PDA

View Full Version : So...how would a BoB-era Spit do against a 109 in terms of speed?



Ba5tard5word
01-20-2011, 12:32 PM
If you fly Il-2 offline a lot you may notice the tendency of the AI, if it's in a plane that is even slightly faster and/or better at climbing than yours, especially if it's in a 109 model (though E-models seem to have less of the tendency), to constantly jet away from you into the stratosphere and make it impossible to catch up with them. Naturally the solution would seem to be to engage them in a turn battle with a more maneuverable plane or try and boom and zoom them from a higher altitude, but while that should work online it doesn't really work offline because of how the AI reacts to you, at least it doesn't work for me.

Hopefully CoD isn't as bad as Il-2 at letting AI planes jet around at top speed for hours at a time and giving them an AI routine that has them constantly run and climb away. That said, what would be the top speeds of a BoB-era Spitfire and a 109? I don't really know what Spit models were used in the BoB, but when I've looked at Il2Compare it always seemed like the earliest Spits from around 1940 had a top speed at sea level of around 450kph. 109E models from 1940 seem to be around 470 to 480kph at sea level. I know sea level isn't the best way to match up a lot of planes but 500 to 3000m is around where most offline and co-op battles take place, and a lot of stuff online in Il-2...what altitude were most battles at in the BoB?

So anyway I'm just curious about how Spits and 109E's matched up in BoB in terms of speed. I really don't want to see a lot of dumb bickering, I just want to know whether the 109E would have a big top speed advantage at all altitudes or not.

Bremspropeller
01-20-2011, 12:49 PM
That most accurate answer one could give to that genereic quetion would be:

Depends...

Generally, both planes are that evenly matched, you wouldn't note much of a difference DEPENDING which version you're flying and comparing (boost and prop-type on the Spit can really ruin your day - or make it).
Speed shouldn't be more off than 20kph at any altitude under any circumstance (safe for a two-pitch propeller on a low-boost Spit which very propably isn't modelled http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ).

M_Gunz
01-20-2011, 03:51 PM
IIRC the 109 had the edge at most altitudes if not all, but a very small edge that... between serial production planes you can find 5% difference and 5% of 350mph is bigger than that edge, then comes the pilot so why bother saying "it's going to be this way"?

The important altitude is where the bombers flew and above, IIRC 16,000+ ft. It's the Hurricanes that are at the real disadvantage vs 109s above 12,000 ft and most of the RAF flew those anyway. Hurtin-canes?

Ba5tard5word
01-20-2011, 04:11 PM
Yeah I think it's going to be interesting to see how Spits, Hurris and 109's mix together online and offline. If the AI is anything like in Il-2 and can and will fly around at top speed 100% of the time, 109's are going to be very frustrating to deal with and might lead to a lot of whining. I guess you could give the 109's less fuel but that just means at a certain point they'd jet off...at top speed...back to base without even a kiss goodbye.

Again this is based on the AI flakiness of Il-2 where speed is way more of a determinant of whether you can deal with the AI than it should be...we'll have to see what happens.

And what 109 and Spits models were used in the BoB that we have in Il-2 and UP 2.01? So I can check their graphs in Il2Compare.

JG53Frankyboy
01-20-2011, 04:30 PM
http://www.franky.fliegerhospital.de/Leistung%20Bf109E-3.jpg

versus

http://www.spitfireperformance...fire-I-rae-12lbs.jpg (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-I-rae-12lbs.jpg)

DKoor
01-20-2011, 06:03 PM
Yep I agree, faster Ai planes are shinizzle offline.

There is one trick that works vs Ai and that is when he gains on you go shallow dive, then do bank turn to one side not hard but rather soft tightening it as you go.
He will 99% miss you even ace, after that you will have circa 5-6 seconds to aim carefully and hit him.
That works good if you have rather effective weapon like .50s so you can spray him, but works best with nose cannons as they are generally easiest to use fast in this game.

But doesn't work really well if you are in E/A infested air.
I flew versus 4 faster ace Ai's that is just plain sick & masochist experience... one setup I don't remember finishing was Yak-9M vs 4xace Bf-109G10, I specifically remember that one as being one of the sickest. You have highly unstable but agile plane ( ? ) and at best mediocre weapons, not that they lack punch - they're working like dream but if you aren't very sharp you wont get enough ammo for them all. I know I gave up after several tries, but man I was really sick stubborn with these Ai "games" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .

I hope CoD wont feature this godlike machinist Ai (as in IL-2), as that would be the biggest single drawback with that game for me.

Ratsack
01-20-2011, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
http://www.franky.fliegerhospital.de/Leistung%20Bf109E-3.jpg

versus

http://www.spitfireperformance...fire-I-rae-12lbs.jpg (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-I-rae-12lbs.jpg)

I've just converted that to Imperial, and then put it in Excel. I've then read the approximate altitude points off the Spitfire graph, and recorded the relevant speeds. I then subtracted the Spit speed from the 109's at each altitude:

Alt ft -----Diff favour 109
0 ............. 2.83
3,281 ........ 2.26
6,562 ........ 2.69
9,843 ........ 3.11
13,123 ...... 3.54
16,404 ..... -0.14
19,685 ..... -9.14
22,966 ..... -19.67


The right hand column is in mph.

VW-IceFire
01-20-2011, 07:09 PM
It's going to be a pretty close match... the slight edge of the 109 in speed. Perhaps a slight edge for the Spitfire in certain aspects of handling. Up to the pilots...then which means constant whining no doubt http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I'll fly a Hurricane http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Ba5tard5word
01-20-2011, 07:24 PM
Cool guys, good to know that the matchup should be pretty even...I'm looking at the data in Il2Compare which has UP 2.01 stuff in it, but I'm not sure what Spit to consider...it seems to say the Spit Ia or Ib would be 5kph faster at sea level, at about 495kph...no idea if that is wrong or if those are the models we will get in COD. The IIa and IIb seem to be 30kph slower at max speed at sea level but do better than a 109E-3 at higher alts. V models seem similar, starting around 460kph at sea level and then doing better than a 109 around 4500m up.

VXB77016
01-20-2011, 07:51 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
It's going to be a pretty close match... the slight edge of the 109 in speed. Perhaps a slight edge for the Spitfire in certain aspects of handling. Up to the pilots...then which means constant whining no doubt http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I'll fly a Hurricane http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

If my experience in WWIIonline is anything to go on, Huricanes and Spit Is vs. Emils tend to break down into the RAF pilots complaining that the Lufties refuse to come down and mix it up properly, while the Lufties claim there's no way they can hang with a Hurricane or Spit in the weeds and consequently *must* use their narrow advantage at altitude.

Then there's the .303s vs. cannon thing.

Everyone goes home angry http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

Should be fun to see how CoD turns out.

AndyJWest
01-20-2011, 08:32 PM
I expect the servers will start off with noobs all flying lone Spits in the general direction of France, getting picked off by pro Emils hunting at altitude in pairs. In a complete reversal of history, every so often you'll hear the cry of "Achtung Hurricane!" as an experienced pilot appears in his flying wheelbarrow, looking for Emil-flying noobs who think they can out-turn him. Every so often you'll see a puff of smoke as an ultra-low flying He-111 arrives at Dover and discovers that geography can climb faster than a bomb-laden Heinkel. Experienced bomber pilots will have the edges of the map to themselves, as they try to sneak around the furball below, the only hazard being the enemy bombers coming in the other direction. Every so often, the action will die down as everyone watches the Italian contingent (led by Xilon from the banana forum) cruise sedately across the Channel. The Luftwaffe will give up trying to escort them, lacking endurance, and the RAF will return home to refuel, rearm and read the newspaper, before taking off to intercept. The heroics of the Italian Airforce will result in little more than a shower of aluminium, wood, and goats-milk cheese, though the women in the fields of Kent below will offer a friendly enough welcome to parachuting aircrew. Then the battle will commence again with plaintive cries of "It won't fly straight", "My engine is making funny noises", "Silence in Polish!" and "Which way is France?" once more fill the airwaves...

R_Target
01-20-2011, 09:37 PM
And so it begins....

RSS-Martin
01-20-2011, 09:47 PM
Originally posted by AndyJWest:
I expect the servers will start off with noobs all flying lone Spits in the general direction of France, getting picked off by pro Emils hunting at altitude in pairs. In a complete reversal of history, every so often you'll hear the cry of "Achtung Hurricane!" as an experienced pilot appears in his flying wheelbarrow, looking for Emil-flying noobs who think they can out-turn him. Every so often you'll see a puff of smoke as an ultra-low flying He-111 arrives at Dover and discovers that geography can climb faster than a bomb-laden Heinkel. Experienced bomber pilots will have the edges of the map to themselves, as they try to sneak around the furball below, the only hazard being the enemy bombers coming in the other direction. Every so often, the action will die down as everyone watches the Italian contingent (led by Xilon from the banana forum) cruise sedately across the Channel. The Luftwaffe will give up trying to escort them, lacking endurance, and the RAF will return home to refuel, rearm and read the newspaper, before taking off to intercept. The heroics of the Italian Airforce will result in little more than a shower of aluminium, wood, and goats-milk cheese, though the women in the fields of Kent below will offer a friendly enough welcome to parachuting aircrew. Then the battle will commence again with plaintive cries of "It won't fly straight", "My engine is making funny noises", "Silence in Polish!" and "Which way is France?" once more fill the airwaves...
Sounds good! But you forgot something! Repeat please! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Ratsack
01-21-2011, 12:18 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
It's going to be a pretty close match... the slight edge of the 109 in speed. Those numbers from Frankyboy seem to suggest a slight speed edge in favour of the 109 from sea level to 15,000 feet. Then the edge reverses and widens between 19,000 and 23,000.

I am dubious of the size of the apparent speed advantage of the Spit at ~20 k. I think that the 109's figures at 1 km intervals conceal a maximum between 5,000 m and 6,000 m. I don't think it would've had a vertical speed curve over a 1 km interval.

But anyway, a slight advantage to the Spits around 20 k feet.


Up to the pilots...then which means constant whining no doubt http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Not a shadow of a doubt!


