Jump to content

JG4_Karaya

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    236
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by JG4_Karaya

  1. Am extremely sceptical about both the leveling and unlocking of modifications or weapons and the unlocking of planes, I think that none of this fits into a historical flight simulation, leave it for the Battlefield and Call of Duty titles...
  2. Nice video, is that two different aircraft variants shown in the video or just different gun loadouts for one and the same aircraft? I ask because the two LaGG-3s in the first half have non protruding cannon barrels (ShVAK prolly) whereas the single LaGG-3 in the second half seems to have a different cannon based on the fact that the cannon barrel does not end flush with the prop. So either this is a same series fighter with a 23mm Vya or its a different version aircraft all together (K-37 or LaGG-3IT). PS: Oh, nevermind, saw that in the YT video description it is mentioned as a 37mm armed K-37...
  3. At the beginning they also showed a Bf109F and captioned it a "Bf109E"... the average viewer most likely does not notice
  4. Here's an ICE key up for grabs - first come, first served! TQN75-XQHNQ-6D4M9-H2V92-4U46Z
  5. I do not want to belittle Team Fusion's efforts but tweaking code & adjusting flight models is a lot easier than creating new aircraft and maps that are on par with the stock content of CloD in terms of quality. That is why I am pretty sure that CloD will never expand past the BoB theatre. Unfortunately BoS seems to be our only hope for an expanding WWII sim atm and therefore it seems perfectly justified to question developer decisions early on... if this project fails to please the masses then the WW2 sim community will be between a rock and a hard place. I for one am VERY sceptical about the multiplayer aspect. The one thing that kept my interest in IL-2 alive for years was the existance of online wars, if those had not existed I would probably have lost interest much earlier...
  6. Are you serious? They would have to be flippin' mad not to support Windows 7, who cares about 8... pfff
  7. They were flown with gondolas and droptanks however, and disabling invalid combinations should not be too complicated from a programming point of view I'd take this system over scrolling through dozens of pre determined loadouts any time of the week - look at some of the late Bf109s in IL-2 1946 to see just how many variations are possible and plausible, each loadout would have to be individually coded with the old system in mind which increases chances that we are limited to just a fraction.
  8. It would be a droplist with a variety of things to choose from for each single pylon or pair of. Should be quite obvious, no?
  9. Sorry if this has been asked for before but I feel that the loadout section deserves to be improved upon for BoS (coming from RoF which I assume will be the basis) In RoF just like in the old IL-2 series it is the case that you get a fixed list of loadouts to choose from (combinations of bombs mostly) but for a WWII sim in which the number of possible combinations is most likely much larger than in WWI where planes were happy to even carry a handful of small bomblets it would make sense to be able to assign bombs/droptanks/gunpods per pylon (or pair of these) On the example of a Bf109G for example it would make sense to have several hardpoints modelled that allow for individual setups: cowling MGs: full, empty hub cannon: full, empty (for a later model G-6 for example the choice between MG151/20 and Mk108) centerline rack: 4xSC50, 4xSD50, 1xSC250, 1xSD250, 1xAB250, droptank, empty under wing: MG151/20 gondolas, empty It would be a lot easier to set an aircraft up that way than having to implement and scroll through a billion pre-determined loadout mixes as is the case in the old IL-2 series and RoF. This should hopefully also eliminate the problem of being dependent on the devs decision of implementing certain loadouts which was a great issue with IL-2. It took ages to finally get proper loadouts for the Bf109Fs as well as some of the later Gustav which only had gunpods and droptanks but no bombs to choose from... Anyone agree?
  10. Much of the popularity of the P-39 with the Soviet pilots probably has to do with its very generous equipment including Radios which were a rarity early war with the VVS and even later on their own radios were not up to western standards, often times only the leader of a formation had a receiver/transmitter set while his wingmen had a receiver only sets Proper gunsights which often times were quite rudimentary on soviet fighters early in the war. German pilots commented that early war you just had no reason to fear a soviet fighter on your six as they just could not aim their guns properly Armoured glass that would not distort, age and yellow after a short time Armament that was very hard hitting at the time (4x.303s + 2x.50s + 1x37mm) although it is said that in the field often times the LMGs were removed to safe weight and increase performance
  11. There is little to choose between a 1942 Mk.Vb and the 1943 vanilla Yak-9 speed wise but the Spitfire has the advantage in climbrate, turning performance and firepower. As said the Yaks never were too impressive (imho) up until the Yak-3 which improved quite a bit in terms of speed while turning performance only improved marginally - same wing loading as a fully loaded Yak-9D but better power loading - the initial Yak-9 probably was a better turner...
  12. That is because in the old IL-2 series all La-5s & 7s were about 20kmh too fast at all altitudes or at the very least at altitude. To me the best western allied fighter was the Mustang Mk.III simply because it left pretty much any other fighter standing and still had appreciable handling qualities. I never liked the Tempest much as it was just too nervous for my taste..
  13. Btw, here's a very interesting page covering the MiG-3 http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/mig3.html#development
