Jump to content

Is the Yak 9 actually worth it?


Bjorrrrn
 Share

Recommended Posts

53 minutes ago, =621=Samikatz said:

...And then the British variants, and the Israeli modifications, and the D-Day variants, and...

 

I've been to the Israeli tank museum in Latrun, and it's staggering how many variants of the Sherman are on display there.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though I'd argue there are nearly the same number of distinctions with the different T-34s built by various factories, but they are much less well labeled. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say yes, it is an additional airplane for the game and you can support the further development of this series 

So it is a double yes to purchasae this plane over the il2 Store and not using Steam :friends:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, 76IAP-Black said:

I would say yes, it is an additional airplane for the game and you can support the further development of this series 

So it is a double yes to purchasae this plane over the il2 Store and not using Steam :friends:

Yes it will be through the website and I will get the 9T soon. 

Edited by Bjorrrrn
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Historical importance is a reason enough for me. Yes, it might have very similar performance to the Yak-1B, but it might offer much more in form of modifications and weaponry. While Yak-1B was a pure low to med altitude battlefield air dominance dogfighter, Yak-9 was a multi purpose fighter with plethora of loadout options and versions.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay i'll admit it, i was bored. But i did some quick digging and found that there's around 44 distinct variants of the M4. This is "distinct" in my opinion meaning only tanks which were factory produced, or officially refit. This specifically excludes field-refits, post-war re-manufactures, restoration shenanigans, the "funnies", mine sweeper conversions, duplex drive conversions, and recovery vehicles. I also do not make any distinctions between applique and non-applique armor tanks. Changes of minor things like turret cast armor thickness, pistol port removal, type of transmission cover et. al. i have not bothered to count. If i were to count those it'd be nearly impossible to fill the list! Many of the variants appear the same, after all the M4, M4A2, M4A3, and M4A4 small hatch hulls are all about the same for armor protection and the major difference is mostly the engine. Pick any two variants and there will be a significant difference in capabilities, crew accommodations or manufacturing methods. 

 

image.thumb.png.7ab22f3255dead3f1b21203389c06c17.png

 

Some caveats: Firefly variants are assumed to all be made with various combos of hull hatch versions and turret bustle types because there is not much documentation left about what types were converted or not. There may be combos which were produced that i do not have listed. This comes from variations in the supply chain as the "low bustle" turret was often put on any vehicles produced as long as there was supply. IE there may have been M4A1s produced with large hatch hulls and "low bustle" turrets simply because all of the low bustle turrets may not have been used by the time the large hatch hulls were produced. 

Edited by Kataphrakt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

cardboard_killer
2 hours ago, Kataphrakt said:

On the M4, i dont know how many variants were a thing (i have yet to look it up thoroughly) but the number of variants does depend heavily on what changes one considers to be enough to make something a new "variant."

 

You forgot the different engines, diesel and gasoline. Ford and GM.

Edited by cardboard_killer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, cardboard_killer said:

 

You forgot the different engines, diesel and gasoline. Ford and GM.

The different engines actually do not need to be accounted for because the hull-type is engine-specific. In my post above you can see why from the table of variants. Every M4, M4 composite, and M4A1 used the R-975. Every M4A2 fit the GM 6046 from the factory. Every M4A3 fit the GAA V8 engine. Every M4A4 fit the Multibank engine. All unless field-refit with a new engine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ShamrockOneFive
4 hours ago, ME-BFMasserME262 said:

I dont think those differences are subtle lol. Maybe between G2 and G4 yes, imo.

 

See and this is where "it depends on who you ask" comes right in.

 

Ask someone with just a bit of time with the two and yeah they are pretty much the same. Ask a dedicated 109 pilot and they are massively different. Same with the Yak-9 and Yak-1B.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Yak 1 and Yak 7 were developed in tandem, the 1 was designed as a fighter and the 7 as an advanced trainer.  As it was originally intended as a trainer the Yak 7 was designed more for stability and it had to accommodate the additional seat for the instructor which of course made it heavier.  Prior to major production, some Yak engineers decided to modify the Yak 7 UTI and the result was arguably better than the Yak 1 because it was more stable and easier to fly.  The reason I am stating this is because the Yak 7 evolved into the Yak 9.

