Official 1C Company forum

Official 1C Company forum (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/index.php)
-   IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/forumdisplay.php?f=189)
-   -   Speed graphs for Spitfire and Hurricane (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=31450)

BlackSix 04-24-2012 11:55 AM

Speed graphs for Spitfire and Hurricane
 
2 Attachment(s)
Speed graphs for Spitfire and Hurricane

I don't have any other graphs or information now.

albx 04-24-2012 12:00 PM

thank you B6, any news on the progress of beta patch?

BlackSix 04-24-2012 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by albx (Post 414001)
thank you B6, any news on the progress of beta patch?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackSix (Post 413999)
I don't have any other graphs or information now.

!

41Sqn_Banks 04-24-2012 12:12 PM

The Spitfire IA "patch" and "flight test" lines have the same color. Can you help identifying which one is what? (e.g. "flight test" line is slower at low altitude)

addman 04-24-2012 12:13 PM

Just logged in to say:

http://i676.photobucket.com/albums/v...ya1/Nelson.gif

Luftwaffepilot 04-24-2012 12:16 PM

Blacksix, can you please ask for info then.

albx 04-24-2012 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackSix (Post 414002)
!

sorry,I haven't seen it, too busy to read the graph

Skoshi Tiger 04-24-2012 12:22 PM

Good to see the patch and real life test data are lining up a bit more.

Thanks for the update!

SEE 04-24-2012 12:29 PM

Thanks for posting BS, as already requested - which line for the Spit Mk1a is the patch?

taildraggernut 04-24-2012 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SEE (Post 414019)
Thanks for posting BS, as already requested - which line for the Spit Mk1a is the patch?

Good point, they are the same colour.

41Sqn_Banks 04-24-2012 12:33 PM

Comparing the other "post"-patch graphs I'd say it's the one that has slower speed below FTH. The in-game graphs seem to have a sharper edge at the FTH than the real-life tests.

5./JG27.Farber 04-24-2012 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SEE (Post 414019)
Thanks for posting BS, as already requested - which line for the Spit Mk1a is the patch?

There both merlin engines arnt they? On the Hurricane graph the test flight one is rounded. The patch one has an angle at the apex.

Its the bottom one. ;)

ATAG_Snapper 04-24-2012 12:36 PM

Thank you for posting this, Black Six.

SEE 04-24-2012 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber (Post 414029)

Its the bottom one. ;)


oh....crap! Ah well, I have always preferred to be at 55000+ in MP - I can stop whinging once I get to that altitude! :o

41Sqn_Banks 04-24-2012 12:49 PM

The reference graph seems to be based on N. 3171.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/n3171.html
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/n3171speed.jpg

BlackSix 04-24-2012 12:50 PM

I changed graphs

5./JG27.Farber 04-24-2012 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackSix (Post 414044)
I changed graphs

Weeeeee I was right!

..and so on the 2nd day Black six did come down from on high to mount 1C where he did give the common people two more tablets... and it was entered in the book of CloDo... and there was much rejoicing! Until later when there was a violent secular clash in which many threads and posts were dismembered and slaine...

:twisted:

SEE 04-24-2012 12:57 PM

Thank you BS, but I am confused why the devs have generally reduced the Spit Mk1a speed in the next patch given that it is already slower than the flight test data?

I don't understand that at all.

EAF51/155_TonyR 04-24-2012 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SEE (Post 414058)
Thank you BS, but I am confused why the devs have generally reduced the Spit Mk1a speed in the next patch given that it is already slower than the flight test data?

I don't understand that at all.

Because devs fly blue, maybe ? :)

SiThSpAwN 04-24-2012 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackSix (Post 413999)
Speed graphs for Spitfire and Hurricane

I don't have any other graphs or information now.

You dont have any other information, but work continues to have the patch this week? Yes?

ATAG_Dutch 04-24-2012 01:39 PM

These graphs only show performance from 2000/3000m and up, whereas the previous graphs showed performance from 0m and up.

It's very interesting to note that between 3000 and 5000m, the patched 109E4 performs better than RL, whereas both the Rotol Hurri and the MkIa Spitfire perform worse than RL at these altitudes.

Please can we see graphs for the Spits and Hurris from 0m and up, so we can make a true comparison?

Many Thanks.

BlackSix 04-24-2012 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SiThSpAwN (Post 414107)
You dont have any other information, but work continues to have the patch this week? Yes?

Yes

SiThSpAwN 04-24-2012 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackSix (Post 414113)
Yes


Thank You Blacksix... oh and by the way, I felt the same as you about Diablo III ;)

BlackSix 04-24-2012 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATAG_Dutch (Post 414112)
These graphs only show performance from 3000m and up, whereas the previous graphs showed performance from 0m and up.

It's very interesting to note that between 3000 and 5000m, the patched 109E4 performs better than RL, whereas both the Rotol Hurri and the MkIa Spitfire perform worse than RL at these altitudes.

Please can we see graphs for the Spits and Hurris from 0m and up, so we can make a true comparison?

Many Thanks.

We don't have official flight tests for Spits and Hurris between 0 and 3000m.

BlackSix 04-24-2012 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SiThSpAwN (Post 414118)
Thank You Blacksix... oh and by the way, I felt the same as you about Diablo III ;)

OMG! Everything is monitored and translated?))