  14. I think I will have to disagree with your assessment of the 190 vs VVS planes. Any FW pilot who is competent and confident enough to fight it out with Spitfires is not going to be troubled by Yaks, LaGGs and Las. The contemporary Spitfires are usually every bit as good as the "bread-and-butter" Yaks and then some. Compare a 1942 Mk.V Spitfire @ 16lbs boost vs an early 1943 vanilla Yak-9 (the best performing variant actually) and you'll see that the former is better in about every single way, and we are not even talking Mk.IX yet... The only fighters that might fight the A model 190s on even terms are the late FN model La-5s & 7s and the Yak-3, simply because their speed at low level puts them on par with the FW.
  15. LOL, so your basic RoF routine transferred to BoS? Have fun being eaten up by Gustavs as the G-1 to -4 are all faster, better climbing and better turning than any of the serial produced MiGs. As for the original thread: The IL-2 will have a hard time defending itself as they are usually flying nap-of-the-earth and thus have no room to maneuver plus their vertical maneuvrability is severly lacking to say the least. I remember an IL-2 online war mission where a score of red pilots took on IL-2s that my squad intercepted flying Bf109E-4s. Needless to say they were slaughtered as we just dove on them, fired a burst, climbed back up (rinse, repeat). They just were sitting ducks even facing the venerable Emil...
  16. Yes I do realize that and I stated so in the 5th dev update thread, still the difference in wing loading is so great that I doubt it it possible to overcome it with any reasonable mean. Furthermore I think Kwiatek posted some turn time figures for the I-16 Type 18 (16s) and the MiG-3 (22s) and these showed that in fact the two are not even remotely close! There are also turn time figures in the links I have posted and they are in agreement with the others (17 vs 22-23s).
  17. I have posted this in another thread but seeing as this is still MiG-3 vs I-16: The I-16 Type 18 has a wing loading of just 126kg/m^2 (takeoff weight: 1830kg, wing area: 14.54m^2) whereas the MiG-3 comes in at 192kg/m^2 (takeoff weight: 3350kg, wing area: 17.44m^2), an increase of 52%, so I personally cannot see how the MiG should ever be able to outturn the Rata... The I-16 was known to be very agile but also a "hot" aircraft in that it gave little stall warning and could enter a very nasty spin. The MiG-3 also had handling problems at first until it had leading edge slats (similar to the Bf109's) installed which improved low speed flying characteristics but I highly doubt these could offset the 50% difference in wing loading! Also the MiG-3 should not best any of its German opponents in a sustained slow speed turning fight as it basically has the same wing loading as a 1943 Bf109G-6 (3100kg, 16.1m^2). I-16 and MiG-3 data taken from here btw: http://www.wio.ru/tacftr/polikarp.htm http://www.wio.ru/tacftr/mig.htm
  18. Ok, seems like its the french tests only that are not showing up as you said... On the "Baubeschreibung" for the Bf109E the turn radius/time chart however is missing ("See for graphical illustration HERE.") http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109E_Baubeschreibung/109E3_Baubeschreibung.html
  19. Hey Kurf????rst, what happened to your site? It seems that most of the flight reports and data has become unavailable! Any chance that you might get all of it working again?
  20. That sounds about correct as IRL the M82's boost was restricted to altitudes below 2000m And yes I hope they use German test data for the German aircraft...
  21. Er, no, what makes you think that with this data FW190A-5: takeoff weight ~4100kg wing area: 18.30m^2 wing loading: ~225kg/m^2 La-5FN: takeoff weight ~3300kg wing area: 17.5m^2 wing loading: ~190kg/m^2 the FW190 will outturn an La-5? Wing and power loadings are not the be-all/end-all of FM discussions but they deliver a good rule of thumb on which aircraft will have the advantage in a continuous turn fight.
  22. We are talking about a difference of over 50% in wing loading, that is not an easy thing to overcome! The I-16 also scores in the power/weight department so how should the MiG-3 ever be able to come out first in a slow speed turning fight? The Rata will turn both faster and in a smaller radius than the MiG-3, same goes for all of its enemies on the Eastern front (except for maybe some of the early Italian fighters). Of course the MiG is a much better energy fighter being little over 100kmh faster and should leave the I-16 standing in a dive but thats it.
  23. The I-16 Type 18 has a wing loading of just 126kg/m^2 (takeoff weight: 1830kg, wing area: 14.54m^2) whereas the MiG-3 comes in at 192kg/m^2 (takeoff weight: 3350kg, wing area: 17.44m^2), an increase of 52%, so I personally cannot see how the MiG should ever be able to outturn the Rata... The I-16 was known to be very agile but also a "hot" aircraft in that it gave little stall warning and could enter a very nasty spin. The MiG-3 also had handling problems at first until it had leading edge slats (similar to the Bf109's) installed which improved low speed flying characteristics but I highly doubt these could offset the 50% difference in wing loading!
  24. Depends on the model but keep in mind that many of the F-2/-3 models were retrofitted with the MG151/20 in service which at the turn of '42 would probably have been complete given that the 15mm Mauser was replaced entirely by the 20mm in production. Hope that this is taken into account with BoS in case we get a Bf109F-2 or F-3! It could be implemented as a tick box like the RoF weapon mods are right now and maybe with a date restriction as seen in one of the latest IL-2 patches on top of it! And yes, bombs on the 109s are a must, I cannot believe that Oleg never bothered fleshing out some of the dangerously lacking Bf109s!
  25. I think you are fantasizing here, yes the IL-2 was well armoured around the engine and cockpit but everything else was not, it wouldnt have been able to even get airborne if it was fully armoured, armour being quite costly on the weight side of things. Having said that I dont see why it should for example be impossible to shoot off wings or the tail of an IL-2 with enough HMG or cannon fire as all of that was made of wood for the majority of the war. Only very late examples were built with metal wings and even that does not make it invulnerable. When exactly was the notion born that IL-2s are invincible? If you have a look at how many of them were built and how many of those that saw action were shot down you will realize that it was not indestructible at all...
×
×
  • Create New...