Dr_Molenbeek Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 Ha, it was probably Ze_Hairy piloting it screaming about flaps. If that 109 had just extended he could have gotten set up for a better attack. Too bad², Bf 109s are without any doubt the planes that i flown the less in BoS, followed by the Stuka. You're not going to see me in any videos since i deleted BoS, and i'll not reinstall it unless devs change their policy regarding FMs. You show your ignorance in each of your posts, sad.
Saurer Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 I really hope we are not getting any more expansions containing more variants of the Holy Cow 190. Maybe then FM discussions can stay civilized and not getting personal. 1
JtD Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 Russian dive limits are based on actual test results not on what is said in manuals/pilots operating handbooks, this has been explained by dev's many times... Han explaining why limit on Lagg Q. " Flutter IAS on LaGG-3 is 750 while in manual max IAS is listed as 600 km/h. It's 150 km/h reserve. While Bf-109 have only 70 km/h reserve." A. Actually, we have flight test report on LaGG-3 which shows that it's diving a little more than 700 km/h IAS without problems. So, we have set Flutter start at 750km/h IAS, +50 km/h to fastest known limit. Bf-109 have data on dive flight test on 900 km/h TAS at 5800m, it is 637 km/h IAS. Also, there is 750 km/h IAS listed as limit for it. So, our Bf-109 have 850km/h IAS as Flutter start speed, +100 km/h to fastest known limit." German aircraft actually have more generous dive limits than Russian I think it's stupid to give flutter limits in IAS. To me Han's explanation is a bad joke. 1
MK_RED13 Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 So, a lighter aircraft with a more powerful engine shouldn't be able to maintain controllable flight at slower speeds than a heavier aircraft and less powerful engine. Yep, FM's screwed up guys! Heavy things don't float long enough and light things don't sink fast enough! What is wrong with our world? Not to mention that in that video MK_RED13 linked, I noticed nothing wrong. The Yak was floating around at an extremely slow speed while the faster 109 continued to orbit, burning energy, trying to get a shot off on a target that is virtually standing still, fighting a stall the entire time. So, when the 109 pilot realized that he was pushing a bad position it was too late. Ha, it was probably Ze_Hairy piloting it screaming about flaps. If that 109 had just extended he could have gotten set up for a better attack. But no, he scissors and turns with a Yak, because that is smart. And of course we have to blame the FM, not the pilot who attempted to turn fight with a yak. Let's set something straight: Turn fighting with a Yak at any altitude is stupid because of a lot of things like wing loading, weight, power, etc... As we can see in this video the German suffers from "Greedy German Syndrome" where they push a bad position because they don't know the 109 can be put into a bad position. BTW, Hairy, please post your tests so we can look at them. I would love to see what kind of anecdotal evidence you will bring to the community. Otherwise people might assume that you are lying about that. ...in this video Yak climb (helieffect) with full flaps down.. ;-)
ACG_pezman Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 (edited) Too bad², Bf 109s are without any doubt the planes that i flown the less in BoS, followed by the Stuka. You're not going to see me in any videos since i deleted BoS, and i'll not reinstall it unless devs change their policy regarding FMs. You show your ignorance in each of your posts, sad. Hairy, I understand your frustration, I too experienced it. That was how I started out flying Russian aircraft in this game in the first place; well that and waiting for maxed out teams to open. The point is that I realized that what I thought were FM mistakes were actually piloting mistakes. Most of them unintentional but deadly and aggravating none the less. Take for instance the fact that the Yak's light weight, sleek aerodynamic design, and powerful engine (which is debatable I gather) help it maintain its initial energy in turns better than the 109 or 190, at max cornering speed that is. What I mean by that is the additional weight of the 109 or 190 means it has to burn more energy to pull a tight turn, either in the horizontal or vertical, but can then retain it better in the straight. This allows Yak's to gain on the initial turn in either a zoom climb or tight turn only for a bit. Combine that with the fact that the attacker always has the advantage in that they can cut the corners and make as much of a straight line path from them to the defender to reduce distance and gain. This works in the horizontal or vertical as well, but it's much more limited in the vertical. What I thought was the Yak's retaining energy too well was actually easily explained by math and physics. I realized then that I have to wiggle Yaks off my six with rolling maneuvers, with