Yak can keep Up

[BraveSirRobin]

However, how many Spits have you managed to set on fire?  Not many I suspect. Sure, you can shoot them down but unlike the 109s, they hardly ever burn.  Some of the people over there even argue that historically, Spits didn't catch fire as much.  So, yeah ... unfortunately you get entrenched patch protection wherever you go.

 

LOL  Apparently you also get "my 109 is not uber enough!!!" wherever you go...

[Feathered_IV]

I repeat: People who just push their noses down into a vertical dive as a defensive maneuver are asking for it.

 

It worked quite well for me using a Spad in Rise of Flight.  I'd close the radiator, put the nose down into a pure vertical dive and just hang on.  Near the ground I'd pull out very gently and look behind.  All that would be left of my pursuers was a perfect shower of little black crossed wings.  Lord only knows where their fuselages went.

[Dr_Molenbeek]

LOL  Apparently you also get "my 109 is not uber enough!!!" wherever you go...

 

You got problems, dude.

 

I don't play CoD, but from dozens of videos that i've seen, i saw many 109s and Hurricanes on fire, but Spitfires ? Never.

[BraveSirRobin]

You got problems, dude.

 

I don't play CoD, but from dozens of videos that i've seen, i saw many 109s and Hurricanes on fire, but Spitfires ? Never.

 

I'm not the one with problems, dude.  The "my 109 is not uber enough!!" syndrome is actually quite comical.  

 

Don't worry, lots of people who get shot down while flying the best plane will still blame it on the plane.

[Wulf]

Celestial tested them and got his numbers, I tested and got a different set. So we pretty much cancel eachother out.

 

Now we need you and the other pilots to perform your own tests and post the methodology and tracks. If you want something changed do so god damned work for it instead of limply leaning on the work of others. Make a case so ironclad with the results of dozens of tests that the devs have to pay attention. The results of one or two tests are irrelevant.

 

 

Despite what you may believe, this isn't a 'community project'.  The devs are in business.  Their job isn't to make the most accurate sim ever, it's to make a profit.  I don't know how the numbers crunch but I suspect the biggest market for the game is still the Russian Federation  Is this just a coincidence - I doubt it.  If the game had been developed in 'the Fatherland' instead of Russia, do you imagine that we'd be gnashing our teeth over the very same issues.  I somehow doubt it. 

 

Is it up to us to prove the devs are wrong?  No, that's not our job and in any event, without access to their data you couldn't even if you tried.  

Edited June 12, 2015 by Wulf

[BraveSirRobin]

Is it up to us to prove the devs are wrong?  No, that's not our job...

 

Um, actually, yes it is.  The current game is, by default, what they believe is correct.  If you think it's wrong, you have to prove it.  They don't have to prove anything.  If you don't like that, don't play the game.  If enough people follow your lead they will go out of business.  

[Wulf]

Um, actually, yes it is.  The current game is, by default, what they believe is correct.  If you think it's wrong, you have to prove it.  They don't have to prove anything.  If you don't like that, don't play the game.  If enough people follow your lead they will go out of business.  

 

 

No actually, no it's not.  I'm a customer.  It's not my job to police their FM decisions.  I purchased the game on the understanding that they would fairly represent the various aircraft on offer, warts and all. 

 

Here's a question for you BSR.  If you believe the devs are so  good at interpreting FMs for WW 2 aircraft, (and I think you've consistently supported them since release) why have they found it necessary to make adjustments to them with every new patch?

Edited June 12, 2015 by Wulf

[BraveSirRobin]

No actually, no it's not.  I'm a customer.  It's not my job to police their FM decisions.  I purchased the game on the understanding that they would fairly represent the various aircraft on offer, warts and all. 

 

Yes, it definitely is.  If you're not happy with their FM decisions, don't play the game.  It's really that simple.

Here's a question for you BSR.  If you believe the devs are so  good at interpreting FMs for WW 2 aircraft, (and I think you've consistently supported them since release) why have they found it necessary to make adjustments to them with every new patch?

 

I never said that they're so good at anything.  They're just the best option we have right now.  I'm sure if you were developing a game it would be a million times better.

[CaK_Rumcajs]

Um, actually, yes it is.  The current game is, by default, what they believe is correct.  If you think it's wrong, you have to prove it.  They don't have to prove anything.  If you don't like that, don't play the game.  If enough people follow your lead they will go out of business.  

