Friday Update, April 13, 2012

[Hooves]

So basically you don't have a chance against a 109 unless you have your 3 friends with you. So if my 3 friends aren't on, I'm not going to log on either, leading to others not logging on leading to a bunch of empty servers, except for the packed blue team of coarse.


I love how the realites come out of the wood work when the nerf that has just occurred benefits them. But cry foul when anything is touched on their beloved aircraft.


Realism simply will not work in an online environment. At least not the realism that 1c is apparently going for. If a single player can't log on and have half a chance of surviving 5 mins let alone getting a kill. Well guess what.... They leave and they don't come back. Like it or not that is online gaming no matter what your targeted audience. if you aren't going to somehow enforce the tactical directive of the LW, how on earth can you think that FM realism will produce anything but discontent? In this case the circumstances are as equal to if not more important than the FM.

[addman]

Nothing wrong with it now! I hope they've re-introduced mixture control though! :grin:

However, Addman old bean, a lot of work seems to have gone in to the G.50, and the Blenheim, and they've altered the Hurri MkI.

Which Airforce do you think that points to for the sequel?

Oooo yeah baby! Time to uncork the koskenkorva and replace the landing gear with landing skiis.:cool:

[Tavingon]

Time to pack a vodka hipflask in the flight suit and a tokarev ;)

[philip.ed]

You got any examples?

I'm looking outside and seeing (a dark) England as I speak. They can't see what I'm seeing. It's one of the reasons why I think the landscape could be so much better.

I have access to a number of notable museums on the BoB. They don't.

I mean look at the game: the markings for the RAF A/C are off in places, it could always be better. They've done a great job in most places, but things could be better. Note that a lot of the sources they used for their resources have come from people like myself (e.g. I assisted in the RAF clothing seen in-game. They didn't use all of my research though...)

[kestrel79]

I'm already looking forward to the new UI being worked on for BoM. The CloD is very ugly and clunky.

Yesss improved g50! I used to fly this thing more than the 109 online when I fly blue :)

[Rumcajs]

Realism simply will not work in an online environmentEither you have a simulator or a balanced online game. WWII was not balanced by any means. So the only solution to have great online sorties is to modify the FM of all fighters to match or to be balanced around a chosen standard . Yea it sounds like an option for online gaming.
Or wait for some of the next sequel installments from around 1944 to get things somewhat balanced naturally.
Mk IX, 109G6, 190A8, P51, La7 .. name some others

[Hooves]

I'm looking outside and seeing (a dark) England as I speak. They can't see what I'm seeing. It's one of the reasons why I think the landscape could be so much better.

I have access to a number of notable museums on the BoB. They don't.

I mean look at the game: the markings for the RAF A/C are off in places, it could always be better. They've done a great job in most places, but things could be better. Note that a lot of the sources they used for their resources have come from people like myself (e.g. I assisted in the RAF clothing seen in-game. They didn't use all of my research though...)

Can you be a champ and literally go outside and take a picture of the local landscape and post it here? I for one have only seen the country from the confines of lakenHeath afb.

[AKA_Scorp]

Terrific news can't wait for the patch.

[planespotter]

Yes bring it pls, i am exiting to get it!

[Hooves]

Either you have a simulator or a balanced online game. WWII was not balanced by any means. So the only solution to have great online sorties is to modify the FM of all fighters to match or to be balanced around a chosen standard . Yea it sounds like an option for online gaming.
Or wait for some of the next sequel installments from around 1944 to get things somewhat balanced naturally.
Mk IX, 109G6, 190A8, P51, La7 .. name some others

1944 seems a long way off for 1C. I mean it looks like we are going to bounce around in 1939 - 1940 in each theatre before we move on. That seems like the only viable fix for this issue of hugely overpowered sides.

[David Hayward]

I'm looking outside and seeing (a dark) England as I speak. They can't see what I'm seeing. It's one of the reasons why I think the landscape could be so much better.

There is an amazing invention called the camera. Google it.

[Friendly_flyer]

Told AI pilots not to commit ritual suicide when their leader crash-lands;

:)

[Chivas]

Thanks for the Update. The news that there are some AI, Commands, and FM fixes to go along with the performance fixes has the sim making a huge step forward. Hopefully there will be another patch or two to COD before the Sequels release, but either way, the community will now be able start building more immersive and historic Battle of Britain scenarios. The future for COD is starting to look very bright, especially when the SDK is released.

[easytarget3]

thank you!

[BH_woodstock]

So basically you don't have a chance against a 109 unless you have your 3 friends with you. So if my 3 friends aren't on, I'm not going to log on either, leading to others not logging on leading to a bunch of empty servers, except for the packed blue team of coarse.


I love how the realites come out of the wood work when the nerf that has just occurred benefits them. But cry foul when anything is touched on their beloved aircraft.


Realism simply will not work in an online environment. At least not the realism that 1c is apparently going for. If a single player can't log on and have half a chance of surviving 5 mins let alone getting a kill. Well guess what.... They leave and they don't come back. Like it or not that is online gaming no matter what your targeted audience. if you aren't going to somehow enforce the tactical directive of the LW, how on earth can you think that FM realism will produce anything but discontent? In this case the circumstances are as equal to if not more important than the FM.

omg...very sorry to hear you have only 3 friends. (me myself and I)hope you can break free from your confinement.

[Bounder!]

Great news on the update - I'm grinning from ear to ear, can't wait until it's finally released. Wasn't expecting FM fixes so that's a massive bonus and as long as they're historically accurate there can't be too many complaints. Hope this isn't the last update for cliffs but it's a massive massive step forward.

Cheers

[FS~looksharp]

thnx for the update guys Its genuinely appreciated :grin:

Id like to think that the devs would never do anything so daft as to even out plane performances to bow down to some sort of arcade style of gaming, after all this is a sim still isn’t it chaps ?

If people want 50/50 type plane sets, they can simply enter the online severs that cater for this type of fun.

I for one love to fly for the reds and in the right hands the reds have some splendid tools to do damage those 109s

[Falstaff]

David Hayward said:

>>They're still fixing the game and you're still complaining.<<

Claptrap. You mean they're ditching the game that never was. A round-up of some minor stuff and that's your lot. The focus has moved.

Read Luthier's posts. They are fixing the engine and content for BoM. Clod is being put out to grass, without apology. It will have retrospective engine improvements, the forthcoming patch, and that's it. There will be no more content for Clod.

It's come to something when the crticis have more understanding and acceptance of this than the cheerleaders like you.

[Hooves]

omg...very sorry to hear you have only 3 friends. (me myself and I)hope you can break free from your confinement.

Wow man very mature comment there. Actually I am a member of a virtual squadron that attempts to have fun in this game. We have about 4 active flyers that come on at varied times during the week. They carry different hours than I do, mostly because of work. So if they aren't on, and to be successful at having any chance at taking a 109 down you need 3-4 reds, What is the point of me logging on? Please try and form an actual thought this time in your reply.

[5./JG27.Farber]

Realism simply will not work in an online environment. At least not the realism that 1c is apparently going for. If a single player can't log on and have half a chance of surviving 5 mins let alone getting a kill. Well guess what.... They leave and they don't come back. Like it or not that is online gaming no matter what your targeted audience.[WTF?] if you aren't going to somehow enforce the tactical directive of the LW, how on earth can you think that FM realism will produce anything but discontent? In this case the circumstances are as equal to if not more important than the FM.

Its a SIMULATOR... It simulates.... If you want fairness your in the wrong "game". :cool:

[Falstaff]

Chivas said:

>>The news that there are some AI, Commands, and FM fixes to go along with the performance fixes has the sim making a huge step forward. <<

To go with the four steps back as it is summarily dumped and forgotten.

>>Hopefully there will be another patch or two to COD before the Sequels release,<<

Read Luthier's posts. He wants rid.

>> but either way,<<

No, not either way.

>>the community will now be able start building more immersive and historic Battle of Britain scenarios.<<

Is that the happy-shiny community, or thr well-and-truly-peed-off community? Is there a CLod community?

>>The future for COD is starting to look very bright,<<

Yes, the future's Orange. Ooops, wrong thread.

>> especially when the SDK is released<<

Umm, yeah.

Surely a diamond-encrusted twirling baton by now? You've earned it, by jimminy.

Ben

[Hooves]

Its a SIMULATOR... It simulates.... If you want fairness your in the wrong "game". :cool:

Ok then I'll see you in the skies hugging your bombers and not diving to chase me! I can't wait for our next simulated fight!


Yeah. That's my point. If you are going to "simulate" then let's go the whole 9, otherwise you have just tipped the balance of a pvp online GAME. Even further than it was already scued.

[philip.ed]

There is an amazing invention called the camera. Google it.

Which doesn't give an accurate colour representation. Google it.




It doesn't explain the lack of hedgerows, colours, field shapes etc which were pasted in bucket-loads on this forum anyway. The camera is useful in showing the geometry of the country, and as a resident the game could be better.

Stop being difficult David.

[sorak]

So basically.... Two Weeks

[SlipBall]

Which doesn't give an accurate colour representation. Google it.




It doesn't explain the lack of hedgerows, colours, field shapes etc which were pasted in bucket-loads on this forum anyway. The camera is useful in showing the geometry of the country, and as a resident the game could be better.

Stop being difficult David.


I imagine that they will most likely never change the map, and so a question for you. Do you think if they offered hedgerows of various shapes in the objects list, would that help.

[Dick Tator]

I do appreciate the communication of the developers to the paid customers to give some hope to the future...

[Codex]

I've got a good feeling about this patch.

[Chivas]

I imagine that they will most likely never change the map, and so a question for you. Do you think if they offered hedgerows of various shapes in the objects list, would that help.

There is a map builder type SDK planned which will allow the community to make smaller maps. I would think the same tool could be used to adjust existing developer maps. The developer only wants to deter the community from making larger maps that they plan to develop themselves. On that note its quite possible that in the future the community will be able to take trees out, add hedgerows, and other adjustments that will greatly improve the overall look of COD's terrain.

[Triggaaar]

Thanks for the update. I hope the patch lives up to the expectation.

[airmalik]

What a beautiful surprise.
The new shots look so much better!!!! Early morning bombing missions are going to be a beautiful experience again.:)

Here's a quick comparation:

Older shot:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/<FA>Jaws/Screenshot5979.jpg

new fixed sunrise:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=9074&d=1334319354


Love it. Thank you.:-P

Looks nice but what happened to the shadows in the new shot?

[CaptainDoggles]

This is true but it leads me to another conclusion.

Since we don't die, we all gradually inch towards complete "mastery" of our respective machines. If the 109 is by a margin the better fighter, won't the 109 pilot eventually have complete 'by a margin' advantage over the Hurricane/Spit pilot?

Just an analogy to help the point: I've got a Mazda 3 Sport and I drive it every day. I drive it so much that I think I'm pretty good at pushing it to its absolute limit. Now my buddy gets an Audi r8. While he's brand new at driving it, he spins out in corners or whatever and I pass him. It's an even race...up until he gets skilled with it. No matter how well I drive my Mazda 3 Sport, as long as he doesn't f it up in the r8, he wins. Because we've spent all the hours we need to get mastery with our equipment.

Just sub in a Hurricane and a 109 for the cars.

This isn't a casual game. I doubt we've got too many online pilots who just play a few minutes here and there and will never make their skills improve.

Even Hartmann got shot down a few times. Everybody lets their SA drop now and then, and team tactics will always trump 1v1 skills.

[Atreides]

I really hope the CTD issue in multiplayer has been fixed with this patch. That has been the biggest problem of this game IMHO.

[Wolf_Rider]

That's what the Beta will be all about... testing in the wild over a large range of different configurations before official RTM

[bw_wolverine]

Even Hartmann got shot down a few times. Everybody lets their SA drop now and then, and team tactics will always trump 1v1 skills.

Very true.

I guess my initial post on this whole subject is really just part of my occasional 'vent' based on frustrations that sometimes come out of piloting the inferior planes.

I made my choice to fly red. I'll keep doing so. Who knows, with a slightly improved I/Ia and an allowable IIa, the dogfighting might get a big more exciting for everyone.

I'm hoping with the improved stability the patch will provide that more suitable online missions can be created that give both sides equal chances to win the mission. The simulator stuff may not be fair to both sides, but the gaming side stuff should be.

[ATAG_Dutch]

team tactics will always trump 1v1 skills.

I heard that. :)

I made my choice to fly red. I'll keep doing so. Who knows, with a slightly improved I/Ia and an allowable IIa, the dogfighting might get a bit more exciting for everyone.

I heard that too, but I'll reserve judgement until after the patch......:neutral:

[major_setback]

Thanks B6, thanks Luthier, thanks to all the development team and the testers.
God bless you all!
http://www.jesus27.ru/images/stories/christ/halleluya.jpeg

[5./JG27.Farber]

Ok then I'll see you in the skies hugging your bombers and not diving to chase me! I can't wait for our next simulated fight!


Yeah. That's my point. If you are going to "simulate" then let's go the whole 9, otherwise you have just tipped the balance of a pvp online GAME. Even further than it was already scued.

So you didnt even read my last post. Then the discussion is over. It its not a discussion but an arguement with a fanatic...

This is not a "pvp online GAME" its a simulator... :-P

[ATAG_Dutch]

This is not a "pvp online GAME" its a simulator... :-P

Farbs, for the benefit of the uneducated, (me), what does 'pvp' mean please?

[5./JG27.Farber]

Who knows, with a slightly improved I/Ia and an allowable IIa, the dogfighting might get a big more exciting for everyone.

Indeed.

I'm hoping with the improved stability the patch will provide that more suitable online missions can be created that give both sides equal chances to win the mission.

Yes on public servers I suppose that fine.

The simulator stuff may not be fair to both sides, but the gaming side stuff should be.

:confused:

[5./JG27.Farber]

Farbs, for the benefit of the uneducated, (me), what does 'pvp' mean please?

pvp is a MMORPG term meaning player vs player... Hence nothing to do with simulation but only fairness and balance...

[ATAG_Dutch]

pvp is a MMORPG term meaning player vs player... Hence nothing to do with simulation but only fairness...

Ah, thanks. And MMORPG? :lol:

I'm assuming the 'RPG' bit to be 'role play game'.

[28_Condor]

luthier, thanks for info. Can you confirm that boost cut out now actually works correctly in raf aircraft or not? It was mentioned some time ago by blacksix that you and team were persusing info for 100 octane fuel performance in raf aircraft too (which was in widespread, heavily documented use in the battle of britain), can you confirm that this has been added as an option, or that it will be in future?



+1!

:-)

[David Hayward]

Which doesn't give an accurate colour representation. Google it.

It's close enough. Google it.




It doesn't explain the lack of hedgerows, colours, field shapes etc which were pasted in bucket-loads on this forum anyway.



Yeah, that's just a tragic oversight in a FLIGHT SIM.


Stop being difficult David.

You're complaining that the hedgerows aren't quite right in a FLIGHT SIM. Don't talk to me about being difficult. Physician, heal thyself.

Seriously, this sim comes up short for you because the hedgerows aren't quite right and some of the decals might be wrong. That is amazing.

[David Hayward]

It's come to something when the crticis have more understanding and acceptance of this than the cheerleaders like you.

Yes, it sure is something. How long before you follow the dev team's lead and move on to something else?

[gonk]

Good day everyone!


Finally, we need to mention the launcher.exe crashes. This was a very hard issue to address as it wasn't caused by a single 100% reproducible bug, but rather rare combinations of various uncommon events. The work described above, coupled with a huge volume of general bug-fixing performed, should have at least minimized the number of instances that lead to crashes. We haven't encountered one in months, but determining whether that'll be the case for the general player base will be one of the leading goals for this beta test.


So you have had improvement for CTD for months ? thx for sharing...:evil:

I really hope the CTD issue in multiplayer has been fixed with this patch. That has been the biggest problem of this game IMHO.

Looks like after months it is still not 100%.. what happened to all the people who said don't release it until it is 100%?? lose your patience ? This should of been released in smaller patches months ago. Watch the fur fly when the beta is released...and still no su-26 that was mentioned as a flyable plane right at the start...

[Mango]

Man, I thought my programming job was hard!! The subtlties and obscure factors they deal with when tweaking the flight model must be maddening!

Thanks BS, for such a detailed updated. I'm really getting excited about this again.

[CWMV]

Thanks so much for this update!
Honestly, I wasn't expecting much from.the patch other than the graphics rewrite, but you've also.addressed the more glaring FM issues too!
Very pleasantly surprised. Hope the release goes smoothly.

[retrojet]

is there a fix for the whining divots that bug the hell out of us :?:

[zapatista]

Its a SIMULATOR... It simulates.... If you want fairness your in the wrong "game". :cool:

perfect luftwhiner behavior there for a fake-real advocate, gloating they will/are further unfairly toning down the spitfires and hurricanes compared to their historical performance (other then the spitfire IIb currently needing a little toning down in level flight speed performance). historically the 109 and spitfires of the BoB era were very evenly matched, and each had their respective advantages/weaknesses. we (the red team) are not asking for equal performance in combat aircraft (109 vs spitfire), but we ARE ASKING for simulation of correct historical strong/weak points so the red/blue sides in CoD can be "equally matched". BUT THIS IS CURRENTLY NOT POSSIBLE IN CoD !! this historical relationship is currently not modeled in the sim in its curent state (and luthier and Co seems to be totally unaware of this problem, so i suspect mostly fly for the blue side when they use the sim), AND THIS PROBLEM IS ABOUT TO GET WORSE IF THEY CRIPPLE THE RED TEAM FURTHER BY NEUTERING THE SPIT IIb. generally speaking the problem can be summed up in their historical context as:

the spitfires:
- where more agile, had better roll rate and tighter turning circles then 109's.
- but there carburetors would cut out on a sudden dive/nose-down
- had the advantage of flying above friendly soil, allowing ejecting or downed pilots to fight another day (sometimes even on the same day)
- could refuel and rearm quickly, being back in the air protecting home soil 2 or 3x faster then the blue team, and ready for the next wave of incoming bombers. this meant the same allied pilots could hit a german formation (and escorts) on the way in, and on the way out of their mission, meaning each allied pilot almost doubled in ability to engage the enemy
- english production of spitfires and hurricanes significantly outpaced the german ability to provide new planes and crews, this did become a factor in the 2e half of BoB when allied fighter plane numbers started to outnumber german fighters, AND allied aircrew were rotated to less active rear-located airfields for rest and recovery which the germans never were (for the whole duration of the war on all fronts). hence allied crews were generally more rested, and were constantly supplied with new replacement planes (but had the initial disadvantage at the beginning of BoB that very inexperienced fresh new pilots kept being being sent to frontline squadrons, leading to high fatality rates for those that were not quick learners)
- once luthier cripples the spitfire lineup further by reducing the IIb in speed so severely (whereas it only needs some minor trimming), all we end up with is that all spitfire models behave similar to hurricanes in relation to 109's, with the spitfires flight performance being toned down to hurricane levels, and giving the 109's in il2-CoD total performance advantage in almost all situations (which was not the historical case)

the 109's:
- had slightly better dive speed (used successfully for escape from engagements with spitfires but only when done from sufficient altitude), mainly because that slight speed advantage combined with the "no carburator fuel starvation"problem in the initial part of the dive,
- had similar level flight speeds and climb rates to the spitfires at low and medium altitudes (except at high altitude where they had an advantage initially),
- could spiral climb out of reach of a chasing spitfire, the combined climb/rudder action was a unique strenght for that plane model (shape/size/wheight) during most of the war
- had the disadvantage of very brief flying times over enemy territory, and limited ability to escort bombers all the way to london (could do for coastal airfields and installations)
- when starting an engagement with hight advantage, they could jab and take potshots at enemy fighters and zoom back to altitude to sit back on the perch, and then do the same all over again. the slingshot speed effect that allowed them to regain altitude was the main advantage here (combined with the linear aiming of the nose guns that didnt need to wait for convergence to be correct at a specific distance from the enemy). BUT USING THIS TACTIC LED TO MASSIVE UNSUSTAINABLE LOSSES IN THE BOMBER FORMATIONS SENT TO ENGLAND, hence it was not a sustainable strategy to try and have a "succesfull outcome of the war" (from the german view point). point exactly proven by the historical massive 109 losses that ensued when they were ordered to close escort the bomber formations, without their slingshot potshots and sitting on the pirch advantage
- when fighting at equal altitude and engaging at equal speed (without the element of surprise to be able to shoot an unaware enemy pilot in the back while they were not looking), THE 109's WERE OUTCLASSED BY THE SPITFIRES DURING THE WHOLE BOB PERIOD, why do you think Garland asked Goering for squadrons of spitfires to be supplied so they could be more effective against the enemy ? why do you think so many german pilots came down with stress related problems ((Kanal Krankheit) which further reduced their ability to perform well ?
- the combined result of these factors led to the fact that in the last 1/2 of the BoB era, german fighter pilots were either closely escorting bomber formations (as instructed) and getting decimated, or were in high altitude "free hunt" positions over the southern part of the english coast and RELUCTANT TO COME DOWN TO FORMATIONS OF ALLIED FIGHTERS AT MEDIUM/LOW ALTITUDE.

if you compare that to the 109 uber plane behavior we have now (with the recent news of spitfires being further crippled in speed), you arrive at a completely fictitious scenario where:
- 109's outpace spitfires at all altitudes
- 109's are like flying bricks of concrete and much more damage resistant
- 109's can explode in a fireball and be fully on fire without their flight performance being affected
- 109's can out-turn, out-dive, and out-climb spitfire at any altitude
- german fighter pilots can completely ignore escorting and protecting their bomber formations, yet still claim to win engagements
- downed german pilots keep magically and perpetually re-spawning to fresh planes without the historical context being included

CONCLUSION:
so the "fake real" 109 luftwhiners shouldnt constantly and perpetually be able to try and replicate the hight/speed/dive advantage, have bullit proof planes that fly while on fire, and out maneuvre the red team (as it is becoming right now). this problem is much exacerbated online because the only servers gameplay that is present right now is air-quake over the channel, THIS SCENARIO IS NOT BOB FOLKS !! in RL they would have been court marshaled or shot by friendly fire from their surviving bomber pilots who made it back to base

but it is about to even get worse !! as the previous il2 series has shown, and we are about to have history repeated, you can predict the russian planes to significantly outperform their german counterparts, where i-16's will dominate 109's for ex. the russian planes will be modeled on russian "facts" and figures, based on glorious war propaganda reports of their historical greatness, and completely ignore the 100's of german pilots with "above 50 kill scores" in that era of the war, because the initial russian campaign was by and large a big turkey shoot for the germans. il2's didnt have rear gunners initially and were easy pickings (no matter how well armored), and the early mig's and i-16's were swatted down like flies (unless some stupid german fighter pilot tried to dogfight at low speed with them)

right now what we need to correct the flight models and damage models of the blue/red relationship in BoB, is historical facts and figures to keep presenting to luthier and Co, AND we need luthier to gives us il2-compare type data OPENLY so we can see exactly what they provided under the hood, in 2012 it is way to late to expect us to make do with "lets just imagine this plane behaves historically, and if i outperform the historical opponent it just means i was the better pilot". facts regarding the date used in the sim for plane performance and speed needs to be OPENLY PROVIDED


ooops, this got a bit to long :) its is worth debating historical facts on the 109/spitfire/hurricane performances in a separate thread

[ATAG_Doc]

^^^^^^^

That's a very nice post.

