I really dont get it. You guys got everything you wanted. Your planes turn better, dive better are almost as fast as the 109s with your 100 octane fuel. What else do you want? A Button "confirmed kill" maybe? Really start thinking about your skills instead of complaining and breaking the game with your whines.
The spits got better with every single patch. Even energylevels an allied pilot has to be plain stupid not to win the fight if the 109 doesnt run.
Its REALLY becoming annoying folks.

Winger

PS: Maybe the 110 had HUGE energyadvantage?
And btw. I at your place would rather ask to nerf the 110 instead of boosting allied fighters - especially when you already outrun german scouts with your UFO.

S!

Well, if they really would model the 100 octane Bf110 it would be faster than Spit at certain altitudes and definitely faster than Hurricane at ALL altitudes. If the "reds" now start crying about Bf110 deserving a nerf hammer then I have nothing to say. Really gets out of proportion and shows what you are looking for. Maybe instead we should wait a few more patches to see how the FM evolves as it has been stated by devs it is being worked on. IvanK and many others have provided data to devs and they for sure are working on it.

I thought about this a lot, whether you were being massively sarcastic or not, until I realised you were serious. That leads me to conclude that you must be a really bad pilot. I'm sorry, but what else can one draw from your comment? If you are getting shot down so easily in the current game then you must not know what you are doing.

But do not fear, our group has a Luftwaffe wing in JG26 where we have excellent pilots who will provide you with the basics you require. Just pop in at www.aircombatgroup.co.uk and have a chat, there are open forums, we can take it from there.

If you decide not to and prefer an argument, I don't. Instead I recommend you jump in any of the 100 octane types available to you and try to do all of the things that you are saying are possible. If you manage this, please tell the 'reds' how you managed it because none of us know.

+1 my god winger are you kidding :rolleyes:

I am not saying that i get shot down easily. Sometimes i do. Surely i am not the best pilot there is.
I am just saying i am annoyed about RED side whining their planes better every patch.
And i ask again: What else do you need to be happy with RED planes performance? The logical consequence of what already happened planeperformancewise in the last patches only leaves one option: A button wich gives you a confirmed kill when you press it.
OK, now i repeaded myself enough:P

Winger

You should look in some data sheeds for the Spit's before posting such nonsense. And fly and try them in Clod ;)

certainly the 109 is fast but last time I flew it was virtually impossible to do a half decent turn without stalling.

The spit on the other hand is slower bit it can turn much better.

I try not to get into these fm discussions as they are normally full of biased people, at the end of the day the current fm's are not good enough the 109 was better in bob FACT but not by a huge margin.

P.s. when are they going to fix the 109 revi?

+1 I am saying nothing else. And not I am the whiner here. Dont forget that:)

Winger

+1 maybe you havn't flown RAF !! For those that do ,we understand , I would never say anything about the 109 fms = why becouse i don"t fly them !!! An as far as Raf whiners REALLY WE ASKED FOR THIS!! The RAF is so porked your lucky we all aren't flying blue. IMAGIN a sky without us some ai bombers to hone your skills up with! Sooner or later if they get the game right some of you so called aces will have to sharpen your tools again, an realize you just ain't that good! salute :evil:

personally i've always fly with the 109
simply cause i love it
but the spitfire in its current state is a mesh......FACT

The tell me what must be changed and please sum up under the line for example like this:

Increase levelspeed at all heights RESULTING IN Higher Topspeed at all heights than 109

I really wonder what we will see afterwards. I am sure there stands something like this:

Increase RS RESULTING IN performing better in RS than 109

Increase TU RESULTING IN performing better in TU than 109

Increase VW RESULTING IN performing better in VW than 109

Increase XY RESULTING IN performing better in XY than 109

Winger

Please Winger, inform u before posting such statements.

We are talking of top speed,rate of climb,Rpm's and the overheating issue of the Spitfire.
Not more and not less.
If your 109 would do only 400km/h level, i guess here would be a houndred topics,too ;D

Both sides want historical correctness, not more but even not less.

Before you haven't checked of what the Spitfire was capable and how it is ingame, pls stop trolling ;)

LOL, and if you increase those what leaves us that with if you compare spits and 109s?
Sorry its just pathetic if a pilots needs a plane that does EVERYTHING better than the opposite one:P

Winger

And why is it the Pilot's fault if the plane have this data?

Your postings are ignorant to those who fly on the red side.

Actually red Pilots try every bit for testing the Spits and getting at least a conclusion with which Spitfire u have a chance and didnt lack in performance so much.

I fly for both sides since beginning and for red it isnt funny at the moment.


Why u got shot down in a 109, didnt check 6, there was more then one Spitfire ;), u was turning and wasting energy. U got dived by a Spit.

