PDA

View Full Version : A question for all you non-biased LW only fliers.



MEGILE
03-13-2005, 12:58 PM

p1ngu666
03-13-2005, 01:12 PM
i think itll be undermodeled to start with, then corrected http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

or overmodeled, and then corrected http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

KGr.HH-Sunburst
03-13-2005, 01:16 PM
cant get worse than late war 109s right? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
honestly i cant wait to see all those one 0 whines
going down burning
oh wait my jug does that allready http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

nah we just have to wait and see, all i know its the only good looking spit of them all and that im gonna enjoy fighting with them and against them http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

MEGILE
03-13-2005, 01:23 PM
A blue-only pilot once revealed to me that shooting down Spitfires is currently too hard, citing incorrect modelling as the problem, and that during the war they could not compare to the Me-109.

Any truth in this??

ploughman
03-13-2005, 01:31 PM
http://www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/Spitfire14.jpg

A little pic to focus the mind. Ain't she a beaut!

Matt_2208
03-13-2005, 01:42 PM
To me the Spitfire XIV is the best fighter in late WW2, and i sure dont hope it'll get undermodelled !!

My #1 late war fighter ! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Matt_2208

ploughman
03-13-2005, 01:46 PM
Here's a link (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14pt.html) to a site with lots of info derived from manufacturers and captured A/C tests on Allied and Axis types including the Spit XIV v Bf 109s of the G & K flavours, the G-6 being the operational 109 counterpart in January 1944 when the XIV entered service with 610 Sqn.

faustnik
03-13-2005, 01:52 PM
I voted "no". I'm sure the Spit XIV will have a very accurate FM. This will probably upset many Spit pilots as it won't turn as well as earlier versions. After they get used to energy fighting however, the Spit XIV will be very difficult to beat. It will simply out-perform the competition, as it did in 1945.

faustnik
03-13-2005, 01:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
A blue-only pilot once revealed to me that shooting down Spitfires is currently too hard, citing incorrect modelling as the problem, and that during the war they could not compare to the Me-109.

Any truth in this?? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, Megile, no truth to it. I love fighting Spitfires in the Fw190. The Spits have their historical advantages and I have mine in the Fw190.

As far as the Spit/Bf109 matchup, I have never read of a Bf109 dominating a current version of the Spitfire. I don't buy the "Spitfires don't compare to the Bf109" thing at all.

MEGILE
03-13-2005, 02:07 PM
I was, as you may have gatherd, simply fishing. However Faustnik you gave a very well thought out answer, and now I feel bad http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It will simply out-perform the competition, as it did in 1945. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In terms of pure dogfighting, I would have to agree.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As far as the Spit/Bf109 matchup, I have never read of a Bf109 dominating a current version of the Spitfire. I don't buy the "Spitfires don't compare to the Bf109" thing at all. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed, although I do hear this kind of talk all of the time.

Do many Luftwaffe fliers expect it to be an easy fight? Do they believe it to be unrealisticaly hard? I have certainly never read that dogfighting Spitfires was a particularly easy thing.

In the FW-190A9, if I get slow and low with a Spitfire, I am going to get shot down. I fully expect, and accept that as realistically true.
Some however don't, and they like to make a big fuss about it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Someone explain to me why... lots of blue-only pilots consider the Spitfire to be over-modelled, and yet many Spitfire pilots would argue this is wrong.
Is it simply a fact that, blue-only pilots not flying the Spitfire therefore have an external unbiased view? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Answers on a postcard.

I want to talk about this because, while we have seen overmodelling accusations before, it is realy turning into hysteria.

TooMuchCheese
03-13-2005, 02:11 PM
Nice shiny bait, very well presented, but ultimately let down by poor technique.
Good try though.


http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

MEGILE
03-13-2005, 02:14 PM
I should take lessons from Robin http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Von_Rat
03-13-2005, 02:15 PM
i'll say one thing, if the spit14 doesn't retain e, or turn as good as spit9, you'll hear red whining all the way to moscow.

MEGILE
03-13-2005, 02:16 PM
And if it does, the blue armies will mobilize on the forum.

NorrisMcWhirter
03-13-2005, 02:17 PM
Aye, a poor effort at a troll.

Having said that, I expect that it'll be modelled quite accurately as the Spit appears to be at the moment.

Of course, whether the 151/20s get fixed meaning that the LW have a correct historical weapon capable of dealing with the Spit is another matter.

I suspect that they won't.

Because that's how things are.

Norris

MEGILE
03-13-2005, 02:19 PM
Please Lord don't bring the MG-151s in here... its like dropping a grenade into a crowd.

Start a thread if you want to discuss the MG-151 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

TX-Zen
03-13-2005, 02:21 PM
If one is observant enough, one can see when aircraft depart from the consistency of the physics engine. The physics engine has always been weak in the area of low wingloading/high thrust to weight ratio during heavy manuevering and how it relates to energy bleed.

An a6m5 is a good example of the tradeoffs of turning performance optimization, 190A4's are a good example of BnZ optimization. Both planes in game have character and both are forced to work towards their strengths to be successful.

Few real aircraft have the capability to perform equally well in both styles of flight because aircraft are a series of engineering compromises...some aircraft in this game simply do not suffer from these kinds of engineering challenges and hence can fly as they will under most any circumstance.

WW2 was fought as an arms race on a grand scale and with all sides having extremely similar technology and experience...it was a constant struggle to out do the other side with the result often being an incremental performance advantage, not a decisive one. If one particular airframe could do so well in all areas...why on earth would anyone have built a less capable aircraft in it's place?

The physics engine still favors low wingloading over high thrust to weight ratio and has since its creation. If you look at the history of air warfare, the opposite tends to be true. Speed and climb rate tended to give the tactical advantage and initiative to the fighter that possesed it, turning ability tended to be less than effective in consequence.


Imho, there is nothing inherently wrong with the Spit, the root cause lies with the interpretation of the effectiveness of low wingloading combined with high thrust to weight ratio...late war Yaks, La's and Spits benefit from this interpretation. I've said before I think the D9 is one of the most accurately modelled planes in the game...it cannot simply do anything it pleases, there are energy consequences for most any action it takes and so care must be used in its operation. Spits on the other hand are not restricted by energy because of the generous advantages in low wingloading and the net result in game is a plane that can simply do it all.

Don't bash the Spit, instead correct the fine line of energy modelling that allows aircraft like it to perform abnormally under certain flight conditions. Doing so will result in a game that has a more realistic feel and one that can more easily simulate real war accounts.

Von_Rat
03-13-2005, 02:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
And if it does, the blue armies will mobilize on the forum. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

oh i suspect they'll mobilize no matter how its modeled.

great post zen,,, maybe sombody should mention that fws aren't as fast as they should at certain alts in game, from supercharger bug or whatever the cause, i wonder if that will get fixed when the spit14 gets put in, somehow i doubt it.

MEGILE
03-13-2005, 02:25 PM
A question for LW-only pilots, who are, allowing for assummption, fans of all WW2 aviation in general. Do you want to see the Spit XIV made flyable?
And if not, what reasons do you give?
Because you dislike allied planes?
Because you fully expect it to be over-modeled.

Or am I way off base, and you will all be extremely happy for more planes, that saw combat during WW2 to be made flyable for all.

faustnik
03-13-2005, 02:26 PM
Be careful not to lump "blue-only fliers" into one group. I can't claim to be a "blue-only" guy, I fly red sometimes too, but, I do fly blue more than red, so maybe I can speak for the blue side.

The claims for the Spitfire being overmodeled come from 3 sources, energy retention, overheat and stall speed. The Spifire is able to pull off a lot of vertical maneuvers and not bleed off much energy. My opinion however, is that all planes recieved an easier energy model compared to IL-2 1.0, the change was universal. Because the Spitfire was at the top end of energy retention ability, it can do some things which appear "UFO like". Other planes that did not have the historic energy retention ability of the Spit don't appear to have this ability but, probably have a better E-retention ability than the really had also. In relative terms, the Spitfire only has its historic advantage, nothing more.

With overheat, I have to admit that I believe the Spit has a bug or error that gives it a free pass on engine heat below 6500 meters. A few people on this board have tried to stretch the truth with selected charts and say that it is correct but, I believe that is bogus. Even with the overheat free pass, the Spit IX is hardly fast enough to overtake the speedy LW planes.

The last issue is stall speed. Again all planes have a drastically lowered stall speed since PF, I know the Fw190 does. In relative terms, again the Spiffire only has its correct historic advantage. This low stall speed ability is frustrating to B&Z attackers because a Spitfire can pull its nose up to get a shot at super low speeds.

So basically, except for overheat, I don't believe the Spitfire has any relative advantage in PF that it didn't have IRL. Universal changes in the sim have only created a false impression of unrealistic advantage.

Does any of that make sense??? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

MEGILE
03-13-2005, 02:35 PM
Be sure Faustnik, you are a man of wise words. I understand http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

I think a lot of the misunderstanding comes from unrealistic pilots and scenarios.
To base relative performance opinions soley on what happens in dogfight servers creates confusion, because Aircraft are being put into situations which they were not necesarily designed, or forced to do during WW2.

Logging on to various dogfight servers, I do not see a bomber stream of B-17s (B-25s) enroute to target at circa. 22,000ft with P-51s and Spitfires weaving above in escort. And I don't see BF-109s approaching from 35,000FT to take on the escort, while FW-190A9s zoom through the bomber formations, lighting them up.

What I do see is a lot of low altitude turn fighting, and people complaing that they can't outturn the Spitfire, and the BF-109K4 climbs too fast etc....
No wonder people are complaining about their favourite airplane's performance..

Stiglr
03-13-2005, 02:35 PM
TX_Zen really gets to the heart of the matter here.

Any Spit should do very well at turning; it's one of the plane's fortes, and one which it has a definite advantage over any contemporary (strike that, just plain ANY) 109.

However, the sim makes such a terrible mess of energy retention, acceleration and other critical physics phenomena, that a Spit will *really* benefit.

The Spit XIV was one of those world-beater late war rides, along with the Yak3, the La-7, the P-51 etc. So, I'd expect it to be better than your 109Ks, certainly.

How *much* better...ah, there's where the real controvery lies.

Von_Rat
03-13-2005, 02:39 PM
faustnik, not to open a big debate on relative performence. but i always cringe when someone says somthings wrong, but since all planes are wrong its ok.

if stalls and e retention are generously wrong to the same degree in all planes i can't help but feel this gives tnb planes more of a advantage than bnz planes.

the reason is, to avoid a bnz attack a tnb plane can pull hard evasive manevuers that benifet more from generous stall and e retaintion, than a bnz plane, which is simply diving more or less in a straight line, where stall isnt a problem. and e retention doesn't matter as much because bnz plane isn't doing a hard manuver like the avoiding tnb plane is.

in a nutshell the physics in game favor tnb over bnz planes. in real life this wasn't so.

maybe this will change in BOB, there'll be a lot ofunhappy tnb flyers if it does, on both sides.

MEGILE
03-13-2005, 02:43 PM
I don't think Faustnik is arguing that is acceptable, and no doubt he would like it to all be corrected.

I wouldn't go far as to say this game favours T n B planes over Z n B planes.
Zoom and boom planes, zoom and boom, because they HAVE to, and this is what they were generaly designed to excel at.

The FW-190 was a a fast plane, with a big punch and excellent high speed meneuvrability. I don't think it was designed to be able to stall fight with the Spitfire, and it certainly can't in game. From what I have read it couldn't in real life, but others may have read different authors http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
It was designed specifically to hit hard in one pass and extend? although I may be incorrect. perhaps Faustnik can shed some light.

The zoom and boom planes excel at what they are supposed to. The FW-190 can dive to a very high speed, hit the Spitfire, extend, and the Spitfire can't touch him.
Asking the plane in-game to throttle backand begin to turn fight with the Spitfire just doesn't hold water in my opinion.

Von_Rat
03-13-2005, 02:52 PM
so you don't see my point on how a hard manuvering tnb plane benifets more than a easy manuvering bnz plane.

if a bnz plane is tnb ing than yes all things are equal, dumb but equal, as far as generous e retention and stall goes. but if the bnz plane is doing bnz, its not benifeting as much as the hard manuvering tnb plane he's trying to shoot.

yes fw is good at bnz, the whole point is that spit is allowed very hard evasive manuvers, because of generous e retention and stall speeds for all planes. the generous e retention and stall speeds don't help fw as much when hes doing bnz.

where do i say a bnz plane should tnb.

civildog
03-13-2005, 03:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>p1ngu666

posted Sun March 13 2005 12:12
i think itll be undermodeled to start with, then corrected Wink2

or overmodeled, and then corrected Surprised
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually Pingu, you're wrong. First it will be undermodelled, then overcorrected, then the overmodelled version will be undercorrected and then the Luftwhiners will get the minengeschossen and the 108's will be overmodelled to counter the unfair Uberfire, and then the Spitfire will get new overmodelled armor, then........

Oh, it's worse than that accursed "It's a Small World" song!

faustnik
03-13-2005, 03:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:

The FW-190 was a a fast plane, with a big punch and excellent high speed meneuvrability. I don't think it was designed to be able to stall fight with the Spitfire, and it certainly can't in game. From what I have read it couldn't in real life, but others may have read different authors http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
It was designed specifically to hit hard in one pass and extend? although I may be incorrect. perhaps Faustnik can shed some light. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I definately agree with you Megile. The Fw190 was designed for speed. T&B dogfighting was rapidly becoming out-dated by 1942 and the Fw190 was a big reason for that.

Von_Rat
03-13-2005, 03:08 PM
to bad tnb isn't getting outdated in FB.

Kurfurst__
03-13-2005, 03:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ploughman:
Here's a http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14pt.html to a site with lots of info derived from manufacturers and captured A/C tests on Allied and Axis types including the Spit XIV v Bf 109s of the G & K flavours, the G-6 being the operational 109 counterpart in January 1944 when the XIV entered service with 610 Sqn. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The site you found is very biased and manipulative. There is a critic written on the article, you should read it to see other side of the coin :

http://www.kurfurst.atw.hu/articles/MW_KvsXIV.htm

ploughman
03-13-2005, 04:41 PM
Thanks, I will. Nobody has the last word, ever.

Stiglr
03-13-2005, 04:45 PM
VonRat wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>the reason is, to avoid a bnz attack a tnb plane can pull hard evasive manevuers that benifet more from generous stall and e retaintion, than a bnz plane, which is simply diving more or less in a straight line, where stall isnt a problem. and e retention doesn't matter as much because bnz plane isn't doing a hard manuver like the avoiding tnb plane is.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, bingo. Another thing drastically wrong with "Oleg's take on physics". The other thing at play here is, the turn-n-burn plane can use that benefit to reverse his line of flight, should the b&Z plane get too drastic with his extension or recovery, and get those stall benefits as he can easily point his nose skyward for a squirt.

Ever notice how I-16s, P-11s and other planes that should be meat on the table are hard for planes that historically ate them for lunch in IL-2. These little gnats are all about turn and loop, but these strengths are augmented by the improper modelling.

Even a patiently b&z-ing Bf109 can't do more than get a stalemate with an I-16 driver that knows his business. He'll never outturn the Rata, and to keep safe (which should be about a fait accompli) he can't really press any shot; if he overcommits, the I-16 will be able to reverse on him and bring those guns to bear.

Of course, if Ratas were that successful, I don't think the Luftwaffe would have been sweeping dozens out of the sky as they did when Barbarossa opened.

p1ngu666
03-13-2005, 04:49 PM
stiglr, the p11 actully did well vs the lw http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

lw did shoot down most of the p11's, but they took alot of losses doing so http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
03-13-2005, 04:51 PM
And suggesting that blue fliers think that allied planes are overmodelled isn't going to be like dropping a grenade?

Even better!

I'm glad you mentioned grenades - don't they have explosives in them? Quite unlike the 151/20 loadout, eh? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Anyway, in response to the question - no, I'd welcome it with only one reservation...as new planes are added, new problems seem to arise...and that goes for aircraft of either side. If 1C could include it without ballsing anything else up then there would be no problem whatsoever. That's pretty unlikely, though.

Ask me the same question of the expected Dornier and I'd say the same thing. You see, not all blue fliers need to have the latest greatest thing...some of them just want what they have already being correct.

Norris

Hunde_3.JG51
03-13-2005, 04:54 PM
Without reading the whole thread I imagine Zen, Faustnik, etc. probably stated my feelings. The problem isn't the Spitfire, more it is an inherent problem with physics/energy modelling. I have little trouble with Spits unless they are diving on me from above, but as long as you spot them before its too late and have sufficient altitude they aren't too difficult to escape. I think the Spitfire XIV will be more of a high speed aircraft with less energy retention and nose hanging ability than the IX, so I think it will be fine and terribly effective if used correctly.

MEGILE
03-13-2005, 05:11 PM
I'm being fairly facetious as I am talking to you as someone who flies FW-190A9 95% of the time.

I wanted to hear blue-only opinions on the Spitfire, as in general, online all I hear is a lot of complaints and little substance.

From my view, alot of pilots seem to expect the Me-109 to dominate the Spitfire fairly easily, and on that I don't over-exaggerate.

It is not that people dislike the Spitfire for its handling properties, which they may deem unrealistic.
I have no problem if a dedicated blue pilot feels the Spitfire is over-modelled, and promptly emails some data to Oleg, and that is the end.
What I do dislike, is having comms spammed because some 109 pilot just got out-turned by a Spitfire.
Any idea what causes people to act so...downright offensive.
This is a game afterall, so what can cause people to log onto a forum, or comms and get so angry over the planes in IL2.
We see it on the forums on a daily basis, name calling, and accusations and the such.

So what if the Spitfire (which Im using as an example) is over modelled? Is that any reason to get so angry? Can't you just accept the beliefe that is over-modelled, and either not fly against it, or just grit your teeth and bear it.
Is it the points which make grown men act such way? is it a strong nationalistic feeling, lord knows even this flight sim can prompt some very heated discussion as people jump to protect their preferred nations planes.

I'm trying to get into the xxx-whiners mind set.

It does come off rather pathetic when you have 5 page threads, with grown men hurling abuse at eachother..... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif I'm at a loss as towhy this occurs.

faustnik
03-13-2005, 05:15 PM
Also, the old "if it was easy, it wouldn't be any fun" adage comes to mind. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ploughman
03-13-2005, 05:16 PM
If it appears to be of worth (a criticism of myself not of you), and once I've digested the extensive critique you've provided, I'll reply. I was intersted by your choice of concluding quote.

"The best thing about the Spitfire Mk. XIV was that there were so few of them."

Adolf Galland

Seems quite an endorsement.

957.

MEGILE
03-13-2005, 05:19 PM
And to that I answer, that's why I fly A9.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Initialy I only started flying it, because I was online alot at the same time as Fish. I just sit on his 6 and steal bis kills now-a-days http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Not that a Spitfire vs. A9 is particularly easy for either plane if each pilot does what his plane can do best.

NorrisMcWhirter
03-13-2005, 05:19 PM
Personally, I don't dislike the Spitfire. Nor do I have nationalistic bias against it.

After all, I live less than 10 miles away from the birthplace of the man who created it; it's one of the icons of this area.

The only time to get annoyed is when someone clearly gets their way more than someone else and these problems are manifested in the aircraft and weapons in the game. Perhaps you should be looking at the mindset of the 1C/UBI marketing dept and the developer to see why there are problems regarding aircraft being introduced.

Norris

MEGILE
03-13-2005, 05:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ploughman:
If it appears to be of worth (a criticism of myself not of you), and once I've digested the extensive critique you've provided, I'll reply. I was intersted by your choice of concluding quote.

"The best thing about the Spitfire Mk. XIV was that there were so few of them."


Adolf Galland

Seems quite an endorsement.

957. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hehe, I never heard that one before. That is quite a compliment http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

MEGILE
03-13-2005, 05:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Personally, I don't dislike the Spitfire. Nor do I have nationalistic bias against it.

After all, I live less than 10 miles away from the birthplace of the man who created it; it's one of the icons of this area.

The only time to get annoyed is when someone clearly gets their way more than someone else and these problems are manifested in the aircraft and weapons in the game. Perhaps you should be looking at the mindset of the 1C/UBI marketing dept and the developer to see why there are problems regarding aircraft being introduced.

Norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure, some whiners get their way.. but at the end of the day mate, all this game is about is how pixels on the screen react to the imput of a joystick.
Not something to get angry about.

IMO, there has not been a change implemented by Oleg which makes any area of this game unplayable.
(Although the LA-7 is a tough nut to crack http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)0

NorrisMcWhirter
03-13-2005, 05:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Personally, I don't dislike the Spitfire. Nor do I have nationalistic bias against it.

After all, I live less than 10 miles away from the birthplace of the man who created it; it's one of the icons of this area.

The only time to get annoyed is when someone clearly gets their way more than someone else and these problems are manifested in the aircraft and weapons in the game. Perhaps you should be looking at the mindset of the 1C/UBI marketing dept and the developer to see why there are problems regarding aircraft being introduced.

Norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure, some whiners get their way.. but at the end of the day mate, all this game is about is how pixels on the screen react to the imput of a joystick.
Not something to get angry about.

IMO, there has not been a change implemented by Oleg which makes any area of this game unplayable.
(Although the LA-7 is a tough nut to crack http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)0 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps you ought to look at it another way and ask yourself if there are any changes Oleg has refused to make which, admittedly, don't make it unplayable but which is a clear problem that will be ignored yet again.

And, the way that those pixels on a screen react to that input is a function of what the developer wants history (in this case) to be portrayed as. If it's wrong and it's biased then that is something to be concerned about.

After all, if someone knocked out a film tomorrow portraying all allied forces as evil, people exterminating baby eaters and axis forces as angelic heroes who didn't actually perform an ethnic cleansing exercise on millions of people then, presumably, that wouldn't annoy you in the slightest?

OK, it's not on the same level but I trust you can see where things end up when mistruths are put about.

Of course, when people then make posts that trawl in these areas, it's hardly surprising that things get heated eventually. It must come as no surprise to those that think, "It does come off rather pathetic when you have 5 page threads, with grown men hurling abuse at eachother..... Confused I'm at a loss as towhy this occurs." http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Norris

Grisha7
03-13-2005, 05:31 PM
I tend to fly the Spitfire mostly so I would say I fall into the 'red' catagory of flyers on this sim. However, I also really enjoy flying the Fw190 and if I join a server and find an abundance of reds I'll happily jump in a 190 for the blues. IMO, both of these aircraft are mean b*stards and in capable hands are lethal fighting machines. I love reading accounts of the pilots who flew in this conflict and their thoughts and opinions as to the abilities of these awesome warbirds. Almost all pilots who flew the Spit would tell you it was easy to fly and more forgiving than most other fighter types when pushed hard. The Fw190 was a totally different concept and an inexperienced pilot could get himself killed before he even got near a fight. But in capable hands the 190 was a deadly opponent so I'd say this game is reasonably accurate in this respect.

'Tis but the beer talking anyway, great thread though! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

MEGILE
03-13-2005, 05:36 PM
Fortunatly it hasn't come down to that yet.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

So, now we are getting to the crux of the problem..... people worried about Maddox et al. re-writing history? hmm, I thought It would be something rather stupid like that.

Hehehe, as A brit I couldn't care less if this flight simming community was "lead" to believe that the Spitfire was weaker than the Me-109 (which it may well have been, again jst an example)
Re-writing history? jeez you guys take this whole thing too seriously... the world isn;t going to explode just because Oleg maddox modelled a plane in a particular way, and the players of this game are lead to believe it was like this.

Pfft.. rewriting history, should of guessed it was nationalistic-pride.
What elese could cause grown men to act in such a manner? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

I might add that this would be a smallll minority.

I think generaly, people get angry because they get owned.
If a Spitfire pilot shoots you down, he was a better pilot at that time.
I've seen blue-only pilots making excuses about Spitfire pilots being weaker,and their kills not being as high an acheivement because of the plane characteristics.
IMO that is kind of ilogical. If a Spitfire pilot manages to catch a D9 or a K4... the D9 or K4 pilot was obviously doing something very wrong.

Grisha7
03-13-2005, 05:46 PM
By the way, I get shot down in almost equal measures in both aircraft. I blame my joystick...

NorrisMcWhirter
03-13-2005, 05:46 PM
lol...run out of argument so you resort to the nationalistic card again?

FYI, as I already said, I'm British also. That would suggest that I'd prefer to have the Spit better.

However, I wouldn't - I'd expect it to be modelled correctly as I'd expect other things to be correct. That, IMO, is the least the developer could do to honour the designers of the aircraft and the pilots/crews who fought and, possibly, died in them.

I don't like seeing history manipulated for the sake of making money or advancing someone's mindset. History is very important because it can teach people to be better in the future. When you get history wrong, you can get problems recurring.

I don't give a sh*t if that's considered to be an over-reaction because, after all, this is just a game and I fully understand that. It's not going to change my fundamental view on the matter, though.

Norris

PS. If I get shot down by a Spitfire, I have no complaints..I should have dealt with the problem better. If my plane bursts into flames with one hit to the elevator or runs out of fuel with one hit to the wingtip, I find that both annoying and amusing at the same time. Getting owned is something that everyone experiences playing this game but getting owned because, for example, you hit someone's plane 20 times and then having them turn around and hit you three times to down you is, perhaps, a little OTT.

MEGILE
03-13-2005, 05:51 PM
It would certainly be naive to believe that gentlemen don't have certain bias, whether political or nationalistic.

Im just throwing this out here but... why else would people seem to have this strong urge to defend one side.
You see a lot of red pilots arguing about blue planes, and blue pilots arguing about red planes.
Have these pilots taken their virtual nationalities to heart? maybe http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Who knows, maybe red or blue is just their favourite colour.
You seem to have a very offensive tone concering the P-51 Norris.... maybe you have been flying blue too long. Jump in red every now again http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I believe it is a very sorry state of affairs we find ourselves in. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
03-13-2005, 05:54 PM
P51 is typically my second ride. IMO, it's a lot like the 190 but without the cool factor.

So, that's that argument out of the window, too.

Norris

MEGILE
03-13-2005, 05:55 PM
Let us not go down the political argument.
You have already stated your opinion clearly enough.
You dislike the fact that history is in the hands of Oleg Maddox.
I expect many other pilots, red and blue feel the same way.
This mind set, I far from understand http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I hope one day you find a flight sim which agrees with your view of history. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

MEGILE
03-13-2005, 06:03 PM
All this time I thought we were here merely to fly a flight sim.... not to attempt to write history to how we see it... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif
Anyone for WC? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
03-13-2005, 06:10 PM
Nice try, Megile - to make an accusation that I want a distorted view of history when I've made it very clear that I want something that is accurate. And what's this political slant? Oh dear, that really is scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Especially when you started this thread AND you were the one first to mention politics and nationalism. I merely pointed out that when money is involved people can become biased.

Still, you ran out of argument and now you're off.