a vertical incline, to make them burn their energy faster than me, because the 190 rolls so much better and burns much less energy (energy retention) than the Yak. The Yak has to burn a lot of energy to roll with a 190, especially if it's attempting to climb, using a lot of rudder just to attempt to stay with it, which it cant. But there are catches to this and it doesn't work in all situations. Sometimes it's better to just run away but if you are within 700m of the Yak you are in danger of being shot up if you fly straight. But if you try and scissor the Yak will just close the gap and we don't want that. If you try to climb the Yak will just start a shallow climb, that burns less energy that yours, and meet you near the top just before the stall with his flaps out, straining every last ounce out of his lighter, just as powerful, aircraft that has a better cannon on it. So you realize that the best defense is the old guns defense, you fly as straight as possible without flying straight, and before you know it he's a dot who gave up and turned back. In short, I started to understand that I made a lot of mistakes that people took advantage of. Nothing personal, I just get frustrated when German pilots complain about Russian FM's but never try and see what it's like. It seems short sighted to me. I'm also not calling you a bad pilot, but I think it would be unwise to dismiss the fact that you may have committed some errors. Also, MK_RED13, the Yak only has one flap setting. Down. It's a pneumatic system and air is easily compressible, so the flaps get pushed back in at higher speeds and spring out more at lower speeds. It's actually a pretty genius design for a cheap stop-gap. However if the flaps get pushed back in too far they will jam because while you can compress the air to a point, you can't compress it all the way without jamming the system. Edited October 12, 2015 by [TBC]volc0m_
9./JG27golani79 Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 volc0m_' timestamp='1444658319' post='292740'] And the fact that it's winter and the 190 isn't getting a cold air boost like EVERY OTHER AIRCRAFT IN THE GAME doesn't bother me because the 190 still out preforms all Russian aircraft at altitudes below 5k if flown correctly. So you´d rather have a balanced game instead of an accurate one?
ACG_pezman Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 (edited) So you´d rather have a balanced game instead of an accurate one? No, I said it doesn't bother me. If I'm getting seal clubbed by a 190 that flies a little slower or by one that flies a little faster, I'm still getting seal clubbed in my LaGG. That is one reason why I don't understand the obsession with the FMs, they are real damn close to what they are supposed to be and the German aircraft are clearly superior when flown correctly, so why does it make that much of a fuss? Edited October 12, 2015 by [TBC]volc0m_
JtD Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 (edited) Also, MK_RED13, the Yak only has one flap setting. Down. It's a pneumatic system and air is easily compressible, so the flaps get pushed back in at higher speeds and spring out more at lower speeds. It's actually a pretty genius design for a cheap stop-gap. However if the flaps get pushed back in too far they will jam because while you can compress the air to a point, you can't compress it all the way without jamming the system. I can design you a pneumatic flap system very similar to the Yak's and make sure the flaps don't get pushed in as speed increases. Just because air is compressible, the flaps don't have to be. It's a huge assumption that it works the way it does in game, and no technical proof has been given. It is however a fact, that the pilot manual for the Yak disagrees with the game mechanism in that you need to put the lever into neutral position to have flaps gradually retract with decreasing pressure and there's no mention of automated extension. Edited October 12, 2015 by JtD 2
Dr_Molenbeek Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 I'm also not calling you a bad pilot, but I think it would be unwise to dismiss the fact that you may have committed some errors. Of course i make errors, i'm a human, not God. BUT... When flying my Fw 190 and i see a Yak-1 that is literally doing a Chaïka turn at 600km/h with his perfect-indestructible-ufo flaps... is it my fault ? or the fault of FM ? When flying my Fw 190 and i see a La-5 that out-rolls me with ease... is it my fault ? or the fault of FM ? When flying my Fw 190 and i succeed to gain separation with the Yak-1 that is on my tail, and i decide to start a high speed climb, but it does not work because the plane underperforms above 1200m and the Yak-1 starts to gain on me... is it my fault ? or the fault of FM ? When flying my Fw 190 and i cannot perform one of the most simple and known maneuvers that was often used by RL Fw 190 pilots, the diving turn, because of the overexaggerated inertia... is it my fault ? or the fault of FM ? For someone who does not care of FM accuracy, it mean: But the Fw 190 can still run away, so it's balanced ! Please... (yes, i confess that i would not have bought BoS if there were no Fw 190) 2
9./JG27golani79 Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 (edited) No, I said it doesn't bother me. If I'm getting seal clubbed by a 190 that flies a little slower or by one that flies a little faster, I'm still getting seal clubbed in my LaGG. That is one reason why I don't understand the obsession with the FMs, they are real damn close to what they are supposed to be and the German aircraft are clearly superior when flown correctly, so why does it make that much of a fuss? Maybe people (obviously not all) who play sims just want a representation of the planes as close as it can get to the real thing? Why else bother with playing a sim if I don´t give a crap about certain aspects of the FMs and want them to be done in the best possible way? Edited October 12, 2015 by 9./JG27golani79
ACG_pezman Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 Maybe people (obviously not all) who play sims just want a representation of the planes as close as it can get to the real thing? Why else bothering with playing a sim if I don´t give a crap about the FMs and want them to be done in the best possible way? I wouldn´t care if plane A was superior to plane B if this ìs the way it was. Did it ever occur to you that this might be that sim? I'm sure if there was a better sim we would all be flying it already. You say you want as close to the real thing as can be achieved and when you get it, it's just not good enough? Have you your own flight sim that you have coded that gets it done better? How then can you claim that this game didn't get it done the best so far? Say what you will but at least I'm not so arrogant as to claim I just want the fairest representation of something possible, and when it's delivered, deride it. Plane A is superior to plane B and that is the way it was.
Matt Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 [volc0m_' timestamp=1444666189' post='292769] So, a lighter aircraft with a more powerful engine shouldn't be able to maintain controllable flight at slower speeds than a heavier aircraft and less powerful engine. Yep, FM's screwed up guys! Heavy things don't float long enough and light things don't sink fast enough! What is wrong with our world? Not sure what's wrong with the world, but you either misquoted me or didn't understand what i wrote. I wasn't even mentioning the weight of the planes or controllability at slow speed.
SCG_Space_Ghost Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 (edited) So you´d rather have a balanced game instead of an accurate one? -snip- I don't understand the obsession with the FMs, they are real damn close to what they are supposed to be -snip- so why does it make that much of a fuss? Ergo... So you´d rather have a balanced game instead of an accurate one? Edited October 12, 2015 by Space_Ghost
ACG_pezman Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 I inferred it Matt. It only reasons that a lighter plane with, by your post, a more powerful engine, would have the ability to maintain hanging on the prop at reduced speeds better than a heavier aircraft with an equally powerful engine. Am I wrong to draw this conclusion?
SCG_Space_Ghost Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 (edited) I inferred it Matt. It only reasons that a lighter plane with, by your post, a more powerful engine, would have the ability to maintain hanging on the prop at reduced speeds better than a heavier aircraft with an equally powerful engine. Am I wrong to draw this conclusion? Unless you've got engineering calculations and solid documentation to back your inference (which JtD, Matt, Hairy, etc. normally have...) than you are absolutely incorrect. Edited October 12, 2015 by Space_Ghost
9./JG27golani79 Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 Say what you will but at least I'm not so arrogant as to claim I just want the fairest representation of something possible, and when it's delivered, deride it. I don´t get your problem - yes, the sim is good. But it also could be better in certain aspects. Where do I claim I want a fair representation? I want a historical accurate representation - nothing more, nothing less. At least I don´t say I don´t care because plane X is already good enough. And there are flaws pointed out on both sides .. so maybe just think a bit about it. Not gonna participate in this ridiculous discussion anymore. 1
ACG_pezman Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 Unless you've got engineering calculations and solid documentation to back your inference (which JtD, Matt, Hairy, etc. normally have...) than you are absolutely incorrect. OMG... I guess it's my fault for even suggesting that the Russian aircraft aren't OP. Well, the dev's said they aren't touching the FM's (sorry Hairy) anymore so this is the game we have. I win. Accept it. Now learn to fly your aircraft within the confines of the game's reality or move on to a game where you feel it's more accurately displayed. Thank you.
coconut Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 (edited) Not sure what's wrong with the world, but you either misquoted me or didn't understand what i wrote. I wasn't even mentioning the weight of the planes or controllability at slow speed. I did not understand your post. Were you stating facts, as in "the planes in BoS in reality had these power figures", or "the virtual planes in BoS have these power figures"? Were you implying something or simply providing information? A quick search on google returns results (e.g. http://ram-home.com/ram-old/eng_vk-105.html that seem to agree with the number for the Klimov you cited. If the numbers for the Germans are correct, and if the Yak-1 is lighter than the German planes, and if its aerodynamics are not worse than the Germans, then I would say one should expect the Yak-1 to climb better, or? Edited October 12, 2015 by coconut
ACG_pezman Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 I did not understand your post. Were you stating facts, as in "the planes in BoS in reality had these power figures", or "the virtual planes in BoS have these power figures"? Were you implying something or simply providing information? A quick search on google returns results (e.g. http://ram-home.com/ram-old/eng_vk-105.html that seem to agree with the number for the Klimov you cited. If the numbers for the Germans are correct, and if the Yak-1 is lighter than the German planes, and if its aerodynamics are not worse than the Germans, then I would say one should expect the Yak-1 to climb better, or? Agreed, but as Space_Ghost Coast to Coast over here has stated, don't infer anything unless you have calculations and documentation. Not even from their calculations and documentation.
Dr_Molenbeek Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 Well, the dev's said they aren't touching the FM's (sorry Hairy) anymore so this is the game we have. Things can still change, even if it can take years. Otherwise i would not be here. BTW, thank you, you finally assume that you don't care about FM accuracy and prefer a "balanced" game.
SCG_Space_Ghost Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 (edited) Agreed, but as Space_Ghost Coast to Coast over here has stated, don't infer anything unless you have calculations and documentation. Not even from their calculations and documentation. Actually, mate, Han and BlackSix did the stating for me. There is really no incentive for you to get so upset and to be so personal... Nobody is out to get you... 18. Claiming that FM is incorrect without the required proof and starting a flame thread based on such claim is prohibited. The form for an FM claim consists of: short but consistent description of the claim; link to a reference and to a specific part of such reference that describes correct behaviour of a disputed element/situation; game track record and the list of conditions used to recreate disputed element/situation. Exception to this rule: FM discussion -snip- BTW, thank you, you finally assume that you don't care about FM accuracy and prefer a "balanced" game. Kind of backed himself in to a corner on that one... Edited October 12, 2015 by Space_Ghost
ACG_pezman Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 Actually, mate, Han and BlackSix did the stating for me. There is really no incentive for you to get so upset and to be so personal... Nobody is out to get you... 18. Claiming that FM is incorrect without the required proof and starting a flame thread based on such claim is prohibited. The form for an FM claim consists of: short but consistent description of the claim; link to a reference and to a specific part of such reference that describes correct behaviour of a disputed element/situation; game track record and the list of conditions used to recreate disputed element/situation. Exception to this rule: FM discussion Kind of backed himself in to a corner on that one... I never stated the FM's were wrong Ghost, I was defending them. So take that as you will. So please show me a sim with more accurate flight models too, otherwise I guess I am for historically accurate flight models. That is, of course, considering that this game is the closest to accurate that can be achieved for a commercially available and affordable sim. And if that is the case then why demand more when they cannot give it? Everyone assumes that they are holding back. Now why would they hold back if they could fix it? Are we nursing conspiracies about bias?
SR-F_Winger Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 (edited) [volc0m_' timestamp=1444676380' post='292799] I win. Accept it. [Edited] Edited October 13, 2015 by Bearcat
SCG_Space_Ghost Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 (edited) (A1) I never stated the FM's were wrong Ghost, I was defending them. (B) otherwise I guess I am for historically accurate flight models. That is, of course, (A2) considering that this game is the closest to accurate that can be achieved for a commercially available and affordable sim. -snip- (A 1/2) I never said you did but since this is not the FM Discussion subsection and you are making a claim about modeling accuracy/inaccuracy of the FM's it would be reasonable that you have some information to back those claims... Right..? I think that's pretty reasonable. Now on the second half of that... Same thing... What is the base of your claim? The team won't provide any citations for their modeling decisions and they certainly haven't given you the parameters of their game engine... I don't feel you are in a position of authority to make that absolute of an assertion. You take that as you will, too. (B) You're really not, though... (Remember the part where you told me to: "learn to fly your aircraft within the confines of the game's reality.") And that's OK... You get your jollies from this game however you want to but knock off the dismissiveness of other's opinions... Nope, devs loose since noone will spend any more dime but the russian fanbois. If thats enough for them. fine. Next time only release it on the russian market please! And you need to knock it off, too. You don't help yourself or anybody else's case for improvements to the "simulation" nature of this game (whether that is reducing the F-4's top speed or resolving this atypical flap behavior with the Yak) with the way you behave around here... You honestly really don't. Edited October 12, 2015 by Space_Ghost
JtD Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 I did not understand your post. Were you stating facts, as in "the planes in BoS in reality had these power figures", or "the virtual planes in BoS have these power figures"? Were you implying something or simply providing information? By showing the power settings as modelled in game I'd say he's challenging everybody's common sense. Either the Soviet engineers were magicians and managed a 20% more powerful engine at less effort than the Germans, or the game isn't showing the entire picture.
coconut Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 By showing the power settings as modelled in game I'd say he's challenging everybody's common sense. Either the Soviet engineers were magicians and managed a 20% more powerful engine at less effort than the Germans, or the game isn't showing the entire picture. Maybe they did, maybe it's inflated performance data, who knows... But without a working engine in perfect condition and the exact same fuel, the devs have to go from something. The Russian Aviation Museum provides the same numbers, so I don't think anyone can fault the devs on that specific point unless they have another source, which they will have to argue is more trustworthy.
707shap_Srbin Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 By showing the power settings as modelled in game I'd say he's challenging everybody's common sense. Either the Soviet engineers were magicians and managed a 20% more powerful engine at less effort than the Germans, or the game isn't showing the entire picture. BMW-801D Weight - 1014kg Take-off power - 1600hp (@2700rpm, @990mm.Hg.) nominal power - 1460hp @ 700m (@2400rpm, @960mm.Hg.) nominal power - 1300hp @ 4100m (@2400rpm, @960mm.Hg.) M-82 Weight - 870kg Take-off power - 1700hp @ 0m (@2500rpm, @1140mm.Hg.) forsage 10 min limit. Nominal power - 1540hp @ 2050m (@2400rpm, @950mm.Hg.) Nominal power - 1330hp @ 5400m (@2400rpm, @950mm.Hg.)
Wulf Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 (edited) What is being referred to as "dispersion" here is actually velocity. Pro-tip time: Go into QMB with your aircraft of choice, choose custom settings and make sure aim assist is on. Now go fly against some AI and dogfight. Chances are you will be blown away at where you have to aim to hit the target. If you're in a German aircraft, you probably have to lead quite a bit more than you thought. If you're in a Russian aircraft, you will be surprised at how little you have to lead compared to German cannons. Once your rounds start to land on target consistently (which is the hardest part of this game) you will see that "dispersion" isn't an issue in this game at all. "What is being referred to as "dispersion" here is actually velocity." Okay, projectile "velocity", from any firearm (pistol, rifle, auto-cannon, giant German rail gun et al) is almost never consistent shot for shot. It doesn't matter how carefully the load development side of things is managed, there is always some level of variation in velocity. The more you push the performance of a round (which the military always does), the greater prospect that variations in velocity will increase shot for shot. So saying you were actually referring to 'velocity' doesn't change the fact that the projectiles from a single automatic weapon will always diverge to some degree or other, in part due to variations in projectile velocity. "Pro-tip time" Thanks for the wisdom. I probably won't mention this again but you can be sure I'll be thinking about it the next few times that we meet online. I'm assuming of course, you're the self-same volcom I meet online? Edited October 12, 2015 by Wulf
ACG_pezman Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 volc0m said: Funny, on the 190 I deploy flaps at 300kph in turns or at slow speeds to get a little extra out. I don't deploy them above that speed in the 190 because they actually hurt your performance at high speed. The 190 is much more maneuverable at high speeds with the flaps up than down, and putting them down won't break them off, but it will increase the chance that you stall in a turn exponentially. And vice versa below 300kph for the 190. Russian and German flaps, in my experience, start to break and become jammed at speeds in excess of 500kph. That should make you German guys think. end of quote. Eh? What do you mean by me being a German who should think? I just agreed with most of your points but queried about flaps breaking because I'd never seen it as I only use them for landing? I didn't mean you ChiefWH, and I apologize for the confusion, but I was referring to those who said they don't break because they do. They aren't easy to break but neither are the German flaps in my experience.
ACG_pezman Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 "What is being referred to as "dispersion" here is actually velocity." Okay, projectile "velocity", from any firearm (pistol, rifle, auto-cannon, giant German rail gun et al) is almost never consistent shot for shot. It doesn't matter how carefully the load development side of things is managed, there is always some level of variation in velocity. The more you push the performance of a round (which the military always does), the greater prospect that variations in velocity will increase shot for shot. So saying you were actually referring to 'velocity' doesn't change the fact that the projectiles from a single automatic weapon will always diverge to some degree or other, in part due to variations in projectile velocity. "Pro-tip time" Thanks for the wisdom. I probably won't mention this at the conclusion of our next few encounters online but you can be sure I'll be thinking about it. I'm assuming you're the same self same volcom I meet online? First of all, yes I am that Volcom Secondly, thanks for the lesson in dispersion in single barreled automatic weapons. I feel though that the increased velocity of the Russian rounds help mask any real dispersion, but I do agree that Russian weapons in this game seem to be superior to those of the Germans. And lastly, I personally, from experience, don't believe you need to practice too much with your aim, but no problem and you're welcome.
Wulf Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 First of all, yes I am that Volcom Secondly, thanks for the lesson in dispersion in single barreled automatic weapons. I feel though that the increased velocity of the Russian rounds help mask any real dispersion, but I do agree that Russian weapons in this game seem to be superior to those of the Germans. And lastly, I personally, from experience, don't believe you need to practice too much with your aim, but no problem and you're welcome. As previously noted, higher velocities tend to increase rather than decrease dispersion all other things being equal. I just had a wee look online at the Russian cannon as compared to the Mausers fitted to the 190. The Russian cannon does have a higher velocity as you mention but not by much. About 70m/s I think I saw quoted. That will flatten the trajectory of the Russian gun 'somewhat' but not by that much I would have thought. There'll be balistic tables available for it somewhere. Of course, there are no free lunches in ballistics so while the projectiles used in the Russian gun exit the muzzle faster, they are also correspondingly lighter (presumably to increase velocity) and therefore, round for round, will be somewhat less destructive - possibly quite a bit less destructive. Always good fun fighting you online. See you up there bro.
Recommended Posts