First of all let me say that you guys all have valid points, now, to answer in detail:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JG4_Helofly
IMO performance is very important in the game because we don't have some other important variables like fear, fatigue, performance drop due to wear etc. So it makes a huge difference if a plane is 5km/h to fast because the other player will push his plane to the limit and not let you go away until he catches you. No worry about fuel limitations or possible death or physical body limitations.
That's why 5 km/h can make the difference
|
I can agree to a certain extent, first of all because it's not all about speed or turn rate, second thing because it's hard to find a reliable source of information. We have seen before how even pilot reports can be biased or having gross mistakes inside, often to please the readers of the upsaid reports.. in the meantime we cant use the data from today's warbirds because the setups, operation modes and weights are not the same (not to mention the lack of many planes from the era in flyable conditions).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sven
Totally disagree with the OP.
If you want historical inaccuracy there's those thousands of other games for you to play, this specific genre of flight sims is aiming to make you able to get as close as possible to a state that you can relive what actually happened in WWII. Technology is however limiting us, but whatever we can get correct, must be correct. There are very reliable sources all over the web, actual prints from factories, numerous flight reports, with that material you can make Flight Models. However sometimes mistakes are made ( Like back in school, no matter how hard you studied you never got all test 100 %, at least I didn't. ) and regular forum folk is trying to make an effort to correct it, or shed some light on issues. They often get addressed as whiners, or waffles or whatnot, usually by folks who do not know all to much about the subject or simply do not care, which highly annoyes me and makes the progress of such efforts very tiresome.
So in short, the never ending discussion about the FM/DM has in fact use, and developpers do listen, I've seen it many times and it's up to them what they do with the presented information.
|
I haven't said I don't want accuracy, my point is that it's hard to find the threshold of what's accurate and what's inaccurate. A little example: Macchi pilots had most of their radios removed cos they never worked properly, and a radio + battery would be in excess of 100kg, now that wasn't mentioned in the original manuals, but it would surely, even if almost marginally, affect performance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan21cag
Just curious??
do you put the people who have also had the experience I.E. seen tracers and flown war birds of the time E.T.C. in the same category as those that have not? Or is it just your experience that you consider to be the valid experience?
just wondering
Cheers 
P.S. I completely agree with your OP just fyi |
I enter in the first category, and I believe that it can be put to the service of the community.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheesehawk
Your best post to date... +1
Another point to consider, even from the factories in the 1940s, differences between individual planes was sometimes pretty great. At the end of the war, when Germany was facing certain defeat, and the need for high numbers of planes (and pilots, but we can't emulate that here) was great, differences of 5% of rated power and speeds were still accepted. On a plane rated at 500kmh, that gives us a plus or minus of 50kmh! (475 to 525) And that's all else being equal.
To me, the handling characteristics (which are much harder to define in pure numbers) are just as important as the performance charts. While I am no real pilot, and haven't flown inside any of the legendary warbirds we love so much, if the sim has that factor that makes us think "ok, this feels like I think a Spitfire should" and allows us to competitively (I'm thinking online here) suspend belief, then the sim's doing a great job!
As related to CoD, to me, its much more fun to just fly around than to fly combat missions. I'm partial to the 109 of course, and it "feels" like a more realistic sim, but when it gets down to the dirty of fighting, something just isn't "right". It doesn't behave like I'd expect a nimble, front-line fighter that's the pinnacle of technology (which it and the Spitfire arguably shared in 1940).
Homuth,
I think one of the OP's points was that all the information that's readily available are from somewhat questionable sources (Brit vs American vs German engineers when original data is presented) and varying in content. Out of all the stuff, how do you pick the one and say "This is what we'll apply as the limits of this plane?"
|
completely agree man.