Issues still need tobe addressed in BOS

[Finkeren]

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.

 

True, because that's how most people will fly it online. If you read my other post about the quick test I did, the Fw 190 outperforms the Yak handily in a zoom climb at full power.

[YSoMadTovarisch]

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.

 

Only 300 meters difference, most likely because of the superior climb rate, weight seems to account for nothing.

[Finkeren]

Only 300 meters difference, most likely because of the superior climb rate, weight seems to account for nothing.

 

'Only' 300 meters? That's the Fw 190 performing 33% better than the Yak right there!

 

Yak gains a measily 900m from 500 km/h, the Fw 190 gains 1200m, that's a huge difference.

[KoN_]

I shall start making video while flying , but i cant seem to add video files here .

issues i have noticed just from last night.

 

1. The Ai aircraft stutter and lagg while in multiplayer .

2. Some times can not connect to servers no matter how many times i reset my internet and retry .

3. Fw-190 should be far superior at every level .

4. Sensitive ground handling while trying to  taxi .

5. We need 64 player surport in multiplayer . if the game can handel it .

6. Lift the three mile bubble around aircraft or extend view . Pilots can see alot futher .

7. Small mini map like ROF would be great  .

 

These are just a few .

[YSoMadTovarisch]

'Only' 300 meters? That's the Fw 190 performing 33% better than the Yak right there!

 

Yak gains a measily 900m from 500 km/h, the Fw 190 gains 1200m, that's a huge difference.

Did you close the radiators on the Yak ?

[Dr_Molenbeek]

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.

 

Nice.

 

Now, if you read what i wrote, you will see that i'm talking about high speed and precisely post vmax (+~560km/h at sea level) speed. That's where the Yak-1 is doubtful. I think nobody said the Yak-1 has problem below this speed. A zoom climb test that starts at 650/700km/h will be a better exemple.

 

Sorry if i seem rude, Finkeren.

[unreasonable]

'Only' 300 meters? That's the Fw 190 performing 33% better than the Yak right there!

 

Yak gains a measily 900m from 500 km/h, the Fw 190 gains 1200m, that's a huge difference.

 

Yes it is - but annoyingly for the LW flyers, not quite enough to get out of gunnery range

[KoN_]

True, because that's how most people will fly it online. If you read my other post about the quick test I did, the Fw 190 outperforms the Yak handily in a zoom climb at full power.

The problem your seeing online is Fw-190 drivers are diving away for their escape and the Yak is staying with them all the way . There are many posts about it , ive tried myself and the two Yaks stayed with me until the map ran out  . lol .

Fw-190 drivers feel that the seperation is not big enough . The only aircraft that could keep up with the FW-190 in a dive was the P-47.

So shouldnt seperation  be bigger .

 

We all could bum fight over flight models all week the truth is we dont have the raw data to back it up - only history books .

If i dive away and get caught then " I have myself and my tools to blame" .

Edited June 22, 2015 by Con

[Finkeren]

1. The Ai aircraft stutter and lagg while in multiplayer .

 

True. The AI impact on performance in MP is a real issue that's hampering mission creation for MP. Needs to be solved, no question.

 

2. Some times can not connect to servers no matter how many times i reset my internet and retry .

 

Sounds like a problem on your end, I have no such issues, but post a bug report just to be sure.

 

 

 3. Fw-190 should be far superior at every level .

  

BS sweeping statement, be specific.

 

4. Sensitive ground handling while trying to  taxi .

 

Ground handling seems fine except for the Fw 190 that bird is just way too touchy IMHO.

 

 

5. We need 64 player surport in multiplayer . if the game can handel it .

 

Agree. If the game can handle it... ...which I honestly have no reason to believe it can't. 100 player servers worked fine in Early Access.

 

 

6. Lift the three mile bubble around aircraft or extend view . Pilots can see alot futher .

 

If you're talking about the LoD bubble for ground textures, there are ways to improve on that, though I agree it doesn't look as good as it could. 

 

But of course you can see further. You can spot other aircraft from beyond 10 km if your screen resolution is high and your eyesight good. As far as spotting goes, BoS is the best I've seen in a flight sim.

 

 

7. Small mini map like ROF would be great  .

 

I agree, the map system in RoF was better, I don't understand why they changed that. BoS' system is usable though.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Finkeren

[SR-F_Winger]

Maybe i manage to test as well and make a track. Can someone tell me what the best RPM is the YAK should be flown on? I have very little practice in this plane and if ia test i want to make sure it performs correct.

[Finkeren]

Nice.

 

Now, if you read what i wrote, you will see that i'm talking about high speed and precisely post vmax (+~560km/h at sea level) speed. That's where the Yak-1 is doubtful. I think nobody said the Yak-1 has problem below this speed. A zoom climb test that starts at 650/700km/h will be a better exemple.

 

Sorry if i seem rude, Finkeren.

 

You don't seem rude at all

 

I'll try to do some better high speed tests and post the results.

Maybe i manage to test as well and make a track. Can someone tell me what the best RPM is the YAK should be flown on? I have very little practice in this plane and if ia test i want to make sure it performs correct.

 

For climb performance just slam the rpm governor fully forward. 2700 rpm. The Klimov doesn't break unless you overheat it.

Did you close the radiators on the Yak ?

 

No ofc. I didn't. I'm going full throttle in a vertical climb. Closing the radiators would mean instant overheat.

[unreasonable]

The problem your seeing online is Fw-190 drivers are diving away for their escape and the Yak is staying with them all the way . There are many posts about it , ive tried myself and the two Yaks stayed with me until the map ran out  . lol .

Fw-190 drivers feel that the seperation is not big enough . The only aircraft that could keep up with the FW-190 in a dive was the P-47.

So shouldnt seperation  be bigger .

 

We all could bum fight over flight models all week the truth is we dont have the raw data to back it up - only history books .

If i dive away and get caught then " I have myself and my tools to blame" .

 

I have had the same experience offline in SP campaign - it was not so much that the Yaks stayed right with me, it was just that they could stay close enough to see me, and that meant that they continued to fly towards me until I had to turn. I suspect that in the war pilots would have rarely chased enemy aircraft for so long into hostile territory, they had a job to do such as patrol a zone, or were simply much more cautious.

 

So it maybe that it is not any FM vs RL mismatch that causes these perceptual problems, more a matter that the game cannot force player (or even AI) behavior to mimic RL pilot behavior. 

[Finkeren]

Ok tried a quick high speed power-on zoom climb test as suggested by Ze_Hairy:

 

Same as before: Full fuel load plus wing cannons for the Fw 190.

 

Start at 4000m, initiate shallow climb to reach 650 km/h, pull into vertical at full power and measure altitude gained at peak.

 

I suspect there might be something to what Ze_Hairy said. The Fw 190s advantage definately got smaller. On average of three attempts, the Fw 190 gained just around 1900m, where the Yak gained an average of 1750. That's still a difference, but propably not enough.

[Dr_Molenbeek]

Ok tried a quick high speed power-on zoom climb test as suggested by Ze_Hairy:

 

Same as before: Full fuel load plus wing cannons for the Fw 190.

 

Start at 4000m, initiate shallow climb to reach 650 km/h, pull into vertical at full power and measure altitude gained at peak.

 

I suspect there might be something to what Ze_Hairy said. The Fw 190s advantage definately got smaller. On average of three attempts, the Fw 190 gained just around 1900m, where the Yak gained an average of 1750. That's still a difference, but propably not enough.

 

"The Fw 190s advantage definately got smaller" --> Where it should in fact be higher (and it will be smaller, faster you begin the test), you guessed.

 

Thank you Finkeren.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Ze_Hairy

[Finkeren]

It will take someone more rigorous (and with better piloting skills) to perform proper tests, but here's something to start with.

 

From what I've seen so far, I don't agree with the statement some have made, that the Yak outperforms the Fw 190 in a zoom climb, but the difference is propably too small.

[Wulf]

I sent a note to the devs some time ago about the ground level speed of the Yak.  I believe, based on information contained in the Gordon and Khazanov book, Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second WW, Vol 1, that the in-game Yak is 20 km/h too fast down on the deck.  I gave my reasons in some detail for this assertion.  In response I was told that the speed issue is explained by a 38kg difference in aircraft weights between the older and newer model Yaks.  In essence, the absence of radio gear (38 kgs sounds like a hell of a lot of radio but that's what I was told) in the revised model resulted in a 20 km/h increase in speed. 

 

However, when you remove 100+ kgs worth of cannons and cannon ammo from a 190 A-3, you only get an 8 km/h increase in deck level speed.    That sounds very strange to me to say the least.

 

So, (1) I think the relative speeds of the various aircraft need to be reconsidered.

 

I also think (2) the roll-rates are completely wrong.  The 190 should be in a league of it's own in relation to roll.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Wulf

[Dr_Molenbeek]

It will take someone more rigorous (and with better piloting skills) to perform proper tests, but here's something to start with.