[Hooves]

pvp is a MMORPG term meaning player vs player... Hence nothing to do with simulation but only fairness and balance...

Wow I mean I've seen people try to dilute themselves before but is is egregious. Pvp means player vs player. Ie you area player and I am a player. So we are in a pvp match. Sorry to burst your bubble man. No mmorpg in cod, just good old pvp action, that is now completely unbalance.

[bw_wolverine]

Indeed.



Yes on public servers I suppose that fine.



:confused:

Regarding the sim not fair/ game fair thing:

The simulation aspects of the game should be as close to reality as they can get them. So 109 / Spit / Hurricane / damage model, etc etc. Get all that stuff functioning as close as possible to real, regardless of which 'side' the details favour.

But the GAME aspect. Like, "Score 500 points to win the map!" stuff. THAT stuff should DEFINITELY be tuned to make the chances of winning equal to both sides.

If Luftwaffe fighters have the advantage in dogfighting (on average taking into account mistakes or a lapse in SA, etc.), or by a margin as you put it, then having a mission that is "First to 50 kills!" isn't exactly a fair gameplay target for both sides.

I don't really know how exactly I'd tweak missions to suit this kind of simulation / game issue, but I'd certainly make an attempt.

If a mission's objective is just to present a Battle of Britain scenario, ala Campaigns and the like, then this kind of thing isn't really necessary. Whatever happens happens.

But in a win/lose setup mission with points and targets and objectives and things, why not make an attempt to give both sides the same chances?

I don't think anyone can really seriously argue that the objectives and mission points systems in missions like the ones on ATAG are meant to be serious 'simulations' of action during the Battle of Britain. They're meant to be fun objectives to provide purpose to the action that might otherwise just be dogfighting.

If Red's strength is in taking on bombers, then give Red's target more emphasis on that. Vice versa, if Blue's strength is on air superiority fighting and bombing targets, make those the objectives for Blue. So for example:

RED OBJECTIVES: Destroy 50 bombers
BLUE OBJECTIVES: Destroy 25 ground targets and 25 fighters

Obviously that's just an example so please no one start posting "But 50 bombers is easier than 25 ground targets and 25 fighters!" That's not the point.

Right now, most missions I see have way too much symmetry. Each side has pretty much the same objectives, just opposite. "Red attacks parked Ju88s. Blue attacks parked Beaufighters. Red attacks tanks here. Blue attacks tanks there." Symmetry like that doesn't take into account the different weapon sets these teams have.

[CWMV]

Even Hartmann got shot down a few times...

Totally agree with your post, except this part.
He wasn't shot down, but had a habit of running into pieces of his kills......something like 14 times :-P
To quote the man himself "I was never another pilots victory".

[F19_Klunk]

So basically you don't have a chance against a 109 unless you have your 3 friends with you. So if my 3 friends aren't on, I'm not going to log on either, leading to others not logging on leading to a bunch of empty servers, except for the packed blue team of coarse.


I love how the realites come out of the wood work when the nerf that has just occurred benefits them. But cry foul when anything is touched on their beloved aircraft.


Realism simply will not work in an online environment. At least not the realism that 1c is apparently going for. If a single player can't log on and have half a chance of surviving 5 mins let alone getting a kill. Well guess what.... They leave and they don't come back. Like it or not that is online gaming no matter what your targeted audience. if you aren't going to somehow enforce the tactical directive of the LW, how on earth can you think that FM realism will produce anything but discontent? In this case the circumstances are as equal to if not more important than the FM.


I understand your point of view. However - For me it is imperative that the FM as are close to reality as possible - that the theatre of war is depicted realistically. Once you tread on the "balance all the planes", you will end up in a scenario which I for one do not want to end up in..all planes pretty much looks and feel the same.

This is by no means a new discussion; this has been discussed over and over again since the day of flight simulation, and has always been discussed in the IL2 community.. and is still beeing discussed amongst mission builders for different "full switch" IL2 servers such as spits vs 109 et al. They have of course an easier job these days as the number of different version of all planes are five to tenfold the amount we have in Clod--- at least for the moment.

To take this in account though and use it as an argument to balance the planes performances to non-historical characteristics is a show-stopper for me though. When I fly red (and I do most of the time) I WANT to have the same challenges as the real deal... or at least as close as possible.

If you want the FMs dulled down for a non-historical setup, it seems that you have chosen the wrong kind of game/sim. ...

//written with no purpose to belittle you point of view

PS: Regarding historical tactics, e.g 109 hugging bombers etc...
There is no chance we can ever depict BoB..or any theatre of war, 100%.... the reason alone that we don't actually die when shot down is a reason alone. Virtual pilots are more careless and tend to go solo, dimissing mission objectives. I for one always try to team up with either a fellow squadmember or another fellow red pilot... working in teams and choose targets accordingly; solo 109s or 109 in inferior tactical position. As someone said: Teaming up and outnumber the enemy is a better advantage than a faster airplane. Use the servers Teamspeak! This in itself makes it easier to team up when no squadmember is around.


Oh. and let us not "paint the devil on the wall" (to quote an old Swedish proverb) before we have actually seen and flown the patch.

[Ace Cheese]

What do you all think about the % of completion for BOM,
how long will we be waiting?

I would suggest 30% complete with 7 months left of development. ;)

[Dick Tator]

Very stupid and biased remarks towards spitfire myth post...

If at year 1940 Luftwaffe fighting doctrine would allow to use Bf 109 at it's full potential as a fighterplane in Battle of Britain, there would be no discussion anymore about spitfires nor miracle of BoB. The fact was and still is the spitfire is very inferior fighter plane compared to the Bf 109. Turn radius is only minor advantage which is so easily to countermeasured in terms of dogfight.
Why somebody thinks BoB was won by Brits and Spitfires specifically must be from the myth because Germans did switch their resources from Brit front to the eastern front to set up operation Barbarossa.


Read your history (not just winners very coloured history), you might gain something of it in terms of knowledge...

[Hooves]

U have proven my point. You CAN'T have a simulation in an online pvp environment. It is the unattainable monster due to the very fact that we aren't living in the life or death struggle.


So your choice is to either force the issue in gameplay or attempt to closely balance the sides for the quake style gameplay that we are currently attempting.

But first things first you have to admit that you can't have just one aspect of realism ( fm's ). And not have the other aspect of dealism ( circumstances). And expect anything near what happened in the scenario you attempting to recreate. If you do you are diluting yourself.

I like wolverines ideas though. Change the symmetry to objectives that make sense. This may help.

[Dick Tator]

U have proven my point. You CAN'T have a simulation in an online pvp environment. It is the unattainable monster due to the very fact that we aren't living in the life or death struggle.


So your choice is to either force the issue in gameplay or attempt to closely balance the sides for the quake style gameplay that we are currently attempting.

But first things first you have to admit that you can't have just one aspect of realism ( fm's ). And not have the other aspect of dealism ( circumstances). And expect anything near what happened in the scenario you attempting to recreate. If you do you are diluting yourself.

I like wolverines ideas though. Change the symmetry to objectives that make sense. This may help.

Spot on. I agree fully what you say.

[Buchon]

This is not about balance but realism.

If you want talk about balance go to some arcade game where climb with your Corsair like a rocket and shot with his eight cannons or to some Call of Duty or Battlefield forum where you can degree shotguns, MGs and pistols to rush with your Thompson like gun at will.

This is about realism, this is about make the most realist WWII airplane behavior out of real documented data and real pilots to make the most realist Simulator.

Its not the 1940s airplane engineers fault don't make Hollywood planes like.

If a plane have weak points is in the hands of the pilot get over it, in fact every plane have weak points, if your plane is weak at speed you should rely in maneuverability, if your plane is weak at climb you just should stay at low altitude.

This is not about balance but Realism.

This is IL-2 !!
http://i39.tinypic.com/33nys1l.png

[F19_Klunk]

@Hooves

The missions' design are imperative .. for me anyway... to achive some kind of sensation of accomplishment. That is why I prefer servers for IL2-1946 such as "Spit vs 109" / "Zeke vs Wildcat".. they are objective driven(!). For me it has the past 5-6 years only been "winning the mission" that is the main goal.. not scoring as many kills as possible. That is why F19 and F16 (http://www.svaf.net) F19's and F16's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIRCOzP2xiI)(our squadrons ) get killed in droves online flying inferior bombers/attackplanes.... chasing to win the map.

In that aspect, IL2 1946 would never have been what it is to me and many others without the 3rd party development such as FBDj.

So far the multiplayer aspect of CloD is only in it's beginning in comparison; ATAG-server is pretty much the only server that comes even close to beeing objective driven -but then again; how many online servers are there? A handful?
So instead of balancing FM.. away from realism, MG should focus on developing tools for missionbuilders to design just that; objective driven missions.... with ..as u mentioned.. symmetry to objectives.
If they don't come up with these tools, I am sure the community will eventually - just as they did with IL2:1946. As I said - without US all servers for Il2:1946 would be quakewar.

EDIT: That particular IL2-T attack showed aboved was actually one of those missions in which we all survied when going for target :D ..NOT dying in droves :D

In short; I prefer balancing mission objectives rather than "balancing" FM/DM and other characteristics of these historical airplanes we all love. We can never really simulate the actual war (too many aspects), but we can simulate the actual planes.

[albx]

@David Hayward, I know I'm off-topic, but I quoted your latest 11 posts (and i stopped because the post will be too long), and you are only trolling and flaming on this forum... point me some useful posts you made or shut up and stop spamming everywhere trying to raise a ban for other users...

Ze-Jamz, when are you planning to try to get rid of your "forum troll" tag?

It's funny when trolls threaten to put other posters on their ignore list.

I think we should `run a book' on how long before you are banned again.

Consider yourself fortunate if they don't add a forum ban surcharge.

Thanks for the advice, cupcake. I'll keep that in mind when responding to your off-topic "suggestions".

Post some photographs to support your views. It's still a pointless thread, but at least then you'll have some cover to justify it.

You don't even see the irony, do you?


You got any examples?

No, it doesn't. It's the same old tripe. They're still fixing the game and you're still complaining.

There is an amazing invention called the camera. Google it.


Yes, it sure is something. How long before you follow the dev team's lead and move on to something else?

[moilami]

Facts yes but Hans Wind was not fighting Hurricanes in a Bf-109E.

Ok then I'll see you in the skies hugging your bombers and not diving to chase me! I can't wait for our next simulated fight!


Yeah. That's my point. If you are going to "simulate" then let's go the whole 9, otherwise you have just tipped the balance of a pvp online GAME. Even further than it was already scued.

No, IL-2 is not RPG. It is not a MMORPG either. You are not supposed to roleplay in IL-2, though you could do it. So if a good online squadron make a campaign and state it is historical, then they could give orders for squadron leaders to do, for example, close escort for bombers and the pilots would RP the stupid tactics.

But one fancy thing in IL-2 is that you don't have to default to bad historical tactics but you can rather implement better tactics. This is very common in wargaming. There can be a historical scenario where you are supposed to change history with better tactics and strategy than commanders used in real.

[klem]

I don't know where this idea that the 109 was a better dogfighter than the Spitfire has crept in from. There are many accounts of the Spitfire being superior when in a dogfight against its contemporary 109. Read Al Deere's 'Nine Lives' and his acount of several 109s trying to dogfight two Spitfire MkIs over Calais Mark at the time of Dunkirk, they brought three 109s down. Read Johnny Johnsons's 'Wing Leader' and his early accounts of flying with Douglas Bader. The 109's preferred tactic wasn't dogfighting, it was what we would call energy tactics. The 109's wing loading was far higher than the Spitfire or Hurricane which reduced its turning capability but it had a much better power to weight ratio which is why it could outclimb them. Heinz Knoke wrote in his book 'I Flew for the Fuhrer' that his most reliable tactic for evading them was a spiral climb which would leave the allied fighters clawing for height and risking a stall. Even Adolph Galland infamously asked Goering for Spitfires when told he must fly close to the bombers because he was aware of their superior dogfighting capability. It was not how he wanted to fly the 109.

As for the idea that the 109 was generally the best aircraft in the BoB, that assumes they always had the advantage (which they generaly did due to the enforced defensive tactics of the RAF) but when the Spitfires had the advantage of height etc. the tables were turned because the Spitfire was a perfectly good energy fighter too, it just didn't have too many opportunities to demonstrate that. It was not as well armed as the 109 which is why you could put up a balance of attributes and claim the 109 was better but the 'best' aircraft depended on the circumstances.

Regarding CoD FMs, they need to be realistic as far as possible and provide close relative performance to the real thing although they are unlikely ever to be perfect and we should stop trying to chase an elusive 5% or whatever. In any case pilot skill and opportunity will often negate a reasonable or even large percentage of performance. Just give us FMs as close as you can get.

As for Gameplay and 'historical accuracy' that can only be achieved by mission design and engagement rules, assuming FMs are near enough correct, but this will always be prevented in CoD due to the limitation in numbers the game can support. This is why CoD can never represent the scale of the BoB, the best that can be achieved is a representation of a few of the raids. Mission engagement rules are hard to put in place in a general use on-line server because, for example, most Red pilots are reluctant to fly tight Vic formations, are probably incapable of doing it anyway, and fly combat spread instead for obvious reasons. The kind of scenarios flown in the MMPOG 'Aces High' were the closest I ever came with several hundred participants pre-registered and allocated to Squadrons/Units with clear rules of engagement and a moderator to kick/ban anyone who broke those rules. Oh yes, and you only had one life so you were MUCH more careful about what you did and how/whether you engaged. These take a lot of work to set up, even for a small scale representation of a few raids in CoD. I'm sure the community would really enjoy them but many would not because many just want to dogfight and get kills. You can fly for ages in those scenarios and never see an enemy (as it often used to be in RL) and recent matches between 56RAF and 5./Jg27 on a small scale have left us both searching unsuccessfuly for up to an hour.

So, lets have the FMs as close as possibe including the engines, no daft flight capability with half a wing, 109 pilots suffering and aircraft performance affected by fuel explosions, reasonably balanced AI gunners, etc. etc., and then we'll see how good we are.

[ATAG_Doc]

Spot on. I agree fully what you say.

funny name.

[David Hayward]

@David Hayward, I know I'm off-topic, but I quoted your latest 11 posts (and i stopped because the post will be too long), and you are only trolling and flaming on this forum... point me some useful posts you made or shut up and stop spamming everywhere trying to raise a ban for other users...

You probably should look at your last few posts. Physician, heal thyself...

[He111]

Thks, excellent news.

.

[kendo65]

I imagine that they will most likely never change the map, and so a question for you. Do you think if they offered hedgerows of various shapes in the objects list, would that help.

There is a map builder type SDK planned which will allow the community to make smaller maps. I would think the same tool could be used to adjust existing developer maps. The developer only wants to deter the community from making larger maps that they plan to develop themselves. On that note its quite possible that in the future the community will be able to take trees out, add hedgerows, and other adjustments that will greatly improve the overall look of COD's terrain.

Take a look at my post from last week's update. It shows screens from the Igromir release which are very close to what some of us are looking for I think.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=407097&postcount=212

Bear in mind that this is just 4 months prior to release and the map looked very different. Raises a question as to why it was changed at last minute and whether it will be changed BACK later?

(As a bonus I suspect there could also be a big performance boost by reducing the number of trees)

[Dick Tator]

funny name.

Thanks, It was supposed to be so and somewhat humorously reflect to this forums moderation stance... :D

[kendo65]

Very stupid and biased remarks towards spitfire myth post...

If at year 1940 Luftwaffe fighting doctrine would allow to use Bf 109 at it's full potential as a fighterplane in Battle of Britain, there would be no discussion anymore about spitfires nor miracle of BoB. The fact was and still is the spitfire is very inferior fighter plane compared to the Bf 109. Turn radius is only minor advantage which is so easily to countermeasured in terms of dogfight.
Why somebody thinks BoB was won by Brits and Spitfires specifically must be from the myth because Germans did switch their resources from Brit front to the eastern front to set up operation Barbarossa.


Read your history (not just winners very coloured history), you might gain something of it in terms of knowledge...

Dick Tator, let me introduce you to Sternjaeger - I think you two will get on famously...

Read Klem's post above for the reality.

In fact, everyone arguing about balance versus realism - read Klem's post.

[kendo65]

@David Hayward, I know I'm off-topic, but I quoted your latest 11 posts (and i stopped because the post will be too long), and you are only trolling and flaming on this forum... point me some useful posts you made or shut up and stop spamming everywhere trying to raise a ban for other users...

+ oh, about several million

[JG52Uther]

It should never be about balance...

[Dick Tator]

perfect luftwhiner behavior there for a fake-real advocate, gloating they will/are further unfairly toning down the spitfires and hurricanes compared to their historical performance (other then the spitfire IIb currently needing a little toning down in level flight speed performance). historically the 109 and spitfires of the BoB era were very evenly matched, and each had their respective advantages/weaknesses. we (the red team) are not asking for equal performance in combat aircraft (109 vs spitfire), but we ARE ASKING for simulation of correct historical strong/weak points so the red/blue sides in CoD can be "equally matched". BUT THIS IS CURRENTLY NOT POSSIBLE IN CoD !! this historical relationship is currently not modeled in the sim in its curent state (and luthier and Co seems to be totally unaware of this problem, so i suspect mostly fly for the blue side when they use the sim), AND THIS PROBLEM IS ABOUT TO GET WORSE IF THEY CRIPPLE THE RED TEAM FURTHER BY NEUTERING THE SPIT IIb. generally speaking the problem can be summed up in their historical context as:

the spitfires:
- where more agile, had better roll rate and tighter turning circles then 109's.
- but there carburetors would cut out on a sudden dive/nose-down
- had the advantage of flying above friendly soil, allowing ejecting or downed pilots to fight another day (sometimes even on the same day)
- could refuel and rearm quickly, being back in the air protecting home soil 2 or 3x faster then the blue team, and ready for the next wave of incoming bombers. this meant the same allied pilots could hit a german formation (and escorts) on the way in, and on the way out of their mission, meaning each allied pilot almost doubled in ability to engage the enemy
- english production of spitfires and hurricanes significantly outpaced the german ability to provide new planes and crews, this did become a factor in the 2e half of BoB when allied fighter plane numbers started to outnumber german fighters, AND allied aircrew were rotated to less active rear-located airfields for rest and recovery which the germans never were (for the whole duration of the war on all fronts). hence allied crews were generally more rested, and were constantly supplied with new replacement planes (but had the initial disadvantage at the beginning of BoB that very inexperienced fresh new pilots kept being being sent to frontline squadrons, leading to high fatality rates for those that were not quick learners)
- once luthier cripples the spitfire lineup further by reducing the IIb in speed so severely (whereas it only needs some minor trimming), all we end up with is that all spitfire models behave similar to hurricanes in relation to 109's, with the spitfires flight performance being toned down to hurricane levels, and giving the 109's in il2-CoD total performance advantage in almost all situations (which was not the historical case)

the 109's:
- had slightly better dive speed (used successfully for escape from engagements with spitfires but only when done from sufficient altitude), mainly because that slight speed advantage combined with the "no carburator fuel starvation"problem in the initial part of the dive,
- had similar level flight speeds and climb rates to the spitfires at low and medium altitudes (except at high altitude where they had an advantage initially),
- could spiral climb out of reach of a chasing spitfire, the combined climb/rudder action was a unique strenght for that plane model (shape/size/wheight) during most of the war
- had the disadvantage of very brief flying times over enemy territory, and limited ability to escort bombers all the way to london (could do for coastal airfields and installations)
- when starting an engagement with hight advantage, they could jab and take potshots at enemy fighters and zoom back to altitude to sit back on the perch, and then do the same all over again. the slingshot speed effect that allowed them to regain altitude was the main advantage here (combined with the linear aiming of the nose guns that didnt need to wait for convergence to be correct at a specific distance from the enemy). BUT USING THIS TACTIC LED TO MASSIVE UNSUSTAINABLE LOSSES IN THE BOMBER FORMATIONS SENT TO ENGLAND, hence it was not a sustainable strategy to try and have a "succesfull outcome of the war" (from the german view point). point exactly proven by the historical massive 109 losses that ensued when they were ordered to close escort the bomber formations, without their slingshot potshots and sitting on the pirch advantage
- when fighting at equal altitude and engaging at equal speed (without the element of surprise to be able to shoot an unaware enemy pilot in the back while they were not looking), THE 109's WERE OUTCLASSED BY THE SPITFIRES DURING THE WHOLE BOB PERIOD, why do you think Garland asked Goering for squadrons of spitfires to be supplied so they could be more effective against the enemy ? why do you think so many german pilots came down with stress related problems ((Kanal Krankheit) which further reduced their ability to perform well ?
- the combined result of these factors led to the fact that in the last 1/2 of the BoB era, german fighter pilots were either closely escorting bomber formations (as instructed) and getting decimated, or were in high altitude "free hunt" positions over the southern part of the english coast and RELUCTANT TO COME DOWN TO FORMATIONS OF ALLIED FIGHTERS AT MEDIUM/LOW ALTITUDE.

if you compare that to the 109 uber plane behavior we have now (with the recent news of spitfires being further crippled in speed), you arrive at a completely fictitious scenario where:
- 109's outpace spitfires at all altitudes
- 109's are like flying bricks of concrete and much more damage resistant
- 109's can explode in a fireball and be fully on fire without their flight performance being affected
- 109's can out-turn, out-dive, and out-climb spitfire at any altitude
- german fighter pilots can completely ignore escorting and protecting their bomber formations, yet still claim to win engagements
- downed german pilots keep magically and perpetually re-spawning to fresh planes without the historical context being included

CONCLUSION:
so the "fake real" 109 luftwhiners shouldnt constantly and perpetually be able to try and replicate the hight/speed/dive advantage, have bullit proof planes that fly while on fire, and out maneuvre the red team (as it is becoming right now). this problem is much exacerbated online because the only servers gameplay that is present right now is air-quake over the channel, THIS SCENARIO IS NOT BOB FOLKS !! in RL they would have been court marshaled or shot by friendly fire from their surviving bomber pilots who made it back to base

but it is about to even get worse !! as the previous il2 series has shown, and we are about to have history repeated, you can predict the russian planes to significantly outperform their german counterparts, where i-16's will dominate 109's for ex. the russian planes will be modeled on russian "facts" and figures, based on glorious war propaganda reports of their historical greatness, and completely ignore the 100's of german pilots with "above 50 kill scores" in that era of the war, because the initial russian campaign was by and large a big turkey shoot for the germans. il2's didnt have rear gunners initially and were easy pickings (no matter how well armored), and the early mig's and i-16's were swatted down like flies (unless some stupid german fighter pilot tried to dogfight at low speed with them)

right now what we need to correct the flight models and damage models of the blue/red relationship in BoB, is historical facts and figures to keep presenting to luthier and Co, AND we need luthier to gives us il2-compare type data OPENLY so we can see exactly what they provided under the hood, in 2012 it is way to late to expect us to make do with "lets just imagine this plane behaves historically, and if i outperform the historical opponent it just means i was the better pilot". facts regarding the date used in the sim for plane performance and speed needs to be OPENLY PROVIDED


ooops, this got a bit to long :) its is worth debating historical facts on the 109/spitfire/hurricane performances in a separate thread

I must applaud, very well expressed thoughts here and hard to argue against.
I will be way more brief and make some direct points:
- 20 mm. cannons + 15 mm. heavy machine guns
- superior speed - due superior speed, so much tactical options in dogfight

This should be enough for debate these as raw power equipment - Luftwaffe 109 wins hands down.
Where Luftwaffe lost was the tactics, determination (guts), and radar guidance :)

[kristorf]

Very stupid and biased remarks towards spitfire myth post...

