PDA

View Full Version : 1C charts for Hurries and Spits



ATAG_Snapper
Apr-24-2012, 08:44
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=31450

Recoilfx
Apr-24-2012, 09:15
Looks like Spit Ia is still slower than 109. I wonder if they'll post Spit IIa.

Dutch
Apr-24-2012, 09:41
They've made an already nerfed Ia worse below 18,000ft?

I'm assuming the 'Hurri Ia' is the Rotol Hurri, which looks close but still worse than RL.

Very strange that they don't have a graph for the IIa.


This is what I posted at 1C

'These graphs only show performance from 3000m and up, whereas the previous graphs showed performance from 0m and up.

It's very interesting to note that between 3000 and 5000m, the patched 109E4 performs better than RL, whereas both the Rotol Hurri and the MkIa Spitfire perform worse than RL at these altitudes.

Please can we see graphs for the Spits and Hurris from 0m and up, so we can make a true comparison?

Many Thanks.'

ATAG_Snapper
Apr-24-2012, 09:49
Looks like Spit Ia is still slower than 109. I wonder if they'll post Spit IIa.

Yeah. What I was hoping was that they'd bring the 109's up in speed to slightly exceed the level speed of the current IIa, leave the IIa and Rotol alone, and bring the Ia to *about* 20 mph shy of the IIa. Overall handling performance of each aircraft could then be tweaked to reflect their historical strengths and weaknesses.

The Ia's level speed isn't even shown below 3000 meters. Its current 240 mph maximum at sea level is about 40 mph shy of historical. Watching a co-alt/co-energy 110 easily recede into the distance while flying a Ia just doesn't seem right, but clearly the devs see it differently.

We'll see how the patch sorts it all out.

Dutch
Apr-24-2012, 09:52
I just don't believe it.

See here. Post #24

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=31450&page=3

ATAG_Deacon
Apr-24-2012, 10:01
I wish I could see 1c Forums here at work...:angry:

or maybe I don't ... I wouldn't get any work done...

ATAG_Snapper
Apr-24-2012, 10:05
I just don't believe it.

See here. Post #24

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=31450&page=3

And here's my response:

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackSix
We don't have official flight tests for Spits and Hurris between 0 and 3000m.

Snapper replies:

Thanks, Black Six. At last we finally know why the Spitfire Ia's top speed at sea level is 240 mph. The slope of the curve was simply applied to the 0 - 3000 m gap in information, so 0 feet = 240 mph. Mystery solved.

Recoilfx
Apr-24-2012, 10:24
Going by the slopes, the Spit Ia will probably yield around 415 kmh, which is higher than the current 386 kmh

But yeah, still slower... For game play purposes, we now need to see Spit IIa.

ATAG_Deacon
Apr-24-2012, 11:23
I believe it was GRAthos who initially stated, and I concur, that we will see the Spit IIa unleashed in unlimited quantities post patch. They're going to neuter it and if the current conversation is accurate the Spit Ia will remain the same...

There is no way a 110, co-energy with the Spit Ia, should be able to pull away and run for home so easily as is the case today. The 110 was removed from the Battle for a reason...it could not compete against Hurri's and Spits. Yet in the 1C world of CloD it not only competes, it excels. :shocked: :angry: :angrymob:

I know, such blasphemous talk :blush!:

1C is not in the business of historical accuracy, they're in the business of satisfying the paying customer base. It's been the 3rd party "modder" who's made the series most accurate. Why should CloD be any different?


Just my ever so humble opinion.

~S~

Deacon

ATAG_EvangelusE
Apr-24-2012, 11:37
I obviously cannot read or interpret graphs! What I see is a MK1a some 20Km/hr slower up to 6000m than what we currently have.

It all seems very controversial to me and, like many others, wait with baited breath regards the Spit 2a.

ATAG_Deacon
Apr-24-2012, 11:45
I can see this as the Red reaction to FM's post patch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-_sABor77E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-_sABor77E

Dutch
Apr-24-2012, 11:47
I obviously cannot read or interpret graphs! What I see is a MK1a some 20Km/hr slower up to 6000m than what we currently have.

Yep, that's how I read it too mate, see post above. I keep on biting my tongue though, and will wait to see what happens with the patch.

I'd like to see graphs for all a/c from 0ft and up, too.

ATAG_Snapper
Apr-24-2012, 12:37
Yep, that's how I read it too mate, see post above. I keep on biting my tongue though, and will wait to see what happens with the patch.

