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

[VO101_Tom]

Originally Posted by Osprey

You make an excellent post then follow it up with this nonsense Tom. I think you've totally missed the point.

Aircraft performance can not be accurately compared based on Books and stories. You do not know what were the circumstances, what was the battle scene, what was the status of the planes, who was the experienced pilots, had they damage or injury before, and you don't know many other reason.
If you read memoirs of pilots who survived the war – it's incredible– but all of them survived the war, and all of them will tell you that they plane was better than other. They win the dogfights.

Kozhedub was asked once, what he thinks, what was the best plane of the WW2? He replied: "The La-7. I hope you understand why."

[ATAG_Snapper]

I certainly recognize that pilots will tend to be biased -- frequently VERY biased -- in favour or disfavour of the plane type they flew. On balance, to a degree, Spitfire pilots also noted with honesty how the Spitfire Mark V was outclassed by the FW 190, and how they also sincerely believed the subsequent Spitfire Mark IX evened things up.

I am not quick to discount anecdotal references by pilots who actually flew the aircraft in combat as utterly worthless. By definition, if something, even a subjective opinion, is not utterly worthless....then there HAS to be SOME worth to a firsthand observation or impression. Whether they were confident in their aircraft or disdainful of it, there's gotta be a reason other than some empty-headed conviction. Charts, graphs, and highlighted documents are wonderful, until you find yourself at 20 angels and virtual cannon shells are ripping through your virtual cockpit.

So, I read through the many, many accounts written by pilots of both sides to get an overall impression before relying exclusively on what the charts say. This is the EXACT reason ALL meteorologists look out the window before going home for the day to see if they need an umbrella.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by VO101_Tom

Aircraft performance can not be accurately compared based on Books and stories. You do not know what were the circumstances, what was the battle scene, what was the status of the planes, who was the experience of the pilots, they had damage or injury before, and you dont know many other reason.
If you read memoirs of pilots who survived the war – it's incredible– but all of them survived the war, and all of them will tell you that they plane was better then other. They win the dogfights.

Kozedub was asked once, what he thinks, what was the best plane of the WW2? He replied: "The La-7. I hope you do not ask me why..."

I think got exactly what you ment Tom, and you're 100%-ly right mate.

More than anything, it's the initial situation that matters, outcome of the fight is about tactics which involves: position (altitude) / speed / maneuveur / shooting (while you mention Kozhedub ), BUT the FMs should be correct to start with regardless. Of course experienced pilot can use even 'porked' plane and succeed (by bouncing the enemy whenever possible) but that's not a reason to keep them porked, is it? Especially if this era is so well researched and all information is available to the devs!

I never actually tried the 100 octane Spit with CEM off to be honest, I use Repka 4 'mince meat' server for personal training and my ride is usually stock Ia Spitfire as at the moment I practice defensive tactics and manoeveurs against 109s (in which case I place myself underneath a decent 109 pilot and see what happens when I get co-E ), although it's fun to fly over there I tend to fly carefully with rpm so I can use that skills on proper servers, too. With CEM switched on, the 100 octane was closer to the 109 climb performance but not quite there and for very limited time due to overheating problems. Mind you that was in 1.07 so I am not sure how it looks like now.

[VO101_Tom]

Originally Posted by Robo.

I... BUT the FMs should be correct to start with regardless. Of course experienced pilot can use even 'porked' plane and succeed (by bouncing the enemy whenever possible) but that's not a reason to keep them porked, is it?

Of course not, I did not said anything like this. Only bother me, if anyone claims the status of FM based of feelings and impressions (instead of measuring and datas). Like everyone would be a test pilot... Clear 1v1 the only opportunity, to find out the differences between the planes. If the situation is neutral, same energy level, same starting conditions, the Spit is a deadly, hard opponent.

Originally Posted by Robo.

I never actually tried the 100 octane Spit with CEM off to be honest, I use Repka 4 'mince meat' server for personal training and my ride is usually stock Ia Spitfire as at the moment I practice defensive tactics and manoeveurs against 109s (in which case I place myself underneath a decent 109 pilot and see what happens when I get co-E ), although it's fun to fly over there I tend to fly carefully with rpm so I can use that skills on proper servers, too.

The Repka is fun target practice, but nothing more. You can't dogfighting, because somebody will shot you or your opponent within a minute. Last time, I remember, only You and Vranac, who flew a little higher on the red side, but almost all of the players chasing eachother on the deck... well, I'm not complaining, I let them fly low, if they want

[5./JG27.Farber]

Originally Posted by VO101_Tom

Aircraft performance can not be accurately compared based on Books and stories. You do not know what were the circumstances, what was the battle scene, what was the status of the planes, who was the experienced pilots, had they damage or injury before, and you don't know many other reason.
If you read memoirs of pilots who survived the war – it's incredible– but all of them survived the war, and all of them will tell you that they plane was better than other. They win the dogfights.

Kozhedub was asked once, what he thinks, what was the best plane of the WW2? He replied: "The La-7. I hope you understand why."

+1 and in addition, we are all "aces"... In RL this was not so, some British pilots in BoB only had 6 or 10 hours flght time...

[ATAG_Dutch]

Top speed at sea level test with and without 'temp effects' enabled. Both runs done in the free flight England quick mission. Spit MkIa 100oct.

With temp effects on I got 270mph with +11 boost, 3000rpm.

With temp effects off I got 290mph with +11 boost, 3000rpm.

No extra effort or duration of flight was necessary, the Spit was just faster with temp effects off.

The first screenshot is temp effects off, the second temp effects on.

CEM was on in both cases.

[Longywales]

I can also confirm that the spitfire is speeding and climbing faster with CEM turned off..in variants IIa and Ia_Oct

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Longywales

I can also confirm that the spitfire is speeding and climbing faster with CEM turned off..in variants IIa and Ia_Oct

Longywales, please could you try it again with just the 'temp effects' turned off? Leave CEM on, turn off temps. That's how I got the result above. Thanks

[Longywales]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Dutch

Longywales, please could you try it again with just the 'temp effects' turned off? Leave CEM on, turn off temps. That's how I got the result above. Thanks

Yeah, same results with temp off...it must be the temp effects causing the fault then....

Maybe you guys at ATAG could make a server with temp effects off for the time being

[ATAG_Snapper]

Originally Posted by Longywales

Yeah, same results with temp off...it must be the temp effects causing the fault then....

Maybe you guys at ATAG could make a server with temp effects off for the time being

Good thought.

We need to see if other aircraft (notably 109's, 110's) are adversely affected by switching Temp Effects off. I don't have the hours (ie competence) to extract maximum performance from these two aircraft -- hopefully somebody here can and will report back.

So far, this is an interesting development.