PDA

View Full Version : Are the russian planes overrated?



Warbird-
11-21-2005, 08:46 PM
I always flied the Spit and 109 but recently I tried to concentrate on training with these russian planes and now I'm playing much better and killing a lot more people in online dogfights. As you know, russian planes are very popular in online servers. I've been thinking, however, if the Las and Yaks were as good in the Second World War as they are in IL2 Sturmovik game. Specially the La-7 handling capabilities, it's just great.

Opinions?

LEXX_Luthor
11-21-2005, 09:59 PM
Russian planes were as good as any in the basic dogfight, but you need to know that this dogfight game fails to model air warfare which the arcade Online dogfight servers or the arcade Online dogfight community have nothing to do with.

A good example of one aspect of air warfare not modelled in an Online dogfight game is aircraft range of operations. Soviet planes in general have very short range, while USA planes have very long range. The arcade game dogfight servers use silly 50km arcade fps shooter maps, thus not allowing the war winning ability of USA planes to use their range. In fact, no FB European map allows USA planes to use their range potential. Soviet planes were made for short range fighting over frontline Army battles and they did very well -- that's what was needed, the USA planes were always designed with a more more strategic and long range emphasis, especially the NAVY planes -- that's what USA needed.

Another key feature of air warfare is pilot training and experience. Oleg said, about the year 1941, "German pilots ten times better" than Soviet pilots. This is true in general, but not always, just look how many experienced German pilots were sitting in British prison camps in 1941. For human players, the game does not model real life pilot training, experience, leadership, and tactics, all of which were the primary reason for stunning early German success on the Eastern Front.

All this is the subject of Air Warfare, a far more deep subject than arcade Dogfight.

VW-IceFire
11-21-2005, 10:15 PM
Luthors got it nailed on the head.

What the Russian aircraft were designed for was tactical air warfare. That meant flying close to the ground, in large numbers, with manueverable aircraft and generally carrying enough punch to help the infantry on the ground or take on a fighter in the air.

This concept is totally different from the 1941-43 USAAF method which involves large numbers of strategic bombers and escorting fighters.

So, in a "arcade" dogfight server where low altitude speed, agility, and hitting power are important...the Russian aircraft excell because that is what they were designed for. Take that Yak-9 or La-7 to 7000m and they choke...try 9000m and they are useless. In comparison, at 7000 and 9000m aircraft like the P-47 and P-51 are at the top of their game...more agile, more manueverable, and faster than pretty much everything else up there.

Trouble is finding people to fight there...you'll find it in coops but not alot in an arcade server...more in some of the other servers where distances are longer and there is time to climb to combat altitude.

Russian aircraft are good at what they do but they have no range and no altitude ability. But if you were to ask what the best low altitude dogfighter of the war was? La-7 or Yak-3 hands down...little else can they do...but they can do what they were designed for in spades!

LEXX_Luthor
11-21-2005, 10:23 PM
IceFire::
Russian aircraft are good at what they do but they have no range and no altitude ability.
There is a great exception to both counts and that does not fit (ie..."misfit") -- MiG-1 and MiG-3 series high altitude interceptors, and the range requirements of 1000km was eventually although barely reached although it delayed the program (P-38 high altitude interceptor also had severe delays). Yak and LaGG design bureaus were also assinged to make their fighters 1000km but they failed miserably. Hardcore Fans of VVS see MiG-3 as the best Soviet fighter, as did Porkryshin (sp?). http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Warbird-, a good introduction to the reasons behind MiG-3 and how it differed from the "normal" Eastern Front Yaks and LaGGs ...

Misfit MiGs, by Jason Long ~~> http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2072/mig.html

Unknown-Pilot
11-21-2005, 10:58 PM
Bright red background with black text? Ugh. Talk about eye searing. What goes through some people's heads when they make web pages?

Anyway - Warbird, something else to consider is the nature of the physics engine. Over and above the nature of the online servers, as alread touched on, the physics engine has a certain slant to it.

It favors turn fighting. The online servers only exacerbate this. So much of the little stuff is automated, many real world problems are missing (but not all, and some are left wondering why), but most of all, pilots and planes do not stress or fatigue over time.

You can pull near black out for days if you have the fuel, alt and speed to do it, and your pilot never gets tired. In reality, pulling Gs is exhausting. As you do more and more, you lose your ability to fight off blackout and it will happen to you sooner at a lower G-load.

While certain planes will snap a wing if you overload them, you can't slowly fatigue the airframe to result in a ragged out plane (from all the high speed dives, and high G bat turns).

Likewise, you can't hurt your engine. You can get it shot, or overheat it and damage it quickly, but you can't recreate the effects of abuse over time here. In both cases (this and the airframe), it's because every time you take off, you have a bright shiny new plane, better than off the assembly line (in certain select cases).

