Developer Diary, Part 138 - Discussion

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Hiromachi, have you joined FNQF, FNBF or SNBF by any chance? Try to hop on next week if you have the time.

 

On FNBF we were being overran and shot down like flies until we started coordinating out of need. We formed strike groups of 4-6 Il-2s with 2-4 close escort, nearly all from the 216th, while 4-8 pilots from the Polish 307th squadron did sweeps at the target area keeping us informed of enemy movements. That way the enemy fighters suffered losses because they only fought fighters, and the bombers were nearly always not engaged. We ended the campaign before the Axis could even see Stalingrad because of that, it was a great experience.

I'd hop one day for sure, might drag with me Solty. But I think I'm too reckless

Anyway, thank you for offer Lucas. Will see if I can find time !

 

But thats exactly what I'm talking of, and what you did was one of tactics commonly used on various fronts with two escort groups - close one providing cover and one ahead sweeping the area in front. Glad to hear that something like this actually happens.

[Sokol1]

 

A.S. Yes, but the scores of the aces were in the hundreds. Wasn’t there a direct relationship: “the more you shot down, the greater losses you inflicted on the enemy, and the more it contributed toward victory”?

N.G. No,  that direct relationship did not exist. Everything was caught up in the priority of missions. The Germans had this problem throughout the war and never did resolve it properly.

Here is an example for you. During the escort of their own bombers German fighter pilots were constantly distracted and got tangled up in secondary aerial engagements. It turns out that the Luftwaffe command, when it prioritized missions to its pilots, gave protection of their own bombers and destruction of enemy aircraft the same priority. Under these circumstances, the German fighter pilots chose to get kills. How this all came out in the end—you know.

 

 

Source: http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/golodnikov/part4.htm

 

There's a online article about this Lw mentality by occasion of EL Alamein Battle.

 

While the whole Jg 27 have as mission basically watch Marseille and other "Stars" six in their hunting,

the RAF bombers have liberty to attack AK supply lines and rear bases, what make difference in the battle, 

while the score of aces in dogfigth only served to propaganda. 

Edited November 4, 2016 by Sokol1

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Shoot me a message when you do, I'll see if I can join up as well.

 

The knack was to plan secondary objectives as well in case the main target area was too hot. It worked so well because Banzai is more efficient than an E-3 at reporting threats, Peterla can navigate a group of ten through the middle of nowhere and still get there and back alive, and everyone else was willing to contribute while also having a good time.

[Danziger]

I'd rather say that MiG-3 had a lot more in common with Arsenal VG-33, at least by the look at it

 

Also, I have already posted once a very good explanation on the reasons why German pilots achieved such big scores while many of their Soviet competitors died or scored just a small % of what Luftwaffe pilot could:

 

 

A.S. It is well known that the Germans frequently built a group of fighters as an ace and his “support and cover team”. How often did the Germans employ this method and what, in your view, were the shortcomings of this method of conduct of battle?

N.G. In the first half of the war, the Germans very broadly employed the tactic “one or two fight and six provide cover”. This also occurred at the end of the war, but significantly less often. Of the most well known who worked with a “cover group”, in the Far North we had Müller. [Rudolph Müller, JG 5, 94 victories, shot down and captured on 19 April 1943—JG]

Later, when the Luftwaffe began to experience a serious shortage of fighter aircraft, they were forced to abandon this method. They had already expended a large quantity of serviceable aircraft. It seems that the pilots who were tied down in covering the ace were unable to do anything else.

When they attacked our bombers, we, naturally, were providing cover. When we became more experienced, we did not bother with the cover group but immediately organized an attack on the ace. The rest of them, all of his “team”, abandoned the bombers and threw themselves on us, which was precisely what we wanted. Our primary mission was to protect the bombers and, it turned out, that the Germans by their own tactics helped us to accomplish our mission. Of course, one could amass an astronomical personal score by this method, with the assistance of a team. But from the point of view of strategy, this method was a failure.

In general this method can be employed, but only if you have serious numerical superiority, along with a “free hunt”. Near the end of the war, we began to fly “free hunt” more frequently. We had numerical superiority, which permitted us to do this. We went out in fours, as a rule, but at tree-top level. We already knew where their lines of communication were and where transport aircraft flew. We went out, struck at them, and immediately departed the area. We did not fly on “free hunt” when we were few in number.

 

A.S. Tell us, Nikolay Gerasimovich, what were the weak aspects of German fighter pilots in 1942?

