I feel like I need a shower...

[Solmyr]

And here we are : complaining about *109' FM*. I guess that *190 FM* isn't that far and *VVS dmg model* neither... 

 

To OP : you say you're not in that mood at all, but then why call this thread "I feel I need shower" ?? That looks pretty weird title to me. 

Edited January 29, 2018 by Solmyr

[Panthera]

Well I have to agree with the OP in the sense that it at least feels wrong from a realism standpoint, albeit I wouldn't say I feel like taking a shower when I fly the Yak he he 

 

To me it feels kind of like the devs are trying abit harder to achieve balance between the two sides rather than to achieve an actual simulation.  I trust this will eventually change however

 

PS: Not to pour fuel on the bias bonfire, but has anyone else noticed that virtually all the loading screen art features VVS aircraft shooting down LW aircraft and never vice versa?   

[Finkeren]

PS: Not to pour fuel on the bias bonfire, but has anyone else noticed that virtually all the loading screen art features VVS aircraft shooting down LW aircraft and never vice versa?   

 

Claiming not to want to pour fuel on the fire as you do exactly that...

[Panthera]

Claiming not to want to pour fuel on the fire as you do exactly that...

 

Hence the laughing and winking

 

I do find it abit, erm, ironic though considering all the talk on the subject

[Dakpilot]

Well I have to agree with the OP in the sense that it at least feels wrong from a realism standpoint, albeit I wouldn't say I feel like taking a shower when I fly the Yak he he 

 

To me it feels kind of like the devs are trying abit harder to achieve balance between the two sides rather than to achieve an actual simulation.  I trust this will eventually change however

 

PS: Not to pour fuel on the bias bonfire, but has anyone else noticed that virtually all the loading screen art features VVS aircraft shooting down LW aircraft and never vice versa?   

 

However politely you put it Dev's have always said they are solely trying to do things by historical accuracy and not any form of "balance"

 

clearly stating you think there is bias is doing more than putting fuel on the fire, and rather insulting to the Dev's who clearly have put a lot of effort and research to achieve "actual simulation" as you put it

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[=X51=VC_]

To OP : you say you're not in that mood at all, but then why call this thread "I feel I need shower" ?? That looks pretty weird title to me.

Exaggeration for effect, I was feeling melodramatic I just wanted to capture that feeling of doing well without trying much and not even feeling that good about it. What made it worse for me is that usually (in any game) if you swap sides, especially from one you struggle with to their enemy, you learn something: maybe an insight into a weakness. I didn't feel like flying the Yak taught me anything.

 

Anyway, I am interested in planes as machines and fly them for that experience. I don't care about the politics of the sides and I agree the sim should not be aiming for historical result overall, just realistic individual plane feel which as far as I can tell it does. The 109 meets my expectations of its performance, as I said I just need to work on my personal effectiveness.

 

As for VVS, I have a La-5, that's more challenging and satisfying to fly. I've also given the LaGG some time and was pleasantly surprised, more to learn and try.

[FTC_DerSheriff]

After mixed results mainly flying the 109 for the month or so I've had this game, and getting a bit frustrated, I took the Yak-1 out today. I've flown it once or twice before, seemed pleasant. Today I got 5 kills in 2 sorties, 6 if you count the guy that rammed me to end my second one and 7 if I get cheeky and count a "manoeuvre kill" where I never hit him but he hit a tree trying to yo-yo after a long scissors. I don't consider myself a great pilot but that just felt too easy. In the 109 I work my a*** off and I'm lucky if I get one before I go down, and I almost never live long enough to RTB. Yak, chilled, not even trying that hard, 3 kills first sortie undamaged RTB, 2 second sortie total 5 for 1. I genuinely felt dirty flying this plane...

Like you said you could exploit your 109 knowledge against them. What comes into play here as well is you fought mostly inexpierienced 109 pilots. The blues have way more inexpirienced fighter pilots and the blue team is where most players start.

 

WoL is a farm fest for seasoned pilots of both sides. And if you fly both sides reguarlry you will notice that pilots of both sides are falling for the same assumptions. They think that a 109 can't out turn a yak. They think a 190 cant out turn a yak. A yak cant zoom climb with a 109. A yak is much slower than a 109.

 

All wrong in particular situations.  

