PDA

View Full Version : OLEG SIR HAVE U EVER FLY YOUR GAME AFTER 1.11 ???



Pages : [1] 2

XyZspineZyX
09-17-2003, 11:36 PM
Hello all

Iam very disapointed by the 1.11

1) to many vvs plane are over model (like the p39)

2) the power of all 109 have went down about 5-15 %

3) sorry 2 say that but the 1st il2 was way to better game

4) if this is a good sim us all (and i) say and the planes are close us can get to reality then the vvs pilot that fly in the real war must did something bad and they dint have the kills that german pilots have .
If the planes was real no axis pilot will stay alive after 1 month off fight and the RED will be in GERMAN IN 1942 AND NOT IN THE 1945

5) I dont think that im the only one that have see that AND
this is the 1st time after 2 years that i fly in IL2 and IL 2 FB that i have hear people 2 talk about this problems so must.

6) if u will have notice all the on-line coppeticions that take place in hypper lobby like VEF AND VOW have went down 50% in the games that now hosted by people. all the axis pilots that have take place all that time have stop playing becose the differnce now bettewin AXIS-VVS planes is way to bad and unreall

7) I like that game way to muts but i have to say that
i dont see how U WILL MAKE ME KEEP PLAYING IT

8) THIS IS YOUR ---KID--- OLEG DONT LET IT DIE LIKE THAT



GEORGE MANOUSOS
335TH_GRPlaton

XyZspineZyX
09-17-2003, 11:36 PM
Hello all

Iam very disapointed by the 1.11

1) to many vvs plane are over model (like the p39)

2) the power of all 109 have went down about 5-15 %

3) sorry 2 say that but the 1st il2 was way to better game

4) if this is a good sim us all (and i) say and the planes are close us can get to reality then the vvs pilot that fly in the real war must did something bad and they dint have the kills that german pilots have .
If the planes was real no axis pilot will stay alive after 1 month off fight and the RED will be in GERMAN IN 1942 AND NOT IN THE 1945

5) I dont think that im the only one that have see that AND
this is the 1st time after 2 years that i fly in IL2 and IL 2 FB that i have hear people 2 talk about this problems so must.

6) if u will have notice all the on-line coppeticions that take place in hypper lobby like VEF AND VOW have went down 50% in the games that now hosted by people. all the axis pilots that have take place all that time have stop playing becose the differnce now bettewin AXIS-VVS planes is way to bad and unreall

7) I like that game way to muts but i have to say that
i dont see how U WILL MAKE ME KEEP PLAYING IT

8) THIS IS YOUR ---KID--- OLEG DONT LET IT DIE LIKE THAT



GEORGE MANOUSOS
335TH_GRPlaton

XyZspineZyX
09-17-2003, 11:39 PM
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.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
09-18-2003, 12:25 AM
*BUMP*

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 12:32 AM
cool im the first one to say learn to fly/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


"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
09-18-2003, 01:24 AM
Capslockcapslockcapslock

Also have you ever noticed that when someone online really want's to insult someone's intelligence they call them "sir"?

It's like that great Australian tradition of "No offence but [insert offensive comment here]".

<center>
Read the <a href=http://www.mudmovers.com/sturmovik_101/FAQ.htm>IL2 FAQ</a>
Got Nimrod? Try the unofficial <A HREF=http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=4&sid=4870c2bc08acb0f130e5e3396d08d595>OT forum</A>

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 02:06 AM
"4) if this is a good sim us all (and i) say and the planes are close us can get to reality then the vvs pilot that fly in the real war must did something bad and they dint have the kills that german pilots have .
If the planes was real no axis pilot will stay alive after 1 month off fight and the RED will be in GERMAN IN 1942 AND NOT IN THE 1945"

Pilot Quality

Sir, Pilot Quality /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

<center>http://rageman.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sigs/su25.jpg (http://rageman.vze.com)</center>



Message Edited on 09/18/0302:07AM by Rageman

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 05:32 AM
someones told him "learn to fly" /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<center> 335th_GRViper
http://www.hellenic-sqn.gr


http://www.hellenic-sqn.gr/Images/33.gif </center>

Message Edited on 09/18/0306:35AM by GR_335th_Viper

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 08:25 AM
As said, with patches like this FB will die.

Whatever bugs 1.1b had, there was still some balance with planes. Now considering direction where we are heading is quite obvious that it will be pointless to waste hours with this VVS fantasy-game at online.

Luckily offline its still fun.

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 08:36 AM
I am just sad too see where this game is going.

Did some climbing tests and it got me pi**ed offhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


But still occasionally I play since there is no better WW2 era game available.

-Oh yes and I have to learn to fly toohttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif-

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 08:43 AM
hey guys stop that pathetic "learn to fly " thing.
You don't know how he's flying flys and maybe he's doing bad but if you read between the lines most will admit that the game, although cool , is definitely spoiled by the bad feeling everyone has when facing RED-Planes.

One must be really ignorant to ignore all the mentioned facts by the so called "whiners" (which is also pathetic to call them this way).

If we check all the ODD things, I bet my money on the fact that there will be more ODD things in advantage of RED planes than disadvantage, somehow red planes don't suffer the same. The list is long and it's pointless to repeat it here....

When I bought FB I wanted to fly Hurricane and P-47 and maybe P-51 (should it come out). Thanks to the spoiled FM I rejected the Hurricane (in 1.0) and took a plane that was more difficult to master (the FW190). I still fly this crate. I only took this as an example.

Sidenote: Does anybody know where most of the betatesters come from ?

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 09:04 AM
To be honest, I'm starting to believe that the real reason the Germans lost WWII was due to some form of chronic wasting whining disease.

In 1.11:

The I-16 is totally humbled.

The I-153 now flys more like it should.

The Hurricane now flies like a plane that was barely able to score kills on bombers, let alone fighters.

Yak-x and La-x roll rates, and high speed handling, are now very much toned down.

The MK108 is now far more accurate and does more damage.

The FW-190s roll rate is truly in the realms of fantasy.

The Me-262, other than at very, very high altitudes, is absolutely deadly.

There are some issues to do with some BF-109 models handling. The early models E4 through G2, and G6/AS are fine.

Frankly I'm amazed that if K4 overheat is such a big issue for you that you haven't started a server with overheat switched off. It's a simple flag to change. Offline, the AI don't suffer from it, so it's not as if you're getting some massive advantage over them from turning it off.

I wouldn't just say "learn to fly", I'd also add "and stop being so incredibly stupid".



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
09-18-2003, 09:19 AM
clint-ruin sirhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

U just Point some side of facts in FB 1.11,
But U EGNORE much much more in this Patch.

Hope you are not intent to say that.

I AM A VVS SIDE V-PILOT, BUT I HATE THAT:

WHEN I FLY VVS PLANES, GERMAN FIGHTER's CANON HIT ME DEEPLY,BUT MY PLANE HAVE NO REAL DAMAGE OF THAT.

AND FOR EXAMPLE WHEN I FLY P39s, SHOT DOWN LW's AIRCRAFT, THEY ONLY SAID: NOTHING, BECAUSE U JUST IN A FANTASY PLANE.

AND I AM SO SAD TO SEE THE ENEMYS NUMBERS ARE LESS AND LESS IN NET...BECAUSE ONLY EXPERT PILOT CAN USE GERMAN FIGHTERS TO DOWN ROOKIE VVS's PLANE.

EVEN IN A DOGFIGHT OF ACE-TO-ACE, THE GERMAN SIDE ARE NO HOPE TO WIN. EVEN THE GREATEST BF109K4 CAN USE BNZ TAC, BUT La7's BNZ IS BETTER.

I HATE THAT. I NEED A COMPLETE_VERSION OF WWII AIR_COMBAT_SIM, NOT ONLY ONE SIDE---BLUE's.

BECAUSE I AM NOT INTERESTING TO gain extra advantage unfairly!

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 10:22 AM
u patchwhiners r crazy....

SJ

http://www.il2sturmovik.it

Visita il portale italiano di IL-2 Sturmovik!!!

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 10:40 AM
I beleive a project,like FB is not so simple.No doubt, that's is the best WWII Combat sim.Let's be little reasonable..
Some parameters just cann't be simulate now.There are some bugs and some problems with FM and DM of some planes.
But i dont think the solution is everyone who finds a "bug" or something "weird" come here and make his own post.
I beleive dev.team got the message and he will make the changes that can be donne.
We can always enjoy what we have now,there always a way to enjoy it.
Personaly,i got angry many times when some RED planes doing incredible things,outclimb me,able to follow me with major damages, but i can never be sure if it was me or FB.
Also,according to my reads I-153 score many kills against 109,many VVS destroyed on the ground and La-5FN/La-7/Yak-3 were exellent fighters.
Pilot's quality...yes!I agree!Tactics used by LW,pilot's skills were uber.Of course you dont have any change to win when take off in a dogfight server in your FW and trying to out turn a La.Especially with easy settings.This is exactly the same as RL.Dogfight only in advantage.

p.s.Credibility was not a attribute of this planes and VVS in general?Sure,but how can be simulate this?



<center> 335th_GRViper
http://www.hellenic-sqn.gr


http://www.hellenic-sqn.gr/Images/33.gif </center>

Message Edited on 09/18/0311:53AM by GR_335th_Viper

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 11:39 AM
GR_335th_Platon wrote:

- 2) the power of all 109 have went down about 5-15 %

Look at the "BF109G2 to G10 analysis ready!" thread and you will see that this will never gonna be fixed.

Sad but true, especially having the words "show me the data" from the developer team in my mind.

Wastel did show up with an remarkable piece of documentation, and what did he earned?

At least I would expect a little bit more than the usual "ur wrong be sure"

What makes me more and more disappointed, is the fact that even if someone shows up with facts and in an respectfull manner, it's gonna be ignored with an attitude I would never show to my customers.

I'm not talking about the "Hey Oleg, look here and there, your gam s*x big time blabla" threads where ignoring or answering in this arrogant attitude is suited.

Wastel did a great job showing up the mistakes done by the dev team and how EASILY they could be fixed.

@Wastel: THX YOUR MY PERSONAL HERO!

[frustrated mode]
So forget about silly wishes fixing bugs and major errors in this game, cause it never will change anything ...
[/frustrated mode]

S!

EDIT: fixed some (sure not all) typos and:

In our squad we're all going back to 1.1b cause 1.11 is REALLY VERY disappointing



Message Edited on 09/18/0310:42AM by I.JG53_Soap

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 12:17 PM
S! ALL

I.JG53_Soap wrote:

-
- In our squad we're all going back to 1.1b cause 1.11
- is REALLY VERY disappointing

This should be a good idea....


lbhskier37 wrote:
- cool im the first one to say learn to flyimg


You dont know what you just said man..very funny...
LOL

335th_GRCretan
http://www.hellenic-sqn.gr

http://www.hellenic-sqn.gr/Images/33.gif


Message Edited on 09/20/0308:31AM by GR_335th_Cretan

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 01:19 PM
YOU'RE AN A$$, you know that? This guy works hard!! I wonder how many nights he just slept at the office, trying to fix some bug!! C'mon!! He's not totally FB!!! He's got a life too! Give him some peace!

Boosher-PBNA
----------------
<center>On your six 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.<center>
<center>Boosher-ProudBirds-VFW<center>
http://proudbirdswing.tripod.com/proudbirds.htm

http://www.escadrila54.com/logo_sm.jpg

<center><marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"The ProudBirds..Flying High and Proud..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee>

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 01:45 PM
Give the b aways from the 1.1b and letz have taht as the official final 1.1 patch.

And may also tune down taht UFO 30m/sec climp of the la7 to realistic 22-24/sec and FB is just perfect.

a 2000HP 109 would be also nice /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

ZG77_Nagual
09-18-2003, 02:14 PM
I fly primarily 190s and p39 or p47. Depends on which side needs pilots (my server is set red - vvs - blue german) I have no problem with any of the vvs planes in the 190 - mostly against yak3s, yak9us, la7s and p39s. The german planes are much better at higher speeds. I like the overall balance of the p39 and do pretty well in it too - though I average more kills per flight in the 190 - I quite flying the 262 - too easy. I've also had some good flights in 109s - mostly the F4 vs yak3s and the like.

I don't see any problems in the fms that merit all this emotionalism. This is a great flight simm and, since the patches, much more fun regardless of which side or plane.
The fms are so dynamic there is really alot of room for creatively getting the most out of your plane

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

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 02:18 PM
CHN_EagleHeart wrote:
- clint-ruin sirhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
-
- U just Point some side of facts in FB 1.11,
- But U EGNORE much much more in this Patch.

I'd suggest that you're ignoring the major changes that have been made in 1.11.

If you really are a "VVS SIDE V-PILOT" I'd expect you to have noticed them.

The main VVS rides which attracted the most ire from the Luftwhiners have had their teeth pulled.

The I-16 is now very vulnerable to 7.92mm ammo and 15mm cannon rounds.

The Hurricane is now practically a flying deathtrap. It's almost unable to inflict damage on the FW-190, unless you take the IIc up for a fly - and you'd better be a damned accurate shot to make the ammo count.

The La-7 and La-5 start to shake as soon as they reach BnZ style dive speeds - they start to wobble in level flight, for gods sake. The Yak-x and La-x roll speeds sieze up at high speeds. These are not great BnZ platforms, and to use them as such you need to be damned good at it. If people are losing BnZ reversals by planes that freeze up at as soon as they leave the bottom left side of the envelope, I really can't help but think that your online pals could do with less practice whining, and more practice flying.

The VVS "noob rides" have been toned down. A lot. If you didn't notice this as a "VVS SIDE V-PILOT" I really don't know what else to say to you.

- WHEN I FLY VVS PLANES, GERMAN FIGHTER's CANON HIT ME
- DEEPLY,BUT MY PLANE HAVE NO REAL DAMAGE OF THAT.
- AND I AM SO SAD TO SEE THE ENEMYS NUMBERS ARE LESS
- AND LESS IN NET...BECAUSE ONLY EXPERT PILOT CAN USE
- GERMAN FIGHTERS TO DOWN ROOKIE VVS's PLANE.

I have no idea what the current ratio of Luft to VVS pilots is online. If the die hard Luft squads are unable to come up with tactics to exploit the now-lethal MK108 cannon, or the FW-190s new excessive roll rate and armor, or the Me-262s speed, vs the newly nerfed VVS rides, then the problem lies in their own inability, rather than any "bias" from Oleg.

It must be embarrassing as all hell to discover that they're just as likely to lose to the nerfed VVS planes as they were before. If I'd made all sorts of pronunciations of the unfairness of it all, and then discovered that even when the other side was handicapped I was just as likely to lose, I'd probably retreat with my tail between my legs too.

I suppose it's good for me that I didn't. I fly all kinds of planes in FB against all kinds of engagements in the FMB, vs FB's infamous cheating AI. I'm straight out telling you that there's really not that much in it between the VVS and Luft rides anymore. I've actually stopped making missions that involve the MK108 cannon now, since it's such a completely dominating weapon in the game - no challenge using it at all.

- AND FOR EXAMPLE WHEN I FLY P39s, SHOT DOWN LW's
- AIRCRAFT, THEY ONLY SAID: NOTHING, BECAUSE U JUST IN
- A FANTASY PLANE.

There are only two "problem" VVS rides left - the Lagg ['41 and '43] and the P-39. The P-39 doesn't suffer any major damage model problems that I'm aware of, so I have no idea what you're talking about when you claim that Luft pilots are shooting you to no effect.

Let me see if I have this right:

YOU are choosing of your own volition to fly a plane that has arguably superior flight characteristics, and you're complaining that the whiniest group of game players anywhere are whining at you for it?

How is this Olegs problem? Explain it to me. With or without caps lock on. I'm intrigued.

If the server operators see the P-39 or Laggs as such horribly overmodelled planes, there's nothing stopping them flat out banning it from their servers, like they did with the 1.0 I-16, I-153, Hurricane and Me-262.

- EVEN IN A DOGFIGHT OF ACE-TO-ACE, THE GERMAN SIDE
- ARE NO HOPE TO WIN. EVEN THE GREATEST BF109K4 CAN
- USE BNZ TAC, BUT La7's BNZ IS BETTER.

You are aware that the La7 was more or less the match of just about any aircraft flying in WWII, right? Yes, even the K4.

Please tell me that the basis of your "ACE TO ACE" fight isn't the quick mission builder. If we have to go through the flight characteristics of the AI in FB, yet again, I think I'm going to scream.

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 09/18/0301:20PM by clint-ruin

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 02:25 PM
If you fly a P-47, FW-190, or a BF-109 and you get shot down repeatedly by VVS planes then you are doing something terribly wrong IMO. I fly mostly the P-47 only and Yaks and P-39s are nothing now. Take them above 3000m and you have your way with them easily. LAs very simple if you find one tailing you get to an altitude where you can dive over 750kph, rotate your dive 180 degrees and pull up, the LA cannot follow and you will be suprised how many do /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Killing Yaks and LAs are my personal hobby. If you are dying frequently by these planes then you are doing something wrong, like flying under 2500m when you encounter one or getting into a turning duel. Either of those is almost certain defeat. And heck if your prefer the 190 its the fastest prop in the game just run /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
S!
47|FC=-

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 03:22 PM
1.1 Final (final screw up)
1.11 N(never to be patched again after this one,we hope)
1.12 S (were sorry we screwed up again,heres another one)
1.13 Su(we give up,we surrender,we can`t make all of the people happy all of the time,we cant take the lufftwining anymore,if this one don`t work or your not happy with it try a different flight sim)
Really OKL have u flown the P-40 or hurri properly,I cant beleive that they r now actually saying that the hurrie is an uber plane,bad oleg design as it has alot less ammo than any 109 and the speed of a tortoise going backwards compared to german planes.
To my mind the hurrie is very true to life model in this game.
I have seen many german pilots such as *OUTLAW* turning left and right and blowing cobras and P-47`s outta the sky.
I have licked my lips seeing many OKL allowing themselves to get into a turn fight with me and by strokes of flying genius blowing me outta the sky.
I have flown 109 against squad m8`s in training and by using its strenghts properly have won many fights,even though I hardly know the plane.
It has good armament,speed,is very stable in a high speed dive allowing good shooting while chasing into dive,as the VVS plane shakes and shudders and the 109`s out-run me many times whether I am in a mig /hurrie/cobra.Gets frustrating when OKL fly proper.
It may be a little boring flying high,looking for contact to B&Z but in most cases whatever VVS plane im in ,if gerrie catches me low I am in grave danger and in a very bad postion.
i had another 109 flyer in a df server the other day who had just got shot down by a cobra and he said "blooming cobras can turn on a dime and hardly stall at all now" then he left.
He has no idea.
The cobra stalls very easy,one of the easiest to stall and one of the hardest planes to get out of a stall.
The trick is to not allow it to get close to stall at all but this is just a typical thing that you see so often in game these days.
Winning.
Its not ture what they say,they talk with no idea of the plane they are talking about.
There are many complaints from the red side too but we all need to get a grip,realise it`s just a game that we all love and get our teeth into it, to make ourselves masters of what we fly and enjoy it.

EDIT: clint_ruin very nice posts




Message Edited on 09/18/03 02:25PM by geeyapperMARX

Message Edited on 09/18/0302:33PM by geeyapperMARX

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 03:30 PM
well if there are many complains from the red side, then i must be blind or something.

Maybe some sound bug complains.
and the rest is a bunch of thankfull oleg lovers and its all good how it is.

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 03:32 PM
clint-ruin:

I am tired of dispute this. Trust me, I am not a idiot-flying pilot. My "ACE" means someone like the top ACES in ROSS or III/JG2. I have about 1000+ houres of flying IL2 or IL2-FB, I can use almost any fighters - VVS or LW to shot down allmost any vertern online pilot.

But I have found very very deeply wrong in FB 1.11 patch. You must know that, in Il2, I am a P39 Fan. But in FB1.11, I gived it up. Too Joke of P39 and same that, Too joke of 190's 4x20mm cannons. And even too joke of what the Yak, La made of. Wood or titanum... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)))))))))))))

If you have not noticed that. I must say That must some diffrent in our Hardware, maybe it result that. And even in top speed, 1.11 is not resonable. P39 can override 190A5? Too deeply wrong.

My name in VOW is CHN_HOTWIND. An honour pilot in VVS side.

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 03:41 PM
I read this whole thread and now I have to poop.
Shouldve pooped before, wouldve been much better way to spend my 5 minutes.

"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
09-18-2003, 04:09 PM
People go to take a look at the statistiks of VEF or VOW...you will see a huge difference with the statistiks before the patch.And dont tell me that this is the result of better red team-play because okl side has usualy better teamplay,the only way to survive angainst vvs planes...

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 04:24 PM
you should see the damage people who fly the 190 and 109 consistantly cause flying the la7s yak9t laggs mig shvak yak3, its so easy its not fun

getting 7 190 kills with the yak9t 190s explode into a million pieces from on tail hit


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

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

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 04:52 PM
The Yak9T was used against Tanks. You think that a FW190 should be more sturdy than a tank ?

C!

<A HREF="http://giap.webhop.info" TARGET=_blank>
http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/giap/var/storage/original/image/69giap_badge_roshko.jpg
</A>

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 05:10 PM
LeadSpitter_ wrote:
- you should see the damage people who fly the 190 and
- 109 consistantly cause flying the la7s yak9t laggs
- mig shvak yak3, its so easy its not fun
-
- getting 7 190 kills with the yak9t 190s explode into
- a million pieces from on tail hit

Not content with being almost entirely invulnerable to .30 cal fire, FW-190 pilots now humbly request that Oleg make their ride of choice able to withstand MULTIPLE THIRTY SEVEN MILLIMETRE ANTI TANK ROUNDS. Indeed, your requested whine is already part of the game, dear Leadspitter. I've seen FW-190s absorb up to 4 hits from the NS-37. That's more than I've been able to pump into an IL-2 before it goes down.

Now, who said whining never accomplished anything..




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
09-18-2003, 05:15 PM
hehe lbhskier37 very funny
The next time u poop it will be as your half plane,falls burning to the earth from 5000 and u can`t get out to bail,then u will really poop http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif jk

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 06:13 PM
clint-ruin wrote:
The La-7 and La-5 start to shake as soon as they reach BnZ style dive speeds - they start to wobble in level flight, for gods sake. The Yak-x and La-x roll speeds sieze up at high speeds. These are not great BnZ platforms, and to use them as such you need to be damned good at it. If people are losing BnZ reversals by planes that freeze up at as soon as they leave the bottom left side of the envelope, I really can't help but think that your online pals could do with less practice whining, and more practice flying.

The VVS "noob rides" have been toned down. A lot. If you didn't notice this as a "VVS SIDE V-PILOT" I really don't know what else to say to you.

vmf-214 HaVoK wrote:
If you fly a P-47, FW-190, or a BF-109 and you get shot down repeatedly by VVS planes then you are doing something terribly wrong IMO. I fly mostly the P-47 only and Yaks and P-39s are nothing now. Take them above 3000m and you have your way with them easily. LAs very simple if you find one tailing you get to an altitude where you can dive over 750kph, rotate your dive 180 degrees and pull up, the LA cannot follow and you will be suprised how many do Killing Yaks and LAs are my personal hobby. If you are dying frequently by these planes then you are doing something wrong, like flying under 2500m when you encounter one or getting into a turning duel. Either of those is almost certain defeat. And heck if your prefer the 190 its the fastest prop in the game just run


You 1.11 VVS whiner pro patch guyz make me wanna puke what good u think u gonna do licking olegs ***, i just hope this crap dosn't influence oleg to leave things as they are i am just sick of this BS from people that dont have a clue what their on about like this:

-The VVS "noob rides" have been toned down. A lot. If you didn't notice this as a "VVS SIDE V-PILOT" I really don't know what else to say to you.

Best thing u can do is shut up, what about La7 ufo climb of 30 m/s and turn of 16sec not one mention about them its these things which are spoiling this game, and incase u didn't notice in 1.11 many non VVS AC have been crippled even more and VVS AC seem more UFO like, its now beyond a joke.....

For all those who keep tryin to say their aint a problem probably because u want ur UFO's to keep this game as a VVS turkey shoot stop licking olegs *** it aint doin any of us any favours........That don't apply to all VVS fliers cos i know most will want decent FM's like the rest of us.....

Hopefuly oleg will fix these things like a man and have the respect of everyone regardless of nationality.



Message Edited on 09/18/0308:16PM by johno__UK

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 06:21 PM
ROSHKO_69.GIAP wrote:
- The Yak9T was used against Tanks. You think that a
- FW190 should be more sturdy than a tank ?
-
- C!
-
- <A HREF="http://giap.webhop.info" TARGET=_blank>
- <img
- src="http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/giap/var/sto
- rage/original/image/69giap_badge_roshko.jpg"
- border="0">
- </A>

Dammit then use it agains tanks not to bring left and right down 190s.

i realy realy question it if it was so easy to bring down fighters with that anti-tank-cannon

what the hell you thing was the 13mm UBS Mg included.
Just for fun? to hit the tanks also with Mg
or to take out the running away Tank drivers.

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 06:58 PM
Fresh from his morning ritalin, johno__UK wrote:
- To all them who keep tryin to say their aint a
- problem stop licking olegs *** it aint doin any of
- us any favours.............

Now really, do you expect any kind of response to this, or do you just like the feel of your own frothing spittle on the keys?

After figuring out that an FW-190 is somewhat less durable than a 1943 era tank, pipiq wrote:

- Dammit then use it agains tanks not to bring left
- and right down 190s.
-
- i realy realy question it if it was so easy to bring
- down fighters with that anti-tank-cannon
-
- what the hell you thing was the 13mm UBS Mg
- included.
- Just for fun? to hit the tanks also with Mg
- or to take out the running away Tank drivers.

I'd suggest that Yak-9T pilots will undoubtedly stop using the NS-37 to tag enemy planes once the Luft pilots stop using the MK-108 for anything other than bombers.

It's all so terribly unfair, isn't it? Boo, boohoohoo, boohoohoo. I mean, where do these people get the idea that the VVS wiped the Luftwaffe from the skies from 1943 onwards? Obviously some kind of mad delusion.

- clint-ruinF
-
- I am tired of dispute this. Trust me, I am not a
- idiot-flying pilot. My "ACE" means someone like the
- top ACES in ROSS or III/JG2. I have about 1000+
- houres of flying IL2 or IL2-FB, I can use almost any
- fighters - VVS or LW to shot down allmost any
- vertern online pilot.

It seems as though it really is easier to teach non english speakers how to use a badly translated russian program than it is to make a luftwhiner accept that their plane might be adversely affected by anti tank rounds. Believe me, I'm a lot more tired of this than you could possibly imagine.

Between your writing and my reading I just thought I'd check that I have this right: you're now saying that FB is so finely balanced that you can use any VVS or LW fighter to down any veteran, in their choice of aircraft?

What was the problem again, exactly?

- But I have found very very deeply wrong in FB 1.11
- patch. You must know that, in Il2, I am a P39 Fan.
- But in FB1.11, I gived it up. Too Joke of P39 and
- same that, Too joke of 190's 4x20mm cannons. And
- even too joke of what the Yak, La made of. Wood or
- titanum... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)))))))))))))

I can't help but feel that there is, indeed, something different in our hardware - the FW190A series carries enough ammo for around 12+ VVS kills, even with my crap gunnery. How much more effective do you feel it should be? 20? 30? This is on La-5s and La-7s, by the way. Go into the QMB, turn invulnerability on, set yourself up against 16 rookie "empty" La5s, Yak3s, and La7s, and tell me how many you manage to down with an FW-190A. Then let me know what you think a reasonable number should be.

Go ahead, my "VVS V-PILOT ACE", I want to see you type that you feel you should be able to score more La/Yak kills in one mission than any Luftwaffe pilot ever did in a single FW-190A sortie, and then tell me it's not enough.

The P-39 is not some kind of invulnerable super plane. It has less armor, less ammunition, slower roll rate and much lower high speed response than any FW-190 in the game. Whatever your thoughts are about the FW-190s 20mm, they're a lot more effective than even the most heavily armed N1 variant P-39. Incidentally, while you're playing in the QMB, why don't you tell me how many FW-190s you can down with the 39's wing mounted .303s.

If your pals are being beaten by a 39, they're dogfighting it, and doing so at the bottom left of the envelope where it's strongest. Sorry. Simple fact. You're either making this up as you go along, or your little pals just don't know how to fly.



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
09-18-2003, 07:18 PM
- i realy realy question it if it was so easy to bring
- down fighters with that anti-tank-cannon
-
- what the hell you thing was the 13mm UBS Mg
- included.
- Just for fun? to hit the tanks also with Mg
- or to take out the running away Tank drivers.

I'd suggest that Yak-9T pilots will undoubtedly stop using the NS-37 to tag enemy planes once the Luft pilots stop using the MK-108 for anything other than bombers.


HUH? What Kind of answer was taht ??????????
Go to school learn logical thinking.

You dont got it what i was saying or.

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 07:32 PM
pipgig wrote:
--- what the hell you thing was the 13mm UBS Mg
--- included.
--- Just for fun? to hit the tanks also with Mg
--- or to take out the running away Tank drivers.
-
-- I'd suggest that Yak-9T pilots will undoubtedly stop
-- using the NS-37 to tag enemy planes once the Luft
-- pilots stop using the MK-108 for anything other than
-- bombers.
-
- HUH? What Kind of answer was taht ??????????
- Go to school learn logical thinking.
-
- You dont got it what i was saying or.

Obviously this kind of thing puts the Luftwhiners in a bit of a bind:

If it was impossible to down fighters with the NS-37, then that means the Yak-9T's air to air kills were scored with a single UB MG. The same horribly, terribly, unfairly!!!!!!! overmodelled UB MG that has been the subject of Luftwhiners whines since IL2 1.0.

Most of the more skilled Luftwhiners are smart enough not to bring this up, but you're obviously a .. special case. In reality, fighter kills were scored with both the NS-37 and the MK-108, regardless of what either were primarily designed to bring down. But it makes for such a nice whine to think otherwise, doesn't it?

Are you with Leadspitter, pipgig? Do you feel that an FW-190 should continue on, unaffected, by more than four thirty seven millimetre antitank shells being shot through it? How many more, exactly, would be a satisfactory number for you?

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
09-18-2003, 07:39 PM
clint-ruin wrote:
- To be honest, I'm starting to believe that the real
- reason the Germans lost WWII was due to some form of
- chronic wasting whining disease.
-
- The FW-190s roll rate is truly in the realms of
- fantasy.
-


"The flying characteristics are exceptional and a pilot new to the type feels at home within the first few minutes of flight. The controls are light and well harmonised and all manoeuvres can be carried out without difficulty at all speeds. The fact that the Fw 190 does not require re-trimming under all conditions of flight is a particularly good point."

"Perhaps one the most outstanding qualities of this aircraft is the remarkable aileron control. It is possible to change from a turn in one direction to a turn in the opposite direction with incredible speed and when viewed from another aircraft the change appears just as if a flick half roll had been made."

These are direct quotes taken from a report generated from full trials on a captured A-3 in 1942 and carried out at the Air Fighting Development Unit at Duxford. The captured Fw was mistakenly flown to Pembrey on 23 June 1942 by Oberleutnant Armin Faber.

Cheers,
Lawn Dart
Operations Officer, IV/JG51
http://www.jg51.net/

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 07:50 PM
IVJG51_Dart wrote:
-- The FW-190s roll rate is truly in the realms of
-- fantasy.
-
- These are direct quotes taken from a report
- generated from full trials on a captured A-3 in 1942
- and carried out at the Air Fighting Development Unit
- at Duxford. The captured Fw was mistakenly flown to
- Pembrey on 23 June 1942 by Oberleutnant Armin Faber.

Hi Lawn Dart,

Did this report happen to mention how fast the A3 rolled at around, say, 700 to 900kmh?

Edit:
Actually, bugger this - there's already been several threads now where this has been covered. The best the Luftwhiner crew managed on this one was "performance in the game should be relative!!11!!!1!!!", apparently expecting Oleg to model planes to the nearest decimal anecdote.

As good as the FW-190 roll rate and elevator response were, the response they have in FB right now simply isn't in the realms of physics.


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 09/18/0307:00PM by clint-ruin

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 08:10 PM
Hi Clint-ruin

The Dive:
"The Fw 190 has a high rate of dive, the initial acceleration being excellent. The maximum speed so far obtained in a dive is 580 MPH True at 16,000 ft and at this speed the controls, although slightly heavier, are still remarkably light. One very good feature is that no alteration of trim from level flight is required either during the entry or during the pull-out. Due to the injection system it is possible to enter the dive by pushing the control column forward without the engine cutting. [Note: interrogation of Focke-Wulf personnel after the war revealed that the Fw 190 had been dived to Mach 0.80, a marked nose down trim change occurring at Mach 0.78 for which the variable incidence tailplane was extremely useful in assisting recovery.]"



Cheers,
Lawn Dart
Operations Officer, IV/JG51
http://www.jg51.net/

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 08:21 PM
Hi Lawn Dart,

If you're going to insist on hijacking the thread into another FW-190 roll debate, it would be especially good if there was something along the lines of a chart that measured roll rate and stick force and speed and altitude, and all those kinds of niggling technical details. I can't remember seeing anything that even remotely suggests the FW-190 should roll as it does in FB in the very-low or very-high speed range, nor that it should be able to pull out from 900kmh near-vertical dives in around 300 feet of altitude.

But by all means, if you have anything that firmly supports the kind of behaviour the FW-190 shows in FB right now, start another thread about it and I'll be sure to thank you kindly for your trouble.



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
09-18-2003, 08:40 PM
Don't get your knickers in a wad there Clint. I'm not trying to "hijack" the thread. Just felt I had the same right as you to address issues that bother me within a post, especially within the context of your assertion that we're all "Luftwhiners". If I had the numbers to post I most certainly would, but I don't so I refer to the information I have and submit what parts I can, which I've yet to see from you. Further, since you're the one who brought up the "fantasy" roll rate of the Fw I must assume that you are indeed the one in possession of the hard evidence you speak of. Care to post those real world numbers showing what the true roll rates should be at all speeds for the rest of us LW whiners? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Cheers,
Lawn Dart
Operations Officer, IV/JG51
http://www.jg51.net/

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 08:54 PM
The 16 sec turntimes and the 30ms climbrates that are much more than what the specs say they should be for certain soviet planes are far more of an unfair advantage than if the FW rolls too fast at 700+kph,or if it has too much elevator authority at high speeds.If its wrong the way it is, I wouldnt mind at all if they tuned it to where it should be,it would still be superior and probably easier to fly.



