PDA

View Full Version : Spitfire Differences?



GunnyHighway99
07-22-2007, 07:33 AM
Everyone,

I just started flying the Spit and have been trying to figure out some of the differences. As far as I know, there are four versions of the IX:

1) MK.IXe, 1944

2) L.F. MK.IXe (CW)

What does the LF stand for?

3) H.F. Mk.IXe, 1944

What does the HF stand for?

4) MK.IXe 25 LBS, 1944

What does the 25 LBS stand for?

Anyhow, I understand that the CW (I assume Clipped Wing) version rolls better than the IX.e but doesn't climb as well. Does anyone have any practical experience with the differences between these four aircraft? Thanks!!

GunnyHighway99
07-22-2007, 07:33 AM
Everyone,

I just started flying the Spit and have been trying to figure out some of the differences. As far as I know, there are four versions of the IX:

1) MK.IXe, 1944

2) L.F. MK.IXe (CW)

What does the LF stand for?

3) H.F. Mk.IXe, 1944

What does the HF stand for?

4) MK.IXe 25 LBS, 1944

What does the 25 LBS stand for?

Anyhow, I understand that the CW (I assume Clipped Wing) version rolls better than the IX.e but doesn't climb as well. Does anyone have any practical experience with the differences between these four aircraft? Thanks!!

tomtheyak
07-22-2007, 07:43 AM
L.F. refers to the type of Merlin fitted to the Spitfire IX, in these cases the Merlin 66; this means that the supercharger gears are timed to cut in at altitudes to give optimum performance in comparison to the Fw190.

In fact ALL the MkIX models in game with the exception of the H.F. IXe are equipped with the 66 series Merlin; that is to say they are all LF variants. The clipped wing being given the moniker is probably a part of trying to differentiate it from the others, and perhaps a mistake on the part of Maddox Games.

You'll also find the dive acceleration a little more spritely with the clipped variants.

The 25lb refers to the amount of 'Boost' (manifold) pressure that the engine was able to be run at. In 1944 some Spitfire squadrons were able to take advantage of 150 octane gasoline; this higher octane with additives allowed more HP to be generated, manifold pressure increasing from 18lb to 25lb and increased performance as a result.

150 grade was not widely available till very late in the war, and was only seen in widespread operational use after the winter of 1944/45, specifically with 2nd TAF on the continent.

The MkIXc we see in game is representing one of the early test variants; in actuality it would probably be more useful to have a LF MkIXe (clp) with 25lb boost, as this would be more representative of the operational use of 25lb Spitfires.

bmoffa
07-22-2007, 07:45 AM
So what's with the 25LBS????

tomtheyak
07-22-2007, 07:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bmoffa:
So what's with the 25LBS???? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Edited my post above to answer.

bmoffa
07-22-2007, 07:53 AM
Sorry, when I read it earlier, only the first three paragraphs where present.

M_Gunz
07-22-2007, 08:05 AM
IIRC the LF's had a "cropped" (smaller diameter) impeller (fan) in the supercharger, more
efficient at low alts -- in fact pretty blazing powerful as well.

Think of LF as low alt and HF as high alt.

The-Pizza-Man
07-22-2007, 08:55 AM
that was only the case with Mk Vs I believe

VW-IceFire
07-22-2007, 11:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
that was only the case with Mk Vs I believe </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Generally correct for all LF's regardless of mark...although with the Merlin 66's in the LF.IX it was more of tuning when the second stage would kick in. Not sure on all of the nitty gritty technical details...most IX's were LF variants and the F.IX and HF.IX were very rare.

Brain32
07-22-2007, 01:42 PM
Don't know about the differences but what they all have in common is no consequences of overheat and ability to fly at only 4-5 kmh less than top speed using only 85% of power.
But that's ok, n00bs need all the help they can get to stay playing this game with us http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Low_Flyer_MkVb
07-22-2007, 02:12 PM
This is really cool! The sim's Spitfire appears to be so authentic that pilots of enemy aircraft are attributing magical powers to it. Bet most of them were really shot down by Hurricanes too, and have gone into a form of denial A.K.A. 'Spitfire snobbery'. Man, talk about full real. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

thefruitbat
07-22-2007, 02:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Don't know about the differences but what they all have in common is no consequences of overheat and ability to fly at only 4-5 kmh less than top speed using only 85% of power.
But that's ok, n00bs need all the help they can get to stay playing this game with us http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats not entirely true. For mk8 and above yes, but all the mk5's we have overheat quite happily, and in '41, a 109 f4 is much more of a noob plane than a spit mk5 imho. And i'm sure you know that already http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

cheers fruitbat

MEGILE
07-22-2007, 02:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Don't know about the differences but what they all have in common is no consequences of overheat and ability to fly at only 4-5 kmh less than top speed using only 85% of power.
But that's ok, n00bs need all the help they can get to stay playing this game with us http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spitfire is nerfed... it is missing 15% available power.
Try it... 85%-100% you only gain 5kmh.

Oleg must fix it.

Xiolablu3
07-22-2007, 03:34 PM
DOnt worry you guys, Brain can't let a Spitfire thread go without some dig.

Its as natural as the 109's overmodelled climb. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

VW-IceFire
07-22-2007, 04:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Don't know about the differences but what they all have in common is no consequences of overheat and ability to fly at only 4-5 kmh less than top speed using only 85% of power.
But that's ok, n00bs need all the help they can get to stay playing this game with us http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Brain...you need to have a go at that beer we were talking about before.

The Mark V overheats quite handily...

MrMojok
07-22-2007, 06:46 PM
is 25 lbs boost equivalent to something like 67" Hg?

FritzGryphon
07-22-2007, 07:05 PM
172 kilopascals or 633 millimeters of mercury.

na85
07-22-2007, 09:18 PM
I believe 25 lbs is equal to 51" Hg

berg417448
07-22-2007, 09:37 PM
I have no idea but according to this site it is 80":

"Those RAF Mustang units tasked with defending against the V-1 were modified to operated at +25 lbs./sq.in. - the equivalent of 80" Hg."

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustangtest.html

danjama
07-23-2007, 03:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Don't know about the differences but what they all have in common is no consequences of overheat and ability to fly at only 4-5 kmh less than top speed using only 85% of power.
But that's ok, n00bs need all the help they can get to stay playing this game with us http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spitfire is nerfed... it is missing 15% available power.
Try it... 85%-100% you only gain 5kmh.

Oleg must fix it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

tomtheyak
07-23-2007, 06:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Don't know about the differences but what they all have in common is no consequences of overheat and ability to fly at only 4-5 kmh less than top speed using only 85% of power.
But that's ok, n00bs need all the help they can get to stay playing this game with us http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're getting pathetically like a whiny scratched record Brain; at it wouldn't be so bad if you just presented your arguements clearly with appropriate sources and most crucially without resorting to ****ging off others.

I feel that there are many facets of the 109s in game handling characteristics that do not reflect reality (e.g. too easy to T/O and land, too directionally stable at low airspeeds), but you don't see me verbally abusing all 109 drivers for their choice of mount.

Guess some people are maturer than others.

Oh, and I suggest you get studying the manuals if you think the Spit is a pwners plane... last time I flew on Spits Vs 109s the 109 and 190 drivers their know what they're doing and provide some VERY nerve wracking and frustrating fights.

Of course if you insist on TnBing or attacking from inferior E or altitude advantage you deserve everything you get, no matter what you fly.

Grow up Brain.

Brain32
07-23-2007, 06:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> wouldn't be so bad if you just presented your arguements clearly with appropriate sources and most crucially without resorting to ****ging off others. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh I posted my materials many, many times, threads usually died after that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I feel that there are many facets of the 109s in game handling characteristics that do not reflect reality (e.g. too easy to T/O and land, too directionally stable at low airspeeds), but you don't see me verbally abusing all 109 drivers for their choice of mount. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Those are all highly subjective matters, but when you see a plane whose overheat message resetes every second and thus it flies at max power all the time, and when you see a plane flying at nearly the max speed using only 85% of power than that's raw data.

As for the rest of your comments, all I can say is: Grow up Tom http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

As for other Spitfire Fairy vorshipers - newsflash! SpitfireMkV has manual radiators, yes you actually have to manage more than 3 axis and one button to be an ace in SpitV, you need to be able to manage a whopping 3axis and TWO buttons, some can do it some can not http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Enjoy the Spits guys, I do, I just whish for some Cylon Raiders to create some BSG scenarious http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

tomtheyak
07-23-2007, 07:00 AM
Oh braavo.

With such stunning and lucid arguements you really win the day. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Or did you miss my point - no-one asked your opinion on overheating in this thread, yet you still barged in belittling and abusing as is your usual modus operandi.

You want to do something about it? Go post in the ORR or drag one of your mythical Overheating threads (that are SOOOO full of unequivocal primary information on Spitfire cooling /heating rates at all speeds and altitudes and throttle settings) back from the dead. Why drag your BS attitude into someone elses thread on an unrelated matter?

You're reaching mate. Or do you need reminding that ALL 109 models have auto-prop/auto-rads/auto-mixture too.

Brain32
07-23-2007, 07:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Or did you miss my point - no-one asked your opinion on overheating in this thread, yet you still barged in belittling and abusing as is your usual modus operandi. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually the funny thing is that I only made a small 3-line comment and had 5 guys going after my @ss in no time with you joining a bit later(just like online, you shoot 2 or 3, and a dozen follows you across the map on constant full power http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ). So basically for my 3 lines we got 10 replies on it. You could have just let it go, but it's about the Spitfire and that just hurts too much eh? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Why don't you just admit that you missed small Spitflames with me? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Blutarski2004
07-23-2007, 10:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:You could have just let it go, but it's about the Spitfire and that just hurts too much eh? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... I think that pretty much sums up my feelings, Brain.

DmdSeeker
07-23-2007, 10:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Don't know about the differences but what they all have in common is no consequences of overheat and ability to fly at only 4-5 kmh less than top speed using only 85% of power.
But that's ok, n00bs need all the help they can get to stay playing this game with us http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why do you keep pushing this lie?

I've no idea if the Spit model is right or wrong, but I do know what I see on my screen; and I see plenty of overheat messages in Spits.

Just last night, cruising at 10,000 feet at 80% throttle and 60% prop pitch and the whole squad over heated at the same time.

You'll notice that I don't claim the spit is right or wrong, I really don't know; but I do know you're lying when you keep pushing this line and it's boring.

If you don't like the game, go play something else.

Brain32
07-23-2007, 11:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DmdSeeker:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Don't know about the differences but what they all have in common is no consequences of overheat and ability to fly at only 4-5 kmh less than top speed using only 85% of power.
But that's ok, n00bs need all the help they can get to stay playing this game with us http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why do you keep pushing this lie?

I've no idea if the Spit model is right or wrong, but I do know what I see on my screen; and I see plenty of overheat messages in Spits.

Just last night, cruising at 10,000 feet at 80% throttle and 60% prop pitch and the whole squad over heated at the same time.

You'll notice that I don't claim the spit is right or wrong, I really don't know; but I do know you're lying when you keep pushing this line and it's boring.

If you don't like the game, go play something else. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Wow, did you got upset or what, sheeesh I guess this is really painful.
Also, the only reason i reply this now is to clear some things up. I never said you don't get the Overheat message(although it takes ages comparing to most other planes) just that it does not mean a thing, it constantly resets, every second or so. With this I suppose the time to engine damage resets too, and thus you can run like that forever. I really can not imagine how would one have to fly, to damage the SpitfireMkIX's engine via overheating...

tomtheyak
07-23-2007, 12:43 PM
Brain, I have no problem with your argument - I believe you have valid basis for concern.

War Emergency Power - does kind of suggest that it is not War All The Time Power. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I have witnessed the very behavior you describe and seen it occur at various heights and airspeeds. The engine does fail, but admittedly after a much longer time than any other a/c.