If at year 1940 Luftwaffe fighting doctrine would allow to use Bf 109 at it's full potential as a fighterplane in Battle of Britain, there would be no discussion anymore about spitfires nor miracle of BoB. The fact was and still is the spitfire is very inferior fighter plane compared to the Bf 109. Turn radius is only minor advantage which is so easily to countermeasured in terms of dogfight.
Why somebody thinks BoB was won by Brits and Spitfires specifically must be from the myth because Germans did switch their resources from Brit front to the eastern front to set up operation Barbarossa.


Read your history (not just winners very coloured history), you might gain something of it in terms of knowledge...


Dick Tator, let me introduce you to Sternjaeger - I think you two will get on famously...

Read Klem's post above for the reality.

In fact, everyone arguing about balance versus realism - read Klem's post.

+1

Also read Stephen Bungay's 'Battle of Britain' (one of the most authoratative and respected BoB books published), a compressed version appears in zapatista's post above (well compressed mate)

[Dick Tator]

+1

Also read Stephen Bungay's 'Battle of Britain'


Cheers Kristof, I need to get hold of a copy of your recommended book. Thank you. I've read so many historical account of BoB before.

So we are in accord not to blame the flying crate but the tactics which mandated the outcome of the said airplanes. So the numbers game are more important than individual performance if we look at the outcome of the war, not just a fight.

[kendo65]

..
The kind of scenarios flown in the MMPOG 'Aces High' were the closest I ever came with several hundred participants pre-registered and allocated to Squadrons/Units with clear rules of engagement and a moderator to kick/ban anyone who broke those rules. Oh yes, and you only had one life so you were MUCH more careful about what you did and how/whether you engaged. These take a lot of work to set up, even for a small scale representation of a few raids in CoD. I'm sure the community would really enjoy them but many would not because many just want to dogfight and get kills. You can fly for ages in those scenarios and never see an enemy (as it often used to be in RL) and recent matches between 56RAF and 5./Jg27 on a small scale have left us both searching unsuccessfuly for up to an hour.

...

I really like the sound of that. If COD can come close to that count me in.

[Falstaff]

David Hayward said:

>>Yes, it sure is something. How long before you follow the dev team's lead and move on to something else? <<

Oh, when you do David, when you do....

(Even full paid-up members of the awkward squad have points to make occasionally. You never do. Just bounce-back posts like a weak, watery, smug one-liner echo).

No, crap, piffle etc

[Insuber]

Hi BlackSix,

How is the beta testing going?

[Al Schlageter]

I must applaud, very well expressed thoughts here and hard to argue against.
I will be way more brief and make some direct points:
- 20 mm. cannons + 15 mm. heavy machine guns
- superior speed - due superior speed, so much tactical options in dogfight

This should be enough for debate these as raw power equipment - Luftwaffe 109 wins hands down.
Where Luftwaffe lost was the tactics, determination (guts), and radar guidance :)

15mm heavy machine guns???

How about 7.92mm MG17 light machine guns.

[moilami]

I must applaud, very well expressed thoughts here and hard to argue against.
I will be way more brief and make some direct points:
- 20 mm. cannons + 15 mm. heavy machine guns
- superior speed - due superior speed, so much tactical options in dogfight

This should be enough for debate these as raw power equipment - Luftwaffe 109 wins hands down.
Where Luftwaffe lost was the tactics, determination (guts), and radar guidance :)

Er.. So are ye saying that in the name of "balance" or "PvP" British planes should have equal weapons and flight characteristics? IL-2 would NOT be a simulation after that.

IL-2 would be air quake with 1940 BoB graphics mod after that.

[Osprey]

Unbelievably resistant to UK bullets? Tell that to the ever increasing collection of dead 109s at the bottom of the channel. :D You just have to learn how to fly and fight better. :p

Trust me....I am the worst 109 pilot in the world and I can assure you, these wonderful planes are quite easy to destroy with me in the cockpit..... I sometimes don't even need "Tommy" on my tail! :D

He'll look forward to it. He is a No.401 pilot and will face you regularly should you join JG26 :)

See you on comms

[335th_GRAthos]

Luthier and Blacksix,

I presume you no longer read this "madness" but concentrate on testing the beta as we speak but, I will take my chances and post my question:

Will the Bombsight for the German planes (HE111, JU88 ) and the course autopilot (JU88 ) be fixed in the patch?
Because as long as we do not have the possibility to fly realistic missions with strategic and tactical objectives due to the memory leak-, bombing-, course autopilot-problems, we are stuck in quick aerial dogfights where the blue planes undoubtely rule.
And we are slowly getting fed up of the whining of the red pilots...


~S~

PS. Oh, and that exploding central tank of the Bf109 should be fixed, it is a bit shameful to fly out of a huge fireball without damage except loss of most fuel...

[furbs]

+1

Also read Stephen Bungay's 'Battle of Britain' (one of the most authoratative and respected BoB books published), a compressed version appears in zapatista's post above (well compressed mate)

I found James Holland's Battle of Britain to be a good foil to Bungay's book.

[Volksieg]

He'll look forward to it. He is a No.401 pilot and will face you regularly should you join JG26 :)

See you on comms

A few minutes against me and he'll learn just how easy it is to shoot down a 109. lol Everyone worrying about the lack of balance between allies and axis can rest easy now...... I am so inept I can be considered the "Balancing factor" :D

[svanen]

PS. Oh, and that exploding central tank of the Bf109 should be fixed, it is a bit shameful to fly out of a huge fireball without damage except loss of most fuel...

I agree, this happens very often and must be fixed. Overall I think that the 109 is very hard to shoot down compared to when a 109 is firing at me, but perhaps it is my own poor aiming that is the problem. ;)

But when you finally get some good hits and the planes explodes it keeps flying like nothing has happened...

[Insuber]

I agree, this happens very often and must be fixed. Overall I think that the 109 is very hard to shoot down compared to when a 109 is firing at me, but perhaps it is my own poor aiming that is the problem. ;)

But when you finally get some good hits and the planes explodes it keeps flying like nothing has happened...

Funny, an Hurricane on Atag recently cut my whole wing with a single burst while I was landing ... probably the pilot wasn't aware of my invulnerability ... :-)

[Osprey]

It is, through non rose tinted glasses, widely acknowlegded that the most superior fighter, by a margin, in 1940 was the 109. Later in the war the arms race sees the spit and 109 leap frogging each other however many many other factors must be taken into consideration. Its simply NOT who had the best plane won. As you mentioned - orders for one hampered the 109 driver late in BoB.




Yeah I don't get these guys that seem to believe that the 109 was better than the Spit at practically everything. If that were the case, which it patently isn't, then that means that the 109 pilots must've been crap to lose with such fantastic machines :rolleyes: But we hear from the same people how good the LW pilots were compared to everyone else - something doesn't add up.............

..............and that's where blaming Goering comes in isn't it.....:)


You are correct Farber, the 109 was superior to the Spitfire, until the CPS and 100 octane was shoved in it (May/June 1940). Then it was all down to the engineers.

[Osprey]

So basically you don't have a chance against a 109 unless you have your 3 friends with you. So if my 3 friends aren't on, I'm not going to log on either, leading to others not logging on leading to a bunch of empty servers, except for the packed blue team of coarse.


I love how the realites come out of the wood work when the nerf that has just occurred benefits them. But cry foul when anything is touched on their beloved aircraft.


Realism simply will not work in an online environment. At least not the realism that 1c is apparently going for. If a single player can't log on and have half a chance of surviving 5 mins let alone getting a kill. Well guess what.... They leave and they don't come back. Like it or not that is online gaming no matter what your targeted audience. if you aren't going to somehow enforce the tactical directive of the LW, how on earth can you think that FM realism will produce anything but discontent? In this case the circumstances are as equal to if not more important than the FM.


That's why we run an historical server Hooves. The action is with the main missions, the ones that actually occurred.

[Volksieg]

As an unashamed 109 fanboy (I just think they are beautiful and have done since a very early age.), I'd have to say that 109s are superior in some ways but they do have their weaknesses also. The spitfire and hurricane have their strengths and weaknesses as well.......

Ultimately success or loss in any battle, let alone a dogfight, comes down to tactics and learning to play to those strengths and avoid those situations where your weaknesses can be exploited. Take notes! Adapt! So you can't, let's say, go into a dive without turning your plane upside down? From that you already know that us 109 pilots are going to take advantage of the fact that we can..... use that knowledge! Think of it like martial arts and use our strengths against us. (Or, if you are up against me..... just sneak up behind me and go straight for the cockpit. lol)

I'm more than happy to admit, and have done many times, that I am an awful pilot and an even worse dogfighter but I am learning and, with each flight, I get a tiny bit better.... the amount of times I have had to eject, on the rare occasion I actually have a chance to before everything goes black, has led me to believe that the 109 is far from indestructible as some on here would have you believe. Ultimately it is all down to the pilot.

I don't lose because my plane is inferior.... I lose because I'm, currently, pretty useless. IMHO some red pilots could benefit from a little introspection.

Also... this IS a simulator not an arcade game. War, generally, isn't particularly "Fair". If the "Lack of balance" disturbs you that much, I say jump into a 109 and let's see if that changes your success rate. Horrible as it is of me to say this..... but..... something tells me you won't do much better.

[Osprey]

the 109's:
- could spiral climb out of reach of a chasing spitfire, the combined climb/rudder action was a unique strenght for that plane model (shape/size/wheight) during most of the war


This is totally wrong, the opposite was true. The standard escape for a Spitfire was a 120mph climbing turn to the right, which would cause the slats on the 109 to snatch, and they'd fall away in a stall.

Hell I need this implemented AT LEAST!!! :shock:

[Osprey]

Very stupid and biased remarks towards spitfire myth post...

If at year 1940 Luftwaffe fighting doctrine would allow to use Bf 109 at it's full potential as a fighterplane in Battle of Britain, there would be no discussion anymore about spitfires nor miracle of BoB. The fact was and still is the spitfire is very inferior fighter plane compared to the Bf 109. Turn radius is only minor advantage which is so easily to countermeasured in terms of dogfight.
Why somebody thinks BoB was won by Brits and Spitfires specifically must be from the myth because Germans did switch their resources from Brit front to the eastern front to set up operation Barbarossa.


Read your history (not just winners very coloured history), you might gain something of it in terms of knowledge...


If there was ever a viewpoint on the BoB that was so wholeheartedly wrong, it is this one.

[5./JG27.Farber]

As for the idea that the 109 was generally the best aircraft in the BoB, that assumes they always had the advantage (which they generaly did due to the enforced defensive tactics of the RAF) but when the Spitfires had the advantage of height etc. the tables were turned because the Spitfire was a perfectly good energy fighter too, it just didn't have too many opportunities to demonstrate that. It was not as well armed as the 109 which is why you could put up a balance of attributes and claim the 109 was better but the 'best' aircraft depended on the circumstances.

Regarding CoD FMs, they need to be realistic as far as possible and provide close relative performance to the real thing although they are unlikely ever to be perfect and we should stop trying to chase an elusive 5% or whatever. In any case pilot skill and opportunity will often negate a reasonable or even large percentage of performance. Just give us FMs as close as you can get.

As for Gameplay and 'historical accuracy' that can only be achieved by mission design and engagement rules, assuming FMs are near enough correct, but this will always be prevented in CoD due to the limitation in numbers the game can support. This is why CoD can never represent the scale of the BoB, the best that can be achieved is a representation of a few of the raids. Mission engagement rules are hard to put in place in a general use on-line server because, for example, most Red pilots are reluctant to fly tight Vic formations, are probably incapable of doing it anyway, and fly combat spread instead for obvious reasons. The kind of scenarios flown in the MMPOG 'Aces High' were the closest I ever came with several hundred participants pre-registered and allocated to Squadrons/Units with clear rules of engagement and a moderator to kick/ban anyone who broke those rules. Oh yes, and you only had one life so you were MUCH more careful about what you did and how/whether you engaged. These take a lot of work to set up, even for a small scale representation of a few raids in CoD. I'm sure the community would really enjoy them but many would not because many just want to dogfight and get kills. You can fly for ages in those scenarios and never see an enemy (as it often used to be in RL) and recent matches between 56RAF and 5./Jg27 on a small scale have left us both searching unsuccessfuly for up to an hour.

So, lets have the FMs as close as possibe including the engines, no daft flight capability with half a wing, 109 pilots suffering and aircraft performance affected by fuel explosions, reasonably balanced AI gunners, etc. etc., and then we'll see how good we are.

Well said. +1



This is not about balance but realism.

If you want talk about balance go to some arcade game where climb with your Corsair like a rocket and shot with his eight cannons or to some Call of Duty or Battlefield forum where you can degree shotguns, MGs and pistols to rush with your Thompson like gun at will.

This is about realism, this is about make the most realist WWII airplane behavior out of real documented data and real pilots to make the most realist Simulator.

Its not the 1940s airplane engineers fault don't make Hollywood planes like.

If a plane have weak points is in the hands of the pilot get over it, in fact every plane have weak points, if your plane is weak at speed you should rely in maneuverability, if your plane is weak at climb you just should stay at low altitude.

This is not about balance but Realism.

This is IL-2 !!
http://i39.tinypic.com/33nys1l.png

+1

[FS~Phat]

This is totally wrong, the opposite was true. The standard escape for a Spitfire was a 120mph climbing turn to the right, which would cause the slats on the 109 to snatch, and they'd fall away in a stall.

Hell I need this implemented AT LEAST!!! :shock:

Yes your quite right and this was modeled quite well in 1946. I would often climb and stall out 109s if at a high enough altitude, and dive back down for the kill. Sometimes I would have 2or 3 109s in pursuit and I could turn and climb tighter and usually kill all if not at least 1 and then the others would be damaged and eventually extend and escape in a dive. This was one of my favorite tactics to take advantage of! :)

[Ataros]

Sorry for crossposting but just in case someone wants to get practical about FMs:
Here is a link to Spit Ia entry in IL2 bugtracker with links to documents http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/84 I asked B6 to forward it to FM programmers @ sukhoi.ru

It would be great if we keep all data in one place for easy access by the devs. Please vote for it and add entries for other types and 109 if their performance is off.

As for BoM we can also create entries as feature requests for future.

Edit:
In a link from Spit Ia entry we read:
Quote:
Originally Posted by VO101_Tom
Spit Ia. In the game 240 instead of 283*. -15,9%

* If I am wrong in this, then I apologize. I do not know well the Spit subtypes.

Could someone confirm if this is correct and update the issue in the tracker? I am not an expert myself. We'd better provide the devs with reliable data if we want quick changes IMO.

Also there are some questions about bugs and feature requests above. I can be more efficient if you provide all the details about a bug/feature in the bugtracker first (and provide a link) to make it easier for luthier to understand what bugs you mean (with pictures and videos, etc.).

[furbs]

Did i miss something about a new GUI?

[addman]

We wanted to make in-game graphs for CoD, but we ran out of time to build the GUI. And because we're moving to a whole new system for our GUI, thank goodness, we won't be able to make it for CoD.



Spit I got better. Its speeds at altitude got progressively worse than the real thing in the old build. The patch will make it better.

The Hurricane got about 20 mph slower, sorry. It's historically accurate.

The Blenheim got a major boost though, so - no reason to cry the way I see it.



We like the offline AI. It's realistically dumb on lower levels, and pretty tricky at higher levels. There won't be a huge change there.



Yes all of this goes into the one beta patch you'll be seeing in a matter of days.

If you have a dual core you will still see a tiny improvement, but it won't be as much as a quad or 8 core. Still, in the old build you still overused the first code and underused the second one, so there will be an improvement anyway.

Of course, there's a larger overall FPS improvement that's due to code optimization, not multithreading, so everyone will benefit regardless of system specs.

Did i miss something about a new GUI?

Second time I re-post what luthier said.:rolleyes:

[furbs]

Second time I re-post what luthier said.:rolleyes:

Ta! :) it couldn't be worse than the one we have now.

[zapatista]

I don't know where this idea that the 109 was a better dogfighter than the Spitfire has crept in from. There are many accounts of the Spitfire being superior when in a dogfight against its contemporary 109. Read Al Deere's 'Nine Lives' and his acount of several 109s trying to dogfight two Spitfire MkIs over Calais Mark at the time of Dunkirk, they brought three 109s down. Read Johnny Johnsons's 'Wing Leader' and his early accounts of flying with Douglas Bader. The 109's preferred tactic wasn't dogfighting, it was what we would call energy tactics. The 109's wing loading was far higher than the Spitfire or Hurricane which reduced its turning capability but it had a much better power to weight ratio which is why it could outclimb them. Heinz Knoke wrote in his book 'I Flew for the Fuhrer' that his most reliable tactic for evading them was a spiral climb which would leave the allied fighters clawing for height and risking a stall. Even Adolph Galland infamously asked Goering for Spitfires when told he must fly close to the bombers because he was aware of their superior dogfighting capability. It was not how he wanted to fly the 109.

As for the idea that the 109 was generally the best aircraft in the BoB, that assumes they always had the advantage (which they generaly did due to the enforced defensive tactics of the RAF) but when the Spitfires had the advantage of height etc. the tables were turned because the Spitfire was a perfectly good energy fighter too, it just didn't have too many opportunities to demonstrate that. It was not as well armed as the 109 which is why you could put up a balance of attributes and claim the 109 was better but the 'best' aircraft depended on the circumstances.

Regarding CoD FMs, they need to be realistic as far as possible and provide close relative performance to the real thing although they are unlikely ever to be perfect and we should stop trying to chase an elusive 5% or whatever. In any case pilot skill and opportunity will often negate a reasonable or even large percentage of performance. Just give us FMs as close as you can get.

As for Gameplay and 'historical accuracy' that can only be achieved by mission design and engagement rules, assuming FMs are near enough correct, but this will always be prevented in CoD due to the limitation in numbers the game can support. This is why CoD can never represent the scale of the BoB, the best that can be achieved is a representation of a few of the raids. Mission engagement rules are hard to put in place in a general use on-line server because, for example, most Red pilots are reluctant to fly tight Vic formations, are probably incapable of doing it anyway, and fly combat spread instead for obvious reasons. The kind of scenarios flown in the MMPOG 'Aces High' were the closest I ever came with several hundred participants pre-registered and allocated to Squadrons/Units with clear rules of engagement and a moderator to kick/ban anyone who broke those rules. Oh yes, and you only had one life so you were MUCH more careful about what you did and how/whether you engaged. These take a lot of work to set up, even for a small scale representation of a few raids in CoD. I'm sure the community would really enjoy them but many would not because many just want to dogfight and get kills. You can fly for ages in those scenarios and never see an enemy (as it often used to be in RL) and recent matches between 56RAF and 5./Jg27 on a small scale have left us both searching unsuccessfuly for up to an hour.