Message Edited on 09/18/0302:57PM by WalterMitty

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 09:08 PM
There are some servers which switched back to 1.1b, and I rather fly the 1.1b servers than servers with the final patch. Even flying on RED side the 1.1b patch seems more close to reality than the ARCADE 1.11 wanna-be-patch./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



"......und mein Herz steigt wie ein Falke in die Lüfte!"

EJGr.Ost Kimura

http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/image/ejgrost.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 09:08 PM
IVJG51_Dart wrote:
- Don't get your knickers in a wad there Clint.

No such thing :>

Just having fun playing whack-a-mole with the gits and up comes the infamous FW-190 roll rate thread.

Given that there's no new data to offer I'd say it's still case closed.

- I'm
- not trying to "hijack" the thread. Just felt I had
- the same right as you to address issues that bother
- me within a post, especially within the context of
- your assertion that we're all "Luftwhiners".

I don't think I've thrown the term around too widely here at all. It's more the underlying snotty tone, the willingness to gloss over any actual behaviour FB aircraft show in order to sneeringly accuse Oleg of bias.

I'm very far from an Oleg fanboy, I've given the man a bunch of crap over a lot of IL2/FBs technical design choices, the patching farnarkle, the FW-190 cockpit view and the rest.

But people who'll complain about the FW-190 exploding after taking an anti tank round, but conveniently leave out some of the more monsterously overmodelled aspects of the same plane [roll, elevator, damage model, speeds up til 1.11] need a smacking. It's just bollocks. If I was Oleg I'd be much more bloody minded about the whole thing and start nerfing Luftwaffe planes out of sheer force of spite :>


- If I
- had the numbers to post I most certainly would, but
- I don't so I refer to the information I have and
- submit what parts I can, which I've yet to see from
- you. Further, since you're the one who brought up
- the "fantasy" roll rate of the Fw I must assume that
- you are indeed the one in possession of the hard
- evidence you speak of. Care to post those real world
- numbers showing what the true roll rates should be
- at all speeds for the rest of us LW whiners?

The only data I've seen that clearly shows the FW-190 roll rate is the NACA [?] roll tests at 50lbs stick force, which is missing a fair bit of other data if I remember correctly. But that doesn't tally with what the game does, either.

The rest of the evidence is along the lines of the classic Issy/Huckles data, selected anecdotes and whatnot. But I've not yet seen anything that would support the elevator/pullout behaviour FB does from those yet, either.

Certainly you'd expect the kind of FM the FW-190 has in FB now to be the kind of thing that would attract some kind of comment, either from pilots or the opposition. But ...

And so on and so forth.

Actually, one thing I'd like to see - if we're going to insist on modelling to the correct anecdote - is some sign of the Carson comments about the FW-190s engine bursting into flame at the slightest provocation. I've had it cut out and smoke a bunch, but I can hardly remember the last time I saw it actually burst into flame. Seems to have happened quite a bit given that there was some mention of Carson doing it 12 times to FWs.

Oleg, I demand satisfaction and roasted fascists!

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
09-18-2003, 09:38 PM
i think the same that George Manoussos.NOw the P39 is the best plane in the game not only as a ground attack plane but as a air superiority fighter; this was not real in the WW2.Everybody knows that americans rejected this plane as an air superiority fighter in the European theater although it was a good attack plane.
One Question about speed :WHY is it imposible reach the top speed at sea level with fuel depots nearly empty at full power with wep in all focke wulfs.
Im in possesion of the pilot license i fly regularly i have thouht up till now that this was the better simulator , but with the patch 1.11 the things go wrong.
Is this a commercial maneouver making worse the FB
to sell better the Lock On ?

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 09:46 PM
To no one particularly,


I rather suspect that the incessant Sturm und Drang of the disgruntled Experten tends to impede perfection of the sim. And not just by abstractly poisoning the resolve of the development team ("Why bother?" indeed), but also in specific, concrete terms - by facilitating the persistence of legitimate bugs. For instance, I don't imagine that my grade 10 math rivals the technical expertise of a development team comprised of degreed professionals. Yet, while managing to withhold my series of lectures on the performance of the wing of the P-47 D22, I can't but remark that the Soviet star insignia affixed to its starboard-upper removes seems to be wrong-way-round. Not surprisingly, given the din above which I try to broadcast my cosmetically petty wee observation, and given the gathering complacency with which it would likely be received in the unlikely event it could be received, the star remains askew.

So there it stands dOOds, proof that Luftwhining has turned the game upside-down.


Cheers,


Greg S

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 10:05 PM
KIMURA wrote:
- There are some servers which switched back to 1.1b,
- and I rather fly the 1.1b servers than servers with
- the final patch. Even flying on RED side the 1.1b
- patch seems more close to reality than the ARCADE
- 1.11 wanna-be-patch.

That is great! I hope that more major HL servers will do the same.

I reverted back to 1.1b and suddenly I remembered why I liked this game.

After that I reinstalled original IL-2 and flyed it without any "patches" to FM and I remembered why I LOVED this game. Planes had different stall charasteritics amongs themselves! And they didnt just pull out of spin when releasing the stick immediately! Try it people; you'll be surprised what it was. I personally really miss those FM's.



Message Edited on 09/19/0312:23AM by Kannaksen_hanu

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 10:19 PM
Boosher PBNA:

Usually I read even crap calmly, but everything has its limit, also stupidity and rudeness - and YOU just exceeded my personal limit.

3 points to answer:

1) If someone fixes bugs at Maddox Games its not Oleg himself but one of his employees because he is the manager, not a programmer. So how are you going to know if he ever sleeps at the office ?

2) We're not upset because there are some bugs, we're upset because the last months and esp. the 1.11F patch showed clearly, that its no bug - its a "feature" !
Maddox first wanted to get bug reports and then they stuff one hole (FW190 FM except rollrate overdone) only to drill a new one at least 2 times as large nearby (109 FM). Not only they dont use the bug reports that were delivered concerning 109 - THEY EVEN WORK IN THE OPPOSITE, THE WRONG DIRECTION - probably to please some of the russian community like Youss.
So the only conclusion is, Maddox would surely be able to make all planes fly 98% realistic in speed, acceleration, climb and handling, BUT THEY DONT WANT TO, they obviously want red to have an unrealistic advantage. So they are treating the blue community like dumb children.

3) When critizised, even in a very polite and scientific way, Olegs answers are either not there or become more and more ARROGANT ("You is wrong - learn more before posting..."), IGNORANT and last time even STUPID ("... all 109s still climb too good in 1.11F...") - something I never would have expected from Oleg. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
Your decision if this doesnt annoy you, but at least I consider myself not suited to such treatment.


I will never bother Oleg and his fanboys - like possibly you - again because its of no use to push somebody that doesnt want to go...

Going back to 1.1B and disillusioned

Jordan

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 01:34 AM
clint-ruin:

I know you dont understand many many aircraft-detail in WWII.

So I will not dispute with youhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Only I will add is:

I love OLEG, indeed
I love 1C team, indeed
I love all versions patch of IL2 to IL2-FB. indeed

Except 1.11. indeed

In the past years, I have noticed many dispute of Past Patchs, That time I have not say anything against those patchs. Opposition, I had said many many words to substain OLEG. Because I think the bugs are paticular, It will not overthrow the whole GAME.

But this time, I have to say that. 1.11 Patch's route maybe destroy THE WHOLE GAME.

I'm a very well balanced fling FB-FAN. I'm good at fly all kind of Yaks, LaGG-La's, 109's, 190's, P39, P40, even in P47s and MIGs. because of these years I have many bare time to enjoy FB-It's a so great WWII-SIM.
I am not a only-one-type flying FB-FAN. I am a multiple craft enjoying FAN. I think I have competency to say the wrong in 1.11.


AVG_HOTWIND post

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 01:59 AM
ths all the people that reply to that post

im happy that im not the only one that see that 1.11 do have big problems. so big problems that alot off people do think that 1.1b it is alot off better

i do love this game and for 2 years i have give alot off my time in here and this is the 1st time that i see pilots to many pilots unhappy about the planes .

this is not a problem about VVS--VS--OKL planes or pilots
this problem is about keeping the game UP and 1st in the combat sims .we all want to fly planes against planes that are us real us can get so the only thing that make the winner is the experiens and the skills

keep posting pls

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 02:38 AM
I'll just copy this from another recent thread.


Vipez said it best.

- "Perhaps you should take a look at overmodelled vvs
- planes also because there are lot more of them..,
- like Lagg3 climbing 18 m/s (should be less than
- 10ms), La-7/La5F climbing 30ms and doing sustained
- 360 turns at 16 secs, P-39 climbing over 20m/s..
- Only handicapped VVS plane at the momemnt is P-40,
- that is lacking top speed.. now take a look at Late
- war German 109s.. they are missing top speed and
- climb ability. Now that I call unrealistic.. besides
- it is not that wrong, I can roll some 110 degrees in
- A-5 on +600 kph, should be something like 74
- degrees.. that is very minor Roll rate bug, so shut
- up whining about FW-190, before Oleg turns it back
- to flying sand bag from FB 1.0.. THE OTHER FM & DM
- ARE MUCH MORE SERIOUS THAN THIS!"

I added the caps at the end for those who may miss the point. I'm not "luftwhining", the 190's roll-rate is a little too fast, but there are more serious gameplay/balance issues that need looked at. I hope they fix all of the errors whether they are on red or blue side, but currently the bugs favor the red side as noted above.

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 03:30 AM
I can roll some 110 degrees in
- A-5 on +600 kph, should be something like 74
- degrees.

Huh? It's "a little too fast" when it is over 50% what it should be? Or you don't agree with those numbers? I guess it's that you don't agree with those!

I noticed a thread at SimHQ by a longtime pilot who is able to get the P-40's to fly according to the 1943 P-40 manual (he does not care about object-viewer numbers) and said it's right on the money correct. Speed and roll, correct.

Perhaps he could also get the VVS planes to outproduce what they should by using the same techniques but he is only a P-40 fan from way back. Perhaps he can get the 109's to the right speed without overheating instantly or before then. Perhaps he would notice lack of overheat in certain planes. But he doesn't care to post about other than the P-40's.

The point is that few sim pilots can get the planes to the full speeds that the sim allows. If you can't get the P-40's to the right USAAF speeds but you can get the LaGG's, etc, there and faster then perhaps the problem isn't that the 109's are less than they should be at all. Perhaps then you are not so good as you think and the planes you can do so hot in are overmodelled by as far as you can't fly the P-40's for example.

To make the best speed requires much more than fire it up, hold it straight and jam on the power. Much, much more. It needs you to trim perfect as possible so hands off the stick flies straight and level. It needs you to manage the engine correctly which I have found in 109's is not running at 2500rpm but actually slower revs with steeper pitch has gotten me more speed and less heat. It needs you to cool the engine at higher altitude and then dive to test altitude and bring up your power, adjust prop pitch and trim constantly as you slow towards the target maximum speed. That way you will start your trial run with a reserve of heat capacity. Then see how long you can maintain full speed or the best you can and average your speed if the plane rises and falls slightly, it is okay to do so.

Anyone can make a plane do less than its best. If someone feels that a plane is being misreported as slower than they think it is then they have only to post a track 15 minutes long showing different. That is worth more than 100 charts and explanations. If a plane is overmodelled and you care sooooo much then SHOW IT. But don't show undermodelled, just challenge any other to show it is not.


Neal




Message Edited on 09/18/0310:33PM by WWMaxGunz

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 04:10 AM
To CHN Eagleheart -

one word for you matey: bullsh*t



Message Edited on 09/19/0306:12AM by Stellar73

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 04:41 AM
CHN_EagleHeart wrote:
- clint-ruin:
-
- I know you dont understand many many aircraft-detail
- in WWII.
-
- So I will not dispute with youhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Um, I think I'm going to need to repeat myself here, since there has obviously been some kind of misunderstanding.

I'd like you to do three things, two of which the UBI forums swear word filter will allow me to publicly suggest:

1. Clarify for me your comment about being able to beat a veteran pilot in any LW plane or any VVS plane, vs the veterans choice of plane. If this is true, what Red Vs Blue balance issues do you suspect FB still has?

2. Take up an FW-190A - any model - in the Quick Mission Builder. Place yourself as the only plane on the LW side. Place 16 Laggs, Yaks, and La planes on the opposite side. Set them to 'rookie' level, with 'empty' ammo. Tell me how many you are able to down. If you're able to take out less than 12, you're an even worse shot than I am. If you're able to take out all 16, it's still a higher number of those kinds of planes killed in an FW-190A than any LW pilot managed during the entirity of World War 2. After you do this experiment, explain to me how the Yak/La models are "titanium wood", and how it is you feel that the FW-190's 20mm are "too joke".

Still, if you'd rather not, I can't say I blame you. It's much more fun to make claims as to my knowledge of many many aircraft detail than it would be to admit, you know, utterly and entirely wrong about half of your claims about 1.11 patch behaviour.

Or that your own desire to boast about your own online skills, being able to take out any LW or VVS plane vs a veteran, kind of makes it sound like maybe 1.11 isn't so horrible unbalanced after all.

Eagleheart, sir, I'm so looking forward to your explanation.

- Only I will add is:
-
- I love OLEG, indeed
- I love 1C team, indeed
- I love all versions patch of IL2 to IL2-FB. indeed

It's only a game - but a very good one, you're right :>

- Except 1.11. indeed
-
- In the past years, I have noticed many dispute of
- Past Patchs, That time I have not say anything
- against those patchs. Opposition, I had said many
- many words to substain OLEG. Because I think the
- bugs are paticular, It will not overthrow the whole
- GAME.
-
- But this time, I have to say that. 1.11 Patch's
- route maybe destroy THE WHOLE GAME.
-
- I'm a very well balanced fling FB-FAN. I'm good at
- fly all kind of Yaks, LaGG-La's, 109's, 190's, P39,
- P40, even in P47s and MIGs. because of these years I
- have many bare time to enjoy FB-It's a so great
- WWII-SIM.
- I am not a only-one-type flying FB-FAN. I am a
- multiple craft enjoying FAN. I think I have
- competency to say the wrong in 1.11.

As far as I'm aware, the primary LW complaints with build 1.11 are:

Bf-109F strength Vs Lagg3 '41.

Bf-109G and Bf-109G14 performance.

Bf-109x overheat.

Fw-190 cannon damage vs VVS planes.

P-39 performance envelope.

You know what I'd do, if I was running a server and I felt this way? Turn overheat off, and take the Lagg and P-39 out of the selectable planes list, and fly the G6/AS rather than the practically identical G-14. This is less than a minutes work.

You will note that there has been very, very little mention of the changes Maddox made to the Hurricane, I-153, I-16, and the other points I mentioned back on page 1. No outpouring of thanks for "fixing" the VVS "noob planes". No thanks for boosting the FW-190s performance and armor far beyond any recorded data that exists for the type - though several wrote in to complain that the excessive top speed from FB prior to 1.11 was now fixed. Nothing. Not that there was complete stoney silence, however - giving into the Luftwhiner jocks only made them bolder. I'm sure Oleg is pleased to know that however much he compromises with the die-hard LW fans, it will never, ever be enough to satisfy them.

- AVG_HOTWIND post

I can't help but think that you have no idea just how appropriate your nick is in English, indeed, with each posting, the smell of fresh hot wind grows stronger.



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
09-19-2003, 04:58 AM
GregSM wrote:
- To no one particularly,
-
- ...
- For instance, I don't imagine that
- my grade 10 math rivals the technical expertise of a
- development team comprised of degreed professionals.
- Yet, while managing to withhold my series of
- lectures on the performance of the wing of the P-47
- D22, I can't but remark that the Soviet star
- insignia affixed to its starboard-upper removes
- seems to be wrong-way-round. Not surprisingly, given
- the din above which I try to broadcast my
- cosmetically petty wee observation, and given the
- gathering complacency with which it would likely be
- received in the unlikely event it could be received,
- the star remains askew.
-
- So there it stands dOOds, proof that Luftwhining has
- turned the game upside-down.

Don't blame you for thinking that at all, I practically missed your post amidst the Luftwhining as well.

There are a lot of what I would assume to be very basic tweaks to the QMB, FMB, interface, skin handling, campaign and other issues that I'd think would involve a lot less fine tuning than FM/DM tweaks.

But you're right - most of the actual core of the game stands unchanged since Il-2 1.0, and the same old bugs and lacklustre single player features seem to be there every release.

If it wasn't for the release of the Uberdemon QMG and Newview I can't say if I'd have bothered continuing to play the game.


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
09-19-2003, 05:12 AM
"You know what I'd do, if I was running a server and I felt this way? Turn overheat off, and take the Lagg and P-39 out of the selectable planes list, and fly the G6/AS rather than the practically identical G-14. This is less than a minutes work"

I dont agrree with u. In our team and many many others, We all use realistic options. Use such this unreal-option, is shame to us.

ANd I even know that, not all people likes fling IL2-FB are honesty. Some one coward needs some magic-plane to fight on the net. And they see that's nature. like above something said his own "BULLSh*T".

So I declare that:

I will take the FB 1.11 patch.
And I change to BLUE side.
I'm very glad to use my LW-paper-plane to kill any coward person on the air.

I will say no more word and just do more kill.

My name on the net is allways:

"CHN_HOTWIND" "AVG_HOTWIND" or "III/JG2_HOTWIND"

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 05:14 AM
Stellar73 wrote:
- To CHN Eagleheart -
-
- one word for you matey: bullsh*t
-
-
-
- Message Edited on 09/19/03 06:12AM by Stellar73



Stellar73 you are totally a SB!!

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 05:55 AM
@Havok

you knew me, I flew the K4 religiously

But now I face the facts, I still fly the K4 in normal dogfight rooms, but I am not a dummy. I get into way way to many heated 1 on 1 fights online, maybe its my mouth but I don't know.

Anyway I learned that when I fly the K4 and someone else the La7, its a very hard fight and when its someone of your skill piloting the La7 it is almost a hopeless fight.

Now if I put myself into the pit of the La7, I hold my own.

Its not that I was doing anything terribly wrong in that K4, its just the climb rate of the K4 and the La7 are so close that it almost makes the K4's advantage pretty much the equal to the La7's climb. Don't get me wrong it is better but if you take off in an K4 and get a friend to pilot an La7 beside you, u will see the La7 pilot take off ahead then you will slowly slowly gain in that climb.

Now the La7's climb is very close to what the K4's advantage was, now factor in the E bleed differences of the two planes and even the turn factor cause I fly the K4 and the La7 and to me the La7 turns better. You can say I am wrong but even in that the La7 still has its no E bleed compared to the K4.

U can't say I don't know to fly my friend, you know me.

I still enjoy flying my K4, just need to get the alt and BnZ then its great... but 1 on 1 we both take off at the same time and when we meet well.... The La7 takes over as my choice of ride when I get serious 1 on 1.

<a>http://www.talonsoft.com/images/hiddenanddangerous/hiddenanddangerous-eyes.jpg</a>

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 06:03 AM
hoho, I flyied La7 a lot of time. I know that this time.

la7 enegy bleed? no! JOKE!

la7 can inbreathe enegy when it takes hard turns!!!
Means La7 can accelerate speed when he hard turn!!!

I must say La7 now is some morden-aircraft. And he has 2~3 times ammorplate than FW190A5.

No Prop plane can match La7. If his pilot is a real online "ACE".

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 06:14 AM
Why OKL always crying. I mean it.
They always complain about this and that.
Better learn how to fly. Not big deal in v1.11.

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 06:50 AM
I just downloaded the patch tonight and I tend to agree that there are some issues with it , although I haven't had enough time to do a full assessment.Now before anyone accuses ME of being a whiner, I wish to point out that I play mostly offline and enjoy flying my own missions, so I have no preference over which side has the advantage as I fly both sides. My concern is accuracy and Oleg's team seems to need to do a little more fine tuning in my opinion.On the plus side, the 109G2, 10, and 14 now seem to haul *** , and on the down side, I'm really disappointed in how much they have cut the power in the E4s and E7s.Iwas perfectly happy with them before the update, now they run like they have VW engines in them, As for the roll rate and touchy stall of the 190s, if they were like that in real life, I think everyone would refuse to fly them, and as someone else said, the war would have been over in 1942. On the up side to the 190s , the fire power really makes them a "butcherbird". Maybe it's my imagination, but some of the flyby sounds seem improved. I think the wep now destroys an engine too quickly too. I noticed if you put it on at full throttle, even for a second, you'll screw your engine. I think the rudder on the k4 is still a little weak and the open vs closed rad, I notice no difference. I also think the p40 flys like a dream , I just love it, but I read that in reality it was a dog. (or is there another patch I've missed?).That's all I've had a chance to notice so far after a couple hours on the patch.Anyway, still the best combat sim on the market Oleg, I'm just trying to give some constructive critism.

Cheers,
Lev /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 06:55 AM
Hi Clint-Ruin


I still derive a lot of enjoyment from the game, and continue to appreciate it as I always have, while I don't wish merely to promote the ascendancy of my adopted grievances. But I find slogging through associated waves of pretence tiresome (I see you agree), though my emotional investment in the endeavour is casual. Were it substantial, as Oleg's presumably is, I'd be positively weary. I only wish we'd serve ourselves better by expecting sane men to frown at chronic complaining, however handily it may be dismissed.


Thanks for your posts,


Greg S

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 07:00 AM
MEHT wrote:
- Why OKL always crying. I mean it.
- They always complain about this and that.
- Better learn how to fly. Not big deal in v1.11.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
I know some of the pilots above.I can tell you that their skills and experience are outstanding in all kinds of planes,settings etc.
When you meet them on line tell them "learn to fly"!
Regards!



<center> 335th_GRViper
http://www.hellenic-sqn.gr


http://www.hellenic-sqn.gr/Images/33.gif </center>

Message Edited on 09/19/0308:05AM by GR_335th_Viper

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 07:01 AM
clint-ruin wrote:
- - There are some issues to do with some BF-109
- models handling. The early models E4 through G2,
- and G6/AS are fine.

Incorrect. F through G6 series overheat rapidly and can't hit listed speeds (except perhaps the G6/AS).

LaGG's and La-5, La-5F, La-5FN, and La-7's have a mix of issues. LaGG '41's and La-5's should overheat easily, but rarely overheat at all. La-5's outperform historical values in turn, climb, and straightline speed. La-5F, La-5FN, and La-7's all have excessively fast turn rates even compared to Oleg's own object viewer.

I suspect the Brewster is turning a bit faster than it should and I wonder if it should overheat after extended periods at full throttle.

LMG issues are still with us, and Pe-2's are overly sturdy compared to LW mounts of the same era.

If you think the '42 La-5's were superior to G2's, then you need to do some reading. That is what we have in the sim.

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 07:40 AM
God dam it VIper... when i read your words, i'm sure now that u would be very easy target. Talking some b...ts about tactics and "learn to fly"... u man realy now nothing about fight in air..
When i read your message from first page of this tread i thought ... nothing... just:
1. I doubt that FB is the best online WWII simulator (check www.hitechcreations.com (http://www.hitechcreations.com) or www.wbfree.net (http://www.wbfree.net))
2. "Let's be little reasonable..
Some parameters just cann't be simulate now.There are some bugs and some problems with FM and DM of some planes."
STOP LICKING DEV TEAM A..S. parameters just cann't be simulated now!!!! CLIMB OF 109 SERIES!!! THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTAND PARAMITER IN WWII SIMS. HAVE U EVER HEARD ABOUT LA5 OUTCLIMBING 109?
3. "...but i can never be sure if it was me or FB." Than u don't fill plane... think about it... maybe it's not your type of game
4. La-5FN/La-7/Yak-3 were exellent fighters.
Of course they were exellent. But german fighter's was also good i think? or maybe not? muhahaha
La5 and LA7 cannot outclimb 109 (from his part of time).
One more thing...La5FN is too fast... he should have problems in catching 190a5 in shallow dive above 1500m.
La turn's too well...la was russian 190 (190 turn's too well to, germans alwayes said: "don't turn on 190", in this game i can see 190 in DF muhahaha)

That will be all... nope 1 more thing, lagg3 is not loosing oil when hitted in oil instalation.

JG302 Kostek

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 08:19 AM
Eagleheart, I'd be overjoyed if you could please clarify your earlier remarks about being able to beat any VVS or LW veteran in their choice of plane, and how this relates to 'bias' or undermodelled LW planes.

I'd also like you to tell me how many Laggs and Yaks you can take down in the aforementioned QMB scenario.

It'll take but a moment of your time to do. Just think of it, Eagleheart - after doing this, you'll undoubtedly have the concrete proof you need to prove that LW 20mm cannons are woefully underpowered, and that Lagg/La/Yak planes are simply too tough to bring down. A track file of this very phenomenon to wave in front of my face and show me up for a complete and utter fool - not only wrong, but arrogant and insulting about it to boot! Harumph!

Eagleheart, I have this strange feeling that perhaps you're not being entirely straight with us about these issues. Certainly you seem unable to keep your story straight between page one and page three of the one thread.

Which is why I keep asking.

CHN_EagleHeart wrote:
- "You know what I'd do, if I was running a server and
- I felt this way? Turn overheat off, and take the
- Lagg and P-39 out of the selectable planes list, and
- fly the G6/AS rather than the practically identical
- G-14. This is less than a minutes work"
-
- I dont agrree with u. In our team and many many
- others, We all use realistic options. Use such this
- unreal-option, is shame to us.

But Eagleheart, if the overheat modelling is so woefully wrong, surely turning it off practically and simply eliminates the problem? Is it that essential to you that you're flying a G10 or a G14 rather than a G6/AS or K4?

- ANd I even know that, not all people likes fling
- IL2-FB are honesty. Some one coward needs some
- magic-plane to fight on the net. And they see that's
- nature. like above something said his own
- "BULLSh*T".

So? To repeat myself yet again, if you and your buddies feel that the P-39 is literally some kind of magical super aeroplane, remove it from the select list. Other server operators have removed the Me-262, the I-153, the I-16, Hurricane and other planes from the list in previous versions of IL-2 and FB to suit their preference. You'd think that people had gotten used to it by now.

- So I declare that:
-
- I will take the FB 1.11 patch.
- And I change to BLUE side.
- I'm very glad to use my LW-paper-plane to kill any
- coward person on the air.

Which LW paper plane is this?

Here's something for you to try when you're next enacting your super VVS V-PILOT fantasies:

Take up a P-47 and shoot at a late model BF-109s bum. See how much of the ammo load the tailplane can soak up.

Take up a Hurricane MkIIb and shoot at an FW-190. See how many you can take down with one load of ammo.

Take up a Yak9T and see how many NS-37 shells an FW-190 can take. I've counted up to 4 on a single plane.

While you're flying for blue, do remember to try that little experiment I asked you to perform in the QMB. Because Eagleheart, you know I'm going to keep asking.

Poor blue, and their poor darling paper aeroplanes. It's enough to move a man to tears. :<


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
09-19-2003, 09:14 AM
clint-ruin wrote:
- Eagleheart, I'd be overjoyed if you could please
- clarify your earlier remarks about being able to
- beat any VVS or LW veteran in their choice of plane,
- and how this relates to 'bias' or undermodelled LW
- planes.

OK

-
- I'd also like you to tell me how many Laggs and Yaks
- you can take down in the aforementioned QMB
- scenario.
-

for example, In 1.11's QMB in real mode, I can use just like 1X190A5 to shotdown 12 ACE P40Es, Or 4 ACE P40E+4 ACE P39N1, Or 4 ACE Yak1, Or 4x ACE Yak1B, Or 4 ACE LAGG3(1941), Or 4 ACE La5/La5F. But I can not dial with 4 ACE MIG3U, 4 ACE YAK3, 4 ACE La5FN, 4 ACE La7.(I have personaly over 600M training trks on my HD like this)

Note If I use 109s, I can make more kill.

But this is nothing. EVEN above this showed. I can not match JUST ONE REAL ONLINE ACE if He is in La7, Yak3, etc. WHat ever BLUE planes I choice. Like D9, Like K4, etc.

because My 190D9 or K4, cant out-run them, out-enegy them, out-climb them, out-div them, and offcause, out-turn them.And the bad thing is : I am out-guned.

But in the other hand. If I take La5FN, La7, Yak3. On the net. Allmost no one can beat me. Im very sure of this.

- It'll take but a moment of your time to do. Just
- think of it, Eagleheart - after doing this, you'll
- undoubtedly have the concrete proof you need to
- prove that LW 20mm cannons are woefully
- underpowered, and that Lagg/La/Yak planes are simply
- too tough to bring down. A track file of this very
- phenomenon to wave in front of my face and show me
- up for a complete and utter fool - not only wrong,
- but arrogant and insulting about it to boot!
- Harumph!
-

since 1.1B released, I fly 190A5 every night. In one night I can make about 10~20 kills. But I have not record whole night fight. In my 600M+ TRANING TRKS, It also can shows my opinion. I AM NOT A MAD MAN. You can just test this yourself. Its very easy.

- Eagleheart, I have this strange feeling that perhaps
- you're not being entirely straight with us about
- these issues. Certainly you seem unable to keep
- your story straight between page one and page three
- of the one thread.
-
- Which is why I keep asking.
-
- CHN_EagleHeart wrote:
-- "You know what I'd do, if I was running a server and
-- I felt this way? Turn overheat off, and take the
-- Lagg and P-39 out of the selectable planes list, and
-- fly the G6/AS rather than the practically identical
-- G-14. This is less than a minutes work"
--
-- I dont agrree with u. In our team and many many
-- others, We all use realistic options. Use such this
-- unreal-option, is shame to us.
-
- But Eagleheart, if the overheat modelling is so
- woefully wrong, surely turning it off practically
- and simply eliminates the problem? Is it that
- essential to you that you're flying a G10 or a
- G14 rather than a G6/AS or K4?
-
-- ANd I even know that, not all people likes fling
-- IL2-FB are honesty. Some one coward needs some
-- magic-plane to fight on the net. And they see that's
-- nature. like above something said his own
-- "BULLSh*T".
-

You know what is called "standard"? I respect the standard of HOST setting. Now, I badly noticed that 1.11Patch is destroing the world standard HOST settings. You understand?

- So? To repeat myself yet again, if you and your
- buddies feel that the P-39 is literally some kind of
- magical super aeroplane, remove it from the select
- list. Other server operators have removed the
- Me-262, the I-153, the I-16, Hurricane and other
- planes from the list in previous versions of IL-2
- and FB to suit their preference. You'd think that
- people had gotten used to it by now.
-

You post is Nothing. I love to fly P39. P39's 37mm kill make me exciting. So I need My real P39 back. Dont ask me egnore may many planes in the FB 1.11. I have one question:
1.11 is UP-Patching or De-Patching?

-- So I declare that:
--
-- I will take the FB 1.11 patch.
-- And I change to BLUE side.
-- I'm very glad to use my LW-paper-plane to kill any
-- coward person on the air.
-
- Which LW paper plane is this?
-
- Here's something for you to try when you're next
- enacting your super VVS V-PILOT fantasies:
-
- Take up a P-47 and shoot at a late model BF-109s
- bum. See how much of the ammo load the tailplane
- can soak up.
-
- Take up a Hurricane MkIIb and shoot at an FW-190.
- See how many you can take down with one load of
- ammo.
-
- Take up a Yak9T and see how many NS-37 shells an
- FW-190 can take. I've counted up to 4 on a single
- plane.
-
- While you're flying for blue, do remember to try
- that little experiment I asked you to perform in the
- QMB. Because Eagleheart, you know I'm going to keep
- asking.
-
- Poor blue, and their poor darling paper aeroplanes.
- It's enough to move a man to tears. :<
-
-

I have no tears. I have a broken-heart for FB's future.

-
- <img
- src="http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/worker_p
- arasite.jpg" width=315 height=240 alt=""
- align="middle">
-
- Need help with NewView? Read <a
- href="http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-
- topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yzbcj">this
- thread.</a>

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 09:18 AM
Red_Harvest wrote:
- clint-ruin wrote:
-- - There are some issues to do with some BF-109
-- models handling. The early models E4 through G2,
-- and G6/AS are fine.
-
- Incorrect. F through G6 series overheat rapidly and
- can't hit listed speeds (except perhaps the G6/AS).

Interesting, just played with the F4 then and was able to hold 630kmh TAS at 6000m just fine with the rads closed, CEM on, turbulence/etc off. Thought I'd check that I wasn't talking complete crap. Didn't even have to play with pitch or mix or anything. I'm a CEM newbie, only just started playing with it a couple of days ago in the process of playing with Joy2Key/NewView et al.

Why don't you give this a try yourself, I'll even swap tracks with you if you like. Il2Compare seems more or less right but from reading the various threads on it it's not "real" real data, just calculated, and it's missing a bunch of measurements [roll/turn rates with rad position] that would make it somewhat more useful.

Just also played with the G2 now, reached 656 steady at 7000m which is a whole 10kmh off the IL2-FB site data at http://www.il2sturmovik.com/games_elts/fb_aircraft.php

Not exactly orders of magnitude off.

Anyhow, invitation's there if you want to swap tracks, I'm prepared to be convinced that the LW can't possibly survive against the invincible soviet planes in 1.11, but it had better be bloody convincing stuff.

- LaGG's and La-5, La-5F, La-5FN, and La-7's have a
- mix of issues. LaGG '41's and La-5's should
- overheat easily, but rarely overheat at all.

As far as I can see there's some kind of bug to do with the way aerodynamic cooling affects them above certain speeds/altitudes, but they will indeed overheat. I like to use the Lagg3 '41 in early war stuff because the amount of guns on it is just insane, and it's a fun ride. Las and Laggs do indeed overheat unless you pump it right to the edge of its speed and manage to keep it there the entire time.

- La-5's
- outperform historical values in turn, climb, and
- straightline speed. La-5F, La-5FN, and La-7's all
- have excessively fast turn rates even compared to
- Oleg's own object viewer.
-
- I suspect the Brewster is turning a bit faster than
- it should and I wonder if it should overheat after
- extended periods at full throttle.