The poor Ju-88 needs to brought up to spec. It is roughly 40-50kmh slow maybe more, which is also causing issues with the R-22 not being able to hold altitude

At 2250m (peak pre supercharger performance) with ata 1.2 and rpms 2400 on orange and trimmed for level flight @ 11,000 kg weight. I am only able to get 310 IAS which equates to 353 TAS @2250m. (Yes you can get on the step for a slight increase.)

All data available says the A-4 with Jumo 211J engines was slower than the A-1 with 211B engines due to extra armor and load capability and bulge and the following charts claim A-4 data.

This performance graph corresponds to a Ju88 A-4, which was test flown without charge air cooler. The first two lines were flown at a gross weight of 13750 kg. The extended kg with a total weight 11500

http://www.ju88.equitatura.de/Ju88A-.../Leistung1.jpg

From http://www.ju88.equitatura.de/performance.htm

And these specs are also based on the A-4

5. Cruise

Enriching lever is in position "Normal".

a) Cruising speeds when mixture control is in position "Lean" ("Arm") and enriching lever in position "Normal":

Altitude V-w Supercharger P2((ATA) n (RPM)
300 350 low gear 1.15 2250
2000 390 low gear 1.15 2250
4000 400 high gear 1.15 2250
6000 400 high gear 1.10 - 1.15 2250

b) Maximum speeds when mixture control is in position "Rich" ("Reich") and enriching lever in position "Normal":

Altitude V-w Supercharger P2((ATA) n (RPM)
300 375 low gear 1.25 2400
2000 410 low gear 1.25 2400
4000 415 high gear 1.25 2400
6000 425 high gear 1.15 - 1.25 2400

I have also voted on bugtracker for the known bugs, but the 2 that would be nice to fix soon since making the Ju-88 more useable would be the Bomb bay door Toggle working and not auto shutting or auto opening the bomb bay along with adding the Automatic VS Prop feature. Working fuel levers for fuel transfers would also be nice even if its a toggle with no animations.

Thank you.

+1

In RL the Interceptors had to be in a good position to catch a fleeing bomber, it was usually a longer pursuit and the hope that no fighter cover appeared.

That's what made Radar so important.

You speak as if you were there. I never turn with spits. I wrote that i dove from AND AFTER a spit. And btw. when i dove from it i had same energylevel. I wouldnt complain if i get jumped since i would have deserved it if something like that happens.

Now please tell me WHO IS IGNORANT HERE. LOOOL

Winger

Guess you just like easy kills !!! not looking for that 20 min DF That leaves your hand cramped at the end Wow We are not looking for uber plane or planes like yourself, We want aleast a competitive edge ie what the planes are suppose to do, nothing more nothing less. you need to troll on troll on down the roooad SEE THATS CATCHY!

Currently the 100 octane spits and hurris seem to have glass engines, that will fall apart if you try to run at combat power.

If you want reality i doubt 20 minute dogfights were anywhere near the norm.

I bounced the 110 and got hits on him, he dived and ran. Mid channel it was clear I couldn't catch him so he started a long turn back to England and lined me up perfectly for a 109 on comms. Good job! I was playing with mixture, pitch, everything but couldn't get faster than 265-270 at sea level in the 2a.

Winger, I am not a 'red' pilot. 109s are certainly not perfect now either. Their energy bleed is atrocious when turning, they can't dive anything near as fast as a spit (but I think the spit needs a nerf here).

I suggest that you should fly a red fighter for a night. Honestly, the overheat problems are a joke and the top speed is laughable.

They're still hella fun, though.

Has it occurred to you that the patches aren't fixing any of the problems? :rolleyes:

Increase levelspeed at all heights RESULTING IN Higher Topspeed at all heights as expected by the true figures, that is at least 290 mph SL and 350 TAS at 17'000 (ex. from Spit Mk I with normal boost of 6 1/4)

Increase RS RESULTING IN RS value per the historical datas

Increase TU RESULTING IN a realistic and historical TU value in particular above 17'000 ft and up to 30'000 ft

Increase VW RESULTING IN an accurate (and sustainable !) VW value that does'nt harm the engine after just 5 minutes (sik)

Increase XY RESULTING IN an historical and realistic XY value, obviously

Welcome

PS for your information, 109E and Spit Mk I are a match unlike the current state. I feel a turtle in the Sky, did'nt you notice the 109 dancing over British aircrafts ?
If you have a good and generally easy experience in a 109 versus Hurri and Spit, I do not doubt your qualities, but expect there are some other reasons underlying ;)

When all Brits always start at Hawkinge with loads of 109s above them with tons of energy no wonder. Just start in in the NE at Ramsgate....

