Upcoming Patch FM Changes
 

EDIT:We will obviously have to wait and see for any real conclusions to be made about the upcoming changes. This thread is just about your gut feelings. I'm very happy changes are being made.

Sooo according to today's update (Apr 13), the RAF planes are pretty much getting WORSE. No talk at all about any changes to current Blue planes except Italian G.50.

How do you feel about this?

Personally:

Spit IIa needed to be brought back a little bit from its current performance, but 60mph across the board seems like a bit much. That almost seems like it will be made to fly like the current Ia!

Hurricane made worse than it is currently? Great. Had a hard enough time as it is. I guess Hurricane pilots will have to switch tactics to 'get to 21k ft and dive at enemy. try to get big hit or ram him. if you miss, try to keep diving over england and bail out before your wings come off or he catches and shoots you'.

Spit Ia receives minor change. Not sure how it will affect its overall performance, but I at least expected some kind of a speed increase in level flight at all altitudes. Zip.

All the above opinions are obvious PRE-patch, so maybe I'm wrong on all counts. I hope I am.

lets wait and see.....

I just hope the devs realize that the RAF flight data is in MPH not KPH. That would explain the problems. :P

Did you think the Hurricane is the BF109's nemesis?
It's quite clear what the job of the Hurricane was in the BoB, and it did just that with good results, I thought it had something to do with shooting down slow bombers and stukas...

Wolverine, Luthier said "sometimes 60 mph better than the real thing.", not across the board.

There will be game play adjustments on the ATAG server if things get out of balance. There is no conspiracy on the ATAG to keep the red players out. We like challenges.

That'd be great if there were lots of bombers to take on. Big formations. That's fun for a Hurricane pilot. But that's not happening. Maybe the patch will allow lots more aircraft in the air and we can start to REALLY get into Battle of Britain missions and have all the realism that goes with it.

I got the sense that no one was complaining about the Hurricane's performance relative to the 109s. Now, suddenly, we have people coming out of the woodwork to say 'yes! Nerf that UFO Hurricane!'

I guess we wait and see.

Yes because the Hurricane performed like a Spitfire, while it shouldn't it did give us the BoB feel of an airplane that was close to the BF109 to compete against. Now that the FM changes are coming based on real life data we're glad the Hurricane is dumbed down, and the Spit MK1 can take it's place.

This

I still think you will only see the Spit 2 getting flow on the servers though

Fair enough. Let's hope that's the case. I'd love it if Luthier put up a graph like he did for the G.50.

Like always in flights sim it's difficult to say that "this plane is better/worse than IRL" when the typical engagements and conditions are not met in the sim, i.e. RAF fighters vectored by radar, squadrons engaging the escort to free the way for others, large number of planes and people flying in pairs/groups etc...

Given the right conditions Hurricanes were perfectly capable of holding their own against 109s, but you'll read as well many reports of Hurricanes pilots being always jumped by 109 flying high and feeling impotent...

What has been everyone's experience with Hurricane's in a turn fight with a 109? I was given to believe that the Hurricane could do well in this situation, but it seems that all I get for trying it is a loss of speed with the 109 happily making high g turns with me.

Now, I don't use flaps in the turn because the Hurricane's flaps aren't true combat flaps and I don't believe they were ever used in this way. Is that the problem? Do I need to start using the flaps that way?

Yes lets hope we can have allot more than 6 AI bombers in one place. More like 30-50 and the same if not more players. ;)

I dont actually think our 109 is fast enough you know but I havent really looked to hard at it, seeing as all the data for all aircraft is to be addressed. At sea level I can only get around 460Kmh. Wasnt it supposed to be 550? This lack of speed may be what is making the turning circle of the hurricane seem smaller, as we come in slower therefore having a better turning circle. We are all in the same boat mate. I do admire you brave Hurri pilots, its not an easy fight vs the 109. S!

I believe that issue has been brought up before, the Hurricane is a bit of a slow turner, it should turn faster then the Spit, but that's not the case in CoD. So that's something to look at for the devs as well.

