PDA

View Full Version : Bait and switch? Boosted 109s and early FW190 slower accelerating now......



Jumoschwanz
02-15-2006, 03:28 PM
This information might be useful to those who fly some axis aircraft.

Since patch 2.04 of Forgotten Battles I have had a standard set of maps and missions that I have tested the speed and acceleration of all planes in the sim over.
Patch 4.03, is the first patch since 2.04 that the performance of the late boosted bf109s and early fW190s has been reduced.

When told we were getting a new 190A-5 with more boost, and a 109K4 with more boost, was it presented to us like it was good news?
Well it turns out to not be good news. The new 190A5 barely has the acceleration of the standard 190A5 of previous patches, and the previous standard model 190A5 and 190A4 models now have reduced acceleration. So in essence we have the same old 190a5 with a new name, and two new, slower FW190s with the names of the previous models.

The late bf109 models with boost are all much slower accelerating than earlier patches. IN 4.02 and earlier, the 109K4 was one of the fastest accelerating planes in the sim, especially below 400km/hr.
The new high-boost 109k4, your gift, and the subject of so much whining, accelerates at the same rate as a 109G2 below 400km/hr! And reaches a speed almost 20km/hr slower than the standard 109k4 did over the same test distance as in previous patches since fB2.04.
All boosted, late bf109s are slower now in acceleration. So again, you were shown how you were going to get a new, fast and super 109K4 , and in fact got one much slower accelerating than the standard 109k4 in previous patches.

The late SpitIX lost no acceleration, and the new high-boost spit is about as fast accelerating as the 109k4 from PREVIOUS patches, 4.02 and before.

So there you go. From now on when you get a new readme for a new patch, and it says something is improved in your favourite plane, the only thing you have to worry about is what they apparently don't have the guts to say! I just feel some sleight of hand, or misdirection was used on me in this Readme file.

Having a slower plane will not affect how good or bad I do against an opponent, but KNOWING the relative performance of the different aircraft, yours and your opponents for instance, is going to make a difference for the smart pilot.


Jumoschwanz

Jumoschwanz
02-15-2006, 03:28 PM
This information might be useful to those who fly some axis aircraft.

Since patch 2.04 of Forgotten Battles I have had a standard set of maps and missions that I have tested the speed and acceleration of all planes in the sim over.
Patch 4.03, is the first patch since 2.04 that the performance of the late boosted bf109s and early fW190s has been reduced.

When told we were getting a new 190A-5 with more boost, and a 109K4 with more boost, was it presented to us like it was good news?
Well it turns out to not be good news. The new 190A5 barely has the acceleration of the standard 190A5 of previous patches, and the previous standard model 190A5 and 190A4 models now have reduced acceleration. So in essence we have the same old 190a5 with a new name, and two new, slower FW190s with the names of the previous models.

The late bf109 models with boost are all much slower accelerating than earlier patches. IN 4.02 and earlier, the 109K4 was one of the fastest accelerating planes in the sim, especially below 400km/hr.
The new high-boost 109k4, your gift, and the subject of so much whining, accelerates at the same rate as a 109G2 below 400km/hr! And reaches a speed almost 20km/hr slower than the standard 109k4 did over the same test distance as in previous patches since fB2.04.
All boosted, late bf109s are slower now in acceleration. So again, you were shown how you were going to get a new, fast and super 109K4 , and in fact got one much slower accelerating than the standard 109k4 in previous patches.

The late SpitIX lost no acceleration, and the new high-boost spit is about as fast accelerating as the 109k4 from PREVIOUS patches, 4.02 and before.

So there you go. From now on when you get a new readme for a new patch, and it says something is improved in your favourite plane, the only thing you have to worry about is what they apparently don't have the guts to say! I just feel some sleight of hand, or misdirection was used on me in this Readme file.

Having a slower plane will not affect how good or bad I do against an opponent, but KNOWING the relative performance of the different aircraft, yours and your opponents for instance, is going to make a difference for the smart pilot.


Jumoschwanz

fordfan25
02-15-2006, 03:35 PM
welcome to the world of the 8th air force

carguy_
02-15-2006, 03:48 PM
I don`t get similar impressions.Didn`t test acceleration but everything else seems to be fine except speeds off by 10-20kph.Focke Wulf Anton has always been undermodelled in the game,nothing new.


I was comparing new K4 with the old one.The`45 one is a rocket when it comes to climb but you know the old K4 was overmodelled so it`s more ok now.

DaimonSyrius
02-15-2006, 05:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jumoschwanz:
So there you go. From now on when you get a new readme for a new patch
.../...
the only thing you have to worry about is </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Worrying? Who's worrying? Are you willingly putting your free, leisure time into something that worries you?

Worry not, I tell thee.