This would really work if there was a market for combat flight sims and enough of options to choose from. Unfortunatelly this is not the case. WW2 flight combat sims are so scarce these days that in fact we have only one choice. Cliffs of Dover is an abandoned project and even if it's somehow maintained by TF there have not been updates since 4.312. DCS has no combat game play to talk about. So we flight simmers are stuck with 777 and vice versa. So we have to communicate and keep the relationship healthy. I mean healthy for both parts of the equation. It's our mutual interrest. Let's call it responsibility. While 777 requires us to provide complaints in a polite and documented manner people who post these complaints (and probably many others) expect them to respond. There have been cases when this worked. Like many of the FW 190 claims had been explained and rejected and some accepted. So far I haven't seen a dev response to the Yak and La 5 performance claims. Well I saw somewhere a note that they had some secret documents that were only available to them and couldn't been published. Such approach simply leads to debates like this one.

Be it as it may majority of these claims come from energy miscalculation. It's not that easy to judge E state of the other plane and often one is shot down by someone else who had not been seen at all. There is also a tiny chance someone has the game hacked and uses modified performance. I don't believe in widespread use of cheats but it would be foolish to believe BOS is immune. To find what the game really is I'd suggest pilots to fly planes from both sides. That will teach them what can actually be achieved and what not.

[BraveSirRobin]

This would really work if there was a market for combat flight sims and enough of options to choose from. 

 

Yeah, it would definitely work better if there were more people willing to put up with this community for virtually nothing in return.  It's definitely a mystery why there aren't more game developers willing to jump on this grenade.

 

But since we don't have a lot of options, the only developer still out there can pretty much do what they want.

[SYN_Vorlander]

THIS GAME HAS BEEN BALANCED so DONT sell the product as realistic FM's.

  

I used to love flying the La5, but the La5 we are flying today is not the same plane as released or during development. The Dev. team is tweaking the FM constantly to balance the game. 

 

The subject regarding the YAK OP will stay until its fixed. Create a game that is sound according to history and not propaganda.

[CaK_Rumcajs]

Yeah, it would definitely work better if there were more people willing to put up with this community for virtually nothing in return.  It's definitely a mystery why there aren't more game developers willing to jump on this grenade.

 

But since we don't have a lot of options, the only developer still out there can pretty much do what they want.

When I said "If there was a market" I meant both the customers and the suppliers. It's a fact the remains of WW2 combat flight sim genre can't be called a market. It's a simple and for us sad fact which gives 777 some non standard power over the comunity. You nailed it perfetly when you said they can do what they want. Yes. But with power comes responsibility. If they misuse this power they will bury the genre definitelly.

I'm not saing they do it wrong. I'm not that conviced there is balance tweaking above reasonable level. Also the original FW 190 is not what it is today. And I'd say fortunately it's been tweaked. All I'd love to see is a dev response that would shed some light on what's been accented so often.

[BraveSirRobin]

 If they misuse this power they will bury the genre definitelly.

 

So they can make more money developing games that actually have a market?  How terrible for them.

Edited June 12, 2015 by BraveSirRobin

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

The simplest solution would be to post the performance figures; level speed at three or four various altitudes, climb rates, maximum dive speeds, max cruise speed, combat speed, maximum speed, and at what power settings, radiator settings, etc for in-game performance. Put it in a freakin' chart in the freakin' manual. Make it available to the customers. I wouldn't even mind if the figures were within a few percentages of the accepted published numbers. Fudge this one up 2%. Fudge this other one down 2%. I don't care that much about the real world 'secret' documents. There will still be plenty to argue about flap performance, turn radius, roll rates, energy retention and such. Yes, I have a slight Luftwhiner slant but I'm not one of the screamers. I'm pretty darn happy about most of what the game offers at this stage of development for MP while understanding the plight of the SP guys.

 

Under what parameters are the aircraft, all aircraft, performing in the game? It would open up historical debates but we have these already. However, if you told me plane X performs this way in the DEV official tests under these conditions I'd be much more likely to see it from that perspective and I could fly it within those parameters and determine if I was getting the same performance. If my book says plane X flies 540 kph at 3000m and yours says 546 at 3000m I could say, "sure, why not." As long as the figures are within a few percentage points of the generally accepted/documented performance we'd be good............for the most part. I'm sure the debates would continue on and the most vocal would remain the most vocal but it would be about the figures - not my hypothesis v your hypothesis or your testing method v my testing method.

 

On the other hand, if my book says 505 kph and his says 507 and hers says 511 but yours says 565 kph, that would be a problem. Performance in the game between same types is supposed to be within 2% plane to plane. I'd expect the overall figures to be within 2-3% of the historical record as well. Right now there is no sure way of determining that.

 

We have figures for engine endurance on some planes. Everything else seems to be, test it for yourself.......oh, your test is invalid.

 

FTR: I do fine with my Fw and am having a ton of fun on a near daily basis. Most of the time I just shut up and fly.............to my aircraft's strengths. I'm not terribly concerned about the Yak or La-5. When I die it is usually because I made an error. Don't really care if the Russian birds are slightly fudged or not. The only problem I have, personally, is the flap issue. Also, there was a lot of debate about the Fw but tweaks were made and the hubub has died down considerably. I'm delighted with the most recent high speed performance for this aircraft, though, it should still out roll everything better than it does at this point in the war. A couple of minor tweaks to other aircraft is always a possibility. The DEVS clearly aren't done yet and have consistently tweaked aircraft at every update. So, I have hope, maybe even faith that this is still being evaluated from a historical and game play perspective.

