont be on until later so could some other kind soul correct it? It should have visited Petsamo after Sicily.

Oh and I really enjoyed this map. The targets are nicely located and disperesed and the action is intense.

MajorDamage
31-07-2007, 11:15
It was well received and again people were asking for a time extension which I granted. I then went to bed but asked Major Damage to put the server back in the cycle. He may have been AFK when I asked because it seems to have carried on out of cycle. So there is going to be a chunk of maps missed out. I wont be on until later so could some other kind soul correct it? It should have visited Petsamo after Sicily.

Ah yes sorry. I'd been out drinking so whether I was AFK or just AWTF (Away With The Fairies) I'm afraid I didn't put the map cycle back. I'd only joined towards the end of the map and it didn't occur to me that it was still in testing.

Firelok
31-07-2007, 12:00
The Ta 183 is a nice MiG 15 representative. But Im going to ask a noobish question, wasnt the MiG 15 the only Russian jet in Korea ? Or were there earlier types too ?

I found evidence of MiG9s supplied by China to North Korea, they are referred to in an aircraft shot down table and another webpage I found with North Korean order of battle. All this is pretty vague as info from these states is almost impossible to come by even about a conflict over 50 years old. But we know the MiG15 was supplied by russia as the 'latest thing.'

I think the Ta 183 is way too strong for the opposition and the MiG 9 is probably better as the i-300 version. This is because the P-80 we have still has all the flaws of essentially the test model. The Ta 183 has been so altered by 'Oleg magic' just to even get it to work and it's a 1946 plane (in that it's been tweaked a lot to work with the IL2:1946 idea.) It has an engine that doesn't cut out, that you can ram from 0% throttle to 100% without exploding again and again. Only at over 900kph will it break due to pilot input roll.And biggest of all 4 x Mk108s with shed loads of ammo.

Either of the MiG versions we have is still a tough prospect for the YP-80 but they are attainable compared to the Ta-183.

In it's current format I'm very dubious about it's balance. I'm sure a Korean era F-80 shooting star would be in trouble even if it didn't have the 'experimental' flaws our YP-80 has versus the Ta-183 (which is as fantasy as the Lerche.) the MiG 9 is still a tough opponent for a YP80 but it at least has some flaws too.

Algorex
31-07-2007, 13:10
I found evidence of MiG9s supplied by China to North Korea, they are referred to in an aircraft shot down table and another webpage I found with North Korean order of battle. All this is pretty vague as info from these states is almost impossible to come by even about a conflict over 50 years old. But we know the MiG15 was supplied by russia as the 'latest thing.'

I think the Ta 183 is way too strong for the opposition and the MiG 9 is probably better as the i-300 version. This is because the P-80 we have still has all the flaws of essentially the test model. The Ta 183 has been so altered by 'Oleg magic' just to even get it to work and it's a 1946 plane (in that it's been tweaked a lot to work with the IL2:1946 idea.) It has an engine that doesn't cut out, that you can ram from 0% throttle to 100% without exploding again and again. Only at over 900kph will it break due to pilot input roll.And biggest of all 4 x Mk108s with shed loads of ammo.

Either of the MiG versions we have is still a tough prospect for the YP-80 but they are attainable compared to the Ta-183.

In it's current format I'm very dubious about it's balance. I'm sure a Korean era F-80 shooting star would be in trouble even if it didn't have the 'experimental' flaws our YP-80 has versus the Ta-183 (which is as fantasy as the Lerche.) the MiG 9 is still a tough opponent for a YP80 but it at least has some flaws too.

Me-262 as Meteor IV :p

irish
31-07-2007, 13:51
the majority of the ChiCom jets I saw were MiG9's. If you want to remove anything go for the MiG9. That is the uber plane on the map because of it's weapons package. It's high ROF 23mm cannons is what really kills you. I'll face down slow firing 30mm's all day in my P80/F4U/Tempest. Reason being: The piston engines will easily out maneuver the Ta183/MiG15 and the high speed nature of jet vs. jet combat makes the slow firing Mk108 less the dreaded weapon it was in 1944/45.

I was shot down once. By a MiG9.

At any given point, the only jets in the air were MiG9's for Red. I'm not joking...I spent most of the map keeping tabs on who was flying what.

The Ta183 is not the problem.

