Wrong Russian fighters performance at high alts again

[II./JG77_Manu*]

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

 

I would be fine with a very limited number of Yak9, because it saw his first combat in Stalingrad, so yes. Would not be fine with an La5Fn, because it wasn't used before summer 43.

As for DCS. The map is definitely not the wisest choice, but what i heard so far, the Map covers also a more eastern part of France, and either the Dora and the Kurfürst have been in battle shortly after the D-Day, so it would kinda be the same like a Yak9 in Stalingrad. The P51 isn't a earlier one, it only has to get 150 octane to represent the most planes at this time, and it will (what you hear so far) most likely get it. So all good. Enough of off-topic

 

 

But, as far as I understand, Zak is not a simmer himself. Probably got into this ww2 stuff as part of his job running the Public Relations here at the Forum, and overall he tries to do his best, and as far as I am concerned I have always found his posts mostly informative and polite, and in a couple of PMs I exchanged with him, he was very helpful.

 

On that answer where he ( ZaK ) mentioned the use of Auto-Radiator,this was indicative that he didn't even take into consideration that these tests should be run in Expert mode, but nonetheless took some of his precious time to test it himself!

 

Yeah, but then he should never ever post anything like this. Claiming facts, when one has no idea about it is not a good thing, even worse when you are a Dev. Again 

 

max speed of all mentioned fighters is correct

 

[DD_Arthur]

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

 

Bump

[303_Kwiatek]

 

 

Zak, on 16 Feb 2015 - 14:29, said: max speed of all mentioned fighters is correct

 

Yes the last sentence is clearly absurd.

 

How Yak-1 with M-105 PF engine which IRL reached its maximum 570 kph at 3.65 km  could be faster at 6 km then La5 which reached 580 km/h at these alt???

 

Really it doesn' speak well about BOS realism level.

[303_Kwiatek]

Bump

 

It is not metter of detailed calculation depend of temperature etc. just about relative performance between planes.   Example if for ISA condition 109 G-2 at 6 km was 90 kph faster then Yak-1 it should be similar relation in cold wheather conditions.  The same like with La5 which IRL was faster at 6 km then the same Yak-1 at about 40 kph  ( in BOS Yak-1 is faster then LA5 and Lagg3 is the same fast which is clearly absurd).

For these purpose is enoght to use standart   IAS---> TAS  calculation ( 2% by 1000 ft )

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?

 

So if the afraid that historical accuracy will upset russian market they should make 2 versions of these game. One for Russian market and second for rest of the world. Then it would be fair.

Edited February 16, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[JtD]

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.

Zak, if that is the case, can you please post target performance and the name of the source? Because the way it is, it does look odd.

[303_Kwiatek]

Ok more test coming. 

 

Condtion the same like before,  i decided to make test with 25 % radiators open  (  German RL speed test were made with 1/4 radiator open)

 

------------------Fw 190 A-3  ( 2 cannons)-------------------RL data ( ISA)

 

6 km------------1.32 Ata -  470 IAS ---- 628 TAS ---------- 630 TAS kph

------------------1.42 Ata -  486 IAS ---- 648 TAS-------- ---650 TAS kph

 

 

------------------ 109 F-4 ----------------------------------------RL data ( ISA)

 

6 km------------1.3 Ata -  485 IAS ------ 647 TAS ---------- 630 TAS kph

------------------1.4 Ata -  510 IAS ------ 679 TAS-------- ---645 TAS kph

 

 

------------------ 109 G-2 ----------------------------------------RL data ( ISA)

 

6 km------------1.3 Ata -  482 IAS ------ 643 TAS ---------- 640 TAS kph

 

As we see Fw 190 A-3 and Bf 109 G-2 is very accurate done comparing to RL data.  109 F-4 is too fast at 1.3 Ata by 17 kph ( acceptable error)  but 1.4 Ata is way too fast - 34 kph.

