la5 la7 spitfire,

[downedpilot]

hi all, i bit you all no whats next, yes lets have a fair game in bos, the three planes above, had such addvantage over all other planes in il2 threw to 1946, let me no how you feel, thank you

Edited April 7, 2014 by downedpilot

[[RG]Flanker1985]

As long as they are going to make La-7 into the game in the future. I will buy any plane they make, even if they release after La-7. 

[FuriousMeow]

I think your post makes no sense.

[Finkeren]

I'd much rather have the La-5FN, it's plenty good enough, had nearly 2 years of continous combat service and was produced in very large numbers. The La-7 is such a late war plane, that it's got little interest for me.

 

But hey, let's have Stalingrad finished first, before we start discussing late war additions.

[fantomk]

La-5 is already in the releasing list. 

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

The post is asking to not create super planes...........I think.

 

He's saying the La5, La7 and Spit were over modeled in relation to their actual performance in '46. While I agree with that part, (The La5 FN was a jet powered destructive clown car on rails in '46), I think the fear is unfounded in BOS. The developers are being very conscientious about historical FM's. They have gotten some things wrong but have also generally either been right or corrected their errors. The above mentioned aircraft will be correct on, or near, their release. As to balancing forces, that will be up to the individual server settings. Full historical will be; you get what you get if it was available at the time.

[Finkeren]

I think the fear is unfounded in BOS. The developers are being very conscientious about historical FM's.

 

I don't think 1C/Maddox were any less conscious about accurate FMs when they first modelled the La-5FN almost 15 years ago. It's just that BoS has much, much better posibilities to realise the dream of realistic FM. 

[downedpilot]

The post is asking to not create super planes...........I think.

 

He's saying the La5, La7 and Spit were over modeled in relation to their actual performance in '46. While I agree with that part, (The La5 FN was a jet powered destructive clown car on rails in '46), I think the fear is unfounded in BOS. The developers are being very conscientious about historical FM's. They have gotten some things wrong but have also generally either been right or corrected their errors. The above mentioned aircraft will be correct on, or near, their release. As to balancing forces, that will be up to the individual server settings. Full historical will be; you get what you get if it was available at the time.

yes a man that has played the il2 series thank you for your post

[FuriousMeow]

Most here have played Il-2 series. The La5FN is a great aircraft, you'll find that in many sims that model it. As is the La7. As is the Spit. If you decide to turn fight with them and bleed off energy rather than make vertical moves in aircraft more suited to those manuevers (the 190 especially) that doesn't make the aircraft you're facing uber it is just poor tactics on the behalf of those facing those aircraft.

Edited April 7, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

I don't think 1C/Maddox were any less conscious about accurate FMs when they first modelled the La-5FN almost 15 years ago. It's just that BoS has much, much better posibilities to realise the dream of realistic FM. 

At the risk of going off topic a bit, the La5 FN had ridiculous performance in '46. I'm down for the roll rate, as that was well documented, but it's ability to climb and turn was bordering outrageous. There are other examples of over modeled FM's in that series as well. I doubt most were incorrect in any sort of a malicious way but some were clearly either biased or not researched very well. BOS seems to be doing both good research as well as good implementation. The lack of screaming by the rivet counters is testament to that.

 

My first ride in that aircraft, as something of a rookie, I was untouchable for 40 minutes in an arcade type DF server. If my friends hadn't made fun of me for driving it I would have never tried anything else.

Edited April 7, 2014 by A1FltTrn=HerrMurf

[Panzerlang]

You'll hear me screaming about the 109's rudder if it's not fixed by the time of release. The only place it works even remotely realistically is on the runway. Once airborne it's either ON or OFF, no matter how sparingly one uses the pedals (Crosswinds in my case, so it ain't a hardware issue and they're sublime in CloD).

 

But I'm assuming WIP, so meh.

[FuriousMeow]

You'll hear me screaming about the 109's rudder if it's not fixed by the time of release. The only place it works even remotely realistically is on the runway. Once airborne it's either ON or OFF, no matter how sparingly one uses the pedals (Crosswinds in my case, so it ain't a hardware issue and they're sublime in CloD).

 

But I'm assuming WIP, so meh.

 

 

Well, see, that's the problem. It does have control. You are simply ham footing it. I can truly limit how much input is gone in with those terrible Saitek Pro Pedals, because even the Crosswinds that so many love don't matter when fine foot work is required. Test it out, sit on the ground in external view and watch the rudder. Test the inputs. See how much you get for finite movement of the pedals. Try to replicate it in the air, you'll find you don't need a lot of movement to get great rotation.

[downedpilot]

I think your post makes no sense.

il2 1946 the la5 la7 spitfire in my opinion were the better planes to fly, i found this very unfair if u no your planes, the fokker 190 was well under its true performance, and so on ,  

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Fokker? Focke Wulf?

 

And Furious, I agree with you on the 109's rudder.

 

My problem with the 109 continues to be the rebound damping in the main gear. Way too springy.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 La-5FN was blatantly overdone in original IL-2, there is no question about it. La-7 was not that much off the mark, but still on the verge. When I delved into those flight models you could clearly see the errors. They were not that big, but the effect was what we saw. BoS has the chance to be by far better and more realistic. Spitfire Mk.IX 25lbs was a complete joke in IL-2:1946. I would expect something like that from War Thunder BoS has it's quirks, but is still WIP. It has all the potential to be THE benchmark if devs play their cards right.

[downedpilot]

Most here have played Il-2 series. The La5FN is a great aircraft, you'll find that in many sims that model it. As is the La7. As is the Spit. If you decide to turn fight with them and bleed off energy rather than make vertical moves in aircraft more suited to those manuevers (the 190 especially) that doesn't make the aircraft you're facing uber it is just poor tactics on the behalf of those facing those aircraft.

lol the la5 turning rate was a fix it out turned u on its third turn and u on u first 

[FuriousMeow]

il2 1946 the la5 la7 spitfire in my opinion were the better planes to fly, i found this very unfair if u no your planes, the fokker 190 was well under its true performance, and so on ,  

 

Based on? See you can't say "unfair" because a lot of times it truly was unfair. All aircraft were developed in a ying-yang situation. One side came out with a better aircraft, then the other side replied. There was never a situation of both sides releasing an aircraft at the same time that performed exactly the same, that would have made no sense in warfare - one side always tries to one up the other side. Even in the Pacific conflict, the Japanese AirForce had aircraft that were developed and were more of a ying-yang with the USAAF/USN/RAF/RN/RAAF. The Japanese Navy unfortunatley stuck with the A6M which was pretty much done for after the F6F/F4U came out because they were faster and more heavily armored and armed. The A6M lost performance at higher speeds, and continued to rely on its turning ability. Not to say certain pilots couldn't excel with it against lesser trained but more numerous pilots (Sakai vs ~10 to 15 Hellcats if that truly did happen that way).

 

But "unfair" is exactly what warfare is. At one time or the other one side possesses either a better technological advantage or numerical advantage, or both.

lol the la5 turning rate was a fix it out turned u on its third turn and u on u first 

You turn fought a La5FN with a 190 I'm presuming. 190s and 109s, use energy advantages - don't turn fight. And if you're turn fighting in anything, there have already been many mistakes to get you there.

Edited April 7, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[Panzerlang]

Well, see, that's the problem. It does have control. You are simply ham footing it. I can truly limit how much input is gone in with those terrible Saitek Pro Pedals, because even the Crosswinds that so many love don't matter when fine foot work is required. Test it out, sit on the ground in external view and watch the rudder. Test the inputs. See how much you get for finite movement of the pedals. Try to replicate it in the air, you'll find you don't need a lot of movement to get great rotation.

 

I have to disagree. Less than a centimeter of travel on the pedals makes my 109 veer wildly, and pushes a wing down/up too. It doesn't do it in CloD. The Saiteks did though, in CloD they were aweful.

 

Others have complained about the 109's rudder making the plane snap-roll viciously so it's not just me. Sure, the input makes the actual rudder move smoothly in a nice linear fashion but the FM inteprets it as if the pilot has kicked the pedal down like a bouncer putting his foot up the arse of a drunk.

[FuriousMeow]

I have to disagree. Less than a centimeter of travel on the pedals makes my 109 veer wildly, and pushes a wing down/up too. It doesn't do it in CloD. The Saiteks did though, in CloD they were aweful.

 

Others have complained about the 109's rudder making the plane snap-roll viciously so it's not just me. Sure, the input makes the actual rudder move smoothly in a nice linear fashion but the FM inteprets it as if the pilot has kicked the pedal down like a bouncer putting his foot up the arse of a drunk.

 

Who cares about CloD? Seriously, that doesn't matter. It's like saying that it works this way in AoE, or AoTP, or EAW, doesn't matter here. That's just not an approach to diagnose the issue. First, how does it compare to the actual real 109? Second, when I move my pedals more than 1CM I have yaw, a little bit of yaw induced roll (which happens) but if I go full 100% of course there's a lot of yaw and yaw induced roll because no one kicks 100% rudder in an airplane at full speed. The amount of strength needed to do that at 300MPH is quite large, in addition to the rudder's fabric most likely ripping clear through(maybe it was an aluminium skinned rudder, I can't recall right now).

