PDA

View Full Version : LaGG-3 (41) vs. Bf-109 F-2 overheat



XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 01:26 PM
Hi all!

I want to point out a serious bug (I would never refere it as a biasing). I generally don't complain about physics of this or that plane unless there is something really wrong.

I flew yesterday a VEF2 mission and F-2 vs LaGG3-41 was the planeset. Generally there is no doubt that F-2 is a better plane than an early LaGG3. F-2 climbs better, is faster (LaGG at 110% vs F-2 at 100% maybe a bit better for LaGG), and the turnrate is nearly the same at 1000m (ca.20s). At least thats how should be according to Il2FB's object viewer and Youss' compare program.

I went to the mission and as I knew my plane is somewhat better I was quite confident and entered a fight with an OIL LEAKING LaGG. Extended one-side turns where the main manouvers from the enemy pilot. (I laugh just now when I read in object viewer that "[LaGG3-41] has a quick loss of speed at continuous manouvers").
The LaGG was well piloted and -I must admit- its not too correct to turnfight with any VVS plane even in an F-2. However I remembered my plane is faster, climbs better so in the middle of the fight I disengaged and started to run away (we were at 200m) and slightly climbed first at 350kmh then 270kmh (radiator closed, ball in the center). Although the LaGG was in a sharp manouver when I left he could easyly get closer and not only climb together with me, but he simply closed up. I didnt panic when he shot, as I was sure I will outclimb him. Well I was wrong, as he closed up even faster and shot me down 15 seconds later. To finish the story he also shot down other F-2s after me, even he was oil leaking for many minutes already...

Now of course you could tell me, I'm an amateur, or I cant handle a climbing, etc.
I could agree, even if I have some experience maybe even reputation in online wars. Or maybe just a better VVS pilot was in front of me.

But by all modesty, I wanted to see first If by chance there isn't any mistake in the FM or physics of FB.

I did some tests for this 2 planes and it turned out, that the data for top speed of the game is correct (in F-2 could be achieved with MANUAL propeller pitch only!!!), but the OVERHEAT distorts the ability to achieve it and the length of mantaining it. At least for F-2.

Test conditions: 20m alt, Level stabilizer, TAS speeds noted, 1.11 version.

The LaGG can hold ca. 500kmh at sea level for ever. Not a single overheat message for at least 10 min at 8x speed (80min).

F-2 can make only 476kmh for long time with level2 radiator at 100% throttle (MANUAL prop pitch). And it can achieve about 513kmh for short period (MANUAL prop pitch) with radiator CLOSED and 110% (engine gets damaged in 5 minutes from overheat message and stops about 2 mins after being damaged).

With AUTO prop pitch. about 465kmh is what can be hold "for ever" (radiator 2, 100%) and 501kmh is maximum what can be hold for about 3-5 mins before engine damages (closed rad., 110%).

This imposes some questions (without even checking any climb rates, etc.).


Why AUTO prop pitch users are punished by -12kmh compared to MANUAL pitch users?

Is it normal that CEM makes it easy for LaGG3-41 and makes it difficult for F-2? (If both wants top performance)

Why LaGG3-41 never overheats? (Or why F-2 does?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif )

Why oil leak doesnt affect LaGG3-41? (Or why oil leaks affect F-2?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif )

Can LaGG3-41 have an engine damage due to overheat? If not, why? If yes pls make a track and show.

Are there documents proving, that top speeds for F-2 could be achieved with closed radiator only?

Are there documents saying that LaGG3-41 could fly without problem with an oil leak?

Is it normal that Closed/Auto radiator slows the F-2 dramatically? Any documents to prove it?


I must say I hate to cry or whine about any aspect of a game. I like to learn to fight with what I have.
But in '41 it is ridiculous to be hostage of overheat to achieve the same or maybe slightly better speed than a LaGG3-41 with a 109 F-2 (for few minutes only!!). And be seriously slower if I dont want to damage my engine in a longer fight.

Please only people with SERIOUS arguments should express himself here.

Looking forward for reactions,

VO101_Mahgar

http://membres.lycos.fr/messzer/avatar/mahgar8.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 01:26 PM
Hi all!

I want to point out a serious bug (I would never refere it as a biasing). I generally don't complain about physics of this or that plane unless there is something really wrong.

I flew yesterday a VEF2 mission and F-2 vs LaGG3-41 was the planeset. Generally there is no doubt that F-2 is a better plane than an early LaGG3. F-2 climbs better, is faster (LaGG at 110% vs F-2 at 100% maybe a bit better for LaGG), and the turnrate is nearly the same at 1000m (ca.20s). At least thats how should be according to Il2FB's object viewer and Youss' compare program.

I went to the mission and as I knew my plane is somewhat better I was quite confident and entered a fight with an OIL LEAKING LaGG. Extended one-side turns where the main manouvers from the enemy pilot. (I laugh just now when I read in object viewer that "[LaGG3-41] has a quick loss of speed at continuous manouvers").
The LaGG was well piloted and -I must admit- its not too correct to turnfight with any VVS plane even in an F-2. However I remembered my plane is faster, climbs better so in the middle of the fight I disengaged and started to run away (we were at 200m) and slightly climbed first at 350kmh then 270kmh (radiator closed, ball in the center). Although the LaGG was in a sharp manouver when I left he could easyly get closer and not only climb together with me, but he simply closed up. I didnt panic when he shot, as I was sure I will outclimb him. Well I was wrong, as he closed up even faster and shot me down 15 seconds later. To finish the story he also shot down other F-2s after me, even he was oil leaking for many minutes already...

