Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Bark0 on April 03, 2009, 04:16:27 PM
-
My Guess was pretty close.
KILLS
Spitfire Mk I 292
Spitfire Mk IX 12,382
Spitfire Mk V 1,440
Spitfire Mk VIII 13,523
Spitfire Mk XIV 1,349
Spitfire Mk XVI 33,356
_________
TOTAL: 64,342
I Would Say some things About the Spitfire...But I Abide By the Fourm Rules. And this Thread would be locked on the first page.
:salute
-
Quite a few folks training it seems. Ah is raking the new folks in with those ads.
-
Spit 5 has more kills than Spit 14 :lol
-
All Spits together (excluding Seafire) have ~15% of total LW kills in tour 110
The P-51D alone as ~10%...
-
The only one of those that is silly is the XVI. There's lots of aircraft that perform comparably to the VIII, and the IX isn't running anything down.
The XVI should cost 3-5 perks, as its only weakness is average top speed, which only improves with altitude.
-
Spit 5 has more kills than Spit 14 :lol
other than being a bit short on ammo the spit 5 is a very capable aircraft that would prolly take out any of the other spits 1 on 1
-
No plane is shameful.
And there are no dweeb planes either.
(...)
Edited to prevent Skuzzy's ban stick...
-
No plane is shameful.
And there are no dweeb planes either.
(...)
Edited to prevent Skuzzy's ban stick...
I couldn't agree more +1
-
I'm sure it's all because I decided to spend this tour in Spits and maybe Hurricaines since I haven't flown either very much since I was fairly new...
:noid
-
I'm sure it's all because I decided to spend this tour in Spits and maybe Hurricaines since I haven't flown either very much since I was fairly new...
:noid
:lol
It took me about three years before I started to give th 16 a bit more attention. Only to be told immediately to stay out of that "EZ mode dweeb ride!".
What I found quite remarkable about this: Many of those saying that to me did claim in other threads on this BBS that "it's all about the pilot, not the plane" when it came to discussing the dangerousness of different fighters in AH... ;)
-
Seems like more and more people prefer that we all fly the planes that they enjoy not what we like, why not just worry about your ride and others worry about what they do. Personally I don't care what anyone else flys or how they fly it, come in a horde, HO me, it's your choice why should I try to dictate what or how others fly like quite a lot of people here do.
-
xbrit, would you mind awfully NOT talking sense, its making my head hurt :D
Working nights sucks, its interfering with my playing time big style, nice to see ya tho fella.
<S>
Wurzel
-
The only one of those that is silly is the XVI. There's lots of aircraft that perform comparably to the VIII, and the IX isn't running anything down.
The XVI should cost 3-5 perks, as its only weakness is average top speed, which only improves with altitude.
+ weak armour, a contribution to why it's my number one kill tour after tour.
-
Spit 5 has more kills than Spit 14 :lol
Nothing outstanding about that at all.
-
Before the Spit5 ammo load was dropped down I used to see more of them than any other Spit. I still enjoy taking one up now and again, my aim is still bad so not as often as I would like.
-
The only one of those that is silly is the XVI. There's lots of aircraft that perform comparably to the VIII
The 8 is only a few MPH slower than the 16, and climbs the same, and has slightly better sustained turn radius, as well as the same acceleration, same firepower (2x hizzookas).
Essentially the same plane, only the 16 has shorter range and rolls a little faster.
Perking one requires perking the other, since they are almost identical. It would be like perking the P-38L and not the P-38J along with it.
-
Sure, fly what you like; take advantage of the free perk-ride performance. :P
The 8 is only a few MPH slower than the 16, and climbs the same, and has slightly better sustained turn radius, as well as the same acceleration, same firepower (2x hizzookas).
Essentially the same plane, only the 16 has shorter range and rolls a little faster.
Nope. The XVI accelerates better, and its lighter weight makes up for the smaller wing area. The 2x50cals are a more effective secondary weapon than 4x303s. The XVI can also carry twice as much ordinance as the VIII, has the best low-speed roll rate in the game, and still rolls well at 400mph ias, where the VIII rolls glacially.
-
Is this yet another one of the myriads of "PERK THE SPITFIRE MK XVI!" threads?
ack-ack
-
Is this yet another one of the myriads of "PERK THE SPITFIRE MK XVI!" threads?
ack-ack
You're on the record in favor of having nothing perked, at least, I remember you saying that. I think that's why you jump all over any mention of perking something that's not perked now.
If we're going to have a perk system, then it should be consistent.
-
You're on the record in favor of having nothing perked, at least, I remember you saying that. I think that's why you jump all over any mention of perking something that's not perked now.
If we're going to have a perk system, then it should be consistent.
I believe the only planes I think that require a perk is the Schwalbe and Komet, as I believe those are the only two planes that would really unbalance the game play. In the early days, I also supported the C-Hog being perked but as time went on, its impact on the arena has dwindled to the point that unperked it would no longer cause an unbalance. I believe unperking the Spitfire Mk XIV would not unbalance the game play because its flying characteristics will actually turn away the unwashed masses.
I also believe those that cry to perk the planes do so because for the most part they lack sufficient skill to fight against the plane they want perked. Of the planes like the La-7, N1K2, P-51D, Spitfire Mk XVI, FW190D-9 and recently the IL2 that players have screamed to be perked, no one has yet to show any definitive proof as to why these planes should be perked. The most common reason is "To force others to fly different planes", which is easily translated to "To force others to fly a plane that I have an easier time to shoot down."
ack-ack
-
Uhmm.. unperking the Tempest? :uhoh
-
I also believe those that cry to perk the planes do so because for the most part they lack sufficient skill to fight against the plane they want perked.
I knew someone was going to say this. ;)
Ok, I believe the XVI should be perked. Here is my record against XVIs over the last 3 tours:
January
23 kills, 1 death
February
83 kills, 13 deaths
March
14 kills, 4 deaths
2 of those deaths were in bombers and 1 was in a gv. To be fair I'll subtract the 1 XVI kill I had in the 163.
So that's 119:15, or 7.9 K/D, and I'm not a great stick. Clearly, it's not the case that I want to see the XVI perked because I can't shoot them down.
-
Who cares. Spits blow up just like every other plane in AH. Just shoot em, don't whine at em :)
-
I knew someone was going to say this. ;)
Ok, I believe the XVI should be perked. Here is my record against XVIs over the last 3 tours:
January
23 kills, 1 death
February
83 kills, 13 deaths
March
14 kills, 4 deaths
2 of those deaths were in bombers and 1 was in a gv. To be fair I'll subtract the 1 XVI kill I had in the 163.
So that's 119:15, or 7.9 K/D, and I'm not a great stick. Clearly, it's not the case that I want to see the XVI perked because I can't shoot them down.
And yet again you've failed to show how the Mk XVI unbalances the game play.
ack-ack
-
My Guess was pretty close.
KILLS
Spitfire Mk I 292
Spitfire Mk IX 12,382
Spitfire Mk V 1,440
Spitfire Mk VIII 13,523
Spitfire Mk XIV 1,349
Spitfire Mk XVI 33,356
_________
TOTAL: 64,342
I Would Say some things About the Spitfire...But I Abide By the Fourm Rules. And this Thread would be locked on the first page.
:salute
Sound off, I fly the Spit 9 predominately now. Why? I started a historical Squad and do my best to fly the rides the 303 flew in WWII. Keep your eye on the Hurricane I, the 303 will be flying that one more.
-
No one has ever given an adequate definition of "unbalancing," so it's difficult to argue that a plane fits the bill.
My belief that the XVI deserves a light perk is from an extensive cross-examination of the performance abilities of all the aircraft in AH (around 25 different categories), combined with a statistical technique provided by one of our players who does statistics for a living. You get different rankings by weighting different categories more heavily or more lightly, but unless you intentionally skew the numbers to help the F4U-1C, the XVI always comes out above it. Since the F4U-1C is perked, I reason that the XVI should be perked. If HTC unperked the F4U-1C, then I would have no more argument for perking the XVI.
-
Sure, fly what you like; take advantage of the free perk-ride performance. :P
Nope. The XVI accelerates better, and its lighter weight makes up for the smaller wing area. The 2x50cals are a more effective secondary weapon than 4x303s. The XVI can also carry twice as much ordinance as the VIII, has the best low-speed roll rate in the game, and still rolls well at 400mph ias, where the VIII rolls glacially.
It accelerates 0.1 seconds faster anywhere up to 250mph. The weights are almost the same. The 8 is not heavier (100lbs last I remember), and that's WITH wing tanks.
Puh-leeeze! Let's just call it "the same!"
As far as the weapons go, the main guns have always been the uber hispanos. The 50cals are nicer than the 303s but 99.99999% of all spit drivers go home after the cannons are gone, and if they stay they know they may not get any more kills with what they have left. So, the only difference being the range (8 has wing tanks) and the roll rate.
Again, it's like the P-38L and the P-38J. One rolls better, one carries different payload, but almost across the board their speed, climb, and other charts are almost identical if overlayed on top of each other.
-
the 20mms on the SpitV are nice.
-
perk it! why not?
:cool:
-
the 20mms on the SpitV are nice.
But not as good as those on the spit9!
And they pale totally in comparison to the one on the P-38!
:noid
-
I couldn't agree more +1
Actually you are completely 100% wrong(no offense). Since we are all dweebs, all planes are dweeb rides. :salute
As for the spixteen, we have a lot of new players in this game. For the sake of this discussion, I consider anyone here for else than a year or so to be a new player. If the spixteen is indeed, "easy mode" so be it. The new players need to be able to have a fighting chance, of getting a kill now and then, after a few flights. Make the learning curve too steep, few will climb it; the game would die. The spits are forgiving to be sure, but I don't see how any of the models unbalance game play.
-
True the spitfire is something people can fly that they wont get frusturated in it and leave, Spits keep aces high alive. :rock
-
As for the spixteen, we have a lot of new players in this game. For the sake of this discussion, I consider anyone here for else than a year or so to be a new player. If the spixteen is indeed, "easy mode" so be it. The new players need to be able to have a fighting chance, of getting a kill now and then, after a few flights. Make the learning curve too steep, few will climb it; the game would die. The spits are forgiving to be sure, but I don't see how any of the models unbalance game play.
Exactly. There is a reason why new players and veterans alike flock to the Spitfires for the reason Steve mentioned. The Spitfire is an easy and forgiving plane to fly, so it's natural that a lot will gravitate toward this plane. Are we now supposed to demand planes be perked because of the easy and forgiving nature of a plane's flight characteristics?
ack-ack
-
Spit 5 has more kills than Spit 14 :lol
Perk it. :lol
-
I love spittfires, it gives the opposition the chance to blame the enemy aircraft, rather than their ability for the reason they got shot down. Only noobs like levi would fly a spitfire.
Krusty, are you positive the spit16 rolls just bit better than the spit8, or is it a krustimation? :) Seriously, comparitively the spit8 rolls like crap.
-
Spit VIII / XVI comparison:
Speed at sea level
VIII: 339
XVI: 344
Speed at 10k ft
VIII: 380
XVI: 385
Time to complete a 360 turn at seal level (75% fuel)
VIII: 15.66 seconds
XVI: 15.77 seconds
Secondary weapon firepower, 1 second burst, 1000=1k lb bomb
VIII: 19.71
XVI: 31.12
Ordinance capacity
VIII: 500lbs
XVI: 1000lbs
Time to roll 360 at 200mph
VIII: 2.88s
XVI: 1.92s
Time to roll 360 at 300mph
VIII: 4.3s
XVI: 2.65s
Time to roll 360 at 400mph
VIII: 10.96s
XVI: 4.28s
Acceleration from 150-250mph
VIII: 18.9s
XVI: 18.2s
If it weren't for the range of the VIII, there would be no choice between these two aircraft.
-
Uhmm.. unperking the Tempest? :uhoh
And the -4?
-
As for the spixteen, we have a lot of new players in this game. For the sake of this discussion, I consider anyone here for else than a year or so to be a new player. If the spixteen is indeed, "easy mode" so be it. The new players need to be able to have a fighting chance, of getting a kill now and then, after a few flights. Make the learning curve too steep, few will climb it; the game would die.
Agreed. The appropriate focus is on those who have adequate experience yet continue to fly Spits.
- oldman
-
Agreed. The appropriate focus is on those who have adequate experience yet continue to fly Spits.
For some odd reason, my K/D is way lower in a Spit 16 than on other rides, not only my preferred 109K, Ta152, 190D but also even in similar ones like N1k, 109F, Ki-84.
It's utterly fragile under enemy fire...
-
It's because the XVI makes people overconfident. You see a bandit, you know you can kill it, but maybe not before his friends arrive to help. ;)
-
Agreed. The appropriate focus is on those who have adequate experience yet continue to fly Spits.
- oldman
Why should there be any focus on those that have 'adequate experience' and yet continue to fly Spitfires? Honestly, why does it even matter if someone with 'adequate experience' flies a Spitfire? Does it make them any lesser of a pilot or less skilled than someone of 'adequate experience' such as yourself that doesn't fly Spitfires?
There sure seems to be a lot of interest by players on what others fly and using that as an excuse as to why they die instead of improving themselves.
ack-ack
-
People have also forgotten to mention picking the best choice aircraft for a particular mission or situation as a reason for taking up a specific aircraft.
If I need to get high over a base to intercept a porker or some light bomber quickly, I take the SpitXVI for it's climb rate and high alt speed. There are others like K-4 or LA-7, but of those I like the Spit more, so I take it.
It's gun package is not the optimum bomber killer (like the G-14 with gondys), but will suffice very well in a pinch. But it's great for chasing down a porking Pony, Dora, Jug or Hog. Lack of range/endurance means you don't usually see it on long escort or JABO missions, so it's not the very best all-purpose fighter aircraft either.
-
Fly a P-39D or Q and everything else is cake.
-
My belief that the XVI deserves a light perk is from an extensive cross-examination of the performance abilities of all the aircraft in AH (around 25 different categories), combined with a statistical technique provided by one of our players who does statistics for a living. You get different rankings by weighting different categories more heavily or more lightly, but unless you intentionally skew the numbers to help the F4U-1C, the XVI always comes out above it. Since the F4U-1C is perked, I reason that the XVI should be perked. If HTC unperked the F4U-1C, then I would have no more argument for perking the XVI.
Can't disagree more. The -1C does almost everything better than the Spit 16 except climb and accelerate. It turns better, has more firepower, can take lots more damage, can carry decent ordnance, has better range, zoom climbs like crazy and has a higher top speed.
-
Spitfires are for sissys! :t
-
Agreed. The appropriate focus is on those who have adequate experience yet continue to fly Spits.
Why is that? What's wrong with flying Spits?
I just don't get the Spit hate-on some folks are wrapped up in. I love the Spitfire; always have ever since seeing The Battle of Britain in the theater when I was four years old. To my eye it's the most beautiful piece of machinery ever devised by man, the 20th century equivalent of a champion thoroughbred. If it hadn't been as good as it was at what it, did its existence would still be justified for aesthetic reasons alone. If it performed badly in AH2 I'd still fly it at least some of the time because, hey, it's a Spit.
Now, I don't expect others to share that opinion. Personally, I think the 109K4 is ugly as sin (although still kinda cool looking) and impractical as hell, mostly because of the horrible cockpit views and the relative difficulty of hitting a moving target with its cannon. Same for the Ki-84. But they're fine planes and if someone else prefers to fly them, I don't see anything wrong with them or their choice. I'm not going to call them dweebs for having different aesthetic preferences or flying styles. :salute
-
Can't disagree more. The -1C does almost everything better than the Spit 16 except climb and accelerate. It turns better, has more firepower, can take lots more damage, can carry decent ordnance, has better range, zoom climbs like crazy and has a higher top speed.
It takes almost 18 seconds for the F4U-1C to complete a 360 degree sustained turned, the XVI does it in under 16 seconds.
The F4U-1 series does not out-zoom the XVI... I have tested it, and BnZs can confirm the results. It's a big myth that our heavier aircraft out-zoom the light aircraft with better power-loading.
At 10k ft the XVI is 4mph faster than the F4U-1C.
A 1k lb bombload is not "decent ordinance?"
-
I just don't get the Spit hate-on some folks are wrapped up in. I love the Spitfire; always have ever since seeing The Battle of Britain in the theater when I was four years old. To my eye it's the most beautiful piece of machinery ever devised by man, the 20th century equivalent of a champion thoroughbred. If it hadn't been as good as it was at what it, did its existence would still be justified for aesthetic reasons alone. If it performed badly in AH2 I'd still fly it at least some of the time because, hey, it's a Spit.
It looks like a Mazda Miata to me, which everyone knows is a girl's car. :devil
-
Agreed. The appropriate focus is on those who have adequate experience yet continue to fly Spits.
- oldman
Some people like Spitfires for their rather significant role in WWII history.
-
It looks like a Mazda Miata to me, which everyone knows is a girl's car. :devil
You know, I do kinda see the resemblance. But only if you take the wings off the Spit.
As for the F4U-1C: guns, guns, ammo, and ammo. The .50 cals beat .303s but I rarely seem to do enough damage with them to count, except against the most fragile planes. (Granted, gunnery is my worst skill in this game.) Against bombers there's no comparison.
If there was a Spit with the range and firepower of the C-hog I'd fly nothing else until I got very bored.
Hmmm. Time to quit typing and go fly Spits and Hogs. :salute
-
You are more patient than me when people argue with you from a position of ignorance. :salute
It takes almost 18 seconds for the F4U-1C to complete a 360 degree sustained turned, the XVI does it in under 16 seconds.
The F4U-1 series does not out-zoom the XVI... I have tested it, and BnZs can confirm the results. It's a big myth that our heavier aircraft out-zoom the light aircraft with better power-loading.
At 10k ft the XVI is 4mph faster than the F4U-1C.
A 1k lb bombload is not "decent ordinance?"
-
Some people like Spitfires for their rather significant role in WWII history.
I can't fault you for that...of course the far and away most produced variant was the SpitIX.
The SpitIX is a gentle, forgiving plane for the novices. More gentle than the XVI. The SpitIX still has good energy performance and turn performance...just not enough performance to be double-superior to half the plane set. It also has the coolest skins.
What if I told you I liked the Hawker Tempest for its history? When you agree that it needs to be unperked?
-
I can't fault you for that...of course the far and away most produced variant was the SpitIX.
The SpitIX is a gentle, forgiving plane for the novices. More gentle than the XVI. The SpitIX still has good energy performance and turn performance...just not enough performance to be double-superior to half the plane set. It also has the coolest skins.
The most produced specific Spitfire was the Mk Vb. The most produced mark overall was the Mk IX, with the majority of those being LF.Mk IXs powered by Merlin 66s, just like our Mk VIII and Mk XVI. There were less than 500 Spitfire F.Mk IXs powered by Merlin 61s like in AH. So, if you want the closest approximation of the most common wartime Spitfires in AH you'd want to take the Spitfire Mk Vb, Spitfire Mk VIII or Spitfire Mk XVI.
What if I told you I liked the Hawker Tempest for its history? When you agree that it needs to be unperked?
No, but I would agree that you shouldn't be called a pansie or have your sexual orientation questioned because you like the Tempest.
-
No, but I would agree that you shouldn't be called a pansie or have your sexual orientation questioned because you like the Tempest.
I don't go in for that sort of thing.