I'd like to see graphs for all a/c from 0ft and up, too.

Well, I said what I had to say over there, but I didn't speculate on their motivations -- I think Deacon makes a fair point in that regard. Charts, charts, and more charts. :pouting:

Don't need no stinkin' charts trying to tell me otherwise that something stinks! :bgsmile:

Dutch
Apr-24-2012, 12:53
This is Luthier's signature at the Sukhoi forum (Google Translate).

Messershmidt all the chief and commander of the Spitfire

Says it all, really.

Bitter? Moi? :angry:

Catseye
Apr-24-2012, 13:07
S! Guys,
My initial thoughts are: "Why wouldn't the devs model the aircraft speed curves as precisely as possible up to 18,000 ft. where most of the action is going to take place in the servers? :pouting: Anything above 18,000 is less important (although it should all be accurate) at this time due to the nature of engagements at lower altitudes.

In my vue, the RAF are somewhat crippled now up to this altitude and that is not cricket old boy!

The Hurricane certainly is tweaked closer to performance specs and will require some skill and patience in bomber intercepts.

They need to pay more attention to the 100 octane issue and 12lb boost that was available in 1940. Waiting until the next theater of operations comes out and then introducing these changes is way too late.

Chin up lads!


EDIT: I just went to the Russian forums and they are similarly complaining about the performance charts - with the same questions and complaints on this and the Banana forums.

Dutch
Apr-24-2012, 13:12
Cats, I've already given up on the 100 octane debate, but the performance is still well below 87 octane levels, unless you go over 18,000. Ludicrous.

We're going to have a situation where the Spits and Hurris can't keep up with the bloody Blenheims, unless you're in a Spit II. And that remains to be seen.

ATAG_Deacon
Apr-24-2012, 13:15
This is Luthier's signature at the Sukhoi forum (Google Translate).

Messershmidt all the chief and commander of the Spitfire

Says it all, really.

Bitter? Moi? :angry:

Well, the 109 has to be uber... it ruled the skies over Russia for two years. It goes back to the way the -51 was porked in IL-2 1946 :shocked: . It's the same fight that has been going on with 1C since IL-2's inception. There has been more than enough data provided to show proper boost levels, fuel used, and speeds of the Spits. Nothing matters except what the designers at 1C DICTATE, not what was historically accurate anyway.

Take Snappers recent testing with the a2a series, which has much more accurate flight models. The current Spit Ia in the a2a series performs as well as the CloD Spit IIa. Who's right and who's wrong? I put my money on a2a being more correct and the suits at 1C having to appease the local IL-2 fan base in order to sell. It's about the dollars, not history.

I usually will take a 1a even if there are IIa's available...not so much anymore. :angry: RELEASE THE KRAKKEN!


We're going to have a situation where the Spits and Hurris can't keep up with the bloody Blenheims

Dutch, it's already quite difficult to keep up in a Ia...

Catseye
Apr-24-2012, 13:17
Cats, I've already given up on the 100 octane debate, but the performance is still well below 87 octane levels, unless you go over 18,000. Ludicrous.

We're going to have a situation where the Spits and Hurris can't keep up with the bloody Blenheims, unless you're in a Spit II. And that remains to be seen.

I agree Dutch.
I've also given up on the 100 octane issue until the Russian front arrives and they do another tweak or introduce changes they say they haven't time to do now.

Hopefully, the complaints on all the forums - including the Russian forums about the charts will hit home and they take another look at it. But . . . . my gut tells me they've run out of time and want to get the graphics and launcher issues corrected so they can satisfy a business model and a technical base to proceed with the Russian front and other scenarios to follow.

Sigh. Carry on Lads.

Dutch
Apr-24-2012, 13:28
Dutch, it's already quite difficult to keep up in a Ia...

I know Deac, but they've already said that the new Blennie FM is faster at all altitudes than the current one, and they're slowing the fighters down.

That's even more ridiculous than the situation you pointed out with the 110.

I despair with the devs, I really do.

ATAG_Deacon
Apr-24-2012, 13:37
I despair with the devs, I really do.




It's about the dollars, not history.


The series, outside of 3rd party development, will never be historically accurate. The $ dictates all... :hiding:

'nuff said.

Dutch
Apr-24-2012, 14:06
EDIT: I just went to the Russian forums and they are similarly complaining about the performance charts - with the same questions and complaints on this and the Banana forums.

So all the markets for the product are complaining about the performance charts.

I'm not quite sure where the '$ rules' bit comes in Deac. What possible $ advantage does it give them to do this? Will they sell more copies if the game is blatantly biased toward Blue flyers? Or less copies because Red flyers are sick of being shafted and so stop purchasing?

Or are you saying that the investors are dictating the FMs to the developers?

Or that a higher % of customers fly Blue?

Sorry if this is old debate, I only went online with IL2 about 5 years ago, was offline before that.

ATAG_Snapper
Apr-24-2012, 14:32
Well, I find myself getting drawn into another "discussion" over at 1C about the Hurricane being "grossly overmodelled" and "compare the charts" etc. If you express your dissatisfaction you're told to "calm down" -- by those who stand to benefit, of course.

Then it occurs to me: 1C -- The Official Forum. Uh huh. End of discussion right there.

ATAG_Deacon
Apr-24-2012, 14:41
So all the markets for the product are complaining about the performance charts.

I'm not quite sure where the '$ rules' bit comes in Deac. What possible $ advantage does it give them to do this?

It's always been this way, bias toward Blues. From the beginning of the IL-2 series. There have always been historical inaccuracies. The most accurate FM's have been the third party modders, why is this so? Who invests more the SIM, ie where is the largest market segment?


Will they sell more copies if the game is blatantly biased toward Blue flyers? Or less copies because Red flyers are sick of being shafted and so stop purchasing?

I wish I had an answer for this, I really do. I don't think Red flyers will quite en-mass, we're gluttons. I grew used to it and take great pride when I get kills in "under modeled" aircraft.


Or are you saying that the investors are dictating the FMs to the developers? Or that a higher % of customers fly Blue?

We're the investors, just look at where the largest body of players comes from for the answer to that question.


Sorry if this is old debate, I only went online with IL2 about 5 years ago, was offline before that.

No worries. The things I've laid out are sure to stick in someone's craw. I've played, I've watched, I've listened, and I read all the forums voraciously...I've heard it all from the "Spit-babies" to "Luft-whiners".

If the FM's produced by 1C were historical & accurate there would not have been a need to 'mod' the old IL-2 series. I'm sure the people who do the modding would rather be flying and fighting vs. fixing. If it ain't broke it don't need to be fixed.

Why is it that 1C can't (or won't) produce accurate flight models, even in the face of the entire community asking for them? That is the bigger question. To me it is about the money...the largest segment of the community must be appeased in order to sell more copies, hence:


Messershmidt all the chief and commander of the Spitfire

Historical? Accurate? All things being equal the Spit/Hurri combo did a pretty fine job over England...as history shows.

This is a SIM that is supposed to be based on historical accuracy...not bias as the quote from the HMFIC indicates. (HMFIC = Head MoFo In Charge)

Everything I've written is just my opinion Dutch but if somebody can please explain why 1C/Maddox Games has always shown Blue bias I would be all ears.

Actually I need to re-phrase that...if it is Blue/Russian vs. UK/US...anybody remember the initial La-5/La-7/M-185?

9./JG52 Hans Gruber
Apr-24-2012, 14:44
I don't believe in conspiracies or hidden agendas. What I do believe is that most people are just incompetent at their jobs. This is the case in industry, government, and apparently video game development.

Dutch
Apr-24-2012, 15:17
if somebody can please explain why 1C/Maddox Games has always shown Blue bias I would be all ears.

Actually I need to re-phrase that...if it is Blue/Russian vs. UK/US...anybody remember the initial La-5/La-7/M-185?

Yep. Those Las were gorgeous! :Grin:659

So come the sequel, we're going to have I-16s, LaGG 3s and Yak 1s outperforming the Spits and Hurris.

You know, the only reason I started flying Blenheims was because of the crappy Ia FM and the banning of the Spit II. As you know, I keep stalling in the Hurri.

We'd just better pray that the IIa FM is not too 'nerfed'. But then, nothing else will be worth including in the Brit planest.

ATAG_Deacon
Apr-24-2012, 15:25
So come the sequel, we're going to have I-16s, LaGG 3s and Yak 1s outperforming the Spits and Hurris.

You know, the only reason I started flying Blenheims was because of the crappy Ia FM and the banning of the Spit II. As you know, I keep stalling in the Hurri.

We'd just better pray that the IIa FM is not too 'nerfed'. But then, nothing else will be worth including in the Brit planest.

Again, as GRAthos pointed out two weeks ago, the Spit IIa will have to made available in unlimited numbers. Not historical, but necessary I think. It will be the only way around total Blue dominance, which is still a possibility. :pouting:

ATAG_Colander
Apr-24-2012, 18:19
Afraid of opening a can of worms, I have to point this out...