I'll fly a Hurricane http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Good man!

csThor
01-21-2011, 12:25 AM
Originally posted by AndyJWest:
I expect the servers will start off with noobs all flying lone Spits in the general direction of France, getting picked off by pro Emils hunting at altitude in pairs. In a complete reversal of history, every so often you'll hear the cry of "Achtung Hurricane!" as an experienced pilot appears in his flying wheelbarrow, looking for Emil-flying noobs who think they can out-turn him. Every so often you'll see a puff of smoke as an ultra-low flying He-111 arrives at Dover and discovers that geography can climb faster than a bomb-laden Heinkel. Experienced bomber pilots will have the edges of the map to themselves, as they try to sneak around the furball below, the only hazard being the enemy bombers coming in the other direction. Every so often, the action will die down as everyone watches the Italian contingent (led by Xilon from the banana forum) cruise sedately across the Channel. The Luftwaffe will give up trying to escort them, lacking endurance, and the RAF will return home to refuel, rearm and read the newspaper, before taking off to intercept. The heroics of the Italian Airforce will result in little more than a shower of aluminium, wood, and goats-milk cheese, though the women in the fields of Kent below will offer a friendly enough welcome to parachuting aircrew. Then the battle will commence again with plaintive cries of "It won't fly straight", "My engine is making funny noises", "Silence in Polish!" and "Which way is France?" once more fill the airwaves...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

JG52Uther
01-21-2011, 01:15 AM
Sums it up perfectly Andy!

I also expect all Allied pilots to fly in RAF approved close VIC formation,and not that funny 'finger four' that the Germans favour.

M_Gunz
01-21-2011, 03:04 AM
And expect "realistic results or something's wrong with the sim". Yep so, look right behind the keyboard.

Xiolablu3
01-21-2011, 06:09 AM
Its much clser than between a 109F4 and a Spitfire Vb that we had in the game currently (stock) and that was already a fantastic matchup, even though the Spitfire was a underdog when both are flown by veterans. The 109F4 is incredible in late 1941-42.

I think Spit 1 vs 109E is going to be a great matchup. Where the 109 is going to gain most ground is in terms of the cannons vs the Spitfires 8x.303 possibly, unless the damage model is altered from IL2. Possibly with a more complicated DM, the MG's will do a bit better.

I dont think the 109D, 109E-1 or E2 are appearing are they? I guess this is more 1939 than 1940, as is the Spitfire with the two bladed prop.

JG53Frankyboy
01-21-2011, 06:14 AM
the 8x.303cal will most propably very effective agaisnt the Bf109 and 110. Because so far you couldnt see ANY rearcockpit armour in thier cockpits.
and also agaisnt the engine and the coolingsystem ,the new DM will give the .303 a good 'chance' http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

on oposite the firing time with the MG-FF (hopefully /M !!) is short and not easy to hit a hard manouvering target........
Perhaps an 109E-1 would work more easily http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


about performance, whn Maddox will model the 100octon fuel 12lb/sq.in. boost Merlins, than the germans will have a very hard time below ~15000ft http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Xiolablu3
01-21-2011, 06:40 AM
I think 100 octane was used by all of the frontline squadrons from very early in the battle, so I think all of the Spits and Hurris should have it.

I have seen 100 octane written on the Spits engine from the screenshots of SOW BOB.

The lower octane fuel was still in use through the battle, but not by the frontline southern squadrons IIRC. They obviously had access to the best equipment.

JG53Frankyboy
01-21-2011, 08:13 AM
at least in the Moskau gameshow videos there were 4 different Spitfire versions available as flyable.
lets guess one is a Mk.II and the second a Mk.I with CSP.
they will propably have the 12lb boost.
the other two Mk.I (perhaps one with a fixed wooden propeller the other one with a 2-pitch one) propably not.

time will tell........
at least i dont want be in Olegs shoes who had to decide what perfomance charts he wanted use for his game Spits and 109s . There a lot around in books and internet http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

hop2002
01-21-2011, 08:15 AM
I've just converted that to Imperial, and then put it in Excel. I've then read the approximate altitude points off the Spitfire graph, and recorded the relevant speeds. I then subtracted the Spit speed from the 109's at each altitude:

Alt ft -----Diff favour 109
0 ............. 2.83
3,281 ........ 2.26
6,562 ........ 2.69
9,843 ........ 3.11
13,123 ...... 3.54
16,404 ..... -0.14
19,685 ..... -9.14
22,966 ..... -19.67


The Spitfire figure you should be using is the faint line marked 12 lbs, as that was universal during the BoB.

According to the chart, that's 314 mph at sea level, which is 505 km/h.

Ratsack
01-21-2011, 08:28 AM
I'm happy to be corrected on that if it's wrong. Please feel free to update the table accordingly if you think the 12 lb curve is the right one.

I didn't use it because it's obviously a later addition to that chart. The chart is already dated a year after the BoB, so I'm not sure why that would be. Secondly, I didn't use it because I thought the data a bit dubious. It puts the critical alt for the 12 lb version at 11,500 feet. This seems a little low. Without some other corroborating source to hand I decided to go with the curve I felt more certain of.

But if you're confident that 359 mph at 11,500 feet is right, by all means please correct the table to reflect that.

hop2002
01-21-2011, 08:39 AM
I'm not sure if the 12 lbs figure is calculated or not, but I see no reason to doubt it. The critical alt is as it should be.

100 octane allowed the engine to run at 12 lbs boost, up from the previous 6.25 lbs. As there were no changes to the supercharger, 6.25lbs can be maintained to a much higher altitude than 12 lbs.

Modifying your table for 12 lbs:

Alt ft -----Diff favour 109
0 ............. -45
3,281 ........ -44
6,562 ........ -43
9,843 ........ -45
13,123 ...... -36
16,404 ..... -28
19,685 ..... -9.14
22,966 ..... -19.67

I can't vouch for the 109 figures, though, just going on what's in the charts provided.

Daisan1981
01-21-2011, 08:43 AM
http://www.kurfurst.org/Perfor...Baubeschreibung.html (http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109E_Baubeschreibung/109E3_Baubeschreibung.html)
http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109E_Baubeschreibung/109E_Bau_speed.png

csThor
01-21-2011, 08:44 AM
Just curious ... what are the limits? I mean how long could +12lbs be extracted from the engine? I figure for 1940 this was causing a serious strain for the engine and I guess it had to be limited to just a few minutes.

JG52Uther
01-21-2011, 09:03 AM
Originally posted by csThor:
Just curious ... what are the limits? I mean how long could +12lbs be extracted from the engine? I figure for 1940 this was causing a serious strain for the engine and I guess it had to be limited to just a few minutes.
Not sure,but if I had a 109 behind me,I would have turned it on and left it on until it went bang! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

No41Sqn_Banks
01-21-2011, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by csThor:
Just curious ... what are the limits? I mean how long could +12lbs be extracted from the engine? I figure for 1940 this was causing a serious strain for the engine and I guess it had to be limited to just a few minutes.

Pilot's Notes Merlin II, III and IV (4th Edition, April 1940)from Rolls-Royce Limited state:

"An endeavour should be made to limit the use of the increased boost pressure to periods of 5 minutes."

csThor
01-21-2011, 10:56 AM
That's what I figured. I hope CoD really punishes all those "firewall throttle and let it there" types ... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

KRISTORF
01-21-2011, 10:59 AM
Was not the majority of the fighter combat during the Battle of Britain at 15000 ft (approx 3000mtr's) or lower?

No41Sqn_Banks
01-21-2011, 11:02 AM
Well ... the "firewall throttle and let it there" type of pilot is historically correct http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

"Some pilots "pull the plug" with little excuse on every occasion."

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/dowding.pdf

Bremspropeller
01-21-2011, 11:15 AM
The problem is not so much the engine giving up when exceeding 5mins by a little margin, but the engine giving up on other occassions - later in the engine's life, such as take-offs.

Too bad, there isn't any data on engine-failures of WW2 fighters caused by improper engine-handling on past flights.
The number of such accidents is - no doubt - quite signifigant.

JG52Uther
01-21-2011, 11:19 AM
In combat,in an emergency situation,you would want maximum power,and not worry about the engine breaking in the future.
Wasn't it the case that if you used emergency power,you had to report it,and the engine was checked/stripped?
Sure I read about some aircraft having part of the throttle movement restricted by a wire,and you broke that restriction when you went max power.

Ba5tard5word
01-21-2011, 11:33 AM
What I'd love to see is AI planes flying at lower throttles for most of the time and only going max rarely and for short periods, and more realistic restrictions than Il-2 on your plane so you can't max it out for a long period like in Il-2...we probably won't get that in COD but hopefully we do!

Bremspropeller
01-21-2011, 12:00 PM
Wasn't it the case that if you used emergency power,you had to report it,and the engine was checked/stripped?

In theory, yes.
In practice, things are often a lot different. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Engine-parts are not always avaliable and airplanes in-service might be more important to superriors than pilot-safety.

In operational use, it's not a queston if some pilot dies because of this, but when.
Airplanes have not always been as over-serviced as today's fighter-aircrft.

M_Gunz
01-21-2011, 12:39 PM
And we're right back to the old usual "I can find a chart to beat your chart" game. Of course it's 'justified' by 'the other side' doing the same damn thing!

Spitfire II report from a known Spit-friendly site: (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-II.html)

Signpost:

4.0 Level Speeds.

.......The top speed of this aeroplane is the same as that of N.3171 but is reached at 17,600 feet, 1400 feet lower than the Mk.I Spitfire. Consequent upon this and the increase in power of the Merlin XII over the Merlin III below full throttle height the aeroplane is about 6 - 7 miles per hour faster at heights less than 17,000 feet and about 4 - 8 m.p.h. slower at heights above 20,000 feet. It should be noted that though the boost pressure on the Merlin XII is +9 lb. per sq.inch as against +6 1/4 lb. per sq.inch on the Merlin III there is little difference in the engine power at heights of 16,000 feet and above.

Then look below at the climbing trials, high boost showing as 8.8 lb. sq. in. same as the Speed Trials below.


Deliveries of Spitfire IIs began in June 1940. No. 611 fully converted to Spitfire IIs in August 1940, thus being the first squadron to become fully operational with the type. Nos. 266 and 74 followed in early September, with Nos. 19 and 66 switching during the latter half of the month. In October, it was 41 and 603 squadrons turn, bringing to 7 the number of squadrons to fully equip with this varient during the Battle of Britain.

And here are the Pilot's Notes on Engine Limitations -- note 12.5 lb from Takeoff up to 1,000 ft. and 5 min +12 COMBAT. (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit2pnfs3.jpg)

Sure a lot of pilots went past the limits. A lot of pilots also ended up with engines quitting during or after such punishment.

OTOH I am sure that we see a lot of "there was once a 109 that..." tales.