 

The classic 109 death is the following:

109 on 3k dives on an enemy on 1k. Shoots him down or misses him and climbs in steep angle back up. A yak saw this while flying level and on top speed at 2k and has no issues to get to the prop hanging 109.

 

The inexpierienced 109 pilot follows up with some insults in the chat how this yak was able to zoom up to him. Or is even falsly assuming that the yak he just shot at zoomed up.

Edited January 30, 2018 by DerSheriff

[Panthera]

However politely you put it Dev's have always said they are solely trying to do things by historical accuracy and not any form of "balance"

 

clearly stating you think there is bias is doing more than putting fuel on the fire, and rather insulting to the Dev's who clearly have put a lot of effort and research to achieve "actual simulation" as you put it

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

 

Well I'm just calling it as I see it based on the data available, and compared with data available their effort toward "achieving historical accuracy" (what'ever that comment entails) hasn't completely succeeded yet. I believe substantial evidence has been provided toward that end in the thread about turn times where Holtzauge & JtD provided excellent information.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Panthera

[Inkophile]

Well I have to agree with the OP in the sense that it at least feels wrong from a realism standpoint, albeit I wouldn't say I feel like taking a shower when I fly the Yak he he 

 

To me it feels kind of like the devs are trying abit harder to achieve balance between the two sides rather than to achieve an actual simulation.  I trust this will eventually change however

 

Not to say that you yourself suffer from a case of misinterpretation of real-life scenarios, but many do.

 

A LOT (the majority) of air-to-air kills in WW2 were on unsuspecting opponents. Often they didn't even know that they were under attack until they hear/feel cannon shells hitting their plane, or they lost sight of the enemies during combat and got nailed. Pilots generally had far fewer flight hours than us desk-jockeys do, they did not have the same means of communication (for example being limited to either being in transmit or a receive mode on the radio), and they did not have the same tools to analyse the battle afterwards (replays, etc).

 

In this scenario the 109 is a fantastic plane because its stiffening doesn't matter much if you are attacking someone who isn't even manoeuvring to evade your attack. It also has its fluid-coupling supercharger which gives its engine more or less constant power up to 6500 - 7000 m, while the opponents with their friction-clutch superchargers will have less than maximum power at pretty much all altitudes. This means that the 109 has an easier time to stay above its opponents than the opponents have to stay above it, and its power advantage means that it has a reasonably good chance to run away even if at an altitude disadvantage as long as it spots its enemy in time. If completely ignoring differences in training/experience but only looking at plane performance and doctrine this is what made the 109 such an amazing plane.

 

Many players do not take this into account, but rather takes each plane's performance completely out of context. Doing that they get a very skewed view on how the planes perform against each other, and it is the basis for a lot of "bias" claims. People also like to use subjective claims (i.e. pilots' statements) rather than hard facts (i.e. actual numbers from reports, etc) to support their views, and although subjective claims aren't worthless they have far less weight than hard facts do.

 

Sure, the planes aren't perfectly modelled, but that goes for 100 % of all aircraft simulators out there. 100 %. Question is how close to 100 % the planes are modelled, and going by the information that is available the developers have done a really good job. Things can still be improved, but they aren't as far off as many players like to claim.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Inkoslav

[Inkophile]

The quality of the planes is a pretty good point. The Germans definitely had a high production quality during that stage of the war (BOM, BOS, BOK), and although many airframes would be worn out and they wouldn't generally be as bad off as many Russian planes. One factor against the Germans though is the long and troubled supply lines, while the Russians' supply lines were short and effective.

 

As you say however Bodenplatte would be quite interesting in that regard since it'd be the other way around, with German airframes often being shoddy as production was rushed and there was a distinct lack of un-bombed facilities, the lack of good lubrication oils, and having replaced for example ball bearings with in those applications insufficient roller bearings instead to ease manufacture. On the other hand the Germans' supply lines would be very short.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Inkoslav

[=X51=VC_]

@DerSheriff yup I've done that in a Yak. Cruised around 500m below the 6 of a 109 that was too high to reach comfortably until he dived on a friendly. I held alt and nailed him on the way back up. Funny thing, he was BnZ-ing me for some time before he gave up then he must have forgotten I was there. I don't seem to have much luck sneaking and stalking like that in the 109, red pilots on average have much better situational awareness it seems.

