PDA

View Full Version : E3 gameplay video



chip5541
16th Jul 2008, 18:40
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/36616.html


ROCK ON!!

Ok. I posted before I watched. I watched about 1 minute of it and WOW!! Great job. Interface looks allot better. Radar improved. Ships look even better and Booms sound like BOOMS!!!! Great job.


Cockpit view!!! Woo hoo!!!


I need to see this in HD.

(update)

Developer walk through

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/36901.html

This is the high def trailer part ONE

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/36930.html

This is the high def trailer part TWO

com345
16th Jul 2008, 18:58
:thumbsup: looks really good!

i love the muzzle blast from the CA at 2:35

ive also seen that the hitzones are now displayed when u move your crosshair on em and that the cammera can follow the shells Cool stuff!!!
sounds and graphics are really good!

ricbar89
16th Jul 2008, 19:17
Looking more hardcore and tactical too:thumbsup:

The scale doesnt seem much bigger, squads of 3 planes still it seems, please tell me we have alot more squads...

David603
16th Jul 2008, 19:18
Sweet

The new map looks great, and the ship damage is awesome. Some of the effects look even better than in the trailer, and we can expect further improvements in time. And the ship models have recieved a major overhaul too, they are considerably more detailed than in BSM. Only thing I'm not sure about is the proliferation of HUD icons, but hopefully these can be switched off or toned down. And the mission that has four escort carriers looks really good.

chip5541
16th Jul 2008, 19:46
That was one of the requests (movie view). Fingers crossed.

battleshipman
16th Jul 2008, 21:18
:thumbsup: I love it :D

Colosseum
16th Jul 2008, 22:50
Argh, my net isn't letting me view it... can't wait to watch it on a high speed connection though. :D

chip5541
16th Jul 2008, 23:20
Between time stamp 1:18 - 1:20 the AA gun turns and the smoke follows it and also 1:24 - 1:26. Anyone else see that?

Smoke at time stamp 1:42 - 1:46. Is there 2 smoke stacks for 2 smoke flumes?


Suggestion. Allow the servers to select flight can be played in first person, 3rd person or users choice.

Colosseum
16th Jul 2008, 23:46
Heh, I noticed it too. They'll fix it though.

Looks awesome. I noticed also that the music is still the same. :cool: Can't wait. :D

YUKIMURA300
17th Jul 2008, 00:04
Is it me or does it look a bit too slow?

chip5541
17th Jul 2008, 00:07
I don't know. I thought it looked about teh same as Midway.

Red October
17th Jul 2008, 01:33
The torps look at lot faster thats nice.

TrickMyWarthog
17th Jul 2008, 04:37
Atlanta class ftw! I want to see some more ships, especially the Takao class. I hope they change the music(not that I don't like it, but it would be smart to make more music), and also different AI voices.

Red October
17th Jul 2008, 13:16
I am a little worried about the AA platform on the ships i did not see as many machine guns as in real life. :(

On a happier note the sound is amazing :D My work computers sound card was wiggin out in some spots because it could not handle all the sounds coming from the video:lol: So many game skip on sound and foucous all on graphics it is nice to see a game with good sound. :thumbsup:

LORD BLACKFIRE
17th Jul 2008, 14:38
Atlanta class ftw! I want to see some more ships, especially the Takao class. I hope they change the music(not that I don't like it, but it would be smart to make more music), and also different AI voices.

I strongly agree. Quite a few of us have been playing since the game launched Jan. 2007. By the time this game comes out it will have been a full 2 years. I'm not sure I can play Pacific for 2 more years without going a little nuts from hearing the same audio for so long.

On the bright side, I suspect that the music & AI voices are some of the last things that go into a game. This game has at least 3-5 more months of development time and internal bug testing before it has to go off to Microsoft for certification (which takes about 4-8 weeks depending on if MS finds bugs). I'm pretty sure they will update the music and voices unless they are strapped for cash. If so, I can just disable the voices and music.

David603
17th Jul 2008, 14:41
If so, I can just disable the voices and music.Or just play your own music off the hard drive, which disables the game music.

Arrow
17th Jul 2008, 14:55
Graphics remind me of Ace Combat 6.

I'm surprised the Atlanta AI is blasting a target despite the fact the player has AA set up. Does that mean then that they've finally fixed the problems where an Atlanta would be stupid and focus all its guns (including those not in arc) onto the same target? =D

I find it kind of weird they moved the health of your current ship from the bottom left, but I suppose I could get used to it being on the opposite side. The interface, IMO, looks somewhat lopsided at the bottom, with two things stacked on the right and nothing on the left. But that's minor details.

Crosshairs look neater, changing colours like that. I'm hoping there's a way to get rid of them for some filming.

HOLY @#$% THOSE TORPS CAUSE BIG BOOMS.


Hmm. Bullet cam? that would certainly make attacking targets much easier. Especially small, stationary ones. It would be cool filming that, too.

Ohh, now they show where exactly each ship component is? Much easier aiming. It might be too easy if magazine hits instagib ships, but hopefully the game will remain balanced by armouring the magazines or something of the sort.

No enemy health? For the PT boats? Odd. I do like how the target is identified directly on the HUD instead of at the top, though. That's an awesome change. The PTs also look much bigger compared to the Zeros from last game. Dunno how accurate that is.

Hey, is that the De Ruyter model at 3:31? Why is it identified as the USS Walke?

Still got the torpedo cam. Awesome =D The wake looks a little different, too. I noticed how the Chicago didn't go up in the air when the torpedo hit, though - is that something specific to the Iowa from the current trailer out?

Hey, we got the Nell back =P I like its design, but hopefully it'll be a little more effective than from BSM. Nells suck in BSM. >.>

MOAR VALS =D They didn't show up enough in multiplayer, IMO.

The new map looks kickass to say the least. It's effectively organized, and it seems that each individual ship is shown actually to scale. Perhaps my only POSSIBLE criticism is not being able to move the cursor seperately from the map. I dunno, again it's a minor thing, but I'm used to moving my cursor relative to the map and not the map relative to the cursor.

Verdict looks kickass, though. I'm so glad they released some gameplay trailers, unlike for BSM =D

Hopefully the voices will be a little neater and less repetitive (I think the Japanese pilots only say the same word, multiple times with different tones, when shot down >.>). Hopefully they won't change the theme entirely, but still keep the older Battlestations motif with a facelift. New theme might not be bad too, though.

I'm still hoping they'll give us the option to swap out their music for our own. Even if it's not a built-in music player, just simply grabbing your own mp3s, renaming them to match the game's mp3 names, then simply swapping them would work for me. (Actually, I think that works better, since the game then automatically transitions music accordingly =D)

M0n3y
17th Jul 2008, 17:28
great trailer!
i see alot more smoke
faster torps
VISIBLE DAMAGE WHOHOO :D
cockpit vieuw

and much much more :D

wonderfull! =D

raston
17th Jul 2008, 21:02
Any one have an idea what this is?

http://i338.photobucket.com/albums/n417/Harpoon2008/b.jpg

David603
17th Jul 2008, 21:07
Any have an idea what this is?

http://i338.photobucket.com/albums/n417/Harpoon2008/b.jpg
Looks like a fuel guage, since its a aircraft. The IGN preview said that they were going for a more sim-like game this time round, and it looks like there is visible evidence for that.

battleshipman
17th Jul 2008, 21:10
Any one have an idea what this is?

http://i338.photobucket.com/albums/n417/Harpoon2008/b.jpg

Flux Capacitor :nut:


Looks like a fuel guage, since its a aircraft. The IGN preview said that they were going for a more sim-like game this time round, and it looks like there is visible evidence for that

Could be, I can't really think of anything else it might be:scratch:

battleshipman
17th Jul 2008, 21:19
I just noticed the ships speed indicator, instead of giving the speed in knotts, it show "full"^^.

[QUOTE]No enemy health? For the PT boats? Odd.QUOTE]

Maybe the bar to the right of the ship name? I can't really tell.

EDIT: its a healthbar 3:23 to the right of the fortress the bar is only half full of green.

chip5541
17th Jul 2008, 21:29
Updated first post with dev walk through (hi def)

*oh no. It is part one*

Note damage control.
Note planes on torps on throttle for ship. (limited ammo??)

