Not at all I have never damaged the game in any way shape or form, I had absoloutley nothing to do with its development.

"The Hurricane and Spitfire are slow and clumsy fighters at low altitudes. They seek dogfights at high altitudes (over 5,000 m.) where their characteristics are extremely good. Used these days as night-fighters by the enemy. The Spitfire is faster than the Hurricane."

to quote Blacksix,

First repeat first beta patch.

I gotta admit though, after playing online for so long, then going back to single player, even the 'superman' maneuvers don't bother me anymore, they are just somehow easier to shoot down...

Perhaps this is why the devs don't think it's a problem, because they just don't feel the frustrations after playing for so long.

Thanks for the advice, cupcake. I'll keep that in mind when responding to your off-topic "suggestions".

Thank you for the readme. Very soothing. If we can get the performance to be stable, I could finally build myself an Ivy Bridge and go train some gunnery in massive offline flights until the coop feature gets into CloD.

Good luck with the testing.

That is just the sign of things to come. If the game gets fixed, the same complainers will find somethin else, anything, to be mad about. Hopefully some day it will be our only problem. Because people like me fought those forum wars in 2002-2005 and can`t be bothered to start them again.

People sniff out a POSSIBILITY of their fav ride being porked and they go on a crusade. I was like that few years ago, now I think it`s just funny. :D

No coop yet. Cool. So maybe we could go on with it when the games fixed first? Wouldn`t that be good? I don`t know why a "step by step" concept is so hard to understand for some people.

but we do need an objective and factual way to quantify differences in aircraft performances, and we currently dont have this for CoD (il2 compare filled that purpose in the old il2 series). so people are somewhat justified to cry fire when they feel their favored ride isnt performing as it historically should in comparison to other specific aircraft (eg spitfire vs 109 of the same period)

the only thing we ask for in CoD and the continuing series, is that these historical differences are modeled accurately, AND that information on their modeled performance characteristics in the sim is openly provided (so we can test ingame this is indeed the case)

currently this is not the case, hence there will be a significant increase in paranoia about under-performing aircraft :)

I would think ANY sort of fuel tank explosion would put the 109 down, as now they not only carry on flying, they carry on fighting with no negative impact on flight performance.

Most of time, when there is a fuel tank explosion the 109 is severely damaged. I'm just explaining why sometimes 109 can continue to fly even though the explosion should've drained all fuel.

We all have had those moments where one plane is Swiss cheesed but it continues to whiz by.

I agree that the 109s are just hardier planes (as long as the engine isn't over-reved). Brit planes are more finicky and more prone to temperature issues. I don't know if this is historical or not, but it seems that the Merlins are due for some changes with the new patch.

Ofcourse, zapatista. No point denying it. No realistic relative plane performance means no realistic tactics means no realistic battles means arcade gameplay.

I would also like for CloD to have something resembling the IL2 encyclopedia. Which ,even if portrayed the differences pretty blurry, gave an idea of what one could expect from a certain aircraft. For avodining absurdity, I`m perfectly able to see the effort(resources)-wasting with cut`npasting the entire WWII avionics history into the game. Nah, we just need the charts, some numbers (ex. : max oil temperature) that ACTUALLY RESEMBLE WHAT IS IN THE GAME, even if a little off the real data.
That is to say - not to recreate pilot manuals, but to recreate aircraft battles and pilot WWII combat experience.