PDA

View Full Version : Yak-9U Glitch



XyZspineZyX
07-04-2003, 09:44 PM
Yak-9U Glitch

I see an exception to IL-2's superb FM.

IL-2's V104 patch reduced Yak-9U performance. Yak-9U airspeed has subsequently increased but the ACCELERATION problem from V104 was NEVER CORRECTED. Yak-9U acceleration has remained (unrealistically) very poor (1). Yak-9U acceleration is marginally better in FB, but still worse than other aircraft. Historically, the Yak-9U's strength was acceleration.

A Check Pilot on similar aircraft, please consider my observation: In FB, the P-47 acceleration "feels" correct. The original version IL-2 Yak-9U acceleration "felt" correct. It's not very good on FB, worse in IL-2. In fact, Yak-9U acceleration should be better than my T-28B or the sim's P-47.

Please restore the Yak-9U's acceleration, as in IL-2's original version.

Get well soon, Oleg, and Thank You for this wonderful experience.



(1)Assuming the prop/airframe coefficients are similar in fighter aircraft, acceleration is power to weight. It can be simply expressed as a ratio of weight to horsepower:

Aircraft Power Bhp Weight Lb/(Kg) Accel Ratio
P-47D 2,300 19,400/(8,800) Good 8.4:1
P-51D 1,590 11,600/(5,262) Better 7.3:1
T-28B 1,425 8,500/ (3,856) Nearly 5.9:1
Yak-9U 1,650 6,988/ (3,170) Best 4.2:1
Yak-3 1,225 4,960/ (2,250) Best 4.1:1

In FB, the P-47 "feels" about right in acceleration, to me. Yet Yak-9U acceleration is worse than the P-47. Yak-9U acceleration "felt right" in the original version IL-2.


http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0WAAAAKsZBWdBhGy2CyCD9Nu72fWbqLHCnxd8CeTow5Anb75sn vP2W0!DnkvLSoh9W4DoYulCJgMjj1thQ8tWWr*XUOZA6S0G5E9 e3094YPY9bECLizscHb1R1zJGKhttAAAAAAAAAAA/Siggy-Block-400x2000.jpg?dc=4675418318811629849
Salute, Sir !!! Uncle_Ivan

XyZspineZyX
07-04-2003, 09:44 PM
Yak-9U Glitch

I see an exception to IL-2's superb FM.

IL-2's V104 patch reduced Yak-9U performance. Yak-9U airspeed has subsequently increased but the ACCELERATION problem from V104 was NEVER CORRECTED. Yak-9U acceleration has remained (unrealistically) very poor (1). Yak-9U acceleration is marginally better in FB, but still worse than other aircraft. Historically, the Yak-9U's strength was acceleration.

A Check Pilot on similar aircraft, please consider my observation: In FB, the P-47 acceleration "feels" correct. The original version IL-2 Yak-9U acceleration "felt" correct. It's not very good on FB, worse in IL-2. In fact, Yak-9U acceleration should be better than my T-28B or the sim's P-47.

Please restore the Yak-9U's acceleration, as in IL-2's original version.

Get well soon, Oleg, and Thank You for this wonderful experience.



(1)Assuming the prop/airframe coefficients are similar in fighter aircraft, acceleration is power to weight. It can be simply expressed as a ratio of weight to horsepower:

Aircraft Power Bhp Weight Lb/(Kg) Accel Ratio
P-47D 2,300 19,400/(8,800) Good 8.4:1
P-51D 1,590 11,600/(5,262) Better 7.3:1
T-28B 1,425 8,500/ (3,856) Nearly 5.9:1
Yak-9U 1,650 6,988/ (3,170) Best 4.2:1
Yak-3 1,225 4,960/ (2,250) Best 4.1:1

In FB, the P-47 "feels" about right in acceleration, to me. Yet Yak-9U acceleration is worse than the P-47. Yak-9U acceleration "felt right" in the original version IL-2.


