PDA

View Full Version : 1943, in game scenario



BillSwagger
03-26-2010, 06:10 PM
The following fighters are pitted against each other in a tournament where they take off for a few minutes and engage in a combat area a few minutes away.

BillSwagger
03-26-2010, 06:10 PM
The following fighters are pitted against each other in a tournament where they take off for a few minutes and engage in a combat area a few minutes away.

cooldudemitch
03-26-2010, 06:22 PM
A6M5, because its got good acceleration, and turning, and fairly good weapons.

Mr_Zooly
03-26-2010, 06:25 PM
Mk9e Spit probably is the obvious choice but I do have a soft spot for the La.

danjama
03-26-2010, 06:30 PM
Mk VIII Spitfire. One of the best.

TinyTim
03-26-2010, 06:51 PM
The way the game is set up (minutes from take off to combat), I'd go for a La-5FN, otherwise probably SpitVIII.

DKoor
03-26-2010, 07:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:
The way the game is set up (minutes from take off to combat), I'd go for a La-5FN, otherwise probably SpitVIII. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>+1

Ha!
Was there a real contest anyway?http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

In game LA-5FN owns many late war fighters and quite dominates in 1943.

I'll just put a notice that I'd probably use P-51B for longer anti fighter sorties of this kind because it is a monster performerhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif.

Ba5tard5word
03-27-2010, 12:32 AM
La-5FN does like 580kph at sea level which is insane for '43, and any La-5 handles beautifully.

1943 Fw-190's are pretty good too. The P-51B would be good for sea level and high altitude.

Mysticpuma2003
03-27-2010, 11:55 AM
Would have gone for the P-47, but I just cannot work with that bar right down the centre of the cockpit and obscuring the sweet-spot of the gun sight. Odd they built it like that?

So went for the P-51. If the vote gave a choice of Allied and Axis, I would have gone for the 190-A5 as-well.

Cheers, MP.

Erkki_M
03-27-2010, 02:05 PM
In this kind of scenario, theres no other like La-5FN... Even if it was 39-45 planeset, it would still be one of the strongest choices.

DKoor
03-27-2010, 03:13 PM
BTW LA-5FN in game performance raises many eyebrows... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Mine too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif . Since I couldn't find a large scale fighter with those performance in Lavochkin's 1943 ergelle... I have Yefim Gordon's book about Lavochkin fighter family and the common LA-5FN fighter produced at Gor'kiy plant was somewhat inferior in top speeds... of course prototype was monster even better than in game typehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

quick getting to speed;
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...241027356#5241027356 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/7501046356?r=5241027356#5241027356)

BillSwagger
03-27-2010, 03:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mysticpuma2003:
Would have gone for the P-47, but I just cannot work with that bar right down the centre of the cockpit and obscuring the sweet-spot of the gun sight. Odd they built it like that?

So went for the P-51. If the vote gave a choice of Allied and Axis, I would have gone for the 190-A5 as-well.

Cheers, MP. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats one of the more frustrating things i've found flying the earlier P-47s but in time i think its something you grow accustomed to, of course the 6DoF settings help too. I was working on a mod for it a while back that place the site a little higher and to the right, while also widening the bulletproof glass, which seems to be the more obstructing part of the thing. For practical purposes it works, but there are other parts of the textures that don't line up right so its not quite done.

koivis
03-27-2010, 04:24 PM
In game: La-5FN, nuff said!

In real life: Bf 109G-5/U2 (entered service in fall 1943)
Pressurized cockpit, GM1 boost, service ceiling 13+ km.
Climb, climb, and climb until 8000 m, then turn on the GM1 and climb a bit more! The rest is easy... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

TinyTim
03-27-2010, 07:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
BTW LA-5FN in game performance raises many eyebrows... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Mine too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif . Since I couldn't find a large scale fighter with those performance in Lavochkin's 1943 ergelle... I have Yefim Gordon's book about Lavochkin fighter family and the common LA-5FN fighter produced at Gor'kiy plant was somewhat inferior in top speeds... of course prototype was monster even better than in game typehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

quick getting to speed;
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...241027356#5241027356 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/7501046356?r=5241027356#5241027356) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. I remember doing a bit of research about the La family performance a couple of years ago, and if I remember correctly in reality there was an "improved La-5FN" prototype, which looked like a La-7, that our stock 1943 FN resembles performance wise. They only added a few minor changes after that and renamed the plane La-7. That's why my wildest guess would be that La-5FN, as modelled in IL-2, is closer to real La-7 than to La-5FN in performance.

JtD
03-28-2010, 12:38 AM
I think the in game La-5FN is modeled after the data of the 2nd prototype of the plane, which was tested in March 1943 with 595 km/h on the deck and 648 km/h at altitude. This was the "ideal" La-5FN of 1943, the other La-5FN's of that year were to be built to match this performance. However, they hardly did, mostly due to poor manufacturing, which is not modeled in game.

