LLv34_Flanker Posted July 11, 2014 Posted July 11, 2014 S! Watched too many conspiracy movies FM? I did not throw anything in to cover myself. Let's take a glaring falsification of performance data done by USA then They marketed the Curtiss Hawk 75A with blatantly wrong data. The data achieved was from a plane without: guns, armor, pilot's raft, paint job etc. It used only enough fuel to achieve the desired altitude and engine was written off after that test. To put it into a perspective Finns did actually achieve spanking new Hawk 75A's from German war loot. The planes were assembled and tested. NONE of them got even close to the values achieved by US. Again no lying by US, just results used that were achieved by certain methods. Now the TsAGI. There are pictures in RUSSIAN books where it is shown how they prepare a plane, in this case a LaGG-3, to a test flight. It had gun ports sealed, no guns, every seam and access door aligned etc. Now this data gathered from that test is circulating there as well as in west. NII VVS did tests too and results were quite different from the overly optimistic, or shall we say perfected examples, results from TsAGI. Who is lying? Neither of them as the results are true, just achieved a different way. Now the bandwagon screams that Rechlin falsified the La-5FN results they tested one, and it was a spanking new plane in top shape. Again, who to believe? Then to our British friends and RAE. Eric Brown's words are taken as words from a divine being. Sure, he had a lot of plane types flown and a great career, proficient in his work for sure. But it does not make him the authority in testing and results. How come did he refuse to meet and discuss for example the Bf109E test results with Messerschmitt's main test pilot Beauvais? Because he could have proven Brown wrong. I bet Beauvais had far more experience in more versions of Bf109's than Brown ever had in those few captured ones by RAF. But still the RAE test is used as gospel to model Bf109E. Again are they lying? No, because they achieved the results under certain circumstances. See the pattern? When there are a lot of results you do not exactly "cheat" or have "bias" if using the data floating around. Just depends which one you use Say the plane X gets most optimal or say data from the better end of values and the plane Y a bit worse data from the other end of the values. Is anyone cheating here? No, still using "real" data and easy to defend it too as it is out there. This can be seen everywhere if you have data handily available, be it BoS or CloD or another sim. I just say that people strive for "accuracy and realism" suiting their opinions and views, no-one is neutral in this matter. Not a single developer or individual. That's the way humans are, nothing we can do about it. I wanted accuracy and realism for combat sims, but dropped the idea a few years back as it is impossible to get, ever. For now I just test them and see how the achieved data compares to the available data we have. Easily shows which end of the spectrum was used for each plane Anyways. Enjoy the summer, great weather out there and nice views too Have a nice weekend all. 9
Brano Posted July 11, 2014 Posted July 11, 2014 Guys,just stop being aeronautic engineers and get back to front line pilot life.Take what workers at Saratov plant put together for you to beat fashist opressors.Make Mother Russia proud of your achievments.I want to read many articles about brave pilots flying Yaks in Krasnaya Zvezda newspaper 3
Dakpilot Posted July 11, 2014 Posted July 11, 2014 Am sure I read somewhere that all (each) aircraft have a small percentage difference built in, to reflect individual A/C variations does anyone remember reading that in one of the dev updates, or am I kidding myself again? Cheer Dakpilot
GOZR Posted July 15, 2014 Posted July 15, 2014 I sad in the fact that again the Cockpit looks a bit out dated already.. maybe it's just me...
SYN_Vorlander Posted July 15, 2014 Posted July 15, 2014 The pilot that gets shot down either in a 109 or YAK/Lag is the one that will bitch because the other plane (data) not pilot is better than him. Gaming at its best.
1CGS LukeFF Posted July 15, 2014 1CGS Posted July 15, 2014 I sad in the fact that again the Cockpit looks a bit out dated already.. maybe it's just me... If you give no reason for why you think it looks outdated then yes, it is you.