Now of course you could tell me, I'm an amateur, or I cant handle a climbing, etc.
I could agree, even if I have some experience maybe even reputation in online wars. Or maybe just a better VVS pilot was in front of me.

But by all modesty, I wanted to see first If by chance there isn't any mistake in the FM or physics of FB.

I did some tests for this 2 planes and it turned out, that the data for top speed of the game is correct (in F-2 could be achieved with MANUAL propeller pitch only!!!), but the OVERHEAT distorts the ability to achieve it and the length of mantaining it. At least for F-2.

Test conditions: 20m alt, Level stabilizer, TAS speeds noted, 1.11 version.

The LaGG can hold ca. 500kmh at sea level for ever. Not a single overheat message for at least 10 min at 8x speed (80min).

F-2 can make only 476kmh for long time with level2 radiator at 100% throttle (MANUAL prop pitch). And it can achieve about 513kmh for short period (MANUAL prop pitch) with radiator CLOSED and 110% (engine gets damaged in 5 minutes from overheat message and stops about 2 mins after being damaged).

With AUTO prop pitch. about 465kmh is what can be hold "for ever" (radiator 2, 100%) and 501kmh is maximum what can be hold for about 3-5 mins before engine damages (closed rad., 110%).

This imposes some questions (without even checking any climb rates, etc.).


Why AUTO prop pitch users are punished by -12kmh compared to MANUAL pitch users?

Is it normal that CEM makes it easy for LaGG3-41 and makes it difficult for F-2? (If both wants top performance)

Why LaGG3-41 never overheats? (Or why F-2 does?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif )

Why oil leak doesnt affect LaGG3-41? (Or why oil leaks affect F-2?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif )

Can LaGG3-41 have an engine damage due to overheat? If not, why? If yes pls make a track and show.

Are there documents proving, that top speeds for F-2 could be achieved with closed radiator only?

Are there documents saying that LaGG3-41 could fly without problem with an oil leak?

Is it normal that Closed/Auto radiator slows the F-2 dramatically? Any documents to prove it?


I must say I hate to cry or whine about any aspect of a game. I like to learn to fight with what I have.
But in '41 it is ridiculous to be hostage of overheat to achieve the same or maybe slightly better speed than a LaGG3-41 with a 109 F-2 (for few minutes only!!). And be seriously slower if I dont want to damage my engine in a longer fight.

Please only people with SERIOUS arguments should express himself here.

Looking forward for reactions,

VO101_Mahgar

http://membres.lycos.fr/messzer/avatar/mahgar8.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 01:47 PM
The LaGG-3 still has its old damage model from IL2, i originally heard, it's the DM on the LaGG, not your plane. The F-2 is correct. The LaGG's just need DM and FM fixes.

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
09-10-2003, 02:36 PM
Don't expect something from Oleg,
He recently answers only useless issues with very uncoherent statements ...
Here are some data for you and Oleg concerning early LaGG-3 planes, I showed them to him a year ago, and he said he would explain them when he has free time:
<table border="1">
<col width="64" style="width:48pt">
<col width="179" style="mso-width-source:userset;mso-width-alt:6546;width:134pt">
<col width="111" style="mso-width-source:userset;mso-width-alt:4059;width:83pt">
<col width="64" span="3" style="width:48pt">
<tr height="17" style="height:12.75pt">
<td height="17" class="xl25" width="64" style="height:12.75pt;width:48pt">Produced</td>
<td class="xl25" width="179" style="width:134pt">Plane</td>
<td class="xl25" width="111" style="width:83pt">Serial Number</td>
<td class="xl25" width="64" style="width:48pt">Max Speed</td>
<td class="xl26" width="64" style="width:48pt">Max Speed/Alt</td>
<td class="xl25" width="64" style="width:48pt">Climb to</td>
</tr>
<tr height="21" style="mso-height-source:userset;height:15.75pt">
<td height="21" class="xl25" style="height:15.75pt">Year</td>
<td class="xl25">Plane</td>
<td class="xl25" x:str="Serial ">Serial</td>
<td class="xl25">Sea level</td>
<td class="xl26">km/h /meters</td>
<td class="xl26">5000/min</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height:12.75pt">
<td height="17" align="right" style="height:12.75pt" x:num>1942</td>
<td>LaGG-3 Œ-105</td>
<td>N 3121855- '42</td>
<td align="right" x:num>462</td>
<td class="xl24">554/4850</td>
<td align="right" x:num="9.1">9,1</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height:12.75pt">
<td height="17" align="right" style="height:12.75pt" x:num>1942</td>
<td>LaGG-3 Œ-105</td>
<td>N 3121232</td>
<td align="right" x:num>466</td>
<td class="xl24">539/5100</td>
<td align="right" x:num="7.1">7,1</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height:12.75pt">
<td height="17" align="right" style="height:12.75pt" x:num>1943</td>
<td x:str="LaGG-3 ">LaGG-3</td>
<td>N 6311 - V.43</td>
<td align="right" x:num>534</td>
<td class="xl24">590 / 3600</td>
<td align="right" x:num="5.5">5,5</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height:12.75pt">
<td height="17" align="right" style="height:12.75pt" x:num>1943</td>
<td>LaGG-3 Œ-105ӝ</td>
<td x:str=" N 6542 "><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>N 6542</td>
<td> </td>
<td class="xl24" x:num>581</td>
<td align="right" x:num="5.4">5,4</td>
</tr>
</table>


