Totally agree with the above two posts.

Yeah Spit Mk.II is really bad with overheating, see there is a thread just about these issues. Same for 100 octane fighters. (that's why people fly the de Havillands more these days you see :D )

There is a difference between the 87 and 100 octane Rotol versions, e.g. the 100 octane can use the boost cut out override and achieve the boost of +12lbs. The overheating issues become more apparent when you try to climb to the altitude.

Please see here:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=33695

(and roll down to IvanK's post)

Not to mention that the mixture as it is in 1.08 is a joke :grin::grin:

Completely agree with the OP.

I fly a IIa all the time and in the latest beta patch its gone horrible! my max speed now is only 240MPH which is just way off real life stats..

Also, i keep cooking the engine which never used to happen at all! this is even with a fully open radiator!

maybe i could live with the heating issue, but when my plane cant even catch up a bunch of bombers is where i draw the line:

If anyone is interested here are the real life stats of the IIa:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-II.html you will see that this game is way off performance wise.

Also those arguing about 109 vs spitfire, i found a good documentary on the 2:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ugBpAombpgs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/02WmH-pANZ0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

watch in the order i posted.

Correction***

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugBpAombpgs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02WmH-pANZ0

Watch video 2/2 first, as the YouTube poster has mislabled the order

:O ... I didn't experience this overheating. I flew rad fully open, high and low. I just kept the boost under the little red triangle and rpm under 3000 :) .. I don't know if this is the "full power" you can use or can you go over the limit for so and so much time. But with those settings it flew forever without overheat and the plane was competitive against the 109s.

The red triangle is around +4.5lbs if I recall correctly and it's just as eye candy in the sim. In the real Spitfire, it vas movable via small wheel on the side of the instrument and was usually set on max. continuous boost, which was different for Mk.I and Mk.II yet it's identical in the sim (= incorrect for the Mk.II actually)

You were not flying this bird at rated settings at all (read the thread linked above if you want, especially the part about inconsistencies with overheating) and if you say it was competitive at those cruise settings (what was your RPM exactly?) then you must be a very good pilot. I personally find fighting a well flown 109(s) tough even on full combat power. The guys posting in that particular thread are often long time Spitfire pilots (e.g. SEE or Dutch) and you can see what they're saying. IvanK reported that issue to dhe devs, there is definitely a serious overheating bug introduced in 1.08.

That you're not flying the RAF regulary is actually a good thing for you just used your common sense and found settings that worked for you. (Unlike Spitfire pilots who know what to expect and what settings to use because they're used to that friom day 1 - and now as it has been changed, perhaps it is more difficult to adapt for them), but then you are even worse off with your performance and it's gonna show when you meet any good 109 pilot trust me ;)

WRT RAF Mixture settings there are multiple issues. Here are the bugs, how it should work. Stick with me here its a tad confusing :)

In Ver 1.08 the link between the throttle and the mixture lever in that when the throttle is closed it brings the mixture lever back is now correct this is how it was in both the Hurri and the Spits. IRL this means AUTO RICH.

However the Mixture strength going to the engine is operating in reverse in all Hurris and Spits in CLOD at present.

The Correct setup in real life is:
Mixture lever Back Mixture is AUTO RICH
Mixture Lever Forward Mixture is AUTO LEAN
There were only 2 positions Forward or Back
In Both AUTO RICH or AUTO LEAN compensation for altitude is automatic.
The only real difference between AUTO RICH and AUTO LEAN is each is running a slightly different mixture strength schedule. One suitable for General and all power settings (AUTO RICH) and the other for range/endurance flying at low power settings (AUTO LEAN)

You only really need to run AUTO LEAN if you are really trying to minimise fuel consumption. Anytime you are running AUTO LEAN there are max boost limitations to be adhered to or engine damage will result. (+2.25Lbs Merlin II and III and +4Lbs Merlin XII). Max power and or Boost Cutout operation at 12LBS must have Mixture in AUTO RICH.

VER1.08 IN COD MIXTURE BUGS
MIXTURE LEVER BACK is giving LEAN MIXTURE WRONG
MIXTURE LEVER FORWARD is Giving RICH MIXTURE WRONG
Lever has infinite movement WRONG it should be 2 position only.
MIXTURE LEVER is not working in any AUTO function since passing around 12,000ft you need to select LEAN to get smooth operation. This is WRONG as AUTO RICH should automatically compensate for altitude.

VER1.08 Workarounds
You will get better cooling using RICH MIXTURE .. it helps on the climb in the Spit IIA especially (though its still out of wack). On take off once full throttle is selected push the mixture lever fully forward to the RICH (WRONG POSITION IN VER 1.08 ) Passing around 12,000ft you will start to get rough engine operation so pull the lever back to the LEAN (WRONG POSITION IN VER 1.08 ) If Activating BOOST CUT OUT you must be in RICH so push the lever forward (WRONG POSITION IN VER1.08 )to RICH .... if you don't you will get rough running and engine damage.

