Winning the 109 vs Yak1 matchup from the Soviet side

[BraveSirRobin]

So ... what the hell are you arguing about then?? 

 

 

I'm saying that no game ever made will meet the standards that some of you seem to expect this game to meet.  They all have issues.  When you find what you believe is an issue, report it with evidence supporting why you believe that it's a problem.  Maybe they'll fix it, maybe they won't.  If that's a problem for you, good luck finding a game that doesn't have any issues.

 

So, yes, I'm willing to turn a blind eye to problems.  And, assuming you're playing any flight sims at all right now, so are you.

[LukeFF]

 

 

There has not been a "complete overhaul" for the FMs as promised throughout Alpha, than Beta at all, which is why some planes like the Ju87 still have rudimentary issues with their FMs (which have been reported for long time now).

 

If you can make such a claim that they made such a promise, then surely you have a link to back up your assertion. 

[JG13_opcode]

Can you guys stop [Editing] up my thread please?  BraveSirRobin, Winger, I'm looking at you two in particular.  You guys are both super negative and need to just go have a time-out.  This thread is about tactics that the successful VVS pilot should adopt to win, in the context of the current state of the game.

 

Making passive-aggressive comments like "lol use flaps" that imply the Yak is overmodelled is not helpful.  Arguing about ROF and other petty stuff is not helpful either.  Please go away.

 

Anyone who actually understands the physics of flight and the reality of engineering these aircraft knows that it would be prohibitively expensive (and probably impossible) to come up with a game that exactly satisfies every single historical test.  Sometimes these tests do not list the atmospheric conditions.  Sometimes these tests are unclear as to the condition of the airframe or engine.  etc. etc. etc.

 

The same pilot, flying the same maneuver, in the same aircraft, on the same day, will not achieve identical results twice in a row.

 

I myself am satisfied with "close enough".  You should be too.

Edited June 19, 2015 by Bearcat
Language

[SR-F_Winger]

Opcode. I am done talking to this guy. And sorry thou!

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

If you can make such a claim that they made such a promise, then surely you have a link to back up your assertion. 

If you are expecting a serious answer, the Early Acess forum has been deleted so the Alpha/Beta threads including those posts are gone. As you were around here during EA you probably still remember those posts just as well as I do.

 

So if you're just looking for trouble and blaiming I advise to pick someone else. I'm not in the mood to start a 3 page discussion with sby clearly intending this topic to be locked before any more critique can be voiced he doesn't like to hear.

 

If you want to continue use PMs. I'm sure you can't wait to learn more about BoS's Alpha and Beta development.

 

Sry for distraction OP.

Edited June 19, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[Finkeren]

Actually there was a major overhaul of the FMs back in Early Access. I'll try to dig out the DD mentioning it. It happened before the release of the Fw 190 and involved all aircraft except the LaGG-3.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Actually there was a major overhaul of the FMs back in Early Access. I'll try to dig out the DD mentioning it. It happened before the release of the Fw 190 and involved all aircraft except the LaGG-3.

That has been the added controll surface "inertia" I mentioned. Thats no overhaul. They added an artificial parameter for each plane's contorll surface, thats it. Complete overhaul mean recalculation of all aerodynamical and geometric values and cross checking with hard data, basicly creating a completely new FM. That obviously did not happen.

Edited June 19, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[LukeFF]

If you are expecting a serious answer, the Early Acess forum has been deleted so the Alpha/Beta threads including those posts are gone. As you were around here during EA you probably still remember those posts just as well as I do.

 

So if you're just looking for trouble and blaiming I advise to pick someone else. I'm not in the mood to start a 3 page discussion with sby clearly intending this topic to be locked before any more critique can be voiced he doesn't like to hear.

 

If you want to continue use PMs. I'm sure you can't wait to learn more about BoS's Alpha and Beta development.

 

In other words, you want people to believe in hearsay evidence that the team promised something (i.e., a "complete overhaul"). Excuse the pun, but that doesn't fly with me. I could also easily claim the team promised multitudes of things, but without evidence to back it up, my claim would be useless. 

[BraveSirRobin]

If you are expecting a serious answer, the Early Acess forum has been deleted so the Alpha/Beta threads including those posts are gone. As you were around here during EA you probably still remember those posts just as well as I do.

 

 

I've been here since day 1 and I don't recall anything like that being said.

[Finkeren]

That has been the added controll surface "inertia" I mentioned. Thats no overhaul. They added an artificial parameter for each plane's contorll surface, thats it. Complete overhaul mean recalculation of all aerodynamical and geometric values and cross checking with hard data, basicly creating a completely new FM. That obviously did not happen.

No of course that did not happen. Nor do I recall the devs ever stating that they were gonna do anything like that. Nor is it warrented. There are specific issues with some aspects of single aircraft models FM, but the overall FM is solid.

[JG13_opcode]

I cannot help feeling that, with all the angst these relatively small performance differences generate in the flier's mind, it might not be better simply to enter a fight - or not - assuming that the enemy aircraft has identical performance to your own.

 

That way at least the pilot will concentrate elements such as the Dicta Boelcke which are in the pilot's control.

 

I can see that this might not work so well for Fw190 vs Yak, where the performance differences are more marked, but maybe for the 109 vs Yak scenario?

 

What would be interesting would be a MP set up that had the same planes on each side - it would be fun to see if people believed that the two side's really had different FMs.

 

Honestly, throughout FB and 1946 I've always felt that if you are flying a Yak and catch a 190 anywhere below you he is pretty much toast unless you are slow and he has lots of speed to immediately get away.  The few times I've tangled with 190s in BOS has more or less borne that out.  I just finished a sortie where I took my Yak up to 8000m to try to catch some 190s sleeping.  One came in below me, say 7500m or less, and we duked it out for almost 20 minutes.

 

The yak's performance up there is uninspiring to say the least, but thankfully the Anton isn't great either.  I could have ended it on the first pass if I wasn't such a lousy shot, but my aim sucks.

 

I was able to keep the initiative and the energy advantage for almost the entire fight, forcing him downward a bit until right at the very end I got greedy/frustrated and pulled too many G's going for angles when I should have unloaded and accelerated.  Lost the energy advantage and the fight but it was tons of fun.

 

I definitely don't think I could have acquitted myself nearly as well against a Bf 109.

[unreasonable]

Honestly, throughout FB and 1946 I've always felt that if you are flying a Yak and catch a 190 anywhere below you he is pretty much toast unless you are slow and he has lots of speed to immediately get away.

But that should also be true if you were in a 190 and caught a Yak anywhere below you as well, I would have thought...

 

Anyway I am not claiming any expertise in dogfighting, especially MP where my location and lag makes playing problematic. My most satisfying shootdown victory in MP was a low side attack in a Lagg against a pair of LW types flying along over Stalingrad in darkness during a very early morning scenario. They were just above the condensation level, chattering away on teamspeak, so I could get right underneath them and climb slowly unseen for several minutes to get into position. I think I could have got them both if my lag was less, it makes accurate shooting much harder even when the target is not maneuvering. Nail the wingman, dive away into the darkness, listen to the radio chatter and watch the fiery death of a 109 light up the sky over my shoulder while cackling like a maniac...

 

The great thing about that attack was that aeroplane performance became irrelevant, except insofar as I had to have enough power to keep underneath the bandits while also climbing slowly. But since they were cruising it was not too difficult.

 

This maybe a bit OT since you wanted to discuss a more normal (for MP gaming) dogfight situation, but I just had to tell someone my war-story, please carry on...  

 

[JG13_opcode]

But that should also be true if you were in a 190 and caught a Yak anywhere below you as well, I would have thought...

 

Anyway I am not claiming any expertise in dogfighting, especially MP where my location and lag makes playing problematic. My most satisfying shootdown victory in MP was a low side attack in a Lagg against a pair of LW types flying along over Stalingrad in darkness during a very early morning scenario. They were just above the condensation level, chattering away on teamspeak, so I could get right underneath them and climb slowly unseen for several minutes to get into position. I think I could have got them both if my lag was less, it makes accurate shooting much harder even when the target is not maneuvering. Nail the wingman, dive away into the darkness, listen to the radio chatter and watch the fiery death of a 109 light up the sky over my shoulder while cackling like a maniac...

 

The great thing about that attack was that aeroplane performance became irrelevant, except insofar as I had to have enough power to keep underneath the bandits while also climbing slowly. But since they were cruising it was not too difficult.

 

This maybe a bit OT since you wanted to discuss a more normal (for MP gaming) dogfight situation, but I just had to tell someone my war-story, please carry on...  

 

 

That's a good war story

 

But yeah, I agree that if you are flying a 190 and catch a yak down low he's toast.  But I'm not so sure that if you are flying a yak and catch a Messerschmitt below you, his doom is sealed.  I think the 109 at least is a better match for the Yak.

 

I just meant that, by contrast to the Western Front, where the 190 is viewed as a "spitfire killer", far more deadly and capable than the 109, I think the 109 is more fearsome in the East.

Edited June 20, 2015 by 13GIAP_opcode

[=EXPEND=Dendro]

I for one enjoy the way the game has turned out. The VVS planes are competetive and sometimes really make you sweat if you get a bit impatient and just dive in with all guns blazing. The compete up high to a certain extent and down low they are superior in my eyes. I just find the flaps wrong but for now I can live with the fact that you cant turn at will with a yak and thats that.

 

I remember EA when I really did not enjoy the VVS planes because you immediately FELT to be at a disadvantage and that was a bit of a disappointment. That certainly does not seem to be the case (or general) opinion anymore.

 

Last night the reds were whining about the LW pilots flying too high and this and that but as soon as you got impatient and dropped down in the wrong place you got nailed by a yak/lagg/la5. Its all about taking your chances and a bit of luck and flying in a team on TS definitely makes it more enjoyable and exciting because working as a pack certainly changes your odds no matter which side you are on.

 

Arguing about FM's to me seems to be a very silly thing to do. I don't believe that a human can programme an environment to be the same as in real life. The factors are just too great and the calculations must be immense. I really take my hat off to the programmers and what they have achieved thus far. I think that if you put a lot of the FM whingers in a room with the devs they would certainly be a lot less cocky and a hell of a lot more respectful. Of course some gameplay and aspects can be improved but I am sure that will progress in the future.

 

For now.... S! to the devs and I always look forward to jumping in the pit and smashing it about with nice people from all over the globe!

[unreasonable]

That's a good war story

 

But yeah, I agree that if you are flying a 190 and catch a yak down low he's toast.  But I'm not so sure that if you are flying a yak and catch a Messerschmitt below you, his doom is sealed.  I think the 109 at least is a better match for the Yak.

 

I just meant that, by contrast to the Western Front, where the 190 is viewed as a "spitfire killer", far more deadly and capable than the 109, I think the 109 is more fearsome in the East.

 

Glad you liked it.. on your last point there have been quite a few discussions about this discrepancy in perceptions about the 190 between E and W fronts, and if this was down to different tactical roles, plane variants or just differences in propaganda. I have to admit that I still do not feel that satisfied that I know the answer.

 

I have never seen a systematic analysis, but AFAIK the only LW units that used the 190 in the East in a purely fighter role racked up large scores just like the 109 units. Did they consciously fly and fight in them in a different manner? I wonder.

[BlitzPig_EL]

I honestly think that we cannot compare the outcomes of the real aircraft, flown by real pilots in a real war, with any outcomes we get in a video game, simulation or not.

 

They flew with the knowledge that death, real, certain, final, death, was just a single, tiny miscalculation away.  We are fearless as we sit in our comfortable homes playing at being a pilot.  If we die, so what?

We take off again and have another go.  It's all fun and games for us after all.  So we take chances and use tactics that would be deemed insanity by the men (often boys) that flew these machines for real.

 

We have time, and planes, and frankly, lives, to spare to test and find all the little quirks, exploits, and strengths (or weaknesses) in the "planes" we fly, hence the flaps controversy here, or the "trim on a slider" and the cycling of Boost on and off in IL2 of old.  Real pilots did not have the luxury of all the experimentation time we have, or the bogus issues that our pixel planes and coded FMs have.

 

This is not to say that I, or I think most of us don't want the most accurate models we can get, because we do, but guys, don't ever expect real world outcomes. 

 

This isn't the real world.

[unreasonable]

I honestly think that we cannot compare the outcomes of the real aircraft, flown by real pilots in a real war, with any outcomes we get in a video game, simulation or not.

 

They flew with the knowledge that death, real, certain, final, death, was just a single, tiny miscalculation away.  We are fearless as we sit in our comfortable homes playing at being a pilot.  If we die, so what?

We take off again and have another go.  It's all fun and games for us after all.  So we take chances and use tactics that would be deemed insanity by the men (often boys) that flew these machines for real.

 

We have time, and planes, and frankly, lives, to spare to test and find all the little quirks, exploits, and strengths (or weaknesses) in the "planes" we fly, hence the flaps controversy here, or the "trim on a slider" and the cycling of Boost on and off in IL2 of old.  Real pilots did not have the luxury of all the experimentation time we have, or the bogus issues that our pixel planes and coded FMs have.

 

This is not to say that I, or I think most of us don't want the most accurate models we can get, because we do, but guys, don't ever expect real world outcomes. 

 

This isn't the real world.

 

I think we all know that this is not the real world.... but comparison with RL outcomes is the whole point of the game being rooted in a historical setting as opposed to being a fantasy Red vs Blue setting.

 

So the question is, when we do fly to imitate the behavior of RL wartime pilots as best we can, do you get something like real world outcomes or do we get something else, and if so why? To answer this we first have to have a some idea of what the RL behavior and outcomes were, so this stimulates interesting historical discussion and analysis. 

 

Then if we decide if any discrepancies are due to the limits of the hardware we use, or the software. In the case of the latter, the question then becomes whether this result is a necessary compromise due to programming limitations, or is it a deliberate choice of game design, or is it a correctable error?

 

I do not think anyone claims that any of these steps represent hard science, but neither are they unreasonable or just making stuff up. If it was true that "we cannot compare the outcomes of the real aircraft, flown by real pilots in a real war, with any outcomes we get in a video game, simulation or not" why do militaries spend untold millions developing simulations?

[JG13_opcode]

That's different.

 

The pilot workload in, say, the FW190 is pretty light.  You pretty much have one lever and your standard flight controls.  With the F-22 it has a multitude of electronic targeting systems, countermeasures, etc.  All those things need to be completely nailed down in the pilot's mind.  But you go up for a training flight and fire off a single AMRAAM and that just cost the taxpayer 2 million dollars.  They can't do that with every pilot so they put everyone through simulators to teach the fundamentals so they can get away with fewer RL training flights and save money (and fuel).

[unreasonable]

It is only a matter of degree. Anyone who has done any military training has done some simulated war activity. This might be with complex computer models, or it might be in exercises running about in the woods trying to sneak up on one another and firing off blanks. Either case is an abstraction designed to help people learn something: new skills, dealing with stress, or what actual fighting might look like, without exposing people to a real fight.

 

At military colleges people play wargames with fairly simple rules. These are not a detailed simulation of the mechanics of warfare, but they are designed to simulate one particular aspect, namely command decision making in situations of limited information and time.

 

Our flight sims try to simulate - in certain respects - what it is like to be in a WW2 aircraft trying to accomplish a mission. The overall purpose of our playing a sim is of course to have fun. For some of us this is just about shooting people down in MP, which is fine, but a purely Red vs Blue design with fantasy/SciFi aircraft would achieve that just as well. What is different in our game is the historical content. This only has a meaning when you compare the game with RL.

[JG13_opcode]

It is only a matter of degree. Anyone who has done any military training has done some simulated war activity. This might be with complex computer models, or it might be in exercises running about in the woods trying to sneak up on one another and firing off blanks. Either case is an abstraction designed to help people learn something: new skills, dealing with stress, or what actual fighting might look like, without exposing people to a real fight.

 

At military colleges people play wargames with fairly simple rules. These are not a detailed simulation of the mechanics of warfare, but they are designed to simulate one particular aspect, namely command decision making in situations of limited information and time.

 

Our flight sims try to simulate - in certain respects - what it is like to be in a WW2 aircraft trying to accomplish a mission. The overall purpose of our playing a sim is of course to have fun. For some of us this is just about shooting people down in MP, which is fine, but a purely Red vs Blue design with fantasy/SciFi aircraft would achieve that just as well. What is different in our game is the historical content. This only has a meaning when you compare the game with RL.

