PDA

View Full Version : axis FM vs allies FM



XyZspineZyX
06-23-2003, 08:46 PM
Hi oleg! FB is still a truly great game!

Previously I wrote you about an amazing FM differences of I-16 and Brewster. This post is found in

http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zvoyz

Now, after a few test flights with other planes, I have come to a conclusion, that all russian planes (I-16, Lagg, Yak...) seem to have a very different Flight Model than Axis planes. In a nutshell Axis planes bleed energy quickly and are more likely to stall, while Russian planes have a "UFO"-type of feel (very small energy bleed even in tight sudden maneuvers, stalling is rare compared to axis planes).

I do not know, if these models are realistic, but I AM saying that this unfair modelling takes the fun out of the game! Especially online game. In short, Russian pilots have the advantage in every area of FM (except speed, but the difference is not big enough to make a difference).

I think that even though I am an Axis pilot, the Allies pilots share my opinion, because they also get bored with too easy dogfights. I admire the purpose to model each plane accurately, but as a gamer, I am even more interested in a fair and challenging game. Of course these two don't exclude themselves. But I urge you to consider the playability and fairness of the sim in the patch.

Again, I think this is a constructive argument. Any opinions? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-23-2003, 08:46 PM
Hi oleg! FB is still a truly great game!

Previously I wrote you about an amazing FM differences of I-16 and Brewster. This post is found in

http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zvoyz

Now, after a few test flights with other planes, I have come to a conclusion, that all russian planes (I-16, Lagg, Yak...) seem to have a very different Flight Model than Axis planes. In a nutshell Axis planes bleed energy quickly and are more likely to stall, while Russian planes have a "UFO"-type of feel (very small energy bleed even in tight sudden maneuvers, stalling is rare compared to axis planes).

I do not know, if these models are realistic, but I AM saying that this unfair modelling takes the fun out of the game! Especially online game. In short, Russian pilots have the advantage in every area of FM (except speed, but the difference is not big enough to make a difference).

I think that even though I am an Axis pilot, the Allies pilots share my opinion, because they also get bored with too easy dogfights. I admire the purpose to model each plane accurately, but as a gamer, I am even more interested in a fair and challenging game. Of course these two don't exclude themselves. But I urge you to consider the playability and fairness of the sim in the patch.

Again, I think this is a constructive argument. Any opinions? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-23-2003, 08:50 PM
Fly the 109 K4, or 190 D9 or A9, they can easily take on any russian plane.

--lbhkilla--

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/FW190.jpg .

"Ich bin ein Wuergerwhiner"

"We could do with some of those razor blades, Herr Reichsmarshall."
When Erwin Rommel that British fighter-bombers had shot up my tanks with 40mm shells, the Hermann G√¬∂ring who felt himself touched by this, said: "That's completely impossible. The Americans only know how to make razor blades." and the above was Rommels reply.

XyZspineZyX
06-23-2003, 08:58 PM
I think im becoming a fanboy.
But none the less i have to point out that the war wasnt fair, and as this is a simulation, neither should it. There might well be flaws in the flight models, but as someone who has never flown in anything other than an airliner, and then as a passenger, i leave that to the experts to say. And, at the risk of being rude, i would say that most people here are not experts.

I will also reiterate my favourite piece of world war two trivia. In 1944, so many Germans were getting shot down by Yak-3s that an order was issued by the commanding general not to engage them at all.

I take that to mean that the Yak-3 was, in fact, quite substantially better than the Bf-109 or Fw-190.

In other words, pleas do change the flight model if necessary, but dont make the game any more, or less fair!

You are right,' said Pangloss, 'for, when man was placed in the Garden of Eden, he was placed there ut operaretur eum, to dress it and keep it; which proves that man was not born for idleness.' 'Let us work without theorizing," said Martin, 'tis the only way to make life endurable.'"-- Voltaire, Candide

<img src =http://www.unicef.ca/eng/unicef/lessons/peace/images/peace.gif>

"There's only one culture: strangle the last priest with the entrails of the last Rosicrucian."
-- Foucault's Pendulum, Chapter 33

XyZspineZyX
06-23-2003, 08:59 PM
lbhskier37 wrote:
- Fly the 109 K4, or 190 D9 or A9, they can easily
- take on any russian plane.
-

Ok, K4, D9, A9. that makes three. I-16, Yak-3, Lagg-3, La-5 FN, P.11, P-39 Q, Hurri Mk2.. That makes a few more..
The FM/DM issues mentioned on the first post clearly play a bit greater role on the VVS side.

All that I am wondering about is that this issue didn't came up any earlier.. It is very obvious, after all..

-Celorfie

XyZspineZyX
06-23-2003, 09:01 PM
Maybe you should correct that topic - I don't think the p47, p39 and p40 planes are modelled correctly in both FM and DM aspects.

p39 is tougher than the p47, etc...

Waiting for patch to see if this is fixed.

Perhaps you are referring to the tnb russian planes vs. the bnz german ones?

S!
609IAP_Recon

Forgotten Wars Virtual War
Forum: http://fogwar.luftwaffe.net/forums/index.php
Website: http://forgottenwars.dyndns.org
Visit 609IAP at http://takeoff.to/609IAP

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

Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem

XyZspineZyX
06-23-2003, 09:01 PM
I should note that all planes in FB have a UFO feel to them. Some more than others, but this is not limited just to VVS planes. If you played latest version of IL-2, you would see a more accurate representation of the FMs. The I-16 was not nearly as uber then.

When you compare, very general, VVS and LW planes, you will see that there is good reason why LW planes should stall more, accelerate less, etc.

