SPIT MK I/II and over boost

[SEE]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Juts to remind the expert here that the Spit I/II (especially the II) hve UFO flight model for now.

They can run away if you dive on them
Past you at 450 and turn 180 to engage the fight that you want to deny running flat out straight
Turn indefinitely at 90 bank angle
Hve a nose up attitude that will make shy a dolphin in a marine park (yuck yuck)
ETc.. etc..

Let's start at the beginning. 100 octane fuel was not candies FC give away to Fighter pilots !

Here we go again! I suggest you fly behind Mk.MrX in his BF - he doesn't seem to have problems with any of the Allied ac despite the fact he considers the Spit Mk2 has having an unfair advantage. Unfortunately it did if you read LW pilot accounts - but I guess they are wrong too as is every other piece of evidence posted.


I have been cutting my teeth on the Bfs - nice WEP - and you can engage it continually - a bit like the boost on the SpitMk2 that you are always complaining about. Adolph Galland had very high respect for the Spits....I wonder why when I read your posts.

[ElAurens]

I would invite anyone that flys blue to fly a Mk. I RAF aircraft, doesn't matter which one, for a month, and then get back to me about how "undermodeled" the Bf 109 E4 is.

But then this is a dream, because it will not allow them to pad their stats for an entire month...

[CWMV]

Dude, facts are facts. Numbers don't lie.

[CaptainDoggles]

edit: never mind.

This thread reminds me of why I hate this community.

[ElAurens]

What numbers is my question.

So far I have seen NO qualitative testing of any of the aircraft currently in the sim. All I read are "pilots" reports and recollections after flying the sim, and as we all know, you can't trust those.

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

edit: never mind.

This thread reminds me of why I hate this community.

I must admit, I've was wondering why you had so much angst, it was very personal wasn't it..... Perhaps you need a holiday.

[Blackdog_kt]

Guys, please don't get personal. Not everyone can subscribe to the same opinion and not everyone has the same sources or values each source equally.

Let's ask to have both high and low octane versions and then we can use whatever we like in our missions, without infringing on the ability of others to do the same.

I try not to point fingers, but in this case both "camps" are so evenly matched in doing this that i think no harm will come from it, everybody's guilty of this behaviour to an extent. What behaviour? The "It's not good enough for me if i get the tools to recreate what i think is historically correct. I want these to be the only tools available so everyone else will do what i think is right, so that i never run the risk of flying in an unfavorable environment when going online and messing up my gameplay enjoyment factor, sense of achievement or precious online K/D stats" kind of behaviour.

Let's be serious for a moment and understand that

a) whatever the case may have been during BoB, the scope of the series is not just BoB, so we will end up needing both high and low octane versions (battle of France/phoney war/low countries anyone?) and
b) both blue and red are currently missing their high performance rides (eg, about half the 110 fleet was running DB601N engines by the time of BoB and in certain regimes of flight this made them faster than the RAF fighters)

The pendulum swings both ways really. Let's ask the developers to get the missing variants which are not even new flyables (same 3d models with a few numbers changed in their FM really) and be done with it, so we can both start using them according to what each one thinks is historically correct and move on to the next bit that needs attention

[svend]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

Guys, please don't get personal. Not everyone can subscribe to the same opinion and not everyone has the same sources or values each source equally.

That`s absolute correct. Values each source equally is aboute evaluete and take the time to do so and not, what do I gain from it.

Let's ask to have both high and low octane versions and then we can use whatever we like in our missions, without infringing on the ability of others to do the same.

Agree

I try not to point fingers, but in this case both "camps" are so evenly matched in doing this that i think no harm will come from it, everybody's guilty of this behaviour to an extent. What behaviour? The "It's not good enough for me if i get the tools to recreate what i think is historically correct. I want these to be the only tools available so everyone else will do what i think is right, so that i never run the risk of flying in an unfavorable environment when going online and messing up my gameplay enjoyment factor, sense of achievement or precious online K/D stats" kind of behaviour.

Agree

Let's be serious for a moment and understand that

a) whatever the case may have been during BoB, the scope of the series is not just BoB, so we will end up needing both high and low octane versions (battle of France/phoney war/low countries anyone?) and
b) both blue and red are currently missing their high performance rides (eg, about half the 110 fleet was running DB601N engines by the time of BoB and in certain regimes of flight this made them faster than the RAF fighters)

The pendulum swings both ways really. Let's ask the developers to get the missing variants which are not even new flyables (same 3d models with a few numbers changed in their FM really) and be done with it, so we can both start using them according to what each one thinks is historically correct and move on to the next bit that needs attention

Agree

[MoGas]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

I would invite anyone that flys blue to fly a Mk. I RAF aircraft, doesn't matter which one, for a month, and then get back to me about how "undermodeled" the Bf 109 E4 is.

But then this is a dream, because it will not allow them to pad their stats for an entire month...

I did, and ended up like a pitching idiot, that my 109 just runs away, negative rolls back to France, until help or whatever arrives lol, speaking about SpitI and Ia.

As usual outnumberd and BnZ by fancy 109`s against MKI, (dont get me rong, I found this funny too, when flying 109`s) my switch to Spitfires, was simple the challenge to fly against fast good climbing and strong armed 109`s.

With a slow and not good climbing Spit (Hurries pull away just easy, never knew that the Hurrie is faster then a SpitIa)with a nice neg-cutout on the engine (but Luthier forgot to add the redouts), plus the fancy 303cal. (I am not saying the 303cal is rong, its clear it is not a 50cal.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

On the otherhand, I flew SpitII aswell now, against good 109 people, and you perform the 109 tactic on 109`s, outrun, outclimb, BnZ, re-engage, when situation is allowing. And finally you get bad comments, from the enemys point of view.

I blame Luthier and his team, for this kind of storys....

[SEE]

If the FM and Realism were as accurate as some want it then I doubt the vast majority would enjoy it.

Does anyone really want to fly 8 sorties a day and maybe get credit for 8 or 9 kills over a four month period? There have to be compromises and the result is arguments regards these.

Its primarilly a game for entertainmnet value with simulation properties - there to enjoy wether as part of a group or solo flyer!

As for the Spit Mk2....absolutely true, the best FM in the game and the others porked in some way, which explains why a lot of MP flyers don't select it even when available - for fair play, the challenge or prefer the Rotol Hurri or Mk1's.