I had a fight against a spit yesterday. Close to ramsgate at almost even energylevels. I had a sligh advantage. We were "dancing" like 10-15 minutes in like 2,5-3km height. I could hardly get into good firing position and i am not the best shot there is. This spit did NOT AT ALL look to me as if it had any engineissues.
I went vertical after each attack and he avoided hoizontally each time. The Spitpilot certaily knew his way around. We fought until he got help from another spit. I had to run then since my fuel went empty.
There felt nothing wrong for me in this fight. Just like a fight in this height has too look if two experienced pilots face each other and one of them has a slight energyadvantage.

If he had only a little more enginepower he would have just outclimbed me while turning and avoiding my attacks leaving NO OPTION for me but to run. And i got the impression that THAT is what red pilots want.... And sorry, if that happens it comes VERY close to a "confirmed kill" button:P

Winger

PS: i the on the other had had a fight against a spit on the deck. I was diving after him. He realized i was there and pulled so hard on his stick into a loop with a diameter of like 100m. LOL i mean - is there any maneuver that bleeds more energy at once?:P Surely i had easy game with him since i went straight up conserving my energy to prepare the next slash. I am sure he thought his spit was totally underpowered when in reality he was just a *PEEEP* poor pilot.

Dunno what this is actually.

One way with spit is or used to be in reducing the rpm and opening up the boost cutout, as the FM does'nt handle this case as harmul.
Now in 109, if you make gentle turns and use some particular tactics, it's possible to gain in energy and end up dive-zooming quite soon.
Nevertheless, all aircrafts should have their climb rate and level speed, dive speed, tuned correctly.
If, of course, you try following the Spit in his turns, you just would waste your energy and would get cought.

confirmed kill button is a sarcastic phrase by me. Sorry, i am German so its not easy to tell you what i mean with it. Something like this maybe?
Allies that want a better spit are for me like dogs that want bones with feet that carry them to the dog to be eaten.

Winger

Actually, the currently modelled Spitfires and Hurricanes are the bones being eaten. We want these bones to be able to jump almost as quickly, jump almost as high, and run almost as fast, as the dog itself. That said, we must accept that the bones will never be able to bite quite as hard or as long as the dog.

well, i guess we will see what the next patch brings. I would not wonder if the 109s are the bones not too far in the future.

Winger

SpitIIa's FM as it is clearly show that an idiot can not fly this plane : constant eye looking over oil temp, water temp, rpm, boost and the blue over you in a badly six position.... i do not want a bone Winger, i just want to count 5 mns on full power as it should.
Personnal thinking : 109 is a bicycle for lazy guys ! :)

Dont blame the blue because german engineers focused on how to enable their fighter pilots to concentrate on shooting down enemy's, not nursing your plane so it doesn't brake when you need it the least. :)

You all wanted realism and you got it. And btw, 109 cant run flat out indefinitely either. If you do it wrong it will brake just as fast as the Spit. Last time i broke the engine well within the 5 min because i didn't pay attention. Dont know about the rest of you but personally i run with oil/water rads fully open 99% of the time and learn how to deal with that rather than the engine braking down, witch is even worse than losing top speed.
You could all ask the servers to turn off CEM entirely but then you wouldnt be cool anymore. :) (imo though, this CEM everyone is raving about is all but the same as IL2, it`s just made more complicated to use by forcing one to click this god da* cockpit dials and nobs when one needs to focus in more important things. (As far as i know we still cant assign vital functions to keys, can we? Isnt working for me at least ). The only differance imo is that you could do things for longer in IL2, run wep, on overheat etc. Remeber the "never ever overheating" spit in IL2 that was NEVER fixed?

Did a test on that thing way back and ran full out till the fuel tank was bone dry and all i got was a slight reduction in top speed. Funny times. :)

How did you break a 109? Open rads, full throttle, keep the revs under the red line if e3 (don't even have to worry about that with e4). You will go until your fuel runs out.

Sooo, you want realism, but you also want a Spitfire with the same (lower) cockpit workload as the 109 ?

Thats what im saying, pay attention to your revs and temp, witch i didnt. ;) fiddling back and fourth with rads to always have high speed will, very easily, make your engine go "bom" once you push it in a df. I dont try to get maximum speed all the time, i try to keep the engine as cool as humanly possible until i need the power/speed (imo, i dont need it trying to chase down a spit diving to safety, there are plenty where he came from so to speak) Sometimes i try to keep it as cool as possible even when i do need top speed/power. Like i said, nothing is worse than having a broken engine. In this game the engine will brake if everyone treat it like they did in Il2, just saying.