Edited June 12, 2015 by [TBC]HerrMurf

[Wulf]

Yes, it definitely is.  If you're not happy with their FM decisions, don't play the game.  It's really that simple.

 

I never said that they're so good at anything.  They're just the best option we have right now.  I'm sure if you were developing a game it would be a million times better.

 

 

What??  Not play the game????  But I've already paid for it haven't I.  Why would I not play it then?

 

And no, I couldn't develop a flight sim if my life depended on it.  However, if I were to be involved with one, I'd certainly spend a lot more time managing community expectations than appears to be the case here.  Telling people who express concerns about the FM to [Edited] and develop their own bleeding sim, if they didn't like mine, wouldn't be my first or even preferred approach to the task.

Edited June 18, 2015 by Bearcat
Moderation

[BraveSirRobin]

What??  Not play the game????  But I've already paid for it haven't I.  Why would I not play it then?

 

I bought Wings of Prey and realized quite quickly that I made a mistake.  I stopped playing and removed it from my PC.  I didn't even bother going to their forum to spend lots of time complaining about it.  I just moved on with my life.  It really makes no sense to keep doing something that you don't enjoy.

 

And you're probably right about not being able to develop a flight sim if your life depended on it.  That makes you very dependent on the only people who are still doing that sort of work.  However, if you were the person in charge of managing community expectations your response to people like you would probably be very similar to their response to people like you.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Oh, one more point:

 

In regards to posting the in game performance figures.........................No pilot, ever, other than test pilots developing the actual figures has ever flown an aircraft in combat without having and knowing the accepted performance figures for his aircraft. You'd be a fool to fly a Cessna wtihout knowing the figures. There are no words to describe the type of fool you'd be if you tried to take out a fighter without knowing the figures.

 

And yet we do it on a daily basis with our virtual selves.

Edited June 12, 2015 by [TBC]HerrMurf

[SYN_Mike77]

What??  Not play the game????  But I've already paid for it haven't I.  Why would I not play it then?

 

And no, I couldn't develop a flight sim if my life depended on it.  However, if I were to be involved with one, I'd certainly spend a lot more time managing community expectations than appears to be the case here.  Telling people who express concerns about the FM to [Edited] and develop their own bleeding sim, if they didn't like mine, wouldn't be my first or even preferred approach to the task.

When did a developer ever say that?  How many people with the language skills required would you hire in this hypothetical company?  Remember, it's a niche market and you're barely getting by as it is. Finally, I don't know many games that give the customers as much info and love as this company does.  How many other games/companies have delivered 100 development updates in their secondary language?  I doubt there are many.

Edited June 18, 2015 by Bearcat

[BraveSirRobin]

When did a developer ever say that? 

 

They're not literally saying that, but that becomes the bottom line when a developer won't make changes that someone like Wulf believes should be made.

[Wulf]

The simplest solution would be to post the performance figures; level speed at three or four various altitudes, climb rates, maximum dive speeds, max cruise speed, combat speed, maximum speed, and at what power settings, radiator settings, etc for in-game performance. Put it in a freakin' chart in the freakin' manual. Make it available to the customers. I wouldn't even mind if the figures were within a few percentages of the accepted published numbers. Fudge this one up 2%. Fudge this other one down 2%. I don't care that much about the real world 'secret' documents. There will still be plenty to argue about flap performance, turn radius, roll rates, energy retention and such. Yes, I have a slight Luftwhiner slant but I'm not one of the screamers. I'm pretty darn happy about most of what the game offers at this stage of development for MP while understanding the plight of the SP guys.

 

Under what parameters are the aircraft, all aircraft, performing in the game? It would open up historical debates but we have these already. However, if you told me plane X performs this way in the DEV official tests under these conditions I'd be much more likely to see it from that perspective and I could fly it within those parameters and determine if I was getting the same performance. If my book says plane X flies 540 kph at 3000m and yours says 546 at 3000m I could say, "sure, why not." As long as the figures are within a few percentage points of the generally accepted/documented performance we'd be good............for the most part. I'm sure the debates would continue on and the most vocal would remain the most vocal but it would be about the figures - not my hypothesis v your hypothesis or your testing method v my testing method.

 

On the other hand, if my book says 505 kph and his says 507 and hers says 511 but yours says 565 kph, that would be a problem. Performance in the game between same types is supposed to be within 2% plane to plane. I'd expect the overall figures to be within 2-3% of the historical record as well. Right now there is no sure way of determining that.