Which is great news for people who want to shoot down soviet planes, I'd imagine. I'm a big fan of Fin vs Soviet FMB scenarios and the B-239 is just amazing to fly now. No idea how accurate it is though, but god it's a fun plane to fly around in compared to 1.0. With 1.11 the B-239 has a real problem with engine fires which makes it slightly less fun to chase bombers with it, but it's still amazing in a dogfight.

- LMG issues are still with us, and Pe-2's are overly
- sturdy compared to LW mounts of the same era.

I've commented on this several times myself. The only area the Pe-2s are "overly sturdy" in is if you're taking potshots at them from dead 6 in the direct firing line of the gunner. Not exactly a wise choice of tactics. I use these in missions a great deal, playing against them from the LW side, and I think the whining about these is completely out of hand. Provided you shoot the engine, rather than the wing, the engines do indeed suffer damage and fall off. They fly apart under MK108 fire. They suffer about as much damage from a single 15mm cannon and a pair of 7.92mm guns as one could reasonably expect them to. Or at least, as much as I would.

- If you think the '42 La-5's were superior to G2's,
- then you need to do some reading. That is what we
- have in the sim.

Obsessing over flight model differences from 'real life' doesn't make you a better pilot, at least, not that I've noticed. I've played with the G2 in FB a bunch - especially since beta08 - and it's never struck me as some kind of woefully inadquate or underpowered ride. Could bloody well do with getting the ammo loadout increased by the 80-odd or however many rounds are supposedly missing, though, because while it's not a problem taking down any other aircraft, taking down more than 3 or 4 tends to present more of an issue.

If you're intent on going through the "which was better" argument over build quality, pilot tactics and experience, etcetera, yet again, this time over the La5 vs Bf109G2, well, you're welcome to talk to yourself here until you get sick of the sound of your own voice. I know from playing with both extensively that the G2, when flown to take advantage of its performance at the top right of the envelope is more than powerful enough to dispatch the La-5, and the La-5 is more than a match for the G2 at the opposite corner.

It's the kind of thing that can go either way.

You know, I bet it surprised the living snot out of pilots to find themselves burning to death at the hands of a I-153 or P-11 pilot, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Superiority, especially according to stats, doesn't really tend to count for much. La-5 vs G2 is pretty damned close in the middle. If you're losing that kind of matchup then you're trying to beat either plane at their own game.

Oleg himself has made quite a number of posts about how reliable he feels the LW test figures for their aircraft were, and whether you chose to believe what he's put into FB or not, that's what's there. Somehow I manage to put up with the various vagueries of FBs FM/DM issues through each release without too much complaint. My issues with FB are more to do with what I think are stupid technical issues than flight model/bias accusations.

For the life of me, I can't figure out why the same people who bought Il-2 and complained constantly of Olegs bias would go out and reward him for it by buying FB. And then whine about that as well.

Any ideas?

edit: dear lord the engrish is getting to me.

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 09/19/0309:01AM by clint-ruin

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 09:24 AM
Clint_Ruin:

You must know that. I have not cry for 190A5's FM.
I have just one question of A5's GUN-CANNON EFFECT.

Only this. But This is a very big problem.

BTW, My hate is OLEG's 1.11 devastate my favorate plane - P39. Im shame when I fly it.

And I think 190A5's armor is worth to talk about.

That's all.

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 09:26 AM
And maybe something else is FW190A5's speed.

OK, see it? Just in one simple plane- FW190A5, there have a lot of questions.

You understand?

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 09:29 AM
And Im tied of dispute of this.
I also said that:
I will make more kills insteed of say more words.
And I decide to change my side from RED to BLUE.
In my A5 in 1.11Patch.

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 10:23 AM
kostek wrote:
- God dam it VIper... when i read your words, i'm sure
- now that u would be very easy target. Talking some
- b...ts about tactics and "learn to fly"... u man
- realy now nothing about fight in air..

Maybe i am.I dont care!

- 1. I doubt that FB is the best online WWII simulator

I am here beacuse i think is the BEST.Having problems?Of course!no doubt abouit!but still is the best!If you dont like it lets us post our opinion and fly the sim you prefer.Simple isn't it?I am not posting in CFS forums for example becuase i dont like to fly M$ CFS any more.


- STOP LICKING DEV TEAM A..S. parameters just cann't
- be simulated now!!!! CLIMB OF 109 SERIES!!! THIS IS
- THE MOST IMPORTAND PARAMITER IN WWII SIMS. HAVE U
- EVER HEARD ABOUT LA5 OUTCLIMBING 109?

Didn't hear anything but i have read some books.Did you saw anything about climb rate in my post?!Do you realize that some parametres can not be simulate?Engine failures maybe?(common at VVS planes),durability?Especially under EF contitions?

- 3. "...but i can never be sure if it was me or FB."
- Than u don't fill plane... think about it... maybe
- it's not your type of game

Are you sure you can get the best from the plane?Maybe i must start playing Train Simulator.


Kostek, i am "LICKING DEV TEAM"??? why should i?Me and my squadmates flying OKL (VEFII and VOW).Do you think that we can not see whats is wrong?
Do you notice who start this?Second in command Officer of 335(335th_GRPlaton) and was his PERSONAL opinion.

Regards





<center> 335th_GRViper
http://www.hellenic-sqn.gr


http://www.hellenic-sqn.gr/Images/33.gif </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 10:35 AM
"Didn't hear anything but i have read some books.Did
- you saw anything about climb rate in my post?!Do you
- realize that some parametres can not be
- simulate?Engine failures maybe?(common at VVS
- planes),durability?Especially under EF contitions?
U just said that la and yaks was excelent planes.. and then that some paramiters can't be done here... i realize that u said that climb rate cannot be done right? That was the main idea...
About licking now... i think everyone who thinks that this ver. i good is doing it... or he is really crazy (look "Paragraf 22" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ).

Anyway viper send me mail to priv (kostek33@wp.pl)... and i'll be glad to show u real FM on WB.

Regards
I/JG302 Kostek

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 10:49 AM
-- I'd also like you to tell me how many Laggs and Yaks
-- you can take down in the aforementioned QMB
-- scenario.
--
-
- for example, In 1.11's QMB in real mode, I can use
- just like 1X190A5 to shotdown 12 ACE P40Es, Or 4 ACE
- P40E+4 ACE P39N1, Or 4 ACE Yak1, Or 4x ACE Yak1B, Or
- 4 ACE LAGG3(1941), Or 4 ACE La5/La5F. But I can not
- dial with 4 ACE MIG3U, 4 ACE YAK3, 4 ACE La5FN, 4
- ACE La7.(I have personaly over 600M training trks on
- my HD like this)

Eagleheart, are you doing this in the same FW-190A that you claim has "too joke" 20mm cannons, vs super invincible Titanium Wood LA/Laggs/Yaks?

Y...yes?

- Note If I use 109s, I can make more kill.

So essentially, your argument is that LW guns are undermodelled and soviet armor is overmodelled ... because you can only score more kills than any LW pilot in history managed under similar circumstances.

I'm so glad you cleared that up for us.

I swear the next time we have to go through some "Teh sovi3tz r ub3r l33t u r l4me if u fly dem!@!1" crap I'm just going to refer them to this thread. Guns and ammo for 12+ kills a mission just isn't enough for the whiners, apparently.

- But this is nothing. EVEN above this showed. I can
- not match JUST ONE REAL ONLINE ACE if He is in La7,
- Yak3, etc. WHat ever BLUE planes I choice. Like D9,
- Like K4, etc.
-
- because My 190D9 or K4, cant out-run them, out-enegy
- them, out-climb them, out-div them, and offcause,
- out-turn them.And the bad thing is : I am out-guned.

I'm glad to see you bringing something new into the debate, but unfortunately, if you're now going to insist that 2x Shvak is more powerful in FB than the MK-108, I'm going to cut straight to the bit where I laugh at you. Dear lord.

- But in the other hand. If I take La5FN, La7, Yak3.
- On the net. Allmost no one can beat me. Im very sure
- of this.

Then, as I've now said to you quite a few times, your pals are dogfighting you in them. Beyond 600Kmh those planes are quite severely outclassed, with the possible exception of the Yak3, which has an outstanding roll rate right up until its controls are ripped off [note to luftwhiners - if you want a new thing to whinge about, this might be the ticket]. All of them suffer from very heavy elevator controls beyond 550/600kmh. The La-5s literally fall apart when they're pushed much faster than that. The La7 can't roll out of a fight, or manouver at those speeds at all. Which leaves the Yak3, which is generally accepted around these forums as [of course, arguably] the best dogfighter of WWII, limited only by its short ammo load.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if the only factor the FW-190D had over the LA7/Yak3 was its roll rate and armor.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if the only factor the real Bf-109K had over the La7/Yak3 was its high speed handling and high altitude performance.

The performance of the La7 is apparently overdone, especially in its climb, but that still leaves the other advantages to the LW planes.

If you're not using those things to your advantage versus a true expert, then I'd say it's very likely that you'd lose.

Which you are.

What was your complaint again?

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
09-19-2003, 11:28 AM
I dont like the fact that I-16 can catch me when i am in F-2 in a situation supposed I have the advantage.But,first thought for me is that maybe I am doin something wrong,but when all people here say i dont, because they limited speed of 109 i have to beleive it?
Maybe FM is correct 100% but if it is,we have to try very very hard to take 100% performance from a 109 when you can take 100% from a VVS easily.This is unfair.
Anyway,let's discuss it in private./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



<center> 335th_GRViper
http://www.hellenic-sqn.gr


http://www.hellenic-sqn.gr/Images/33.gif </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 12:21 PM
I ran some tests on F4 - pretty much spot on and will do the others as well. 190 A9 is a little bit slow at sea level (I got it to 550km/h) but spot on at 6500 metres.

I have found the LW armament to be lethal; 190 will rip any VVS fighter to shreds with a 1 second burst and will do the same to a Pe2. As someone said above,VVS planes have a whole list of frailties that LW don't have.

I really don't get most of these gripes - I sometimes think we must be all be playing a different game from each other; some anomalies but overall it's pretty darn good and what's more a bargain.

Mummy, those naughty boys have changed the game and I don't like it anymore.


http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_07.gif


She turned me into a newt, but I got better.

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 12:52 PM
I'm not BUMPing this because the author is a squad mate, but I've never seen a group of people that's so hard to please. A lot of you guys, whining about all this technical data, sounds like you should be developing a flight sim for yourselves. Just enjoy the game we have for now and give the man time to do what he has planned. He is in competion with these others developers coming out with new flight sims. Don't you think he wants to make and keep this community happy for your future business. He is the one that has set the bar so high for other developers to try to out do him in this business. Do you think other developers will pay as much attention as he does to these forums, especially when all they see is their hard work getting bashed. Do any of you think you will be on a first name basis with the head honcho of other companys like Olegs'. He has went out of his way to personally keep in touch with the purchasers of his game. How about giving him a little more support here. He has a heart or he wouldn't waste his time getting bashed in this forum. If it was me, I'd say: "Keep what you got. If you don't appreciate my efforts and those of my team, and since you already have the best WWII ever made, you don't need no more from me." We aren't going to affect his quality of life as far as money goes. He's married and I'd bet he has made some good investments, and I garantee if he comes out with a new game in the future, he won't have to depend on this forum for it to be sucessful. He's already created the worlds best WWII flight sim. Myself and hundreds even thousands more will purchase his product just based on that fact alone. I wrote all of this with sincerity, not in anger. If you're whizzed now, reread it remembering there's no anger behind it. Just sincere frustration. Now I'm whizzed at myself for getting frustrated. Oleg dosen't know me from Adam. Why should I even give a rats (Beep)? I guess it's because I do appreciate his hard work, long hours, and determination to support his creation. Who knows. Stop putting the best flight sim ever made down, give him a little encouragement, and you might get a big surprise for Christmas. Lol I ~S~ you all!
Boosher-PBNA wrote:
- YOU'RE AN A$$, you know that? This guy works hard!!
- I wonder how many nights he just slept at the
- office, trying to fix some bug!! C'mon!! He's not
- totally FB!!! He's got a life too! Give him some
- peace!
-
- Boosher-PBNA
-----------------
- <center>On your six 24 hours a day, 7 days a
- week.<center>
- <center>Boosher-ProudBirds-VFW<center>
- <a <a
- href="http://proudbirdswing.tripod.com/proudbirds.
- htm"
- target=_blank>http://proudbirdswing.tripod.com/pro
- udbirds.htm</a>
-
http://www.escadrila54.com/logo_sm.jpg
-
- <center><marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT
- SIZE="+1">"The ProudBirds..Flying High and
- Proud..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee>
-

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 01:20 PM
yep - good post Striker!

I'll bump it for ya.

You're right; positive feedback can work wonders. Arguments supported by reliable and reputable technical data can get things changed. I'm sure Oleg and his team of 14 (think that's about 1 million lines of code each) might just start to take some of the points in here more seriously.

I reckon most complaints here derive from a dislike of change.

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_07.gif


She turned me into a newt, but I got better.

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 01:46 PM
Why were the version 1.1b Bf-109 FM so much different than in 1.11? Obviously one of these two versions is much more wrong than another?



Message Edited on 09/19/0312:47PM by Taku

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 02:46 PM
certainly the models must be different from one another and some people have put together some good data for that, so who knows maybe that will get changed. We'll wait and see. As far as some (but not all) of the 109 models are concerned, they may well have a point.

My point was more the way in which people post obseravtions or complaints does not always help their case, and are often counterproductive. Some of the things I read here make me wonder what planet people are on and I'm just a casual surfer. God knows what Oleg and his team makes of it all. At least I can have a good laugh and then do something else.

A lot of complaints stem from the 'it was different before and now its worse, why have you changed it? It's unrealistic now' type, with no supporting arguments or data. Hence my point about people not liking change, which by and large we don't regardless of context.

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_07.gif


She turned me into a newt, but I got better.

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 04:06 PM
I have 2 questions,

Why and where?

Why did oleg give an unatural advantage to the russians over the germans?

Where the hell is oleg, did he die and not tell anyone?

Maybe now his son is running il-2 fb and thats why its so bad.


pised,


<Center>
<table>
<tr>
<TD align="center">
<font color="WHITE">"If one must kill or be killed. It must be done with dignity" (The famous words of Adolf Galland)</font>
</TD>
</TR>
<tr>
<TD align="center">
http://www.d-n-i.net/images/f-22_ote.png
</tr>
</TD>
<tr>
<TD>
<center><font color="white">***F/A-22 Raptor***</font></center>
</TD>
</TR>
</table>
</CENTER>

<Center>
<table>
<tr>
<TD align="center">
<font color="WHITE">"If one must kill or be killed. It must be done with dignity" (The famous words of Adolf Galland)</font>
</TD>
</TR>
<tr>
<TD align="center">
http://www.d-n-i.net/images/f-22_ote.png
</tr>
</TD>
<tr>
<TD>
<center><font color="white">***F/A-22 Raptor***</font></center>
</TD>
</TR>
</table>
</CENTER>

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 04:08 PM
sry about the 2 sigs i'll fix that.

<Center>
<table>
<tr>
<TD align="center">
<font color="WHITE">"If one must kill or be killed. It must be done with dignity" (The famous words of Adolf Galland)</font>
</TD>
</TR>
<tr>
<TD align="center">
http://www.d-n-i.net/images/f-22_ote.png
</tr>
</TD>
<tr>
<TD>
<center><font color="white">***F/A-22 Raptor***</font></center>
</TD>
</TR>
</table>
</CENTER>

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 04:48 PM
clint-ruin wrote:

- The I-16 is now very vulnerable to 7.92mm ammo and
- 15mm cannon rounds.
-

You is wrong.. I-16 is again the flying fortress from FB 1.0. Meaning it needs some 20-30 MG151/15 hits and that is a lot! on FB 1.1B it was fine, I could explode a I-16 with 10 hits.. now it requires 3x the damage.. MG17 still has no effect on I-16, try it. Take Emil and shoot 2000 rounds to I-16, only thing you get is PK.. Same goes for I-153, somehow FB 1.11 made it again much stronger than from FB 1.1B, where it was fine.. I have hard time shooting down a I-153 in FB 1.11.. it was much better on FB 1.1B.. FUnny how these things change so often..

And Lagg3 FM and DM is still way off. Climbs 200% too well, and is as gile as Yaks.. Even Object viewer says :"Lagg3: Quick loss of speed in continuous maneuvers." It is certainly not so in FB.. and not to mention simple DM from old Il-2 days still not fixxed.

German MG17 and MG151/15 are my primary problems with FB 1.11 .. (Among La-7 climbing way too good..) MG17 should be 10-20 % more efficient, right now I can barely shoot down even a light Yak with MG17.. If they were this much of waterpistols, I don't think germans would have ever even used them. Same goes for MG151/15.. it should be the best Heavy MG, much better than soviet UBS.. even had HE- and AP-ammo.. infact it was effective tank killer on early war ..

It certainly is not so, as I think even UBS packs a bigger bunch than MG151/15.. And if Oleg would get late 109s climb and speed right, then I would be happy.. and ofcourse ammunition quantity for MG151/20 ..
Fix these Oleg, and it is a big step towards a better simulation..

THX

____________________________________



Official Sig:



<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/shots/Vipez4.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 05:05 PM
How about you forum trolls quit telling people "learn to fly." I have seen alot of this on the IL-2 boards, and when someone complains about certain issues that may or may not need fixing, someone usually pops in and says this. It is getting old, knock that crap off.

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 05:08 PM
thanks, you proved my point. lol.

off for beer now, nice weekend to all.

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_07.gif


She turned me into a newt, but I got better.

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 05:13 PM
Sigh.

Vipez, I've blown up I16s with _4_ tracer drawn hits from a 15mm F2 cannon.

The 7.92mm guns are indeed effective against both the I-153 and I-16.

If that wasn't enough, their flight handling has been toned down a great deal as well.

Please do post a track so we can all laugh at your gunnery.

Here's (http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/lies.zip) one of mine - feel free to laugh at my gunnery since I'm lucky if I can even remember what I've got bound to "fire" at the moment. It's 2am and I've just spent almost the entire evening playing with trackIR/NewView/JoyToKey crap. It's just a short one, but please note the bit where I explode 4 I-16s from dead 6 shots with only a few hits of 15mm ammo in an F2. This is the worst possible aspect shot with the lowest powered LW cannon in the game. And it's devastating.

As silly as some of the requests for help I get with NewView can be, people have, so far, refrained from OUTRIGHT LYING to me about things.

The way you just did.

Since I'm quite fond of believing the worst of people, it seems to me as though you're not only obviously utterly crap at the game, you've embarked on some kind of campaign to nerf the opposition in order to make your choice of plane somehow easier to win with.

If not, I'm sure you have a great explanation for that track file. And one of your own to share, no doubt. It'll only take you a minute - go on, show us how painfully inadequate the F2s guns are. Ooh - and the E4. That's only got twice as much firepower! How on earth can you be expected to win anything with that?!

You utter ******.

Edit: this is actually a different track file than the one I thought I'd zipped and uploaded - but it may actually be more effective at proving my point than the tidied, second go I made of it. The 'lies.zip' file is me smoking an I-153, setting fire to an I-16, and exploding 2 I-16s with dead six shots from an F2. And since I had my controls buggered up for the first runthrough, I was doing it using the left little thumbstick on my TM gamepad.

Vipez, you'd better come up with something damn good by way of response. If you give me til tomorrow I'm sure I can come up with a track of me popping I-16s without the use of any joystick whatsoever.

Sniff - it must be such a sad life to be so crap :<


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 09/19/03 04:15PM by clint-ruin

Message Edited on 09/19/0304:36PM by clint-ruin

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 05:44 PM
Platon. I feel your pain and feel you are correct in your statements. I don't have to dig through countless books and come up with numbers to justify what the real pilots stated their respective aircraft could and could not do in battle (and I've read almost all of the books that Oleg listed as referance material and a few more).

To the individuals that have the gall to say "learn how to fly" they have obviously never flown with Platon online. I have on many occasions. He's in the top 5% of all the online sim pilots I've flown with and against since IL2 first came out. So, before you go slamming him for his viewpoint take a look on hyperlobby. I'm sure you'll find a very kind and knowledgable Greek that loves this game. He is just pointing out things that a lot of us already know and that the unknowing feel is acceptable.

I'm not saying that all the VVS planes are a joke and none of the OKL are. It's easy to see that the 190, yaks and early Lagg are too sturdy. The P 39(a plane hated by all other air forces but liked by Russia because of a good radio and better quality control) is a over modeled. The sustained turn and climb rate of the 41' Lagg is pretty far off (according to the reference material that Oleg used). The roll rate of the P47 is still under modeled as well as the climb rate for most 109s. I won't even mention the mg and cannon on some VVS aircraft. Woops, guess I just did http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Honestly, if Oleg had tweaked a few things with the 1.1b patch. I think that everyone would have been much happier. Just my opinion. If you don't like, oh well.

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 05:57 PM
clint-ruin wrote:
- Sigh.
-
- Vipez, I've blown up I16s with _4_ tracer drawn hits
- from a 15mm F2 cannon.
-
- The 7.92mm guns are indeed effective against both
- the I-153 and I-16.
-
- If that wasn't enough, their flight handling has
- been toned down a great deal as well.
-
- Please do post a track so we can all laugh at your
- gunnery.
-
- <a
- href="http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/lies.zi
- p">Here's</a> one of mine - feel free to laugh at my
- gunnery since I'm lucky if I can even remember what
- I've got bound to "fire" at the moment. It's 2am
- and I've just spent almost the entire evening
- playing with trackIR/NewView/JoyToKey crap. It's
- just a short one, but please note the bit where I
- explode 4 I-16s from dead 6 shots with only a few
- hits of 15mm ammo in an F2. This is the worst
- possible aspect shot with the lowest powered LW
- cannon in the game. And it's devastating.
-
- As silly as some of the requests for help I get with
- NewView can be, people have, so far, refrained from
- OUTRIGHT LYING to me about things.
-
- The way you just did.
-
- Since I'm quite fond of believing the worst of
- people, it seems to me as though you're not only
- obviously utterly crap at the game, you've embarked
- on some kind of campaign to nerf the opposition in
- order to make your choice of plane somehow easier to
- win with.
-
- If not, I'm sure you have a great explanation for
- that track file. And one of your own to share, no
- doubt. It'll only take you a minute - go on, show
- us how painfully inadequate the F2s guns are. Ooh -
- and the E4. That's only got twice as much
- firepower! How on earth can you be expected to win
- anything with that?!
-
- You utter ******.
-
-
- Edit: this is actually a different track file than
- the one I thought I'd zipped and uploaded - but it
- may actually be more effective at proving my point
- than the tidied, second go I made of it. The
- 'lies.zip' file is me smoking an I-153, setting fire
- to an I-16, and exploding 2 I-16s with dead
- six shots from an F2. And since I had my controls
- buggered up for the first runthrough, I was doing it
- using the left little thumbstick on my TM gamepad.
-
- Vipez, you'd better come up with something
- damn good by way of response. If you give me
- til tomorrow I'm sure I can come up with a track of
- me popping I-16s without the use of any joystick
- whatsoever.
-
- Sniff - it must be such a sad life to be so crap :<
-



- clint-ruin


Hey matey it is u who is so full of horse sh!t are you saying that everyone is lying and you arn't you VVS arse licking fanboy.
I have never heard so much BS as you are posting like:
- you've embarked
- on some kind of campaign to nerf the opposition in
- order to make your choice of plane somehow easier to
- win with.

The opposition is already nerfed buddy with unrealistic turns of 16 secs and 30 m/s clim rates, are you saying this isn't true? and if not do u think its ok?
Is this how u like it flying ur fantasy unrealistic UFO la7 or yak3 maybe against AC that are incapable of reaching their top speed because they overheat too quickly.

I get the impresion most people regardless of nationality or AC they like want these issues fixing but their are the odd one or two that like it this way and pretend things are fine and nothing needs changing hoping it wont so they can keep flying their UFO's.

Hopefuly oleg wont listen to any of that kind o garbage and make the FM's realistic cos in 1.1b it was close but maybe too many of u UFO BS whiners got to him.......

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 06:01 PM
GregSM wrote:
- Hi Clint-Ruin
-
-
- I still derive a lot of enjoyment from the game, and
- continue to appreciate it as I always have, while I
- don't wish merely to promote the ascendancy of my
- adopted grievances.

I don't know what the ideal response even could be from Maddox games. It seems the more they give, the more is expected of them, and any feature requests that don't make it in are regarded as some kind of personal insult from the developer to the "community".

Meanwhile the offline players have been slogging through with same old, same old issues - FMB that hasn't been updated since IL2 1.0, same old single player bugs, basic sound issues, ineffective AI, and whatnot. I've made a few suggestions here - adding in a panel to the object viewer in the FMB that would trigger existing AI commands at a waypoint, for example, which I don't think would be too much bother to implement at all. But when you make those kinds of posts, the sheer inevitability of it dropping off to page 6 before Oleg next looks here occurs to me - and I've more or less stopped bothering to make those kinds of suggestions.

In development there's usually a criteron for which bugs are the real showstoppers: I have this funny feeling that in any realistic assessment the 1-5% deviance from ideal, tested flight assessments in some aircraft would be at the bottom of the fix list.

But it doesn't seem to be.

Since the Sturmovik codebase is such a closed shop - not only are there no real mods or an SDK to make them with, there's very little understanding in the community of what's even being modelled in the game at all, let alone how. It leads to all kinds of innuendo about why things might be the way they are.

I'm very far from the typical pro-open source slashdot nerd, but I can't help but feel that had Maddox games adopted a more open and friendly attitude to the game rather than the community, we might not be seeing some of the more ridiculous threads that pop up. Maybe new, even more ridiculous ones would take their place, but I find it hard to imagine.

I mean, I just spent 3 pages arguing with a quasi english literate whiner with an obviously excessive emotional involvement in the game about how much damage various guns do to various objects in the game. By the end of it it's become apparent that there really is no such issue - but I guarantee we'll see another 5 threads in here about how horribly underdone the LW guns are by the end of next week. Doesn't matter if it's true, what seems to matter is if it's perceived as fair. Since there's so little info to go around, it's not hard for the innuendos to stick or for the chinese whispers to start. And they do.

For some reason the Quake community isn't full of people moaning about the power of the BFG. I don't know if there's a lesson in that or not, beyond the fact that the typical twitch-gamer who frequents FPS forums is possibly better able to distinguish a computer game from reality.

- But I find slogging through
- associated waves of pretence tiresome (I see you
- agree), though my emotional investment in the
- endeavour is casual. Were it substantial, as Oleg's
- presumably is, I'd be positively weary. I only wish
- we'd serve ourselves better by expecting sane men to
- frown at chronic complaining, however handily it may
- be dismissed.

Indeed, as I said, if I had to put up with this sort of thing over one of my projects I'd be far more bloody minded and start crippling particularly obnoxious folks' favourite planes out of spite.

He doesn't, though. I find that pretty amazingly patient.

- Thanks for your posts,
- Greg S

No problem, as fun as it is to yell and scream at people in here, I don't tend to take it all that seriously. I find remarks like, say:

You post is Nothing. I love to fly P39. P39's 37mm kill make me exciting. So I need My real P39 back.


or


I have no tears. I have a broken-heart for FB's future.


from my pal Eagleheart to be absolute commedy gold. I couldn't dream of making such an effective parody of some of the whining here, but here it is - someone's actually doing it, seriously!

Amazing.

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
09-19-2003, 09:10 PM
Clint-ruin wrote (among other msart thoughts)
:Not content with being almost entirely invulnerable to .30 cal fire, FW-190 pilots now humbly request that Oleg make their ride of choice able to withstand MULTIPLE THIRTY SEVEN MILLIMETRE ANTI TANK ROUNDS. Indeed, your requested whine is already part of the game, dear Leadspitter. I've seen FW-190s absorb up to 4 hits from the NS-37. That's more than I've been able to pump into an IL-2 before it goes down.

Now, who said whining never accomplished anything..

Especially after 1.1. The real problem is that the .30 cal gun weighted 102 kg .Mr wise man, can you tell me WHY THE HELL THAT MASS IS ABSENT from that part of the plane?
Many VVS's like the way the game is right now, the problem is that it went far an-historical and beyond the laws if physics. At that point , all you VVS's who find the game so real, please try to fly ANY OKL plane, it will surely improve your weakened flying skills, you have to really TRY to fly one of these planes, it doesn't do it by itself.
As for the 108 cannon mentioned by some other wise guy, that thing had 600 rof, so ,as even you can see, it is not so easy to use it on a twisting and turning Yak or even lag, especially after 1.1!
Well, Oleg is Russian after all, as many of VVS are /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 10:39 PM
well said

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 10:48 PM
http://members.shaw.ca/fennec/olegalsahaaf.jpg

[I]You is all wrong. All of you. Yes, you too. The FW-190 is 100% correct. My data shows the 15mm armor bulkheads could stop any shell up to 55mm caliber, and the airplane skinning was 100% resistant to explosives of up to 850g of TNT. The Russians much improved this technology with the LaGG-3.

The P-39 is perfect. The American and British climbrate tests are total wrong, the correct climbrate is 30% at least more. They actually tested a P-40 and thought it was P-39. It happened much in the west.

The Bf-109 engine is supposed to break down in 5 minutes. It was actually a 600hp engine overclocked to 1600hp, that is why it is so hot. The manufacturer top speed is just a theoretical number based on rolled dice. It is simple to see, isn't it?

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 11:05 PM
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAA/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif D/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif LOL now that
is one of the best posts i have ever seen on this forum LOL

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 11:11 PM
Fennec you are the biggest
IDIOT i have ever saw on this forum !!



StG77_Fennec wrote:
- <img
- src="http://members.shaw.ca/fennec/olegalsahaaf.jp
- g">
-
- [I]You is all wrong. All of you. Yes, you too.
- The FW-190 is 100% correct. My data shows the 15mm
- armor bulkheads could stop any shell up to 55mm
- caliber, and the airplane skinning was 100%
- resistant to explosives of up to 850g of TNT. The
- Russians much improved this technology with the
- LaGG-3.
-
- The P-39 is perfect. The American and British
- climbrate tests are total wrong, the correct
- climbrate is 30% at least more. They actually
- tested a P-40 and thought it was P-39. It happened
- much in the west.
-
- The Bf-109 engine is supposed to break down in 5
- minutes. It was actually a 600hp engine overclocked
- to 1600hp, that is why it is so hot. The
- manufacturer top speed is just a theoretical number
- based on rolled dice. It is simple to see, isn't
- it?
-
-

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 11:20 PM
Fennec, that's rude and disrespectful...

<center>http://www.gbg.bonet.se/bjorta/F19-Orheim-IDCard-sm.gif

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_hawkeye.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)



http://www.gbg.bonet.se/bjorta/F19%20VS%20banner%20B.jpg (http://www.f19vs.tk)

</center>

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 11:22 PM
yes but really funny!
i think they do a good job tbh, maybe they enjoy baiting the luftwhiners /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 11:26 PM
Fennec, you get the Asshat of the Day award for that one.

FNEB

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 11:34 PM
oh come on guyz its meant to be funny not rude

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 11:36 PM
yeah, but funniest Asshat of the Day,

thank you for proving my point. lol.

I disagree with you but had to laugh.

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_07.gif


She turned me into a newt, but I got better.

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 11:56 PM
I read once that the best way to prove a thesis is to farcically try to prove the antithesis.

When your audience sees how ridiculous the antithesis is, they have no choice but to accept your thesis.

You have to admit, he looks good in uniform /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



Message Edited on 09/19/0304:57PM by StG77_Fennec

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 12:03 AM
Man u crack me up lol

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 12:08 AM
StG77_Fennec wrote:
- <img
- src="http://members.shaw.ca/fennec/olegalsahaaf.jp
- g">
-
- [I]You is all wrong. All of you. Yes, you too.
- The FW-190 is 100% correct. My data shows the 15mm
- armor bulkheads could stop any shell up to 55mm
- caliber, and the airplane skinning was 100%
- resistant to explosives of up to 850g of TNT. The
- Russians much improved this technology with the
- LaGG-3.
-
- The P-39 is perfect. The American and British
- climbrate tests are total wrong, the correct
- climbrate is 30% at least more. They actually
- tested a P-40 and thought it was P-39. It happened
- much in the west.
-
- The Bf-109 engine is supposed to break down in 5
- minutes. It was actually a 600hp engine overclocked
- to 1600hp, that is why it is so hot. The
- manufacturer top speed is just a theoretical number
- based on rolled dice. It is simple to see, isn't
- it?


Fennec, excellent post, very very funny !!! http://forums.ubi.com/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



Keep 'em coming

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 12:57 AM
are you saying That sarcasm and irony are powerful debating tools Fennec? I'd have to agree.

Maybe that's one of Marx's though (synthesis through thesis and antithesis).

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_07.gif


She turned me into a newt, but I got better.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 12:59 AM
LOLOL /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Excellent. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

And for the stuffy dweebs with no sence of humor ... go watch Shakespeare or something will ya /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

<center>http://www.medals.org.uk/united-kingdom/images/uk654.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 01:24 AM
clint-ruin wrote:
- Red_Harvest wrote:
-- clint-ruin wrote:
--- - There are some issues to do with some BF-109
--- models handling. The early models E4 through G2,
--- and G6/AS are fine.
--
-- Incorrect. F through G6 series overheat rapidly and
-- can't hit listed speeds (except perhaps the G6/AS).
-
- Interesting, just played with the F4 then and was
- able to hold 630kmh TAS at 6000m just fine with the
- rads closed, CEM on


And there is the problem. You have to trick it with problematic CEM to get it to work because it overheats too soon. The Germans and Finns didn't have to in their tests. Previous versions worked right... CEM has "issues" so I don't even trust it for tests. Besides 6000 meters is not a good choice of test for the Eastern Front. The fighting is down low and that is where I run my screen tests (it is also the best way to get repeatable numbers.) LaGG's still are not prone to overheat like they should be...

If you think it is a waste of time to illustrate the problems with known match ups, then what in the world would you test??? About half the major match ups are screwed up now, all the way through the war.

I've tested several turn rates on these to prove to myself which ones are right so far they have matched IL2 compare for the fighters I've tested (in non overheat/rad closed condition.) The 16 sec turn on the La-7 is definitely there, and incorrect with respect to real life.

