Official Fulqrum Publishing forum
Page 5 of 7 « First 34 5 67
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)
-   IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=189)
-   -   Friday Update, April 13, 2012 (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=31097)

SlipBall 04-14-2012 10:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MegOhm (Post 409299)
One issue I see that has really never been answered to my knowledge (unless i missed it) is the fact the Spit is not very maneuverable on the ground. I can drive the 109 around like a sports car but the Spit just does not want to turn right.... I cannot be the only one seeing this... I do like taxiing as part of the process after start up. ...

Hope this was addressed


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

335th_GRAthos 04-14-2012 10:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osprey (Post 409223)
Let's put this one to bed shall we.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


~S~

335th_GRAthos 04-14-2012 10:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin77 (Post 409165)
Me 109 E:
"During what was later called the 'Battle of Britain', we flew the Messerschmitt Bf109E. The essential difference from the Spitfire Mark I flown at that time by the RAF was that the Spitfire was less manoeuvrable in the rolling plane. With its shorter wings (2 metres less wingspan) and its square-tipped wings, the Bf 109 was more manoeuvrable and slightly faster. (It is of interest that the English later on clipped the wings of the Spitfire.)
For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them. This is how I shot down six of them."
- Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories. Source: Messerschmitt Bf109 ja Saksan Sotatalous by Hannu Valtonen; Hurricane & Messerschmitt, Chaz Bowyer and Armand Van Ishoven.

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

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

~S~

VO101_Tom 04-14-2012 10:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 335th_GRAthos (Post 409314)
Thanks for these quotes Martin, I only knew the first one!

~S~
You know this site?

Messerschmitt 109 - myths, facts and the view from the cockpit

Jaws2002 04-14-2012 10:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 335th_GRAthos (Post 409309)
I will come back to that, new to me!

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

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

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




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

335th_GRAthos 04-14-2012 10:59 PM
It is twice the roll rate of the Spitfire (according to the graph posted) ;)


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

~S~

Osprey 04-14-2012 11:20 PM
It appears there's a lot you don't know Grathos, you missed something in the graph but you've assumed to the benefit of the 109. What a surprise.......

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

1.JaVA_Sharp 04-15-2012 12:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataros (Post 408518)
Please run closed online beta test to see if CTDs are still present. If you run open beta with CTDs not fixed and tested as it sounds to me now (knowing Russian vague wording), you will be publicly crucified.

@ all
Do not hold your breath yet. Another 2 weeks might be needed for online CTDs tests and subsequent fix.
I just hope this showstopper is fixed.

Chivas 04-15-2012 12:27 AM
My read of the situation is that internal testing has gone very well and they are broadening the internal testing to more computers over the weekend or so. This suggests the patch has tested very well on a small group of computers. Things can always be missed, but it appears, they may not be show stoppers.

GF_Mastiff 04-15-2012 01:37 AM
Lol good good I`m in PLaya del Carmen right now I will be back just in time to beta test.

Kurfürst 04-15-2012 01:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osprey (Post 409223)
Let's put this one to bed shall we.

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

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

"The RAE reported: "At 400 m.p.h. the Me.109 pilot, pushing sideways with all his strength, can only apply 1/5 aileron, thereby banking 45 deg. in about 4 secs.; on the Spitfire also, only 1/5 aileron can be applied at 400 m.p.h., and again the time to bank is 45 deg. in 4 secs. Both aeroplanes thus have their rolling manoeuvrability at high speeds seriously curtailed by aileron heaviness."
Note that the above information is a copy-paste job from a Mike Williams article, well known in the aviation community for its tendency to use manipulated evidence to further an agenda. In this case, the graph from the actual British 1940 report was cropped, hiding the fact that the (early) Spitfire (with fabric ailerons) required far higher stick forces to roll at high speed than the 109E.

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

http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/...s/image040.jpg

The full British trial report can be read here:

http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/...ls/Morgan.html

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

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

Can be read at full here: http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/...g_Aug1940.html

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

RCAF_FB_Orville 04-15-2012 03:23 AM
Note that the above information is a copy-paste job from a Mike Williams article, well known in the aviation community for its tendency to use manipulated evidence to further an agenda.

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

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

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

:rolleyes:

zapatista 04-15-2012 03:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin77 (Post 409165)
Me 109 E:
"During what was later called the 'Battle of Britain', we flew the Messerschmitt Bf109E. The essential difference from the Spitfire Mark I flown at that time by the RAF was that the Spitfire was less manoeuvrable in the rolling plane. With its shorter wings (2 metres less wingspan) and its square-tipped wings, the Bf 109 was more manoeuvrable and slightly faster. (It is of interest that the English later on clipped the wings of the Spitfire.)
For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them. This is how I shot down six of them."
- Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories. Source: Messerschmitt Bf109 ja Saksan Sotatalous by Hannu Valtonen; Hurricane & Messerschmitt, Chaz Bowyer and Armand Van Ishoven.