Boehmer is correct BTW....there was mucho pseudo base camping and comms manipulation. The last part is more the UN's sides fault (I've always been in favor of using seperate comms channel)-if you are going to broadcast in the clear, expect the enemy to be aware of your position, altitude and intention.

Flew my last two sorties in an A20 and went silent with the comms. Got to targets and back without being bothered one iota.

This map is tits Firelok. Everyone loves it. Just get rid of the MiG9. Consider adding a limited number of advanced Me262/Meteor hacks as the Australians had a few squadrons equipped with them in theatre

(Oh, and add the F4U-1C at the land base ) :cool:

Firelok
31-07-2007, 14:30
Needless to say I don't agree with this irish. But there is a solution, test it.

1st version, MiG9 i-300 with maybe about 6 spawn places (difficult to get this number right except by trial and error.

2nd. version, Ta 183 with maybe about 6 spawn places.

I'll try to up the danger levels of the AAA around the airfield and shift the F4UC.

If we pick similar times to run the different versions of the map we can get some kind of gauge. The last version that's been tested had limited numbers of Ta-183s both by spawn and overall amount and the MiG9FS.

As far as the map is concerned now it's this:wall: rather than this:D for me.

irish
31-07-2007, 15:43
Firelok: I'm not trying to be a pest. Just get a look from IL2 compare

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a66/jds1978/il2compare.jpg

Red=MiG9
Blue=Ta183

The Ta183 is completely out classed by the MiG9

Algorex
31-07-2007, 16:07
Firelok: I'm not trying to be a pest. Just get a look from IL2 compare

The Ta183 is completely out classed by the MiG9

There's something fishy going on in the ta 183 chart, 39 sec to complete a circle at it's best???

irish
31-07-2007, 21:59
There's something fishy going on in the ta 183 chart, 39 sec to complete a circle at it's best???

i'll do a test and see what's up. but, it is a jet

edit: *those numbers are not representative of either jets best turn time. I didn't plot combat flaps for either*

Daytrader
31-07-2007, 22:16
firelok i played this last night for the 1st time and thought it was great, we even extended it as players were asking map was not on long enough ;)

Firelok
31-07-2007, 22:21
According to IL2compare the Ta183s is best turn is NINE Seconds worse than a B25J. Am I missing something here? The Ta 152C turns better than that according to this program in fact if it turned any worse it would only do straight lines. These numbers are wrong it turns a lot better than this in the game and at high speed it does it without bits falling off.

irish
31-07-2007, 23:15
i just got roughly 32 seconds for a 360 degree turn with flaps in the Ta183.

1000m, Crimea, noon, perfect weather

try it yourself.

These things weren't made to do turns. They're jets

does anyone have an up to date version of hardball's AC viewer for another analysis?

Firelok
01-08-2007, 02:08
i just got roughly 32 seconds for a 360 degree turn with flaps in the Ta183.

1000m, Crimea, noon, perfect weather

try it yourself.

These things weren't made to do turns. They're jets

does anyone have an up to date version of hardball's AC viewer for another analysis?

ta183.ntrk (http://www.erinnavy.com/downloads/ta183.ntrk)

irish
01-08-2007, 14:14
Ok, just watched the track.

Firelok got something like 20 sec for a 360.

I did something wrong (more than likely didn't achieve ideal turning speed-going to have to re-review my own track)

*Edit* That was it. I probably froze some control surfaces in my initial turn due to excess speeds, thus skewering my results.*:o


Kind of puts a damper on any further use of IL2compare IMO:eek:


Firelok: You're the mapmaker. Hence you ought to have final say. You won't hear any further grumblings from me on this matter

irish
01-08-2007, 16:07
the only other thing i can think of that explains the discrepency is that I took 100% fuel

Firelok
01-08-2007, 16:39
the only other thing i can think of that explains the discrepency is that I took 100% fuel

I always use 100% fuel for Jets. I started at 500kph, quarter rolled and pulled the stick hard back and kept it in there.

One thing that has come out of all this is I've been bombing around in a Ta183 quite a bit in the last week, it's the Dog's Wotsits and no mistake. GReat fun attacking B29s (sorry Tupolevs) with the rocket pack thingy, can't hit anything with the X4s tho.

irish
01-08-2007, 16:54
I always use 100% fuel for Jets. I started at 500kph, quarter rolled and pulled the stick hard back and kept it in there.