http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0WAAAAKsZBWdBhGy2CyCD9Nu72fWbqLHCnxd8CeTow5Anb75sn vP2W0!DnkvLSoh9W4DoYulCJgMjj1thQ8tWWr*XUOZA6S0G5E9 e3094YPY9bECLizscHb1R1zJGKhttAAAAAAAAAAA/Siggy-Block-400x2000.jpg?dc=4675418318811629849
Salute, Sir !!! Uncle_Ivan

XyZspineZyX
07-04-2003, 10:21 PM
It seems to me that the 9U needs more than just better acceleration. It will fall pray to the Yak-3 anytime, and although the Yak-9U couldn't turn with the Yak-3 it should be the better BnZ fighter. Just my opinion./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/Ta152C.jpg

The Ta 152C

'When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!'

XyZspineZyX
07-04-2003, 10:42 PM
Yeah, I've always wanted to fly the Yak-9U like a 109 but as it is it just doesn't live up to its indicated performance (excluding maneuverability). Maybe after the patch.

http://user.tninet.se/~ytm843e/graham4.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-06-2003, 08:34 AM
this is a bump

wasnt the 9U better at all flight over the K & T ??
cause it isnt in FB

XyZspineZyX
07-06-2003, 04:54 PM
Oh the clear bias towards LW...

XyZspineZyX
07-06-2003, 05:09 PM
wT- wrote:
- Oh the clear bias towards LW...
-
-

No need to be ironic./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif However against other fighters such as the Fw190 the Yak9U is a very capable fighter. The Yak3 however has some serious issues with it, such as its ability to take damage and its insane dive acceleration and zoom climb. The Yak1B is also a more efficient fighter than the Yak9U at the moment. But that doesn't mean that the 9U needs a boost. It's rather the Yak1B/3 that needs to be toned down. Especially the 1B.


http://members.chello.se/unni/Ta152C.jpg

The Ta 152C

'When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!'

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 04:11 PM
Speaking of acceleration: On takeoff at 92% power, the T-28B would accelerate to 487 Kph in 2.77 Km. The Yak-9U requires 7 to 12 Km to reach these speeds at WEP.

Factual Analysis (Weight: Bhp):
Yak-9U power to weight is 4.2:1
T-28B power to weight is a 5.9:1

The Yak-9U has 29% more excess thrust available.

Qualified Observation:
Yak-9U acceleration "felt" about right, to me, on the original IL-2. It's ACCELERATION has been wrong, since modified in V104.
P-47 acceleration "feels" about correct on FB. It's Weight-to-Bhp ratio is 8.4:1, or 50% less than the Yak-9U.

----------------------------------
Regarding "vague" Opinions:


Clear Bias against LW? Please read my thread: http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zvkmr
I think my position there rather supports an increase in LW performance. Don't you agree?

Insane zoom climb?
Stuck in a Luffberry sandwiched between opposing airfields 10 Km apart, online, few IL-2 or FB players climb to 3,000 meters and dive on an opponent at 630 Kph - then climbing to re-attack, carefully trading airspeed for altitude. We might ask: From whose perspective is this unrealistic performance? Victor, or Vanquished? And why?

Regarding the Yak-3's ability to take damage:
Did you hit it? I've flown on "unlimited ammo" servers under continuous streams of fire by as many as three players for 4 or 5 cycles - and have been hit, exactly once, resulting in minor damage. Do you refer to this? Should this be a basis for adjusting the FM? If so, why?

There are also differences between sarcasm and irony. Sarcasm is the use of caustic or ironic language, to make a point against those who employ facts and qualifications. Irony is when those being sarcastic, are also wrong. But that's English Composition. It's really beyond our scope, here.

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0WAAAAKsZBWdBhGy2CyCD9Nu72fWbqLHCnxd8CeTow5Anb75sn vP2W0!DnkvLSoh9W4DoYulCJgMjj1thQ8tWWr*XUOZA6S0G5E9 e3094YPY9bECLizscHb1R1zJGKhttAAAAAAAAAAA/Siggy-Block-400x2000.jpg?dc=4675418318811629849
Salute, Sir !!! Uncle_Ivan

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 09:24 PM
Lambdog wrote:
-
- Insane zoom climb?
For such a light airframe its dive and zoom capabilities in game can easily match the Doras and better the P-47.
-
- Regarding the Yak-3's ability to take damage:
- Did you hit it?

