PDA

View Full Version : 109`s, LW, russian bias, realism...etc etc etc.... something to chew on..



XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 06:13 AM
Borrow it from ORR, originally posted on one of on line wars forum.


"=RU=Youss
#Posts: 152

RegDate: 16.04.2003
Location: Belarus

Posted: Fri 19.09.2003 20:44 Title:
Correct? Real? About what you talked?
You got maximal accurate model of BF109. And what?

About what you talk on 17 pages?

"biased", "unreal", "overmodelled"...

What you want from BF? This is not genius crafts. This is one big compromise: need fighter for HIGH altitude for West front, and fighter for LOW altitude - for East Front.

Impossible make craft for this. This is noncompatible.
For high altitude fight need engine with first type optimisation, for low altitude fight need another optimisation.

BF was not genius at low alt. Where you make battle in VOW? 80% time in altitude less then 3000m.

1500-2500m is best altitude for Yaks, La. See to charts. Compare its with other datasource. Charts from game - calculated by FM v1.11. All BF have advantage at 5000m.

To all BF-whinners:
You not want real-specs. You want only easy kills, easy victoryes.

You write, write, write ... "unreal", "unreal", "unreal"...

And when Oleg make change for you - you begin cry about real?
Anybody there know - what is real? Anybody here was at BF in battle? You got real specs in 1.11 - but you dont like this.

I tide from this whinning. I'm tide from "specialist" like mr. Tom. He write:

"Isn´t it a Joke?!?!?!?
BTW: RPM at Emils has too be 2600 not 2300! Thts not a "little"! Thts near 20%!
And it could fly with 3000 RPM for 30 Seconds without Overheat!
Greatings!"

His stuped blaming about Emil make me LOL!

Technical specs of DB601E from original documentation:

On altitude before 4800m maximum
2400 (5 minutes);
2300 (30 minutes);
2200 (all time);

On altitude after 4800m maximum -
2400 (alltime);
3000 (30 sec before damage)

Pressure (1 ata = kg\sm3).
Max 1 minute - 1,4 ata;
Max 5 minutes - 1,3 ata;
Max 30 minutes - 1,2 ata;
no time limit - 1,15 ata;

Requested Oil: Aero Shell Mittel, Intava or Rotring.

Dear mr.Tom - where you found "3000 without overheat"? In you sexyal fantasion?

Dear mr.Tom - today you have strongly offended Oleg by the you letter. You sneered at it, you offended it, you have afforded indecent jokes in its address.

You got answer: "Do not write anymore to the this e-mail".

Oleg is too well brought up to be rude in the answer. As against you. Oleg not want talk with you anymore. Greatings! You got this.

In that case i'm would answer you much more roughly.

You got maximal correct model of FW. I do not hear here complaints about bad modelling FW190. But how so? Both planes are considered on the same FlightModel, on the the same equations, on the same sourcecode. Different only income values of specs.

If BF109 was so it is good, development FW190 what for was necessary? Why in 1943 FW190 have made 60% of release of all single-motor fighters in Germany?

Many players have written letters with complaints to difficulty of conducting fight on BF109. And when Oleg to them have gone towards - have made changes. I do not know why Oleg has chosen such decision. "The gamebalance" is only my personal opinion.

Now complaints begin - "we do not want balance, we want a reality". But in fact you already have a reality! Only this reality is not pleasant to you! Do you know sim where FM calculate more accuracy?

It is game. Let's receive pleasure from it.

I am tired to read this forum. At each pilot have personal opinion what should be BF109 - and noone why knew - what BF109 was in real.

I shall not write any more here.

Who wants to continue conversation in constructive sense - welcome in e-mail. "


So, wadda you say? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif


Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

"No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down." Ivan Kozhedub

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 06:13 AM
Borrow it from ORR, originally posted on one of on line wars forum.


"=RU=Youss
#Posts: 152

RegDate: 16.04.2003
Location: Belarus

Posted: Fri 19.09.2003 20:44 Title:
Correct? Real? About what you talked?
You got maximal accurate model of BF109. And what?

About what you talk on 17 pages?

"biased", "unreal", "overmodelled"...

What you want from BF? This is not genius crafts. This is one big compromise: need fighter for HIGH altitude for West front, and fighter for LOW altitude - for East Front.

Impossible make craft for this. This is noncompatible.
For high altitude fight need engine with first type optimisation, for low altitude fight need another optimisation.

BF was not genius at low alt. Where you make battle in VOW? 80% time in altitude less then 3000m.

1500-2500m is best altitude for Yaks, La. See to charts. Compare its with other datasource. Charts from game - calculated by FM v1.11. All BF have advantage at 5000m.

To all BF-whinners:
You not want real-specs. You want only easy kills, easy victoryes.

You write, write, write ... "unreal", "unreal", "unreal"...

And when Oleg make change for you - you begin cry about real?
Anybody there know - what is real? Anybody here was at BF in battle? You got real specs in 1.11 - but you dont like this.

I tide from this whinning. I'm tide from "specialist" like mr. Tom. He write:

"Isn´t it a Joke?!?!?!?
BTW: RPM at Emils has too be 2600 not 2300! Thts not a "little"! Thts near 20%!
And it could fly with 3000 RPM for 30 Seconds without Overheat!
Greatings!"

His stuped blaming about Emil make me LOL!

Technical specs of DB601E from original documentation:

On altitude before 4800m maximum
2400 (5 minutes);
2300 (30 minutes);
2200 (all time);

On altitude after 4800m maximum -
2400 (alltime);
3000 (30 sec before damage)

Pressure (1 ata = kg\sm3).
Max 1 minute - 1,4 ata;
Max 5 minutes - 1,3 ata;
Max 30 minutes - 1,2 ata;
no time limit - 1,15 ata;

Requested Oil: Aero Shell Mittel, Intava or Rotring.

Dear mr.Tom - where you found "3000 without overheat"? In you sexyal fantasion?

Dear mr.Tom - today you have strongly offended Oleg by the you letter. You sneered at it, you offended it, you have afforded indecent jokes in its address.

You got answer: "Do not write anymore to the this e-mail".

Oleg is too well brought up to be rude in the answer. As against you. Oleg not want talk with you anymore. Greatings! You got this.

In that case i'm would answer you much more roughly.

You got maximal correct model of FW. I do not hear here complaints about bad modelling FW190. But how so? Both planes are considered on the same FlightModel, on the the same equations, on the same sourcecode. Different only income values of specs.

If BF109 was so it is good, development FW190 what for was necessary? Why in 1943 FW190 have made 60% of release of all single-motor fighters in Germany?

Many players have written letters with complaints to difficulty of conducting fight on BF109. And when Oleg to them have gone towards - have made changes. I do not know why Oleg has chosen such decision. "The gamebalance" is only my personal opinion.

Now complaints begin - "we do not want balance, we want a reality". But in fact you already have a reality! Only this reality is not pleasant to you! Do you know sim where FM calculate more accuracy?

It is game. Let's receive pleasure from it.

I am tired to read this forum. At each pilot have personal opinion what should be BF109 - and noone why knew - what BF109 was in real.

I shall not write any more here.

Who wants to continue conversation in constructive sense - welcome in e-mail. "


So, wadda you say? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif


Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

"No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down." Ivan Kozhedub

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 06:37 AM
From the last big Luftwhiner thread I really can't see where these people are coming from on their bias rants. Just about everything thrown up in there suffers from not actually being true in 1.11. Doesn't seem to bother anyone though.

About youss's post? I think from now on "sexyal fantasion" should become a firm stand-in for the term "luftwhiner".

Brilliant :>



http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/worker_parasite.jpg

Need help with NewView? Read this thread. (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yzbcj)

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 06:45 AM
LMAO clint

Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

"No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down." Ivan Kozhedub

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 06:47 AM
sexyal fantasion

Sounds like an X-rated Disney movie.



IRON SKIES
As real as you want it to be.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 07:01 AM
What happened to the increase of altitude performance modelling in FB? This was told to us would come in FB.


THERE IS A VERY >>BASIC<< MODELLING ERROR IN THE Fw190's COCKPIT.


Who does the flight testing of the FMs or do they even test? 3 tries to get the P-47's roll rate correct and the -27 is still not correct.

Instead of adding more "eye candy", they should be concentrating on getting the FMs within +/-5%. That is not +5% VVS and -5% LW either.




http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/west-battleline.jpg



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

Message Edited on 09/20/0302:15AM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 07:23 AM
Hi Milo,

I sometimes play missions with P47s vs late 109s, doing bomber escort, and certainly I don't think it "feels" too wrong around 7500-8500m or so. Above 10000 it's still very wobbly. I don't know what Oleg meant by 'improved' exactly but it's at least now flyable up there. From my brief experimentations with CEM it seems mix is an important factor up there too. Without knowing what Oleg has done or thinks he has done to high altitude modelling it's kind of hard to say anything for sure on it.

I agree with you [and cirx and the rest] on the FW-190 cockpit. I wish some sort of compromise could be reached on this - either allow an alternate model to be submitted, or allow end-user models and skins for the cockpits on "no cockpit" servers, or something. It's not that it's completely horrible and unflyable as is - much as some peoples moaning would make it seem - but it's that noone can change it for themselves. Maddox have created a situation that only they can fix, due to their lack of support for mods, and they're refusing to fix it. It's very annoying.

Roll rates for 2 out of the 3 P-47s are fixed. I don't know what the hell happened on these, though - Oleg gave the impression that the stores supports on the D-22 and D-27 were the reason for the lack of roll rate. Now the D-10 and D-22 are fixed, but the D-27 is still a pig. But the D-22 has the same external stores attachments as the D-27. It's the kind of thing I'd be careful about pointing out though, lord knows that with the bug-fixing methodology Maddox games uses we'd just end up with the D-22 porked as well :>

Any thoughts on Youss's 109E and other 109 comments? From reading your epic Huck/Isengrim/Skychimp style threads I get the impression that you have at least some idea what you're talking about.


http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/worker_parasite.jpg

Need help with NewView? Read this thread. (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yzbcj)

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 07:31 AM
he lives in france and is russian enough said http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4jz7i/ls.gif

Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 07:36 AM
Uh...Ivan? This guy has "close ties" to Oleg. You don't think that he might just _maybe_ adopt the same spin?

