Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 часа назад, Norz сказал:

Can you go deeply with your example of the La5? I don't understand what you mean.

I believe in you, calculation professional, you understand what it is.

La5          Maximum true air speed at sea level, engine mode - Boosted: 544 km/h

 

Edited by JGr8_Leopard
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JGr8_Leopard said:

I believe in you, numbers pro, you understand what it is.

La5

Maximum true air speed at sea level, engine mode - Boosted: 544 km/h

 

Really? Did you try it on the map No4:)?

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, mincer said:

F4 has dive speed limit of 850, La5's limit is 720, and most sane pilots start pulling off even earlier it becomes scary very fast. If you have altitude, you can always outdive your opponent in a 109 on the Eastern Front.

 

It is not only about that. Just imagine that 109 and La5 have the same speed at the current moment: 540 km/h. Your attitude (Bf109 F2, F4, G2, G4, 190A3 (maybe 190A5 also, not sure about it)) is 100m. The distance between 2 planes is 500m. The solution: climb 450--400km/h from La5. Everyone who will try to go away from La5 at 100m is doing it wrong (or better to say not optimal).

Edited by Norz
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 минут назад, mincer сказал:

F4 has dive speed limit of 850, La5's limit is 720, and most sane pilots start pulling off even earlier it becomes scary very fast. If you have altitude, you can always outdive your opponent in a 109 on the Eastern Front.

Which is faster, Yak-9 or La-5?
Yak-9 easily and playfully fled from 109. Now tell me how they catch up with you on La-5.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, JGr8_Leopard said:

Which is faster, Yak-9 or La-5?
Yak-9 easily and playfully fled from 109. Now tell me how they catch up with you on La-5.

 


I am talking about a situation, when you are escaping in a 109 in a dive. You can reach much higher speed than any soviet airplane -- they lose control surfaces much earlier. Yak 9 will disintegrate at 750 km/h, while 109 (or a 190) will be just fine. 
 

With regards to the track, what were the initial altitudes and the speeds of Yak9 and 109s? Did 109s use emergency power? My guess is that they could not use the full power because they exhausted it before, or they did not deem it worthy in that particular situation.

Edited by mincer
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 минут назад, mincer сказал:

what were the initial altitudes and the speeds of Yak9 and 109s? Did 109s use emergency power? My guess is that they could not use the full power because they exhausted it before, or they did not deem it worthy in that particular situation.

109 were a little higher, went down a little to accelerate, turned for yak9. Used 90-95% throttle.

Yak9 is a very cool plane 1943 to use instead of Yak1b. It should only be given together with La5-FN on map 7 and 8.

Edited by JGr8_Leopard
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, JGr8_Leopard said:

109 were a little higher, went down a little to accelerate, turned for yak9. Used 90-95% throttle.

Yak9 is a very cool plane 1943 to use instead of Yak1b. It should only be given together with La5-FN on map 7 and 8.

 

I will ask you once more. Why can't you play the current set on the red side? I am sure that you will not ask it for ever.

Edited by Norz
Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI, we have good old IL2 Compare WITH DATA FOR THIS GAME available now to help with these kinds of discussions:

So for example here we can see that the F4 is faster than the G2 at at all altitudes below 6600m:

image.thumb.png.5d529df559bc615c0f3684a8b5ab2203.png

 

The Yak 1b is faster than the 9 at all altitudes:

image.thumb.png.0290dc9a6ee58462378ec73c3b986d87.png

 

The F4 is faster than all Yaks at all altitudes; the Yak 1b comes closest, being just a couple km/h slower at 1000m:

image.thumb.png.eb109fe0821aeaf0226583bf8354b12f.png

 

The La5 series8 is a bit faster than the F4 below 1200m:

image.thumb.png.dd8ce844dcbb63cf312bd349a7838a6a.png

 

But slower than the 190 A3 and A5 at all altitudes:

image.thumb.png.7666105c42874e70cc18178c50eca6f1.png

 

 

These graphs assume all things being equal; of course it's possible for a Yak 9 to pull away from an F4 if it had more altitude/energy at the start of the fight, or if they got low and slow and the Yak decided to run away from the fight with a nearly empty tank while the F4 had a full tank, or if they entered the fight on even terms but the Yak made his turns more efficiently and lost less energy, or if the F4 pilot decided not to engage emergency boost for example.

