Detailed BOP test data for 20 BOP aircraft available here!

[Robotic Pope]

Nice. Although your results of turn and roll are flawed because of the constant sensitivity setting, The Top speed, Dive and Climb rate stats are all very interesting. Your conclusions are still valid and well made. Damn some of those top speeds are way off. You are right about the gondola cannons on the 109's, They were also said to ruin the planes maneuverability but in BoP the gondola 109's handle just as well as the clean 109's.

[Widar]

Originally Posted by Robotic Pope

Nice. Although your results of turn and roll are flawed because of the constant sensitivity setting, The Top speed, Dive and Climb rate stats are all very interesting. Your conclusions are still valid and well made. Damn some of those top speeds are way off. You are right about the gondola cannons on the 109's, They were also said to ruin the planes maneuverability but in BoP the gondola 109's handle just as well as the clean 109's.

Thanks for your response.

The gondola's on the Me 109 G-6 do degrade performance in BOP, check the Me 109 G-6 test results regarding BOP maximum sustained level speed, roll and turn rate in seconds etc. as compared to the BOP Me 109 G-2 and Me 109 G-10 test results. These three aircraft in real life were not all that dissimilar to warrant the discrepancies in BOP test results.

Actually I find that to compare the aircraft honestly all must be tested at the same sensitivity setting, the conditions must be the same for the tests results to be comparable. In the end it does not make that much of a difference in many ways. I'll explain this in more detail.

For instance, I spent a lot of time testing the P51 and Fw 190 models, both in single player and online, since they are some of the worst performers in BOP. My Xbox live friends and I found that when we did this test:

Two Fw 190's flying online in formation both making 360 degree rolls at the same altitude and speed, one with sensitivity setting 20 of 20 and one at 10 of 20. The difference in roll rate was not even one second or a second at most. We could not believe this at first and tested it about five times in succession with the Fw 190 A/F-8 and with the P51. The same happened in 360 degree turns. The major difference appears to be that it is easier to enter into a spin or stall at higher sensitivity settings and not that it makes an aircraft way more maneuverable in return.

We also did some testing of this kind with the I-153 with more or less the same results. The same for dive and climb testing with Spitfires and Me 109's.

So the higher sensitivity settings are actually more hurtful than harmful online for the average virtual pilot based on testing.

So based on testing, I would have to disagree with you on your sensitivity remark.

[fuzzychickens]

Originally Posted by Widar

Thanks for your response.

The gondola's on the Me 109 G-6 do degrade performance in BOP, check the Me 109 G-6 test results regarding BOP maximum sustained level speed, roll and turn rate in seconds etc. as compared to the BOP Me 109 G-2 and Me 109 G-10 test results. These three aircraft in real life were not all that dissimilar to warrant the discrepancies in BOP test results.

Actually I find that to compare the aircraft honestly all must be tested at the same sensitivity setting, the conditions must be the same for the tests results to be comparable. In the end it does not make that much of a difference in many ways. I'll explain this in more detail.

For instance, I spent a lot of time testing the P51 and Fw 190 models, both in single player and online, since they are some of the worst performers in BOP. My Xbox live friends and I found that when we did this test:

Two Fw 190's flying online in formation both making 360 degree rolls at the same altitude and speed, one with sensitivity setting 20 of 20 and one at 10 of 20. The difference in roll rate was not even one second or a second at most. We could not believe this at first and tested it about five times in succession with the Fw 190 A/F-8 and with the P51. The same happened in 360 degree turns. The major difference appears to be that it is easier to enter into a spin or stall at higher sensitivity settings and not that it makes an aircraft way more maneuverable in return.

We also did some testing of this kind with the I-153 with more or less the same results. The same for dive and climb testing with Spitfires and Me 109's.

So the higher sensitivity settings are actually more hurtful than harmful online for the average virtual pilot based on testing.

So based on testing, I would have to disagree with you on your sensitivity remark.

No, he is right. You need to calculated max turn/roll rates with sensitivity at max.

For planes like La-5/7 or Yak, you will get wrong numbers because max deflection is not reached when sensitivity is reduced - a compromise they had to make on the sens slider.

Turn sens to max on La-7/5 or Yak and you should get much better turn times.

This is a huge advantage to the good turning planes when you don't mess with sensitivity.

[Widar]

Originally Posted by fuzzychickens

No, he is right. You need to calculated max turn/roll rates with sensitivity at max.

For planes like La-5/7 or Yak, you will get wrong numbers because max deflection is not reached when sensitivity is reduced - a compromise they had to make on the sens slider.

Turn sens to max on La-7/5 or Yak and you should get much better turn times.

This is a huge advantage to the good turning planes when you don't mess with sensitivity.

Thanks for your response. But I have to disagree, based on testing. With some online friends we tested - while both flying the same aircraft at the same speed and altitude - on [10/20 vs 20/20] and [12/20 vs 20/20] and [17/20 vs 20/20] settings and the differences in seconds required for turning, rolls etc. were almost negligible, they are there but they are not really that drastic. Then one has to wonder whether a <=1 second horizontal turn advantage at 20/20 is worth the risk of a stall+spin that would not occur at a 10/20 or 17/20 setting.

But don't take my word for it, find a friend on your friends list, set up a 1vs1 online duel on private setting and spend about an hour conducting these tests with identical aircraft at identical speeds and altitude but with your wingman flying at 20/20 sensitivity settings and you at 17/20 and then at 10/20. Execute repeated exact turn, roll etc. maneuvers in synchonization and time them in seconds and write the results down. Then turn it around and let your wingman fly at 17/20 and 10/20 and you at 20/20. Let the one with the highest sensitivity setting fly just behind the one with the lower sensitivity setting and use the sun and your virtual cockpit compass as a point of reference to determine the beginning and end of every maneuver. Then consider if the stall+spin risk at 20/20 is worth a maybe 1 second advantage for an average virtual pilot against a really skilled virtual pilot who will not be lured into a horizontal turning duel anyway.

Then there is one other thing to consider when testing. When Michael Schumacher drives his former F1 Ferrari he is capable of reaching speeds and executing driver maneuvers that others will never duplicate in that same car under the same conditions. People drive cars every day but they never push that car to the limit of its capabilities because either they can't or don't dare to. To an extent this is also the case in BOP. There are great virtual pilots out there that can fly at 20/20 and execute maneuvers at the limit of what a particular aircraft can do in BOP just by applying the right amount of flight stick pressure and rudder. Maybe you are one of them, maybe not. Either way the benchmark for testing in my opinion is not what Michael Schumacher can do in his F1 Ferrari, but what "Joe Average" is capable of pulling off in that same F1 Ferrari. Since at least 80% of the virtual pilots fall in the "Joe Average" category, I based my testing on them. Look at the online BOP duels, about 20% of the pilots will regularly get 80% of the victories. The Michael Schumacher's, or more appropriately the Erich Hartmann's of this world can outperform just about any "Joe Average" no matter what type of car respectively aircraft they use. In my opinion it is the same in BOP, so my tests are therefore not based on the flying qualities of the top 20% of BOP virtual pilots at 20/20.

[fuzzychickens]

I've already done testing. The difference is huge and it's the difference between getting on the enemy 6 quickly and winning and getting shot down yourself.

Try la7 against 109 - with 109 sens at 10/20 and La7 at 10/20.

Now do the same with La7 and 109 at max sensitivity. The la7 now has a HUGE turn advantage.

This is a fact in this game. You can't compare performance with sensitivity cranked down.

The la7 is a monster turning beast from hell and testing it at reduced sensitivty might as well be testing it at forced reduced performance. Also, at 20/20, the La7 is EASY to fly without stalling in simulator. So it matters big time and certainly worth the risk to turn at max rate in a turn fight.

And yes, A one second turn time difference is HUGE. If you've played IL2 on the PC online and mixed it up in some turn fights - you'd realize that quickly.

[Widar]

Originally Posted by fuzzychickens

I've already done testing. The difference is huge and it's the difference between getting on the enemy 6 quickly and winning and getting shot down yourself.

Try la7 against 109 - with 109 sens at 10/20 and La7 at 10/20.

Now do the same with La7 and 109 at max sensitivity. The la7 now has a HUGE turn advantage.

This is a fact in this game. You can't compare performance with sensitivity cranked down.

The la7 is a monster turning beast from hell and testing it at reduced sensitivty might as well be testing it at forced reduced performance. Also, at 20/20, the La7 is EASY to fly without stalling in simulator. So it matters big time and certainly worth the risk to turn at max rate in a turn fight.

And yes, A one second turn time difference is HUGE. If you've played IL2 on the PC online and mixed it up in some turn fights - you'd realize that quickly.

I really don't see the point you are trying to make. The La-7 has a 7 second 360 degree turn advantage at 6000 meters over the Me 109 K-4 at 10/20 based on my best test result. I guess you think that this is not huge. In fact, the La-7 seems to the best aircraft overall of the 20 BOP aircraft that I tested.

The best fighter pilots in history avoided turning battles like the devil avoids holy water. The Fw 190 in real life was better maneuverable in all areas but the horizontal turn against the Spitfire and yet it had a 4 to 1 victory ratio against these fighters in the first year that it was introduced even while being outnumbered 10 to 1 on the Channel coast. Like one Spitfire pilot remarked: turning does not win battles.

What was tested is the performance of BOP aircraft under same circumstances with no risk of sudden stall+spin, and like I noted earlier any advantage that is there at 10/20 will also be there at 20/20.

For argument's sake suppose the La-7 is 1.2 seconds faster when "Joe Above Average" makes a 360 degree turn at 20/20 at 6000 m, and the Me 109 K-4 is also 0.9 seconds faster when this same "Joe Above Average" makes the same turn at 20/20. The end result is then still more or less the same as at 10/20 for aircraft test comparison purposes. The big difference however is that "Joe Average" cannot fly at 20/20 in simulator mode and will have to use 10/20 to 17/20 depending on the aircraft flown. In any event, the worst performing aircraft in BOP at 20/20 will not be able to outperform the best performing aircraft in BOP at 10/20 of 17/20. Proportionally the difference is not that great when testing all aircraft at 10/20 or 20/20, if it exists at all.

The really skilled virtual pilots will not get into a horizontal turning fight as it is, and against "Joe Average" it does not matter in any case since you will be able to get on their six in any event, if you are a skilled virtual pilot.

So to sum it up, this discussion is dangerously moving into the direction of a "I want to have the last word" argumentation which is really pointless.

So instead let me say that I look forward to your comparative detailed 20/20 BOP test results, since I disagree with your statement and will leave it at that. If you want to make a 20/20 test report for 20 aircraft: I certainly am not stopping you, more power to you!

[MorgothNL]

Originally Posted by Widar

The big difference however is that "Joe Average" cannot fly at 20/20 in simulator mode and will have to use 10/20 to 17/20 depending on the aircraft flown. In any event, the worst performing aircraft in BOP at 20/20 will not be able to outperform the best performing aircraft in BOP at 10/20 of 17/20. Proportionally the difference is not that great when testing all aircraft at 10/20 or 20/20, if it exists at all.

The really skilled virtual pilots will not get into a horizontal turning fight as it is, and against "Joe Average" it does not matter in any case since you will be able to get on their six in any event, if you are a skilled virtual pilot.

So to sum it up, this discussion is dangerously moving into the direction of a "I want to have the last word" argumentation which is really pointless.

So instead let me say that I look forward to your comparative detailed 20/20 BOP test results, since I disagree with your statement and will leave it at that. If you want to make a 20/20 test report for 20 aircraft: I certainly am not stopping you, more power to you!

The point is not to put the sensitivity at 20/20 per se.
You say the 10/20 for all, makes it equal. But it is not, you give the more instable planes an advantage, wich you WILL notice in game, meaning life or death.

What I would suggest, is to take a plane, make 4 or 5 360 degree turns, and put the sensitivity there, where the plane will just not stall.
This means 12/20 for a hurricane, and 17/20 for a la-7. Now, you HAVE 'equal' situations, and because both planes will handle just as stable, because you tuned the sensitivity for those planes, and no others, 'joe average' will be able to fly the la with 17/20, just as well as with 10/20. But now he makes the turn way faster.

Do you get my/our point?
in short: it is not about MAX sensitivity, it is about the best sensitivity for every plane seperate. 10/20 will be good for a hurricane, but will limit the la

EDIT: plz dont read this as a bitching post, im just trying to make you realise, the sensitivity does really matter, and 10/20 for each test, is not fair for many planes.
earlier this day, I was flying my spit, and got shot down 3 times in a row by a la-7. I could just not outfly him, were i normally can. Then I realised my sensitivity was not set for the spit, I put it just 1 notch up, and it made all the difference. like I said, sensitivity can mean life of death

PS.you are dutch, arent you?

[fuzzychickens]

"What was tested is the performance of BOP aircraft under same circumstances with no risk of sudden stall+spin, and like I noted earlier any advantage that is there at 10/20 will also be there at 20/20."

Any advantage there at 10/20 may be not as great, the same, or more at 20/20. This is all I'm saying. It's basically the same reason the other poster suggested sensitivity settings adjusted for each plane to the point before it stalls so the best corner speed for all planes can be reached - I doubt best corner speed is reached for a lot of planes at 10/20 (La7 certainly not).

But you are not interested in max turn rates based on how you set up the tests, so for your purposes it may not matter anyway.

Really it's a difference in the data that we find important. It's your test, so I'm not complaining - just offering a different point of view.

[Reknad]

Spit Mildly overrated? i think not....

[Ancient Seraph]

I'll just rely on my experience in saying the Spit and La-7 own most of the other aircraft.