Fair enough http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cheers!
Norris

MEGILE
03-13-2005, 06:13 PM
I neither stated that your view of history is correct or incorrect. Are you suggesting there is something radical about your ideas?
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
I was merely mistaken that pilots held Oleg's ability to re-write history in such high-regard. It saddens me that they do. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif
Atleast now I can understand where some of the whinning stems from.

Have a good one mate http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

p1ngu666
03-13-2005, 06:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Nice try, Megile - to make an accusation that I want a distorted view of history when I've made it very clear that I want something that is accurate.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

so, me and megile fly XIV, u fly g6 g6 early or 190a568 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
early to mid 44 fun http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
03-13-2005, 06:18 PM
Nope, nothing radical about anything I've said.

Just common sense, IMO.

I'm really interested in this political thing...where did you get that one from?

Norris

NorrisMcWhirter
03-13-2005, 06:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Nice try, Megile - to make an accusation that I want a distorted view of history when I've made it very clear that I want something that is accurate.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

so, me and megile fly XIV, u fly g6 g6 early or 190a568 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
early to mid 44 fun http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In a DF server, you mean? Sorry m8 - I don't do them - hHistory is important, after all.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Norris

MEGILE
03-13-2005, 06:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Nice try, Megile - to make an accusation that I want a distorted view of history when I've made it very clear that I want something that is accurate.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

so, me and megile fly XIV, u fly g6 g6 early or 190a568 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
early to mid 44 fun http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
P1ngu = teh funneh.
Although I'm sure Norris wasn't implying we fly un-realistic planesets.

He is, after all merely trying to set the record straight.

p1ngu666
03-13-2005, 06:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Nice try, Megile - to make an accusation that I want a distorted view of history when I've made it very clear that I want something that is accurate.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

so, me and megile fly XIV, u fly g6 g6 early or 190a568 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
early to mid 44 fun http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In a DF server, you mean? Sorry m8 - I don't do them - hHistory is important, after all.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

or coop http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
could do d day coop, but that maybe your day off, if u flying lw http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

MEGILE
03-13-2005, 06:25 PM
Now now p1ngu don't be bashful.
We could fly P-51s together. Norris, want to make the mission?

NorrisMcWhirter
03-13-2005, 06:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Nice try, Megile - to make an accusation that I want a distorted view of history when I've made it very clear that I want something that is accurate.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

so, me and megile fly XIV, u fly g6 g6 early or 190a568 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
early to mid 44 fun http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
P1ngu = teh funneh.
Although I'm sure Norris wasn't implying we fly un-realistic planesets.

He is, after all merely trying to set the record straight. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Another swipe, Megile? You must still be smarting.

But you're pal has turned up now so you're alright to carry on. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Norris

MEGILE
03-13-2005, 06:28 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif


Norris ~
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I don't like seeing history manipulated for the sake of making money or advancing someone's mindset. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Megile ~
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> He is, after all merely trying to set the record straight. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Relax Norris mate. P1ngu can whip up a COOP in no time.

NorrisMcWhirter
03-13-2005, 06:29 PM
You can do what you like - make a co-op and I'll come to fly in it. I'm too bone idle to make one myself.

I suspect, though, it'll just be a p*ssing contest with both of you almost *********** at being able to shoot me down first. If that's what you need t to do to make yourselves feel better then fine. I'll fly straight and level for you then you can come at the same time!

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Norris

p1ngu666
03-13-2005, 06:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
Now now p1ngu don't be bashful.
We could fly P-51s together. Norris, want to make the mission? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

99th have a really good one where in p51B u protect the bombers up at high alt, pretty tough actully.

or if oleg gives up 25lb boost p51, then we can do some low level raiding coops http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
03-13-2005, 06:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif


Norris ~
[QUOTE]
I don't like seeing history manipulated for the sake of making money or advancing someone's mindset. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


You were going a minute ago, Megile, but now your pal has turned up you're all mouth again and going over old points.

Good stuff http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Shows a lot of your mindset http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

It's 1:32am here and I'll pass on your masturbatory co-op. But, give me a shout another day and I'll come fly with you.

Norris

MEGILE
03-13-2005, 06:31 PM
FW-190A8 p1ngu?
I usually fly the FW-190A9 on WC, so the adjustment will take some getting used to.
Sound cool though.

Norris http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif No need to get all heavy mate.
Besides this coop could be interesting.

Sure mate you can fly with us... just no complaining about the MG-151.. ok? cheers mate.
What can I say I'm an evil history-rewriter spreading Oleg's lies about over-modelled Spitfires.
History channel should employ me.

btw. saying Oleg would nerf planes just to make money is not vrey cool. It dissapoints me you could believe that lie Norris.
I guess we are destined never to agree. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif
Can't win em all.

p1ngu666
03-13-2005, 06:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
You can do what you like - make a co-op and I'll come to fly in it. I'm too bone idle to make one myself.

I suspect, though, it'll just be a p*ssing contest with both of you almost *********** at being able to shoot me down first. If that's what you need t to do to make yourselves feel better then fine. I'll fly straight and level for you then you can come at the same time!

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

nah it wont be a pissin contest, i have a small bladder, ppl who fly coops will back me up when i say that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

and, i dont think ive come close to *********** in fb, maybe ejectin from go229 or he162 tho. maybe you talking about your surprisingly high enjoyment of the game. maybe ull ********* when or if mg151 is fixed? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

and, depending on the coop i dont care about shooting stuff down, if i haveto move mud, then i do that, and any air kills bonus. escort if i get big friends home, job done http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

MEGILE
03-13-2005, 06:40 PM
p1ngu is a sniper in the rear gunners seat.
P1ngu is over-modelled. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

p1ngu666
03-13-2005, 06:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
p1ngu is a sniper in the rear gunners seat.
P1ngu is over-modelled. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666//pinguandb25small.jpg

who, me? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

SkyChimp
03-13-2005, 06:46 PM
Was the Spit XIV a late war plane? Didn't it go into service in 1943? Where's Hop when you need him?

MEGILE
03-13-2005, 06:47 PM
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/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

So now we see why P1ngu has been owning in the rear gunner seat. He has been getting a little extra practise than the rest of us.

MEGILE
03-13-2005, 06:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Was the Spit XIV a late war plane? Didn't it go into service in 1943? Where's Hop when you need him? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
P1ngu will probably know.
First in active service January 1944 I believe. However Kurfurst hypothesises that it didn't see action until late March, because the first loss reported was April...
Thats his logic, not mine.

p1ngu666
03-13-2005, 06:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Was the Spit XIV a late war plane? Didn't it go into service in 1943? Where's Hop when you need him? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

squadrons on active service jan\feb 44
so it was being made and delivery in 43, but its really a 44 plane

p1ngu666
03-13-2005, 06:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Was the Spit XIV a late war plane? Didn't it go into service in 1943? Where's Hop when you need him? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
P1ngu will probably know.
First in active service January 1944 I believe. However Kurfurst hypothesises that it didn't see action until late March, because the first loss reported was April...
Thats his logic, not mine. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ill see if i can dig up anything http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

p1ngu666
03-13-2005, 07:24 PM
XII (12) was a 43 plane chimp
a mk VC airframe modified to take a griffon
later ones based on VIII airframes
first one appeared in october 43, no 41 squadron became operational with the type in april 43

performance is abit less than XIV at low alt, worse at high alt, but handling maybe abit better than XIV

XIV
first production in october 43

610 squadron requiped with XIV in jan\feb, in march 91 and 322 begin to requip

several XIV where modfied to 25lb on 150octane to combat V1's, extra 30mph, 400mph at 2000ft http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

bet it sounded great too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif
september 44, four more units about to become operational or already 41 130 350 402 "from then till end of war XIV was main high altitude air superiority operated by the 2nd TAF in northern europe" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

hop2002
03-13-2005, 07:50 PM
The Spit XIV was in production 1943, with first deliveries in October 1943, entered service in Jan 1944.

Isegrim's "first loss" is a pretty poor criteria for judging service dates, given the lack of offensive sorties by the Luftwaffe in western Europe in early 1944.

p1ngu666
03-13-2005, 07:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
The Spit XIV was in production 1943, with first deliveries in October 1943, entered service in Jan 1944.

Isegrim's "first loss" is a pretty poor criteria for judging service dates, given the lack of offensive sorties by the Luftwaffe in western Europe in early 1944. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

maybe it was a lw, or 109 tradition to lose a plane on first op? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

SkyChimp
03-13-2005, 08:24 PM
If a plane was so good it never got shot down, does that mean it never entered service?

p1ngu666
03-13-2005, 08:50 PM
yeah, and theres aircraft that only served in peacetime aswell, and civil aircraft aswell...

Von_Rat
03-13-2005, 11:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ploughman:
If it appears to be of worth (a criticism of myself not of you), and once I've digested the extensive critique you've provided, I'll reply. I was intersted by your choice of concluding quote.

"The best thing about the Spitfire Mk. XIV was that there were so few of them."

Adolf Galland

Seems quite an endorsement.

957. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
allies probaly said same thing about me262.