JG53Frankyboy
01-21-2011, 03:12 PM
i know why i changed to flying bombers/assault planes in IL2 already some years ago and fighting for the missionwin in COOP online wars and will also flying bombers in CoD mainly..... i am to old for these "fightercharts"-bashings http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Bremspropeller
01-21-2011, 03:24 PM
+1 Franky

JG52Uther
01-21-2011, 04:07 PM
+2

Kurfurst__
01-21-2011, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I dont think the 109D, 109E-1 or E2 are appearing are they? I guess this is more 1939 than 1940, as is the Spitfire with the two bladed prop.

The E-1 is in, really it should be, as about 1/3 of the Emils were of these types. FM wise, it should be practically identical to the E-3, minus a couple of dozen kilograms. Personally I like that it was added very much, no sim AFAIK ever modelled it, its almost completely unknown, despite its significance.. not to to mention its probably great fun, tickling enemy fighters to death with those puny MGs and tons of ammo for them! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The E-2 was produced in tiny numbers, with an odd one or two being around.. no point having it. And the 109D was phased out already, you don't find those with fronline units anymore by the time of the BoB. A couple with night fighter units, yes, but their last 'major' use was over Poland, with about a hundred deployed (out of the 200 109s deployed there, so they were important back then). IMHO its a waste of modelling unless one wants to do some Poland/Spanish Civil war scenario with Jumo 109s.. you would need new model, new cocpit, vastly different FM, as the Jumo powered ones were *very* light and nimble in turns, but slow than even the Hurri..

IIRC we also have E-4 (probably because its easy to do, as its identical to the to E-3, only differing in firing better HE rounds from the cannons), but no E-7 (droptank option) or any of the 601N/100 octane powered Emils which were just as 'universal' during the Battle as 100 octane Spitfires for example. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif (yet, I am pretty sure though E-7/Ns will be one of the first addons, as they are great for France/North Africa 41 missions),

IMHO no 110C-x/N, which I find a bit of more a problem than the lack of 601N Emils.. it helps the 110 a lot more, as it gives it some edge over Hurris, speed wise, and makes things more interesting (fast plane vs manouverable plane).

Kurfurst__
01-21-2011, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by csThor:
Just curious ... what are the limits? I mean how long could +12lbs be extracted from the engine? I figure for 1940 this was causing a serious strain for the engine and I guess it had to be limited to just a few minutes.

5 limits the same, though Spitfire the History states that at +12 the engine life dropped from something like 100 hours to 10-20 hours (compared to +6.25), so it was actually an 'emergency' rating that really stressed the engine, not just a fancily named max. output. With Olegs new engine wear model, this will make some interesting choices from the pilot for sure..

Ratsack
01-21-2011, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by Daisan1981:
http://www.kurfurst.org/Perfor...Baubeschreibung.html (http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109E_Baubeschreibung/109E3_Baubeschreibung.html)
http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109E_Baubeschreibung/109E_Bau_speed.png That chart shows the top speeds to be 30-40 km/h higher from sea level up to 3,000 m. The speeds at critical alt look pretty much the same.

Kurfurst__
01-21-2011, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
That chart shows the top speeds to be 30-40 km/h higher from sea level up to 3,000 m. The speeds at critical alt look pretty much the same.

Actually if you look at it, the first chart (taken from the circa December 1939 short Emil description) tops out at about 550, this one (which is the actual specification of the 109E by manufacturer, with +/- 5% guaranteed tolerance on speed) at about 570.

Its has been suspected for some time (esp. when compared to the V15a trials with the Emil and the French captured E-3 tests, in obth cases the figures are known to be at full 5-min power as the reports clearly state) that the difference is due to that the 460/550 figure in the short Emil manual is for the 30-min power, and not for the 5-min actual max. This seem to be a fairly common practice in German manuals anyway.

To complicate things further, the Emil and the 110C had also a special 1-minute boosted emergency output, which added about 100 HP extra...

Ratsack
01-21-2011, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
That chart shows the top speeds to be 30-40 km/h higher from sea level up to 3,000 m. The speeds at critical alt look pretty much the same.

Actually if you look at it, the first chart (taken from the circa December 1939 short Emil description) tops out at about 550, this one (which is the actual specification of the 109E by manufacturer, with +/- 5% guaranteed tolerance on speed) at about 570. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You are correct. The data in the table on p. 1 of this thread tops out at 555 km/h. I skimmed it a few minutes ago and misread it as 575 km/h. My mistake.

I note that the climb times on that page are the same as those given in your site.

M_Gunz
01-21-2011, 05:35 PM
As much as the speeds are worth knowing, what high boost does to time aloft should have equal impact in-game. This is one area where DF may fall down badly.

leitmotiv
01-21-2011, 06:47 PM
Speaking of 109Es, the new 1:32 Dragon 109E appears to be the best 109E model ever made. What's your opinion, K?

http://www.network54.com/Forum...Bf-109E-4+progress.. (http://www.network54.com/Forum/47751/message/1295562706/More+1-32+Dragon+Bf-109E-4+progress..).

Kurfurst__
01-22-2011, 03:52 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
What's your opinion, K?

Actually I'm stuck with a Tamiya Tiger B project for the the last ca. 12 years. Meaning its 60% ready and ever since collecting dust. But this Emil looks brilliant in detail! The only thing I didn't like are the wing 'panel lines'. On the real thing the transitions-joints between the aluminium sheets on the wing are hardly visible even from up close, ditto for the flush riveting.. of course this is very hard to do on a scale model.

JG53Frankyboy
01-22-2011, 04:50 AM
we already ahd a nice topic about DB601N use during BoB here http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...321046295#8321046295 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/9551034295?r=8321046295#8321046295)

and actually, i dont think that the use in one Jägergruppe (109, leaving the single /N delivered to 'special' pilots beside http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) and 3 Zerstörergruppen (110) was the same amount like the use of the 12lb/sqin boost in the RAF fighterforce http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kurfurst__
01-22-2011, 12:59 PM
That's why I had the http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif put into the text. It was a bit tongue in cheek for those guys who use the word 'universal' very optimistically, when in fact we know very little about which stations received the high grade fuel in the first place.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

And yes I agree that until the automn the 601N 110 Gruppen (which initially had priority for these new engines) were far more significant than the 109 Gruppe. Of course it depends how one defines BoB, July-October or until May 1941. Especially as the 109 was already a good deal faster than the Hurricane with whatever engine, but the 110 could match the Spits and outspeed the Hurris only with the 601N.

M_Gunz
01-22-2011, 04:39 PM
So the battle to take Britain wasn't over when Hitler dropped the invasion plans and re-deployed the troops?

Sept 15th 1940, "We've had enough!" day!

leitmotiv
01-22-2011, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
What's your opinion, K?

Actually I'm stuck with a Tamiya Tiger B project for the the last ca. 12 years. Meaning its 60% ready and ever since collecting dust. But this Emil looks brilliant in detail! The only thing I didn't like are the wing 'panel lines'. On the real thing the transitions-joints between the aluminium sheets on the wing are hardly visible even from up close, ditto for the flush riveting.. of course this is very hard to do on a scale model. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the input, Kmeister. Yes, I am filling-in fake "panel lines" on airplane models. Hasegawa put so many on their 1:72 He 111H/P kits' fuselages they look like the armor plated dreadnoughts! The Heinkel was a very clean airplane.

thefruitbat
01-22-2011, 04:53 PM
most history books i've read tend to call july-oct the battle of britain.

most RAF pilot accounts (if not all) say they noticed no difference between october/november etc... still on ops, still fighting. a lot of them thought that there would be a lull for the winter, and come spring round 2 of the invasion attempt.

Kurfurst__
01-22-2011, 05:00 PM
Its a bit of a sidetrack to the discussion, but lets just say from the British viewpoint the Battle 'ended' in around September, or October when what they perceived as an immidiate threat of an invasion seem to have vanished, despite ever continuing LW attacks; from the German viewpoint, maintaining the threat of an invasion was merely one aspect of the strategy that aimed to neutralize Britain; either via political or military solution. The complexity of this strategy was far broader than just aiming to 'defeat the RAF'; it involved cutting British sea trade, applying political pressure, and waging a strategic air war against the British industry and stores and destroying the enemy air and naval force. All of these operations were running parallel to each other from the start of the battle, and merely the dominant tactics changed. Just read the Directives for the Wehrmacht, it was never a single goal of defeating the RAF. I guess this bit is coming from Dowding's fears for the fate of his own service which set the narrative in post-war British literature.

Personally I find the Continental/German view much more realistic, which considers the BoB as an air campaign between July 1940 - May 1941. IMHO the British viewpoint is too narrow in its focus, a legacy of the shock and panic after Dunkerque, that an ivasion may become a reality, and it holds a grip on the mindset strongly. After all, its a simple historical fact that there was no 'we had enough' day, they kept coming until May, when preparations for Op. Barbarossa called the bombers elsewhere.

thefruitbat
01-22-2011, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I dont think the 109D, 109E-1 or E2 are appearing are they? I guess this is more 1939 than 1940, as is the Spitfire with the two bladed prop.

The E-1 is in, really it should be, as about 1/3 of the Emils were of these types. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not saying your right or wrong here Kurfust, cause i don't know.

But was it really as low as 1/3 E1's? In Ulrich Steinhilper's book 'Spitfire on My Tail', he relates quite clearly that they JG52 didn't get there first cannon armed 109's until mid september (10th iirc, fenrirs got my copy at the moment so can't check), and then only 2, which were hand me downs from another unit.

So certainly JG52 was flying all E1's for most of the battle, and most within JG52 for all of the battle.

I'm guessing that wasn't the case for units such as JG26 with Gallands clout, and also JG51 with Molders influence.

stalkervision
01-22-2011, 05:21 PM
Kurf you have any thrust to weight figures for the 109 E3

compared to the Bob Spit 1 ?

leitmotiv
01-22-2011, 05:29 PM
Re the Spitfire IA:

These quotes from SPITFIRE by Leo McKinstry (Kindle ed., locations 80-90) express exactly what I thought of the marvelous A2A Spitfire I model for FSX, and, I hope the COD model is like it:

"It was so sensitive on the controls. There was no heaving or pulling or pushing or kicking. You breathed on it."

"If you wanted to turn, you just moved your hands slowly and she went. She was really the perfect flying machine."

George Unwin, 19 Squadron, Duxford

"I have no words worthy of describing the Spitfire. It was an aircraft quite out of this world. There was certainly no love/hate relationship between me and my Spitfires; there was only love on my account and not on one occasion did any of these aircraft let me down."

Wing Commander H.R. "Dizzy" Allen

The A2A FSX Spitfire I was doing what you needed it to do before you thought about it---the perfect fusion of man and machine.

