|
Quote:
|
Quote:
The simulation aspects of the game should be as close to reality as they can get them. So 109 / Spit / Hurricane / damage model, etc etc. Get all that stuff functioning as close as possible to real, regardless of which 'side' the details favour. But the GAME aspect. Like, "Score 500 points to win the map!" stuff. THAT stuff should DEFINITELY be tuned to make the chances of winning equal to both sides. If Luftwaffe fighters have the advantage in dogfighting (on average taking into account mistakes or a lapse in SA, etc.), or by a margin as you put it, then having a mission that is "First to 50 kills!" isn't exactly a fair gameplay target for both sides. I don't really know how exactly I'd tweak missions to suit this kind of simulation / game issue, but I'd certainly make an attempt. If a mission's objective is just to present a Battle of Britain scenario, ala Campaigns and the like, then this kind of thing isn't really necessary. Whatever happens happens. But in a win/lose setup mission with points and targets and objectives and things, why not make an attempt to give both sides the same chances? I don't think anyone can really seriously argue that the objectives and mission points systems in missions like the ones on ATAG are meant to be serious 'simulations' of action during the Battle of Britain. They're meant to be fun objectives to provide purpose to the action that might otherwise just be dogfighting. If Red's strength is in taking on bombers, then give Red's target more emphasis on that. Vice versa, if Blue's strength is on air superiority fighting and bombing targets, make those the objectives for Blue. So for example: RED OBJECTIVES: Destroy 50 bombers BLUE OBJECTIVES: Destroy 25 ground targets and 25 fighters Obviously that's just an example so please no one start posting "But 50 bombers is easier than 25 ground targets and 25 fighters!" That's not the point. Right now, most missions I see have way too much symmetry. Each side has pretty much the same objectives, just opposite. "Red attacks parked Ju88s. Blue attacks parked Beaufighters. Red attacks tanks here. Blue attacks tanks there." Symmetry like that doesn't take into account the different weapon sets these teams have. |
Quote:
He wasn't shot down, but had a habit of running into pieces of his kills......something like 14 times :-P To quote the man himself "I was never another pilots victory". |
Quote:
I understand your point of view. However - For me it is imperative that the FM as are close to reality as possible - that the theatre of war is depicted realistically. Once you tread on the "balance all the planes", you will end up in a scenario which I for one do not want to end up in..all planes pretty much looks and feel the same. This is by no means a new discussion; this has been discussed over and over again since the day of flight simulation, and has always been discussed in the IL2 community.. and is still beeing discussed amongst mission builders for different "full switch" IL2 servers such as spits vs 109 et al. They have of course an easier job these days as the number of different version of all planes are five to tenfold the amount we have in Clod--- at least for the moment. To take this in account though and use it as an argument to balance the planes performances to non-historical characteristics is a show-stopper for me though. When I fly red (and I do most of the time) I WANT to have the same challenges as the real deal... or at least as close as possible. If you want the FMs dulled down for a non-historical setup, it seems that you have chosen the wrong kind of game/sim. ... //written with no purpose to belittle you point of view PS: Regarding historical tactics, e.g 109 hugging bombers etc... There is no chance we can ever depict BoB..or any theatre of war, 100%.... the reason alone that we don't actually die when shot down is a reason alone. Virtual pilots are more careless and tend to go solo, dimissing mission objectives. I for one always try to team up with either a fellow squadmember or another fellow red pilot... working in teams and choose targets accordingly; solo 109s or 109 in inferior tactical position. As someone said: Teaming up and outnumber the enemy is a better advantage than a faster airplane. Use the servers Teamspeak! This in itself makes it easier to team up when no squadmember is around. Oh. and let us not "paint the devil on the wall" (to quote an old Swedish proverb) before we have actually seen and flown the patch. |
What do you all think about the % of completion for BOM,
how long will we be waiting? I would suggest 30% complete with 7 months left of development. ;) |
Very stupid and biased remarks towards spitfire myth post...
If at year 1940 Luftwaffe fighting doctrine would allow to use Bf 109 at it's full potential as a fighterplane in Battle of Britain, there would be no discussion anymore about spitfires nor miracle of BoB. The fact was and still is the spitfire is very inferior fighter plane compared to the Bf 109. Turn radius is only minor advantage which is so easily to countermeasured in terms of dogfight. Why somebody thinks BoB was won by Brits and Spitfires specifically must be from the myth because Germans did switch their resources from Brit front to the eastern front to set up operation Barbarossa. Read your history (not just winners very coloured history), you might gain something of it in terms of knowledge... |
U have proven my point. You CAN'T have a simulation in an online pvp environment. It is the unattainable monster due to the very fact that we aren't living in the life or death struggle.
So your choice is to either force the issue in gameplay or attempt to closely balance the sides for the quake style gameplay that we are currently attempting. But first things first you have to admit that you can't have just one aspect of realism ( fm's ). And not have the other aspect of dealism ( circumstances). And expect anything near what happened in the scenario you attempting to recreate. If you do you are diluting yourself. I like wolverines ideas though. Change the symmetry to objectives that make sense. This may help. |
Quote:
|
This is not about balance but realism.