Arrow
17th Jul 2008, 23:18
Oh come on, I liked the damage control >.> It just needed to be executed a little better.

chip5541
17th Jul 2008, 23:31
Look like DC is on the same screen so as not to break from teh action and increase response time.

chip5541
17th Jul 2008, 23:33
Second part is up.

Ohhhh random secondary missions!!!

detail maps....

Oh wow. look at the light/shadow from inside the cockpit view.

uh.. releasing winter 2009???

Arrow
18th Jul 2008, 00:02
I'm also gonna miss the Dauntless ;-; That was one of my favourites.

I also kind of wish to switch between the third person, the cockpit, and a first person at will. Then it would be like Ace Combat.

chip5541
18th Jul 2008, 00:13
I'm also gonna miss the Dauntless ;-; That was one of my favourites.

I also kind of wish to switch between the third person, the cockpit, and a first person at will. Then it would be like Ace Combat.


Yeah but we do get the Corsair :D

I hope it can be adjusted in MP games to allow or restrict.

Arrow
18th Jul 2008, 00:18
Why would you want to restrict views in the first place? >.> I dunno, I like being able to constantly switch. First person is good for chases, while third person is good for turning wars.

Red October
18th Jul 2008, 00:34
Second part is up.

Ohhhh random secondary missions!!!

detail maps....

Oh wow. look at the light/shadow from inside the cockpit view.

uh.. releasing winter 2009???

2009 :mad2: They will beam computer games into your head by then :confused: :(

David603
18th Jul 2008, 00:43
I'm also gonna miss the Dauntless ;-; That was one of my favourites.
I saw the Dauntless in the second part of the developer walkthrough, fighting with the Zero. I don't think any units are going to be dropped, even the De Ruyter class cruiser made it through.

chip5541
18th Jul 2008, 03:54
Why would you want to restrict views in the first place? >.> I dunno, I like being able to constantly switch. First person is good for chases, while third person is good for turning wars.

I think it should be left up to the host. I don't want to restrict the player but give the hosts more control over the game and how it is played.

Shamrock
18th Jul 2008, 06:10
I'm really hoping he meant to say Winter 2008. Winter 2009 is a year and a half away. That just doesn't seem like the right kind of timetable for this game. The game looks terrific and polished already. I can't see them needing another year and half.


Maybe Kier can clear that up for us. Hopefully he just mispoke.

battleshipman
18th Jul 2008, 07:11
I'm really hoping he meant to say Winter 2008. Winter 2009 is a year and a half away. That just doesn't seem like the right kind of timetable for this game. The game looks terrific and polished already. I can't see them needing another year and half.


Maybe Kier can clear that up for us. Hopefully he just mispoke.

Well, winter starts in December, but it doesn't end untill March. I can't Imagine the game surviving untill late 2009. So I really hope he refers to the first three months of the year as winter 2009.

David603
18th Jul 2008, 07:22
Well, winter starts in December, but it doesn't end untill March. I can't Imagine the game surviving untill late 2009. So I really hope he refers to the first three months of the year as winter 2009.Most of the sites are quoting spring 09 as the launch date.

Arrow
18th Jul 2008, 10:32
I think it should be left up to the host. I don't want to restrict the player but give the hosts more control over the game and how it is played.

That's true, but I don't think by restricting view changes will accomplish that. I'd just find it annoying.

Thedivingmongoose
18th Jul 2008, 22:38
Most of the sites are quoting spring 09 as the launch date.

Then I think Battleshipman is right.:thumbsup:


That's true, but I don't think by restricting view changes will accomplish that. I'd just find it annoying.

The only reason I can think that a host would want to limit or restrict the view mode of the aircraft is for "realism". There might be an aircraft with a bubble canopy and one with just a view ability of side, up, and forward and the host wants to make that "more to the truth" as far as it will let him/her.

Arrow
19th Jul 2008, 01:58
That would be extremely annoying. 90% of all flight simulators, including the ultra-realistic ones, allow for a complete freelook of your aircraft. BSP reducing your personal view (it's not like it affects other players, even) is just plain retarded.