 

From what I've seen so far, I don't agree with the statement some have made, that the Yak outperforms the Fw 190 in a zoom climb, but the difference is propably too small.

 

2 things i want to know about your last test... the radiators position of the Yak-1, and the throttle position (power) of the 190. Thank you.

 

In essence, the absence of radio gear (38 kgs sounds like a hell of a lot of radio but that's what I was told) in the revised model resulted in a 20 km/h increase in speed.

 

I do not believe that... 20km/h for 38kg..?

Edited June 22, 2015 by Ze_Hairy

[Finkeren]

2 things i want to know about your last test... the radiators position of the Yak-1, and the throttle position (power) of the 190. Thank you.

 

For the Yak radiators about half way open (cooling down slightly in the dive heating up slightly in the climb) Fw 190 throttle at 80% for the dive and 100% during climb. 

[Finkeren]

 The 190 should be in a league of it's own in relation to roll.

 

I've seen that repeated so often, but is it really true? Usually you'll see the Fw 190 compared to varies incanations of the Spitfire, but non-clipped wing Spits had terrible roll rates, so ofc. the Fw 190 will seem in a leage of its own compared to that.

 

On the other hand the short, stubby, tapered wings of virtually all Soviet fighters of the era were made specifically to facilitate a good roll rate (and also to decrease induced drag at low speeds) and most Soviet fighters were in fact great rollers, even the MiG-3.

 

Should the Fw 190 still have the highest roll rate in BoS? Propably. Should it be 'in a leage of its own'? I dunno.

[Dr_Molenbeek]

For the Yak radiators about half way open (cooling down slightly in the dive heating up slightly in the climb) Fw 190 throttle at 80% for the dive and 100% during climb. 

 

I thought you were flying the Fw 190A at 1.32 ata 2400RPM during your climb, but nope. Exactly what i said in the first page, "as good and maybe even better than the Fw 190A-3".

 

You were performing your climbing test at 1.42 ata 2700RPM, at that power, the 190 climbs much better than the Yak-1 (gain is about 4-5m/s), it has a better power to weight ratio AND is 1 ton heavier... but you ended only 150m above the Yak-1 with radiators open.

 

Your resultats could be "acceptable" if you were performing your climb at 1.32 ata 2400RPM, but here, it's faaaaar too weird.

 

Thank you again for your tests, Finkeren.

[Finkeren]

Also take into account, that I have many many hours of experience in the Yak, while I seldom fly the Fw 190. My handling of the 190 might not have been optimal.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Finkeren

[Bearcat]

I am confused.. Why would't the heavier plane bleed energy faster in a climb due to gravity?

[Dr_Molenbeek]

I am confused.. Why would't the heavier plane bleed energy faster in a climb due to gravity?

 

Are you talking about Fw 190 vs Yak-1, or about the example that unreasonable has given ?

[unreasonable]

I am confused.. Why would't the heavier plane bleed energy faster in a climb due to gravity?

 

No, other things being equal all that the extra weight will do is make a given air resistance at a given speed decelerate the heavy aircraft less: if you want to slow a heavy object down, you have to push against it harder or for longer. Try standing in front of a pram moving at 5 mph and then repeat experiment with a train.  Meanwhile gravity is accelerating both planes towards the ground at the same rate - drop two cannonballs from the leaning tower of Pisa to check.... maybe better to do this experiment first

[Finkeren]

I am confused.. Why would't the heavier plane bleed energy faster in a climb due to gravity?

A plane doesn't bleed energy due to gravity.

 

When climbing a plane converts kinetic energy (speed) to potential energy (altitude) if there's a net loss of energy during this process that's entirely due to drag.

[KoN_]

Con, my good fellow. Didn't you start another thread recently which was FM issue related... it then spiralled into the usual mess as it couldn't ever be resolved and didn't raise anything new? This thread seems remarkably similar in it's intentions?

 

You've asked very nicely, and of course free speech etc. but it seems like you've effectively strolled into a bar frequented by ardent football fans, dropped a contentious comment about a key player, then slunk into the background with a nice pint and a packet of nuts to watch the fallout?

Was not my intension old chap referance the old thread , i had work commitments and was away working ,  when i returned i seen the the thread had Escalated ...!!! sorry about .

  And im not the type of person to walk into a bar and dropped a contentious comments and walk away hiding in the corner  , im the type of person who walks into the bar stays and fights .

[NN_RugbyGoth]

The only issue for me right now is the number of players on a server. Every wednesday evening french community have their meet up and last week we were 48. We really need to try out the 64 limit, at least!

[Dakpilot]

A plane doesn't bleed energy due to gravity.

 

When climbing a plane converts kinetic energy (speed) to potential energy (altitude) if there's a net loss of energy during this process that's entirely due to drag.

 

But it certainly will when 'pulling G' the heavier aircraft will have to pull a higher G to maintain the same path when transitioning from a dive to a climb

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[KoN_]

Last night one server was running 44 players but i couldnt join maybe my end internet ect , but we really need to go to 64 players . with mini map in expert mode.

[Wulf]

I've seen that repeated so often, but is it really true? Usually you'll see the Fw 190 compared to varies incanations of the Spitfire, but non-clipped wing Spits had terrible roll rates, so ofc. the Fw 190 will seem in a leage of its own compared to that.

 

On the other hand the short, stubby, tapered wings of virtually all Soviet fighters of the era were made specifically to facilitate a good roll rate (and also to decrease induced drag at low speeds) and most Soviet fighters were in fact great rollers, even the MiG-3.

 

Should the Fw 190 still have the highest roll rate in BoS? Propably. Should it be 'in a leage of its own'? I dunno.

 

Eric Brown flew pretty much every German aircraft used in WW 2 and almost everything the British and Americans produced as well and he said this to say about the 190:

 

"Decidedly the most impressive feature of the German fighter was its beautifully light ailerons and its extremely high rate of roll. Incredible aileron turns were possible that would have torn the wings from a Bf 109 and badly strained the arm muscles of any Spitfire pilot trying to follow. The aileron maintained their lightness from the stall up to 400 mph (644km/h), although they heavied up above that speed."

 

Now, this guy was a test pilot.  His job was to evaluate German aircraft - that's what he did, so I'm going to assume that he knew a thing or two about relative roll performance.

 

Could an early War  Yak, La-5 and LaGG 3 roll with or even out-roll a 190?  I seriously doubt it.  I just don't believe they would have been sufficiently developed at that stage of the War .  Could an La-5 FN out-roll a 190- possibly.

 

[LukeFF]

 

 

And im not the type of person to walk into a bar and dropped a contentious comments and walk away hiding in the corner  , im the type of person who walks into the bar stays and fights .

 

And yet you posted this topic, without giving any specific "problems with BOS" you want to see fixed. 

[Sgt_Joch]

I sent a note to the devs some time ago about the ground level speed of the Yak.  I believe, based on information contained in the Gordon and Khazanov book, Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second WW, Vol 1, that the in-game Yak is 20 km/h too fast down on the deck.  I gave my reasons in some detail for this assertion.  In response I was told that the speed issue is explained by a 38kg difference in aircraft weights between the older and newer model Yaks.  In essence, the absence of radio gear (38 kgs sounds like a hell of a lot of radio but that's what I was told) in the revised model resulted in a 20 km/h increase in speed. 

 

However, when you remove 100+ kgs worth of cannons and cannon ammo from a 190 A-3, you only get an 8 km/h increase in deck level speed.    That sounds very strange to me to say the least.

 

So, (1) I think the relative speeds of the various aircraft need to be reconsidered.

 

 

 

Based on what exactly?

 

Celestiale and Forsale tested the Yak and came up with speeds of 508 kmh or 520 kmh on deck.

 

According to Gordon, Khazanov's book, Russian tests of the 1942 Yak with the M105PF engine yielded speeds of 510 kmh(2550 RPM), 523 kmh (2700 RPM) and 531 kmh (2700 RPM).

[unreasonable]

But it certainly will when 'pulling G' the heavier aircraft will have to pull a higher G to maintain the same path when transitioning from a dive to a climb

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Are you sure about that? I thought that the g force in a turn was = radial acceleration, which is ar = v^2 / r

 

This formula only has velocity and radius in it. The "g" the aircraft pulls is a result of its motion. What is true is that the heavier plane needs a higher control surface force to turn it along this path, and hence achieve the same g, which might create extra drag (?).

[Wombat]

 

 

I am confused.. Why would't the heavier plane bleed energy faster in a climb due to gravity?

 

 You can do a test using two balls of similar size  but different weight like say a tennis ball and a baseball.  You will be able to throw or ever roll the baseball further. Another way to look a it is a pendulum, a heavy pendulum will swing longer than a light one.

[Dakpilot]

Eric Brown flew pretty much every German aircraft used in WW 2 and almost everything the British and Americans produced as well and he said this to say about the 190:

 

"Decidedly the most impressive feature of the German fighter was its beautifully light ailerons and its extremely high rate of roll. Incredible aileron turns were possible that would have torn the wings from a Bf 109 and badly strained the arm muscles of any Spitfire pilot trying to follow. The aileron maintained their lightness from the stall up to 400 mph (644km/h), although they heavied up above that speed."

 

Now, this guy was a test pilot.  His job was to evaluate German aircraft - that's what he did, so I'm going to assume that he knew a thing or two about relative roll performance.

 

Could an early War  Yak, La-5 and LaGG 3 roll with or even out-roll a 190?  I seriously doubt it.  I just don't believe they would have been sufficiently developed at that stage of the War .  Could an La-5 FN out-roll a 190- possibly.

 

 

Point being that Eric brown did not fly the Yak's lagg's etc.

 

The roll capabilities and handling are down to design and aerodynamics, Soviet doctrine was quite aware of roll rates at that stage of the war, the I16  being an example

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Sgt_Joch]

 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?

 

 

 

which "Russian book"? Gordon, Khazanov's "Soviet combat aircraft" does not mention any issues with the La 5 control forces at high speed in either Russian tests or pilot comments. The issue of "control forces" was raised in a German report on a captured La 5 which according to the authors was made by the Germans to "comfort German pilots" (i.e. propaganda).

[Dakpilot]

Are you sure about that? I thought that the g force in a turn was = radial acceleration, which is ar = v^2 / r

 

This formula only has velocity and radius in it. The "g" the aircraft pulls is a result of its motion. What is true is that the heavier plane needs a higher control surface force to turn it along this path, and hence achieve the same g, which might create extra drag (?).

 

I feel you would have to go into more depth with Lift/weight/drag/thrust vectors and more formulas to explain all the forces correctly.

 

But in the simplest terms a lighter identical aircraft will always be able to out turn a heavier one, which is the same as transitioning from a dive to a climb

 

An easy test would be to fly two Yaks one with lower fuel load and see who has the advantage in turns

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Wulf]

Based on what exactly?

 

Celestiale and Forsale tested the Yak and came up with speeds of 508 kmh or 520 kmh on deck.

 

According to Gordon, Khazanov's book, Russian tests of the 1942 Yak with the M105PF engine yielded speeds of 510 kmh(2550 RPM), 523 kmh (2700 RPM) and 531 kmh (2700 RPM).

 

 

No, you're wrong.  I suggest you read the book again.  The 1942 test you're referring to involved a boosted M105 in an early, lighter airframe.  The airframe simulated in the sim is the heavier  'modernized' one.  This resulted in a better aircraft but reduced airspeed.  How do we know the sim has the 'modernized' airframe; because it incorporates a rudder trim tab - one of the improvements incorporated in the revised frame. 

[unreasonable]

I feel you would have to go into more depth with Lift/weight/drag/thrust vectors and more formulas to explain all the forces correctly.

 

But in the simplest terms a lighter identical aircraft will always be able to out turn a heavier one, which is the same as transitioning from a dive to a climb

 

An easy test would be to fly two Yaks one with lower fuel load and see who has the advantage in turns

 

Cheers Dakpilot

I agree that there are many variables in the 190/Yak case hence I was trying to work with a simple example to abstract individual issues.

 

I do not think that bringing up turning here helps - actually it introduces new complications as each aircraft has to maintain height as well as turn. Also what is "out-turning"? Radius, or degrees per second? 

 

In a dive and zoom contest the issue is not who can turn in the smallest radius at the bottom, it is about which aircraft ends up highest at the end of the zoom, assuming that each takes an optimal path given its design and weight.

 

You have pointed out that the transitional effects have to be taken into account, just as the straight line effects should be and I agree this is a valid point.

[Wulf]

Point being that Eric brown did not fly the Yak's lagg's etc.

 

The roll capabilities and handling are down to design and aerodynamics, Soviet doctrine was quite aware of roll rates at that stage of the war, the I16  being an example

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

Gordon and Khazanov say this about the LaGG-3s: "To be fair, the LaGGs fought with the latest Bf 109 Fs, which were superior in all-round performance when compared with the Soviet fighters in the autumn of 1941".

 

So does this sound to you as though the early Soviet types could be expected to out-roll a 190?   If they could or maybe even came close, I'd have thought some reference to an impressive rate of roll (notwithstanding other handling issues) may have been warranted but then again maybe not.  Maybe the ability to roll quickly away from attacking 109s was considered of no great consequence.   Who knows.