HOW IT SHOULD BE USED IRL
In Reality all you really need to do is just leave the Mixture in the rear position in AUTO RICH and forget about it. You then have Automatic Altitude compensation, No BOOST limitation restrictions, no issues with the throttle moving the mixture lever just go fly.

All of this has been communicated to the Devs ... we now wait for the fix.

What is surprising me is all of the 109 pilots which give the Spitfire a try and then tell us how good it is. How are they coming to this conclusion exactly? because I am baffled......

This is the Spitfire though, try and fight in the Hurricane.

@Longywales, use the 2 stage prop variants for Spitfire and Hurricane, you'll find better performance out of them, not top speed but certainly climb, and they won't overheat unless you treat them badly. 60 degrees oil before you can run though, or 30 degrees if you push the mixture lever full forward with the throttle (presently auto rich, see IvanK's post above)

" (presently auto rich, see IvanK's post above)"

Just Rich not AUTO rich :)

Take note, get in the air and start flying mother fungsters...let the Devs sort it, I'm sure we've had enough posts now about the red fighters..

I think its plain to see they need work..no more need to keep shouting about it

Oh ok :) .. Well, I flew the Spit like a 109 ;) .. So mainly B&Z. In a 109 I never trust it to perform better than the opponent plane, so I always tend to try to gain alt. advantage before engaging anything... So if I am not tangling, I'm climbing :)

That's sensible enough, and most of the reds here do the same. Your real test comes when you meet somebody like you in a 109 where you have no advantage, or they find you first. I'm not suggesting that you will lose, but you're going to find it vary hard to stay and fight - a lot harder than the other guy.

I think if this game is going to stand out as been great, then it is going to have to get the FM correct. Seriously, if they are not going to get this right then how can it be classed as been great? I mean, you may aswell place an F16 jet in there and make up a FM for 109 to shoot it down. You cannot just make up your own FM if you are trying to make a sim.

+1 to this

The current flight model of the Spit 1a (both varients) and Spit 2a is miles off what it should be and seems to be going the wrong way. The last patch has killed these aircraft both with the engine overheating problems at mid-high altitude and these aircraft now suffer terrible acceleration and very poor climb rates compared to the 109.

We know roughly what the performance of these two aircraft were and how closely they matched up in reality during BoB which is one of the attractions to the BoB era imo. When the Spit 2a was vastly outperforming the 109 we had a lot of whining on the forums (quite rightly) but now we have the opposite situation with the 109s becoming the UFOs/rocket ships by comparison. This isn't a nerf the 109 post, it's a get the FM right for the sets of aircraft post. The Spit 1a variants and 2a are porked right now and need sorting out.

The only correction to make to Bounder is that he says 'mid/high alt'. Of course this is not correct since 1C have failed to supply 'high alt' completely.

Sadly, I think this sim has already lost a lot of credibility in the eyes of many and I believe it is now in danger of losing credibility with even the more hard core enthusiasts as we lurch from bad to worse historical FM/performance, particularly in relation to red aircraft. If blue aircraft end up in as bad a state as red in this respect, we will really be in trouble. For me, it is the historical aspects that attract me to this sim. Take away the history and this might as well be Star Wars, which does not attract me at all.

Wouldn't be so bad if we knew what was going on somewhat, and that we could actually trust the items they claim to be working on because tbh so far it's been a pack of lies. We presently have a mix between zero communication and just plain falsities. It's a horrible way to treat your customers.

There used to be 1000's playing 1946, now with barely 200 on that and about 50 on COD I fear that the fanbase is lost for good.

That's the way to do it of course, no matter what your ride happens to be ;)

As for 109 performance, you can trust 100% that it can perform better than the opponent plane as long as it's RAF. If you can actually outfly the other guy that's completely different matter. :-P (not like you personally but anyone).

Speaking for myself, I feel much more confident in a 109 because I know that if I do something silly I will probably get away with it. In RAF, even when I don't make obvious mistakes (other than being airborne) I still might end up dangling on the parachute. That's the way it is and it's great fun for me, I actually enjoy this in a sick way and I enjoy my victories much more. But in the back of my head I know that 'hey this has nothing to do with the so called RL performances, this is not how it was in the BoB'. And that is not good, is it? ;)

I have to agree with this, it's been another 3 weeks without any update and to me that isn't good customer service. Seriously, if we are all expected to test these beta patches then we should also be updated frequently about what is going on. I don't see the point in giving feedback and hearing nothing from them for weeks.

Summer holidays. Might even happen in Russia.

Behave!!

Just my two peneth,

Regarding online numbers.
If the Channel Map were fixed so coops could be played on it as was one of the original concept there would be a lot more squads use it, I know mine would be tempted to do so.

Same here.

