Reasons why i severely lowered my BoS flight time lately [from a BoS enthusiast]

[FlatSpinMan]

I guess the Devs feel that basing them on whatever mathematical model is the most consistent and reliable way to implement things in this FM, whereas anecdotal evidence is just harder to quantify and input. How far is it okay to tweak based on this or that anecdotal evidence?

I personally find the 190 ground handling almost comical as is, but just play it that way it is, or if it annoys me too much, fly something else.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Look mate, last time you gave a Springer Verlag (for none-Germans: a publisher mostly known for yellow press) online article as one of your references. I had already read it for amusement, and it was really, really bad. So bad not even funny. Sources like that don't contribute anything useful, they are just repeating some stereotypes gathered from superficially written books. And it does not help if you refer to them. Not you, not the discussion.

 

If you try to get to know the aircraft, write to the NASM (National Air and Space Museum). They have an archive, and will be happy to copy microfilms for you at a fair price. If you ask them to copy anything that has something on Fw190, BMW801 or Jumo213, they'll be able to provide a hundred films with a thousand pages each of copied primary sources. It will take a couple of years and a few thousand bucks, but it's worth it, if you want to know more.

 

You have no idea what i was talking about. The sources i was talking about never went into the Forum. I only sent them to Han, and fellow pilots who PM'd me. And they apparently haven't been so bad, because eventually it got fixed according to them..(speed, engine endurance)

So please before accusing me of something, get to know the whole picture (for example by PMing me). 

 

Instead of undermining me all the time rather be glad, that i fought and fight for this bird all the time. If i hadn't cried for it the last time very very loud, it would probably still be the unflyable brick from pre-October. Because i didn't see anybody else really caring about back then, at least not pressing enough, to get anybody to change it. 

Edited February 6, 2015 by Celestiale

[von_Tom]

I personally find the 190 ground handling almost comical as is, but just play it that way it is, or if it annoys me too much, fly something else.

 

 

This is a perfect example why anecdotal evidence has to be disregarded whether it's right or wrong.  You find the 190 ground handling comical but I find it perfectly acceptable.  Who is right cannot be objectively assessed and our experiences/comments are purely anecdotal.

 

Likewise I think the FW190 is ok if it's flown "right".  I recommend really reducing the sensitivity of the controls to get a good balance.  I have no idea how the VVS planes stacked up to it but wouldn't be at all surprised if those with the better weight/power/etc balance could comfortably deal with it at lower or even higher altitudes.

 

Anyway, don't forget that the majority of the VVS pilots weren't particularly good and didn't have the experience or training of the LW pilots.  In such situations I'm not at all surprised that LW pilots could outmanoeuvre VVS pilots.  Anecdotally you hear of 109s turning inside Spits and that may the experience factor again, when pure maths suggest they couldn't.

 

von Tom

[Solmyr]

Guess all those RL Mustang pilots who've flown it and said it's very close to the real thing just haven't a clue. 

 

I explained it was my feelings.

Well, when I tried it I was able to fly everything I wanted to do, in a really unbelievebal way, without torque effect, endless manouvers, etc and I had let the gear down. I had big laugh and then I disinstalled it. I had a very positive a priori on DCS FM before testing though.

 

About the 190 : I have several sources saying that some german pilots (understand a substential number) prefered the 109 by far and didn't like the 190 so much. It's still a good plane, IMO, but we have to keep in mind a large scale of war theater use to judge it : because its strenghts are this way.

Just a small input, without numbers and data.

Edited February 6, 2015 by Solmyr

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

I dont get why people try to put down other's efforts of improving the game without any reason or backup.

 

If sby presebts sources to the devs it's their job to evaluate it, not yours or mine. Unless thise.sources are being posted on the forum and open for discussion there's no reason to question their credebility ("über ungelegte Eier soll man nicht sprechen", dont know the english saying, sry).

 

Ive given up nearly all argumentations with this barely better War Thunder style of self bashing comunity and forum warriors.

 

I for one welcome Celestiales efforts and hope he can continue sharing his sources with the devs.

Edited February 6, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[unreasonable]

I guess the Devs feel that basing them on whatever mathematical model is the most consistent and reliable way to implement things in this FM, whereas anecdotal evidence is just harder to quantify and input. How far is it okay to tweak based on this or that anecdotal evidence?

Part of the problem is this use of the term "anecdotal evidence", which tends to get applied pejoratively to all qualitative evidence in this forum.

 

Qualitative evidence can be just as authoritative and empirically based as numerical evidence. Both are subject to error and bias by the compiler of the information, both accidental and deliberate. Both need to be evaluated on their merits.

 

But I agree that a team of engineers and programmers are probably more comfortable with numerical data, this just what they are used to.

[BlackBadger]

This is a perfect example why anecdotal evidence has to be disregarded whether it's right or wrong.  You find the 190 ground handling comical but I find it perfectly acceptable.  Who is right cannot be objectively assessed and our experiences/comments are purely anecdotal.

 

Likewise I think the FW190 is ok if it's flown "right".  I recommend really reducing the sensitivity of the controls to get a good balance.  I have no idea how the VVS planes stacked up to it but wouldn't be at all surprised if those with the better weight/power/etc balance could comfortably deal with it at lower or even higher altitudes.

 

Anyway, don't forget that the majority of the VVS pilots weren't particularly good and didn't have the experience or training of the LW pilots.  In such situations I'm not at all surprised that LW pilots could outmanoeuvre VVS pilots.  Anecdotally you hear of 109s turning inside Spits and that may the experience factor again, when pure maths suggest they couldn't.

 

von Tom

 

This is why next generation combat flight sims have to simulate strength, stamina & tiredness from prolonged action.

 

The 109 was a difficult airplane to fly not because it would be twitchy or bouncy or what not. The exact opposite, it handled very well once in the air, with the most forgiving stall characteristics out there. But flying it effectively in combat was difficult as it took a lot of strength to pull at those controls. Also slats needed to be kept in good condition by ground crew otherwise they would deploy asymmetrically or with a bang and upset the balance mid-maneuver. Flying a 109 to it's full potential was an exhausting affair. When returning from combat sorties - mentally and physically exhausted - landing the 109 with it's flimsy gear and bad brakes was not something people looked forward to doing. It was rather unforgiving at take off as well - as one contemporary pilot put it: It's a lovely aeroplane but it tends to stop your heart at takeoff. The statistics about 109 landing accidents just confirm this.

 

In contrast the spit was super easy to fly, same deflection of control surfaces could be achieved with less strength - that's why many contemporary pilots have said they would prefer the spit in a dogfight - it was easier to fly, easier to land and more forgiving to a beginner. In tactical trials at boscombe with a captured 109 it was concluded that the spit could out-turn (relatively easily) the 109, but it had to be pushed to it's limits. Something many RAF pilots, especially new ones were not keen on doing. Knowing pretty well that the stall characteristics of the spit were bad and the machine could go into a sudden and violent spin in a moment's notice.

 

This can explain why so many LW pilots claimed they could outturn the spit. 1.) they knew how to push the 109 to its limit and 2.) the RAF pilots often didn't want to push their plane to the limit. 

Edited February 6, 2015 by hnbdgr

[Solmyr]

All this discussin makes me remind this :

 

Please dev team, bring us a way to set our joystick/other stuff inputs specifically for each plane ! Please, please, please... Sure it would help a lot to end some of this kind of endless argues by the way.

[Phant0m]

Find the relationship between anecdotal evidence and where the game physics are lacking. Simulate the corrected physics (or apply workaround) and apply to all aircraft.

(e.g. The FW190 bar, except fix yet to be applied to all aircraft)

Simples.

[BlackBadger]

All this discussin makes me remind this :

 

Please dev team, bring us a way to set our joystick/other stuff inputs specifically for each plane ! Please, please, please... Sure it would help a lot to end some of this kind of endless argues by the way.

 

A workaround for you: http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6497

 

The thread deals with how to set it up in CloD, but the same principle applies.