SiThSpAwN 04-24-2012 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackSix (Post 414125)
OMG! Everything is monitored and translated?))


Yes... well all those cold war spies need to do something now ;)

EAF51/155_TonyR 04-24-2012 01:58 PM

Im flying the Spit 1a very often in this period and, if i well understand the graph, i never was able to reach 310 mph=500 kmh in level flight. At most i can reach 260 mph. Probably im making something wrong.

ATAG_Snapper 04-24-2012 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackSix (Post 414120)
We don't have official flight tests for Spits and Hurris between 0 and 3000m.

Thanks, Black Six. At last we finally know why the Spitfire Ia's top speed at sea level is 240 mph. The slope of the curve was simply applied to the 0 - 3000 m gap in information, so 0 feet = 240 mph. Mystery solved.

41Sqn_Banks 04-24-2012 02:03 PM

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...x=40gk54utfx7r

I've read the values from the various charts by a ruler. Note that I only used the values at altitude 0, 1000, 2000, ..., 10000 (1000 m step)

41Sqn_Banks 04-24-2012 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATAG_Snapper (Post 414138)
Thanks, Black Six. At last we finally know why the Spitfire Ia's top speed at sea level is 240 mph. The slope of the curve was simply applied to the 0 - 3000 m gap in information, so 0 feet = 240 mph. Mystery solved.

This chart gives speed down to 0 feet. I think it's calculated as the test log only goes down to 3000 m.

fruitbat 04-24-2012 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks (Post 414141)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...x=40gk54utfx7r

I've read the values from the various charts by a ruler. Note that I only used the values at altitude 0, 1000, 2000, ..., 10000 (1000 m step)

Thanks for doing that. Guess i'm staying above 6000m when flying red, lol.

BlackSix 04-24-2012 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATAG_Snapper (Post 414138)
Thanks, Black Six. At last we finally know why the Spitfire Ia's top speed at sea level is 240 mph. The slope of the curve was simply applied to the 0 - 3000 m gap in information, so 0 feet = 240 mph. Mystery solved.

More correctly: we didn't have official flight tests for Spits and Hurris between 0 and 3000m for this test.
I don't know how our FM programmer made this planes for game in 2011.

ATAG_Snapper 04-24-2012 02:28 PM

Thanks, Banks. That chart squares very closely to what we all KNOW how a Spitfire Ia performs at sea level. The vast majority of dogfights on the ATAG Server occur well below 3000 meters, including those that start above that mark inevitably descend well below it.

For a year the CoD RAF fighters (save the IIa) have been saddled with poor low altitude performance, with the only fighter, the Spitfire IIa the only one which comes close to historical performance at low altitude (300 mph at sea level vs 290 mph historically). Yet in the face of stiff opposition by many of those who fly 109's, the IIa was either excluded or severely limited in the ATAG plane sets. Now we've been advised that the IIa will be nerfed in the upcoming patch by as much as 60 mph at some point(s) on the speed curve. In view of the Rotol and Ia information, confidence by many who choose to fly RAF fighters is very low that correct flight modelling for all three models (Ia, IIa, Hurricane Rotol/Ia) will actually be done in this upcoming patch.

All many of want is an ACCURATE representation of ALL fighter flight models for BOTH sides. The Spitfire Ia was considered a serious threat by Luftwaffe 109 pilots during the Battle of Britain at ALL altitudes. In Cliffs of Dover, the "Sissyfire" Ia is a cruel joke that has lasted over a year -- anyone who plays Cliffs of Dover doesn't need performance charts to realize that. Why can't the devs see that?????

ATAG_Snapper 04-24-2012 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackSix (Post 414147)
More correctly: we didn't have official flight tests for Spits and Hurris between 0 and 3000m for this test.
I don't know how our FM programmer made this planes for game in 2011.

Thanks, Black Six. I think we've got it figured out.

41Sqn_Banks 04-24-2012 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATAG_Snapper (Post 414138)
Thanks, Black Six. At last we finally know why the Spitfire Ia's top speed at sea level is 240 mph. The slope of the curve was simply applied to the 0 - 3000 m gap in information, so 0 feet = 240 mph. Mystery solved.

Yes, judging from the graph the Spitfire lost pre-patch 30km/h for each 1000 m of altitude (from 530 at 4000 to 500 at 3000). At the same pace it will end up with 400km/h at 0 m (= 250mph).

Post-patch it seems to be slightly less (Maybe I just want so see that), maybe 25km/h for each 1000m. This would result in 415km/h (=260mph).

Of course that won't help much against the 460/490 km/h of the Bf 109.

IMHO the base speeds are not that badly implemented compared to historical values. However the WEP, which was historically available for the Bf 109 only for take-off and up to 1-1.5km gives the in-game Bf 109 a huge speed advantage.

41Sqn_Banks 04-24-2012 02:37 PM

Code:

m        S        H        109W        109
0                        490        460
1000                        510        480
2000                435        530        500
3000        490        455        550        520
4000        510        480        570        540
5000        540        505        580        570
6000        560        520        560        560
7000        560        495        520        520
8000        540        455               
9000        520                       
10000

Those are the values I used for the graph, maybe someone can check it to rule out reading errors by myself.

S= Spitfire
H= Hurricane
109W = Bf 109 WEP
109 = Bf 109 no WEP

ATAG_Snapper 04-24-2012 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks (Post 414161)
Yes, judging from the graph the Spitfire lost pre-patch 30km/h for each 1000 m of altitude (from 530 at 4000 to 500 at 3000). At the same pace it will end up with 400km/h at 0 m (= 250mph).

Post-patch it seems to be slightly less (Maybe I just want so see that), maybe 25km/h for each 1000m. This would result in 415km/h (=260mph).

Of course that won't help much against the 460/490 km/h of the Bf 109.

IMHO the base speeds are not that badly implemented compared to historical values. However the WEP, which was historically available for the Bf 109 only for take-off and up to 1-1.5km gives the in-game Bf 109 a huge speed advantage.

I agree with all but the "the base speeds are not that badly implemented compared to historical values". The Ia's base speed of 240 mph with NO boost cut out control modelled in this game make them easy meat for 109's in the vast majority of online action. Yes, I would prefer to engage 109's above 16,000 feet but frequently there is no choice -- nor initiative -- possible in online action.

The devs must be aware of this inequity and prefer the 109's to have the overwhelming speed advantage in low altitude engagements; otherwise they would have corrected it a year ago with a hotfix. Now it's apparent that they've chosen to further widen the gap in low level performance for reasons of their own. Many CoD 109 pilots are pleased by this, but others have voiced concern at what they themselves perceive to be a deterioration in gameplay in terms of challenging opposition.

So be it.

mazex 04-24-2012 03:43 PM

Thanks for the update B6!

/mazex

Osprey 04-24-2012 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATAG_Dutch (Post 414112)
These graphs only show performance from 2000/3000m and up, whereas the previous graphs showed performance from 0m and up.

It's very interesting to note that between 3000 and 5000m, the patched 109E4 performs better than RL, whereas both the Rotol Hurri and the MkIa Spitfire perform worse than RL at these altitudes.

Please can we see graphs for the Spits and Hurris from 0m and up, so we can make a true comparison?

Many Thanks.

Thanks for these BlackSix, very interesting stuff.

Yeah it looks like that with these graphs @3km the Spitfire is 50-60kmph slower than the 109. I am staying calm ;) because you have the flight model data for the 87 octane (6.25lbs) model of the RAF fighters which are not Battle of Britain fighters

Please refer to the bug 174 (in my signature) to get details on the correct 100 octane (12lbs) RAF fighters.

And for the punters, please upvote that bug :)

SEE 04-24-2012 03:55 PM

I think many RED players will have to discipline themselves to stay above 6000m if the Spit1a is the only allied fighter on a server and draw the ME109 into high alt combat. For me that is how it should be but, even so, the planned reduction of 20km/hr below 6000m in a Spit Mk1a is controversial to say the least.

Osprey 04-24-2012 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EAF51/155_TonyR (Post 414134)
Im flying the Spit 1a very often in this period and, if i well understand the graph, i never was able to reach 310 mph=500 kmh in level flight. At most i can reach 260 mph. Probably im making something wrong.

Calculate for True Air Speed from your Indicated Air Speed. They are very different.

fruitbat 04-24-2012 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SEE (Post 414203)
I think many RED players will have to discipline themselves to stay above 6000m if the Spit1a is the only allied fighter on a server and draw the ME109 into high alt combat. For me that is how it should be but, even so, the planned reduction of 20km/hr below 6000m in a Spit Mk1a is controversial to say the least.

Going to be a bit of a problem when the enemies bombers are flying at @4000m though.

I'm beginning to doubt we will ever see 12lbs performance for red planes, but we'll see.

Osprey 04-24-2012 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fruitbat (Post 414209)
I'm beginning to doubt we will ever see 12lbs performance for red planes, but we'll see.

Vote for bug 174 (link in sig)

Quote:

Originally Posted by SEE (Post 414203)
I think many RED players will have to discipline themselves to stay above 6000m if the Spit1a is the only allied fighter on a server and draw the ME109 into high alt combat. For me that is how it should be but, even so, the planned reduction of 20km/hr below 6000m in a Spit Mk1a is controversial to say the least.


I am pretty sure it is correct. Remember that these are modelled from data supplied from RAE that was using 87 octane fuel. The 100 octane (12lbs) modell is considerably faster and not modelled (refer to my bug link

The test supplied was for propellers I believe, lots of different data on the trialled props.

fruitbat 04-24-2012 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osprey (Post 414210)
Vote for bug 174 (link in sig)

done a while back;)

smink1701 04-24-2012 04:09 PM

Looking good.

topgum 04-24-2012 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATAG_Snapper (Post 414189)
..... Many CoD 109 pilots are pleased by this, but others have voiced concern at what they themselves perceive to be a deterioration in gameplay in terms of challenging opposition.

So be it.

The most amazing thing to me in any combatsim is to figure out the performance-( and allroundskills) of EACH fightermodel. But the gap in Low altitudes between red and blue fighters will be too big to get this kind of fun!
:(

SEE 04-24-2012 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osprey (Post 414210)
Vote for bug 174 (link in sig)
I am pretty sure it is correct. Remember that these are modelled from data supplied from RAE that was using 87 octane fuel. The 100 octane (12lbs) modell is considerably faster and not modelled (refer to my bug link

The test supplied was for propellers I believe, lots of different data on the trialled props.