Ok, admission time. I've never played a co-op, so I've no idea of the attraction from a personal perspective.

What's stopping a squad joining a server with regular AI bomber formations, spawning at the same airfield in the same planes, waiting for a 'approximately 31 aircraft, sector Mike 7, angels 14.5 probably bombers' advisement (or similar), announcing the scramble, taking off as a squad and intercepting that raid? Alternatively scrambling for a standing patrol covering Dover/Folkestone at 20,000ft (or similar)?

That would seem pretty cooperative to me. Or is it something to do with analysing scores at the end of the set timed co-op that's the big issue?

Not trying to restart an old argument here, would just like to know what the appeal is. :)

Nothing preventing it at all matey,
However the squad I am in like to fly campaigns over a series of months that our mission builder create (and very good they are too) and having the Channel map working would open up the prospect of the Battle of France as well as the Battle of Britain


Also, we are so pi$$ed of with the whole CLoD debarcle that it would take something major (or simple really) like this to get us back into it. We nearly all bought CLoD on the (badly placed) assumption that it would actually work as it said on the box.

Well, I can understand that. I think most of us die-hards have swung from 'can't get enough' to 'sick to death' and back again a number of times in the last 18mths or so.

If you haven't tried it yet, have a look at Wolf's Channel Command mission on ATAG server 2. It's not historical as such, but with the ability to call up specific missions, both offence and defence, it should give your mission builders cause for another look at what's possible. Me, I've no idea how he does it (with Salmo and Podvoxx's help), but it certainly gives an idea of possibilities.

We're still all stuck with these bloody FMs though.......:(

I guess I really don't understand why you can't do this now. I do understand the want for a coop mode so you can have your score screen / debrief part of the final analysis of the mission, but the most important part of the coop is flying together right?

So what's wrong with starting a server with your own missions that is password protected, and have everyone join in at the same agreed upon time? You could delay the mission by not using the battle start command until everyone is ready, or you could do it all by time delays in your triggers for your objectives/flights or w/e you planned on attacking/defending together. Either way, I find it would be fairly easy to fly in a coop by yourselves in the channel map without having the word "coop" attached to the game mode.

If you want air starts that makes it more difficult, but it still can be done. I'm equally frustrated with many parts of the sim that don't work right, but the ability to fly together cooperatively can easily be done right now. It may not have the click, wait for countdown timer, and have everyone spawned right up next to each other at mission start, but I'm sure that's not really that big of deal compared to the cooperative flying part. Perhaps I'm missing something.

Mission building is a dark art to me and is done in locked rooms with cauldrens boiling in the corner for all I know.

Several of our 'chaps' have tried to build coops but for some reason we/they cannot get them to work properly (don't ask me why, I will stick to skinning).
I suppose frustration and anger has taken over and they cannot understand how something so simple (their words) in IL2/1946 has now become so complicated in CLoD?

I heard you can build better things with how it is now, but the problem is many people don't know how to do it because it's so complicated. I just hope more people are able to learn all this new stuff because I don't have a clue how to do it. I am able to make coops in 1946, but this is a whole new ball game and I don't have the time or patience to learn it all.

LoL, there is more lobbying on this forum than in the halls of the European Parliament.

You guys shld switch side from time to time . it's just like taking a new gf. Then the former one doesn't look so bad :rolleyes:

:-P:)

I did. I flew a 109E-3 tonight. Talk about easy to fly!
Smooth engine with no cutout, retains E, big guns, loads of ammo.

Ah well, back to the laggardly Spitfire or carthorse Hurricane.

I just wish the bloody thing was fixed.

I miss flying.

I really do, but I'll be damned if I'm going to waste my time on this broken, one quarter finished, "simulation".

Why do you come here and argue with each other? It's not our fault that things are so awful in CloD. You should be venting your spleens at the developers, who don't seem to be willing, or able, to fix this title.

My only stick time these days is some limited play in IL2/46 with one or two of my old squad mates. That sim works, and it continues to improve.

A big problem is no damage model with radiator.

Small MGs lose out with no radiator damage model. Glycol loss was huge number of fighters lost at the Channel.

+100% The engine overheating is waaay overcooked, especially in the Spitfire II; the real Merlin XIIs and subsequent variants had a completely revised cooling system using 70% H20 and 30% Glycol, leading to a great improvement in the engine's thermal characteristics - with the 100% glycol the Merlin III always ran hotter and the gaskets had a much shorter life. There is plenty of info out there - perhaps time to launch a legitimate bug report.

Its an energy fighter and energy fighting is what it does good..flying it yes is easy, fighting in it correctly isn't...

Yanking back on a stick and turn fighting is easy too if you have a turn fighter..

