Why We Fly What We Fly

[Gambit21]

...and Jaffa, all joking aside.

A more cerebral approach to combat will serve you well.

In all cases awareness of energy states is paramount, while a lack of this especially coupled with an

energy burning "stick to the dick" approach will not only get you killed, but also lead to a skewed perception

of relative aircraft capabilities.

[Finkeren]

The point about technochat is kinda valid, but for new pilots it can also very easily serve as a distraction having messages pop up all the time.

 

I definitely think that turning it off should be manadatory in expert mode, though because it is a big help in a way that isn't realistic at all.

 

Still: Managing the engine of a Yak is still more work than a 109, no matter how you look at it.

[Gambit21]

Sigh... useless sarcasm.

 

I wish 109 was a potent competitor, but right now you just have to BnZ, wish your backside won't get lit up with a burst from your used-to-be victim and if you are lucky to hit (or the target is a newbie) you mostly do no damage. People look at the stats and go in awe - the climb rate!!! the speed!!!. Matters very little when the targets are on the ground and you have to keep shooting that bomber that is about to close the final objective. Good luck running away then...

 

On the other hand yaks get juicy he111 and bf110 and if they get bumped by a 109 you always have an option to burn him down to the ground and if he doesn't give up - finish him off.

I was typing my second post as you were typing this one.

Relax man

Still: Managing the engine of a Yak is still more work than a 109, no matter how you look at it.

Indeed

[9./JG27DefaultFace]

Yeah putting those 2 levers all the way forward and then leaving them there forever is real tough.

[Finkeren]

Yeah putting those 2 levers all the way forward and then leaving them there forever is real tough.

And radiator control and supercharger gear.

 

It's not much, but it's something, and does make a difference.

[9./JG27DefaultFace]

[Gambit21]

Yeah putting those 2 levers all the way forward and then leaving them there forever is real tough.

No radiator management? No supercharger?

We're talking in relative terms here - not that the Yak considered on its own is tough.

It's just that the 109 is easier.

 

I can't comment on the ballistics complaints (and Jaffa I wasn't trying to pick on you personally with that joke) but flying is a matter of punching the throttle, knowing your ACM and gunnery.

 

My gunnery is horrible right now in everything - and I mean awful. So much rust.

[Finkeren]

Laugh all you want. Every single thing you have to keep in mind or keep an eye on takes attention away from the fight and narrows your situational awareness.

 

It's not the act of pushing the button to change supercharger gear, it's having to be aware at all times what your altitude is and when it's time to change gears. A 109 pilot can basically just put his engine in combat mode and know, that he won't have to worry about that for the next half an hour and concentrate fully on fighting.

 

Does that make a difference? You betcha!

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

But honestly, I fly what I want because you're not my real mom and you can't tell me what to do! I hate you!

[Finkeren]

But honestly, I fly what I want because you're not my real mom and you can't tell me what to do! I hate you!

I am your real mom. Deal with it!

[Gambit21]

Grounded

[Guest deleted@83466]

I've gotten beaten by 109's while flying a Yak in many "angles" fights, because the other pilot knew what he was doing a lot better than I did.  I've done practice with wingmen where we pitted a Yak and a 109 in a purely horizontal turnfight to see who could turn faster, and the Yak-1 did; but when you are on a place like WoL, in a non-test-case situation, you have good pilots employing the full range of classic air combat maneuvers, and more capable than the Yak of regaining it's corner speed, the Bf-109 is also a very capable angles fighter.  The idea that the 109 is purely some Boom and Zoom energy fighter that can't win a knifefight is simply not true.  I believe that it is true that when the Bf-109 pilot enters into a knifefight, he is giving the enemy much more of a chance than it might otherwise have, and not flying the aircraft to it's greatest strengths, and he might well get his ass kicked, but that doesn't mean it is some hopelessly outmatched dog, as some seem to be implying.   I think some people who are so critical of the Bf-109's abilities would be a lot happier flying I-16's, because they want an airplane that can turn inside their opponent at almost every point in it's flight envelope just by banking and yanking.

