Hi, why are the allied aircraft so inferior to the axis aircraft.

[BraveSirRobin]

1 minute ago, cardboard_killer said:

I think the most common misconception about combat is the idea that "the best survive". War is attritional, and at the level of the individual almost random. You can be the best pilot in the world, but given enough combat hours you will be shot down regardless of how good your plane is compared to the I-16. You could be Bruce Lee, Rocky Balboa and Rambo all rolled up in one, and given enough time you will become a casualty.

If you’re on the side flying 109s and the other side is flying I-16s, you don’t have to survive until the end of the war.  You just have to survive until the I-16s are all destroyed.  It’s not a completely random process.  Being in the best aircraft matters a lot.

[CountZero]

And it gets more prominent in video game where you can retray infinet times, better equipment is always more popular online even with good pilots you dont see them flying crappy airplanes online, they take best performing ones most of the time, if its all about pilot they would be flying 109E7s vs Tempests or SpitfireV vs 109K4s.

[BraveSirRobin]

44 minutes ago, CountZero said:

And it gets more prominent in video game where you can retray infinet times

So very true.  The BoX super ace killing 109s left and right in his I-16 probably would not have survived his first few missions in an I-16 in real life.

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

2 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

If you’re on the side flying 109s and the other side is flying I-16s, you don’t have to survive until the end of the war.  You just have to survive until the I-16s are all destroyed.

 

If you start in Spain, you have to survive until the end of the war and through the first two years of the next war to outlive the I-16.

[cardboard_killer]

3 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

It’s not a completely random process.  Being in the best aircraft matters a lot.

 

For the guy who's engine fails over the North Sea and drowns, after forty missions and twenty five kills, while flying the Bf-109F, the best fighter in the world at the time, it feels pretty random.

 

Being a great pilot helps; being in the best plane helps; but eventually it's a numbers game and the guy in the Me-262A is going to lose out if he keeps flying combat missions even against I-16s.

[BraveSirRobin]

2 hours ago, cardboard_killer said:

 

Being a great pilot helps; being in the best plane helps; but eventually it's a numbers game and the guy in the Me-262A is going to lose out if he keeps flying combat missions even against I-16s.

That’s ridiculous.  We’re all going to die eventually.  Climbing into a crappy fighter will only make it happen faster.

[cardboard_killer]

4 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

We’re all going to die eventually.

 

Yes, that's the point.

[BraveSirRobin]

Welcome to the forum, Captain Obvious!

[cardboard_killer]

10 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Welcome to the forum, Captain Obvious!

 

Trying not to breath too hard because Captain Oblivious above sucks up so much oxygen.

 

 

[D3adCZE]

18 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

So very true.  The BoX super ace killing 109s left and right in his I-16 probably would not have survived his first few missions in an I-16 in real life.

I am in this comment and I dont like it ?

 

This comment was sponsored by “109 set ablaze by I-16” gang.

Edited March 30, 2021 by D3adCZE

[Gambit21]

On 3/29/2021 at 12:00 PM, cardboard_killer said:

...eventually it's a numbers game and the guy in the Me-262A is going to lose out if he keeps flying combat missions even against I-16s.

 

That’s just not the way it shakes out.

If you’re going to move the goal posts - then yes everyone is susceptible to things like accidents, poor decisions, getting shot down by friendly AA etc etc.

 

This is not what’s being discussed however. 10 Corsairs vs 10 Oscars is going to result in a 10-0 score more or less every time so long as the Corsair pilots are not dolts. Why? Because the Corsair is a far superior platform - it’s that much better.

 

Bringing “well maybe one of the Corsairs will crash when landing back at home” into the conversation obfuscates the point.

[Irishratticus72]

4 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

That’s just not the way it shakes out.

If you’re going to move the goal posts - then yes everyone is susceptible to things like accidents, poor decisions, getting shot down by friendly AA etc etc.

 

This is not what’s being discussed however. 10 Corsairs vs 10 Oscars is going to result in a 10-0 score more or less every time so long as the Corsair pilots are not dolts. Why? Because the Corsair is a far superior platform - it’s that much better.