BF109 level speed is about 500 kmh from various tests on Max recommended output at 1.35 ATA. If you go up to 5000m you can reach maximum speed of ~570 kmh.
The Spit MK1 could reach 505 kmh with 12 lbs/sq.in of boost on the deck according to spitfireperformance.com ( this is with 100 octane fuel ) otherwise only 455 kmh could be reached with 6.25 lbs/sq.in. Top speed at 3500 was 575 kmh. All from that site.

S!

The idea of you guys getting even FASTER is chilling :P

I sure hope the radiator damage is fixed. Right now, 109 (spits and hurries too) can fly a long range with full power after both radiator damage and all gycol lost.

Um, Spits and Hurries have nearly complete engine failure after a rad hit within 1 to 2 minutes. I will agree that the 109 can keep going. A 109 pilot told me that I perforated his radiator and he was losing oil and yet he still flew for 10 minutes in hard dog fighting. This happened on Wednesday.

I might add that I have no way of knowing how long he could keep going because I left the server before his engine started to feel any effects.

I will wait and reserve judgement. Allied ac have had major changes but the changes to the 109's are apparantly very subtle. I tend to use the SpitMk1a and always at around 18K - it isn't going to be worse, possibly better for me.

Hopefully the Spit2 and E4's will be more widely available. It is a Beta patch and not the official one.

agree with the 109, spit dies rapidly with rad damage though. Good to see you here Faustnik:)

+1

any recent big bass caught Faustnik?...sorry for the OT:grin:

I guess it's quite possible that radiator failure on a 109 isn't as devestating as it would be in a Spit/Hurri?

If that's historically correct, then I guess it's okay. Just a little more uphill for us Red to climb :P

We know that all planes need FM and peformacne revsion.

We know that all planes are lacked in performacne at higher alts operation.

We know that in CLod British fighters lack 100 Octan fuel and +12 lbs mainfold pressure perfomance ( both Spitfire MK1 and Hurricane MK1)

We know that 109 E lack in speed also at low alts - now it reach only 460 kph at 0 km instead about 500 kph.

These facts are confirmed by RL data and test.

I just want see speed/climb polars after beta patch but looking at Luthier todays news about FM changes i have many doubts about performacne CLoD fighters.

Luthier didnt mention about use 100 Octan fuel ( +12lbs) performacne in British planes but rather about redcution speed. The same he wrote only about minor changes in 109 FM.

Also Luthier said that they have problem to make accurate performance at higher alts beacuse of FM engine problems - i really wonder about it beacuse even in old good Il2 it was possible to get satisfactory results expecially in speed and climb performacne even at higher alts ( i know about it beacuse i was FM modder for Ultr@Pack).

I have really big doubts now that it would be make in fair and historical way but we all could see soon.

Good to see you guys! I caught a lot of bass last week.
http://www.degnans.com/markd/ClearLake_4_small.jpg

For testing, the oil radiator damage is good for Spits and 109. The clycol damage does not work. The spits easies to test. Port damage shows the black oil smoke and the Spits going down quickly. The starboard damage shows green clycol smoke and the Spits can fly for a long time. 109 can fly from England to France with will 100 power with both clycol radiator punctured and all clycol lost.

So, 109E3 or E4s have a big advantage with the 20mm. 7.7 MGs worked fine againts 109s in history. Not the same in the game.

Maybe it will be fixed next week! :cool:

Nice one!

I do notice on-line that fellow 109 pilots just spawn and take off right away...while I sit there warming up:rolleyes:, not sure if they get engine damage as a result.

Nice toad!

Thanks guys. :grin:

Redundant systems, the 109s had a system for shutting pressure to a damaged radiator, and a single rad was enough to cool it somewhat. Although it shouldn't last forever at high output, it would be a far longer lasting than the single rad being damaged in the RAF planes.

I believe this was introduced only with the latter batches of 109F; the Emil did not have them.