I just find it a bit disingenuous how people will not admit what a very, very good airplane the XVI is. I think I shall try to compile a list of the planes it is double-superior to at typical MA altitude, and a list of airplanes which are double superior to it, and see how that stacks up.
-
The Spitfire Mk XVI has three things it is moderate at, speed, cockpit view, and payload and two things it is weak at, range and durability. It is excellent in all other categories.
It is in many ways built for an MA style environment and so it is excellent there. It is not imbalancing though, just very good.
-
"I know I fell in love with her the moment I was introduced that summer day in 1938. I was captivated by her sheer beauty; she was slimly built with a beautifully proportioned body and graceful curves just where they should be" The Rt. Hon. The Lord Balfour of Inchrye PC, MC (Under Secretary of State for Air 1938-1944)
-
The Spitfire Mk XVI has three things it is moderate at, speed, cockpit view, and payload and two things it is weak at, range and durability. It is excellent in all other categories.
It is in many ways built for an MA style environment and so it is excellent there. It is not imbalancing though, just very good.
You must be talking about deflection shooting when you say its cockpit visibility is moderate? Otherwise, it has one of the most perspicacious cockpits in the game.
I am yet to hear a definition for "unbalancing" in AH.
You are more patient than me when people argue with you from a position of ignorance. :salute
Philosopher's training. ;)
-
<--------------
Agreed. The appropriate focus is on those who have adequate experience yet continue to fly Spits.
- oldman
Whatca' gonna do about it? Huh?
You'd rather I flew Tempests all the time instead?
-
dont know where you are coming from with that comment oldman.
if a long term player was flying a Spit so what???
What makes me so :mad: :mad: :mad: about these anti spit threads is all of the haters thinking spit drivers can't fly anything else and use that as an excuse for their obvious lack of ACM ability to be able to defeat it.
If you can fly a spit at total pwnage level (see Kazaa) then you have no place to comment on who should or shouldnt be flying it.
Good day to you sir!
-
I can't fault you for that...of course the far and away most produced variant was the SpitIX.
The SpitIX is a gentle, forgiving plane for the novices. More gentle than the XVI. The SpitIX still has good energy performance and turn performance...just not enough performance to be double-superior to half the plane set. It also has the coolest skins.
What if I told you I liked the Hawker Tempest for its history? When you agree that it needs to be unperked?
You do understand that the most produced Spitfire IX was the LFIX with the Merlin 66, and that the Spitfire XVI is nothing more then a Spit IX with an American Packard Merlin 266 which is the same engine? Do you think folks would say anything if HTC had called the Spitfire LFXVIe that we have in game, a Spitfire LFIXe instead?
There is no difference between the two outside of the engine manufacturer. Put a Packard Merlin 266 in a Spit IX and it becomes a Spitfire XVI and if a Rolls Merlin 66 is put in a Spitfire XVI it becomes a Spitfire IX. They came off the same production lines and the only way to really tell the difference is a serial number or checking the engine data plate.
The AH Mk IX is the early Merlin 61 version. As I said the largest number of IXs produced were LFIXs with Merlin 66s rated for low to medium alt work just like the Merlin 266 LFXVI. The E wing was standard when the XVI was coming off the line, and the IXs coming off the line were also getting E wings at the time. They were both coming off the line with clipped wings at that point too as the airwar was lower and the increased roll rate was an advantage.
-
You have told us this multiple times Gup, and I have told you multiple times that the SpitXVI could go by the moniker "Whiz-bang flying shooting thingy#3" and it would not change its performance numbers relative the rest of the plane set one iota, which is what its all about.
You do understand that the most produced Spitfire IX was the LFIX with the Merlin 66, and that the Spitfire XVI is nothing more then a Spit IX with an American Packard Merlin 266 which is the same engine? Do you think folks would say anything if HTC had called the Spitfire LFXVIe that we have in game, a Spitfire LFIXe instead?
There is no difference between the two outside of the engine manufacturer. Put a Packard Merlin 266 in a Spit IX and it becomes a Spitfire XVI and if a Rolls Merlin 66 is put in a Spitfire XVI it becomes a Spitfire IX. They came off the same production lines and the only way to really tell the difference is a serial number or checking the engine data plate.
The AH Mk IX is the early Merlin 61 version. As I said the largest number of IXs produced were LFIXs with Merlin 66s rated for low to medium alt work just like the Merlin 266 LFXVI. The E wing was standard when the XVI was coming off the line, and the IXs coming off the line were also getting E wings at the time. They were both coming off the line with clipped wings at that point too as the airwar was lower and the increased roll rate was an advantage.
-
No plane is shameful.
And there are no dweeb planes either.
(...)
Edited to prevent Skuzzy's ban stick...
lol
-
You have told us this multiple times Gup, and I have told you multiple times that the SpitXVI could go by the moniker "Whiz-bang flying shooting thingy#3" and it would not change its performance numbers relative the rest of the plane set one iota, which is what its all about.
Ahh, well you seemed to be pointing folks to the IX in that post so I wanted to be clear :)
I guess I'm of the idea that I don't care what the other guys flies. And yeah I'd unperk em all if I had my way. I like fighting 16s in my 38G. The Spit drivers tend to stay in and fight.
-
It takes almost 18 seconds for the F4U-1C to complete a 360 degree sustained turned, the XVI does it in under 16 seconds.
The F4U-1 series does not out-zoom the XVI... I have tested it, and BnZs can confirm the results. It's a big myth that our heavier aircraft out-zoom the light aircraft with better power-loading.
At 10k ft the XVI is 4mph faster than the F4U-1C.
A 1k lb bombload is not "decent ordinance?"
1: This only works if you've bled all of the energy off of the F4U-1C and he's not using flaps. If all you're doing is going around in circles though, you might want to change your tactics.
2: Post your test procedures and results.
3: If you're only gonna fight at 10k, fine. If you end up on the deck, the -1C can outrun you even if it doesn't have WEP.
4: No, a 1k loadout can't take down anything other than strats and GV's. I suppose you could hit a town with it, but with only internal fuel if you take 1k of bombs, it doesn't have much loiter time and is not much of an offensive weapon. Even the F4U-1C's ordnance, 2k plus 4 rockets, is one rocket short of being able to kill a VH without extra ammo on target, so even it doesn't always meet minimum requirements for JABO duty.
-
You have told us this multiple times Gup, and I have told you multiple times that the SpitXVI could go by the moniker "Whiz-bang flying shooting thingy#3" and it would not change its performance numbers relative the rest of the plane set one iota, which is what its all about.
The thing is, that in this post:
I can't fault you for that...of course the far and away most produced variant was the SpitIX.
The SpitIX is a gentle, forgiving plane for the novices. More gentle than the XVI. The SpitIX still has good energy performance and turn performance...just not enough performance to be double-superior to half the plane set. It also has the coolest skins.
you seem to be saying that Spitfire fans should be in the Mk IX as it was the most common Spitfire, when that is a gross misrepresentation of reality. That is what Guppy and I were pointing out. There were far more Spitfire LF.Mk VIIIs or Spitfire Mk XVIs built than Merlin 61 powered Spitfire F.Mk IXs.
-
I guess I'm of the idea that I don't care what the other guys flies. And yeah I'd unperk em all if I had my way.
Since you are against the very concept of perking itself, your opinion on whether or not a specific plane should be perked carries less weight. And if I started an "Unperk the Tempest" thread, to be consistent you would have to support that as well.
I think more plane variety could be promoted in the LW MA by lightly perking the Spit16. Its ubiquity tends to make flying "middle-of-the-road" planes to which it is double-superior or close to double-superior far less viable. Very fast planes can avoid it, and very good turners can play the angles game. (Which usually translates to "make it run away). But there are many planes which have moderate speed combined with moderate maneuverability, but the arena is full of SpitXVIs which have moderate speed plus excellent maneuverability plus top-of-the-line E-building properties.
I like fighting 16s in my 38G. The Spit drivers tend to stay in and fight.
Only because they think your P-38G is an easy victim which they will easily out-turn. Been there, done that, as practice leading up to the last Tunisian FSO.
-
The thing is, that in this post:you seem to be saying that Spitfire fans should be in the Mk IX as it was the most common Spitfire, when that is a gross misrepresentation of reality. That is what Guppy and I were pointing out. There were far more Spitfire LF.Mk VIIIs or Spitfire Mk XVIs built than Merlin 61 powered Spitfire F.Mk IXs.
To be perfectly honest, I need to look up the performance numbers on the LFIXe. But my major point, the SpitIX is still a very competitive plane in the LW MA, and the VIII certainly is. Spitfire fans don't "need" the unperked XVIs anymore than F4U fans need the C-Hog or -4 unperked, so the argument fall back to whether or not relative performance justifies perkage, especially as compared to other planes which are already perked.
-
1: This only works if you've bled all of the energy off of the F4U-1C and he's not using flaps. If all you're doing is going around in circles though, you might want to change your tactics.
The sustained turn rate of the XVI is superior to that of the F4U-1c whether or not the C-Hog uses flap, and turn rate is the decisive factor in nose-to-tail turns (think two guys chasing each other in a left turn), whether they are flat or angled. There is a very nice video from Widewing demonstrating how the La5 out-turns the Hog and gains the kill position in sustained nose-to-tail turning, do you think a SpitXIV can't?
In nose-to-nose turns (think flat scissors) radius will be the deciding factor, but the SpitXIVs roll-rate makes it no push-over here if the pilot manages the throttle AND it can use its superior muscle in the vertical to refuse the scissors entirely.
3: If you're only gonna fight at 10k, fine. If you end up on the deck, the -1C can outrun you even if it doesn't have WEP.
Incorrect. The top speed of the SpitXVI on WEP is 342, exactly the *same* as a C-Hog without WEP. And with the SpitXVI's acceleration being what it is, in no way is the C-Hog guaranteed the ability to disengage at will, even with WEP. Further, the C-Hog's top speed of 356mph at WEP on the deck needs qualification. Here is the chart:
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/wiki/images/8/8d/F4u1cspd.jpg)
Note that the speed on the deck is a small "bump" it slows down quite abit above there, not getting back to 356 'till 5K...
Now here is the chart for the SpitfireXVI
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/wiki/images/e/e0/Spit16spd.jpg)
For all intents and purposes the SpitXVI is as fast as the C-Hog in the 10K and below region where it tends to all happen in the MA anyway. The C-Hog has firepower, a smaller turn radius, and a marginal top speed advantage. The Spit has roll-rate, and a huge advantage in climb, acceleration, and turn rate. I think its very defensible to make the claim that these two should be considered equals for the purposes of perking.
-
To be perfectly honest, I need to look up the performance numbers on the LFIXe. But my major point, the SpitIX is still a very competitive plane in the LW MA, and the VIII certainly is. Spitfire fans don't "need" the unperked XVIs anymore than F4U fans need the C-Hog or -4 unperked, so the argument fall back to whether or not relative performance justifies perkage, especially as compared to other planes which are already perked.
Performance numbers on the LFIXe and LFXVIe are identical. It's the same bird. There were a small number of LFXVIe with full span wings too just as there were many LFIXes with clipped wings in 44-45.
Personally I believe the VIII is the better of the 2 stage Merlin Spits in AH.
The other part for me I guess, is that as long as I've played flight sims, going back to AW in 96 there has been a genaric Spit whine. It's always the one that the scenario guys tend to have to leave out or limit as the LW guys would get all bent out of shape about it.
Whats the difference in the end if the guy is flying a 16, 9, 8 5 or 14?
I just don't see the 16 as any kind of arena unbalancing kind of bird. And getting folks to fly less then uber birds is a bit like pulling teeth. Do we then tell the 109K drivers they can only fly G6s?
I'd rather have them enjoy what they fly and feel confident enough to fight.
-
I think more plane variety could be promoted in the LW MA by lightly perking the Spit16. Its ubiquity tends to make flying "middle-of-the-road" planes to which it is double-superior or close to double-superior far less viable.
Here you are with this nonsense again.
If "ubiquity" is what rates a perk, the Pony is the first in line, not the XVI.
-
To be perfectly honest, I need to look up the performance numbers on the LFIXe. But my major point, the SpitIX is still a very competitive plane in the LW MA, and the VIII certainly is. Spitfire fans don't "need" the unperked XVIs anymore than F4U fans need the C-Hog or -4 unperked, so the argument fall back to whether or not relative performance justifies perkage, especially as compared to other planes which are already perked.
The IX is only competitive if you don't mind almost everything else being able to run away from you at will as its top deck speed on WEP is an anemic 321mph while also having on middling acceleration/climb rate, poor range and being very fragile. Personally, I prefer the Mk VIII, but it is really the Mk XVI that has identical performance to the LF.Mk IX that was the most common Spitfire IX. Why should Spitfire fans have to use a fighter from mid-1942 against late 1944/early 1945 monsters?
As to your perk reference, Spitfire fans already have a perked Spitfire, the Mk XIV, and look at the stunning usage and success numbers for that thing.
-
To be perfectly honest, I need to look up the performance numbers on the LFIXe. But my major point, the SpitIX is still a very competitive plane in the LW MA, and the VIII certainly is. Spitfire fans don't "need" the unperked XVIs anymore than F4U fans need the C-Hog or -4 unperked, so the argument fall back to whether or not relative performance justifies perkage, especially as compared to other planes which are already perked.
To clarifiy. I do get what you are trying to say, but it will come down to trying to get folks to fly less then uber birds. At a certain point folks don't want to do it.
Look at EW, MW LW numbers. Folks want the latest and greatest.
What would happen if we actually broke it down by years. 39-mid 41 arena. Late 41 to 42 arena. 1943 to mid 44 arena. Late 44-45 arena. Where do you suppose the majority of players would be?
I'm afraid I might not have many with me in the 43-mid 44 arena, and my 38G was long gone for the late 44-45
Look at the folks who fly less then uber birds. They do it for the history, or the challenge. But their numbers are minimal compared to the typical MA player who is much more concerned with other things besides that kind of challenge.
-
Here you are with this nonsense again.
If "ubiquity" is what rates a perk, the Pony is the first in line, not the XVI.
The Pony is not double-superior to anything except the 190As and Fs. Its out-standing strength is top speed, where it is exceeded by the D9, 109K4, and La7. The latter two out-turn the P-51 as well. It is severely challenged by the Typhoon (actually, Typhoon is faster down low) which also turns slightly better and the P-47N (practically neck and neck with the Pony at WEP.), which also its equal in maneuverability. It is a poor angles fighter in general. Compared to the set, as far as I know the only fighters which it both out-runs and out-turns are the 190 A-5, A-8, and F-8, and the A-5 can give it a run for its money in a maneuvering fight. Its firepower is about as average as it gets, and its climb and acceleration also leave something to be desired.
You are in fact the one arguing from a position of ignorance and thus spewing nonsense.
-
Just throwing in my two cents here. Well first off, I respect spitdweebs both in the game and the ones who flew it back in WW2. In regarding the game, it is awesome plane with skilled pilot, either with that plane or someone who is skilled in general, its deadly big time. I agree with anyone who likes whatever plane he or she likes the best, by all means fly and fight the way best suited for their style of play. As for perking the 16, I think the chances of them perking that is about as equal as the chances of upgrading the pony D; NADA , but I've accepted both and sticking to my beloved pony D.
-
Why should Spitfire fans have to use a fighter from mid-1942 against late 1944/early 1945 monsters?
Most of these unperked late-war "monsters" you speak of have top speed as their *only* real advantage against the XVI, and for many that is not even the case. For instance, the P-38L, 343mph on the deck, P-47D-40, 340mph on the deck, 190 A-8, 349mph on the deck. Speed margins either non-existent or too narrow to give any practical ability to disengage from a SpitXVI with closure on you. As compared to the other so-called LW "monsters", many, if not most Mid-War planes actually perform better in maneuvering...the exception here being the SpitXVI, whose ubiquity I argue kills the viability of planes with "mid-war"-ish combinations of decent speed and decent maneuverability. The SpitXVI and La7 are the "monsters of all monsters" amongst the unperked. The latter at least is somewhat self-regulated by fuel range and horrible ballistics.
As to your perk reference, Spitfire fans already have a perked Spitfire, the Mk XIV, and look at the stunning usage and success numbers for that thing.
The SpitXIV quite possibly deserves a lower perk price, what is your point? The XVI is arguably the better plane for the MA.
I propose the VIII remain unperked, because although its performance is superficially similar to the XVI's, there are lots of little points where it is inferior, especially roll-rate at high speed, which I think add up.
Oh, btw, before we go any further, I don't hate Spitfires, don't call people flying Spitfires nasty names (the tool is there free for anyone to use...), fly Spitfires in the MA myself, grew up reading about the Battle of Britain, *and* I have a copy of "Spitfire", 1942 with David Niven and Leslie Howard, which I have watched many times and could go into my video collection and put my hands on right now.
-
blah blah blah
Whatever claims you want to make, the fact remians the Pony sees more use than the XVI.
Therefore, the XVI is not "overused."
Last tour, the Pony had a higher overall K/D ratio than the XVI.
Therefore, the XVI is not "unbalancing."
There is NOTHING that would be gained by perking the XVI, other than encouraging MORE concentration of use in the Pony, Nik and/or LA. Then you would in all likelihood whine about that, too.
-
The Pony is not double-superior to anything except the 190As and Fs. Its out-standing strength is top speed, where it is exceeded by the D9, 109K4, and La7. The latter two out-turn the P-51 as well. It is severely challenged by the Typhoon (actually, Typhoon is faster down low) which also turns slightly better and the P-47N (practically neck and neck with the Pony at WEP.), which also its equal in maneuverability. It is a poor angles fighter in general. Compared to the set, as far as I know the only fighters which it both out-runs and out-turns are the 190 A-5, A-8, and F-8, and the A-5 can give it a run for its money in a maneuvering fight. Its firepower is about as average as it gets, and its climb and acceleration also leave something to be desired.
You are in fact the one arguing from a position of ignorance and thus spewing nonsense.
I'm assuming the P51D is your bird then? Look at it from the perspective of having someone take away your bird. You can argue against it, just as I can argue against perking Spit 16s.
A lot of guys love the 51D. I can't see taking it away from them because it doesn't fit with my view of the AH world. And I can't see taking away the Spit 16 for the very same reason. I could argue that you should fly the B pony instead of the D just as the argument can be made for the 8 v the 16. They are close enough, but not quite the same.
But I won't because I'd rather have folks flying what they want to fly whatever their reasons :)
-
I'm not making claims, I am stating facts about performance as modeled in the game. You are the one who can't bring anything to the table but an ill-defined and vague word like "unbalancing" and personal rancor.
The SpitXVI has a lower k/d ratio only because it sees enormous use from the newest of the new AND enormous use from players at all levels in desperate situations, like base defense. Whereas the P-51D is typically used in a very "safe" hit and run manner from position of advantage. (Don't jump on me please Pony guys, you know what I say is true.) I'd like to see K/T numbers for the XVI vs. the P-51, as I consider kills/time a far more telling look into a plane's true effectiveness.
There is NOTHING that would be gained by perking the XVI, other than encouraging MORE concentration of use in the Pony, Nik and/or LA. Then you would in all likelihood whine about that, too.
