|
|
Go
 |
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
 |
Ice what I said there regards only the simple fact that flying a plane in IL2 and IRL is not going to make same difference in pilot/plane computation. One is going to be higher and in my eyes real life would be it. Simply because I regard plane in this game to be much more influential than it really was IRL in WW2. There are tons of reasons, let's just state the one plain and obvious: you always can game the game, always exploit your engine until maximum never fear of any malfunction... sure thing everyone can do it, but still some planes have an obvious advantage through all this. Uncomfortable throttle leveler? Flying at max throttle settings + WEP all day, literally? Ahh...  We can argue about how much is one factor important and how much is the other, but fact is that we don't have solid fact nor it is likely that we could obtain such data  .Long story short (and we really shouldn't make science out of this) plane plays enormous part in all this whether we want to admit it or not, therefore I personally will laugh at any attempt of sewing it all to the poor pilot. |
|||
|
 |
________________________________________________
"... late war models like the KI-84 and te N1K2 where in fact equal to the F-4U in power..." "If you choose a server where you are facing many late war planes (La-7, Spit 25 lbs, late model FW-190s, etc) DO NOT choose the Corsair as your dive advantage will be useless and you will not have the level flight speed to escape." ________________________________________________ At high altitude, around 20k and up, the Corsair is faster than any of those airplanes, except a 190D. Against the Dora you won't get the advantage until you're at more like 25k. The other night I even ran down a 190 up high with drag-producing damage to my wings. One of my favorite activities in this sim is to get up high in a Corsair or Thunderbolt and harass the Ki-Uber-4's. I don't think there are any piston powered Axis aircraft that can match those planes up high. I did have a bit of trouble recently in a P-47 vs. a J2M5, but I don't know how much of that was airplane performance and how much was pilot performance. As far as the "It's the pilot, not the plane" debate, Check out my signature. ______________________________ I.D. Anybody interested in flying an air combat SIMULATION? If you're looking for Operational Realism, the JSAWG wants you. |
|||
|
 |
I do see your point about gaming the game. Yeah in that kind of case...all bets are off. Still I'd like to think that I, as an experienced virtual pilot, won't have much trouble with some of the greener pilots I've seen online even if I fly a plane that has less performance. If the differences are close enough I might even be "faster" just by flying better. Coming to think of it we are going to inevitably miss some of what distinguishes pilots like endurance, ability to withstand prolonged and rapid changes in G, eyesight, etc. Those things either matter allot less or not at all. But I don't like, on the other hand (while I do see your point now) to simply place the blame with the game all the time and not have the virtual pilots take responsibility for the fact that they are in control and that they may just "suck". Lots of people are unwilling to face this Every gun and plane is undermodeled when your hit percentage is 1% and you left your landing gear down. |
|||
|
|
|
+1 Mate, believe me, J2M5 is just better high up than a P-47D27 regarding speed. Couldn't really believe it myself. I'm fairly positive it even outmatches the P-51D. I experienced J2M5 insane performance once when Daiichidoku (in P-38) myself (in P-47) and one more guy (in P-38) took onto a J2M5... he evaded all attacks then simply pointed his aircraft upwards (climb) and flew away from us. He did that from 7,000m up to over 11,000m. I followed but with no effect... That plane you have to see in action on high alt to believe it. However good thing is that its no match to a Thunderbolt in dive. |
|||
|
The Raiden's performance in the game doesn't surprise me. IRL it was made to intercept B-29s flying over Japan.
In the game if well handle it is a nasty plane with very good DM and still flies even looking like a swiss cheese. Its real weakness is the amount of ammo. BTW now I remember where I have fought u DKOOR, it was with Daiichidoku when Miss Strega was still around during the kerosenekaos days
|
||||
|
|
|
 
|
|||
|
|
|
I've just tried the F4U-1D. 820 km/h for me.  - http://aaminis.myfastforum.org - the Complete Aircraft & Cockpit Reference Guide: http://mission4today.com/index.php?name=Downloads&file=details&id=316 - The community's favourite user-made campaigns http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/363...681015204#1681015204 |
|||
|
I don't understand you on this. You know good online pilots and surely it's their skill that makes them dangerous not just the plane they are in (although a 190 helps ).Its self evident to me on DF servers. Say I'm blue flying a A-5 and everyone on red is in La-5FN's apart from someone I know who is really good who chooses say a?..... P40-M-105. You can bet it will be he who I will be wary of not the guys in La's if they are inexperienced. Type of aircraft only make a difference if the skill level is similar. (I agree more-so with low alt, low energy fights in which options are limited). Or lets say dogfighting is like rally-car racing. The different cars at the top end can be the difference between the elite drivers. But put one average rally driver in a Ford Transit van around a forest track and me in his racing car and he would still murder me. He will make it go fast and I will spin off because inexperience will make me mess up. And thats usually what loses dogfights....making mistakes not the planes/developers fault. And staying on the driving analogy; this sim has the full gamut of players- from Sunday drivers, motorway drivers,to full-time racers. Its not an even playing field as far as skill goes, and thats what I find makes the real difference. |
||||
|
|
|
Let's just say that flying superior airplane makes average experienced online pilot competitive.
He's not being an ace, but competitive. That's all he needs to shot someone down here and there. Flying "harder aircraft to handle" probably wont bring him any victories at all. And all this should really be put to perspective too... I'll try to do it on concrete example you mentioned. Because I know you are experienced simmer who knows how to transfer "paper advantage" to a real state of events online. So. You take FW and I take... - P-40 - I have very slim chance to do something (speed gap is just insane, ~90kph, whole world really) - LA-5(F) - without doubt my chances are raising, as Lavochkin is quite competitive (speed gap is ~20kph in Focke's favor) So. Flying better planes benefit all... noobs, average and experienced simmers. But I really feel that I'm  by now  .
|
|||
|
 |
Like DKoor said, J2M5 is a monster up high. Best piston engined high altitude fighter in IL2 in my book.
Raiden carries 190 rpg for inner and 210 for outer cannons, that sums up to 800 20mm shells. That's more than Fw190A with 750 20mm shells. No one in sane mind ever turns when he has any other option. ~ DKoor |
|||
|
|
|
The J2M5 just feels like it has less ammo because the effectiveness is lower than the cannons carried by the FW190.
The J2M5 is a rare bird (only a small number produced) but given its 3 stage supercharger and high altitude tweaks on the real model its not surprising that its competitive at high altitude. Not about to get into an argument on if it matches its real life counterpart or if its real life counterpart even worked reliably but the Raiden was designed as a high altitude interceptor and largely accomplished that after years of setbacks. |
|||
|
I would second the teamwork comments.
The most significant difference to RL combat in this game is that (with the notable exception of the better organised squadrons) pilots in IL2, especially online, tend to try and be one man heroes displaying their "leet" flying skills. This is not really how it was. One advantage of the luftwaffe "rotte" for example was the ease with which attacking aircraft could be bracketed by some simple prearranged maneuvering on the lead aircrafts part giving the wingman an easy shot. The Rotte and Schwarm technique required good team work on the part of the pilots ... even turning as a schwarm required the two Rottes "crossover" in the turn to avoid an unnecessarily wide turn. the end result was a formation and style of fighting that could demolish traditional formations like 3 plane VIC's. These tactical issues rarely arise in IL2 where yuo rarely even see attempts to even fly in formation neverlone fight that way. Back on topic ... a more elaborate example of this type of tactics is the "Thach Weave" a US tactic which turned the air war in the pacific around almost as much as the introduction of new aircraft. Inferior aircraft (such as the Corsair)in a Thach Weave were very hard to attack without the attacking aircraft being made very vulnerable to the second aircraft in the weave. |
||||
|
| Previous Topic | Next Topic | powered by eve community | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
|||
| Site | Forums | ||
| Servlet | eve1da011 | ||
| Version | 1.2.22 build 9062 | ||
| Module | Forums 4.0.3 | ||
| Stylesheet | "IL-2 - Maddox Games" | ||
| Wordlet Set | "Default Wordlet Set" | ||
|
