luthier, the historical performance btw 109/spitfire/huricane is NOT simulated in CoD

[zapatista]

the purpose of this thread is to try and provide a summary of historical facts and figures about the performance comparison and combat tactics/behavior of these fighter aircraft during the BoB era, in the hope/intention we can aid luthier to fine tune the 109/spitfire/hurricane, so we can simulate online/offline the right strengths and weaknesses of each side and replicate accurate historical tactics and engagements.this will be all the more critical once the dynamic campaign servers become available, and people have to step out of their air-quake comfort zones (particularly the blue side)

The problem we have right now:
- right now we have the problem pre-patch that luthier indicates the red planes being even further "tones down" and neutered, which will result in a luftwhiner gloat-fest and illusory justification for the fake-real advocates (no offense to the genuine blue flyers who want a historical accurate simulation, and are able to debate this in a sensible manner). the anticipated further unfairly toning down the spitfires and hurricanes will completely tip the balance in favor of the uber-blue behavior, which was simply not the case historically.
- the only adjustment that was needed is the spitfire IIb needing a little toning down in level flight top speed performance.
- most online servers are a monotonic air quake scenario, with perpetual furballs over the coastline, with 109's significantly outperforming spitfires in situations where this was not historically the case. 109 online flyers are not recreating the historical situation their aircraft would normally be expected to perform in, and on a 1-1 comparison the current CoD 109's do not represent their historical role/function when matched against spitfires/hurricanes in most confrontations.

So to get the ball rolling with a general summary of these fighter aircraft performances[/B], and their role during the historical BoB era, i'll summarize my current general knowledge. there are some very knowledgeable people here, both on red and blue sides, and the hope is they will contribute with facts and figures, rather then it becoming a long winded "personal preference argument".


Context:
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, and couldnt fly inverted without starving their carburators of fuel, similar problems existed in other -ve G maneuvers.
- 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 (when confronted with an equally matched allied pilot in a spitfire, with the spitfire pilots having the advantage of "flying over home soil" etc.., or they 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 and duke it out on equal terms. (note: when in the post BoB phase cocky english pilots starting to fly missions over the french coast, the germans had a similar advantage and dealt some large blows to overconfident english pilots, with the result allied command put major limits on those "excursions", eg i am not arguing for uber-allied spitfires or hurricanes, just their historical strength and performances in the BoB context)

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), and outpace the spitfires on level flight at any altitude. 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

[CWMV]

You can try to sum it up into talking points all you like, but this is going to boil down to figures.
I cannot believe that you are getting bent out of shape about bringing the figures in line with the historical performance of the aircraft, in a patch that hasn't even been released yet.
And jumping to conclusions about the russian planes much?
Ive been as critical of the dev team here as anyone, but at least I waited for something concrete and extant to complain about!
And for the record-noting about the 109 in game is uber-it is in fact slower than it should be by a fair margin.
Seems this sissyfire boy is jumping the gun a bit more than the luftwhiners eh?

[David198502]

good thread!
i want the same like you, historical correct performing planes on both sides!
i fly only 109s right now, and it doesnt feel right how easy it is to fight spitfires.
honestly, thats because i dont fight them anymore, because i feel pity for them, and therefore i prefer to fly on rebka4 and fighting other 109 pilots.

on the other hand, luthier mentioned, that the spit1 will get better performance, so it should not be the way you assume it will be.
the hurri right now, really seems to fast, so i welcome the performance decrease it will get, and the same goes for the spitII.

but i have a problem, that they didnt lose a word about the 109 in yesterdays update, and also the graph of the G50 is disappointing in some ways for me.
not that i regret the performance boost it will get, that it gets more accurate performance, but that there are still 3 curves in the graph they showed us yesterday.

pre patch,after patch, and the real thing.....when they actually use historical data, why the heck cant they just make the plane perform like it really did?i want to only see two curves for all the planes:pre patch and after patch curve which is identical to historical data.

luthier also mentioned, that because of the new gui system they will use, they cant show us other performance graphs....i really doubt it, because how were they able to make it for the g50 then?

also the really vague explanation about the 109 flight model changes, lead me to believe, that in fact they havent changed anything...and thats sad.
again, i dont want to fly a uber plane, but i want it accurate.and please as accurate as possible.and if we all know, that for example the pp of the 109 needed 4seconds to change the pitch 1hour, then i dont understand why they refuse to do it that way, and make it 6seconds instead.

but lets see what the patch brings...

PS:you mentioned the roll rate of the spit should be better than the one of the 109s?
interesting, never heard that before.i was always of the opinion, that especially the roll rate was one of the spits weak points.

oh btw, the red side's damage model is off as well....i have blown up several thanks of hurricanes, and they kept flying as well.one can also put really big holes in spit's wings, and they will still have their lift to outturn one,....and so on, so the damage model has to be looked at on both sides. i especially know what im talking about, since i fly on rebka4, where i noticed, that its in fact way more easy to get down 109s than the british planes.their wings will fall off very often, even when you hit them often enough with the E1's mgs! never managed that on a "red plane".

[IvanK]

Zapatista you said :

"- 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"

This is confusing how can the 109 have a similar climb performance in normal climbs but better climb performance in a spiral climb ?

What is a combined Climb/rudder action ? Any rudder other than that that ensures balanced flight will increase drag and therefore reduce climb performance.

