Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover > Technical threads > FM/DM threads

FM/DM threads Everything about FM/DM in CoD

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 09-11-2012, 02:36 AM
Crumpp's Avatar
Crumpp Crumpp is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,552
Default

What are you fishing??

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-11-2012, 07:05 AM
CaptainDoggles's Avatar
CaptainDoggles CaptainDoggles is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,198
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Igo kyu View Post
Which is why it didn't really matter that the bf109 was a useless dogfighter.
I think the truth of this statement depends greatly on which aircraft you're comparing it to, and the precise definition of "dogfighter".
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-11-2012, 03:44 PM
JtD JtD is offline
Il-2 enthusiast & Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 903
Default

I don't think it depends on anything, it's just wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-11-2012, 05:21 PM
Igo kyu's Avatar
Igo kyu Igo kyu is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 703
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles View Post
I think the truth of this statement depends greatly on which aircraft you're comparing it to, and the precise definition of "dogfighter".
Of course it's relative, all warplane performance is relative to other concurrent warplanes.

The German for "fighter" in WW2 was "Jager", but if you translate that back, it comes out "hunter". For the Germans at the time, hunting was stalking big game with a rifle, not the British style of hunting which involved chasing foxes with hounds.

It's a different attitude, and a different style, and the bf 109 fitted the style.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-11-2012, 06:20 PM
macro macro is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 217
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Igo kyu View Post
Of course it's relative, all warplane performance is relative to other concurrent warplanes.

The German for "fighter" in WW2 was "Jager", but if you translate that back, it comes out "hunter". For the Germans at the time, hunting was stalking big game with a rifle, not the British style of hunting which involved chasing foxes with hounds.

It's a different attitude, and a different style, and the bf 109 fitted the style.
with a completly different objective at the time. if i was defending against a bomber attack i would rather fly the hurri, but attacking (or hunting as they did) i would definitly choose a 109.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-11-2012, 06:21 PM
macro macro is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 217
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpp View Post
Sure they can get it right. They already have the relative performance correct and it is the best simulation of WWII combat piloting to date.

What makes you think they can't get this right too?

In fact, I think they have been looking like most of us, for the characteristics that made these aircraft equal dogfighters.

You won't find it just looking at raw performance numbers.
sorry mate relative performance is not correct, there are other threads that explain this.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-12-2012, 01:38 AM
Crumpp's Avatar
Crumpp Crumpp is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,552
Default

Quote:
sorry mate relative performance is not correct

The fighters can all dogfight on equal terms.

How is that not correct relative performance????

Some people are pushing for a unrealistic rendition of their favorite gameshape that has the speed, climb, and turn ability but with a stability that did not exist in reality.

In my book that is an overmodeled fantasy that will alter the correct relative performance found in the game now.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-12-2012, 12:22 PM
macro macro is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 217
Default

Im not pushing for performance on any plane. I want realism same as you. I like flying the 109. I dont want "fantasy" fms on any plane. Just because i disagree with you doesnt mean i want this

If you think they are equal then you are either a really good spit pilot or a poor 109 one, check out threads on main page theres a few. If you take away porked temp effects then they are about equal. At present i only blow up a 109 engine if i want to. I can fly full throttle on auto prop pitch until fuel runs out.

Do you play online maybe under a different name? As i wonder how you come to this conclusion
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-12-2012, 03:08 PM
Crumpp's Avatar
Crumpp Crumpp is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,552
Default

Quote:
If you take away porked temp effects then they are about equal
That is the issue and the NOT the FM performance numbers at this point.
It has been shown there is a problem with the temperature effects. Flying the Spitfire IAW the Operating Notes should reward the pilot with the same performance as found with temperature effects disabled.

It is a much more realistic combat simulator if the FM numbers are off slightly if they cannot reproduce the stability characteristics.

If they can model the stability characteristics of these aircraft then the dogfights will be on equal terms regardless of raw performance numbers. Game players really put an inordinate amount of emphasis on raw performance numbers anyway.

The differences in performance have to be surprisingly large for most parameters for it to be even noticeable in the air.

It is the ability to put the gunsite on a target and kill it in World War II aerial combat that determined the dogfight ability of the airplane.

For example, here we have a much more maneuverable opponent but it is the ability to land the punch that wins the day.

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-12-2012, 03:34 PM
JtD JtD is offline
Il-2 enthusiast & Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 903
Default

Capoeira has poor longitudinal static stability? Taken from the "Never back down" documentary, it must be true.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.