Cheers,
S.

jds1978
02-15-2006, 06:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
welcome to the world of the 8th air force </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Grey_Mouser67
02-15-2006, 06:13 PM
Don't get me wrong, because all I want to see is accurate planes, but man this patch is good!

I haven't seen so many blue whines in many, many patches...and while I don't do accelaration testing, all my speed tests indicate the A4 has not been touched, nor has the spits, A5's or Mustangs in terms of speed...I think it would be difficult to change accelaration and not affect top end speed, but who knows?

Jumoschwanz
02-15-2006, 07:51 PM
It is simple to change acceleration without affecting top speed. Simply change the weight of the craft. Top speed is limited by horsepower vs. aerodynamic drag. Acceleration is horsepower vs. mass. Same with your car, if you fill the trunk with cat litter or fat nieces, the car will have the same top speed, but will take longer to get there.

Likewise you could take a planes flight model , cut the horsepower some, and decrease the aerodynamic drag, and get a plane which handles better at low speed, but accelerates slower, just like the bf109 in patch 4.03. There are many things you could juggle.

What I don't like is the way the changes were announced, good news first, and bad news never. Why say anything at all? It is like if my wife came home and announced; "Hi Honey guess what? I didn't total the car today!" .

Go ahead, change the flight models, make them more historic whether it takes an increase or decrease in some area of performance. Just don't play some cryptic game with me about it.
I used to look forward to advanced releases of Readme notes for patches. But not after this patch, the Readme notes don't mean jack s h it.

Jumoschwanz

DaimonSyrius
02-15-2006, 08:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I used to look forward to advanced releases of Readme notes for patches. But not after this patch </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I see you really are intent on this strange habit of worrying for fun.

**Plays some Bobby McFerrin** http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

Cheers,
S.

LEXX_Luthor
02-15-2006, 08:32 PM
Jurmo does (sorta) hint at something that always bothered me -- the Patch readmes offer minimalist documentation.

DaimonSyrius
02-15-2006, 09:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
the Patch readmes offer minimalist documentation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, and it's not only the readme's, the whole game is extremely economical with the data...

The Object Viewer was a good read when I first installed it, but it hasn't been updated for ages, and so many aircraft aren't there at all. And about the manuals that came with it... even 'minimalist' is too long a word to describe them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I used to enjoy a lot the thick manuals of older games from last century http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Granted that a more comprehensive documentation would make it even more interesting. However, I really don't see a reason for all that angst, as is often expressed here. It all should rather be about enjoyment, IMO.

Cheers,
S.

TX-Bomblast
02-15-2006, 09:20 PM
I agree with Jumo, the 109's in general have had a huge reduction in power and handling. Sadly this has caused me not to fly as often on HL. When I go from being an average 109 pilot to being a " Flying Target" overnight. Something is terribly wrong.The ones who have been at the recieving end of the Blues/German Mk108 aren't saying much.Why??

TX-Bomblast
White 6

Jumoschwanz
02-15-2006, 09:36 PM
I am not complaining or whining about any reduction in performance in axis aircraft, just stating the results of testing that I do very well and am very familiar with over many patches.

I think this information is always useful to those who fly these aircraft.

I do not like what seemed to me to be miss-direction or sleight of hand with the last readme, as I said before, holding a piece of candy in my face pointing out some minor improvement or addition, and leaving out news that would be much more interesting and useful.

In the past I have run EVERY plane in this sim in more than one patch, over four different test maps to measure Low speed acceleration, High speed acceleration, top speed under standard conditions on the crimea map, and top speed on the Smolensk map, which gives top speed closer to what is attained on 90% of online servers.

This testing takes a terrible amount of time. I don't think I have the enthusiasm any more to do it all again. I just got interested in the late 109s and fw190s after flying them and noticing that the K4 did not seem as peppy. Feelings and I think don't count for s h it with me, so I ran them through my tests, compared them to past results that I have all recorded on paper and handy to my "flight deck", and found that indeed there were BIG changes to the acceleration in some models of axis craft that are easily seen in testing.

This is important for those who fly these planes, as knowing if your acceleration is better or worse in a fight can make big decisions for you in the throes of combat.

Also in my experience, the planes that have better acceleration, are also better at spiral climbing and many other things.
If you can accelerate more quickly to looping speed than the other guy, you have a big, big advantage.

Testing every plane in this way, axis and allied, has given me a big advantage many times in what plane to choose, and in what action to take against different opponents.
It is just one part of being an online "ACE".

DaimonSyrius
02-15-2006, 09:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jumoschwanz:
It is just one part of being an online "ACE". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is the other part worse, or worser?
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Xiolablu3
02-15-2006, 09:44 PM
The models have got closer to the real life data thats all.

