|
|
#51
11-28-2012, 07:42 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
 Quote:
I'm not quite with you with the trim, because I have to adjust it quite often, but this is something minor I suppose. Maybe the problem we have is also a bit that as a 109 pilot, you have to stay very disciplined and if you don't you'll loose. As oppose to a Spit Pilot who has to "just" outturn and wait for his opponent to make a mistake and take the advantage over it. So what you say is that as a german pilot, you only are able to actually win/shoot down the enemy if you are in better position. If you are at same alt and you've been spotted which means "equal starting position" you'll loose. We just don't know if this is what the reality was back then. Maybe it's true and it's an issue considering the impossibility to "simulate" other important issues like better trained pilots, better tactics, coms, leadership and stuff. Which would mean a todays "pc ww2 simulation limitations" do favour the red flying style. Or just the FM of CLoD's a mess. I guess we will never know, but I'm almost sure that it is a combination of the two. Sorry about my strange english but I have a hard time thinking in english at the moment... 
|
|
#52
11-28-2012, 07:55 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Do you also have the data for this style of flying? Say for this: "Firstly, if your in an E 1 or 3, always ensure that your prop pitch is set for max power. Never let this slip because in bad situations a lost second or 3 can mean everything. Next, initiate a 'step-climb'. Whereas sustained climb works when you have a distant threat, 'step-climbing' is a better response to a more immediate threat. To do this, firstly level out as quickly as possible without bleeding speed and at the same time use your pitch controls to achieve the highest possible acceleration. Once you have reached 350-400k (IAS) set prop pitch for climb and lift the nose. When airspeed drops to about 300ks level out again and adjust pitch controls for acceleration. Repeat this 3 or 4 times and you should have a significant vertical and horizontal distance between you and your would be attacker. At this point you can now wipe your brow, look back and start planning your counter attack." "prop for climb" or "pitch for acceleration" - do you fly the 109 by the book or do you have data you've made yourself which work better in CloD? My 109 E manual for example says 250 is the best climbing speed, 2400rpm. Which I use to try to escape the reds. Does this work for you, or are these theories from a red pilot? For me, sometimes it works, sometimes not, and I'm not sure if it is me or the FM. I'm just not so sure if this really works, becaus if I fly the spit the same way (BnZ) I feel like I don't have any disatvantages to the 109 (BnZ).
|
|
#53
11-28-2012, 03:19 PM
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Quote:
The forum "moderator" censors my efforts to communicate accurately, and so this will be my last try at using this forum to communicate accurately with anyone else who cares to communicate accurately on the Topic of this game that is for sale, and a game that I have purchased with my own earnings. If the forum "moderator" censors my efforts to communicate accurately again, then there will no longer be any more sense, at all, in my expending the effort to use this forum to communicate accurately with other people who have also purchased this game with their own earnings. The person quoted above has a legitimate and interesting concern and I may be able to help that person with that specific concern because that specific concern is a concern that I share. Every single World War II Air Combat Simulator since Air Warrior, that I have purchased, fits on a scale of which World War II Air Combat Simulator does the best job of simulating World War II Air Combat. This game is currently the best I've seen, however it suffers from what I will call the Spitfire Lobby effect. There are people who resort to personal attacks and deception on forums to push an agenda of altering the relative combat effectiveness of the Allied planes relative to the Axis planes, and their favorite tactic is to pollute discussions with personal attacks so as to censor the accurate information being reported in those discussions. Sometimes the moderators on these game forums aid those devious people in their quest to censor the accurate information being reported, sometimes the forum moderators do not aid those devious people in their quest to censor the accurate information being reported. What will it be this time? Last time I tried to communicate accurate information on this forum was a test case that proved the rule that confirms the fact that the forum moderators aid the people whose obvious goal is to censor the accurate information being reported on World War II Air Combat Simulation Forums, and this is not news. The odds are that accurate discussion of the game, we paid for, and we share an interest in, will not be possible on this forum. We shall see. Back to the point: Quote:
http://www.aviation.org.uk/docs/flig...-FTM108/c4.pdf http://www.aviation.org.uk/docs/flig...-FTM108/c5.pdf http://www.aviation.org.uk/docs/flig...-FTM108/c6.pdf http://www.aviation.org.uk/docs/flig...-FTM108/c7.pdf The important point to realize, in my opinion, is to know which plane accelerates faster than the other plane, and if you know that fact, then you know which plane has that advantage, and that is a very important advantage. Like the English Fighter Pilot in the video linked earlier in this topic says the following words: "It was a small airplane with a very weighty engine and it could dive very quickly and it could escape very quickly so the tactics were largely determined by them." If that is not modeled in the game then the following may be the case: Quote:
