1. #11
    Low reliability of aircraft engines and certain types of cannons and machine guns isn't modelled either. I don't think it's a case of pro-russian bias. Guns never get jammed, engines never cut out (except the ones that didn't have decent fuel injection), shells never explode in barrel of cannons etc.
    Share this post

  2. #12
    I don't think it's a case of pro-russian bias.
    You are wrong.
    Share this post

  3. #13
    The I-250 somehow reminds me of a deformed version of the Dewoitine 520. If you are making a "Battle of France" scenario, you can fool the German AI by giving the I-250 a French paint job and maybe win the campaign single-handedly.
    Share this post

  4. #14
    Originally posted by T_O_A_D:



    Share this post

  5. #15
    LEXX_Luthor's Avatar Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Ussia
    Posts
    8,813
    Russian Bias beats Microsoft Bias. :thumps: do'h

    A better and more reliable matchup enginewise would be afterburning Yak-19 and F-82 Twin Zwilling (merlin) and (flyable) B-50 for a 1948 addon.
    Share this post

  6. #16
    American and German bias is so overdone. At least Russian bias is more novel.

    But what is really needed is French bias. They really had best planes, be sure.
    Share this post

  7. #17
    At least Russian bias is more novel
    Not really.
    Share this post

  8. #18
    DKoor's Avatar Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,495
    Originally posted by LStarosta:
    Yes, and Oleg didn't have problems modeling the Me-262 unreliable easy-flame engines...

    The Russian Bias in this game makes me nauseous.
    I miss this guy.... where he hides these days?
    BTW good points.
    I wish we can model uncomfortable throttle lever............. or transfer boosted P-40 sturdiness...

    ...to some other IL2 planes to let's say paper DMed Yak or LA.... so they burn or get insta engine stoppage 7,62™ perhaps more rarely.
    Share this post

  9. #19
    MEGILE's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    5,818
    Originally posted by Daiichidoku:




    LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

    funniest post 2007.


    srry daai i didn't see this thread before I lerche ranted.
    Share this post

  10. #20
    Viper2005_'s Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,248
    Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
    His explanation:

    The 262 engines were designed that way, the sovjet engines were more stable by design.
    I think that I can expand upon that.

    The German axial flow turbojets didn't have a lot of surge margin. Open the throttle too fast and they'd surge. Every time.

    That's not a reliability issue; it's simply the nature of the beast. Take a brand-new engine, built perfectly according to the design drawings and that's what it'll do.

    OTOH, many aircraft and engines didn't age well, or suffered from manufacturing defects, sabotage etc..

    It seems that Oleg has sidestepped this whole area of simulation, quite reasonably IMO, on the basis that nobody wants to randomly die through no fault of their own due to bad maintenance, or bad construction, or sabotage etc...

    So if you take the view that the I-250's engine would have worked if built according to the drawings and correctly maintained, then it's quite reasonable and consistent not to model failures brought about by those factors.

    OTOH, one might point out that it's somewhat unfair to afflict some aircraft and engines with handling issues whilst neglecting the issues of others (the P-47's CEM leaves a lot to be desired - as does most CEM in general, the P-38's "compressibility" behaviour is extremely unrealistic etc.). Then again, it's a game.
    Share this post