One thing that has come out of all this is I've been bombing around in a Ta183 quite a bit in the last week, it's the Dog's Wotsits and no mistake. GReat fun attacking B29s (sorry Tupolevs) with the rocket pack thingy, can't hit anything with the X4s tho.

i've never had any luck controlling the X4's. I think it was one of those things that sounded good at the time...but in practice for the sim....

i'll have to re-re-review my track....it seems like i was going a full 100-150km faster than you in my initial turn

Firelok
04-08-2007, 23:30
Well tonights re-test of Korea was a total disaster in terms of balance, I'll freely admit. The spawn limiting was 9 MiGs -(I'd like to have maybe six maximum.)
Anyway Reds handed out a stupendous thrashing. A lot of folks said they enjoyed it (from both red and blue sides) but balance-wise it's totally borked.
Next test will be with an adjusted Red jet spawn radius and the Ta183.

FlyingFinn
04-08-2007, 23:59
A day in a MiG-9's life:
Breakfast: YP-80
Snack: YP-80
Lunch: YP-80
Snack: YP-80
Dinner: YP-80
And before going to sleep: YP-80


Conclusion MiG-9 > YP-80 :D

Sonko
05-08-2007, 00:12
Well I have never flown the Mig9 against the P80 but the Mig9 appears to be the fastest jet fighter in the game. It doesn't climb as fast as the rocket planes but it's still faster than them and it's armament is just deadly accurate and cuts off everything in its way, even when using the 23mm cannons only.

Surely, even the Mig9 can get shot down too, even by a Ta152 or Ta183 etc.

Just my two cent.

PS: I have never played this mission before so I won't alow myself to make a judgement or something like that :).

NS-IceFire
05-08-2007, 05:40
Mig-9 faces a much more deadly foe in the He-162D than the Ta-183 which is more of a bomber interceptor.

Firelok
05-08-2007, 09:01
Here's the problem in a nutshell, both of the Red Jet options massively outclass the YP80 but to get a good 'feel' for a Korea scenario some jets are required.

Maybe the Ta183 should be pretending to be an F86 Sabre instead :D

Boemher
05-08-2007, 14:48
UN team should expect to get shot down a fair bit because their plane set isnt up to matching the Mig 9. Just like in Korea the UN were up against it when faced with the Mig 15 and had to rely on better pilots to hold out.

The only difference here is that the Mig 9 is probably better compared to the P-80 in IL2 than the Mig 15 vs the P-80 was in reality and that there are good pilots flying on both sides. If the UN team concentrate on the targets they can hopefully win it but its been tough to persuade people to ditch the Jet dogfights and go for the tanks. I just dont think the P-80 can shoot down the Mig 9 or the Ta 183 as quick as the they can shoot the P-80 down. The P-80 also wont knock down ground pounding IL-10s or La 7s as easily as the other two Jets demolish Corsairs and Sea Tempests.

If we could get the K/D ratio down from about 5 to 1 to 2 to 1 in favour of the Red team then it would be managable imo. The TA 183 on the UN side may just do this.

NS-IceFire
05-08-2007, 15:20
Thing is that the YP-80, if flown well, is a solid match for just about anything as its the best turner of the bunch and its far easier to hit (although not kill) with the .50cals on a gyro gunsight than the larger and slower cannons on a fixed gunsight. So the YP-80 isn't a total loss...the trouble is that most people don't know how to do the jet dogfight yet...its a whole different ball game.

Zorin
05-08-2007, 15:24
Does it actually turn better compared to a Go229 with divebreaks and combat flaps? ;)

Boemher
05-08-2007, 15:38
Thing is that the YP-80, if flown well, is a solid match for just about anything as its the best turner of the bunch and its far easier to hit (although not kill) with the .50cals on a gyro gunsight than the larger and slower cannons on a fixed gunsight. So the YP-80 isn't a total loss...the trouble is that most people don't know how to do the jet dogfight yet...its a whole different ball game.

But people have had at least 2 years more opportunity to fly the P-80 over the Mig 9 - yet they still struggle. I have never flown the Mig 9 but I can imagine that being Russian, having 2 x 23 mm Vya cannon and being faster than the P-80 count for a heck of a lot in this sim.