 

Okay sure, but there's simply no way to get a consumer-grade flight sim to match exactly the way things flew.  The laws of aerodynamics are dictated by a set of equations called the Navier-Stokes Equations, and these equations cannot be solved.  That is to say there is simply no mathematical technique that can provide a closed-form solution.  If a simulator could get a 100% accurate flight simulation, then the development team would win the Nobel Prize in Mathematics for their revolutionary discovery.

 

This is why I am satisfied with something that is "close enough" to the historical reality.

[Finkeren]

Okay sure, but there's simply no way to get a consumer-grade flight sim to match exactly the way things flew. The laws of aerodynamics are dictated by a set of equations called the Navier-Stokes Equations, and these equations cannot be solved. That is to say there is simply no mathematical technique that can provide a closed-form solution. If a simulator could get a 100% accurate flight simulation, then the development team would win the Nobel Prize in Mathematics for their revolutionary discovery.

 

This is why I am satisfied with something that is "close enough" to the historical reality.

Amen to this!

 

That doesn't mean that we can't try to solve issues that are clearly problematic, like the Yak flaps-down behavior, but it means that there is a limit to the level accuracy we can expect.

[JG13_opcode]

 

 

That doesn't mean that we can't try to solve issues that are clearly problematic, like the Yak flaps-down behavior, but it means that there is a limit to the level accuracy we can expect.

 

 

Agree 110%

[unreasonable]

I agree too - that is why I am actually more interested in the historical issues of what sort of pilot mindset and tactics are valuable in general, given an best effort approximation of plane performance, since these are unlikely to invalidated by any oddities of the FM except in bizarre circumstances that are usually more amusing than anything else.

 

It is precisely because we can compare the performance of real aircraft with a simulation that we can get an approximation of performance. Having done that we can discuss other historically relevant variables such as pilot limitations, tactics etc.

 

Which I thought is what we were discussing and this thread is about.....

[BraveSirRobin]

Which I thought is what we were discussing and this thread is about.....

 

It's not.  It's about the aircraft we currently have in the game.

[Bearcat]

It's not.  It's about the aircraft we currently have in the game.

This has always been my take on the whole FM debates that have been raging pretty much since high fidelity sims have been in existence. IMO regardless to what anyone thinks from a historic perspective (and of course I am not talking about obvious errors like Zeros out diving P-47s or IL2s out rolling 190s or that sort of thing) you have to take the sim in question and try to develop real world tactics to the degree that you can within that given sim but to expect to be able to fully duplicate real world accounts on a consistent basis is unrealistic. IMO the sim that has the best physics model however will probably give you the best overall experience within the universe of that given sim.

 

There were so many additional factors that come into play in real world accounts from the physical condition of the pilot, to the overall mechanical state of any given plane on any given day, pilot experience and training, alertness of a given flight at a given time... All that.. so for me this is one reason why I do not take pilot accounts or historic numbers beyond a certain point... It is always best to deal with the universe you have as it is and make adjustments just as the real pilots had to do... I think that the physics model of BoS is pretty darned good and allows for that quite nicely.. And I think that is what the OP is talking about ........

[unreasonable]

Cor Blimey some of you guys are determined to see an argument or criticism where none exists!

 

As I said before: "It is precisely because we can compare the performance of real aircraft with a simulation that we can get an approximation of performance. Having done that we can discuss other historically relevant variables such as pilot limitations, tactics etc."

 

Well the FMs have been compared to RL in the course of development, performances have been approximated to RL. Which is what we now have in the sim. 

 

Now we can discuss how to adapt to those factors when we play: the issue I raised was whether it was a better strategy, while flying the sim,  to place emphasis on performance (FM) differences between the planes in the sim, or to more or less ignore them and pay attention to tactical factors that are always important, given that in some match-ups the performance differences are not huge.

 

Looking at RL use of the planes is relevant because, if the FMs are reasonable approximations of RL performance, it is reasonable to assume that effective RL use would usually prove to be effective within the sim.

 

My hypothesis is that  a player who follows the normal generic tactical rules of surprise, energy, numbers etc will win all his fights in a 109 vs Yak match up, or be able to disengage, irrespective of which plane he is flying, unless he makes an obvious mistake. It is a hypothesis, not an assertion.

 

If that is true most of us would be well advised to pay much more attention to those fundamental tactical rules and spend much less time worrying about FM differences - whether they correspond to RL differences or not.

 

If it is wrong it would be good to know why and when: for instance the 109 might have a better chance of disengaging than the Yak if it's climb really is that much better.

 

For the 190 vs Yak match up I have an intuitive sense, based on RL history as much as anything, that the engagement is more asymmetrical because FM/RL performance differences are more marked. But again this is just a hypothesis presented for discussion.

[JG13_opcode]

My hypothesis is that  a player who follows the normal generic tactical rules of surprise, energy, numbers etc will win all his fights in a 109 vs Yak match up, or be able to disengage, irrespective of which plane he is flying, unless he makes an obvious mistake. It is a hypothesis, not an assertion.

 

 

Yeah you're probably right.

 

But there are still things that are good to know that are aircraft-specific.  The P-38 for example has that neat trick where you set your convergence wayyy out, and then any time someone tries to get you to roll with them, you just pop the speed brakes and some flap, and then sit back and snipe them from long range with the 50 cal.

 

For example just based on my past as a mostly-109-only guy:

• Don't get into a scissors with the 109, the slats make him very effective there
• Don't try and spiral climb with the 109 like you might in a Spit, he will eat you for lunch
• If you keep the fight fast, the 109 will probably burn more E than you due to the higher induced drag.

The question then becomes, how does a pilot win the angles fight, without getting into a scissors, while keeping it fast?  That's a tall order.  I'm still figuring it out.  Problem is I'm pretty bad at the Angles fight, actually.

Edited June 21, 2015 by 13GIAP_opcode

[unreasonable]

Yo-yo or other use of the vertical? I am sure that there is someone who can tell you: but he might not since he just would rather shoot you down.

 

I take your point about the aircraft specific points, and I am sure they are beneficial for people who have many flight hours in a given type and who have had the discipline to master the basic tactics first. I just wonder how many people that applies to here...

[BlitzPig_EL]

One of the biggest issues with what we do, and I admit that I have not done much of it at all lately, is that we, as a group, have far more "seat time" than any WW2 combat pilot ever had.  Even a somewhat poor virtual combat pilot, like me, has FAR more experience than the low hours pilots that made up the majority of the VVS at the start of the war.  Remember that Stalin had purged the Russian military of pretty much the core of it's officers not too long before the start of the war. The VVS in particular suffered from lack of experienced leadership, and pilots.  Hence at the start, it was a pushover for the Luftwaffe, a Marianas Turkey Shoot, on a far more massive scale.

 

So the folks that fly Luftwaffe read their history, and see that the VVS was nearly destroyed on the first day of the war in the East, and that makes them wonder why it doesn't happen in the game.  So it MUST be the FMs, right?

 

Nope, it's because we all have a decade or more of virtual combat experience.  For some reason that never gets taken into account.  All this accumulated experience, on all sides, makes the differences in characteristics between aircraft less of a factor.  It certainly does not wipe those differences out, but a good pilot in a bad machine is far more of a threat, than a n00b in a 109K4, Spit Mk. XXIV, or Yak 3.

 

So I guess I'm agreeing with Bearcat here. The aircraft seem to have representative performance of the real deal in most respects.  Some flys in the ointment?  Sure, but by and large a 109  can be used like a 109 should and so too the VVS aircraft.

Edited June 21, 2015 by BlitzPig_EL

[Dr_Molenbeek]

So the folks that fly Luftwaffe read their history, and see that the VVS was nearly destroyed on the first day of the war in the East, and that makes them wonder why it doesn't happen in the game.  So it MUST be the FMs, right?

 

I never saw anyone claiming that a FM is broken without precising WHAT is broken, true or false it may be.

 

Were you saying "STOP COMPLAINING, FW 190 FM IS RIGHT" when its climb rate was too low, or when its high speed maneuverability was cr*p ?

 

Simple example...

Edited June 21, 2015 by Ze_Hairy

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

If that is where the thread is going then tactics are tactics; attack from a position of advantage (with numbers when possible), extend, maintain your advantage, do it again. Don't fly on the deck, don't furball, be situationally aware and don't enter a Co-E fight in a Russian AC unless you are in the top 10 percent of pilot skill. Extend and call for numbers on TS. The Yak Is close enough in performance to energy fight as is the La-5. When I am shot down it is always because I violated one of those rules, regardless of plane type.

Edited June 21, 2015 by [TBC]HerrMurf