US planes vs D-9 & K4

[Ehret]

Just now, Rattlesnake said:

So it still begs the question, exactly why was there time to tune and verify the rather historically insignificant 1.98 ATA option for the Kurt and other planes which *already* have multiple power options, but no time to tune and verify power settings that were close to ubiquitous for the Western Allied fighters in the late war?

 

The majority of customers demanded it and they got it. Sad, but it looks like there is +2x of dedicated Axis flyers than Allies'. You can see it regularly in MP matches at least.

5 minutes ago, Rattlesnake said:

Engine modeling doesn't have to take octane number into account as a variable, since the upshot of higher octane fuel is simply to allow higher boost settings without detonation danger. All that has to be taken into account is said boost setting an the horsepower associated with it.

 

So the detonation boost range is not a variable. The end results is the same - a change which needs a new model.

[Rattlesnake]

2 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

The majority of customers demanded it and they got it. Sad, but it looks like there is +2x of dedicated Axis flyers than Allies'. You can see it regularly in MP matches at least.

Um, well if true that isn't too sensible, since Freeaboo 'Murican Muscle fans are if anything a larger market segment which could buy many units. It's just common sense to throw them a bone when said bone is simply historically accurate power settings for their favored rides.  

[Ehret]

6 hours ago, DragonDaddy said:

Maybe getting behind the developers is more like crowdfunding than welfare. If you enjoy their products, and have confidence in their abilities, what’s wrong with supporting their efforts by making purchases that fund future development?

 

I enjoyed enough; I'm sure at some point stuff will improve but when? I recall the 190 and the P-40 got some serious fixes, before. Many patches bring multitude of things; often unexpected. You really don't know what they will change next; in the near-medium future at least. The cash has a known value now; it shouldn't be spend blindly. Earlier, they said that the 262 will debut with the D9 - it changed on a whim. Some could expect to get it by now; bought the BOBP and now have wait longer. The same way I bought the BOK for the P-39L; there was a sudden delay; had to wait few months longer. And it goes and goes.

Edited April 2, 2019 by Ehret

[JonRedcorn]

1 hour ago, CUJO_1970 said:

 

Baloney.

Welfare is when you give something and get nothing in return.

 

I bought Tank Crew even though I'm not that into tanks - what I got in return was a pretty fun experience worth every penny - even though it's not finished. I suppose Flying Circus will be the same experience for me and I intend to purchase it soon, maybe even today

I also plan on buying the rest of them to give more money to the dev team, I've gotten hundreds of hours of fun out of this sim. Especially FC, ww1 is definitely interesting. The tank stuff I am not so fond of.

[Cpt_Siddy]

2 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

 

 

Jason: “Adding more options takes valuable time, but I hope so. We know you want added boost and fuel options for certain aircraft. Battling the Me-262 is not the only reason they are requested of course. Maybe we’ll build the Meteor or P-80 just to give some jet on jet action. I’m sort of kidding, but anyone up for a Meteor, Shooting Star, Do-335, He-162 package?”

 

[357th_Dog]

I'd be all for a jet package...

P-80....Panther...F-86...MiG-15...Korea map..

 

Wait a second 

[danielprates]

3 hours ago, Rattlesnake said:

since the upshot of higher octane fuel is simply to allow higher boost settings without detonation danger.

 

Amén brother. I have lost count on how many times I had to explain that to people (not here... my RL ignorant petrolhead friends) who think higher octane fuel is a kind of "more potent" fuel that allows for more power. 

[Cpt_Siddy]

1 hour ago, danielprates said:

 

 Amén brother. I have lost count on how many times I had to explain that to people (not here... my RL ignorant petrolhead friends) who think higher octane fuel is a kind of "more potent" fuel that allows for more power. 