 

 

How it looks when we get all planes toghether at 6 km   ( all planes beside A-3 at 25 % open radiator)

 

 

------------Lagg -3 --------------------Yak-1-----------------La5---------------Fw 190 A-3-------------------109 G-2--------------------------F--4----------------

 

 

6 km BOS--585 kph TAS ---------601 kph TAS -------589 kph TAS----1.32 Ata -628 kph TAS-----1.3 Ata - 643 kph TAS----------1.3 Ata - 647 TAS

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1.42 Ata - 648 TAS------------------------------------------------1.4 Ata - 679 TAS

 

 

 

RL data----535 kph TAS--------545 kph TAS-------580 kph TAS--------1.32 Ata -- 630 kph TAS-----640 kph TAS-----------------1.3 Ata-  -630 kph TAS

( ISA)-------------------------------------------------------------------------------1.42 Ata -- 650 kph TAS--------------------------------------1.4 Ata -- 645 kph TAS

 

 

 

So we got Lagg -3  -  50 kph too fast ,   Yak-1 - 55 kph too fast , 109  F-4  at 1.4 Ata 34 kph too fast ( but quickly engine dead) and at 1.3 Ata - 17 kph too fast.

 

 

Rest planes   Fw 190 A-3,  109 G-2 and La5 got very accurate results comparing to RL data.

Edited February 16, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Zak, if that is the case, can you please post target performance and the name of the source? Because the way it is, it does look odd.

Name of source: Wikipedia/Yak3.com

[LukeFF]

Name of source: Wikipedia/Yak3.com

 

You've not a chance of being taken seriously with comments like that.

[=VNVV=Stoyanov]

I wont argue if the data is correct or not, I just want to say that right now LaGG practical ceiling is around 8k where you can barely keep level flight. If you cut 50km from that speed guess what is going to happen

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

I wont argue if the data is correct or not, I just want to say that right now LaGG practical ceiling is around 8k where you can barely keep level flight. If you cut 50km from that speed guess what is going to happen

I'm fine with that if it's accurate. The Lagg is my fvourite plane ingame and I agree it doesnt match historical records in it's current shape (by that I mean it feels to good). Of course it's not as good / overperforming as the Yak, which is a totally different story, but it feels too agile and has a doubious climb rate to me (havent performed specific flight tests yet, this is my pure basic observation).

 

The thing is now that VVS planes (and the F-4, which I always feeled too powerfull compared to the G-2) are better cutting their performance to match historical figures will cause lots of moaning and raging people. I can see why this isn't any profitable even more if it dissorts the "balance" towards the axis forces (like it historically was), but this is not the approach to expect from a flight sim with " state of the art " FMs.

 

Also, Celestiale, pls be easy on Zak. I think he only postet what the FM engineer told him and probably tested it ( not knowing the exact conditions of the test ) to confirm our tests are indeed correct. I don't think he had any intentions of making his reply soud rude or hostile. He only passes information (and does a good job doing so), you know

[=VNVV=Stoyanov]

I'm fine with that if it's accurate. The Lagg is my fvourite plane ingame and I agree it doesnt match historical records in it's current shape (by that I mean it feels to good).

 

 

No idea what are you talking about, so you think its too good that it can barely reach 8k when the ceiling was near 10k? Try to get over 5k with it and fight a 109, then we can discuss again your statements.

[BlackDevil]

I believe the devs have much more reliable data, and they know how to test them. If they say, the values are within 2%, why should I doubt that ? Kwiatek has an impressive list of proved wrong claims in the RoF forum the last years. I tend to trust the devs.

[BlackDevil]

No idea what are you talking about, so you think its too good that it can barely reach 8k when the ceiling was near 10k? Try to get over 5k with it and fight a 109, then we can discuss again your statements.

You claim, the Lagg is undermodelled ? Kwiatek claims it is overmodelled.

 

Name of source: Wikipedia/Yak3.com

funny

 

PS: The devs showed, that they are able to correct proofed faults in RoF over all the years.

Edited February 17, 2015 by BlackDevil

[303_Kwiatek]

Lagg-3 and Yak-1 we got in BOS got low altitude engine version M-105 PF.  These planes performance should rapidly drop above 4 km.   ( 2 gear of supercharger was kick at 2700 m).  It is no wonder why Russian pilots didnt fly at higher alts with such egines.

