Throwing some light on rates of turn

[ATAG_Dutch]

Doggles, give it a rest. Who cares if it pisses you off? No-one cares when I'm pissed off, apart from the wife.

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Dutch

Doggles, give it a rest. Who cares if it pisses you off? No-one cares when I'm pissed off, apart from the wife.

No I don't think I will give it a rest.

I've argued many times for historical accuracy, and I think it's unconscionable for Snapper to come in here like some kind of Spitfire McCarthy, slinging mud at everyone and telling us it's our fault that the game is broken.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Settle down, Doggles, and learn how to read a chart for once. The Spitfire Ia chart provided by Black Six only STARTS at 3000 meters of altitude -- he himself admitted they did not have data for lower altitudes. Yet you start blathering how this same chart shows the Ia at 300 mph at sea level.

When you can demonstrate that you know what you're talking about perhaps then you can make a valid point.

[CaptainDoggles]

I'll admit to not reading the chart correctly. I was in a hurry and not really expecting a guy who thinks that 2000 feet is not low to be overly receptive.

My reading errors aside, you don't get free license to come in here and try to paint me or whoever else as the reason the spitfire got nerfed. Go direct your comments to Luthier or to BlackSix, the community liaison.

Nobody blamed you when the Spit 2a was overmodeled.

[SEE]

I have seen a 109 match my turn but only on one occaision (with this patch).
I didn't make a mental note of the exact circumstances for that particular encounter so I wouldn't risk jumping to any conclusions.

For me, the Spit is still very capable regards a range of defensive maneouvres, particularly at altitude. 'Turning' isn't always the best option anyway and one of the reasons I avoid and dislike 'low altitude' DF's. I tend to think that they limit my options and the fight thus becomes 'predictable' for my 109 opponent.

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by SEE

For me, the Spit is still very capable regards a range of defensive maneouvres, particularly at altitude. 'Turning' isn't always the best option anyway and one of the reasons I avoid and dislike 'low altitude' DF's. I tend to think that they limit my options and the fight thus becomes 'predictable' for my 109 opponent.

I agree. Sound tactics can make up for a lot in terms of performance difference. There used to be an article floating around about a guy who would go into those arcade servers where all the planes are available at every base. He would take up a 109E and fly it super high and super patiently, only diving when someone roaring around in their FW190 or P47 wasn't paying attention.

Pretty awesome article, actually, and really underscores the first lesson of air combat: Always secure an altitude advantage.

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

I agree. Sound tactics can make up for a lot in terms of performance difference. There used to be an article floating around about a guy who would go into those arcade servers where all the planes are available at every base. He would take up a 109E and fly it super high and super patiently, only diving when someone roaring around in their FW190 or P47 wasn't paying attention.

Pretty awesome article, actually, and really underscores the first lesson of air combat: Always secure an altitude advantage.

Since FMs are not accurate IMO many Spitfire pilots should use this period of time to train themself on being successfull without TnBing like dogs in heat.

I've not voted for the 100 octane bug as a priority since I hope that meanwhile the overall quality of the RAF players can improve, since it's so boring to hunt guys running circles at 1km that most of my squadmates are not flying in public servers anymore.

There are some great Spitfire pilots out there: IMO many should learn from them without thinking to the actual speed performances of their plane.

Attacking with altitude advantage is only the first step...

[pstyle]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

...not really expecting a guy who thinks that 2000 feet is not low to be overly receptive.

You should reconsider your expectations.
...as I explained in the follow up, this is relative to where the engagement started. All I need to do, is go back and and an "er" to that post and this whole nit-picking falls apart.

Criticisms of the description/ terminology in the OP do nothing to add to this thread and are simply a side-show.

Here's the discussion point: 109 followed me around in a turn when I was turning as hard as I thought I could.

OK, so maybe I was not at the statistical max-rate, but I was sure I couldn't turn any faster.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

I've argued many times for historical accuracy,

And so have we all. But see my post above. I don't think it's possible to have any aircraft modelled correctly for the same reason we can't get to altitude. Seems to me that the air is too dense at sea level, and too rarified past 20,000ft.

But there has been a lot of stuff posted (reams and reams and reams and....) and the performance of the RAF fighters has been downgraded to a point lower than even published 87 octane performance levels.

When you take a look at Luthier's sig over at Sukhoi, it's no surprise that some people are convinced that there's a certain level of bias.

But you're right in that when the game was released, both the Spit II and the Rotol Hurri performed better compared to the 109 than they should. Tests I carried out myself said they performed closest to published data out of all the a/c however. This was pretty much accepted by all, including the 109 jocks who were saying that their mounts performed lower than historically.

What was expected by some in the patch was everything else to be brought up to that level of performance accuracy. Instead the RAF fighters have been neutered, and we're being told that the Spit II and Rotol Hurri were wrong.

I suppose all us Red chaps are feeling similar to how the Blue chaps previously felt with the Spit II, and that was banned from servers as a result.

Unfortunately, we can't ban everything on the blue team except bombers, because then we'd have no game.

My own opinion is that instead of arguing with eachother, we should be banging on the developer's door for historical accuracy on both sides, and correct performance at all altitudes, coz arguing between ourselves isn't going to resolve any issues on either side of the red/blue divide.

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Dutch

And so have we all. But see my post above. I don't think it's possible to have any aircraft modelled correctly for the same reason we can't get to altitude. Seems to me that the air is too dense at sea level, and too rarified past 20,000ft.

I agree 100%. The game is broken on a fundamental level, which makes it all the more galling to have somebody come in and tell me it's my fault that his precious spitfire is too slow.

But there has been a lot of stuff posted (reams and reams and reams and....) and the performance of the RAF fighters has been downgraded to a point lower than even published 87 octane performance levels.

I'm not unsympathetic to this, but why is Snapper not directing his rage at 1c? When did it suddenly become my fault or whoever else's fault?

When you take a look at Luthier's sig over at Sukhoi, it's no surprise that some people are convinced that there's a certain level of bias.

Given the abysmal state of my Russian-language skills, I can't say I've seen his signature at sukhoi. However, giving you the benefit of the doubt I have to ask again: how is this the fault of the forum members who fly axis?

I suppose all us Red chaps are feeling similar to how the Blue chaps previously felt with the Spit II, and that was banned from servers as a result.

The situation really isn't the same. The Spit 1a is markedly superior to the 109 above 6000 meters. I know a lot of ATAG guys like to spiral around on the deck, but flight models shouldn't be altered to suit the odd habits of guys on one server.

My own opinion is that instead of arguing with eachother, we should be banging on the developer's door for historical accuracy on both sides, and correct performance at all altitudes, coz arguing between ourselves isn't going to resolve any issues on either side of the red/blue divide.

Maybe you should bring that up next time you and Snapper are on comms.