It allows more efficiency, if you hypothetically could make infinite compression, you could get stupendous efficiency boost. In this contexts, that efficiency translates in to how much of the energy from burning X amount of fuel with Y amount of air can be converted in to kinetic energy. This is why higher octane fuel needs a system that can leverage this property. This is why pouring 150 oct fuel in to your VW Golf wont turn it in to Bf109  

Edited April 2, 2019 by CptSiddy

[danielprates]

2 minutes ago, CptSiddy said:

It allows more efficiency, if you hypothetically could make infinite compression, you could get stupendous efficiency boost. In this contexts, that efficiency translates in to how much of the energy from burning X amount of fuel with Y amount of air can be converted in to kinetic energy. This is why higher octane fuel needs a system that can leverage this property. This is why poring 150 oct fuel in to your VW Golf wont turn it in to Bf109  

 

Sure. You can push your engine further, since the higher the octane, the more compression the fuel can take without prematurelly combusting. But of course, the engine potential has to be there in the first place.

 

Its just that some people make the apparently logical conection: more powerful engines use higher octane fuel... so it must be that the fuel is more "potent" somehow, right? So when they see the local gas station selling higher octane fuel, they rush to buy it thinking that will make their autos go more "vroooom-vrooom"... when, unless you have a maclaren or something of a sort, you were never close to detonation point with plain regular fuel -  not with your usual city car anyway.

[CountZero]

10 hours ago, Doggo said:

I'd be all for a jet package...

P-80....Panther...F-86...MiG-15...Korea map..

 

Wait a second 

Meteor (even not so good in performance) would be only one he mentioned that wuld fit the map and they could make SP campaign for it, if they dont add it as collectable its BIG chance missed as they could not add allied ww2 jet in any other way with differant dlc area. And its good for promotion of game to have 2 famous jets in game and on top on differant sides. 

Edited April 2, 2019 by 77.CountZero

[HR_Tumu]

I hope im wrong....

 

but looking engine limits tractament ,on previous USA planes we actually have....  I dont expect to much for the incoming USA planes

[BlitzPig_EL]

I've given up hoping having a good aircraft from my home country.

I was ecstatic over getting the P40, my favorite fighter ever...  Well, at least it can carry a bomb?

Then I was anxiously awaiting the P39, the plane of many Russian aces...   Such a disappointment, Pokryshkin is spinning in his grave.

OH BOY!!!!  We are getting the P47, master of high speeds, unbeatable in a dive, many guns...  And a complete turd in the game.

 

So now I have no hope of the Lightening or the Mustang being anything but very pretty hangar queens, suitable only for QMB sight seeing flights on maps with no opposition.  I hope the Tempest works out OK.  If not, well I will close this book and never pick it up again.

[SCG_ErwinP]

1 minute ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

We are getting the P47, master of high speeds, unbeatable in a dive, many guns...  And a complete turd in the game.

Some days ago, me and a friend of mine are flying K4 and we can't catch a P47 (we were around 7km an he was around 8km altitude).

In the other hand, if they are doing ground attack it's just a sitting duck.

 

So i think way that it's flight need to be considered.

[=621=Samikatz]

I agree with you that the P-40's short time limits make it difficult to use in an air to air environment. Especially as you have to toy with multiple controls as you change altitude to keep it from breaking itself. Maybe I am doing something wrong in all the other planes but after a few teething issues involving slamming the throttle around I actually find the P-39 to be one of the easiest planes to dogfight with. It's perfectly competitive without much issue against stuff from its time like the 109G-4 and 6. You won't win low speed climbing stall fights but like, that's one area where the 109 will basically always do well. Only some of the up-engined Spitfires will really compete with that. Stick to medium speed dogfights or stick to slashing attacks. The P-39 has much cleaner aerodynamics than the bulge-y 109s and will keep its speed much better after a dive attack, and you have much better roll and pitch authority at high speeds

 

P-47 is pretty much busted with its magic flaps but that's early access for you, don't expect a complete experience out of Bodenplatte for a while

[CountZero]

1 hour ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

I've given up hoping having a good aircraft from my home country.

I was ecstatic over getting the P40, my favorite fighter ever...  Well, at least it can carry a bomb?

Then I was anxiously awaiting the P39, the plane of many Russian aces...   Such a disappointment, Pokryshkin is spinning in his grave.

OH BOY!!!!  We are getting the P47, master of high speeds, unbeatable in a dive, many guns...  And a complete turd in the game.

 

So now I have no hope of the Lightening or the Mustang being anything but very pretty hangar queens, suitable only for QMB sight seeing flights on maps with no opposition.  I hope the Tempest works out OK.  If not, well I will close this book and never pick it up again.

 

There is hope for P-40E atleast... give him modification for vvs engine ?  it would be gamechaging for that airplane

 

 

[357th_Dog]

The fact of the matter is that the devs won't really have an excuse of "lack of available data" if the P-51's engine woefully under performs.  It's easily the most studied piston engine in WW2 and since it's been continually worked on since 1945..it's not like there are not tons of SME's. 

If the P-51's and P-38's engine performance is broken, it's because the dev's wanted it to be. 

[7.GShAP/Silas]

16 hours ago, Doggo said:

I'd be all for a jet package...

P-80....Panther...F-86...MiG-15...Korea map..

 

Wait a second 

 

 

Would be a dream come true.

[Panzerlang]

1 hour ago, Doggo said:

 

If the P-51's and P-38's engine performance is broken, it's because the dev's wanted it to be. 

 

Thereby proving (if it was true) that it is possible for the same stick to have two cruddy ends. ?

[PatrickAWlson]

1 hour ago, Doggo said:

The fact of the matter is that the devs won't really have an excuse of "lack of available data" if the P-51's engine woefully under performs.  It's easily the most studied piston engine in WW2 and since it's been continually worked on since 1945..it's not like there are not tons of SME's. 

If the P-51's and P-38's engine performance is broken, it's because the dev's wanted it to be. 

 

By all means when it comes out please do test and provide feedback.  FMs and systems modeling are never perfect, especially on the first release.  Reasonable, well considered feedback is welcome.  But please ...  "the Russian devs hate America and are nerfing US planes on purpose" ... give it a rest.  

 

[357th_Dog]

8 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

By all means when it comes out please do test and provide feedback.  FMs and systems modeling are never perfect, especially on the first release.  Reasonable, well considered feedback is welcome.  But please ...  "the Russian devs hate America and are nerfing US planes on purpose" ... give it a rest.  

 

I'll do what I like, but thanks! 

[Legioneod]

29 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

By all means when it comes out please do test and provide feedback.  FMs and systems modeling are never perfect, especially on the first release.  Reasonable, well considered feedback is welcome.  But please ...  "the Russian devs hate America and are nerfing US planes on purpose" ... give it a rest.  

 

 

I don't think it's a case of the dev intentionally handicapping American aircraft, it's just a product of the gamey mechanic they chose.

 

The devs are tied to their mistake of the engine model they chose, and unfortunately it effects some aircraft more than others. The engine timers limit the performance that some aircraft should have and give some aircraft and unfair advantage with the way it's limits are modeled.

 

Engine limits wouldn't be so bad (I still hate them and want them removed) if there was a standard ruleset that applied to every aircraft.

 

Currently there is no standard and aircraft end up having an advantage due to the rules applied to them while not to others and vice versa.

 

There needs to be rules.

-Aircraft all recharge timers at the same rate (1:1 eems to be the most logical)

-WEP and Combat power shouldn't eat into each others timers.

-WEP should recharge in Combat and lower power settings.

-Combat should only recharge in lower settings not WEP. (No more WEP/COMBAT cycle)

 

-Water injection is a special case and should be considered. With aircraft that have water injection WEP should be allowed for the whole time the aircraft has water (if this was possible in the real aircraft (P-47 as an example). Once water runs out WEP isn't available anymore at the same power if at all, so the short advantage of having WEP longer is short lived due to a finite amount of water.

 

Having these standard rules would go a long way in improving a poor game mechanic.

 

Edited April 2, 2019 by Legioneod

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

2 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

There needs to be rules.

-Aircraft all recharge timers at the same rate (1:1 eems to be the most logical)

-WEP and Combat power shouldn't eat into each others timers.

-WEP should recharge in Combat and lower power settings.

-Combat should only recharge in lower settings not WEP. (No more WEP/COMBAT cycle)

 

-Water injection is a special case and should be considered. With aircraft that have water injection WEP should be allowed for the whole time the aircraft has water (if this was possible in the real aircraft (P-47 as an example). Once water runs out WEP isn't available anymore at the same power if at all, so the short advantage of having WEP longer is short lived due to a finite amount of water.

 

 

Yeah, this would be a good improvement to use the planes during the time the devs develop a more complex engine simulation.

 

 

[PatrickAWlson]

2 hours ago, Doggo said:

I'll do what I like, but thanks! 

 

What is your purpose? 

Do you actually care about this product?

Do you really think that accusing the developers of intentional malfeasance is going to get the response that you want?  

 

I don't know you.  I have no idea what you are thinking or what you really want.  I am assuming that your intentions are actually good and that you really want to see this product succeed.  If that is true then you surely understand that accusing the people who are making the product of intentionally messing it up is not a great way to get what you want, right?

 

Claiming that something is wrong is a disagreement.  Claiming that it was done on purpose is an accusation.  You do understand the difference, yes? 

[69TD_Hajo_Garlic]

Im not to worried about axis fighters outrunning 4 .50s and a 20mm hispano in my nose

[357th_Dog]

1 hour ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

What is your purpose? 

Do you actually care about this product?

Do you really think that accusing the developers of intentional malfeasance is going to get the response that you want?  

 

I don't know you.  I have no idea what you are thinking or what you really want.  I am assuming that your intentions are actually good and that you really want to see this product succeed.  If that is true then you surely understand that accusing the people who are making the product of intentionally messing it up is not a great way to get what you want, right?

 

Claiming that something is wrong is a disagreement.  Claiming that it was done on purpose is an accusation.  You do understand the difference, yes? 

Yes, I understand the difference.  I also know when to call out ducks, dodges and malarkey.  All I am saying is that there have been issues with engines perhaps not performing as well as they were documented as doing so, and when asked about it, a lack of evidence has been mentioned.  The Packard V1650-7/3 (aka Packard Merlin) has been exhaustively documented and everything you could want to know, and more, is available.  If there is a problem with the engine performance of the P-51 it will not be for lack of documentation, same with the Allisons in the P-38.  

And yes, I own BOS/BOM/BOK and BOBP...I have hundreds of hours in the game.   I care about the product as I want a great value on the hundreds of dollars I've spent on this game so far..

 

[LukeFF]

37 minutes ago, Doggo said:

Yes, I understand the difference. 

 

So then don't accuse them of intentionally making things wrong, because that's precisely what you are doing. 

Edited April 2, 2019 by LukeFF

[CIA_Yankee_]

On 4/1/2019 at 12:17 PM, SCG_ErwinP said:

This is not good....

I guess blue side will be in trouble after Bodenplatte be fully released....

 

How so? It's not like Blue side hasn't had that advantage over Red since the release of the sim. 

 

The VVS has been doing pretty well online, I'm sure the LW will eventually manage to cope with no longer having a clear superiority in hardware.

[RedKestrel]

On 4/2/2019 at 1:13 PM, Legioneod said:

 

I don't think it's a case of the dev intentionally handicapping American aircraft, it's just a product of the gamey mechanic they chose.

 

The devs are tied to their mistake of the engine model they chose, and unfortunately it effects some aircraft more than others. The engine timers limit the performance that some aircraft should have and give some aircraft and unfair advantage with the way it's limits are modeled.

 

Engine limits wouldn't be so bad (I still hate them and want them removed) if there was a standard ruleset that applied to every aircraft.