If you want talk about balance go to some arcade game where climb with your Corsair like a rocket and shot with his eight cannons or to some Call of Duty or Battlefield forum where you can degree shotguns, MGs and pistols to rush with your Thompson like gun at will. This is about realism, this is about make the most realist WWII airplane behavior out of real documented data and real pilots to make the most realist Simulator. Its not the 1940s airplane engineers fault don't make Hollywood planes like. If a plane have weak points is in the hands of the pilot get over it, in fact every plane have weak points, if your plane is weak at speed you should rely in maneuverability, if your plane is weak at climb you just should stay at low altitude. This is not about balance but Realism. This is IL-2 !! http://i39.tinypic.com/33nys1l.png |
@Hooves
The missions' design are imperative .. for me anyway... to achive some kind of sensation of accomplishment. That is why I prefer servers for IL2-1946 such as "Spit vs 109" / "Zeke vs Wildcat".. they are objective driven(!). For me it has the past 5-6 years only been "winning the mission" that is the main goal.. not scoring as many kills as possible. That is why F19 and F16 F19's and F16's (our squadrons ) get killed in droves online flying inferior bombers/attackplanes.... chasing to win the map. In that aspect, IL2 1946 would never have been what it is to me and many others without the 3rd party development such as FBDj. So far the multiplayer aspect of CloD is only in it's beginning in comparison; ATAG-server is pretty much the only server that comes even close to beeing objective driven -but then again; how many online servers are there? A handful? So instead of balancing FM.. away from realism, MG should focus on developing tools for missionbuilders to design just that; objective driven missions.... with ..as u mentioned.. symmetry to objectives. If they don't come up with these tools, I am sure the community will eventually - just as they did with IL2:1946. As I said - without US all servers for Il2:1946 would be quakewar. EDIT: That particular IL2-T attack showed aboved was actually one of those missions in which we all survied when going for target :D ..NOT dying in droves :D In short; I prefer balancing mission objectives rather than "balancing" FM/DM and other characteristics of these historical airplanes we all love. We can never really simulate the actual war (too many aspects), but we can simulate the actual planes. |
@David Hayward, I know I'm off-topic, but I quoted your latest 11 posts (and i stopped because the post will be too long), and you are only trolling and flaming on this forum... point me some useful posts you made or shut up and stop spamming everywhere trying to raise a ban for other users...
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
But one fancy thing in IL-2 is that you don't have to default to bad historical tactics but you can rather implement better tactics. This is very common in wargaming. There can be a historical scenario where you are supposed to change history with better tactics and strategy than commanders used in real. |
I don't know where this idea that the 109 was a better dogfighter than the Spitfire has crept in from. There are many accounts of the Spitfire being superior when in a dogfight against its contemporary 109. Read Al Deere's 'Nine Lives' and his acount of several 109s trying to dogfight two Spitfire MkIs over Calais Mark at the time of Dunkirk, they brought three 109s down. Read Johnny Johnsons's 'Wing Leader' and his early accounts of flying with Douglas Bader. The 109's preferred tactic wasn't dogfighting, it was what we would call energy tactics. The 109's wing loading was far higher than the Spitfire or Hurricane which reduced its turning capability but it had a much better power to weight ratio which is why it could outclimb them. Heinz Knoke wrote in his book 'I Flew for the Fuhrer' that his most reliable tactic for evading them was a spiral climb which would leave the allied fighters clawing for height and risking a stall. Even Adolph Galland infamously asked Goering for Spitfires when told he must fly close to the bombers because he was aware of their superior dogfighting capability. It was not how he wanted to fly the 109.
As for the idea that the 109 was generally the best aircraft in the BoB, that assumes they always had the advantage (which they generaly did due to the enforced defensive tactics of the RAF) but when the Spitfires had the advantage of height etc. the tables were turned because the Spitfire was a perfectly good energy fighter too, it just didn't have too many opportunities to demonstrate that. It was not as well armed as the 109 which is why you could put up a balance of attributes and claim the 109 was better but the 'best' aircraft depended on the circumstances. Regarding CoD FMs, they need to be realistic as far as possible and provide close relative performance to the real thing although they are unlikely ever to be perfect and we should stop trying to chase an elusive 5% or whatever. In any case pilot skill and opportunity will often negate a reasonable or even large percentage of performance. Just give us FMs as close as you can get. As for Gameplay and 'historical accuracy' that can only be achieved by mission design and engagement rules, assuming FMs are near enough correct, but this will always be prevented in CoD due to the limitation in numbers the game can support. This is why CoD can never represent the scale of the BoB, the best that can be achieved is a representation of a few of the raids. Mission engagement rules are hard to put in place in a general use on-line server because, for example, most Red pilots are reluctant to fly tight Vic formations, are probably incapable of doing it anyway, and fly combat spread instead for obvious reasons. The kind of scenarios flown in the MMPOG 'Aces High' were the closest I ever came with several hundred participants pre-registered and allocated to Squadrons/Units with clear rules of engagement and a moderator to kick/ban anyone who broke those rules. Oh yes, and you only had one life so you were MUCH more careful about what you did and how/whether you engaged. These take a lot of work to set up, even for a small scale representation of a few raids in CoD. I'm sure the community would really enjoy them but many would not because many just want to dogfight and get kills. You can fly for ages in those scenarios and never see an enemy (as it often used to be in RL) and recent matches between 56RAF and 5./Jg27 on a small scale have left us both searching unsuccessfuly for up to an hour. So, lets have the FMs as close as possibe including the engines, no daft flight capability with half a wing, 109 pilots suffering and aircraft performance affected by fuel explosions, reasonably balanced AI gunners, etc. etc., and then we'll see how good we are. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Thks, excellent news.
