109 advice needed (climb)
 

Just now I shot up a Hurricane head on, then I started climbing away (I had E advantage) . I trimmed my E-3 perfectly, 2400 RPM, full throttle, climbing at 300 kph. By the time we were over France the Hurricane got within firing distance and shot me down.

What was I doing wrong? I obviously made a mistake, because the Hurricane was notorious for being slow, and sluggish, like a grand-piano with a Merlin.

Thanks in advance.

Welcome to the bogus 109 FM.
Hurri Rotol is a real threat to the 109's as is.

109's climb rate is best at around 250 km/h, depending of course on altitude. If You are trying to climb away from hurricane or spitfire You need to do it in stages, that will force their engines to cut out and stall eventually, but don't loose Your opponent at 6 o'clock he may be good enough to stay below You for a long time therefore I would rather use chandelle or just roll over and drop on him rather than trying to extend...

You don't do wrong, ref, the fm is wrong. That's all. I hope they fix it. Currently the Hurri is quite a good match to the 109 while the 109 should have a little edge over it. Or my history books are all wrong.

At 2400rpm and 3.5 to 4 pounds of boost the Rotol Hurricane can gently climb at 200mph. That is 20mph faster than you were doing in the 109. The Hurri cannot follow in a steep climb.

While I am strictly a Hurricane pilot, I do agree that the 109 is hobbled in speed, as is the Spitfire.

That said, against an aggressive and good 109 pilot, the Hurri has no chance if you stick to a strict boom and zoom tactic. The 109 can dive much faster and retain it's energy in the zoom out much better than the Hurri.

You do something wrong if he catched you. 109 is a wee bit slower as it should be but still has got the edge in speed, dive, vertical. I am talking significant advantage in performance - 109 is certainly better in if used well, you will outfly, outclimb and outshoot any RAF figher on ATAG. Sure, the FMs needs to be fixed but the general characteristics between RAF and 109 is there. What is weird, Hurricane Mk.I is faster than Spitfire Mk.Ia (same engine, same prop) and climbs better. What ElAurens says, Rotol Hurricane can be dangerous and can outfly you if the jockey is good. If you don't mind, tell me who the pilot was...

So what was your mistake imho? You assumend the Hurri was useless, but it was not. It was quite capable fighter plane in RL and it is so ingame. He probably cut your turn as there is no way catching a 109 that decides to run away. There is no way he would outclimb you from Co-E state or overtake you. But if he flew smart, he could have come close enough. Also, have you been using WEP / Erhoehte Notleistung? (1.45ata)? If you had an E advantage, you should have used it instead of running away. It is also difficult to look back if he's still there, crawling on your six waiting for you to slow down...

I fly everything - 109s and Hurricanes or Spiftires, been on both sides ;)

Got nothing more to add. Although I am not an Experten, if you stick to this rule of engagement you will be successfully against British fighters most of the times, specially cause they generally use poor tactics (don't want to flame the red side, but this is what I generally encounter while flying ATAG). Of course there are some brilliant flyers on the red side. I've been shoot down by Hurris and Spits with it's pilot's doing some of most amazing things I have seen in this simulation.

This is equally important.

BTW, IMHO the most difficult thing to achieve while flying these German bricks is discipline. ;)

Regards

I just try to keep my 109 flying 430 kph, i climb out before i engage and always keep my energy, when you fly the 109 you gotta realize the british pilots want you to slow down, so you need to keep fast and high, since they can't touch you then, there's no rush to shoot them down, just take your time and wait for the right opportunity.... catch one stalled out trying to climb up to you, or catch one by itself... but never do things your enemy plane does better than yours... well in the 109's case its more like... only do the one thing your plane does well... and thats climb at high speeds... try not to climb at stall speeds, while the hurricane can't climb with you at those speeds, the spit will...

and the 109 has a really small power band... thats true, but its better to waste power than not use enough power when it comes to not wanting to get shot down... screw the environment

I love this sim but the FM......:rolleyes: Here's a quote from Adolf Galland taken from an interview with him regards the allied ac during the BoB.

"the Hurricane was hopeless, nice to shoot down though!"

But changes are afoot (I hope!) and spare a thought for those of us (in Spits) who are yelling ' throttle back - can't keep up with you!' :grin:

At medium altitude and above (I'd say anywhere above 4000m) the Hurri climbs surprisingly well against a 109. If you want to do a sustained climb you should do what others have said and either climb very steeply at 250 km/h or very shallow at 400 km/h+.

Use emergency power ("afterburners" :rolleyes: ) and don't be afraid to run the engine a little harder than 2400. At slow speeds, 2500 rpm won't cause you to overheat with rads open, and you get a little more climb out of it in my experience.

The other pilot in the hurri was better than the pilot of the 109. That would be my guess.

well he wouldn't be asking for help here if that wasn't the case... obvious troll is obvious....

Not really. It's my guess he found out someone was back there when it was a little too late. Otherwise the outcome would be different. Blame the pilot not the plane.

Sometimes the pilot needs help learning how to best use the plane.

Best way to fly away from red planes is flat parabola
http://www.armedassault.org/il2/2klimbvsp.jpg
http://www.armedassault.org/il2/3klimbvsp.jpg

Are you sure you had E advantage? E is altitude+speed, and it is hard to judge speed of other plane sometimes. Also, through what speed range you went? Little mistakes in PP change accumulate greatly, and they are usually the reason why Rotol Hurricane catches BF109.

If you're playing the B&Z game, which you should if flying 109, what you're looking for is to make enemy spits and Hurris stall, because they'll follow you on your climb after your dive on them.