 

Currently there is no standard and aircraft end up having an advantage due to the rules applied to them while not to others and vice versa.

 

There needs to be rules.

-Aircraft all recharge timers at the same rate (1:1 eems to be the most logical)

-WEP and Combat power shouldn't eat into each others timers.

-WEP should recharge in Combat and lower power settings.

-Combat should only recharge in lower settings not WEP. (No more WEP/COMBAT cycle)

 

-Water injection is a special case and should be considered. With aircraft that have water injection WEP should be allowed for the whole time the aircraft has water (if this was possible in the real aircraft (P-47 as an example). Once water runs out WEP isn't available anymore at the same power if at all, so the short advantage of having WEP longer is short lived due to a finite amount of water.

 

Having these standard rules would go a long way in improving a poor game mechanic.

 

Consistent rules for the mechanic would be a great step, the way it works now is counterintuitive.

[CIA_Yankee_]

On 4/2/2019 at 4:31 PM, LukeFF said:

 

So then don't accuse them of intentionally making things wrong, because that's precisely what you are doing. 

 

To be fair, he is saying _if_ the P-51 and P-38 are undermodeled.

 

I certainly don't agree with the notion that the devs are somehow biased and nerfing the american planes... but if, for example, they give the P-51 the same kind of very conservative engine timers we see on the P-40 or the P-39, then that will certainly be a problem. 

 

It all depends on whether or not the devs are going to stick to just using the "flight recommendations" given to pilots, which we _know_ were ultra conservative for the USAAF (given the plethora of testimonials, and the experience of VVS pilots who chucked those recommendations when it came to flying the P-40 and the P-39). The issue is much clearly for the P-51, since it shares the same engine as the Spitfire. If the Spitfire ends up having more generous flight limits (because the RAF was less conservative in caring for their engines), then it'll be clear evidence that the devs need to change their approach to engine limiters.

[Panthera]

The late war Axis and Allied propjobs are quite well matched with each other with 150 octane being available.

 

With 150 octane the P-51 will be very fast, but a 109K-4 will still rather easily outturn and outclimb it, whilst the D-9 should be a closer match in those areas whilst it's roll rate obviously is going to be higher. The Tempest with 150 octane will be uncatchable down low by anything but the Me262 though.

 

I'd be more worried when flying lufty if the Spitfire Mk.XIV was added though, which honestly is only "fair" (nvm historically accurate ;P) with the Me262 being around. 

Edited April 4, 2019 by Panthera

[Rattlesnake]

On 4/2/2019 at 11:44 AM, PatrickAWlson said:

 

By all means when it comes out please do test and provide feedback.  FMs and systems modeling are never perfect, especially on the first release.  Reasonable, well considered feedback is welcome.  But please ...  "the Russian devs hate America and are nerfing US planes on purpose" ... give it a rest.  

 

Well, let's see if we can boil the case down to a few points:

-150 octane fuel, allowing more power, was in very wide use by American fighters late in the war, including P-47D. This is non-controversial and not hard to discover.

-150 octane fuel is not available for P-47 in game, but an admittedly rare improved power plant for the 109K *is* available. Remember that the 109K is a rather overwhelming aircraft versus the 47 (and presumably the 51 when it arrives) at typical game altitudes, even *without* the power upgrade.

-The explanations given for this odd situation do not make sense. Talking about limited time in which to tune and verify different power options would be perfectly reasonable, EXCEPT for the fact that the 109K and several other airplanes in the game already have more than one power option and were added to the game with these already in place. So we find the only late war American option currently added to the game a bit of an odd man out in this regard.

-The lack of 150 octane fuel is not the only odd situation with the current late war American aircraft stable in BoBp, but it is the one easiest to make the case on in a short space.

Another odd situation, and perhaps ultimately more crippling to the use of the P-47 in its BnZ fighter role in-game, is its sharply increasing loss of elev authority at indicated airspeeds much above 375. Which is to say, the Jug has little or no ability to correct its aim or pull up into a zoom sharply when diving at speeds only moderately above the top *level flight* speeds of late war fighters at low altitudes. I'm sure you can see the problem here for a fighter whose best mode of use is acknowledged to be diving, shooting, and zooming.

 

Meanwhile, the in-game Fw-190 D9 can pull enough G to black out the pilot at such speeds, and the in-game 109, infamous for having a rather heavy elevator at high speed in reality, appears at least no worse than the Jug in-game, an aircraft famous for dive capability. Makes ya think.

 

I've played I think 4 other games where different dev teams have modeled the Jug. In all cases they said they were dutifully striving to have an accurate FM, and I'm sure this is true. This is the first offering I've seen where the thing cannot pull as much G as the virtual pilot can stand at 400mph IAS, and I do mean 400mph at *low* altitude outside of compressability troubles here. Maybe every other game I've played that tried to model the elev authority on the P-47 got it wrong and this is the first one to get it right, I can't say for sure. But it does raise questions.

-American airplanes and practices of the late war are probably the most exhaustively documented of any air force from WWII, and much is available on the internet. One the one hand this does means that it will be relatively easy for enthusiasts to dutifully gather information and post or email it in to the company, which is good.

On the other hand this very ease of access begs the question of why amateurs are having to find this information for planes that have already been released, instead of the pros doing it pre-release.

Another question the enthusiast setting out in his spare time to compile and email a large amount of documents must ask himself is whether or not there is any point in doing so. As an example, I myself a few months ago linked documentation of a WEP test of over 7 hours on the P&W R-2800, which it easily passed. Others have posted similar things in this vein. Yet (correct me if I'm wrong) nothing has changed about the engine timers on the P-47 in-game.

Given the situation I think you will have to admit that a few suspicious muttering every now and again are understandable, if not helpful.

-A minor point regarding "nerfing" and "buffing": I see this words come up a lot, not sure they are useful tbh. Lots of baggage associated with them.  In any case, often it is assumed that an accusation of actual dishonesty regarding historical accuracy is being thrown out. This is not necessarily true. Since there are a range of models, variants, power plants, fuel options to choose to model, always a range of performance figures in test documents to choose from, and frankly a number of unknowns, a great deal of effective "nerfing" and "buffing" is actually possible in a flight sim game without *violating the historical record in any way*.

As an example of the "unknowns" I speak of above,  just how much can the  pilot of a given WWII airplane flying at high speed deflect the controls? Well, in an age before hydraulically assisted controls it depended a great deal on the physical  strength of the pilot, which raises questions. Exactly how brawny is our virtual pilot? Are we assuming he's holding the stick one-handed all the time or is he doing a two-handed pull for some maneuvers?

This is the sort of thing game devs have to make decisions about, and these decisions has real effects on gameplay from sim to sim, and even on which planes work well versus others. Another fuzzy factor is G forces, how much can our virtual pilot stand for how long? Again with real humans this varies widely, with simulation games some choices have to be made. And if you think about, the interaction of design choices about stick forces with the choices about G tolerance have quite a large effect on the game meta.

1 hour ago, Panthera said:

 

I'd be more worried when flying lufty if the Spitfire Mk.XIV was added though, which honestly is only "fair" (nvm historically accurate ;P) with the Me262 being around. 

I've played other games with the Spit XIV and it is not much of an issue IMO. It's only really overwhelming at heights that are fairly empty in online play, same as the Jug. And if it has to live under the "five minutes of joy then bust" meta it is even less of a threat to the Luftwaffe.

Edited April 4, 2019 by Rattlesnake

[LukeFF]

I sometimes wonder where some of you find the time to write such long-winded replies. ?

[Rattlesnake]

26 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

I sometimes wonder where some of you find the time to write such long-winded replies. ?