. |
Quote:
Quote:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=212 Bear in mind that this is just 4 months prior to release and the map looked very different. Raises a question as to why it was changed at last minute and whether it will be changed BACK later? (As a bonus I suspect there could also be a big performance boost by reducing the number of trees) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Read Klem's post above for the reality. In fact, everyone arguing about balance versus realism - read Klem's post. |
Quote:
|
It should never be about balance...
|
Quote:
I will be way more brief and make some direct points: - 20 mm. cannons + 15 mm. heavy machine guns - superior speed - due superior speed, so much tactical options in dogfight This should be enough for debate these as raw power equipment - Luftwaffe 109 wins hands down. Where Luftwaffe lost was the tactics, determination (guts), and radar guidance :) |
Quote:
Quote:
Also read Stephen Bungay's 'Battle of Britain' (one of the most authoratative and respected BoB books published), a compressed version appears in zapatista's post above (well compressed mate) |
Quote:
Cheers Kristof, I need to get hold of a copy of your recommended book. Thank you. I've read so many historical account of BoB before. So we are in accord not to blame the flying crate but the tactics which mandated the outcome of the said airplanes. So the numbers game are more important than individual performance if we look at the outcome of the war, not just a fight. |
Quote:
|
David Hayward said:
>>Yes, it sure is something. How long before you follow the dev team's lead and move on to something else? << Oh, when you do David, when you do.... (Even full paid-up members of the awkward squad have points to make occasionally. You never do. Just bounce-back posts like a weak, watery, smug one-liner echo). No, crap, piffle etc |
Hi BlackSix,
How is the beta testing going? |
Quote:
How about 7.92mm MG17 light machine guns. |
Quote:
IL-2 would be air quake with 1940 BoB graphics mod after that. |
Quote:
See you on comms |
Luthier and Blacksix,
I presume you no longer read this "madness" but concentrate on testing the beta as we speak but, I will take my chances and post my question: Will the Bombsight for the German planes (HE111, JU88 ) and the course autopilot (JU88 ) be fixed in the patch? Because as long as we do not have the possibility to fly realistic missions with strategic and tactical objectives due to the memory leak-, bombing-, course autopilot-problems, we are stuck in quick aerial dogfights where the blue planes undoubtely rule. And we are slowly getting fed up of the whining of the red pilots... ~S~ PS. Oh, and that exploding central tank of the Bf109 should be fixed, it is a bit shameful to fly out of a huge fireball without damage except loss of most fuel... |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
But when you finally get some good hits and the planes explodes it keeps flying like nothing has happened... |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Yeah I don't get these guys that seem to believe that the 109 was better than the Spit at practically everything. If that were the case, which it patently isn't, then that means that the 109 pilots must've been crap to lose with such fantastic machines :rolleyes: But we hear from the same people how good the LW pilots were compared to everyone else - something doesn't add up............. ..............and that's where blaming Goering comes in isn't it.....:) You are correct Farber, the 109 was superior to the Spitfire, until the CPS and 100 octane was shoved in it (May/June 1940). Then it was all down to the engineers. |
Quote:
That's why we run an historical server Hooves. The action is with the main missions, the ones that actually occurred. |
As an unashamed 109 fanboy (I just think they are beautiful and have done since a very early age.), I'd have to say that 109s are superior in some ways but they do have their weaknesses also. The spitfire and hurricane have their strengths and weaknesses as well.......
