G4

[unreasonable]

At the risk of being proved wrong again I think this is incorrect: the upper angle you are showing does not include the full width of the horizontal bar, I think it should have been drawn like this:

 

 

The ratio of bar to window you show from the in game screenshot and the photo from comparable angle are virtually identical.

 

4/11 =  36% 4.5/13 =35%  roughly measured on my screen.

[III/JG2Gustav05]

At the risk of being proved wrong again I think this is incorrect: the upper angle you are showing does not include the full width of the horizontal bar, I think it should have been drawn like this:

 

upper_bar_modified.jpg

 

The ratio of bar to window you show from the in game screenshot and the photo from comparable angle are virtually identical.

 

4/11 =  36% 4.5/13 =35%  roughly measured on my screen.

Can not agree with you. You can not use the lower front edge of panzer glass as reference to draw the lower edge of angle "a". it  should be blocked by the rear edge of panzer glass from pilot position. Your drawing is too exaggerated.

 

If pilot can see the the front lower edge of the glass amour, the bar should be much narrow again by the refraction.

Edited January 16, 2017 by III/JG2Gustav05

[unreasonable]

Agree or not, if you superimpose the photograph over the in game cockpit picture, resized slightly to get the same vertical distance overall,  you will see that the two pictures are almost identical [ edit: in respect of the vertical distances], although taken at a slightly different angle.

 

It is easier to see if you do that yourself and move the pictures around - if you do not want to measure it on screen with a ruler as I did previously.

Edited January 16, 2017 by unreasonable

[III/JG2Gustav05]

Agree or not, if you superimpose the photograph over the in game cockpit picture, resized slightly to get the same vertical distance overall,  you will see that the two pictures are almost identical [ edit: in respect of the vertical distances], although taken at a slightly different angle.

 

It is easier to see if you do that yourself and move the pictures around - if you do not want to measure it on screen with a ruler as I did previously.

You just pick a bad picture for you to prove your point. As I said before the picture you pick is taken from a position which is much higher than where pilot's head located. So the upper bar in this picture for sure should look much wider than in the game screen-shot, therefore the superimposed picture you post Actually proves your are not correct. Thank you for the picture.

[unreasonable]

Actually, moving the pilot's head up or down a little makes hardly any difference to the observed width of the horizontal bar, over the range in which the gunsight is usable. As you can see for yourself if you try it.

The top bar only looks much narrower if you play as a dwarf.

 

Here are three head positions, with view zoomed back. Highest possible, lowest possible and what I use to make the gunsight useful.

 

Of course this is not addressing the issues of refraction on the vertical eyeline, or how much the sight could be adjusted vertically, but you have to get the eyeline much lower before the bar/window width ratio changes significantly.

 

[III/JG2Gustav05]

You are so funny that try to prove your correct by using a highly doubted problematic 3D model.

[unreasonable]

Highly doubted and problematic in it's treatment of the refracted area, just as is true generally, but not in dimensions. The horizontal bar in the model matches that from the photo taken from the same position and is not affected by refraction.

 

If there is anything wrong with the view, I think it is more likely to be related to the height of the Revi forcing a slightly high eye-line, rather than the 3D model dimensions, but that is very difficult to determine with sufficient precision from screenshots and photos.

 

Whatever, I look forwards to seeing the developers' response to your bug report. (I assume you have made one).

[III/JG2Gustav05]

Back to the G-4. In some ways I would rather see the Power Release as a RPM release, similar to the 109E's 2600RPM release. What I mean by that is that the Critical altitude for running 1.3 ata increases by about 1500m, so in general it's a High Altitude Improvement. 

 

However, since the Overall Weight is the same as the G-2 Climb Rate at 1.3 ata doesn't suffer and you will get a good Boost in Climb and Speed using 2700RPM (ca. 1.35ata) over the G-2. 

And my Placebo Brain tells me that the G-4 also taxies a lot nicer. 

 

The G-2 was already quite heavy for it's Landing Gear, and the Modifications were a late fix for all Gustavs. 

Did a quick test, climb from 300m to 3300m. G2 uses 2'18", G4 boost at 2700RPM uses 2'29". so the boost does not make G4 has any advantage over G2. 10Kg heavier and un-retractable tail wheel can make it's climb rate 2m/S slower than G2. This is too much for me. 

Comparing with G2, G4 is more sluggish and you can feel that it it on the edge of stall when you pull the stick to try to get the shot solution. G2 is much smoother in this respect.

Edited January 22, 2017 by III/JG2Gustav05

[303_Kwiatek]

Well i could say only im not suprised. I could only advise to get Yak1 and enjoy the game

Truly speaking looking at game data performance for planes most 109 version got 1-2 second worse sustained turn time then you could see in VVS RL test. Other hand Yak-1s got 19 second which is best possible turn time ( not mention climb rates) - more suitable for Yak-1B ( Yak-1 69 series got 19-20 second)

 

Analizyng performacne Yak-1B and G-4 from game its clearly to me that G-4 have very low chance against Yak-1B even at higher alts, at low to medium it has near zero

Edited January 23, 2017 by 303_Kwiatek

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

-snip-

 

its clearly to me that G-4 have very low chance against Yak-1B even at higher alts, at low to medium it has near zero

 

It's clearly to me that you haven't been flying much IL-2 lately.

[Finkeren]

Well i could say only im not suprised. I could only advise to get Yak1 and enjoy the game

Truly speaking looking at game data performance for planes most 109 version got 1-2 second worse sustained turn time then you could see in VVS RL test. Other hand Yak-1s got 19 second which is best possible turn time ( not mention climb rates) - more suitable for Yak-1B ( Yak-1 69 series got 19-20 second)

 

Analizyng performacne Yak-1B and G-4 from game its clearly to me that G-4 have very low chance against Yak-1B even at higher alts, at low to medium it has near zero

 

The Yak-1 s. 69 and Yak-1B s. 127 are supposed to be fairly close to one another performance wise. The 127 is somewhat faster, has better cooling, slightly bigger punch in its guns and has that awesome 360^o view from the cockpit. That's about it. Turn and climb rate are more or less identical.

 

I fly the Yak-1B a lot, but if I only played to win I'd definitely go with the G4 over a Yak any day. It's faster at most altitudes (above 6000 it can run from a Yak-1B without even going into combat mode) climbs way better and can better pull a lead in a tight dogfight due to its reluctance to go into accelerated stall.

[KoN_]

Reeling? Good grief, get a grip already. How many years has it been since all that with CloD happened? You make it sound like it was a tragedy of epic, life-changing proportions.  

Believe it or not they say it put the flight sim community back 10 years .

 

IMHO , I blame ubi-soft for the poor timing of release.

 

And yes it caused a lot of damage . 

[Max_Damage]

Did a quick test, climb from 300m to 3300m. G2 uses 2'18", G4 boost at 2700RPM uses 2'29". so the boost does not make G4 has any advantage over G2. 10Kg heavier and un-retractable tail wheel can make it's climb rate 2m/S slower than G2. This is too much for me. 

Comparing with G2, G4 is more sluggish and you can feel that it it on the edge of stall when you pull the stick to try to get the shot solution. G2 is much smoother in this respect.

bullcrap.

 

the devs have explained it and tested it themselves. G2 in the same conditions as g4 has 21 m/s climb (its incorrect in the manual at 22.3). G4 has 20.1 at 1.32. But at 1.42 it gains ~+4 m/s sustaied clumb and is 24 m/s.

[Blutaar]

I wish at some point we get the option to unlock 1,42 ata in the G2, it could be like "if you own BoK and BoS you will get the option for it".

So only people who paid for both planes will get the option, maybe unfair i dont care i just want to fly it with max boost because the G4 is ugly.

Edited January 24, 2017 by Ishtaru

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

I wish at some point we get the option to unlock 1,42 ata in the G2, it could be like "if you own BoK and BoS you will get the option for it".

So only people who paid for both planes will get the option, maybe unfair i dont care i just want to fly it with max boost because the G4 is ugly.

I'm not sure if that would be representative of any Real World 109 given that in late 42 they started introducing and converting 109s with the ugly Landing Gear. Would be Neat tho'. 

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

I wish at some point we get the option to unlock 1,42 ata in the G2, it could be like "if you own BoK and BoS you will get the option for it".

So only people who paid for both planes will get the option, maybe unfair i dont care i just want to fly it with max boost because the G4 is ugly.

 

If that happens eventually I say it should be managed via mission desing, or even time set loadout in the servers. For example: 1943 G2 with 1.42 ata; 1941 with F4 without 1.42 ata. It could also affect soviet planes, with 1941 simulating the non PF engines for the Yak and LaGG, having ~920 mmHg max instead of the current 1050, which would be 79% throttle if i'm correct.

Edited January 24, 2017 by SuperEtendard

[Blutaar]

If that happens eventually I say it should be managed via mission desing, or even time set loadout in the servers. For example: 1943 G2 with 1.42 ata; 1941 with F4 without 1.42 ata. It could also affect soviet planes, with 1941 simulating the non PF engines for the Yak and LaGG, having ~920 mmHg max instead of the current 1050, which would be 79% throttle if i'm correct.

Sounds good to me, online servers can handle it like they want and in singelplayer it can add some progression element for campaigns, if its done right, i would like it alot.

[Gambit21]

Believe it or not they say it put the flight sim community back 10 years .

 

IMHO , I blame ubi-soft for the poor timing of release.

 

And yes it caused a lot of damage .

Yeah that team loved it when people blamed UBI

That notion was long ago refuted.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Yeah that team loved it when people blamed UBI

That notion was long ago refuted.

Indeed, UBI had nothing to do with it.

 

The release was forced by 1C.  UBI was the publisher for the west, but had no control over the "gold" release date, it was all on 1C as they were the financial backers.

[III/JG2Gustav05]

a video from Russian forum

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdW8f91bCkE

Edited January 25, 2017 by III/JG2Gustav05

[Asgar]

looks like the G-2 climbs better while at the same time not killing itself...suprise, not?

[Original_Uwe]

a video from Russian forum

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdW8f91bCkE

Guess I'll stick with the G-2 lol

[Ropalcz]

a video from Russian forum

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdW8f91bCkE

Totally worth buying :-D

[303_Kwiatek]

As i said better fly Yak-1(B) you will have no problem with underperformacne in these game

[Dakpilot]

As i said better fly Yak-1(B) you will have no problem with underperformacne in these game

 

Not really surprising people and Dev's do not take you seriously with continual low level snipes about bias rather than issues

 

or is it humour? maybe, but track record does not suggest it

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Asgar]

Guess I'll stick with the G-2 lol

that's why they should've added the G-6 instead of the G-4 it would've also had less performance but at least some 13mm MGs

[150GCT_Veltro]

So G4 has been nerfed too? Just to know....

[Finkeren]

a video from Russian forum

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdW8f91bCkE

 

Yeah, that doesn't look right. I won't say this is definite proof, too many parameters missing from the test, but at 1.42 ATA the G4 should absolutely run from the G2 in a steep climb.

 

This deserves further investigation. 

[Finkeren]

As i said better fly Yak-1(B) you will have no problem with underperformacne in these game

 

Oh do stop it. I fly the Yak-1B perhaps 80% of my online time, and I'd still much rather trust any of the 109s with my life. Just last night I completely out flew Yak-1Bs on several occasions in a Bf 109E7 (not saying the E7 is better than the Yak-1B - it's not - but it is at least close enough to remain competitive)

[303_Kwiatek]

Not really surprising people and Dev's do not take you seriously with continual low level snipes about bias rather than issues

 

or is it humour? maybe, but track record does not suggest it

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

Im rather serious here Look in another way - there was any single thread here in these forum about underperformacne ( climb, speed, dive, roll, acceleration) of any VVS plane in these game ( dont count P-40)?

 

Finkeren i dont need Yak-1b to fly efficienlty against German planes in these game - Yak-1 is good enough 

Edited January 25, 2017 by 303_Kwiatek

[Finkeren]

Im rather serious here Look in another way - there was any single thread here about underperformacne ( climb, speed, dive, roll, acceleration) of any VVS plane in these game?

 

At one point there were a ton of them about the La-5, which still seems strangely unforgiving in handling compared to the LaGG-3 and climbs like crap. Then there is the current issue of MiG-3 behavior during take off/landing. And, oh yeah, then there's the bloody P-40E! 

 

However, for some reason we who primarilly fly VVS don't feel the need to create an endless string of threads beating the same old horse further into the ground. 