The 109s, in comparison to Yaks, LaGGs, are usually much heavier, have lower T/W, and higher wingloading. Early models of 109s are better (eg, 109F4 can outturn La-5) but later on there is larger difference.

With the FW-190 there is no comparison, being sometimes almost a ton heavier than its VVS counterparts with little more power.

You can see the same thing with the MiG-3, Yak-9K and La-5 classic. Low T/W, high W/L means less turning, more stalling. There is nothing unrealistic about that.

But I agree, some specific FMs are more pooched than others, not being specific to any one side. There is nothing now but to wait for the patch.

XyZspineZyX
06-23-2003, 09:06 PM
"Fly the 109 K4, or 190 D9 or A9, they can easily take on any russian plane."


When I fly "blue", I fly almost exclusively the different variant of the 190A's.

In Il-2, even without using the flap trick, I had no problem to engage a dogfight against a Lag-3 or a Yak-1 in an A-4; the Airacobra was also a very easy meat.

Now in FB, with the same conditions, I must be much more careful to get, not the same results, but simply to stay alive and get some kills. Big difference at least for the 190.

In IL-2, I could get my kills in direct dogfighting. In FB, I get my kills on the 190A almost only by surprise and fast attacks in the six. If you make curves, you're pretty fast an easy target for the reds in a 190 (energy bleed and stalls).

About the A-9, this aircraft is fast (when flying in manual, strange for an aircraft with an automatic system), but lose also its energy very fast even in light turns or climbs.

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
06-23-2003, 09:09 PM
Fennec, you can read here about the stalls on the 190:

http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zvnid

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
06-23-2003, 09:09 PM
lbhskier37 wrote:
- Fly the 109 K4, or 190 D9 or A9, they can easily
- take on any russian plane.


I can kill any AI ace plane with Bf-109. But that's AI. Try against real people online. Or if you don't fly online, fly a test:

First fly Bf-109 against AI Ace Lagg3. Then you fly the Lagg3 against an AI Bf-109. See the difference? The latter fight should be VERY easy. TOO MUCH easier than the first fight.

XyZspineZyX
06-23-2003, 09:12 PM
"The latter fight should be VERY easy. TOO MUCH easier than the first fight."

When I fly online red aircrafts, I noticed (it's not a precise statistic) that I can get kills twice as fast than on blue aircrafts. Just my personal experience.

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
06-23-2003, 09:13 PM
Recon_609IAP wrote:
- p39 is tougher than the p47, etc...
-
- Waiting for patch to see if this is fixed.

Well, while the US and Britain didn't like the P-39 and considered the P-47 as a great fighter, the soviets did really appreciate the P-39 and didn't like the P-47.

You must keep in mind that the P-39 was far better suited than the P-47 for low altitude fight (the soviets said the latter didn't accelerate better than the Pe-2).

This fact was confirmed by the american comparison tests between the zero and american fighters : below 10,000 ft, the P-39D did better the the P-51A, the P-38, or any other US fighter as far as acceleration and climb rate is concerned.

As we fight mainly at low altitudes, the superiority of the late P-39s over the P-47Ds is not surprising.

XyZspineZyX
06-23-2003, 09:23 PM
- First fly Bf-109 against AI Ace Lagg3. Then you fly
- the Lagg3 against an AI Bf-109. See the difference?
- The latter fight should be VERY easy. TOO MUCH
- easier than the first fight.
-


I should add that the fight above should be easy REGARDLESS of the model of the Bf-109 or the model of the Lagg3.

Someone commented that war should not be fair and that Russian planes WERE superior. But an unbalance of THIS SIZE?? I find it hard to believe...

XyZspineZyX
06-23-2003, 09:25 PM
Don't forget also that the P-39 in Il-2 and the P-39 in FB are completely different aircrafts /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
06-23-2003, 09:40 PM
I think the lighter and better turning planes are too good in vertical. German planes often climb better, but waste that advantage at E bleed and poorer turn rate. I think P40‚¬īs FM represents itself quite good: turns good, but the dive/climb is really bad, no chance against Fw190A4 /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif but similarly bad LaGG is much tougher enemy.


-------------

"The picture repeats itself when operations, which began with great intent and local successes, degenerated into senseless, wild hammering at fixed front-line positions once they encounter initial heavy losses and unforeseen situations. This incomprehensible phenomenon appears again and again. But, even in extremis, the Russian is never logical; he falls back on his natural instinct, and the nature of the Russian is to use mass, steamroller tactics, and adherence to given objectives without regard to changing situations."

German 9th Army report after repulsing the Soviet offensive "Mars" in Rzhev bulge, December 1942.

XyZspineZyX
06-23-2003, 09:54 PM
Just my two cents, I have no problem to shoot all the VVS planes with the 109's, from Emil to K4, from 41 to 45, No problem, the uberyak3, monstruous LA7, UFO's hurries...
even the "wonderful P39 of FB /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

All theses planes with 109's = heat&light, that's all /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

But I love the 190's, and when I see the poor results that i obtain in FB, unceasingly blunder with the loss speed, never turns too hard or big loss of energy, stalls.. etc...

When i see theses poors 190's in FB, i cant believe that germans builted so many of theses ‚ß"u$^*‚¬®* planes /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif ^

And i hope that in the patch the 190 F8 remain as it is today /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif but...

XyZspineZyX
06-23-2003, 09:58 PM
if the aircraft were fairly matched, no one would have won the war.

XyZspineZyX
06-23-2003, 10:09 PM
---if the aircraft were fairly matched, no one would have won the war.