Now whether this correct or not, I don't know. Much I have read suggests that the Merlin could be and at times was flogged pretty mercilessly - in fact Wingco Tom Neil describes BoB Spitfire pilots scrambling with WEP and leaving it on the entire time.

However, anecdotes and supposition are no place to make concrete opinion. I am not an expert on Spitfire cooling systems and thermodynamic exchange. I DON'T KNOW if the behaviour of the Spitfire cooling in game is right or not.

Having said that - no offense but I doubt you have any meaningful qualifications in this field either (otherwise I believe your tone would be far more mature).

Which leads me to...

Your method of delivering your argument is my particular point of contention.

Struck a nerve? Well yeah, you calling me a noob and insulting both my intelligence and my ability to play this game and doing it in a thread unrelated to your pet peeve does get my back up, so excuse me.

How many people have jumped to your cause Brain? How many in this thread have told you that you make a good case? That are coming round to your idea, prepared to investigate your concerns?

Sweet FA.

Now, if you're so bright what does that tell you?

ploughman
07-23-2007, 12:47 PM
I saw a post on another site in which Brain said that the only thing he found the zoo useful for was to troll Spitasses. I've seen nothing from his behaviour here in the last few years to discredit this. Ignore him. Eventually he'll go away and this will be a richer place for his absence.

MEGILE
07-23-2007, 01:23 PM
I like Brain.. he's like a small hairy man you pat, and use for scaring away the cats.

keep him around.

msalama
07-23-2007, 01:43 PM
U gotta get that job soon Brain.

AnaK774
07-23-2007, 02:22 PM
Well, Brain has a point there.

Overheat after little fix it got after first release has been quite fishy though.
I'm certain that some characters on this forum come around and show some charts that actually its radiators are effecient enough for cooling down 1000000 MW Nuclear Powerplant from meltdown in nanosecond.

Flying with spit9 is relaxing for me.

Easy to fly, good armament, no nasty quirks, rarely overheats, main minus point is its inability to decide when fight is over by extending fast, but theres usually way out unless your opponent is suicidal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2uFpaRWvLA

JG53Frankyboy
07-23-2007, 02:47 PM
pah, lets bash the Falcoflyers !!
this little Fiat thing is an "non overheater" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

in general, overheating(= till overhaet appears, till damage appears, what wowersettings can be flown as max without overhat) is VERY different moddeld in game from plane to plane - point!

a Ju88 you can fly with 103% (or was it 105% http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ) at 100% pitch all day long with cooler open.
a B-25 cant do that even at 100% power !

btw, is anyone seriously thinking that flying the alcoholic 109s with MW50 enabled, 103% power, cooler open all the 26 minutes (till the fluid is empty) without overheat is "historical"............. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


tahe the game as it is.
lets wait for SoW.

MEGILE
07-23-2007, 02:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
pah, lets bash the Falcoflyers !!
this little Fiat thing is an "non overheater" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

in general, overheating(= till overhaet appears, till damage appears, what wowersettings can be flown as max without overhat) is VERY different moddeld in game from plane to plane - point!

a Ju88 you can fly with 103% (or was it 105% http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ) at 100% pitch all day long with cooler open.
a B-25 cant do that even at 100% power !

btw, is anyone seriously thinking that flying the alcoholic 109s with MW50 enabled, 103% power, cooler open all the 26 minutes (till the fluid is empty) without overheat is "historical"............. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


tahe the game as it is.
lets wait for SoW. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Frankie, you are the coolest dude on this forum bar none.
Fact.

AKA_Luke
07-23-2007, 02:58 PM
Word to your mother.

ploughman
07-23-2007, 03:10 PM
I sense something; a presence I've not felt since...

MEGILE
07-23-2007, 03:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_Luke:
Word to your mother. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

luke.. porque?

luftluuver
07-23-2007, 03:18 PM
The Spits have those big draggy rads, so we have been told many times, so why should it overheat? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

JG14_Josf
07-23-2007, 03:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">How many people have jumped to your cause Brain? How many in this thread have told you that you make a good case? That are coming round to your idea, prepared to investigate your concerns? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Majority rule,

Facts don't require majority vote to be valid.

The game does not reflect the historical record and this fact is most evident when comparing the Spitfire against the Fw190A series aircraft because the historical record is specific concerning how both planes actually performed relative to each other.

When a player of the game expresses this fact on this board the default response is character assassination. This is another known fact that also does not require a majority vote to be valid.

At some point a player knowing the facts is bound to build up a method by which the facts can be communicated and a defense is worked out concerning the inevitable character assassinations inspired by the effort to communicate the facts accurately.

Fact:

Rolls Royce Merlin Engines running at maximum power settings were reported to be ˜overloaded' and self-destructing at maximum power settings.

Source:

Engine Failures (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/dowding1.jpg)

Definite overload condition (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/ap1590b.jpg)

If a player plays the game and finds a plane that will self-destruct at maximum power and another plane that will not self-destruct at maximum power, then, the player may read a thread like this and know for sure that any effort to communicate the facts will cause a number of responses aimed to discredit the person posting the facts and misdirection away from the facts.

When a player communicates a known and knowable characteristic of a plane in the game where the power setting required to reach within 4 to 5 km/h of top speed is well below full power (never mind emergency power), then, that player is communicating something known and knowable about the game.

Adding sarcastic remarks along with the communication of experience in the game is a method of dealing with the inevitable responses that are inevitable and have been for many years on this forum; even the moderators suggest a thickening of skin.
Rather than looking into the specific facts, of course, the preference, by default, is to concentrate focus upon the person reporting the facts.

This thread started as a question concerning the Spitfire IX.

Pathology sets in. Personal insults complete with expletives flow.

What about the topic?

HF, LF, and 25lb boost.

Which one does what in the game?

Is that the question?

What happened in reality is another question no?

tomtheyak
07-23-2007, 04:39 PM
Josf, some good source material, and tho your point is valid, I was referring to people reaction to Brains attitude, not to the specifics of his arguement. Otherwise you are of course quite right.

AKA_Luke
07-23-2007, 04:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_Luke:
Word to your mother. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

luke.. porque? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ice ice baby.
http://www-vlsi.stanford.edu/~jsolomon/clan9/personnel_images/nilla_real.gif

M_Gunz
07-23-2007, 04:58 PM
Spitfire has automatic radiator flaps.
How many people here have house thermostats and understand how they and heater works.

Of course the temperature is going to fluctuate around the set point. It goes high and the
flaps open more and it goes low the flaps close more. The higher heat you CAN run an engine
without creating lubrication or balance or materials problems, the more efficient it runs.
Only the desired set point changes not the principles.

Brain32
07-23-2007, 06:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tomtheyak:
Brain, I have no problem with your argument - I believe you have valid basis for concern.

War Emergency Power - does kind of suggest that it is not War All The Time Power. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks, because that's the whole point

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tomtheyak:
Struck a nerve? Well yeah, you calling me a noob and insulting both my intelligence and my ability to play this game and doing it in a thread unrelated to your pet peeve does get my back up, so excuse me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sorry you took this that way but I didn't call YOU a n00b, and I didn't call all Spit pilots n00bs either, the thing is that Spitfire is often a ride of choice for rooks, so if I'm going for some trash-talk I'll use that. Obvoiusly trash-talk is more suited for a basketball court as people here are too sensitive. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
btw, is anyone seriously thinking that flying the alcoholic 109s with MW50 enabled, 103% power, cooler open all the 26 minutes (till the fluid is empty) without overheat is "historical"............. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nope, not the case, however all those planes do take severe speed penalty for doing so, Spits do not. What's also quite interesting...there are again P51 whines on the forum spread out, yet I can see no mention on P51's cooling system, there is something VERY interesting about it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif but I guess most people here really does not care about such things, this suprises me at the very least.

Gumtree
07-23-2007, 06:28 PM
An old anecdote was 'all roads lead to Rome' perhaps here at the Ubi zoo we could modify this to 'all post lead to Spitfire denigration'

Can we not have a discussion without the constant whining and put downs that spew forth effluent in these forums.

I bet the Nazi pilots in WW2 also wished they had an on-line forum where they could try and influence the Rolls- Royce factory to de rate the Merlin engine.

Is it just me or do people here seem to have a problem with anything that the British hold in high esteem. The reason I say this is that it seems to be constant Brit phobia, I am not a Pom but I also don not try and rain on their parade constantly.

As to the facts of the overheating engines I also don't know if the modelling is correct, but I have read many instances of the Rolls-Royce engine being flogged for hours on end in the bombers after one or more engine failure, crews would loose an engine at the start of a mission and continue with the other 3 at 100% for numerous hours. That also is a fact.

Facts are an amazing thing, politicians use them widely, to prove anything and everything.

WEP was used by the majority of pilots in every account I have read when they entered combat, Just go and read some of the pilot accounts like Bader, Johnson, Townsend and Deere or perhaps you could read the compilations by historians like Deighton, Bungay or Hastings.

In these books you will find many reference to the WEP being used at almost every encounter. Then again you could I suppose just stay ignorant of the facts and keep posting here....

JG14_Josf
07-23-2007, 07:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In these books you will find many reference to the WEP being used at almost every encounter. Then again you could I suppose just stay ignorant of the facts and keep posting here.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Twist and shout,

There is a LAW describing the phenomenon whereby a topic generates the word Nazi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law).

Of course there might be one someday where a topic must generate the word Spitfire.

As it happens this topic is titled "Spitfire Differences?"

I wonder how long a post has to go on, and on, and on, until a specific reference is given for the duration of time where WEP is being used at almost every encounter.

How about these:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A resent increase in the number of engine failures (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/dowding1.jpg), due to the failure of bearings, is an indication that some pilots are over-stepping the engine limitations laid down in the Pilot's Handbook. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The use, in an emergency, of this high boost pressure is a definite overload (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/ap1590b.jpg) condition on the engine and therefore all occasions on which it is essential to make use of the +12 lb./sq. in. must be reported by the pilot and recorded in the engine log book so that the engineer officer may be able to assess the reduction in the life between overhauls and the need for special inspections. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Primary source documents documenting specific information concerning Spitfires in reality.

The game, the topic, is another topic.

The suggestion suggested (with some acidic banter) is to suggest that the Spitfire IX, in the game, can be run at full power without having to worry about historical accuracy; or the suggestion suggested meant to convey something other than my interpretation expressed here and now.

VW-IceFire
07-23-2007, 07:54 PM
Its amazing...in World War II...particularly during the Battle of Britain all anyone on either side could talk about was Spitfires. Its now 2007 and all anyone in the WWII simulation communities can talk about is Spitfires. Love em or hate em! Not too much has changed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

MrMojok
07-23-2007, 09:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gumtree:
An old anecdote was 'all roads lead to Rome' perhaps here at the Ubi zoo we could modify this to 'all post lead to Spitfire denigration'

Can we not have a discussion without the constant whining and put downs that spew forth effluent in these forums.

I bet the Nazi pilots in WW2 also wished they had an on-line forum where they could try and influence the Rolls- Royce factory to de rate the Merlin engine.

Is it just me or do people here seem to have a problem with anything that the British hold in high esteem. The reason I say this is that it seems to be constant Brit phobia, I am not a Pom but I also don not try and rain on their parade constantly.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe you are right about all this. You can also substitute Mustang/American and 109/German for Spitfire/English and be 100% correct.

As in, some people who like to bash the Spit get up in arms when someone bashes the Mustang in the exact same way, and vice-versa.

No one plane has the monopoly on forum whipping-boy. Although the three mentioned above probably lead the rest of the field by a considerable margin.

Gumtree
07-23-2007, 10:15 PM
Let me see,
How can I use a document that is relevant to a early model merlin and create the delusion that it must be factual for all later models as well.

As I have said previously, facts are an amazing thing, often used by politicians to prove any thing any time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

zardozid
07-23-2007, 11:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Posted Mon July 23 2007 14:47 Hide Post

quote:
How many people have jumped to your cause Brain? How many in this thread have told you that you make a good case? That are coming round to your idea, prepared to investigate your concerns?



Majority rule,

Facts don't require majority vote to be valid.

The game does not reflect the historical record and this fact is most evident when comparing the Spitfire against the Fw190A series aircraft because the historical record is specific concerning how both planes actually performed relative to each other.

When a player of the game expresses this fact on this board the default response is character assassination. This is another known fact that also does not require a majority vote to be valid.

At some point a player knowing the facts is bound to build up a method by which the facts can be communicated and a defense is worked out concerning the inevitable character assassinations inspired by the effort to communicate the facts accurately.

Fact:

Rolls Royce Merlin Engines running at maximum power settings were reported to be ˜overloaded' and self-destructing at maximum power settings.

Source:

Engine Failures

Definite overload condition

If a player plays the game and finds a plane that will self-destruct at maximum power and another plane that will not self-destruct at maximum power, then, the player may read a thread like this and know for sure that any effort to communicate the facts will cause a number of responses aimed to discredit the person posting the facts and misdirection away from the facts.

When a player communicates a known and knowable characteristic of a plane in the game where the power setting required to reach within 4 to 5 km/h of top speed is well below full power (never mind emergency power), then, that player is communicating something known and knowable about the game.

Adding sarcastic remarks along with the communication of experience in the game is a method of dealing with the inevitable responses that are inevitable and have been for many years on this forum; even the moderators suggest a thickening of skin.
Rather than looking into the specific facts, of course, the preference, by default, is to concentrate focus upon the person reporting the facts.

This thread started as a question concerning the Spitfire IX.

Pathology sets in. Personal insults complete with expletives flow.

What about the topic?

HF, LF, and 25lb boost.

Which one does what in the game?

Is that the question?

What happened in reality is another question no? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I'm curious by how much it shortened engine life...or how long did it take to have a compleat engine failure after the limit of five minutes of boost ...It seems to me that if you reached a critical engine failure in a little more then five minutes that pilots would not be doing it frequently...I doubt a pilot wants their engine to fail mid-flight. The fact that it was a problem leads me to think that you COULD get away with it for some time, before the engine needed replacing (rebuilding). IMO

One thing the game doesn't model is airplane life (use) over the period of a week or the effect of maintenance on engine life.

Everytime you start the game it's a factory fresh fighter... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Zoom2136
07-24-2007, 07:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A resent increase in the number of engine failures (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/dowding1.jpg), due to the failure of bearings, is an indication that some pilots are over-stepping the engine limitations laid down in the Pilot's Handbook. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The use, in an emergency, of this high boost pressure is a definite overload (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/ap1590b.jpg) condition on the engine and therefore all occasions on which it is essential to make use of the +12 lb./sq. in. must be reported by the pilot and recorded in the engine log book so that the engineer officer may be able to assess the reduction in the life between overhauls and the need for special inspections. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Primary source documents documenting specific information concerning Spitfires in reality.

The game, the topic, is another topic.

The suggestion suggested (with some acidic banter) is to suggest that the Spitfire IX, in the game, can be run at full power without having to worry about historical accuracy; or the suggestion suggested meant to convey something other than my interpretation expressed here and now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your quote are quite nice and IMHO (I'm a certified aircraft mechanic BTW) applicable ONLY to REAL LIFE...

READ ON...

IRL planes flew more than 45 minutes on the same engine...I think we can ALL agree on this... or else the RAF would have built at least a few million Merlin engine during the war....

BUT...AND THIS IS A BIGGY... so open up those big ears (not directed at you BTW).... in game most flight are less than 45 MINUTES.... YES YOU read it here first... we fly on average 45 minutes sorties... then guess what...........

You get a BRAND NEW direct from the factory plane... it even still has nice new smell to it....

So.... you CAN TRASH AN ENGINE FOR 45 MINUTES... it will hold... if a MERLIN/GRIFFON engine could not take the abuse over 45 minutes then it would not be reliable as a powerplant.... You may have severly shorten its life... but who care.... we are getting a new one on the next sorty... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

So once again... IN GAME... 45 minutes... then brand new plane (that includes the engine BTW)...

IRL.... 1 sortie... (maybe up to an hour)... come back land Re-arm...Re-Fuel...Check the oil... Coolant level... and YOU'RE SET FOR YOUR NEXT MISSION... engine where changed only after :

- They have been damaged (bullet/prop strike)
- Thes have reached their time limits (cycles/hours)
- Or they have showns sign of premature damage...

But these engines flew for way more than our in game MERLIN.....

Got to http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif when you guys keep comparing RL to this game...

Zoom2136
07-24-2007, 07:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gumtree:
Let me see,
How can I use a document that is relevant to a early model merlin and create the delusion that it must be factual for all later models as well.

As I have said previously, facts are an amazing thing, often used by politicians to prove any thing any time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read my above post... IT IS NOT RELEVANT PERIOD...

We always have a BRAND NEW ENGINE...

If in RL an engine failed during its firts 45 minutes of operation.... it failed... most probably from a material/building defect.... not a design defect...

Do you guys have any idea of the torture test these engine had to go through before they were declare airworthy... max throttle till they failed... running without coolant till they fail... running without oil till they fail... etc... So when they say.... MAX BOOST 5 MINUTES... its because they (Rollsroyce) wanted there engine to make it to there next schedule overhaul/replacement... not because it could suffer a dramatic failure...

SO.......... 45 minutes............. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Get my drift....

JG14_Josf
07-24-2007, 09:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Get my drift.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I get it,

Apologies for a game that treats one aircraft design as indestructible and another aircraft design as being destructible is typical for this forum.

If each new plane, in the game, is a new plane with a fresh engine, then, each new plane is either indestructible, destructible, or not universally applicable to each new plane, where, some planes are modeled as ˜good to go' and other planes are modeled as ˜no good to go'.

How does the evidence stack up determining which plane is ˜good to go' and which plane is ˜not good to go'?

How about some evidence?

All I could find in my search up to this point is time on the Spitfire has already been linked.

I have a comment concerning the Fw190D-9 where the exhaust pipes melted after running the engine too long on WEP.

That would be a ˜pilot anecdote'.

Claims of interpretations meant when I post a link to primary source information imagine authority over what I mean when I post a link to primary source information. Such claims are false. I know what I mean when I post a link to primary source information. Pretenders to know what I mean are just that – pretenders.

When pilots exceed recommended limitations on aircraft designs, then, they roll the dice.

If the game calculates some form of measure concerning dice rolling on some planes and not on other planes, then, that is what the game does – attack the messenger – go ahead it is how things are done here on this forum – by default.

Make my day!

Blutarski2004
07-24-2007, 12:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zoom2136:
(I'm a certified aircraft mechanic BTW)... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Zoom, do you know to what degree the manufacturers under-rate their engines in order to achieve guaranteed performance levels for X period of time? It's one thing to say that an engine can reliably produce continuous 1600hp with a mean time between overhaul of 100 hrs. But the same engine might be capable of 1800 or 1900 hp (overheat allowed, of course) for a fairly extended period of operation at the cost of a reduced operating time period between overhauls

I know this was common practice in warship construction. The building contract would call for a guaranteed design speed, but actual max speed of the ship would be higher. In some cases, the overload designed into the powerplant would be considerable - HMS INVINCIBLE had a design speed of 25 knots at 43000hp, but could achieve a top speed of nearly 27 knots at 55000hp. The figures for SMS SEYDLITZ were 26.5 knots at 63000hp as designed and 28 knots at nearly 90000hp. That's an over-design factor of nearly 1.3x to 1.5x.

M_Gunz
07-24-2007, 01:05 PM
John Allison of the AVG had his P-40 shot up badly before finally heading home with multiple
kills. The thing was on fire for a while even. He still got it home though in bad shape
and landed it. There was a five inch hole through the crank case yet he got it back.
Of course that P-40 wasn't going back up any time soon.

That's not to say that a bullet in another wrong place wouldn't have stopped the engine much
sooner. His alternator wasn't hit, for example. Or that over-rev won't destroy an engine either.

I've seen the main endorsement of Slick-50 about the GA plane that had the loose oil plug
drop out and time from trouble to landing was over 30 mins or like. The big deal was not
that the engine ran 30 mins without oil but that it did not need a complete overhaul.

Since when is "overheat" all the same? That's like compare 100% power of say Yak-1 to 109F-2
and speak of equal when they are not, perhaps also compare era Fords equal era Mercedes?
There's an oil temperature guage, the degree of overheat MIGHT make a difference as it used
to help with damaged engine life to cut power.

The whine of a 109 engine is sexy, the whine of a frustrated gamer is obnoxious.

DmdSeeker
07-24-2007, 01:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gumtree:

Is it just me or do people here seem to have a problem with anything that the British hold in high esteem. The reason I say this is that it seems to be constant Brit phobia, I am not a Pom but I also don not try and rain on their parade constantly.of the facts and keep posting here.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I don't think there's a general anti Brit feeling (with the exception of Carguy and Kurfurst).

But there are three givens in flight simming. I've found these points to be constant for over ten years of flying on line, in Airwarrior, in Aces High and now in IL-2. These three things are:

The P-51 is under modelled.
The Fw190 has porked forward view
The Spitfire is overmodelled.

Now; of the three sims mentioned above; all three claimed at some time to have based thier modelleing on the best documentation available to them; but nonetheless all three have proven open to persuasion should the argument be phrased in a logical and documented manner.

Yet the three constants remain:

The P51 is undermodelled
The Fw has poor forward view
The Spitfire is over modeled

So we can only draw one of two conclusions:

1) There is an international conspiracy of flight sim programmers, well established over the last ten years and operating clear accross the Atlantic divide to ensure that the P-51 is under modelled; the Fw190 gets a poor forward view and the Spitfire flies better than it ever could in real life.

or

2) Any flight sim programmer worth his salt makes his best attempt at a flight engine, plugs in the documented numners he has available and sits back and waits for the whines

So it must be conclusion 1, yes? After all, it's _much_ more logical to believe in the international conspiracy of flight sim programmers all sharing secret handshakes and rolled up trouser legs than to believe that programmers from Virgina, Texas and Moscow are all making their best efforts to reproduce in thier programming the data they have to hand.

It just makes so much more sense!

JG14_Josf
07-24-2007, 02:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It just makes so much more sense! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Game is on,

Forums where moderators are asleep or, heaven forbid, where moderators are liberal – forums create three obvious excesses (an over-abundance of):

A. Personal Insults
B. Straw-Man arguments
C. Hyperbole

This thread is no exception.

When someone claims to know, for example, that the Spitfire (or any plane) is accurately modeled (or incorrectly modeled) they have at their disposal a number of sources from which to back up their claims.

On the other hand a person can merely elude to (by innuendo) a mysterious (and unnamed) source of accurate information by which that person can claim that his claim is true.

Then there are those who use the A, B, and C options.

Example:

A. Personal Insults:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You're getting pathetically like a whiny scratched record Brain </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I like Brain.. he's like a small hairy man you pat, and use for scaring away the cats. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The person being insulted is named and the insult flows to that person in real time. Sometimes the insults are good natured banter and other times the insults are simple examples of stark meanness. The moderators have their hands full because of the mean ones. Don't blame the victims – please.

B. Straw-Man arguments

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The sim's Spitfire appears to be so authentic that pilots of enemy aircraft are attributing magical powers to it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Or did you miss my point - no-one asked your opinion on overheating in this thread, yet you still barged in belittling and abusing as is your usual modus operandi. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I bet the Nazi pilots in WW2 also wished they had an on-line forum where they could try and influence the Rolls- Royce factory to de rate the Merlin engine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Any flight sim programmer worth his salt makes his best attempt at a flight engine, plugs in the documented numners he has available and sits back and waits for the whines
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The ˜argument' created by the person reporting the ˜argument' is called a Straw-Man argument. This is the most common type of post. The idea behind the Straw-Man argument is to defeat the Straw-Man from a position of superiority; therefore – the self-created Straw-Man must be made weak in the first place. This is like shadow boxing with words.

