PDA

View Full Version : The La-7...that good?



Pages : [1] 2

arrowtalon
03-26-2007, 12:16 PM
After playing on RCAF_FB (great server) for many many hours, I've come to realize that one plane sticks out. The La-7.

Many recognize this as the best plane in the game (not trying to start a debate about this, I know there are other good planes). I've been able to out-climb, out-accelerate, and out-turn just about every plane in the game with the La-7.

Look at any server where the La is available, and you'll find at least the majority of players flying them. Historically, the La wasn't even the best Russian dogfighter. In this game, it certainly is, and may be the best aircraft in the whole game.

arrowtalon
03-26-2007, 12:16 PM
After playing on RCAF_FB (great server) for many many hours, I've come to realize that one plane sticks out. The La-7.

Many recognize this as the best plane in the game (not trying to start a debate about this, I know there are other good planes). I've been able to out-climb, out-accelerate, and out-turn just about every plane in the game with the La-7.

Look at any server where the La is available, and you'll find at least the majority of players flying them. Historically, the La wasn't even the best Russian dogfighter. In this game, it certainly is, and may be the best aircraft in the whole game.

DKoor
03-26-2007, 12:31 PM
I have only one suggestion for you:
go play on server with:
-cockpit always on
-no externals

It makes all the difference, and you will start to appreciate some characteristics more, characteristics other than good manouver ability.

When they shoot you down over and over again in their porked FW-190's, you will start to wonder about some other things.

JtD
03-26-2007, 12:32 PM
Dude, if you fly on a server where most of the pilots fly La-7 and the La-7 is the best plane, you are not flying on a server where folks use lots of brains.

The La-7 in game is extremely good at altitudes below 2500meters in turn and burn style of combat.

In other combat envelops, it is just mediocre.

Now that t'n'b at low altitude is about the least effective style of playing. A smart pilot would just burst in joy seeing all these low risk kills.

However, the La-7 as modeled seems to have an advantage over its historical counterpart, mostly as far as turn is concerned.

I strongly recommend you get yourself a better method than a poll on these boards if you want to learn something about a plane. Try reading a book.

JtD
03-26-2007, 12:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
I have only one suggestion for you:
go play on server with:
-cockpit always on
-no externals

It makes all the difference, and you will start to appreciate some characteristics more, characteristics other than good manouver ability.

When they shoot you down over and over again in their porked FW-190's, you will start to wonder about some other things. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Doesn't make much of a difference to me. Fw pretty much owns La no matter the difficulty settings.

FE_pilot
03-26-2007, 12:37 PM
Plus I think that Oleg might have over modeled it a little bit.

Also as Dkoor said, play on a full switch server, then you realize that its just another late-war plane, what matters is the person flying it.

flox
03-26-2007, 12:42 PM
I can't really say whether the FM is accurate, but I do know that the LA-7 performs its best at low altitudes (which is where the action almost always is on dogfight servers). Take that ship high enough and it'll be a sitting duck.

DKoor
03-26-2007, 12:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
I have only one suggestion for you:
go play on server with:
-cockpit always on
-no externals

It makes all the difference, and you will start to appreciate some characteristics more, characteristics other than good manouver ability.

When they shoot you down over and over again in their porked FW-190's, you will start to wonder about some other things. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Doesn't make much of a difference to me. Fw pretty much owns La no matter the difficulty settings. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>On what "no exte./pit on" server do you play with or vs LA-7?

p-11.cAce
03-26-2007, 12:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I can't really say whether the FM is accurate, but I do know that the LA-7 performs its best at low altitudes (which is where the action almost always is on dogfight servers). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is starting to change - at least on our server - guys start out low and the longer they fly with us the higher they go. Last night the squad guys were engaging at 7000M+, and no La's in sight http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif On our server it seems that the spits rule, as they are good all around from down on the deck to 10,000M http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

AFJ_rsm
03-26-2007, 01:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
I have only one suggestion for you... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


And I have only one suggestion for YOU:
go play on a server with:
-TrackIR



Listen to me and ignore jumoschwanz damnit

arrowtalon
03-26-2007, 01:09 PM
I do try to avoid turning and burning. I like swooping in and disappearing. That said, when the going gets tough, the La still gives anyone the edge, except in visibility as pointed out. I do also typically leave my cockpit on as it helps my orientation.

But that's not the point. Forget dogfights. Think performance. You can do maneuvers in an La-7 that you can't do in other planes--other planes that should have, by historical account, been at least comparable to the La-7. In-game-- not the case. As I said, you can almost turn with a Spit, out-climb a 109, and out-accelerate just about anything. The cannons also seem a bit strong (or the MG's are weak).

I have read a few books on the subject, though I can't find any decent ones that directly compare the La-7 in clear terms. ("The Forgotten Aces of WW2," Crawford, Zelevinsky, ed) was good, but it described the La-7 as adequate and gave little comparison beyond what we can get from the descriptions in IL-2. So yes, I have read about this. So the haughty comments like, 'go practice,' and 'go read' are getting a bit unoriginal, like 12 yr olds defending their favorite plane from criticism with a 'you shut up.'

If you don't like the poll, don't bother with it.

There are experiments you can do:

Fly at 250-300 kph level. Pull hard on the stick. You will see contrails, but will be able to nearly complete a vertical loop.

Try the same in a spit or a 109.

You'll find the La-7 is in fact good at high altitude as well. Last night, I shot down two P-51's at over 7000 mts. It was no contest, the La could outperform the mustangs even there. Try it.

Brain32
03-26-2007, 01:25 PM
It's nowhere near as bad at alt as people claim, so one will come at me in his shiney Dora at 7000m and what? I will see him, brake in torque direction easly evading a shot, and what's next - FW runing like there's no tommorow not even looking back, and if he was too eager on his shot attempt he might even panic and dive away as ultimate solution, ahh those nasty FW's make me chip the paint of my control column http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
You always, always, ALWAYS attack La7 with decisive advantage. FW190 is nailing the sh1t out of La7's when it dives from 6000m on unsuspecting Lavochkins happly cruising at 3000m? No sh1t, really? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

DKoor
03-26-2007, 01:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AFJ_rsm:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
I have only one suggestion for you... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


And I have only one suggestion for YOU:
go play on a server with:
-TrackIR



Listen to me and ignore jumoschwanz damnit </div></BLOCKQUOTE> http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules/Forums/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif
Almost dropped from chair... lolz0rz

arrowtalon
03-26-2007, 01:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That is starting to change - at least on our server - guys start out low and the longer they fly with us the higher they go. Last night the squad guys were engaging at 7000M+, and no La's in sight Big Grin On our server it seems that the spits rule, as they are good all around from down on the deck to 10,000M Thumbs Up </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with that. You can tell when experienced pilots join the fight because everyone starts climbing... That said, I think it slows the game down and makes it boring. (Who likes flying upward spirals for 15 minutes for ten seconds of fighting?)

I disagree that the La can't compete at high altitude. I think it does fine--not as well, but fine, and can still outdo a Mustang, the historical premiere high altitude flyer.

In regard to the FW190, whenever I see a 190 online, I think "sweet, an easy kill." From what I've experienced, if you see the 190 coming or unless it's in a dive, its pretty easy to shake; you just keep it off your tail.

The Spit, I185, La-7, and Yak-3 are not easy to shake. I don't know how you guys feel, but those are the only planes I ever think twice about engaging.

BrewsterPilot
03-26-2007, 01:45 PM
KI-84 1C beats it easily.
In experienced hands it can outturn, outclimb, outspeed and most importantly, outcannon the LA-7 n00b plane...

Jaws2002
03-26-2007, 02:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by arrowtalon:



In regard to the FW190, whenever I see a 190 online, I think "sweet, an easy kill." From what I've experienced, if you see the 190 coming or unless it's in a dive, its pretty easy to shake; you just keep it off your tail.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Now lock the pit, remove the externals and icons and try again.
You'll have a shock how bad those 190's can spank you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

La-7 is an awesome machine, but the usuall 190 guys (just like Jug drives) tend to fly really fast most of the time. At those speeds the 190 is awesome and the blackout dictates how good you can turn http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

arrowtalon
03-26-2007, 02:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">KI-84 1C beats it easily.
In experienced hands it can outturn, outclimb, outspeed and most importantly, outcannon the LA-7 n00b plane... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I forgot about the Ki-84, though I haven't had as much competition from those nor would I say any plane beats the La-7 "easily".

I would also say that neither the Ki-84 or the La-7 is a n00b plane. They're the ones experienced pilots fly after getting fed up with how crappy the Mustang (the actual n00b plane--rookies think it should be the best) and other planes compare.

But let's not get distracted by a 'this plane is better than that' unless it provides an argument for or against the La-7 as is.

arrowtalon
03-26-2007, 02:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Now lock the pit, remove the externals and icons and try again.
You'll have a shock how bad those 190's can spank you. Mean Happy

La-7 is an awesome machine, but the usuall 190 guys (just like Jug drives) tend to fly really fast most of the time. At those speeds the 190 is awesome and the blackout dictates how good you can turn </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Now lock the pit, remove the externals and icons and try again.
You'll have a shock how bad those 190's can spank you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I said above, I have never had trouble with a 190. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">The ONLY time I have ever been shot down, cockpit on or off, by a 190 was when I didn't see it coming--but this is a mark of a good pilot, not of the plane. Any plane can sneak up on you and tear you apart if you don't see it coming. </span> 190's are well suited for this tactic, but if you DO see them coming, the pilot better have a head of steam built up, or the La-7 will quickly turn the table.

I've also noticed by some of your signatures that the Fw 190 is your favorite airplane. please try to be objective rather than saying something like 'I can take you in your plane with me in my plane any day'. Again, that's not the point. I am sure many of you could school me in any plane. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">The argument of 'it's the pilot, not the plane' has nothing to do with the flight model!</span>

Xiolablu3
03-26-2007, 02:21 PM
Arrowtalon, your opinon is that of someone has only played on the many arcade servers online.

On most of the maps on the historical servers there is no La7.

The airquake arena servers benifit the La7,Spitfire 25lbs, Ki84 as they are in their element.

FIghting novice pilots these planes will own most of hte time because evryone is just turning and not using energy.

You need to progress to historical servers if you want to see the benefits of other planes.

On a realistic historical server, if the reds have the La7, then the Germans should have the Me262. SImilar numbers built, and both used mainly in very late '44 to early 1945 only.


Try to forget the airquake servers. If you have learned to fly, you should be progressing to the more realistic servers. Try Ukdedicated2, this has cockpit always on, but still externals on so it will be a good next move. Plus its an excellent server with excellent historical maps. You will soon forget about the La7 apart from on the Berlin map where you are up against Me262's,FW190D9,109K4 and Ta152.

Waldo.Pepper
03-26-2007, 02:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The argument of 'it's the pilot, not the plane' has nothing to do with the flight model! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is likely true.

However, the prejudice swings both ways.

BOTH your pole and your posting reveal that you think that the LA-7 is better than it should be.

I think that the success you have witnessed with the LA-7 is due more to other factors than the flight model. (Factors that others have already made mention of.) This is why other are mentioning it in the first place. To try and make you aware that the success you see is not due to any flight model inaccuracy, but again the ephemeral "other factors".

So I think you make your own post/poll moot and pointless. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

arrowtalon
03-26-2007, 02:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Arrowtalon, your opinon is that of someone has only played on the many arcade servers online.

On most of the maps on the historical servers there is no La7.

The airquake arena servers benifit the La7,Spitfire 25lbs, Ki84 as they are in their element.

FIghting novice pilots these planes will own most of hte time because evryone is just turning and not using energy.

You need to progress to historical servers if you want to see the benefits of other planes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you for proving my point about snooty comments.

Once more: Pilot quality is not the issue. If you can admit that the La-7 isn't on a server for some reason, presumably because it is too arcadish, you've proven my point. Whether or not I am a good pilot, or whether or not you are being arrogant about how good you are because you fly on different servers has nothing to do with the flight model. If you're so good online, why do you have to spend so much forum space explaining it to us.

To give my server playing preference, I play on RCAF_FB because I find fewer snoots on there than the other historical servers. I also can't speak for myself, but I think most of the RCAF_FB squadron would take offense to you refering to their server as arcadish... that's just a really arrogant thing to say. Mind your manners, I'll bet I have t-shirts older than you.

TX-Gunslinger
03-26-2007, 02:35 PM
As in real life, the La-7 was one of the finest air superiority fighters of WWII below about 2.5k.

Based upon my interpretation of existing documentation and historical accounts.

I voted yes.

S~

Gunny

arrowtalon
03-26-2007, 02:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This is likely true.

However, the prejudice swings both ways.

BOTH your pole and your posting reveal that you think that the LA-7 is better than it should be. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I agree. i do think that the La-7 is PROBABLY better than it should be. I also fly it a lot. It is not my favorite plane (the Mustang, the Hurricane, and the Spit are).

As for rendering my own poll, moot, I think you've misunderstood me. If you are talking about vctory ratio, other factors are certainly more important. (Sneaking, energy, accuracy, etc, all of which are pilot quality issues.)

I'm talking about plane vs plane, against good and bad opponents, across the board. I do much better than I should against good pilots when I fly an La. When I fly something like a hurricane, I'm put in my place, and when I fly something on the caliber of a 109 or a 190, I generally size up about where I think I should based on how good everyone else is.

What I am saying is that ANYONE that flies the La-7 has an advantage, good or bad pilot. It makes them much better than they are in other aircraft. A good pilot becomes invincible, a bad pilot becomes competitive. Few other in-game planes do that.

arrowtalon
03-26-2007, 02:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As in real life, the La-7 was one of the finest air superiority fighters of WWII below about 2.5k.

Based upon my interpretation of existing documentation and historical accounts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Thank you, Gunny, for being someone who actually pays attention...

Do you have the historical accounts handy? Where can I look them up?

Xiolablu3
03-26-2007, 02:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by arrowtalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Arrowtalon, your opinon is that of someone has only played on the many arcade servers online.

On most of the maps on the historical servers there is no La7.

The airquake arena servers benifit the La7,Spitfire 25lbs, Ki84 as they are in their element.

FIghting novice pilots these planes will own most of hte time because evryone is just turning and not using energy.

You need to progress to historical servers if you want to see the benefits of other planes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you for proving my point about snooty comments.

Once more: Pilot quality is not the issue. If you can admit that the La-7 isn't on a server for some reason, presumably because it is too arcadish, you've proven my point. Whether or not I am a good pilot, or whether or not you are being arrogant about how good you are because you fly on different servers has nothing to do with the flight model. If you're so good online, why do you have to spend so much forum space explaining it to us.

To give my server playing preference, I play on RCAF_FB because I find fewer snoots on there than the other historical servers. I also can't speak for myself, but I think most of the RCAF_FB squadron would take offense to you refering to their server as arcadish... that's just a really arrogant thing to say. Mind your manners, I'll bet I have t-shirts older than you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahh screw you, I was trying to offer you some advice.

If you knew me then you would know that I NEVER get snooty about settings and always tell people to play what settings they like.

BillyTheKid_22
03-26-2007, 02:47 PM
http://img1.grafika.cz/grafika/images2/bjournal0103_09la.jpg



La-7 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

arrowtalon
03-26-2007, 02:59 PM
Sweet pic, Billy.

arrowtalon
03-26-2007, 03:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Ahh screw you, I was trying to offer you some advice.

If you knew me then you would know that I NEVER get snooty about settings and always tell people to play what settings they like. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


My apologies, if that was the case, but you may want to re-read your post to see how I could have interpreted that way.

Waldo.Pepper
03-26-2007, 03:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What I am saying is that ANYONE that flies the La-7 has an advantage, good or bad pilot. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know that's what you're saying, I don't think I missed your point. Sadly I think you may still have missed mine. Which to recap is as follows.

You believe that - "ANYONE that flies the La-7 has an advantage, good or bad pilot." - and this belief is driven by your atypical experience and concentration on what you've seen on poor servers with inexperienced pilots (predominantly).

Concentrating on this incomplete data set has led you to the false conclusion that the flight model is the factor that you attribute to the planes success you have witnessed.

Other factors are operating and a always FAR MORE INFLUENTIAL than flight model. This is true for all planes.

Jaws2002
03-26-2007, 03:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by arrowtalon:
What I am saying is that ANYONE that flies the La-7 has an advantage, good or bad pilot. It makes them much better than they are in other aircraft. A good pilot becomes invincible, a bad pilot becomes competitive. Few other in-game planes do that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



That's true to some extent but with more experienced players the situation is not the same. An experience player will be able to exploit the other guy's plane weakness and use the advantages of his plane.
There are few planes in the game that are horrible death trap to the new comer and awesome killing machines to the experienced.
The La7 is uber but feels more uber then it is to the new guy because all they do is pull the stick and hope someone will get into the gunsight. La7 is excellent for that. But put two veterans in those planes and the difference is less visible.

For instance put a verry experienced Jug driver against a verry experienced La7 driver.
No matter how good the la7 guy is if the jug guy draws the fight above 7000m he dictateds the fight.

DKoor
03-26-2007, 03:30 PM
Waldo.Pepper is a wise man.

VW-IceFire
03-26-2007, 03:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by arrowtalon:
What I am saying is that ANYONE that flies the La-7 has an advantage, good or bad pilot. It makes them much better than they are in other aircraft. A good pilot becomes invincible, a bad pilot becomes competitive. Few other in-game planes do that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



That's true to some extent but with more experienced players the situation is not the same. An experience player will be able to exploit the other guy's plane weakness and use the advantages of his plane.
There are few planes in the game that are horrible death trap to the new comer and awesome killing machines to the experienced.
The La7 is uber but feels more uber then it is to the new guy because all they do is pull the stick and hope someone will get into the gunsight. La7 is excellent for that. But put two veterans in those planes and the difference is less visible.

For instance put a verry experienced Jug driver against a verry experienced La7 driver.
No matter how good the la7 guy is if the jug guy draws the fight above 7000m he dictateds the fight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I've got to agree with you there...I'm absolute **** in the La-7 because its just too useless above 2500m and its not the greatest at high speed maneuvers. The La-7 is an absolutely forgiving and brilliant low altitude interceptor but its worthless above 3000m and when the objective is to attack any sort of ground target (two FAB-100 isn't really enough). The La-7 is very well rounded in its environment but it doesn't let you play against your opponents weaknesses because its so well rounded that it can't do any one thing really well. Even its turn can be beat by certain other planes.

An La-7 driver facing off against good Luftwaffe opposition (FW190D-9, Bf109G-10 or K-4, etc.) will be faced with a situation where the Luftwaffe is always flying higher and conducting boom and zoom passes. The La-7 pilot will be limited to dodging passes and hoping to get a good angle shot on a passing fighter. If the enemy disengages and runs then the La-7 is faced with another set of problems...a low break up speed and a lower control effectiveness speed.

Its great for the 5km between bases in a dogfight server where the fighting rarely reaches 1500m and where the name of the game is to turn really hard and blast your opponent with heavy firepower (the 3 B-20 cannon version is very effective at this). Outside of that environment...there are better planes.

tigertalon
03-26-2007, 03:44 PM
I never touch a La7 (not even with a stinky rod) and pick a Yak-9U instead. Why you ask? Because of two, IMO far more important characteristic for a fighter compared to those you counted. And these two are performance at altitude and dive limit.

What good is a plane that breaks up at dora's cruise speed?

Whenever I fly german plane on eastern front, I feel completely safe from La7s once I manage to climb to 4k.

K_Freddie
03-26-2007, 04:07 PM
The La's Yak's are all very good a/c, but they lack one very important characteristic.. THEY ARE UNSTABLE at low speeds. Many a time I nailed a LA and Yak flying at landing speed in a FW190. It all comes down to who's going to make the first mistake, and the FW's control in this area is so good, that you can thow it around like there's no tomorrow. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Certainly they get on your tail very fast, but those smug faces turn to distress when that same FW flips over onto their tails in a blink of an eye.

A lot of people here have tried the 'easy' planes, but have found them very un-satisfying. And have moved on to the more 'difficult' a/c only to find that these a/c are that much better. You should try this. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

BBB_Hyperion
03-26-2007, 05:44 PM
Some la7 data.
http://www.btinternet.com/~fulltilt/Perform.html (http://www.btinternet.com/%7Efulltilt/Perform.html)

Here is the source of this for more detail reports.
http://img37.imagevenue.com/loc325/th_51084_La709_122_325lo.jpg (http://img37.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=51084_La709_122_325lo.jpg)
http://img158.imagevenue.com/loc513/th_51089_La710_122_513lo.jpg (http://img158.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=51089_La710_122_513lo.jpg)

Consider that planes are modeled to best performance. Don't know who says la7 isn't fast at alt use mixture and supercharger and correct rad settings and trim the plane in all axis. Maybe it is tuned down now but as i tested it some versions ago it did 700 km/h (check sources to compare around 50 km/h too much). Even when it is slower ,tuned down now than some other late war planes there. Where is the point it still can hover around at high alt and evade and turn better . So in 1 vs 1 df a disadvantage for the other plane.So you are faster for some time but how long can you keep up the speed (overheating etc) . Once i had a df that lasted 60 minutes and was a draw d9 vs la7 energy tactics vs turn. La7 reaction was always turn away or into my approach while i need to stop the approach that i don't get any damage unlike la7 when a fw is damaged it is over for the fw .) No one could get the upper hand la7 couldn't get to alt again and i couldn't stop diving on it cause else the la7 would be able to climb.

Unlike real life where pilots get tired from continuous turning in this game they don't that favors turning planes. So when you turn tight irl you cant stand that high g forces for long over 3g some seconds no pressure suit nothing exhausts the pilot, special most planes don't have seats favorable for turn g resistance. This and that aiming and shooting guns over 3g is nearly impossible cause you hang in the belts and cant aim is another point what is not modeled well in this sim.
Additional guns tend to jam under high g load not modeled in this sim as well.Another problem here is people compare plane vs plane that is no condition for rl scenario mostly you fly in groups or with wingman etc.

So when you ask was the la7 really that good maybe(production model maybe a little less good .) ) but that kind of pilot who never gets tired or can extend his limits without penalty didn't exist.
So limits what a plane can do are simulated in this game but not limits for pilots red and blackout is the only limit here once you stay out of this you can loop endless. That explains somehow why turn performance isn't the most important factor on planes outside this sim.

VMF-214_HaVoK
03-26-2007, 06:02 PM
Drag that LA-7 above 10,000 feet and have your way with them. I dont see a whole lot wrong with the LA-7 other then it takes damage very well. Perhaps it did in real life. The amount of damage a particular aircraft can take will always be up for debate.

The La-7 was a terrific fighter in real life. But it does have several weaknesses.

BTW the only place LA-7s prevail are in arcade servers. It will not do near as well in a FS server. Fact.

TX-Gunslinger
03-26-2007, 06:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by arrowtalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As in real life, the La-7 was one of the finest air superiority fighters of WWII below about 2.5k.

Based upon my interpretation of existing documentation and historical accounts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Thank you, Gunny, for being someone who actually pays attention...

Do you have the historical accounts handy? Where can I look them up? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have lots of books, which I can refer you to, but as a quick reference "La 5/7 Fighters in action" by Hans-Heiri Stapfer, Sqaudron/Signal publication #169.

Here's an excerpt germane to the discussion, I think:

"The standard production La-7 had a top speed of 592kmh (367 mph) at sea level - 46 kmh more than the La-5FN and 72kmh more than the Focke Wulf 190A-3. The improved performance was due to the aerodynamic refinements of the airframe and a weight reduction of some 82kg(180lbs).

At 6100 meters (20,000feet) the La-7 had a top speed of 655 kmh (407mph), 35 kmh more than the La-5FN. The La-7 was also 15 kmh faster than the FW-190A8, the latest version of the German fighter deployed to the Eastern Front (sic at it's introduction). With a take off weight of 3240 kg (7142 lbs) the La-7 was about 1060kg (2336lbs) lighter than the FW-190A-8.

The climb rate was also greatly improved. The La-7 easily out climbed the FW-190A-8 at altitudes up to 5000 meters (16,404 ft). The La-7 reached this altitude in 4.95 minutes while the FW-190A-8 required six minutes. The La-7 was also more maneuverable than the Focke Wulf at any altitude, taking only 20 secs for 360 degree turn, versus the German fighters 26 seconds.

The only shortcoming was the La-7's reduced range when compared to the La-5FN. The La-7 had a range of 655km(407miles) - 120 km(70miles) less than it's predecessor.

The first La-7 left the production line in May 1944 and by June the first 57 fighters were delivered to a few regiments for operational testing. By July of 1944 the number of fighers had risen to 108. Through September of 1944 the Soviet Air Force inventory included only 225 La-7's.

The first production La-7's were allocated to the 176th Guards Fighter Aviation Regiment. This was not by accident since Ivan Kozhedub, the top scoring ace in the Soviet Air Force at the time, was flying as a deputy commander of this regiment."

End of excerpt

Other points

During the period between 15 September and 15 October 1944, The 63rd Guards Fighter Aviation Regiment scored 55 victories - 52 FW-190's and 3 Bf-109's - for the loss of only four La-7's
Dora's were very rare aircraft on the Eastern Front (even then, not till 1945) as the Defense of the Reich forces received the brunt of German technology improvement.
The La-7's main opposition would have been FW-190A8, Bf-109G14/AS and G6 types, which it would have and did completely dominate at med-low altitude.

Hope you find this useful

S~

Gunny

Tux-UK
03-26-2007, 07:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by arrowtalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Arrowtalon, your opinon is that of someone has only played on the many arcade servers online.

On most of the maps on the historical servers there is no La7.

The airquake arena servers benifit the La7,Spitfire 25lbs, Ki84 as they are in their element.

FIghting novice pilots these planes will own most of hte time because evryone is just turning and not using energy.

You need to progress to historical servers if you want to see the benefits of other planes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you for proving my point about snooty comments.

Once more: Pilot quality is not the issue. If you can admit that the La-7 isn't on a server for some reason, presumably because it is too arcadish, you've proven my point. Whether or not I am a good pilot, or whether or not you are being arrogant about how good you are because you fly on different servers has nothing to do with the flight model. If you're so good online, why do you have to spend so much forum space explaining it to us.

To give my server playing preference, I play on RCAF_FB because I find fewer snoots on there than the other historical servers. I also can't speak for myself, but I think most of the RCAF_FB squadron would take offense to you refering to their server as arcadish... that's just a really arrogant thing to say. Mind your manners, I'll bet I have t-shirts older than you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A minor misunderstanding I think: Xiola mentioned that the La-7 isn't on many historical servers because historically they were rather rare compared to contemporary types. When they are present on historical servers it tends to be in a very late war scenario, so the La-7 is likely to be pitted against very high-performance fighters on the German side. In this setting one is less likely to pick up a skewed sense of the Lavochkin's capabilities when compared to your average dogfight server, where it will vastly outperform the majority of types available. I have occasionally played on the RCAF_FB server and I know it is no exception.

Bleh, I'm tired rather than articulate at this hour, but basically until you've tried the La-7 against it's true contemporary opponents in a realistic server then it's hard to say whether or not it's performing any different to the way it should be.

I can vouch for Xiola's character btw, having played with him on the UKDedicated servers more than a few times. He meant no offense. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BBB_Hyperion
03-26-2007, 07:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> TX-Gunslinger wrote:
During the period between 15 September and 15 October 1944, The 63rd Guards Fighter Aviation Regiment scored 55 victories - 52 FW-190's and 3 Bf-109's - for the loss of only four La-7's
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most likely this were jabo fw190s which were mostly old a5s and f,g series with extra armour slow and unhealthy. Interesting enough only 3 109s .

M_Gunz
03-26-2007, 07:43 PM
Where is the "Whaaaaa!" choice? Oh, that must be No......

VW-IceFire
03-26-2007, 08:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tux-UK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by arrowtalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Arrowtalon, your opinon is that of someone has only played on the many arcade servers online.

On most of the maps on the historical servers there is no La7.

The airquake arena servers benifit the La7,Spitfire 25lbs, Ki84 as they are in their element.

FIghting novice pilots these planes will own most of hte time because evryone is just turning and not using energy.

You need to progress to historical servers if you want to see the benefits of other planes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you for proving my point about snooty comments.

Once more: Pilot quality is not the issue. If you can admit that the La-7 isn't on a server for some reason, presumably because it is too arcadish, you've proven my point. Whether or not I am a good pilot, or whether or not you are being arrogant about how good you are because you fly on different servers has nothing to do with the flight model. If you're so good online, why do you have to spend so much forum space explaining it to us.

To give my server playing preference, I play on RCAF_FB because I find fewer snoots on there than the other historical servers. I also can't speak for myself, but I think most of the RCAF_FB squadron would take offense to you refering to their server as arcadish... that's just a really arrogant thing to say. Mind your manners, I'll bet I have t-shirts older than you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A minor misunderstanding I think: Xiola mentioned that the La-7 isn't on many historical servers because historically they were rather rare compared to contemporary types. When they are present on historical servers it tends to be in a very late war scenario, so the La-7 is likely to be pitted against very high-performance fighters on the German side. In this setting one is less likely to pick up a skewed sense of the Lavochkin's capabilities when compared to your average dogfight server, where it will vastly outperform the majority of types available. I have occasionally played on the RCAF_FB server and I know it is no exception.

Bleh, I'm tired rather than articulate at this hour, but basically until you've tried the La-7 against it's true contemporary opponents in a realistic server then it's hard to say whether or not it's performing any different to the way it should be.

I can vouch for Xiola's character btw, having played with him on the UKDedicated servers more than a few times. He meant no offense. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Right on the money...put the La-7 up against a FW190D-9, Bf109K-4, and toss a few other high performance aircraft in the mix and its up against its historical foes and its nothing special. Toss a few Me-262's in the mix and then you're left wanting the Yak-9U because of its much better dive speed and speed at altitude.

On UK-Dedicated regarding the Lavochkin series special attention has been given to realize the historical performances of the four types. The La-5 is rather mundane so its not much to worry about. The La-5F is used in several places as an early La-5FN as the performance is closer. The La-5FN is used only in 1944 scenarios where its performance levels are more in tune with the La-5FN of that time (rather than the 1943 that its listed under). This is more a matter of boost/engine modeling rather than the FN outperforming itself. Its just representative of a given time. Then the La-5FN and La-7 are tossed in where appropriate.

The La-5F is actually quite a good fighter in its own right but its speed is not quite on par with the FW190A-5/A-6 except at really low altitude so the balance is much better.

Once historical opponents are realized...most planes fit into place as expected.

stoopidlimey
03-26-2007, 08:58 PM
Over at H/L there used to be some Moron hosting a "Lacvochcin Performance Series" Server. WHAT AN IDIOT............ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

jermin122
03-26-2007, 09:04 PM
La7 can be beated by other planes even porked FW190 do not necessarily mean it is historically accurate. You guys are http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/353.gif

FPSOLKOR
03-26-2007, 10:16 PM
Speaking with RW pilots who flew La's i noticed one thing - when they got 5 and 5 FN they knew that they can fight on equals, when they got 7 they knew that if they were smart enough not to let germans get behind unnoticed there was nothing in the air supreme of La!

Another saying i noted: being in a dogfight i want to fly Yak, being at war - i want La!

lowfighter
03-26-2007, 11:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
Speaking with RW pilots who flew La's i noticed one thing - when they got 5 and 5 FN they knew that they can fight on equals, when they got 7 they knew that if they were smart enough not to let germans get behind unnoticed there was nothing in the air supreme of La!

Another saying i noted: being in a dogfight i want to fly Yak, being at war - i want La! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

FPSOLKOR, this thread is about La7 competition on online servers on ALL altitudes. RL soviet pilots oppinions don't matter because they were fighting pretty low (as we all know) on the eastern front, and this low altitude fighting is considered pretty arcadish here. RL Luftwaffe pilots would not matter too, cause they were also fighting pretty low on the eastern front. Did the FW190 RL pilots whine while meeting with a pretty tipical interception setup: a bunch of il2s flying at 50m altitude (to prevent enemy attacks from below)escorted by a bunch of fighters flying perhaps 1000m high?