Ultimately success or loss in any battle, let alone a dogfight, comes down to tactics and learning to play to those strengths and avoid those situations where your weaknesses can be exploited. Take notes! Adapt! So you can't, let's say, go into a dive without turning your plane upside down? From that you already know that us 109 pilots are going to take advantage of the fact that we can..... use that knowledge! Think of it like martial arts and use our strengths against us. (Or, if you are up against me..... just sneak up behind me and go straight for the cockpit. lol) I'm more than happy to admit, and have done many times, that I am an awful pilot and an even worse dogfighter but I am learning and, with each flight, I get a tiny bit better.... the amount of times I have had to eject, on the rare occasion I actually have a chance to before everything goes black, has led me to believe that the 109 is far from indestructible as some on here would have you believe. Ultimately it is all down to the pilot. I don't lose because my plane is inferior.... I lose because I'm, currently, pretty useless. IMHO some red pilots could benefit from a little introspection. Also... this IS a simulator not an arcade game. War, generally, isn't particularly "Fair". If the "Lack of balance" disturbs you that much, I say jump into a 109 and let's see if that changes your success rate. Horrible as it is of me to say this..... but..... something tells me you won't do much better. |
Quote:
Hell I need this implemented AT LEAST!!! :shock: |
Quote:
If there was ever a viewpoint on the BoB that was so wholeheartedly wrong, it is this one. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Sorry for crossposting but just in case someone wants to get practical about FMs:
Quote:
|
Did i miss something about a new GUI?
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
i like your idea of a different point scoring system. i believe that type of system could be worked into online server "successful mission" point system currently implemented by by luthier (as it was already partially functioning that way in the later server versions of the il2 series), and hopefully we could also get this in the (eventual) dynamic campaign server we will get. the point however is, how can we get this concept across to luthier ? it would be a crying shame if this new advanced il2 simulator we are now at long last getting our hands on, would just go to waste with the teen air quake servers we get online right now, under the hood is a huge resource of realism and complexity we could potentially tap into, we just need luthier to wake up to its importance. |
Quote:
|
Agreed, it looks rushed beyond belief. Will we see new one in CLOD right not just BOM?
|
After some of the onslaught of moderator goodness appears to be over nothing seems to have changed after all.
Personally I find it scary that so many people cling to the "plane performance" straw as that is only a very small part of the whole picture. What do you really want from the game? Total balance? Then play 109vs109 or Spit vs. Spit and show if your skills are where your mouth is. Alternatively go and play some other "instant hero" game like Super Mario and stomp the hell out of some slowly moving carrots or other weird stuff. Realism? Then keep in mind that a game can only do so much to re-create and simulate the situation, maybe 25% max., and that it means often ending on the ground - especially when going up against human opponents. Personally I also have to wonder what all that "taking sides" is about. Do some of you guys want to re-create the war? How about you meet privately on a remote island and just go at it? This is just a game and history can only go so far. In fact this part of history is over. As for me I enjoy flying and to be frank the plane doesn't really matter to me. Not even the setting. My favorite "real" plane isn't even in the game and even if it would be... what's the point of all this anger boiling up? I'm German but I like other planes as well, in fact I fly other stuff more than German planes (including space sim/games). No need to constantly take sides - it just spoils the fun and limits your options. We're all just humans from Earth. Still, I believe they should strive to make the planes handle similar to the real thing. It can't be simulated perfectly of course but the game should try to be close. And after that? It's mostly pilot skill and pilot equipment. Ok, so one plane is 5% faster or whatever, big deal... If I get home from work I'm sometimes so freaking tired that my reaction time is like 1000% slower. Or if I'm chasing someone but need to pee. I vibrate and jump around but my precision is down the drain already. :grin: What about guys with hardware issues? No head tracking, crappo joysticks etc.? What about visual impaired or hearing impaired? Are all of you the perfect health youth pilots that flew the originals? Are you always in perfect shape when flying online? Do you die when you get shot, do you have to deal with the stress and hormones, fear, sleep deprivation, bad food, being apart from your family, seing friends and comrades die all the time etc.? Can you actually be certain that your failure was due to your planes limitations or are you simply a not so great pilot? Why is it that people stop liking a plane as soon as it turns out that there is no ONE MAGIC MANEUVER TO KILL THEM ALL. This could be a much longer text wall, literally. But in short words:
Also here's another update in case you missed it: The war is over. It can't and shouldn't be re-created for many obvious reasons. (such as not having the luxury of playing games e.g.) :rolleyes: Sometimes it feels as if some are forgetting the circumstances the real pilots and planes went through during wartimes which ultimately lead to the results we have today. |
I like the esthetics they were trying to achieve with the UI in CoD. The functionality is what could use the work. I'd not mind a combination of an updated QMB as in IL2:1946 and this, but I'd settle for the former without combination if it's not possible.