 

I like to think I don't fall for the really basic mistakes but it's one thing someone experienced like you saying how it should work and another me putting it into practice.

 

@Panthera the devs aim for accuracy of FM of each plane, but you can still get completely different results in combat to historical combat records because the circumstances and meta of the game are fundamentally different.

[Panthera]

Not to say that you yourself suffer from a case of misinterpretation of real-life scenarios, but many do.

 

A LOT (the majority) of air-to-air kills in WW2 were on unsuspecting opponents. Often they didn't even know that they were under attack until they hear/feel cannon shells hitting their plane, or they lost sight of the enemies during combat and got nailed. Pilots generally had far fewer flight hours than us desk-jockeys do, they did not have the same means of communication (for example being limited to either being in transmit or a receive mode on the radio), and they did not have the same tools to analyse the battle afterwards (replays, etc).

 

In this scenario the 109 is a fantastic plane because its stiffening doesn't matter much if you are attacking someone who isn't even manoeuvring to evade your attack. It also has its fluid-coupling supercharger which gives its engine more or less constant power up to 6500 - 7000 m, while the opponents with their friction-clutch superchargers will have less than maximum power at pretty much all altitudes. This means that the 109 has an easier time to stay above its opponents than the opponents have to stay above it, and its power advantage means that it has a reasonably good chance to run away even if at an altitude disadvantage as long as it spots its enemy in time. If completely ignoring differences in training/experience but only looking at plane performance and doctrine this is what made the 109 such an amazing plane.

 

Many players do not take this into account, but rather takes each plane's performance completely out of context. Doing that they get a very skewed view on how the planes perform against each other, and it is the basis for a lot of "bias" claims. People also like to use subjective claims (i.e. pilots' statements) rather than hard facts (i.e. actual numbers from reports, etc) to support their views, and although subjective claims aren't worthless they have far less weight than hard facts do.

 

Sure, the planes aren't perfectly modelled, but that goes for 100 % of all aircraft simulators out there. 100 %. Question is how close to 100 % the planes are modelled, and going by the information that is available the developers have done a really good job. Things can still be improved, but they aren't as far off as many players like to claim.

 

Trust me Inkoslav I would never use pilot anecdotes as any form of measure of aircraft performance, I only consider the hard physical figures available for the aircraft as truly meaningful and it is only inconsistencies in respect to these that I place any concern with

 

Also I've never had an issue with the 109's control stiffening at high speed as that is a known & well documented characteristic of the aircraft, and one which there is a logical scientific explanation for. However at the same time it is odd that Russian aircraft with the same documented issue (Yak/Lagg etc) do not suffer the same effects ingame, or that they can dive well beyond their listed dive speed limits by something like 200+ km/h without a care in the world.

 

In short atm I am concerned with the following in IL2:

 

- the ingame 109's stand out by turning much worse than what the real life figures indicate (Holtzauge proved this pretty conclusively with an advanced aerodynamic computation based on real life figures)

- the ingame 109's (or pretty much any inline powered German a/c ingame) feature an odd 1 min WEP limitation that there is zero proof of ever existed

- the ingame Russian aircraft generally can dive well beyond their listed dive speed limits

- the ingame Russian aircraft don't suffer control stiffness issues to the degree documented

Edited January 29, 2018 by Panthera

[Mac_Messer]

Let`s be frank, the more new customers BoX series draw in, the more of the same questions are going to arise, including the VVS - LW flight modelling. The more such discussions by new members arise means that probably the sales are going up.

 

So this kind of threads are paradoxically good for the game.

 

I`m not really surprised because 14 years earlier I asked the very same questions. Now how do regulars here react to such questions is kind of significant.

[-SF-Disarray]

@DerSheriff yup I've done that in a Yak. Cruised around 500m below the 6 of a 109 that was too high to reach comfortably until he dived on a friendly. I held alt and nailed him on the way back up. Funny thing, he was BnZ-ing me for some time before he gave up then he must have forgotten I was there. I don't seem to have much luck sneaking and stalking like that in the 109, red pilots on average have much better situational awareness it seems.

 

I like to think I don't fall for the really basic mistakes but it's one thing someone experienced like you saying how it should work and another me putting it into practice.

 

@Panthera the devs aim for accuracy of FM of each plane, but you can still get completely different results in combat to historical combat records because the circumstances and meta of the game are fundamentally different.

 

I would think it is more likely that the 109 player thought that you were the plane he dived on if he had been attacking you prior to attacking the new comer. Then again I've seen plenty of 109's leave me alone in search of easier kills after managing to evade their attacks for a bit, so who knows?

 

As for you falling into what you see as basic and fundamental mistakes, well that is natural. You see this kind of thing happen in all kinds of disciplines. It is the difference between knowing something academically and doing something practically. You might know that following a Yak into a hard turn to secure a kill is a bad idea in a given situation, but do you know, at the time, that you are in that given situation where that is a bad idea? Being able to make that distinction comes with time, and in this particular example, getting shot out of the sky a few times; nothing like a burning wreck to punctuate your mistakes for you. The important thing is to look back on situations and try to figure out where things went sideways on you, what you might have done differently if you were in that situation again, then go out and try to put yourself back into that situation and see if your new plan will work.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Disarray

[FTC_DerSheriff]

Being able to make that distinction comes with time, and in this particular example, getting shot out of the sky a few times; nothing like a burning wreck to punctuate your mistakes for you. The important thing is to look back on situations and try to figure out where things went sideways on you, what you might have done differently if you were in that situation again, then go out and try to put yourself back into that situation and see if your new plan will work.

 

Isnt that a fantastic thing in such a Sim?  I like just this clear cut feedback so much in a flight combat sim. Brilliant stuff

Edited January 29, 2018 by DerSheriff

[Oubaas]

It all comes down to just one thing, like Curly said in, "City Slickers".

 

Glorious VVS defending Motherland cannot be defeated.

 

That's just the way it is, and we VVS pilots wish that you Luftwaffe types would finally accept your fates.

 

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

I've just done some dive testing...the part about Soviet fighters "diving well beyond their listed dive speeds" does not appear to be a true statement. The Soviet fighters I tested (Yak-1, LaGG, and La-5) have max speeds of 720-750 km/h (per Dev specs). All three shed their control surfaces by 800 km/h. I tested the BF 109 G-2, which has a max speed of 850 km/h and it came apart at a speed greater than 900 km/h.

 

The 109 did experience control stiffening at a much lower speeds.

The total Performance of the Soviet Fighters is OK, the Yak falls apart after 10 Seconds of 720 already. The Issue is in the Virtually Non-Existent Control Stiffening (less than 1/2 of their IRL Values, LaGG-3 achieves Dive Pull Outs that IRL took 1400m, ingame less than 600m) that is hideously undermodelled and allows for incredible High Speed Manouvering. 

 

Historically Speaking only the Brits, used to the Spitfire, really objected to the High Control Forces of the 109, while most others didn't find them that far out of the ordinary and mostly found them Normal. The 109 often also was the fastest thing they had handled to that point, so while an old Buffalo, P-36 and MS.406s may have had lighter Controls withing their Envelope, none of them did go far over 650 in a Dive.

 

Always remember that Pilots will be comparing the new to what they are used to.

Edited January 30, 2018 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

[Field-Ops]

The total Performance of the Soviet Fighters is OK, the Yak falls apart after 10 Seconds of 720 already. The Issue is in the Virtually Non-Existent Control Stiffening (less than 1/2 of their IRL Values, LaGG-3 achieves Dive Pull Outs that IRL took 1400m, ingame less than 600m) that is hideously undermodelled and allows for incredible High Speed Manouvering. 

 

Historically Speaking only the Brits, used to the Spitfire, really objected to the High Control Forces of the 109, while most others didn't find them that far out of the ordinary and mostly found them Normal. The 109 often also was the fastest thing they had handled to that point, so while an old Buffalo, P-36 and MS.406s may have had lighter Controls withing their Envelope, none of them did go far over 650 in a Dive.

 

Always remember that Pilots will be comparing the new to what they are used to.

So the Yak,Lagg,La5 all need a control stiffening job past 500 like the 109 it seems. From what i could tell in my last P40 flight it also encounters control stiffening at higher speeds, but not as bad as the 109 so it can out-turn it at higher speeds which just feels right to me. Is there documentation stating the forces needed for stick inputs at different speeds for all of these birds? That way the Devs can apply stiffening across the board at reported averages.