Offline I fly against the Yak3 alot, as it is clearly the most capable of the russian birds. I'm not a good shot, but compared to the 109 family the Yak3 takes tons of punishment. I can down any 109 with nothing more than a one second burst with the 20mm. The Yak3 however just keeps on flying. For me it's easier to down a Fw190 than a Yak3, a little burst on a 190's wing will tear it right off. it happens to me all the time, both offline and online. However thats the way I experience it.

http://members.chello.se/unni/Ta152C.jpg

The Ta 152C

'When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!'

XyZspineZyX
07-08-2003, 04:58 PM
DIVES
Fact: Sleek, liquid cooled aircraft accelerate better than radials in a dive. A prolonged dive is required to realize the speed (potential) of the P-47 and Dora, over the Yak-3's dive acceleration. By then, a competent Yak-3 pilot should be climbing: 1) He's not as fast. 2) His advantage in climb is substantial.

CLIMB
Let's review the facts.

Aircraft -------- Initial Climb -------- Service Ceiling
-----------Ft (Meters)/Minute------------ Ft (Meters)
Yak-3 ---------- 4,265 (1,300) -------- 35,450 (10,800)
Yak-9U -------- 4,920 (1,500) --------- 34,500 (10,500)
FW-190D-9 --- 3,300 (1,000) -------- 32,810 (10,000)
P-47D ---------- 2,800 (855) ----------- 43,000 (13,000)

Thrust Excess, as a Ratio of Weight to Bhp
Yak-3 ---------- 4.1:1
Yak-9U -------- 4.2:1
FW-190D-9 --- 4.8:1
P-47 ------------ 8.4:1

The climb equation rewards THRUST EXCESS. And, light weight yields this valuable commodity.
Zoom climb is grossly misunderstood in IL-2. Heavy is good pointed at the Earth, but heavy is not good, in a climb. I don't know who suggested such nonsense. Everything in aerospace is designed to be light, to exclude weight.
Velocity helps. "Zoom" climb is a factor of SPEED initially, (not weight), but very shortly thereafter (2,000-3,000 ft MAX) it becomes thrust excess which controls climb performance. At that point, you'd better know your plane's best airspeed, power and pitch attitude for Vy. (Most do not.) If you do and you're flying a Yak-3, you'll out-climb the Dora with an almost 25% greater climb rate and - check the ceiling - that's ALL the WAY up. The Yak-3 has a 35% greater climb rate than the P-47, and that climb rate makes the P-47 ceiling irrelevant.

(By then, if it depended on climb for the P-47 . it'd be over, right? P-47 or Dora: Don't climb either with a Yak-3. If you want to win: Start MUCH higher, dive FASTER, attack, for all that's Holy keep diving fast, run well away, and THEN climb again. They're called "Sleds", and you've got speed as an advantage. Know how to use a sled? . All right, we're on the same wavelength.) Read Aces Against the Luftwaffe, you'll find competent P-47 pilots "dived out" at 10,000 ft, and ran away down on the deck.

ANSWER: Yes, the Yak-3 will out-climb both the Dora and the P-47. In the hands of a skilled pilot who manages his airspeed well, this climb superiority will seem profound. In order to achieve this, he'll first need the advantage of altitude.

DAMAGE
One thing is certain - we both know this is really subjective stuff. On the receiving end, I can't believe that any FW pilot would claim the Yak-3 is sturdy. (The Yak-9, 9D, 9T, and 9K, and even the 9U - YES. Built like battleships; they are very sturdy.) The Yak-3 is not. As a rule, I won't fly the Yak-3 in FLAK or use it for Ground Attack. Any hit from an FW, (even just MG hits), on the wings, rudder, or horizontal stab - result in drastic and stupefying performance reductions to the Yak-3. It's decision time, for a Yak-3 pilot.

But, I've flown the FW. And oddly enough, against the Yak-3, I KNOW exactly what you MEAN. The Yak-3 proves unusually elusive. But this points somewhere else, really beyond damage FM. Here is the nature of that problem; it is an elusive concept as well.

Perhaps its not the Yak-3 at all, but that Fixed Rudder Tab problem on the FW-190 FM which affects all OKL aircraft. This may seem arcane, but here is THE REAL ANSWER.

THE CAUSE OF FM COMPLAINTS
A combination of effects involving adverse yaw, the Yak-3 concern is directly related to that rudder tab problem I've posted about IL-2, and FB. (Please see that link, above.) The rudder tab is "bent" in the wrong direction; it centers the ball only at 0% power. A fixed tab should be adjusted to center the ball at 100% power. Given the nature of rudder inputs in a simulation, this makes consistent balanced flight highly unlikely. It's subtle problem, seemingly trivial, but it has a crippling effect on OKL aircraft. OKL aircraft can't maneuver with PRECISION at high AOA and power. And this makes ALL medium or long-range gunnery inaccurate.

If the fixed rudder tab glitch is corrected, IL-2 and FB will be a new game for LW aircraft. OKL aircraft will maneuver without the recurring nightmare of UNRECOVERABLE spins and departures. When departures occur, recovery will be rapid and intuitive. That will surely help "level the playing field" between VVS and OKL aircraft. It's difficult to estimate, but maneuvering in balanced flight will be a substantial improvement in OKL combat effectiveness . and will validate the comments of surviving Luftwaffe veterans as well as the OKL FM effort.

The improvement in OKL gunnery will be profound. And, for the FW marksman who must not only deflect, but also "time" his gunnery to concentrate that firepower through the "hour glass" of convergence . well, A FIXED RUDDER TAB THAT CENTERS THE BALL AT 100% POWER is going to make that long climb, carefully calculated set-up, urgent dive, and glacial withdrawal and re-attack .. WELL WORTH THE EXPERIENCE.

The fixed tab problem makes accurate gunnery unlikely except at point-blank range, where yaw isn't a significant factor. The Yak-3 damage resolution is probably a coupling of adverse yaw affecting flight path as well as gunnery. Here is where the problem is compounded: Diving the FW at speed necessitates complex gunnery "timing", it is restricted to firing only at POINT BLANK range, and the goal is to hit a very small and elusive target like the Yak-3. I have not read Luftwaffe history recently, but logic would dictate most FW attacks on these targets occurred at 300 to 250 meters, with good accuracy. But with the fixed rudder tab "bent" in the wrong direction, accurate gunnery is impossible at 300 meters. In IL-2, 100 meters or less is the only option. Accurate gunnery is the answer to the Yak-3 inequity you and I both observe. And a more accurate flightpath will help, too.

On the other hand, reductions in carefully crafted and painstakingly researched FM are a mistake, like the Yak-9U acceleration . these cheapen the IL-2 experience. They make the experience seem "fake". There is, in human behavior - an instinct to sense - and a rejection of that which isn't natural. That's where this thread started, with an ardent desire to maintain the superb FM accuracy which made IL-2 a sensation. And that desire extends to seeing OKL aircraft perform correctly, (as well as the Yak-9U.)

The superb FM subtly "draws us into" the simulation and "wraps us" in total immersion. On every level, we tacitly accept IL-2's details - physical and intangible. It looks real, because it acts real. We accept it. Then, it almost becomes real. Only reality has that effect, so it should be an absolute. Its worth the effort.


http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0WAAAAKsZBWdBhGy2CyCD9Nu72fWbqLHCnxd8CeTow5Anb75sn vP2W0!DnkvLSoh9W4DoYulCJgMjj1thQ8tWWr*XUOZA6S0G5E9 e3094YPY9bECLizscHb1R1zJGKhttAAAAAAAAAAA/Siggy-Block-400x2000.jpg?dc=4675418318811629849
Salute, Sir !!! Uncle_Ivan

XyZspineZyX
07-08-2003, 05:10 PM
The service ceiling of the D-9 is actually 39000ft+, not that incredibly low figure you posted.



_______________________________
Hauptmann Jochen "Heidi" Heiden
Jagderband 44
www.JagdVerband44.com (http://www.JagdVerband44.com)

XyZspineZyX
07-08-2003, 06:25 PM
As the MW50 equipped Dora had an initial climbrate of 4331ft/min it should outclimb the Yak3 in a steady state climb, and its zoom climb should be even more pronounced compared to the nimble Yak3. Heavy is not good in a steady climb if you do not have the thrust to back it up, but the Dora does. A heavier plane having the same speed as a light plane in a zoom climb would use its momentum to gain higher altitudes compared to the lighter plane.

The Dora is liquid cooled and does not have a radial engine. Anyways the radial engined 190 had a significantly better dive acceleration than the liquid cooled Spitfire. Even though the 190 had a radial engine its airframe was very sleek, the Dora even more so.

All this points out, at least to me that the Dora should have all the advantages in dives and zoom climbs compared to the Yak3.

However, as it is now the Dora does not have a functional MW50, so hopefully the Dora can show its superiority after the patch.

http://members.chello.se/unni/Ta152C.jpg

The Ta 152C

'When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!'

XyZspineZyX
07-08-2003, 06:32 PM
Here's my source:

Fighting Aircraft of WWII, Salamander Books Ltd, London 1988. (printed in Slovenia)

FW190 and Ta-152, pg. 184

Performance: Service Ceiling
(A8, F8) ----- 37,000ft (11,410m)
(D-9) -------- 32,810ft (10,000m)
(Ta-152) ----- 49,215ft (15,000m)

That's what they publish.

However we must note, a greater ceiling will not affect the climb rate, which is a function of thrust in excess of power required.
Ergo, contrary to popular opinion, the Yak-3 will outclimb the Dora. (Note: I'm using the 2,240 hp emergency boost power of the Dora, in expressing the Weight to Bhp ratio.)

At 4,265 ft/min the Yak-3 outclimbs all OKL (prop fighter) aircraft except the Bf-109K-4 which climbs at 4,800 ft/min.

I'm sure you'll agree: that a climb rate advantage of 535 ft/min isn't likely to be the deciding factor in a dogfight. Excluding acceleration and speed, that's not a "shut-out" advantage.

When the performance is that close, the advantages of altitude, speed, initiative and experience will prove controlling factors in a dogfight.



http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0WAAAAKsZBWdBhGy2CyCD9Nu72fWbqLHCnxd8CeTow5Anb75sn vP2W0!DnkvLSoh9W4DoYulCJgMjj1thQ8tWWr*XUOZA6S0G5E9 e3094YPY9bECLizscHb1R1zJGKhttAAAAAAAAAAA/Siggy-Block-400x2000.jpg?dc=4675418318811629849
Salute, Sir !!! Uncle_Ivan

XyZspineZyX
07-08-2003, 07:18 PM
Lambdog wrote:
- Here's my source:
-
- Fighting Aircraft of WWII, Salamander Books Ltd,
- London 1988. (printed in Slovenia)
-
- FW190 and Ta-152, pg. 184
-
- Performance: Service Ceiling
- (A8, F8) ----- 37,000ft (11,410m)
- (D-9) -------- 32,810ft (10,000m)
- (Ta-152) ----- 49,215ft (15,000m)
-
- That's what they publish .

It doesn't matter what they publish , important is the historical reality. Dora with MW-50 has 4330 fpm initial as tested at Rechlin. Also service ceiling is much higher. See the jagdhund's site on Dora.



- However we must note, a greater ceiling will not
- affect the climb rate, which is a function of thrust
- in excess of power required.
- Ergo, contrary to popular opinion, the Yak-3 will
- outclimb the Dora. (Note: I'm using the 2,240 hp
- emergency boost power of the Dora, in expressing the
- Weight to Bhp ratio.)


Not only that Dora slightly outclimbs Yak3 at loaded weight, but at the same fuel load it puts at least 500fpm difference.



- At 4,265 ft/min the Yak-3 outclimbs all OKL (prop
- fighter) aircraft except the Bf-109K-4 which climbs
- at 4,800 ft/min.

Not true, look for better sources. Also this is only the initial climb, if you climb to 3000m the advantage for LW planes is too big to overcome, if of course we stick to real world perfomance. I tested La7 at over 8000m and of course, as espected it climbs two times better!!! than it does in russian tests.


- I'm sure you'll agree: that a climb rate advantage
- of 535 ft/min isn't likely to be the deciding factor
- in a dogfight. Excluding acceleration and speed,
- that's not a "shut-out" advantage.


Also acceleration is better for Dora, not by much but there is an advantage.

As it is now online dogfighting is highly unrealistic not only because of the absurd FM of early russian planes, but also because all the planes are piloted by hulks that do not care about G's. After say 4 hard turns in a fight any pilot should ease the stick because of the effort. This MUST be represented in a sim!. Stick efforts together with blackouts are two of the most important reasons for the change in tactics from earlier T&B to energy fighting.


Of course there is no energy fighting in FB. Even if your plane has a big advantage in power to weight, like a Yak1 vs Bf109F, you still loose energy more rapidly in 109F. Also 109F should outturn (in any type of turn including flat horizontal turnfights) all the early russian planes, except I-153. Bf-109 has better power loading (except I-16), similar wing loading and better aspect ratio (therefore less induced drag). Can you outturn with 109F Yak1/1B/9, LaGG3? Of course Bf-109F should outturn yak-3 too. Go do it, buddy, if you can.

Right now, I'm sorry to say this, FM in FB is garbage. Is not about few errors in FM, but the whole medium is completely unrealistic. The AoA problems are simply ridiculous. I can keep most of the planes in stable flight near stall at 40 deg AoA!!!. This should be true only for super low aspect ratio wings, like 1 AR, or highly swept wings (but those are not stable, unless there are canards, LERX extensions and other devices to improve stability a high AoA). This means that you have to shoot on your target almost always at 90 degrees angle, instead of a max 30 deg. Of course blind shooting.

Then the superclimb at 130kmh!!. This counters any advantage that planes with better climb had. Not to mention that you can bank the wings at will in russian planes at this speed and still climb, instead of sinking fast!

And so on, and so on. I still hope that the patch will solve at least some of those problems and won't come with other errors even more stunning.

Message Edited on 07/08/0301:42PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
07-08-2003, 07:19 PM
I think 109k-4 is to bad in FB !

XyZspineZyX
07-12-2003, 10:43 PM
Nice post Huckebein_FW /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Let it out! You are not on your own.... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

JG5_UnKle

"Know and use all the capabilities of your airplane. If you don't sooner or later, somebody who does, will kick your ***"


http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-13-2003, 12:58 AM
Blah, Blah, Blah. More people stating their own opinion as fact. None of you were there so you don't know sh1t, same as me. This is the norm for the biggest Luftwhiner known to man, whom nobody takes seriously.

Finally there is one post talking about an undermodelled VVS plane and it gets highjacked by the Luftwhiners, big *&%$ing surprise. You have your 2000 other threads to complain in, so please shut the hell up and let the nongoose-steppers have a thread for once.

Thank you for your time.

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Typhooncountry.jpg



Message Edited on 07/13/0312:10AM by kyrule2

XyZspineZyX
07-13-2003, 01:47 AM
Well the Dora climb does seem crippled in FB relative to much more primitive Fb109 Email and I~16, or these two are overmodelled (but one does not often hear whining about the Email from the Noobs).

Yak~3 was early war design but was set aside for 2 years in development, and must be compared to basic Yak~9 as they had same engine.

FB's late war Yak~9U used VK~107 engine, as did Yak~3U which was not accepted as Germany was cleary seen by everybody as losing in a hurry. Unlike Yak~3U, Yak~9U was more *usable* fighter with far better cockpit equipment and greater range--things FB doesn't model for the online ace squads on their tiny 50km dogfight maps. Just imagine the LuftWhining if FB had the 3U or worse, the Yak~3 with VK~108. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-13-2003, 09:50 AM
There are plenty of things wrong with the LW types in FB. The Emil is a good start as it climbs like a rocket - should be sorted in the patch.

The FW190 -A9 is way too fast at around 6000M. You could argue that the 262 has too much elevator authority at high speeds and that most early war aircraft turn a little too well. There are things like the 103% throttle bug but really not much to give the LW side a 'huge advantage'.

You still need to think more carefully and plan your attack with a coordinated team to get kills in the LW types. CEM is screwed to the point that it is a joke in VVS types (hope this is patched) and with no high-alt model and that ludicrous high-AOA no energy bleed BS you have a no-brainer for the high-wingloaders like the 190.

As for the "nongoose-steppers" - well that's mature Kyrule. You manage to bring a borderline technical discussion about FM aspects down to your level - thanks for your time. Next time remind me to associate the actions of Stalin with your choice of planeset and see how you like it. Oh wait a minute, I don't need to - I can seperate the two on my own.

JG5_UnKle

"Know and use all the capabilities of your airplane. If you don't sooner or later, somebody who does, will kick your ***"


http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-13-2003, 10:46 AM
JG%_UnKle:

Most people here know that I am a very easy going person. I have just had it over the Luftwhining over the past few days and this thread was the last straw. And biased, one-sided posts filled with BS and stated as fact doesn't exactly consitute a technical discussion. The same people always post the same ridiculous numbers, and the fact is that you can find so much conflicting data that these discussions are meaningless. At least when people post it should not be written as fact, but as opinion. There are hundreds of topics filled with complaints about LW planes, and maybe 5 or so concerning the VVS planes. I knew this thread was going to be highjacked from the beginning, they always are. It gets tiresome, and that was my point. Unlike yourself, there are way too many people who cannot admit that there are problems on both sides.

As for the "goose-steppers" comment it is meant as a joke, sorry if I offended anyone. And as for me dragging this thread "down to my level", it was already ruined by the sad posts before mine. Feel free to search any of my other posts and I think you will see that I rarely get angry. Still, this one-sided whining gets old, and more importantly may effect the outcome of the upcoming patch to the detriment of the game itself. I made my post in response to all the inappropriate (yes, some luftwhining is appropriate) Luftwhining lately, not just in this thread. Actually it is much worse in other threads, so perhaps I should have vented my frustrations in another post, for that I apologize.

Btw, I fly all planes and have posted arguments to fix issues on both sides. If people like a certain plane and only want to post concerns about that plane, fine. If another person posts a concern about a plane they like and someone simply posts something opposing that concern out of bias, then that is a problem. It is seen here time and time again, and that is the reason for my frustration.

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Typhooncountry.jpg



Message Edited on 07/13/0309:56AM by kyrule2

XyZspineZyX
07-13-2003, 12:26 PM
OK Kyrule - me too mate, I'm sorry /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

I know it was a joke really but I get tired of all the BS too sometimes. I think all we want is a more realistic sim that we can use as an "environment" to try out real world tactics and apply them.

We get annoyed and frustrated by the Sim when it doesn't let us do this, but only because we have such high hopes and enjoy Olegs & Teams work so much.

So I will pour a beer, chill out - and maybe read one of RBJ's threads as these are guaranteed to make me laugh out loud.

S!

JG5_UnKle

"Know and use all the capabilities of your airplane. If you don't sooner or later, somebody who does, will kick your ***"


http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-13-2003, 10:08 PM
JG5_UnKle:

LOL, pour one for me too. And I agree, any frustration we feel is usually due to our passion for this great sim and its potential.

Good Hunting!

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Typhooncountry.jpg