What I see is that the current Mk1a is closer to the test graph up to 6000m but the patch will impose an unecessary reduction in the speed - that is what I don't understand.

So why make it slower when it is more or less correct to 6000m and the problem was the dip above 6000m (which will be corrected) or am i missing something here?

bw_wolverine 04-24-2012 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fruitbat (Post 414209)
Going to be a bit of a problem when the enemies bombers are flying at @4000m though.

I'm beginning to doubt we will ever see 12lbs performance for red planes, but we'll see.

I believe this is the case.

Red pilots are just going to have to deal with this and try to use tactics.

If you seriously fly red, then you should be circling back by Eastchurch and the Thames estuary climbing to at least 16,000ft and higher before heading into the combat area.

Otherwise, you get what you get.

ATAG_Dutch 04-24-2012 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osprey (Post 414202)
I am staying calm ;) because you have the flight model data for the 87 octane (6.25lbs) model of the RAF fighters which are not Battle of Britain fighters

It doesn't even match the 87 octane test figs for N3171, let alone 100 octane (yes, I know about the lack of armour and IFF).

320mph @ 10,000ft, which is what the 'real life' curve shows (Boscombe Down, March 1940), against 490kph @ 3000m (1C Maddox Games), .

Even with my crappy maths doing the conversion 490kph is about 305mph @ 9842ft, and the patch is worse below 18,000ft than the current Ia.

ATAG_Snapper 04-24-2012 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine (Post 414222)
I believe this is the case.

Red pilots are just going to have to deal with this and try to use tactics.

If you seriously fly red, then you should be circling back by Eastchurch and the Thames estuary climbing to at least 16,000ft and higher before heading into the combat area.

Otherwise, you get what you get.

Agree.

Which means when "Ju88's spotted over Oye Plage" we'll need to fly 180 degrees AWAY from the target in order to intercept! LOL

(Just kidding.........I hope! ;) )

bw_wolverine 04-24-2012 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATAG_Snapper (Post 414234)
Agree.

Which means when "Ju88's spotted over Oye Plage" we'll need to fly 180 degrees AWAY from the target in order to intercept! LOL

(Just kidding.........I hope! ;) )

We just have to be in the air already. Treat every log in as a SCRAMBLE TO 18,000 FT! Get up as fast as you can and stay there.

Don't go down.

Don't do it.

Intercept bombers by diving down, attacking, and coming back up. Don't setup on their tail and shoot away. Take a quick hit and come back up. You'll gradually lose altitude, but claw as much back as you can with every strike.

Historical performance or otherwise, our CloD Spitfires and Hurricanes do not compete with the 109s on level footing.

100 octane fuel, blah blah blah. We're not going to get it. Better to start trying to figure out ways to compete with the planes we have now than the planes we're never going to have.

So altitude and a wing man who knows what he's doing. Those are the two things we could potentially use to level things up.

Enjoy the Channel while it lasts. Everyone flying now is going to be moving to the Russian front when it comes.

EDIT: As for the graph that points out a Spitfire advantage around 22,000+ ft? I'd love to do some trials when the patch comes and see. It'd be nice if they fixed the dot issue for spotting planes to make flying this high useful for a lot of people (especially those of us without perfect vision).

pstyle 04-24-2012 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine (Post 414236)
100 octane fuel, blah blah blah. We're not going to get it. Better to start trying to figure out ways to compete with the planes we have now than the pl.

what a shame.

SiThSpAwN 04-24-2012 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pstyle (Post 414243)
what a shame.

Well I am surprised we are getting any FM updates with this patch, I mean with all the work going into the graphics engine. As well, once they pin down the graphics engine, updates to the FM should be much easier to release...

ATAG_Snapper 04-24-2012 04:55 PM

What, no snivelling to Dowding that our Ia's don't fly up to speed? That the 109's are NASTY to us? What kind of RAF stiff-upper-lip attitude is that????? LOL

pstyle 04-24-2012 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SiThSpAwN (Post 414245)
Well I am surprised we are getting any FM updates with this patch, I mean with all the work going into the graphics engine. As well, once they pin down the graphics engine, updates to the FM should be much easier to release...

hope so.

like I said, it's only a shame (and only a game). I'm not going to die over it.
Overall I'm happy with the game.

Kwiatek 04-24-2012 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackSix (Post 413999)
Speed graphs for Spitfire and Hurricane

I don't have any other graphs or information now.

Hmm these graphs surly not show 100 Octan fuel performanace implement - emergency +12 lbs boost - so i suspected it is not implement into game - really not good.

109 E in patch would have much more close to reality and best results performance - which is good of course.

But looking at British main fighters performacne i really see not good things.

Hurricane MK1 is too slow even for + 6 1/2 lbs performacne:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...peed-HRuch.png

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...ne-I-level.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...I-raechart.jpg


Spitfire MK1 also not quite correct even for +6 1/2 lbs performance. At lower alts too slow and have to high alt FTH.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/s...-rae-12lbs.jpg

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/n3171speed.jpg

There is a enough info about Hurricane and SPitfire MK1 performance i really wonder why 1C cant do it like it should be ????

I know that it could be possible to make it better even in old IL2 engine????

Hey really You can do it better????? Devs there is really enough info to do it correct. Really.

Im dissapointment for these :(

ATAG_Snapper 04-24-2012 05:56 PM

Kwiatek, the charts you present are accurate, I'm sure, and are on public record. After today's admissions, I honestly do not believe accuracy is desired nor sought after in this game. It's a shame, but I believe that to be the reality.

Insuber 04-24-2012 06:06 PM

Calm down ... did anyone compare the above charts with B6 ones? I don't think so. And btw, not a word about the fact that today the Hurricane is grossly overmodeled and requires a serious correction?

fruitbat 04-24-2012 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Insuber (Post 414284)
Calm down ... did anyone compare the above charts with B6 ones? I don't think so. And btw, not a word about the fact that today the Hurricane is grossly overmodeled and requires a serious correction?

umm yes they did, thats the problem, and no one here is denying the hurri is over modelled at the moment.

ATAG_Snapper 04-24-2012 06:19 PM

Well, Insuber, I can tell you I'm deadly calm. It's 1C that claims the Hurricane Rotol is overmodelled -- and you're saying it's grossly overmodelled. I don't believe it is. What I DO know is that the Red fliers have been dealt an unfair hand for a year but waited patiently for 1C to get things sorted out with the graphic coding problems. We did NOT expect further unfairness to be meted out in terms of RAF flight modelling. We haven't been as vocal about it this past year as apparently we should have been.

Charts? Charts haven't done any of the RAF fighters in this game much good, have they?

Insuber 04-24-2012 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fruitbat (Post 414292)
umm yes they did, thats the problem, and no one here is denying the hurri is over modelled at the moment.


Then those who did the comparison, could possibly put their data on a graph, as B6 did? I did some random checks of the Hurricane I curves and I found interesting things. BTW what's the source of the Kwiatek speed/alt charts for Hurricanes ? And why they tell different figures?

bw_wolverine 04-24-2012 06:35 PM

I don't understand something.

Weeks and weeks ago, everyone was saying that the only aircraft that had historically accurate performance was the Spitfire IIa and that the other aircraft needed to have their performance increased as well.

Now, suddenly, because 1C has decided to reduce its performance, people are popping up saying that the Spitfire IIa was over modelled. And now that the Hurricane is being reduced, people are claiming that it has always been overmodelled as well.

What new historical research and findings appeared between those posts and these posts that has altered everyones views?

41Sqn_Stormcrow 04-24-2012 06:35 PM

I personally think that the speed advantage of the spit 1 at high alt is great! I am looking forward to taking on the 109s now in my spitty.

ElAurens 04-24-2012 06:38 PM

Meh.

See you on the outskirts of Moscow, comrades.

:rolleyes:

At least the G.50 might be fun to fly after the patch.

Insuber 04-24-2012 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine (Post 414312)
I don't understand something.

Weeks and weeks ago, everyone was saying that the only aircraft that had historically accurate performance was the Spitfire IIa and that the other aircraft needed to have their performance increased as well.

Now, suddenly, because 1C has decided to reduce its performance, people are popping up saying that the Spitfire IIa was over modelled. And now that the Hurricane is being reduced, people are claiming that it has always been overmodelled as well.

What new historical research and findings appeared between those posts and these posts that has altered everyones views?

The fact that the Hurricane was overmodelled was discussed before, you can find many posts about that, e.g.:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=27311

As you see I "popped out" 6 months ago.

Cheers!

Jatta Raso 04-24-2012 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine (Post 414222)
I believe this is the case.

Red pilots are just going to have to deal with this and try to use tactics.

If you seriously fly red, then you should be circling back by Eastchurch and the Thames estuary climbing to at least 16,000ft and higher before heading into the combat area.

Otherwise, you get what you get.

for the sake of gameplay all servers must unrestrict Spits IIa, then if you fly blue you get what you get.

unless the blues wanna start shooting each other that is.. or the whole thing gets totally ruined; Spit Ia getting porked even further, i read it and i can't believe it.. seriously devs, GREAT JOB :rolleyes:

Flanker35M 04-24-2012 06:51 PM

S!

To me the Hurricane seems not to lost that much, less than 20km/h from actual numbers compared to patch tests. So that is within piloting error. And again remember the game has problems above 7km altitude and up to that altitude Hurricane seems to be very close to actual numbers, even a bit faster at some point. As Hurricane (Rotol) is now, it is overmodelled and chart clearly shows that.

Spitfire is a bit strange but again within 20km/h, give or take and the higher you go the closer it is again. Maybe some tweaks are done to it?

I just wonder about this 100oct fuzz. You can not fly with that 12lbs all day long thus having those speeds at ALL times and altitudes. Even with 100oct you have a 100% value that is for sure NOT this 12lbs value. Same applies to Bf109E too, can't measure max speed at WEP.

And hopefully if they ever implement 12lbs the 5min limit will be done so that it is not a magic button that can be abused without overheat or damage. Bf109E has the WEP bug which is hopefully fixed soon. So there you go, no bias. Just want it accurately done. Like always, thanks for the update BlackSix.

