Right... so...I admit I am out of arguments here because it's difficult to have one.... but I'll attempt to lay out a perspective and be proactive here (and maybe encourage that in return).

My actual interest is getting to the bottom of a discussion. No I absolutely do not have the authority to make any modifications. I do like a good discussion and I like the sim to be as accurate as possible within reasonable expectations. To that point I've done research in places, submitted evidence, gotten help from people, and actually made things happen. I don't say that as any sort of gloating or self aggrandizing .. I've done very little compared to many community members. However, my point is that real change can be accomplished, with a little effort and mobilizing of some resources.
I'm happy you've stated as such. Neither of us are truly warbird researchers but I would disagree about folks like Oleg, Luthier, who are pretty well researched and had folks on their teams with the aeronautical degrees to back it up.

I have well above average understanding and a fair bit of knowledge to back it up... enough to realize I've scratched the surface and don't know nearly enough. That said, I can do tests, I can look up information and I can submit that information directly and actively.

Selective ignorance is one possible way to interpret but it's not the only one. Time and effort required are pretty big too. Basically if people have the time, the effort, the understanding required and so forth then stuff gets done. If those things aren't present then they simply don't. This issue seems to really matter to you... and you already have some of the data. But your arguments turn in odd directions IMHO. Utilize Kurfurst's extensive research... summarize and get something packaged together and submit it.

I personally don't think it's enough to just point and say "See, it's over there...".

I'm not sure I fully agree. I see the argument and I wouldn't mind seeing resources made available from any source... but, and I stress this, if you state that something is wrong (which it is my interpretation that you have done so) then it's on you to make more than a blanket statement about something if you want to be proactive. Approach it differently and instead of saying "X is broken, fix it", instead ask the question: "Is X broken? Can someone look more closely at it? I have some data I can send in that suggests otherwise."

This is how I attempt to approach nearly all problems and it gets fewer backs up and more people willing to have an honest look.

It's been a while but FSX isn't regarded as having the most accurate flight model around. I'm not sure which sim has that distinction now but I'd bet it was the DCS series. The stuff I've seen for FSX has been fantastically detailed from what I've seen but I'm not sure if flight modeling wise or engine modeling wise it's been any better. I have no experience so I'm not sure.

The nice thing about those planes and those developers is they spend lots of time on one aircraft. A couple of variations of FW190 for example. Lots of effort on one plane. IL-2 1946 as TD has inherited is... what... 200 flyables? Probably more. Some of them, like the I-185, aren't really going to be something that has a high degree of priority so I think it's weird that you included that in your comparison. It's not very representative of Russian fighters in-game. Late war we should compare 109K-4, G-10, G-14, FW190A and D, etc. versus Yak-9U, Yak-9M, Yak-3, La-5FN, La-7, as the more typical Russian fighters of the era.

As a sidenote, I do still find it odd that there are always discussions about the last of the fighter series (all 1945 stuff) and never having a debate about a Yak-9 1942 model versus a Bf109F-4 for example.

Anyways... "Getting them right" is definitely subjective to a degree as there are nearly always conflicting data points. You think it's right or wrong and someone else thinks the opposite. There may even be data out there to support both perspectives. There may be no information at all...which I've run into many a time.

Bottom line, my perspective is that anything can be changed but the onus of the debate is on those wanting the change. There just isn't the time for it to be any other way.

:cool: jermin you have all my substain here at 1c. Keep on this very difficult battle, hope someone at TD will start to think in the right way and correct at least the most evident "mistakes" in URSS FM/DM planes. However also in other forum like SAS people are arguing about this residual/original "mistakes" on URSS planes.

We all want only a more possible realistic FM and DM for ALL planes, assuming that this is the stuff contained into every patch but this is applied only for German-USA-Great Britain-Italian planes... why should have been leave immune the Soviet ones at this process of correction since the release by "team Oleg"?? Is a fact or not that there is no more the "Oleg monarchy" on the back of this game now? then...please- [B]Team Daidalos: start to CORRECT FM & DM also into SOVIET planes right now.
thank you for the attention.

yak-9 1942 have strange perfomance...

in 4.12 compare - weight 2870 kg (ok), turn time - 19 sec (17.5 in RL), like heavy yak-7b with 3030 kg, climb - 17.16 m/s (16.34 m/s in RL), speed in 4.12 little high...

why and for what yak-9 have this turn and climb, i don't know... Yak-9D have similar errors in perfomance and in weapon...


plus in game need "yak-9 1943" - because in 43 yak-9 can have better perfomance from yak-9d... yak-9d can't be "yak-9 1943", because more heavy with 320 kg of fuel...


about "overmodelled" yak-9t...


really need do correct weight - 2850-2870 kg of early yak-9 + 150 kg of weapon differences (weight give another climb), but do little better turn (18.5 sec), and this is normal yak-9t'43 of main production...

and of course, need more series=perfomances... look here -

not bad for serial yak-9t and this is not a prototype...


so, in game needed something like 3 yak-9t with 530 (first aircrafts), 537 (main production) and 544 (good quality) km/h at SL and etc...

(yak-9K, in fact=yak-9T and no any serious differences in perfomance, but in game K worse than T... maybe, i heard something like this, basis for K were planes after repair... if no, it's wrong)...

oh, i remembered where read about repaired yak-9k - http://vadimvswar.narod.ru/ALL_OUT/T...z/FlAPz057.htm...

well, i think, we need corrected 9K performance - if only first prototype was repaired yak...

maybe, because in weight not so much difference (5-10 kg or something like this), just give to yak-9k FM of yak-9t...

I think Yak-9 1942 and Yak-9D are OK, they have very well modeled FM. Maybe their climb rate is a bit too much, but really just a bit. I think they should be leaved as they are now. Lavochkins and VK-107 powered Yak-9s are that need serious FM changes.

1 sec of climb (like extra 100 kg of weight), 1.5 sec of turn (like extra 150 kg of weight=heavy yak-9t, d... etalon of yak-9 1942 have 16.5 sec) and 5 (maybe 10) km/h of speed - it's not so much?!

don't make me laugh, pls...:)

in game and in RL it's was much, and i think, this is why now yak-9 1942 not like real very maneuverable original...

something like this, i think, was only yak-3 (if 20.21 sec in compare it's true - it's just unbelievable, because totally wrong) or yak-9m with pf2 and with good quality (with 3050 kg of FULL weight with 480 kg of fuel)...

of course, but not so as you think and as mainly write here...

1984!

I have no idea from where you got those numbers for Yak-9 1942 model.
Current FM is correct. No need to change that.

I've never ever had problems shooting down '42-43 LW fighters in a Yak-9. The Yak easily outturn anything german, its climb rate and acceleration are also quite good.


Check this:
http://simhq.net/forum/ubbthreads.ph...1284449/1.html

The turn time of the Yak-9 didnt improve over the earlier models, so 17.5s is nonsense.

Given the variable production quality of certain Soviet planes, and perhaps optimistic official assessments of their performance, I wonder if the most diplomatic way to resolve the issue wouldn't be to have different FM and DM models for production vs. test versions of certain aircraft.

A possibly simpler option would to create a "production version" loadout option. It would add mass and/or drag to the FM like a weapon or drop tank, but couldn't be jettisoned. That would be a nice method of simulating things like poor production quality or engine compression.

This option wouldn't need to be just for Soviet planes. Some of the late war German and Japanese aircraft were also relatively poorly built, as were planes such as the Brewster Buffalo.

of course, because you only write and not read...

data from old posts from don't know who, on english? ok, i read it 2-3 years ago, but you really not understand what i read all this and more on original language many times?...

how i see, for you all here nonsence - turntime, perfomance, fm etc... what i can say here, if you not belive and not read? i can't do here nothing...

From Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War, Vol. 1: Single-Engined Fighters
(Yefim Gordon, Dmitri Khazanov)

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/att...ters-spec1.jpg
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/att...ters-spec2.jpg