[salmo]

<snip> ...
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, and couldnt fly inverted without starving their carburators of fuel, similar problems existed in other -ve G maneuvers...<snip>

Negaive G effects on engine performance was somewhat overcome by early 1941 with the retrofitting of spitfires with Miss Shilling's orifice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Shilling%27s_orifice).

[Verhängnis]

Why are you complaining about pilot skill, lack of rest or mental breakdowns? This is a FLIGHT SIMULATOR, not a "I live in England, it's 1940 and I'm oh so tired that my CO has sent me down to reserve for a nice cup of tea and some R&R" Simulator.
Besides that, I don't think your ever going to see a perfect simulation of any aircraft in "a game". The technology they are using has it's limits! And to me, flying both sides, the OP seems to make little sense with no evidence and is rather biased... This topic will become nothing more than Subjective! It's like trying to argue with religion - nobody has the facts and it all settles down to opinion - in the end; someone get's banned. ;)

[CWMV]

Negaive G effects on engine performance was somewhat overcome by early 1941 with the retrofitting of spitfires with Miss Shilling's orifice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Shilling%27s_orifice).


...Which didnt have much to do with the BoB.

[RCAF_FB_Orville]

Chaps, CWMV is speaking words of wisdom. :) Lets wait to see what the changes actually are exactly, when the patch is released. Otherwise, its just borderline hysteria until we know the actual ingame performance facts.

I would agree though that it should be a 'given' for a graphical representation of performance figures to be provided, which cuts down on a lot of the 'I feel that....' etc subjective speculation, which is of no use whatsoever.

Zap, I know you mean well and are possibly just joking, but its not really helpful referring to Blue fliers as 'Luftwhiners' as it just gets peoples backs up, then we have the pathetic 'Luftwaffler-Sissy blah blah' rubbish which is frankly schoolyard stuff. I know others do it (some habitually, and in almost all of their posts) but it doesn't mean you have to as well. Some just do it as a gentle wind up, some more serious. Either way, its daft ( I'll admit I've done similar myself in the past, in jest though). Show some class. :grin: Funny thing is, I know many of you are 40-50+, some even older! Act like it, hehehe. :grin:

PS, It doesn't bother me personally, as I don't take things that seriously lol. I also fly and enjoy both sides, lots of love for em all. But its still not a good idea (joking or otherwise) if we want a serious discussion. There are some sensitive people out there. :) Wait till we see 'whats what', definitively, then we can "let slip the dogs of war" (sensibly, with documented evidence...not just 'opinion'). Just par for the course. :grin:

Cheers. :)

[klem]

Zapatista I really think we should wait and see what Luthier is giving us.

I did wonder at the SpitIIa performance being reduced because I could never get it to achieve the Sea Level speeds that were documented for it, i.e. it wasn't that the SpitIIa was overmodelled it was that the others were undermodelled, but the best thing would be to wait and try them out before we worry too much.

[csThor]

As a general note: It would be a great help to generate a decent discussion if people did away with the more or less thinly veiled insults. By using these insults - usually aimed at those who do not share the OP's opinion - people discredit themselves and show they're not really interested in adult and well-mannered conversation but in imposing their own opinion on everyone else. :(

[335th_GRAthos]

the purpose of this thread is to try and provide a summary of historical facts and figures about the performance comparison and combat tactics/behavior of these fighter aircraft during the BoB era

..........

Context:
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, and couldnt fly inverted without starving their carburators of fuel, similar problems existed in other -ve G maneuvers.
- 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)




Hi Zapatista,
you mention precisely the real reasons why RAF won the battle of Britain.
One reason that you did not mention: RAF had the radar interception which gave a tremendous advantage in keeping their few pilots at reast and use them only when needed and could direct a few planes where thery could do maximum damage.

But, (with the exception of the Spit carburator disadvantage) all these reasons can not be simulated on-line nor can be compensated by "toning down" or "toning up" the Spitfires and Hurricanes.

Did the Bf109 own the Spitfires? Probably yes if the Bf109 could fight in the terms they wanted (yeah, yeah, I know I will be flamed for that sentence).
Can the Bf109 decide whether they want battle under their terms or not?
In real life: NO! (this is how Goering screwed them up)
In the game: YES! Because if I am high, I will decide when and where to engage, otherwise I just disengage and go away. Even if I engage, I can always chose to disengage, climb and get away from the battle.
If I stay low, I die (it is an option but it is still my decision)

So, trying to convince 1C that the Spitfires, Huricanes, Tiger Moths, whatever, should perform better in order to give red fliers better (and fairer) chances against on-line gaming is actually not-historical.


I repeat my point: As long as I decide when I engage and when I disengage a fight, I rule.
Is it historical fact that the Bf109 can do that? I think it is!
(at least I never saw anybody of those people who posted million of pages from archives regarding planes' performance during the past ten years at Ubi-zoo and here, ever claiming otherwise).
After that, how well (or how much better) your Spit, Hurri, etc should turn, fly, climb, shoot etc etc, does not change the meaning of the dogfight. The result will depend on how many mistakes the Bf109 pilot will do.
And keep in mind that a lot of people here have been flying Bf109 for over ten years (since the IL2 days) so not many mistakes will you see...

But this is just the warmup...
Just wait for the day blue will have the FW190 series flying over the channel.
I hope you may recall the historical correctness, during the first month of the battle, RAF lost one hundred Spitfires and pilots. The FW190 owned everything during that period and it took the RAF one full year to introduce a Spit that could match it.
There I want to see what kind of tears (and screams) will be heard...

If I am pleased? Hell no, I stopped flying for months now... as long as there are no missions with strategic objectives (due to the memory leak CTD) just flying dogfight against Spits (except SpitII) and Hurris, it is too easy for Bf pilots :(


Still, we should wait to see what the effect of the changes in plane performance will be (because there is too much wind for nothing right now) but, as long as my rule (I decide when I engage and when I disengage a fight) stands and is historicaly correct, it will not make a difference...

~S~

[kendo65]

...

In the game: YES! Because if I am high, I will decide when and where to engage, otherwise I just disengage and go away. Even if I engage, I can always chose to disengage, climb and get away from the battle.
If I stay low, I die (it is an option but it is still my decision)


I repeat my point: As long as I decide when I engage and when I disengage a fight, I rule.
Is it historical fact that the Bf109 can do that? I think it is!
(at least I never saw anybody of those people who posted million of pages from archives regarding planes' performance during the past ten years at Ubi-zoo and here, ever claiming otherwise).



One problem with that view is that historically one of the main aims of the German offensive was the destruction of RAF fighters - in some ways the Luftwaffe bombers were the bait to bring the RAF up so that the 109s could get at them.

There are many instances of pure German fighter sweeps flying happily over England with the RAF refusing to engage.

On the other hand the primary goal of the RAF was destruction of Luftwaffe bombers or the breaking up of the raids. When the RAF fighters were committed against the bombers the 109s had little choice about whether to engage or not, even if they found themselves in a disadvantageous position. (which they usually didn't)

[robtek]

The serious intention to protect the bombers could imo only be reached by a server sided evaluation system, giving points for kills only in relation to bombers survived/targets destroyed for blue and bombers downed/targets saved for red.

This might lead also to more sophisticated tactics, like to lure the fighter cover away before the Hurris arrive, or fighter wings flying in bomber-style formations and speeds.

[Ataros]

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:

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.

[Varrattu]

... we ARE ASKING ...
Dear zapatista, I would like to ask you to post your wishes and needs in the first person singular.

Thx Varrattu

[335th_GRAthos]

One problem with that view is that historically one of the main aims of the German offensive was the destruction of RAF fighters - in some ways the Luftwaffe bombers were the bait to bring the RAF up so that the 109s could get at them.

Hi Ataros,

There is no problem with the view. This is the tactical advantage of the Bf109. And in an on-line game the reds get to feel the heat.

As far as the historic truth is concerned you were right, that was Luftwaffe's aim.
Why Luftwaffe failed, because the monthly production of planes was higher than the attrition rate; Which was one of the miracles of the UK production facilities.
Luftwaffe destroyed two times the amount of enemy planes they thought RAF was in possesion off and RAF kept coming...

~S~

[Robo.]

it is too easy for Bf pilots :(

Fly for the RAF then ;)

Did the Bf109 own the Spitfires? Probably yes if the Bf109 could fight in the terms they wanted (yeah, yeah, I know I will be flamed for that sentence).
Can the Bf109 decide whether they want battle under their terms or not?
In real life: NO! (this is how Goering screwed them up)]In the game: YES! Because if I am high, I will decide when and where to engage, otherwise I just disengage and go away. Even if I engage, I can always chose to disengage, climb and get away from the battle.
If I stay low, I die (it is an option but it is still my decision)

Do you think that regarding the actual performance or tactics deployed (e.g. RAF time needed to scramble and outclimb the enemy approaching?)

Ataros - that all depends on the airscrew and fuel used. de Havilland CSP with 87 octane fuel, armoured windscreen achieved 288mph at S.L. (R.6774), +6.25lbs, 3000rpm. Spitfires were considerably faster below FTH with 100 octane fuel, doing some 10mph more than Emil at the S.L. We would need to know what configuration are the devs aiming to reproduce in the sim.

Let's wait for the patch, we'll see. Imho there is no reason to compare the real BoB and the game regarding tactics as the conditions are way too different.

[Robo.]

Why Luftwaffe failed, because the monthly production of planes was higher than the attrition rate; Which was one of the miracles of the UK production facilities.
Luftwaffe destroyed two times the amount of enemy planes they thought RAF was in possesion off and RAF kept coming...

The reason the LW failed was that the British kept calm and carried on. ;)

[Nephris]

Groundhog Day again ....
These threads are as old as Il2 birthday.
I see them come I see them leave and I am pretty sure my grandchildren will reads those threads too.

The point is there will never be an agreement on what is historrical ,what is correct. You present Data 1 from date x.x.1940, I present you Data 2 from y.y.1940.

At then end leave the job to the dev team, do constructive critism and maybe parts of that will influence the development.
But for now there are much more important things than FM to fix in the game.
Be thankful the game kept & keeps developing, instead fading to black after a catastrophic release and wait for things to come.

Further more you are talking about things you just read and never tested yourself, patience is a virtue.

Finally you cant satisfy each player, this isnt a perfect world we are living in.
So if things should really happen that bad, as you paint it, I would look forward to take the challenge in fighting vs a plane that "shall" perform better.

Sissyfiregirls or Luftwhiners .... so what?
At the multiplayer end, a server admin or map creator is responsible to balance sides.

