luthier, the historical performance btw 109/spitfire/huricane is NOT simulated in CoD

[salmo]

Originally Posted by zapatista

<snip> ...
the spitfires:
- where more agile, had better roll rate and tighter turning circles then 109's.
- but there carburetors would cut out on a sudden dive/nose-down, and couldnt fly inverted without starving their carburators of fuel, similar problems existed in other -ve G maneuvers...<snip>

Negaive G effects on engine performance was somewhat overcome by early 1941 with the retrofitting of spitfires with Miss Shilling's orifice.

[Verhängnis]

Why are you complaining about pilot skill, lack of rest or mental breakdowns? This is a FLIGHT SIMULATOR, not a "I live in England, it's 1940 and I'm oh so tired that my CO has sent me down to reserve for a nice cup of tea and some R&R" Simulator.
Besides that, I don't think your ever going to see a perfect simulation of any aircraft in "a game". The technology they are using has it's limits! And to me, flying both sides, the OP seems to make little sense with no evidence and is rather biased... This topic will become nothing more than Subjective! It's like trying to argue with religion - nobody has the facts and it all settles down to opinion - in the end; someone get's banned.

[RCAF_FB_Orville]

Chaps, CWMV is speaking words of wisdom. Lets wait to see what the changes actually are exactly, when the patch is released. Otherwise, its just borderline hysteria until we know the actual ingame performance facts.

I would agree though that it should be a 'given' for a graphical representation of performance figures to be provided, which cuts down on a lot of the 'I feel that....' etc subjective speculation, which is of no use whatsoever.

Zap, I know you mean well and are possibly just joking, but its not really helpful referring to Blue fliers as 'Luftwhiners' as it just gets peoples backs up, then we have the pathetic 'Luftwaffler-Sissy blah blah' rubbish which is frankly schoolyard stuff. I know others do it (some habitually, and in almost all of their posts) but it doesn't mean you have to as well. Some just do it as a gentle wind up, some more serious. Either way, its daft ( I'll admit I've done similar myself in the past, in jest though). Show some class. Funny thing is, I know many of you are 40-50+, some even older! Act like it, hehehe.

PS, It doesn't bother me personally, as I don't take things that seriously lol. I also fly and enjoy both sides, lots of love for em all. But its still not a good idea (joking or otherwise) if we want a serious discussion. There are some sensitive people out there. Wait till we see 'whats what', definitively, then we can "let slip the dogs of war" (sensibly, with documented evidence...not just 'opinion'). Just par for the course.

Cheers.

[klem]

Zapatista I really think we should wait and see what Luthier is giving us.

I did wonder at the SpitIIa performance being reduced because I could never get it to achieve the Sea Level speeds that were documented for it, i.e. it wasn't that the SpitIIa was overmodelled it was that the others were undermodelled, but the best thing would be to wait and try them out before we worry too much.

[csThor]

As a general note: It would be a great help to generate a decent discussion if people did away with the more or less thinly veiled insults. By using these insults - usually aimed at those who do not share the OP's opinion - people discredit themselves and show they're not really interested in adult and well-mannered conversation but in imposing their own opinion on everyone else.

[Ataros]

Here is a link to Spit Ia entry in IL2 bugtracker with links to documents http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/84 I asked B6 to forward it to FM programmers @ sukhoi.ru

It would be great if we keep all data in one place for easy access by the devs. Please vote for it and add entries for other types and 109 if their performance is off.

As for BoM we can also create entries as feature requests for future.

Edit:
In a link from Spit Ia entry we read:

Originally Posted by VO101_Tom

Spit Ia. In the game 240 instead of 283*. -15,9%

* If I am wrong in this, then I apologize. I do not know well the Spit subtypes.

Could someone confirm if this is correct and update the issue in the tracker? I am not an expert myself. We'd better provide the devs with reliable data if we want quick changes IMO.

[whoarmongar]

It will be interesting to see what changes the new patch FM will entail.
To my mind the changes should reflect the commonly held views that

1, In no way at anytime should the hurricane outclimb the Spit. at the moment fly a Spit1a in company with a rotol Hurricane and it will just outclimb you, this is just plain nonsense and its shocking that it was ever allowed into the game.

