Updated RAF FMs in 1.07.18301

[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!

[Jatta Raso]

actually i see it the other way around, the Blues were used, since last beta, to fight horrendously underpowered Reds, and were having joy almost every day; personally i felt much harder to catch a 109 with a Spit IIa then it ever was with the former Spit Ia, when the also former super Spit IIa was almost banned; i also knew i had not unlearned, rather the Spit had its speed chopped, bled E like crazy, could barely climb, and dropped like stone above 15000ft.

what happened i think, is that the Reds had to became smarter and improve their game, the situation became an intensive training against a foe that was better in almost every aspect; so by now, with our refurbished Spits, what i feel and see is the Blues having their arses handed a lot more often; i know they're having a harder time atm.

however i agree the Spit is very difficult to stall, WHEN you know were the limits are; since the Reds are a lot more used to turning fights, this notion has became second nature by now. but i assure you it's very easy for a Spit to enter a spin when you overdo a tight turn.

as for the 109s, well i've seen a lot more crashes due to spins lately, essentially when they try to pull very hard turns at low speed near the ground; my advise, DON'T; without speed, it's half a suicide. then again, what is to be expected? 109 doesn't have that turning ability, it has always been known for being very twitchy pulling such stunts. maybe atm is a bit exaggerated, i cannot say; but for sure not completely fake; i guess they'll have to get used to it somehow until they master it or it's toned down a bit

[Robo.]

I tend to agree with Jatta Raso - comparing the first and the current Beta patch, the RAF has got more chances now, which is good for everyone and it is also closer to historical specs.

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.

It's all about the pilot. If he started with advantage (21k) and kept his speed up, it is possible to stay on top of 3 109. It's not particulary easy and you have to shoot well. It's the other way round if you bounce him, esp. at lower altitudes (10k). What was the pilot's name if you don't mind me asking?

I smiled reading your opinion on Spitfire, I suggest you try it for a month or so and fly against some competent 109 pilots if you can (there is quite a few out there).

Don't get me wrong, I fly in a RAF Hurricane Squadron (not too much fun at the moment, huh?) but I spent lots of time in all fighters and I very much like the 109. My opinion is that all the FMs are a bit on the dodgy side and it is possible to do crazy stuff in any of them. Not just the LW or RAF in particular.

I agree on the red whining though. It's usually based on lack of discipline and cooperation (especially that!) and inability to accept own failure. You can see this on both sides though, I suggest you ignore this kind of remarks, certainly works for me.

The game is what it is, just have fun. Improve, learn and appreciate the advantages of whichever plane you chose (109, Spitfire, whatever). It takes a good pilot to be succesful in anything. None of that is easier than the other, it's just different approach. The Luftwaffe has got the performance superiority, that's the way it was in RL, but at the end of the day it's just about the pilot's skill and tactics.