Now when we are getting a Spitfire...

[Lusekofte]

The fact we are moving on , can only make me hope for some early Russian bomber recce planes on premium sale. PO 2, R 10, SU 2 , SB 2 , DB 3 , IL 4,DO 17, HS 126, HS 123 and so on. I think there is a lot of money to be made in these  planes methink

[BlitzPig_EL]

Many, many will care. And they will be up in arms about it.

 

The amount of stats jocks and ego slingers here also sharing your same patriotic sentiment towards that airframe will cause outrage I'll tell you now.

 

It will be the equal of the introduction of the P 51 in the original sim, and will make the discussions about the P40's performance seem like a kindergarten lesson.

 

Be sure.

[Custard]

The fact we are moving on , can only make me hope for some early Russian bomber recce planes on premium sale. PO 2, R 10, SU 2 , SB 2 , DB 3 , IL 4,DO 17, HS 126, HS 123 and so on. I think there is a lot of money to be made in these  planes methink

 

I guess it'll be influenced by how well the Ju-52 sold.

 

Hopefully it did well, personally I'm hoping for a bunch more utility / reconnaissance aircraft. A Li-2/DC-3, Po-2 and a Fw 189 or Fi 156 would round off the eastern front *very* nicely and even include a transport plane ready for the pacific theatre.

 

Recon missions spotting targets with binoculars (and some abstracted game-like spotting system to mark the targets on the map) would add quite a dimension to COOP & adversarial multiplayer.

Edited January 16, 2017 by Custard

[6./ZG26_Loke]

What's it like to operate the Spitfire http://www.vintagewings.ca/VintageNews/Stories/tabid/116/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/255/Flying-the-Spitfire--with-Mike-Potter.aspx

[216th_Xenos]

Spitfire and p39 vs LaGG

 

Captain Sapozhnikov, a pilot of 57th GIAP, flew the Spitfire, and Captain Aleksandr Pokryshkin, commander of 1st Squadron, 16th GIAP, flew the Airacobra. A factory test pilot flew the LaGG. Here is how Pokryshkin describes this aerial combat in his memoirs:

 

 

'The conditions for the battle were complicated: our “enemies” were to fly toward Sapozhnikov and me on unknown azimuths. Thus, even before the start of the fight in high-speed turns, they had favorable positions. But the bosses had decided, and we did not argue with them. We had to find a way out in the course of the fight.

The leadership arrived. I flew in the first pair. I gained the established altitude and by rocking my wings gave the command to initiate the fight in horizontal maneuvers. I energetically put my aircraft into a turning climb and, allowing the LaGG to approach to a dangerous distance, executed a sudden roll with decrease in altitude. The LaGG-3 passed by above me and I immediately set up on his tail and got him in my sight. No matter what way the LaGG turned, I kept him in my sight. Several minutes went by and the result was obvious.

Then we examined how the LaGG would handle itself in vertical maneuvers. I threw my aircraft into a steep dive and, having gained velocity, departed into a zoom. At the apex I placed my airplane on its wing. The LaGG was making a combat turn below me. It was relatively easy for me to catch him in the tail and fix him in my sight, parrying all attempts of this ‘enemy’ to avoid my attack.

Sapozhnikov also won his fight in turning and climbing, but fought to a draw in vertical maneuvers. After coming out of a dive, the LaGG-3 stayed close to me in a high-speed pass over the airfield, but the Spitfire, which had weaker diving capabilities, fell significantly behind us.'

Edited January 16, 2017 by 216th_Xenos

[Dakpilot]

In my earlier post when I said  was disappointed with the original IL-2 Spitfire, it was not it's performance, but it's general 'pleasantness' to fly  purely in the casual sense, not that it was bad, just not what I was 'expecting' all that time ago..because SPITFIRE! 

 

Now you are ready to experience the magic. Controls are so light and responsive that the airplane seems to go where you want just by wishing it. (Did I really move that stick?) It casts your mind back to that feeling that you were “putting it on” like a jacket. I have never felt so seamlessly integrated with an airplane before. Surprisingly the controls are not harmonized. Stick forces for aileron are closer to being normal, but the elevator forces are extraordinarily light and demand the gentlest touch. And, like all fighters of this era, you need your two feet as well as your hands to fly or she will skid and slip all over the sky.

 

Although I am sure in real life these handling properties are a joy, however with a simple desktop joystick they do not always translate in the same way, much like FW-190

 

Of course curves can be used to sort out some of these "issues" and I am a supporter of Individual aircraft curves, but being able to 'dial out' aircrafts individual traits was always a slight issue to me with original IL-2 method

 

I remember famous test Pilot Eric Brown tried IL-2 and made his 'realistic Spitfire curve'

 

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/archive/index.php/t-16887.html

 

I don't think many used it (settings) online preferring much quicker response, although I am getting off topic, joysticks/curves/sensitivity/realism is a subject on it's own

 

Anyway I expect 'Yak style' flying to catch a few out   especially that 'feather light elevator

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[BlitzPig_EL]

Almost a whole year wait for the P39...

 

This makes EL sad.

 

[216th_Jordan]

Sapozhnikov also won his fight in turning and climbing, but fought to a draw in vertical maneuvers. After coming out of a dive, the LaGG-3 stayed close to me in a high-speed pass over the airfield, but the Spitfire, which had weaker diving capabilities, fell significantly behind us.'

 

Now that's interesting! As Lagg and Yak-1/7/9 are not too far from each other that also explains some curses from german pilots

[BlitzPig_EL]

But...but...  It's a pilot's account of the exercise, it cannot possibly be trusted.

 

Edited January 17, 2017 by BlitzPig_EL

[Finkeren]

But...but... It's a pilot's account of the exercise, it cannot possibly be trusted.

 

Nope, it can't.

 

It might be well be completely accurate and reflect how the Spit really performed in a turn fight with the LaGG - in fact it sounds rather plausible to me.

 

But when building FMs accounts like this should account for exactly nothing. If the FM ends up agreeing with the anecdote, that's great, but if it doesn't that's no problem either, as long as it agrees with test data.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

that's great, but if it doesn't that's no problem either, as long as it agrees with test data.

Only that OPs is just as much test data as the number of the topspeed. You can't quantify every area from aircraft with todays computers, let alone in WW2. Diving capabilites, energy retention, etc, even roll rate on many occasions were all tested in those circumstances with conclusions like "X better/considerably better/worse then Y". 

Nothing to do with anecdotes. Top speed are "anecdotes" as well then i guess. Pilot going into plane, doing topspeed, coming back home and telling how fast his aircraft was going.....nothing but an anecdote

Edited January 17, 2017 by II./JG77_Manu*

[BlitzPig_EL]

Exactly.

 

If a pilot in the day did maneuver X in plane Y, and the simulated plane Y is incapable of maneuver X, then we are to believe that the real pilot in the real plane is wrong, and some guy typing numbers into a spreadsheet is correct?

 

That is madness.

[Cpt_Cool]

Exactly.

 

If a pilot in the day did maneuver X in plane Y, and the simulated plane Y is incapable of maneuver X, then we are to believe that the real pilot in the real plane is wrong, and some guy typing numbers into a spreadsheet is correct?

 

That is madness.

 

Are you referring to something specific?

[unreasonable]

Nope, it can't.

 

It might be well be completely accurate and reflect how the Spit really performed in a turn fight with the LaGG - in fact it sounds rather plausible to me.

 

But when building FMs accounts like this should account for exactly nothing. If the FM ends up agreeing with the anecdote, that's great, but if it doesn't that's no problem either, as long as it agrees with test data.

 

Unfortunately, that assumes that the "test data" is correct, and we already have a number of cases where there are conflicting data relating to the same points, in which case some of it must be wrong, or data that is inconsistent with everything else we know.

 

So "test data" has to be subjected to the same tests for reasonableness as pilot accounts: it is not privileged just because it is expressed numerically. 

[Dakpilot]

I know and have known many real Pilot's,  90% of whom I would not lend my car to if they needed to go and see their mother in hospital 

 

And if I asked them if it is raining I would usually think about looking outside to check for myself afterwards

 

The problem is not believing "real" Pilot's but which "real" pilot to believe 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[unreasonable]

 

The problem is not believing "real" Pilot's but which "real" pilot to believe 

 

 

Indeed: but the same is true of engineers waving sheets of data.

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

why such a long time frame for updates?

lack of staff?
Company shrunk?

[unreasonable]

Here is a prediction for the Spitfire.

 

It will stall in game at about 90 mph IAS at operational weight (F+G up).

 

Someone will point out that the manual says 73 mph, therefore the game must be wrong.

[SvAF/F19_Tomten]

why such a long time frame for updates?

 

lack of staff?

Company shrunk?

 

It's not long at all, compare this to DCS where every single plane takes years to make.. Although with even more system details and so on.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Are you referring to something specific?

 

No, just the obtuse way flight simmers treat real world results.

 

Honestly,  if Eric Brown came on this forum and said that some performance area was correct, or not, he would get shouted down by the chart monkeys who have only flown their computer desk chair.

 

It's an interesting, and really bizarre, phenomenon that I have observed since I started virtual flying.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

No, just the obtuse way flight simmers treat real world results.

 

Honestly,  if Eric Brown came on this forum and said that some performance area was correct, or not, he would get shouted down by the chart monkeys who have only flown their computer desk chair.

 

It's an interesting, and really bizarre, phenomenon that I have observed since I started virtual flying.

 

What is bizarre is how you bother to log in and post on these forums nearly daily when you are so heavily disenfranchised with the sim, the genre, your fellow community members and everything else...

Edited January 17, 2017 by 4./JG52_Space_Ghost

[Dakpilot]

why such a long time frame for updates?

 

lack of staff?

Company shrunk?

 

LMAO

 

why don't you read the DD's

 

perhaps they should make them a sticky 

 

A new aircraft almost every month plus huge updates, quite ambitious for a small team, check the patch notes for the last year

 

 

**edit** in case you think I am being rude, am just paraphrasing one of Sshadows other posts..(humour)

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Edited January 17, 2017 by Dakpilot

[Finkeren]

why such a long time frame for updates?

 

lack of staff?

Company shrunk?

Long time frame? Are you serious?

 

This team works soooooo much faster than pretty much anyone else in the flight sim business (Gaijin doesn't count)

 

On average they churn out 8-10 major updates per year, each carrying both fixes and new content. For the next year we'll get a brand new plane released almost every month in addition to new maps (including a new spring version), the new career mode, VR support, loads of optimizations and fixes and likely new features made possible by the enhanced performance with DX11.

 

That's a lot of stuff in a very short time.

[Lusekofte]

I think Dakpilot is right, Simulating flight is one thing , but make it feel right for people fingertip manoeuvring with their table joysticks will be a at best difficult and in my point of view not possible. You can make it as real as its possible made for the best computer in the world. But unless you got this equipment

It will still be fingertip manoeuvring  and still feel "not right"

[BlitzPig_EL]

What is bizarre is how you bother to log in and post on these forums nearly daily when you are so heavily disenfranchised with the sim, the genre, your fellow community members and everything else...

 

The truly odd thing is that you sir seem to be so upset with my posts, and stalk them.

 

To quote W.C. Fields: "Go away little boy, you bother me".

[ShamrockOneFive]

why such a long time frame for updates?

 

lack of staff?

Company shrunk?

 

The team is just over 20 people according to Jason. That number has been relatively stable and development has been documented every step of the way for the community.

 

To really understand what they are up against... you should listen in to the Q&A sessions that we've had with Jason Williams.

 

 

No, just the obtuse way flight simmers treat real world results.

 

Honestly,  if Eric Brown came on this forum and said that some performance area was correct, or not, he would get shouted down by the chart monkeys who have only flown their computer desk chair.

 

It's an interesting, and really bizarre, phenomenon that I have observed since I started virtual flying.

 

I think I get you here EL but I also see the other side of the argument. For me its not so much that the pilot account is wrong but that its in relative terms.

 

"Fell significantly back" means different things to different people. We've both seen tons of arguments over the years about the meaning of this word and that word in relation to specific aircraft versus each other with supporting anecdotes with contrary reports from different pilots. Eric Brown, Ivan Kozhedub, Pierre Clostermann or some other pilot doesn't really have a chance to get out of his plane with a yard stick and measure

 

But I do think the pilot accounts should be worth something. If we're seeing exactly the opposite situation then maybe something is amiss. If we're seeing something pretty close to the account then that's probably pretty good.

Edited January 18, 2017 by ShamrockOneFive

[Ace_Pilto]

 

 

Although I am sure in real life these handling properties are a joy, however with a simple desktop joystick they do not always translate in the same way, much like FW-190

 

 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

QFT

 

Cheers Dakpilot.

[Scojo]

Post of the year sir.

 

Too many people approach simulated air combat like it's a football match.  All they care about are the "points".

 

Sad really.

Yeah, you'd almost think they sounds like..................... fighter pilots.......

[Finkeren]

Yeah, you'd almost think they sounds like..................... fighter pilots.......

A fighter pilot who abandons his mission to pursue a kill is a pretty bad fighter pilot.

[Dakpilot]

By the ring around his eyeball,
You can tell a bombardier.

You can tell a bomber pilot
By the spread around his rear.

You can tell a navigator
By his sextants, maps and such.

You can tell a fighter pilot
BUT YOU CAN'T TELL HIM MUCH! 

 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

The truly odd thing is that you sir seem to be so upset with my posts, and stalk them.

 

To quote W.C. Fields: "Go away little boy, you bother me".

 

Nah, I don't stalk your posts. In fact, in the past few years I've been a member on these forums I have directly responded to no more than three of your posts.

 

Again, if you're so disenfranchised stop logging in. The ad hominem approach you tend to take is quite sophomoric so the W.C. Fields quote is entirely meaningless if you can't apply this theory to yourself.

 

Edited January 18, 2017 by 4./JG52_Space_Ghost

[Scojo]

A fighter pilot who abandons his mission to pursue a kill is a pretty bad fighter pilot.

"bad fighter pilot" Fighter pilots only care about the last two words

 

Just messing with you, Finkeren

 

I think the difficulty with most fighters, in sims at least, is that you can say they abandon missions, but if you ask them, they'll almost always say they aren't.

 

A fighter pilots mission, when not given explicitly by someone in command of them can really be anything.

 

Was that fighter who pounced another fighter 10km from the target abandoning the objective he was near? Maybe, maybe not. Was that enemy headed there or home? To another objective?

 

You might think that fighter pilot above our objective is on mission, but what you don't realize is he just let 2 bombers go on a long sortie behind enemy lines alone while he sits there over tanks attacking enemy planes that either can't hit the tanks or have already dropped their ordnance.

 

The fighter pilot mentality is to be the best. That takes on a different meaning IRL compared to online where everything is not only tracked by data, but there is also no one in command of that pilot telling him what he must do.....

 

Fighter pilots will always go for what they think puts them ahead of their peers, and in a sims case that is higher stat numbers

 

This obviously does not apply to all fighter pilots or ones you fly with from your own Squadron, since they want to support the squadron and not their own reputation directly.

 

Sorry for getting off topic. To get back on topic, I'll say this about what BlitzPig_EL said when I quoted him...

 

In game there aren't heavy restrictions on what you can fly, and as this is practically a video game, people want to compete. This means that they're going to want the best aircraft available to them. They're going to want the best Spit so they can better compete in the game. That's just how it will be.

 

But I agree with you, there is magic to the realism component of the sim and I hope even the heavy competitors can appreciate something being modeled correctly and not edited just so it can be better in a video game.

 

But the sad truth is majority of video game customers don't go for "realism and accuracy" but rather go for excitement and competition. That's why the sim community is always smaller than something like WT.

 

I'm excited to see a Spit, even if it isn't the best. New and different is always fun. Maybe this first spit will help pave the way for more down the road

[ZachariasX]

A fighter pilot who abandons his mission to pursue a kill is a pretty bad fighter pilot.

Oh, don't be so strict with them.  You make them all look bad.

 

I mean, how bad can they get? looking at totally true stats (that I invented for the internet) then:

1. 10% of all fighter pilots die while trying to fly their own airplane, not even having an opponent present.
2. 60% of all fighter pilots never see their opponent.
3. 40% of all fighter pilots die because of 2. (3. being a sub-cohort of 2.)
4. 20% of all fighter pilots do what they are being told and live because their opponent belong to the cohort reflected by 2.
5. 9% of all fighter pilots follow this guys  advise: “The job of a fighter pilot is to shoot down enemy aircraft, everything else is nonsense.” They write the books we are reading about the whole spiel. There's no such record from cohort 4.
6. 1% of all fighter pilots, like this one  think 5. is a good idea, but it is even a better idea when you bring a wingman for you being able to conveniently shoot opponents are “feeding at the trough”.
7. There is also one outliner , he used opponents also to teach his wingmen shooting, incapacitating his opponents and have his wingmen deliver the final blow. But since “sharing Nips” is a deeply un-American action (Giving away your victory over no personal benefit. That applies for ethnic opponents as well!) he got grounded eventually. They say for safety issues to have one more chimp to dance the propaganda waltz. However by letting him fly jets, instead of being the only specimen for cohort 7., he became part of cohort 1.

Thus, there are only 6 types of fighter pilots, basically none is adhering you your standards.

[Ace_Pilto]

^^^I think we've seen the birth of genius here. ^^^

[Wulf]

Just thinking the same thing ......

[ACG_Invictus]

A fighter pilot who abandons his mission to pursue a kill is a pretty bad fighter pilot.

 

Wait....you mean this game has missions?

 

Who knew!? 

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Considering bomber and attack pilots on both sides complained for the entirety of the war about fighter jocks peeling off and not protecting them, I'd say our virtual guys are doing their best at being historically accurate.

 

[Finkeren]

Considering bomber and attack pilots on both sides complained for the entirety of the war about fighter jocks peeling off and not protecting them, I'd say our virtual guys are doing their best at being historically accurate.

 

 

That's like farmers complaining about the weather. If they didn't complain there'd be something seriously wrong.

[Wulf]

Considering bomber and attack pilots on both sides complained for the entirety of the war about fighter jocks peeling off and not protecting them, I'd say our virtual guys are doing their best at being historically accurate.

 

 

 

Well, it kind of depends what those fighter jocks have been told to do, doesn't it.  If for example, they've been told to take the opportunity to destroy the enemy in the air, then yeah, in all probability they'll peel off and attempt to do just that.  For example, when the RAF went on the offensive over the continent after the BoB they often incorporated bombers in their sweeps to increase the probability of a LW reaction.  In these circumstances the objective was to destroy the LW's capabilities,  Defending the bombers was secondary, if it was a consideration at all (and no, the bomber crews wouldn't have been told this).  If bomber crews were lost in the ensuing actions (which of course they very often were) that was certainly 'regrettable' but hey; how can you make an omelette if you aren't prepared to crack a few eggs?