[Kwiatek]

Hey im blind or most needed data are show here in these topic? Only thing 1C need to do is to check performacne of these planes in CLoD and then adjusted it to RL data

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=20110

[Nephris]

Kwiatek dont get me wrong and this is for sure no offend, but I know you from Il2 times in Ultrapack and I got the deep impression that you are trying to push your finds for whatever there comes.I really have deep respect for your work and time you put into it.
An affinity to red planes was very obvious through your development and I am sure you can remember the discussions in the Ultrapack forums about FM which were sometimes more than hot.
I fly both sides so I actually dont care, as there will always be a plane for me I am satisfied with and I like to take the challenge even in an unbalance mix (e.g. vs a Spit 9 in Il2)

Those copied documents are fine for sure, but it is not the evangelium.

Do you suppose the developers did no research and adjusted the FM from the hip and just those documents posted here are the correct and not doubtable ones? This would be indeed pretentious.

Besides that, hold your breath until the beta patch got public and test it yourself to make a decent statement. Each disussion before is just heating things up for nothing.

[CaptainDoggles]

I'm sorry, is the purpose of this thread to argue that zapatista does not want historical performance?

Blue pilots aren't flying the way he likes, so he's asking luthier to make his favorite plane better?

If you're getting chewed up in furballs on the deck then STOP FLYING ON THE DECK.

[zapatista]

I'm sorry, is the purpose of this thread to argue that zapatista does not want historical performance?

Blue pilots aren't flying the way he likes, so he's asking luthier to make his favorite plane better?

.

you seem to have a problem grasping simple concepts, re-read the thread and this time try to comprehend it

i dont care if it is blue, red, green or black, what i am asking for is that the figures used to simulate aircraft behavior in CoD are openly provided (like they were in the il2 compare series), and that the correct historical strength/weakness of each aircraft is correctly represented so we can use historically accurate maneuvers and tactics.

the example i gave is for the spitfire, which currently have some significant problems in this regard, and has just been threatened to be neutered even further. there might be (? are) probably some similar issues with some of the blue planes, i have no idea. my CoD install runs very poorly on my mid end pc, so i mostly so far have only limited experience with the spitfire

then again this whole concept might be beyond you, after all in order to "contribute" in a forum thread all it takes is a keyboard, not comprehension of the topic under discussion.

[Kwiatek]

Kwiatek dont get me wrong and this is for sure no offend, but I know you from Il2 times in Ultrapack and I got the deep impression that you are trying to push your finds for whatever there comes.I really have deep respect for your work and time you put into it.
An affinity to red planes was very obvious through your development and I am sure you can remember the discussions in the Ultrapack forums about FM which were sometimes more than hot.
I fly both sides so I actually dont care, as there will always be a plane for me I am satisfied with and I like to take the challenge even in an unbalance mix (e.g. vs a Spit 9 in Il2)

Those copied documents are fine for sure, but it is not the evangelium.

Do you suppose the developers did no research and adjusted the FM from the hip and just those documents posted here are the correct and not doubtable ones? This would be indeed pretentious.

Besides that, hold your breath until the beta patch got public and test it yourself to make a decent statement. Each disussion before is just heating things up for nothing.

Im flying all side planes also and i not familair with any side. I like flying the same Spitfire 109 or Fw 190. If you have some more knowledge in WW2 fighters performacne you should be know that i fixed also blue side planes e.x. i fixed acceleration problem in all Fw 190 planes, i made more close to RL data 109 E performacne ( stock IL2 109 E was too slow and too worse in turn) and many other fixes. You should ask Hades who is Ultr@pack founder and mostly blue side pilot what he thinks about my FM work.

And Yes i think 1C didnt make fairly reserch in BoB planes performacne. Just look at actual performacne planes in CLoD. Most people who have some knowledge in these knows these.

And Yes i after reading Luthier new's about FM changes i have big DOUBTS that they made it in fair way again.

I dont write which plane should be better but i just expect that they at LEAST use reliable and i think no mystery data and AT LEAST they will do it in fair and historical way.

Most needed data are here and i think that there will be really hard to find better one:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=20110

I dont ask nothing more.

[335th_GRAthos]

The reason the LW failed was that the British kept calm and carried on. ;)

Hmmm... historicaly inacurate assumption (pressumption)

Hadn't that stupid German bomber pilot dropped his bombs in the town (due to navigational error), thus causing the RAF bomber raid to Berlin, thus causing Hitler to order the bombardment of the British towns (instead of the industry and airfields), you would probably be speaking German as first language now...


And hadn't the Greeks kicked the Italian army thus obliging Hitler to invade Greece and have his airborne division massacred in the battle of Crete, probably the Russians would be speaking German, too...


irrespective how well the Spitfire turned (or didn't).

~S~

[335th_GRAthos]

i dont care if it is blue, red, green or black, what i am asking for is that the the figures used to simulate aircraft behavior in CoD are openly provided (like they were in the il2 compare series)


, and that the correct historical strength/weakness of each aircraft is correctly represented


100% percent behind you, on both points!

~S~

[whoarmongar]

It will be interesting to see what changes the new patch FM will entail.
To my mind the changes should reflect the commonly held views that

1, In no way at anytime should the hurricane outclimb the Spit. at the moment fly a Spit1a in company with a rotol Hurricane and it will just outclimb you, this is just plain nonsense and its shocking that it was ever allowed into the game.