The Pe-2 issues are a big problem no matter how you try to minimize them. You've got nearly invincible crew with awesome gunnery, and a plane whose engine can only be taken out from head on or nearly side on. If you take more effort to aim from oblique angles you will get popped by its guns nearly every time.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 01:31 AM
Man, that is funny, Fennec. It sounded just like one of Oleg's posts/boasts, whatever.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 02:17 AM
My memory must be bad I think.

When 1.1b was released wasn't it supposed to be basically the final version for FM's and all? Weren't the only changes supposed to be for major problems and provable deviations with no wish lists?

Because if it was then somebody must have had one heckuva lotta proofs considering the number of differences!

OTOH maybe some of the modules got mixed up and the good ones lost is why the 1.1F got out. It happens, nobody is perfect.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 02:23 AM
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHA thats the best thing i have seen all day and these other *** kissing suck-ups need a nice hot cup of STFU

<The Few the proud the Bombers>

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 02:45 AM
Wow, this just sickens me... there is complaining...griping, and whining.. but this is flat out being ignorant... for some of you anyways. How can you say that ... oh for example: the K-4 is no match for an LA-7 now? The fact is, you shouldn't be below 4.5k in a K-4, unless you 1) are diving on an enemy, or 2) don't mind getting shot down easily. Also, the new MK108's are horribly deadly, and the only thing i find hard to down with them, are P-47's.. and even then, we're talking 6 or so Max (albiet way too many).

I really don't even want to get into it... but if you can't manage to use your advantages in a LW plane against VVS planes, than i suggest you either learn what you're doing wrong, or start flying VVS...

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 03:25 AM
-- Interesting, just played with the F4 then and was
-- able to hold 630kmh TAS at 6000m just fine with the
-- rads closed, CEM on
-
-
- And there is the problem. You have to trick it with
- problematic CEM to get it to work because it
- overheats too soon. The Germans and Finns didn't
- have to in their tests. Previous versions worked
- right... CEM has "issues" so I don't even trust it
- for tests. Besides 6000 meters is not a good choice
- of test for the Eastern Front. The fighting is down
- low and that is where I run my screen tests (it is
- also the best way to get repeatable numbers.)
- LaGG's still are not prone to overheat like they
- should be...

The reason I tested this at 6000, and then 7000 metres for the G2 is because those are the altitudes the FB site data specifies as the correct ones for the maximum possible speeds. Which they reached to a fairly small margin of error. Why did you edit that part of the quote out?

Are you in fact saying that you want to be able to hit the max listed 7000m speed at low altitude? If not, what are you saying?

- If you think it is a waste of time to illustrate the
- problems with known match ups, then what in the
- world would you test??? About half the major match
- ups are screwed up now, all the way through the war.

Which matchups do you think are "screwed"?

I mean, so far:

Eagleheart has claimed the 20mm on the FW190 is "too joke" despite being able to down more "titanium wood" planes with it than any real life pilot ever managed.

Vipez has claimed the I-16 and I-153 are immune to 7.92 and 15mm fire - completely wrong, as shown in the little track I made.

You claimed that the Bf109s can't possibly hit their maximum listed speed. 5 minutes - as an absolute CEM newbie - and I'm able to make it happen.

I can't help but notice the way you skipped and completely edited out my offer to swap tracks with you about anything you feel is grossly incorrect.

Evidence isn't good for rumours, I guess.

- I've tested several turn rates on these to prove to
- myself which ones are right so far they have matched
- IL2 compare for the fighters I've tested (in non
- overheat/rad closed condition.) The 16 sec turn on
- the La-7 is definitely there, and incorrect with
- respect to real life.

According to Il-2 compare, the La-7 is only ~4 seconds faster in a turn than the Bf109K or G6/AS.

Which plane do you think should turn faster? :>

I agree that the climb rate of the La7 seems well and truly off, but it still shouldn't be too much of a problem to deal with if you're managing your energy right. Above 600kmh it becomes a brick. At around 670 - level flight! it's practically shaking itself to pieces.

- The Pe-2 issues are a big problem no matter how you
- try to minimize them. You've got nearly invincible
- crew with awesome gunnery, and a plane whose engine
- can only be taken out from head on or nearly side
- on. If you take more effort to aim from oblique
- angles you will get popped by its guns nearly every
- time.

No, Red_Harvest, you get popped by them nearly every time.

When I throw them into missions I manage to take them out without issues. They're not horribly overdone - christ, they can't even shoot at you except for an arc in the rear aspect.

Your problems bringing them down are your problems. Other people learn how to do things for themselves, rather than whine at the developer to make it easier for them.

Offer's still good if you want to swap tracks.


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, 04:09 AM
I don't mind which side has better planes.

Would be great if all were just modeled as realistically as possible without watching in nationality.


Heres my opinions:
-Lavochin (5/7) dive speeds are too low. Should do 850kmh atleast.
-Lavochin (5/7)rollrates might be too low. (just suspecting. can't prove)
-190 dive speeds are too low. Real 190s dived over 950kmh TAS in various tests made by both axis and allies.
-190 highspeed rollrate is too high. (190 rollrate should start to decrease when over 700kmh)
-early 109 divespeeds might be too low. (finnish 109g-2 pilots used dives at over 950kmh TAS to disengage la-5s)
-109 elevator response at high speeds might be too good. It should lock almost completely at 750-800kmh and be only controllable via hstab trimming above that speed.
-p39N climbing 21m/s sustained must be a mistake.
-109 CEM has some troubles with most early models underrevving on auto pitch. Auto should be optimal for performance.
-109g-6 weight might be too high. IRL was 70kg heavier than g-2
-109k-4 climbrate might be too high. IRL 26m/s at deck to 2km.
-la-7 and la-5 turntimes seem to be too low. 15-17sec instead of 20-21sec
-190 armored glass low frame is too thick.


Thats quite short list compared to some other sims I've played. Mostly im very happy about FB flight models.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 04:45 AM
I've got plenty of evidence, clint. Heck, even FB's own numbers prove my points clearly. If you pulled your head out and ran appropriate tests, or carefully read the many reports I've written on this subject you would know what is wrong. Instead you are out to deny the obvious and look like a buffoon for it.

I was talking about sea level speeds. They had the relative merits right before and now, between the autopitch problems and the no CEM problems the 109's are royally porked as a group. There are exceptions, but overall they are off.

I've stated the matchups many times. I'll list just a few again for the learning disabled:

1. Any match up involving F2, F4, G2, G6--all overheat too rapidly and end up running 30-40 km/hr slow when they do.
2. Difficult to overheat (and nearly impossible to actually burn out) engine in the LaGG '41 vs. the delicate 109F2,F4, G2, G6 (haven't tested the E's or higher G's, because every other one I tested was off...) LaGG's were overweight and overheated in real life. Official tests got very poor results on multiple occasions even with supposedly "improved/lightened" version. LaGG in the sim exceeds climb and straightline speed (I have no trouble getting it to 507 km/hr at sea level.)
3. '42 La-5 also won't overheat. It was prone to this in reality and it was flown in combat with the cowling side flaps full open. Tail wheel deployment problems led to pilots leaving it down all the time and they flew with canopy open. This cost the plane 30 to 40 km/hr off of its 535 km/hr sea level test speed in '42. Plane we have in the sim is a 550 km/hr beast at sea level and it climbs nearly as well as a G-2 (better once the G-2's rad opens as it overheats.) La-5 should not be able to turn as well as it does...it turns at least 2 seconds faster than it should. In reality its horizontal performanc should be a match for the G2, not exceed it. You see, it wasn't until '43 that the plane we have in the sim was finally achieved. What is the point of having a '42 La-5 that in some respects outperforms a '43 La-5F in the sim?
4. Turn rate of the La-5F, La-5FN, and La-7 are all too good compared to their counterpart 109's (109's actually put up proper number in turns...when not overheated.)
5. 190's have a bizarre damage model now. They are too durable. There are ways to kill them, but the overall model has gotten silly.
6. Brewsters turn a bit better than I think they should. They are exceeding the numbers I've seen posted before. I also wonder about them not overheating with extended full throttle runs and turns. In the previous patch they were about 1 sec slower in a turn vs. an I-16 down low and from what I've read from some of the Finn's that sounds about right. Right now they are a bit better in a turn and I don't believe that is as it should be.
7. Pe2's and 3's are simply screwed and always have been. They will kill F2's and F4's about 3 to 1. Part of it is the gunnery model for both pilots and gunners, part is the DM of these birds and crew and part is the ineffectiveness of F2/F4 light machine guns. If you think the Pe-2 is right, fly against an He-111, or a Ju-88--they suffer all sorts of damage from attacks that won't phase a Pe-2.

I already knew the I-16 and I-153 damage models had been fixed for LMG (they used to be way off.) I don't see what someone else's errors have to do with my comments.

Forget swapping tracks, I've no need to see tracks where you illustrate something besides the central point. Congratulations, you can "game the game." So can I, but that doesn't make it right.

It's pretty obvious you haven't a clue about how to match relative aircraft performance to the history of the time. You are too busy playing the clown on the message board arguing for the sake of arguing.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 05:45 AM
On a lighter note... Fennec, that's one of the greatest things i've ever seen... i don't think it could have sounded more like Oleg himself, if you'd held him at gunpoint and had him type that... LoL...good work!

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 05:47 AM
- 7. Pe2's and 3's are simply screwed and always have
- been. They will kill F2's and F4's about 3 to 1.
- Part of it is the gunnery model for both pilots and
- gunners, part is the DM of these birds and crew and
- part is the ineffectiveness of F2/F4 light machine
- guns. If you think the Pe-2 is right, fly against
- an He-111, or a Ju-88--they suffer all sorts of
- damage from attacks that won't phase a Pe-2.

Since I'm going out very shortly I'll deal with the rest of your dribble later, time permitting.

Here's a pair (http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/rhlies.zip) of tracks. 109F2 vs Pe2, then vs He111H6.

Have a look and then get back to me, sweetie.

- Forget swapping tracks, I've no need to see tracks
- where you illustrate something besides the central
- point. Congratulations, you can "game the game."
- So can I, but that doesn't make it right.

No no, I insist.

The central point is that everything you listed is of either entirely incorrect, partially incorrect, or of absolutely marginal value. Two seconds turn rate? Wow - I bet that's why you lost. Ahuh.

Skill counts for a lot more. I know it's embarrassing for you to find yourself without any, but please, try not to spoil the game for the rest of us.


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, 08:20 AM
Clint,

I'm not interested in debating with a ******. Have fun playing with yourself.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 09:01 AM
Hi Red Harvest,

According to standardised tests I'm alternately genius level or completely ******ed.

Even if the latter is correct, I'd still be a ****** with a track showing what you claim is impossible.

A 109F2 pumping 15mm cannon rounds into a Pe2 - from dead 6, the worst possible angle - and making the engine fall out of its housing in a matter of a few seconds.

A similar amount of fire pumped into an He-111h6's engine just produces engine smoke.

No smoke and mirrors here - both of these were obtained on the first run through. I'm very very far from the best pilot I've met online in FB, and even I can do this.

I hold that you're a very poor pilot seeking to blame anything but your own obviously spastic flightstick skills for your failures, with a very unhealthy helping of paranoia.

You know perfectly well why you don't want to swap tracks showing this behaviour. It's easier to make totally unsubstanciated claims on a web forum, easier to claim that a 2 second difference in roll rate horribly unbalances the game - boo hoo! Do any of your little tests come with a track file? Why not share them with us so we can see for ourselves? It'd make reporting these issues as bugs to Maddox games so, so much easier.

If this is to be our sweet goodbye - I have a piece of advice for you:

STOP. LYING. TO COVER. YOUR OWN. INCOMPETENCE.

There are indeed bugs in FB, but the way you go about reporting them isn't going to fix them anytime soon.

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, 10:03 AM
WWMaxGunz wrote:
- My memory must be bad I think.
-
- When 1.1b was released wasn't it supposed to be
- basically the final version for FM's and all?
- Weren't the only changes supposed to be for major
- problems and provable deviations with no wish lists?
-
- Because if it was then somebody must have had one
- heckuva lotta proofs considering the number of
- differences!
-
- OTOH maybe some of the modules got mixed up and the
- good ones lost is why the 1.1F got out. It happens,
- nobody is perfect.
-
-
- Neal
-
-
Yes, that's what I understood as well. I'd like to see couple of these argument applying engineering level to justify couple of "minor" modifications that were adjusted ever after. Well never say never I guess /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


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


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

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 10:44 AM
Fannec ignore all the sissys and brown nosing whiners bud for this is one of the FUNNIEST threads I have ever seen..LMAO /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Keep'em coming Keep'em coming!!

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 11:25 AM
I disagree with many of the opinions about FMs, but I have to admit the thread is FUNNY. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Oh, come on, it's just a joke! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

- Dux Corvan -



http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612322300

</span></blockquote></font></td></tr>

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 04:15 PM
Clint-ruin wrote:
According to standardised tests I'm alternately genius level or completely ******ed.Even if the latter is correct, I'd still be a ****** with a track showing what you claim is impossible.

A 109F2 pumping 15mm cannon rounds into a Pe2 - from dead 6, the worst possible angle - and making the engine fall out of its housing in a matter of a few seconds.

A similar amount of fire pumped into an He-111h6's engine just produces engine smoke.

No smoke and mirrors here - both of these were obtained on the first run through. I'm very very far from the best pilot I've met online in FB, and even I can do this.

According to my secret sources which I cant reveal due to copyright laws (sic)
I inform you that a 109F2 slings a total amount of 1.29 kgs of bullets (that means LEAD, even in the case of Il2FB) per second, practically focused in a very small area, depends on the convergence of the guns. The same time a Yak 9 slings 2.08 kgs, which is a small difference indeed if you add the fact of the total rof (rate of fire) of the two planes wich is 2700 for the Me and 1600 for the Yak. Due to that fact it's obvious -even to you I think- that it's really not a heel of a deal to blow an engine of a Pe 2- in fact its a natural thing to come since the fuel supply lines and engines fuel-related stuff is in the back of the engine ( we reached a point that the natural outcome is unexpected!) .In contrary, a He 111 is a much heavier plane, especially after the addition of extra armor plates- after the battle of England. So, an empty Pe 2 weighted 5870 kgs with a length of 12.6 m, while the He 111's numbers are 8680kgs and 16.4 m precisely , meaning that we are talking about completely different classes of airplanes. I would like some feedback about how occurred to you that those two planes are equal difficulty targets to bring down, apart from the fact that the Soviet gunners were at the utmost level of experience and the Germans were still milking cows before a week or so. Another point is that it seriously matters HOW you use your target scope AND the battle circumstances under which you shoot at a target. When you are alone at someone's six it's easy to use your scope magnification and fire 1-2 bursts to see the projection of your slings. Then it's easy to aim with the third one between the gunners eyes! Now, try to do that in the middle of a dogfight and see that it just can' be done. There the only thing that counts is your guns power, their mass output and their concentration (ie convergeance, here planes with nose gunnery have a serious advantage).
My friend, two seconds minus here,two seconds plus there, 50 kilos minus here, another 50 plus there, and all by chance all the secs and kilos plus the OKL side can- and does -seriously affect not only the game, but the overall opinion of the players for it.
Yes, you is wrong and I should recommend to learn how to read the tests of the era, but , above all please stop being impolite to other players and a total naive to yourself - or you make something out of it?
I return to you the STOP LYING TO COVER YOUR OWN INCOMPETENCE and I will add
WHEN SOMETHING SUITS YOU /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.loggia.com/myth/images/medusa02.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 04:57 PM
Hi there,

Rather than go all quotey on someone again, here's the shortlist:

A) Could you see your way to include the speed of the Yak9s projectiles vs BF109F2 - particularly the UB MG? It's somehow gone missing from your list of statistics. I'm sure you only omitted it because it's totally irrelevant, but let's just see for ourselves.

B) Do you see the post above [and others in thread after thread after thread] where it's claimed that the Pe2 is some kind of invincible super bomber Vs the LW bombers? You show no particular sign of having read it. Just wondering.

C) Do you think that perhaps a track showing that a Bf109F2 [more or less the weakest armed LW fighter in the game] is able to knock an engine off a Pe2 with a few seconds fire might somehow illustrate that those claims are more the result of terrible gunnery on the part of the whiner?

Unfortunately, as much fun as it is to make it sound difficult to target a bomber in the middle of a dogfight, the damage taken by the Pe2 and He-111 is completely unaffected by zoom level or whatever other aircraft are in the area. Peoples shooting ability does. That's kind of the point I was trying to make.

A couple of seconds here or there is not the reason LW pilots are losing. Sorry, it's a simple fact. Winning or losing does not boil down to flying a plane that can be out-turned in 24 turns or 20. To suggest so implies all sorts of things, the major one being that the pilot might possibly just suck and needs to reach for any excuse, no matter how tenuous.

Obviously, testing these things is strictly for ******s, as RedHarvest suggested. Especially if it shows people have been making this stuff up for quite some time now. I can see how that could come off as impolite.

My ******ed suggestion is that if you don't like being called a liar ... ... ... ... ... ...

... wait for it ...

then don't lie.



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, 05:29 PM
i think oleg should just make the flight models the way HE thinks they are correct. its not possible for him to make everyone happy. i agree 1.1b was better, but there was soooooooooo much whining on the forum when that came out, now ppl wanna go back to it.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 05:34 PM
clint-ruin wrote:

- Vipez has claimed the I-16 and I-153 are immune to
- 7.92 and 15mm fire - completely wrong, as shown in
- the little track I made.

I did not mean them to be immune to MG151/15, but I said that they need 15- 30 hits to explode from MG151/15.. now think what you think, but that is a LOT of hits. I-16 is practically immune to MG17, only think you can have is PK.. sure there may be are bullet holes in fuselage after you wasted 2000 rounds in the Emil, but you can't cut the wing off with Mg17, you can't destroy the controls.. so it is basicly immune! Compare this to BF-109, where you need some 5 hits to bring it down with Svhak... How can a fabric-skinned Light air frame be so much tougher? That is beyoind me. On real life even lighter damage on the wing, could tear up the fabric-clothic off the I-16 wings.. certainly not in FB, where fabric is much more risistant to damage, than Metal planes.

Has been so for very long time.. 1.1B was better in this perspective, I could kill a I-16 with MG151/15 with less than 10 hits..In real life MG151/15 was very very powerfull heavy machine gun. Meaning it even had HE-ammo, it certainly is not the case in FB.. Much better than Soviet UBS, but still Soviet UBS is much better than MG151/15 in this game. And you can score hits with UBS from ranger beyoind 1000 meters, since the magic UBS bullets dont loose any speed .. MG151/15 even had higher Muzzle velocity than UBS.. not the case in FB..

I used to be able to b&Z I-16s in my 109 F2 back in 1.1B, coming from up 6clock high,and scoring some 5 hits and it was usually enough to destroy their controls or causing too much damage... now back in 1.11 DM is as ridiculous as it was in FB 1.0.. 5 hits dont do anything! And you better make a track online, since afterall we don't even know if AI has samekind of DM response, as humans have.. AI-planes tend to crash even with slightest hits..Basicly same goes for I-153..

And trust me, even 4-5 sec overmodelling on turnrate in La-7.. that is a LOT on dogfights! Not to mention 200% overmoddeling in Lagg3 climb, and no overheating.. and sustained turns in Lagg3 without loosing energy. Lagg3 was known for loosing speed quickly in continous manouvers. That is why Even Finnish Brewsters could easily beat Lagg-3s on turn fights..La-7 has also 7m/s too high climb, gives a good headache for late 109 Fliers, since they can't use their better climb rate for their advantage..

Clint-ruin is a good VVS-whiner, but perhaps you should face the facts.. or thy fly OKL..

____________________________________



Official Sig:



<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/shots/Vipez4.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 05:59 PM
Vipez- wrote:
-
- clint-ruin wrote:
-
-- Vipez has claimed the I-16 and I-153 are immune to
-- 7.92 and 15mm fire - completely wrong, as shown in
-- the little track I made.
-
- I did not mean them to be immune to MG151/15, but I
- said that they need 15- 30 hits to explode from
- MG151/15.. now think what you think, but that is a
- LOT of hits.

Um. (http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/morelies.zip)

Could you count for me how many tracer hits the I-16 takes? Note that again, these are from the rear of the aircraft, possibly the least effective firing position available. The I-153 kill there is interesting too, distributed hits all over the tailplane and it just seems to burrow its way through into the plane, but I haven't looked at it with arcade mode on yet.

AI pilots, by the way, will continue to fly aircraft lacking most of their control surfaces. They're kind of obsessive about the whole deal.

As a PS, damage modelling offline suffers no lag effects - no possible disagreement between client/server/client over which shots hit. As far as I know there are not two entirely seperate damage models in the codebase, one for online, one for offline.

But hey, Vipez - whatever helps you sleep better.



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, 06:36 PM
Me again
Without any urge to quote with noone ,here are some requested FACTS:
UBS Vo (YAK 9): 860 m/sec
ShVAK Vo (YAK 9): 790 m/sec
MG17 Vo (Bf 109F2): 760 m/sec
MG 151/15 (Bf 109F2): 950 m/sec.
These numbers practically reflect the accuracy of the burst as we all can understand , nothing more to it. The firepower of each and the sum of the arms of any plane are depicted by the mass output a plane could produce /sec, measured in kgs/sec. So, a YAK 9 produced 2.08 kgs/sec, a La 5 FN 2.56 ,a BF G2 1.57 and a FW A8 5.92 kgs/sec (that IS awesome).
Having red all-or almost all of the threads and as I mentioned formerly, Pe 2 is not difficult to smoke IF you manage to escape the guners'es slings. All I said was that those gunners were extremely good marksmen (in game, in the real time they were willing patriots but just uniformed farmers) . That is the whole problem with that. Oleg mentioned before (in Il 2 era) that this would be fixed in Il2FB, but we see that they are still flying snipers /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif .
A "few seconds fire" of an F2 is still 1.29 kilograms x (few seconds) .You can imagine what this means:1 sec burst =1.29 kgs, 2 sec = 2.56, 3sec (a usual burst ) = 3.87 kgs of lead in the engine. You just don't need much more to smoke it! Again, no prob with that, the snipers are the problem /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif .
A couple of seconds here and there IS THE PROBLEM. A couple of secs make the climbrate a joke, a couple of secs make acceleration far less than it was. A couple of thousands of meters higher (that goes for the P39, a plane far overmodelled in the game),a couple of tenths of kilometres in high speed (all of this concentrated in one side) made an arcade-game out of a very good sim.
Nobody is ******ed, nobody has to earn anything by telling lies or arguing with eachother.
All I¦m saying is that out of that mess emerges the need of reviewing some aspects of the FM and DP of some aircraft in the sim, otherways we are talking about a nice arcade with some historical background, nothing more.
-Maybe Oleg should use some statistics about the average life of a Soviet plane and the rate of jams for each one, but then I suppose we will have A LOT of whinning VVS's, don¦t you think? But that¦s a sim anyway. Otherways it's a game, nothing bad to it /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.loggia.com/myth/images/medusa02.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 06:42 PM
Well said vipez and medusa, clint-ruin will probably come up with some more BS though.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 06:48 PM
Hi clint-ruin,


"I don't know what the ideal response even could be from Maddox games. It seems the more they give, the more is expected of them, and any feature requests that don't make it in are regarded as some kind of personal insult from the developer to the "community"."

Agreed. And it's heartening to see "community" being ascribed its due irony. That it usually isn't, I think, can be attributed to the psychology you mention later in your post, the inability of certain among the citizenry to dislodge the game from reality.


"Meanwhile the offline players have been slogging through with same old, same old issues - FMB that hasn't been updated since IL2 1.0, same old single player bugs, basic sound issues, ineffective AI, and whatnot. I've made a few suggestions here - adding in a panel to the object viewer in the FMB that would trigger existing AI commands at a waypoint, for example, which I don't think would be too much bother to implement at all. But when you make those kinds of posts, the sheer inevitability of it dropping off to page 6 before Oleg next looks here occurs to me - and I've more or less stopped bothering to make those kinds of suggestions."

I'm not dissatisfied with single-player features as they stand. So I'll disagree that they've stood pat by suggesting, for instance, that the new campaign system is a great effort to better accommodate the offline player. However, it would really benefit by the inclusion of a GUI, as its flexibility is comprehensive but arcane.


"In development there's usually a criteron for which bugs are the real showstoppers: I have this funny feeling that in any realistic assessment the 1-5% deviance from ideal, tested flight assessments in some aircraft would be at the bottom of the fix list.

But it doesn't seem to be."

Agreed. And I marvel at how the development team shrugs off the wounds it incurs throwing itself through too many, no doubt grossly misshapen hoops at once. Incidentally, folk like me who aren't relevantly schooled get sideswiped: observe my anxious struggle to discern if I'm getting a purely professional representation of how these aircraft might have performed - what I've paid for, expect, and honestly want - or a representation tainted by the effort to appease some intransigent "enthusiast".


"Since the Sturmovik codebase is such a closed shop - not only are there no real mods or an SDK to make them with, there's very little understanding in the community of what's even being modelled in the game at all, let alone how. It leads to all kinds of innuendo about why things might be the way they are.

I'm very far from the typical pro-open source slashdot nerd, but I can't help but feel that had Maddox games adopted a more open and friendly attitude to the game rather than the community, we might not be seeing some of the more ridiculous threads that pop up. Maybe new, even more ridiculous ones would take their place, but I find it hard to imagine.

I mean, I just spent 3 pages arguing with a quasi english literate whiner with an obviously excessive emotional involvement in the game about how much damage various guns do to various objects in the game. By the end of it it's become apparent that there really is no such issue - but I guarantee we'll see another 5 threads in here about how horribly underdone the LW guns are by the end of next week. Doesn't matter if it's true, what seems to matter is if it's perceived as fair. Since there's so little info to go around, it's not hard for the innuendos to stick or for the chinese whispers to start. And they do."

With this I'll agree generally, but submit that accessibility of the game's mechanics - open, closed, or betwixt and between - has no real bearing on the perception of its fidelity. As I'm fond of religious metaphor (and as flat-earth spirit seems well represented around here) allow me this indulgence: unlocking the game, to whatever extent, would simply diffuse a classic monotheistic paradox. That is, instead of Oleg being hailed and hated alone and at once, we would be directing our devotion (/derision) to oleg X the FM god, oleg Y the DM god, and etc. But the emergent pantheon would be buffered from even legitimate criticism by amateurism's romantic glean - "Don't pick on him, he digs ditches all day and fixes the game for passion - for you!" Oleg's function would by then be relegated to the purely symbolic, the old root of all the evil the new gods struggle heroically to overcome. So, I think you're correct that the tenor of these boards would be friendlier, but only superficially so, or by virtue of a sort of trickery.

The problem of chronic complaining, as I see it, is basic and immutable: certain people simply cannot except that others are more knowledgeable then themselves, especially in subjects upon which their egos too exclusively depend.

By the way, I'd agree that virtual fences are sturdy fences, but then a few of the monkeys you persist in poking begin to look beyond virtually menacing. (I'm joking, of course - assuming monkeys to be agitated by nature, I consider myself at liberty to enjoy the spectacle guilt-free.)


Cheers, and thanks again for your thoughtful posts - they're refreshing.


Greg S




Message Edited on 09/20/0301:25PM by GregSM

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 10:37 PM
Why is it that everytime I see the words "oleg" and "sir" in the title, it is whining?

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye
shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be
measured to you again.

http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/templates/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif (http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php)

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 11:35 PM
Platypus_1.JaVA wrote:
- Why is it that everytime I see the words "oleg" and
- "sir" in the title, it is whining?
-

Haha, I've commeted this many times. There are various types:

Begging: "Oleg, pleeeease..."

Imperative: "Oleg: Do this..."

Rude: "OLEG YOU DONT (..) THIS A CRAP..."

Ironical: "Oleg, have you ever tried...?"

Condescendant: "Aaaah! Oleg, Oleg, Oleg..."

News-breaking: "Oleg has said..."

Desperate: "Where is Oleg?"

Satisfied (just for an hour): "OLEG THANK YOU"

All this passion, jointed with Oleg's silence (just broken by surprise sentences, which reveal HE SEES US ALL), and his photo at the top of the list, reminds me of Orwell's Big Brother in 1984. The guy in the novel asks his torturer something like this:

- "Is he a real man?"
- "Of course he is real"
- "I mean, does he exist just like me?"
- "You don't exist"

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

- Dux Corvan -



http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612322300

</span></blockquote></font></td></tr>

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 01:46 AM
BUMP!

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 08:21 PM
GregSM wrote:
- I'm not dissatisfied with single-player features as
- they stand. So I'll disagree that they've stood pat
- by suggesting, for instance, that the new campaign
- system is a great effort to better accommodate the
- offline player. However, it would really benefit by
- the inclusion of a GUI, as its flexibility is
- comprehensive but arcane.

Oh, me either, really. The FMB is quite amazingly good even without scripting commands or any really advanced features. When I say 'lacklustre AI', I'm really only talking about a couple of minor, but quite annoying things it's wont to do at times, which have been gone into at great length by others on the forums. That it can make sense of the chaos I throw into the FMB at all speaks fairly well of it. We're in 2003 and game developers still haven't made a realtime strategy game AI that can flawlessly handle a 2-dimensional pathfinding or combat. Reading Gamasutra, planetcrap, or the other game developer insider style sites, the main objective in computer-game AI research is still how to make it cheat without the player noticing it. Given that, I think what FB manages is actually pretty good.

The AI and FMB have had only very minor attention paid to them since Il-2 1.0, though. We've got a few more static objects to place, some additional 'snapshot' type abilities from the AI, and a plugin campaign generator added if you want to count that as an AI affair. Not a lot, at least, not compared to the attention that seems to have been lavished on the FM/DM aspects. 5% of the user base plays online? Yeah .. well, the squeaky mice get the cheese apparently ;>

I agree completely about the sparse GUI style - I love that the game handles a great deal of configuration/mission/etc information as straight text files, and straight bitmaps for skins, but I wouldn't mind it if I didn't have to play with those to access a lot of the features in the game. Maybe it's some kind of eastern-european style thing, since Operation Flashpoint had a couple of similar features to it. Pretty menus, but man, if you wanted to make any kind of mission in it, time to break out Notepad.

The campaign generator in FB is kind of a "feh" level feature in my opinion though - sort of reminds me of "addon packs" like say, those published for the old game Total Annihilation - just things the developer or third parties had released on the net for free, but in a box, for money. The fact that FB has any interface at all for user-input for a campaign system is more exciting to me than the actual shipping DCG code itself. Looking forward to what people will come up with to plug into it.

- "In development there's usually a criteron for which
- bugs are the real showstoppers: I have this funny
- feeling that in any realistic assessment the 1-5%
- deviance from ideal, tested flight assessments in
- some aircraft would be at the bottom of the fix
- list.
-
- But it doesn't seem to be."
-
- Agreed. And I marvel at how the development team
- shrugs off the wounds it incurs throwing itself
- through too many, no doubt grossly misshapen hoops
- at once. Incidentally, folk like me who aren't
- relevantly schooled get sideswiped: observe my
- anxious struggle to discern if I'm getting a purely
- professional representation of how these aircraft
- might have performed - what I've paid for, expect,
- and honestly want - or a representation tainted by
- the effort to appease some intransigent
- "enthusiast".

To be honest I'm glad Oleg set the bar so high. It keeps the "enthoooosiast" crowd out. I like that Maddox have apparently done enough research to be able to point such people at a foot thick pad of dusty WWII era tomes and say "must have equal or better info to make changes". I've been just as bad as others in asking that Oleg please reveal some of his sources, mainly just in the hopes of "settling" some of these more protracted arguments. But I don't think I believe it would, anymore - people would just want to argue with it further, no matter what Oleg put out. Better that Olegs input information remains closed. I can see how having any copyrighted sources for his information could conceivably open them [Maddox/1c] to legal action - doing music, it's very hard to keep notes on say, which samples are going into a song, which are public domain, and which need clearing. Even for massive record companies with armies of lawyers to check it. No idea how many thousands of potential sources Oleg has or who he'd have to check with to publish any of it.

I do however still wish that Oleg would open up what the game itself does. Things he has done in the past, like publishing a table of each He/Ap/etc style round, what parameters the game stores for it, and how much 'damage' it's likely to do as a result, was great. No more arguments about uber weapons or uber this or uber that, they can be settled with a text file. I just wish more of this info was available, and more importantly, user editable.

- "Since the Sturmovik codebase is such a closed shop
- - not only are there no real mods or an SDK to make
- them with, there's very little understanding in the
- community of what's even being modelled in the game
- at all, let alone how. It leads to all kinds of
- innuendo about why things might be the way they are.
- ...
- Since
- there's so little info to go around, it's not hard
- for the innuendos to stick or for the chinese
- whispers to start. And they do."

- With this I'll agree generally, but submit that
- accessibility of the game's mechanics - open,
- closed, or betwixt and between - has no real bearing
- on the perception of its fidelity. As I'm fond of
- religious metaphor (and as flat-earth spirit seems
- well represented around here) allow me this
- indulgence: unlocking the game, to whatever extent,
- would simply diffuse a classic monotheistic paradox.
- That is, instead of Oleg being hailed and hated
- alone and at once, we would be directing our
- devotion (/derision) to oleg X the FM god, oleg Y
- the DM god, and etc. But the emergent pantheon would
- be buffered from even legitimate criticism by
- amateurism's romantic glean - "Don't pick on him, he
- digs ditches all day and fixes the game for passion
- - for you!" Oleg's function would by then be
- relegated to the purely symbolic, the old root of
- all the evil the new gods struggle heroically to
- overcome. So, I think you're correct that the tenor
- of these boards would be friendlier, but only
- superficially so, or by virtue of a sort of
- trickery.

I agree in principle, but man, I have such doubts as to the userbase's ability to assess what's happening in the game code without the information taped in front of their eyeballs that .. I dunno. I do actually want the Luftwhiners to be happy with the game. It'd be great if the [useful, productive, helpful] community could be bigger. It'd be great if we could "fork" FB onto different paths and see if they ever reached a high enough level of professionalism to be incorporated back into the base game.

