Russian guns balistics...

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

With all due respect, you've proved what, and to whom?

 Sorry my translation mistake, ... I want to say that "I have tested the Russian airplanes", .. but i can't prove (demonstrate) all technical details because it´s a boring and complicated work, that nobody would pay.

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

Based on many hours of RL Yak-1 stick time, I assume?

The same RL Yak-1 flight hours that the programmer of the game. i´m sure   

 

That sort of behavior doesn't really sound too useful for landing.

I'm afraid that, ..You must ask that things, to the soviet military engineers who wrote the Yak-1 flight manual.

Edited October 2, 2017 by III/JG52_Otto_-I-

[BraveSirRobin]

The same RL Yak-1 flight hours that the programmer of the game. i´m sure   

 

Well, when you develop your WW2 flight sim you can use that "experience" to make the flaps work in any manner that you see fit.

 

Do you speak fluent Russian?

[=RvE=Windmills]

 Sorry my translation mistake, ... I want to say that "I have tested the Russian airplanes", .. but i can't prove (demonstrate) all technical details because it´s a boring and complicated work, that nobody would pay.

 

 

"I know this for sure despite admitting I literally don't have any evidence, it's too much work so just believe me without it".

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

"I know this for sure despite admitting I literally don't have any evidence, it's too much work so just believe me without it".

Not, it is not, ..I have my evidences, and I show a little bit of them. ..Developers show any evidences, when they change the FM´s, change bf-109 neutral trim, etc.??  and you don't dudb about them. 

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

Does anyone else have the impression that German plane durability and gun power is back to the pre fix state after the latest patch that „corrected“ the gun ballistics?

[L3Pl4K]

Does anyone else have the impression that German plane durability and gun power is back to the pre fix state after the latest patch that „corrected“ the gun ballistics?

Only feelings, everything work as it should comrade.

[Holtzauge]

Does anyone else have the impression that German plane durability and gun power is back to the pre fix state after the latest patch that „corrected“ the gun ballistics?

 

Yes, I have had the exact same thought: The Mingeschoss seem less effective one again. Maybe the previous fix was somehow lost in the latest patch?

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

 

 

Yes, I have had the exact same thought: The Mingeschoss seem less effective one again. Maybe the previous fix was somehow lost in the latest patch?

 

Yes feels exactly like the old one now. Wings on the 109 ripp off in an instant, while the minengeschoss  practically takes ages to do any damage at all

[GridiroN]

I have the complete opposite experience. Unless my target is less than 250m in front of me, Russian rounds don't hit the broadside of a barn. 

 

The German ballistics are way more accurate over range imo. You can snipe with the MG151/20 if lag/bad ping doesn't get in your way. 

Does anyone else have the impression that German plane durability and gun power is back to the pre fix state after the latest patch that „corrected“ the gun ballistics?

 

No. If anything, the tables are totally flipped now. 20mm German rounds finish my plane in 1 hit regularly (I can no longer remember the last time a 20mm hit me and my plane was still combat capable), and Russian 20mm are horrible. I snuck up behind a 109 2 days ago, hit him with maybe 2 20mm rounds in his fleshy bits, and a few rifle calibers, ...his plane was leaking water, but he was fine. He even turned around and killed me, flew home, ...no kill. lol. 

Edited October 21, 2017 by GridiroN

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

No, sorry but it is absolutely ridiculous what kind of damage the Russian fighters can take and every single shot from Russian planes takes off wings and tail sections and destroys engines of 109s. If some aerodynamic changes to a Yak 1 make it a Starfighter (Yak 1b), why on the other hand, do pizza size holes in their wings have no adverse effect on the flight characteristics of Russian planes?

Edited October 24, 2017 by II/JG17_SchwarzeDreizehn

[BraveSirRobin]

No, sorry but it is absolutely ridiculous what kind of damage the Russian fighters can take and every single shot from Russian planes takes off wings and tail sections and destroys engines of 109s. If some aerodynamic changes to a Yak 1 make it a Starfighter (Yak 1b), why on the other hand, do pizza size holes in their wings have no adverse effect on the flight characteristics of Russian planes?

I always check the stats of people who make posts like this. They all fly German exclusively.

