PDA

View Full Version : Have we achieved balance?



x__CRASH__x
08-06-2005, 03:41 PM
DISCLAIMER: This is not a trolling thread. This an actual topic for actual discussion. Feel free to express your opinions.
(It's tough being so well known for trolling. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif )

So I've been keeping an open mind to the patch. I've gotten used to the new FM, although I still feel like a Wobblin' Gobblin no matter what I fly. But lately I've paid particular attention to fire power.
On blue, the biggest thing I've noticed is that the MG151/20 can actually do damage now. This is great, and means the 109 G2 is flyable for me once again. FW190 pilots must be urinating themselves with joy. The mk108 feels the same as it ever was. Hard to hit with, but when it connects, it will usually do some nasty damage.
On the red side I can't say that I've seen a difference in damage capablity. I've always managed to be successful in the Mustang and the Spitfire. You can shoot a Spitfire like you do a 109. You have to hold the trigger a lot longer in a Mustang, but it certainly shreds.
FM and flight characteristics don't seem to be mcuh different to me. Spitty can still out turn a 109 when flown correctly. I don't know where people whine that the G2 can turn inside a Spit. They must be doing something wrong. I've never had a 109 turn inside me when I was in a Spit. I've had them yo-yo into me, but never out turn in a level turn. I haven't done it in the small number of times I've flown the Mustang, but I have been in DF's where a Mustang was in the weeds and turning with, and inside me.
I've been very successful in the 109 against all fighters. And I've been unsuccessful. So what does this lead me to believe?
It leads me to believe that we have more balance in this sim then we have had in a great many patches. I'm sure there are those that would disagree. But these are my opinions based on my personal accounts.

FoolTrottel
08-06-2005, 03:45 PM
http://www.great-lakes.org/graphics/fishing.gif

MEGILE
08-06-2005, 03:46 PM
I dunno.

Atomic_Marten
08-06-2005, 03:46 PM
Good post.

With some differences it is still the same game.

Tully__
08-06-2005, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by FoolTrottel:
[IMG] Come on now, Crash doesn't always fish http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

x__CRASH__x
08-06-2005, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by FoolTrottel:
http://www.great-lakes.org/graphics/fishing.gif
You is wrong. If I was fishing I would have posted something more controversial, and made my point of view more extreme to one side or the other. This is just an opinion post to create discussion. I posted the same thing on CWoS. And those boys ain't fish, like you guppys are. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

FoolTrottel
08-06-2005, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FoolTrottel:
http://www.great-lakes.org/graphics/fishing.gif
You is wrong. If I was fishing I would have posted something more controversial, and made my point of view more extreme to one side or the other. This is just an opinion post to create discussion. I posted the same thing on CWoS. And those boys ain't fish, like you guppys are. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now just tell me, who took the bait here? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I figured you didn't fish here, and I was foolish enough to throw my own in ... it worked... but then again I'm sorry to have messed up yer thread .... my apologies ... I just couldn't resist this one ... seeing your recent behaviour...

MEGILE
08-06-2005, 04:21 PM
FoolTrottel, dix points.

MEGILE
08-06-2005, 04:21 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif Trottel's postcount is almost at the "holy" number.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

danjama
08-06-2005, 04:23 PM
now i dont wanna post here in case i am being reeled in and look like an idiot http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

MEGILE
08-06-2005, 04:25 PM
There is a sure way how never to be caught hook line and sinker... call the poster a Nazi. Better safe than sorry.

x__CRASH__x
08-06-2005, 04:43 PM
Post edited. Feel free to post your opinions free from the threat of fishing.

Hoarmurath
08-06-2005, 04:54 PM
Who are you asking crash?

The simmers?

The gamers?

Or the war reenactors?

For the firsts, the game could always see improvements leading to more realism.

For the seconds, the game was always balanced, as it was more a matter of skill than anything else.

For the thirds, they will never be satisfied because the opposite side refuse to cooperate by letting them win their war.

Monty_Thrud
08-06-2005, 04:54 PM
PAH!...Biffers have always been overmodelled especially G2/G6AS...Oleg doesnt want to upset the lufty fanboys...gunwise Bf = overmodelled, turnrate, Bf = overmodelled...beeee sure

MEGILE
08-06-2005, 04:55 PM
IMO the game won't be balanced untill we all fly the same plane, and just use "red" and "blue" teams.

I bet even using the same plane, we would have 20 page threads on where Oleg's biases lie.

