Detailed BOP test data for 20 BOP aircraft available here!

[SgtPappy]

I have to say that the tests on the Spitfires are fairly consistent, though the tests on the Bf 109's are not; mainly the G's.

It seems as though the RAF pilots and tests state that the 109's turning is very inferior to even that of a P-51B or even D mustang. The Germans state otherwise.

I believe the speed figures seem accurate though.

There's a LOT of good data considering Allied aircraft though, here: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/

It really does look like the best resource I've ever found online concerning the performance of mainly British and US aircraft types.

Let me tell you, the figures are very very different from BoP values. But I think I'll be happy if at least the Spitfire XVI's roll rate was fixed.

EDIT: Btw, Wildar, did you show these figures and charts to the devs, or at least post it in the 'Suggestion to Devs' thread? I think if you got a nice, wide JPEG displayed in there, it would catch their attention.

[Widar]

Originally Posted by SgtPappy

I have to say that the tests on the Spitfires are fairly consistent, though the tests on the Bf 109's are not; mainly the G's.

It seems as though the RAF pilots and tests state that the 109's turning is very inferior to even that of a P-51B or even D mustang. The Germans state otherwise.

I believe the speed figures seem accurate though.

There's a LOT of good data considering Allied aircraft though, here: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/

It really does look like the best resource I've ever found online concerning the performance of mainly British and US aircraft types.

Let me tell you, the figures are very very different from BoP values. But I think I'll be happy if at least the Spitfire XVI's roll rate was fixed.

EDIT: Btw, Wildar, did you show these figures and charts to the devs, or at least post it in the 'Suggestion to Devs' thread? I think if you got a nice, wide JPEG displayed in there, it would catch their attention.

Yes I know about that site, a lot of interesting info there. The 1940 Spits engine dive problem and its tactical disadvantage was not that emphasised in some of those tests, which kind of reminds me of the testing done on the Bradley IFV. Ever heard of the book "Pentagon Wars", about testing and test report altering on account of political/financial reasons? Very interesting read that is.

On the Me 109 the thin light wings reportedly presented an issue in tight horizontal turning, as you probably know. German pilots were reportedly told in training to avoid putting too much pressure on them, meaning really tight horizontal turns, because they might be ripped off as a result. In 1940 there generally was no way a pilot of any aircraft could judge for sure if he was overstressing the airframe. This in a way is reflected by many of the German aces that avoided horizontal turning battles. But if you were really brave, or just very experienced and capable, you could of course ignore this and then you would have a tighter turning circle in a Me 109 E than in a Spitfire Mk. I/II. Therefore to horizontally turn a Me 109 to the limit of what its wings would stand, depends on the willingness of the (test) pilot to take a risk and on his piloting ability. A pilot who has flown 500 combat missions in a Me 109 has a better feel for its tolerances than a test pilot that has flown it maybe 10 times at most, if even that. And who would not - in combat - make use of his performance advantages (i.e. Me 109 E diving) and avoid unpleasant performance aspect areas (i.e. Me 109 E wings ripped off when overstressed in a tight horizontal turn)? If horizontal turning always won the day, the airforces of the world would still be flying biplanes. Now that would be a sight!

I generally agree with your conclusion on performance differences between the real life aircraft and the BOP aircraft. If you think the BOP Spitfire can be improved, here a another interesting item: the BOP Ar-234 bomber actually outperforms the BOP Me 262 A1a fighter. One friend of mine tested the BOP B-17 vs. the BOP Me 262 A1a and he could also outmanoeuver the BOP Me 262 A1a in it. The world beating Me 262 A1a is the worst aircraft in BOP in every area - except top speed and climb rate - of all that I tested. The BOP Spitfire Mk. XVI can even outdive the BOP Me 262 A1a.

So the BOP Spitfire’s roll rate is one thing, but the performance in BOP of the German and US aircraft vis-a-vis the RAFx2 is another. In many ways BOP online turns into RAF vs RAF, or Royal Air Force versus Red Air Force, since the other nationality aircraft perform that badly in BOP when compared to those of the RAFx2. I have also done some "BOP firepower impact" and "BOP hit probability" tests and the results again are kind of disappointing in the same areas, but I will not publish these until all tests are finished and when I come round to putting them in a nice format.

So yes, there is a gap between historical aircraft performance and BOP aircraft performance, with the German and US aircraft getting the short end of the stick generally. I might take your advice on that other thread, but it is safe to say that some of the developers probably already have taken a peek at these three new PDF's and they choose not to respond, which is their privilege of course. In the end, it is their game and they can make it exactly the way they want it.