Oh, BTW 1C team - Thanks for the efforts. They are appreciated and I, like many, are looking forward to the improvements this new beta gives and to the future of CoD. |
Quote:
So, this quoting is useless, what we need are hard facts: ie performance charts and that's it. There are many things you have not mentoned in there, or some you got wrong: there's a big difference between left and right turn for a 109vsSpit fight. Also, 109 had actually better roll rate, and so on.. Regarding for losing the BoB, again you got many things wrong: actually, the RAF pilots were even more used and ruined than LW ones, rotation and all. And it was mostly lost because the order was given two months before getting the damn fuel drop tanks, which would extend the LW fighters battle allowed time over england with at least half an hour, and that would have changed everything. Of course, the tactical roles switching (from lose high altitde escort to close escort) also had a big percent in this. LW shoud have kept fighters spit into two teams: one close escorting, to keep the RAF from downing too many bombers, and a high alt one, to bounce on the RAF trying to reach the bombers. And no one is liking DF servers. They are totally off when it comes about simulating the war, exactly because the tactical briefing an requirements of most actual mission would greatly change the battle start situation. You must not forget how actually these weapons appeared: from the need.. bombers were needed to destroy tactical and then strategical objectives. fighters appeared to hunt down those bombers. escort misssions to have your own bombers protected against enemy's hunters. and so on.. |
Quote:
Secondly, at no point have I suggested the lack of hedgerows and decals spoils the sim. The lack of a BoB aspect spoils the sim. I can't enjoy anything near the gameplay that BoB2 has to offer (currently). If I fly CloD for the graphics, I want it to be perfect. The landscape can be improved, the decals, the campaign, the AI, the missions, the weather etc etc. A lot has to be done for an immersive BoB experience. Now it looks like the community will have to achieve this. Yes you might ask me to move onto another sim, but why? I love having the choice, and I can recognise how good CloD could be. A channel scrap doesn't satisfy me. Additionally, this discussion only stemmed from your questioning of the teams resources for the BoB. The fact they sought community information quashes your argument completely. You'd already blown holes in it; now you're trying to throw it into extinction. My comments on the landscape, decals et al weren't game-spoiling matters for me; they were areas which showed the teams limitation. Not bad by any standards, but elements which teams of community 'experts' would happily enjoy re-touching. Hence why community support and expansion for CloD (working alongside other title) will be brilliant. |
Quote:
first, Me 109's of the BoB era are less able to hit Spitfires they are chasing (from straight 6 o'clock position) in tight right hand turn because they can't turn inside the spitfire in stern attack. the spitfire had a higher rate of turn and a smaller turning circle than the Messerschmitt (presuming both planes were flown by similarly experienced pilots, each kmowing how to exploit their machine strength and play on the opponents weakness).iirc the spitfire also preferred the right hand turn compared to the left, because the engine torque provided an advantage in that direction (please have some experten confirm or refute this last part) a spiral climb is something completely different. this was used very successfully by experienced 109 pilots throughout most of the war (and i have used it successfully online in the old il2 series, with great satisfaction :) ). the critical factor is that both lead and chase plane must be at roughly the same speed when you start your spiral climb, and the spiral must be executed by the leading 109 in the tightest steepest spiral possible. predictably the chasing spitfire or hurricane cant get enough lead on you to aim correctly and get a deflection shot (when they pull the stick to much in trying, they stall out), and it can take a while for the 109 to get out of trouble (so not a good idea to use when there are multiple reds zooming around, but effective even if you have a conga line of chasing reds behind you ). the effectiveness of the maneuvre is based on the fact that the 109 has that little advantage in climb that allowed it to sustain a banked climb which the RAF planes were unable to match. it's a slow fight in the sense that it takes time for the chasing plane to be out-turned (unusual) or getting them to stall out (most common result, and is what you hope for). once you see the chasing plane stall out and drop back, you stomp full on the rudder and do a hammerhead in your 109, with the result you end up right on the tail of the plane that was chasing you (whom is still flying very slow and barely starting to regain speed, so is not very maneuverable), giving you an easy kill. when done correctly it is one of the most satisfying victories, and it frustrates the heck out of the red pilot that was chasing you |
Quote:
|
Quote:
point being of course, that we are presuming it is a matchup between equally expert pilots, each knowing how to fully exploit the strength/weaknesses of their own plane and that of their opponent in the 109. generally speaking, the only times a 109 pilot could get away with this is if it was against an inexperience spitfire pilot who wasnt able/willing to push his own machine to the limit. with both machines at their turning limits, the 109 lost out in this maneuvre please provide references to your unusual claim, and dont use single anecdotal statements from one individual to try and resolve it. what i stated is generally accepted knowledge on both sides of the debate |
Ive seen that interview and heard that the 109 could turn inside a spit - no problem. However I think its circumstanstial... For example if a Spit is in a constant horizontal turn a 109 above could dive in vertical rolling inside the spit and shoot. Essentially having "turned" inside the spit. Allot of fear and adrenaline in war, its not so good for the memory.
