Speed graphs for Spitfire and Hurricane

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine

Reading in that thread it seems that the problem wasn't the Hurricane, it was the lack of speed in the 109. Which, I might add, seems to be being addressed! Lucky blue pilot!

I read several people in that thread (not all of them Red pilots!) agreeing that the Hurricane was more or less accurate. So I'm not sure why you are claiming that thread as evidence that the Hurricane has always been understood as too fast in the game.

Do you have test data that contradicts what B6 posted in his graph? If not, you need to find some.

[bw_wolverine]

Originally Posted by David Hayward

Do you have test data that contradicts what B6 posted in his graph? If not, you need to find some.

I'm not talking about data. I'm talking about how the sentiment on these FMs seems to change interestingly whenever we get new FM updates.

The biggest anomaly for me is the IIa. So many people said "It's the only accurately modelled plane in the sim" and now it's being reduced and people are all saying "Well, of course! It's so grossly overmodelled!"

I have no stats or anything to tell the devs how to make these planes. I am not an engineer. I do not have a degree in avionics or aerodynamics or whatever. I am not qualified to have that argument.

What I do feel qualified to talk about is how odd this whole saga has been and continues to be.

There is nothing impartial about ANY of the player discussions about these aircraft, I think. On the Blue or Red side.

Not until I see a Blue player crusading for the increase in Red plane performance, or a Red player vehemently arguing that the 109 is too slow will I suggest that anyone here is really being anything more than self-serving with respect to the FMs.

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine

I'm not talking about data. I'm talking about how the sentiment on these FMs seems to change interestingly whenever we get new FM updates.

The biggest anomaly for me is the IIa. So many people said "It's the only accurately modelled plane in the sim" and now it's being reduced and people are all saying "Well, of course! It's so grossly overmodelled!"

I have no stats or anything to tell the devs how to make these planes. I am not an engineer. I do not have a degree in avionics or aerodynamics or whatever. I am not qualified to have that argument.

What I do feel qualified to talk about is how odd this whole saga has been and continues to be.

There is nothing impartial about ANY of the player discussions about these aircraft, I think. On the Blue or Red side.

Not until I see a Blue player crusading for the increase in Red plane performance, or a Red player vehemently arguing that the 109 is too slow will I suggest that anyone here is really being anything more than self-serving with respect to the FMs.

Personally, I am SHOCKED that there are players who are impartially lobbying for their favorite aircraft. SHOCKED!!!

[Insuber]

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine

Not until I see a Blue player crusading for the increase in Red plane performance, or a Red player vehemently arguing that the 109 is too slow will I suggest that anyone here is really being anything more than self-serving with respect to the FMs.

Originally Posted by Insuber

(...)
On the other hand I agree that the 12 lbs boost / 100 octane fuel must be modeled, of course with a limitation on overheating and engine life as in RL, to correct the Hurricane I performance below 3000 m which looks excessively penalized, IF KWIATEK CHARTS ARE ACCURATE

The first condition is true, I'm waiting for the second one ...

[ATAG_Snapper]

Originally Posted by David Hayward

Do you have test data that contradicts what B6 posted in his graph? If not, you need to find some.

Pfffft. What good will that do, David? Really? The devs have had a year to correct it, they've had over seven years to research it. They don't care. The fix is in. We get it. As Wolverine very capably outlined, the Red fliers will adjust tactics to accommodate the new FM changes. This is a game after all; many of us mistook this as a simulation.

To blame the dev team of 2011 is hardly the answer -- might as well blame George Bush while they're at it. Ten minutes flying the Spitfire Ia (including the warmup time) will tell you somethin' ain't right. Don't need a chart to figure that out!

[Kurfürst]

Red reactions in this thread remind me to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gQozw40Mso

[JG52Uther]

There is no red or blue for me. I would like the aircraft to be as historically accurate as possible.
Will be interesting if the game ever does Russia 1941, because the Russian fighters were death traps, and somehow I can't see that working out too well...

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by JG52Uther

There is no red or blue for me. I would like the aircraft to be as historically accurate as possible.
Will be interesting if the game ever does Russia 1941, because the Russian fighters were death traps, and somehow I can't see that working out too well...

The biggest single disadvantage of Reds is that they have a far larger planeset, and they constantly have to fly different types which would require different flight styles, but its impossible to master them all.

Compare that to anyone who just flies to 109. Or the 190. Its no wonders

I am not worried for the Russia 1941 scenario. Mig 3 was essentially the BEST high altitude fighter of its time, and the Yak 1 was decent. Armament is light, but so is the 109F-2s.. You just don't have to fly them like the Russians flew them in 1941 under the well known handicaps. Just like nobody is forcing RAF pilots to fly target in rigid three plane formations.

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by JG52Uther

There is no red or blue for me. I would like the aircraft to be as historically accurate as possible.
Will be interesting if the game ever does Russia 1941, because the Russian fighters were death traps, and somehow I can't see that working out too well...

Yes I wonder if they'll have laminated panels peeling off wings in dives and engines conking out because the build quality was so crap.

Server owners will have to script in random failures for Russian fliers for historical accuracy

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Snapper

Pfffft. What good will that do, David? Really? The devs have had a year to correct it, they've had over seven years to research it. They don't care. The fix is in. We get it. As Wolverine very capably outlined, the Red fliers will adjust tactics to accommodate the new FM changes. This is a game after all; many of us mistook this as a simulation.

To blame the dev team of 2011 is hardly the answer -- might as well blame George Bush while they're at it. Ten minutes flying the Spitfire Ia (including the warmup time) will tell you somethin' ain't right. Don't need a chart to figure that out!

If it's so obviously wrong then you should have no problem finding test data to back up your complaints. It may not convince the dev team to change things, but at least you won't look like you're whining (which is kinda what it looks like you're doing right now).