You do that climbing after the pass at full speed, radiators 1/4 open and turning slightly to the right up to the point your plane is about to stall. In that moment you deploy flaps and keep climbing, always watching not to stall and applying rudder to keep the plane flying and turning to the right, if the enemy plane follows you he'll stall and you'll have a clear position on his 6 if you then you close flaps and either turn or do a Hammerhead in that very moment. If the enemy does not follow you you'll have your E-advantage back and therefore keep your victory chances at 100% again.

Radiator and speed configs recommended before are my own of course, I'm always playing with the radiators in my plane in order to squeeze its performance to the maximum.

What you have to keep in your head is that your climb must be maintained at 45º - 50º degrees minimum and in some cases you'll need to pull the nose of your plane even higher than that because what you're looking for is to gain the maximum vertical distance to the enemy plane and the minimum horizontal distance at the same time. Not to say that in order to be successful with this tactic you need the E-advantage at the beginning of the combat, of course, if not they'll get you on your climb.

You just need to practice and feel the DB "beast".

Thanks for the tips, gents!

So I should practice prop management some more, but I was right in using 2400-2500 RPM and WEP. I should also practice my rad management- it was fully open the whole time.

I'll keep it in mind to climb either at 400 or at 250 - 300 was a poor choice :D


That being said. I fly all planes, Spit Hurri, 109 - sometimes even the 110 and something is not right.

Let's assume that the Spit FM is about right - then the Hurrican is way too good. To be honest I don't feel too much difference. especially not such a big one as described by personal accounts.

As for the 109 - somethig is wrong there too. When flying a Spit or a Hurri I'm on their tail in no time, they have no chance to escape, only to dive away. When flying a 109, it feels like a brick. Even if I'm gentle on teh stick (FFB) I shudder and lose altitude, while they accelerate in turns twice as tight as mine. Shouldn't the 109 and the Spit be a bit more closely matched? I know the Spit turned better but with sufficient E the 109 should be able to keep up for more than 90 degrees, shouldn't it? (BTW, what's the best turning speed of the 109? )

These are only my experience, obviously I didn't fly these planes 100% correctly, and I have no idea if the fella in the other crate was a noob or an ace.

Having said all this I realize they're working on the Spit FM now? If they make it better it will be OK compared to the Hurri, but will eat 109s for breakfast. Nerf it and it will be worse than the Hurri. Meh...let's just wait and see.

S!

I would wait for the FM revision Luthier mentioned as now the FM's are whatever..

Putting the FM aside, what makes the difference is the pilot m8.
A good 109 pilot will put you in serious trouble always, I do not think is as easy as you seem to have the feeling, maybe you got in a dogfight with pilots which are not "experten" or are not used to the plane.

Diving away its something you have to decide depending on the circumstances of the combat, and sometimes is the only way to escape from 3 or 4 Spits or Hurris that got you surrounded.

I always try to dive as the last option, always play E-game, that's the way to fly a 109 IMHO.

The key to flying the 109 successfully is discipline, and attention to details, get sucked into the British fighters game through impatience or not protecting your 'E' and you are easy pickings. The British fighters on the otherhand tend to be lazy to fly, as a good deal of 109's will get lured into their combat envelope through the above reasons, then it is just a matter for the spit to get inside them and hose them down.
Unless the spit/ hurri has a clear E or numbers advantage chances are if the 109 is going to get shot down it will be because he sets himself up to lose!

Cheers
Craig

As it was said as you aknowledged 300 for a climb was a bad choice.

400kph is a good exit strategy.

Another one is to use the superior slow speed climb of the 109 (historicaly true) and climb above the nose of your oponent with a speed gradulllty reduced from 250 down to 210. Use lazy scissor to force the Hurri/Spit to seat of their tail (high AoA) and stay in their 10/2hr. Tht way you will gain in 1 min 500m that is enough to roll over them. Mind that some Spit and some Hurri hve some kind of relaxed gravity and will be able to pull the moment you roll into them like straying rockets. But apparts those funny comics it a win win strategy. At least if you hve enough time to do the trick. 1 min is a very long time in a high threat environement ;)

WHat I do usually is to draw my prey away from any fight in a little box of airspace were I know there will be no one. I do that using the fast climb trick. Then I start a wide spirall to force him to get AoA (hence drag). Usually you'll gain 90° and 100m easiliy that way when the speed will hev been down to 250. Then use the Tac described above.

Note you can still do that in a Hurri. This tac work even with a fair amount of E and power disadvantage (I used that in my IL2 A8 against UFO Spits MkIX 2K (singing the Michael knight song)) :rolleyes:

Regarding the CoD's SPit banking : a spit banking hard can climb just like a spit wing level. So keep that in mind in any fight (more can be said on some individuals).

Great advice in your post Tomcat, except for above - I will translate for others if you don't mind:

Some Spifires and some Hurricanes are flying it smart and won't be trying to follow a 109 in climbing spiral to stall underneath him and fall off like autumn leaves. They will keep their speed high enough for a evasive maneuver (usually pulling up and turn appropriately to stay away from his guns.

My advice is - use vertical (what Tomcat and others said) and the sun (son works great in CoD) so he can't see you and / or evade your attack even if he keeps his speed.

No, it can not. The key for RAF is to fly maneuvers clean, trim well, be patient, keep your E high enough, lag displacement rolls, cutting turns, learn how to get close enough even for a brief moment, shoot well.

People keep saying it's the pilot and not the plane: but what if both the pilots are experten? What if a pilot use Hurries or Spitfires the way WW2 warbirds has to be flown?
BnZ and energy fighting is not a prerogative of the 109's pilot... above all during the BoB, when Spitfire and 109 were quite similar.

