Wrong Russian fighters performance at high alts again

[303_Kwiatek]

I recenty bought LA5 and i decided to make some speed test against other Russian fighters.

 

Test made in Stalingrad map, 100% fuel, auto level on,  alt AMSL  ( altimeters guage),  mixture ( La5 - 100% most efficent,  Yak-1/LAgg-3 - 75 % at 6 km)

 

------------------------Lagg -3 ----------------------------------Yak-1----------------------------La5----------------------forzah

 

Sea level------------538 kph (all radiator 25%)-----------553 kph (25%)-----------------530 kph ( 25 %)-------567 kph ( 25%)

------------------------543 kph (radiator 0%)----------------560 kph ( 0%)------------------539 kph  ( 0%)--------575 kph (0%)

 

 

RL TAS -------------507 kph--------------------------------- 500-510 kph--------------------509 kph-----------------535 kph

 

 

 

6 km----------------437 kph/585 TAS ( 25 %)-----------449kph/601 TAS ( 25 %)-------440 kph/589 TAS ( 25 %)----------------------

----------------------443 kph/593 TAS (0%)--------------457 kph/611 TAS ( 0 %)--------444 kph/595 TAS  ( 0%)------------------------

 

RL TAS-------------535 kph -------------------------------540-550 kph-----------------------------580 kph

 

Maximum speed---560-566 kph/3.6 km?--------------570 kph/ 3.65 km---------------------580 kph/ 6.2 km

 

 

 

From my test it is clearly show that Yak-1 and Lagg-3 got not low altitutde engine but rather high alts engines in BOS.  Both are about 50-60 kph too fast at 6 km.  Thats why German planes don't have in BOS their RL advetntages at higher alts. IRL German fighters ( 109 and Fw 190 A-3) was faster then Yak-1 about 80-100 kph TAS at alts above 5 km.

 

Looks that at sea level Yak-1 is also too fast comparing to LA5 which IRL was faster with forzah about 20-30 kph then Yak-1  ( in BOS only 15 kph). 

 

Suprisly La5 seemed very accurate done both at low and high alts performacne. Also La5 overheat a lot expecially with closed radiator and engine cowls which is also historically correct.

 

So its looks that Yak-1 and Lagg-3  performacne expecially at high alts need big revsion.  50-60 kph too more is really huge error.

 

Maby it has also something to do with mixture -  all Russian planes could be flown near with rich mixtures at these alts with no overfuel which is also not correct.

 

If we could get also more historical maximum dives speeds for Russian planes and also Lagg-3/La-5 roll rate adjusted i think we could get really historical fair sim here.

Edited February 16, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[216th_Xenos]

You need to provide sources for your claims if you want the devs to actually take this into account. I'm not saying you are wrong, but there are hundreds of threads over the forums claiming this and that with nothing to back it up at all.

[Saurer]

Didn't the Pe-2 also use the same engine as the Lagg and Yak? So if that's to fast at high altitude its a problem with the engine modelling andnot the FM of the plane

[303_Kwiatek]

I think devs got sources and needed data. It is very clear data.   Other hand all known suorces claim for Yak-1 and Lagg-3 from 1942 year with M-105 PF engine not more then 570 kph at 3.6 km.  It is such obvious that i think no need any confirmation by RL data. I think surly devs got these data. There is only need to proved that BOS is wrong here with performacne with these plane which these test proved.

[216th_Jordan]

yes please, interesting things you post but you need to back it up for proof. you can make your sources available.

 

Edit: Why should it be so hard to back up your claims?

Edited February 16, 2015 by Jordan

[303_Kwiatek]

Ok fast check data for Lagg3/Yak1 witth M-105 PF motor:

 

http://wio.ru/tacftr/lag.htm

 

http://www.warbirdsforum.com/topic/5967-lagg-3-performance/

 

http://wio.ru/tacftr/yak.htm

 

http://www.warbirdsforum.com/topic/6068-yak-1-performance/

Edited February 16, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[Warjunkie_VR]

I think you're right, but I think if the Russian aircraft become worse, have to fly many red player no more loss, and we then lack the challenge.

[303_Kwiatek]

Well Russian knows that they have no chance at high alts with German planes thats why they try to combat at low alts where performacne difference between Russian planes and German was not such huge.  Also from 1943 new Russian planes ( La5 F and Yak-9 ) was competetive with German ones at low alts ( La5 F was even faster then G-2/G-6 at low alts). I suppose new Russian planes will come into game in the futute ( e.x. Mig-3) - how they will corensponend with these which got now?  We would have really bad balanced sim.

Edited February 16, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[SKG51_robtek]

I think you're right, but I think if the Russian aircraft become worse, have to fly many red player no more loss, and we then lack the challenge.

Balancing for gameplay, ok, but not in a simulation.

 

But then, BoS is a game, isn't it?

[Leaf]

Send it to Han.

[303_Kwiatek]

Sended to Zack.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

But then, BoS is a game, isn't it?

"Hardcore with Passion" you mean

(For those who don't knwo it . this was a slogan of Loft during the first public presentation of BoS).

 

La-5 - apart from the roll rate - has always been the least dubious performing VVS plane to me. Yak definetly is an issue though so is the Lagg-3's boost, although it's less noticeably on the latter due to it's overall bad performance in comparison to pther types.

[Warjunkie_VR]

Balancing for gameplay, ok, but not in a simulation.

 

But then, BoS is a game, isn't it?

Of Course. the shooting down statistics on the Eastern Front (01/05/1942 until 06/08/1943) was 1: 6 for the Germans. Who plays because even the Russian Air Force, with such a handycap. Simulation as good as it gets, but that's at all possible, if only one side has its fun there?

[II./JG77_Manu*]

I believe this speed / performance threads will all find their way, in time, into some patches in the future.

 

The Devs are dealing with a lot of stuff, new things coming for 1.009, BOM, ROF, in parallel and I believe this fixes will take some time to implement / fine tune.

 

But your contribution, and that of many other users who appreciate accurate / historical data reproduced in the sim aircraft models can only be positive and useful!

You are right, but I myself definitely won't buy Battle of Moscow as long as the Yak isn't fixed - just to see the Mig3 overperforming the same in BoM. I don't wanna pay 100€ just to get into a fuss all the time, and fly or watch those broken planes. If you fly them it feels dirty, if you fly against them you feel fooled

[303_Kwiatek]

i can only wait till the la7 comes to the game

 

I think from 1943 LA5 F was good match at low alts for German fighters.  ab. 550 kph at sea level, 20-21 sec turn and good around visiblilty.

You are right, but I myself definitely won't buy Battle of Moscow as long as the Yak isn't fixed - just to see the Mig3 overperforming the same in BoM. I don't wanna pay 100€ just to get into a fuss all the time, and fly or watch those broken planes. If you fly them it feels dirty, if you fly against them you feel fooled

 

+1.

 

Before i will spend more money for BOS/BOM i would like to be sure that game will be close to historical accuracy not only balanced game.

 

Looking at many other forums people think similary.

 

Or devs will make other solution -   2 version of game -  one balanced game   and second realistic simulator

Edited February 16, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[Zak]

Soviet planes' max speed is tuned with the possible fault of 2% maximum. This has been checked and double checked a million times.

Bacause of that, max speed of all mentioned fighters is correct and will not be changed.

From my test it is clearly show that Yak-1 and Lagg-3 got not low altitutde engine but rather high alts engines in BOS.  Both are about 50-60 kph too fast at 6 km.  Thats why German planes don't have in BOS their RL advetntages at higher alts. IRL German fighters ( 109 and Fw 190 A-3) was faster then Yak-1 about 80-100 kph TAS at alts above 5 km.

Have you actually checked this in the game?

I've just checked it myself:
6000m, QM:

Yak-1, 100% throttle, radiators on auto:

IAS=426, TAS=584
and FW 190:

АТА 1.32: IAS=465, TAS=638

Edited February 16, 2015 by Zak
updated with own test data

[303_Kwiatek]

So how you explain that Yak-1 with M-105 PF motor  in BOS  at 6 km  reach  611 kph TAS  when IRL it should be not faster then 540-550 TAS kph?