N.G. They had none of the weaknesses that hit you in the face. They were very calculating and did not like to take risks. They liked to get kills. They really made money on this.

 

 

A.S. This was a shortcoming?

N.G. Often, yes. We also got paid for our kills, but for us this bounty was the least of our concerns. It was not that way for the Germans. If they shot someone down, they received money. If they did not discard their drop tanks, they also got paid.

 

A.S. Was it common for them not to discard their drop tanks?

N.G. Yes, frequently. Several times we were attacked by German fighters still holding their drop tanks and we couldn’t understand why the pilot did not drop his tank before an attack. Then POWs explained that they paid something for a drop tank brought back—its full value or a fraction of their full value. This is how they conducted aerial combat: to make sure to shoot someone down and remain untouched themselves.

 

A.S. What’s so bad about that?

N.G. Often, in order to be victorious, one has to risk it all and tilt the battle in one’s own favor. But the Germans did not like to take risks. If they felt that the battle was equal or was just beginning to develop not in their favor, they preferred to withdraw from combat more quickly.

 

A.S. Well, that’s correct. The next time they might win it all.

N.G. It depends! There are times when situation does not repeat itself. There are such battles when one must fight to the death—there will be no “next time”.

 

A.S. Can you give us an example?

N.G. The defense of a facility or convoy against the attack of bombers, or escorting one’s own bombers. Here you die, you provide the escort, without any “next time”.

And just the same German fighter pilots had a single, overarching deficiency. A serious shortcoming, in my opinion.

The Germans could be engaged in battle when it was entirely unnecessary. For example, during the escorting of their own bombers. The whole war we took advantage of this. One group tied down the escort fighters in combat, attracting the fighters to themselves, while the other group attacked the German bombers.

The Germans jumped at a chance for a kill. They abandoned the bombers immediately and ignored the fact that our other group would shoot down the bombers, so long as we had the strength.

 

A.S. I didn’t think the German escorts would be so careless.

N.G. Well, how else could we, flying Hurricanes, shoot down the German bombers? Had they covered their bombers like we protected ours, we never would have gotten to them.

Overall, I got the impression that bombers were not a priority in the Luftwaffe. Their priority was fighters and then reconnaissance. One had unbelievable freedom of action and the other had the very best cover. But bombers, this was a “flat iron”. Hey, they have gunners—they fend off attackers or they don’t—whatever happens, it’s on them.

Formally, the Germans escorted their attack formations very heavily, but just get involved in battle and poof—the cover evaporated. It was relatively easy to distract them and it remained so for the entire war.

At the beginning of the war, in one of these distraction engagements, the Germans were lured away unbelievably easily, because our fighters were always in the minority and in technical and tactical characteristics were less capable.

The likelihood that the German pilots would shoot someone down was high. They were glad to become engaged in any battle, just give them a reason. It was clear that they were paid very good money for each victory. This cavalierness surprises me to this day.

 

A.S. Nikolay Gerasimovich, you have implied that by the end of the war the German pilots openly disregarded their duties for covering troops and facilities. How was this manifested?

N.G. An example. We were escorting shturmoviks. German fighters showed up and circled around but did not attack. They were too few in number. Our Il-2s were working over the front line area—the Germans still did not attack. They concentrated and brought in fighters from other sectors. The Il-2s departed from the target area just as the Germans launched their attack. By this time the Germans had concentrated and had gained numerical superiority of 3:1. What was the sense in this attack? The Il-2s had already done their work. Only for personal score. This happened often.

 

A.S. Wow!

N.G. Yes, and there were even more interesting cases.

 

A.S. More interesting?

N.G. The Germans had a habit of circling around us but not attacking. They were not fools; their intelligence was working. Red-nosed Airacobras belonged to the 2d GIAP VVS KSF [Guards Fighter Air Regiment, Air Forces of Red-Banner Northern Fleet]. They were not about to lose their heads by tangling with the elite Guards. They might get shot down. It was better to wait around for easier prey. Very calculating.

 

A.S. Nikolay Gerasimovich, in you view, what explains the tendency of German pilots toward enlargement of their personal score?

N.G. To us it was crazy. You know, when we shot down Müller, they brought him in to us. I remember him well. Average height, athletic build, red-haired. We were surprised that he was only an oberfeldvebel [master sergeant]. This was an ace with more than 90 victories! I still remember how surprising it was to learn that his father was a simple tailor.

Well, this Müller, when we asked him about Hitler, declared that politics did not motivate him; he did not have any hatred toward Russians. He was a “sportsman”; results were important to him and he wanted to shoot down more. His “cover group” engaged in combat and he, the “sportsman”, struck or did not strike as he pleased.

I got the impression that many German fighter pilots were just such “sportsmen”. It was all about money and glory.

 

A.S. Well, let’s agree that for the German fighter pilots—“sportsmen”—the war was a form of sport. What was the war for our pilots, for you personally?

N.G. It was the same for me as for all the rest. Work. Back-breaking, bloody, dirty, fearsome, and never-ending work. To withstand which was possible only because we were defending the Motherland. It was nothing close to a sport.

 

A.S. Nikolay Gerasimovich, it is a well-known fact that in the Luftwaffe, especially in the second half of the war, very often German fighter pilots had the right of independent selection of the place and time of combat. A kind of freedom of action that Allied fighter pilots could not even dream of. In your view, was this a strength of the German fighter command or, conversely, a weakness?

N.G. This was a “loophole”—an attempt to interest the fighter pilots to operate more actively. By all accounts, this measure did not bring any positive results.

Bear in mind that a pilot does not want to fly into those situations where the fate of the war will be decided. They order him to go there because he would not go there on his own. By human nature everyone wants to be a survivor. And “freedom” gives the fighter pilot the “legal” possibility to avoid these places. A “loophole” is transformed into a “hole”.

“Free hunt” was the most preferred method of conduct of the war for a pilot and the least preferred for his army. Why? Because the interests of the rank-and-file pilot almost always basically diverged from the interests both of his own command and of the commander of the forces that his aviation unit supported.

To give complete freedom of actions to all the fighter pilots would be the same as giving complete freedom to all the infantry soldiers on the battlefield. Go where you want, dig in where you want, and shoot when you want. This is absurd. An infantryman cannot know where and when he is most needed because he cannot possibly see the battlefield as a whole.

The same is true of the fighter pilot—the foot soldier of the air war. He could rarely determine correctly both the place and time that he was most needed. A simple rule applied here—the fewer fighter planes (and airplanes in general) one had, the more centralized had to be their command and control. Not the reverse. Fewer in number but employed only in those places were needed and only at the time required, not distracted to the accomplishment of secondary tasks.

It must be said that in the Luftwaffe “free hunt” was used very often in the first half of the war when they had numerical superiority, and less in the second half of the war. One cannot disregard the “free hunt” as a legitimate tactic. In some sectors German “hunters” inflicted significant losses on us, particularly in transport aircraft.

It should also be stated that after the aerial battles on the “Blue Line” [Kuban, summer 1943—JG], the Luftwarffe gradually lost overall air superiority. Toward the end of the war, when air superiority had been completely lost, “free hunt” remained the only method of conduct of battle by German fighter aviation by which they obtained any kind of positive result. In places away from the principal contested areas, they would occasionally “catch” someone. By this time it had become a matter of inflicting a loss—any loss—on the enemy. These “hunts” could not possibly have any effect on the outcome of the war.

 

A.S. Yes, but the scores of the aces were in the hundreds. Wasn’t there a direct relationship: “the more you shot down, the greater losses you inflicted on the enemy, and the more it contributed toward victory”?

N.G. No, that direct relationship did not exist. Everything was caught up in the priority of missions. The Germans had this problem throughout the war and never did resolve it properly.

Here is an example for you. During the escort of their own bombers German fighter pilots were constantly distracted and got tangled up in secondary aerial engagements. It turns out that the Luftwaffe command, when it prioritized missions to its pilots, gave protection of their own bombers and destruction of enemy aircraft the same priority. Under these circumstances, the German fighter pilots chose to get kills. How this all came out in the end—you know.

 

 

Source: http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/golodnikov/part4.htm

This VG-33 does look quite similar as well. The D.520 has the set-back cockpit and side-mounted oil cooler tunnels as well though.

 

I've also read this interview you posted in another place. It's very good. I guess a couple of conclusions could be made. Apparently people count the German vulching of mostly abandoned Soviet airfields as "kills" (I guess that fits with popular online tactics). Also I guess our modern day German "Aces" get shot down so much because they don't have a team of fighters flying cover for them. I guess this could lead to some frustration. Maybe we should put together a special volunteer squad of German Ace cover fighters for these guys to fly with. Maybe then there wouldn't be so many "nerfed FMs" and "red bias".

[3./JG15_Kampf]

Jejeje. If blue complains we are luftwinners. If the reds complain is because they have reasonable feelings.

If is difficult for a good red pilot to land the mig it must be reviewed but If all 190 expert pilots report that is imposible to manouver at hight speed are only feelings not arguments...

 

 

Lets see the conclusion about the 109.

Maybe we will have also nerfed that plane.

+1

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

 In real combat what matters is not only individual pilot skill which is predominant in our virtual flights but skill of the whole group and ability to co-operate and communicate together

 

You are right Hiromachi.

 

In my humble opinion if you want to recreate German success in Operation Barbarossa this is more or less what should be done to do it

 

 

 

 

Have a server, 40 vs 40 for example.

 

German team is consisted of the better online players from servers like TAW, DED etc. Soviet team is consisted mostly of players who purchased the game some weeks ago and flew quick missions to learn how to fly and shoot, maybe a couple with online experience but not a lot.

 

German line up would be let's say 10 Bf-109 F4,  15 Bf-109 F2, 10 Bf-109 E7, and 5 Bf-110 (E?) (proportions are not 100% accurate, just to give an idea).

 

Soviet line up would be around 10 I-15, 10 I-153, 10 I-16 (of which some are type 24 but quite some others are worse type 18 for example), 6 early LaGG (worse engine, heavier and unoptimized in comparison to the one currently in game), 4 early Yak-1 (worse engine).

 

German team is organized in finger four flights and all of them coordinate via TS.   Soviet team isn't coordinated, they don't have TS (only some LaGGs and Yaks would have but would have bugs and poor voice quality).

 

German team starts in the air, with the E7s and 110 with bombs to attack the airfields, and the Soviet team start at the field with the engines stopped and only are allowed to start up when they get attacked. The ones that survive the bombs and strafing will have to face the veteran coordinated Bf-109 and they will fly uncoordinated or at best in vic formations following a leader via flares or pilot gestures.

 

 

 

 

Then you will have the historical German stomp. I'm not saying the FMs are perfect, but a lot more things should be considered when asking for historical outcomes in a combat simulation.

[Finkeren]

I don't get it. Why would we necessarilly want historical outcomes to the scenarios we create? Isn't the point of what we're doing here to set up a historical (or at least historically plausible) scenario and the throw ourselves into the mix and see what happens? To say that "the Luftwaffe should stomp on the VVS every single time" is silly. Why would we want to know the outcome of every battle beforehand?

 

I agree, that we should have the most accurate FM possible for all aircraft (point me to just one person who doesn't think that) but even if all FMs were perfectly historically accurate, the VVS players would still do better than real life counterparts, because the skills of players is more evenly distributed between the two sides than was the case between the actual pilots in WW2.

[Guest deleted@30725]

I, for one am in love with the Russian planes at the moment. I love their agricultural, raw feel and with the right tactics they are as fun as they are frustrating. I've even found a new appreciation for the bombers on both sides.

 

The Mig is one of the most beautiful planes in the game to me and i am very much enjoying that the developers give all their virtual planes a fair shout. We are not playing developer politics here as much as a minority of individuals would pretend.

 

I really enjoy reading the developer diaries and certainly continue to gain respect for the teams working tirelessly on a project that is full of political and historical mine fields. Emotions run high for ww2 and we play on our computers in perfect conditions without fear for our real lives, fatigue, the threat of loosing our home, our best friends, family and everything we know. We compare and analyze Il2 against all other similar games in a tireless search for perfection and accuracy. We sometimes loose sight that this is a fantastic game built by an intelligent and engaging team.

 

Nobody is perfect. For I am human, complex and flawed. Incorrect in my understanding, yet open to change. Confident in my abilities and a voice for the greater good.

 

Bos / Bom is everything I hoped it would be, a perfect tonic to the study of dcs and the arcade of war thunder. Bok will be another chapter with a new set of toys to add to the wonderful catalogue.

[Danziger]

I'm not saying the FMs are perfect, but a lot more things should be considered when asking for historical outcomes in a combat simulation.

This. Nobody is saying there aren't any errors in the FMs. There are people making very legitimate complaints and backing them up with good evidence. Everyone wants this to be as accurate as possible. The problems start when certain people throw temper tantrums and start accusing and disrespecting the developers.

 

Nobody likes to sift through all of the childish crap to get the good information.

 

If you have a complaint, prove it. Put together your evidence and send it to developers in a polite manner. I promise you someone WILL check it. It will take some time so be patient. Don't go off turning every thread into a rant about how bad something is.

 

The developers have made fixes to the MiG-3 3d model three times. I submitted evidence and they used it. It didn't happen overnight. It's taken quite a long time to get this far. I first raised the issue before the MiG-3 was even released and they made some adjustments. After I got mine I started a thread detailing the parts that weren't correct with evidence. They did another fix soon after release before they saw my thread and some things were still not right. I waited until the BoM release rush was over to politely mention it again. It was acknowledged and they worked it in when they had time and the results are in the 2.004 update. There are still a couple small details to fix and they are aware of it. I'm sure when time is available they will get to it just like everything else.

 

I had a quite good experience communicating with Devs. I learned a lot about the MiG-3. I also learned they know a lot more about the MiG than I thought I did. There were a couple of things they politely proved me wrong on. They are a small team of humans working hard to produce this sim not only for the public but for themselves and they have high standards.

Edited November 5, 2016 by BorysVorobyov

[Hutzlipuh]

no more money, +1

 

 

What more and more people of my squadron do, is, we do not invest anymore. In our opinion it's best what we can do. If this doesn't change things, well we have at least not lost our money...

 

[Edited]

 

good choice !

although i would now be able to buy BoM / BoK i am not doing it until i see commitment on fixing old issues and getting better performance on my i7/gtx970 then 25-35 fps...

[Bearcat]

Even the most novice pilot here has more flight time than a typical rookie Soviet pilot in 1941, we fly in a climate-controlled environment with plastic controllers, all with no fear of death or capture. Drawing conclusions in such a situation is a fool's errand.

 

Not to mention no fatigue.. no Gs.. no physics.. I mean real physics..  If I have said it once IO have said it a thousand times .. the best thing to do is start by taking each sim as if it exists in a separate universe of physics and learn from there.. 

[E69_geramos109]

The plane's not even entered beta testing yet, and you're already claiming it's FM to be wrong? Brilliant. :-|

I think you did not understand me. The new Yak should be better on that situation i mean hang on propeller.

Current yak can hang on more than the 109 so the new will be better. (Worse fore the luftwaffe)

[E69_geramos109]

Some more test here. You can read the description on the video.

 

 

I saw your video jordan and is true that the in the 109 you can keep the plane a little longer in nose up position and in the yak the lose of control happens more fast. 

But you can keep aiming and climbing more time in the yak than in the 109.

 

I did not comment that non the video but the max altitude i gain on the test with the 109 and the yak is about the same. A strange thing 

Edited November 5, 2016 by E69_geramos109

[SYN_Mike77]

Their is one very, very good thing about the move to the Pacific....

[SuperCossack]

i thought i read somewhere that flight sims are played by older and more mature people

 

 

also "prop hanging" 109 and yak looks strange because you haven't seen it performed at airshow.

 

yak 1 doesn't fly anymore and people don't fly 109 in that manner. Even if they did it they would close throttle in the climb like a normal person would so there will be no "hanging"

[ShamrockOneFive]

 

 

 

good choice !

although i would now be able to buy BoM / BoK i am not doing it until i see commitment on fixing old issues and getting better performance on my i7/gtx970 then 25-35 fps...

 

 

I'm curious why you are having such poor performance?

 

I have a i7/GTX960 and my fps are constantly in the 50-60fps range except when I get down into the grassy bits on the airfield and then it takes a dive into the 20-25fps range.

 

That said... the devs are working on better AI routines and a whole new DX11 version of the engine. That seems pretty fair...no?

That surely never happend when I was flying the Yak

 

I ran some tests and put together this little video showing the results of prophang on Bf-109-F4 and Yak-1, respectively with full and almost no fuel.

Disclaimer: This is not meant to 'prove' anything, but just to give a rough example.

 

 

Thanks for doing this Jordan! Both look pretty much the same to me... yeah the 109 hangs on a bit longer. But not that much longer.... I had to replay it really to notice.

Edited November 5, 2016 by ShamrockOneFive

[LukeFF]

 

 

although i would now be able to buy BoM / BoK i am not doing it until i see commitment on fixing old issues

 

They have been fixing old issues. 

[Livai]

Some more test here. You can read the description on the video.

 

 

I saw your video jordan and is true that the in the 109 you can keep the plane a little longer in nose up position and in the yak the lose of control happens more fast. 

But you can keep aiming and climbing more time in the yak than in the 109.

 

I did not comment that non the video but the max altitude i gain on the test with the 109 and the yak is about the same. A strange thing 

 

What should this prove you not even increased the RPM to the max. RPM limit from the 109 even @ Jordan didn't increased the RPM to the limits! You both not overclocked the Engine to the max. possible engine power + RPM!

Even then if that's a real problem for what we have our BetaTester is not their work to notice issue and report to the Devs before change or patch release offical? Why everytime non-BetaTester complain about issue?  A real problem with the hang on propeller yes or no?

Edited November 5, 2016 by Superghostboy

[Stig]

 

 

Probably would have been better a 1944 scenary instead of these 1941-42, you can't change the History just because this is only a game

 

 

In 1944 WWII ETO scenario you would be shot down 9 times by Mustangs before you would shoot 1 Mustang down, if you don't want to change history. How would any flight sim devs model that?   

[Irgendjemand]

Some more test here. You can read the description on the video.

 

 

I saw your video jordan and is true that the in the 109 you can keep the plane a little longer in nose up position and in the yak the lose of control happens more fast. 

But you can keep aiming and climbing more time in the yak than in the 109.

 

I did not comment that non the video but the max altitude i gain on the test with the 109 and the yak is about the same. A strange thing 

Thanks for taking the time.

Directed at all threadreaders: Germans are the whiners eh? At this point i can nothing but LOL the heck out of me.

Maybe we become the whiners because we complain about obvious problems, somethimes in almost 100s of threads *chough,190, cough* only to get ignored over and over again and the dear devs countrymen just complain once and et voila. There is your fix/109 nerf.

Whats happening here is riddiculous once more if it then really happens..

 

PS and offtopic: Whatever happens. Anyone else looking forward bigtime to Star Citizen? All fictinal. No sides. No ....

Edited November 5, 2016 by Irgendjemand

[mb339pan]

Some more test here. You can read the description on the video.

 

 

I saw your video jordan and is true that the in the 109 you can keep the plane a little longer in nose up position and in the yak the lose of control happens more fast. 

But you can keep aiming and climbing more time in the yak than in the 109.

 

I did not comment that non the video but the max altitude i gain on the test with the 109 and the yak is about the same. A strange thing 

 

 

hehe... some altitude end some time to climb... you evil Luftwinner :lol:

[216th_Jordan]

What should this prove you not even increased the RPM to the max. RPM limit from the 109 even @ Jordan didn't increased the RPM to the limits! You both not overclocked the Engine to the max. possible engine power + RPM!

Even then if that's a real problem for what we have our BetaTester is not their work to notice issue and report to the Devs before change or patch release offical? Why everytime non-BetaTester complain about issue?  A real problem with the hang on propeller yes or no?

I don't understand you, everything was at 100%.

[Turban]

Another great DD from the devs, amazing work, looking forward to have all that good stuff ingame

 

Too bad I can't even read a DD without all the drama...

 

 

 

15. Posting messages that are not relevant to the topic of discussion (off topic) except as specifically allowed in a section is prohibited.

 

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.

19. Systematic message spam on the forum, unfounded negative comments about the game, derogatory comparison of the game with other products without pointing out specific flaws, constant distraction of forum administration and developers by repetitive complaints about false problems are prohibited.

Edited November 5, 2016 by Turban

[Danziger]

Maybe we become the whiners because we complain about obvious problems, somethimes in almost 100s of threads *chough,190, cough* only to get ignored over and over again and the dear devs countrymen just complain once and et voila.

 

There is a difference between politely complaining about a problem and blaming/accusing the developers for a problem. How many of those 190 threads turned out to be nothing more than people shouting "Russian bias" "game balancing" etc? The people who actually followed the rules and submitted factual evidence in a non-douchebag manner were listened to. Believe it or not the 190 is getting another look because of someone taking the time to actually research and find out what the problem could be instead of just throwing a crybaby fit about it not being the untouchable acemaker it was supposed to be. Those whiny kinds of posts and threads of course get ignored because they present no actual information. 

I don't know how well you guys respond to slander, insults, accusations and threats but I do not respond well to it and I doubt the developers do either since they are also human. A polite and respectful tone in your complaint goes an extremely long way in getting your complaint heard. 

 

Edit: All you have to do when you post is stop right before you post it. Reread it as if it was written to you and ask yourself how you would feel if that post was pointed at you.

Edited November 5, 2016 by BorysVorobyov

[Livai]

I don't understand you, everything was at 100%.

 

I mean doing this you need to set the RPM to 2700 - 2900 U/min and hold it!!! For the max. possible climb rate! I do this everytime where I need to climb fast away from the enemy with the 109 or 190. I have a good feeling how long I can keep the engine with this RPM.

[216th_Jordan]

I mean doing this you need to set the RPM to 2700 - 2900 U/min and hold it!!! For the max. possible climb rate! I do this everytime where I need to climb fast away from the enemy with the 109 or 190. I have a good feeling how long I can keep the engine with this RPM.

 

Ok, never used it. Might try it out.

[KoN_]

That surely never happend when I was flying the Yak

 

I ran some tests and put together this little video showing the results of prophang on Bf-109-F4 and Yak-1, respectively with full and almost no fuel.

Disclaimer: This is not meant to 'prove' anything, but just to give a rough example.

 

The Yak seems more stable too me , the 109 seems too spin or rotates more ` on its top then falls away . But at the end of the day `We really shouldn't be in that situation .  

Edited November 5, 2016 by II./JG77_Con

[216th_Jordan]

Hey Geramos, I appreciate your test, however:

 

you say in your conclusion that Yak1 can hang on prop longer than 109. If you watch my video though (sadly no chronometer) you can see that with equal starting speed (100 kph vertical) the 109 stays 1,5 (100% fuel) to 2,5 seconds (10% fuel) longer in the air than yak with same amount of fuel. (measured from horizon to horizon). Doing a powerclimb like that does not give you very good comparable results as the fault in measurement has a grater impact due to longer measurement time.

Edited November 5, 2016 by 216th_Jordan

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

Just read the new DD and I must say I am very excited about the new features that are going to be introduced. I am sure there is a lot of hard work behind every patch and I am glad the devs put in the effort.
There is one thing though which I perceive of being unpleasantly prominent when I read the DDs. Maybe I am wrong, but I get the impression that there is a whole lot more interaction of the producers/devs on the Russian side of the FM forum, than the English forum. It seems the only interaction on the English forum is moderators locking threads.

 

I actually think the biggest reason that threads escalate, is that there is no interaction or guidance from the company´s side at all and people are frustrated b/c they think they are basically not being regarded.

 

I know there is the language barrier and all, but the customers are not all Russian and a little more interaction than just requesting documents or closing threads would really be nice. (I hate to bring it up, but I really like the way that Yoyo actually discusses topics in the English DCS forum).

 

That being said, keep up the good work. Cheers!

 

 

*Edit: Spelling

Edited November 5, 2016 by II/JG17_SchwarzeDreizehn

[Irgendjemand]

I mean doing this you need to set the RPM to 2700 - 2900 U/min and hold it!!! For the max. possible climb rate! I do this everytime where I need to climb fast away from the enemy with the 109 or 190. I have a good feeling how long I can keep the engine with this RPM.

...and you have to ignore the fact that your engine will be toasted afterwards. But for the sake of pushing a nerf through its allright..? /Sarcasm

Seriously. Whats the point in runining your engine`with with such a maneuver?

Edited November 5, 2016 by Irgendjemand

[303_Kwiatek]

What is power to weight ratio between 109 and Yak1?

[Sunde]

...and you have to ignore the fact that your engine will be toasted afterwards. But for the sake of pushing a nerf through its allright..? /Sarcasm

Seriously. Whats the point in runining your engine`with with such a maneuver?

The point? Getting as much power out of that sucker as possible lol, and hopefully not die! 

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

What is power to weight ratio between 109 and Yak1?

 

You can find the in-game data at DD123. At ASL, standard weight, you have:

 

Bf-109F-4

Combat mode: 1200 HP / 2890 kg

Emergency mode: 1350 HP / 2890 kg

 

Bf-109G-2

Combat mode: 1310 HP / 2994 kg

 

Yak-1

1200 HP / 2932 kg

 

Overall very close figures - none of which barely hold a candle to the good old I-16 by the way, which when boosted at sea level gives you 1100 HP for a mere 1878 kg.

[Livai]

...and you have to ignore the fact that your engine will be toasted afterwards. But for the sake of pushing a nerf through its allright..? /Sarcasm

Seriously. Whats the point in runining your engine`with with such a maneuver?

 

 I use one button where I switch from automatic RPM to manual RPM control. A second button  where I increase the RPM. If I notice that the nose is going afterwards or the RPM is too much I push the first button that enable the automatic RPM control. It is just practise & timing to push the engine to their limits! No Sarcasmus inside.

[Irgendjemand]

 I use one button where I switch from automatic RPM to manual RPM control. A second button  where I increase the RPM. If I notice that the nose is going afterwards or the RPM is too much I push the first button that enable the automatic RPM control. It is just practise & timing to push the engine to their limits! No Sarcasmus inside.

I was being sarcastic:)

With 100 % power you already go to 2700 rpm in the F4 without manual pitch. Going above that with manual pitch instantly fries the engine. At least when you maintain full ATA.

Just tried. Starts to shake and insta dies.

 

Also i dont get why people complain when the plane with the actual better power to weight ratio performs slightly better in that regard?

 

Well. What do i care:) What happens will happen. Thats for sure.

Edited November 5, 2016 by Irgendjemand

[Hutzlipuh]

Just read the new DD and I must say I am very excited about the new features that are going to be introduced. I am sure there is a lot of hard work behind every patch and I am glad the devs put in the effort.

There is one thing though which I perceive of being unpleasantly prominent when I read the DDs. Maybe I am wrong, but I get the impression that there is a whole lot more interaction of the producers/devs on the Russian side of the FM forum, than the English forum. It seems the only interaction on the English forum is moderators locking threads.

 

I actually think the biggest reason that threads escalate, is that there is no interaction or guidance from the company´s side at all and people are frustrated b/c they think they are basically not being regarded.

 

I know there is the language barrier and all, but the customers are not all Russian and a little more interaction than just requesting documents or closing threads would really be nice. (I hate to bring it up, but I really like the way that Yoyo actually discusses topics in the English DCS forum).

 

That being said, keep up the good work. Cheers!

 

 

*Edit: Spelling

Have to agree with you there...

Also where are the documents and specifications listed the Devs used? We have to prove something wrong while they dont prove what was used to model and just write performance figures in a forum or the in-game specs?

[Hoots]

Have to agree with you there...

Also where are the documents and specifications listed the Devs used? We have to prove something wrong while they dont prove what was used to model and just write performance figures in a forum or the in-game specs?

Yes, it's called "being the owners of the game"

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Uh, they based all of the game on original material mostly, secondarily on tests of captured aircraft, then if none available they check data for the closest possible model, and then as a last resort if any area is still undocumented the developers - which have a dedicated team of aero engineers - use their knowledge to calculate whatever parameter is missing to the most accurate degree possible.

 

It isn't a matter of "roll some dice and see what number lands".

[FuriousMeow]

Have to agree with you there...

Also where are the documents and specifications listed the Devs used? We have to prove something wrong while they dont prove what was used to model and just write performance figures in a forum or the in-game specs?

 

None of that matters, the output matters. If the output doesn't come close to real world performance values, and is proven so, the devs - well the one FM dev - will go back and double/triple/etc check to see where the math went wrong.

 

This is a simulation on a home computer and some people expect it to be an exact reproduction of the real world, gotta be kidding me.

[Hutzlipuh]

Yes, it's called "being the owners of the game"

 

 

Uh, they based all of the game on original material mostly, secondarily on tests of captured aircraft, then if none available they check data for the closest possible model, and then as a last resort if any area is still undocumented the developers - which have a dedicated team of aero engineers - use their knowledge to calculate whatever parameter is missing to the most accurate degree possible.

 

It isn't a matter of "roll some dice and see what number lands".

 

 

None of that matters, the output matters. If the output doesn't come close to real world performance values, and is proven so, the devs - well the one FM dev - will go back and double/triple/etc check to see where the math went wrong.

 

This is a simulation on a home computer and some people expect it to be an exact reproduction of the real world, gotta be kidding me.

 

So where can i see what was used/what is performance target of all planes ? You all were quick to defend the devs without showing proof...

 

It is a highly questionable behaviour stating "we are right" without proofing and on the other side demanding from us proofing that they were wrong , while not giving us tools like AoA and climb rate and other readouts (also restricting discussion by locking/banning disagreeing views)... thats some old Soviet Russia style of keeping people quiet ...

 

 

dont get me wrong...BoS and its follow-ups has great potential , but so many things in the game and forum policies smell really fishy. also ignoring part of the customer base while the other part gets all attention doesnt look right from a customer point of view....and i am a customer.

Edited November 5, 2016 by Hutzlipuh