TFS Update. TF5 skins: Wellingtons

[Gingerbread]

And the Tropical types will pay a penalty for having the cumbersome filters... especially the idiotically designed Vokes filter for the Hurris and Spits. The later Aboukir filter did not apparently arrive till later in 1942.

Speaking of that... What will happen when someone chooses a non-tropical plane on a tropical map or a tropical plane on a non-tropical map?
Do you plan to model the effects or will the plane sets be restricted on the corresponding maps?

(And to turn back to on-topic: the Wellington looks great, can't wait to fly one! )

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

Speaking of that... What will happen when someone chooses a non-tropical plane on a tropical map or a tropical plane on a non-tropical map?
Do you plan to model the effects or will the plane sets be restricted on the corresponding maps?

(And to turn back to on-topic: the Wellington looks great, can't wait to fly one! )

Its up to the mission builder to limit the type of aircraft available on a particular map... if the builder decides to use Trop aircraft on the Channel map... its his mistake.

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

@Gromit
I am afraid it will get much harder still for red.
We have to take the fight down low with Beaufighters and P40s and just be thankful that there are no FW 190s yet.

By the way: what about a Beau Ic with some bombs?

Yes, Beau 1C will be in TF 5.0.

[DerDa]

Yes, Beau 1C will be in TF 5.0.

Whooopiee!

[9./JG52_Meyer]

So we can read from this the performance gap between the 109's and all the red aircraft will be considerable?

Is any consideration being given to the knock on effect this will have on player numbers, red team will all be excited at the prospect of having US flight models to play only to find they are left for dead by aircraft up to 50mph faster according to what you believe, is any consideration being given to the red team basically saying "Pffff what the point of this" and leaving to play something else?

Didnt seem to be a problem for the 3 years pre 4.5 when the Hurris and Spits could pull off aerobatics at 7k plus whilst 109s handled like like a wet noodle..

Hals und beinbruch

[Gromit]

Didnt seem to be a problem for the 3 years pre 4.5 when the Hurris and Spits could pull off aerobatics at 7k plus whilst 109s handled like like a wet noodle..

Hals und beinbruch

You mean when the 109 was given a power boost to compensate for the altitude density bug resulting in them being faster up high and low down?

Yeah both sides had compromises but if you only play one side you tend to think it's just you!


Simple question, how many people do you think will log into the server if the plane set on the map was G50 vers Spit iia? or Hurricane DH5-20 vers E4N?

Because the performance difference between the Spit V, P40 and F4 Martlet and the 109F4, if you believe the data sheets trotted out are actual service aircraft that is, is even bigger than that!

So how many would you think?

[9./JG52 gr00ve]

You mean when the 109 was given a power boost to compensate for the altitude density bug resulting in them being faster up high and low down?

Yeah both sides had compromises but if you only play one side you tend to think it's just you!

obviously, you never flew 109 up high pre 4.5
in 4.312, 109 was only faster down low. At cons height it was brick with wings, any sudden move would result in losing 1-3k ft alt and as Meyer said, hurricanes and spits were laughing at us up high knowing we cant reach nowhere near to 109s actual ceiling. And we still fought them up there at great disadvantage, waiting for TFS to fix it. It took ages but they did fix it.
I do wonder where did all those high "aces" from red side disappeared when 4.5 came out.

Simple question, how many people do you think will log into the server if the plane set on the map was G50 vers Spit iia? or Hurricane DH5-20 vers E4N?

Because the performance difference between the Spit V, P40 and F4 Martlet and the 109F4, if you believe the data trotted out are actual service aircraft that is, is even bigger than that!

So how many would you think?

I believe the data...i don't believe in russian tests and their aces anecdotes. I lived in communist country long enough to realize how things worked there.

109 F4 was king of North African theater. I would be very disappointed if it would be any different.
Germans had better plane in that theater, and you may like it or not, it is the way it was.

It is up to mission makers to balance things out, not TFS.