That said, I do wonder why you guys are all crazy about it. It's a pretty poor performer above 2 km of altitude. All it can do there is fly tight turns, but an A6M is better at that. Personally, I'd pick the P-51B, which will totally dominate the La-5FN (and everything else) as it got a better speed, a similar climb and a better dive, while still being a decent turner. And then it's also the best high alt performer, so it will be able to set up a superior position and dictate the fight from there.

Stiletto-
03-28-2010, 01:46 AM
I remember when the original IL-2 Sturmovik came out and how much I loved the La-5FN, it seemed unbeatable to me then but it might have more to do with incorrect tactics being used by axis flyers I faced. Anyways, I remember flying the La-5FN on Spits vs 109s a year ot two ago and I think a 109 G6 was continually zooming me from a higher altitude. He wasn't a good shot but this further showed the point that how much I tried to get on even ground with him from above, the LA-5 was absolutely useless above its own territory.

I also voted for the P-51B

horseback
03-28-2010, 11:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mysticpuma2003:
Would have gone for the P-47, but I just cannot work with that bar right down the centre of the cockpit and obscuring the sweet-spot of the gun sight. Odd they built it like that?

So went for the P-51. If the vote gave a choice of Allied and Axis, I would have gone for the 190-A5 as-well.

Cheers, MP. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>In real life, that bar looks much smaller, because you have two eyes and your brain sort of compensates for what is temporarily concealed behind the bar. Talking to men who flew it, one gets the impression that it hardly bothered them at all, until you hear them talk about the bubbletop version; apparently flying that in combat meant a lot less neck chafing from their collars.

In game, you have monoscopic (one eyed, presumably mounted in the center of your face)vision and you can't move your head slightly from side to side, so the center bar takes up more of your forward vision and you have to wiggle the whole aircraft to see what's behind it (plus, the Jug's cockpits are pretty much the worst in the game).

cheers

horseback

VW-IceFire
03-29-2010, 07:12 PM
I think the Spitfire VIII for the best balance of speed, climb, overall maneuverability and general handling would be the best choice in this situation specifically.

This calls for an all 'rounder type aircraft with interceptor qualities...that is the Spitfire.

TheGrunch
03-29-2010, 08:12 PM
I went for the P-51B as well. The .50s are a bit of a challenge against FWs, though.

JG52Karaya-X
03-30-2010, 06:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
I think the Spitfire VIII for the best balance of speed, climb, overall maneuverability and general handling would be the best choice in this situation specifically. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just a sidenote:

The Mk.IXs and VIIIs all use identical flight models in IL-2, so there is nothing to choose between them performance wise. The only (minor) difference can be observed on the "e Wing" type Mk.IXs which are slightly heavier because of the .50Cal gun installation.

On another note the IXs are 100kg too light and the VIIIs on top of that lack the additional fuel they were carrying... which made them even heavier.

thefruitbat
03-30-2010, 06:57 AM
i don't know why, but i've always felt the MkVIII to be slightly more 'snappier' than the MkIX, plus i thought the VIII's had the longer range modeled, perhaps explaining point one, however its just my feeling, don't know.

DKoor
03-30-2010, 08:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
I think the Spitfire VIII for the best balance of speed, climb, overall maneuverability and general handling would be the best choice in this situation specifically. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just a sidenote:

The Mk.IXs and VIIIs all use identical flight models in IL-2, so there is nothing to choose between them performance wise. The only (minor) difference can be observed on the "e Wing" type Mk.IXs which are slightly heavier because of the .50Cal gun installation.

On another note the IXs are 100kg too light and the VIIIs on top of that lack the additional fuel they were carrying... which made them even heavier. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I kinda agree with this...

Thing is... I can't stand the .303s and they make neglectable damage vs FWs or bombers on any but extremely close range (conv and all that stuff)... .50s are excellent weapon to "slow down" opponnent and then finish him with nasty Hispanos http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif.

JtD
03-30-2010, 11:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
I think the Spitfire VIII for the best balance of speed, climb, overall maneuverability and general handling would be the best choice in this situation specifically. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just a sidenote:

The Mk.IXs and VIIIs all use identical flight models in IL-2, so there is nothing to choose between them performance wise. The only (minor) difference can be observed on the "e Wing" type Mk.IXs which are slightly heavier because of the .50Cal gun installation.

On another note the IXs are 100kg too light and the VIIIs on top of that lack the additional fuel they were carrying... which made them even heavier. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hopefully all of that will change soon.

wags94
03-31-2010, 08:06 PM
If the scenario is that all of these fighters are fighting each other in some sort of aerial dogfight clusterf*ck, then I'm taking the Hellcat. The thing can take a lot of abuse and I'd be silly to think I wouldn't get shot even once.