Because many problems come when the FMs can't reproduce the RL advantages and some notable tactics do not work as the pilot is expecting (what about IL2 1946 and his Fw190 Anton's acceleration?). There is a long time cadet in my squad that I often pick up because he tries to reproduce the manouvres he read on the aviation books, dying of course: after many hours finally he has learned to not trust the ingame planes since they are not flying like the real ones.
And of course there are actually many more aces online than during the real BoB! After all we have died so many times, learning something at every own mistake: I still remember the first time Jaws owned me in his Fw during my first days.

But of course in RL the "it's the pilot, not the plane" is clearly valid. During the BoB there were not some irrealistic aspects we have in the game: alarming sound radar, poor target visibility, missing fatigue, rubbery pilot's heads, complex EM and of course, fear of death.

In real life I would fly with the the better pilots, ingame give me the better planes instead. Of course experience can make the difference, but not if it's an "experten vs experten" things.

I suppose that in this situation either wins the best pilot or the one who makes less mistakes in that particular dogfight, regardeless the FM of the plane.

Piloting a better plane (or better FM if you want) only makes things a little bit easier from my point of view. If you are face to face with a guy who is good piloting his plane you're gonna have to do your best in order to shoot him down regardeless if the FM of your plane gives you a little advantage over the other plane.

+1 on tis mate!

But still, as for what Manu asked - equally good pilots in Bf 109E and Hawker Hurricane with Rotol prop at cca co-alt co-E = 109 pilot wins hands down (imho).

Here I would disagree. ;)

Sure the 109 can use his smaller size and slightly better control at low speeds in scissoring it out, but the outcome is maybe 51/49 for him and not hands down. Or he can extend after a nose-to-tail manouver and try to gain 100m after 5mins run in one direction, so he actually lost, given his task of controlling an given airspace or escorting some bombers, because he has left that airspace trying to gain energy. Otherwise a good hurricane can be on the six of the 109 in a nose-to-nose manouver of a what so ever good 109 pilot fast enough to have one good chance of hitting and the one hitting first in 1vs1 is mostly the winner and the Hurricanes 8x0.303 simply wins.

So I in the 109 would go for a hook-up manouver and in the hope the Hurricanes misses his first chance of hitting me and I don´t and then scissor it out, because I would define running away for a better E-situation as an lost encounter. I would be interested in how you would win against a Hurri on co energy hands down?

I think the Hurricane Rotol is the best plane allies have excluding the Spit II.

A good Hurricane pilot is well able to defeat a 109 in manoeuvres the 109 should excel atm.

You say "less mistakes" but if both the pilots are "identical" and as experten they don't make mistakes on their own then they are forced to reach the plane's limits, because, like you say, they have to fly at their best.

And it's in this case that the FM matters, where the better plane wins.

After all speed and service ceiling were the most important things for a fighter pilot (he wanted to fly faster and higher), and these are plane's feature.

I'm sure you know that an experten will not jump in a furball without analyzing the situation, he will avoid dogfights because an ambush is by far the better tactic. He will gain tactical advantage before the attack. If the players are both experten there will be a long fight at distance to gain advantage (both energetic and positional) because both will not risk to been fired at.
During the training session in my squad I can be an experten in the red team but if the cadet in the blue team is closely going to follow the orders of an expert pilot then he's untouchable... probably he will not kill me but surely I will not have his head... because he was flying in the better plane (better climber or faster)...
Because of this the training sessions are become quite long and boring... you know the result since the start of the mission: the team with the better planes wins. We start the fight at 2km and after 10 minutes we find ourselves at 8km.

So the plane's performance IMO are the keys in a fight between experten.

Of course, personal opinion, feel free to disagree. 109 is faster, more powerful (except at high alt), climbs better, dives better, rolls better, has cannons, no problem to push your sexy yellow nose down :). But if you slow down, you're dead. I am talking good 109 pilot against equally good Hurricane pilot. And this good 109 pilot will not even think about slowing down into scissors or turning with you in a Hurricane. He will scissor with you at high speed though, because that's when your Hurricane becomes a brick. When he's good and confident enough, he will outturn you in descending spiral with no problems at all - you'll be struggling in a Hurricane. He will be able to extend from this spiral (shall he not suceed shooting you down) with far more E than you and go vertical and do whatever he wants. Your only chance will be good defense making him waste ammo, but if he's not doing anything silly, it's just matter of time and you will lose. Just an example...

9 out of 10 duels in favour of a Messerschmitt ;)

I am talking 1 on 1 - aeroplane that extends horizontally or vertically is not losing, the fight is finished when one of the two gets shot down. Bombers don't matter! I am talking more fighter against a fighter at co-E situation, not multi-target enviroment.

I would extend (possibly vertically) and then I would repeatedly hit him with bullets untill he crashes and dies. If you start turning with Hurricane, slowing down in the process or if you're thinking about horizontal scissors in front of a Hurricane, you're dead.

This is quite hypothetical as co-E fights rarely happen and sane German pilot would extend ond come back with an E advantage (RAF dude can't extend as he's slower), but if we take classic duel, 1st merge no shooting, co-E, co-alt => 109 will climb higher and will possibly win the fight. Hands down that is.

I agree that until the flight model is deemed to be accurate its some times hard to use historical tactics. The other problem is the amount of tossa activity when large egos add their (cough) advice. Other than that genuine advice should always be considered and appreciated.:)

Very interesting post. I would be hard pressed to determine a winner of a 109 vs hurri (both pilots experten) on level playing field.

Tactics, counter tactics, gunnery, so many variables to consider. Barring the fm of the planes in CLoD, the 109 did have superior flight characteristics, but they could be out flown by an experienced pilot. Tactics is the deciding factor here, who uses the right tactic at that precise moment to get the advantage. I think of it like a chess game, all the moves during the game try to lead your opponent into a position for you to achieve victory, whether or not your opponent takes your bait is another story, or will he use your moves against you. Being able to plan ahead (as in chess) is a big factor.