On the other hand, the Emil did have an 8mm armor plate right behind the fuel tank, which would render the fuel tank bulletproof from .303 hits from directly behind (it was possible though to hit the fuel tank directly if fired from an angle and bypass the armor plate).

"We've performed a tremendous amount of work testing and improving flight models in the game, as well as improving various aircraft engines"

Wonder what "improving aircraft engines" means? Just improving engine power at various altitudes could have a big impact on performance - such as the ability to maintain a certain turn rate. Let's wait and see.

I'd really like to know who "Sean" is - the guy who supplied the testing data. Anyone any ideas? He might be able to tell us the source of the data and give us some confidence in the FM tweaks.

Could be Sean Trestrail mentioned in this old post?:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...22&postcount=5

Yes its me. The Source data comes from direct copies of Spitfire,Hurricane (and RAF test data on 109and 110) copied from original files after countless days spent in the UK national archives. The files were copied by photographing each page. All the data was then provided to the team as is. However these are not the sole references used but add to the "data bank"

Here is sample of in game climb performance overlayed over original Source Data from the Archives.
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e2...LBtest4sml.jpg

Wow, thanks Ivan, you're a star. This is just the thing the community needs.

So climb rates look pretty accurate to me (except the 109) until you get to higher levels. Personally, as the devs are being quite open about the high altitude performance drop off, I'm happy to wait for the improvements in the sequel. It's just great to know:

1. they are using official data
2. they are aware of the current limitations
3. they are working hard to correct and improve things

Thanks again for coming forward Ivan, a little info can go a long way.

Cheers

I wonder what data what used for speed? Expecially for 109 E (beacause now is too slow) . And if +12 lbs emergency boost (100 Octan fuel) was modeled in British fighters?

S!

By looking at that graph the real Spitfire Mk.II climbs pretty much the same as RL Bf109E-4. And also by looking the graph Bf109E-4 beats both Hurricane and Spitfire Mk.I in climb. Thanks for posting IvanK!

+ 1. Great job Ivan!

It should be noted that Spitfire N3171 in the graph is not using 12lb boost/100 octane fuel.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/n3171.html

Strange. How come the Spitfire Ia outclimbs the E4 and Rotol? What are you doing to manage this?

I am not going to get in a tit for tat ref the charts or the tests depicted on them. In all cases they represent the climb performance achieved in game using the Climb profile (Power/speed) as quoted in the source documents themselves.

In all cases RADs full open (since at present there is no radiator drag in COD). These climbs are all straight out standard climbs NOT max power (i.e. without WEP/Boostcutout).

In the course of these climbs it was also discovered that both the Spitfire and Hurricane VSI's were overreading to the tune of 800fpm for the Hurricane and 1000fpm for the Spitfires. This determined by Alt versus elapsed time.... so dont rely on the VSI's at present to give you a true indication of climb rate. Altitude versus time is the only true measure.

The Spit Ia is with CSP controlling at 3000RPM.
The E4 is in AUTO controlling at 2350RPM (No advantage doing it in manual btw)

The radiator drag point is curious. How did you find it out? BTW I am very sorry to hear that since Il-2 also did a very poor job at modelling radiator drag/cooling effiency with different flap settings. I was hoping COD would be an improvement over it.

Seriously? How can even the VSI be faulty? Is there some kind of instrument error margin modelled, and this got bugged? Because otherwise I'd suppose its a simple Z axis change readout for the engine..

In MP, I cannot match the climb rate of the Hurri Rotol, Spit Mk2 with a Spit MK1a so I need help understanding those graphs. I have to ask for my fellow flyers in those ac to ease off the throttle and whatever the indicated VSI errors - they get to altitude quicker - help needed as I am reading the graphs incorrectly!

BTW, I m not complaining and appreciate the FM work being done.

A lot of us came to the conclusion that there was no drag penalty for open Rads/cockpit canopy so will this be corrected along with the Spit Mk1's Boost Cut off that has no measurable effect?