If the archives could edit out all the Straw-Man arguments the remaining text would be miniscule; which brings up hyperbole:

C. Hyperbole

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As for other Spitfire Fairy vorshipers - newsflash! SpitfireMkV has manual radiators, yes you actually have to manage more than 3 axis and one button to be an ace in SpitV, you need to be able to manage a whopping 3axis and TWO buttons, some can do it some can not </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">With such stunning and lucid arguements you really win the day. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Its amazing...in World War II...particularly during the Battle of Britain all anyone on either side could talk about was Spitfires. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If the archives could edit out all the Straw-Man arguments the remaining text would be miniscule; </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The idea behind Hyperbole is to expand the measure of something beyond reasonable proportion i.e. exaggerate.

Combinations are also possible where, for example, an insult, a Straw-Man, and Hyperbole is all rolled up into one:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So it must be conclusion 1, yes? After all, it's _much_ more logical to believe in the international conspiracy of flight sim programmers all sharing secret handshakes and rolled up trouser legs than to believe that programmers from Virgina, Texas and Moscow are all making their best efforts to reproduce in thier programming the data they have to hand. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When the game does, in fact, have an earlier model (poorer performing) Spitfire VB (1941) out climbing a later model Fw190A-4 when specific side by side tests confirm that the later model (better performing) Spitfire VB (1942) is 450 ft/min less able to climb against the earlier model (poorer performing) Fw190A-4, then, the game is definitely wrong when comparing actual primary source side by side performance evaluation tests against what the game does, in fact, publish and model.

When using words like "Uber" and "Porked" the actual focus upon the actual difference between the game and the reality is ˜politicized' which is a nice way of saying falsified.

"Over" and "under" modeled are more specific terms where the actual measure of performance difference between real evidence and real game evidence is over looked and under appreciated.

As to the Fw190 sight view: 3 degrees of sight view is 3 degrees of sight view. Either the game models 3 degrees of sight view or the game does not model 3 degrees of sight view.

What is there to argue about?

VW-IceFire
07-24-2007, 03:58 PM
For the record my hyperbole was to try and lighten up this thread. I'm way past trying to have serious discussions about Spitfires as few take it seriously enough to actually talk about it with a meaningful discussion. I probably should just not post...but hey...I try to on occasion with the hopes that it will help in some way.

Dmdseeker is dead on with his assessment of the general consensus of flight sim communities. I have read forums from other sims and I was shocked initially to see the very same arguments being made time and time again. I had started to believe some of the notorious people around here that maybe there was some sort of "Russian bias" creeping in somewhere. Turns out its just a normal day for a flight sim producer...same arguments...no matter what you do or who you are.

I very much doubt we'll have a simulator where there aren't complaints about Spitfires, or Mustangs, or 109s, or FW190s.

JG14_Josf
07-24-2007, 04:44 PM
For the record,

An argument (same old one's even) could be more specific rather than vague and (perhaps) misleading.

On the other hands a publication of historical record documenting performance compared to known game performance isn't an argument.

Take a document that describes how an airplane suffers from overload when the engine is operated at power settings that are known to be overloaded and compare that known overload condition to the game performance where the early Spitfires do over heat, then, that exchange of information can hardly be called an argument (same old or new).

The game uses a generic ˜overheat' that can eventually cause engine failure – in the game – just like reality.

Overload is not over heat. Overload may cause overheat and most likely will cause overheat at the bearing, at least, as the bearing fails.

A discussion of this type of ˜finding agreement' between historical record and simulation in games can occur occasionally.

It can be difficult to find agreement.

It is easy to argue.

It is also easy to make general statements that can easily be misinterpreted – just for the record.

If information does exist to prove, or disprove, how the Spitfire IX engine was improved in such a manner as to increase the load bearing capabilities above the earlier models, then, that information can certainly be appreciated by those interested in figuring out how the Spitfire did manage to go from a 12 lb boost overload to a 25 lb boost whatever.

How the early model Spitfire out climbs the later model Fw190 is another one of those examples of finding agreement between the historical record and the game performance. There isn't any argument other than where the historical data does not agree with the game performance.

Just for the record.

While the record remains just - there is also that test done between the Spitfire IX 25 pounds boost and the Me 109G-6 late that does not agree with the game performance.

No argument there either.

Spit25 vs G6 Early (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/109gtac.html)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Climb
18.........The climb of the Spitfire is superior to that of the Me.109 at all heights. It has a particularly marked advantage below 13,000 feet using 18 lbs.boost, and this is naturally more pronounced when using 25 lbs. boost. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive, the performance is almost identical, but when climbing speed is reached the Spitfire slowly pulls away.

Dive
19.........Comparitive dives between the two aircraft have shown that the Me.109 can leave the Spitfire without any difficulty.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps an argument could erupt from that disconnect between reality and game performance. What would be the point?

The Me109G-6 late doesn't leave the Spitfire LF.IX (25) without any difficulty (in a dive) in the game any more than the Fw190A-4 can out climb the Spitfire VB (1941).

The Me109G-6 late doesn't pull up into a climb from a dive identically with the Spitfire IX 25 just as the Fw190A-4 can't pull up into climb from a dive and leave the Spitfire V (1941) with no hope of catching the Fw190A-4 not even when both planes are flying at high cruising speed and then pulled up into a climb.

No argument. The facts speak for themselves.

What is funny; however – is the often sighted vague innuendo suggesting that someone somewhere is guilty of falsifying the facts.

The facts are black and white and hard coded into the game.

M_Gunz
07-24-2007, 11:07 PM
Take information that applies to models we don't have in a general used state that we don't get
and declare that it applies regardless of anything else presented. Then b!tch that OTHER PEOPLE
use straw-man tactics!

Let's hear the one about the Farnsborough Trials again! And then maybe the MiG vs F86 charts
to prove that Spitfires cannot turn better than 109's and whatever else is desired!

LOL, with selective quotes you can make any fairy story come true! Clap for Tinkerbell everyone!

The-Pizza-Man
07-24-2007, 11:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> If information does exist to prove, or disprove, how the Spitfire IX engine was improved in such a manner as to increase the load bearing capabilities above the earlier models, then, that information can certainly be appreciated by those interested in figuring out how the Spitfire did manage to go from a 12 lb boost overload to a 25 lb boost whatever.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/merlin-lovesey.pdf

JG14_Josf
07-25-2007, 12:32 AM
Nice

Pizza-Man,

Is there any data on engine development between 1940 (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/dowding1.jpg) and 1943 that can fill the gap between the Merlin II and III (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/ap1590b.jpg) maintenance reports on 12 lb boost engine overloads and the MK66 improved load bearing work that appears (if I read the report right) to have been achieved in 1943?

That is an excellent report – thanks. I saved it.

What is remarkable is the reduction in engine weight as the engine gained horsepower (and load bearing strength) leaving me wondering some as to why the Spitfire suffered from weight creep.

Again – a gap exists between the reported engine failures on Mark I and II engines (1940 is the date on one or both of the reports linked) and the work described in the Lecture Delivered by Mr. A. C. Lovesey to the de Havilland Aircraft Company Technical Department in November, 1945 on the Merlin 66 engine in 1943.

While the report does show an achievement of 1530 Brake Horse Power for the 1942 development of that motor it remains to be measured relative to the 1800 number often claimed to be the output from the Fw190 in 1942, and of course, converting that Brake Horsepower number into a relative capacity to move air mass (thrust).

Again – side by side tests – where two planes are tested for relative performance, according to Shaw, and John Boyd's example (F-16 vs F-18), are at least one step closer to knowing how both planes stack up – in reality – and in the game.

Example:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The AFDU comparisons between the Focke-Wulf and the Spitfire Mk IX – with the former BMW 801 at 2,700 rpm and 20-8 lb (1-42 atas) boost and the latter's Merlin 61 at 3,000 rpm and 15 lb (1-00 ata) – had revealed that the German fighter was 7-8 mph (11-13 km/h) faster than its British counterpart at 2,000 ft (610 m) but that the speeds of the two fighters were virtually the same at 5,000 ft (1 525 m). Above this altitude the Spitfire began to display a marginal superiority, being about 8 mph (13 km/h) faster at 8,000 ft (2 440 m) and 5 mph (8 km/h) faster at 15,000 ft (4 570 m). The pendulum then swing once more in favour of the Focke-Wulf which proved itself some 3 mph (5 km/h) faster at 18,000 ft (5 485 m), the two fighters level pegging once more at 21,000 ft (6 400 m) and the Spitfire then taking the lead until, at 25,000 ft (7 620 m) it showed a 4-7 mph (8-11 km/h) superiority.

In climbing, little difference was found between the Fw 190 and the Spitfire Mk IX up to 23,000 ft (7 010 m), above which altitude the climb of the German fighter began to fall off and the difference between the two aircraft widened rapidly. From high-speed cruise, a pull up into a climb gave the Fw 190 an initial advantage owing to its superior acceleration and the superiority of the German fighter was even more noticeable when both aircraft were pulled up into a zoom climb from a dive. In the dive, the Fw190 could leave the Spitfire Mk IX without difficulty and there was no gainsaying that in so far as manoeuvrability was concerned, the German fighter was markedly the superior of the two in all save the tight turn – the Spitfire could not follow in aileron turns and reversals at high speeds and the worst heights for its pilot to engage the Fw 190 in combat were between 18,000 and 22,000 ft (5 485 and 6 705 m), and at altitudes below 3,00 ft (915 m).
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Merlin 61 at 3,000 RPM and 15 lb boost and the Fw190A-3 (less performing than the Fw190A-4 as the Focke-Wulf fighter plane advanced in design performance just like every other primary WWII Fighter Plane) running on the wrong gas, running rough with the wrong spark plugs, running for no more than 2 minutes at rated power settings (de-rated screw in the throttle gate must have been removed for the speed tests) were almost on par for speed.

The Merlin 61 and the Fw190A-3 were almost on par for climb performance AND the Fw190A-3 climbed at a steeper angle (http://www.pbase.com/chrisdnt/root) than the Spitfire VB (1942).

There was no gainsaying as to which plane was more maneuverable except in tight turns.

The Spitfire IX Merlin 61 could not follow the EARLY model Fw190A-3 in aileron turns and reversals.

The Fw190A-3 (wrong gas/wrong spark plugs), due to its superior acceleration, pulled up into a climb and pulled out of a dive into a zoom climb had an initial advantage that increased with higher speed.

The Fw190A-3 in a dive could leave the Spitfire IX Merlin 61 without difficulty; the 109G6 Early could leave the Spitfire IX with the 25 pound boost engine behind in a dive.

Imagine that! The poorer performing earlier models of German planes out-performing the later models of Spitfires in reality, when, in the game the later model FW190 can't even climb with the 1941 Spitfire – never mind climb at a steeper angle and there is no way that any Fw190A can ˜pull out' and keep up with any Spitfire from the same speed – no way.

Dive acceleration?

Please.

Klemm.co
07-25-2007, 01:49 AM
I'd say that the problem with the FW-190 lies more with the too high turn-time and less with the dive acceleration. Of course the Focke accelerates too slow under 300 kmh. I guess if it had the correct turn-time (something like 21 seconds i thought) and correct acceleration the problems you describe, Josf, would be much less or nonexistant.

So in the end it is not in the sum and output of factors (dive acceleration) but more about the single factors wich are wrong. The Spitfire's parameters may well be right, while the Focke's are wrong indeed.

Gumtree
07-25-2007, 01:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DmdSeeker:
So we can only draw one of two conclusions:

1) There is an international conspiracy of flight sim programmers, well established over the last ten years and operating clear accross the Atlantic divide to ensure that the P-51 is under modelled; the Fw190 gets a poor forward view and the Spitfire flies better than it ever could in real life......

After all, it's _much_ more logical to believe in the international conspiracy of flight sim programmers all sharing secret handshakes and rolled up trouser legs than to believe that programmers from Virgina, Texas and Moscow are all making their best efforts to reproduce in thier programming the data they have to hand.

