Jump to content
Holtzauge

Me-109 sustained turn rate

Recommended Posts

Earlier in February I sent a FM report to the developers concerning the in-game Me-109 sustained turn performance and this discussion is as far as I can tell now concluded since it’s been almost a week since I received the last reply. No one seems to question that the Me-109 is currently underperforming and if this gets fixed or not seems to be more about priorities than anything else.

 

To sum up where things stand I first started writing a summery but then I thought the better of it since this would filter the information and I can’t see anything controversial or personal in Jason’s last reply so I will simply cite it here:

 

Quote

X,

 

We're not working on the 109 FMs currently and I don't know when we will again. Maybe someday. Please understand we do not have endless time to tweak FMs. We now have to build our next product(s). All tweaks we planned have already been made. No computer FM will ever be perfect.

 

Regards,

 

Jason

 

I think this is a very good, sensible and straight answer that I can sympathize with to a large extent. However, that being said, I still think fixing this is the right prioritization of resources so I sent this in reply:

 

Quote

Hi Jason,

 

For me getting acquainted with all the Russian fighters in BoX like the Yak, LaGG, and La-5 has been fun but the Me-109 is part of what I and a large part of the flight simulator community would call the “big 5” in WW2 aviation: The Spitfire, the P-51, the Fw-190, the P-47 and last but not least the Me-109.

 

This means that there’s a very large customer base for each and every one of these aircraft and their FM will be scrutinized closely and if anything deviates this will cause quite a stir. As you know the Me-109 has a large fan base and I think that a large portion of the BoX community would not be very happy with such a response based on the fact that there was time set aside to change the Me-109 elevator force modelling and that AFAIK the forum perception is that it has already been acknowledged that a tuning of the Me-109 turn performance was in the works.

 

I understand that there is a limited budget for tuning the FM of already released planes but TBH I think the Me-109 is as it is currently modelled not quite living up to historical numbers and prioritizing a tune-up of the Me-109’s turn performance would IMHO be time and money well spent in light of the above.

 

Still hoping for a positive response and best regards,

 

X

 

I have not received any more replies and of course hope they will reconsider but since there is no such thing as a free lunch fixing this means something else needs to go or be delayed. Question is how important do we think this is and what are we willing to sacrifice? I think that type of feedback could be productive. This would give the developers a feel for how important this is and if they should prioritize this compared to other work items. My view on this is I’d rather have the Me-109 turn performance fixed even if this pushes the release date of the Me-109K4 back by a month or so. Good thing comes to those who wait.

 

But whatever views there are on this please keep the feedback productive and full of ideas free from negativity. This is after all currently the best WW2 combat flight sim around so the developers deserve credit and ideas on how to make a good thing even better, nothing else. :)

Edited by Holtzauge
Fixed erroneous parts in quote
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4
  • Upvote 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Holtzauge for keeping us updated. Although this may not be the answer that many here wished for, I personally think that once the Devs have acknowledged a problem they work on it sooner or later.

I do find it surprising however that tweaking the 109s FM isn’t part of Bodenplatte, since IIRC half the German planes included are 109s, which would seem like an opportunity to double check one or two things.

Each iteration of the game has brought some sort of FM update until now, so I am fairly confident that the next iteration will bring changes too and if we are lucky - thanks to your efforts - maybe changes that affect the points you discussed to a certain extend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[edited] Are you kidding me? This game is starting to head in a terrible direction :-/

 

[edited]

 

Ed. 

 

[funny] 

 

Edited by MK_RED13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that's not the response I was hoping for. Surely with the 109G14 likely being one of the first BoBP planes, developers looking to improve FMs to the same level of fidelity they started with the Yak7 was on the cards?