 

 

energy burning "stick to the dick" approach will not only get you killed, but also lead to a skewed perception
of relative aircraft capabilities.

 

Well put.  My lexicon now has a new phrase.

Edited June 14, 2017 by Iceworm

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

unfortunately this is a very common thing here...it happens on a much more regular basis than in any other sim, which leads me to believe that the overall ballistics are simplified....these shots just happen way too often imo....should they be possible?yes of course, but this should really be the exception rather than the norm...also it looks like there is hardly any drop of the bullets and that over a distance of 700meters...if it was like that in reality, we wouldnt read that fighterpilots were advised to go very close before to shoot...

maybe it also has to do with the funny convergence options we have in game....i think you can turn the slider up to a 1000meters...in which fighter was a convergence of a 1000meters used? i dont know of any...

 

Shooting in game is easier than in real life but what you suggesting is unrealistic bullet ballistic, energy or dispersion....

 

Lets say if that shot was not lucky spray& pray but skill - then:

 

How much flight hours we have in flight sims? 1000 time more experience in flight sim dogfights than Hartman had plus endless opportunity to practice yes? 

 

Also we did misss some elements of real life like: lack of static head shake and focusing on multiple objects. It isn't easy lining up three things when your eye can only focus on one of them at a time, but on a computer monitor, all three can be focused  at the same time. 

 

Aking something to be less realistic is never the solution to the problem of something not being realistic enough.

Edited June 14, 2017 by 307_Tomcat

[9./JG27DavidRed]

yeah sure...we have the possibilty to practice forever unlike the guys back then....

but, many of them survived the whole war and had thousands of hours in the aircraft, not to mention several years of pilots and gunnery training...

still,...not even in old il2 these 700meters+ shots were that common like they are here...and just look at the tracers...over 700m and hardly if any drop of the bullets...it just feels and looks wrong...its too simplistic...

[Guest deleted@83466]

I find firing at a fighter sized opponent 600 or 700 meters away, opponent that appears in size to be about 1/10th of the diameter of the inner ring of the Russian gunsight, to be a nearly impossible shot, and certainly a fantastic way to shoot all of your ammunition supply away in exchange for maybe some onesy, twosey hits.  The idea that Russian pilots are routinely making these kinds of shots with any frequency, such that Luftwaffe-only pilots are complaining about some kind of handicap is absolutely ludicrous.  Absolutely ludicrous.

Edited June 14, 2017 by Iceworm

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Well i think bullet drop is there David and real math trajectory is there to.

 

BTW this trying to hit someone from 500m. I can image in Berloga but hardly in other more mission objective focused servers.

Edited June 14, 2017 by 307_Tomcat

[Finkeren]

I hardly ever fire beyond 200m at a fighter because I know I won't hit. These are just what they appear to be: Lucky shots.

 

A ShVAK firing 800 rounds per minute and an UBS firing a bit faster than that (or in a Yak-1 s.69 2x 1600 rounds per minute ShKAS) pour enough lead in the direction of your opponent at that rate and you'll hit something once in a while.

 

Still doesn't make it a viable tactic.

[StG2_Manfred]

I hardly ever fire beyond 200m at a fighter because I know I won't hit. These are just what they appear to be: Lucky shots.

 

Well, you claimed the superioty of the 190 but never provided any prove of your claims! (Then plenty of things were overhauled by the dev team....) Now you claiming the waaaaaaaaay better superioty of the 109 and again provide no prove at all, so what's worth YOUR statements?

 

I recommend you to go on Berloga and test what your are claiming here in the forum! And furthermore, I recommend everbody, which say the grass is alway greener on the other side, to go on Berloga and test themselves. Go on and switch to the other side and try long rage shooting (and realize the ballistics at once) And keep in mind, we are not talking about a balanced shooter like Call of Duty, but the Germans should be superior with their planes at this time of the war ....

 

 

Apart from that, because I know I sound only negative, I like this sim and its new direction! Since Jason has taken the lead the new direction it has taken is only positive. And I really hope after the FM update I and all of my squadron mates will buy in. Technically it's the best combat sim atm!