 

We have figures for engine endurance on some planes. Everything else seems to be, test it for yourself.......oh, your test is invalid.

 

FTR: I do fine with my Fw and am having a ton of fun on a near daily basis. Most of the time I just shut up and fly.............to my aircraft's strengths. I'm not terribly concerned about the Yak or La-5. When I die it is usually because I made an error. Don't really care if the Russian birds are slightly fudged or not. The only problem I have, personally, is the flap issue. Also, there was a lot of debate about the Fw but tweaks were made and the hubub has died down considerably. I'm delighted with the most recent high speed performance for this aircraft, though, it should still out roll everything better than it does at this point in the war. A couple of minor tweaks to other aircraft is always a possibility. The DEVS clearly aren't done yet and have consistently tweaked aircraft at every update. So, I have hope, maybe even faith that this is still being evaluated from a historical and game play perspective.

 

 

Yes, I agree.  Performance figures should be put in the manual.  No question and yes, this would help rather than hinder the "relationship" IMO.  I understand this is being done for future release.

[SR-F_Winger]

 

 

Yes, it definitely is. If you're not happy with their FM decisions, don't play the game. It's really that simple.

Thats exactly what people are doing.

[BraveSirRobin]

Thats exactly what people are doing.

 

How many?

[SR-F_Winger]

How many?

All those that you dont see counted as a player every evening on the populated BOS server.

 

EDIT: Dont get me wrong. I REALLY WANT TO play this. I just dont because its no fun. Well, let me correct that. Its fun but there is more fun elsewhere.

This could be fixed if there wasnt people too stubborn to realize their mistakes. Good i DONT understand. Why choose a scenario like that to start with?

WHY? I dont get it.

Its not all red to be nerfed or blue to be bumped. The problems have been mentioned numerous times and ill not be repeating all thos stuff that has been posted a million times in detail .... flaps ..... relative speed ... no energybleed ... too few players per server ....

Edited June 12, 2015 by VSG1_Winger

[BraveSirRobin]

All those that you dont see counted as a player every evening on the populated BOS server.

 

LOL  So people who aren't playing because it's summer are actually not playing because they're not happy about the FMs?  Or people who got sick of getting pwned by teams stacked with 109s are actually not playing because those 109s are not uber enough?

[Sgt_Joch]

I don't think people realise how much work goes into developping the FMs. This post was made by An. Petrovich, one of the RoF developpers (see post #111). I presume the same attention to detail goes into BoS:

 

http://riseofflight.com/forum/topic/22802-se5a-fm-review-fixes/page-3?do=findComment&comment=316642

 

 

notice how it takes into account not just power, weight, speed and climb rate, but important details like lift and drag coefficients, airscrew pitch, etc.

[SR-F_Winger]

LOL  So people who aren't playing because it's summer are actually not playing because they're not happy about the FMs?  Or people who got sick of getting pwned by teams stacked with 109s are actually not playing because those 109s are not uber enough?

Oh yes because its summer.....

All the simmers i know fly. Regardless of summer. Just not BOS dude.

[BraveSirRobin]

Oh yes because its summer.....

All the simmers i know fly. Regardless of summer. Just not BOS dude.

 

I know plenty of people who play less in the summer.  Myself included.

 

In any case, you have absolutely ZERO evidence that FM complaints are the reason for every single person who isn't in MP lately.  That is just a ridiculous claim. 

 

I've seen evidence on the forum that about a dozen guys are not playing because of FM complaints.  It might be as high as 20.  

[BeastyBaiter]

I'm a bit burnt out on WW2 so am mostly flying jets and choppers in DCS atm, hence why you don't see me around often. I doubt I'm the only one taking a little break. And as for those wanting in game performance numbers, here's some:

 

Top speed 50m above Lapino at 16:00 hours without wind, 100% starting fuel, default armament, runway start, autopilot level, all radiator/cowl flaps fully closed for top speed, 100% prop pitch on constant speed props. I used safe power rating until it would go no further, then went to absolute full power. No diving was used to achieve these speeds, this is what they managed by going straight and level at 50m from moments after takeoff until they would go no faster.

 

Yak-1: 556

LaGG-1: 541

La-5: 565

Bf-109F4: 594 (still accelerating very slowly when engine blew)

Bf-109G2: 563

Fw-190A3: 583

 

All numbers are IAS using the cheater gauges, altitude was measured with cockpit instrument with Lapino set to 0m. I did notice all planes were indicating side slip under autopilot, but appeared to be flying straight. Regarding these figures, it is worth noting that these are IAS numbers and not TAS. IAS should be exaggerated compared to TAS due to cold air. I also do not know how far above SL Lapino is.