And here is interesting info about LaGG-3...
11 *¿á?¿ 1941 ¤ ª*²?³ª²? Œ. ƒ³¤ªâ ¯¨ ¯¨ü N0181 ² ¨*³.
Ӟ?é ˆ¨´ Ӛ¨ ?¨*â¨÷!
Ӛ * ²¿¥¥ â?¥¿ * ¯?¥ª²¨?â * ¨ ¯²?¥* ¨²?¥á¨²¥ü â礳¸* ²? Œ-82. ¥² ¯²?¥* * ª*²?³ª²¨â*é á ç¥ ¥² ӹ€ƒƒ µ? *¥*¨¥ ⥵ ?¥ ²â ¥?¨é* ¥² , ª?¥ â¨*²²?*é ?³¯¯.
Ӛ * ²¿¥¥ â?¥¿ ¥² ¯?µ¤¨² ¨¯² *¨¥ â ӹˆˆ *€.  ¯?¥¤â ?¨²¥ü* *¿² ¥²* µ ? ª²¥?¨²¨ª ¥² ƒ-82 ... ¨¥¥² ¥¤³¨¥ ¤ **¥:
Œ ª¨ ü* ¿ ?¨ç*² ü* ¿ ª?²ü * 6400 ¥²?â - 580 ª/÷ , ª?¯¤º¥*²ü * 5000 ¥²?â - 7-7.5 ¨*.
¥?¨é*¥ ¥² ӹ€ƒƒ ¨¥² ª¨ ü*³ ª?²ü 554 ª/÷ , ª?¯¤º¥*²ü * 5000 ¥²?â - 8,5-9 ¨*.
ª¨ á? ç â翲 ¿ * ¥?¨é* ¿ ¸¨* ç ⤠¯¥ ³² *⪨ ²? Œ-82 - ¨¥¥² ¯?¥¨³¥²â ¯ ª?²¨ 25 ª/÷ ¨ ¯ ª?¯¤º¥*²¨ * 5000 ¥²?â * 1-1,5 ¨*. ?¨ ² ¸¨* ¨¥¥² â * ¨÷¨¨ ⥠²¥ ?³á¥ ¯?¥¸*²¨ ¨ ¤¥´¥ª² ¥?¨é* ¯?¨ç⤲⠃?üªâª ç ⤠, ¨ç-ç ª²?µ ¥?¨é*é ӹ€ƒƒ ¯?²¨â ¯²*é ¸¨* ¯²¥?¿ 45-55 ª/÷ . ¥¤â ²¥ü*, ¥¨ ¨¯? ⨲ü ¨ ³²? *¨²ü ¤¥´¥ª² ¥?¨é*é ¸¨*, ᳤¥ ¨¥²ü ª¨ ü*³ ª?²ü ²? Œ-82 615-... ª/÷ .
Ӛ * ²¿¥¥ â?¥¿ * ¯?⤿²¿ ¶¥é ?¿¤ ? á² ª²?¥ ¤ ² *¥ *â *¨¿ ¯?¥¤¯ ²ü, ÷² *¥ ³¤ ²¿ ³â¥¨÷¨²ü ª?²ü ¥é ¸¨* ²? Œ-82 ¤ 600 ª/÷ , ² á¥ç ³÷¥² ³²? *¥*¨¿ ¤¥´¥ª²â ¥?¨é* ¯?¨ç⤲â .
Brief translation:
Gudkov (One of the creators of LaGG-3) wrote to Stalin that in his plant he's able to produce LaGG-3 with M-82 engine. He stated that the serial LaGG-3 fighter produced by his plant at that time has a max speed of 554km/h and climb time to 5000m was 8,5-9 min ! He stated that mounting the new engine would significantly improve this performance.

interesting, don't you think?
And Oleg's 1941 LaGG-3 outclimbing Bf-109F2 seems strange...
I think I'll keep to 1.1b /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif




Message Edited on 09/10/0301:42PM by TipoMan

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 03:00 PM
TipoMan wrote:
-
- And Oleg's 1941 LaGG-3 outclimbing Bf-109F2 seems
- strange...
- I think I'll keep to 1.1b /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
-
-
- Message Edited on 09/10/03 01:42PM by TipoMan


This is just plane NOT TRUE.
Both F-2 and F-4 are exceptional climbers in FB.



AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 03:07 PM
I don't think the current LaGG-3's DM is just the old one - it's easier to shoot down LaGGs now, especially with a hit to the left wing root (which makes the aircraft catch fire).

As for the overheating issue - it's true that the Series 3 LaGG doesn't overheat - niether does the Hurricane. And, whilst we're on the subject of the Hurri - it's engine doesn't cut out in negative-G situations!

So both of these early war planes can fly around at max power with no side effects, whilst the 109E and F have to rely on woefully inadequate auto CEM (which doesn't in any way give best quoted performance when it's used) and poorly functioning radiators.

If the automated CEM stuff actually worked and gave best performance, and these VVS planes at least had engines that act like normal engines, FB would be much better IMHO.

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 03:38 PM
Functio wrote:
- I don't think the current LaGG-3's DM is just the
- old one - it's easier to shoot down LaGGs now,
- especially with a hit to the left wing root (which
- makes the aircraft catch fire).

All Russian figher planes had wing fuel tanks and some had two fuel tanks in each wing - they should catch fire if hit with enough heavy MG rounds.

- As for the overheating issue - it's true that the
- Series 3 LaGG doesn't overheat - niether does the
- Hurricane. And, whilst we're on the subject of the
- Hurri - it's engine doesn't cut out in negative-G
- situations!