TAW_Oilburner
02-15-2006, 10:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
welcome to the world of the 8th air force </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
LOL I think I pissed my pants http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

LEXX_Luthor
02-15-2006, 10:19 PM
X:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The models have got closer to the real life data thats all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's possible. Bear is Whining (http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) that P-51 is 4.03-Porked in the same ways Jurmo is Whining (http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) about "late" -109s. Neither offer test data (post it Jurmo). But where does one find real life acceleration data to compare with? We only have the minimalist "readme-not" documentation to guide us. As we converge to BoB New FM, gamers may not enjoy absolute reduction in performance in the planes they fly, even if other planes they don't fly are also getting Porked down closer to real life data. Anybody test the New LaGG series 4.03? No. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

I have noticed one psycho thing since I've been on this webboard. Early war plane flyers are (generally) far Happier in what they do -- combat flight simming.

Xiolablu3
02-15-2006, 10:31 PM
I wrote this because the 4.02 109K4 was climbing too fast, and so you can assume that the others were too.

There are reasons for the 1.65ATA FW too be slower than the 1.42 boost at certain heights, wasnt it made for below 1000m fighting?

I dont know the definite answers to all these things but I got this general idea. More planes have been pulled in line with their test data from WW2, if they were overperforming then they will have lost performance.

Generally the sim is getting more realistic, so dont cry foul automatically when you find planes performing less well than they did before, its most likely that they WERE overperforming.

Badsight.
02-15-2006, 11:15 PM
"increased manouverability for bf-109s" was satire

the over-performance has been rectified somewhat in relation to the other planes in FB

(im not saying in relation to real life at all . . . . no way , no sir)

LEBillfish
02-15-2006, 11:24 PM
I've actually found the 190's seem to climb faster then ever.......Though have no numbers either way.

WOLFMondo
02-16-2006, 12:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEBillfish:
I've actually found the 190's seem to climb faster then ever.......Though have no numbers either way. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've only flown the Dora and A6 since the new patch but I've not noticed any difference in there climb. Dora is still the best. There DM might have been changed though, they do burn allot more but don't leave brown leaks as much as they did. I guess I'm shooting them with 20's now rather than .50's so it might be that.

OldMan____
02-16-2006, 03:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I wrote this because the 4.02 109K4 was climbing too fast, and so you can assume that the others were too.

There are reasons for the 1.65ATA FW too be slower than the 1.42 boost at certain heights, wasnt it made for below 1000m fighting?

I dont know the definite answers to all these things but I got this general idea. More planes have been pulled in line with their test data from WW2, if they were overperforming then they will have lost performance.

Generally the sim is getting more realistic, so dont cry foul automatically when you find planes performing less well than they did before, its most likely that they WERE overperforming. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, things do not worked as that. Above 1000m you just could use only 1.42 ata, in other words exactly same engine as a normal A5. So above 1k meters it shoudl behave exactly like an A5. Now.. above 500 meters it is already worse than normal A5.

Xiolablu3
02-16-2006, 05:22 AM
But dont the superchargers come in at different times?

Have you actually checked the figures agains the real plane data?

At sea level the 1.65 ATA is faster :-

http://www.battle-fields.com/commscentre/showthread.php?t=10155&page=1&pp=20

OldMan____
02-16-2006, 06:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
But dont the superchargers come in at different times?

Have you actually checked the figures agains the real plane data?

At sea level the 1.65 ATA is faster :-

http://www.battle-fields.com/commscentre/showthread.php?t=10155&page=1&pp=20 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But at all height it is up to 20 kph slower. In fact at 2k if i remember correctly it is exaclty same as A5.. but on most heights is is quite slower. In fact it is so strange that the lower power the ata gauge shows, the closer performance it has to normal A5.

JG52Karaya-X
02-16-2006, 06:12 AM
I'm all okay with the new K4s - its climbrate had to get fixed - however I hope their level speeds at sealevel and altitude will get rectified in the next patch.

What's more troubling is the fact that along with the K4 all other late MW50 109s have been greatly reduced in climbrate. So now we have the G6AS,10 and 14 lagging far behind the K4 in terms of ROC. Keeping in mind that all of these Gustavs have similar engine outputs (G6AS and 14 1800hp, G10 1850hp) as our '44 K4 (1850hp) but are all 20-60kg lighter they should all be able to keep up with the Kurfürst - which sadly isnt the case in 4.03m

alert_1
02-16-2006, 07:50 AM
Last night I tried Me109G6/AS first time after teh pathc and was surprized how badly it accelerate and climb in comparison with 4.02.
As for Fw190A5, 1.68 ATA for firstly cleard only undr 1000n, but from january '44 the setting was cleared for for any altitude, limited to 10min. at second supercharger stage and unlimited ("as long as needed") for first gear.

Unknown-Pilot
02-16-2006, 08:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
but man this patch is good!
.....
I haven't seen so many blue whines in many, many patches </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Another obvious and extremely pathetic red-whiner.

God those people are sickening. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

OldMan____
02-16-2006, 08:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by alert_1:
Last night I tried Me109G6/AS first time after teh pathc and was surprized how badly it accelerate and climb in comparison with 4.02.
As for Fw190A5, 1.68 ATA for firstly cleard only undr 1000n, but from january '44 the setting was cleared for for any altitude, limited to 10min. at second supercharger stage and unlimited ("as long as needed") for first gear. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, but that is for Jager version. We have only Jabo Anton (same with A4).

Xiolablu3
02-16-2006, 08:16 AM
Look at the thread I posted, it tests all the antons and shows screenshots of their speed at sea level.

Normal A5 - 577kph

A5 1.65 ATA - 590kph


It is NOT slower at all heights.

Xiolablu3
02-16-2006, 08:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
I'm all okay with the new K4s - its climbrate had to get fixed - however I hope their level speeds at sealevel and altitude will get rectified in the next patch.

What's more troubling is the fact that along with the K4 all other late MW50 109s have been greatly reduced in climbrate. So now we have the G6AS,10 and 14 lagging far behind the K4 in terms of ROC. Keeping in mind that all of these Gustavs have similar engine outputs (G6AS and 14 1800hp, G10 1850hp) as our '44 K4 (1850hp) but are all 20-60kg lighter they should all be able to keep up with the Kurfürst - which sadly isnt the case in 4.03m </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Find out correct speeds form documents and email them (with docs) to Oleg. Just hope he has time to fix them. Thats the most we can do.

AKA_TAGERT
02-16-2006, 08:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
welcome to the world of the 8th air force </div></BLOCKQUOTE>ROTFLMAO!

arjisme
02-16-2006, 09:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jumoschwanz:
So there you go. From now on when you get a new readme for a new patch, and it says something is improved in your favourite plane, the only thing you have to worry about is what they apparently don't have the guts to say! I just feel some sleight of hand, or misdirection was used on me in this Readme file. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Just to be clear here, what part of the readme are you referring to? The bit about 109's "increased maneuverability?" I agree with you it would be better for them to list in the patch at least something like "corrected 109 FM" or "corrected 109 climb rate." But on the FW, Tagert was the one who correctly predicted that with the new 1.65 ata 190, we would not be seeing increased performance, but rather properly labeled aircraft. Many folks misread that part, I think.

So I think another good point to make about readmes is to resist reading into them something that isn't being said.

OldMan____
02-16-2006, 09:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Look at the thread I posted, it tests all the antons and shows screenshots of their speed at sea level.

Normal A5 - 577kph

A5 1.65 ATA - 590kph


It is NOT slower at all heights. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Zero level flying is negligeable. Sea Level speed testing is only worht to ego comparissons between planes. Try it at near 1000m. Or any usefull combat height. There is a single other height were new one is faster (but very little bit)

HayateAce
02-16-2006, 09:50 AM
Hello blue team, my old friends,
My guns can talk with you again,
Because your game was blue tinted,
Gave you all visions of acedom,
And the 25 boost Spit planted in my hands today
Will remain
This is the sound, of balance.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nottingham/music/2003/11/images/simon_garfunkel_270.jpg

Brain32
02-16-2006, 10:03 AM
Well Hayate covers it nicely if he likes the +25lbs then we have a final confirmation, new SPit is the new UFO clown wagon plane of the game. I bet La7 is not so popular anymore...

Xiolablu3
02-16-2006, 10:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Look at the thread I posted, it tests all the antons and shows screenshots of their speed at sea level.

Normal A5 - 577kph

A5 1.65 ATA - 590kph


It is NOT slower at all heights. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Zero level flying is negligeable. Sea Level speed testing is only worht to ego comparissons between planes. Try it at near 1000m. Or any usefull combat height. There is a single other height were new one is faster (but very little bit) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You said at ALL heights, so I posted a height where it wasnt.

Have you actually found out if this is definitely WRONG? Or did you just decide it MUST be?

I am not saying it isnt wrong, just that you seem to be saying it is with no evidence to support it.

LEBillfish
02-16-2006, 10:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEBillfish:
I've actually found the 190's seem to climb faster then ever.......Though have no numbers either way. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've only flown the Dora and A6 since the new patch but I've not noticed any difference in there climb. Dora is still the best. There DM might have been changed though, they do burn allot more but don't leave brown leaks as much as they did. I guess I'm shooting them with 20's now rather than .50's so it might be that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well ones I have flown would be the A4 & 5....can't speak as to others yet though will be limited to A4-8, no F or D

BfHeFwMe
02-16-2006, 12:21 PM
Is that opposed to the old 109 clown wagon?

