Originally Posted by bw_wolverine (Post 414359)

I'm not talking about data. I'm talking about how the sentiment on these FMs seems to change interestingly whenever we get new FM updates.

The biggest anomaly for me is the IIa. So many people said "It's the only accurately modelled plane in the sim" and now it's being reduced and people are all saying "Well, of course! It's so grossly overmodelled!"

I have no stats or anything to tell the devs how to make these planes. I am not an engineer. I do not have a degree in avionics or aerodynamics or whatever. I am not qualified to have that argument.

What I do feel qualified to talk about is how odd this whole saga has been and continues to be.

There is nothing impartial about ANY of the player discussions about these aircraft, I think. On the Blue or Red side.

Not until I see a Blue player crusading for the increase in Red plane performance, or a Red player vehemently arguing that the 109 is too slow will I suggest that anyone here is really being anything more than self-serving with respect to the FMs.

Originally Posted by Insuber (Post 414354)

Too fast relatively to the other planes, mate. Far from me to start an argument about blue vs. red ... can't care less.
We missed at that time any charts of the game performances allowing to understand better the issue. And today it's clear that 109 was a bit slower and Hurricane a bit faster. But I agree that the common goal is to get faithful FMs of all planes, so I will fight to get a realistic Hurricane and Spit etc. as well.

Cheers!

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine (Post 414359)

Not until I see a Blue player crusading for the increase in Red plane performance, or a Red player vehemently arguing that the 109 is too slow will I suggest that anyone here is really being anything more than self-serving with respect to the FMs.

Originally Posted by Insuber (Post 414338)

(...)
On the other hand I agree that the 12 lbs boost / 100 octane fuel must be modeled, of course with a limitation on overheating and engine life as in RL, to correct the Hurricane I performance below 3000 m which looks excessively penalized, IF KWIATEK CHARTS ARE ACCURATE

Originally Posted by ATAG_Snapper (Post 414361)

Pfffft. What good will that do, David? Really? The devs have had a year to correct it, they've had over seven years to research it. They don't care. The fix is in. We get it. As Wolverine very capably outlined, the Red fliers will adjust tactics to accommodate the new FM changes. This is a game after all; many of us mistook this as a simulation.

To blame the dev team of 2011 is hardly the answer -- might as well blame George Bush while they're at it. Ten minutes flying the Spitfire Ia (including the warmup time) will tell you somethin' ain't right. Don't need a chart to figure that out!

Originally Posted by JG52Uther (Post 414369)

There is no red or blue for me. I would like the aircraft to be as historically accurate as possible.
Will be interesting if the game ever does Russia 1941, because the Russian fighters were death traps, and somehow I can't see that working out too well...

Originally Posted by Insuber (Post 414338)

No red pilots complained a lot about it, iirc ... ;-)

Originally Posted by JG52Uther (Post 414369)

There is no red or blue for me. I would like the aircraft to be as historically accurate as possible.
Will be interesting if the game ever does Russia 1941, because the Russian fighters were death traps, and somehow I can't see that working out too well...

Originally Posted by David Hayward (Post 414372)

If it's so obviously wrong then you should have no problem finding test data to back up your complaints. It may not convince the dev team to change things, but at least you won't look like you're whining (which is kinda what it looks like you're doing right now).