FM discussion

[Slipstream2012]

Originally Posted by droz

Pretty sure the 109E was considerably faster than the Spits in game IRL. Spit has maneuverability, 109 had speed.

Also, 109 is Fuel Injected. Not much sputter on a startup from that. Spit/Hurri early stuff was Carburated. you will see sputter on startup with that.

Its not that I don't expect to see splutter on the Spit, but neither do I expect to see the 109 at full power with an seemingly indestructible engine.

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

funny comment but wrong.

The 109 is the nimble one here: lighter, smaller and as much powerful.

Although they were closely matched, I'd hardly call the 109 nimble if the Spitfire could out maneuver it on the best part, the Spit was only a little larger, I have no idea on the weights, but I can't imagine having a cannon in the nose would make it lighter though there is no doubt it had supreme firepower.
I've heard many times that the controls were sluggish at higher speeds, maybe this was to do with the confined cockpit.
Either-way there is no doubt they were both terrific planes, Like many others I just believe they need tweaking ingame.

[OSSI]

Originally Posted by PotNoodles

Well you are the only one who thinks he's joking because anyone who fly's the spits knows that they are cannon fodder for the 109 pilots. Maybe you're having so much fun shooting down the spits in your 109 that you don't want this to change, but tuff luck because lots of people are sick to death of it and want it to change. Please go and read through the forums if you cannot take my word for it.

I am flying 50:50. Means all my second flight is with Spit and Hurri. I have no problem with any 109, I shoot them down all on Servers. My result is that with Spit or Hurri it much much easyer to shot down the enemys. If I want easy kills then I take that Spitfire. If I want more risk I use the 109. If I am behinf a 109 she have no chance no more. To come behind a 109 is so easy for every newbie.

[David198502]

Originally Posted by OSSI

I am flying 50:50. Means all my second flight is with Spit and Hurri. I have no problem with any 109, I shoot them down all on Servers. My result is that with Spit or Hurri it much much easyer to shot down the enemys. If I want easy kills then I take that Spitfire. If I want more risk I use the 109. If I am behinf a 109 she have no chance no more. To come behind a 109 is so easy for every newbie.

ok,.....i volunteer for a little experiment if you dare....take any spit you want, and lets fight some duels....

if what you say is true, then the 109 pilots were really bad ones and obviously
"noobs".
there is no way you will be able to do that against even only an average 109 driver.
i consider myself as an experienced 109 pilot, and i bet with you, that out of 10 fights, you will be shot down 10times by me if you sit in a spit...no matter which altitude,fuel amount or energy advantage...
my steamname is: JG26_DavidRed
add me if you dare.

[SiThSpAwN]

Originally Posted by PotNoodles

Blacksix, I am not sure what zapatista has done wrong here for asking this question. Many people are asking the same question and you have made a thread asking for Communication from the Community. Am I missing something here because I don't see anything wrong with his post?

I think the balance of planes is low-priority to them right now as it really has nothing to do with the testing of the new graphics engine which is where we are at right now, I think any FM changes we have been getting are bonuses right now. I think they want to finish with the graphics engine before getting to deep into balancing...

Lets be honest, a discussion of balance gets pretty deep around here, and what they need right now is focus.

Of course this is just how I am reading into this, I may be wrong.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by SlipBall

I understand...and if you fly at all, you have your own opinion I'm sure

Opinion being the key word!

Problem is most of the FM complaints are nothing more than opinions..

So not only would it be un-realistic to expect 1C to look into every FM complaint but it would be a waste of time IMHO.

Personally I think 1C (or B6) should put out a 'minimum information' requirement for 1C to even consider looking into a FM complaint.

Where the minimum information could/should consist of the 'method' that was used during the test and the real world data the user is using as their bases of comparison, just to name two!

Anything less than that would be a waste of 1C's time

[[URU]AkeR]

The self-righteousness and condescendent tone some members use to refer to the developers is unbelievable. I find it more disrepectfull than a plain insult.