Hoarmurath
08-06-2005, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by Megile:
IMO the game won't be balanced untill we all fly the same plane, and just use "red" and "blue" teams.

I bet even using the same plane, we would have 20 page threads on where Oleg's biases lie.

I'm ready to bet that if you put the same plane, with just different look and markings, on both sides, you will still have the exact same amount of whining.

From the simmers because it is zero realism.

From the war reenactors because they will not be winning their war.

And it will change nothing for the gamers, it will still be a matter of skill.

x__CRASH__x
08-06-2005, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by Monty_Thrud:
PAH!...Biffers have always been overmodelled especially G2/G6AS...Oleg doesnt want to upset the lufty fanboys...gunwise Bf = overmodelled, turnrate, Bf = overmodelled...beeee sure
Casting your line in my lake, are you? Do you have a permit? Didn't think so. That's a fine!!

p1ngu666
08-06-2005, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by Monty_Thrud:
PAH!...Biffers have always been overmodelled especially G2/G6AS...Oleg doesnt want to upset the lufty fanboys...gunwise Bf = overmodelled, turnrate, Bf = overmodelled...beeee sure

probably a great sim if u wanna be hero of teh luftwaffles http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

MEGILE
08-06-2005, 05:12 PM
This sim is perfect for being a Hero of the Luftwaffe.

BF-109G6 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Badsight.
08-06-2005, 05:45 PM
so true !


Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
Who are you asking crash?

The simmers?

The gamers?

Or the war reenactors?

For the firsts, the game could always see improvements leading to more realism.

For the seconds, the game was always balanced, as it was more a matter of skill than anything else.

For the thirds, they will never be satisfied because the opposite side refuse to cooperate by letting them win their war.

oh so true !

Monty_Thrud
08-06-2005, 05:45 PM
OK!..i was using 20Lb line for ill tempered sea bass(with frickin' laser beams)...next time im using 40Lb line for sharks(with nuclear warheads)...but i still say there is something not right about the G2 turnrate and gun power and G6AS turnrate...would anyone care to explain ?http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

but yes shes definately getting there

Pirschjaeger
08-06-2005, 08:31 PM
YET ANOTHER DISCLAIMER; this is not an argument for or against the 109 or any other plane.

Ok, I'll give Crash the benefit of the doubt but as soon as this becomes just another namecalling nonsense thread, I'm out.

This is my theory and I'd like to hear honest opinions. My ideas about turning is based on my belief that the AI"aces" can turn a plane at that planes absolute maximum. Does anyone agree with this?

IF I'm right, then this is where turning should be tested; against AI. Online, in a 109G2, I have been able to turn inside a Spit. I was actually able to turn my 190a4 inside a p-40 once. To me this simply tells me the other pilot is inexperienced.

But when I fly offline, in QMB, I cannot turn inside most allied a/c. In QMB it would be completely foolish, especially in a 190, to try to turn inside any fighter flown by AI.

So, when I read that someone tested a 109g2 and found they could turn slightly tigher than some specs from years ago, I have to question this. Not because it maybe inaccurate testing, but because it might be unrealistic testing.

First, the argument's relativity. The complaint is relative to another vitual plane, but the testing, to support the complaint, is relative to reality. I haven't made any tests so this is still just a theory.

When testing a vitual turn rate, did anyone experience the effects that would be experienced in reality? "G" force can have many effects on a pilot. As a passenger in an airliner I know my stomach doesn't like the little G-force in a climbing turn.

Another thing I noticed about virtual testing, is that the tester fails to test the other plane, the one he claims the "uber" plane can turn inside. Wouldn't it be logical to test both planes?

IMHO, and theoretically speaking and using the G2 and a Spit for example, I think it would make more sense to compare the specs of the two said planes from reality and make a ratio to show the differences. Then test both virtual planes and compare the results in the form of a ratio, once again, to show the differences.

Then compare the "reality" ratio with the "virtual" ratio.

Although I think this is the most valid approach I also feel there is one more very valid factor to be considered; pilot skill. Keeping with the same example, and to make it unquestionably accurate and the results acceptable, 10 experienced virtual Spit pilots should make 20 tests while 10 experienced virtual G2 pilots should do the same. Each one gets the chance to fly both a/c in the tests.

As I said, all the testing I've seen people in GD post are virtual compared to reality where the complaint is based on virtual relative to virtual. Is this logical?


It shouldn't be too hard to find enough people through GD to make these tests. Someone can host a server just for the tests. If the test results were obtained in the manner I just explained, I am sure, with all records presented, Oleg would be more than happy to view and make necessary changes.

I fly the 109 regularly and found offline, I cannot turn inside a Spit while online I can often do this, but still, not always. Online I have to assume it's skill vs skill. The AI may be tactically stupid but in my experience, they are capable of turning to limit. If I fly 109 against the same 109 flown by an AI, I can kill him tactically, but cannot turn with him.

Any honest opinions?

BTW, I really don't think Crash was fishing this time. He must be getting low on bait. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz

Pirschjaeger
08-06-2005, 08:58 PM
"Turning inside" and "turning with"

I was flying online, d-fight practice, with a teammate. This was a few years ago. We were both flying same 109's and the idea was for him to stay with me and me to turn inside him.

I was continuously turning as tight as possible, on the edge of a stall. He was able to easily stay with me and didn't have vapour trails comimg from his wing tips as I did. He was actually able to over take me. I asked him why.

In hindsight it was really quite simple. As I was on the edge of a stall, as tight as possible, I was losing a lot of energy. He was retaining his energy by turning in a larger circle, not even near stalling.

Although he had no firing solution he always had more energy than I. It would only be a matter of time before I stop turning or run out of fuel. He was patient and waiting for me to try something else. He had the energy advantage and therefor could easily position himself for a firing solution once I stopped turning.

When flown properly, most aircraft can "turn with" a better a/c. In our case, it was easy to see how skill, experience, and knowledge would have made the difference in same planes.

I posted this to support the importance of "pilot skill" when testing or online d-fighting. There are so many variables.

Going back to the complaints that the G2 can turn inside the spit, if this were tested in the manner I suggested in my last post and showed the G2 FM was wrong, then I'd want Oleg to corrected also. I'm a strong believer in "pilot skill" being more important than the plane and I would like to see this sim as accurate as possible.

Fritz

Stigler_9_JG52
08-06-2005, 09:34 PM
The question shouldn't be, "have we achieved balance", it should be, "have we gotten it right finally.

Planes were not "balanced" in the war, each had its plusses and minuses.

Stanger_361st
08-06-2005, 09:38 PM
"Balanced" What is balanced. Balanced to me is when you can fly the planes in the historical way. Like A corsair diving away from a Zeke. Or a jug outdiving a 190 or 109.

Pirschjaeger
08-06-2005, 09:44 PM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
The question shouldn't be, "have we achieved balance", it should be, "have we gotten it right finally.

Planes were not "balanced" in the war, each had its plusses and minuses.

I agree totally and like I said, comparing virtually specs with realistic specs, unless the difference is huge, it makes for an invalid argument.

If plane "A" turned 8% better than plane "B" in reality, then plane "A" should turn 8% better than plane "B" in the game. We need to make a comparision with percentages and ratios between reality and virtuality, rather than real specs vs virtual specs in order to make a valid argument.

And the more pilots participating in the tests makes the results more valid.

"I did this" with "this plane" and got "these results" and now have "proofs" makes for a very weak argument.

Fritz

Pirschjaeger
08-07-2005, 12:05 AM
Why is it that no one has commented or added their opinion towards my ideas about testing? I think it's a good point and should be further discussed and even tried. I have mentioned this before in other "uber" or "porked" threads and always get no replies.

Is it too hard to understand? C'mon guyz, we need to develop a fair testing system to put an end to the whining threads and to help Oleg and the crew with accuracy. We can afford much more time and effort than they. Let's do something constructive and beneficial.

Fritz

Kocur_
08-07-2005, 04:11 AM
Pirschjaeger! Good posts on testing. The issue is far more complicated than to be right when jumping with simple "A plane is ovemodelled because I saw it >>turning<< with B". How, when, where, who?
On turning tests, in-game vs RL: those RL turning times were usually established for sustained turn, i.e. no loss of speed or alt. Planes turn tighter when you fly in a manner you lose energy. To compare virtual plane turn time with RL, one would have to "fly" it VERY skilfully and carefully, to keep his turn sustained all 360 deg.


Overmodelling present in game I find most disturbing is giving certain planes performance of their prototypes, when serial production planes had worsened performance, and data on that is known. Another issue is incorrect dating of certain planes or puting in game planes never in service during WW2. Also messing with cowling flaps open/close max speeds, times to overheat with those flaps on/off, and so on. There are planes with more than one of that overmodelling ways incorporated...
On the other hand some other planes have performance worsened than known performance of serial production planes without giving a reason or we dont have certain versions of certain planes, reason for which are quality issues we hear, when we hear also those issues are not modelled by principle.