[DoraNine]

Originally Posted by Widar

So yes, there is a gap between historical aircraft performance and BOP aircraft performance, with the German and US aircraft getting the short end of the stick generally. I might take your advice on that other thread, but it is safe to say that some of the developers probably already have taken a peek at these three new PDF's and they choose not to respond, which is their privilege of course. In the end, it is their game and they can make it exactly the way they want it.

I could not agree more with your analysis. All the true BNZ planes have been neutered, so no one wants to fly them anymore. Its gotten to the point where they could've just named the game "Hurricane II: BOP", or "La-5: BOP". Like I've said in other posts -- I like all warplanes, irregardless of nationality, but the discrepancies in performance lead to British and Russian plane overpopulation online. Lets just say I get a little frustrated when I can't outclimb a Hurricane II in my 109G6 -- or even in an F series.

The other thing is weapons convergence. There isn't any in this game -- period. I can hit and receive hits from 2000ft away -- and I'm fairly certain that a setting of 700 yards was not an option -- unless you're equipped with sidewinders, like this one guy I fought the other night who was flying a I-153. This game teaches good "video game" gunnery -- and the popular tactic seems to be plinking a guy from 2000 ft away just enough to slow him down so that you can get in closer for a kill. There's obviously no factor for munitions weight either. I can lob a 30mm shell and it will go on a straight trajectory until it leaves the confines of the play area. If your convergence is set to the standard setting (200 - 300 yards for most) -- then there is no way you are going to hit anything beyond 1000 ft. -- ESPECIALLY, if your weapons are wing mounted -- like the Hurricane and the Spit. In these planes, your rounds will cross paths long, long, before reaching anything out to 700 yards. Atleast all the planes are treated the same with this.

Other than these discrepancies -- I really like the game alot. I know it will never be perfect -- and I'm just glad someone took on the challenge of putting it on a console.

[Widar]

Originally Posted by DoraNine

I could not agree more with your analysis. All the true BNZ planes have been neutered, so no one wants to fly them anymore. Its gotten to the point where they could've just named the game "Hurricane II: BOP", or "La-5: BOP". Like I've said in other posts -- I like all warplanes, irregardless of nationality, but the discrepancies in performance lead to British and Russian plane overpopulation online. Lets just say I get a little frustrated when I can't outclimb a Hurricane II in my 109G6 -- or even in an F series.

The other thing is weapons convergence. There isn't any in this game -- period. I can hit and receive hits from 2000ft away -- and I'm fairly certain that a setting of 700 yards was not an option -- unless you're equipped with sidewinders, like this one guy I fought the other night who was flying a I-153. This game teaches good "video game" gunnery -- and the popular tactic seems to be plinking a guy from 2000 ft away just enough to slow him down so that you can get in closer for a kill. There's obviously no factor for munitions weight either. I can lob a 30mm shell and it will go on a straight trajectory until it leaves the confines of the play area. If your convergence is set to the standard setting (200 - 300 yards for most) -- then there is no way you are going to hit anything beyond 1000 ft. -- ESPECIALLY, if your weapons are wing mounted -- like the Hurricane and the Spit. In these planes, your rounds will cross paths long, long, before reaching anything out to 700 yards. Atleast all the planes are treated the same with this.

Other than these discrepancies -- I really like the game alot. I know it will never be perfect -- and I'm just glad someone took on the challenge of putting it on a console.

Completely agree with your post. To be sure: I also like BOP for what it offers now and more importantly the potential it still has, to actually being a simulator on console. I had hopes when I bought BOP that I, as a simulator fan, would have found in BOP a flight simulator game that I could have been playing for years on "Simulator mode", that is until the sequel came out.

It seems that: "Arcade mode" was probably intended for the Hawx/COD audience, "Realistic mode" for a little bit more serious and demanding audience and "Simulator mode" for the serious PC flight simulator fan. If this is all so, than BOP "Simulator mode" does not live up to what it COULD be. There are so many clearly and glaringly historically incorrect things which simply cannot be overlooked by a sim fan. The aircraft performance should at least "feel" authentic in "Simulator mode' and the armament load out, impact and hit probability, top speeds and especially manoeuvrability should also conform within reasonable bounds to real life. But this it does not. For example: all 1940 Spitfires being historically incorrect equipped with 20 mm cannon and all 1940 Hurricanes historically incorrect equipped with twelve 12.7 mm (.50) machine guns? And if this is all on account of error or time shortage there might still be a way to correct it. If it is all a result of intentional design, it will stay the way it is and that means that simulator fans will move on. In a way it all seems to depend on the audience the developer and publisher are targetting for.