 

1. install and setup vjoy - essentially the software does this: Physical device Axis>apply custom curves>Virtual device Axis

2. find the .ini file or whatever config file is used for keybinding in BoS and put the Vjoy ID  in the axes you want to use. It might take some guesswork. 

3.?

4. profit

[216th_Peterla]

Uhmm...too much fight/info regarding flight model and other issues.

To be honest, I like the game the way it is. May be it's not perfect for all the tastes but you can clearly see the Devs developing it even further and the progress (to me) is growing positively. Just give them time and support guys.

Best regards.

[JtD]

You have no idea what i was talking about. The sources i was talking about never went into the Forum. I only sent them to Han, and fellow pilots who PM'd me. And they apparently haven't been so bad, because eventually it got fixed according to them..(speed, engine endurance)

So please before accusing me of something, get to know the whole picture (for example by PMing me).

I'm talking about what you presented on the forums. I don't really care about what you exchanged with Han via PM, since it were PM. But statements like "I've read it in a yellow press article, the Fw190 was great, and it's not in game" are bad. As bad as it gets, short of name calling. If you do that publicly, well, it's public. If you did something constructive, too, good. If you do this privately, well, it's private.

[Solmyr]

A workaround for you: http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6497

 

The thread deals with how to set it up in CloD, but the same principle applies.

 

1. install and setup vjoy - essentially the software does this: Physical device Axis>apply custom curves>Virtual device Axis

2. find the .ini file or whatever config file is used for keybinding in BoS and put the Vjoy ID  in the axes you want to use. It might take some guesswork. 

3.?

4. profit

 

Will have a look at this soon ! Thank you.

Edited February 6, 2015 by Solmyr

[Wulf]

This is a perfect example why anecdotal evidence has to be disregarded whether it's right or wrong.  You find the 190 ground handling comical but I find it perfectly acceptable.  Who is right cannot be objectively assessed and our experiences/comments are purely anecdotal.

 

Likewise I think the FW190 is ok if it's flown "right".  I recommend really reducing the sensitivity of the controls to get a good balance.  I have no idea how the VVS planes stacked up to it but wouldn't be at all surprised if those with the better weight/power/etc balance could comfortably deal with it at lower or even higher altitudes.

 

Anyway, don't forget that the majority of the VVS pilots weren't particularly good and didn't have the experience or training of the LW pilots.  In such situations I'm not at all surprised that LW pilots could outmanoeuvre VVS pilots.  Anecdotally you hear of 109s turning inside Spits and that may the experience factor again, when pure maths suggest they couldn't.

 

von Tom

 

 

Funny you should say that because in 1942, RAF Fighter Command actually suspended sweeps over France because their Spitfire Mk V were being totally outclassed by the 190 - which is a bit odd because by my calculations, the Spitfire V is actually a more powerful and capable fighter aircraft than the Yak 1.   But in-game, the Yak 1 doesn't just compete with the 190, it totally overpowers it.  I don't know about you, but I find that really weird.

 

 And frankly, you can't really have it both ways on the subject of VVS competence.  Either the VVS pilots weren't much chop or,  you "wouldn't be at all surprised if those with the better weight/power/etc balance could comfortably deal with [the 190] at lower or even higher altitudes.  So, which is it then?

Edited February 6, 2015 by Wulf

[II./JG77_Manu*]

I'm talking about what you presented on the forums. I don't really care about what you exchanged with Han via PM, since it were PM. But statements like "I've read it in a yellow press article, the Fw190 was great, and it's not in game" are bad. As bad as it gets, short of name calling. If you do that publicly, well, it's public. If you did something constructive, too, good. If you do this privately, well, it's private.

What yellow press article you are talking about?

[von_Tom]

Funny you should say that because in 1942, RAF Fighter Command actually suspended sweeps over France because their Spitfire Mk V were being totally outclassed by the 190 - which is a bit odd because by my calculations, the Spitfire V is actually a more powerful and capable fighter aircraft than the Yak 1.   But in-game, the Yak 1 doesn't just compete with the 190, it totally overpowers it.  I don't know about you, but I find that really weird.