 

Maximum speed IRL for Yak-1 with M-105 PF motor from 1942 was 571 TAS kph at 3.65 km.

 

For remember 105 PF motor was low altitide version of 105 PA version   -  so its seond gear peak of supercharger got at 2700m.

 

How you explain that La5 in BOS got accurate results comparing to RL data at 6 km -    595 kph TAS  comparing to RL data 580 kph TAS.

 

Yak-1 which is wayyy too fast in BOS  is faster at 6 km then LA5.   IRL La5 was  30-40 kph faster then Yak-1 with 105 PF motor at 6 km. 

 

You probalby forget that M-105 PF engine was very low altitute engine.

 

Test proved that there is huge error here.

 

If you say that it wont be change i think we have some clear for the future. No chance for historical sim only for balanced game.

Edited February 16, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Soviet planes' max speed is tuned with the possible fault of 2% maximum. This has been checked and double checked a million times.

Bacause of that, max speed of all mentioned fighters is correct and will not be changed.

 

Have you actually checked this in the game?

I've just checked it myself:

6000m, QM:

Yak-1, 100% throttle, radiators on auto:

IAS=426, TAS=584

and FW 190:

АТА 1.32: IAS=465, TAS=638

I reached 450IAS at 6k. By the way radiators Auto? Since when has the Yak Auto? You have to close them of course to reach top speed, as they did it in their speed tests back in history

[303_Kwiatek]

Have you actually checked this in the game? I've just checked it myself: 6000m, QM: Yak-1, 100% throttle, radiators on auto: IAS=426, TAS=584 and FW 190: АТА 1.32: IAS=465, TAS=638

 

How you could made auto radiator in Yak-1 with realistic options?

 

Try simple test.

 

100 % fuel, mixture 75 %,  6 km at altimeter guage (AMSL) - not at HUD  ( AGL),  autolevel on at 6 km ( for disable pilot piloting error),  radiator 25 % open  and 0 % open  ( no overheat problem), full throttle, you could use time compresion x 2.

 

I repeat my test and no error here still  449 IAS for 25 % radiator  and 457 IAS for 0 % radiator. So it give 600-610 TAS at 6 km  for a plane which got not more then 540-550 kph at these alt.  There is 50-60 kph error.

 

Suprisly LA5 is much more historicaly done - ab. 590 TAS kph  at 6 km  which conrensponsed well with RL data.

Edited February 16, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[Saurer]

How you could made auto radiator in Yak-1 with realistic options?

 

Try simple test.

 

100 % fuel, mixture 75 %,  6 km at altimeter guage (AMSL) - not at HUD  ( AGL),  autolevel on at 6 km ( for disable pilot piloting error),  radiator 25 % open  and 0 % open  ( no overheat problem), full throttle, you could use time compresion x 2.

 

I repeat my test and no error here still  449 IAS for 25 % radiator  and 457 IAS for 0 % radiator. So it give 600-610 TAS at 6 km  for a plane which got not more then 540-550 kph at these alt.  There is 50-60 kph error.

 

Suprisly LA5 is much more historicaly done - ab. 590 TAS kph  at 6 km  which conrensponsed well with RL data.

 

Done this now and I got 434km/h IAS. 

 

How long did you fly? I let it run for 3-4 minutes at x2 

[303_Kwiatek]

Until maximum speed was reached and speedometr stop. Few minutes dont count.

 

Did you read alt from alt guage ( not from hud) ?

Edited February 16, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[Saurer]

Until maximum speed was reached and speedometr stop. Few minutes dont count.

 

Maybe its fuel-consumtion then? 

 

Will try it again later

 

But than again if it is to fast on lower fuel it si still to fast...

Edited February 16, 2015 by Saurer

[Alkyan]

Maybe its fuel-consumtion then? 

 

 

For level flight, aircraft mass should not change max speed !

[303_Kwiatek]

Fresh the same test. I got the exacly the same result as before.  25 % radiator - 449 IAS  ( 601 kph TAS). With 0% radiator even faster.

 

For comparison G-2 at 6 km -  487 kph IAS = 650 TAS.   ( 10 kph more then RL data for ISA  so similar like LA5).  

 

At 6 km  in real life G-2 was 90 kph TAS faster then Yak-1 with 105 PF motor.    In game it is  50 kph.

Edited February 16, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[Dr_Molenbeek]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnLKQf7LrYI&feature=youtu.be

[303_Kwiatek]

You got exacly the same results as me without any error.

 

Looks that devs dont want to change anything regarding these area.

Edited February 16, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[Saurer]

I got these results 

 

436km/h as on the HUD, I did fly across half the map in autolevel 75% mixture 25%water 0%oil in the QMB starting at 6000m without wind

 

 

I can't replicate your results

Edited February 16, 2015 by Saurer

[NobbyNobbs]

how can you calculate TAS on high altitudes if temperature is unknown?

[303_Kwiatek]

I got these results 436km/h as on the HUD, I did fly across half the map in autolevel 75% mixture 25%water 0%oil in the QMB starting at 6000m without wind

 

You fly at 6.5 km not 6.0.   Look at alt guage not hud.   HUD show alt above ground level ( it change continously as you fly at different elevation),   alt guage show AMSL.

Edited February 16, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[Saurer]

thank you didn't see that.

Maybe the devs overlooked that aswell??

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

They'll fix it for sure!

 

Zak forgot to use EXPERT mode in his test. Probably by this time he already tested it in EXPERT, got the same conclusions as you did, and is sending the Dev team a yellow Post-It : "yak-1 and LagG3" too fast - please correct ASAP!"...

 

Right ?   

 

Or perhaps he had already formulated his "You're wrong. We're right. Not changing." mentality.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

thank you didn't see that.

Maybe the devs overlooked that aswell??

 

No they didn't because first of all your speed would have been still way to fast compared to IRL, and second of all the German planes behave at this altitudes like they should, the La5 also is only a little bit overperforming. It's all about comparing the planes one to another, so the Devs can't use excuses like "Cold air boost" or "different air density in could temperatures" or stuff like this..

Or perhaps he had already formulated his "You're wrong. We're right. Not changing." mentality.

 

And that's why i won't buy BoM and also tell all my mates not to buy it - unless they change it. I rather wait for DCS 2.0 and Normandy, and spend triple the price on an accurate simulation, before flying ( /against ) broken FM planes

[gx007]

Well Russian knows that they have no chance at high alts with German planes thats why they try to combat at low alts where performacne difference between Russian planes and German was not such huge. 

 Agree

 

This is correct scenario in eastern front. VVS planes supported ground war army and effort. 

 

I too desire correctly modeled aircraft performance specifications, though I understand the business side of making such decisions.

 

Perhaps we should modify the map scripts to motivate players to attack or defend or support the battle ground.

 

What about increasing the battle field area, more tanks, arty placements, supply convoys, depots, train transports, etc? 

 

What about awarding more points for ground targets?

 

Or improved scoring for A2A kills directly over the battle field.

[von_Greiff]

 Agree

 

This is correct scenario in eastern front. VVS planes supported ground war army and effort. 

 

I too desire correctly modeled aircraft performance specifications, though I understand the business side of making such decisions.

 

Perhaps we should modify the map scripts to motivate players to attack or defend or support the battle ground.

 

What about increasing the battle field area, more tanks, arty placements, supply convoys, depots, train transports, etc? 

 

What about awarding more points for ground targets?

 

Or improved scoring for A2A kills directly over the battle field.

 

+1

[303_Kwiatek]

Or better ban on servers overdone planes like Yak-1.

 

Truly speaking these level of relism as we got now is not good sign for a future.  I expect more ufish planes will coming.

Edited February 16, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Or better ban on servers overdone planes like Yak-1.

 

Truly speaking these level of relism as we got now is not good sign for a future.  I expect more ufish planes will coming.