I mean it's like suspecting Marlboro of lying, then taking Winstons word for it that they weren't. o_O

Or better yet, to borrow from myself, beleiving Hillary Rosen when she says she's concerned about artists compensation.


Clint, you are blind. It's a shame too, with 1.11 we had seen quite a few of "the devout" open their eyes and see. Guess we might need another "patch" like this to help the rest, like yourself. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 07:41 AM
clint-ruin,

The "uber twins" would say different./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Well it depends on the DB601 model, but seems accurate enough.

The A, and B were limited to 2400rpm @ 4500m. Early models that was @ 4000m. The N was 2600rpm @ 5200m. The E and F 2700rpm @ 4800m.

As to FMs, there has been now 7-8 different versions (includes 4-5??? Il-2 and 3 FB). Yes it is scary, it is almost like the 'cards are suffled" when it comes to FMs.

Who ever did the Fw's cockpit made a basic drafting error.

-------

To add, why do the flaps when lowered to 'landing' postion get damaged at over 400kph in the Me262? The manual says they can be lowered to that position at 500kph.

Why an engine fire with a rapid throttle closer? The manual says during run-up that the throttle can be closed from 6000rpm >rapidly< to "idle" position.

Has anyone got 8700rpm from the Jumos? The manual says this can be done for 15 minutes. LOL, one cannot TO without seeing "engine overheat".


http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/west-battleline.jpg



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

Message Edited on 09/20/0302:49AM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 07:48 AM
Blitz, there's a thread where I'm in complete and full agreement with you about the Oleg fanclub still on page 1 of ORR.

However, luftwhiners do not help their case by arguing points that are simply untrue. Demonstrably so. I had to post three different tracks in the last thread I was in to show the effectiveness of the 109F2s armament because in that case, the luftwhiners had their eyes closed to it. And suffer through another half dozen Engrish posts with some other guy. And go out of my way to do speed tests on the F2, again .. bla bla bla.

It's just so frustrating - there are dozens of things I can name that annoy the hell out of me in FB - but half of peoples time in these forums seems to be spent trying to generate big lies by repeating them often enough. I like that even less than I like the bugs in FB. It's useless redirection of peoples efforts and a complete waste of Olegs time.


http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/worker_parasite.jpg

Need help with NewView? Read this thread. (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yzbcj)

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 08:00 AM
If everyone would just play the game and not worry about little crap like this, they would maybe enjoy it.

There are not crazy bugs anymore, there arent hurricanes and I16s that defy the laws of physics, there arent Yak 3s that can outdive a 190, if you fly with the correct tactics you will most likely survive, and even get some kills. From my online flying experience I have found that there are 2 main ways someone gets killed. Number one, they f*cked up. Number two, they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, I.E. got jumped. If you got killed because some uber P39 caught you while you were attacking someone else, that was your fault, y ou shouldve been more aware.

"Ich bin ein Wuergerwhiner"

"The future battle on the ground will be preceded by battle in the air. This will determine which of the contestants has to suffer operational and tactical disadvantages and be forced throughout the battle into adoption compromise solutions." --Erwin Rommel

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/Mesig.jpg
--NJG26_Killa--

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 08:05 AM
lbhskier37 wrote:
- If everyone would just play the game and not worry
- about little crap like this, they would maybe enjoy
- it.
-
-

Unfortunately, 1C/maddox 'threw down the gauntlet' when they claimed that Il-2/FB is the most 'authentic' WW2 game. This opened the door wide to the questioning of the FM/Dms in it.

Problem is, as Clint-ruin stated, most don't have clue what they are yapping about.


http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/west-battleline.jpg



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

Message Edited on 09/20/0303:06AM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 08:11 AM
are you guys claiming there is a more "authentic" WWII flight sim? they never claimed their sim was perfect, and I challege you to find one more "authentic"

Im not trying to be an Oleg fanboy, but he does have a point there. You guys need to play the game and have fun, make the best outta it.

"Ich bin ein Wuergerwhiner"

"The future battle on the ground will be preceded by battle in the air. This will determine which of the contestants has to suffer operational and tactical disadvantages and be forced throughout the battle into adoption compromise solutions." --Erwin Rommel

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/Mesig.jpg
--NJG26_Killa--

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 09:06 AM
I agree with both Milo and Ibhskier. Most Luftwhiners DON'T know what they're talking about and we should just shut-up and enjoy the game. FB is most accurate thing out there to date. Until something better is released,I'm happy....

47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 09:44 AM
crazyivan1970 wrote:
- BF was not genius at low alt. Where you make battle
- in VOW? 80% time in altitude less then 3000m.
-
- 1500-2500m is best altitude for Yaks, La. See to
- charts. Compare its with other datasource. Charts
- from game - calculated by FM v1.11. All BF have
- advantage at 5000m.
-
Sure thing Youss...I'll let his program speak for him. One stage supercharger vs. 2 stages and MW-50

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/lategustav_vs_p39.jpg


(If only G-10 or G-14 hadn't a practical ceiling around 9k for some minor overheating props etc.) I could also add charts what Bf should do but what's the point? Is this the balance or is this real? I am confused...


-------------------------------------
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/schimpf.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 09:53 AM
That's one scary 1942 plane there.





-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 10:05 AM
Now I know where whiners get their crazy statistics from: "In you sexyal fantasion"

Member of A-20 Havoc whiners. Over two thousand nine hundred A-20s delivered to the USSR, be sure!

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 10:42 AM
Ugly_kid wrote:
- Sure thing Youss...I'll let his program speak for
- him. One stage supercharger vs. 2 stages and MW-50
-

That's only for the G14/G10 though - could you paste us in a similarly highlighted G6/AS or K4 figure? :> "top speed" at altitude figures also look pretty grim for the '39 against .. just about anything.

If il2compare is in fact spitting out the right numbers on these [I'd far prefer a track showing it] then there's obviously some kind of bug with the G14/G10. But the practically identical G6/AS and K4 don't seem to suffer from it at all, at least from what Il2Compare has to say about them. Shouldn't be that big of an issue, surely, unless you've specifically chosen to fly an offline campaign in one of those and can't switch? Similar problems exist between the P-47s .. almost-but-not-quite identical revisions of the same plane produce radically different results. Don't know why.

PS, is there a newer version of Il2compare out than the "2.0" rev I'm using?


http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/worker_parasite.jpg

Need help with NewView? Read this thread. (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yzbcj)

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 11:05 AM
Yes that's the funny part with it. If he'd taken just G-6/AS model and copied it over G-10 and G-14 nobody would have noted a thing and I am sure that some would have claimed preference to G-10 over G-14 or so because of better manouverability or I don't know what now the difference is obvious.

It is really pity since those are due to come in online wars, I remembet how it felt like flying VEF-1 with the IL-2 version of G-6.

-------------------------------------
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/schimpf.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 11:55 AM
FMs in 1.11 are a joke, La7 outturns ratas, Il2 outclimbs hurricanes, energybleed is close to nonexistent to many russian fighters, the FW rolls so fast at all speeds that your virtual head should be blown away, the 109s (especially late) mutated from respectable adversaries to little ducks..etc. etc. this is now Olegs arcade arena if you dont make very carefull plane selections on your servers. All plane servers are Forgotten Tournament II.

Arguments have been brought about in abundance, from the FW cockpit modelling to the BF performance researches from Wastel, its all in vain, Oleg is a prejudiced stubborn russian, he has his own very peculiar view...i didnt believe it first because its such a beutifull sim in many respects and he seemed to communicate with us users (notice: seemed), but he has prooved it over the years...never show your data, dismiss other views as ignorant per se, ignore any data differing from yours...You is wrong. Maybe its a LWhinersilencer robot at the other end...

II/JG54_Zent

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 12:09 PM
And now check this out (from Youss, telling us finally the truth about the patch 1.11, historical truth, laughable !!!), FB is not a sim, its a russian arcade game...here is the proof:

http://www.vow-hq.com/index.php?page=forum&action=topic&id=1830&start=140

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 12:22 PM
Zentaurus wrote:
- And now check this out (from Youss, telling us
- finally the truth about the patch 1.11, historical
- truth, laughable !!!), FB is not a sim, its a
- russian arcade game...here is the proof:
-
- <a
- href="http://www.vow-hq.com/index.php?page=forum&a
- ction=topic&id=1830&start=140"
- target=_blank>http://www.vow-hq.com/index.php?page
- =forum&action=topic&id=1830&start=140</a>
-
-
-


Are you deficient?

The post CrazyIvan quoted above is from about 2 pages later in the same thread, where Youss explains what he meant by that remark.


edit: is it just me or do we seem to have a plague of luftwhiners with reading comprehension issues?

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/worker_parasite.jpg

Need help with NewView? Read this thread. (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yzbcj)

Message Edited on 09/20/0311:28AM by clint-ruin

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 12:35 PM
This is so ridiculous. How can people be so stupid to bite off the hand that feeds them? There is NOT a better WWII sim out there. None of you will run to another `better` sim- cos there isn`t one. Chuck it in the bin if you don`t like it- but the moaners won`t will they? Like little demons they`ll keep yapping, but they won`t leave!

Was there this much criticism of any other flight sim? Janes WWII fighters? EAW? CFS3 even?

Is there some kind of Western bias towards Olegg? An old, Cold-War prejudice that still alive in some. It feels like it to me.

I also hear Lomac`s made my Russians? If so, they`ll be crucified, even if it comes with holodeck type graphics, totally realistic fms and gameplay.

They`ll always be someone who`ll be different just to rock the boat, that`s not necessarily a bad thing... but these moans! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

Dammit. These guys should be forced to play Spitfire `40 for 2 months, then they`d return sheepish and quiet.

"Tis better to work towards an Impossible Good, rather than a Possible Evil."

SeaFireLIV.
(Spitfire & Escape Whiner Member).

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 12:43 PM
This criticism appeared because Bf-109 does not have its historical performance, also because some russian planes perform much better than in reality - like all VVS'43 fighters, all of them climb much better than they should, 19.5m/s instead of 16.5m/s at sea level, then La7 26.5m/s instead of 24.5m/s, La7 2 cannons turns in 15sec sustained instaed of 18.5-19.5 sec, Yak3 turns in 16sec instead of 19sec, Yak1 turns in 18sec instead of 20sec and so on and so on.

I'm sorry CrazyIvan but when you perpetuate these errors, though you were attentioned repeatedly in the past about them, you should expect a lot of criticism.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 12:59 PM
oh come on! Get a life!

"Tis better to work towards an Impossible Good, rather than a Possible Evil."

SeaFireLIV.
(Spitfire & Escape Whiner Member).

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 01:06 PM
SeaFireLIV wrote:
- oh come on! Get a life!
-
-

I know who will be the first in line for the Spitwhiner posts./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Huck/Issy, it won't be me./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/west-battleline.jpg



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 03:27 PM
SeaFireLIV wrote:
- oh come on! Get a life!


What's this suppose to mean?


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 04:07 PM
SeaFireLIV wrote:
- oh come on! Get a life!
-

That's just silly. From what I've seen here, the responses to LW complaints go like this:

1. "You don't know what you're talking about, noob"

But if the complainer actually comes up with evidence to support his claim, then there's this response:

2. "It doesn't matter, this is still the best game around"

Thanks a lot.

I've never held there is any bias on Oleg's part, and I find that whole business disgusting. But I do know that something is definitely wrong with the FMs and the way they keep changing every time there's a patch.

The response to legitimate questions and complaints should not be "get a life."

Get a brain.





<img src=http://www.johnsonsmith.com/images/p1039.jpg>

Eeeeeeeeeee.......

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 11:52 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
- I'm sorry CrazyIvan but when you perpetuate these
- errors, though you were attentioned repeatedly in
- the past about them, you should expect a lot of
- criticism.
-


What it has to do with me /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif I`m just passing some info along lol /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

"No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down." Ivan Kozhedub

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 12:05 AM
If the LW birds suck so much, then why are they so popular? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg


Oh yeah, I'm a P-63 whiner too! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 12:07 AM
Beats me Koro, 2-3 times a night have to switch over to red side cause they outnumbered 2:1. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

"No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down." Ivan Kozhedub

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 12:11 AM
Korolov wrote:
- If the LW birds suck so much, then why are they so
- popular?


Sure they are popular. Our grandparents flew them.
The question you should ask is why they do not have the historical performance?


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 01:03 AM
Well there are 'bad guys' and then there are 'BAD guys'./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


crazyivan1970 wrote:
- Beats me Koro, 2-3 times a night have to switch over
- to red side cause they outnumbered 2:1.
-




http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/west-battleline.jpg



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 01:26 AM
Korolov wrote:
- If the LW birds suck so much, then why are they so
- popular?

Because they are inherently cool. As if you had to ask. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 01:50 AM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Unfortunately, 1C/maddox 'threw down the gauntlet'
- when they claimed that Il-2/FB is the most
- 'authentic' WW2 game. This opened the door wide to
- the questioning of the FM/Dms in it.
-
- Problem is, as Clint-ruin stated, most don't have
- clue what they are yapping about.


Actually...IL2-FB IS the most authentic WW2 sim out. As flawed as these FMs, DMs, & PMs may be to some people I challenge all of you to find a sim where they are modeled better.

<CENTER>http://www.world-wide-net.com/tuskegeeairmen/ta-1943.jpg <marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"Straighten up.......Fly right..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee> http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat

<CENTER><FONT COLOR="ORANGE">vflyer@comcast.net<FONT COLOR>
<Center><div style="width:200;color:red;font-size:18pt;filter:shadow Blur[color=red,strength=8)">99th Pursuit Squadron

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 02:29 AM
Bearcat99 wrote:

-
- Actually...IL2-FB IS the most authentic WW2 sim out.
- As flawed as these FMs, DMs, & PMs may be to some
- people I challenge all of you to find a sim where
- they are modeled better.
-
-

Actually, it is the BEST representation of WW2 a/c so far. It is far from being "authentic".

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/west-battleline.jpg



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 02:48 AM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- Because they are inherently cool. As if you had to
- ask.

They're cool because they suck? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Huckebein_FW wrote:
-Sure they are popular. Our grandparents flew them.
-The question you should ask is why they do not have the
-historical performance?

My grandparents didn't fly them. I don't see anything wrong with them. Pardon me, but just HOW do YOU fly them?

Some of you guys are asking way too much of your aircraft. Rather than trying to get the FMs changed and so on, why not try to fly them a bit and learn their strengths and weaknesses?

Example, Bf-109K4 climbs real fast, accelerates real fast. It won't be able to turn with most Soviet fighters. But it can get to higher altitudes sooner and quicker, as well as being able to dive faster. Are you going to hop into a TnB fight with it the moment you take off, at 100m? Heck, what ARE you doing at 100m?

If you get shot down, chalk it up to bad luck, disadvantage or poor pilot skill. There have been many cases where I kick myself for not doing something smarter in a shootout.

But hey, pester Oleg all you want. He seems to be a great punching bag. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg


Oh yeah, I'm a P-63 whiner too! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 04:05 AM
"I don't see anything wrong with them."

The G-6, G-10 and the G-14 are definately porked.

Granted, everything else may be debatable - DM, overheat issues, ammo count, slower speed, etc etc. - but frankly, the way the G-6 deriatives are climbing, is very wrong.

It's those three Bf109s people are mostly finding fault with.



-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 04:15 AM
Korolov wrote:
- BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
-- Because they are inherently cool. As if you had to
-- ask.
-
- They're cool because they suck? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

No...I think you took this whole "defend Oleg" thing a little too seriously. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

I meant the aircraft themselves, not the FB "interpretation" of them.

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 04:17 AM
kweassa wrote:
- "I don't see anything wrong with them."
-
- The G-6, G-10 and the G-14 are definately porked.
-
-
- Granted, everything else may be debatable - DM,
- overheat issues, ammo count, slower speed, etc etc.
- - but frankly, the way the G-6 deriatives are
- climbing, is very wrong.
-
-
- It's those three Bf109s people are mostly finding
- fault with.

The Fs are hosed too.

ZG77_Nagual
09-21-2003, 04:19 AM
Happy happy.. pretend airplane go - blow up other pretend airplane.. happy to /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/g6.jpg


http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 04:43 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Korolov wrote:
-- If the LW birds suck so much, then why are they so
-- popular?
-
-
- Sure they are popular. Our grandparents flew them.


Actually one of my Granfathers worked on Pratt & Whitneys, & the other jumped into Normandy, walked into Bastogne & liberated a concentration camp in Germany. Then ended his time in Europe muzzle to muzzle with the Russians over a train load of German P.O.W.s

But i don';t whine about the Thunderbolts & I do enjoy flying Russian planes as well as German.

Many ( but not all) who complain are biased.

this sim isn't based on charts. it is based on an engine that our desk top PCs can handle. The data is entered and sometimes the results come out better than others. I Salute all who do so much research to prove that a certain area of the FM needs reworked. But they are getting buried by the folks who wil never be happy.

i have flown a real live Cessna & it took me longer to solo in it than it did to accomplish the same in a BF109.
Think about that. German pilots thrown into combat with 60 hours of flight time were considered dead meat. American pilots typically had 400 hours before entering combat. Do you REALLY want to spend 400 hours learning how to fly the planes in this game BEFORE you ever enter a dogfight ?

Hans Joachim-Jabs shot down 8 Spitfires with the Me 110 , I don't think the 109G6 as modelled is as bad an aircraft as the 110.
- The question you should ask is why they do not have
- the historical performance?

Yes but what you need to do if you care enough , is to create tracks showing inaccurate performance along with some accepted data & e-mail it to Olegs team, theis was included in the readme of 1.1b If you aren't wiling to do the work or help someone who is then please refrain from critisizing the results .
-


http://idealab.snu.ac.kr/~hobbist/La-5FN/small/La-5FN-06.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 06:28 AM
SeaFireLIV wrote:
- This is so ridiculous. How can people be so stupid
- to bite off the hand that feeds them? There is NOT a
- better WWII sim out there. None of you will run to
- another `better` sim- cos there isn`t one. Chuck it
- in the bin if you don`t like it- but the moaners
- won`t will they? Like little demons they`ll keep
- yapping, but they won`t leave!
-
- Was there this much criticism of any other flight
- sim? Janes WWII fighters? EAW? CFS3 even?
-
- Is there some kind of Western bias towards Olegg? An
- old, Cold-War prejudice that still alive in some. It
- feels like it to me.
-
- I also hear Lomac`s made my Russians? If so, they`ll
- be crucified, even if it comes with holodeck type
- graphics, totally realistic fms and gameplay.
-
- They`ll always be someone who`ll be different just
- to rock the boat, that`s not necessarily a bad
- thing... but these moans! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif
-
- Dammit. These guys should be forced to play Spitfire
- `40 for 2 months, then they`d return sheepish and
- quiet.
-
- "Tis better to work towards an Impossible Good,
- rather than a Possible Evil."
-
- SeaFireLIV.
- (Spitfire & Escape Whiner Member).
-

I agree. There's not another individual that is in charge of a company like 1C, that will make hisself available like this guy has in the past. I haven't seen or heard much from him lately, at least on this forum, but after all of the !itchin, would you? I wouldn't. He's already given us the most realistic WWII sim out there. So why would you bite the hand that has done that? I just play the game and enjoy it much. And hope that all the #itchin hasn't made him change his mind about another patch. The rest of us that critisize(?) constructively, without making it a personal issue, will pay the price if that is the case.