The funniest thing that I think came out of the recent Youss "game balance" / Il2Compare thread was the revelation that the FW-190 still uses the old critical-systems-h!tbox [wow the swear filter doesn't like that term :>] style damage model from Il-2. There have been soooo many countless complaints on these forums about the Laggs and other planes being invincible uber birds that the LW couldn't possibly hope to take down as a result of their use of the 'old style' damage models. When all along - since FB's release - it seems like it has been a LW mount suffering from this particular "problem". Things could get even more silly with open books on the base data in the game, but arguments like that would be solved with a few seconds peeking at the relevant - hopefully open - damage model for the plane. And if people thought it was so grossly unfair that they couldn't play, well, they could always change it.

This certainly doesn't hurt things like say, Counterstrike, Quake, UT2003, Diablo, etc. All of which are open to various degrees - yes, even diablo - and allow user end mods. You can get cheating problems appearing, but there are ways around those. Certainly I don't see that FB does anything more sophisticated than Punkbuster does for First Person Shooter style games. These are games that, maybe outside of some larger massively-multiplayer games or yahoo! blackjack, have the largest online populations ever. Obviously a community can survive it, and I think one with less 'strangers' and maybe more common interests, like the FB one, would hold up pretty well.

I agree that there would be a panthenon of the gods created, but polytheism is just a little closer to democracy than monotheism ;>

Requiring user-end mods to be non-profit [a standard piece of any EULA] and to allow reverse compilation [standard developer reserved right] would allow any "superior" features to be copied between them.

Anyhow, this is just the kind of thing I find myself thinking about at 4.50am - I occasionally think to myself that I should find a better hobby, and one that's less expensive on mole-mallets, but it's free entertainment ;>

- The problem of chronic complaining, as I see it, is
- basic and immutable: certain people simply cannot
- except that others are more knowledgeable then
- themselves, especially in subjects upon which their
- egos too exclusively depend.

That's always true, though. I'm quite happy to be called a ****** by ... ******s. Doesn't mean a thing to me. For all the carping whining horribleness, these forums are actually pretty good, sometimes, if you're prepared to wade through crap to get to the tasty centre. The SimHQ forums and others tend to be better, and really, I don't blame Oleg for showing up there more often than here. I tend to prefer to lurk on SimHQ though.

-
- By the way, I'd agree that virtual fences are sturdy
- fences, but then a few of the monkeys you persist in
- poking begin to look beyond virtually menacing. (I'm
- joking, of course - assuming monkeys to be agitated
- by nature, I consider myself at liberty to enjoy the
- spectacle guilt-free.)

No worries - I think people read far too much into online personalities. I've got no problem whacking people in here and being intollerant as hell of idiots, and then flicking over to tech-support mode to help people with their questions about NewView or whatever, no matter how silly. If people don't know something then they don't know. But I get irritated at the tone of some peoples complaints, especially in the ORR forum .. I don't know. Maybe I'm pathological about it, but it's just so satisfying to be able to whack such soft, juicy targets.

Glad you enjoy the show :>

- Cheers, and thanks again for your thoughtful posts -
- they're refreshing.

Thanks - I've read some of yours over at SimHQ tonight [or at least noticed your screen name in the threads], and you seem fairly rational about the whole deal yourself :>


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)

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, 09:37 PM
jj8325 wrote:
- i think oleg should just make the flight models the
- way HE thinks they are correct. its not possible
- for him to make everyone happy. i agree 1.1b was
- better, but there was soooooooooo much whining on
- the forum when that came out, now ppl wanna go back
- to it.
-
-


.1b was
- better, but there was soooooooooo much whining on
- the forum when that came out.

That is simply not true.

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 10:16 PM
Medusa_the_dark wrote:
- Me again
- Without any urge to quote with noone ,here are some
- requested FACTS:
- UBS Vo (YAK 9): 860 m/sec
- ShVAK Vo (YAK 9): 790 m/sec
- MG17 Vo (Bf 109F2): 760 m/sec
- MG 151/15 (Bf 109F2): 950 m/sec.
- These numbers practically reflect the accuracy of
- the burst as we all can understand , nothing more to
- it.

Really? How about projectile mass? Heavier shells lose velocity slower in general. And I am guessing you may be hinting about ballistic drop when speaking of Accuracy?

There are other factors towards accuracy too. Want to find out the rifling twists in degrees per meter at the ends of the barrels? That would have much to do with dispersion of rounds.

-----------------------------
I'm NOT saying you're wrong, just that your arguments are presented somewhat poorly. I hope that unlike some others you have the maturity to accept that or at least see why I say that. Keep this in mind as you read.
-----------------------------

- The firepower of each and the sum of the arms of
- any plane are depicted by the mass output a plane
- could produce /sec, measured in kgs/sec. So, a YAK 9
- produced 2.08 kgs/sec, a La 5 FN 2.56 ,a BF G2 1.57
- and a FW A8 5.92 kgs/sec (that IS awesome).

A very rough but easy measure. The FW190-A8 really is major as to firepower. From long range I'd much rather have the Mk103's than the Mk108's but close up and with a good speed advantage as in BnZ... gimme the 108's!

In the right hands the weapons are all deadly. What percentage of WWII pilots did not die soon, say combat and still shot noone down? If you say most then you are right. How many pilots in WWII were poor gunners? If you say most then you are right. So maybe the weapons alone are not the most important factor.

Now how many sim pilots think they are hot and aren't really when the sims get more and more realistic? Again, most. Time in older sims is no resume for excellence in this one. I don't trust everyone who reports speeds, climbs, rollrates, etc, that don't meet spec. Especially when I know actual good real pilots who do better in this sim! If you can fly one plane well but not another, is that neccessarily the fault of the sim? Really, you can only show by tracks that the hated enemy planes are too good! If you can't outperform the specs in those then what can you show? AGAIN, that does not disprove that you are wrong about SOME planes being undermodelled... only that you have no way to show it. Isn't it better to show you are right about something than to yell and wave?

- Having red all-or almost all of the threads and as I
- mentioned formerly, Pe 2 is not difficult to smoke
- IF you manage to escape the guners'es slings. All I
- said was that those gunners were extremely good
- marksmen (in game, in the real time they were
- willing patriots but just uniformed farmers) . That
- is the whole problem with that. Oleg mentioned
- before (in Il 2 era) that this would be fixed in
- Il2FB, but we see that they are still flying snipers.

Yup. You jink on the way in or just line up your sights and hold position? If the latter then get the 103's and pound him from standoff range where his peashooters aren't much good. That is historic. Attacking bombers was supposed to be high on the pucker factor list. That's why they developed many tactics for doing so like the front, high side and low side attacks. Flying straight up behind is just about the worst way of all unless you can out-range those gunners.

- A "few seconds fire" of an F2 is still 1.29
- kilograms x (few seconds) .You can imagine what this
- means:1 sec burst =1.29 kgs, 2 sec = 2.56, 3sec (a
- usual burst ) = 3.87 kgs of lead in the engine. You
- just don't need much more to smoke it! Again, no
- prob with that, the snipers are the problem.

So for 2 seconds I should expect every shot to hit that engine?

Try this: Run an MP game with you as the host but not actually online. It is doable easily. Have a mission set up with your bomber and you in the fighter and realism with you as invulnerable. Shoot only that 2 seconds at the engine and end the mission. Check your STATs and see how many rounds fired and how many rounds hit. Make sure to have a track so you can go back and see where the rounds hit, just pause and check the paths and damage.

You should be able to nail the engine but I doubt you'll get 25% hits right on the engine itself.

- A couple of seconds here and there IS THE PROBLEM. A
- couple of secs make the climbrate a joke, a couple
- of secs make acceleration far less than it was. A
- couple of thousands of meters higher (that goes for
- the P39, a plane far overmodelled in the game),a
- couple of tenths of kilometres in high speed (all of
- this concentrated in one side) made an arcade-game
- out of a very good sim.

And from here on.....

A couple of seconds leads to a couple of thousands of meters of climb? Your points become lost in your noise. A couple of seconds in a climbrate of how long? 5 or 6+ minutes to 6km? I'd be overjoyed to see that accuracy!

Why give Clint or whoever the opportunity?

How about a track of the P-39N climbing too well, running too fast or full tilt fast too long? Words alone mean what? You got space for a homepage with your net connect? You can post pics and tracks then. Get with your ISP about help if you don't know how to FTP your own account. They may need to set up your folder anyway.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 11:47 PM
WWMaxGunz wrote:
-
- Medusa_the_dark wrote:
-- Me again
-- Without any urge to quote with noone ,here are some
-- requested FACTS:
...
-- These numbers practically reflect the accuracy of
-- the burst as we all can understand , nothing more to
-- it.
-
- Really? How about projectile mass? Heavier shells
- lose velocity slower in general. And I am guessing
- you may be hinting about ballistic drop when
- speaking of Accuracy?
-
- There are other factors towards accuracy too. Want
- to find out the rifling twists in degrees per meter
- at the ends of the barrels? That would have much to
- do with dispersion of rounds.

Look, to be honest, I wasn't even going to bother to reply to this guy, and I'm not sure if you can get much out of it either. Other than maybe delivering an education.

There is no mention of projectile shape, speed of impact [wasn't even mentioned first off], explosive content. Etc.

People moved beyond shooting little iron balls at each other for a reason.

Medusa, if you want to learn about this stuff, I'm sure someone can bump you up a thread on this sort of thing. It has all been gone over many times before.

The other thing I like about this little tangent is the way it's implied that a He-111 is actually more heavily armored than a tank. All hail the new .50cal vs Tiger thread!

As a PS, I guarantee you 100% that my tone towards you and others on this thread will do a complete 180 the moment any of you produce any kind of in-game evidence supporting your position. I assure you. I didn't start out all that hostile, it's the unsubstanciated claims that I tend to dislike a great deal.


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)

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, 09:50 AM
WWMax Gunz
Really? How about projectile mass? Heavier shells lose velocity slower in general. And I am guessing you may be hinting about ballistic drop when speaking of Accuracy?

There are other factors towards accuracy too. Want to find out the rifling twists in degrees per meter at the ends of the barrels? That would have much to do with dispersion of rounds
Thank you Max, in deed these parameters effect accuracy indeed. But since projectile technology of the era was more or less the same I only implied that mass output was the main parameter to firepower of each plane. Wish I had some evidence about the dispersion of the shots , but it is impossible for me to find any! So all I said was that a Bf G2 is less effective compared to a Yak 9 , a Yak 9 less effective to a FW etc.-don't want to be missanderstood.

-So for 2 seconds I should expect every shot to hit that engine?
The whole thing goes to Clint who compared He 111 to Pe2. Since the test run be the same person I recon the percentage of on target hits is more or less the same. All I said was that Pe 2 should- and is- an easier plane to kill than He111!
P39 IS overmodelled in game. All P39's lacked of power above 4000m due to deficiency of syupercharger - every page for P39 mentions that. In game it climbs above 4000 m like- or better that a G2, you can do that test all by yourself to see it.
All the other bounty stuff is easily found- with measurements - in these pages.
Thank you for keeping yourself busy with my post

Takis

http://www.loggia.com/myth/images/medusa02.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 10:15 AM
Clint-ruin wrote:
Look, to be honest, I wasn't even going to bother to reply to this guy, and I'm not sure if you can get much out of it either. Other than maybe delivering an education
One gets what he can.If you can't get anything out of it then its really your problem. He111 is no tank at all, but its still 3 tons heavier than a Pe2 due to bigger size AND armor. So it should be easier to kill, this is a fact, like it or not.
Projectiles speed of impact is hard to find nowdays, imagine how hard is to find evidence for the era's weapons! In my drift I count Allies and German weapons capabilities the same-or I shouldn't?
Projectiles shape was the same , that technology was equal. Explosive content for small calibers (7.92.12,15 ) was beyond the eras capabilities, so in every case the projectile's jackets was lead. Bigger calibers had explosive content but sorry, I don't know if it is calculated in this game. Do you?
I'm not hostile in any case, I see you dedicate a lot of your time in this forum -which I don't do- so I understand the thing is serious to you. All the evidence I brought up was found in the net and I thought it would be useful to present for the conversations sake. If they are misinterpreted as just one more reason to offend each other - as many things in this lobby - then I 'll just erase it from my favourite's folder , that's all. It's always a game , but ther must be some maturity among the players!
S!

http://www.loggia.com/myth/images/medusa02.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 04:06 PM
Hi clint-ruin,


A few things:


"The campaign generator in FB is kind of a "feh" level feature in my opinion though - sort of reminds me of "addon packs" like say, those published for the old game Total Annihilation - just things the developer or third parties had released on the net for free, but in a box, for money. The fact that FB has any interface at all for user-input for a campaign system is more exciting to me than the actual shipping DCG code itself. Looking forward to what people will come up with to plug into it."


So far, there's this:

http://members.shaw.ca/lowengrin/index.html

The guy who makes it is very helpful and pleasant.

Also, do you know that the mission scripting of the stock generator can be tailored well beyond what is formally documented? For instance, flight sizes, types, mission objectives, and aircrew skill can be altered in much greater detail than the general or macro-type commands (sorry, I don't know the jargon) we can append to the configuration file in the root directory. If you want more detail, I'd be happy to pass along a text file I've collected that's full of information/instruction from Starshoy and others who worked on the generator. It's tedious business, though.


"I can see how having any copyrighted sources for his information could conceivably open them [Maddox/1c] to legal action - doing music, it's very hard to keep notes on say, which samples are going into a song, which are public domain, and which need clearing. Even for massive record companies with armies of lawyers to check it. No idea how many thousands of potential sources Oleg has or who he'd have to check with to publish any of it."


Of course. And in the present context, the reality of the commodified intellect tends to distort into comedic-tragic-mystery at precisely the pace the worldview rejecting all but the concrete and close by gets confounded:

I don't see any secret documents! There cannot be secret documents! Show me these 'secret' documents!
(Aside, increasingly tremulous: There are secret documents.)

Funny but sad, as no doubt certain patrons of cooking forums pester chefs for their recipes.

Now, I apologize for a cursory response to what you've said of accessibility, user-modification, etc. It would be fun to tinker, I agree, and would enhance interest in the game, if not necessarily its sales or fidelity. (I'd really welcome the ability to tinker with cosmetics like the upside down star on the wing of the P-47!)

I'll just add this:


"I agree that there would be a panthenon of the gods created, but polytheism is just a little closer to democracy than monotheism ;>"


Indeed, which brings up the (now thoroughly infamous) Platonic story about a boat, and how its navigator gets appointed. I think I remember them holding an election and the guy with the nice haircut getting the vote. Just the same, while there are no such profound consequences over this horizon (and while I am myself a tireless advocate for home dentistry), I'd elect to leave the FM's and such for Oleg. From my ignorant and lazy perspective it's just easier.

And finally, regarding the great question, "to whack or not to whack", I recommend redoubling your efforts. The juiciest targets, as is their way, are slow to take notice.


Cheers,


Greg

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 04:10 PM
Quote: Why is it that everytime I see the words "oleg" and "sir" in the title, it is whining?
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://morrowind.host.sk/ ( <A HREF=)" target=_blank>http://morrowind.host.sk/</a>

http://morrowind.host.sk/

ZG77_Nagual
09-22-2003, 04:46 PM
P39 from here

http://airforce.users.ru/lend-lease/english/articles/golodnikov/part3.htm

A. S. Was the engine capable of high altitude?

N. G. Fully. 8,000 meters without problem, and neither we nor the Germans flew higher than that.

A. S. Nikilay Gerasimovich, could the Cobra really contend with the Bf-109G and FW-190 in aerial combat?

N. G. Yes. The Cobra, especially the Q-5, took second place to no one, and even surpassed all the German fighters.

I flew more than 100 combat sorties in the Cobra, of these 30 in reconnaissance, and fought 17 air combats. The Cobra was not inferior in speed, in acceleration, nor in vertical or horizontal maneuverability. It was a very balanced fighter.

A. S. This is strange. In the words of one American pilot, the Cobra was an airplane "suitable for large, low, and slow circles". To go further, if we judge by references, then the maximum speed of the Cobra fell below that of the Bf-109F, not to mention the later German fighters. The Allies removed it from their inventories because it could not fight with the "Messer" and the "Fokker". Neither the British nor the Americans kept it as a fighter airplane.

N. G. Well, I don't know. It certainly did well for us. Pokryshkin fought in it; doesn't that say something? [Aleksandr Pokryshkin was the number 2 Soviet ace at the end of the war and flew a P-39 from late 1942 to the war's end - J.G.]

It seems that everything depends on what you wanted out of it. Either you flew it in such a manner as to shoot down Messers and Fokkers, or you flew it in a way that guaranteed 120 hours of engine life.

Let's take the speed of the Cobra and the Messer. I had a Q-25 Cobra, with cameras for reconnaissance. Behind the engine were a vertical AFA-3s and two oblique AFA-21s. I simply flew away from a group of Bf-109Gs in this airplane, admittedly in a dive. Perhaps a single Messer could have caught me, but I flew away from a group.



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

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 04:52 PM
And this proves what Nag?


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

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 04:56 PM
Medusa_the_dark wrote:
- Bigger calibers had explosive content but sorry, I
- don't know if it is calculated in this game. Do you?

All the factors mentioned so far, with the possible exception of bullet shape and material composition, are calculated in the game. And those are factored into the "AP" capability of the round as far as I know.

Gunnery in FB is modelled in absolutely mind boggling detail. I don't know of any other game - even the very nerdy RPGs - that model bullet weapons to the degree that FB does.

Each surface and internal component of every aircraft has its own resillience to bullets and damage model, bullets can deflect off surfaces depending on the angle of impact, explosive rounds fragment damage is modelled, all of the guns fire a mixture of HE/Incendary/AP/Tracer rounds according to historical data and type, impact speed is modelled, damage scales via distance and convergence, etc, etc. If you set the flag "arcade=1" in your FB 'conf.ini' file, you'll actually be able to see some of the base data that FB works with to model gunfire. It's apparently more complex than can actually be seen in the 'arrows' that are drawn on aircraft - bullets bouncing off, for one, doesn't seem to be drawn there - and even that's very, very specific.

FB slightly ahead of modelling gunfire via 'weight of fire'. The only disagreement I've seen about the way FB does things recently is with regards to gun accuracy and vibration from wing mounted guns [such as the P-47], and whether some particular submodels of planes guns are spitting out their historically correct numbered mixture of different types of rounds.

There's a thread in the General Discussion forum on Spit MkI vs Bf109 right now which goes into a few of these sorts of details. I especially like the part where Huck writes that he now considers 1/2 seconds difference in turn rates to be inconsequential, and if you hurry you might even catch it before the message is edited to make that comment disappear :> I can't get the search function working right now, but if you feel like looking, Oleg's in-game round data has been posted several times now.

Though I would hardly consider myself a lifetime expert on the subject, as far as I'm aware, bullet damage vs an airframe usually boils down to three main factors: location of the hit on the target, speed of impact on the target, and the degree to which the round will either penetrate or explode against the target. Those factors interoperate with each other. FB does a pretty good job of trying to replicate that.

- One gets what he can.If you can't get anything out
- of it then its really your problem. He111 is no tank
- at all, but its still 3 tons heavier than a Pe2 due
- to bigger size AND armor. So it should be easier to
- kill, this is a fact, like it or not.

I'm not actually disagreeing with you on this, and I should've done a better job of seperating out my comments towards RedHarvest and others from my comments to you.

Claim was, Pe-2s = invincible, German bombers = flying molotov cocktail. Also, that since a 15mm round was useful for anti-tank purposes, it should have no problems doing damage to a lightly armored aircraft engine.

So I go into the game and pump a more or less identical amount of ammo into the engines of both planes from the rear aspect, at least, by dead reckoning. Track recorded and publicly available so that if anyone wants to dispute the methodology or try to replicate it, or run the gunnery assessor over it, they can. The Pe2s literally falls off, the He-111 continues on unphased but for a coughing engine.

FB concurs precisely with your assessment of the situation, it seems :>

Unfortunately, for doing tests like these I seem to have attracted the ire of a few people who seem to be all about the complaining and not much about the testing. I apologise for my tone towards you earlier by the way - I assumed somehow that you were being hostile and thought I was responding in kind. On rereading your post you don't seem to have been at all, and were simply trying to add to the conversation.

Anyhow, like I said earlier, Olegs bullet modelling info has been posted here before and can probably be dragged up out of the archives, and playing with "arcade" mode set on in FB is a real eye opener. It does quite a superb job of trying to produce accurate results from all kinds of guns and ammo vs all kinds of targets.

Sorry again for the dismissive tone earlier, and as tempting as it is at times to remove the UBI forums from my favorites altogether, there's occasionally very good info posted here. And it's fun to toy with people :>


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, 05:07 PM
clint-ruin wrote:

- There's a thread in the General Discussion forum on
- Spit MkI vs Bf109 right now which goes into a few of
- these sorts of details. I especially like the part
- where Huck writes that he now considers 1/2 seconds
- difference in turn rates to be inconsequential, and
- if you hurry you might even catch it before the
- message is edited to make that comment disappear :>


For this comment I can give you an honest: you're an idiot.

And yes 1 second difference per 360 deg turn is not enough to win a turnfight.


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

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 05:58 PM
ZG77_Nagual wrote:
A. S. Was the engine capable of high altitude?
-
- N. G. Fully. 8,000 meters without problem, and
- neither we nor the Germans flew higher than that.

Apparently, NG speaks about later models of Cobras (1944 that is because in his interview says:
A. S. Did you have small-caliber machine guns on your P-39s?

N. G. No, only large-caliber.


History: The P39 (along with the P40) was one of the few fighter designs available to the USA when it entered WWII. Although many excellent designs were in the pipeline, the general unpreparedness of the US for War manifested itself in the P39. The 39's main failing was a very poor weight/power ratio. This resulted in a poor climb and acceleration. The Airacobra, being intitally designed as a ground support aircraft, wasn't designed with high altitude performance in mind, or even as an air-to-air air superiority fighter for that matter. Unfortunately no other planes were then available to fill that role. The P-400 varient didn't even have an oxygen system installed, thus making it impossible for the pilot to go beyond medium altitudes. The lack of an effective two-stage supercharger meant that the P39 had terrible performance at altitude. It was downright dangerous to fly above 15,000 feet. As an air-to-air fighter the P39 had very little to recommend it for the above mentioned reasons. It was a stop-gap, which was relegated to lend-lease export when other planes began to appear in number. The squadrons using it generally suffered severely at the hands of the Japanese and the plane was whisked from service as soon as suitable alternatives could be found.
The P39 gained a reputation as purple heart maker among Sov pilots which it for the most part retains even today, but the plane was well received in Russia where pilots liked its quality construction. Overall the P39's is not all that bad at low altitude where its performance was reasonable. It dove well, and turned reasonably well. A P-39Q could get to 25,000 ft. in about 10.5 minutes, almost six minutes
quicker than the P-51D (Q model, P51 A had an Allison engine similar toP39 N

The P-39 served the RAF for less than 4 months before being withdrawn. That,I believe, is far more telling testimony than any "technical evaluation".
Also: P39N 1942 model in game had an Allison V1710-85,1150hp,1200 takeof.
P-63,the later model had the Allison V1710-93,1200hp,1325 takeof.
Something tells me that the game models are a complete mess and belong to the second generation Aircobras.The game's P39 N for example had the first generation Allison (1150hp), the one that N. G says about:
"At first they had three-bladed props, later four blades
These propellers were mechanical, they were controlled by hand, with a system of levers and rods"
The later Cobra models (the Q's) had electric prop pitch,among other electric devices (cowls, flaps etc) which gave the swarms of Cobras the nickname "A formation of short-sircuits)

http://www.loggia.com/myth/images/medusa02.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 06:41 PM
clint-ruin wrote:

All the factors mentioned so far, with the possible
- exception of bullet shape and material composition,
- are calculated in the game. And those are factored
- into the "AP" capability of the round as far as I
- know.
Well,I admit I didn't knew that.At least it proves that there has been some serious job (That we DO KNOW)
I'm glad to see that no cause of contradictions emerges /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif . After all this forum was ment to be constructive-like, not the other way around. The problem is that nobody likes to loose and if that happens "it's always Olegs fault" Remembers me once I was blown out of the sky by a P39N during a dive I had the not-so-wise idea to fall in just to escape.Wondering how that happened I did some research and found out that a P39 could-and did- outdive a Bf,even the later ones.That's an example I believe that everybody should think and thats why every word I post is double -checked.I may dissagree with you on many aspects but all I post come out of evidence and can be proven anytime.
I think every thread in this forum should be of some gravity to the games engineers and checked out.Maybe I ask much but after all this comes out of my -our- will to enjoy a simulator than an arcade-game.

S!

http://www.loggia.com/myth/images/medusa02.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 09:25 PM
Zzzzzzzz... eh? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Oh, I left the TV on again. It's one of those science conferences slowly dicted by an aged bald man with glasses...

mmmmm?


Zzzzzzzz....

- Dux Corvan -



http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612322300

</span></blockquote></font></td></tr>

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 09:34 PM
DAMN IT! Is my foto on the net somewere?

lol

http://www.loggia.com/myth/images/medusa02.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 09:38 PM
Medusa_the_dark wrote:
- DAMN IT! Is my foto on the net somewere?
-
- lol
-


Calling yourself Medusa, you're more likely to be some kind of harpy-like girl. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif If you're really that I hope you can really turn me into stone. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

If you're an erudite aged bald man with glasses, well, nevermind... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif Specially, if you call yourself "Medusa" /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Eeeek...

S!

- Dux Corvan -



http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612322300

</span></blockquote></font></td></tr>

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 09:48 PM
..Performiong some voodoo stuf on Dux right now....
...Dux's stick turn to stone...abrakadabra........nieeeeeh,lost the touch.
Sometimes I wear glasses tho ( specially in night missions) /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif and hair tends to fall damn it...
perhaps they prefer suicide than disgracefulness!

http://www.loggia.com/myth/images/medusa02.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 10:05 PM
My hair is leaving home, also. When asked in the net, I always say that it's a very independent and rebel hair. They imagine I have a big mess on my head. But the truth is that they're rebel and independent... and are getting their independence! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

- Dux Corvan -



http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612322300

</span></blockquote></font></td></tr>

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 10:13 PM
one thing noticed about weapon damage, feels that only kinetic energy is counter,no matter where the round hit, if from side to rear fuselage, it still gives all of its kinetic damage to the fuselage, odd.

germans used better HE content in their grenades, and used it lot more than russians or anyone other nation in WW2, nowadays every nation uses same kind of ammo on fighter cannons what Germans used in WW2. odd http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 12:30 PM
Enofinu wrote:
germans used better HE content in their grenades,
- and used it lot more than russians or anyone other
- nation in WW2, nowadays every nation uses same kind
- of ammo on fighter cannons what Germans used in WW2.
- odd /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I think that these parameters are counted in game, but I can't proove it.Sure needs alot of recearch!

http://www.loggia.com/myth/images/medusa02.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 12:45 PM
Wastel in contact with me.
So please if you post something about what did Wastel or others be sure that you know all things right do not invert them for other readers.

Ok he did tests.... Then why some 109s climbs better then should? Isn't it? Or really climbs exactly like should?
Isn't it? 109G2 climbs better then should on 1 (100%) to 4 (110%) m/s better! Why LW useres NEVER NOTICED IT?
Why NO ONE LW USERS NEVER SAID THAT THERE ARE NO ONE PLANE LIKE FW190 that is NO-POSSIBLE-TO-KILL? WHY?

NEED MORE FACTS?

1.11 is much more close to realism than you even think....


PS.
Yes, bugs in tunes are... But not like you are loud here.



I.JG53_Soap wrote:
- GR_335th_Platon wrote:
-
-- 2) the power of all 109 have went down about 5-15 %
-
- Look at the "BF109G2 to G10 analysis ready!" thread
- and you will see that this will never gonna be
- fixed.
-
- Sad but true, especially having the words "show me
- the data" from the developer team in my mind.
-
- Wastel did show up with an remarkable piece of
- documentation, and what did he earned?
-
- At least I would expect a little bit more than the
- usual "ur wrong be sure"
-
- What makes me more and more disappointed, is the
- fact that even if someone shows up with facts and in
- an respectfull manner, it's gonna be ignored with an
- attitude I would never show to my customers.
-
- I'm not talking about the "Hey Oleg, look here and
- there, your gam s*x big time blabla" threads where
- ignoring or answering in this arrogant attitude is
- suited.
-
- Wastel did a great job showing up the mistakes done
- by the dev team and how EASILY they could be fixed.
-
- @Wastel: THX YOUR MY PERSONAL HERO!
-
- [frustrated mode]
- So forget about silly wishes fixing bugs and major
- errors in this game, cause it never will change
- anything ...
- [/frustrated mode]
-
- S!
-
- EDIT: fixed some (sure not all) typos and:
-
- In our squad we're all going back to 1.1b cause 1.11
- is REALLY VERY disappointing
-
-
-
- Message Edited on 09/18/03 10:42AM by
- I.JG53_Soap



Oleg Maddox
1C:Maddox Games

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 01:26 PM
Oleg_Maddox wrote:
- Wastel in contact with me.
- So please if you post something about what did
- Wastel or others be sure that you know all things
- right do not invert them for other readers.
-
- Ok he did tests.... Then why some 109s climbs better
- then should? Isn't it? Or really climbs exactly like
- should?
- Isn't it? 109G2 climbs better then should on 1
- (100%) to 4 (110%) m/s better! Why LW useres NEVER
- NOTICED IT?
- Why NO ONE LW USERS NEVER SAID THAT THERE ARE NO ONE
- PLANE LIKE FW190 that is NO-POSSIBLE-TO-KILL? WHY?
-
- NEED MORE FACTS?
-
- 1.11 is much more close to realism than you even
- think....
-
-
- PS.
- Yes, bugs in tunes are... But not like you are loud
- here.

First, thanks for some response, as I think the community already thought it was left alone.
Next, I think as you seem to know about the facts posted by wastel or others, tune them. I think no one will ever complain when the mentioned above facts are real and btw: as you know that the climbrates for others are too high (which were reported by other enthusiasts too) than all is well isn'T it ? So as you said: tune them http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Looking forward for next patch, cool online play and actually "how does the world look in front of my fw190 ?" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

A lot of users actually complain that the development team could give some more facts, so I guess there's never something like "too many facts". give them all. But please do not say "I wont discuss this any longer" in case you leave some room to debate or thisgets one-sided.

On a side note: I don't envy your position. Really. But on the other side: look how many people your work has affected...

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 02:13 PM
Oleg_Maddox wrote:
- Wastel in contact with me.
- So please if you post something about what did
- Wastel or others be sure that you know all things
- right do not invert them for other readers.

Amazing how people will trust an unvalidated, unrecorded test like Wastels over a fully recorded and logged set like BuzzsawXo's, because Wastels work gives them the opportunity to complain!

Acknowledging that some of the LW planes are overmodelled might force some painful admissions from people who thought it was just the lack of climb-rate causing them to lose.

Unfortunately I think that their theories of some kind of Oleg Soviet Balance Conspiracy To Make The LW Look Bad will continue on, unaffected, despite the evidence to the contrary and you yourself telling them it's not so.

- Why NO ONE LW USERS NEVER SAID THAT THERE ARE NO ONE
- PLANE LIKE FW190 that is NO-POSSIBLE-TO-KILL? WHY?

Amazingly there have been all sorts of people screaming and crying that it is in fact the Soviet planes using the "old" damage models, making them impossible to kill.

I make .trk's of I-153s and I-16s exploding after 5-7 hits of 15mm cannon fire, Pe-2 engines falling off after 3 seconds worth of 15mm+7.92 ... and I get screamed at. It's much, much more fun to complain, than it is to test whether some of these theories of theirs are actually correct. The hardcore LW whiners refused to even look at the .trk files. They would rather continue spouting utter crap rather than find a legitimate bug and try to report it.

Thanks for dropping by, 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
09-23-2003, 03:10 PM
THS for the honor to reply to my post Sir

Sorry but some people cant understan that this post WAS NOT about OKL--vs--VVS plane or pilots
this post made by me to express my disapoined about the 1.11 patch.
I SAY AGAIN ITS NOT ABOUT VVS--VS--OKL PILOTS OR PLANE
its about the GAME and how to make it more close to reality

1) i dint say anything about the 190 i steel think that they fly us they did in real life

2) yes u are right about the 109 they may fly us they did in real life BUT the lost off 5-15% off the power that i im saying is connected to the increast off the power in vvs planes model --thats why i start my post saying that alot off vvs planes are over modeled

3)SORRY TO SAY BUT I DONT HAVE THE TIME TO TEST ALL THE PLANES IN THE GAME BUT it will be a good idear to start seeing some --test and facts--- from the VVS planes and not from OKL site only

4)Oleg Sir there is a very easy way to make all people that COMPLAIN ABOUT PLANES to stop by sending them(posting) the REAL historicall facts that YOU use to make the Fly Model for all the planes .
this will be the better way to stop ALL SIDES FROM COMPLAING about planes


GEORGE MANOUSOS
335th_GRPlaton

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 03:29 PM
Why NO ONE LW USERS NEVER SAID THAT THERE ARE NO ONE PLANE LIKE FW190 that is NO-POSSIBLE-TO-KILL? WHY?

Perhaps because if you fly the plane you're not shooting at it? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

IMHO it is natural that players usually report perceived bugs or problems they encounter with planes they are flying against - especially when it comes to damage model which is always a field of subjective impressions.

---------------------------
http://home.t-online.de/home/340045970094-0001/lwskins_banner_gross.jpg (http://www.lwskins.de.vu)
Historical Skins for Luftwaffe-Fighters

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 10:06 PM
Oleg_Maddox wrote:

- Isn't it? 109G2 climbs better then should on 1
- (100%) to 4 (110%) m/s better! Why LW useres NEVER
- NOTICED IT?



G2 climb rate was reported many times to be too high on this board. Be sure /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif .

And... if you already know it's incorrect, why didn't you fixed it the recent patch? I would like to see it correct, as I want to see La7 climb reduced as well...



<center>http://www.geocities.com/dangdenge2004/arau.txt



|TAO|

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 10:07 PM
Simply amazing just simply amazing.

Anyone fly the LaGG series in its uberness loss of speed in a climb minamul turn rate way over done destructability almost impossible.

But hey thats not what we are talking about its the FW thats industructable even though a LA will saw thru its wing like nothing was there or the same thing with a Yak3.