Yes I can speak from both sides as I spent 7 months in the spits n huri, yanking back when someone on your six don't get much easier that that, scissors easy as pie in a spit even now yet fighting in it vertically isn't...do whatever the other fighter like doing and of course your see it as 'easy'

Let's not now start the whole your plane is well easy to fly and we've got the nerfed fighter debate as that's not the issue here which bird is 'apparently' easy to 'fly' in its about the red fighters getting fixed

Well said. If only people were more willing to try both sides in combat there would be far less arguing about red vs blue.

Yes indeed mate! ;) Many online debates (or arguments if you wish) are going nowehere simply because one side has no clue what the other side is trying to say.

Any fighter plane is energy fighter as long its used as one. I agree with what you're saying here, in my opinion it's equally difficult to fly any plane well (on its full potential.)

But you can play co-op, Banks co-op coding does just that. It's not via an official menu and there is a small amount of initial fiddling that a toddler could handle, but other than that it IS a co-op. I'm talking about all starting together, be it with an airstart or not, and even with your own group of AI to follow you about if the mission builder desires it. I know this because I've done co-op in 1946, and now in COD. The only difference is that you all spawn in a grounded aircraft then use the menu to select another aircraft. Then when you all select to start/spawn you will be spawned into your selected machine - you can time this using voice or chatbar, the system doesn't do it for you.

Then there is the whole mission style mapping in COD so you have a co-op feel anyway - the 5./JG27 campaign was just that. I don't buy these excuses tbh, or indeed any of these other 'major' squads that we are apparently missing from COD online, it just seems a bit of an easy cop out. IMHO co-op is not required but rather something that people are used to and desire. It was never realistic anyway and it doesn't suit the BoB (after all, Germans pretty much always took off first). If anything we need a proper fighter command RDF system which orders scrambles based on incoming reports
Had you said that people have performance issues with COD or that the FM's mean that it's not workable I would agree, but not regarding missions themselves, they function perfectly well.

Anybody out there who wants to do this sort of stuff in COD then see us at www.aircombatgroup.co.uk, allied and axis, doesn't matter, we run both, and we've had no major problems with actual missions.

~S~

Christ........:confused:


Yet you are here making your point, but you don't have any personal experience yourself.

I don't see any documentation - aka "plenty of info" - here, just the usual specualtion that everything was purrrfect - especially when the said idea comes from a "contributor" who never even have had tried the actual thing in the sim. :D

The issue may be still legit, but without knowing what were the real cooling properties of the Spitfire Mk. I/II and what are the cooling properties as modelled in Clod compared to the real thing, we are just wasting time.

I take it you are back from a ban? Please don't hijack this thread, I know you will find that impossible though, and I do believe that you said you don't fly COD either.

The 109 have not a such problem, open the cooling flaps, and fly until out of fuel. We can using the notleistung any time, any altitude (ok, over 4K it have no effect, because of the limit of the compressor).

But i want to say some word of the tactics. It's no rocket science, who is higher, who have more energy in the fight, who surprises the other, he have great chance to win the combat. If one of the opponents have 500m, 1000m advantage, nobody cares the climb rate, or the top speeds, it's just shaded the image, but the end result is not significantly affected. No matter which plane are on the top, and the bottom (As we saw on SOWC, many 109 was shot down, if the Reds suprised us). A lot of old SpitIIa was shot down as well, but that aircraft was much better than any other plane in the Clod history. But you can't make a machine what would help on the idiot, or lazy tactic (my favorite the Repka, when the Spit pull the stick like an idiot, open full flap, almost stall, and he asked after went down "how can the 109 turn better than mee?Crappy FM, i want old IIa, Fuuuuu"... Geez...

Robo. On the repka the majority of air kills get from suprise. Once we should try in 1v1 (common 1v1 rules) of the planes against each other. Couple of days ago we turning off the CEM on my server (we practicing with a few beginners). The Spit 100 octane climb more than the 109, I only blinked. Seems, the Spit have much more performance, but the current CEM allow only less (so it's a CEM issue, not FM issue).

VO101_Tom:

" Couple of days ago we turning off the CEM on my server (we practicing with a few beginners). The Spit 100 octane climb more than the 109, I only blinked. Seems, the Spit have much more performance, but the current CEM allow only less (so it's a CEM issue, not FM issue)."

That is a huge observation! TBH, I've never even tried flying without CEM -- nor most of us online fliers, I would bet. This bears further study -- for all aircraft.

Great post.

Another Tom ;)

Oh gosh, still on my first morning coffee. Sorry Tom -- edited my post accordingly. :(

We switch back the CEM after a short time, because of the minor Emil PP issue (accidentally switch down) become serious, because the PP can't andustable manually if CEM off. But right, it worth a try.

Oh wow. Does this mean that when the devs say that 'performance is in the envelope', it's when the AI programme is controlling engine management?

Or even the whole aircraft?

Hmmm, sounds that way, Dutch. Based on Tom's observations and your comment, it's like yes -- the correct FM's are there for all aircraft. It's as if CEM is correctly modelled (for prop pitch, at least) in the 109's -- hence their better performance with CEM turned on. The 109's prop pitch sounds incorrectly modelled when CEM is turned off.

A different story for the RAF aircraft though - the FM's are "fine" for RAF with CEM turned off, but hampered when CEM is turned on. In the RAF planes' case, it may or may not be the prop pitch modelling at fault, but perhaps more the Merlin horsepower setting that get pooched. Dunno. Someone else noted, that I concur with, is that the Spitfire's (all marks) acceleration and take off roll is way off. It takes forever to get up to rotation speed. (Just watch the A2A Wings of Power 3 Spitfire video demo on prop design/prop pitch that talks about just that. Better yet, fly the itself -- it's breath taking how fast the A2A Spit lifts off).

These are just a layman's observations. I have no documents on this, nor am I going to spend time on this trying to find any. Clearly there will be a chart or graph out there that will clearly show what I see with my own two eyes is all wrong, anyway. Except I'm not. ;)

Well there aren't too many charts available for in-game performance of anything, and certainly not with CEM switched off. :evil:

I mostly fly the Spit 2 at the moment....I'm trying to get a handle on it and that'll take me some time and its fun to learn....although It seems I struggle against the 109s and don't really stand a chance if the enemy pilot keeps 'E' and doesn't fight but extends away (or up) and then picks his time to attack...There is nothing a spit pilot can do as far as I can see to combat this tactic apart from turn a lot and stay close to home (which I tend to do) and hope I get spotted by a friendly when I'm in distress....If the 109 pilot is niave enough to turn fight then I may stand a chance....

So my only kills in a spit tend to be against new pilots, pilots that have not seen me or already damaged aircraft....

The other day I flew a 109 just to see what the weaknesses may have been..I managed to suss out the auto-prop pitch which takes a lot of workload off the pilot and I was good to go....in 2 sorties I killed 5 aircraft by ripping wings off them and p/king....In one scenario I was chased to France by 3 Spits that I outran and then turned to pick at by boom and zooming when I was clear....I took one of them out.....and when I was hit it was only minor hits....

Conclusion...To my mind the 109 far outclasses the Spit by quite a way...and in future if I want some one sided battle for fun I'll jump in a 109....The 109 is relatively easy to fly in this sim......I remember one Battlle of Britain RAF pilot explaining that the main difference between the two was that the spit was easy to fly "Any idiot could fly a spit"....

As for killing the game well it doesn't for me...I am dissapointed in how embarrassingly bad the Spit flys in the sim after all the books I have read about how good it was......Although it won't stop me trying to master the Spit as the underdog in this sim....For me it would be better if they were more evenly matched just so I get a more even battle irrelevant of how close they are to R/L Fms.....

Anyways......I still love the Game!

PS....THIS IS ONLY MY OPINION......Dont kill me!!

"I am dissapointed in how embarrassingly bad the Spit flys in the sim after all the books I have read about how good it was"

I want a 109, based on the life of Hartmann, Barkhorn and Rall. If i can shot down more than 900 enemy with 3 lives, then the game will be accurate!!
:rolleyes:

Another observation is that RAF only really refer to the Spitfire, yet the Spitfire totally outclasses the Hurricane in game too, so for Hurricane pilots it is yet another notch down - there is little you can do in the Hurricane, outturned, outspeed, outclimbed, outrolled etc etc etc. Given that Hurricanes were 2/3rds of the RAF it displays just how rubbish a job the devs have done so far, it is impossible to have anything historical set up here.
I suspect I'll just get another infraction but I honestly would prefer to be celebrating - I just cannot, and that's not our fault.

You make an excellent post then follow it up with this nonsense Tom. I think you've totally missed the point.

Aircraft performance can not be accurately compared based on Books and stories. You do not know what were the circumstances, what was the battle scene, what was the status of the planes, who was the experienced pilots, had they damage or injury before, and you don't know many other reason.
If you read memoirs of pilots who survived the war – it's incredible– but all of them survived the war, and all of them will tell you that they plane was better than other. They win the dogfights.

Kozhedub was asked once, what he thinks, what was the best plane of the WW2? He replied: "The La-7. I hope you understand why."

I think that this vote is flawed given the fact most 109 pilots that will vote NO. I just don't see the enjoyment in this game until the FM are fixed.. I mean, it's like a 2 horse race at present and one of them is a donkey.

I want to be Kobe Bryant to! If they'd only lower that stupid goal from 10 feet to 5 then I would own it.

I guess this is what I will picture whenever I hear someone say they are draggin one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW7VrHIZmr0

I certainly recognize that pilots will tend to be biased -- frequently VERY biased -- in favour or disfavour of the plane type they flew. On balance, to a degree, Spitfire pilots also noted with honesty how the Spitfire Mark V was outclassed by the FW 190, and how they also sincerely believed the subsequent Spitfire Mark IX evened things up.

I am not quick to discount anecdotal references by pilots who actually flew the aircraft in combat as utterly worthless. By definition, if something, even a subjective opinion, is not utterly worthless....then there HAS to be SOME worth to a firsthand observation or impression. Whether they were confident in their aircraft or disdainful of it, there's gotta be a reason other than some empty-headed conviction. Charts, graphs, and highlighted documents are wonderful, until you find yourself at 20 angels and virtual cannon shells are ripping through your virtual cockpit.

So, I read through the many, many accounts written by pilots of both sides to get an overall impression before relying exclusively on what the charts say. This is the EXACT reason ALL meteorologists look out the window before going home for the day to see if they need an umbrella.

Did Christ buy it, I don't know, but I know I did (Also received a collectors edition copy from UBI) after a framed and signed IL2 poster I won from them was damaged in the post.

So I do think I have experiance, Steam says so with the 300+ hours logged.
Also approx half of my Squad (Tangmere Pilots) have it and have spent many hours flying.

Don't get me wrong, we like the game but we can't fly it as it says on the box.

It seems to work with just 'temp effects' turned off.

I just did a very brief check on the Spit MkIa 100oct and obtained a constant290mph at sea level, then a steady 3500-4000ft per min climb rate at 160mph.

So far it looks to me as though only temp effects need to be turned off, not the whole CEM, but at first glance, simply turning off temp effects opens up a whole new FM.

I'd appreciate some others testing this, whether Red or Blue, to see if they get a similar improvement in performance or not.

I think got exactly what you ment Tom, and you're 100%-ly right mate.

More than anything, it's the initial situation that matters, outcome of the fight is about tactics which involves: position (altitude) / speed / maneuveur / shooting (while you mention Kozhedub ;) ), BUT the FMs should be correct to start with regardless. Of course experienced pilot can use even 'porked' plane and succeed (by bouncing the enemy whenever possible) but that's not a reason to keep them porked, is it? Especially if this era is so well researched and all information is available to the devs!

I never actually tried the 100 octane Spit with CEM off to be honest, I use Repka 4 'mince meat' server for personal training and my ride is usually stock Ia Spitfire as at the moment I practice defensive tactics and manoeveurs against 109s (in which case I place myself underneath a decent 109 pilot and see what happens when I get co-E :D), although it's fun to fly over there I tend to fly carefully with rpm so I can use that skills on proper servers, too. With CEM switched on, the 100 octane was closer to the 109 climb performance but not quite there and for very limited time due to overheating problems. Mind you that was in 1.07 so I am not sure how it looks like now.

+1 and in addition, we are all "aces"... In RL this was not so, some British pilots in BoB only had 6 or 10 hours flght time...

Top speed at sea level test with and without 'temp effects' enabled. Both runs done in the free flight England quick mission. Spit MkIa 100oct.

With temp effects on I got 270mph with +11 boost, 3000rpm.

With temp effects off I got 290mph with +11 boost, 3000rpm.

No extra effort or duration of flight was necessary, the Spit was just faster with temp effects off.

The first screenshot is temp effects off, the second temp effects on.

CEM was on in both cases.

I can also confirm that the spitfire is speeding and climbing faster with CEM turned off..in variants IIa and Ia_Oct

Longywales, please could you try it again with just the 'temp effects' turned off? Leave CEM on, turn off temps. That's how I got the result above. Thanks :)

Of course not, I did not said anything like this. Only bother me, if anyone claims the status of FM based of feelings and impressions (instead of measuring and datas). Like everyone would be a test pilot...:rolleyes: Clear 1v1 the only opportunity, to find out the differences between the planes. If the situation is neutral, same energy level, same starting conditions, the Spit is a deadly, hard opponent.

The Repka is fun target practice, but nothing more. You can't dogfighting, because somebody will shot you or your opponent within a minute. Last time, I remember, only You and Vranac, who flew a little higher on the red side, but almost all of the players chasing eachother on the deck... well, I'm not complaining, I let them fly low, if they want :cool:

Interesting.
I will check the 109, because the overheating causes deadly performance loss in the 109 too, the difference, that the full open water radiator can handle the engine heat. (It is not correct either, i think, it will be change soon. With the radiator air drag.)

So why did you say that you all nearly bought it? That implies that none of you did. You should've said "We all bought it but it was rubbish and went back to 1946" - That I can understand.......

Anyway, I think you should be more interested in the previous post I made to you, not this one.

PS, Tell Hatter that he can laugh at the mighty Palace now but the Tesco queenies are suffering and will soon be far below us :)

Tom, the tests were run from a dive and I waited for the aircraft to slow to a constant speed. There was no overheating when temp effects were on, as of course there weren't with temp effects off. The loss of speed wasn't due to overheating being the cause of a power loss. Temps were normal but rising fast. The Spit had already slowed down to 270 well before 120 degrees on the rad temp, or over 95 on the oil, in fact on the second screenshot, you can see that the rad temp is about 110......

@Tom, I don't disagree with what you wrote, it just wasn't the right answer for what your replyee (is that a word?) was suggesting.

Temp off, 290mph @ 11lbs - great - 20mph too slow is better than 40mph too slow, and especially since the 109 is n too slow. If all of the tests come out similarly we should ease up on the 'full switch' concept.

Can you add that to the poll??

Honestly, there is not much point in discussing FM performance when most only pick and choose what they think is the best for this "red vs blue" crap.

This "red vs blue" is toxic.


FWIW....

You guys sound like real airplane owners complaining that their airplane won't meet manufacturers specs for performance.

Remember, those performance are based on a standard day AND correct operation of the aircraft systems.

It might help to see how the AI is working the engine.

You should see the same performance if the system is operated the same as the AI.

Snapper just ran a quick test with the Hurri 100oct and got a 10mph improvement, but it was just a quick test. And I agree completely re 'full switch'. ;)

Osprey,
I said we nearly all bought it, implying just that, that nearly all the squad got it in anticipation of flying coops, not that we thought about it and then changed our minds.

I also said that mission building to me is harder than turning base metals into gold but I am sure you ment well posting it, many thanks.

Yeah, same results with temp off...it must be the temp effects causing the fault then....

Maybe you guys at ATAG could make a server with temp effects off for the time being :P

Honestly? Well it's a good job you're around to tell us these things.

Well here's a thought. It wasn't any AI which controlled the aircraft in any of the test data available, it was a human being. Consequently a Human being ought to get the same performance from the aircraft modelled in the game.

The limited tests performed so far seem to indicate that this is not the case, and some error in the game's temperature management systems are robbing the aircraft of performance when temperature effects are enabled.

This may also be the case for any aircraft in the simulator, and I eagerly await tests results from others who know how to get the best from other aircraft modelled in the game.

Well fine, but that is not clear at all, the meaning is different. You really mean that most of you bought it and were disappointed with the lack of co-ops.

However your main point was that there is no co-op, not that you aren't an FMB user. I stated that there is, and it works in the same way, it's just not provided by 1C but rather 41Sqn_Banks. Did you not specify that you have someone capable of building missions? If so then what's really stopping you guys?

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=140

I think constant disappointment in the game has stopped us at this time mate, peeps tried for ages to get it working, but with performance issues and other 'assorted' issues it was decided to put it back onto the shelf until/if it is ever sorted.
I don't think this was an easy choice, but the head sheds had to take into account that not everyone could afford some of the upgrades needed to get decent performance etc (taking into account the req specs on the tin) and that we could (at this time) continue with 1946 until such a time comes around.

BTW, next time your on comms with Nitrous (Queeney) say hello for me

Good thought.

We need to see if other aircraft (notably 109's, 110's) are adversely affected by switching Temp Effects off. I don't have the hours (ie competence) to extract maximum performance from these two aircraft -- hopefully somebody here can and will report back.

So far, this is an interesting development.

AI operates the engine when CEM is off....

;)

Well, Not trying to be a jerk. Just pointing out you guys argue and argue for no reason about aircraft performance when most don't even understand the conditions or the proper settings for the aircraft.

For example!!

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...95&postcount=9

You've missed the point completely I'm afraid. When Human Beings flew the real aircraft, obtaining the real test results of the real thing, at no time did AI control the aircraft.

The speed figures obtained in real life should therefore be possible within the simulator when all aspects of control are being managed by a Human Being.

Simply turning off temperature effects makes the Spit 20mph faster at sea level, 'with all gauges in the green', when compared to performance in the same test with temperature effects switched on, also 'with all gauges in the green'.

A possible error in the game's programming is what is being suggested here, connected with the temperature management settings affecting engine performance adversely.

I know AI did not control the aircraft but it is the game that controls the engine when you turn temperture effects off.

Exactly, we are saying the same thing.


It boils down to asking if anything is being operated differently by the game when temperature effects are turned off. Is the oil cooler flaps in a different position, radiator controls, etc....

And two pilots will rarely get the same performance from the same aircraft.

I just showed a friend of mine with a Seminole how to get ~ 7 knots more out of his airplane. All I did was properly lean, set rpm/manifold pressure at it's most efficient approved settings, and use his cowl flaps correctly.

I didn't start the 'mine's better than yours'. I was responding to TomcatVIP's and now drewpee's recommendation to fly both sides before complaining about one. I did. My opinion is that the CoD 109 is easier to fly than the Spitfire or Hurricane.

Curious when Galland himself said the Spitfire was ridiculously easy to land (compare them on CoD!) and the 109 was said to be a handful on takeoff (which it isn't in CoD).

But the underlying issue is that the FMs of most aircraft need addressing according to the opinions of many that fly on either side and according to some of the testing some of us have actually done instead of making simple subjective claims.

klem... it was.

Simply the 109E was an easier plane to fly than the Spit I/II and Hurri thx to its automated system. It was built for tht. EoA.

if you found that it's too easy to TO in a E (what I agree), this is another debate. Nothing related to this "poll".

~S~

Ease of flying is not about managing the systems, the Spit was easyer to fly because it had light and responsive controls as opposed to the heavy controls on the 109, it really does not take much flying skill to operate a prop lever and radiator flaps.

I'm for this

The oil cooler is non-adjustable in the Spit. With temp effects off, the radiator flap is fixed fully open. The test I conducted with regard to speed at sea level with temperature effects on was also conducted with rad fully open.

All parameters which are available to be equalised were equalised. Yet performance is more true to life with temps off than temps on.

Now awaiting results from other game users in other aircraft.

pure bs... again.

Some of the P40 pilots switching to 51 mentioned the added workload with the Merlin vs the Allison.

Fact is fact. And again in a sim you don't dye and can learn after your mistake. Nothing unmanageable with the Merlin. You just have to get used to it.

The 109 controls were only heavy at higher speeds...and at least as far as ailerons are concerned, it wasn't much worse than Spitfire or Hurricane.

First of all the 'pure bs...again' is unecessary and rude, funny how you can use all the annecdotal evidence you like but when it comes to anybody else using it you reject it, I am telling you as a real pilot that using prop levers and radiator controls, carb heat, gear levers etc etc do not call for any particular level of flying skill.

Not true, there has been a very long winded thread recently highlighting the effects of stability, the 109 was more stable in pitch than the Spitfire and this manifests itself as a resistance on the controls making them heavy in all flight conditions and got progessively worse with increased speed.

With newest patch I too have the impression that the spitfire overheats faster, even with full radiator open.

I am also a bit confused with the mixture handling. How does it affect the performance and the overheating?

Anyhow I do not seem to be able to get the Spitfire fast when at altitude without cooking the engine.

I do not know how I can get maximum performance without overheating it. However it seems that the Spit overheats a little less at sea level but at altitude it starts to boil quickly. Somebody can give me advice on it?

I also think that when flying faster the cooling effect should be better. So with same power settings (boost, rpm) I should cool my engine when diving.

I also seem that the Spit 1a_100 seems to overheat quickly in short! dives. I frequently cook the engine when I run her at 2600 rpm full boost (but no boost cut out) after a short dive. This is strange. Due to constant speed propeller rpm should not increase for too long beyond 2600 rpm at 6 lbs boost which is a setting for which one can run the spit 1a_100oct quite safely without overheating her. When I do some extended loops at about 10 kft I always overheat her. This seems not normal. Not for a constant speed prop plane where overreving should be not a big issue. Radiator's always full open btw.

Hi Swift, and welcome to the 1C Forum. Your observations tally with many of us with the latest patch. A few of us are working behind the scenes on that very thing at this moment. In the meantime, keep your rpms no higher than 2500 and boost at 6.2. Stay posted. :)

Pitch would only effect elevator and you're making a general statement. A higher stability does not necessarily imply higher control forces. "Higher" control forces do not imply "heavy" controls.

:confused:

??????

ATAG_Dutch....

I find it difficult to have a serious discussion on the accuracy of one set of parameters such as speed or climb and ignore the flying qualities that make these airplanes unique.

These airplanes were all pretty much equal dogfighters due to their performance and flying qualities.

Modeling them the same is more accurate than producing charactures and frankenplanes.

I'm not sure where exactly I implied pitch affects anything other than elevators, the more stability the more resistance it's simple fact, if there was no resistance to input then by definition it has no stability (the nature of returning to original condition) it is that resistance which pulls the controls back to original position therefore the relationship between stability and control force is almost proportional, there is an RAE report stating 'exactly' this point about the 109.
I have flown aircraft with heavy controls and it's bloody tiring and I would class an aircraft with lighter controls as much easier to fly despite any perceived 'twitchyness', the penalties from adverse handling characteristics of an aircraft are just something to get used to and I would always prefer an aircraft to have light controls so I don't have to wrestle with it if things get hairy.

in summary, it may not 'necessarily' mean higher control forces but in practice and most of the time it means 'exactly' that in a conventional planform aircraft with the largest proportion of mass toward the front, aircraft like the Spitfire and P-51, P-39 were exeptions because of the way certain loadouts (or engine in the P-39) would affect distribution of that mass thus affecting CofG, as we all know CofG has an impact on stability, the 109 was just a whacking great big engine,prop and gun with a tiny little aircraft bolted to it, a stable speed machine with big guns...ideal for BnZ.

Stick force per G is a control characteristic, not stability.

Hurricane, high stick forces, stable airplane....ideal for TnB........