Don't make performances secret this time
 

I would like to appeal here to Oleg to release the performance numbers of the planes sumultaneously with the game release.
It has never been done for the Il2 series- only thing disclosed inofficially was the Il2 Compare by Youss. Dementis from Oleg -allegedly the tool has no accuracy - were not followed by the release of any other performance figures.
1C is certainly not going to release the game without knowing the performances of the planes themselves.
Oleg, I appeal once more, don't keep these data secret again. Release them with your signature below, and stay behind them.
There has been a lot of bad blood in the community around the plane performances during the whole Il2 series. Most planes had quite false performances. I hope that a lesson has been learned- and a sure sign of it would be the abandoning of Politbureau manners of secrecy regarding the plane performance data.

PE_Tihi

I just hope there is not another "balancing" of the FMs like the one done in FB.

Give the aircraft their real numbers and let the chips fall where they may.

I Agree 100%

Yes well it depends whether you are trying to reproduced the actual real historical aircraft or the myth as told by great grand pappy that fought in the war as reproduced in movies.

Added to that the fact that many people seem to have an almost patriotic obsession with the superiority of their own countries aircraft and you have all the ingredients for an excellent and amusing flame war :)

What "balancing" are we talking about?

Lots of planes in the IL-2 series had problems and most of those problems were fixed. But no matter what Oleg does, no matter what information he releases and no matter what format that information is in there will be arguing over performance. Now some of that arguing is healthy as you can zero in on a more realistic representation but some of that arguing is in the form of nonsensical trolling the kind that everyone has seen and hopes to never see again.

We're dealing with so many challenges from the complex subject matter that few if any individuals truly understand from top to bottom to lack of data from inadequate historical testing or lost documentation. There isn't going to be one right answer. Those who see things in absolute need not apply to this sort of thing.

Whatever happens....Storm of War will come out and the performance discussions will begin again. Not all of those are bad ones...we turned up allot of information with IL-2s discussions...and allot of that is worthwhile historical data that may not have been readily accessible before. Certainly not in one place like it was.

But I really hope to be able to have those discussions and read and learn as much as I can from the folks who are truly interested in the data and historical representation rather than some of the less desirable.

Be sure there will be one who whines the Spitfire is too good and the 109 is porked.

That's a fair request and I agree 100%.

yeps i agree

and i also think the performance numbers used should be available openly (with reference sources used)

and a version of an il2-compare type program should be released with BoB so it is simple to compare aircraft performance from the start.

I agree I think.

The most odd thing I've encountered is myself in a Wildcat being caught in a dive by a Zero. The point about the Zero was that it was light, which meant it could climb, turn, all of that, but diving was not its strong point. I've a suspicion that the AI in il2 was designed for energy fighting, which meant that the Zero had to be turned into an energy fighter, whereas in real life it was a superb turn fighter. I find the Wildcat much too prone to stalls, and thus less fun than it might be.

Define what you mean buy "real numbers"... or your sentence is totally senseless..

When you will have defined what you mean, you'll see that "real numbers" isn't something unique and that among the different values for "real numbers" can be accepted universally... even when you can find sources (that could allow you to calculate "real numbers" in some very specific configurations)

Your proposal is totally unrealistic.

Rama, "real numbers" is a phrase or way of speaking in English. It means, accurate characteristics. ;)

it would be the same story again...."My grandpas plane was better than ur grandpas plane cause my dad told me so"....or "I found on the web a reliable source for performance.......that my plane is too slow...." bla bla bla njak ser govna

cheers

in other words don't screw and neuter the Allied Aircraft!!!!! (like was done in the IL-2 series) with the fm/dm.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

or else the disgust will stop me and others from flying this sim!

I understood...

And replace "real numbers" by "accurate characteristics" in my answer, and you'll get the same meaning.
"accurate characteristics" can't be defined universaly and uniquely.

your dad is wrong, ramy...

thankfully rama's opinion doesnt count any more than anybody elses opinion :P

so right now i'd say that makes it about 10 to 1 in favor.

This is an excellent example of the many variables, not only in real life , but in the game as well. The M3 zero (by virtue of it's "clipped" wings) is an excellent diver, fully capable of keeping up with a wildcat (if not catching up). The problem comes in with control authority and structural integrity, after 350 mph the Zero has niether. The wildcat is a brick with wings, I don't really think you can overspeed it and it fill fly out of a 400mph dive like buttah. Your friend behind you in the Zero, on the other hand (assuming he hasn't already ripped his wings off), will fly straight into the drink without so much as a twitch to indicate his frantic yanking on the stick. On the other hand, if you bring the fight down to 200mph the Zero will be doing the Mohammed Ali thing and the Wildcat will look more like a brick than ever. And it's not even as simple as that.

I might be convinced that some of the aircraft aren't perfect, but I think they compare well with each other (The known limitations of the game engine granted). I believe SOW can only improve on that. As for the "Oleg likes this or that plane better" conspiracies, I most certainly believe that to be utter and complete hogwash.

What are you talking about? What opinion?
I wasn't expressing an opinion but exposing a problem.

If you have the solution to this problem (defining what "accurate characteristics" for a given plane is, and attributing unique and universally accepted numbers to these characteristics).... then please share your solution, it will solve instantaenously the myriad of forum wars of the past, the present and the future.

I'm totally sure it's a brilliant solution, so I'm respectuously waiting to be enlighten.

lol

Keep data way from the public :)

Olegs had years of

Russian forums...All our planes are porked
German forums...All our planes are porked
English forums...All our planes are porked
America forums...All our planes are porked
Italian forums...All our planes are porked

Tell ya what why don't Oleg make a sim for each country with the flight models you think you should have, you can shoot 25 planes down a sortie with ammo and fuel to spare with tank like armour............oh hang on isn't that already avaliable in IL2 1946 ?.........unlimited ammo....vulnerability....flutter......just flick some switches till you "feel" your favourite aircraft fits the nationalistic propaganda {insert your country} has been force feeding you in the past.