Too bad for me. I will try this one more time. There are easy to perform tests that can be done in the game so as to avoid having to rely on any other opinion from any other person who may have also purchased the game with their own earnings and who may be reporting information on this forum, accurate or inaccurate information. If two players use the game in an on-line session and they fly side by side, one in a Spitfire and one in a 109, and then both players fly side by side in level flight, and at once both players dive their planes, then both players switch planes, repeat the test, then repeat the test, then repeat the test, then see which plane does this: "It was a small airplane with a very weighty engine and it could dive very quickly and it could escape very quickly so the tactics were largely determined by them." I can speak about the importance of having a small plane (less drag) and a weighty engine (sectional density) and why a small plane (less drag) with high sectional density (a weighty engine) tends to accelerate faster in a dive, and tends to decelerate slower in a zoom climb, but I think it may be better to avoid my opinion on such things and call upon the writings of someone who actually flew 109s, Spitfires, 190s, and many World War II Air Combat Fighter Planes during World War II, since he was one of those Fighter Pilots who was also testing captured planes to test relative performance of those planes. The quote I am going to pick out concerns an evaluation of a 190 which was also a small plane with a weighty engine but before doing that it may be a good idea to make sure that the reader understands that the point being accurately communicated is the point concerning the advantage of a higher rate of acceleration, which is a measure of Specific Excess Power under the conditions of flight specified, a dive, which is an unloaded dive, and conversely could also be an unloaded zoom climb advantage. The point is to point out the meaning of the term B and Z, or BnZ, or Energy Fighting which is not the same thing as Hit and Run and not the same thing as Turn and Burn. Energy Fighting is a term used by Robert Shaw in his book titled Fighter Combat. BnZ is a term used by people who play a game. Here is the source of a relevant measure of performance advantages used in Air Combat for World War II: http://www.amazon.com/Wings-Luftwaff.../dp/1853104132 Here is a quote that may help anyone if anyone wants to understand game performance relative to actual performance where a dive and zoom advantage was used in World War II, how it was used, and the source of the information is a World War II British Fighter/Test Pilot, who aught to know more than someone playing a game. Quote:
"It was a small airplane with a very weighty engine and it could dive very quickly and it could escape very quickly so the tactics were largely determined by them." That would not have happened that way if the 109 was only marginally faster or not at all faster in unloaded acceleration. There are many examples of captured aircraft test flown by the British and in each case where I've read the results of those tests the 109 has been proven, by the British, to have that dive acceleration advantage. If that dive acceleration advantage is not modeled into the game, then it isn't modeled into the game. There are easy ways to test these things, and remove all inaccurate opinions. As to the question of turning there were tests done by British pilots and they concluded, in their own test reports, that the 109 "had no tendency to spin" and that is not modeled into the game. The British pilots, in their own reports, were unable to turn with the 109 when the British pilots were not flying close to their stall because their planes tended to spin. That is not modeled into the game. The 109 has a nasty stall in the game, it tends to stall in the game. The actual rate of relative acceleration difference between the 109 and the Spitfire can be measured side by side in level flight too, in the game, to see which plane has the faster rate of acceleration in level flight, in the game, which is also a specific way to measure Specific Excess Power, which is the most significant performance advantage needed when employing Energy Fighting Tactics, or vertical maneuvering, in Air Combat, according to more than one source. If the game models the Spitfire with a smaller turn radius in a sustained level flight turn and the 109 has a nasty stall flying a larger turn radius, then the 109 is considered to be Single Inferior according to the information provided by Robert Shaw in his book Fighter Combat. If there is no significant advantage in acceleration modeled into the 109 over the Spitfire or Hurricane then there is no Single Advantage, or none of this: "It was a small airplane with a very weighty engine and it could dive very quickly and it could escape very quickly so the tactics were largely determined by them." Which leaves Hit and Run tactics, or team tactics, to be used by the inferior plane if the inferior plane has both a sustained turn disadvantage and no significant advantage in unloaded, or dive, acceleration. Then there is the matter of climb angle. It was noted by the British that both the 109 and the 190 had climb angle advantages over their Spitfires and Hurricanes, whereas the rate of climb may have been roughly equal or slightly more of an advantage for the German planes, in reality, the climb angle was steeper on the German planes, for some reason. If there is no climb angle advantage modeled in the game, then there is no climb angle advantage modeled in the game. Back to this: Quote:
That measure of relative performance is termed Corner Speed. Here is my first try at communicating the accurate information that concerns these relative performance topics: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34792 Corner Speed can be easily tested in the game, and it may help to know which plane has that advantage too, in the game. This topic may be censored by the moderators when the Spitfire Lobby people begin to break the forum rules, attack me personally, and twist the information offered into some false version of it. If that happens again, I won't respond again. Dive acceleration is a real advantage for the 109 in reality, according to many documented tests for that specific performance advantage. That was an advantage that was significant enough to inspire that British Fighter pilot to say this: "It was a small airplane with a very weighty engine and it could dive very quickly and it could escape very quickly so the tactics were largely determined by them." What gamers call Boom and Zoom may be, I don't know what any specific person playing this game may think, at any given moment, but that game term, Boom and Zoom, may be the actual tactic described by Robert Shaw as Energy Fighting, which is a tactic also described by a World War II British Fighter/Test Pilot named Eric Brown in his own published words here: Quote:
"It was a small airplane with a very weighty engine and it could dive very quickly and it could escape very quickly so the tactics were largely determined by them." If that is not modeled in the game, then Hit and Run, not Boom and Zoom, is the remaining tactic that can be employed by the plane that is modeled in the game as a target. Last edited by JG14_Josf; 11-28-2012 at 03:44 PM.