 

I already made a prediction in TS a few days ago, and i am definitely convinced about it..

they will publish the Mig3 with all it's historic

- 1. disadvantages

- 2. shortcomings            

- 3. flaws

                               missing

 

that's my main concern, and the reason i won't buy BoM, before i am proved wrong

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Or better ban on servers overdone planes like Yak-1.

 

Truly speaking these level of relism as we got now is not good sign for a future.  I expect more ufish planes will coming.

The syndicate used missions with very limited Yaks in supply. As result people didnt fly VVS and moaned about it in their thread until they changed it.

 

I really hope those mistakes wont duplicate in BoM but the latest (and pevious FM responses in general) don't give me high hopes. Only good thing as for now is the announced summer / autum map, which means we can test under more common atmoshperic conditions and point out FM inaccuracies easier than in BoS.

 

And since I really like the Mig-3 I personally would be really pissed if it was "balanced" and have fictional flight characteristics.

Edited February 16, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[Saurer]

And that's why i won't buy BoM and also tell all my mates not to buy it - unless they change it. I rather wait for DCS 2.0 and Normandy, and spend triple the price on an accurate simulation, before flying ( /against ) broken FM planes

 

you would be fine with a Yak9 and a La5fn for balance reason in BOS if they are correct modellt?

 

Because thats what you get in DCS, K4s and D-9s don't fit a normandy szenario. And the P-51 is an earlier one too if i am not mistaken.

 

Don't get me wrong, I too want the FM's as good as possible and I am not saying that there ar no issues

Edited February 16, 2015 by Saurer

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Every sim needs time, and some user community perseverance in rising bugs / inaccuracies..., but also patience to wait for the response from the Dev teams...@Celestiale., since you mentiond DCS, just look at that rocket-like climb performance of the K4 in DCS... It makes it totally unrealistic to fly against the p51d, under most circumstances... or, OTOH, that easy wingtip  breaking, or the over-modeled ( IMO ) p-factor that plagues all prop aircraft whereby you get that noticeable pitch up when you apply right rudder in the K4 to coordinate inflight, flying level or not, or the absence of any sort of control feedback in stiffness with increasing dynamic pressure...

 

Well the huge difference between BoS and DCS is that in DCS the K4 is still in Beta (what means Alpha in DCS), and the Devs know about the issues, admit it, and work about it. In BoS it's "alright" how it is. More to this in my second part -->

 

 

Just like with any human being, the way we talk to them plays a very important role - we have to learn to be perseverant but at the same time patient, and friendly in our interaction... Think of a Dev Team as your wife / girfriend, when you're trying to convince her of something you want... and she probably does not... or is not up to...

 

 

I am a "Mirror-Person" (confirmed by my stepmother who is psychologist   ). My behavior towards people is always like they behave towards me. If someone is friendly towards me, he get's it back. If someone is angry towards me he get's it back..etc etc i think you got what i mean and when i look at the answer from Zak 

 

Bacause of that, max speed of all mentioned fighters is correct and will not be changed

, which is by far not the first one of this type, i know that i am definitely not gonna treat him like my girlfriend. This ignorance towards crystal clear flaws (again not the first time), underlined by a wrong testing method to "prove" his point (we are still talking about a Dev here, who should know how the game works), sorry but that is just ludicrous, i find no other word for it. 

[Alkyan]

Decrease russian's planes performance is a huge decision in a game where the multiplayer balance is already very very off, and it is the kind of decision that would upset a lot of players for sure. Si if those claims are right (I have myself no idea, I'm no plane expert), they better be very well backed up. You guys should organized yourself and work together to present something clear to the developers. A report in PDF, clear, concise which demonstrates your point. With the historical datas/ tons of tests from different users, ALL the planes (here, ok the planes are faster, but what about germans one?). Add a part with historical stories form pilot if you want, but back up your fact with datas and ask helps to people who know what their talking about. Because (maybe I'm wrong), those discussions doesn't look that productive.

 

And does anyone know what is claiming the russian community? As german planes performs already way better than russian ones, maybe developers are reluctant to correct them because they fear the russian community reaction?