Soviet fighters and 4.12

[ElAurens]

Stats generated while playing a game have no relevance to any aircraft's historic performance envelope.

This is a gamer's argument, not an historian's.

We have all heard these types of arguments for one's favorite aircraft for 10 years in this sim.

Simply repeating it over and over does not make it any more true.

109K4 outclimbed by all Allied aircraft? Never flew a P47 in the sim have you?

[X-Raptor]

Originally Posted by jermin

If I were you, I would have shot down a few more than that.

I'm writing all these words not to complain the game is too difficult for me. Actually I am much better than you can imagine.

What I want is the most viable WW2 flight sim in the world to be more and more realistic, not the other way around.

I agree 100% with you and your opinion jermin about incorrect and uber FM of LA 5 -LA 7 Yak and LAGG Soviet Planes Ingame.
The problem is " only" that there are people who don't want to adjust the FM of this planes. And I add me at your whislist to see the corrrection of those uber FM soviet planes , it will give a new life at this flight sim.
I Hope someone at TD Team will hear us.

[jermin]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

109K4 outclimbed by all Allied aircraft? Never flew a P47 in the sim have you?

I would ask you the same question. Seriously, when is the last time you flew K4 against a P47 online?

[ElAurens]

Methinks you are a very poor judge of your opponents energy state.

Get a friend (who has no agenda) and do a side by side take off with a P47 and a 109K4 and do a max climb to 20,000ft. and see who gets there first.

[jermin]

My original statement is concerned with combat climb, whose objective is to kill the bandit while not to give him any firing opportunities. Climbing side by side from take-off won't prove anything for the argument.

Besides, a P-47 pilot who has even a little experience in it wouldn't engage enemies below 2000m. Below 2000m, K4 might climb a little faster, but at a smaller speed. So when you are on a higher altitude, your speed will be much more smaller than P-47, but now P-47 has enough speed and space (since it climbs at a faster speed) to do a high-speed turn and shoot you down with 8 blazing .50 cals while you are hung in the middle air.

Above 3000m, it is the kingdom of P-47s, although it is not historically correct.

I would suggest a more proper testing method. Dive both planes to 3000m until both reach the same speed of 500km/h, then start climbing. The only thing K4 can do is watch it climbing away at a relative speed which makes you feel helpless.

Some quite decent P-47 pilots have flying quite regularly on RCAF_FB server recently. Give yourself an chance and see whether you are able to bring some down. Do it with cockpit on, I should add, because I fly there with cockpit on.

[jermin]

It's beyond ridiculous.

Just spent some time doing some tests regarding the overheat on various Russian fighters, in the same manner I tested K4 (described at page 8 of this thread). All of the Russian planes I tested have a more endurable engine than K4 does.

The most ridiculous plane is, you guess it, I-185-M71. Its engine starts to overheat at about 3 and a half minutes after the quick mission starts. And the damage occurs at around 8 minutes 20 seconds into the mission, at which a thin black smoke trail comes out of the engine. But the engine sound and effective engine power doesn't reduce until over 10 minutes has passed since the test starts.

Bear in mind that Russian engines are historically unreliable and easily overheating. In no way they can achieve a higher efficiency than contemporary German engines do.

[gaunt1]

Originally Posted by X-Raptor

I agree 100% with you and your opinion jermin about incorrect and uber FM of LA 5 -LA 7 Yak and LAGG Soviet Planes Ingame.

Well, the FM of all Lavochkins are really nonsense, but Yaks arent that bad, especially those with the VK-105. Yak-9T&K are overmodeled, true, but as far as I know the 1942 model Yak-9 and the Yak-9D have one of the most realistic FMs in the sim.

Bear in mind that Russian engines are historically unreliable and easily overheating.

ASh-82 engines were quite reliable in La-5. But yes, some engines, like the VK-107 were terribly unreliable and overheated quickly even @ normal operation due to poor quality seals and bearings, and poorly constructed oil pumps. In addition to that, it was very risky to run them @ WEP, engine seizure could occur at any minute, if not any second. A while ago, I did a little test, I was flying a La-7 against a Yak-9U, I quickly scored a hit on its engine, which started to emit black smoke. The Yak flew more than 5 minutes without any signs of reduced performance (I didnt shot it down to test the endurance of its engine), and it caught fire about a further 5 minutes later.

[Woke Up Dead]

Those Uber LaGGs are Uber.

Please fix the historically important I-185 so the 109K can be flown in historically accurate long one-on-one engagements on the historically accurate open-pit all-planeset all-airstart RCAF server.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by jermin

It's beyond ridiculous.

Just spent some time doing some tests regarding the overheat on various Russian fighters, in the same manner I tested K4 (described at page 8 of this thread). All of the Russian planes I tested have a more endurable engine than K4 does.

The most ridiculous plane is, you guess it, I-185-M71. Its engine starts to overheat at about 3 and a half minutes after the quick mission starts. And the damage occurs at around 8 minutes 20 seconds into the mission, at which a thin black smoke trail comes out of the engine. But the engine sound and effective engine power doesn't reduce until over 10 minutes has passed since the test starts.

Bear in mind that Russian engines are historically unreliable and easily overheating. In no way they can achieve a higher efficiency than contemporary German engines do.

You'd make a better argument if your Russian example was a plane that actually saw some service beyond a front line field trial. I-185 is extremely optimistic as most prototypes are. If it's a Bf109K-4 uber fighters comparison then take the Yak-9U or La-5FN/La-7 as the example aircraft.

I will say that the one problem with the Yak's damage model is that the engine model does seem to be simplistic in that it doesn't have the fine levels of damage that you typically see from planes that have been given more attention. The Yak's engine is either utterly destroyed or functioning just fine with very few states in between. Bf109s, Mustangs, P-40s, Ki-61s and other types are much more subtle... this is purely subjective and I'd love it if someone could have a look at the code and let us know what's going on in there.

But as far as purely overheat is concerned it seems to overheat just like the 109 does.

Blanket statement about Russian engines overheating and being unreliable also seems unhelpful. SOME Russian engines were not very reliable but it's dependent on the model involved. The later model VK-105PF in most of the Yak's, by all accounts, gave a decent performance and operated well in harsh high and low temperatures from every account I've ever read. The upgraded VK-107 was another story.

That's not to say that German engines were entirely trouble free either either due to engineering or, later in the war, on occasion sabotage or reduced manufacturing quality. But that's neither here nor there as reliability issues such as that aren't specifically modelled for any side.

You might be right that the way it's modelled is wrong. But yelling "It's beyond ridiculous" is counter productive. Make the entirety of your argument with some data to work with... otherwise there isn't anything TD or anyone else can do.

[jermin]

Originally Posted by IceFire

Make the entirety of your argument with some data to work with... otherwise there isn't anything TD or anyone else can do.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

To WokeUpDead:

Yes, I can still pwn those air quakers in their dreaming rocket-like piston planes in my109K-4 cockpit. But that doesn't justify the unrealistic representation of German and Russian fighters in the current game.