Both the unmaneuverable Pony and the 325mph N1K fail to be double-superior to as much of the set as does the SpitXVI. The La7 is a bit of a problem and also deserves a light perk price IMO because of the number of planes it is double-superior to, but as I say, the La is already curtailed by the most severe lack of fuel range in the set, outside of the 163
-
You would be incorrect in that assumption Gupp. I put a little time in it every tour, but I fly a wide variety. I lean more towards the 47s and 190s as "all time favorites". In fact, I believe that if the P-51D's maneuvering performance were improved just abit to fall more in-line with what history says its relative abilities were, it would deserve perking. I believe the business viability or lack thereof of perking THE most popular American plane is one reason why HTC is reluctant to take a look at the P-51's turn performance in-game.
The rest of your argument is invalid IF we accept the concept of some planes being perked. You do not apparently, fine, just say "I don't believe ANY planes should be perked" and have done. If we do accept that some planes should be perked in the LW MA, then saying "But the SpitVIII isn't quite the same as the SpitXIV" is like saying "But the F4U-1A isn't QUITE the same as the F4U-4".
I'm assuming the P51D is your bird then? Look at it from the perspective of having someone take away your bird. You can argue against it, just as I can argue against perking Spit 16s.
A lot of guys love the 51D. I can't see taking it away from them because it doesn't fit with my view of the AH world. And I can't see taking away the Spit 16 for the very same reason. I could argue that you should fly the B pony instead of the D just as the argument can be made for the 8 v the 16. They are close enough, but not quite the same.
But I won't because I'd rather have folks flying what they want to fly whatever their reasons :)
-
Define "unbalancing."
-
I'm not making claims, I am stating facts about performance as modeled in the game. You are the one who can't bring anything to the table but an ill-defined and vague word like "unbalancing" and personal rancor.
You are not stating facts, you are stating opinions and feelings while trying to pass them off as facts.
The Spitfire Mk XVI can hardly be ubiquitous when it has less than 10% of the kills, even assuming the K/T is favorable. Is it common? Yes. You have failed to show how being common means it should be taken away from the newer players, because that is all a low perk cost will do. Frankly, the argument that it helps HTC get new paying subscribers sounds pretty likely and that is a very important consideration given the fact that it isn't breaking the game.
If your goal is to get people to use other aircraft, then you are going to have to perk a whole bunch more besides the Mk XVI.
-
You would be incorrect in that assumption Gupp. I put a little time in it every tour, but I fly a wide variety. I lean more towards the 47s and 190s as "all time favorites". In fact, I believe that if the P-51D's maneuvering performance were improved just abit to fall more in-line with what history says its relative abilities were, it would deserve perking. I believe the business viability or lack thereof of perking THE most popular American plane is one reason why HTC is reluctant to take a look at the P-51's turn performance in-game.
The rest of your argument is invalid IF we accept the concept of some planes being perked. You do not apparently, fine, just say "I don't believe ANY planes should be perked" and have done. If we do accept that some planes should be perked in the LW MA, then saying "But the SpitVIII isn't quite the same as the SpitXIV" is like saying "But the F4U-1A isn't QUITE the same as the F4U-4".
Just asking. Do you believe the difference between the VIII and the XVI is the same as between a 1 Hog and a 4 Hog?
If you do, then I can accept your argument. I don't see that kind of difference in the Spits by any means as they are engined the same, with the VIII being a bit heavier due to extra fuel in the wing leading edges, the retractable tail wheel and the full span wings.
-
:lol
Since you seem to be stuck on your own way of thinking instead of seeing this from an objective perspective, I'll try a different line . . .
In any situation, it is the person asking for change who has the responsibility to show #1) why change is needed and #2) that the proposed change would be better than the status quo.
You have done neither.
There is no evidence change is needed because #1) the plane is not overused and #2) the plane is not dominant as shown by the kill stats.
You have also offered no benefit that would be had by perking the aircraft other than #1) you would see less of them (which is not considered a "benefit" to many) and #2) it would make BnZ feel better.
In fact, there is every likelihood there would be negative consequences of perking the aircraft, which are #1) extreme complaining by anyone who loves the aircraft #2) denying the "easymode ride" to new players (not that I particulary buy that argument, but you seem to cling to it) thus lowering retention for HTC and #3) further concentration of use in already high-use aircraft such as the Pony/Nik/whatever i.e. limiting the very variety of aircraft encountered (which is the opposite of what you claim you want to see).
-
Define "unbalancing."
That is a fair request, but not easily answered. Best you can say is "you would know it if you saw it."
For instance, last month's tour (Usage=Kills+deaths, universe is fighters only):
Model Usage K/D Ratio
P-51D 10.7% 1.1523
SpitXVI 8.7% 1.0839
N1K2 5.3% 1.1519
F4U-1D 4.4% 0.7207
Typh 3.8% 1.4805
La-7 3.8% 1.0694
Nothing looks "unbalanced." No plane dominates "usage" or has extraordinary K/D ratios. If anything, this is actually becoming more unbalanced than it was in the past when the Pony, Spixteen, Nik and LA-7 had near-equal usage.
This is a hypothetical example of what I would consider to be an "unbalanced" situation, say if the Tempest was unperked:
Model Usage K/D Ratio
Temp 24.8% 1.8805
P-51D 5.2% 0.8523
SpitXVI 5.0% 0.8395
N1K2 3.3% 0.9200
F4U-1D 2.4% 0.5207
La-7 2.1% 1.0694
In this case, the Temp is overused and overpowering all the opposition. One of four planes you meet tends to be a Temp. The only reason its K/D ratio isn't higher is because of all the Temp vs. Temp fights. This would indicate a perk-worthy aircraft IMO.
Last tour, the only plane that approaches the "unbalanced" hypothetical unperked Temp scenario is the Pony, not the Spixteen or LA-7, which always seem to be the targets of "perk-it" whines.
-
Out of curiosity, does this weed out losses to ground fire? The F4U-1D is going to see much more usage as a bomb truck than the others, and those losses would skew the results.
-
Out of curiosity, does this weed out losses to ground fire? The F4U-1D is going to see much more usage as a bomb truck than the others, and those losses would skew the results.
No, they are total kills + deaths.
If you go to the kill stats page (old one, not sure how to do this on the new one) you can select the model vs. model option and use the F4U-1D vs. All Models to get your answer.
-
:rofl
Had to look . . .
Spitfire Mk XVI has 2580 Kills of P-51D
P-51D has 2871 Kills of Spitfire Mk XVI
Yep, time to perk the Pony!
:rofl
-
The pony WAS the greatest aircraft of WW2, ya know!
:noid
-
The pony WAS the greatest aircraft of WW2, ya know!
:noid
Yeah but the spitfire is ah lookah ;) Like someone said. Blame the pilot not the plane. :aok
-
The %sorties argument does not work. Here is why:
Some apparently want a plane to constitute 20% of all sorties before it can be perked. However, the only plane that ever achieved that was the C-Hog back when the game was young and the plane set was much less varied. I believe that if you today unperked the C-Hog it would not capture 20%. In fact, it is mathematically demonstrable that it is very unlikely for all the currently perked planes to capture 1/5 of the MA "market share" ever again. Tempest, F4U-4, C-Hog, 262, SpitXIV (leaving off the 163 because it is not available arena-wide.)...five planes, each with a lot going for them. If the whole MA flew ONLY them, in equal numbers, then they would have 20% of use apiece. If they were NOT flown in equal numbers, then one of them would fall below the 20% benchmark and thus would deserve to be unperked...right? And of course, not everyone in the MA would actually choose one of these five all the time, so the chances of all five currently perked fighters consistently achieving the magic 20% of all sorties would be nil. I would be surprised if even the Tempest alone managed a consistent 20%. It would be interesting to check use stats for the DA lake if possible. Just off the top of my head, I don't think the crowd is typically anymore than 50% perk rides, probably less.
So since use stats are useless, what are we left with? The cold hard performance numbers of the plane relative the rest of the set, numbers which a great many people opining on this thread appear to have been ignorant of. Most especially, if an airplane's numbers show it to be double-superior to very large chunks of the plane set under typical MA conditions, that to me seems like a far better argument for perking. Far better indeed than notion that if, say the P-40B, achieved a certain use benchmark it would need to be perked.
I do not think perking the SpitXVI would "force" people into fly any plane, especially the Pony, an airplane inferior to the SpitXVI in every respect except top speed and requiring a totally different style and mindset.
Rather, I think it would *allow* people to fly a wider variety of middling-performance aircraft without eventually getting frustrated and saying "Screw this, I'm taking up a Spit!", or just grabbing one the really fast b'n'z planes and avoiding committed engagements with SpitXVIs around.
-
The %sorties argument does not work. Here is why:
Some apparently want a plane to constitute 20% of all sorties before it can be perked. However, the only plane that ever achieved that was apparently the C-Hog back when the game was young and the plane set was much less varied. I believe that if you unperked everything that would not happen. In fact, it is mathematically demonstrable that it is very unlikely for all the currently perked planes to capture 1/5 of the MA "market share" ever again. Tempest, F4U-4, C-Hog, 262, SpitXIV (leaving off the 163 because it is not available arena-wide.)...five planes, each with a lot going for them. If the whole MA flew ONLY them, in equal numbers, then they would have 20% of use apiece. If they were NOT flown in equal numbers, then one of them would fall below the 20% benchmark and thus would deserve to be unperked...right? And of course, not everyone in the MA would actually choose one of these five all the time, so the chances of all five currently perked airplanes consistently achieving the magic 20% of all sorties would be nil. I would be surprised if even the Tempest alone managed a consistent 20%. It would be interesting to check use stats for the DA lake if possible. Just off the top of my head, I don't think the crowd is typically anymore than 50% perk rides, probably less.
So since use stats are useless, what are we left with? The cold hard performance numbers of the plane relative the rest of the set, numbers which a great many people opining on this thread appear to have been ignorant of. Most especially, if an airplane's numbers show it to be double-superior to very large chunks of the plane set under typical MA conditions, that to me seems like a far better argument for perking. Far better indeed than notion that if, say the P-40B, achieved a certain use benchmark it would need to be perked.
I do not think perking the SpitXVI would "force" people into fly any plane, especially the Pony, an airplane inferior to the SpitXVI in every respect except top speed and requiring a totally different style and mindset.
Rather, I think it would *allow* people to fly a wider variety of middling-performance aircraft without eventually getting frustrated and saying "Screw this, I'm taking up a Spit!", or just grabbing one the really fast b'n'z planes and avoiding committed engagements with SpitXVIs around.
Spend some time at Dweed Lake in the DA. (no perks there so a good example of what you want)
Pay attention to how many Tempest and Chogs you see and the general way they are used/flown.
-
Tempests, C-Hogs, 4-Hogs and Ponies are the predominant rides. Most of them coming in from about 17k or higher (couple guys in particular I've seen called out on that, too). Most of them make a couple BnZ passes through to pick up their two kills, then run like hell if they encounter a co-alt and e con.
-
Spend some time at Dweed Lake in the DA. (no perks there so a good example of what you want)
Pay attention to how many Tempest and Chogs you see and the general way they are used/flown.
I've spent quite a bit of time there. The Tempest, Chog, and F4U-4 are very popular, however, just from personal observation, I don't see their aggregate use as being any higher than 50%. They would have to comprise at least 60% of all sorties flown for each to reach the magic 20% of use mark, and even at that, if one of them were more popular than the others, thus taking a bit of the "market share", it would knock the other two below the magic 20% figure. Any person who thinks about it will realize that the 20% figure is an impossible standard to meet with today's plane variety and the number of die-hards who only fly in their favorite types.
-
BnZs is right. I've mentioned something similar before. Back when "20%" was the claim there were less than 1/3 the fighters we have currently in-game. Folks don't realize how many of the planes in the plane list are NEW.
-
You want the Mk XVI perked, you need to justify it. Nobody has ever made a valid argument for it yet. Saying it is "double plus good" is just BS hyperbole.
-
You want the Mk XVI perked, you need to justify it. Nobody has ever made a valid argument for it yet. Saying it is "double plus good" is just BS hyperbole.
I prefer the spit VIII. Don't know why, just do.
-
Personally I prefer the spit V, with the IX a close 2nd - at the end of the day, the newbs need to have a plane they have a chance of getting kills in. If a more experienced player wants to use the XVI, is it that much of a big deal?
Is it a good bird - oh yes. I rarely if ever fly it - which, as a brit, is a bit odd, but my personal preference is as above.
Most of the time I'm on, I see a lot of bnz planes, always higher than me, making a pass then hauling it for all their worth - makes for interesting fights at times.
ymmv,
Wurzel
-
You want the Mk XVI perked, you need to justify it. Nobody has ever made a valid argument for it yet. Saying it is "double plus good" is just BS hyperbole.
We are not familiar with the term "double-superior"? ?????
As used today, it generally means one fighter aircraft is superior to another in both thrust/weight ratio and wing-loading (more properly: lift-loading). IOW superior in both E-fighting and Angles fighting capacity. If I were using it in this sense, the SpitXVI would be indeed be double-superior to a great many planes in the set.
However, I am using the term somewhat more loosely here to indicate airplanes which are less maneuverable than the SpitXVI AND which are slower or lack the sufficient speed margin to be able to disengage reliably. This slight bending of definitions still leaves the XVI superior to a great deal of the plane set. In doing this, I have generously allowed your "side" of this debate to give the ability to simply run away from the SpitXVI more importance than it perhaps deserves. One does not control airspace by running away.
I'm not sure what to make of someone who is innocent of such common lingo as "double-superior" nonetheless choosing to argue with me on a matter of aircraft performance. And people arguing with me about the perkability of the XVI who do not even know its top speed at sea-level, turn-rate, etc, that is just laughable.
-
That is a fair request, but not easily answered. Best you can say is "you would know it if you saw it."
So you can only give me an example of an unbalancing airplane, and not actually tell me what "unbalancing" is itself. Are we in a Socratic dialogue? :lol
In the past, I have suggested that ENY/Perks be based on K/D ratios and, or, use, and the suggestion was roundly rejected. Ultimately, the rejection is correct: K/D ratios are easily skewed by who uses an airplane, e.g. P-38J, and popularity is skewed by factors other than performance, e.g. P-51D.
We are still without a working definition of "unbalancing," but the term is used all of the time to say this should be perked, and that not. It is all ad-hoc.
My only reason for saying the XVI should be perked is that the F4U-1C is perked. They are different aircraft, no doubt, but their strengths balance out, even to the slight advantage of the XVI. But I wouldn't care if we unperked the F4U-1C. I don't think it would cause armageddon in the main arena, and at least it would be a step toward consistency and I could stop saying the XVI should be perked. ;)
You want the Mk XVI perked, you need to justify it. Nobody has ever made a valid argument for it yet. Saying it is "double plus good" is just BS hyperbole.
I've given a valid argument that you simply ignored. But here it is, super simple:
The F4U-1C is perked.
The XVI is as good as the F4U-1C.
Aircraft of similar performance should both be perked, or not perked (fairness principle)
Therefore the XVI should be perked, or the F4U-1C should be unperked.
QED.
-
Tempests, C-Hogs, 4-Hogs and Ponies are the predominant rides. Most of them coming in from about 17k or higher (couple guys in particular I've seen called out on that, too). Most of them make a couple BnZ passes through to pick up their two kills, then run like hell if they encounter a co-alt and e con.
The number of Ponies is clearly irrelevant to the point I was making, as they are unperked in the MA as well. In my observation, I think they are a little less common in the DA lake than the MA, being what we call "double-inferior" :D to the omnipresent Temps and F4U-4s.
-
That is a fair request, but not easily answered. Best you can say is "you would know it if you saw it."
For instance, last month's tour (Usage=Kills+deaths, universe is fighters only):
Model K/D Ratio
P-51D 1.1523
Sorry about that. :devil
-
dont know where you are coming from with that comment oldman.
if a long term player was flying a Spit so what???
What makes me so :mad: :mad: :mad: about these anti spit threads is all of the haters thinking spit drivers can't fly anything else and use that as an excuse for their obvious lack of ACM ability to be able to defeat it.
If you can fly a spit at total pwnage level (see Kazaa) then you have no place to comment on who should or shouldnt be flying it.
Good day to you sir!
And good day to you!
I suspect you really do know where I'm coming from. The Spit (and here I mean the 8, 9 and 16) is an easy plane to fly and to get kills with. Its climb and maneuverability are not much worse than a Zeke, it's guns are not much worse than a FW 190A8, it doesn't stall unless you're trying to stall, and it's reasonably fast. I think it's a great plane for people to learn on. But once you've learned how to fly and fight, it seems to me that you should move on to something more challenging (which is just about any other fighter), if only from personal pride. Even kids move on from t-ball.
As Akak and others have pointed out, there's no particular reason why I should care what other people are flying, and I certainly don't mean to imply that there should be restrictions on free choice. I've always mentally excluded Brits and Canadians from the Spitfire equation because the plane is almost an article of faith for them, but I have real trouble respecting a non-English Commonwealth vet who flys the poster queen of easy-mode airplanes.
Simple as that, really.
- oldman
-
Couple years ago when I first started, the whine was directed to LAs.
Seems to be now a days that you see is majority of spit16. I personaly dont have any feelings either way and just find them challenging to get in your gunsight, but once you do, they are fragile birds. As far as the Tempest..its my favorite ride, but please dont unperk it. Lute is right..your gonna have the same mess as in the DA which is why I choose not to fly there anymore.
Im just confused about the D9 having such a high perk value, IMO..I would have it set the same as a pony.
-
Just for sake of convo here. What do you think would happen if both the 16 and the pony would set to be perked plane?
I think more people would fly the LAs, Temps, F4u4, Spit14s C-hog., etc etc?
(I always forget what other corsiar is perked)
-
The F4U-1C is perked.
True.
The XVI is as good as the F4U-1C.
False.
Aircraft of similar performance should both be perked, or not perked (fairness principle)
True.
Therefore the XVI should be perked, or the F4U-1C should be unperked.
QED.
False, due to the Mk XVI not being as good as the F4U-1C.
-
True.
False.
False.
True.
True.
False.
False, due to the Mk XVI not being as good as the F4U-1C.
True, due to the MkXVI possibly being as good as the F4U-1C.
See? I can do that too.
How do people define "as good" or "unbalancing?" It's used very often and when evidence is given that an a/c is very good in most aspects, someone will just say "you didn't give any evidence that it is unbalancing." People will use this term the way they want to fit their agenda.
I know I have been one to be frustrated by the XVI, and a few times I've lost my cool and spoke my mind on 200 about it, and I apologize for that. However, it is incredibly frustrating to encounter this aircraft at a disadvantage, co-e, or even sometimes at an advantage. This aircraft can do a 180 degree turn onto your six while maintaining and regaining speed quickly enough to get 20mm hits in you, possibly killing you. You can't go vertical as it will out climb you and you can't dive because it dives well enough for long enough to kill you. So you start turning; in a flat turn it out turns most, in scissors you can sometimes get behind it briefly (not very useful for non-cannon birds), but once you do, it goes vertical and back on your six. The Spit XVI has at least one advantage over every aircraft in this game.
Does it deserve a perk? No one can seem to have a civil conversation about this without taking personal stabs at those producing information for either side. Why people take this topic so personally I could never tell you. Personally I left the Spits because I was looking for a challenge, but not everyone wants a challenge and just likes the thought of flying a Spitfire. I don't really care, but if you're saying that the Spitfire Mk XVI isn't an outstanding overall performing aircraft in this game, then your really not being honest with yourself.
-
Just for sake of convo here. What do you think would happen if both the 16 and the pony would set to be perked plane?
