Let's be honest about BosBoM for once

[II./JG77_Manu*]

I think when a clear mind has all the information (=test data) about both this title, and also the historic performance of all the planes there are, you can only come to one conclusion. The performance between the German and Russian planes are much closer together, then they have been in real life.

In real life the Russian aircraft have been annihilated during the Battle of Stalingrad, the K/D ratio in favour of the Germans has been comparable to the Invasion of Poland, where the German fought PZL fighters, just to put this into perspective. Moscow front was even worse, during Barbarossa the K/D was over 20:1 in favour of the Germans, not much better a few month later, during the push towards Moscow (no exact numbers here, unfortunately).

The Devs decided to make Sim scenario's out of those 2 battles...now was that a smart decision in terms of balance? I don't know. What is clear, i guess, that it would not be much fun to fly on the Russian side, if they'd simulate the performance of the average fighter model that has been in combat for each plane on both sides. But i want to draw my conclusions at the end of this text, so skip this for now.

Let me first make clear, what i intend to say. With maybe two exceptions (come to those later), i think the Devs did not model any particular aircraft wrong. I am sure, there have been aircraft around, which match their respective model we have in game perfectly. Do the aircraft in game depict a representative average performance of their real life counterparts? I highly doubt it. 

In the following, let me cite a few examples, and design choices, where the outcome favours the Russians every single time. Before i do that, i am not making something up here, you can all search the Forums for yourselves, for every issue there is at least one topic, sometimes even multiple. I am not quoting any sources here, or any explanations, because you can see all for yourself in the respective topics, and this would totally go beyond the scope of my text here. I am pretty sure anyone who follows the Forums, FM discussion, etc knows about all this anyway.

 

- in general, the Russian fighters are modeled after the best performance figures you can find anywhere. Some more extreme (Mig3, Yak1), some not so much. Exception La5.

- in general, the German fighters are modeled after very low performance figures. I have different books, and also know different sources in the Internet, which tell about way better performance. Extremest example is the 190, apparently modeled after some borked captured one. Exception here is the 109 F4, which is modeled on the high end, of what you can find.

- engine time limits. Favours the Russian massively, because their most potent fighters can fly indefinitely with highest power settings. Hurts the 190 the most, cause this plane could easily maintain full power (1.42) during a sustained dogfight in real life. In the game the engine breaks pretty much the second after the piece-time safety time (which is set for a longer total engine live) is exceeded. This of course also hurts the P40 a lot, and makes it completely unusable as a fighter.

- overeffectiveness of AP ammunition. Disclaimer: I don't know if this problem still persists. In 1.105 the damage model of ammunition types has been altered. Didn't have time for sufficient testing after that, so maybe they fixed it. Maybe someone can enlighten me. But the last 2 years since early alpha, AP was way more powerful then even Minengeschoss (which was the most effective A2A ammunition from WW2, no big secret here). Combine that with the fact that Russian belts carry way more AP rounds then German belts.

 

Let's now come to the 2 things i mentioned before, which are  seriously wrong. 

Yak1 has a few flaws:

1. climb rate too good.Edit:especially at higher altitude. At least 16,5m/s compared to 15m/s IRL on the ground.

2. way more serious is the high alt performance. It's around 50kph faster at higher altitudes, then it should be.

3. flaps behaviour. You all know what i am talking about. There is a huge discussion going on in the FM thread, and there are people who definitely know more about planes then i do. 

all this combined make the in game Yak to a fighter, which has definitely not been there in real life.

second thing is the 190:

1. high alt speed is to low (lower then numbers from every source i could find)

2. especially the climb rate is way to low. Was 16 m/s IRL at 1.32 power settings.  That means that even at only combat rating, the 190 had a better climb rate, then the Yak1(b). 

 

All of this above adds to a way more level playing field.

I see a lot of people denouncing the developers "biased". Even i did a while ago.

I still think the Devs are biased. But not towards their nation. If they would be biased towards Russia/against Germany, they could have made any German airplane "bad-spec" and give all the Russian planes every advantage possible. But that's not the case, the 109 F4 and the La5 are the clearest examples for each side of the coin. I think it's more bias towards a particular plane. Maybe the Yak1 is the favourite plane of one of the Devs, he devoted a lot of time in his life for it, found superb numerical sources, and used them. I don't blame him. I guess if i'd make a flight sim, i'd also take the best performance i can find for the 190. 

In general, i think they just used anything they could, without modeling anything wrong (let's forget about the Yak once), to level the playing field, so that both sides can have fun. I don't mind it anymore. I am with no means a "blue" pilot only. In fact i fly the sides almost 50/50. I am also no German aircraft fanboy or anything. In all honesty, i like the Lavochkin aircraft way more then the 109s. So i also benefit from the current state.

The only thing that really bugs me, is that the current state leads pretty much to a fighter monoculture on both sides. The F4, G2 and 190 should be pretty much on par performancewise. They are not, the F4 is clearly the best, so anyone in the open multiplayer servers is flying the F4. On the Russian side, the aircraft should also be much closer together, with the La5 and the Yak on par, with the Lagg3 lagging( ) behind just a little - it has the same engine as the Yak after all. Yak being the best fighter by a mile, everyone is flying it..so MP open servers becoming pretty much a Yak-F4 dogfight server. It let me stop playing them to be honest. Let's see how this will translate into BoM. 

Apart from that i am OK with the leveled playing field..the 109s are still superior after all.

 

I'd only hope for a balanced scenario in historical terms, next time. Kuban, Kursk or whatever. Then i'll hope we don't need any "artificial" buffs anymore, for a nice, balanced playing field. In my opinion, those theatres would have been the better choice in the first place, both balance and historical accuracy achieved with nothing to bend. 

Finally i want to say, i still very much like this Sim series, will support it, and the Devs further, and i understand the current state. Brought that to my mind during the last days..a very good comment i read a few days ago brought me to it. In short, we will never achieve or feel what the real pilots back then felt in combat. So many things, like pilot work load, G-force, comfort of the seat etc can't be modeled, and it's a game after all. So everyone playing should have fun with it. If you have to bend (not break) a few historic facts, then so be it

In the future i will stop niggling around anything that's maybe slightly in favour of the Russians...that's my New Year's Resolution!..As long as i get my proper modeled A4 in the next scenario

Healthy start into the New Year for everyone around 

Edited December 28, 2015 by II./JG77_Manu*

[Dakpilot]

Relating K/D ratio in a real battle to aircraft performance is not really very a good idea

 

There are so many other factors to take into account

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[7.GShAP/Silas]

Kuban/Kursk is the dream scenario for depicting a great, terrible and desperate battle between the two sides with both human and mechanical resources at a relative parity.  I wish they had gone with them initially, but I suppose the name recognition of the battle of Stalingrad is worth quite a lot.

[SR-F_Winger]

[Edited]

Edited December 28, 2015 by Bearcat
This entire post was pure conjecture.

[Dr_Molenbeek]

There are things you should avoid to say.

 

The only chart i saw (and that i used) about Yak-1 s.69 climb rate said about ~15,5m/s with radiators fully open, and from my tests made some months ago, it does it, ingame.

 

Yes Yak-1 has issues such as high altitude overspeed, magic flaps, or even high speed dubious energy retention. But calling it "Yak-1B" ? Please...

 

And German fighters also have FM issues, what about Bf 109s glorious Vne and high speed roll rate ?

 

As you i don't think that devs are biased, but i would certainly say that some of them are very, very arrogant, [Edited]. 

Edited December 28, 2015 by Bearcat

[II./JG77_Manu*]

 

 

But calling it "Yak-1B" ? Please...

I wasn't talking about the Yak ingame - by the way the S69 is way closer to the 1b, then to the "original" Yak1 - , but i was talking about both the Yak 1 and the 1b. 190 A3 has a better climb rate then both of them. That's why i used the brackets by the way 

[Matt]

 

 

Some more extreme (Mig3, Yak1), some not so much.

I just want to throw out here, that the Mig-3 is slower at critical altitude (7800 m) than in all avaliable sources i could find for it, at least as much as it's too fast at sea-level btw.

[SR-F_Winger]

I just want to throw out here, that the Mig-3 is slower at critical altitude (7800 m) than in all avaliable sources i could find for it, at least as much as it's too fast at sea-level btw.

leaving it what? Still faster than F4 at alt and too fast at SL? Making it over all - OP compared to the real deal? Oh wonder...

Its all so painfully obvious its just funny.

Edited December 28, 2015 by Stg2_Winger

[Matt]

leaving it what? Still faster than F4 at alt and too fast at SL? Making it over all - OP compared to the real deal? Oh wonder...

Its all so painfully obvious its just funny.

Oh please, you would still complain if it would be too fast at alt and too slow at sea-level. Don't pretend otherwise.

[BraveSirRobin]

 but i would certainly say that some of them are very, very arrogant,

 

This made me lol...

[II./JG77_Manu*]

I just want to throw out here, that the Mig-3 is slower at critical altitude (7800 m) than in all avaliable sources i could find for it, at least as much as it's too fast at sea-level btw.

In April and May 1941 MiG-3s were being produced at a rate of nine per day. They were 18.6mph (30km/h) slower than the initial production series aircraft

In spring and early summer Plant No.1 was not only involved in troubleshooting and increasing the production rate. Sixteen versions of armament and radio equipment were developed within the year. The MiG-3 equipped with radio and two additional underwing Berezin 12.7mm machine guns with a total weight of fire of 6. 1lb/sec (2.8kg/sec) became the factory's primary product. The Mikoyan Design Bureau decided to use 20-23mm underwing guns, but tests of a version armed with five machine in May 1941 showed that the additional armament reduced the maximum speed by 12.4 to 18.6mph (20 to 30  km/h) at all altitudes. Moreover, it inhibited manoeuvrability to unacceptable degree.For this reason it was recommended that all underwing weapons be removed and that the capacity of the aft fuel tank be reduced by 176.31b (80kg), and that of the central fuel tank by 79.31b (36kg).

Shortly before the war, 821 MiG-3s armed with five machine guns had been manufactured, but the additional armament was removed from many of these aircraft when they joined their combat units. The performance of 'light' MiG-3 No.3262 can therefore be regarded as typical for the aircraft that went to war. At a weight of 7,2421b (3,285kg) the fighter had a maximum speed of 287mph (462km/h) at sea level, 347mph (559km/h) at 16,400ft (5,000m) and 374mph (603km/h) at the service ceiling of25,500ft (7,800m). Time to climb 16,400ft (5,000m) was 6.8 minutes, the service ceiling was 35,600ft (10,850m), a turn at low altitude took 23 seconds and the take-off run was 1,049ft (320m). The maximum operational range was 447 miles (720km). Deterioration in performance compared with the initial production series MiG-3s was due to the camouflage finish and the rough surface finish of the fuselage and cowling.

At the end of the summer the MiG-3 underwent many changes. Aircraft delivered to the front at that time were equipped with slats, the gear ratio of their AM-35A engines was increased from 0.902 to 0.732, and they had automatic propellers instead of the VISh-22E variable pitch propellers fitted previously. Consequently handling characteristics, stability and reliability improved. However, rate of climb and take-off performance changed for the worse. A typical fighter, No.3943, had maximum speeds of 289mph (466km/h) at sea level, 353mph (569km/h) at 16,400ft (5,000m) and 382mph (615km/h) at 25,600ft (7,800m). It took 7.1 minutes to climb to 16,400ft (5,000m) and 22 seconds to complete a turn at 3,330ft (l,OOOm). Flying weight was little changed, being 7,2721b (3,299kg) without external fittings and with 7381b (335kg) of fuel.

Edited December 28, 2015 by II./JG77_Manu*

[SharpeXB]

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/3-forum-rules-v104/?p=12

 

18. Claiming that FM is incorrect without the required proof and starting a flame thread based on such claim is prohibited.

The form for an FM claim consists of:

short but consistent description of the claim;

link to a reference and to a specific part of such reference that describes correct behaviour of a disputed element/situation;

game track record and the list of conditions used to recreate disputed element/situation.

Exception to this rule: FM discussion http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/forum/94-fm-discussion/

[PatrickAWlson]

Somebody else already said it better than me, but since this has come up ...

 

The biggest issue is not climb/dive/speed/turn rate.  The biggest issue is that the real flaws of Soviet design are not modeled.  The manual, pilot intensive operations required to get the best out of Soviet aircraft - as opposed to the automated systems on the German side - are not fully modeled.  The lack of radios is not modeled.  Fumes in the cockpit of the LaG 5 are not modeled.  All of the nits that detracted from the real world performance of Soviet fighters are not modeled.  Outdated tactical doctrine is not modeled.  Poorly trained pilots are modeled in the AI (you can set USSR to novice and Luftwaffe to veteran) but not online.

 

In reality you had relatively badly led, poorly trained pilots flying machines that were far more labor intensive flying under tactical doctrines that were badly outdated.  Model that and you will get your 10:1 victory ratio.

[Dakpilot]

Am sure it was not the OP's intent, but this thread has already got personal insults against Dev's and the usual (from some) claim that they are biased and everything they say should be considered pure BS

 

only one way this thread will go...

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Gunsmith86]

 

 

The only thing that really bugs me, is that the current state leads pretty much to a fighter monoculture on both sides. The F4, G2 and 190 should be pretty much on par performancewise. They are not, the F4 is clearly the best, so anyone in the open multiplayer servers is flying the F4. On the Russian side, the aircraft should also be much closer together, with the La5 and the Yak on par, with the Lagg3 lagging( ) behind just a little

 

 

That problem can´t be solved by change of performance because to many people want to fly the best plane and not the second best.

In real you had no choice about the aircraft. You couldnt say i fly only Yak 1 or BF 109 F4 your unit was assigned a typ of aircraft and with that one you had to fly. So if we want to have many different version of airplanes in the air in game we would have to do the same and limit numbers of each typ so that people get forced to play the aircraft that is available at the time. This is of course not wanted by players because we pay for the game and than we want the choice which aircraft we fly at any time! 

Even if all aircrafts whould have the same FM we would be back to fighter monoculture because there whould allways be one typ that looks better than the others and thats the one that all would want to fly.

 

Possibilities to change this:

 

- Large numbers of Ai planes that fly these typs that are not so often flown by players so that it is no longer noticeable to the player that nearly all players fly the same aircrafts.

(which has the problem that no pc is able to run that game now)

 

- Or limit nummber of plane typs

( which is not mutch liked by many players )

 

- Play Singleplayer PWCG or other campaign.

 

[II./JG77_Manu*]

That problem can´t be solved by change of performance because to many people want to fly the best plane and not the second best.

In real you had no choice about the aircraft. You couldnt say i fly only Yak 1 or BF 109 F4 your unit was assigned a typ of aircraft and with that one you had to fly. So if we want to have many different version of airplanes in the air in game we would have to do the same and limit numbers of each typ so that people get forced to play the aircraft that is available at the time. This is of course not wanted by players because we pay for the game and than we want the choice which aircraft we fly at any time! 

Even if all aircrafts whould have the same FM we would be back to fighter monoculture because there whould allways be one typ that looks better than the others and thats the one that all would want to fly.

 

Possibilities to change this:

 

- Large numbers of Ai planes that fly these typs that are not so often flown by players so that it is no longer noticeable to the player that nearly all players fly the same aircrafts.

(which has the problem that no pc is able to run that game now)

 

- Or limit nummber of plane typs

( which is not mutch liked by many players )

 

- Play Singleplayer PWCG or other campaign.

 

 

yeah, fully agree. Or you fly dynamic multiplayer campaign stuff like the FNBF that's the way to go, for historic correct plane setups and gameplay, combined with the joy to play with other people.

[Sokol1]

Model that and you will get your 10:1 victory ratio.

 

Then the only way to have a online game is Luftwaffe x VVS with "captured" Bf 109, Fw 190's (like in some early IL-2'46 online wars...). 

 

The Luftw'waffles complain because they preferred "winning the war" plane are a bit "underdog", but if have not that "magical flaps" in Yak-1 the VVS would have deserted from MP virtual skies...

 

This is just a game, not RL reenactment. 

Edited December 28, 2015 by Sokol1

[SR-F_Winger]

Oh please, you would still complain if it would be too fast at alt and too slow at sea-level. Don't pretend otherwise.

No. Its too fast at the heights that matter and to slow at the alts that dont matter in MP.

Edited December 28, 2015 by Stg2_Winger

[SR-F_Winger]

This is just a game, not RL reenactment.

 

And THIS - like mentioned before - remains to be seen when later scenarios are being modeled..

Somehow i highly doubt this is gonna happen to the degree it happens here in BOS.

Edited December 28, 2015 by Stg2_Winger

[xvii-Dietrich]

References?

 

I didn't see a single reliable historical source cited here. For all we know, these figures quoted in various posts above could be completely made up. It is difficult to take any FM or comparison argument seriously just because someone wrote "I know that...".

[JG5_Schuck]

Manu,

As always I read your posts with interest, as a lot of what you say is pretty honest.

But before I/we all jump on the beat the devs bandwagon, just try this first.

Turn off the icons or the HUD completely, (and try not to use or disable the zoom function) then try the aircraft again. Believe me you will get a different set of results.

Try to fly as a real pilot would fly, keep an eye on the temps try to keep them at about 100 to 105 degrees. (most important)

Keep an eye also on revs and manifold pressures (Russian) and official Luftwaffe ATA settings for the German stuff (and you wont 'pop' the F4 engine). 

All of a sudden the Russian aircraft a lot harder to manage with all the different parameters (oil rads, coolant rads, prop pitch, super charger, throttle, mixture, pitch etc)

Without the help of the 'cheat' icons/tech chat it is all but impossible to reach the theraretical maximums you can at the moment, as it is impossible to replicate the settings required to do so time after time.

The German stuff on the other hand is and should be relatively easy to fly with the automated engine and cooling management systems, all you have to worry about is ATA, I can imagine in wartime this would be crucial as the pilot could then get on flying the plane instead of having to manage it!

As a Russian pilot you would need to keep taking your eyes away from the sky to monitor things (temps etc.) Thus giving the German pilots a massive advantage, (if you spot your enemy first you can climb to gain the tactical advantage) something they are robbed of in this game when the icons/chat is used.

But it also goes along way to explain why German combat victories where so high (other than better tactics and training) as the planes were easier to fly, allowing you a better situational awareness, but for the Russians, it would take a good pilot to extract the best form his plane.

Unfortunately not so in this sim, as you don't even have to look at the gauges, lever positions etc. you just look at the icons set the throttle to Max Continuous and off you go!!

So I personally believe the engine modelling isn't to bad, its the way the planes are allowed to be flown in this game that is wrong.

All the advantages you should have as a German pilot are taken away from you and handed to the Russians.

Whether the Devs will rectify the issue, I think not, as I've been bringing up the very subject now for 3 years. Maybe they think it will make things to hard?

It doesn't, it just makes you a better pilot and its a lot more satisfying.

 

As an engineer with over 30 years of engine experience I know that liquid cooled inline engines operate best in that range.

I agree once a liquid cooled engine reaches 120-130 degrees for any period of time things should start to fail.

Possibly not the engine itself at first, but the increase in pressure would cause things like gaskets (head) hoses and radiators to fail.

It would also increase oil temps, reducing the lubricating qualities of the oil, now this could and would have resulted in engine failures.

This you would think will favour the Germans with better build quality, but not so at the moment.

The Russian aircraft seem to be able to fly for longer in an overheat situation. (something you wouldn't notice without the icon!)

What was the Russian build quality like in 41/42?

 

So my findings are that by having the engine control related tech tips/help text/ icons enabled it completely shifts the balance of the game.

It enables the Russian aircraft to perform better than they should do, or should I say it enables the player to achieve the speeds and a performance he would not ordinarily be able to do so without them.

And to be honest goes along way to undo all the hard work that has obviously gone into producing this.

The FM's are superb, and are for the most part accurately and excellently modelled but this is totally pointless if you then go and slap Help text all over the screen.

There is however a simple answer, have an option (as a server setting so it applies to everyone in game) to turn off anything to do with engine control or monitoring and restore the balance to how it would have been in RL, and should be in this game.

Fingers crossed that one day this will be rectified (although i'm not going to hold my breath) and then this great game can be transformed into a great sim!

 

 

 

[coconut]

Excuse my noobishness in historical matters, but the Russians did won both battles, didn't they? Why is everyone then expecting Germans to be so superior? As for the performance of German planes, do we know they represented the average performance of those engaged in the conflicts? Can't the criticism regarding variations between in-test and actual performance be also directed at the German side?

[II./JG77_Manu*]

-snip -

Schuck, anytime you post this, i "like" it, you know i fully support this! You could write a well compelled message to a Dev, especially Han. Make this a server side option would harm no one! Full real the way to go i believe, the Devs would/could consider it

[ST_ami7b5]

Highly explosive thread

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Excuse my noobishness in historical matters, but the Russians did won both battles, didn't they? Why is everyone then expecting Germans to be so superior? 

On the ground, yes. In the air the K/D ratio was between 20-10:1 in favour of the Germans between those 2 battles. That's the reason why. But as PatrickWilson and Schuck already stated, that was of course not only due to worse performing planes, but also a whole variety of other things.

[JG5_Schuck]

So saburo,

You would have no objection to include a server option to turn off techno chat/icons then,

as you have stated it wont make any difference?

And I would have your full support if I messaged a Dev about it, or your vote if there was a poll?

Thankyou

Edited December 28, 2015 by JG5_Schuck

[Jizzo]

Since i fly this sim i fly without any help myself because i love how realistic it looks with a clean screen, but one thing that reflects the techno chat and actually speaks for it is that in reallife you have your hand on stuff like radiator levers and you can tell what percentage you should approximatly be at at the current position you feel without needing to constantly look down like when the technochat is diasabled.

[6./ZG26_Gielow]

Don't forget that they modeled the wrong engine on 110E2. They are using a weaker one of course. :/

[ST_ami7b5]

Since i fly this sim i fly without any help myself because i love how realistic it looks with a clean screen, but one thing that reflects the techno chat and actually speaks for it is that in reallife you have your hand on stuff like radiator levers and you can tell what percentage you should approximatly be at at the current position you feel without needing to constantly look down like when the technochat is diasabled.

[Crump]

Just as easy to manage  with or without technochat. Obviously you will be taking a quick glance at the gauges every now and then regardless of the technochat just like in the german planes. When it comes to prop pitch, however, IMO manually controlled pp (constant speed) is better than an auto pp. It allows you to get more out of your plane  quicker than auto pp.

 

There is no difference in the speed of blade pitch adjustment between any automatic system and a manual rpm. The speed the propeller changes blade angle to adjust rpm is determined by the governor and angle adjustment design.

 

Commanding the propeller to change does not effect that rate of change.

[JtD]

So this topic is mostly about things that make the game unrealistic outside of FM issues (like tactics, control setup, technochat and whatnotelse) and the topic gets moved to FM discussion.

[SYN_Mike77]

And the winner of this thread is.....

Somebody else already said it better than me, but since this has come up ...

 

The biggest issue is not climb/dive/speed/turn rate.  The biggest issue is that the real flaws of Soviet design are not modeled.  The manual, pilot intensive operations required to get the best out of Soviet aircraft - as opposed to the automated systems on the German side - are not fully modeled.  The lack of radios is not modeled.  Fumes in the cockpit of the LaG 5 are not modeled.  All of the nits that detracted from the real world performance of Soviet fighters are not modeled.  Outdated tactical doctrine is not modeled.  Poorly trained pilots are modeled in the AI (you can set USSR to novice and Luftwaffe to veteran) but not online.

 

In reality you had relatively badly led, poorly trained pilots flying machines that were far more labor intensive flying under tactical doctrines that were badly outdated.  Model that and you will get your 10:1 victory ratio.

Move along, nothing else to say here.

Edited December 28, 2015 by SYN_Mike77

[[CPT]milopugdog]

 

Since i fly this sim i fly without any help myself because i love how realistic it looks with a clean screen, but one thing that reflects the techno chat and actually speaks for it is that in reallife you have your hand on stuff like radiator levers and you can tell what percentage you should approximatly be at at the current position you feel without needing to constantly look down like when the technochat is diasabled.

No, I don't want to spend $50 on another hunk of plastic just so I can change my mixtures and radiators.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Just want to make it clear, as it has been broached in the thread, that some of us fly the second best aircraft. I and several others specialize in the 190 and do quite well for ourselves. I only started flying the G2 (third best?) this week and haven't touched the F4 since it was the only plane available in EA. Over-generalize much? Just sayin'.......................

[ST_ami7b5]

No, I don't want to spend $50 on another hunk of plastic just so I can change my mixtures and radiators.

 

[NN_RugbyGoth]

No, I don't want to spend $50 on another hunk of plastic just so I can change my mixtures and radiators.

You can do it yourself for 20$ : http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/8441-show-us-your-cockpit/page-3

[mb339pan]

Somebody else already said it better than me, but since this has come up ...

 

The biggest issue is not climb/dive/speed/turn rate.  The biggest issue is that the real flaws of Soviet design are not modeled.  The manual, pilot intensive operations required to get the best out of Soviet aircraft - as opposed to the automated systems on the German side - are not fully modeled.  The lack of radios is not modeled.  Fumes in the cockpit of the LaG 5 are not modeled.  All of the nits that detracted from the real world performance of Soviet fighters are not modeled.  Outdated tactical doctrine is not modeled.  Poorly trained pilots are modeled in the AI (you can set USSR to novice and Luftwaffe to veteran) but not online.

 

In reality you had relatively badly led, poorly trained pilots flying machines that were far more labor intensive flying under tactical doctrines that were badly outdated.  Model that and you will get your 10:1 victory ratio.

 

+1

[VBF-12_Stick-95]

Since i fly this sim i fly without any help myself because i love how realistic it looks with a clean screen, but one thing that reflects the techno chat and actually speaks for it is that in reallife you have your hand on stuff like radiator levers and you can tell what percentage you should approximatly be at at the current position you feel without needing to constantly look down like when the technochat is diasabled.

 

We could have something close to the "feel" of positions of levers, etc. if there was a selection in Technochat for Instruments Only.  This would provide info on positions of adjustment made to throttle, supercharger, boost, mixture, prop pitch, trim, etc. but not give any information about overheating, engine damage, gun ammo being out, damage to various parts of the aircraft from bullet strikes, etc.  One would have to look at instrumentation to determine if everything was in parameters or figure out what was wrong if the plane started acting strange.  They could also make it a server admin selection which could make things interesting.

[JG5_Schuck]

Something like this for a server side setting, MrStick?

[6./ZG26_Gielow]

I liked the theory of Devs favorite plane. It fits well.