Whiskey

It is faster and climbs better than Spitfire Mk.Ia, but on the other hand, it's much less maneuvrable. Speed makes Hurri more dangerous for 109s, I agree, but in my personal opinion, Rotol Hurricane and Mk.Ia Spitfire are equally good and capable, choice depends on preference of the pilot. (Some need the maneuvrability, some need the speed and stability). I suppose the FMs will be altered as having a Hurricane that outperforms Spitfire is bizarre :) 109 needs attention, too.

PILOT is not able to defeat a PLANE. If you talk about good pilot in a Hurricane, then he's defeating the (perhaps not as good) pilot in a Messerschmitt. Messerschmit as such (plane) is much better fighter than Hurricane (plane). Pilot can obviously close the gap in performance.

If you can, please do specify which maneuvers do you mean.

Whiskey, excellent post - I am using the chess game comparsion very often, too regarding dogfight. (1 on 1)

Yes, but I think that sooner or later one of the two will end up making one mistake forced by the good piloting of the other pilot, even if they are experten, it's just a matter of time IMHO.

Well, sorry not convinced, but no more questions. I suggest to the interested reader to read between the lines and not follow blindly hands down. ;)

I believe a dogfight might be compared to speed-chess, maybe with a 1 or 2 pawn handicap.

Couldn't said it better myself.

Fly without being seen. Keep your head moving always looking behind you. And communicate with other 109's on comms please! Set up a perfect shot with a second guy - it's a work of art. I often will just turn my head and watch the entire thing develop. Sometimes they tell me which way to turn.

If you're not on comms you're at a huge disadvantage.

It is a brick. That's why you need discipline in the equation. Speed is life, I will never enter deliberately in scissors or other TnB crap against the RAF.

Regards.

PS: Next patch will bring us concrete elevator like the flying coffins we had in 1946 (don't know about the current state of the game, cause I am grounded for +- 2 years, never to return again).

It wouldn't surprise me. :rolleyes:

:D :D :D

I'll start to develop an open source sim on my own if they'll ever do it!

Anyway I've not so much experience about dogfighting with these models (mainly because I can't see them): are Spitfires still antigrav machines?

Maybe not speed, but in terms of E-retention I have seen some questionable Spit behaviour, though.

Energy management was exactly the reason of my question...

Talking about a flying brick: if they will not change the FM engine we'll see again Tempest's spin and autorecover in 100m as in 1946... if they will model it, of course.

Good flying that is called ;)

As about the lads above - I would keep this interesting by not assuming what THEY might do with elevator. All the information is relevant as for 1.05, we all know (and hope) that FMs are subject to change.

I agree. But the problem here is HOW are they gonna be changed.
Are they gonna be changed towards the fake 1946 FM?. We'll find out soon. To be honest I don't think it should be so difficult agreeing to set the parameters of each plane in game according with the official performance tests of them, which were really extensive in WW2 and there is plenty documentation about them also, that's the way it should be and remain either if we like it or not, IMHO.

I agree.

The problem with the 109's elevator is also about the flimsy data: simply there aren't real numbers about the strengh needed to manouvre. Only pilots' accounts...

We all know that the 109 pilot could control the plane using both his arms since it was not a lack of efficiency of the elevators at high speed (as the simulated in 1946).

Developers need to be find a way to manage this, otherwise we'll have again a porked 109. And here we go with the pilot's fatigue simulation...

Like what? I find the spitfires to be easier targets than the Hurri currently.

Change is easy..

The real problem (challenge) is knowing what it should be changed to!

Ask 10 people here what 'energy' means and your likely to get 10 different (and wrong) answers!

Truth be told you will not be able to find much if any real world data on 'energy' values wrt WWII aircraft, not in the post war since/definition of 'energy'..

In that it wasn't until just after WWII that a real 'standard' test was defined to measure energy and the change in energy..

Up until than 'energy retention' was loosely defined as a 'zoom' test..

And those tests were done mostly in the field, read not a typical performance test done under controlled conditions

In summary, until you know what the 'value' should be there should be no talk of 'changing' the current value

like making a quick 180 degrees turn without loosing much speed. But I must be wrong, I've so little experience in flight sims ... :D

"Truth be told you will not be able to find much if any real world data on 'energy' values wrt WWII aircraft, not in the post war since/definition of 'energy'..

In that it wasn't until just after WWII that a real 'standard' test was defined to measure energy and the change in energy.. "

Not strictly true Ace of Aces. A number of Fan plots (Dog house plots) for a few aircraft in WWII exist. Specifically the 109E3 and Spit I are there.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit109turn.gif

Though I do agree that general EM theory was in its infancy.

Both the RAE and USN produced some of these. The RAE document "Notes on the dogfight" AVIA 6/2366 discusses sustained turn with respect to excess power and graphical depiction of this using using Fan plots.


a 1G Specific excess power (Ps) chart for the 262 exists as well.

To translate the comparison of Ivan's chart:

For ease of use I take the example of point P: TAS = 250 mph, turn at 3g.

Me109 (written on bottom line):

Phi = 71deg
time for 360deg turn = 25.5sec
turn radius = 1480 ft
angle of descent = 5.2deg (= 2000ft/min)

That means that for a 360deg turn at sustained speed the 109 would have lost about 850 ft.

Spit (type? some eye measure here so plus minus a tat):

Phi = 70.6deg
time for 360deg turn = ~26seg (attention: logarithmic scale!)
turn radius = ~1450-1500ft (I would have to measure it but I don't have a printer)
angle of descent = ~0.5deg (= ~ 190 ft/min)

That means that for a 360deg turn at sustained speed the spit would have lost about 80 ft.

