Claims of Bias

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

The constant claims of bias are terrible and an absolute nuisance. I absolutley oppose them as much as much ad the next man.

Not every criticism is a claim of bias and Understanably it is not the Devs job to comment on these. It is a different thing though when people provide tests, documents and there is no response for weeks or months.

Even though it is not their job, I really wish that Devs would respond as fast as they did when people were saying that the La5fn was overperforming.

Issues like the apparent overperformance of AP vs structures, the apparent underperdormance of the German MG, the limitation of emergency power for the the 109 series, the reduced ata of the G14, the incapability of 109s to shut off the cooling system per wing. All these things are left uncommented. Since the issues really only concern one side the unfortunate claims of bias do spring up here and there.

I forgot to mention that the 109 F4 does  overperform ataltitude.

Edited July 25, 2018 by =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn

[Herne]

that's quite a list. I've never used manual radiators in a 109, let alone even thought about operating them individually.

 

All I know is I can kill and be killed in pretty much anything I can fly in game. Don't think i've had any kills in the ju52 yet, but certainly been killed in it a few times lol. If you think your 109 needs more DPS, take wing cannons. LW fitted them for a reason.

Jump on berloga server and swap sides every spawn. You will soon appreciate how deadly AC are on both sides

[Dakpilot]

5 hours ago, =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn said:

The constant claims of bias are terrible and an absolute nuisance. I absolutley oppose them as much as much ad the next man.

Not every criticism is a claim of bias and Understanably it is not the Devs job to comment on these. It is a different thing though when people provide tests, documents and there is no response for weeks or months.

Even though it is not their job, I really wish that Devs would respond as fast as they did when people were saying that the La5fn was overperforming.

Issues like the apparent overperformance of AP vs structures, the apparent underperdormance of the German MG, the limitation of emergency power for the the 109 series, the reduced ata of the G14, the incapability of 109s to shut off the cooling system per wing. All these things are left uncommented. Since the issues really only concern one side the unfortunate claims of bias do spring up here and there.

I forgot to mention that the 109 F4 does  overperform ataltitude.

 

 

 Pretty sure the devs commented on 109 rads saying that further work/fidelity was possible along with improvements to fuel management and systems. 

Also fairly sure you had direct contact with devs regarding 109 engine limits and were told it had already been commented on and they were happy as it is. 

There has also been discussion from devs and explanations about and changes to HE and its implementation 

 

Don't really see much lack of Dev input other than your possible disagreement/preferences on their view/interpretation of certain things. 

 

G14 is still fairly new and likely would be commented on if correct bug report/info is put forward, much the same in the way mk IX graphic bugs were corrected 

 

It is true that Dev comments on the FN were fairly quick but they were responding to huge amount of flak received based on bad info from some posters 

 

That said, Dev input is always good and welcome to 'calm the waters' 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

[E69_geramos109]

What more frustrates me is when you make all the work for free to send a complete pm and obtain no answer. 

Is said that forum is almost useless if you dont send them pm about isue or fm to Han.

Edited July 25, 2018 by E69_geramos109

[SYN_Mike77]

The OP is right, it gets so tiring hearing the same old same old over and over again.

[3./JG15_Kampf]

On 7/25/2018 at 9:10 PM, Dakpilot said:

It is true that Dev comments on the FN were fairly quick but they were responding to huge amount of flak received based on bad info from some posters

[edited]

 

2. This forum is provided by 1C-777 Ltd. as a courtesy and its usage is a privilege and 1C-777 Ltd. reserves the right to ban any member temporarily or permanently for any reason at any time. Any penalties listed below for violations of the rules are guidelines only and forum administration may take additional action if they feel it is warranted. Use of the forum is not connected to usage of the game and access to this forum is not guaranteed to users as a consequence of purchasing the game.

 

6. It is forbidden to discuss the actions of moderators and administrators in any form on the forum. All questions are to be sent via "personal message" to the administrator/moderator.

Edited July 30, 2018 by SYN_Haashashin

[D3adCZE]

On 7/25/2018 at 6:30 PM, =FEW=Herne said:

that's quite a list. I've never used manual radiators in a 109, let alone even thought about operating them individually.