:russian_ru:

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I would guess this is a zero sum game: You add something new be it FM tuning, an Erla haube or a G14 it takes resources from other project so it affects deliveries. This is why my vote was/is to delay deliveries of coming Me-109 stuff if that buys a Me-109 F2-G4 turn rate FM tuning. I'd rather wait a bit for a "perfect" G14 and K4 if that's what it takes. ;)

Edited by Holtzauge
Unwanted auto merge of posts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I am not reading Jasons reply the same as you.   You are reading it as 'Yes the 109s FM is badly wrong but fixing it is low priority' which would of course be outrageous but that is not what he said.  That is your interpretation based on what you think.   What he actually said was "We're not working on the 109 FMs currently and I don't know when we will again. Maybe someday." He could equally be saying 'We don't feel there is anything significantly wrong with the 109 FM so it would be a waste of our resources to spend time re-checking it when we have other things that we do know need fixing.'

 

Edited by 56RAF_Roblex
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn said:

Thank you Holtzauge for keeping us updated. Although this may not be the answer that many here wished for, I personally think that once the Devs have acknowledged a problem they work on it sooner or later.

I do find it surprising however that tweaking the 109s FM isn’t part of Bodenplatte, since IIRC half the German planes included are 109s, which would seem like an opportunity to double check one or two things.

Each iteration of the game has brought some sort of FM update until now, so I am fairly confident that the next iteration will bring changes too and if we are lucky - thanks to your efforts - maybe changes that affect the points you discussed to a certain extend.

 

Well I'm sure the developers monitors what people in the forums think: We are the customer base after all so I would hope that what we think has some bearing on how this piece of work is entered into the backlog. TBH I'm just assuming that people think this is important but then it's very easy to think that your own priorities are the same as others so it will be interesting to see what others think.

 

2 minutes ago, 56RAF_Roblex said:

 I am not reading Jasons reply the same as you.   You are reading it as 'Yes the 109s FM is badly wrong but fixing it is low priority' which would of course be outrageous but that is not what he said.  That is your interpretation based on what you think.   He could equally be saying 'We don't feel there is anything significantly wrong with the 109 FM so it would be a waste of our resources to spend time re-checking it when we have other things that we do know need fixing.'

 

 

No, you are making an interpretation based on what you think. The FM report also contained technical aspects but these were not questioned. The developers have already acknowledged that the Me-109 is underperforming in this respect and had asked the forum community for VDM prop data as input to the fix.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think, besides the unrealistic engine limits of the 109 this is the most urgent issue to be dealt with. Especially since performance in this regard is outside the self imposed 10% deviance threshold for historical data.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 56RAF_Roblex said:

 I am not reading Jasons reply the same as you.   You are reading it as 'Yes the 109s FM is badly wrong but fixing it is low priority' which would of course be outrageous but that is not what he said.  That is your interpretation based on what you think.   What he actually said was "We're not working on the 109 FMs currently and I don't know when we will again. Maybe someday." He could equally be saying 'We don't feel there is anything significantly wrong with the 109 FM so it would be a waste of our resources to spend time re-checking it when we have other things that we do know need fixing.'

 

 

Problem with that answer is that there IS something seriously wrong with the 109 FM. Denying it would only hurt the credibility of the developers in my view, esp. since they already confirmed there was a problem, and that because there's no getting around it.

3 hours ago, =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn said:

I think, besides the unrealistic engine limits of the 109 this is the most urgent issue to be dealt with. Especially since performance in this regard is outside the self imposed 10% deviance threshold for historical data.

 

I agree, they need to fix this before anything else.

 

I'll hold back on ordering Bodenplatte until this is fixed.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for continuing on with this. The 109 is a bit heavy on the controls for a nimble light fighter in my anecdotal and useless opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh, I can see that it may need fixing, but it's pretty low on my list of priorities. The 109 is mighty strong as it is, it's not like this particular inaccuracy affects it's effectiveness in a way that holds back any fighter pilot worth his or her salt. Since they'll probably redo big chunks of the 109 for Bodenplatte anyway, that might be the time when they'll take this into account from what I've read out of that conversation. Wouldn't expect it any sooner.

 

Fine for me.