Von_Rat
03-13-2005, 11:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Nice try, Megile - to make an accusation that I want a distorted view of history when I've made it very clear that I want something that is accurate.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

so, me and megile fly XIV, u fly g6 g6 early or 190a568 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
early to mid 44 fun http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

funny how all these spit flyers wanna fly against g6 because its historical, but refuse to fly against the me262.

i'll take the g6 challange when spit14 comes out, but then we fly spit14 vs me262 for the next map, for some mid to late 44 fun.

it can be you 2 guys against me and fish, how about it fish are you in.

NorrisMcWhirter
03-14-2005, 01:21 AM
Morning.

Meg: I'm wasn't getting heavy - just engaging in a bit of a wind up which isn't exactly unusual for me. Liken it to your trawling, if it makes you feel any better. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Also, I don't think that Oleg has deliberately nerfed anything to make money; as I'm sure you will find from checking out my recent posts, I believe that he prioritises fixing problems that have been highlighted according to what will make the most cash/won't annoy the most customers - they're two quite different things. Unfortunately, while I understand that he is running a business, the net effect is the same: bias.

TBH, I think the only thing that could really be overmodelled is pingu's barnet. There's no way you could get a pilot kill on him as that coiffure would probably stop bullets better than a few inches of Chobham http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

And no, I don't think I'd lose my wad if they fixed the 151/20, I'd just find something else to moan about. Like the 50 bugs that would invariably be introduced in the process of it getting sorted out http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Norris

PS: If I see you jokers in HL, I'll drop you a PM.I wouldn't hold your breath too much, though - I'm pretty much in semi-retirement from flying as I've found something better to play than this.

ploughman
03-14-2005, 02:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> allies probaly said same thing about me262. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe they did, but Adolf definately said that about the Spit XIV. No maybe about it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

WOLFMondo
03-14-2005, 03:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
It does come off rather pathetic when you have 5 page threads, with grown men hurling abuse at eachother..... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif I'm at a loss as towhy this occurs. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought this was the point of internet forums?!?!?http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Good thread Megile.

Can't wait for some high altitude Spitfire fun. I don't think people will whine about it much though, they'll be to busy whining about the Tempest V and its 4 fast firing hispano's.

Wallstein
03-14-2005, 03:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TX-Zen:

"---Don't bash the Spit, instead correct the fine line of energy modelling that allows aircraft like it to perform abnormally under certain flight conditions. Doing so will result in a game that has a more realistic feel and one that can more easily simulate real war accounts.---" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you for your good comment. It is nice and educating to read thorougly thougt writings. And your language was not too difficult for me to understand. We, who do not speak english as our first language tend to find ourselves in problems every now and then.



And comment for the original poll: I simply don´t know what the Spit is going to be. I have my fears...


LeOs.K_Walstein

MEGILE
03-14-2005, 03:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Morning.

Meg: I'm wasn't getting heavy - just engaging in a bit of a wind up which isn't exactly unusual for me. Liken it to your trawling, if it makes you feel any better. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Also, I don't think that Oleg has deliberately nerfed anything to make money; as I'm sure you will find from checking out my recent posts, I believe that he prioritises fixing problems that have been highlighted according to what will make the most cash/won't annoy the most customers - they're two quite different things. Unfortunately, while I understand that he is running a business, the net effect is the same: bias.

TBH, I think the only thing that could really be overmodelled is pingu's barnet. There's no way you could get a pilot kill on him as that coiffure would probably stop bullets better than a few inches of Chobham http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

And no, I don't think I'd lose my wad if they fixed the 151/20, I'd just find something else to moan about. Like the 50 bugs that would invariably be introduced in the process of it getting sorted out http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Norris

PS: If I see you jokers in HL, I'll drop you a PM.I wouldn't hold your breath too much, though - I'm pretty much in semi-retirement from flying as I've found something better to play than this. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahh ok, I understand further now. You hadn't clarified what you meant exactly when you previously mentioned planes being modelled as per the money they generate. That was my misunderstanding. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
I still disagree with the belief that Oleg has the power to rewrite History... but I guess this game can generate such strong passion... I will never understand it, but I will have to accept it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Be sure about P1ngu's hair.. impervious to 30mm MK108 and 20mm Hispano.. better than Delta wood. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Myself and P1ngu certainly were not arguing that the MG-151 should not be modified if they are incorrect. If they are then so be it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Be sure, anytime you see myself or P1ngu hosting a coop, jump in.

NextBarbaPapa
03-14-2005, 03:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
Is the Spitfire XIV (if made flyable) going to be over-modelled?

Serious and honest answers please <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We already have it, it is just named SpitfireIX by mistake...

NorrisMcWhirter
03-14-2005, 04:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Morning.

Meg: I'm wasn't getting heavy - just engaging in a bit of a wind up which isn't exactly unusual for me. Liken it to your trawling, if it makes you feel any better. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Also, I don't think that Oleg has deliberately nerfed anything to make money; as I'm sure you will find from checking out my recent posts, I believe that he prioritises fixing problems that have been highlighted according to what will make the most cash/won't annoy the most customers - they're two quite different things. Unfortunately, while I understand that he is running a business, the net effect is the same: bias.

TBH, I think the only thing that could really be overmodelled is pingu's barnet. There's no way you could get a pilot kill on him as that coiffure would probably stop bullets better than a few inches of Chobham http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

And no, I don't think I'd lose my wad if they fixed the 151/20, I'd just find something else to moan about. Like the 50 bugs that would invariably be introduced in the process of it getting sorted out http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Norris

PS: If I see you jokers in HL, I'll drop you a PM.I wouldn't hold your breath too much, though - I'm pretty much in semi-retirement from flying as I've found something better to play than this. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahh ok, I understand further now. You hadn't clarified what you meant exactly when you previously mentioned planes being modelled as per the money they generate. That was my misunderstanding. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
I still disagree with the belief that Oleg has the power to rewrite History... but I guess this game can generate such strong passion... I will never understand it, but I will have to accept it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Be sure about P1ngu's hair.. impervious to 30mm MK108 and 20mm Hispano.. better than Delta wood. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Myself and P1ngu certainly were not arguing that the MG-151 should not be modified if they are incorrect. If they are then so be it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Be sure, anytime you see myself or P1ngu hosting a coop, jump in. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi,

I didn't really mean that I think Oleg models planes according to how much winga they will generate, either http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif It's just that it seems to take ages for Oleg to change anything that's wrong on the axis side, even if a decent amount of proof has been generated that there is an inconsistency. Prime example: 151/20, where an issue is pointed out, is accepted as an issue but then we're told that we'd have to wait for BoB for a solution. I really find that hard to accept and a little bit presumptious that I'd be actually going out to buy BoB after being told this.

Whereas...blah.. .50cal...blah..."overnight" fix...blah..even though Oleg suggests they are now not historical...blah......stationary carriers...blah. You know my spiel by now and I hate to have to keep repeating it but eventually you get into a rut as I'm sure Oleg has about not fixing issues http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Unfortunately, anyone who produces an item which is supposed to represent history correctly (and he is the one who says that he goes out on a limb to ensure things are modelled correctly) inherently has the power to distort things. I'm not sure why that isn't so easy to understand though. I decided that this game wasn't really very historical some time ago and that it's mostly just 3D models that look something like WW2 planes just happening to do WW2 plane type things but it still gets on my t*ts regardless. I don't lose sleep over it or get overly excited but I will argue the corner or point out things that I'm not happy about as I'm sure you are well aware.

I do agree that a lot of plane-related posturing on this forum is based upon nationalism but it's not from me as I really have no interest in seeing someone's plane/weapon "porked" for any reason. Perhaps I'm the anti-nationalist in that I shouldn't give a monkeys about LW planes (after all, as someone who is British, they were the bad guys from WW2 who bombed our chippies) but I do feel that axis often get a poor deal.

I'll be sure to join you if I see you. I've never actually seen you in HL, though...I've seen Pingu joining a few co-ops but always at some strange time of day and I don't normally go to bed before 1.30am most days!

I'm nocturnal but not that nocturnal http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cheers,
Norris

NorrisMcWhirter
03-14-2005, 04:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Morning.

Meg: I'm wasn't getting heavy - just engaging in a bit of a wind up which isn't exactly unusual for me. Liken it to your trawling, if it makes you feel any better. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Also, I don't think that Oleg has deliberately nerfed anything to make money; as I'm sure you will find from checking out my recent posts, I believe that he prioritises fixing problems that have been highlighted according to what will make the most cash/won't annoy the most customers - they're two quite different things. Unfortunately, while I understand that he is running a business, the net effect is the same: bias.