Edited by WokeUpDead
emphasis for the comprehension-impaired
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, WokeUpDead said:

FYI, we have good old IL2 Compare with data for this game available now to help with these kinds of discussions:

These graphs assume all things being equal; of course it's possible for a Yak 9 to pull away from an F4 if it had more altitude/energy at the start of the fight, or if they got low and slow and the Yak decided to run away from the fight with a nearly empty tank while the F4 had a full tank, or if they entered the fight on even terms but the Yak made his turns more efficiently and lost less energy, or if the F4 pilot decided not to engage emergency boost for example.

 
 
 

 

IL2 compare has nothing in common with the game IL2 BOS etc. But anyway, someone who will prefer 109g2 at 7500m instead of 109f4 is not correct for 100%. You can boost 109f4 and got +3..4 km/h. Or you can fly 1,34ATA and be very close to 109g2 (about 6 km/h less)

 

 

Edited by Norz
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ACG_HardeKoning said:

It's data from Il-2: Great Battles? Have you even clicked the link?

 

CountZero created this dataset manually. Noone knows if it has actual data for the current version.

 

For example, what does it mean 109g2 100% and 109g2 max?

Edited by Norz
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Norz said:

 

CountZero created this dataset manually. Noone knows if it has actual data for the current version.

 

For example, what does it mean 109g2 100% and 109g2 max?

 

 

29 minutes ago, JGr8_Leopard said:

this is an ABSOLUTELY different game

%D0%B4%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B9%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%

 

Read the Count's post then slap your own foreheads.

 

The tool is from IL2 1946 but the data is from this game. He created it using methodology described in the post.

 

The two different lines for most planes mean different things for each plane, but usually the slower line is the max speed at which the plane can be flown at continuously, while the faster line is a temporary boost like emergency power for the planes that have it, or radiator/pitch settings that will cause the engine to overheat if flown too long. So for the 109G2 for example: "on 109G2 2nd line is manual rpm up to 2800 for 1-2min"

 

 

 

Edited by WokeUpDead
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, WokeUpDead said:

So for the 109G2 for example: "on 109G2 2nd line is manual rpm up to 2800 for 1-2min"

 
 
 

 

TY for the info. I thought all years that it does not affect the speed (for 109g2). Now I see that it does.

Edited by Norz
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Norz said:

 

TY for the info. I thought all years that it does not affect the speed (for 109g2). Now I see that it does.

 

Glad you're finding it helpful. There were definitely "prop pitch tricks" in the old 1946, to the point of non-historical ridiculousness on the K4 if I remember correctly that needed to be fixed in subsequent patches and releases. In this game, for the G2 at least, it appears to give just a minimal boost at limited altitudes and for a limited time. I'm guessing with patience and dedication to testing one could uncover more such examples in other planes with auto-pitch.

Edited by WokeUpDead
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, SCG_Vieira said:

Regarding the use of the Po-2, I would love to see it as a special operations plane, bringing saboteurs into enemy territory.

 

We could use airfields that are not being used, close to the targets (like depots or airfields) that would be marked on the map only for the red team with a small circle (similar to the Ju-52 para missions). The Po-2 would need to successfully land, turn off is engine, turn on is engine (or some type of countdown of 30s to 1m), take off and land safely in a friendly airfield. This would cause a 10% damage on the target with a 50% chance probability  

 

Cool idea, but it's vulnerable to the "check the map from the other side before I select my side" exploit. Some ideas to mitigate it:

  • Don't enable the special operation until at least 30 minutes into the map. I think the exploit is used most during the first few minutes when players from the last map carry-over to the new one.
  • Have more than one possible special operations target on the map to split defenses.
  • Don't show the special operations target airfield on the map, instead announce its location periodically via server message to the red team.
Edited by WokeUpDead
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, =19GvFAB=Vlad-Executor said:

 

People, estimate the damage model. Is there an explanation for what is happening? :)

 

 

 Before we estimate the DM of the rockects, I think we need more planes. How about shooting them lets say to the Yak-9 for example. Which is my favorite red plane, it`s great. Hurricane might be a good target also.

 

I haven`t done it, I`m curious to see how it goes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 минут назад, LLv24_Zami сказал:

 Before we estimate the DM of the rockects, I think we need more planes. How about shooting them lets say to the Yak-9 for example. Which is my favorite red plane, it`s great. Hurricane might be a good target also.

 

I haven`t done it, I`m curious to see how it goes.

Something like this 🤔

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, =19GvFAB=Vlad-Executor said:

Something like this 🤔

 

 

Sure, but no Yak-9 or Hurricane. Theres a lot of Yaks flying and mostly who got hit was to the wing. I`ll see the rest of it. 6.30 and 7.20 theres a direct hit to to La-5 which has no effect at all. 

 

I think you`re right, something is off with the rocket modeling. I`ll pass it forward. Thanks!

Edited by LLv24_Zami
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LLv24_Zami said:

Sure, but no Yak-9 or Hurricane. Theres a lot of Yaks flying and mostly who got hit was to the wing. I`ll see the rest of it. 6.30 and 7.20 theres a direct hit to to La-5 which has no effect at all. 

 

I think you`re right, something is off with the rocket modeling. I`ll pass it forward. Thanks!

It’s more likely an issue in the modelling of the tails, not the rockets. If you hit a bomber with a rocket at even a slight angle off 6 and a tiny bit below or above, it usually causes critical damage. I think some fighters have iron tails. Maybe there simply aren’t enough critical components back there, so the rocket is damaging just the skin. Maybe the control cables and surfaces should be more fragile, maybe even the whole tail could break off.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, WokeUpDead said:

It’s more likely an issue in the modelling of the tails, not the rockets. If you hit a bomber with a rocket at even a slight angle off 6 and a tiny bit below or above, it usually causes critical damage. I think some fighters have iron tails. Maybe there simply aren’t enough critical components back there, so the rocket is damaging just the skin. Maybe the control cables and surfaces should be more fragile, maybe even the whole tail could break off.

Just yesterday I was thinking about this when I blasted LaGG from six o`clock at very close range with long burst intentionally aiming and hitting it`s tail to end the fight quickly. Tail stayed with the rest of the plane and I prefer it that way. I don`t think it was very common to cut the whole tail of the airplane in WW2 with normal weapons.

 

I`m not saying there`s no room for improvement, there always is. If you hit something with a rocket like in the videos, it should do serious damage. But it´s not a very common weapon used in the game against airplanes. 

Edited by LLv24_Zami
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, HR_Tumu said:

About last videos: better don't talk too much about this things here. In general better don't talk nothing if u want the post still open.

Why, we talked about it and nobody died.

Edited by LLv24_Zami
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 часов назад, WokeUpDead сказал:

It’s more likely an issue in the modelling of the tails, not the rockets. If you hit a bomber with a rocket at even a slight angle off 6 and a tiny bit below or above, it usually causes critical damage. I think some fighters have iron tails. Maybe there simply aren’t enough critical components back there, so the rocket is damaging just the skin. Maybe the control cables and surfaces should be more fragile, maybe even the whole tail could break off.

 

Sample of tails damage: 2:33:00 - 2:34:02 😬

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/26/2020 at 5:43 AM, Operation_Ivy said:

You know what would fix a lot of our problems?

 

increasing the map duration significantly to even out the spikes in player numbers of either side.

 

Maybe it is not possible technically to increase the map duration significantly but maybe there is a workaround for it. Our current problem is that targets die too quickly in hours where there are only very few players online. Maybe it is possible to "slow" the gameflow down by either making the missions longer or the targets tougher?

 

It would help a lot if during a player spike they could only significantly influence one missions instead of being able to roll half the map or more.


I somehow missed this post, but I think it is a good idea.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/30/2020 at 4:24 PM, Norz said:

 

TY for the info. I thought all years that it does not affect the speed (for 109g2). Now I see that it does.

 

Only above 6000m though; It's because above 6000m, at the max rpm the auto limiter will allow it to go (2600rpm), it starts to lose manifold pressure. 

 

You can maintain the full 1.3ata for a decent bit more altitude by raising RPM as manifold pressure falls. 

 

Just a little above 6000m, say 6200m, it wouldn't help to use the full 2800rpm; just enough above 2600rpm to keep 1.3ata... that way you can maximize the engine timer and be most efficient for max power.  Only at about 7000m would you need the full 2800rpm for max power/speed.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...