I think more people would fly the LAs, Temps, F4u4, Spit14s C-hog., etc etc?
(I always forget what other corsiar is perked)
From the 5 planes you mention, 4 are perked ;)
Most likely to see an increase: N1K, Spit 8&9, to a lesser extend La-7
But this will never happen. The 16 won't get perked. :)
-
I've spent quite a bit of time there. The Tempest, Chog, and F4U-4 are very popular, however, just from personal observation, I don't see their aggregate use as being any higher than 50%. They would have to comprise at least 60% of all sorties flown for each to reach the magic 20% of use mark, and even at that, if one of them were more popular than the others, thus taking a bit of the "market share", it would knock the other two below the magic 20% figure. Any person who thinks about it will realize that the 20% figure is an impossible standard to meet with today's plane variety and the number of die-hards who only fly in their favorite types.
You would only need one of these at over that "20%" mark. Take it that first say the Tempest was at 22% therefore making it mandated to be perked, the day after that is perked then the use of the next lowest plane becomes higher than this figure thus becoming perked itself. Not saying it would happen or that your wrong just showing another way of looking at it.
-
I think more plane variety could be promoted in the LW MA by lightly perking the Spit16. Its ubiquity tends to make flying "middle-of-the-road" planes to which it is double-superior or close to double-superior far less viable. Very fast planes can avoid it, and very good turners can play the angles game. (Which usually translates to "make it run away). But there are many planes which have moderate speed combined with moderate maneuverability, but the arena is full of SpitXVIs which have moderate speed plus excellent maneuverability plus top-of-the-line E-building properties.
Well looking at the stats over the last 5-6 tours, the Pony (based on number of deaths) is the most popular plane, so if you want variety - perk that.
Perking the XVI would force them into the VIII, then you perk that for the same reasons!
Totally in agreement with Dan on this - If it had been called the LF IXe I doubt we would having half of these discussions. In all fact based on its FTH it IS an LF IXe. (the Merlin 266 had a 1000ft higher FTH)
-
Well looking at the stats over the last 5-6 tours, the Pony (based on number of deaths) is the most popular plane, so if you want variety - perk that.
Perking the XVI would force them into the VIII, then you perk that for the same reasons!
Totally in agreement with Dan on this - If it had been called the LF IXe I doubt we would having half of these discussions. In all fact based on its FTH it IS an LF IXe. (the Merlin 266 had a 1000ft higher FTH)
The Pony's popularity is purely artificial, and not based on performance. If the Pony were not The Most Popular American Plane Ever, if it were the "Me-209" or something, I doubt it's use would exceed that of the D9. It does not effect the viability of other rides in the MA too much, because nearly everything that cannot outrun the thing is more maneuverable.
And for the 1,123,456 time, the name given to the Spixteen does not change its performance numbers.
-
In my opinion the Spitfire Mk.XVI is a far better A/C then the F4U-1C. (edit A2A)
Also you couldn’t perk the Spitfire Mk.XVI without perking the Mk.VIII, the performance of both A/C are almost identical. Well apart from the Mk.XVI's higher roll rate of course.
Now to the question of perking the above two planes or just the Mk.XVI alone, I’ll keep that answer to myself.
-
In my opinion the Spitfire Mk.XVI is a far better A/C then the F4U-1C.
Also you couldn’t perk the Spitfire Mk.XVI without perking the Mk.VIII, the performance of both A/C are almost identical. Well apart from the Mk.XVI's higher roll rate of course.
Now to the question of perking the above two planes or just the Mk.XVI alone, I’ll keep that answer to myself.
Something that should be brought up: Except for firepower, the C-Hog is the worst Hog in the lot.
And perking the XVI does *not* mean the VIII has to be perked. The VIII's sluggish rate of roll, especially at high speeds, by itself presents a notable exploitable weakness that does not exist with the XVI.
-
Karnak, definition of a valid argument: an argument is valid if and only if the truth of its premises entail the truth its conclusion.
Whether or not an argument is valid is independent of whether or not its premises or conclusion are true.In my opinion the Spitfire Mk.XVI is a far better A/C then the F4U-1C.
Also you couldn’t perk the Spitfire Mk.XVI without perking the Mk.VIII, the performance of both A/C are almost identical. Well apart from the Mk.XVI's higher roll rate of course.
Well, thank you! But I have disagree about the VIII: its high speed roll rate is an achilles heel. It is a little slower than the XVI, it accelerates worse, has a smaller payload, has reduced firepower, etc. I don't know if you remember my aircraft ranking tables, but the La-7 is always ahead of the VIII unless I weight high altitude performance.
-
I've given a valid argument that you simply ignored. But here it is, super simple:
The F4U-1C is perked.
The XVI is as good as the F4U-1C.
Aircraft of similar performance should both be perked, or not perked (fairness principle)
Therefore the XVI should be perked, or the F4U-1C should be unperked.
QED.
The F4U-1c can launch from a CV.
The F4U-1c can carry @ 2,500lbs worth of ord.
The F4U-1c has the best guns setup in the game.
The F4U-1c has plenty of ammo for said guns.
The F4U-1c has the option of two drop tanks giving it a good range.
The F4U-1c is as fast or faster than the Spitfire Mk.XVI
The F4U-1c will turn with the Spitfire Mk.XVI with flaps out.
The F4U-1c handles better at stall speeds than the Spitfire Mk.XVI
The Spitfire Mk.XVI climbs better than the F4U-1c.
The Spitfire Mk.XVI will out accelerate the F4U-1c.
The Spitfire Mk.XVI turns better without flaps.
Looking at the above list, I don't see the Spitfire Mk.XVI being "as good" as the F4U-1c. Not even close.
The Chog is a monster. The Mk.XVI is just "good".
And perking the XVI does *not* mean the VIII has to be perked. The VIII's sluggish rate of roll, especially at high speeds, by itself presents a notable exploitable weakness that does not exist with the XVI.
Spitfire Mk.XVI has a better roll rate.
Spitfire Mk.XVI carries more ord.
Spitfire Mk.VIII turns/handles better at low speed.
Spitfire Mk.VIII has longer legs.
Those two offset each other in my opinion so in MY mind, they are indeed very similar/balanced.
I would count the longer legs of the VIII as much more important than the bomb carrying capacity. If you are using a Spitfire as a bomb hauler, you are using it wrong. I also value the low speed handling of the 8 as equal to, or more important than the roll of the 16. When in a spit you will be fighting slow more than you are rolling fast. (for me)
The ONLY argument for the Spitfire Mk.XVI's superiority is the two .50 cal's vs. four .303's machine guns.
I personally don't see it as a huge advantage. If I only use mg ammo in both planes, I tend to only be able to get 2 or so with either. With the smaller ammo loadout on the 16 you tend to run out of mg's @ when you run out of cannons.
In the 8 when I run out of cannons, I at least have some .303's left for my ride home in case I get into a fight and are usually good for one more kill (or 2).
The strength and weaknesses of the 16 vs. 8 are very balanced. If you perk one, you would have to perk the other.
I prefer the VIII over the 16. Always have. When I am flying a Spit I am going to be slow and turning and the 8 is just superiour in a knife fight. I also don't like the limited range of the 16, so if I fly one, it is usually defending. For attacking I will take the 8.
-
That was my point. You stated the Spitfire Mk XVI was as good as the F4U-1C and gave no evidence of such. As it happens, it isn't as good, though it is very good.
It isn't as good because it lacks the intant kill firepower, isn't as durable and cannot be taken off of CVs.
You people keep stating that the P-51's popularity magically doesn't count due to its fame while ignoring that the Spitfire is the most famous WWII aircraft of all. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Not one valid reason for perking it has ever been given, The only reasons ever given are a varient of "I don't like it" and "I don't like Spitfires."
-
consistent calls for the XVI to be perked, none for the P-51D, despite the usage stats. cant help feeling that if it was called eg. the Grumman P-16 we wouldnt see any calls for its perk.
I think the perception of the spits ability is also skewed by players who spend alot of time duelling, rather than in the MA - the qualities required for success in each are very different. in the MA, landing kills requires the ability to egress successfully. things like endurance, lots of WEP and ruggedness play a critical role here, and are all weak areas for the spit.
PS I prefer the VIII for the same reasons as lute :aok
-
You forgot that the SpitXVI has a much better sustained turn rate than the F4UC, or any other unperked F4UC. (With or without the use of flaps). On top of this, according to Mosq's data, the full flaps radius of the SpitXVI is 450 feet, compared to the F4U-1C's 443! Wow,that is a *massive* difference there!
Turn rate *WINS* nose-to-tail turning fights, and this is the most intuitive and most common kind of turning fight you see. Extremely tight turn radius against something with the climb rate of the SpitXVI is basically defensive...he doesn't HAVE to accept an invitation to the scissors at all, he can just muscle up into the vertical. Don't let the fact that most SpitXVIs are horribly piloted obscure what it represents as an air superiority fighter.
And it is ludicrous to dismiss roll rate the way you have. An otherwise inferior fighter with good high-speed roll rate can conceivably use this to get the VIII out-of-plane for either an overshoot or enough separation to escape. Such is not the case with the SpitXVI. Roll rate is just as important defensively. A SpitVIII is that much less likely to avoid a guns pass because it cannot roll into an evasive nearly as quickly. The minute difference the VIII possesses in rate and radius of turn is not nearly so important in the MA as roll rate.
The F4U-1c can launch from a CV.
The F4U-1c can carry @ 2,500lbs worth of ord.
The F4U-1c has the best guns setup in the game.
The F4U-1c has plenty of ammo for said guns.
The F4U-1c has the option of two drop tanks giving it a good range.
The F4U-1c is as fast or faster than the Spitfire Mk.XVI
The F4U-1c will turn with the Spitfire Mk.XVI with flaps out.
The F4U-1c handles better at stall speeds than the Spitfire Mk.XVI
The Spitfire Mk.XVI climbs better than the F4U-1c.
The Spitfire Mk.XVI will out accelerate the F4U-1c.
The Spitfire Mk.XVI turns better without flaps.
Looking at the above list, I don't see the Spitfire Mk.XVI being "as good" as the F4U-1c. Not even close.
The Chog is a monster. The Mk.XVI is just "good".
Spitfire Mk.XVI has a better roll rate.
Spitfire Mk.XVI carries more ord.
Spitfire Mk.VIII turns/handles better at low speed.
Spitfire Mk.VIII has longer legs.
Those two offset each other in my opinion so in MY mind, they are indeed very similar/balanced.
I would count the longer legs of the VIII as much more important than the bomb carrying capacity. If you are using a Spitfire as a bomb hauler, you are using it wrong. I also value the low speed handling of the 8 as equal to, or more important than the roll of the 16. When in a spit you will be fighting slow more than you are rolling fast. (for me)
The ONLY argument for the Spitfire Mk.XVI's superiority is the two .50 cal's vs. four .303's machine guns.
I personally don't see it as a huge advantage. If I only use mg ammo in both planes, I tend to only be able to get 2 or so with either. With the smaller ammo loadout on the 16 you tend to run out of mg's @ when you run out of cannons.
In the 8 when I run out of cannons, I at least have some .303's left for my ride home in case I get into a fight and are usually good for one more kill (or 2).
The strength and weaknesses of the 16 vs. 8 are very balanced. If you perk one, you would have to perk the other.
I prefer the VIII over the 16. Always have. When I am flying a Spit I am going to be slow and turning and the 8 is just superiour in a knife fight. I also don't like the limited range of the 16, so if I fly one, it is usually defending. For attacking I will take the 8.
-
:lol
It took me about three years before I started to give th 16 a bit more attention. Only to be told immediately to stay out of that "EZ mode dweeb ride!".
What I found quite remarkable about this: Many of those saying that to me did claim in other threads on this BBS that "it's all about the pilot, not the plane" when it came to discussing the dangerousness of different fighters in AH... ;)
Spits are easy to stick stir in, thats only reason why I hate them :salute
-
The SpitXVI is indisputably *better* than the F4U-1C in many ways, enough ways for it to be called the C-Hog's equal, an airplane which I will point out again, is indisputably the worst Hog in the stable except for the firepower. The same cannot be said of the SpitXVI compared to its stable-mates...
You people keep stating that the P-51's popularity magically doesn't count due to its fame while ignoring that the Spitfire is the most famous WWII aircraft of all. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
I have never, and will never, advocate perking based purely on popularity or lack thereof, because any thinking person can see how ludicrous that idea would be. I advocate perking based on relative performance. The P-51D is an airplane with a single great strength, high top speed, albeit, even there it is slower than several unperked aircrat. It is otherwise mediocre at best. 90% of the planes in the set do something better, usually much better, than the P-51. The same cannot be said the SpitXVI. The fact that the History Channel hypes the thing ad nauseum does not justify repeatedly and illogically interjecting the irrelevant fact that the P-51D is popular in an American flight sim into this discussion.
-
So you can only give me an example of an unbalancing airplane, and not actually tell me what "unbalancing" is itself. Are we in a Socratic dialogue? :lol
In the past, I have suggested that ENY/Perks be based on K/D ratios and, or, use, and the suggestion was roundly rejected. Ultimately, the rejection is correct: K/D ratios are easily skewed by who uses an airplane, e.g. P-38J, and popularity is skewed by factors other than performance, e.g. P-51D.
We are still without a working definition of "unbalancing," but the term is used all of the time to say this should be perked, and that not. It is all ad-hoc.
Don't be dense. The term "unbalancing" comes from the game designer himself.
http://www2.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/perks.html
The perk system is a way for HTC to introduce some interesting but otherwise unbalancing planes on a limited basis but the benefits go deeper than that. Perk planes (and vehicles) would be things like Me 262s, Ta 152s, Tempests, B-29s, Ar 234s, Tiger IIs, etc. These are interesting rides but would be very unbalancing if they were available on an unlimited basis. So there won't be unlimited availability but they'll be available as bonuses or perks every so often.
That there are no hard and fast rules for it is beside the point. If the XVI fit whatever benchmarks HTC uses, it would be perked. It doesn't, so it isn't.
-
And good day to you!
I suspect you really do know where I'm coming from. The Spit (and here I mean the 8, 9 and 16) is an easy plane to fly and to get kills with. Its climb and maneuverability are not much worse than a Zeke, it's guns are not much worse than a FW 190A8, it doesn't stall unless you're trying to stall, and it's reasonably fast. I think it's a great plane for people to learn on. But once you've learned how to fly and fight, it seems to me that you should move on to something more challenging (which is just about any other fighter), if only from personal pride. Even kids move on from t-ball.
As Akak and others have pointed out, there's no particular reason why I should care what other people are flying, and I certainly don't mean to imply that there should be restrictions on free choice. I've always mentally excluded Brits and Canadians from the Spitfire equation because the plane is almost an article of faith for them, but I have real trouble respecting a non-English Commonwealth vet who flys the poster queen of easy-mode airplanes.
Simple as that, really.
- oldman
Tell you what, Oldman -- when someone can fly a whole tour in the plane of their choice and never lose an engagement, then I will join you in your call that they need to look for something more "challenging." Until you find that person and point him out, this is just a bunch of elitist BS.
-
You forgot that the SpitXVI has a much better sustained turn rate than the F4UC, or any other unperked F4UC. (With or without the use of flaps). On top of this, according to Mosq's data, the full flaps radius of the SpitXVI is 450 feet, compared to the F4U-1C's 443! Wow,that is a *massive* difference there!
Turn rate *WINS* nose-to-tail turning fights, and this is the most intuitive and most common kind of turning fight you see. Extremely tight turn radius against something with the climb rate of the SpitXVI is basically defensive...he doesn't HAVE to accept an invitation to the scissors at all, he can just muscle up into the vertical. Don't let the fact that most SpitXVIs are horribly piloted obscure what it represents as an air superiority fighter.
And it is ludicrous to dismiss roll rate the way you have. An otherwise inferior fighter with good high-speed roll rate can conceivably use this to get the VIII out-of-plane for either an overshoot or enough separation to escape. Such is not the case with the SpitXVI. Roll rate is just as important defensively. A SpitVIII is that much less likely to avoid a guns pass because it cannot roll into an evasive nearly as quickly. The minute difference the VIII possesses in rate and radius of turn is not nearly so important in the MA as roll rate.
If you are using the 16 as a high speed b/z plane I would humbly suggest you are using the wrong tool for the job. The advantage of being able to roll fast at high speeds is a moot point when the planes strength is not its speed.
You don't fly a Spit because of how fast it is. You fly them because they handle so well slow when turning.
I grant you the diff. in turn radius between the two on paper is small, but for me, the 16 has always been "squirrely" when slow and the 8 was much easier to maneuver when I am knife fighting. The 8, for me, not only turns better flaps out, it is more stable when doing so. Always has been, and I am not the only one that has that opinion.
So the VIII is superiour in the catagory that matters the most when you are flying a Spitfire.
Which is why I hold the opinion that handling and performing at stall speeds is just as, or more important than how well it rolls when fast.
I might add that in a nose to tail fight, if a XVI tries to use the verticle on the VIII they are going to be in the tower quick. The 16 just doesn't have enough of an advantage in climb to pull something like that off and live vs. a VIII.
A SpitVIII is less (not by much imho) likely to avoid a guns pass because it cannot roll into an evasive as quickly as a SpitXVI, but if I am in THAT situation, I have screwed up somewhere. The key in that situation is timing, not performance.
An otherwise inferior fighter with good high-speed roll rate can conceivably use this to get the VIII out-of-plane for either an overshoot or enough separation to escape, but if they are able to, I have screwed up somewhere. That move is just too easy to counter.
-
Don't be dense. The term "unbalancing" comes from the game designer himself.
http://www2.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/perks.html
That there are no hard and fast rules for it is beside the point. If the XVI fit whatever benchmarks HTC uses, it would be perked. It doesn't, so it isn't.
You are the one being dense. HTC never bothers to define it:
The perk system is a way for HTC to introduce some interesting but otherwise unbalancing planes on a limited basis but the benefits go deeper than that. Perk planes (and vehicles) would be things like Me 262s, Ta 152s, Tempests, B-29s, Ar 234s, Tiger IIs, etc. These are interesting rides but would be very unbalancing if they were available on an unlimited basis. So there won't be unlimited availability but they'll be available as bonuses or perks every so often.
The only explanation I can get from this passage might be: "unbalancing" means really good.
HTC does not use benchmarks to perk an aircraft or vehicle. It is entirely ad-hoc. If HTC could give a definition for unbalancing I would accept it, but instead they merely point to examples.
The reason why it seems impossible for us to give a good definition of "unbalancing" is because there are inconsistencies in which aircraft/vehicles are actually perked. You can't reverse-engineer a definition for a term that has inconsistent use.
-
In my opinion the Spitfire Mk.XVI is a far better A/C then the F4U-1C. (edit A2A)
Also you couldn’t perk the Spitfire Mk.XVI without perking the Mk.VIII, the performance of both A/C are almost identical. Well apart from the Mk.XVI's higher roll rate of course.
Now to the question of perking the above two planes or just the Mk.XVI alone, I’ll keep that answer to myself.
In my original post, I was referring strictly to the A2A characteristics of both planes. The Mk. XVI totally outclasses the F4U-1C in that department.
However the F4U-1C is without a shadow of a doubt a better multi-roll A/C, that’s probably the reason why the F4U-1C is perked and the Mk. XVI isn’t, the same could be said for the La7 as well.