This is albeit for 3g turns only. For a TAS of 250 mph a 3g turn is hence most energy preserving for the Spit. It would loose more energy in a tighter turn at this speed.

For 250 mph the 109 optimal turn load energy-wise would be about 2.3g but then it would also have increased its turn radius and increased its turn radius. Its 360deg turn time would then be about 35-38sec (+40% wrt Spit) and its turn radius 2000 ft (+30% wrt Spit).

Obviously the numbers for energy loss seem significantly different. However in a dogfight one usually never pulls a 360deg turn nor constantly at the same load. In a short duration turn the 109 should be able to turn with the Spit w/o loosing too much energy but of course not continuously.

The Spit also should loose energy if the combination velocity-turn load is above the energy-optimal line (the "Angle of Straight Climb" line). If it retains always energy then something is wrong.

No it is still true..

Note I said 'you will not be able to find much if any' which is different than saying 'you will not be able to find any'. Depending on your definition of 'not much' IMHO finding one or two or three tests falls into the catagory of 'not much'.

Bingo

In light of this, I think we can all agree that no changes should be made until we know what the 'values' should be.. Otherwise we are just basing changes on sim pilot 'feelings' which is NOT something I want my flight sim based on

I think we should make use of the data that is there. That is better than just leaving wrong things as they are. Otherwise you will never change much in the sim and then we have a fake FM.

The chances that the existing data is completely wrong is smaller than the chances of just guesswork.

Allways..

But what about the planes for which there is no data?

A little change in weight, horse power, frame (clip wing) etc can have a big effect on these charts!

But lets assume you can agree to some 'calculated' values..

The next big hurtle for the sim pilot is the validation of the values..

This is all for not unless you come up with a standard test..

And even with that you will than find most sim pilots are not up to the tasks that they can get the same results test after test (read repeatable Ala scientific method)

So even if you had all the info/data.. you would still have to contend with the whinny sim pilots that does not know the difference between TAS and IAS but has not problem calling the FM porked

Indeed. +1

I agree. But still a great opportunity to lay this photo out here.

http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/f...y/lebowski.jpg

The fan plots that I have collected over the years though few in number are:

Spitfire1A
BF109E3
Spitfire MKIII Clean (Merlin XX)
Spitfire MKIII with Full Flap (RAE study on Flap and its effects on turn performance)
Blenheim MKIV (RAE report "Notes on the dogfight)
Brewster Buffalo (F2A) with Flap and Clean (Exhaustive USN/NACA study on Flap effects on turn performance)

I am sure there are more out there but its just finding them.

That's pretty subjective. Unless you've got proof or a recording or some other form of hard data it's irresponsible to make claims like this.

if stating one's honest, yet subjective opinion is irresponsible or requires recordings, we should close 100% of the free world's forums, not to speak about newspapers, parliaments etc. LOL! FM is clearly broken, for all planes, so it is pointless to defend it, full stop (unless you have recordings, of course ...:D).

I'm not "defending the FM" so much as debunking bogus claims that the Spitfire/Hurricane are overmodeled.

It's been satisfactorily demonstrated elsewhere on these forums that the Spitfire MkIa is actually undermodeled. On top of that we've got the nebulous term "Energy Retention" which is entirely the construction of sim pilots, and not a real performance parameter dealt with by engineers.

I say that it's irresponsible because other, less knowledgeable posters might take what you say as fact, and then we get into the highly-polarized territory so familiar to 1946 pilots where stark lines are drawn between Red and Blue pilots. People get emotionally attached to their favourite rides and spew vitriol at any potential gainsayers.

I see your point, but I see no interest either in nursing people and hide the fact that the FM is incomplete and wrong. Red planes are porked as blue planes. And God knows how little I care about R vs B querelles.
I repeat it, I've no hard evidence, but after flying some 100 hours on ATAG I grew the subjective idea that the energy retention of Spit is strangely overdone. Not so for the Hurricane, imo. And energy and its conservation (retention) in my engineering mind is a very straightforward concept ... kinetic energy, potential energy, drag, you know, nothing exoteric nor nebulous.
Regarding the highly porked FM that we bought, the hypotetical "less knowledgeable posters" need just to consider some well known facts, so well known that I'm almost ashame to repeat them:

- the ceiling of Spit, 109 and all the other planes is wrong by 25%, at least, with 109's ceiling even lower than the others, in my tests
- the G stall is not modeled at all (not a minor detail!)
- the Vne is a vaguely modeled concept (I can dive from 5000 m with a 109 at full throttle without the slightest frame damage)
- the G-stress frame damage, so nicely done in 1946 from 1.09 on, simply doesn't exist in CLoD.
- some planes, such as the G.50, are penalised by as much as 30% in speed, climb rate and turn rate. Ask El-Aurens.
- Spit is limping behind the Hurricane, when it should be the opposite

I can continue, but I believe that a flight simulation is not one, with all these flaws of FM.

Cheers,
Ins

A good observation Captaindoggles.

I hope we can keep this discussion focused and open minded, and not devolve into Red/Blue fanboy-ism. I realize it's hard when discussing polarizing subjects like the Spitfire, and as we progress the Lavochkins, Japanese aircraft of all sorts, and of course the all time target of haters and fanboys alike, the P51.

As I said earlier, get the FMs as close as possible and let the chips fall where they may. Learn to "fly" the aircraft you like well and you will be successful. If you get shot down, and we all do, learn from it. Usually it's not because the other plane is "uber", it's because the other pilot had the advantage and more importantly, knew how to exploit that advantage.

As to our current plane set, in real life both the Spit and 109 had advantages and dis-advantages when compared to one another, yet they were a fairly close match when flown by competent pilots.