[Lusekofte]

Funny claims to read from one who are in the recieving end of whatever a 109 deliver. I havehit 109 in the wing root and fuselage with my 23 mm mixed ammo many times , and they still flying, also I have crashed many times in my IL 2 and PE 2 after 1 pass from a 109.

 

These subjective opinions of yours is considered as Luftwhining if you do not present it in a way axcepted by the developers, you guys simply better off not write about it if there is no fact and proof behind your complaint. 

I know how frustration feels and make you look in a forum, and what I read is just that. Feelings based on a frustration. The claims made about Russian planes and socalled proof without showing them is utterly rubbish, should have been deleted on sight. This is the only forum I know of there is allowed to discuss FM and DM without spesific proof, in fact you get banned for a week attempting it, and I can see why

[ZachariasX]

 

 

also I have crashed many times in my IL 2 and PE 2 after 1 pass from a 109.

Glad I'm not alone in this. Omline, I get the feeling like I'm dead at the first pass of whever has a try. So take me as your gunner, and you see how quickly you can die in a Peshka under the fire of "the impotent, neutered German peashooters".

[VesseL]

Funny claims to read from one who are in the recieving end of whatever a 109 deliver. I havehit 109 in the wing root and fuselage with my 23 mm mixed ammo many times , and they still flying, also I have crashed many times in my IL 2 and PE 2 after 1 pass from a 109.

 

These subjective opinions of yours is considered as Luftwhining if you do not present it in a way axcepted by the developers, you guys simply better off not write about it if there is no fact and proof behind your complaint. 

I know how frustration feels and make you look in a forum, and what I read is just that. Feelings based on a frustration. The claims made about Russian planes and socalled proof without showing them is utterly rubbish, should have been deleted on sight. This is the only forum I know of there is allowed to discuss FM and DM without spesific proof, in fact you get banned for a week attempting it, and I can see why

 

And your subjective opinions are considered as observations, right? There are some opinions that are accepted and then there are those opinions that are not. If someone want proofs, he or she can dig out all the threads about this topic from last 3 years? And put links here and pump those topics up again. Yep, round three. Since 2015 when all this whining started.

[Holtzauge]

Agreed, the type of claims like ”I was once flying in a Pe-2 and I was oneshotted by a Me-109” is just a mirror image of Luftwhining so has no value as proof.

 

OTOH I would say statistics are proof. The problem with this is that it requires patience and a large number of engagements so you can build up statistically significant results. A second prerequisite is that your test setup is the same scenario so you don’t change the test conditions. The way I solve this is using the QM editor: I set up the same plane set (lately I have been using the poor Spitfire Mk5 as my target base and the pilot set at veteran level) and then I do a number of trials either using say the Me-109G2 or the Spitfire Mk5 as the attacker. So this is my test scenario. The nice thing with Spitfire Mk5 veteran pilots in QM is that they are so predictable: They always turn into you so you are nearly always presented with a high angle deflection shot.

 

Now as has been pointed out single flights are of no value: Say in flight  No 1 you got lucky and your target is destroyed in the first pass after a very brief burst you may instead in flight No 2 have to do a lot off passes and expend most of your ammo before the Spitfire gives up its last breath. But if you do this tedious testing a sufficient number of times a pattern emerges: You will begin to see a so-called normal distribution build up around a certain value: You can measure hits or passes or whatever.

 

I have done this for the test scenario I mentioned above and I can state that the number of passes and hits required to de-wing, shot of control surfaces or cause loss of control kills is STATISTICALLY substantially less using a fellow Spitfire using Hispanos than the same test scenario using the Mg151/20 of a Me109G2.

 

If you don’t believe me then by all means do your own testing but my conclusion from these tests has been that a high velocity HE/AP belting is in-game much more effective than a belting containing Mingeschoss which is NOT how it should be IRL IMHO. So if the current DM fails to model Mingeschoss properly and it is so difficult to fix then it looks like to me the best option is to allow custom belting. However, if this is not fixed I fear for the Mk108 mod on the G6 because the whole idea with the Mk108 is lobbing low velocity mine shells nothing else and if the current DM can’t handle that then what?

 

And sure, just as there are Virtuous Victims in Stalinwood aka Redwhiners there are also Luftwhiners but I think it’s very unfair to brush of all people who have noticed this shortcoming in the DM by placing them in the latter category….

Edited October 24, 2017 by Holtzauge

[BraveSirRobin]

but I think it’s very unfair to brush of all people who have noticed this shortcoming in the DM by placing then in the latter category….

The only category I put them in is “exclusively fly German.” There is nothing unfair about that at all. Because it’s true.

 

Lately I’ve been flying the 190 a little after flying VVS almost exclusively for months (not by choice). I feel like the grim reaper. The biggest danger I face is running into the parts of the aircraft that disintegrated in front of me.

[Lusekofte]

And your subjective opinions are considered as observations, right? There are some opinions that are accepted and then there are those opinions that are not. If someone want proofs, he or she can dig out all the threads about this topic from last 3 years? And put links here and pump those topics up again. Yep, round three. Since 2015 when all this whining started.

 

No My subjective opinions are just like yours, I could just give a [Edited] writing it, because everybody are convinced their own feelings are the true one. Difference is I do not demand a change because of my feeling.

I wrote what I did basicly to say you guys are talking [Edited], and you are saying the same about what I say. It is kind of a balance. 

 

I wrote my input just to say, do not waist your breath, what you are doing is not helping. You need something to prove your point. How about starting to fly in a realistic way? Taxi to runway for instance, greatest immersion and realism fuckups are done by the community itself, not the fm

Edited October 25, 2017 by Bearcat

[LukeFF]

 

 

every single shot from Russian planes takes off wings and tail sections and destroys engines of 109s

 

Absolute, 100% BS. Go play one of the Yak-1 scripted campaigns and then tell us how many 109s are insta-killed there.

[VesseL]

No My subjective opinions are just like yours, I could just give a shit writing it, because everybody are convinced their own feelings are the true one. Difference is I do not demand a change because of my feeling.

I wrote what I did basicly to say you guys are talking bullshit, and you are saying the same about what I say. It is kind of a balance. 

 

I wrote my input just to say, do not waist your breath, what you are doing is not helping. You need something to prove your point. How about starting to fly in a realistic way? Taxi to runway for instance, greatest immersion and realism fuckups are done by the community itself, not the fm

 

 

I try to keep my opinions as objective as its possible. Be analytic rather than reacting with my feelings. Is that possible for an axis pilot? Are you objective or do you have some goal here? Btw you are demanding that mg151/20 shoud not change. Or do you think its too strong at the moment?

[Holtzauge]

Maybe what I've written above comes across as more critical than I intended but as all engineers I tend to focus on problems and I currently see the in-game performance of the Minegeschoss as something that has room for improvement but having said that then I want to add that the overall performance of the DM in BoX is the best in class and the only reason I bring this up is that I would appreciate if the developers looked into this since IMHO it would make this outstanding sim even better!

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

The thing is, we have been told it is all feeling so many times and and then it turned out to be what exactly? :D 100% BS? Yes! But not on the side of the people complaining :D

 

BraveSirRobin, please do not assume that WoL is the only server that you can ever fly on. That´s the only BS assumption here... You know there are other servers too.

 

 

Absolute, 100% BS. Go play one of the Yak-1 scripted campaigns and then tell us how many 109s are insta-killed there.

 

Nice sales strategy!

[Holtzauge]

Schwarze 13: Check your settings or if mailbox is full: Not possible to send PM's to you right now.

[Lusekofte]

 

 

Be analytic rather than reacting with my feelings.

 

And I said my point in a general point of view. There might be a truth in faulty things with the BF 109, but do not tell me it cant hurt a Russian plane, because it can I assure you.

My point is is the way it get reported here wont help. Not a bit. You must isolate the problem and give specific critique. I do not fly 109 I have no clue if something is wrong, the effort done here is not going to fix anything 

[VesseL]

I know LuseKofte. We all want this sim be successfull. I have flown it over 2000 hours im sure. I must like it a lot. Its almost the only game i play.

[BraveSirRobin]

BraveSirRobin, please do not assume that WoL is the only server that you can ever fly on. That´s the only BS assumption here... You know there are other servers too.

 

Yes, I’m sure it’s just an amazing coincidence that all their WoL stats are German-only.

[sniperton]

No stats here, only some fresh impressions. I'm relatively new to BoX, I'm still in the aircraft familiarization phase, just finished the stock Stalingrad campaign on the SU side, and I'm a few missions into reflying the campaign as Axis. Pilot level 9. Flying for the SU, my average was 0 to 2 planes shot down per mission, now my average is 2 to 4 planes per mission (flying mostly the E7 and the Macchi with gunpods). I don't find there's anything wrong with weapons, and Axis fighters appear to be vastly superior in most respects. If there's anything biased in the game, it's the engines: Russian engines are most forgiving (with the notable exception of the Allison), while German ones require descipline. Given that, I still find it easier to gain the upperhand in a German plane, and I don't find that my weapons limit my possibilities.

Maybe the damage by the Minengeschoss is not modelled correctly, but from an SP perspective, it really doesn't count. Once I have a solution, I pump in as much as needed, and it makes little difference whether it's two rounds more or less.

[VesseL]

I have never think there is bias, any bias. Have to say that. And for the russian guns ballistic, i personally dont have  any complaints. For me its the ger 20mm and fragility of 109, and G2 turntime. Maybe im in a wrong thread. 

[CUJO_1970]

Agreed, the type of claims like ”I was once flying in a Pe-2 and I was oneshotted by a Me-109” is just a mirror image of Luftwhining so has no value as proof.

 

OTOH I would say statistics are proof. The problem with this is that it requires patience and a large number of engagements so you can build up statistically significant results. A second prerequisite is that your test setup is the same scenario so you don’t change the test conditions. The way I solve this is using the QM editor: I set up the same plane set (lately I have been using the poor Spitfire Mk5 as my target base and the pilot set at veteran level) and then I do a number of trials either using say the Me-109G2 or the Spitfire Mk5 as the attacker. So this is my test scenario. The nice thing with Spitfire Mk5 veteran pilots in QM is that they are so predictable: They always turn into you so you are nearly always presented with a high angle deflection shot.

 

 

This is a great point and I have compiled quite a bit of data since 2.012 - about 75 hours of online flying + reviewing the stats and watching all of the recorded tracks.

 

Some of it (actual data) I've shared in various threads, only to be accused of "cherry-picking" (etc) because the results are contrary to what a particular and very vocal group want them to be.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

My idea, though WRT to testing is a little different than the controlled testing a lot of people like to do...my preference is for "real-world" conditions (online missions against human enemies) and then compile data by studying the online server stats, ex: http://72ag-ded.ru:8080/en/pilot/7606/CUJO1970/?tour=25 and see what those tell us. You can also review tracks to see what is actually happening in the sim...it shows us the ultimate end result.

 

This all takes quite a bit of time to analyze, process and put into a report.

[unreasonable]

Agreed, the type of claims like ”I was once flying in a Pe-2 and I was oneshotted by a Me-109” is just a mirror image of Luftwhining so has no value as proof.

 

OTOH I would say statistics are proof. The problem with this is that it requires patience and a large number of engagements so you can build up statistically significant results. A second prerequisite is that your test setup is the same scenario so you don’t change the test conditions. The way I solve this is using the QM editor: I set up the same plane set (lately I have been using the poor Spitfire Mk5 as my target base and the pilot set at veteran level) and then I do a number of trials either using say the Me-109G2 or the Spitfire Mk5 as the attacker. So this is my test scenario. The nice thing with Spitfire Mk5 veteran pilots in QM is that they are so predictable: They always turn into you so you are nearly always presented with a high angle deflection shot.

 

Now as has been pointed out single flights are of no value: Say in flight  No 1 you got lucky and your target is destroyed in the first pass after a very brief burst you may instead in flight No 2 have to do a lot off passes and expend most of your ammo before the Spitfire gives up its last breath. But if you do this tedious testing a sufficient number of times a pattern emerges: You will begin to see a so-called normal distribution build up around a certain value: You can measure hits or passes or whatever.

 

I have done this for the test scenario I mentioned above and I can state that the number of passes and hits required to de-wing, shot of control surfaces or cause loss of control kills is STATISTICALLY substantially less using a fellow Spitfire using Hispanos than the same test scenario using the Mg151/20 of a Me109G2.

 

If you don’t believe me then by all means do your own testing but my conclusion from these tests has been that a high velocity HE/AP belting is in-game much more effective than a belting containing Mingeschoss which is NOT how it should be IRL IMHO. So if the current DM fails to model Mingeschoss properly and it is so difficult to fix then it looks like to me the best option is to allow custom belting. However, if this is not fixed I fear for the Mk108 mod on the G6 because the whole idea with the Mk108 is lobbing low velocity mine shells nothing else and if the current DM can’t handle that then what?

