109 advice needed (climb)

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by jg27_mc

Whatever... I am ok with your opinions, although I don't agree with them. Every single AC has it's strong and weak aspects, being that said, it was not the issue in my previous post. I am talking of a completely different perspective (more profound if you wish) you either have the ability to understand it or not.

What I was asking was: what has 1946 to do with CoD? Why are you even bringing anything that you think was wrong with Spitfires and 109s in Il-2 1946 into this thread I don't care what you think about my opinion, my opinion does not matter at all. Every Il-2 player flying both (blue and red) sides equally will see how biased and ridiculous these kinds of comments are anyway.

Originally Posted by jg27_mc

If you like to have a combat simulation with airplanes modeled like an xbox/PS game, please be my guest. If you were unable to understand the importance of my post regarding CloD and the comparative between the Spit and 109.

No, I very much enjoy that CoD is more game and less arcade (compared to 1946). I actually wish they would make it as hardcore as possible. Your opinion of 109 vs Spitfires in 1946 is irrelevant and unimportant. It's just your frustration fighting them on the blue side. Fair enough

Originally Posted by jg27_mc

I get chills just thinking how the approaches are going to be made, considering the early past... Of course if you think Spitfires were well done in 1946 comparing the complexity present in both fighters (Spit and 109). I completely rest my case.

I still fly 1946 a lot and since 4.09m, the Spitfires Mk.V and Mk.IX (e.g. the ones in the stock game) were overhauled by Team Daidalos and they did a very good job imho - just FYI

I do remember though how they used to perform in 4.08 and never had any problem with them flying Blue (which was 60+ percent of the time). Very capable plane as it should be.

Originally Posted by jg27_mc

PS: AFAIK most of 109's if not all (regarding the same period) should be able to out climb Spitfires like in RL. In a late war scenario, as modeled in 1946, only the K4 was able to out climb (in certain conditions) the Spitfire... I guess I didn't quite understood that particular point of view, unless you were thinking biased...

Last note on 1946 - you're wrong as every single late war Bf 109 is able to outclimb Spitfire and excell on the vertical if used right. (except that 25lbs. beast obviously)

----------------------------

As for the actual topic - as it is, Bf 109 is certainly able to outclimb any Mk.I RAF fighter as it should. FM need some fine tuning, there is a patch coming out soon so why don't we simply wait, try it and THEN comment.

You're coming here with your opinions from an different sim (which you don't fly anymore) and comment on stuff that has not even happened yet. Why? (that was my question)

My recommendation to any orthodox blue or red pilots - try flying the other side for a month or two

My fear with the new patch is that luthier said they are looking into the fm of the spit but made no mention of the other planes. So probably we will get a spit 1 faster than the hurricane to make this right but the rest will stay where it is ...

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow

My fear with the new patch is that luthier said they are looking into the fm of the spit but made no mention of the other planes. So probably we will get a spit 1 faster than the hurricane to make this right but the rest will stay where it is ...

I'm not bothered since to me this game is still incomplete: but having a well modelled Spit is a great thing... one of the many steps they have to take.

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

I'm not bothered since to me this game is still incomplete: but having a well modelled Spit is a great thing... one of the many steps they have to take.

Agreed that they should fix the Spit. My concern is that we will wait a long time or even an eternity for the other planes to be fixed.

@Ace:

I agree that to some extend we will have to rely on some hypothesises wrt plane performance. However we should use any data that we can get imho - and be it just to calibrate the calculated data.

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow

Agreed that they should fix the Spit. My concern is that we will wait a long time or even an eternity for the other planes to be fixed.

Of course. That I meant is that they have to start with a plane: it's better to have one well modelled plane and 3 bad modelled ones for 6 months than 4 bad modelled planes for 6 months.

I know that the dogfights will suffer from it... but since I've not CloD on my HD for me it's ok (as for majority of the pilots in my squad).

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow

I agree that to some extend we will have to rely on some hypothesises wrt plane performance.

Not to some extent..

Actually in most cases we will have to rely on a calculated (what you call hypothesizes) value.

