Jump to content

EAF19_Marsh

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    1389
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

594 Excellent

1 Follower

About EAF19_Marsh

  • Rank
    Founder

Recent Profile Visitors

1097 profile views
  1. Sure, check the numbers accordingly (which I don’t have to hand in the 2TAF books). But if you apply that logic to the K-4 1.98 likely to be actually operational over the map you also end up with a vanishingly small number of aircraft. It cuts both ways. Where do you draw the line in terms of ‘could have been’ versus ‘actually was airborne’? The former favours the Luftwaffe, the latter the US and UK. That was why I also cited the last 2 points, as having 50 aircraft with 20% availability could be argued as less relevant than 10 aircraft with 100% availability or vice-versa. Depends on your measure of ‘relevance’ versus ‘interesting’ 😎 A Ta-152 would be fun, but based on the above, far, far rarer than a Spitfire XIV. As an example: despite the top-line numbers the chances of a random formation over the Rhein being Tempests or Me-262s is hugely in favour of the former, though more of the latter were built. This is mooted as a general debate, BTW. The IXLF was a far better inclusion than the XIV, but the XIV had 5 (going off my head, here) in 2TAF for Jan 1945. That is at once a small % of overall units, but a significant number of fighters assigned to the air superiority role and - crucially - they were likely to be airborne and looking for a fight. Is that better or worse than a larger number of other fighters signed off by the factories but not operational?
  2. Big wings for its size and power mean good RoC up to medium altitude, then it becomes on par with others. On raw speed it suffers a bit from its older design, though this was cured to a degree by the new engines that we might have in the XIV. It is lovely, though.
  3. I agree with you completely. The current aircraft set is a great compromise and has fantastic attraction / USP. Enthusiasm on these boards suggest revenue potential in several additional and very relevant models: the point I making was merely that applicability depends on how you frame it.
  4. This is the problem with gauging aircraft applicability, do you take: - Aircraft produced - Aircraft delivered - Aircraft reported on strength by operational units - Aircraft on unit strength in the specific map area - % of types in the specific map area - Aircraft availability in specific map area - Aircraft likely to be operational over the specific map area Depending upon the position that you take, the relevance of an aircraft changes significantly.
  5. Reflects 1945 2TAF operations. It is optimised for low-to-medium altitudes so you will get limited benefit with the Merlin 70. Unless the XIV comes, it is the final service Spitfire model available. Wickedly so.
  6. Why is VR zoom a cheat? I walk around in 3D and focus my eyes (zoom) on distant objects once noticed. As I focus, I lose detail on peripheral items. It’s not perfect, but it is a rough match for how eyes actually work when flying.
  7. Ta-152 likely difficult owing to limited documentation. XIV less so, but possibly considered a bit niche. -234 would be very interesting. I doubt Normandy would be the next map, but I could be wrong.
  8. They do, much to the developers’ credit. Their gunnery is still mixed, though. I find bombers tend to be more deadly than fighters.
  9. They turn, they scissor and they regain altitude but not nearly as decisively as a good human pilot. On Ace they are better but 1 vs. 1 or 8 vs. 8 they seem to lack aggressive and dynamic piloting. Just the current state of AI for a public sim.
  10. Incorrect, they have a close to 100% hit rate with Earth
  11. It’s less top-end speed, more acceleration and rate of climb, coupled with sustaining speed while manoeuvring. The airframe was not much heavier than a IX but the added hp made a difference in the power-loading as it does with the G-14 vs. K-4 vs. K-4 special power version.
  12. I like the 2nd gen airframe with the retractable rail wheel. That plus the bubble canopy and clipped wings looks deadly.
  13. Sure. What I meant was that many pilots speak fondly of the 109E or Spit I as lovely flying machines for a pilot. The same is rarely said of the late versions.
  14. Really interesting stuff, guys. I’ve not flown online in ages, but against ace AI the new aircraft show their potential so I can imagine that against a strong human pilot the margins are very small. Which is pretty on the nose in terms of how things actually went.
×
×
  • Create New...