British FM killing the fun of the game for allied pilots.

[NZtyphoon]

Here are the Pilot's Notes General comments about oil flow under negative-g:


Spitfire II Pilot's Notes take off plus climb speeds:



The Air Min was also realistic enough to understand that in air combat one cannot simply fly exactly by the book and survive; the Pilot's Notes General make the following observation about taking risks:

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by Ze-Jamz

I think its hard to believe that the Devs would release a patch that fooks up the FM's and if they did not release a quick hot fix by now even if it meant rolling back the FM to pre beta state so I can understand the angle Crumpp is coming from here..

The Devas have a wealth of info in regards to these FM's and have accumulated this over many years....I suggest they release what they see as proper operating instructions for these aircraft, what have they wrote into the FM that they see as proper operation, that would be interesting to see

I think you missed the sarcasm rolleyes from your post............

[VO101_Tom]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

Here are the Pilot's Notes General comments about oil flow under negative-g:
...

The 3th point also worth a bugtracker ticket...

[Ze-Jamz]

Originally Posted by Osprey

I think you missed the sarcasm rolleyes from your post............

No no..you didn't see them as I wasn't being sarcastic..

Like I said if they release/tell us what they have modelled into the FM then we can make assumptions and point fingers which in turn will help pinpoint if any the issues..

Or you can another ten pages of everyone getting themselves at it thinking they know better

[Osprey]

How you draw that conclusion is beyond me, but then again it's not a new behaviour of yours.

[Crumpp]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Dutch

I have sympathy for your difficulties.
Again, the suggestion is one of inaccuracies in the programming of the temperature effects in the game as against engine power and airspeed produced within the game.

The unique flying qualities of any aircraft are totally irrelevant to this specific issue.

Nor was I necessarily intending to have a discussion with anyone. My intention was to inform the readers of the forum of an observation made in one specific test of the game's 'temperature effects' setting relating to one specific aeroplane, and to suggest that others conduct similar tests in order to verify my findings or otherwise in other aircraft within the game.

Please feel free to test this yourself with any aircraft of your choice within the game and report your findings accordingly.

Ok, so what you guys want is an airplane that is as fast as the Spitfire, climbs as well as the Spitfire, turns as well as the Spitfire, but acts like the Hurricane?

In otherwords a frankenplane that never existed during the Battle of Britain?

I don't see where that is any more realistic than the FM's in the game now you are all complaining about.

Or you can another ten pages of everyone getting themselves at it thinking they know better

Exactly

[Ze-Jamz]

Originally Posted by Osprey

How you draw that conclusion is beyond me, but then again it's not a new behaviour of yours.

#sigh

Edit..

Won't waste my time

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Ok, so what you guys want is an airplane that is as fast as the Spitfire, climbs as well as the Spitfire, turns as well as the Spitfire, but acts like the Hurricane?

Of course not. The two models currently in the game are vastly different to eachother in terms of flight characteristics. The Spitfire is already twitchier than the Hurricane, but more agile. It's already more difficult to keep guns on target with the Spit than with the Hurricane. The pre-stall buffet in tight turns so famous in the Spit is there already and is excellently reproduced in a force-feedback joystick.

With engine temperature effects off, the Spit is (to quote Bob Doe) 'like having wings on your back'. The Hurricane, with engine temperature effects off (again to quote Bob Doe), is 'like a brick shithouse'. Solid, steady, sluggish compared to the nimble Spit. The differences are already there. but of course pilot's anecdotes are inadmissable according to your own philosophy, whether mine or Bob Doe's.

The Engine power and therefore airspeed issues with a particular game setting are also there with all aircraft tested so far. Except for the Bf109 tested by one person, which demonstrated no power or airspeed loss with either of these game settings.

So please, unless you are prepared to test this specific issue for yourself, with whichever aircraft you'd like, stop quoting my responses in an attempt to argue issues which have been argued before.

My thanks.

[Crumpp]

The Spitfire is already twitchier than the Hurricane, but more agile

I don't see any difference between them when I play. Have you recorded the Hurricanes stability characteristics?

The Spitfire in game as tested is both static and dynamically stable, something the real aircraft was not.


The issue is will correcting one set of FM parameters make or a more realistic simulation or not? The aircraft represented in the game were on equal footing as dogfighters in the actual battle we are simulating.

I don't think making a frankenplane out of one side is going to accurately represent relative dogfighting capabililties.

[SlipBall]

So many of these problems could be related to pilot error. I damage the E3 engine many times when I am not paying attention to what I am doing.