Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Aircraft in need of a speed boost


  • Please log in to reply
245 replies to this topic

#1 Panthera

Panthera
  • Posts: 462

Posted 11 March 2012 - 09:08

I believe it is obvious that the following aircraft are in need of an increase to their maximum speeds:


Fokker D.VIIF (200+ km/h reported, likely ~210 km/h at full regular throttle [230 hp] and as much as 220 km/h @ SL using full alt throttle [~250 hp + reports of catching SPADs on the deck])
Fokker D.VII (With the Merc IIIaü engine around 195 km/h [climb rate then needs attention aswell])
Fokker D.VIII (~204 km/h reported, likely around 200 km/h @ SL)
Fokker Dr.1 (~165 km/h reported at 4 km, likely around 185 km/h @ SL)
Albatros D.II (~180 km/h reported)
Albatros D.III (~185 km/h reported, likely 185 km/h)
Albatros D.Va (~187 km/h reported, likely 190 km/h)
Pfalz D.III (~180 km/h reported)
Nieuport 17 (~175 km/h reported)


In short the Fokker DVII(F), VIII & Albatros D.Va are the aircraft most in need of an increase in speed ingame.
  • 0

#2 Bullets

Bullets
  • Posts: 780

Posted 11 March 2012 - 12:45

YES 8-)
  • 0

#3 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 11 March 2012 - 13:34

I don't know about the D.VIIF and D.VIII, but some have been waiting for the D.Va to be done properly for almost 3 years.
  • 0

#4 SYN_Vander

SYN_Vander
  • Tester
  • Posts: 4710

Posted 11 March 2012 - 13:36

Hang on, you want to INCREASE the max speed of the Fokker Dr1 in the game??? :o
  • 0

#5 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 11 March 2012 - 13:41

Remember, this is the same guy who said the D.VII should out-turn the Camel.
  • 0

#6 Dr.Zebra

Dr.Zebra
  • Posts: 2663

Posted 11 March 2012 - 16:44

Remember, this is the same guy who said the D.VII should out-turn the Camel.

to be fair: he was talking about sustained turn rates, with rather good evidence as a backup. Still it won´t change the fact that maneuverability is much more then "sustained turn rate" and turning fights occur generally at turning rates greater then "sustained", hence the downward (loss of energy) development of the fights (that generally tend to end on the deck)

That said, I still think the dr.1 shoulnd be any faster.
  • 0

#7 Kwiatek

Kwiatek
  • Posts: 680

Posted 11 March 2012 - 16:58

If it should't be even slowier

Image

Image

;)
  • 0

#8 1PL-Sahaj-1Esk

1PL-Sahaj-1Esk
  • Posts: 940

Posted 11 March 2012 - 16:59

Hang on, you want to INCREASE the max speed of the Fokker Dr1 in the game??? :o

Vander,

hehe, this is Mr. full-one-side-bias posting again ;)

To sum it up quickly : all CP planes are too slow and all but one entente planes are too fast, :lol:

yeah, sure thats the way it goes :)
  • 0

kpt. pil. / Capt. Sahaj / Operations Officer / 1. Eskadra Mysliwska / 1. Pulk Lotniczy / http://www.1pl.boo.pl

bannerf11esks.png?raw=1

http://warthog-extensions-by-sahaj.com


#9 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 11 March 2012 - 17:36

Sahaj,

Maybe you and Panthera can be the new Winger and JayDolan. :P
  • 0

#10 winger2

winger2
  • Posts: 1056

Posted 11 March 2012 - 17:54

I believe it is obvious that the following aircraft are in need of an increase to their maximum speeds:


Fokker D.VIIF (200+ km/h reported, likely ~210 km/h at full regular throttle [230 hp] and as much as 220 km/h @ SL using full alt throttle [~250 hp + reports of catching SPADs on the deck])
Fokker D.VII (With the Merc IIIaü engine around 195 km/h [climb rate then needs attention aswell])
Fokker D.VIII (~204 km/h reported, likely around 200 km/h @ SL)
Fokker Dr.1 (~165 km/h reported at 4 km, likely around 185 km/h @ SL)
Albatros D.II (~180 km/h reported)
Albatros D.III (~185 km/h reported, likely 185 km/h)
Albatros D.Va (~187 km/h reported, likely 190 km/h)
Pfalz D.III (~180 km/h reported)
Nieuport 17 (~175 km/h reported)


In short the Fokker DVII(F), VIII & Albatros D.Va are the aircraft most in need of an increase in speed ingame.