Reliability, range, pilot training, airforces co-ordination, logistics, avionics ect are all areas which favour the P-80 yet none of these factor in a 60 minute dogfight map with F6 enabled and a spread of good pilots on both sides, big guns, tough DM and speed do.

.... Sod it. next time Korea is tested Im going to fly the P-80 and see what the score is 1st hand.

Nightshifter
05-08-2007, 16:34
.... Sod it. next time Korea is tested Im going to fly the P-80 and see what the score is 1st hand.

I'll give that a try too, I don't "do" jets but I suppose I should give it a go.

irish
05-08-2007, 16:40
This map is so complicated that you almost have to test it in a closed environment with known good sticks on both sides.

so i wouldn't jump to conclusions yet:)

NS-IceFire
05-08-2007, 17:23
But people have had at least 2 years more opportunity to fly the P-80 over the Mig 9 - yet they still struggle. I have never flown the Mig 9 but I can imagine that being Russian, having 2 x 23 mm Vya cannon and being faster than the P-80 count for a heck of a lot in this sim.

Reliability, range, pilot training, airforces co-ordination, logistics, avionics ect are all areas which favour the P-80 yet none of these factor in a 60 minute dogfight map with F6 enabled and a spread of good pilots on both sides, big guns, tough DM and speed do.

.... Sod it. next time Korea is tested Im going to fly the P-80 and see what the score is 1st hand.
Its true...people have had a few years to perfect flying the YP-80 but very flew have flown it truly. Its really a very under appreciated aircraft. I've only pitted it against the Mig-9 once and I managed to score a number of hits before breaking off due to lack of ammo so I really don't know how the two will compare in an actual fight...soon as I have my new system running I'll be interested to try this fight out as well!

irish
05-08-2007, 22:27
Its true...people have had a few years to perfect flying the YP-80 but very flew have flown it truly. Its really a very under appreciated aircraft. I've only pitted it against the Mig-9 once and I managed to score a number of hits before breaking off due to lack of ammo so I really don't know how the two will compare in an actual fight...soon as I have my new system running I'll be interested to try this fight out as well!


The YP80 doesn't hold up to the MiG9 for a variety of reasons (prototype vs. production model, MG's vs very high ROF cannon, the MiG9 out classes the P80 in speed). Plus (as Boehmer alluded to) the virtual UN isn't going to have the historic advantages Western pilots enjoyed (superior training, logistsics, G suits etc) IRL.

However, it's a stand in for the MiG15 which outclassed the P80 IRL. It wasn't until the arrival of the F86 that the UN was able to claim Air Superiority in MiG Alley

NS-IceFire
05-08-2007, 22:30
At least the UN pilots had the F-80C which as I understand it had the higher powered M3 .50cal machine gun boasting a higher fire rate.

Still the Mig-9 is a bit of a handful and its turn is nowhere near as good as the P-80...this is a tricky one indeed.

irish
05-08-2007, 23:16
had to edit my post above.

You are correct about the p80 turn rate.

Still, wasn't the MiG 15 a high altitude B'n'Z type deal?

Sonko
06-08-2007, 01:24
What makes the Mig9 so dangerous is:
1. Superior speed
2. 23mm cannons with a damned high muzzle velocity and bullets that keep their speed as if there was no air that slows them down.
3. DeltaWood construction with titanium plates. (Honestly, this plane is very hard to down)

IIRC the F86 had a better handling at supersonic speed than the Mig15 because of different trim options.

So back to topic, it looks like the old match-up Spitfire vs. FW190 shows up again, the only difference is the jetpack on the backseat.
Agility vs. speed+guns.

NS-IceFire
06-08-2007, 04:50
had to edit my post above.

You are correct about the p80 turn rate.

Still, wasn't the MiG 15 a high altitude B'n'Z type deal?

Certainly was a high altitude type of aircraft...as I understand it the Sabre has a better low speed turn, the Mig-15 has the better high speed turn, the Sabre has better control at high speed and can thus dive faster (through the sound barrier) but the Mig-15 has a higher operational ceiling. If I got all of that right the matchups between the two are somewhat strange...i.e. having a superior high altitude ability but without the ability to fully capitalize on that because of poor high speed handling/dive.

Firelok
06-08-2007, 17:28
A 'Ta183' only version has been uploaded to the server, if anyone wants to test it. I'm not around tonight. Spawn area is reduced too.

MajorDamage
06-08-2007, 23:36
I can't believe there's 5 pages of discussion on this map and nobody has yet mentioned the twin Mustang easter egg. ;)

FlyingFinn
06-08-2007, 23:40
Now the UN chaps flying P-80s have a better chance against Ta-183 rather than the overpowering MiG-9.

Zorin
07-08-2007, 00:05
Now the UN chaps flying P-80s have a better chance against Ta-183 rather than the overpowering MiG-9.

Cause you can't hit a thing with four MK108s. :thwak: :D

Ask Chata, it was easy to stay on his P-80, even turning with it, in a Ta, but it took me ages to hit him once. :wall:

irish
07-08-2007, 02:26
I can't believe there's 5 pages of discussion on this map and nobody has yet mentioned the twin Mustang easter egg. ;)


fess up Firelok....intentional or not:cool: ;)

FlyingFinn
07-08-2007, 08:06
Ask Chata, it was easy to stay on his P-80, even turning with it, in a Ta, but it took me ages to hit him once. :wall:
I found out that shooting deflection shots with the MK108s isn't the best idea.

Better wait for your target to fly straight. I was disabled from <500m from a single 30mm shell making my engine humm like a cow giving birth and all the instruments busted.

Firelok
07-08-2007, 11:15
fess up Firelok....intentional or not:cool: ;)

Thanks for spotting it Major, You Da MAAN!!

Well from the posts here.. it sounds a little better but the stats say...

Plane kills
RED
35
BLUE
11

:(

Chatanooga
07-08-2007, 11:36
My thoughts from last nights test.

The spawn restriction on the Ta-183 allowed 8 planes in the air at once.

I first flew a Ta-183, took a while on getting to a good hieght and headed out to targets, the valley that the blue bombers end up flying down was packed with Ta-183's, who were making a mess of any blues trying to bomb the targets.

Blue side was made up of 8 Ta-183 and the rest were La-7's didnt notice any bombers.

I had a fairly ok sorte and destroyed one A-20. Didnt come across any YP-80's to test against.

Next sortie I tried a YP-80 and headed off to cover the bombers. Found a pack of LA-7's, I was booming and zooming and felt quite safe. Untill Zorin and his Ta-183 turned up. We were at similar heights and speed, I tried to outturn the Ta-183 only to find myself dangerously close to blackout. with the Ta-183 behind me turning tighter faster and seemingly not blacked out as still in control of plane. Once Zorin managed to get on my 6 it was very difficult to do anything about it at all. I could make it hard for him to shoot me but that was about it. I tried low speed evasion, knowing that the YP-80 accelerates better than the Ta-183 this bought me some time and distance but not enough to move into a firing solution then the Ta-183 matched my speed and began to go faster and close the distance. Then a long range sheel hit my engine and poof ...engine shutdown....bailed.

Not really sure if this is better than against the Mig 9. Yes the Mig 9 is faster and is very tough but at least I had the hope of out turning them. The Ta-183 is a bit of a nightmare once behind you. Tricky one this is indeed,

FlyingFinn
07-08-2007, 11:36
it sounds a little better but the stats say...

Ta-183 Kills: 23 Lost: 13 K/D: 1.77


What, whaaaat? Über Tank :D

Firelok
07-08-2007, 11:54
The spawn restriction on the Ta-183 allowed 8 planes in the air at once.
I'm sorry about this it is a matter of proceeding by trial and error. I think a spawn of 6 would be the idea number. (dunno how many P80s were on the go.)
THis is the problem though both the Red Jet options are really tough characters
but we need Jets on both sides to make for a Korea feel.
We are five pages into this thread and 5 or 6 tests in too,

'Houston, We have a problem.'

Crazy out of the loop ideas.

1. MiG9FS for reds, YP80 and Ta183(as a Sabre?) for blues.
2. No Red Jets.(UN has local air superiority?)
3. Ta183 for reds, YP80 and MiG9 (again as Sabre) for blues.
4. Ta183 for reds, YP80 and Me262 (Gloster Meteor)
5. MiG9FS and Ta183, YP80 and Me262 (Gloster Meteor)
6. No Jets at all.
7. YP80s for both sides.
8. Ta183s for both sides.
9. MiGs for both sides.
10. Give up and make something with SpitIXs and 109 G2s.:wall:

MajorDamage
07-08-2007, 12:38
we need Jets on both sides to make for a Korea feel.

Do we though? I'm not all that well up on the Korean War but I kind of thought there was loads of prop only action especially in the CAS role. Weren't the jets more involved at high alt in the strategic/interdiction bombing campaign?

FWIW I'd rather not see the Ta183 here. It just looks really stupid, like a kind of Weeble version of a jet. :D

IMHO this:
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e320/matthill999/MigRussian.gif
looks like it belongs with this:
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e320/matthill999/TankGW.jpg
and should be flown by this guy:
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e320/matthill999/SpaceMarine.jpg
Of course we could have 'em on both sides:
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e320/matthill999/Sabre.gif
:D :D :D :D

I would vote to make this work as a non-jet map first, then maybe add a teeny number of YP80s and Mig9's just for colour. At least the Mig9 is a real aircraft from the correct era.

Algorex
07-08-2007, 12:44
Page not found on the last three pics major

Firelok
07-08-2007, 12:47
Page 6 , 100posts:(

Yep I totally agree with you Major I think the Ta183 looks pants, like something out of a Kinder Egg.I do love Warhammer 40K Dawn of War though and play it a lot to relax and watch the pretty colours :)

However as I said a couple of pages back I'm prepared to entertain the suggestion of a Ta183.

As for it being mostly props/ low-level groundattck fighterbombers it is but these are being overshadowed by the Jet nonsense, the MiG9FS is excellent vs the YP80 but they should spend their time hunted by packs of YP80s.

Maybe reduce the available MiG9s to 4 flyable, I think this will still cause loads of Havoc.
The Ta183 deserves a map of it's own , it's bonzer to fly.
IL2:1946 should have shipped with RAF Glosters,Vampires a production P80 and even crazy Japanese Jets too just to be fair.

MajorDamage
07-08-2007, 12:54
Page 6 , 100posts:(

It's only cos it's an interesting discussion topic. We're on new ground here trying to make a Korean scenario out of a bunch of WW2 planes, it's bound to take a bit longer to get right. Everyone loves the map, it's worth spending some time honing it. If you're getting bored with it Firelok, put it to one side and we can come back to it later with some fresh ideas.

p.s. @Algore - yeah sorry I had some weirdness with resizing the images and my browser caching the old ones.

stanford
07-08-2007, 12:55
I think you should be happy mate, six pages of discussion shows that people are actually interested in the map!

irish
07-08-2007, 13:52
I'd vote 4 or 5 from the choices on the last page:D

Firelok: Have you been on when this map is being flown? It's a hoot...everyone loves it including the near hapless UN flyers:p

A few thoughts: having flown this map 3 times now I've never once seen the Reds really go for their ground objectives. There is always like 1 or 2 IL10's (tops) in the air at any given moment. No joke...you have a better chance at seeing a 1943 A20 flying than the Beast. Meanwhile, the UN seems to be going after the ground targets. This pretty much cedes air-superiority to the Chinese/DPRK pilots.....I'm not sure how things turned out at the end (my virus scan software decided it really needed to update right in the middle of a killer DF for me and I had to leave), but we were doing a fair job at plastering the Red tank columns (thus coming close to winning the map-and that's what counts, right? )

Re: the Ta183....I don't know a weeble from a wobble:o :p ....but from 300m in my gunsights all i notice is a plane with swept wings and distinctive tail-fin
trailing black smoke from it's single engine. The MiG9 looks nothing like a MiG15. All it does is share the same Soviet design bureau.

Funny thing about a production P80A....Oleg's already got one. True. He's been sitting on it for years. The fella who designed the YP80 also modeled a fully flyable P80A with dive brake, no engine cut-out and a limited engine burn (still a problem with the production model...though not as bad as the prototype). The only thing it's really missing is the upmodel M3 HMG. Oleg & Co literally said "Over my dead body"....thats a quote I remember:( You can dig it up over at Ubi somewhere

Firelok
07-08-2007, 13:58
If you're getting bored with it Firelok, put it to one side and we can come back to it later with some fresh ideas.


It's frustration really Major. Perhaps because I've had two or three 'easy' projects in a row. I do agree that people seem to enjoy it and I think that we are fairly close to a conclusion too.