|
|
#54
11-28-2012, 04:07 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Wow, this is some sophisticated stuff right there. I wish the devs would read this and treat it as what it is: a very valuable contribution of a comitted customer!
Also I hope it's treated from the red pilot as a basis for discussion as oppose to the beginning a flame war. Me for myself I don't have this much of a clue considering WW2 aircraft data but this post seems pretty legit for me, not only because it backs up my own experience that I have been having with the Sim so far but also because it the Luftwaffe wasn't been defeated in every single sortie they've made back then. But if you fly on ATAG it's hard to imagine the Luftwaffe could've had a technical advantage at all at that time. If this is for reasons a game can't simulate (like better coms, leadership, tactics etc.) or just wrong FM I can't say, but I have the feeling that something is wrong, especially that every single patch the reds had gotten better and better. So I think the man has a point! Keep up the gread discussion! Last edited by NaBkin; 11-28-2012 at 04:09 PM.
|
|
#55
11-28-2012, 05:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
NaBkin,
There are very specific and accurate methods by which relative combat performance can be measured and those methods are described in great detail on the Navair links. In particular, for purposes of your specific concern, a side by side test for level flight acceleration will show you, or anyone, which plane has an advantage. If there is no advantage in level flight acceleration then there is little room to make any claims about the 109 having any advantages, since the 109 with the nasty stall and the significantly larger sustained turn radius and the significantly larger turn rate is modeled as a target in this game. The historical record describes something described by Robert Shaw in Fighter Combat called Single Superior performance advantage held by both as the 109 had a superior Energy Fighting (BnZ in game terms) envelope and the Spitfire had a superior Angles Fighting (TnB in game terms) envelope. The advantages either way were not as significant as the advantage held by the FW190A-3 once the Germans entered that plane into combat against the Spitfire V, and the early Spitfire IX, so the "better" fighter between the Spitfire and 109 during The Battle of Britain was marginal at best, where the Pilot was the determining factor not the plane since the Spitfire had only a slight sustained turn advantage and the 109 had only a slight acceleration advantage, so the Spitfire was slightly better in Angles Fighting, if the pilot knew how to fly close to the stall, and avoid spinning the plane, and the 109 pilot has a slightly better Energy Fighting advantage if the 109 Pilot knew how to avoid entering a fight with a better Spitfire pilot who starts the fight with an Energy Advantage (such as a better Spitfire pilot attacking from a higher and faster position in the rear hemisphere of the 109). If you care to know about a very good test that can be done to measure relative combat effectiveness between two planes then I can describe Robert Shaw's Sustained Turn Technique in detail, and you can try that out in the game, to see what you find out when you use that technique. You can also read the book yourself. It is here: http://www.amazon.com/Fighter-Combat.../dp/0870210599 I can explain the technique with words, and I have used the technique in games. I had an IL2 Training Track File posted on the internet once too. It is a very valuable maneuver to know and understand, and it will show you, without a doubt, which plane is Double Superior. It is an Energy Fighting maneuver, which may not be indicated by the title of the maneuver, but that is what it is, an Energy Fighting Maneuver called The Sustained Turn Technique.
|
|
#56
11-28-2012, 06:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Please reread my posts concerning wide curves again thoroughly or go back to reading class. I was clearly mentioning that wide curves are a good ESCAPE manoeuvre when having a decent speed advantage. Of course if there is no speed advantage or just a tiny lil bit wide curves won't save one's buttocks. So please do not treat others as stupid if your misunderstanding derives from your misreading. You may just end up looking like a big mouthed fool.
|
|
#57
11-28-2012, 06:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
fixed
Quote:
|
|
#58
11-28-2012, 06:16 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 - and that's a reason I like and prefer it as it's more difficult to be successful in it. In capable hands, it can still be surprisingly nasty opponent, but overall, you have to work harder for your kills and for survival. Good pilot is good no matter what he flies.
__________________
Bobika.
|
|
#59
11-28-2012, 06:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
If the answer is ambiguous then the opinion is just an opinion. If there is an interest by anyone, at any time, to get past opinion, and reach for facts instead, then there are very specific ways to do that, if there is an interest of course.
|
|
#60
11-28-2012, 06:35 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Bobika.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