 

The fact the Yak 9 was based on a heavier, sturdier and more stable airframe which gave it more flexibility for improvements and allowed for a better multi-role capability.

 

EDIT:  I said bigger but should have said heavier.  The Yak 1 and Yak 7 had identical span and length.

Edited by ICDP
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all. It seems I can't mark a thread as having found a solution but I have made a decision the other day and posted it a few times. 

 

I will be buying the Yak 9T through the website soon!

Thanks to everyone for their valuable information!

 

I will keep reading anything new that gets posted nonetheless incase there is some interesting info. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/2/2020 at 11:38 PM, =621=Samikatz said:

 

Oh thank you! That's a lot of great information. Sadly it basically confirms we won't get it as a mod for the 9T, it's obviously not in the scope of it. Where do you find such detailed information on Soviet airplanes? I've struggled to dig it up in the past

 

Thank you, although I definitely do not consider myself expert on Yaks. The advantage I have is that I understand Russian. ☺️

 

English language resources to start with - check Yefim Gordon's two volumes "Yakovlev Fighters of World War II" (2005) and "Yakovlev Piston Engined Fighters" (2013), Vlad Antipov and Igor Utkin's "Dragons on Bird's Wings: The combat story of 812th IAP" (2006), and Osprey Duel 65 "Bf 109 E/F vs Yak-1/7, Eastern Front 1941-42".

 

10 hours ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

 

See and this is where "it depends on who you ask" comes right in.

 

Ask someone with just a bit of time with the two and yeah they are pretty much the same. Ask a dedicated 109 pilot and they are massively different. Same with the Yak-9 and Yak-1B.

 

As someone who flies mostly the '109 and Yaks since the days of "Il-2 Forgotten Battles", I can wholeheartedly say yes to this! The G-2 and G-4, and Yak-1 and Yak-7 are similar yet quite different - the heavier airframe of the latter is quite noticeable, although you get a very improved ground handling.   

Edited by Burdokva
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Burdokva said:

Yak-1 and Yak-7 are similar yet quite different

Agreed with this. I seem to have much more success in the Yak-7. I just get on better with the 'feel' of the heavier aircraft and have more confidence flying it to the edge of the envelope. It's hard to pin down exactly what contributes to this though. This is why I'm super excited by the Yak-9. I'm hoping it should 'feel' and perform like a faster, more powerful -7.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

cardboard_killer
12 hours ago, Kataphrakt said:

The different engines actually do not need to be accounted for because the hull-type is engine-specific. In my post above you can see why from the table of variants. Every M4, M4 composite, and M4A1 used the R-975. Every M4A2 fit the GM 6046 from the factory. Every M4A3 fit the GAA V8 engine. Every M4A4 fit the Multibank engine. All unless field-refit with a new engine. 

 

A different engine, more so than different turret type, means different performance and different logistics. And performance is what this thread is about. And logistics is why wars are won.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SCG_FeuerFliegen
21 hours ago, Notclear said:

The UB machine gun had 200-220 rounds.

 

The NS-37 had 30-32 rounds.

 

I don't know if there was a correlation between the different load.

32 and 200 or 30 and 220 ? Maybe the max was possible with the both weapons at the same time ?

 

 

I have read that the reason for the different ammunition round counts was dependent on if the mechanics took extra time to neatly place and organize the ammunition into it's storage area, or if they quickly just piled it in.  If they took the time to lay it into it's place just right, they could add 7-10% more than if they hadn't.  Makes sense to me.

 

 

Personally I am really hoping that the Yak-9 and Yak-9T have as many options and variants as the Hurricane, or something like the Fw190 A-8/F-8/G-8.  I think it's reasonable to expect being that it cost quite a bit more other (non collector's) planes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope they will add a mod for the yak 9D version, increasing the fuel load, as this version was produced in the thousands(2-3 k i think), in contrast with the 459 units from yak 9 series 1.

I know many pilots disliked that version and and intentionally sealed the added tanks in the wings and carried less fuel, but nevertheless, it would still impact performance with that extra weight.

The yak 9T was a more popular plane and usually flown by flight leads in the regiments while the wingmen sported the the yak 9/yak9Ds. Yet there isn't really a scenario depicted currently in BoX where the yak 9T were used. Apparently in kuban in oct 1943, after the period in the career but I haven't seen any references. 

 

Then there is Kursk.... Well I think devs approached the scenario the wrong way. They should have made the prokhorovka map for air combat or air to ground combat and then include the tank commander aspect after.

Not the other way around as they actually did. End Result, a miniscule map unsuited for large scale a2a, filled with glitches and FPS issues if you want to fly the ya9 T on it. 

Maybe Im just too much of a historical accuracy taliban.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cardboard_killer said:

 

A different engine, more so than different turret type, means different performance and different logistics. And performance is what this thread is about. And logistics is why wars are won.

If you would read my post: 

 

15 hours ago, Kataphrakt said:

The different engines actually do not need to be accounted for because the hull-type is engine-specific. In my post above you can see why from the table of variants. Every M4, M4 composite, and M4A1 used the R-975. Every M4A2 fit the GM 6046 from the factory. Every M4A3 fit the GAA V8 engine. Every M4A4 fit the Multibank engine. All unless field-refit with a new engine. 

There was no such thing as a factory M4, M4 composite or M4A1 with an engine other than the R-975. The same is true for an M4A2 without the GM 6046, the M4A3 without the GAA V8, and the M4A4 without the multibank. Counting hulls separately from the engines as if they could be freely built with any engine is pointless since that is not the case. If you have a factory-built Sherman, you know the engine in it by the tank's designation. Just like how we dont have to specify "A P-51D with the Packard V-1650 engine" because we know the P-51Ds were only built with that Packard engines. Or like how we know specifically that the P-40Es were built with the Allison V-1710-39 engine, so we dont have to specify it. 

 

Just like WWII aircraft, many versions of the M4 (excluding the M4 and M4A1 which shared the same engine but different hull constructions) had a different engine. The use of different engines required new hulls be constructed to fit the engines since the original M4 and M4A1s were built around the radial R-975.  Starting with the R-975 radial engine (350 hp initial, 400 hp later) branching to the GM 6046 engine (375 hp diesel) for US Marines and soviet lend-lease, then branching to the A-57 Multibank (370 hp) for lend-lease primarily to the UK, then finally upgrading to the GAA V8 (500hp). While a large-hatch M4 is nearly identical to a Large-hatch M4A3, the M4A3 will have anywhere from 100-150hp on the M4. Each engine brings along its own advantages/disadvantages for logistics and use (imagine trying to tune the 5 carburetors of the A-57 multibank while all 5 engines are fighting each-other...)

 

Turret types also do make a significant difference in overall vehicle performance. While it does not change the logistics of vehicle operation (the point of most of the changes made to the M4) it significantly changes how the crew operates the vehicle. Every Sherman with a high bustle turret had a loader's escape hatch, this not only means higher survivability for the poor loader, but also another pair of eyes that can scan when the main gun isnt being loaded (we do this a fair amount even today with the M1 Abrams's loader). Of more importance though, would be the gun mount. While a different gun mounting doesnt sound that impressive, in reality the difference between the M34 gun mount and the dozens of versions of the M34A1 mount was whether or not the mount allowed a direct-vision telescope to be mounted. Every tank with an M34 mount has a 1x periscope sight, while tanks with the M34A1 have the M3 or later 1x periscope sight in addition to a direct vision telescope which had varying magnification depending on the version.

 

Unfortunately i'm i tank nerd so i cant entirely speak about a similar aircraft variant to be more related to this case. Bringing this all back around to aircraft, the point is that very small differences can make a huge change to the performance. Increase the engine performance and it's pretty big. Add leading-edge slats and the aircraft has just become so much more survivable in maneuvers (at least for a piss-poor pilot like me!). 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

Boy, so much misinformation on the Yaks here.

 

The Yak-1 was the first  of the Designs by the Yak Bureau and is based around a Frame that when stripped is nearly indistinguishable from a Hawker Hurricane, the Aerodynamics were improved by their Research Institutes and the Airfoil was the most common Airfoil of all Time, the Clark YH. The Yak was the Antithesis of Revolutionary, which is why it worked so quickly just out of Development.

 

The Yak-1 was laid out to be an Aerobatic Aircraft with a Bias towards Neutral Stability, similar to the Spitfire, but less extreme and easier to fly for beginners. This meant that Cockpit, Wing Roots and Engine were moved as closely together as possible to reduce Pitch/Yaw Inertia to an absolute Minimum while achieving near Neutral Center of Gravity.

It was never meant to have any Weight added behind the Pilot.

 

When the Decision was made to create a Yak-1 UTI (Two Seater Trainer (armed)) this meant that the Deisgners of the Yak design Bureau had to find a Way to add a Second Seat without removing the Guns and with Minimal Effort to not get a Tailheavy Plane.

There are some Options to achieve this.

1. Add weight in the Front, but with an already underpowered Aircraft and two People on Board, a bad Idea

2. Move the entire Cockpit, Guns and Engine forward in the Fuselage, but then the Wing Roots are in the Way of the Pedals.

3. Re-Trim the Tail Section by adding positive Angle of Attack on the Horizontal Stabilizer. This creates Problems in high Speed Dives, with a P-38 like Lawn Dart Tendency.

4. Add Wing Sweep. This creates some Issues on the Prodcution Line, but not nearly as bad as you might think. This is the Option the Yak Designers went with.

5. Move some other Weight Forward: In Case of the Yak, the Radiators.

 

So the Main Difference is in Wing Sweep and the Radiators. This allowed for the Rear Cockpit, Fuel etc. to be added behind the forward Cockpit, while the Aircraft only exhibited good, more Noseheavy/Stable Characteristics when the Rear wasn't Loaded.

The Yak-7 otherwise has the same Dimensions and IS NOT bigger than the Yak-1.

 

And from that Point onwards the Yak-1(M) went on to become the Yak-3, while the Yak-7(M) became the Yak-9.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann
49 minutes ago, Diggun said:

@6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann, good information, but your, err, unique approach to capitalisation ways leaves me feeling like I've just read some scientific tract from about 1690...😂

I'm a Pig headed German that Way.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann said:

When the Decision was made to create a Yak-1 UTI 

 

The dreaded, weaponized “YAK” Urinary Tract Infection released by Stalin against the German army.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/2/2020 at 6:04 AM, Finkeren said:

 

Well... 

 

Outwardly and performance-wise the two are very similar (largely coincidental), but in construction they differ quite a bit. 

 

The main reason both lines were kept in production, even as they converged was because re-tooling and restructuring the factories that were already producing one line to produce the other would have slowed down production significantly, something the USSR couldn't afford at the time. 

 

This was true for almost every aspect of Soviet war time production: Things were only really stadardized within the factory - not between factories. This is why for instance the T-34 tank was at one point being produced with 3 different types of turret, depending on where it was manufactured.

 

Later the two lines of Yaks diverged again and ended up with two quite distinct fighters. 

This is a very astute comment.  Soviet tankers preferred tanks from.certain factories and apparently aircraft as well.  I also have read for example to the LW 190s from Cottbus were considered the best for whatever reason

So let me ask a slightly o/t question -

In peoples opinion who have an idea of the performance differences between a yak 1 yak 7 yak 3 and yak 9 my question is would the Yak 3 have been a much more different and "new" airframe for us or would it too be a similar evolution of one of the yak lines?

I admit being slightly disappointed (tempered by happiness the ost front isnt totally out of the fight) that we werent getting the famed Yak3s the LW was supposedly ordered to avoid engaging 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/2/2020 at 6:04 AM, Finkeren said:

This was true for almost every aspect of Soviet war time production: Things were only really stadardized within the factory - not between factories. This is why for instance the T-34 tank was at one point being produced with 3 different types of turret, depending on where it was manufactured.

I have a question for you about this (if you have an answer). When you say that they were only standardized within the factory do you mean that the a turret from factory A would probably only work on a hull from factory A? Or was it such that they were made as replaceable parts, but just had different features outside of that? 

 

From what i understand of WWII most of the tanks were manufactured with the rough concept of "replaceable parts" kept in mind; however, parts often needed to be hand-fit onto the vehicle to make it work. So sometimes even a part from factory A that fits on one tank might not fit on another tank from the same factory since the tolerances they could hold were not great. The mechanics would then have to file off a little bit to make it fit then the parts worked fine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sublime said:

 

In peoples opinion who have an idea of the performance differences between a yak 1 yak 7 yak 3 and yak 9 my question is would the Yak 3 have been a much more different and "new" airframe for us or would it too be a similar evolution of one of the yak lines?

 

 

Yak-3 is basically a Yak-1b with a more powerful engine, less weight and a bit smaller, so you would expect a souped up Yak-1b.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Sgt_Joch said:

 

Yak-3 is basically a Yak-1b with a more powerful engine, less weight and a bit smaller, so you would expect a souped up Yak-1b.

Not that I know, but I imagined a better wing design since German pilots had much higher respect for the Yak 3 and other late designs like LA 5 FN /LA7

Edited by LuseKofte
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have to review my copy of Gordon, Khazimov, so going by memory, but the designers were happy with the maneuverability of the Yak-1b vs German fighters, so no big changes were made, although the Yak-3 had sligthly smaller wings to help maneuverability.

 

The big change was to the engine. The M105 in the Yak-1b was good, but still had issues with oil leakage and the thermal limits hampered getting more power out of it. The Yak-3 had a M-105PF2 with a higher boost than the M105PF in the Yak-1b. The heat was controlled by additional intercoolers (or oil coolers, will have to recheck) and the oil leakage problem was solved for good. They also managed to shave several hundred pounds of weight, which further increased performance.

Edited by Sgt_Joch
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

The Yak-3 per Definition is a Yak-1 with Metal Wing Spar. The Yak-3 also received some Aerodynamic Improvements to the Fuselage, where Canvas was replaced with Wood or Metal Planking.

The Yak-9 is per Definition a Yak-7 with Metal Wing Spar. Later on the Yak-9s also received more Wooden and Metal Planking instead of Canvas. But visually Yak-9s and Yak-7s are nearly indistinguishable.

This means there is also a Yak-7 that looks identical to what we in the West tend to call the Yak-9M, or the late Series 105PF Yak-9 derived from the 9T Model with the Cockpit set further back.

image.thumb.png.3869afb70d857d024a114b8e5de151df.png

image.thumb.png.73d9fa316ffdb5ea997b925c7da64ae0.png

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PatrickAWlson
On 2/4/2020 at 7:31 AM, ACG_Vietkong said:

I hope they will add a mod for the yak 9D version, increasing the fuel load, as this version was produced in the thousands(2-3 k i think), in contrast with the 459 units from yak 9 series 1.

I know many pilots disliked that version and and intentionally sealed the added tanks in the wings and carried less fuel, but nevertheless, it would still impact performance with that extra weight.

The yak 9T was a more popular plane and usually flown by flight leads in the regiments while the wingmen sported the the yak 9/yak9Ds. Yet there isn't really a scenario depicted currently in BoX where the yak 9T were used. Apparently in kuban in oct 1943, after the period in the career but I haven't seen any references. 

 

Then there is Kursk.... Well I think devs approached the scenario the wrong way. They should have made the prokhorovka map for air combat or air to ground combat and then include the tank commander aspect after.

Not the other way around as they actually did. End Result, a miniscule map unsuited for large scale a2a, filled with glitches and FPS issues if you want to fly the ya9 T on it. 

Maybe Im just too much of a historical accuracy taliban.

 

My understanding is that the Kursk map is more detailed for a better experience in Tank Crew.  That is why it is smaller than other maps - plus the fact that it IS the map for the TC product.  Any air activity is of secondary importance to the TC experience.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No point in making Yak-3 as collectable as you could not use it in SP. So its better to just save it for 1944-45 East front DLC. Then if they go for La7, Yak-3 and P-39Q for some west flavor, they can add Yak-9U as collectable later. So choice to do early Yak-9s now as collectable was only good one. In MP its normaly better that they do Yak-3 if they are doing any new Yak as MP lacks late vvs fighters, but that will have to wait for next DLC in few years hopefuly. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann said:

This means there is also a Yak-7 that looks identical to what we in the West tend to call the Yak-9M, or the late Series 105PF Yak-9 derived from the 9T Model with the Cockpit set further back.

 

The only Yak-7 I know with the cockpit set back is the Yak-7-37 fitted with NS-37 (27 planes + 1 prototype with a MPCh-37 instead of NS-37). They were razorback Yak-7 but some were modified with the bubble canopy.

 

Yak7-9.PNG.bd1ce8bd5409fb933550a5866a7c5107.PNG

 

This profile that you show is clearly a Yak-9M, there is some minor differences like the mast, the front radiator,...

Under a modified profile showing what a Yak-7-37 could look like, some error are probably present, I'm not expert.

 

737285465_Yak7-37corrected.png.4ab34fbff87acd167750594c71c7e5a4.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/3/2020 at 11:41 AM, LukeFF said:

 

I've been to the Israeli tank museum in Latrun, and it's staggering how many variants of the Sherman are on display there.

 

I missed the museum because my tour group didn’t stop there. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

II/JG17_HerrMurf
23 hours ago, LuseKofte said:

Not that I know, but I imagined a better wing design since German pilots had much higher respect for the Yak 3 and other late designs like LA 5 FN /LA7

 

Both used a Clark YH profile for the wing but the 3's wingspan was shortened in length by about 2 and a half feet. The airframe was lightened and cleaned up quite a bit from the Yak 1.

Edited by II/JG17_HerrMurf
Clarity, wingspan length, not fuselage length.
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

 

Both used a Clark YH profile but the 3 was shortened in length by about 2 and a half feet. The airframe was lightened and cleaned up quite a bit from the Yak 1.

 

All I can think of when I think of the Yak 3 is what an over the top ridiculous Dweeb Plane it was in the old sim. At combat power in your Dora, 1000 meters above a Yak 3 heading 180 out - bet he’ll be on your 6 and closing, that’s after the Immelmann from 1000 meters below mind you.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

II/JG17_HerrMurf
1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

 

All I can think of when I think of the Yak 3 is what an over the top ridiculous Dweeb Plane it was in the old sim. At combat power in your Dora, 1000 meters above a Yak 3 heading 180 out - bet he’ll be on your 6 and closing, that’s after the Immelmann from 1000 meters below mind you.

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, there were a couple of oddities in the old sim. The La-5 was a clown car. It took some effort to NOT be good with it. The first time I took it up I literally laughed for almost the whole flight. The Bf 109G6 AS was similarly silly for relative performance vs reality. Except for straight line speed you could routinely out duel P-51.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

 

Yeah, there were a couple of oddities in the old sim. The La-5 was a clown car. It took some effort to NOT be good with it. The first time I took it up I literally laughed for almost the whole flight. The Bf 109G6 AS was similarly silly for relative performance vs reality. Except for straight line speed you could routinely out duel P-51.

Kinda makes me thing about the spitfire IXe which is also a total clown car in this game. I feel like a dirty pig flying that thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

My understanding is that the Kursk map is more detailed for a better experience in Tank Crew.  That is why it is smaller than other maps - plus the fact that it IS the map for the TC product.  Any air activity is of secondary importance to the TC experience.

 

 

I understand that. My point is this is Il2  is a flight sim and the vast majority are interested mainly in planes, not tanks and it would have been better to introduce the tanks into a air combat scenario, once you have a cohesive combination of the two aspects of warfare. AKA what Marshall will bring to the table. That will pique user's interest in trying it out and not be held back by that high price tag for tank commander by itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PatrickAWlson
1 hour ago, ACG_Vietkong said:

I understand that. My point is this is Il2  is a flight sim and the vast majority are interested mainly in planes, not tanks and it would have been better to introduce the tanks into a air combat scenario, once you have a cohesive combination of the two aspects of warfare. AKA what Marshall will bring to the table. That will pique user's interest in trying it out and not be held back by that high price tag for tank commander by itself.

 

 

 

IL2 is a flight sim. Tank Crew is not IL2.  You are complaining that a map for a tank game is optimized for use by tanks..

 

I get the idea that as a player of IL2 you would like to have this map made for planes.  It's not that simple.  The TC map is highly detailed at a ground level so every square km is harder and costs more.  Simply use the IL2 ground level quality and you short change TC.  Make the map on a very large scale and you incur costs not necessary for TC.  

 

I have no idea what Marshall is going to do so I am in no position to comment on it.  However, just as IL2 is not TC, neither is Marshall.  People buying TC presumably are doing so because they want a tank game.  What they are getting is a highly detailed map for driving tanks around - pretty much what one would want  when purchasing a tank game.

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ShadowStalker887
7 hours ago, Bjorrrrn said:

Kinda makes me thing about the spitfire IXe which is also a total clown car in this game. I feel like a dirty pig flying that thing.

Is it though? From what I've heard it's fairly inline with reality; nothing I've seen them do is outside of what it could do IRL.

Edited by ShadowStalker887
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...