FPSOLKOR
03-27-2007, 02:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lowfighter:

FPSOLKOR, this thread is about La7 competition on online servers on ALL altitudes. RL soviet pilots oppinions don't matter because they were fighting pretty low (as we all know) on the eastern front, and this low altitude fighting is considered pretty arcadish here. RL Luftwaffe pilots would not matter too, cause they were also fighting pretty low on the eastern front. Did the FW190 RL pilots whine while meeting with a pretty tipical interception setup: a bunch of il2s flying at 50m altitude (to prevent enemy attacks from below)escorted by a bunch of fighters flying perhaps 1000m high? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I do not know, but the main question was: IS LA 7 OVERMODELLED? None of us can answer this question, since none of us flew La-7, and you say that you do not bother with RL pilots... Hmmm. It seems that you do not care at all about an answer...

major_setback
03-27-2007, 02:04 AM
arrowtalon - what name do you fly under?

I fly often on the RCAF_FB server, I agree with you that it is much better than most dogfight servers, and often the fight will be team-centers with RCAF_FB as blues fighting against all-comers. The fights are usually very good, and team members look out for each other.
Fighting is low-level, and lots of the players chose La7's because it suits that.

It's not just that the La7 is a good plane. Credit has to be given to some of the great pilots on that server, the RCAF_FB team are really very good.



I often prefer the La7 because it usually won't spin even with a heavy pull of combined aileron/rudder/elevator input (unlike the Ki 84, which need care with the rudder).

It's not just the flight model that makes the La7 a good choice. Pilots with a good eye for a snap deflection shot will chose that plane) or any heavily cannoned aircraft). One shot on target is often enough (at 90* to the wing). That doesn't mean it's easy to do!!! There are some good shots on that server.

Is low altitude turn flying in a Russian plane unrealistic in WWII terms? I don't think so, nor do I really care: I love flying that way.



<span class="ev_code_GREY">´</span>

BillyTheKid_22
03-27-2007, 02:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jermin122:
La7 can be beated by other planes even porked FW190 do not necessarily mean it is historically accurate. You guys are http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/353.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Badsight-
03-27-2007, 03:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
Don't know who says la7 isn't fast at alt use mixture and supercharger and correct rad settings and trim the plane in all axis. Maybe it is tuned down now but as i tested it some versions ago it did 700 km/h (check sources to compare around 50 km/h too much) Where is the point it still can hover around at high alt and evade and turn better. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>this is true

althought the Spits are better at E-retention
& can wear down a similerly flowen La-7 eventually

someone said the Ki-84-C can out-turn the La-7 , yeah if the La pilot doesnt have a clue that hes engaged maybe . the Ki-84-a can nearly match a La-7 , but not for long

the only thing against the La-7 is a low-ish dive speed . it has an AWESOME engine DM , excellent hit-power from its guns , near best accell of any prop fighter in the game , excellent E-retention , & is nearly fool-proof on the stall

lowfighter
03-27-2007, 03:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lowfighter:

FPSOLKOR, this thread is about La7 competition on online servers on ALL altitudes. RL soviet pilots oppinions don't matter because they were fighting pretty low (as we all know) on the eastern front, and this low altitude fighting is considered pretty arcadish here. RL Luftwaffe pilots would not matter too, cause they were also fighting pretty low on the eastern front. Did the FW190 RL pilots whine while meeting with a pretty tipical interception setup: a bunch of il2s flying at 50m altitude (to prevent enemy attacks from below)escorted by a bunch of fighters flying perhaps 1000m high? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I do not know, but the main question was: IS LA 7 OVERMODELLED? None of us can answer this question, since none of us flew La-7, and you say that you do not bother with RL pilots... Hmmm. It seems that you do not care at all about an answer... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

FPSOLKOR, I do care, in fact very much, check PM please http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

alert_1
03-27-2007, 05:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">if they were smart enough not to let germans get behind unnoticed there was nothing in the air supreme of La! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yea and that was why La7 got another improvement over La5FN - rear mirror - but I wonder why, the fastest and the best fighter ever build needed REAR mirror so urgently... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Bearcat99
03-27-2007, 05:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lowfighter:

FPSOLKOR, this thread is about La7 competition on online servers on ALL altitudes. RL soviet pilots oppinions don't matter because they were fighting pretty low (as we all know) on the eastern front, and this low altitude fighting is considered pretty arcadish here. RL Luftwaffe pilots would not matter too, cause they were also fighting pretty low on the eastern front. Did the FW190 RL pilots whine while meeting with a pretty tipical interception setup: a bunch of il2s flying at 50m altitude (to prevent enemy attacks from below)escorted by a bunch of fighters flying perhaps 1000m high? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I do not know, but the main question was: IS LA 7 OVERMODELLED? None of us can answer this question, since none of us flew La-7, and you say that you do not bother with RL pilots... Hmmm... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

I think a lot of this notion of overmodelled Russian planes comes from the fact that Oleg is Russian and some of us still cant accept that by the end of the war the Russians had a monster of an airforce with some good aircraft and very good pilots. I think much of the FM debates concerning the quality of Russian planes or the seeming lack thereof in other planes would not exist if this sim was made by Microprose, Microsoft... or anyone else other than a Russian company..... I am in the not the plane but the pilot theory... sure the plane helps.. but put a good pilot in an "inferior" plane against a lousy pilot in a "superior" plane... within reason of course.... and the better pilot will come out the victor more often than not. IMO if.... Russian planes are "overmodelled" it probably has more to do with the fact that Oleg had more data about them than some of the other planes.. I just have a hard time with the notion that being a business man, a pilot, and a perfectionist that Oleg would settle for much less than as much accuracy as he can muster 9 times out of ten.

............... thats just my 2 cents.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

alert_1
03-27-2007, 05:44 AM
OK, I really like to see ONE russian undermodelled AC. ONE is enough...

AFJ_rsm
03-27-2007, 05:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by alert_1:
OK, I really like to see ONE russian undermodelled AC. ONE is enough... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Why? Then you'd whine about that and cry patch all day long!


And by you, I mean not necessarily you.

Ratsack
03-27-2007, 05:59 AM
Exactly. If authors from your country wrote stuff like the following quotes about their own planes, what would you think about a flight sim from that country?

The Lavockin La-5 represented the massive durability of the Union of Soviet Republics, mobilised for total war. It was tough, hard hitting and rugged. It was not particularly pleasing to the eye...'

or

The Ilyushin 2 was, in some measure, a reflection of the character of the nation from whence it sprang: tough and purposeful, with any shortcomings totally eclipsed by undeniable superlatives.'

or

The Yak-9 fighter which flew with the VVS during WWII epitomises Soviet drive and energy in its inception and design...'



It stands to reason that they're so brainwashed they couldn't possibly produce a balanced sim.

Cheers,
Ratsack

Brain32
03-27-2007, 06:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Oleg is Russian and some of us still cant accept that by the end of the war the Russians had a monster of an airforce with some good aircraft and very good pilots. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No that's not it, I just have problems accepting that all allied pilots and complete allied airforces were utterly incompetent morons like members of this forum imply. How do we imply it you ask, I'll take you on a tour:

Spitfire - if it was just a tiny little bit more perfect, God would destroy it in envy, He barely bares with it as it is.
P51D - Generally won all wars, mostly by turning on the deck, passing under bridges inverted with Bruce Willis...hmm and it was also a good escort fighter...
P47 - forged in the mystic mountains of North America, this plane and even more so it's engine are completely indistructable, we chased away Borg in 1942 using only P47's and 50 cals, they couldn't touch us, especially since even they had problems with engine overheating at altitudes.
P38 - was generally more advanced than YF22 Raptor, not to even mention the Fowler flaps which were the reason the Borg attacked us in the first place....
Tempest - generally still does not have enough followers, so it was "just" completely superiour in every concievable way to axis fighters...
Yak3 - what's to say except Axis fighters were ordered not to engage it in the same solar system
LA5FN - this was La7 sent back in past from future, like the Terminator - it will be back.
La7 - what's to say Yak3's were ordered not to fly close to it while in the same Galaxy as pilot could not be held responisble for actions of his Lavochkin - yes it was that dangerous. It was a KGB agent in LA7 that killed Kennedy in Dallas 1963, he made 3 passes on him, but he was so fast everybody bought the three gunman theory.
Yak9U - nobody knows why it was made when Lavochkins were soooo good, but it is still totally utterly completely better than anything Axis...it has to be - I wan't to believe.

Why? Because:
Me109 - was utter cr@p, it never flew as slats would explode on take off and instantly killed the pilot, they got so many kills using unique tehnique, they were all parked on the airfield in a fixed position and worked as an AAA, when Allied pilot flew through their gunsight they would press the trigger and shot it down.
FW190 - only Axis fighter that ever took off, it could only fly strait though, but quite fast.
This all I learned on ubi il2 forums in last 3 years http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

stalkervision
03-27-2007, 06:15 AM
I like most of the Russian planes. They fly pretty well are rugged and have hard hitting guns.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

BBB_Hyperion
03-27-2007, 06:20 AM
http://img137.imagevenue.com/loc460/th_97906_i_want_to_belive_la7_122_460lo.jpg (http://img137.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=97906_i_want_to_belive_la7_122_460lo .jpg)

I found this in my archive (owning copyrights since 13.05.04)
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Ratsack
03-27-2007, 06:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Oleg is Russian and some of us still cant accept that by the end of the war the Russians had a monster of an airforce with some good aircraft and very good pilots. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No that's not it, I just have problems accepting that all allied pilots and complete allied airforces were utterly incompetent morons like members of this forum imply. How do we imply it you ask, I'll take you on a tour:

Spitfire - if it was just a tiny little bit more perfect, God would destroy it in envy, He barely bares with it as it is.
P51D - Generally won all wars, mostly by turning on the deck, passing under bridges inverted with Bruce Willis...hmm and it was also a good escort fighter...
P47 - forged in the mystic mountains of North America, this plane and even more so it's engine are completely indistructable, we chased away Borg in 1942 using only P47's and 50 cals, they couldn't touch us, especially since even they had problems with engine overheating at altitudes.
P38 - was generally more advanced than YF22 Raptor, not to even mention the Fowler flaps which were the reason the Borg attacked us in the first place....
Tempest - generally still does not have enough followers, so it was "just" completely superiour in every concievable way to axis fighters...
Yak3 - what's to say except Axis fighters were ordered not to engage it in the same solar system
LA5FN - this was La7 sent back in past from future, like the Terminator - it will be back.
La7 - what's to say Yak3's were ordered not to fly close to it while in the same Galaxy as pilot could not be held responisble for actions of his Lavochkin - yes it was that dangerous. It was a KGB agent in LA7 that killed Kennedy in Dallas 1963, he made 3 passes on him, but he was so fast everybody bought the three gunman theory.
Yak9U - nobody knows why it was made when Lavochkins were soooo good, but it is still totally utterly completely better than anything Axis...it has to be - I wan't to believe.

Why? Because:
Me109 - was utter cr@p, it never flew as slats would explode on take off and instantly killed the pilot, they got so many kills using unique tehnique, they were all parked on the airfield in a fixed position and worked as an AAA, when Allied pilot flew through their gunsight they would press the trigger and shot it down.
FW190 - only Axis fighter that ever took off, it could only fly strait though, but quite fast.
This all I learned on ubi il2 forums in last 3 years http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

About 1000 o'clock.

cheers,
Ratsack

TgD Thunderbolt56
03-27-2007, 06:21 AM
La7 is not overmodeled. It was a great late-war aircraft that was the benefactor of improved technology, a powerful engine, excellent firepower and battle-hardened pilots (for the most part). It's not a world-beater, doesn't run on dilithium crystals and can lose a wing like the rest.

Move on.

Diablo310th
03-27-2007, 06:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by arrowtalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Arrowtalon, your opinon is that of someone has only played on the many arcade servers online.

On most of the maps on the historical servers there is no La7.

The airquake arena servers benifit the La7,Spitfire 25lbs, Ki84 as they are in their element.

FIghting novice pilots these planes will own most of hte time because evryone is just turning and not using energy.

You need to progress to historical servers if you want to see the benefits of other planes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you for proving my point about snooty comments.

Once more: Pilot quality is not the issue. If you can admit that the La-7 isn't on a server for some reason, presumably because it is too arcadish, you've proven my point. Whether or not I am a good pilot, or whether or not you are being arrogant about how good you are because you fly on different servers has nothing to do with the flight model. If you're so good online, why do you have to spend so much forum space explaining it to us.

To give my server playing preference, I play on RCAF_FB because I find fewer snoots on there than the other historical servers. I also can't speak for myself, but I think most of the RCAF_FB squadron would take offense to you refering to their server as arcadish... that's just a really arrogant thing to say. Mind your manners, I'll bet I have t-shirts older than you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't think his comment was snooty at all. I think it made a very good point .

MEGILE
03-27-2007, 06:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:

No that's not it, I just have problems accepting that all allied pilots and complete allied airforces were utterly incompetent morons like members of this forum imply. How do we imply it you ask, I'll take you on a tour:

Spitfire - if it was just a tiny little bit more perfect, God would destroy it in envy, He barely bares with it as it is.
P51D - Generally won all wars, mostly by turning on the deck, passing under bridges inverted with Bruce Willis...hmm and it was also a good escort fighter...
P47 - forged in the mystic mountains of North America, this plane and even more so it's engine are completely indistructable, we chased away Borg in 1942 using only P47's and 50 cals, they couldn't touch us, especially since even they had problems with engine overheating at altitudes.
P38 - was generally more advanced than YF22 Raptor, not to even mention the Fowler flaps which were the reason the Borg attacked us in the first place....
Tempest - generally still does not have enough followers, so it was "just" completely superiour in every concievable way to axis fighters...
Yak3 - what's to say except Axis fighters were ordered not to engage it in the same solar system
LA5FN - this was La7 sent back in past from future, like the Terminator - it will be back.
La7 - what's to say Yak3's were ordered not to fly close to it while in the same Galaxy as pilot could not be held responisble for actions of his Lavochkin - yes it was that dangerous. It was a KGB agent in LA7 that killed Kennedy in Dallas 1963, he made 3 passes on him, but he was so fast everybody bought the three gunman theory.
Yak9U - nobody knows why it was made when Lavochkins were soooo good, but it is still totally utterly completely better than anything Axis...it has to be - I wan't to believe.

Why? Because:
Me109 - was utter cr@p, it never flew as slats would explode on take off and instantly killed the pilot, they got so many kills using unique tehnique, they were all parked on the airfield in a fixed position and worked as an AAA, when Allied pilot flew through their gunsight they would press the trigger and shot it down.
FW190 - only Axis fighter that ever took off, it could only fly strait though, but quite fast.
This all I learned on ubi il2 forums in last 3 years http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amusing.

But highly subjective.

Brain32
03-27-2007, 06:30 AM
Should had put more smileys http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

lowfighter
03-27-2007, 06:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lowfighter:

FPSOLKOR, this thread is about La7 competition on online servers on ALL altitudes. RL soviet pilots oppinions don't matter because they were fighting pretty low (as we all know) on the eastern front, and this low altitude fighting is considered pretty arcadish here. RL Luftwaffe pilots would not matter too, cause they were also fighting pretty low on the eastern front. Did the FW190 RL pilots whine while meeting with a pretty tipical interception setup: a bunch of il2s flying at 50m altitude (to prevent enemy attacks from below)escorted by a bunch of fighters flying perhaps 1000m high? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I do not know, but the main question was: IS LA 7 OVERMODELLED? None of us can answer this question, since none of us flew La-7, and you say that you do not bother with RL pilots... Hmmm... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

I think a lot of this notion of overmodelled Russian planes comes from the fact that Oleg is Russian and some of us still cant accept that by the end of the war the Russians had a monster of an airforce with some good aircraft and very good pilots. I think much of the FM debates concerning the quality of Russian planes or the seeming lack thereof in other planes would not exist if this sim was made by Microprose, Microsoft... or anyone else other than a Russian company..... I am in the not the plane but the pilot theory... sure the plane helps.. but put a good pilot in an "inferior" plane against a lousy pilot in a "superior" plane... within reason of course.... and the better pilot will come out the victor more often than not. IMO if.... Russian planes are "overmodelled" it probably has more to do with the fact that Oleg had more data about them than some of the other planes.. I just have a hard time with the notion that being a business man, a pilot, and a perfectionist that Oleg would settle for much less than as much accuracy as he can muster 9 times out of ten.

............... thats just my 2 cents.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quite so Bearcat.
I was a bit ironic in my post, the irony not directed at FPSOLKOR, lol and perdition

LStarosta
03-27-2007, 06:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lowfighter:

FPSOLKOR, this thread is about La7 competition on online servers on ALL altitudes. RL soviet pilots oppinions don't matter because they were fighting pretty low (as we all know) on the eastern front, and this low altitude fighting is considered pretty arcadish here. RL Luftwaffe pilots would not matter too, cause they were also fighting pretty low on the eastern front. Did the FW190 RL pilots whine while meeting with a pretty tipical interception setup: a bunch of il2s flying at 50m altitude (to prevent enemy attacks from below)escorted by a bunch of fighters flying perhaps 1000m high? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I do not know, but the main question was: IS LA 7 OVERMODELLED? None of us can answer this question, since none of us flew La-7, and you say that you do not bother with RL pilots... Hmmm... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

I think a lot of this notion of overmodelled Russian planes comes from the fact that Oleg is Russian and some of us still cant accept that by the end of the war the Russians had a monster of an airforce with some good aircraft and very good pilots. I think much of the FM debates concerning the quality of Russian planes or the seeming lack thereof in other planes would not exist if this sim was made by Microprose, Microsoft... or anyone else other than a Russian company..... I am in the not the plane but the pilot theory... sure the plane helps.. but put a good pilot in an "inferior" plane against a lousy pilot in a "superior" plane... within reason of course.... and the better pilot will come out the victor more often than not. IMO if.... Russian planes are "overmodelled" it probably has more to do with the fact that Oleg had more data about them than some of the other planes.. I just have a hard time with the notion that being a business man, a pilot, and a perfectionist that Oleg would settle for much less than as much accuracy as he can muster 9 times out of ten.

............... thats just my 2 cents.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Obviously not true when you have a guy like Putin killing off anyone who makes the Russians look bad. That's why all Russian planes are overmodelled.

alert_1
03-27-2007, 07:04 AM
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by alert_1:
OK, I really like to see ONE russian undermodelled AC. ONE is enough...



Why? Then you'd whine about that and cry patch all day long!
endquote:

I know it's hard task that's whz I want only ONE
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

FPSOLKOR
03-27-2007, 10:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
Obviously not true when you have a guy like Putin killing off anyone who makes the Russians look bad. That's why all Russian planes are overmodelled. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
What that has to do with La-7? I hardly can imagine Putin standing with a gun behind Olegs head saying something like: "You god damned son of a b...! If you will make Fokker better then La i'll send your brain flying over monitor!"... About lowfighter - no prob, check PM.

joeap
03-27-2007, 11:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
Obviously not true when you have a guy like Putin killing off anyone who makes the Russians look bad. That's why all Russian planes are overmodelled. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
What that has to do with La-7? I hardly can imagine Putin standing with a gun behind Olegs head saying something like: "You god damned son of a b...! If you will make Fokker better then La i'll send your brain flying over monitor!"... About lowfighter - no prob, check PM. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please do not take LStarosta's posts without a mountain of salt. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

LStarosta
03-27-2007, 11:15 AM
http://img459.imageshack.us/img459/8932/proofsab0.jpg

MEGILE
03-27-2007, 11:18 AM
Luke you naughty boy. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

Jaws2002
03-27-2007, 11:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
Luke you naughty boy. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

ImpStarDuece
03-27-2007, 03:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Oleg is Russian and some of us still cant accept that by the end of the war the Russians had a monster of an airforce with some good aircraft and very good pilots. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No that's not it, I just have problems accepting that all allied pilots and complete allied airforces were utterly incompetent morons like members of this forum imply. How do we imply it you ask, I'll take you on a tour:

Spitfire - if it was just a tiny little bit more perfect, God would destroy it in envy, He barely bares with it as it is.
P51D - Generally won all wars, mostly by turning on the deck, passing under bridges inverted with Bruce Willis...hmm and it was also a good escort fighter...
P47 - forged in the mystic mountains of North America, this plane and even more so it's engine are completely indistructable, we chased away Borg in 1942 using only P47's and 50 cals, they couldn't touch us, especially since even they had problems with engine overheating at altitudes.
P38 - was generally more advanced than YF22 Raptor, not to even mention the Fowler flaps which were the reason the Borg attacked us in the first place....
Tempest - generally still does not have enough followers, so it was "just" completely superiour in every concievable way to axis fighters...
Yak3 - what's to say except Axis fighters were ordered not to engage it in the same solar system
LA5FN - this was La7 sent back in past from future, like the Terminator - it will be back.
La7 - what's to say Yak3's were ordered not to fly close to it while in the same Galaxy as pilot could not be held responisble for actions of his Lavochkin - yes it was that dangerous. It was a KGB agent in LA7 that killed Kennedy in Dallas 1963, he made 3 passes on him, but he was so fast everybody bought the three gunman theory.
Yak9U - nobody knows why it was made when Lavochkins were soooo good, but it is still totally utterly completely better than anything Axis...it has to be - I wan't to believe.

Why? Because:
Me109 - was utter cr@p, it never flew as slats would explode on take off and instantly killed the pilot, they got so many kills using unique tehnique, they were all parked on the airfield in a fixed position and worked as an AAA, when Allied pilot flew through their gunsight they would press the trigger and shot it down.
FW190 - only Axis fighter that ever took off, it could only fly strait though, but quite fast.
This all I learned on ubi il2 forums in last 3 years http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

psssst...your prejudice is showing

stalkervision
03-27-2007, 04:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Yak3 - what's to say except Axis fighters were ordered not to engage it in the same solar system </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

and not without a klingon cloaking device either! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

VW-IceFire
03-27-2007, 04:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jermin122:
La7 can be beated by other planes even porked FW190 do not necessarily mean it is historically accurate. You guys are http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/353.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
We don't have many numbers to go by but we know that the top speeds are relatively accurate. So what we do know is pilot comments about relative performance...we can extract some of that information. Its more than just another pilot can beat it...another plane can beat it given a certain condition (altitude, speed, maneuvering, positioning, etc.) in real life (generally speaking) and that also holds true in the sim.

The sim will never be 100% accurate and we unfortunately in the west don't have many good documents on La-7 flight performance but generally speaking it can be beaten by other planes where it should be beaten. So I would say thats not off topic. It is a qualitative response to the question where quantitative data is less available.

If I remember previous discussions on the La-7 its generally accepted that it has the right top speed and that the climb rate might be a little high...certainly not the rocketship that it was back in the 1.0 series days. Nowhere near that. Infact its been heavily neutered. Given the relative weight, power, wingloading, powerloading, and other factors I think we're looking at a relatively accurate La-7. Whats missing are some of the planes harder to model attributes such as the tendency for poisonous gas to leak into the cockpit from the engine compartment and asphyxiate the pilot or the fact that the cockpit with the canopy closed was unbearably hot.

I think for us to have a properly simulated La-7 in the game all pilots flying it virtually would have to have six shots of tequila and be sitting in a sauna with winter clothing on. That'd take care of things http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

mandrill7
03-27-2007, 04:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
I think for us to have a properly simulated La-7 in the game all pilots flying it virtually would have to have six shots of VODKA and be sitting in a sauna with winter clothing on. That'd take care of things http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isn't that how Russian pilots ALWAYS flew?

Bearcat99
03-27-2007, 06:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Oleg is Russian and some of us still cant accept that by the end of the war the Russians had a monster of an airforce with some good aircraft and very good pilots. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No that's not it, I just have problems accepting that all allied pilots and complete allied airforces were utterly incompetent morons like members of this forum imply. How do we imply it you ask, I'll take you on a tour:

Spitfire - if it was just a tiny little bit more perfect, God would destroy it in envy, He barely bares with it as it is.
P51D - Generally won all wars, mostly by turning on the deck, passing under bridges inverted with Bruce Willis...hmm and it was also a good escort fighter...
P47 - forged in the mystic mountains of North America, this plane and even more so it's engine are completely indistructable, we chased away Borg in 1942 using only P47's and 50 cals, they couldn't touch us, especially since even they had problems with engine overheating at altitudes.
P38 - was generally more advanced than YF22 Raptor, not to even mention the Fowler flaps which were the reason the Borg attacked us in the first place....
Tempest - generally still does not have enough followers, so it was "just" completely superiour in every concievable way to axis fighters...
Yak3 - what's to say except Axis fighters were ordered not to engage it in the same solar system
LA5FN - this was La7 sent back in past from future, like the Terminator - it will be back.
La7 - what's to say Yak3's were ordered not to fly close to it while in the same Galaxy as pilot could not be held responisble for actions of his Lavochkin - yes it was that dangerous. It was a KGB agent in LA7 that killed Kennedy in Dallas 1963, he made 3 passes on him, but he was so fast everybody bought the three gunman theory.
Yak9U - nobody knows why it was made when Lavochkins were soooo good, but it is still totally utterly completely better than anything Axis...it has to be - I wan't to believe.

Why? Because:
Me109 - was utter cr@p, it never flew as slats would explode on take off and instantly killed the pilot, they got so many kills using unique tehnique, they were all parked on the airfield in a fixed position and worked as an AAA, when Allied pilot flew through their gunsight they would press the trigger and shot it down.
FW190 - only Axis fighter that ever took off, it could only fly strait though, but quite fast.
This all I learned on ubi il2 forums in last 3 years http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

psssst...your prejudice is showing </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You sure got your quotes all fracked up.... and the silliness you posted just blew whatever credibility you might have had....

jermin122
03-27-2007, 08:00 PM
I remember once there was a post about la performace and someone had posted the real life and in game la performance test. In that test, the climb and top speed of RL la7 can not even match up in game la5fn performance. But I can't find it now because the search function is not available now. And forsazh has no time limit in game while it could only be used for 3-5 minutes in RL.

VW-IceFire
03-27-2007, 08:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mandrill7:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
I think for us to have a properly simulated La-7 in the game all pilots flying it virtually would have to have six shots of VODKA and be sitting in a sauna with winter clothing on. That'd take care of things http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isn't that how Russian pilots ALWAYS flew? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
LOL Sure thing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

LStarosta
03-27-2007, 08:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jermin122:
I remember once there was a post about la performace and someone had posted the real life and in game la performance test. In that test, the climb and top speed of RL la7 can not even match up in game la5fn performance. But I can't find it now because the search function is not available now. And forsazh has no time limit in game while it could only be used for 3-5 minutes in RL. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe Kocur looked into that.

FPSOLKOR
03-28-2007, 01:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jermin122:
I remember once there was a post about la performace and someone had posted the real life and in game la performance test. In that test, the climb and top speed of RL la7 can not even match up in game la5fn performance. But I can't find it now because the search function is not available now. And forsazh has no time limit in game while it could only be used for 3-5 minutes in RL. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Starting from La-5F Forsage could be used without limitation...

La7_brook
03-28-2007, 02:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:

No that's not it, I just have problems accepting that all allied pilots and complete allied airforces were utterly incompetent morons like members of this forum imply. How do we imply it you ask, I'll take you on a tour:

Spitfire - if it was just a tiny little bit more perfect, God would destroy it in envy, He barely bares with it as it is.
P51D - Generally won all wars, mostly by turning on the deck, passing under bridges inverted with Bruce Willis...hmm and it was also a good escort fighter...
P47 - forged in the mystic mountains of North America, this plane and even more so it's engine are completely indistructable, we chased away Borg in 1942 using only P47's and 50 cals, they couldn't touch us, especially since even they had problems with engine overheating at altitudes.
P38 - was generally more advanced than YF22 Raptor, not to even mention the Fowler flaps which were the reason the Borg attacked us in the first place....
Tempest - generally still does not have enough followers, so it was "just" completely superiour in every concievable way to axis fighters...
Yak3 - what's to say except Axis fighters were ordered not to engage it in the same solar system
LA5FN - this was La7 sent back in past from future, like the Terminator - it will be back.
La7 - what's to say Yak3's were ordered not to fly close to it while in the same Galaxy as pilot could not be held responisble for actions of his Lavochkin - yes it was that dangerous. It was a KGB agent in LA7 that killed Kennedy in Dallas 1963, he made 3 passes on him, but he was so fast everybody bought the three gunman theory.
Yak9U - nobody knows why it was made when Lavochkins were soooo good, but it is still totally utterly completely better than anything Axis...it has to be - I wan't to believe.

Why? Because:
Me109 - was utter cr@p, it never flew as slats would explode on take off and instantly killed the pilot, they got so many kills using unique tehnique, they were all parked on the airfield in a fixed position and worked as an AAA, when Allied pilot flew through their gunsight they would press the trigger and shot it down.
FW190 - only Axis fighter that ever took off, it could only fly strait though, but quite fast.
This all I learned on ubi il2 forums in last 3 years http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amusing.

But highly subjective. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> they should sticky this RULES OF CONDUCT http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif lol

BBB_Hyperion
03-28-2007, 02:14 AM
Some la5 info.

Flying the La-5FN

In the summer of 1943, a brand-new La-5FN made a forced landing on a German airfield providing Luftwaffe with an opportunity to test-fly the newest Soviet fighter. Test pilot Hans-Werner Lerhe wrote a detailed report of his experience Котлобовский, А. (Kotlobovskiy, A.), Блащук, В. (Blaschuk, V.). "Ла-5ФБ с точки зрения люфтваффе (La-5FN from the viewpoint of Luftwaffe)". АэроХобби (AeroHobby) (1-1993).. He particularly noted that the La-5FN excelled at altitudes below 3,000 meters (9,840 ft) but suffered from short range and flight time of only 40 minutes at cruise engine power. All of the engine controls (throttle, mixture, propeller pitch, radiator and cowl flaps, and supercharger gearbox) had separate levers which served to distract the pilot during combat to make constant adjustments or risk suboptimal performance. For example, rapid acceleration required moving no less than six levers. In contrast, contemporary German aircraft had largely automatic engine controls with the pilot operating a single lever and electromechanical devices making the appropriate adjustments. Due to airflow limitations, the engine boost system (Forsazh) could not be used above 2,000 meters (6,560 ft). Stability in all axes was generally good. The authority of the ailerons was deemed exceptional but the rudder was insufficiently powerful at lower speeds. At speeds in excess of 600 km/h (370 mph), the forces on control surfaces became excessive. Horizontal turn time at 1,000 meters (3,280 ft) and maximum engine power was 25 seconds. In comparison with Luftwaffe fighters, the La-5FN was found to have a comparable top speed and acceleration at low altitude. It possessed a higher roll rate and a smaller turn radius than the Bf 109 and a better climb rate than the Fw 190A-8. Bf 109 utilizing MW 50 had superior performance at all altitudes, and Fw 190A-8 had better dive performance. Lerhe's recommendations were to attempt to draw the La-5FN to higher altitudes, to escape attacks in a dive followed by a high-speed shallow climb, and to avoid prolonged turning engagements.

Here is the report translated to english and the original.


http://img43.imagevenue.com/loc543/th_69383_la5g1_122_543lo.jpg (http://img43.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=69383_la5g1_122_543lo.jpg)http://img5.imagevenue.com/loc597/th_69388_la5g2_122_597lo.jpg (http://img5.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=69388_la5g2_122_597lo.jpg)http://img12.imagevenue.com/loc397/th_69389_la5g3_122_397lo.jpg (http://img12.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=69389_la5g3_122_397lo.jpg)http://img37.imagevenue.com/loc347/th_69395_la5g4_122_347lo.jpg (http://img37.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=69395_la5g4_122_347lo.jpg)
http://img9.imagevenue.com/loc442/th_69400_La5FN_122_442lo.jpg (http://img9.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=69400_La5FN_122_442lo.jpg)

Note the difference between offical tsagi data to field types.

Wish to see what 6 levers are pushed in this sim to go into dive. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

La5 performance topic.
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/2061022725/p/1

Ratsack
03-28-2007, 03:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
...

Wish to see what 6 levers are pushed in this sim to go into dive. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is an area where the Allied planes in general enjoy the benefits of a simplicity that they didn't have in real life. The complexity of going from economical cruise to combat settings in a P-38, for example, is not modeled. The same is true across the board. This effectively nullifies one of the biggest advantages of the German single-lever systems.

If bounced, push the throttle forward. It's the same in all planes in the game.

cheers,
Ratsack

ViktorViktor
03-28-2007, 03:34 AM
I read in 'Soviet Combat Aircraft' that during front-line testing of the LA7 in 1944, pilots complained that the LA7's firepower was inadequate to destroy enemy AC with a single burst, especially the FW-190.

Also the LA7 had (during front-line testing) serious engine malfunctions even though it used the same engine as the LA5-FN.

The authors of this book go to great lengths to show that there was often a noticeable drop-off in performance in Soviet fighters when comparing the pre-production AC performance with factory-manufactured AC (due to inadequate facilities/workers?). And that the Soviet authorities were aware of this and worked diligently to correct this problem.

But I wonder if pre-production performance figures are used in IL2 performance modelling instead of in-production figures ? And if AC produced in UK, US, Germany, Japan had the same performance drop-off (I have to think that late-war Japan did)?

alert_1
03-28-2007, 04:23 AM
"Turning time are better then Fw190 and worse then Bf109"
La5FN is probably the most overmodeled fighter in the sim..

fuzzychickens
03-28-2007, 11:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by alert_1:
"Turning time are better then Fw190 and worse then Bf109"
La5FN is probably the most overmodeled fighter in the sim.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It says turn is superior on la5fn to 109. Overall performance 109 with mw50 superior to la5fn.

anarchy52
03-28-2007, 11:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fuzzychickens:
It says turn is superior on la5fn to 109. Overall performance 109 with mw50 superior to la5fn. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actualy what it says about turning is:
Bf-109&gt;La-5FN&gt;FW-190

And yes, La-5FN in game is silly in some aspects and definitely mislabeled

staticline1
03-28-2007, 12:58 PM
What I found most interesting was the performance of the La-5FN at sea level and at 21000ft. Thanks BBB_Hyperion for the report. This thing is slow! Its performance it nothing special. Whether or not it could out turn or out whatever its adversary it would have done well in the early stages of the war but later on the German fighters would seem to be able to dictate the terms of engagement with superior speed and altitude performance. Personally if I have to choose a Soviet fighter give me the Yak-9U to put me on even terms in speed and better handling.

Kurfurst__
03-28-2007, 01:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by La7_brook:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:

No that's not it, I just have problems accepting that all allied pilots and complete allied airforces were utterly incompetent morons like members of this forum imply. How do we imply it you ask, I'll take you on a tour:

Spitfire - if it was just a tiny little bit more perfect, God would destroy it in envy, He barely bares with it as it is.
P51D - Generally won all wars, mostly by turning on the deck, passing under bridges inverted with Bruce Willis...hmm and it was also a good escort fighter...
P47 - forged in the mystic mountains of North America, this plane and even more so it's engine are completely indistructable, we chased away Borg in 1942 using only P47's and 50 cals, they couldn't touch us, especially since even they had problems with engine overheating at altitudes.
P38 - was generally more advanced than YF22 Raptor, not to even mention the Fowler flaps which were the reason the Borg attacked us in the first place....
Tempest - generally still does not have enough followers, so it was "just" completely superiour in every concievable way to axis fighters...
Yak3 - what's to say except Axis fighters were ordered not to engage it in the same solar system
LA5FN - this was La7 sent back in past from future, like the Terminator - it will be back.
La7 - what's to say Yak3's were ordered not to fly close to it while in the same Galaxy as pilot could not be held responisble for actions of his Lavochkin - yes it was that dangerous. It was a KGB agent in LA7 that killed Kennedy in Dallas 1963, he made 3 passes on him, but he was so fast everybody bought the three gunman theory.
Yak9U - nobody knows why it was made when Lavochkins were soooo good, but it is still totally utterly completely better than anything Axis...it has to be - I wan't to believe.

Why? Because:
Me109 - was utter cr@p, it never flew as slats would explode on take off and instantly killed the pilot, they got so many kills using unique tehnique, they were all parked on the airfield in a fixed position and worked as an AAA, when Allied pilot flew through their gunsight they would press the trigger and shot it down.
FW190 - only Axis fighter that ever took off, it could only fly strait though, but quite fast.
This all I learned on ubi il2 forums in last 3 years http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amusing.

But highly subjective. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> they should sticky this RULES OF CONDUCT http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif lol </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bloody brilliant ! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

VMF-214_HaVoK
03-28-2007, 02:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Why? Because:
Me109 - was utter cr@p, it never flew as slats would explode on take off and instantly killed the pilot, they got so many kills using unique tehnique, they were all parked on the airfield in a fixed position and worked as an AAA, when Allied pilot flew through their gunsight they would press the trigger and shot it down.
FW190 - only Axis fighter that ever took off, it could only fly strait though, but quite fast.
This all I learned on ubi il2 forums in last 3 years </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its the same for both sides. Dont try to make it any different. Mudslinging has gone on since the creation of IL-2 from both sides. Its not just about the poor 109s and 190s. Very few people and I mean very few offer objective and unbiased input for all planes. Some may act as if they do but its pretty obvious they do not. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

arrowtalon
03-28-2007, 02:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">arrowtalon - what name do you fly under?

I fly often on the RCAF_FB server, I agree with you that it is much better than most dogfight servers, and often the fight will be team-centers with RCAF_FB as blues fighting against all-comers. The fights are usually very good, and team members look out for each other.
Fighting is low-level, and lots of the players chose La7's because it suits that.

It's not just that the La7 is a good plane. Credit has to be given to some of the great pilots on that server, the RCAF_FB team are really very good. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I fly under Skyminder. Glad you like the RCAF_FB server as well. It's good fun. I think I've flown as your unofficial wingman a few times...

arrowtalon
03-28-2007, 02:52 PM
I am again waiting for a program to run, so I figured I'd try to post a summary of what's been generally said so far...

About 2/3 of us think the La-7 (by our humble, virtual account) is overmodelled. Many, especially the 190 fans, refute this, pointing to the fact that it is only best at low altitude.

Many historical references point to the idea that the La-7 was not so fun to fly in real life due to intangible characteristics, this inherently gives the La fighters a non-historical bonus.

I haven't heard much about cannon modelling, but based on the reference posted above, it sounds like all the cannons in-game are a bit too strong. (I thought the machine guns too weak instead, but was apparently wrong.)

Have I gotten it right?

arrowtalon
03-28-2007, 02:59 PM
Sidenote: As far as the debate goes over the La high-altitude performance, I have to reaffirm my belief that it can stick with just about anything up there.

The other night I played against SDI_47(?). He handled his La-7 magnificently at high altitude. Our dogfights continually started on the deck and reached up to 8000m. We were turning and burning even at that level. The fights lasted several minutes and didn't end until teammates broke them up (with 190's and Mustangs). We never managed to get a clean kill on one another, but we caught a few of the teammates before getting exhausted. Each time I was amazed how well the La handled up high.

VW-IceFire
03-28-2007, 04:09 PM
What were you flying?

Cannons in game depend on the La-7 model you're talking about. The 3 cannon B-20 version that is so popular in arcade dogfight servers was a very rare version. The vast majority had two ShVAK 20mm cannons and those are third place in community testing compared to the Hispano and MG151. The triple B-20 is better...if by sheer value of the third gun and and tracer rounds.

Any of the evaluations regarding La-7 or La-5 firepower would be talking about two cannons.

major_setback
03-28-2007, 04:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by arrowtalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">arrowtalon - what name do you fly under?

I fly often on the RCAF_FB server, I agree with you that it is much better than most dogfight servers, and often the fight will be team-centers with RCAF_FB as blues fighting against all-comers. The fights are usually very good, and team members look out for each other.
Fighting is low-level, and lots of the players chose La7's because it suits that.

It's not just that the La7 is a good plane. Credit has to be given to some of the great pilots on that server, the RCAF_FB team are really very good. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I fly under Skyminder. Glad you like the RCAF_FB server as well. It's good fun. I think I've flown as your unofficial wingman a few times... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll keep an eye out for you, I'll probably be in an La7.
:-)

zebulon64
03-28-2007, 07:15 PM
Well - I followed a few pages - but not all.

Just my "two cent" for what it's worth:

Concerning realism on the servers.

Personaly I agree with those who try out a server setup by leaving some aircraft out of the game "because of historical realism".

It might be true that the LA7 was by mid 44 ready for combat but also consider this...

Most of the other types like Lagg 3, Yak 1 and Migs where used in hughe quantitys still; even up to the end of the war!!! For sure the Lagg 3 appears quite a lot in german Kill records even in late 44.

So the so called "lame luftwaffe ducks" had - even outnumbered - still a lot of success!

Another point - which you can't simulate in a PC game...

Recently I found a link in one of this forums to a interview with the german fighter ace Johannes Steinhoff who few right from the start of the war in 1939 up to his crash in a Me 262 in 1945.
He flew in the West and in the East!

He was asked about the difference between the russians and the western allies. What he basicly explained was that - except for the elite units - the majority of the Russian pilots where quite "easy" to fight because of the lack of individual initiative. Quote: "In some respect you might call them (russian pilots) dumb because when you shot out the leader of a russian fighters unit, usually the rest of that squadron was "dead meat" - just waiting to be pluged out of the sky" - end of quote in my own writing. No word wasted about how good their planes where - I gues because it didn't matter and wasn't of any concern.

Also: When he (Steinhoff) got transfered in mid 44 to the west again he was immidiatly shot down by a P47 on his first mission. "I learned my lesson again and was reminded that we have to fight the western allies differently."

He also pointed out that the western allies had a quantity advantage off approx. 10:1 and from late 1944 the Luftwaffe was almost no opponent anymore for the western allies. In the east they where outnumber almost 20:1 and still they would opperate - even Ju87 Stukas (Rudel for example) - against them successfully and often gave the Russian airfoce a "hell of a time" wrecking havoc on the russian troops and airforce! (1945 - The russians advance over the river Oder and the German airforce fly's more than 1300 ! sorties against them in just a day)

Evidence also from Erich Hartmann (German top score - 352 victories) when on one occation that he discribes a whole Russian bomber squadron droped their bombs on open field when attacked by just 4 Me109 - and they even had La5 (7?) fighter cover!!! (that was a Russion attack on Prag 1945).

So much to "realism".
(Sorry for any incorrect english)

Pinker15
03-29-2007, 01:34 AM
Yes but on the same time on western front luftwaffe was slaughtered.

La7_brook
03-29-2007, 01:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pinker15:
Yes but on the same time on western front luftwaffe was slaughtered. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> they were ? please tell us more about this http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

La7_brook
03-29-2007, 02:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by La7_brook:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pinker15:
Yes but on the same time on western front luftwaffe was slaughtered. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> they were ? please tell us more about this http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE> FIGHTER V FIGHTER , bob ? med ? France 42,43? ETC ?

jermin122
03-29-2007, 02:06 AM
Hyperion, thank you very much for your information. Hopefully Oleg will correctify La5fn performance in the next patch.

Pinker15
03-29-2007, 02:19 AM
Just look how heavy looses on western front LW get during 44/45 year. Most of RAF/USAF pilots had even problems to meet luftwaffe in the air. At the time Luftwaffe was outnumbered and out skilled. Even mass production of Me262 jet could not change anything cause there was no fuel and pilots for.

Pinker15
03-29-2007, 02:21 AM
For earlier period when we look at 303 RAF sqn stats it wasn't much easier for LW too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

zebulon64
03-29-2007, 02:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pinker15:
Yes but on the same time on western front luftwaffe was slaughtered. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's right - also what I meant in the post of mine, but...

on the other side - eastern front - the germans reasonably managed to operate with succes and without the "slaughter" that happend at the western front (though the russian quantity advantage was even dubble of that compared to the western front)!

Klemm.co
03-29-2007, 02:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pinker15:
Just look how heavy looses on western front LW get during 44/45 year. Most of RAF/USAF pilots had even problems to meet luftwaffe in the air. At the time Luftwaffe was outnumbered and out skilled. Even mass production of Me262 jet could not change anything cause there was no fuel and pilots for. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
There's no point in arguing about that, because its absolutely true. But you've got to see just WHY they got pwnd so badly. The Luftwaffe was wasted by its own high command without any tactical sense. It was just like these frontal attacks of WWI where MGs and numerical superiority counted. For example in the Normandy Invasion the fighter reserve that was build up prior to it was sent to airfields that were already captured and so many fighters got lost or had to turn back and got lost also.
From Adolf Gallands book "The first and the Last".

zebulon64
03-29-2007, 03:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Klemm.co:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pinker15:
Just look how heavy looses on western front LW get during 44/45 year. Most of RAF/USAF pilots had even problems to meet luftwaffe in the air. At the time Luftwaffe was outnumbered and out skilled. Even mass production of Me262 jet could not change anything cause there was no fuel and pilots for. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
There's no point in arguing about that, because its absolutely true. But you've got to see just WHY they got pwnd so badly. The Luftwaffe was wasted by its own high command without any tactical sense. It was just like these frontal attacks of WWI where MGs and numerical superiority counted. For example in the Normandy Invasion the fighter reserve that was build up prior to it was sent to airfields that were already captured and so many fighters got lost or had to turn back and got lost also.
From Adolf Gallands book "The first and the Last". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree

La7_brook
03-29-2007, 03:14 AM
odds on D day were 20:1 far from even fight , 303 RAF sqn i have know idear who they are ? or what JG they went againest as to see what JG stats were too them

LStarosta
03-29-2007, 03:19 AM
303 RAF = highest scoring squadron of the BoB.

zebulon64
03-29-2007, 04:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jermin122:
I remember once there was a post about la performace and someone had posted the real life and in game la performance test. In that test, the climb and top speed of RL la7 can not even match up in game la5fn performance. But I can't find it now because the search function is not available now. And forsazh has no time limit in game while it could only be used for 3-5 minutes in RL. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sometime (always?) it seem that certain post with evidence data disapear "by exident". I've seen this often in the forums here.

One is tend to think (sometimes) of censurship.

When it comes close to the truth just wipe out the evidence. Its the communist character.

But who knows...

msalama
03-29-2007, 04:27 AM
So according to you the mods are Commies and censor all evidence showing Red AC in a less-than-favorable light then? Please http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

alert_1
03-29-2007, 04:33 AM
Oleg has sold about 300000 copies of Il2 series in Rusia market.I'm dont think that such a success will happen if La5/7 were undermodelled..
Another thing comes to my mind as for misinterpretaion of LW performance form VVS side of view: many VVS fighters hadnt twoway radio set installed. A lot of them were MIA, without any trace, they simply never return form mission...how many of them were shot down by Fw190 without alone without any witness nearby? Why more prolonged dogfigt with Me109 usuallz had a lot of observers, Fw190 had its own way to down its adversary, brutal surprising attack from "nowhere" with excessive speed, then zooming up withut trace....just thought about Fw190 official reputation on Eastern Front.

zebulon64
03-29-2007, 05:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by msalama:
So according to you the mods are Commies and censor all evidence showing Red AC in a less-than-favorable light then? Please http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No - I just notice that often posts are missing. And as far as I notice most of the time sections with unfavourable notice for russian planes.

Might be coincidance.

Another thought:

Sometimes (not often) there is a message from Oleg - but only general stuff with what he has to ask or tell.

If he's really so perfect in his work and willing to serve the the gamers in the best way he can - than the least thing to expect would be some answers to a interesting discussion.

But no info from his side at all. No "Bull**** you all dumbo's - you all are on the wrong side" or: "That's interesting - lets see if I can do something about it" - or "No that is not right because... (even a short discription would be nice)" - or: "Yes you are (partly) right but it is not possible to implement" or what ever...

BUT NOTHING - NO INFO TO A SPECIFIC TOPIC - SO ALL WHAT WE GET IS GUESSWORK WHAT HE REPRESENTS, WORKS ON (OR NOT), OR JUST STUFF IT ALL.

Some people here seem to speak for him - defending him "he's busy - lets keep it that way" - or "he has his resons - well what's so difficult to have a develpment member of his team to check out what bothers people the most and now and than comment on some subject and whether or not something will be done with it. It doesn't have to be a mega message - but now and than some answers - come on guys THAT IS POSSIBLE. In my oppinion he's just ignorant and just does his own thing - not bothering at all what others think.

Am I wrong again ?? Well - might be - any links to some specific answers to perfomances or flight modeling ? I'm curious...

msalama
03-29-2007, 05:45 AM
Well apart from some DB crashes I haven't seen any posts go missing, critical or not. Some downright garbage (read: ber-nationalistic, racist, etc.) has been canned every now and then, true enough, but I'm sure no-one in their right mind misses that c**p anyway!

But surely 1C should inform us better nevertheless, you're right about that. Would go a looooong way in putting out all this conspiracy-theory BS all too prevalent around here...

TgD Thunderbolt56
03-29-2007, 07:06 AM
What happened to the discussion about the modeling of the La7? To that I say the same thing I said 4 pages ago...


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TgD Thunderbolt56:
La7 is not overmodeled. It was a great late-war aircraft that was the benefactor of improved technology, a powerful engine, excellent firepower and battle-hardened pilots (for the most part). It's not a world-beater, doesn't run on dilithium crystals and can lose a wing like the rest.

Move on. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

arrowtalon
03-29-2007, 08:12 AM
This thread has gotten really off-topic...

I'll resummarize the actual point with a few edits.

About 2/3 of us think the La-7 (by our humble, virtual account) is overmodelled. Many, especially the 190 fans, refute this, pointing to the fact that it is only best at low altitude. EDIT: I would also say that the Spit IX can also stay with the La-7, and I feel the spit is about right compared to the 109 and others, so I leave you to your own conclusions...

Many historical references point to the idea that the La-7 was not so fun to fly in real life due to intangible characteristics, this inherently gives the La fighters a non-historical bonus.

I haven't heard much about cannon modelling, but based on the reference posted above, it sounds like all the cannons in-game are a bit too strong. (I thought the machine guns too weak instead, but was apparently wrong.) EDIT: Pointed out above, the cannons on the La-7 are stronger than their equivalent counterparts on other planes. Maybe this is due to the added tracers, but in any case, it's pretty easy to bring down a bogey with those things.

Many people posted interesting documents to support their ideas. I would recommend reading those. After that, this thread got pushed over into the conspiracy lane. National pride may have affected the game design, but we know it has affected American games before. This is nothing new. With that, I think everything has been said on here that needs to be, unless people have more documentation to share?

Lazy312
03-29-2007, 10:12 AM
"But I wonder if pre-production performance figures are used in IL2 performance modelling instead of in-production figures ?"

Preproduction La-7 did 640 kph on deck.. even serial planes from 1945 did over 610 kph.. our La-7 makes about 605 kph so it is somewhere between 44 and 45 serial planes. I think serial planes were about 20 kph slower at altitude, 680 kph is the ideal "prototype" number. However we all know that most planes in this game use ideal numbers. Turn time of 18 seconds at 1000m is also the ideal number..

Talking about La-7 handling, most pilots stated that landing wasn't easy (as plane had tendency to bounce) but once you were in the air the plane was great.

Combat losses of units equipped with La-7 were quite low (of course that was also because of experienced units that were receiving the new planes). If I remember correctly they lost only about 100 planes in combat during about 10 months of its use.

La-7 was tested in simulated duels (probably low alt dogfight) against Spitfire IX and some late Bf 109 in Czechoslovakia in 1945. La-7 won everytime (piloted by Leopold Srom).

Czechoslovak pilots (mostly RAF veterans) were flying La-5FN during Slovak national uprising in 1944. From their memories, they felt very confident against german fighters, which they attacked even in cases when enemy has numerical superiority and position advantage. Germans had very high respect for them and avoided fights with them mostly.

mynameisroland
03-29-2007, 10:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lazy312:
"But I wonder if pre-production performance figures are used in IL2 performance modelling instead of in-production figures ?"

Preproduction La-7 did 640 kph on deck.. even serial planes from 1945 did over 610 kph.. our La-7 makes about 605 kph so it is somewhere between 44 and 45 serial planes. I think serial planes were about 20 kph slower at altitude, 680 kph is the ideal "prototype" number. However we all know that most planes in this game use ideal numbers. Turn time of 18 seconds at 1000m is also the ideal number..

Talking about La-7 handling, most pilots stated that landing wasn't easy (as plane had tendency to bounce) but once you were in the air the plane was great.

Combat losses of units equipped with La-7 were quite low (of course that was also because of experienced units that were receiving the new planes). If I remember correctly they lost only about 100 planes in combat during about 10 months of its use.

La-7 was tested in simulated duels (probably low alt dogfight) against Spitfire IX and some late Bf 109 in Czechoslovakia in 1945. La-7 won everytime (piloted by Leopold Srom).

Czechoslovak pilots (mostly RAF veterans) were flying La-5FN during Slovak national uprising in 1944. From their memories, they felt very confident against german fighters, which they attacked even in cases when enemy has numerical superiority and position advantage. Germans had very high respect for them and avoided fights with them mostly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In IL2 the La7 and La5FN are seperated at birth by their designation. In WW2 I believe there was a rather large gap between the two but in IL2 it is around 15/20 km/h on the deck. I think both are modelled very well - if you like Russian fighters. If you feel that the best performing versions of aircraft are usually moddled then you arent looking far enough in to IL2. We have early 1944 P51 Ds and Tempest Vs, a Fw 190 A4 that didnt fly as a fighter in its IL2 configuration. A Mosquito which breaks up before actually reaching its WW2 top speed. Also poor production standards of all VVS aircraft and late Luftwaffe/Japanese aircraft is completely absent. This hurts late war RAF and USAAF/USN aircraft as they were generally better made and performing that their counterparts.

Most of the 'best' performance figures aircraft are Russian aircraft Bf 109s and Ki84s. Most other fighters are using non existant performance data like the Spitfire Vb and P47 D late, or rather conservative performance data like the Hellcat or P51 D or N1J2.

Combat losses are misleading too. In over 12 months worth of combat the Tempest V was shot down only 24 times by German fighter opposition. This ignores the hundreds lost in accidents or enemy AAA. How many La7s were destroyed by their pilots crashing due to carbon monoxide poisoning, or there wood glue failing and their wings falling off ?

The Czech pilots achieved their great feats because the were RAF veterans not because they were flying La5FNs. If they were flying Spitfires or Bf 109s they would have done as well - because they were RAF veterans. Pilot quality was paramount in this example, not aircraft quality.

arrowtalon
03-29-2007, 10:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Most of the 'best' performance figures aircraft are Russian aircraft Bf 109s and Ki84s. Most other fighters are using non existant performance data like the Spitfire Vb and P47 D late, or rather conservative performance data like the Hellcat or P51 D or N1J2.

Combat losses are misleading too. In over 12 months worth of combat the Tempest V was shot down only 24 times by German fighter opposition. This ignores the hundreds lost in accidents or enemy AAA. How many La7s were destroyed by their pilots crashing due to carbon monoxide poisoning, or there wood glue failing and their wings falling off ?

The Czech pilots achieved their great feats because the were RAF veterans not because they were flying La5FNs. If they were flying Spitfires or Bf 109s they would have done as well - because they were RAF veterans. Pilot quality was paramount in this example, not aircraft quality. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Good points. Never realized the bit about late vs later models before. Unfortunately, you've now added a few items to my IL-2 wish list which I know some of you loath... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

arrowtalon
03-29-2007, 10:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Talking about La-7 handling, most pilots stated that landing wasn't easy (as plane had tendency to bounce) but once you were in the air the plane was great. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I find the La-7 really easy to land in-game vs say, a Spit or Corsi.

Is this just me?

VW-IceFire
03-29-2007, 03:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by arrowtalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Talking about La-7 handling, most pilots stated that landing wasn't easy (as plane had tendency to bounce) but once you were in the air the plane was great. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I find the La-7 really easy to land in-game vs say, a Spit or Corsi.

Is this just me? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The same "problem" with the 109...the slats work almost too well and make the plane really stable at low speed. The La-7 is also just really light and somewhat mushy in anything it does. Yes it performs well but its not very crisp in its handling compared to the FW190 or Tempest.

Some of you may feel the La-7 to be better than it was in real life...I would like to see actual data pointing to it being accurate or refuting its accuracy (I have seen neither, I suspect data is a bit of a problem however) but I will say one thing and that is that the La-7 of 4.08 is a pale shadow compared to the La-7 of 1.0. Thats when it was truly uber and hard to beat. And I flew it then...it got me started with flying online before I realized there were much better planes to fly...but for a newbie in a low altitude fight this plane is basically perfect. I will still say that against historical opposition and ignoring the 3 cannon version that is so popular...the La-7 is northing special and somewhat compromised.

arrowtalon
03-29-2007, 03:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Some of you may feel the La-7 to be better than it was in real life...I would like to see actual data pointing to it being accurate or refuting its accuracy (I have seen neither, I suspect data is a bit of a problem however) but I will say one thing and that is that the La-7 of 4.08 is a pale shadow compared to the La-7 of 1.0. Thats when it was truly uber and hard to beat. And I flew it then...it got me started with flying online before I realized there were much better planes to fly...but for a newbie in a low altitude fight this plane is basically perfect. I will still say that against historical opposition and ignoring the 3 cannon version that is so popular...the La-7 is northing special and somewhat compromised. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I agree with everything you said except the newbie part. I fly it quite a lot, not because I'm new and don't know what else is available, but because I feel its one of the best, if not the best, all-round in-game fighter. That's not to put down the bnz fighters or anything else, but I think a lot of non-noob's stick to this one because it has advantages.

crazyivan1970
03-29-2007, 03:35 PM
I remember bunch of La-5fn and La-7s on Gennadich and HISTORIA servers... with those being FR setup La7 was just another plane http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I think having an opinion on how plane performs and how it should perform based on relaxed settings servers where everybody sees each other from every possible angle with huge icons... is a bit wrong http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Completely agree with Ice... in 4.08 La7, La5FN and other soviet top fighters such as Yak-3, Yak-1b, etc are sorry shadow of what they use to be.

Those who flies LW planes since first versions of IL2 remembers how it was back then... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Vike
03-29-2007, 04:42 PM
Indeed Yvan http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Also poor production standards of all VVS aircraft and late Luftwaffe/Japanese aircraft is completely absent.
This hurts late war RAF and USAAF/USN aircraft as they were generally better made and performing that their counterparts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with everything you said,except this sentence Boemher.
I think late war problems are in a way modelled for the German planes,for the Me109 in particular.Some few examples:

-The overheat message that appears on Crimea map when MW50 is engaged in only 9mn at sea-level at......85% throttle for every MW50-equipped 109,even with rads open. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

-The top speed of K4-C3 was IRL 607 to 611km/h at seal level,we have 598km/h TAS. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
(&gt;However,Oleg gave an explanation about this)

-The turn time of the two G6 versions which is too high by about 2 seconds when comparing the IRL data. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

-Etc...

Okay,despite those light inaccuracies,the Me109s remain quite dangerous in good hands,especially in the Western Front,i agree.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif
But you must consider that there are some elements Oleg couldn't model for Online play:

-The young age and the inherent lack of skill of the German pilots at the war end.
-The 1 versus 10 till 60 ratio endured by the German pilots.
-The German army morale that was quite low by 1945...Due to an unavoidable defeat.

Indeed without those three facts,Online,you simply face guys like me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
I mean guys who are conviced the Me109 is the best and fight with it exactly as if it was the case. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
So yes it's hard for Reds,but it's "just" a (really super) game.

And moreover,don't forget your *holly* over-c-heating Spit IXs...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

@+

carguy_
03-29-2007, 05:57 PM
Mr.Ivan mod is partly right.

There is a world of a difference between VVS planes FM of v1.0 and 4.08.First patch to ensure VVS planes featured a phenomenon called "stall" was v3.04.

Still,La5FN and La7 planes can do everything BF/Me109 and FW190 planes do and better.

I`m not a DF server player.I play online wars.All those long time LW players will say that LA7 or Yak3 are not much of a problem once you get to know them.
The real problem is that LW players are put in G6early/late,FW190A5,FW190A8 against La5FN,Yak9U,Yak3,La7 and ,for admins, planes like Bf109K4,FW190D9,Bf109G10,Me262,He162,Me163 never flew.

VW-IceFire
03-29-2007, 10:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by arrowtalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Some of you may feel the La-7 to be better than it was in real life...I would like to see actual data pointing to it being accurate or refuting its accuracy (I have seen neither, I suspect data is a bit of a problem however) but I will say one thing and that is that the La-7 of 4.08 is a pale shadow compared to the La-7 of 1.0. Thats when it was truly uber and hard to beat. And I flew it then...it got me started with flying online before I realized there were much better planes to fly...but for a newbie in a low altitude fight this plane is basically perfect. I will still say that against historical opposition and ignoring the 3 cannon version that is so popular...the La-7 is northing special and somewhat compromised. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I agree with everything you said except the newbie part. I fly it quite a lot, not because I'm new and don't know what else is available, but because I feel its one of the best, if not the best, all-round in-game fighter. That's not to put down the bnz fighters or anything else, but I think a lot of non-noob's stick to this one because it has advantages. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ahh yes, what I mean to say is that the plane works quite well for newbies because its forgiving in a stall, turns well, is fast, high acceleration due to low weight and high power, and the lack of capabilities in other respects tends not to be appreciated by newbies until they learn more about whats going on. Veteran pilots can be absolutely deadly in it if turn fighting is their forte...I can't do it very well. I'm very much used to zipping in and out of a battle with no more than 90-100 degree turns at any one time...I try and do the turn fighter thing, get way in over my head, and then its all over for me. I even fly the Spitfire with a more or less boom and zoom approach. The Spitfire can do this...the La-7 isn't very good at it.

Two different styles requiring different approaches.

arrowtalon
03-29-2007, 11:34 PM
Icefire will appreciate this... Not to get off topic... I tried the Tempest for the first SERIOUS time earlier. Very impressed. Tough as nails, good guns, fast as he-l--and it's so smooth and solid.

After doing rogorous testing on the La-7, ahem, playing a lot, I think I've come to a conclusion most of us might agree on. For some reason in my many moons of playing online, I was never caught from behind by a Spit in an La, not sure why. That changed recently, so I switched back to flying my baby (Mk IX 25 lbs).

Here's my breakdown, tear it apart as you will...

The La-7 is overmodelled, but not decidely so. A lot of the posts have tried to explain it, and I think the answer is a culmination of all those explanations.

The biggest thing I still have to adhere to are the cannons. The cannons on the La-7 are just way better than the cannons on anything else similar. I think this may be due to the tracers...not sure. Other than that, it's just too forgiving in a stall, which may be explained by the progression of the FM from 1.0

There are, of course, other little things, but the two biggest overmodelled areas as I see it are the guns and the stability in turns.

BBB_Hyperion
03-29-2007, 11:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lazy312:
"But I wonder if pre-production performance figures are used in IL2 performance modelling instead of in-production figures ?"

Preproduction La-7 did 640 kph on deck.. even serial planes from 1945 did over 610 kph.. our La-7 makes about 605 kph so it is somewhere between 44 and 45 serial planes. I think serial planes were about 20 kph slower at altitude, 680 kph is the ideal "prototype" number. However we all know that most planes in this game use ideal numbers. Turn time of 18 seconds at 1000m is also the ideal number..
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Check La7 documents on 2nd page .

Check climbtimes topspeed turntimes. Special here turntimes at alt and sealevel. 18,5 - 19,6 or 18-19 20-21 Seconds turntime. Ingame we have la7 = 18 s 1000 m
Now compare 109g2 turntime for example
109 g2 = 21s 1000 m

While the data 19 to 22.6 so perfectly in the middle.

fw190 a4 = 24 s 1000 m

Data 22-24 s

Spitfire vb = 17,5 s 1000 m

TSAGI gives 18,5 s for spit vb

When we compare 109 g2 vs spit there is little difference in turntime but in radius (spit turns in tighter radius) (before flame starts here) .

Maybe we can make a list comparing where best performance is used and where middle values http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Brain32
03-30-2007, 03:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> fw190 a4 = 24 s 1000 m

Data 22-24 s </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Did you read that in il2c or done the test? Best I saw so far done by anybody was 25...

BBB_Hyperion
03-30-2007, 03:59 AM
Try yourself use trim up and optimum turn speed little prop pitch setting and center sidedrift. But i agree that are ideal values almost never get there . When you turn at groundlevel you need to add 1000 m difference in s cause most data is for 1000 m be sure to check engine power at 1000 m as well some plane increase power when getting higher and fall off then.

Il2 compare lists the optimum you can add 1-2 s to that mostly. Further the high difficulty is in the sustained turn as it is near to impossible to fly that correct most use instant turn push pull method which can mess up results. You cant avoid it but keeping this phases low increases accuracy.

La7_brook
03-30-2007, 04:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lazy312:
"But I wonder if pre-production performance figures are used in IL2 performance modelling instead of in-production figures ?"

Preproduction La-7 did 640 kph on deck.. even serial planes from 1945 did over 610 kph.. our La-7 makes about 605 kph so it is somewhere between 44 and 45 serial planes. I think serial planes were about 20 kph slower at altitude, 680 kph is the ideal "prototype" number. However we all know that most planes in this game use ideal numbers. Turn time of 18 seconds at 1000m is also the ideal number..
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Check La7 documents on 2nd page .

Check climbtimes topspeed turntimes. Special here turntimes at alt and sealevel. 18,5 - 19,6 or 18-19 20-21 Seconds turntime. Ingame we have la7 = 18 s 1000 m
Now compare 109g2 turntime for example
109 g2 = 21s 1000 m

While the data 19 to 22.6 so perfectly in the middle.

fw190 a4 = 24 s 1000 m

Data 22-24 s

Spitfire vb = 17,5 s 1000 m

TSAGI gives 18,5 s for spit vb

When we compare 109 g2 vs spit there is little difference in turntime but in radius (spit turns in tighter radius) (before flame starts here) .

Maybe we can make a list comparing where best performance is used and where middle values http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE> QUOTE When we compare 109 g2 vs spit there is little difference in turntime but in radius (spit turns in tighter radius) (before flame starts here) . this been with no E LOSS or OVER HEAT?

Lazy312
03-30-2007, 04:57 AM
"How many La7s were destroyed by their pilots crashing due to carbon monoxide poisoning, or there wood glue failing and their wings falling off?"
I would say not many. Gas in the cabin was solved during development of La-5 by adding air intake to the side of the plane which pushed air out of the cabin. The problems with glue and other materials surely existed, but mostly in 42-43 period.

"The Czech pilots achieved their great feats because the were RAF veterans not because they were flying La5FNs."
Like I have already said, they liked La-5FN very much. They said (I personally clearly heard F.Fajtl saying it) their plane was better than Bf 109. I don't say it was the best plane in the world but I disagree it was flying badly as someone here suggested.

"Maybe we can make a list comparing where best performance is used and where middle values Big Grin"
Not a bad idea http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
http://kv.clarionet.cz/letadla/vvs/char.jpg

Vike
03-30-2007, 05:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by arrowtalon:The cannons on the La-7 are just way better than the cannons on anything else similar. I think this may be due to the tracers...not sure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you can be sure on this http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
The B20 canon reach 750 rpm in 1945.
BTW,only 6 La7 3xB20 were built in the (very last) war time... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

750rpm is the ROF reached by the MG151/20 since 1940 and before.

If the MG151/20 had as much tracers as the B20 canon,Blue would have the "laser canon" as soon as the Me109F2/F4 appeared...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

@+

ViktorViktor
03-30-2007, 05:37 AM
In 'Soviet Combat Aircraft' (Gordon + Khazanov), while the front-line (LA5-FN) pilots testing the LA-7 in 1944 complained about the salvo power of the cannons and engine malfunctions, their overall assessment of the LA7 was that it was superior to the Luftwaffe fighters they faced. With the LA7 they were willing to accept fighter combat despite a tactical or numerical disadvantage.

As far as the problem with parts falling off planes or engine malfunctions goes, the Soviet aircraft definitely had a problem (at one time?) here. But I have read in Luftwaffe pilot biographies of cases where :

1) FW190 wing severely damaged by misfire (sabotage) of wing cannon rounds (Hannig)

2) Bf109 engine seizing while in flight, for unknown reasons (have read about this several times)

3) A landing gear leg flopping down while in flight for unknown reasons.

4) Jamming of Bf109 weapons in combat (happened quite often to Lipfert)

My point is that Luftwaffe front-line aircraft seem to have also had their share of problems w/ quality control, though the Luftwaffe's reputation here was top-notch compared to that of the Soviets.

Brain32
03-30-2007, 05:40 AM
That LA5FN was a factory prototype, production examples looked very different, but in gmae we habe La5FN runing on SL at prototype speed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
As for La7, WTF is THAT, roughly 640kmh on SL???, you have got to be feckin' kiddin me, is that La7R???, anyway that chart looks wrong as it's too slow at 6Km even for a prototype La7 that reached 680kmh, although the pilot complained that even in the harsh Russian winter and at 6Km the heat at max power was unbareable. Worst SL speed value I saw for La7 is 597kmh and best is 617kmh, we have what? 615kmh?

EDIT: BTW late FW's are mostly runnig at very good speeds in game, no prototype speeds though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BBB_Hyperion
03-30-2007, 05:44 AM
Oleg attached that chart as well Lazy312 as i asked same question in 2004 note what he did write.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> OM
The middle calculation speed 688 km/h max for La-7 is a middle data that
used in VVS.
The preserial production aircraft had the data in attach.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Preserial production chart!

Lazy312
03-30-2007, 06:07 AM
surely, preserial batch of planes from TsAGI

however what kind of data is used for most other planes - factory data..

(for example the above mentioned G2 now (in 4.08) does nearly 540 at sea level and 674 km/h at altitude, so it's hardly average data too..)

Brain32
03-30-2007, 06:10 AM
Well anyway, 640kmh at SL is pretty darn impressive http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif However I didn't see much prototype data for other planes so...

BBB_Hyperion
03-30-2007, 06:24 AM
How much should the g2 do at see level ?

Note we have late 1.42 ata cleared g2 here. Seems no one was interested @1c to make it a g2 early and g2 late .

Here 1.3 ata chart
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit9v109gspeed.jpg

1 mile = 1.6093472186944 km
310 to 320 mph = 500 to 514 km/h range.
to note.
We dont know plane configurations here maybe with gunpods or something , rads closed ? .

But sounds reasonable that 1.42 ata is faster.

Here Ps difference
http://img170.imagevenue.com/loc491/th_57813_DB605A_122_491lo.jpg (http://img170.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=57813_DB605A_122_491lo.jpg)

Note Russian Chart
(corrected wrong chart )
http://img23.imagevenue.com/loc325/th_58163_11679724.fghterchart_122_325lo.jpg (http://img23.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=58163_11679724.fghterchart_122_325lo .jpg)

Here you get already 525 530 km/h so not unlikely that a fresh plane with polished surface makes 540 . Here test conditions for 109 would be interesting if used with 1.42 or 1.3 ata .

M_Gunz
03-30-2007, 11:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
Oleg attached that chart as well Lazy312 as i asked same question in 2004 note what he did write.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> OM
The middle calculation speed 688 km/h max for La-7 is a middle data that
used in VVS.
The preserial production aircraft had the data in attach.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Preserial production chart! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So he --attached-- preserial production data (to where? and it says how fast?) but before
that he wrote that 688 kph is middle data for La-7's ---&gt;used in VVS&lt;---.

So I question did the VVS use preserial production aircraft or did the preserial data show
higher than 688 kph max speed?

If the first then how many preserial La-7's were used by VVS, did the guns have to be added
and is the middle data taken from planes the same as used in combat regardless of make?

Kurfurst__
03-30-2007, 11:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
How much should the g2 do at see level ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The official Messerschmitt specs were 537km/h. Rechlin trials gave 525, Russian, and Finnish trials (the latter with non-retractable tailwheel) about the same, all with 1,3ata. There are worser figures of coure, for about 515 or so, but such spread you'd expect with production airplanes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Note we have late 1.42 ata cleared g2 here. Seems no one was interested @1c to make it a g2 early and g2 late . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, our G-2 is almost a perfect match of the 1.3ata Messerschmitt and Russian figures.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Here 1.3 ata chart
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit9v109gspeed.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's pretty much a bullox comparison, hand picked selection of the worst possible Messerschmitt tests, some airframes there are just the factory's old test hacks which they used for testing and such.

The WNr 14 026 is on of the early factory testhacks with known problems, the so-called 109G compilation curve that is claimed to be put together from 'over 100' 109 trials is actually seem to be made from two, one being the aforementioned poor old Wnr 14 026 and a G-6; the next on the list, the alleged 'G-2' from the DB papers is actually a G-6...

For obvious reasons, German trials of Erla, Rechlin, Messerschmitt specs, Finnish trials, Russian trials are ommitted with various excuses. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Three of the Spits displayed here are prototypes, but that's just another matter. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Most of these tests can be read in full on my site.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Note Russian Chart
(corrected wrong chart )
http://img23.imagevenue.com/loc325/th_58163_11679724.fghterchart_122_325lo.jpg (http://img23.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=58163_11679724.fghterchart_122_325lo .jpg)

Here you get already 525 530 km/h so not unlikely that a fresh plane with polished surface makes 540 . Here test conditions for 109 would be interesting if used with 1.42 or 1.3 ata . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This Soviet chart is showing the results of WNr 14 513, at 1.3ata pressure. The plane was normal clean fighter configuratio at full takeoff weight, no gondolas and semi-retractable tailwheel, as captured - IIRC early 1943 near Stalingrad. The Soviets were rather impressed with it.

There's no clear indication of the G-2's performance at 1.42ata, some documents which show 'Bf 109G' w. DB 605A probably refer to the G-2 at 1.42ata; these specify 550kph at SL and 685 at rated alt. This is quite reasonable as the 1.3ata specs were 537/660.

BBB_Hyperion
03-30-2007, 11:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
So he --attached-- preserial production data (to where? and it says how fast?) but before
that he wrote that 688 kph is middle data for La-7's ---&gt;used in VVS&lt;---.
[quote]

Yep cause i complained that i got it to 700 km/h
[quote] Selfquote

Version 2.0 AEP
Another Question about the La7 Top Speed to known sources
&gt;
&gt; The Specs for La7 at 6000 m are 660 km/h
&gt; Here are some Serial numbers.
&gt;
&gt; m
&gt;
&gt; 6000 654 serial No.452101-39
&gt; 6000 672 serial No.452132-76
&gt; 6000 640 serial No.452101-50 17.08.44
&gt; 6000 674 serial No.452101-50 23.09.44
&gt; 6100 652 serial No.452102-03 11.09.44
&gt; 6250 677 serial No.452132-76 12.06.45
&gt; 6000 661 serial No.452132-76 26.06.45
&gt;
&gt; Specs
&gt; 6000 660km/h
&gt;
&gt; From this Data some Planes have more than 1 testflight i come out at
&gt; 661 km/h in the middle field.
&gt;
&gt; The Database in Il2 points at 680 and il2compare about the same.
&gt; Maybe a difference between factory specs and testdata or non normalised
&gt; data ?
&gt;
&gt; Boost system as far as i know was only possible to use up to 3000 m then
&gt; the effect was falling off. In il2compare we find a increased boost at
&gt; about 6000 m with 668 tas normal while the boosted is at about 685.
&gt;
&gt; While il2compare is not as accurate i did some testflights on crimea map.
&gt;
&gt; Testflight on Crimea Map 6000 m gives 695+-5 Km/h so within the
&gt; tolerance of 680 km/h but 35+- km/h to 660 km/h.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">M_Gunz:
So I question did the VVS use preserial production aircraft or did the preserial data show higher than 688 kph max speed?
[quote]

Not sure if they did . Was it wise to use preserial production aircraft as they are mostly testbed and endured quite some load ? (which can be a problem when pulling high g and wing is gone special with older wooden planes). I don't know if any preserial production planes made it into service maybe someone knows .) I know there were tests units but if they used preserialproduction planes unknown to me.

La9 solved this wood issue.

[quote]M_Gunz:
If the first then how many preserial La-7's were used by VVS, did the guns have to be added
and is the middle data taken from planes the same as used in combat regardless of make? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am speculating that vvs data means post war data as well which of course is under higher production standards but you have a valid point there if production varied like in tank production standard from different factories can be quite a margin.La7 wasn't produced long as the frame passes away over time and cant be used in high g load later in its life.Production was stopped as need for fast build high performance use and throw away planes was reduced post war.

If testplanes were arment and loaded dont have the testreport here most likely in it. At least what i have as la5 prototype it seems that guns were installed not sure if ammo was loaded.

anarchy52
03-30-2007, 04:13 PM
If you fly the in game 1943 La-5FN in 1944 at about 90-95% power then it's historical, otherwise you're flying a fantasy plane. For example - climb; real values are from the TsAGI book, in game values from il-2 compare. http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/La-5FN-climb.jpg

La-7 (check out the alt performance http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif))))):
http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/La-7-climb.jpg

La-5/7 were excellent aircraft, however in game they have mythical performance, they turn with spitfires, run with focke wulfs and climb with alcoholic 109s. Basically, they belong in the no pit servers with Spit 25lbs and lerches.

Kurfurst__
03-30-2007, 05:30 PM
They were great aircraft, with powerful engines, very clean airframe, traditionally excellent guns, and ...not so great superchargers. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif You can literally feel when fighting against one how the La, that not so long ago was so deadly on the deck, just runs out of juice above 2500m...

Historical combat enviroment was something different than that of dogfight servers. In the sim, people tend to end up turning just above the ground - that's the La's natural enviroment.

M_Gunz
03-30-2007, 05:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:

&gt; The Specs for La7 at 6000 m are 660 km/h
&gt; Here are some Serial numbers.
&gt;
&gt; m
&gt;
&gt; 6000 654 serial No.452101-39
&gt; 6000 672 serial No.452132-76
&gt; 6000 640 serial No.452101-50 17.08.44
&gt; 6000 674 serial No.452101-50 23.09.44
&gt; 6100 652 serial No.452102-03 11.09.44
&gt; 6250 677 serial No.452132-76 12.06.45
&gt; 6000 661 serial No.452132-76 26.06.45
&gt;
&gt; Specs
&gt; 6000 660km/h
&gt;
&gt; From this Data some Planes have more than 1 testflight i come out at
&gt; 661 km/h in the middle field.
&gt;
&gt; The Database in Il2 points at 680 and il2compare about the same.
&gt; Maybe a difference between factory specs and testdata or non normalised
&gt; data ?
&gt;
&gt; Boost system as far as i know was only possible to use up to 3000 m then
&gt; the effect was falling off. In il2compare we find a increased boost at
&gt; about 6000 m with 668 tas normal while the boosted is at about 685.
&gt;
&gt; While il2compare is not as accurate i did some testflights on crimea map.
&gt;
&gt; Testflight on Crimea Map 6000 m gives 695+-5 Km/h so within the
&gt; tolerance of 680 km/h but 35+- km/h to 660 km/h.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well those are serial production planes and the dates for 3 of the tests show Sept 1944
while the 2 last tests show Jun 1945. The 660 at 6km alt is at least near median of the
1944 numbers, no?

I read the part "Boost system as far as i know was only possible to use up to 3000 m then
the effect was falling off." as perhaps not clear english saying the boost was still used
above 3km alt but did not get full effect above 3km alt.
I am not so sure about the rest of that: "In il2compare we find a increased boost at about
6000 m with 668 tas normal while the boosted is at about 685." which interpreted as written
is not clear. I can understand that even though boost was not fully effective above 3km alt
that it would still be slower with boost off but both boost off and on speeds are above the
660 kph figure which --- is that supposed to be with boost?

That was AEP release though and things have changed? I *could* go back and read the whole
thread to find not just claims but counter-claims but I just check IL2C since on top speeds
it is pretty dependable perhaps due to simplicity of test and I see 668 and 685 there.....
NOT SO GOOD if I understand but 660 kph + 5% is 693, 685 is 3.8% high so I won't yell. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif
See the face though. Perhaps they take a tiny bit off in 4.09.

Did Oleg use factory data on any planes? Also there are planes you can find where some real
bugs had to be fixed or production from one (or two) factory was sub-standard (and changed)
and those problems are not in our models *yet* if engine was derated until some date beyond
or just many of that model were used derated by his data (not everyone will agree for sure!)
then that is what we get. P-51 COG is where it is with full rear tank as well, as far as I
understand (not everyone agrees but I only go from what I think Oleg had posted which may be
my own error, I am sure that someone will say so) and there are other places where a choice
was made by development people but I have seen some where a Russian plane gets the short end
as well so again I don't feel need to yell.

Were you around combat flight sims and forums back in 1999 and 2000 when US companies were
pulling out of projects and announcing "no more"? Much of that was because of the trashing
they got by people that wanted far more than they could deliver for more than a net loss.
Microprose killed some outright and in 98 Sierra stopped RB3D unfinished and worse to me
was the final beta FM was much better than the "Gold" release, the lead time on the Gold
being 1+ months before the Beta test ended and they let us leak reports of how good that
was (okay, the torque modeling was poor) which boosted sales in the community translates
as we was used -- the point being that due to B!+ch, Moan and Wailing, the decision to
cut losses was made. And yes, the forum noise at Delphi was terrible and yet still not
as bad as it has been here.

I will say this again, people that whine endlessly in the forums only make end products
worse and actively limit the chances of more sims at all.
WHY pick fights over small things?
I guess to some people there are no small things. They must compare to their own small lives.
WHY go to battle when the chance of winning is tiny?
It is a waste of opportunity as well as energy.
All I can think is that some who lead the whining must be against the maker as primary goal.
But then again maybe they are just obsessive and/or stupid Jokes.

arrowtalon
03-30-2007, 11:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I will say this again, people that whine endlessly in the forums only make end products
worse and actively limit the chances of more sims at all.
WHY pick fights over small things?
I guess to some people there are no small things. They must compare to their own small lives.
WHY go to battle when the chance of winning is tiny?
It is a waste of opportunity as well as energy.
All I can think is that some who lead the whining must be against the maker as primary goal.
But then again maybe they are just obsessive and/or stupid Jokes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I don't want to get into too much of a debate here...

I understand completely that you get tired of the whining and complaining in these forums. It is tiresome. But to throw your hands in the air and say "Stop!" because all this whining might get a game canned and won't change the game for the better anyway is troublesome. It's like saying that people shouldn't criticize something if they think it's inaccurate unless there is no risk of losing what they already have.

I'm sorry if I sound a bit gruff, but that is a very weak argument. Many developments in simulation and software have come about due to customer feedback and whining. (Windows ME to Windows XP as an example) Sometimes the complaints make it go backward, but it ultimately goes forward, or the product fails.

I think 1C is pretty dedicated to delivering historical realism. I applaud them for that. That we are so invested in this game that we spend so much time pointing out the game's flaws is a testament to how good the game is. But as always, it can be better, and the whiners on the forum, though annoying, rude, and often wrong, at least get people discussing the details.

If the whining has helped usher in improvements in the sim, great. If 1C ignores us all, bummer. If they are more worried about their bottom line than providing historically accurate simulation and would rather drop the project than listen to us argue, I'd rather buy someone else's game.

JtD
03-31-2007, 12:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:

... saying the boost was still used
above 3km alt but did not get full effect above 3km alt... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually use of boost of the La series' M-82FN was restricted to low alt charger. Use was prohibited with high alt charger, because it could destroy the engine.

It was also limited to 5 minutes and only allowed on engines that had been used 10 and more hours already.

-----
There are also climb figures for the La-7 in the range of 24m/s at low alt.

ELKASKONE
03-31-2007, 02:04 AM
http://img105.imagevenue.com/loc894/th_28122_La7_Daten3_122_894lo.jpg (http://img105.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=28122_La7_Daten3_122_894lo.jpg)

If a plane can do all better than other planes,
than something is wrong!

anarchy52
03-31-2007, 04:54 AM
BTW, can anyone confirm that virazh is in fact sustained turn with no loss of altitude or speed?

M_Gunz
03-31-2007, 04:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by arrowtalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I will say this again, people that whine endlessly in the forums only make end products
worse and actively limit the chances of more sims at all.
WHY pick fights over small things?
I guess to some people there are no small things. They must compare to their own small lives.
WHY go to battle when the chance of winning is tiny?
It is a waste of opportunity as well as energy.
All I can think is that some who lead the whining must be against the maker as primary goal.
But then again maybe they are just obsessive and/or stupid Jokes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I don't want to get into too much of a debate here...

I understand completely that you get tired of the whining and complaining in these forums. It is tiresome. But to throw your hands in the air and say "Stop!" because all this whining might get a game canned and won't change the game for the better anyway is troublesome. It's like saying that people shouldn't criticize something if they think it's inaccurate unless there is no risk of losing what they already have.

I'm sorry if I sound a bit gruff, but that is a very weak argument. Many developments in simulation and software have come about due to customer feedback and whining. (Windows ME to Windows XP as an example) Sometimes the complaints make it go backward, but it ultimately goes forward, or the product fails.

I think 1C is pretty dedicated to delivering historical realism. I applaud them for that. That we are so invested in this game that we spend so much time pointing out the game's flaws is a testament to how good the game is. But as always, it can be better, and the whiners on the forum, though annoying, rude, and often wrong, at least get people discussing the details.

If the whining has helped usher in improvements in the sim, great. If 1C ignores us all, bummer. If they are more worried about their bottom line than providing historically accurate simulation and would rather drop the project than listen to us argue, I'd rather buy someone else's game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No MIGHT about sims being canned over whining. They were and quite a few back in 99-2000.
Our community was getting clear signals from the industry as a whole that I saw in late 98.

I'm not talking about legitimate complaints or legitimate pressures, I mean rude and massive
pressure agenda campaigns that industry teams got together and made announcements on the
boards, usenet as well as forums, with not just products ended at various stages in various
companies but whole future lines completely killed.

I was there and saw it happen, followed and participated in discussions. We were faced with
Microsoft dominating/defining serious as it gets combat flight sims which I tell ya is SCARY!
Just have a look at CFS3. Without Maddox Games, THAT would have been "as good as it gets".

Missed opportunities killed by unrestricted whining? You think not? Do you have any idea
how much interaction we had with Oleg back at the start? You could question alright and
even get answers straight from the man himself. But people had to F__k It Up!

So when I write MISSED OPPORTUNITIES, I really do mean just what I wrote. The avenue for
change got choked very quickly.

I spent nearly two decades writing software. Most of it was totally original. I can tell
you from much experience that the single quickest way to KILL innovation and creativity is
through constant negative and rude criticism even when the writer(s) is dedicated to the
work. Work goes on but the light just ain't so bright. I know others in the field and we
all feel the same way. There's criticism and then there's a-holes doing on you what a-holes
do in nature. If you don't believe me then go do the work 10+ years and tell me then.

Von_Rat
03-31-2007, 02:29 PM
i never worked in the industry, but i find it hard to believe that a profitable company would shutdown a profitable line of games just because of critisism a bunch of fools post on the forums.

the bottom line is, is it profitable. if it is, who cares what some idiots post on forums.

joeap
03-31-2007, 03:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">M_Gunz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Do you have some concrete examples M_Gunz of what you're talking about? It actually would not surprise me but anyway.

Hkuusela
03-31-2007, 04:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
i never worked in the industry, but i find it hard to believe that a profitable company would shutdown a profitable line of games just because of critisism a bunch of fools post on the forums.

the bottom line is, is it profitable. if it is, who cares what some idiots post on forums. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>All I can say is: yes! These companies are out to make profit. If they make profit, I'm sure they don't mind critisism on some forum, which they don't even have to read. If they're not making any profit anyhow, I really don't understand what they're in the business for.

Let's not fool our selves. This is a business. No more, no less. The companies do not give a c**p about flight models or historic accuracy unless their paying customers do.

M_Gunz
03-31-2007, 06:01 PM
The profits were not so good as fantasy RPG's and the reps said so.
Look up if you want Microprose, Sierra, and there were some others.
Yes, sims that people were looking forward to in 1 year and less were scrapped.

Find people who were buying and playing sims 8-10 years ago and ask if you must.
Next thing you won't believe that Oleg ever did interact on this forum since you didn't see.

Some people, nothing ever was that they didn't see. The whining was hurting profits given the
high comparative cost of development. NOTHING was good enough for either one group or another
to quit pushing for either more or just had to have the planes meet their ideas of what was.

There was a lot of poor management practices as well, the forum jerks became the last straw.
I was a beta for RB3D and had some discussions with company reps back then. The outcome of
all of it was if they could never be acceptable to more than half the fan base then it was
not worth further effort. This was about a month after Tucker Hatfield jumped over to M$.

At the time Sierra had an RPG $10/mo pay to play hit and that is where they and other companies
put their talent to work. Hardly anyone whines about the DM of a Dark Elf or the historic
accuracy of RPG swords. Hardly anyone cause there's always whiners.

Guess what? It's still true that there's LESS profit in combat flight sims. So keep up the
"never good enough" and "I want" attitudes. Same time you can also complain about lack of
feedback from developers as if they OWE you. Again, LOST OPPORTUNITIES means nothing to too
damn many of you.

Von_Rat
03-31-2007, 08:22 PM
it sounds to me from what you posted that the companys moved on to other genres because they were more profitable.

i occaisionally play non historical games. i like star trek and star wars based games. i'm currently playing star trek legacy, and i can tell you there's plenty of whining in those forums. same goes for star wars galaxies when i was playing that. the amount of whining on the forums about the "DM" of jedis and bounty hunters was incredable.

i do agree that to much whining will make the devs scarce in the forums. they're only human, and take only so much abuse till they say the hell with it, and just stop posting.

Jaws2002
03-31-2007, 10:17 PM
I absolutelly agree with Gunz.

Back in 2002-2003 Oleg was posting almost dally. You had a serious discusion in Oleg's ready room and before the tread went to page three he was there and answered questions.

I miss those times. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

TX-Gunslinger
04-01-2007, 02:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
If you fly the in game 1943 La-5FN in 1944 at about 90-95% power then it's historical, otherwise you're flying a fantasy plane. For example - climb; real values are from the TsAGI book, in game values from il-2 compare. http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/La-5FN-climb.jpg

La-7 (check out the alt performance http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif))))):
http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/La-7-climb.jpg

La-5/7 were excellent aircraft, however in game they have mythical performance, they turn with spitfires, run with focke wulfs and climb with alcoholic 109s. Basically, they belong in the no pit servers with Spit 25lbs and lerches. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice graphs Anarchy. Brings up a question in my own mind.

So, what other fighter aircraft in Il2 series have climb rates which are too great?

S~

Gunny

Ratsack
04-01-2007, 02:26 AM
Well, according to JtD, a great many.

cheers,
Ratsack

TX-Gunslinger
04-01-2007, 02:34 AM
Hey Ratsack, good to see you.

I thought it was pretty common knowledge that all A/C in Il2 were too hot in climb rate.

I've always thought to myself that this was done intentionally to "pep up" the gaming aspect of the sim.

S~

Hkuusela
04-01-2007, 03:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Guess what? It's still true that there's LESS profit in combat flight sims. So keep up the
"never good enough" and "I want" attitudes. Same time you can also complain about lack of
feedback from developers as if they OWE you. Again, LOST OPPORTUNITIES means nothing to too
damn many of you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Guess what? We are customers and consumers. This fact seems to get a bit obscured. What I'm saying is this: You either make profit in your business, or you're stupid being in the business. Business is about making money. If flight sims don't make money, you can't expect companies, owned by stock holders, to keep up doing something that's bound to lose their money.

It seems that what you are saying is that we as customers and consumers have an opportunity to have a product that is in the ball park of being right. I don't see it that way, because flight sims is a business. If it is a bad business, no amount of kind words on some forum is going to make a company keep it up. On the other hand, if it is a good business, I really don't think that any amount of whining is gonna make a company drop it. They are out to make money! It is an opportunity for the company to earn profit, not for the customers to have a supposedly philanthropic company to make them a pro bono flight sim of their liking.

Furthermore, if you put up a forum and expect not to get stupid c**p, you live in a world of illusion. I also think, that there is a wide bunch of people, often rudely called "fanboys", that are quite satisfied with the sim. The forum is not, by far, all about whining and bad feedback.

I haven't really bothered to bring up the things that I don't like about IL-2 on this forum. But I can't understand why I shouldn't be allowed to express my astonishment for instance over the fact, that I can just barely climb away from an AI Brewster flying a FW-190A9 (!!). I think whining is the better option, since I have now partially switched to another combat flight sim that does not have super human AI flying ber machines. I still fly IL-2, since it is a great sim in many aspects, don't get me wrong, but it could be better. Is it better to whine and hope for improvement than stop buying the product?

Let's not talk about hard business values and whining in the same sentence.

M_Gunz
04-01-2007, 06:51 AM
I guess that some people have their excuses for being rude, boorish and ignorant all lined up.
Keep b!tching and act like it makes things better. Keep acting like spoiled little princesses.

What you think about Oleg don't come here in so long? WHY you think that is?
What do you think we have missed over the communication breakdown?
You know that it took TWO YEARS to find out 151/20 ammo mix was switched and finally get a change?
You know how many months went by between knowing the real problem and getting the change?
All because of rude morons jamming so much bad information the process of communicating
became TOO MUCH WORK AGAINST THE BUDGET, TOO MUCH TIME TO SORT THROUGH.

Bad consumers are no better than bad management. Both can degrade the final product, both can
destroy products. It is VERY IGNORANT to treat those who make what you want better as if they
are dirt, and that is what the worst here do as a matter of course.

You are LUCKY to get anything better than CFS2. LUCKY, not deserving.

VW-IceFire
04-01-2007, 07:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:
I absolutelly agree with Gunz.

Back in 2002-2003 Oleg was posting almost dally. You had a serious discusion in Oleg's ready room and before the tread went to page three he was there and answered questions.

I miss those times. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I came in on the tail end of that. It was really cool to see.

The price of success is actually collecting a critical mass of whiners and other miscreants so while this is sort of bad its not all bad. There are other forums for the veterans of the community to go and visit which still are much smaller and can cut down on the mass ridiculousness here.

Ratsack
04-01-2007, 08:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hkuusela:
... I have now partially switched to another combat flight sim that does not have super human AI flying ber machines.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, knock yourself out.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hkuusela:
Let's not talk about hard business values and whining in the same sentence. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You obviously have no memory of the feedback on development that went on in the early IL-2 community. The breakdown of that feedback - largely due to the noise of those with an entitlement complex - was a sad loss to the entire genre, not just this sim.

On second thoughts, you probably do. Registered on 20 Mar this year with 16 posts. What was your nick before?

Ratsack

JtD
04-01-2007, 08:32 AM
I partially agree with Max. But this is general discussion, not ORR. If there is a place to whine, ***** and moan, it is here.

What I find annoying is that many plane FM related discussions are being torpedoed by folks who have no clue and but try to compensate with bias. Lots of potentially good topics went down the drain this way.

Jaws2002
04-01-2007, 08:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hkuusela:
I have now partially switched to another combat flight sim that does not have super human AI flying ber machines.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sure that game you are talking about doesn't have super human AI.....<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">It doesn't even have AI at all.</span> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Hkuusela
04-01-2007, 11:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I guess that some people have their excuses for being rude, boorish and ignorant all lined up.
Keep b!tching and act like it makes things better. Keep acting like spoiled little princesses. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think that "whining" automatically means being rude. If that's the case however, I don't think there is an excuse for that. I also don't think, that one is being spoiled if one wants a producer to develop it's product, what ever that product is.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
You are LUCKY to get anything better than CFS2. LUCKY, not deserving. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>We are still talking about a business. Let's not talk about being lucky or deserving. It sounds a little childish. A consumer really does not have to deserve a product...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
Well, knock yourself out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Thank you, I'm terribly sorry for flying another sim in addition to IL-2... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif By your response I gather that it is better to lose customers, than to develop a product. Or maybe you think that it is historically accurate, that a FW-190A9 can barely outclimb a Brewster... Either way I think you're way off.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
You obviously have no memory of the feedback on development that went on in the early IL-2 community. The breakdown of that feedback - largely due to the noise of those with an entitlement complex - was a sad loss to the entire genre, not just this sim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>"To the entire genre"? Are you absolutely sure about that? Look, I'm not defending stupid immature way of expressing one self. I'm defending one's right to point out the faults of a product. I don't think that a flight sim is something that should be above critisism, no matter how insgnificant that may be, as long as the critisism is expressed with respect and according to good manners.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
On second thoughts, you probably do. Registered on 20 Mar this year with 16 posts. What was your nick before? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>While your on the conspiracy case, could you finally let us know who killed Kennedy?

Is it your way of debating to throw unfounded accusations blindly? If that's the case, I really don't think you should be discussing the etiquette on any forum.

Hkuusela
04-01-2007, 11:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm sure that game you are talking about doesn't have super human AI.....[color:YELLOW]It doesn't even have AI at all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, maybe you've been at IL-2 a bit too long to think that way... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

M_Gunz
04-01-2007, 03:03 PM
Flight Sims is a niche market, not a place where return on effort is #1 priority.
I will try to explain this and why/how it changes:

As a niche market there is much more potential of effect of communications between the vocal
and visible community and the makers of the simulations.

There is a core community as well as the ones that come to hang around but do not become really
part of the community itself. Many do though, they get help and support and give back and know
others and participate with knowing that they are community. I have for over 10 years now, was
even known at the big place, the flight sim group on the usenet.

The word of the core community does much to spread the word on sims, to get new people started
and in feedback process with willing developers.

Much of that is positive but there is the undying group of negatives as well that generally come
off with adolescent attitudes and ignorance to match and they do dampen and have killed efforts
at cooperation between community and developers.

TRY to understand that the actual MAKING of these products is not paint by numbers (except for
like, Microsoft, which is why their products are good second rate at best and NEVER inspired)
formula, assembly line work. Not the good ones ever. Sacrifice is required just as with every
creative effort the same as with good art or writing (there are cheesy paintings and novels that
do sell and they do not enrich lives whatsoever) or engineering on the part of the actual
workers themselves. If all you are is a suit or consumer then you may not be aware of that.
In any case, mistreating those that create rather than merely churn out leads to mediocre at
best products which a large section of this community really wants better than.
THAT is part of the mechanism of production that marketers would sacrifice for short term gain,
somehow unaware of the true role of quality in the original assessment of worths and activity.
Once enough consumers are equally blind, quality drops. Just as markets can be created by new
products and interests they can also be hurt or lost.

So when there are people sacrificing the extra out of their lives, do you understand the effect
of mistreatment of those people and their time? If you can't, if you find yourself rationalizing
about it then please just stop reading, there is no explanation for you.

Lastly there is whining and there is communication just as there is noise as opposed to signal.

When someone complains or asks or observes, whatever, and gets a reply that they do not accept
it is at that point that the potential for whining occurs.

Sure, it is possible to try within certain limits to affect a change anyway but HOW that is done
and how many times it is done without RESPECT to answers requires TACT and CONSIDERATION.

WHINERS almost never stop. Whiners do not accept CANNOT for any reason. Whiners do not accept
any explanation that does not feed back to what they want. Whiners will go out and gather, even
recruit others to PUSH for their wants. Need I go on about them? When a line is drawn, a true
WHINER will by nature cross that line if not already and seek to make space beyond that perhaps
because if they can't create something that works then they can FORCE someone else to.

In the world marketplace we have blind consumers and we have enlightened consumers. When the
ignorant become the larger force then mediocre to poor and bad products drive overall quality
down as prices on the same are driven up through lack of scale in production which also affects
invention, something that crass marketers and consumers seem to discount if they know at all.
Flea market mentality makes for a diminished world wherever it takes hold. It is the same as
with counterfeiting, bad money drives out the good and on the whole over time, everyone suffers.

So what part of the community are you, or are you just around to take what you can get?

Ratsack
04-01-2007, 03:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hkuusela:
...Look, I'm not defending stupid immature way of expressing one self. ...
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, you are.

Ratsack

Hkuusela
04-01-2007, 03:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hkuusela:
...Look, I'm not defending stupid immature way of expressing one self. ...
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, you are.

Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, another unfounded accusation... Don't bother to actually argue anything I wrote. It is easier to drop a one liner pretending to be clever. You're not here to bash the sim (neither am I), you're just here to bash other forum members. I guess your posts really tell more about you than they tell about me.

CMHQ_Rikimaru
04-01-2007, 03:32 PM
Its funny to see so many ppl attacking whinners, who are supposed to destroy the community. But simple question: Who is more agressive, comes with strong words: whinners or fanboys? Which of those groups try to prove that they are right with more arguments than "Its ur fault because u whinned too much" or "this is because of pc limitation" or my favourite "learn to fly". Its funny to see someone blaming whinners that it took Oleg 2! years to find out that ammo for german(no surprise) planes is wrong. Maybe just some of u guys are simply afraid that planes that are totally uber in game, werent so uber in rl? Maybe u are afraid that VVS planes werent as good as propaganda says? But Russians never agree with enemy, no matter what u will prove them.

Hkuusela
04-01-2007, 04:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
There is a core community as well as the ones that come to hang around but do not become really part of the community itself. Many do though, they get help and support and give back and know others and participate with knowing that they are community. I have for over 10 years now, was even known at the big place, the flight sim group on the usenet.

The word of the core community does much to spread the word on sims, to get new people started and in feedback process with willing developers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sure this is so, but this is the general discussion forum. I don't really think that people here see this as the hot line to Oleg, or even expect him to read their posts. If the devs really look for useful information and feedback, the mechanism should not be through an open general discussion forum.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
TRY to understand that the actual MAKING of these products is not paint by numbers (except for
like, Microsoft, which is why their products are good second rate at best and NEVER inspired)
formula, assembly line work. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I will TRY... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
So when there are people sacrificing the extra out of their lives, do you understand the effect
of mistreatment of those people and their time? If you can't, if you find yourself rationalizing about it then please just stop reading, there is no explanation for you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>So, you just skipped the part earlier where I was talking about respect and good manners...?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
WHINERS almost never stop. Whiners do not accept CANNOT for any reason. Whiners do not accept any explanation that does not feed back to what they want. Whiners will go out and gather, even recruit others to PUSH for their wants. Need I go on about them? When a line is drawn, a true WHINER will by nature cross that line if not already and seek to make space beyond that perhaps because if they can't create something that works then they can FORCE someone else to. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The way I see it, this thread has been about the characteristics of LA-7. Some people think it is overmodeled, some think it isn't. I haven't really noticed much whining. People have argued both ways. Some have founded their arguments better, some worse. The result of the discussion may well be, that LA-7 may be slightly overmodeled, but within the ball park, since modeling probably isn't exact science anyhow. So what? That doesn't mean that people are saying that Oleg shouldn't be making flight sims, because there is a chance that LA-7's topspeed may be 15 km/h too high. That is discussion, not judging. On the other hand the result may be that LA-7 is spot on. Great! Or maybe there won't be a conclusion. There often isn't. Now should the people on this forum, who are stating that LA-7 is overmodeled, call you a whiner, cause you just wont give in in your views? You just won't stop. You're not whining against the sim, but against the people arguing there are flaws in it.

Again, this is not to defend people making accusations of purposely overmodeling Russian A/C for some mythical reason.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
So what part of the community are you, or are you just around to take what you can get? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm really not into labelling people and I won't accept a lable on my own forehead. I don't have an agenda, I just call it the way I see it.

tomtheyak
04-01-2007, 04:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
Its funny to see so many ppl attacking whinners, who are supposed to destroy the community. But simple question: Who is more agressive, comes with strong words: whinners or fanboys? Which of those groups try to prove that they are right with more arguments than "Its ur fault because u whinned too much" or "this is because of pc limitation" or my favourite "learn to fly". Its funny to see someone blaming whinners that it took Oleg 2! years to find out that ammo for german(no surprise) planes is wrong. Maybe just some of u guys are simply afraid that planes that are totally uber in game, werent so uber in rl? Maybe u are afraid that VVS planes werent as good as propaganda says? But Russians never agree with enemy, no matter what u will prove them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, BRAVO.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

This nationalistic bias **** is an affront to the years of work gone into this product. Your drivel only goes to illuminate your own petty prejudices as you tar others with your own nihilistic outlook. Has it ever occurred to you that some people go through life trying to do the best they can because its their name on the goods, because its a labour of love as much as a means of livlihood?

Of course not. Apparently according to you its all a big f***ing political agenda, oneupmanship on a national scale (because a ******* computer game is really gonna stick it to the rest of world right were it hurts!).

Like anything else when you work within limitations (in this case processing power, coding ability, game engine etc) comprises must be made give an overall good product. Sure we could have uber hi fidelity FMs but we'd probably be looking at wireframe models on screen and a DM thatdictates one hit as a victory.

Us 'fanbois' as you would have us KNOW this isnt a perfect sim but you know what? We get on and have fun. If something is very wrong then with enough evidence, and clout it gets changed if its within capabilities and worthwhile for people to be paid to do it. Such amendments are rife throughout the series updates.

But I guess Oleg aint listening to your screams huh? I wonder why.

Ratsack
04-02-2007, 02:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hkuusela:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hkuusela:
...Look, I'm not defending stupid immature way of expressing one self. ...
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, you are.

Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, another unfounded accusation... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not unfounded, and neither is it an accusation. It's a well-founded observation.

You've mouthed off quite a bit about your perceived rights as a consumer, and your right to provide feedback to the developer, including feedback that is rude. That's the import of your posting so far.

If you actually remembered the initial development history of this sim, you would know that the constructive dialogue between developer and users helped to make it so good. The continuous free updates that this developer provided - and has continued to provide - set a new standard for support. Could you even imagine M$ providing patch after patch with extra free content and fixes?

The breakdown of that process - largely due to the noisy whiners who felt they had some 'right' as consumers to lecture the developer - has been to the detriment of this game. It has also removed the pressure on any other developer crazy enough to try their hand in this niche market to provide support similar to that initially provided by Oleg and his crew.

If you have a serious intention to provide feedback that might improve the game, then you would go away and take the time to design a test that allows you to get at the particular flight parameter that you think is 'out'. You'd make sure it is repeatable. You'd then do the tests. You'd then post the results and invite criticism. If it stands up to this process, you stand a chance of getting Maddox to take notice. Until then you're just a whiner whining about your right to whine, obnoxiously if the mood takes you.

cheers,
Ratsack

BBB_Hyperion
04-02-2007, 02:49 AM
Some people don't realise that 3 % from 100 is 3 from 1000 is 30 etc . So when la7 specs say 660 and i got 700 km/H (700/660 = 6%)(aep 2.0) it is within the margin of 6 % (near to 5 % so not so bad in some eyes)but when you argue this way you cant by any means get a close to real performance . Mostly performance of late war planes differs not that much that we can just ignore that. Better than the % approach would be exponential difference (margin increases with speed but less than linear % approach) over 1000 km/h is out of interest anyway as planes explode.

For example
who accepts 700 km/h la7 (margin 6 %) and and p51 701 -6% margin . Or +3 % - 3 % doesnt matter.

Lets try with turntimes 17,5 + 6 % = 18,55 s other plane 20 s - 6 % = 18.8 2 planes now turn almost on par cause of this small error.

Il2 tends to use factory or serial production data if available. Il2 tries to get close to real values not so easy with over 300 planes. So when something can be improved or corrected why should we keep silence about it ?. Afraid that the series ends ? The accuracy and dedication of this simulation is what people admire and when the next sim arrives lessons learned from earlier releases can find their way into the new sim.
This thread should be in ORR not in GD for various reason as we can see we have data here and discuss the topic of the lavochkin planes particular la7.There could be more data special about the la7 prototype planes and their loading and use later etc. When someone has Russian archives of la7 data (all not postwar) we could further see average topspeed.

General performance issues for example g2 claimed incorrect are as well to observe as they contribute to the fm impression and can give further insights of modeling. There is nothing more intresting to find data is maybe spot on .)

Off topic posts like the game industry dies when we critic them has nothing to do here and is more a expression of i like it the way it is.

Hkuusela
04-02-2007, 04:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
It's not unfounded, and neither is it an accusation. It's a well-founded observation.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So when you say that I am defending stupid and immature demeanor, that's not an accusation...? That is an interesting way of looking at it... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
You've mouthed off quite a bit about your perceived rights as a consumer, and your right to provide feedback to the developer, including feedback that is rude. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is unfortunate that you don't read my posts before commenting. If you did, you would have noticed, that I specifically said, that feedback should be done with respect and according to good manners. I haven't being mouthing off, what ever you think that means, but discussing and arguing. Too bad you can't tell the difference. And actually I haven't been defending MY right to give feedback, since I haven't done much of that to begin with, but rather saying, that you should be allowed to make a point about a flight sim chracteristic, if you find it founded.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
That's the import of your posting so far. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You couldn't be more wrong...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
If you actually remembered the initial development history of this sim, you would know that the constructive dialogue between developer and users helped to make it so good. The continuous free updates that this developer provided - and has continued to provide - set a new standard for support. Could you even imagine M$ providing patch after patch with extra free content and fixes? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do not remember the initial development history, since I only bought the game a year ago, and have visited the forum since this spring. What I have been trying to say is, that a general discussion forum can not be the means of extracting well balanced feedback from the vast crowd of consumers.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
The breakdown of that process - largely due to the noisy whiners who felt they had some 'right' as consumers to lecture the developer - has been to the detriment of this game. It has also removed the pressure on any other developer crazy enough to try their hand in this niche market to provide support similar to that initially provided by Oleg and his crew. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I am pretty sure, that if the customer feedback is vital for Oleg and his team, he will find a way to communicate with you "trusted ones". Again, general discussion forum is not the way to go about it, even if it has worked in the beginning.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
If you have a serious intention to provide feedback that might improve the game, then you would go away and take the time to design a test that allows you to get at the particular flight parameter that you think is 'out'. You'd make sure it is repeatable. You'd then do the tests. You'd then post the results and invite criticism. If it stands up to this process, you stand a chance of getting Maddox to take notice. Until then you're just a whiner whining about your right to whine, obnoxiously if the mood takes you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So now I'm a whiner for standing up for the freedom of speech, mutual respect and good manners, things you obviously know very little of. I don't know what you mean when you say my posts are obnoxious. Perhaps it is obnoxious to disagree with you... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Merriam Webster defines "obnoxious" as "odiously or disgustingly objectionable : highly offensive". I really don't know what I've done to deserve such, but then again, I've noticed you have a habit of throwing big words without thinking.

M_Gunz
04-02-2007, 04:46 AM
6% you should write to the development team. I see people raving over half that.
Are you absolutely sure that your plane is not losing altitude to make the extra speed?
Yes, surely send a track of _that_ in.
Or perhaps you have more than once already and gotten no reply of any kind?

If the test was flawed though, they may not reply due to one reply for every screwy track
and report sent in would take a full time position of a qualified person. That does beg
a question of if they have time to carefully look over everything sent in at all. Perhaps
not, short tracks must have the best chance at all.

I am sure that you realize that the hardware as a medium has limitations to true physical
modeling and we have been told of this again and again. What you find acceptable on basis
of numbers only may not be possible within any realistic time and budget.
So we were told that target margin is 5% which BTW is also difference between serial AC.
You know that some planes in combat condition did exceed average for serial data?

But 701 for what should be 660 is something to bring to attention of Maddox Games. 6.2%

So if you must have more pure to your data then you will either sacrifice non-chart specs,
like handling, get replicas and be so close to real (still won't have a war around you),
or go pound sand.

M_Gunz
04-02-2007, 04:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hkuusela:
So now I'm a whiner for standing up for the freedom of speech, mutual respect and good manners, things you obviously know very little of. I don't know what you mean when you say my posts are obnoxious. Perhaps it is obnoxious to disagree with you... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Merriam Webster defines "obnoxious" as "odiously or disgustingly objectionable : highly offensive". I really don't know what I've done to deserve such, but then again, I've noticed you have a habit of throwing big words without thinking. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never said YOU are a whiner. But you sure defend it even while posturing differently.
I have known quite a few people who smile and are very polite while the content of their
words and actions say "F_ck You" and worse. Ends do not justify means nor do means justify
ends.

You really support mutual respect and good manners? Does that go 1mm beyond when your
desires are not met? Or is that justified as business?

Hkuusela
04-02-2007, 05:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I never said YOU are a whiner. But you sure defend it even while posturing differently.
I have known quite a few people who smile and are very polite while the content of their
words and actions say "F_ck You" and worse. Ends do not justify means nor do means justify
ends. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You didn't say it, Ratsack did, so no hard feelings. And to make it absolutely clear: I am defending the right to disagree with respect and in a civilized manner.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
You really support mutual respect and good manners? Does that go 1mm beyond when your
desires are not met? Or is that justified as business? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I do and I think I've lived up to it. And I want to stress again, that I don't have an agenda as far as this sim is concerned, so I have no desires to be met. I still think that it is interesting to have discussions about this sim with fellow simmers and see if they have made similar remarks as I. I am not debating with Oleg or any of the devs here, since, as you pointed out, they probably are not reading this forum. Just in case they are reading this post, let me say this: You've done a helluva job on this sim. There are some things that I've seen done better in other sims (or another sim), but it is a question of the whole package. You probably can't have everything within the limitations of the machines of today. It is still fun to exchange views about those things between simmers, not between a customer and the producer. Thus we are on the general discussion forum.

If, however, you want to make suggestions on how to improve the game, you'd need something to back those suggestions, and you'd have to have some channel other than a general discussion forum to do that. As a customer and a consumer I think you should be allowed to do that. Being immature and stupid is... well... STUPID and that is not endorsable ever anywhere.

I can understand you "old" guys being a bit touchy on this kind of debate. It probably grows on you with time, reading these forums and posts. It is the negative that stays with you. So you may have stopped giving people the benefit of the doubt?

Ratsack
04-02-2007, 03:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:
I absolutelly agree with Gunz.

Back in 2002-2003 Oleg was posting almost dally. You had a serious discusion in Oleg's ready room and before the tread went to page three he was there and answered questions.

I miss those times. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It tells the story when Oleg and his team will post over at SimHQ before they drop a line to Oleg's Ready Room. But that's been the fact of the matter for a while now.

cheers,
Ratsack

anarchy52
04-02-2007, 05:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

It tells the story when Oleg and his team will post over at SimHQ before they drop a line to Oleg's Ready Room. But that's been the fact of the matter for a while now.

cheers,
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And then they just HAD to include american planes, and attract all those .50 cal Tiger killer, pony won teh war types http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
/joke

But seriously, this game is the best combat flight sim on the market (not like there is a lot of competition, come to think of it - there is none), but the overall historical accuracy in terms of relative aircraft performance is not what it excels at (or operating a real aircraft, taking off, landing, engine management...).
La series FM is a good example of that.
Is it a conspiracy? Not really. A bit of patriotism? Some, for sure. Making a novice-friendly game, yep - remember the betas? Lack of focus on perfecting the sim vs making another add-on which sells - be sure (not that anyone can blame them, they have families to feed just like the rest). Let's face it, who would pay for a sim with just improved FM and no other changes? Not many.

It's the lack of role-playing element and fun of competing that got me away from Il-2 (and the excellent Reality mod BF2 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ). Il-2 is just not fun to play historically for the most part. Take a spin in a G6 against it's historical (*cough*) La-5 opponent, and you'll see what I mean. It's no competition at all, no game. Only thing you can do is hopefully bounce someone and that's it! Flying in a coordinated group helps, but only if the enemy is disorganized gaggle of lone wulfs. That is in sharp contrast with real gun camera footage showing real dogfights. FW-190 DOGFIGHTING an La-5?!? In reality - yes.


I asked one of my squadmates why did he stop flying? He said - because it's boring, most of the time you're just running away (we are flying german planes mostly in online wars).
Yes I know, I will get 10 replies with "learn to fly", "use tactic and comms" and similar. I started playing IL-2 in version 1.0, I'm flying in a squad since...1.1 (think it was 1.1). Our squad was always on the top in online wars, some of the veterans might know about 15/JG52 in VEF2, CAD, Bellum, CoT...so im not new to this game.
It just isn't fun any more, game doesn't model air combat in sufficient detail to represent historical "balance" of power or make the "pilot" skill count. Il-2 has a sharp learning curve, but once you learn the basics just take a n00b friendly ride (preferably russian) and you're an ace - just pull the stick, but don't break it.

Hard to get immersed into "I'm a WWII combat pilot" setting when you see other guy flying a tie-fighter.

Ratsack
04-02-2007, 10:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
...

Hard to get immersed into "I'm a WWII combat pilot" setting when you see other guy flying a tie-fighter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Anarchy,

I'm not going to bother trying to impugn your experience. I just think you're exaggerating.

We get scads of posts like this from Red players who complain that the 109 is too manoeuvrable. I've heard habitual Spit IX flyers on TeamSpeak complaining that the Fw 190 A is over modelled and that the 25 lb boost Spit LF MkIX was in widespread operational use in 1943. What is all that about?

For my part, I find it far easier to kill an La-5FN online than to kill a well flown Spit IX. Maybe I've only encountered n00bs in La-5s? Maybe I've only encountered Spit aces?

The same goes for people who claim all American planes are porked. As for nationalistic bias, why is the Yak so poor if bias is informing the flight models?

Some people have argued that the La-5FN in the game has the performance of the real La-7, and that the in-game La-5F is more like the real La-5FN. Well, if you think that then you already have your answer to the problem. Use the older' types in preference. Some argue the same thing with the Fw 190 A-4 and A-5.

However, if you think the La-5 is that bad, what about some rigorous in-game tests compared to historical data? Just whining that the La-5 is a UFO is frankly pis$ weak.

cheers,
Ratsack

Ratsack
04-03-2007, 04:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hkuusela:
...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
If you have a serious intention to provide feedback that might improve the game, then you would go away and take the time to design a test that allows you to get at the particular flight parameter that you think is 'out'. You'd make sure it is repeatable. You'd then do the tests. You'd then post the results and invite criticism. If it stands up to this process, you stand a chance of getting Maddox to take notice. Until then you're just a whiner whining about your right to whine, obnoxiously if the mood takes you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So now I'm a whiner for standing up for the freedom of speech, mutual respect and good manners, things you obviously know very little of. .... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You try to affect a noble posture. But that's all it is: posturing. Until you actually do some tests and post the results, you're only posturing. For that, you'll find a mirror more agreeable than this forum.

Free speech doesn't matter a damn on this forum (or on most of the others, for that matter). There are rules of conduct and an agreement you assented to by becoming a member. Freedom of speech is not part of the contract. If it suited them, Ubi could declare war on adjectives for example, and censor every post accordingly. You have no rights or entitlements in the matter.

As I said before, if you're serious about improving the game, you will test. Look up the tests Tagert has done for examples. I disagree with most of what he says on a lot of subjects, but at least he has the intellectual honesty and rigour to reject claims made about this game on the basis of unalloyed opinion. In fact, even JG14_Josf rates higher than you in this respect. He at least attempts to gather empirical evidence to back his outlandish claims. Sometimes. He also repeats them ad nauseam, but that's a different matter.

All you have so far is your opinion, and like ar$holes, everybody has one of those.



Ratsack

M_Gunz
04-03-2007, 04:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
In fact, even JG14_Josf rates higher than you in this respect. He at least attempts to gather empirical evidence to back his outlandish claims. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't agree. I've seen his screenies and the test was flown in a fashion I only call rigged.
That is even worse than no test at all. When one plane is yanked hard while the other flies
the smoother and shorter path it does not prove jack about how good the planes are. And that
one test is so old the version is never told, just same pics for over 1 year.
And then we get E-M of Mig-15 and F-86 at one altitude with hokey labels added to prove BS
about completely different planes.

Do you remember the one that showed planes parked in the distance and used the tracer paths
to try and show that Russian guns fired with less drop and more speed than German? And when
the screenshots were compared, lo and behold by the heights of the trees we found out that
the screenies of the Russian planes were made from much closer, the "tests" were rigged to
make appearances. Uber-whiners 'make' their points since to them ends do justify means.

Ratsack
04-03-2007, 04:44 AM
To be fair, Max, I never said he made the attempt in good faith. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

cheers,
Ratsack

Hkuusela
04-03-2007, 05:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
You try to affect a noble posture. But that's all it is: posturing. Until you actually do some tests and post the results, you're only posturing. For that, you'll find a mirror more agreeable than this forum. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Once again you haven't understood a word I've said. I am not interested in testing or developing this game. That is not what a GENERAL DISCUSSION FORUM is about. How many times do I have to say it? General discussion forum is about general discussion. This not a hot line to the devs, nor is it your private play ground, where everything you say goes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
Free speech doesn't matter a damn on this forum (or on most of the others, for that matter). There are rules of conduct and an agreement you assented to by becoming a member. Freedom of speech is not part of the contract. If it suited them, Ubi could declare war on adjectives for example, and censor every post accordingly. You have no rights or entitlements in the matter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>So let the forum officials take care of it. Have I broken the rules? Feel free to report me to the administrator and ban the c**p out of me if I have. I'd say that freedom of speech within the frame set by the forum provider is very much the question. If I don't have a say in it, neither have you, so just drop it, because you are not the administrator here, even though you try to act like one.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
As I said before, if you're serious about improving the game, you will test. Look up the tests Tagert has done for examples. I disagree with most of what he says on a lot of subjects, but at least he has the intellectual honesty and rigour to reject claims made about this game on the basis of unalloyed opinion. In fact, even JG14_Josf rates higher than you in this respect. He at least attempts to gather empirical evidence to back his outlandish claims. Sometimes. He also repeats them ad nauseam, but that's a different matter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>And what are the infamous claims I have made? I made one, yes, as an example of something that I might bring up if I wanted to. Did I have hard evidence? No, I did not. I was not about to save the world, but to make a point of one's right to bring up such things on an open forum of general discussion. But all of a sudden, you make it sound like I've been bashing the h*ll out of you're beloved sim. Read my posts, I haven't. It would do you good anyhow to read my posts, maybe you would get the hang of what I'm saying. At the moment you obviously don't. Btw, maybe you should save your "ratings" to someone that is interested in them, if you can find anybody.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
All you have so far is your opinion, and like ar$holes, everybody has one of those. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, as you so elegantly put it, we all have opinions. Guess what, we are entitled to have them! I don't remember forum rules forbidding opinions, do you (now that you brought the forum rules to the table!)? I really don't see the point in discussing, if you're not allowed to express opinions... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I see now that this is pointless. You don't like what I say, so I shouldn't say it. You can talk about the forum rules all you want, I haven't broken them. You want tests and hard facts on A/C charachteristics, I want facts of the forum rules, if you base your opinions on them. So go ahead, quote them and get back to me. Just remember, that the forum rules apply to you as well as to me.

MrMojok
04-03-2007, 06:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:

We get scads of posts like this from Red players who complain that the 109 is too manoeuvrable. I've heard habitual Spit IX flyers on TeamSpeak complaining that the Fw 190 A is over modelled and that the 25 lb boost Spit LF MkIX was in widespread operational use in 1943. What is all that about? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are probably a couple hundred people who fly the SpitIX+25 exclusively in this game, and every single one of them makes a brick covered in feces look like a Rhodes Scholar.

Xiolablu3
04-03-2007, 10:22 AM
There is nothing wrong with the Spitfire 25lb IMO, it fits its numbers well, and is the amazing dogfighter it was in history.

BUT - Map makers, if you are going to use this plane, then limit the numbers, and put it up against the proper opposition.

That means equally limited Me262's and plenty of Doras.

The plane is only uber depending on its opposition. And if the Germans are nerfed because the Me262 is 'banned', then the SPitfire 25lbs should also be 'banned'.

Its up to map makers to make sure a plane ist totally overwhelming.

If you are going to use the SPitfire 25lbs or La7 versus the Germans. Then DO NOT nerf them. Give them their historical Me262.

M_Gunz
04-03-2007, 11:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hkuusela:
Once again you haven't understood a word I've said. I am not interested in testing or developing this game. That is not what a GENERAL DISCUSSION FORUM is about. How many times do I have to say it? General discussion forum is about general discussion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And when it starts with or quickly turns into "X thing is wrong! fix it!" without undisputed
proof or one heck of a consensus (very hard to do on post one and still be true on page 2 of...)
then what it it?

What about my right to complain about whiners? Isn't THAT free speech? Well?

Hkuusela
04-03-2007, 12:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hkuusela:
Once again you haven't understood a word I've said. I am not interested in testing or developing this game. That is not what a GENERAL DISCUSSION FORUM is about. How many times do I have to say it? General discussion forum is about general discussion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And when it starts with or quickly turns into "X thing is wrong! fix it!" without undisputed
proof or one heck of a consensus (very hard to do on post one and still be true on page 2 of...)
then what it it?

What about my right to complain about whiners? Isn't THAT free speech? Well? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Complain away, it is your right and I haven't tried to deny it. I have disputed some of the things you base your complaints on. That is discussing and debating. I think Ratsack actually hit the nail on the head, when he brought forum rules into the discussion. Those are the rules that tell you what goes and what doesn't. You want to have a perfect world, or at least a perfect forum. That would be nice, but there are a lot of people using this forum. A lot of different views of what it should and shouldn't be, a lot of good debating and a lot of bad debating and a lot of views on what is perfect and what isn't. There is, however, one objective measure and that is the forum rules.

I honestly believe, that if the idea is to get valuable views and information on the performance of the A/C in the game, that discussion has to happen on a closed forum, with selected members. I have no problem what so ever staying off such a forum and let the experts do their work. I have no problem letting people have their discussions on this forum either, on the contrary. I have not tried to limit this discussion, that was someone else.

There is a difference between saying "come on guys, this is going nowhere, keep your eye on the ball" and saying "stop, you're risking the whole genre with your plot against the makers".

If I may, I'd like to quote myself, since you seem to mistake me for someone else (Pol Pot or Idi Amin):

Originally posted by me:

"Again, this is not to defend people making accusations of purposely overmodeling Russian A/C for some mythical reason."

"I don't think that a flight sim is something that should be above critisism, no matter how insgnificant that may be, as long as the critisism is expressed with respect and according to good manners."

"Just in case they [the devs] are reading this post, let me say this: You've done a helluva job on this sim. There are some things that I've seen done better in other sims (or another sim), but it is a question of the whole package. You probably can't have everything within the limitations of the machines of today."

"Being immature and stupid is... well... STUPID and that is not endorsable ever anywhere."

I can't say it any clearer than that. If you and Ratsack have decided I'm saying something that isn't there, or that I have some hostile agenda, I can't help it anymore, only you can open your minds.

I'm done with this one, the floor is yours.

VW-IceFire
04-03-2007, 03:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
...

Hard to get immersed into "I'm a WWII combat pilot" setting when you see other guy flying a tie-fighter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Anarchy,

I'm not going to bother trying to impugn your experience. I just think you're exaggerating.

We get scads of posts like this from Red players who complain that the 109 is too manoeuvrable. I've heard habitual Spit IX flyers on TeamSpeak complaining that the Fw 190 A is over modelled and that the 25 lb boost Spit LF MkIX was in widespread operational use in 1943. What is all that about?

For my part, I find it far easier to kill an La-5FN online than to kill a well flown Spit IX. Maybe I've only encountered n00bs in La-5s? Maybe I've only encountered Spit aces?

The same goes for people who claim all American planes are porked. As for nationalistic bias, why is the Yak so poor if bias is informing the flight models?

Some people have argued that the La-5FN in the game has the performance of the real La-7, and that the in-game La-5F is more like the real La-5FN. Well, if you think that then you already have your answer to the problem. Use the older' types in preference. Some argue the same thing with the Fw 190 A-4 and A-5.

However, if you think the La-5 is that bad, what about some rigorous in-game tests compared to historical data? Just whining that the La-5 is a UFO is frankly pis$ weak.

cheers,
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm not sure why those folks even bother to complain except to maybe make up for their own failings or simply to complain about something. Its like golfers who blame the wind on every shot that goes wrong...it couldn't possibly be their perfect swing could it?

I do notice that the people who complain the most are also the ones who fly the least number of types. Often they seem to fly just one side of plane and then see the other side doing things they can't and assume its wrong. But perspective of the other side I think gives you some added benefit in that you can see what they can and can't do as well. Thats when you start to get really good at exploiting your advantage versus their weakness because you know both so well.

Not entirely historical but I think its valuable from a gameplay perspective. And I certainly don't mean flying the Bf109 for a mission and passing judgment either.

I also haven't seen any TIE fighters in this game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Xiolablu3
04-04-2007, 07:52 AM
A plane is only a UFO depending on the opposition,

If you think you an create a well balanced playable map with a good balanced planeset which people flying both sides will like then have a go!

If you are correct people will love it. If you are wrong, you will end up with totally one sided teams eg. 20 blue 2 red.

arrowtalon
04-04-2007, 11:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I also haven't seen any TIE fighters in this game </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


True... though I have to say the Lersche comes pretty close. All you'd have to do is paint the ringed wing-thing black and the fuselage white. Hehe

arrowtalon
04-04-2007, 11:26 AM
I was away for awhile and it looks like I missed quite a bit in the last few pages...

Let me first absolve myself of my own sins as I have started many threads like this.

I used to think many of the planes in this game were too good or not good enough. In general, i was wrong. By comparing in game Full-Real performance to the numbers on other aviation history websites (no one site is the authority), I can say for myself at least that I am convinced the vast majority of aircraft in this sim are at least as accurate as the developers could make with the info at hand.

I said the 109 was overdone. Nope, I now think it's pretty good. The 190 is about where it should be as well. The Spit 25 lb boost, though many will disagree, also is in line with what the historians say. I could go on like this, but basically what I have found can be summarized in a few paragraphs:

1) Whenever there is gray area about performance, the Russian fighters tend to have the most favorable end of the error bar. They may not be way off, but they're given every benefit of every doubt. As far as I can find, they're within the bounds of realistic projection, barely.

2) The in-game light machine guns, like those on the hurricane and Spit are comparable to those on the Thunderbolt and Mustang. They have similar penetration depth and can often bring down fighters like the 109 with as many or fewer rounds than the .50's. This is wholly inaccurate. The .50 calibre MG's should be roughly 1/3-1/2 as strong as a 20 mm cannon, not comparable to the .303's used in the BoB. This either means the .50's are weak, or that the light MG's and cannons are too strong. This, coupled to the favorable performance choices of the Russian fighters, renders many of the planes on the on-line turn and burn servers obsolete.

3) Subtlties are unmodelled. This lends itself again to making the Russian fighters seem better than they were. Other aircraft had features that are nowhere to be found in-game. In general, there are features missing entirely. The biggest example is the P-51 center tank. Mustang pilots had trouble just taking off in the P-51 because the center fuel tank made it so unstable. THIS is the Mustang we have in-game, the unstable, stiff, energy burning muscle plane that can't dogfight. With more complex flight models, many of these problems might be corrected.

arrowtalon
04-04-2007, 11:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The same goes for people who claim all American planes are porked. As for nationalistic bias, why is the Yak so poor if bias is informing the flight models? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I hardly think the Yak is poor. I could go with "poorer than it ought to be when compared to the La's". Historically, as is included in the IL-2 aircraft description of the Yak-3P. The Yak was one of the finest aircraft in the war. It also arrived very late. I find the Yak one of the best dogfighters in the game, but not as good as the La-7. The Yak's are closer to the historical data than are the La's.

Hkuusela
04-04-2007, 12:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by arrowtalon:
2) The in-game light machine guns, like those on the hurricane and Spit are comparable to those on the Thunderbolt and Mustang. They have similar penetration depth and can often bring down fighters like the 109 with as many or fewer rounds than the .50's. This is wholly inaccurate. The .50 calibre MG's should be roughly 1/3-1/2 as strong as a 20 mm cannon, not comparable to the .303's used in the BoB. This either means the .50's are weak, or that the light MG's and cannons are too strong. This, coupled to the favorable performance choices of the Russian fighters, renders many of the planes on the on-line turn and burn servers obsolete. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I don't know if there is any difference between online play and offline play in this perspective, but playing offline, I have to disagree. I started a Japanese campaign flying a Ki-43 with two 7,7 mm mg's. And I hardly could bring anyone down. The light mg's had almost no effect at all (I finally had to start another campaign with unlimited ammo, cause there just was no point.). The same thing if you happen to run out of cannon rounds in the 109. The mg's are pretty much useless, or at least you have to pour lead into your opponent so much that the weight takes him down. I am NOT complaining, just making an observation.

One thing that really bugged me earlier was the Russian fighters. You could hammer them with your mg's - even the heavier ones - 'til the end of the day and have no succes. Then I read the combat lectures of the Finnish Captain and holder of the Mannerheim Cross, Hans Henrik Wind, where he said that it was hard to bring russian fighters down shooting at them straight from behind, due to their strong armour. That's what I'd been doing. So some of this stuff can be historically accurate. Frustrating, but accurate.

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-CaptainWind...tTacticsLecture.html (http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-CaptainWindsAirCombatTacticsLecture.html)

VW-IceFire
04-04-2007, 04:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by arrowtalon:
I was away for awhile and it looks like I missed quite a bit in the last few pages...

Let me first absolve myself of my own sins as I have started many threads like this.

I used to think many of the planes in this game were too good or not good enough. In general, i was wrong. By comparing in game Full-Real performance to the numbers on other aviation history websites (no one site is the authority), I can say for myself at least that I am convinced the vast majority of aircraft in this sim are at least as accurate as the developers could make with the info at hand.

I said the 109 was overdone. Nope, I now think it's pretty good. The 190 is about where it should be as well. The Spit 25 lb boost, though many will disagree, also is in line with what the historians say. I could go on like this, but basically what I have found can be summarized in a few paragraphs:

1) Whenever there is gray area about performance, the Russian fighters tend to have the most favorable end of the error bar. They may not be way off, but they're given every benefit of every doubt. As far as I can find, they're within the bounds of realistic projection, barely.

2) The in-game light machine guns, like those on the hurricane and Spit are comparable to those on the Thunderbolt and Mustang. They have similar penetration depth and can often bring down fighters like the 109 with as many or fewer rounds than the .50's. This is wholly inaccurate. The .50 calibre MG's should be roughly 1/3-1/2 as strong as a 20 mm cannon, not comparable to the .303's used in the BoB. This either means the .50's are weak, or that the light MG's and cannons are too strong. This, coupled to the favorable performance choices of the Russian fighters, renders many of the planes on the on-line turn and burn servers obsolete.

3) Subtlties are unmodelled. This lends itself again to making the Russian fighters seem better than they were. Other aircraft had features that are nowhere to be found in-game. In general, there are features missing entirely. The biggest example is the P-51 center tank. Mustang pilots had trouble just taking off in the P-51 because the center fuel tank made it so unstable. THIS is the Mustang we have in-game, the unstable, stiff, energy burning muscle plane that can't dogfight. With more complex flight models, many of these problems might be corrected. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Amen! Right on the money...it takes a little while but with enough time and reading more seems right than wrong. And its less about being right and wrong than being very accurate or somewhat less accurate. Nothing is perfect and as far as enjoyment of a realistic WWII air combat game goes...right now there is nothing more sophisticated.

Lerche is a close cousin to the TIE Fighter...but I rarely count this plane for somewhat more serious discussions...it was put in there for fun. And fun it is...but I can't land it yet http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

AKA_TAGERT
04-04-2007, 04:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by arrowtalon:
Does the La-7 flight model seem inaccurate? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Nope it is spot on!

It is the La pilots that are inaccurate, in that they are over modled.

arrowtalon
04-04-2007, 04:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:
Originally posted by arrowtalon:
2) The in-game light machine guns, like those on the hurricane and Spit are comparable to those on the Thunderbolt and Mustang. They have similar penetration depth and can often bring down fighters like the 109 with as many or fewer rounds than the .50's. This is wholly inaccurate. The .50 calibre MG's should be roughly 1/3-1/2 as strong as a 20 mm cannon, not comparable to the .303's used in the BoB. This either means the .50's are weak, or that the light MG's and cannons are too strong. This, coupled to the favorable performance choices of the Russian fighters, renders many of the planes on the on-line turn and burn servers obsolete.

I don't know if there is any difference between online play and offline play in this perspective, but playing offline, I have to disagree. I started a Japanese campaign flying a Ki-43 with two 7,7 mm mg's. And I hardly could bring anyone down. The light mg's had almost no effect at all (I finally had to start another campaign with unlimited ammo, cause there just was no point.). The same thing if you happen to run out of cannon rounds in the 109. The mg's are pretty much useless, or at least you have to pour lead into your opponent so much that the weight takes him down. I am NOT complaining, just making an observation.

One thing that really bugged me earlier was the Russian fighters. You could hammer them with your mg's - even the heavier ones - 'til the end of the day and have no succes. Then I read the combat lectures of the Finnish Captain and holder of the Mannerheim Cross, Hans Henrik Wind, where he said that it was hard to bring russian fighters down shooting at them straight from behind, due to their strong armour. That's what I'd been doing. So some of this stuff can be historically accurate. Frustrating, but accurate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let me dfine an experiment that has been posted as track several times in other threads. It should be indpendent of armor, etc.

Take a plane with light MG's, set up a rookie TB bomber target or something like that. match speed, line up a specific point on the wing of the target, and let it have it. Time how long it takes the target explode, break, etc. Make sure to account for rate of fire, if need be.

Now take a plane like the Thunderbolt, Mustang, etc, and do the same thing to the same spot on the same target. You will find, as many have, that the heavy MG's are as weak or weaker than the light MG's! Why? Beats me, but it's just flat wrong. Compare that to what the cannons do, and you'll see why no one picks a US, MG-armed fighter for a dogfight, and why most BnZer's take the 190.

EDIT: One other thing to take into account is the number of guns. One cannon can do more damage than 8 .50's in the same amount of time. Round for round, that comes nowhere close to the historical 1/2-1/3 burst time to inflict similar damage with cannons vs guns.

Hkuusela
04-04-2007, 05:40 PM
I gave it a try. I first flew a Ki-43 with 7,7mm mg's and then a B-239 with 12,7mm mg's (in both planes mg's in the fuselage). I tried to shoot at the engine of a C-47. The thing is, it is impossible to keep the target in the sights consistently so that you really hit it all the time, especially when the slow speed makes the handling difficult. For the test to be effective, you'd need to be able to keep your distance at the convergence distance and practically hit with every shot. Maybe it's just me, but I couldn't do it.

That's not to say, that different calibres are or aren't modeled, but rather that it is difficult to tell for certain.

VW-IceFire
04-04-2007, 06:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hkuusela:
I gave it a try. I first flew a Ki-43 with 7,7mm mg's and then a B-239 with 12,7mm mg's (in both planes mg's in the fuselage). I tried to shoot at the engine of a C-47. The thing is, it is impossible to keep the target in the sights consistently so that you really hit it all the time, especially when the slow speed makes the handling difficult. For the test to be effective, you'd need to be able to keep your distance at the convergence distance and practically hit with every shot. Maybe it's just me, but I couldn't do it.

That's not to say, that different calibres are or aren't modeled, but rather that it is difficult to tell for certain. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't know...a C-47 is pretty easy to line up and hold a shot on. B-239 will definitely chew through the C-47's engine quicker. Possibly knock the engine out of its mounts...thats the biggest difference between the .303 and .50. You can get a fair bit of material destruction from the .50 but the .303/.30 won't do that.

Ratsack
04-05-2007, 02:33 AM
I seem to recall that Gibbage posted some screenies of precisely this kind of test not too long ago. The screenies were taken in arcade mode, so you could see where the rounds had actually hit.

If I recall correctly, he came away from the exercise with a revised view of his gunnery skills. He concluded that when he thought he'd been hitting in-game and on-line, he probably wasn't at all.

I'm going from memory so I'm happy to be corrected if I've got the above wrong, but in any case it would be worth looking that discussion up (if it wasn't lost in the Great Server Crash of early 2007).

cheers,
Ratsack

M_Gunz
04-05-2007, 03:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by arrowtalon:
3) Subtlties are unmodelled. This lends itself again to making the Russian fighters seem better than they were. Other aircraft had features that are nowhere to be found in-game. In general, there are features missing entirely. The biggest example is the P-51 center tank. Mustang pilots had trouble just taking off in the P-51 because the center fuel tank made it so unstable. THIS is the Mustang we have in-game, the unstable, stiff, energy burning muscle plane that can't dogfight. With more complex flight models, many of these problems might be corrected. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are talking about P-51D's fueled for extreme range escort? Where 95 out of 100 times they
would not encounter enemy before the fuselage tank was over half used? The one where they did
valve fuselage tank to be used first and after preset time would switch to drop tanks?
That was not a permanent condition or even a prevalent condition.
And you fly different, they don't bleed much at all. Just don't get greedy and plan three moves
ahead to line up your shot. And don't use flaps unless you are sure of the kill and no other
enemy is within miles.

I see you don't like the MMG's. Do you fire from deflection or always from six?
A handful of 30 cal from 4 oclock on any cowl and engine should make a difference, esp if
you fire from his above angle as well... like across his turn circle. If you approach at
higher speed and about 200m off to the side of the target then if he's real stupid, he will
turn away from you, right? And if he wants to fight he'll turn in to you, which leaves you
set up for a deflection shot (chancy till you get good, like skeet) where you are already
inside his path and don't have to turn near as hard as he does plus you can exit behind him
and well over 90 deg off his path. There is no side glass armor on any of those fighters.
Only front and rear. And... begin shooting early to have time to correct aim, the higher
your approach speed the shorter the effective range is -- fire will cross the pipper beyond
your convergence range so you need a shade less lead angle. Again, in favor of the less well
flat turning plane. And remember to watch how fast the target is slowing in the turn and cut
on lead angle to match, but things happen so fast when you are 150+ kph faster than him that
fire from 300-400m to start and 2 seconds to adjust is all you get (use 1/4 sec burst taps)
before fire for effect or wait for next time. Or you can sit behind and shoot his seat armor
or try for control lines for as long as you can stay.....

M_Gunz
04-05-2007, 03:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
I seem to recall that Gibbage posted some screenies of precisely this kind of test not too long ago. The screenies were taken in arcade mode, so you could see where the rounds had actually hit.

If I recall correctly, he came away from the exercise with a revised view of his gunnery skills. He concluded that when he thought he'd been hitting in-game and on-line, he probably wasn't at all.

I'm going from memory so I'm happy to be corrected if I've got the above wrong, but in any case it would be worth looking that discussion up (if it wasn't lost in the Great Server Crash of early 2007).

cheers,
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

From the start I have been using track reviews of gunnery sessions to see just where and how
many shots were on target and what my sight picture was like on good and bad shots. It takes
a lot of pauses, speed control and POV moves as I watch the shots from target external zoomed
close and turned so my plane is also in view and time at 1/4 speed.
In time I got a pretty good feel for bullets as moving things and where my shots were going.
It's not the same as sims from before between view system and game bullet paths/scatter, it
takes getting used to but it's very worth it... otherwise the only option is only shoot from
behind or head-on to a steady target.
It's like throwing rocks only easier and harder at the same time.

arrowtalon
04-06-2007, 09:18 AM
I think I saw that test as well...

To constrict the test, pick a target that is so large that you can't miss. There will be some deviation from the guns shaking, but this should be negligible. All rounds should hit within 1 or 2 virtual feet of the aiming point.

You'll still see how weak the .50's and other mid-MG's are. It really isn't even close to reality...

Xiolablu3
04-06-2007, 09:31 AM
The .50s are far more powerful than the .303's in game IMO.

A .50 is about equal to 1/3 or 1/4 of a 20mm cannon, not 1/2. Also the destructive effect of an explosive cannon shell is always going to be more harmful than simply piercing bullets.

The problem is with the pilots expecting planes hit with HMGs to blow up. This rarely happened against German fighters. Much more often it would be unglamerous.

If you think the HMGs are not good enough or the same as the .303's then you are shooting from too far away.

Get in close and they really rip up the target.

arrowtalon
04-06-2007, 12:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The problem is with the pilots expecting planes hit with HMGs to blow up. This rarely happened against German fighters. Much more often it would be unglamerous.

If you think the HMGs are not good enough or the same as the .303's then you are shooting from too far away.

Get in close and they really rip up the target. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


When I test I generally fire from .1-.2 km away. As afar as I can tell, that was a common distance for American pilots to make kills.

I thought the .50's had a pseudo-explosive impact when they hit due to the shape and make of the bullet.

One thing you pointed out that I always forget is that the points on the aircraft most susceptible to damage by MG fire isn't modelled in this game. Various engine components were just as bad at surviving MG fire as cannon fire. IN-game, those parts don't exist. I always forget that fact until someone reminds me...

GR142-Pipper
04-07-2007, 01:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
Other factors are operating and a always FAR MORE INFLUENTIAL than flight model. This is true for all planes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That's not necessarily true. If you simply fly BnZ, then your remark is more true than if you actually engage. The original poster's comment that an LA-7 is a plane that can make an intermediate pilot more capable is absolutely true. The same holds true for the 25# Spit and the farcical Ki-84c. Conversely, look at the mid-late war U.S. aircraft and you see the inverse of the above with the planes being undermodeled to just about the same extent as the aforementioned planes are overmodeled. The weakness of this game is that the individual aircraft modeling of significant WWII fighters just hasn't received the attention they deserve. This is reflected in how people gravitate to one type or another, regardless if a particular preference matches what occurred in real life (which it doesn't).

Anyway, it's a fun game and should be taken for what it is (because the developers aren't interested in changing it).

...just my take.

GR142-Pipper

DKoor
04-07-2007, 02:43 AM
Learning with this simulation is a nice thing it actually encourages player to learn something from books about planes that he flies....
The more you learn, the more you info soak up from both pilot experiences, actual facts and other, t0ns of various info, you can make your own conclusions.

My conclusion is that we have a simulation that reflects numbers quite good, +/- ~two seconds or +/- ~10km/h aren't going to do any good anyways... but... those numbers aren't the only thing that produced the outcome of the aerial battle. Nor it was actual pilot experience.

There are literally t0ns of other variables that are simply lacking in the game, and they simply aren't modeled or aren't modeled well.

Now that is a key sentence. Because of that, you see some aircraft excelling over others in some areas, while IRL they were considered equal or inferior aircraft.

Also there is complete lack of pilot modeling (apart from black/red out) so he actually can pull some things which weren't possible IRL.

I wont go any further, it is suffice to say that this is a good game with its pros and cons. So far the best sim outhere.

Waldo.Pepper
04-07-2007, 03:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you simply fly BnZ, then your remark is more true than if you actually engage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

B&Z IS actually engaging. It is merely being selective about how you engage! It is engaging with your head, and not with your hair on fire and your fangs out.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">an LA-7 is a plane that can make an intermediate pilot more capable is absolutely true. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again this is only true if pilot of the prey plane allows it. The original poster plays against such players BECAUSE SUCH PLAYERS ARE THE NORM RATHER THAN THE EXCEPTION!

It is the "herd mentality" of the players and the "false belief" of an over modelled uber plane that causes the stampedes of players toward a single popular plane, not the over modelled planes attributes.

It was the same way in CFS1, where the god plane was the Hurricane. Solely because is out-turned all the other stock planes. I remember login on to MS Zone server that were populated by nothing put Hurricanes, all buzzing around in a great big furball.

This same sad situation repeats itself with every game. All because people seek the path of least resistance, and seek the quickest, easiest solution to any problem - without delving into the issue in the depth that it needs to be examined.

GR142-Pipper
04-09-2007, 10:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
[QUOTE]If you simply fly BnZ, then your remark is more true than if you actually engage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">B&Z IS actually engaging. It is merely being selective about how you engage! It is engaging with your head, and not with your hair on fire and your fangs out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually, a BnZ is nothing more than a drive-by. You can take any pilot and teach them to BnZ but not just any BnZ pilot can engage in a full-on fight.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">an LA-7 is a plane that can make an intermediate pilot more capable is absolutely true. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Again this is only true if pilot of the prey plane allows it. The original poster plays against such players BECAUSE SUCH PLAYERS ARE THE NORM RATHER THAN THE EXCEPTION! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Not so. It's simply a statement of fact. The LA-7 is a much higher performing aircraft (as modeled in this game) so an average pilot will do better in it than would normally be the case. It's true here in this game and in real life. Put an average F-4 pilot in an F-16 and a superior F-4 pilot will be at a distinct disadvantage.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It is the "herd mentality" of the players and the "false belief" of an over modelled uber plane that causes the stampedes of players toward a single popular plane, not the over modelled planes attributes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>What? It's exactly the planes attributes that will draw players either to it or away from it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It was the same way in CFS1, where the god plane was the Hurricane. Solely because is out-turned all the other stock planes. I remember login on to MS Zone server that were populated by nothing put Hurricanes, all buzzing around in a great big furball.

This same sad situation repeats itself with every game. All because people seek the path of least resistance, and seek the quickest, easiest solution to any problem - without delving into the issue in the depth that it needs to be examined. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The issue DOES get examined. The players don't gravitate to one plane or another just by mere happenstance. It doesn't take too long to establish which aircraft have the advantage given the type of map/plane set that's presented.

GR142-Pipper

DKoor
04-09-2007, 12:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Actually, a BnZ is nothing more than a drive-by. You can take any pilot and teach them to BnZ but not just any BnZ pilot can engage in a full-on fight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Pipper, this is ridiculous. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

For Christ sake the only proper way to fight is that so called "BnZ". Whoever enters other kind of combat willingly knows jack about aerial fights. And that has nothing to do with aircraft type.

Xiolablu3
04-09-2007, 12:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Actually, a BnZ is nothing more than a drive-by. You can take any pilot and teach them to BnZ but not just any BnZ pilot can engage in a full-on fight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Pipper, this is ridiculous. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

For Christ sake the only proper way to fight is that so called "BnZ". Whoever enters other kind of combat willingly knows jack about aerial fights. And that has nothing to do with aircraft type. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Totally agree with this.

If you look at most of the high scoring, surviving pilots from WW2 on both sides, you will usually find out that their tactics involved very little turning and keeping fast at all times.

It was just far too dangerous to lose all your speed by slowing down into a dogfight.

B&Z takes skill to do well however, and it must be learned. Most peoples first instinct is simply to turn turn turn as tight as you can, which results in a severe loss of speed and a sitting duck for any new enemy watching from above.

Anyone doubting hte US fighters in the game should try out Icefires Pacific map on UKded2 which has F6F, P47D, P51D, P38, B29 with an air starts, attacking a Japanese island where Ki84's, J2M3s, Zeros and N1K2's are scrambling up to meet them.

Any half decent pilot can totally dictate the fight on the US side, they just have to keep fast, stick in pairs and use their high speed to choose the time and place of the fight. However mediocre pilots will struggle because they have severe problems staying fast and dont realise when to disengage.

I can't remember the name of the map now, ICefire can you oblige?

tools4foolsA
04-09-2007, 12:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I don't know if there is any difference between online play and offline play in this perspective, but playing offline, I have to disagree. I started a Japanese campaign flying a Ki-43 with two 7,7 mm mg's. And I hardly could bring anyone down. The light mg's had almost no effect at all (I finally had to start another campaign with unlimited ammo, cause there just was no point.) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

and

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> You'll still see how weak the .50's and other mid-MG's are. It really isn't even close to reality... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, Ki-43 is somewhat my favourite plane (start playing with Ki-27 now too...).

In campaigns I usually am able to bring down one enemy figher (like a hurricane) and damage another. Not too bad for two 7.7mm; usually convergnce is set to 100m. I start shooting at inside 200 at the most (if closing in fast), but usually at 150-100 and down to 60.

1 Blenheim is no problem at all, sometimes can get two (and once made 3).

However I NEVER (or almost never, very rarely something catches fire on first burst) get them on first pass. Bombers need 3-5 passes with good , short hits on target (engine, fuel tanks). Fighters singled out and glued to their tail nwill be many bursts as well, there more so as shooting from dead six is not very effective, takes more ammo to bring one down. Usually the kill comes later then, when the plane is damaged, slight smoke, now attacks closer up and at more angle, more effective this way.

If I jump in Bwester with 4 MG I feel having great firepower.
6x0.50 is superb in firepower.
Cannons? A short push on the button and most planes blow to pieces.

600m was considered waste of ammo or feeling lucky
200-300m effective long range shooting
200m and closer effective kill zone for most

Saburo Sakai went into the 150-200 too...but feet!

I think guns perform well in IL-2 in terms of destructivness.
Most people shoot from to far or simply miss most of their shots (but think they hit and gun is to weak).
Plus many people expect big bang boom.

I don't shoot anymore if a Blenheim has one engine burning. It will fly on for a while, quite a while in this game; maybe too long... (I think crew would abandon plane once they realize can't stop fire).

And I would love variable performance data; planes having a variable top speed (and climb rate) by 5-8% percent (or however big the differences were in real).
Plus things that if a plane needed 6 levers to go from cruise to full power there would be a delay of 3-4 seconds when you push your single lever.
Planes with single lever no delay.

And so on...
******

Xiolablu3
04-09-2007, 12:50 PM
I find it really really hard to bring anyhting down with those 2xmgs on the Ki43.

tools4foolsA
04-09-2007, 01:09 PM
If I go up against a B-24 i do have problems too. Not to bring it down, that's possible, but to do so before I get nailed...

Buffaloes, Hurricanes, Blenheims were my (fighting) kills so far. Buffaloes most difficult as it takes time until they show damage; only then they loose appetite for fight and now more angled attacks to finally down them.

Hurricane with inline engine is easier as that engine is easier to get damaged, trailing slight smoke and then fighter is not willing to fight anymore.

Gunnery training Ok to get c-47, even B-24 (with no return fire..) but you have to go deliberately for an engine or tanks and set them on fire.
But several passes, accurate aiming, and only one per mission or so. And sometimes whole ammo load will be spend but hits were not good enough and bloody thing escapes with just one engine slightly damaged.

All right with me...

Gunsight helps a lot too, telesopic gunsight is great for this kind of aiming.


And once you can do it with two 0.303 everything else will do.


****

Waldo.Pepper
04-09-2007, 03:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If I go up against a B-24 i do have problems too. Not to bring it down, that's possible, but to do so before I get nailed... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now there a MAN with SPIRIT!

My fav of late is either an F2 or F4 vs. any 4 engine heavy.

That match up will teach gunnery!

M_Gunz
04-09-2007, 03:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Actually, a BnZ is nothing more than a drive-by. You can take any pilot and teach them to BnZ but not just any BnZ pilot can engage in a full-on fight.

&lt;snip&gt;

The players don't gravitate to one plane or another just by mere happenstance. It doesn't take too long to establish which aircraft have the advantage given the type of map/plane set that's presented.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not everyone can do BnZ because most players can't seem to set up for BnZ or keep their speed.
Not everyone can do BnZ because the shooting part is far more difficult to do right.

What AC get used depends on 1) AC set allowed on server and 2) suitability of players to planes.

If you have a bunch of hamfisted ****s with minimal gunnery skills then you'll have a bunch
of players who pick the most overpowered turnfighters they can get playing circle-jerk down
low and slow with the flaps deployed... mudhens waiting for the ****ehawks while rolling up
big scores on other mudhens and thinking "I got more kills than deaths so I must be good!".

With players like THAT online, just what again is the most chosen plane gonna prove?

GR142-Pipper
04-09-2007, 08:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Actually, a BnZ is nothing more than a drive-by. You can take any pilot and teach them to BnZ but not just any BnZ pilot can engage in a full-on fight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Pipper, this is ridiculous. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

For Christ sake the only proper way to fight is that so called "BnZ". Whoever enters other kind of combat willingly knows jack about aerial fights. And that has nothing to do with aircraft type. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah, so pilots like Randy Cunningham, Robin Olds, Greg Boyington, Tom McGuire, Francis Gabreski, Joe Foss, etc., etc., etc. knew nothing about aerial fights, right?

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
04-09-2007, 08:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Actually, a BnZ is nothing more than a drive-by. You can take any pilot and teach them to BnZ but not just any BnZ pilot can engage in a full-on fight.

&lt;snip&gt;

The players don't gravitate to one plane or another just by mere happenstance. It doesn't take too long to establish which aircraft have the advantage given the type of map/plane set that's presented.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Not everyone can do BnZ because most players can't seem to set up for BnZ or keep their speed.
Not everyone can do BnZ because the shooting part is far more difficult to do right. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Ok, allow me to modify my remark. Anyone who isn't a complete ****** or a castration case can do it. The rest can.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What AC get used depends on 1) AC set allowed on server and 2) suitability of players to planes.

If you have a bunch of hamfisted ****s with minimal gunnery skills then you'll have a bunch
of players who pick the most overpowered turnfighters they can get playing circle-jerk down
low and slow with the flaps deployed... mudhens waiting for the ****ehawks while rolling up
big scores on other mudhens and thinking "I got more kills than deaths so I must be good!".

With players like THAT online, just what again is the most chosen plane gonna prove? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I wouldn't know about those types but you might want to visit some of the Russian or Czech servers (cockpit on, minimal icons, either no or minimal externals, etc.). There are some VERY good virtual pilots from all over the world there who will be happy to provide a tutorial on what good gunnery, aircraft maneuver and energy fighting are all about.

By the way, don't mistake a maneuvering engagement with hamfists because the hamfists always get shot down.

Anyway, it's just my take (based on experience here with this game...and in the real world).

GR142-Pipper

VW-IceFire
04-09-2007, 08:56 PM
I think we should take the totally different track on this guys. Those of us who are capable of executing a boom and zoom move should just keep it to ourselves...we wouldn't want the other people in on the secret to scoring kills and being able to land at the end of the sortie to show for it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Its been four years since I got this game...I'm still learning how to be better at boom and zoom. Its a tough thing to do because allot of it has to do with the setup and the execution of the move is very short and it certainly can't be done in a plane like the La-7. I did try...but it was a disaster http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

GR142-Pipper
04-09-2007, 08:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Actually, a BnZ is nothing more than a drive-by. You can take any pilot and teach them to BnZ but not just any BnZ pilot can engage in a full-on fight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Pipper, this is ridiculous. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

For Christ sake the only proper way to fight is that so called "BnZ". Whoever enters other kind of combat willingly knows jack about aerial fights. And that has nothing to do with aircraft type. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Totally agree with this.

If you look at most of the high scoring, surviving pilots from WW2 on both sides, you will usually find out that their tactics involved very little turning and keeping fast at all times.

It was just far too dangerous to lose all your speed by slowing down into a dogfight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Who said anything about losing all your speed and slowing down? You're confusing energy management with BnZ-ing. They're not the same at all.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">B&Z takes skill to do well however, and it must be learned. Most peoples first instinct is simply to turn turn turn as tight as you can, which results in a severe loss of speed and a sitting duck for any new enemy watching from above. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Here's a rhetorical question for you. Which do you feel takes a LOT more skill? A full-on fight in which energy management, fuel management, maneuver technique and applied gunnery skills are required ...or...a drive-by BnZ? The answer is pretty self-evident.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
04-09-2007, 09:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
I wont go any further, it is suffice to say that this is a good game with its pros and cons. So far the best sim outhere. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I would agree with this. It's a real shame though that more effort isn't put into providing correct flight/damage/weapons models instead of introducing more and more aircraft which the developers thereafter are unable to properly support/refine.

GR142-Pipper

Waldo.Pepper
04-09-2007, 09:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The answer is pretty self-evident. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is pretty self evident to me. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Furthermore it is also evident to me that you do not have the same appreciation for the skill it takes to properly manage your time and energy in the vertical plane.

Lastly, I don't view it as an either or situation like you do. Why must it be that way in your mind? BOTH styles of fighting take great skill in my mind to excel at. However, I think it clear that B&Z pilots are the rarer breed.

I don't think I know anyone who I would say excels at both.

GR142-Pipper
04-09-2007, 10:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
[QUOTE]The answer is pretty self-evident. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It is pretty self evident to me. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Furthermore it is also evident to me that you do not have the same appreciation for the skill it takes to properly manage your time and energy in the vertical plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yeah, I do. I used to do it for a living in the real world. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Lastly, I don't view it as an either or situation like you do. Why must it be that way in your mind? BOTH styles of fighting take great skill in my mind to excel at. However, I think it clear that B&Z pilots are the rarer breed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Rare? Please. BnZ pilots are a dime a dozen. Get them in a position where they have to fight their way out of a situation and most become highly cooked meat. However, it's not an "either or" situation as you correctly cite. Pilots BEGIN by learning BnZ and the better pilots will grow from there to be able to handle themselves in an extended fight as well.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I don't think I know anyone who I would say excels at both. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I don't know anyone who flys mostly BnZ who excels in the maneuvering environment. But I know many, many who are excellent maneuvering pilots who are very good BnZers. It's just pretty easy to be decent at drive-bys.

You feel differently...and so it goes.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
04-09-2007, 10:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
I think we should take the totally different track on this guys. Those of us who are capable of executing a boom and zoom move should just keep it to ourselves...we wouldn't want the other people in on the secret to scoring kills and being able to land at the end of the sortie to show for it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Its been four years since I got this game...I'm still learning how to be better at boom and zoom. Its a tough thing to do because allot of it has to do with the setup and the execution of the move is very short and it certainly can't be done in a plane like the La-7. I did try...but it was a disaster http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm surprised to read this from you. The LA-7 like any relatively high speed, decently armed aircraft can be used in a BnZ situation. Why do you feel the LA-7 is lacking in this area?

GR142-Pipper

PE_Tihi
04-23-2007, 02:27 AM
Forgotten Battles and Real Life



It took some time to read this rather long thread on the simulation versus RL-performance of the La-7, but IL2FB plane performances do interest me, so I did it. The discussions on the plane performances are certainly not new to Il2; this theme is almost as old as the game itself. What's more, supposedly because of the community criticisms, too, the plane performance figures have been changed many, many times during the life of this Sim, up till now. Especially regarding the well known plane types. Nonetheless, although the discrepancies between the RL and Sim performances have been reduced through this constant and long tinkering with the aerodynamics and the power parameters, remarkable deviations from reality are still to be found, in the first line with the Russian and German planes, although the other planes have by no means been spared.
I like this Sim very much, and one of the reasons is the excellent flight physics of the sim. Of course, there are limitations hardware and net bandwidth set to this program, but they do not reflect seriously on the sheer beauty of the general flight model, which can reproduce the plane behavior in flight in a such minutious detail. Today's hardware at our homes is very powerful, most probably stronger then the hardware used in the professional simulators only some years ago. I am not going to make comparisons between FB and other sims, since I don't fly them; I feel no need for that.
Anyone trying to convince me that this flight physics cannot reproduce quite exactly the flying qualities of any WWII plane would have a hard time succeeding. That is exactly the reason the inaccuracies of the individual plane input parameters, read their in-sim performance figures, bother me so much. After seven years of the sim development, there is no valid reason under the heaven's dome that these parameters have still not reached their RL- values. I used to dismiss these discrepancies as due to the difficulties of finding the valid test flight results from these times, and so on. After seven years of supposed searching, this cannot be a valid excuse, especially for the well-known types, like Bf-109, La-7, FW-190, I-16 and others. The numerous test-data sheets that appear in this and other fori are an obvious proof of that.
La-7 is one of the most obvious examples. WEP-rate of climb went as high as 30-31 m/s in some earlier versions of this sim! The present value is 27 m/s, and this is still 11% higher than the best known test-result of an postwar-production La-7 (24.2 m/s) , and much higher than the best known result of a war production example, which is 22.6 m/s!
Not less inaccurate is the La-7 sustained turn performance. La-series are the planes with a rather heavy wing loading (185 Kg/m2), which approaches the wing loading of the FW-190 ( 200-220 kg/m2). Now, the wing loading is the crucial factor for the turn performance of a plane. Extremely good turners like Ki43 have a wing loading of approx. 80 Kg/m2; very good ones like early Spits and Hurricanes are at 120-130 Kg/m²; Emil is at 155 Kg/m², and late Bf's at approximately 175-180. Biplanes have a wing loading even lower than 80kg/m², and so does, interestingly, the Aichi D3A1 Val ( ~70 Kg/m²), which explains the surprising turning qualities of this bombing plane. The wing-loading points almost directly to the plane's sustained turning qualities. One can hardly expect from the La, whose wing-loading lies in the neighborhood of the worst turning single-engined plane of the game, FW-190, to have the best 360 ? turn time among the late-war fighters. Still, although the best test of an wartime production La-7 plane cites the surprisingly good 20-21 s, the game gives us flabbergasting 18 s.
Such differences, waved off from some people in the forum as inconsequential, are everything but irrelevant in RL or online combat. 3 m/s climbing speed difference is similar to the maximum climb speed of some WWI planes. Having a 3 m/s advantage you climb away from someone in a spiral climb like an elevator. In the same way, having a 2-3 second better turn time than the circling opponent means gaining 40? to 60? on him in each full turn. In other words, if 180? separated you at the begining, you are at the opponent's neck in 3-4 full turns. In practice that goes even faster, because your breathing down his neck provokes the opponent either to try to turn tighter, and that means outside of his best turn envelope, or try to extend. Neither of these is a very attractive option.
LA-7 Damage Model has shown itself capable of lifting some eyebrows, too. I have a .ntrk where the La-7 I have been flying looses both horizontal stabilizers one after the other, while the elevators remain attached and working; the plane with enormous gaps and holes on it's wooden fuselage flies merrily further. On another occasion, a Bf109G I have been flying collides with a La-7, loosing a wing, while the La looses an aileron only.

The adherents of the Full-Real tend to dismiss the performance, and especially turn performance figure discrepancies as not very relevant under the so-called Full-Real environment. Furthermore, FR environment is taken as the approximately corresponding to the RL one. Well, I am flying the online flight simulations since the European Air War, a rather good sim for it's time. At that time, as well as now, the main unsolved problem of a PC flying simulation was and still is the visual display of the environment to the online pilot. The monitor display itself can cover, let's say, on the average spatial 30?, depending on the zoom factor. That makes it somewhat better than the tank periscope. Top Hat method of switching the views means steering this periscope in a rather rough manner per hand. That averts, of course, much of the pilot's attention from the flying itself, and he ends up steering not the plane but the view-controls most of the time. It can hardly be surprising that under such circumstances it makes almost no difference whether you fly a brick or a plane. RL pilot, on the other hand has only to move his eyes or head, having at the same time field of view of, say 210 degrees all the time. While seeing the center of this field in a resolution no monitor can offer,(even when using the strongest zoom factor and the narrowest field of view that goes with it), the very edges of this large human field of view are still good enough to notice objects, especially the ones appearing or making sudden moves. TIR alleviates this problem considerably, relieving the online pilot from the task of steering the view manually, but looking in the flight direction in the low level flight, and still being able to notice treetops flying by through the left cockpit window, and the opponent's wingman curving in at your right at the same time, well, slim chances of attaining that as long as we stay bound to the normal monitor- with or without TIR. That means, even with TIR, which I have and like very much, the degree of environmental awareness of the RL pilot cannot be realized.
So-called Padlock View, which fixes the viewing direction onto the opponent's plane was another, older attempt to solve this display problem. The EAW was among the first sims to introduce this viewing mode. Sitting in the air 15 m from your own plane, and seeing sometimes the things you could never have seen out of the pilot's seat because of the obstacles there, no one of the people who use the padlock has ever been tempted to call their viewing method a real one, not to mention 'Full Real' one. Top Hat users, on the other hand very often do deceive themselves into the belief that their viewing method reflects the RL. Even with TIR, and especially with the Top-Hat only, this belief is very far from being grounded.(View-controlling mouse-control sticks on X52 and Cougar lie somewhere in between.) So called Full-Real is just another rough approximation of the reality, and while Padlock eliminates the surprise factor, and strongly accents the importance of the manoeuvring qualities of the planes, FR, especially Top Hat-FR makes them almost completely irrelevant, where the tactics of using the deficiencies of the viewing system can bring much more than any manoeuvring performance advantage. I beg the FR adherents to bear in mind that the name 'Full Real' is a very misleading one. Arguments dismissing the plane performance inaccuracies as irrelevant on the grounds described above, miss an insight of the deficiencies of the FR in conveying the visual environment to the online pilot.

In general, plane's flight-models in the game look rather convincing on the surface. High wing loading planes (mostlyhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif do not turn very well and stall at relatively high speeds; high Power-Loading planes do not climb too well, and so on. It is the comparison of these planes in combat that causes the headaches. Systematic error on the Russian plane's FM's is almost always on the side of the better values, and the best you can hope for is some approximately realistic FM with some of them (Yak-9). The German planes on the other side mostly suffer from underrating of important aerodynamic parameters, and I know of one case only, disregarding the jets, that a German plane has been depicted properly regarding the most important parameters. It's the Bf109G2. Or at least, it was, until the version 4.08, which according to 1C suffered almost no changes to the flight models. In reality many plane FM's feel very, very differently; one example is the climb speed of the G2, which seems to be reduced. I am not going to insist on this because I haven't tested it, but I will. Absence of the Youss's 'Il2 Compare'-version for 4.08 seems rather interesting to me in this light, too.
All other Bf's have had their Maximum Lift Coefficient strongly reduced, from the very beginnings of the game. Later corrections alleviated that to some extent, but never completely. Because of that, Emil, for example, has a clean stall speed of 140 Km/h (it is very easy to test), compared to the RL value of 125 Km/h. Thanks to the leading-edge slats, Bf's had a rather high Max. Lift Coefficient. Slats improve the wing behavior significantly at the high AoA's, and make higher max. AoA's possible. High Max. Lift means lower landing speeds and much better instantaneous turns. Emil is quite crippled in this aspect, which is much less obvious than a wrong maximum speed and rate of climb would be, but just as, or even more important. Bf didn't compare nearly so badly in turns, especially instantaneous turns, versus the opponent aircraft of the period as our sim implies.
All the Bf's other than G2 suffer from this same ailment, and the funniest thing is, different Bf subtypes have quite obviously different Maximum Lift Coefficientshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Having in mind that all Bf's had, to all intents and purposes aerodynamically the same wing ( differences between the wings up to E and after this variant are cosmetics only), whoever created these different numbers must have been joking if he has a slightest idea on aerodynamics. And he does have one, and more than one, I expect.

FW-190 series has been dealt with in a more complicated manner. Some have even been given somewhat better sustained turn rates then RL, which doesn't bring them very much, since they are still far behind other planes in that aspect. On the other side, like the Bf's, their Max. CL's have been degraded, which strongly reduces their instantaneous turning of which they have been highly capable in reality. Slashing short sharp turns at high speeds are much less slashing because of that, and the plane causing worst headaches to the British in '42 is a danger for a Spit only in the hands of a very good online pilot. Such people are capable of repeated sudden pulls to the the very stall limit, without stalling the plane. Anyway, whoever would, no matter how good he is, try obtaining the sequences of short sharp turns out of the FW's RL-repertoire with the violence of an RL-FW, would end up with a series of high-speed stalls.

The list of the FM-inaccuracies does not end with these three planes by any means, but I think they suffice as the typical examples of such problems in the sim. Finding out the correct FM-parameters of the WWII planes can be a bit complicated. Flight-test results of the prototypes, hand-made by the most experienced people of the company, do tend to be substantially better then the results of the following series-production examples. Series production plane's performances can vary quite a bit from plane to plane. Especially in the case of Russian, and sometimes British and German planes, significant design changes during the type's production life are not necessarily reflected in a type designation change. That is most remarkable in the case of LaGG-3, La and Yak series. Many small changes, often aimed at the weight reduction or aerodynamic improvements would add up to substantial advantages for the late-production planes, while the type designation misleadingly remains the same. La-7 1945 production, for example, which most probably did not see any combat against Germans, has significantly better performance figures then the first production run in 1944. The LA-7 test-flight overview in Russian, appearing on the page 2 of this thread is a very nice example of this. The first two columns of the table describe the test results of the same machine, before and after applying several improvements. (The footnote mentions hermetizing / closing of the gaps between panels on the fuselage and cowling and using the reference prop, among other things, as far as my modest Russian understanding reveals to me) Before the changes, top speed at 6000m is 640, and after that 674 Km/h. Looking up the second page of the table, which contains results of the 1945 production run, one sees this higher speed as the typical one for the whole late production batch. Knowing this, one hasn't to go that far to suppose this test-machine was a prototype for at least some of the changes introduced in the late production run. Such differences have been solved by some other planes in the sim through introducing separate early and late model FM's, and La-7 certainly offers itself to this approach, too.

Nonetheless, all these WWII planes are not coming out of Roman times, or Middle-Ages, and are in most cases still very well documented. Test flight data is available, for the prototypes and for the production machines. Finding and selecting the data in a serious manner has been everything else but impossible in the seven years that passed since the game development has begun. Biased selection of the best found data for the planes of one country, and worst found ones for some other country, or even using pure fantasy figures is certainly not something one can call serious. Neither can man consider serious using the weight data of a variant with the weaker but lighter engine, and power data of the stronger and heavier one for ceratin subtypes of I-16, which then climb much faster then in RL. At best this can be described as a heavy case of wishful thinking, and stronger qualifications are possible, too.
Impressed so as I was and still am by the general quality of the game itself, I have seen no reason to doubt the individual plane performance figures for a rather long time. After all, superficially observed, they look convincing, reflecting approximately what one could roughly expect from the plane geometry, weight and power data. Only the periodical new game versions, which constantly changed the plane qualities and their relative comparisons have been forcing one to change his flying style with the individual machines constantly, because the advantages or disadvantages they had relative to each other changed constantly, too. Of course I found that a bit unnerving, like many others did, I suppose. Some time ago, after one new version improved several of the German planes noticeably, I was approached from a well known Russian member of the community, who asked me how do I feel about it. Well, believing that the planes already have the realistic FM's, and unnerved with the constant changing and tinkering with the FM's, I had not liked it at all. I have then been asked to write to Oleg in that sense, which I did, too. I am not very surprised now that he never answered, having in mind that I complained about improving the previously supposedly correct performances of the German planes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif))) Nevertheless, this provoked me to dig a bit on the plane FM's, wanting to know finally what is going on with these year-long constant upward and downward adjustments of the figures. Articles written by Cube on the SimHQ forum several years ago, as well as Il2 Compare from Youss have been especially revealing in that sense. Naturally, Cube compares the RL with the contemporary versions of FB, but even with many changes that came after his articles, and some rather shy and slow bringing of the figures to the more realistic values, these problems today stay basically the same as the ones he could describe then.

Making of this simulation has been quite obviously a most serious effort, but I am sorry to say, creating of the individual plane FM's is much less so. In some cases it can be rather described as everything else but serious. One feels frustrated seeing the excellent flight physics not giving the best results in reproducing the individual plane flying qualities out of the simple reason the wrong parameter values have been used. It is not five minutes to twelve, but three hours after twelve to finally give the planes their RL-parameters. This is very and easily attainable; one simply needs a small bit of that approach used on the general flight physics, and a negligibly small additional effort compared to the one used up on creating the basis of this sim. Confidence in the plane FM's lasted surprisingly long as it is, but the awareness of the real state of affairs is obviously becoming more and more widespread in the community. I would not wonder, even, if the community reacts with a feeling of being deceived. I see no single valid rational reason to detract from the general quality of our sim with quite unnecessarily wrong performance parameters of the individual planes any longer. Not that it has been justified up till now.
If anyone wants to know more about how do I come to some of the above statements on RL and sim comparative plane performances , I ll be glad to answer.

PE_Tihi

alert_1
04-23-2007, 03:56 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

HQ1
04-23-2007, 05:58 AM
Now all 109s has been porked http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif P39s and lAs dominate the Sky from 0 to 10000m.I have lost the interest in this game. just put my joystick back into the drawer waiting for the BOB releasing.

Ratsack
04-23-2007, 06:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PE_Tihi:
Forgotten Battles and Real Life



It took some time to read this rather long thread on the simulation versus RL-performance of the La-7, ....

PE_Tihi </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you sure you're not JG14_Josf?

Ratsack

Krakkers
04-23-2007, 06:42 AM
As much as I understand that the difference between RL and the FM in this sim exists (regardless of how much or little that difference is) regardless of where I look in various books I always come across the same statement about the La-7. "It is one of the best fighters in the European theatre of Operations if not of the whole war" now I admit that I have not seen anything describing how or why, or in what tactics this plane excels and I have very much been left to come to my own conclusions, as a rather amateur sim flyer. but I find that using BnZ tactics it is really a very good airplane.

I realise that what I am basing this on is opinion printed in various books and my own opinion (which is admittedly probably not worth much) but could so many opinions be wrong?

PE_Tihi
04-23-2007, 07:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As much as I understand that the difference between RL and the FM in this sim exists (regardless of how much or little that difference is) regardless of where I look in various books I always come across the same statement about the La-7. "It is one of the best fighters in the European theatre of Operations if not of the whole war" now I admit that I have not seen anything describing how or why, or in what tactics this plane excels and I have very much been left to come to my own conclusions, as a rather amateur sim flyer. but I find that using BnZ tactics it is really a very good airplane. I realise that what I am basing this on is opinion printed in various books and my own opinion (which is admittedly probably not worth much) but could so many opinions be wrong? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, Krakkers, I am not trying to say that La-7 wasn't a very good plane, on the contrary. With the top speed of 675 Km/h, 24m/s initial climb and 20-21s 360? turn time it is quite obviously a plane of extraordinary qualities.
That is exactly the reason why it doesn't need additional 3 or even 7 m/s climb speed, or 18 s full turn. With such parameters it is simply a caricature of a real La-7. Booster rockets would not be needed... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

PE_Tihi
04-23-2007, 07:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:Originally posted by PE_Tihi:Forgotten Battles and Real Life It took some time to read this rather long thread on the simulation versus RL-performance of the La-7, .... PE_Tihi Are you sure you're not JG14_Josf?Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
LOL http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

FluffyDucks2
04-23-2007, 07:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PE_Tihi:
Forgotten Battles and Real Life



It took some time to read this rather long thread on the simulation versus RL-performance of the La-7, but IL2FB plane performances do interest me, so I did it. The discussions on the plane performances are certainly not new to Il2; this theme is almost as old as the game itself. What's more, supposedly because of the community criticisms, too, the plane performance figures have been changed many, many times during the life of this Sim, up till now. Especially regarding the well known plane types. Nonetheless, although the discrepancies between the RL and Sim performances have been reduced through this constant and long tinkering with the aerodynamics and the power parameters, remarkable deviations from reality are still to be found, in the first line with the Russian and German planes, although the other planes have by no means been spared.
I like this Sim very much, and one of the reasons is the excellent flight physics of the sim. Of course, there are limitations hardware and net bandwidth set to this program, but they do not reflect seriously on the sheer beauty of the general flight model, which can reproduce the plane behavior in flight in a such minutious detail. Today's hardware at our homes is very powerful, most probably stronger then the hardware used in the professional simulators only some years ago. I am not going to make comparisons between FB and other sims, since I don't fly them; I feel no need for that.
Anyone trying to convince me that this flight physics cannot reproduce quite exactly the flying qualities of any WWII plane would have a hard time succeeding. That is exactly the reason the inaccuracies of the individual plane input parameters, read their in-sim performance figures, bother me so much. After seven years of the sim development, there is no valid reason under the heaven's dome that these parameters have still not reached their RL- values. I used to dismiss these discrepancies as due to the difficulties of finding the valid test flight results from these times, and so on. After seven years of supposed searching, this cannot be a valid excuse, especially for the well-known types, like Bf-109, La-7, FW-190, I-16 and others. The numerous test-data sheets that appear in this and other fori are an obvious proof of that.
La-7 is one of the most obvious examples. WEP-rate of climb went as high as 30-31 m/s in some earlier versions of this sim! The present value is 27 m/s, and this is still 11% higher than the best known test-result of an postwar-production La-7 (24.2 m/s) , and much higher than the best known result of a war production example, which is 22.6 m/s!
Not less inaccurate is the La-7 sustained turn performance. La-series are the planes with a rather heavy wing loading (185 Kg/m2), which approaches the wing loading of the FW-190 ( 200-220 kg/m2). Now, the wing loading is the crucial factor for the turn performance of a plane. Extremely good turners like Ki43 have a wing loading of approx. 80 Kg/m2; very good ones like early Spits and Hurricanes are at 120-130 Kg/m²; Emil is at 155 Kg/m², and late Bf's at approximately 175-180. Biplanes have a wing loading even lower than 80kg/m², and so does, interestingly, the Aichi D3A1 Val ( ~70 Kg/m²), which explains the surprising turning qualities of this bombing plane. The wing-loading points almost directly to the plane's sustained turning qualities. One can hardly expect from the La, whose wing-loading lies in the neighborhood of the worst turning single-engined plane of the game, FW-190, to have the best 360 ? turn time among the late-war fighters. Still, although the best test of an wartime production La-7 plane cites the surprisingly good 20-21 s, the game gives us flabbergasting 18 s.
Such differences, waved off from some people in the forum as inconsequential, are everything but irrelevant in RL or online combat. 3 m/s climbing speed difference is similar to the maximum climb speed of some WWI planes. Having a 3 m/s advantage you climb away from someone in a spiral climb like an elevator. In the same way, having a 2-3 second better turn time than the circling opponent means gaining 40? to 60? on him in each full turn. In other words, if 180? separated you at the begining, you are at the opponent's neck in 3-4 full turns. In practice that goes even faster, because your breathing down his neck provokes the opponent either to try to turn tighter, and that means outside of his best turn envelope, or try to extend. Neither of these is a very attractive option.
LA-7 Damage Model has shown itself capable of lifting some eyebrows, too. I have a .ntrk where the La-7 I have been flying looses both horizontal stabilizers one after the other, while the elevators remain attached and working; the plane with enormous gaps and holes on it's wooden fuselage flies merrily further. On another occasion, a Bf109G I have been flying collides with a La-7, loosing a wing, while the La looses an aileron only.

The adherents of the Full-Real tend to dismiss the performance, and especially turn performance figure discrepancies as not very relevant under the so-called Full-Real environment. Furthermore, FR environment is taken as the approximately corresponding to the RL one. Well, I am flying the online flight simulations since the European Air War, a rather good sim for it's time. At that time, as well as now, the main unsolved problem of a PC flying simulation was and still is the visual display of the environment to the online pilot. The monitor display itself can cover, let's say, on the average spatial 30?, depending on the zoom factor. That makes it somewhat better than the tank periscope. Top Hat method of switching the views means steering this periscope in a rather rough manner per hand. That averts, of course, much of the pilot's attention from the flying itself, and he ends up steering not the plane but the view-controls most of the time. It can hardly be surprising that under such circumstances it makes almost no difference whether you fly a brick or a plane. RL pilot, on the other hand has only to move his eyes or head, having at the same time field of view of, say 210 degrees all the time. While seeing the center of this field in a resolution no monitor can offer,(even when using the strongest zoom factor and the narrowest field of view that goes with it), the very edges of this large human field of view are still good enough to notice objects, especially the ones appearing or making sudden moves. TIR alleviates this problem considerably, relieving the online pilot from the task of steering the view manually, but looking in the flight direction in the low level flight, and still being able to notice treetops flying by through the left cockpit window, and the opponent's wingman curving in at your right at the same time, well, slim chances of attaining that as long as we stay bound to the normal monitor- with or without TIR. That means, even with TIR, which I have and like very much, the degree of environmental awareness of the RL pilot cannot be realized.
So-called Padlock View, which fixes the viewing direction onto the opponent's plane was another, older attempt to solve this display problem. The EAW was among the first sims to introduce this viewing mode. Sitting in the air 15 m from your own plane, and seeing sometimes the things you could never have seen out of the pilot's seat because of the obstacles there, no one of the people who use the padlock has ever been tempted to call their viewing method a real one, not to mention 'Full Real' one. Top Hat users, on the other hand very often do deceive themselves into the belief that their viewing method reflects the RL. Even with TIR, and especially with the Top-Hat only, this belief is very far from being grounded.(View-controlling mouse-control sticks on X52 and Cougar lie somewhere in between.) So called Full-Real is just another rough approximation of the reality, and while Padlock eliminates the surprise factor, and strongly accents the importance of the manoeuvring qualities of the planes, FR, especially Top Hat-FR makes them almost completely irrelevant, where the tactics of using the deficiencies of the viewing system can bring much more than any manoeuvring performance advantage. I beg the FR adherents to bear in mind that the name 'Full Real' is a very misleading one. Arguments dismissing the plane performance inaccuracies as irrelevant on the grounds described above, miss an insight of the deficiencies of the FR in conveying the visual environment to the online pilot.

In general, plane's flight-models in the game look rather convincing on the surface. High wing loading planes (mostlyhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif do not turn very well and stall at relatively high speeds; high Power-Loading planes do not climb too well, and so on. It is the comparison of these planes in combat that causes the headaches. Systematic error on the Russian plane's FM's is almost always on the side of the better values, and the best you can hope for is some approximately realistic FM with some of them (Yak-9). The German planes on the other side mostly suffer from underrating of important aerodynamic parameters, and I know of one case only, disregarding the jets, that a German plane has been depicted properly regarding the most important parameters. It's the Bf109G2. Or at least, it was, until the version 4.08, which according to 1C suffered almost no changes to the flight models. In reality many plane FM's feel very, very differently; one example is the climb speed of the G2, which seems to be reduced. I am not going to insist on this because I haven't tested it, but I will. Absence of the Youss's 'Il2 Compare'-version for 4.08 seems rather interesting to me in this light, too.
All other Bf's have had their Maximum Lift Coefficient strongly reduced, from the very beginnings of the game. Later corrections alleviated that to some extent, but never completely. Because of that, Emil, for example, has a clean stall speed of 140 Km/h (it is very easy to test), compared to the RL value of 125 Km/h. Thanks to the leading-edge slats, Bf's had a rather high Max. Lift Coefficient. Slats improve the wing behavior significantly at the high AoA's, and make higher max. AoA's possible. High Max. Lift means lower landing speeds and much better instantaneous turns. Emil is quite crippled in this aspect, which is much less obvious than a wrong maximum speed and rate of climb would be, but just as, or even more important. Bf didn't compare nearly so badly in turns, especially instantaneous turns, versus the opponent aircraft of the period as our sim implies.
All the Bf's other than G2 suffer from this same ailment, and the funniest thing is, different Bf subtypes have quite obviously different Maximum Lift Coefficientshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Having in mind that all Bf's had, to all intents and purposes aerodynamically the same wing ( differences between the wings up to E and after this variant are cosmetics only), whoever created these different numbers must have been joking if he has a slightest idea on aerodynamics. And he does have one, and more than one, I expect.

FW-190 series has been dealt with in a more complicated manner. Some have even been given somewhat better sustained turn rates then RL, which doesn't bring them very much, since they are still far behind other planes in that aspect. On the other side, like the Bf's, their Max. CL's have been degraded, which strongly reduces their instantaneous turning of which they have been highly capable in reality. Slashing short sharp turns at high speeds are much less slashing because of that, and the plane causing worst headaches to the British in '42 is a danger for a Spit only in the hands of a very good online pilot. Such people are capable of repeated sudden pulls to the the very stall limit, without stalling the plane. Anyway, whoever would, no matter how good he is, try obtaining the sequences of short sharp turns out of the FW's RL-repertoire with the violence of an RL-FW, would end up with a series of high-speed stalls.

The list of the FM-inaccuracies does not end with these three planes by any means, but I think they suffice as the typical examples of such problems in the sim. Finding out the correct FM-parameters of the WWII planes can be a bit complicated. Flight-test results of the prototypes, hand-made by the most experienced people of the company, do tend to be substantially better then the results of the following series-production examples. Series production plane's performances can vary quite a bit from plane to plane. Especially in the case of Russian, and sometimes British and German planes, significant design changes during the type's production life are not necessarily reflected in a type designation change. That is most remarkable in the case of LaGG-3, La and Yak series. Many small changes, often aimed at the weight reduction or aerodynamic improvements would add up to substantial advantages for the late-production planes, while the type designation misleadingly remains the same. La-7 1945 production, for example, which most probably did not see any combat against Germans, has significantly better performance figures then the first production run in 1944. The LA-7 test-flight overview in Russian, appearing on the page 2 of this thread is a very nice example of this. The first two columns of the table describe the test results of the same machine, before and after applying several improvements. (The footnote mentions hermetizing / closing of the gaps between panels on the fuselage and cowling and using the reference prop, among other things, as far as my modest Russian understanding reveals to me) Before the changes, top speed at 6000m is 640, and after that 674 Km/h. Looking up the second page of the table, which contains results of the 1945 production run, one sees this higher speed as the typical one for the whole late production batch. Knowing this, one hasn't to go that far to suppose this test-machine was a prototype for at least some of the changes introduced in the late production run. Such differences have been solved by some other planes in the sim through introducing separate early and late model FM's, and La-7 certainly offers itself to this approach, too.

Nonetheless, all these WWII planes are not coming out of Roman times, or Middle-Ages, and are in most cases still very well documented. Test flight data is available, for the prototypes and for the production machines. Finding and selecting the data in a serious manner has been everything else but impossible in the seven years that passed since the game development has begun. Biased selection of the best found data for the planes of one country, and worst found ones for some other country, or even using pure fantasy figures is certainly not something one can call serious. Neither can man consider serious using the weight data of a variant with the weaker but lighter engine, and power data of the stronger and heavier one for ceratin subtypes of I-16, which then climb much faster then in RL. At best this can be described as a heavy case of wishful thinking, and stronger qualifications are possible, too.
Impressed so as I was and still am by the general quality of the game itself, I have seen no reason to doubt the individual plane performance figures for a rather long time. After all, superficially observed, they look convincing, reflecting approximately what one could roughly expect from the plane geometry, weight and power data. Only the periodical new game versions, which constantly changed the plane qualities and their relative comparisons have been forcing one to change his flying style with the individual machines constantly, because the advantages or disadvantages they had relative to each other changed constantly, too. Of course I found that a bit unnerving, like many others did, I suppose. Some time ago, after one new version improved several of the German planes noticeably, I was approached from a well known Russian member of the community, who asked me how do I feel about it. Well, believing that the planes already have the realistic FM's, and unnerved with the constant changing and tinkering with the FM's, I had not liked it at all. I have then been asked to write to Oleg in that sense, which I did, too. I am not very surprised now that he never answered, having in mind that I complained about improving the previously supposedly correct performances of the German planes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif))) Nevertheless, this provoked me to dig a bit on the plane FM's, wanting to know finally what is going on with these year-long constant upward and downward adjustments of the figures. Articles written by Cube on the SimHQ forum several years ago, as well as Il2 Compare from Youss have been especially revealing in that sense. Naturally, Cube compares the RL with the contemporary versions of FB, but even with many changes that came after his articles, and some rather shy and slow bringing of the figures to the more realistic values, these problems today stay basically the same as the ones he could describe then.

Making of this simulation has been quite obviously a most serious effort, but I am sorry to say, creating of the individual plane FM's is much less so. In some cases it can be rather described as everything else but serious. One feels frustrated seeing the excellent flight physics not giving the best results in reproducing the individual plane flying qualities out of the simple reason the wrong parameter values have been used. It is not five minutes to twelve, but three hours after twelve to finally give the planes their RL-parameters. This is very and easily attainable; one simply needs a small bit of that approach used on the general flight physics, and a negligibly small additional effort compared to the one used up on creating the basis of this sim. Confidence in the plane FM's lasted surprisingly long as it is, but the awareness of the real state of affairs is obviously becoming more and more widespread in the community. I would not wonder, even, if the community reacts with a feeling of being deceived. I see no single valid rational reason to detract from the general quality of our sim with quite unnecessarily wrong performance parameters of the individual planes any longer. Not that it has been justified up till now.
If anyone wants to know more about how do I come to some of the above statements on RL and sim comparative plane performances , I ll be glad to answer.

PE_Tihi </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

At last a post that is both sensible and considered, unfortunately there are many on these boards that will shortly come in to both ridicule and denigrate these points. Then they will post their dodgy charts and graphs followed by personal attacks, because they FEAR that any blue aircraft should be depicted in any way close to its RL performance abilities, after all they want "their" aircraft to be uber despite the facts , and especially "their" SpitUfos to retain their RIDICULOUS current anti-grav abilities(we all know what I am talking about here don't we http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Soon they will come, all screamming in their red induced hysteria "Got track?" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
I really dont understand their childish obsession with RED=UBER and BLUE=**** no matter what http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

The words FACTS, REALITY, OBJECTIVITY and TRUTH are something that are foreign to these types. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

M_Gunz
04-23-2007, 07:39 AM
Perhaps Tihi with his great knowledge can tell us what the German standard atmosphere model was
back in those days? It's no f_cking use talking about charts when they are not based on the
same air yet that's been going on for decades by so-called experts... at reading history books.

And only the G-2 of the German props is not understated? Sure. And I own the Empire State Bldg.

3 whole posts for all these years and a whole set of done over and disputed arguments that have
not been solidly set in decades, literal effing DECADES of debates going back to before flight
sims were on PC's but you know the reality so please let us all know what German Standard
Atmosphere that German data was corrected to.

Because if you ain't got that much, you're just blowing a ton of smoke while pushing an agenda -- Tagert has posted that Oleg has the atmosphere info and corrected for it BTW.

Oh and just FYI, powerloading plays a huge factor in constant turns which does show IRL.
Not saying the sim matches the reality but it's a joke thinking that most know the reality
so well as to make calls on the differences. They only talk about their idea as reality.

How much change and where is what it takes to 'correct' any sim. When it comes down to the
numbers we keep finding that the claims are NO BETTER SUPPORTED THAN THE SIM, USUALLY LESS.

So talk your line but until you can come up with the goods then a bunch of generalities is
just a voice of discontent among a whole stinking crowd of them. I can accept your ideas
as your ideas just as I can accept what MG has done as the work of professional AE's on a
simulation. I look forward VERY MUCH to your sim which I am sure others will discredit or
support based on how well it matches THEIR ideas. I have a feeling it will be a big hit
with one group so I just can't wait. What's the name and who will be publishing it?

Hkuusela
04-23-2007, 10:54 AM
So basicly, PE_Tihi, you blasphemer, don't critisize the holy IL-2 unless you're ready to produce a sim that's better... Nice.

Here's what you're supposed to say:

"Let us praise IL-2: O IL-2... ooh you are so big... so absolutely huge... Gosh we're all really impressed down here I can tell you. Forgive us, o IL-2, for this our dreadful toadying and barefaced flattery, but you're so strong and, well, just so super, fantastic!"

You will find lots of new friends.

DKoor
04-23-2007, 11:05 AM
Hkuusela is right, and some of you guys should be ashamed of yourself. IL-2 is one good game, best in it's genre... it sure is a some kind of "holy grail" in the sim world and in the whole gaming world for me.

But I wont lie, BS and troll people around in order to protect it's faults.

Some of the evidences are pretty self explanatory to whoever is open minded, even to those who do not know much about it and who are newbies.
The only thing needed is to look reasonably at facts, but I guess that's something that most people are unable to do... at least judging by this board.

I love airplanes all my life especially pistons. They are my weak spot. And I really can't say that I have a strong favorite...
When I came to these boards almost four years ago I did not expected to see blue vs red mentality.
But... it didn't took long before I saw that what I'm thinking is wrong... after someone points out obvious flaw on some aircraft type, few others jump in and BS about how that is not true or it is a compensation because this is overmodeled and ... well you know the usual $hit that happens on these boards. If you say that LA-5FN is not 1943 airplane, not by a long shot - you get flamed... if you ask why a V4.02 P-51D is so unstable (wobble) you get flamed, if you ask why FB (pre-PF) MG151/20 deals so little damage guess what - you're luftwhiner etc. etc.
But I guess that is how most people operate... tard frequencies.

Thank God - I'm not among them, so in a way I feel privileged. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

M_Gunz
04-23-2007, 12:19 PM
So basically you see, just lay your line of $#!+ on anything and feel like you're someone.

As in d-head, when you get past being juevnile then maybe you won't still view the entire
world as a target for your self-@$$ed discontent!

There ain't $#!+ holy about IL2.

I for one would like to see someone come up with a "real" that is really closer. I've seen
a LOT of arguments put up and shot down and then restated as fact as if they are.

It's even funnier in a punk sense when someone gets on the bias stick and then gets sympathy
over getting treated rough for it. He plays the accusation under a new account name (been
with IL2 from the start and 3 posts now) and that means nothing? Or perhaps the same *******
that posted that is also defending it?

DKoor, I've seen enough problems with planes from all sides that no way it's simple bias.
Sure the planes do not match to many people's IDEAS of how they should be.

We've had a big one about charts in another thread and it does turn out that those are made
from trial data that is adjusted to "standard day" conditions. Except that each country
had its own standard day and test standards as well.

That means simply that you can't compare one chart to another to game performance any more
than you can compare apples to onions to Twinkies. So what is so clear?

IL2 is a product. PC sim can't be all that reality is. There will always be something not
completely real and other things missing totally. Always something to note deficient.
It's when someone says bias or goes other ways beyond reason with the criticism that they,
and please understand this, ask for the same in return.

In the meantime I await the expertly made sims of the high and mighty know-betters. The
genre needs new producers and you clowns seem to think you have the answers.

FPSOLKOR
04-23-2007, 12:24 PM
Hey, guys! If you want realism - by your own Me or La and go fight in the air. This is going to be as close as it gets, but most likely you will have one attempt only...

Brain32
04-23-2007, 12:33 PM
It's funnay how some people how sooooo many fuc*ing arguments in threads like this, but when K4 climbs 3m/s better it's ROOOOAAARRRRRRR a brutal crying outrage http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif I did some searches on UBI forums not so long ago, you know, last time they fixed the search engine, I'm still pi$$ed, vomit bag required 100% http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> (been with IL2 from the start and 3 posts now) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
3 posts on ubi? So fuc*ing what? Have you ever heard of PE squadron? No? Then I wander if the join date matches the person speaking http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Hkuusela
04-23-2007, 12:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
So basically you see, just lay your line of $#!+ on anything and feel like you're someone.

As in d-head, when you get past being juevnile then maybe you won't still view the entire
world as a target for your self-@$$ed discontent!

There ain't $#!+ holy about IL2. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, I'm sorry if we seem juvenile to you, as you are so adult and mature, as we can see above. Calling other forum members clowns is also mature and oh so wise. But then again, being civile should only apply to people critisizing the almighty IL-2, not to people worshipping it?

Your excuse for acting stupid is that someone else allegedly did it first. That's great, really makes sense... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
It's even funnier in a punk sense when someone gets on the bias stick and then gets sympathy
over getting treated rough for it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
What's really funny is, that when ever the holy IL-2 is critisized by an agnostic, it is M_Gunz swearing and using big words uncalled for and then blaming others for trying to feel like someone. English isn't my native language, but I'm well enough familiar with the saying about the pot calling the kettle black.

M_Gunz
04-23-2007, 12:55 PM
I know you don't see me saying K-4 needs any change. And no, I am not Tagert.

I think that Tagert did these because of Viper's P-47 thread. What you think of that thread?

I think that people should either play a sim or not. If they have good data for requesting a
change then they should present that and if not then shut up and let someone who has the data
and not be rude become noticed and taken seriously. I say that because I have seen good things
here either take too long to get past the *noise* of idiots to get changed, or not get changed
after so much *noise* and rudeness the issue becomes locked, or like the trim change back in,
was it 2003, the change was pushed and as bad as the exploit for us that did not exploit.

There are moddable sims for those who know what speed, climb, etc, they must have in order to
continue living. So why stay with a sim that is just so obviously wrong? Must be something
else.

tomtheyak
04-23-2007, 01:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FluffyDucks2:

... there are many on these boards that will shortly come in to both ridicule and denigrate these points.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No ridicule or denigration on Tihi's points, though I did raise an eyebrow on occasion. However for the most part, a well considered, and at least calm post. I don't think he's right on all points, but then, that's the wonder of being able to hold your own opinion.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FluffyDucks2:

Then they will post their dodgy charts and graphs followed by personal attacks,

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No charts, or insults here mate...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FluffyDucks2:

... because they FEAR that any blue aircraft should be depicted in any way close to its RL performance abilities,...

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For the most part I was led to believe MOST a/c in the generally hit the figures, with some error margins, and some slightly optimistic climb rates across the board.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FluffyDucks2:

after all they want "their" aircraft to be uber despite the facts , and especially "their" SpitUfos to retain their RIDICULOUS current anti-grav abilities(we all know what I am talking about here don't we http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Negative. I'm a red pilot, mainly Spitfires. I want every a/c to be uber where it should be, and porked in the same manner. I want 109s and 190s to have better dive acceleration than the spits, which IMHO they do. Many have top speed advantages at certain alts which is reflected in game.

The trouble comes with online and even offline play and tactics THAT IN NO OR VERY LITTLE WAY REFLECT THE TACTICS ADOPTED AND USED BY THE RELATIVE AIR ARMS.

This includes numbers of a/c, mission priorities, teamwork, air discipline, comms and comms discipline, use of sun, cloud cover and altitude, but most importantly WHEN TO DISENGAGE OR EVEN AVOiD COMBAT BECAUSE OF A BAD POSITION.

I suspect, note suspect, that you are flying the 109 badly in a tactical sense, engaging from bad positions (low or same altitude or E) with little SA of other e/a approaching your fight.
The G6 is a dog, but the later G variants and all of the Fw190 models can be painfully elusive foe, when they engage using height, speed and a calm patient pilot behind the stick.

As for spitfire anti-gravity, it seems you are the one descending to bluster and insulting:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FluffyDucks2:

Soon they will come, all screamming in their red induced hysteria "Got track?" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
I really dont understand their childish obsession with RED=UBER and BLUE=**** no matter what http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cos I am screaming?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FluffyDucks2:

The words FACTS, REALITY, OBJECTIVITY and TRUTH are something that are foreign to these types. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again you assume I cant be objective. Thats insulting my intelligence. I make the best decisions that I can based upon the information I have at that time. I grew up with an admittedly slightly biased view of Allied a/c superiority. But long posts here have taken much of that bias away. I can never be completey objective, I doubt any of us can. But despite the fact that I believe that the 109 was a much better a/c than some perceptions of history give it credit for, I still don't see it as porked as you would have us believe.

I have flown in Spits Vs 109s, a full switch server, (admittedly a d/f room, but with objectives and a fairly good sense of team/formation play) and against some great online pilots and have been shot down many times by Bf109s whilst flying a Spitfire, and not just through bounces, but great scissoring, deflection shooting and energy management. And there are certain speeds and RoT where the 109 can out turn a spit, albiet briefly, using the high alpha pointability of the 109, tho you do bleed a lot of speed. I suggest you talk to some capable blue pilots and see what you might be doing wrong.

Other than that it sounds like you want an a/c that out-dives, out-climb; outrun and out-turn a Spit?! Now who wants a clown plane?

The details of this game might be off, but the general tactics from my reading seem to stick. ALL sides try to use an advantages of height to bounce and escape/climb for height, with the Luftwaffe electing to avoid turning combat, where the RAF and VVS when caught at a disadvantage elect to circle fight.

If the Luftwaffe had planes capable of mixing it up with Spits and Yaks or La's at low to med alt, I feel we'd see far more evidence of Luftwaffe pilots staying to TnB. And although there are isolated cases, the majority of combat reports from both sides say a different story.

M_Gunz
04-23-2007, 01:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hkuusela:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
There ain't $#!+ holy about IL2. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What's really funny is, that when ever the holy IL-2 is critisized by an agnostic, it is M_Gunz swearing and using big words uncalled for and then blaming others for trying to feel like someone. English isn't my native language, but I'm well enough familiar with the saying about the pot calling the kettle black. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, so it is you that maintains IL2 holy status?

And who is this agnostic? The one talking how biased the planes are? With the laundry list
of poorly and unbacked-up whines?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by "I am so neutral and wise" Hkuusela:

Here's what you're supposed to say:

"Let us praise IL-2: O IL-2... ooh you are so big... so absolutely huge... Gosh we're all really impressed down here I can tell you. Forgive us, o IL-2, for this our dreadful toadying and barefaced flattery, but you're so strong and, well, just so super, fantastic!"
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you can go from my post to that then sure, english is not your first language. In fact
it's not a language you should be conversing at all in. Perhaps you speak estrogen and it
is your special time?

Hkuusela
04-23-2007, 01:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
And who is this agnostic? The one talking how biased the planes are? With the laundry list
of poorly and unbacked-up whines? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually, I don't think he was talking about bias. I'm pretty sure he mentioned that the German planes had been overmodeled in previous patches. He simply said, that the patches over corrected them. How can one be biased, if one has allegedly over modelled a plane he's supposed to be biased against? Maybe it's just my English, I don't know...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
If you can go from my post to that then sure, english is not your first language. In fact
it's not a language you should be conversing at all in. Perhaps you speak estrogen and it
is your special time? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
It takes more than knowledge of a language to understand sarcasm. Btw, is it your argument, that women should not be conversing in the English language? That really fits in well with your way of arguing. So far you've called your opposing forum members clowns, idiots and women. Pretty impressive... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif Maybe womanhood is objectionable in your mind, since you use it as a punch line. Not a funny one, but still. Maybe that's what it takes to make you feel like a big, strong man?

M_Gunz
04-23-2007, 08:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PE_Tihi:
Anyone trying to convince me that this flight physics cannot reproduce quite exactly the flying qualities of any WWII plane would have a hard time succeeding. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What a shame.
1) "exactly the flying qualities of any WWII plane" says that he thinks these are known to that degree.
2) you can get a tabled sim to match specs but with those the flight physics is not so great.
3) there isn't enough power in a desktop PC to make a combat flight sim FM that does it all so well.
4) you don't agree with 3 then find one that does or try to make it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> That is exactly the reason the inaccuracies of the individual plane input parameters, read their in-sim performance figures, bother me so much. After seven years of the sim development, there is no valid reason under the heaven's dome that these parameters have still not reached their RL- values. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

See #4 above.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Systematic error on the Russian plane's FM's is almost always on the side of the better values, and the best you can hope for is some approximately realistic FM with some of them (Yak-9). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes he is not only unbiassed but he KNOWS how those planes all should be IRL! Not just in sims
like EAW but IRL!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The German planes on the other side mostly suffer from underrating of important aerodynamic parameters, and I know of one case only, disregarding the jets, that a German plane has been depicted properly regarding the most important parameters. It's the Bf109G2. Or at least, it was, until the version 4.08, which according to 1C suffered almost no changes to the flight models. In reality many plane FM's feel very, very differently; one example is the climb speed of the G2, which seems to be reduced. I am not going to insist on this because I haven't tested it, but I will. Absence of the Youss's 'Il2 Compare'-version for 4.08 seems rather interesting to me in this light, too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We should all take his expert word that German planes have been given the shaft and that Youss
is in on the conspiracy!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> All other Bf's have had their Maximum Lift Coefficient strongly reduced, from the very beginnings of the game. Later corrections alleviated that to some extent, but never completely. Because of that, Emil, for example, has a clean stall speed of 140 Km/h (it is very easy to test), compared to the RL value of 125 Km/h. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is that power on or off? We've gone through discussions before about stall speeds of various
109's and they don't seem to have been so far off the mark once the smoke and BS was cleared,
including player tests where some some people thought that stall means only dropping a wing
so flew 'test' in a descent to prove 109's stalled at too low a speed.

Do the tests right, convert charts to standard and actually test the same planes between sim
and IRL under the same conditions and SO FAR no one comes up so far off except empty claims
that as in this thread get restated as fact.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Thanks to the leading-edge slats, Bf's had a rather high Max. Lift Coefficient. Slats improve the wing behavior significantly at the high AoA's, and make higher max. AoA's possible. High Max. Lift means lower landing speeds and much better instantaneous turns. Emil is quite crippled in this aspect, which is much less obvious than a wrong maximum speed and rate of climb would be, but just as, or even more important. Bf didn't compare nearly so badly in turns, especially instantaneous turns, versus the opponent aircraft of the period as our sim implies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is one view. It is the usual simplification, ie not complete.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">All the Bf's other than G2 suffer from this same ailment, and the funniest thing is, different Bf subtypes have quite obviously different Maximum Lift Coefficientshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Having in mind that all Bf's had, to all intents and purposes aerodynamically the same wing ( differences between the wings up to E and after this variant are cosmetics only), whoever created these different numbers must have been joking if he has a slightest idea on aerodynamics. And he does have one, and more than one, I expect. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Deeper and deeper into his own BS. "The wings are the same"..........

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> FW-190 series has been dealt with in a more complicated manner. Some have even been given somewhat better sustained turn rates then RL, which doesn't bring them very much, since they are still far behind other planes in that aspect. On the other side, like the Bf's, their Max. CL's have been degraded, which strongly reduces their instantaneous turning of which they have been highly capable in reality. Slashing short sharp turns at high speeds are much less slashing because of that, and the plane causing worst headaches to the British in '42 is a danger for a Spit only in the hands of a very good online pilot. Such people are capable of repeated sudden pulls to the the very stall limit, without stalling the plane. Anyway, whoever would, no matter how good he is, try obtaining the sequences of short sharp turns out of the FW's RL-repertoire with the violence of an RL-FW, would end up with a series of high-speed stalls. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chapter and verse Luftwhining.

"FW-190 series has been dealt with in a more complicated manner." Sure, how could I think this
person does not claim bias in the sim? What is wrong when it is SO obvious?

All these years of debates following years of debates on previous sims... somebody has his own
picture is the only SO obvious thing to me. Big deal, so does Oleg Maddox and crew and they
have produced a sim series, made corrections and added improvements to it along the way.
Given that they have more than one professional AE, piles of full documents and even blueprints
of the planes, I think I accept their picture to be as valid as any other brought up even with
knowing that the sim cannot fit their picture exactly either.

Sitting back and taking shots based on incomplete knowledge of aerodynamics, not only incomplete
data but a lack of understanding of what is involved and the meanings is easy and CHEAP.
The ones that take it through debate get little farther. Saying that "fixing the FM's is a
simple matter" though do show just how ignorant they are. When I see a sim from those guys
I will be ready to listen to their talk. Until then talk is all it is, just cheap used air.

PE_Tihi
04-23-2007, 08:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Perhaps Tihi with his great knowledge can tell us what the German standard atmosphere model wasback in those days? It's no f_cking use talking about charts when they are not based on thesame air yet that's been going on for decades by so-called experts... at reading history books.And only the G-2 of the German props is not understated? Sure. And I own the Empire State Bldg.3 whole posts for all these years and a whole set of done over and disputed arguments that havenot been solidly set in decades, literal effing DECADES of debates going back to before flightsims were on PC's but you know the reality so please let us all know what German Standard Atmosphere that German data was corrected to. Because if you ain't got that much, you're just blowing a ton of smoke while pushing an agenda -- Tagert has posted that Oleg has the atmosphere info and corrected for it BTW.Oh and just FYI, powerloading plays a huge factor in constant turns which does show IRL.Not saying the sim matches the reality but it's a joke thinking that most know the realityso well as to make calls on the differences. They only talk about their idea as reality.How much change and where is what it takes to 'correct' any sim. When it comes down to thenumbers we keep finding that the claims are NO BETTER SUPPORTED THAN THE SIM, USUALLY LESS.So talk your line but until you can come up with the goods then a bunch of generalities isjust a voice of discontent among a whole stinking crowd of them. I can accept your ideasas your ideas just as I can accept what MG has done as the work of professional AE's on asimulation. I look forward VERY MUCH to your sim which I am sure others will discredit orsupport based on how well it matches THEIR ideas. I have a feeling it will be a big hitwith one group so I just can't wait. What's the name and who will be publishing it?"My views are solely my own and do not reflect the views of my Squad orits members" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Let me answer you point by point. Could you tell me which planet's atmosphere model could lift the initial climb of La-7 to 31 m/s ?
Your real-estate, including Empire State, is irellevant to this forum.
One of the reasons I do not usually write on this forum is the people who tend to get personal, and whose attitude is 'am smarter then you are'. They are a minority, but a very loud one. Thank you for reminding me of the previous 2 articles; I forgot them and thought this is my first. I can see this is you 313th post. It reminds me of the car number of Donald Duck http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif If the previous 312 posts were like this one, blaringly personal, you could have spared yourself the effort; at the level this one flies, dive is not an option, like someone aptly defined the attitudes of some of the community.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
And finally, let me propose out of the stinking crowd, that this sim is to be allowed to be flown only by it's developers, as well as the devellopers of the other sims. Sounds absurd, doesn't it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif?
Regarding your technical questions, I 'll answer to someone who is able to understand the explanation.
Your further posts, if in similar tone, are going to be ignored by me.

PE_Tihi
04-23-2007, 09:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It's even funnier in a punk sense when someone gets on the bias stick and then gets sympathyover getting treated rough for it. He plays the accusation under a new account name (beenwith IL2 from the start and 3 posts now) and that means nothing? Or perhaps the same *******that posted that is also defending it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Gunz, I have been treated roughly at times in my life. You don't even nearly come among those that are able to do so.
I am writing on this forum under my HL-nick, unlike many (possibly you, don't know). Hiding under other people credentials, as you imply, is something I simply do not do. I have been using this nick in HL since the spring '02.
I haven't got very much free time, and what I 've got goes into the online flying. I have little time to spare for the forums, and wasting it so as I am now answering someone's dreamed up insinuations, reminds me how right I am in that attitude. I wrote the post feeling it has to be written. Fullstop.

PE_Tihi
04-23-2007, 09:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote: (been with IL2 from the start and 3 posts now) 3 posts on ubi? So fuc*ing what? Have you ever heard of PE squadron? No? Then I wander if the join date matches the person speaking </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Brain, for your information, PE, or Partizanska Eskadrila is one of the oldest online squadrons around. It has been founded at the beginning of 2002. I am in it from the very beginnings, spring 2002. Beeing less active in the last time, PE may be less conspicious for the newer members of the community. See the answer to Gunz regarding the indentity insinuations. PE flies red, BTW. My personal preference are neither German, Russian, nor British planes, but Japanese ones.

PE_Tihi
04-24-2007, 12:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:Originally posted by PE_Tihi: Anyone trying to convince me that this flight physics cannot reproduce quite exactly the flying qualities of any WWII plane would have a hard time succeeding. What a shame. 1) "exactly the flying qualities of any WWII plane" says that he thinks these are known to that degree. 2) you can get a tabled sim to match specs but with those the flight physics is not so great.3) there isn't enough power in a desktop PC to make a combat flight sim FM that does it all so well.4) you don't agree with 3 then find one that does or try to make it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You do not deserve an answer with the manner you have been writing your posts, calling me stinking, *******, whiner, among other things. I am answering for the benefit of others who are reading this forum. If you want to be answered again, do try to argue against what has been written, not against the person.
1)Exactly has been meant as exactly enough for our purposes. 30% higher initial climbs are not exact enough, at least for my purposes and I do not know about you. Now, take a look at the previous pages of this forum and see for yourself to which degree of detail the original Russian test flight protocolls describe the La-7.
2)Flight physics of this sim is good enough to simulate the gyroscopic effects, swings,stalls, spins, spins with parts missing through the combat damage, aerodynamical behavior after combat damage, etc. quite convincingly. This requires a mathematical model of much greater complexity than the tabled sims. If the equations of this model do a wonderfull job depicting all of the above and more, why do you think the reason for 30% off in initial climb lies in the deficiencies of the flight physics model of the game? Beeing able to do all of the above, but beeing unable to hit the climb speed of a plane nearer than 30% would mean awfully misinformed programming of the game. Are you of that opinion really? I am not.
3) I think that you grossly underestimate the processing power of the todays PC's. Not very unusual, say, 2.5-3GHz dual-core machines at our homes could quite easily control all off the steering functions of a Space-Shuttle, for example, to mention this only, and have a real lot of surplus processing abillities idling.
4) Present flight physics in FB is a prototype of a kind for BoB FF, that means, intended for the machines with a lot of processing power. That means FF in this game is rather complex. And very able. I do not see any great need for a better one. If you do, you should do the programming.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:
Systematic error on the Russian plane's FM's is almost always on the side of the better values, and the best you can hope for is some approximately realistic FM with some of them (Yak-9).


Yes he is not only unbiassed but he KNOWS how those planes all should be IRL! Not just in sims
like EAW but IRL! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As mentioned, see the LA-7 flight test results on the page 2 of the forum. You are not going to need knowledge of cuneiform or hieroglyphic writing for that; only a bit of Russian in this case, German in some other cases, etc.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:
The German planes on the other side mostly suffer from underrating of important aerodynamic parameters, and I know of one case only, disregarding the jets, that a German plane has been depicted properly regarding the most important parameters. It's the Bf109G2. Or at least, it was, until the version 4.08, which according to 1C suffered almost no changes to the flight models. In reality many plane FM's feel very, very differently; one example is the climb speed of the G2, which seems to be reduced. I am not going to insist on this because I haven't tested it, but I will. Absence of the Youss's 'Il2 Compare'-version for 4.08 seems rather interesting to me in this light, too.


We should all take his expert word that German planes have been given the shaft and that Youss
is in on the conspiracy! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do not know about any conspiracies. Youss could have been barred from acces to the sim data, or he could have been tired from so many different versions he had to make, or whatever. Cannot speculate on that. The fact is, we havent got the Il2Compare for 4.08, and for earlier versions data appeared sometimes even much before than the new planes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:
All other Bf's have had their Maximum Lift Coefficient strongly reduced, from the very beginnings of the game. Later corrections alleviated that to some extent, but never completely. Because of that, Emil, for example, has a clean stall speed of 140 Km/h (it is very easy to test), compared to the RL value of 125 Km/h.


Is that power on or off? We've gone through discussions before about stall speeds of various
109's and they don't seem to have been so far off the mark once the smoke and BS was cleared,
including player tests where some some people thought that stall means only dropping a wing
so flew 'test' in a descent to prove 109's stalled at too low a speed.

Do the tests right, convert charts to standard and actually test the same planes between sim
and IRL under the same conditions and SO FAR no one comes up so far off except empty claims
that as in this thread get restated as fact. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is a powered stall speed. You obviously know how to test right, so please do it. It takes 5 minutes. When you reach 125 Km/ please let us know.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:
Thanks to the leading-edge slats, Bf's had a rather high Max. Lift Coefficient. Slats improve the wing behavior significantly at the high AoA's, and make higher max. AoA's possible. High Max. Lift means lower landing speeds and much better instantaneous turns. Emil is quite crippled in this aspect, which is much less obvious than a wrong maximum speed and rate of climb would be, but just as, or even more important. Bf didn't compare nearly so badly in turns, especially instantaneous turns, versus the opponent aircraft of the period as our sim implies.


That is one view. It is the usual simplification, ie not complete. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As for the function of the leading edge slats, please consult any plane aerodynamics textbook.
As for the details on Bf and some other planes RL/sim turn performance analysis, please consult this URL:

http://www.simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&...rch=true#Post1284589 (http://www.simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Board=51&Number=1284589&Searchpage=1&Main=150437&Words=+Cube&topic=0&Search=true#Post1284589)

Some previous knowledge on aerodynamics is wellcome, but not undispensable if you take your time with the article.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:
All the Bf's other than G2 suffer from this same ailment, and the funniest thing is, different Bf subtypes have quite obviously different Maximum Lift Coefficients Having in mind that all Bf's had, to all intents and purposes aerodynamically the same wing ( differences between the wings up to E and after this variant are cosmetics only), whoever created these different numbers must have been joking if he has a slightest idea on aerodynamics. And he does have one, and more than one, I expect.


Deeper and deeper into his own BS. "The wings are the same".......... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, my dear, the wings are aerodynamically the same; with the same airfoils root/tip, same wash-out angle, very nearly same area, etc. Plane wing-tip shape has a rather limited influence, at best. Do consult the mentioned textbook , if any terms unclear. If you run into difficulties to find a basic aerodynamics textbook online, I 'll provide a link. Regarding BS, no comment. Not writing for your benefit, anyway; something tells me you are not going to benefit from what I write.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Chapter and verse Luftwhining. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For your information, my squad flies for the reds. I like to fly many planes in the sim, disregarding nationality, and , to be quite honest, my only preference are Japanese planes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"FW-190 series has been dealt with in a more complicated manner." Sure, how could I think this
person does not claim bias in the sim? What is wrong when it is SO obvious? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For once, you 're nearly right. I do not claim bias; I strongly suspect it on grounds of what I am able to see.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Sitting back and taking shots based on incomplete knowledge of aerodynamics, not only incomplete
data but a lack of understanding of what is involved and the meanings is easy and CHEAP.
The ones that take it through debate get little farther. Saying that "fixing the FM's is a
simple matter" though do show just how ignorant they are. When I see a sim from those guys
I will be ready to listen to their talk. Until then talk is all it is, just cheap used air. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Today's aerodynamics is such an enormous area that I am ready to confess my knowledge of it not only incomplete, but very so. Now, how would you grade yours, I wonder... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif'Fixing FM is a simple matter' are your words. You can read what I said in the post. To spare you the trouble, you can sum it up like this: It is quite reachable, and requires much less effort than some other things in the game required. And that is due to the very good flight physics, which is one of these things. And I stand behind what I just said. Now let the ignorant cheap bull****ing ******* tell you: that it has not been reached after seven years of the fiddling on so-called plane FM improvements, is simply due to the lack of real will to acheive it, I suppose, as much as anything else.

Now, be so kind to abstain from such adjectives in your follow-up posts, or be ignored.

DKoor
04-24-2007, 01:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PE_Tihi:
Let me answer you point by point. Could you tell me which planet's atmosphere model could lift the initial climb of La-7 to 31 m/s ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Well Tihi, you probably can't understand (just like me) this...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
3) there isn't enough power in a desktop PC to make a combat flight sim FM that does it all so well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

...apparently we don't have enough power... to slow the LA-7 down.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
So I guess that we should be thankful that we are friendly reminded of this fact every once and while. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

FluffyDucks2
04-24-2007, 01:54 AM
@ Gunz....

So many assumptions in your posts and so much patronising. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I do not fly 109s they have been severely shafted and had all their historic RL abilities removed, e.g. try spiral climbing a 109 in 4.08 against ANY red aircraft...you will be dead meat in 5 seconds.

I simply want RELATIVE performances to be just that, within the limits of the sim. As for red UFOs, I presume Spits going from 0 energy into vertical nose high climbs which outclimb a K4 or Dora with high energy is realistic? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif