Soviet fighters and 4.12

[Woke Up Dead]

Originally Posted by Z1024

To sum up - in 1941-42 P39 is a good match vs 109s and 190s, 1943+ - La5/La7 totally dominate 109/190s.
So I can't say it is fair or even accurate. La7 supposed to be only marginally faster than A8/A9 at low altitude and slower than D9+MW50 (which is BTW late 1944, not 1945).

Only the P-39D2 is a good match, the other P-39s are inferior. They're also much harder to fly and shoot with their impossible stall recovery and softball lob cannon.

The La 5FN dominates only below 2000m. The La 7 is a tough plane to fly against, but it still gets out-climbed by many 109s, especially above 2000m, and is slower than most German fighters at high altitudes.

Absolutely you can get away from an La7 in a 109 or 190 at 3-4K metres; smooth split S leveling out at 850km/h at 1000m and you're heading home with a 100km/h+ advantage, since the La7 falls apart at about 750km/h.

You say you can't use the 109K4's e-advantage against a competent La7 pilot, well, you're not supposed to be able to. Use that speed and climb rate to get away and maybe come back again when he's less aware.

Overall, German planes climb to altitude quicker and are better at altitude than Soviet ones throughout the war. If they stay disciplined then they're very hard to touch in the early war, and still competitive in late war. If you add jets or Ta's, and many servers do, then the Germans do extremely well in 1944-45 too.

[jermin]

I fly as Raven online. I think both Z1024 and WokeUpDead should recognize me as once a frequent visitor in RCAF_FB_Server. (Yeah, I know it's an open-pit arcade server. But that was the only well-populated server I could find on HY (I play stock game), though I always fly with cockpit closed there).

In a air-quake server (actually most popular servers you can find on Xfire now are of this type), in which the main bases of both sides are within the same grid and icons & external views are turned on and cockipt turned off, I would say Soviet fighters does enjoy an advantage, no matter what planeset the mission uses.

But I could still live with it before 4.11 was out. Because most red uber-plane fliers are not comparable with me in skills. I was still able to constantly shoot down M71-equipped I185s and Yak-3P (most of which with cockpit open) in my beloved Bf-109K4C3. But in 4.11, the situation aggravated. MW50-enabled engines overheated way too quickly. As for late-war 109s and 190s, engine would be damaged within 4 minutes of continuous 110% throttle use with MW50 enabled. I had to get out of the battlefield and cool my engine every 3 assault passes because without MW50, German planes were only sitting ducks. But the time needed for this to happen before 4.11 was about 10 minutes, which coincided with the data provided by the community. In 4.11.1 the time is only prolonged by 1 minute, which is still 5 minutes short.

I love every enhancement TD did to the game in 4.11, especially the 6DOF feature, except the engine overheat model. It had negated all the efforts Oleg made to perfect the game, which he cherished as his son. I believe Oleg had done a lot of researching when trying to model the engine system of every plane to correctly represents its real-life counterpart. It should not be easily negated without giving cogent proofs.

I'm not saying what you guys have done is wrong. And I really appreciate your efforts to elevate this longstanding title to a whole new level. But IL2 does not only belongs to 1C and/or TD. It belongs to the entire community. We have rights, as well as obligations, to keep the game alive.

And I have to say, patches 4.11 and 4.111 are somewhat dragging the already sinking ship towards a vortex. German planes are indeed more negatively affected than allied ones by those patches. The game's life will come to an end when all German pilots are quitting this game, which is already happening from my point of view. At that time, any enhancement you make for the game will be meaningless.

I hope you can roll back the FM of Fw-190s and the overheat model to those in 4.101 and provide evidences to support every change you made to the game since 4.10, especially FM wise.

[gaunt1]

I think engine overheat & damage is more or less OK for german planes (to be honest, I only fly bombers and the bf-110 from the german side). The problem is that it isnt simulated on all aircrafts, especially on soviet ones. For example, the VK-107 engine was quite prone to overheat in RL, and when it overheated, engine seizure came very quickly due to the extremely poor lubrication. (should be simulated) ASh-82 engines didnt overheat too much in RL as far as I know, but they should do it a tiny bit more often ingame. The other problem is that the FM of some planes (La-5 & 7 series for example) is modeled after the prototypes. With that performance, they dont have to run their engines @ 110% much. (against all 190As, and some 109s, I dont have to use "Forsazh" at all in my La-5FN, except if my opponent has energy advantage)

[Woke Up Dead]

Originally Posted by jermin

I fly as Raven online. I think both Z1024 and WokeUpDead should recognize me as once a frequent visitor in RCAF_FB_Server.

[...]

I was still able to constantly shoot down M71-equipped I185s and Yak-3P (most of which with cockpit open) in my beloved Bf-109K4C3. But in 4.11, the situation aggravated. MW50-enabled engines overheated way too quickly. As for late-war 109s and 190s, engine would be damaged within 4 minutes of continuous 110% throttle use with MW50 enabled. I had to get out of the battlefield and cool my engine every 3 assault passes because without MW50, German planes were only sitting ducks. But the time needed for this to happen before 4.11 was about 10 minutes, which coincided with the data provided by the community. In 4.11.1 the time is only prolonged by 1 minute, which is still 5 minutes short.

And I have to say, patches 4.11 and 4.111 are somewhat dragging the already sinking ship towards a vortex. German planes are indeed more negatively affected than allied ones by those patches. The game's life will come to an end when all German pilots are quitting this game, which is already happening from my point of view. At that time, any enhancement you make for the game will be meaningless.

Hey Jermin, I do recognize you from RCAF, you're pretty good in that 109K. But the first part of your argument, if I could paraphrase it, is basically "I don't like this patch because it does not allow me to dominate like I used to in the one plane I like to fly." Is it realistic, or historically accurate (which is what I'm told this game tries to be) for you to be able to do that in the first place? Were single 109K pilots able to stay in a long engagement with single Yak-3s and win more often than not? Or did they do what Hartmann did: strike quickly, preferably not alone, once maybe twice, and then get out of there?

Back during patch 4.09 days, one of my favourite planes to fly was the P-11c. I'd love to get into dogfights with anything and watch 20mm and 30mm cannon shells bounce right of the P-11's oversimplified damage model. They fixed that in 4.10, and I was severely disappointed to find out that I was no longer able to dangle in front of a 190's nose without consequences. But as tough as Polish metal is (the P-11 was all-metal!), that change was probably accurate, and it didn't drive Polish pilots away from this sim. If you can't do what you used to be able to do in your favourite plane anymore, then get another favourite plane or adjust tactics.

I know RCAF is the only 4.11 server with decent numbers late at night Pacific time (Skies of Valor also does well then, but it's still 4.10), but that is the absolute toughest and most unfair server to judge plane balance on, because it has an "All vs All" plane-set. So you get I-I85s vs Ta's. Or Zeros vs 190s. Or Yaks vs Yaks. And then people complain that their blue 1945 hot-rods (that historically had problems because of materials shortages and quality of slave labour) don't perform as well against red 1942 hot-rods that had engine problems and only flew as prototypes till 1943.

I'm all for making changes based on good evidence; the La-7 changes being proposed in the other thread look really good for example. But it feels like some in this thread are saying "in this particular year, my plane A does not do as well against plane B as it did in the last patch, please hobble plane B." You may have to accept that the changes made in 4.11 are accurate, and that your plane A really should not have been as good against plane B as it was in 4.10.

[jermin]

Originally Posted by JZG_Con

I've always felt the axis aircraft were tonned down , we all know our history , but remember this flight sim has come a long way , now with HSFX 6.1 it might start getting better for us all ..me I'm 99% blue ... , but I won't give up .

Way down. Try some beautifully created German WW2 fighter addons for FSX, e.g. Classics Hangar's Fw-190s and Flight Replicas' Bf-109K-4. You'll find they perform much better FM wise and CEM wise. And they are widely aknowledged as veracious representations of their real-life counterparts.

I've read somewhere that real 109 pilots were not allowed to widely open radiators because it would cause too much drag. That indicates from another aspect that the newly introduced overheat model might be seriously flawed.

Sent from my Milestone using Tapatalk 2

[jameson]

I'm curious about "real 109 pilots were not allowed to widely open radiators because it would cause too much drag", could have been on very early 109's, I guess, but 109's were normally flown with rads set to automatik. This was done to keep the engine temp at optimum for the engine, somewhere around 90c in and 115c out IIRC. Drag was also pretty minimal, open was only 52mm wide or 2 inches max, closed was 18mm or about 3/4 in. from memory.
What circumstances would you ever want to fly with rads wide open in RL? In game there is a supposed advantage with closed rads but open? Flying me109's ingame by the book, the temp guage just about hits 40c, (just about permissable RL take off temp!), so I now fly at 100/110% throttle ingame when in combat and temps barely reach 80c. Something seriously wrong with the new temp model as far as 109's go. They are also too slow when flown by the book, F4 109 at 110% should reach 590kph, but ingame....

