Issues still need tobe addressed in BOS

[Dakpilot]

I can only imagine that transitioning from a Rata, the Lagg/yak role rate would not be mentioned as anything special by its pilots

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Dr_Molenbeek]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M26r5-XsIUY

 

As you can see, i start the climb at 700km/h, at 200m.

 

At 600km/h, the Fw 190A-3 is at 500m, the Yak-1 is a bit above.

 

At 500km/h, the Fw 190A-3 is at 1000m, the Yak-1 is a bit above.

 

Always above, when it should not be above, not even at the same altitude.

 

Interpret that like you want, what i say is the Yak-1 retain his energy far too well, above his max speed.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Ze_Hairy

[MK_RED13]

Thank you Ze_Hairy!

 

This is another evidence of the wrong FM of Yak.... as well as plenty of other evidence in the FM discussion ( http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/forum/94-fm-discussion/ )

 

 

[KoN_]

Ha, no worries. I was just being an accusing little monkey.

 

I'll get back to my pipe in the corner, watching the locals scrap it out ;-)

 

Incidentally the not being able to log on to a server happened last night for me. Think it is just the server's lost it. I went on a different one with a rolling front setup which was fun.

 

No probs chief , you know what us british are like ,we never back down when our backs are agaist the wall . the server issue was the same for me , i too went to the rolling front server but it only had stuka left , i was bouncing between servers , as i had some free time last night server wise i was hoping to find one with lots people in   .

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

 

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 gre

[Dr_Molenbeek]

To be honest, i'll not be surprised if Yak-1 prop is too efficient at high speed (post-max speed) but underperforming at low speed (underperforming initial acceleration in level flight ?).

 

It needs serious tests, my acquaintances are limited... 

Edited June 22, 2015 by Ze_Hairy

[SR-F_Winger]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M26r5-XsIUY

 

As you can see, i start the climb at 700km/h, at 200m.

 

At 600km/h, the Fw 190A-3 is at 500m, the Yak-1 is a bit above.

 

At 500km/h, the Fw 190A-3 is at 1000m, the Yak-1 is a bit above.

 

Always above, when it should not be above, not even at the same altitude.

 

Interpret that like you want, what i say is the Yak-1 retain his energy far too well, above his max speed.

Thanks!

I really hope the devs take action now and at least check the issue.

[DD_Arthur]

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

 

 

 

Eric Brown has flown the La-7, Mig-3, Yak-1, Yak-9 and an IL2.   

[Sgt_Joch]

I saw the video but not sure what it is trying to prove.

 

The FW 190 A3 had a slightly worse low altitude climb rate and power-to-weight ratio than the 1942 Yak-1 as discussed here:

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/8379-190-109-climb-rates/

 

Why would you expect it to perform better in a climb?

[Dr_Molenbeek]

I saw the video but not sure what it is trying to prove.

 

The FW 190 A3 had a slightly worse low altitude climb rate and power-to-weight ratio than the 1942 Yak-1 as discussed here:

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/8379-190-109-climb-rates/

 

Why would you expect it to perform better in a climb?

 

That was one year ago.

 

In October 2014, an update came, that has fixed (or at least made him closer to real numbers) the Fw 190A-3 climb rate.

[Y-29.Silky]

Every time an FM thread comes up, it turns into a 190 flame war. The 190 was good sure, but people act like it's supposed to be this God Tier aircraft. The VVS feared the 109 more than the 190.

[JG13_opcode]

Speaking as a previous Axis-only pilot and now a primarily-Soviet pilot, I can't understand why the "flap exploit" is a game breaker.

 

If you can't kill a Yak in the F-4 you must have been caught at a disadvantage or else you are bad.

 

We used to see so much whining from Allied pilots about the 30mm on the 190 and the late model 109s, 50 cal is porked etc.

 

Have all the whiners gone Axis now?

 

Sure it's pretty silly modeling but does it actually "break" the game for you?

 

Please......

[Dr_Molenbeek]

The VVS feared the 109 more than the 190.

 

Late in the war, when every Fw 190 on the eastern front were Fw 190F (ground attack versions) piloted by old Stuka pilots, yes.

 

Sure it's pretty silly modeling but does it actually "break" the game for you?

 

IMO, the flaps issue is nothing compared to the one i cited in this thread, which is clearly a "historical tactic breaker".

[JG13_opcode]

How do you know?

 

The yak is a very clean airframe. 'E retention' is a very nebulous term that was never really tested historically, so on what basis are you making the claim that the 190 should be above the yak?

 

It was an excellent aircraft but it was not invincible.

[=AVG=Zombie]

Hmmmm I am more concerned about the bug with ammo, none of mine seem to hit the opponents planes, very odd....

[LukeFF]

 

 

Late in the war, when every Fw 190 on the eastern front were Fw 190F (ground attack versions) piloted by old Stuka pilots, yes.

 

There were Fw 190 A and D fighter units in East up until the very end of the war, so no, they were not all F-series planes.  

[Cybermat47]

There were Fw 190 A and D fighter units in East up until the very end of the war, so no, they were not all F-series planes.

