Issues still need tobe addressed in BOS

[KoN_]

Is there any news on an update or patch with issues with  BOS .

I know the team is hard at work on the BOM , but we still need to fix problems with BOS any news would be greatful.

[YSoMadTovarisch]

[SR-F_Winger]

Issue #1: Playercount in MP not squadcompatible and unacceptable

Issue #2: Flapexploint for YAK-1

 

This are pretty much the 2 gamebreakers right now.

[Finkeren]

Con: Have you submitted a bug report on any of these supposed issues? Or in case of FM-discrepansies, have you collected historical test data and done tests in BoS to show how the current FM is wrong?

 

If you have done none of these, how do you expect the devs to adress any of your concerns?

Edited June 22, 2015 by Finkeren

[Finkeren]

 

And how is the FM 'messed up'? From what I can gather, there is now only one major FM issue that's beyond doubt: That's the Yaks flaps-down behavior.

[YSoMadTovarisch]

And how is the FM 'messed up'? From what I can gather, there is now only one major FM issue that's beyond doubt: That's the Yaks flaps-down behavior.

Out of whack energy retention(zooming with 190) and invisible hydraulic boosted ailerons on Russian planes?

Edited June 22, 2015 by GrapeJam

[Finkeren]

Out of whack energy retention(zooming with 190) and invisible hydraulic boosted ailerons on Russian planes?

 

And you have the test data to show this to be wrong I suppose?

[YSoMadTovarisch]

And you have the test data to show this to be wrong I suppose?

Really, you were gonna ask that? When even in Russian book stated that early La 5 could not roll with 190 especially at high speed where the control force become excessive?

 

As for the zoom climb, a plane that as about as clean as the other plane that is 1 ton heavier yet still capable of zooming with it, yeah, no.

[SR-F_Winger]

Really, you were gonna ask that? When even in Russian book stated that early La 5 could not roll with 190 especially at high speed where the control force become excessive?

 

As for the zoom climb, a plane that as about as clean as the other plane that is 1 ton heavier yet still capable of zooming with it, yeah, no.

Are you saying the 190 would be able to zoomclimb with the YAK-1?

Since its clearly not.

If that is right my competence in physics is too limited. But AFAIK the Power to weight ration of both planes is close to each other thus i can not really understand why the 190 cant zoom as well.

But again. This might have physics law based reasons that I am not aware of.

[Reflected]

There's still a bug with the non linear throttle on the G-2. I sent a PM to Zak, he said they were gonna have a look at it.

[Finkeren]

There's still a bug with the non linear throttle on the G-2. I sent a PM to Zak, he said they were gonna have a look at it.

That bug has always seemed so strange to me since it appears only a few people experience it. I for one have never seen it, but ofc. that doesn't mean it shouldn't be adressed.

[YSoMadTovarisch]

Are you saying the 190 would be able to zoomclimb with the YAK-1?

Since its clearly not.

If that is right my competence in physics is too limited. But AFAIK the Power to weight ration of both planes is close to each other thus i can not really understand why the 190 cant zoom as well.

But again. This might have physics law based reasons that I am not aware of.

No I meant, the 190 with it's much heavier weight should be able to retain energy better than a Yak 1 in a high speed zoom climb.

[Finkeren]

No I meant, the 190 with it's much heavier weight should be able to retain energy better than a Yak 1 in a high speed zoom climb.

Pardon me, but why would it do that?

[unreasonable]

No I meant, the 190 with it's much heavier weight should be able to retain energy better than a Yak 1 in a high speed zoom climb.

 

Not to get intrude into a private discussion, (whoops!)

 

but the way I imagine this is to think about what would happen to two planes diving with their engines off so that the power issue is ignored. In a vacuum, the planes would accelerate into a dive at the same rate (weight irrelevant). One you add atmosphere you get air resistance you have to take into account the drag and the weight. If the two planes had identical drag - for instance two Yaks one with empty fuel tanks and the other with full tanks - the heavy plane would accelerate faster in the dive, but also decelerate less (oops) in the climb.

 

edit: because they have the same drag, but this is acting against a different mass that has inertia that must be overcome.

 

Given that height = potential energy, other things being equal, which of course they never are, the heavier plane will zoom best and hence maintain more energy.

 

 

edit - too many edits! Too much coffee.

