Don't make performances secret this time

[PE_Tihi]

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

[ElAurens]

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.

[96th_Nightshifter]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

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

I Agree 100%

[WTE_Galway]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

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.

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

[IceFire]

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.

[Al Schlageter]

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

[HFC_Dolphin]

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

[PE_Tihi]

Originally Posted by IceFire

What "balancing" are we talking about?

Lots of planes in the IL-2 series had problems and most of those problems were fixed.

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

[PE_Tihi]

Originally Posted by IceFire

What "balancing" are we talking about?

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

[LEXX]

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.