Speed graphs for Spitfire and Hurricane

[bw_wolverine]

I don't understand something.

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?

[ElAurens]

Meh.

See you on the outskirts of Moscow, comrades.



At least the G.50 might be fun to fly after the patch.

[Insuber]

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine

I don't understand something.

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?

The fact that the Hurricane was overmodelled was discussed before, you can find many posts about that, e.g.:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=27311

As you see I "popped out" 6 months ago.

Cheers!

[Insuber]

Do the simple exercise of making a paper graph of the Hurricane I, using Kwiatek's charts and B6's data (in game now) ... the actual game has +60 km/h more at 5000 m than Kwiatek's 12 lbs Hurricane I, and +105 kmh at 6000 m, with a comfortable +25 kmh at 4000 m.

No red pilots complained a lot about it, iirc ...

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


Cheers!
Ins

[pstyle]

Originally Posted by Insuber

Do the simple exercise of making a paper graph of the Hurricane I, using Kwiatek's charts and B6's data (in game now) ... the actual game has +60 km/h more at 5000 m than Kwiatek's 12 lbs Hurricane I, and +105 kmh at 6000 m, with a comfortable +25 kmh at 4000 m.

No red pilots complained a lot about it, iirc ...

If this performance issue is true, then of course it should be corrected.

As for "no red pilot complained" - I've seen comments from red AND blue pilots asking for "all" A/C to be closer to historical.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by Insuber

No red pilots complained a lot about it, iirc ...

Insuber, lots of us (what you call red pilots) did complain about it - the fact that Hurricane is faster than Spitfire anc climbs better is simply ridicilous and no virtual RAF pilot I know agreed on that.

[Insuber]

Originally Posted by Robo.

Insuber, lots of us (what you call red pilots) did complain about it - the fact that Hurricane is faster than Spitfire anc climbs better is simply ridicilous and no virtual RAF pilot I know agreed on that.

It was a stupid joke and I apologize to the red pilots. Humor doesn't pass well on forums, I must remind it.

[bw_wolverine]

Originally Posted by Insuber

The fact that the Hurricane was overmodelled was discussed before, you can find many posts about that, e.g.:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=27311

As you see I "popped out" 6 months ago.

Cheers!

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.

I don't really care if it is or isn't. I just want it to be accurate so that the majority agree that is accurate.

My point here is that there doesn't seem to be a heck of a lot of non-biased opinions here, for or against ANY plane. I'm sure everyone posts with the idea that "MY info is accurate and unbiased. THAT guy is being a fanboy." But looking back, it seems that our 'unbiased' opinions seem to change strangely in correllation the patch FM changes.

Whatever. Like I said. I'm giving up trying to get any FM adjustments. I'm gonna fly with what I've been given. It's a nice aircraft combat sim. Battle of Britain sim, it ain't.

[David Hayward]

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.

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

[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.