Did you supply 12lb boost performance data? If not, why not, as the fighter bases on the CloD map should all have 100 octane fuel.

The data supplied was complete and unmodified from the archive what was there was supplied.

The climb data on the Spit II was +9lbs Boost as these are sustained climb values. The Data did not present any +12Lb Boost cutout climb values.

I am not entering the 100Octane debate.

Thank you IvanK for your work.

Thanks Ivank !

Hopefully they looked here for some Spitfire I +12lbs level speed data although its not clear if it carried armor plate:-

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

Can't wait for the patch now :)

here is the link about performance trials of Spitfire MkII P7280 ivank's chart is referring to..
cheers
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-II.html

So if for SPitfire MK II +9lbs Boost is for max climbing power ( engine power settings) in incoming beta patch i assume that there will be also emergency power +12 lbs possible to apply?

Cause Merlin XII at 100 Octan fuel had power settings : + 9 lbs at 2850 RPM - max climbing power and +12 lbs at 3000 RPM -emergency power (combat power).

Merlin XII with 87 Octan fuel had power settings: + 7 lbs at 2850 RPM - max climbing and +7 lbs at 3000 RPM - take off power

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit2pnfs3.jpg


I hope also at least one type of Spitfire MK I and one of Hurricane MK1 would have 100 0ctan fuel performacne implemented in incoming patch?

Yes, it does appear that if Ivan's data is used for the MkII Spit then we'll have our 100 octane engine.

The Spit IIA ratings are somewhat unclear. The orginal July 1940 (unamended) engine ratings state that +12 lbs was only cleared for take off purposes, for all other combat purposes +9 was the maximum, even with 100 octane.

I guess +12 was cleared for the Merlin XII at a later stage.

See attachment.

I see what you mean, but this is certainly not as it seems to be - you're correct with the operational limits, but they don't account for the use of BCC-O. ;)

I agree that the operational limits are unclear - I have 2 copies of the Mk11a / Mk11b notes - one allows 12 Lb boost in combat, the other restricts it to 9 Lb as Kurfurst points out, except for take off. Strangely they both have July 1940 dates but who knows what could have happened when they were converted to PDF.

Whatever happens, I think we need to see some real consequences should use of emergency boost be abused and exceeded.

For example:

1. Critical engine damage occurring a short random time after the 5 min limit. I really don't want to see the engine blowing each time at exactly 5 mins as this will be abused by players. You really should be made to worry that you could have a critical failure on your hands any time after 5 mins. It will be even better when persistent engine wear is introduced as abuse can then lead to an early failure on a subsequent mission.


2. I believe it was the very high engine temps that caused most damage so it would make sense to see a steady creep in operating temps if max boost is used in combat. This would naturally limit it's use as max temps threaten to be breached. It would also force pilots to watch their temps and pressures as it was in reality - more immersion from my point of view.

R.M.3.S. is stating +12lbs. as Combat Power Rating for the Merlin XII - 1280hp/3000rpm/10500ft/+12 lbs.

+12.lbs was only possible with BCC-O engaged anyway as far I know.

Take-off power was stated as 1175hp/3000rpm/+12.5 lbs

Perhaps they considered the BCC-O as maximum power hence CPR in the manual. I am sure the manual deals with the limits of the usage and reporting / justifying it's use in combat. +12lbs @ 3000rpm was maximum strain you could ever put onto that engine. There are anecdotal stories about Spitfires (I don't know if they were Merlin XIIs or IIIs tbh) scrambling to intercept a raid at some important target in Lodnon. 6 took-off, BCC-O used straight away to climb asap. The result was that some had to turn back with failures and all of them needed overhaul I suppose. I'll try to dig that story as I might be wrong with details.

Agreed completely, that would be great!

Thanks Robo, I'd really like to see that story.

Do you find it strange how they'd allow 12 Lb boost for 3 mins on take off but not in combat when the pilot's life and aircraft were at risk? Am I missing something? Does 12 Lbs boost at ground level put less strain on the engine?