Of course not. But you cannot fly it as instructed in the manual now! The revs have to stay absurdly low and the topspeed is far too slow whether in absolute terms or relative to other planes in the sim.

I well understand you thinking that -- I've been one of the loudest whiners. But that is the farthest thing from what most of us Red-whiners want. (note that I said "most" :) )

As was mentioned earlier, the real 109 E-model and the Spitfire Mark I models were a close match; much closer than depicted currently in Cliffs of Dover. (There weren't many Spit IIa's in the BoB, and they only reached the squadrons towards the end. Plus they weren't a huge improvement in performance over the Ia).

Remember the IIa "über-Sissyfire" of the retail version (1.5950)? In actual numbers its performance wasn't far off what the actual Spitfire Ia (yes -- Ia) performance was -- at least at low/intermediate altitudes. The CoD 109's were (and still are) too slow in comparison. There are some strong concerns about the IIa über-Sissyfire's energy retention in hard maneuvring. I did some quick Immelmann turns and found that I lost almost exactly 100 mph doing each one -- this admittedly proves very little other than addressing a statement made that the Über-Sissyfire lost NO speed doing this maneuvre. That said, further testing needed to be done to verify that this aircraft's flight model was accurate (or needed adjustment as many believed).

In the few times I got to fly the IIa on the ATAG server (they were limited in number available and got snapped up quickly) I have to admit it was exhilarating to find myself not just matching a zoom climb of a formerly untouchable 109....but actually CLOSING on it to within convergence range!!! Zowie!!! That said, it was not rewarding in all honesty. It was an unfair advantage against the too-slow-modelled 109's. To make matters worse, there were many 109 experten who could still outfly and outshoot me to knock me out of the air in my superior aircraft -- which was embarassing. :(

It's got to be frustrating hearing us Red pilots whining after each patch. It's even more frustrating for us to anxiously await each patch then find the Spitfires have been borked further each time. I don't know where you got your information that each patch has made the Spitfires better and better, but you're dead wrong on that. As I said, they've been getting worse and worse with each patch. Obviously the devs have not been testing these aircraft, otherwise how could they account that in the earlier beta 100-octane Hurricanes couldn't even start online? Clearly they never even measured these patched Spits and Hurries for even basic performance since they glaringly are so very, very wrong! And clearly you haven't, either, to make the statements you have in this thread.

We want the Spitfires fixed. We want the Hurricanes fixed. We want the 109's fixed. And we want the 110's fixed. All of them, or it's no good.

After noticing that 95% of the posts in this thread are about FMs only, i was so excited about this patch and what it would offer.

Got a big performance boost and didn't experienced a single crash yet. Also didn't notice any annoying bugs (yet).

It's now finally at enjoyable state. Very happy with it for now. Thanks alot for your work. I'm actually gaining a bit of interest in BoM now.

Thanks Dev team, very happy with this patch, I'm able to turn a couple settings up, no longer running anything on low, everything high or medium, clouds look great, I appreciate your hard work and can't wait to fly the F models:cool:

Hmm, you are describing the fight reds are always complaining about! Let me try to explain it from a red perspective, as I've had plenty of them ;)

I was fighting a 109 who started with slight advantage. Every time I turned into him he pulled up into a long zoom climb into the stall. If I pulled my nose anywhere near him, I stalled within a couple of seconds. I couldn't increase rpms above 2700rpm or use overboost because my engine would just blow a minute later. All I could do is pull a tight break and try to keep track of him, so I could break again at the right time. Every zoom got him more advantage and I never had even a chance of taking a shot.

Lucky he kept missing each time with the cannon and I just copped a few MG rounds. I just hoped I could keep this going until another Spit arrived. One appeared co-alt with him, so he turned away and disengaged and we didn't see him again as it we can't catch him at any alt.

I certainly don't begrudge you these useful tactics. I guess this match -up would be fine if it was historically correct for performance, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Of course demanding historically correct planes to have historically incorrect fights (1v1) is a bit funny anyway.

I just hope you weren't one of the 109 drivers lecturing me when I used the same tactics in the old Spit IIa :) Once I got a right earbashing in chat from Mk Mr X for dishonorably flying the IIa and ruining his technique, it was hilarious.

camber

Tested the new patch. Just 20 minutes but good way.

B6, the first alpha/beta/gamma/sigma good patch. I can enjoy CoD again.
Just still no Cirrus clouds lik in 1.05.950:

http://yoyosims.pl/sites/default/fil...D_15950_25.jpg

Keep this level and thx. Waiting for the new improvmenets,

...ie.e the whole reason for having CEM, namely to emulate the actual conditions for fighter pilots in WWII.

Does communications with wingmen work or not (combat attack for enemy plane: fighters, bombers, ect.) with this beta ?

Not for me. But it did last patch, right?

See? Thats what i am saying. WHY THE HELL should this fight not have been correct? I mean he started with higher energylevel. So if he does his job right its nothing but fine that you cant reach him. The other way around with a spit starting at higher energylevel the 109 would have been smoked in seconds if he didnt run. You reds already have your advantage: maneuverability. Broken down we have a turn and burner and a BnZ-Type plane here. And thats OK. I mean if you prefer BnZ then just get into a 109... Btw. the Spit this is FAAAAR better turning than the 109. And what you abviously want is a spit that performa better than the 109 so you can negate his energyadvantage just by a better engine. And thats plain wrong.

Winger

Best way to understand what we mean Winger is to have a try in SpitIIa and discover yourself all advantages you describe. I'd be please to be your wingman. :)

We all want accurate flight model. Both types were a match except spit had lower radius turn, its wing load is lower so that's normal.
There's no point arguing the sim shall have balanced forces, they have to be accurate to history and we have to do the rest.

So 109 would substantially loose the advantage on climb and dive speed but they can do negative G and dive steeply which Spit cannot follow without a half roll first.

That's how it has to be until better german side aircrafts are available. The 109F was not matched because it had very much improved aerydynamic.

Any other discuss has no point, IL-2 has always been a sim and hence need to be realistic. Only FM are wrong currently, and I'm not sure either about the 109 characteristics.

CEM is one thing, what one have to do to use it is another. Having to use a mouse cursor with your right while flying with your left is in no way, shape or form realistic.

Im saying this cuz i have still no idea if we are suppose to be able to assign keys to all the vital functions, like rad control, pp etc. It doesnt work for me and if anyone knows if it does indeed work im arguing for no apparent reason. :)

I have no problems to use keys for rads and proppitch.

Winger seems to think that unless he wins every single fight on co-e then the flight model must be porked. His loss.

Hmmm, your example is a fight where you started at a disadvantage and didn't get shot down but couldn't kill the other guy.

That's a really bad example if you're trying to illustrate how bad it is for RAF pilots.

You dont have to tell me that. I know you allies want a plane that wins automatically. Steep dive and spits that have enginecutout. Sorry if i only LOL on this one. At the beginning the enginecutout was modeled correctly. What happened? Allies side started to whine bigtime and now we have an engine cutout. But one that doesnt at all influence the dogfightingcapability of the spitfires. This enginecutout as we have it now is a plain joke.

Winger

Thats what all you allielovers ALWAYS start to scream when someone talks for the germans.
Getting old.

Winger

ACG run both factions, we presently have 3 RAF squadrons and 1 Luftwaffe squadron. The difference with our Axis pilots to you is that they know what the real situation is with these FM's, so we never have arguments on this, we have discussions but we understand what the pros and cons of each type were. You don't.
Now what you need to do is do a small amount of research, just a tiny bit, and then make a comparison in game in the Spitfire. You'll soon find how poor it is compared with what it is supposed to be (And yes I know there are faults with the 109 too but they are far fewer).

If you are too lazy to do that then my crew will happily help you, sincerely, we will because tbh mate you don't know what you are talking about and it's really grating having to read this kind of ignorance so frequently.

I see what you're trying to say with initial advantage / disadvantage here, but you obviously don't fly the RAF planes. If you would, you'd probably never write anything like that. ;)

On the other hand, I remember having a few fights with you and you always happened to quit in rage complaining about the FMs. Why was that, then? :-P

Thats BS!

Winger

Winger will surely have a witty remark, but is it normal that I fly the Spit at2600 rpm an half throttle rads fully open and the temp is still rising?

Also, it would be nice to have the gun belting working in the plane menu finally.

Performance wise the new beta is the best so far, well done!

I claim aircrafts in accordance with their real performance. K5054, the prototype of Spitfire, was fit with a fixed pitch propeller. It once did a level speed performance of 350 mph, that is an IAS close from 280 mph at 17'000 ft.
Later on, the production Spit did 290 mph at sea level and about 350 at 17'000 (TAS).

I claim all aircrafts to have their correct performance, today, open to the gate in a spit, you get 250 mph and above 240, it will increase very slowly. I don't know about 109 but all aircrafts are concerned with this, they should all have correct performances, I know that the Italian one has also much less than it should, it was said to match the Spitfire even more than a 109, and it's currently not good at all in flight.[/quote]

You are right, I am not sure, but I guess it went from too sensitive to not enough, on a neg G, however you have to remember that before, just pushing a little bit, even at zero G for one split of a seconf, it had the engine cut instantly.

We had also very good performances in Spitfire, I think the climb rate in IIa was too high by about 50%, and when they updated that, it went from an extreme to another.

If you allow me to tell you, it's necessary to know a little bit more about what we are talking for actual performances are completely unbalanced and at that time, the Spit was a tremendous aicraft, it took the development of 109F and 190 to overcome the Spit II and even Mk V, only much later did the British come with the new variant of Spit which matched the latest fighter with the Mk IX.

Mark I and II were very good oponents to 109, they were taken by surprise, or often, the 109 had then to dive away.

It would have no sense to tune aircrafts with performances that have no relationship with reality.

PS Maybe you're not familiar with mph, the spitfire is missing more or less 60 km/h in level flight top speed at SL and approx 70 km/h at 5000 m alt.

I fly primarily Luftwaffe. However your statement about the -ve G cut is incorrect. It was proven by in game flight test that the -ve G cut was occurring at 0.9G (that is a reduction of 0.1G ... barely nothing).

Documentation from RAE flight tests was provided. This documentation was quite specific in that -ve G cut out commenced at +0.1G (That is a a reduction of 0.9G from 1G flight .... a reasonable push). So what we now have is more correct. This has all been posted before but here is the documentation once again:

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e2...NegGonset2.jpg

Hello Doggles,

You are absolutely right. I was just intrigued by Winger's example of a 109 pilot perceiving himself in a fair "balanced" fight continually stall turning onto the Spit but not getting hits due to Spit manouvreability, but with the Spit secretly cursing and feeling hard done by below because there is no way to break his defensive position without immediately being in a worse defensive position.

Besides the speed problems with all planes and RAF glass engine which are well documented, I am suspicious of the 109 current (seemly unchanged in latest beta patch) ability to use initial zoom from level to often get into an unassailable position from co-E and even slight disadvantage. But this is rather a secondary characteristic to things like level speeds, I'm not sure how historical data could tell us if this was possible or unlikely. And I might be flying badly. I'm not saying the situation can't be fun either.

If I am seen in the bounce on a good 109 pilot, I find that he just needs to turn away, a little dive if it looks like I might get into guns range, then rapid climb which I cannot follow even at "engine explode in 1 min" settings. Perhaps this is really what 109s could do in 1v1s at all alts, the wide range of anecdotal evidence suggests otherwise to me though.

Of course the really frustated bounces are when he DOESN'T see you and you come screaming in behind but don't quite make guns range before your speeds equal and he draws away flying straight and level for England :)

Cheers, camber

[QUOTE=IvanK;454021]I fly primarily Luftwaffe. However your statement about the -ve G cut is incorrect. It was proven by in game flight test that the -ve G cut was occurring at 0.9G (that is a reduction of 0.1G ... barely nothing).

Documentation from RAE flight tests was provided. This documentation was quite specific in that -ve G cut out commenced at +0.1G (That is a a reduction of 0.9G from 1G flight .... a reasonable push). So what we now have is more correct. This has all been posted before but here is the documentation once again:

[cut]

Interesting, thanks IvanK. At least red (and purple) pilots were taught how to roll over into a dive! There was very little margin for negative G as you point out.

Negative G's
 

Ive never flown a spit in real life, but I am a corporate pilot and have flown a gravity fed- non inverted fuel pump aircraft: a stock Cessna 172 into zero G's just for fun. Does the engine quit instantly? Of course not, fuel remains in the carburetor long enough for a few seconds of zero or negative G's.

I haven't even played this game yet (waiting on a real, final, playable release) but thats my 2 cents on the issue.

I have never flown a Spit in real life either.:cool:
I Flew solo in a C-172 for the first time in 1959. I fly on.
I have flown a fair number of carburetor fed, piston engined aeroplanes.

In my experience.
Pushing the aircraft's nose down moderately should not cause the engine to immediately quit.
Airspeed should not be immediately, and drastically reduced, apparently directly related to RPM.
Mass and Momentum, should serve to keep things moving along.

In my humble opinion Eh! :)

You are quite right, it shouldnt, which is why it was fixed in later version of the Birtish fighters. But this is a factual known issue with these planes due to the lack of direct fuel injection, which when put into negative g's cause the fuel to be forced out of carb.

Now whether this effect in game is too much or too little is something I have no clue on judging.....

Where is Miss Shilling's orifice when you need it ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Shilling%27s_orifice

Miss Schiiling didn't have an orifice at the time of BOB :)

Dairy.air is well aware that it is a factual issue, which is why he is using real life facts (he flies a cessna with a carburreter fed engine) to suggest that the negative g cutout is not modelled correctly.

Oh I bet she did!!!

:D:D

It was introduced during the BoB afaik.