It just makes so much more sense! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you have hit the nail squarely on the head. It is all so obvious to me now, this conspiracy is all encompassing, they must hope to distract us with Uber virtual models so that we don't notice the UFO's flying out of Area 51.

I can not believe I have never noticed this before. Thank God for this great forum it has enlightened me to the reality of programmer conspiracy.

Manu-6S
07-25-2007, 02:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DmdSeeker:
1) The P51 is undermodelled
2) The Fw has poor forward view
3) The Spitfire is over modeled
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I say mine:

1) A guy some week ago said that AH's P51 are much better than IL2's ones.

Now the guys who find it undermodelled in AH too are probably the "P51 won the war" guys... the guys who want to fly (and win) like Cruise or Affleck.

IL2's P51 was probably the most realistic plane IMO before 4.08.

2) I don't know... WW2 pilots said the sight was great... I cant speak about AH (never played) but here the problem seems to be refraction lack... IMO is more the wrong Revi size and the lack of 6DOF.

3) Spitfires have reputation: probably is the most beutiful plane of WW2 (yes it's ME who's saying this, since I love that plane but I hate the IL2's FM) and like all the MARKS of history surely it's built with some positive approximations.

Usually thanks to pilot's anectodes..

Richardsen
07-25-2007, 06:53 AM
Is the Spitfire overmoddeld? what is?
Turning is atleast not overmoddeld. Real life Spitfire's do way smaaler loops than the ones we have ingame.

Climb not overmoddeld either. The LF Vb is undermoddeld in climb, IRL just as good as the LF IX.
The MK IX is problably not far from the truth.
IRL a mk IX M66 fully loaded did 0-10000ft in 2.15min.

A 18lbs Vb 0-10000ft in 2.25min loaded and rads fully open.

Dive performance may be overmoddeld. IRL Spits did not outdive enemy fighters.

M_Gunz
07-25-2007, 07:28 AM
The worse your actual piloting skills and hardware are, the more 'real' the less realistic
sims should be if your idea of real is: "I can do what the best test pilots really did.".

Most people won't admit this directly at all.
They use a different giveaway phrase: "The PLANE doesn't do what it should."

I have yet to find a WWII account of any plane that flew itself.
And the only really good online pilots I know don't complain about the FM.

The ones who do complain are in two categories.

First are the ones that clearly explain what they find to be a problem and accept answers.
The problem tends to be small, the worst one was back in AEP about all stalls going to spins
and before that the next worst was that you had to hold side stick to stay in a bank.
Real problems but not real big for a combat flight sim and they were fixed.

Then there's the whiners and agenda pursuitists. Their complaints are characterized by
crass exaggerations generally once they get rolling and the use of many loaded words along
with lack of quantified/qualified reasoning. Just accept what they conclude or you are
working for the other side since to them at least everyone must be on one side or the other.

Whiners never accept anything but give them their candy.
Even free rides in a Whaaambulance just upset them!

Zoom2136
07-25-2007, 08:14 AM
Well its is also funny that guys keep referring to engine advancement that caused the Merlin to go from 12lbs boost to 25lbs boost.... some were made for sure but.....

Josf... you are not an engineer from what I can read... all guys here talk about better fuels... higher level of octane... BUT NOBODY talks about the advancement in OILS/LUBRICANTS/COOLANT FLUIDS...

These babies keep you engine cool and are the blood on the engine... better coolant means oil will retain is viscosity longer... oil that as better viscosity will not break down as easily under load... and will provide better lubrication and will prevent engine damage...

Better additive will coat the lubricated surfaces so that even if the oil breaks downs... some form of protection is still available to the moving parts....

I don't know about all the precise FM and stuff... not my specialty... but what burns me is the would be engineers on these forums spamming.... yes spamming... these boards...

I read somewhere in a book... LMAO...

Jaste07
07-25-2007, 08:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The worse your actual piloting skills and hardware are, the more 'real' the less realistic
sims should be if your idea of real is: "I can do what the best test pilots really did.".

Most people won't admit this directly at all.
They use a different giveaway phrase: "The PLANE doesn't do what it should."

I have yet to find a WWII account of any plane that flew itself.
And the only really good online pilots I know don't complain about the FM.

The ones who do complain are in two categories.

First are the ones that clearly explain what they find to be a problem and accept answers.
The problem tends to be small, the worst one was back in AEP about all stalls going to spins
and before that the next worst was that you had to hold side stick to stay in a bank.
Real problems but not real big for a combat flight sim and they were fixed.

Then there's the whiners and agenda pursuitists. Their complaints are characterized by
crass exaggerations generally once they get rolling and the use of many loaded words along
with lack of quantified/qualified reasoning. Just accept what they conclude or you are
working for the other side since to them at least everyone must be on one side or the other.

Whiners never accept anything but give them their candy.
Even free rides in a Whaaambulance just upset them!

"My views are solely my own and do not reflect the views of my Squad or
its members" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif Thats one of the most intelligent posts I've ever read.

Manu-6S
07-25-2007, 08:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
The worse your actual piloting skills and hardware are, the more 'real' the less realistic
sims should be if your idea of real is: "I can do what the best test pilots really did.".

Most people won't admit this directly at all.
They use a different giveaway phrase: "The PLANE doesn't do what it should."
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ehm... If you reach 10km alt in a K4 in 1 minute less then the real historical data does this mean that you are a better skilled pilot or maybe is the plane who climbs too well?

If a real test says that FW190 A-3 accelerates better than SpitV in ALL FLIGHT CONDITIONS, why our engine's ATA dies under 300km/h?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I have yet to find a WWII account of any plane that flew itself.
And the only really good online pilots I know don't complain about the FM.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You know few pilots I guess...
IMO there are different kinds of pilots:

Those who play like a game: in the FPS they are the Counterstrike players, Quake and Unreal..

Those who play like a sim: Something like RO and ArmA in the FPS world.

Complaining or not doesn't make them better skilled pilot... they only accept what the game offers to them, other not because they claim a more realistic game (sim)
[/QUOTE]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Whiners never accept anything but give them their candy.
Even free rides in a Whaaambulance just upset them! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you remember your crusade against the Mc205's roll rate whiners? After the roll rate was fixed no more whines.

The models weren't perfect (not yet) but whines disapperared. Because people can live with lesser bugs... and roll rate wasn't one of these.

JG14_Josf
07-25-2007, 09:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Josf... you are not an engineer from what I can read... all guys here talk about better fuels... higher level of octane... BUT NOBODY talks about the advancement in OILS/LUBRICANTS/COOLANT FLUIDS... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Zoom,

Why add my name to your contribution?

Is this one of those guilt by association things?

The link provided by Pizza-Man went into oil flow changes in the effort to strengthen the load bearing capabilities of the Merlin 66.

Does that help?

Is that more cause to point fingers at people?

If spammers are spamming (my God no) then how about reading something else, all on your own, and in that way you will be exposed to less spamming from those bad bad spammers. It won't eliminate the spam from the spammers (who are these guys?) but it can minimize your exposure of the spam if you stop reading the spam.

Example:

The Spitfire Link sent by Pizza Man was full of text (that could be considered spam) so I had to read most of it to find the relevant part where the text described how the load bearing capabilities of the Merlin 66 engine increased through engineering design changes which were implemented in 1943 to eliminate problems like cracked crank shafts resulting from overload conditions.

I am not an engineer and I also have problems remembering engineering details so my above ˜spam' or ˜text' or whatever may not be accurate relative to the link on the Spitfire engine load bearing improvements.

Anyone can use the force to pick, choose, remember, highlight, credit, discredit, and judge what they deem to be worthy of note – always.

The point, in case anyone has forgotten, concerned the game modeling some planes with something that could be called ˜indestructibility' while other planes were ˜destructible'.

That led to a request to find information explaining the ˜indestructibility' of specific planes in history, after, mind you, someone (me) reposted (spam?) concerning historical evidence that showed, without question, how Spitfires were self-destructing because pilots were pushing beyond the limits placed on their engines.

Leaving this avenue of inspection at another hiatus, since, the self-destructing Spitfire data was dated 1940 (12 lb boost) and the subsequent load bearing improvements on the Spitfire data was dated 1943 (or so) when boost pressured went above 12 lb boost.

Is this more spam?

Forgetting that similar advancements were occurring over the pond and on the continent is forgetting, which, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

More data (spam?) is better than mere opinion; in my opinion.

M_Gunz
07-25-2007, 12:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manu-6S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
The worse your actual piloting skills and hardware are, the more 'real' the less realistic
sims should be if your idea of real is: "I can do what the best test pilots really did.".

Most people won't admit this directly at all.
They use a different giveaway phrase: "The PLANE doesn't do what it should."
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ehm... If you reach 10km alt in a K4 in 1 minute less then the real historical data does this mean that you are a better skilled pilot or maybe is the plane who climbs too well? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

First I'd look at how it was done in history as compared to how it is done in-game.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If a real test says that FW190 A-3 accelerates better than SpitV in ALL FLIGHT CONDITIONS, why our engine's ATA dies under 300km/h? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What FW-190A-3 we have? Closest we have is not the A-4 Jabo, go to next model.
Which Spit V does that real life test talk about? All the ones we have are newer with better
engines.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I have yet to find a WWII account of any plane that flew itself.
And the only really good online pilots I know don't complain about the FM.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You know few pilots I guess...
IMO there are different kinds of pilots:

Those who play like a game: in the FPS they are the Counterstrike players, Quake and Unreal..

Those who play like a sim: Something like RO and ArmA in the FPS world. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know RL pilots who play sims realistically. They leave me behind, they leave most behind.
But they will also teach sometimes besides just shoot you down and say "try something else".

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Complaining or not doesn't make them better skilled pilot... they only accept what the game offers to them, other not because they claim a more realistic game (sim)
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

One is more than even a pilot instructor IRL, one used to fly F-16's and other planes,
another two are just regular licensed pilots, and then there's the ones that mostly don't play
games and that I haven't seen in years. I sure miss some of those guys!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Whiners never accept anything but give them their candy.
Even free rides in a Whaaambulance just upset them! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you remember your crusade against the Mc205's roll rate whiners? After the roll rate was fixed no more whines. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

First of all, just because someone is a whiner does not mean they are automatically wrong or
right. They just never stop no matter even if shown to be not so right as they think.
They also always make any chance of change less, pounding the same wrong arguments until any
mention of the subject gets taken as more of the same.

Perhaps YOU recall 151/20 ammo? Something was wrong but it took TWO YEARS before the right
problem was identified. Before that it was again and again the same few "this is the problem"
even after the code WHERE SAID was checked more than once and then why bother? Two years of
bad claims and then Tiger Talon shows the REAL problem. Still it took a LONG TIME before it
was looked at from the new info and why? Because of too many demands wasting time before then.

I NEVER made claims about the roll rate. Ask Veltro who I exchanged posts with in forum and
in PM. I DID make claims about spins and I was right about those, you fly coordinated even
in the old patch and can pull to blackout without spin if you keep speed over 320kph.
Macchi's had excellent elevator authority then as now, very easy to pull too hard and stall
but great on turns into greyout and hold with only half-pull at most yet people screamed
about bleed and spins while revealing enough details that they didn't know to fly right.
Pdog wasn't the only one, just the most transparent.

As I made posts about spin, others including you posted about roll rate and by yourselves
tied my one objection to what I did not object to. HOW could I make claim on roll rate when
not I nor anyone else posted data on such?

Last I communicated with Veltro we were both waiting to see if the patch brought about change.
IIRC he was okay with the patch. THE single big change of 4.07 was handling but then 4.05
had some of that as well.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The models weren't perfect (not yet) but whines disapperared. Because people can live with lesser bugs... and roll rate wasn't one of these. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What lesser bugs?
Unless you mean the really lesser problem that NO SIM RUNS ON PC CAN BE PERFECT?
That being true there will always be something to pick at.

OTOH you can just live with what you got. That is how it was in history but then history also
says that many pilots were whiners too, so talk about realism!

What matters is the pilot, not the plane. Better pilot will not get in situations where a
little extra or less climb makes life or death difference. If he does get caught by another
who is as good or better then it is still how they played it out.

Simply the better pilots do not rely on edges but they do use them as they learn them.
Gamers read about edge here, edge there and act like reading about is all they need to do.
Real pilots had to learn and did not rely on being told only. It is like kung-fu, you are
not black belt until you are skilled so.

The better way to play, knowing sim cannot be perfect, is to find out by doing how the planes
compare and still know you just might be surprised as many were in real life.
The better way to play is to develop tactics against others and know when to run or at least
to reposition rather than keep trying what does not work just because "it should". Pilots
that flew by "should" did get shot down all through the war.

When you play by learning what it is you have and the other has and make what fits, you are
then more true to the Historic Experience. And BTW, it was a WWII pilot that taught me that!

Don't get me started on things I would like changed but I can tell you will not be.
I had my own peeves but compared to real problems they are nothing so I don't care.
Why let the little things spoil what you have, and why spread that discontent?
The conclusions pages of the Farnsborough Trials do not override actual flight test data.
The most quoted parts DON'T APPLY to the models in the game yet get 'used' again and again.
Why keep spreading that manure except to push discontent and agenda? Dude, THAT is whining!

Xiolablu3
07-25-2007, 06:20 PM
The Spitfire is overmodelled?

MkV SPitfire was very close in performance to the 109F4, yet in the sim the 109F4 walks all over it. It is FAR better in vertical manouvres than the MkV and a 109F4 pilot who knows his plane is totally dominant over the Spitfire Vb.

MkIX SPitfire fits its numbers almost pefectly, far better than the 109's do, its apparantly overmodelled because it doesnt overheat? Can we get some clear documentation on overheating for WW2 planes? I see no mention of overheating in the RAE SPitfire IX performance tests.

The FW190 can leave the SPitfire in a dive. YEs, thats true in game, if a SPitfire is above me at the same speed, I can dive and leave it behind. THat does not mean that once a Spitfire is firing at me, I can miraculously open the throttle and be out of guns range. This comment means that if a FW190 pilot spots a squadron of Spitfires above him, he can open his throttle, dive and leave the Spitfires standing. As he can in the game.

This does NOT mean that FW190's were immune from Spitfires because they were faster.

When we ask these people just where the SPitfire is overmodelled, we get the overheat (all planes possibly bar the TEmpest are overmodelled in this respect) and the rather vague 'energy retention' which is so random its impossible to test.

The Spitfire Vb 1941 is slightly undermodelled in top speed and slightly overmodelled in climb. The 109F4 aqnd FW190A4 walk all over it.

The ingame SPitfire MkIX's fit their real life counterparts numbers almost exactly (yes even the 25lbs) and the real planes have the reputation of being extrememly easy to fly and loved by pilots for ease of handling. However almost all contemporary planes are faster, and it pays this price for its superb handling.

If the SPitfire's overheat is overmodelled, then the BF109's climb is INSANELY overmodelled.
If the SPitfires 'energy retention' is overmodelled, then the 109F4's energy retention is INSANELY overmodelled.

It was one of the best planes of WW2, its going to shoot you down a lot - Deal with it.

Viper2005_
07-25-2007, 07:16 PM
Bad analogies IMO.

The Spitfire's overheat is silly, but then again most overheat issues in the game are silly.

Heat transfer sums really aren't that hard!

This isn't a red vs blue issue - look at the P-51. It overheats, when all the evidence suggests that it shouldn't:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustangtest.html

I think that overheat is the weakest feature of this sim both practically and conceptually. Apart from anything else, the current model encourages shock cooling (in order to reset the overheat timer) which is exactly the wrong thing to do IRL...

IMO there is nothing especially wrong with the Spitfire's overheat model (note that I am not saying that I consider it to be accurate), but I think that most other piston engined aeroplanes, both red and blue, are unfairly penalised in relative terms by the overheat model, especially in high speed flight; the P-51 is the most glaring example of this since its Merlin is almost identical to that fitted to the Spitfire, yet its overheating behaviour is dramatically different.

Are we really supposed to believe that NAA were that much worse at doing their heat transfer sums than Supermarine?

HellToupee
07-25-2007, 08:25 PM
Well its cooling system was also radically different. Spitfire simply has more rad area exposed.

But then spits model is still weird, the faster you go the more it overheats independent of throttle, high alt you can overheat well below 100% with wep off if u go fast then bleed off speed it will cool.

Issue game wise with giving spit the same overheat model as all the other planes are that its radiators are only automatic, you have large impact on performance where we even have tests of running at periods of 25lbs temps didn't overheat, or reach the temp where they needed to open.

M_Gunz
07-25-2007, 08:41 PM
Somehow just suppose that the message "Overheat" is tied to some oil temperature value on the
guage of each plane by whatever the start of the red range on the guage of each particular
plane and therefore has different meaning on each different plane.

You know, like what is the meaning of 100% power -- different things by type.

Instead just treat the message as "it should mean X minutes before engine damage for all planes
since GAMERS can't deal with the planes actually being different without charts to prove it".

Because I swear I've seen more posts that define or use that word implicitly and explicitly in
terms that do not refer to the actual planes and how they worked than posts that do.

How about make tracks of 2+ different-acting on overheat planes exhibiting their modes?
Because you see, devicelink does give temperature guage data:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
temp_oilin
68 get(int - engine idx)
return: float [deg.C] -273.00 +inf

temp_oilout
70 get(int - engine idx)
return: float [deg.C] -273.00 +inf

temp_water
72 get(int - engine idx)
return: float [deg.C] -273.00 +inf

temp_cylinders
74 get(int - engine idx)
return: float [deg.C] -273.00 +inf
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Throw in the fluid capacity differences (how come a police highway cruiser will outrun most
hotrods is by having twice the coolant capacity) and differing cooling system efficiencies
and this whole 'issue' goes apples and oranges into technical areas that guess what dev team
has already been noted for getting into?
OH but they must be wrong, based on what documents someone else can gather.

Until you have the data to show not only the game going wrong but HOW MUCH AND WHEN, why do you
expect the dev team to just run over and spend more time on things they already have carefully
before? They may be wrong but that is one tree to find in a patch of forest, if it is there.

TWO years to get to the bottom of 151/20 being NOT the cannon too weak and NOT the shells by
type too weak but only as simple as mixup of ammo loads in two different installs of the gun.

HOW many years people saying this plane and that do not overheat proper by their understanding
which does not include how the game engine is working. How many times the same already rejected
complaints or maybe just there is no time to recode that part of the system, over and over?

Has anyone plotted engine heats related with actions and altitudes that match documents and
planes to show HOW and HOW MUCH? And then still know it may be for no change -- but at least
very good chance of not happening in SOW?

VW-IceFire
07-25-2007, 10:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Richardsen:
Dive performance may be overmoddeld. IRL Spits did not outdive enemy fighters. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Unless they were Mark VIII's and the enemy fighters were Ki-43-II's. Its all in perspective after all.

M_Gunz
07-26-2007, 12:49 AM
IRL which warbird in the 40's holds the dive speed record?

The-Pizza-Man
07-26-2007, 03:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
Well its cooling system was also radically different. Spitfire simply has more rad area exposed.

But then spits model is still weird, the faster you go the more it overheats independent of throttle, high alt you can overheat well below 100% with wep off if u go fast then bleed off speed it will cool.

Issue game wise with giving spit the same overheat model as all the other planes are that its radiators are only automatic, you have large impact on performance where we even have tests of running at periods of 25lbs temps didn't overheat, or reach the temp where they needed to open. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Keep in mind that the Mustang's radiator is more efficient than a spits. It has a boundary layer diverter and it's inlet slows and compresses the air more, which makes for more effective heat transfer. The actual radiator area is also quite large as it goes up into the fuselage quite a way.

Brain32
07-26-2007, 03:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zoom2136:

We always have a BRAND NEW ENGINE...

If in RL an engine failed during its firts 45 minutes of operation.... it failed... most probably from a material/building defect.... not a design defect...

Do you guys have any idea of the torture test these engine had to go through before they were declare airworthy... max throttle till they failed... running without coolant till they fail... running without oil till they fail... etc... So when they say.... MAX BOOST 5 MINUTES... its because they (Rollsroyce) wanted there engine to make it to there next schedule overhaul/replacement... not because it could suffer a dramatic failure...

SO.......... 45 minutes............. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Get my drift.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I perfectly understand you Zoom and I completely agree, HOWEVER, we ALL get brand new planes with brand new engines. Why are some limited and others are not? Why a great majority of planes in this game suffer from overheat effects yet some don't???

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Since when is "overheat" all the same? That's like compare 100% power of say Yak-1 to 109F-2 and speak of equal when they are not, perhaps also compare era Fords equal era Mercedes? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nobody is saying they should all be same, but some of the planes in the game suffer no consequences of running at full power forever at all!!!
Plane1: 10min -OK
Plane2: 7min -OK
Plane3: 5min -OK
Plane4: 3min -OK
Plane5: Frak you all I won t3h war :P - NOT OK
Do you see what I mean?
I saw a document of BMW801D posted by Crummp IIRC, where it ran 8hours+ at full power, how about all FW's going "max power foreverTM" in v409? If I keep digging I'm apsolutely sure I'll find some for Jumo213, DB60X, etc. This is what Zoom was talking about, all those engines were capable of puting up with great strain at the cost of getting trashed very, VERY soon, but there was something about producing 1.000.000. engines a year that war ministries did not like http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif. Do we want to play that way? Do we want WEP limitations or not?? If we do then put it on all planes, if we do not then remove it from all planes. Simple decision.

luftluuver
07-26-2007, 07:20 AM
Ever think Brain that just maybe it was the lousy German manufacturing (late war) that has been modelled, even though it is not supose to be?

JG14_Josf
07-26-2007, 08:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">MkV SPitfire was very close in performance to the 109F4, yet in the sim the 109F4 walks all over it. It is FAR better in vertical manouvres than the MkV and a 109F4 pilot who knows his plane is totally dominant over the Spitfire Vb. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

X3,

Since when have you become the expert on which plane can perform better? How does that work? You make this ˜authority' up in your own mind and then, because you believe it, it becomes true?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It was one of the best planes of WW2, its going to shoot you down a lot - Deal with it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who are you directing that bit of wisdom toward?

You will not prove to me how you are capable of being the ˜expert' on game performance despite many of my requests for you to teach me, so, how about giving Brian a few lessons instead?

I would like to see if you manage to silence Brian and put him in his place, or perhaps, after you shoot Brian down ˜a lot' with your insanely over modeled 109F4 and/or Fw190A-4, Brian has to ˜Deal with it'.

Come on dude put your money where your mouth is for once.

ploughman
07-26-2007, 08:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Ever think Brain that just maybe it was the lousy German manufacturing (late war) that has been modelled, even though it is not supose to be? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought it was? I was under the impression that OM modelled the aircraft's FM to represent a typical aircraft of that type in the field.

luftluuver
07-26-2007, 09:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Ever think Brain that just maybe it was the lousy German manufacturing (late war) that has been modelled, even though it is not supose to be? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought it was? I was under the impression that OM modelled the aircraft's FM to represent a typical aircraft of that type in the field. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Maybe, but I was under the impression they were modelled to perfect factory fresh specs.

Xiolablu3
07-26-2007, 10:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Ever think Brain that just maybe it was the lousy German manufacturing (late war) that has been modelled, even though it is not supose to be? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought it was? I was under the impression that OM modelled the aircraft's FM to represent a typical aircraft of that type in the field. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Maybe, but I was under the impression they were modelled to perfect factory fresh specs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are right LL.

Xiolablu3
07-26-2007, 10:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">MkV SPitfire was very close in performance to the 109F4, yet in the sim the 109F4 walks all over it. It is FAR better in vertical manouvres than the MkV and a 109F4 pilot who knows his plane is totally dominant over the Spitfire Vb. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

X3,

Since when have you become the expert on which plane can perform better? How does that work? You make this ˜authority' up in your own mind and then, because you believe it, it becomes true?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It was one of the best planes of WW2, its going to shoot you down a lot - Deal with it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who are you directing that bit of wisdom toward?