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:
Adolf Galland wrote of the matchup: "the ME-109 was superior in the attack and not so suitable for purely defensive purposes as the Spitfire, which although a little slower, was much more manueuverable"
and when he was being tasked with protecting bomber formations (rather then go on free hunts where the 109's could build an advantage prior to starting an engagement).....

Quote:
in a fit of frustration uttered the famous passage to Göring "I should like an outfit of Spitfires for my Squadron".
that isnt conclusive factual proof of anything, but since you are using anecdotal information from very experienced pilots, i am countering you with direct words from one of the most experienced and highest regarded german pilots of the BoB era, the master himself :)

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

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

CWMV 04-15-2012 03:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RCAF_FB_Orville (Post 409375)
Note that the above information is a copy-paste job from a Mike Williams article, well known in the aviation community for its tendency to use manipulated evidence to further an agenda.

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

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

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

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

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

Buchon 04-15-2012 03:37 AM
Guys ... there propaganda in both sides, don't fall by it.

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

zapatista 04-15-2012 03:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RCAF_FB_Orville (Post 409375)
Note that the above information is a copy-paste job from a Mike Williams article, well known in the aviation community for its tendency to use manipulated evidence to further an agenda.

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

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

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

Goanna1 04-15-2012 04:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zapatista (Post 409381)
mods please note: just edited the possible infraction causing wording out of his post :)

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

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

335th_GRAthos 04-15-2012 07:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osprey (Post 409333)
It appears there's a lot you don't know Grathos, you missed something in the graph but you've assumed to the benefit of the 109. What a surprise.......

The difference between you and I is that I am interested in the facts of the matter whereas you are interested in items that benefit the 109, ergo, you online. Please please please go away from here and spend your days on Kurfursts site which I am sure will have you most aroused.
"ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα"
Socrates (as quoted by Plato)


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

And my choice is the ignore button.

~S~

MACADEMIC 04-15-2012 08:53 AM
Why does every thread on this forum turn into an OT bickering fest? Very unappealing.

MAC

Osprey 04-15-2012 09:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RCAF_FB_Orville (Post 409375)
Note that the above information is a copy-paste job from a Mike Williams article, well known in the aviation community for its tendency to use manipulated evidence to further an agenda.

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

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

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

:rolleyes:

+1

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

Grathos, time to get the tissues out.

Osprey 04-15-2012 09:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CWMV (Post 409379)
Great post, but there seems to be something wrong as I don't see the original documents/scans that were attached to your post.

I know you wouldn't make an ass of yourself, calling someone else many horrible things, without having a point other than to slander someone.
Mate, save yourself time, what he wrote is true sadly. I have seen the wiki arguments, you can too but honestly, I don't want to waste more time with this maniac.

Osprey 04-15-2012 09:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 335th_GRAthos (Post 409398)
"ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα"
Socrates (as quoted by Plato)


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

And my choice is the ignore button.

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

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

RCAF_FB_Orville 04-15-2012 09:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CWMV (Post 409379)
Great post, but there seems to be something wrong as I don't see the original documents/scans that were attached to your post.

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

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

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

Cheers.

Out.

Verhängnis 04-15-2012 09:42 AM
The apex of human intelligence is displayed on these forums. Please tell me I'm wrong:!:

moilami 04-15-2012 09:49 AM
Quote:
in a fit of frustration uttered the famous passage to Göring "I should like an outfit of Spitfires for my Squadron".
Hmm, maybe he used the "it's the plane, not the pilots nor tactics" excuse.

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

Verhängnis 04-15-2012 09:53 AM
Perhaps he should of just joined Rudolf Hess in that 110 and flew to England for peace talks...

Flanker35M 04-15-2012 09:58 AM
S!

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

moilami 04-15-2012 10:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flanker35M (Post 409427)
S!

A very nice update thread from developers turned into a bickering fest with mud sling..once again. Can't you guys just wait for the patch and then compare the changes etc. I for sure wait for it and ready for testing with fellow virtual pilots.
Aye, it was a great update about everyone has been waiting for. Thus should be celebrated instead of whined on since after the patch IL-2 should be much better game and simulation.

JG52Uther 04-15-2012 10:36 AM
Best just to read the first ten pages or so of an update thread.
Ignore list is your friend. ;)

BG-09 04-15-2012 10:38 AM
Future BoM agicultural landscape...
 
