WHAT do you think about SPIT XII and SPIT XIV FM.
hmm i can find any page about technical data of this spits. All i show is compare data,
but if i fly in AAA1.2 Spit IXC, E and new Spit XII, XIV i cant belive that this was so different flight model .
I
What do you think ????
As part of the downloads for UI 1.2 you get il2 Compare update that includes the Spits XII & XIV. This will allow you to compare the performance graphs of them against the VIII & IX's.
Correction: The update to il2 Compare 4.07m is a separate download at the bottom of the download mirrors for UI1.2 at (The link is inoperative)
Posts: 559
Threads: 79
Joined: Nov 2007
I sugest a "transparency" to all FMs, all new FM must show what have in his data, the best way to try get close realism.
Yes, Spits XII & XIV looks "porked"... LOL .
MOD is LIFE!!
Paulo, it doesn't quite work that way. Please don't take this the wrong way but here's a little insight into the fm's of this simulation. For that matter this applies to all current flight simulations.
Some of the "real world" factors don't survive in the fm and emd's. You must remember that this simulation is coded to work with computers from now and back 10 years. If every known factor of aerodynamics, both aircraft and environment, was modeled with 100% real world data you would need the worlds most powerful computer to fly a single aircraft in a blue screen environment let alone multiple airplanes in a swirling dog with decent graphics. And, you would probably only get 1 frame per second if you were lucky. Also, unless you fully understand the implications of how the emd's and fm's work together it would be pointless to post the data without someone getting into a lengthy explanation of why certain variables were edited the way they were to achieve the desired result. Yes, there are some here who would understand most of the aerodynamic variables but I would venture to guess that the vast majority would not. They just want the aircraft to "perform" like the real plane.
I fly real full motion simulators for recurrent training every year and have spoken with the technicians that not only work on them but also the guys that build and program them. Even these cutting edge full size simulators cannot model every aerodynamic variable, due to computing power, and have to have "edited" real world variables to achieve the desired result and their graphics totally suck compared to what we get in this W.W. II sim and they cost millions of dollars. Until we have computers 1000x more powerful than we do now, every sim for at least the next 20 years will have to make compromises somewhere along the way. To Oleg's credit, he chose a very good path to simulate the feel of flight while minimizing the strain on computers even 10 years ago. Yes some sims have more complex fm's but do they play as well with the same graphic detail and amount of objects?
So, we start with 100% real world data for the factors that are available to be modeled then as few are edited as little as possible to achieve the real world result. What this means is if the aircraft performs as close as the game code allows to real world performance, then don't worry about what's in the fm/emd files.
A much better question would be: Does the airplane perform like it's real world model? Before you even ask this question do you have the data to even make the comparison?
If the airplane in question doesn't "feel" right, or "perform" right then quantify your observation and bring it to the attention of the person that created the fm. I'm sure they would explain why their aircraft performs the way it does. But be warned, if you can't quantify your observation with facts then don't bother.
Cheers,
BBury
... Hunin has proved that he knows his stuff pretty well ... in several projects
you may consider game limitations and general FM of stock planes here also
reg
Z
...hmmm whom do i should trust here , someone who did so many flight models for this game or someone who ... well didn't
now there is the tough one :wink:
Z
The Spitfire Mk.XIV is over half a ton heavier than the IX, in fact its empty weight is about as much as the takeoff weight of a late 109G/K, of course it's not as maneuvrable as the earlier marks! Plus the immense power of the Griffon makes for a lot of torque thus making it harder to control and handle.
It's funny when people assume that with the XIV they would get a faster IX when it's clearly not. Was it Eric Brown or Johnny Johnson who said that the XIV "wasnt a Spitfire" anymore!?
If you are searching for a turn fighter, pick the IX because if you're forcing the XIV into a turn fight you obviously missed the point of the aircraft.
The question you have to ask yourself is........
when was the last time i actually flew a spitfire ?
the only real way to get accurate understanding of "how" a plane should feel is to get a real pilot that has many hours of combat flying said aircraft, and ask him to fly the sim and comment on it.
using data to make an FM work true would take many hours of work to get right, even then the game would have limitations.
At the end of the day, if it does what it says it should, or is close to it, why not be happy with that !
Posts: 559
Threads: 79
Joined: Nov 2007
Today we have a BIG list of planes, i need fly more that spits, when i was post my reply i remenber that word "porked" and can not resist to do a joke...
The FM world is very interesting, i have a big desire learn about, but that is so restrict...
Ok, only to remenber, the word "porked" was only a joke, i know auor FM experts do the best.
MOD is LIFE!!
ive been listening to post's with intrest about the spit 14 and to my knowledge the spit14 s turn was excactly the same as the mk9 infact at all height's it was superior in every facet it could outclimb/roll/initial dive/faster and fly higher then the standard 9 it's only real small prob was it needed a bit more trimming then the 9 due to torgue from the griffon engine personally i think the new fm is over underwhelming in turn and directional stability jeff quill and e brown said it was the most potent spitfire by far being the quintisential high alt/interceptor