The pilots who choose to fly a YP80 are really going to have to fly and hunt in a pack, a 1 vs 1 is going to go against a YP80 almost all of the time even against a much smaller force of MiGs.

irish
07-08-2007, 17:21
Sorry for going so OT....But isn't a Weeble a reference to that freaked out movie about the muppets on crack?:p


*Edit* Negative, that little gem is from Peter Jackson's Meet the Feebles, not Weebles

I really can't give you any type of movie synopsia here (think of the children!), however the tagline to the movie was
Hell hath no fury like a hippo with a machine gun

MajorDamage
07-08-2007, 17:56
Sorry for going so OT....But isn't a Weeble a reference to that freaked out movie about the muppets on crack?:p

No it's a kid's toy. Though the movie you mention sounds interesting. The advertising catchphrase was 'Weebles wobble but they don't fall down'.
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e320/matthill999/WEEBLE.jpg
The design similarity with the Ta183 is quite obvious I think you'll agree. :D

Sorry also to go OT.

NS-IceFire
07-08-2007, 22:54
Sounds like an interesting battle...can't wait to get back in the air!

Firelok
08-08-2007, 02:07
Ta 183 (never flew)
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e150/firelokc/250px-Ta183-1.jpg
MiG 15 (used over Korea)
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e150/firelokc/MiG15.jpg
MiG 9 (used over Korea)
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e150/firelokc/MiG9.jpg
Whichever of the Red Jets get preference and I'm for the MiG9 rather than a pretend MiG15 because N.Korea use the MiG9 too(from China). Then the USSR llater sent MiG 15s. Either way our current game set allows us either the Ta183 or MiG9FS vs the YP80, it's best they get only a few birds in the air ((six maybe) which i think will create plenty of havoc anyway.) and any Red Jet pilots will have an advantage in planes but 'hopefully' often find themselves challenged by a fair few YP80s.

irish
08-08-2007, 13:58
whatever you do with the jets, just don't forget to upgrade all F4U-1D's to F4u-1C's.

The .50 cal models had all been put out to pasteur by the time of Korea and the 1C has the same armament as the F4u-4/5's that were used in Korea

Boemher
10-08-2007, 00:43
Played this evening and Blues scored more kills that Reds ! For tha majority of the map Blue team had approx 1 more player but P-80s were doing their job and P-51s and Tempests and Corsairs were able to wade in to fights and be semi survivable.

this was with spawn limited Mig-9s

http://il2hq.com/stats_uk2/il2sc_stat/index.php?navigation=map/52/index.html

irish
10-08-2007, 01:28
How was the ground attacks going for either side?

I really don't know how to read those stats (drrrrr*drool*errrrrgh):o

Firelok
10-08-2007, 02:12
Got ant idea how many MiGs could spawn, a maximum?
I think maybe 6 would be good.

Boemher
10-08-2007, 10:50
I saw around 4 or 5 at anyone time with around 5 or 6 P-80s airborne to counter. The server wasnt that busy I think it peaked around maybe 9 or 10 aside. There were some good guys flying the Mig 9 like KLINK and RedChico, both those two have flown this map before and delivered a kicking to the UN side. This time it was a lot more even.

Boemher
10-08-2007, 10:52
How was the ground attacks going for either side?

I really don't know how to read those stats (drrrrr*drool*errrrrgh):o

Reds hit 28 targets and Blues hit 24 - seems like they went after soft targets mostly. Either way a deditcated ground attack run can see you clear around 20 targets in one go. Especially if your in a F4U or a Tempest. The 1000lbers take out 3 T-34s and the 20mm's can take out all of the soft targets and AAA. So it seems neither team were really going for the targets.

irish
10-08-2007, 17:54
cool, thx:)

Boemher
11-08-2007, 01:28
Similar results : Red team 17 kills to Blue teams 23 kills, almost equal target destruction too.

One or at most two more Mig 9 to make 4 flyable might balance this map perfectly. If you double it from 3 (Algore was right I think) to 6 maybe we will see it becoming one sided again?

Firelok
11-08-2007, 10:53
Similar results : Red team 17 kills to Blue teams 23 kills, almost equal target destruction too.

One or at most two more Mig 9 to make 4 flyable might balance this map perfectly. If you double it from 3 (Algore was right I think) to 6 maybe we will see it becoming one sided again?

Yep, hard to gauge the exact spawn numbers from tweaking the radius of the appropriate base, it's trial and error TBO. But this test did seem almost spot on.