And one of the biggest problems is dive acceleration. It's still off. Always has been, but it was worse before. Basically, in a sim designed for a low altitude tactical bomber, what do you need good energy modeling for? You don't. It was converted into a fighter sim after a lot of development work was done. So high altitude FMs are off, dive acceleration is off, and worst of all, E-bleed for heavy planes is *really* off. (some more than others though)

So you see light, low wing loaded, agile planes performing the best - Spitfire, Zero, Ki-84, Ki-100, Ki-43, all soviet planes, etc.

And of course, let's not forget the importance of stick time. As Lexx mentioned, you can't recreate the real scenarios with humans because we can put in so much stick time, we can actually learn these FMs better than the real pilots knew their planes (and I'm not saying the 2 match http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ). Not only that, we can't learn the ragged edge much better, not so much because of stick time, but because of "Refly". Spin or stall and slam into the ground, no problem, just refly and don't push so hard next time. So we don't have fear of pushing too far, and know just how far it can really be pushed. Makes things look a lot different.

All of this stuff just stacks up in their favor, and multiplied by the nature of dogfight servers.

(note - I'm not saying you can't use energy fighters effectively - I do, and prefer to. It's thanks to the huge strides this series has made over time, but that doesn't change the fact that things are stacked in TnB planes' favor)

LEXX_Luthor
11-21-2005, 11:24 PM
Ya, Red and Black is hard but its Easy to read if you increase the text size in your browser. I know most here run high resolution and that requires increasing text size for some webpages to read them well.

How the sim favours "turn fighting," or more accurately, low altitude flying, is the drawing of single pixel Dots for distant aircraft no matter how high the monitor resolution you are using. Also crippling bounce tactics is poor rendering of small aircraft models against the ground at medium distance. You simply cannot see any Dots below your altitude against the landscape map when you run resolutions higher than 1024x768. The FB was created back when 1024x768 was standard gaming resolution -- several years ago -- and the fixed pixel size Dots work well at that resolution and below, but totally fail the sim with high resolutions. The correct tactic in this combat flight sim with these Dots is to fly below the enemy so they won't be invisible, unless arcade Text Icons are enabled. Thus the Bounce is crippled, unless arcade Text Icons are turned on.

dude163, admin of the simhq board, was honest enough to admit he/she drops to 800x600 resolution when in competitive Online Dogfight servers that don't have arcade Text Icons, otherwise you cannot see anything to Bounce. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

WOLFMondo
11-22-2005, 12:26 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
The arcade game dogfight servers use silly 50km arcade fps shooter maps, thus not allowing the war winning ability of USA planes to use their range. In fact, no FB European map allows USA planes to use their range potential.

You can take advantage of this. When I take a Jug up I take at least 75% fuel because it allows me to make a slow climb without water injection and then I can loiter and have tons of endurance.

Unknown-Pilot
11-22-2005, 09:38 AM
Depending on the plane, you can exploit it with 25% too. Since most people take 25% online as they plan short hops, if you go up in a Jug, Mustang or USN plane, you only need 25% and you can still outlast all of them. So long as you can keep away from their guns long enough you stand a good chance of them either running low and breaking off or running dry and allowing you to turn the tables.

Just don't get a fuel leak in that case. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kuna15
11-22-2005, 12:00 PM
Are the russian planes overrated?

I think not. Plane specifications manuals etc. says that they were nice machines, but perhaps more importantly some distinguished axis pilots regarded Yak-9U and LA-7 as superior machines to the Bf-109 in many areas.

Kuna15
11-22-2005, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
Depending on the plane, you can exploit it with 25% too. Since most people take 25% online as they plan short hops, if you go up in a Jug, Mustang or USN plane, you only need 25% and you can still outlast all of them. So long as you can keep away from their guns long enough you stand a good chance of them either running low and breaking off or running dry and allowing you to turn the tables.

Just don't get a fuel leak in that case. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

This is true.
P-38J/L on 25% fuel range is around 900km which around 200-300km more than late Bf-109 with full load.
P-47D range is around 750km with 25% fuel.
P-51D range with 25% fuel is around 400km so one must be careful.

On most occasions it is really more than enough to select 25% fuel for this planes.

For instance if we select 25% fuel for Bf-109G10, it will be enough for ~125km and that is totally unacceptable for most occasions.

jds1978
11-22-2005, 01:09 PM
You can take advantage of this. When I take a Jug up I take at least 75% fuel because it allows me to make a slow climb without water injection and then I can loiter and have tons of endurance.

nice tip! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Unknown-Pilot
11-22-2005, 01:11 PM
The 'over rated' commie crates are short legged too. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Warbird-
11-22-2005, 06:52 PM
Thank you for the comments.