 

Delevopers claim that their planes are with only 2 % error is obviously wrong.   Yak-1 and Lagg-3 got at least 10% error in maximum speed at high alts. Moreover planes which IRL was slowier at higher alts then La5 in game are faster one.

[=VNVV=Stoyanov]

You claim, the Lagg is undermodelled ? Kwiatek claims it is overmodelled.

 

 

funny

 

I Do not claim anything, I just say if you reduce its speed only and not the FM it will ruin it completely.  Nothing is black and white kids. Use your brains and look at the bigger picture, not just speed test.

Devs wont change that so you better learn to live with it. Like with all the previous sims.

Lagg-3 and Yak-1 we got in BOS got low altitude engine version M-105 PF.  These planes performance should rapidly drop above 4 km.   ( 2 gear of supercharger was kick at 2700 m).  It is no wonder why Russian pilots didnt fly at higher alts with such egines.

 

 

You didnt comment on LaGG practical ceiling. What you explained everyone here know.

Edited February 17, 2015 by =VNVV=Stoyanov

[303_Kwiatek]

I believe the devs have much more reliable data, and they know how to test them. If they say, the values are within 2%, why should I doubt that ? Kwiatek has an impressive list of proved wrong claims in the RoF forum the last years. I tend to trust the devs.

 

Much more reliable data?  Sorry but even in Soviets propaganda data there are not such error at high alts peformacne for Russian planes.  There is no magical reliable data.

 

If you check any suorces Russian or not Russian  Yak-1 or LAgg-3 from 1942 with low alt engine M-105 PF you will find there were not faster then 560-570 kph at 3.5-3.8 km alt.   There is no magical 600 kph at 6 km.   Even La5 which got much more power at these alt could reach only 580 kph at 6 km.  If someone could use his brain and known something about aviation known what i mean.  There is no need any magical data here.

You didnt comment on LaGG practical ceiling. What you explained everyone here know.

 

I didnt check practical celling in game.  From data Lagg3 service celling was 9 km.   Fact is that at such high alts these plane could barely keep in the air. Even if Lagg3 could climb to 9 km i think it would be take ages. In combat situations there would be not point to do it.

[BlackDevil]

Devs wont change that so you better learn to live with it. Like with all the previous sims.

.

They did only do one previous sim, and they changed and reworked the FMs very often.

 

@Kwiatek: I have no idea of russian engines. If you can convince the devs with proofed facts, they will change it, whenever they find the time.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

From data Lagg3 service celling was 9 km.

Under normal weather conditions. Mind you that because of the cold weather the pressure drop with icnreasing altitude is different in BoS, so the max celling changes drasticly (because air pressure influrences lift and engine performance).

 

At 5km the Lagg-3 should be dead before even entering a fight wiht a 109...I mean come on, this is ridiculous. And out of all FM errors ingame practical celling bothers me the least to be honest, though I agree it should be modeled accurately (taking the atmospheric conditions into account).

 

In my opinion the Lagg rolls way too fast and has too high climb rate. With 60% fuel, full open radiator and max power setting I usually get 17,5 m/s which is more than the Emil had at Steig und Kampfleistung. Again, basic observation, not special tests or anything.

 

I seriously hope that not only the devs but also the comunity takes notice of this issue and doesn't hide behind the "but we need balance" or "but germans are much better already" excuse.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[BlackDevil]

  If someone could use his brain and known something about aviation known what i mean. 

 

Exactly this kind of arrogant statements doesn't help your arguments. Devs have no brain and don't know nothing about aviation ? You couldn't follow the math of the responsible aerodynamic engineer for a minute.

[=VNVV=Stoyanov]

If you dig into this one you have to do so with the rest also, stability, roll rate, climb, turn rate, flaps use etc... this crap will never end.

DEVs dont have the time and funds to spend on fine-tunning every single plane.

 

Have you ever tested the IL2 at above 6K? Im sure not, cause you arent thinking out of the box at all. Let me tell you its still slower then anything else upthere, BUT with its low level engine and FM it so agile and turns and climbs better then LaGG - way better, no problem fighting a few 109s and killing them.  If you still think LaGG speed is the main problem go on try to force the DEVs to fix it.

Edited February 17, 2015 by =VNVV=Stoyanov

[303_Kwiatek]

Exactly this kind of arrogant statements doesn't help your arguments. Devs have no brain and don't know nothing about aviation ? You couldn't follow the math of the responsible aerodynamic engineer for a minute.

 

I no mind devs here.  You have no idea about Russian WW2 aviations and engines no details but i see you got strong faith.  Do you know that in Russia there still also strong faith in good father "Stalin"?    Instead keeping bleed faith move your brain do some research and take your opinion then.

 

 

I checked service celling for Lagg-3 in game and i reached 9.5 km AMSL  ( altimeter guage).

[=VNVV=Stoyanov]

I checked service celling for Lagg-3 in game and i reached 9.5 km AMSL  ( altimeter guage).

 

 

My bad you are right.

[303_Kwiatek]

If you dig into this one you have to do so with the rest also, stability, roll rate, climb, turn rate, flaps use etc... this crap will never end.

DEVs dont have the time and funds to spend on fine-tunning every single plane.

 

Have you ever tested the IL2 at above 6K? Im sure not, cause you arent thinking out of the box at all. Let me tell you its still slower then anything else upthere, BUT with its low level engine and FM it so agile and turns and climbs better then LaGG - way better, no problem fighting a few 109s and killing them.  If you still think LaGG speed is the main problem go on try to force the DEVs to fix it.

 

No idea about Il2 casue i don't fly bombers or sturms planes.

 

Regarind stability, roll rate, max dive speeds there is also many things to say.  Example very dubfull roll rate of LA5 and LAgg3, Lagg3 reduced nasty spin charactersitic  and overdone maximum dive speeds of all Russian planes   (  all could dive unlitl 750 IAS). But probably you know about it.

Edited February 17, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[=VNVV=Stoyanov]

No idea about Il2 casue i don't fly bombers or sturms planes.

 

Regarind stability, roll rate, max dive speeds there is also many things to say.  Example very dubfull roll rate of LA5 and LAgg3,  and overdone maximum dive speeds of all Russian planes   (  all could dive unlitl 750 IAS). But probably you know about it.

 

Even Pe-2 can be used as fighter at that altitude better then LaGG, but IL-2 high-alt agility is shocking.

Edited February 17, 2015 by =VNVV=Stoyanov

[Dr_Molenbeek]

DEVs dont have the time and funds to spend on fine-tunning every single plane.

 

I still hope, personally...

 

Why ? Because there are only 10 planes ingame, for now.

[303_Kwiatek]

And what if new planes will come into game?  Example in 1943-1944 German planes mostly have only performacne advetnage at high alts, so how it would be if e.x. Yak-9 or better Yak-1B will come into game where German will be still flying 109 G-2, G-6? 

 

Test proved that BOS could copy historical performacne of some planes (  LA5, 109 G-2) or with  less degree ( Fw 190 - still too crap climb rate etc., 109 F-4 little too fast) but some have unrealistic boost at high alts ( Lagg3 and Yak1).  Maby there is engine data error which is not such hard to correct.  There is only need good will to do it.

 

If now Yak-1 or Lagg-3 got at least 10 % more performacne at high alts whats will be with new planes which come into game in future?  How we could trust devs if they dont want to correct things now  and says that their planes are with 2% error which is clearly not true?

Edited February 17, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

The IL-2 has strange bugs if flown without gunner, you can for exmaple put it into vertical climbs and have full elevator authority up to 20km/h (reported this long time ago, but no one gave a....). Iff flown with gunner it's noticeably less manouvreable and moer vicious in terms of stall characteristics, so the error only occurs in first case.

 

It also has a fairly great ammount of wings area so the wing load should be lower than the Bf 109's. The result is better turn characteristics (apart from that the IL-2 was tailheavy as result of a design issue, which also improved turn characteristics but made it more unstable).

 

The Peshka isn't a pure bomber either as it derived form a long range escort fighter. That's why it is no counterpart to the He 111 but moer the Bf 110 in my opinion.

If you dig into this one you have to do so with the rest also, stability, roll rate, climb, turn rate, flaps use etc... this crap will never end.

DEVs dont have the time and funds to spend on fine-tunning every single plane.

"This crap" is called flight sim development. Why do you think DCS devs can take more than hlaf a year for developing one single aircraft? FM development is an ongoing process, there's never a point you can say "It's done and fine, move on" since they are highly complex and will never acchieve virtual perfection.

 

Remember we were promised total FM revisions in Beta and still haven't seen them. The financially bad thing about FM development is that they can only fix stuff for free while working on new planes ensures more potential money flow due to new content.

 

If you follow this route we end up with an ever expanding game flawed by lots of "slight inaccuracies". There is a game that did the same and turned into crap, it's nto worth repeating their mistakes.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[Dr_Molenbeek]

there's never a point you can say "It's done and fine, move on"

 

+1

[303_Kwiatek]

"This crap" is called flight sim development. Why do you think DCS devs can take more than hlaf a year for developing one single aircraft? FM development is an ongoing process, there's never a point you can say "It's done and fine, move on" since they are highly complex and will never acchieve virtual perfection. Remember we were promised total FM revisions in Beta, still haven't seen them. The bad thing of FM development is that they only fix stuff for free while working on new planes ensures more potential money flow due to new content. If you follow this route we end up with an ever expanding game flawed by lots of "slight inaccuracies". There is a game that did the same and turned into crap, it's nto worth repeating their mistakes.

 

 

Exacly thats why im really dissapointment of devs reactions.   Once time they say that if any bugs will be proved they will try to fix it  other time when bugs proved  they pretense that everything is right which obviously is not. It doesn't say anything good on the future these game.

Edited February 17, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[Brano]

There might be problem with vysotnyi korrektor of m105PF engine.

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/7-questions-developers/?p=195533

[=VNVV=Stoyanov]

Like I said, if they focus on FM of every plane, there wont be any further development cause they cant spend time (resourses-money) on it. It wont bring any money to fix all the stuff thats needs tuning. This game is not yet prooved as successfull and the sales are a joke compared to IL-2 ForgottenBattles. You have to be happy that there will be addon in general. Just try to put yourself into their shoes. Its a battle for survival of the sim and the project in general. Some of you may remember that in the best days of the HyperLobby you couldnt get online cause there were 1000 people flying it, compare this to the online players in BoS. You have to be more realistic in your demands from the devs. There are alot of stuff thats not ok, but also the only hope for all of us is if the next addont brings enough $$$ so they can cotinue developing and fix issues. The sim is not only about realism its also about gameplay and lots of options for every taste and mood. IL2 had that with less realistic planes,fm,dm but still it was succesfull.

 

I will be happy if you succeed in making it more realistic, but focus on other issues too then, not just LaGG and Yak speeds.

[303_Kwiatek]

Yes overdone performance of M-105 PF engine in BOS could have something with mixture. PF got rated altitide 2700 m and from these alt 2nd gear of supercharger can't keep boost preassure at full throttle.  So there should be need to leaning mixture from these point.  I didn't notice too much symptoms overrich mixture above these alts.  Engine with overrich mixture should start too loose power and not burned fuel should be visible in smoke.

 

Strange that BOS such poorly simulate these case even in ROF rotary engines need mixture adjusted even at low alts.   Suprisly mixture correction was much better implemented even in old Il2.

Edited February 17, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[=VNVV=Stoyanov]

Btw Kwiatek, why dont you combine all your tests, tracks, historical data into one presentation and send it over to the devs. Im sure that they will take it more serious then some forum talk.

[303_Kwiatek]

Like I said, if they focus on FM of every plane, there wont be any further development cause they cant spend time (resourses-money) on it. It wont bring any money to fix all the stuff thats needs tuning. This game is not yet prooved as successfull and the sales are a joke compared to IL-2 ForgottenBattles. You have to be happy that there will be addon in general. Just try to put yourself into their shoes. Its a battle for survival of the sim and the project in general. Some of you may remember that in the best days of the HyperLobby you couldnt get online cause there were 1000 people flying it, compare this to the online players in BoS. You have to be more realistic in your demands from the devs. There are alot of stuff thats not ok, but also the only hope for all of us is if the next addont brings enough $$$ so they can cotinue developing and fix issues. The sim is not only about realism its also about gameplay and lots of options for every taste and mood. IL2 had that with less realistic planes,fm,dm but still it was succesfull.

 

I will be happy if you succeed in making it more realistic, but focus on other issues too then, not just LaGG and Yak speeds.

 

Sorry but i cant agree with you here. These case is obviously of metter attitude and good will of devs which is not likle to seen here.  I think for such good flight model engineer like BOS devs have it is day or to make such fixes. But there is need good will to do it.

 

If i would like to play balanced game i will play Warthunder not a game which pretend to be a combat flight simulator.   Attitude of devs and their will to make realistic and historical sim will surly affect future buisnees.  I know many people now which have  discouraged to play and pay for BOS or future addons beacasue of such reasons.

[303_Kwiatek]

Btw Kwiatek, why dont you combine all your tests, tracks, historical data into one presentation and send it over to the devs. Im sure that they will take it more serious then some forum talk.

 

I think these topic is something like report for devs.  As you notice they are aware about it  ( i pm Zack also) but as you see they are not interested in check and fix these bugs unfortunately.

 

Strange but even  not accurate speed test by Zack  ( radiator auto in Yak-1??? )  agreed that Yak-1 is overspeed at 6 km.  ( if he used 25 % open radiator im sure he would get the same maximum speed as others)

 

 

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

 

Yak-1 maximum speed at 6 km was about 540-545 no more.  In BOS  is 601 kph at radiator 25% and 611 kph at radiator 0 %.

 

Obviously huge - 10 % error.  Even not accurate Zack test cofirmed these ( Yak-1 maximum speed was 570 kph at  3.65 km not at 6 km).

Edited February 17, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[=VNVV=Stoyanov]

If i would like to play balanced game i will play Warthunder not a game which pretend to be a combat flight simulator.   Attitude of devs and their will to make realistic and historical sim will surly affect future buisnees.  I know many people now which have  discouraged to play and pay for BOS or future addons beacasue of such reasons.

 

I never wrote anything about balance, AFAIR devs dont care about balance also. Atleast they said so. We both flew old IL-2 alot so you cant scratch that and say it never happened - it was a balanced game.

 

But you are right about their atitude, they didnt got one big thing - that they are selling not only sim, but HOPE. And if you say to your customers - there is no hope (we wont fix this or that) you are screwed, better remain silent.

Edited February 17, 2015 by =VNVV=Stoyanov

[303_Kwiatek]

 

 

But you are right about their atitude, they didnt got one big thing - that they are selling not only sim, but HOPE. And if you say to your customers - there is no hope (we wont fix this or that) you are screwed, better remain silent.

 

Exacly as you say.

 

No sim already is perfect, all of them have some issues but devs if are insterested in future develomplent should really care these things. Expecially if they sell their game as a simulator.

[303_Kwiatek]

For picture comparison how it was look IRL :

 

 

Edited February 17, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[=VNVV=Stoyanov]

I think these topic is something like report for devs.  As you notice they are aware about it  ( i pm Zack also) but as you see they are not interested in check and fix these bugs unfortunately.

 

Zak is not the guy who checks the accuracy of the data. Thats the guy:

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/37-dannye-ispytanij-la/page-5?do=findComment&comment=267084

 

As you can see they are quite active in the russian section also. With source data provided.

[Crump]

 

 

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

 

A standard lapse rate will give a good idea of relative performance.  Too bad the community did not understand the "density altitude" discussion and it got derailed.

 

Such is life.