TBH, I think the only thing that could really be overmodelled is pingu's barnet. There's no way you could get a pilot kill on him as that coiffure would probably stop bullets better than a few inches of Chobham http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

And no, I don't think I'd lose my wad if they fixed the 151/20, I'd just find something else to moan about. Like the 50 bugs that would invariably be introduced in the process of it getting sorted out http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Norris

PS: If I see you jokers in HL, I'll drop you a PM.I wouldn't hold your breath too much, though - I'm pretty much in semi-retirement from flying as I've found something better to play than this. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahh ok, I understand further now. You hadn't clarified what you meant exactly when you previously mentioned planes being modelled as per the money they generate. That was my misunderstanding. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
I still disagree with the belief that Oleg has the power to rewrite History... but I guess this game can generate such strong passion... I will never understand it, but I will have to accept it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Be sure about P1ngu's hair.. impervious to 30mm MK108 and 20mm Hispano.. better than Delta wood. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Myself and P1ngu certainly were not arguing that the MG-151 should not be modified if they are incorrect. If they are then so be it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Be sure, anytime you see myself or P1ngu hosting a coop, jump in. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi,

I didn't really mean that I think Oleg models planes according to how much winga they will generate, either http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif It's just that it seems to take ages for Oleg to change anything that's wrong on the axis side, even if a decent amount of proof has been generated that there is an inconsistency. Prime example: 151/20, where an issue is pointed out, is accepted as an issue but then we're told that we'd have to wait for BoB for a solution. I really find that hard to accept and a little bit presumptious that I'd be actually going out to buy BoB after being told this.

Whereas...blah.. .50cal...blah..."overnight" fix...blah..even though Oleg suggests they are now not historical...blah......stationary carriers...blah. You know my spiel by now and I hate to have to keep repeating it but eventually you get into a rut as I'm sure Oleg has about not fixing issues http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Unfortunately, anyone who produces an item which is supposed to represent history correctly (and he is the one who says that he goes out on a limb to ensure things are modelled correctly) inherently has the power to distort things. I'm not sure why that isn't so easy to understand though. I decided that this game wasn't really very historical some time ago and that it's mostly just 3D models that look something like WW2 planes just happening to do WW2 plane type things but it still gets on my t*ts regardless. I don't lose sleep over it or get overly excited but I will argue the corner or point out things that I'm not happy about as I'm sure you are well aware. Too many years of internet chat room wind ups and ding dongs have taken their toll on me, I'm afraid; tearing up Southbeach hangout was a particular favourite. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I do agree that a lot of plane-related posturing on this forum is based upon nationalism but it's not from me as I really have no interest in seeing someone's plane/weapon "porked" for any reason. Perhaps I'm the anti-nationalist in that I shouldn't give a monkeys about LW planes (after all, as someone who is British, they were the bad guys from WW2 who bombed our chippies) but I do feel that axis often get a poor deal.

I'll be sure to join you if I see you. I've never actually seen you in HL, though...I've seen Pingu joining a few co-ops but always at some strange time of day and I don't normally go to bed before 1.30am most days!

I'm nocturnal but not that nocturnal http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cheers,
Norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kurfurst__
03-14-2005, 05:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
The Spit XIV was in production 1943, with first deliveries in October 1943, entered service in Jan 1944.

Deliveries in October 1943, that`s quite interesting, as on 27th October 1943 AAEE was still writing it`s report on the PROTOTYPE, that was only a conversion of an older VIII airframe..

Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment
Boscombe Down
27 October 1943
Spitfire F. Mk. VIII(Conv) (Prototype Mk.XIV) JF.319 (Griffon RG5SM)



[QUOTE]
Isegrim's "first loss" is a pretty poor criteria for judging service dates, given the lack of offensive sorties by the Luftwaffe in western Europe in early 1944. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In early 1944 the LW mounted the baby blitz against london, which was their largest scale offensive against Britain ever since the battle of britian.

The simply reason there were no losses on combat sorties by any XIV unit was that there weren`t any XIV unit that was fit for combat until April 1944.

You only have to refer to the No. 610 Squadron Operations Record Book, it states :

"31.3.44 : The Squadron is _now_ fully equipped with the Spitfire XIV."

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/no610orb.jpg

Quite clearly the Spitfire XIV was not introduced into combat unilt April 1944, though some fanboys would like to make that earlier..

Cajun76
03-14-2005, 05:37 AM
Amazing. Kurfurst has never heard of mixed squadrons, new types being added and flying alongside older ones. Interesting. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif



And if some here are really, diehard for realism, then a certain percentage of random days during the year, you can't take off in a K4, 262 or D9 type LW a/c because your fuel tanks are dry..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Of course, I don't advocate this, but hey, you never know.

To me it's both sim and game, and I personally have a blast flying most anything. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Jagdklinger
03-14-2005, 05:45 AM
Don't you know that ALL LW fliers are non-biased? Ignoramus. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

They are merely poor mortals who have to live with MG 15....oops! I nearly mentioned THE FORBIDDEN THING http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

I'm with P1ngu - whatever it is, it won't be right the first time. Does anyone know how many MB of patches since FB 1.1?

I am sooooo looking forward to the XIV - I worship climbing ability above all else (109K, ahem ahem) - does anyone know how the 109K vs XIV matchup in climb in RL; I suspect the 109 is slightly better, albeit not by much.

I was wondering - why the Tempest (rare, late-war); where is the Typhoon? It was one of the major fighters of the war (1943-on?) std UK tactical fighter-bomber, i believe, and would be a great 190 matchup. Oh well, we can console ourselves with the 109Z....

Wooo-hoo! Hispano lasers, here I come!

EDIT: Just saw the 109K/XIV thread (talk about coincidence!). Hmmm,I was certain the XIV was a little less capable in the climb department. This fact is referenced....
Reference: Something I think I read once (circa1995)... ...the same as most other posters http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kurfurst__
03-14-2005, 06:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cajun76:
Amazing. Kurfurst has never heard of mixed squadrons, new types being added and flying alongside older ones. Interesting. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually I just pointed out that MkXIVs were flying alongside MkIXs in that single squadron, as there were not enough XIVs arounds for 3 months.

Flying the game is one thing, historical reality is another. Someone pointed to that horribly biased article by Mike williams, and I merely showed the real nature of this man and his article. I don`t mind at all if everybody will fly the XIV when it comes out. I just hope it will be properly modelled, and if not, corrected/fine-tuned soon enough. The fact that there were barely a few of them around in real life isn`t a matter on DF servers, wouldn`t you agree?

WOLFMondo
03-14-2005, 07:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jagdklinger:

I was wondering - why the Tempest (rare, late-war); where is the Typhoon? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because the Tempest was modelled and done to Olegs standards, the Typhoon wasn't. The Tempests were not around as large a numbers as Spitfires IX's but there role in 1944/45 was as important if not more.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jagdklinger:

EDIT: Just saw the 109K/XIV thread (talk about coincidence!). Hmmm,I was certain the XIV was a little less capable in the climb department. This fact is referenced.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I always thought it was the other way round, going by the RAF's own tests the XIV was superior to the IX in a climb and the IX was almost as good as the K4...go figure.

Im getting lost in hundreds of different conflicting threads saying which is best then a new planes comes along and that old 'best' is now not true and some new figures get produced.

ploughman
03-14-2005, 08:06 AM
I just took time out to read your counter to Mike Williams piece, it's a good retort if a little petulent at times but then I guess this guy got right up your nose. I take it you two aren't on speaking terms.

There were 957 Spit XIVs built, which is more than the Fw-190 D9 and alot more than the operational Me-262s (not sure about the production. The first large order for 400 of this type was given in Feb 44), which is a shame as that'd be a useful bit of info) and yet it seems only 120 were in service a year after the delivery of the first operational aircraft. Where'd they all go?

Kurfurst__
03-14-2005, 08:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ploughman:
I just took time out to read your counter to Mike Williams piece, it's a good retort if a little petulent at times but then I guess this guy got right up your nose. I take it you two aren't on speaking terms.

There were 957 Spit XIVs built, which is more than the Fw-190 D9 and alot more than the operational Me-262s (not sure about the production. The first large order for 400 of this type was given in Feb 44), which is a shame as that'd be a useful bit of info) and yet it seems only 120 were in service a year after the delivery of the first operational aircraft. Where'd they all go? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Replacing losses and put into reserves in aircraft storages centers. It`s fairly typical that only a fraction of planes see service at a time of those being produced. Ie. some 1400 Me 262s are believed to be produced, 1700 K-4s, 2600 G-10 yet you see the actual number of them in service is only a fraction of that. Another example : 856 K-4s were produced and test flown until dec31 1945, yet on the same data only some 196 were with 1st line units. Go figure, every 4th or so. The rest? They sat in reserve, on trains being transported, and in the storage halls and outside in the open of factories.

The 120 XIV aircraft in service comes from Williams himself btw. I am fairly certain that he picked a period when the squadrons were just filled up to full strenght, personally I doubt there would be ever more than 50-60 of them around flying sorties (ie. 5 sqns of 12 planes each).

btw there were some 160 Me 262s around with lw units in early 1945, so you could say that there were even more jets around than xivs... it was a really good plane, but rather rare. Performance wise, it is exceptional at altitude, both because of it`s engine and large wings, but it`s rather doubtful if fights over 8000m were any common at the time. Otherwise below that it`s though very good, it`s not as good as the best ones : LA-7, K-4. Those will have advantage over it, especially in level speed. Climb rate to the 109K, though slightly less, is comparable, and the LA-7 will be able to hold it`s own up to ca 2000m altitude. Certainly they won`t escape each other simply by climbing up. I feel though the 109K will be more suited for DF servers. It`s better than the XIV from SL to about 7000m altitude, and esp. in the mid range, where most fights occur. It`s a bit like as the case with the Ta 152.