[=SIM=weetle]

Trust me Inkoslav I would never use pilot anecdotes as any form of measure of aircraft performance, I only consider the hard physical figures available for the aircraft as truly meaningful and it is only inconsistencies in respect to these that I place any concern with

 

Also I've never had an issue with the 109's control stiffening at high speed as that is a known & well documented characteristic of the aircraft, and one which there is a logical scientific explanation for. However at the same time it is odd that Russian aircraft with the same documented issue (Yak/Lagg etc) do not suffer the same effects ingame, or that they can dive well beyond their listed dive speed limits by something like 200+ km/h without a care in the world.

 

In short atm I am concerned with the following in IL2:

 

- the ingame 109's stand out by turning much worse than what the real life figures indicate (Holtzauge proved this pretty conclusively with an advanced aerodynamic computation based on real life figures)

- the ingame 109's (or pretty much any inline powered German a/c ingame) feature an odd 1 min WEP limitation that there is zero proof of ever existed

- the ingame Russian aircraft generally can dive well beyond their listed dive speed limits

- the ingame Russian aircraft don't suffer control stiffness issues to the degree documented

Devs have confirmed that the F-2 is 30kmh is too fast on the deck and the F-4 and G-2 have a minimum sustained turn time 2 seconds faster than it should. This is because as it stands they are currently modeled with the yak prop while they are still looking for VDM prop specs for the 109.

Edited January 30, 2018 by =SIM=weetle

[Y-29.Silky]

This type of thread is a classic.

 

The OP always and only flies 109s; and is generally inefficient with the plane.

 

Then OP flies the Yak once and does well - because, comparatively, it can be more forgiving when fighting against turning & burning 109 pilots who are much like the OP - probably new players only now being exposed to the contagious ideas of bias and over-performance in team chat and teamspeak, all while they twist and turn their joysticks wildly left and right in the 16-man pain-trains on Wings of Liberty.  The OP probably starting talking in game chat about how easy the Yak was as soon as he took off.

 

Next, OP comes to forums proclaiming easy mode VVS.  Then OP is celebrated by the few die-hards who are so entrenched in this idea that they have spent years posting the same JPEGs of translated manuals, anecdotes, and their own ideas of combustion to cultivate the idea that Bf109s are perpetually misrepresented in flight sims. 

 

The next step is a fork in the road, and is always a fun one: the OP will either remove his head from the dark place it is in (y'know... sand, or something) and differentiate between fighting styles and strengths; or, he will get a shiny new avatar, some new quotes in his signature, and probably a JG tag in front of his name. 

 

Bump. RIP my sides.

Edited January 30, 2018 by Y-29.Silky

[Panthera]

Devs have confirmed that the F-2 is 30kmh is too fast on the deck and the F-4 and G-2 have a minimum sustained turn time 2 seconds faster than it should. This is because as it stands they are currently modeled with the yak prop while they are still looking for VDM prop specs for the 109.

 

You most be trolling as the 109's are currently turning something like 2 seconds slower than they should :D

 

Edited January 30, 2018 by Panthera

[Panthera]

I've just done some dive testing...the part about Soviet fighters "diving well beyond their listed dive speeds" does not appear to be a true statement. The Soviet fighters I tested (Yak-1, LaGG, and La-5) have max speeds of 720-750 km/h (per Dev specs). All three shed their control surfaces by 800 km/h. I tested the BF 109 G-2, which has a max speed of 850 km/h and it came apart at a speed greater than 900 km/h.

 

The 109 did experience control stiffening at a much lower speeds.

 

The Yak-1's dive speed limits as per the manuals is 650 km/h.

[Dakpilot]

You most be trolling as the 109's are currently turning something like 2 seconds slower than they should :D

 

 

 

Not to say it is untrue but...

 

They are turning something like 2 seconds slower according to a non official C++ simulation programme

 

You must be trolling to say this is a fact (no insult to the creator of the programme)

 

The Yak-1's dive speed limits as per the manuals is 650 km/h.

 

And BF 109 limit in manuals is 750 kmh..what is your point 

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/11664-fm-claims-respond/

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[Finkeren]

The Yak-1's dive speed limits as per the manuals is 650 km/h.

 

Which does not mean that it should start falling apart at 651 km/h. In fact the only reason the speed limit was that low was because of a tendency for the delta wood skin on the wings to come loose, a kind of damage which is not (yet) modeled in the sim.