 

 And frankly, you can't really have it both ways on the subject of VVS competence.  Either the VVS pilots weren't much chop or,  you "wouldn't be at all surprised if those with the better weight/power/etc balance could comfortably deal with [the 190] at lower or even higher altitudes.  Which one is it?

 

Comparing Spitfire v FW190 at medium altitude (15,000ft - 20,000ft) doesn't help with comparing Yak 1 v FW190 at low altitude (5,000ft to 15,000ft) and it really doesn't help with comparing it to BOS dogfights at ground level.

 

Personally I don't feel overpowered by the Yak 1 in BOS, but then I don't try to turn with it, and if I find myself alone I leave the area as quickly as possible.

 

You can have it both ways. 

 

Pilot ability directly correlates to how an aircraft can be made to perform relative to it's capabilities.  The majority of VVS pilots weren't that good means that they were not using the VVS aircraft as well as they could.

 

A VVS aircraft's capabilities directly correlates to it's performance relative to the LW aircraft.  So, if a VVS aircraft's abilities are better than the LW aircraft it is up against, then it can out-fly it.

 

Then you compare the possibilities.

 

Awesome VVS pilot and awesome plane v awesome LW pilot but less capable plane = VVS victory

Average VVS pilot and ok plane v awesome LW pilot and ok plane = LW victory  And so on.

 

But of course a rubbish pilot in a rubbish plane can kill an awesome pilot in an awesome plane - history tells us this.  In BOS we have mostly good pilots, a few exceptional ones and a few learners or some who will never learn.  If you're a good pilot in a FW190 versus a good pilot in a Yak 1 then maybe you should lose unless you are clever.

 

All false modesty aside I'm good but not exceptional, but I'm clever, which is maybe why I don't find Yaks so annoying.

 

von Tom

[303_Kwiatek]

Sorry Tom but Spitfrie Mk V in 1942 was better then Yak-1 near all area.  Speed at sea level was similar, at altitude Spitfire was faster then Yak1, got better climb rate and turn rate.  Only thing which Yak-1 could be better or similar was roll rate. Nothing more. Spitfire got also higher maximum dive speed.   So if even RAF found that Fw 190 was generally better plane in almost all aspects ( beside slow speed horizontal turn)  and  more equal to Spitfire Mark IX , there is no possible that any Russian planes form 1942 could be competetive with Fw 190 like it is now in BOS.

 

Sorry to say but in 1942 Russian planes were dead meat for Fw 190 like Spitfire MkV was in Western Front.

 

1943 Russian planes start to be more competetive at low alts -  i mean new versions of Yak-1 ( Yak-1B or Yak-9) or La5 F version.  But 1942 year was still off for Russian.

 

BTW i got RAF pilots reports whoes test Fw 190 A-3 in flight and they were very impreseed of flight characteristic of these plane comparing to even to SPitfire.

Edited February 6, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[II./JG77_Manu*]

All false modesty aside I'm good but not exceptional, but I'm clever, which is maybe why I don't find Yaks so annoying.

 

von Tom

 I don't find Yaks annoying at all, i regularly shoot down 4 or 5 of them in one sortie, but that's not what this topic is about.

I should also say that i fly more often russian planes, then german. So i would "benefit" more from worse german planes and better russian ones. But i rather have historical accurateness

Edited February 6, 2015 by Celestiale

[Solmyr]

Sorry Tom but Spitfrie Mk V in 1942 was better then Yak-1 near all area.  Speed at sea level was similar, at altitude Spitfire was faster then Yak1, got better climb rate and turn rate.  Only thing which Yak-1 could be better was roll rate. Nothing more. Spitfire got also higher maximum dive speed.   So if even RAF found that Fw 190 was generally better plane in almost all aspects ( beside slow speed horizontal turn)  and  more equal to Spitfire Mark IX , there is no possible that any Russian planes form 1942 could be competetive with Fw 190 like it is now in BOS.

 

Sorry to say but in 1942 Russian planes were dead meat for Fw 190 like Spitfire MkV was in Western Front.

 

1943 Russian planes start to be more competetive at low alts -  i mean new versions of Yak-1 ( Yak-1B or Yak-9) or La5 F version.  But 1942 year was still off for Russian.