The 109 curve is also bellow the test data curve.

I do not see a conspiracy but a problem with the physics engine which only allows the values to be close to real but not exact.

A physics engine is not some thing easy or simple to do, specially when the programmers have to balance numeric exactitude and CPU usage.

From my point of view, what matters is the relation of FM between planes. If 109 was 2% faster than the Ia and 1% faster than the IIa, that's what we should be looking at, not that the planes are X mph slower/faster than what the test data.

Now :angrymob: :runaway::hiding:

ATAG_Deacon
Apr-24-2012, 19:18
Afraid of opening a can of worms, I have to point this out...

From my point of view, what matters is the relation of FM between planes. If 109 was 2% faster than the Ia and 1% faster than the IIa, that's what we should be looking at, not that the planes are X mph slower/faster than what the test data.




~S~ Colander,

Way respect your programming knowledge.

The can of worms wasn't opened by you mate...look over at 1C. I have a basic understanding of what you're saying...however 1-2% values at 300 mph= 3-6 mph differentials. When we're discussing 20-40 mph differentials. Not a small difference.

Deacon

ATAG_Colander
Apr-24-2012, 20:10
Deacon,

Sorry, I should have specified that the 1% 2% where just examples not actual numbers.

I confess I have not done the needed math :)

Dutch
Apr-24-2012, 21:45
Afraid of opening a can of worms, I have to point this out...

The 109 curve is also below the test data curve.

I do not see a conspiracy

Can duly opened.

Do you see the 109's performance being reduced at any altitude? In favour of a performance increase at an altitude that the game can't cope with and no-one flies online anyway?

Nope, thought not.

Well, I'll just fly around on my own at 20,000ft, smug in the knowledge that no-one can catch me, with nothing happening until my fuel runs out.


P.S. Forgot to mention that all the German AI bombers will need to come over at 18,000ft+, whereas the English Bomber formations will need to go to France at <18,000, in order to avoid the Blue boys throwing their toys out of the pram once more.

I'm sure it'll be great fun.

ATAG_Deacon
Apr-24-2012, 22:45
Just to lighten things up a little after a high stress day in this thread:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79qqhX8Vxc0&feature=player_embedded

ATAG_Colander
Apr-25-2012, 10:54
Can duly opened.

Do you see the 109's performance being reduced at any altitude? In favour of a performance increase at an altitude that the game can't cope with and no-one flies online anyway?

Nope, thought not.




Dutch,

Actually yes. The curve is bellow the test data at all altitude except a spike around 5500 meters.

Note, I'm not referring to the WEP curve. Is my understanding that WEP should not be available at altitudes >1000 meters and I agree 100% that if that was the case in reality, it should be fixed.

I just put both graphs together showing the new FM for the 109 and Ia. I see a speed difference of around 40Kph between them and you are right, we can't fly at the altitudes where the Ia has the advantage but this is not a conspiracy but a physics engine issue which they would have to re-write as they are doing with the graphics.

Worms out :)

666

Dutch
Apr-25-2012, 11:06
But has the 109s performance been reduced anywhere from where it currently is in the game? Very slightly down on the deck.

The Spit Ia has had a performance drop everywhere on the graph when measured against the current FM, which already underperforms against established 87 octane data, except at 18,000ft+.

But I'm not going to get into another red v blue argument. The whole thing stinks.

Making excuses for them with references to game engine this and that holds no water for me I'm afraid.

I'd rather keep the Spit Ia FM as it is now than what they've shown on that graph.

Just pathetic.

ATAG_Deacon
Apr-25-2012, 11:12
But has the 109s performance been reduced anywhere from where it currently is in the game? Very slightly down on the deck.

The Spit Ia has had a performance drop everywhere on the graph when measured against the current FM, which already underperforms against established 87 octane data, except at 18,000ft+.

But I'm not going to get into another red v blue argument. The whole thing stinks.

Making excuses for them with references to game engine this and that holds no water for me I'm afraid.

I'd rather keep the Spit Ia FM as it is now than what they've shown on that graph.

Just pathetic.

You're correct Dutch...our only recourse at this point is to fly high where our strengths lie and realize that Blue will win every map because we're 'effd down low and will not go down to defend targets that are now indefensible.

That's what sucks...this is NOT a SIM, it is an abomination of a game. 1C has done the flight sim community a huge disservice.