GOZR Posted July 15, 2014 Posted July 15, 2014 (edited) LOL.. I'm looking at the Yak-1 and the shades and textures are a little bit disappointing ! I know very well the real yaks and it's missing lots of little things that make it more ... somehow better. Flying a lots of DCS recently must be that reason. With the up coming "pay" per aircraft I hope to have more on textures and shade abilities. Maybe I expect too much. Edited July 15, 2014 by GOZR
5th-GIAP_Sytov Posted July 15, 2014 Posted July 15, 2014 Lets all be happy that IL-2 BOS even exists as a flight sim to enjoy instead of whining about some small petty BS to a bunch of people you can't see over the internet. If you don't like what you have, then push away from your computer and go outside and do something productive. 1
Finkeren Posted July 15, 2014 Posted July 15, 2014 Well let's be fair: The cockpits aren't the most impressive part of BoS. That part has certainly been done better elsewhere, but IMHO they are more than sufficient for a high end sim and don't drag the overall experience down. I'd much rather have less-than-stellar but functional pits in an otherwise great sim, than I'd have something like ClOD back in 2011, where the cockpits was just about the ONLY thing that was impressive. 4
Trinkof Posted July 15, 2014 Posted July 15, 2014 LOL.. I'm looking at the Yak-1 and the shades and textures are a little bit disappointing ! I know very well the real yaks and it's missing lots of little things that make it more ... somehow better. Flying a lots of DCS recently must be that reason. With the up coming "pay" per aircraft I hope to have more on textures and shade abilities. Maybe I expect too much. Well let's be fair: The cockpits aren't the most impressive part of BoS. That part has certainly been done better elsewhere, but IMHO they are more than sufficient for a high end sim and don't drag the overall experience down. I'd much rather have less-than-stellar but functional pits in an otherwise great sim, than I'd have something like ClOD back in 2011, where the cockpits was just about the ONLY thing that was impressive. I think he does not talk about cockpit, but the plane texture, and I tend to agree with him : yak 1 textures are now very "blurry" (not not say awful) and not up to date for a 2014 game. I just think this is a work in rogress wich will be fixed hen they release the "definitve" skins for aircraft
ARM505 Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 Am sure I read somewhere that all (each) aircraft have a small percentage difference built in, to reflect individual A/C variations does anyone remember reading that in one of the dev updates, or am I kidding myself again? Cheer Dakpilot I would love to see this too, here's hoping it is the case. a) It's realistic, no two aircraft are the same and factory fresh, blueprinted aircraft were extremely few and far between on an active front. b) it cuts down the whine factor IMHO, you can always hope your opponent has a crappy example of the breed when you face them Ideally, all aircraft would be discreet, specific examples when taken into the campaign (or MP mission) virtual inventory, ie Yak 1 tail number xxxxx has specific stats until it is degraded/destroyed, and in SP/Campaign, the player gets to keep his bird on a regular basis. In reality, I would think a pilot is mostly concerned about the condition of the plane he is actually about to fly, rather than the possible x % difference he may or may not face from the enemy aircraft (given that they wouldn't really know the precise performance of their opponents, unlike us sim pilots who know EXACTLY what our opponent can do, given that we can go fly an example at any time)
Matt Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 The planes in RoF had a difference like that, but the difference was very small (maybe +/- 1-2% in speed for instance). I ran a few checks with the BoS planes and atleast in level speed, the performance does not differ from plane to plane (yet).
Tab Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 Am sure I read somewhere that all (each) aircraft have a small percentage difference built in, to reflect individual A/C variations does anyone remember reading that in one of the dev updates, or am I kidding myself again? Cheer Dakpilot They said in the Pe-2 stream, that this is modelled for the 2-engined planes in the game - the power of each engine is +- 0.x % random about a certain value.
FuriousMeow Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 Wall of text deleted I do see a pattern there, it's always the forces that face the great LW that conspire to provide performance results higher than they were. The OKL, on the other hand, is never the source of questionable testing. 1
TJT Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 I do see a pattern there, it's always the forces that face the great LW that conspire to provide performance results higher than they were. The OKL, on the other hand, is never the source of questionable testing. "Omgz evil nazi bastards must be wrong!" smelling sentiment on the other hand to that. Flanker didnt say German test were always right or "the truth", read again. 2
LLv34_Flanker Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 S! Indeed. All sides had their not so accurate results and methods or without any bias. It is just that people do not want to see a flaw in their favorite plane, it just can't have any. Tell that to ANY fan of ANY plane and see yourself Being neutral in this genre is impossible. No-one is, not a single player or developer. One thing is for sure though, the flight simulator fans are passionate about the genre. In both good and bad. It calls in people but also turns away many as this genre is seen as "elitist" and like a closed community. This is why I dropped for ever wanting historical accuracy or such, as there can never be anything like that. I just like the planes these days, they were the pinnacle of propellor planes back in the day making history as we know or not know it 2
Gambit21 Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 Well let's be fair: The cockpits aren't the most impressive part of BoS. That part has certainly been done better elsewhere, but IMHO they are more than sufficient for a high end sim and don't drag the overall experience down. I'd much rather have less-than-stellar but functional pits in an otherwise great sim, than I'd have something like ClOD back in 2011, where the cockpits was just about the ONLY thing that was impressive. As a 3D artist, modeler and texture specialist, I can tell you definitively that a lot of the textures are "quickies", relatively speaking - not very much time put into them. Again, this is a relative term - I can promise you it took a good amount of time to create the textures we currently see in the cockpits. I fully understand this, and don't fault them for it given the number of objects in each cockpit. Building textures is time consuming. They work fine for now, but it would be nice if later on they were replaced with more detailed texture maps. 1
FuriousMeow Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 "Omgz evil nazi bastards must be wrong!" smelling sentiment on the other hand to that. Flanker didnt say German test were always right or "the truth", read again. No, he didn't - it was just omitted. I know it's shocking, but you'll find it across any WWII game related forum. The German aircraft are always superior according to their fans. But you mentioned the Nazis, so I guess that's the Godwin's law. Thread over! 1
DB605 Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 I do see a pattern there, it's always the forces that face the great LW that conspire to provide performance results higher than they were. The OKL, on the other hand, is never the source of questionable testing. Oh i'm so glad we have guys like you, definitely neutral always and not biased to any side... 2
TJT Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 No, he didn't - it was just omitted. I know it's shocking, but you'll find it across any WWII game related forum. The German aircraft are always superior according to their fans. But you mentioned the Nazis, so I guess that's the Godwin's law. Thread over! He "omitted" it as it wasn't what he ment. He ment cherry picking data for ANY side whichever is ones preferance while gravitating to using the worst possible for the other. That IS a problem for accuracy. 1
LLv34_Flanker Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 S! In short what TJT said. This cherry picking happens in all games, not only flight sims.
Brano Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 You can never get worn-out plane in VVS.None of them can survive more then few flight hours in combat missions.It is guarantee that you always have factory fresh stuff
Finkeren Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 You can never get worn-out plane in VVS.None of them can survive more then few flight hours in combat missions.It is guarantee that you always have factory fresh stuff That's not even far from the truth. The problem for the VVS was not that their planes were old and worn down but that the hastily rebuilt factories and hurried production produced new planes of wildly inconsistent and often inferior quality. Even in the Luftwaffe you'd be hard pressed to find a fighter with a front line squadron that was built over a year before.
Brano Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 My post was ment ironicaly as respond to all of this neverending quarrels about testing,charts,"things I heard,saw smwhere...'' Means nothing to me.I am combat sim pilot.I fly what I get from army depot.I don't care about CAGI or RLM nerds reports.I am Stalin's Hawk.I kill fashist opressors in whatever birchwoodflyingwonder I'm sitting in 4
sallee Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 Give that man a Hero of the Soviet Union! Then shoooot him.
FuriousMeow Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 (edited) Oh i'm so glad we have guys like you, definitely neutral always and not biased to any side... I'm not. You'll find zero threads from me complaining about the 109 or researching it steadfastly to ensure it adheres to the strictest of numbers according to tests that portray it as the worst of the worst of all tests. On the other hand, a simple mention of the La5 in the store being the fastest fighter was enough to get the LW-only players wedging their riding crops up their tailpipes so far they were slapped horses with their faces. Yes, there was a thread here dedicated to just a single sentence in the store. So, about that side thing? Edited July 17, 2014 by FuriousMeow 3
IVJG4-Knight Posted July 21, 2014 Posted July 21, 2014 simple mention of the La5 in the store being the fastest fighter was enough to get the LW-only players wedging their riding crops up their tailpipes so far they were slapped horses with their faces This is just laughable. If somebody mentioned the 190 being faster than La5 FN i would react just as strongly in the FN favour .
Shitigi Posted July 22, 2014 Posted July 22, 2014 yak-1 very good plane but many version of this machine better then germany i think devs hold back better maks to give germany chance since if we have real yaks all germans die. so we must give them chance ))))))
ShamrockOneFive Posted July 22, 2014 Posted July 22, 2014 yak-1 very good plane but many version of this machine better then germany i think devs hold back better maks to give germany chance since if we have real yaks all germans die. so we must give them chance )))))) Again... the Yak-1 with the VK-105PF like the one we have in Il-2 Battle of Stalingrad is the best performing Yak of the December 1942 timeframe. Even the Yak-1B is a little less tuned at this point... It got better into the early months of 1943 and surpassed the original Yak-1. But they really did give us an excellent example of the Yak-1 to fly. Later Yak models are highly competitive with German fighters but they are never truly superior. They have superior aspects to their performance especially as time goes on.
Livai Posted July 22, 2014 Posted July 22, 2014 Secret Dokuments Starting with the best Plane [Confirmed Infomations] 1. Bf109G22. Fw190A3 2. La52. Bf109F43. Yak14. LaGG3 LaGG3 is more outdated than a Yak-1 for me.
FuriousMeow Posted July 22, 2014 Posted July 22, 2014 (edited) This is just laughable. If somebody mentioned the 190 being faster than La5 FN i would react just as strongly in the FN favour . It is laughable, because the quote was corrected to the fastest of the Russian fighters. So yes, laughable as in you are the prime example of why it's laughable. Don't try to act like you'd accept La-7s against early 1943 109G-2s or 109A-3s. You only act this way because there is no hope for those encounters to happen. I also still play both sides, while you sit there and make tired remarks at me for being "one sided" which brings me to question, what side does JG4 side with? Edited July 22, 2014 by FuriousMeow
Sunde Posted July 23, 2014 Posted July 23, 2014 yak-1 very good plane but many version of this machine better then germany i think devs hold back better maks to give germany chance since if we have real yaks all germans die. so we must give them chance )))))) Yes yes, this is why so many german pilots died during ww2 compared to Russian, they were simply outmatched by the russian aircrafts. Seems legit i say. 1
Brano Posted July 23, 2014 Posted July 23, 2014 LaGG3 is more outdated than a Yak-1 for me. They are both from same production period.And coming to origins they were both results of 1939 competition for new VVS fighter planes.Those were I200 (later MiG3), I301 (later LaGG3) and I26 (later Yak1) None of them is more outdated then the others.
SR-F_Winger Posted July 24, 2014 Posted July 24, 2014 (edited) This thread is absolutely hilarious, I love it when people argue about flight models. Here's some more oil for the fire : I think the unstable rudder physics of the bf109 is intended to help the russian have a fighting chance. There i said it! /put tin foil hat on Its already been stated that the BF 109 FM is not what the devs wanted it to be and that it will be revised after all planes are released. There is no intent. EDIT (IMHO): The wobbling of the 109 at low speeds sucks at times but one can get used to it and fly the plane so that the wobbliness isnt an issue any longer. If you ask me if more people would fly the 109 to its strengths (fast and high) much less people would complain about the lowspeed wobbliness. Not meaning it doesnt need to get fixed thou. I just think its not THAT big of an issue. Edited July 24, 2014 by VSG1_Winger
Brano Posted July 24, 2014 Posted July 24, 2014 This thread is absolutely hilarious, I love it when people argue about flight models. Here's some more oil for the fire : I think the unstable rudder physics of the bf109 is intended to help the russian have a fighting chance. There i said it! /put tin foil hat on Very enriching post.....
Gambit21 Posted July 24, 2014 Posted July 24, 2014 Right now the best way to shoot down a russian is from low-angle 6, Huh? I've found no such limitation.
bivalov Posted July 26, 2014 Posted July 26, 2014 Being Russian or not has nothing to do with it. ok, i can teach you about your life in Canada? you agree with that internet teaching, which based on several rumors, films and some TV? or NOT? strange things you write, mister, even no matter what i know about planes of my country, from books and docs of my people here... it has reduced weight, it has a better engine than the early series... and it likely has a variety of more minute changes that were small scale well, you really have wrong vision of yaks-1 between m-105p and (fully modernized) yak-1b. let me says so, mister, after my reading LOT of ORIGINAL books, DOCS etc... and nothing strange, of course, you not professor or even not russian... half of "yak-1b concept" was aerodynamical and design changes (mainly, inside, and during almost all production period). although, maybe, personally for you ~510 kph at SL (s96) it's bigger than 525-530 or even 537-539 of best fully modernized yak-1b, after "mystical" REAL SPECIAL EFFORTS? Again... the Yak-1 with the VK-105PF like the one we have in Il-2 Battle of Stalingrad is the best performing Yak of the December 1942 timeframe. Even the Yak-1B is a little less tuned at this point... It got better into the early months of 1943 and surpassed the original Yak-1. But they really did give us an excellent example of the Yak-1 to fly. Later Yak models are highly competitive with German fighters but they are never truly superior. They have superior aspects to their performance especially as time goes on. IceFire - last time specially for you - just try to get some GOOD MODERN FULL reading about yaks-1 during 42-43, instead of your bulldog-"enlightenment" or just opinions for me, ok? and if my ORIGINAL or any other summary not good for you? or, at least, just do not confuse people here... just for example, all very very simple - s69, which we have in game NOW, it's one of FIRST serial yaks-1 with m-105pf, and plane was produced somewhere during spring-early summer'42, and later still high gargrot yak-1 got several improvements... you can understand this simple fact? other without comments, enough above...
ShamrockOneFive Posted July 27, 2014 Posted July 27, 2014 You know... it's probably just not worth arguing about. We're not really seeing eye to eye on this. I don't think we were short changed by 777 on the Yak-1 series that we got. It appears to be the best of the bunch for the Dec 1942 timeframe... but whatever. If you've got interesting data that you can share with us. Share away. I'd be legitimately interested...
Recommended Posts