You will not prove to me how you are capable of being the ˜expert' on game performance despite many of my requests for you to teach me, so, how about giving Brian a few lessons instead?

I would like to see if you manage to silence Brian and put him in his place, or perhaps, after you shoot Brian down ˜a lot' with your insanely over modeled 109F4 and/or Fw190A-4, Brian has to ˜Deal with it'.

Come on dude put your money where your mouth is for once. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I am not saying the 109F4 or the FW190A4 are overmodelled, in fact I think that the FW190 is UNDERMODELLED.

I just dont buy this 'Spitfire is overmodelled' stuff.

In my opinion, even with its undermodelling in turn and low power, the FW190A4 can still walk all over the Spitfire Vb 1941.

In my opinon the 109F4 is far better in energy manouvres and vertical fighting than the Spitfire Vb/Vc. The Spit Vb just feels sluggish and underpowered to me, whereas the 109F4 is a dream aircraft. WHy does noone claim that the 109F4 is overmodelled? Its by FAR the best plane in its year?

As for the SPitfire IX, Tagert did some tests a while back and we all saw how close the SPitfire was to its real world data and how far off the 109K4 was.

I apologise for the ranting in my earlier post, but I get annoyed with the endless digs at the Spitfire flight model, with no real evidence to back it up.

SOme people say that they cannot outdive a Spitfire in a FW190, yet I have no problems diving away from a SPitfire IX in a FW190A6/A9, I can leave a Spitfire Vb in the dust with either a 109F4 or FW190A6.

I am not claiming to be the worlds best pilot, but these 'constants' which people talk about 'outdiving/outrunning/etc' I seem to have no problems with.

When I fly, I do FAR better in a 109F4 or a FW190A4 than a Spitfire Vb and I know that most people I fly with would agree. SO when I come here and here endless moans about the Spitfires, I just dont get it.

If I see you online, I will be glad to fight/team up.

Last time I flew online with Brain, we were both in FW190D's and he switched teams to fly a SPitfire.

faustnik
07-26-2007, 11:57 AM
Many people fly on one type of plane or one side's planes. This gives them a very limited POV. If they flew Spits against Blue a/c they would have a totally different attitude. Same idea applies in reverse.

Manu-6S
07-26-2007, 12:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
First I'd look at how it was done in history as compared to how it is done in-game.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course, but it seems to me that Tagert's test was quite similar to the historic ones.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
What FW-190A-3 we have? Closest we have is not the A-4 Jabo, go to next model.
Which Spit V does that real life test talk about? All the ones we have are newer with better engines.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My target is not relative performance: engine's ATA falls under 300km/h, the engine literally dies. All Antons got this problem... I posted that test because it says "AT ALL FLIGHT CONDITIONS"... what does this mean? that A-3 could outspace the earlier at high speed and slow speed too... somebody, to justify this flaw simply stated that "in that test the speed was over 300 so the game is right"...

How this explains itself in the game?

That if I boom a lower plane and I want to zoom, flip and boom again I will lose tons of energy if at the higher position I reach few km/h under 300 since the plane will lose alt not gaining speed like every plane in the game. The FW190's thrust in that moment is gravity and in lesser part propeller.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I know RL pilots who play sims realistically. They leave me behind, they leave most behind.
But they will also teach sometimes besides just shoot you down and say "try something else".
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not a RL pilot but some squad mates of mine are. The "experten" of my squad (me too) like to fly in realistic way, with high K/D (infact I hate airquake servers and play only full difficulty). If I can I teach something to the other occasionals players about energy fighting.. it's bad to see all this guy trying to turn with Spit flying G6... do you know then pilots calls you coward because you fight with energy using your better climb rate? In that case I'm the first to teach the guy about energy.

I'm instructor too in my squad.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
First of all, just because someone is a whiner does not mean they are automatically wrong or
right. They just never stop no matter even if shown to be not so right as they think.
They also always make any chance of change less, pounding the same wrong arguments until any
mention of the subject gets taken as more of the same.

I NEVER made claims about the roll rate. Ask Veltro who I exchanged posts with in forum and
in PM. I DID make claims about spins and I was right about those, you fly coordinated even
in the old patch and can pull to blackout without spin if you keep speed over 320kph.
As I made posts about spin, others including you posted about roll rate and by yourselves
tied my one objection to what I did not object to. HOW could I make claim on roll rate when
not I nor anyone else posted data on such?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but my problem wasn't the roll rate value itself, we knew that Veltro had sent the correct data to Oleg: the problem was that somebody stated the roll rate was too poor compared to other fighters and you claimed their opinions as whines.
You was right saying "I don't know if it's wrong or good" but that roll rate was similar to the roll rate of a bomber: honestly how can this be right? It's not a whine if the mistake it's so clear. It's like the Ta183 doing Mach 2 when you know it's impossible: but there aren't data to state if the speed is right or not. You are a whiner if you cry on futile things: but a bomber's roll rate, a missile's climb or a strange engine performance aren't futile things. Remember the 3% rule?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
What lesser bugs?
Unless you mean the really lesser problem that NO SIM RUNS ON PC CAN BE PERFECT?
That being true there will always be something to pick at.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I mean the "futile things" above: a plane going 10 km/h faster the real data, the sight problems (FW190, P47, Macchis and Tempest), the wing snap (this is my favourite...). IMO there are lesser problems and greater problems... the lesser don't force a pilot to use only one way to fly it...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
What matters is the pilot, not the plane. Better pilot will not get in situations where a
little extra or less climb makes life or death difference. If he does get caught by another
who is as good or better then it is still how they played it out.

Simply the better pilots do not rely on edges but they do use them as they learn them.
Gamers read about edge here, edge there and act like reading about is all they need to do.
Real pilots had to learn and did not rely on being told only. It is like kung-fu, you are
not black belt until you are skilled so.

The better way to play, knowing sim cannot be perfect, is to find out by doing how the planes
compare and still know you just might be surprised as many were in real life.
The better way to play is to develop tactics against others and know when to run or at least
to reposition rather than keep trying what does not work just because "it should". Pilots
that flew by "should" did get shot down all through the war.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Don't worry: I think that a lot of times the more skilled pilot is the more expert pilot. Every day you learn something new (= your *** is been kicked). But simply here you learn working around the problems: "I know that my engine dies under 300km/h, so I never have to go slower" It's ok if you are playing a game, not a sim.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Don't get me started on things I would like changed but I can tell you will not be.
I had my own peeves but compared to real problems they are nothing so I don't care.
Why let the little things spoil what you have, and why spread that discontent?
The conclusions pages of the Farnsborough Trials do not override actual flight test data.
The most quoted parts DON'T APPLY to the models in the game yet get 'used' again and again.
Why keep spreading that manure except to push discontent and agenda? Dude, THAT is whining! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are right, I'm thinking it too. Nothing will change (and I think that there will be no 4.09), I was one of the first to say that. I only hate the "pilot wins over plane performance" statement in a GAME. In RL of course it was true. If you reread my first post you will see that I'm trying to prove that statement doesn't work... I'm a whiner for doing this?

JG14_Josf
07-26-2007, 03:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Last time I flew online with Brain, we were both in FW190D's and he switched teams to fly a SPitfire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

X3,

How can you form this 'expert' opinion on relative performance when you have no basis for your authority on the subject?

Have you ever tried fighting someone one on one and then both of you switch planes and try fighing agian?

That is a fair qeustion questioning your 'authority' to go around repeating your 'expert' claims of relative authority which become 'opinions' when you are questioned on those claims of expert authority.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As for the SPitfire IX, Tagert did some tests a while back and we all saw how close the SPitfire was to its real world data and how far off the 109K4 was. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The specific test you claim now to be something 'we all saw' as some measure of accurate comparison between Game and Real was a specific comparison between a Game climb rate test compared to one German climb rate calculation/test and that supposed ˜authoritative' study never answered the questions concerning the atmospheric standard used in the REAL climb rate calculation, which, is hardly something that can be ignored if the idea is to be accurate in comparing any game performance with actual aircraft performance (average or individual).

Side by side tests eliminate the need to make non standardized calculations and measurements relative.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In my opinon the 109F4 is far better in energy manouvres and vertical fighting than the Spitfire Vb/Vc. The Spit Vb just feels sluggish and underpowered to me, whereas the 109F4 is a dream aircraft. WHy does noone claim that the 109F4 is overmodelled? Its by FAR the best plane in its year? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The above claim is based upon something? What is the above claim based upon?

If all your fights are conducted with a 109F4 at lower and slower Spitfire VB opponents, then, it can hardly be an ˜expert' or ˜authoritative' measure of relative performance.

Again – side by side combat flight evaluations can measure relative performance and you can conduct these tests anyway you wish so long as you switch pilots and repeat the test to at least eliminate the ˜pilot factor' for the tests.

If Brian spanks you in either plane, then, it can hardly be considered that you are in a position to poo poo his evaluation of relative performance. If you spank Brian in any plane, then, you are obviously in a better position to measure which plane is better compared to Brian's less valid judgment.

Is that too simple?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If I see you online, I will be glad to fight/team up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you jerking my chain? If, again, you contact me on my normal flying time (with the squad most of the time) and we both are free to fly together to do some relative performance capability tests, then, I will again let you know before hand that I will record these events with track files.

Your buddy Tagart may ask: Got Track (with the little trademark symbol no less).

If you are not jerking my chain, then, how about setting a day and time?

If you are not interested in proving your claims in this manner with me, then, it may be a good idea for your claims to be measured against at least one other person's claims concerning what you claim.

You claim:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">SOme people say that they cannot outdive a Spitfire in a FW190, yet I have no problems diving away from a SPitfire IX in a FW190A6/A9, I can leave a Spitfire Vb in the dust with either a 109F4 or FW190A6. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Was that a misprint? The Fw190A-6 is heavier than the Fw190A-4 and ˜as we all know' a heavy aircraft is going to have a poor rate of acceleration. Why don't you use the lighter Fw190A-4 as an example of the better accelerating Fw190?

Have you done any tests to see if one plane actually accelerates better than the other plane? Level tests? Dive tests? Pull up in a zoom climb tests? Deceleration (which one stalls first) tests going up vertically from the same speed?

Anything?

How about a simple combat test between you and a known opponent while both you and the opponent are on Teamspeak, where, you discuss relative performance while fighting?

Example:

Josf
"Turn around after the merge and see if you can catch me"

Opponent:
"No problem"
Josf
"I'll go a few more sectors on the map and gain enough room once you hit your top speed. I'll get the room needed to turn around for another head on"

Opponent
"Rgr, try it now."

Josf
"Good you are going for the shot and pulling a lot more g force than I am, so, I'll try a turn at corner after this merge while you rapidly get on my 6 burning even more energy."

Opponent
"Rgr, no problem here I can turn around and get you without any difficulty."

Josf
"Yes and now let's see if you scrub off speed while I maintain 400 km/h. This is the Sustained turn technique. If you are too aggressive you may end up too slow to go vertical at the next merge."

Opponent
"I have no problem turning inside your turn and maintain plenty of speed.

Josf
"I see that. This won't work. I can't get around to point my nose at you. I'll dive and extend again."

Opponent
"No. Let me shoot at you.

Josf
"Not yet. I'm unloading before you get in range. This may take awhile."

Opponent
"Come on – this is boring. Turn around and let me shoot you."

Josf
"I can shoot during the head-on too. That isn't the point. I'll turn around this time and try the Sustained Turn Technique and bet the farm on it this time."

Opponent
"Go right ahead"

Josf
"Did you have a shot at the merge?"

Opponent
"No you turned into me just before I could pull lead"

Josf
"And now you are turning to get on my six again while I maintain 400 km/h in a nose low turn. Since you are making up angles fast you must be pulling more g force. On the next merge you won't get a shot, again, and I'll try to set up an advantage in the vertical because you are pulling more g force."

