Hurricane & Spitfire control characteristics

[Kurfürst]

Kurfurst on the other hand just went and raised a bug on the Spitfire roll rate at the same time as starting this thread. He did not wait for anybody else's opinions nor cared,

And..? If we would need the 'approval' of our trio of braindead rafanatics, nobody would ever be able to raise any bugs about the Spitfire or any other RAF type.

Just be frank about it. All you want is to cover up the Spitfire roll rate bug. It rolls 3 times as fast than it should, there's plenty of documentation about the real world figures and how it does not match up. It does not require anybody's opinion, because its a FACT. RAE has tested it in 1940, found that it rolled 90 degrees in 8 seconds at 400 mph, we have tested it under the same conditions in Il2COD in 2012, and has found that it rolls in about 2.5 secs instead. Its not a matter of anybody's opinion anymore. It simply does not match RL figures.

Nor do anybody agrees with your assertion that there's nothing wrong with it at all. Plenty of people acknowledged and endorsed that bug at il2bugreport already. You of course are not one of them.

because he has an agenda to maximise the ability of his favourite type against his least favourite type. That's what he does.

No, that is what you do. You argue for only 100 octane Spitfires and Hurricanes to modelled without any documentation offered. You do not support the fix any Blue bugs, any valid and try to hinder to fix any cases, you do not seem to have voted for the lack of 100 octane 109/110 models yet, while most of the respected RAF fliers do not have any problem with that, they saw the documentation and voted in favour.

You did not. Your bias is obvious, you only support bug reports which favor your side.

So how is it Osprey, you want 100 octane RAF fighters (nota bene - I myself just like Tom has voted in favour of them to be modelled), but you do not want 100 octane Luftwaffe fighters? Interesting attitude I must say, and yet it is you who accuse others of bias..!!

Everybody knows that you are one of the most biased partisans on this board who has no sources, cannot offer any kind of objective proof, and who's words are not worth noting. And in your frustation of the failure to present any case in an intelligent and convincing manner, you attack those who do.

You will note that he never tested nor raised a bug for the identical fault in the 109 which even his own data displays is worse than the Spitfire at those high speeds he refers to.

Ah, again the 'Spitfire bugs can only be fixed if they nerf the other plane, too' mentality. How typical.

I suggest you shall not make up lies about the evidence I have posted. My data has shown the exact opposite what you suggest, but here, a thread about Spit/Hurri characteristics it's irrelevant. As noted if you find any bugs of 109 FM, not the ones you make up yourself, based on your 'feelings' and 'opinion', test it and present hard data how it should be for a correct FM, I shall support that.

Its just not happening because you are

a, too lazy to do the testing yourself, though you keep running your mouth about you will test this and that. For three weeks now..
b, incapable of presenting a case intelligently
c, don't actually know a thing how the real thing had behaved in the air, but you want the other side to be worse
d, too busy with your stupid, primitive character assassination campaign here to have time for life, testing or anything.


You have been promising for three weeks now that you will make tests of the 109s roll rate in the sim and present your findings. Where are they?

I don't object to the bug but I will not vote for it until I make my own checks in game.

You had three weeks to make your own checks, so this is big pile of BS. You object fixing the bug because it would effect your precious Spitfires, simple as that.

I also take what he says with a large pinch of salt.

I afraid nobody cares about what you do, so might as well keep your precious opinion to yourself.