Speed graphs for Spitfire and Hurricane

[Flanker35M]

S!

To me the Hurricane seems not to lost that much, less than 20km/h from actual numbers compared to patch tests. So that is within piloting error. And again remember the game has problems above 7km altitude and up to that altitude Hurricane seems to be very close to actual numbers, even a bit faster at some point. As Hurricane (Rotol) is now, it is overmodelled and chart clearly shows that.

Spitfire is a bit strange but again within 20km/h, give or take and the higher you go the closer it is again. Maybe some tweaks are done to it?

I just wonder about this 100oct fuzz. You can not fly with that 12lbs all day long thus having those speeds at ALL times and altitudes. Even with 100oct you have a 100% value that is for sure NOT this 12lbs value. Same applies to Bf109E too, can't measure max speed at WEP.

And hopefully if they ever implement 12lbs the 5min limit will be done so that it is not a magic button that can be abused without overheat or damage. Bf109E has the WEP bug which is hopefully fixed soon. So there you go, no bias. Just want it accurately done. Like always, thanks for the update BlackSix.

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine

I believe this is the case.

Red pilots are just going to have to deal with this and try to use tactics.

If you seriously fly red, then you should be circling back by Eastchurch and the Thames estuary climbing to at least 16,000ft and higher before heading into the combat area.

Otherwise, you get what you get.

what a load of bollocks !

where have you ever read/heard anything like that about the historical BoB ? do you really think that allied command told their fighters "dont fly below 6000 meters guys, or the very superior performing 109's will make mince meat of you" or "let all bomber formations get through if they fly below 6000 meters, because we'd like to save your planes for later in the war and we'll try and avoid you engaging the 109's" ? you'r making poor excuses for major technical errors/bugs in the game and suggesting "gaming the game" is somehow a solution

the whole point of a SIMULATION of anything that claims to be a ww2 plane sim is that it should as close as possible SIMULATE the performance relationship between those main fighter aircraft. to willfully handicap the red side and then pretend "its the pilot that matters, not the plane" is a load of nonsense.



Blacksix,

extensive data has been provided to you and 1C for some time now that all hurricanes and spitfire squadrons were provided with 100 octane fuel AT THE START OF THE HISTORICAL BOB DATE, yet MG and 1C still dont seem to understand they have used older 87 octane fuel data and you thereby crippled the hurricanes and spitfires in their engagements with 109's

either cripple the 109 in speed to make both planes wrong (but both equally proportionally reduced in speed compared to historical data), which obviously would be silly, OR GIVE US 100 OCTANE FUEL FOR THE SPITFIRES AND HURRICANES !! frankly, i wouldnt bother bringing out the "post-beta patch" (once the gfx engine performance is fixed, and you are adding game bug fixes) without it, since we might as well all go back to using il2-1946 then

the single most important aspect of a ww2 FLIGHT SIMULATOR is to have the performance characteristics between those competitive fighter aircraft correct, if that isnt the case then dont bother wasting development time on making pretty houses, driving cars, or other elements that ENHANCE the core flightsim aspect of the game. please understand those priorities correctly

[CWMV]

I personally don't buy into the 100 octane argument, for the simple reason that neither side has been able to act like G.D. adults with the data. Every time its brought up both sides, blue and red pilots, fly off the handle and act worse than children-so you know what, for me default to 87.

Regardless of that, this kinda sucks. I'm a 109 driver, for now and for all time, but that doesn't mean I want to see everyone else cut off at the knees. I'm sure most of the blue pilots feel the same way.
Sadly the charts really don't match even 87 octane. I found that really hard to believe until I checked. Even Wiki has the MkI doing about 591kph at 18K feet...not in that graph. And that's just the first place I looked. I'm sure further searching would yield similar results.

Do I believe that the 109 was the best fighter of the period in question? Without a doubt. But I know that the Spit was a really, REALLY close second.
If these graphs are going to really be what we see in game, that will not be the case at all.

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by CWMV

I personally don't buy into the 100 octane argument.........................I'm a 109 driver, for now and for all time

I removed the BS so we can be clear about your position.