  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Etherlight said:

Meh, I can see that it may need fixing, but it's pretty low on my list of priorities. The 109 is mighty strong as it is, it's not like this particular inaccuracy affects it's effectiveness in a way that holds back any fighter pilot worth his or her salt.

 

Agreed. Its climb, acceleration and top speed are all fully adequate, and it is the best angles fighter in the game thanks to its power loading and leading-edge slats. Might not be entirely accurate, but it's till so good that it is pretty darn far down on the priority-list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't really understand why some wouldn't want the most realistic portrayal of an aircraft ingame possible. Maybe it's because they hardly ever fly it. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Panthera said:

Can't really understand why some wouldn't want the most realistic portrayal of an aircraft ingame possible. Maybe it's because they hardly ever fly it. 

 

You missunderstand. I do want the most realistic portrayal...eventually and as good as possible. Am I willing to halt the whole train for some minor adjustments that don't really matter all that much in all reality, tho? Hell no.

 

And before you get any weird ideas about painting me "He never flys 109 anyway, VVS vs LW mmimimimi"-like:

 

Uhhuh.thumb.JPG.597785343b5256ea79fa260c53e3921d.JPG

 

I do fly it. I just don't see the point in riding a single point home to the detriment of more important issues.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To each his own, I guess. To me, a decent GUI would also be more important than a flight model fix for any aircraft, because what's keeping me from enjoying the game, is that awkward way of assigning keys for an awkward in game system control. You fly a different plane and suddenly you can't close the radiator any more, because, for whatever reason, that particular plane needs a completely different set of keys to do exactly the same thing...

 

But then, being interested in historical accuracy as much as I am, I think I'd rather see for instance the Bf109F-2 fixed before another one is being included. It would basically give me a new aircraft to play with, without paying anything, or having to wait another year.

 

That said, I don't care about Bodenplatte and most of the aircraft announced in there, so if they took a year off to improve the things we've got, and Bodenplatte was delayed that much, I wouldn't really care. Unfortunately, that would probably be economical suicide for them.

 

p.s.: Thank you for sharing the information, Holtzauge.

Edited by JtD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JtD said:

To each his own, I guess. To me, a decent GUI would also be more important than a flight model fix for any aircraft, because what's keeping me from enjoying the game, is that awkward way of assigning keys for an awkward in game system control. You fly a different plane and suddenly you can't close the radiator any more, because, for whatever reason, that particular plane needs a completely different set of keys to do exactly the same thing...

 

But then, being interested in historical accuracy as much as I am, I think I'd rather see for instance the Bf109F-2 fixed before another one is being included. It would basically give me a new aircraft to play with, without paying anything, or having to wait another year.

 

That said, I don't care about Bodenplatte and most of the aircraft announced in there, so if they took a year off to improve the things we've got, and Bodenplatte was delayed that much, I wouldn't really care. Unfortunately, that would probably be economical suicide for them.

 

p.s.: Thank you for sharing the information, Holtzauge.

You can assign more than one action to a key, e.g. I have multiple radiator close actions bound to one key for just that reason. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that, but with every other update we're getting another aircraft that has completely new functionality and some control is so different that it justifies a new entry at the 132nd line in the controls where you need to assign the actually same functionality to the keys you use for all other aircraft anyway.

 

And then it still works like crap in game, where you can't even set rpm or throttle let alone radiators with a single keystroke.

 

Not the right topic, but believe me when I say I hate everything about the GUI for good reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Etherlight said:

 

You missunderstand. I do want the most realistic portrayal...eventually and as good as possible. Am I willing to halt the whole train for some minor adjustments that don't really matter all that much in all reality, tho? Hell no.

 

And before you get any weird ideas about painting me "He never flys 109 anyway, VVS vs LW mmimimimi"-like:

 

Uhhuh.thumb.JPG.597785343b5256ea79fa260c53e3921d.JPG

 

I do fly it. I just don't see the point in riding a single point home to the detriment of more important issues.

 

Alright then, but I really can't see fixing this problem prolonging our wait for Bodenplatte very much.

 

Also Im worried about wether or not it will ever be fixed when the devs start of by acknowledging it only to ignore it afterwards. Hence I really don't want to purchase bodenplatte before I know wether or not this will be fixed, as to me this is an indicator of how the devs treat FM inaccuracies in general. 

 

To me it's a very big problem when an aircraft performs so noticably worse than it should that it actually affects the historical balance between the aircraft. It simply kills the immersion for me. 

Edited by Panthera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are short on FM programmers, and as it is, FM programming sometimes already is the bottleneck. As far as I understand from my exchanges with the guys, changing the FM is never an easy or quick task. The code is not structured in a way where they edit one or two parameters and the issue is solved. So if they decide to tackle old FM's, it may very well delay future products.

 

They have to set priorities, and as much as I dislike it, I understand when they decide to work on the next product first and when this is done, use possible spare time to go back and fix old issues. It's not a security issue or a bug that causes frequent crashes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, JtD said:

They are short on FM programmers, and as it is, FM programming sometimes already is the bottleneck. As far as I understand from my exchanges with the guys, changing the FM is never an easy or quick task. The code is not structured in a way where they edit one or two parameters and the issue is solved. So if they decide to tackle old FM's, it may very well delay future products.

 

They have to set priorities, and as much as I dislike it, I understand when they decide to work on the next product first and when this is done, use possible spare time to go back and fix old issues. It's not a security issue or a bug that causes frequent crashes.

 

Which isn't so much a problem if they would only come out and guarantee that they WILL be correcting the problem. At this point however I am unsure wether or not they will be correcting the issue at all, which makes me rather pessimistic about the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, i will not buy BoK or any other content until they fix the FM of the 109's.

Because it is my favorite plane.

 

I play IL-Cod and WT meanwhile.

 

greetings,

Billkong

Edited by Billkong
  • Haha 2
  • Confused 3
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, I must admit I didn't realise that the aircraft in WT were so accurately modeled.

  • Haha 7
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A mere promise that they will be fixing the problem eventually, by the release of Bodenplatte or very shortly after at the latest, and I would feel assured enough to pre-order Bodenplatte. 

 

Until then however I will be holding back on any IL2 related purchases to see how things develop. That they do by far the most proliffic luftwaffe fighter of the entire war justice is definitely amongst my top demands for the sim. 

  • Thanks 5
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 31.3.2018 at 11:49 AM, JtD said:

They have to set priorities, and as much as I dislike it, I understand when they decide to work on the next product first and when this is done, use possible spare time to go back and fix old issues. It's not a security issue or a bug that causes frequent crashes.

 

On the other hand are the 109s the backbone of the Axis fighters which makes it to more than just an old issue (imo). I mean, it's not about just a single plane, right.  This goes for other things (e.g. WEP) as well.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that they have their reasons. But if they would start to correct the 109, why it would take any more time what went for correcting the p40. That p40 case was an example how things should go. Now this loose hang  for 109 will continue till how long more. If your main drive is G2, then it is bad luck i guess. Ill keep flying it till they´ll correct 109, then i will buy bodenplatte the first thing.

Edited by VesseL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Haza said:

Wow, I must admit I didn't realise that the aircraft in WT were so accurately modeled.

 

Wow, i must admit i didnt write something like this in my post.

But when i want the 109 feeling in dogfights i mean the 109 with its strengths and weaknesses i pefer the 109 in WT or in Cliffs of dover.

The 109 in BoS just dont feel like this plane, it turns and rolls like a manatee under water.

  • Haha 4
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am with you that a lot of 109 fans get confused with this answers when just one post about the elevator was needed to change all the behabeour. Even with that i am not sure that is correct like is it now regarding with the neurtral stab position. Now you need to set the stab on +1 position to fly on straight line with cruise power and speed setup and we provide them quite big amount of evidence including and interview about that with the test pilot of the messer Volker Bau.

About the turn performance at high speeds we currently have on the game i am concerned also but I have no data to provide so. 

Regarding the turn rate i have a russian test comparing the 109G turnrate (with gunpods) and this data is the close one to the game. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They said that were working on the prop fisics time ago searching for the data etc. Any of you knows something about that? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, E69_geramos109 said:

They said that were working on the prop fisics time ago searching for the data etc. Any of you knows something about that? 

 

That was part of the FM report: The argument in the FM report was that VDM prop data was not needed since the in-game climb data for  the Me-109 is actually on the optimistic side and this indicates that the problem is not prop related but lift to drag (L/D) related. This was not contested and the answer I got was that it is more an issue of resources as Jason said in the OP. I can buy that and I understand that they can't fix every little problem with the FM but since the Me-109G2 is off by 10-20% I was hoping that they would at least confirm it was on the short list and being planned. One could IMHO make the argument that that would only be fair seeing that first the roll rate was reduced and then the elevator forces were also "adjusted". So that's two historically correct adjustments reducing performance and with that in mind I think it's only fair to do a similar historically correct adjustment improving the performance. :)

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't consider it a major issue. The dev team have enough projects to keep them busy for years. I do hope we get a patch for Kuban though as it is still quite buggy. 

 

That being said, I don't care much for 109 flight model changes. There are planes that need it more than the 109 but I do wish the G2 wasn't so completely different than the F4 when there is no logical reason as to why they feel like different planes. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, GridiroN said:

I don't consider it a major issue. The dev team have enough projects to keep them busy for years. I do hope we get a patch for Kuban though as it is still quite buggy. 

 

That being said, I don't care much for 109 flight model changes. There are planes that need it more than the 109 but I do wish the G2 wasn't so completely different than the F4 when there is no logical reason as to why they feel like different planes. 

 

 

On ‎31‎/‎03‎/‎2018 at 3:31 AM, JG4_Etherlight said:

Meh, I can see that it may need fixing, but it's pretty low on my list of priorities. The 109 is mighty strong as it is, it's not like this particular inaccuracy affects it's effectiveness in a way that holds back any fighter pilot worth his or her salt. Since they'll probably redo big chunks of the 109 for Bodenplatte anyway, that might be the time when they'll take this into account from what I've read out of that conversation. Wouldn't expect it any sooner.

 

Fine for me.

 

It's good to see people having a sense of perspective about things.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think more easy and needed change is for now 3 minutes emergency rating for 109 F-G models :)   Also i would be nice to see changes in roll rates of some planes expecially Lagg3, LA5, La5FN and P-39. But there are only pious hopes.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Только что, Holtzauge сказал:

I can buy that and I understand that they can't fix every little problem with the FM but since the Me-109G2 is off by 10-20% I was hoping that they would at least confirm it was on the short list and being planned. 

 

do you ever calculated turn rate of Bf 109 F-2? 

 

because it's also looks strange

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bivalov said:

 

do you ever calculated turn rate of Bf 109 F-2? 

 

because it's also looks strange

 

Someone in another thread quite some time ago, after the global FM change already went through the 109s and found the F2's FM made no sense. No one flies the F2 unless the F4's are all gone though so I mean...who really cares about that right now. 

 

I think he found the F2 underperforms, the F4 overperforms by a significant margin (was far faster at altitude than real life) the G2 underperforms.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, and all simmers i guess, 109 fix is as important as the p40 fix. Or any other fix. I would hate to win or lose, because of wrong modeling. They did use time to fix the p40. And that was great decision. Same with 190. And now 109, no? And yes, they have been fixing 109 many times before too. Why would this fix be any different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, VesseL said:

For me, and all simmers i guess, 109 fix is as important as the p40 fix. Or any other fix. I would hate to win or lose, because of wrong modeling. They did use time to fix the p40. And that was great decision. Same with 190. And now 109, no? And yes, they have been fixing 109 many times before too. Why would this fix be any different.