Edited June 22, 2015 by unreasonable

[Dr_Molenbeek]

I have a good new, that Fw 190A Jabo pilots will appreciate... I sent a report to devs about the ETC 501 bomb rack that creates too much drag (it eats about 40km/h at full power, when it should be less than the half).

 

Han said the issue is real and will be fixed in the closest update.

 

About Russian roll rates (LaGG-3 & La-5), i also sent a report, but devs are using a rule, which is "We use German datas for Germans and Soviet datas for Soviets", from here, my report was already dead.

 

For the Yak-1, the problem is not his dive acceleration, here, it is far behind 109s and 190... the issue is more that it retain his energy at high speed like a boss, TBH as good and maybe even better than the Fw 190A-3. I did some quick tests and i remember that it took the same amount of time as the Anton-3 (full power 1.42 ata 2700RPM) to bleed his energy from 700km/h to his max speed at sea level. But if i have time i would do some others tests, and with tracks.

[YSoMadTovarisch]

Pardon me, but why would it do that?

The higher weight allow it to overcome high speed drag better plus the momentum allowing it to retain energy better at high speed.

[Finkeren]

The higher weight allow it to overcome high speed drag better plus the momentum allowing it to retain energy better at high speed.

 

It doesn't retain energy better, it just has more of it to begin with because of its larger mass.

[YSoMadTovarisch]

About Russian roll rates (LaGG-3 & La-5), i also sent a report, but devs are using a rule, which is "We use German datas for Germans and Soviet datas for Soviets", from here, my report was already dead.

 

I wonder if Soviet test used stick force or roll time. Because roll time only is a pretty poor indication of roll rate as some pilot is stronger than other allow them to overcome the high stick force better.

It doesn't retain energy better, it just has more of it to begin with because of its larger mass.

Yeah, weight doesn't play a role at overcoming high speed drag in the vertical, ok......

 

Why do you think the weight allow the plane to pull away faster in an extended dive in the 1st place?

Edited June 22, 2015 by GrapeJam

[Finkeren]

 

Because roll time only is a pretty poor indication of roll rate as some pilot is stronger than other allow them to overcome the high stick force better.

 

Dude, it's Russians we're talking about...

 

 

Stick forces are irrelevant.

[Finkeren]

Yeah, weight doesn't play a role at overcoming high speed drag in the vertical, ok......

 

Why do you think the weight allow the plane to pull away faster in an extended dive in the 1st place?

 

First: Weight and mass are two different things, I think you're talking about mass here. 

 

Second: Nowhere did I say, that all other things being equal the heavier Fw 190 shouldn't be able to zoom climb away from the Yak, I think it should. (And in my experience it can too, but I have done no tests on the matter, so can't say for sure) I objected to the notion, that a plane having a larger mass somehow makes it retain energy better in a zoom climb.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Finkeren

[unreasonable]

It doesn't retain energy better, it just has more of it to begin with because of its larger mass.

 

No. If two aeroplanes identical except for their mass are dived and zoomed from an identical start position, upto the point that each ends its zoom stationary, the heavier plane will end up higher than the lighter. The mass difference has not changed but the potential energy has - the heavier plane has retained more energy.

 

Edit: Finkeren - better to forget 190 vs Yak for a moment and just think about 2 Yaks of different weights [edit - maybe not enough coffee] (or mass - this is a red herring).

Edited June 22, 2015 by unreasonable

[SR-F_Winger]

Not to get intrude into a private discussion, (whoops!)

 

but the way I imagine this is to think about what would happen to two planes diving with their engines off so that the power issue is ignored. In a vacuum, the planes would accelerate into a dive at the same rate (weight irrelevant). One you add atmosphere you get air resistance you have to take into account the drag and the weight. If the two planes had identical drag - for instance two Yaks one with empty fuel tanks and the other with full tanks - the heavy plane would accelerate faster in the dive, but also decelerate less (oops) in the climb.

 

edit: because they have the same drag, but this is acting against a different mass that has inertia that must be overcome.

 

Given that height = potential energy, other things being equal, which of course they never are, the heavier plane will zoom best and hence maintain more energy.

 

 

edit - too many edits! Too much coffee.

Thanks for clarifying that. So actually the FW should indeed zoom better than the YAK. Then we have an issue with the FM. It clearly does not.

[Dr_Molenbeek]

BTW this issue with the Yak-1 is not new at all, it has been stated by 5tuka since months...

[SR-F_Winger]

I have a good new, that Fw 190A Jabo pilots will appreciate... I sent a report to devs about the ETC 501 bomb rack that creates too much drag (it eats about 40km/h at full power, when it should be less than the half).

 

Han said the issue is real and will be fixed in the closest update.

 

About Russian roll rates (LaGG-3 & La-5), i also sent a report, but devs are using a rule, which is "We use German datas for Germans and Soviet datas for Soviets", from here, my report was already dead.

 

For the Yak-1, the problem is not his dive acceleration, here, it is far behind 109s and 190... the issue is more that it retain his energy at high speed like a boss, TBH as good and maybe even better than the Fw 190A-3. I did some quick tests and i remember that it took the same amount of time as the Anton-3 (full power 1.42 ata 2700RPM) to bleed his energy from 700km/h to his max speed at sea level. But if i have time i would do some others tests, and with tracks.

Thanks Hairy! And its greatly apprechiated if you could do some tests on the zooming and energyretention issue.

[ST_ami7b5]

Still not solved jaggy plane's image in front of a cloud...

 

 

Edited June 22, 2015 by Ami7b5

[Finkeren]

No. If two aeroplanes identical except for their mass are dived and zoomed from an identical start position, upto the point that each ends its zoom stationary, the heavier plane will end up higher than the lighter. The mass difference has not changed but the potential energy has - the heavier plane has retained more energy.

 

Edit: Finkeren - better to forget 190 vs Yak for a moment and just think about 2 Yaks off the same weight (or mass - this is a red herring).

 

I agree about the premise of thinking about to otherwise identical planes with different mass, makes it a lot easier.

 

My way of thinking (it has been many years since I left my last physics class, so I might be wrong about this) is that at their identical start positions the heavier plane already has greater potential energy than the lighter plane, which is converted to kinetic energy in the dive and then back to potential energy in the zoom climb. The loss of energy due to drag will be the same for the two aircraft but since this loss amounts to a larger proportion of the lighter planes energy, the heavier plane ends up at a higher energy level at the end of the climb right?

 

My point is, that the heavier plane already had this advantage in energy state before  the dive was initiated. It did not lose less energy due to drag than its lighter competitor, the loss just amounted to a smaller fraction of its total energy. Hence it did not conserve energy better. It just had more of it to begin with, both kinetic and potential.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Finkeren

[unreasonable]

Thanks for clarifying that. So actually the FW should indeed zoom better than the YAK. Then we have an issue with the FM. It clearly does not.

 

I suspect that is true but I do not know it for sure: I did say "other things being equal" the heavier plane should zoom better. I was just trying to clarify why weight, on its own, affects the answer - as much for my own satisfaction as anything else - if I am proved wrong I am happy to admit it!

 

The other factors of power/weight and drag differences (plus others I expect) are relevant to the answer. A lighter plane could zoom better if it had a less draggy shape or better power/weight ratio.  In this case? I really do not know...

[TWC_Ace]

I would like them to resolve two major visual (and gameplay) issues. AA on planes in front of the clouds and blurry/fuzzy clouds.

Edited June 22, 2015 by blackram_

[Finkeren]

The other factors of power/weight and drag differences (plus others I expect) are relevant to the answer. A lighter plane could zoom better if it had a less draggy shape or better power/weight ratio.  In this case? I really do not know...

 

While overall the Fw 190 should propably still zoom climb better than the Yak, I think there are two aerodynamical factors working against the Würger:

 

1. It's aerodynamic profile while relatively clean still has that large engine block taking up a lot of air. It's kind of a blunt-nosed projectile.

 

2. The squared off wings of near-constant chord will produce significantly more  induced drag at lower speeds than the tapered wings of the Yak.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Finkeren

[unreasonable]

I agree about the premise of thinking about to otherwise identical planes with different mass, makes it a lot easier.

 

My way of thinking (it has been many years since I left my last physics class, so I might be wrong about this) is that at their identical start positions the heavier plane already has greater potential energy than the lighter plane, which is converted to kinetic energy in the dive and then back to potential energy in the zoom climb. The loss of energy due to drag will be the same for the two aircraft but since this loss amounts to a larger proportion of the lighter planes energy, the heavier plane ends up at a higher energy level at the end of the climb right?

 

My point is, that the heavier plane already had this advantage in energy state before  the dive was initiated. It did not lose less energy due to drag than its lighter competitor, the loss just amounted to a smaller fraction of its total energy.

 

Hmm, to get this definitively in energy terms you would probably have to do the maths: since it is even longer since I did physics, I am not going to try.

 

For me it is simpler just to understand that air resistance will decelerate a highly massive body less than it will decelerate a lighter body of the same size and shape, over a given distance of travel through the air. So to decelerate them both to a stop the heavier object must travel further.

 

Whether you want to express this in energy states or simply ask which of two gliders would end up highest on a zoom I suppose is a matter of taste. I am sure the first is better if you want to calculate the degree to which this phenomenon is observable in a given case, but I am certainly not capable of doing that. Hence I am not going to stick my neck out about the specific Yak vs 190 case!

[Dakpilot]

I suspect that is true but I do not know it for sure: I did say "other things being equal" the heavier plane should zoom better. I was just trying to clarify why weight, on its own, affects the answer - as much for my own satisfaction as anything else - if I am proved wrong I am happy to admit it!

 

The other factors of power/weight and drag differences (plus others I expect) are relevant to the answer. A lighter plane could zoom better if it had a less draggy shape or better power/weight ratio.  In this case? I really do not know...

 

Surely everyone is forgetting a bit of Newtons law here, for two identical aircraft to follow the same path from dive to zoom climb, at the change of direction the heavier of the two has to overcome some significant forces...which take energy to overcome somehow, without using any graphs I would say the benefits of the Potential energy the heavier aircraft starts out with, are lost at the change of direction from dive to zoom climb

 

 

That is one of the 'feelings' that BoS does seem to model well, the feeling of momentum, when pulling out of a dive you can feel the weight and the sensation of 'sink' something that was lacking in old IL-2 even if it was modelled

 

No-one has ever designed a car to be heavier for better direction changes

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Edited June 22, 2015 by Dakpilot

[YSoMadTovarisch]

Surely everyone is forgetting a bit of Newtons law here, for two identical aircraft to follow the same path from dive to zoom climb, at the change of direction the heavier of the two has to overcome some significant forces...which take energy to overcome somehow, without using any graphs I would say the benefits of the Potential energy the heavier aircraft starts out with, are lost at the change of direction from dive to zoom climb

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

That only happens when speed is very very low.

 

And the FW 190 A3 actually has slightly higher powerloading and superior rate of climb to the Yak 1

[unreasonable]

While overall the Fw 190 should propably still zoom climb better than the Yak, I think there are two aerodynamical factors working against the Würger:

 

1. It's aerodynamic profile while relatively clean still has that large engine block taking up a lot of air. It's kind of a blunt-nosed projectile.

 

2. The squared off wings of near-constant chord will produce significantly more  induced drag at lower speeds than the tapered wings of the Yak.

 

The 190 certainly had horrible gliding qualities apparently, whereas the (Yak-like) Spitfire was known to be difficult to slow down - in a dive and zoom scenario it is the high speed drag characteristics that are probably more important - so yes many other factors are at play. I have no horse in this race!

[Finkeren]

Hmm, to get this definitively in energy terms you would probably have to do the maths: since it is even longer since I did physics, I am not going to try.

 

For me it is simpler just to understand that air resistance will decelerate a highly massive body less than it will decelerate a lighter body of the same size and shape, over a given distance of travel through the air. So to decelerate them both to a stop the heavier object must travel further.

 

Whether you want to express this in energy states or simply ask which of two gliders would end up highest on a zoom I suppose is a matter of taste. I am sure the first is better if you want to calculate the degree to which this phenomenon is observable in a given case, but I am certainly not capable of doing that. Hence I am not going to stick my neck out about the specific Yak vs 190 case!

 

I think we agree. When I was originally commenting on what Grapejam said, it was not about the Yak vs Fw 190 issue, it was the notion that a heavier plane will retain energy better than a lighter. I'd argue that this is not the case, it's just that the heavier plane has more energy to begin with everything else being equal.

[Dakpilot]

That only happens when speed is very very low.

 

And the FW 190 A3 actually has slightly higher powerloading and superior rate of climb to the Yak 1

 

 

We were talking identical aircraft for the sake of example, at a higher speed this extra weight surely would have even more magnified effect, when asked to change direction 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Finkeren]

And the FW 190 A3 actually has slightly higher powerloading and superior rate of climb to the Yak 1

 

Slightly higher powerloading: Yeah, if you fly it at full throttle, which most of us won't do for very long.

 

Better climb rate: Nah, not really, even it full power the Fw 190 is at best the equal of a Yak-1 with a 105PF engine, at least up to 3000m. After that point I find the Fw 190 starts to gain, which is fine by me, as the Klimov engine is tuned for low level performance.

[unreasonable]

Surely everyone is forgetting a bit of Newtons law here, for two identical aircraft to follow the same path from dive to zoom climb, at the change of direction the heavier of the two has to overcome some significant forces...which take energy to overcome somehow, without using any graphs I would say the benefits of the Potential energy the heavier aircraft starts out with, are lost at the change of direction from dive to zoom climb

 

 

That is one of the 'feelings' that BoS does seem to model well, the feeling of momentum, when pulling out of a dive you can feel the weight and the sensation of 'sink' something that was lacking in old IL-2 even if it was modelled

 

No-one has ever designed a car to be heavier for better direction changes

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

Fair point, but both aircraft have to overcome inertia at the point they start to pull out of the dive - if they try to follow an identical path (like a car in a road) the heavier plane will have to make a larger control surface movement, hence increase drag, than the light plane.

 

Alternatively they could make identical control surface movements in which case the heavier plane would dive lower than the light plane.

 

The question is how much this would offset the advantage the heavier plane has against straight line air resistance. So you can add to the list of variables how efficient are your control surfaces and how long is the dive! edit ie at what speed are you pulling out...

 

BTW I recall accounts of the P-47 as having an outstanding dive and zoom capability compared to LW fighters, at least partly attributed to its weight.

Edited June 22, 2015 by unreasonable

[Dr_Molenbeek]

Better climb rate: Nah, not really, even it full power the Fw 190 is at best the equal of a Yak-1 with a 105PF engine, at least up to 3000m. After that point I find the Fw 190 starts to gain, which is fine by me, as the Klimov engine is tuned for low level performance.

 

If what you say here is true then there's a problem... Because a 1942 Yak-1 with M-105PF should climb at full power as good as a 3970kg Fw 190A-3 at 1.32 ata 2400RPM.

 

Somewhere between 15 and 16m/s IIRC (ISA conditions ofc).

Edited June 22, 2015 by Ze_Hairy

[Finkeren]

Just went and did a quick test just for fun with the Yak and Fw 190 (my flying is shoddy and only did two repeats of each, nothing scientific, it was just to get a general idea)

 

All tests were done with full fuel load and I put wing cannons with 120 rounds on the Fw 190 also to simulate standard loadout.

 

First test was done from just under 4000m altitude: Accellerate to 400 km/h IAS, cut throttle and initiate vertical dive, pull out at 700 km/h and go into vertical climb with throttle still cut and measure altitude reached.

 

I found that both planes ended up around 2500m altitude at the top of the zoom climb, but that was propably due to my shodddy flying of the 190, which is slow to initiate a dive and slow to pull out, meaning it actually gained more altitude (but from a slightly faster end speed) after pulling out.

 

Second test of a power-on zoom climb went a bit better: Start from 300m altitude, accelerate to 500 km/h at full throttle, pull into a vertical climb while keeping throttle open, mmeasure altitude reached at the top of the climb.

 

I found that the Fw 190 at full power performed significantly  better in this test. Not only did it reach 1400-1500m compared to the Yaks 1200m, it could also prop hang way better, despite me having way more experience flying the Yak. 

 

I'll have to do some more tests, but at a glance the zoom climb of the Fw 190 seems fine.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Finkeren

[YSoMadTovarisch]

Better climb rate: Nah, not really, even it full power the Fw 190 is at best the equal of a Yak-1 with a 105PF engine, at least up to 3000m. After that point I find the Fw 190 starts to gain, which is fine by me, as the Klimov engine is tuned for low level performance.

You're comparing the Yak 1's climb rate at full power to the 190's climb rate at climb power of 1.32 ata 2400 RPM as Ze Hairy said, not full power at 1.42 ata 2700 RPM.