Soviet fighters and 4.12

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by jermin

I've seen such claim from you many times, especially when you are out of arguments. It might seem reasonable at first glance. But under careful examination, it is absolutely untenable.

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).

First, you are not someone with the authorities to modify the codes. So it makes no sense for you to patronize me with that claim.

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.

Second, like the majority of IL-2 players, I am no where near a warbird researcher. Even Oleg and Luthier aren't either. Let alone the guys in TD. I don't think it is proper for you to demand certain ability from others which you are short of yourself. But there does be some serious aircraft researchers, such as Kurfust and Crumpp, who have contributed tons of historical research data to the developers and community ever since a decade ago, which can still be easily attained from UBI forum. But their efforts were simply selectively ignored by the developers.

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...".

Third, if we players are required to supply data to justify our claims for a FM change. The same requirements should go to TD. But I failed to see a single piece of data from them on which the modifications in the recent patches depends.

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.

I am wondering, since those skilled aircraft makers for FSX can accurately model German fighters down to every historical detail without much intervention from community, which are widely aknowledged as realistic representations of their real-life counterparts by flight sim community, why it is so hard for our developers to get them right. My guess is either they are selectively blind, or they don't have the ability to do so. But considering their non-FM-related modifications are top notched, I'm afraid the former is more likely the case.

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.