Updated RAF FMs in 1.07.18301

[ATAG_Snapper]

Well, guys, I can tell you one thing: give us the earlier "Über Sissyfire IIa" and it will be the Red pilots telling the Blue pilots: "Learn the tools of the trade and you will succeed.". And yes, the Red pilots will be quoting Chuck Yeager to the Blue pilots, too!

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Snapper

Well, guys, I can tell you one thing: give us the earlier "Über Sissyfire IIa" and it will be the Red pilots telling the Blue pilots: "Learn the tools of the trade and you will succeed.". And yes, the Red pilots will be quoting Chuck Yeager to the Blue pilots, too!

I remember that LW pilots were really worried about that plane, above all because of the superior service ceiling ("faster and higher", those were the requested features in a new plane).

Have I to fly in an inferior plane? I will not fly alone... teamwork can do amazing things (but here we should begin to talk about another limit of this sim...)

[ATAG_Snapper]

@Manu: Actually, everything you say I agree with in a general sense. Clearly you have flown flights sims for a long time, as many of us have, too. I fly CloD a lot, usually with the same Red pilots. Let's face it, after several hundred hours and literally many dozens of dogfights, pilots of both sides have far more [virtual] experience under their belts than most of the real life RAF or LW pilots ever could. Certainly well up there with the Eastern Front LW pilots that survived. (I'm not for a minute comparing ourselves with the Real Life pilots of either side; hopefully everyone realizes that!)

The point I'm making is that many of us on both sides are very good at this SIM. Many of our dogfights are very, very close run. We all know how to get the most of our chosen aircraft, which is why many prefer the model we do ie. in my case I choose the IIa over the 2-speed Spit I or the CSP Spit Ia because I can extract more performance from the IIa. Reason? Because I may find myself up against a LW pilot like yourself that can dig the maximum performance out of your E4 rather than settle on a G50.

Basically, as with any fine tool, I can make good use of an extra 20 mph or another minute longer at full WEP before the engine blows. I don't use the extra performance as a crutch, but as a means to better accomplish my task -- shooting down expertly-flown 109's! I know I speak for my mates on this. We don't want a crushingly superior fighter, because historically the Spits and Hurricanes were not. But they were closer a match in Real Life to the 109's than what 1C has modelled in Cliffs of Dover. That's all we ask.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

I remember that LW pilots were really worried about that plane, above all because of the superior service ceiling ("faster and higher", those were the requested features in a new plane).

Have I to fly in an inferior plane? I will not fly alone... teamwork can do amazing things (but here we should begin to talk about another limit of this sim...)

Yes, and they were right to be worried. Actually, that IIa was modelled very closely to the Real Life Spit Ia -- it was the 109's that 1C should have modelled faster with better altitude performance to match and, actually, EXCEED it!

But the LW pilots would've been infuriated to be told, "Never mind the Über IIa's, fly better and smarter and stop making excuses."

[Flanker35M]

S!

Well, all above just confirms the game has flaws that need to be sorted out Be it FM/DM/CEM. Fix them and rest is up to us pilots. So far been quite able to hold my own, even my best flying days are long gone

I rarely dogfight these days, rather plan my routes according to the radio contacts and all that to get the job done So yes, I am in that Bf109E-4B or Bf110C-7 dropping eggs on good old RAF I find it more fun to really plan the mission, navigate and use the good range and decent speed in the Bf110C-7 to accomplish what the briefing says on ATAG. It is thrilling to see if the plan works out or someone spots me going for the target

I would also like to ask how many of you use historical fuel loads aka 100% on missions? I bet less than 20% of people do, mostly used load is 20-50% fuel and off they go. I use always 100% on the Bf109E, 70% or more on Bf110C as that is more than enough for long range missions. IRL Spitfire suffered from same as Bf109E, short legs = big fuel consumption accompanied with a rather small fuel load.

[WTE_Galway]

meh .... its politics really.

If it were just a game people would choose whatever aircraft suits there flying style. In addition noobs would choose the better performing aircraft and experienced flyers would go for something more challenging.

Instead people seem obsessed with reliving the war (or perhaps in some cases Hollywood movies) choose a side based on political or national biases and then try and get that side as much advantage as they can, all the while polling the net for any evidence they can find to support their views.

There is absolutely no interest in historical accuracy unless that historical evidence just happens to advantage the particular persons preferred aircraft - and that applies to both red and blue sides. Its all very childish really.

[Robo.]

I understand what you're saying Felipe, I am just saying that FM is something technical, but I also enjoy discussing tactics and sim flying so what. I am really looking forward for your testing. I did some basic testing, too and I will definitely comment on anything you come up with!

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

But, imo, you find one as Felipe once every 30 engagements with Spitfire pilots. So I can understand if blue pilots feel confident in their rides: probably they used to not look above their plane while flying at medium altitude.

I know you mentioned you didn't spend much time in this sim (and I understand) but just to let you know there is quite a few high flying Spitfire pilots. I agree that say on ATAG, most of the action is happening down low, but that applies to both sides equally, even more so to the 109s as they really like their airfield strafing missions. There are many skilled 109 pilots and many skilled RAF fighter pilots, too.

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

IMO BnZ is harder to learn, required more time and many KIA: it's less rewarding and a guy without patience will switch plane (do you remember the 190's IL2 history?). Because of this I think that the average pilot of BnZ planes (109/190/Hellcat/P47/P51) is actually more skilled than a Spitfire/Zeke/La7 pilot.

I see what you're saying, new pilot usually starts with a nimble plane like Zero or La-5Fn or Bf 109G-2 or 25lbs. Spitfire - and then he learns more and sees that there is more to it than pulling the stick down on the deck. But I am saying that flying any aircraft aon the edge requires same amount of skill, maybe different type of skill. In my experience many pilots who fly BnZ are helpless when it comes to 'close range melee'. You trick him a bit and he just flies straight and doesn't know what to do. Pilot is skilled no matter what he flies, if he flies it well and if he succeeds. I would not despise an experienced pilot in a Fw 190, Spitfire or G.50. That plane type does not matter. Good pilot will fly in a way that's necessary to win and survive and he can do BnZ in a Spitfire and TnB in a 190 when it comes to that. I've been into 1946 as long as you are and our squad, altough historically blue would fly just anything.

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

Of course I'm talking about IL2 1946... only Luthier knows when CloD will be worthy of been played by me.

It is already better than 1946, you should give it a try. I'd like to see how you deal with well flown Spitfires or 109s

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

Sooo... returning to the FM argument: Osprey states that "after 14 months of utter domination by the 109 the FMs are at least brought closer"... Flanker.. do you really believe it was a FM issue?

Yes, it was very much a FM issue.

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

Every Fw190 pilot in IL2 had to fly plane with worser performance than the one of a captured and crashed plane.

That is not true at all. 190s were actually typically faster than they should be, especially early Dora. And they were less maneouvrable than they should be - see latest DT patch where the 190 are spot on (except for manual pp) - just ask Maraz. I might be wrong, that's not the point of this discussion though. But trust me ppl would complain a lot if it would be too slow no matter if blue or red. They never complained about G-6/AS SL speed or performance or early Dora although it was off in the positive direction. That's not blue or red, that's just people.

Last time I took a 190 I had 9 kills on a full real server. Spitfires Mk.VIIIs and few P-47s doing ground pounding tbh. Not bad pilots, just the fact unless you're doing silly stuff they can't touch you. And the firepower. It was even better (faster) BnZ butcher before 4.11 but now it keeps E better. Perfect fighter plane but too easy when you master it. Same like 109 in CloD. I switched to late war USAAF and at least had to master .50s. But most of the time, I always really enjoyed flying 'inferior' planes and pushed myself harder to develop better tactics. When I get killed I don't blame the FM or the plane performance, I blame myself because I am the digger, the plane is just my showel.

I agree that FM should not be used as excuse, BUT the fact that an experienced pilot can balance for the shortcomings is not an excuse not to fix these issues. That's why we have this thread.

[camber]

Originally Posted by WTE_Galway

meh .... its politics really.
Instead people seem obsessed with reliving the war (or perhaps in some cases Hollywood movies) choose a side based on political or national biases and then try and get that side as much advantage as they can, all the while polling the net for any evidence they can find to support their views.

There is absolutely no interest in historical accuracy unless that historical evidence just happens to advantage the particular persons preferred aircraft - and that applies to both red and blue sides. Its all very childish really.

Well, so anyone investigating historical performance, trying to form a balanced view then seeing how that performance matches the actual game....is childish and partisan?! Sure, there is always some of that kind of content on the fringes. I wouldn't take seriously posts along the lines of: "I red a buk once that said that Spitfires went ultraasonic on those 109 noobs" But seriously, partisan posts with research done badly or in bad faith rather out themselves, don't you think?

I return your meh with capitalisation. Meh

[Flanker35M]

S!

I think Galway tried to say in an exaggerated way that some players might have an agenda for their favorite plane/gun/ship/car or whatever and do not stop pushing it as the only "accuracy" is the one that suits them. Can be found in many games but luckily it is the minority, most want accuracy for all which makes the games/sims a challenge, not another "shoot fish in a barrel" thingy

[=AN=Felipe]

guys take a look

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...089#post442089