Throwing some light on rates of turn

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Dutch

And so have we all. But see my post above. I don't think it's possible to have any aircraft modelled correctly for the same reason we can't get to altitude. Seems to me that the air is too dense at sea level, and too rarified past 20,000ft.

I agree 100%. The game is broken on a fundamental level, which makes it all the more galling to have somebody come in and tell me it's my fault that his precious spitfire is too slow.

But there has been a lot of stuff posted (reams and reams and reams and....) and the performance of the RAF fighters has been downgraded to a point lower than even published 87 octane performance levels.

I'm not unsympathetic to this, but why is Snapper not directing his rage at 1c? When did it suddenly become my fault or whoever else's fault?

When you take a look at Luthier's sig over at Sukhoi, it's no surprise that some people are convinced that there's a certain level of bias.

Given the abysmal state of my Russian-language skills, I can't say I've seen his signature at sukhoi. However, giving you the benefit of the doubt I have to ask again: how is this the fault of the forum members who fly axis?

I suppose all us Red chaps are feeling similar to how the Blue chaps previously felt with the Spit II, and that was banned from servers as a result.

The situation really isn't the same. The Spit 1a is markedly superior to the 109 above 6000 meters. I know a lot of ATAG guys like to spiral around on the deck, but flight models shouldn't be altered to suit the odd habits of guys on one server.

My own opinion is that instead of arguing with eachother, we should be banging on the developer's door for historical accuracy on both sides, and correct performance at all altitudes, coz arguing between ourselves isn't going to resolve any issues on either side of the red/blue divide.

Maybe you should bring that up next time you and Snapper are on comms.