The problem everybody is having is that Oleg's flight physics can't simulate the German advantages of tactics, training, military organization, professional officer leadership, and so the (generally) better handling and better dogfighting Soviet aircraft will have an unatural advantage over German aircraft on the internet because FB only simulates the least important part of Eastern Front air combat:: internet dogfighting.

The Soviet aircraft recoil from guns far more than German aircraft, and it messes me up. But I guess that comes from their being generally lighter in weight--a trade off I can accept.

XyZspineZyX
06-23-2003, 10:09 PM
Timmothias wrote:
- if the aircraft were fairly matched, no one would
- have won the war.
-
-

I don't know whether to think you're an idiot or just joking.

You were making a joke right?




http://taipans.dyndns.org/images/sig.jpg (http://taipans.dyndns.org)

XyZspineZyX
06-23-2003, 10:12 PM
i was making an unrealistic rhetorical point. thanks for calling me an idiot. i think highly of your intellect as well

XyZspineZyX
06-23-2003, 10:14 PM
StG77_Fennec wrote:
- You can see the same thing with the MiG-3, Yak-9K
- and La-5 classic.

The stalls in FB seem much milder, but our
squadron flew the Mig-3 in some online battles in IL2,
and the stall on them could be quite nasty.

I lent IL2 to a friend, so I can't compare with FB
currently.

XyZspineZyX
06-23-2003, 10:15 PM
I fly FW190A4 alot, but FW190D9 even more. My experience flying red is kinda similar in that it "feels" like I get kills easier, but I consider this something of an illusion as far as judging performance.

A prime example is when I took up a Hurricane in a 1942 server. I was truely shocked at how poorly some guys were flying their 109s. I have no chance whatsoever to catch one, but for some reason they decide they are in a biplane and start making tight loops and flat turns, getting real slow. Slow targets are very easy for slow planes to shoot down. Slow targets are not quite so easy for fast planes to shoot down. Fast planes are hard for fast planes to shoot down. I find VVS planes are better for shooting down people who fly slow, and since there are some on every server it is easier to rack up the kills. But you can never shoot down a good LW pilot that makes no mistake, because you never get a shot, whereas a LW plane can shoot you down no matter how good you are because his plane simply has better performance (i.e. speed).

Obviously this is somewhat of a generalisation, LA5FN in 1943 has performance, and Yak3 and LA7 are fast enough that it is exceptionally difficult to shoot a well flown one down, but in general I think it is easier to shoot down a fast plane that is flying slowly while in a slow plane than it is to shoot down a slow plane while in a fast plane, and this gives the impression that VVS planes are better, because they tend to be the slow planes.

Comparing the AI is pointless, as it flies all planes as though they were the slow plane (fight AI P51 and you will see what I mean).

Alot of people seem to feel that although the LW planes are faster/climb better/or whatever, their advantage is not enough to compensate for better turning/less energy bleed. This may be true in a DF fragfest, but it is certainly not true IRL, nor even in DFs if the faster planes are cooperating (and, of course, staying fast), or even just very patient.

The most telling statistics I ever heard were from WWI. In the months after the Fokker DVII was introduced to replace the Dr.I German rate of air losses went down dramatically, and Allied losses increased just as dramatically. Search the web or your favourite sources and compare the performance of these planes (DVII had different available engines, so numbers will vary), you will find the Dr.I had nearly twice the rate of climb, same or only slightly lower top speed, similar service ceiling, lower stall speed and tighter minimum circle, yet in combat the DVII was way superior because it could dive better/had higher max dive speed and durability.

XyZspineZyX
06-23-2003, 10:18 PM
capt-nemo wrote:
- When i see theses poors 190's in FB, i cant believe
- that germans builted so many of theses ‚ß"u$^*‚¬®*

The A series seem very twitchy, but the D series
seem to be quite a smooth flight. Like the P47
you seem to have to let them find their own way
round in a turn, rather than forcing them, though.

XyZspineZyX
06-23-2003, 10:24 PM
"The A series seem very twitchy, but the D series
seem to be quite a smooth flight. Like the P47
you seem to have to let them find their own way
round in a turn, rather than forcing them, though."


Right, the D is a very fair aircraft /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
06-23-2003, 10:26 PM
LEXX_Luthor wrote:
----if the aircraft were fairly matched, no one would have won the war.
-
- The problem everybody is having is that Oleg's
- flight physics can't simulate the German advantages
- of tactics, training, military organization,
- professional officer leadership, and so the
- (generally) better handling and better dogfighting
- Soviet aircraft will have an unatural advantage over
- German aircraft on the internet because FB only
- simulates the least important part of Eastern Front
- air combat:: internet dogfighting.
-
- The Soviet aircraft recoil from guns far more than
- German aircraft, and it messes me up. But I guess
- that comes from their being generally lighter in
- weight--a trade off I can accept.
-
-
-
-
-

I agree!



You are right,' said Pangloss, 'for, when man was placed in the Garden of Eden, he was placed there ut operaretur eum, to dress it and keep it; which proves that man was not born for idleness.' 'Let us work without theorizing," said Martin, 'tis the only way to make life endurable.'"-- Voltaire, Candide

<img src =http://www.unicef.ca/eng/unicef/lessons/peace/images/peace.gif>

"There's only one culture: strangle the last priest with the entrails of the last Rosicrucian."
-- Foucault's Pendulum, Chapter 33

XyZspineZyX
06-23-2003, 10:46 PM
Oleg said all will change in patch/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-23-2003, 11:45 PM
Fillmore - you are 100% correct.