Edited June 12, 2015 by King_Hrothgar

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

I'm a bit burnt out on WW2 so am mostly flying jets and choppers in DCS atm, hence why you don't see me around often. I doubt I'm the only one taking a little break. And as for those wanting in game performance numbers, here's some:

 

Top speed 50m above Lapino at 16:00 hours without wind, 100% starting fuel, default armament, runway start, autopilot level, all radiator/cowl flaps fully closed for top speed, 100% prop pitch on constant speed props. I used safe power rating until it would go no further, then went to absolute full power.

 

Yak-1: 556

LaGG-1: 541

La-5: 565

Bf-109F4: 594 (still accelerating very slowly when engine blew)

Bf-109G2: 563

Fw-190A3: 583

 

All numbers are IAS using the cheater gauges, altitude was measured with cockpit instrument with Lapino set to 0m. I did notice all planes were indicating side slip under autopilot, but appeared to be flying straight. Regarding these figures, it is worth noting that these are IAS numbers and not TAS. IAS should be exaggerated compared to TAS due to cold air. I also do not know how far above SL Lapino is.

I appreciate your effort but you have to list caveats to the performance figures you posted. That is part of the problem. Others will come in here and dipute your testing methods. It is a potentially good comparison to each other but doesn't resolve the core issue of how do the Devs determine their numbers and how do they resolve that against the historical record. That is why we need Dev figures and their testing parameters in chart form.

 

Thanks for the comparitive test.

Edited June 12, 2015 by [TBC]HerrMurf

[BlackDevil]

Keep FMs as they are and even more people will go clod. Far more than 150 people at the same time yesterday spread over only 2 servers and a number of other servers with small playernumbers. Guess BOS can only dream of that.

I have been testing Clod the last days and it sooo much better than "other sims". Not just FM wise.

 

The more people fly, the better the FM is ?   WT will easily win this FM battle

 

I tested CloD as well, and I found the FM so outdated, I wouldn´t fly it, if 1000 were online.

[BraveSirRobin]

All those that you dont see counted as a player every evening on the populated BOS server.

 

EDIT: Dont get me wrong. I REALLY WANT TO play this. I just dont because its no fun. Well, let me correct that. Its fun but there is more fun elsewhere.

This could be fixed if there wasnt people too stubborn to realize their mistakes. Good i DONT understand. Why choose a scenario like that to start with?

WHY? I dont get it.

Its not all red to be nerfed or blue to be bumped. The problems have been mentioned numerous times and ill not be repeating all thos stuff that has been posted a million times in detail .... flaps ..... relative speed ... no energybleed ... too few players per server ....

 

Just out of curiosity, which WW2 flight sim meets your standards?  Because I don't see how IL2 1946, DCS, or CoD could possibly meet them.  They all have issues, they just don't have all the same issues.

Edited June 12, 2015 by BraveSirRobin

[BeastyBaiter]

I appreciate your effort but you have to list caveats to the performance figures you posted. That is part of the problem. Others will come in here and dipute your testing methods. It is a potentially good comparison to each other but doesn't resolve the core issue of how do the Devs determine their numbers and how do they resolve that against the historical record. That is why we need Dev figures and their testing parameters in chart form.

 

Thanks for the comparitive test.

 

 

I listed everything there is to list to reproduce my results with the exception of mixture. Mixture was set to 100% on all planes that have it. I made no claims as to whether or not the numbers are realistic compared to the real thing, only what it is in game using those methods. The methods I used are fairly standard though. Every top speed test I've ever come across listed speeds using either auto radiator mode or fully closed (typically both if it has an auto mode). Prop pitch is similarly left on auto or at max rated RPM. So I don't think there are really any caveats here.

Edited June 12, 2015 by King_Hrothgar

[Original_Uwe]

I listed everything there is to list to reproduce my results with the exception of mixture. Mixture was set to 100% on all planes that have it. I made no claims as to whether or not the numbers are realistic compared to the real thing, only what it is in game using those methods. The methods I used are fairly standard though. Every top speed test I've ever come across listed speeds using either auto radiator mode or fully closed (typically both if it has an auto mode). Prop pitch is similarly left on auto or at max rated RPM. So I don't think there are really any caveats here.

I'd love for you to start a new thread in the FM section with these figures but converted to TAS. The time over distance method seems to me to be the best measurement method and if you desire please feel free to use the 70km test track mission I posted in my thread on german fighter speeds. All you need to do is go into mission editor and change the aircraft and altitude as your heart desires.

I'd really be interested because in my tests the German fighters are rediculously well modeled (minus the F4 at 6000M).

 

And the devs have laid out the gauntlet, your tests are invalid without tracks to show your work. Please try to comply with their rules so we can get some valid consensus we can take to the devs.

[Stallion]

LOL So people who aren't playing because it's summer are actually not playing because they're not happy about the FMs? Or people who got sick of getting pwned by teams stacked with 109s are actually not playing because those 109s are not uber enough?

I like you. I totally agree that many people dropped out of BOS during the dark ages of 8v4 109 feeding frenzies even before they were buffed. I always felt like the only person noticing it at the time

[coconut]

These numbers are from files in luascripts/ai/.

 

Yak-1:

 

[performance]
    MaxSpeed           = 580.0 // 4000 m
    MaxClimbRate       = 17.0
    ServiceCeiling     = 10200.0
    MinStructureHealth = 0.959
    MinEngineHealth    = 0.6
    EngineWarming      = true
    TurnRate           = 330.0, 63.0

    ////// ClimbTime = <float ALTITUDE>, <float TIME> // V (до 3 км) - 260 км/ч, далее -5км/ч на 1 км высоты, створки открыты.
    ClimbTime = 0,0
    ClimbTime = 1000,58
    ClimbTime = 2000,122
    ClimbTime = 3000,190
    ClimbTime = 4000,261
    ClimbTime = 5000,346
    ClimbTime = 6000,453
    ClimbTime = 7000,592
    ClimbTime = 8000,778
    ClimbTime = 9000,1072

    ////// MaxAltTAS = <float ALTITUDE>, <float TAS> // Створки по потоку, 100% топлива, RPM = 2700
    MaxAltTAS = 0,515
    MaxAltTAS = 1000,539
    MaxAltTAS = 2000,547
    MaxAltTAS = 3000,566
    MaxAltTAS = 4000,583
    MaxAltTAS = 5000,579
    MaxAltTAS = 6000,571
    MaxAltTAS = 7000,560
    MaxAltTAS = 8000,548

    ////// turn time at altitude (m/s) = <float ALTITUDE>, <float TIME> //fuel 50%
    TurnTimeAlt = 0,21.3
    TurnTimeAlt = 1000,23.6
    TurnTimeAlt = 2000,26.4
    TurnTimeAlt = 3000,28.2
    TurnTimeAlt = 4000,31.6
    TurnTimeAlt = 5000,37.1
    TurnTimeAlt = 6000,43.5
    TurnTimeAlt = 7000,52.4

    ////// optimal turn CAS at altitude= <float ALTITUDE>, <float CAS>
    TurnOptimal_CAS_Alt = 0,300
    TurnOptimal_CAS_Alt = 1000,300
    TurnOptimal_CAS_Alt = 2000,285
    TurnOptimal_CAS_Alt = 3000,285
    TurnOptimal_CAS_Alt = 4000,275
    TurnOptimal_CAS_Alt = 5000,265
    TurnOptimal_CAS_Alt = 6000,260
    TurnOptimal_CAS_Alt = 7000,255

    MaxClimbCAS = 260
    MaxClimbRate = 17.0
    MaxAltitude = 10000.0
    CruiseFuelRate = 2.40    //[л./мин.] 280 км/ч (MinCruiseCAS); 1000 м; 50% бака, без подвесов, стандартная атмосфера
    PriorityType = 1				//FIGHTER=1,HEAVY_FIGHTER=2,LIGHT_BOMBER=3,BOMBER=4,LIGHT_RECON=5,RECON=6,SHTURMOVIK=7,CARGO=8
[end] 

 

 

 

bf109-f4:

 

 

 

[performance]
    MaxSpeed           = 550.3
    MaxClimbRate       = 19.5
    ServiceCeiling     = 11500.0
    MinStructureHealth = 0.863
    MinEngineHealth    = 0.6
    EngineWarming      = true
    TurnRate           = 300.0, 67.0

    ////// ClimbTime = <float ALTITUDE>, <float TIME>
    ClimbTime = 0,0
    ClimbTime = 1000,54
    ClimbTime = 2000,107
    ClimbTime = 3000,162
    ClimbTime = 4000,222
    ClimbTime = 5000,285
    ClimbTime = 6000,358
    ClimbTime = 7000,450
    ClimbTime = 8000,575
    ClimbTime = 9000,687
    ClimbTime = 10000,854
    ClimbTime = 11000,1160

    ////// MaxAltTAS = <float ALTITUDE>, <float TAS>
    MaxAltTAS = 0,526
    MaxAltTAS = 1000,550
    MaxAltTAS = 2000,572
    MaxAltTAS = 3000,590
    MaxAltTAS = 4000,608
    MaxAltTAS = 5000,627
    MaxAltTAS = 6000,634
    MaxAltTAS = 7000,630
    MaxAltTAS = 8000,623
    MaxAltTAS = 9000,612
    MaxAltTAS = 10000,594
    MaxAltTAS = 11000,556

    ////// turn time at altitude (m/s) = <float ALTITUDE>, <float TIME>
    TurnTimeAlt = 0,23.7
    TurnTimeAlt = 1000,25.0
    TurnTimeAlt = 2000,27.6
    TurnTimeAlt = 3000,30.7
    TurnTimeAlt = 4000,33.7
    TurnTimeAlt = 5000,37.3
    TurnTimeAlt = 6000,42.4
    TurnTimeAlt = 7000,49.1

    ////// optimal turn CAS at altitude= <float ALTITUDE>, <float CAS>
    TurnOptimal_CAS_Alt = 0,250
    TurnOptimal_CAS_Alt = 1000,260
    TurnOptimal_CAS_Alt = 2000,260
    TurnOptimal_CAS_Alt = 3000,260
    TurnOptimal_CAS_Alt = 4000,270
    TurnOptimal_CAS_Alt = 5000,270
    TurnOptimal_CAS_Alt = 6000,260
    TurnOptimal_CAS_Alt = 7000,260

    MaxClimbCAS = 280
    MaxClimbRate = 19.5
    MaxAltitude = 11500.0
    CruiseFuelRate = 1.83    // [л./мин.]
    PriorityType = 1				//FIGHTER=1,HEAVY_FIGHTER=2,LIGHT_BOMBER=3,BOMBER=4,LIGHT_RECON=5,RECON=6,SHTURMOVIK=7,CARGO=8
[end]

 

 

 

Not sure how to interpret all these entries exactly, but my guess is that these are numbers fed to the AI to help it pick a strategy. That, or the AIs fly with a simplified flight model and these are the values they use. In any case, they should represent what the devs want to achieve with their flight models.

 

Look at the various maximum TAS at each altitude, they should be an indication of where fighters should fight if they want to have the advantage.

 

During my many hours of testing my latest mission, I was initially surprised at how easily the AI was owning me in their puny Laggs (I was typically flying the FW 190 or the Bf109 G2). But that was below 3000m. If I fought them at higher altitudes, I found it a lot easier to survive.

[IVJG4-Knight]

I'm not the one with problems, dude.  The "my 109 is not uber enough!!" syndrome is actually quite comical.  

 

Don't worry, lots of people who get shot down while flying the best plane will still blame it on the plane.

"Dude" . Every person that reads a little history knows Spits in CloD don't burn like they did in real life.

 

Ken Carver who was with 229 Squadron based at Northolt on September 11th 1940 when he was shot down by a Bf109 while in combat against He111 bombers and Bf109 escort over Maidstone Kent. His Hurricane burst into flames and Ken managed to bale out, but not before he received serious burns to his face and hands

 

Richard Hillary was shot down off the Kent coast and after managing to escape from his burning Spitfire, he spent a long time in the waters of the Channel off Margate.

 

Tom Gleave, another who succumbed to the burning inferno of his aircraft on August 31st 1940. He mentions how the flames licked his face and body like a blowtorch that will not go out.

 

"The "my 109 is not uber enough!!" syndrome is actually quite comical"

 

The pilot is the one that wins or loses ,not the plane.

Edited June 12, 2015 by IVJG4-Knight

[BraveSirRobin]

I like you. I totally agree that many people dropped out of BOS during the dark ages of 8v4 109 feeding frenzies even before they were buffed. I always felt like the only person noticing it at the time

 

I'm not sure how many people left after getting bounced by swarms of 109s, but it's interesting to find out that they left because they were not being mauled in a historically accurate manner.

"Dude" . Every person that reads a little history knows Spits in CloD don't burn like they did in real life.

 

No, I am totally on board with making the 109 even more uber.  Every person that reads a little history knows that the 109 was so uber that fire was actually afraid of it.  In the case where a Spit causes damage to a 109 that would normally set another aircraft on fire, it should actually be the Spit that catches fire.

[coconut]

And here are the numbers for the G2:

 

 

 

[performance]
    MaxSpeed           = 550.3
    MaxClimbRate       = 19.5
    ServiceCeiling     = 11500.0
    MinStructureHealth = 0.863
    MinEngineHealth    = 0.6
    EngineWarming      = true
    TurnRate           = 300.0, 67.0

    ////// ClimbTime = <float ALTITUDE>, <float TIME>
    ClimbTime = 0,0
    ClimbTime = 1000,54
    ClimbTime = 2000,107
    ClimbTime = 3000,162
    ClimbTime = 4000,222
    ClimbTime = 5000,285
    ClimbTime = 6000,358
    ClimbTime = 7000,450
    ClimbTime = 8000,575
    ClimbTime = 9000,687
    ClimbTime = 10000,854
    ClimbTime = 11000,1160

    ////// MaxAltTAS = <float ALTITUDE>, <float TAS>
    MaxAltTAS = 0,526
    MaxAltTAS = 1000,550
    MaxAltTAS = 2000,572
    MaxAltTAS = 3000,590
    MaxAltTAS = 4000,608
    MaxAltTAS = 5000,627
    MaxAltTAS = 6000,634
    MaxAltTAS = 7000,630
    MaxAltTAS = 8000,623
    MaxAltTAS = 9000,612
    MaxAltTAS = 10000,594
    MaxAltTAS = 11000,556