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 07:26 AM
Saburo_0 wrote:
- i have flown a real live Cessna & it took me longer
- to solo in it than it did to accomplish the same in
- a BF109.
- Think about that. German pilots thrown into combat
- with 60 hours of flight time were considered dead
- meat. American pilots typically had 400 hours before
- entering combat. Do you REALLY want to spend 400
- hours learning how to fly the planes in this game
- BEFORE you ever enter a dogfight ?

Holy crap.

Come on! Why is this same stupid crap brought up so often?

When you trained in that Cessna, what did you train for? What was required of you before you could solo in it?

While I have not (yet) gone through private pilots license training, I do know some of what is invovled with it, and with flying in general (from a regulatory standpiont), and, most of it doesn't have to do with flying.

I'll list this crap all over again. Training for earning wings includes - Dealing with adverse weather conditions in all flight regimes, dealing with every emergency situation possible, learning ATC protocol and code, learning how to plot flight paths, how to read weather charts, how to navigate, and estensive instrument training (along with the basic flight aspects too, such as TO, landing, and stall/spin recovery but that is the smallest part).

In FB we don't have to deal with any of that, For the most part at least. The most we have to deal with is what to do with a dead engine. And that is nothing more than a choice between ditching and jumping.

This is why it's so "easy" to fly in FB. We don't have to deal with any of the regulatory crap, and have perfect weather.

The military would add tactics to their training, but that is something we pick up in game. The military adds it to their training because they can't afford to lose pilots, planes, and battles as rookies learn the ropes via OJT. We can, because it's all virtual for us.

Flying a plane is *not* difficult. It's all the supplemental crap that goes with it that is difficult. As well as learning extreme precision. Much like chess, easy to learn and play, difficult to master.

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 07:42 AM
"Yes but what you need to do if you care enough , is to create tracks showing inaccurate performance along with some accepted data & e-mail it to Olegs team, theis was included in the readme of 1.1b If you aren't wiling to do the work or help someone who is then please refrain from critisizing the results."

That is the reasonable process, and I agree.

However, unfortunately in the case of the Bf109s, typically the G-6, G-14 and the G-10, people have done just that, with their objections properly documented, tested, recorded, and presented with real life sources and charts for 1:1 comparison.

The in-game data from the Il2compare program, which Oleg comments that he "saw no problem with", itself confirms those problems - see a few posts above what Ugly_Kid attached in a picture.

What is the G-14 and the G-10? Planes equipped with a DB605/AM and a DB605/DBM, the former a collective standard of the various modifications done to improve the original G-6, the latter a vast upgrade on the G-models, to bring it to the standards near par with the K-4.

Well, to quote the results of IL2compare:

1. The P-47D-10 and D-22 outclimbs the G-10 at 100% with W/M injection. P-47D-10 and D-22 at 100%, outclimbs the G-10 at 100% from 3000m upwards.

2. The Yak-1B at 100%, outclimbs the G-10 at 100%, at all altitdues below 5500m

3. The I-16 at 110% outclimbs the G-10 at 100% up to 7000m. The I-16 at 100% outclimbs the G-10 at 100% up to 2000m.

4. An La-5(non-boosted ASh82) at 100%, outclimbs the G-10 at 100% at all altitudes.

5. Mig-3U at 100% outclimbs the G-10 at 100% at all altitudes.

6. P-39s at 100%, outclimbs the G-10 at 100% between 1200m to 5500m.

7. The mere Yak-1 at 100%, a 1940 plane, outclimbs the G-10 at 100% between 1900m to 6000m.

8. The DB605/DBM, B4 fuel and armed with MW-50, is outclimbed by a DB605/AM - G-14 outclimbs the G-10.

....

The only way a '44 G-10 in FB can outclimb a:

* heavy, lumbering P-47 more than 3 tons heavier than the G-10
* a 1940 Yak, and a '42 Yak.
* a '30s plane, I-16
* La-5, which does not have the ASh82-FN
* a high=alt fighter, Mig-3U
* a P-39

... is through MW-50 which somehow in the game, alone acounts for 7m/s increase in climbrate - limited in the game for about two minutes engagement time. Whilst a '43 La-5FN would fly in WEP forever when it was limited to 2 mins, and prohibited to engage during climb.

..

Jesus, a Bf109G-10 outclimbed by a P-47 and an I-16. Why did they call this piece of crap a "G-model, brought up near the standards of the K-4", in the first place?





-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 07:42 AM
Striker-PBNA wrote:
-
-
- I agree. There's not another individual that is in
- charge of a company like 1C, that will make hisself
- available like this guy has in the past. I haven't
- seen or heard much from him lately, at least on this
- forum, but after all of the !itchin, would you? I
- wouldn't. He's already given us the most realistic
- WWII sim out there. So why would you bite the hand
- that has done that? I just play the game and enjoy
- it much. And hope that all the #itchin hasn't made
- him change his mind about another patch. The rest of
- us that critisize(?) constructively, without making
- it a personal issue, will pay the price if that is
- the case.
-

This has actually happened again, recently.

Youss posted a lot of information on VOW as to how/why things are they way they are in FB.

People jumped on him endlessly, called him names, etc, etc.

So he left and refused all further contact about it, at least, in the Il2Compare thread.

Now the LW whiners who jumped on him have no further source of information or insight into FBs flight modelling.

But somehow it doesn't click that he's not actually their serf, and neither is Oleg.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/worker_parasite.jpg

Need help with NewView? Read this thread. (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yzbcj)

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 07:52 AM
These are the good pists from the VOW forum that I could find


In addon "overheat" will be rewrited for all craft. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
************************************************** *********
Climb to 5,000m: 4.5 min. for LA7
Guys reporting 3:45

Youss responds
plz send trak to youss@tut.by - if real 3:45 by timer in track - will repair.
************************************************** *********
In Addon FW190 - gets new Complex DM.
FW is last craft in game which use old-damagemodel from IL2 Sturmovik. This DM use damage-regions on craft. If you not hit damage-region - you not damage craft. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif You can hit FW 100-200-300 times and nothing. But if you hit DMR - you destroy FW from 5-10 hits. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif All other craft use new-damage model - fair calculation of each hit.
************************************************** *********
I hear addon planed to release in 10.2003... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif May be in Cristmas we will see it. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
************************************************** *********
Wastel - i talked today with MG. They agree to rework BF109 if you show real proofs for you opinion.
need:
- historical original docs.
- scanned images of test-result.
- scanned images of specs for BF.
Plz prepare you proofs and send to mado@1c.ru

Youss says----Last 2 weeks i'm fly BF.

Will be reworked.

Increase Toughness controls and engine. Decrease mass. Increase speed. Changes not big - near 3-5%.

After 2 weeks of testing was reported in MG 3 bugs

1. DM - engine damage from 7.62
2. DM - controls damage from 7.62
3. FM - slow acceleration in diapasone 200-350 km/h

All 3 bugreport accapted by MG.

About craft mass.

Empty = xxxx - this is not EMPTY mass.
This is "DRY" mass - mass with standart weapons, radio, ...
Mass without - pilot, ammo, fuel, oil... etc

All FM-calculations used this. "TakeOff"-variable NOT used in FM-calculation, used only in muzeum.

Is 2300 kg to much for G2? No - must be 2520 "dry".
Is 2676 kg to much for G6early? No - accurate value.
Is 2676 kg to much for G6late? No - accurate value.
Is 2690 kg to much for G6AS? No - accurate value.
Is 2690 kg to much for G10? No - accurate value.
Is 2665 kg to much for G14? No - accurate value.

This is DRY-mass.

In current test version increase 2 times "Toughness" of engine and controls.
In current test version decreased mass at 150 kg. This give small better speed and climb. Climb increase to 1-2 m/s.

Is this big changes? NO! Less then 5%.

Now have last two problems - acceleration and E-save. Programmers works at this.

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 07:56 AM
I agree and disagree with the very first post. First off, I think the 109s and 190s are excellent planes and are modeled well. When flown correctly and with some intelligence the 109s and 190s can dictate the fight at any altitude as long as they maintain an altitude advantage over their adversary. I do disagree however since I have flown the 262 against LA7s and at 5000 meters the LA is capable of climbing with a 262 and staying within gunshot of the 262. It almost seems as if the 262s engines are running on a piston engine model only the piston engines have been dramatically increased in power. At 5000 meters the 262 should have shown incredible advantage over any piston aircraft, however this is not so with FB. In fact the 262 is modeled very poorly in terms of speed. Its agile enough, but not nearly fast enough.

Anyway, back on topic. The 109s and 190s when flown against adversaries of the same year will always come out on top as long as the pilot uses some comon sense and is skillful behind the controls. Anyone who whines about the LW aircraft being undermodeled (discounting the 262) must not be a very good pilot or takes chances that no real pilot would have taken for the fact that there is low probablility of survival.

_____________________________________

When does a game end being a game and become a simulator? Interesting questions to ponder while waiting, from Aces-High.

_____________________________________

When does a game end being a game and become a simulator? Interesting questions to ponder while waiting, from Aces-High.

_____________________________________

When does a game end being a game and become a simulator? Interesting questions to ponder while waiting, from Aces-High.

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 11:02 AM
I don't know about IL-2 Compare - didn't d/l and try it yet. But I just ran some tests to see myself what's up. I did only check the quoted issues, which seemed most interesting. The settings for the G-10 for all the tests were 100% power (without MW50) for G-10, radiators closed (though I didn't note much of a difference to Auto radiator when I forgot to close it during the first checkride), 100% fuel. Initiated climb at 100 meters, climbspeed was at first 280 km/h, then later 250, the result was the same (?) (note however that I didn't use a stop watch - just my normal analog watch with a secound indicator). Result: Took 2 minutes from 100 to 2000 meters.


kweassa wrote:
- Well, to quote the results of IL2compare:
-
-
- 1. The P-47D-10 and D-22 outclimbs the G-10 at 100%
- with W/M injection. P-47D-10 and D-22 at 100%,
- outclimbs the G-10 at 100% from 3000m upwards.