 

A plane is considered as better than B plane, and C plane is.... Well, sorry, but that doesn't seem to be very relevant. A warbird is always an alchemy. A rather nice example to illustrate this is the B-239 Brewster : the best, AFAIK, kill ratio in the whole air combat history in Finland, and a catastrophic experience in Extreme-East. Of course, it's relative to opponents, but I'm pretty sure this way of thinking isn't a good one to state how should be a plane.

Edited February 6, 2015 by Solmyr

[Wulf]

Comparing Spitfire v FW190 at medium altitude (15,000ft - 20,000ft) doesn't help with comparing Yak 1 v FW190 at low altitude (5,000ft to 15,000ft) and it really doesn't help with comparing it to BOS dogfights at ground level.

 

Personally I don't feel overpowered by the Yak 1 in BOS, but then I don't try to turn with it, and if I find myself alone I leave the area as quickly as possible.

 

You can have it both ways. 

 

Pilot ability directly correlates to how an aircraft can be made to perform relative to it's capabilities.  The majority of VVS pilots weren't that good means that they were not using the VVS aircraft as well as they could.

 

A VVS aircraft's capabilities directly correlates to it's performance relative to the LW aircraft.  So, if a VVS aircraft's abilities are better than the LW aircraft it is up against, then it can out-fly it.

 

Then you compare the possibilities.

 

Awesome VVS pilot and awesome plane v awesome LW pilot but less capable plane = VVS victory

Average VVS pilot and ok plane v awesome LW pilot and ok plane = LW victory  And so on.

 

But of course a rubbish pilot in a rubbish plane can kill an awesome pilot in an awesome plane - history tells us this.  In BOS we have mostly good pilots, a few exceptional ones and a few learners or some who will never learn.  If you're a good pilot in a FW190 versus a good pilot in a Yak 1 then maybe you should lose unless you are clever.

 

All false modesty aside I'm good but not exceptional, but I'm clever, which is maybe why I don't find Yaks so annoying.

 

von Tom

 

 

It has been reliably estimated that the VVS destroyed just 600 LW aircraft in 1942 for the loss of 9000 of their own.  So, if they did indeed possess a number of aircraft types that were as good or better than their German counterparts (in certain circumstances) then I fear we must conclude that VVS incompetence was on a level almost unparalleled in the annals of air warfare.                                          

[BraveSirRobin]

 

Anyway I see I made a mistake. Sry for hurting your and BraveSirRobins feelings. I will stop arguing with you both now to let you recover.

 

 

You didn't hurt my feelings.  All I did was point out the current reality.  If you don't have the data, they're not going to make changes.  If anyone's feelings are hurt by that, it's yours.

[FlatSpinMan]

Enough of the niggling.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

If you try to get to know the aircraft, write to the NASM (National Air and Space Museum). They have an archive, and will be happy to copy microfilms for you at a fair price. If you ask them to copy anything that has something on Fw190, BMW801 or Jumo213, they'll be able to provide a hundred films with a thousand pages each of copied primary sources. It will take a couple of years and a few thousand bucks, but it's worth it, if you want to know more.

Or, if you live near some of the bigger collages, especially the good engineering based ones, they typically have these micro-fish films on site.. At least Cal Poly Pomona did, that is where I get/got most of my had to find NACA reports.. Alot of them you can find online now, but, it is always interesting to see what you can find in those old micro-fish bins.

[JtD]

Funny you should say that because in 1942, RAF Fighter Command actually suspended sweeps over France because their Spitfire Mk V were being totally outclassed by the 190...

.

.

.

It has been reliably estimated that the VVS destroyed just 600 LW aircraft in 1942 for the loss of 9000 of their own...

Luftwaffe losses in 1942 on the Eastern front alone were near 4000 aircraft destroyed. Overall Luftwaffe losses in 1942 were more than 100% the entire Luftwaffe destroyed, plus near another 100% damaged, far more than 10000 aircraft in total. Comparing kills to total losses is misleading at the very least. You try to paint a picture of the Luftwaffe taking a walk in the park with their opponents falling like leaves left and right, where it was in fact a huge and bitter struggle for the entire year. And by the end of 1942, the Luftwaffe had ended up with the short end of the stick - weaker than in early 1942, with all the opponents stronger.