Nope somehow this got turned in the other direction thanks and Oleg those that fly the LW Planes are in the wrong but hey we knew that in the first place



"Of all my accomplishments I may have achieved during the war, I am proudest of the fact that I never lost a wingman. It was my view that no kill was worth the life of a wingman. . . . Pilots in my unit who lost wingmen on this basis were prohibited from leading a [section]. They were made to fly as wingman, instead."
Erich 'Bubi' Hartmann "Karaya One"

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 10:36 PM
Oleg,

Many LW flyers have reported on this forum about FW190 rollrate and damage model. I know I did.

But it's true. Luftwhiners seem to whine mostly about area's of german planes that are too weak.. and keep more or less quiet(er) about area's that are too strong.. but I'm pretty sure the same goes for russians or allied flyers.

I almost never see russian pilots complain about the green laser like MG's or the super climbrates of the LA series at low alt. (maybe it's correct, but it just seems abit too good to me.. but I'm no expert).

Maybe it's wise to listen to LW testers about where they feel their a/c are undermodelled and where they feel the russians are overmodelled. And same with VVS testers but the other way around.

I think it's really hard to find testers that are 100% objective and will test all a/c without some kind of bias.





"Ich bin ein Würgerwhiner no longer"

ZG77_Nagual
09-23-2003, 11:38 PM
You know this forum is getting a rep as a real stink pit of gnarl headed twits - I wonder why?



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

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 11:49 PM
Sounds promising!

Ok, biggest problems in 1.11 are G'2 climb rate and indestructability of 190's. So let's tune G2 down and boost VVS guns a bit more and voilá!. I hope not, other planes too then. That would be a good way to put an end (literally) all griping for any more patches...

I've learned it all too well; everytime new official "patch" arrives be very very afraid, there is no telling what has happened but the general direction. Grim Reaper has surely swinged its scythe but which model of 109's this time is the question. Most likely the one that has made most kills against betatesters in onlinewars; or G6 & G6late. They are always good choices.

Hopefully 1.1b (even with its shortcomings) has no expiration date.

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 12:04 AM
clint-ruin wrote:
- Oleg_Maddox wrote:
-- Wastel in contact with me.
-- So please if you post something about what did
-- Wastel or others be sure that you know all things
-- right do not invert them for other readers.
-
- Amazing how people will trust an unvalidated,
- unrecorded test like Wastels over a fully recorded
- and logged set like BuzzsawXo's, because Wastels
- work gives them the opportunity to complain!
-
- Acknowledging that some of the LW planes are
- overmodelled might force some painful
- admissions from people who thought it was just the
- lack of climb-rate causing them to lose.

Clint... why not be fair about Buzzsaws' tests?

The 110% test did come up with +4m/s climb in the 1st 1 km ONLY and then trended down. At 5 km alt one was 5 secs slower than it should have been to 6 km. If ONE model of 109 is really fast then that makes everything right? The 1st 1 km climb was helped by an initial zoom. And only that 1 km had a big plus to climbrate. Claims of overmodelling based on that test are not fair.

The 100% with auto pitch was able to match or exceed times to alts but only at 210 kph. And I for one don't think the problem there is something about 109's only but rather all the planes. Claims there are more fair but no good for saying the FM is true.

Focussing on arguments will not help. Debating does not fix anything. Dismissing issues on the basis of 100% right or nothing, 100% or nothing does not help. Denial means never looking let alone deciding if a fix can and should be made. And I see you using flawed tests to deny flawed tests, not being fair and looking into what the tests mean.

Are you a voice of reason or are you only using polite words? I think you can do better.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 12:15 AM
oleg maddox wrote:

-NEED MORE FACTS?

-1.11 is much more close to realism than you even think....

If the 109's climbed properly on auto pitch and not just on manual their would be hardly any complaints for 109's now i think.

If these problems get fixed in the next patch i for one will be very happy and content with this sim:

1. 109 auto pitch, increase turn rate, take a little more damage, overheating problem.

2. Fixes for exsesive turn, climb and ability to take damage for some VVS birds La's, Yaks etc.

3. Decrease 190 roll rate, DM fixes

These for me are the main problems if they get fixed i for one will be very content.....

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 12:30 AM
WWMaxGunz wrote:
- Are you a voice of reason or are you only using
- polite words? I think you can do better.

Actually, you make a fair point, and I can. And no, I don't think Buzzsaws work was quite the completely unbiased thing it was presented to be. At least in terms of the motivation for doing it. In terms of logging his methods and recording the results, it's lightyears ahead of what anyone else did, though. It's one thing to report a problem, it's another to spend hours setting up a worthwhile reproducable experiment that actually gets to the bottom of why it's occuring. And people should be thanking him for doing that regardless of whether they feel personally slighted by the way he phrased the titles of the threads or whatnot.

Wastels work - more importantly, Butch2ks documents with Wastel and Yousss' involvement - was also quite useful, and no doubt we'll see the results of that in the next patch too. I don't have anything against Wastel, either, but I just wish he would either take his testing more seriously, or himself less seriously - either would work.

There are a whole bunch of people here who fly the 109 or LW exclusively who are completely reasonable people, and have enough intelligence to make their position on these matters out of actual data and reasonable analysis of it. And then there's the crowd we both know too well, who're fun to poke in the eye because they're just such .. gits.

It's safe to say that if you're reading this and you have not behaved like a complete and utter moron, then anything I type with the word "luftwhiner" in it is not aimed at you in the least.

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
09-24-2003, 01:17 AM
Oleg_Maddox wrote:
- Why NO ONE LW USERS NEVER SAID THAT THERE ARE NO ONE
- PLANE LIKE FW190 that is NO-POSSIBLE-TO-KILL? WHY?

Actually a number of us have been discussing the extreme durability of 190's. I have stated my opinion that it is a bit too tough--almost as bad as a Pe-2. I can let the ace AI empty an entire LMG load into my 190 and fly off without even scratching the paint. I think that is a bit hard to believe.

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 02:56 AM
Like I said before. If the FM data was correct like it was said to be in the original IL2 then why has it changed 3 times in FB. It leads me to belive there is something very wrong. I thank Oleg for his effort and dilegence in making this the very best WW2 flight sim but some things are hard to ignore. The performance of many American and Russian planes are circumspect to say the least as well as the durability and roll rate of the 190. Clint I respect what you've done for the FB community but aren't you just playing the Devils advocate here? I'm not on either side of the fence. I just want to see this as the best flight sim ever. Both sides have problems both with FM and DM it's obvious to some. I think people who haven't flown enough on either side tend to ignore what history represented or even historicl data did.

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 03:20 AM
Red_Harvest wrote:
-
- Oleg_Maddox wrote:
-- Why NO ONE LW USERS NEVER SAID THAT THERE ARE NO ONE
-- PLANE LIKE FW190 that is NO-POSSIBLE-TO-KILL? WHY?
-
- Actually a number of us have been discussing the
- extreme durability of 190's. I have stated my
- opinion that it is a bit too tough--almost as bad as
- a Pe-2. I can let the ace AI empty an entire LMG
- load into my 190 and fly off without even
- scratching the paint. I think that is a bit hard to
- believe.
-
-
-
-
-

I think the issue is with the tail section, specifically shots into it from dead six. Wings, engine, fuel, cockpit are all vulnerable, but the tail section doesn't really seem to take damage (except if you hit it near the cockpit, then it often comes clean off the plane). In fact, I don't know if I've ever had my rudder or elevators damaged when flying the 190 (and I fly it alot). Consequently, shooting from dead six into the fuselage seldom has catastrophic effects. If you shoot from other angles and hit the aformentioned "vulnerable" areas (still pretty tough, as they should be), you stand a very good chance of knocking the plane out.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 10:00 AM
What about the extreme durability of p47?
There are situations that it needs more than 4-5 MK108 shots....is this possible to kill?

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 10:33 AM
WWScout49 wrote:
- Like I said before. If the FM data was correct like
- it was said to be in the original IL2 then why has
- it changed 3 times in FB. It leads me to belive
- there is something very wrong. I thank Oleg for his
- effort and dilegence in making this the very best
- WW2 flight sim but some things are hard to ignore.

I don't want to speak for Oleg here, nor do I have insight of what happens at 1C, however since I don't have a problem with this changing I may try to offer my explanation.

Basically I think that, being FB different form IL2 as far as flight dynamics are concerned, they needed tweaking the 1.0 which admittedly HAD problems (Oleg stated this more than once). The betas were just steps toward this tweaking -- remember, betas are unfinished work, so they contain differences from the original and from one each other, and each subsequent beta is just a step toward the goal of implementing those tweaks that make the FINAL version as good as the dev team intended.

The FM will probably never, ever deadly spot on, because even the new flight equations can not be perfect, but please let's consider that 1.0 was wrong, that betas didn't count, and that 1.11 is way better than those. There may still be some tweaking going on, and that's why there was a 1.2 thing floating around.

The difference between IL2 and FB may also be due to the fact that the old engine did not model some things that now are modeled, therefore you will never have the same "feeling" with the two sets of FM, although in the end you should have very similar performances, barring any inaccuracies that, mind you, may have been with the original IL-2, not necessarily with FB.

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 11:56 AM
Oleg_Maddox wrote:
--- Why NO ONE LW USERS NEVER SAID THAT THERE ARE NO ONE
--- PLANE LIKE FW190 that is NO-POSSIBLE-TO-KILL? WHY?
Perhaps FW190 was indeed hard to kill, so the game is close to reality on that matter.Take a look at the foto:

http://users.ntua.gr/pkar/FW%20hit.jpg



The plane was his by Sov AA fire, still managed to return at base!

http://www.loggia.com/myth/images/medusa02.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 01:35 PM
"I think it's really hard to find testers that are 100% objective and will test all a/c without some kind of bias."


I propose...myself. Yes, I've lobbied for the A-9 and now I'm lobbying for a P-47M which would become one of the most dangerous threats for my beloved 190's. So, I'm probably the most unbiaised player around /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Four small remarks about the 190:

- its super-fast roll rate is more annoying than an advantage. In fact, when I fly the 190, I change the joystick settings to have a slightly slower roll rate. If this can be corrected, it would be good. But of course, not too much in the other direction, the 190 HAD in real life a very good roll rate!

- About the 190 DM, yes, the tail is strong, but the 190 was a strong aircraft. And if you take only a few minor hits in the wings, you lose speed immediately and become this way a very easy target. Also, aim in the middle of the wing even with MG and boom, no more wing for the poor 190 /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

- In spite it's was not this way in real life, I would like to be able to fire only with the four wing guns. The flash on the fuselage MG's is EXTREMELY annoying for aiming: you fire, you're blind!

- Last remark, I would really like to have a correct armament for the A-9 armed with the Mk-108: they had no fuselage machine guns. And an A-8 without the outer cannons would be cool too, German charts prove that an A-8 without outer guns climbed as well as the D9 (strange but these charts exist). So, if the fact to delete the outer guns on the 190 brings such a good improvment in the performance, I would like to see the same with "two cannons" armed A-4 and A-5 too.

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 02:10 PM
problem is that the FW with outer guns removed are ground-attack versions and are not faster or more manouverable then the "default"versions with 4 cannons.

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 02:22 PM
The armour added was much more than the weight of the guns and ammo removed from the outer wings. That is why the outer guns were removed.


johann_thor wrote:
- problem is that the FW with outer guns removed are
- ground-attack versions and are not faster or more
- manouverable then the "default"versions with 4
- cannons.
-
-



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



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

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 04:44 PM
Sure the G2 is overmoddled, but if we look this isn't the cream of the crop 109, this is an older variant.

For example you might as well overmoddle the P-39 and undermodle the P-51 then, oh and if thats the case this is only gonna be the tide coming in, if the P-51 was ever borked the wave would be coming down compared to this /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif .

Why don't we have them all moddled right, and not some undermoddled, and no more La7's overmodled. Would be nice /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<a>http://www.talonsoft.com/images/hiddenanddangerous/hiddenanddangerous-eyes.jpg</a>

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 05:13 PM
"problem is that the FW with outer guns removed are ground-attack versions and are not faster or more manouverable then the "default"versions with 4 cannons."

You're right, but they should be more fast and maniable!

I hope this can be changed, as accurate docs have been passed to the HQ /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 06:19 PM
EyesBlack wrote:
- Sure the G2 is overmoddled, but if we look this
- isn't the cream of the crop 109, this is an older
- variant.
-
- For example you might as well overmoddle the P-39
- and undermodle the P-51 then, oh and if thats the
- case this is only gonna be the tide coming in, if
- the P-51 was ever borked the wave would be coming
- down compared to this /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif .
-
- Why don't we have them all moddled right, and not
- some undermoddled, and no more La7's overmodled.
- Would be nice /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Yep i agree i dont think their would be as much whining about bf's if La's and Yaks were brought into line a bit.

Is a bit of a pi$$ take when for turn rate most 109's get a second or two added on and La's and yaks get two or three taken off their already quicker turn rates.

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 06:52 PM
yep i agree quess its time also to rework the VVS birds.

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 09:48 PM
http://www.sturmovik.com/luftwhiners.jpg


_____________
Ian Boys
=38=Tatarenko
Kapitan - 38. OIAE

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 09:52 PM
Not very nice, but honest, Ian
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://people.freenet.de/JCRitter/1sigklein.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 09:57 PM
Original WW2 poster, nothing to do with me /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

_____________
Ian Boys
=38=Tatarenko
Kapitan - 38. OIAE

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 10:04 PM
I will admit it made me laugh /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<a>http://www.talonsoft.com/images/hiddenanddangerous/hiddenanddangerous-eyes.jpg</a>

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 12:18 AM
clint-ruin wrote:


-
- Amazingly there have been all sorts of people
- screaming and crying that it is in fact the Soviet
- planes using the "old" damage models, making them
- impossible to kill.
-
- I make .trk's of I-153s and I-16s exploding after
- 5-7 hits of 15mm cannon fire, Pe-2 engines falling
- off after 3 seconds worth of 15mm+7.92 ... and I get
- screamed at. It's much, much more fun to complain,
- than it is to test whether some of these theories of
- theirs are actually correct. The hardcore LW
- whiners refused to even look at the .trk files.
- They would rather continue spouting utter crap
- rather than find a legitimate bug and try to report
- it.
-

What the hell? Sorry but I-16 won't explode after 5 MG151/15 hits... SOrry but no. And try shoot with MG17.. you see that ur bulletes dont have any effect, at all! Now take I-16 vs i-16 and I-16 goes down in flames by Shkasses in no time! Clint ur one amazing VVS-whiner.. looks like you just don't want to believe the facts. Now take a look at DM of Lagg3. How come I am able to shoot down 12 Heinkels with their back gunners screaming at me with their defensive MGs, and somehow their MGs have no effect on my Lagg3. I just keep flying straight and no problemo. only PK, but PK happen extremely rarely anyway by German MGs.. Perhaps I will show you a dia show what is needed to take down a I-16 with BF-109 F-2, or I-153. Average amount of hits is something about 20-30 hits. Now I-16 have a weak point (that is shooting in left wing, sometimes causes explosion), but trust me these kind of kills are one in the million. And I'm sure Oleg will fix this explosion of I-16s.. Sorry but ur random truck showing you blasting a AI Novice I-16 with 7 hits does not tell a **** about the truth.. Maybe you should take a look at statistics by VEF, and you see what really happens online.. VVS dominates on every area. See how many I-16s were shot, and how many 109s. No, this is not because of crappy pilots, but germans inability to shoot down freeking fabric-skinned planes.

Now Take a look at ridiculous flight trajectories of MG131, MG17, UBS. You see MG17 and MG131 bullets loosing their speed straight after 200 meters. Their bullet velocity is also way off. Now compare it for example, UBS. Your bullets fly straight & level for 3000 meters without loosing energy.. Shkasses are also accurate up to 1000 meters. Now Shkasses are ok, but MG17 and MG131 and UBS are way off.

In fact I belive there is only 2 flaws for German planes: They are FW-190 roll rate (and indeed, it has more harm than good of beeing so fast roller), and DM of FW-190.. tail section beeing rather strong for .50cals.. however i have no problem shooting taills of with VVS-superweapons.. and second, BF-109 G2 climbing some 1 m/s too good and beeing one second too agile in sustained turns... Now compare "serious bugs" to VVS-planes.

Now take a look at soviet planes: Lagg3 DM is a joke (has been discussed many times, still ignored by Clint), Lagg3 climbs 18m/s (should be something like 9m/s), La-7 doing sustained turns at 16 secs, Lagg3 not loosing any E on continous turns (means it can do 19-20 ms turns forever), and Lagg3 does not overheat. I can fly at 110% rad closed forever, meaning I can catch any german planes, after they are cooling down engines.

More to follow, Yak1B, P-39, La-7 climb rates are way off. La-7 doing > 30m/s, ridiculous.. IL-2 first series climbing 13m/s, means they climb faster than BF-109 G-6. G6 is also very porked. La5 also can run full throttle for over 10 mins without overheating. Energy bleeding is way off for these planes also. I can easily turn fight with Migs and Laggs with BF-109F, when these planes should be very prone to loose E on continous manouvers. However they do not. I can also do continous loops with IL-2s, infact first series Il-2s are the best dogfighters in the game. There are other VVS planes with crippled DM also, like Pe-2s.. inability to shoot their engines to flames. Pe-8 stil doing amazing manouvers. I could go on and on.. P-39 early climbing sustained 23m/s (competiting with late war FW-190s), with 2 year older plane and old engine.


On the other hand there are lot of cripped german planes. BF-109 G6 perfomance and climb rate is way off. Also has been proven several times. Brewster top speed is only 400kmh on sealevel, should be 430kmh. Current 400kmh makes it even slower than I-16..Also RPM control for german planes are way off. BF-109s, esspecially early Emils, accelerate like Pigs. Engine never works on full power, lots of RPMs of beeing squeezed out. And what makes it ever worse, is fast overheating of these underrevved engines.. Several german planes are missing proper weapon armaments. Like BF-109 F4, G2, G6-series carrying 80 rounds too few of MG151/-20 ammo. This has also be proven several times, but ignored by Oleg times and times again. And we are still missing big bombs on German bombers. We need more bomb-variants for german planes. We need drop tanks for right planes, like FW-190s, and BF-109E4/BF-109E7/Z, BF109F2/F4 ability to carry drop tanks! Late war BF-109s perfomance is also way off. We are missing some climb, overheating problems, and top speed.

I could go on forever, but somehow I feel that Clint just comes up with more BS.. Oleg sorry, but there is lot to be fixxed in this game.. your game is far from perfect. I would hope of sounds getting fixxed in priority, meaning you could not hear bouncing planes, or planes or flak shooting miles away.. We still can hear them sometimes.. Maybe the designers of the game are just patriotic game designers, that I understand, but just try to understand what is going on... I appreciate your work, and I still like your game.. But after playing this game owned by VVS for so many years, i'm finally getting disappointed...

____________________________________



Official Sig:



<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/shots/Vipez4.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 12:29 AM
EyesBlack wrote:
- Sure the G2 is overmoddled, but if we look this
- isn't the cream of the crop 109, this is an older
- variant.

It's not overmodeled if you use auto engine management. CEM is clouding the issue because it is letting folks do things they shouldn't be able to do, while auto doesn't let 109's do what they should be able to do -- including the 109 straightline speed.

If you look at the '41 and '42 VVS planes, you will find several seriously overmodelled. LaGG '41 doesn't overheat without extreme effort to force it to do so. La-5 doesn't overheat and is about 15 km/hr faster than it was in '42--plus it turns better than it should. The early Mig also turns a bit optimistically...

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 01:05 AM
Hi Vipez,

Just wondering if you looked at the tracks I made - one for you - one for RedHarvest - demonstrating the I-153 and I-16 damage model vs Bf109F2 firepower.

You can download the three tracks I made demonstrating Bf109F2 vs Pe2, He-111, I-16 and I-153 from:

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/lies.zip
http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/morelies.zip
http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/rhlies.zip

I've also just made one for an F2 vs Lagg3 '41 kill, apparently with one single shell to the engine from the sounds of it.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/f2lagg341.zip

It's quite obvious from these what a bad shot I am, yet somehow, I'm doing the impossible.

I decided to look into your claims that the B-239 can't hit 430kmh on the deck, and I was really worried for a second. I loaded up the crimea map, B-239, full tank of fuel, trimmed for level flight .. and it just wanted to stick at around 391 or so. Could Vipez- be right about something? I wondered. Then I realised I'd left the throttle down at around 80%.

Here's how it's done, boyo:

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/b239-430.zip

As I mentioned, I'm hardly the best pilot in the world - as you can see from the tracks. Yet .. somehow .. I seem to be able to refrain from whining about it and blaming Oleg for things that are quite possibly my own stupid fault.

Also, I'm wondering when you intend to get around to making a track for me demonstrating 18m/s climbrates for the Lagg 3 '41. The one I asked you for.

Here's a comparison from Il2Compare between Bf109F2 and Lagg3 '41. Please note that if you're losing this fight, versus a plane you can knock out with one hit from a 15mm cannon, with a higher top speed, climbrate, and smaller turn radius to your advantage..

Then you're possibly the whiniest luftwhiner in all of luftwhinerdom.

Did I mention I'm finding this increasingly funny the longer you insist that it's not you, but the game?

Oh yeah. Here's the screenshot:


http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/il2cf2v****g341.jpg

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)

edit: cheap shot removed and saved for future use

Message Edited on 09/25/0311:29AM by clint-ruin

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 08:57 AM
It's odd that the only times the hardcore Luftwhiners shut up are when I'd actually be quite interested in what they have to say.


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
09-25-2003, 10:48 AM
In this thread http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zukyq Vipez writes:

>"UBS won't loose any speed after 2km Like a laser gun"

While in the above posting he writes

>"Now compare it for example, UBS. Your bullets fly straight & level for 3000 meters without loosing energy.."

The UBS seems to get better by each post Vipez writes - could you write some more posts plz Vipez http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

>"Now Take a look at ridiculous flight trajectories of MG131, MG17, UBS. You see MG17 and MG131 bullets loosing their speed straight after 200 meters."

Really - I must admit I don't see it (and I've been flying 109s alot lately)

This is an excerpt from a guncomparison chart a guy once did on this forum (I am sorry but I do not remember who what or where, if anybody can come up with a more authorative source that would be cool)

<table border="1"> <tr> <td WIDTH=117 ALIGN=LEFT VALIGN=BOTTOM><font FACE="Arial CE">
</font></td> <td WIDTH=56 ALIGN=RIGHT VALIGN=BOTTOM><font FACE="Arial CE">caliber (mm)</font></td> <td WIDTH=56 VALIGN=BOTTOM><font FACE="Arial CE">bullet weight (g)</font></td> <td WIDTH=56 VALIGN=BOTTOM><font FACE="Arial CE">explosive charge (g TNT)</font></td> <td WIDTH=56 VALIGN=BOTTOM><font FACE="Arial CE">rate of fire (min-1)</font></td> <td WIDTH=56 VALIGN=BOTTOM><font FACE="Arial CE">muzzle velocity (m/s)</font></td> <td WIDTH=56 VALIGN=BOTTOM><font FACE="Arial CE">bullets/sec</font></td> <td WIDTH=56 VALIGN=BOTTOM><font FACE="Arial CE">kg/sec</font></td> <td WIDTH=56 ALIGN=RIGHT VALIGN=BOTTOM><font FACE="Arial CE">muzzle energy (kW)</font></td> <td WIDTH=67 ALIGN=RIGHT VALIGN=BOTTOM><font FACE="Arial CE">explosive energy (kW)</font></td> <td WIDTH=70 ALIGN=RIGHT VALIGN=BOTTOM><font FACE="Arial CE">total energy (kW)</font></td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH=117 HEIGHT=17 ALIGN=LEFT VALIGN=BOTTOM><font FACE="Arial CE">MG 17</font></td> <td WIDTH=56 HEIGHT=17 ALIGN=RIGHT VALIGN=BOTTOM SDVAL="7,92" SDNUM="1030;0;0,00"><font FACE="Arial CE">7,92</font></td> <td WIDTH=56 HEIGHT=17 ALIGN=RIGHT VALIGN=BOTTOM SDVAL="10" SDNUM="1030;0;0,00"><font FACE="Arial CE">10,00</font></td> <td WIDTH=56 HEIGHT=17 ALIGN=RIGHT VALIGN=BOTTOM SDVAL="0" SDNUM="1030;0;0,00"><font FACE="Arial CE">0,00</font></td> <td WIDTH=56 HEIGHT=17 ALIGN=RIGHT VALIGN=BOTTOM SDVAL="1180" SDNUM="1030;"><font FACE="Arial CE">1180</font></td> <td WIDTH=56 HEIGHT=17 ALIGN=RIGHT VALIGN=BOTTOM SDVAL="810" SDNUM="1030;"><font FACE="Arial CE">810</font></td> <td WIDTH=56 HEIGHT=17 ALIGN=RIGHT VALIGN=BOTTOM SDVAL="19,6666666666667" SDNUM="1030;0;0"><font FACE="Arial CE">20</font></td> <td WIDTH=56 HEIGHT=17 ALIGN=RIGHT VALIGN=BOTTOM SDVAL="0,196666666666667" SDNUM="1030;0;0,000"><font FACE="Arial CE">0,197</font></td> <td WIDTH=56 HEIGHT=17 ALIGN=RIGHT VALIGN=BOTTOM SDVAL="64,5165" SDNUM="1030;0;0"><font FACE="Arial CE">65</font></td> <td WIDTH=67 HEIGHT=17 ALIGN=RIGHT VALIGN=BOTTOM SDVAL="0" SDNUM="1030;0;0"><font FACE="Arial CE">0</font></td> <td WIDTH=70 HEIGHT=17 ALIGN=RIGHT VALIGN=BOTTOM SDVAL="64,5165" SDNUM="1030;0;0"><font FACE="Arial CE">65</font></td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH=117 HEIGHT=18 ALIGN=LEFT VALIGN=BOTTOM><font FACE="Arial CE">ShKAS</font></td> <td WIDTH=56 HEIGHT=18 ALIGN=RIGHT VALIGN=BOTTOM SDVAL="7,62" SDNUM="1030;0;0,00"><font FACE="Arial CE">7,62</font></td> <td WIDTH=56 HEIGHT=18 ALIGN=RIGHT VALIGN=BOTTOM SDVAL="9,6" SDNUM="1030;0;0,00"><font FACE="Arial CE">9,60</font></td> <td WIDTH=56 HEIGHT=18 ALIGN=RIGHT VALIGN=BOTTOM SDVAL="0,38" SDNUM="1030;0;0,00"><font FACE="Arial CE">0,38</font></td> <td WIDTH=56 HEIGHT=18 ALIGN=RIGHT VALIGN=BOTTOM SDVAL="1650" SDNUM="1030;"><font FACE="Arial CE">1650</font></td> <td WIDTH=56 HEIGHT=18 ALIGN=RIGHT VALIGN=BOTTOM SDVAL="870" SDNUM="1030;"><font FACE="Arial CE">870</font></td> <td WIDTH=56 HEIGHT=18 ALIGN=RIGHT VALIGN=BOTTOM SDVAL="27,5" SDNUM="1030;0;0"><font FACE="Arial CE">28</font></td> <td WIDTH=56 HEIGHT=18 ALIGN=RIGHT VALIGN=BOTTOM SDVAL="0,264" SDNUM="1030;0;0,000"><font FACE="Arial CE">0,264</font></td> <td WIDTH=56 HEIGHT=18 ALIGN=RIGHT VALIGN=BOTTOM SDVAL="99,9108" SDNUM="1030;0;0"><font FACE="Arial CE">100</font></td> <td WIDTH=67 HEIGHT=18 ALIGN=RIGHT VALIGN=BOTTOM SDVAL="41,8" SDNUM="1030;0;0"><font FACE="Arial CE">42</font></td> <td WIDTH=70 HEIGHT=18 ALIGN=RIGHT VALIGN=BOTTOM SDVAL="141,7108" SDNUM="1030;0;0"><font FACE="Arial CE">142</font></td> </tr></table>

If this chart is accurate - ShKAS bullets should fly longer and do more damage than MG17 bullets.

>What the hell? Sorry but I-16 won't explode after 5 MG151/15 hits... SOrry but no.

Clint-ruin says he made a track of it, but even a track of it is not proof ?

> Lagg3 climbs 18m/s (should be something like 9m/s)

According to the Compare proggie it Climbs 15m/s at sealevel at 250Kph. It's absolute Max is 17m/s at 2.000 meters - so in a very rare instance you could almost be right. I wonder about your 9m/s - where did you get that figure ?

> I can also do continous loops with IL-2s

Do a track of this - I do not believe you, but I'll watch your track and be amazed if you can

> Now take a look at soviet planes: Lagg3 DM is a joke (has been discussed many times, still ignored by Clint)

I don't know whether this is being ignored by Clint or not, but you obviously miss Clints point entirely. As I see it - Clint is on a crusade for accuracy in reports. He is fighting against wild unsubstantiated overclaims. Such as the claims that you seem to be making. It just so happens that these claims are being made by LW afficionados not by VVS afficionados. Therefore his posts are directed mainly at the LW crowd.

If you can produce tracks that shows the accuracy of your claims that would be an entirely different thing.

> In fact I belive there is only 2 flaws for German planes: They are FW-190 roll rate (and indeed, it has more harm than good of beeing so fast roller), and DM of FW-190.. tail section beeing rather strong for .50cals..

And later:

> On the other hand there are lot of cripped german planes

Are you arguing against your self here ???

> But after playing this game owned by VVS for so many years, i'm finally getting disappointed..

I am just glad that Oleg and not you are lead designer on this game

Tell you what: I have a nagging feeling too that the 109s may have been dealt a bad hand - or that the russian planes may have been dealt an overly optimistic hand. But it won't do ANY good to sling around excessive accusations and unsubstantiated overclaims.

I also believe that in an undisciplined arena, the VVS planes will be inherently more effective. It takes some 'schooling' to fly the LW planes to their best. I do not think that VOW is the place to look for 'schooled' flight. Not ragging on VOW - but there are so many players in that war.

> I could go on forever, but somehow I feel that Clint just comes up with more BS..

Hmmm... so far I've seen much more BS from your hand than from Clints - I could go on, but somehow I fell that you'll just come up with more BS.

C!

<A HREF="http://giap.webhop.info" TARGET=_blank>
http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/giap/var/storage/original/image/69giap_badge_roshko.jpg
</A>

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 12:15 PM
thanks for posting that chart Roshko. I knew I'd read somewhere about the effectiveness of the ShKAS...

I think a lot of people here are simply assuming that LW was better than VVS in all and any circumstances; fair play to those who can demonstrate some kind of basis to their points but this whole conspiracy thing is just p*ssing Oleg off (I heard from a Russian contact who is touch with him).

Call me an Oleg worshipper if you like but I would think that keeping someone happy, whose agreement you need to make changes, is pretty basic psychology. As far as I can tell, posting unsubstantiated nonsense will pretty much ensure that valid changes are less likely to be made as it simply alienates the one person you need to have on side.

But a big bump for you and clint-ruin.

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_07.gif


She turned me into a newt, but I got better.

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 01:38 PM
clint-ruin wrote:
- Hi Vipez,
-
- Just wondering if you looked at the tracks I made -
- one for you - one for RedHarvest - demonstrating the
- I-153 and I-16 damage model vs Bf109F2 firepower.
-
- You can download the three tracks I made
- demonstrating Bf109F2 vs Pe2, He-111, I-16 and I-153
- from:

Uh sorry to say but ur tracks are silly. Your test flight With brewster, you could not archieve 430 on sealevel, your max speed was 410, and even that was archieved with a dive from 400 meters to sealevel. Second according to IL2Manager you scored 15 MG151/15 hits to Lagg3, and even that did not blow the Lagg3, but simply stupid AI crashed. Maybe he was PK:ed, I dont know but after 15 MG151/15 hits that Lagg3 was still capable to fly. Damage model looked liked several hits to engine, but that lagg3 still kept flying. And even if you manage to blow AI Lagg3 with MG151/15, it does tell anything about the simple Lagg3 DM. All the planes in this game seem to have an explosion bug, meaning if you can score hits to left wing, they simply blow. Perhaps fuel tanks on left wing tend to blow up. Now maybe you shoud take a look at these tracks

http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/records/lagg-109.zip

http://www.treffnix.onlinehome.de/trk/test2.zip


These tracks show the ridiculous DM of LAgg3, which you allready showed in your own tracks. 4 Heinkel ventral gunners blasting their asses off, and that Lagg3 still kept flying like nothing. Truth is, I can destroy 12 heinkels with no problem in Lagg3, without anykind of engine failure. And I can do that with 110 Power rad closed, and no overheating. Never damaged controls. Never big holes in wings affecting flight perfomance. . esspecially compare BF-109 and Lagg3 engaging Heinkels. BF-109 gets engine damaged after first pass. 4 Heinkel gunners score lot of hits to Lagg3 engine, and nothing. That baby keeps up flying, like a brand new. Here is a russian climb test from 1941 showing the true climbrate of Lagg3 '41 . You still think Lagg3 modelling is correct?

http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/climb41.jpg</a>

And note it is a russian test, it is not biased german test or anything. And I have plenty of more of these charts. Also all the books I have read about combat have showed the not-so-agile perfomance of Lagg3. For example book called "Marskin Ritarit" written by Mauri Sariola, descripes the lives of several Finnish aces. Finns downed lot of Lagg3s, when they engaged them in turns fights, where Lagg3s certainly did not succeed. In FB however you can only beat Lagg3 41 with 109 F-2 with use of Flaps. If you don't need them, the Lagg3 turns about same.

-
-
- Also, I'm wondering when you intend to get around to
- making a track for me demonstrating 18m/s climbrates
- for the Lagg 3 '41. The one I asked you for.
-
-
I did a QMB test sometime ago, and I calculated 18ms climb. Maybe I was wrong about 1m/s, but 17m/S climb is still hugely overmodelled. It means it can easily outclimb 109 G6, Emils. And you can do it without overheating. Also Oleg decided to give Lagg3 some bizarre weapons armament, 2x Shkas Ubs and Svhaks. Five guns compared to standard armament 2x Shkas + 1x Shvak would make this bird even less agile. But No, Oleg decided to make it much better with increased weight.. Not to mention, Rockets onboard lagg3 have no effect on the perfomance, meaning you can still dogfight 109s with 8x 76mm Rockets. Realistic? I don't think so..