Edited June 14, 2017 by kerkeling

[Finkeren]

Well, you claimed the superioty of the 190 but never provided any prove of your claims! (Then plenty of things were overhauled by the dev team....) Now you claiming the waaaaaaaaay better superioty of the 109 and again provide no prove at all, so what's worth YOUR statements?

If you go back and take a look, you'll see that I basically only made two counterpoints about the pre-fix 190:

 

1. That the violent snap stall is not by itself proof that the Fw 190 FM was wrong. It should be there (and indeed still is)

 

2. That the Fw 190 was not useless as a fighter. Personally I could hardly fly it at all before the fix, but some players could and had great success with it.

 

Throughout these debates I've said, that the Fw 190 was one plane that I never felt the devs "got right" FM-wise - I challenge you to find a quote by me where I said, that the Fw 190 FM was fine and dandy or claimed, that it was far superior to Soviet fighters (apart perhaps fro the LaGG-3, I might have said that)

 

The superior performance in speed, accelleration, dive speed and climb rate of the 109 F4/G2/G4 compared to the Yaks is not really up for debate. It's there, and is very easy for anyone to test for themselves. Does that immediately translate into a guaranteed win every time? Obviously not. But it does make the 109 an overall superior fighter to the Yak-1b, even when we take into account things like the superior cockpit view in the Yak.

[Barnacles]

I really like the 109f2 at the moment. I seem to have more succes then with the f4 and the 151 is great. Seems to set a lot of PE2s on fire.

[Willy__]

I find firing at a fighter sized opponent 600 or 700 meters away, opponent that appears in size to be about 1/10th of the diameter of the inner ring of the Russian gunsight, to be a nearly impossible shot, and certainly a fantastic way to shoot all of your ammunition supply away in exchange for maybe some onesy, twosey hits.  The idea that Russian pilots are routinely making these kinds of shots with any frequency, such that Luftwaffe-only pilots are complaining about some kind of handicap is absolutely ludicrous.  Absolutely ludicrous.

 

Some russian pilots can and will shoot you from 600m to 1km. Generally at those distances the 7.7s and 20mms are not a problem, but that friggin deathstar laser 23mm will track you down like a missile. Rambo do it all the time, even him thinks somethings off on that gun, but hey, they didnt change it yet, so lets use! I dont blame him though, he's a very good pilot and reliable get hits at those distances you say.

 

I think somehow the 23mm loses less energy as it travel if compared to the 7.7s/20s. I got hit from afar by 7.7s while running from a yak and the damage was minimal, against the 20s its more about where you get hit, sometimes its minimal, sometimes its catastrofical. But when comes to the 23mm laser of doom, it doesnt matter where you are hit, be it at point blank range or at distance, it will always wreck you with a single shot.

Edited June 15, 2017 by JAGER_Staiger

[JG13_opcode]

Just today I got two kills flying the F-4: high-deflection shots at almost 90 degrees angle-off, at ranges of 500 m or so. My gunnery is not that good.

 

If I of all people can do that with the 151/20, it is certainly possible to hit at 600+ with the more accurate weaponry on the Yaks and LaGG.

 

The CIA guys in particular come to mind when I think of people who can reach out and touch you at long range.

Edited June 15, 2017 by JG13_opcode

[Guest deleted@83466]

Some russian pilots can and will shoot you from 600m to 1km. Generally at those distances the 7.7s and 20mms are not a problem, but that friggin deathstar laser 23mm will track you down like a missile. Rambo do it all the time, even him thinks somethings off on that gun, but hey, they didnt change it yet, so lets use! I dont blame him though, he's a very good pilot and reliable get hits at those distances you say.

 

I think somehow the 23mm loses less energy as it travel if compared to the 7.7s/20s. I got hit from afar by 7.7s while running from a yak and the damage was minimal, against the 20s its more about where you get hit, sometimes its minimal, sometimes its catastrofical. But when comes to the 23mm laser of doom, it doesnt matter where you are hit, be it at point blank range or at distance, it will always wreck you with a single shot.