Foget it. Nothing in this direction will ever happen. Catchword Allied customerbase. But hey at the end this game will get what it deserves:P

Winger
  • 0

#11 iowa-1966

iowa-1966
  • Posts: 379

Posted 11 March 2012 - 17:56

Some german planes dont meet the documented flight models, the forums are filled with posts about how slow they are. I am not suprised nothing has been done for years. Winger is right, this is an allies game and thats the same old BS from the front office

Sean McDermott
  • 0

#12 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 11 March 2012 - 18:00

Foget it. Nothing in this direction will ever happen. Catchword Allied customerbase. But hey at the end this game will get what it deserves:P

Winger

How do you explain Sahaj's fierce allegiance to the Entente side then? The Poles were enemies of the Russians, who Russia was one of the Allied countries. :D
  • 0

#13 winger2

winger2
  • Posts: 1056

Posted 11 March 2012 - 18:03

Foget it. Nothing in this direction will ever happen. Catchword Allied customerbase. But hey at the end this game will get what it deserves:P

Winger

How do you explain Sahaj's fierce allegiance to the Entente side then? The Poles were enemies of the Russians, who Russia was one of the Allied countries. :D

There is no rule without exemptions.

Winger
  • 0

#14 Bullets

Bullets
  • Posts: 780

Posted 11 March 2012 - 18:17

Hang on, you want to INCREASE the max speed of the Fokker Dr1 in the game??? :o

So it can keep up with the camel!!! 8-)
  • 0

#15 1PL-Sahaj-1Esk

1PL-Sahaj-1Esk
  • Posts: 940

Posted 11 March 2012 - 19:00

How do you explain Sahaj's fierce allegiance to the Entente side then? The Poles were enemies of the Russians, who Russia was one of the Allied countries. :D

You won't drag mi in to this gav and please stop put the topic on fire with that kind of juxtaposition. I like playing both sides, different planes and have no problem with that. Our squad flies mainly entente recently but that is changing from time to time.
Thus don't put me in any kind of fierce allegiance to either side, ok ? thx

I simply dont like if somebody is showing that kind of obvious one-sided-bias, thats all. Planes have their advantages and disandvantages and its up to the pilots to use them in its best possible way and of whining. I also agree that the devs ought to equip us with the most accurate and historic FM models they can come up with and thats all from me in this topic.


:S!:
  • 0

kpt. pil. / Capt. Sahaj / Operations Officer / 1. Eskadra Mysliwska / 1. Pulk Lotniczy / http://www.1pl.boo.pl

bannerf11esks.png?raw=1

http://warthog-extensions-by-sahaj.com


#16 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 11 March 2012 - 19:06

I simply dont like if somebody is showing that kind of obvious one-sided-bias, thats all.

Same here. Let's be glad that the war is over and that we can enjoy these machines, in real life in musea and at airshows and virtually with ROF and other sims, without all the death and all the hate that a war brings with it.
  • 0

#17 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 11 March 2012 - 19:32

Ok, well said Sahaj. :S!:
  • 0

#18 Demon_

Demon_
  • Posts: 2080

Posted 11 March 2012 - 19:35

What a pathetic topic :(
  • 0

#19 catchov

catchov
  • Posts: 3986

Posted 11 March 2012 - 23:47

Nuts.
  • 0

#20 Miggins

Miggins
  • Posts: 3115

Posted 11 March 2012 - 23:56

Don't go bringing Bastogne into the thread cachov, that's a whole other time period, though it could be argued that the seed for WWII was planted on the 28th June 1919 with the signing of the peace treaty.
  • 0

#21 Sylvis

Sylvis
  • Posts: 656

Posted 12 March 2012 - 00:02

Catchword Allied customerbase.