WOLFMondo
11-23-2005, 12:27 AM
Originally posted by Kuna15:

P-47D range is around 750km with 25% fuel.
P-51D range with 25% fuel is around 400km so one must be careful.


Are you sure? Those figures looks dubious if not should be reversed.

25% might be ok for arcade type servers but if you want loiter time 25% in the Jug will see you make a fast climb, a couple of short fights then you'll have to go home and land.

Unknown-Pilot
11-23-2005, 09:18 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kuna15:

P-47D range is around 750km with 25% fuel.
P-51D range with 25% fuel is around 400km so one must be careful.


Are you sure? Those figures looks dubious if not should be reversed.

25% might be ok for arcade type servers but if you want loiter time 25% in the Jug will see you make a fast climb, a couple of short fights then you'll have to go home and land. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've not run out of fuel yet in the Jug, save for a fuel leak. Although the USN planes seem to have had their endurance shortened a bit.

The 25% range should be more like 324km I think. However, what's the size of the average online map? That's more than enough to get up and loiter. (but then, loitering is just staring at the virtual sky, might as well play M$FS. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

Kuna15
11-23-2005, 02:29 PM
Built in aircraft viewer says:

range
P-38J/L 3616km
P-47D 3060km
P-51D 1613km

p1ngu666
11-23-2005, 04:44 PM
lol @ that kuna http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

the soviet planes are good but are comprimised designs. there basicaly a really good example of making do with what you've got.

if u remove teh ubers, like la7,i185 and yak3, there actully much more difficult to fly than blue planes.

there also wasnt a pressing need for range in there operations, for example LA7 has less fuel tankage than la5, by request of pilots..

stalin wanted longer range aircraft, to compair with the american planes, but there wasnt the need irl for them, for the most part.

btw a czech pilot who flew in RAF, hurri and spit iirec, he grew to like the la5 he flew later on. raited it better than 109 and 190 in a close in dogfight.

Unknown-Pilot
11-23-2005, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
btw a czech pilot who flew in RAF, hurri and spit iirec, he grew to like the la5 he flew later on. raited it better than 109 and 190 in a close in dogfight.

But a close in dogfight, particularly in those days, pretty much means turning. Which is something that the 190 couldn't do, and the 109 was capable of, but wasn't it's best strength.

It's almost like saying the Phoenix is better at BVR than the Sidewinder. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kuna15
11-24-2005, 04:33 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
if u remove teh ubers, like la7,i185 and yak3, there actully much more difficult to fly than blue planes.

there also wasnt a pressing need for range in there operations, for example LA7 has less fuel tankage than la5, by request of pilots..

stalin wanted longer range aircraft, to compair with the american planes, but there wasnt the need irl for them, for the most part.

Agree 100%.

Many regular old-timer FB players will benefit much from FW-190D/TA-152 capabilities and to some extent Bf-109 too, they are all superior planes to every Soviet warplane (not BI-1 tho) in game because they are better high alt perfoming planes.

Because of fight style patience needed etc. many novice pilots will go for good turning aircraft and will avoid plane that requires altitude and patience to fly (some will say it is chicken play but I don't think so and I respect online oponents who were able to execute such tactics properly).

LA-7 is the best VVS have in this game from my experience.
Yak-9U is also good plane and is better than LA-7 on higher altitudes (IMO should be better than the LA-7) but from my subjective PoV LA-7 is better aircraft than Yak-9U overall.

Anyway this subject has been http://free-vk.t-com.hr/domagoj/smileys/deadhorse_2.gif .

It isn't hard to check out many online statistics will tell their story...

War-Clouds western front (http://www.war-clouds.com/wf-stats/index.php?navigation=plane/all/index.html)

UK_dedicated1 (cockpit off) (http://www.battle-fields.com/stats.php)

polak5
11-24-2005, 04:38 AM
Originally posted by Kuna15:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by p1ngu666:
[b]
Anyway this subject has been http://free-vk.t-com.hr/domagoj/smileys/deadhorse_2.gif .

It isn't hard to check out many online statistics will tell their story...


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WOLFMondo
11-24-2005, 05:00 AM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kuna15:

P-47D range is around 750km with 25% fuel.
P-51D range with 25% fuel is around 400km so one must be careful.


Are you sure? Those figures looks dubious if not should be reversed.

25% might be ok for arcade type servers but if you want loiter time 25% in the Jug will see you make a fast climb, a couple of short fights then you'll have to go home and land. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've not run out of fuel yet in the Jug, save for a fuel leak. Although the USN planes seem to have had their endurance shortened a bit.