Now, this is not to disparage the 109. In IL-2 I flew 109s as much as I flew Spitfires. And, I will not lie, when I was learning to "fly" with Oleg's very demanding models---compared to CFS2---it took me several months to cease smashing into the ground with the various 109s. I was absolutely pathetic. It was very satisfying to realize you finally "got it." The superb 109E-3 and E-4 models by A2A FOR FSX were harder to use than IL-2's. In fact, until I retired FSX, I was lucky to take off in their 109Es due to my inability to deal with the pull of the prop. Ploughman can attest to my "nearer my God to thee takeoffs."

The A2A FSX 109E was a much more difficult airplane to use than the A2A FSX Spitfire I. Until you were so used to its vicissitudes that your flying of it was intuitive, you had to fly it very consciously, as you had to do with the IL-2 109s. Especially when you were near the ground, you could not let yourself go or you would smear yourself all over the ground.

The A2A FSX Spitfire I was an airplane for those who love to fly. You could do beautiful things with it almost effortlessly. You were in complete union with the machine.

leitmotiv
01-22-2011, 05:35 PM
And, since our engines will now have a "history," as A2A pioneered with their most recent models, performance more than ever will depend on the user's skill, and on the maintenance of the airplane. If you try to fight on full boost at full throttle, you will blow out your engine and end up in an aluminum glider with oil all over your windscreen. The happy days of the fantasy engines of IL-2 are over.

A well-maintained Hurricane I with a new engine will surprise the hell out of a 109E or 110C pilot with worn out or mistreated-by-pilot engines. As in the real war, specs will be a rough guide---never take anything for granted!

hop2002
01-22-2011, 05:36 PM
But was it really as low as 1/3 E1's?

Hooton in Eagle in Flames gives the percentage losses of 109s by subtype:

July
E1 - 44%
E3 - 30%
E4 - 20%

August
E1 - 40%
E3 - 8%
E4 - 52%

September
E1 - 38%
E3 - 1%
E4 - 61%

October
E1 - 36%
E3 - 2%
E4 - 62%


Its a bit of a sidetrack to the discussion, but lets just say from the British viewpoint the Battle 'ended' in around September, or October when what they perceived as an immidiate threat of an invasion seem to have vanished, despite ever continuing LW attack

No, the British believed the battle of Britain was over because the Luftwaffe stopped trying to destroy the RAF.

Spitfire and Hurricane losses to all causes were 390 in August, 395 in September. Even October saw around 200 Spits and Hurris lost.

In November losses dropped to just 93 Spits and Hurris, only 44 in December.

leitmotiv
01-22-2011, 05:58 PM
The Ministry of Aircraft Production in the UK did a test of Hurricane Is during the Battle of Britain to see how well the standard modification in service at the time performed in comparison to Ministry specifications. As I recall most performed below specs and some significantly below, which shocked the people doing the report, but they were not taking into account the hundreds of factors which determine performance in an in-service airplane.

stalkervision
01-22-2011, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Re the Spitfire IA:

These quotes from SPITFIRE by Leo McKinstry (Kindle ed., locations 80-90) express exactly what I thought of the marvelous A2A Spitfire I model, and, I hope the COD model is like it:

"It was so sensitive on the controls. There was no heaving or pulling or pushing or kicking. You breathed on it."

"If you wanted to turn, you just moved your hands slowly and she went. She was really the perfect flying machine."

George Unwin, 19 Squadron, Duxford

"I have no words worthy of describing the Spitfire. It was an aircraft quite out of this world. There was certainly no love/hate relationship between me and my Spitfires; there was only love on my account and not on one occasion did any of these aircraft let me down."

Wing Commander H.R. "Dizzy" Allen

The A2A Spitfire I was doing what you needed it to do before you thought about it---the perfect fusion of man and machine.

Now, this is not to disparage the 109. In IL-2 I flew 109s as much as I flew Spitfires. And, I will not lie, when I was learning to "fly" with Oleg's very demanding models---compared to CFS2---it took me several months to cease smashing into the ground with the various 109s. I was absolutely pathetic. It was very satisfying to realize you finally "got it." The superb 109E-3 and E-4 models by A2A were harder to use than IL-2's. In fact, until I retired FSX, I was lucky to take off in their 109Es due to my inability to deal with the pull of the prop. Ploughman can attest to my "nearer my God to thee takeoffs."

The A2A 109E was a much more difficult airplane to use than the A2A Spitfire I. Until you were so used to its vicissitudes that your flying of it was intuitive, you had to fly it very consciously, as you had to do with the IL-2 109s. Especially when you were near the ground, you could not let yourself go or you would smear yourself all over the ground.

The A2A Spitfire I was an airplane for those who love to fly. You could do beautiful things with it almost effortlessly. You were in complete union with the machine.

Can't agree more with you leit.

Took me a long time to master the a2a 109 compared to the Spit.

Especially landing "the dragon lady.." http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

There is a point if you can make it which many of you won't where the Dragon Lady starts to purrr.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

IMO This why a lot of 109 pilots preferred her to the 190 I believe.

That is if this one flies at all as the a2a version which I have some very real doubts. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

http://img532.imageshack.us/img532/3097/shot087.jpg

leitmotiv
01-22-2011, 06:47 PM
Well, the two of us can really indulge in our peculiar fetish for the 110. I hope I can do half as well as Jabs, who made sport out of beating up Battle of Britain Spitfires, but I suspect most of the time I'll be "sleeping with the fishes."

leitmotiv
01-22-2011, 06:56 PM
Doesn't hurt to have a Battle of Britain "reality check"---there was no game about 1940 to those who were there:

I was simply frightened that we should lose. It was perfectly straightforward fear, instinctive and direct. The summer of 1940 was an agony for me: I thought that the betting was 5:1 against us.... I felt that, as long as I lived, I should remember walking along Whitehall in the pitiless and taunting sun ... in the bright and terrible summer of 1940.

from the novel THE LIGHT AND THE DARK, C.P. Snow

stalkervision
01-22-2011, 07:20 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Well, the two of us can really indulge in our peculiar fetish for the 110. I hope I can do half as well as Jabs, who made sport out of beating up Battle of Britain Spitfires, but I suspect most of the time I'll be "sleeping with the fishes."

I was pretty good with that crate at one time but I fear I will be joining you. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

leitmotiv
01-22-2011, 07:37 PM
A2A's Battle of Britain sim is a very fine thing.

stalkervision
01-22-2011, 07:46 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
A2A's Battle of Britain sim is a very fine thing.

Yes indeed. If we could import the Ai and Fm's of A2A into "Cliffs of Dover" I believe it would be the finest flight combat sim of all time.

Sadly I believe Oleg once said the Il-2 versions of these were just fine. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

leitmotiv
01-22-2011, 08:43 PM
I didn't say in the original post that I was referring to the A2A Spitfire I and 109E-3/4 models for FSX which might differ from the A2A models for their Battle of Britain sim.

M_Gunz
01-22-2011, 08:58 PM
Just when did the bombing attacks switch from mainly day to mainly night?

For the British there is a difference between the BoB and the Blitz. During the BoB there was some chance of invasion. The RAF dropped bombs on Berlin yet there was no 1940-41 Battle of Berlin. That honor went to Russia in 1945. Perhaps they should celebrate their own 'BoB'?

leitmotiv
01-22-2011, 10:39 PM
The first large night attack was the night after the large pounding given to Docklands during the day on 7 September 1940. Bombers returned and poured more on the fires, but what was known as the Blitz, the concentrated night attacks started in October 1940 and quickly raised in tempo. Coventry's center was burned out on 14 November, and the City of London was burned out on the 29 December 1940. The Germans had started night raids on the UK as early as June 1940 using small numbers of aircraft. KGr100 using Knickebein carried out a successful raid on a factory in the summer of 1940. They later were the pathfinders for the major night bombing campaign, along with KG55, and III/KG26. The worst raid on London occurred on 10 May 1941 right before the Luftwaffe was redirected east against Russia. The worst raids were in the winter/spring of 1941. Plymouth was flattened, for example. By May, the Beaufighters were starting to take a bite out of the German night bomber force. At the start of the Blitz, the Germans had it all their own way because the Beaufighters were not available in numbers, and they were not being efficiently handled by the ground controllers. British flak was good for morale and that was it. The potent radar-directed flak of 1944 was not in place.

Cassell's published a good history of the Blitz about ten years ago, but I can't find it, and my copy is in storage.

This new history looks good:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Blitz-...id=1295761025&sr=1-1 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Blitz-British-Under-Attack/dp/0007240775/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1295761025&sr=1-1)

New book on the 7 September raid:

http://www.amazon.com/First-Da...id=1295762310&sr=1-4 (http://www.amazon.com/First-Day-Blitz-September-1940/dp/0300143354/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1295762310&sr=1-4)

These are the best in English on the Blitz:

http://www.amazon.com/Blitz-Th...0&colid=AS92JYLREFJ1 (http://www.amazon.com/Blitz-Then-Now-September-1939/dp/0900913452/ref=wl_it_dp_o?ie=UTF8&coliid=I115F2RXP00KT0&colid=AS92JYLREFJ1)

http://www.amazon.com/Blitz-Th...eg_hu-rd_add_1_dp_T2 (http://www.amazon.com/Blitz-Then-Now-After-Battle/dp/0900913541/ref=reg_hu-rd_add_1_dp_T2)

And here is a new item about the Luftwaffe side:

http://www.amazon.com/Luftwaff...id=1295763035&sr=1-1 (http://www.amazon.com/Luftwaffes-Blitz-November-1940-may-Consign/dp/0859791483/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1295763035&sr=1-1)

Kurfurst__
01-23-2011, 02:31 AM
Originally posted by thefruitbat:
But was it really as low as 1/3 E1's? In Ulrich Steinhilper's book 'Spitfire on My Tail', he relates quite clearly that they JG52 didn't get there first cannon armed 109's until mid september (10th iirc, fenrirs got my copy at the moment so can't check), and then only 2, which were hand me downs from another unit.

I have some actual numbers. On 31 August 1940, fighter units (excluding JG 77) reported 375 E-1s, 125 E-3s, 339 E-4s and 32 E-7s on strength, indicating that most of the E-3s had been already converted to E-4 standard. JG 77 had around 100-125 aircraft with it, but for the rest of the units, its 75% cannon E-3/4/7, the rest are all MG E-1s. The E-1 and E-3 were produced parallel and in about equal numbers from the end of 1938, but by mid-1940, the production of the E-1 stopped, replaced by the E-4 and then the E-7.