Settings: P-47D-10, power 100, rads closed, climbspeed 250 km/h (since this was 160 mph on the IAS indicator, which is the best climb speed for the P-47 from a manual I've seen).
Result: 2 minutes from 100 to 2000 meters. Equal to the G-10.



- 2. The Yak-1B at 100%, outclimbs the G-10 at 100%,
- at all altitdues below 5500m

Settings: Yak-1B, power 100%, radiators closed, climbspeed 240.
Result: 1 minute and 45 seconds from 100 to 2000 meters. Superior to the G-10 by 15 seconds.


- 3. The I-16 at 110% outclimbs the G-10 at 100% up to
- 7000m. The I-16 at 100% outclimbs the G-10 at 100%
- up to 2000m.

Settings: I-16 type 18, power 100%, radiators closed, climbspeed 210-220.
Result: 1 minute and 57 seconds from 100 to 2000 meters. Slightly superior to the G-10 by 3 seconds.


So, neither the D-10 nor the I-16 (except for 3 seconds, which might easily be negated by the error margin, especially with an analog watch) outclimb the G-10 from 100 to 2000 meters in my tests. But still, the G-10 climb at 100% from 100 to 2000m seems less from what I would have expected from a 109, a plane series which was famous for its climbrate. Especially the superiority of the Yak-1B with a 15 seconds advantage is surprising. However, I've not yet compared it to RL data, as it is difficult to find data for the exact same settings, and I'm not an aeronautical expert either. So, I somewhat give the Yak-1B (and the I-16, which is very competive) the benefit of the doubt, since all the tests were done at only 100% for all planes and further more, these low altitudes were not what the 109, and especially the later versions, were built for. Climb and speed are the things which depend most on altitude. The late 109 versions were famous for providing top cover at altitudes of 7 km and more for 190s which were attacking the bomber formations on the western front. I didn't see many accounts of vast superiority on the eastern front, where combat was conducted at low altitudes. Quite the contrary - the P-39 was considered very competive on the eastern front, as was the Yak series. Luftwaffe Veterans will tell you that their initial superiority was based on far superior tactics, experience, and a technical advantage in the initial phase. The Yak series was NOT considered as part of that initial phase. In the beginning, mostly obsolete planes like I-16 and I-153 were encountered.

In addition, even though the test results show no superiority of the G-10 in climbperformance at 100% and these low altitudes, I cannot see how this issue would "ruin" the G-10 for ppl flying it online. When I fly online, I focus on getting kills AND at the same time staying alive. I'm just as effective in that with the Luftwaffe as with VVS. I think it's true that the VVS pilot can gain more kills than the LW pilot if they both commit into a "blood rush", and this is what most ppl do online. This is not Air Combat though. That's Air Quake. When they both focus on surviving their missions, LW is as well suited as VVS (in early war, LW is in fact superior, since it has a speed advantage for the most, making a disengagement for the VVS not an option. He has to win or to die - this is why I personally hate the I-16 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ). As a matter of fact, as long as he doesn't start turnfighting the enemy, Luftwaffe pilot can get along perfectly. Since day 1 of IL-2 and FB. Especially the whining about the I-16 is mind boggling, since one must be either a complete moron or end up being bounced, if the I-16 is meant to pose a threat to any of the 109s.

Regards
heartc



=38=OIAE

47|FC=-

=38=OIAE

47|FC=-

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 11:39 AM
Thanks to the srewed forum, I have to quote myself to add something instead of editing:


Heart_C wrote:

- (and the I-16, which is
- very competive)

In climbrate itself with these special test runs, that is. In the combat environment, the climbrate itself doesn't make it equal, since the best climbspeed is significantly lower than that for any of the 109, or in other words, which means the 109 will outrun it in the climb. And when the i-16 would go faster, the 109 pilot can do the same and would then gain a climbrate advantage rapidly.




=38=OIAE

47|FC=-

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 12:54 PM
Check out the thread on SimHQ btw. Buzzsaw has run a climb test on the 109s how you would fly them in combat - not under these weird test parameters like in this one. Doesn't seem neutered to me at all. And further more I find it interesting that many of the 109 "fans" obviously didn't yet switch their pitch to the throttle wheel and leave the power on the keyboard or another secondary control alone, like Buzzsaw suggests. I did the same even for the P-47 since 1b, for better speed control in extensive high speed B&Z combat.

=38=OIAE

47|FC=-

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 02:51 PM
It would be great if people actually read the VOW thread and/or the data Wolfstriked just compiled out of it.

But no - I assure you this 'game balance' comment is going to be with us for quite some time. Oh well.


http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/worker_parasite.jpg

Need help with NewView? Read this thread. (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yzbcj)

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 03:01 PM
You think the LW's whine wait until the p-51 doesn't conquer the skies in one sweep then you'll really here some whining.

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 03:01 PM
Heart_C wrote:
- Check out the thread on SimHQ btw. Buzzsaw has run a
- climb test on the 109s how you would fly them in
- combat - not under these weird test parameters like
- in this one. Doesn't seem neutered to me at all. And
- further more I find it interesting that many of the
- 109 "fans" obviously didn't yet switch their pitch
- to the throttle wheel and leave the power on the
- keyboard or another secondary control alone, like
- Buzzsaw suggests. I did the same even for the P-47
- since 1b, for better speed control in extensive high
- speed B&Z combat.


Buzzsaw climb test is flawed right from the start. He uses manual pitch instead of autopitch as Bf-109 manual states it should. Autopitch should be kept on at all times except for selecting cruise settings (and if damaged of course).




<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 03:36 PM
I know. So, if anything, you can say the automatism on the 109 is porked, not the potential of the ship itself though. The neccessity to fly it on manual settings to gain a more accurate performance might be anoying, but is not something which renders the 109 useless though, like many ppl give the impression. Aside from that, Luftwhiners give the impression that the Luftwaffe prevails or fails with the 109. From what I've heard there's also a 190 series around. And it's a great airplane in the game.

=38=OIAE

47|FC=-

Message Edited on 09/21/0302:42PM by Heart_C

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 03:45 PM
manual or auto, does not matter. He was wrongwrongwrong. Additionally, he chose to proceed very subjectively AND he comfortably left out those variants that have been addressed as being flawed. 109 _is_ backbone of OKL at least if you fly online wars. You don't always get to choose the aircraft, if now let's say around 44 you get to fly G-10 then you're stuck with it, basta. FW is FW and now that it displays true strength for the first time and has to be treated as a respectable opponent probably results in it getting flogged.

-------------------------------------
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/schimpf.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 03:55 PM
Interesting you mention that - I'd quite like to see the FW brought up to the standards of the other planes DM [apparently it's the only plane still using the Il2 simple DM?], and see something, anything, that implies it should roll the way it does at 950kmh :>


http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/worker_parasite.jpg

Need help with NewView? Read this thread. (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yzbcj)

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 04:02 PM
Ugly_Kid wrote:
- manual or auto, does not matter.

Seems it does.

- He was
- wrongwrongwrong.

Who? Buzzsaw? In what regard?

- Additionally, he chose to proceed
- very subjectively AND he comfortably left out those
- variants that have been addressed as being flawed.

In which way was he subjective? To say you can handle manual pitch?
And which versions? So, that would be the G6 normal, G10 and G-14 from what I've heard. However, ppl talk about "the 109 is useless now". I would expect the results to be much better for those versions as well when flown on manual pitch anyway.

- 109 _is_ backbone of OKL at least if you fly online
- wars. You don't always get to choose the aircraft,
- if now let's say around 44 you get to fly G-10 then
- you're stuck with it, basta.

Well, in other online games, I never continued with the 109 series either when the 190 was available. When you sit in a 109 anyway then, you need to be a bit more careful was my impression. I believe there is a reason why the Luftwaffe introduced a new fighter design, the 190. It was the better airplane. You don't want to say you are doomed in the G-10 though, do you?

FW is FW and now that
- it displays true strength for the first time and has
- to be treated as a respectable opponent probably
- results in it getting flogged.
-
I did like the 190 very much in any version of IL-2 or FB. It always was one of the best, if not the best B&Zer. But I know, you are quite happy with the somewhat overmodelled high speed handling now, it's the only plane which doesn't suffer from any decrease in control authority at all even at extremely high speeds. I'm aware of the great high speed handling of the 190s iRL, but what you see in the game is beyond that (and if it would be for the reason alone that you could not pull 15+ Gs with a 190 iRL). I wouldn't call that "displaying true strength for the first time". I'd call it overmodelled at high speeds http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. It was undermodelled in that regard in previous version I believe though, especially with the elevator.



=38=OIAE

47|FC=-

Message Edited on 09/21/0303:03PM by Heart_C

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 04:14 PM
If FB FM 109 test results are not done as RL LW testing was done, then these FB tests are totally and utterly useless crap!!!

If the FB 109 can't be flown using proper procedures, as in RL, then the FB 109s are not 'authentic'.

So much for that much tooted "authentic" word that one sees stated so much.

One would think that after 7-8 different patchs (Il-2, FB), with each being the 'most authentic', yet, that the FMs would be 'correct' by now. The FMs bounce around more than an Indian rubber ball. Does 1C/Maddox not test the FMs? Sure looks like they don't!

Finally the Fw performs as it should, though might be a touch too good, but this matches the performance of the overmodelling of the VVS a/c.


Heart_C wrote:
- I know. So, if anything, you can say the automatism
- on the 109 is porked, not the potential of the ship
- itself though. The neccessity to fly it on manual
- settings to gain a more accurate performance might
- be anoying, but is not something which renders the
- 109 useless though, like many ppl give the
- impression. Aside from that, Luftwhiners give the
- impression that the Luftwaffe prevails or fails with
- the 109. From what I've heard there's also a 190
- series around. And it's a great airplane in the
- game.
-


http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/west-battleline.jpg



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 04:35 PM
Hey, how do you manage invulnerability in FW? Pray tell, I need it desperately. What about enormous drop in top speed with a first bullet impact? What about it getting really twitchy and tends to fall on one wing immediately if damaged?