JTDawg 04-24-2012 06:52 PM

It has never been about fair or historical!!! 1c has always gutted,FM when it came to allied planes--- just look at 46 fb ace ex pac pf. the russian an german planes always out climb out fly out turn out run. I can go on an on, But whats the point !!! they will always make the game this way,simply becouse they can't take a allied plane being better ,p51 p38 etc etc the list just keeps getting bigger!!! they might as well put jet packs on their planes to start with,even after hard evidence gets to them with real info.they ignore!! As the years go by,waiting for this new patch, Here is something to chew on, most people that buy this game an your others are mostly 30 to 60 years old!! showing me how your sequal is before you have this game fixed ,is not the smartest thing to do!!! shows your balls though!! but i will never buy your next game or anything else you put out till this game is fixed,!!! P.S. THIS POST WILL PROB. BE DELETED AS A NEY SAYER AGAINT THEIR BROKEN GAME , BUT KEEP SHOWING ME YOUR NEXT GAME TO RUB SALT IN THE WOUND THAT JUST KEEPS GETTING BIGGER!!! there use to be 3 number 1 lies no.1 I sent it out last week . no.2 the checks in the mail, no.3 i promise i won't cum in your mouth , and now you have given this group a new 1 . patch any day now lmao :shock:

ATAG_Dutch 04-24-2012 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine (Post 414312)
Weeks and weeks ago, everyone was saying that the only aircraft that had historically accurate performance was the Spitfire IIa and that the other aircraft needed to have their performance increased as well.

Now, suddenly, because 1C has decided to reduce its performance, people are popping up saying that the Spitfire IIa was over modelled. And now that the Hurricane is being reduced, people are claiming that it has always been overmodelled as well.

What new historical research and findings appeared between those posts and these posts that has altered everyones views?

None whatsoever.

I also found that the in-game Rotol Hurri performed almost identically to the data provided here;

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...ane/l2026.html

Buchon 04-24-2012 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Insuber (Post 414306)
Then those who did the comparison, could possibly put their data on a graph, as B6 did?

Yes pls, I did a Spitfire graph check between the one provided by B6 and the graph provided by Kwiatek and the performance line is equal of what is in the patch.

I just wasted my time on this, did you guys just put the graphs to rant without check or just you guys are doing lobbing for your favorite plane.

The Spitfire is porked just like the 109 is, and is caused by a FM that should be upgraded to provide different octanes and boost behaviors.

Anyway this thread is a trolls magnet so by now is useless.

Jatta Raso 04-24-2012 07:05 PM

just what will keep the 109s from diving to deck with tail between their legs and make a run for it every time a non rookie Spit's on their six?? they do that already!!! with even slower Spits on deck, might as well open them a freeway...

now that the Spits IIa are getting less power, either they make an appearance as a fair choice on all servers, or i'd be guessing what blues would be afraid about; it's very easy to have solutions with the best performing plane, even when they come down to the famous run away most times..

Ataros 04-24-2012 07:08 PM

If you have reliable data please update this issue on Spit Ia and create new one for Hurricane. It will be much easier to post just one-two links for luthier when he brings the patch.

BTW. Someone mentioned that above graphs are calculated and not direct measurement results for lower altitudes. Is there any better data?

Insuber 04-24-2012 07:09 PM

Do the simple exercise of making a paper graph of the Hurricane I, using Kwiatek's charts and B6's data (in game now) ... the actual game has +60 km/h more at 5000 m than Kwiatek's 12 lbs Hurricane I, and +105 kmh at 6000 m, with a comfortable +25 kmh at 4000 m.

No red pilots complained a lot about it, iirc ... ;-)

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


Cheers!
Ins

pstyle 04-24-2012 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Insuber (Post 414338)
Do the simple exercise of making a paper graph of the Hurricane I, using Kwiatek's charts and B6's data (in game now) ... the actual game has +60 km/h more at 5000 m than Kwiatek's 12 lbs Hurricane I, and +105 kmh at 6000 m, with a comfortable +25 kmh at 4000 m.

No red pilots complained a lot about it, iirc ... ;-)

If this performance issue is true, then of course it should be corrected.

As for "no red pilot complained" - I've seen comments from red AND blue pilots asking for "all" A/C to be closer to historical.

bw_wolverine 04-24-2012 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Insuber (Post 414317)
The fact that the Hurricane was overmodelled was discussed before, you can find many posts about that, e.g.:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=27311

As you see I "popped out" 6 months ago.

Cheers!

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

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

I don't really care if it is or isn't. I just want it to be accurate so that the majority agree that is accurate.

My point here is that there doesn't seem to be a heck of a lot of non-biased opinions here, for or against ANY plane. I'm sure everyone posts with the idea that "MY info is accurate and unbiased. THAT guy is being a fanboy." But looking back, it seems that our 'unbiased' opinions seem to change strangely in correllation the patch FM changes.

Whatever. Like I said. I'm giving up trying to get any FM adjustments. I'm gonna fly with what I've been given. It's a nice aircraft combat sim. Battle of Britain sim, it ain't.

David Hayward 04-24-2012 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine (Post 414345)
Reading in that thread it seems that the problem wasn't the Hurricane, it was the lack of speed in the 109. Which, I might add, seems to be being addressed! Lucky blue pilot!

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

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

Osprey 04-24-2012 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine (Post 414236)
100 octane fuel, blah blah blah. We're not going to get it. Better to start trying to figure out ways to compete with the planes we have now than the planes we're never going to have.

