New at the game, plz help.

[Mac_Messer]

I finally got BoS and I like it so far. Have some questions.

 

1. Is BoS still relevant to online flying or did BoM take over?

 

2. Are steam servers the only way to fly online?

 

3. My PC is i7 2600K@4,3GHz, AMD6970 2GB, 8GB RAM and it is struggling at anything above lowest graphics setting. Needless to say, the graphics don`t look so good at this setting and 3 basic graphics settings isn`t exactly the way to balance things out. I`ve disabled AF and SSAO but don`t see any setting for MSAA (AA kills my vid card). Is there a guide for editing the graphics settings in greater extent?

 

4. I started LW campaign to unlock all the stuff. I prefer the Friedrich. Do I need to fly 109G-2 to unlock stuff for 109G-2 or not?

 

5. Also, I`m running the campaign at expert realism setting. No biggie for me, except one thing. Normally it`s the way I take my flight to ACTION POINT, then my partners shout -enemy inbound- and fly off somewhere. They leave me all alone, I fly right where I should and can`t see the enemy and after like 7 minutes the sign TASK COMPLETED comes up and it`s all over - AI partners get kills, I get none.

I guess I`d have to change to normal difficulty, but disable everything but plane map icons?

 

6. Can I issue commands to my AI flight?

 

7. Setting up the controls I came across -personal weapon- setting. I`m curious, does this game have an FPP mode after you bail out safely?

[Willy__]

1. Right now all servers are BoS related, since BoM didnt release yet. But in some servers you have the possibility to choose some BoM planes (if you bought BoM), like the 110, i16, e7 and p40 alongside with the BoS planes.

 

2. Steam has nothing to do with online servers. I bought my copy of BoS here on the site and I can play online just fine with/without steam people.

 

3. Try limiting the fps on the options, maybe it helps... Other than that we all just waiting for a new patch, since the introduction of tanks the perfomance of the game took some fps hit.

 

4. Yes. You unlock mod for the plane you flown.

 

5. Try following the AI when you arrive to the action potion. They will lead you to the enemy.

 

6. You can, but not much options, default button is `

 

7. ???

Edited December 14, 2015 by istruba

[6./ZG26_Custard]

 

 

1. Is BoS still relevant to online flying or did BoM take over?

 

BoM is not officially out yet but if you pre-order the sim you can fly the aircraft that are being released prior to the full release

 

 

 

2. Are steam servers the only way to fly online?

   

 

The only online servers that you can fly on are in the multiplayer tab in game they are not steam servers.

 

 

 

My PC is i7 2600K@4,3GHz, AMD6970 2GB, 8GB RAM and it is struggling at anything above lowest graphics setting. Needless to say, the graphics don`t look so good at this setting and 3 basic graphics settings isn`t exactly the way to balance things out. I`ve disabled AF and SSAO but don`t see any setting for MSAA (AA kills my vid card). Is there a guide for editing the graphics settings in greater extent?

 

I would consider a newer GPU.

 

I started LW campaign to unlock all the stuff. I prefer the Friedrich. Do I need to fly 109G-2 to unlock stuff for 109G-2 or not?

 

 

You need to unlock for all aircraft  unless you upgrade to premium edition then you can unlock everything bar the skins.

 

 

 

I guess I`d have to change to normal difficulty, but disable everything but plane map icons?

 

Spotting the enemy aircraft takes a lot of practice but you will get the hang of it eventually

 

 

 

Can I issue commands to my AI flight?

 

Press the tilde key for various options.

 

 

 

Setting up the controls I came across -personal weapon- setting. I`m curious, does this game have an FPP mode after you bail out safely?

 

You can currently fire a flare pistol from the cockpit.

[SR-F_Winger]

WELCOME to the community.

Do yourself a favor and try and come online. Multiplayer makes the experience so much richer. Its a steep learnigcurve since there are many well trained simpilots underway but its worth the effort.

Singleplayer simply cant compete.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

WELCOME to the community.

Do yourself a favor and try and come online. Multiplayer makes the experience so much richer. Its a steep learnigcurve since there are many well trained simpilots underway but its worth the effort.

Singleplayer simply cant compete.

 

Way to address none of OP's questions... 

[LeRocket]

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/17080-ssao-hdr-and-improving-performance/page-2some useful info that might help you.

[Sokol1]

 

 

4. Yes. You unlock mod for the plane you flown.

 

 

And for "fast unlock": make only attack - short - missions, and cancel the missions that have artillery as target, as well nigh missions.

If you cancel the actual mission the game generate other, endless.

The only purpose of that "Campaign" is this - unlocks - so "cheat" for then. 

[DD_Arthur]

WELCOME to the community.

Do yourself a favor and try and come online. Multiplayer makes the experience so much richer. Its a steep learnigcurve since there are many well trained simpilots underway but its worth the effort.

Singleplayer simply cant compete.

 

I think Winger is right.  From what Mac has said before he seems to have a great deal of online experience.  Multiplayer is a richer experience and much better at getting to grips with the game than all that daft farting around in the campaign.

 

Mac just needs to spring a few more bucks for the premium edition and access the unlocks.

 

Edit; oh yeah...an Nvidia gpu will help too! 

Edited December 14, 2015 by DD_Arthur

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

I think Winger is right.  From what Mac has said before he seems to have a great deal of online experience.  Multiplayer is a richer experience and much better at getting to grips with the game than all that daft farting around in the campaign.

 

Mac just needs to spring a few more bucks for the premium edition and access the unlocks.

 

Edit; oh yeah...an Nvidia gpu will help too! 

 

PWCG is love... PWCG is life... 

[FuriousMeow]

"New at the game"

 

Say what?

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/17651-run-away/?p=280291

 

Even if that was a post regarding the older, decade of development, Il2 series, you've spent enough time on the forums to know the answers to several of those questions.

Edited December 15, 2015 by FuriousMeow

[ShamrockOneFive]

I finally got BoS and I like it so far. Have some questions.

3. My PC is i7 2600K@4,3GHz, AMD6970 2GB, 8GB RAM and it is struggling at anything above lowest graphics setting. Needless to say, the graphics don`t look so good at this setting and 3 basic graphics settings isn`t exactly the way to balance things out. I`ve disabled AF and SSAO but don`t see any setting for MSAA (AA kills my vid card). Is there a guide for editing the graphics settings in greater extent?

 

Everyone else has nicely addressed some of the others but I might be able to help tackle this a bit more.

 

You have a fairly strong CPU (the i7 2600K is still well regarded) but your GPU is fairly out of date and it might be worthwhile to do a graphics update. The key thing you should watch out for is when you see slowdowns. Is it all the time or only in certain circumstances where, for example, there are a lot of aircraft or active ground objects (like artillery and tanks) operating at the same time. I had a older Core i7 870 and it was really struggling with some of the heavy ground attack missions. My new system is much stronger all around (and BoS really does test all of your parts...CPU/RAM/GPU) and it runs very smoothly.

[Mac_Messer]

"New at the game"

 

Say what?

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/17651-run-away/?p=280291

 

Even if that was a post regarding the older, decade of development, Il2 series, you've spent enough time on the forums to know the answers to several of those questions.

Yes, it was about IL2 1946. Be sure, reading stuff on forums and applying it when I got the game is quite different. Just today I learned to use the map on expert setting - one time I had aircraft icons, other time not. Then somehow I activated the minimap but when I wanted to view it again I selected briefing window (fullscreen map). I don`t have any problem with flying or CEM though I do see some substantial differences ex. when the oil temp rises to red, there`s very little time to react since the engine really dies quickly (in 1946 you could do some extra power for a few minutes and get gradual engine damage). Also, I find the G2/F4 differences to be well...different -  ie. I find the G2 to be a lot heavier in controls and not getting the E retention I remembered it to have. In 1946 it was superior to the Friedrich in every way but visibility but in BoS it`s not as nimble, close to the Anton even (I don`t have the FW190).

Other than that I didn`t want to comment on topics I had no experience with BoS.

 

Also I found out that trim setting buttons don`t seem to work (aileron/pitch trim)?

Edited December 15, 2015 by Mac_Messer

[Mac_Messer]

Everyone else has nicely addressed some of the others but I might be able to help tackle this a bit more.

 

You have a fairly strong CPU (the i7 2600K is still well regarded) but your GPU is fairly out of date and it might be worthwhile to do a graphics update. The key thing you should watch out for is when you see slowdowns. Is it all the time or only in certain circumstances where, for example, there are a lot of aircraft or active ground objects (like artillery and tanks) operating at the same time. I had a older Core i7 870 and it was really struggling with some of the heavy ground attack missions. My new system is much stronger all around (and BoS really does test all of your parts...CPU/RAM/GPU) and it runs very smoothly.

Yes, I already knew my pc needs an upgrade but on lowest setting the game looks poor, not that it matters too much (I`m a bit dissapointed). It`s tricky with this game cuz when you go up high, the fps hits 100 sometimes, while on AF runway I hit lower 30s.

 

As of now I`m thinking of testing the different approaches to get the best visibility on the aircraft LODs. Running 1920x1080 on a 24'' screen and still the devilish dots appear and vanish like the old days.  Devs grouping the settings to low/balanced/high/ultra didn`t give the freedom I had hoped to use.

 

I should straighten out these topics ingame before venturing online. Oh and not until I unlock the gunpods.

[Mac_Messer]

I think Winger is right.  From what Mac has said before he seems to have a great deal of online experience.  Multiplayer is a richer experience and much better at getting to grips with the game than all that daft farting around in the campaign.

 

Mac just needs to spring a few more bucks for the premium edition and access the unlocks.

 

Edit; oh yeah...an Nvidia gpu will help too! 

Yeah, a lot of experience. Though it wouldn`t make much difference now, since I don`t feel the Messerschmitts yet. Finding out what maneuvers from 1946 still work and which not in offline skirmishes. For one I`m having a great deal of trouble in G2 against Ace Yak  @2500m, I seem to bleed too much energy in vertical. Makes me think I have to learn the game all over again.

[Bearcat]

Wow... better late than never I guess...

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Pitch all German aircraft to maintain 300 kph for any extended climbs. Yaks and even the La5 will out zoom you in the initial climb if you get slower than 300 from co-E

[ShamrockOneFive]

Yes, I already knew my pc needs an upgrade but on lowest setting the game looks poor, not that it matters too much (I`m a bit dissapointed). It`s tricky with this game cuz when you go up high, the fps hits 100 sometimes, while on AF runway I hit lower 30s.

 

As of now I`m thinking of testing the different approaches to get the best visibility on the aircraft LODs. Running 1920x1080 on a 24'' screen and still the devilish dots appear and vanish like the old days.  Devs grouping the settings to low/balanced/high/ultra didn`t give the freedom I had hoped to use.

 

I should straighten out these topics ingame before venturing online. Oh and not until I unlock the gunpods.

 

Nope... for better or worse the devs took away most of the options. Disable SSAO (as you have) and see if you can get it to run on one of the balanced settings. Check the driver control panel too and see if its imposing any settings by default. I don't know AMD well but nVidia sometimes has some default settings that you don't want. You'll need to experiment unfortunately and I'm not sure if we can help you too much there.

[SR-F_Winger]

Way to address none of OP's questions... 

Wasnt my intent. I wanted to welcome him. And ask him to become part of MP community just like i wrote in my post.

His answers have sufficiently answered already. I am just being polite here. Unlike you.

Edited December 15, 2015 by VSG1_Winger

[Mac_Messer]

Pitch all German aircraft to maintain 300 kph for any extended climbs. Yaks and even the La5 will out zoom you in the initial climb if you get slower than 300 from co-E

If you`re talking initial climb, that may be correct. I remember from IL2:1946 it was closer to 280kph but that may aswell refer to spiral climb. Tried spiral climbing several times with AI and I see the Yak 1 can keep up very well, even against G2, which was unthinkable for me earlier. The first Yak to ever endanger a G2 was Yak9.

[Y-29.SugaBizkit]

If you`re talking initial climb, that may be correct. I remember from IL2:1946 it was closer to 280kph but that may aswell refer to spiral climb. Tried spiral climbing several times with AI and I see the Yak 1 can keep up very well, even against G2, which was unthinkable for me earlier. The first Yak to ever endanger a G2 was Yak9.

 

 

You have to get your preconceived notions about how planes act out of your head.

 

While 1946 was a great sim at its time (and even today), it still has a much more basic flight model and engine management model than what is present here. As well as that, 1946 was notorious for "strange FM behaviors".

 

It is a case of learning to fly all over again, but with your past experience, it'll be a lot easier to adjust to than you think

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

If you`re talking initial climb, that may be correct. I remember from IL2:1946 it was closer to 280kph but that may aswell refer to spiral climb. Tried spiral climbing several times with AI and I see the Yak 1 can keep up very well, even against G2, which was unthinkable for me earlier. The first Yak to ever endanger a G2 was Yak9.

In two plus years, from co-E, I have never been out-raced at any altitude by a Russian crate in a steady 300kph climb. Not even once. Pitch for angle and let your speed decay naturally. If the Russian has E on you, you will have to solve that first. The keys here are: co-E and proper angle.

 

(This includes climbs from 20m to 4000'ish meters with multiple adversaries in my Fw where it is inadvisable to attempt any type of angles fighting)

 

And I agree with Suga. You are gonna have to leave your '46 reference data on the shelf. These FM's are not those FM's. Similar in many respects but clearly not the same overall.

Edited December 17, 2015 by [LBS]HerrMurf

[FuriousMeow]

Each plane has only certain trim. The 109 and 190 only have horizontal stabilizer trim, not elevator/aileron/rudder. You need to make sure you have the buttons set to the proper entries in the settings menu. I have all trim programmed to three switches, I use one switch for both elevator and the horizontal stabilizer trim as aircraft only have one or the other, on my throttle and they work perfect for every airplane. I can hold in one direction for constant trim input, or I can press a single input for a small increment.

 

The G2 should "feel" heavier than the 109F4, it is heavier. Yes it has a more powerful engine, but it is still heavier. I prefer the 109G2 over the F4.

Edited December 18, 2015 by FuriousMeow

[Mac_Messer]

Each plane has only certain trim. The 109 and 190 only have horizontal stabilizer trim, not elevator/aileron/rudder. You need to make sure you have the buttons set to the proper entries in the settings menu. I have all trim programmed to three switches, I use one switch for both elevator and the horizontal stabilizer trim as aircraft only have one or the other, on my throttle and they work perfect for every airplane. I can hold in one direction for constant trim input, or I can press a single input for a small increment.

 

The G2 should "feel" heavier than the 109F4, it is heavier. Yes it has a more powerful engine, but it is still heavier. I prefer the 109G2 over the F4.

G-2`s character in BoS imo feels a lot closer to the G-6. 1946 G-2 was heavier but not sluggish and could easily  outmaneuver VVS counterparts in vertical. It could travel on the verge of stall at lower speed than the Yak which nornally fell out of the fight, BoS G-2 power/weight ratio feels very sluggish, E retention also seems to be a lot worse.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Yes, but you can't really use another sim as the basis for FM's. It just does not translate.

[FuriousMeow]

The FM is more advanced here, it accounts for more atmospheric conditions, more individual aircraft intricacies and differences between models. HerrMurf is absolutely correct, simply can't use sims to compare. It is heavier than the 109F4, and it performs that way.

 

Forget 1946, that isn't even something that is a decent benchmark anyway.

[Mac_Messer]

The FM is more advanced here, it accounts for more atmospheric conditions, more individual aircraft intricacies and differences between models. HerrMurf is absolutely correct, simply can't use sims to compare. It is heavier than the 109F4, and it performs that way.

 

Forget 1946, that isn't even something that is a decent benchmark anyway.

Does BoS take into account less than stellar VVS aircraft production quality and low engine life?

 

Yes, but you can't really use another sim as the basis for FM's. It just does not translate.

A flawed argument. It is an interpretation of technical data. You can`t redefine the flight characteristics of an aircraft based on the same data everytime you make a new sim.

[Dakpilot]

But you can compare the difference between a hugely simplified flight model and one that takes a lot more parameters, original IL-2 although great and groundbreaking in its time used a massively simpler flight model than BoS/RoF

 

While there was a period of poor quality production from some factories, how would you decide which ones would be in game? and defects were mostly fixed in the field after delivery, all aircraft in game are considered line production in good condition.

 

While it would be great to take into account the shorter life of Russian engines over a Career i doubt most would survive long enough to see the effect, massive production after mid 1942 allowed plenty of spare engines to change, compared to Luftwaffe's supply issues

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Does BoS take into account less than stellar VVS aircraft production quality and low engine life?

 

A flawed argument. It is an interpretation of technical data. You can`t redefine the flight characteristics of an aircraft based on the same data everytime you make a new sim.

Of course you can. We don't interpret medical data about cancer based upon data from 1863! And some of the planes were clearly, even obnoxiously, misrepresented in '46. I don't expect our devs to simply carry forward without their own research while applying more advanced techniques and interpretations of the data.

[Mac_Messer]

But you can compare the difference between a hugely simplified flight model and one that takes a lot more parameters, original IL-2 although great and groundbreaking in its time used a massively simpler flight model than BoS/RoF

 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

That makes sence. I just can`t see why it would massively change a certain aircraft`s FM.

Of course you can. We don't interpret medical data about cancer based upon data from 1863! And some of the planes were clearly, even obnoxiously, misrepresented in '46. I don't expect our devs to simply carry forward without their own research while applying more advanced techniques and interpretations of the data.

Well, Dakpilot already explained that although I disagree with you. We don`t have factory spec aircraft flying around to test them, we depend on the data that was introduced a while ago. Did 777 find alternate data or did they change FM criteria?

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

That makes sence. I just can`t see why it would massively change a certain aircraft`s FM.

Well, Dakpilot already explained that although I disagree with you. We don`t have factory spec aircraft flying around to test them, we depend on the data that was introduced a while ago. Did 777 find alternate data or did they change FM criteria?

There are numerous data streams on most aircraft in WWII. Factory data, military test/acceptance data, captured AC data..................secret data, etc. The Dev's do get interpret the data and decide for themselves which has the most veracity. They do get to pick and choose data to a certain extent. Just as, or maybe more, importantly they get to drop that data in to an infinitely more complex game engine which further interprets the input/output. In many cases the data will match '46 - as physics is physics - but it may also differ significantly because of errors in that earlier engine or parameters simply could not be modeled a dozen years ago based upon available computing power. Even if they used the exact input/data, the output/results would not be exact because of the two different engines doing the final interpretation.

[FuriousMeow]

That makes sence. I just can`t see why it would massively change a certain aircraft`s FM.

 

 

It doesn't. The 109G2 in the old Il-2 series was entirely too generous in its maneuverability. It's handling was entirely too responsive. It was as if there were no stick forces, it was simply a robot throwing the control surfaces around at will.

[Mac_Messer]

There are numerous data streams on most aircraft in WWII. Factory data, military test/acceptance data, captured AC data..................secret data, etc. The Dev's do get interpret the data and decide for themselves which has the most veracity. They do get to pick and choose data to a certain extent.

I need to read up forum on what data they picked. I wonder if 777 used captured FW190 tests or not. My initial impression is that LW is weaker than in 1946, but that is a very personal opinion.

It doesn't. The 109G2 in the old Il-2 series was entirely too generous in its maneuverability. It's handling was entirely too responsive. It was as if there were no stick forces, it was simply a robot throwing the control surfaces around at will.

TBH if this is 777`s G2 then I don`t want to see their most produced G6. Although I agree that G2 in 1946 has always been a bit too good if you ask me.

 

The first chance I get I`m going to pick up the Anton cuz I`m curious if it is even worse here than in 1946.

Edited December 18, 2015 by Mac_Messer

[Sokol1]

Does BoS take into account less than stellar VVS aircraft production quality and low engine life?

 

The question is: how this will weight in the games where every plane has 15/20 minutes of virtual life (few times they fly around one hour)?

 

Will be funny see plane parts became falling with 30 minutes of flight... 

 

TECHAT: "Due excess of Vodka consumption be workers of Factory Nº 23 your throttle cable are broken".   

Edited December 18, 2015 by Sokol1

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

It has to be accounted for that while many production machines came borked the mechanics were very strict about getting everything up to standard and cooperated with the pilots for that. For example a new engine was tested meticulously for about 8 hours if I remember correctly to ensure the aircraft would meet factory specs - if it didn't, they would try to find the problem, test it again and ultimately if results were unsatisfactory they tossed that unit and installed a new one. Aircraft who had a new engine installed were not allowed to go into combat unless they passed these tests. Poor construction nonetheless caused a lot of problems (such as some Yakovlev factories skimping on glue and causing planes to fall apart when close to Vne) but people uphold the "bad Soviet construction" story to a level where if it was true the whole VVS-KA and VVS-VMF would have either been grounded throughout the war and whatever took off crashed before reaching the target area. Yes, this nearly happened with the T-34 in 1941 but that was a different story.

 

From before the war there was quite a culture within the Army Air Force and Navy Air Force of making pilots able to meet test results with their aircraft. When the war broke out you had some very skilled pilots in terms of pure flying but who lacked good combat training.

 

Of course, in 1941 there wasn't all that luxury and whatever flew would be sent up, but by the logic people use here we should also make every 109 flying from encircled airfields in Stalingrad fly a little worse because supply lines were basically gone, or perhaps make the 109G-2 fill up with smoke and lose engine power the same way Marseille's did.

[DD_Arthur]

The first chance I get I`m going to pick up the Anton cuz I`m curious if it is even worse here than in 1946.

 

Do you want the good news or the bad news?

[ShamrockOneFive]

I need to read up forum on what data they picked. I wonder if 777 used captured FW190 tests or not. My initial impression is that LW is weaker than in 1946, but that is a very personal opinion.

TBH if this is 777`s G2 then I don`t want to see their most produced G6. Although I agree that G2 in 1946 has always been a bit too good if you ask me.

 

The first chance I get I`m going to pick up the Anton cuz I`m curious if it is even worse here than in 1946.

 

I wouldn't necessarily use 1946 as a basis point. It was fairly well understood in the forums (after years of arguing) that the 109G-2 was over generous and the 109G-6 was a stick heavy disaster. It got better in the TD patches but it was still a bit of a mess. Years of flying online and seeing players flock to the 109G-2 over other versions confirmed that. Here we have something more approaching reality although nothing is perfect.

 

The difference in IL-2: BoS is that the devs have the aircraft specced and up against the competition that they should be up against. If you did 109G-2 versus Yak-1 in Il-2 1946 you'd be fighting with a G-2 that had 1943 level engine boost and a Yak-1 with series construction from the early stages and without the upgraded engine. Here we have different sub variations and engine specs and so it looks pretty different and IMHO its both historical and more balanced to what would have been in the field.

 

IMHO, the FW190A-3 is better represented than in IL-2 1946 - it doesn't struggle to show down or speed up, it flies at the slightly nose down pitch that pilots always talked about, and it has the handling vices I've read about. It's very good. I'm not 100% on the roll rate and I know some of the guys have issues with speed/climb at different seasons but as an enthusiast of the type I appreciate the attention to detail even if there may be room to improve. Plus... the A-3 is not the definitive East Front model. I'm hoping to see a A-5 some day

Edited December 19, 2015 by ShamrockOneFive

[Mac_Messer]

Another question for the campaign : can I change intensity settings so I have more than 10 aircraft flying every mission (3-4 enemy planes)?

The question is: how this will weight in the games where every plane has 15/20 minutes of virtual life (few times they fly around one hour)?

 

Easy. Make LW machines more resistant to emergency engine power, not some 1 minute limits.

Of course, in 1941 there wasn't all that luxury and whatever flew would be sent up, but by the logic people use here we should also make every 109 flying from encircled airfields in Stalingrad fly a little worse because supply lines were basically gone, or perhaps make the 109G-2 fill up with smoke and lose engine power the same way Marseille's did.

Wiki says the situation for nazis wasn`t so dire until November 1942. But since you said that, in online wars people flew such sorties from surrounded AFs many times.

I wouldn't necessarily use 1946 as a basis point. It was fairly well understood in the forums (after years of arguing) that the 109G-2 was over generous and the 109G-6 was a stick heavy disaster. It got better in the TD patches but it was still a bit of a mess. Years of flying online and seeing players flock to the 109G-2 over other versions confirmed that. Here we have something more approaching reality although nothing is perfect.

 

The difference in IL-2: BoS is that the devs have the aircraft specced and up against the competition that they should be up against. If you did 109G-2 versus Yak-1 in Il-2 1946 you'd be fighting with a G-2 that had 1943 level engine boost and a Yak-1 with series construction from the early stages and without the upgraded engine. Here we have different sub variations and engine specs and so it looks pretty different and IMHO its both historical and more balanced to what would have been in the field.

So is the actual Yak-1 in the game closer to the 1b version spec? Looking at the devs logic in presenting different variants I`d say the 109G6vYak9/9D is going to be a disaster for LW.

Edited December 19, 2015 by Mac_Messer

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

The Yak-1 version here was the last production series before the bubble cockpit was implemented. In other words, it had many aerodynamic and weight-reduction refinements that went into the Yak-1B, effectively being a pseudo-Yak-1B with the razorback. During most of Stalingrad, this version together with the Yak-7 with the same M-105PF engine were predominant, and both were no slouches.

 

The G-6 vs. Yak-9 match-up will be of a 109 that is heavier than the F-4 and a Yak that is heavier than the Yak-1B. The Yak-9D was even heavier since it increased internal fuel significantly, so expect an even match.

 

To increase intensity of enemy aircraft check Pat Wilson's Campaign Generator in the 3rd Party Software section of the forums, it allows for customisable campaigns.

Edited December 19, 2015 by Lucas_From_Hell

[TheElf]

G-2`s character in BoS imo feels a lot closer to the G-6. 1946 G-2 was heavier but not sluggish and could easily  outmaneuver VVS counterparts in vertical. It could travel on the verge of stall at lower speed than the Yak which nornally fell out of the fight, BoS G-2 power/weight ratio feels very sluggish, E retention also seems to be a lot worse.

 

You definitely won't see this in BoS.

 

 Last night I watched in horror as a Yak, some 1000m below followed me in my F-4 through and immelman at min vertical airspeed (~300kmh) , reached the top of his immelman, and then from near stall speed...100-120 kmh immediately followed me up into another Immelman ( I was at 300 kmh again using E-power) and then CLIMBING with full flaps riddled my cockpit, injuring my pilot, and forcing me to disengage and RTB, while standing his aircraft on its prop and shooting form 500-700m below from a pure vertical.  He then effortlessly went into a hammerhead stall and recovered to give chase as I retired.

 

Yak's only fall out of the sky when they are filled with 20mm weights...

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Elf,

 

You seriously misjudged your relative E states if this occurred or you pitched way too hard in your escape. Further, using an Immelmann in a WWII era fighter is ill advised against anything other than bombers. He probably dived below you, trading altitude for airspeed, before pulling into the vertical. I've seen this online a lot from Russian crates. I've seen it often in a straight foot race as well. It usually gives them one good pass but let's you extend as it actually burns E in the long run.

 

He had a much bigger head of steam than you estimated here. The flaps are clearly, unequivocally, an issue in game but will not compensate for a 1000m altitude gap under normal conditions. 500 probably but not 1000.

 

*Gotta appreciate a 500-700m shot. It was either extraordinary skill or extraordinary luck. Not a high percentage shot by any means.

Edited December 19, 2015 by [LBS]HerrMurf