The spitfire and the 109 ar both great fighters! Anyway. The OP. Great update! |
Me 109 E:
"During what was later called the 'Battle of Britain', we flew the Messerschmitt Bf109E. The essential difference from the Spitfire Mark I flown at that time by the RAF was that the Spitfire was less manoeuvrable in the rolling plane. With its shorter wings (2 metres less wingspan) and its square-tipped wings, the Bf 109 was more manoeuvrable and slightly faster. (It is of interest that the English later on clipped the wings of the Spitfire.) For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them. This is how I shot down six of them." - Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories. Source: Messerschmitt Bf109 ja Saksan Sotatalous by Hannu Valtonen; Hurricane & Messerschmitt, Chaz Bowyer and Armand Van Ishoven. Me 109 E: "Personally, I met RAF over Dunkirk. [During this] battle not a single Spitfire or Hurricane turned tighter than my plane. I found that the Bf 109 E was faster, possessed a higher rate of climb, but was somewhat less manouverable than the RAF fighters. Nevertheless, during the campaign, no Spitfire or Hurricane ever turned inside my plane, and after the war the RAF admitted the loss of 450 Hurricanes and Spitfires during the Battle of France." In the desert there were only a few Spitfires, and we were afraid of those because of their reputation from the Battle of Britain. But after we shot a couple of them down, our confusion was gone." - Herbert Kaiser, German fighter ace. 68 victories. "Unexperienced pilots hesitated to turn tight, bacause the plane shook violently when the slats deployed. I realised, though, that because of the slats the plane's stalling characteristics were much better than in comparable Allied planes that I got to fly. Even though you may doubt it, I knew it [Bf109] could manouver better in turnfight than LaGG, Yak or even Spitfire." - Walter Wolfrum, German fighter ace. 137 victories. |
What is up here? I just can hear again whining about anything, although this is a thread for which we are waiting a long time now.
@philip.ed: Me (and also many other guys) do not care about this accuracy for now. As David already said: It is accurate enough! If not, then built your own map and play it, sleep on it, sell it or whatever. I do not know, what this point has to do with this update post!?! Or is this post saying: "Please talk about the accuracy of the channel map or about the not released FM!" ??? The map looks okay and this is the last thing to complain about, because we have other problems. Simply just one thing: Open another thread, state your problem and work on it! I can also complain about the new churches and the shape of the bell, which is perhaps not accurate, but I would simply feel like a little whining kid, if I complain about such a stupid, unimportant thing! I just see so much posts with content, which shouldn't be interesting now or since the game is fixed. Nobody knows the FM yet, and you already complain about a post from luthier, where he just metioned "up to" 60 mph speed loss of the spit? Please fly it first and then judge (simple as that!!!). And now, people already felt free to evaluate this without any knowledge? HEY, WAKE UP!!! Do us a favour and wait until you have flown it. And please don't whine again and state your problems in a seperate thread and additionally in the community bug tracker. Everybody is interested in your complains, but not just on the basis of your thoughts. Thoughts do not matter -> Please give them facts!!! And this is only possible, if you work with the new patch (as soon as it is released) and find out. BUT PLEASE NOT NOW! It is always the same with flight model. What should the "blue" flyers say about the late war scenarios? They will have the worse equipment! Should they also complain about something, before they actually flew it? I just say: "OMG, what a sh... conversation up to now!!!" I am also fed up with the whole SLI and AA party: SLI = You know, that you will get problems with many games as soon as you setup a SLI/Crossfire system. So live with it as soon as it is fixed. And I personally think, that these "framerate fixed" guys just do not know, what they made with their computers and are now complaining everywhere, although they know the problem before buying it. There are simply too much limits right now, that prevent to use a fully satisfying SLI setup (technically). And the fact, that SLI means less money for nvidia or ati, because old gfx cards will stay longer in the user systems, should let you understand, that they would never support this feature to the maximum. I am afraid, that you will always have to live with this fact. And also get the fact, that it will always be better to buy a single graphics card to avoid annoying SLI and Crossover problems. In my point of view, SLI mainly is used by the freaks to fight each other with high frame rates and not because you want to upgrade an old system. Sorry, but everyone, who buys an additional old card to prevent getting low fps, is simply on a totally wrong way. (Triple Monitor Setup could be another case) Concerning AA: This is an appreciated feature, but it comes, when it comes! And it is not that necessary and for me totally out of scope, since full picture AA methods are available without that big impact on performance. FXAA seems interesting and works in CloD. So use such things (or injection tools like ENB series?) instead of asking real AA support again and again and again. Within the last 2-3 days, this question was asked about 20 times. So, this is again not a priority problem for most of us. So stop filling all posts with AA questions. I think, AA could be a problem for spotting plane dots. So, I pilot, who wants to compete with the best, will not use AA, when this happens. I am simply fed up here with people talking about things, which do not belong to a thread (although I am doing the same right now :) ). The key of my quickly written post: 1.) Stop whining until you get the patch. 2.) Stop whining about not added features, because you alread know it. 3.) STOP WHINING in general and take part in the community to SOLVE problems, but you do not help with whining and spamming. I miss the good old Sturmovik community several years ago. They just were not crying so unsorted and just tried to help developing the game over years. :( I simply think, that here are currently several gamers, who are simply not knowing, that all these posts do not help us. This is simply not informative and completely unsorted. And so much information unsorted = WASTE, because nobody can track or even see all things!!! Sorry for my english, but it is not my native language and it was written as quick as possible. Anyone who thinks, that he is meant: I am not looking this post anymore and will not answer again. I want to get information and not argue! But it was time for me, to whine against you. :) There is a partly destructive community is establishing here, which I do not like. |
Stublerone
Quote:
|
If the 109 or the Spit could out turn the other was really of little to no consequence in BOB. Both were equally bad at the most important quality-range. Most likely they made one pass and both TURNED for home.Ironically, range is one factor that would seem difficult to model accurately. you can check the cruising range, however this is substantially decreased under the stress an engine endures in combat conditions. Not to mention less than ideal maintance conditions, supply shortages etc.
|
Exactly, I just don't get it why so many people here are loudly complaining as like they are flying the revised FM since 3 months.
Guys, they were talking about a MAXIMUM loss of 20 mph (hurri) respective 60mph (Spit II) in SOME circumstances. This dont mean that you lose 20 or 60 mph in general.... Apart from that some people who really thinks that the Hurricane was the 109s deadliest opponent and every LW ace is still shaking when he thinks of the might of a Hurricane in BoB makes me wonder. Guess it has a reason why they should care for the bombers and the Spitfires for the fighter escort and not vice versa. In addition the whole discussion of balance vs realism irritates me. I thought the vast majority here wants to play a SIMULATION? :confused: the question of balance vs. realism is nonexistent for me. If the majority of historical sources say that the hurri was the 109s great nemesis, so be it. I have no problem with that. But if the actual sources say otherwise, you should accept that for the sake of this SIMULATION! ;-) Just give the devs the time to expand and improve the engine and you will get your realistic formations of bombers etc ASAP. The worst thing would be then to have a balanced planeset. Just my 2 cents. Looking forward to the patch! :) |
Quote:
The pilot who shot down the other, his own aircraft was clearly better. What was the other pilot training, aircraft status, situation before the fight, and energy levels, no one know. Therefore, you can read memories from pilots who overturn the enemy plane. Maybe the other pilot can't handle the high G loads, or it was damaged or full of fuel. It is possible that it was only a lower alt, and his potential energy was less when the fight started. Hundreds of tiny circumstances which might affect the outcome of the battle. This is what both sides can be read in the memoirs. Interesting reading, but it is wholly inappropriate to technical analysis. Fortunate that there are tests, in which clearly describe what the aircraft was capable of. (of course, possible to argue that the test pilot how knew the plane, or what was the plane condition :grin:) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Mmm, I've been waiting for the day when the main fighting is about the Spitfire vs 109 performance in the game versus tons of obscure references instead of performance and bugs in the game :) A good sign!
|
Quote:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...ricane-109.pdf |
Quote:
|
Awesome! Can't wait for the patch, now that its been improved im actually looking forward to the sequel :) Keep it up!
|
Quote:
Interest test, who was the 109 pilot? I mean, the Hurri find himself behind the 109 after couple of hard turn, but what doing the 109? why not using trimm in the section 6? If he was newbie 109 pilot, dared to pull the stick until the leading edge flap open? (not a word on this subject). The German aces have said, doghfight in the 109 was started, when the slats out :cool: ... Te conclusion is: The 109 faster 30-40 mph, outclimb, and initially outdive the Hurri. But the Hurri turning ability is better (with these two pilot). This is true in the game... or not? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I dont know what was the RLM standards, in the Royal Hunagarian Air Force, the 190 was used as Jabo planes. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
The next step is to go online and find a half-dozen active servers to choose from, some so full that you have to wait to join them. |
Quote:
|
What I have to say once more in my opinion: The BoB event in the war was the at least most boring war place. So the game is difficult to fill with immersive content, as it was simply not the big war, only showing each other the strength. Germany wanted to make themselves bigger and Britain tried to get time, until americans election was finished and they could join the WW2 (sure also other stuff, that leads to that).
I like the map and its landscape, but I simply do not like the Battle of Britain as a scenario. I am really looking forward to the Eastern front, at least when we get a good net code and a great bunch of vehicles on the map. The possibilties for immersive flights are much bigger than BoB. I also prefer a later planeset. And later on, the clans can argue again about realistic or balanced planesets in their coops or missions. So, everything is okay so far. |
Quote:
- it was a more stable gun platform - it had heavier gun armaments at the start of BoB compared to the spitfire - it could stand (slightly) heavier damage then the spitfire from german bomber defensive guns - it was less fast and less agile then the spitfire, so significantly less competitive with the 109's, so by default it was relegated to the bomber interception role (out of the 2 choices the RAF had) |
Quote:
Just google '303 squadron battle of britain' and you'll find loads of info. Here's the page from wonderful wiki though, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._303...ghter_Squadron |
Quote:
The Spitfire roll rate was improved dramatically with metal ailerons. The 109 could only out roll the Spitfire at low speeds, at high speeds it locked up. At present in the game the controls for the 109 don't seem to lock up anywhere near as much as they should. Hopefully this will get fixed. I don't know if this graph represents fabric or metal ailerons http://www.spitfireperformance.com/bank45.gif "The RAE reported: "At 400 m.p.h. the Me.109 pilot, pushing sideways with all his strength, can only apply 1/5 aileron, thereby banking 45 deg. in about 4 secs.; on the Spitfire also, only 1/5 aileron can be applied at 400 m.p.h., and again the time to bank is 45 deg. in 4 secs. Both aeroplanes thus have their rolling manoeuvrability at high speeds seriously curtailed by aileron heaviness." |
Quote:
We have a saying in England. "Try not to confuse your in game tactics with flight log reports from actual pilots at the time in real aeroplanes" I know what a rope a dope is thanks. |
Quote:
|
Uups, wrong thread. Very sorry.
|
Originally Posted by Frequent_Flyer View Post
Historically the Hurricane did account for more victories than the Spit in BOB. Historially accurate flight models combined with historical tactics should give all the combatants a fighting chance. Quote:
Salute to 303 Squadron Pilots ! http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...zjon_303_4.jpg |
I warmly suggest to open a topic in the "performance" section, where 90% of the latest posts belong.
|
Quote:
|
Frequent_Flyer i didnt wrote to you :)
I know something about Polish Fighter Pilots during WW2 :) and not only about Polish :) |
Quote:
Just a few things. Energy tactics are also dogfighting, and its the best way to keep you safe in a dogfight don´t matter if you fly 109 or spit. Turn radius doesn´t mean better maneuverable, it just means better turn radius. When you read of 109 pilot turning inside spit or viceversa, you have to know what speed were they flying, were they turning in the horizontal or vertical plane, at what height, etc. The 109 with the slats deployed with a experienced pilot could probably keep turning at slow speeds when the spit was about to stall and noone wants to fly at stall speeds. For those talking about replicate batle conditions, in 1946 are great examples. To me the more "as real as it gets" example was the June 1942 SEOW campaign, each squadron had precise objetives each missions. Mission lenght was 3 real hours, and for that you only had 1 plane, 1 life, 1 fuel tank, and 1 munittion round. My squad was flying axis, and the 109 fuel comsuption was a real problem, often we had 2 squads taking turns for CAP missions, were one squad will wait in the ground for 15 - 20 min, and then take off, go to the CAP place and the other squad landed and waited and then switch back, we were flying always at 50% throttle, and even during a dogfight you were trying not to push full throttle. Engagements were very short and as soon one group gained advantage over an enemy group they will run for they flak, the loss of a control cable, or a fuel leak was the end of the mission for you, and there was always a last minute enemy raid. If we get something like that in COD it will be awesome. When we get the patch you will se me flying the G50 :cool:and taking down you spit IIa :cool::grin: |
Quote:
But if you have any proof, please share, if the Hurricanes shot down more fighter than Spitfires. I found only this (or similar): "Both the Supermarine Spitfire and the Hurricane are renowned for their part in defending Britain against the Luftwaffe — generally the Spitfire would intercept the German fighters, leaving Hurricanes to concentrate on the bombers, but despite the undoubted abilities of the "thoroughbred" Spitfire, it was the "workhorse" Hurricane that scored the higher number of RAF victories during this period, accounting for 55 percent of the 2,739 German losses, according to Fighter Command, compared with 42 per cent by Spitfires.[39]" But there is no exact numbers, how many bomber, how many fighter... |
[URU]AkeR - Agreed!
:-P VO101 Tom - there were loads more Hurricanes than spits, this is why. |
Quote:
Keep in mind ,the pathitic range of the 109 required it to return to base well before its escort duties were fullfilled on a great number of occasions. Leaving nothing but the Bombers for both the Spit and Hurri to concentrate on. Both the Spit and the Hurri may have scored more victories over Bombers rather than fighters. Thats not a bad thing! |
Yet I believe more 109's were lost than any other German aircraft type
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
These might be interesting links.....
http://www.alternatewars.com/WW2/See..._LW_Losses.htm http://cz-raf.hyperlink.cz/BoB/stat.html |
'in encounters known to be between Hurricanes and 109s, the 109 came out the winner, shooting down 272 Hurricanes for the loss of 153 Bf109s.'
Which means 153 Bf109s were shot down by Hurris, of course. :) http://www.historyofwar.org/articles...ne_combat.html |
Nobody claim that Hurricane was better fighter then 109. But surly in experience hands Hurrricane could be effective againt 109 too :)
303 SQN pilots proof it enough. Also 100 Octan fuel and +12lbs emergency boost made a difference in low level combat alts too. |
Quote:
just one point zapatista, both aircraft had the same eight Browning 0.303" machine guns from the start. The Hurricane was a more stable gun platform because it reacted less to the recoil. It had the guns grouped close together in the more solidly constructed wings, four in each wing about 1/4 the wing length from the fuselage. The Spitfire was a less stable platform due to its guns being spread along the wings and its outer wing reaction to recoil or aileron forces. This mean that any flexing or twisting of the wings would slightly move/twist the aim point of the outer guns. |
Do appreciate the update...promising...
One issue I see that has really never been answered to my knowledge (unless i missed it) is the fact the Spit is not very maneuverable on the ground. I can drive the 109 around like a sports car but the Spit just does not want to turn right.... I cannot be the only one seeing this... I do like taxiing as part of the process after start up. ... Hope this was addressed |
Right on...some good news
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 11:30 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.