It's the #3 ranked bug. Apply pressure and we have every chance of a result - to me it's not a luxury, it's what was in the battle and everything else is wrong. Faith brother ;)

Insuber 04-24-2012 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine (Post 414345)
Reading in that thread it seems that the problem wasn't the Hurricane, it was the lack of speed in the 109. Which, I might add, seems to be being addressed! Lucky blue pilot!

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


Too fast relatively to the other planes, mate. Far from me to start an argument about blue vs. red ... can't care less.
We missed at that time any charts of the game performances allowing to understand better the issue. And today it's clear that 109 was a bit slower and Hurricane a bit faster. But I agree that the common goal is to get faithful FMs of all planes, so I will fight to get a realistic Hurricane and Spit etc. as well.

Cheers!

bw_wolverine 04-24-2012 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Hayward (Post 414351)
Do you have test data that contradicts what B6 posted in his graph? If not, you need to find some.

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

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

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

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

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

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

ATAG_Snapper 04-24-2012 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Hayward (Post 414351)
Do you have test data that contradicts what B6 posted in his graph? If not, you need to find some.

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

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

Kurfürst 04-24-2012 07:37 PM

Red reactions in this thread remind me to this:

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

David Hayward 04-24-2012 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine (Post 414359)
I'm not talking about data. I'm talking about how the sentiment on these FMs seems to change interestingly whenever we get new FM updates.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Osprey 04-24-2012 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Insuber (Post 414354)
Too fast relatively to the other planes, mate. Far from me to start an argument about blue vs. red ... can't care less.
We missed at that time any charts of the game performances allowing to understand better the issue. And today it's clear that 109 was a bit slower and Hurricane a bit faster. But I agree that the common goal is to get faithful FMs of all planes, so I will fight to get a realistic Hurricane and Spit etc. as well.

Cheers!


I don't care about relativity to other types, I purely care about each type having accuracy.

87 octane it is, let's press for 12lbs boost (yes yes for the recommended limits!). This brings me to the next problem, that the Spitfire out-turns the Hurricane, and the 109 can turn with the Hurricane unless flap is used *note this is a generalisation, I know that speed has effects . So, the Hurricane should be the best turner, if that it unchanged it's going to become a deathtrap with the correction to speed.

As for online, I'm expecting a lot of LW complaint, hissyfits and general rudeness from the obtuse. It's been a tough year for the RAF, now I will be leading my crew up over 6km+ on the hunt, on top of the LW, the tables will turn :D I can deal with speed loss because I will still reach 400mph in a dive to tonk down the unsuspecting 109 :cool:

JG52Uther 04-24-2012 07:41 PM

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

Insuber 04-24-2012 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine (Post 414359)
Not until I see a Blue player crusading for the increase in Red plane performance, or a Red player vehemently arguing that the 109 is too slow will I suggest that anyone here is really being anything more than self-serving with respect to the FMs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Insuber (Post 414338)
(...)
On the other hand I agree that the 12 lbs boost / 100 octane fuel must be modeled, of course with a limitation on overheating and engine life as in RL, to correct the Hurricane I performance below 3000 m which looks excessively penalized, IF KWIATEK CHARTS ARE ACCURATE

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

David Hayward 04-24-2012 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATAG_Snapper (Post 414361)
Pfffft. What good will that do, David? Really? The devs have had a year to correct it, they've had over seven years to research it. They don't care. The fix is in. We get it. As Wolverine very capably outlined, the Red fliers will adjust tactics to accommodate the new FM changes. This is a game after all; many of us mistook this as a simulation.

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

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

Kurfürst 04-24-2012 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JG52Uther (Post 414369)
There is no red or blue for me. I would like the aircraft to be as historically accurate as possible.
Will be interesting if the game ever does Russia 1941, because the Russian fighters were death traps, and somehow I can't see that working out too well...

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

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

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

Robo. 04-24-2012 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Insuber (Post 414338)
No red pilots complained a lot about it, iirc ... ;-)

Insuber, lots of us (what you call red pilots) did complain about it - the fact that Hurricane is faster than Spitfire anc climbs better is simply ridicilous and no virtual RAF pilot I know agreed on that.

Osprey 04-24-2012 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JG52Uther (Post 414369)
There is no red or blue for me. I would like the aircraft to be as historically accurate as possible.
Will be interesting if the game ever does Russia 1941, because the Russian fighters were death traps, and somehow I can't see that working out too well...


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

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

ATAG_Snapper 04-24-2012 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Hayward (Post 414372)
If it's so obviously wrong then you should have no problem finding test data to back up your complaints. It may not convince the dev team to change things, but at least you won't look like you're whining (which is kinda what it looks like you're doing right now).

David, my priorities in life don't mandate me proving myself to you. The data has already been presented in this forum, as you well know. Or you may prefer to use Kurfurst's "data" since it would no doubt suit you better.

Whatever. I'm not going to indulge your wish for a "chart war" -- that's been done to death already. Not whining -- just saying we know the current flight models are wrong and the patch is making them worse. Unlike yourself, we actually play the game and we know what is -- is. Just don't expect us to believe otherwise.

pstyle 04-24-2012 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Hayward (Post 414372)
If it's so obviously wrong then you should have no problem finding test data to back up your complaints. It may not convince the dev team to change things, but at least you won't look like you're whining (which is kinda what it looks like you're doing right now).

there is certainly no data here: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

A link that has not been posted more than any other link to date with respect to this issue.