[JtD]

Oil entry temp limit for the DB 601E is 80°, 85° short time maximum. Radiators open does a lot for cooling, and it is no miracle that the oil temperature will only just go into overheating, as long as you are on cooler maps. After all, that is what the plane was designed for. Open rads were around 300mm and caused a lot of drag.

The radiators on the 109 were supposed to be on auto during climbs and closed (more correct "fast flight setting") during level flight. If you want to get the best performance out of the plane, you'll need to close radiators and if you want an overheat challenge, fly the plane on hotter maps, for instance a Desert map.

I'm getting the 109F-4 to about 600 km/h, exact figures varying with atmospheric conditions.

[jermin]

What I wrote about radiator was referring to MW50-equipped Bf-109K-4. In the current game, if you go into battle with throttle at 110% and MW50 on while keeping radiator fully opened. You will still get the overheat message within 1 minute. This is ridiculous especially when MW50 has a cooling effect on the engine.

Just like I said, go try these warbirds in FSX. They operate very differently both FM wise and CEM wise compared to what we have in IL2.

[JtD]

It's possible to fly fuel tanks dry on 110% with rads open in a 109 K-4, and that not only on winter maps. I just climbed one from 0 to 10 km at 300 km/h IAS on the Smolensk map. I left it on auto rads and firewalled it upon starting the engine. I didn't even see the overheat message, let alone had temperature related troubles.

Also, just because it overheats it doesn't mean there's any damage. In real live WEP was an 80% overload condition, and it is only logical that the plane overheats in game to illustrate this.

[tovarisch_Ko]

Originally Posted by gaunt1

early La-5FN (1943 model) had an 1630hp ASh-82FN engine, so performance should be only a bit more than the F model. In 1943, they didnt have the 1850hp ASh-82FNV.

not correctly:

1. ASh-82FNV (M-82FNV) erly (first) name ASh-82FN (M-82FN, the name ASh - Shvetsov's aircraft engine appeared later)
2. 1850hp - afterburning (n=2500, Pk=1200+-20), 1530hp - nominal (n=2400, Pk=1000+-10), 1630hp on 1500 m (n=2400, Pk=1000+-10), 1430hp on 4550 m (n=2400, Pk=1000+-10). По данным из "Авиационный мотор АШ-82ФН (описание конструкции)", Государственное Издательство Оборонной Промышленности, Москва 1947, страницы 9,10.

3. there are four La-5 planes with the ASh-82FN engine: type 39, type 41, type 43 (La-5UTI - double place training), type 45 (La-7).
Type 39 in parallel planes with M-82F and M-82FN were issued, M-82FN was established on existence.
Production M-82FN restrained slow increase in production of equipment of injection.
Type 41 (metal longeron) made only at plant No. 21, 89 planes.

Tests in НИИ ВВС КА (Scientific Research Institute Air Force) of serial planes:

SN: 39210104 "dubler" (type 39, plant № 21 Gorky=Nijniy-Novgorod, 1-series, plane № 4) may 43, nominal:
2670 kg /3305 kg, fuel 332 rg, 530 km/h on 0 m, 590 km/h on 2000 m, 610 km/h on 5800 m
SN: 39210109:
2700 kg /3340 kg 580 km/h on 0 m, 630 km/h on 2000 m, 620 km/h on 6100 m
SN: 39210495, oct 43:
.../3322 kg, 542 km/h on 0 m, 607km/h on 2000 m, 600 km/h on 5000 m
SN: 39211257, jan 44:
.../3320 kg, 546 km/h on 0 m, 610km/h on 2000 m, 602 km/h on 5000 m
SN: 39213050 (M-82F)
2572/3227 kg 551 km/h on 0 m, 579 km/h on 3100m, 590 km/h 6150 m

SN: 39210375, june 43
597 km/h on 0 m (afterburning), 641 km/h on 6100 m

SN 39210531, oct 43, on 0 m:
.../3325 kg, 531 km/h (nominal), 572 km/h (afterburning)
SN 39210540, oct 43, on 0 m:
.../3340 kg, 540 km/h (nominal), 570 km/h (afterburning)
SN 39211525, feb 44, on 0 m:
550 km/h (nominal), 580 km/h (afterburning)

afterburning was resolved to height of ~3000 m: the supercharger didn't create necessary pressure