[irR4tiOn4L]

Robo and Osprey, I am saying that when making changes that are in the right direction (realism), we should nonetheless time and implement changes in a manner that respects overall realism - ie, the matchup between aircraft and relative performance, as well as the overall hierarchy of problems in order of importance.

Why are we focussing on the 109 trim here? I have seen no good argument in this thread for why the 109, an aircraft with a huge trim wheel and similar trim times to other planes in the game, should be singled out for changes, and why these should be above fixes to its and other aircraft's performance. Given that all the aircraft in the game trim quite quickly, if the 109 is wrong, its likely they are all wrong (some even more so). This discussion should go beyond just the 109 and the fix should go beyond just the 109, otherwise we are punishing an aircraft with slower trim adjustment that was actually QUICKER to adjust trim in in real life!

Similarly with control heaviness. True, the 109 was worse than contemporaries here. But we can't just fix the 109 to historical performance and leave it at that. It's likely that other aircraft are also pulling too easily/experience too little control heaviness, and to change this on only one aircraft is sacrificing macro realism for micro realism. We'll have one great, realistic plane to fly, but that'll be all.

And that's not even taking into account the undermodelling (apparently, based on discussions here) of all these aircraft, including the 109 (possible exception being Spit IIa). Why should trim be fixed before the performance and speed of the 109?

Look at the Spitfire IIa - because it is probably the most accurate in terms of performance among a crop of inaccurately modelled underperformers, many online servers don't even allow it because it has no equal. Fat lot of good lopsided modelling made there. While I support every effort toward realism, I don't support the implementation of these changes on a timetable that is designed to respond to complaints from multiplayer which focus on only the overmodelled aspects of a favoured opponent's aircraft - a slippery slope. This kind of thing should be done transparently across all aircraft in a manner that focusses on the most major to the minor departures from reality. Trim is somewhere down that order, and having to research the proper values on all aircraft (especially if the trim became heavier, ie slower, with the heaviness of the controls) could take time. I am not sure I support the 109 being changed in the interim on poorly researched values, or only on the 109 and not other aircraft, for the sake of some players' competitiveness online.


Still, and to be clear, I do support fixing trim on the 109 and other aircraft. But maybe not on the timescale and order of importance that some others might. Yes, I hear the complaints about the 109 turning too easily in a dogfight online through the use of trim. But I also hear that the performance of most planes is off, blackout and other effects are not modelled correctly and all planes might be too light on the controls and too easy to trim. I think general performance should be fixed first, then trim heaviness/ease should be changed to historically accurate levels. On all aircraft.

I mean let's not forget, 109 pilots might be abusing trim at the moment, but Hurricane, spit and 109 pilots are flying aircraft that are too slow and spit and hurri pilots are abusing the now incorrect modelling of carburetors and dont have to deal with mechanical guages, which also affects the ability of 109 pilots to use negative g to get away or even have the spit/hurri pilot accidently swamp their engine. We need to be careful about how we go about fixing these issues (or even winding back realism, like was done with carburetors and mechanical guages) in response to player complaints from multiplayer. I think some might not like to hear it, but they should accept that it could take a while to fix something like trim if other issues are being addressed.