So, lets have the FMs as close as possibe including the engines, no daft flight capability with half a wing, 109 pilots suffering and aircraft performance affected by fuel explosions, reasonably balanced AI gunners, etc. etc., and then we'll see how good we are.

good post, we seem to have similar historical information :)

i like your idea of a different point scoring system. i believe that type of system could be worked into online server "successful mission" point system currently implemented by by luthier (as it was already partially functioning that way in the later server versions of the il2 series), and hopefully we could also get this in the (eventual) dynamic campaign server we will get.

the point however is, how can we get this concept across to luthier ? it would be a crying shame if this new advanced il2 simulator we are now at long last getting our hands on, would just go to waste with the teen air quake servers we get online right now, under the hood is a huge resource of realism and complexity we could potentially tap into, we just need luthier to wake up to its importance.

[addman]

Ta! :) it couldn't be worse than the one we have now.

Well, as you may have noticed in luthiers post, they weren't too ecstatic about the current one that's for sure. If I remember it correctly, we were shown the current GUI for the first time shortly before CloD was released. I bet they just had to scramble something together as quickly as possible. I'm not defending the current GUI, it's horrible in almost every way but I can understand why it is such a mess.

[furbs]

Agreed, it looks rushed beyond belief. Will we see new one in CLOD right not just BOM?

[Madfish]

After some of the onslaught of moderator goodness appears to be over nothing seems to have changed after all.

Personally I find it scary that so many people cling to the "plane performance" straw as that is only a very small part of the whole picture.

What do you really want from the game?
Total balance? Then play 109vs109 or Spit vs. Spit and show if your skills are where your mouth is. Alternatively go and play some other "instant hero" game like Super Mario and stomp the hell out of some slowly moving carrots or other weird stuff.
Realism? Then keep in mind that a game can only do so much to re-create and simulate the situation, maybe 25% max., and that it means often ending on the ground - especially when going up against human opponents.



Personally I also have to wonder what all that "taking sides" is about. Do some of you guys want to re-create the war? How about you meet privately on a remote island and just go at it? This is just a game and history can only go so far. In fact this part of history is over.


As for me I enjoy flying and to be frank the plane doesn't really matter to me. Not even the setting. My favorite "real" plane isn't even in the game and even if it would be... what's the point of all this anger boiling up? I'm German but I like other planes as well, in fact I fly other stuff more than German planes (including space sim/games). No need to constantly take sides - it just spoils the fun and limits your options. We're all just humans from Earth.

Still, I believe they should strive to make the planes handle similar to the real thing. It can't be simulated perfectly of course but the game should try to be close. And after that? It's mostly pilot skill and pilot equipment.

Ok, so one plane is 5% faster or whatever, big deal... If I get home from work I'm sometimes so freaking tired that my reaction time is like 1000% slower. Or if I'm chasing someone but need to pee. I vibrate and jump around but my precision is down the drain already. :grin:

What about guys with hardware issues? No head tracking, crappo joysticks etc.? What about visual impaired or hearing impaired?
Are all of you the perfect health youth pilots that flew the originals? Are you always in perfect shape when flying online? Do you die when you get shot, do you have to deal with the stress and hormones, fear, sleep deprivation, bad food, being apart from your family, seing friends and comrades die all the time etc.? Can you actually be certain that your failure was due to your planes limitations or are you simply a not so great pilot? Why is it that people stop liking a plane as soon as it turns out that there is no ONE MAGIC MANEUVER TO KILL THEM ALL.

This could be a much longer text wall, literally. But in short words:

If you want balance go and play Quake 3 Arena. Show if you got the aim and skills.
If you want strategy play Civilization V.
If you want dynamic real time strategy and intense input speed play Starcraft II.
If you want to fly an old crappy piece of junk oldtimer warbird with it's strenghts and weaknesses then pick one you like that minute and day and fly it. Get shot down, respawn. This game's actually good at it.
And if you want to fly the above but against a fair oponent then just fly 109vs109 or spit vs. spit. This could also be done with this game and no one can blame performance of the plane anymore.

Also please keep in mind that not everyone during WW2 was an ace. And even the top aces killed MUCH less than the average noob IL-2 player.

Also here's another update in case you missed it: The war is over. It can't and shouldn't be re-created for many obvious reasons. (such as not having the luxury of playing games e.g.) :rolleyes:
Sometimes it feels as if some are forgetting the circumstances the real pilots and planes went through during wartimes which ultimately lead to the results we have today.

[Robert]

I like the esthetics they were trying to achieve with the UI in CoD. The functionality is what could use the work. I'd not mind a combination of an updated QMB as in IL2:1946 and this, but I'd settle for the former without combination if it's not possible.


Oh, BTW 1C team - Thanks for the efforts. They are appreciated and I, like many, are looking forward to the improvements this new beta gives and to the future of CoD.

[adonys]

I don't know where this idea that the 109 was a better dogfighter than the Spitfire has crept in from. There are many accounts of the Spitfire being superior when in a dogfight against its contemporary 109. Read Al Deere's 'Nine Lives' and his acount of several 109s trying to dogfight two Spitfire MkIs over Calais Mark at the time of Dunkirk, they brought three 109s down. Read Johnny Johnsons's 'Wing Leader' and his early accounts of flying with Douglas Bader. The 109's preferred tactic wasn't dogfighting, it was what we would call energy tactics. The 109's wing loading was far higher than the Spitfire or Hurricane which reduced its turning capability but it had a much better power to weight ratio which is why it could outclimb them. Heinz Knoke wrote in his book 'I Flew for the Fuhrer' that his most reliable tactic for evading them was a spiral climb which would leave the allied fighters clawing for height and risking a stall. Even Adolph Galland infamously asked Goering for Spitfires when told he must fly close to the bombers because he was aware of their superior dogfighting capability. It was not how he wanted to fly the 109.

As for the idea that the 109 was generally the best aircraft in the BoB, that assumes they always had the advantage (which they generaly did due to the enforced defensive tactics of the RAF) but when the Spitfires had the advantage of height etc. the tables were turned because the Spitfire was a perfectly good energy fighter too, it just didn't have too many opportunities to demonstrate that. It was not as well armed as the 109 which is why you could put up a balance of attributes and claim the 109 was better but the 'best' aircraft depended on the circumstances.

Regarding CoD FMs, they need to be realistic as far as possible and provide close relative performance to the real thing although they are unlikely ever to be perfect and we should stop trying to chase an elusive 5% or whatever. In any case pilot skill and opportunity will often negate a reasonable or even large percentage of performance. Just give us FMs as close as you can get.

As for Gameplay and 'historical accuracy' that can only be achieved by mission design and engagement rules, assuming FMs are near enough correct, but this will always be prevented in CoD due to the limitation in numbers the game can support. This is why CoD can never represent the scale of the BoB, the best that can be achieved is a representation of a few of the raids. Mission engagement rules are hard to put in place in a general use on-line server because, for example, most Red pilots are reluctant to fly tight Vic formations, are probably incapable of doing it anyway, and fly combat spread instead for obvious reasons. The kind of scenarios flown in the MMPOG 'Aces High' were the closest I ever came with several hundred participants pre-registered and allocated to Squadrons/Units with clear rules of engagement and a moderator to kick/ban anyone who broke those rules. Oh yes, and you only had one life so you were MUCH more careful about what you did and how/whether you engaged. These take a lot of work to set up, even for a small scale representation of a few raids in CoD. I'm sure the community would really enjoy them but many would not because many just want to dogfight and get kills. You can fly for ages in those scenarios and never see an enemy (as it often used to be in RL) and recent matches between 56RAF and 5./Jg27 on a small scale have left us both searching unsuccessfuly for up to an hour.

So, lets have the FMs as close as possibe including the engines, no daft flight capability with half a wing, 109 pilots suffering and aircraft performance affected by fuel explosions, reasonably balanced AI gunners, etc. etc., and then we'll see how good we are.

good post, we seem to have similar historical information :)

I can point you towards statements (interviews/books) from LW pilots who said exactly the opposite: that actually 109 could outturn a spit IF the pilot would dare to use the plane up to its limits.

So, this quoting is useless, what we need are hard facts: ie performance charts and that's it.

There are many things you have not mentoned in there, or some you got wrong: there's a big difference between left and right turn for a 109vsSpit fight. Also, 109 had actually better roll rate, and so on..

Regarding for losing the BoB, again you got many things wrong: actually, the RAF pilots were even more used and ruined than LW ones, rotation and all. And it was mostly lost because the order was given two months before getting the damn fuel drop tanks, which would extend the LW fighters battle allowed time over england with at least half an hour, and that would have changed everything.

Of course, the tactical roles switching (from lose high altitde escort to close escort) also had a big percent in this. LW shoud have kept fighters spit into two teams: one close escorting, to keep the RAF from downing too many bombers, and a high alt one, to bounce on the RAF trying to reach the bombers.

And no one is liking DF servers. They are totally off when it comes about simulating the war, exactly because the tactical briefing an requirements of most actual mission would greatly change the battle start situation.

You must not forget how actually these weapons appeared: from the need.. bombers were needed to destroy tactical and then strategical objectives. fighters appeared to hunt down those bombers. escort misssions to have your own bombers protected against enemy's hunters. and so on..

[philip.ed]

It's close enough. Google it.





Yeah, that's just a tragic oversight in a FLIGHT SIM.



You're complaining that the hedgerows aren't quite right in a FLIGHT SIM. Don't talk to me about being difficult. Physician, heal thyself.

Seriously, this sim comes up short for you because the hedgerows aren't quite right and some of the decals might be wrong. That is amazing.

Alright let me put it this way. Firstly regarding colour, the team has the access to model England accurately (according to you). They failed. Google it. The CLoD map looks nothing like the England I fly over. It did in one of the betas, now it looks awful. Of course photos offer good sources, but Oleg always said how they were limited. You are being difficult. You're questioning the people who have lived and thrived in this country and suggesting that a small Russian team is more knowledgeable on our own history. Laughable.


Secondly, at no point have I suggested the lack of hedgerows and decals spoils the sim. The lack of a BoB aspect spoils the sim. I can't enjoy anything near the gameplay that BoB2 has to offer (currently). If I fly CloD for the graphics, I want it to be perfect.
The landscape can be improved, the decals, the campaign, the AI, the missions, the weather etc etc. A lot has to be done for an immersive BoB experience. Now it looks like the community will have to achieve this.

Yes you might ask me to move onto another sim, but why? I love having the choice, and I can recognise how good CloD could be. A channel scrap doesn't satisfy me.

Additionally, this discussion only stemmed from your questioning of the teams resources for the BoB. The fact they sought community information quashes your argument completely. You'd already blown holes in it; now you're trying to throw it into extinction. My comments on the landscape, decals et al weren't game-spoiling matters for me; they were areas which showed the teams limitation. Not bad by any standards, but elements which teams of community 'experts' would happily enjoy re-touching.

Hence why community support and expansion for CloD (working alongside other title) will be brilliant.

[zapatista]

This is totally wrong, the opposite was true. The standard escape for a Spitfire was a 120mph climbing turn to the right, which would cause the slats on the 109 to snatch, and they'd fall away in a stall.

Hell I need this implemented AT LEAST!!! :shock:

your showing your ignorance and are mixing up 2 different concepts. or as they say in dutch, “you heard the bell tolling, but don’t know where the pendulum hangs”. Meaning, you heard some things about this subject, but don’t really understand the essence or meaning

first, Me 109's of the BoB era are less able to hit Spitfires they are chasing (from straight 6 o'clock position) in tight right hand turn because they can't turn inside the spitfire in stern attack. the spitfire had a higher rate of turn and a smaller turning circle than the Messerschmitt (presuming both planes were flown by similarly experienced pilots, each kmowing how to exploit their machine strength and play on the opponents weakness).iirc the spitfire also preferred the right hand turn compared to the left, because the engine torque provided an advantage in that direction (please have some experten confirm or refute this last part)

a spiral climb is something completely different. this was used very successfully by experienced 109 pilots throughout most of the war (and i have used it successfully online in the old il2 series, with great satisfaction :) ). the critical factor is that both lead and chase plane must be at roughly the same speed when you start your spiral climb, and the spiral must be executed by the leading 109 in the tightest steepest spiral possible. predictably the chasing spitfire or hurricane cant get enough lead on you to aim correctly and get a deflection shot (when they pull the stick to much in trying, they stall out), and it can take a while for the 109 to get out of trouble (so not a good idea to use when there are multiple reds zooming around, but effective even if you have a conga line of chasing reds behind you ). the effectiveness of the maneuvre is based on the fact that the 109 has that little advantage in climb that allowed it to sustain a banked climb which the RAF planes were unable to match. it's a slow fight in the sense that it takes time for the chasing plane to be out-turned (unusual) or getting them to stall out (most common result, and is what you hope for). once you see the chasing plane stall out and drop back, you stomp full on the rudder and do a hammerhead in your 109, with the result you end up right on the tail of the plane that was chasing you (whom is still flying very slow and barely starting to regain speed, so is not very maneuverable), giving you an easy kill. when done correctly it is one of the most satisfying victories, and it frustrates the heck out of the red pilot that was chasing you

[adonys]

We don't place the buildings manually, but we do mark the overall areas manually. We take a historical map and trace historical roads and outline historical settlements.

Then the standard "village" or "town" or "industrial" or whatever texture with the standard pattern goes on there. However that pattern lines up with the spline historical road - we don't know. In some cases it'll line up with the texture and the buildings, in other cases it'll cross the standard village streets at a 45-degree angle.

That's just how it is. If we had to place every building on a map manually, even a small 40x40 km online map would take years to make.

you could have splines attaching points to the building areas (crossroads where external roads are linking with town's important ones), internal building areas splines for the navigation between the buildings, and spawn the building areas rotated so that the splies re going into the attaching points.

[zapatista]

I can point you towards statements (interviews/books) from LW pilots who said exactly the opposite: that actually 109 could outturn a spit IF the pilot would dare to use the plane up to its limits..

that is not correct.

point being of course, that we are presuming it is a matchup between equally expert pilots, each knowing how to fully exploit the strength/weaknesses of their own plane and that of their opponent in the 109. generally speaking, the only times a 109 pilot could get away with this is if it was against an inexperience spitfire pilot who wasnt able/willing to push his own machine to the limit. with both machines at their turning limits, the 109 lost out in this maneuvre

please provide references to your unusual claim, and dont use single anecdotal statements from one individual to try and resolve it.

what i stated is generally accepted knowledge on both sides of the debate

[5./JG27.Farber]

Ive seen that interview and heard that the 109 could turn inside a spit - no problem. However I think its circumstanstial... For example if a Spit is in a constant horizontal turn a 109 above could dive in vertical rolling inside the spit and shoot. Essentially having "turned" inside the spit. Allot of fear and adrenaline in war, its not so good for the memory.

The spitfire and the 109 ar both great fighters!

Anyway. The OP. Great update!

[Martin77]

Me 109 E:
"During what was later called the 'Battle of Britain', we flew the Messerschmitt Bf109E. The essential difference from the Spitfire Mark I flown at that time by the RAF was that the Spitfire was less manoeuvrable in the rolling plane. With its shorter wings (2 metres less wingspan) and its square-tipped wings, the Bf 109 was more manoeuvrable and slightly faster. (It is of interest that the English later on clipped the wings of the Spitfire.)
For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them. This is how I shot down six of them."
- Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories. Source: Messerschmitt Bf109 ja Saksan Sotatalous by Hannu Valtonen; Hurricane & Messerschmitt, Chaz Bowyer and Armand Van Ishoven.

Me 109 E:
"Personally, I met RAF over Dunkirk. [During this] battle not a single Spitfire or Hurricane turned tighter than my plane. I found that the Bf 109 E was faster, possessed a higher rate of climb, but was somewhat less manouverable than the RAF fighters. Nevertheless, during the campaign, no Spitfire or Hurricane ever turned inside my plane, and after the war the RAF admitted the loss of 450 Hurricanes and Spitfires during the Battle of France." In the desert there were only a few Spitfires, and we were afraid of those because of their reputation from the Battle of Britain. But after we shot a couple of them down, our confusion was gone."
- Herbert Kaiser, German fighter ace. 68 victories.

"Unexperienced pilots hesitated to turn tight, bacause the plane shook violently when the slats deployed. I realised, though, that because of the slats the plane's stalling characteristics were much better than in comparable Allied planes that I got to fly. Even though you may doubt it, I knew it [Bf109] could manouver better in turnfight than LaGG, Yak or even Spitfire."
- Walter Wolfrum, German fighter ace. 137 victories.

[Stublerone]

What is up here? I just can hear again whining about anything, although this is a thread for which we are waiting a long time now.

@philip.ed: Me (and also many other guys) do not care about this accuracy for now. As David already said: It is accurate enough! If not, then built your own map and play it, sleep on it, sell it or whatever. I do not know, what this point has to do with this update post!?! Or is this post saying: "Please talk about the accuracy of the channel map or about the not released FM!" ???
The map looks okay and this is the last thing to complain about, because we have other problems. Simply just one thing: Open another thread, state your problem and work on it! I can also complain about the new churches and the shape of the bell, which is perhaps not accurate, but I would simply feel like a little whining kid, if I complain about such a stupid, unimportant thing!

I just see so much posts with content, which shouldn't be interesting now or since the game is fixed.

Nobody knows the FM yet, and you already complain about a post from luthier, where he just metioned "up to" 60 mph speed loss of the spit? Please fly it first and then judge (simple as that!!!). And now, people already felt free to evaluate this without any knowledge?

HEY, WAKE UP!!! Do us a favour and wait until you have flown it.

And please don't whine again and state your problems in a seperate thread and additionally in the community bug tracker. Everybody is interested in your complains, but not just on the basis of your thoughts. Thoughts do not matter -> Please give them facts!!! And this is only possible, if you work with the new patch (as soon as it is released) and find out. BUT PLEASE NOT NOW!

It is always the same with flight model. What should the "blue" flyers say about the late war scenarios? They will have the worse equipment! Should they also complain about something, before they actually flew it? I just say: "OMG, what a sh... conversation up to now!!!"

I am also fed up with the whole SLI and AA party:
SLI = You know, that you will get problems with many games as soon as you setup a SLI/Crossfire system. So live with it as soon as it is fixed. And I personally think, that these "framerate fixed" guys just do not know, what they made with their computers and are now complaining everywhere, although they know the problem before buying it.
There are simply too much limits right now, that prevent to use a fully satisfying SLI setup (technically). And the fact, that SLI means less money for nvidia or ati, because old gfx cards will stay longer in the user systems, should let you understand, that they would never support this feature to the maximum. I am afraid, that you will always have to live with this fact. And also get the fact, that it will always be better to buy a single graphics card to avoid annoying SLI and Crossover problems.
In my point of view, SLI mainly is used by the freaks to fight each other with high frame rates and not because you want to upgrade an old system. Sorry, but everyone, who buys an additional old card to prevent getting low fps, is simply on a totally wrong way. (Triple Monitor Setup could be another case)

Concerning AA: This is an appreciated feature, but it comes, when it comes! And it is not that necessary and for me totally out of scope, since full picture AA methods are available without that big impact on performance. FXAA seems interesting and works in CloD. So use such things (or injection tools like ENB series?) instead of asking real AA support again and again and again. Within the last 2-3 days, this question was asked about 20 times. So, this is again not a priority problem for most of us. So stop filling all posts with AA questions. I think, AA could be a problem for spotting plane dots. So, I pilot, who wants to compete with the best, will not use AA, when this happens.

I am simply fed up here with people talking about things, which do not belong to a thread (although I am doing the same right now :) ).

The key of my quickly written post:
1.) Stop whining until you get the patch.
2.) Stop whining about not added features, because you alread know it.
3.) STOP WHINING in general and take part in the community to SOLVE problems, but you do not help with whining and spamming.

I miss the good old Sturmovik community several years ago. They just were not crying so unsorted and just tried to help developing the game over years. :(

I simply think, that here are currently several gamers, who are simply not knowing, that all these posts do not help us. This is simply not informative and completely unsorted. And so much information unsorted = WASTE, because nobody can track or even see all things!!!

Sorry for my english, but it is not my native language and it was written as quick as possible.

Anyone who thinks, that he is meant: I am not looking this post anymore and will not answer again. I want to get information and not argue! But it was time for me, to whine against you. :)

There is a partly destructive community is establishing here, which I do not like.

[SirAthlon]

Stublerone
What is up here? I just can hear again whining about anything, although this is a thread for which we are waiting a long time now.

@philip.ed: Me (and also many other guys) do not care about this accuracy for now. As David already said: It is accurate enough! If not, then built your own map and play it, sleep on it, sell it or whatever. I do not know, what this point has to do with this update post!?! Or is this post saying: "Please talk about the accuracy of the channel map or about the not released FM!" ???
The map looks okay and this is the last thing to complain about, because we have other problems. Simply just one thing: Open another thread, state your problem and work on it! I can also complain about the new churches and the shape of the bell, which is perhaps not accurate, but I would simply feel like a little whining kid, if I complain about such a stupid, unimportant thing!

I just see so much posts with content, which shouldn't be interesting now or since the game is fixed.

Nobody knows the FM yet, and you already complain about a post from luthier, where he just metioned "up to" 60 mph speed loss of the spit? Please fly it first and then judge (simple as that!!!). And now, people already felt free to evaluate this without any knowledge?

HEY, WAKE UP!!! Do us a favour and wait until you have flown it.

And please don't whine again and state your problems in a seperate thread and additionally in the community bug tracker. Everybody is interested in your complains, but not just on the basis of your thoughts. Thoughts do not matter -> Please give them facts!!! And this is only possible, if you work with the new patch (as soon as it is released) and find out. BUT PLEASE NOT NOW!

It is always the same with flight model. What should the "blue" flyers say about the late war scenarios? They will have the worse equipment! Should they also complain about something, before they actually flew it? I just say: "OMG, what a sh... conversation up to now!!!"