 

You forgot to add the logical reasons as to why my thinking in the above points is flawed. It’s almost as if you haven’t got any, but want to passive-aggressively snipe from the peanut gallery anyway. But surely not, that would be totally transparent. Probably just an oversight.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 4, 2019 by Rattlesnake

[Warpig]

Maybe one day the RAF fans will get the aircraft they always wanted. ?

 

Edited April 4, 2019 by Warpig

[Ribbon]

4 hours ago, Rattlesnake said:

Well, let's see if we can boil the case down to a few points:

-150 octane fuel, allowing more power, was in very wide use by American fighters late in the war, including P-47D. This is non-controversial and not hard to discover.

-150 octane fuel is not available for P-47 in game, but an admittedly rare improved power plant for the 109K *is* available. Remember that the 109K is a rather overwhelming aircraft versus the 47 (and presumably the 51 when it arrives) at typical game altitudes, even *without* the power upgrade.

-The explanations given for this odd situation do not make sense. Talking about limited time in which to tune and verify different power options would be perfectly reasonable, EXCEPT for the fact that the 109K and several other airplanes in the game already have more than one power option and were added to the game with these already in place. So we find the only late war American option currently added to the game a bit of an odd man out in this regard.

-The lack of 150 octane fuel is not the only odd situation with the current late war American aircraft stable in BoBp, but it is the one easiest to make the case on in a short space.

Another odd situation, and perhaps ultimately more crippling to the use of the P-47 in its BnZ fighter role in-game, is its sharply increasing loss of elev authority at indicated airspeeds much above 375. Which is to say, the Jug has little or no ability to correct its aim or pull up into a zoom sharply when diving at speeds only moderately above the top *level flight* speeds of late war fighters at low altitudes. I'm sure you can see the problem here for a fighter whose best mode of use is acknowledged to be diving, shooting, and zooming.

 

Meanwhile, the in-game Fw-190 D9 can pull enough G to black out the pilot at such speeds, and the in-game 109, infamous for having a rather heavy elevator at high speed in reality, appears at least no worse than the Jug in-game, an aircraft famous for dive capability. Makes ya think.

 

I've played I think 4 other games where different dev teams have modeled the Jug. In all cases they said they were dutifully striving to have an accurate FM, and I'm sure this is true. This is the first offering I've seen where the thing cannot pull as much G as the virtual pilot can stand at 400mph IAS, and I do mean 400mph at *low* altitude outside of compressability troubles here. Maybe every other game I've played that tried to model the elev authority on the P-47 got it wrong and this is the first one to get it right, I can't say for sure. But it does raise questions.

-American airplanes and practices of the late war are probably the most exhaustively documented of any air force from WWII, and much is available on the internet. One the one hand this does means that it will be relatively easy for enthusiasts to dutifully gather information and post or email it in to the company, which is good.

On the other hand this very ease of access begs the question of why amateurs are having to find this information for planes that have already been released, instead of the pros doing it pre-release.

Another question the enthusiast setting out in his spare time to compile and email a large amount of documents must ask himself is whether or not there is any point in doing so. As an example, I myself a few months ago linked documentation of a WEP test of over 7 hours on the P&W R-2800, which it easily passed. Others have posted similar things in this vein. Yet (correct me if I'm wrong) nothing has changed about the engine timers on the P-47 in-game.

Given the situation I think you will have to admit that a few suspicious muttering every now and again are understandable, if not helpful.

-A minor point regarding "nerfing" and "buffing": I see this words come up a lot, not sure they are useful tbh. Lots of baggage associated with them.  In any case, often it is assumed that an accusation of actual dishonesty regarding historical accuracy is being thrown out. This is not necessarily true. Since there are a range of models, variants, power plants, fuel options to choose to model, always a range of performance figures in test documents to choose from, and frankly a number of unknowns, a great deal of effective "nerfing" and "buffing" is actually possible in a flight sim game without *violating the historical record in any way*.

