There is nothing else to understand. Top speed is top speed. If the plane goes higher or can’t reach it’s top speed, then the top speed is wrong. If you want examples of planes that can’t reach their top speeds rather than planes that go above them, there’s the Spitfire F Mk XIVe, which the stat card says the max speed is 723 km/h at 8537 meters, yet it does about 710 km/h, even if you are burning your engine with WEP and 0% radiators.
Unless you mean that you don’t believe I’ve actually tested it/am not being truthful about the results? In which case here’s the video.
By extension that literally means you’re calling me ignorant, it’s just a more “polite” way of saying it. Having ignorance means that someone is ignorant.
Also, you are saying that I don’t know how to read and comprehend well. That is another ad hominem.
Your ignorance to the principal behind stat cards, and your inability to understand what people are conveying to you is leading to your anger and need to prove someone wrong getting the better of you.
Nothing of what I have said is provocative or abusive, but a lot of what you have to me, because you didn’t even understand what was said, has been.
I think you need to apologize and take it all on the chin. I’m done, I’ve explained enough for the OP, and I surely hope that none of anything else that has been fed to them by those who also don’t understand it, is taken without the salt that’s been provided to be critical of the information being provided erroneously, and ignorantly.
You can take it any which way you want, but it wasn’t what was said.
Then explain the Spitfire F Mk XIVe being incapable of reaching it’s listed Max speed.
The moment I bring up a case of a plane that physically can’t reach its top speed in level flight is the moment you decide “I’m done”, which makes sense because this is one case that your top speed explanation cannot explain. And the reason for that is because it is wrong, because stat cards can be inaccurate and incorrect.
That is a load of bullshit.
First off, just because YOU don’t know how they work, and because YOU don’t know anyone who does use them because YOU haven’t asked about them, doesn’t make them negatable…
And as to your ‘side note’ you don’t even know about MEC, so you don’t understand the further detail that comes from that level of control…
So please, start learning and get to understanding because these are STANDARD DETAILS.
I know you don’t understand the stat cards, and that’s clear throughout the thread…
That is all your comments just from the first 2 replies saying that I am ignorant, don’t know what I am talking about, that I should start learning, and doing so very aggressively. You are a bully, through and through, and simply do not like that someone else stood up to you and actually had evidence to back up their claims.
So to that I say “Hell no”. You were rude from the get go. I was actually not rude to you on my first reply to you, simply explaining and producing evidence on why I believe that stat cards can be inaccurate and overall show niche results. I have nothing to apologize for as you were the one that consistently ignored everything, made half-assed excuses to counter my points, and continued to be a generally unpleasant person.
You can think I’m a bully all you like, but I’m not the one getting all angry and abusive because they can’t actually understand what was put forth to them…
You can take it that I insulted your intelligence all you like, but the statement was made, and it doesn’t say what you think.
It’s not thinking here, it is factual. Anyone can look at your forum posts and find plenty examples of you being this way.
The person that constantly gets called ignorant gets angry, that’s a shocker. You need to work on social skills.
Also, if people don’t understand your explanations, that’s because they are full of holes and don’t actually conform to the truth. Again, explain the Spitfire Mk XIVe not being able to reach it’s 723 km/h max speed. But that’s something you don’t want to do because you can’t without going back on your own word that “stat cards are accurate”. I kept finding hole after hole and all you could do was patch it up with a poorly applied band-aid, so it isn’t surprising when people don’t believe your “explanations”.
Meanwhile, here’s the explanation that doesn’t have cracks to band-aid in the first place: “Not all stat cards are 100% accurate”. Accept that and move on.
They are not - check the stat card of the B7A2. It says max altitude ~8.260 meters. You have zero problems to climb to 10 km. The Wyvern stat card claims a max alt of 9.000 meters, i critted one at 9.800 meters some time ago…
This whole thread was funny to read, but actually a waste of time. I mean 69 posts about subjective feelings, complains about the highly overtiered Re 2005, claiming “stat cards are right” and claiming “stop saying xyz” is covered by free speech, but if you prove that those claims are wrong (based on facts) there is no point in continuing with this…
If you are getting caught by an Re.2005 then it is because you are probably diving too steeply and then he can cut off your flight path after you level out…or more likely you are just reacting too late when he is already within gun range.
People compare the F Mk IX and Re.2005 because they have virtually identical flight performance in-game. They are slow planes that turn well…that is basically the niche they fill…except at 6.0 the Re.2005 is laughably slower than pretty much all of its opposition.
All three of these planes are just good turning planes with good guns. And two of these are not nearly as bad as the Re.2005 is for the battle rating because they at least have good guns and better climb rates.
The P-59 has been the best plane at it’s battle rating range for most of the time that it has been in the game.
The F7F was bad when it was 6.7BR. It is not bad at 6.3BR now that its guns are back to normal damage levels.