I am surprised that the game is aimed for people living in 1918, most players would have to be 100+ then.

That aside, the great war is by long gone and there are no more any "allied" or "central" side. As a simulator, the game should strive for historically accuracy, and not go in the direction of a "allied" group wank telling themselves how good they were. Maybe the OP got a point, considering that a lot of the data used to model the planes are based on entente observations and tests from used ad damaged central airframes/engines, wile on the other hand the data used for entente planes are that of fresh from factory.

-Sylvis
  • 0

#22 242Sqn_Wolf

242Sqn_Wolf
  • Posts: 2881

Posted 12 March 2012 - 00:19

I believe it is obvious that the following aircraft are in need of an increase to their maximum speeds:


Fokker D.VIIF (200+ km/h reported, likely ~210 km/h at full regular throttle [230 hp] and as much as 220 km/h @ SL using full alt throttle [~250 hp + reports of catching SPADs on the deck])
Fokker D.VII (With the Merc IIIaü engine around 195 km/h [climb rate then needs attention aswell])
Fokker D.VIII (~204 km/h reported, likely around 200 km/h @ SL)
Fokker Dr.1 (~165 km/h reported at 4 km, likely around 185 km/h @ SL)
Albatros D.II (~180 km/h reported)
Albatros D.III (~185 km/h reported, likely 185 km/h)
Albatros D.Va (~187 km/h reported, likely 190 km/h)
Pfalz D.III (~180 km/h reported)
Nieuport 17 (~175 km/h reported)


In short the Fokker DVII(F), VIII & Albatros D.Va are the aircraft most in need of an increase in speed ingame.

Where did you find this information?

Why are only Central aircraft on this list?

To be really fair don’t go by the highest speed you can find in your data. Chances are they were captured by some historian who didn’t know how to do the math of converting KPH to MPH, or vice versa. We have all seen data where there could be 10mph difference in the same type of aircraft in a single squadron.

Better yet….
Maybe, you should take a break from flying only Central aircraft. Fly the Entente instead that should change your tune after getting bounced by a DRI in you Spad 13.

Reports of a Fokker D.7 catching a Spad? Was the a Spad 7 or a Spad 13? Did the Spad pilot enrich his mix as he dove down? Was his engine damaged? Sorry, but when you don’t put your sources down it leaves me with a lot of questions. I really would like to see where you are finding your information.

The only aircraft I will agree with is the Albatros D.Va, when you give it the right engine.
  • 0

#23 Nick_Schiessen

Nick_Schiessen
  • Posts: 132

Posted 12 March 2012 - 00:50

So as a game designer/developer… do you balance the planes on both sides so that everyone has an equal chance, or do you put the aircraft in with historical numbers and watch everyone favor the better planes as they come along? Is it a game or a simulation. Ever wonder why the didn't make a wargame about Pearl Harbor?
  • 0

#24 Parazaine

Parazaine
  • Posts: 1902

Posted 12 March 2012 - 00:53

It's truly amazing how FM discussions rapidly descend into mud-slinging contests when someone suggests correctly the current state of affairs.

The Camel is well known to be 5-10% too fast where the DVa is widely known to be 5-10% too slow.

Most of the data compiled on central aircraft has come from captured examples…whereas a lot of the entente data has come from factory-fresh examples/manufacturers data.

Does anyone see the obvious conclusion here?

I don't need to be an aeronautical engineer to come to conclusions on the empirical validity of data sets…it's pure common sense.

I, like many here, want to see FM's that are as close to historical accuracy as possible whatever that means as far as plane match-ups and perceptions of loss/gain of advantage.