[Asgar]

oh yeah, what IS the problem with the MiG on take off and landing? i flew it tons the last couple days and i don't see what's supposed to be wrong?

[Finkeren]

Finkeren i dont need Yak-1b to fly efficienlty against German planes in these game - Yak-1 is good enough 

 

Apart from the cockpit view, the improvements of the series 127 over the 69 is slight. Whatever you can do in the 1B, you can do in the S.69, just have to take a little more care with your energy.

oh yeah, what IS the problem with the MiG on take off and landing? i flew it tons the last couple days and i don't see what's supposed to be wrong?

 

Please teach me then. I'm pretty much blocked from flying my favourite aircraft because I can neither take off nor land safely.

[Asgar]

someone posted a video about how to take off, shortly after release, i still use the same technique. works fine for me. i post the link if i find it 

[Finkeren]

someone posted a video about how to take off, shortly after release, i still use the same technique. works fine for me. i post the link if i find it 

 

I watched it, tried it step-by-step, spun around like a top just as bad as ever.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Ok, tried the two Gustavs: Automatic Rads, -15% Stabilizer, 270kph +/- 5kph Tolerance, Full Fuel, no Modifications. 500-1500m, 2600RPM, 1.3ata, did a couple tests each, can't guarantee the times are 100% correct but I really tried. (G-2 100%, G-4: 80% exactly)

 

Same Conditions in the Tests. 

G-2: 51 Seconds consistently (19.6m/s)

G-4: 52 Seconds consistently (19.25m/s)

G-4 with 2700RPM: 47 Seconds consistently (21.2m/s)

 

Also: Top Speeds at Sea Level:

G-2: 528

G-4: 519

G-4 2700rpm: 533

 

2700RPM can be used for 3 Minutes, Damage after a bit more than 3:30. 

Edited January 25, 2017 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

[unreasonable]

The G-2 G-4 video would be better done if the two aircraft had started wing tip to wing tip and climbed at the same AoA.

[Danziger]

I guess you guys want to set up the G4 as the next 190 then?

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

I guess you guys want to set up the G4 as the next 190 then?

They are simply wrong, I don't know what they did wrong, but for me the G-4 isn't anywhere close to as bad as they make it out to be. 

[303_Kwiatek]

At one point there were a ton of them about the La-5, which still seems strangely unforgiving in handling compared to the LaGG-3 and climbs like crap. Then there is the current issue of MiG-3 behavior during take off/landing. And, oh yeah, then there's the bloody P-40E! 

 

However, for some reason we who primarilly fly VVS don't feel the need to create an endless string of threads beating the same old horse further into the ground. 

Sorry Finkeren but La5 in BOS  comparing to RL data ( and handling test) could be the best accurate and historicaly modeled VVS plane in BOS ( regarding performacne). For me only roll rate and maximum dive speed is suspicious in LA5.  Regarding Mig3  I didnt mean ground behaviour but only performance in the air ( speed, climb, acceleration and dive, btw try to find and show suorce where Mig3 would do 525 kph at deck in ISA conditions ). And  La5 was still quite crap plane IRL until LA5F ( modifications) came.  These plane start shine from LA5F version not LA5. If you would cut roll rate of BOS LA5  ( add more forces to controls) and resticted much more maximum dive speed it could be really accurate VVS plane according to historical data and suorces Read Yefim GORDON's and Dmitri KHAZANOV's Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War you will find much more  about VVS planes TRUE performacne in combat   ( and also about constantly problem with Yaks overheating engines even during late 1942-43)

 

BTW maby LA5 climb is not wrong but it should be rather to see if Yak-1/Lagg3 is not in pair with it    ( Yak-1 69 series due to problem with overheating engines during climbs need full radiator open and its climb rate was 15 m/s not more - tested by VVS themself)

 

Funny things is that M105 PF engine ( like in Yak-1 or Lagg3)  gave less horsepower ( about 50 hp less) then even old DB601A ( Emil engine) at above 5 km

 

If true performacne and issues would be implemented in BOS  VVS during 1941-1942 would be screaming like the hell but hardly anyone  surly want it   Of course things start to change and fight would be more equally in 1943 when LA5F, Yak-1B, Yak-9 cames into battle expecially at low altitude ( at high alt still German planes got seriusly adventage).

Edited January 25, 2017 by 303_Kwiatek