And so you know, I really have no horse in this race. I tend to fly the underdog airframes most of the time, as I am bored to tears with the same old Spits-109s-190s-P51s-P47s West Front plane sets. I'm most happy when in Curtiss Hawks, Hurricanes, MC 200s, Buffalos, Ki-43s, F4Fs, etc...

:cool:

Insuber, we posted at the same time... :grin:

Your observations about overall performance are indeed valid.

I have passed Spitfires in a gentle climb several times in my Hurri. Now there is no way to know how the other pilot is managing his aircraft, but if both are flown equally that should never happen. And yeah the poor G.50 is terrible, about as bad as the Blenheim is.

We have a long way to go in getting these planes sorted I think. In the meantime all we can do is fly what we have, try to post our observations in as unbiased a manner as possible, and most importantly, have fun.

Amen! :D

+ giving a hard time to Luthier until he fixes this mess :)

It's not a question of favorite ride/emotial thing IMHO, most of us remember the days Red's had Spits, in 1946 , that had those UFO/washing machine FM's and Klingon cloaking devices, in the other had Blue had flying coffins with concrete elevators (specially the late 109 models). That's why 80 to 90% of pilots (if choice was given) were flying FW's. the discussion/debate had to do with the approach MG made in both fighters. Hell the Spity could out maneuver/out climb/almost never overheat/ etc. heavily damaged. In the other hand, the 109 had paper fuselage/suffered from an abnormal rate of PK's and damaged sights/overheated (has it should)/ridiculous ugly big LOD at certain distance(vs the Spit cloaking device)/big basketball balls in the wings that created tremendous drag and therefore loss of speed. If you ask me 109's weren't porked, the problem had to to with the arcade Spifire (FM/CEM/DM) invented by Oleg and Co.

Regards.

What has this 1946 whining got to do with CoD? :eek: I flew late war 109s A LOT and sometimes Spitfires, too - they both had flaws and problems, but I never felt the Spitfire were favoured in any way as you describe. You say this, a pure Spit pilot will be telling me about the 109 rocket climb, Spit one granade no wing etc etc. No point discussing any of that here.... Cpt. Doggles said it all. ;)

Insuber's observations are spot on and I am really curious what the new patch brings us regarding the FM adjustments.

IMO the biggest single change in the way we fly and fight will occur when superior VR goggle are marketed at a reasonable price. Air combat is above all a visual game, as it stands now you really have no choice but fight mono on mono most of the time.

Having real scale visuals and better peripherals will throw the battle in favor of those who bring a team over those who bring a few 'Aces'. Performance will drop a few notches to the new found team tactics.

:rolleyes:

jg27_mc is totally right.

The thing is related to CloD because the FMs seems to be a copy'n'paste of the 1946's one, at least looking at the ingame FM data.

DM and CEM are totally another matter.

As Insuber writes, there is still nothing about G-forces, structure damage and mostly the nonexistent torque... and this time I think they should also do something about the pilot's condition during combat.
I'll always remember that the Tempest pilots were prohibited to stall/spin at less than 3km because that machine was a unforgiving flying brick. In 1946 I witnessed many times (both as tempest's pilot or his enemy) those planes going into high speed spins and autorecover without any conseguences for the pilot inside, of course at very low altitude. Look... this expedient has been used by many pilots (blue and red) to escape bounces and searching overshoots.

This does have to change is you want to call this a "combat flight simulator".

Are there few to none real tests? Use that little data for those related planes and translate it for the other models in a honest way. If you need ask for opinions from engineers... there are many of them here.
Open a ****ing blog to get informations and start open discussion about that. There are so many experts here to help you! If they would release a FM SDK I'm sure that many here would lose their time to test and tweak the planes.

More time helping the development = less time of whining on this board.

Then as I said before, there should be also a simulated pilot's condition inside: fatigue, nausea and G force related waggles above all. But this is another step.

Whatever... I am ok with your opinions, although I don't agree with them. Every single AC has it's strong and weak aspects, being that said, it was not the issue in my previous post. I am talking of a completely different perspective (more profound if you wish) you either have the ability to understand it or not.

If you like to have a combat simulation with airplanes modeled like an xbox/PS game, please be my guest. If you were unable to understand the importance of my post regarding CloD and the comparative between the Spit and 109. look at the following quotes:

I get chills just thinking how the approaches are going to be made, considering the early past... Of course if you think Spitfires were well done in 1946 comparing the complexity present in both fighters (Spit and 109). I completely rest my case. :)

Regards.

PS: AFAIK most of 109's if not all (regarding the same period) should be able to out climb Spitfires like in RL. In a late war scenario, as modeled in 1946, only the K4 was able to out climb (in certain conditions) the Spitfire... I guess I didn't quite understood that particular point of view, unless you were thinking biased...

What I was asking was: what has 1946 to do with CoD? Why are you even bringing anything that you think was wrong with Spitfires and 109s in Il-2 1946 into this thread :grin: I don't care what you think about my opinion, my opinion does not matter at all. Every Il-2 player flying both (blue and red) sides equally will see how biased and ridiculous these kinds of comments are anyway.

No, I very much enjoy that CoD is more game and less arcade (compared to 1946). I actually wish they would make it as hardcore as possible. Your opinion of 109 vs Spitfires in 1946 is irrelevant and unimportant. It's just your frustration fighting them on the blue side. Fair enough ;)

I still fly 1946 a lot and since 4.09m, the Spitfires Mk.V and Mk.IX (e.g. the ones in the stock game) were overhauled by Team Daidalos and they did a very good job imho - just FYI

I do remember though how they used to perform in 4.08 and never had any problem with them flying Blue (which was 60+ percent of the time). Very capable plane as it should be.

Last note on 1946 - you're wrong as every single late war Bf 109 is able to outclimb Spitfire and excell on the vertical if used right. (except that 25lbs. beast obviously)

----------------------------

As for the actual topic - as it is, Bf 109 is certainly able to outclimb any Mk.I RAF fighter as it should. FM need some fine tuning, there is a patch coming out soon so why don't we simply wait, try it and THEN comment.

You're coming here with your opinions from an different sim (which you don't fly anymore) and comment on stuff that has not even happened yet. Why? (that was my question)

My recommendation to any orthodox blue or red pilots - try flying the other side for a month or two ;)

My fear with the new patch is that luthier said they are looking into the fm of the spit but made no mention of the other planes. So probably we will get a spit 1 faster than the hurricane to make this right but the rest will stay where it is ...

I'm not bothered since to me this game is still incomplete: but having a well modelled Spit is a great thing... one of the many steps they have to take.

So six or so.. Out of how many planes in WWII?

Maybe.. but like you I have only found about six or seven over the past 20 years of flight simming.. But even if you could find ONE for each plane, remember, the fan plot shows the results at ONLY ONE ALTITUDE! Typically somewhere between 10 to 15kft

Thus it is safe to say that at some point 'we' will have to trust the math (FM) of it all.. As in a calculated value. Once that is done and agreed upon you have to find those that have what it takes to do the test! As noted, based on my experance of testing and reviewing tests done by others, sim pilots typically fall way short of that mark!

I think we can overcome this problem with the help of our engineers.

I'm quite sure that today they are using software who can return to us many informations about those planes' attitude.

Agreed that they should fix the Spit. My concern is that we will wait a long time or even an eternity for the other planes to be fixed.

@Ace:

I agree that to some extend we will have to rely on some hypothesises wrt plane performance. However we should use any data that we can get imho - and be it just to calibrate the calculated data.

Of course. That I meant is that they have to start with a plane: it's better to have one well modelled plane and 3 bad modelled ones for 6 months than 4 bad modelled planes for 6 months.

I know that the dogfights will suffer from it... but since I've not CloD on my HD for me it's ok (as for majority of the pilots in my squad).

Your one of those guys that... Well I am done with you. Take the bicycle home. :cool:

PS: (I should really be killing you instead of wasting my time here) :grin:

That's a good advice, mate.

Not to some extent..

Actually in most cases we will have to rely on a calculated (what you call hypothesizes) value.

Because truth be told, they did NOT test every variant of every plane in WWII.. Add to that the fact that most tests in WWII were limited to '2' (ROC, TOP SPEED per Altitude) sometimes '3' (ROC, TOP SPEED per Altitude, Time to Climb) performance tests. And a lot of those were lost during or since the war.

As noted here, out of the hundreds upon thousands of plane types used during WWII we only have about '6' turn rate tests, and only at one altitude.

Now consider 'other' factors people love to whine about.. say roll rates.. There was very little testing done on that during WWII..

So with that said MOST of the data used in WWII flight sims is of the 'calculated' type (what you call hypothesizes)

Yes all six or so turn rate test should be used along with the half dozen or so roll rate tests

I would call it more of a sanity check than a calibration

All in all the turn rate and roll rate data is very limited, because they just didn't bother or think those values were worth testing. Where 'they' did find ROC and Top Speed per Altitude worth testing.. So that data is much easier to find, but, they didn't always re-test a plane when a variant of said plane came out.

So, there is almost always going to be a calculation done, if not from scratch or to tweak existing data for a variant of the plane

That is true!

Engineers like myself do it all the time in all fields of engineering! ;)

I don't understand if it's sarcasm. I don't know your field but I got 3 friends who happen to be aeronautical engineers, using the right software they have the tools to do it with a good approximation.

I think that a developer of a flight sim should be in contact with experts in this field.

No sarcasm (you agree with what I have been saying)

The point is, most of the data needed is 'calculated' using aeronautical engineering techniques

The real world performance data is not used in the FM as much as it is used as a sanity check of the results of the FM

Who says they are not?

Like my sig says.. put another way.. most of the 'issues' with the FM are 'issues' with the users, not the FM

Albeit I agree that some too easily blame the fm for their misfortune in a dogfight. However you cannot just deny that there is a general problem with the fm of most planes.

It is also too easy to just blame each player here to be bad pilots when they find that plane xy is too slow or porked in another way.

:o Not sure what you're on about here with the bicycle and stuff, but that little 'fight' of ours on ATAG was rather interesting, wasn't it? ;)

Honestly, I hope the devs will keep improving the sim FM-wise - I believe the main FM problems are well known and documented and I am looking forward for the upcoming patches.

It sure was (I really mean it). Hopefully this is a computer game and I live to fight another day. :mrgreen:
Regards.

so why couldn't they just let the physical model do it? give different parts of the plane weight, give the air weight, then let the physics engine do the work instead of giving the planes flying attributes absolute values... so there's no flight model at all...

since this game is really graphically intensive and hardly uses any CPU at all really... but i guess we still have a ways to go for that?

i was just thinking that because it doesn't matter weather its a machine gun or a sack of potatos if they weigh the same, they'll effect the characteristics of the airplane very similarly... so that way you wouldn't need to know the flying characteristics of the plane, just the thrust, shape and weight distribution

A 6DOF flight model is a physics model!! Calculated on the fly (pun intended) in real time

Nope! 6DOF flight models have been in use on PCs for some years now.. First I know of was PACIFIC AIR WAR 1942 by Microprose.. Back than it used fixed point math, but it was a 6DOF FM. As you noted, the modern CPUs have no problem what so ever running a floating point 6DOF FM. Prior to that PC flight models were, what was commonly known as TABLE BASED (read lookup) flight models that had very little physics to them (SWOTL, RB, AOTP, AOE, etc)

Bingo!