[Gromit]

obviously, you never flew 109 up high pre 4.5
in 4.312, 109 was only faster down low. At cons height it was brick with wings, any sudden move would result in losing 1-3k ft alt and as Meyer said, hurricanes and spits were laughing at us up high knowing we cant reach nowhere near to 109s actual ceiling. And we still fought them up there at great disadvantage, waiting for TFS to fix it. It took ages but they did fix it.
I do wonder where did all those high "aces" from red side disappeared when 4.5 came out.




I believe the data...i don't believe in russian tests and their aces anecdotes. I lived in communist country long enough to realize how things worked there.

109 F4 was king of North African theater. I would be very disappointed if it would be any different.
Germans had better plane in that theater, and you may like it or not, it is the way it was.

It is up to mission makers to balance things out, not TFS.

So your saying you believe Nazi's instead of Communists? that's a strange prejudice to admit to!

The data is yet to be proven that it's an actual service aircraft not a factory test mule, that the data is corrected to the same standards as other tested aircraft and that the figures are not calculated, there is doubt over the height the speeds are obtained compared to the max boosted height at 1.42ata, it seems to be over 1000m above.

You see the RAF had a serious problem when Kurt Tanks 190 appeared, you can find many references to the speed and climb advantage it held over the Spit V in sqdn reports and biographies and led to the rapid development of the Spit IX, yet apparently No one noticed an even faster 109, not even the BF guys who then developed the 109G which was apparently slower!

There is no doubt the 109F held a performance advantage over the Spit V the debate is how much, the alleged 410-418mph dependant on what you read is highly dubious, any aircraft that was 40mph faster than the Spit V would have caused as much stink as the 190 did, The Spit pilots at Malta , who were experienced men have made no claims of being out performed by Super 109's, yet the Hurricane sqdns did, so until someone can prove this data is nothing more than a factory prepared test aircraft I don't buy it, there's nothing to back it up!

[9./JG52 Kettarian_Fox]

obviously, you never flew 109 up high pre 4.5
in 4.312, 109 was only faster down low. At cons height it was brick with wings, any sudden move would result in losing 1-3k ft alt and as Meyer said, hurricanes and spits were laughing at us up high knowing we cant reach nowhere near to 109s actual ceiling. And we still fought them up there at great disadvantage, waiting for TFS to fix it. It took ages but they did fix it.
I do wonder where did all those high "aces" from red side disappeared when 4.5 came out.




I believe the data...i don't believe in russian tests and their aces anecdotes. I lived in communist country long enough to realize how things worked there.

109 F4 was king of North African theater. I would be very disappointed if it would be any different.
Germans had better plane in that theater, and you may like it or not, it is the way it was.

It is up to mission makers to balance things out, not TFS.

Where did they disappear, indeed.

And as far as I remember, the difference in speed down low in 4.312 between all of the E4 models (except E4B obviously) and a Spit 1A was so small that it was down to the pilot basically. I have been caught on the deck by 1a a few times. Also, had cases when I ran clear from E4s on deck in 2a (and that one was slower than 1a)

What were the actual sustainable (for a couple of minutes at least, coming from a dive) numbers in 4.312, Buzz - do you remember?

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

I am very busy with TF 5.0 and don't have much time to answer.

- Historically all sides aircraft showed their best performance at the factory.

- All sides aircraft performed worse when flown as captured aircraft. That includes Soviet types... look at the La-5FN test by the Luftwaffe for example and compare it to the official Tzagi tests. The Soviet Ace's opinion is probably true... he wouldn't get the same performance as the factory did when he flew a captured aircraft.

- It was very common for different aircraft of the same type and model to have as much as 5% difference in the horsepower produced by the engine... this was a fact of mass production in an era where quality control was not what it is now. Tests of two aircraft of exactly the same type and model show two different results.

- Depending on how many hours an aircraft has on it, or how severely it has been used, performance of an aircraft in the field can easily be as much as 10% below factory specs.