I see many 109's not flown correctly - when someone does, it's a true menace.

I flew the 109F4 in 1943 server - it was uber! I didn't get a bullet in me but once. I was in control of the fight.

It was quite fun.


Sure, I didn't 'as many kills' - but that is more because I was avoiding furballs and just trying to pick guys off with bnz tactics.

Course - I still can't aim - so - no excuse there :P lol

S!
609IAP_Recon

Forgotten Wars Virtual War
Forum: http://fogwar.luftwaffe.net/forums/index.php
Website: http://forgottenwars.dyndns.org
Visit 609IAP at http://takeoff.to/609IAP

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

Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem

XyZspineZyX
06-24-2003, 12:00 AM
Yeha F4 is awesome. If they make the mg17s work, it will be even more awesome. I love going into 1942 servers in the F4 and taking on guys in their La5s. La5s are like ducks.

--lbhkilla--

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/FW190.jpg .

"Ich bin ein Wuergerwhiner"

"We could do with some of those razor blades, Herr Reichsmarshall."
When Erwin Rommel that British fighter-bombers had shot up my tanks with 40mm shells, the Hermann G√¬∂ring who felt himself touched by this, said: "That's completely impossible. The Americans only know how to make razor blades." and the above was Rommels reply.

XyZspineZyX
06-24-2003, 12:14 AM
What Fillmore/Recon said.

XyZspineZyX
06-24-2003, 12:18 AM
The performance of the plane is immaterial if one cannot get damaging lead on the target.

This is the main problem that has plagued most Luftwaffe flight models since the game was released.





--------------------------------------

"Loyalty to the country always, loyalty to the government when it deserves it."

Mark Twain

XyZspineZyX
06-24-2003, 12:29 AM
Recon_609IAP wrote:

"Course - I still can't aim - so - no excuse there /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif lol"



lbhskier37

"If they make the mg17s work, it will be even more awesome."







--------------------------------------

"Loyalty to the country always, loyalty to the government when it deserves it."

Mark Twain

XyZspineZyX
06-24-2003, 12:48 AM
T_Rom wrote:
-- First fly Bf-109 against AI Ace Lagg3. Then you fly
-- the Lagg3 against an AI Bf-109. See the difference?
-- The latter fight should be VERY easy. TOO MUCH
-- easier than the first fight.
--
-
-
- I should add that the fight above should be easy
- REGARDLESS of the model of the Bf-109 or the model
- of the Lagg3.
-
- Someone commented that war should not be fair and
- that Russian planes WERE superior. But an unbalance
- of THIS SIZE?? I find it hard to believe...
-
-

That is simply because the AI is an idiot when it comes to BnZ planes. One favorite manuver of theirs, aside from "blatent AI stupidity", is to slowly circle up, in an attempt to get above you for a BnZ attack. The catch is, if you turn away and break for speed, they will always turn on you with insufficient altitude and speed to engage effectively. Once they turn to engage, it is child's play to set them up in a spar attack, and when the pass, do a wing over right onto their tail. That's all it takes.

I even beat the AI Bf-109K-4's in my P-47 this way. Break to the side, dive, build up speed, and get him onto my 2 o'clock. When he passes, dodge, then wingover onto his tail and finish him. The only difficulty is getting the timing right, and not getting hit when he makes his firing pass.

Harry Voyager

XyZspineZyX
06-24-2003, 07:00 AM
Celorfie wrote:
- lbhskier37 wrote:
-- Fly the 109 K4, or 190 D9 or A9, they can easily
-- take on any russian plane.
--
-
- Ok, K4, D9, A9. that makes three. I-16, Yak-3,
- Lagg-3, La-5 FN, P.11, P-39 Q, Hurri Mk2.. That
- makes a few more..
- The FM/DM issues mentioned on the first post clearly
- play a bit greater role on the VVS side.
-
- All that I am wondering about is that this issue
- didn't came up any earlier.. It is very obvious,
- after all..
-
--Celorfie
-
-
-
-

1 Axis planes are zoomer and boomersm allies are turners in some ocations zoomers to
2 i-16 too easy kill, Yak hu ho it will be a roght one, Lagg-3 you can shoot it down sleeping, La-5 take it to fight over 3 k metters and you will eat him easyly the same with the yaks, P.11 YOU KIDDING RIGHT?.... P-39 was overmodeled compared to how it flew in il2 just stay awar from thier nose cannon, HUrri mk2 too easy kill...
3 problems with the germans and japanese, they didnt keep designing planes during the war like the allies did, and when they came up with some good planes when their bf109 and fw190 where been rape too much it was to late....
The bf109 and the 190 had never been able to out turn an allie plane, or at least not many, may the some tiwn engine fighters? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

"Never forget the past so we dont make the same mistakes in the future"

XyZspineZyX
06-24-2003, 08:45 AM
T_Rom wrote:

- Now, after a few test flights with other planes, I
- have come to a conclusion, that all russian planes
- (I-16, Lagg, Yak...) seem to have a very different
- Flight Model than Axis planes. In a nutshell Axis
- planes bleed energy quickly and are more likely to
- stall, while Russian planes have a "UFO"-type of
- feel (very small energy bleed even in tight sudden
- maneuvers, stalling is rare compared to axis
- planes).


Hhmm, I absolutly DONT see your point? Russians made planes better suited for turn fighting, while axis planes where the better climbers, and got more speed.

You are talking about turning manouvers, and thus it's clear why you find axis planes to be less forgiving than russian ones. Most new pilots also tend to fly turn planes because it comes more naturaly then to BnZ an enemy.

But in the hands of a pilot who knows the strenghts of his 109 (any model) planes like the P-40, I-16, Hurricane are dead meat in no time flat. For others you have to work a little, but it's still quite doable.

So in conclusion, no, there is no unfair modeling of planes. They just have different advantages and disadvantages.

XyZspineZyX
06-24-2003, 09:18 AM
The last true german dogfighter is 109F. 190 nad later types of 109 are build for good speed, armament, dive, climb. Use these advantages.

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

XyZspineZyX
06-24-2003, 09:31 AM
IJG54_Nowi wrote:

- So in conclusion, no, there is no unfair modeling of
- planes. They just have different advantages and
- disadvantages.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you on this one. The current problem(which hopefully will get fixed with the patch) is that the turnfighters will dominate in the vertical aswell, I do not however see any problems with the 109 family as it does well in both realms. The late models still turn fairly well, certanly good enough to get on the six of most russian birds. The 109's can climb VERY well, and this is most likely their trumph card which gives them the ability to dominate the fight against virtually anything in FB. Which means, good sustained climbers(just about all russian fighters) can dictate the fight. With this said I'd like to show that the russian fighters can't dominate all Axis fighters. Meaning no russian bias.

The 190's on the other hand are crippled in so many ways it's not even funny. For starters there's no way a 190 can outdive an opponent(even early war LaGG's and Yak's) by using it historically good dive acceleration. It's in-game sustained climbrate is pathetic which greatly reduces its effectiveness in the vertical with zoom manouvers, as virtually any russian bird can best it. Compare the 2.5 ton Yak3 with the 4.3 ton D-9 and see what I mean. The 190 turns too good(although still worse than other fighters) at low speeds and its in-game stall speed is far too low. The 190 was designed to be a highspeed fighter, but the current modeling does not allow this to be exploited, which gives the good turners and good sustained climbers such as the 109 and most russian birds the edge even in this realm. Even with all this said, I would still not give up on my beloved butcher bird, as it's inferiority makes it a fun and challenging plane to fly. So in short...

It can't outdive any russian fighter.

It can't outzoom any russian fighter.

It can outfly most russian birds using share speed, it's only trumph card.

It can't outmanouver any other fighter at high speeds.

So, how come some people do so well in the 190 when it's so inferior?

It's quite simple.

Most online fights are turn fights. Meaning speeds seldom exceed 500km/h. This gives the 190 driver an edge, sort of. Refusing to enter these battles on their terms, The 190 driver would choose to stay faster then the TnB crowd and I reccon most other 190 fliers do this. This way you can stay relatively safe and in time get plenty of kills. Should the other players(in Yak's La's and 109's) adapt your tactics, it's just a matter of time before they blast you out of the sky, as they can without much effort better you vertical manouvers no matter what you do.

Ok, there, sorry for the 190 whine, but I believe this to be true./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
06-24-2003, 09:45 AM
Don't worry, the 190 WILL be improved with the patch. I have a feeling that it will retain more energy and its elevator response will be better. I also have a feeling that it will zoom climb somewhat better, then again that goes along with its energy retention. Particularly the A-5 in '43, its speed makes it difficult to even get a shot at if flown properly.

http://www.mucheswarbirds.com/image90.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-24-2003, 12:13 PM
I hope you're a betatester, Kyrule /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
06-24-2003, 12:33 PM
a8 was with 1700ps test by eric brown initialclimb 17,5m/sec
571km/h sealevel speed,

a9 with almost same weigh but 2300ps engine and effective propeller

what climb has she ?

more as 17,5m/sec certain

hope patch change the climb from a9 and too from dora


Message Edited on 06/24/0303:59PM by Skalgrim

XyZspineZyX
06-24-2003, 01:18 PM
- LEXX_Luthor wrote:
--
-- The Soviet aircraft recoil from guns far more than
-- German aircraft, and it messes me up. But I guess
-- that comes from their being generally lighter in
-- weight--a trade off I can accept.
--

Strange.. When I take Yak-1 (or any other plane with those nasty green-bolted plasma MGs), and go shoot down a set of SB-103s, I can generally take down or lit engines afire from around 5-7 bombers before I run out of ammo.

Try taking down 5-7 bombers with german MGs only. I'll bet my 2 cents that you can't do that, no matter how uber you were as a pilot. If you can, post a track for me to learn from.

The performance of the aircraft goes like this: german planes have boom, zoom & burn planes, while the VVS side hosts a set of turn & gain planes. Yes, the german planes (Alongside with the B-239) bleed energy in even small, light turns.. So no matter how well you can boom & zoom, it still takes you ages to zoom out and turn back for another pass.. Meanwhile, your opponent's I-16 is already climbing to deliver the necessary 1-2 hits from it's plasma weapons.

-Celorfie

XyZspineZyX
06-24-2003, 01:55 PM
Some interesting statements from interview ( Conversations with N.Golodnikov ) I came across:


I-16:


-The I-16 was a complicated aircraft, demanding in piloting technique. It could fall into a spin at the slightest "overhandling" of the stick. True, one could recover quickly, whether from a simple or inverted spin.

-The I-16 had a radio beginning with the type-17. They were poor excuses for radios. Garbage! The circuitry was wound on some type of cardboard material. As soon as this "cardboard" got the slightest bit damp, the tuning of the circuit changed and the whole apparatus quit working. All we heard was crackling.

-We did not have bullet-proof glass. Our front windscreen was ordinary plexiglass. In a frontal attack we were covered by the engine. This was one of the strong points of the I-16. It was very good in a frontal attack. The I-16 had an armored seat with a head protector.