2 The Spit and 109 were roughly (depending on altitude) equal in speed. This if implemented would make 109 v Spit combat much more competetive and basically more of an equal contest and more fun for those unbiased majority of players out there.

3 The roll rate of the Spit, The Spit was conceived in the 1930s as a bomber interceptor when the doctrine that "the bomber will always get through" was prevailent. For this reason speed and height were the predetermining factors. roll rate was never a priority.
The roll rate of the Spit at best matched the 109 and was probably inferior but was not considered a problem due to the spits superior turn rate and better sustained turn performace v the 109, it only became a problem when the Fw190 appeared hence the emergence if the clipped wing Spit to counter the 190s superior roll rate.

3 The 109s better power to weight ratio hence its better climb performance. This is essentialy the 109s get out of jail card and for historcal as well as gameplay reasons should always be implemented within the game.

In truth as we stand today whilst the !09 and perhaps the hurricane ( although personally i have problems with the Hurries rudder responses) seem to fly as i would expect the Spit just doesnt "feel" right. I know this is subjective but the reports i have read over many years have all been similar and I trust the integrity of these reports and place great trust in the uniformity of them. "extremly sesitive especially for and aft", "the slightest touch on the stick and she would respond" and "would give early warning when on the edge of a stall with buffeting, caused by the inner wing stalling whilst the outer wing still provided lift" are all very well documented. This doesnt feel much like the CoD Spitfire.

finally diving. The 109 was superior in the initial dive due to the spits carbs. however in a sustained dive the spit was probably superior to a very small degree. the 109s controls became very unmanagable in a high speed dive making it very difficult to pull out of the dive. is this implemented in CoD ?

The Spit admittedly wasnt much better. I remember reading how i think it was Closterman after a high speed dive from a great height had to use the trimmer to pull out of the dive. again is this "stiffening" of the controls modelled within the game ?

I really hope the devs get the FM better in the next patch we await with interest the result. In truth I feel they have been rather unsympathetic to the RAF aircraft up till now I can understand the reasons. First of all and I will whisper this very quietly at the time of the BoB Russia was actually aiding and was vertually an ally of Nazi Germany.

Secondly the Lufties have been numerous long established and extemely vocal and partisan in support of there favorites in il2, added to the fact that that the future of this franchise will involve germany v Russia so development will involve Russian and German aircraft. After the next patch I dont expect any further development on British aircraft at least for the foreseeable future, so this it appears is BoBs last chance I just hope they get it right.

[zapatista]

just came across this information on the 100 octane fuel issue some people had been raising for the spitfire and hurricane. seems this is more important in aircraft performance then i had previously thought.

Gavin Bailey concluded that "The actual authorisation to change over to 100-octane came at the end of February 1940 and was made on the basis of the existing reserve and the estimated continuing rate of importation in the rest of the year." 33 As of 31 March 1940 220,000 tons of 100 octane fuel was held in stock. 34 The Co-ordination of Oil Policy Committee noted in the conclusions of their 18 May 1940 meeting with regard to the "Supply of 100 Octane fuel to Blenheim and Fighter Squadrons" that Spitfire and Hurricane units "had now been stocked with the necessary 100 octane fuel". 35 The Committee recorded that actual consumption of 100 octane for the 2nd Quarter 1940 was 18,100 tons. 36 Jeffrey Quill recalled:

It was only shortly before the Battle of Britain that we changed over to 100 octane. It had the effect of increasing the combat rating of the Merlin from 3000 rpm at 6 1/2 lb boost (Merlin III) or 9 lb boost (Merlin XII) to 3,000 rpm at 12 lb boost. This, of course, had a significant effect upon the rate of climb, particularly as the constant speed propellers (also introduced just before the battle) ensured that 3,000 rpm was obtainable from the ground upwards whereas previously it was restricted by the two-pitch propellers. It also had an effect upon the maximum speed but this was not so significant as the effect upon rate of climb. 37

and ........Wood and Dempster wrote in their book "The Narrow Margin":

