Quote:
Originally Posted by JG4_Helofly
Is it still a discussion about correcting performance in the game or do we fight the real BOB again?
|
Well actually neither, it was a discussion about whether the actual 109E performance possibly deviated from (or within) the Messerchmitt specs, based on German and captured aircraft tests. Of course then there is a further argument about whether it would be best for which data to be in CloD. Currently the sea level 109 is too slow for either side of the argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JG4_Helofly
If it's still about the game, then I doubt that taking some perf. tests from captured aircrafts will get us very far. It's pointless to discuss about taking such data for the FM. Why? Simply because it would be impossible to estimate the average performance of several thousands of planes at a given time in a given battle. Especially when you don't have a representativ number of tests.
|
I disagree. It is never pointless to examine actual flight tests provided their limitations are considered...but you are correct captured aircraft tests should be treated with extra suspicion, as in the original post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JG4_Helofly
How can it be justified to change the top speed of the 109 based on a few testflights from foreign countrys?
And if we would go down that road, how about low production quality in late war scenarios? Or other factors who would affect performance?
IMO the only way to have acceptable performance data is to take the theoretical values which should be reached by production aircrafts under normal conditions. Everything else is just BS.
|
That is a valid position for argument. However I do not think that means alternative arguments are BS. I would also say the Messershmitt specs are +/- 25 kmh at sea level, even adjustments within these bounds may change your online experience with such closely matched aircraft as Spits and 109s.
camber