I am also fed up with the whole SLI and AA party:
SLI = You know, that you will get problems with many games as soon as you setup a SLI/Crossfire system. So live with it as soon as it is fixed. And I personally think, that these "framerate fixed" guys just do not know, what they made with their computers and are now complaining everywhere, although they know the problem before buying it.
There are simply too much limits right now, that prevent to use a fully satisfying SLI setup (technically). And the fact, that SLI means less money for nvidia or ati, because old gfx cards will stay longer in the user systems, should let you understand, that they would never support this feature to the maximum. I am afraid, that you will always have to live with this fact. And also get the fact, that it will always be better to buy a single graphics card to avoid annoying SLI and Crossover problems.
In my point of view, SLI mainly is used by the freaks to fight each other with high frame rates and not because you want to upgrade an old system. Sorry, but everyone, who buys an additional old card to prevent getting low fps, is simply on a totally wrong way. (Triple Monitor Setup could be another case)

Concerning AA: This is an appreciated feature, but it comes, when it comes! And it is not that necessary and for me totally out of scope, since full picture AA methods are available without that big impact on performance. FXAA seems interesting and works in CloD. So use such things (or injection tools like ENB series?) instead of asking real AA support again and again and again. Within the last 2-3 days, this question was asked about 20 times. So, this is again not a priority problem for most of us. So stop filling all posts with AA questions. I think, AA could be a problem for spotting plane dots. So, I pilot, who wants to compete with the best, will not use AA, when this happens.

I am simply fed up here with people talking about things, which do not belong to a thread (although I am doing the same right now ).

The key of my quickly written post:
1.) Stop whining until you get the patch.
2.) Stop whining about not added features, because you alread know it.
3.) STOP WHINING in general and take part in the community to SOLVE problems, but you do not help with whining and spamming.

I miss the good old Sturmovik community several years ago. They just were not crying so unsorted and just tried to help developing the game over years.

I simply think, that here are currently several gamers, who are simply not knowing, that all these posts do not help us. This is simply not informative and completely unsorted. And so much information unsorted = WASTE, because nobody can track or even see all things!!!

Sorry for my english, but it is not my native language and it was written as quick as possible.

Anyone who thinks, that he is meant: I am not looking this post anymore and will not answer again. I want to get information and not argue! But it was time for me, to whine against you.

There is a partly destructive community is establishing here, which I do not like.

1+

[Frequent_Flyer]

If the 109 or the Spit could out turn the other was really of little to no consequence in BOB. Both were equally bad at the most important quality-range. Most likely they made one pass and both TURNED for home.Ironically, range is one factor that would seem difficult to model accurately. you can check the cruising range, however this is substantially decreased under the stress an engine endures in combat conditions. Not to mention less than ideal maintance conditions, supply shortages etc.

[III/JG53_Don]

Exactly, I just don't get it why so many people here are loudly complaining as like they are flying the revised FM since 3 months.

Guys, they were talking about a MAXIMUM loss of 20 mph (hurri) respective 60mph (Spit II) in SOME circumstances.
This dont mean that you lose 20 or 60 mph in general....

Apart from that some people who really thinks that the Hurricane was the 109s deadliest opponent and every LW ace is still shaking when he thinks of the might of a Hurricane in BoB makes me wonder.
Guess it has a reason why they should care for the bombers and the Spitfires for the fighter escort and not vice versa.

In addition the whole discussion of balance vs realism irritates me. I thought the vast majority here wants to play a SIMULATION? :confused: the question of balance vs. realism is nonexistent for me. If the majority of historical sources say that the hurri was the 109s great nemesis, so be it. I have no problem with that. But if the actual sources say otherwise, you should accept that for the sake of this SIMULATION! ;-)
Just give the devs the time to expand and improve the engine and you will get your realistic formations of bombers etc ASAP. The worst thing would be then to have a balanced planeset.

Just my 2 cents. Looking forward to the patch! :)

[VO101_Tom]

I don't know where this idea that the 109 was a better dogfighter than the Spitfire has crept in from.

Simple. The pilots. :rolleyes:

The pilot who shot down the other, his own aircraft was clearly better. What was the other pilot training, aircraft status, situation before the fight, and energy levels, no one know.

Therefore, you can read memories from pilots who overturn the enemy plane. Maybe the other pilot can't handle the high G loads, or it was damaged or full of fuel. It is possible that it was only a lower alt, and his potential energy was less when the fight started. Hundreds of tiny circumstances which might affect the outcome of the battle.

This is what both sides can be read in the memoirs. Interesting reading, but it is wholly inappropriate to technical analysis. Fortunate that there are tests, in which clearly describe what the aircraft was capable of. (of course, possible to argue that the test pilot how knew the plane, or what was the plane condition :grin:)

[Frequent_Flyer]

Exactly, I just don't get it why so many people here are loudly complaining as like they are flying the revised FM since 3 months.

Guys, they were talking about a MAXIMUM loss of 20 mph (hurri) respective 60mph (Spit II) in SOME circumstances.
This dont mean that you lose 20 or 60 mph in general....

Apart from that some people who really thinks that the Hurricane was the 109s deadliest opponent and every LW ace is still shaking when he thinks of the might of a Hurricane in BoB makes me wonder.
Guess it has a reason why they should care for the bombers and the Spitfires for the fighter escort and not vice versa.

In addition the whole discussion of balance vs realism irritates me. I thought the vast majority here wants to play a SIMULATION? :confused: the question of balance vs. realism is nonexistent for me. If the majority of historical sources say that the hurri was the 109s great nemesis, so be it. I have no problem with that. But if the actual sources say otherwise, you should accept that for the sake of this SIMULATION! ;-)
Just give the devs the time to expand and improve the engine and you will get your realistic formations of bombers etc ASAP. The worst thing would be then to have a balanced planeset.

Just my 2 cents. Looking forward to the patch! :)

Historically the Hurricane did account for more victories than the Spit in BOB. Historially accurate flight models combined with historical tactics should give all the combatants a fighting chance.

[VO101_Tom]

Historically the Hurricane did account for more victories than the Spit in BOB. Historially accurate flight models combined with historical tactics should give all the combatants a fighting chance.

They shot down bombers...

[mazex]

Mmm, I've been waiting for the day when the main fighting is about the Spitfire vs 109 performance in the game versus tons of obscure references instead of performance and bugs in the game :) A good sign!

[ATAG_Dutch]

They shot down bombers...

Interesting report for you Tom. ;)

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-109.pdf

[Frequent_Flyer]

They shot down bombers...

Read the history of the Polish Sqdns. fighting in BOB. They flew predominately Hurri's and the majority of their kills were not bombers. in addition they were not allowed to engage in combat until aprox. half of the time span genellay accepted as BOB, elapsed. They still were some of the highest scoring units to participate.

[kyletiernan]

Awesome! Can't wait for the patch, now that its been improved im actually looking forward to the sequel :) Keep it up!

[VO101_Tom]

Interesting report for you Tom. ;)

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-109.pdf

I do not doubt that they fought against fighters, but the Hurricane primarily responsible was shooting down the bombers. (or i miss something? Spitfire praise is actually a fake thing?)

Interest test, who was the 109 pilot? I mean, the Hurri find himself behind the 109 after couple of hard turn, but what doing the 109? why not using trimm in the section 6? If he was newbie 109 pilot, dared to pull the stick until the leading edge flap open? (not a word on this subject). The German aces have said, doghfight in the 109 was started, when the slats out :cool: ...

Te conclusion is: The 109 faster 30-40 mph, outclimb, and initially outdive the Hurri. But the Hurri turning ability is better (with these two pilot). This is true in the game... or not?

[Al Schlageter]

I do not doubt that they fought against fighters, but the Hurricane primarily responsible was shooting down the bombers. (or i miss something? Spitfire praise is actually a fake thing?)

Is that like 190s were for shooting down Allied heavy bombers and the 109 was for shooting down Allied fighters?

[VO101_Tom]

Read the history of the Polish Sqdns. fighting in BOB. They flew predominately Hurri's and the majority of their kills were not bombers. in addition they were not allowed to engage in combat until aprox. half of the time span genellay accepted as BOB, elapsed. They still were some of the highest scoring units to participate.

Can you give me the sources? I looking now detailed air victory lists, but i don't find...

[VO101_Tom]

Is that like 190s were for shooting down Allied heavy bombers and the 109 was for shooting down Allied fighters?

iirc the Hurri responsible to shot down bombers, because it was slower than any other fighter in the BOB. I think this is a completely legitimate reason...
I dont know what was the RLM standards, in the Royal Hunagarian Air Force, the 190 was used as Jabo planes.

[Moggy]

I do not doubt that they fought against fighters, but the Hurricane primarily responsible was shooting down the bombers. (or i miss something? Spitfire praise is actually a fake thing?)



That was how it supposed to be Tom (and the generally accepted truth), unfortunately it rarely turned out that way. During the battle, raids tended to be intercepted at squadron strength (especially for the 1st 2 months of the battle) be it Hurricanes, Spitfires etc. The plan of having Hurris attacking bombers and Spits tackling the 109 escorts just really didn't take place until later in the battle when 12 group came into their own during the battle over London. There was more time to organize the fighters and assign them to the correct altitude\vectors.

[Walrus1]

Mmm, I've been waiting for the day when the main fighting is about the Spitfire vs 109 performance in the game versus tons of obscure references instead of performance and bugs in the game :) A good sign!

Exactly.

The next step is to go online and find a half-dozen active servers to choose from, some so full that you have to wait to join them.

[svanen]

Funny, an Hurricane on Atag recently cut my whole wing with a single burst while I was landing ... probably the pilot wasn't aware of my invulnerability ... :-)

Well, then it was good aiming from him... :)

[Stublerone]

What I have to say once more in my opinion: The BoB event in the war was the at least most boring war place. So the game is difficult to fill with immersive content, as it was simply not the big war, only showing each other the strength. Germany wanted to make themselves bigger and Britain tried to get time, until americans election was finished and they could join the WW2 (sure also other stuff, that leads to that).

I like the map and its landscape, but I simply do not like the Battle of Britain as a scenario. I am really looking forward to the Eastern front, at least when we get a good net code and a great bunch of vehicles on the map. The possibilties for immersive flights are much bigger than BoB.

I also prefer a later planeset. And later on, the clans can argue again about realistic or balanced planesets in their coops or missions.

So, everything is okay so far.

[zapatista]

iirc the Hurri responsible to shot down bombers, because it was slower than any other fighter in the BOB. I think this is a completely legitimate reason....

the hurricanes were initially mainly tasked with engaging enemy bombers because there were only 2 fighter planes available that were fast enough to catch up to the bombers and engage them. of the 2 available planes, the hurricane was the weapon of choice because:
- it was a more stable gun platform
- it had heavier gun armaments at the start of BoB compared to the spitfire
- it could stand (slightly) heavier damage then the spitfire from german bomber defensive guns
- it was less fast and less agile then the spitfire, so significantly less competitive with the 109's, so by default it was relegated to the bomber interception role (out of the 2 choices the RAF had)

[ATAG_Dutch]

Can you give me the sources? I looking now detailed air victory lists, but i don't find...

Hi Tom,

Just google '303 squadron battle of britain' and you'll find loads of info.

Here's the page from wonderful wiki though,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._303_Polish_Fighter_Squadron

[Osprey]

Also, 109 had actually better roll rate, and so on..

Let's put this one to bed shall we.

The Spitfire roll rate was improved dramatically with metal ailerons. The 109 could only out roll the Spitfire at low speeds, at high speeds it locked up. At present in the game the controls for the 109 don't seem to lock up anywhere near as much as they should. Hopefully this will get fixed.

I don't know if this graph represents fabric or metal ailerons
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/bank45.gif

"The RAE reported: "At 400 m.p.h. the Me.109 pilot, pushing sideways with all his strength, can only apply 1/5 aileron, thereby banking 45 deg. in about 4 secs.; on the Spitfire also, only 1/5 aileron can be applied at 400 m.p.h., and again the time to bank is 45 deg. in 4 secs. Both aeroplanes thus have their rolling manoeuvrability at high speeds seriously curtailed by aileron heaviness."

[Osprey]

your showing your ignorance and are mixing up 2 different concepts. or as they say in dutch, “you heard the bell tolling, but don’t know where the pendulum hangs”. Meaning, you heard some things about this subject, but don’t really understand the essence or meaning

first, Me 109's of the BoB era are less able to hit Spitfires they are chasing (from straight 6 o'clock position) in tight right hand turn because they can't turn inside the spitfire in stern attack. the spitfire had a higher rate of turn and a smaller turning circle than the Messerschmitt (presuming both planes were flown by similarly experienced pilots, each kmowing how to exploit their machine strength and play on the opponents weakness).iirc the spitfire also preferred the right hand turn compared to the left, because the engine torque provided an advantage in that direction (please have some experten confirm or refute this last part)

a spiral climb is something completely different. this was used very successfully by experienced 109 pilots throughout most of the war (and i have used it successfully online in the old il2 series, with great satisfaction :) ). the critical factor is that both lead and chase plane must be at roughly the same speed when you start your spiral climb, and the spiral must be executed by the leading 109 in the tightest steepest spiral possible. predictably the chasing spitfire or hurricane cant get enough lead on you to aim correctly and get a deflection shot (when they pull the stick to much in trying, they stall out), and it can take a while for the 109 to get out of trouble (so not a good idea to use when there are multiple reds zooming around, but effective even if you have a conga line of chasing reds behind you ). the effectiveness of the maneuvre is based on the fact that the 109 has that little advantage in climb that allowed it to sustain a banked climb which the RAF planes were unable to match. it's a slow fight in the sense that it takes time for the chasing plane to be out-turned (unusual) or getting them to stall out (most common result, and is what you hope for). once you see the chasing plane stall out and drop back, you stomp full on the rudder and do a hammerhead in your 109, with the result you end up right on the tail of the plane that was chasing you (whom is still flying very slow and barely starting to regain speed, so is not very maneuverable), giving you an easy kill. when done correctly it is one of the most satisfying victories, and it frustrates the heck out of the red pilot that was chasing you


We have a saying in England. "Try not to confuse your in game tactics with flight log reports from actual pilots at the time in real aeroplanes"

I know what a rope a dope is thanks.

[VO101_Tom]

Hi Tom,
Just google '303 squadron battle of britain' and you'll find loads of info.
Here's the page from wonderful wiki though,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._303_Polish_Fighter_Squadron

Thx.

[Artist]

Uups, wrong thread. Very sorry.

[Kwiatek]

Originally Posted by Frequent_Flyer View Post
Historically the Hurricane did account for more victories than the Spit in BOB. Historially accurate flight models combined with historical tactics should give all the combatants a fighting chance.

They shot down bombers...

It looks that some have little knwowledge about these days but still they think they know better :)


Salute to 303 Squadron Pilots !

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f4/Dywizjon_303_4.jpg/220px-Dywizjon_303_4.jpg

[Insuber]

I warmly suggest to open a topic in the "performance" section, where 90% of the latest posts belong.

[Frequent_Flyer]

Originally Posted by Frequent_Flyer View Post
Historically the Hurricane did account for more victories than the Spit in BOB. Historially accurate flight models combined with historical tactics should give all the combatants a fighting chance.



It looks that some have little knwowledge about these days but still they think they know better :)


Salute to 303 Squadron Pilots !

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f4/Dywizjon_303_4.jpg/220px-Dywizjon_303_4.jpg

The RAF certainly could have used the Poles more effectively. These pilots fought with the Polish airforce, and the French before the RAF. They had vastly more experience than their RAF hosts and yet they were an after thought, almost missing BOB.

[Kwiatek]

Frequent_Flyer i didnt wrote to you :)

I know something about Polish Fighter Pilots during WW2 :) and not only about Polish :)

[[URU]AkeR]

Originally Posted by klem

As for the idea that the 109 was generally the best aircraft in the BoB, that assumes they always had the advantage (which they generaly did due to the enforced defensive tactics of the RAF) but when the Spitfires had the advantage of height etc. the tables were turned because the Spitfire was a perfectly good energy fighter too, it just didn't have too many opportunities to demonstrate that. It was not as well armed as the 109 which is why you could put up a balance of attributes and claim the 109 was better but the 'best' aircraft depended on the circumstances.

Regarding CoD FMs, they need to be realistic as far as possible and provide close relative performance to the real thing although they are unlikely ever to be perfect and we should stop trying to chase an elusive 5% or whatever. In any case pilot skill and opportunity will often negate a reasonable or even large percentage of performance. Just give us FMs as close as you can get.

As for Gameplay and 'historical accuracy' that can only be achieved by mission design and engagement rules, assuming FMs are near enough correct, but this will always be prevented in CoD due to the limitation in numbers the game can support. This is why CoD can never represent the scale of the BoB, the best that can be achieved is a representation of a few of the raids. Mission engagement rules are hard to put in place in a general use on-line server because, for example, most Red pilots are reluctant to fly tight Vic formations, are probably incapable of doing it anyway, and fly combat spread instead for obvious reasons. The kind of scenarios flown in the MMPOG 'Aces High' were the closest I ever came with several hundred participants pre-registered and allocated to Squadrons/Units with clear rules of engagement and a moderator to kick/ban anyone who broke those rules. Oh yes, and you only had one life so you were MUCH more careful about what you did and how/whether you engaged. These take a lot of work to set up, even for a small scale representation of a few raids in CoD. I'm sure the community would really enjoy them but many would not because many just want to dogfight and get kills. You can fly for ages in those scenarios and never see an enemy (as it often used to be in RL) and recent matches between 56RAF and 5./Jg27 on a small scale have left us both searching unsuccessfuly for up to an hour.

So, lets have the FMs as close as possibe including the engines, no daft flight capability with half a wing, 109 pilots suffering and aircraft performance affected by fuel explosions, reasonably balanced AI gunners, etc. etc., and then we'll see how good we are.

Well said. +1




Quote:
Originally Posted by Buchon
This is not about balance but realism.

If you want talk about balance go to some arcade game where climb with your Corsair like a rocket and shot with his eight cannons or to some Call of Duty or Battlefield forum where you can degree shotguns, MGs and pistols to rush with your Thompson like gun at will.

This is about realism, this is about make the most realist WWII airplane behavior out of real documented data and real pilots to make the most realist Simulator.

Its not the 1940s airplane engineers fault don't make Hollywood planes like.

If a plane have weak points is in the hands of the pilot get over it, in fact every plane have weak points, if your plane is weak at speed you should rely in maneuverability, if your plane is weak at climb you just should stay at low altitude.

This is not about balance but Realism.

This is IL-2 !!


+1


+1 :grin:

Just a few things.
Energy tactics are also dogfighting, and its the best way to keep you safe in a dogfight don´t matter if you fly 109 or spit.

Turn radius doesn´t mean better maneuverable, it just means better turn radius.

When you read of 109 pilot turning inside spit or viceversa, you have to know what speed were they flying, were they turning in the horizontal or vertical plane, at what height, etc. The 109 with the slats deployed with a experienced pilot could probably keep turning at slow speeds when the spit was about to stall and noone wants to fly at stall speeds.

For those talking about replicate batle conditions, in 1946 are great examples. To me the more "as real as it gets" example was the June 1942 SEOW campaign, each squadron had precise objetives each missions. Mission lenght was 3 real hours, and for that you only had 1 plane, 1 life, 1 fuel tank, and 1 munittion round. My squad was flying axis, and the 109 fuel comsuption was a real problem, often we had 2 squads taking turns for CAP missions, were one squad will wait in the ground for 15 - 20 min, and then take off, go to the CAP place and the other squad landed and waited and then switch back, we were flying always at 50% throttle, and even during a dogfight you were trying not to push full throttle. Engagements were very short and as soon one group gained advantage over an enemy group they will run for they flak, the loss of a control cable, or a fuel leak was the end of the mission for you, and there was always a last minute enemy raid. If we get something like that in COD it will be awesome.

When we get the patch you will se me flying the G50 :cool:and taking down you spit IIa :cool::grin:

[VO101_Tom]

It looks that some have little knwowledge about these days but still they think they know better :)


We talk about the Hurricanes and Spitfires in BoB, not only the 303 squadron.

But if you have any proof, please share, if the Hurricanes shot down more fighter than Spitfires. I found only this (or similar):

"Both the Supermarine Spitfire and the Hurricane are renowned for their part in defending Britain against the Luftwaffe — generally the Spitfire would intercept the German fighters, leaving Hurricanes to concentrate on the bombers, but despite the undoubted abilities of the "thoroughbred" Spitfire, it was the "workhorse" Hurricane that scored the higher number of RAF victories during this period, accounting for 55 percent of the 2,739 German losses, according to Fighter Command, compared with 42 per cent by Spitfires.[39]"

But there is no exact numbers, how many bomber, how many fighter...

[5./JG27.Farber]

[URU]AkeR - Agreed!

:-P

VO101 Tom - there were loads more Hurricanes than spits, this is why.

[Frequent_Flyer]

We talk about the Hurricanes and Spitfires in BoB, not only the 303 squadron.

But if you have any proof, please share, if the Hurricanes shot down more fighter than Spitfires. I found only this (or similar):

"Both the Supermarine Spitfire and the Hurricane are renowned for their part in defending Britain against the Luftwaffe — generally the Spitfire would intercept the German fighters, leaving Hurricanes to concentrate on the bombers, but despite the undoubted abilities of the "thoroughbred" Spitfire, it was the "workhorse" Hurricane that scored the higher number of RAF victories during this period, accounting for 55 percent of the 2,739 German losses, according to Fighter Command, compared with 42 per cent by Spitfires.[39]"

But there is no exact numbers, how many bomber, how many fighter...

Also, consider the Bf-110, a fighter , other than having greater range was useless as an escort and easy meat for the Hurri. In addition. the Ju-87 was rendered " obsolete " during BOB, based upon its record vs. the Hurri and Spit.

Keep in mind ,the pathitic range of the 109 required it to return to base well before its escort duties were fullfilled on a great number of occasions. Leaving nothing but the Bombers for both the Spit and Hurri to concentrate on.
Both the Spit and the Hurri may have scored more victories over Bombers rather than fighters.