[Panthera]

Not to say it is untrue but...

 

They are turning something like 2 seconds slower according to a non official C++ simulation programme

 

You must be trolling to say this is a fact (no insult to the creator of the programme)

 

 

And BF 109 limit in manuals is 750 kmh..what is your point 

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/11664-fm-claims-respond/

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

 

 

Said C++ simulation is based on real life figures and happens to replicate actual Soviet (& German & Finnish) test figures almost precisely, which I'd say rather strengthens its validity.

 

Also I have to say that calculating turn rate & radius is not particularly hard if you have the right figures available, so I don't really see how the devs could have a model more precise than Holtzauge's C++ simulation on that matter.

 

Fact is the ingame 109's are already turning a couple of seconds too slowly according to reference material, thus the claim by the other poster that the devs are saying they are currently turning 2 sec too fast has to be trolling as I cannot believe the devs would ever say this. Adding another 2 sec turn time to the 109's would make some of them worse than the 190.  

Edited January 30, 2018 by Panthera

[=EXPEND=Tripwire]

Not to say it is untrue but...

 

They are turning something like 2 seconds slower according to a non official C++ simulation programme

 

You must be trolling to say this is a fact (no insult to the creator of the programme)

 

IL2 project manager is aware of the 109s turning slower.

 

 

in beginning of 2017 Han said that some (or all) 109s have wrong turn time, and error is ~1-2 seconds - https://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/5412-145-ya-chast-dnevnikov-razrabotchika/page-6?do=findComment&comment=496856

 

but they want to fix it only together with propeller issue - https://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/5412-145-ya-chast-dnevnikov-razrabotchika/page-6?do=findComment&comment=496862

Edited January 30, 2018 by =TBAS=Tripwire

[Panthera]

See now that makes more sense =TBAS=Tripwire, thank you

[Dakpilot]

See now that makes more sense =TBAS=Tripwire, thank you

 

Did you also read up on the dive speed link and does that now make more sense also

 

There is a reason FM claims/disputes/suggestions  are in FM section, it is simply not good practice to post a simulated chart and claim it as fact in a general discussion

 

however possible the chance of it being correct

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[A_radek]

 

 

Said C++ simulation is based on real life figures and happens to replicate actual Soviet (& German & Finnish) test figures almost precisely, which I'd say rather strengthens its validity.   Also I have to say that calculating turn rate & radius is not particularly hard if you have the right figures available, so I don't really see how the devs could have a model more precise than Holtzauge's C++ simulation on that matter.

 

If this means you guys found those VDM prop specs that devs do not have, you should definitely submit those. Or are you also going by yak prop?

[56RAF_Roblex]

 

 

The classic 109 death is the following: 109 on 3k dives on an enemy on 1k. Shoots him down or misses him and climbs in steep angle back up. A yak saw this while flying level and on top speed at 2k and has no issues to get to the prop hanging 109.

 

Lol I read this and though 'Yup.  That is how Der Sheriff gets most of  his kills' then realised who had posted it :-)

 

 

Another factor that partially explains the difference between game results and historical anecdotes is that the Soviets in game have "perfect examples" of each type, when IRL the build quality (and as a result performance) varied quite a bit - particularly early in the war.

 

On the other side though,  people quote figures from the pilots manuals to say the VVS aircraft are OP because they exceed those limits but ignore the fact that the limits were just there to help with repair schedules and VVS pilots did not take any notice of the limits.  If they needed to ruin the engine to get a kill then they just did it.  This applied especially to the Spitfire.  If the engines needed rebuilding more frequently than those on the RAFs spitfires then that was a necessary price to pay. Anyone measuring the actual in-combat performance of the RAF spitfire against the actual in-combat performance of the VVS Spitfire would think they were different models :-)

[Panthera]

Did you also read up on the dive speed link and does that now make more sense also

 

There is a reason FM claims/disputes/suggestions  are in FM section, it is simply not good practice to post a simulated chart and claim it as fact in a general discussion

 

however possible the chance of it being correct

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

 

I responded to the claim by weetle that they turned 1-2 sec too fast, when infact the devs meant too slow just like the real life figures & Holtzauges C++ program based on these suggest.

