Updated RAF FMs in 1.07.18301

[camber]

It is nice to see the new 100octane Spit I and Hurri.

But boost levels are a bit weird:

Spit Ia 100 octane: +9psi normal/+12 psi WEP (should be +6.25/+12psi)
Hurri 100 octane: +6.25psi normal/+12psi WEP (correct!)

Spit II (unchanged, always 100 oct): +6.25psi normal/+9 psi WEP (should be +9psi/+12psi**)

** there was some previous discussion whether +12psi was approved for BoB Spit IIs.

There doesn't seem to be much point doing detailed testing on FMs that B6 said would be changing further anyway. But basically, the new WEP speeds (at SL) for Spit I and Hurri seem roughly to bring them into line for the historical non-WEP speeds, which is of course a step in the right direction. It should be noted that assuming the 109s are unchanged in the patch, they are slow at SL as well (but not as much as the RAF, depending on whether you subscribe to Messerchmitt official specs or some variously problematic actual flight tests)

The CloD Spit II (+9psi) could always do 290mph at SL, the CloD Spit 1a (+12) can now do ~280mph at SL (from 260mph at +6.25psi) and the CloD Hurri (+12psi) can do 270mph at SL (from 240mph at +6.25psi).

Cheers, camber

[TomcatViP]

Originally Posted by camber

The CloD Spit II (+9psi) could always do 290mph at SL, the CloD Spit 1a (+12) can now do ~280mph at SL (from 260mph at +6.25psi) and the CloD Hurri (+12psi) can do 270mph at SL (from 240mph at +6.25psi).

Cheers, camber

I never had any prob to race back to base at SL at 270 in a hurri before the patch (coarse, raise rad, check your alpha, beta and close that stupid hood).

I wonder how fast she would go now !?!

[Kwiatek]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

I never had any prob to race back to base at SL at 270 in a hurri before the patch (coarse, raise rad, check your alpha, beta and close that stupid hood).

I wonder how fast she would go now !?!

We speak about beta patches not official ones.

In beta previous patch speed were :

"Hurricane MK 1 Rotol

238 mph /383 kph at the deck at +6 1/2 boost ------ should be 262-265 mph /420-426 kph !!!!

So it is 24-27mph/ 38-43 kph too slow at + 6 1/2 boost power !!!!

There is no WEP - so no 100 octan fuel performacne - which should give ab. 25 mph/ 40 kph extra speed at low alts

Spitfire MK1a

255 mph/410 kph at the deck at 6 1/2 boost ---------should be 283 mph/455 kph !!!!

So it is 28 mph/45 kph too slow at 6 1/2 boost.

No 100 Octan fuel performance at all - boost cut out doesnt rise power at all.

Spitfire MK II

268 mph/431 kph at deck at 6 1/2 lbs
285 mph/458 kph at deck at 9 lbs ------ should be 286-290 mph so it is quite accurate result!!!!

No emergency take off power +12 lbs included."

So if you get 270 mph in Hurricane you probalby fly withouth wings or in dive or in your imagination.


Camber unfortunately you have right still level flights for RAF and German planes are porked. Now 100 Octan fuel version of SPitfires and Hurrcianes near reached speed correct for 87 Octan version so there is still huge error.

The same is with power settings. SPit MK1a 100 Octan at +12lbs and 3000RPMs should fly at least 5 minutes without engine problems but in game it couldn't go over 2 minutes. Dont checked other planes yet - before patch Spitfire MKII had also engine power settings bug and engine broke too fast.


109 also is still too slow ab. 20 kph at low alts. Also 109 slats open too late (nothing change here). Rudder still work like in hellicopter not a prop plane.

So 1C have a lot work to do here. I hope they know the problems and BlackSix said that they still working with FMs so hope is still here but we will see.

[Ernst]

There is so much misunderstanding here. I remember seeing a SPITFIRE Ia manual stating that 12 lbs time limits were 3 minutes.

Now you come here and says its 5 minutes for the IA. There is another manual stating 5 minutes but that was for the IIa i guess. There is so many that use general desinformation and try to using data from other aircraft (IIA) to provide performance of others (IA). Or comparing the best data from one ac with worst of others, or using extra arguments and aproximation much beyond the data to prove their points. The data should talk by themselves with minimal interference of the interpreters.

I do not known but my opinion is that guys complaining about sptifires are noobies because yesterday i found =AN=Felipe's spitfire at 6.5 K and we need 3 109s to shot down him.

The fight lasted almost 10 minutes. The spitfire IIA totally overperformed the 109 high there making loops and barrels rolls while the 109 barely can climb or fly level. If in RL was that way the 109s would have no chance since the BoB fight occured mostly at high altitude, and we known that they were very well matched if we compared the kill/ratios against each other. Someone can say? The Germans have more acs? Ok if you consider the bombers. But fighter vs. fighter they were matched and the british were flying over its territory, the germans had teh fuel problem etc... The truth is, the SPIT accutually in sim is very capable aircraft and certainly well matched with the 109s....

If you have the spits like you want, overperfoming the 109s in every aspect the blue players would give up. Maybe the reds ll feel better historical accuracy shoting 109s at will, killing the 109s in 10 by 1 kill ratio, and flying only against IAs and germans drones. This happened in some IL2 servers after last mods. The servers are killed. If you are blue you have to be extremely sadomasoquist to fly that ultrapack servers. The multiple fms, each one with its own biased fms for one side or other completely destroyed the game...

What do you want in a simplistic way is an all win spitfire model who can zip zap, hang on the prop, barrels rolls like humming bird, rocket climbing, outstanding climbing and energy retention etc... I think you should think yourselves, you are really good pilots? My believe is that you believe spit is that mess because you do not accept defeat and have no humildity to recognize your own fault in your failure.You think you can only be defeated if fighting 3 or 4 109s. If you got defeated by 1 then the game is cheating.

Once i shot down a guy by surprise and he complained: "You shot me down because you got me by surprise. I would expect a chance to fight" And i answered: "Then you suppose i would give you a chance. You are in a spit."

The guys here complain about the spit. I go online and see a complete different situation: Man the spits are very agile, once the pilot sees you and are not a complete noobie is very difficult to put your guns in it, mainly if you are alone. Sometimes they start to whirlwind down there, the only thing they need do to is to pull the elevator as they. They have not to think in a strategy to escape, think about energy, force the adversary to lose their initial energy to after escape in a dive, etc they have just to turn in and endless whirlwinding... So simplistic and ridiculous... However i just accept the performance that i have in the 109 and fly with my brains... Man, is this guys playing the same sim than me?

just my point...

my be the devs would develop two versions of the sim. One for the british commowealth and another for the rest of the world.

[camber]

Ernst,

This sounds like the beginning of an interesting argument. I was worried no-one would ever reply to this post But to start off, my position is that once within historical performance precision, if possible FMs should be balanced for to enable good on-line balance at least for one variant on each side. How exactly is that a request for an unbeatable Spit coming from my totally noobie-ness? We had a super-Spit in the last retail patch (Spit II), a plane with approximately historical performance in land of neutered allies and opponents

Originally Posted by Ernst

There is so much misunderstanding here. I remember seeing a SPITFIRE Ia manual stating that 12 lbs time limits were 3 minutes.

Now you come here and says its 5 minutes for the IA. There is another manual stating 5 minutes but that was for the IIa i guess. There is so many that use general desinformation and try to using data from other aircraft (IIA) to provide performance of others (IA). Or comparing the best data from one ac with worst of others, or using extra arguments and aproximation much beyond the data to prove their points. The data should talk by themselves with minimal interference of the interpreters.

This is easy to state unless you try to actually become one of the interpreters (which is interesting but takes time!). A lot of flyers post "just make them historical", but never state their precise historical conclusions and their justification ....for aircraft as closely matched as 1940 109s and Spits, imprecision in the historical record makes a real difference in on-line matchups. And then some interpretation needs to made. The RAE data for the Spits is hard to argue with, but to use flight test data for 109s, or the Messerchmitt official specs? You could make 109s +/-25kmh faster on the deck and still be within the official factory specs. These are just speeds, what about things that that there is not objective historical data like energy bleed in high AoA zoom climb? That makes rather a big difference. How should the devs address parameters like that?

There is rather a big difference between "+12 Spit can just catch 109 at SL" and visa versa when you are bouncing or running away. I could argue either historical case in the pub (would lean to the Spit)

Originally Posted by Ernst

I do not known but my opinion is that guys complaining about sptifires are noobies because yesterday i found =AN=Felipe's spitfire at 6.5 K and we need 3 109s to shot down him.

The fight lasted almost 10 minutes. The spitfire IIA totally overperformed the 109 high there making loops and barrels rolls while the 109 barely can climb or fly level. If in RL was that way the 109s would have no chance since the BoB fight occured mostly at high altitude, and we known that they were very well matched if we compared the kill/ratios against each other. Someone can say? The Germans have more acs? Ok if you consider the bombers. But fighter vs. fighter they were matched and the british were flying over its territory, the germans had teh fuel problem etc... The truth is, the SPIT accutually in sim is very capable aircraft and certainly well matched with the 109s....

That is interesting...in the last patch before this one (despite the target performance data that B6 posted) Spits were terrible at altitude for speed as opposed to the 109s (which hit their factory spec data). But that is according to the cockpit guages. Whose to say they are right? I haven't noticed or done any high alt testing for the most recent patch yet. If 109s are terrible at height compared to Spits in the new patch, of course that is wrong.

Originally Posted by Ernst

If you have the spits like you want, overperfoming the 109s in every aspect the blue players would give up. Maybe the reds ll feel better historical accuracy shoting 109s at will, killing the 109s in 10 by 1 kill ratio, and flying only against IAs and germans drones. This happened in some IL2 servers after last mods. The servers are killed. If you are blue you have to be extremely sadomasoquist to fly that ultrapack servers. The multiple fms, each one with its own biased fms for one side or other completely destroyed the game...

I can't see how you would construe my post as "wanting" this. I don't play enough 1946 to know what recent patches have done to on-line balance.

