Friday Update, April 13, 2012

[Kurfürst]

The Spit II rolls too fast, the Hurri rolls a bit too slow. Sorry if it was misunderstandable.

[Insuber]

look at the link he provided, it's clearer.

[taildraggernut]

8 seconds for a 90 deg roll at 400mph in a spit II.....yeah sure, now give your sphincter a break and start talking sense.

[Osprey]

As long as it's documented by RAE in a proper test for the period then I will believe it. Even if it is 8 seconds it out rolls the 109 @ 400mph. The 109 roll is better below about 300mph and improves as speed slows.

Taildraggernut said:

>>you are demonstrating a total failure of charisma, it really doesn't hurt to be polite. <<

Then Taildraggernut said:

>>yeah sure, now give your sphincter a break and start talking sense. <<

[5./JG27.Farber]

Anyway, about the Bf109's speed...

#puts on helmit#

The recoreded speed by anyone side, RAF or Luftwaffe, is not achievable in game...

[Insuber]

Again ... FM vs. historical performances is an important aspect, but the playability is more affected by the contact visibility issue atm.

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by Insuber

Again ... FM vs. historical performances is an important aspect, but the playability is more affected by the contact visibility issue atm.

Agreed on both counts.

I hope that the cloaking device fitted on planes at med range is fixed in the up coming patch, as as to fm's debate, i see it as pointless until we have our hands on the patch.

[taildraggernut]

Originally Posted by Falstaff

Taildraggernut said:

>>you are demonstrating a total failure of charisma, it really doesn't hurt to be polite. <<

Then Taildraggernut said:

>>yeah sure, now give your sphincter a break and start talking sense. <<

Are you stalking me? I thought it was a polite way to say stop talking crap.

[335th_GRAthos]

Originally Posted by Moggy

The data I sent in also had some information not relating to the Battle of Britain Hurricane but earlier models.

I am sorry to be persistent Moggy,

I do not give a rat's xxxx how the fuel tanks of the Hurricane Mk.I work (or don't).

What I understand between the lines is that you gave them historical data regarding the Hurricane MK.I including performance data.
The performance data you gave to them are historically correct but due to the test environment used, they do not reflect the maximum performance of the Hurricane.

Now, for some reason, you decide to wonder whether 1c used the data you provided them with, although you do not have any indication that they used it, rather the contrary (they thanked Sean and not you).

Which brings up following troubling aspects:

#1. This reminds me of the cases when people give loaded guns to children and then wonder why accidents happen... Responsibility and foresight of what our actions may cause is important in this world.

#2. What do you want to achieve mentioning what you mentioned???? ("I pray that...")
- That we congratulate you for your XXXXXXX???? <- I live the choice of descriptive word at your discretion and judgement
- That we congratulate 1c for their XXXXXXX for using historical data they should not be using ???? <- I live the choice of descriptive word to anybody's imagination
- That we all run like scareless chicken because the Hurricane will now be running with 87oct performance instead of 150oct (do not know what the current oct rate is for the day, I lost count). ?????

Besides, since you are not Sean why on earth do you open a discussion aknowledging something which could potentialy make people consider congratulating you for your XXXXXXX???? <- I live the choice of descriptive word at your discretion and judgement


And what for?
we have not seen how the frigging Hurricane performs as per the new patch that we do not have!



~S~

I am sorry to lash out on you, it is not personal and I mean no insult, it is just that you gave me an excellent example to point out some of the madness that has been going on since last Friday's announcement.