The UDSSR under Communist rule have very extensive agricultural politics!
The invasion of Germany over UDSSR, began on 22 of June 1941.
At this priod the UDSSR government used planned economy based on 5-year plans, with extensive agriciltural operations and production.
The landscape have to be VERY different from the landscape of France and England!
At the moment of the military ivasion, majority of the fields have to be ploughed, and the crops have to be seeded, with crops at their middle phase of development!
1. This means, that the german tanks have to advance through a GREEN corn a half a meter high;
2. The wheat have to be LIGHT GREEN at this moment, not YELLOW, because at this latitude it rapes LATER!
3. There have to be extensive cooperative gardens of FRUIT TREES, of diffrent kind, with a white painted trunks.
4. A lot of irigation channels full of watter.

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

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

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

S!

Volksieg 04-15-2012 11:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madfish (Post 409141)
[*]If you want strategy play Civilization V.
I agree with everything you have just said, Madfish.... apart from the above! Civilization IV, The Total War games and Hearts of Iron series..... surely! :D

king1hw 04-15-2012 11:26 AM
Bitting my tongue
 
Ok I have said my piece about the speed issue and will just give it a go! I am however logically puzzled by the moves. Anyway see you in the skies and NO LAUNCHER ISSUE:-P. Mabe then those great programers can get busy making amazing servers.

king

Sutts 04-15-2012 01:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osprey (Post 409417)
+1

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

Grathos, time to get the tissues out.

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

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

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

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

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

fruitbat 04-15-2012 01:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin77 (Post 409165)
Me 109 E:
"During what was later called the 'Battle of Britain', we flew the Messerschmitt Bf109E. The essential difference from the Spitfire Mark I flown at that time by the RAF was that the Spitfire was less manoeuvrable in the rolling plane. With its shorter wings (2 metres less wingspan) and its square-tipped wings, the Bf 109 was more manoeuvrable and slightly faster. (It is of interest that the English later on clipped the wings of the Spitfire.)
For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them. This is how I shot down six of them."
- Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories. Source: Messerschmitt Bf109 ja Saksan Sotatalous by Hannu Valtonen; Hurricane & Messerschmitt, Chaz Bowyer and Armand Van Ishoven.

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

"Unexperienced pilots hesitated to turn tight, bacause the plane shook violently when the slats deployed. I realised, though, that because of the slats the plane's stalling characteristics were much better than in comparable Allied planes that I got to fly. Even though you may doubt it, I knew it [Bf109] could manouver better in turnfight than LaGG, Yak or even Spitfire."
- Walter Wolfrum, German fighter ace. 137 victories.
Which along with the numerous quotes i have in books by RAF pilots (Al Deere, Brian Kingcombe, Johny Kent etc...), saying how they could out turn the 109 in the BoB goes to show only one thing.

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

Bewolf 04-15-2012 02:06 PM
Let's just put it this way, those who got outmanoevered by their adversary didn't go home to tell the tale how they turned worse then the enemy.

6S.Manu 04-15-2012 02:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zapatista (Post 409376)
and when he was being tasked with protecting bomber formations (rather then go on free hunts where the 109's could build an advantage prior to starting an engagement).....

Quote:
in a fit of frustration uttered the famous passage to Göring "I should like an outfit of Spitfires for my Squadron".
Followed by:
Quote:
Of course fundamentally I preferred our Me-109 to the Spitfire. But I was unbelievably vexed at the lack of understanding and the stubbornness with which the command gave us orders we could not execute - or only incompletely - as a result of many shortcomings for which we were not to blame
Martin77 posted real pilots' personal opinions while what you posted is an example of how information can be manipulated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RCAF_FB_Orville (Post 409375)
Gentle reader, please note that this Hungarian Lunatic Kurfurt-Barbarrossa-Isegrim is an obsessive, compulsive, intellectually dishonest professional LIAR whom has been Permanently life time banned from wikipedia for a variety of offenses, including harassment, and various other flight sim and aviation forums for his habitually mendacious and calculated campaign of utterly unfounded, ridiculous revisionist bullsh*t. He is a complete and utter Menace to the cause of Truth.
Be banned from wikipedia isn't a bad thing... that site is full of BS; for example 10 minutes ago I was searching for the complete Galland's statement about the Spitfires' outfit (but at last I had to search it inside my book) and this is what you find on Galland's wikipage:

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

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

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

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

Buchon 04-15-2012 02:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bewolf (Post 409495)
Let's just put it this way, those who got outmanoevered by their adversary didn't go home to tell the tale how they turned worse then the enemy.
:rolleyes:

Al Schlageter 04-15-2012 02:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 6S.Manu (Post 409498)
Be banned from wikipedia isn't a bad thing... that site is full of BS;
So now you know why Wiki is full of BS.:)

6S.Manu 04-15-2012 02:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fruitbat (Post 409492)
Which along with the numerous quotes i have in books by RAF pilots (Al Deere, Brian Kingcombe, Johny Kent etc...), saying how they could out turn the 109 in the BoB goes to show only one thing.