 

Well, I know that Rambo loves the 23mm and that's what keeps him flying the Lagg, but remember he is also just an all-round exceptional pilot who can do things that the majority of other players can't do.  Extraordinary aim.   I'm nothing but dead meat in the Lagg, and try to avoid it, so I have very little experience with the 23 mm.  I don't think I've ever made a kill in it before.  I can say for sure that in the Yak that I normally fly, 600 to 700 meter shots are strictly a spray and pray affair.  

Edited June 15, 2017 by Iceworm

[Finkeren]

Some russian pilots can and will shoot you from 600m to 1km. Generally at those distances the 7.7s and 20mms are not a problem, but that friggin deathstar laser 23mm will track you down like a missile. Rambo do it all the time, even him thinks somethings off on that gun, but hey, they didnt change it yet, so lets use! I dont blame him though, he's a very good pilot and reliable get hits at those distances you say.

 

I think somehow the 23mm loses less energy as it travel if compared to the 7.7s/20s. I got hit from afar by 7.7s while running from a yak and the damage was minimal, against the 20s its more about where you get hit, sometimes its minimal, sometimes its catastrofical. But when comes to the 23mm laser of doom, it doesnt matter where you are hit, be it at point blank range or at distance, it will always wreck you with a single shot.

See, now we can have a conversation!

Something wrong with the ballistics of one particular cannon? Yeah, I could buy that. I haven't tested the 23mm against anything but ground targets recently, but I will be sure to check out the long range accuracy of it on the LaGG.

 

I feel the argument have shifted somewhat though. Weren't we talking about the Yaks doing supposedly ridiculous prop hangs and taking impossible pot shots at too great a range?

[Finkeren]

Ok I tested out the LaGG with 23mm against Ju 88 bombers (not fighters) at 1000m conversion range. 

 

While it did absolutely screw up aim closer than 300m, it seemed very, very accurate at ranges from 800 - 1200m with absolutely devastating results with both AP and HE ammo (I got 5 kills on my first try).

 

The bullet drop is definitely there, because at closer ranges the cannon overshot the crosshair by a significant amount. I'm not sure there is anything wrong with ballistics, but spread and the energy with which the AP ammo hits at long ranges might be something to look into.

[9./JG27DavidRed]

Ok I tested out the LaGG with 23mm against Ju 88 bombers (not fighters) at 1000m conversion range. 

 

While it did absolutely screw up aim closer than 300m, it seemed very, very accurate at ranges from 800 - 1200m with absolutely devastating results with both AP and HE ammo (I got 5 kills on my first try).

 

The bullet drop is definitely there, because at closer ranges the cannon overshot the crosshair by a significant amount. I'm not sure there is anything wrong with ballistics, but spread and the energy with which the AP ammo hits at long ranges might be something to look into.

i mean come on, 1200meters, and 5 kills on your first try...this cant be correctly modeled. no way.

and no, at least I wasnt talking about yaks...i was critizising the ability to put the convergence slider to a 1000meters in a fighter aircraft. and overall ballistics which to me seem quite optimistic...not russian ballistics....overall ballistics...but some people here see a JG tag in front of a name, and automatically dismiss the post assuming it must be a luftwhiner complaining about the other side only...

[Finkeren]

I also tried it with the ShVAK. Nowhere near the same accuracy at 1000m. I got the odd hit ofc, we are talking about a large aircraft flying straight after all, but not the tight groupings I got with the 23mm. To me it looks like Staiger may be right and there is something wrong with the spread for the 23mm in particular.

 

And just to be clear: There is nothing wrong with an autocannon hitting and damaging a target at 1000m. Cannons like this were capable of firing and hitting at much longer distances when on a sturdy mount on the ground. The problem is that when mounted on a shaky aircraft, there is just bound to be greater spread at long range.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

i mean come on, 1200meters, and 5 kills on your first try...this cant be correctly modeled. no way.

and no, at least I wasnt talking about yaks...i was critizising the ability to put the convergence slider to a 1000meters in a fighter aircraft. and overall ballistics which to me seem quite optimistic...not russian ballistics....overall ballistics...but some people here see a JG tag in front of a name, and automatically dismiss the post assuming it must be a luftwhiner complaining about the other side only...