Starfury
19th Jul 2008, 16:33
Any one have an idea what this is?
http://i338.photobucket.com/albums/n417/Harpoon2008/b.jpg
According to the dev video, that's some kind of nitro. It even recharges with time...

And I'm almost certain what he calls Winter 2009 follows right after the Holiday Season 2008. Couldn't imagine what they would need 18 more months for...

Red October
19th Jul 2008, 16:42
According to the dev video, that's some kind of nitro. It even recharges with time...

And I'm almost certain what he calls Winter 2009 follows right after the Holiday Season 2008. Couldn't imagine what they would need 18 more months for...

He says the turbo boost is realistic i have never heard of this in ww2 planes or really in any planes for that matter. I guess it will be nice for those steep climbs and getting away fast. But i just hope they don't over do it so i look up from my sub and see a B-17 rocketing across the sky.:eek:

Red October
19th Jul 2008, 16:46
He says the turbo boost is realistic i have never heard of this in ww2 planes or really in any planes for that matter. I guess it will be nice for those steep climbs and getting away fast. But i just hope they don't over do it so i look up from my sub and see a B-17 rocketing across the sky.:eek:

Ok i did some research and talked to my grandfather who worked for lockheed after the war and flew the Wildcat during the war, he said he has not heard of a turbo boost in any of the planes. He did say they had turbochargers in which the piolit could open up to full and get a little more speed and power, so maybe that is what they are talking about on the video.

Arrow
19th Jul 2008, 21:31
Yeah, I imagine that's what it is. Most planes had turbochargers, it seems, but how much faster they'd send a plane I don't know.

Edit: You just might see a B-17 rocket across the sky. According to the Wiki anyway, it seems 17s DID have turbochargers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbocharger#Aviation

W4lt3r89
19th Jul 2008, 21:45
I think the turbochargers on the 17's allowed the engines to work better on higher altitudes. Atleast from my experience in IL-2, turbocharge/superchargers on fighters/bombers improve their working altitudes a lot, compared to planes that had only "1 turbo-/supercharger level" but who knows, even IL-2 flight sim isnt 100% realistic but it is close to it.

But i dont think the turbocharger/supercharger really affect the speed of a airplane, but there is the possibilty that you can get 110% out of you'r engine, gaining slightly more speed but there is the risk of engine failure by overheating or other malfunction. Limiting it's use...

Im just saying what i know so, if i confuse the 2, it is my mistake then.

David603
19th Jul 2008, 21:58
I think what he's talking about is WEP boost. Many WW2 planes have this, and it works so when the pilot uses it either nitrous or methanol is injected into the engine, boosting power by around 25%. So its pretty much the same as nitrous boost in a street racer. In general, its used to boost takeoff power, or to gain a sudden burst of acceleration in a combat situation. The pilot has around 10 minutes supply, but advice was not to use WEP if possible because it damaged the engine.

battleshipman
20th Jul 2008, 00:13
I think the turbochargers on the 17's allowed the engines to work better on higher altitudes. Atleast from my experience in IL-2, turbocharge/superchargers on fighters/bombers improve their working altitudes a lot, compared to planes that had only "1 turbo-/supercharger level" but who knows, even IL-2 flight sim isnt 100% realistic but it is close to it.

But i dont think the turbocharger/supercharger really affect the speed of a airplane, but there is the possibilty that you can get 110% out of you'r engine, gaining slightly more speed but there is the risk of engine failure by overheating or other malfunction. Limiting it's use...

Im just saying what i know so, if i confuse the 2, it is my mistake then.

Thats about right, the turbochargers/superchargers Increased the performance of the plane at high altitude. I think all the US heavy bombers had them as well as some fighters. I know the P-38 did as well as the P-51.

Thedivingmongoose
20th Jul 2008, 01:05
I think what he's talking about is WEP boost. Many WW2 planes have this, and it works so when the pilot uses it either nitrous or methanol is injected into the engine, boosting power by around 25%. So its pretty much the same as nitrous boost in a street racer. In general, its used to boost takeoff power, or to gain a sudden burst of acceleration in a combat situation. The pilot has around 10 minutes supply, but advice was not to use WEP if possible because it damaged the engine.

I think your right....I was just about to mention that (or something similar based around War Emergency Power) until I read your post. Thanks for the good simplified version...I'm not good with words.