-We mounted ShKASs [7.62mm] in the wings, sometimes two in each wing and sometimes one. This was on old types, -4 and -5. These were very rapid firing machine guns and not very reliable. They had frequent stoppages. They were susceptible to dust. During the firing of a long burst they gave a tolerable dispersion. But we rarely fired in long bursts, rather primarily in short bursts, to range and then destroy the target. The destructive power of the ShKAS was not great. They were suitable to use against a Bf-109E, which was insufficiently armored. But the ShKAS was weak against an F model or a bomber.

-The ShVAK had a powerful high explosive round. If it exploded in the engine compartment, it scrambled everything in there. An armor-piercing round was also available. We loaded the belt with both types-two high explosive rounds and an armor-piercing round or, conversely, two armor-piercing rounds and a high explosive round. It depended on the type of target. The armor-piercing round was a conventional steel shot, without tracer. The high explosive round had a tracer element.

-The engines on the I-16 were good, very reliable. Two or three cylinders could be damaged and it would still bring us home.

-The I-16 consumed its fuel rapidly, in 40-45 minutes, and in combat perhaps in 25-30 minutes

-The "Messer" could dive well and get away. The I-16, with its rather large nose, could not develop 530 kmh in a dive. But it must be said that in combat, if we had to disengage, them from us or we from them, we always managed to do so.



Hurricane:


-The cockpit, of course, was larger than in the I-16. The visibility forward was also better. Forward visibility was very good. To the side, and especially to the rear, it was poor. The canopy reminded me of the I-16 canopy. It had many sections and slid backward. The many sections greatly hindered lateral visibility. If you looked in any direction except toward the nose, a window frame blocked your view. Initially before combat we slid the canopy open to improve visibility. Later, when we had adapted to the canopy, we left it closed so as not to lose speed.

-I will say that if you got close enough, the Lewis machine guns could be quite effective.

-Did they mount rockets on the Hurricane?
N. G. Yes, four under each wing

-During negative g-forces the engine choked. There was no compensating tank. This was very bad because any maneuver should be able to be executed with positive g-forces. We mastered this peculiarity quickly but, initially, in the heat of battle we forgot about it. Later, with experience, we never permitted this condition to develop. An abrupt, unanticipated lessening of g-force changes the maneuver, and in combat this is dangerous.

-Did the I-16 burn more readily? It also was percale-covered.
N. G. Worse. The I-16's engine was more reliable. And the little I-16, one had to hit it.



P-40:


-A. S. Describe the cockpit, visibility, instruments, bullet-proof glass and armored seat. Was there a palpable difference after the I-16 and the Hurricane? Better or worse?
N. G. Of course, the P-40s were better than the I-16 and the Hurricane. After the first flight, I said to myself, "Well, Kolya, finally they have given you a modern fighter."

-Only large-caliber machine guns. Two synchronized [in the nose] and two in the wings. Browning 12.7mm. Powerful, reliable, good machine guns. In time, relatively soon after we received these aircraft, we began to remove the wing-mounted weapons in order to lighten the aircraft, leaving only the two synchronized guns.

-German aircraft were good in the dive. In a fighter with a linked throttle-pitch system in a dive we either fell back or he caught up to us. Therefore we always preferred a separated or de-linked system.

-A. S. Nikolay Gerasimovich, how would you evaluate the speed, rate of climb, acceleration, and maneuverability of the P-40? Did it suit you?
N. G. I say again, the P-40 significantly outclassed the Hurricane, and it was far and away above the I-16.

Personally speaking, the P-40 could contend on an equal footing with all the types of Messerschmitts, almost to the end of 1943. If you take into consideration all the tactical and technical characteristics of the P-40, then the Tomahawk was equal to the Bf-109F and the Kittyhawk was slightly better.

Its speed and vertical and horizontal maneuver were good. It was fully competitive with enemy aircraft.

As for acceleration, the P-40 was a bit heavy, but when one had adjusted to the engine, it was normal.


P-39


-Visibility from the cabin was outstanding. The instrument panel was very ergonomic, with the entire complement of instruments right up to an artificial horizon and radio compass. It even had a relief tube, in the shape of a funnel. If you wanted to p iss, pull the tube out from under the seat and go for it. It even had holders for pen and pencil. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

-A. S. Nikolay Gerasimovich, if you compare the Hispano-Suiza 20mm cannon and the ShVAK, which was better in your opinion?
N. G. Ours, without a doubt. The ShVAK was twice as reliable. The Hispano simply required an unbelievable amount of maintenance. The smallest exposure to dust, congealed lubricant, or any other kind of little thing, and the gun would not fire. Very unreliable.

The ballistics of our cannon were better. Our cannon had a flatter trajectory, which is significant for applying lead. When you talk about the Yaks, then one didn't even need a sight. The tracers were almost straight, take aim and fire, and where the nose is pointing is where the rounds struck.

Our ShVAK had a higher rate of fire.

Regarding the target effect, these two cannons were about equal. In either case, there was no difference that I could see with the human eye.

-A. S. Was a 37mm cannon necessary? Wasn't this too large a caliber for a fighter? You had so few rounds of ammunition. And wasn't its rate of fire slow?

The ballistics of the projectile were abysmal. The flight trajectory of the projectile was arching, which required large lead angles. But again this was at long ranges, especially when firing at ground targets. When firing at ground targets we had to apply two rings of the sight for lead.

All these deficiencies could be compensated for by proper selection of firing range. If one fired from 70-50 meters, there was sufficient rate of fire, the ballistics at this range were acceptable, and the lead required was minimal.

The projectile was very powerful. Normally, one strike on an enemy fighter and he was finished! In addition, we fired this cannon at other types of targets. Bombers, vessels at sea. The 37mm cannon was very effective against these targets.

Here is another example. We were flying on a "free hunt" mission, four of us. I was the leader. We came upon a German tanker that we estimated at 3000-3500 tons. Most importantly, it was proceeding without escort!

"We set a tanker on fire, 3,500 tons." And he replied, "Right. You set a tanker on fire with all of 38 rounds expended!" He didn't believe what I was telling them. 38 rounds for 3,500 tons! I said to him, "Isn't that enough? We put 38 rounds into that box!" At first everyone laughed at us, but later our agent intelligence gave us confirmation of that number. A German tanker of 3,500 tons displacement had been burned out. Everything fit. There you have it-38 rounds of 37mm cannon destroyed a 3,500-ton vessel!

-Realistically the Allison engine began to live up to its full 100 hours of use only in 1944. These engines came in the Q-25-30. But by this time the intensity of air combat had already fallen somewhat, and the primary distinction of these types was the perceptible decrease in power output. Therefore we removed the wing machine guns. They were heavy [one Browning .50 caliber under each wing], slowed the airplane down, and their recoil was felt in combat.

-A. S. Nikilay Gerasimovich, could the Cobra really contend with the Bf-109G and FW-190 in aerial combat?
N. G. Yes. The Cobra, especially the Q-5, took second place to no one, and even surpassed all the German fighters.

I flew more than 100 combat sorties in the Cobra, of these 30 in reconnaissance, and fought 17 air combats. The Cobra was not inferior in speed, in acceleration, nor in vertical or horizontal maneuverability. It was a very balanced fighter.


Others:

-I began to fly the LaGG in 1941, while still at aviation school. It was heavy, even the lightened version. They took an immediate dislike to it when it was introduced to the forces. The engine was weak for the air frame. I never fought an aerial engagement in it.

-We had very good machines. I flew on them and can make comparisons. No, our fighters were not worse than the Cobra.

I flew most of the Yaks immediately after the war, along with the Cobra. Thus I am able to make comparisons. I flew in the Yak-1B (we had one, for the division commander), Yak-7B, and Yak-9.

The Yak-1B was very light and accelerated very rapidly. Only the Yak-3 was quicker. That was its strong suit.

The Yak-7B was heavier but I liked it a lot.

The Yak-9 was heavy.


-A. S. The Yak-9. With 37mm cannon?

N. G. Why 37mm? Ours had a 57mm cannon.

A. S. This was a Yak-9K?

N. G. I don't remember the model designation. We had two or three of them. They were designed especially for combating ships, patrol vessels, and so on. It seems to me that there were 12 rounds for the cannon, no eight. Yes, it was eight. But if you were flying along at 600 kph and fired the cannon, your speed dropped to 400! It stopped you in mid-air! Then you had to regain the speed.

We flew very little on them because they were not built for air-to-air combat.



Here's the whole story:
http://airforce.users.ru/lend-lease/english/articles/golodnikov/index.htm

XyZspineZyX
06-24-2003, 02:52 PM
Here is a track of me flying a Yak-1, taking down 6 SB-103 bombers with plain MGs. The last two are shot using the cannon and a slight ram http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.tpu.fi/~t1akeski/VVS-MG.trk

Attempt to do that on a german BF-109 G2 with plain MGs. Then try it with the default setup of BF-109 G2. After that, take the wing cannons as well. See if you can knock all 8 down and post the results here..

I'll be looking forward to them. If someone can do it with plain MGs, then post the track. I wanna learn from it.

-Celorfie

XyZspineZyX
06-24-2003, 04:12 PM
LW pilot:
...considers deeply how much fuel to take. Painfully calculates whether the gunpods or additional wing cannons will be worth the bad impact on the plane performance. Climbs at least 2km over all enemies. Carefully operates the radiators not to overheat the sensitive engine. Of course, he flies only on FR servers, to be able to surprise the enemy from above. Sees the enemy! Dives down... enemy turns away, disappears behind the cockpit struts, the muzzle flashes cover him from view... LW pilot pulls his nose up and escapes in zoomclimb upwards.

VVS pilot:
...evades the tracers, turns 180‚?, points his plane nose up and shoots the LW plane at its top of climb curve.

It is so easy!!

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

-------------

"The picture repeats itself when operations, which began with great intent and local successes, degenerated into senseless, wild hammering at fixed front-line positions once they encounter initial heavy losses and unforeseen situations. This incomprehensible phenomenon appears again and again. But, even in extremis, the Russian is never logical; he falls back on his natural instinct, and the nature of the Russian is to use mass, steamroller tactics, and adherence to given objectives without regard to changing situations."

German 9th Army report after repulsing the Soviet offensive "Mars" in Rzhev bulge, December 1942.

XyZspineZyX
06-24-2003, 04:23 PM
jurinko wrote:

-turns 180‚?, points his plane
- nose up and shoots the LW plane at its top of climb
- curve.

It's all too familiar!/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-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
06-24-2003, 04:46 PM
LOL, as if that worked.

XyZspineZyX
06-24-2003, 06:34 PM
>>>Nicli wrote about the P39--

Recon_609IAP wrote:
- p39 is tougher than the p47, etc...
-
- Waiting for patch to see if this is fixed.

Well, while the US and Britain didn't like the P-39 and considered the P-47 as a great fighter, the soviets did really appreciate the P-39 and didn't like the P-47.

You must keep in mind that the P-39 was far better suited than the P-47 for low altitude fight (the soviets said the latter didn't accelerate better than the Pe-2).

This fact was confirmed by the american comparison tests between the zero and american fighters : below 10,000 ft, the P-39D did better the the P-51A, the P-38, or any other US fighter as far as acceleration and climb rate is concerned.

As we fight mainly at low altitudes, the superiority of the late P-39s over the P-47Ds is not surprising.


>>>>>>>>>Nicli you are right about the low altitude performance of the P39 (non-turbo or superchareged), it fit the war on the eastern front better.

But Recon's point was the airframe's durability. There is simply no way that a P39 is a tougher plane (able to take more damage) than a P47. The P47 was legendary on being able to take damage and keep on flying. Plus the P39 had a water cooled engine where as the P47 did not have this vulnerability.

In the Pacific were you refrence to, the P39 did not perform very well and was generally easy meat for the Zero. Same with the P40. The tactics to win against the Zero was energy fighting, you needed superior speed and diving capability. The Corsairs, P38's, P51's, & P47's easily outclassed the Zero in this reguard.

The Zero's controls turned mushy as speeds increased over 200knts. It could not dive well and while in a high speed dive it had trouble turning to the right which Corsair pilots exploited.


I think there is alot of truth of online pilots simply not flying the 109, 190's right. Using their superior speed and climb makes them a very tough advisary.

Although, I think there is valid points in the flight model of some 190's being off--such as the climb rate and dive speeds. Which applies very much to the P47 as well-acceleration in a dive, roll rate and zoom climb.

Also the Hurricane is way too uber--if it performed in real life like it does in FB why werent they still flying it late into the war?

There is flight model tweaking needed which I think for the most part Oleg will address.

The question will be will Oleg address high altitude flight models?



__________________

XyZspineZyX
06-24-2003, 07:16 PM
" think there is alot of truth of online pilots simply not flying the 109, 190's right. Using their superior speed and climb makes them a very tough advisary."


Sorry, but it's not true.

I fly the 190 since the first days of IL-2 and in IL-2 it was really possible to dogfight (and without using the flap trick) with the 190. In fact, it was not so rare for me to get scores like this one (on "cockpit on" servers):

http://www.pbase.com/image/8332956

In FB, it's no more possible to do that with the 190A (the D variants are not so bad). Basically, you can only win now with a surprise attack in the six. If you make a turn, you lose far too much energy. If you continue turning, you stall very quickly. So these "characteristics" are really not good to fly the 190 "right" as you said!

And don't say to me "superior speed". Last night, I was playing on a scripted FR servers and I chased with my A-4 along the full Stalingrad map a Yak-1b. At o meter, it was faster than me. In a climb or in a dive, it was faster than me. And of course, the Yak could attack me, made some turns keeping its energy and flied away, again faster than me! And the non-working Kommandoger√¬§t didn't help me very much!

Along the months, it's become annoying. So with the coming of the P-51 and the "patched" P-47, I'm hoping to see in the next weeks more and more "Western" servers only with fighters with a similar way of flying.

Cheers,


P.S. And you noticed I didn't speak of the "infamous bar" and the muzzles flashes /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-24-2003, 07:47 PM
S! CHDT,

You'll notice the next line in my thread referred to the 190 flight model needing tweaking along with the P47.

The 109, especially the F4 early and the K4 later are superior climbers and have very good speed in a dive. If flown right they are very tough to defend against.

It is just that most everyone in DF servers wants to fly in the weeds with the stick in their gut with no reguard for tactics and perfomance envelopes.

You can fly Russain planes that way but not German or American planes--except the P39 or the P40.


---------

XyZspineZyX
06-24-2003, 08:56 PM
S! BigKahuna,

I agree with you perhaps more than you can think!

When you said...


"The 109, especially the F4 early and the K4 later are superior climbers and have very good speed in a dive. If flown right they are very tough to defend against."


... it's perfectly true. The 109's are very good in FB and perhaps too good on some aspects (the Emil which climbs too well; the elevator of the G and the K too effective at high speeds for instance).

That's to say that the "bias" theory has always been real BS for me /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

But you will agree with me, the 190A/F needs major tweakings in FB. I must say, the 190 FM's of the last patch in IL-2 were really convincing, except for the flap trick which was a little bit too much!

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
06-24-2003, 10:39 PM
What a brilliant analysis. Can you share your method of how you derived it/i/smilies/16x16_robot-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-24-2003, 10:51 PM
I read some docs (I know docs are wrong, pilots stories are wrong, charts are wrong, tests are wrong, everything is wrong, I am wrong etc...), but just have a look here:

http://www.pbase.com/chrisdnt/eric_browns_190_report

(btw, 1856 hits now on the Eric Brown's article!)

http://www.pbase.com/chrisdnt/190_tests


and here Kurt Tank and the stalls of the 190:

http://pub131.ezboard.com/fallboutwarfarefrm31.showMessage?topicID=2858.topi c

By the way, if you have docs telling that the 190 was a "sitting duck", I'm always interested in learning new things /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
06-24-2003, 10:52 PM
It don't matter what your FM can do.

The bottom line is putting damaging fire on the target.

If you can't do that for whatever reason, modeling or otherwise you're wasting your time.





--------------------------------------

"Loyalty to the country always, loyalty to the government when it deserves it."

Mark Twain

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 02:13 AM
CHDT, let's just say a little birdie on my hard drive told me. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.mucheswarbirds.com/image90.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 03:16 AM
Dude, the "report" cuts off just before he flies the Ta~152.