MEGILE
03-14-2005, 08:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:


funny how all these spit flyers wanna fly against g6 because its historical, but refuse to fly against the me262.

i'll take the g6 challange when spit14 comes out, but then we fly spit14 vs me262 for the next map, for some mid to late 44 fun.

it can be you 2 guys against me and fish, how about it fish are you in. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Such anger http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
The Spit don't get no love http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

Although may have missed it... where does anyone argue in this thread that Me-262 should not be included in servers ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
I wouldn't fly it though.. keep flaming my engines http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Gents, are we all fans of WW2 aviation here... or has the competition and segregation of red vs blue dogfight servers turned us into fans only of our preferred point-mobile? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Besides, you assume I'm a Spitfire pilot simply because I am not inclined to post very nasty words regarding its performance? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

ploughman
03-14-2005, 08:55 AM
Quite, I don't really fly on-line but it does seem for what I read on here that most fights seem to occurr at about 3,000m. The Spit XIV came into it's own much higher than that, I think the plane of choice for RAF jockies for on-line fighting will be the Tempest V if it ever arrives, as it has a better performance low down and bigger guns.

I'm looking forward to finding out how Oleg's modelled the Spit XIV's turn handling compared to the VIII and IX though.

MEGILE
03-14-2005, 08:58 AM
Quite.
I see the very much quoted "Spit XIV's turning circle was identical to that of the Spitfire IX" but has anyone actually got real data, graphs etc regarding the Spit XIVs turn times?
Kurf? hop? p1ng?

p1ngu666
03-14-2005, 09:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ploughman:
I just took time out to read your counter to Mike Williams piece, it's a good retort if a little petulent at times but then I guess this guy got right up your nose. I take it you two aren't on speaking terms.

There were 957 Spit XIVs built, which is more than the Fw-190 D9 and alot more than the operational Me-262s (not sure about the production. The first large order for 400 of this type was given in Feb 44), which is a shame as that'd be a useful bit of info) and yet it seems only 120 were in service a year after the delivery of the first operational aircraft. Where'd they all go? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Replacing losses and put into reserves in aircraft storages centers. It`s fairly typical that only a fraction of planes see service at a time of those being produced. Ie. some 1400 Me 262s are believed to be produced, 1700 K-4s, 2600 G-10 yet you see the actual number of them in service is only a fraction of that. Another example : 856 K-4s were produced and test flown until dec31 1945, yet on the same data only some 196 were with 1st line units. Go figure, every 4th or so. The rest? They sat in reserve, on trains being transported, and in the storage halls and outside in the open of factories.

The 120 XIV aircraft in service comes from Williams himself btw. I am fairly certain that he picked a period when the squadrons were just filled up to full strenght, personally I doubt there would be ever more than 50-60 of them around flying sorties (ie. 5 sqns of 12 planes each).

btw there were some 160 Me 262s around with lw units in early 1945, so you could say that there were even more jets around than xivs... it was a really good plane, but rather rare. Performance wise, it is exceptional at altitude, both because of it`s engine and large wings, but it`s rather doubtful if fights over 8000m were any common at the time. Otherwise below that it`s though very good, it`s not as good as the best ones : LA-7, K-4. Those will have advantage over it, especially in level speed. Climb rate to the 109K, though slightly less, is comparable, and the LA-7 will be able to hold it`s own up to ca 2000m altitude. Certainly they won`t escape each other simply by climbing up. I feel though the 109K will be more suited for DF servers. It`s better than the XIV from SL to about 7000m altitude, and esp. in the mid range, where most fights occur. It`s a bit like as the case with the Ta 152. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hm thought 14 was smidge better in climb, worse level, but if it is slightly worse itll be worth it
<blueplayer>waaaaaaaah XIV is uber and overmodeled
<us> *graph of k4 being better*
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

p1ngu666
03-14-2005, 09:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ploughman:
I just took time out to read your counter to Mike Williams piece, it's a good retort if a little petulent at times but then I guess this guy got right up your nose. I take it you two aren't on speaking terms.

There were 957 Spit XIVs built, which is more than the Fw-190 D9 and alot more than the operational Me-262s (not sure about the production. The first large order for 400 of this type was given in Feb 44), which is a shame as that'd be a useful bit of info) and yet it seems only 120 were in service a year after the delivery of the first operational aircraft. Where'd they all go? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Replacing losses and put into reserves in aircraft storages centers. It`s fairly typical that only a fraction of planes see service at a time of those being produced. Ie. some 1400 Me 262s are believed to be produced, 1700 K-4s, 2600 G-10 yet you see the actual number of them in service is only a fraction of that. Another example : 856 K-4s were produced and test flown until dec31 1945, yet on the same data only some 196 were with 1st line units. Go figure, every 4th or so. The rest? They sat in reserve, on trains being transported, and in the storage halls and outside in the open of factories.

The 120 XIV aircraft in service comes from Williams himself btw. I am fairly certain that he picked a period when the squadrons were just filled up to full strenght, personally I doubt there would be ever more than 50-60 of them around flying sorties (ie. 5 sqns of 12 planes each).

btw there were some 160 Me 262s around with lw units in early 1945, so you could say that there were even more jets around than xivs... it was a really good plane, but rather rare. Performance wise, it is exceptional at altitude, both because of it`s engine and large wings, but it`s rather doubtful if fights over 8000m were any common at the time. Otherwise below that it`s though very good, it`s not as good as the best ones : LA-7, K-4. Those will have advantage over it, especially in level speed. Climb rate to the 109K, though slightly less, is comparable, and the LA-7 will be able to hold it`s own up to ca 2000m altitude. Certainly they won`t escape each other simply by climbing up. I feel though the 109K will be more suited for DF servers. It`s better than the XIV from SL to about 7000m altitude, and esp. in the mid range, where most fights occur. It`s a bit like as the case with the Ta 152. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ive heard the spares, and replacements for 262, and other equipment i guess, got lost in the transport system, hardly a surprise with the havoc allies did to german trains http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

so some actully did nothing but sit on a railway siding...

dont supose u got figures of railway stuff for germany have ya kurfy? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

p1ngu666
03-14-2005, 09:12 AM
btw norris, im on HL alot http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
megile is on afair bit too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Von_Rat
03-14-2005, 04:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ploughman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> allies probaly said same thing about me262. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe they did, but Adolf definately said that about the Spit XIV. No maybe about it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

adolf galland said alot of quotable things, doesn't mean they are all true.

Von_Rat
03-14-2005, 05:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:


funny how all these spit flyers wanna fly against g6 because its historical, but refuse to fly against the me262.

i'll take the g6 challange when spit14 comes out, but then we fly spit14 vs me262 for the next map, for some mid to late 44 fun.

it can be you 2 guys against me and fish, how about it fish are you in. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Such anger http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
The Spit don't get no love http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

Although may have missed it... where does anyone argue in this thread that Me-262 should not be included in servers ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
I wouldn't fly it though.. keep flaming my engines http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Gents, are we all fans of WW2 aviation here... or has the competition and segregation of red vs blue dogfight servers turned us into fans only of our preferred point-mobile? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Besides, you assume I'm a Spitfire pilot simply because I am not inclined to post very nasty words regarding its performance? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

anger???? man you must be really touchy. i was just responding in kind to taunts about blue flying g6 against spit14, and just because its not posted in this thread doesn't mean the me262 isn't banned.

btw i fly spit also under name red rat.

MEGILE
03-14-2005, 05:15 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
I think the army of Spit pilots asking for the Me-262 to be banned is a figment of your vivid imagination. I certainly cannot remember any "ban the me-262" threads.. although I'm only a young'un http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
Its up to server admins to include th me-262 if they wish.
Crimea river, or alternatively ask a server admin such as Sparxx to include it, the latter being the more logical approach to getting what you want.

Cheers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

p1ngu666
03-14-2005, 05:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
I think the army of Spit pilots asking for the Me-262 to be banned is a figment of your vivid imagination.
Its up to server admins to include th me-262 if they wish.
Crimea river, or alternatively ask a server admin such as Sparxx to include it, the latter being the more logical approach to getting what you want.

Cheers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

indeed, me262 was banned before the spit arrived, even the vb http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif. no need for any plane fan of any type to ask for it tobe banned...

there are ways to shoot down 262 anyways, be sure http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

p1ngu666
03-14-2005, 05:27 PM
oh, and 262 2a for warclouds http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif on some maps where germans haveto attack

800kph jabo http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

be interesting to see how that goes on the server http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

MEGILE
03-14-2005, 05:30 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Von_Rat
03-14-2005, 05:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
I think the army of Spit pilots asking for the Me-262 to be banned is a figment of your vivid imagination. I certainly cannot remember any "ban the me-262" threads.. although I'm only a young'un http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
Its up to server admins to include th me-262 if they wish.
Crimea river, or alternatively ask a server admin such as Sparxx to include it, the latter being the more logical approach to getting what you want.

Cheers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

why do you think they are banned , because of the whinning from red players. do i really have to dig up all the old threads. i said current spit pilots won't fly against 262, not that they got it banned. maybe some spit pilots would, just like some g6 pilots would fly against spit14. but not enough to convince admins to unban 262.

ive talked to sparx, he didn't think red players would go for it, was the impression i got.

i reply in kind to spit14 taunts, and people start getting upset, jeeezzzz

p1ngu666
03-14-2005, 06:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
I think the army of Spit pilots asking for the Me-262 to be banned is a figment of your vivid imagination. I certainly cannot remember any "ban the me-262" threads.. although I'm only a young'un http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
Its up to server admins to include th me-262 if they wish.
Crimea river, or alternatively ask a server admin such as Sparxx to include it, the latter being the more logical approach to getting what you want.

Cheers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

why do you think they are banned , because of the whinning from red players. do i really have to dig up all the old threads. i said current spit pilots won't fly against 262, not that they got it banned. maybe some spit pilots would, just like some g6 pilots would fly against spit14. but not enough to convince admins to unban 262.

ive talked to sparx, he didn't think red players would go for it, was the impression i got.

i reply in kind to spit14 taunts, and people start getting upset, jeeezzzz <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

spit XIV = k4 or g6as Ish
IX VIII = g6 Ish,

current spits fight k4 all the time so.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

MEGILE
03-14-2005, 06:07 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I wouldn't argue with a Spitfire IXe pilot for not wanting to fly against a Me-262, after all, they are flying merely a 1943 plane.
Blue hold sufficient advantage already with the K4, D9 A9 TA-152, who needs 262? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif It would be an interesting inclusion, never the less.
let the server admins decide. If not, you could always start your own? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

cheers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

civildog
03-14-2005, 07:35 PM
I agree with Megile and Pingu but would take it further.

I just wish that once in a while someone would have a Luft '46 server so we could all fly those spiffy jets once and a while. Throw in some Mustangs, I-185's, Kurfursts, and Uberfires to round things out and it could be a lot of fun.

Personally I'd take a P-80. Only carries the .50's I know, but the Jumos in the LW jets are too touchy. Besides, the 80 can catch a 262 in the turns even if it can't in the straightaway.

p1ngu666
03-14-2005, 08:57 PM
the engine stalls on the yp-80 for no reason, which sucks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

only really uber jet is the go229, very fast, and awsome turn and climb...

civildog
03-14-2005, 09:03 PM
I like the 229, and am currently working on a model of one, but the beast uses the same highly flammable engines the 262 does.

I rarely get the stupid thing off the ground without having it catch fire. The P-80 purrs like a kitten for me, but I wish it had the cannons the German birds do. I love the vibrations in my chair from the subwoofer everytime I pull the trigger in a 262. It's ...ahhh... ahem, never mind.

Maybe thats why the Lufties love the big guns so much? The evil secret must be a big woofer under the chair! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

p1ngu666
03-14-2005, 10:18 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

try the yak9k http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

ive been on servers where someone good has flown go229, really as untouchable as u gonna get http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

and, i guess we know the real reason why u love p39 now http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

civildog
03-14-2005, 10:19 PM
Aaaah! My secret is out!

civildog
03-14-2005, 10:29 PM
OOOOOO, just tried the Yak-9K in QMB against a couple of Heinkels. Oh yeah, good vibes right in the ole' prostate.

VW-IceFire
03-14-2005, 11:07 PM
Two cents worth:

1) Spitfire isn't overmodeled. The only argument from people who say so fits into the category of "its so obvious that I don't need to prove it" and consequently can be thrown out. My gripes with the Spitfire and poor modeling relate to the heating issue. Its overheat is very odd...sometimes it won't go away (I remember the Mark V particularly had this problem) and other times it'll just stay cool.

2) The Me-262 is in an area all to its own. Its vastly faster than anything else and gains and retains energy (except when manuvering) like no other aircraft. Plus its supremely powerful in the guns department. I love flying the 262...its great fun to fly...but I've seen dogfight servers when they were added in. All of blue team stocks up on Me-262 and red team just sits around waiting to be smashed in by a jet. In rare circumstances...particularly with the Mustang or Yak-9U (the La-7 just can't hold the high dive speed)...you can dive on the jet unawares and hit him. But its difficult.

UK-Dedicated currently runs a 1945 scenario where red has the best of the VVS fighters available and then fights the He-162 and Me-262 (although Dora and K-4 are available). Its an interesting scenario and I mostly switch to IL-2 or La-7 in the ground attack role (La-7 is actually quite good at hitting small targets at high speeds).

Its funny where the jet argument goes. By all rights the He-162 and the YP-80 could be allowed as well but they are equally as banned. Just imagine the thought of a YP-80 with no German jets. Now the push would be to ban the YP-80...all history aside. The jets are in realm of their own.

3) Spitfire XIV I look forward to. I'm glad Nyme was able to complete the external and I know he's working feverishly on the cockpit. I think it'll be a good energy fighter and less of a turn fighter. I think the current crowd of IX fliers will try the XIV and then go back to the IX. You'll notice that most of them haven't graduated to the Mark VIII yet either.

MEGILE
03-15-2005, 06:45 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I don't know IceFire... doesn't the Spitfire XIV still outturn the Late BF-109s? If so, then the Spit pilots may welcome the extra power of the XIV.

ploughman
03-15-2005, 07:02 AM
Anyone know if the Spitfires' modelling will try to represent the endlessly various boosted engine types that proliferated? 25lbs of boost for a '44 spit IX and 18lbs and 21lbs for spring/late summer of '44 respectively. Springtime Spit XIVs were experimenting with using 130 octane fuel, I guess that went up to 150 octane in the summer of '44, what kind've effect did this have on performance (apart from knackering the spark plugs)?

I accept that trying to model the performances of all of the variants would just pop the lid off a whole new cannery of worms, but it'd be nice to have a '44 Spit IX correctly modelled, and a Spit XIV would be most relevant if it represented the performance acheived by September of '44 when they moved to the continent and began to get their talons seriuosly dirty.

p1ngu666
03-15-2005, 11:28 AM
probably get 18lbs, i doubt we will get 21lb but its possible
25lb boost IX would dominate DF servers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

might get another fighter, thats already ingame converted to late raf spec tho http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

faustnik
03-15-2005, 11:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
probably get 18lbs, i doubt we will get 21lb but its possible
25lb boost IX would dominate DF servers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

might get another fighter, thats already ingame converted to late raf spec tho http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't understand why the Spit IXe is not modeled with the higher boost pressure? It is labeled as a '44 plane. Right now, the C and E are a little redundant. A difference in boost pressure will add value to the current models.

p1ngu666
03-15-2005, 12:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
probably get 18lbs, i doubt we will get 21lb but its possible
25lb boost IX would dominate DF servers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

might get another fighter, thats already ingame converted to late raf spec tho http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't understand why the Spit IXe is not modeled with the higher boost pressure? It is labeled as a '44 plane. Right now, the C and E are a little redundant. A difference in boost pressure will add value to the current models. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

E wing was introduced in early 44 i think
bit like some lw loadouts for 109g6 and 110. mk108's where made from december 43 i think, so 44 loadout, but ull see everyman and his dog bolt on mk108 whenver possible http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

imo a 25lb IX would be great, and also for the lw... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
cos itll be scary down low, but no more scary than currently above 16000ft or 20000ft or whatever, XIV just gets more scary the higher u go http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

MEGILE
03-15-2005, 12:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
probably get 18lbs, i doubt we will get 21lb but its possible
25lb boost IX would dominate DF servers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

might get another fighter, thats already ingame converted to late raf spec tho http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't understand why the Spit IXe is not modeled with the higher boost pressure? It is labeled as a '44 plane. Right now, the C and E are a little redundant. A difference in boost pressure will add value to the current models. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed that is an interesting point Faustnik. Although, knowing Oleg is so hard pressed for time, I doubt very much we would ever see the higher boost implemented for the Spitfire or the Mustang.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

In late 1944/early1945 what was the ratio of 25lb boosted Spitfires and Mustangs to their 18lb boosted counterparts?

More, less, even? Maybe Oleg felt that the 18lb boost was a better representation of the then current RAF.
Still, the IXe with 25lbs would be cool http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

p1ngu666
03-15-2005, 12:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
probably get 18lbs, i doubt we will get 21lb but its possible
25lb boost IX would dominate DF servers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

might get another fighter, thats already ingame converted to late raf spec tho http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't understand why the Spit IXe is not modeled with the higher boost pressure? It is labeled as a '44 plane. Right now, the C and E are a little redundant. A difference in boost pressure will add value to the current models. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed that is an interesting point Faustnik. Although, knowing Oleg is so hard pressed for time, I doubt very much we would ever see the higher boost implemented for the Spitfire or the Mustang.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

In late 1944/early1945 what was the ratio of 25lb boosted Spitfires and Mustangs to their 18lb boosted counterparts?

More, less, even? Maybe Oleg felt that the 18lb boost was a better representation of the then current RAF.
Still, the IXe with 25lbs would be cool http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

oleg often goes for introducing the early models first, maybe he did it with 18lb boost for that reason
or maybe he didnt wanna upset the luftwaffe http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

MEGILE
03-15-2005, 12:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
or maybe he didnt wanna upset the luftwaffe http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

By the results of the poll so far, it seems Oleg already did with the 18lbs boost SpitfireIXe.