2 The Spit and 109 were roughly (depending on altitude) equal in speed. This if implemented would make 109 v Spit combat much more competetive and basically more of an equal contest and more fun for those unbiased majority of players out there.

3 The roll rate of the Spit, The Spit was conceived in the 1930s as a bomber interceptor when the doctrine that "the bomber will always get through" was prevailent. For this reason speed and height were the predetermining factors. roll rate was never a priority.
The roll rate of the Spit at best matched the 109 and was probably inferior but was not considered a problem due to the spits superior turn rate and better sustained turn performace v the 109, it only became a problem when the Fw190 appeared hence the emergence if the clipped wing Spit to counter the 190s superior roll rate.

3 The 109s better power to weight ratio hence its better climb performance. This is essentialy the 109s get out of jail card and for historcal as well as gameplay reasons should always be implemented within the game.

In truth as we stand today whilst the !09 and perhaps the hurricane ( although personally i have problems with the Hurries rudder responses) seem to fly as i would expect the Spit just doesnt "feel" right. I know this is subjective but the reports i have read over many years have all been similar and I trust the integrity of these reports and place great trust in the uniformity of them. "extremly sesitive especially for and aft", "the slightest touch on the stick and she would respond" and "would give early warning when on the edge of a stall with buffeting, caused by the inner wing stalling whilst the outer wing still provided lift" are all very well documented. This doesnt feel much like the CoD Spitfire.

finally diving. The 109 was superior in the initial dive due to the spits carbs. however in a sustained dive the spit was probably superior to a very small degree. the 109s controls became very unmanagable in a high speed dive making it very difficult to pull out of the dive. is this implemented in CoD ?

The Spit admittedly wasnt much better. I remember reading how i think it was Closterman after a high speed dive from a great height had to use the trimmer to pull out of the dive. again is this "stiffening" of the controls modelled within the game ?

I really hope the devs get the FM better in the next patch we await with interest the result. In truth I feel they have been rather unsympathetic to the RAF aircraft up till now I can understand the reasons. First of all and I will whisper this very quietly at the time of the BoB Russia was actually aiding and was vertually an ally of Nazi Germany.

Secondly the Lufties have been numerous long established and extemely vocal and partisan in support of there favorites in il2, added to the fact that that the future of this franchise will involve germany v Russia so development will involve Russian and German aircraft. After the next patch I dont expect any further development on British aircraft at least for the foreseeable future, so this it appears is BoBs last chance I just hope they get it right.

[zapatista]

just came across this information on the 100 octane fuel issue some people had been raising for the spitfire and hurricane. seems this is more important in aircraft performance then i had previously thought.

Gavin Bailey concluded that "The actual authorisation to change over to 100-octane came at the end of February 1940 and was made on the basis of the existing reserve and the estimated continuing rate of importation in the rest of the year." 33 As of 31 March 1940 220,000 tons of 100 octane fuel was held in stock. 34 The Co-ordination of Oil Policy Committee noted in the conclusions of their 18 May 1940 meeting with regard to the "Supply of 100 Octane fuel to Blenheim and Fighter Squadrons" that Spitfire and Hurricane units "had now been stocked with the necessary 100 octane fuel". 35 The Committee recorded that actual consumption of 100 octane for the 2nd Quarter 1940 was 18,100 tons. 36 Jeffrey Quill recalled:

It was only shortly before the Battle of Britain that we changed over to 100 octane. It had the effect of increasing the combat rating of the Merlin from 3000 rpm at 6 1/2 lb boost (Merlin III) or 9 lb boost (Merlin XII) to 3,000 rpm at 12 lb boost. This, of course, had a significant effect upon the rate of climb, particularly as the constant speed propellers (also introduced just before the battle) ensured that 3,000 rpm was obtainable from the ground upwards whereas previously it was restricted by the two-pitch propellers. It also had an effect upon the maximum speed but this was not so significant as the effect upon rate of climb. 37

and ........Wood and Dempster wrote in their book "The Narrow Margin":

As it turned out, aviation spirit was to prove no worry for the R.A.F. By July 11th, 1940, the day after the Battle of Britain opened, stocks of 100 octane petrol used in the Merlin engine stood at 343,000 tons. On October 10th, twenty-one days before the battle closed, and after 22,000 tons had been issued, stocks had risen to 424,000 tons. With other grades of aviation spirit total stock available on October 10th, 1940, was 666,000 tons. Oil reserves were 34,000 tons. 38

source: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

[Sutts]

just came across this information on the 100 octane fuel issue some people had been raising for the spitfire and hurricane. seems this is more important in aircraft performance then i had previously thought.



and ........Wood and Dempster wrote in their book "The Narrow Margin":



source: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

+100

Agreed, I don't know why there was ever any question of front line BoB fighter squadrons using 100 octane. There were some very early initial worries about supply which I think have been blown out of all proportion. In the event there was more than enough 100 octane to go round and I've seen those stats before - stocks actually rose throughout the battle.

There is not a chance in hell that the air ministry would have risked losing the battle by withholding 100 octane from the fighting units. What use would the stuff have been under nazi occupation?

[fruitbat]

Hmmm... historicaly inacurate assumption (pressumption)

Hadn't that stupid German bomber pilot dropped his bombs in the town (due to navigational error), thus causing the RAF bomber raid to Berlin, thus causing Hitler to order the bombardment of the British towns (instead of the industry and airfields), you would probably be speaking German as first language now...


Wrong.


And hadn't the Greeks kicked the Italian army thus obliging Hitler to invade Greece and have his airborne division massacred in the battle of Crete, probably the Russians would be speaking German, too...


Wrong.


irrespective how well the Spitfire turned (or didn't).

~S~

Agreed.

[Robo.]

Hmmm... historicaly inacurate assumption (pressumption)

I ment it rather as a joke. But you got to get the British credit for their stoic determination, stubborn resistance... and guts. And for how they didn't allow the bloody Luftwaffe to win the battle. :rolleyes:

Hadn't that stupid German bomber pilot dropped his bombs in the town (due to navigational error), thus causing the RAF bomber raid to Berlin, thus causing Hitler to order the bombardment of the British towns (instead of the industry and airfields), you would probably be speaking German as first language now...

:o Oh so what was that dude's name. I'd like to thank him personally for losing the war for Germans. Thank you very much, Helmut, danke vielmals!

[Osprey]

Hmmm... historicaly inacurate assumption (pressumption)

Hadn't that stupid German bomber pilot dropped his bombs in the town (due to navigational error), thus causing the RAF bomber raid to Berlin, thus causing Hitler to order the bombardment of the British towns (instead of the industry and airfields), you would probably be speaking German as first language now...


And hadn't the Greeks kicked the Italian army thus obliging Hitler to invade Greece and have his airborne division massacred in the battle of Crete, probably the Russians would be speaking German, too...


irrespective how well the Spitfire turned (or didn't).

~S~

You seriously believe this? You are practically a sympathiser.....


For serious historians though please vote:
http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/174

[Osprey]

just came across this information on the 100 octane fuel issue some people had been raising for the spitfire and hurricane. seems this is more important in aircraft performance then i had previously thought.



and ........Wood and Dempster wrote in their book "The Narrow Margin":



source: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html


You've been calling people idiots left right and centre for the past few days and have only just learned about 100 octane and 12lbs boost. Oh dear......:rolleyes:


Vote for it here
http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/174

[335th_GRAthos]

You seriously believe this? You are practically a sympathiser.....




WOW WOW WOW Baby!

Part of my family died in Crete defending my country against the nazis.

So you better wash your frigging brain, twice, before posting insults like that!

And read some more history and understand it instead of playing games, wondering how many octanes your Hurricane needs so that you do not get kicked.

~S~

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -Albert Einstein

[ATAG_Colander]

- 109's are like flying bricks of concrete and much more damage resistant


I can say the same thing about spits.


- 109's can out-turn, out-dive, and out-climb spitfire at any altitude


"out-turn" ? not on the CLoD version I have.


Anyway, in general, I think we all agree that changes are needed.

[Osprey]

Unlike you Grathos, I don't use the death of my relatives in WW2 in order to win arguments on the internet.

[335th_GRAthos]

I think you are a very fortunate person Osprey, to be able to hide behind the internet cloud in order to post attacks with apparent impunity ;)

~S~

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -Albert Einstein

[Osprey]

So I'm a thicko and now a coward. Thanks.

[335th_GRAthos]

I meant it rather as a joke. But you got to get the British credit for their stoic determination, stubborn resistance... and guts. And for how they didn't allow the bloody Luftwaffe to win the battle. :rolleyes:


:o Oh so what was that dude's name. I'd like to thank him personally for losing the war for Germans. Thank you very much, Helmut, danke vielmals!


Oh, I regret that Robo, I understood it rather as serious.

Regarding the dude's name, strangely enough history did not gave the blame for the bombing to Helmut. It was a whole squadron that dropped the bombs in the city of London due to a navigational error.
Although I get to understand your kind of humor in the meantime, I will bother to lecture you that it might be responsible to spend some moments to consider the:
18,629 men
16,201 women
5,028 children
695 charred bodies whose sex could not be unidentified
who died in England from German bombs during eight months of the Blitz (if you think it is rather funny to say "Danke vielmals!" to Helmut).

Oh, and maybe also the 593,000 German civilians who died from the bombing of Germany.

And since it is apparent that you are too cool to appreciate deaths of innocent people and too little interested about historical reality (besides octane fuel and flight performance of the Hurricane and Spitfire) you may be interested to know that RAF bombed Berlin three consecutive times before Hitler outraged ordered the destruction of English cities:


On the evening of 24 August 1940 the Luftwaffe, whilst targeting London's docks, also dropped bombs on the city's financial heart and Oxford Street in the West End. This was probably not intentional, as it was in defiance of Hitler's strict instructions that central London should not be attacked.
Winston Churchill was outraged and, 24 hours later, RAF Bomber Command retaliated.
On 25 August 1940, the RAF launched its first raid on Berlin.
A second British bombing raid on the night of August 28/29 1940
Two nights later, a third attack occurred.

Subsequently, on September 4, Hitler threatened, "...When the British Air Force drops two or three or four thousand kilograms of bombs, then we will in one night drop 150-, 230-, 300- or 400,000 kilograms. When they declare that they will increase their attacks on our cities, then we will raze their cities to the ground. We will stop the handiwork of those night air pirates, so help us God!"
(Sarcastic note: It is amazing in what kind of messup God finds himself regularly into, from the massacres of the Mayas and the populations of Latin and Central America to the WWI, WWII attrocities and it goes on...)

Beginning on September 7, 1940, and for a total of 57 consecutive nights, London was bombed.
The decision to wage a massive bombing campaign against London and other English cities would prove to be one of the most fateful of the war. Up to that point, the Luftwaffe had targeted Royal Air Force airfields and support installations and had nearly destroyed the entire British air defense system. Switching to an all-out attack on British cities gave RAF Fighter Command a desperately needed break and the opportunity to rebuild damaged airfields, train new pilots and repair aircraft. "It was," Churchill later wrote, "therefore with a sense of relief that Fighter Command felt the German attack turn on to London..."


Anyway, enough about history, I know most people here are looking for fun and enjoyment but sometimes I am appalled by the lightness people consider things which only happened seventy years ago.

~S~

[zapatista]

an interesting factual post on this topic from another thread, placing it here to keep some of this information centralized, rather then it getting lost at the end of a long unrelated thread.


In Cliffs of Dover the top speed of the Spitfire Mark I and Ia is 240 mph at sea level. (Overboost Control Cut Out yields 0.25 lbs increase in boost 6.25 ---> 6.5 and no measureable increase in engine performance in this sim). The actual speed of the Mark I and Ia Spitfires was 280 mph at 6.25 lbs and 305 mph at 12 lbs. This compares to 273 mph (sea level) of the 109's in this sim. And yes, the 109's are also undermodelled in this sim, just to a lesser degree than the Spitfire Mark I's.

Red pilots are apparently already flying clapped-out Spits, so yes, a functioning 12 lbs boost would be a realistic thing to have in this sim ...


Wouldn't getting the base speed fixed be more important than getting 12lb boost added to game ?
Otherwise you may end up getting "normal" speed only by using boost = still not realistic.

ie.
a) top speed problem is a bug.
b) lack of 12lb boost is separate modelling issue.
Getting (a) fixed is (theoretically) easier for the devs than modelling 12lb boost and should be prioritised over (b), don't you think ? Or at least the 2 issues should be kept separate.

[zapatista]

It will be interesting to see what changes the new patch FM will entail.
To my mind the changes should reflect the commonly held views that

1, In no way at anytime should the hurricane outclimb the Spit. at the moment fly a Spit1a in company with a rotol Hurricane and it will just outclimb you, this is just plain nonsense and its shocking that it was ever allowed into the game.

2 The Spit and 109 were roughly (depending on altitude) equal in speed. This if implemented would make 109 v Spit combat much more competetive and basically more of an equal contest and more fun for those unbiased majority of players out there.

3 The roll rate of the Spit, The Spit was conceived in the 1930s as a bomber interceptor when the doctrine that "the bomber will always get through" was prevailent. For this reason speed and height were the predetermining factors. roll rate was never a priority.
The roll rate of the Spit at best matched the 109 and was probably inferior but was not considered a problem due to the spits superior turn rate and better sustained turn performace v the 109, it only became a problem when the Fw190 appeared hence the emergence if the clipped wing Spit to counter the 190s superior roll rate.

3 The 109s better power to weight ratio hence its better climb performance. This is essentialy the 109s get out of jail card and for historcal as well as gameplay reasons should always be implemented within the game.

In truth as we stand today whilst the !09 and perhaps the hurricane ( although personally i have problems with the Hurries rudder responses) seem to fly as i would expect the Spit just doesnt "feel" right. I know this is subjective but the reports i have read over many years have all been similar and I trust the integrity of these reports and place great trust in the uniformity of them. "extremly sesitive especially for and aft", "the slightest touch on the stick and she would respond" and "would give early warning when on the edge of a stall with buffeting, caused by the inner wing stalling whilst the outer wing still provided lift" are all very well documented. This doesnt feel much like the CoD Spitfire.

finally diving. The 109 was superior in the initial dive due to the spits carbs. however in a sustained dive the spit was probably superior to a very small degree. the 109s controls became very unmanagable in a high speed dive making it very difficult to pull out of the dive. is this implemented in CoD ?

The Spit admittedly wasnt much better. I remember reading how i think it was Closterman after a high speed dive from a great height had to use the trimmer to pull out of the dive. again is this "stiffening" of the controls modelled within the game ?

I really hope the devs get the FM better in the next patch we await with interest the result. In truth I feel they have been rather unsympathetic to the RAF aircraft up till now I can understand the reasons. First of all and I will whisper this very quietly at the time of the BoB Russia was actually aiding and was vertually an ally of Nazi Germany.

Secondly the Lufties have been numerous long established and extemely vocal and partisan in support of there favorites in il2, added to the fact that that the future of this franchise will involve germany v Russia so development will involve Russian and German aircraft. After the next patch I dont expect any further development on British aircraft at least for the foreseeable future, so this it appears is BoBs last chance I just hope they get it right.

good post, thx for providing specific detail on what behaviour is incorrect for some of these planes. next thing we need is some specific numbers, to confirm how significant the problem is (and have specific sources for our "real data" to compare to)

once this gfx engine problem has been resolved, we need a concerted drive to make luthier and Co correct these major problems (for both allied and axis teams), but i mostly have experience with red team so far so similar to you i pointed out spitfire and hurricane problems. unless this is address, all the SoW will ever be is a bad arcade game, not a SIMULATOR of a ww2 pilot experience !

lets try and get some specific numbers for level speed (low, medium and high altitude), climb rate, max dive speed and aircraft behavior, roll rate, turning circle etc... (like i just posted the quotes in my previous post., then we can use specific facts to present to luthier and Co, so he needs minimal time to spend on it (just needs to double check our findings, not start from scratch). that will be our best chance to get it corrected quickly imo.

[CWMV]

Well the thing is this has already been done.
Lots and lots of stuff here in this thread:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=26956

Hi. What is relatively accurately be measured, is the speed at sea level. (mph) (RL datas from Spitperformance):

Hurri D-5-20. In the game 240 instead of 262. -8,4%
Hurri Rotol. In the game 260 instead of 265. -1,8%
Spit I. In the game 240 instead of 283. -15,9%
Spit Ia. In the game 240 instead of 283*. -15,9%
Spit IIa. In the game 300 instead of 290. +3,4%

Fiat G.50. In the game 223 instead of 248. -9,9%
Messer E-1. In the game 273 instead of 302**. -9,4%
Messer E-3, E-4. In the game 273 instead of 290***. -5,7%

* If I am wrong in this, then I apologize. I do not know well the Spit subtypes.
** (edit) The measurement of this ratio does not matter, but it's good to know: this is not the 109's top speed, is only 1.35 ata boost pressure, instead of 1.45 (this is called the "start und notleistung"). That would be 200 PS power (~ 20%), which increases the speed only 10 kph (~ 2%) in the game.
*** Performance tests in RL are possible margin of error of ±5%. Maybe this is why measure at slower than the E-1, despite the fact that the E-3 is more powerful engines were built. Or the E-1 graph is bad. Who knows?)

Although I believe the in game max speed for the 109's is 460 kph/286 mph. Still too slow though!

[Robo.]

Oh, I regret that Robo, I understood it rather as serious.

The joke was on you, GRAthos, not on the victims of Blitz ;)

The lecture is appreciated, but not necessary. I am familiar with the facts. I just tried to remind you that you're perhaps taking yourself and your opinions a bit too serious. You obviously know what irony is, (now say hello to Helmut.)

I found your way of interpretation of reasons why the BoB has been lost by Luftwaffe funny and I dared to reply so you could see that the credit for the outcome must be given to the British success, not only to the German failure. ;) And this 'keep calm and carry on' morale was very important in the process of winning the Battle, hence the innocent rephrasing of mine. ;)

[VO101_Tom]

Although I believe the in game max speed for the 109's is 460 kph/286 mph. Still too slow though!

Hi. The current FM maintain the energy very well, so you have to slow down before start the tests. If you descent a while, and you adjust the level flight, the aircrafts maintain + 20-30 km/h speed without any problem.

I made this quoted test this way: load the 'low bomber intercept" quick mission (all settings is default then - weapons, fuel load, weather, wind, etc.), descent to deck, slow donw the planes to 300 km/h . If the speed and the level flight was ok, i push full throttle, and played with the settings untill i got the fastest speed. I repeat this a couple of times, and this is the values, what i got.

(The original 109 test was made with 1.32 ata, this is 100% throttle with no WEP in the game).

[CWMV]

I always just started the free flight mission, decended to sea leveland slowed to the point of stall. Then level out and firewall the throttle. I can pretty easily maintain 460 kph, and 470 at 1.42ata.

[ATAG_Snapper]

I always just started the free flight mission, decended to sea leveland slowed to the point of stall. Then level out and firewall the throttle. I can pretty easily maintain 460 kph, and 470 at 1.42ata.

460 kmh = 287.5 mph

470 kmh = 293.75 mph

In this sim, Spitfire IIa Vmax sea level @ max boost (9 lbs indicated) = 300 mph

Yet last month in another thread I was accused of being "misleading" and a "hypocrite" for daring to suggest the IIa's performance was "slightly greater than the 109's".

Compare to the "too fast" (according to Ilya) Hurricane Rotol's Vmax sea level of 260 mph in this sim and likewise the Spitfire Ia's Vmax at sea level of 240 mph. :rolleyes:

Spurious insults aside, the sooner ALL FM's for both sides are fixed, the better. A hotfix patch should have been issued a year ago to correct this.

[Slayer]

FM issues aside, if online mission designers go for allowing choices of late model aircraft that weren't in production during the BoB how accurate are some of these complaints?

The game designers gave us all the different variants to allow for simulating different periods of the war but all that ever ends up happening is that most people pick the latest and greatest version to gain an advantage...

[CWMV]

460 kmh = 287.5 mph

470 kmh = 293.75 mph

In this sim, Spitfire IIa Vmax sea level @ max boost (9 lbs indicated) = 300 mph

Yet last month in another thread I was accused of being "misleading" and a "hypocrite" for daring to suggest the IIa's performance was "slightly greater than the 109's".

Compare to the "too fast" (according to Ilya) Hurricane Rotol's Vmax sea level of 260 mph in this sim and likewise the Spitfire Ia's Vmax at sea level of 240 mph. :rolleyes:

Spurious insults aside, the sooner ALL FM's for both sides are fixed, the better. A hotfix patch should have been issued a year ago to correct this.

Not sure what your talking to me about, I'm a 109 driver and know very little about the spit's, other than that the IIa is a much better all around aircraft in this sim.
I do know that the 109 at 1.42ata at ~1000m should be in the area of 490-500kph.

Wasn't the MkII spit only like 7 mph faster than its predecessor, due to weight of additional components sapping away the new found power?