High speed handling? Exaggerated rolls? Ever heard of P-39, huh?

FW had relatively low stick force per gee, I don't see it making +15 g turn, though, if you do take a track and send it to Oleg. It was able to pull structural limits at very high speed, 7 g at 700 km/h. I see, however, aggressive high speed stall, historically correct BTW.


In which respect was he wrong and subjective? He was subjective in selecting the variants and he was wrong saying it's correct or even too good even for those variants that he chose.

People may talk about useless I personally don't agree with them, not in that extent but I do recognize issues.

You are not doomed even in G-10, you just have to be extremely cautious before entering a fight. I think it is not real factor, you have a unsharp sword. Nothing new, with that, they were like that since the first beta trials. A finnish ace said about Bf that even while running away you felt like the hunter. (not hunted), this is not a feeling I get from couple of gustavs./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

-------------------------------------
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/schimpf.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 08:14 PM
I agree Killa.

Interesting that he mentions the development of the 190.

The 190 in FB is just magnificient. I have been flying German planes on my 1943 server because I have heard all the complaints in the forums.

That 190: this thing is just a beautiful ride!!!!

The speed is great, the guns are magnificient - I exploded a p47 at point blank range. (I prefer the 190 vs. p39's as well due to the damage it can inflict).

I'm not sure how anyone can complain about this FW190.

Additionally, the 109G models are great at what they do. i find the G2 to be quite capable FM.

As the original post states, the use of the 109 on the deck in forgotten battles is not the best choice. It's best play is in Bnz where you have to be careful to stay out of harm's way. Good Bnz tactics help with this.

If there is a complaint to be made it's in visibility in the 2km range. I can clearly see 3km above bandits, the dots are visible, however, on the dives, it's so easy in Full real to lose the bandit at 2km. I dont believe this is very accurate, if anything, at 2km, I would think they would be very easy to see.

So far, I spoke mainly of FM. DM is another matter, I think the engine is great, with location damage, etc... However, I think the DM needs more work. The distance that bullets travel and the resulting damage is the area I am speaking of. Sure, I don't mind getting hit by a bullet when zooming away at a safe distance, but to lose total controls is another matter. I question the effectiveness of the 'green' bullets and their damage. Meanwhile, the green bullets (lol) seem to do better than the .50's. I don't find that believable. I've decided it's not that the 109G2 20mm aren't effective from afar, it's that the VVS bullets are TOO effective at a distance. The G2 20mm are great up close, and that feels very realistic. Simply tone down the effectiveness of the VVS bullets at longer distance shots and all will be perfect IMO. Right now, the VVS pilot knows he simply needs to spray away and the 109 loses controls.

Lastly, let's get rid of the messages showing damage to the entire server. I know I don't want my enemy to know I lose my controls, it's bad enough as it is :P

I'm not an expert, and I find the game to be a joy to play, regardless of what side I decide to fly for. Fundamentally , that is what counts.

S!
609IAP_Recon

Forgotten Wars Virtual War
Forum: http://fogwar.luftwaffe.net/forums/index.php
Website: http://forgottenwars.dyndns.org
Visit 609IAP at http://takeoff.to/609IAP

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg

Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 10:57 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- If FB FM 109 test results are not done as RL LW
- testing was done, then these FB tests are totally
- and utterly useless crap!!!
-
- If the FB 109 can't be flown using proper
- procedures, as in RL, then the FB 109s are not
- 'authentic'.
-

No. It shows what the 109 in FB can do. It's not useless, it's real. You can use it. I can. Everyone can.
The only thing it *ndicates is that, as I've already said, the automatic pitch control might be porked. I mean, ppl say iRL auto pitch on the 109 was not (much, if at all) different to manual pitch airplane performance. So, if this is true, and the 109 is close to accurate performance when flown on manual pitch, it shows that the auto pitch is porked, not the airplane itself.


=38=OIAE

47|FC=-





=38=OIAE

47|FC=-

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 11:01 PM
Friend Heart_c, the 190 is hardly a relevant issue here.

If you wanted to hear this; then yes, the Fw190 has some problems regarding the DM(while reluctantly), and is overmodelled in high speed turning. As in the past discussion pulling out from a 800km/h dive at 45d, 500m off the ground would be possible just barely, but the 16G pull-out at 90d is not.

..

Now, if we can return to the 109 discussion, as Milo fairly notes, it is practically nothing but a mere word-gaming if the test results are achieved only through certain ahistorical procedures which requires the pilot to give up a considerable advantage of the internal systems.

Word games.

The auto management is porked = the climb rates are inaccurate in historical settings = pilots using the Bf109 have to give up a large advantage to attain historical results by gaming the game.





-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 11:30 PM
Trouble with your reading Heart? Try again, reading slowly.


This is how the testing should be done-

"100%power (steig & kampfleistung=climb & combat power), full fuel, full ammo.

for speedtest:

- radiatorsettings "schnellflug"
(fastflight) where used. its compareable with setting 2 in FB

for climbtest:

- speed 280ias up to 7000m, then every 1000m 5kmh less up to rated alt of the engine, + 2500m-3000m,
radiators half open or on "steigflugstellung" (climbsetting), thats 4 to 6 in FB from rated alt, + 2500-3000m on,

- the Schnellflugsetting was used.

prop is set to 'auto'.

source:
Messerschmitt Augsburg, 16.8.43"

If the FB obtained results differ from RL results, then one has to look further to find out why the difference.


http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/west-battleline.jpg



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 11:34 PM
Ugly_Kid wrote:

- High speed handling? Exaggerated rolls? Ever heard
- of P-39, huh?

The P-39 is not anywhere close to the high speed handling of the 190. Especially with elevator.

- FW had relatively low stick force per gee, I don't
- see it making +15 g turn, though, if you do take a
- track and send it to Oleg. It was able to pull
- structural limits at very high speed, 7 g at 700
- km/h.

So, diving 90? towards the ground at a dive speed of say, 700 km/h and a 90? pull out in a little more than 1 second, is a 7 g move? Not in this universe. And try that in Warbirds or AH. When I was first beginning to learn the 190 with B&Z tactics in those sims, one of my biggest problems was that I dived on targets like a comet, ended up pulling about 8 or 9 Gs instead of flying smoothly and saw my wings waving bye bye. Same was true for the Stang, my favourite on the allied side. Though, for slightly inferior control authority at those speeds, it was somewhat more forgiving to aggressive stick inputs.

Didn't fly the 190 in 1.11 yet, but in 1b it was able to do the trick. Will try it in 1.11 some time. I once read on the forum that it has slightly less control authority now, as I said, didn't check yet by myself. Problem is not specifically related to the 190 here in regards to the Gs though - more to the fact that there basicaly is no structural damaged modelled caused by over G. We only have a decrease in maneuverability, or not. Some other games, like those two mentioned above, showed how to do better in this point.


-
- In which respect was he wrong and subjective? He was
- subjective in selecting the variants

...which you can also fly in FB though (limits put up in online wars is an issue with those, not with the game - note that I argue the point "The Luftwaffe gets neutered by Oleg")...


- and he was
- wrong saying it's correct or even too good even for
- those variants that he chose.

I guess he has charts to back up his claims. As you probably do for yours. Different charts for different people http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

-
- People may talk about useless I personally don't
- agree with them, not in that extent but I do
- recognize issues.

Sure. Recognizing issues is good. What bothers me is the irrationality, which you say you don't agree to either. And there are certain places in the net which are full of it, you know it. You don't say it there, though. But that's your decision.

- A finnish ace said about Bf
- that even while running away you felt like the
- hunter. (not hunted), this is not a feeling I get
- from couple of gustavs./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I always feel like a hunter, regardless the plane. Even in a bi-plane. I'm up in the air, have some guns and a brain with me. If you do not feel that way, work on your attitude http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. I'm sure it was more this attitude than the plane what made that Finnish guy an ace. Plenty of them started out being aces in Brewsters.

Regards
heartc

=38=OIAE

47|FC=-

Message Edited on 09/21/0310:45PM by Heart_C

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 11:43 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Trouble with your reading Heart? Try again, reading
- slowly.

Not really. But you obviously have problems with staying polite when talking to people.

- This is how the testing should be done-
-
- "100%power (steig & kampfleistung=climb & combat
- power), full fuel, full ammo.
-
- for speedtest:
-
-- radiatorsettings "schnellflug"
- (fastflight) where used. its compareable with
- setting 2 in FB
-
- for climbtest:
-
-- speed 280ias up to 7000m, then every 1000m 5kmh less up to rated alt of the engine, + 2500m-3000m,
- radiators half open or on "steigflugstellung"
- (climbsetting), thats 4 to 6 in FB from rated
- alt, + 2500-3000m on,
-
-- the Schnellflugsetting was used.
-
- prop is set to 'auto'.
-
- source:
- Messerschmitt Augsburg, 16.8.43"

This is how Wastel did the test. Aside from that I'd like to see the source, not just the mentioning, the following point:

"prop is set to 'auto'."

shows me that you did miss my point entirely.