    ////// turn time at altitude (m/s) = <float ALTITUDE>, <float TIME>
    TurnTimeAlt = 0,23.7
    TurnTimeAlt = 1000,25.0
    TurnTimeAlt = 2000,27.6
    TurnTimeAlt = 3000,30.7
    TurnTimeAlt = 4000,33.7
    TurnTimeAlt = 5000,37.3
    TurnTimeAlt = 6000,42.4
    TurnTimeAlt = 7000,49.1

    ////// optimal turn CAS at altitude= <float ALTITUDE>, <float CAS>
    TurnOptimal_CAS_Alt = 0,250
    TurnOptimal_CAS_Alt = 1000,260
    TurnOptimal_CAS_Alt = 2000,260
    TurnOptimal_CAS_Alt = 3000,260
    TurnOptimal_CAS_Alt = 4000,270
    TurnOptimal_CAS_Alt = 5000,270
    TurnOptimal_CAS_Alt = 6000,260
    TurnOptimal_CAS_Alt = 7000,260

    MaxClimbCAS = 280
    MaxClimbRate = 19.5
    MaxAltitude = 11500.0
    CruiseFuelRate = 1.77  //[л./мин.] 280 км/ч (MinCruiseCAS); 1000 м; 50% бака, без подвесов, стандартная атмосфера
    PriorityType = 1				//FIGHTER=1,HEAVY_FIGHTER=2,LIGHT_BOMBER=3,BOMBER=4,LIGHT_RECON=5,RECON=6,SHTURMOVIK=7,CARGO=8
[end] 

 

 

 

And the FW190:

 

 

 

[performance]
    MaxSpeed           = 548.3
    MaxClimbRate       = 13.5
    ServiceCeiling     = 11300.0
    MinStructureHealth = 0.863
    MinEngineHealth    = 0.6
    EngineWarming      = true
    TurnRate           = 300.0, 67.0

    ////// ClimbTime = <float ALTITUDE>, <float TIME>
    ClimbTime = 0,0
    ClimbTime = 1000,74
    ClimbTime = 2000,151
    ClimbTime = 3000,238
    ClimbTime = 4000,332
    ClimbTime = 5000,431
    ClimbTime = 6000,534
    ClimbTime = 7000,655
    ClimbTime = 8000,803
    ClimbTime = 9000,993
    ClimbTime = 10000,1259

    ////// MaxAltTAS = <float ALTITUDE>, <float TAS>
    MaxAltTAS = 0,525
    MaxAltTAS = 1000,548
    MaxAltTAS = 2000,555
    MaxAltTAS = 3000,547
    MaxAltTAS = 4000,571
    MaxAltTAS = 5000,595
    MaxAltTAS = 6000,617
    MaxAltTAS = 7000,615
    MaxAltTAS = 8000,610
    MaxAltTAS = 9000,607

    ////// turn time at altitude (m/s) = <float ALTITUDE>, <float TIME>
    TurnTimeAlt = 500,23.5
    TurnTimeAlt = 1000,24.3
    TurnTimeAlt = 2000,27.4
    TurnTimeAlt = 3000,31.0
    TurnTimeAlt = 4000,34.3
    TurnTimeAlt = 5000,37.9
    TurnTimeAlt = 6000,43.1
    TurnTimeAlt = 7000,49.7

    ////// optimal turn CAS at altitude= <float ALTITUDE>, <float CAS>
    TurnOptimal_CAS_Alt = 500,310
    TurnOptimal_CAS_Alt = 1000,300
    TurnOptimal_CAS_Alt = 2000,290
    TurnOptimal_CAS_Alt = 3000,290
    TurnOptimal_CAS_Alt = 4000,290
    TurnOptimal_CAS_Alt = 5000,290
    TurnOptimal_CAS_Alt = 6000,280
    TurnOptimal_CAS_Alt = 7000,280

    MaxClimbCAS = 295
    MaxClimbRate = 13.5
    MaxAltitude = 11300.0
    CruiseFuelRate = 1.72       //[л./мин.] 280 км/ч (MinCruiseCAS); 1000 м; 50% бака, без подвесов, стандартная атмосфера
    PriorityType = 1				//FIGHTER=1,HEAVY_FIGHTER=2,LIGHT_BOMBER=3,BOMBER=4,LIGHT_RECON=5,RECON=6,SHTURMOVIK=7,CARGO=8
[end]
 

 

 

[LukeFF]

 

 

That, or the AIs fly with a simplified flight model and these are the values they use.

 

The AI uses the same flight model as the player. 

[Saurer]

Where are these files? I don't have an ai folder in luascrips