Originally posted by stalkervision:
Kurf you have any thrust to weight figures for the 109 E3 compared to the Bob Spit 1 ?

Well let's see:


E-1: 2573 kg for takeoff, plus some 40 kg armor plate = 2613 kg
E-3: 2608 kg for takeoff, plus some 40 kg armor plate = 2648 kg
Spit I, w. CSP, fuel and pilot armor = 2780 kg

Engine powers are slightly different, the Emil had several engine types:

601A-1 5 min (1 min boost): 990 (1100) PS at SL/4.5km, 1050 (1150) PS at peak (ca. 1-2000 m), 1025 PS for 4.5 km for E-1, E-3, E-4
601Aa 5 min (1 min boost): 1050 (1175) PS at SL, 1100 (1225) PS at peak, 1100 at 3.7 km for E-7 and E-x/B
601N 5 min : 1175 PS at SL, 1260 PS at peak, for E-x/N types, 1175 at 5km

Merlin 3, 5 min (5 min +12 boost): ca. 880 (1190)HP at SL, peak 1050 at ca. 5km (1300 at ca. 3 km)


Originally posted by M gunz:
Just when did the bombing attacks switch from mainly day to mainly night?

I would say in October, but it was never clear cut. Hooton has some figures, I am going to ignore them up to Adlertag, because there were so little going on, and the air offensive has not started yet (for example, in July 2-300 daytime and 1-150 nighttime LW bomber sorties were flown per week, inc. Stukas). During Adlertag week, it went 1650D/500N per week, the next week 750D/425N, but then between 26 Aug - 1 Sept 875D/1050N, then in the following week again more daytime work: 1225D/800N, then roughly equal until September. I guess it depended a lot on weather, too. In the first week of October, it was 575D/950N

but in the whole October, it was 2300 by Day and 5900 by Night
November, 925D/6125N,
December, 650D/3450N
Jan 675/2050N
Feb, 500/1450N
March, 800/4275N
April, 800/5250N
May 200/3800N

A point though is that by that time, daytime bombing losses also dropped significantly in the period: 204 bombers lost in 6850 October-May daytime sorites, a loss rate of only 2.9% (Night: 32300 sorties, 314 losses, 0.9%, and even those were almost all accidents), far lower than in August/September daylight.

ICDP
01-23-2011, 05:14 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
I didn't say in the original post that I was referring to the A2A Spitfire I and 109E-3/4 models for FSX which might differ from the A2A models for their Battle of Britain sim.

http://www.a2asimulations.com/...pic.php?f=23&t=23359 (http://www.a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=23359)

The A2A Spitfire is being updated with AccuSim and is close to release going by this link. Maybe we could get some Merlin engine management practice in before Il-2 CoD is released.

leitmotiv
01-23-2011, 05:37 AM
Thanks for the alert, ICDP. I wish FSX was still on my puter. Methinks I prematurely retired it. AccuSim is the greatest thing that ever happened to flight simming. The things you learn about engine use from flying the AccuSim P-47 can't be touched anywhere else. Oleg will have his work cut out for him to equal the solid gold of an AccuSim Spitfire I.

I just was bowled over. They finally redid the He 219 for FSX. That airplane was my absolute favorite for FS9, and I liked it better than any airplane in IL-2. I think I'm going to have to get FSX back on my puter.

http://www.a2asimulations.com/

leitmotiv
01-23-2011, 05:47 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
I would say in October, but it was never clear cut. Hooton has some figures, I am going to ignore them up to Adlertag, because there were so little going on, and the air offensive has not started yet (for example, in July 2-300 daytime and 1-150 nighttime LW bomber sorties were flown per week, inc. Stukas). During Adlertag week, it went 1650D/500N per week, the next week 750D/425N, but then between 26 Aug - 1 Sept 875D/1050N, then in the following week again more daytime work: 1225D/800N, then roughly equal until September. I guess it depended a lot on weather, too. In the first week of October, it was 575D/950N

but in the whole October, it was 2300 by Day and 5900 by Night
November, 925D/6125N,
December, 650D/3450N
Jan 675/2050N
Feb, 500/1450N
March, 800/4275N
April, 800/5250N
May 200/3800N

A point though is that by that time, daytime bombing losses also dropped significantly in the period: 204 bombers lost in 6850 October-May daytime sorites, a loss rate of only 2.9% (Night: 32300 sorties, 314 losses, 0.9%, and even those were almost all accidents), far lower than in August/September daylight.

Of course the Germans drastically changed their bombing techniques after the mid-September mass brawls over London. They tried escorting small groups of bombers with huge fighter escorts, or sending over mass formations of 109 fighter-bombers at high altitude to snooker the RAF into attacking an all-fighter force. Ju 88 Gruppen were sending over ketten or even single aircraft at low level in bad weather to strike priority targets. One of the most successful Ju 88 attacks of the time period was delivered by a small number carrying big bombs against a priority target. Tactically, the Germans were constantly innovating.

In '78 I met a Ju 88A pilot who only flew mining missions outside of British ports. He was still a nervous wreck from the missions.

Bremspropeller
01-23-2011, 05:52 AM
"If you wanted to turn, you just moved your hands slowly and she went. She was really the perfect flying machine."


Wow! Just like any other flying machine there is.
Truly a special design!

Or is it? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

thefruitbat
01-23-2011, 06:04 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thefruitbat:
But was it really as low as 1/3 E1's? In Ulrich Steinhilper's book 'Spitfire on My Tail', he relates quite clearly that they JG52 didn't get there first cannon armed 109's until mid september (10th iirc, fenrirs got my copy at the moment so can't check), and then only 2, which were hand me downs from another unit.

I have some actual numbers. On 31 August 1940, fighter units (excluding JG 77) reported 375 E-1s, 125 E-3s, 339 E-4s and 32 E-7s on strength, indicating that most of the E-3s had been already converted to E-4 standard. JG 77 had around 100-125 aircraft with it, but for the rest of the units, its 75% cannon E-3/4/7, the rest are all MG E-1s. The E-1 and E-3 were produced parallel and in about equal numbers from the end of 1938, but by mid-1940, the production of the E-1 stopped, replaced by the E-4 and then the E-7.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

thanks a lot for posting, very interesting.

Xiolablu3
01-23-2011, 07:29 AM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
A2A's Battle of Britain sim is a very fine thing.

Yes indeed. If we could import the Ai and Fm's of A2A into "Cliffs of Dover" I believe it would be the finest flight combat sim of all time.

Sadly I believe Oleg once said the Il-2 versions of these were just fine. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

(Raises Hand) I strongly disagree, and I suspect many here will do too. Il2 had the most reaslistic flight models in any combat sim I have tried. Thats all I will say, dont want to take this interesting thread off topic.

leitmotiv
01-23-2011, 07:32 AM
BOBII was good in its day but it does not have the detail, in every respect, of COD. I preferred the latest incarnation of BOBII to IL-2 but IL-2 is not COD.

Xiolablu3
01-23-2011, 07:52 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
BOBII was good in its day but it does not have the detail, in every respect, of COD. I preferred the latest incarnation of BOBII to IL-2 but IL-2 is not COD.

And thats your perogative, Liet. I totally respect your opinion and no doubt some do prefer BOB2. However I was just clarifying that not everyone agrees with what Stalker posted regarding these two sims.

I certainly prefer IL2's wide scope, variety and flight models.

leitmotiv
01-23-2011, 08:16 AM
I still have IL-2 on my HD and look forward to the new authorized additions. It has BOBII nailed on variety, and in looks. The level of research into the FMs might exceed Oleg's equivalents in IL-2 (of course there is no Oleg Spitfire I or a true BOB Hurricane I). BOBII is a very rare labor of love.

M_Gunz
01-23-2011, 09:01 AM
I dunno just how much accuracy FS9, FSX or BOBII are capable of beyond number-matching. But then IL2 is limited by not having 3D mass distribution which FSX might. If the game engine can't do 2nd order motions then it's not going to beat IL2 no matter what they call it.

stalkervision
01-23-2011, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
A2A's Battle of Britain sim is a very fine thing.

Yes indeed. If we could import the Ai and Fm's of A2A into "Cliffs of Dover" I believe it would be the finest flight combat sim of all time.

Sadly I believe Oleg once said the Il-2 versions of these were just fine. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

(Raises Hand) I strongly disagree, and I suspect many here will do too. Il2 had the most reaslistic flight models in any combat sim I have tried. Thats all I will say, dont want to take this interesting thread off topic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

have you flown the other Xiolablu3 ?

stalkervision
01-23-2011, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
I still have IL-2 on my HD and look forward to the new authorized additions. It has BOBII nailed on variety, and in looks. The level of research into the FMs might exceed Oleg's equivalents in IL-2 (of course there is no Oleg Spitfire I or a true BOB Hurricane I). BOBII is a very rare labor of love.

You have to fly it as both Leit and I know to really know what we are talking about and more then just a few times that's for certain. The AI and flight models in BOB 2 have been constantly improved and updated where the il-2 versions have not. The community have owners have had a big hand in this giving in personal info that has actually been listened to.

The planes feel alive. Sadly the 109 in Il-2 just feels numb to me on the stick. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

I've done back and forth comparisons and there is no doubt about it.

The graphics aren't nearly as good as Il-2 but even this has been worked on and improved vastly.

The only trouble is you need a real beast of a computer to get the most out of them. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

The merlin engine in the game doesn't take any shortcuts displaying these graphics where Il-2 has always had superior coding to do this.

Oleg is really some coding expert I can tell you. Hope the new game is like the first old version of IL-2 in that respect.

I could actually fly the original Il-2 on one of my oldest computers very well where as BOB wouldn't work at all well.

leitmotiv
01-23-2011, 09:45 AM
It's a very rare item. Might never see anything like it again in this industry where a company allowed enthusiasts for a historical period to bring a design to the highest level of accuracy they could achieve with the engine. It was unique for its time, but Oleg has ambitions to do this on a grand scale for all of the war. COD appears to be an incredibly impressive start. I hope his vision of a universal system which could be used for air, land, and sea war modeling comes to fruition. I'd like a big warship sim done Maddox style.

stalkervision
01-23-2011, 09:52 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
It's a very rare item. Might never see anything like it again in this industry where a company allowed enthusiasts for a historical period to bring a design to the highest level of accuracy they could achieved with the engine. It was unique for its time, but Oleg has ambitions to do this on a grand scale for all of the war. COD appears to be an incredibly impressive start. I hope his vision of a universal system which could be used for air, land, and sea war modeling comes to fruition.

I can't agree more leit.