 

Vessel,

 

Unfortunately, there are perhaps players out there who may not be as passionate as you or others regarding the 109.  I for one can offer little to this discussion apart from the fact that I would like to see all aircraft FMs to be as accurate as possible.  However, if you complain about anything on the blue side you are either accused of either being a fanatic or a whiner, neither name concerns me if i get called it, as this is only a game after all. That said, I believe it was Jason who said that they can never get the FM to be 100% accurate, or words to that effect in a game, however, I have faith in Jason, in that he will ensure the right thing is done, although perhaps not right away but eventually.  We saw this with the FW190, the P-40 and eventually the 109, where the latter example with its ability to turn on a dime at ridiculous speeds was addressed. 

 

Therefore, I'm sure the Devs are listening to players concerns, but perhaps can't yet address these issues.  Until then, let the closet guys boast, chest beat or just believe how good they are as I'm sure the 109s ability against the various VVS aircraft will be sorted and you can make amends.   Failing that, hopefully with the prospect of Bodenplatte only round the corner, we will have a fresh start with the FM for that new series, even the re-badged 109s.  I for one will therefore put my trust in the Dev team as my flight sim experience depends on their accuracy, although perhaps their livelihood in this franchise depends on them getting things right and as such, perhaps they have more to lose than I do and therefore they have a greater sense of doing the right thing then perhaps we give them credit for. 

 

However, my feeling is that these guys are not just churning out aircraft FMs for the sake of it to make a fast buck, but they have a passion and yearning to get things right and it is this passion to make IL2 the best flight WW2 sim for the PC I believe will ensure things are addressed and corrected, once such errors are researched and proven to be incorrect.  However, like a fine Malt Whisky (Single malt of course) , it takes time to mature, but is always worth the wait!

 

Stick with it mate! 

 

 

Regards

 

 

Edited by Haza
SINGLE MALT WHISKY AS ALL OTHER TYPES ARE ****
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly though, the claimed +-1% accuracy in the FM becomes quite large when you consider how close the aircraft were in ww2 in some aspects. Where 2% difference between aircraft could mean a certain strategy is either too viable and fast to execute, or entirely prohibitive and impossible.

 

And bear in mind that precise FM modelling only caters to a small part of the community - career players won't even notice the difference as the AI is so bad it wouldn't matter. Poorly skilled (majority) of the multiplayer base are not able to exploit such minor differences.

 

It only really starts to matter at the highest level of skill in multiplayer, where both players are able to tap 100% of the aircraft's performance. 

 

So its understandable why the devs wouldn't care to spare more time to fix such issues.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great post JaffaCake, 

 

Those few % really do make a difference to the tactics and maneuvers employed in a MP dogfight. 

 

Offline,  no big deal. AI are just target drones that don't really require you to squeeze every bit of performance out of the plane. 

 

Sure there are some average MP players as well but in my timezone at least there are some seriously good pilots you come up against that need every ounce of your ability and the planes ability to defeat them.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, =EXPEND=Tripwire said:

Great post JaffaCake, 

 

Those few % really do make a difference to the tactics and maneuvers employed in a MP dogfight. 

 

Offline,  no big deal. AI are just target drones that don't really require you to squeeze every bit of performance out of the plane. 

 

Sure there are some average MP players as well but in my timezone at least there are some seriously good pilots you come up against that need every ounce of your ability and the planes ability to defeat them.

 

Tripwire,

 

I'm in your time-zone, however, although I know for a fact that I'm no flight sim expert, I'm not one of those seriously good sat at a PC sipping my whisky good "pilots", that you mention although I know I'm a bloody good IRL PPL.   However, I do recall that there were guys in the old modeled FW190 A-3 that were getting some very high kills rates before the patch came about to correct the A-3 as we all know.  Therefore, for me the fun perhaps in this MP type game, is trying to understand the strengths and weaknesses that we have with the current plane set, whether historical or not and making do with what we've got.  Once, players are able to do that perhaps the game play might be more beneficial than expecting an aircraft to be something that we have read that it should be, until these issues are addressed. 

 

Regards

 

Edited by Haza
2nd paragraph was not actually adding any value to this discussion so deleted
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...