[Aymar_Mauri]

i wasnt misleading any kind of anger in any direction, i was purely acting on "It is almost has if the in-game MkV is a 1941 version (or a Russian 87 octane fuel model) but with less weight than in RL, therefore the incorrect optmistic climb rate."and
"To have any historical accuracy, we would need two new slots for a 1941 (or Russian 87 octane fuel) and 1942 (British 100 octane fuel) Spit MkV.".

What I refered to was exactly the kind of conclusions I read in those forums. I admit I might have sounded definitive in that post, but I was just being "graphic". And didn't I say "...I made generalizations to get my point across..."?

Besides, I wasn't even the one (or ones) that came to those conclusions. I observed and read those threads extensivelly when those guys were throwing data back and forth. It was not just one person that pointed that behaviour but several. And from what I saw in the comparative charts for the MkV I came to agree with them.

Please don't ask me to post them here. I would spend days just trying to find some of them. You'll probably smirk at that, but I'm really not inclined to do it.

no bad feelings mate, just conflicting opinions on whether we should mess around with FM or create Fm that is suitable to peoples personnal pallette(can you imagine it?" Oh i cant beat that la7 so its Fm must be wrong") Thankfully not many people are able to mess with this, otherwise we`ll end up with Foo-fighter Doras and spitfires that handle`s like a garage door.

Confliting?! Hardly. I think "not many people" or a "lot of people" being able to change FM amounts to the same. A UFO mod would never get across AAA quality control or am I wrong? And such a mod would be shunned in every server but the modder's own, right?

Please don't play the "Oh I cant beat that La7 so its FM must be wrong" card since I am a sucker for all propeller planes and only make comments when I see things steering away from the accuracy of reports and data (BTW, the vanilla La-5FN we have has the performance of the 1944 model and not of the 1943 one >>> we need another two slots :wink.

I also must refer to you that I am and always have been exclusivelly an offline IL2 player. I've never played IL2 online and never will because I had personal and professional problems when I did so in other games. In my offline campaigning I fly every available fighter (bomber missions are boring) for every carrer (allied or axis) in each of the historical settings, so I cringe if I know there is innacuracy. Call me obsessed...

And, "Foo-fighter Doras and spitfires that handle`s like a garage door" ? Please... :roll: That would make me cringe too. That was not what I was talking about. Remember the LaGG-3 300Kg lapse? That was a vanilla problem that got corrected. In the case of the Spit MkV I have no idea what the discrepancy might be, but surelly less than 100Kg.

BTW, when I say "correcting" I always refer to a new slot plane, not in to altering vanilla FM. No harm in that, right?

[rossmum]

i wasnt misleading any kind of anger in any direction, i was purely acting on "It is almost has if the in-game MkV is a 1941 version (or a Russian 87 octane fuel model) but with less weight than in RL, therefore the incorrect optmistic climb rate. "and
"To have any historical accuracy, we would need two new slots for a 1941 (or Russian 87 octane fuel) and 1942 (British 100 octane fuel) Spit MkV."

no bad feelings mate, just conflicting opinions on whether we should mess around with FM or create Fm that is suitable to peoples personnal pallette(can you imagine it?" Oh i cant beat that la7 so its Fm must be wrong") Thankfully not many people are able to mess with this, otherwise we`ll end up with Foo-fighter Doras and spitfires that handle`s like a garage door.

That doesn't mean we should just accept things which already handle nothing like they should and be done with it. Those here who can do FM work know what they're doing and research these things before they change anything, and in any case edited aircraft must be in a new slot. I see no harm in somebody going through and creating new-slot FM edits of the existing aircraft for accuracy, as some aircraft are quite plainly not entirely right.

[Aymar_Mauri]

i wasnt misleading any kind of anger in any direction, i was purely acting on "It is almost has if the in-game MkV is a 1941 version (or a Russian 87 octane fuel model) but with less weight than in RL, therefore the incorrect optmistic climb rate. "and
"To have any historical accuracy, we would need two new slots for a 1941 (or Russian 87 octane fuel) and 1942 (British 100 octane fuel) Spit MkV."

no bad feelings mate, just conflicting opinions on whether we should mess around with FM or create Fm that is suitable to peoples personnal pallette(can you imagine it?" Oh i cant beat that la7 so its Fm must be wrong") Thankfully not many people are able to mess with this, otherwise we`ll end up with Foo-fighter Doras and spitfires that handle`s like a garage door.

That doesn't mean we should just accept things which already handle nothing like they should and be done with it. Those here who can do FM work know what they're doing and research these things before they change anything, and in any case edited aircraft must be in a new slot. I see no harm in somebody going through and creating new-slot FM edits of the existing aircraft for accuracy, as some aircraft are quite plainly not entirely right.

Exactly. Very well put. Nothing to add.

[md_wild_weasel]

"I see no harm in somebody going through and creating new-slot FM edits of the existing aircraft for accuracy, as some aircraft are quite plainly not entirely right."

And how do you know what is exactly historical correct? Vamir already proved with his findings that the Ta152c was near as dam to olegs "interpretation" of historical data. Then you whine about the spitfire`s climb rate which tbh is pretty much comparable in game (MkV 3,140 ft/min, 109 g-1 3,427 ft/min) Infact your totally missing the point on which im trying to get across, changing Fm or talioring exsiting planes on "new slots" because an individual thinks its "wrong" is ludicrous. Do you think that you gain some kind of godly like status by saying "that plane does not fly correctly" of it doesnt fly like it looks". No you dont. I feel for oleg in the old days.. listening to people constantly whining about thier favourite rides and how wrong it is. Now its the people at AAA i feel sorry for.

At the end of the day you should be gratefull that someone has taken the time out of thier lives to offer you something remotley close to how something flew with the OLD FM engine of this game. If your still not happy then maybe you should be looking at getting flying lesons buy a warbird THEN tell us it doesnt fly right. OR quite simply wait for B.O.B?

get a grip and learn to fly your ride properly.

P.s if you strugling in offline games , i wouldnt cross over into online dogfights if i were you :wink:

[Aymar_Mauri]

I believe you're replying to rossmum, right?

[md_wild_weasel]

it was to start with , but then i truned my attention to you (Aymar_mauri).I suppose i should of been clear on that. :lol:

[rossmum]

I know something's definitely up when I fly my Spit according to RAF S.O.Ps under the kind of conditions encountered in comparative trials and it performs either too poorly or too well compared to documented performance... don't just assume we're all crappy pilots and Oleg got everything right. We have the very glaring mistakes on the P-40 family to dispel that myth.

[Aymar_Mauri]

it was to start with , but then i truned my attention to you (Aymar_mauri).I suppose i should of been clear on that. :lol:

Ok. I think it might go from here:

And how do you know what is exactly historical correct? Vamir already proved with his findings that the Ta152c was near as dam to olegs "interpretation" of historical data.

Correct. Oleg's "interpretation" of historical data. And look where that lead the in-game Antons. Models exhibiting in some major areas (acceleration, energy retention) behaviour far away from the RL planes.

And I had already said I did not knew anyone was working on new Ta-152C slot planes. So, I could not comment on Vanir's findings, could I?

Then you whine about the spitfire`s climb rate which tbh is pretty much comparable in game (MkV 3,140 ft/min, 109 g-1 3,427 ft/min)

Oh! I see. So you want "comparable" instead of historical accurate? So, why not remove all planes except one and just change the skins and markings to differentiate them in battle? Seems that would cater to what you are proposing.

It is not a question of "comparability" but of accuracy to RL data and behaviour.

Infact your totally missing the point on which im trying to get across, changing Fm or talioring exsiting planes on "new slots" because an individual thinks its "wrong" is ludicrous.

No. You're the one missing the point as I have pointed out already. It's seems that you just won't listen.

I am not tailoring anything to my taste. I'm not basing what I said in just what I "think" in regard to Spitfires. I'm basing it in what several persons with good knowledge of physics, the planes and it's behaviour have found out after extensive testing in-game and by comparation with RL data. You seem to have reached different conclusions about in-game behaviour. Fine for you. Go show them that.

Do you think that you gain some kind of godly like status by saying "that plane does not fly correctly" of it doesnt fly like it looks". No you dont. I feel for oleg in the old days.. listening to people constantly whining about thier favourite rides and how wrong it is. Now its the people at AAA i feel sorry for.

Well, this text really points out that I seem to be talking to a child. It's sad that when someone posts a diferent point of view (or in this case comments on the findings of other knowlegeable people) there are always "people" that, for lack of better arguments, try to drive the conversation in to an ego mud-match of some sort. They start by implying the poster is just using "feelings" and "thoughts", then proceed to keywords like "whining" and finaly top it of with an impersonation of the "emotional defender of Oleg's martyrdom".

So mature, really... :roll:

At the end of the day you should be gratefull that someone has taken the time out of thier lives to offer you something remotley close to how something flew with the OLD FM engine of this game.

You lost me here. Maybe you should try to read posts before babbling. This was posted in the beggining of the thread:

Thanks for the link. I was oblivious to any work being done on the Ta-152C. Nice to know about this.

If your still not happy then maybe you should be looking at getting flying lesons buy a warbird THEN tell us it doesnt fly right. OR quite simply wait for B.O.B?

get a grip and learn to fly your ride properly.

It seems to me that you are the one who should be "getting a grip". Not reading what people have wrote, mixing up quotes of different persons, insulting said people and posting incoherent altercations that are unrelated to the subject at hand, seem to me a case worthy of an "anger management course" or "attention span deficit disorder" psychotherapy...

P.s if you strugling in offline games , i wouldnt cross over into online dogfights if i were you

Well, let me give you some info on my ability. I am exclusivelly an offline player. I refuse to play any game online nowadays. This happens because of two reasons:

- Lack of extensive free time due to professional and personal responsabilities.
- Having, years ago, a slight addition when I played other games online (FPSs & RPGs) that lead to professional and personal problems.

Since I adquired IL-2 (5 years ago), I planned never to play and I will never play IL-2 online.

I despise "Quake-fests" and, although I have no experience in IL-2 online, my oppinion of "Air-Quake-fests" is no different. I'm not a pimpled teen with an ego problem trying to show my e-penis in aerial combat. I'm a 37 year old technical designer with a background in mechanical engineering and a passion for history (ancient, medieval and modern).

For online play, only coops could interest me, but need team schedules and coordination that is impossible for me to dispose of.

I only care for reproducing (sometimes building) and playing offline historical missions and campaigns. And for that, I always hope to be able to have at my disposal planes, maps and objects that reproduce, as much as possible, the expected behaviour of their historical counterparts. Therefore my points and concerns about the planes' FM, DM and geometry, etc...

To answer your sarcastic remark, in offline play, only ever using full switch, I can defeat several Ace AI planes in any setting using any plane. With comparable year matched planes I have no problem fighting vs 6 Ace AI by catering my style to my plane's strong points. In an inferior plane I can take on 2 or 3 Ace AI. In more extreme matches, even a CR42 vs 2xFW190 Ace AI is achievable although very hard and ending in a tie.

So, no, I haven't had any problems with the AI since after the first 6 months of playing the game.

In conclusion, I must say that trying to take the conversation in to the land of "you say that you want new FM because you suck and need an

[RAF_Magpie]

Sorry, but this has turned into a b!tch fight, and we already have a WIP thread for this, so thread LOCKED.