Updated RAF FMs in 1.07.18301

[WTE_Galway]

meh .... its politics really.

If it were just a game people would choose whatever aircraft suits there flying style. In addition noobs would choose the better performing aircraft and experienced flyers would go for something more challenging.

Instead people seem obsessed with reliving the war (or perhaps in some cases Hollywood movies) choose a side based on political or national biases and then try and get that side as much advantage as they can, all the while polling the net for any evidence they can find to support their views.

There is absolutely no interest in historical accuracy unless that historical evidence just happens to advantage the particular persons preferred aircraft - and that applies to both red and blue sides. Its all very childish really.

[camber]

Originally Posted by WTE_Galway

meh .... its politics really.
Instead people seem obsessed with reliving the war (or perhaps in some cases Hollywood movies) choose a side based on political or national biases and then try and get that side as much advantage as they can, all the while polling the net for any evidence they can find to support their views.

There is absolutely no interest in historical accuracy unless that historical evidence just happens to advantage the particular persons preferred aircraft - and that applies to both red and blue sides. Its all very childish really.

Well, so anyone investigating historical performance, trying to form a balanced view then seeing how that performance matches the actual game....is childish and partisan?! Sure, there is always some of that kind of content on the fringes. I wouldn't take seriously posts along the lines of: "I red a buk once that said that Spitfires went ultraasonic on those 109 noobs" But seriously, partisan posts with research done badly or in bad faith rather out themselves, don't you think?

I return your meh with capitalisation. Meh

[Flanker35M]

S!

I think Galway tried to say in an exaggerated way that some players might have an agenda for their favorite plane/gun/ship/car or whatever and do not stop pushing it as the only "accuracy" is the one that suits them. Can be found in many games but luckily it is the minority, most want accuracy for all which makes the games/sims a challenge, not another "shoot fish in a barrel" thingy

[=AN=Felipe]

guys take a look

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...089#post442089

[Crumpp]

Ernst says

If in RL was that way the 109s would have no chance

In RL, the Luftwaffe won the fighter vs fighter engagement on average.

Read the RAF official history. The United Kingdom was able to out produce Germany in both pilots and machines despite FC's horrendous loss rate in combat.

[gimpy117]

to be honest, unless we fix all the planes, a lot of this is irrelevant. so what if the spit is too slow? so are all the rest of them. I mean right now the spit turns better than anything so it's not like it's really that big of a deal? It can out turn even the Hurricane and G.50, and only the ME-109 is faster if flown flat out (or maybe the 110 if you're some kind of god).

what I'm getting at is, unless we fix them all at once there will just be another spitfire turkeyshoot.

[camber]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

only the ME-109 is faster if flown flat out (or maybe the 110 if you're some kind of god).

I'm sorry but after reading that I can't stop thinking about a glowing 110 suddenly appearing in furballs with choral sound effects. Apollo at the controls, Zeus at the rear gun. If you do get them they don't need parachutes, they just float down in togas and swim down to meet Poseidon.

Could someone enter this in bugtracker pls.

[Glider]

Just an obvious statement. There is no doubt that the RAF lost more fighters than the Luftwaffe, but to then extend this to say that the Luftwaffe won the fighter vs. fighter engagement on average is an unproven opinion.

The Luftwaffe fighter’s primary target were of course the RAF fighters. The RAF primary targets were the Luftwaffe Bombers who shot down a good number of the Hurricanes and Spitfires that attacked them.

What the split is I do not know and it’s probable that more RAF fighters were shot down by German fighters than vice versa but even there the tactical situation was different. It would be very misleading to look at the losses and assume that fighter/fighter combats resulted in the loss ratio shown on the charts.

Straight fighter/fighter combats where the numbers were broadly even were rare, if only because the RAF avoided such combats, as the bombers were the priority.

There was an interview shown on the TV a few months ago where an RAF BOB pilot was asked if the German bombers were defenceless. He pointed out that he had been shot down by a He111 and had to crash land after being hit by a Ju88 so he thought that they could take care of themselves. Either that or he was a poor fighter pilot but as he had survived the war, he was probably at least average.