PDA

View Full Version : The incedible indestructable Yak



XyZspineZyX
12-05-2003, 06:50 PM
I have a clip of me flying against two yak3's and me in a zero. This is not my plane but I used it to prove a point.

The first yak went down with an engine hit ok, the second yak on the other hand took so much damage that the plane had only one elevator and one arelon no rudder and half of the tail section missing but the incedible yak flies on not only that but it was able to manuver. Holes through the wings all over but it still flies.


Is there somewhere I can post the track. I would like know if this is a bug or not.

XyZspineZyX
12-05-2003, 06:50 PM
I have a clip of me flying against two yak3's and me in a zero. This is not my plane but I used it to prove a point.

The first yak went down with an engine hit ok, the second yak on the other hand took so much damage that the plane had only one elevator and one arelon no rudder and half of the tail section missing but the incedible yak flies on not only that but it was able to manuver. Holes through the wings all over but it still flies.


Is there somewhere I can post the track. I would like know if this is a bug or not.

XyZspineZyX
12-05-2003, 06:52 PM
nt = No Text

XyZspineZyX
12-05-2003, 07:02 PM
geeez, iam about to make a server, and i can see the yak 3 might be put in with the 262 and b1.. lol

XyZspineZyX
12-08-2003, 07:56 AM
I used to notice that the second plane or the last plane while playing QMB would take quite a lot of ammo. More so than the others.

Now in 1.21 this hasn't happen not that much anyways.

Now that the .50cals can actually do some damage.

I'm really happy with the way the .50cals are modeled.

I was getting tired of emptying all of the p47s ammo just to kill 2 planes. All the others [p51,p40s and so on] didn't have this problem atleast not as bad. Now I'm not having that problem anymore.

Oh happy day. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
12-08-2003, 08:48 AM
Graphic representation of damage does not equal actual damage!!!

---

You admit yourself that you brought down the first Yak with a engine hit - so it's definately not indistructable...

In the second fight you might have got a lot of hits on non-vital parts or just not enough to cripple your adversary - sorry I really don't see your point there!

XyZspineZyX
12-08-2003, 09:20 AM
To add to Kirin,

The AI does not suffer the control penalties as human gamers do.

The physical effect of damage is present even to AI planes, yes, but whereas human pilots would struggle between under-correction and over-correction to keep a plane flying and maneuvering, the AI, as long as the plane is flyable, always controls the plane in a precise manner.

In other words, humans would strive to keep their plane from wobbling due to damage, but AI, always keeps the exact amount of stick input to make the plane do what they want.

Maybe you should have considered these things.



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

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

XyZspineZyX
12-08-2003, 01:48 PM
weird enough, Yaks are much more tougher than lets say P39. In reality, Soviet pilots liked P39, since, as they said, they feel safe in it considering the good passive protection and overall durability.



<center>http://www.kurita.sk/PRIVATE/pictures/sig_il2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
12-08-2003, 02:11 PM
kweassa wrote:
- The AI does not suffer the control penalties as
- human gamers do.

Completely, and depressengly, right. AI planes aren´t a good parameter for this kind of test. Anyway, it seems now they sometimes loose control of damage planes when dogfighting near the ground.

Hope AI behaviour gets more complex in BoB.

"Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty but the pig enjoys it!"

XyZspineZyX
12-08-2003, 02:11 PM
The Yak-3 is the hardest plane to down. I can kill most planes pretty fast with a few rounds. The Yak-3 takes several passes to down if I don't score a direct hit to the engine. If counting the hits it can take at least ten times as many hits as the La-7.

<center>


http://members.chello.se/unni/rote3.JPG



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

</center>

XyZspineZyX
12-08-2003, 02:59 PM
u guys know what? Deltawood, lighter than aluminium and stronger than titanium http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

XyZspineZyX
12-08-2003, 04:25 PM
If they Yak3s are indestructible I know what I need
to swap to flying online :-) I might actually survive
for a bit!

XyZspineZyX
12-08-2003, 05:11 PM
Everyone knows the yak damage model is BS. In fact it is so messed up, if you switch the fw190 DM with the yak3, most people would be satisfied.

How freaking messed up is that?

We have a fw190 whose wings pop off from one or two 50 cal hits and then the wings on a yak3 which require a small nuclear device to remove.

And apparently this isn't a "bug" since the yak3 has always been this ridiculously strong.

Apparently it's this magic "carbon fiber" technology they had in WWII.

XyZspineZyX
12-08-2003, 07:04 PM
Hi,

I disagree - I fly the Yak 3 online a lot and I believe that it can be disabled quite easily and certainly in one pass. It might not spectacularly come apart but, more often than not,the controls are damaged to such an extent that further control is impossible; that amounts to a kill, either way, especially in a combat zone.

The engine is also vunerable; confusingly to both pilot and opponent, it may show no outward indication of damage but you can guarantee it will be spluttering and it's only a matter of time before you are dead.

I haven't taken a shot at too many 190s, post 1.21, as I have been flying the K4 and Ki84 for a change but they were always very hard to down even attacking from an angle; in fact, I often used to hop into a La-7 if lots of 190D jocks turned up just so I wouldn't be frustrated and ammo-less (in my Yak3) for most of the time.