[macro]

Originally Posted by Osprey

I removed the BS so we can be clear about your position.

lmfao

i was gonna write that

is there a performance chart like the ones BS posted for the IIa?

all this arguments and the spit IIa may become the "default" red fighter for a more even fight on most servers?

[bongodriver]

until they pork that one too.

[Insuber]

It is interesting to see the wide tolerance of the contractual performance of the Bf-109. The error of +/-5% on the top speed of 500 km/h translates into 10% or 50 km/h of allowed error in absolute figures. Add to that the wear of operations and you can easily have poor performers.
It would be equally interesting to know the tolerance of the British types, I would not be surprised to see higher tolerance values for the Spitfire, given the poor status of the Supermarine rigs and tools at the beginning of production (see the Leo McKinstry book on the Spitfire to have an idea about the mess of the Supermarine works in 1938-39).

PS: how nice if this variability is modeled ... it shouldn't be that difficult ...

[II/JG54_Emil]

Originally Posted by Osprey

I removed the BS so we can be clear about your position.

If you are trying to say that his arguments are foul because he does fly blue, then the same applies to red pilots.

Ergo, nobody flying red or blue only may argue.

I don´t think you want to say that, do you?

[335th_GRAthos]

We all took a concious decision, to have 1C concentrate their ressources to make a better graphics model.
It is therefore beyond doubt that we will have to wait for the graphics model to get finalised and afterwards, the long, hard discussion about the flight models will start.

I have always avoided discussions because speed is only one parameter; There is a lot more which plays a role in a dogfight.

What I would really like to see is that somebody downloads the CoD plane parameters and creates an IL2Compare like we had for IL2!





If we have that, we will have the required transparency to start discussions.

As I had commented in the improvements thread months ago, watching the "wing load" responsiveness of the airplanes (can be seen by the planes flying reasonably well with half-wing sawn off) makes me believe that, as far as the FM of COD is concerned, "speed" is one small piece of the puzzle.

~S~

[bw_wolverine]

Originally Posted by zapatista

what a load of bollocks !

where have you ever read/heard anything like that about the historical BoB ? do you really think that allied command told their fighters "dont fly below 6000 meters guys, or the very superior performing 109's will make mince meat of you" or "let all bomber formations get through if they fly below 6000 meters, because we'd like to save your planes for later in the war and we'll try and avoid you engaging the 109's" ? you'r making poor excuses for major technical errors/bugs in the game and suggesting "gaming the game" is somehow a solution

the whole point of a SIMULATION of anything that claims to be a ww2 plane sim is that it should as close as possible SIMULATE the performance relationship between those main fighter aircraft. to willfully handicap the red side and then pretend "its the pilot that matters, not the plane" is a load of nonsense.

Relax! I'm on your side. I'm just tired of the whole thing. I've moved past the 'anger' stage of this whole debate and moved into 'acceptance'.

There is very little Battle of Britain in this Battle of Britain simulator. I was hoping it would get there. I'm now completely convinced that 1C guys are pretty much just tired of the whole debacle and are anxious to just move on.

After this patch is released, I'm pretty sure they're going to be full steam ahead on Battle of Moscow. I can't see them releasing another big patch for Cliffs of Dover before that game is out and they can marry the two titles together somehow.

So what we have after this patch is pretty much what we're going to have until the next game. I'm pretty much convinced of it. So we accept that this isn't a real Battle of Britain simulator and just get on with it. The game is still fun! With a patch that fixes the crashing (fingers crossed) it'll be even more fun. We might even be able to stage some real Battle of Britain type campaigns. But I'm sure that 1C is done with this theatre. I don't want to be sure, but I am.

So as much as I want to be optimistic and fired up about making changes to correct errorsand whatnot, I just can't see it happening. The direction that they've taken with the FM adjustments seem to suggest there's no interest in modelling the RAF aircraft with the same degree of fidelity as the German stuff. Possibly because they really honestly don't care that much about them. After all, the German planes are the ones that matter for Battle of Moscow, not the RAF ones.

It's our tough luck. And so, to deal with it, we have to make and use tactics that suit the aircraft we have, not the one we want. I'm pretty sure that the Blue players aren't using historical tactics for the most part. Why should we?