That the planes were fairly even and that the better pilot could out turn a worse pilot irrespective of whether they were flying a spit or a 109.......
I agree... those pilots where young boys with one life alone, and could not make mistakes as we do continuously.

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

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

ACE-OF-ACES 04-15-2012 02:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Schlageter (Post 409502)
So now you know why Wiki is full of BS.:)
Bingo!

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

Insuber 04-15-2012 02:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fruitbat (Post 409492)
Which along with the numerous quotes i have in books by RAF pilots (Al Deere, Brian Kingcombe, Johny Kent etc...), saying how they could out turn the 109 in the BoB goes to show only one thing.

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

Martin77 04-15-2012 03:16 PM
i agree too. i think some people mustnt see it from just ONE side.
Theres a phrase it says "history was made by the victors" but before make a decission
please read what the other side think.
There must be a reason why the germans stil fly the 109.
Otherwise they turned completely to Fw 190 when they saw the great success against spits in the first encounters, but they dont

6S.Manu 04-15-2012 03:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin77 (Post 409518)
i agree too. i think some people mustnt see it from just ONE side.
Theres a phrase it says "history was made by the victors" but before make a decission
please read what the other side think.
There must be a reason why the germans stil fly the 109.
Otherwise they turned completely to Fw 190 when they saw the great success against spits in the first encounters, but they dont
An industrial production issue IMO... they could have replaced it with the better FIAT G.55 but the production time per unit of the latter was greater... (quantity over quality)

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

zapatista 04-15-2012 03:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 6S.Manu (Post 409503)

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

And I'm sure this is that happened in RL too... how many pilots did really used the full capabilities their planes?
lol, so the sumtotal of your contribution in a debate exchanging information on 109 and spitfire performance is, "the brave one wins", "'cause you and your bestest friend did it that way" ?

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

taildraggernut 04-15-2012 04:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zapatista (Post 409524)
lol, so the sumtotal of your contribution in a debate exchanging information on 109 and spitfire performance is, "the brave one wins", "'cause you and your bestest friend did it that way" ?

your in the wrong department here, maybe google "fairytale forum" to go post that nonsense in :P
Actually what manu said makes good sense, you have to be confident with your aircraft if you want to stand a chance, so yes....if you are flying evenly matched aircraft then the better or braver pilot has the edge.

6S.Manu 04-15-2012 04:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by taildraggernut (Post 409527)
Actually what manu said makes good sense, you have to be confident with your aircraft if you want to stand a chance, so yes....if you are flying evenly matched aircraft then the better or braver pilot has the edge.
;-)

zapatista 04-15-2012 04:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 6S.Manu (Post 409498)
Followed by:
Martin77 posted real pilots' personal opinions while what you posted is an example of how information can be manipulated..
you've missed the point on how to grade the value of "first hand" pilot information somewhere between high skool and your first year of college. you'r locked into the false perception that "he-said" "she-said" has any meaning here.

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

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

Frequent_Flyer 04-15-2012 04:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin77 (Post 409518)
i agree too. i think some people mustnt see it from just ONE side.
Theres a phrase it says "history was made by the victors" but before make a decission
please read what the other side think.
There must be a reason why the germans stil fly the 109.
Otherwise they turned completely to Fw 190 when they saw the great success against spits in the first encounters, but they dont
The 109 had better performance at higher altitudes than the FW-190. The Germans could not get the altitude performance out of the BMW radial engine. A significant disatvantage considering the altitude of the Allied bomber stream. It was not until the introduces the inline engine into the FW-190D did this get amended.

zapatista 04-15-2012 04:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by taildraggernut (Post 409527)
Actually what manu said makes good sense, you have to be confident with your aircraft if you want to stand a chance, so yes....if you are flying evenly matched aircraft then the better or braver pilot has the edge.
you are demonstrating a failure here to rationally compute simple facts

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

does that sequence ring any bells with you ?

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

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

Osprey 04-15-2012 04:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by moilami (Post 409425)
Hmm, maybe he used the "it's the plane, not the pilots nor tactics" excuse.