ROSHKO_69.GIAP wrote:
-
- >"UBS won't loose any speed after 2km Like a laser
- gun"
-
- While in the above posting he writes
-
- >"Now compare it for example, UBS. Your bullets fly
- straight & level for 3000 meters without loosing
- energy.."
-
- The UBS seems to get better by each post Vipez
- writes - could you write some more posts plz Vipez
- /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
-

Take a look at these pictures.. sorry for poor quality, but im a poor Photoshop user .)

http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/shots/mg17.jpg</a>

http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/shots/shkas.jpg</a>

http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/shots/ubs%20shot.jpg</a>


Yes Shkas is better in terms of Firepower and muzzle velocity. However the difference is not that big, as we have in this game. Meaning with Shkas, you can fire 2x 650 rounds in 22 seconds. You fire bullets faster, but it does not explain the difference, when you score 2000 MG hits with Emil to I-16 and nothing, and you do just the same with 200 MG bullets from Shkas. Now how come these 2x 650 bullets do SO much more damage compared to MG17, firing slighly heavier shells? Thanks for info though, I never heard of ruskies shooting He-explosive SHKAS-rounds in such light caliber. I mean is, I can shoot 2000 rounds in Emil (MG17, 2x 1000) 67 seconds to a I-16, without doing ANY damage to I-16, I-153, or Lagg3. Only PK. This clearly proved, that MG17 is a waterhoose.. Nothing more. You really think in real life german used waterpistols in their planes? If they were so much uneffective compared to I-16, they never would have even used them to save weight. Besides 60 m/s difference in muzzle velocity should not create that much of a difference in weapons (shkas and MG17).

Basicly same goes for MG131 vs UBS. MG131 muzzle velocity - 710 m/s vs UBS 860 m/s. Now that is a 150 M/S difference. You think muzzle velocity give the right for UBS beeing so much of a killer? I mean, do a test, take a Yak, and shoot one burst with UBS to BF-109 wing, and the wing goes of.. Now do the same with 109 with MG131 (like G6), nothing. Fire rate of UBS and MG131 is exactly the same, about 900 RPM. I did not say that German weapons were better, but I believe there was not a such huge difference in real life like we have in this game. And better to compare UBS vs US .50cal anyway. Two UBS on Yak can do more damage than 8x .50cals on the Jug. Meaning you need to shoot with 8x .50calls with 1 sec burst to take the wing of a BF109. Yak does the same with only two UBS. You still think the german weapon modelling is right? Now silly me, I allways thought, that 8x .50cals should be better than 2x UBS..

Maybe You, as a dedicated vvs-whiners, simply don't want to accept the facts. Clint and Roshko, I recommend you guys to fly for OKL in VEF, and you see the truth. That is I-16 vs 109 F-2, and Lagg3 vs 109 F-2. It is not easy to shoot those fortresses down. However I-16 can down a 109 with only MGs so easily.

edit: sorry for possible typos /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Message Edited on 09/25/0302:42PM by Vipez-

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 02:43 PM
Another method to test the muzzlevelocity:
Place your plane and a wingman on the runway. The Wingman is ~30m behind you.
Activate icons and use the external view to place you point of view into the line of fire, 2,2 km away from the gun (UBS) (You have to set the POV 2,23km away from your wingman).

Now, use timecompression 1/4 and begin to count the time when you press the trigger and stop it, when the bullets flies past your view and when you hear the sound of the passing projectile !

For the UBS tracer, I got ~12,2 seconds for 2.2km (with timecompression):
Average velocity of the UBS tracer round between 0 and 2200m:
2200m/12,2s*4 = 721 m/s

For the MG131, I counted 12 seconds for 1,1 km (with timecompression):
Average velocity of the MG131 tracer round between 0 and 1100m:
1100m/12s*4 = 366 2/3 m/s


The test is not very precise, but you get an overview of the performance of both weapons in FB !
Don't forget, that it is the average speed of the projectile at a certain range. So at this range in FB, the projectile of the MG131 is a lot slower than its v0 of 710 m/s, and the one of the UBS is only a bit slower than 860 m/s at a range, that is two times higher than the one of the MG131 (and don't forget to compare the loss of altitude of both types of bullets, where the UBS is a lot better).

-------------------
http://320015073007-0001.bei.t-online.de/il2-forum/signatur.gif
JG51_Atze

JG51 (http://www.jg51.de)
Virtual Online War (http://www.s-driess.de/vow/index.php?page=homeion=home)
"Ich bin ein Wurgerwhiner"

Message Edited on 09/25/0304:07PM by Atzebrueck

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 03:27 PM
ROSHKO_69.GIAP wrote:

- This is an excerpt from a guncomparison chart a guy
- once did on this forum (I am sorry but I do not
- remember who what or where, if anybody can come up
- with a more authorative source that would be cool)


It's difficult to find ballistic data of the era's guns. And if they atre found sometimes are ambiguous or opposing: Here are some data about ShKAS:

Model ShKAS Ultra-ShKAS
Year 1932
1937

Caliber 7.62mm
Projectile 9.6g
Rate of fire 1,800rpm 2,500-3,000rpm
Muzzle velocity 825m/s ?m/s
Weight 10.6kg 18kg(?)
Overall length 650mm ?mm
Barrel length ?mm

Specialized aviation cartridges for ShKAS machinegun: Incendiary, combined armor-piercing/incendiary and tracers,(no explosive cartridges, this is wrong)

Another one:
Name Cartridge Proj.
Weight Rate of
Fire Muzzle
velocity Gun
Weight Q M
(gram) (rpm) (m/s) (kg) (kW/kg) (1/s)
ShKAS 7.62 x 54R 10.9 1800 870 10.6 11.7 30.8
MG 17 7.92 x 57 10.8 1200 775 12.6 5.1 17.1
MG 81 7.92 x 57 10.8 1600 745 6.3 12.7 45.7

quality factor Q is a standard that Russian designers have been using to evaluate and compare guns. Basically, it is a power-to-weight ratio: The kinetic energy at the muzzle (which is one half the projectile weight multiplied with the square of the muzzle velocity) multiplied by the rate of fire in rounds per second, and divided by the weight of the gun. Essentially, this says how much power a gun produces for a given weight, and is similar to the horsepower-per-weight figure for engines
Another one:
Manufacturer: Rheinmetall Borsig
Caliber: 7.92mm
Weight: 28 Lbs.
Length: 47.2 In. Muzzle Velocity: 2,477 fps (about 753m/s)
Rate Of Fire: 1,200 rounds per minute
Round Types: N/A
Round Weights: 0.45 Oz.( about 14gr)

And another:
Name Ammunition Rate of Fire Muzzle velocity Weight
ShKAS 7.62 x 54R ( 9.6 g) 1800 rpm 825 m/s 10.6 kg
Ultra ShKAS 7.62 x 54R ( 9.6 g) 2700 rpm 830 m/s 10.0 kg
MG 17 7.92 x 57 (10.0 g) 1100 rpm 790 m/s 12.5 kg
MG 81 7.92 x 57 (10.0 g) 1500 rpm 790 m/s 6.3 kg


The German MG17 was derived from the Swiss Solothurn design. It was often in synchronized installations, on the engine cowlings of German fighters, and this reduced rate of fire to 1000rpm. In 1939 the Luftwaffe introduced the superior Mauser MG81, much lighter and with a high rate of fire. But this was used almost exclusively in defensive installations, because the Luftwaffe recognized that the 7.92mm calibre was obsolete as fighter armament
The Russian ShKAS was probably the best of the lot, with a high muzzle velocity and a high rate of fire, although the bullet was light. The upgraded Ultra ShKAS had an extremely high rate of fire for its time, but it seems to have seen only limited use. Russian fighters were quick to adopt heavy machineguns and cannon.
Another one:
Designation Calibre Mass ROF v0 Projectile
mass Mass
output Mass
efficiency Country
[mm] [kg] [1/min] [m/s] [g] [kg/s] [%/s]
MG15 7.92 7.14 1000 760 11 0.18 2.6 Germany
MG17 7.92 12.5 1000 760 11 0.18 1.5 Germany
MG81Z 7.92 12.9 3200 770 11 0.59 4.5 Germany
Were:
. Mass is the mass of the weapon without ammunition or belt, magazine or drum.
. ROF is the cyclic rate of fire.
. v0 is the muzzle velocity of the weapon.
. Projectile mass is the mass of a single bullet or shell fired by the weapon.
. Mass output is the rate at which the weapon slings projectiles at the target.
. Mass effiency is a measure of the efficiency of a weapon that is based on the weapons weight in relation to the mass output. Since light weight is a very important factor for aircraft guns, mass efficiency can be used to compare the relative quality of different weapons.
. Country is the country of origin, though of course some weapons like the Hispano cannon were license-produced in other countries. Unfortunately this one does not include ShKAS data.
The only thing it came out of it is that no explosive cartridges were used with ShKAS and that these two machine guns had a close damaging profile, though ShKAS had a higher Vo (perhaps due to less weight ) and it might be more precise in longer distances than MG17

Cheers

http://www.loggia.com/myth/images/medusa02.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 04:21 PM
Hi Vipez !

- Maybe You, as a dedicated vvs-whiners, simply don't
- want to accept the facts. Clint and Roshko, I ....

I am no VVS whiner. To qualify as a VVS whiner you would have to whine about disadvantages to the VVS in the game. You can't find such a post by me anywhere. However I am a whine-whiner. In my view it is perfectly acceptable to post on things that you find 'not-so-plausible' about the game. But to bigger on about 'Bias' and conspiracies is simply flat out stupid. It won't make your complaint more valid and it will only p*ss of those you try to address with your complaints.

In your case Vipez I've seem to be partly successful - because this last post of yours really seems an honest try. I did another setup similar to yours.

The dots are barrage ballons - they are spaced exactly 1000 meters apart (I adjusted the mission in notepad to make sure of this)

Look at this image:

http://vania.dk/images/tracers.jpg


Hmm... you know what we can conclude with certainty ? We can conclude that LW tracers burn out faster in FB than the VVS ones ! Now I am not saying ANYTHING about how long the bullets travel - because you simply can't use this method to prove it. The only thing you can prove is that the tracers do not burn for an equal amount of time. So the only disadvantage that we can derive from this sort of test is the following: On distances beyond 800 meters the LW pilot will find it much more difficult to walk his tracers to target ! Hmm.... well not very useful is it ?

Atzebruck:
- For the UBS tracer, I got ~12,2 seconds for 2.2km (with timecompression):
- Average velocity of the UBS tracer round between 0 and 2200m:
2200m/12,2s*4 = 721 m/s


- For the MG131, I counted 12 seconds for 1,1 km (with timecompression):
- Average velocity of the MG131 tracer round between 0 and 1100m:
1100m/12s*4 = 366 2/3 m/s

Salute Atzebruck - you pointed out something that makes you doubt without throwing in personal insults or exotic conspiracy theories. A quality rare on this forum as things are today. However could you repeat your experiment and hold it within guns range ? I am no ballistics expert, but I would think that the speed drop follows some complex formula meaning that when the bullet starts dropping it REALLY starts dropping.

Anyone interested in the full gun comparison chart can find it here http://vania.dk/images/il2_guns.zip

Vipez: I will not go into your track debate with clint-ruin. I am sure clint will do that much better than I, but I will say that I cannot accept anything from you on face value. All previous postings by you has been filled with shooting from the hip, and your methods when you finally try and prove anything are not up to scratch. I can conclude that the noise you make far exceeds the value of what you are actually saying. This is the very core of MY involvment in these debates - it simply buggers the hell out of me when people scream and shout and use personal accusations to get their way.

Your Lagg climbrate chart with 9 m/s is far more interesting - I am sure you (as I do) will find this thread over at SimHQ interesting too: http://oldsite.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=004181;p=1 - So far I've seen no counter argument. However that does not make me think that Oleg is biased - this make me feel that Oleg might have knowledge or insight that I do not have OR that Oleg and team may have gotten something wrong. Perhaps a combination. The makers of FB has certainly shown before that they WILL fix the obvious mistakes, so in my book there is NO reason to conclude bias or ill-will against the LW planes. That thought is simply ridiculous.

The only 'luftwhiner' so far I've seen who has demonstrated will to go by facts and not wild allegations is Kweassa (he even protests at some of the unreasonable whines) - All other luftwhiners seem to stand together like some sort of secret brotherhood - never pointing out the errors within the fraternity. I urge the 'better' of the LWhiners to help keep your cause factual and clean. Because really that is the only way to go about it.

I do believe that most of us in here are in it for the BEST sim possible (not the best sim - because we already have that http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ). This includes the LW whiners - the Whine Whiners and 1C Maddox.

If I were a moderator I'd simply delete a post if it contained a personal insult. No matter what - I'd simply delete it. The offender would be free to post again without the insults.


C!

<A HREF="http://giap.webhop.info" TARGET=_blank>
http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/giap/var/storage/original/image/69giap_badge_roshko.jpg
</A>

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 04:49 PM
ROSHKO_69.GIAP wrote:
- Hi Vipez !
- In my view it
- is perfectly acceptable to post on things that you
- find 'not-so-plausible' about the game. But to
- bigger on about 'Bias' and conspiracies is simply
- flat out stupid. It won't make your complaint more
- valid and it will only p*ss of those you try to
- address with your complaints.

I concur completely!

- In your case Vipez I've seem to be partly successful
- - because this last post of yours really seems an
- honest try. I did another setup similar to yours.

Yes, I must also admit I am happy to see the effort to reason. Thanks for the honest reply Vipez!

- This is the very core of MY involvment in
- these debates - it simply buggers the hell out of me
- when people scream and shout and use personal
- accusations to get their way.

Exactly!

- I urge the 'better' of the LWhiners
- to help keep your cause factual and clean. Because
- really that is the only way to go about it.
-
- I do believe that most of us in here are in it for
- the BEST sim possible (not the best sim - because we
- already have that http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ). This includes the LW whiners
- - the Whine Whiners and 1C Maddox.
-
- If I were a moderator I'd simply delete a post if it
- contained a personal insult. No matter what - I'd
- simply delete it. The offender would be free to post
- again without the insults.

EXCELLENT POST Roshko!!!

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 04:53 PM
ROSHKO_69.GIAP wrote:
-

- > In fact I belive there is only 2 flaws for German
- planes: They are FW-190 roll rate (and indeed, it
- has more harm than good of beeing so fast roller),
- and DM of FW-190.. tail section beeing rather strong
- for .50cals..
-
-

You forgot to mention the in-correct modelling of the Fw's forward view./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif (the humungous lower frame)



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



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

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 04:59 PM
Milo - I never said what you quote. I was quoting Vipez /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

C!

<A HREF="http://giap.webhop.info" TARGET=_blank>
http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/giap/var/storage/original/image/69giap_badge_roshko.jpg
</A>

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 05:11 PM
I'd like to add the erroneous climb rate on all russian planes. Also exagerated turn rate on half of them:

Real values:
model / climb rate in m/s at sea level

MiG3 13
Lagg3'41 13
Yak1 15.5
Yak1b 16.5
Lagg3'43 16.5
La5F 17.5
La5FN 22-24
La7 24.5


Add this to the crippled climb of Bf-109 and see how german planes that had 5-10m/s climb rate advantage over anything up to '44, are climbing now slower than VVS fighters. Check the climb data FB uses in Il2 Compare.


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

Message Edited on 09/25/0311:16AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 05:33 PM
I apogolige if I upset you Clint, or Roshko.. but the way I ( and lot of others) see it, I was right on most of the issues.. Now it seems, that only me, Porta, Issu, and Huck are the only ones, who likes to watch, what is going on here..

ANd i admit,my pics were poor example.. you just have to test it yourself.. set weapon convergence for 1000 meters. Infact you notice it, if you set it to 200 meters too. Posting tracks seems not to do any help, everyone is too lazy to watch them.

Though I don't understand why you posted this url Roshko, it proves that more lot more VVS planes are overmodelled, than germans.

____________________________________



Official Sig:



<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/shots/Vipez4.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 05:35 PM
ROSHKO_69.GIAP wrote:
- Your Lagg climbrate chart with 9 m/s is far more
- interesting - I am sure you (as I do) will find this
- thread over at SimHQ interesting too: <a
- href="http://oldsite.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/
- bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=004181;p=1"
- target=_blank>http://oldsite.simhq.com/simhq3/sims
- /boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=00
- 4181;p=1</a> - So far I've seen no counter argument.

Let me offer this as a counterargument.
We have in the game:
LaGG-3 series4 (it is pre-war or very early war plane).
LaGG-3 IT (LaGG-3-37)
And LaGG-3 series 66

The graph is showing the climb performance of production LaGG-3 as of September - October 1941.
<u>This must be series 7 or 8. Those planes are not modeled in the game.</u>
It is the same as showing data of P-40B and saying it should apply to P-40C.
With the evacuation of industries quality of Russian planes deteriorated dramatically at the beginning of the war till about end of 1942 were it started to improve again.


AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy


Message Edited on 09/25/03 12:37PM by Bogun

Message Edited on 09/25/0312:38PM by Bogun

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 05:50 PM
> Though I don't understand why you posted this url Roshko, it proves that more lot more VVS planes are overmodelled, than germans.

It does not PROVE it - it CLAIMS it. See - Bogun is already saying that your Lagg chart is for a different variant of the Lagg than the ones we have in game. Maybe another guy will jump in and say: Yes but the series 8 DID perfom better than the series 4 and then offer an intelligent argumentation. And a third guy will chime in and say - AH but you forget that the series 8 came from two factories and that one factory was shut down due to miserable production quality... the possibilities are endless.

That would be very nice wouldn't it ?

The charts are in russian and from what I can see they might as well show what happens to the climbrates when the Pilot is drunk (they probably don't show that - but how would I know ?)

Now I am waiting for somebody to verify that the Tsagi tests are authorative and applicable to the FB planeset OR for someone to bring in information I don't have, that shows WHY the Tsagi tests (or at least this books versions of them) can't be used.

I posted that URL because I am interested in getting the REAL STUFF be it good or bad for VVS or LW (you can probably see from my sig that I fly russian http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) - Are you interested in the REAL STUFF too ?

How about them tracks - what makes you think nobody will be watching them ? I can tell you I won't, but you sort of made that come about your self by your wild claims. I can't be bothered simply. Mebbe Clint will ?

C!

<A HREF="http://giap.webhop.info" TARGET=_blank>
http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/giap/var/storage/original/image/69giap_badge_roshko.jpg
</A>

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 06:05 PM
Those graphs have to be authentic since Vo101 Isegrim uses them all the time./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

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



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

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 06:05 PM
Sorry Roshko, I should have explained.
On the bottom of that chart said (my horrible word-for-word translation):
"Pic.1. Altitude-Speed characteristics of serially produced fighter planes as of state of September-October, year 1941."

Here is a link to the results of State Tests of NII VVS were plane tested in August of 1941 was series 7.
http://ftp.23ag.ru/html/lavochkin_statistika.html

Sorry, all in Russian, you would need to use on-line translator for the link.


AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 06:16 PM
Vipez-
- Uh sorry to say but ur tracks are silly. Your test
- flight With brewster, you could not archieve 430 on
- sealevel, your max speed was 410, and even that was
- archieved with a dive from 400 meters to sealevel.

Vipez, I would suggest looking at the track again, because the TAS no-cockpit indicator clearly shows 430 TAS.

On screen throttle drops to ~70%

The plane dives to < 10m at 1:07and thereafter the speed drops down to ~380kmh as the built up speed drops off.

Holds there steady.

Power indicator flashes "73%".

Power increases to 110%.

Speed increases again at around 1:40.

Goes all the way to 430kmh after 2:00.

Altitude does not go above 11m ASL after 1:07. There's no dive used to gain that speed, it's all lost when the throttle stays back in level flight.

I'd encourage anyone/everyone to view the trackfile:

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/b239-430.zip

And tell me if they think that's a fair assessment of what's going on.

Because Vipez, I think perhaps your bias is showing, as what you described is absolutely not what is happening in that track.

PS - the reason there's an altitude gain at the start is because I forgot which keys even trimmed up or down in the game. As I keep saying - I'm not exactly the worlds best pilot, but somehow, every time I go to test these claims out, I find I can do "impossible" things first time.

- Second according to IL2Manager you scored 15
- MG151/15 hits to Lagg3, and even that did not blow
- the Lagg3, but simply stupid AI crashed.

Vipez, that's not even aimed fire, that's just closing to 200m and whacking off a few shots.

15 hits is actually pretty good :>

You will notice the way that even this small number of hits from a 15mm cannon is enough to advance the left wing to the next stage damage texture, and, as I said, from the audio, it sounds rather like the engine is toasted.

I don't believe it's a PK, since PKs tend to make the AI immediately enter a catastrophic left handed accelerated stall. And that doesn't happen here.

Those 15 hits land all over the body of the plane and manage to make it unflyable, yet you persist in this weird conviction? When the engine sound drops off to idle as soon as a damage mark shows on it, I generally take that to mean that the engine has been destroyed.

- Maybe he
- was PK:ed, I dont know but after 15 MG151/15 hits
- that Lagg3 was still capable to fly. Damage model
- looked liked several hits to engine, but that lagg3
- still kept flying. And even if you manage to blow AI
- Lagg3 with MG151/15, it does tell anything about the
- simple Lagg3 DM.

What meets your definition of 'simple DM' ? As far as I know, the Lagg3 has the 'new' FB DMs, like all VVS and allied planes.

- All the planes in this game seem to
- have an explosion bug, meaning if you can score hits
- to left wing, they simply blow. Perhaps fuel tanks
- on left wing tend to blow up.

I'd suggest that you might be onto something here - fuel tanks do indeed blow up when shot at repeatedly.

- Now maybe you shoud
- take a look at these tracks

I've looked at:
me1
me2
me3
lagg1
lagg2

From the file lagg-109.zip. Haven't looked at the jug-x tracks or the ones someome silly gave an identical filename to files in both zips.

First, I have no idea what's happening there, but as my track shows, first time through, I was able to score what seems to be a direct hit/kill on a Laggs engine with dispersed fire 200m out. I don't know if what's being shown there is a genuine damage model bug, under-armored 109 engine, over-armored Lagg engine to frontal attacks vs 7.92, or what. I also know for a fact that I have no problem throwing Lagg3/La5 types into FMB missions since they're pretty easy meat for the LW AI to take down. Whatever you're doing is obviously less effective than FBs own fighter AI manages to do to them.

Second, may I suggest that you read Youss's posts. Bf109s will be getting 2x the armor on the engine and flight control cables that they currently do, in the next patch. Presumably subject to change, but that's the info which has been posted so far. Seems like a fair trade for the theoretically indestructable FW190A to me :>

Third, Oleg has posted before about the susceptability of the 109s engine to failure. According to Oleg, at least, the 109s engine simply has more parts that can physically be destroyed to prevent it from working. I have no idea if that's correct or not, but that's the reason people have been given when they've asked.

Forth .. I can't actually ever remember saying anything about the state of the 109s engine, over, under, or correctly modelled from the DM perspective. Nor do I remember extolling the virtues of the accuracy of the Lagg3 s4 flightmodel. Can you find such a post of mine for me? The fact remains that the F2 dominates the Lagg3 s4 in all aspects of the envelope, hence my comment about complaints about losing that fight smell suspiciously like a baby will a full nappy.

You have a better plane, and you're losing. A pilot of distinctly middling abilities is able to blow up I-16s and knock out Lagg3s4s on his first go at recording it in an F2. This implies rather a lot about the abilities of those claiming that this is some unachievable feat.

How many shots did you count hitting the I-16s that blew up, btw? Or the Pe2's engine? Or the He-111s engine?

All I've been saying all along is - I have no problem with the concept of LW planes being underpowered, just show me it, rather than making all sorts of claims with nothing behind it. If there is some absolutely insurmountable gap that makes winning with LW planes impossible, it's something I've never encountered making a great many missions in the FMB and testing NewView since 1.11 came out.

- I did a QMB test sometime ago, and I calculated 18ms
- climb. Maybe I was wrong about 1m/s, but 17m/S climb
- is still hugely overmodelled. It means it can easily
- outclimb 109 G6, Emils. And you can do it without
- overheating. Also Oleg decided to give Lagg3 some
- bizarre weapons armament, 2x Shkas Ubs and Svhaks.
- Five guns compared to standard armament 2x Shkas +
- 1x Shvak would make this bird even less agile. But
- No, Oleg decided to make it much better with
- increased weight.. Not to mention, Rockets onboard
- lagg3 have no effect on the perfomance, meaning you
- can still dogfight 109s with 8x 76mm Rockets.
- Realistic? I don't think so..

So that would mean that a track showing an 18m/s climb rate from the Lagg will not be forthcoming from you?

As has been pointed out, at least via Il2compares version of events, there's a spike into 17m/s at 2000m, which then drops back quite markedly. If you do manage to get it to do 18m/s I'll be all ears.

Oh - and as far as I know, for the most part, weight is counted for every single weapon and every notable unit of ammo, as well as every litre of fuel, every couple of seconds, and refreshed into a planes current flight model state. That information is from Youss as well - such a shame people were so incredibly rude to him that he decided to just up and leave. It would have been interesting to find out more about how the game works and how that would effect, say, plane balance. Don't get excited, I'm talking about weight distribution as it affects handling.

I agree with you about the rockets - another thing I'd like to see is some kind of list of how various loadouts change plane behaviour, if at all. As far as my experiences go, the bazooka pods on the '47, bombs on the '40, and some other loadouts do seem to change the weight of those planes. And I know the hell I've gone through in the past trying to work out how much bomb/fuel load I can put into a 16-plane formation of Tu-2s so they still have enough runway to take off on. But it doesn't seem to be consistent among all plane types.

The screenshots you've made of bullet drop are a good start. Better would be a track file and testable .mis file with targets and static cameras and markers placed at intervals that would measure precisely how much damage guns are doing at range and what the drop is. If you notice, I've already made a request on ORR for someone with enough time to do this to try and get to the bottom of it - although what you've done is more the quick 2 minute version, that's actually some of the most useful info I've seen anyone post here all week. Refreshing the thread, I see Roshko has already done something similar to this. This is what I would deem useful information and I thank both of you for giving it a go.

Unfortunately we get back onto the bad stuff again:
_____
UBIs forums have this awful habit of claiming "this board does not exist" when I try and post after being disconnected and coming back from a different IP, and hitting the back button loses me the entire bloody text box. There was more, but what's above is what I last clipboarded [getting into the habit of doing that with all the 'board cannot be found' 'board cannot post' crap].

I'll go over the Jug trk files when I don't have to wake the girlie up to use the machine.

NB: Vipez, I implore you to look at the B239-430 video and give me an honest assesment of it this time. You're either being downright dishonest deliberately or you seem to have a very bizarre definition of what constitutes a dive. You are running 1.11 final full, aren't you?

Here's another thing I wouldn't mind getting feedback on while I'm trying to sleep - a lot of people from VOW OKL are claiming the Lagg3s4 is undamageable. Vipez claimed earlier that online flight uses a different damage model to offline flight. It doesn't, but lag will make locally drawn explosions appear but won't pass the hit data along if the server disagrees about it. I don't know if the large US/EU links are much better than when I last had a very big pipe to play with, but certainly it always seemed like the further you went east in europe the worse things were likely to get. Something there perhaps?

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
09-25-2003, 06:25 PM
Thnx Bogun

For the non-russian-speakers-who-are-still-interested :

http://www.translate.ru/url/tran_url.asp?lang=en&url=http%3A%2F%2Fftp.23ag.ru%2Fhtml%2Flavochkin_st atistika.html&direction=re&template=General&cp1=NO&cp2=NO&autotranslate=on&transliterate=on&psubmit2.x=69&psubmit2.y=12

Ok - from that table it is clear that the series 7 was indeed a bad series. 8.6 minuttes to climb to 5.000 meters

The first entry in the table is the best - but I don't know what it is: И-301 опытный Гос. испытания июнь .40 г. ?

The 1st series has 6,8 minuttes climbtime to 5.000 meters. We can conclude that simply because a chart says Lagg3 it is not necessarily applicable to OUR Lagg3.

Bogun did you look at the SimHQ thread: http://oldsite.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=004181;p=1

Do you have any comments for it ?

C!

<A HREF="http://giap.webhop.info" TARGET=_blank>
http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/giap/var/storage/original/image/69giap_badge_roshko.jpg
</A>

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 06:34 PM
Clint_ruin: I don't think that Vipez or my own bullet test can be used to prove anything but the fact that German tracers burn out faster. I have a setup with barrage ballons spaced at 1000meters and cameras too, but what's the use ?

Oh - and type your posts in notepad - when you are happy with them - copy paste them into the forum. That's what I do and it works http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

C!

<A HREF="http://giap.webhop.info" TARGET=_blank>
http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/giap/var/storage/original/image/69giap_badge_roshko.jpg
</A>

C!

<A HREF="http://giap.webhop.info" TARGET=_blank>
http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/giap/var/storage/original/image/69giap_badge_roshko.jpg
</A>

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 06:37 PM
The fact that their are so many negative FM issues effecting performance on luftwaffe planes and so many possotive FM issues making VVS planes exceed performance specs in most areas is just a bit more than a coincidence for my liking but i may be wrong.

Oleg now has a chance to prove all the bias accusers wrong on the next patch release and hopefuly he will because at the moment the issues like the ones vipez and huck have highlighted are spoiling this sim for alot of people.

Alot of these problems have been around since il2 was released like the UFO turning ability of VVS planes, after so many patches surely this should have been corrected by now, i cant seem to remeber a 109 or 190 ever turning too fast.

Oleg now has a good chance to put pay to the accusations of bias i for one hope that he does as this can only benefit everyone who enjoys this sim.....

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 06:40 PM
Roshko, I commend your voice of reason here.

I find one thing difficult here in these discussions is that we can check and confirm climb rates within FB relativity simply.

We can even use IL2 Compare to look at in game data and test against this.

But we miss the point.

Were we stumble is quite simply:

We do not know exactly what data Oleg is pulling his data from.

So, if we knew the data from a Lagg3 was indeed from the same source that Vipez posted that chart from, then surely the Lagg3 is wrong.

However, I do not see how we can continue to debate a topic when we do not know what Oleg is basing his data on.

Once we do, we can easily say to him "Oleg, you based your data on a chart that shows 9m/sec but it clearly is climbing at 13m/sec".

When the p47 roll rate was compared, it was obvious that enough data was available on a p47 to present a good argument that Oleg had to evaluate.

It's clear that Oleg wishes not to post this data. Our responsibility in this debate should be in a different form than it is now and that is:

Get data from as many sources as possible, pull the data together, use that as your foundation for debate.

So, if I can find 5 sources showing the Lagg3 average climb being 9m/s then we can debate.


The arguments not appreciated here are ones like "well, it was faster in IL2 than FB, therefore it's wrong/right" - something like that means nothing here.

-----

As far as the 190 view - what is bothersome to me is not the gunsight view, it's that in most of the other aircraft in the game, if you hit the non-gunsight view, the bars shift forward or backward. Explain why the 190 view does not? All it does is make the bar a little smaller, but it's still blocking the view.

So, are you telling me that the non gunsight view is modelled correctly? I seem to want to say, I doubt it - and in this aspect, I feel there is some room for improvement because by shifting the bars rather than making them smaller is the closest to leaning that we currently have http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

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
09-25-2003, 06:51 PM
clint-ruin wrote:

- NB: Vipez, I implore you to look at the B239-430
- video and give me an honest assesment of it this
- time. You're either being downright dishonest
- deliberately or you seem to have a very bizarre
- definition of what constitutes a dive. You
- are running 1.11 final full, aren't you?
-
- Here's another thing I wouldn't mind getting
- feedback on while I'm trying to sleep - a lot of
- people from VOW OKL are claiming the Lagg3s4 is
- undamageable. Vipez claimed earlier that online
- flight uses a different damage model to offline
- flight. It doesn't, but lag will make locally drawn
- explosions appear but won't pass the hit data along
- if the server disagrees about it. I don't know if
- the large US/EU links are much better than when I
- last had a very big pipe to play with, but certainly
- it always seemed like the further you went east in
- europe the worse things were likely to get.
- Something there perhaps?
-
-What meets your definition of 'simple DM' ? As far as I know, the Lagg3 has the 'new' FB DMs, like all VVS and allied planes.
-
Uh, yes i dont use CTRL + F1 vief, but since we are flying on sealevel just few meters above the sea, the difference between IAS and TAS is minimal. Maybe ur right about these, Brewster does topspeed of 430 TAS then in this game, but it clearly states than that True airspeed of I-16 is even higher..

And I did not claim, that DM is different, I meant that AI works in a simple manner.. I suggest you do your Lagg3-DM-testing online with other human opponent. I have done the same, and seen the results. It is not easy to Down Lagg3 human piloted. AIs simply fly stupid, and tend to crash for no reasons, even if their plane is still in shape to fly..

And with Lagg3, I naturally meant series 4.. believe it or not, I'm tired of whining about this, since looks like nobody is listening. I just really hope, that this will get fixxed on some beautiful day... Lagg3 simply does not have as complicated DM, as for example La5s, BF-109s, FW-190s. That is loosing your engine to bomber defensive fire, having huge holes in the wing hugely dropping the perfomance, no oil in cockpit, no bullet holes in the cockpit glass.. this is what i meant. And these things are important, when you fly VEF and try to down Lagg3 with 109 F-2..

And Honestly, I think BF-109 has correct damage model, meading it is very prone loosing engines, like in real life. And it is generally easy to shot down with any weapon. But same can't be said about Lagg3.. With MG17 you can't down a Human Lagg3, and it does need average 20 MG151/15 hits or more.

That simple.. good day..

____________________________________



Official Sig:



<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/shots/Vipez4.jpg </center>

____________________________________



Official Sig:



<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/shots/Vipez4.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 07:08 PM
ROSHKO_69.GIAP wrote:
- Ok - from that table it is clear that the series 7
- was indeed a bad series. 8.6 minuttes to climb to
- 5.000 meters
-
- The first entry in the table is the best - but I
- don't know what it is: ˆ-301 ¯²*é ƒ. ¨¯² *¨¿ ¨*ü .40 . ?
-
This means - "I-301 State tests of June 1940"
This plane was Russian equivalent to US X-planes, (like XP-40, XP-51) - very far from production, just the proof to the State that this plane could achieve such performance.

In the next line - the results of the tests completed in June 1941of first production LaGG-3 series 1.

Next line LaGG-3 series 7 tested in August-September of 1941.

The data on a graph belong to LaGG-3 series later then 7.

- The 1st series has 6,8 minuttes climbtime to 5.000
- meters. We can conclude that simply because a chart
- says Lagg3 it is not necessarily applicable to OUR
- Lagg3.
-
-
- Bogun did you look at the SimHQ thread: <a
- href="http://oldsite.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/
- bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=004181;p=1"
- target=_blank>http://oldsite.simhq.com/simhq3/sims
- /boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=00
- 4181;p=1</a>
-
- Do you have any comments for it ?
-
Yes. There is so much stuff to look at and some, probably, may be explained same way as above. Whoever wrote that post made some assumptions based on the data available to him which could be wrong, misinterpreted or misapplied. Still trying to figure this out.



AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy


Message Edited on 09/25/0302:11PM by Bogun

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 07:27 PM
Bogun, I don't really understand, are you contesting those numbers?

model / climb rate in m/s at sea level

MiG3 13
Lagg3'41 13
Yak1 15.5
Yak1b 16.5
Lagg3'43 16.5 (new airframe)
La5'42 17.5
La5F 20 (new airframe)
La5FN 22-24
La7 24.5



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

Message Edited on 09/25/0302:22PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 07:30 PM
Recon:

- We do not know exactly what data Oleg is pulling his data from.

Agree totally - but we do have a right to speculate. Especially if we admit to the world and ourselves that we are speculating.

- So, if we knew the data from a Lagg3 was indeed from the same source that Vipez posted that chart from, then surely the Lagg3 is wrong.

But now we know that Vipez chart is NOT from the Lagg3 we have in the game http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Vipez:
- And with Lagg3, I naturally meant series 4..

Roger that Vipez - but you DID post a chart on series 7 or 8. I think that like me you don't speak russian, so that error is totally understandable. Maybe you can see now that what SEEMS an obvious proof might not be proof at all ?

Bogun:
- Yes. There is so much stuff to look at and some, probably, may be explained same way as above. Whoever wrote that post made some assumptions based on the data available to him which could be wrong, misinterpreted or misapplied. Still trying to figure this out.

I wish I had the knowledge myself to form an educated opinion - unfortunately I do not.

Some of it might even be correct. The good thing about a community process is that it can help dig out a lot of stuff that one man or even a small team of professionals might overlook or misinterprete.

SUCH A PROCESS IS MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE IF PEOPLE TREAT EACH OTHER WITH RESPECT AND DIGNITY and that's my whole goddam point.

C!

<A HREF="http://giap.webhop.info" TARGET=_blank>
http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/giap/var/storage/original/image/69giap_badge_roshko.jpg
</A>

Message Edited on 09/25/0306:38PM by ROSHKO_69.GIAP

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 07:48 PM
Oh - about Lagg3s being indestructable online.

I was flying against a guy called Minotaur on Uhoh's server. We were the only ones there for about 30 mins. I was in the old Lagg3 and he was in the G2.

Would somebody please tell Minotaur that with his meager jerrie guns he CANT destroy my über lagg ? 'Cause I don't think he knows this - he kept blasting me out of the sky !

Honestly he shot me down at least 5 times. Closest I got was hitting him a little when Shtopor in a p39 helped divert him a bit. EACH kill came reasonably instantly. He was on my tail - couple of bursts and I was toast.

If I meet him again (which I hope - he seemed a very agreeable chap) I'll record it for ya Vipez


C!

<A HREF="http://giap.webhop.info" TARGET=_blank>
http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/giap/var/storage/original/image/69giap_badge_roshko.jpg
</A>

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 09:21 PM
i think u are talking about HFC_Minotauros

IM SURE 100% THAT HE WAS USEING GUNPODShttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)))))
ALOT OFF THE 335-AND---HFC PILOTS USE GUNPODS IN G2 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
U LOOSE SPEED BUT ITS ALOT OFF POWER IN GUNS http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)



Message Edited on 09/25/03 10:22PM by GR_335th_Platon

Message Edited on 09/25/0310:25PM by GR_335th_Platon

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 09:28 PM
If you follow Bogun's link (for which thanks by the way), you can see the following across the top.

Read down here to read across on the link, I' ve translated very qucikly.

Flying weight
Max speed at sea level
ditto at first height limit
ditto at second height limit
at 5000m
time taken to get to 5000m in minutes
ceiling
Turn time at 1000m
Climbing to height
Gain in height during combat turn
Take off length
Landing Length (I think)
Length of flight
Armament


Look out for numbers in case you have no Russian or Greek to help you see which planes are being tested. Roughly goes from LaGG3s to La5s etc. Hope this helps.

And clint-ruin, your track proves beyond doubt that Brewster gets to 430km/h at sea level

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_07.gif


She turned me into a newt, but I got better.

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 09:30 PM
Maybe it was him - he was logged in as Minotaur, you could ask him for me ?

C!

<A HREF="http://giap.webhop.info" TARGET=_blank>
http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/giap/var/storage/original/image/69giap_badge_roshko.jpg
</A>

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 09:33 PM
ROSHKO_69.GIAP wrote:
- SUCH A PROCESS IS MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE IF PEOPLE TREAT EACH OTHER WITH RESPECT AND DIGNITY
- and that's my whole goddam point.


I cannot express how much I agree with you.

If one throw an insult to the opposing side - he should be prepared to receive an insult back. It may be a goal of that poster, but in no way this will ever help to make someone's point more clear or promote an intelligent discussion.

Insulting developers helps even less.

S!

AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 10:04 PM
No platon, that Minotaur isn't from your squad.

And he typically flies the 109F4

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
09-25-2003, 10:18 PM
johno__UK wrote:
- The fact that their are so many negative FM issues
- effecting performance on luftwaffe planes and so
- many possotive FM issues making VVS planes exceed
- performance specs in most areas is just a bit more
- than a coincidence for my liking but i may be wrong.

You ARE wrong. That's the answer you'll get to your baseless and unfounded accusations.

- Oleg now has a chance to prove all the bias
- accusers wrong on the next patch release and
- hopefuly he will because at the moment the issues
- like the ones vipez and huck have highlighted are
- spoiling this sim for alot of people.

Oleg doesn't have to prove a damn thing to you, or anybody for that matter. Whatever it is, that's spoiling this sim for you must only be happening to the whiners like yourself. If you can't score a kill in a 109(as it is now) against VVS panes, then there's no helping you, truly!

- Alot of these problems have been around since il2
- was released like the UFO turning ability of VVS
- planes, after so many patches surely this should
- have been corrected by now, i cant seem to remeber a
- 109 or 190 ever turning too fast.

VVS planes from late 1942 and onward WERE good turners down low. Live and deal with it, otherwise, too bad for you.


- Oleg now has a good chance to put pay to the
- accusations of bias i for one hope that he does as
- this can only benefit everyone who enjoys this
- sim.....


The majority of people who enjoy this sim do not complain constantly. Incidentally, they're the ones who're usually scoring the kills online, flying the so-called "undermodelled" planes. Wonder how could that be?

<center>[BlitzPig_Voskhod]<center>
<center>http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gingernuts/blitz_anim.gif <center>

http://airbase.uka.ru/hangar/planes/pix/su27vsf15.jpg



Message Edited on 09/25/0307:18PM by Voskhod5

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 10:23 PM
Its because there cheating /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif .... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<a>http://www.talonsoft.com/images/hiddenanddangerous/hiddenanddangerous-eyes.jpg</a>

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 10:43 PM
@Clintruin, f2lagg341 track:

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/f2lagg341.zip

Open your conf.ini file, search for "Arcade=0" and change the value to "1". Then watch your LaGG track again. In Arcade mode you will see that it's RTB after the first hits, followed immediately by a pilot kill.

---------------
http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/stulogo-banner.jpg (http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/)

Kampagne für IL-2 1.2: I-16 - Kampf im Kaukasus (Deutsch) (http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/kampagne.html)

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 10:51 PM
Fawk - I know a couple of online aces that can whip my Lagg-*** in a 109 (prolly with an E4 too http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )

I'll get one of them to do it for ya - don't say I don't put my butt on the line for the community http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

C!

<A HREF="http://giap.webhop.info" TARGET=_blank>
http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/giap/var/storage/original/image/69giap_badge_roshko.jpg
</A>

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 11:06 PM
Thanks plumps! This is what's nice about having hosted track files for people to go over, rather than anecdotes.

That's actually pretty damn good for 15 15mm hits fired in a planes general direction, from 200 metres away, from behind! :>

plumps_ wrote:
- @Clintruin, f2lagg341 track:
-
- <a
- href="http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/f2lagg3
- 41.zip"
- target=_blank>http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb
- /f2lagg341.zip</a>
-
-
- Open your conf.ini file, search for "Arcade=0" and
- change the value to "1". Then watch your LaGG track
- again. In Arcade mode you will see that it's RTB
- after the first hits, followed immediately by a
- pilot kill.
-

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
09-26-2003, 12:22 AM
Log on to HL - finds 609IAP_Blazin' sitting idle there. "Hey man - wanna whoop me in a F2 vs. Lagg" ?

He's a nice fellow, always willing to kill ya http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

First track. I start out with 1000m advantage (4000/3000). Slowly but surely he whittles away my E advantage and finally catches me low down over water. He get's some shots in, but yours truly stalls at a critical moment and splash in the water I go. But Hey - give me a break - the Lagg3 series 4 does NOT handle as well as the 109 near stall speeds (or indeed: at all)

This track hopefully shows that I CAN'T straightline away from him, as some has claimed elsewhere.

I wanted the track to show how he could shoot me, so next track he starts out on top (to get the pain over quickly http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif )

Sadly it ends with a pilot kill - Blazin' is just too damned effective.

Now in truth - it has to be said: If I was flying the F2, Blazin' would've killed me just the same - he is just that kind of guy http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif But I believe that the track 1 clearly demonstrate how the Lagg is inferiour to the 109F2

http://vania.dk/images/blazin_f2_roshko_lagg3-4_track_1.ntrk
http://vania.dk/images/blazin_f2_roshko_lagg3-4_track_2.ntrk


C!

<A HREF="http://giap.webhop.info" TARGET=_blank>
http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/giap/var/storage/original/image/69giap_badge_roshko.jpg
</A>

Message Edited on 09/25/03 11:29PM by ROSHKO_69.GIAP

Message Edited on 09/25/0311:46PM by ROSHKO_69.GIAP

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 12:31 AM
clint-ruin wrote:

- That's actually pretty damn good for 15 15mm hits
- fired in a planes general direction, from 200 metres
- away, from behind! :>
-

No need to guess about distances; you were playing with symbols on. The first hit is from ~80 m, the pilot kill from ~40 m, and then you almost collide with the Lagg.

In fact the Lagg offers its sweet spot by starting a turn while you arrive at its six. The round that causes the Lagg to RTB (it was the first hit!) goes right through the pilot and then explodes in the engine! With a correct damage model it should have been PK with the first hit.



---------------
http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/stulogo-banner.jpg (http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/)

Kampagne für IL-2 1.2: I-16 - Kampf im Kaukasus (Deutsch) (http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/kampagne.html)

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 12:39 AM
plumps_ wrote:
-
- In fact the Lagg offers its sweet spot by starting a
- turn while you arrive at its six. The round that
- causes the Lagg to RTB (it was the first hit!) goes
- right through the pilot and then explodes in the
- engine! With a correct damage model it should have
- been PK with the first hit.

Not every bullet that hits a human body is instantly lethal.. Or even lethal at all.. Unless it's in the head or heart.

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 01:54 AM
maxmars wrote:

- Not every bullet that hits a human body is instantly
- lethal.. Or even lethal at all.. Unless it's in the
- head or heart.

Where did you get that? There are plenty of spots that kill in seconds, as quick or quicker than a heart shot because with a heart shot the blood stops pumping. Game shot through the heart will sometimes run a distance before falling. More often they go right down, it depends on how much adrenalin is already in their systems if they can ignore the pain and go on shock and panic. There is a major bloodline running from the head down to the hips and if that is broken then 2 seconds maybe to almost total bloodloss. Neck, aorta, and that big one all the way down have been targets since the days of spears let alone arrows, swords and guns.
Any shot through any internal organ at all and the pain is so great it's unbelieveable! Again, adrenalin, shock and panic can allow someone to operate for a time in rare cases but most people will pack up in spasms. Ask your doctor or surgeon if you don't believe.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 02:16 AM
I still have my BoB in QMB. Bunch of hurrys against me in Emil and stukas attacking airfield in Crimea. It was a great joy to fly before this patches, now it sucks, something is realy wrong with this patches, flying is becomming unpleasant, not to mension k4 that boils like damaged even without beeing shot at all

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 12:28 PM
good stuff Roshko - however, most here will ignore it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
Blazin and I were intentionally flying 109's all week on my server to "dispel the myth". What we saw: we perched up high and controlled the tempo - would BnZ, get really close to the bandit and blow him outa the sky. Meanwhile, many of the 109 pilots were TnB'ing and getting shot down.

As far as 109's effectiveness and the 'uber' yak1:

Last night in Forgotten Wars, JG14_Hertt does a loop after a merge with me in his 109F4, I lost track of him for a split second in my Yak1.

I see a few tracers, I start to break - and Bam, I exploded - dead - instant death.

And these people try to tell me the 109 is ineffective - BAH! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

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
09-26-2003, 12:53 PM
You know Recon - I can think of only one reason why that F4 could get you. The 109s MUST be ueber, or maybe the Yaks are undermodelled. It seems the only logical explanation LOL

C!

<A HREF="http://giap.webhop.info" TARGET=_blank>
http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/giap/var/storage/original/image/69giap_badge_roshko.jpg
</A>

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 01:11 PM
I think any plane in the game is effective when flown according to historical tactics.

How many people fly the Mig3 by baiting people to come up to them?

How many people do you see flying bookshelf formations?

How many people do you see - even the small minority who fly with a wingman at all - who set up tag 'n' bag attacks or mutual support and cover?

Always seemed strange to me that people ask for "historical" results without using historical tactics. Why should a 109 be entitled to win automatically because it was 'better'? Is that actually a request for 'game balance' itself ? :>

The climb rate and energy loss data people have compiled and analysed so far has been quite good - especially Alex Voicu's and Cube's work. But I'd be interested to see if, for example, a P-39 or La-7, even as currently modelled in FB 1.11, can really turn the tables on a 109K4's BnZ attack the way I've seen a good number of people claim. If they genuinely can straight-climb faster than the K4s zoom climb, someone should get it on a track. Comparisons vs the AI aren't valid - especially for BnZ related attacks - but I've been playing with the K4 a little this afternoon and haven't seen an AI 39 or La7 catch up with me after a bounce yet. Naturally that doesn't mean it can't happen, but I can't provoke the AI into doing it.

Anyone got a recording of it happening?


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
09-26-2003, 03:26 PM
I said it before and I`ll say it again.
Before starting your engines know your plane.
Lifes to short so stop complaining.
If u don`t like your aircraft do some training.

No uber german pilots here. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


<img src=http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/giap/var/storage/original/image/69giap_badge_marx.jpg>

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 03:51 PM
Where can I find this uber Blazin?


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

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 03:57 PM
Recon i agree,
As a frequent flyer of the russian planes I have one major dread- facing pilots in 109s who know how to BnZ properly. Its lethal and half the time you don't know what hit you. In fact the times I fly LW I enjoy trying that out- still need practice though.

The other dread is facing two pilots who fly well together and are coordinated. U get Uber pilots not Uber planes

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 04:06 PM
123_Pdog_JG123 :ending 13 sortie streak.
MARX: Pdog u OKL?
123_Pdog_JG123 :yeh
MARX: how many kills in 13 sorties?
123_Pdog_JG123 :7 human, 2 ai
MARX: not bad,so u like the german planes then ..no complaints?
123_Pdog_JG123 :yeah there fine
MARX: u obviously know how to fly em,tell the others would ya?
123_Pdog_JG123 :they don't listenthey continue to ##### when they get shotdown because they use incorrect tactics,and loose all E... continue to engage with no E
MARX: thats a big rgr
123_Pdog_JG123 :and then they ##### to Oleg that russians are overmodeled when they don't even know how to properly e fight
MARX: at last an okl with brains lol there r no uber german pilots complaining on oleg forum http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
123_Pdog_JG123 :yeah uber pilots are to busy shooting down reds
MARX: lol,were u from pdog?
123_Pdog_JG123 :ny
MARX: Ireland here ,nice to meet ya.
123_Pdog_JG123 :likewise http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<img src=http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/giap/var/storage/original/image/69giap_badge_marx.jpg>

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 05:26 PM
Yes we all know that you can kill in the 109, but you have to be one of those high alt getters that flys away from the base or just makes sure that they are higher than anybody around on the other team. (Late 109's anyway)

Wonderful plane to BnZ in, but if caught at the same E state against an La7 it is outran, outturned and not quite out climbed but its so close that its not much of an advantage, easpecially compared to the different E bleeds of the 2 planes.

BnZin the 109 is devestating, but it shouldn't just have to be limited to if you have 1000 alt over the enemy, it was a fast plane, it should be a very effect climber, right now in 1.11 the La7 keeps up in all these areas and more.

There was a time when you didn't have to have alt advantage to get it back, where the K4 was the fastest prop plane or tied close to the fastest anyway also it actually climbed great before. Now it can't outrun the VVS, it can't outturn the VVS, it bleeds more E than the VVS, Its gun makes BnZin a dream though. But I always flew the K4 1 on 1 against anything and unless it was an Me262 with a good pilot I could hold my own, now if I take off against an La7 be prepared to die.

Things have changed so much its actually just agrevatting. Someone PM me when oleg will be done Yanking the 109 all over the place.

These guys who are great pilots in the 109's you speak of, the late 109's they drive, watch and see if they fly around gaining a ton of alt, yes no complaints here, great plane there, but it used to be better in this area before, it still has been toned down.

Now Take these same people against an La7 have them both take off at the same time and I can almost tell you the La7 will eat him up, as long as the La7 pilot is a decent pilot.

<a>http://www.talonsoft.com/images/hiddenanddangerous/hiddenanddangerous-eyes.jpg</a>

Message Edited on 09/26/0309:59AM by EyesBlack

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 06:10 PM
UberHuck wrote:

> Where can I find this uber Blazin?

Blazin is a cool pilot and a nice guy - you meaning to offend him by calling him uber ?

I just asked him to do this track with me, because I know he fly good. Don't start slinging mud at him on that account.

BTW. his nick is in my post - where do u think u can find him ?

I'll let you figure it out your self.


C!

<A HREF="http://giap.webhop.info" TARGET=_blank>
http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/giap/var/storage/original/image/69giap_badge_roshko.jpg
</A>

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 07:29 PM
Cubes comparison data has been updated again.

While Cube has found massive differences in real life vs FB climbrate modelling, there's one important item of note from his tests:


And another important characteristic - top speeds are surprisingly correct, I found no bugs worth to discuss there. Of course there are some debatable values, but all of them are within range of different real life test results and its only a question what test represents true plane capabilities more closely. But all this applies only for top speeds at sea level. Engine vs. altitude chart defines shape of both climb and top speed curves, and for all the planes where shape of climbrate curve is incorrect so do topspeeds at height too.


While I refrained from replying directly to DDTs insults earlier in the thread, I hope people will forgive me for saying:

DDT, you are a f*cking idiot. I don't think there's any doubt as to why you couldn't supply me a track of allied planes outrunning axis counterparts that they could not have done in real life.

The other interesting item of note is that DDTs favorite topic, the neutering of the P-47D27 due to biased russians, is that the P-47's climbrate is overmodelled by 90%. Ninety. Percent. Overmodelled.


P47D27 climb to 6.1km
11.5 min - real life, 6:02 min - game, difference - 90%


DDT, I'd suggest you change your registered username on the forum, since I don't think anyone's going to take you seriously here ever again.


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
09-26-2003, 07:42 PM
Good post EyesBlack

I think I find your post much easier to read.

I hear you saying correctly, that, yes - how you as a pilot fly is extremely important, however, the aircraft itself should be better. I feel that way about my p40. It doesn't stop me from flying it, I love that airplane - however, it could roll and go faster. But, I don't really complain about it because it is fairly close - and it's a fun aircraft to fly for me.

I think that is truthful without needing to 'blame' the la7 on the 109k4's performance.

There is talk of this 1.20 in testing - with some comments on acceleration, etc... of the 109's - in addition a comment about rpms. I hope with this, they can fix your favorite airplane.

It took them forever to fix that p40 dive bug - that was not enjoyable

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
09-26-2003, 07:44 PM
Bogun wrote:
- The graph is showing the climb performance of
- production LaGG-3 as of September - October 1941.
- <u>This must be series 7 or 8. Those planes are not
- modeled in the game.</u>


How do you know it?
What is climb time to 5km for serie4 6.8min?
What is Climb time to 5km for serie 7-8 8.6min?

Look at that graph and calculate climb time to 5km
well I get close to 6.8min

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 07:51 PM
plumps_ wrote:
-
- clint-ruin wrote:
-
-- That's actually pretty damn good for 15 15mm hits
-- fired in a planes general direction, from 200 metres
-- away, from behind! :>
--
-
- No need to guess about distances; you were playing
- with symbols on. The first hit is from ~80 m, the
- pilot kill from ~40 m, and then you almost collide
- with the Lagg.

Sorry - didn't remember where it was, just that it was inside convergence which I had set to under 200m.

Still, from reading about F2 experten [revealing my uninformed lack of knowledge - that LW guy in north africa], it seems like shooting accuracy was the key to good results. A 15mm and 2 7.92s aren't the kind of thing that's going to chew up a plane through sheer firepower, or certainly not as compared to other planes capabilities. Didn't they call the F2 and F4 a 'scalpel' as opposed to a machette?

- In fact the Lagg offers its sweet spot by starting a
- turn while you arrive at its six. The round that
- causes the Lagg to RTB (it was the first hit!) goes
- right through the pilot and then explodes in the
- engine! With a correct damage model it should have
- been PK with the first hit.

Wow :>

FB does provide some capability for 'wounding' rather than instant kills. I still haven't looked at my track in arcade mode yet, so if the arrows are going straight through the Lagg pilots head then it's a bit silly. But I don't know if the pilot models themselves have location based damage. It may just be a random probability as to whether it wounds or kills when a bullet goes through a pilot.

So from looking at the track - engine got destroyed first and pilot wounded, pilot says 'rtb', other hits on the wing, then another shot straight through the brainpan killing the pilot?

Note to 109F2 pilots - get ~80m close and whack shots off in a Laggs general direction - if I can do this first go then you can too :>

Thanks again for looking at my track Plumps - it's only good to host them if people actually look and see what happens.


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
09-26-2003, 08:06 PM
LLv34Mokkeri wrote:
-
- Bogun wrote:
-- The graph is showing the climb performance of
-- production LaGG-3 as of September - October 1941.
-- <u>This must be series 7 or 8. Those planes are not
-- modeled in the game.</u>
-
-
- How do you know it?
- What is climb time to 5km for serie4 6.8min?
- What is Climb time to 5km for serie 7-8 8.6min?
-
- Look at that graph and calculate climb time to 5km
- well I get close to 6.8min
-
-

oh my mistake i calculate different graph
there is that graph
http://sivut.koti.soon.fi/msvard/029.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 08:41 PM
Anecdotal evidence means nothing, sorry.

Just cause you have a couple of tracks with a Lagg getting shot down, don't mean nothing, sorry, don't waste my time with rubbish posts.

If a 90 year old women claims she has smoked all her life, does that make you go out and smoke cause smoking is therefore safe? Eh? No cause scientists who deal in hard facts and figures tell otherwise.

No, cause anecdotal evidence isn't worth the breath you put in. Please stop putting here please, just facts and figures, not what happened to you yesterday or day before

VVS pilots know they have clear advantage now as LW planes broke and bugged. There is no arguing. Overheat in 109 is new, and makes WEP hard to use. Oleg altered drag for 109s in 1.11 he admit, auto pitch is handicapped by oleg, but he will fix.

Roshko and co just want to keep advantage.

I fly VVS and LW and am not partisan like them so I will not lie about how easy to catch planes that should outrun me at 3000. FM is weighted russian side, plain for all to see.

VVS partisans say no more changes to 109 FM, Oleg will fix though eventually, he may say no more FM changes, that doesn't mean overheat will not be fixed and auto pitch, then 109s will be back to normal.

Plus he clip VVS wings too. 

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 10:41 PM
Jace11 wrote:
- Anecdotal evidence means nothing, sorry.

You are right - it cant be used to prove that everything is just as it should be. But you CAN use it to show that F2 can win over Lagg3 and that was the point. Reading this forum would have you believe that it was impossible and that the Lagg is totally uber.

If you read my post again - I say that if Blazin' was in the Lagg he'd shoot me down in the F2 just the same.

- Roshko and co just want to keep advantage.

I wonder why you say this ? Show me one post from my hand that proves it. I want people to stop slinging around half-assed inuendoes as arguments and start talking shop instead.

- I fly VVS and LW and am not partisan like them so I
- will not lie about how easy to catch planes that
- should outrun me at 3000. FM is weighted russian
- side, plain for all to see.

Show me a lie ? Link please...

- VVS partisans say no more changes to 109 FM

Who said that ? Link please...

- Plus he clip VVS wings too.  -

He may or he may not - hopefully he'll do whatever it takes to get it right. I trust he will. I don't think FB is perfect - I haven't got the knowledge to prove the errors. But I am sick to my teeth of the wailing and whining - look at Marx' chat with PDog - PDog a liar too ?

Dont waste ur own time with writing rubbish posts

C!

<A HREF="http://giap.webhop.info" TARGET=_blank>
http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/giap/var/storage/original/image/69giap_badge_roshko.jpg
</A>

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 10:46 PM
Is DM in anyway related to pilot skill? http://www.uploadit.org/files/260903-full of holes.jpg sounds crazzy I know! wish you could see this have trks if you want em?


Message Edited on 09/26/0304:04PM by D13-th_Hamm109

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 12:09 AM
Roshko,


If you want links, go read some other forums instead of filling these boards with your subjective opinionated rubbish.

Wow, I am pleased you proved an F2 CAN shoot down a Lagg, that really helps with these flight model debates...

All this talk about numbers, climb rates, overheating, top speeds etc, we really needed visual evidence.

And I am sure many are pleased to finally have proof of this.

Please can you post more tracks of each plane shooting down another to prove it is possible...for those of us who have never seen it...the more the better

OR

YOU COULD STOP WASTING YOUR BANDWIDTH LIKE AN IDIOT AND STOP POSTING IRRELEVENT TRACKS (not that anyone is downloading them anyway /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif ).

What use is showing these tracks. None, they are useless in any objective debate about FM's. They are however, all you can contribute and for that I am truely sorry.










Message Edited on 09/26/0311:10PM by Jace11

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 12:11 AM
I can show tracks of hitting a 190 tons of times and I can also show one of exploding it on the first shot.

Same with p47.



So, yes, good gunnery skills, proper knowledge of placement shots, distance to target, etc.. all will decide damage.


At proper distances all aircraft take damage and suffer performance decreases.

Happens on both sides. I fly both sides.





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



Message Edited on 09/26/0311:12PM by Recon_609IAP

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 12:21 AM
Hi Jace,

While I know it's sometimes tempting to skip pages on really long threads, if you'd kindly put some effort in, you'd see that the current phase of this megathread is trying to suss out just what's going on with the Lagg3s4's damage model.



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
09-27-2003, 01:12 AM
Quite,

Not all posts though please read Roshko Date: 09/25/03 11:22PM. His point like others is performance. Thanks for your input.

If you are obsessed with damage model, perhaps you should also look at 109F ligh MG armamant. Try shooting down anything without using the 15mm or 20mm. LaGG is just one of many planes you may have difficulties with.

It is old news, been around since version 1, when it worse than it is now. Early 109 campaign was unplayable because MGs do no damage. Not much better now.

If you want to test try quick mission with 109 and I16 or lagg etc in other friendly flight and use Light MGs only, please post results.

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 06:18 AM
Jace - you got it all wrong. I DO care about having an accurate sim. And if this means Yak1s with topSL at 200KPH or 109s that can take off vertically and climb a kilometer pr. sec. I am all for it.

I am sick to see this forum turned into a whinefest extraordinaire - and that is what I am trying to get at.

- If you want links, go read some other forums instead
- of filling these boards with your subjective
- opinionated rubbish.

Hmmm... that this board is full of whiners that throw around unsubstantiated claims and personal insults is subjective opinionated rubbish ? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

You tell me (and the world) that I lie - you call me a partisan that rejects more changes to the 109 and you claim that I only want to 'keep advantage'. When I ask for links that show me lying and clinging on to 'the advantage' and all the other nice thing you accuse me of you tell me to go read other forums ?

Boy you and I get on like a house on fire eh ? You don't understand what I am saying or what my point is and you accuse me of this and that. You refuse to back up your accusations (naturally - why should you back them up - you saying it should be enough right ?)

Reading this board you'd think that an F2 didn't stand a chance against a Lagg3 - well it does. If flown good it even stands a hell of a chance.

Now I think it is possible that jerrie MGs might be undermodelled - and if they are - I think they should be corrected. But anything you say can't get me hot and bothered because you just say a lot and then figure it's the truth simply because you said it.


Message Edited on 09/27/0305:50AM by ROSHKO_69.GIAP

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 08:45 AM
bah I am more worried about the uber performance of that darn La7 / underperformance of the Late 109's. I think theres problems in both sides of the force... the dark side and the light.

But I hope that EVERYTHING gets fixed up good and proper

<a>http://www.talonsoft.com/images/hiddenanddangerous/hiddenanddangerous-eyes.jpg</a>

Message Edited on 09/27/0312:46AM by EyesBlack

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 08:49 AM
> But I hope that EVERYTHING gets fixed up good and proper

I am with ya on that one. Can't speak of late models as I almost exclusively fly '41-'42 stuff. I think that 109s at current seems VERY fragile - but I hear they are going to do something about that. That's cool. 109s are great planes.

C!

<A HREF="http://giap.webhop.info" TARGET=_blank>
http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/giap/var/storage/original/image/69giap_badge_roshko.jpg
</A>

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 11:33 PM
@ German MGs and the damage model of the LaGG


I tried to fly close to some enemy HE-111 H-6 in different 1943 model aircraft (LaGG-3, La-5 FN, and BF-109 G-6), exposing them to the fire of many MG 15 machine guns.

http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/zzz-forum-lagg-he111-2.jpg
LaGG-3

First I tested all three types of LaGG-3; they all seemed to have the same damage model. I could fly near the HE-111 for several minutes and still accelerate after I had got several dozen hits (flying above the HE-111 to prevent pilot kills). Eventually, after several dozen more hits, the engine would fail, but there was no oil on the windscreen, no cannon jamming, no controls damage, and no leak in the fuel tanks. If you are a LaGG pilot, you can keep on fighting without problems even after dozens of hits from MG 15. If you fight against a LaGG, aim at the pilot. [Tracks] (http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/He111-LaGG3.zip)

http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/zzz-forum-lagg-he111.jpg
LaGG-3 cockpit still looks nice and clean after flying in MG bullets for four minutes.


In the La-5 FN, the engine gets fatally damaged after a few seconds. There is oil on the screen, but you can still see fairly well. There also is some more damage (controls, guns) that will handicap you even more. [Tracks] (http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/He111-La5fn.zip)

http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/zzz-forum-la5fn-he111.jpg
La-5 FN cockpit after 30 seconds in MG fire.


The BF-109 G-6 seems to have the most sophisticated damage model of those three. It is similar to the La-5 FN's, except some glass damage textures with more holes, the Revi that will easily be destroyed, and a lot more oil spread all over the screens, so that you are almost left blind. (In real life the oil could be immediately washed away with fuel at least on some types, which is not modelled in this game, unfortunately.) [Tracks] (http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/He111-Bf109g6.zip)

http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/zzz-forum-bf109g6-he111.jpg
BF-109 G-6 cockpit after 30 seconds in light MG fire.


Conclusion: The La-5 FN seems to have the most reasonable damage model of the three aircraft. The LaGG-3 is favoured by the absence of a complex damage model, the BF-109 G-6's pilot is handicaped by the excessive graphic representation of damage.



@ German MGs in early BF-109 types

I did some more testing.

My personal record for shooting down I-16s (rookie AI) only with the machine guns of one BF-109 F-2 is currently 12 (twelve). Yes, you can kill twelve I-16 without using the cannons, but with limited MG ammo. Here's the track (rather boring). (http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/MG_only-BF109F2-I16-12_kills.zip)

It's probably due to the stupid AI that so many planes go down after so little damage; this wouldn't be achieved online against human opponents. Any AI stupidity can be excluded when you destroy the planes immediately: My record for setting fire to I-16s without using the cannons is currently 6 (six) with the MG ammo of one BF-109 F-2. Here's the track. (http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/MG_only-BF109F2-I16-6_burn.zip)

That may sound a lot, but my records for shooting down I-16s with another I-16 type 24, again without using cannons, are yet higher: 16 kills (http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/MG_only-I1624-I16-16_kills.zip) or 9 burning/exploding (http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/MG_only-I1624-I16-9_burn.zip)!


Conclusion: German MGs are not inefficient, but Russian MGs are better. I-16 is not made of concrete. Don't ban my I-16 from your server!


P.S. Did the same test shooting at LaGG3 41 from BF-109 F-2 MG. First try: Lots of ammo wasted for nothing; then I aim higher, resulting in 5 pilot kills.
Second try: I only fire at the lower fuselage and the wings; I use my complete ammo on one aircraft; no reaction whatsoever. LaGG keeps flying.

LaGG 3 definitely doesn't have a damage model as good as most other aircraft in this game.



If you knew all this already, then sorry for wasting your time. If you didn't know, why didn't you find it out yourself? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif




---------------
http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/stulogo-banner.jpg (http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/)

Kampagne für IL-2 1.2: I-16 - Kampf im Kaukasus (Deutsch) (http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/kampagne.html)



Message Edited on 09/28/0312:34AM by plumps_