Don't make performances secret this time

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by PE_Tihi

Balancing like this, IceFire:

To even out the chances on the east front in the early war period, with the +50% bonus it has been given I16 climbs better than 109F4 up to 2000m.
This may not be readily known- I16 is seldom flown, being touchy to fly- but the 109F can hope for the draw at best in such a duel- if very consquently E-flown, or if it runs away.
109E is completely outclassed by the little Ishak, which climbs much faster.
Seen in the light of what really happened, this is simply....laughable))))

Most people here seem to be aware of these things- but IceFire, you seem to be very unaware of the grotesqueness of some of the plane performances in game

See but thats not really balancing...balancing implies intent but thats jumping to conclusions.

If what you say is true then its one of several things I can think of off the top of my head:

1) Error in modeling
2) Error in data
3) Data used is correct but for a later model of aircraft than the one/year represented (could be better engine tuning, fuel availability, etc.)
4) Was balanced for some strange reason

To assume balancing implies intent which has not been established. Anyone who is suggesting it is impressing their ideas on the situation.

Furthermore my "grotesque" lack of seeing this has somehow managed to survive years of flying this planeset. As far as I'm concerned I'm always going to outclimb a I-16 Type 24 in a Bf109F-2 in an actual fight.

To be honest I grow frustrated with all of the people who feel their "side" has been wronged (I'm not saying this about you PE_Tihi) and advance only the one cause. There are still problems with every plane on all sides...there were many more problems which have been fixed and nobody cares about the ones that were fixed and fixed well.

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

I just hope there is not another "balancing" of the FMs like the one done in FB.

Give the aircraft their real numbers and let the chips fall where they may.

yeps i agree

and i also think the performance numbers used should be available openly (with reference sources used)

and a version of an il2-compare type program should be released with BoB so it is simple to compare aircraft performance from the start.

[Rama]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

Give the aircraft their real numbers and let the chips fall where they may.

Define what you mean buy "real numbers"... or your sentence is totally senseless..

When you will have defined what you mean, you'll see that "real numbers" isn't something unique and that among the different values for "real numbers" can be accepted universally... even when you can find sources (that could allow you to calculate "real numbers" in some very specific configurations)

Your proposal is totally unrealistic.

[Feathered_IV]

Originally Posted by Rama

Define what you mean buy "real numbers"... or your sentence is totally senseless..

When you will have defined what you mean, you'll see that "real numbers" isn't something unique and that among the different values for "real numbers" can be accepted universally... even when you can find sources (that could allow you to calculate "real numbers" in some very specific configurations)

Your proposal is totally unrealistic.

Rama, "real numbers" is a phrase or way of speaking in English. It means, accurate characteristics.

it would be the same story again...."My grandpas plane was better than ur grandpas plane cause my dad told me so"....or "I found on the web a reliable source for performance.......that my plane is too slow...." bla bla bla njak ser govna

cheers

[Rama]

Originally Posted by Feathered_IV

Rama, "real numbers" is a phrase or way of speaking in English. It means, accurate characteristics.

I understood...

And replace "real numbers" by "accurate characteristics" in my answer, and you'll get the same meaning.
"accurate characteristics" can't be defined universaly and uniquely.

[zapatista]

thankfully rama's opinion doesnt count any more than anybody elses opinion

so right now i'd say that makes it about 10 to 1 in favor.

[PE_Tihi]

Originally Posted by Rama

Define what you mean buy "real numbers"... or your sentence is totally senseless..

When you will have defined what you mean, you'll see that "real numbers" isn't something unique and that among the different values for "real numbers" can be accepted universally... even when you can find sources (that could allow you to calculate "real numbers" in some very specific configurations)

Your proposal is totally unrealistic.

Well, your statement can be seen as a solipsist one - everyone has his own truth. I agree with such philosophy as far as it underscores the respect for the individual world of each of us. But I cannot look at the each of these truths as equal.
Can a plane have a wingspan of 10, 11, and 12,5 m at the same time? Can it have a max. speed of 480, 530, and 565 km/h at the same time?

'....even when you can find sources (that could allow you to calculate "real numbers" in some very specific configurations)'

Try here, you wont have to calculate anything:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/

These are original wartime test data for a nuber of important types.

[Rama]

Originally Posted by PE_Tihi

Can a plane have a wingspan of 10, 11, and 12,5 m at the same time? Can it have a max. speed of 480, 530, and 565 km/h at the same time?

Wingspan isn't FM data, it's structural data.
About max speed, for each plane type you can find different sources giving you different numbers, and even different reference altitude for max speed.
... and that's including different real flight test data.

Originally Posted by PE_Tihi

Try here, you wont have to calculate anything:

Ahah.... and do you think your link gives the only valuable and universal source??? you must be kidding...
Have you tried, just for ONE type of plane to gather all different performance sources and to compare them... you should try, it will help you to understand the problem...

[LEXX]

Phi::

Lots of people like that way of fight, BnZ, - like you [LEXX] obviously do. To my taste it is a bit disgusting to shoot down someone who doesnt know a thing about it- apart from being unsatisfactory - it doesnt tell me who flies better. Tastes are different, of course.

Yes, WW2 pilots of all nations chose to do it my way when they could. Having to enter a dogfight was considered a failure.

In my opinion, your [LEXX's?] FPS games are more popular for the same reason it is much easier to train an infantry soldier than a pilot- you do not need to know much to get a rifle pushed into the hands. So anyone can play a FPS without bothering to uderstand the flight behavior of a plane or many other things.

Same thing with air warfare. You have to learn the air war environment, even in peacetime, or you die. Clearly you don't know what the air war environment is, but I can't blame you, since no combat flight sim developer has ever modelled it, but have usually focused on arcade dogfight shooter gaming, and most people don't look at the sky and learn what's up there. So no offence intended here.