Throwing some light on rates of turn

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by von Brühl

Rofl, they downgraded it to historic numbers, which apparantly is too much for you?

They downgraded it to below the performance of an 87 octane fueled Spit tested at Boscombe Down in March 1940. Data for this aircraft only exists from 10,000ft up. This is N3171.

No, I'm not going to produce evidence, because all of these arguments are immaterial when we consider that no aircraft in the game can achieve its true operational ceiling. If this is unachievable within the bounds of the current game engine, any arguments about performance at any altitude are so much hot air. Whoever you are, and whoever you might think you want to be. How do the FMs compare @ 30,000ft?

When the designers of this so called simulator finally get around to modelling the atmosphere necessary to allow any aircraft modelled to perform as it should at any altitude, I'll start to take notice, but until then, I'm sorry but you're all talking faeces.

[IvanK]

Good point Dutch +1

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Snapper

"Strangely"

Are you implying that Maddox Games has purposely made the online flight model worse, due to bias?

I've already posted this several times in this forum

Oh get over yourself. I and I'm sure many others don't subscribe to your posts via RSS and so probably missed it. Graph is broken below 3000 meters? K. Thanks. First I've heard of it, now kindly stop attributing ignorance to malice and bias.

but clearly "the fix is in" by a number of you in wishing to suppress the historic capabilities of the Spitfires and Hurricanes in this "sim" (I use the term loosely) to maintain an unfair and unhistoric advantage online of the 109 over the Spitfires and Hurricanes. Clearly you have the devs' ears as witnessed by the further downgrading of the Spitfire and Hurricane performance curves in the latest patch.

Congrats, gentlemen.

Yeah yeah yeah, the big bad blue guys have a secret club where we all try to imbalance the game because we're Nazis in real life and walk around with hitler mustaches, etc etc.

Let's all ignore the haphazard way the developers have put together the game. Everything else in the sim is broken, but the flight models probably aren't broken, right? I mean, sure, the entire game is a complete mess and crashes constantly. But that's probably because they spent sooo much time on the flight models. These models must be exactly the way the developers want them to be.

That's the only explanation, right? It's gotta be the Luftmafia that's convinced MG to purposely nerf the spitfire. That makes perfect logical sense. It also makes sense that every single person on these forums who is a Blue pilot is complicit and should be blamed for the current state of the flight models (ignoring for a second that the Spit 1a is extremely competitive above 6km). We should all focus our anger on them. It's their fault. Those freedom-hating Nazi bastards.

Oh wait. Maybe the FMs are broken, just like the rest of the game. Maybe if we exercise a little patience we might get representative performance in game. Maybe it's not my fault that the FM's suck. Maybe it's not von Bruhl's fault. Maybe it's not robtek's fault.

One of the most immature posts I've read on these forums in a long time.

Is the game broken? Yes. Is the game broken for both sides? Yes. Does trying to blame it on Axis pilots help anyone? No.

Please stop.

[CaptainDoggles]

I could be just as much of a troll and point at the thousands of gallons of tears that were shed when they brought the spit 2a down from La-La-Land.

All that crying must have been done by Red pilots who want to suppress the historically accurate performance of the spitfire in favor of an inflated and overpowered model to maintain an unfair advantage online.



What a joke. The hyper-partisan nature of the posts that get made around here really piss me off.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Doggles, give it a rest. Who cares if it pisses you off? No-one cares when I'm pissed off, apart from the wife.

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Dutch

Doggles, give it a rest. Who cares if it pisses you off? No-one cares when I'm pissed off, apart from the wife.

No I don't think I will give it a rest.

I've argued many times for historical accuracy, and I think it's unconscionable for Snapper to come in here like some kind of Spitfire McCarthy, slinging mud at everyone and telling us it's our fault that the game is broken.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Settle down, Doggles, and learn how to read a chart for once. The Spitfire Ia chart provided by Black Six only STARTS at 3000 meters of altitude -- he himself admitted they did not have data for lower altitudes. Yet you start blathering how this same chart shows the Ia at 300 mph at sea level.

When you can demonstrate that you know what you're talking about perhaps then you can make a valid point.

[CaptainDoggles]

I'll admit to not reading the chart correctly. I was in a hurry and not really expecting a guy who thinks that 2000 feet is not low to be overly receptive.

My reading errors aside, you don't get free license to come in here and try to paint me or whoever else as the reason the spitfire got nerfed. Go direct your comments to Luthier or to BlackSix, the community liaison.

Nobody blamed you when the Spit 2a was overmodeled.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

I've argued many times for historical accuracy,

And so have we all. But see my post above. I don't think it's possible to have any aircraft modelled correctly for the same reason we can't get to altitude. Seems to me that the air is too dense at sea level, and too rarified past 20,000ft.

But there has been a lot of stuff posted (reams and reams and reams and....) and the performance of the RAF fighters has been downgraded to a point lower than even published 87 octane performance levels.

When you take a look at Luthier's sig over at Sukhoi, it's no surprise that some people are convinced that there's a certain level of bias.

But you're right in that when the game was released, both the Spit II and the Rotol Hurri performed better compared to the 109 than they should. Tests I carried out myself said they performed closest to published data out of all the a/c however. This was pretty much accepted by all, including the 109 jocks who were saying that their mounts performed lower than historically.

What was expected by some in the patch was everything else to be brought up to that level of performance accuracy. Instead the RAF fighters have been neutered, and we're being told that the Spit II and Rotol Hurri were wrong.

I suppose all us Red chaps are feeling similar to how the Blue chaps previously felt with the Spit II, and that was banned from servers as a result.

Unfortunately, we can't ban everything on the blue team except bombers, because then we'd have no game.

My own opinion is that instead of arguing with eachother, we should be banging on the developer's door for historical accuracy on both sides, and correct performance at all altitudes, coz arguing between ourselves isn't going to resolve any issues on either side of the red/blue divide.

[SEE]

I have seen a 109 match my turn but only on one occaision (with this patch).
I didn't make a mental note of the exact circumstances for that particular encounter so I wouldn't risk jumping to any conclusions.

For me, the Spit is still very capable regards a range of defensive maneouvres, particularly at altitude. 'Turning' isn't always the best option anyway and one of the reasons I avoid and dislike 'low altitude' DF's. I tend to think that they limit my options and the fight thus becomes 'predictable' for my 109 opponent.