[von_Tom]

It has been reliably estimated that the VVS destroyed just 600 LW aircraft in 1942 for the loss of 9000 of their own.  So, if they did indeed possess a number of aircraft types that were as good or better than their German counterparts (in certain circumstances) then I fear we must conclude that VVS incompetence was on a level almost unparalleled in the annals of air warfare.                                          

 

 

Best example would be FW190 v Yak 1 kill/death ratio at ground level, but no such stats will exist.

 

VVS personnel, aircraft and tactics were woeful initially.  If you send out unescorted light bombers you're certainly going to have a high loss to kill ratio, same with poorly trained fighter pilots.  Add in the mission objectives for the VVS - ground attack and defending ground attack aircraft, and you cede much of an advantage. 

 

Yes the VVS were incompetent at the start.  Undoubtedly brave etc with some aces, but overall incompetent.  Attrition was maybe their best ally.

 

@ Kwiatek - I'm sure the Spit was better all round than the Yak, and by then the RAF training would be have been excellent and many pilots with many hours of combat experience.  But my experience from what I have seen on the BoS servers is that lots of fights are slow or slow-ish turn fights at or close to ground level.  The two are not comparable and you simply cannot say that they are.  Then factor in the average BoS pilot with huge hours and more sorties than even Rudel.

 

In reality the RAF and it's Spit Vs had problems with the FW190, and the VVS suffered huge losses.  In virtual reality with most combat at low level, pilots with much more virtual experience and no life to lose, the situation is different.  Expecting a 2014/5 game to match up to history is impossible, and that is another reason not to rely on anecdotes.

 

von Tom

[Dakpilot]

It has been reliably estimated that the VVS destroyed just 600 LW aircraft in 1942 for the loss of 9000 of their own.  So, if they did indeed possess a number of aircraft types that were as good or better than their German counterparts (in certain circumstances) then I fear we must conclude that VVS incompetence was on a level almost unparalleled in the annals of air warfare.                                          

 

Every reason why 'reliable estimates'  LoL should be discounted, now if we were to have taken THAT anecdote as an indication of aircraft performance where would be be...seeing as the actual figure historically reported is more like 7 times that number

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

As stated earlier, you are making a game for enthusiasts. Based upon all of the quantifiable, as well as all of the historical (written/anecdotal/circumstantial) data, the game should meet the expectations of your base.

 

For the record - I'm OK, for now, with the FM's from a game standpoint. I enjoy the game as is but others dont and I would expect a significant overhaul of the FM later when it won't affect development. I firmly believe there should be a larger discrepancy between the Soviet and German aircraft. As the newer Allied and Soviet aircraft close the performance gaps these original BOS Soviet aircraft need to be reviewed and downgraded.

 

For gound handling issues (There are more important items to tackle for the moment) watch a you tube video for cryin' out loud. I bet I can find a video of almost all of our aircraft and extrapolate both the external and internal FM/GM/Visuals of ground handling. They are really good when they are good. They are pretty silly where they are bad.

 

If 85-90% of your customer base is scratching their head about an issue how is that serving your customers or your own business interests for that matter?

[Solmyr]

It has been reliably estimated that the VVS destroyed just 600 LW aircraft in 1942 for the loss of 9000 of their own.

 

So Germany won the war... I believed not.

Edited February 6, 2015 by Solmyr

[LizLemon]

So Germany won the war... I believed not.

How do you get that out of what he wrote?

[Dakpilot]

How do you get that out of what he wrote?

 

quite simply that those figures are so far out of whack that,If true Germany would have had an extra 4000 or so aircraft available at key time of Stalingrad

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[BraveSirRobin]

For the record - I'm OK, for now, with the FM's from a game standpoint. I enjoy the game as is but others dont and I would expect a significant overhaul of the FM later when it won't affect development. I firmly believe there should be a larger discrepancy between the Soviet and German aircraft. As the newer Allied and Soviet aircraft close the performance gaps these original BOS Soviet aircraft need to be reviewed and downgraded.