As an example of the "unknowns" I speak of above,  just how much can the  pilot of a given WWII airplane flying at high speed deflect the controls? Well, in an age before hydraulically assisted controls it depended a great deal on the physical  strength of the pilot, which raises questions. Exactly how brawny is our virtual pilot? Are we assuming he's holding the stick one-handed all the time or is he doing a two-handed pull for some maneuvers?

This is the sort of thing game devs have to make decisions about, and these decisions has real effects on gameplay from sim to sim, and even on which planes work well versus others. Another fuzzy factor is G forces, how much can our virtual pilot stand for how long? Again with real humans this varies widely, with simulation games some choices have to be made. And if you think about, the interaction of design choices about stick forces with the choices about G tolerance have quite a large effect on the game meta.

I've played other games with the Spit XIV and it is not much of an issue IMO. It's only really overwhelming at heights that are fairly empty in online play, same as the Jug. And if it has to live under the "five minutes of joy then bust" meta it is even less of a threat to the Luftwaffe.

I guess years of Luftwhining did it's part!? 

 

Devs will have to add 150 octane fuel if they aim for historical accuracy, BoBp  is EA so there is time to do it!

Agree on part  about engine timer limitations, flight manual is one thing and engine true limits are another.

[Rattlesnake]

2 minutes ago, EAF_Ribbon said:

 

Agree on part  about engine timer limitations, flight manual is one thing and engine true limits are another.

To be fair 5 minutes of WEP isn’t such a bad hardship when the limitation on its use *doesn’t* take the form of “surprise, your engine is damaged/dead!”. Also less of a hardship when such limitations aren’t also accompanied by blatant discrepancies between planes on so-called recharge time and conditions.

[Ehret]

1 hour ago, Rattlesnake said:

To be fair 5 minutes of WEP isn’t such a bad hardship when the limitation on its use *doesn’t* take the form of “surprise, your engine is damaged/dead!”. Also less of a hardship when such limitations aren’t also accompanied by blatant discrepancies between planes on so-called recharge time and conditions.

 

For the first engagement the 5m is enough, usually. The problem is what happens after? Assume you won but you are (almost) out of the boost - now you are extremely vulnerable for a while when you are re-climbing. To regenerate timers a bit you will have to do that on the nominal, too. (the emergency on American planes eats into combat)

That's bad. Shortly, in the area a fresh bandit will arrive and it's end. One workaround is just extend further before resetting but it will take much more time. At some point it's just better to run straight to friendly AF. Otherwise it can take a whooping 25m to regenerate timers fully.

 

Getting punished for doing nothing wrong is very bad. The current system makes you fell that way if you choose to fly certain planes. Unless you are an ace and can shot-down threats quickly the survival is tedious. Tedious enough it shows in numbers - 2/1 is not uncommon for the blue/red ratio; I seen 3/1 in BOBP matches, already.

[JonRedcorn]

Just would like to point out that using the engines not on full power put slightly lower and maybe a little less RPM can extend destruction quite a bit and still give you that needed speed boost.

[Ehret]

8 minutes ago, JonRedcorn said:

Just would like to point out that using the engines not on full power put slightly lower and maybe a little less RPM can extend destruction quite a bit and still give you that needed speed boost.

 

True. I'm tweaking the throttle/RPM all the time but... that's not historic. It's gaming the game mechanic. Also, It can argued that nonstop setting changes increase wear in piston engines.

[Legioneod]

2 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

True. I'm tweaking the throttle/RPM all the time but... that's not historic. It's gaming the game mechanic. Also, It can argued that nonstop setting changes increase wear in piston engines.

 

This. We shouldn’t have to be forced to fly at a lower historical setting just to keep our engine running for a while longer.

 

Also, the fact the WEP eats into combat timer is rediculous and shouldn’t happen.

 

Im not sure what the devs were thinking when they decided to have multiple rulsets for different aircraft/nation instead of one rule set to cover them all.

 

I can see in this instance why some claim there is a bias involved, even if unintentional.