I really wish us gamers will eventually have a bit of a say in COD's AI and flight models like we did at BOB2

That's the only thing I fear.

That and what computer I need to get to run it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

stalkervision
01-23-2011, 09:54 AM
BTW thanks Kurf for the 109 e3 and spit 1 info. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

leitmotiv
01-23-2011, 10:05 AM
This is a bloody expensive hobby and times are tight for me, for all of us. If only it had arrived when money was not so tight. I hate to say it, but I can see the day when it might be only a rich person's hobby. Spending a thou or more on game puter upgrades every year is ridiculous. I spent two in 2009 (+ another on my Apple computer), and now more will be needed for COD. I am groaning.

raaaid
01-23-2011, 10:13 AM
i have a 2ghz double chip 2 giga of ram and an nvidia 8500 gt and run xp

will i be able to run cod even at the minimum?

i want no eye candy just be able to fly it

will i be able? an upgrade is out of the question with a 2 or 3 years old pc which works perfectly

hop2002
01-23-2011, 10:26 AM
On 31 August 1940, fighter units (excluding JG 77) reported 375 E-1s, 125 E-3s, 339 E-4s and 32 E-7s on strength, indicating that most of the E-3s had been already converted to E-4 standard. JG 77 had around 100-125 aircraft with it, but for the rest of the units, its 75% cannon E-3/4/7, the rest are all MG E-1s.

Interesting. It seems the proportion of E1s was even higher than losses would indicate. I make it 871 109s excluding JG 77, 43% E1s, 57% cannon armed E3, 4 and 7s.

stalkervision
01-23-2011, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
This is a bloody expensive hobby and times are tight for me, for all of us. If only it had arrived when money was not so tight. I hate to say it, but I can see the day when it might be only a rich person's hobby. Spending a thou or more on game puter upgrades every year is ridiculous. I spent two in 2009 (+ another on my Apple computer), and now more will be needed for COD. I am groaning.

I agree completely with you. I'm in the same boat. Upgrading my system every few years is just too darn expensive.

M_Gunz
01-23-2011, 01:51 PM
Back in the 90's Dynamix and then Sierra-Dynamix worked with the community to bring about the best historic flight possible, etc, even to the point of hiring net-liason people to help with the -constant- interaction. They set up in multiple forums and opened one of their own. They openly recruited betas from them. Yet those who missed that still go around telling about how unique it is that Oleg did something along those lines even to this day. Hey! It didn't start when you were net-born!

The fun part is when people who never flew a plane in their life and don't know how they should except for simulations how it should be make the decisions of what is real or not! We had a guy who had most of us fooled because he expected that once the engine is shut off the planes should glide straight. The dev team said nothing perhaps because at that point they had lost everyone who knew better due to inner corporate battles.

When I read from actual competition aerobatics pilots about different sims, I take them over Johnny Joystick and his feelings every time.

Xiolablu3
01-24-2011, 03:35 AM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
This is a bloody expensive hobby and times are tight for me, for all of us. If only it had arrived when money was not so tight. I hate to say it, but I can see the day when it might be only a rich person's hobby. Spending a thou or more on game puter upgrades every year is ridiculous. I spent two in 2009 (+ another on my Apple computer), and now more will be needed for COD. I am groaning.

I agree completely with you. I'm in the same boat. Upgrading my system every few years is just too darn expensive. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You two need to learn how to upgrade yourself.
you dont need to buy a new computer every few years. And certainly not spend £1000 at a time.

Oh and I played BOB2 quite a bit, of course nowhere near the time I have played IL2 multiplayer. To be honest, once I had played multiplayer, single player seemed a little dull. Feels a bit like playing one of those chess games against the computer rather than a real person. Good for testing and practice I guess.

I am sure you will remember that one of my hates was that 8x.303 seemed as strong as the Bf109's 20mm. Rather than a realistic damagemodel, where you may get lucky and hit something vital - or not, BOB2 seemed a bit like 'just hammer the plane and eventually after a given amount of time it will go down'. I didnt see much difference between the two (actually very different IRL) armaments of the two main fighters. This was just one of the things I felt was slightly lacking.

Still a excellent game IMO but not up to IL2's quality and scope. IMHO BOB2 is the 2nd best WW2 combat sim available. I certainly found BOB2's damagemodel better than Wings Of Prey, the weapons and damagemodel felt really wierd in that game to me. Did anyone else get that?

[Sorry for going more off topic] I will not answer on this topic again concerning anything else than the thread title.

leitmotiv
01-24-2011, 08:32 AM
$2000 upgrade to play ROF and I still need much more RAM which I, skinflint that I am, have not bought. I am not a computer technician so my upgrades involve paying somebody who is technical to do the job.

Those who had gripe with ye olde BOBII almost always never used the final incarnation of it which also had the France 1940 addition. BOBII had more permutations than Madonna. The France 1940 addition had some very wild scenarios, and BOBII's vastly superior (to IL-2) AI came to fore. Your opponent engaged in truly wild vertical tactics, especially the 109, which gave players a really good run for their money even against a machine. One thing COD could benefit from having from BOBII was its outstanding AI.

Kurfurst__
01-24-2011, 10:06 AM
I don't guys, but in the last two years I've spent something 350 USD on performance upgrades.. granted its not top spec system, but its good enough for my purposes.. an AMD 7750 dual core, 2 Gigs of RAM and a GT 220. You have to do it smart, read some test, and don't go for the immensely expensive top notch hardware. What for, this configs works for me.. Add another 175 bucks for HDDs and I don't really feel a pressing need for an upgrade. Granted, I don't run either BoB II or ROF..

Ba5tard5word
01-24-2011, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
i have a 2ghz double chip 2 giga of ram and an nvidia 8500 gt and run xp

will i be able to run cod even at the minimum?

i want no eye candy just be able to fly it

will i be able? an upgrade is out of the question with a 2 or 3 years old pc which works perfectly

Possibly you could fly it on low settings if it's optimized well but that is a really weak graphics card.

stalkervision
01-24-2011, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
$2000 upgrade to play ROF and I still need much more RAM which I, skinflint that I am, have not bought. I am not a computer technician so my upgrades involve paying somebody who is technical to do the job.

Those who had gripe with ye olde BOBII almost always never used the final incarnation of it which also had the France 1940 addition. BOBII had more permutations than Madonna. The France 1940 addition had some very wild scenarios, and BOBII's vastly superior (to IL-2) AI came to fore. Your opponent engaged in truly wild vertical tactics, especially the 109, which gave players a really good run for their money even against a machine. One thing COD could benefit from having from BOBII was its outstanding AI.

So true. The updated bob versions are vastly superior to even versions of BOB a few times removed from the recent one.

and yes computer upgrading is getting way out of hand.

You have to be a computer geek to do any major upgrades on the cheap.

I'm far from one either

A little secret. I had more then a little hand advising Buddye the resident a2a programing genius on those 109 ai vertical maneuvers. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

Oleg if your watching can you please please hire buddye ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

leitmotiv
01-24-2011, 11:40 AM
In which case you did really damned good work, SV, because the most fun I ever had battling AI was in Spitfires chasing yo-yo-ing 109s in BOBII. It was amazing. Literally exhilarating!

stalkervision
01-24-2011, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
In which case you did really damned good work, SV, because the most fun I ever had battling AI was in Spitfires chasing yo-yo-ing 109s in BOBII. It was amazing. Literally exhilarating!

Yup, I was the adviser on that project. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

A very minor thing.

Buddye is a true genius here to take my advice and implement it the way he did.

The guy is a programing genius there is no doubt.

Xiolablu3
01-24-2011, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
In which case you did really damned good work, SV, because the most fun I ever had battling AI was in Spitfires chasing yo-yo-ing 109s in BOBII. It was amazing. Literally exhilarating!

Yup, I was the adviser on that project. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

A very minor thing.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahh, I always wondered why you were so manically pro BOB2 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

M_Gunz
01-24-2011, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
You have to be a computer geek to do any major upgrades on the cheap.

There are and have been many sites that show step by step what to do. Occasionally there's a PC magazine showing all. The hardest part is picking out which PC-lego blocks to get and use.

stalkervision
01-24-2011, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
In which case you did really damned good work, SV, because the most fun I ever had battling AI was in Spitfires chasing yo-yo-ing 109s in BOBII. It was amazing. Literally exhilarating!

Yup, I was the adviser on that project. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

A very minor thing.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahh, I always wondered why you were so manically pro BOB2 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, just proud of what me and buddye accomplished with the 109 ai.

I wanted to go even farther and make a real killer ai for the Dragon Lady but it would have scared the crap right out of many a spit driver. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Buddye wisely pulled back from that level of german evilness. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

stalkervision
01-24-2011, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
You have to be a computer geek to do any major upgrades on the cheap.

There are and have been many sites that show step by step what to do. Occasionally there's a PC magazine showing all. The hardest part is picking out which PC-lego blocks to get and use. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know i have been through them all. damn even thinking about it gives me a headache now. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

leitmotiv
01-24-2011, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
I don't guys, but in the last two years I've spent something 350 USD on performance upgrades.. granted its not top spec system, but its good enough for my purposes.. an AMD 7750 dual core, 2 Gigs of RAM and a GT 220. You have to do it smart, read some test, and don't go for the immensely expensive top notch hardware. What for, this configs works for me.. Add another 175 bucks for HDDs and I don't really feel a pressing need for an upgrade. Granted, I don't run either BoB II or ROF..

I was doing fine until I got it in my head to get ROF in '09, K, and this little exercise required a brand new, top of the line Intel processor, and other stuff to have the airplanes move instead of seeing a slow slide show. Turned out ROF was not even comparable to the kinds of flight sims we like. It is basically a pretty, gamer-driven, gaming-oriented toy without the rigorous attitude (more-or-less) of Oleg's philosophy. Doubt if it will remain on my HD.

Ba5tard5word
01-24-2011, 04:12 PM
I got a computer with an i7 920, 6GB of RAM, a 500GB hard drive and a GTX 260 almost 2 years ago for $1400 from Ibuypower. You could get something similar with a 460, a newer processor, a bigger hard drive and a more current i7 for around $1000 today. Not dirt cheap but a hell of a lot less than getting something similar from Dell or HP and not much more than if I'd bought the parts individually and put them together. It's been a great computer, so no you don't have to spend totally outrageous amounts of money for a good gaming computer, just somewhat outrageous.

Though a few months ago I got a GTX 470 for $250 because the 260 was having some problems with newer games, everything works like a charm. Hopefully it's good for COD.