Neither is there any data here:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-II.html

neither link has ever been posted on these forums... over, and over, and over again

David Hayward 04-24-2012 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATAG_Snapper (Post 414388)
Unlike yourself, we actually play the game and we know what is -- is. Just don't expect us to believe otherwise.

Are the numbers he posted for the game wrong?

pstyle 04-24-2012 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Hayward (Post 414400)
Are the numbers he posted for the game wrong?

Actually, not too far off ;) and I'm a red-mostly pilot.

Black 6's Figure for "the patch" - as I read them:
Spit 1a: Max level speed:
@6000m / 19,700ft: 350 mph (563 km/h)
@3000m / 9,850ft: 303 mph (489 km/h)

Figures from the weblinks posted:
Spit 1a: Max level speed:
@6000m / 19,700ft: 355 mph
@3000m / 9,850ft: 320-355 mph (depending on fuel 87/100)

So the patch is 1.4% on the low side at 6000m (I can live with that)
And the patch is 5% on the slow side at 3000m if you're assuming 87 octane, but a more significant 14% on the slow side if you're using 100 octane

I'd like to see sea-level Flight model information for the above, but it seems to me the model is very close to the 87 octane fuelled spit 1a. VERY CLOSE. And I am now happy to accept that.

The real question is - will/should they model 100 octane?

ATAG_Snapper 04-24-2012 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Hayward (Post 414400)
Are the numbers he posted for the game wrong?

David, I snapped at you and I sincerely apologize for that. It's borne of frustration and it was wrong for me to direct it at you --it was a fair question you posed of me. Plus, for all I know you may (and likely do) have hundreds of hours logged online/offline under a different name -- I of all people should know that. Again, very sorry for that and I hope you accept my apology.

I'm ending my part of the discussion here, mainly because of the frustration and disappointment at my end. When it ceases to be fun, then what's the point?

Hopefully others with more debating skills and/or motivation can continue this with you.

Snapper

David Hayward 04-24-2012 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pstyle (Post 414415)
Actually, not too far off ;)

Black 6's Figure for "the patch" - as I read them:
Spit 1a: Max level speed:
@6000m / 19,700ft: 350 mph (563 km/h)
@3000m / 9,850ft: 303 mph (489 km/h)

Figures from the weblinks posted:
Spit 1a: Max level speed:
@6000m / 19,700ft: 355 mph
@3000m / 9,850ft: 320-355 mph (depending on fuel 87/100)

So the patch is 1.4% on the low side at 6000m (I can live with that)
And the patch is 5% on the slow side at 3000m if you're assuming 87 octane, but a more significant 14% on the slow side if you're using 100 octane

I'd like to see sea-level Flight model information for the above, but it seems to me the model is very close to the 87 octane fuelled spit 1a. VERY CLOSE. And I am now happy to accept that.

The real question is - will/should they model 100 octane?

So, B6's numbers are good, assuming the lower octane. Obviously they should add a 100 octane version.

pstyle 04-24-2012 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Hayward (Post 414422)
So, B6's numbers are good, assuming the lower octane. Obviously they should add a 100 octane version.

yeah, I think B6's numbers are pretty close at least from 3000m up.

Like I said; it would be nice to see the figures for sea-level too.

And you're right, some modelling of the 100 octane would be ideal, especially given it's almost ubiquitous use from April/ May 1940 onwards in the RAF.

Buchon 04-24-2012 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pstyle (Post 414424)
some modelling of the 100 octane would be ideal, especially given it's almost ubiquitous use from April/ May 1940 onwards in the RAF.

It´s coming :

http://i49.tinypic.com/2nrmw0k.jpg

So yeah, that´s lower octane.

David Hayward 04-24-2012 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATAG_Snapper (Post 414417)
David, I snapped at you and I sincerely apologize for that. It's borne of frustration and it was wrong for me to direct it at you --it was a fair question you posed of me. Plus, for all I know you may (and likely do) have hundreds of hours logged online/offline under a different name -- I of all people should know that. Again, very sorry for that and I hope you accept my apology.

I'm ending my part of the discussion here, mainly because of the frustration and disappointment at my end. When it ceases to be fun, then what's the point?

Hopefully others with more debating skills and/or motivation can continue this with you.

Snapper

I don't have a lot of hours, but the number of hours playing the game does not change the 1940s test data. I'm not trying to debate this, I'd just like to know why everyone is angry when the test data appears to match game data. If the problem is octane used for testing, then they should model 100 octane in the game.

Osprey 04-24-2012 08:25 PM

Yup, could've read that in my first post pages ago though.......

It's 87 octane model as per bug #84 by klem, but unfortunately, and us RAF are all to blame for not picking this up really, the modelling of 87 octane is historically incorrect for the Battle of Britain.

pstyle 04-24-2012 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Hayward (Post 414427)
I don't have a lot of hours, but the number of hours playing the game does not change the 1940s test data. I'm not trying to debate this, I'd just like to know why everyone is angry when the test data appears to match game data. If the problem is octane used for testing, then they should model 100 octane in the game.

David, I think the 87/100 octane is the real issue here.


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:43 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 1C Company. All rights reserved.