I think that they just "confused" a turbocharger with WEP as a definition for "a boost of energy"; and since this is more of an arcade ish type of gameplay (like Arrow has mentioned many times) it will probably be WEP (like David said) and like a short rechargeable boost in the sky. I keep thinking "Heroes of the Pacific" because that was very arcade ish and had something similar.


That would be extremely annoying. 90% of all flight simulators, including the ultra-realistic ones, allow for a complete freelook of your aircraft. BSP reducing your personal view (it's not like it affects other players, even) is just plain retarded.

I think it might be annoying, too.

Arrow
20th Jul 2008, 02:05
Having just played the most retarded game of Phillipines ever (my partner for some reason lost his cursor, and I don't think he had repairs up, but knowing him, he should have; the result was a standoff between Soryu, Enterprise, and Hornet) I definitely think there should be something - deck guns, removing empty CVs from play - SOMETHING - to break that stalemate.

Honestly I think this is the first time I've been caught in that stupid standoff where no one has any planes.

Thedivingmongoose
20th Jul 2008, 02:49
Having just played the most retarded game of Phillipines ever (my partner for some reason lost his cursor, and I don't think he had repairs up, but knowing him, he should have; the result was a standoff between Soryu, Enterprise, and Hornet) I definitely think there should be something - deck guns, removing empty CVs from play - SOMETHING - to break that stalemate.

Honestly I think this is the first time I've been caught in that stupid standoff where no one has any planes.

I have had that "missing cursor" thing a long time ago a few times. It mainly happens in the formation screen when two ships (the one in the middle and a following ship) get overlapped and your cursor disapears. You switch to one of the ships in that formation and then go to the formation screen. After that you try to click in the center and drag that ship away. It can be difficult but it can be done.

As for him not being able to play without a cursor is not right. I figured out you just need the arrow keys to launch and select planes...if all else fails you can activate the AI auto launch to get planes into the air. That cursor thing really annoyed me in some games I had with friends.....put a big dent in our force.

I think you mean Coral Sea....Phillipines doesn't have the Soryu.

Arrow
20th Jul 2008, 04:36
Mongoose, you should remember your units =P Of course Phillipines has the Soryu! The Japanese have a single carrier, remember? :rasp:

chip5541
20th Jul 2008, 07:25
Having just played the most retarded game of Phillipines ever (my partner for some reason lost his cursor, and I don't think he had repairs up, but knowing him, he should have; the result was a standoff between Soryu, Enterprise, and Hornet) I definitely think there should be something - deck guns, removing empty CVs from play - SOMETHING - to break that stalemate.

Honestly I think this is the first time I've been caught in that stupid standoff where no one has any planes.


Solution..... RAMMING SPEED!!!! :D

com345
20th Jul 2008, 08:09
Solution..... RAMMING SPEED!!!! :D


tried that already a lot of times :D :D

Thedivingmongoose
20th Jul 2008, 19:00
Mongoose, you should remember your units =P Of course Phillipines has the Soryu! The Japanese have a single carrier, remember? :rasp:

:eek: I've been away too long. I didn't remember the Japs on Philipines having a carrier.:rasp: . Now I remember....even remember where it starts. I can't believe I forgot!

PS: Thanks for that "www.skygod.com" site with those quotes.:thumbsup:

Starfury
20th Jul 2008, 23:05
I think that they just "confused" a turbocharger with WEP as a definition for "a boost of energy"; and since this is more of an arcade ish type of gameplay (like Arrow has mentioned many times) it will probably be WEP (like David said) and like a short rechargeable boost in the sky. I keep thinking "Heroes of the Pacific" because that was very arcade ish and had something similar.
Actually, the dev called it turbo boost, turbochargers were brought up in this thread only.
But I guess he's a product of the 80's and has seen Knight Rider once too often :D

-Incline-
22nd Jul 2008, 16:57
Good lord. I've been gone for a while, finally check back in on this place, and couldn't have been happier to see this thread.

That looks freaking awesome. The new tacmap is incredible, and just everything about it is insane.

I can't wait for this.

