FM discussion

[Slipstream2012]

Originally Posted by zapatista

you might be on the wrong planet, or just havnt switched CFM on and compared online performance

if the current FM comparison btw the 109 and hurricane/spitfire would have been present in the real BoB, we'd all be speaking german now

Well said that man!,

Its always surprised me that I can choose a BF109 & start it up with out a cough or splutter. Ok I think that must be the beauty of fuel injection!
I crank the throttle to full without warming it up, it charges down the runway like a wild horse, ease back on the stick and it starts into a climb at what feels like 2500+ fpm climb straight to 3k meters, fight the nose forward and re-trim slightly nose heavy, by now its all configured, flying like a dream pulling 400 kph.

I choose a Spitfire at Hawkinge, fire it up, it coughs, splutters, rattles for awhile, and then it gradually starts sounding smoother but woe betide me if i even breath on that throttle lever before its reached temperature.
Even when its warmed up, I have to slam throttle forward almost full before taxying because mid range its all temperamental. After takeoff it climbs normally, and cruises nicely. But if you don't watch those temperatures or RPM, BAM!!! the engine blows a gasket! quite literally.

Now if that represents a UFO, the aliens would never have left their planet.
And if this represents the performance of the infamous "nimble little fighter" that was a joy to fly, and changed the outcome of the BoB, fighting wave after wave of enemy aircraft with only "the few", something isn't quite right here. Not to mention in the event of a scramble, the Germans would have been half way home by the time they got into the air.

I'm no expert, but to say the Spitfire is out performing the BF109 at present is a no brainer.

[droz]

Originally Posted by Slipstream2012

Well said that man!,

Its always surprised me that I can choose a BF109 & start it up with out a cough or splutter. Ok I think that must be the beauty of fuel injection!
I crank the throttle to full without warming it up, it charges down the runway like a wild horse, ease back on the stick and it starts into a climb at what feels like 2500+ fpm climb straight to 3k meters, fight the nose forward and re-trim slightly nose heavy, by now its all configured, flying like a dream pulling 400 kph.

I choose a Spitfire at Hawkinge, fire it up, it coughs, splutters, rattles for awhile, and then it gradually starts sounding smoother but woe betide me if i even breath on that throttle lever before its reached temperature.
Even when its warmed up, I have to slam throttle forward almost full before taxying because mid range its all temperamental. After takeoff it climbs normally, and cruises nicely. But if you don't watch those temperatures or RPM, BAM!!! the engine blows a gasket! quite literally.

Now if that represents a UFO, the aliens would never have left their planet.
And if this represents the performance of the infamous "nimble little fighter" that was a joy to fly, and changed the outcome of the BoB, fighting wave after wave of enemy aircraft with only "the few", something isn't quite right here. Not to mention in the event of a scramble, the Germans would have been half way home by the time they got into the air.

I'm no expert, but to say the Spitfire is out performing the BF109 at present is a no brainer.

Pretty sure the 109E was considerably faster than the Spits in game IRL. Spit has maneuverability, 109 had speed.

Also, 109 is Fuel Injected. Not much sputter on a startup from that. Spit/Hurri early stuff was Carburated. you will see sputter on startup with that.

[TomcatViP]

Originally Posted by Slipstream2012

Now if that represents a UFO, the aliens would never have left their planet.
And if this represents the performance of the infamous "nimble little fighter" that was a joy to fly, and changed the outcome of the BoB, fighting wave after wave of enemy aircraft with only "the few",

funny comment but wrong.

The 109 is the nimble one here: lighter, smaller and as much powerful.

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by OSSI

In real my friendy the 109 can turn with the Spit and with flaps much better

now i know you're either a troll on crack or are the spawn of kurfurst who hasnt ventured out into the real world yet to find unbiased and accurate historical information.

a 109 in the Bob era could only match the spitfire turning in the initial 1/4 or 1/3 of the circle, eg a snap turn to briefly get a shot in. in a sustained 360 circle the spitfire would turn considerably better (as is openly acknowledged by pilots from both sides in that era, and by direct performance comparisons of captured aircraft, all of which is openly available ). this difference in turn rate was so significant that in a sustained 360 turn starting out with the 109 behind the spitfire, after a few 360 turns the spitfire would be behind the 109. obviously we are also only talking about 2 evenly matched experienced pilots that knew their own aircraft and would be good enough to know its limits. the type of nonsense you are sprouting of the magic turning 109 catching up on the spitfire in a 360 circle turn is only found in places like kurfursts revisionist website which is filled with "selective misquoting of partial truths" and his own utter fabrications

ahh and when you make that track of you shooting down those ten 109's that you engaged with your magic spitfire ( engaging them on equal terms in a sustained dogfight involving multiple maneuvres), and err you know, shooting an unsuspecting enemy in the back while he isnt looking doesnt count here, just make sure they are at least experience or good pilots, not newbies.

and there are multiple threads specifically discussing what technical aspects of the current spitfires are incorrect, join those to try and peddle your nonsense and we'll take it step by step to enlighten you where the specific "simulation" problems are currently

request to black6: please have your own testers compare the sustained turn rates and snap turn rates for the main opposing fighters (spitfire, 109, hurricane), as well as their level speeds at low-medium-high altitudes, to ensure the comparative differences are correct. historical references previously supplied in bug report threads

[Slipstream2012]

Originally Posted by droz

Pretty sure the 109E was considerably faster than the Spits in game IRL. Spit has maneuverability, 109 had speed.

Also, 109 is Fuel Injected. Not much sputter on a startup from that. Spit/Hurri early stuff was Carburated. you will see sputter on startup with that.

Its not that I don't expect to see splutter on the Spit, but neither do I expect to see the 109 at full power with an seemingly indestructible engine.

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

funny comment but wrong.

The 109 is the nimble one here: lighter, smaller and as much powerful.

Although they were closely matched, I'd hardly call the 109 nimble if the Spitfire could out maneuver it on the best part, the Spit was only a little larger, I have no idea on the weights, but I can't imagine having a cannon in the nose would make it lighter though there is no doubt it had supreme firepower.
I've heard many times that the controls were sluggish at higher speeds, maybe this was to do with the confined cockpit.
Either-way there is no doubt they were both terrific planes, Like many others I just believe they need tweaking ingame.

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by droz

Pretty sure the 109E was considerably faster than the Spits in game IRL. Spit has maneuverability, 109 had speed.

nope, very wrong there. and you must be new to this and are showing yourself not to be very well informed, because you are taking incomplete facts which you dont seem to understand and which are only partially true, and then you try to generalize from them with the result that what you say completely looses its meaning. the 109 was not "considerably faster", you'r making it sound like the 109 was a magic Ferrari that was competing against a citroen 2cv in straight line speed.

for ex, the only reason a 109 (during BoB) could "get away" from a spitfire close behind it, is that the 109 could use the sudden dive maneuver to initially get a speed advantage into the dive because the hurricane/spitfire carburetors would be briefly cutting out due to the -ve G created. in a large melee with a number of other friendly/enemy planes around and people constantly engaging/disengaging their enemies this might be good enough to let him slip away in the fog of war, but if that same spitfire would stay on his tail in a sustained dive the spitfire would actually gradually catch up on him at high speed (with the 109 also becoming significantly less maneuverable with the high compression forces it was more subjected to then the spitfire).

further, with both planes starting at level flight and with the same speed, the BoB era 109 has a slight advantage in better initial acceleration compared to the spitfire when both planes stay at the same altitude, but then the spitfire matches the 109 very equally. obviously any difference in straight line speed during level flight was not some magic or effective 109 evasive maneuver

Originally Posted by droz

Also, 109 is Fuel Injected. Not much sputter on a startup from that. Spit/Hurri early stuff was Carburated. you will see sputter on startup with that.

again an oversimplification which is not a relevant reply to the previous posters comment

if CoD is a simulation of real BoB era aircraft, you cant have one aircraft (the 109) be started, then accelerate immediately for takeoff and climb at full throttle to 3000 meters without having to be aware of engine stresses, when in comparison with a spitfire you need to carefully coax it into life, let engine temps rise for 5 min before even moderately increasing the throttle, then gently taxi during further warmup and finally takeoff when engine temp has finally reached the right levels and then climb away while making sure you are not using sustained full boost, and having to constantly carefully monitor and adjust mixture/temp/radiator/prop where with one small lapse of attention your engine blows up instantly

its not that these 2 aircraft should behave the same, each had its quirks and strength/weaknesses and this should be represented, but right now we have the 109 that can be flown unpunished way beyond its engine tolerance limits, and a spitfire engine which is much to sensitive (in addition to a number of spitfire FM performance errors)

request to black6: please have your testers compare engine startup procedures, engine tolerance to abuse and heat stress, and "cold" engine performances, then see how fast/easy it is with either aircraft to climb to 4000 meters altitude. there are some major problems here (109 to easy, spitfire to slow and engines to sensitive in comparison) which have been reported multiple times in bug report threads, and it significantly affects game play.

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

The 109 is the nimble one here: lighter, smaller and as much powerful.

the 109 smaller and lighter, yeps

"more powerfull" ?, err no ! you'r making it sound like Godzilla on a rampage in Lilliput land, so no ! you'd have to be specific and quoting some of its comparative strength of the 109 (and it had several), but it also had a number of weaknesses and disadvantages (which you are ignoring with your simplified generalization)

most long term il2 flyers, be they blue or red, have matured enough in the last 10 years of the previous generation il2 sim that right now we know that we want (and can get if luthier only pays enough attention to it), is aircraft that each have their own historical strength and weaknesses simulated, so we can fly them competitively against a fairly evenly matched (pilot-skill) adversary while being able to execute maneuvers and flying styles that exploit the strengths that each of these aircraft had historically, and let pilot skill be the determinator of the outcome of the engagement

did you know approximately 1/2 of all 109's were lost in takeoff and landing accidents and pilot errors (eg not involving combat), yet in CoD a 6 yo can land and takeoff (with complex engine management) without problems, is there maybe a hint there that the 109's behavior maybe just isnt "simulated" quiet correctly to represent some of its weaknesses ?

another example is the historical very poor rear visibility in the 109 compared to the spitfire, this weakness is again not modeled in CoD where rear visibility is very similar to the allied fighters. 109's were also notoriously slow and more difficult to bail out of, and were known death traps with their poor canopy opening system during crash landings, again another weakness not modeled,

request to black6: please have your testers compare the incorrectly modeled ease with which the 109 currently behaves on the ground in CoD (ground handling) and the much to easy takeoff and landing behavior, it currently does NOT reflect a very major weakness the 109 had historically and the very high losses that were caused in takeoff and landing accidents. extensive information on this has been repeatedly provided in the past. in comparison the spitfire might have had 5% of its losses during ww2 in takeoff/landing accidents, and this MAJOR difference in aircraft ease-of-handling or difficulty is NOT modeled in CoD. in fact its the exact opposite, the 109 currently behaves like a fully automated aircraft that can be landed/takeoff with total impunity and without regard of its historical behavior.

[David198502]

Originally Posted by OSSI

I am flying 50:50. Means all my second flight is with Spit and Hurri. I have no problem with any 109, I shoot them down all on Servers. My result is that with Spit or Hurri it much much easyer to shot down the enemys. If I want easy kills then I take that Spitfire. If I want more risk I use the 109. If I am behinf a 109 she have no chance no more. To come behind a 109 is so easy for every newbie.

ok,.....i volunteer for a little experiment if you dare....take any spit you want, and lets fight some duels....

if what you say is true, then the 109 pilots were really bad ones and obviously
"noobs".
there is no way you will be able to do that against even only an average 109 driver.
i consider myself as an experienced 109 pilot, and i bet with you, that out of 10 fights, you will be shot down 10times by me if you sit in a spit...no matter which altitude,fuel amount or energy advantage...
my steamname is: JG26_DavidRed
add me if you dare.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by SlipBall

I understand...and if you fly at all, you have your own opinion I'm sure

Opinion being the key word!

Problem is most of the FM complaints are nothing more than opinions..

So not only would it be un-realistic to expect 1C to look into every FM complaint but it would be a waste of time IMHO.

Personally I think 1C (or B6) should put out a 'minimum information' requirement for 1C to even consider looking into a FM complaint.

Where the minimum information could/should consist of the 'method' that was used during the test and the real world data the user is using as their bases of comparison, just to name two!

Anything less than that would be a waste of 1C's time

[[URU]AkeR]

The self-righteousness and condescendent tone some members use to refer to the developers is unbelievable. I find it more disrepectfull than a plain insult.

Anyone that has been in the IL2 world for a couple of years has stumble with kilometers of text on FM discussión and hundreds of references to data sources of varied quality. Let alone the developers of the game who make a living out of this. Of course they know where to find the data. Some ppl have rub it to their faces over and over.

I´ll give you a clue, FM will keep improving for years but will never be perfect. In IL2 1946 we have some great modders that have put great effort and knowdlege to get the more accurate FM according to the info they have, and even after all these years there is always someone that think that the result is wrong and comes out showing some other data he has found and it goes on and on, and after 10 years the discussion continues