Messaschnitzel
01-24-2011, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
I was doing fine until I got it in my head to get ROF in '09, K, and this little exercise required a brand new, top of the line Intel processor, and other stuff to have the airplanes move instead of seeing a slow slide show. Turned out ROF was not even comparable to the kinds of flight sims we like. It is basically a pretty, gamer-driven, gaming-oriented toy without the rigorous attitude (more-or-less) of Oleg's philosophy. Doubt if it will remain on my HD.

That's terrible to hear. I remember you and others really looking forward to playing the game when it came out. I played the demo, but even though it was graphically impressive, I got bored with it after a short while.

Well, look on the bright side where your upgrade will hopefully allow you to run Cliffs of Dover.

M_Gunz
01-24-2011, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by Ba5tard5word:
I got a computer with an i7 920, 6GB of RAM, a 500GB hard drive and a GTX 260 almost 2 years ago for $1400 from Ibuypower. You could get something similar with a 460, a newer processor, a bigger hard drive and a more current i7 for around $1000 today. Not dirt cheap but a hell of a lot less than getting something similar from Dell or HP and not much more than if I'd bought the parts individually and put them together. It's been a great computer, so no you don't have to spend totally outrageous amounts of money for a good gaming computer, just somewhat outrageous.

Though a few months ago I got a GTX 470 for $250 because the 260 was having some problems with newer games, everything works like a charm. Hopefully it's good for COD.

Will your mobo support the newer CPU?

Some people buy 'the leading edge' hardware. For what they pay, the correct term is 'bleeding edge'.

Ba5tard5word
01-24-2011, 05:54 PM
Sandy Bridge? I have no idea. I have a P6T mobo, I think I'd need a new one. I'm not really thrilled about the idea of replacing the cpu because it has a cooler unit bolted on top of it, though removing it and reinstalling it on a new mobo and moving the RAM and doing all the other rearrangements is probably easier than I think it would be, though I also don't really want to spend another $350 any time soon because I have some crushing dental bills I need to pay soon.

M_Gunz
01-24-2011, 07:15 PM
ASUS makes a P6T.. I find when I google P6T;


LGA1366 Intel® Bloomfield Processor Ready

This motherboard supports the latest Intel® Bloomfield processors in LGA1366 package which has memory controller integrated to support 3-channel (6 DIMMs) DDR3 memory. Support Intel(R) QuickPath Interconnect (QPI) with system bus up to 6.4GT/s and a max bandwidth of up to 25.6GB/s. Intel® Bloomfield processor is one of the most powerful and energy efficient CPU in the world.

I see from searching on bloomfield lga1366 that they go up at least to the I7-975 which run to 3.33Gz as compared to your now 920 at 2.67Gz. So yeah, you got room for expansion right there but OUCH! the price! $784 at Amazon, over $1000 some places. That's Intel for ya!

ADD: oh I see the Sandy Bridge CPUs are much cheaper for the same clock speed. Makes me wonder what's missing given the 'old stuff' isn't at huge discount. OTOH at pricewatch I see whole I7-975 PC's (ready for upgrade http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif ) on sale for just over $1000.

leitmotiv
01-25-2011, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by Messaschnitzel:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
I was doing fine until I got it in my head to get ROF in '09, K, and this little exercise required a brand new, top of the line Intel processor, and other stuff to have the airplanes move instead of seeing a slow slide show. Turned out ROF was not even comparable to the kinds of flight sims we like. It is basically a pretty, gamer-driven, gaming-oriented toy without the rigorous attitude (more-or-less) of Oleg's philosophy. Doubt if it will remain on my HD.

That's terrible to hear. I remember you and others really looking forward to playing the game when it came out. I played the demo, but even though it was graphically impressive, I got bored with it after a short while.

Well, look on the bright side where your upgrade will hopefully allow you to run Cliffs of Dover. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It had a lot of promise but it has just become an aerial shooter. I like bombers. Only recently did two come along. There will be no southern UK map so there will not be a very interesting "1st Blitz" Gotha campaign against the British defenses. Bombers are in the game as targets. The designers indifference to the absurdity of the "belt fed Lewis Gun" in the game is classic. Do you think Oleg would have made a compromise like that?

They have a vastly different design philosophy from Oleg's, and one which bores me to death. Live and Learn.

leitmotiv
01-25-2011, 11:17 AM
Re Spitfires and 109s---recall the top scoring Allied pilot, the Czech Josef Frantisek, flew a Hurricane. Bader and Tuck flew the Hurricane. The Poles flew the Hurricane and wreaked havoc with it. Spitfires are sweet, but you have to cut it in a Hurricane to demonstrate the right stuff. As for 109s, the great 110 pilot, Jabs, shot down a number of Spitfires in his 110C in the Battle. If you can show talent in the 110, you are really good.

Ba5tard5word
01-25-2011, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
ASUS makes a P6T.. I find when I google P6T;

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">LGA1366 Intel® Bloomfield Processor Ready

This motherboard supports the latest Intel® Bloomfield processors in LGA1366 package which has memory controller integrated to support 3-channel (6 DIMMs) DDR3 memory. Support Intel(R) QuickPath Interconnect (QPI) with system bus up to 6.4GT/s and a max bandwidth of up to 25.6GB/s. Intel® Bloomfield processor is one of the most powerful and energy efficient CPU in the world.

I see from searching on bloomfield lga1366 that they go up at least to the I7-975 which run to 3.33Gz as compared to your now 920 at 2.67Gz. So yeah, you got room for expansion right there but OUCH! the price! $784 at Amazon, over $1000 some places. That's Intel for ya!

ADD: oh I see the Sandy Bridge CPUs are much cheaper for the same clock speed. Makes me wonder what's missing given the 'old stuff' isn't at huge discount. OTOH at pricewatch I see whole I7-975 PC's (ready for upgrade http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif ) on sale for just over $1000. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So...I'd need a new mobo for sandy bridge right? Again not something I'm looking forward to, I need a bunch of expensive crowns on some of my teeth. I'll be lucky to afford to get COD...!!!

Yeah that is weird though about sandy bridge chips being so cheap and the older big-money i7's still being expensive. People are gushing over the SB chips are but are they indeed leaving something out that the i7's had? If I spent the $350 on an SB chip and its mobo would I get a performance increase generally?

In any case we'll have to see how COD does on these multi-core cpu's, I'm sure it will be better on some than others and there will be some weird discrepancies like it not working as well with certain powerful cpu's and gpu's compared to others.

stalkervision
01-25-2011, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Re Spitfires and 109s---recall the top scoring Allied pilot, the Czech Josef Frantisek, flew a Hurricane. Bader and Tuck flew the Hurricane. The Poles flew the Hurricane and wreaked havoc with it. Spitfires are sweet, but you have to cut it in a Hurricane to demonstrate the right stuff. As for 109s, the great 110 pilot, Jabs, shot down a number of Spitfires in his 110C in the Battle. If you can show talent in the 110, you are really good.

I like the Hurricane over the spitfire. It has loads of character and it's a very solid platform for taking out german bombers.

So true about the 110. If you can fly that beast and win you can fly anything. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

leitmotiv
01-25-2011, 01:27 PM
110s are not for prancing nancies.

Ba5tard5word
01-25-2011, 01:32 PM
I love the 110, its engine cowlings are so sexy for one thing. Oh yeah. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif It's definitely fun fighting Hurricanes in them, you only get one pass but at least with the later versions with cannons all you need is one decent burst. They're also great fun to use against bombers. I made a mission where it was 4 110's against something like 20 Swordfishes...fish in a barrel!

That's another thing, what would top speeds of the 110's we should see in COD at sea level and at combat altitude be and will they have an advantage against Hurris?

JG53Frankyboy
01-25-2011, 02:03 PM
the only chance you will have in a 110 is that you can ambush the enemy and prey that no enemy fighter is with a better energie status around you...............

it is a little bit faster at height and can accelerate like a stone in a DIVE.
and if you are able to hit your fow , the two 20mm (sure to be releoaded by the reargunner after 60 rounds !!!) canons and the 4 MG17 CAN be lethal.

climb, turn, roll, horicontal acceleration is far inferiour to the Hurricane Mk.I, you are a big , helpless, almost (if at all) not armoured target for the 8x.303cals.
And a Hurricane Mk.I with 12lb/sqin boost,at least, will have sure no proplem to catch a 110 below 10.000ft..........
and the reargunner MG15 is no real help.

it will be a bloody business, as it was in real over the UK !!

M_Gunz
01-25-2011, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by Ba5tard5word:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
ASUS makes a P6T.. I find when I google P6T;

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">LGA1366 Intel® Bloomfield Processor Ready

This motherboard supports the latest Intel® Bloomfield processors in LGA1366 package which has memory controller integrated to support 3-channel (6 DIMMs) DDR3 memory. Support Intel(R) QuickPath Interconnect (QPI) with system bus up to 6.4GT/s and a max bandwidth of up to 25.6GB/s. Intel® Bloomfield processor is one of the most powerful and energy efficient CPU in the world.

I see from searching on bloomfield lga1366 that they go up at least to the I7-975 which run to 3.33Gz as compared to your now 920 at 2.67Gz. So yeah, you got room for expansion right there but OUCH! the price! $784 at Amazon, over $1000 some places. That's Intel for ya!

ADD: oh I see the Sandy Bridge CPUs are much cheaper for the same clock speed. Makes me wonder what's missing given the 'old stuff' isn't at huge discount. OTOH at pricewatch I see whole I7-975 PC's (ready for upgrade http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif ) on sale for just over $1000. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You probably have plenty enough PC to run CoD even if not maxed out. Wait a while and the faster I7's should drop in price, the 3.3G 975 is 25% faster than your 2.6 920 so you can gain that much even when the price falls, which it will though just when and what else will be around by then is anyone's guess.

I'd love to see a sim that uses dedicated AI PC's, like dedicated server but for AI alone. That way a user with one or more computers can set up a LAN to take the AI load (which wouldn't need hoo-ha graphics) off their main PC and get away with less than bleeding edge hardware. It really shouldn't be all that hard, the games already do all it needs and more.

So...I'd need a new mobo for sandy bridge right? Again not something I'm looking forward to, I need a bunch of expensive crowns on some of my teeth. I'll be lucky to afford to get COD...!!!

Yeah that is weird though about sandy bridge chips being so cheap and the older big-money i7's still being expensive. People are gushing over the SB chips are but are they indeed leaving something out that the i7's had? If I spent the $350 on an SB chip and its mobo would I get a performance increase generally?

In any case we'll have to see how COD does on these multi-core cpu's, I'm sure it will be better on some than others and there will be some weird discrepancies like it not working as well with certain powerful cpu's and gpu's compared to others. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All you need to do is run with what you've got and maybe lower some settings. You have a quad core running at 2.67Gz and a sh-load of RAM as it is. Months from now the 25% faster 975 should get cheaper though how many months is a guess.

I wish that sim makers would make a dedicated AI version or toggle to their games to allow a LAN with less capable PC's to take the AI load off the main player PC. Such machines would not need high end graphics nor user input devices nor large storage, etc. It wouldn't have to do much, just connect with the main PC and run the game without a player.

M_Gunz
01-25-2011, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Re Spitfires and 109s---recall the top scoring Allied pilot, the Czech Josef Frantisek, flew a Hurricane. Bader and Tuck flew the Hurricane. The Poles flew the Hurricane and wreaked havoc with it. Spitfires are sweet, but you have to cut it in a Hurricane to demonstrate the right stuff. As for 109s, the great 110 pilot, Jabs, shot down a number of Spitfires in his 110C in the Battle. If you can show talent in the 110, you are really good.

A lot of how well the RAF did was in being able to pre-position flights with good advantage. A few 1000 feet advantage in an unexpected position and even a Hurricane can do well long enough to score and scoot. Land, ready up for the next intercept possibly to catch the same bombers on the return trip maybe by then not in tight formation or well escorted and what else do you need to roll up a score besides the experience and skill to pull it off? The best fighter is not required as history shows.

Xiolablu3
01-25-2011, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
ASUS makes a P6T.. I find when I google P6T;

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">LGA1366 Intel® Bloomfield Processor Ready

This motherboard supports the latest Intel® Bloomfield processors in LGA1366 package which has memory controller integrated to support 3-channel (6 DIMMs) DDR3 memory. Support Intel(R) QuickPath Interconnect (QPI) with system bus up to 6.4GT/s and a max bandwidth of up to 25.6GB/s. Intel® Bloomfield processor is one of the most powerful and energy efficient CPU in the world.

I see from searching on bloomfield lga1366 that they go up at least to the I7-975 which run to 3.33Gz as compared to your now 920 at 2.67Gz. So yeah, you got room for expansion right there but OUCH! the price! $784 at Amazon, over $1000 some places. That's Intel for ya!

ADD: oh I see the Sandy Bridge CPUs are much cheaper for the same clock speed. Makes me wonder what's missing given the 'old stuff' isn't at huge discount. OTOH at pricewatch I see whole I7-975 PC's (ready for upgrade http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif ) on sale for just over $1000. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats just ridiclolous. All you need for smooth gaming right now is a decent Core2Duo and a 8800 series card.

If you have an i7 and 4gb of RAM or more and a good Gfx card, you are all set for COD. NEVER buy the top of the line stuff, you pay a massive premium. I will get an i7 when I can get the chip for around £50-60, not before. Dont mind using 2nd hand CPU's at all as I have never ever had one go wrong on me in 3 years of repairing PC's. (only from bent pins)

Ba5tard5word
01-25-2011, 03:27 PM
Also actually I have my i7 920 OC'd to around 3.0Ghz, it eliminates stuttering that I used to get in some games like COD4 and FO3 and Prototype when I had it at the stock speed.

M_Gunz
01-25-2011, 03:56 PM
Sometimes the difference is as simple as cleaning up and optimizing your system software. What AV you run and what settings you run it with can make a good PC run like a pig. How full is your task tray? Were you dumb enough to load M$ Orifice (resource hog even when not in use) on your gaming machine? Do you use EndItAll to shut down other 'conveniences'? And lastly, got virus?

Even having a fragmented system/game partition can hobble an otherwise good PC.

Back in 98 a lot of us learned to make a special partition just for our virtual memory and having Windoze use that. It never gets fragmented and it does get used a lot. If you do that now, make sure it's a BIIIG partition. 20 Gig is probably not enough!

Joonas_P_K
01-25-2011, 10:45 PM
Originally posted by Ba5tard5word:
Also actually I have my i7 920 OC'd to around 3.0Ghz, it eliminates stuttering that I used to get in some games like COD4 and FO3 and Prototype when I had it at the stock speed.

And if somehow the 3ghz I7 is not enought, 4.2ghz is not a problem running aircooled. I have my 920 running at 4.1ghz on aircooling using Noctua D14 as cooler and its not even noisy. Every 920 should go to atleast 4ghz, friend got one going at 4.6 but ran out of bandwidth on the motherboard (2xAti 4870X2 plus OC:d quadcore is all you need to make the Asus P6T cry).

M_Gunz
01-26-2011, 02:01 AM
HOLY COW! I wonder if that's possible with Sandy Bridge?

Xiolablu3
01-26-2011, 05:21 AM
I will make a sportsmans bet right now, that anyone with an i7 and a good GPU will have no problem running COD.

I even think my C2D E6850 Dual Core will do fine as Oleg is not going to release something which needs ridiculous hardware to even run it on low-med gfx. I'd say that a Skt 939 AMD or Pentium D will probably have some issues running it, but as with all games this all depends on your gfx card and total RAM.

Even an i7 extreme would stutter and stall if you only had 1gb of RAM and were running Vista. It would be a constant page file thrashing nightmare.

An AM2 AMD dual core with 4gb of RAM would run smoother.

IMO having enough RAM so as not to have it thrashing the hard disk's virtual memory, is as important as the CPU, often more important.

RSS-Martin
01-26-2011, 05:28 AM
Yes that is what I am thinking too!
All I might beef up is my graphic card, but otherwise my dual core at 2 x 3Ghz and 6Ghz RAM should work fine.

thefruitbat
01-26-2011, 05:35 AM
I've got an i7-940 OC'd to 3.45 Ghz (with much more room to go yet if i need it), 6 gig of ram and a GTX280 gfx card.

i'm not going to do anything at the moment, until i've tried it on my system. I'm pretty sure i'll be able to run it no probs whatsoever.

my only decision will be if after i played it, and i want to up the graphics, to get a GTX580 or not.

Joonas_P_K
01-26-2011, 06:16 AM
I have only one thing that has got me thinking, Crossfire and SLI support. I know that one good GPU is better than two middleclass GPU:s when thinking about compatiblity, but I got myself much higher performance for a lot less money buying a CF setup. Any word on that?

JG53Frankyboy
01-27-2011, 05:43 AM
funny, this topic went from Spitfire speed to PC speed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Inadaze
01-28-2011, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
HOLY COW! I wonder if that's possible with Sandy Bridge?

EDIT: Sorry for the continued thread hijack http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif

Sandy Bridgge can OC to 5.0ghz stable! Tho it does need some hefty volts to do it...

Here's a bit review of it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
http://www.overclock3d.net/rev...andy_bridge_review/1 (http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/i7_2600k_i5_2500k_2300_1155_sandy_bridge_review/1)

And a video review - (a bit long and tedious so make a cuppa before ya sit down to watch it or skip to the end conclusion)

<span class="flash-video"><object codebase="http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=8,0,0,0"
classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000"
style="height: 390px; width: 640px"
><param name="wmode"
value="transparent"
></param><param name="allowScriptAccess"
value="never"
></param><param value="transparent"
/><param value="never"
/><param name="movie"
value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PSET4P6EZ30?version=3"
/><param value="true"
/><param value="always"
/><embed pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer"
allowScriptAccess="never"
wmode="transparent"
type="application/x-shockwave-flash"
src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PSET4P6EZ30?version=3"
width="640"
height="390"
/></object></span>

The Noctua DH14 heatsink is still the king of air cooling, lovely and quiet even when the cpu is working hard with the volts up. But it's such a big beast it has problems fitting on most boards if you use memory with large heatsinks built into them, and it is a premium cooler so the price isn't the cheapest. Tho bang for buck wise it is probably the best cooling option out there for overclocking (including water cooling).

Vipez-
02-02-2011, 07:06 AM
Hi all.

I have been out of the picture of a while. However now with the release of CoD actually approaching (two weeks i am sure http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif ) I actually have to start thinking about my hardware. I recently bought the following laptop:

Sony Vaio VPC-F12S1E.
Specs:
- Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit
- Intel Core i7-740QM quad core processor running @ 1.73Ghz
- 6GB of DDR-III 1333Mhz memory (8GB max)
- 7200 rpm 500GB hard drive
- Dedicated nVidia GeForce GT 330M graphics with 1GB of memory

I am mostly wondering if this Geforce is going to be enough to play CoD? I guess only time will tell how it will turn out. Too bad one can't update GPU on laptops http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

stalkervision
02-02-2011, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by Inadaze:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
HOLY COW! I wonder if that's possible with Sandy Bridge?

EDIT: Sorry for the continued thread hijack http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif

Sandy Bridgge can OC to 5.0ghz stable! Tho it does need some hefty volts to do it...

Here's a bit review of it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
http://www.overclock3d.net/rev...andy_bridge_review/1 (http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/i7_2600k_i5_2500k_2300_1155_sandy_bridge_review/1)

And a video review - (a bit long and tedious so make a cuppa before ya sit down to watch it or skip to the end conclusion)

<span class="flash-video"><object codebase="http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=8,0,0,0"
classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000"
style="height: 390px; width: 640px"
><param name="wmode"
value="transparent"
></param><param name="allowScriptAccess"
value="never"
></param><param value="transparent"
/><param value="never"
/><param value="transparent"
/><param value="never"
/><param value="transparent"
/><param value="never"
/><param value="transparent"
/><param value="never"
/><param value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PSET4P6EZ30?version=3"
name="movie"
/><param value="true"
/><param value="always"
/><embed allowScriptAccess="never"
wmode="transparent"
type="application/x-shockwave-flash"
pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer"
height="390"
width="640"
src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PSET4P6EZ30?version=3"
/></object></span>

The Noctua DH14 heatsink is still the king of air cooling, lovely and quiet even when the cpu is working hard with the volts up. But it's such a big beast it has problems fitting on most boards if you use memory with large heatsinks built into them, and it is a premium cooler so the price isn't the cheapest. Tho bang for buck wise it is probably the best cooling option out there for overclocking (including water cooling). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.pbs.org/tesla/ll/images/cs_seated02.jpg

"I wonder if I have enough voltage yet?"

M_Gunz
02-02-2011, 12:30 PM
With the Sandy Bridge chipset in recall over failing SATA due to molecular migration, go ahead and push the voltage!

stalkervision
02-02-2011, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
With the Sandy Bridge chipset in recall over failing SATA due to molecular migration, go ahead and push the voltage!

HA ! You say that Too ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif