|
|
#17
11-29-2011, 09:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The thing is related to CloD because the FMs seems to be a copy'n'paste of the 1946's one, at least looking at the ingame FM data. DM and CEM are totally another matter. As Insuber writes, there is still nothing about G-forces, structure damage and mostly the nonexistent torque... and this time I think they should also do something about the pilot's condition during combat. I'll always remember that the Tempest pilots were prohibited to stall/spin at less than 3km because that machine was a unforgiving flying brick. In 1946 I witnessed many times (both as tempest's pilot or his enemy) those planes going into high speed spins and autorecover without any conseguences for the pilot inside, of course at very low altitude. Look... this expedient has been used by many pilots (blue and red) to escape bounces and searching overshoots. This does have to change is you want to call this a "combat flight simulator". Are there few to none real tests? Use that little data for those related planes and translate it for the other models in a honest way. If you need ask for opinions from engineers... there are many of them here. Open a ****ing blog to get informations and start open discussion about that. There are so many experts here to help you! If they would release a FM SDK I'm sure that many here would lose their time to test and tweak the planes. More time helping the development = less time of whining on this board. Then as I said before, there should be also a simulated pilot's condition inside: fatigue, nausea and G force related waggles above all. But this is another step.
__________________
 A whole generation of pilots learned to treasure the Spitfire for its delightful response to aerobatic manoeuvres and its handiness as a dogfighter. Iit is odd that they had continued to esteem these qualities over those of other fighters in spite of the fact that they were of only secondary importance tactically.Thus it is doubly ironic that the Spitfire’s reputation would habitually be established by reference to archaic, non-tactical criteria. Last edited by 6S.Manu; 11-29-2011 at 10:43 AM. 
|
|
|
I flew late war 109s A LOT and sometimes Spitfires, too - they both had flaws and problems, but I never felt the Spitfire were favoured in any way as you describe. You say this, a pure Spit pilot will be telling me about the 109 rocket climb, Spit one granade no wing etc etc. No point discussing any of that here.... Cpt. Doggles said it all. 
Threaded Mode