NorrisMcWhirter
08-07-2005, 04:34 AM
Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
Who are you asking crash?

The simmers?

The gamers?

Or the war reenactors?

For the firsts, the game could always see improvements leading to more realism.

For the seconds, the game was always balanced, as it was more a matter of skill than anything else.

For the thirds, they will never be satisfied because the opposite side refuse to cooperate by letting them win their war.

hehe...that's hit the nail right on the head...especially the last point.

Ta,
Norris

Aaron_GT
08-07-2005, 07:00 AM
Balance isn't an issue. The issue should be accuracy.

Pirschjaeger
08-07-2005, 07:06 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
Pirschjaeger! Good posts on testing. The issue is far more complicated than to be right when jumping with simple "A plane is ovemodelled because I saw it >>turning<< with B". How, when, where, who?
On turning tests, in-game vs RL: those RL turning times were usually established for sustained turn, i.e. no loss of speed or alt. Planes turn tighter when you fly in a manner you lose energy. To compare virtual plane turn time with RL, one would have to "fly" it VERY skilfully and carefully, to keep his turn sustained all 360 deg.


Overmodelling present in game I find most disturbing is giving certain planes performance of their prototypes, when serial production planes had worsened performance, and data on that is known. Another issue is incorrect dating of certain planes or puting in game planes never in service during WW2. Also messing with cowling flaps open/close max speeds, times to overheat with those flaps on/off, and so on. There are planes with more than one of that overmodelling ways incorporated...
On the other hand some other planes have performance worsened than known performance of serial production planes without giving a reason or we dont have certain versions of certain planes, reason for which are quality issues we hear, when we hear also those issues are not modelled by principle.

Hi Kocur,

I was thinking that it would be active squardons the should test the planes. The reasons are simple. I'm not familiar with many squadrons but I would imagine there are a few that are a bit serious about what they fly.

For example, if it's a test the turning rate of a G2 relative to a Spit, then it should be squadron that favors the 109 and a squadron that favors the Spit. They should work together in a server to make the tests, each flying both planes. Then, with the results, they should be able to figure out which plane turns better and at how much percentage. Fairly simple I think, as long as you can get everyone to participate, and not shoot. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Then, you look at the real data and compare the two planes in reality, and of course figure out the rate of turn advantage in a percentage.

Compare the two percentages and see what the results are.

If the spit turns 8% better than the 109 in the game and in reality, then that book can be closed and shelved. But, if the virtual percentage doesn't match the reality, then we need another patch and will have it two weeks later. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I'm sure with proper testing Oleg would be happy to see the results. But testing a virtual are craft and comparing the results to the real aircraft is useless unless there is a lot of difference. I'd rather go with the percentages. Then the game would be more historically accurate. If, like in my example, the Spit could turn 8% better than the 109 I would hope it did the same in the game.

Fritz

Kocur_
08-07-2005, 07:19 AM
Well statistics... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Those squadrons would have to agree that ALL the fighting would be horizontal turns! I dont think that would be achievable in actual combathttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

IMHO better way is to get a good simmer who has some professional aeodynamical knowledge and some device link tool to provide him with all data needed in test flight. In fact: it was done few times already (for stalling issues -thx NonWonderDoghttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

Pirschjaeger
08-07-2005, 07:56 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
Well statistics... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Those squadrons would have to agree that ALL the fighting would be horizontal turns! I dont think that would be achievable in actual combathttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

IMHO better way is to get a good simmer who has some professional aeodynamical knowledge and some device link tool to provide him with all data needed in test flight. In fact: it was done few times already (for stalling issues -thx NonWonderDoghttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

Hi Kocur,

This is good, but we have to get more than one tester. I would offer to help but to be honest I really don't know how to record the results. I'm willing to learn though, with instruction of course.

Question for everyone; would you all consider the AI to be turning to their planes maximum? I just flew a 190A5 against 4 La7 aces. I could beat them but only tactically. When they turn I know it would be foolish to try and turn with them.

Fritz

Pirschjaeger
08-07-2005, 07:59 AM
Kocur,
From your post I'm assuming there is some sort of program to record the result, yes, no?

If so, this would be great. It would be easy to find 10 people willing to take the time to test the aircraft offline. Could be fun. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz

Lucius_Esox
08-07-2005, 08:05 AM
I just worry what would happen if we actually did manage to get togther a set of tests that were accurate to all parties concerned. What would we do???

Jeez,, might even have admit that pilot skill/luck has rather a large amount to do with these issues,,, Nah, couldn't have that m8, cause far to many arguments!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Fish6891
08-07-2005, 08:12 AM
I think the sim will never be balanced.

Why not?

Because Blue pilots are naturally more talented than Red pilots, just like IRL.

This is a good thing because it helps to concrete the sim's realism.

Kocur_
08-07-2005, 08:41 AM
Pirschjaeger Posted Sun August 07 2005 06:59
Kocur,
From your post I'm assuming there is some sort of program to record the result, yes, no?

There are!

http://www.airwarfare.com/Sims/FB/fb_essential_files.htm#014

In "Device Link Utilities" section.

Dont ask me any further: I didnt manage to get it working http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

joeap
08-07-2005, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
Who are you asking crash?

The simmers?

The gamers?

Or the war reenactors?

For the firsts, the game could always see improvements leading to more realism.

For the seconds, the game was always balanced, as it was more a matter of skill than anything else.

For the thirds, they will never be satisfied because the opposite side refuse to cooperate by letting them win their war.

WORD! Agree 100% dude. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

x__CRASH__x
08-07-2005, 08:55 AM
I wasn't clear with what I meant by "Balanced". What I meant was that Axis aircraft and Allied aircraft had been tweaked to the point where they had reached realism to where neither side had too much of a valid claim that they were porked. (unproven rantings aside)

Chuck_Older
08-07-2005, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
I wasn't clear with what I meant by "Balanced". What I meant was that Axis aircraft and Allied aircraft had been tweaked to the point where they had reached realism to where neither side had too much of a valid claim that they were porked. (unproven rantings aside)

I understood you Crash

here's the trouble: your history in posting has made folks skeptical. You're the poster boy for Fisherman's Daily Magazine http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Pirschjaeger
08-07-2005, 09:19 AM
Originally posted by Lucius_Esox:
I just worry what would happen if we actually did manage to get togther a set of tests that were accurate to all parties concerned. What would we do???


We have a "sit in" at Oleg's house of course. Then we have a hunger strike until he fixes the mistakes. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Fritz

x__CRASH__x
08-07-2005, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
I understood you Crash

here's the trouble: your history in posting has made folks skeptical. You're the poster boy for Fisherman's Daily Magazine http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Don't hate the player. It's not my fault. If people would lighten up, I wouldn't be forced to push their buttons.

It's their fault. Not mine. Be sure.

Stigler_9_JG52
08-07-2005, 11:01 AM
What you're describing is not "balance"; it is accuracy. It bears a clear understanding, because both concepts are at work in this sim.

Balance refers to a sense that a person can get "a fair fight", and that no one country's planes are arbitrarily made to be better or worse than any other country's planes. This is allso fallacious, because in the real war, planes weren't designed so that they'd be a "fair match" for the enemy's inventory; they were designed to dominate. Whether or not they did was decided when they actually got into action. In many cases, like Zeros vs. Buffaloes, 109s vs. Blenheims, 109s vs. I-16s and I-153s, "fairness" just didn't work out.

Accuracy simply means hitting the numbers, such that a 109 in the game flies more or less like a 109 in the real event did.

Now, both these concepts can and have been twisted by those with agendas. I have noticed a distinct bit of hypocrisy in Allied fliers, not in just this sim but others, where their sense of "balance" changes as the war goes on. Early, when the Axis have advantages, they scream that their planes are porked and that German/Japanese planes are ├╝berized. They forget the drama of the '39 - 42 timeframe when the Allies weren't entirely sure the Axis wouldn't win, and get into this "we have a RIGHT to win" mindset. Then, later in the war, when they have both numbers, a better tactical situation, and much better machinery, they don't want to even DISCUSS "balancing" any of these conditions. No, they now have a "right" to run total riot, like historically happened. Then, conveniently enough, it's all about "historical". But then, everything is done to either eliminate Me262s (that's not FAIR!!! wah!) or to manufacture a reason to include Meteors or Shooting Stars that were not used in front line, rubber-meets-the-road engagements, like the Schwalbes were; all in the name of "balancing" things out; even in late war when they already hold all the cards. It's classic.

In terms of accuracy, there are a number of issues clouding an assesment on this. One is Oleg's refusal to show us his numbers; this effectively renders a lot of discussion moot; how can we say Oleg is right or wrong when we don't know what he's basing anything ON?

Then, there's the "method of testing" approach. We have different players doing tests differently, or trying to hit different numbers from different test methodologies. With all these variables, you can test the same plane and one guy will say "it's porked" and the other will say it over-performs.

IMO, if you're within 10% on most numbers, you're within range that the methodology, the pilot's testing discipline, and situational phenomenon will account for the "slack". You can always find the odd case where, for example, a 109 will out turn a Spit (the 109 pilot's an ace and the Spit driver is an idiot), or where a Sturmo will go down after a lucky short burst (when ordinarily, it should soak up a lot of ammo, and maybe still even escape).

TAGERT.
08-07-2005, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
What you're describing is not "balance"; it is accuracy. It bears a clear understanding, because both concepts are at work in this sim.

Balance refers to a sense that a person can get "a fair fight", and that no one country's planes are arbitrarily made to be better or worse than any other country's planes. This is allso fallacious, because in the real war, planes weren't designed so that they'd be a "fair match" for the enemy's inventory; they were designed to dominate. Whether or not they did was decided when they actually got into action. In many cases, like Zeros vs. Buffaloes, 109s vs. Blenheims, 109s vs. I-16s and I-153s, "fairness" just didn't work out.

Accuracy simply means hitting the numbers, such that a 109 in the game flies more or less like a 109 in the real event did.

Now, both these concepts can and have been twisted by those with agendas. I have noticed a distinct bit of hypocrisy in Allied fliers, not in just this sim but others, where their sense of "balance" changes as the war goes on. Early, when the Axis have advantages, they scream that their planes are porked and that German/Japanese planes are ├╝berized. They forget the drama of the '39 - 42 timeframe when the Allies weren't entirely sure the Axis wouldn't win, and get into this "we have a RIGHT to win" mindset. Then, later in the war, when they have both numbers, a better tactical situation, and much better machinery, they don't want to even DISCUSS "balancing" any of these conditions. No, they now have a "right" to run total riot, like historically happened. Then, conveniently enough, it's all about "historical". But then, everything is done to either eliminate Me262s (that's not FAIR!!! wah!) or to manufacture a reason to include Meteors or Shooting Stars that were not used in front line, rubber-meets-the-road engagements, like the Schwalbes were; all in the name of "balancing" things out; even in late war when they already hold all the cards. It's classic.

In terms of accuracy, there are a number of issues clouding an assesment on this. One is Oleg's refusal to show us his numbers; this effectively renders a lot of discussion moot; how can we say Oleg is right or wrong when we don't know what he's basing anything ON?

Then, there's the "method of testing" approach. We have different players doing tests differently, or trying to hit different numbers from different test methodologies. With all these variables, you can test the same plane and one guy will say "it's porked" and the other will say it over-performs.

IMO, if you're within 10% on most numbers, you're within range that the methodology, the pilot's testing discipline, and situational phenomenon will account for the "slack". You can always find the odd case where, for example, a 109 will out turn a Spit (the 109 pilot's an ace and the Spit driver is an idiot), or where a Sturmo will go down after a lucky short burst (when ordinarily, it should soak up a lot of ammo, and maybe still even escape). Cant really model accuracey or fairness until they factor in some kind of logistics, limitations of aircraft types, and team balance to simulate the whole war effect. It is a big task that I doubt will ever be addressed.. Thus we have what we have.. Flight sims where there is no down side to dying because you can hit refly faster than you can type refly and where there is allways an aircraft fueled and ready to go when you are. I hope some day in the near future we will have an online game with some offline aspects to it that will make it more war like.

For starters for example, make it so you dont get to fly the best planes (newest versions) until you get X amount of kills.. If you die, you start over as a new different pilot who has to get X amount of kills. Doing that you would promot the idea of "staying alive" and thus insert a little more real feel to it all. Something as simple as that would elevate the whole online arena, where the "fear of death" is replaced by the "greed of flying good planes" which in turn you would see people fly more realistily imho and avoid the lone wolf taking on 10 enmy aircraft single handedly.

jeroen_R90S
08-07-2005, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by TAGERT.:
For starters for example, make it so you dont get to fly the best planes (newest versions) until you get X amount of kills.. If you die, you start over as a new different pilot who has to get X amount of kills. Doing that you would promot the idea of "staying alive" and thus insert a little more real feel to it all. Something as simple as that would elevate the whole online arena, where the "fear of death" is replaced by the "greed of flying good planes" which in turn you would see people fly more realistily imho and avoid the lone wolf taking on 10 enmy aircraft single handedly.

Reminds me of the original Red Baron off line campaign, where you started and were forced to fly an Fokker E.III while the other guys in your squad were flying Albatros D.IIs.

The challenge was quite tough: need kills and mission succes for better plane, but with current plane that success was much harder to get, especially since the Albatrosses were faster and could score quicklier!

Was a lot of fun, though, that game, because of touches like these. Would certainly work for IL-2 on- and offline as well!

Jeroen

fordfan25
08-07-2005, 11:35 AM
i have to disagree with ya crash buddy. i think if any thing this last patch has made the game worse ballance wise. FW's that are takeing 80+ .50 hits and not suffering any damge, yet p-47,hellcat and hogs are still lighting up,sheading wings,breaking in half,one hit engien kills and looseing controls as well as piloet kills like that were early war zeros. p51 still looseing wings in dives. BF109's still seem to be equiped with air brakes and anti grave genarators.la-7's being reversed engienerd from the rosswell UFO crash. engiens on US radial's are over heating very fast and takeing for ever and a day to kool. while i can fly Fw's all mission wide open with no problems. Ki84's seem to be a little less la-7ish wich is nice. dive ecellaration is still strang i have spits staying with my p-47s in steep dives http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif. ect. also still the hellcat and hog seem to share the exact same FM sept for top speed.

so no I dont think we have achieved any thing close to ballence. historicly or fantasy.

LeadSpitter_
08-07-2005, 12:03 PM
http://www.stone-craft.com/sinking%20troll.JPG

Stigler_9_JG52
08-07-2005, 12:14 PM
Agree, Tagert (first time for everything, eh?)

One should strive to be a good pilot no matter what plane he's in anyway, even though he has his favorites... and some sense of working toward the "best of all possible situations", as well as having some kind of 'fear of death' all go a long way to adding additional layers of challenge, fun and historical perspective.

Pirschjaeger
08-07-2005, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
i have to disagree with ya crash buddy. i think if any thing this last patch has made the game worse ballance wise. FW's that are takeing 80+ .50 hits and not suffering any damge, yet p-47,hellcat and hogs are still lighting up,sheading wings,breaking in half,one hit engien kills and looseing controls as well as piloet kills like that were early war zeros. p51 still looseing wings in dives. BF109's still seem to be equiped with air brakes and anti grave genarators.la-7's being reversed engienerd from the rosswell UFO crash. engiens on US radial's are over heating very fast and takeing for ever and a day to kool. while i can fly Fw's all mission wide open with no problems. Ki84's seem to be a little less la-7ish wich is nice. dive ecellaration is still strang i have spits staying with my p-47s in steep dives http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif. ect. also still the hellcat and hog seem to share the exact same FM sept for top speed.

so no I dont think we have achieved any thing close to ballence. historicly or fantasy.

Is your experience with the FMs online or offline? There must be a difference because I have very different experience offline from what you just mentioned. I haven't flown online since last year.

Fritz

fordfan25
08-07-2005, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
i have to disagree with ya crash buddy. i think if any thing this last patch has made the game worse ballance wise. FW's that are takeing 80+ .50 hits and not suffering any damge, yet p-47,hellcat and hogs are still lighting up,sheading wings,breaking in half,one hit engien kills and looseing controls as well as piloet kills like that were early war zeros. p51 still looseing wings in dives. BF109's still seem to be equiped with air brakes and anti grave genarators.la-7's being reversed engienerd from the rosswell UFO crash. engiens on US radial's are over heating very fast and takeing for ever and a day to kool. while i can fly Fw's all mission wide open with no problems. Ki84's seem to be a little less la-7ish wich is nice. dive ecellaration is still strang i have spits staying with my p-47s in steep dives http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif. ect. also still the hellcat and hog seem to share the exact same FM sept for top speed.

so no I dont think we have achieved any thing close to ballence. historicly or fantasy.

Is your experience with the FMs online or offline? There must be a difference because I have very different experience offline from what you just mentioned. I haven't flown online since last year.

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


mostly online. offline the DMs on AI planes such as a ki84 ect are a little less sturdy.

Pirschjaeger
08-07-2005, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
i have to disagree with ya crash buddy. i think if any thing this last patch has made the game worse ballance wise. FW's that are takeing 80+ .50 hits and not suffering any damge, yet p-47,hellcat and hogs are still lighting up,sheading wings,breaking in half,one hit engien kills and looseing controls as well as piloet kills like that were early war zeros. p51 still looseing wings in dives. BF109's still seem to be equiped with air brakes and anti grave genarators.la-7's being reversed engienerd from the rosswell UFO crash. engiens on US radial's are over heating very fast and takeing for ever and a day to kool. while i can fly Fw's all mission wide open with no problems. Ki84's seem to be a little less la-7ish wich is nice. dive ecellaration is still strang i have spits staying with my p-47s in steep dives http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif. ect. also still the hellcat and hog seem to share the exact same FM sept for top speed.

so no I dont think we have achieved any thing close to ballence. historicly or fantasy.

Is your experience with the FMs online or offline? There must be a difference because I have very different experience offline from what you just mentioned. I haven't flown online since last year.

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


mostly online. offline the DMs on AI planes such as a ki84 ect are a little less sturdy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I find when I'm flying the 190 and take light hits, the plane flies like sh1t. I fly A4 and A5. I also find they overheat easily but are just as easy to cool down. The trick is full throttle and high speed.

When I'm flying the 109g14, I cannot catch the P-51 in a straight run. I can catch them tactically since AI, even the aces, or very limited. When I do catch them they take 2-4 108 hits to bring them down and I've yet to blow one to pieces. The jug seems a little weaker than before.

As for the other planes you mention, I don't fly or fight with them to often.

As for the new flight model the biggest change, other than taking off, is the roll rate in the 109 and 190 are significantly less than before.

Like I said, I fly offline and have different experiences. To be honest, I really don't care too much about the FM's since it's just a game. My ideas about testing were not to find accuracy to change the game but rather to stop seeing threads with poor arguments over test results.

Fritz

msalama
08-07-2005, 01:36 PM
We have a "sit in" at Oleg's house of course. Then we have a hunger strike until he fixes the mistakes. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

...and don't forget that we can always burn our IL-2 CDs in public too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Yeah - POWER TO THE PEOPLE RIGHT ON!!!

Pirschjaeger
08-07-2005, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by msalama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">We have a "sit in" at Oleg's house of course. Then we have a hunger strike until he fixes the mistakes. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

...and don't forget that we can always burn our IL-2 CDs in public too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Yeah - POWER TO THE PEOPLE RIGHT ON!!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Burn our cd's? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif Dude, you are extreme. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Fritz http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Kocur_
08-08-2005, 12:55 AM
Is "balance" situation achieved or not, is been tried to be achieved it.

We have MiG-3U labelled as 1942 when it never existed before 1943. Labelling it 1942 is a lie. Or mistake...Why, if not for "balance".

We have La-7 3 x B-20 labelled 1944, when they never existed before last two months of war in 1945, they were last 368 La-7 built during the war. Labelling it 1944 is a lie. Or mistake. What for if not for "balance".

We have Yak-3P which finished state trials on 9 apr.1945. It indeed was 1945 plane but post war 1945 plane. Not one serial Yak-3P served in a unit that fought in WW2. What is it doing here, if not for reasons of "balance" firepower of German planes?


Balance has nothing to do with SIM. The accuracy should be IMHO developers goal. Its not really like that here.

FritzGryphon
08-08-2005, 01:00 AM
The hosts choose what planes are available. They are completely responsible for 'balance'.

No one forces you to use the MiG-3U or Yak-3P, regardless of what they are labeled.

Of course, model the planes accurately, and you will automatically get 'balance' for a particular time period.

Though I agree, it would be nice to limit plane numbers depending on availability (say, 1 MiG-3U allowed, 4 La-5FN, and unlimited I-16 in the server at a given time). That would be a step forward. Here is fingers crossed for BoB.

Perhaps punish people to fly the worst planes if they have a poor death vs. time ratio. That will teach them to fly right!

Kocur_
08-08-2005, 06:36 AM
I am not talking about servers. I am talking about the game it self. How many players and/or hosts were interested in aviation, etc. before this game. How many are beyound this game? How many know or care that there were no La-7 3 x B-20 in 1944. "The game says its 1944, so why not put it in 1944 scenario" most think I suppose. I dont blame them, I myself didnt know or care about MiG-3U until recently I read an article on it and learned that game lies there too. Please note: it is not about "red" or "blue", its merely about truth or lies.