The 25% range should be more like 324km I think. However, what's the size of the average online map? That's more than enough to get up and loiter. (but then, loitering is just staring at the virtual sky, might as well play M$FS. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not run out with 25%? You gotta run out some pointhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. Size of the map is irrelivent, its how long you want to be up in the air without landing. I like loitering at 8 or 9k, ready to jump on guys at 6K thinking there above the fight and preparing to jump on someone at 3K or taking on Ta152's in fast high altitude battles. Simply climbing to a few K and heading to a target area in a P47 is condusive with being shot down at the head of a conga line by 3 BF109's!

EPP_Gibbs
11-24-2005, 11:23 AM
That's more or less it. Low down, later soviet fighters like the Yak3, 9U, or LA5FN and LA7 kind of ruled the roost, pilot ability and tactical considerations being equal. At higher altitudes the 109's and Doras came into their own. I don't think the 190A series was much good up high either.

There was a directive within the Luftwaffe instructing pilots to avoid combat with Yaks without the chin cooler below 5kM (I think it was 5K, might have been less). That was the Yak3 so I guess it wasn't over-rated low down by the Germans either http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WOLFMondo
11-25-2005, 01:23 AM
The 190A's have problems above 20K ft but the Dora is ok higher but overheats allot.

That doesn't mean LW fighter pilots didn't take there antons upto 30,000ft to bounce fighter patrols over France. There short wings cause a few problems at those heights though.

Skalgrim
11-28-2005, 09:15 AM
this order was give for g6,

and i think it was a myth, because it is almost not possible to recognize the differ from the yak9 and yak9u (without the chin cooler), by this order was too the yak9u means

g10 or k4 was not use 44 at the eastfront,


sure yak3 was better as g6,the speed advantage make she superior to g6



la-7 and yak3,yak9u opponents was a4,a5 and g6 44, that means 43 design


when right remember lipfert has 5 yak3 downed and even one is running away from him,

think yak3 with performance like in this game, no way the yak3 will running away from g6,

g14 was first use end november and only very few,

so i think all combats from lipfert against yak3 was only with g6




Originally posted by EPP_Gibbs:
That's more or less it. Low down, later soviet fighters like the Yak3, 9U, or LA5FN and LA7 kind of ruled the roost, pilot ability and tactical considerations being equal. At higher altitudes the 109's and Doras came into their own. I don't think the 190A series was much good up high either.

There was a directive within the Luftwaffe instructing pilots to avoid combat with Yaks without the chin cooler below 5kM (I think it was 5K, might have been less). That was the Yak3 so I guess it wasn't over-rated low down by the Germans either http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

mynameisroland
11-29-2005, 05:41 AM
Looking at online statistics often misleads when looking to see if Russian AC are superior in this sim to their RL counterparts. For the most part all of the more experienced pilots fly Axis aircraft and so logically those aircraft will benefit from a highr KD ratio. While conversely the beginners in the main part choose La5 or 7 because the are exceptional aircraft.

leitmotiv
12-01-2005, 12:37 AM
I went for the Sov line from the I-152 and I-16s to the 1941-42 LaGGs, Yaks, and MiGs because (1) I liked Sov aircraft (2) they were a challenge and (3) I found them IDEAL training aircraft for the tyro virtual pilot. If you can get the measure of 109s in an I-16, you are ready for anything---same goes for the troublesome LaGG-3 1941. On the other hand, you see why the Soviets loved the Yak. As a complete greenhorn, I started to look good using the 1941 Yak-1---it was designed to be kind to the inexperienced pilot. When I couldn't keep a 109 from stalling or spinning, I was able to put up a decent show in a Yak-1, and this spoke volumes. Another factor: see FLYING GUNS WWII---the Soviet weapons were excellent, even their light machine gun was a killer. I still have a fondness for the powerful (for '41) nose battery of the 1941 LaGG-3. Read the BLACK CROSS/RED STAR series. The German and Soviet fighters encountered each other at medium to low altitudes very close to their air strips. Nobody needs to apologize for the performance of Soviet fighters---the air war in Western Europe was a different situation entirely. A clever 109 pilot using perfect tactics can frustrate a Yak driver terribly. At this point, the Yak pilot needs to quit playing the 109's game, get low, and tempt the 109 into the Yak's arena. If the 109 is hard up enough for action, he'll take the bait. This is when the chess game gets interesting. I love cutting daisies at nought altitude with furious 109s and 190s. Better be good at low altitude turns!

Sharkey888
12-01-2005, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
For human players, the game does not model real life pilot training, experience, leadership, and tactics, all of which were the primary reason for stunning early German success on the Eastern Front.



Don't forget reliability, both from shoddy production and lack of maintenance under tough USSR conditions.

If this was modeled the Soviets/late war LW would have a MUCH rougher time of it.