 

Do you have real information other than "others complain" or "this other game doesn't behave the same way"? Seriously, you need absolute real definible information from real world flight information in order for anything to be valid. Compared to other games, invalid information. Others complaining, invalid information. Real world information, valid information and if it is wrong against those then it needs to be changed. Only that very last item means anything, the rest is truly worthless. It's not even data, it's just hearsay.

Edited April 7, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 I agree with Siggi here. I can use rudder much more liberally on the Russian and even other German kites than Bf109. It snaps to a stall if I "kick it" aka move it too fast. I can also perform rolls to either direction as fast as with ailerons with bare rudder. So there is something strange about it. Like the small rudder had an area of a barn door or something

[downedpilot]

Based on? See you can't say "unfair" because a lot of times it truly was unfair. All aircraft were developed in a ying-yang situation. One side came out with a better aircraft, then the other side replied. There was never a situation of both sides releasing an aircraft at the same time that performed exactly the same, that would have made no sense in warfare - one side always tries to one up the other side. Even in the Pacific conflict, the Japanese AirForce had aircraft that were developed and were more of a ying-yang with the USAAF/USN/RAF/RN/RAAF. The Japanese Navy unfortunatley stuck with the A6M which was pretty much done for after the F6F/F4U came out because they were faster and more heavily armored and armed. The A6M lost performance at higher speeds, and continued to rely on its turning ability. Not to say certain pilots couldn't excel with it against lesser trained but more numerous pilots (Sakai vs ~10 to 15 Hellcats if that truly did happen that way).

 

But "unfair" is exactly what warfare is. At one time or the other one side possesses either a better technological advantage or numerical advantage, or both.

You turn fought a La5FN with a 190 I'm presuming. 190s and 109s, use energy advantages - don't turn fight. And if you're turn fighting in anything, there have already been many mistakes to get you there.

look u wont agree but i love the hurrie this  plane was the only plane that matched its model in il2 for turning i took out 100s me 109 with this plane with tatics some  fw190 the la5 and la7 just a fix 

[LukeFF]

hi all, i bit you all no whats next, yes lets have a fair game in bos, the three planes above, had such addvantage over all other planes in il2 threw to 1946, let me no how you feel, thank you

 

lol the la5 turning rate was a fix it out turned u on its third turn and u on u first 

 

 

For you, better grammar and sentence structure on your part would be a better place to start. 

Edited April 7, 2014 by LukeFF

[FuriousMeow]

No I won't agree with you, especially when turning is all you are focused on. There's more to air combat, whether it be real or virtual, than just turning. There's a lot more.

 

I also won't agree with hearsay and off hand information to get things changed. Real world data and tests are what matters, and for the 109's rudder to be changed here - lets get some of that.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 So you think the Bf109 should flick stall if applying rudder and other planes not? Compare the size of the rudder from LagG-3 and Bf109F-4, for example. LagG-3 has bigger area on it and does not flick roll/stall if applying rudder. I have NEVER read from any source Bf109 did roll as fast with rudder than it did with ailerons. If devs want to make it a wobbly piece of plane then fine, their view of it. But saying it is fine now is just BS. Not in a single sim/game before BoS has the Bf109 been this horrendous regarding the rudder. And I've flown them since WB/EAW/AH/IL-2..

Edited April 7, 2014 by LLv34_Flanker

[FuriousMeow]

Cool. I've played since before WB, means nothing. Real world data matters, not how you feel, the stars in the sky, the moon's position, or if Mr Floppy Ears Puddle Splasher poops a rainbow. Real world data matters, that's all.

 

So far the devs are using math, and data they've collected which is a far cry from anything else presented such as "well this rudder is this way, and aileron is this way, and my magic stones are purple/pink - so the 109 is the best airplane EVAR!"

 

Saying what they've done so far is BS is complete and certifiable BS, because zero actual data has been presented to prove otherwise. Zero.

Edited April 7, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[Panzerlang]

Cool. I've played since before WB, means nothing. Real world data matters, not how you feel, the stars in the sky, the moon's position, or if Mr Floppy Ears Puddle Splasher poops a rainbow. Real world data matters, that's all.

 

So far the devs are using math, and data they've collected which is a far cry from anything else presented such as "well this rudder is this way, and aileron is this way, and my magic stones are purple/pink - so the 109 is the best airplane EVAR!"

 

Saying what they've done so far is BS is complete and certifiable BS, because zero actual data has been presented to prove otherwise. Zero.

 

Yeah, but the BoS 109's rudder is still borked.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Neither have devs provided ANY sort of evidence why the Bf109 behaves like it does. None, nada, zilch. So Zero equals Zero?! :D

[downedpilot]

S!

 

 Neither have devs provided ANY sort of evidence why the Bf109 behaves like it does. None, nada, zilch. So Zero equals Zero?! :D

the game is only half the way there, and after its done, u got the patchs  the flying is hard but at 50% its a good game

[startrekmike]

I have a strong feeling that some aspects of the FM are still being tuned, on top of that, we still don't have compression effects on the control surfaces, until we have all that in place, all this arguing and debate seems rather premature.

[Volkoff]

hi all, i bit you all no whats next, yes lets have a fair game in bos, the three planes above, had such addvantage over all other planes in il2 threw to 1946, let me no how you feel, thank you

 

If sim flown to their respective strengths, the BF-109 F4, BF-109 G2, and the FW-190 should be able to do very well against the LaGG-3, Yak-1, La-5,  I-16, and also the P-40 Tomahawk, if we get the P-40 Tomahawk. (and I really hope we do...  )

 

  MJ

 

P.S. A potential IAR 80 may present the greatest relative fighter challenge for Axis pilots, if we get one. (and Jaws really hopes we do... )

Edited April 7, 2014 by =69.GIAP=MIKHA

[AbortedMan]

Pretty sure the model that will be in BoS is the La-5,not the La-5FN... Pretty big difference.

[ShamrockOneFive]

I have to disagree. Less than a centimeter of travel on the pedals makes my 109 veer wildly, and pushes a wing down/up too. It doesn't do it in CloD. The Saiteks did though, in CloD they were aweful.

 

Others have complained about the 109's rudder making the plane snap-roll viciously so it's not just me. Sure, the input makes the actual rudder move smoothly in a nice linear fashion but the FM inteprets it as if the pilot has kicked the pedal down like a bouncer putting his foot up the arse of a drunk.

 

I've got a twist stick (X-52) and after spending several weeks learning the nuances of the LaGG-3 and Yak-1... I found the 109s rudder to be extremely oversensitive. No matter what settings I use it goes from 0 deflection to flicking itself out of controlled flight in no time at all. I'm assuming that because its so weird that its just a little broken still and that we'll see it get fixed later.

 

I'm actually not seeing the controls stiffen on any plane at speed. I'm assuming that will be sorted out eventually. Just like trim

[ShamrockOneFive]

Pretty sure the model that will be in BoS is the La-5,not the La-5FN... Pretty big difference.

Indeed! I'm not sure if the original poster is thinking forward to future iterations or if they aren't fully aware of the time period that the Battle of Stalingrad took place in. The only historically accurate appearance of the La-5 series at the Battle of Stalingrad would be a very early version of the La-5. Not the more refined La-5F and FN models. Even in IL-2 1946 there was a huge difference been the La-5 and the La-5F and again a big difference between the La-5F and the La-5FN. I found that in online battles the La-5F actually represented a fairly accurate portrayal of a 1943 model La-5 (and indeed even in 1944 there were still squadrons that were flying 50% La-5F and 50% La-5FN) and that it was a better match of aircraft capabilities.

 

What I disagree with with the original poster is the FW190. The FW190 in IL-2 1946 didn't start out as a great aircraft (Forgotten Battles version 1.0 - anyone?) but after many tests and many fixes it has become every bit the aircraft of its reputation. It's not perfect and attempts to correct some of the weirdness with the FM in later patches has fixed some issues and created others. Nonetheless, a skilled and disciplined pilot can dominate in the FW190. Years ago on the Battlefield UK servers we consistently saw FW190s as the top scorers on our stats system. Our stats aren't what they used to be but more recently we've seen newer players and the 109 for the Luftwaffe fighters has regained some of the dominance... its just easier to fly in that game. Specialize in the FW190, its abilities and tactical strengths and you can make it a devastatingly effective aircraft.

 

For Battle of Stalingrad I am a little afraid to see what the FW190 will be like versus the opposition available but I'm assuming we'll see some additional aircraft added to both sides of the equation eventually. In the meantime, the Yak-1 will have to do :D

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Yes, the OP had more content when first posted. He was referring to the trajectory of BOS as much as the individual aircraft mentioned and the original Il2. The La5 for BOS will not be the F or FN.

 

Not sure why I feel the need to interpret for you DF

 

~S

[71st_AH_Hooves]

Ill only mention this as ive not seen it brought up. But have the people having trouble with the 109 rudder tried to adjust the in game axis curves at all? I admittedly havent flown the 109 as much as the lagg, but even with my limited time in frame. I have not experienced these wild rudder movements. I simply adjusted the curve out to lessen the effect of the rudder. Ive been getting kills just fine with enough fidelity to walk my cannon back and forth along the enemies wings.

 

Again, maybe its just me but im not seeing or feeling any problems.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

I switched from CH pedals to MFG Crosswind and haven't had any problems with the rudder since the first couple of weeks - with either set of pedals. I haven't adjusted anything. Stock settings on both seem fine but I'm not exactly a barometer when it come's to hardware. (I think there's a joke in there somewhere.)

[downedpilot]

Indeed! I'm not sure if the original poster is thinking forward to future iterations or if they aren't fully aware of the time period that the Battle of Stalingrad took place in. The only historically accurate appearance of the La-5 series at the Battle of Stalingrad would be a very early version of the La-5. Not the more refined La-5F and FN models. Even in IL-2 1946 there was a huge difference been the La-5 and the La-5F and again a big difference between the La-5F and the La-5FN. I found that in online battles the La-5F actually represented a fairly accurate portrayal of a 1943 model La-5 (and indeed even in 1944 there were still squadrons that were flying 50% La-5F and 50% La-5FN) and that it was a better match of aircraft capabilities.

 

What I disagree with with the original poster is the FW190. The FW190 in IL-2 1946 didn't start out as a great aircraft (Forgotten Battles version 1.0 - anyone?) but after many tests and many fixes it has become every bit the aircraft of its reputation. It's not perfect and attempts to correct some of the weirdness with the FM in later patches has fixed some issues and created others. Nonetheless, a skilled and disciplined pilot can dominate in the FW190. Years ago on the Battlefield UK servers we consistently saw FW190s as the top scorers on our stats system. Our stats aren't what they used to be but more recently we've seen newer players and the 109 for the Luftwaffe fighters has regained some of the dominance... its just easier to fly in that game. Specialize in the FW190, its abilities and tactical strengths and you can make it a devastatingly effective aircraft.

 

For Battle of Stalingrad I am a little afraid to see what the FW190 will be like versus the opposition available but I'm assuming we'll see some additional aircraft added to both sides of the equation eventually. In the meantime, the Yak-1 will have to do :D

yes you our right about the 190 it did get a lot better with patches, i had a few kills with her, but often got into that flat spin, 

[FuriousMeow]

Yeah, but the BoS 109's rudder is still borked.

 

As soon as you have some real data then that opinion will be valid. Until then your opinion is bork.

Edited April 8, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[ShamrockOneFive]

Ill only mention this as ive not seen it brought up. But have the people having trouble with the 109 rudder tried to adjust the in game axis curves at all? I admittedly havent flown the 109 as much as the lagg, but even with my limited time in frame. I have not experienced these wild rudder movements. I simply adjusted the curve out to lessen the effect of the rudder. Ive been getting kills just fine with enough fidelity to walk my cannon back and forth along the enemies wings.

 

Again, maybe its just me but im not seeing or feeling any problems.

 

Adjusted to the minimum sensitivity allowed currently and its still extremely sensitive. I really don't know what is accurate here... all I can say is that my experience is similar to many of the other folks who say that the rudder is too sensitive. If I touch it more than just a tiny bit, it will cause the plane to roll and flip. Makes aiming for a firing solution very difficult. Although all of the aircraft I find are extremely sensitive... the LaGG-3 and Yak-1 don't have the same extreme sensitivity.

 

 

yes you our right about the 190 it did get a lot better with patches, i had a few kills with her, but often got into that flat spin, 

FW190s have extremely high wing loading (there is a lot of weight in the aircraft per square meter of wingspan) so poor control will cause stalls and spins more quickly than in something like a 109 or Spitfire with less loading and more benign stall characteristics. Fly it right and these disadvantages turn into other advantages (like high top speed, low drag, high roll rate, etc.).

Edited April 9, 2014 by IceFire

[FlatSpinMan]

As none of us have flown a real 109 we can't know what it was really like, but currently I find the rudder in the 109 just about crippling. Maybe the FM is spot on, maybe it's not - I can't say. What I can say is that in my opinion it seems harder to fly than you'd expect. I tried reducing sensitivity, now I'm trying unadjusted sensitivity and deadzones but  finer movements, but I have to say that in the heat of battle I still end up rolling and flipping all over the place. I think I'll go back to adjusting the sensitivity and dead zones so I can actually line up on a target without spraying bullets all over the place.