As I have said before, I model aircraft based on all the evidence available.... I rate the reference material based in the following hierarchy:

Rating 1: Factory or Airforce tests by the originating country (country which designed and manufactured the aircraft)

Rating 2: Airforce tests by countries Allied to the originating country

Rating 3: Tests by Hostile country's Airforces of captured aircraft

It is a fact that sometimes factories were over optimistic and set 'expected' boost or rpm levels, were able to achieve these levels at the factory, only to find in the field under continuous use their aircraft couldn't sustain those levels and be mechanically reliable.... sometimes re-designs are required before the higher boost or rpm was 'cleared'. This was the case for Soviet, German, British and Japanese types. The US was better this way because they had the money and resources to create large design teams and additionally to test more extensively. In a few aircraft types the level of boost/rpm hoped for was never achieved. These instances of aircraft being rated operational, then being 'de-rated' to a lower level of performance were not unusual and obviously cause confusion in the records. In all cases, I base my decisions on what evidence there is available. Sometimes a judgement call is required.

Any flight sim which claims their game 'perfectly' replicates the real aircraft is blowing smoke rings up the butts of their customers. There are no perfect Flight Models and there never will be... a flight sim is a flight sim, not an aircraft. A flight SIMULATION is exactly that, a simulation of the real thing, within the confines of the very limited resources of a personal computer, an electronic joystick/pedals and a computer screen/VR googles.

Within the limitations of the game's physics engine, and the data available, TF will strive to simulate these extremely complex aircraft with their very complex flight behaviour. (far more complicated than a modern Jet when you consider the effects of propellors and reciprocating engines) The most important thing in my opinion, is that particular aircraft types are balanced against the other competing types in terms of their relative performance advantages... trying to duplicate exactly the climb/speed/etc. of a particular aircraft at all altitudes is in most cases almost impossible and a fools game. If the aircraft can come within 5%, then there is reason to be satisfied.

In the end, if a player can use the tactics and maneuvers which the historical pilots used, and see similar results when matched up against the competing aircraft types, then there is reason to be positive about the simulation.

[DerDa]

I always wondered: if the 109 F would have been as good as the official data says, why would they have waited so desperately for the 190?
A. Galland, Die Ersten und die Letzten: Jagdflieger im Zweiten Weltkrieg, Caption to Photograph 18: '1941: Endlich kommt die FW 190 an die Front. (At long last the FW 190 is in service.)'
J. Meimberg: Feindberührung: Erinnerungen 1939–1945. Kurt Braatz (Hrsg.), Verlag Neunundzwanzigsechs, 2002, p. 199: "Es gäbe allerdings auch gute Nachrichten, und die hätten allesamt einen Namen: Focke-Wulf Fw 190. (But there were some good news as well and and they all had the name of Fw 190.)

Anyway, this is (just as my previous post, I have to admit) besides the point Gromit wants to make:
'If there is a serious disadvantadge for one side, this might cause a dropping of player numbers.'
And this is really something that needs some thinking (no matter from TFS or the map-makers).

In this respect it doesn't matter at all if there was an unbalanced situation in one of the previous patches or not and how unbalanced it was.
Good pilots will get kills. Worse pilots will get killed.
Don't worry gentlemen, this won't change.

The problem is: how can we give new pilots the hope they will have the chance to get some kills someday.

[9./JG52 Kettarian_Fox]

I always wondered: if the 109 F would have been as good as the official data says, why would they have waited so desperately for the 190?
A. Galland, Die Ersten und die Letzten: Jagdflieger im Zweiten Weltkrieg, Caption to Photograph 18: '1941: Endlich kommt die FW 190 an die Front. (At long last the FW 190 is in service.)'
J. Meimberg: Feindberührung: Erinnerungen 1939–1945. Kurt Braatz (Hrsg.), Verlag Neunundzwanzigsechs, 2002, p. 199: "Es gäbe allerdings auch gute Nachrichten, und die hätten allesamt einen Namen: Focke-Wulf Fw 190. (But there were some good news as well and and they all had the name of Fw 190.)

Anyway, this is (just as my previous post, I have to admit) besides the point Gromit wants to make:
'If there is a serious disadvantadge for one side, this might cause a dropping of player numbers.'
And this is really something that needs some thinking (no matter from TFS or the map-makers).

In this respect it doesn't matter at all if there was an unbalanced situation in one of the previous patches or not and how unbalanced it was.
Good pilots will get kills. Worse pilots will get killed.
Don't worry gentlemen, this won't change.

The problem is: how can we give new pilots the hope they will have the chance to get some kills someday.

New pilots will have trouble getting kills no matter which aircraft they choose to fly. British rotol equipped aircraft are more suitable for newbies in my opinion since the natural instinct is to turn-n-burn, in the current game even more so due to some maps having only manual prop pitch 109s.
The 109 is a much harder plane to master in my humble opinion (even if you fly automatic pp only), and it starts to really shine after a few 100s of hours in the cockpit. Its mastery however helps to be more proficient in the British planes as well, especially the Spitfire which can bnz almost as good as a 109.

[69th_Zeb]

I am very busy with TF 5.0 and don't have much time to answer.

- Historically all sides aircraft showed their best performance at the factory.

- All sides aircraft performed worse when flown as captured aircraft. That includes Soviet types... look at the La-5FN test by the Luftwaffe for example and compare it to the official Tzagi tests. The Soviet Ace's opinion is probably true... he wouldn't get the same performance as the factory did when he flew a captured aircraft.

- It was very common for different aircraft of the same type and model to have as much as 5% difference in the horsepower produced by the engine... this was a fact of mass production in an era where quality control was not what it is now. Tests of two aircraft of exactly the same type and model show two different results.

- Depending on how many hours an aircraft has on it, or how severely it has been used, performance of an aircraft in the field can easily be as much as 10% below factory specs.

As I have said before, I model aircraft based on all the evidence available.... I rate the reference material based in the following hierarchy:

Rating 1: Factory or Airforce tests by the originating country (country which designed and manufactured the aircraft)

Rating 2: Airforce tests by countries Allied to the originating country

Rating 3: Tests by Hostile country's Airforces of captured aircraft

It is a fact that sometimes factories were over optimistic and set 'expected' boost or rpm levels, were able to achieve these levels at the factory, only to find in the field under continuous use their aircraft couldn't sustain those levels and be mechanically reliable.... sometimes re-designs are required before the higher boost or rpm was 'cleared'. This was the case for Soviet, German, British and Japanese types. The US was better this way because they had the money and resources to create large design teams and additionally to test more extensively. In a few aircraft types the level of boost/rpm hoped for was never achieved. These instances of aircraft being rated operational, then being 'de-rated' to a lower level of performance were not unusual and obviously cause confusion in the records. In all cases, I base my decisions on what evidence there is available. Sometimes a judgement call is required.

Any flight sim which claims their game 'perfectly' replicates the real aircraft is blowing smoke rings up the butts of their customers. There are no perfect Flight Models and there never will be... a flight sim is a flight sim, not an aircraft. A flight SIMULATION is exactly that, a simulation of the real thing, within the confines of the very limited resources of a personal computer, an electronic joystick/pedals and a computer screen/VR googles.

Within the limitations of the game's physics engine, and the data available, TF will strive to simulate these extremely complex aircraft with their very complex flight behaviour. (far more complicated than a modern Jet when you consider the effects of propellors and reciprocating engines) The most important thing in my opinion, is that particular aircraft types are balanced against the other competing types in terms of their relative performance advantages... trying to duplicate exactly the climb/speed/etc. of a particular aircraft at all altitudes is in most cases almost impossible and a fools game. If the aircraft can come within 5%, then there is reason to be satisfied.

In the end, if a player can use the tactics and maneuvers which the historical pilots used, and see similar results when matched up against the competing aircraft types, then there is reason to be positive about the simulation.

Well said. There are so many other variables as well, which will push performance one way or the other to the point that the sim could easily get away with greater than 5%. Maintenance crew effectiveness and fuel supply integrity being additional major factors. Overseas, fuel storage is one of the most neglected areas of shops that have to ship it in. Maintenance crews cut corners under pressure even in today's safer aviation environment. A friend of mine had a plane last weekend with a bad mag check and slightly reduced power (fouled plug). This stuff happens all the time and even more on piston aircraft. Even performance which was better than anticipated might be down to a crappy altimeter or an over-revved engine with an inaccurate tach (which might blow up 10 hours of service after your flight). The conversations we have here are no different from ones I have with pilots who are always checking the CHTs for each cylinder asking why one of them is off by 20F or why their plane never matches factory values. I think the conversations are good though.