The "fair play brush" was painted all over IL2 to "balance" the game for mostly online reasons {see above}.

Keep whining and you could get more than you bargained for, and not in a good sense either.

Look what happened to my He111 its ground handling is "porked" :grin:

I agree with the first part of your sentence. Lots of planes had problems. None of the problems that I know of has been fixed, though. Not even by far.
If you don't consider La-7 problems being fixed when its max climb rate slided down from over 30m/s to mere 27 m/s on the deck:)))- ca. 20% more that the 22,7 it really had :) And it still climbs up to 100% faster at height:))
I16 climbed in the game 24 m/s earlier . Now it is 21 m/s- 50% more than the 14.5 m/s it really had:))))))) Same case with I153 -50% more climb.


Now, what do you find fixed here?

Take a look at this fine Wiki article on I16, regarding the rate of climb.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polikarpov_I-16

Balancing like this, IceFire:

To even out the chances on the east front in the early war period, with the +50% bonus it has been given I16 climbs better than 109F4 up to 2000m.
This may not be readily known- I16 is seldom flown, being touchy to fly- but the 109F can hope for the draw at best in such a duel- if very consquently E-flown, or if it runs away.
109E is completely outclassed by the little Ishak, which climbs much faster.
Seen in the light of what really happened, this is simply....laughable:)))))

Most people here seem to be aware of these things- but IceFire, you seem to be very unaware of the grotesqueness of some of the plane performances in game :)

Well that must have been a spot where the luck was against you.
Zero is bad in dive - the controlls tend to lock as the speed gets high; and the acceleration is nothing to brag about.
But, A6M2, for example climbs between 17,7 and 19,8 m/s in game... and it was 15 m/s

This is the less well known balancing in the game- of the Japanese early war planes against US naval fighters. Simillar goes for Ki43, too. Japanese used their early planes, slightly modernized, mid and late war, too, when types like F6F and F4U appeared.
That's the reason your F4F fares worse against Zero than it's historical counterpart.

I-16 was a roaring powerhouse, could handle 109 Email, but not the Femail.

Luft advantage was early training and tactics.

Which shows pilots were more important than performance then, and players more important than flight models today.

The key is modelling the air war environment which would allow most kills to be surprise or bounce kills, and the core gaming challenge should be finding and stalking the enemy, or escaping, using the air war environment. Like the ground warfare environment is mostly stalking and setting up for the kill.

All combat flight sims are at the level of a ground combat sim with no buildings, no rooms, no trees, no ditches, no hills, etc... That's why ground combat sims are successful, and air combat sims are failures.

Have a few computer soldiers in a ground combat game standing tall a few feet away from each other in a flat parking lot blasting away until only one is left. That is the "dogfight" model of combat flight sims. Detailed FM and Detailed Polygons don't make up for that, as sales and customer longevity show.

Well, your statement can be seen as a solipsist one - everyone has his own truth. I agree with such philosophy as far as it underscores the respect for the individual world of each of us. But I cannot look at the each of these truths as equal.
Can a plane have a wingspan of 10, 11, and 12,5 m at the same time? Can it have a max. speed of 480, 530, and 565 km/h at the same time?

'....even when you can find sources (that could allow you to calculate "real numbers" in some very specific configurations)'

Try here, you wont have to calculate anything:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/

These are original wartime test data for a nuber of important types.

Conspiracies are not my area. This 'compare well with each other' thing :) ..well- please read the other posts.

Cannot disagree more.

You must be talking having to fly the 109 with one hand behind your back that we have now in FB

You must be talking about having to fly the 109 with one hand behind your back that we have now in FB

I16 is my favorite plane. I cannot remember someone beating me in a Friedrich. G2 is definitely better, but not that much that it cannot be fought.

Your powerhouse would need approx. 1500 HP engine to attain such climb rates. 21 m/s is a climb rate of a mid- to late war fighter plane - and I 16 would have been produced at least to 1944 if it had been that good.

You seem to look at the flight sims from the viewpoint of a FPS player, and that explains the lack of understanding. You can turn your rifle there in a split second to shoot someone you can see.
Seeing someone in the sky doesnt mean you can shoot at him at once. Hard part is bringing the whole plane with the guns to bear- and the opponent usually turns to do the same and avoid being shot at.
Someone diving from above , especially if you are in turning fight, can surprise you quite nicely without any bushes and buildings around.
Lots of people like that way of fight, BnZ, - like you obviously do. To my taste it is a bit disgusting to shoot down someone who doesnt know a thing about it- apart from being unsatisfactory - it doesnt tell me who flies better. Tastes are different, of course.

In my opinion, your FPS games are more popular for the same reason it is much easier to train an infantry soldier than a pilot- you do not need to know much to get a rifle pushed into the hands. So anyone can play a FPS without bothering to uderstand the flight behavior of a plane or many other things.

See but thats not really balancing...balancing implies intent but thats jumping to conclusions.

If what you say is true then its one of several things I can think of off the top of my head:

1) Error in modeling
2) Error in data
3) Data used is correct but for a later model of aircraft than the one/year represented (could be better engine tuning, fuel availability, etc.)
4) Was balanced for some strange reason

To assume balancing implies intent which has not been established. Anyone who is suggesting it is impressing their ideas on the situation.

Furthermore my "grotesque" lack of seeing this has somehow managed to survive years of flying this planeset. As far as I'm concerned I'm always going to outclimb a I-16 Type 24 in a Bf109F-2 in an actual fight.

