Speed graphs for Spitfire and Hurricane

[SEE]

I think many RED players will have to discipline themselves to stay above 6000m if the Spit1a is the only allied fighter on a server and draw the ME109 into high alt combat. For me that is how it should be but, even so, the planned reduction of 20km/hr below 6000m in a Spit Mk1a is controversial to say the least.

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by SEE

I think many RED players will have to discipline themselves to stay above 6000m if the Spit1a is the only allied fighter on a server and draw the ME109 into high alt combat. For me that is how it should be but, even so, the planned reduction of 20km/hr below 6000m in a Spit Mk1a is controversial to say the least.

Going to be a bit of a problem when the enemies bombers are flying at @4000m though.

I'm beginning to doubt we will ever see 12lbs performance for red planes, but we'll see.

[bw_wolverine]

Originally Posted by fruitbat

Going to be a bit of a problem when the enemies bombers are flying at @4000m though.

I'm beginning to doubt we will ever see 12lbs performance for red planes, but we'll see.

I believe this is the case.

Red pilots are just going to have to deal with this and try to use tactics.

If you seriously fly red, then you should be circling back by Eastchurch and the Thames estuary climbing to at least 16,000ft and higher before heading into the combat area.

Otherwise, you get what you get.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine

I believe this is the case.

Red pilots are just going to have to deal with this and try to use tactics.

If you seriously fly red, then you should be circling back by Eastchurch and the Thames estuary climbing to at least 16,000ft and higher before heading into the combat area.

Otherwise, you get what you get.

Agree.

Which means when "Ju88's spotted over Oye Plage" we'll need to fly 180 degrees AWAY from the target in order to intercept! LOL

(Just kidding.........I hope! )

[Jatta Raso]

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine

I believe this is the case.

Red pilots are just going to have to deal with this and try to use tactics.

If you seriously fly red, then you should be circling back by Eastchurch and the Thames estuary climbing to at least 16,000ft and higher before heading into the combat area.

Otherwise, you get what you get.

for the sake of gameplay all servers must unrestrict Spits IIa, then if you fly blue you get what you get.

unless the blues wanna start shooting each other that is.. or the whole thing gets totally ruined; Spit Ia getting porked even further, i read it and i can't believe it.. seriously devs, GREAT JOB

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine

I believe this is the case.

Red pilots are just going to have to deal with this and try to use tactics.

If you seriously fly red, then you should be circling back by Eastchurch and the Thames estuary climbing to at least 16,000ft and higher before heading into the combat area.

Otherwise, you get what you get.

what a load of bollocks !

where have you ever read/heard anything like that about the historical BoB ? do you really think that allied command told their fighters "dont fly below 6000 meters guys, or the very superior performing 109's will make mince meat of you" or "let all bomber formations get through if they fly below 6000 meters, because we'd like to save your planes for later in the war and we'll try and avoid you engaging the 109's" ? you'r making poor excuses for major technical errors/bugs in the game and suggesting "gaming the game" is somehow a solution

the whole point of a SIMULATION of anything that claims to be a ww2 plane sim is that it should as close as possible SIMULATE the performance relationship between those main fighter aircraft. to willfully handicap the red side and then pretend "its the pilot that matters, not the plane" is a load of nonsense.



Blacksix,

extensive data has been provided to you and 1C for some time now that all hurricanes and spitfire squadrons were provided with 100 octane fuel AT THE START OF THE HISTORICAL BOB DATE, yet MG and 1C still dont seem to understand they have used older 87 octane fuel data and you thereby crippled the hurricanes and spitfires in their engagements with 109's

either cripple the 109 in speed to make both planes wrong (but both equally proportionally reduced in speed compared to historical data), which obviously would be silly, OR GIVE US 100 OCTANE FUEL FOR THE SPITFIRES AND HURRICANES !! frankly, i wouldnt bother bringing out the "post-beta patch" (once the gfx engine performance is fixed, and you are adding game bug fixes) without it, since we might as well all go back to using il2-1946 then

the single most important aspect of a ww2 FLIGHT SIMULATOR is to have the performance characteristics between those competitive fighter aircraft correct, if that isnt the case then dont bother wasting development time on making pretty houses, driving cars, or other elements that ENHANCE the core flightsim aspect of the game. please understand those priorities correctly

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by fruitbat

I'm beginning to doubt we will ever see 12lbs performance for red planes, but we'll see.

Vote for bug 174 (link in sig)

Originally Posted by SEE

I think many RED players will have to discipline themselves to stay above 6000m if the Spit1a is the only allied fighter on a server and draw the ME109 into high alt combat. For me that is how it should be but, even so, the planned reduction of 20km/hr below 6000m in a Spit Mk1a is controversial to say the least.

I am pretty sure it is correct. Remember that these are modelled from data supplied from RAE that was using 87 octane fuel. The 100 octane (12lbs) modell is considerably faster and not modelled (refer to my bug link

The test supplied was for propellers I believe, lots of different data on the trialled props.

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by Osprey

Vote for bug 174 (link in sig)

done a while back

[smink1701]

Looking good.

[SEE]

Originally Posted by Osprey

Vote for bug 174 (link in sig)
I am pretty sure it is correct. Remember that these are modelled from data supplied from RAE that was using 87 octane fuel. The 100 octane (12lbs) modell is considerably faster and not modelled (refer to my bug link

The test supplied was for propellers I believe, lots of different data on the trialled props.

What I see is that the current Mk1a is closer to the test graph up to 6000m but the patch will impose an unecessary reduction in the speed - that is what I don't understand.

So why make it slower when it is more or less correct to 6000m and the problem was the dip above 6000m (which will be corrected) or am i missing something here?