Sure I can.. Or should I say.. Thus far NO ONE has provided anything that would be considered proof there is an error in the FM! Which is not to be confused with me saying there is no problems, only that no one (on the user side, i.e. not someone from 1C) has provided anything that would be considered proof! Look at most if not all of the threads in this forum, for every person that says the PLANE A is too slow, there is another that says PLANE A it is too fast! So what does that say about the users?

Which is why my first question to anyone making a claim of any sort is Got Track?©®. Because most of these so called claims can be put to rest by simply watching the track file, in that most of the time it is clear that it is pilot error! At least that is what I have found after years of viewing IL2 track files people provided as 'proof' of this or that

After flying mostly 109s I have found on-line Reds have improved their tactics. Most of my loses have been due to pilot error and loosing track of EA in attempt to retain E. Most of my kills are from surprise 6 o'clock attacks.( It's getting harder to make a living in the Luftwaffe.)

I'm now trying to fly red when teams are uneven and I've had to go back to basics. My kill rate is way down, but I seem to be surviving more. Looking after the AC and E. If the flight model changes for better or worse ,I will have come out with better skills.

The fact that as a sim COD is still just a game. With allot of people if they can't rule the sky and rack up kills like in SP then blame the game/plane. Thing is, this game is less forgiving to those of us who refuse to adapt and learn. You are only going to get frustrated and angry at the game and others.
I'm still learning after too many years playing and that's just the way I like it. I'll leave the easy win games for my kids.

LONG LIVE COD:grin:

Funny.. but while reading this I was struck with how much it sounded like an actual WWII account.. Which to me says the FMs are not as bad as some would have us belive! Long story short, you fly it like it is real and chances are you will get a real feeling experience! Fly it like it is a game where you are not worried about dying, thus you jump into a fight that a real pilot would not, and chances are you will NOT get a real feeling experience!

Bingo!

As my sig suggest! Most sim pilots are missing one key component in their personality that real WWII pilots had in spades.. The ability to look in the mirror and realize the source of the mistake! ;)

Agreed 100%

If it was more like RL, at 46 years of age I'd be lucky to be making Tea in the offices mess.:grin:

if thats's the case why do people complain about flight models here? seems to me these guys just need to learn their plane instead of insist everything bends to their will...

At this point in my CLOD learning curve I consider it a successful sortie if I return to base and land safely, even if I never see the enemy. As this is pretty much what most real pilots felt, something must be fairly good with this sim.

;)

Not that I have not made a few kills, I have, but because I fly a Hurri pretty much exclusively, most are against bombers. Again fairly consistent with history. Once again the sim delivers.

Now if we could just get the Spit jocks to stop flying over to France for rhubarbs and give the Hurris top cover like they should...

Oh, wait, now I'm dreaming...

:grin:

Guys the flight models are an approximation. Even the best gaming PC money can buy could not model the exact equations behind flight fast enough to run at playable speeds.

yea see for me, i don't care about the flight model all that much as long as its not a rubber-band sim like aces high or fsx... where ur plane feels like its suspended between two rubber bands...

but it would be nice to have the actual plane itself and all its parts be modeled physically instead of just visually

guess its too unrealistic to ask someone to model just all of one materials attributes into a physics engine, never mind hundreds that would be in a airplane

one day... before i die hopefully... someone will make a general purpose physics engine that models every element on the periodic table, then we can all build our own 109s for free

There is a lot of truth in that

The problem is typically two fold, one the sim pilot does not know what the value should be, and two they preformed the test wrong. Which is why it is so important to record a track file of any so called 'test'

Which is not to say there can not be an error in the FM! Just that typically it is in the sim pilot!

The FM, like any program, follows the rule of garbage in garbage out

With that said know that the 'math' of the FM is the same for all planes (subtle differences for say single vs. twin, etc). What makes a P51 fly like a P51 is when the P51 parameters are used as inputs to the FM. For a simple example say the 'math' of the FM was as follows

y = CL*x

Where

y is the output (result)
x is the input
CD is the 'drag' parameter (coefficient)

Say

x = 3
CD = 5 for a P51
CD = 5.5 for a Bf109

Than the output y would be for the given x input

y = 15 for a P51
y = 16.5 for a Bf109

Lets assume that the value of CD is not 'known' for the WWII plane we want to simulate.. In such a case you could just pick a value of CD based on other know values of similar planes (happens a lot in RL) or maybe they calculate it offline using another another program (say simulated wind tunnel) that uses some 3D model to calculate CD

In either case, a sanity check of the value you pick can be check by comparing some of the simulation results to real world results.. In this case say top speed.

Problem with most sim pilots is they don't even know what value they should obtain during a test! Let alone able to record 'all' the values that can affect your speed. For example, to test for top speed you have to be able to hold your alt within around +/-100ft.. Most sim pilots 'think' they can do this no problem.. I can tell you how many sim pilots were amazed at how much the alt varied during their flight! Which I was able to show them by using DeviceLink to record the values of altitude and speed and plot them.. And sure enough.. Most of the guys who said the plane was too fast, where actually loosing alt (shallow dive) when the obtained that max speed, and visa versa, sure enough the guys who said the plane was too slow, where actually gaining alt (shallow climb( when the obtained that max speed.

Actully PCs have been capable of calculating a 6DOF FM in real time for some time now.. As noted the first that advertised a 6DOF FM was PAW 1942 by Microprose back.. Gezzz.. I want to say 15 years ago?

That's a lot of info Ace.
http://school.discoveryeducation.com...ingcapwhoa.gif