Thats not a bad thing!

[taildraggernut]

Yet I believe more 109's were lost than any other German aircraft type

[Insuber]

Yet I believe more 109's were lost than any other German aircraft type

Irrelevant. They were the most widespread type, so ...

[taildraggernut]

Irrelevant. They were the most widespread type, so ...

Wow....such hostility, I was only answering Frequent flyers hypothesis on how many bombers vs fighters the RAF shot down....what is so irrelevant about it?

[taildraggernut]

These might be interesting links.....

http://www.alternatewars.com/WW2/Seelowe/BOB_LW_Losses.htm

http://cz-raf.hyperlink.cz/BoB/stat.html

[ATAG_Dutch]

'in encounters known to be between Hurricanes and 109s, the 109 came out the winner, shooting down 272 Hurricanes for the loss of 153 Bf109s.'

Which means 153 Bf109s were shot down by Hurris, of course. :)

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_hawker_hurricane_combat.html

[Kwiatek]

Nobody claim that Hurricane was better fighter then 109. But surly in experience hands Hurrricane could be effective againt 109 too :)

303 SQN pilots proof it enough.

Also 100 Octan fuel and +12lbs emergency boost made a difference in low level combat alts too.

[klem]

the hurricanes were initially mainly tasked with engaging enemy bombers because there were only 2 fighter planes available that were fast enough to catch up to the bombers and engage them. of the 2 available planes, the hurricane was the weapon of choice because:
- it was a more stable gun platform
- it had heavier gun armaments at the start of BoB compared to the spitfire
- it could stand (slightly) heavier damage then the spitfire from german bomber defensive guns
- it was less fast and less agile then the spitfire, so significantly less competitive with the 109's, so by default it was relegated to the bomber interception role (out of the 2 choices the RAF had)

- it had heavier gun armaments at the start of BoB compared to the spitfire

just one point zapatista, both aircraft had the same eight Browning 0.303" machine guns from the start. The Hurricane was a more stable gun platform because it reacted less to the recoil. It had the guns grouped close together in the more solidly constructed wings, four in each wing about 1/4 the wing length from the fuselage. The Spitfire was a less stable platform due to its guns being spread along the wings and its outer wing reaction to recoil or aileron forces. This mean that any flexing or twisting of the wings would slightly move/twist the aim point of the outer guns.

[MegOhm]

Do appreciate the update...promising...

One issue I see that has really never been answered to my knowledge (unless i missed it) is the fact the Spit is not very maneuverable on the ground. I can drive the 109 around like a sports car but the Spit just does not want to turn right.... I cannot be the only one seeing this... I do like taxiing as part of the process after start up. ...

Hope this was addressed

[r0bc]

Right on...some good news

[SlipBall]

One issue I see that has really never been answered to my knowledge (unless i missed it) is the fact the Spit is not very maneuverable on the ground. I can drive the 109 around like a sports car but the Spit just does not want to turn right.... I cannot be the only one seeing this... I do like taxiing as part of the process after start up. ...

Hope this was addressed



Did you check to see what the wind setting is, thats usually what prevents me from turning at times.

[335th_GRAthos]

Let's put this one to bed shall we.

The Spitfire roll rate was improved dramatically with metal ailerons. The 109 could only out roll the Spitfire at low speeds, at high speeds it locked up. At present in the game the controls for the 109 don't seem to lock up anywhere near as much as they should. Hopefully this will get fixed.

I don't know if this graph represents fabric or metal ailerons
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/bank45.gif

"The RAE reported: "At 400 m.p.h. the Me.109 pilot, pushing sideways with all his strength, can only apply 1/5 aileron, thereby banking 45 deg. in about 4 secs.; on the Spitfire also, only 1/5 aileron can be applied at 400 m.p.h., and again the time to bank is 45 deg. in 4 secs. Both aeroplanes thus have their rolling manoeuvrability at high speeds seriously curtailed by aileron heaviness."

I will come back to that, new to me!

These you call low speeds (200-310MPH) = (321-500Kmh)!???
I have rarely entered a turning fight at such high speeds...

This is awesome news, the Bf109 rolls like a FW190.... LOL!

If (and I repeat, "if") your graph is true, then our Bf109s are underperforming in the game right now!!!!!!


Nice one, I had the laugh of my life...
In all honesty, I have difficulty to believe that the Bf109 can roll that well, speechless!


~S~

[335th_GRAthos]

Me 109 E:
"During what was later called the 'Battle of Britain', we flew the Messerschmitt Bf109E. The essential difference from the Spitfire Mark I flown at that time by the RAF was that the Spitfire was less manoeuvrable in the rolling plane. With its shorter wings (2 metres less wingspan) and its square-tipped wings, the Bf 109 was more manoeuvrable and slightly faster. (It is of interest that the English later on clipped the wings of the Spitfire.)
For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them. This is how I shot down six of them."
- Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories. Source: Messerschmitt Bf109 ja Saksan Sotatalous by Hannu Valtonen; Hurricane & Messerschmitt, Chaz Bowyer and Armand Van Ishoven.

Me 109 E:
"Personally, I met RAF over Dunkirk. [During this] battle not a single Spitfire or Hurricane turned tighter than my plane. I found that the Bf 109 E was faster, possessed a higher rate of climb, but was somewhat less manouverable than the RAF fighters. Nevertheless, during the campaign, no Spitfire or Hurricane ever turned inside my plane, and after the war the RAF admitted the loss of 450 Hurricanes and Spitfires during the Battle of France." In the desert there were only a few Spitfires, and we were afraid of those because of their reputation from the Battle of Britain. But after we shot a couple of them down, our confusion was gone."
- Herbert Kaiser, German fighter ace. 68 victories.

"Unexperienced pilots hesitated to turn tight, bacause the plane shook violently when the slats deployed. I realised, though, that because of the slats the plane's stalling characteristics were much better than in comparable Allied planes that I got to fly. Even though you may doubt it, I knew it [Bf109] could manouver better in turnfight than LaGG, Yak or even Spitfire."
- Walter Wolfrum, German fighter ace. 137 victories.

Thanks for these quotes Martin, I only knew the first one!

~S~

[VO101_Tom]

Thanks for these quotes Martin, I only knew the first one!

~S~

You know this site?

Messerschmitt 109 - myths, facts and the view from the cockpit (http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/)

[Jaws2002]

I will come back to that, new to me!

These you call low speeds (200-310MPH) = (321-500Kmh)!???
I have rarely entered a turning fight at such high speeds...

This is awesome news, the Bf109 rolls like a FW190.... LOL!

If (and I repeat, "if") your graph is true, then our Bf109s are underperforming in the game right now!!!!!!




~S~

What's so great about 45 Degrees roll in two seconds?:confused: That's 16 seconds for a full 360 degrees roll. The FW-190 could do 180 degrees during those two seconds.;)

[335th_GRAthos]

It is twice the roll rate of the Spitfire (according to the graph posted) ;)


@ V101 Tom: Thanks for the link, I did not know it! :)

~S~

[Osprey]

It appears there's a lot you don't know Grathos, you missed something in the graph but you've assumed to the benefit of the 109. What a surprise.......

The difference between you and I is that I am interested in the facts of the matter whereas you are interested in items that benefit the 109, ergo, you online. Please please please go away from here and spend your days on Kurfursts site which I am sure will have you most aroused.

[1.JaVA_Sharp]

Please run closed online beta test to see if CTDs are still present. If you run open beta with CTDs not fixed and tested as it sounds to me now (knowing Russian vague wording), you will be publicly crucified.

@ all
Do not hold your breath yet. Another 2 weeks might be needed for online CTDs tests and subsequent fix.

I just hope this showstopper is fixed.

[Chivas]

My read of the situation is that internal testing has gone very well and they are broadening the internal testing to more computers over the weekend or so. This suggests the patch has tested very well on a small group of computers. Things can always be missed, but it appears, they may not be show stoppers.

[GF_Mastiff]

Lol good good I`m in PLaya del Carmen right now I will be back just in time to beta test.

[Kurfürst]

Let's put this one to bed shall we.

The Spitfire roll rate was improved dramatically with metal ailerons. The 109 could only out roll the Spitfire at low speeds, at high speeds it locked up. At present in the game the controls for the 109 don't seem to lock up anywhere near as much as they should. Hopefully this will get fixed.

I don't know if this graph represents fabric or metal ailerons
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/bank45.gif

"The RAE reported: "At 400 m.p.h. the Me.109 pilot, pushing sideways with all his strength, can only apply 1/5 aileron, thereby banking 45 deg. in about 4 secs.; on the Spitfire also, only 1/5 aileron can be applied at 400 m.p.h., and again the time to bank is 45 deg. in 4 secs. Both aeroplanes thus have their rolling manoeuvrability at high speeds seriously curtailed by aileron heaviness."

Note that the above information is a copy-paste job from a Mike Williams article, well known in the aviation community for its tendency to use manipulated evidence to further an agenda. In this case, the graph from the actual British 1940 report was cropped, hiding the fact that the (early) Spitfire (with fabric ailerons) required far higher stick forces to roll at high speed than the 109E.

The full graph - which was cropped for obvious reasons on Mike Williams's wwiiaircraftperformance 'website' - can be seen below:

http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109E_UKtrials/Morgan_files/image040.jpg

The full British trial report can be read here:

http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109E_UKtrials/Morgan.html

The Germans had also tested the Spitfire and Hurricane against their fighters. In agreement with the British testing team, they concluded that the Spitfire was inferior in roll to the 109E. They also found that the Spitfire had longitudal stability issues:

"The rolling ability of the enemy fighters at high speeds is worse than that of the Bf 109.
Quick changes of the trajectory along the vertical axis cause especially with the Spitfire
load changes around the cranial axis, coming from high longitudinal thrust momemtum, and
significantly disturb the aiming."

Can be read at full here: http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109E_vergleich110SpitHurCurtiss/109E_vergleichsflg_Aug1940.html

Given our experience of the often doctored and manipulated reports on Mike William's website, I would advise caution and not to take them at face value.

[RCAF_FB_Orville]

Note that the above information is a copy-paste job from a Mike Williams article, well known in the aviation community for its tendency to use manipulated evidence to further an agenda.

Gentle reader, please note that this Hungarian Lunatic Kurfurt-Barbarrossa-Isegrim is an obsessive, compulsive, intellectually dishonest professional LIAR whom has been Permanently life time banned from wikipedia for a variety of offenses, including harassment, and various other flight sim and aviation forums for his habitually mendacious and calculated campaign of utterly unfounded, ridiculous revisionist bullsh*t. He is a complete and utter Menace to the cause of Truth.

*Mods, ban me now, but with God as my witness, I speak the truth. He is a LIAR. A disruptive, sick in the head lunatic. Plain and simple. Proper nutter. :confused:*

Whatever, Kurf. No, you're getting the time of day. You are a Liar. You should be *bleepin* ashamed of yourself. That is all.

:rolleyes:

[zapatista]

Me 109 E:
"During what was later called the 'Battle of Britain', we flew the Messerschmitt Bf109E. The essential difference from the Spitfire Mark I flown at that time by the RAF was that the Spitfire was less manoeuvrable in the rolling plane. With its shorter wings (2 metres less wingspan) and its square-tipped wings, the Bf 109 was more manoeuvrable and slightly faster. (It is of interest that the English later on clipped the wings of the Spitfire.)
For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them. This is how I shot down six of them."
- Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories. Source: Messerschmitt Bf109 ja Saksan Sotatalous by Hannu Valtonen; Hurricane & Messerschmitt, Chaz Bowyer and Armand Van Ishoven.

Me 109 E:
"Personally, I met RAF over Dunkirk. [During this] battle not a single Spitfire or Hurricane turned tighter than my plane. I found that the Bf 109 E was faster, possessed a higher rate of climb, but was somewhat less manouverable than the RAF fighters. Nevertheless, during the campaign, no Spitfire or Hurricane ever turned inside my plane, and after the war the RAF admitted the loss of 450 Hurricanes and Spitfires during the Battle of France." In the desert there were only a few Spitfires, and we were afraid of those because of their reputation from the Battle of Britain. But after we shot a couple of them down, our confusion was gone."
- Herbert Kaiser, German fighter ace. 68 victories.

"Unexperienced pilots hesitated to turn tight, bacause the plane shook violently when the slats deployed. I realised, though, that because of the slats the plane's stalling characteristics were much better than in comparable Allied planes that I got to fly. Even though you may doubt it, I knew it [Bf109] could manouver better in turnfight than LaGG, Yak or even Spitfire."
- Walter Wolfrum, German fighter ace. 137 victories.

Martin,

excellent post, thanks for quoting your sources directly (what text are the other 2 quotes from plz ?)

what you implied with those statements however goes directly against what the conclusions are/were from the allied comparison of those 2 aircraft performance (spitfire of BoB era vs 109), and the large amount of 1e person reports from both allied and german pilots of that era who had flown these 2 planes in combat.

if what you say was true, the german pilots would have been instructed by their superiors before flight in BoB "dont worry about ze spitfire, you are faster, can climb and turn better, and if he tries to out-turn you just put out ze slats and you always have him for sure !" , which obviously is not the case. instead i will quote you back some Galland, whom i am sure you must have high regards for and with his experience is able to give an OVERVIEW of facts regarding the 109-spitfire relationship at the time of BoB.

Adolf Galland wrote of the matchup: "the ME-109 was superior in the attack and not so suitable for purely defensive purposes as the Spitfire, which although a little slower, was much more manueuverable"

and when he was being tasked with protecting bomber formations (rather then go on free hunts where the 109's could build an advantage prior to starting an engagement).....

in a fit of frustration uttered the famous passage to Göring "I should like an outfit of Spitfires for my Squadron".

that isnt conclusive factual proof of anything, but since you are using anecdotal information from very experienced pilots, i am countering you with direct words from one of the most experienced and highest regarded german pilots of the BoB era, the master himself :)

the key point of those allied comparisons is that if both pilots are of equal high skill and experience level, and both can push their planes to the limit (including the german pilot w his slats out to improve low speed handling), then the spitfire should come out slightly better in turn rate

obviously an experienced 109 pilot who is confident at these near stall speeds with his slats out will be superior to an average spitfire pilot who doesnt similarly push his aircraft, but that is not the point. what we need is direct factual information of the aircraft with both pilots being equal, and then have this implemented in CoD (and documented by a program like il2 compare). once each main aircraft has its own strength/weaknesses correctly represented, we can start to recreate historical engagements online (where pilot skill and experience then becomes the dominating factor determining outcome)

[CWMV]

Note that the above information is a copy-paste job from a Mike Williams article, well known in the aviation community for its tendency to use manipulated evidence to further an agenda.

Gentle reader, please note that this Hungarian Lunatic Kurfurt-Barbarrossa-Isegrim is an obsessive, compulsive, intellectually dishonest professional LIAR whom has been Permanently life time banned from wikipedia for a variety of offenses, including harassment, and various other flight sim and aviation forums for his habitually mendacious and calculated campaign of utterly unfounded, ridiculous revisionist bullsh*t. He is a complete and utter Menace to the cause of Truth.

*Mods, ban me now, but with God as my witness, I speak the truth. He is a LIAR. A disruptive, sick in the head lunatic. Plain and simple. Proper nutter. :confused:*

Whatever, Kurf. No, you're getting the time of day. You are a Liar. You should be *bleepin* ashamed of yourself. That is all.

:rolleyes:

Great post, but there seems to be something wrong as I don't see the original documents/scans that were attached to your post.

I know you wouldn't make an ass of yourself, calling someone else many horrible things, without having a point other than to slander someone.

[Buchon]

Guys ... there propaganda in both sides, don't fall by it.

We should navigate through it and find the true, only with that we can make the most amazing Simulator.

[zapatista]

Note that the above information is a copy-paste job from a Mike Williams article, well known in the aviation community for its tendency to use manipulated evidence to further an agenda.

Gentle reader, please note that this Hungarian *fanatic* Kurfurt-Barbarrossa-Isegrim is an obsessive, compulsive, intellectually dishonest *perpetual repeat offender* whom has been Permanently life time banned from wikipedia for a variety of offenses, including*deliberate falsification of information to suit his needs*, harassment, and also been banned repeatedly from various other flight sim and aviation forums for his habitually mendacious and calculated misinformation campaign of utterly unfounded, ridiculous revisionist nonsense He is a complete and utter Menace to those seaking a logical rational debate on any ww2 aviation related matter.



mods please note: just edited the possible infraction causing wording out of his post :)

RCAF_FB_Orville, i was about to say something similar when i saw his name pop up :) ........

dear casual forum readers,
- if you are new to these forums, you have just encountered kurfurst, who has the dubious title of lufwhiner-nr1 in these circles, and it is a title he cherishes (yet doesnt comprehend) . he has been repeatedly found out to deliberately use misleading and false information on numerous occasions, and his aggressive intolerant and malicious conduct towards many other forum users has over the years resulted in him being banned repeatedly from most of the main aviation forums that deal with ww2.
- given the amount of information he has accumulated over the years to drive his obsession, he will occasionally come out with something factual and correct, but only ever consider that possibility after carefull examination of all the facts with the highest degree of suspicion and caution, and even then on most occasions you will find out later you have been misled and tricked into accepting something that doesnt turn out to be true in the end. so reader be aware, and approach with great caution at your own risk ! :)

[Goanna1]

mods please note: just edited the possible infraction causing wording out of his post :)

RCAF_FB_Orville, i was about to say something similar when i saw his name pop up :) ........

dear casual forum readers,
- if you are new to these forums, you have just encountered kurfurst, who has the dubious title of lufwhiner-nr1 in these circles, and it is a title he cherishes (yet doesnt comprehend) . he has been repeatedly found out to deliberately use misleading and false information on numerous occasions, and his aggressive intolerant and malicious conduct towards many other forum users has over the years resulted in him being banned repeatedly from most of the main aviation forums that deal with ww2.
- given the amount of information he has accumulated over the years to drive his obsession, he will occasionally come out with something factual and correct, but only ever consider that possibility after carefull examination of all the facts with the highest degree of suspicion and caution, and even then on most occasions you will find out later you have been misled and tricked into accepting something that doesnt turn out to be true in the end.so reader be aware, and approach with great caution at your own risk ! :)

Right on Zapista good call-
As for Mr K. --Just another Internet egoist who possibly has only 'virtual friends' for which to communicate with--- pity!!

[335th_GRAthos]

It appears there's a lot you don't know Grathos, you missed something in the graph but you've assumed to the benefit of the 109. What a surprise.......

The difference between you and I is that I am interested in the facts of the matter whereas you are interested in items that benefit the 109, ergo, you online. Please please please go away from here and spend your days on Kurfursts site which I am sure will have you most aroused.

"ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα"
Socrates (as quoted by Plato)


It take your wording as very insulting Osprey.
I respect that you are allowed to have your point of view but turning to personal offense when there is nothing better to do is not the way.
Still it may be your way, everyone has a choice.

And my choice is the ignore button.

~S~

[MACADEMIC]

Why does every thread on this forum turn into an OT bickering fest? Very unappealing.

MAC

[Osprey]

Note that the above information is a copy-paste job from a Mike Williams article, well known in the aviation community for its tendency to use manipulated evidence to further an agenda.

Gentle reader, please note that this Hungarian Lunatic Kurfurt-Barbarrossa-Isegrim is an obsessive, compulsive, intellectually dishonest professional LIAR whom has been Permanently life time banned from wikipedia for a variety of offenses, including harassment, and various other flight sim and aviation forums for his habitually mendacious and calculated campaign of utterly unfounded, ridiculous revisionist bullsh*t. He is a complete and utter Menace to the cause of Truth.

*Mods, ban me now, but with God as my witness, I speak the truth. He is a LIAR. A disruptive, sick in the head lunatic. Plain and simple. Proper nutter. :confused:*

Whatever, Kurf. No, you're getting the time of day. You are a Liar. You should be *bleepin* ashamed of yourself. That is all.

:rolleyes:


+1

He genuinely is. It's funny how he undermines the graph I posted showing roll rate, but posts and IDENTICAL graph showing roll rate plus some other stuff that nobody was talking about.

Grathos, time to get the tissues out.

[Osprey]

Great post, but there seems to be something wrong as I don't see the original documents/scans that were attached to your post.

I know you wouldn't make an ass of yourself, calling someone else many horrible things, without having a point other than to slander someone.

Mate, save yourself time, what he wrote is true sadly. I have seen the wiki arguments, you can too but honestly, I don't want to waste more time with this maniac.

[Osprey]

"ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα"
Socrates (as quoted by Plato)


It take your wording as very insulting Osprey.
I respect that you are allowed to have your point of view but turning to personal offense when there is nothing better to do is not the way.
Still it may be your way, everyone has a choice.

And my choice is the ignore button.

~S~

Hmmm, easily offended but quite happy to tell other people to 'learn to fly'. Can't think of anything more insulting than that.

You may not see this, but everyone else will. Tra la la

[RCAF_FB_Orville]

Great post, but there seems to be something wrong as I don't see the original documents/scans that were attached to your post.

I know you wouldn't make an ass of yourself, calling someone else many horrible things, without having a point other than to slander someone.

Thanks for the concern, but there is nothing whatsoever "wrong" with my post, (other than perhaps being OT) it is factually correct in its entirety. He has been life time, permanently banned from wikipedia as well as repeatedly banned from other forums for multiple reasons. A statement generally cannot be 'slander' when it is written, not spoken, and is in fact true. I know you wouldn't make an ass of yourself without checking the actual meaning of a word first. Oops a daisy.

Just thought I'd give folks a friendly heads up. Zaps version was perhaps more diplomatic.

Anyways, I don't have the time.....and its all been done before. Ad nauseum.

Cheers.

Out.

[Verhängnis]

The apex of human intelligence is displayed on these forums. Please tell me I'm wrong:!:

[moilami]

in a fit of frustration uttered the famous passage to Göring "I should like an outfit of Spitfires for my Squadron".