Opponent
"I'll keep on pulling and see what happens. You have to go lower to set this up – I see."

Josf
"Yup, I can't get this around without dumping all my speed while your turning around inside. I have to dive in my turn. Climbing and turning is not an option."

Opponent
"Well you did manage to get your nose almost pointed at me and I'm going to pull lead on that to get my shot. I have to dive into it."

Josf
"Rgr and to make you miss I have to turn into it at the last minute with me going up as you come down to shoot"

Opponent
"Rgr. I see that. You are now going up straight and I'm following you up.

Josf
"If all that turning you did at higher g than the turning I did means anything, then, I'll stall after you do."

Opponent
"I'm pulling the nose around and having no trouble following your zoom."

Josf
"Rgr. I see that and this won't work at all. I have to use what energy I have left to turn into your zoom climb and spoil your shot again – another head-on merge."

Opponent
"I almost had you on that one."

Josf
"Ok while I'm going straight down and running let's see how fast you can get around and close the gap."

Opponent
"No problem. I wasn't even close to stalling."
Josf
"OK rather than have me take another 5 minutes to run the 2 or 3 sectors needed to gain enough separation to return for a head-on – lets go and do some teamwork in Spits and 109s, Warclouds, or Winds of War. I had my turn in that plane – it is unbeatable on equal terms against this plane. We have to stick to hit and run, drag and bag tactics; there is no advantage in acceleration whatsoever until that plane hits the top end."

Acceleration is Ps.

Ps is specific excess power. The Fw190A-3 against the Spitfire VB (1942) was known to accelerate faster under all conditions of flight.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">SO when I come here and here endless moans about the Spitfires, I just dont get it.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who is moaning? Who is moaning endlessly?

Either the game is accurate (a new engine can handle the stress of overload) or the game in inaccurate (a new engine cannot handle the stress of overload).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The mechanics almost had a heart attack when they saw the manifolds of my D-9, which, glowing red, were hanging down. They had to force the engine cowling open. Reason – I had forgotten to switch off the emergency boost after ten minutes and thus had severely overheated the engine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fritz Ungar III./JG 54

Xiolablu3
07-26-2007, 03:30 PM
Josf, you talk too much cr*p for me, sorry.


I gave my opinon, I am not really interested in reading your essay.

Why would I be jerking your chain, as you put it? You have NEVER contacted me on Hyperlobby. Last itme I saw you on Hyperlobby I contacted YOU and asked you if you wanted to fly, you said you were not interested in flying for fun, you only flew 'in teams'.

Both Tagerts and BRains test of the Spitfire came up with basically the same info, so if you dont believe TAgert, I am sure you will believe a fellow SPitfire hater, Brain.

I have no track IR, no gadgets, I have a £5 MS FF Pro, I am not very good at maths, but I can outdive a SPitfire Vb in a FW190A4....and outzoom a Spitfire Vb in a 109F4....nuff said.

M_Gunz
07-26-2007, 03:34 PM
Veltro had some accounts, not chart, roll rate was said to be average and compared to Hurricane.
On that account we did agree that Macchi rolled too slow. We went through a few PM without
arguing at all. All I could say was "wish you luck" and I am happy for the change but ready
to accept that time around still none.

At no point did I ever see actual roll data, only short and very general description.

What I was kicking about was the turns which I did use IL2 to check. I had NO problems even
near what people were claiming loudly about, poor turn rate with terrible bleed and instant
spins. The only way I saw those things was by flying really BADLY with slip, keep pulling
back on the stick while ignoring all indications of approaching stall then right through the
stall and into the spin.

Documents from Veltro and at Macchi site tell of the 202 having a terrible spin and the
subsequent lengthening of the left wing by 20cm to counter prop wash and still pilot had
to take some care because poor flying resulted in terrible spin, wrecks were recorded.
Of course with good and sensible piloting it was not a problem and IL2 behaved as described.

When someone presents a laundry list of complaints and some get argued that does not mean
that everything presented is argued. Just the same, many times I say different about a
plane than claimed and suddenly I am Red or Blue Fanboy -- I've been BOTH at once by posts
here!

It gets like little kids that want some toy here. Whatever the TV ad tells them, they
memorize and repeat every chance oh Mommy, Daddy, that toy is good for me. Half or more
of the reasons are empty sales rhetoric equal to so many empty or false FACT! claims made
here for --- name the plane, they _all_ get claimed over and under modelled. Which SET
of FACTS! you are supposed to believe -only- just changes to match the desired ends.

I am glad that Oleg is as tight about it as he is. I find his not perfect to be preferable
to a load of other people's not perfect. If he does not publish to public what is not his
to legally publish in public then give him some credit. If he does not publish incomplete
data because some of what he has is public then give him even more credit since partial
data leads to bad conclusions.

But some people are not happy unless they are complaining and that is with every sim made.
In real life they are probably the same, always b!tch-b!tch-nag-nag-b!tch. You could buy
them a ****** and they'd b!tch about the hair color while getting a B-J.

Brain32
07-26-2007, 06:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Both Tagerts and Brains test of the Spitfire came up with basically the same info </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No it did not, how did you even get to that conclusion? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

JG14_Josf
07-27-2007, 10:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Why would I be jerking your chain, as you put it? You have NEVER contacted me on Hyperlobby. Last itme I saw you on Hyperlobby I contacted YOU and asked you if you wanted to fly, you said you were not interested in flying for fun, you only flew 'in teams'. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

X3,

That is false.

Why do you misrepresent me in this manner in public? At no time have I ever thought, never mind said, that I am not interested in flying for fun.

Why do you continue to twist things up and profess authority over my thoughts?

I didn't join the server you wanted to fly in because that server wasn't any fun for me and I told you as much and told you that flying without voice communication isn't fun either. Without voice communication we would not be flying together, rather, we would be flying somewhere on the same server which is what happened if you remember correctly.

After you contacted me and after I told you about the need to fly with voice communications and after I told you which server I would be flying in and after you joined that server I was already up and shooting down other planes with my Fw190A-8 using hit and run tactics.

Do you remember?

You got on and started asking why the plane selection favored the red side with Spitfire IX (25) boost and no Dora-9. I had a lot of fun despite not having someone to team up on voice communications (the squad guys were all busy on this day).

I also kept my track recorder on (as I usually do) and I just happened to save that event with a few screen captures (just in case you spouted off about it again in this forum).

Note: I also flew the 109 when the map reloaded.

http://4jg53.org/gallery/albums/userpics/Lonely_me.jpg

As to your twisting of Brian's perspective, well, he doesn't type as many words as I do so you don't have to pretend to ignore as many words - no?

msalama
07-27-2007, 10:38 AM
OK Josf,

How about a change of global in-game perspective then? It's early war, say -41, and we're on the Ostfront. I'll take a Sturmo and you'll make a choice between covering me in a Rata or a MiG-3 - or whatever's historical if the server allows for it - or, if you so choose, trying to get my a** down flying an F2 Messerschmitt. How's that sound to you?

My HL nickname is RBD_Make if you're interested. Just page me if I'm not logged on and we'll take it on later.

S!

JG14_Josf
07-27-2007, 11:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Commie untermensch a** down </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Msalama,

Why does this exchange have to include the political baggage?

What is the point?

How does the thread go from questions concerning the game Spitfire to answers concerning the game Spitfire relative to historical accuracy to ˜someone' ˜somewhere' is blaming their lack of skill on the game to trying to get my Commie untermench blah blah blah and more blah?

What is the reason for injecting anything about politics?

There isn't anything wrong with voluntary communism. There were at least 20 million problems with Stalin's form of Communism; ask Solzhenitsyn. There isn't anything wrong with voluntary national socialism. There were many more that 6 million problems (finding a final solution) with Hitler's form of National Socialism; ask Steinhoff.

Why am I now being associated with someone supposedly seeking revenge for criminals committing unconscionable crimes in the past?

What is the point?

Playing a game where I simulate the challenges of escorting bombers with fighter planes is an enjoyable challenge when utilizing the game IL2 with friends who share an interest in history, accuracy, fighter combat, WWII, and sport.

I have no interest in trying to get any Commie anything – at all. Why do you presume as much?

msalama
07-27-2007, 11:12 AM
OK, strike the Commie / politics part then. What say?

msalama
07-27-2007, 11:17 AM
See I even edited the original.

msalama
07-27-2007, 11:18 AM
But yup, a keen observer you are Josf anyhoo - spotted even that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif A psychologist maybe?

msalama
07-27-2007, 11:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Why does this exchange have to include the political baggage? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

... and even further, U is right. It shouldn't. Not even as a weak joke.

msalama
07-27-2007, 11:31 AM
OK, as a seasoned thread-wrecker I'd say I'll dig this up in 3 months and ask where'd everyone go http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

PS. Ivan: strike 0.03 at most, be sure.

Richardsen
07-27-2007, 02:05 PM
Spitfire's are not overmoddeld in this game
But there is one that undermoddeld, the LF Vb.
IRL the LF Vb was superior to LF IX (m66)in several areas: Initial climb, accelration, manouverability, better climb to 5000ft.

Of all Spitfires, Alex Henshaw liked the LF V with merlin 50m most of all. He could take-off, lift the wheels up and do vertical loop with a roll of the top to finish over the centere of the airfield.

The LF V's where used to chase FW190 and 109's down low, it was also used for some ground attacks.

And another thing thats wrong with the LF VB ingame, it dosen't have the same handling as the 1941 Vb. I wonder why they made another flight model for the LF?

La7_brook
07-27-2007, 02:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Richardsen:
Spitfire's are not overmoddeld in this game
But there is one that undermoddeld, the LF Vb.
IRL the LF Vb was superior to LF IX (m66)in several areas: Initial climb, accelration, manouverability, better climb to 5000ft.

Of all Spitfires, Alex Henshaw liked the LF V with merlin 50m most of all. He could take-off, lift the wheels up and do vertical loop with a roll of the top to finish over the centere of the airfield.

The LF V's where used to chase FW190 and 109's down low, it was also used for some ground attacks.

And another thing thats wrong with the LF VB ingame, it dosen't have the same handling as the 1941 Vb. I wonder why they made another flight model for the LF? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> O REALLY ,so how many loops can a spit do in RL on tank of gas http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Richardsen
07-27-2007, 02:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by La7_brook:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Richardsen:
Spitfire's are not overmoddeld in this game
But there is one that undermoddeld, the LF Vb.
IRL the LF Vb was superior to LF IX (m66)in several areas: Initial climb, accelration, manouverability, better climb to 5000ft.

Of all Spitfires, Alex Henshaw liked the LF V with merlin 50m most of all. He could take-off, lift the wheels up and do vertical loop with a roll of the top to finish over the centere of the airfield.

The LF V's where used to chase FW190 and 109's down low, it was also used for some ground attacks.

And another thing thats wrong with the LF VB ingame, it dosen't have the same handling as the 1941 Vb. I wonder why they made another flight model for the LF? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> O REALLY ,so how many loops can a spit do in RL on tank of gas http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You tell me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

La7_brook
07-27-2007, 03:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Richardsen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by La7_brook:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Richardsen:
Spitfire's are not overmoddeld in this game
But there is one that undermoddeld, the LF Vb.
IRL the LF Vb was superior to LF IX (m66)in several areas: Initial climb, accelration, manouverability, better climb to 5000ft.

Of all Spitfires, Alex Henshaw liked the LF V with merlin 50m most of all. He could take-off, lift the wheels up and do vertical loop with a roll of the top to finish over the centere of the airfield.

The LF V's where used to chase FW190 and 109's down low, it was also used for some ground attacks.

And another thing thats wrong with the LF VB ingame, it dosen't have the same handling as the 1941 Vb. I wonder why they made another flight model for the LF? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> O REALLY ,so how many loops can a spit do in RL on tank of gas http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You tell me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE> your the one telling the storys, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif bet it not as manys as in game lol