heartc

=38=OIAE

47|FC=-

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 12:31 AM
Wolfstriked wrote:
- These are the good pists from the VOW forum that I
- could find
-
-
- In addon "overheat" will be rewrited for all craft.
- /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
- **************************************************
- *********
- Climb to 5,000m: 4.5 min. for LA7
- Guys reporting 3:45
-
- Youss responds
- plz send trak to youss@tut.by - if real 3:45 by
- timer in track - will repair.
- **************************************************
- *********
- In Addon FW190 - gets new Complex DM.
- FW is last craft in game which use old-damagemodel
- from IL2 Sturmovik. This DM use damage-regions on
- craft. If you not hit damage-region - you not damage
- craft. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif You can hit FW
- 100-200-300 times and nothing. But if you hit DMR -
- you destroy FW from 5-10 hits. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif All other craft use new-damage
- model - fair calculation of each hit.
- **************************************************
- *********
- I hear addon planed to release in 10.2003... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif May be in Cristmas we will see
- it. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
- **************************************************
- *********
- Wastel - i talked today with MG. They agree to
- rework BF109 if you show real proofs for you
- opinion.
- need:
-- historical original docs.
-- scanned images of test-result.
-- scanned images of specs for BF.
- Plz prepare you proofs and send to mado@1c.ru
-
- Youss says----Last 2 weeks i'm fly BF.
-
- Will be reworked.
-
- Increase Toughness controls and engine. Decrease
- mass. Increase speed. Changes not big - near 3-5%.
-
- After 2 weeks of testing was reported in MG 3 bugs
-
- 1. DM - engine damage from 7.62
- 2. DM - controls damage from 7.62
- 3. FM - slow acceleration in diapasone 200-350 km/h
-
- All 3 bugreport accapted by MG.
-
- About craft mass.
-
- Empty = xxxx - this is not EMPTY mass.
- This is "DRY" mass - mass with standart weapons,
- radio, ...
- Mass without - pilot, ammo, fuel, oil... etc
-
- All FM-calculations used this. "TakeOff"-variable
- NOT used in FM-calculation, used only in muzeum.
-
- Is 2300 kg to much for G2? No - must be 2520 "dry".
- Is 2676 kg to much for G6early? No - accurate value.
- Is 2676 kg to much for G6late? No - accurate value.
- Is 2690 kg to much for G6AS? No - accurate value.
- Is 2690 kg to much for G10? No - accurate value.
- Is 2665 kg to much for G14? No - accurate value.
-
- This is DRY-mass.
-
- In current test version increase 2 times "Toughness"
- of engine and controls.
- In current test version decreased mass at 150 kg.
- This give small better speed and climb. Climb
- increase to 1-2 m/s.
-
- Is this big changes? NO! Less then 5%.
-
- Now have last two problems - acceleration and
- E-save. Programmers works at this.

thx for the heads up wolf,cheers.





After it was refeuled i climbed in.With many manipulations the mechcanics started the turbines.I followed their actions with the greatest of interest.The first one started quite easily.the second caught fire.In no time the whole engine was on fire.Luckily as a fighter pilot i was used to getting quickly out of the cockpit.The fire was quickly put out.The second plane caused no trouble - Adolf Galland (first time in a ME262)

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 03:14 AM
I have to agree with what Recon posted above, most of the LW FM's are fine if used correctly and I rarely fly anything but LW planes.

I cant understand why some of the people that get quite rude in there complaints about FB dont just stop playing? It wouldnt be because this is the best FS out there by any chance?, some of the whinners out there are obviously very immature and have trouble understanding what a great effort has gone into this sim, with todays technology I dont believe we could have got a better sim, sure a few FM's are out a bit and one or two are out by quite a bit but overall the fact that each plane actually has its own FM and DM is quite amazing.

The vocal minority on these forums should take a short break from complaining and spend a little more time playing this game and marvel at the amazing things that are incorporated into this sim.



JG4_Tiger

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 06:31 AM
Heart_C wrote:
- The P-39 is not anywhere close to the high speed
- handling of the 190. Especially with elevator.
-
Nor should it be, roll is off though /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif . DId you know that russians limited dive speeds to 400 mph on P-39 because bent elevators in recovery?

- So, diving 90? towards the ground at a dive speed of
- say, 700 km/h and a 90? pull out in a little more
- than 1 second, is a 7 g move? Not in this universe.
- And try that in Warbirds or AH. When I was first
- beginning to learn the 190 with B&Z tactics in those
- sims, one of my biggest problems was that I dived on
- targets like a comet, ended up pulling about 8 or 9
- Gs instead of flying smoothly and saw my wings
- waving bye bye. Same was true for the Stang, my
- favourite on the allied side. Though, for slightly
- inferior control authority at those speeds, it was
- somewhat more forgiving to aggressive stick inputs.
-

Let's not say, let's be exact. Now be a good boy make that move and back that one with track. If it's not all right then report it. I don't see that happening but I see it taking at least 500 m in that kind of process. Warbirds, you say warbirds and you say realism? That is a problem with joysticks you don't have to pull 50 lbs to get 7 g but in a real one you have to do it (and you can't do it instantly).

- Didn't fly the 190 in 1.11 yet, but in 1b it was
- able to do the trick. Will try it in 1.11 some time.
- I once read on the forum that it has slightly less
- control authority now, as I said, didn't check yet
- by myself. Problem is not specifically related to
- the 190 here in regards to the Gs though - more to
- the fact that there basicaly is no structural
- damaged modelled caused by over G. We only have a
- decrease in maneuverability, or not. Some other
- games, like those two mentioned above, showed how to
- do better in this point.
-
You would say that there has to be blackout if there was such a huge Gs that you liberally claim? You say german pilot model is immune to that. Then you say it can do this and it can do that it's ueber and then it turns out that you did not even try it?

- I guess he has charts to back up his claims. As
- you probably do for yours. Different charts for
- different people /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif .
-
The joke is that he did not.

- I always feel like a hunter, regardless the plane.
- Even in a bi-plane. I'm up in the air, have some
- guns and a brain with me. If you do not feel that
- way, work on your attitude /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif . I'm sure it was more
- this attitude than the plane what made that Finnish
- guy an ace. Plenty of them started out being aces in
- Brewsters.
-

Propably you think Brewster was completely inferior to anything with wings that is, now is it?


-------------------------------------
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/schimpf.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 02:55 PM
LOL, Wunsch, what the hell has happened? Seems like your enter key has been stuck /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif .


Ugly_Kid wrote:
-


- Nor should it be, roll is off though /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif . -

True. But I didn't say it's realistic. I said in game it's not close to the 190 in that regard (even though it's too good).


- Let's not say, let's be exact. Now be a good boy
- make that move and back that one with track. If it's
- not all right then report it. I don't see that
- happening but I see it taking at least 500 m in that
- kind of process.

Mb I'll make one when at home. Hope they're not too big. I'm running short on webspace. You can try it yourself though. I remember I did it in 1b. Maybe it's no longer that bad in 1.11.

-Warbirds, you say warbirds and you
- say realism?

Why not? There were realistic flightsims in this world even before IL-2 was out /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif . Warbirds sure is among those one can consider realistic. Anyway, I was only mentioning it in connection with over-G. Sure you would agree that it would be realistic to model structural failure cause by over stressing the airframe with too high G loads, would you not?


- You would say that there has to be blackout if there
- was such a huge Gs that you liberally claim? You say
- german pilot model is immune to that. Then you say
- it can do this and it can do that it's ueber and
- then it turns out that you did not even try it?

Sorry, actually I don't know what you are talking about here. I did not talk about "German pilot model is immune to high G loads" or anything like that. I guess you confuse me with someone else. I heard some whining about different G tolerances in different planes here some time ago (albeit this is not neccessarily unrealistic).


-- I guess he has charts to back up his claims. As
-- you probably do for yours. Different charts for
-- different people /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif .
--
- The joke is that he did not.

Kid, Ugly one, pls don't miss-interpret me all the time /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif . I did not say he posted them. I said "I'm sure he HAS charts to back up his claims." I'm sure about that because he already was in numerous discussions with charts at hand. Would be pretty stupid to say "this is accurate" and then not be able to post reference by challenge. Note however - to avoid another miss-understanding - that with my next sentence I indicated that I believe you have charts which say otherwise.


-
- Propably you think Brewster was completely inferior
- to anything with wings that is, now is it?
-
Hm, no. But sure it was inferior to the 109 series. From what I've heard, it had a speed advantage though on chaika and i-16, especially in dive. I wanted to indicate that the Fins used their brains in order to be successfull with it. The US squadrons in the Pacific had it only for a short time before moving on to newer planes, thus failing to work on improving their abilities with the Buffalo and in the first (and last?) combat encounter in Buffalos they got kicked by the Zeros, cause they tried to turnfight them. Even though the Wildcat later was not much better in turnfighting the Zero (if not worse), they finally moved on to advanced tactics / team tactics.
The Brewster Buffallo was not made an uberplane by the Finns. Heard they reduced some weight, but I don't think that would make a completely new airplane (same is true for P-39, while I think even the earlier versions were not too bad at low alts.) I've read an account of a Finnish veteran on that well known finnish aviation website, where the writer described how they used the Brewster. You can clearly see that they adopted proper tactics for different targets. Faster targets should only be engaged with altitude or not be bothered with (not get dragged into enemy territory), better turning ones (like I-16, as he said) should not be turnfighted, but B&Zed, etc.

Regards
heartc

=38=OIAE

47|FC=-

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 03:49 PM
Heart_C wrote:
- True. But I didn't say it's realistic. I said in
- game it's not close to the 190 in that regard (even
- though it's too good).
-
So it should roll along with FW in order to regarded as unrealistic? Percentually the error is propably more cross than with FW. I say probably because I really don't care not about FW nor P-39 but I mind about subjective selectivity pointing out something being too good.

-
- Mb I'll make one when at home. Hope they're not too
- big. I'm running short on webspace. You can try it
- yourself though. I remember I did it in 1b. Maybe
- it's no longer that bad in 1.11.
-
I have performed tests too converging to the result that Dora high speed loopings show correct tendency to blackout, buffeting and related speed bleed hinting a precence of high lift factor and stall. It means that if you claim 1 second pull up from 700 km/h you are talking about 30 g without blackout and presence of abysmal lift factor without stall. I wonder how could I miss that one?

- Why not? There were realistic flightsims in this
- world even before IL-2 was out /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif . Warbirds sure is among those
- one can consider realistic. Anyway, I was only
- mentioning it in connection with over-G. Sure you
- would agree that it would be realistic to model
- structural failure cause by over stressing the
- airframe with too high G loads, would you not?
-
Then realism gets interesting sidetunes. No I do not agree that overstressing airframe would be realistic. This depends strongly on the aircraft type. It would also require parameters for battle damage. Some aircraft are more viable for this and some less. P-39 seemed to have interesting possibilities in this respect, FW perversely not AFAIK. Yet in most cases you meet pilot's limits first, whether physical or psychological. I would like an airframe sound, however.