Cheers,
Norris

CrackFerret wrote:
- Everyone knows the yak damage model is BS. In fact
- it is so messed up, if you switch the fw190 DM with
- the yak3, most people would be satisfied.
-
- How freaking messed up is that?
-
- We have a fw190 whose wings pop off from one or two
- 50 cal hits and then the wings on a yak3 which
- require a small nuclear device to remove.
-
- And apparently this isn't a "bug" since the yak3 has
- always been this ridiculously strong.
-
- Apparently it's this magic "carbon fiber" technology
- they had in WWII.
-
-

XyZspineZyX
12-08-2003, 07:36 PM
I agree with crackferret the yak3 dm is complete BS, was better in previous patches not suprising though considering the yak3 description in object viewer that too is BS.



http://www.btinternet.com/~jlblat1/avatar.jpg

XyZspineZyX
12-08-2003, 08:16 PM
I remember in the original IL2 when making a surprise attack on the Yak-3. You landed a few round in its wing and when the pilot heard the bullets hit his plane he would make an abrupt turn in order to clear the fire. When the pilot did that the wing always snapped right off as if it was weakened by those hits. It was always amusing to see as it was very predictable./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<center>


http://members.chello.se/unni/rote3.JPG



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

</center>

ZG77_Nagual
12-08-2003, 08:22 PM
Hmmm - I've been having no particular problems with yak3s - engines smoke easily - pks, wings off etc. Thing is it's a tiny plane - you don't want to park on it's six and whittle away at shallow angles - this is inneffective , often even with big guns. I'll test it some more, but I think all the planes - yak included, go down alot easier

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/whiner.jpg

XyZspineZyX
12-08-2003, 09:55 PM
They can't hit its too small /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
12-08-2003, 10:18 PM
tis true, btw, at certain distance and angle, a p51 will disapear.


whineingu /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
12-08-2003, 11:34 PM
I have to say that I was laughing out loud the other night as me and my AI wingmen engaged a group of Yaks. It was a scene out of the absurd as 190's off in the distance would get a short burst and tumble to earth either missing a wing or cut in half, yet the Yaks were being lit up like christmas trees and soldiering on. It was so absurd (especially considering the difference in firepower) I had to laugh. Most planes are tougher than the 190 now and that is BS, just as it was BS how tough they were before. I really thought the Yak had a good DM a patch or so ago but now it is too tough again /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif . Also, it seems that the La-5 series is back to being too tough whereas the La-7's seem to have a great DM. Jusy me thoughts.

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

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

XyZspineZyX
12-08-2003, 11:53 PM
Learn where to hit them and you'll find they are not so indestructable.


Holds true for all the aircraft in the game.




S!
609IAP_Recon

Forgotten Skies Virtual War
Forum: http://fogwar.luftwaffe.net/forums/index.php
Website: http://www.forgottenskies.com
Visit 609IAP at http://takeoff.to/609IAP


http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg


"What was truly obsolete happened to be the turning or dogfighting
combat that had been used during of WW I."

Erik Shilling - AVG - http://yarchive.net/mil/p40.html

XyZspineZyX
12-08-2003, 11:58 PM
Yaks are the new "tanks of the sky." I flew a Ki-84 against a Yak-9 and it eventually manuevered into the ground, despite the fact I emptied all my ammo into it, at close range.


Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/chimpy_2.jpg

BM357_Raven
12-09-2003, 12:12 AM
Range! Gotta be close, but not too close that the Yak loses ya...

Yak pilots tend to dance around the sky making shots less complete. A kill is obtained by a solid, good connected shot. It might look like you are connecting solidly, when in fact you are not..I haven't flown the Yak since before the beta, but Yaks are slippery little fish.

It makes sense that the Yak and La would upstage the other planes. This is, after all an Eastern Front.

For me, I basically started with the Yak and I enjoyed it. But I think the less forgiving planes are more interesting and challenging. I like the big heavies, like the P-47, the FW190 and the P-51.

Dont forget, too, that since the release of FB, yak pilots have done a lot of practicing. FB pilots are better today than they were closer to the time the game was released..

I'll take that track, LastRights, and post it on our site if you are right. But something says to me that you probably were further away from the Yak than you should have been.

Blazing Magnums 357th VFG

http://bm357.com/bm357_raven_with_guns%20copy.jpg


http://www.bm357.com

XyZspineZyX
12-09-2003, 01:21 AM
Indestructable no, but Yaks DEFINAETY (Yak-3 particularly) have received some extra armor to their damage model.. I just hit twice with MK108, and no serious damage.. one hit was enough to blast its fuselage in two parts in FB 1.11. Thank god its not as durable as it was in FB 1.0 though.. but it is indeed harder to bring down than LA-5/LA-7s

____________________________________



<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/sig3.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
12-09-2003, 01:40 AM
Just took down 8 Yak3's with a D9-45, til I ran into one :/

I don't think there are any major problems with its DM.

If you can make a track - say - yourself in a plane Vs Empty AI Rookies in a QMB - PM me and I'll host it and we can all take a look in arcade mode.

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
12-09-2003, 07:55 AM
This plane that, that plane this.. you guys really are to much.

All you so called experts (lol yeah right) don't have a clue, now do ya. Your phatetic so called tests don't show $*it.

All you say is "The plane X is indestructable that is total BS" ... makes me think of my sisters son thats 11 years old.

//F16 =txmx=
http://www.f16vs.tk
-------------------
AMD Athlon XP 3000+
ASUS A7N8X Delux/nVidia nForce 2.0
ATi Radeon 9800 Pro
1 GB PC 2700 DDR
Philips 170S4BF 17' TFT
Saitek X45/CH Pedals/TrackIR
Windows XP Professional

XyZspineZyX
12-09-2003, 08:18 AM
It`s a pilot /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

"No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down." Ivan Kozhedub

XyZspineZyX
12-09-2003, 01:49 PM
nope it´s bad damage model



<center>http://www.kurita.sk/PRIVATE/pictures/sig_il2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
12-09-2003, 01:54 PM
Two or three requests for a track file and still none forthcoming?

Anecdotes are more fun I guess.


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
12-09-2003, 04:17 PM
I seem to think that allot of the planes I was flying against were indestructible when I was flying the Hawker MKIIB. I then found on a il2 FB squad site the RAF gunnery manual from 1943 and read about angels of deflection and I began to change my convergence. I have ended up with a convergence of 125m(410ft) for both Machine guns and cannon. I also only fire when I have a good angle period. The effectiveness I have now at the proper angle and distance is amazing even with the .303. If one has there convergence set higher you will run into this problem; falling below your convergence distance widens your spread so what you think your aiming at you are not hitting trust me ran many tests with squad mates to determine the best distance to get a quick kill shot. Plus non vital areas are not worth your ammo.

Warriobear

ZG77_Nagual
12-09-2003, 04:26 PM
I did some flying against four ace yaks in the p39 and p51 - of course the 39s 37mm gun made short work of them, but so did the six .50s on the p51 - definitely a reasonably tough bird but a solid burst will blow it in half or rip a wing off.
I do agree the p39 seems to flame a bit too easily.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/whiner.jpg

XyZspineZyX
12-09-2003, 04:34 PM
Yup, it has been mentioned often enough before, but deflection really, really counts in FB. In terms of general anecodotal experience - I'd guesstimate that a perpendicular shot tends to take about 1/3rd the number of hits that a dead 6 shot would to cause similar damage. If you're shooting from dead 6 you absolutely need something that shoots a decent penetrating round - 109F2's 15mm, .50 cal, UB, etc.

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
12-09-2003, 04:35 PM
We'll all have to do quite a bit more testing but it seems like the DM's for quite a few aircraft have changed. The American aircraft seem to have the right balance...the P51 is vulnerable but it doesn't just fall apart (fairly consistent with pilot reports) and the P47 is an armored tank but it can only take so much and after the first few hits it really starts to loose performance. Thats all good.

The IL-2 seems to have the right DM as well...its a tough one but hit it in the right spot and she falls apart. The Yak's and La's are REALLY tough opponents online now. Yesterday it took about 10 minutes of hard fighting between what was obviously an experienced La-7 pilot and myself in a FW190 D-9 and the end fight eventually took us down into the tree tops and through a medium sized city before I landed a 20mm hit on his controls and all he could do is roll. It took another 10 poorely connected shots on my part to finally do significant damage to take him down. Not sure if my FW190 would have survived the same way...

The thing is the La's and Yak's are probably historically modeled in their performance (or relatively close) but the fact is that all planes in FB aren't exactly historically flown...nobody worries about bending wing surfaces while conducting a high G manuver. The La I was fighting should have come apart with the moves he made (650kph into a rapid loop, bank, dive, followed by a Split S). The games doesn't model that damage...I can live with that but it seems that the wood aircraft (I don't know if there is a materials listing in the FB DM model or what) seem to soak up damage fairly well while the metal aircraft behave realistically (which is why the FW190, P51, P47, and BF109 seem to come apart with the right number of hits).

As far as I know, one of the reasons that VVS pilots liked the P39 was because even with some armor removed the plane was still well protected compaired to the early war Yak's. Not sure about the Yak-9U (which looks to be all metal plated and should be relatively as tough as other metal aircraft).

I don't know...any tweak should be VERY slight. But just enough.

Just my random ramblings on fighting Luftwaffe VS VVS...its now a really really tough battle. Its not impossible but its harder than 1.11 and easier than 1.0.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig.jpg
"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." - Winston Churchill

XyZspineZyX
12-09-2003, 06:24 PM
kweassa wrote:
-
- To add to Kirin,
-
-
- The AI does not suffer the control penalties as
- human gamers do.
-
-
- The physical effect of damage is present even to AI
- planes, yes, but whereas human pilots would struggle
- between under-correction and over-correction to keep
- a plane flying and maneuvering, the AI, as long as
- the plane is flyable, always controls the plane in a
- precise manner.
-
-
-
- In other words, humans would strive to keep their
- plane from wobbling due to damage, but AI, always
- keeps the exact amount of stick input to make the
- plane do what they want.
-
-
- Maybe you should have considered these things.

kweassa:

No amount of pilot finesse is going to compensate for a missing elevator or aileron. Period.

I've seen an AI Yak with no elevator, no vertical stab and a severely shot up fuselage still maneuver. Hard.

Now, with various patches this annoying AI tendency has gotten better but there are still flaws in the AI FM that allow for some pretty absurd things.

So the answer to the man's question is the oversimplified AI FM.

Maybe you should have considered that kweassa.

XyZspineZyX
12-09-2003, 09:35 PM
Good post Ice-fire. I really get sick of those people who say "learn to shoot" or "learn to aim" or "learn to fly." I say, learn the truth and stop assuming you know the abilities of others. The DM of the Yaks and La's have changed. They were way too tough, then they had excellent DM's in 1.11, now they are too tough again. Any time spent flying against them makes it obvious. And yes I know how to shoot quite well and I know when I am hitting. I test DM stuff more than anything else as I have said numerous times. I am pretty familiar with the DM's of most planes so any change is fairly apparent to me. Thats why you never see me post on climb-rates, engine management, etc. Having said all of this, FB is so much better than any other sim it is ridiculous. I know we are getting picky with this one but the DM's were excellent in 1.11 for these two planes. The La-7 still has a great DM IMO.

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

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

XyZspineZyX
12-10-2003, 12:55 AM
clint-ruin wrote:

- If you can make a track - say - yourself in a plane
- Vs Empty AI Rookies in a QMB - PM me and I'll host
- it and we can all take a look in arcade mode.


Funny you should mention this clint as thats what i did after i read this post.

Took a Yak 3 LaGG and a LA-7 with me in a 190A5. Hit the LaGG took off some parts on the tail and the ROOKIE pilot bailed. Then on to the Yak 3 after an aborted first run i came in again and after repeat runs at the Yak it finalaly made a slow looping spiral into the ground with no visable dammage to it. Then came the LA-7 took a couple runs at it and no wing damage then under estimating my range finally took it out with a ramm job opps.

Then it was time to try what the German crates could do. Took a 190A9 109 K4 and a Me262a2 with me in a YAK 3.
First the 190 one short burst and BOOM it blows up in mid air. Nows its the 109s turn short burst in the wing and bloop there it goes. then a quick run at the 262 and there it goes down in flames.

So thats what i came up with and i have the track files to prove it



"Of all my accomplishments I may have achieved during the war, I am proudest of the fact that I never lost a wingman. It was my view that no kill was worth the life of a wingman. . . . Pilots in my unit who lost wingmen on this basis were prohibited from leading a [section]. They were made to fly as wingman, instead."
Erich 'Bubi' Hartmann "Karaya One"

XyZspineZyX
12-10-2003, 02:04 AM
I tried the yak 3, (as well as the 9 which seems almost identical in many ways, mainly turning capability... not the 9t/u etc, just plain 9).. The yak is a great plane but it runs outta ammo way too quick for my taste. I like having enough ammo to get more than two kills before RTB.

I've taken yak wings off with one cannon shot in my p39. You need to hit the inside of the wing (near the fuselage), not near the tip, of course...


As for p39 flaming.. Not sure whether the frequency of flaming is too much.. perhaps that is just a trait of the p39... What annoys me is the plane doesnt give you much time to eject before spontaneously combusting when it does catch fire...

XyZspineZyX
12-10-2003, 03:26 AM
Since trying to prove a negative is usually so much more annoying than proving a positive, I really didn't want to arse around doing this.

But since NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON HAS BEEN ABLE to record a track - then pm me - then email it to me - here's me in a d9 vs yak3/yak9s.
Christ. (http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/d9vsyak.zip)

- So thats what i came up with and i have the track
- files to prove it

So why, with your shot credibility, with your history of OH NO UBER VVS BIAS posting, and the rest, do you not email one of the people who have offered to host such a thing gratis?

Oh. I've got it, but you can't see it. It's true! Trust me! Nerr nerr nerr!!111!!1!

It is one of the ongoing mysteries of FB why when people think they've seen something odd, they don't hit the 'record track' button. It appears every single time you quit out. You actually have to deliberately not click it when offered the chance.


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
12-10-2003, 05:11 AM
I had a chance to do some testing rather than just working from memory. I setup Yak-9U, Yak-9D, and Yak-9's against Ki-84, A6M5, P-51D, FW190A-5, and a FW190D-9 all in the quick mission builder.

In nearly all instances, the Yak's were quickly blown apart...their wings blown off, a tail wing removed and so on and so forth. I found the A-5 dealt the most crushing blows with full guns while a quick burst precisely on target from the P-51D did extreme damage to nearly all control surfaces (I'm surmising from the views to see what had happened) and while the wings were blown off less, the aircraft was still a writeoff.

This was purely subjective testing against Average AI in a 4 VS 4 environment. So no ultra DM there.

The next stage is to take it online and see what happens. I wonder if we're reporting packet loss rather than a serious DM issue? Another important point to note is that a single hit to the Yak in multiple places from even a 20mm cannon seems to do little to the overall plane while a sucession of 2 or 3 solid hits from a 20mm seems to be deadly.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig.jpg
"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." - Winston Churchill

XyZspineZyX
12-10-2003, 06:14 AM
clint-ruin wrote:


-
- But since NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON HAS BEEN ABLE to
- record a track - then pm me - then email it to me

You obviously didnt read my post as i said i have the track files that i made from the little trail i made. SO I PEOPLE WOULDNT FLY OFF THE HANDLE ANS TYPE IN CAPITALS the whole thing could of been seen already. And if ya want em so bad why not PM that person?



"Of all my accomplishments I may have achieved during the war, I am proudest of the fact that I never lost a wingman. It was my view that no kill was worth the life of a wingman. . . . Pilots in my unit who lost wingmen on this basis were prohibited from leading a [section]. They were made to fly as wingman, instead."
Erich 'Bubi' Hartmann "Karaya One"

XyZspineZyX
12-10-2003, 06:49 AM
There are two people asking for a trackfile showing the 'incedible' indestructable Yak on the first page.

There are no track files on the first page.

It is the start of the second page before one is even provided, but unfortunately it shows pretty much the exact opposite - Yaks going down one after the other. Not from "AI bails" but from wings and tails falling off.

As a sidenote - how the AI bailing came to be regarded as an invaid result, I don't know, since the AI only tends to bail when it has suffered critical but non-visually represented damage to the engine or controls. My guess would be that since it doesn't involve a large fireball, and that you actually have to listen to the engine and watch the prop or control surfaces, it's a form of damage that is simply beyond the ken of the FB counterstrike squad. No matter - every plane that goes down in that track is pounded until it falls apart, from the most ineffective shots possible [rear aspect / HE] in FB.

Nevermind - I am sure the pixies and gnomes will arrive shortly with baby jesus in tow to reassure you that the Yak is indeed invincible - you just have to believe in it hard enough.

Still waiting for that track.


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
12-10-2003, 06:52 AM
Heres the interesting thing:

Yaks and Las are very vulnerable to 50 cal fire.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg


Oh yeah, I'm a P-63 whiner too! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
12-10-2003, 07:02 AM
My understanding of aircraft that used wood in their fabrication, was that they were able to absorb a lot of combat damage. Wood tends to splinter and shred, rather than break when hit by a projectile and it will absorb explosive effects much better than any metal.

I have also read several accounts where 20mm shells tended to get full penetration on wooden parts in Hurricanes, and not explode, so didn't do the damage they did when they hit metal. Same would apply to wood assemblies in Yaks.

Gotta remember, we're not just talking about a sawed off piece of lumber, but impregnated, laminated plywood. (don't remember what they used to glue the layers together, but it was some special gunk.) Plywood is tough stuff, even the crap we get from lumberyards to build houses out of. Marine plywood is tougher, and the plywood used for aircraft fabrication is the best of all.

We are all so used to plastic and metal, we forget that wood is tough durable stuff. It is a mistake to assume that because a plane has wood in it's construction, it should be fragile.

XyZspineZyX
12-10-2003, 09:31 AM
Korolov, Yaks and La's were always very vulnerable to the .50's. The Macchi-202 is/was (haven't checked since 1.21) the same way. It could absorb insane amounts of 20mm rounds but fell quite easily to P-40, P-47, etc.

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

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

Message Edited on 12/10/0308:33AM by kyrule2

XyZspineZyX
12-10-2003, 03:37 PM
Ok...I'll go test that out as well. Which 20mm's were we talking about BTW?

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig.jpg
"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." - Winston Churchill

XyZspineZyX
12-10-2003, 06:21 PM
Budanova wrote:

"My understanding of aircraft that used wood in their fabrication, was that they were able to absorb a lot of combat damage..."

Clint-ruin wrote:

"If you're shooting from dead 6 you absolutely need something that shoots a decent penetrating round - 109F2's 15mm, .50 cal, UB, etc."

Eric Hartmann wrote:

"...With the tactic I have described, the enemy aircraft absorbs the full force of your armament at minimum range, and it doesn't matter what your angle is to him and whether or not you are in a turn or any other manuever. When all your guns hit him like this, he goes down! And you have saved your ammunition."

*Edit quote from "you" to "your"*

The above quote is taken from the book:
Fighter Aces of the Luftwaffe
Chapter 6:
The 300 Club
page 125
ISBN: 0-88740-909-1

If you want to know something then I think it is important to ask someone with experience on the subject.

The following are links on the Gun Debate:

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-in.html

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/

I know that wood and aluminum does not offer much resistance to bullets. I shoot guns. It is not a good idea to protect yourself against being shot with wood or aluminum shielding, at any angle.

Why did they put thick heavy armor plating in the planes?


This one looks "on topic":
WORLD WAR 2 FIGHTER ARMAMENT EFFECTIVENESS
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm





JG14_Josf

Message Edited on 12/10/03 05:31PM by JG14_Josf

Message Edited on 12/10/0309:23PM by JG14_Josf

XyZspineZyX
12-10-2003, 10:07 PM
- Clint-ruin wrote:
-
- "If you're shooting from dead 6 you absolutely need
- something that shoots a decent penetrating round -
- 109F2's 15mm, .50 cal, UB, etc."
-
- Eric Hartmann wrote:
-
- "...With the tactic I have described, the enemy
- aircraft absorbs the full force of your armament at
- minimum range, and it doesn't matter what your angle
- is to him and whether or not you are in a turn or
- any other manuever. When all your guns hit him like
- this, he goes down! And you have saved you
- ammunition."

Clint-ruin wrote:

- it has been mentioned often enough before,
- but deflection really, really counts in FB.

Josf wrote:
- If you want to know something then I think it is
- important to ask someone with experience on the
- subject.

It is also important to read what you're replying to occasionally - the HE power debate thing will never end, but the fact will remain that AP shells in FB are way more effective at kicking planes internals around than HE shells.


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
12-10-2003, 11:44 PM
Clint-ruin,

Can you elaborate on the facts regarding AP vs HE effectiveness in FB?

What does "way more" mean?

Do you know the ratio of AP to HE rounds in the loadouts of FB planes?

I would like to know the facts since my experience does not agree with them.

I have been under the assumption that the most dammage occurs when I see an orange ball of flame hit the target.




JG14_Josf

XyZspineZyX
12-11-2003, 08:52 AM
JG14_Josf wrote:
- Clint-ruin,
-
- Can you elaborate on the facts regarding AP vs HE
- effectiveness in FB?

For some time now there have been posts questioning the effecitveness of cannon rounds - mainly MGFF/MG20 rounds. For the most part they seem to be much more effective at damaging flight surfaces than at causing internal damage [as compared to AP/API]. Whether this is right or not I don't know.

- What does "way more" mean?

Essentially a dead 6 shot with an HE round is likely to hit the rudder or the elevator if shot at the body of the target. Which will, after a few shots, damage or blow off that particular control surface. A pilot without a rudder or one elevator is still very dangerous - AIs will quite often fly on unaffected by such damage.

An AP shot in the rudder or elevator will quite often continue on through the plane if it has enough velocity to kick through. This means the fuel tank, pilot, engine and control cables are now hittable from dead 6.

The easiest way I can think to test this is to take on a large 'empty' rookie bomber and see the differences in 20mm and 15mm shots between a 109F2 and 109F4. The 15mm rounds are, in my experience, very likely to remove an entire engine from the housing in front of the point of impact. The 20mm rounds [with split HE/AP] tend to be a lot slower to achieve this, if at all, and quite often the kill will take a lot more ammo due to having to take the entire wing off from HE hits.

-
- Do you know the ratio of AP to HE rounds in the
- loadouts of FB planes?

I believe the information on this has been posted for Il-2, but not for FB.

- I would like to know the facts since my experience
- does not agree with them.

To each their own. It's kind of a hard thing to post tracks for, the only real way I can think to show it is from bomber attacks on dead 6 and watching what takes an engine off. I've got some I made for Vipez and RedHarvest on the subject but they're for v1.11 I think.

- I have been under the assumption that the most
- dammage occurs when I see an orange ball of flame
- hit the target.

"Surface" damage yes - the nice bright orange balls will switch a surface to a damage texture quite quickly, and impact aircraft handling. The rounds with better penetrating capability don't tend to produce as "graphic" destruction, but round for round, I think they're a much more effective way to cripple a target.



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
12-11-2003, 12:35 PM
THE INCEDIBLE INDESTRUCTABLE YAK! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


http://www.mcrobertsgamefarm.com/images/Wooly%20Yak.jpg


- Dux Corvan -



http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612322300

</span></blockquote></font></td></tr>

XyZspineZyX
12-11-2003, 10:40 PM
Clint-ruin,

Thanks for the info.

I tried the Yak challenge with an FW190A-8 vs Yak3 QMB.

I have 3 track files.

One the Yak comes appart nicely on the first (effective) pass.

Another one the right wing takes 4 cannon hits.

And here are some pictures from the 3rd one where I counted 7 cannnon hits and the thing was still flying around making the high G vapor trails:

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/Guncam.jpg


http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/Alight.jpg


http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/6%20sprites.jpg


http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/Same%20plane%20more%20hits.jpg


http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/7%20cannon%20so%20far.jpg



I can send the track files if you want them.

They were fun.

The A8 manages the sustained turn technique on the A.I. Yak3 well.





JG14_Josf

XyZspineZyX
12-11-2003, 11:29 PM
Hi Josf,

I can't display the pictures, I've PM'd you my email for the tracks if you want to send it directly.

7 shots sounds excessive unless the hits were impacting on different surfaces - most planes can take 3 in the left wing and 3 in the right wing seperately.

Thanks for being about the only person in the thread so far for offering anything other than an anecdote :>



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
12-12-2003, 12:32 AM
clint-ruin wrote:
- Thanks for being about the only person in the thread
- so far for offering anything other than an anecdote


Hey, I didn't offer an anecdote. Just a stupidity! But here's one:

Flying in a 190 -whose rolling stalls at high speeds make it very unpleasant to sustain G manoeuvres- I tried alone against a group of 6 ace Yaks. They didn't catch me, but even if I hit them a miriad times with cannon ammo -I used unlimited ammo for fun- I hardly managed to shot down two, the rest exhaling white fumes and sustaining damage... forever.

I concluded that a Hurricane I with its feeble punch would have never been able to put down a Yak, even if it flew slowly, straight and level. Since I know this can't be true, I think that something must be wrong with Yak DM or with .303 caliber guns. Probably both.

'Incedible'!

- Dux Corvan -



http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612322300

</span></blockquote></font></td></tr>

XyZspineZyX
12-12-2003, 01:26 AM
JG14_Josf wrote:
- Clint-ruin,
-
- Thanks for the info.
-
- I tried the Yak challenge with an FW190A-8 vs Yak3
- QMB.
-
- I have 3 track files.
-
- One the Yak comes appart nicely on the first
- (effective) pass.
-
- Another one the right wing takes 4 cannon hits.
-
- And here are some pictures from the 3rd one where I
- counted 7 cannnon hits and the thing was still
- flying around making the high G vapor trails:
-

Hi Josf,

Thanks for mailing me the track so quickly!

The ntrk shown [test2] definitely shows why convergence range shooting is so important. The first 4 cannon round hits definitely mess the plane up, and would probably have been an instant kill if they'd all struck the same place. Unfortunately due to the very close range of that first pass, your 2 inner 20mms hit both elevators seperately, and your outer 20mms hit the left and right wing roots. One single 20mm hit each was enough to switch both the inner wing to the first stage 'damage' texture, and a human pilot would probably have had difficulty keeping the Yak3 at speed after that. The final kill shot of a 20mm in the engine is enough to set the Yak3 on fire and explode it within a few seconds.

In the D9'44 track I made I tried to fire at convergence range on the same part of the plane which, was pretty deadly. Didn't always get it right due to me being a lousy shot though :>

Excellent demonstration of how to out-maneuver a Yak3 in an FW190A series by the way. Good to watch.

I've taken the liberty of hosting (http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/test2.zip) your ntrk on my homepage if anyone else wants a look.

There are certainly oddities in the way FB calculates damage - I think cannon rounds generally are underpowered - but I don't see anything too odd in the track. Certainly the BF109 can take similar punishment [lots of rounds, but distributed] and it's generally regarded as one of the weakest planes in FB.

Thankyou again so much for taking a moment of your time to submit a track, I find it amazing how rarely such a thing happens in this forum :>



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
12-12-2003, 03:23 AM
Clint-ruin,

Thanks.

I don't know how the program tallies the number of hits. It sure looked like a good shot from real close range with all guns. The reading I've done on the A-8 suggests that it had a leathal combination of weapons.

While editing the track to find pictures that could represent a perspective that may contribute to the opinion that the Yak3 is relatively durable I found the screen captures posted above. I think those screen captures do show how someone might come up with the idea that the Yak is modeled a bit on the sturdy side of things.

I counted 6 cannon hits based upon the little glowing yellow hit sprites in the third picture posted. These remnants showed up once during editing and I have not been able to reproduce the effect.

I also counted the big orange balls of flame. It appears as if the first two cannon hits show up close together one on the right wing root towards the leading edge and another one just behind and above the first one. These first two orange balls seem to coincide with 2 blue tracers. Just a moment later one orange ball shows up mid way out on the left wing. Then it appears to show a cluster of 2 in the tail one on each side of the horizontal stabilizer. If there really was only 4 hits recorded yet it looks like 5 or even 6 hits then that may contribute to the perception that planes are too durable.

The 13mm machine gun rounds were going down the center of the fuselage too. It looks like one round went near the pilots left leg. I assume those rounds include the AP variety.

Convergence set too close is worse than setting convergence too far in my opinion. Default settings for convergence work out pretty good for me.

Sometimes it is nice to have the possiblility of hitting something at 300 meters. If convergence is set at 100 meters then at 300 meters the rounds are spread out a lot, a lot more than the reverse set up.

My opinion is that if Hartmann's statement is true for the 109s (they all didn't have the 108 30mm) then it should be true for the 190A-8. The A-8 hitting the Yak3 at the range my track shows with the number of hits that my track shows, and even where those rounds hit in my track should have downed the Yak or at least, very least, made the Yak incapable of pulling enough G force to cause vapor trails.

My opinion is what it is, it's mine.

I've shot things with guns. A 458 full metal jacketed winchester magnum will go through more hardened steel plate than an army surplus 30-06. That 458 round can go through a gallon of water and a 4 by 4 block of wood. Aluminum or wood does not stop bullets very well. Then there is the factor of pressure build up with explosives inside contained areas. I've seen that happen first hand too.

Is the 109 as durable as the Yak in IL2/FB?


I don't know.


Thanks for the compliment. If you want an IL2 type explanation of the sustained turn techiques described in Fighter Combat by Robert Shaw then go here:

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/sustained%20turn%20technique.htm

I want to update that presentation with the latest version of IL2/FB and add more emphasis on maintaining vertical maneuvering speed. It is very important to avoid overspeeding at the cost of altitude. I've learned to use down time to cool the engine and avoid going too fast in the dive to target.

The A.I. is good for predictable routine practice. On-line is of course a whole different situation.

Historial evidence is one thing and what happens in the game is something else I know, but as time goes by the differences dimminish and our demand for accuracy helps that along, I think.











JG14_Josf

Message Edited on 12/12/0304:43AM by JG14_Josf

XyZspineZyX
12-12-2003, 07:24 AM
-
- I don't know how the program tallies the number of
- hits. It sure looked like a good shot from real
- close range with all guns. The reading I've done on
- the A-8 suggests that it had a leathal combination
- of weapons.
-

Yup, and this is, from what I can tell, pretty much the core of a lot of peoples problems with how damage is calculated. FB is by far the best attempt yet, but it's not perfect. There is as far as I can tell no attempt to simulate the pressure effects from explosive rounds, or the effect that losing large panels from a hollow surface would have on an aircraft doing 500kmh. We have 'fragment' damage and bullet bounce damage [not shown in arcade mode but apparently present], as well as various types of fuses on cannon rounds simulated. Even with this level of attention to detail it doesn't quite tally with a lot of peoples expectations of how much damage rounds should do.

If there's one thing I think could really improve the way cannon hits are counted it would be for the fragment damage to appear 'forward' in a tighter cone pattern from the point of detonation, rather than as an expanding sphere as we have now.

As you have seen, there is no 'cumulative' damage effect in FB. You can pump 20mm rounds into the left wing of a plane until it's one round from falling off completely, then target the right wing and fire the same amount, then the tail, etc. The aircraft will keep flying unless an unlucky explosive fragment tips one of the damage zones over the edge. As there is no structural failure due to G load modelled, the aircraft can fly on, albeit with slightly compromised handling indefinitely.

In reality most pilots would probably be looking to bail out after the first couple of hits, no matter where they were shot. Real WWII planes didn't come with a cute HUD that tells them exactly how serious the damage is ... and whether the real pilots stood at the pearly gates yelling that their plane's DM was BS we'll never know.

-
- While editing the track to find pictures that could
- represent a perspective that may contribute to the
- opinion that the Yak3 is relatively durable I found
- the screen captures posted above. I think those
- screen captures do show how someone might come up
- with the idea that the Yak is modeled a bit on the
- sturdy side of things.
-

I agree with that totally, but there's what's seen in the blink of an eye in the fight, and then there's the reality of where the shells struck which you'll only see if you go back and look at a track. I don't expect everyone to only hold opinions that they can back up with a track, but if they're going to come screaming about a bug [or BIAS] it'd be nice if they offered one first off :>

-
- The 13mm machine gun rounds were going down the
- center of the fuselage too. It looks like one round
- went near the pilots left leg. I assume those rounds
- include the AP variety.

The 13mm MG rounds aren't all that powerful unless they're aimed directly at something important - fuel, engine, pilot - and you generally need to hold them pointed at that specific part for a decent sized burst as well [usually 6 direct hits will do it]. Many many potential pilot kills show up on arcade mode, but since arcade mode doesn't show bullets bouncing off the armour it can be a bit misleading. Also, I've found that in many cases hits to the body will only wound a pilot rather than kill them instantly.

Back in 1.11 when I was trying to work out what people thought was so tough about the Lagg 3 '41, the first track I made had a single 15mm round go through the pilot armor, kill the pilot with a headshot, and knock the engine out all in one hit from behind. Sometimes a bit of dumb luck is involved as well :>

- Convergence set too close is worse than setting
- convergence too far in my opinion. Default settings
- for convergence work out pretty good for me.

Yup - always a tradeoff. It's frustrating seeing bullets merge and disperse either side of a target. I find it worth setting convergence for cannons very short, and MGs very long. Typically in the FW190D I like to keep MGs at around 450m convergence and cannons at between 150 and 250 depending on the target. You can always 'shoot to scare' with the MGs if you have to, and I've found it doesn't make a lot of difference to their trajectory or power to have them set that far out. Since they're both nose mounted and right next to each other the effects of 'long' convergence are minimized. Different story with the FW190A of course, where the inner cannon and MG convergence use the same setting.

- My opinion is that if Hartmann's statement is true
- for the 109s (they all didn't have the 108 30mm)
- then it should be true for the 190A-8. The A-8
- hitting the Yak3 at the range my track shows with
- the number of hits that my track shows, and even
- where those rounds hit in my track should have
- downed the Yak or at least, very least, made the Yak
- incapable of pulling enough G force to cause vapor
- trails.
-

I agree here as well - but I think what's being run into is a limitation of the FB damage engine and not anything to do with one particular plane.



- The A.I. is good for predictable routine practice.
- On-line is of course a whole different situation.
-
- Historial evidence is one thing and what happens in
- the game is something else I know, but as time goes
- by the differences dimminish and our demand for
- accuracy helps that along, I think.

Thanks for the link and the track - typically in the 190 I like to keep it relatively straight and fast and then break for instant-turn snapshots as the chance arises. I had no idea you could pull that tight in one at low speed, good stuff.

The quest for accuracy is definitely helped by empirical evidence more than it is by conjecture :>



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
12-12-2003, 11:11 AM
Clint-ruin wrote:

"The quest for accuracy is definitely helped by
empirical evidence more than it is by conjecture"



Verification of accuracy is difficult but when effort is expended toward that goal the results are at least going to prove what doesn't work.


"I had no idea you could pull that tight in one at low speed, good stuff."

I assume that gravity is modeled accurately enough to help turn the beast around at the top of a zoom. This tactic works fine in a one on one environment. It is fun to do and most efficient energy wise but in an on-line war environment it is better to extend in a shallow climb and let friendlies work on the preeminent antagonist, at least in those situations where an insufficent energy advantage is realized in time.

I think just about everyone takes their turn at being a target, but we don't have to like it; do we? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif









JG14_Josf

XyZspineZyX
12-12-2003, 11:30 AM
clint-ruin wrote:

"...no 'cumulative' damage effect in FB."

"...no structural failure due to G load modelled"

This may not be true. I do not remember the exact quote by Oleg nor where to find it exactly, but I think the statement suggested that cumulative damage and failure due to G laod is modelled and I have seen instances where this may have been the case.

Then again my perception may have been the result of lag.

A target passed from left to right under the FW's nose.

I shot but did not see any hits.

When the target appeared on the right side it flew straight and then pitched up, however the wings folded.

It sure was neat.

P.S. How do you activate the Arcade mode?





JG14_Josf

XyZspineZyX
12-12-2003, 05:56 PM
For what y'all think it's worth, I did some tests with various aircraft against a friendly Yak-3. Convergence was set at 125 meters. With short range and extreme accuracy (due to the fact that the "bandit" is a friendly), it is exceedingly simple to demolish a Yak-3 with the following aircraft's weapons...
P-47
P-51
Hurricane Mk IIb
109F4
109G? w/2 Cannons Pods
I-16 (late)
I-153

I'm too lazy and way too bad a shot to try it at longer ranges.


Below is a link to a zip of all 8 track files.


http://www.whtboys.org/Yak3/YakDurability.zip


-WhtBoy.

XyZspineZyX
12-13-2003, 04:49 AM
WhtBoy wrote:
- For what y'all think it's worth, I did some tests
- with various aircraft against a friendly Yak-3.
- Convergence was set at 125 meters. With short range
- and extreme accuracy (due to the fact that the
- "bandit" is a friendly), it is exceedingly simple to
- demolish a Yak-3 with the following aircraft's
- weapons...

Thanks for taking the time to do all those tests with the various weapons!

It would have been so nice if anyone arguing that the Yak3 is invincible could have supplied a track file showing so. Without one we are left to fumble around trying to replicate the problem.

I am quite sure there are still problems in 1.21 - and genuine bugs - but it does nothing helpful to send Maddox out on a similar wild goose chase.

I like the little I-153 vs B-17 track in there too :>

lcarp assured me that he did indeed have a track file, I wonder where that got to? For some reason he preferred to assure me of its existence rather than share it with anyone.

- "...no 'cumulative' damage effect in FB."
-
- "...no structural failure due to G load modelled"
-
- This may not be true. I do not remember the exact
- quote by Oleg nor where to find it exactly, but I
- think the statement suggested that cumulative damage
- and failure due to G laod is modelled and I have
- seen instances where this may have been the case.

There is failure due to structural damage from shells, and failure due to excess speed, but the two parts aren't put together. You can continue to merrily black yourself out no matter how beat up your plane is. Oleg seems to be aware that this is an issue, and BOB, with its 'structural memory' feature for planes sounds like it'll be great.

- Then again my perception may have been the result of
- lag.
-
- A target passed from left to right under the FW's
- nose.
-
- I shot but did not see any hits.
-
- When the target appeared on the right side it flew
- straight and then pitched up, however the wings
- folded.
-
- It sure was neat.

Latency definitely plays a part in peoples perceptions of online play. Between two modem players there's quite a large delay at each stage. And particularly long hop lengths from say Australia to eastern europe are going to be a lot worse. Even if both players are on cable you'll get around 1/10 to 1/4 seconds lag between both parties, easily, which is going to be small but noticable in those kinds of situations.

If the 'orange balls' are client-side predicted then that can also explain some oddities in how many hits aircraft are seen to have received on the net. This is why offline testing is a good idea since it removes network artifacts from the show.

Personally I don't think we're dealing with a bug so much as the usual FB damage model made to stand out more than it usually does. The Yak3 is a small and very agile target - hitting it more than once can be a challenge, especially hitting it in the same place twice.

- P.S. How do you activate the Arcade mode?

Edit conf.ini in notepad and set "Arcade=0" to "Arcade=1"

JG14_Josf wrote:
- Clint-ruin wrote:
-
- "The quest for accuracy is definitely helped by
- empirical evidence more than it is by conjecture"
-
- Verification of accuracy is difficult but when
- effort is expended toward that goal the results are
- at least going to prove what doesn't work.

Did you move my cheese? :>

As mentioned - maybe there is a problem with the Yaks DM - but Oleg has been bullcrapped enough on these forums without generating baseless bug reports for him to work through.

- "I had no idea you could pull that tight in one at
- low speed, good stuff."
-
- I assume that gravity is modeled accurately enough
- to help turn the beast around at the top of a zoom.

Seems to be from my experience. Some planes are more controllable than others at the top - Yaks and the FW190 in particular. I've had the Yak1 controllable down to under 100kmh at the top, but not steerable much.

- This tactic works fine in a one on one environment.
- It is fun to do and most efficient energy wise but
- in an on-line war environment it is better to extend
- in a shallow climb and let friendlies work on the
- preeminent antagonist, at least in those situations
- where an insufficent energy advantage is realized in
- time.

Yup. There were a few points where the Yak3 AI could have pulled tighter and got a couple of shots off, maybe, but the principle of the tactic was sound enough :>

- I think just about everyone takes their turn at
- being a target, but we don't have to like it; do we?
- http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Indeed :>

Sorry for the late reply, it's summer here in Brisbane and my CPU isn't liking the heat much - crashed twice trying to write this.


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
12-14-2003, 02:36 AM
Clint-ruin,

Best get another fan, aye?

I tried the Arcade mode but it did not work while running track files.

Looking back some more at my track file which shows all the orange balls of flame I found that the right wing inner cannon may be responsible for the 2nd orange ball showing up on the right wing root of the Yak. It even looks like this second 20mm HE explosive round went off in the pilots right ear.

Well, it does look neat.





JG14_Josf