Speed graphs for Spitfire and Hurricane

[Kurfürst]

Red reactions in this thread remind me to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gQozw40Mso

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine

I'm not talking about data. I'm talking about how the sentiment on these FMs seems to change interestingly whenever we get new FM updates.

The biggest anomaly for me is the IIa. So many people said "It's the only accurately modelled plane in the sim" and now it's being reduced and people are all saying "Well, of course! It's so grossly overmodelled!"

I have no stats or anything to tell the devs how to make these planes. I am not an engineer. I do not have a degree in avionics or aerodynamics or whatever. I am not qualified to have that argument.

What I do feel qualified to talk about is how odd this whole saga has been and continues to be.

There is nothing impartial about ANY of the player discussions about these aircraft, I think. On the Blue or Red side.

Not until I see a Blue player crusading for the increase in Red plane performance, or a Red player vehemently arguing that the 109 is too slow will I suggest that anyone here is really being anything more than self-serving with respect to the FMs.

Personally, I am SHOCKED that there are players who are impartially lobbying for their favorite aircraft. SHOCKED!!!

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by Insuber

Too fast relatively to the other planes, mate. Far from me to start an argument about blue vs. red ... can't care less.
We missed at that time any charts of the game performances allowing to understand better the issue. And today it's clear that 109 was a bit slower and Hurricane a bit faster. But I agree that the common goal is to get faithful FMs of all planes, so I will fight to get a realistic Hurricane and Spit etc. as well.

Cheers!

I don't care about relativity to other types, I purely care about each type having accuracy.

87 octane it is, let's press for 12lbs boost (yes yes for the recommended limits!). This brings me to the next problem, that the Spitfire out-turns the Hurricane, and the 109 can turn with the Hurricane unless flap is used *note this is a generalisation, I know that speed has effects . So, the Hurricane should be the best turner, if that it unchanged it's going to become a deathtrap with the correction to speed.

As for online, I'm expecting a lot of LW complaint, hissyfits and general rudeness from the obtuse. It's been a tough year for the RAF, now I will be leading my crew up over 6km+ on the hunt, on top of the LW, the tables will turn I can deal with speed loss because I will still reach 400mph in a dive to tonk down the unsuspecting 109

[JG52Uther]

There is no red or blue for me. I would like the aircraft to be as historically accurate as possible.
Will be interesting if the game ever does Russia 1941, because the Russian fighters were death traps, and somehow I can't see that working out too well...

[Insuber]

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine

Not until I see a Blue player crusading for the increase in Red plane performance, or a Red player vehemently arguing that the 109 is too slow will I suggest that anyone here is really being anything more than self-serving with respect to the FMs.

Originally Posted by Insuber

(...)
On the other hand I agree that the 12 lbs boost / 100 octane fuel must be modeled, of course with a limitation on overheating and engine life as in RL, to correct the Hurricane I performance below 3000 m which looks excessively penalized, IF KWIATEK CHARTS ARE ACCURATE

The first condition is true, I'm waiting for the second one ...

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Snapper

Pfffft. What good will that do, David? Really? The devs have had a year to correct it, they've had over seven years to research it. They don't care. The fix is in. We get it. As Wolverine very capably outlined, the Red fliers will adjust tactics to accommodate the new FM changes. This is a game after all; many of us mistook this as a simulation.

To blame the dev team of 2011 is hardly the answer -- might as well blame George Bush while they're at it. Ten minutes flying the Spitfire Ia (including the warmup time) will tell you somethin' ain't right. Don't need a chart to figure that out!

If it's so obviously wrong then you should have no problem finding test data to back up your complaints. It may not convince the dev team to change things, but at least you won't look like you're whining (which is kinda what it looks like you're doing right now).

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by JG52Uther

There is no red or blue for me. I would like the aircraft to be as historically accurate as possible.
Will be interesting if the game ever does Russia 1941, because the Russian fighters were death traps, and somehow I can't see that working out too well...

The biggest single disadvantage of Reds is that they have a far larger planeset, and they constantly have to fly different types which would require different flight styles, but its impossible to master them all.

Compare that to anyone who just flies to 109. Or the 190. Its no wonders

I am not worried for the Russia 1941 scenario. Mig 3 was essentially the BEST high altitude fighter of its time, and the Yak 1 was decent. Armament is light, but so is the 109F-2s.. You just don't have to fly them like the Russians flew them in 1941 under the well known handicaps. Just like nobody is forcing RAF pilots to fly target in rigid three plane formations.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by Insuber

No red pilots complained a lot about it, iirc ...

Insuber, lots of us (what you call red pilots) did complain about it - the fact that Hurricane is faster than Spitfire anc climbs better is simply ridicilous and no virtual RAF pilot I know agreed on that.

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by JG52Uther

There is no red or blue for me. I would like the aircraft to be as historically accurate as possible.
Will be interesting if the game ever does Russia 1941, because the Russian fighters were death traps, and somehow I can't see that working out too well...

Yes I wonder if they'll have laminated panels peeling off wings in dives and engines conking out because the build quality was so crap.

Server owners will have to script in random failures for Russian fliers for historical accuracy

[ATAG_Snapper]

Originally Posted by David Hayward

If it's so obviously wrong then you should have no problem finding test data to back up your complaints. It may not convince the dev team to change things, but at least you won't look like you're whining (which is kinda what it looks like you're doing right now).

David, my priorities in life don't mandate me proving myself to you. The data has already been presented in this forum, as you well know. Or you may prefer to use Kurfurst's "data" since it would no doubt suit you better.

Whatever. I'm not going to indulge your wish for a "chart war" -- that's been done to death already. Not whining -- just saying we know the current flight models are wrong and the patch is making them worse. Unlike yourself, we actually play the game and we know what is -- is. Just don't expect us to believe otherwise.