VTROOPER
22nd Jul 2008, 20:17
wow that was good

lardassmonkey
23rd Jul 2008, 11:26
Excellent videos, graphics look good. I'm loving the new units, especially the CVEs.
Ship lauched seaplanes are in too!?! Yay!:lmao:

Arrow
23rd Jul 2008, 15:06
Did we even confirm the existance of CVEs?

M0n3y
24th Jul 2008, 19:09
wow that was good

he's back :D


can we have more movies ?
plz? ;)

crazyhorse128
24th Jul 2008, 19:46
can we have a demo please :rasp:

com345
24th Jul 2008, 19:54
you get the vids and demos and i get the game ok? :D

M0n3y
25th Jul 2008, 09:58
*stealing the first game so nobody can play it except for me* :D

sstoffels
4th Aug 2008, 13:29
did any one notice a there is a shell follow cam kind of thing looks cool.

com345
4th Aug 2008, 15:27
did any one notice a there is a shell follow cam kind of thing looks cool.

yes it looks good

M0n3y
4th Aug 2008, 16:02
yes it looks good

nope, it looks very good :D

maybe a free cam for when you run out of units? (bhut then you will have to talk on the "death net", otherwise you can tell them where the enemy is)

F4F
5th Aug 2008, 22:38
I'm waiting for new trailers:mad2: :mad2: :mad2:

Arrow
5th Aug 2008, 23:19
nope, it looks very good :D

maybe a free cam for when you run out of units? (bhut then you will have to talk on the "death net", otherwise you can tell them where the enemy is)

You'd have to stay on the "death net" though. Otherwise then you can simply give and take back your unit to get an all-seeing eye.

crazyhorse128
6th Aug 2008, 18:50
Do it like they do it on the Total War games, im not sure if this is the same as the 'death net' you speak of, but you can only move the camera within a set distance of your forces

M0n3y
6th Aug 2008, 18:55
Do it like they do it on the Total War games, im not sure if this is the same as the 'death net' you speak of, but you can only move the camera within a set distance of your forces

yup idd
sounds like a good idea =)

Arrow
6th Aug 2008, 20:16
Do it like they do it on the Total War games, im not sure if this is the same as the 'death net' you speak of, but you can only move the camera within a set distance of your forces

Within reason. The main things I'm looking for are:

-Free-roaming spectator mode (for filming and simple observation)
-Toggle whether said omniscient spectators can speak to other players or just to spectators (the former for filming, the latter for serious games)

So long as those two are implemented, then I'm happy.

xgamerms999
7th Aug 2008, 17:18
Any one have an idea what this is?

http://i338.photobucket.com/albums/n417/Harpoon2008/b.jpg

CRAP

anyways did any one notice that there are power ups in the game! lol I'm not to sure about that one time stamp 1:44 - 1:50.

crazyhorse128
7th Aug 2008, 17:42
Well on Microsoft Combat flight simulator 3, theres WEP -War Emergancy Power. It is a short burst of power to the engine.
Also during WW2 in an atempt to combat the over welming speed of the Me-262, many P-51's were equipt with nitrous oxide (like in modern racing cars)

Arrow
7th Aug 2008, 20:09
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the devs made a reference to an engine boost of some kind.

David603
7th Aug 2008, 21:00
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the devs made a reference to an engine boost of some kind.
Yeah, and you only need to watch the Corsair prior to its attack on the boatyard (sorry, I've forgotten which gameplay video its in) as dives down to see that boost has been implemented. I hope its limited to fighters only.

ricbar89
7th Aug 2008, 21:48
The boost is realistic as long as its limited, WEP was used by many fighter aircraft as a ONE use boost to help them in combat. Was especially important when they were engaged with aircraft that could out climb there own or were faster, it gave them a better chance as they could climb with the target for a period or quickly gain altitude and dive on aircraft that were to fast to catch.