 

As for the dive speed link, if there's a test that shows dive speeds as fast as 750 km/h for the Yak-1 without issue then sure. I am listing the manual figures of 650 km/h as well as pilot the recommendation to pull out already at 600 km/h.

 

There's also rather large discrepancy in terms of altitude needed for a pull outs which illustrates the lack of control stiffening in the Russian planes.

[Panthera]

 

 

If this means you guys found those VDM prop specs that devs do not have, you should definitely submit those. Or are you also going by yak prop?

 

You can calculate prop efficiency from the real life test results. Also keep in mind that the propeller is made to match the performance of the engine, in other words just slapping on a bigger propeller won't automatically increase maximum thrust, the prop dimensions/aerodynamics have to match the torque & hp curves of the engine.

 

Holtzauge's simulation no doubt assumes a rather similar efficiency in terms of matching the prop to engine parameters between German, British, American & Russian aircraft, as the engineers back then were rather good at that

[Ribbon]

The Yak-1's dive speed limits as per the manuals is 650 km/h.

Try use controls on 700kph......ailerons bye bye!

Manuals are guidance for use within safe limits.

No manual will tell you dive limit is 650kmp while on 660kph controls will fell off.

IRL no pilot will go to limits while in virtual world we go cos we don't have nothing to lose.

For others;

Jss ppl, 190 is faster, 109 is faster and climb better not to tell high alt performance, F4 can turn with yak....etc.

What do you think ww2 dogfights were like ww1 Camel vs. Fokker dr.1 and gaggles were common, i don't think so.

What's next; VVS should have padlock and navlights always turned on.

But yes VVS planes are far superior cos of russian bias lol, maybe that's why there is always more axis pilots in MP.

When good and even average pilot fly 109 all those yaks can only stall bellow them.

[Finkeren]

Holtzauge's simulation no doubt assumes a rather similar efficiency in terms of matching the prop to engine parameters between German, British, American & Russian aircraft, as the engineers back then were rather good at that

Well actually, when the Bf 109 finally upgraded to the DB 601E with the F4 model, the Messerschmitt engineers opted for the easy, but not terribly efficient, solution of simply making the prop blades wider - giving rise to the well known paddle-shaped prop blades. This apparently worked well at high altitude, but much less so at lower altitude, where the F4’s performance was little better than the F2’s despite the more powerful engine.

 

So no, we should not assume that prop efficiency is the same across the board. Different designers opted for different solution with different results.

Edited January 30, 2018 by Finkeren

[Dakpilot]

 

 

Also I have to say that calculating turn rate & radius is not particularly hard if you have the right figures available, so I don't really see how the devs could have a model more precise than Holtzauge's C++ simulation on that matter.

 

 

 

I would say that is a rather presumptuous statement, while the figures input may well be correct (all depending on which real life figures) there are often other considerations to take into account

 

but all of this is a bit off topic and best done in relevant FM section

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

Edited January 30, 2018 by Dakpilot

[=ARTOA=Bombenleger]

 

You can calculate prop efficiency from the real life test results. Also keep in mind that the propeller is made to match the performance of the engine, in other words just slapping on a bigger propeller won't automatically increase maximum thrust, the prop dimensions/aerodynamics have to match the torque & hp curves of the engine.

 

Holtzauge's simulation no doubt assumes a rather similar efficiency in terms of matching the prop to engine parameters between German, British, American & Russian aircraft, as the engineers back then were rather good at that 

 

Assuming similar prop performance is like assuming similar turn performance for all ww2 planes.
Sure they all fly but there are some more than subtle variations in there.

EDIT: Props have a dramatic effect, on a plane i would even say the most dramatic effect of any single part of a plane. MY eyes almmost fell out reading your post. :D no offense.

EDIT2: Calculating prop efficiency from flight performance tests is like calculating the weight of the sun from the amount of sunburn you get after a day at the beach.

Edited January 30, 2018 by =ARTOA=Bombenleger

[unreasonable]

Well I have to agree with the OP in the sense that it at least feels wrong from a realism standpoint, albeit I wouldn't say I feel like taking a shower when I fly the Yak he he 

 

To me it feels kind of like the devs are trying abit harder to achieve balance between the two sides rather than to achieve an actual simulation.  I trust this will eventually change however

 

PS: Not to pour fuel on the bias bonfire, but has anyone else noticed that virtually all the loading screen art features VVS aircraft shooting down LW aircraft and never vice versa?   