As for the other conversation, there's a true to life joke regarding culture (nothing to do with politics). In two different countries, I experienced Germans showing up half hour early, Americans barely on time, and the locals 30 minutes late. If you study type design drawings from the era, you can really see the cultural parallels. Vickers/Supermarine drawings are...well, with dimensions that stack up incorrectly or do not match. German drawings are much cleaner and easier to read. In fact, they resemble ASME 14.5 more than other stuff I see. American drawings are somewhere in between. Do Russian drawings exist? hehe

I met an astronaut a while back (J. Phillips) and he was talking about his flight back in a Soyuz from the ISS. The US had a VERY expensive panel ($1000s) which covered up standardized equipment for docking. The Russian version had a $15 piece of aluminum that accomplished the same thing. Hope I'm not offending anyone, the idea is that design intent is different between countries, and I like being friends with all kinds of people, not just OCD engineers or seemingly disorganized crop-dusting pilots.

My favorite part of this forum, as some of you might be able to tell from my sometimes wild inaccuracies, is that I can make all kinds of tin-hat stuff up and it really doesn't matter. The real world is much different. It's a sim and I'm still thoroughly entertained and fascinated by it. It has added an extra level of depth to history books I read or systems I've never worked on. Plus, if a statement I make is way off mark, I can always count on a rivet-counter to correct me within a day, and I end up learning somethin' new. Click bait.

Salute!

[Tibsun]

Theres plenty other flight games that are "balanced". Why do we need right this game, wich has got alot of realistic possibilities, to turn into another "balanced" arcade game.

Theres enough games out there with simple flightmodels that do "balanced" planes, no reason to waste this games potential for balancing.

And I like to feel every quirk of the superior, the head to head and inferior planes.

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

I always wondered: if the 109 F would have been as good as the official data says, why would they have waited so desperately for the 190?
A. Galland, Die Ersten und die Letzten: Jagdflieger im Zweiten Weltkrieg, Caption to Photograph 18: '1941: Endlich kommt die FW 190 an die Front. (At long last the FW 190 is in service.)'
J. Meimberg: Feindberührung: Erinnerungen 1939–1945. Kurt Braatz (Hrsg.), Verlag Neunundzwanzigsechs, 2002, p. 199: "Es gäbe allerdings auch gute Nachrichten, und die hätten allesamt einen Namen: Focke-Wulf Fw 190. (But there were some good news as well and and they all had the name of Fw 190.)

Anyway, this is (just as my previous post, I have to admit) besides the point Gromit wants to make:
'If there is a serious disadvantadge for one side, this might cause a dropping of player numbers.'
And this is really something that needs some thinking (no matter from TFS or the map-makers).

In this respect it doesn't matter at all if there was an unbalanced situation in one of the previous patches or not and how unbalanced it was.
Good pilots will get kills. Worse pilots will get killed.
Don't worry gentlemen, this won't change.

The problem is: how can we give new pilots the hope they will have the chance to get some kills someday.

The 190A was a revelation because it did many things which a 109 did not.

1) It was good at both low and high altitudes... It was faster than the Spitfires down low and also up high. The 109F4 was not much faster than the Spitfires at low altitude. Most of the advantages the 109's had were at high alts.

2) The 190's maximum dive speed was better than the 109's... combine that with the fact the 190's rollrate was better at higher speeds and you have an aircraft which can outmaneuver a Spitfire or simply lose it, with ease.

3) The overall high speed maneuverability of the 190's was much better than the 109's... even when compared to the 109F's which were better than the 109E's. The 190 gained speed and energy faster, and retained speed and energy better when using low G maneuvers. It could insta-turn at high speeds extremely well and gain gun solutions. (at a risk of energy bleed) Please do not mistake the Flight Models from IL-2 1946 for what you will get in from TF when the 190 is available. Oleg and the guys there tended to base their 190 FM's on the Jabo G and F versions with their extra armor and weight. (these were more common on the East Front) The early 190's were a very different beast.