Hmm, maybe he used the "it's the plane, not the pilots nor tactics" excuse.

After all by whining to Göring he had a chance to influence Hitler regarding resources used to research & development of better planes.

[Verhängnis]

Perhaps he should of just joined Rudolf Hess in that 110 and flew to England for peace talks...

[Flanker35M]

S!

A very nice update thread from developers turned into a bickering fest with mud sling..once again. Can't you guys just wait for the patch and then compare the changes etc. I for sure wait for it and ready for testing with fellow virtual pilots.

[moilami]

S!

A very nice update thread from developers turned into a bickering fest with mud sling..once again. Can't you guys just wait for the patch and then compare the changes etc. I for sure wait for it and ready for testing with fellow virtual pilots.

Aye, it was a great update about everyone has been waiting for. Thus should be celebrated instead of whined on since after the patch IL-2 should be much better game and simulation.

[JG52Uther]

Best just to read the first ten pages or so of an update thread.
Ignore list is your friend. ;)

[BG-09]

The UDSSR under Communist rule have very extensive agricultural politics!
The invasion of Germany over UDSSR, began on 22 of June 1941.
At this priod the UDSSR government used planned economy based on 5-year plans, with extensive agriciltural operations and production.
The landscape have to be VERY different from the landscape of France and England!
At the moment of the military ivasion, majority of the fields have to be ploughed, and the crops have to be seeded, with crops at their middle phase of development!
1. This means, that the german tanks have to advance through a GREEN corn a half a meter high;
2. The wheat have to be LIGHT GREEN at this moment, not YELLOW, because at this latitude it rapes LATER!
3. There have to be extensive cooperative gardens of FRUIT TREES, of diffrent kind, with a white painted trunks.
4. A lot of irigation channels full of watter.

The so called "Kolhoz", and its HUGE fields of identical crops must cover extensive maps areas. This is not Westrn Europe, This is UDSSR: "Souiz nerushinmiii, Respublic svobodniih...." WELCOME TO EASTERN EUROPE AND EURASIA in 1941...

This have to be taken in to consideration of landscape modeling in to the next chapter of the sequel The BoM:
1. Extensive fields of corn;
2. Fields of wheat;
3. Fields of beetroot;
4. Fields of cabbage;
5. Apple gardens;
6. Cherry gardens;
7. Pear gardens;
8. Plume gardens.

This is the reality, and this have to be taken in to consideration. Even, a agricultural statistics from 1940 have to be checked, before the map creating process!

S!

[Volksieg]

If you want strategy play Civilization V.



I agree with everything you have just said, Madfish.... apart from the above! Civilization IV, The Total War games and Hearts of Iron series..... surely! :D

[king1hw]

Ok I have said my piece about the speed issue and will just give it a go! I am however logically puzzled by the moves. Anyway see you in the skies and NO LAUNCHER ISSUE:-P. Mabe then those great programers can get busy making amazing servers.

king

[Sutts]

+1

He genuinely is. It's funny how he undermines the graph I posted showing roll rate, but posts and IDENTICAL graph showing roll rate plus some other stuff that nobody was talking about.

Grathos, time to get the tissues out.


I was going to say exactly the same thing Osprey. The actual roll rate graph wasn't cropped at all! Very misleading indeed. NOT.

If we're going to look at stick forces then they're pretty much the same up to 300MPH which is the zone we should be most interested in. Can't imagine much dogfighting going on at speeds in excess of 300MPH.

In terms of roll rate, I can easily believe that the 109 had the edge in the roll at lower speeds. The Spitfire had 13% more wingspan and 39% more wing area so the odds are with the 109 for sure.

It's been said before but I think a lot of the arguments here are caused by quoting performance facts without the full context of speed, altitude etc.

I like this statement which sums up my opinion on the turning issue:
The 109 was capable of turning with a Spitfire, but it could only do this at low speeds where its leading edge slats gave it the advantage. At normal dogfight speeds the Spitfire had the advantage.

[fruitbat]

Me 109 E:
"During what was later called the 'Battle of Britain', we flew the Messerschmitt Bf109E. The essential difference from the Spitfire Mark I flown at that time by the RAF was that the Spitfire was less manoeuvrable in the rolling plane. With its shorter wings (2 metres less wingspan) and its square-tipped wings, the Bf 109 was more manoeuvrable and slightly faster. (It is of interest that the English later on clipped the wings of the Spitfire.)
For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them. This is how I shot down six of them."
- Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories. Source: Messerschmitt Bf109 ja Saksan Sotatalous by Hannu Valtonen; Hurricane & Messerschmitt, Chaz Bowyer and Armand Van Ishoven.

Me 109 E:
"Personally, I met RAF over Dunkirk. [During this] battle not a single Spitfire or Hurricane turned tighter than my plane. I found that the Bf 109 E was faster, possessed a higher rate of climb, but was somewhat less manouverable than the RAF fighters. Nevertheless, during the campaign, no Spitfire or Hurricane ever turned inside my plane, and after the war the RAF admitted the loss of 450 Hurricanes and Spitfires during the Battle of France." In the desert there were only a few Spitfires, and we were afraid of those because of their reputation from the Battle of Britain. But after we shot a couple of them down, our confusion was gone."
- Herbert Kaiser, German fighter ace. 68 victories.

"Unexperienced pilots hesitated to turn tight, bacause the plane shook violently when the slats deployed. I realised, though, that because of the slats the plane's stalling characteristics were much better than in comparable Allied planes that I got to fly. Even though you may doubt it, I knew it [Bf109] could manouver better in turnfight than LaGG, Yak or even Spitfire."
- Walter Wolfrum, German fighter ace. 137 victories.

Which along with the numerous quotes i have in books by RAF pilots (Al Deere, Brian Kingcombe, Johny Kent etc...), saying how they could out turn the 109 in the BoB goes to show only one thing.

That the planes were fairly even and that the better pilot could out turn a worse pilot irrespective of whether they were flying a spit or a 109.......

[Bewolf]

Let's just put it this way, those who got outmanoevered by their adversary didn't go home to tell the tale how they turned worse then the enemy.

[6S.Manu]

and when he was being tasked with protecting bomber formations (rather then go on free hunts where the 109's could build an advantage prior to starting an engagement).....

in a fit of frustration uttered the famous passage to Göring "I should like an outfit of Spitfires for my Squadron".


Followed by:
Of course fundamentally I preferred our Me-109 to the Spitfire. But I was unbelievably vexed at the lack of understanding and the stubbornness with which the command gave us orders we could not execute - or only incompletely - as a result of many shortcomings for which we were not to blame

Martin77 posted real pilots' personal opinions while what you posted is an example of how information can be manipulated.


Gentle reader, please note that this Hungarian Lunatic Kurfurt-Barbarrossa-Isegrim is an obsessive, compulsive, intellectually dishonest professional LIAR whom has been Permanently life time banned from wikipedia for a variety of offenses, including harassment, and various other flight sim and aviation forums for his habitually mendacious and calculated campaign of utterly unfounded, ridiculous revisionist bullsh*t. He is a complete and utter Menace to the cause of Truth.

Be banned from wikipedia isn't a bad thing... that site is full of BS; for example 10 minutes ago I was searching for the complete Galland's statement about the Spitfires' outfit (but at last I had to search it inside my book) and this is what you find on Galland's wikipage:

From June 1940 on, Galland flew as the Gruppenkommandeur of III./Jagdgeschwader 26 (JG 26), fighting in the Battle of Britain with Messerschmitt Bf 109 "Emils". On 19 July 1940, he was promoted to Major and JG 26 moved to the Pas de Calais, where they were to remain for the next 18 months with III./JG 26 based at Caffiers.[47]

On 24 July 1940 almost 40 Bf 109s of III./JG 26 took off for operations over the English Channel. They were met by 12 No. 54 Squadron Spitfires. The Spitfires forced the larger number of Bf 109s into a turning battle that ran down the Germans' fuel. Galland recalled being impressed by the Spitfire's ability to out-manoeuvre Bf 109s at low speed and turning on to the Bf 109s within little airspace. Only executing a "Split S"; a long curving dive that the Spitfire could not follow, could his aircraft escape back to France at low altitude. The II./Jagdgeschwader 52 covered their retreat, losing two Bf 109s to Spitfires from No. 610 Squadron. During the action, two Spitfires were shot down for the loss of four Bf 109s. Galland was shocked by the aggression shown by the relatively inexperienced and outnumbered RAF and realised there would be no quick and easy victory.[48]

The bolded part is real BS. German pilots just had to point they nose down, while the Spitfire had to make the Split S.

I don't have a fondness for any poster in this discussion, but I would like to know the reason you call K liar. Have you a "case file" about him that I can read carefully?

Because it's very easy to argue with people claiming that the Spitfire was better since "Galland wanted his outfit of it" or "better turn-time = better plane".

[Buchon]

Let's just put it this way, those who got outmanoevered by their adversary didn't go home to tell the tale how they turned worse then the enemy.

:rolleyes:

[Al Schlageter]

Be banned from wikipedia isn't a bad thing... that site is full of BS;

So now you know why Wiki is full of BS.:)

[6S.Manu]

Which along with the numerous quotes i have in books by RAF pilots (Al Deere, Brian Kingcombe, Johny Kent etc...), saying how they could out turn the 109 in the BoB goes to show only one thing.

That the planes were fairly even and that the better pilot could out turn a worse pilot irrespective of whether they were flying a spit or a 109.......

I agree... those pilots where young boys with one life alone, and could not make mistakes as we do continuously.

Yesterday I was playing ROF flying in a Fokker DrI: 1 vs 1 against one of my teammates (same plane) and he was always outturning me. Simply I was scared to pull the stick at full stroke... I was scared by the possible stall... my mate instead was braver or has more experience in that plane.

And I'm sure this is that happened in RL too... how many pilots did really used the full capabilities their planes?

[ACE-OF-ACES]

So now you know why Wiki is full of BS.:)
Bingo!

But it is nice to know that wiki does bann those they catch doing the things Kurfurst did/does!

[Insuber]

Which along with the numerous quotes i have in books by RAF pilots (Al Deere, Brian Kingcombe, Johny Kent etc...), saying how they could out turn the 109 in the BoB goes to show only one thing.

That the planes were fairly even and that the better pilot could out turn a worse pilot irrespective of whether they were flying a spit or a 109.......

I agree with Fruitbat.

[Martin77]

i agree too. i think some people mustnt see it from just ONE side.
Theres a phrase it says "history was made by the victors" but before make a decission
please read what the other side think.
There must be a reason why the germans stil fly the 109.
Otherwise they turned completely to Fw 190 when they saw the great success against spits in the first encounters, but they dont

[6S.Manu]

i agree too. i think some people mustnt see it from just ONE side.
Theres a phrase it says "history was made by the victors" but before make a decission
please read what the other side think.
There must be a reason why the germans stil fly the 109.
Otherwise they turned completely to Fw 190 when they saw the great success against spits in the first encounters, but they dont

An industrial production issue IMO... they could have replaced it with the better FIAT G.55 but the production time per unit of the latter was greater... (quantity over quality)

About the 190: they knew of its bad performance above 6.5km... it would be a bad idea to end the production of their only high altitude fighter.

[zapatista]

Yesterday I was playing ROF flying in a Fokker DrI: 1 vs 1 against one of my teammates (same plane) and he was always outturning me. Simply I was scared to pull the stick at full stroke... I was scared by the possible stall... my mate instead was braver or has more experience in that plane.

And I'm sure this is that happened in RL too... how many pilots did really used the full capabilities their planes?

lol, so the sumtotal of your contribution in a debate exchanging information on 109 and spitfire performance is, "the brave one wins", "'cause you and your bestest friend did it that way" ?

your in the wrong department here, maybe google "fairytale forum" to go post that nonsense in :P

[taildraggernut]

lol, so the sumtotal of your contribution in a debate exchanging information on 109 and spitfire performance is, "the brave one wins", "'cause you and your bestest friend did it that way" ?

your in the wrong department here, maybe google "fairytale forum" to go post that nonsense in :P

Actually what manu said makes good sense, you have to be confident with your aircraft if you want to stand a chance, so yes....if you are flying evenly matched aircraft then the better or braver pilot has the edge.

[6S.Manu]

Actually what manu said makes good sense, you have to be confident with your aircraft if you want to stand a chance, so yes....if you are flying evenly matched aircraft then the better or braver pilot has the edge.
;-)

[zapatista]

Followed by:
Martin77 posted real pilots' personal opinions while what you posted is an example of how information can be manipulated..

you've missed the point on how to grade the value of "first hand" pilot information somewhere between high skool and your first year of college. you'r locked into the false perception that "he-said" "she-said" has any meaning here.

in most sciences that is graded as anecdotal information, and basically meaningless to counter either expert opinion or objective factual evidence of any properly conducted scientific evaluation. hence i countered the previous posters quotes with an expert who's value both sides of the argument could respect, and quoted a broad statement from him on the matter. its easy enough to give quotes from brittish pilots stating the exact opposite of the german pilots he quoted (and they are easily available, and several already quoted in this thread), but has less value.

on the other hand, if you can come up with some german or allied comparisons of both of these aircraft, then this would have meaning (and both german and allied comparison of the same aircraft can be compared)

[Frequent_Flyer]

i agree too. i think some people mustnt see it from just ONE side.
Theres a phrase it says "history was made by the victors" but before make a decission
please read what the other side think.
There must be a reason why the germans stil fly the 109.
Otherwise they turned completely to Fw 190 when they saw the great success against spits in the first encounters, but they dont

The 109 had better performance at higher altitudes than the FW-190. The Germans could not get the altitude performance out of the BMW radial engine. A significant disatvantage considering the altitude of the Allied bomber stream. It was not until the introduces the inline engine into the FW-190D did this get amended.

[zapatista]

Actually what manu said makes good sense, you have to be confident with your aircraft if you want to stand a chance, so yes....if you are flying evenly matched aircraft then the better or braver pilot has the edge.

you are demonstrating a failure here to rationally compute simple facts

first we want to know what the actual BoB era performance was for these 3 planes. even if there will be slightly different perspectives on german or allied evaluations done, there will be some genral common ground.
second you can then look at how an experienced, expert, or novice pilot might handle that aircraft
third, you then asses how accurately these competing planes are modeled in CoD, to confirm/reject that what we have in the sim actually allows us to replicate the ww2 pilots experience as close as possible
fourth, and this is where you oddly seem to start off from and completely overlook the previous 3 points, you then want to see how we as armchair virtual pilots can master a specific plane with all its idiosyncrasies, so we have a change to use it strength correctly, and compete against other aircraft with a varied level of skilled pilots.

does that sequence ring any bells with you ?

if you still dont compute, the purpose of this discussion was to deal with step 1 and 2 :)

i really dont care what side was "better" at this or that, we all know what the eventual outcome of the conflict was :) what i do care about, is being able to use historical tactics and maneuvers with specific planes in this sim, and be able to rely on the aircraft i am (virtually) flying being able to execute it. that is for me (and many others here) the "fun factor" of this sim, and why we keep pushing for it to be better and more accurate.

[Osprey]

Hmm, maybe he used the "it's the plane, not the pilots nor tactics" excuse.

After all by whining to Göring he had a chance to influence Hitler regarding resources used to research & development of better planes.

He said it to wind up Goering who was being an arse to his squadron. This is in his book "The First and the Last", and in the same paragraph he also said that of course he preferred the 109 to the Spitfire.

There's plenty of test data about turning circles to demonstrate that the Spitfire and Hurricane both out turned the 109 comfortably, not to mention the wing loading. I can't believe anybody would think otherwise tbh. You don't hear Spitfire pilots going on about how the Spitfire could outclimb the 109 do you? Despite the existence of many reports about Spitfire pilots catching up 109's in the climb and shooting them down.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

you've missed the point on how to grade the value of "first hand" pilot information somewhere between high skool and your first year of college. you'r locked into the false perception that "he-said" "she-said" has any meaning here.

in most sciences that is graded as anecdotal information, and basically meaningless to counter either expert opinion or objective factual evidence of any properly conducted scientific evaluation. hence i countered the previous posters quotes with an expert who's value both sides of the argument could respect, and quoted a broad statement from him on the matter. its easy enough to give quotes from brittish pilots stating the exact opposite of the german pilots he quoted (and they are easily available, and several already quoted in this thread), but has less value.

on the other hand, if you can come up with some german or allied comparisons of both of these aircraft, then this would have meaning (and both german and allied comparison of the same aircraft can be compared)
Agreed 100%

Something I have been saying for years.. Only not as well as you just said it! ;)

[zapatista]

That the planes were fairly even and that the better pilot could out turn a worse pilot irrespective of whether they were flying a spit or a 109.......

but the presumption for us virtual pilots has to be that we also start out by using the correct historical equipment that recreates their respective strength and weakness. once that is the case, then you can start adding in pilots kill level, degree of surprise, and a whole host of other variables

my argument is that we need to be given open and accurate information from luthier and Co as to what they have modeled, so we can compare it with the factual historical information people here can obtain themselves (and thrash out issues by debating t with others who have done the same). in 2012 it is not acceptable to "just pretend your plane is right" and whatever happens "he/she was just a better pilot".

[F19_Klunk]

Mmm, I've been waiting for the day when the main fighting is about the Spitfire vs 109 performance in the game versus tons of obscure references instead of performance and bugs in the game :) A good sign!

agree :)

[taildraggernut]

you are demonstrating a failure here to rationally compute simple facts

first we want to know what the actual BoB era performance was for these 3 planes. even if there will be slightly different perspectives on german or allied evaluations done, there will be some genral common ground.
second you can then look at how an experienced, expert, or novice pilot might handle that aircraft
third, you then asses how accurately these competing planes are modeled in CoD, to confirm/reject that what we have in the sim actually allows us to replicate the ww2 pilots experience as close as possible
fourth, and this is where you oddly seem to start off from and completely overlook the previous 3 points, you then want to see how we as armchair virtual pilots can master a specific plane with all its idiosyncrasies, so we have a change to use it strength correctly, and compete against other aircraft with a varied level of skilled pilots.

does that sequence ring any bells with you ?

if you still dont compute, the purpose of this discussion was to deal with step 1 and 2 :)

i really dont care what side was "better" at this or that, we all know what the eventual outcome of the conflict was :) what i do care about, is being able to use historical tactics and maneuvers in this sim and be able to rely on the aircraft i am (virtually) flying being able to execute it. that is for me (and many others here) the "fun factor" of this sim, and why we keep pushing for it to be better and more accurate.

you are demonstrating a total failure of charisma, it really doesn't hurt to be polite.

[=AN=Apache]

After all, which of the two aircraft actually had a better performance? Analyzing the Dogfight itself and say that both acrfts also flown by experienced pilots.


Bf 109 or Spit? which was more shot down?

[zapatista]

you are demonstrating a total failure of charisma, it really doesn't hurt to be polite.
just re-read your previous post and the context it was in (applauding manu's meaningless comment), my reply was tailored to the combined level of intellectual effort demonstrated

i promise to be gentle and bring flowers next time :)

[=AN=Apache]

I think you guys need to cool down a bit. You get it bloody wrong. First, we don't know exactly how the planes are going to stack up against eachother in game. The Mk2 spit WAS too fast. So was the rotol hurri at some alts. This are going to be toned down a bit. The mk1 Spit on the other hand will be better, so, online you'll have much more close to real world behaviour. Most people preffered the Hurri over the Spit online, wich was wrong. This will be fixed now.
I'd say let's just wait for the patch, test it and then talk about this please.

You have Reason ... Better wait for the patch to be able to cry (mimi):(

lol:grin:

[6S.Manu]

you've missed the point on how to grade the value of "first hand" pilot information somewhere between high skool and your first year of college. you'r locked into the false perception that "he-said" "she-said" has any meaning here.

in most sciences that is graded as anecdotal information, and basically meaningless to counter either expert opinion or objective factual evidence of any properly conducted scientific evaluation. hence i countered the previous posters quotes with an expert who's value both sides of the argument could respect, and quoted a broad statement from him on the matter. its easy enough to give quotes from brittish pilots stating the exact opposite of the german pilots he quoted (and they are easily available, and several already quoted in this thread), but has less value.

on the other hand, if you can come up with some german or allied comparisons of both of these aircraft, then this would have meaning (and both german and allied comparison of the same aircraft can be compared)

I totally missed your point there. My fault!

I'm so pissed of that Galland's quote that's usually used as proof...

lol, so the sumtotal of your contribution in a debate exchanging information on 109 and spitfire performance is, "the brave one wins", "'cause you and your bestest friend did it that way" ?

your in the wrong department here, maybe google "fairytale forum" to go post that nonsense in :P

In a turn there are limits the pilot has to be aware of: blackouts, accelerated stalls... he can pull the stick and go near that limit, but not too much.

This "too much" is relative to the pilot own bravery/experience.

Because of that I think its useless to make comparision of turn capabilities using pilots' quote. There are too many variables in that fight that are not provided to us.

Anyway I think you are belittling the importance of our simulators: they are many things far from from the reality but flying in the correct way (the "stay alive" attitude) you can feel some of the emotions that the real pilots were feeling at that time.

Turning near at plane's limits IMO is a matter of bravery, but in real life and in the sim. Personally I hate turning (infact I don't like the fightings we have in ROF, while I love the simulator itself) so everyone can outturn me...

In that gaming session I realized that I could pull the stick hard and my plane won't stall only after 4 crashes... since I was "already dead" I was no more afraid to die again and I started to outturn my teammate.

But I could't in real life.

[taildraggernut]

just re-read your previous post and the context it was in (applauding manu's meaningless comment), my reply was tailored to the combined level of intellectual effort shown

i promise to bring be gentle and bring flowers next time :)

if it was a mindless applause I would have just said '+1' which seems so popular here, instead I gave a reason why I agreed with Manu, and made no attempt to ridicule you.

if you think it's all about the machine then you are a classic case of the 'bad workman', and if you think a simulation will suffice in recreating 'all' the variables in real life then it's pretty clear whose oppinions are worthless here.