Because truth be told, they did NOT test every variant of every plane in WWII.. Add to that the fact that most tests in WWII were limited to '2' (ROC, TOP SPEED per Altitude) sometimes '3' (ROC, TOP SPEED per Altitude, Time to Climb) performance tests. And a lot of those were lost during or since the war.

As noted here, out of the hundreds upon thousands of plane types used during WWII we only have about '6' turn rate tests, and only at one altitude.

Now consider 'other' factors people love to whine about.. say roll rates.. There was very little testing done on that during WWII..

So with that said MOST of the data used in WWII flight sims is of the 'calculated' type (what you call hypothesizes)

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow

However we should use any data that we can get imho

Yes all six or so turn rate test should be used along with the half dozen or so roll rate tests

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow

- and be it just to calibrate the calculated data.

I would call it more of a sanity check than a calibration

All in all the turn rate and roll rate data is very limited, because they just didn't bother or think those values were worth testing. Where 'they' did find ROC and Top Speed per Altitude worth testing.. So that data is much easier to find, but, they didn't always re-test a plane when a variant of said plane came out.

So, there is almost always going to be a calculation done, if not from scratch or to tweak existing data for a variant of the plane

[jg27_mc]

Originally Posted by Robo.

What I was asking was: what has 1946 to do with CoD? Why are you even bringing anything that you think was wrong with Spitfires and 109s in Il-2 1946 into this thread I don't care what you think about my opinion, my opinion does not matter at all. Every Il-2 player flying both (blue and red) sides equally will see how biased and ridiculous these kinds of comments are anyway.



No, I very much enjoy that CoD is more game and less arcade (compared to 1946). I actually wish they would make it as hardcore as possible. Your opinion of 109 vs Spitfires in 1946 is irrelevant and unimportant. It's just your frustration fighting them on the blue side. Fair enough



I still fly 1946 a lot and since 4.09m, the Spitfires Mk.V and Mk.IX (e.g. the ones in the stock game) were overhauled by Team Daidalos and they did a very good job imho - just FYI

I do remember though how they used to perform in 4.08 and never had any problem with them flying Blue (which was 60+ percent of the time). Very capable plane as it should be.



Last note on 1946 - you're wrong as every single late war Bf 109 is able to outclimb Spitfire and excell on the vertical if used right. (except that 25lbs. beast obviously)

----------------------------

As for the actual topic - as it is, Bf 109 is certainly able to outclimb any Mk.I RAF fighter as it should. FM need some fine tuning, there is a patch coming out soon so why don't we simply wait, try it and THEN comment.

You're coming here with your opinions from an different sim (which you don't fly anymore) and comment on stuff that has not even happened yet. Why? (that was my question)

My recommendation to any orthodox blue or red pilots - try flying the other side for a month or two

Your one of those guys that... Well I am done with you. Take the bicycle home.

PS: (I should really be killing you instead of wasting my time here)

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by jg27_mc

Your one of those guys that... Well I am done with you. Take the bicycle home.

PS: (I should really be killing you instead of wasting my time here)

Not sure what you're on about here with the bicycle and stuff, but that little 'fight' of ours on ATAG was rather interesting, wasn't it?

Honestly, I hope the devs will keep improving the sim FM-wise - I believe the main FM problems are well known and documented and I am looking forward for the upcoming patches.

[jg27_mc]

Originally Posted by Robo.

Not sure what you're on about here with the bicycle and stuff, but that little 'fight' of ours on ATAG was rather interesting, wasn't it?

Honestly, I hope the devs will keep improving the sim FM-wise - I believe the main FM problems are well known and documented and I am looking forward for the upcoming patches.

It sure was (I really mean it). Hopefully this is a computer game and I live to fight another day.
Regards.

[AKA_Tenn]

so why couldn't they just let the physical model do it? give different parts of the plane weight, give the air weight, then let the physics engine do the work instead of giving the planes flying attributes absolute values... so there's no flight model at all...

since this game is really graphically intensive and hardly uses any CPU at all really... but i guess we still have a ways to go for that?

i was just thinking that because it doesn't matter weather its a machine gun or a sack of potatos if they weigh the same, they'll effect the characteristics of the airplane very similarly... so that way you wouldn't need to know the flying characteristics of the plane, just the thrust, shape and weight distribution