Detailed BOP test data for 20 BOP aircraft available here!

[Widar]

Originally Posted by Benrizz

Yeeaaa That's just so great,

Thanks a lot, (even It will brings down some mythology that was starting to appears on that forum about some planes)

But Morghot is right, can you udapte that file to say what sensitivity you used for each plane, or was it the same for each one. ???
Because it changes a lot your results. For example if you use 3 notches down for each one, you lost a lot for the LA5-fn or for BF109s.

EDIT: sorry for the Edit but I just found the info about sensitivity on your file. You say 10 of 20 clicks. With that configuration for all planes,

Even if I agree with yourcomments, the sensitivity that you chose is biasing your datas.
- it brings an over estimation of performance for Spitifires, P51, FWs
over LA5fn and BF109s

Indeed with 8 notches down (with means 10of18 notches) you only lost 3 notches from a full turn without rudder on the Spit while you lost 8 notches for the LA5fn and 7 notches for BF109-F4

Thanks for your response.

Yes, the sensitivity setting used, along with most other test parameters is registered in the PDF file. The reason for the setting of 10/20 was influenced by two of the worst performers, the Fw 190 and the P51. A setting was needed that allowed for maximum flight stick pressure for rolls, turns, dives and climbs. If a BOP aircraft has a flight advantage, then the testing revealed that that advantage will still be proportionally just as great on 10/20 sensitivity as on 20/20 sensitivity compared to other BOP aircraft. One of the main advantages on 10/20 sensitivity setting is that it allows some aircraft to stay controllable better when applying maximum flight stick pressure, that is to say before a stall and spin sets in. The difference in seconds on 20/20 sensitivity when turning, rolling etc. is not that great based on testing, it is there though to be sure.

But in the end, for test results to be comparable, the same conditions need to be applied and the benchmark for the selected test sensitivity setting were the worst sensitivity performers in BOP, among others the Fw 190 and the P51.

Just to keep the sensitivity definitions comparable to avoid misunderstandings: there are 20 notches on each sensitivity option (aileron and elevator). Sensitivity setting 20/20 is all notches highlighted in white, meaning maximum setting to the right. If you turn the sensitivity setting 3 down from 20 your setting is 17 of 20 or 17/20. So in my (test) terms if you turn it 8 notches down from 20 it would be 12 of 20 or 12/20.

[Widar]

Originally Posted by Benrizz

Yeeaaa That's just so great,

Thanks a lot, (even It will brings down some mythology that was starting to appears on that forum about some planes)

But Morghot is right, can you udapte that file to say what sensitivity you used for each plane, or was it the same for each one. ???
Because it changes a lot your results. For example if you use 3 notches down for each one, you lost a lot for the LA5-fn or for BF109s.

EDIT: sorry for the Edit but I just found the info about sensitivity on your file. You say 10 of 20 clicks. With that configuration for all planes,

Even if I agree with yourcomments, the sensitivity that you chose is biasing your datas.
- it brings an over estimation of performance for Spitifires, P51, FWs
over LA5fn and BF109s

Indeed with 8 notches down (with means 10of18 notches) you only lost 3 notches from a full turn without rudder on the Spit while you lost 8 notches for the LA5fn and 7 notches for BF109-F4

To be sure: the testing was done with the average virtual pilot on simulator mode in mind. A great vitual pilot can get great results when flying a brick at 20/20 sensitivity settings, but these kind of pilots are the exception and not the benchmark for testing an aircraft in BOP. I wanted results that the average virtual pilot can get in BOP on simulator mode. When flying at 20/20 you have a flight model advantage, but it is generally slight and in return you have to have a good "pilot's" hand, meaning that you need to be able to just apply the right amount of flight stick pressure to avoid stalling and spinning in turns, rolls etc. That is fine for the great virtual pilot, but not for the average one.

Average virtual pilots flying at 20/20 is, in my opinion, one of the reasons why these players stay away from simulator mode, since they just can't control the plane at that setting and start stalling and spinning 20 seconds into an online match and then quit and run back to Arcade mode.

If BOP's default game sensitivity setting would have been 10/20 instead of the 20/20 it is at now, we would probably have more average virtual pilots staying in simulator mode online matches.

[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.

[Benrizz]

Yes you right default sensitivity should has been set by default on 10/20.

About the turning abilities do you have an idea on how many second you win when putting full sensitivity for exemple on LA5 ??

An finally thanks a lot for you're data, and the time you spent to do that. I ve already printed it out . That's a lot of valuable info.

We can see that even on BF109 you can't have an Boom and Zoom tactic,
Thanks

[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 Benrizz

Yes you right default sensitivity should has been set by default on 10/20.

About the turning abilities do you have an idea on how many second you win when putting full sensitivity for exemple on LA5 ??

An finally thanks a lot for you're data, and the time you spent to do that. I ve already printed it out . That's a lot of valuable info.

We can see that even on BF109 you can't have an Boom and Zoom tactic,
Thanks

The only aircraft that were tested at various sensitivity settings, to determine if 20/20 was worth the effort as a benchmark for all tests, were the Fw 190, P51 and Spitfire. The advantage was generally a second at best with rolls, turns etc. and sometimes not even that in repeated tests. Since the various sensitivity results were more or less the same for those three aircraft I suppose it will probably also be so for the La-5. Only tests can determine for sure, but I am done testing for now.

You are generally right about the Me 109's in BOP, based on these tests. Of course the decisive factor is virtual pilot skill. Probably the BOP Me 109 that is best is the BOP Me 109 F-4 when compared to its allied BOP counterparts, but its BOP 20 mm MG 151/20 cannon seems to underperform when compared to historical data. The second best choice is probably the BOP Me 109 K-4, but it also has armament issues.

[gbtstr]

Nice job, Widar. You put a lot of time into this and we appreciate your efforts. However, here's a couple things that came to mind that you could perhaps address. Perhaps some of these you considered, but forgot to mention, or just went about them differently.

First, the time to altitude (125m to Xm) numbers are probably invalid. I'd be willing to bet there aren't many planes, particularly of the WWII and previous eras, that can climb well at +50* pitch. According to your tests, several weren't even able to maintain a climb at that attitude. If you were trying to test best rate of climb, you'd have to fly each aircraft at its best rate of climb airspeed for a good comparison. For example, the BF-109E's best rate airspeed is around 270-280 kph. Also, I'm not sure if this is what you did or not, but the best way I can think of to test best rate of climb is to start each aircraft on the deck and takeoff, accelerate to best climb speed, then pitch up to an attitude that holds the desired airspeed.

Second, the zoom climb (1km - 3km) and dive (6km - 1km) tests don't mention the starting airspeed. If you start a zoom climb at 700kph you'll go up a lot faster and farther than if you start at 400kph; likewise for the dive.

Third, you don't mention airspeeds for the turn rate and roll rate tests. For the turn test, each aircraft has a "cornering speed" at which it will give the best rate of turn for the smallest turn radius. (Also, there's different airspeeds for best instantaneous and best sustained turn rates - best sustained rates are, as far as I know, at a lower airspeed because most aircraft can't hold the same energy as the instantaneous turn rate requires.) For roll rates, generally, starting from zero airspeed, roll rate increases to a maximum as airspeed increases. After that point, as airspeed continues to increase, roll rate decreases. If you were at the optimum speed for a Spit II during the roll test, but too fast or slow for a Fw-190 your numbers might show the Spit having a roll rate advantage.

Fourth, for the turn rate, as well as roll rate, finding the max performance on those should be based on the the "ideal" sensitivity - something that prevents you from flying around stalled (killing your turn performance) and gives you the best rate/radius. To do that for every aircraft in the list would be difficult, but would probably be most beneficial to the most players.

[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!

[Widar]

Originally Posted by gbtstr

Nice job, Widar. You put a lot of time into this and we appreciate your efforts. However, here's a couple things that came to mind that you could perhaps address. Perhaps some of these you considered, but forgot to mention, or just went about them differently.

First, the time to altitude (125m to Xm) numbers are probably invalid. I'd be willing to bet there aren't many planes, particularly of the WWII and previous eras, that can climb well at +50* pitch. According to your tests, several weren't even able to maintain a climb at that attitude. If you were trying to test best rate of climb, you'd have to fly each aircraft at its best rate of climb airspeed for a good comparison. For example, the BF-109E's best rate airspeed is around 270-280 kph. Also, I'm not sure if this is what you did or not, but the best way I can think of to test best rate of climb is to start each aircraft on the deck and takeoff, accelerate to best climb speed, then pitch up to an attitude that holds the desired airspeed.

Second, the zoom climb (1km - 3km) and dive (6km - 1km) tests don't mention the starting airspeed. If you start a zoom climb at 700kph you'll go up a lot faster and farther than if you start at 400kph; likewise for the dive.

Third, you don't mention airspeeds for the turn rate and roll rate tests. For the turn test, each aircraft has a "cornering speed" at which it will give the best rate of turn for the smallest turn radius. (Also, there's different airspeeds for best instantaneous and best sustained turn rates - best sustained rates are, as far as I know, at a lower airspeed because most aircraft can't hold the same energy as the instantaneous turn rate requires.) For roll rates, generally, starting from zero airspeed, roll rate increases to a maximum as airspeed increases. After that point, as airspeed continues to increase, roll rate decreases. If you were at the optimum speed for a Spit II during the roll test, but too fast or slow for a Fw-190 your numbers might show the Spit having a roll rate advantage.

Fourth, for the turn rate, as well as roll rate, finding the max performance on those should be based on the the "ideal" sensitivity - something that prevents you from flying around stalled (killing your turn performance) and gives you the best rate/radius. To do that for every aircraft in the list would be difficult, but would probably be most beneficial to the most players.

You bring up good and valid points. Every test can be improved and nothing is not open to criticism, when better tests are carried out, even better ones can of course be thought of.

I had thought of the things you put forward, all good points and related to real life as well. The thing is that I tested with the average BOP pilot in mind under combat conditions in BOP. The diehard (test) pilots will take the time to find out what the best speed, altitude and angle are for each aircraft in BOP (which is not necessarily the same thing as in real life) to carry out their test maneuvers at etc.. The pilots that take the time to ascertain this in BOP usually don't need these test results to begin with. If I had done the tests under the conditions that you describe for 20 aircraft it would have taken even more time to carry out than this did. Maybe something for a future project.

Generally most tests, with the exception of the sustained maximum level speed tests, were started after reaching maximum level speed first and then first carrying out a tight 360 degree turn to bleed off airspeed and then letting the speed pick up again for about 10-20 seconds, what one might call combat maneuver speed in BOP terms. I wanted to create a situation where a virtual pilot starts a maneuver directly after a combat maneuver, not one under ideal conditions for each aircraft. Not one test was carried out at sustained maximum level speed, except of course for the sustained maximim level speed test.

Hope this answers your questions.