[Osprey]

just re-read your previous post and the context it was in (applauding manu's meaningless comment), my reply was tailored to the combined level of intellectual effort demonstrated

i promise to be gentle and bring flowers next time :)


Your reply was incredibly rude Zapatista. Whether you did this because your grasp of English is poor or if you are socially inept I do not know. In future perhaps you would do well to think whether you would be prepared to say that to him in person before you post, that may keep your manners in check.

[6S.Manu]

you are demonstrating a failure here to rationally compute simple facts

first we want to know what the actual BoB era performance was for these 3 planes. even if there will be slightly different perspectives on german or allied evaluations done, there will be some genral common ground.
second you can then look at how an experienced, expert, or novice pilot might handle that aircraft
third, you then asses how accurately these competing planes are modeled in CoD, to confirm/reject that what we have in the sim actually allows us to replicate the ww2 pilots experience as close as possible
fourth, and this is where you oddly seem to start off from and completely overlook the previous 3 points, you then want to see how we as armchair virtual pilots can master a specific plane with all its idiosyncrasies, so we have a change to use it strength correctly, and compete against other aircraft with a varied level of skilled pilots.

does that sequence ring any bells with you ?

if you still dont compute, the purpose of this discussion was to deal with step 1 and 2 :)

i really dont care what side was "better" at this or that, we all know what the eventual outcome of the conflict was :) what i do care about, is being able to use historical tactics and maneuvers with specific planes in this sim, and be able to rely on the aircraft i am (virtually) flying being able to execute it. that is for me (and many others here) the "fun factor" of this sim, and why we keep pushing for it to be better and more accurate.

1 and 2 are binded. Evaluations are made by tester pilots: they should have the same flight experience in both the planes to gave us a corrected evalutation. And those tests were made with airplane in different mechanical conditions...

Still the 4 it's not reachable because of the insurmountable differences between RL and the simulator (if your simulator is not able to include them... in CloD we have no pilot's stamina that's the least... it's a loooong road).

IMO you can't have the real turning performance without an adequate professional software where we can insert the very detailed model of that plane... if it does exist.

There's not reason to discuss it in a message board searching for documents... turning performance is different from climbing and speed tests.

What do you expect?

@zapatista: my "meaningless comment" was a reply to Fruitbat's post...

[zapatista]

Your reply was incredibly rude Zapatista. Whether you did this because your grasp of English is poor or if you are socially inept I do not know. In future perhaps you would do well to think whether you would be prepared to say that to him in person before you post, that may keep your manners in check.

you are not one to speak here, with your abrasive self conceited meaningless posts directed at various people over the last weeks

how about you mind your own business and stay out of what does not concern you, you have enough problems of your own without going to look for more

[zapatista]

1 and 2 are binded. Evaluations are made by tester pilots: they should have the same flight experience in both the planes to gave us a corrected evalutation. And those tests were made with airplane in different mechanical conditions....

there is even a step before that, namely the technical specifications of the manufacturer and the performance/quality of the components, eg HP the engine puts out, reliability of parts and quality of manufacturing (a big problem with some of the russian planes for ex), etc.. but as you correctly point out, "the proof of the pudding" is largely in what performance was then reported by the test pilots who flew the fist prototypes.

no matter how far back we go with this, our starting point (as eager flight SIMULATOR pilots), is to have the technical specifications of the aircraft modeled openly provided by lutier and Co. we can then debate amongst ourselves how correct this is, and compare information from our own (deemed reliable) sources. and that is exactly what i am trying to obtain, so we can start trying to recreate the experience to competitively fly these virtual aircraft and recreate what was historically possible to do with them

even trying to have a sensible discussion about this seems difficult here, seems a bit similar to herding cats :)

are most of you really just satisfied with "lets just imagine this aircraft is correct", and "its just the pilot who failed/succeeded, no matter how wrong/bad/good the machine" ?. i'd accept that if we were all flying exactly the same planes, but we are not, they are modeled differently, so the question is , how accurately is it in CoD. if they all have a similar margin of error to the real aircraft they represent, it might not even matter, but we dont know that, and there is strong indication this is not the case for some aspects of certain aircraft..

[Insuber]

As remarked by others (Manu, Tamat) there are some visual limitations of the current simulation which effect more the game than the 5% + or - of turning radius.

I'll give an example. One hour ago I was on ATAG - before a CTD :-( - flying on my Bf-109 Northward at 4km above the Channel, and got engaged by a Spit coming opposite.

After the crossing I went in a power climbing spiral at full WEP, 1.41 ata, while the Spit turned towards me loosing some of his energy. He kept lifting his nose some 200 m behind and lower on my right, trying to score pot shots, which he did, but on the fuselage. After some of this spiral climbing he stalled and went down spinning for some 500 m. I leveled and kept turning , looking at him to see his direction once he recovered the spin, in order to B&Z him. And voilà ... vanished above the sea.

All my maneuvering and tactics have been frustrated because at medium distance the LODs are porked, and the Spit became invisible. Sooooo ... why disputing about plane performance when we have some basic issues like the disappearance of planes at medium distance?

Cheers,
Insuber

[SlipBall]

As remarked by others (Manu, Tamat) there are some visual limitations of the current simulation which effect more the game than the 5% + or - of turning radius.

I'll give an example. One hour ago I was on ATAG - before a CTD :-( - flying on my Bf-109 Northward at 4km above the Channel, and got engaged by a Spit coming opposite.

After the crossing I went in a power climbing spiral at full WEP, 1.41 ata, while the Spit turned towards me loosing some of his energy. He kept lifting his nose some 200 m behind and lower on my right, trying to score pot shots, which he did, but on the fuselage. After some of this spiral climbing he stalled and went down spinning for some 500 m. I leveled and kept turning , looking at him to see his direction once he recovered the spin, in order to B&Z him. And voilà ... vanished above the sea.

All my maneuvering and tactics have been frustrated because at medium distance the LODs are porked, and the Spit became invisible. Sooooo ... why disputing about plane performance when we have some basic issues like the disappearance of planes at medium distance?

Cheers,
Insuber


Have you added that to the bugtracker/feature list?...I have not looked there lately, but I don't remember seeing that.

[Insuber]

Have you added that to the bugtracker/feature list?...I have not looked there lately, but I don't remember seeing that.

Really? There were several threads on this issue. If not present, I will add it.

[6S.Manu]

are you all really just satisfied with "lets just imagine this aircraft is correct", and "its just the pilot no matter how wrong the machine" ?

Of course I'm not!

If I really was why should I've started http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=27410?

A correct visibility simulation would make planes' performance less important during the fight (as they were), but still it would be nice to have them correctly modelled.

Zapatista, I think that's difficult to find the correct answers here. Our target should be to meet a guy who actually can access to a professional software (if his boss let him use it) and compare the result since CloD is a parametric software, not a fluidodynamic one (as XPlane should be IIRC).

There are great limits in the IL2 physic engine (I'm not a real pilot but I've spoken with some military guys) and I think that giving Luthier some good info and documentation is still not enough, since they should redo the engine.
I don't know how the CloD engine works, but IMO it's not so different.

It would be nice to create a very detailed model for X-Plane and then compare it to the pilot's evaluations.

Look, I'm a programmer (industry application, not gaming) and together with my friends (some engineers, historians, other programmers) we are planning to start the model of a plane's motor to see if we are able to create something that could be used in a open source simulator. It's a test...

[Insuber]

have you added that to the bugtracker/feature list?...i have not looked there lately, but i don't remember seeing that.


done!

[moilami]

The UDSSR under Communist rule have very extensive agricultural politics!
The invasion of Germany over UDSSR, began on 22 of June 1941.
At this priod the UDSSR government used planned economy based on 5-year plans, with extensive agriciltural operations and production.
The landscape have to be VERY different from the landscape of France and England!
At the moment of the military ivasion, majority of the fields have to be ploughed, and the crops have to be seeded, with crops at their middle phase of development!
1. This means, that the german tanks have to advance through a GREEN corn a half a meter high;
2. The wheat have to be LIGHT GREEN at this moment, not YELLOW, because at this latitude it rapes LATER!
3. There have to be extensive cooperative gardens of FRUIT TREES, of diffrent kind, with a white painted trunks.
4. A lot of irigation channels full of watter.

The so called "Kolhoz", and its HUGE fields of identical crops must cover extensive maps areas. This is not Westrn Europe, This is UDSSR: "Souiz nerushinmiii, Respublic svobodniih...." WELCOME TO EASTERN EUROPE AND EURASIA in 1941...

This have to be taken in to consideration of landscape modeling in to the next chapter of the sequel The BoM:
1. Extensive fields of corn;
2. Fields of wheat;
3. Fields of beetroot;
4. Fields of cabbage;
5. Apple gardens;
6. Cherry gardens;
7. Pear gardens;
8. Plume gardens.

This is the reality, and this have to be taken in to consideration. Even, a agricultural statistics from 1940 have to be checked, before the map creating process!

S!

If it just would be open software, then I bet someone would do it :D

[Osprey]

you are not one to speak here, with your abrasive self conceited meaningless posts directed at various people over the last weeks

how about you mind your own business and stay out of what does not concern you, you have enough problems of your own without going to look for more

Yes I think it's the latter.

[No145_Hatter]

Supporting Crystal Palace is Osprey's problem.

[zapatista]

I'll give an example. One hour ago I was on ATAG - before a CTD :-( - flying on my Bf-109 Northward at 4km above the Channel, and got engaged by a Spit coming opposite.

After the crossing I went in a power climbing spiral at full WEP, 1.41 ata, while the Spit turned towards me loosing some of his energy. He kept lifting his nose some 200 m behind and lower on my right, trying to score pot shots, which he did, but on the fuselage. After some of this spiral climbing he stalled and went down spinning for some 500 m. I leveled and kept turning , looking at him to see his direction once he recovered the spin, in order to B&Z him...........when.........

exactemundo ! being able to use a correct evasive/offensive maneuver that utilizes the historically recognized strength of your aircraft is one of the most satisfying experiences in the il2 series since its inception.

now that the "great fix" patch is at long last about to be released and the sim is going to start being what it should have been from the start (say no more, say no more), we should be able to start enjoying CoD the way it was intended, as the most realistic high tech ww2 simulator available (i havnt been able to use it much so far on my mid end pc, CoD just doesnt run well enough). and for those of us that look at simulating the historical performance characteristics of each of those planes, and take the time to do it as well as we can based on historical information available, it is essential imho that the modeled performance figures are openly provided in a program like "il2 compare" was in the first il2 series.

i feel your pain for the frustration of the vanishing plane with the faulty LoD model at the end of that encounter :)

[Flanker35M]

S!

This is where RoF has the edge. The planes do not blend or disappear 500m from you. In one patch they improved the contrast and how planes are modelled against terrain. And that made a difference. The planes sure are hard to see in certain situations, but they do not magically just disappear. CoD has same LOD problems as IL-2 had, sadly.

So if the viewing/LOD would be fixed too then we would have it as it should. Now you can have FM/DM down to the last nut and rivet but if you can not see things how will you use that? ;)

[Plt Off JRB Meaker]

S!

This is where RoF has the edge. The planes do not blend or disappear 500m from you. In one patch they improved the contrast and how planes are modelled against terrain. And that made a difference. The planes sure are hard to see in certain situations, but they do not magically just disappear. CoD has same LOD problems as IL-2 had, sadly.

So if the viewing/LOD would be fixed too then we would have it as it should. Now you can have FM/DM down to the last nut and rivet but if you can not see things how will you use that? ;)

Totally agree...........at last someone has spoken some sense on here,well said sir!

[Ataros]

S!

This is where RoF has the edge. The planes do not blend or disappear 500m from you. In one patch they improved the contrast and how planes are modelled against terrain. And that made a difference. The planes sure are hard to see in certain situations, but they do not magically just disappear. CoD has same LOD problems as IL-2 had, sadly.

So if the viewing/LOD would be fixed too then we would have it as it should. Now you can have FM/DM down to the last nut and rivet but if you can not see things how will you use that? ;)

Please vote for the issue http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/153
(have to register)

[PLebre]

Salut!

How internal testing is going? Good?

P.s. Sorry if this has been asked before on this topic, hadn´t read it all.


Regards.

[DroopSnoot]

wrong thread mate, you want the main forum to ask a question like that, or maybe the friday update for the 13th April.

[klem]

wrong thread mate, you want the main forum to ask a question like that, or maybe the friday update for the 13th April.

errrmmm.... this is the friday update for the 13th April :)

I guess we'll know the answer in a couple more days.

[klem]

Ummm a bit late now but I am wondering who Sean is (who provided Luthier with FM data) and what he would have provided.

" We used actual pilot's notes and flight testing data during the process (thank you Sean!). "

Anyone?

[Moggy]

Ummm a bit late now but I am wondering who Sean is (who provided Luthier with FM data) and what he would have provided.

" We used actual pilot's notes and flight testing data during the process (thank you Sean!). "

Anyone?

I provided them with the pilot's notes, the FAA 1943 training film "Fleet Fighter" and a few snippets of data (mainly for startup procedures) for the Hurricane Mk.I. I just pray that they didn't use the performance data as I seem to remember they were for the fixed pitch prop and Hurricane Mk.Is when used\transported by the ATA (87 octane fuel).

Oh and I'm not Sean.

[Insuber]

I guess that Sean is addman who provided the G.50 manual.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Ummm a bit late now but I am wondering who Sean is (who provided Luthier with FM data) and what he would have provided.

" We used actual pilot's notes and flight testing data during the process (thank you Sean!). "

Anyone?

See post #29 here;

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=31099&page=3

[addman]

I guess that Sean is addman who provided the G.50 manual.

Nah, my real name is not Sean :). I think that Sean guy supplied the with detailed data on many different engines and stuff.

"We've performed a tremendous amount of work testing and improving flight models in the game, as well as improving various aircraft engines. We used actual pilot's notes and flight testing data during the process (thank you Sean!)."

[LcSummers]

Nah, my real name is not Sean :). I think that Sean guy supplied the with detailed data on many different engines and stuff.

"We've performed a tremendous amount of work testing and improving flight models in the game, as well as improving various aircraft engines. We used actual pilot's notes and flight testing data during the process (thank you Sean!)."

His real name is addman:-P

Just kidding:)

[Majo]

I was wondering why BlackSix/Luthier would open the debate about FMs and so on, just right with the announcement
of the almost, almost, almost ready patch.

A patch that, in their words, was only going to be a graphic patch.

Not that I do not think that adjusting the FMs to their maximum possible historical correction is great.

It is, and I think is the way to go…

Is just that I do not understand why this has to be mixed up with the FMs discussions and the sempitern question
of “Who won the war?” as the greatest and irrefutable argument for aircraft performance.

Salutes Majo.

[king1hw]

On the disappearing planes:

When I focused real hard I could see the 109s but it seams like they do have no contrast at the that stage and then they get darker. What they should do is like the guy with the RoF post some how add some contrast to that LOD then they would not disappear.

I am hopeful that the patch fixes a lot, but from reading the post I am not encouraged. When I look at the modeling and the reason why I was so excited about the game is that the DM would be the best to not have Radiator damage is BAD.

Anyway waiting patiently for the ALL PATCH LOL.

king

[Conte Zero]

I am sorry for the stupid questions, but I have been away for a while, not using this game nor my Steam

what should I do with this latest 13 april update?
will Steam download and install it automagically?

my pc is not optimal for the specifications, tha game used to run, but with some tweaking on detail and rgaphics, and I had the stuttering effect.

will this new version strongly better the situation?
I can't wait. thank you all.

by the way my actual version is 1.05.15950

[Insuber]

I am sorry for the stupid questions, but I have been away for a while, not using this game nor my Steam

what should I do with this latest 13 april update?
will Steam download and install it automagically?

my pc is not optimal for the specifications, tha game used to run, but with some tweaking on detail and rgaphics, and I had the stuttering effect.

will this new version strongly better the situation?
I can't wait. thank you all.

by the way my actual version is 1.05.15950

The patch is not yet published. In few days we should get the beta, you will need to download it and install manually. Once our beta test is done the patch will be distributed through Steam, probably with a 1.1 something version.

Cheers!

[Conte Zero]

The patch is not yet published. In few days we should get the beta, you will need to download it and install manually. Once our beta test is done the patch will be distributed through Steam, probably with a 1.1 something version.

Cheers!

thank you, I have to get used to all the stuff again after this long pause.
a 1.1 version!
considering we have been under 1.0.something for ages, sounds like a major upgrade :mrgreen:

[klem]

See post #29 here;

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=31099&page=3

Ahhhh IvanK

Looks like good data. In a way I don't care how they perform as long as its historically correct (or as near as they can be made).

Thanks guys, I feel better now. :)

[335th_GRAthos]

I provided them with the pilot's notes, the FAA 1943 training film "Fleet Fighter" and a few snippets of data (mainly for startup procedures) for the Hurricane Mk.I. I just pray that they didn't use the performance data as I seem to remember they were for the fixed pitch prop and Hurricane Mk.Is when used\transported by the ATA (87 octane fuel).

Sorry Moggy, just to make sure I understand correctly what you wrote, you gave them the performace data for the Hurricane Mk.I and you pray they did not use the data (you gave to them)?

If you did not give them the performance data for the Hurricane Mk.I then, where were these Hurricane Mk.I performance data you are referring to?

~S~

[klem]

I provided them with the pilot's notes, the FAA 1943 training film "Fleet Fighter" and a few snippets of data (mainly for startup procedures) for the Hurricane Mk.I. I just pray that they didn't use the performance data as I seem to remember they were for the fixed pitch prop and Hurricane Mk.Is when used\transported by the ATA (87 octane fuel).

Oh and I'm not Sean.

After all the discussion and WWII-contemporary links/data they been given I'd be surprised if they got it wrong (ermmm.. again). However I don't recall anything to say they would be makng a 100 octane model yet, I thought not so long ago they said they wouldn't. NO! Don't start a discussion, lets wait and see. It can only be a matter of days now <praying>.

[Moggy]

Sorry Moggy, just to make sure I understand correctly what you wrote, you gave them the performace data for the Hurricane Mk.I and you pray they did not use the data (you gave to them)?

If you did not give them the performance data for the Hurricane Mk.I then, where were these Hurricane Mk.I performance data you are referring to?

~S~

You actually copied and pasted the reason why I sent in the data but I will reiterate again. The reasons why I sent in the data was for procedural purposes of the Hurricane Mk.I start up, in game we're currently using the start up of the Hurricane Mk.II. The fuel pumps in the Hurricane Mk.I did not start to operate until after engine had started, you had to start the Hurricane using the gravity (or reserve) tank. After startup, you would then switch tanks to main. Pilots would sometimes forget to switch tanks, take off on reserve and eventually have an unexpected engine stoppage (due to the gravity tank running out of fuel), it was called a "Gravity Charlie". This was changed later in the Hurricane Mk.II and they could start their engine on main.
The data I sent in also had some information not relating to the Battle of Britain Hurricane but earlier models.

Hope this clears things up for you.

Oh and if you want to...you can simulate a Gravity Charlie yourself. What you do is select the reserve tank before start up, switch the fuel gauge to either the port or starboard (both are main) tank. Take off and fly around for a while. After a bit (I flew from Tangmere along the coast and got as far as Ramsgate) your engine will start to cough and eventually stop but your fuel gauge says you have plenty of fuel. Pilots would often believe they had engine failure but in fact it was a Gravity Charlie.

[Osprey]

Supporting Crystal Palace is Osprey's problem.

As much as I hate West Ham and will laugh at fat crook Allerdyce when they flop in the playoffs, that 6-0 thrashing of the Seaweed last week made me laugh rather a lot :rolleyes:

Now, enjoy your time at the moment. As Brighty recently said, there are teachers and pupils - when will BHA ever learn? :cool:

[Osprey]

S!

This is where RoF has the edge. The planes do not blend or disappear 500m from you.

No, they turn into mini 5 pixel X-wings which stay the same size regardless of how far away they are. It's rubbish.

[No145_Hatter]

So much for the lucky heather Gus bought at Selhurst...

[6S.Manu]

No, they turn into mini 5 pixel X-wings which stay the same size regardless of how far away they are. It's rubbish.
It's still better if we have to fight... it's rubbish if our priority is to make screenshot at our plane and silly things.

So from these two I choose the ROF's one all the day. Of course both are not right.

The Insuber's episode is an example of why I don't fly IL2 anymore...

[Kurfürst]

I did test the Hurricane Mk I and the Spitfire II today. It seems further adjustments are necessary, as the update does not mention any tweaks in rolls rates.

The Hurricane rolls 1.5 times slower than it should at 400 mph IAS.
The Spitfire IIa rolls 3.2 times faster than it should at 400 mph IAS.

I did not test the rest but it seems likely that its true for the other Spits and Hurris too.

See my findings and the original documents here: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=409830&postcount=6

[Al Schlageter]

I did test the Hurricane Mk I and the Spitfire II today. It seems further adjustments are necessary, as the update does not mention any tweaks in rolls rates.

The Hurricane rolls 1.5 times slower, the Spitfire II (and probably all Spitfires and Hurricanes) rolls 3.2 times faster than it should at high speed

See my findings and the original documents here: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=409830&postcount=6

How can the Hurricane roll both faster and slower?

[Winger]

I did test the Hurricane Mk I and the Spitfire II today. It seems further adjustments are necessary, as the update does not mention any tweaks in rolls rates.

The Hurricane rolls 1.5 times slower, the Spitfire II (and probably all Spitfires and Hurricanes) rolls 3.2 times faster than it should at high speed

See my findings and the original documents here: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=409830&postcount=6

So the hurri now rolls too fast or too slow?:) Dont get me wrong i am a friend of nerfs/boosts as long as they are somewhat plausible but you once write the hurri rolls slower and in the following sentence it rolls 3,2 times too fast?

Winger