4) The mature, (190A-3 and later) 190's weapons package was simply head and shoulders above the 109's... it meant instant kills even for those pilots who weren't particularly good shots... on the other hand the 109 pilot needed to be either an artist like Marseille or he had to peck away at the Allied target and spend a lot more time in a risky situation.

For all the above reasons, the 190A's were a bit of a mindblower for both German and Allied pilots.

----

Regarding whether the Allied side will have a problem in TF 5.0... not if they know how to fly their aircraft.

Much of the timeframe will have the 109E-7 or 109F-2 matched up against the Hurricane II's and P-40C/Tomahawk IIB. The F-4 did not arrive in N Africa till November '41 and its was not cleared to use 1.42 ata until February of '42. (the Allied aircraft were cleared to use +14/+16 one month earlier) The F-2 did not arrive till August of '41. The F-2 is not an F-4, it is much slower. A little more maneuverable at low speeds, but that is not the way to fight the 109F's... you do that against a Hurricane or P-40 at low altitudes and you will be dead.

A P-40 with the higher InHG ratings will be a very difficult beast to deal with a low altitudes.... faster than the 109's and turns better. Only its climb will be inferior. Even if the P-40 is up at higher altitudes where the 109's have the advantage, it can always dive away. It has a higher maximum dive speed than the 109's so they can't follow to terminal speed. And if the 109's follow thinking they can pull out, they will be taking a risk, because the P-40's high speed maneuverability is much better, especially in rollrate... even in the case of the F model, the 109 diving after a P-40 could find itself with the roles reversed and the P-40 on its tail after some high speed rolling scissors. And if the P-40 dives to the deck, 5000 ft or lower, and the 109F follows, then the P-40 will smile its shark smile and the 109 pilot will start to sweat.

All of this will become clear once the players have a chance to get used to their aircraft. Speculating now or predicting doom and gloom is a bit premature.

Edit:

By the way, TF 5.0 will very much a ground attack style module... tanks/vehicles/etc. will be much easier to spot, there will be a premium on killing these targets. All that happens down low. If the 109's want to stay up high and dominate the high ground... fine, but they won't be taking care of the business of ground attack or supporting their Stukas/110's.

It is true the Luftwaffe had a large stable of Aces in North Africa in the period from when the F-4's started to arrive... that was because those F-4 pilots followed a strict set of tactics... climb over the Allied fighter escorts, and then use dive and zoom attacks to get kills. Even Marseille would start his attacks from an altitude advantage. Most of his and other experten's kills were versus Allied Escorts who were supporting ground attack bombers or Fighter-bombers. Very few of Marseille's kills, almost negligible numbers were bombers. The Allied fighter Squadrons in the escort role suffered heavily, but took pride in the fact they very rarely lost bombers they were assigned to escort. In the meantime, the German ground troops were very vocal about how they were being pounded from the air. The whole of JG27 and JG-77 could be criticized for being prima donnas, not risking going below the escorts and not putting in the hard work of killing Allied bombers.

[ATAG_Flare]

Funny how a thread about Wellington skins turns into a very informative thread about the comparative performance of the various aircraft in the desert theatre. Thanks a lot Buzzsaw for being super informative as usual.

Kettarian Fox, what you said hit the nail on the head. The Spit is easier to learn with, the 109 hard to master. But once you have the 109 under your belt, your Spitfire skills improve by a lot! I noticed that, I used to be a primarily red side pilot and flew Spits, Hurris, and Blennies all day long. Then I started flying Blue more often and learned some 109 tactics. As soon as I had that under my belt I realised that the Spitfire could fly like that too and it had immediate results.

I think that pilots who only fly on one side are robbing themselves not only of fun but also of valuable learning. Pilots in the real war never got to try out the enemies equipment, but we as sim pilots can take advantage of that and learn how to fly both sides so we can improve on our side of choice.