 

Cheap shots like these are why your more valid points will get ignored by anyone with any knowledge of the development of the sim over time.

 

When you say that the developers are trying to achieve balance - when they have repeatedly said that they are not - you are just calling them liars. 

 

As to the marketing stuff - yes I am sure that everyone has noticed that. Many of us will also have noticed that they are a Russian group (Jason apart) based in Moscow.  They are subject to Russian law - hence the complete ban on swastikas and the more general ban on the glorification of  anything nazi.  While I might think that a few promotional videos or pictures of Soviets being shot down by Germans would not be glorification, you can (or should be able to ) understand why they do not wish to take any chances. Not only might they get a visit from the man from the Lubyanka, but even worse they might get a mob of stalinist skinhead yobs arrive to smash their offices to bits. You really should show a little more consideration of their position.

[ATA_Vasilij]

Never mind how fast and high the Bf is, always comes the right time when you can kill it with VVS plane.

 

There is no space on the sky where can be Bf in safe. 

[Panthera]

Well actually, when the Bf 109 finally upgraded to the DB 601E with the F4 model, the Messerschmitt engineers opted for the easy, but not terribly efficient, solution of simply making the prop blades wider - giving rise to the well known paddle-shaped prop blades. This apparently worked well at high altitude, but much less so at lower altitude, where the F4’s performance was little better than the F2’s despite the more powerful engine.

 

This shows a lack of understanding how props are designed because the new prop was no "easy solution", it was a prop designed to maximise the better performance at altitude of the new engine with no penalty to low alt performance. This was important in the west as most of the fighting took place at bomber cruising altitudes. The US followed the same path in their adoption of wider paddle props for their fighters.

 

 

Cheap shots like these are why your more valid points will get ignored by anyone with any knowledge of the development of the sim over time.

 

When you say that the developers are trying to achieve balance - when they have repeatedly said that they are not - you are just calling them liars. 

 

As to the marketing stuff - yes I am sure that everyone has noticed that. Many of us will also have noticed that they are a Russian group (Jason apart) based in Moscow.  They are subject to Russian law - hence the complete ban on swastikas and the more general ban on the glorification of  anything nazi.  While I might think that a few promotional videos or pictures of Soviets being shot down by Germans would not be glorification, you can (or should be able to ) understand why they do not wish to take any chances. Not only might they get a visit from the man from the Lubyanka, but even worse they might get a mob of stalinist skinhead yobs arrive to smash their offices to bits. You really should show a little more consideration of their position.

 

Cheap shots? Mate the last part was a tongue in cheek joke.

 

Also you should note that I am very new to this forum and thus have not read everything the devs have said, thus I am forced to comment on things the way I see it based on the data available.  That said don't you think it would be pretty bad for any sim developer if they were to ever announce that they were going for balance over "historical" accuracy? The entire hardcore simmer customer base would at that point disappear. So I think we can forget about that ever happening nomatter what sim we're talking about.

 

As for the last part of your post, I sincerely hope conditions are not that bad in Russia as that would be sad.

Edited January 30, 2018 by Panthera

[Panthera]

 

 

 

Assuming similar prop performance is like assuming similar turn performance for all ww2 planes.

Sure they all fly but there are some more than subtle variations in there.

 

EDIT: Props have a dramatic effect, on a plane i would even say the most dramatic effect of any single part of a plane. MY eyes almmost fell out reading your post. :D no offense.

 

EDIT2: Calculating prop efficiency from flight performance tests is like calculating the weight of the sun from the amount of sunburn you get after a day at the beach.

 

 

The highlighted part above is considered false by anyone with even a basic education in aerodynamics. 

 

As already stated: The hard part in aerodynamics is predicting stuff, not calculating efficiency after the aircraft has actually been flown.  Flight & windtunnel tests are there to confirm and/or debunk the initial predictions.

 

That said no'one ever claimed that all the props were the same, only that the engineers on both sides were pretty much equally good at optimizing the prop for the engines. So why so many different types? Easy, different props are needed to fit the power curves (& gearing) of different engines, and in addition the design will vary in relation to wether high or low altitude performance is prioritized, or wether speed or climb rate is most important. These things are balanced by the engineers when designing the prop.

Edited January 30, 2018 by Panthera