Official Fulqrum Publishing forum - how are these 109s turns 180 with out penalties?

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

- IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=189)

- - how are these 109s turns 180 with out penalties? (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=30787)

The only thing we can say with any certainty is that no one has yet posting anything that would/could be remotely considered as proof either for or against the realism of the Bf109 FM

Due to the limitations of the human sense observations from the plane itself, or worse yet, the opposing plane consist of too many unknowns to say with any certainty..

Unless the values are way off..

For example a Bf109 climbing straight up for 20kft like an F15 is an error the human senses could detect.. But the human senses are not good enough to even begin to quantify the error (say how big the error is)

That is the reason plane makers more so than not go to all the trouble of instrumenting a plane to 'measure' the variables during the test flight.. As opposed to relying solely on the test pilots real time (radio) or memory of the flight

With that said

When testing how realistic an FM is you need to do the following three things as a 'minimum'

1) Know what the real world values should be for a given test flight.
2) Be able to reproduce the test flight method and reproduce or account for the configuration used during the test flight.
3) Log the same or equivalent in-game data while reproducing the test flight in-game.

Than and only than can you say with any certainty how realistic the FM is..

And know that the acceptable rule-of-thumb error between the real world data and in-game data is about +/-5%

Note.. you will be hard pressed to find any real world data on the energy state or power of a Bf109 performing a 180°! Thus failing one of the three minimum requirements for a test. At which point you would have to 'calculate' in advance what the values 'should be' but that in and of itself can be a real can of worms. Thus it is best to limit your FM testing to the types of testing they did in WWII, in that you will stand a much better chance of finding some real world data to compare to.

Anything less than that is just opinion at best

PS you can log data in CoD using C#

You can counter the enemies low but make sure that you have friends flying higher. The difficult is to find a team that want to take different roles and fly that way:

examples:

you can do a low CAP since you have other guys flying high. I doubt that high enemies ll dive knowing that there are enemies higher too.

If they dive to attack they ll become nice targets too. You only have to join some guys with enough tactical discipline and put the things in practice. Invite some friends and make a plan: while i and 2 go to low CAP, another 4 go to a high CAP over the area etc. The enemy ll think to times before dive and give their altitude advantage.

The problem is to find some to fly this way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ernst (Post 403792)

The blue are less affected by flak because they have the high energy doctrine. Flying at high speeds over the enemy territory turn them less vulnerable to enemy anti air.

The reds has little excuse to turn and burn, and go to low speed fights were they are more vulnerable.

Always when i was shot down i argue myself. What i do wrong? Most o f the cases the answer is that i spent to much time in a fight and lost my SA trying to counter a single ac a get shot by another ac.

If you ask i am a pilot who fly better with a wingman. Acctualy my squad mate are busy but we were very succesfull in many virtual war like il2.org.ru using teamwork tactics. One of the tactics we would like to use is to send 2 or 4 fighters ahead over the target at very high altitude while the bomber climb to bombing altitude in a safe area. Once there we track for enemies. Our main objective is simply obligate the enemy leave the area or dive for safe. We put them in a defensive situation. Shot them down is not realy necessary. We dive over and obligate them to go to a low energy condition (diving to base, flaks etc.) We never folow them to lower to 3 or 2k. Once the dive we call the bombers that come high and do the job impunished. If the try to climb once they reack 3k or more we dive over them. This puts the enemy in situation of dispair and frustation. Desperate them start to make mistakes that allow us to shot them down. The key in my opinion is the patience to wait the right moment. You have to create a method or RULES OF ENGAGEMENT. and follow them always. Sometimes i simply send RoE to hell, but always when i join my squad mates and decide to fly under RoE i ll be not modest but we are very good. Fly RoE is very good for the EGO while the enemies go down in mass and your team remains untouchable. May you would like to see IN PURSUIT section 18.9 Engagement and Disengagement page 144. http://web.comhem.se/~u85627360/inpursuit.pdf

The secret of the dark side is this. If the Sith go open against the jedi they should be defeated. You have to use tactics and dispersion to reach the objectives. You have to destroy the enemy SA and keep yours to win the fight.

Yes, good teamwork tactics can turn many many situations. I also like to follow RoE. No.401 Squadron has standard operating procedures that are to be followed. They work but are usually not effective at defending against on the deck single bombers. You can't reach them in time. If you stay lower to reach them, 109s get you.

Maybe Goering should have sent all his bombers to England at 10ft above the deck. :P

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ernst (Post 403802)

This is the sort of thing I want too :) And yes, I'm trying desperately to get this going. Why do you think I started 401? :P

So yes, this kind of organization is what we need. I will keep trying.

Like I said many times. These are mostly just vent posts. Back to business as normal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GF_Mastiff (Post 403684)

I just watched a 109 turn 180 degrees and not lose power or energy?!

BS

I hope the patch fixs this and the under powered Spits Ia supposed to be able to do 310mph I can not get it over 240mph all trimed out! 25 % fuel and it's not doing it.

again Mastiff? You made such tpoic already ones :rolleyes:

a classic :lol:

Quote:

Originally Posted by GF_Mastiff (Post 403684)

I just watched a 109 turn 180 degrees and not lose power or energy?!

BS

I find strange that we have been flying this plane for almost 12 months and suddently, somebody makes a terrific discovery that no one had ever noticed before....
Impressive, one never stops learning...
Was it a left turn or a right turn?

Anyway, I am not worried. The patch will fix this, that, tripple fps, cure cancer, soothe hemoroids, whatever.

~S~

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ernst (Post 403802)

+1. Superior height + a wingman cure 99% of the current plane performance issues - apart from the G.50, which is seriously flawed in speed, climbrate and ceiling).

Cheers!

Quote:

Originally Posted by GF_Mastiff (Post 403684)

S!

IMHO that statement is way incomplete.

At what speed and G´s???

ANY aircraft can mantain what is called a sustained turn, in which no energy is lost. For a given altitude, airspeed and power setting (provided the engine power is enough) there is always a number of G´s which will give you a sustained turn. if you pull more G´s you bleed off energy (loose altitude or speed). if you pull less G´s you gain energy (increase speed and/or altitude).

It is a little more complicated than that, but that is the big picture. I recommend you take a look to the E-M chart concept. i.e http://www.combatsim.com/review.php?id=133

Quote:

Originally Posted by Insuber (Post 403832)

+1. Superior height + a wingman cure 99% of the current plane performance issues - apart from the G.50, which is seriously flawed in speed, climbrate and ceiling).

Cheers!

I agree, the G.50 is the only obviously porked plane at the moment. The ceiling of that things is just ridiculous. Why they porked a plane that was already porked by default is beyond me.:rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by addman (Post 403840)

I agree, the G.50 is the only obviously porked plane at the moment. The ceiling of that things is just ridiculous. Why they porked a plane that was already porked by default is beyond me.:rolleyes:

LOL! Yeah the Fiat G.50 Freccia was the first monoplane of the Regia Aeronautica, low wing, all metal. Not a complete underdog, but very handicapped against Spits and even Hurries in terms of armament, R/T equipment and engine. It took the skills and motivation of the Finnish pilots to achieve 177 victories for the loss of 41 Freccias against the VVS.
And it took the Mc.202 to partially recover the technical disadvantage, while the excellent G.55 Centauro and Mc.205 Veltro arrived too late and in too low quantities.
But again, the G.50 cries for an FM update!