Kancer Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 this Plane is a joke!!!! Cant belive that the Lagg3 fly better and combat better than La5.... O my god is a Premium Plane that NO ONE USES!!!! Please, change it or delete it. IS USELESS!!!!
Kancer Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 The La-5 seems pretty accurate to me, and I agree to call it 'pretty good' but not much more than that. It's definately the plane I have most trouble succeeding with in both SP and MP. You have to fly it very conservative to get good performance out of it and it's engine is a handful to control compared to the Klimov-engined planes, which you can pretty much just use one combat setting for all the way up to 4000m. The strong points of the La-5 lies in its armament and high top speed on the deck. Other than that it's really still a LaGG at heart. It'll be interesting to see, what happens to it in 1.009. As far as I can tell, there are a number of factors which might really benefit the La-5: Increased durability of radial engines: This seems obvious, a clear advantage. Overall increase of structural strength in all aircraft: This will most likely give heavier cannon armament a real advantage, which it simply doesn't have now. If you can blow off the wing of a 109 with just a tap on the trigger in the Yak, there's really no need for the extra armament of the La-5. I hope, that we will see the La-5s 2xShVAKs and option to load all-HE or all-AP play a real role in the future. Redesigned cockpit for the La-5: This remains to be seen but might well give us lightly better view forward which, quite frankly, seems unnecessarilly obstructed now. why everyone think that you need 3 or 4 hits of a 20mm bullet to destroy a wing?? its more easy... one hit and a 3Gs turn is enough. Even the lower calibers can do it. In real life, no pilot atempt to make a tight turn with a damaged wing. All this mods about the weak strengt of the planes is to make the comunity happy wile they make impossible tight and slow turns (109) with a damaged wing.... and of course, becouse german planes are better and stronger and bigdicker than russians......
voncrapenhauser Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 I like the La 5 too and you just about covered its poor slow speed handling. In SP its my favourite ground attack fighter. In MP most prefer the BF109 F or Yak. Russian I prefer the Yak TBH in close dogfights, but Axis Its the FW190 besides its snap spin problems. Out of the 109s though I prefer the G2....IDK why but have had more success. Just come off MP and had a head to head, me in a FW190 boom and zooming and another very skilled pilot in the La 5 and In a turning, rolling fight in his hands was good enough to stay with the FW. Until I snap rolled too low and hit the ground lol.
303_Kwiatek Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 (edited) this Plane is a joke!!!! Cant belive that the Lagg3 fly better and combat better than La5.... O my god is a Premium Plane that NO ONE USES!!!! Please, change it or delete it. IS USELESS!!!! It is not La5 is underperformer but rather lagg3 is overperformed here. La5 beside its dubfull roll rate and maximum safe dive speed got very accurate performance in BOS comparing to historical data. Lagg3 surly is too fast at altitude, got too high roll rate, dive speed and also not such nasty stall characteristic like it should. So La5 is the most accurate Russian plane in BOs actually. So no joke here. Edited February 24, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek
GOAT-ACEOFACES Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 Until the game provides a way to log data during flight, as 1C did in IL-2 with DeviceLink, or as 1C did in CoD with C#, no one can say with any certainty how well the planes are matching the real world data. Just too many potential sim pilot errors can be made during testing that can corrupt the results. This statement is based on the hundreds of test logs I have reviewed over the past 10+ from several different flight sim. I found that most of the errors were in the way the user performed the in-game test, and not an actual error in the FM. For example, not taking into account the difference in the in-game atmosphere and the real world data, which is typically corrected/converted to standard atmosphere, but not always! Another example, in WWII some countries the beginning of a rate of climb test started from a dead stop on the runway, where as others the beginning of a rate of climb test started with the plane air born at a low altitude. Not a big impact on the rate of climb data, but it does affect the time to climb results. Little difference like that can have a big effect on the results. So, until we have a way to log the in-game data, any and all in-game testing should be taken with a grain of salt. As a bare minimum a video should be recorded during the test so others can review the methods used during testing. On a related note, Combat Pilot Accounts.. Combat Pilot Accounts are great sources of information for the planes flying qualities, like the stick felt like it was in cement, the sounds it makes when you do this, the vibrations you feel when you do that.. But.. Combat Pilot Accounts are worthless sources of information for the planes performance! Reason being combat pilot accounts are typically one sided stories that says more about the pilot vs pilot skill than plane v.s. plane performance.. That and the combat pilot accounts typically do not contain enough information to recreate the scenario in-game to see if you can obtain the same results, let alone the other planes state.. Than there is the human factor, with regards to pilot accounts years after the fact, the simply truth is memories change and are lost or become inaccurate over a period of time. And like the old fisherman telling us about the 'big one' that got away, they tend to embellish the facts over time, that is to say the fish gets bigger each time the story is told. That is just human nature found in us all... For example, take Brian Williams recent snafu! For example, for every German pilot combat account of his Bf109 being able to out turn a Spitfire, their is a British pilot combat account of his Spitfire being able to out turn a Bf109.. Yet to this day people still think some sort of statistical average can be gleamed from pilot accounts.. But that is a pipe dream IMHO, for so many reasons, but probably the most important reason being, you never get a chance to read the after action report from the pilots that were killed in action! Last, but not least, remember that no flight simulation ever was, is, or will be perfect! Hence the title 'simulation of flight' as opposed to just 'flight'.
II./JG77_Manu* Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 Until the game provides a way to log data during flight, as 1C did in IL-2 with DeviceLink, or as 1C did in CoD with C#, no one can say with any certainty how well the planes are matching the real world data. Just too many potential sim pilot errors can be made during testing that can corrupt the results. This statement is based on the hundreds of test logs I have reviewed over the past 10+ from several different flight sim. I found that most of the errors were in the way the user performed the in-game test, and not an actual error in the FM. For example, not taking into account the difference in the in-game atmosphere and the real world data, which is typically corrected/converted to standard atmosphere, but not always! Another example, in WWII some countries the beginning of a rate of climb test started from a dead stop on the runway, where as others the beginning of a rate of climb test started with the plane air born at a low altitude. Not a big impact on the rate of climb data, but it does affect the time to climb results. Little difference like that can have a big effect on the results. So, until we have a way to log the in-game data, any and all in-game testing should be taken with a grain of salt. As a bare minimum a video should be recorded during the test so others can review the methods used during testing. -snip-
GOAT-ACEOFACES Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 What part are you struggling with Celestiale?
II./JG77_Manu* Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 What part are you struggling with Celestiale? With the part that you are copy-pasting this same prefabricated text all the time anybody says anything about an FM in the game. With your logic, in the next update the MiG will be able to break the soundbarrier, but everything right, because "no one can test it properly without a log data". Hope that helps!
GOAT-ACEOFACES Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 With the part that you are copy-pasting this same prefabricated text all the time anybody says anything about an FM in the game.So, let me see if I understand you correctly.. If someone makes a claim about the validity of the BoS FM based on a 'test' they did.. Be it the 1st time the brought it up or simply repeating it.. Your surprised that my response to such claims does not change very much? Is that what your upset about? My consistency? With your logic, in the next update the MiG will be able to break the soundbarrier, but everything right, because "no one can test it properly without a log data".My logic? No, that is simply your confused interpretation of my logic. In summary I think pointing out the limitations of testing is as important as the testing.. For all the reasons I have already stated. Therefore, in the future, please feel free to skip over my pst, or better yet put me on ignore! Either of those two options should keep you from getting so upset. Hope that helps!
216th_Xenos Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 Guys, stop with the petty arguing and get back on topic....
Recommended Posts