To whom it may concern:
The forum "moderator" censors my efforts to communicate accurately, and so this will be my last try at using this forum to communicate accurately with anyone else who cares to communicate accurately on the Topic of this game that is for sale, and a game that I have purchased with my own earnings.
If the forum "moderator" censors my efforts to communicate accurately again, then there will no longer be any more sense, at all, in my expending the effort to use this forum to communicate accurately with other people who have also purchased this game with their own earnings.
The person quoted above has a legitimate and interesting concern and I may be able to help that person with that specific concern because that specific concern is a concern that I share.
Every single World War II Air Combat Simulator since Air Warrior, that I have purchased, fits on a scale of which World War II Air Combat Simulator does the best job of simulating World War II Air Combat.
This game is currently the best I've seen, however it suffers from what I will call the Spitfire Lobby effect.
There are people who resort to personal attacks and deception on forums to push an agenda of altering the relative combat effectiveness of the Allied planes relative to the Axis planes, and their favorite tactic is to pollute discussions with personal attacks so as to censor the accurate information being reported in those discussions.
Sometimes the moderators on these game forums aid those devious people in their quest to censor the accurate information being reported, sometimes the forum moderators do not aid those devious people in their quest to censor the accurate information being reported.
What will it be this time?
Last time I tried to communicate accurate information on this forum was a test case that proved the rule that confirms the fact that the forum moderators aid the people whose obvious goal is to censor the accurate information being reported on World War II Air Combat Simulation Forums, and this is not news. The odds are that accurate discussion of the game, we paid for, and we share an interest in, will not be possible on this forum.
We shall see.
Back to the point:
In almost every book I've read on relative combat performance there is one very important performance variable that is measurable as Specific Excess Power and to understand that measure of that performance variable you don't need to know all the information contained in the following sources:
http://www.aviation.org.uk/docs/flig...-FTM108/c4.pdf
http://www.aviation.org.uk/docs/flig...-FTM108/c5.pdf
http://www.aviation.org.uk/docs/flig...-FTM108/c6.pdf
http://www.aviation.org.uk/docs/flig...-FTM108/c7.pdf
The important point to realize, in my opinion, is to know which plane accelerates faster than the other plane, and if you know that fact, then you know which plane has that advantage, and that is a very important advantage.
Like the English Fighter Pilot in the video linked earlier in this topic says the following words:
"It was a small airplane with a very weighty engine and it could dive very quickly and it could escape very quickly so the tactics were largely determined by them."
If that is not modeled in the game then the following may be the case:
Now, the person who has an interest, a concern, and an accurate message quoted above, a concern I share, he may be a person who has purchased the game with his own earnings too, and he may want to know what I know, and if the moderators censor my attempts to communicate what I know, then that will happen again.
Too bad for me. I will try this one more time.
There are easy to perform tests that can be done in the game so as to avoid having to rely on any other opinion from any other person who may have also purchased the game with their own earnings and who may be reporting information on this forum, accurate or inaccurate information.
If two players use the game in an on-line session and they fly side by side, one in a Spitfire and one in a 109, and then both players fly side by side in level flight, and at once both players dive their planes, then both players switch planes, repeat the test, then repeat the test, then repeat the test, then see which plane does this:
"It was a small airplane with a very weighty engine and it could dive very quickly and it could escape very quickly so the tactics were largely determined by them."
I can speak about the importance of having a small plane (less drag) and a weighty engine (sectional density) and why a small plane (less drag) with high sectional density (a weighty engine) tends to accelerate faster in a dive, and tends to decelerate slower in a zoom climb, but I think it may be better to avoid my opinion on such things and call upon the writings of someone who actually flew 109s, Spitfires, 190s, and many World War II Air Combat Fighter Planes during World War II, since he was one of those Fighter Pilots who was also testing captured planes to test relative performance of those planes.
The quote I am going to pick out concerns an evaluation of a 190 which was also a small plane with a weighty engine but before doing that it may be a good idea to make sure that the reader understands that the point being accurately communicated is the point concerning the advantage of a higher rate of acceleration, which is a measure of Specific Excess Power under the conditions of flight specified, a dive, which is an unloaded dive, and conversely could also be an unloaded zoom climb advantage.
The point is to point out the meaning of the term B and Z, or BnZ, or Energy Fighting which is not the same thing as Hit and Run and not the same thing as Turn and Burn.