Since when did late 109's ever fight an offensive war to start with? Your far closer to realism now than ever, imagine that there's actually fighters out there that can catch and down you now, horrid!OH?

Save the tears and use it for fuel.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

JG52Karaya-X
02-16-2006, 12:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Is that opposed to the old 109 clown wagon?

Since when did late 109's ever fight an offensive war to start with? Your far closer to realism now than ever, imagine that there's actually fighters out there that can catch and down you now, horrid!OH?

Save the tears and use it for fuel.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is it common practice now that Allied fanboys take axis names to hide their deeply rooted bias? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

zugfuhrer
02-16-2006, 12:30 PM
Please tell us how the test was done, every detail, and the figures from all tests.

BfHeFwMe
02-16-2006, 12:31 PM
Oh yeah, your going far with this horse, I can tell. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

RedDeth
02-16-2006, 12:43 PM
hayate ace got it right.

a simon and garfunkel song to the tune of his writing with the pic on the bottom.

best post all year and it is wasted on such as these.

throwing pearls before the swine

Unknown-Pilot
02-16-2006, 12:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Is that opposed to the old 109 clown wagon?

Since when did late 109's ever fight an offensive war to start with? Your far closer to realism now than ever, imagine that there's actually fighters out there that can catch and down you now, horrid!OH?

Save the tears and use it for fuel.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is it common practice now that Allied fanboys take axis names to hide their deeply rooted bias? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Notice how they all have the same mannerisms? It's likely that "they" aren't plural at all. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

jds1978
02-16-2006, 01:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
Hello blue team, my old friends,
My guns can talk with you again,
Because your game was blue tinted,
Gave you all visions of acedom,
And the 25 boost Spit planted in my hands today
Will remain
This is the sound, of balance.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nottingham/music/2003/11/images/simon_garfunkel_270.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

JG52Karaya-X
02-16-2006, 01:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
Notice how they all have the same mannerisms? It's likely that "they" aren't plural at all. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Too true... nodevotion, luftluuver, BfHeFwMe, Texan,... list goes on

BfHeFwMe
02-16-2006, 01:22 PM
Love these new smiley's,

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

It's a B**** dying like the rest, ain't it.

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

Fuel her up.

HayateAce
02-16-2006, 01:33 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

potzblitz
02-16-2006, 02:16 PM
i appreciate the patch and the hard work with these new planes...but

gosh - the patch messed up a lot and i think we have some major problems with 109´s and 190´s.

even before the acceleration of the 190´s was wired if you compare to other planes in wight and horsepower at start and during certain altitudes.

but this patch really messed it up unfortunately..

OldMan____
02-16-2006, 03:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 OldMan____:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Look at the thread I posted, it tests all the antons and shows screenshots of their speed at sea level.

Normal A5 - 577kph

A5 1.65 ATA - 590kph


It is NOT slower at all heights. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Zero level flying is negligeable. Sea Level speed testing is only worht to ego comparissons between planes. Try it at near 1000m. Or any usefull combat height. There is a single other height were new one is faster (but very little bit) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You said at ALL heights, so I posted a height where it wasnt.

Have you actually found out if this is definitely WRONG? Or did you just decide it MUST be?

I am not saying it isnt wrong, just that you seem to be saying it is with no evidence to support it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>]

Just amke a simple test. Online try to follow a old A5 from 500m up to 5 km . Each 500 or 1000 m geting level and acelerating to max speed. I did so, and A5 outpaces new A5 at almost all combat heights (I really do not consider sea level as an important combat height). I expected (and data as well) it shoudl be equal to old A5.

p1ngu666
02-16-2006, 03:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">(I really do not consider sea level as an important combat height). I expected (and data as well) it shoudl be equal to old A5. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

whats the matter, get banned from warclouds, afj and 334th oldman? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Manuel29
02-16-2006, 04:47 PM
I've just made some QMs with Bf109 against Ace Spit VIII (I never had problems bringing them down, using MC205 I easily beat the SpitIXe with no problem... usually with bf109 too).

G2 - SpitVIII =&gt; "Damn I can't catch him... in vertical it outspaces me.. strange... btw it's a little faster than me, so no problem". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

G10 - SpitVIII =&gt; "Now I should catch it easily... but... It's faster in vertical again!!! and I have MW50 on!!!" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

It was doing yo-yo all the time (like usually AI does then it tries to disengage) but really I couldn't catch. At last I won forcing it to turn... but I was really surprised.

Yes... I think also "maybe it's 'cause you are a moron" but honestly you don't need skill to catch in speed a slower plane. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

Can you test this too? Thanks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

Bye.

Ob.Emann
02-16-2006, 05:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Is that opposed to the old 109 clown wagon?

Since when did late 109's ever fight an offensive war to start with? Your far closer to realism now than ever, imagine that there's actually fighters out there that can catch and down you now, horrid!OH?

Save the tears and use it for fuel.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is it common practice now that Allied fanboys take axis names to hide their deeply rooted bias? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Psychological warfare I guess. The Allies were quite adept at it.

RedDeth
02-16-2006, 05:52 PM
this patch is messed up? we get a tempest several italian plane types german bomber... mossie... several upgraded other planes... changes to planes like fixing the one hit jug engine....

anyone that think this patch is horrible is seriously DELUSIONAL

i suggest taking a frying pan and hitting your face with it full force ten times then re test the patch.

thanks and have a pleasant tomorrow

TX-Bomblast
02-16-2006, 10:48 PM
The patch is a great work of art, we're all thankfull for the new planes. But we still need to address the 109' and the 190's. They are way off in terms of speed and handling.

TX-Bomblast
White 6

RedDeth
02-17-2006, 01:06 AM
please provide proof of this. not alarmist propaganda without obvious evidence.

i am quoting german posters here.

Badsight.
02-17-2006, 01:36 AM
RedDeth , quit with the fanboy defense of FB

your ranting like someone upset at seeing criticism of their favourite game - leave that kind of stuff for the FPS fanboys . posters here are discussing plane performance in comparison between the 2 patches

OldMan____
02-17-2006, 03:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">(I really do not consider sea level as an important combat height). I expected (and data as well) it shoudl be equal to old A5. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

whats the matter, get banned from warclouds, afj and 334th oldman? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why do you say that ? I just don´t liek to stay at deck for more than a very few seconds. Otherwise I will collect a ton of RAF planes in may tail.

OldMan____
02-17-2006, 03:21 AM
BTW, I never said this patch is bad. It is escelent. But there are afew bugs/issues, like the very starnge performance of new A5. People must understand that we can have good and bad things on same patch.

Manuel29
02-17-2006, 03:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RedDeth:
please provide proof of this. not alarmist propaganda without obvious evidence.

i am quoting german posters here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In my poor english I gave you proof that NOW G10 can't catch an Ace Spitfire VIII. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

I'm going to do this test again, with track. I know somebody thinks the AI can cheat, but I don't trust it.

The Spitfire's acceleration when levelling really surprise me.

The things are 2:
- Improved acceleration of Spit or dive and climb abilities (I don't think it).

- LATE Bf109s (I test only G10 for now) lost a lot of acceleration (G2, that isn't LATE, seems to have the same speed but be a little more manouvrable).

Please lets be open minded and don't be childish.

Bye

OldMan____
02-17-2006, 03:25 AM
I will include G10 in my acceleration test chart. Just give me a few hours.

OldMan____
02-17-2006, 03:40 AM
Ok, done.

Results are of acceleration from 250 kph to 350 kph and from 250 to 500 kph. All made at 100m on crimeia.

109G10 10,3s 40,2s
SpitVII 11,2s 51,6s
K4 c3 9,62s 34,05
Spit25l 9,55 36,11
Dora44 11,6 39,1


So non uber spit can only, .amtch late 109 in very low speed accelerations. Nothing strange here. Are you sure you were not chasing a 25 lb spit? This ones really do outaccelerate G10 with easy.

stathem
02-17-2006, 04:16 AM
Not being able to catch AI is hardly indicative of true plane performance.

e.g. I can't catch AI A4s in a Tempest, but it doesn't worry me.

Manuel29
02-17-2006, 04:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
So non uber spit can only, .amtch late 109 in very low speed accelerations. Nothing strange here. Are you sure you were not chasing a 25 lb spit? This ones really do outaccelerate G10 with easy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the test http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

I'm sure it was a '43 SpitfireVIII http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif

Do you test acceleration in level flight?

I am not saying you to do in a different way, you are just so kind, but mine Ace Spit always made verticals yoyos (you know how AI uses to do) and I nearly could catch it in climb, but when levelled it outspaced me; it did't remain in level flight so many time to test my flat acceleration, always yoyo.

Again thanks for your tests http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Must I think the AI cheat? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

Manuel29
02-17-2006, 04:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
Not being able to catch AI is hardly indicative of true plane performance.

e.g. I can't catch AI A4s in a Tempest, but it doesn't worry me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you say the AI cheat too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Ok, no more test for me against AI. Good to know http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Bye

JG52Karaya-X
02-17-2006, 04:35 AM
The AI cheats at everything!

Offline I have a tough time even keeping up with planes that are supposed to be quite slower than my plane. Then lets not forget the AI bat turns and super-fast rolls at extreme speeds. Or what about their ability to follow you into a 900km/h dive and STAY close to you even in wooden Yak fighters. Oh, and my personal favourite is the AIs ability to climb into you and only stall out when their airspeed has decreased to ~5km/h

I just LUUUUV the AI... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

Jumoschwanz
02-17-2006, 04:39 AM
Yes I changed the thread title and added the word "accelerating". It should have had this in the beginning just to make things clear.

I would not be surprised that the acceleration of many craft has changed besides the early fw190 and late bf109s, maybe later in the day I can do some testing and publish them with the results I have recorded from past patches.

Again, I mostly fly axis online when I get the chance, so changes in thier performance is interesting and helpful to me and others who use them.
The new patch is great and a masterpiece, as usual, and I am grateful for it and any free or paid add-on for this sim.

Any smart online pilot should do acceleration testing that simulates the conditions in a dogfight. For instance recovering from an energy loss to a speed where one can do a loop, or recovering from an energy losing manuever to a certain speed where further gains in speed would not be worth pursuing.

For instance, if I go head-on with an opponent and we both do a series of quick scissors and lose most of our E, if I know my plane is better accelerating than his say up to 400km/hr, I might want to straighten it out on the deck, take it up to this speed, open up a gap then turn back for a deflection type shot. Or if I can get to say 300km/hr faster than him, I might be able to pull of a full loop manuever and fall back on him before he can attain the E to follow me, see?

Likewise if I know my plane is worse at low speed acceleration, then I will strive to use tactics that do not let the opponent use this against me. Every different plane has some good tricks to use, and some bad traits to be aware of.

When I tested the boosted 109 models and the a4 and a5 fw190, and found the acceleration under 400km/hr worse than in patch 4.02, I thought this was vital information for the smart pilot of these craft, as it would change the tactics used in them against a foe for sure.
And I commented on the Readme file, as I did not care for the way in which it presented alleged helpful information, while leaving out much else.

I think this sim is great, as always. I enoy it still a great deal, and any information that can be backed up by actual tests is of great interest and helpful in online combat.

When I tested, more than once, the acceleration of every plane in this sim in different patches, it was an awful lot of work. But it was of great help in online combat. I had worked hard enough for this information, that I considered most of it my personal and secret edge, as I don't think most take the time to test all the planes, so they know what is what. Here and there in past posts I did make a lot of the test data public. But most did not pay attention.

Again, if you are serious about online combat and do want an edge most are too lazy or just plain du mb to pursue, note the top speed of your usual craft in your favourite online server, find a map in FMB that has the same characteristic, and set up some test courses and test all the common planes you fly with and against. It will tell you what is what and let you know what to do and when to do it that much more.
Research and dedication like this is the "cheating" that the great online ACE has up his sleeve. His advantage and trick is his insight into what he has to know and use. Being able to turn hard is a game and is only one-tenth of what there is to it, as it is negated by superior knowledge.

Old age and treachery beats youth and enthusiasm every time.
This is why, although I am only an average "turn-fighter" I can regularly go on servers, flying lone-wolf with no comms and no wingman, and score with anyone, and on a good night even dominate a server. I would be happy to demonstrate any time......

Jumoschwanz

stathem
02-17-2006, 04:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
The AI cheats at everything!

Offline I have a tough time even keeping up with planes that are supposed to be quite slower than my plane. Then lets not forget the AI bat turns and super-fast rolls at extreme speeds. Or what about their ability to follow you into a 900km/h dive and STAY close to you even in wooden Yak fighters. Oh, and my personal favourite is the AIs ability to climb into you and only stall out when their airspeed has decreased to ~5km/h

I just LUUUUV the AI... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My personal favourite is, set a flight, just you and a wingman in a (insert plane here - Zero is fun). Now try to get on your wingman's six and shoot him. Watch amazed as his plane turns into an Su-37.

Manuel29
02-17-2006, 04:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
My personal favourite is, set a flight, just you and a wingman in a (insert plane here - Zero is fun). Now try to get on your wingman's six and shoot him. Watch amazed as his plane turns into an Su-37. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I have to try it!!!

DaimonSyrius
02-17-2006, 04:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jumoschwanz:
Yes I changed the thread title and added the word "accelerating".
.../... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey, good post http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Less angst now (might have been my perception only, earlier), lots of sense.

Cheers,
S.

jasonbirder
02-17-2006, 05:32 AM
Surely gross differences in performance between player and AI planes due to differences in FM/Coding is far more important than minor (relatively ?) small variances in performance of individual models...
Despite the vocal minority...regular online players are a tiny, tiny percentage of FB/AEP/PF players even if they are over-represented on these forums...
Look at the evidence - how many people are there regularly on Hyperlobby compared to the 100,000 + worldwide sales of PF...
And it often seems that the needs/wishes of offline players are overlooked in favour of those of online players - something that hopefully the new Russian add-ons look like they may address...
(Heres hoping!)