-
Incorrect. The top speed of the SpitXVI on WEP is 342, exactly the *same* as a C-Hog without WEP. And with the SpitXVI's acceleration being what it is, in no way is the C-Hog guaranteed the ability to disengage at will, even with WEP. Further, the C-Hog's top speed of 356mph at WEP on the deck needs qualification. Here is the chart:
Like I said, the -1C can outrun the spit without WEP. The best the Spit can do is stay with the -1C until it's WEP is gone, then it loses almost 30 MPH.
For all intents and purposes the SpitXVI is as fast as the C-Hog in the 10K and below region where it tends to all happen in the MA anyway.
Umm...no, but then you already know that.
The C-Hog has firepower, a smaller turn radius, and a marginal top speed advantage. The Spit has roll-rate, and a huge advantage in climb, acceleration, and turn rate. I think its very defensible to make the claim that these two should be considered equals for the purposes of perking.
If the Spit 16 had decent offensive cababilities, then maybe, but as it is, it has limited range and ammo loadout, so it can't really take the fight to the enemy. Like the LA-7, it's primarily a defensive aircraft. If I recall correctly, the only defensive aircraft to be perked is the 163.
-
Like I said, the -1C can outrun the spit without WEP. The best the Spit can do is stay with the -1C until it's WEP is gone, then it loses almost 30 MPH.
The 1C is only faster below 5k ft, and then by a small margin. Above 5k ft the XVI is faster.
F4U's can't run out of WEP?
If the Spit 16 had decent offensive cababilities, then maybe, but as it is, it has limited range and ammo loadout, so it can't really take the fight to the enemy. Like the LA-7, it's primarily a defensive aircraft. If I recall correctly, the only defensive aircraft to be perked is the 163.
You don't. Recall the Spit XIV.
-
Something that should be brought up: Except for firepower, the C-Hog is the worst Hog in the lot.
The impact of the 20mm on performance is so negligible compared to the 1D it's going to come down to pilot skill (1 and 1A see a bigger gap, but still not remarkable). And even being the "worst Hog in the lot" still rates it above 80-85% of the plane set.
You're making such a HUGE deal about stall speed nose-to-tail fights you're forgetting about high speed performance. Any Spit that tries to take the fight to high speeds--where the Hog's E-retention and zoom capability at LEAST negates the Spit's sustained vertical performance, to say nothing about the Corsair's control responsiveness--against the F4U is putting his life in his hands.
-
Saxman, the f4u does not zoom better than the xvi.
-
Saxman, the f4u does not zoom better than the xvi.
It does when Saxman is BnZing some rookie at mach 1. :rofl
-
The P-51 represents 10% of the entire planeset's usage. Sounds like unbalancing to me.
-
The P-51 represents 10% of the entire planeset's usage. Sounds like unbalancing to me.
But you've got to realize, when you sign up for AH and go into the hangar, the P-51D is already highlighted. Then you also have these History Channel/Dogfights fanbois who claim the P-51 was the BEST dogfighter of WW2 that jump into the in the first sorties because they think it would own every other plane
-
Saxman, the f4u does not zoom better than the xvi.
Read my WHOLE post. I said it will negate the Spitfire's SUSTAINED RATE OF CLIMB. Even if the Hog won't lose the Spit in the Zoom, at Co-E the Spixteen won't do more than just keeping up.
-
I'll keep flying the Historical aspect of this game. I think it's pathetic that some of you have become mired in the "War to be right in all things AH."
Just play the game your way.
-
Read my WHOLE post. I said it will negate the Spitfire's SUSTAINED RATE OF CLIMB. Even if the Hog won't lose the Spit in the Zoom, at Co-E the Spixteen won't do more than just keeping up.
If I test this will you accept the results? ;)
-
I'll keep flying the Historical aspect of this game. I think it's pathetic that some of you have become mired in the "War to be right in all things AH."
Just play the game your way.
You realize it's tough to blame you for things if you make sense and are right don't you? :)
-
You realize it's tough to blame you for things if you make sense and are right don't you? :)
:eek: <engages damage control for my Current 4 year Term> "Ladies and Gentlemen of the Press, my wife hijacked my keyboard and made sense."
-
Ok Saxman, for the record:
Both at 75% fuel, zoom climb from ~50'. Engaged auto-climb-on-speed (100mph) after retained dive-speed reached 400mph, then auto-climb-on-angle to hold the maximum climb and recorded the maximum altitude achieved:
F4U-1C
5900'
SpitXVI
6400'
The Spitfire XVI out zoom-climbs the F4U-1C.
-
If I test this will you accept the results? ;)
Already did.
Process: Took each aircraft up to 10,000ft. Leveled out to accelerate to 300mph TAS, then entered a 30-degree dive until each aircraft accelerated to 400mph TAS. Pulled up and put it in auto-climb, with the climb speed set to 150mph. Tracked the altitude at which the climb started to account for the differences in acceleration, noted the maximum ROC reached per E6B, and the altitude at which each aircraft settled back at 150mph auto-climb. Except where noted, all aircraft were loaded with full internal fuel, and used WEP on climb.
| Aircraft | Alt at Start of Climb | Maximum ROC | Altitude at Peak | Net Gain |
| Spitfire Mk. XVI | 8000ft | ~20,000fpm | 12,500ft | 4500ft |
| F4U-1C | 7500ft | ~19,500fpm | 12,000ft | 4500ft |
| F4U-1A (75% Fuel) | 7500ft | ~19,500fpm | 12,500ft | 5000ft |
| F4U-4 (No WEP) | 7500ft | ~20,500fpm | 12,500ft | 5000ft |
I meant to do a high-speed, low-angle climb at climb speed of 300mph as well, but didn't have time to run that one.
-
Well that's interesting, because as you can see, I got ENTIRELY different results.
-
The 1C is only faster below 5k ft, and then by a small margin. Above 5k ft the XVI is faster.
F4U's can't run out of WEP?
You missed the point. The Spit 16 needs WEP just to stay even with the -1C when the -1C isn't using WEP, so there is no possibility of the 16 running from a fight on the deck.
You don't. Recall the Spit XIV.
Ah yes, the Spit 14. Can match the F4U-4 in speed at most altitudes. Significantly faster at all altitudes than the 16, though not as maneuverable. Few aircraft can run from it at any altitude.
-
Well that's interesting, because as you can see, I got ENTIRELY different results.
That's because he started in level flight, not diving to speeds greater than the plane is capable of sustaining, so his test didn't require much ability to hold momentum.
-
Pay attention DC, we both began our actual zoom climbs AFTER diving to 400mph. The main differences in our test were:
Starting altitude
Fuel loads
Climb Speed
Also, Gavagai didn't specify if he used TAS or IAS. I went with TAS so differences in IAS at varying altitude wouldn't come into play.
-
Tas/ias isn't significant at 50 ft, but it was tas.
The difference is that I went for maximum zoom, whereas you leveled at 150mph. I had the autopilot hold the aircraft nearly straight up until it stalled.
-
I cannot understand how the methodology of using auto-climb. Both aircraft can climb at 150mph IAS until their superchargers become insufficient. Anax's test more realistically reflects the sort of climb angle and thus performance that would be useful if attempting combat maneuvers such as the rope. Anax's test began at 50 feet, so IAS and TAS would be practically identical.
In any case, neither test shows a significant difference in zoom capacity. 500 feet is well within guns range. Neither airplane seems to have much edge in zoom, but the SpitXVI indisputably has the edge in weight-to-power ratio.
-
If you are using the 16 as a high speed b/z plane I would humbly suggest you are using the wrong tool for the job. The advantage of being able to roll fast at high speeds is a moot point when the planes strength is not its speed.
Are you kidding me or what? :O
The SpitXVI is clearly one of the premier E-fighters in the game. It handles well in dives, has a zoom that apparently compares favorably with that of unperked Corsairs, a superb climb rate, and superb retention of E in maneuvers. ON top of this, it has a good turn radius and excellent turn rate. Well flown, it has the potential to dominate almost anything from an E advantage...and it is top notch at building an E-advantage. P-51s, D9s, 109 and etc. are famous for b'n'zing, but a SpitXVI with alt to convert for closure is far more problematic than any of these.
Now you can name all the fighters that run away from fights better than Spits, but who really cares? The SpitXVI stands a fair chance against every unperked fighter it can't outrun. It is other fighters that need to be able to run away from SpitXVIs...only a great many of them can't! Unperked fighters that can challenge the SpitXVI's E-performance are almost all significantly less maneuverable.
You don't fly a Spit because of how fast it is. You fly them because they handle so well slow when turning.
This is just completely wrong...you and I both know there are plenty of planes which make better pure turners than the SpitXVI, VIII, or even the IX. If pure turning were key, then the SpitV would be most popular. Even better, Zeke, HurriIIC, or Fm2.
No, the strength of the later model Spits is that they have excellent E-performance *and* almost tremendous maneuverability in relation to most other planes that can challenge them in the E-performance department.
Once again, I think we are letting the fact that the SpitfireXVI is almost always flown poorly and/or flown against terrible odds obscure the plane's potential.
An otherwise inferior fighter with good high-speed roll rate can conceivably use this to get the VIII out-of-plane for either an overshoot or enough separation to escape, but if they are able to, I have screwed up somewhere. That move is just too easy to counter.
Roll-rate disadvantage to work with is better than no disadvantages to work with at all. I am trying very hard to not go in for perking the SpitVIII here, why are you trying so hard to convince me that *another* Spit should be perked? :D
-
Are you kidding me or what? :O
The SpitXVI is clearly one of the premier E-fighters in the game. It handles well in dives, has a zoom that apparently compares favorably with that of unperked Corsairs, a superb climb rate, and superb retention of E in maneuvers. ON top of this, it has a good turn radius and excellent turn rate. Well flown, it has the potential to dominate almost anything from an E advantage...and it is top notch at building an E-advantage. P-51s, D9s, 109 and etc. are famous for b'n'zing, but a SpitXVI with alt to convert for closure is far more problematic than any of these.
Now you can name all the fighters that run away from fights better than Spits, but who really cares? The SpitXVI stands a fair chance against every unperked fighter it can't outrun. It is other fighters that need to be able to run away from SpitXVIs...only a great many of them can't! Unperked fighters that can challenge the SpitXVI's E-performance are almost all significantly less maneuverable.
This is just completely wrong...you and I both know there are plenty of planes which make better pure turners than the SpitXVI, VIII, or even the IX. If pure turning were key, then the SpitV would be most popular. Even better, Zeke, HurriIIC, or Fm2.
No, the strength of the later model Spits is that they have excellent E-performance *and* almost tremendous maneuverability in relation to most other planes that can challenge them in the E-performance department.
Once again, I think we are letting the fact that the SpitfireXVI is almost always flown poorly and/or flown against terrible odds obscure the plane's potential.
Roll-rate disadvantage to work with is better than no disadvantages to work with at all. I am trying very hard to not go in for perking the SpitVIII here, why are you trying so hard to convince me that *another* Spit should be perked? :D
There are so many holes in your posts, they aren't even worth dissecting.
-
There are so many holes in your posts, they aren't even worth dissecting.
How convenient! Holes that are there, but you cannot be bothered to find.
Speaking of holes, I own a gold mine...I can't be bothered to go down into it and bring you any samples, but I am willing to part with it for almost nothing...you should really snatch it up quickly before someone else does!
-
How convenient! Holes that are there, but you cannot be bothered to find.
BTW, I have a gold mine...I can't be bothered to go down into it and bring you any samples, but I will part with it for a tidy sum...you should really snatch it up quickly before someone else does!
Damn right I cannot be bothered. Listening to you carry on is funny, you always have "an argument." Keep on picking in Spixteens, you are the bestest AH pile-it. :rock
-
Damn right I cannot be bothered. Listening to you carry on is funny, you always have "an argument."
It is easy to always have an argument when you bother to inform yourself, and frankly, apparently have more upstairs than many of those arguing with you.
Keep on picking in Spixteens, you are the bestest AH pile-it. :rock
Insult is the last refuge of the out-argued. Oddly, it also seems to be your first and only refuge.
BTW, this little sarcastic praise you like to give out, per this last example...I've seen you use it over and over again. Steve or someone posts a film of a nifty move and you have to snipe. It is a pattern, it is a fixation. You are apparently the one who can't stand the implication that anyone is worth their salt except Karaya.
-
You keep ignoring the incredible fragility of Spitfires in AH as well. They are possibly less able to take damage and keep flying than A6Ms as their wings pop off at almost the slightest hit. The ease with with a quad .50 cal fighter can take out a Spit VIII, XIV or XVI with a burst that connects on a high deflection crossing shot is a very significant shortcoming of the Spitfire in AH and heavily limits their ability to be "ace of aces" mounts.
-
If your being shot at then your doing it wrong. :D
-
If your being shot at then your doing it wrong. :D
That is true for all aircraft in an ideal vision of the fighter pilot, none the less the ability to take damage is a very important factor, as the Japanese Army found out with it's Ki-43 and the Japanese Navy found out with its A6M2.
-
Although the Spitfire's wings are fragile, I think it is a large exaggeration to compare the Spitfire with the A6M.
-
Well you can't have everything now can you. :D
-
The ease with with a quad .50 cal fighter can take out a Spit VIII, XIV or XVI with a burst that connects on a high deflection crossing shot...
You need quad? I can do it with a single bank of three from my F4U. :D
-
Although the Spitfire's wings are fragile, I think it is a large exaggeration to compare the Spitfire with the A6M.
I don't and I used both extensively. I was substantially more confident of my A6M5's ability to get hit and keep fighting than I ever am in a Spitfire. The A6M is more likely to get a pilot wound or be set on fire, true, but it is significantly more robust structurally in my experience. And for most of the time I played, the Mosquito was more likely to be set alight than the A6M and probably about even on pilot wounds, so....
-
I don't and I used both extensively. I was substantially more confident of my A6M5's ability to get hit and keep fighting than I ever am in a Spitfire. The A6M is more likely to get a pilot wound or be set on fire, true, but it is significantly more robust structurally in my experience. And for most of the time I played, the Mosquito was more likely to be set alight than the A6M and probably about even on pilot wounds, so....
If this is true, then it needs looking at. The Spit wing was tested at speeds and G-loads that would break a Zeke.
-
If this is true, then it needs looking at. The Spit wing was tested at speeds and G-loads that would break a Zeke.
I don't know about that. Speeds, sure, but G loads? The A6M was actually a pretty robust design and the Japanese alloy was stronger for a given weight, though it did corrode.
-
I started flying a ww2 flight sim just so I could fly a spit...any person with european background and love of pre-American involvement (i.e. Battle of Britain) would have been captivated by it...
So why should it shock anybody that it is such a popular bird and a favorite of new players???
BTW for any new player the spit5 is the most forgiving plane in my opinion...least flaps etc...best turning...most stable
I quit flying the spit because it couldn't catch the folks i wanted to catch (fw190d9s, f4u1cs, p51ds, tempests) and its ammo load wasn't all well suited for long distance 6 shots which seem to consume more ammo for me then deflection shots...in furballs, base defense, cv defense situations i used them exclusively until about 1 year ago when i fell in love with the ammo load and turning of the niki....
-
<<< has lots of perks. Hardly ever uses any. I should ask Skuzzy if I can put them up for auction. ;)
-
If I can today, I will try to test the the fragility of the SpitXVI today.
If I can't make it to play today, I suggest the following methodology for anyone who wishes to to bring some actual data to this issue, instead of anectdote. Go in to the DA, have any 109 equipped with 20MM motorkannon fly at 200 and tap single rounds of 20MM into a wingroot on a SpitXVI. I suggest a single MG 151 as the test weapon because it should be suffeciently easy to fire off single rounds, what with its slower ROF. Count the number of rounds required. Repeat the test for the A6M and any other plane you wish to compare. Please film the testing, for obvious reasons.
-
ANd then looking at K/D, the 14 shines once again.
Nothing outstanding about that at all.
-
I've spent quite a bit of time there. The Tempest, Chog, and F4U-4 are very popular, however, just from personal observation, I don't see their aggregate use as being any higher than 50%. They would have to comprise at least 60% of all sorties flown for each to reach the magic 20% of use mark, and even at that, if one of them were more popular than the others, thus taking a bit of the "market share", it would knock the other two below the magic 20% figure. Any person who thinks about it will realize that the 20% figure is an impossible standard to meet with today's plane variety and the number of die-hards who only fly in their favorite types.
I think you're looking at it incorrectly. You're looking at the "market share" of all the unperked planes, then looking at the market share of currently perked planes when they all become unperked. Neither of those methods gives us any idea of what we'd see if one of the currently perked fighters was unperked but the others remained perked. Were that to happen, the popularity of the C-hog in particular would probably spike due to pent-up demand, then settle to a level significantly higher than any of the remaining perked fighters. I don't know whether it would reach 20%, but I bet it would be markedly higher than 10%.
WRT the larger discussion, I don't think you're giving firepower enough consideration. It's not just that the .50s are inferior to the Hispanos, you also have to factor in the imbalance in ammo load for the XVI - you either go home early or are left with a grand total of two .50s. At that point the C-hog still has four cannons left with nearly half their ammo remaining. That is no mean difference.
There's also the issue of versatility. Some of the XVI's weaknesses - low ord loadout, low ammo for its cannons, short range, and fragility - make it unsuitable for a variety of missions. With only 240 rounds of 20mm and little ability to take punishment it's a mediocre bomber interceptor at best. It's a less than stellar jabo because of the payload, it's not a good choice for AAA suppression because it's relatively fragile, and it's limited as a bomber escort by its short legs. It's a great base defender and good, but because of its low endurance not great, as an air superiority fighter on offense. And it isn't available for carrier ops.
By contrast, the C-hog is an excellent choice for all of those missions. IMHO that's one crucial component of unbalancing. The Spit XVI will never unbalance the game as much as an unperked C-hog or 4-hog might because there are so many situations where only a 1-plane fanatic would choose to fly it, and it's not as overwhelmingly superior at the things it does well as the Tempest, 262, and 163 are.
The last argument I don't think I've seen addressed here is who benefits. Unperk the Spit XIV, Tempest, or 262 and you're helping the experienced pilots with enough skill to take advantage of their strengths. If the critics are right and the XVI is popular because it's the best "Easy mode" fighter, perking it will hurt less skilled and experienced pilots, who have it tough enough as it is, more than anyone. It's not like the XVI is a wonder weapon that lets any 2-weeker smash through formations leaving veteran pilots and their planes littered on the ground left and right. If they're flying Spits and learning to fight and not just take one pass and run home, that's a good thing, isn't it?
I'm not big on the perk system as it's currently implemented anyway. I understand and agree with the reason for having it, but while it may be a sound strategy in a real war, in a game like AH giving better equipment to the people who already dominate the game is counterproductive, and losing the perks only when you die only reinforces that imbalance and gives people that much more motivation to fly timidly. :frown:
-
It is easy to always have an argument when you bother to inform yourself, and frankly, apparently have more upstairs than many of those arguing with you.
:rofl
-
If I can today, I will try to test the the fragility of the SpitXVI today.
If I can't make it to play today, I suggest the following methodology for anyone who wishes to to bring some actual data to this issue, instead of anectdote. Go in to the DA, have any 109 equipped with 20MM motorkannon fly at 200 and tap single rounds of 20MM into a wingroot on a SpitXVI. I suggest a single MG 151 as the test weapon because it should be suffeciently easy to fire off single rounds, what with its slower ROF. Count the number of rounds required. Repeat the test for the A6M and any other plane you wish to compare. Please film the testing, for obvious reasons.
Last time I did such a test it was on the tail durability of the B-17G, Lancaster Mk III, Bf110G-2 and Mosquito Mk VI. We used the P-38's single cannon as the "standard" AH damage units seem to be thought in either Browning .50 cal or Hispano Mk II hits.
The results for our test at the time, strikes hitting the tail cones, were consistant across multiple tests. B-17G took 17 Hispano hits to lose its entire tail. Lancaster took 14. Mosquito took 3. Bf110G took 2. This was in AH1 though, so things may have changed.
In your testing you should also check the wing tips, not just the root.
-
You keep ignoring the incredible fragility of Spitfires in AH as well. They are possibly less able to take damage and keep flying than A6Ms as their wings pop off at almost the slightest hit. The ease with with a quad .50 cal fighter can take out a Spit VIII, XIV or XVI with a burst that connects on a high deflection crossing shot is a very significant shortcoming of the Spitfire in AH and heavily limits their ability to be "ace of aces" mounts.
This would be a solid point but for the fact that the spit16 dodges as well as anything in the game.
No offense intended, but what are you guys smoking here? The spitfire is the epitome of easy. The whole gamut of the planeset is centered around it. Damn right, it's better than the chog.
As for why people rag on it.. It's like the '67 Lotus in GPL. There's always some genius with a poop eating grin in one feeling good about beating everyone and generally ignoring the efforts others put in flying normal rides with actual quirks... No reason to be surprised others will snub it every chance they get. My personal extra beef with it is that it's a bland design. Just pedestrian... no character, no danger, no thrill in flying it, nothing. And come on.. Round elliptical wings? Did they take that out of a care bears cartoon or something? I could go on. :P
-
This would be a solid point but for the fact that the spit16 dodges as well as anything in the game.
No offense intended, but what are you guys smoking here? The spitfire is the epitomy of easy. The whole gamut of the planeset is centered around it. Damn right, it's better than the chog.
As for why people rag on it.. It's like the '67 Lotus in GPL. There's always some genius with a poop eating grin in one feeling good about beating everyone and generally ignoring the efforts others put in flying normal rides with actual quirks... No reason to be surprised others will snub it every chance they get. My personal extra beef with it is that it's a bland design. Just pedestrian... no character, no danger, no thrill in flying it, nothing. And come on.. Round elliptical wings? Did they take that out of a care bears cartoon or something? I could go on. :P
I believe the term you're looking for is "Boring"!
-
WRT the larger discussion, I don't think you're giving firepower enough consideration. It's not just that the .50s are inferior to the Hispanos, you also have to factor in the imbalance in ammo load for the XVI - you either go home early or are left with a grand total of two .50s. At that point the C-hog still has four cannons left with nearly half their ammo remaining. That is no mean difference.
Loaded comparison. The chog has more 20mm than probably anything else in the planeset. You should have been there back when small calibers could kill GVs. On AKPizza, you could come off the CVs on the outer ring and easily rack up 30 kills on the ground fight below.
The spit16 doesn't need tons of ammo. It's nimble enough to allow the player to keep the nose exactly on target for easily at least as long as most other planes can, as opposed to e.g. heavier planes like the 109 or 205, or even the chog since it's a gorilla by comparison, and can't afford to pull lead so deftly and for so long, without bleeding its E. Which the S16 can easily afford thanks to its lightweight. It just gets right back fast enough to do it over again.
Shuffler - It's not just boring.. I personally dislike the plane itself.
-
Didn't the Spitfire Mk.16 have 21lbs of boost at wep? Our version is well gimp... :rofl
-
This would be a solid point but for the fact that the spit16 dodges as well as anything in the game.
No offense intended, but what are you guys smoking here? The spitfire is the epitome of easy. The whole gamut of the planeset is centered around it. Damn right, it's better than the chog.
As for why people rag on it.. It's like the '67 Lotus in GPL. There's always some genius with a poop eating grin in one feeling good about beating everyone and generally ignoring the efforts others put in flying normal rides with actual quirks... No reason to be surprised others will snub it every chance they get. My personal extra beef with it is that it's a bland design. Just pedestrian... no character, no danger, no thrill in flying it, nothing. And come on.. Round elliptical wings? Did they take that out of a care bears cartoon or something? I could go on. :P
I'll trust you are only referring to the cartoon Spitfire, not the real deal :)
The problem I have with the argument you are making against the cartoon Spitfire, is the game itself promotes the route of least resistance. You, like myself and others prefer flying birds that take, for lack of a better way to say it, more work to fly and be successful in. Although for as often as I've seen you land in a jet lately.....:)
The Spit is what it is in the game. It's not far removed from the real deal in that it is easy to fly. Folks find success in it quickly. How many of those guys are still in Spits 3-4 years later in the game. For that matter how many of them are still here at all.
If there is one consistent thing about Spit drivers in the game, regardless of version, it is that they tend to try and fight. And I believe that's the ultimate goal for most of us, that folks reach the point where the new guys start to learn to duke it out.
So you take the Spit 16 out of the equation, then what? Back to griping about Spit 8s or 9s? Remove the Spit entirely. Maybe the LA7 can be the gripe again. I'd much prefer the Spit whines, to the LA7 whine. At least the Spits aren't outrunning everyone at light speed.
Care bears indeed. Jeez I hate it when you get your leather lederhosen on too tight and backwards! ;)
-
Didn't the Spitfire Mk.16 have 21lbs of boost at wep? Our version is well gimp... :rofl
25lbs, and you say love spits.... :D
-
Dan - I understand the historical aspect. I'm not arguing for the spit16 being perked (or maybe 1 or 1.5 perks max.), nevermind removed. And I'm not whining either, just answering the surprise at people not liking the spitfire. I don't have any voodoo spitfire toys that I stab before going to sleep, I just genuinely dislike its design. As a designer I wouldn't feel satisfied with it, like when your creative juices are stifled by an employer who wants his gizmo designed in the most orthodox, efficient, cookie cutter way possible.
You can ask... I think it was Rollins, and a zipcode guy... 858626 I think, who rode along a couple of my jet sorties (edit - Zap rode along as well. I didn't fly totally balls out for that one to ensure he got to see a full sortie). I trimmed the horde a lot, by flying the plane to its strengths, but there was just as much tnb dogfighting. I know in total I ran into about half a dozen good sticks who I fought honestly, tnb for all the plane was worth. The 262's a real anchor in knife fights, so the comparison isn't good. Nothing compares to the spit's do-it-all character.
The game does favor the path of least resistance, but I really don't think it's the intention. I can't imaging that more than a small minority of players would like less rather than more variety in the unfriendly skies of AH. The closest thing I can figure would be desire for historical settings, e.g. bare metal USAAF stuff when you're flying luftwaffe.
The way I see it, the spitfire, although admittedly as much part a parcel of the zoo as any other plane, might be the least (tho not by much either) exotic thing you could run into, as far as dogfighting goes. It just doesn't have any unevenness to it.. It doesn't have any deep flaws or outstanding strengths. It just flies around generically. Like a zero without the featherweight good/bad aspects, like a P38's well-roundedness but without the twin engine/fowler flaps oddity, like a P51's stellar manners and crystal clear character but without the level flight acceleration and departure handicap... etc. The nearest thing I could like the spitfire being is a Ki84, but even it's not just a spitfire with character, it's also got a totally different look.
That spitfire players tend to fight more than most is true, no question there. I have no problem with the guys who fly spits, it's their business. I just don't like the plane itself. It's an aberration in the zoo.. Or maybe it's a good solvent for everything else. I never meant to argue against its presence. I'd be sick of any plane seen as often as the spit. I'm just especially sick of the spit because unlike the P51, it thrives on the rest of the planeset getting caught up furballing and begging to be walked all over... by that guy in the 67 Lotus.
-
25lbs, and you say love spits.... :D
Erm ok wtf, why don't we have 21lbs of boost for our Spit16 in game!
-
Erm ok wtf, why don't we have 21lbs of boost for our Spit16 in game!
No such beast. Spitfire MK XVI was either +18lbs or +25lbs boost.
Spitfire Mk XIV was either +18lbs or +21lbs boost, and given it is perked there is no reason we don't have it at +21lbs.
-
Spitfire Mk XIV was either +18lbs or +21lbs boost, and given it is perked there is no reason we don't have it at +21lbs.
Would probably finally be worth it's perks then ;)
-
No such beast. Spitfire MK XVI was either +18lbs or +25lbs boost.
Was the 25lbs version later on in the war Karnak? Because I say give us the XVI with 25lbs of boost and perk it. Job done!
-
Was the 25lbs version later on in the war Karnak? Because I say give us the XVI with 25lbs of boost and perk it. Job done!
No, not really, but we don't need another perked Spitfire and doing that would lose us our pre-mid-1944 Spitfire LF.Mk IXe stand in. Better is to leave it unperked as nobody has offered any valid reason for perking it yet, but raise the Spitfire Mk XIV's boost to +21lbs and make it actually worth the perks.
-
No, not really, but we don't need another perked Spitfire and doing that would lose us our pre-mid-1944 Spitfire LF.Mk IXe stand in.
But, but, but, I want 25lbs of boost. :(
-
But, but, but, I want 25lbs of boost. :(
Bah. +21lbs of boost in a Griffon 65 is better than +25lbs of boost in a Merlin 66!
-
Just to be clear, we are both talking about the XVI, yeah ?
Spitfire MK XVI was either +18lbs or +25lbs boost.
-
He's saying he'd rather have an uprated 14 than an uprated 16, if I'm not mistaken.
-
He's saying he'd rather have an uprated 14 than an uprated 16, if I'm not mistaken.
rgr that. :aok
-
I did some research.
The Spitfires Mk IX was able to achieve 25lbs of boost using 150 octane fuel.
"The first Spitfire IX was first cleared for testing use of +25 boost with 150 octane fuel in March of 1944. By May of 1944, all Air Defence Great Britain Spitfires were being converted to +25 boost.
There were some problems with the Packard Merlin 266 engines in Spitfire XVI's, they did not tolerate the boost as well as the Rolls Royce Merlin 66's in the Spit IX's, and these Spit XVI's were reduced back to +18.
No Spit IX Squadrons had to discontinue use of 150 octane and +25 boost."
edit: I've been looking at the performance increase that comes with the 150 octane fuel and coooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooor!
-
I did some research.
The Spitfires Mk IX was able to achieve 25lbs of boost using 150 octane fuel.
"The first Spitfire IX was first cleared for testing use of +25 boost with 150 octane fuel in March of 1944. By May of 1944, all Air Defence Great Britain Spitfires were being converted to +25 boost.
There were some problems with the Packard Merlin 266 engines in Spitfire XVI's, they did not tolerate the boost as well as the Rolls Royce Merlin 66's in the Spit IX's, and these Spit XVI's were reduced back to +18.
No Spit IX Squadrons had to discontinue use of 150 octane and +25 boost."
Search for the 150 octane threads that have been had before. It's all been said :)
edit: I've been looking at the performance increase that comes with the 150 octane fuel and coooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooor!
-
You keep ignoring the incredible fragility of Spitfires in AH as well. They are possibly less able to take damage and keep flying than A6Ms as their wings pop off at almost the slightest hit.
This would be a solid point but for the fact that the spit16 dodges as well as anything in the game.
No offense intended, but what are you guys smoking here? The spitfire is the epitome of easy. The whole gamut of the planeset is centered around it. Damn right, it's better than the chog.
No point in arguing with Karnak on this one. Check out this quote...
Considering the P-38 is an easymode fighter, not sure how that works out.
-
Compared to actually hard to use fighters the P-38L is easymode. Is it as easy as a Spit XVI? No. It is certainly easier than an Fw190 though, or a Ki-61, or a P-40, or a P-47, or a F4F, or a Mosquito, or a Bf109G-6, or a Yak-9U....
-
Compared to actually hard to use fighters the P-38L is easymode. Is it as easy as a Spit XVI? No. It is certainly easier than an Fw190 though, or a Ki-61, or a P-40, or a P-47, or a F4F, or a Mosquito, or a Bf109G-6, or a Yak-9U....
Easier at what?
-
Compared to actually hard to use fighters the P-38L is easymode. Is it as easy as a Spit XVI? No. It is certainly easier than an Fw190 though, or a Ki-61, or a P-40, or a P-47, or a F4F, or a Mosquito, or a Bf109G-6, or a Yak-9U....
Well this 38G driver got his first flight of the tour in and was having a blast fighting Spits although not a single 16 did I see. 7 Spits down, 3 VIIIs, 2 IXs and 2 Seafires., died to em 3 times. More then once it was taking on 3 at a time. Great fun!
-
Easier at what?
Overall effectiveness and ease of use.
Example, using two fighters I am familiar with, the Mosquito can kill easily, but it has a hard time staying alive. The P-38L can't kill quite as easily in some ways, easier in others, but it finds staying alive much easier. The P-38L has a better balance between the two.
Well this 38G driver got his first flight of the tour in and was having a blast fighting Spits although not a single 16 did I see. 7 Spits down, 3 VIIIs, 2 IXs and 2 Seafires., died to em 3 times. More then once it was taking on 3 at a time. Great fun!
Yup, P-38G is not an easy fighter to be successful in.
-
No, not really, but we don't need another perked Spitfire and doing that would lose us our pre-mid-1944 Spitfire LF.Mk IXe stand in. Better is to leave it unperked as nobody has offered any valid reason for perking it yet, but raise the Spitfire Mk XIV's boost to +21lbs and make it actually worth the perks.
Okay then, you haven't offered a valid reason for not perking it yet.
See how that works?
Who says what's a valid argument or not? Every post here has been valid on both sides of the argument. Just because you're opinion says that all the information gathered here is wrong or useless doesn't mean a thing. In the end it's ultimately up to HiTech.
I also don't understand how making one of the best climbing and accelerating aircraft in the game even better at climbing and accelerating will make it perk worthy when it is not now.
-
Spits??? what spits?
(http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c181/Bruv119/spits.jpg)
-
I also don't understand how making one of the best climbing and accelerating aircraft in the game even better at climbing and accelerating will make it perk worthy when it is not now.
Because there's more than judging a plane than pure climbrate and acceleration. The 14 is hampered by it's weak wings (like any 14) and particulary by it's bad handling. It's acceleration and climbrate are very good indeed but not that far ahead of the competition to offset the handling handicaps in regards to perk status.
Keep in mind the K-4 is actually much faster and, all in all even a better climber... and still it's not perked ;)
-
Because there's more than judging a plane than pure climbrate and acceleration. The 14 is hampered by it's weak wings (like any 14) and particulary by it's bad handling. It's acceleration and climbrate are very good indeed but not that far ahead of the competition to offset the handling handicaps in regards to perk status.
Keep in mind the K-4 is actually much faster and, all in all even a better climber... and still it's not perked ;)
Of course, but I wouldn't say the 16 had really any other "bad" characteristics. I guess what I was saying was why add more to a plane that already has it all, and then say it's perk worthy?
-
I did some research.
The Spitfires Mk IX was able to achieve 25lbs of boost using 150 octane fuel.
"The first Spitfire IX was first cleared for testing use of +25 boost with 150 octane fuel in March of 1944. By May of 1944, all Air Defence Great Britain Spitfires were being converted to +25 boost.
There were some problems with the Packard Merlin 266 engines in Spitfire XVI's, they did not tolerate the boost as well as the Rolls Royce Merlin 66's in the Spit IX's, and these Spit XVI's were reduced back to +18.
No Spit IX Squadrons had to discontinue use of 150 octane and +25 boost."
edit: I've been looking at the performance increase that comes with the 150 octane fuel and coooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooor!
XVI was re-cleared for 150 octane in Dec 44, along with the whole complement os 2TAF Spits.
-
Unperk the F4U-1C and you will hear no more arguments from me about giving the XVI a 3-5 perk price tag. Make it an experiment. Of course there would be a lot of F4U-1Cs the first month, but once the unwashed masses realize that its cannons won't make them an ace, many would go back to their Spit XVI.
My best guess is that the unperked F4U-1C would have about as many kills+deaths as the P-51D. It would not equal its previous record because there are many more planes to choose from today.
-
It is easy to always have an argument when you bother to inform yourself, and frankly, apparently have more upstairs than many of those arguing with you.
Insult is the last refuge of the out-argued. Oddly, it also seems to be your first and only refuge.
BTW, this little sarcastic praise you like to give out, per this last example...I've seen you use it over and over again. Steve or someone posts a film of a nifty move and you have to snipe. It is a pattern, it is a fixation. You are apparently the one who can't stand the implication that anyone is worth their salt except Karaya.
I haven't insulted anyone, maybe you should practice what you preach. I never argued with you, you're a "know-it-all". You know everything there is to be had about AH. How can anyone "argue" with that?
"Fixation"? "Snipe"? If you say so, but many on this Forum notice your pattern. Except yourself.
-
Unperk the F4U-1C and you will hear no more arguments from me about giving the XVI a 3-5 perk price tag. Make it an experiment. Of course there would be a lot of F4U-1Cs the first month, but once the unwashed masses realize that its cannons won't make them an ace, many would go back to their Spit XVI.
My best guess is that the unperked F4U-1C would have about as many kills+deaths as the P-51D. It would not equal its previous record because there are many more planes to choose from today.
There are planes which tend to be the vulcher, and planes which tend to be the vulchee. And the picker and the pickee, etc. The vulchee-planes tend to be taken up not because they suck, but because people feel (correctly) they give them the best possible fighting chance against long odds. The vulcher planes come closer to being ones that can't fight well straight off the runway, not invariably but close enough. So in this sense k/d stats can be misleading.
Also, according to k/d stats, the P-38J is far and away superior to the P-38L.
-
I haven't insulted anyone, maybe you should practice what you preach. I never argued with you, you're a "know-it-all". You know everything there is to be had about AH. How can anyone "argue" with that?
This is factually incorrect, I do not know everything. Nor claim to know everything. I simply study the problem if I am going to discuss it. Call me crazy, but I think actually finding out things like relative turn rates/radius and speeds is relevant if you are going to speak about an aircraft's impact. These are things which many others have obviously *not* bothered to do before forming an opinion, and this annoys me.
"Fixation"? "Snipe"? If you say so, but many on this Forum notice your pattern. Except yourself.
I try not to *initiate* personal rancor. Sometimes I'm not good enough to ignore it entirely, this is wrong. You on the other hand, I've noticed a pattern. Other people will be having a reasonably civil discussion, and you will out of the clear blue sky make some remark, invariably along the lines of "Well, you're just the bestest pilot in AH aren't you?". I can't comprehend why you said this to me, since my piloting not even close to the subject of debate, and I make no bones about being a very average flyer. Not just me, and I don't know why. It's almost as if you can't stand to let anythng go past without reminding everyone "Karaya is superior".
-
The Spitfire Mk IX, XVI and VIII could run 25lbs of boost using 150 octane fuel then?
The performance increase achieved is rather staggering to what we have now at 18lbs of boost.
I would love to see 150 octane fuel used in at least one of our Spitfires to get a “real representation” of what the late war beast was actually capable of. I fear this might unbalance the delicate nature of the plane set though!
-
This is factually incorrect, I do not know everything. Nor claim to know everything. I simply study the problem if I am going to discuss it. Call me crazy, but I think actually finding out things like relative turn rates/radius and speeds is relevant if you are going to speak about an aircraft's impact. These are things which many others have obviously *not* bothered to do before forming an opinion, and this annoys me.
I try not to *initiate* personal rancor. Sometimes I'm not good enough to ignore it entirely, this is wrong. You on the other hand, I've noticed a pattern. Other people will be having a reasonably civil discussion, and you will out of the clear blue sky make some remark, invariably along the lines of "Well, you're just the bestest pilot in AH aren't you?". I can't comprehend why you said this to me, since my piloting not even close to the subject of debate, and I make no bones about being a very average flyer. Not just me, and I don't know why. It's almost as if you can't stand to let anythng go past without reminding everyone "Karaya is superior".
I remind no one. Any post I've put on here says "I suck at this game." No sarcasm needed, but I and many others laugh at the others "who claim greatness."
We're having a "debate" here? Therein lies the crux of the quandary.
-
I love the quote wars going on between Kara and BnZ lol! :rofl
-
I love the quote wars going on between Kara and BnZ lol! :rofl
I don't even know what started their argument; maybe it was BnZs' claim that people hadn't bothered to inform themselves before giving an opinion, which might be fair enough, but then he followed up with the zinger about intelligence. :lol
This much is true: many of you were surprised to learn that the XVI is faster than the F4U-1C between 3000 and 10000 ft.
-
I love the quote wars going on between Kara and BnZ lol! :rofl
:D
-
I don't even know what started their argument; maybe it was BnZs' claim that people hadn't bothered to inform themselves before giving an opinion, which might be fair enough, but then he followed up with the zinger about intelligence. :lol
This much is true: many of you were surprised to learn that the XVI is faster than the F4U-1C between 3000 and 10000 ft.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/wiki/images/8/8d/F4u1cspd.jpg)
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/wiki/images/e/e0/Spit16spd.jpg)
I'll just leave this here.
-
I prefer gonzo's because you can compare to the two curves side-by-side, like this:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3416/3420766335_27121687e3_o.png)
-
What do you see from 3-10k that I seem to be missing.
They appear basically identical to me.
-
The XVI is up to 4mph faster within that range. They are close, yes, but not identical.
See? I've moved a lot of people from "What are you talking about?!!? The F4U-1C is faster than the XVI!!!" to "The XVI is not much faster than the F4U-1C, what's your point?!" :lol
-
I love the quote wars going on between Kara and BnZ lol! :rofl
BnZ will argue just for the sake of it. He will argue details of conversatins that have nothing to do with the topic of hand. He is vapid and a complete waste of time. I ignore him now but it seems Karaya hasn't figured this out yet.
-
At the end of the day our Spitfires are gimp, they need a buff!
-
BnZ will argue just for the sake of it. He will argue details of conversatins that have nothing to do with the topic of hand. He is vapid and a complete waste of time. I ignore him now but it seems Karaya hasn't figured this out yet.
I figured it out, I'm through with him as well. He's argued from day one.
-
BnZ will argue just for the sake of it. He will argue details of conversatins that have nothing to do with the topic of hand. He is vapid and a complete waste of time. I ignore him now but it seems Karaya hasn't figured this out yet.
Gee...and I'm the one who has *never* done the sour-grapes, Steve is a picker-runner score-potato thing. :rofl
-
Okay then, you haven't offered a valid reason for not perking it yet.
See how that works?
The people advocating a change from the current status are the ones who have the onus of showing that a change is needed, not those advocating that the status remain unchanged. This is an absurd request on the part of a few fixated people. The fact that they are asking for an aircraft that is not unbalancing at all to be removed from general use is absolutely ridiculous.
-
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Spitfires offer no challenge to the pilot, they are easy mode as it gets in AH2. Well, the 8 and 16 mostly. The rest are only slightly dweeby :D
-
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Spitfires offer no challenge to the pilot, they are easy mode as it gets in AH2. Well, the 8 and 16 mostly. The rest are only slightly dweeby :D
Try the Mk I and Mk XIV. I think you'll find their challenge is there.
-
Try the Mk I and Mk XIV. I think you'll find their challenge is there.
True, true. Those are the two spits which may be flown without shame!
- oldman (the 14, in particular)
-
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Spitfires offer no challenge to the pilot, they are easy mode as it gets in AH2. Well, the 8 and 16 mostly. The rest are only slightly dweeby :D
Spit 1 is my favorite plane to fly in here. It's more than a challenge.
-
Here's a thought -
Unperk the CHog - thats ALL you would see coming off CV's.
That count as unbalancing?
-
Here's a thought -
Unperk the CHog - thats ALL you would see coming off CV's.
That count as unbalancing?
Whats all this about the CHOG? This is a dweebfire bashing thread!
-
Here's a thought -
Unperk the CHog - thats ALL you would see coming off CV's.
That count as unbalancing?
Kind of like the number of XVIs you see in a furball or base defense? ;)
-
Kind of like the number of XVIs you see in a furball or base defense? ;)
Only if you like lying. Spit XVIs are no where near that level of common.
Other things would still come off of CVs if the F4U-1C were free, but the ratio would be crap compared to what it is now.
-
The people advocating a change from the current status are the ones who have the onus of showing that a change is needed, not those advocating that the status remain unchanged.
Considering the planes in question are NEW planes, compared to the other planes being used as baselines and other reference points, it is NOT up to the folks advocating chage. The change was thrust upon us by the introduction of the new plane. Thus the onus lies evenly upon both sides to prove their argument.
Your argument thus stands as an insult claiming anybody disagreeing with you is fixated, and that the argument is absurd.
So far BnZs has been more analytical and clear on his point of view. I agree with most of the points he's made in this thread so far (and trust me we don't agree on everything).
He's brought up very valid points, and you simply say "you're fixated on an absurd point" -- without providing any counterpoints of your own. You have yet to prove why this spit16/8 (as a combo or just the 16) should remain unperked.
-
The Spitfire Mk XVI has been in AH for more than two years now. That is anything but new.
And you, as a well established Spitfire hater who advocates against any Spitfire suggestion that isn't a direct attack on them, have no standing to comment on them.
He's brought up very valid points, and you simply say "you're fixated on an absurd point" -- without providing any counterpoints of your own. You have yet to prove why this spit16/8 (as a combo or just the 16) should remain unperked.
He hasn't brought up a single point as to why they should be perked, just his feelings that they are double plus good.
The counter points have been made over and over and over and over. It does not dominate the kill/death percentages, it does not dominate the kill/death ratio, it is very strong in some ways and average or even weak in other ways. He categorically dismisses anything that doesn't support his conclusion.
-
Considering the planes in question are NEW planes, compared to the other planes being used as baselines and other reference points, it is NOT up to the folks advocating chage. The change was thrust upon us by the introduction of the new plane. Thus the onus lies evenly upon both sides to prove their argument.
Your argument thus stands as an insult claiming anybody disagreeing with you is fixated, and that the argument is absurd.
So far BnZs has been more analytical and clear on his point of view. I agree with most of the points he's made in this thread so far (and trust me we don't agree on everything).
He's brought up very valid points, and you simply say "you're fixated on an absurd point" -- without providing any counterpoints of your own. You have yet to prove why this spit16/8 (as a combo or just the 16) should remain unperked.
OK I have the perfect solution to this latest Spit whine. Give us a 1942 full span wing Spitfire LFVc to go with our 1942 FIXc, a 1943 clipped wing Spitfire FXII to go with our 1943 Spitfire LFVIIIc, a 1944 full span wing Spitfire LFIXe with +18 boost, and then the 1945 clipped wing Spitfire LFXVIe with +25 boost that is perked to go with our perked Spitfire FXIVe. With our 1940 Spitfire I and 1941 Spitfire Vb we'd have it covered.
I'll leave the Seafire componant to Kev :)
Happy now? :aok
-
a 1943 clipped wing Spitfire FXII
...And you think we're whining now? :rofl
-
...And you think we're whining now? :rofl
Well it's not a latewar uber bird. They weren't even flying after September 44 :)
-
The Spitfire Mk XVI has been in AH for more than two years now. That is anything but new.
And you, as a well established Spitfire hater who advocates against any Spitfire suggestion that isn't a direct attack on them, have no standing to comment on them.
See that's the problem. You have no right to say that he can't comment on them. If he were saying something utterly absurd like "the spit 16 is faster than a 262," then you'd have the right to say he has no reason to comment as it's obviously wrong. If someone dislikes something, there is always a reason. It's impossible to actually dislike something if your making up facts, which no one here has done.
He hasn't brought up a single point as to why they should be perked, just his feelings that they are double plus good.
The counter points have been made over and over and over and over. It does not dominate the kill/death percentages, it does not dominate the kill/death ratio, it is very strong in some ways and average or even weak in other ways. He categorically dismisses anything that doesn't support his conclusion.
With this thinking, you still haven't brought up a single reason why it shouldn't be perked. It may not dominate with a K/D, but then again it's been solidly identified as an aircraft beginners use extensively, skewing it's numbers. Everything you stated after this is your feelings, just like his. He is using the term "double plus good" loosely, as he had stated in the past. It's not exactly double plus good, it's just better than most in almost all aspects. You are completely dismissing what others have said with the excuse that it is not "unbalancing," which is a completely vague and truly undefined phrase that can be bended any way the user sees fit. The only way to look at it objectively is to compare to what we already know to be true.
Also, at no time was BnZ out-of-line, and there is no reason to attack him for having a discussion.
Keep it civil guys, no reason to loose our cool over this.
-
Tempests, C-Hogs, 4-Hogs and Ponies are the predominant rides. Most of them coming in from about 17k or higher (couple guys in particular I've seen called out on that, too). Most of them make a couple BnZ passes through to pick up their two kills, then run like hell if they encounter a co-alt and e con.
:aok
that's why i fly the spit 16 there all the time lol that and the spit8 i feel that it's not a superior ride to those planes but it feeds my ego and lets me feel like i kind of sort of maybe have a chance when im on the deck.
oh yea and the 109 k4 and g6 are a ton of fun to kill squeekers with in there lol
and for more fun i take a temp and play the try to out turn eveyrthing game. thats awesome man
been a while since i was in game i miss it :( :rock :rock :D
perk it or un perk it perks are easy to giet i dont care too much i dont think personaly that it deserves one while it is one of the BEST planes in the game. it is fragile and has low feul range i personaly much prefer the spit 8 because i like long sorties. the c hog i think could be lowered to a cheaper perk. eh but what do i care my favorite hog is the 1a
-
With this thinking, you still haven't brought up a single reason why it shouldn't be perked.
The thing is, HT and Pyro have already made a decision to not perk it ... which, by default, puts the oness on those who want it perked to prove why it needs to be perked ... and from what I have read though all the "Perk the Spit 16" posts, no one has really proved anything in the context in which a plane needs to be perked,within the context of this game.
It may not dominate with a K/D, but then again it's been solidly identified as an aircraft beginners use extensively, skewing it's numbers.
This statement, in and of itself, proves that the Spit 16 is far from a plane that has such a dramatic effect on the game/gameplay that it needs to be perked ... and that is the point that those who have voiced that the Spit 16 does not need to be perked are saying.
You can throw out all the specs and data you want on a particular aircraft and in the total scheme of things ... it means squat ... does a plane complete dominate an arena with excessive numbers and at the same time, does it kill just about everything in it's path with excessive frequency ?
You are completely dismissing what others have said with the excuse that it is not "unbalancing," which is a completely vague and truly undefined phrase that can be bended any way the user sees fit.
There is nothing vague about the term "unbalancing" when taken in context to this game and gameplay. If one does not understand what "unbalancing" means in this context, it is because one does want to admit that, if applied, ends this discussion and "Perk the LA7" discussion immediately ... and that's not what they want.
Also, at no time was BnZ out-of-line, and there is no reason to attack him for having a discussion.
Except for when he was pompous enough to call some very educated people, on this subject, who brought good facts to the table ... not as smart as he.
Keep it civil guys, no reason to loose our cool over this.
If you were referring to KarnaK with this statement, you are so far off base.
Anytime I see a "Perk the LA7" - "Perk the Spit16" (it was the Spit 9 previously) I think ... "CRYBABY"
-
The thing is, HT and Pyro have already made a decision to not perk it ... which, by default, puts the oness on those who want it perked to prove why it needs to be perked ... and from what I have read though all the "Perk the Spit 16" posts, no one has really proved anything in the context in which a plane needs to be perked,within the context of this game.
It's really not worth more than 1 perk. Maybe make it and all the other 5 ENY planes worth 1 perk.
-
Who cares what plane another player likes whats point to this post its not like your paying there subscription to Hightech. :salute
-
Considering the planes in question are NEW planes, compared to the other planes being used as baselines and other reference points, it is NOT up to the folks advocating change. The change was thrust upon us by the introduction of the new plane. Thus the onus lies evenly upon both sides to prove their argument.
Your argument thus stands as an insult claiming anybody disagreeing with you is fixated, and that the argument is absurd.
So far BnZs has been more analytical and clear on his point of view. I agree with most of the points he's made in this thread so far (and trust me we don't agree on everything).
He's brought up very valid points, and you simply say "you're fixated on an absurd point" -- without providing any counterpoints of your own. You have yet to prove why this spit16/8 (as a combo or just the 16) should remain unperked.
I think we should perk Runstangs whats the difference guys scream in from 25k the run to the deck and do again lol
-
Anytime I see a "Perk the LA7" - "Perk the Spit16" (it was the Spit 9 previously) I think ... "CRYBABY"
... i always think "Perk the D Pony!" :P
-
seriously though - is the XVI any more perkworthy than the LA7 in MA usage?
-
The thing is, HT and Pyro have already made a decision to not perk it ... which, by default, puts the oness on those who want it perked to prove why it needs to be perked ... and from what I have read though all the "Perk the Spit 16" posts, no one has really proved anything in the context in which a plane needs to be perked,within the context of this game.
Besides convincing argument that the Spitfire XVI is the equal of some of the cheaply-perked planes...
You can throw out all the specs and data you want on a particular aircraft and in the total scheme of things ... it means squat ... does a plane complete dominate an arena with excessive numbers and at the same time, does it kill just about everything in it's path with excessive frequency ?
So now we've come full circle. In past discussions there was agreement that who tends to fly a plane should have no effect on its ENY or perk price. Performance was all that mattered. It is difficult to hit a moving target.
There is nothing vague about the term "unbalancing" when taken in context to this game and gameplay. If one does not understand what "unbalancing" means in this context, it is because one does want to admit that, if applied, ends this discussion and "Perk the LA7" discussion immediately ... and that's not what they want.
Right, the term is so clear you simply laugh when someone asks you to define it. Let me play dumb. Please define "unbalancing" in AH. But don't just give me examples, I'm too dumb to extrapolate to the principle that makes them examples of "unbalancing." Please tell me what "unbalancing" is itself.
Anytime I see a "Perk the LA7" - "Perk the Spit16" (it was the Spit 9 previously) I think ... "CRYBABY"
That's a nice way to respond to someone who asks that you keep the conversation civil. I agree with BnZs that invective is the resort of those who don't have an argument. Maybe it's time you consider that someone could disagree with you for reasons other than character flaw? ;) Seriously... :uhoh
-
Right, the term is so clear you simply laugh when someone asks you to define it. Let me play dumb. Please define "unbalancing" in AH. But don't just give me examples, I'm too dumb to extrapolate to the principle that makes them examples of "unbalancing." Please tell me what "unbalancing" is itself.
your callsign suggests you dont have much trouble extrapolating ;)
heres a clear example: aircraft X has 90% of the sorties and a K/D and K/t 5 times the nearest aircraft in each category because of its modelled capabilities, and hence popularity. it is unbalancing because it doesnt promote a mix of aircraft and diverse combat situations, which are some of the aims of this game/sim. it has become aircraft X sim (with a big bunch of hangar queens).
-
So now we've come full circle. In past discussions there was agreement that who tends to fly a plane should have no effect on its ENY or perk price. Performance was all that mattered.
There never was such an "agreement"
Let me play dumb. Please define "unbalancing" in AH. But don't just give me examples, I'm too dumb to extrapolate to the principle that makes them examples of "unbalancing." Please tell me what "unbalancing" is itself.
Slap Shot did.
-
There never was such an "agreement"
Well, it can't be both ways. There's an alternating criterion for perking that people make use of depending on the specific airplane.
On the one hand, when people say "Perk plane x because it's 12% of the arena" we respond "true, but it's popular because of, e.g. its fame, it does not have perkable performance."
Then, when people say "Perk plane x because it has perkable performance" we respond "true, but it's flown by noobs, so that's why it makes up 12% of the arena."
Which is it going to be?
-
Both.
There is no simple number that will tell you "perk" or result in specific ENY value. Never will be.
You have to look at the whole picture.
-
Besides convincing argument that the Spitfire XVI is the equal of some of the cheaply-perked planes...
That's the crux ... you may be convinced ... but there is a large contingent that doesn't agree with the "convincing argument" put forth.
So now we've come full circle. In past discussions there was agreement that who tends to fly a plane should have no effect on its ENY or perk price. Performance was all that mattered. It is difficult to hit a moving target.
Please show the "agreement" ... I don't agree at all ... Performance was all that mattered ? ... I don't subscribe to that at all.
Right, the term is so clear you simply laugh when someone asks you to define it. Let me play dumb. Please define "unbalancing" in AH. But don't just give me examples, I'm too dumb to extrapolate to the principle that makes them examples of "unbalancing." Please tell me what "unbalancing" is itself.
I wasn't laughing at all ... no need to laugh ... it's quite obvious ... here let me say it again ...
Does a plane completely dominate an arena with excessive numbers and at the same time, does it kill just about everything in it's path with excessive frequency ?
If the answer is "yes" ... then it's "unbalancing" and needs to be perked ... and the Spit 16 does not pass that muster.
That's a nice way to respond to someone who asks that you keep the conversation civil. I agree with BnZs that invective is the resort of those who don't have an argument. Maybe it's time you consider that someone could disagree with you for reasons other than character flaw? ;) Seriously... :uhoh
How was I not "civil" ? ... by pointing out the obvious in reference to his pompous "intellect" statement ? ... sorry about that ... NOT.
-
There never was such an "agreement"
Slap Shot did.
Ok ... Snail Man ... ;)
-
Ok ... Snail Man ... ;)
:lol... sorry
-
Well, it can't be both ways. There's an alternating criterion for perking that people make use of depending on the specific airplane.
On the one hand, when people say "Perk plane x because it's 12% of the arena" we respond "true, but it's popular because of, e.g. its fame, it does not have perkable performance."
Then, when people say "Perk plane x because it has perkable performance" we respond "true, but it's flown by noobs, so that's why it makes up 12% of the arena."
Which is it going to be?
If the spit16 was 20mph faster or so at cruising speed I'd say perk it but as it is, it's only a very good TnBer with no recourse if someone extends.
-
How was I not "civil" ? ... by pointing out the obvious in reference to his pompous "intellect" statement ? ... sorry about that ... NOT.
You didn't say "crybaby" about BnZs' statement. You said it about people who disagree with you about perking.
Both.
There is no simple number that will tell you "perk" or result in specific ENY value. Never will be.
You have to look at the whole picture.
It can't be both, or you put yourself in the position of questioning HTC's decision to perk the Spit XIV. Then we can switch rolls and I will use a vague and indeterminate notion like "unbalancing" to tell you that you've never reached the burden of proof for unperking the XIV.
-
Does a plane completely dominate an arena with excessive numbers and at the same time, does it kill just about everything in it's path with excessive frequency ?
To address this proposed definition, does it matter to you that these conditions could occur with an aircraft that does not have dominating performance? Historical fame and a following of skilled virtual pilots might make an aircraft perk-worthy, by your definition.
For the sake of argument, let's use your definition. Are you committed to unperking the Spit XIV? It seems to be the least-used perk plane and it's K/D ratio is lower than some unperked planes.
-
To address this proposed definition, does it matter to you that these conditions could occur with an aircraft that does not have dominating performance? Historical fame and a following of skilled virtual pilots might make an aircraft perk-worthy, by your definition.
For the sake of argument, let's use your definition. Are you committed to unperking the Spit XIV? It seems to be the least-used perk plane and it's K/D ratio is lower than some unperked planes.
If the Spit 1 fell into the "definition" ... then yes, it would need to be perked for the sake of gameplay.
At this point in the Aces High evolution ... I believe that the only 2 planes that need to be perked are the 163 and the 262.
The CHOG / Tempest / Spit XIV need not to be perked anymore due to the fact that planes have added to the hanger (since the time they were perked) that neutralize the dominating effect that they did have "back in the day" ... simply ... the criteria that required them to be perked does not exist anymore IMHO.
-
Forgive me, but I do find the irony a little stinging that after all this talk of burden of proof for arguing against the way HTC has done things, you come out and advocate a change far more radical than my modest little proposal of 3-5 perks for the XVI. :P
-
Forgive me, but I do find the irony a little stinging that after all this talk of burden of proof for arguing against the way HTC has done things, you come out and advocate a change far more radical than my modest little proposal of 3-5 perks for the XVI. :P
So what does a guy fly who is new to the game and has no perks?
And why do you care about how many people fly the spixteen? Can't kill them?
-
So what does a guy fly who is new to the game and has no perks?
And why do you care about how many people fly the spixteen? Can't kill them?
Point 1: The Spitfire VIII?
Point 2: I'm only looking for consistency in what is perked and what is not. I'm about 8:1 K/D against the XVI this year, so killing them is not the issue.
-
Forgive me, but I do find the irony a little stinging that after all this talk of burden of proof for arguing against the way HTC has done things, you come out and advocate a change far more radical than my modest little proposal of 3-5 perks for the XVI. :P
Not ironical at all ... I said ... IMHO ... but if left as is, it's ok with me too.
There are better arguments to un-perk planes than there are to perk planes. All the comparisons that have been brought forward about the CHOG vs the Spit 16 better suit the argument to un-perk the CHOG as opposed to perk the Spit 16 ... because the Spit 16 could be used as a balancing force when CHOGS come flying off a CV.
Most of these whines are from people who pigeon hole themselves into flying 1 particular aircraft and the plane that they whine about is most likely kicking their arse every time they encounter one. So it's people who limit themselves (self-imposed) by their plane choice that want to limit others to suit their idea of game play.
-
: I'm only looking for consistency in what is perked and what is not. I'm about 8:1 K/D against the XVI this year, so killing them is not the issue.
Ya, it's a holier-than-thou stance you are taking. You audaciously assume everyone has the skills, physical tools, computer hardware, and most importantly: time, to put into the game in order to become proficient enough to have fun(read as get kills now and then) in more "challenging" rides.
Some people have one arm, arthritis, have slowed reflexes due to age, poor eyesight, crippled digits or other health issues. Others have only a few hours each month to play. Others don't have the money to invest in a joystick and must fly with a mouse, or they merely have the most rudimentary stick. To me, it is the height of arrogance to want to perk rides like the spixteen and make it that much harder for these people to have a good time.
-
There are better arguments to un-perk planes than there are to perk planes. All the comparisons that have been brought forward about the CHOG vs the Spit 16 better suit the argument to un-perk the CHOG as opposed to perk the Spit 16 ... because the Spit 16 could be used as a balancing force when CHOGS come flying off a CV.
I've been saying for many pages that I would be fine with the C-Hog being unperked if the XVI will remain unperked. To me that's simply being consistent. :)
---------
Edit: I'm not going to reply to Steve's troll.
-
Edit: I'm not going to reply to Steve's troll.
It's not a troll. You simply don't have an answer to my assertion. This will be clear to any who read it.
-
I've been saying for many pages that I would be fine with the C-Hog being unperked if the XVI will remain unperked. To me that's simply being consistent. :)
---------
Edit: I'm not going to reply to Steve's troll.
I think that arguments that don't impose limits would get the "ear" of HTC more than arguments that "limit" (I could be wrong).
Don't know if Steve is trolling or not ... regardless ... his points are still valid.
-
No, it's just another example of someone who attributes an opinion other than their own to character flaw; it's a surrepticious ad hominem.
-
No, it's just another example of someone who attributes an opinion other than their own to character flaw; it's a surrepticious ad hominem.
No. It is convenient for you to read this into my statement as it would allow you to pretend my words hold no merit. However, it took but moments for another to see the validity of my points. That you refuse to do so is indicative that you are being stubbornly obtuse in order to stick to your point or else you really don't see my point. I'm confident it's the former. I routinely encounter people who will stubbornly run their head into a wall rather than admit others might have good points. It's kind of funny.
-
OK I have the perfect solution to this latest Spit whine. Give us a 1942 full span wing Spitfire LFVc to go with our 1942 FIXc, a 1943 clipped wing Spitfire FXII to go with our 1943 Spitfire LFVIIIc, a 1944 full span wing Spitfire LFIXe with +18 boost, and then the 1945 clipped wing Spitfire LFXVIe with +25 boost that is perked to go with our perked Spitfire FXIVe. With our 1940 Spitfire I and 1941 Spitfire Vb we'd have it covered.
I'll leave the Seafire componant to Kev :)
Happy now? :aok
Sounds good Dan.
The 1942 LFVc should be clipped though (with the cropped impellor and 18lbs boost).
Seafires are easy -
Our current IIc (one of the rarest Seafires, prefer the LIIc) plus the MOST produced Seafire of all - the LIII.
-
I would say that unperking the C-Hog could be a fix to this issue. It's just a difficult situation at times since most of the unperked rides can't really compete with the 16.
Personally, I had just watched an F6F show on the History Channel when I started playing this game, so that was my first ride, I then moved over to the spitfires for a bit, and then gravitated towards the P-51's. I agree that there is merit in leaving the XVI unperked as long as it's balanced in terms of another unperked ride that can compete as equals with it. I get the feeling that the C-Hog is widely considered it's equal?
P.S. My post before was just me showing that everything is subjective, I wasn't taking a stance one way or another. I was just saying that it's really hard to have an argument about something like this because people see things so many different ways and naturally will use information and wording to aid their argument. I think what the majority of people are calling for is just as stated above, although I fear if we unperk the C-Hog, we're going to see as many of them as we see Spitfires, and the skies will become even more unfriendly to those who take up other rides. It'd be nice to see a trial week or something like that to get a feel for it.
-
Sure, unperk the F4U-1C. It would be an interesting experiment.
-
Would have to change the game name to C-Hogs High, Lo and every where in between.
-
I would say that unperking the C-Hog could be a fix to this issue.
Unperk a hog, which is clearly the most versatile plane in the game, which also has HUGE amounts of ammo for the best air-to-air gun in the game, of which it has 4. No the spixteen is not the chog's equal... no no no.
-
It's not a troll. You simply don't have an answer to my assertion. This will be clear to any who read it.
Calling troll as a way of avoiding answering a question seems to be a very common practice these days.
ack-ack
-
That’s a nice list you have their Guppy, do we have room for a Spitfire LF Mk. IXe with 25lbs of boost, I would rather have 303s in my uber perked ride then .50cals. :P
-
That’s a nice list you have their Guppy, do we have room for a Spitfire LF Mk. IXe with 25lbs of boost, I would rather have 303s in my uber perked ride then .50cals. :P
an LFIXe is exactly the same as an LFXVIe. I suppose if HTC would make the wing type an option on the Spits..... :)
-
Unperk a hog, which is clearly the most versatile plane in the game, which also has HUGE amounts of ammo for the best air-to-air gun in the game, of which it has 4. No the spixteen is not the chog's equal... no no no.
The chog might be better if the fight is something like 4+ 1Cs vs. 4+ XVIs. But 1:1, the spit wins it more than half the time, easily.
-
Sure, unperk the F4U-1C. It would be an interesting experiment.
I think it would be and would confirm whether or not, if with our current plane set is the F4U-1C still unbalancing?
ack-ack
-
The chog might be better if the fight is something like 4+ 1Cs vs. 4+ XVIs. But 1:1, the spit wins it more than half the time, easily.
I weas referring to the MA environment, which is what we are discussing.
-
Sure, unperk the F4U-1C. It would be an interesting experiment.
And you will never see the F4U-1D ever again . . . probably not the F6-F either.
-
weok.
-
I think it would be and would confirm whether or not, if with our current plane set is the F4U-1C still unbalancing?
ack-ack
I weas referring to the MA environment, which is what we are discussing.
I think it would be HORRIBLE for the MA if the Chog wasnt perked, I dont know if you been in DA lately but Chogs are hoing everything in sight :(
-
I dont know if you been in DA lately but Chogs are hoing everything in sight :(
And how is that much different then the MA arenas ?
-
I think it would be HORRIBLE for the MA if the Chog wasnt perked, I dont know if you been in DA lately but Chogs are hoing everything in sight :(
You have no idea as to why the C-Hog was perked in the first place and here's a clue...it wasn't because people were using head on attacks.
ack-ack
-
(http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n268/Luke_831/Spitfire-1.png)
-
:rock
-
Nice one kazaa! :lol
-
wow you got 3 kills in one burst get over it already. :rolleyes:
-
I'm getting worried that the C-Hog may be unperked because no one has come up with workable reasons for keeping it perked yet. So I have to step in :P
First, the reasons that do not work:
Obviously, the C-Hog cannot be perked on the basis of any special performance, if anything it is actually slightly heavier than the unperked Hogs, fuel load for fuel load.
It cannot be perked on the basis of firepower, because there are several unperked quad Hispano and quad-cannon birds. Of these, the Typhoon is much faster at typical low alts, and also a good jabo, the HurriIIC is much more maneuverable, and the N1K has quad-cannons, a generous ammo supply, carries bombs, and also is very maneuverable. There are arguably better buff-hunters, since the C-Hogs ROC is rather anemic, it is bizarrely susceptible to engine-stoppages and pilot wounds, and something packing 30MMs might be considered better for buff-busting.
So the C-Hog is a very good, very dangerous plane, but probably not completely overwhelming. Thus the notion of protecting the MA as a whole from unlimited C-Hogs makes for a weak justification. Instead, the best reason to perk the thing is to ensure that the much more common and representative .50 cal Hogs will see use. Which is a good enough reason if you ask me. 19 pages before someone justified the C-Hog's perk status...wow. :)
-
I'm getting worried that the C-Hog may be unperked because no one has come up with workable reasons for keeping it perked yet. So I have to step in
those that flew when the Chog was unperked understand why HTC perked it.
no further reason needed.
-
I rarely fly the F4U's of any kind, so I have no vested interest in whether it is perked or not. I must ask though, isn't perking the C variant to insure use of the other variants contradictory to the way HTC setup the plane perk system in the first place?
-
those that flew when the Chog was unperked understand why HTC perked it.
no further reason needed.
Yeah yeah, 25% usage, heard you the first time. Different MA today, whole bucket-load of planes we didn't have back then, she wouldn't see anywhere near that kind of use today.
-
I rarely fly the F4U's of any kind, so I have no vested interest in whether it is perked or not. I must ask though, isn't perking the C variant to insure use of the other variants contradictory to the way HTC setup the plane perk system in the first place?
Search me Waystin. There is seemingly no absolutely consistent basis upon which planes are perked. I think ensuring that that the F4U-1, -1A, 1D, and the F6F are not mostly replaced by C-Hogs is a good enough reason.
For contrast, the Ta-152 is another extremely rare bird that once was perked, but now is not perked, which I think is a good thing. One notable difference between the rare 152 and the rare C-Hog is that there aren't any vastly more produced and slightly less uber 152 variants in the game to "protect".
-
After I thought about it BnZ, there really is only two reasons to keep the C-model perked. Every CV attack would be carried out with C-models, and historically it was a rarer variant. Otherwise it truly is no more dominating than some of the other 4 20 mm cannon birds we have out there already.
-
you put yourself in the position of questioning HTC's decision to perk the Spit XIV.
So many folks spoiled with the new spit16s and spit8s, they forget the spit14 was here many MANY years before either showed up. In the pre-spit16/spit8 world, this was (and note: still IS!) an uber ride. The horsepower, climb rate, speed, alone is better than most of the planeset, and yet it turns noticably better than other rides that approach it's speeds (P51s, p47s, 109k4, 190d, tempest).
The question isn't "why is the spit14 perked?" but rather after having established "this is uber" and introduced 2 planes just as uber, "Why are THESE 2 new planes, even BETTER than this perk ride, still unperked?"
-
Whoa, slow down there Krusty.
The Spit16 is double-superior to such a huge chunk of the plane set and so good in general that I think it deserves a light perk, but it doesn't come anywhere close to matching the P-51, 109K, Dora, Typh, etc, in top speed. Like I've said before, the planes the Spit16 really hurt in terms of MA viability for a2a work are the moderate planes, in between the high-end speed burners and the Zero/Hurri type aircraft.
The SpitXIV would be double-superior to many, many more aircraft than the SpitXVI.
The SpitVIII should not be considered for perking because it retains the primary handicap of Spitfires, anemic roll rate at high speed, as well as being in possession of slightly less top speed and firepower.
So many folks spoiled with the new spit16s and spit8s, they forget the spit14 was here many MANY years before either showed up. In the pre-spit16/spit8 world, this was (and note: still IS!) an uber ride. The horsepower, climb rate, speed, alone is better than most of the planeset, and yet it turns noticably better than other rides that approach it's speeds (P51s, p47s, 109k4, 190d, tempest).
The question isn't "why is the spit14 perked?" but rather after having established "this is uber" and introduced 2 planes just as uber, "Why are THESE 2 new planes, even BETTER than this perk ride, still unperked?"
-
Gentleman, this is what I would do:
Upgrade the boost on the Spitfire Mk. XIV to 21lbs and leave it perked.
Upgrade the boost on the Spitfire Mk. XVI to 25lbs of boost and perk it.
Job half done, that does leave us without an unperked clipped Spitfire though.
-
Leave the XVI unperked, or perk it 1 perk, no more. Make a duplicate one at 25lbs, and perk that one. Or roll out the perk loadout system.. Too bad there's no way to know if that's not possible for some reason.
-
I agree with almost everything you said m00t, it would save us lot of time skinning the XVI with 25lbs of boost.
1 perk isn’t enough for the XVI, I would say 3-5 perks is a good solid number.
-
It's not that good. Its vulnerabilities are too easy to exploit for 3-5 perks. There's no other planes for new players to use as a trainer.. It allows them to make quick corrections like no other plane allows. That lets them make consecutive attempts at any acm quicker, so they progress quicker.
I wouldn't perk it for more than 2 points.
-
HTC has said no. Can't perk an engine setup in the hangar. Doesn't work that way. Has to be different planes in the hangar list when introducing different wings (clipped etc) and different engines.
-
It's not that good. Its vulnerabilities are too easy to exploit for 3-5 perks. There's no other planes for new players to use as a trainer.. It allows them to make quick corrections like no other plane allows. That lets them make consecutive attempts at any acm quicker, so they progress quicker.
I wouldn't perk it for more than 2 points.
Your false assumption is that spit16 pilots progress.
The plane is such an un-stalling UFO that you take an accomplished 2-year spit driver and he can't do jack in any non-spit in the game*
* = might do okay in the hurr2c and a6m5, but they have more vices than the spit16 by a long shot.
-
There is no point perking a plane for 1 point... that's crazy talk man, the rookies will do just fine in a Spitfire Mk. VIII, IX. :lol
-
HTC has said no. Can't perk an engine setup in the hangar. Doesn't work that way. Has to be different planes in the hangar list when introducing different wings (clipped etc) and different engines.
Well they coud just add the "Spitfire Mk. XVI 1944" with 25lbs of boost, or something along those lines.
-
Well they coud just add the "Spitfire Mk. XVI 1944" with 25lbs of boost, or something along those lines.
I'm pretty sure they came out and said no to that boost level. Too much of a monster (do you really NEED 6000fpm climb rates and deck speeds capable of chasing down P-51Ds??? I think not!)
EDIT: P.S. I'm not a spit hater, as commented earlier. I don't think they're modeled very well. Most of that spit-hater commentary crap goes back to before 2.06 when some folks in the spit discussion thread went a little rabid....
-
Gentleman, this is what I would do:
Upgrade the boost on the Spitfire Mk. XIV to 21lbs and leave it perked.
Upgrade the boost on the Spitfire Mk. XVI to 25lbs of boost and perk it.
Job half done, that does leave us without an unperked clipped Spitfire though.
1943 Spitfire XII. Midwar bird, clipped wing. I'm sure it would work just fine in a replacement role for that perked 16 :)
-
or an early clipped wing Spit V, with proper boost settings.
-
1943 Spitfire XII. Midwar bird, clipped wing. I'm sure it would work just fine in a replacement role for that perked 16 :)
Until the inevible whines and it got perked also.
I Wonder - If the XVI was to get perked, just clip the VIII and.......viola a XVI with extra range, minimally better acceleration and top speed (due to retractible tailwheel).
Bruv119 - An early clipped V would be a Vc, which we no longer have. To make it different enough to the Vb we currently have, you are back to our old Vc with the Merlin 55M. Just think what that would be like clipped!
[edit] Did we ever get to the bottom of the VIIIs poor roll rate, i.e. suspicions it is based on an HF VIII with extended tips?
-
No, let erm have it Kev!
Plus put 25lbs of boost on that bad boy VIII, your talking 370MPH and 5,800 climb at full pelt on the deck... :cool:
-
It's not that good. Its vulnerabilities are too easy to exploit for 3-5 perks.
What vulnerabilities? It has none, other than the putative fragility IF it ends up in front of the guns instead of the other way around. It might have the best game in town as far as defensive possibilities goes, due to a combination of roll rate and good turning.
There's no other planes for new players to use as a trainer.. It allows them to make quick corrections like no other plane allows. That lets them make consecutive attempts at any acm quicker, so they progress quicker.
I wouldn't perk it for more than 2 points.
There are plenty of other planes to use at trainers which are relatively easy to handle *Most* AHII airplanes are "easy to fly" in the conventional sense, meaning they take off, land, and recover from stalls with little/no difficulty or surprises. You want an easy-to-fly plane, the HurrIIC is a rock-steady platform, and with its turn radius, guns, and over-the-nose views, better for the typical new-guy style of pull back on the yoke until it comes into view and hammer away. The SpitXVI OTOH, represents an airplane that is both relatively easy to handle *and* double-superior to a huge chunk of the plane set.
The "New guys need very good planes so their first flights will be easier" could be used as an argument to unperk practically anything, the C-Hog (What gun package is easier to use than quad 20MMs? And its a pretty good platform and fighter to boot), the Tempest (Quad 20mm plus the noob gets to be untouchable), or best, the F4U-4. (The best plane. 'Nuff said.)