 

Bringing “well maybe one of the Corsairs will crash when landing back at home” into the conversation obfuscates the point.

That depends, was one of those Corsairs flown by Pappy, and how loaded was he at the time? 

[Gambit21]

2 minutes ago, Irishratticus72 said:

That depends, was one of those Corsairs flown by Pappy, and how loaded was he at the time? 

 

Fair point sir - fair point.

[Irishratticus72]

1 minute ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Fair point sir - fair point.

Slightly off topic, but while I have your Olympian realm-like attention, what if any scripted campaigns are you envisioning regarding BON? 

[Ghost666]

29 minutes ago, Irishratticus72 said:

That depends, was one of those Corsairs flown by Pappy, and how loaded was he at the time? 

Very Nice man, meet him once.

[Irishratticus72]

4 minutes ago, Ghost666 said:

Very Nice man, meet him once.

Did he punch you? 

[Ghost666]

4 minutes ago, Irishratticus72 said:

Did he punch you? 

No, thank god! This was in the late 70's, and he still looked like he could throw a punch. But being a young man in my teens at the time I know I could out run him. ?

[Gryphon_VR]

I recall years ago when the IL2FB game was first being modded that there was a lot of debate over effectiveness of the 50 cal. The modpack team I was working with tweaked the 50 cals to address this. I was one of the testers that flew many, many repetitions of a 'P51 vs 30 single engine fighter' single missions where the 30 'opponents' were friendlies, just to see how many 50 cal rounds on average it took to bring one down. So we would run a few of these and the modders would look at the data and tweak the 50 cal, then we'd run it again, until the team thought the 50 cal was balanced. The Mk108 got similar treatment. 

 

So, if you feel the 50 cal (or 108) is underpowered, try setting a 'benchmark' quick mission with a bunch of tame targets to kill, and try same with different guns. It's fun....

Edited April 2, 2021 by Gryphon962

[Irishratticus72]

1 minute ago, Ghost666 said:

No, thank god! This was in the late 70's, and he still looked like he could throw a punch. But being a young man in my teens at the time I know I could out run him. ?

It's an old, not bold flyer who knows when to split S and haul ass for his life! 

[Gambit21]

5 hours ago, Irishratticus72 said:

Slightly off topic, but while I have your Olympian realm-like attention, what if any scripted campaigns are you envisioning regarding BON? 

 

Unknown at this juncture as there are some variables that I need to sort.

I have some special mission work to wrap up for Jason - after that we shall see. I have a few irons in the fire, all very early days, but not all of them BoN related.

 

[Tempus]

On 4/2/2021 at 7:32 PM, Gambit21 said:

getting shot down by friendly AA

Major George E. Preddy dixit....... ? ?

[gimpy117]

On 4/2/2021 at 2:22 PM, Gryphon962 said:

I recall years ago when the IL2FB game was first being modded that there was a lot of debate over effectiveness of the 50 cal. The modpack team I was working with tweaked the 50 cals to address this. I was one of the testers that flew many, many repetitions of a 'P51 vs 30 single engine fighter' single missions where the 30 'opponents' were friendlies, just to see how many 50 cal rounds on average it took to bring one down. So we would run a few of these and the modders would look at the data and tweak the 50 cal, then we'd run it again, until the team thought the 50 cal was balanced. The Mk108 got similar treatment. 

 

So, if you feel the 50 cal (or 108) is underpowered, try setting a 'benchmark' quick mission with a bunch of tame targets to kill, and try same with different guns. It's fun....

let me guess, the .50's don't do a thing from 12 o'clock?

just started a career in the p-40. seems broken when to get 200M behind a 109 shooting a wingman, hose him down with about 200 rounds and something like 50 good hits meanwhile he just keeps shooting at your friend. seems like they don't even do enough damage to get the AI to react. 

[Dakpilot]

2 hours ago, gimpy117 said:

let me guess, the .50's don't do a thing from 12 o'clock?

just started a career in the p-40. seems broken when to get 200M behind a 109 shooting a wingman, hose him down with about 200 rounds and something like 50 good hits meanwhile he just keeps shooting at your friend. seems like they don't even do enough damage to get the AI to react. 