S!

And how about this? "Miss Shilling with a small team travelled around the countryside in early 1941 fitting the restrictors, giving priority to front-line units. By March 1941 the device had been installed throughout RAF Fighter Command."

I noticed a performance increase in this patch, and also the allies plane rear view mirrors are finally fixed to not cause the FPS dips.

They also seem to be off by default when you start a mission. But they are still a chocolate teapot for seeing what is behind you.

Precisely.

I.M.H.O.
As indicated in several charts of the time period.
The cut-out should not occur until the aircraft reaches -.9G.
Not as it is now, where the slightest nose down, causes an instant cut-out.
Accompanied by an equally unrealistic airspeed drop. Mass and Momentum of the Aircraft damp this Airspeed loss down considerably in real life.

2 cents Eh!:)

As posted the Actual documented figure is Neg G effects commence at +0.1G that is a 0.9G decrement from 1G flight. What we NOW have in Ver 1.08 is pretty close to the mark.

If you are not running Ver 1.08 you will be seeing the Old value that was way to sensitive.

WRT to Dates. The Schiling orifice didnt come into service until Post BOB. The graphic below comes from the UK National Archives document AVIA 13/234. The image is the first page of this file and is a covering minute to the file. As you can see its dated 21St Feb 1941. This document is the source document with measured G onset values of the cut as well. As can be seen even in the covering minute the values of +0.1 ---> 0g is quoted. This has all been debated (and proven) in numerous debates on this forum over the last 12 months.
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e2.../Negminute.jpg

I stand corrected. :oops:

IvanK is correct, Ver. 1.08, does in fact feel pretty good. :cool:

I have not changed my key/stick mappings since the initial US release and I can control everything required for CEM without the mouse.

--Outlaw.

Finally got it to work to. I have no idea why it hasn't worked before.

Makes flying and df`ing at the same time a whole lot easier let me tell you. :-D

Can anyone help me with this issue. I can not find a solution after trying everything anywhere.

I just bought/downloaded the game on steam, verified the game cache, THEN unrar'ed the beta patch folder 'parts' into my main CoD root folder and overwrote anything that it asked me to.

Now when I try and start the game, either normally and also tried running it as administrator, the launcher spits out an error saying "Launcher.exe has stopped responding" and the game simply doesn't start.

I followed the instructions exactly, my flight buddies did the same thing with no issues, but I'm having some f'ing bad luck here.

I might be wrong so might want to confirm this. Start by reverting back to a clean install in steam..
Once back there, instead of using winrar, use the program 7-zip or winzip indtead. I think this is a known bug when using the the wrong unziping program. Dont ask me why...

Task did you start the game once and ran a mission before installing the beta patch? There seems to be some 'things' it needs to do first. i had launcher crashes until i:
verify game
start clod and start a mission
delete cache
unpack beta patch (i also had a corrupted file at one stage when downloading from airwarfare)
good to go.
hope this helps

The above advice is wrong from what I have heard. Should be the other way around.. Don't use winzip

What am I doing wrong?
 

Just got the game steam updated to version 1.05.15950, downloaded de beta patch 1.08.18956 and followed these instructions

After doing all of that the version number on the bottom right (red letters) keep showing version 1.05.15950, I wonder if I'm doing something wrong...a little help here please, thanks.

had the same proplem till I used 7-Zip to extract the beta .

7-zip is a free download, do an internet search for it if you do not have it.

well for starters are you on steam? if so you may be replacing the beta files with the official latest release when you do an integrity check.
turn off cloud update and and steam update for cliffs.

The last but one Beta patch slowed my game right down so I was hoping for better from this one but no, my Fraps took a definite nosedive.

Did you follow the instructions in the first post? It might help if you didn't.

I did JG52Uther to the letter. I'm not too bothered though. The game runs well enough on my old setup and I'm enjoying it but thanks for the suggestion anyway.

I'm running the steam version of the game, frustation is all way up there now, I did turn off cloud and auto update for the game, did integrity check, cleared cache folder, extracted the patch allowed overwrite, ran the sim and flew a quick mission, exited the game and restarted only to find out I am still running version 1.05.15950, I see the version at the beggining of the game, can anyone tell me how to properly install this patch? because it is not working for me, any help will be really appreciated, thanks.

Version number
 

I dont know if this is the origin of your problem, but if you are under Windows 7, you may have a problem of write protection of program files when you extract the patch, depending on the tool.
To avoid that kind of trouble, I extract the patch in a temporary directory (in my case on D: disk, reserved to data) and I just use the copy facility of Windows 7 to copy the files from the temporary directory to the Steam game folder, allowing to overwrite files if necessary. I do the copy in an administrator user account.
I prefer that kind of approach because you are sure of the way copy function handle write protection, which is not always true with other tools.

Well, well, well I found the problem and it was me! I was extracting the patch on the documents folder and not on the steam, no words......, but I already had 5 CTD running 1.08 while I never had one on 1.05, doing a clean installation and patch to see if it solves the problem.

Beta patch v.1.08.18956
 

Where and how did you download the folder, Please advise, thankyou.

Only time i personaly get that message is when i have TS activated b efore started the game for some reason.
Need to wait till sit int he pit first before TS is engaged at al. Think might have something to do with the overlay i have activated... i think :)
Good luck to you anyways
Cebit

Help!
 

Hi

I am tearing my hair out. This is what has happened so far:

Downloaded the game via steam
It worked - I could set controls and play training missions, quick missions, campaign and everything else, but was getting launcher errors and CTD's so...
Downloaded this beta patch and followed instructions to clear cache etc and isntalled....
Game ran, but when I tried to start campaign some of the options were missing- for instance I go to campaign, new, start, fly - then I get loading screen which reaches 100% and boots me to desktop, where as previously there were "loadout" options next to either "Start" or "fly" i cannot remember which, so.....
I uninstalled the game and re-installed totally vanilla and now I can't play it as the issue above is recurring, on ALL missions, training,campaign, free fly and quick, so...
I uninstalled the game, then uninstalled steam, ran CCcleaner to remove any registry entries and reinstalled both programmes and...
The exact same thing is now happening.

It doens't matter how many times I uninstall and reinstall, I now get booted to desktop every time the mission loading screen reaches 100%, and have no "loadout" options where as upon the first, original installation i was able to play, albeit with issues. I cannot find any files after unistalling that are left over that might be affecting a re-install and I've cleaned my registry with two separate PC cleaners (CCclearner and kingsoft PC doctor).

Below is my DXdiag DXdiag. I am in no way blaming the mod as I understand it changes alimited number of files and should disappear entirely once the uninstall process for the game is complete. Please note i am now not trying to use the mod in any way, I'm just trying to install the stock game on my machine.

Please help if you can. I am out of ideas!

Many thanks

Please note i cannot copy paste my dxdiag as it exceeds the max characters for a post and I cannot attach it as it exceeds the maximum size for a file attachment, which leaves me with a bit of a problem.

Thanks

Hi

DO NOT install this Beta-Patch. Steam provides you the last official version. So just let steam check your files and clear your cache... Then you should be fine...

Maybe post your system-specs... (Hardware, Operating System, etc.)

Hi

Thanks for this, didn't realise! I am re-installing the game now with a fresh install of steam. I'll post back once it's done and shout if the problem persists. I'm not optimistic though as this is the about the fourth time lol.

Cheers

Did you clear the Cache? This is very very important!

Delete everything in the folder: C:/ YOU / Documents / 1C Softclub / il2 cliffs of dover/ cache

!!!!!!

hi

Yes this is what i've done so far:

Before i mistakenly installed this patch I just booted the game as usual and was able to play all missions and configure controls to my joystick no probs. Looked stunniing, bit of lag from what i hear that's not new, so played with settings until my machine was relatively happy.
Installed patch - BAD! oops.
CRASH ON MISSION LOAD AT 100%
Unistalled game
Reinstalled game
CRASH ON MISSION LOAD AT 100%
Veryify files-came back no prob
Clear cache
Start game
CRASH ON MISSION LOAD AT 100%
Uninstalled steam, Unistalled game,
Reinstalled steam, reinstalled game.
CRASH ON MISSION LOAD AT 100%
clear cache, boot game
CRASH ON MISSION LOAD AT 100%
uninstall steam, unistall game
run pc cleaner (CCcleaner and PCDoctor)
reinstall steam, reinstall game
CRASH ON MISSION LOAD AT 100%
Pull hair out, hit computer.......

What OS?

xp sp3, which the game says should run it.

I've found a solution anyway. I've uninstalled this POS from my computer. I guess i can go sing for the ten quid it cost me. I'm beginning to understand why steam offered it at this price.

Someone should loose their job for releasing this half baked mess of a game. I got 20mins playtime max on the original install before it crashed to desktop. My graphics card, memory and processor exceed the minimum requirements. I simply cannot afford to purchase windows seven at the moment. I've uninstalled it, along with steam around five times now and simply cannot start ANY mission.

Utter rubbish. But thanks for trying to help!

I can understand your frustration, believe me.
But you should also believe me that if the game is running, it is a lot of fun!
So, I recomment giving it another try, at the latest if you ar getting windows 7!

(and get win 7 64bit!!!! 32 sucks!)