Im pretty sure it became vital at the end of the war for the allied propeller aircraft unlucky enough to be engaged with the early German jet fighters

F4F
7th Aug 2008, 23:24
Although the nazi-planes had had a well rate of climb, they normally tried to dive away although the US planes could dive better...:mad2: :mad2:
So a german said: Over north africa, a Martlet was on his 6. He dived and tried to escape. When he looked back, the Martlet was wild firing on him. He began to climb with his bf 109 and slowly escaped...He was lucky, because the Britain was a bad sagittarius. But the other Germans who used the same tactics over Europe would mostly be unlucky:(

David603
8th Aug 2008, 00:01
Although the nazi-planes had had a well rate of climb, they normally tried to dive away although the US planes could dive better...:mad2: :mad2:
So a german said: Over north africa, a Martlet was on his 6. He dived and tried to escape. When he looked back, the Martlet was wild firing on him. He began to climb with his bf 109 and slowly escaped...He was lucky, because the Britain was a bad sagittarius. But the other Germans who used the same tactics over Europe would mostly be unlucky:(
Oddly enough I remember an similar forum post on what may have been the same site describing a fight between a Bf109F and an American Wildcat, also over North Africa, and the post stated that the Bf109F lost the Wildcat almost as soon as it pulled out of the dive and zoom climbed.

Very few planes could change altitude like a Bf109 or a Fw190D, and the Bf109 G and K models both outclimbed any Allied fighter by a considerable margin with the Bf109K being the best climber of any WWII prop plane. In a dive, the Bf109 wasn't as good, because the controls got rather heavy at high speed but the acceleration into a dive was outstanding, especially if the GM1 boost was engaged to give the already powerful Daimler Benz engine another 400hp or so. Very few planes could follow a Bf109G in a dive and none of these could continue to follow if the Bf109G then zoom climbed, not even the otherwise excellent P51D Mustang.

F4F
8th Aug 2008, 00:15
The P-47 and F4U could surely outdive any version of the bf 109!!!:rasp:

F4F
8th Aug 2008, 00:17
Oddly enough I remember an similar forum post on what may have been the same site describing a fight between a Bf109F and an American Wildcat, also over North Africa, and the post stated that the Bf109F lost the Wildcat almost as soon as it pulled out of the dive and zoom climbed.

Very few planes could change altitude like a Bf109 or a Fw190D, and the Bf109 G and K models both outclimbed any Allied fighter by a considerable margin with the Bf109K being the best climber of any WWII prop plane. In a dive, the Bf109 wasn't as good, because the controls got rather heavy at high speed but the acceleration into a dive was outstanding, especially if the GM1 boost was engaged to give the already powerful Daimler Benz engine another 400hp or so. Very few planes could follow a Bf109G in a dive and none of these could continue to follow if the Bf109G then zoom climbed, not even the otherwise excellent P51D Mustang.

The Ki-84 Frank was the best climber!!!!:rasp:

David603
8th Aug 2008, 00:21
The Ki-84 Frank was the best climber!!!!:rasp:
Only at low altitude.

F4F
8th Aug 2008, 00:22
Only at low altitude.

please be honest with the bf 109!!!!this is not a Mig-15****

David603
8th Aug 2008, 03:18
please be honest with the bf 109!!!!this is not a Mig-15****Sure, I'm honest about the Bf 109. At the start of the war it was one of the best fighters in the world, but by the end it was quite heavily outclassed in everything but straightline performance, where it could still hold its own, and climbing where it was still world class. A lot of fighters could turn inside it, most crucially the main European theatre single engined fighters, the Mustang and Spitfire, both of which had a tighter turn. The Bf109 wasn't the easiest plane to fly, with this being particularly applicable to take-off and landing, and in common with almost all early war fighters it had a short range. Handling, while good at low-medium speeds, became overly heavy at high speeds, though not nearly as bad as the stick-set-in-cement high speed handling of the Zero.

But, you know what, despite these flaws, in the right hands (this being a rare situation at the end of the war because of the heavy pilot losses) a late model Bf109 could hold its own against just about any WWII prop fighter and would do considerably better than many.

About your comment "this is not a Mig-15", I presume you are refering to the superiority that the Mig-15 had at the start of the Korean War, but in 1939 when war broke out the Bf109 held the same level of superiority that the Mig-15 held prior to the introduction of the F-86 Sabre in Korea.

David603
8th Aug 2008, 05:32
The P-47 and F4U could surely outdive any version of the bf 109!!!:rasp:True, but not by a great margin and neither can keep up in a climb.