 

Perhaps you should read DD 277

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

[gimpy117]

On 4/7/2021 at 12:24 AM, Dakpilot said:

 

Perhaps you should read DD 277

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

still doesn't fix .50's not doing any aerodynamic damage. 

[BCI-Nazgul]

2 hours ago, gimpy117 said:

still doesn't fix .50's not doing any aerodynamic damage. 

Yep.   But they're busy, so it's OK if we wait another couple years.

[Dakpilot]

6 hours ago, gimpy117 said:

still doesn't fix .50's not doing any aerodynamic damage. 

 

Perhaps, but the DD I was referencing deals with 109 tail, which is what the post I was replying to was talking about ?

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

[gimpy117]

On 4/9/2021 at 3:16 AM, Dakpilot said:

 

Perhaps, but the DD I was referencing deals with 109 tail, which is what the post I was replying to was talking about ?

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

and your point is? 

shooting off parts of the aircraft (other than the formerly broken 109 tail) hasn't been a problem, in fact, .50's don't cause any significant aero damage up until the wing falls off (for example). so, although I'm thrilled to see the invincible 109 tail gone, it can be frustrating to get a good burst into a 109 and have the aircraft be able to perform to the same maneuverability standards as normal. on the Flip side, 1-2 german 20mm HE rounds seem to damage most fighter aircraft to the point of almost uncontrollability.  

especially in early war bouncing a 109 and being rewarded by an aircraft with the ability to simply flat out-perform you still is very frustrating. 

[Dakpilot]

6 hours ago, gimpy117 said:

and your point is? 

shooting off parts of the aircraft (other than the formerly broken 109 tail) hasn't been a problem, in fact, .50's don't cause any significant aero damage up until the wing falls off (for example). so, although I'm thrilled to see the invincible 109 tail gone, it can be frustrating to get a good burst into a 109 and have the aircraft be able to perform to the same maneuverability standards as normal. on the Flip side, 1-2 german 20mm HE rounds seem to damage most fighter aircraft to the point of almost uncontrollability.  

especially in early war bouncing a 109 and being rewarded by an aircraft with the ability to simply flat out-perform you still is very frustrating. 

 

My point was simply that from your post it appeared that you may have been unaware of the upcoming tail fix mentioned in the DD. 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

[gimpy117]

On 4/12/2021 at 4:41 AM, Dakpilot said:

 

My point was simply that from your post it appeared that you may have been unaware of the upcoming tail fix mentioned in the DD. 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

and again, it does not fix .50 cal performance. so, i feel like you're just trying to derail my point. 

[Dakpilot]

I wish there was a face palm emoticon.. ? 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

On 4/15/2021 at 10:36 PM, Dakpilot said:

I wish there was a face palm emoticon.. ? 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

 

People would just claim it wasn't historically accurate. Lufties would complain about the flaps, Allies would complain about the tail, and the .50 guys would spend sixteen pages explaining why the DM doesn't match the palm data.

[Noisemaker]

2 hours ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

 

People would just claim it wasn't historically accurate. Lufties would complain about the flaps, Allies would complain about the tail, and the .50 guys would spend sixteen pages explaining why the DM doesn't match the palm data.

Chapeau sir, chapeau.

[ZachariasX]

On 4/16/2021 at 7:36 AM, Dakpilot said:

I wish there was a face palm emoticon.. ? 

m(

[Guest deleted@258843]

Too many caught up in historical arguments that don’t really apply to the game itself.

 

In the context of online multiplayer aircraft performance absolutely does matter. It’s pretty obvious for anybody playing both factions and in varied aircraft online that HE rounds are stupidly effective, and .50 cal AP are spitwads in comparison.

 

You can still kill with them (the US .50s) but the effort/skill/luck required to do so in comparison to something firing HE is an order of magnitude greater. If you don’t get that that you simply haven’t played online as both factions enough.

 

This is a simple fact of life in the online game as it currently stands. No amount of reasoned debate about the history or real life considerations changes how the actual game itself plays out in practice.

Edited April 26, 2021 by Kablamoman

[Eisenfaustus]

2 hours ago, Kablamoman said:

Too many caught up in historical arguments that don’t really apply to the game itself.

This is a simulation - no action game. So balancing doesn’t matter - historical accuracy does. That is why the discussion is centred around wether the current FM/DM are historical accurate and not wether they are balanced for MP. 

[Guest deleted@258843]

1 hour ago, Eisenfaustus said:

This is a simulation - no action game. So balancing doesn’t matter - historical accuracy does. That is why the discussion is centred around wether the current FM/DM are historical accurate and not wether they are balanced for MP. 

Yes, I realize this but there are many using historical anecdotes to assert nonsense such as “the pilot matters, not the plane” when that is clearly not the case in practice.

My point was that — despite some of the pedantry here — arguments about how things did or did not behave in real life really have no bearing on the sim. A better gauge of how things are working in actuality is to look at the stats on either of the big multiplayer servers. Whether historically accurate or not is up for debate. What isn’t up for debate is how our virtualized versions are performing.

 

Edited April 26, 2021 by Kablamoman

[BCI-Nazgul]

On 4/15/2021 at 7:16 PM, gimpy117 said:

and again, it does not fix .50 cal performance. so, i feel like you're just trying to derail my point. 

That's true.   However, with the latest patch at least 109s go down more much quickly with the .50s, but they're still grossly UP while the HE rounds =< 20mm are grossly OP.  This makes complete sense since most good shots/hits at AC are from the rear which is no longer partly bulletproof.

[von_Tom]

17 hours ago, Kablamoman said:

 

A better gauge of how things are working in actuality is to look at the stats on either of the big multiplayer servers. Whether historically accurate or not is up for debate. What isn’t up for debate is how our virtualized versions are performing.

 

 

This is very much the wrong way to go about it.  How things happen virtually is totally irrelevant to accuracy because people play games different to reality.  Otherwise you might, for example, conclude that 109s are doing too well, without factoring in the fact that in the real world they were massively outnumbered over Western Europe, piloted in the main by "newbies" and subject to deteriorating materials and maintenance.

 

The best way to check accuracy is testing against known historical data (that should in itself be treated with caution).

 

von Tom

[Guest deleted@258843]

45 minutes ago, von_Tom said:

 

This is very much the wrong way to go about it.  How things happen virtually is totally irrelevant to accuracy because people play games different to reality.  Otherwise you might, for example, conclude that 109s are doing too well, without factoring in the fact that in the real world they were massively outnumbered over Western Europe, piloted in the main by "newbies" and subject to deteriorating materials and maintenance.

 

The best way to check accuracy is testing against known historical data (that should in itself be treated with caution).

 

von Tom

Wrong way to go about what? I never said anything about making changes — I am simply saying that if you’re wondering how the planes are actually performing, it’s right there in front of us.

 

For instance, if somebody makes the assertion that the American planes are performing on-par with the German planes it’s pretty easy to see they aren’t just by looking at the stats. If you want to go that extra step of attributing that to exceptional German engineering and claim the simulation is accurately representing this, then that’s all you, friend.

[von_Tom]

21 minutes ago, Kablamoman said:

 

For instance, if somebody makes the assertion that the American planes are performing on-par with the German planes it’s pretty easy to see they aren’t just by looking at the stats. If you want to go that extra step of attributing that to exceptional German engineering and claim the simulation is accurately representing this, then that’s all you, friend.

 

Taking this example, this only shows what is happening in the virtual skies.  It does not show qualitatively that the allied aircraft are inferior to the axis aircraft or vice versa.  This is my point.

 

I will leave it to others who can do the maths to say whether or not the FM or DM is accurate and whether or not the aircraft in the sim reflect historical accuracy and/or historical strengths and weaknesses compared to the opposing force.

 

My personal view is that qualitatively the aircraft are broadly as they represented at the time even if there are some oddities.  For example the Spit Vb horizontally turns better but climbs worse and is slower than say an F4.

 

von Tom