Energy Fighting is a term used by Robert Shaw in his book titled Fighter Combat. BnZ is a term used by people who play a game.
Here is the source of a relevant measure of performance advantages used in Air Combat for World War II:
http://www.amazon.com/Wings-Luftwaff.../dp/1853104132
Here is a quote that may help anyone if anyone wants to understand game performance relative to actual performance where a dive and zoom advantage was used in World War II, how it was used, and the source of the information is a World War II British Fighter/Test Pilot, who aught to know more than someone playing a game.
If the 109 does not accelerate faster in a dive, in the game, then there is an obvious lack of performance advantage required to Energy Fight in the vertical.
"It was a small airplane with a very weighty engine and it could dive very quickly and it could escape very quickly so the tactics were largely determined by them."
That would not have happened that way if the 109 was only marginally faster or not at all faster in unloaded acceleration.
There are many examples of captured aircraft test flown by the British and in each case where I've read the results of those tests the 109 has been proven, by the British, to have that dive acceleration advantage.
If that dive acceleration advantage is not modeled into the game, then it isn't modeled into the game.
There are easy ways to test these things, and remove all inaccurate opinions.
As to the question of turning there were tests done by British pilots and they concluded, in their own test reports, that the 109 "had no tendency to spin" and that is not modeled into the game.
The British pilots, in their own reports, were unable to turn with the 109 when the British pilots were not flying close to their stall because their planes tended to spin.
That is not modeled into the game.
The 109 has a nasty stall in the game, it tends to stall in the game.
The actual rate of relative acceleration difference between the 109 and the Spitfire can be measured side by side in level flight too, in the game, to see which plane has the faster rate of acceleration in level flight, in the game, which is also a specific way to measure Specific Excess Power, which is the most significant performance advantage needed when employing Energy Fighting Tactics, or vertical maneuvering, in Air Combat, according to more than one source.
If the game models the Spitfire with a smaller turn radius in a sustained level flight turn and the 109 has a nasty stall flying a larger turn radius, then the 109 is considered to be Single Inferior according to the information provided by Robert Shaw in his book Fighter Combat.
If there is no significant advantage in acceleration modeled into the 109 over the Spitfire or Hurricane then there is no Single Advantage, or none of this:
"It was a small airplane with a very weighty engine and it could dive very quickly and it could escape very quickly so the tactics were largely determined by them."
Which leaves Hit and Run tactics, or team tactics, to be used by the inferior plane if the inferior plane has both a sustained turn disadvantage and no significant advantage in unloaded, or dive, acceleration.
Then there is the matter of climb angle. It was noted by the British that both the 109 and the 190 had climb angle advantages over their Spitfires and Hurricanes, whereas the rate of climb may have been roughly equal or slightly more of an advantage for the German planes, in reality, the climb angle was steeper on the German planes, for some reason.
If there is no climb angle advantage modeled in the game, then there is no climb angle advantage modeled in the game.
Back to this:
There is one other very important measure of relative combat performance and this measure of relative combat performance has to be understood by the player of the game if the player of the game has a concern on this topic of relative performance.
That measure of relative performance is termed Corner Speed.
Here is my first try at communicating the accurate information that concerns these relative performance topics:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34792
Corner Speed can be easily tested in the game, and it may help to know which plane has that advantage too, in the game.
This topic may be censored by the moderators when the Spitfire Lobby people begin to break the forum rules, attack me personally, and twist the information offered into some false version of it.
If that happens again, I won't respond again.
Dive acceleration is a real advantage for the 109 in reality, according to many documented tests for that specific performance advantage.
That was an advantage that was significant enough to inspire that British Fighter pilot to say this:
"It was a small airplane with a very weighty engine and it could dive very quickly and it could escape very quickly so the tactics were largely determined by them."
What gamers call Boom and Zoom may be, I don't know what any specific person playing this game may think, at any given moment, but that game term, Boom and Zoom, may be the actual tactic described by Robert Shaw as Energy Fighting, which is a tactic also described by a World War II British Fighter/Test Pilot named Eric Brown in his own published words here:
If this:
"It was a small airplane with a very weighty engine and it could dive very quickly and it could escape very quickly so the tactics were largely determined by them."
If that is not modeled in the game, then Hit and Run, not Boom and Zoom, is the remaining tactic that can be employed by the plane that is modeled in the game as a target.
11-28-2012, 11:51 PM
Hybrid Mode