I'm going to go on my merry way at this point. I've given my thoughts and opinions, I'm sure I've pissed off a person or two along the way.

Nothing but flowers and sunshine for me...see you guys at 16k feet plus...

335th_GRAthos
Apr-25-2012, 19:46
Back in the old days (aka IL2FB) we had a SW to show us the performance of each plane by itself and relative to another plane.

I presume you all know IL2Compare:

667

After every IL2 patch, there would be a new version of IL2Compare so that we could compare the performance of each plane and any relevant changes in performance.

As long as we do not have such a program at our disposal, we spend hundreds of hours discussing about things, without the possibility to objectively compare the performance of one plane relative to another.

I hope that 1c will fix the graphics issue (after a delay of 5 months) so that they can focus on the important things.

Oh, and about 1C being "pro-Blue", my twelve years IL2 experience is that 1C was never "pro-blue". I never managed to fly my Bf109 (except for the Bf109-G2 variant) and have the air superiority I enjoy in CoD.




~S~

Dutch
Apr-25-2012, 19:55
Oh, and about 1C being "pro-Blue", my twelve years IL2 experience is that 1C was never "pro-blue". I never managed to fly my Bf109 (except for the Bf109-G2 variant) and have the air superiority I enjoy in CoD.~S~

But now there's another person in charge Athos. And I'd say that that in itself explains your current and evidently ongoing level of 'Air Superiority'.

But I'll wait for the patch as we all are. I don't hold out much hope for any 'historical accuracy' being on our friend Ilya's agenda however.

Dutch out.

ATAG_Bliss
Apr-25-2012, 20:05
Just to lighten things up a little after a high stress day in this thread:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79qqhX8Vxc0&feature=player_embedded

Haha that was great Deacon :)

ATAG_NakedSquirrel
Apr-25-2012, 23:23
So there's only about a 30 kph difference between the planes, and the Spit has better performance than the 109 over 18000ft!

Someone is going to have to explain to me how this is supposed to be a bad thing because that sounds just about all sorts of awesome to me.

ATAG_Torian
Apr-25-2012, 23:52
So there's only about a 30 kph difference between the planes, and the Spit has better performance than the 109 over 18000ft!

Someone is going to have to explain to me how this is supposed to be a bad thing because that sounds just about all sorts of awesome to me.

How much activity have u been involved in over 18000ft lately ??
Only 30kph ?? and that wont make any difference?? The 109 still has its afterburner, The Mark Is are supposed to have 100 octane and 12lb boost when needed...they don't and wont be getting it. Hardly levels the playing field Squirrel. But as 109 pilot why would u care about a level playing field. Then there's the Russians, but once again as a 109 pilot u wouldn't have had the pleasure of being PKed 50 times over by their laser guided sniper bullets would u.

ATAG_NakedSquirrel
Apr-26-2012, 01:21
Pked 50 times? Quit taking off from Hawkinge! lol

I just fly whatever side has fewer players. Red or Blue. I paid full price for the game, There's no way in hell I'm only going to fly only half of the planes.

I'm always up at 18000ft when I'm in the Hurri (At least when the Russians are on). 18000ft is where all the best pickings are, because they're all below you. Who cares if the E4 is faster than you at level flight when you're diving down at 450mph. Even the better climb rate is moot for the first 2-3 passes you make.

ATAG_Snapper
Apr-26-2012, 07:21
To summarize:

1) Avoid taking off from Hawkinge

2) Fly at 18,000 feet

3) B&Z at 450 mph

There we have it. Problem solved. Thanks for the helpful tips, Naked Squirrel! :thumbsup:

ATAG_Torian
Apr-26-2012, 07:33
I just fly whatever side has fewer players. Red or Blue. I paid full price for the game, There's no way in hell I'm only going to fly only half of the planes

Not the other day when u were on the blue side with a 2 to 1 blue v red ratio. U
picked my Blen off shortly after I had taken off. I was 500ft off the ground if that. Did u come down from 18000 for that ?

ATAG_Snapper
Apr-26-2012, 07:56
Hi folks,

This thread has run its course, all that remains is for the patch to be released. I can hardly wait for THAT thread! :bgsmile:

Thanks to everyone here for your thoughts and viewpoints. Much as we may differ on the fine points, I think we're all in agreement that the flight models for ALL the aircraft need adjusting to bring them in line with historically documented performance charts. As Colander has noted, at least bring the aircraft in closer alignment with regards to their well-known and documented strengths and weaknesses.

Let's see what NEXT week brings!

Snapper