Speed graphs for Spitfire and Hurricane

[bw_wolverine]

Originally Posted by David Hayward

Do you have test data that contradicts what B6 posted in his graph? If not, you need to find some.

I'm not talking about data. I'm talking about how the sentiment on these FMs seems to change interestingly whenever we get new FM updates.

The biggest anomaly for me is the IIa. So many people said "It's the only accurately modelled plane in the sim" and now it's being reduced and people are all saying "Well, of course! It's so grossly overmodelled!"

I have no stats or anything to tell the devs how to make these planes. I am not an engineer. I do not have a degree in avionics or aerodynamics or whatever. I am not qualified to have that argument.

What I do feel qualified to talk about is how odd this whole saga has been and continues to be.

There is nothing impartial about ANY of the player discussions about these aircraft, I think. On the Blue or Red side.

Not until I see a Blue player crusading for the increase in Red plane performance, or a Red player vehemently arguing that the 109 is too slow will I suggest that anyone here is really being anything more than self-serving with respect to the FMs.

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine

I'm not talking about data. I'm talking about how the sentiment on these FMs seems to change interestingly whenever we get new FM updates.

The biggest anomaly for me is the IIa. So many people said "It's the only accurately modelled plane in the sim" and now it's being reduced and people are all saying "Well, of course! It's so grossly overmodelled!"

I have no stats or anything to tell the devs how to make these planes. I am not an engineer. I do not have a degree in avionics or aerodynamics or whatever. I am not qualified to have that argument.

What I do feel qualified to talk about is how odd this whole saga has been and continues to be.

There is nothing impartial about ANY of the player discussions about these aircraft, I think. On the Blue or Red side.

Not until I see a Blue player crusading for the increase in Red plane performance, or a Red player vehemently arguing that the 109 is too slow will I suggest that anyone here is really being anything more than self-serving with respect to the FMs.

Personally, I am SHOCKED that there are players who are impartially lobbying for their favorite aircraft. SHOCKED!!!

[Insuber]

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine

Not until I see a Blue player crusading for the increase in Red plane performance, or a Red player vehemently arguing that the 109 is too slow will I suggest that anyone here is really being anything more than self-serving with respect to the FMs.

Originally Posted by Insuber

(...)
On the other hand I agree that the 12 lbs boost / 100 octane fuel must be modeled, of course with a limitation on overheating and engine life as in RL, to correct the Hurricane I performance below 3000 m which looks excessively penalized, IF KWIATEK CHARTS ARE ACCURATE

The first condition is true, I'm waiting for the second one ...

[ATAG_Snapper]

Originally Posted by David Hayward

Do you have test data that contradicts what B6 posted in his graph? If not, you need to find some.

Pfffft. What good will that do, David? Really? The devs have had a year to correct it, they've had over seven years to research it. They don't care. The fix is in. We get it. As Wolverine very capably outlined, the Red fliers will adjust tactics to accommodate the new FM changes. This is a game after all; many of us mistook this as a simulation.

To blame the dev team of 2011 is hardly the answer -- might as well blame George Bush while they're at it. Ten minutes flying the Spitfire Ia (including the warmup time) will tell you somethin' ain't right. Don't need a chart to figure that out!

[Kurfürst]

Red reactions in this thread remind me to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gQozw40Mso

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Snapper

Pfffft. What good will that do, David? Really? The devs have had a year to correct it, they've had over seven years to research it. They don't care. The fix is in. We get it. As Wolverine very capably outlined, the Red fliers will adjust tactics to accommodate the new FM changes. This is a game after all; many of us mistook this as a simulation.

To blame the dev team of 2011 is hardly the answer -- might as well blame George Bush while they're at it. Ten minutes flying the Spitfire Ia (including the warmup time) will tell you somethin' ain't right. Don't need a chart to figure that out!

If it's so obviously wrong then you should have no problem finding test data to back up your complaints. It may not convince the dev team to change things, but at least you won't look like you're whining (which is kinda what it looks like you're doing right now).

[Insuber]

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine

Reading in that thread it seems that the problem wasn't the Hurricane, it was the lack of speed in the 109. Which, I might add, seems to be being addressed! Lucky blue pilot!

I read several people in that thread (not all of them Red pilots!) agreeing that the Hurricane was more or less accurate. So I'm not sure why you are claiming that thread as evidence that the Hurricane has always been understood as too fast in the game.

Too fast relatively to the other planes, mate. Far from me to start an argument about blue vs. red ... can't care less.
We missed at that time any charts of the game performances allowing to understand better the issue. And today it's clear that 109 was a bit slower and Hurricane a bit faster. But I agree that the common goal is to get faithful FMs of all planes, so I will fight to get a realistic Hurricane and Spit etc. as well.

Cheers!

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by Insuber

Too fast relatively to the other planes, mate. Far from me to start an argument about blue vs. red ... can't care less.
We missed at that time any charts of the game performances allowing to understand better the issue. And today it's clear that 109 was a bit slower and Hurricane a bit faster. But I agree that the common goal is to get faithful FMs of all planes, so I will fight to get a realistic Hurricane and Spit etc. as well.

Cheers!

I don't care about relativity to other types, I purely care about each type having accuracy.

87 octane it is, let's press for 12lbs boost (yes yes for the recommended limits!). This brings me to the next problem, that the Spitfire out-turns the Hurricane, and the 109 can turn with the Hurricane unless flap is used *note this is a generalisation, I know that speed has effects . So, the Hurricane should be the best turner, if that it unchanged it's going to become a deathtrap with the correction to speed.

As for online, I'm expecting a lot of LW complaint, hissyfits and general rudeness from the obtuse. It's been a tough year for the RAF, now I will be leading my crew up over 6km+ on the hunt, on top of the LW, the tables will turn I can deal with speed loss because I will still reach 400mph in a dive to tonk down the unsuspecting 109

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine

Weeks and weeks ago, everyone was saying that the only aircraft that had historically accurate performance was the Spitfire IIa and that the other aircraft needed to have their performance increased as well.

Now, suddenly, because 1C has decided to reduce its performance, people are popping up saying that the Spitfire IIa was over modelled. And now that the Hurricane is being reduced, people are claiming that it has always been overmodelled as well.

What new historical research and findings appeared between those posts and these posts that has altered everyones views?

None whatsoever.

I also found that the in-game Rotol Hurri performed almost identically to the data provided here;

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...ane/l2026.html

[Ataros]

If you have reliable data please update this issue on Spit Ia and create new one for Hurricane. It will be much easier to post just one-two links for luthier when he brings the patch.

BTW. Someone mentioned that above graphs are calculated and not direct measurement results for lower altitudes. Is there any better data?