Originally Posted by Ernst

What do you want in a simplistic way is an all win spitfire model who can zip zap, hang on the prop, barrels rolls like humming bird, rocket climbing, outstanding climbing and energy retention etc... I think you should think yourselves, you are really good pilots? My believe is that you believe spit is that mess because you do not accept defeat and have no humildity to recognize your own fault in your failure.You think you can only be defeated if fighting 3 or 4 109s. If you got defeated by 1 then the game is cheating.

Once i shot down a guy by surprise and he complained: "You shot me down because you got me by surprise. I would expect a chance to fight" And i answered: "Then you suppose i would give you a chance. You are in a spit."

Well people have always done that in Il-2. Myself I just send them a smiley face and don't take them seriously. Maybe even a ~S~, that drives them crazy.

What is the point of analysing the flight data and comparing to the historical record if 109 drivers such as yourself see it as having a secret agenda to get the super-spit that drives the 109s out of the servers, so the Spits can fly channel laps by themselves forever congratulating themselves on winning the virtual BoB? I fly red but I want happy and fulfilled 109 drivers (within defensibly historical performance), I am sick of seeing hardly anyone in ATAG at my flying time.

camber

[Ernst]

Hello Camber,

Sorry. You misunderstanded me. My post is not for you but for all. My post was for all, red or blue, not for you. i do not called you noobie and or stated you want the 109s porked. Not my intention. Please forgive, but i stand my general point.

I put it in a general way. I am not saying to one or another... I just say sometimes appears that some want the things are this way because i cannot accept that people call the spit as they are modeled today as a complete mess compared to 109. And justfying their failures because the fm is wrong... They suppose the fms are wrong because other way they cannot be defeated...

Sorry for bad english.

[WTE_Galway]

meh ...

You cannot combine a totally accurate historical flight sim with a popular online flight sim.

Online flight sims need to cater to game balance issues and make concessions for popular (but historically inaccurate) myths about famous aircraft.

The two are not compatible.

[Crumpp]

The RAE data for the Spits is hard to argue with

Much of the RAE data is ONE airplane.
Supermarine also had a guarantee percentage of a mean in the Spitfire's performance.

I would like to see the stability and control characteristics modeled. As much as any other performance parameters, they are key to an aircraft's ability to fight.

[Ernst]

I do not agree with the guys stating spitfires are porked. However since the devs make the 100 octane the servers are more populated and in fact i am happy with this because now we have more enemies to play with. In fact the reds are more happy to fly since they have 100 octane and the blue are happy because they have motivated enemies to play with. I expect the devs fix the hurrincane start procedure then the guys who like the hurries ll come too.

My only worry is that the devs create proper CEM and weathering that prevent players of using 12 lbs boost unpunished. Now after they had the 12 lbs they want to use it all time they want for longer periods without damage. Why? My critique is for that guys who thinks that while their acs overperforms the enemy in any situation then is not good enough. When i fly the 109 i only use 1.2 ata or aprox 70% trothle while climbing and only 1.1 ata or aprox. 50% while cruising. Normally when i change course i accelerate to 80% (only to maintain speed) for a while then trotle back to 50%. When entering combat i accelerate full power but always when i can i reduce the power to 1.2 or 1.1 to preserve the engine. With the actual CEM i really not need to fly this way, i could simpe maintain full power and be happy. But i fly this way because i like. I like to fly as is should be, even if the CEM permits the other way. I dream about the day when this ll really make some difference. This way not only that few moments of combat ll be important, but all you do since you take off. You ll have to really prepare to find you enemy. But i am cetic cause i known there ll be many complaining about: "I cannot fly more than x minutes full power" "The engine is porked" "Engine is heating too fast" "This is not true" "Engine is toast after some minutes" etc. So i am not very helpfull because the devs ll not made that way cause most guys are only turn and burners...

Some say: If the manuals say 3 or 5 minutes then they can use it for much more time without damage (based in what? developers are conservative?), i.e, using their own interpretation about a thing that is not wrote anywhere to get more advantage.

And i agree with Crummp control stability is very important and we have some things complete wrong like the 109 stall and spin behaviour.

[gimpy117]

I feel like there is a lot of bias when it comes to the spit, I feel more so than the Me-109. Spit Pilots Complain because they keep getting bounced by the ME-109 and call it a god plane...except for the fact that the 109 pilots are screaming in from a height advantage. From my experiences with the spit, it is far from uber sure, but it's REALLY REALLY good. To fight an ME 109 all you need do is turn and wait for his first mistake. It's easy to fly it on the edge because of it's baby easy flight model. It might well be slower than RL like everyone screams (as far as i know the 109 is too) but it's roll rate is crazy overdone and the controls are balanced wonderfully (which is not right). The Me-109 on the other hand is porked to a degree because it has no wing slats that function. to fight a spit I always seem like I need to fly on pins and needles. Many Times I have had a spit dead to rights (or the other way around) and have had him somehow fly out of it.

and yes, I agree the Me-109 has a completely wrong stall and spin. but I bet thats because it has no slats!