Hurricane & Spitfire control characteristics

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by VO101_Tom

As -for example- Osprey start a topic against german elevator trimm (which is designed for use during high G, easy and confortable access, placed near the chair), but he has no thought for a moment to do the same with the RAF planes, and even with the Spit/Hurri Flap.

Tom, Robo is correct, that is exactly what happened. I started a discussion topic to find out more which it did, exposing an exploit in game. It wasn't "against German elevator trim" at all, I requested information from German fliers about it's use in game and in real life as comparison.
After all of that I haven't seen a bug raised though I suggested it should happen from the outcome of the thread and asked if you wouldn't mind raising it. I respect your opinion on the 109, you seem to seek historical truth, is there a reason why this bug hasn't been raised?

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, because he has an agenda to maximise the ability of his favourite type against his least favourite type. That's what he does. 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. I don't object to the bug but I will not vote for it until I make my own checks in game. I also take what he says with a large pinch of salt.

PS. I have never suggested that he forges documents but he does select those which favour his argument and dismiss those which don't. He also creates his own documentation with the same style.

[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.

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

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.



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.



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?



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

Nice. I can just imagine that you must've totally lost it during that diatribe, you don't like bites into your reputation above everything else. Too late though, everybody has you sussed out mate

I haven't voted for some of the Luftwaffe bugs purely because I do not know the facts of the matter, because just voting without knowing would just be plain stupid don't you think? If I were against them then I'd have voted against.

But the real lunacy is the implication that I want the 109 'nerfed'. Absolutely not. But even a complete dunce can see from your own data that the 109 roll rate is worse than the Spitfire at high speeds, even when you use comparative data from 'rogue' aircraft against captured 109's.
More simply and in support of my suggestion of your bias is that you apply the adjective 'nerfed' to anything that is of detriment to the 109, regardless of fact. So thanks for supporting my point here.

PS Please take the time to look up No.501 squadron and which type we fly, just to correct you on another conclusion you've jumped to.

[Kurfürst]

Just test the damn thing, gather your data and present it - or just shut up. Nobody is interested 'oh I am the only objective person in the ocean of biased haters' verbal diarrhea.

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Just test the damn thing, gather your data and present it - or just shut up. Nobody is interested 'oh I am the only objective person in the ocean of biased haters' verbal diarrhea.

Out of interest, do you consider yourself as objective?

[Osprey]

He does, nobody else does though.

@Kurfurst. Hypocritical of you to make demands on others when you are a master of avoiding questions and evidence when you are asked to prove some of your other claims. I don't operate to your demands pal, I'll do it when I'm good and ready, it wouldn't make this patch anyway. I've still got to tidy up bug 174 after you posted your rubbish about the Spitfire IIa boost allowance.

[Glider]

As is often the case some of what Kurfurst says I agree with and other parts I don't. I totally agree with him re the ease of production and maintanence of the 109. These factors were well thought out during the design phase the RAF were very impressed about this and I have their report should anyone want me to post it.

His comments about the wing mounted weapons is partly true. They did have some impact on the 109's performance that is inevitable with the extra drag, but the biggest impact wasn't on a drop in speed which was a smaller reduction than you might think, but in handling. Difficult to measure but a major impact in combat, fine against unescorted bombers but you didn't want to tangle with a fighter with that extra load.

On the subject of 100 octane fuel for the RAF in the BOB we are poles apart and I do not suggest we get sucked into that topic here.

[Artist]

Sorry to interrupt, but: Kurfürst, you've a PM from me.

Artist