To be honest I grow frustrated with all of the people who feel their "side" has been wronged (I'm not saying this about you PE_Tihi) and advance only the one cause. There are still problems with every plane on all sides...there were many more problems which have been fixed and nobody cares about the ones that were fixed and fixed well.

It has come to my attention that a number of posters in this thread are comparing the performance of human flown aircraft against AI.

It is a given that AI controlled aircraft have performance advantages over human controlled aircraft.

Wingspan isn't FM data, it's structural data.
About max speed, for each plane type you can find different sources giving you different numbers, and even different reference altitude for max speed.
... and that's including different real flight test data.


Ahah.... and do you think your link gives the only valuable and universal source??? you must be kidding... ;)
Have you tried, just for ONE type of plane to gather all different performance sources and to compare them... you should try, it will help you to understand the problem...

Phi:: Yes, WW2 pilots of all nations chose to do it my way when they could. Having to enter a dogfight was considered a failure.

Same thing with air warfare. You have to learn the air war environment, even in peacetime, or you die. Clearly you don't know what the air war environment is, but I can't blame you, since no combat flight sim developer has ever modelled it, but have usually focused on arcade dogfight shooter gaming, and most people don't look at the sky and learn what's up there. So no offence intended here.

Even for the geometry , as you call it structural data of a plane - you ll find the wingspan of the plane different from the facory blueprint for a centimeter of two- that's production tolerances. You won't find two planes of the same type with exactly the same top speed.
Flight test data of captured planes - oft damaged and repaired in a makeshift manner- can give values lower than typical.
But we re not talking here about centimeters, or a mere 1 m/s of the climb rate ( although that is quite a lot). I am giving you an example where a game plane has been given 50% , 7 m/s more than RL. Now if you find me any source giving the I16 the climb rate even approaching 21.25 m/s I ll buy you a dinner.

I red quite a bit on the matter, you know. Comparing the data from different sources is not that difficult as you may think.
On the link I sent you , for example, there is a test report from the US Navy on the A6M2, giving it an initial climb of 13.5 m/s. Knowing from reading somewhere else that the Navy tested Zero was not in the best condition, I considered this result as being on the low side.
USAAF test gave it an initial climb of approx. 14,5 m/s- lets round it to 15 m/s for a factory new plane. W. Green and R. Francillon books confirm this number.
On the other hand , there is a number of sources that ascribe this plane a fantastic climb rate of 22 m/s, at the same time rating A6M5, a much more powerful model with 16 m/s. Newer A6M5 ,having much lower power loading had to climb faster, so these data were obviously nonsensical.

Now, japanese planes are a bit difficult- they destroyed all the documentation at the war end, but as you see- the aproximate numbers can be found out.
In the case of British and German planes- it is almost a childs play, as the very detailed and accurate documents on the factory testings on the linked page show. So please no mystifications about the different data from different sources.

Just for the record, game A6M2 climbs at approx. 20 m/s

BnZ certainly was a best way to survive, and in a war situation I would be using it, too. But we are talking here about a game, not war. It is an adaptable game, it can be played in a number of different maners- you are free to choose one you like.
I am interested in flying skills, and that s the way I play it. You can teach one to BnZ in a short time- outmanoeuvring the opponent using the plane's qualities and energy to obtain a firing solution; shooting deflection from beam and all quarters, well it is quite a different matter, in spite of your derrogatory remarks about arcade dogfight. It is everything else but arcade :))))
As said, a matter of taste and temperament.

1) Errors in modelling wouldn't last 7 years, and especially not such large ones.
2) Data is very easy to obtain, in Russia especially.
3) I didn't tell you everything- I16 type 24 didn't have cannon armament as portrayed in the game. Types 17 and 27 were cannon armed, but 27 was much heavier because of the cannon. Nevertheless- the plane in game uses the weight numbers of the machinegun armed type 24.
Even if one threw out of the plane the complete armament and everything else a screwdriver can remove, and put in a jockey-sized 50 kg pilot, plane would in all probabbility never reach even 17 m/s
4) Strange reason is supposed to be the predominance of the russian customers in the community in the first years of the game, and balancing the online wars.
What could be the reason for 'balancing' of the japanese planes against US Navy types- beats me.

And about the 109F2... I am afraid you are overly optimistic there. I16 climbs quite a bit faster at low altitudes- take a look at the Il2 Compare..

You know I had started typing a big long message but its not worth it.

Also where is this information about which versions of the I-16 are armed with cannons and which are not plus the weight information and whatever else you've got.

Pe_Tihi, after flying this sim since the original demo I would say Bnz is more difficult than TnB, your speed is greater your angles of deflection are often higher and more difficult to calculate, and the fact that you are trying to kill in one burst also often makes it more difficult. Apart from that many of us are trying to simulate the real war and any smart ww2 pilot knew that dogfights were for a different era, this was the undoing of many a Japanese pilot, who thought it more honorable to dogfight than to just kill the enemy as quickly as possible then fly home to fight another day.

As for your data on aircraft can we please have some more references.

I have a book which says the I-16 tip 24 was a four machine gun plane, and the I-16 tip 27 had two SHVAK and two machine guns.

The book is "The complete book of fighters", it's heavy but seems to be comprehensive. I presume there are good sources for their data.

It was remaindered (sold off cheap) when I got it, so it probably isn't available new, it seems to be available second hand via Amazon:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Complete-Boo...7790613&sr=1-1

I am beginning to regret comparing the ZnB and TnB tactics ant their followers. TnB certainly wasn't a recipe for a long life during the war, and in the game , too, ZnB is certainly less risky strategy. BnZ requires certain skills, too- simply my personal opinion to rate these skills lower.
It is quite dificult, though, to BnZ a fighter plane knowing about it. The BnZ-ers I have seen prefer in the general to hit a plane involved in a fight which absorbs the pilot's attention in another direction. Getting bored from them and climbing to their height- some seem at loss at what to do, others try getting away- only a minority has the skills and is confident enough of them to fight it out with you in a manoeuvring fight. Which they generally loose.
From BnZ ing friends I hear about the excitement of stalking the opponent and sweating to remain unnoticed. It is completely unknown to me- am not the type for it. And getting hit from above while fighting two guys won't make the BnZers more likeble to me, either.
Hitting someone in this matter leaves me cold- it doesnt tell me anything about who flies better; and that is what interests me. I want to have the opponents attention- am simply like that. So that is why I say- play according to your prefferences. What i say here are simply my tastes.
Simulating real war is thank god, impossible in a flight sim. You sit in your armchair in front of a PC, and you cant get burned, maimed , or killed in any of the terrible ways possible in a war. You are even not freezing, or having your blood drained from your head in manoeuvres.
Your mentioning of the japanese pilot who didn't get home cause of TnB is missing that perspective- you won't even leave your home if TnB-ning, nothing to say about getting killed.
Risking to get shot down virtually versus yawning while climbing and target practising afterwards in BnZ leaves me vith a clear choice, and you certainly have yours.
Please look for the plane data link in a following post.

Ok... I see... you're an expert.

I will shut up then... I'm just a poor ignorant that try since years to reduce huge discrepancies (up to 20%) in some plane real flight datas (D520 as an exemple)...

I undestand completely how you feel, IceFire, and you re probbably right- it isn't worth it.
I remember you from other discussions elsewhere, where you always kept a correct and polite tone. No offence has been meant with what I wrote, and I certainly called the plane performances grotesque, not you.

There is quite a lot to be found in the net about the I16. I am sending you a good link to a russian page:

http://i16fighter.narod.ru/mods/mods.htm

Only parts of the page have got an english version, regretably not the structural and flight data. In spite of the cyrilic alphabet, I am sure you are going to recognize the weight values, empty and takeoff, in the lines 9 and 10 of a table for the different I16 variants on this page, as well as climb to height numbers at the lines 17 and 18. The site is very comprehensive, going to such details as the armament weights, bullet weights , muzzle velocities, etc, etc. With ammunition and structural strenghtening, the weight difference of mg and gun armed versions is about 100 kg.
Cannon armed development of type 24 was type 28, with the same M63 engine, so you can compare these two.
Type 27 had the less powerful M62.
The weights given at the page are somewhat on the low side - other sources give an empty weight of up to 1490 and loaded one of 1915-1941 kg for the type 24.
In any case, Loaded weight of the game type 24 is about 1870 kg, if I remember well- check in the Il2 Compare , please.

Variant armament is given in the third line from below.

Well you can be assures that whatever performance numbers Oleg uses you will find someone that can offer contradicting evedence, from who knows where (or source).

The data is not from somewhere, but from the russian book

М. Маслов "Истребитель И-16" - M.Maslov 'I16 Fighter'

Mr. Maslov used in all probability the same sources as Oleg does too -
'Samoletostroenie v SSSR. 1917-1945 gg.' published by the TsAGI- Soviet central aerodynamical institute, and the 'History Of Plane Construction in USSR', by V.B. Shavrov.
If you like that more, i could give you an excerpt from the later book, too.

Even without that much reading, one who has an idea of the WWI plane performances would recognize the 21m/s climb ( or 24 as it earlier was) as wholly unrealistic number.
Contemporaries of I16 type 24 with the engines of about 900-1000 hp had climbs of about 15 m/s at most. For the climbs over 20m/s an 1500 HP + engine was needed.And that means La5/7, or 109G, etc. The value is typical for the mid and late war planes.

And I ll be surprised if all this changes your opinion :)

Thank you for the link. I'm always interested in new data (or at least new to me). So...did anyone bring this up with Oleg....back a few years ago when it still mattered? Its still good to have more than one source of data if possible..maybe Oleg has conflicting data. Where does this come from BTW?

i dont think having published data from various contradictory sources is a problem, or that it justifies for oleg not to openly quote his BoB aircraft performance charts and the sources he used.

amongst the data sources available some will be more accurate, and based on direct performance testing in a controlled environment (like using captured aircraft, factory performance testing, contruction plans and blue prints etc), and some of these reference texts will stand out as being more comprehensive and reliable then others. in the 50 yrs since ww2 these historical aircraft performances have been analyzed, compared, and even new performance tests have been made with historical aircraft or reproductions built.

the same problem of, "what data can you trust", exists in every scientific discipline, and there is fairly simple ways to cut through the accumulated evidence in an objective way and source some "close to accurate" numbers, these SHOULD then be reproducible in a SIMULATOR on a computer if it claims an accurate flight model.

right now some of the aircraft behavior is down right silly, the numbers for the i-16 being a perfect example. the aim of having disclosure of flight performance characteristics in BoB, with a similar program like il2-compare, is to avoid those extreme "errors" (which in case of the i-16 were probably deliberate)

Didn't Oleg say he couldn't say where he got his data from, at least for the Soviet a/c > non discloser restraint.

Sales of the game in Japan.

It's all about money.

Well, Oleg said too, that the Il Compare being inacurate and meant to help newbies only, only way to get the performance numbers is to fly the tests yourself. Meaning 1C hasn't got the performance numbers of the planes they released? Got them but won't tell us? Or that 1C signed non a disclosure restraint with themselves? :)))))))))

Cube , in his threads 4-5 years ago already mentions the TsAGI book as the Oleg's bible.
The statement you quote is another mystification-you won't find 21 m/s as the climb rate for I16 anywhere- if you find a source claiming this , i ll pay you a dinner. And I ll pay you two if you find 24 m/s as it once has been in the game.

The data is from the russian book

М. Маслов "Истребитель И-16" - M.Maslov 'I16 Fighter'

No doubt he used the TsAGI book as the main data source. ( See a post above)

Cube wrote an excelent series of posts 5 years ago:

http://www.simhq.com/forum/ubbthread...page=0&fpart=1

http://www.simhq.com/forum/ubbthread...page=0&fpart=9

http://www.simhq.com/forum/ubbthread...page=0&fpart=1

http://www.simhq.com/forum/ubbthread...=0&Search=true

I did write to Oleg something like 2 years ago, and wrote some posts on the UBI and some other fori.

Mmmm... I know many warbirds type from which you can't find a consensual flight test datas analyses...

... or better... correct the data so to fit the model, like in GW models for examples... then for sure, datas aren't a problem any more... ;)

I totally disagree with you
The hardest part is to compare, analyse the data and to select the right set... or to create a trustable set from different ones.... there are no "simple ways". Data selection fuels among the hardest disputes between scientists.
Adjusting the model to fit the choosen data set is the easiest part... as John von Neumann said: "With four parameters I can fit an elephant and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk".

Pre-release flight model whingeing.

Yes, we can.

I would think that the most accurate data would be from the manufacturer/and military test flight's, prior to the placing of large goverment orders for the aircraft in question. That data is available for some of the aircraft, if not all of them...it would take alot of leg work, and years of your life to examine:-P

Actually these kind of data concern prototypes, or non-fully equiped aircrafts, that were often particulary well built and adjusted, with carefull and well done covering to get the best performances.

Data from production aircraft are IMHO more representative of combat aircraft.
Data for production aircraft can be retrieved from in-flight receipt test reports (when they were conducted, and when the test centers archives are available....). Normally in each production serie, some machines were intensivelly tested by the respective air forces in order to accept the production serie.
... but... even in these tests, you can find discrepancies in data recorded in test receipts for the same serie.

... I totally agree with your last sentence.

Such kind of data is readily available for the planes of the major combatants, excluding Japan. Japanese destroyed their data at the war's end and available test data is mostly from american sources.
For the Russian planes, the source competent for the state trials and directing the plane construction there, TsAGI, has published an excellent book 'Plane construction in the Soviet Union 1917-1945' (Samolotostroennie in SSSR, 1917-1945) which gives very detailed test data on all soviet planes of the era. If you can read a bit of russian, you ll find the book in the net.
7 years ago, at the time of this game's beginnings, you could find only a smal part of the data treasure that can be found in the net today.. You had to have access to books like this one. Now , everyone can read this Bible, thanks not to Guthenberg, but to the net :))

The kind of data you can find on the western types is such, that you certainly don't need to sift trough. Once you find such sources :

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/

...you can spare yourself reading the rest.

Lifetime:)? it takes minutes to find out a parameter of a plane. :))))

This is certainly a meaningful remark- prototype test perfomances tend to be higher then the production plane ones. But there is enough test data made on the production planes, too.
In any case, these differences are rather small. For my taste, speed differences of up to 10 km/h ( mind you, the game speeds are mostly accurate), or climb speed differences of 1 m/s would not make me bat an eyelid, nothing to say about writing a post.:)
Any task done in a too perfectionistic manner can last a lifetime:)

And what opinion did I convey... I have mearly made an observation...

Observation.. opinion...

'...Data from who knows where ..' is what I answered.

Yes in theory it would be nice to have more accurate performance modelled... But one thing you have to keep in mind is that not too may people are going to fly those low performers like the I16 against the Emils & Fredericks! I would be kind of a waste of time making those a/c's flyable if nobody is going to fly them. Everybody screams in dogfight servers if the planeset isn't balanced or they leave! You probably would'nt survive very long in an offline Barbarossa campaign flying for the VVS!

Just my thoughts ~S~

Thank's guys, very interesting!...I certainly would love to have accurate handling/performance model for each aircraft...for me, that includes the aircraft on the ground behavior. Maybe Oleg is already planning this for us:)

Then dont

I won't.

Example I mentioned here is my favorite plane being overmodelled in climb. ( See somewhere above) No plane in the game comes out of my nation, and I couldnt care less about the nations, anyway.
What you write about is then no answer to something you have read here, but your way of thinking.
BTW, sorry to say, your avatar is very ugly:)

Yes I am

Well, cannot be helped :)

Others things being equal, climb rate is determined by power loading (lb/hp, or kg/cv, the lower the better), and span loading (lb/ft or kg/m, the lower the better). I16 type 28 (M63 engine and cannons, which in my opinion is the type modelled in game as type 24) was far lighter than a Bf 109 E3. Numbers I have (others may differ, but not so much) tell the tale very well: the I16 has a power loading of 1.89 kg per hp; the Emil of 2.27 per hp. Span loading is 203 kg per m for the Polikarpov, and 254 kg per m for the Messerschmitt. Given these numbers, the I16 should climb much better than the 109 at low altitudes (at high altitude supercharger efficiency enters the picture, and the situation could be very different). The I16 should also be better in sustained turn rate.

I16 owes many of it's qualities to it's small dimensions. Lightning rate of roll and responsiveness to the controls have to do with that ( and the backward position of the CG, too). It says a lot about the game flight physics that these have been so nicely reproduced in the game-to the point of plane beeing difficult to fly, just like RL.
I16 had a very good rate of climb, too, for it's time, beeing small and light. The soviets are going to continue building small fighter planes after I16, on account of all that.

Span and wing loading are of minor importance for highly powered planes , like fighters.
AoA remains rather small in climb here, unlike by motor gliders, for example. What is important is power loading and parasite drag. Your Emil's power loading is approx. where you put it, (2,21 = 2600Kg/1175Hp) but for Polikarpov , the plane takeoff weight is ca. 2000kg and sea level power 930 HP.That makes for the W/P ratio of 2,15. (1100 HP could have been used only for a minute or two during the take-off; take -off power.)
As expected, I16 has a slightly better initial climb than 109E3/4. Emil climbs at 14-15 m/s and the type 28 at 14,7-15 m/s. The difference would be more in the I16 favor, but it was draggy with it's big radial.
Now, I read reports that the production standards lowered the power of the M62/63 as much as 100 HP sometimes - and what we just used is the prototype data. Same went for the airframe. So, real numbers were somewhat lower.
We could say , two planes climbed roughly at the same rate. I16 had a better turn rate- that is where the wing loading comes into play. Real numbers were 17-19 s , as TsAGI gives them, for the Type 28 and 20 s for the Emil (British test at 4000 m height, reduced to 1000m as used by Il2Compare). Game lets the I16 turn 360° in 17,5 s, and Emil in 23,4 s
Well, in-game I-16 climbs 21,25 m/s , and Emil-4 is overrated at 17,5 m/s. There are some reports Emil climbing at that rate, but i wouldnt take them seriously.
Another thing bugging Emil even more than the rest of the Bfs is a reduced maximum lift coefficient, from ca. 1.95 to 1.65, and that certainly doesnt help manoeuvring either.
Emil simply has no chance against an I16, not because of the climb superiority of the Ishak only, but because of the very bad turn rate, simillar to one of a two engined fighter or a FW190. 109E can hardly win against anything,actually, because of that.:)

Worse is that the F4 can hardly win a fight with an I16 - best it can normally do is a draw.
F was immensely superior in climb to I16 in reality, but the game turns this upside down, giving the Ishak a better climb up to 2000 m.

PE_Tihi,
Your reasoning makes sense to me. Where I disagree is about power (and power loading). In my opinion, max power time limitations have mainly to do with long term engine life. In combat situations, pilots used all they had, as long as the combat lasted (which usually was a very short time).
I agree with you that 21 m/s are way too much climb for the poor old I16. However, I have some doubt about the 109F having an “immensely” superior climb rate. According to my sources, its power loading was 2.11 kg/hp, not much better than the Emil’s 2.21 (or 2.27, according to my sources), and almost equal to a Type 28 at max continuous power (2.15, according to you). By comparison, an I16 type 24 (four gun model), weighing 1880 kg, had a power loading of 2,02 at maximum continuous power (930 hp), and an impressive 1,7 at max power for two minutes.
All of these numbers, anyway, should be regarded with some suspicion. Average operational planes, flown by average pilots, rarely reached peak performance.

Lets simplify the climb performance factors like this:
Thrust (engine power), braked by the drag, lifts the plane weight high.
So talking about the power / weight ratio only, we are forgetting about the drag completely. Just how high the drag of the I16 was- plane flew a top speed of about 465 km/h while the similarily powered 109E flew at 555 km/h. Big difference- 90 km/h is due to the higher drag of the russian plane.
Btw, just found data that Emil could climb at over 16 m/s with the 5 min boost ( Russian tests ) and 16,7 m with 30 min boost is what the German plane manual says. So Oleg may be right with 17.5 m/s for the 5 min boost power.
So you see, in spite of its better power-to-weight, I16 climbs a nice bit slower with it's 14,5 m/s. That is due to drag.
109F not only had a more powerfull engine than emil, but is much refined aerodynamically at the same time- parasite drag has been reduced. It 's climb is quoted at 20 m/s , and this number has been used by Oleg, too.

Simplification must be accepted, but if you talk about drag during climb, you should not mention top speed. Climb happens at much lower speed, and much lower drag (the best climb speed for the I16 is 200 kpm only).
But this is not my main point. Overall, the BF109 was a more modern and effective combat type than the I16, nobody dispute this. More: the 109 still had development potential, while the Polikarpov had reached (and passed) its peak. My point is that numbers on a flight manual are written while testing a plane in ideal conditions, and that the same numbers were seldom if ever reached in operative environment. In my opinion, faster planes suffer more than slower ones. Think at the effect of dirt, mud or light surface damages on a fabric covered biplane compared to the same on a laminar flow Mustang or B24. So, in my opinion, an overall levelling of performances is not that unrealistic. Numbers alone cannot explain how the P39 was outclassed in the Pacific in 1942, and held its own against Luftwaffe in 1945. Or how the P38 fared badly against Luftwaffe and did so well in the Pacific.
In my opinion, the I16 suffered more for Luftwaffe superior tactics in the opening stages of Barbarossa than for superior BF109 performances, and that such tactical situation is very hard to replicate in a game.

Open data please, like Aces High. BoB is going to be the most complete air combat simulator in history por personal computers. Won't be complete without the planes performances.

Same crap Ramstein posted at the Zoo. :roll:

Everything you say is true. Production planes of all sides did rarely reach the prototype performances. BoB Hurricanes were , for example, something like 15 km/h slower than the prototypes; Soviet planes suffered even more from the production standards. Japanese planes, especially at the end of war, too, experienced workers having been drafted. As the germans begun using concentration camp labor, you can imagine the motivation of these people- there was sabotage, too.
US laminar wing planes you mention could never be even produced to the narrow tolerances needed for that kind of aerodynamics at that timepoint, nothing to say about repaired combat damage in field, etc. At last, an average pilot is not an expert test pilot, too- I bet same plane climbs better in such hands, for example.
Germans had tactics superior to that of all other combatants at the beginning of Barbarossa, and a long experience of using it in combat operations- beginning with Spain, and that is true, too.
It is true , too, that a plane at 400 km/h experiences four times the drag of a plane with 200 km/h. I simply ilustrated the point of the drag difference between two planes.
Let's make a small calculation of the power needed to lift the plane at certain speed thru the air.
Let's say I16 climbs at 15 m/s , and has a mass of 2000 kg; that makes it's weight approx. 20 000 N. Power used to lift the plane at the speed given is then 15m/s*20 000N= 300 000 W=300KW = (approx.) 300*1.3HP=400HP.
This is the so called Excess Power, which remains after the power needed to overcome all the other resistances has been deducted from the power available, in this case 930 HP.
That means even at 200 Km/h, 530 HP is absorbed by the parasite and (much less) induced drag of the I16. That explains , now, why 109F is such a good climber , with it's clean aerodynamic, and the stubby I16 less so, in spite of a very good power to weight.
Regarding the Lightning- well the germans had much more fighters performing well at height, and the radar, too.
P39 suffered because of its quite bad altitude performance- engine has been made for the low level work only, due to the political circumstances in the US before the war. Operations at the low level in the Soviet Union made that irrellevant- everywhere else not. The british had flatly refused the plane.
BTW. the plane is very badly overmodelled in game - where else- in climb. There are models that come to 7000 m 70 % faster than RL, and this has been almost 100% earlier in the game:) That makes people wonder- how on earth has this plane been unsucessful in the Pacific:)

wtf?? you want to pick a fight because you have your head up your arse? who died and made you god? anything I posted was based on fact.... Period. They are engineering and historical facts on the aircraft. And no, I am not going to gather up my posts and place them here because a STALKER like you comes after me. Yes, you are a stinking STALKER.

People like you make a civilized conversation impossible.

Here I am minding my own business and checking the forum, and see you pulling some $hit on me.

Flake off and go get a life and/or get back to work flipping burgers.

Originally posted by PE_thi
It is true , too, that a plane at 400 km/h experiences four times the drag of a plane with 200 km/h. I simply ilustrated the point of the drag difference between two planes.
Let's make a small calculation of the power needed to lift the plane at certain speed thru the air.
Let's say I16 climbs at 15 m/s , and has a mass of 2000 kg; that makes it's weight approx. 20 000 N. Power used to lift the plane at the speed given is then 15m/s*20 000N= 300 000 W=300KW = (approx.) 300*1.3HP=400HP.
This is the so called Excess Power, which remains after the power needed to overcome all the other resistances has been deducted from the power available, in this case 930 HP.
That means even at 200 Km/h, 530 HP is absorbed by the parasite and (much less) induced drag of the I16. That explains , now, why 109F is such a good climber , with it's clean aerodynamic, and the stubby I16 less so, in spite of a very good power to weight.


In my opinion, your calculation of drag should be revised a little, at least taking in account the drag produced by engine cooling, which is significant for piston engines. If really an I16 required 530 hp to just overcome its own parasite drag at 200 km/h, it would have been an airbrake, not an airplane, and I think it would have been incapable to reach 463 km/h top speed with the remaining 400 hp.
Anyway, I think we have bored enough everyone with math, so I stop here and leave you the last word.
We agree, I think, on the most important thing: all planes are more or less over modelled in game. But I see the solution in a general downgrading of speed and climb rates, not in the contrary. All this said, IL2 remains by far the best sim around, and I’m sure SOW will be the best for years to come. And people will continue to complain asking for more performance for their favourite plane.

P39 suffered because of its quite bad altitude performance- engine has been made for the low level work only, due to the political circumstances in the US before the war.

As for the Airacobra, in my opinion the real problem was not in performances at altitude. For what I know, air combat in the Pacific took place at altitudes generally comparable to Eastern Front: low to medium. American pilots were certainly as good as Russian ones, and Germans as good as Japanese. So, where it was the difference? In tactics, I think. Russians found the best tactics for a basically good machine. Accordingly to my sources, the P39 was at least 46 km/h slower than an FW190.

Well you really want precision :) We would then really be very boring, I suspect:)
Okay, taking the propeller efficiency of about 0.8, our I16 has about 750 HP left, minus 400; 350 are lost on the airframe, rest on the propeller :))) Is it OK now:)?
The climb power calculation is quite correct; it s elementary physics. And I said parasite + induced drag :)

Air-sea battles in the Pacific, like everywhere else, did take part at low altitudes. Being no naval plane, Aircobra has mostly been used early in the Pacific war on the New Guinea theatre. With it's Owen Stanley range reaching over 4000m this was no low flying business.
The range had to be overflown by both sides in order to attack. The engine power started falling, from 2800 to 3500 m height, depending on the variant, but quite fast. The plane has been used with some success strafing ground targets on Guadalcanal. It was so hated by it's pilots that the cases of the deliberate plane destruction have been mentioned. USAAF pilots at the war begining often lacked experience, that is true. Soviets lighened their Cobras for about 300 kg, throwing out the wing armament and parts of armor. That certainly improved the overweight and undermotorised plane.

Regardless of what Oleg does with FM's and performance the same arguments that unfolded with IL-2 will arise with SOW. Its human nature. The complexities of realizing real flight in a sim is just daunting at this point in time. So again it will be an approximation and interpretation of what it was really like and the arguments will unfold as before.

I didn't know the Owen Stanley was like a fence with no breaks in it.

The Allison V-1710 was no different than the early versions of the Merlin.

If I see the performances as reasonably accurate, I wouldn't certainly take part in any argument. Differencies of 50% and 100% again - well, regerdless of what Oleg does,:))) i won't fly such a sim once more. Giving a russian plane 50% or 100% more climb ... certainly is the human nature :)))

It was very different. Allison had only a single stage supercharger, and after reaching critical height as low as 2800-3500 m, the power fell like a stone. Take a look at the climb performance of the P39D-2 here:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...7320-chart.jpg

The climb (a bit different from what we have in the game :) is a direct function of the engine power.

Regarding the New Guinea operations of the P39, and Owen Stanley take a look here:
http://yarchive.net/mil/p39.html

Or take a look at the terrain between Moresby and Buna in Google Maps- look at the satellite pic.

Agh, so did the early Merlins have a single stage supercharger.

Single Stage, single speed supercharger

* Merlin I
* Merlin II
* Merlin 45/46

Single Stage, two speed supercharger

* Merlin X
* Merlin XX

Two Stage, two speed supercharger

* Merlin 61/64
* Merlin 66/67/76/85
* Merlin 100 series
* Merlin 130
* Merlin 140

Later Merlins had it, Allison never got it. And the single speed Merlins were much better at altitude than Allison.

In my opinion, talking of performances alone is somewhat misleading and, at least, incomplete. As different as different sources are, there is a general consensus that Mig3 was inferior than Bf109 at low altitude, but superior at high. In real world, pilots accepted favourable or unfavourable conditions depending on tactical needs. Mig pilots flew low even if their planes were not well suited for it, because they need to do that. On a server, in a game, it’s different. Two simmers flying those planes, at what altitude should meet? The 109 would stay low, the Mig 3 would stay high, and simply they never meet.
Tactical situations and mission objectives are as important as performances and more.

A. S. Nikolay Gerasimovich, was the I-16 a great deal less capable than the Messerschmitt?

N. G. All the basic types of I-16, the type-10, -17, and –21, were less capable in their technical and tactical characteristics than the Bf-109E, but not by much. Of course, the older types, the -4 and -5, were not comparable.

The I-16 types -28 and -29 were superior to the Bf-109E. They were capable of the same speed and in maneuverability, in the vertical plane, the Ishak surpassed the E model.

A. S. This is strange. In any reference book you look at it says that the speed of the I-16 types -28 and -29 at 3,000 meters altitude is on the order of 440—460 kmh, and of the Bf-109E--570 kmh. And you say they are the same? And that the I-16 was superior in vertical maneuver? This is news.

N. G. It was the rare pilot who sought to fly at maximum speed in maneuver combat and even rarer was the pilot who achieved it.

In principle, the I-16 could easily and quickly attain a speed of 500 kmh. The E model was quicker, but not by much. In combat there was no practical difference in their speed. The dynamic of achieving top speed of the I-16 was explosive, especially with the M-63 engine. This was its second unique quality, after horizontal maneuverability. It could out-accelerate all other then-existing Soviet-produced fighters, even the new types. The Yak-1 was the closest to it in this capability, but even it fell somewhat behind.

The “Messer” could dive well and get away. The I-16, with its rather large nose, could not develop 530 kmh in a dive. But it must be said that in combat, if we had to disengage, them from us or we from them, we always managed to do so.

+1 to that!

This is his opinion not fact

A. S. Nikolay Gerasimovich, how do you see the I-16 in comparison with the Bf-109F and FW-190?

N. G. I did not have occasion to fight much in the I-16, but I can relay the opinion of my comrades.

If it’s an opinion, KG, it’s an informed one. At least Nikolay actually flew the type. What matters to me, anyway, is an “opinion” that many pilots repeat over and over: aircraft performances are a complex matter, and the number written on a flight manual, were often just that: paper numbers.

Said it once, and i ll say it again- utter hogwash is that the planes compare well with each other. Such anomalies as I16 being better from 109F and fighting the G2 well are almost a rule in the game, and you have to search for a straightly modelled plane with a candle. Parameters 50 percent off, or more, well no limitations of otherwise excelent game engine caused these.

I have read another russian saying the top speed non importanat once you enter the dogfight.
What happens if the Germans do not enter the dogfight, but BnZ, as they really did, too :)))? He wrote a whole theory about the combat top speed which could be reached in a short time, and aircraft top speed which takes too long to reach to be of any interest in a dogfight. Having in mind what I just said, couldnt keep myself from laughing ..:)
I read this interwiev carefully, Furio. Mr Golodnikov almost didn't fly the I16 in combat; transfered to Hurries and later to P40. I read some years ago an autobiographical book of Arsenii Vorozheikin, who started flying the Ishak in the Mongolian conflict, and finished it in 1943 - his unit was the last one to give them over. The book describes very vividly the desperate measures - defensive circles like used by 110s in BoB - to save their bare lives from the Friedrichs.... and Golodnikov says ..'The type-28 and -29 were arguably equal to the Bf-109F, perhaps a little bit behind. ' :))))) .. and he heard it from his friends..:)
I understand your ordeal, Furio :) Not having read (more than) enough of all this, you don't know whom and what to beleive:)))

PE_Tihi wrote

I understand your ordeal, Furio :) Not having read (more than) enough of all this, you don't know whom and what to beleive:)))[/QUOTE]

My ordeal ends here. I’ve not read enough books. PE_tihi read a lot of them, and can say at a glance if a witness says facts and truths, or only opinions, or writes ridiculous theories. I’ll keep all my doubts for myself. This is my last post in this thread

You may be caught in a dive by a Zero practically in only these two situations (in game)...

-you've been chased by Ai - it does not obey same rules as humans,
-you have been in initial stages of dive (i.e. only stated to build up speed).

In all other situations you will clearly outdive A6M2 in game.

Yeah, it was that. It was the early zero, not the "Hamp". How can the AI not follow the same rules as humans? I thought it had been said that they were all one flight model now.

It was a long shallow dive, I had plenty of time to build up speed (I wasn't high enough that a steep dive would have gained me enough separation), it'd have caught me by rights if I'd stayed level, but there was nothing but flying in a straight line downwards, no turning, nothing, so there was no way better flying should have made a difference, but still it caught up with me. :evil:

well, human flown a A6M2-21 brakes at ~650km/h IAS and a A6M3 at ~700km/h IAS.

my experience is that the AI does not care about these limitations...................
same proplem is if you flying LW against early soviet AI controlled stuff.