After all by whining to Göring he had a chance to influence Hitler regarding resources used to research & development of better planes.
He said it to wind up Goering who was being an arse to his squadron. This is in his book "The First and the Last", and in the same paragraph he also said that of course he preferred the 109 to the Spitfire.

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

ACE-OF-ACES 04-15-2012 04:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zapatista (Post 409530)
you've missed the point on how to grade the value of "first hand" pilot information somewhere between high skool and your first year of college. you'r locked into the false perception that "he-said" "she-said" has any meaning here.

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

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

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

zapatista 04-15-2012 04:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fruitbat (Post 409492)
That the planes were fairly even and that the better pilot could out turn a worse pilot irrespective of whether they were flying a spit or a 109.......
but the presumption for us virtual pilots has to be that we also start out by using the correct historical equipment that recreates their respective strength and weakness. once that is the case, then you can start adding in pilots kill level, degree of surprise, and a whole host of other variables

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

F19_Klunk 04-15-2012 04:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mazex (Post 409193)
Mmm, I've been waiting for the day when the main fighting is about the Spitfire vs 109 performance in the game versus tons of obscure references instead of performance and bugs in the game :) A good sign!
agree :)

taildraggernut 04-15-2012 04:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zapatista (Post 409533)
you are demonstrating a failure here to rationally compute simple facts

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

does that sequence ring any bells with you ?

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

i really dont care what side was "better" at this or that, we all know what the eventual outcome of the conflict was :) what i do care about, is being able to use historical tactics and maneuvers in this sim and be able to rely on the aircraft i am (virtually) flying being able to execute it. that is for me (and many others here) the "fun factor" of this sim, and why we keep pushing for it to be better and more accurate.
you are demonstrating a total failure of charisma, it really doesn't hurt to be polite.

=AN=Apache 04-15-2012 04:41 PM
After all, which of the two aircraft actually had a better performance? Analyzing the Dogfight itself and say that both acrfts also flown by experienced pilots.


Bf 109 or Spit? which was more shot down?

zapatista 04-15-2012 04:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by taildraggernut (Post 409542)
you are demonstrating a total failure of charisma, it really doesn't hurt to be polite.
just re-read your previous post and the context it was in (applauding manu's meaningless comment), my reply was tailored to the combined level of intellectual effort demonstrated

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

=AN=Apache 04-15-2012 04:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaws2002 (Post 408711)
I think you guys need to cool down a bit. You get it bloody wrong. First, we don't know exactly how the planes are going to stack up against eachother in game. The Mk2 spit WAS too fast. So was the rotol hurri at some alts. This are going to be toned down a bit. The mk1 Spit on the other hand will be better, so, online you'll have much more close to real world behaviour. Most people preffered the Hurri over the Spit online, wich was wrong. This will be fixed now.
I'd say let's just wait for the patch, test it and then talk about this please.
You have Reason ... Better wait for the patch to be able to cry (mimi):(

lol:grin:

6S.Manu 04-15-2012 05:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zapatista (Post 409530)
you've missed the point on how to grade the value of "first hand" pilot information somewhere between high skool and your first year of college. you'r locked into the false perception that "he-said" "she-said" has any meaning here.

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

on the other hand, if you can come up with some german or allied comparisons of both of these aircraft, then this would have meaning (and both german and allied comparison of the same aircraft can be compared)
I totally missed your point there. My fault!

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by zapatista (Post 409524)
lol, so the sumtotal of your contribution in a debate exchanging information on 109 and spitfire performance is, "the brave one wins", "'cause you and your bestest friend did it that way" ?

your in the wrong department here, maybe google "fairytale forum" to go post that nonsense in :P
In a turn there are limits the pilot has to be aware of: blackouts, accelerated stalls... he can pull the stick and go near that limit, but not too much.

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

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

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

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

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

But I could't in real life.

taildraggernut 04-15-2012 05:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zapatista (Post 409551)
just re-read your previous post and the context it was in (applauding manu's meaningless comment), my reply was tailored to the combined level of intellectual effort shown

i promise to bring be gentle and bring flowers next time :)
if it was a mindless applause I would have just said '+1' which seems so popular here, instead I gave a reason why I agreed with Manu, and made no attempt to ridicule you.

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

Osprey 04-15-2012 05:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zapatista (Post 409551)
just re-read your previous post and the context it was in (applauding manu's meaningless comment), my reply was tailored to the combined level of intellectual effort demonstrated

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

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

6S.Manu 04-15-2012 05:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zapatista (Post 409533)
you are demonstrating a failure here to rationally compute simple facts

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

does that sequence ring any bells with you ?

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

i really dont care what side was "better" at this or that, we all know what the eventual outcome of the conflict was :) what i do care about, is being able to use historical tactics and maneuvers with specific planes in this sim, and be able to rely on the aircraft i am (virtually) flying being able to execute it. that is for me (and many others here) the "fun factor" of this sim, and why we keep pushing for it to be better and more accurate.
1 and 2 are binded. Evaluations are made by tester pilots: they should have the same flight experience in both the planes to gave us a corrected evalutation. And those tests were made with airplane in different mechanical conditions...

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

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

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

What do you expect?

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

zapatista 04-15-2012 05:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osprey (Post 409563)
Your reply was incredibly rude Zapatista. Whether you did this because your grasp of English is poor or if you are socially inept I do not know. In future perhaps you would do well to think whether you would be prepared to say that to him in person before you post, that may keep your manners in check.
you are not one to speak here, with your abrasive self conceited meaningless posts directed at various people over the last weeks

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

zapatista 04-15-2012 06:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 6S.Manu (Post 409567)
1 and 2 are binded. Evaluations are made by tester pilots: they should have the same flight experience in both the planes to gave us a corrected evalutation. And those tests were made with airplane in different mechanical conditions....
there is even a step before that, namely the technical specifications of the manufacturer and the performance/quality of the components, eg HP the engine puts out, reliability of parts and quality of manufacturing (a big problem with some of the russian planes for ex), etc.. but as you correctly point out, "the proof of the pudding" is largely in what performance was then reported by the test pilots who flew the fist prototypes.

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

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

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

Insuber 04-15-2012 06:19 PM
As remarked by others (Manu, Tamat) there are some visual limitations of the current simulation which effect more the game than the 5% + or - of turning radius.

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

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

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

Cheers,
Insuber

SlipBall 04-15-2012 06:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Insuber (Post 409576)
As remarked by others (Manu, Tamat) there are some visual limitations of the current simulation which effect more the game than the 5% + or - of turning radius.

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

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

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

Cheers,
Insuber

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

Insuber 04-15-2012 06:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlipBall (Post 409578)
Have you added that to the bugtracker/feature list?...I have not looked there lately, but I don't remember seeing that.
Really? There were several threads on this issue. If not present, I will add it.

6S.Manu 04-15-2012 06:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zapatista (Post 409575)
are you all really just satisfied with "lets just imagine this aircraft is correct", and "its just the pilot no matter how wrong the machine" ?
Of course I'm not!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Insuber 04-15-2012 06:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by slipball (Post 409578)
have you added that to the bugtracker/feature list?...i have not looked there lately, but i don't remember seeing that.

done!

moilami 04-15-2012 08:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BG-09 (Post 409444)
The UDSSR under Communist rule have very extensive agricultural politics!
The invasion of Germany over UDSSR, began on 22 of June 1941.
At this priod the UDSSR government used planned economy based on 5-year plans, with extensive agriciltural operations and production.
The landscape have to be VERY different from the landscape of France and England!
At the moment of the military ivasion, majority of the fields have to be ploughed, and the crops have to be seeded, with crops at their middle phase of development!
1. This means, that the german tanks have to advance through a GREEN corn a half a meter high;
2. The wheat have to be LIGHT GREEN at this moment, not YELLOW, because at this latitude it rapes LATER!
3. There have to be extensive cooperative gardens of FRUIT TREES, of diffrent kind, with a white painted trunks.
4. A lot of irigation channels full of watter.

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

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

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

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

Osprey 04-15-2012 08:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zapatista (Post 409571)
you are not one to speak here, with your abrasive self conceited meaningless posts directed at various people over the last weeks

how about you mind your own business and stay out of what does not concern you, you have enough problems of your own without going to look for more
Yes I think it's the latter.

No145_Hatter 04-16-2012 01:57 AM
Supporting Crystal Palace is Osprey's problem.

zapatista 04-16-2012 03:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Insuber (Post 409576)
I'll give an example. One hour ago I was on ATAG - before a CTD :-( - flying on my Bf-109 Northward at 4km above the Channel, and got engaged by a Spit coming opposite.

After the crossing I went in a power climbing spiral at full WEP, 1.41 ata, while the Spit turned towards me loosing some of his energy. He kept lifting his nose some 200 m behind and lower on my right, trying to score pot shots, which he did, but on the fuselage. After some of this spiral climbing he stalled and went down spinning for some 500 m. I leveled and kept turning , looking at him to see his direction once he recovered the spin, in order to B&Z him...........when.........
exactemundo ! being able to use a correct evasive/offensive maneuver that utilizes the historically recognized strength of your aircraft is one of the most satisfying experiences in the il2 series since its inception.

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

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

Flanker35M 04-16-2012 05:01 AM
S!

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

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

Plt Off JRB Meaker 04-16-2012 06:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flanker35M (Post 409669)
S!

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

So if the viewing/LOD would be fixed too then we would have it as it should. Now you can have FM/DM down to the last nut and rivet but if you can not see things how will you use that? ;)
Totally agree...........at last someone has spoken some sense on here,well said sir!

Ataros 04-16-2012 07:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flanker35M (Post 409669)
S!

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

So if the viewing/LOD would be fixed too then we would have it as it should. Now you can have FM/DM down to the last nut and rivet but if you can not see things how will you use that? ;)
Please vote for the issue http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/153
(have to register)

PLebre 04-16-2012 08:45 AM
Salut!

How internal testing is going? Good?

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


Regards.

DroopSnoot 04-16-2012 08:50 AM
wrong thread mate, you want the main forum to ask a question like that, or maybe the friday update for the 13th April.

klem 04-16-2012 09:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DroopSnoot (Post 409716)
wrong thread mate, you want the main forum to ask a question like that, or maybe the friday update for the 13th April.
errrmmm.... this is the friday update for the 13th April :)

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

klem 04-16-2012 09:26 AM
Who is Sean?
 
Ummm a bit late now but I am wondering who Sean is (who provided Luthier with FM data) and what he would have provided.

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

Anyone?

Moggy 04-16-2012 09:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by klem (Post 409729)
Ummm a bit late now but I am wondering who Sean is (who provided Luthier with FM data) and what he would have provided.

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

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

Oh and I'm not Sean.

Insuber 04-16-2012 10:08 AM
I guess that Sean is addman who provided the G.50 manual.

ATAG_Dutch 04-16-2012 10:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by klem (Post 409729)
Ummm a bit late now but I am wondering who Sean is (who provided Luthier with FM data) and what he would have provided.

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

Anyone?
See post #29 here;

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...t=31099&page=3

addman 04-16-2012 10:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Insuber (Post 409741)
I guess that Sean is addman who provided the G.50 manual.
Nah, my real name is not Sean :). I think that Sean guy supplied the with detailed data on many different engines and stuff.

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

LcSummers 04-16-2012 10:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by addman (Post 409747)
Nah, my real name is not Sean :). I think that Sean guy supplied the with detailed data on many different engines and stuff.

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

Just kidding:)

Majo 04-16-2012 10:32 AM
I was wondering about...
 
I was wondering why BlackSix/Luthier would open the debate about FMs and so on, just right with the announcement
of the almost, almost, almost ready patch.

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

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

It is, and I think is the way to go…

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

Salutes Majo.

king1hw 04-16-2012 10:33 AM
LODs
 
On the disappearing planes:

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

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

Anyway waiting patiently for the ALL PATCH LOL.

king

Conte Zero 04-16-2012 10:35 AM
I am sorry for the stupid questions, but I have been away for a while, not using this game nor my Steam

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

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

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

by the way my actual version is 1.05.15950

Insuber 04-16-2012 10:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conte Zero (Post 409753)
I am sorry for the stupid questions, but I have been away for a while, not using this game nor my Steam

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

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

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

by the way my actual version is 1.05.15950
The patch is not yet published. In few days we should get the beta, you will need to download it and install manually. Once our beta test is done the patch will be distributed through Steam, probably with a 1.1 something version.

Cheers!

Conte Zero 04-16-2012 10:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Insuber (Post 409757)
The patch is not yet published. In few days we should get the beta, you will need to download it and install manually. Once our beta test is done the patch will be distributed through Steam, probably with a 1.1 something version.

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

klem 04-16-2012 11:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATAG_Dutch (Post 409746)
Ahhhh IvanK

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

Thanks guys, I feel better now. :)

335th_GRAthos 04-16-2012 11:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moggy (Post 409733)
I provided them with the pilot's notes, the FAA 1943 training film "Fleet Fighter" and a few snippets of data (mainly for startup procedures) for the Hurricane Mk.I. I just pray that they didn't use the performance data as I seem to remember they were for the fixed pitch prop and Hurricane Mk.Is when used\transported by the ATA (87 octane fuel).
Sorry Moggy, just to make sure I understand correctly what you wrote, you gave them the performace data for the Hurricane Mk.I and you pray they did not use the data (you gave to them)?

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

~S~

klem 04-16-2012 11:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moggy (Post 409733)
I provided them with the pilot's notes, the FAA 1943 training film "Fleet Fighter" and a few snippets of data (mainly for startup procedures) for the Hurricane Mk.I. I just pray that they didn't use the performance data as I seem to remember they were for the fixed pitch prop and Hurricane Mk.Is when used\transported by the ATA (87 octane fuel).

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

Moggy 04-16-2012 12:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 335th_GRAthos (Post 409767)
Sorry Moggy, just to make sure I understand correctly what you wrote, you gave them the performace data for the Hurricane Mk.I and you pray they did not use the data (you gave to them)?

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

~S~
You actually copied and pasted the reason why I sent in the data but I will reiterate again. The reasons why I sent in the data was for procedural purposes of the Hurricane Mk.I start up, in game we're currently using the start up of the Hurricane Mk.II. The fuel pumps in the Hurricane Mk.I did not start to operate until after engine had started, you had to start the Hurricane using the gravity (or reserve) tank. After startup, you would then switch tanks to main. Pilots would sometimes forget to switch tanks, take off on reserve and eventually have an unexpected engine stoppage (due to the gravity tank running out of fuel), it was called a "Gravity Charlie". This was changed later in the Hurricane Mk.II and they could start their engine on main.
The data I sent in also had some information not relating to the Battle of Britain Hurricane but earlier models.

Hope this clears things up for you.

Oh and if you want to...you can simulate a Gravity Charlie yourself. What you do is select the reserve tank before start up, switch the fuel gauge to either the port or starboard (both are main) tank. Take off and fly around for a while. After a bit (I flew from Tangmere along the coast and got as far as Ramsgate) your engine will start to cough and eventually stop but your fuel gauge says you have plenty of fuel. Pilots would often believe they had engine failure but in fact it was a Gravity Charlie.

Osprey 04-16-2012 02:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by No145_Hatter (Post 409653)
Supporting Crystal Palace is Osprey's problem.
As much as I hate West Ham and will laugh at fat crook Allerdyce when they flop in the playoffs, that 6-0 thrashing of the Seaweed last week made me laugh rather a lot :rolleyes:

Now, enjoy your time at the moment. As Brighty recently said, there are teachers and pupils - when will BHA ever learn? :cool:

Osprey 04-16-2012 02:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flanker35M (Post 409669)
S!

This is where RoF has the edge. The planes do not blend or disappear 500m from you.
No, they turn into mini 5 pixel X-wings which stay the same size regardless of how far away they are. It's rubbish.

No145_Hatter 04-16-2012 02:09 PM
So much for the lucky heather Gus bought at Selhurst...

6S.Manu 04-16-2012 02:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osprey (Post 409814)
No, they turn into mini 5 pixel X-wings which stay the same size regardless of how far away they are. It's rubbish.
It's still better if we have to fight... it's rubbish if our priority is to make screenshot at our plane and silly things.

So from these two I choose the ROF's one all the day. Of course both are not right.

The Insuber's episode is an example of why I don't fly IL2 anymore...

Kurfürst 04-16-2012 03:16 PM
I did test the Hurricane Mk I and the Spitfire II today. It seems further adjustments are necessary, as the update does not mention any tweaks in rolls rates.

The Hurricane rolls 1.5 times slower than it should at 400 mph IAS.
The Spitfire IIa rolls 3.2 times faster than it should at 400 mph IAS.

I did not test the rest but it seems likely that its true for the other Spits and Hurris too.

See my findings and the original documents here: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...30&postcount=6

Al Schlageter 04-16-2012 03:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 409832)
I did test the Hurricane Mk I and the Spitfire II today. It seems further adjustments are necessary, as the update does not mention any tweaks in rolls rates.

The Hurricane rolls 1.5 times slower, the Spitfire II (and probably all Spitfires and Hurricanes) rolls 3.2 times faster than it should at high speed

See my findings and the original documents here: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...30&postcount=6
How can the Hurricane roll both faster and slower?

Winger 04-16-2012 03:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 409832)
I did test the Hurricane Mk I and the Spitfire II today. It seems further adjustments are necessary, as the update does not mention any tweaks in rolls rates.

The Hurricane rolls 1.5 times slower, the Spitfire II (and probably all Spitfires and Hurricanes) rolls 3.2 times faster than it should at high speed

See my findings and the original documents here: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...30&postcount=6
So the hurri now rolls too fast or too slow?:) Dont get me wrong i am a friend of nerfs/boosts as long as they are somewhat plausible but you once write the hurri rolls slower and in the following sentence it rolls 3,2 times too fast?

Winger


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:06 AM.
Page 5 of 7 « First 34 5 67
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.