Apparently, a long long time ago (before I started playing RoF), Central ruled the skies and the same arguments were expressed, but the opposite way round….the irony of it all.
  • 0

#25 Miggins

Miggins
  • Posts: 3115

Posted 12 March 2012 - 01:23

There is something to be said for getting the airplanes relative performance correct, but then you get into the problem of interpretting anecdote.

"We could never initiate a combat" from a Camel pilot is harder to put into a game than using a set of figures (wherever they came from) that show an actual speed.

As to reports from DVIIf pilots of "catching SPADs on the deck" the same applies (as has been pointed out). What SPAD variant? Was there damage? How experienced was the pilot?

With anecdote we get a very fuzzy view of things, and "fuzzy" doesn't really work that well with a computer.

As to all CP plane data coming from captured machines, I do not think that is the case, some data is available from the manufacturers and idFlieg records.

Whatever speed things actually attained in real life compared to RoF modelling there are a few things I would like to see. (I was mainly interested in the ground phase of WWI before RoF, so I don't have masses of data or background knowledge to draw upon, but here they are)

The Camel should be slower (in whatever circumstances) than it's contemporaries, and the DVa should be faster in every respect compared to the Camel.

The DrI should be somewhat slower (in all bar climb-rate) than its contemporaries.

The N28 should be a little more nimble than currently modelled.

If you are asking for numbers, I have none, all those points I have made are "fuzzy" and from anecdotal evidence, and thus not something easy to change withought breaking everything around them.
  • 0

#26 Parazaine

Parazaine
  • Posts: 1902

Posted 12 March 2012 - 01:41

There is something to be said for getting the airplanes relative performance correct, but then you get into the problem of interpretting anecdote.

"We could never initiate a combat" from a Camel pilot is harder to put into a game than using a set of figures (wherever they came from) that show an actual speed.

As to reports from DVIIf pilots of "catching SPADs on the deck" the same applies (as has been pointed out). What SPAD variant? Was there damage? How experienced was the pilot?

With anecdote we get a very fuzzy view of things, and "fuzzy" doesn't really work that well with a computer.

As to all CP plane data coming from captured machines, I do not think that is the case, some data is available from the manufacturers and idFlieg records.

Whatever speed things actually attained in real life compared to RoF modelling there are a few things I would like to see. (I was mainly interested in the ground phase of WWI before RoF, so I don't have masses of data or background knowledge to draw upon, but here they are)

The Camel should be slower (in whatever circumstances) than it's contemporaries, and the DVa should be faster in every respect compared to the Camel.

The DrI should be somewhat slower (in all bar climb-rate) than its contemporaries.

The N28 should be a little more nimble than currently modelled.

If you are asking for numbers, I have none, all those points I have made are "fuzzy" and from anecdotal evidence, and thus not something easy to change withought breaking everything around them.

Yes, true…these things ARE 'fuzzy' but overwhelming anecdotal evidence DOES support the statements you have made (as well as some 'factual' data where the Camel and DVa speed's are concerned).

It is NOT an exact science, if it was we wouldn't all be arguing about it but certain reasonable hypotheses CAN be made with adherence to both the data we know and the accounts from pilots…to ignore pilot accounts totally is just as bad imo as ignoring the data we have.
  • 0

#27 Panthera

Panthera
  • Posts: 462

Posted 12 March 2012 - 02:05

I am not suprised that some are quick to call me biased when most of the planes I list as in need of a boost in speed are Central Power ones. The unfortunate truth however is that these aircraft are infact the ones in need of a boost to their speed if they are to match their real life counterparts.

And yes, I do believe that the Dr.1 needs to be faster on the deck, considering it could do 165 km/h at 4 km. On the deck the Dr.1 was quite likely capable of 180 to 185 km/h, which was about the same as the Camel. To back that up Mikael Carlson's 100% Dr.1 reproduction cruises at 160 km/h.

As for the Fokker DVIIF and the reports of outrunning SPADs on the deck, Hermann Göring wrote about this in September 1918, where a fellow pilot was able to escape a pair SPADs chasing him in a straight dash on the deck by engaging the "over-gas" throttle. In a later report he states the even when engaging over-gas on the deck for extended periods of time, running the engine at 1500-1600 rpm, the engine never took any damage and continued to operate beautifully.