 

You mean that the bullet shouldn't be able to reach that distance because it would "fall off" by then? Or that the lateral dispersion would make it miss the target?

Edited June 15, 2017 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[Yogiflight]

I agree with DavidRed about the convergence slider setting to 1000m for fighters. Don't we want the aircrafts to be as historical correct as possible? So what speaks against the historical convergence settings? For the german fighters it would be 400m, except the wing mounted MG151/15 and 20 of the Bf109s. And the 37mm was set to 800m on the Bf110 and 1000m at the Ju87.

[Tomsk]

And just to be clear: There is nothing wrong with an autocannon hitting and damaging a target at 1000m. Cannons like this were capable of firing and hitting at much longer distances when on a sturdy mount on the ground. The problem is that when mounted on a shaky aircraft, there is just bound to be greater spread at long range.

 

Indeed, it's also the case that for an automatic weapon (even mounted ones) successive rounds are not as accurate as the first.

 

I agree with DavidRed about the convergence slider setting to 1000m for fighters. Don't we want the aircrafts to be as historical correct as possible? So what speaks against the historical convergence settings? For the german fighters it would be 400m, except the wing mounted MG151/15 and 20 of the Bf109s. And the 37mm was set to 800m on the Bf110 and 1000m at the Ju87.

 

Whilst a convergence setting of 1000m is a bit excessive, I think the real problem here is more likely to be poorly modelled dispersion/ballistics. After all if the dispersion is too tight then no matter what the vertical convergence setting you'll be able to hit targets more accurately than you should be able to. Conversely if the dispersion is accurate, then you can set your convergence to whatever you like and you'll still be unable to place accurate fire.

[LukeFF]

I agree with DavidRed about the convergence slider setting to 1000m for fighters. Don't we want the aircrafts to be as historical correct as possible? So what speaks against the historical convergence settings? For the german fighters it would be 400m, except the wing mounted MG151/15 and 20 of the Bf109s.

It depends on the model of the 109. In general, the nose-mounted machine guns were set to parallel convergence, and the nose-mounted cannon were set to 400 meters. In the Emils and early 190s, the MG-FFs were set to 200 meters.

Edited June 15, 2017 by LukeFF

[Yogiflight]

In the 109 Friedrichs the machineguns bullet paths were crossing at 400m. Additional to what you wrote about the 190, the MG151/20 wingroot cannons were set to a crossing point in 300m.

[Aap]

And the 37mm was set to 800m on the Bf110 and 1000m at the Ju87.

 

I think that for Ju87 the horizontal convergence was 400m and vertical convergence was 1000m, which meant that the round actually crossed crosshair at around 400m the first time and then dropped to crosshair level again at 1000m vertically, but way off mark horizontally. So in reality the aiming was set to 400m. 

Edited June 15, 2017 by II./JG77_Kemp

[Yogiflight]

Yep, at 375m was the first crossing with the crosshair level. The convergence setting to 1000m gave the possibility to attack soft targets from larger distance with HE, without changing the convergence setting.

[F/JG300_Gruber]

I think that for Ju87 the horizontal convergence was 400m and vertical convergence was 1000m, which meant that the round actually crossed crosshair at around 400m the first time and then dropped to crosshair level again at 1000m vertically, but way off mark horizontally. So in reality the aiming was set to 400m. 

 

400m for horizontal is also what I have in my books for the Ju87

[LukeFF]

In the 109 Friedrichs the machineguns bullet paths were crossing at 400m.

Maybe vertically with the gunsight but not horizontally. They were set to fire straight ahead. Not at my computer right now, so I cannot post the relevant pages from the armament manual.

Edited June 15, 2017 by LukeFF