I challenge anyone: if you usually fly one side, on your next flight try the other side. Maybe you'll even like it! And surely you will learn something.

[DerDa]

Thanks a lot Buzzsaw!

Quote:
" Please do not mistake the Flight Models from IL-2 1946 for what you will get in from TF when the 190 is available. "

Reading this makes me happy as someone who always liked the 190.
As a red pilot it makes me terrified

[III./ZG76_Saipan]

"By the way, TF 5.0 will very much a ground attack style module... tanks/vehicles/etc. will be much easier to spot, there will be a premium on killing these targets. All that happens down low. If the 109's want to stay up high and dominate the high ground... fine, but they won't be taking care of the business of ground attack or supporting their Stukas/110's."


they support? never noticed.

[Gromit]

Theres plenty other flight games that are "balanced". Why do we need right this game, wich has got alot of realistic possibilities, to turn into another "balanced" arcade game.

Theres enough games out there with simple flightmodels that do "balanced" planes, no reason to waste this games potential for balancing.

And I like to feel every quirk of the superior, the head to head and inferior planes.

The issue is not "balance" as in an arcade like way Tibb's, it's about expectations, if you read most threads about the upcoming TF 5.0 all you hear about from blue players is F4 this F4 that, no mention of any other model, the word "hotrod" crops up, and claims of very high speeds.
Yet if you actually bother to check this stuff out you will find, as Buzz has noted, it's often not related to an actual service aircraft, unfortunately once the idea gets in peoples heads and someone trots out a graph then players expect this performance and reality can go to hell!

We already have players who log in, check the pane set and "no super planes, I'm off", which to me is lame, if all anyone wants to play is the F4 (as often the case with the E4N/B, Spit 11a) then you get the situation we have now where there are often few Blue players when the plane set is E3, so we go blue and bring the G50 to the game, but we are a minority who are prepared to do this, a lot of players just log out, this puts pressure on the map makers to include the "super planes" end result is then those who like to fly the inferior models (like you often do) end up facing nearly the whole opposite team flying top end models, and the fun of that only lasts a short while, if the plane set is unbalanced as with an over the top F4 then this will be the same for everyone and you can end up with few players on red instead, and there is only so much a player can do when the flight model code is stacked against you as well as the numbers.

And whilst I have faith that Buzz is working diligently toward as accurate a set of performance figures as he can I fear the guys who don't bother to put as much effort into researching this minefield (and that's what it is) will just take the "it's supposed to do XXXmph as per this piece of paper, this is sh*t, my favourite plane is porked " attitude we often see.

So it's not about arcade balance it's about realistic expectations, and I apologise if I seem "doom and gloom" but, Bodenplatte is around the corner, and we run the risk of ending up with a few stalwarts who would play no matter what.

This is a great community here, mostly adults and unfortunately mostly experienced players, it's a poor playpen for new starters, and I often wish the squads would put their ego's to bed and play the lower performance aircraft so new people are not left despondent and impotent in the face of experienced guys in super planes!

[Gromit]

By the way, TF 5.0 will very much a ground attack style module... tanks/vehicles/etc. will be much easier to spot, there will be a premium on killing these targets. .

Will the ground pounders get some kind of score for attacking these targets Buzz, like 0.25 of a kill for destroying a vehicle or gun or something?

[IIJG27Rich]

Just search for me Gromit I'm always easy meat no matter what I'm in.

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

Will the ground pounders get some kind of score for attacking these targets Buzz, like 0.25 of a kill for destroying a vehicle or gun or something?

We would like to see some mods to the game's systems of registering ground kills.

[DerDa]

As for the other conversation, there's a true to life joke regarding culture (nothing to do with politics). In two different countries, I experienced Germans showing up half hour early, Americans barely on time, and the locals 30 minutes late.

Ve Germans are ze world's leading experts in passing ze tests!
Just look how our Diesel engines pass ewery test!

[IIJG27Rich]

Ve Germans are ze world's leading experts in passing ze tests!
Just look how our Diesel engines pass ewery test!

That one cost a lot