 

And sure, just as there are Virtuous Victims in Stalinwood aka Redwhiners there are also Luftwhiners but I think it’s very unfair to brush of all people who have noticed this shortcoming in the DM by placing them in the latter category….

 

I do not recall seeing the details of your test so a quick question: does this account for the fact that a Spitfire has two Hispanos and a 109G2 only one Mg151/20?  I would expect an Fw190 to also make more kills per pass than a 109 for the same reason, even more if it has all four cannons.  A Spitfire would surely average more hits per pass than a G4?

 

(On the effectiveness of one round vs another  - ie effectiveness per hit - I have no opinion).

Edited October 25, 2017 by unreasonable

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

 

 

I do not recall seeing the details of your test so a quick question: does this account for the fact that a Spitfire has two Hispanos and a 109G2 only one Mg151/20? I would expect an Fw190 to also make more kills per pass than a 109 for the same reason, even more if it has all four cannons. A Spitfire would surely average more hits per pass than a G4?

 

Good point, but you could easily extrapolate how many hispano / MG 151/20 hits there were by estimating the relative share of shots for these weapons and base the statistic on them. It wouldn´t be an exact count, but since the result is an average it would probably converge anyways...

[Barnacles]

I find that the type of engagement effects the probability of a kill. With a 109 and a high angle close range deflection shot usually causing critical damage, and a same speed stern chase causing much less damage for the same number of hits. Edit; online the performance of the 109 vs Russian fighters means that all things being equal, the types of engagement will be statistically different for 109s and yaks

Edited October 25, 2017 by 71st_AH_Barnacles

[Holtzauge]

I do not recall seeing the details of your test so a quick question: does this account for the fact that a Spitfire has two Hispanos and a 109G2 only one Mg151/20?  I would expect an Fw190 to also make more kills per pass than a 109 for the same reason, even more if it has all four cannons.  A Spitfire would surely average more hits per pass than a G4?

 

(On the effectiveness of one round vs another  - ie effectiveness per hit - I have no opinion).

 

 

Good point, but you could easily extrapolate how many hispano / MG 151/20 hits there were by estimating the relative share of shots for these weapons and base the statistic on them. It wouldn´t be an exact count, but since the result is an average it would probably converge anyways...

 

Maybe I was a bit unclear but it's exactly like Black13 says: In the end it's all about the number of hits and that of course not only requires passes, but also passes where the aim is good and where you actually push the trigger.

 

I find that the type of engagement effects the probability of a kill. With a 109 and a high angle close range deflection shot usually causing critical damage, and a same speed stern chase causing much less damage for the same number of hits. Edit; online the performance of the 109 vs Russian fighters means that all things being equal, the types of engagement will be statistically different for 109s and yaks

 

Yup, this is probably very true in MP and that is why it's nice to do the testing in a scenario that is repetitive which suits the QM AI fine since they are sooooooo predictable once they get hit: Always this weaving back and forth and then the hard pull into you when you get into firing range which usually results in the same 90 deg deflection shot over and over again which of course suits me fine!

 

Regarding the effectiveness of AP, I completely agree with what Finkeren wrote here: If you load up with an all AP belting this is just great for shredding fighters which is why I'm going to jump at this opportunity if it ever becomes available also for the Mg151/20!

[Holtzauge]

This is a great point and I have compiled quite a bit of data since 2.012 - about 75 hours of online flying + reviewing the stats and watching all of the recorded tracks.

 

Some of it (actual data) I've shared in various threads, only to be accused of "cherry-picking" (etc) because the results are contrary to what a particular and very vocal group want them to be.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

My idea, though WRT to testing is a little different than the controlled testing a lot of people like to do...my preference is for "real-world" conditions (online missions against human enemies) and then compile data by studying the online server stats, ex: http://72ag-ded.ru:8080/en/pilot/7606/CUJO1970/?tour=25 and see what those tell us. You can also review tracks to see what is actually happening in the sim...it shows us the ultimate end result.

 

This all takes quite a bit of time to analyze, process and put into a report.

 

Sure, the trend is there if you look for it and I agree you can do it using other scenarios as well. Have not tried the approach you mention but it sounds interesting and if we can get more data from multiple sources this can only make things even better!