It says “the maximum altitude”, indicating that it is the absolute ceiling, not service ceiling, as service ceiling is not the actual maximum altitude.
Besides, what I just showed is the Re.2005’s stat card, which as I’ve just tested now is incapable of going over 11000 meters to any meaningful degree (maybe 100 meters if you zoom climb), indicating that this is the maximum possible altitude of the plane (absolute ceiling), not service ceiling, and is accurate, at least in my eyes.
With all that, do you want to know the actual, extremely simple reason why the Me 163 says a maximum altitude of 15 km?..
It’s because back when the plane was added, any plane going above 15k would be teleported to a lower altitude… You physically could not stay in level flight for over a few seconds above this altitude, so the stat card of the Me 163 says a maximum altitude of 15 km.
Except now you can go significantly higher because of the addition of Mach 2 capable aircraft.
Besides all that, 15 km cannot be the in game service ceiling of the Me 163 because it still maintains the 20º climb I was doing, with a climb rate above 55 m/s. Only at 17.5 km, climbing at 20º, does the climb rate fall below 40 m/s. That explanation falls short like many others.
The La-5FN, for example, has a “Maximum height” stat of 11350 meters. Yet even with minimum fuel it tops out at around 11120, 11130 meters. It cannot reach 11350 meters.
La-5FN
The plane physically cannot pitch up higher even if I try, and maintains an exact 0 m/s climb
I have better stats on the J7W1 (24 battles, 20 wins, 8 deaths, 53 aircraft kills) than the P-51H (60 battles, 37 wins, 34 deaths, 51 aircraft kills). In fact, I would consider my P-51H stats to be downright horrendous for how stupid good it is.
The explanation is extremely simple. I played the P-51H way back when I was not very good at the game and the J7W1 was played way way later when I at least had 3 brain cells.
There can be many reasons why someone seemingly performs better or worse with a certain plane that outright have nothing to do with how actually good or bad the plane is.
Edit: I want to point out that when I played both of these aircraft, AI aircraft were not common whatsoever, so no I didn’t farm AI with the J7W1. Those are all player kills.
Another thing is that the Re.2005 used to have a completely broken, overperforming flight model.
I have 11 battles in the Re.2005, 10 of those were with this completely broken flight model, and my statistics reflect that, with a 100% win rate, 3 deaths and 33 kills.
It’s entirely possible that @New_約克_Persns falls into the same category of his stats on the Re.2005 being from when the plane was actually good.
The guy’s delusional now, he ain’t listening or caring about anything so much as telling everyone it’s broken because they can’t take on board the knowledge.
Just gonna say, it’s not broken, lying, or anything misleading… It’s all interpretation, and it’s mirrored in the real life stats of planes.
The nit-picking that is going on, is just nit-picking to keep the whinge going, because really, every complaint about the game, gets another in, and another in, echoping the ‘issue’ but they always seem to be missing very vital points…
It’s all about taking their moaning with a big bag of salt.
oh yeah i remember when re2005 had the same climb rate of the spitfire lf mk9 but the high altitude performance of the 109… but that was when adam the enginerd was still posting.
Denies facts, tries to guilty trip, makes fake accusations, pushes fake narrative despite hard facts speaking against it, tries manipulating reader into thinking that he is baselessly “attacked/harassed”, writes comments filed with contradictions.
An entire month has passed, and you randomly come in here for no reason to thow out some sort of rebuttal based on nothing…
A LOT of planes are misused by the users, and it’s common that peopel really don’t understand trhe principals behind energy fighting, boom n zoom, boom n run, or flap use in the slightest.
I can clearly see your want to be up on someone, but your confidnece is misplaced. I suggest you find another thread.
if this is about me ranting about spit mk24, yes, the plane is not good, while re2005 is actually on the same train, yet a whole BR below. The Mk24 is horrendous below 3km where literally every match develops since early jets don’t usually have good climbrates (unless they’re American or Russian) and rather stay on the deck trying to hold their speed. Re2005 is also more maneuverable than the Mk24 if it sits on your tail.
When you’re literally 500kmh slower than your entire competence you very much have absolutely nothing to do on your own unless the enemy commits the mistake of engaging with you. Hell, the P51H does better in a full uptier than the Spit mk24 at 6.0. Wonder why? The P51H is the fastest piston fighter at any altitude, it’s agile and has terrific guns that will grant you an easy kill on anything if you aim at the cockpit or the engine, especially on jets. The Spitfire Mk24 is slow as a spitfire, but doesn’t turn as good as the other spitfires. It also overheats horribly and you will kill your engine even with MEC earlier than you run out of water injection on p51. Besides, mec on spitfire adds a gorillion amount of drag while the p51h has Meredith flow where the radiators barely put any burden to the airflow.