 

Unless you have the data that shows FM flaws, they're not making changes.

[steppenwolf]

They changed RoF's after years of similar debate.

[Solmyr]

People shouldn't talk about reliable estimations that are so absurd...

 

During october and november 1942 : '2.82:1' in the LW favour (which is pretty far from '15:1' imo)

 

3592 destroyed planes from may 17th to november 30th, 1942, on eastern front.

2306 heavily damaged planes that needed to be sent in Germany to be repaired.

 

For VVS :

10143

16634

 

And the crew losses for LW were a far worse element about their strategy.

 

Source : "Le fana de l'aviation", special-issue n°9, 1998.

 

And that went even worse the times after...

Edited February 6, 2015 by Solmyr

[BraveSirRobin]

They changed RoF's after years of similar debate.

 

Yes, 4 years of daily screaming, crying, hijacking of threads and some pretty epic asshattery.  The end result is lots of people complaining about the changes and pretty much the same numbers in MP.

[steppenwolf]

Yes, 4 years of daily screaming, crying, hijacking of threads and some pretty epic asshattery.  The end result is lots of people complaining about the changes and pretty much the same numbers in MP.

Yep.

 

"Epic asshattery", that made me laugh.

[303_Kwiatek]

Best example would be FW190 v Yak 1 kill/death ratio at ground level, but no such stats will exist.

 

VVS personnel, aircraft and tactics were woeful initially.  If you send out unescorted light bombers you're certainly going to have a high loss to kill ratio, same with poorly trained fighter pilots.  Add in the mission objectives for the VVS - ground attack and defending ground attack aircraft, and you cede much of an advantage. 

 

Yes the VVS were incompetent at the start.  Undoubtedly brave etc with some aces, but overall incompetent.  Attrition was maybe their best ally.

 

@ Kwiatek - I'm sure the Spit was better all round than the Yak, and by then the RAF training would be have been excellent and many pilots with many hours of combat experience.  But my experience from what I have seen on the BoS servers is that lots of fights are slow or slow-ish turn fights at or close to ground level.  The two are not comparable and you simply cannot say that they are.  Then factor in the average BoS pilot with huge hours and more sorties than even Rudel.

 

In reality the RAF and it's Spit Vs had problems with the FW190, and the VVS suffered huge losses.  In virtual reality with most combat at low level, pilots with much more virtual experience and no life to lose, the situation is different.  Expecting a 2014/5 game to match up to history is impossible, and that is another reason not to rely on anecdotes.

 

von Tom

 

You know Fw 190  IRL expecially at 1942-1943 was deadly plane to conterporary planes casue in reality pilot could used it full strenght points ( roll rate, speed, good controllability, good dive speed, not bad climb rate also, and good firepower). 

 

In BOS Fw 190 has only speed and firepower nothing more comparig to other planes.

Edited February 6, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Unless you have the data that shows FM flaws, they're not making changes.

It is responses like this from you and the devs which frustrate a huge portion of this community. You rarely have any input of value other than, "THE NUMBERS!"

 

I can justly be called a fanboi but have you read any of my other posts? Anecdotal information cannot be entirely discarded. While I agree the hard data should be the primary source, original pilot experience - particularly test pilot testimonials/historical record and customer expectations based upon those records does have value.

[BraveSirRobin]

It is responses like this from you and the devs which frustrate a huge portion of this community. 

 

No, it just frustrates people who want changes but don't have the data to back it up.  A huge portion of this community does not give a [Edited] about the constant FM complaining.

Edited February 6, 2015 by Bearcat

[JtD]

I don't recall you ever contributing anything to FM debates, yet you are participating in every discussion. While not frustrating, it's definitely annoying.

[BraveSirRobin]

I don't recall you ever contributing anything to FM debates, yet you are participating in every discussion. While not frustrating, it's definitely annoying.

 

I'm sure it's no more annoying than the constant complaining from the likes of you.