OldMan____
02-17-2006, 06:03 AM
Sorry to say that, but the tested accelerations I maed match exaclty with my previous tests back in 4.01. So no change here. Only Dora got 0.8 seconds faster to 500.

OldMan____
02-17-2006, 06:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jasonbirder:
Surely gross differences in performance between player and AI planes due to differences in FM/Coding is far more important than minor (relatively ?) small variances in performance of individual models...
Despite the vocal minority...regular online players are a tiny, tiny percentage of FB/AEP/PF players even if they are over-represented on these forums...
Look at the evidence - how many people are there regularly on Hyperlobby compared to the 100,000 + worldwide sales of PF...
And it often seems that the needs/wishes of offline players are overlooked in favour of those of online players - something that hopefully the new Russian add-ons look like they may address...
(Heres hoping!) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

PF din´t sold 100k copies.. (unless you include pirate copies)

jasonbirder
02-17-2006, 06:26 AM
Apologis - the 100K was a geusstimate...I know that 40K were sold in the states and thought that Europe/Russi/Far East would exceed that...

Blutarski2004
02-17-2006, 09:16 AM
Acceleration rate, in relative terms, should vary directly as does climb rate, since both principally rely upon the availability of specific excess power.

OldMan____
02-17-2006, 12:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Acceleration rate, in relative terms, should vary directly as does climb rate, since both principally rely upon the availability of specific excess power. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but climb rate is based only in the excess power at a given speed. Acceleration can be adressed in a much larger speed range, where the excess power may vary. So you might have a plane A that outclimb B at their max climb speed, but plane B out accelerates A in most of the speed range (due to lower drag)

Xiolablu3
02-17-2006, 12:33 PM
Oldman did you actually find out if the 1.65 speed/climb rate/etc is actually wrong or is the earlier A5 wrong? Or are they both near correct?(A5 faster up high than 165ATA)

I am interested to know. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

MOH_MADMAN
02-17-2006, 12:48 PM
My first impression of the K4, which ive flown for over two years now, is im going to park it in the hanger. Just like all patches of past,
someone who was whining befoer has his turn in the champ airplane, which mean half of this community will start to fly it, making it even m ore noticable as the king of planes. Oh well
i had my ride!! youll find me in one of the new performers when im without a wing.

MAD

RedDeth
02-17-2006, 01:03 PM
badsight are you drunk or something?

bomblasts previous post to mine said the 109 and 190 are both off on speed and performance. with nothing to back it up.

would it matter if he said p51? would that make you happier? tx bomblast made a all encompassing comment that is meaningless.

and you defend it. dude your slipping.

i could give a flying rat whether he mentions german american british or japanese. i have no bias.

i want more of every plane type and i fly all plane types. i like em all. if im to be labelled better label me a fanboy of all planes in this sim ....chim.

OldMan____
02-18-2006, 03:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Oldman did you actually find out if the 1.65 speed/climb rate/etc is actually wrong or is the earlier A5 wrong? Or are they both near correct?(A5 faster up high than 165ATA)

I am interested to know. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

look for Roan tests around. I think on FW consortium there is a copy of it. New S5 is simply quite worse at a large piece of chart.

I don´t even try to discuss FW climb to RL anymore here. Thas is a very complicated issue , involving speed and so on.

TX-Bomblast
02-18-2006, 11:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RedDeth:
badsight are you drunk or something?

bomblasts previous post to mine said the 109 and 190 are both off on speed and performance. with nothing to back it up.

would it matter if he said p51? would that make you happier? tx bomblast made a all encompassing comment that is meaningless.

and you defend it. dude your slipping.

i could give a flying rat whether he mentions german american british or japanese. i have no bias.

i want more of every plane type and i fly all plane types. i like em all. if im to be labelled better label me a fanboy of all planes in this sim ....chim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

REDDEATH...
Let us know when your flying the same Flight sim game we all are.BTW, All my statements seem true to anyone else has flown German Planes for the past few years. Somehow, the Mk108 Targets are having their day in court.
IF you believe the German FMs are "Correct", you've been playing UT way too long.

TX-Bomblast
White 6

RedDeth
02-18-2006, 02:20 PM
im not saying german fms are correct. I am saying you make a comment and do nothing to back it up. oleg has changed the FMs on many planes this patch and notably on the 109. every patch the game is reborn slightly.

so before you issue broad statements saying this or that is wrong please provide 4.03 proof.

thats all. are you saying top speed is wrong? guns? dive speed or breakup speed...what.

all in 4.03 terms.

i do notice the 109 behaves much more like historical records with the elevator now. how do you feel on that subject?

aside from the center cockpit bar on the 190 which i believe in real life did not obstruct the view as much due to binocular vision and being able to move your head side to side what is wrong with the german planes?