- Sorry, actually I don't know what you are talking
- about here. I did not talk about "German pilot model
- is immune to high G loads" or anything like that. I
- guess you confuse me with someone else. I heard some
- whining about different G tolerances in different
- planes here some time ago (albeit this is not
- neccessarily unrealistic).
-

See above if you claim about 30g pull-up (your let's say 1 second 90? from 700 km/h) which generally means spinal injury, or death you would indeed hint immunity on G-loads.

- I said "I'm sure he HAS charts to back
- up his claims." I'm sure about that because he
- already was in numerous discussions with charts at
- hand. Would be pretty stupid to say "this is
- accurate" and then not be able to post reference by
- challenge.

It would be, now wouldn't it? I am dying to see those documents.


As for Brewster I-16 made a short work of it in 1.0 nevermind how you look at the things, not so in 1.1b, now the situation is very interesting. It would actually look actually like I-16 is absolutely faster, better climber and better accelerating and the Brewster comes out as the slow opponent. That raises curious questions about those historical tactics, doesn't it? How do you B&Z faster aircraft that's a better climber, it would mean that even if starting from initial E-advantage you would be playing against time.

-------------------------------------
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/schimpf.gif


Message Edited on 09/22/0305:53PM by Ugly_Kid

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 06:03 PM
Ugly_Kid wrote:
-
- Heart_C wrote:

- So it should roll along with FW in order to regarded
- as unrealistic? Percentually the error is propably
- more cross than with FW. I say probably because I
- really don't care not about FW nor P-39 but I mind
- about subjective selectivity pointing out something
- being too good.

I didn't "point out" anything in a "subjective and selective" manner. I think you see gangsters when there are none /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif .

- I have performed tests too converging to the result
- that Dora high speed loopings show correct tendency
- to blackout, buffeting and related speed bleed
- hinting a precence of high lift factor and stall. It
- means that if you claim 1 second pull up from 700
- km/h you are talking about 30 g without blackout and
- presence of abysmal lift factor without stall. I
- wonder how could I miss that one?

Yeah, I wonder the same /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif . But pls note again that I did not argue the pilot model, but the FM. "Pilot model" is a completely different issue, although it will not hinder you from pulling these stunts, as my beneath track shows, since the blackout in FB occurs short after, not during that rapid maneuver (which is probably realistic - only that a man would probably not surive it iRL /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ).

- Then realism gets interesting sidetunes. No I do not
- agree that overstressing airframe would be
- realistic. This depends strongly on the aircraft
- type. It would also require parameters for battle
- damage. Some aircraft are more viable for this and
- some less.

Sure it depends on the aircraft. But this doesn't explain why you would think overstressing the airframe would be not realistic, as you said in your second sentence. Maybe you meant it would be difficult to model it realisticly, but what we have right now (no overstress at all due to Gs) is far more unrealistic. Aside from that, there is a certain, hm, independent /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif WB 2.77, server which has modelled increased probability to overstress the airframe when damaged, depending on the size of the holes inflicted to the different parts.


- See above if you claim about 30g pull-up (your let's
- say 1 second 90? from 700 km/h) which generally
- means spinal injury, or death you would indeed hint
- immunity on G-loads. Do you expect me to back that
- up with Eiband-diagram telling about human tolerance
- for different durations of acceleration levels?

I did not hint anywhere. I was talking about what was possible with the plane in FB. No WWII plane could pull the stunt you will see in my track. The 190 had great high speed handling, but what you see in the track would in fact be impossible even for a modern fighter jet. It would long have desintegrated before the pilot would suffer lethal G loads. And I have the diagram, btw - but as I said, this is not the point.

- As for Brewster I-16 made a short work of it in 1.0
- nevermind how you look at the things, not so in
- 1.1b, now the situation is very interesting. It
- would actually look actually like I-16 is absolutely
- faster, better climber and better accelerating and
- the Brewster comes out as the slow opponent. That
- raises curious questions about those historical
- tactics, doesn't it? How do you B&Z faster aircraft
- that's a better climber, it would mean that even if
- starting from initial E-advantage you would be
- playing against time.
-
Not sure if you are serious here /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif . I think you can B&Z a faster and better climbing airplane pretty well. Actually, it is the only decent thing to do. If you have superior E, B&Z him and he is defense all the time, and you keep the pressure on him, he will have a very difficult time both to run away or climb on your altitude. We all know sustained climb is far inferior to a zoom climb.


Now, here is the track.

www.members.aol.com:/desaintexyp/private/gtest (http://www.members.aol.com:/desaintexyp/private/gtest)

Note the following points:

*I think you need to add the .ntrk extension manually.


*I suggest to watch it without manual view control the first time. Because, since you brought the issue up, I checked out on the G tolerance and consequenses "in game" as well. During the first medium altitude high G maneuver, you will see the pilot regains control. Be aware that I have no interest to argue those points, since I believe only a RL fighter pilot could tell (so, if there is any, feel free to join /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ). I just took observations. However, from what I heard, a complete black out iRL means actually a G loc, which means the loss of conscisioness (have to look up that one in my dictionary/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ).

*You will note that, while still completely blacked out, the first thing I'll regain is throttle control. Shortly after that, the next thing I'll regain control of is control surfaces. Still while completely blacked out. Short after that, I regain vision.

*The "low alt pull out" in the final part of the track was actually done at less than 90?. It was approx. 80?. During the maneuver I was to bzy with timing speed and targeted altitude to check out on the wings. This however does not take away from the fact that you will still be in a G area many more closer to your calculated 30Gs than to "normal" 9 Gs. Especially when you consider that I did in fact go around 800 km/h and pulled out at 200-250 meters.

* I think you would not seriously expect this capability to be anywhere near any manned airplane. Neither stick force, nor the airframe, nor the pilot's body would allow it. It's more suited for an R-73 Archer, ASRAAM or AIM-9X Sidewinder /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif .

Regards
heartc

=38=OIAE

47|FC=-

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 06:07 PM
Damnit, how do I make the file d/l-able?

=38=OIAE

47|FC=-

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 06:12 PM
http://members.aol.com:/desaintexyp/private/gtest2.ntrk

=38=OIAE

47|FC=-

Message Edited on 09/22/0305:13PM by Heart_C

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 06:44 PM
BTW, the snap roll stall in the very last seconds of the track was only done to prevent accusation that I was not flying on realistic FM or something /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif .

Hell, I've always loved the 190 when flying for LW in any flightsim since I learned and finally mastered B&Z in Warbirds (tm). It's a great airplane. When you think about a move, the 190 has already done it! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif . As a matter of fact, when I was still not good enough to fight in planes which are somewhat nasty in stall characeristics and demanding when flown on high realms, I prefered the Mustang all the way. It was close to the 190 as a B&Zer, but more forgiving (lucky me, the aft center of gravity with a full fuel tank was not modelled /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif - but for arena flying, 50% in the stang were more than enough anyway /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif ). I would say, it was similar to the La series here, in terms of forgiving, with worse turn but better high speed control. And less climb of course /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif . But when I figured out that when you need to start turning - mostly flat turning, that is - you've already screwed up at some point, I worked on my tactics. And finally found out there is nothing which beats the 190 in the B&Z high speed energy maneuvering realm /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif . My impression is that this was true in any flightsim I've flown until today. It was very funny to see the Mustangs falling away from you, cause you engaged in lift vector changing maneuvers, which the Mustang could not follow as quickly due to worse rollrate. Instead, it lost speed when you included some G pulling, as you did, but did not accelerate as well, so you gained distance step by step /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif .

=38=OIAE

47|FC=-

Message Edited on 09/22/0305:45PM by Heart_C

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 07:37 PM
The last manouver seemed a bit drastic I looked at the stick where you started the pull up. I got 848 km/h TAS at 1:46 and 243 m altitude. The end of the manouver is at 794 km/h 1:47 and 56 m. The max. error in time is 1 s thx to the ingame watch but you will get anything from 14 to 28 g for that leaning to the higher value. Yes, that is defenately not in order. Aerodynamically the manouver is still barely within stall limit so what you're seeing here is two things. 1) The force need for that pull-up with FW stick force per gee is about 340 pounds and 2) The pilot reaction to gees comes a bit slowly. So in the end the second applies to complete sim and the first applies partly to FW (allowing too high deflection at a high speed) and to the complete game (allowing increase of pull-up force that fast). So you should send that to the dev. team and see what they will say about that.

-------------------------------------
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/schimpf.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 08:02 PM
Did you use trim for that? because I get closer to 3 sec and height loss of 390 m and below 2 secs with trim,

-------------------------------------
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/schimpf.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 08:08 PM
Ugly_Kid wrote:
- So in the
- end the second applies to complete sim and the first
- applies partly to FW (allowing too high deflection
- at a high speed) and to the complete game (allowing
- increase of pull-up force that fast). So you should
- send that to the dev. team and see what they will
- say about that.
-


Did I mention how much I like it when people include tracks of their tests that people can download and watch in the comfort of their own home? Thanks for getting to the bottom of this one, guys.


http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/worker_parasite.jpg

Need help with NewView? Read this thread. (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yzbcj)

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 08:52 PM
Ugly_Kid wrote:
- Did you use trim for that? because I get closer to 3
- sec and height loss of 390 m and below 2 secs with
- trim,
-

Negative. Well, I didn't touch the trim, that is. So I got what you get when you just fire up a QMB mission and get on with it. IIRC I've read that the standard trim in this case is actually a trim suited for a climb. Some kind of take off trim. You will see that I red out for short during the last part of the track cause I need to push down somewhat to keep it going level at that speed.
So I guess, in case you trimmed the ship for the dive or level flight at cruise speed, it's probably the reason that you were unable to re-produce my results. But then again, I'm also 'darn good', you know /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif .


Regards
heartc

=38=OIAE

47|FC=-

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 10:09 PM
Korolov wrote:
- If the LW birds suck so much, then why are they so
- popular?

Cuz we like a challenge? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif