PDA

View Full Version : Mig-3 1940 superior than the 109G-6 late??



XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 06:18 PM
I have been flying a campaign, in which currently I'm flying the 106-G6 Late. After flying a mission, I was bored and decided to get on QMB and fly some different planes. I chose at random the Mig-3 1940 version and flew it against some late 109s. I was thinking, "Hey, this thing is doing everything better than the 109G-6 Late I'm flying in campaign!!" Then I did some experiments, and did in fact find that at low altitudes, this early Russian plane really is superior to the 109G-6 Late!! At least as they are currently modelled in FB. Better in almost every category at that too. It accelerates faster, turns tighter ( turns about 4 circle before it even start to lose energy and speed ) and it seems to climb better too, although I didn't
really time the climbs, just perception. It also seems to go as fast, even though the object viewer says the Mig is supposed to be slower. And also, even though it is not very durable when hit, it still takes damage better than any 109 does after the latest patch!!! So the online gamers could actually go on a server and do better, in my opinion, in that old Mig-3 than they could in a much later war 109, like the G-6 late!! Unlike many people, I try not to whine like a whipped three year old in these forums, and am not whining here, only wondering if those early Russian planes could really be that good in RL. I also try to distance myself from those that say there is a "Russian bias". I just simply don't want to believe Oleg would be that way.
But try it yourself, fly both of them and you'll see what I mean. I used full real and CEM. I realize there will be
the lame, "learn how to fly late 109s" crowd posting in here
soon. But they should try it before commenting. I ask again, could the early Mig really be that good compared to a later war 109??

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin - 1755

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 06:18 PM
I have been flying a campaign, in which currently I'm flying the 106-G6 Late. After flying a mission, I was bored and decided to get on QMB and fly some different planes. I chose at random the Mig-3 1940 version and flew it against some late 109s. I was thinking, "Hey, this thing is doing everything better than the 109G-6 Late I'm flying in campaign!!" Then I did some experiments, and did in fact find that at low altitudes, this early Russian plane really is superior to the 109G-6 Late!! At least as they are currently modelled in FB. Better in almost every category at that too. It accelerates faster, turns tighter ( turns about 4 circle before it even start to lose energy and speed ) and it seems to climb better too, although I didn't
really time the climbs, just perception. It also seems to go as fast, even though the object viewer says the Mig is supposed to be slower. And also, even though it is not very durable when hit, it still takes damage better than any 109 does after the latest patch!!! So the online gamers could actually go on a server and do better, in my opinion, in that old Mig-3 than they could in a much later war 109, like the G-6 late!! Unlike many people, I try not to whine like a whipped three year old in these forums, and am not whining here, only wondering if those early Russian planes could really be that good in RL. I also try to distance myself from those that say there is a "Russian bias". I just simply don't want to believe Oleg would be that way.
But try it yourself, fly both of them and you'll see what I mean. I used full real and CEM. I realize there will be
the lame, "learn how to fly late 109s" crowd posting in here
soon. But they should try it before commenting. I ask again, could the early Mig really be that good compared to a later war 109??

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin - 1755

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 06:35 PM
Hi,

The Mig3 variants other than the AM38 should be poor performers at low [sub 5-6000m] altitudes. I've been playing with the Mig3UD and AM38 these last couple of days, and I've found that for those at least, the UD seems quite lethargic down low, and the AM38 is a rocket up to about 3000m, where it starts feeling the pain. I've just checked this in Il2compare and it seems to match those impressions almost exactly.

None of the Mig3 variants should be well armored in the game - in fact, usually when I get hit when I'm flying one of them, it's an instant "explosion" kill on me with no real warning or indication that I'm being hit before it. Definitely shouldn't be more armored than any of the 109s.

I'll have to give the Mig3 1940 a go and see what it does. Il2Compare doesn't seem to think it differs that much from the UD variant though - not saying it definitely doesn't - but from the numbers it doesn't look like it should be any kind of good performer at sub 3000m altitudes. Il2Compare says the 109G6L is more or less superior to the Mig3 1940 at all altitudes below about 8000m - around 20/35kmh faster, and slightly faster in the climb up to 2200m. Don't forget that the Mig3 [sans AM38 engine] was practically unique in being about the only high performance @ high altitude fighter the Soviets made in any large quantity, as far as I know, anyway.

You may find the recent Buzzsaw/Wastel threads in the ORR helpful for extracting the best out of the Bf109 in FB 1.11.



http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/worker_parasite.jpg

Need help with NewView? Read this thread. (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yzbcj)

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 06:42 PM
I may have been too hasty in my judgement but it sure "feels" better. I have no idea what "IL2compare" is
so I don't know what you're talking about there. The Mig 1940 model actually was able to get up to a higher speed than the 109 G-6 Late for me in that half-a$$ed test I did. But I will try again and look at that post you talked about.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin - 1755

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 06:53 PM
Hi Mortoma,

A program was recently released called Il2Compare, which is a database of flight model figures in FB 1.11


You can download it from:
http://www.barans.spb.ru/files/ilc_v21.zip

Note that these are only calculated values. The games AI routines apparently extract what they believe any plane in the game should be capable of under various conditions and this is just a big log of those extracted figures. I don't know whether it's 100% accurate, and it certainly lacks some figures which would be useful in determining just how the planes actually operate in-game.

Despite that, it's pretty much the best thing we have at the moment to determine what the FB planes should be capable of doing. It's very good for determining the various strengths and weaknesses of planes you're flying or fighting againt, anyhow.


http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/worker_parasite.jpg

Need help with NewView? Read this thread. (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yzbcj)

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 07:11 PM
RE: Mig-3 1940 superior than the 109G-6 late??


Not quite...I red somewhere a post from a guy saying that he had a blast with the Emil in a campaign...so I said, let's give it a try in QMB.

Well, whoped some Mig-3, Yak-1 and LaGG-3 Series 4('41 model) with no sweat in some cases...as soon as I get home I will set up some QMB: me in G6-late (which for me behaves like a "heavy" Friedrich) vs an ACE MiG-3 1940, ud, AM-38, UBS, 2xUBK and U, each. I may record tracks if I get a nice deflection shot/kill, but otherwise I will just keep the tally of the df.
I am looking forward to smoke some ruskieshttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<center><img src=http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~socrate/bazu11.jpg>

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 08:46 PM
you are correct - the MIGs are superiour to ANYTHING in this game now. LAs,YAKs,P47,P39,FW190 ..... the lot.

i am starting to feel guilty about taking off in the MIG3 AM-38

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 08:49 PM
Ugh, I can't stand flying the MIG3, any varient. I tried doing a campaign with one and I almost went out of my mind. It's fast but I can't get it to turn with the F series of 109's. They keep drawing me down to the deck, and even up high they own me too badly. I had to go back to the LaGG-3.

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 09:17 PM
They are indeed excellent at lower than 3km or so.
They don't bleed much speed, are fast, very rarely overheat, are lethally armed, have good visibility (except when taking off or landing). Good rollrate (for russian bird) and good climb ability are big pluses, if not the biggest - fly the MiG as if it were a 109 (the MiG's fragility strengthens this analogy) and anything low and slow becomes prey.

The MiG also looks ultra-cool and mean with its harsh features and long nose, unlike for example La's and LaGGs, which are gay, and Yaks, which resemble elongated bathtubs with wings.

My only gripes with the MiG:
a) They were not like this at all in reality, the way they are modelled is pure fantasy.
b) The damn compass is nearly worthless.

PS. Sorry if I insulted someone's favorite bird.

http://sivusto.servepics.com/~lahnat/werre2s.jpg

prkl

Message Edited on 09/23/0308:18PM by Werre_

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 09:35 PM
I tried a veteran Mig3 AM38 vs a Bf 109F2(me), at 2500m.
Gosh that wans't so hard. It was quite differen't(difficult) than it was in Il2, and how it may probably be, but wasn't that deadly...
The Mig3U should be tough, but I didn't tried.
i don't like the Mig3 since the old Il2, I always prefered the G2 and G6late.

<center>"The show must go on..."<center>
<center>http://www.hobby.ro/roarmy/aviatia/greceanu%20tudor/1.jpg
A 'good' landing is one from which you can walk away. A 'great'
landing is one after which they can use the plane again<center>

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 11:10 PM
Sobolan, what you are talking about is relative fighter pilot skill, not pure performance!! I can go in QMB and do combat in anything and kill anything else, mostly because even at ace settings, AI stinks!! Always easy to kill those buggers. You and some of the other repliers apparently didn't understand my post. I was mot talking about dogfighting 1940 Migs against the Gustav Late, I was talking about comparing their relative performance. I flew both QMB's solo, didn't fight against any AI at all. I flew on QMB and tested the Gustav Late al by myself, just flying around. Then I did the same thing in the 1940 Mig and was surprised that it did everthing better than the Gustav. It even seemed faster to me and I flew both planes in CEM and I'm good at using CEM. Good enough to squeak every drop of speed out of any plane. In any case, I could fly one against the other and nearly always win against Ace AI. But that was not the what I was talking about. The Mig is faster, rolls better, climbs better, turns better and accelerates better. At least it seemd to, and I can't understand how the Germans could not make a plane superior to a Russian 1940 job!!! In late 1943 at that. That make me question the FM a little. I just feel that either the late 109s are porked a little, or the Mig is waaaaaaay better than it should be at low altitude. Either Oleg got it right or he didn't. I'm not sure at this point........

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin - 1755

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 11:23 PM
I think, from what I've seen with the latest patch, it's fairly safe to assume that the inaccuracies are absolutely everywhere. My current 'battle' is regarding the ability to land at 300kph+ and things like gear being able to be deployed at speeds hugely in excess of the figures quoted in offical pilots notes.

I love FB, don't get me wrong, but it's just wrong in places. I find it hard to believe that it is wrong non-intentionally, there is a _lot_ of documentation out there - why isn't it being used effectively?

my 2p's worth.

Matt.

http://www.geekfix.com/shamone.jpg</img>



<font face="verdana, arial, helvetica" size="2" >__________________

<font size="1">Pentium 4 3.06Ghz 800Mhz FSB Hyperthreading | Abit IC7 Max 3 | 256Mb Radeon 9800 Pro |
2 x WD Raptor 10,000rpm S-ATA's (RAID 0) | 1Gb OCZ PC4000 Dual Channel Gold Series DDR |
Coolermaster 'Black Widow' | Zalman 7000-CPU Cooler | Track-IR</font></font></p></p>


</p>

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 12:15 AM
Oh I love FB too, and despite it's shortcomings, (which are almost legion now ) it's really the only PC game I play right now besides virtual pool. I love that game too, since I'm poor and don't have either the $$ or the space to have a pool table. But getting back to FB, I try to take a stance between the two extremes of whining like a weenie kid and the "Whine whiners", who all seem to have a Oleg worshiping idolatry temple set aside in some room of their house. Basically, the fact that Maddox changes the FMs sooooo much from one patch to the next, proves that they ( Maddox team ) are fallible, and not perfect. How many times has the FM for the 109 series, for example, changed dramatically, all those different FMs could not be correct. So they must have got it wrong more often than not!! I also, unlike many others, think that constuctive criticism ( called whining by anti-whining extremists, even when it's called for ) is a great way to get sims improved. And I've seen so-called "whining" improve many other sims over the years. If nobody ever critisized a game at all, it would never be patched, and that's not what we want.


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin - 1755

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 01:53 AM
Well, according to the wonderful IL2Compare program, all the Mig-3 variants:

* climbs better
* flies faster
* turns better

than the G-6.









-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 03:16 AM
I remember trying out the Mig against a lot of guys in much newer aircraft online one day...

I gained a bunch of altitude away from the fight and then dove on a couple of enemies...

I probably got about 6 passes in and was having a blast before I got shot down. It was an earlier model though and had pee shooters for guns so I couldn't do a whole lot (on top of being a bad shot) but those guys in german planes were getting awfully frustrated. Even after getting torn apart I was all smiles... Once I lost my energy I was finished, it was like a feeding frenzy, suddenly 3 190's were on my *** and ripped me to shreds.

And yeah, it is one of the coolest looking planes in the game. Too bad the Russians didn't have much use for it in real life..

I've "heard" the real Mig 3 was a real handfull at low altitude, dangerously so. In FB its hardly a demanding aircraft, I remember in the first IL2 in the campaign mode cursing its ability to spin in anything resembling a turn and its pathetic armament, but I remember getting it above 5km a couple of times and suddenly being able to rape every other aircraft in the air. Going after He111's in that thing wasn't much fun at lower alitudes, especially with 109's prowling around..

It will be neat to see how the later models with the 2 cannons do against AI B17's (probably shot to peices by all the .50's)....

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 11:53 AM
I see in my IL2C2.1 that early G6

* flies much faster up to 7300m
* turns better at speeds below 275 kph
* climbs better up to 1700m

than MiG-3.

I don't say that MiG's FM is correct however.


kweassa wrote:
-
- Well, according to the wonderful IL2Compare
- program, all the Mig-3 variants:
-
-
- * climbs better
- * flies faster
- * turns better
-
- than the G-6.

312_Lazy
312. (Czechoslovak) Sq. RAF
http://312.jinak.cz

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 12:44 PM
Each time i play fb, i see it was modeled for pro russian people.All russian planes are allways superior to their germans counterparts.Have anybody fired a mk108? it seems a shotgun, the fw-190 the same, with the adition that although you can´t fly faster nor tur tigher that in russian planes, you reach the blackouts sooner.
What happen to this people?.I want a good sim, not a nationality demostration.
I thought this happened only to usa designers, but i see it isn´t

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 12:45 PM
Hm,

I've flown the MiG-3 in a couple of campaigns, and it seemed to be the dog it should be. I found it to be extremely vulnerable and not really up to a fight against Bf-109's. But then again: I'm a lousy pilot. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

cheers/slush

http://dk.groups.yahoo.com/group/aktivitetsdage/files/Eurotrolls.gif

You can't handle the truth!
Col. Jessep

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 01:23 PM
MadMacgunner wrote:

All russian planes are allways superior to their germans counterparts.


It's this kind of b*llocks that keeps the developers away from these boards. Proof? Evidence?



http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_07.gif


She turned me into a newt, but I got better.

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 02:00 PM
So which of these guys is right ?


Lazy_312 wrote:
- I see in my IL2C2.1 that early G6
-
- * flies much faster up to 7300m
- * turns better at speeds below 275 kph
- * climbs better up to 1700m
-
- than MiG-3.
-
- I don't say that MiG's FM is correct however.
-
-
- kweassa wrote:
--
-- Well, according to the wonderful IL2Compare
-- program, all the Mig-3 variants:
--
--
-- * climbs better
-- * flies faster
-- * turns better
--
-- than the G-6.
-
- 312_Lazy
- 312. (Czechoslovak) Sq. RAF
- http://312.jinak.cz
-



http://idealab.snu.ac.kr/~hobbist/La-5FN/small/La-5FN-06.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 02:01 PM
johann_thor wrote:
- you are correct - the MIGs are superiour to ANYTHING
- in this game now. LAs,YAKs,P47,P39,FW190 ..... the
- lot.
-
- i am starting to feel guilty about taking off in the
- MIG3 AM-38
-
-

Find this hard to believe.



http://idealab.snu.ac.kr/~hobbist/La-5FN/small/La-5FN-06.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 02:04 PM
MadMacgunner,
Nothing wrong with the mk108. FWs only real problem is too high a roll rate at high speeds etc.

Nothing esp pro-russian.

Tho, maybe jerry planes weren't all they were cracked up to be.

http://idealab.snu.ac.kr/~hobbist/La-5FN/small/La-5FN-06.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 02:16 PM
Imho bit is bit too good of a turn fighter, on low alts at least. IRL it was excelent at high alts, but rather sluggish and prone to loose E on continous manouvers..

However with use flaps with 109 G6 and you can outturn the Mig.. i am not talking about Mig3U however, as she was only a protype plane (which we have ability fly however).. You must know what ur doing though, as you can loose your E real fast, but Flaps can do amazing stuff sometimes..

G6 vs Mig is hard fight for G6, as G6 is the most porked planes on 109-series for germans, meaning top speed and climb are way off.. and the wierd weight of G6, when in IRL it was only tiny bit worse than G2..

With G6 however you have MK108, and one hit is enough to explode Migs.

____________________________________



Official Sig:



<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/shots/Vipez4.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 02:22 PM
Saburo_0 wrote:
- So which of these guys is right ?

See for yourself.

edit: may I add that if you're flying the G6L in this fight and you're losing, it's absolutely a problem behind the joystick and not in front of it.



http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/mig3vsg6l.jpg


http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/worker_parasite.jpg

Need help with NewView? Read this thread. (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yzbcj)

Message Edited on 09/24/03 01:30PM by clint-ruin

Message Edited on 09/24/0301:31PM by clint-ruin

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 02:56 PM
actually after some research it seems that the maximum speed for Mig3 1940 was 640 km/h and its ceiling 12.000 m. this being the version with the AM-35A engine.

compare that to 109s and spitfires of 1940 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 04:50 PM
Heres a link to another Mig3 discussion.

http://oldsite.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=004148



http://idealab.snu.ac.kr/~hobbist/La-5FN/small/La-5FN-06.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 06:04 PM
johann_thor wrote:
- actually after some research it seems that the
- maximum speed for Mig3 1940 was 640 km/h and its
- ceiling 12.000 m. this being the version with the
- AM-35A engine.
-
- compare that to 109s and spitfires of 1940 /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
-
-

I dont think it was that simple, I hear the first Migs had very huge engine problems, often after one or two flight the engine was dead. Pilots were afraid to fly early Migs, because of their extreme unreliability..



____________________________________



Official Sig:



<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/shots/Vipez4.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 07:24 PM
i was fixed in 1941 with changing tourque and RPM configurations - before the german attack on the USSR the migs already had shot down some high-alt recon planes ... and the germans were completly surprised that the russians had a plane able to intercept targets at 10.000 - 12.000 metres with ease. The germans had no fighter that could escort the recons effectively.

when the I-211 was built with the same engine as the La-5 it was totally superiour to the La-5 but................