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...2&d=1326733398
Source: AP 2095 Pilot's Notes General (1st Edition, 1941)

Thanks

Here is a link about a restored spitfire
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/w...-71-years.html
accordly to the serial number P9374, the machine was built by Supermarine (contract n° B980385/39) in a batch of 181 machines all MkI.
The Air Restoration Company (http://www.arc-duxford.co.uk/)sited at Duxford airfield restored the plane.
my ask is: maybe some of them for sure well know about engine limitations, they took it in flight after 70 years (I dont know who is the pilot)
Some of this community with a better knowledge of english than me can contact those guys and ask for more infos!
cheers

Restored aircraft operating today will almost never use maximum boost as it would risk a rare and expensive asset unnecessarily. Many don't even have an operational turbo/super charger for ease of maintenance. I think 20,000 feet would be considered high when operating warbirds these days.

Shame as the data would have been incredibly useful.

From Hurricane MkI Pilots Notes, Melrin II or III engine. This is a May 1941 edition - I haven't found an earlier one yet so it is possible that the combat advice differed during the BoB. I'll re-check the Library. However, the engines were the same.

Interesting stuff Klem, thanks for posting.

I find it quite hard to overspeed my prop - certainly not to 3600 RPM. Is there any situation on CloD where that kind of overspeed is possible?

Not with the Rotol equipped Hurricane, these limits were set to the engine in general - Merlin II and III. Following airscrews have been fitted on Hurricanes of that era: Weybridge fixed pitch, de Havilland 2-pitch or Rotol constant speed. With the first two, you could indeed overrev your engine in a dive, hence the limit set in the pilot's manual. You will be able to overrev your engine in the sime flying de Havilland Mk.I fighters (Spitfire Mk.I and DH-20 Hurricane Mk.I),

klem - I do have great copy of Hurricane Mk.I pilot notes and maintenance manual dated March 1939, all pre-BoB Merlin II and III related. Great stuff, PM me if you'd care for a copy.

Thanks Robo, I forgot it wasn't a constant speed prop on these early machines Dohhh! The reason I ask is that I've seen reference to overspeeding props in manuals for aircraft with constant speed units fitted and was wondering under what circumstances an overspeed could happen.

I guess slamming the throttle to max when going into a dive might not give the constant speed unit time to adjust?

Exactly.

Thanks,

I've PM'd you.

@klem: Could you provide the paragraph that deals with the propeller pitch control, especially with regards to the handling of the DH two position pitch? Compare Spitfire I: http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/97

It would be important to know if the Hurricane had the same "bycicle pump" control like the Spitfire that allowed setting any pitch between "fine" and "coarse". So the images of the cockpit could also be interesting.

all i can say is that the damage model of the spits and hurris has the same problems like the one of the 109s.
i have shot several fuel tanks of hurris, and they keep flying as well, just like the 109s do.
i have yet to blow up a fuel tank of a spit(does it even have one?)
i have shot radiators of spits and they sometimes keep flying and fighting for a pretty long time until they finally get apparent problems....

The Hurricane Pilots Notes I have (1941) give mid-r.p.m. settings for climb etc as you know from my previous post. Unfortunately the only reference to changing rpm is 'fully forward' or 'fully back' except where it says:

'Greatest Range.... 1700 r.p.m. '.....

'DIVING
(i) Generally, set the airscrew to govern at cruising r.p.m....'

'AEROBATICS
.... Cruising r.p.m. should be used....'

I'm sure as I can be that the Mk I prop control was a lever alongside the throttle and mixture (I don't have the notes to hand but I'll look tomorrow).

Opinion on these forums is that the 2-pitch prop lever couldn't be finely controlled like the Spitfire MkI plunger could. HOWEVER! The well respected 'Aviation Classics' magazine covered the Hurricane in its March 2012 issue so I will be getting that to see if there are any little nuggets in there. Its a great magazine, usually with pilot contributions.