 

Yep, from what I've read, the Fw-190 started combat on the East in either late 1942 or early 1943, and they were Antons.

 

The reason the 109 was more feared by the VVS was because there were more 109s

[unreasonable]

I saw the video but not sure what it is trying to prove.

 

The FW 190 A3 had a slightly worse low altitude climb rate and power-to-weight ratio than the 1942 Yak-1 as discussed here:

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/8379-190-109-climb-rates/

 

Why would you expect it to perform better in a climb?

I think the test is designed to show what happens in a zoom climb, in which the heavier aircraft should have an advantage, other things being equal (which they never are). IMHO the test would be more convincing if it was done with the engine off and the prop stopped. If you want to see any weight/drag relationships it would be better to take the power variable out altogether.

 

Even if a gliding zoom test showed that the drag disadvantage of the 190 outweighed the weight advantage at these speeds, I am still not sure how that proves the FM is incorrect: perhaps this was actually the case?

 

Normal tactical usage does not necessarily indicate a performance difference: it could simply reflect training levels or doctrine.

 

Following Scottish usage, my verdict so far would be FM is acquitted and free to go home due to Case Not Proven.

[JG13_opcode]

 

 

I think the test is designed to show what happens in a zoom climb, in which the heavier aircraft should have an advantage, other things being equal (which they never are). IMHO the test would be more convincing if it was done with the engine off and the prop stopped. If you want to see any weight/drag relationships it would be better to take the power variable out altogether. Even if a gliding zoom test showed that the drag disadvantage of the 190 outweighed the weight advantage at these speeds, I am still not sure how that proves the FM is incorrect: perhaps this was actually the case? Normal tactical usage does not necessarily indicate a performance difference: it could simply reflect training levels or doctrine.   Following Scottish usage, my verdict so far would be FM is acquitted and free to go home due to Case Not Proven.

 

 

Quality post.

[unreasonable]

 

 

Quality post.

 

 

Thank you: now press the little green button

[SR-F_Winger]

And even if the YAK could land on the moon some people would still say "quit the case since you cant prove it cant actually do it". So fucked up...

[unreasonable]

And even if the YAK could land on the moon some people would still say "quit the case since you cant prove it cant actually do it". So fucked up...

Don't be silly.

[SR-F_Winger]

Noone says "change it make the FW better". I for my part sinply would love the matter to be thoroughly checked by the devs.

Or dont you agree that there are valid concerns the current behavior might actually not be correct?

[Wulf]

Every time an FM thread comes up, it turns into a 190 flame war. The 190 was good sure, but people act like it's supposed to be this God Tier aircraft. The VVS feared the 109 more than the 190.

 

 

With the exception of turning circle, the performance of the 190 was about the same as that of a Merlin 61 powered Spitfire IX.  So yeah, pretty damn good.

[unreasonable]

Noone says "change it make the FW better". I for my part sinply would love the matter to be thoroughly checked by the devs.

Or dont you agree that there are valid concerns the current behavior might actually not be correct?

Of course I agree - I have no doubt that there are inaccuracies somewhere in the FMs - but what are they? Very hard for us to say from tests.

 

As I said before: not proven. I am a sceptic about FMs, I find the discussions interesting because they involve so many complex variables, not because I am trying to prove a particular point. I am not a "defender of the faith" by any means.

 

But hyperbolic comparisons like yours, even meant in jest, undermine your own position. But I was perhaps a little rude.

 

Kiss and make up?

[SR-F_Winger]

Only if youre a girl:P All good dude!

After all we all just want a sim that everone is happy with.

[IRRE_Belmont]

Performances in MP?

Please ? 

[JG13_opcode]

Noone says "change it make the FW better". I for my part sinply would love the matter to be thoroughly checked by the devs.

Or dont you agree that there are valid concerns the current behavior might actually not be correct?

That's because I think people realize that the A-3 we have is actually a really, really good aircraft.  Against the VVS birds I think the 109 has a better arsenal, but if you take the time to climb to advantage it's hard to beat the awesome high speed handling and the armament.

 

There definitely was a time, though, when everybody was whining that the 190 was not good enough, yadda yadda.  The arguments raged for thousands of pages across hundreds of threads on the old ubizoo.

 

The simple fact is the Fw 190 has a bit of a cult following.  Kurt Tank was a gifted engineer but, much like hipsters lionize Nikola Tesla, people treat Tank like some kind of God.  People are emotionally invested in the Fw 190, read all these anecdotes and articles and (perhaps subconsciously) translate that into "the Fw 190 should be able to win in scenarios X Y and Z" when there isn't necessarily strong data supporting that conclusion.

 

 

With the exception of turning circle, the performance of the 190 was about the same as that of a Merlin 61 powered Spitfire IX.  So yeah, pretty damn good.

 

 

Which 190?  All of them?  Doubt that.  IIRC the Spit 9 significantly out-climbs the 190, particularly at low altitudes.

Edited June 23, 2015 by 13GIAP_opcode

[SR-F_Winger]

 

 

There definitely was a time, though, when everybody was whining that the 190 was not good enough, yadda yadda. 

 

Well, back at that time you have to admit it was REALLY utterly porked.

Edited June 23, 2015 by VSG1_Winger

[JG13_opcode]

Well, back at that time you have to admit it was REALLY utterly porked.

Yeah it was; I'm not trying to argue it wasn't.  I flew primarily axis for years and usually the 109 because the FW was so porked.

 

But I'm just saying, some people get REALLY invested in defending the 190 and telling others that it was the best etc. etc.  Obviously this is not the case.  P-51s were too fast, and P-47 supercharger/intercooler assembly is almost the size of a small car so they performed better up high than the Doras....

 

I dunno, every aircraft has faults.

[Wulf]

 

 

Which 190?  All of them?  Doubt that.  IIRC the Spit 9 significantly out-climbs the 190, particularly at low altitudes.

 

 

The A-3.  It was very close to the 61 powered Mk IX.  In fact, the performances were almost mirrored.  Have a look at the RAE tests.

 

So, just as well the IX doesn't come sniffing around here cos, the LaGG-3 might just kick it's ass.  

[Dakpilot]

So now are you suggesting that the Lagg 3 outperforms the FW190 ?

 

because that's what it sounds like....

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Finkeren]

If you got your ass kicked by a LaGG while flying the Fw 190, you got your ass kicked by a better pilot.

[Wulf]

So now are you suggesting that the Lagg 3 outperforms the FW190 ?

 

because that's what it sounds like....

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

 

WTF?   Are you guys taking the piss or something??  No,  I'm not suggesting that at all.  I'm suggesting all 3 Soviet fighter types 'over-perform'.  I thinking they're too fast, I think they roll too quickly, I think they retain too much energy, I think they have a quite remarkable ability to 'manage' engine temperatures and I think they exhibit 'unusual' flap performance.'  That's what I think.

 

Do I think the 190 out-performs a LaGG in some respects?  Yes I do, but that isn't the point is it.  

Edited June 23, 2015 by Wulf

[SR-F_Winger]

If you got your ass kicked by a LaGG while flying the Fw 190, you got your ass kicked by a better pilot.

You cant generalise like that unless you want to provoke.

[216th_Jordan]

Well looking at the rare silhoutte of the Yak-1 and the FW-190A3 air drag should likely have a slightly higher coefficient on the Focke-Wulf (but propably not outweighing the additional power in comparison to the Yak).

Now if the Yak also has higher Thrust-to-Weight ratio it will eventually perform better in a zoom climb. It may be that the Yak retains high speed too well, but I'll leave those tests to others.

[SR-F_Winger]

Well looking at the rare silhoutte of the Yak-1 and the FW-190A3 air drag should likely have a slightly higher coefficient on the Focke-Wulf (but propably not outweighing the additional power in comparison to the Yak).

Now if the Yak also has higher Thrust-to-Weight ratio it will eventually perform better in a zoom climb. It may be that the Yak retains high speed too well, but I'll leave those tests to others.

But the thrust to weight isnt better than the 190 if i am not mistaken. And if so it might only by a really small margin.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Trouble is, we have no really accurate way to test any of the aircraft in the sim, unlike the situation in original IL2 where we had Device Link, and other tools, that could be used to extract accurate, repeatable data from the sim not tainted by the skill, or lack of it, of us virtual pilots.

 

Until some utility is found that can do that, these FM debates amount to little more than tail chasing, because nothing will change unless the devs see numbers that prove our assertions.

 

So, either we live with it or move on, because the development team wants actual data, not "feelings", or "I read it in a book" criticisms.

 

Catch 22.

[Finkeren]

But the thrust to weight isnt better than the 190 if i am not mistaken. And if so it might only by a really small margin.

 

When both are fully loaded (no bombs) the Yak has a p/w ratio of 0.409 hp/kg while the Fw 190 has 0,421 hp/kg, so the margin is around 2% in the 190s favor, but that's only if it runs at 1.42 ata, 2700 rpm.

 

In most combat situations the Yak-1 will have a better p/w ratio.

Edited June 23, 2015 by Finkeren

[SR-F_Winger]

When both are fully loaded (no bombs) the Yak has a p/w ratio of 0.409 hp/kg while the Fw 190 has 0,421 hp/kg, so the margin is around 2% in the 190s favor, but that's only if it runs at 1.42 ata, 2700 rpm.

 

In most combat situations the Yak-1 will have a better p/w ratio.

Thanks for clarifying. Nonetheless the YAK still zooms better, even when the 190 runs at full power. Still my opinion is that this should be checked by the devs.

[Finkeren]

Thanks for clarifying. Nonetheless the YAK still zooms better, even when the 190 runs at full power. Still my opinion is that this should be checked by the devs.

 

Don't disagree on that. It's always good to have things looked into. But honestly, I don't think it's urgent. The only flaw in the current FM that I find to be serious enough to warrant immediate action is the Yaks flaps-down behavior. After trying it myself, it took me all of two minutes to realize: "Ok, this is wrong."