Now considering that the BMW IIIa could generate up to 250 hp at SL if the altitude throttle was fully pushed forward, and that the top speed of the DVII already was around 200 km/h with the Merc D.IIIaü and around 205 km/h with the BMW IIIa at regular throttle settings; I do not believe it is unreasonable to assume that a top speed of 215-220 km/h could be a achieved at SL with a 50 hp increase in performance.

And as for the Fokker DVIII, it was reported to have a maximum speed of just over 200 km/h by the Allies even, and the rate of climb was reported as extremely impressive as-well.

The DVIII used the same 110-120 hp UR.IIa rotary engine as the Dr.1, whilst being a much lower drag design. And since the Dr.1 in all likelyhood did 180 to 185 km/h at SL, it is not so surprising that the DVIII was about 20 to 25 km/h faster.
  • 0

#28 Panthera

Panthera
  • Posts: 462

Posted 12 March 2012 - 02:16

Better yet….
Maybe, you should take a break from flying only Central aircraft. Fly the Entente instead that should change your tune after getting bounced by a DRI in you Spad 13.

I fly about as much on the Entente side as the Central Power one Wolf. I usually change sides as the map changes and then stay there, unless things get uneven.

I really am not the biased person some people in here want you to believe, I am only interested in the aircraft performing as closely to their real life counterparts as possible. And as it is right now, sadly an overwhelming amount of Central Power aircraft are not performing as well as they should.
  • 0

#29 Panthera

Panthera
  • Posts: 462

Posted 12 March 2012 - 02:18

Remember, this is the same guy who said the D.VII should out-turn the Camel.

Well gavagai, is there anything to suggest that it couldn't ?

Looking at the data available, the D.VIIF should indeed be capable of atleast turning with the Camel, and likely outturn it as-well, esp. with full altitude throttle.

The std. Merc D.III powered D.VII however probably couldn't be expected to hang with a Camel in a turn fight, which is understandable, considering it was slightly heavier and used a 70-90 hp weaker engine than the F model.
  • 0

#30 JimmyBlonde

JimmyBlonde
  • Posts: 2346

Posted 12 March 2012 - 02:21

German planes all seem too docile to me, except for the obvious exceptions (Dr.1 etc) I find them incredibly boring to fly.

The engines seem to be idling at full throttle and they are slow as hell. No torque, no personality, just bland efficiency so maybe the devs have got is spot on.
  • 0

#31 Parazaine

Parazaine
  • Posts: 1902

Posted 12 March 2012 - 02:38

Same old same old…no progress, same stupid biased arguments….the facts support Panthera and anyone that doesn't admit it, perhaps is trying to protect their perceived advantage?

Look at the facts, come to an unbiased conclusion (to either side) and you will have to conclude that certain central aircraft are too slow…there's really no other logical conclusion…to deny it is illogical and bloody-minded.

I won't even mention the ones that are too fast…really, how much of an advantage do you Entente pilots want?, a historically accurate one or a biased unrealistic one?
  • 0

#32 catchov

catchov
  • Posts: 3986

Posted 12 March 2012 - 03:32

Blah blah blah biased blah blah blah conspiracy blah blah blah facts blah blah blah winger blah blah blah knickers blah blah blah :zzz: ….
  • 0

#33 Eckhart

Eckhart
  • Posts: 559

Posted 12 March 2012 - 03:33

We will probably never get the exact data. Even those we got are open to discussion as testing conditions were uncertain.

So all we can do is to extrapolate from combat reports and historical evidence. Fact is that the Fokker VII was part of the Versailles treaty and all of them had to be handed over to the Allies. Why would you do this if the plane had all the characteristics attributed to it in ROF?
After the war, the Albatros was used by the newborn Polish Airforce for quite some time. Why would you do this if you can get a faster and more powerful SPAD for almost the same price?