Anyone that has been in the IL2 world for a couple of years has stumble with kilometers of text on FM discussión and hundreds of references to data sources of varied quality. Let alone the developers of the game who make a living out of this. Of course they know where to find the data. Some ppl have rub it to their faces over and over.

I´ll give you a clue, FM will keep improving for years but will never be perfect. In IL2 1946 we have some great modders that have put great effort and knowdlege to get the more accurate FM according to the info they have, and even after all these years there is always someone that think that the result is wrong and comes out showing some other data he has found and it goes on and on, and after 10 years the discussion continues

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by [URU]AkeR

The self-righteousness and condescendent tone some members use to refer to the developers is unbelievable. I find it more disrepectfull than a plain insult.

Agreed 100%

Originally Posted by [URU]AkeR

Anyone that has been in the IL2 world for a couple of years has stumble with kilometers of text on FM discussión and hundreds of references to data sources of varied quality. Let alone the developers of the game who make a living out of this. Of course they know where to find the data. Some ppl have rub it to their faces over and over.

At least you have to give them credit for providing some data!!

Most of the FM complaints provide nothing at all and still they make their claims of how 'wrong' the FM is..

Which would be funny if it was not so sad!

I mean for all we know their claims of 'wrong' is based of the info from one of their boy-hood coloring books!

Originally Posted by [URU]AkeR

I´ll give you a clue, FM will keep improving for years but will never be perfect.

Bingo!

I have had this saying for years now..

No FM ever WAS, IS, or WILL BE PERFECT!

Originally Posted by [URU]AkeR

In IL2 1946 we have some great modders that have put great effort and knowdlege to get the more accurate FM according to the info they have, and even after all these years there is always someone that think that the result is wrong and comes out showing some other data he has found and it goes on and on, and after 10 years the discussion continues

Exactly!

We can always get closer, but it will never be perfect!

Hence the name 'simulation' in place of 'reality!

[klem]

Originally Posted by Osprey

Ilya has been emailed the information on correct FM and flight operation for Hurricane and Spitfire from a reliable source before the last 2 patches, and ongoing. I can't say more because I was asked not to, which is why I only whine that the FM's aren't fixed rather than supply further information - ie, Ilya has all he needs. Why it is still not correct I do not know and I'd doubt that B6 does either - the findings on speeds when temperature effects is turned off though is very interesting.

Thank you Osprey. I didn't really doubt they have the data I just don't understand why we are still waiting.

My last on FMs in this thread to those that have only been posting here for five minutes. We have waited a year and a half for decent FMs. The RAF FMs are not even close to basic performance. What could be more fundamental in a combat flight simulator than having aircraft that perform somewhere close to what they are supposed to represent. The flying and combat performance are the core of CoD even beyond great graphics, interfaces and the mission builder. If the aircraft don't even perform properly the rest is meaningless because then its not a combat simulation its just another naff flying game and at the moment the RAF FMs are naff. They need to be fixed. That is not "self-righteous" and not "condescending". It is a simple expectation. They have had more than enough time and we still aren't told what to expect other than "we're working on it". What we are left to believe is that they are working on the sequel to the detriment of what we have already paid for a year and a half ago. Those that have been here a while know I have been a solid supporter of 1C and the belief that they will fix this but with no explanation on where they really are on this what are we to do if the next patch is final and the FMs aren't fixed? And if its not final just how much longer are we to be kept waiting?

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by Osprey

Ilya has been emailed the information on correct FM and flight operation for Hurricane and Spitfire from a reliable source before the last 2 patches, and ongoing. I can't say more because I was asked not to, which is why I only whine that the FM's aren't fixed rather than supply further information - ie, Ilya has all he needs. Why it is still not correct I do not know and I'd doubt that B6 does either - the findings on speeds when temperature effects is turned off though is very interesting.

good news !

can you please start a thread here, or in some other forum if need be, on what the best current reference information is that you have been able to find regarding the various aspects of performance and flight model differences for the main fighters we currently have (eg climb rates, turn rate, roll rate, speed at various altitude, dive speed etc)

with the significant amount of detailed reliable information on those that have become available, it should be possible to arrive at a reliable set of comparative figures that can then be openly recognized and accepted