Analysis of real life 109E performance for CloD

[JG4_Helofly]

@ Camber. I understand that you want the game to be as close as possible to RL. But we don't have the data to do this. If you had several thousands of test data from production aircrafts, then it would be representativ. Since we don't have this amount of data everyone can pick one of the tests and say: "but plane X was 25 km/h slower in this test". People who like plane X will say: "But it was 25km/h faster in an other test".
And there will be arguments about production quality, fuel availability, maintenance problems etc.
And that's exactly what we have now. That's why we need a solid base. Data we can agree on. That's why the only realistic approache is to model the planes according to standard specifications and taking all other variables out of the equation. Otherwise we will continue to argue about every km/h and everyone will pull out the test result which fits the agenda.

IMO the only alternative would be to have a performance spread of +/- 5% for every plane. So every plane would have it's standard performance values it should reach, but you could get a plane with a few % worse or better performance.

I really don't see how you could do it otherwise without having arbitrary performance values.

[camber]

Originally Posted by JG4_Helofly

@ Camber. I understand that you want the game to be as close as possible to RL. But we don't have the data to do this. If you had several thousands of test data from production aircrafts, then it would be representativ. Since we don't have this amount of data everyone can pick one of the tests and say: "but plane X was 25 km/h slower in this test". People who like plane X will say: "But it was 25km/h faster in an other test".
And there will be arguments about production quality, fuel availability, maintenance problems etc.
And that's exactly what we have now. That's why we need a solid base. Data we can agree on. That's why the only realistic approache is to model the planes according to standard specifications and taking all other variables out of the equation. Otherwise we will continue to argue about every km/h and everyone will pull out the test result which fits the agenda.

IMO the only alternative would be to have a performance spread of +/- 5% for every plane. So every plane would have it's standard performance values it should reach, but you could get a plane with a few % worse or better performance.

I really don't see how you could do it otherwise without having arbitrary performance values.

Actually I pretty much agree with you. My original analysis was an attempt to get as close as I could (with the limited data available) to "typical" 109E performance for historical purposes as a starting point for FMs. But I actually don't believe CloD is best served by neccessarily served by setting such values as single "cloned" variants into the game. Personally I think the sim is best served by getting performance within into the range that is consistent for historical performance (which is imprecise!), then making some subjective judgements that (if possible) allows matchups that are rewarding for both red and blue. For example the current Spit II vs 109E matchup is good, it relatively approximates a Mk1a +12psi vs 109E (at around 30kmh too slow at SL for both!). Based on data I believe historically the Mk1a would have actually been a bit quicker on the deck, but having them exactly the same speed is arguably within historical range and makes for satisfying online experiences.

Your idea of using factory data with a "performance slider" would also work well for the same reason, but I am not sure if there is much likelyhood the devs would ever do this!

Cheers, camber

[notafinger!]

Originally Posted by camber

Personally I think the sim is best served by getting performance within into the range that is consistent for historical performance (which is imprecise!), then making some subjective judgements that (if possible) allows matchups that are rewarding for both red and blue. For example the current Spit II vs 109E matchup is good, it relatively approximates a Mk1a +12psi vs 109E (at around 30kmh too slow at SL for both!). Based on data I believe historically the Mk1a would have actually been a bit quicker on the deck, but having them exactly the same speed is arguably within historical range and makes for satisfying online experiences.

I agree 100%. I would prefer the devs give us FM's that fit the historical anecdote of the battle, yet are fun & challenging to fly online. The three major fighters should each have distinct advantages/disadvantages & be competitive when flown to their strengths. It will be impossible to get 100% realism so at least give us something that feels right and is fun to play for both sides.

[tools4fools]

The three major fighters should each have distinct advantages/disadvantages & be competitive when flown to their strengths.

So a Hurricane flown to its strenght should be competitive with a 109 flown to its strenght?
Or a G50 vs a Spitfire?
How would that be possible?

Don't think so, they should perform as they did and if one plane was noticable inferior in overall combat capabilities then it should be that way.
+++++

[notafinger!]

Originally Posted by tools4fools

So a Hurricane flown to its strenght should be competitive with a 109 flown to its strenght?
Or a G50 vs a Spitfire?
How would that be possible?

Don't be daft. If a Hurricane's strength should be it's turning ability and a 109's it's speed then the respective pilots should have two very different fighting styles. The pilot that tries to fight the other man's game will lose. In the current version of the sim the Hurricane is useless as it does nothing well, hence very few people fly it. If the devs were to take the current FM's and simply swap the the turning abilities of the Hurricane and Spitfire & copy the speed/climb info of the Spit II into the Ia I think you would see a much more dynamic and enjoyable experience online.

Originally Posted by tools4fools

Don't think so, they should perform as they did and if one plane was noticable inferior in overall combat capabilities then it should be that way.
+++++

Who is to say how they did perform? Nobody alive today can say that, certainly nobody playing this game. Instead we have a mountain of conflicting technical information & pilot accounts that prove nothing. What we do have is historical anecdote that says the Spit & 109 were about equal in most aspects (one a little faster, the other turns a bit better) and the Hurricane was a little slower but turned the best. There are going to be rivet counters who will never be pleased but the vast majority would accept FM's that simply were in-line with the accepted lore of the battle.

[CWMV]

No no no no no!
Accuracy over all else. Arcade players be darned.

[Seadog]

Historically, under 10,000 ft, the Hurricane I was superior to the Me109e due to its better turn radius, and with 12lb boost, better climb rate, and was only slightly slower. At very low altitudes, say under 5000ft the Me109e was at a severe disadvantage as it could no longer dive away to disengage, and it did not have a sufficient, if any, speed advantage when the Hurricane pilot "pulled the plug" and the Hurricane could easily turn inside the 109e.

[tools4fools]

In the current version of the sim the Hurricane is useless as it does nothing well, hence very few people fly it

And of course the G50 is useless too, hence very few people fly it, so we improve that one to a little bit as well, right?

No no no no no!
Accuracy over all else. Arcade players be darned.

My vote goes for accuracy as well.
With a performance variable added.

[notafinger!]

Originally Posted by tools4fools

My vote goes for accuracy as well.
With a performance variable added.

Be sure to tell the rest of us when a level of accuracy has been reached that is acceptable to both red & blue. The real arcade players are the ones who need their plane to have every advantage. The performance variable is the person sitting behind the controls.