 

All I know is I can kill and be killed in pretty much anything I can fly in game. Don't think i've had any kills in the ju52 yet, but certainly been killed in it a few times lol. If you think your 109 needs more DPS, take wing cannons. LW fitted them for a reason.

Jump on berloga server and swap sides every spawn. You will soon appreciate how deadly AC are on both sides

First sorry for necro.

 

Now to the reply:

If you didn't use manual rads on a 109, you definitely did not fly G2 in winter above 4km. That thing overheats above ~88% throttle without manual control of rads.

[Herne]

1 hour ago, CSAF-D3adCZE said:

First sorry for necro.

 

Now to the reply:

If you didn't use manual rads on a 109, you definitely did not fly G2 in winter above 4km. That thing overheats above ~88% throttle without manual control of rads.

 

Turn off tech chat. Watch your instruments. G2 has never let me down, not even in Kuban Summer.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

By the looks of it regarding the La-5FN devs have used the TsAGI values thus 580km/h on the deck. That plane was nowhere near a production plane but specifically prepared one. NII VVS tested production planes and La-5FN achieved in average 543km/h with WEP, La-7 580km/h(TsAGI value 609km/h) etc. The magical roll rate of La-5FN/LagG´s they have pulled out of a magician´s hat :P Not a single source states such roll rates for La-5 or LagG-3 nor such crisp response. Just about cherry picking values that suits them. Not that the data in itself is wrong, just not "fair" against other planes that have been modelled using some strange values. Oh well. Just learn to game the game and all is good and dandy :P

[Herne]

8 minutes ago, LLv34_Flanker said:

S!

 

By the looks of it regarding the La-5FN devs have used the TsAGI values thus 580km/h on the deck. That plane was nowhere near a production plane but specifically prepared one. NII VVS tested production planes and La-5FN achieved in average 543km/h with WEP, La-7 580km/h(TsAGI value 609km/h) etc. The magical roll rate of La-5FN/LagG´s they have pulled out of a magician´s hat Not a single source states such roll rates for La-5 or LagG-3 nor such crisp response. Just about cherry picking values that suits them. Not that the data in itself is wrong, just not "fair" against other planes that have been modelled using some strange values. Oh well. Just learn to game the game and all is good and dandy

 

if you have a source for that material post it in the dev assistance > fm discussion section. If they agree your source is probably more reliable than their own they will likely adjust it at some point.  

[von_Tom]

Simply put, a game/sim like this relies on the developers being as accurate as possible.  That does not mean real actual true life accuracy because as we know that is impossible in the context of a computer game/sim.

 

If there were any intention to be biased it would be very obvious very quickly and that would do more damage to the brand than anything else.

 

If something is wrong the error must be based on incorrect data, a programming error or even a game engine limitation.  See for example the P39 in the original IL2, and the correction to the FW FM in this game.  The path to getting it fixed is well documented - put together a coherent argument supported by documentation and let the developers know.  Job done. 

 

von Tom

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

Gavrik showed some info when the La-5FN was released, they based off their data in several tests of serial produced planes in 1943.

 

On 2/26/2018 at 10:02 AM, Gavrick said:

I'm afraid of upsetting someone, but the serial La-5FN in 1943 really had very good characteristics. Despite the numerous quality problems, it was a good aircraft with a good engine.
For confirmation, I quote from the report on the testing of serial aircraft in 1943 year. I draw your attention, these were tests of serial aircraft, without any special modifications. The tests passed seven La-5 FN of different series, from May to December 1943. In general, the aircraft showed similar results:
The maximum speed at the ground level is an average of 578 km / h. (from 570 to 587 km / h). In the simulator - 583 km / h, in the range.
The maximum speed of 6 km is an average of 634 km / h (from 629 to 640 km / h). In the simulator - 646 km / h, only 1% faster.
So in the simulator La-5FN speed it is quite consistent with the test data of serial aircraft.

 

 

On 2/26/2018 at 10:17 AM, Gavrick said:

Seven aircraft, from May 1943 to December 1943.

There is also a topic in the Ru forum, with an user claiming the Bf 109 G-14 is too fast, Gavrik also showed up in the discussion, showing the data they used and how while a bit too fast at low altitude the G-14 sits within reasonable margin of error.
https://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/7276-скорость-bf-109g14-завышена/

Edited September 11, 2018 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard