Official Fulqrum Publishing forum - luthier, the historical performance btw 109/spitfire/huricane is NOT simulated in CoD

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)

- FM/DM threads (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=196)

- - luthier, the historical performance btw 109/spitfire/huricane is NOT simulated in CoD (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=31122)

Quote:

Originally Posted by whoarmongar (Post 409343)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by 335th_GRAthos (Post 410529)

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

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

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by CWMV (Post 410608)

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by CWMV (Post 410812)

460 kmh = 287.5 mph

470 kmh = 293.75 mph

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATAG_Snapper (Post 410834)

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

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