Don't make performances secret this time

[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.

[PE_Tihi]

Originally Posted by LEXX

I-16 was a roaring powerhouse, could handle 109 Email, but not the Femail.

I16 is my favorite plane. I cannot remember someone beating me in a Friedrich. G2 is definitely better, but not that much that it cannot be fought.

Your powerhouse would need approx. 1500 HP engine to attain such climb rates. 21 m/s is a climb rate of a mid- to late war fighter plane - and I 16 would have been produced at least to 1944 if it had been that good.

Originally Posted by LEXX

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.

You seem to look at the flight sims from the viewpoint of a FPS player, and that explains the lack of understanding. You can turn your rifle there in a split second to shoot someone you can see.
Seeing someone in the sky doesnt mean you can shoot at him at once. Hard part is bringing the whole plane with the guns to bear- and the opponent usually turns to do the same and avoid being shot at.
Someone diving from above , especially if you are in turning fight, can surprise you quite nicely without any bushes and buildings around.
Lots of people like that way of fight, BnZ, - like you obviously do. To my taste it is a bit disgusting to shoot down someone who doesnt know a thing about it- apart from being unsatisfactory - it doesnt tell me who flies better. Tastes are different, of course.

In my opinion, your FPS games are more popular for the same reason it is much easier to train an infantry soldier than a pilot- you do not need to know much to get a rifle pushed into the hands. So anyone can play a FPS without bothering to uderstand the flight behavior of a plane or many other things.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by PE_Tihi

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

See but thats not really balancing...balancing implies intent but thats jumping to conclusions.

If what you say is true then its one of several things I can think of off the top of my head:

1) Error in modeling
2) Error in data
3) Data used is correct but for a later model of aircraft than the one/year represented (could be better engine tuning, fuel availability, etc.)
4) Was balanced for some strange reason

To assume balancing implies intent which has not been established. Anyone who is suggesting it is impressing their ideas on the situation.

Furthermore my "grotesque" lack of seeing this has somehow managed to survive years of flying this planeset. As far as I'm concerned I'm always going to outclimb a I-16 Type 24 in a Bf109F-2 in an actual fight.

To be honest I grow frustrated with all of the people who feel their "side" has been wronged (I'm not saying this about you PE_Tihi) and advance only the one cause. There are still problems with every plane on all sides...there were many more problems which have been fixed and nobody cares about the ones that were fixed and fixed well.

[WTE_Galway]

It has come to my attention that a number of posters in this thread are comparing the performance of human flown aircraft against AI.

It is a given that AI controlled aircraft have performance advantages over human controlled aircraft.

[PE_Tihi]

Originally Posted by IceFire

See but thats not really balancing...balancing implies intent but thats jumping to conclusions.

If what you say is true then its one of several things I can think of off the top of my head:

1) Error in modeling
2) Error in data
3) Data used is correct but for a later model of aircraft than the one/year represented (could be better engine tuning, fuel availability, etc.)
4) Was balanced for some strange reason

To assume balancing implies intent which has not been established. Anyone who is suggesting it is impressing their ideas on the situation.

Furthermore my "grotesque" lack of seeing this has somehow managed to survive years of flying this planeset. As far as I'm concerned I'm always going to outclimb a I-16 Type 24 in a Bf109F-2 in an actual fight.

To be honest I grow frustrated with all of the people who feel their "side" has been wronged (I'm not saying this about you PE_Tihi) and advance only the one cause. There are still problems with every plane on all sides...there were many more problems which have been fixed and nobody cares about the ones that were fixed and fixed well.

1) Errors in modelling wouldn't last 7 years, and especially not such large ones.
2) Data is very easy to obtain, in Russia especially.
3) I didn't tell you everything- I16 type 24 didn't have cannon armament as portrayed in the game. Types 17 and 27 were cannon armed, but 27 was much heavier because of the cannon. Nevertheless- the plane in game uses the weight numbers of the machinegun armed type 24.
Even if one threw out of the plane the complete armament and everything else a screwdriver can remove, and put in a jockey-sized 50 kg pilot, plane would in all probabbility never reach even 17 m/s
4) Strange reason is supposed to be the predominance of the russian customers in the community in the first years of the game, and balancing the online wars.
What could be the reason for 'balancing' of the japanese planes against US Navy types- beats me.

And about the 109F2... I am afraid you are overly optimistic there. I16 climbs quite a bit faster at low altitudes- take a look at the Il2 Compare..

[IceFire]

You know I had started typing a big long message but its not worth it.

Also where is this information about which versions of the I-16 are armed with cannons and which are not plus the weight information and whatever else you've got.

[III/JG11_Tiger]

Pe_Tihi, after flying this sim since the original demo I would say Bnz is more difficult than TnB, your speed is greater your angles of deflection are often higher and more difficult to calculate, and the fact that you are trying to kill in one burst also often makes it more difficult. Apart from that many of us are trying to simulate the real war and any smart ww2 pilot knew that dogfights were for a different era, this was the undoing of many a Japanese pilot, who thought it more honorable to dogfight than to just kill the enemy as quickly as possible then fly home to fight another day.

As for your data on aircraft can we please have some more references.

[Igo kyu]

I have a book which says the I-16 tip 24 was a four machine gun plane, and the I-16 tip 27 had two SHVAK and two machine guns.

The book is "The complete book of fighters", it's heavy but seems to be comprehensive. I presume there are good sources for their data.

It was remaindered (sold off cheap) when I got it, so it probably isn't available new, it seems to be available second hand via Amazon:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Complete-Boo...7790613&sr=1-1

[PE_Tihi]

Originally Posted by III/JG11_Tiger

Pe_Tihi, after flying this sim since the original demo I would say Bnz is more difficult than TnB, your speed is greater your angles of deflection are often higher and more difficult to calculate, and the fact that you are trying to kill in one burst also often makes it more difficult. Apart from that many of us are trying to simulate the real war and any smart ww2 pilot knew that dogfights were for a different era, this was the undoing of many a Japanese pilot, who thought it more honorable to dogfight than to just kill the enemy as quickly as possible then fly home to fight another day.

As for your data on aircraft can we please have some more references.

I am beginning to regret comparing the ZnB and TnB tactics ant their followers. TnB certainly wasn't a recipe for a long life during the war, and in the game , too, ZnB is certainly less risky strategy. BnZ requires certain skills, too- simply my personal opinion to rate these skills lower.
It is quite dificult, though, to BnZ a fighter plane knowing about it. The BnZ-ers I have seen prefer in the general to hit a plane involved in a fight which absorbs the pilot's attention in another direction. Getting bored from them and climbing to their height- some seem at loss at what to do, others try getting away- only a minority has the skills and is confident enough of them to fight it out with you in a manoeuvring fight. Which they generally loose.
From BnZ ing friends I hear about the excitement of stalking the opponent and sweating to remain unnoticed. It is completely unknown to me- am not the type for it. And getting hit from above while fighting two guys won't make the BnZers more likeble to me, either.
Hitting someone in this matter leaves me cold- it doesnt tell me anything about who flies better; and that is what interests me. I want to have the opponents attention- am simply like that. So that is why I say- play according to your prefferences. What i say here are simply my tastes.
Simulating real war is thank god, impossible in a flight sim. You sit in your armchair in front of a PC, and you cant get burned, maimed , or killed in any of the terrible ways possible in a war. You are even not freezing, or having your blood drained from your head in manoeuvres.
Your mentioning of the japanese pilot who didn't get home cause of TnB is missing that perspective- you won't even leave your home if TnB-ning, nothing to say about getting killed.
Risking to get shot down virtually versus yawning while climbing and target practising afterwards in BnZ leaves me vith a clear choice, and you certainly have yours.
Please look for the plane data link in a following post.