As it turned out, aviation spirit was to prove no worry for the R.A.F. By July 11th, 1940, the day after the Battle of Britain opened, stocks of 100 octane petrol used in the Merlin engine stood at 343,000 tons. On October 10th, twenty-one days before the battle closed, and after 22,000 tons had been issued, stocks had risen to 424,000 tons. With other grades of aviation spirit total stock available on October 10th, 1940, was 666,000 tons. Oil reserves were 34,000 tons. 38

source: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by whoarmongar

It will be interesting to see what changes the new patch FM will entail.
To my mind the changes should reflect the commonly held views that

1, In no way at anytime should the hurricane outclimb the Spit. at the moment fly a Spit1a in company with a rotol Hurricane and it will just outclimb you, this is just plain nonsense and its shocking that it was ever allowed into the game.

2 The Spit and 109 were roughly (depending on altitude) equal in speed. This if implemented would make 109 v Spit combat much more competetive and basically more of an equal contest and more fun for those unbiased majority of players out there.

3 The roll rate of the Spit, The Spit was conceived in the 1930s as a bomber interceptor when the doctrine that "the bomber will always get through" was prevailent. For this reason speed and height were the predetermining factors. roll rate was never a priority.
The roll rate of the Spit at best matched the 109 and was probably inferior but was not considered a problem due to the spits superior turn rate and better sustained turn performace v the 109, it only became a problem when the Fw190 appeared hence the emergence if the clipped wing Spit to counter the 190s superior roll rate.

3 The 109s better power to weight ratio hence its better climb performance. This is essentialy the 109s get out of jail card and for historcal as well as gameplay reasons should always be implemented within the game.

In truth as we stand today whilst the !09 and perhaps the hurricane ( although personally i have problems with the Hurries rudder responses) seem to fly as i would expect the Spit just doesnt "feel" right. I know this is subjective but the reports i have read over many years have all been similar and I trust the integrity of these reports and place great trust in the uniformity of them. "extremly sesitive especially for and aft", "the slightest touch on the stick and she would respond" and "would give early warning when on the edge of a stall with buffeting, caused by the inner wing stalling whilst the outer wing still provided lift" are all very well documented. This doesnt feel much like the CoD Spitfire.

finally diving. The 109 was superior in the initial dive due to the spits carbs. however in a sustained dive the spit was probably superior to a very small degree. the 109s controls became very unmanagable in a high speed dive making it very difficult to pull out of the dive. is this implemented in CoD ?

The Spit admittedly wasnt much better. I remember reading how i think it was Closterman after a high speed dive from a great height had to use the trimmer to pull out of the dive. again is this "stiffening" of the controls modelled within the game ?

I really hope the devs get the FM better in the next patch we await with interest the result. In truth I feel they have been rather unsympathetic to the RAF aircraft up till now I can understand the reasons. First of all and I will whisper this very quietly at the time of the BoB Russia was actually aiding and was vertually an ally of Nazi Germany.

Secondly the Lufties have been numerous long established and extemely vocal and partisan in support of there favorites in il2, added to the fact that that the future of this franchise will involve germany v Russia so development will involve Russian and German aircraft. After the next patch I dont expect any further development on British aircraft at least for the foreseeable future, so this it appears is BoBs last chance I just hope they get it right.

good post, thx for providing specific detail on what behaviour is incorrect for some of these planes. next thing we need is some specific numbers, to confirm how significant the problem is (and have specific sources for our "real data" to compare to)

once this gfx engine problem has been resolved, we need a concerted drive to make luthier and Co correct these major problems (for both allied and axis teams), but i mostly have experience with red team so far so similar to you i pointed out spitfire and hurricane problems. unless this is address, all the SoW will ever be is a bad arcade game, not a SIMULATOR of a ww2 pilot experience !

lets try and get some specific numbers for level speed (low, medium and high altitude), climb rate, max dive speed and aircraft behavior, roll rate, turning circle etc... (like i just posted the quotes in my previous post., then we can use specific facts to present to luthier and Co, so he needs minimal time to spend on it (just needs to double check our findings, not start from scratch). that will be our best chance to get it corrected quickly imo.

[CWMV]

Originally Posted by salmo

Negaive G effects on engine performance was somewhat overcome by early 1941 with the retrofitting of spitfires with Miss Shilling's orifice.

...Which didnt have much to do with the BoB.