British FM killing the fun of the game for allied pilots.

[TomcatViP]

LoL, there is more lobbying on this forum than in the halls of the European Parliament.

You guys shld switch side from time to time . it's just like taking a new gf. Then the former one doesn't look so bad

[Ze-Jamz]

Originally Posted by kristorf

Mission building is a dark art to me and is done in locked rooms with cauldrens boiling in the corner for all I know.

[klem]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

LoL, there is more lobbying on this forum than in the halls of the European Parliament.

You guys shld switch side from time to time . it's just like taking a new gf. Then the former one doesn't look so bad

I did. I flew a 109E-3 tonight. Talk about easy to fly!
Smooth engine with no cutout, retains E, big guns, loads of ammo.

Ah well, back to the laggardly Spitfire or carthorse Hurricane.

[ElAurens]

I just wish the bloody thing was fixed.

I miss flying.

I really do, but I'll be damned if I'm going to waste my time on this broken, one quarter finished, "simulation".

Why do you come here and argue with each other? It's not our fault that things are so awful in CloD. You should be venting your spleens at the developers, who don't seem to be willing, or able, to fix this title.

My only stick time these days is some limited play in IL2/46 with one or two of my old squad mates. That sim works, and it continues to improve.

[Faustnik]

A big problem is no damage model with radiator.

Small MGs lose out with no radiator damage model. Glycol loss was huge number of fighters lost at the Channel.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Bounder!

+1 to this

The current flight model of the Spit 1a (both varients) and Spit 2a is miles off what it should be and seems to be going the wrong way. The last patch has killed these aircraft both with the engine overheating problems at mid-high altitude and these aircraft now suffer terrible acceleration and very poor climb rates compared to the 109.

We know roughly what the performance of these two aircraft were and how closely they matched up in reality during BoB which is one of the attractions to the BoB era imo. When the Spit 2a was vastly outperforming the 109 we had a lot of whining on the forums (quite rightly) but now we have the opposite situation with the 109s becoming the UFOs/rocket ships by comparison. This isn't a nerf the 109 post, it's a get the FM right for the sets of aircraft post. The Spit 1a variants and 2a are porked right now and need sorting out.

+100% The engine overheating is waaay overcooked, especially in the Spitfire II; the real Merlin XIIs and subsequent variants had a completely revised cooling system using 70% H20 and 30% Glycol, leading to a great improvement in the engine's thermal characteristics - with the 100% glycol the Merlin III always ran hotter and the gaskets had a much shorter life. There is plenty of info out there - perhaps time to launch a legitimate bug report.

[Ze-Jamz]

Originally Posted by klem

I did. I flew a 109E-3 tonight. Talk about easy to fly!
Smooth engine with no cutout, retains E, big guns, loads of ammo.

Ah well, back to the laggardly Spitfire or carthorse Hurricane.

Its an energy fighter and energy fighting is what it does good..flying it yes is easy, fighting in it correctly isn't...

Yanking back on a stick and turn fighting is easy too if you have a turn fighter..

Yes I can speak from both sides as I spent 7 months in the spits n huri, yanking back when someone on your six don't get much easier that that, scissors easy as pie in a spit even now yet fighting in it vertically isn't...do whatever the other fighter like doing and of course your see it as 'easy'

Let's not now start the whole your plane is well easy to fly and we've got the nerfed fighter debate as that's not the issue here which bird is 'apparently' easy to 'fly' in its about the red fighters getting fixed

[drewpee]

Originally Posted by Ze-Jamz

Its an energy fighter and energy fighting is what it does good..flying it yes is easy, fighting in it correctly isn't...

Yanking back on a stick and turn fighting is easy too if you have a turn fighter..

Yes I can speak from both sides as I spent 7 months in the spits n huri, yanking back when someone on your six don't get much easier that that, scissors easy as pie in a spit even now yet fighting in it vertically isn't...do whatever the other fighter like doing and of course your see it as 'easy'

Let's not now start the whole your plane is well easy to fly and we've got the nerfed fighter debate as that's not the issue here which bird is 'apparently' easy to 'fly' in its about the red fighters getting fixed

Well said. If only people were more willing to try both sides in combat there would be far less arguing about red vs blue.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by drewpee

Well said. If only people were more willing to try both sides in combat there would be far less arguing about red vs blue.

Yes indeed mate! Many online debates (or arguments if you wish) are going nowehere simply because one side has no clue what the other side is trying to say.

Originally Posted by Ze-Jamz

(109) Its an energy fighter and energy fighting is what it does good..flying it yes is easy, fighting in it correctly isn't...

Any fighter plane is energy fighter as long its used as one. I agree with what you're saying here, in my opinion it's equally difficult to fly any plane well (on its full potential.)

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by kristorf

Just my two peneth,

Regarding online numbers.
If the Channel Map were fixed so coops could be played on it as was one of the original concept there would be a lot more squads use it, I know mine would be tempted to do so.

But you can play co-op, Banks co-op coding does just that. It's not via an official menu and there is a small amount of initial fiddling that a toddler could handle, but other than that it IS a co-op. I'm talking about all starting together, be it with an airstart or not, and even with your own group of AI to follow you about if the mission builder desires it. I know this because I've done co-op in 1946, and now in COD. The only difference is that you all spawn in a grounded aircraft then use the menu to select another aircraft. Then when you all select to start/spawn you will be spawned into your selected machine - you can time this using voice or chatbar, the system doesn't do it for you.

Then there is the whole mission style mapping in COD so you have a co-op feel anyway - the 5./JG27 campaign was just that. I don't buy these excuses tbh, or indeed any of these other 'major' squads that we are apparently missing from COD online, it just seems a bit of an easy cop out. IMHO co-op is not required but rather something that people are used to and desire. It was never realistic anyway and it doesn't suit the BoB (after all, Germans pretty much always took off first). If anything we need a proper fighter command RDF system which orders scrambles based on incoming reports
Had you said that people have performance issues with COD or that the FM's mean that it's not workable I would agree, but not regarding missions themselves, they function perfectly well.

Anybody out there who wants to do this sort of stuff in COD then see us at www.aircombatgroup.co.uk, allied and axis, doesn't matter, we run both, and we've had no major problems with actual missions.

~S~