Other German planes too are certainly faster than in this game. Read those allied combat reports and even fiction stories (Tom Cundall) describing the Pfalz DIIIa in action: according to those, they could break off and fly away from any combat at will (Tom Cundall's Camel couldn't follow them!). Try to do this in ROF…

Sure there is something like game balance: the general tendency is that German planes turn better and Allied planes are faster. Knowing these characteristics, you know how to fight and make the best out of it. However, it would be great to come closer to historical realities as they are reported to us. Not easy to do for those devs in order to get the game balance right.

And naturally there is something like the group of customers you are looking at. You want to please them from a commercial point of view (e.g. all those fabulous Russian planes in IL2 which got shot down by the hundreds in WWII as opposed to those underpowered American planes which swept the sky clear of any opposition in both theaters of war…the reason for this: mainly Russian public at the beginning).
I think this might not be very smart as many of us want to fly on both sides with historic performances

(except some rednecks like Jimmy :D and Hot :x )


…Eckhart is running away and hiding in his dugout… :xx:


Sorry for being so long and windy :S!:
  • 0

#34 SYN_Mike77

SYN_Mike77
  • Posts: 1161

Posted 12 March 2012 - 03:35

It's obvious to me that the devs have a clear side bias, there is no good argument to the contrary. What I can't for the life of me figure out is how that bias switches sides to always be for the planes I am flying against!? :?
  • 0

#35 NewGuy_

NewGuy_
  • Posts: 4114

Posted 12 March 2012 - 03:55

I am not suprised that some are quick to call me biased when most of the planes I list as in need of a boost in speed are Central Power ones. The unfortunate truth however is that these aircraft are infact the ones in need of a boost to their speed if they are to match their real life counterparts.

And yes, I do believe that the Dr.1 needs to be faster on the deck, considering it could do 165 km/h at 4 km. On the deck the Dr.1 was quite likely capable of 180 to 185 km/h, which was about the same as the Camel. To back that up Mikael Carlson's 100% Dr.1 reproduction cruises at 160 km/h.

As for the Fokker DVIIF and the reports of outrunning SPADs on the deck, Hermann Göring wrote about this in September 1918, where a fellow pilot was able to escape a pair SPADs chasing him in a straight dash on the deck by engaging the "over-gas" throttle. In a later report he states the even when engaging over-gas on the deck for extended periods of time, running the engine at 1500-1600 rpm, the engine never took any damage and continued to operate beautifully.

Now considering that the BMW IIIa could generate up to 250 hp at SL if the altitude throttle was fully pushed forward, and that the top speed of the DVII already was around 200 km/h with the Merc D.IIIaü and around 205 km/h with the BMW IIIa at regular throttle settings; I do not believe it is unreasonable to assume that a top speed of 215-220 km/h could be a achieved at SL with a 50 hp increase in performance.

And as for the Fokker DVIII, it was reported to have a maximum speed of just over 200 km/h by the Allies even, and the rate of climb was reported as extremely impressive as-well.

The DVIII used the same 110-120 hp UR.IIa rotary engine as the Dr.1, whilst being a much lower drag design. And since the Dr.1 in all likelyhood did 180 to 185 km/h at SL, it is not so surprising that the DVIII was about 20 to 25 km/h faster.

Not mentioning historic pilot accounts - but I have learned to take pilot accounts in ROF with a small grain of salt :)

It's good proof that pilot accounts in general, be they from a pc sim or real life, all need to be taken with a grain of salt. There are simply so many things that the pilot cannot know and instead can only guess about, that trying to make an accurate comparison between two aircraft based on one party's account of an engagement can be extremely misleading.

You make good points, on both sides of the pilot account issue. :lol: :S!: MJ

Bottom quote was from this thread: SE5a v. DVIIF flight models
  • 0

Something something SPAD. Something something then dive away. 


#36 Parazaine

Parazaine
  • Posts: 1902

Posted 12 March 2012 - 04:11

We all know pilot accounts, in general, are unreliable BUT when multiple accounts from different pilots at different times and in different conditions ALL say roughly the same thing then we can be reasonably sure, if not certain, that what they are saying at least has a basis in fact.

The above said, when the FM of aircraft in our beloved RoF SIMULATION behave completely at odds with this multitude of contemporary accounts, can we not say? 'there is something drastically wrong'

The above said, when we admit there's something wrong, can we at least use such multiple descriptions of certain behaviors to HELP produce a FM that mirrors such tendencies instead of completely ignoring them?

e.g. before Elephants were known of in Europe (in written history, not the ice-age before some smart…s says it), reports of such beasts were dismissed as fantasy…there are many other possible examples….just because someone has no finite DATA, it doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong and if a hundred people say they have witnessed the same thing or experienced the same thing, it becomes idiotic to say they are deluded.

It reminds me of current anthropological theory as to why primates and apes began walking on 2 legs…the accepted hypothesis (I believe it may still be the accepted one) is that they had to stand on 2 legs to forage food from trees…..or the theory of brain size being indicative of social evolution when Neanderthal man had a larger brain capacity than homo sapiens…although recent discoveries have shown that Neanderthals had art, used tools and seemed to have been at least as civilized as homo sapiens.

I think I may have gone off-topic? 8-)
  • 0

#37 Panthera

Panthera
  • Posts: 462

Posted 12 March 2012 - 04:19

You make good points, on both sides of the pilot account issue. :lol: :S!: MJ

Bottom quote was from this thread: SE5a v. DVIIF flight models

You need to understand that when there is physical data to back up any anecdotal account then it becomes a lot more trustworthy than what would otherwise be the case.

One shouldn't take anecdotal accounts alone as gospel, there needs to be something that can back up a story before you should start considering it as being the truth.

And when comes to the aircraft listed here, there is plenty of both physical data and anecdotal accounts that points to them as being a lot faster than they are currently portrayed in ROF.
  • 0

#38 Parazaine

Parazaine
  • Posts: 1902

Posted 12 March 2012 - 04:25

You make good points, on both sides of the pilot account issue. :lol: :S!: MJ

Bottom quote was from this thread: SE5a v. DVIIF flight models

You need to understand that when there is physical data to back up any anecdotal account then it becomes a lot more trustworthy than what would otherwise be the case.

One shouldn't take anecdotal accounts alone as gospel, there needs to be something that can back up a story before you should start considering it as being the truth.

And when comes to the aircraft listed here, there is plenty of both physical data and anecdotal accounts that points to them as being a lot faster than they are currently portrayed in ROF.

I don't think anyone (not even me) is saying to take anecdotal evidence alone as gospel BUT it can help indicate certain FM tendencies and taken together with hard data, should help to provide a more authentic FM.
  • 0

#39 Panthera

Panthera
  • Posts: 462

Posted 12 March 2012 - 04:55

You make good points, on both sides of the pilot account issue. :lol: :S!: MJ

Bottom quote was from this thread: SE5a v. DVIIF flight models

You need to understand that when there is physical data to back up any anecdotal account then it becomes a lot more trustworthy than what would otherwise be the case.

One shouldn't take anecdotal accounts alone as gospel, there needs to be something that can back up a story before you should start considering it as being the truth.

And when comes to the aircraft listed here, there is plenty of both physical data and anecdotal accounts that points to them as being a lot faster than they are currently portrayed in ROF.

I don't think anyone (not even me) is saying to take anecdotal evidence alone as gospel BUT it can help indicate certain FM tendencies and taken together with hard data, should help to provide a more authentic FM.

Most definitely, I agree.
  • 0

#40 Panthera

Panthera
  • Posts: 462

Posted 12 March 2012 - 06:03

Also note that the ingame Albatros D.Va & Fokker D.VII feature the climb rate of the real life 160 hp Merc D.III powered variants, and not that of the 180-200 hp Merc D.IIIaü & aüv powered variants as otherwise listed.
  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users