The only version of Hurrican which cut out at negative G - is MKI - it is on the game - Finnish and Rumanians were flying it. It is in the Axis planes lineup. MKII and later Hurricanes had that problem with carburator fixed.

- So both of these early war planes can fly around at
- max power with no side effects, whilst the 109E and
- F have to rely on woefully inadequate auto CEM
- (which doesn't in any way give best quoted
- performance when it's used) and poorly functioning
- radiators.
-
- If the automated CEM stuff actually worked and gave
- best performance, and these VVS planes at least had
- engines that act like normal engines, FB would be
- much better IMHO.

Automated CEM works exactly as it should in FB.
There is a parameter to describe engine characteristics - "continuous power output" - power output at which engine will not overheat - which is often overlooked by us - "virtual pilots".

For example for DB605DB of Bf109G-10:
Take-off emergency power - 1800 hp @2800rpm @SL - this is %110+WEP in the game.
Continuous power, I believe - 1075 hp @2400rpm @SL - %65.7 in the game.

Meaning on Bf109G-10 you can expect to fly with the throttle set to %65.7 and prop + radiator on "Auto" and your engine will not overheat. In all other higher settings - it will overheat.

Unfortunately, I don't have numbers for Bf109F-2 with its DM 601N engine.





AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 03:39 PM
yes, really easy to shoot Lagg:s down, BS.
was playing online, FR server, had lagg3 41 against 41 enemy planes. was flying next to enemy base, shot down 3-4 109 which had good pilots and they used team tactcs etc. i myself had almost all the time one or more 109:s in my tail. so had to shake em quite often too, wasnt too hard, once had even 4 109:s and no problemo, if we dont count that i had no ammo left. they were right on my tail, bounched me repeadtely, they chased me bout 5 mins, then they were running low on ammo, lost nerves and didnt try to shoot me one by on, tried to shoot me down as fast as they could, i flew in deck, making hard evadin maneuvers, i maneuver killed 3 of them. one scored 2 bursts on me, then he was out of ammo. i returned to base and was wondering that how much easier it is to fly with Lagg than with 109.

more forgiving, engine heat aint a problem at all, good armament, good protection, engine would not broke on enemy fire. it sure raises self confidense when going to fight with this kinda fighter http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 03:49 PM
Bogun wrote:
- This is just plane NOT TRUE.
- Both F-2 and F-4 are exceptional climbers in FB.
-
Well I don't have the last patch, I simply trusted the guy who posted this and said that this is strange... I simply provided data about LaGGs

And certainly 500km/h at sea level forever is not very correct, don't you think so? that's a 40km boost for LaGG-3 plane according to Soviet field tests...
You have a lot of data and I'm sure you can confirm that earlier LaGGs suffered very much from low quality production. These field test prove this, just like Gudkov's letter to Stalin I posted .(I think you can read russian)

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 04:10 PM
I do speak Russian and I don't know if you do, but if yes you should read this letter again and think of context. Letter is written in November 1941, in the hardest for Soviet aviation period of evacuation of aircraft industry to the East. This was a time when Lavotchkin-Gorbunov-Gudkov design bureau fell apart and all designers were perusing their own goals. In the letter Gudkov state the LaGG's of the Gorkiy factory had production defects which cause lost of 45-55km/h of speed compare to prototype.

Somehow you concluded that LaGG-3 series 4 in the game had to have this defect.
There are many other tests of production LaGG-3 aircrafts taken of the tranes hadding for the front
(for example:
ӹ ƒƒ-3 Œ-105ӝ ç â.' 31212912 ⥲*¥ ¨¯. ӹˆˆ ¨ ˆˆ ӚӚ 05.42 .
and ӹ ƒƒ-3 Œ-105ӝ 37- ¯³¸ªé ç â.' 31213445 ƒ. ¨¯² *¨¿ 08-09.42 .)
which reached 507 km/h and 501 km/h at sea level respectively.
I reiterate - those were real production LaGGs - not the prototypes.
I am just wondering, why do people here want to have German planes modeled according to ideal manufacturers data and Russian planes degraded to the worst possible performance?


AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 04:23 PM
Bogun wrote:
- There are many other tests of production LaGG-3
- aircrafts taken of the tranes hadding for the front
- (for example:
- ӹ ƒƒ-3 Œ-105ӝ ç â.' 31212912 ⥲*¥ ¨¯. ӹˆˆ ¨
- ˆˆ ӚӚ 05.42 .
- and ӹ ƒƒ-3 Œ-105ӝ 37- ¯³¸ªé ç â.' 31213445
- ƒ. ¨¯² *¨¿ 08-09.42 .)
- which reached 507 km/h and 501 km/h at sea level
- respectively

Yes, but your data concerns planes produced in the middle of 1942, Please note that both planes you provided test data about are using MP-105PF engine, instead of MP-105P...(MP-105PF was boosted to 1210ps if I remember correctly,and certainly in the beginning of its production,autumn of 1942 was supplied mainly to Yakovlev's fighters - you know why) . So in 1941 , when MP-105PF was not available, LaGGs really performed acording to data I provided...
And, honestly, do you thing that LaGG-3 in 1941 were faster at sea level than Bf-109F? That's what the guy is complaining...

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 04:29 PM
My main points are:

1.a.IRL 109 F-2 was faster and better climber than Lagg-3 41, and very probably the auto prop pitch wasnt any worse to manual.

1.b.In FB F-2 is faster if you switch to MANUAL prop pitch (risking a high RPM and dammage), you have a cool engine and maybe you will be faster for few minutes (If you are not catched by the always cool engined LaGG3)

2.a.IRL early LaGGs were suffering from production quality, and the plane was considered by soviet pilots like a flying coffin...

2.b.In FB Oleg said to not representing any production failure (which is ok). But then at least some kind of fragility on the engine (to overheat or shots) should be modelled.

3.a.IRL german planes had a great advantage having auto pitch.

3.b.In FB it seems some VVS planes have advantage since CEM is introduced.

And nobody really reacted to the important question of AUTO prop pitch users punished by -12kmh...


Bogun, just answer me:

Was LaGG-3 41 faster and better climber than 109 F-2? If yes show document, If no, do you think it is correctly modelled? (no overheat for LaGG, manual prop pitch matter for F-2, etc.)

Here I dont want to ask for modelling 109 F-2 "best possible" and LaGG-3 41 "worst possible". Just as matter of fact 109 F-2 should be better than LaGG3 41 and not for (maybe) 2-5 minutes.

If we cant agree in this last sentence then try to explain me why LaGG was considered as flying coffin by soviet pilots.

S!
Mahgar

http://membres.lycos.fr/messzer/avatar/mahgar8.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 04:37 PM
TipoMan wrote:
-
- Bogun wrote:
-- There are many other tests of production LaGG-3
-- aircrafts taken of the tranes hadding for the front
-- (for example:
-- ӹ ƒƒ-3 Œ-105ӝ ç â.' 31212912 ⥲*¥ ¨¯. ӹˆˆ ¨
-- ˆˆ ӚӚ 05.42 .
-- and ӹ ƒƒ-3 Œ-105ӝ 37- ¯³¸ªé ç â.' 31213445
-- ƒ. ¨¯² *¨¿ 08-09.42 .)
-- which reached 507 km/h and 501 km/h at sea level
-- respectively
-
- Yes, but your data concerns planes produced in the
- middle of 1942, Please note that both planes you
- provided test data about are using MP-105PF engine,
- instead of MP-105P...(MP-105PF was boosted to 1210ps
- if I remember correctly,and certainly in the
- beginning of its production,autumn of 1942 was
- supplied mainly to Yakovlev's fighters - you know
- why) . So in 1941 , when MP-105PF was not available,
- LaGGs really performed acording to data I
- provided...
- And, honestly, do you thing that LaGG-3 in 1941 were
- faster at sea level than Bf-109F? That's what the
- guy is complaining...

So does your test data. Your planes also tested in 1942.
There are result of testing LaGG-3 of the first series:
(ӹ ƒƒ-3 1-é ¥?¨¨ ç â.' 31211-2 **²?ü*¥ ¨¯. ˆˆ ӚӚ 06.41)
it flu at 498 km/h at sea level. It had the original VK105 engine.
And no, I don't think LaGG should be faster then Bf109F series - and it is not, it is just to get Bf109 to fly to its limits - it takes a lot of skills - one would have to fly at full power, with prop on manual with proper pitch settings, radiator closed and it will overheat.
But in the game currently Bf109F-2 top speed - 511 km/h@SL
LaGG-3 (m.41) - 496 km/h@SL.



AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 04:44 PM
Mahar
Please take a look at IL2 Compare v2.0 utility - you will see for yourself what is modeled in the game. If your (or me) not being able to get best possible performance - we just need to try some more.
When I fly Bf109 - I always flu with prop on "Auto" - it gives me so much more maneuverability in the dogfights - LaGGs don't stand a chance not in the vertical nor in horizontal dogfights and I don't even fly Bf-109 often. For dedicated LW guy it should be even easier to exploit its adwantages.


AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 05:12 PM
Well there are some bugs in the game, we all know that. The official German Kennblatt for 109F-2 gives the following values for 100 / 110 % throttle (1.3ata and 1.42ata boost) :

Speed at SL:

495 kph / 515 kph

Climb: 16 / 18.5 meters per sec

110% (1.42ata) is supposed to be avaialbe for 3 minutes time.
100% (1.3ata) is supposed to be avaialbe for 30 minutes time.

However, there were problems with engine, and in service it was restricted to 1.35 and 1.25ata. This reduced climb and speed somewhat, to about 507kph and 17.2 m/sec at SL with 110% throttle.

However, it should be also noted that German speed values for 109s always refer to "Schnellflugstellung" radiator setting. This means the radiators were very slightly open (65mm), like in Radiator 2 position in Il-2. In other words, max. speeds should be reached with Radiator 2 as well.
Climb values are with Steigflugstellung. This means radiators opened 220mm, very much like Rad 4 or 6 in Il-2.

A good illustration for that is here:

http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zuqxx


http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 05:21 PM
Somehow overheating is such a big problem in the game, when in RL overcooling was as much or even more serious, especially in dives.
Do you have numbers for h.p. output of DB601N engines of F-2? Max and continuous?
Did you see IL-2 Compare v2.0 utility?


AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 05:22 PM
Bogun,

I have the compare utility (thx to Youss!).

But it has only the "potential" ability to reach these speeds. Not the length you can have those and neither the overheat factor. I see you dont want to understand my points (no overheat for LaGG, MANUAL vs AUTO prop pitch, etc.). .

About more training. Training to do what? To reduce overheat?http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)) I think you are kidding. I tested both planes with "Level stabilizer". No training possible on that. F-2 overheats (probably correctly), LaGG3 doesnt. Simple as that. Therefore max speed (498kmh) can be held forever with LaGG3 and max. constant speed for F-2 will be quite slower even if for some 2-3 minutes it can be faster.

I dont know why its so difficult to understand this.


Pls. read my upper questions to you and try answer them and dont come with learn to fly and BS like that...

S!
Mahgar

http://membres.lycos.fr/messzer/avatar/mahgar8.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 05:37 PM
Bogun wrote:
- Somehow overheating is such a big problem in the
- game, when in RL overcooling was as much or even
- more serious, especially in dives.

Yep, and also overboosting or overrevving the engine... the latter happens when max. RPM is exceeded in dives, the former if pilot does not decrease boost before decreasing RPM.. result: too high torque rips the reduction gear apart..


- Do you have numbers for h.p. output of DB601N
- engines of F-2? Max and continuous?

Max power of DB 601N could output 1175 PS at 1.35ata (lowered max. boost) for 3 mins, though the original output was about 1250 (but this was not used in service).

I can`t remember max. contin, but it should be in the order of 900-950 PS.

Here`s an F-2 Kennblatt for you (though it does not give engine powers):

http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/aircraft/lw/109_F1F2_kennblatt.pdf

-
- Did you see IL-2 Compare v2.0 utility?
-

No, I am not at home right now, I can`t open the RAR file here. I will look it up when possible..But thanks for the PM.




http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 05:37 PM
Are you sure LaGG-3 can maintain 498 km/h forever?
I didn't test yet LaGG overheating, and <u>if it does not overheat - it is wrong,</u> but I believe it will, like every other plane.

It is just its engine was not pushed to the limits and it had been working at much less thermal stressed regime at that point in 1941. That's why Soviets were able to push it farther only by increasing "naduv" in VK-105PF and again farther with VK-105PF2. DB601 on the other hand was at the end of its power output abilities, it was replaced with DB605 on the next following series of Bf109G-1.



AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 05:43 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- Bogun wrote:
-- Somehow overheating is such a big problem in the
-- game, when in RL overcooling was as much or even
-- more serious, especially in dives.
-
- Yep, and also overboosting or overrevving the
- engine... the latter happens when max. RPM is
- exceeded in dives, the former if pilot does not
- decrease boost before decreasing RPM.. result: too
- high torque rips the reduction gear apart..

I just been reading about this and also carburetor icing, other engine related stuff - it was so hard for those pilots to do their job compare to us in the game.

-- Did you see IL-2 Compare v2.0 utility?
--
-
- No, I am not at home right now, I can`t open the RAR
- file here. I will look it up when possible..But
- thanks for the PM.

Somehow many people have problem opening this Rar archive.
If needed I will e-mail Zip version of it.



AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 05:51 PM
Bogun wrote:

-- Yep, and also overboosting or overrevving the
-- engine... the latter happens when max. RPM is
-- exceeded in dives, the former if pilot does not
-- decrease boost before decreasing RPM.. result: too
-- high torque rips the reduction gear apart..
-
- I just been reading about this and also carburetor
- icing, other engine related stuff - it was so hard
- for those pilots to do their job compare to us in
- the game.

Actually, it`s merely correct procedure of operating the engine - like pushing the clutch in before changing gear in your car /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif - and I would like that to implemented... it`s not hard.. say, below 40 degrees damages the engine, too high throttle with too small RPM damages it, too.. In fact, the FW 190 had adjustable cooling grids on the sides for that reason : to LIMIT the airflow when needed, not to overcool the engine..

BTW, carb icing was problem with carburrator planes only (IIRC LA-5 had direct fuel injection?), and was prevented with an ice guard on Spitfires on the carb intake.. but this limite performance at altitude.

-- No, I am not at home right now, I can`t open the RAR
-- file here. I will look it up when possible..But
-- thanks for the PM.
-
- Somehow many people have problem opening this Rar
- archive.
- If needed I will e-mail Zip version of it.
-

In my case it simply is that this is a public terminal, with no RAR program on it. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

Message Edited on 09/10/0306:51PM by Vo101_Isegrim

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 06:02 PM
You, or someone who knows how to do that, posted the procedure on this forum:
To rev engine up - prop pitch to fine - first, throttle up - second;
To rev engine down - throttle down - first, prop pitch to coarse - second;
I was following this religiously. I didn't even know that it was not implemented in the game. If not - hope it will be soon.

Only M-82FN(ASh-82FN) engines had direct fuel injection.

IL-2 Compare v2 is a "MUST HAVE" even in its contemporary raw format.


AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy


Message Edited on 09/10/0301:06PM by Bogun

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 06:06 PM
Bogun wrote:
- Are you sure LaGG-3 can maintain 498 km/h forever?
- I didn't test yet LaGG overheating, and <u>if it
- does not overheat - it is wrong,</u> but I believe
- it will, like every other plane.


Test it yourself pls. If it overheats in level flight at 110% at 498kmh send me the track.

http://membres.lycos.fr/messzer/avatar/mahgar8.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 06:07 PM
Just tested the Lagg3 41 and it will not overheat in level flight at 110% thottle. But it will overheat once you start doing manuvers and get the speed down. Once again though all you have to do to cool it is fly level and get your speed back up. Don't have to mess with the radiator at all. At 100% fuel and full ammo it will go 507 TAS at 50 meters above sea level till you run out of fuel. Very hard to black out in this aircraft at well. Doing over 600kph TAS I yanked back on the sick and held it and all that happened is a little fading. No black out.

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 06:25 PM
If blackout is different for different plane then blackout modeling in this game is junk.

I certainly hope that blackout is modeled simply by G's pulled and not different from plane to plane.

Laggs in 41 seemed to always overheat fast before and now they don't at all for the most part? Wonder why Oleg would decide on such a drastic change?

For laughs is my guess.

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 07:24 PM
CrackFerret wrote:
- If blackout is different for different plane then
- blackout modeling in this game is junk.

And if one plane can pitch faster and harder than the other?

Just because you pull back the same on the stick (as the post above) doesn't mean you get the same G's.

Maybe he is right or not, but what I read there is not any kind of way to test and make such statements, nor to react with comments like yours.

- I certainly hope that blackout is modeled simply by
- G's pulled and not different from plane to plane.

What is your evidence that it is not?

- Laggs in 41 seemed to always overheat fast before
- and now they don't at all for the most part? Wonder
- why Oleg would decide on such a drastic change?

This is something to be concerned with. I remember how it was in IL2 before 1.03, how hard it could be to fight in a 1941 LaGG and yet how satisfying also when you could shoot.

- For laughs is my guess.

I am pretty sure that 1C is not just Oleg tinkering with all the planes or directing and checking every little change.

It does seem that the people with bookshelves of data on planes lack so much data on Soviet models. I don't see posts of how long at so many RPM and boost a LaGG3 can run at what speed. Somehow that makes a shadow area in understanding at least in the west and I am guessing the east as well where some VVS planes are showing at full advantage against unknown characteristics let alone values. Or maybe there are errors in either the planes or the tests being made.

If one plane could be run very hard, far past continuous speed at full throttle and finer pitch while another simply could not and full throttle on it means much less hard then it's no use to compare 110% of the first with 110% of the second. You floor the gas on a sportscar it is different than flooring the gas on a family sedan. But then you expect the sportscar to far outperform the sedan even without punishing the engine.

Also there are people who do punish 109's on auto and perhaps don't know they are. When I change prop pitch to keep the RPM's up I also see the boost guage, the ATA's climb to 1.4 and over easily. What speed I run like this is also part of it. I can easily punish the engine without making extra speed just by running it too fast.

In testing I have noted time and time of running along with 2500 rpm at some throttle setting, maybe 80%, and then dropping the pitch 5% and watching the nose come up and stay so with a slow climb. That is a direct sign of my effective power increased. And yet the engine is running slower and slightly cooler at a lower boost. So trim down, take my speed increase and when the speed evens out there is slightly higher rpms, I drop the pitch again and repeat until there is no more increase and no more does the nose lift. Then I note speed, pitch and power but so far just enough for a feeling, a general idea. Even at 300kph I don't want the pitch very fine at all unless the power is very low and I am coming in for a landing or need to slow down. When I get my speed in manual control with the proper pitch and not just revving the engine to death, the engine runs cooler and the plane a bit faster. So that is why I take a lot of posts about what happened to someone, performance for performance in a fight with a handful of salt. Without tests and controlled conditions they might as well be gossipy old ladies.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 08:17 PM
I reported the bug of no overheating in LaGG3 1941 a few days after 1.1beta was released, repeat 1.1beta!. I wrote a post in the thread of Bugs in 1.1beta and the bug wasnt fixed in 1.1final. Then I returned to post this bug again in the thread of General forum titled "Bugs in in 1.1final" but the bug isnt fixed in 1.11!!!!!

my question are:

*why it has not been fixed in all this time?

*why if the 1.1beta was released for that people found bugs in the game and reported for repair them, this bug that I found and reported has not been fixed?

Here is one of the several posts in where I requested that bug was solved.

http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zusnz

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 10:20 PM
Re-read my post. I simply said I hope blackout is determined by G forces alone! Enough of a sustained amount of G's should cause blackout indepent of what plane you are flying.

It does seem that while following some planes in high speed dives, they whip around at same speed but remain in control long after the pilot behind them has lost all control.

So if this is the case, then allowing different G force tolerances for different planes makes no sense.

I also hope the overheat issue is fixed. The f4 seems really weak not being able to sustain 500kmh in level flight. You can do this all day long in that crappy 41 lagg.

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 02:24 AM
I just tested and the LaGG-3 '41 never overheated at sea level. I was running 508 km/hr. I don't use CEM for the tests.

The 109F-2 and F-4 were a joke. F2 peaked at 499 km/hr before auto rad slowed it to about 470, HAH! Then I tried the F4. It hit 510 then rapidly slowed as well.

The LaGG-3 ir running about 10 km/hr fast according to Gordon/Khazanov. The 109's are running anywhere from 10 to 20 km/hr too slow *at their best*.

This patch is PORKED!!!

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 04:21 AM
Porked and bs patch.

Add to that the p39n1's that turned into magical climbers by removing a few pounds of armour and sprinkling magic pixie dust on them.

If you are lucky, you can outclimb one in an f4, but theres a very good chance your engine will stop you from doing that. Even the g2 has a bit of a hard time out climbing them now.

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 09:31 AM
Simple but True.

1. Lagg1941 doesnt overheat if you keep speed above 400km/h.
I dont know if it should be so.

2. Lagg1941 climbs too fast. About same as F2
- 5min 50sec to 5000m, when it should be 6.8 min according to object viewer

So in FB Lagg holds the adavntage in climb and level flight, since 109F models overheat so quickly.

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 10:20 AM
Even if the automatic CEM stff in the F-2 nd F-4, etc. is modelled to the correct RPM tolerances in FB right now, the problems is that those planes cannot achieve their top speeds with such a system.

As it stands at the moment, the automatic CEM stuff for the F-4 works less efficiently than an older system in, say, and I-16. One wonders why the auto systems were fitted when it seems a more simple system was more effective...?

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 11:05 AM
The tests are run and it doesn't look good. Now some light needs to be shined into that shadow area about the LaGGs. Does anyone have data on LaGG endurance? Indeed it would be good to have the same for all Soviet planes?

It seems to me that full speed without overheating isn't possible just because then the makers would make it possible to push the motor for that extra margin.

Are the 1C team playing with the unknowns to make a bestseller in their own corner? Is it a matter of pride?

Until the data is dragged up and *accepted* we can probably expect no changes. Even with photographic proof we can't get a meaningful dialog let alone admission of error or a hint of change.

I might as well buy a US sim and fly US planes or a British sim and fly Brit planes because with IL2 the thing to do is fly Soviet planes or live at the bottom of a tilted playing field, tilted in both subtle and unsubtle ways. Much as I hate to admit it, the bias-whiners have good reason even if they often make poor arguements. And no, I don't think it's all Olegs' fault. He is not the only one with a hand in the sim. In fact I am sure he has been less involved for perhaps a year or more than some others at 1C. I think I can understand why he has been having so much stress and it ain't just from the boards.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 12:08 PM
Ok I understand it is not simple to build a sim of THIS caliber. I also understand that it is hard to be historically correct on all datas, factors for all planes. Not to talk about testers and bug reporters seriously affective to one plane or planes of one side. I believe there is a minimum which can be attended from 1C and that includes that an F-2 can outclimb and outspeed a LaGG3 41, a G-2 outclimb a P39, and so on. And of course engine overheat, oil leak damage, and so on should be applicated for VVS planes missing it.

Many planes are flyable, more than in any other ww2 sim. I hope though there can be a concensus about the modelling of same era enemy planes. Thats the only thing Id like to see.

http://membres.lycos.fr/messzer/avatar/mahgar8.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 12:14 PM
I don't think it's at all useful to claim that the game may be biased in favour of the VVS, becuase it's obvious that not all VS fighters in the game are at all uber. Such claims don't add anything to the discussion IMHO - more reasoned arguements are needed.

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 03:18 PM
Red_Harvest wrote:
- I just tested and the LaGG-3 '41 never overheated at
- sea level. I was running 508 km/hr. I don't use
- CEM for the tests.
-
- The 109F-2 and F-4 were a joke. F2 peaked at 499
- km/hr before auto rad slowed it to about 470, HAH!
- Then I tried the F4. It hit 510 then rapidly slowed
- as well.
-
- The LaGG-3 ir running about 10 km/hr fast according
- to Gordon/Khazanov. The 109's are running anywhere
- from 10 to 20 km/hr too slow *at their best*.
-
- This patch is PORKED!!!
-
-

I tested F4 on crimea map, and i was able to achieve 518 kph (rad closed, auto CEM). In my opinion its absolutely ok.

Now for Lagg dont overheat at high speed ... i dont know. I have seen no documents to prove any POV.

Now about that table:

1942 LaGG-3 Œ-105 N 3121855- '42 462 554/4850 9,1

1942 LaGG-3 Œ-105 N 3121232 466 539/5100 7,1

I think its very strange what 2th plane with very some engine and BETTER top speed at sea lvl climbs so much worse than 1st plane. Probably supercharger was damaged. It would mean howewer what this plane will be repaired and only then sent to front line units. Noone fly damaged planes - even in VVS in 1942.

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 04:09 PM
Functio wrote:
- I don't think it's at all useful to claim that the
- game may be biased in favour of the VVS,

Who said that?? I just mentioned that something is wrong if an early LaGG performs better than a Bf-109 F-2. Or do you think it should?



-becuase
- it's obvious that not all VS fighters in the game
- are at all uber.

Sure. But what is your point?

Such claims don't add anything to
- the discussion IMHO - more reasoned arguements are
- needed.
-
-

I see you gived PLENTY of arguments here... Maybe read the topic, read my arguments and react to them. Dont just make useless and absolutely offtopic coments.

Thx.

http://membres.lycos.fr/messzer/avatar/mahgar8.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 04:48 PM
Chromatorg wrote:
- I tested F4 on crimea map, and i was able to achieve
- 518 kph (rad closed, auto CEM). In my opinion its
- absolutely ok.

Not OK, I can get it into the teens for a few seconds then it falls back towards 480 almost immediately as the rad opens. The LaGG will run with radiator closed and outrun it doing 508.

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 05:24 PM
Red_Harvest wrote:
-
- Chromatorg wrote:
-- I tested F4 on crimea map, and i was able to achieve
-- 518 kph (rad closed, auto CEM). In my opinion its
-- absolutely ok.
-
- Not OK, I can get it into the teens for a few
- seconds then it falls back towards 480 almost
- immediately as the rad opens. The LaGG will run
- with radiator closed and outrun it doing 508.
-
-
-
-
-

Absolutely right! And if u use manual radiator you have still to give up some power (and speed!) in order to avoid killing the engine. Result: LaGG will overrun u...

http://membres.lycos.fr/messzer/avatar/mahgar8.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 05:38 PM
OK, here what I have got.


Test setup:
Krimea map, CEM, no-cockpit, no wind and turulence, 10m altitude.

Bg109F-2 - radiator close, prop manual pitch %50, engine 2500rpm
- overheat message at about 2.5 minute
- engine damage at about 5:30-6:00minutes
- engine dead at about 7:00 minutes.
Max SL speed - 512km/h TAS.
All is perfect here.

LaGG-3v.41 - radiator close, prop pitch %100
- will not overheat no meter what I do at this altitude. Ever.
Max SL speed 500km/h TAS.

Conclusion - It is a BUG.
Will file the report with Oleg.

No dramma, I just will not fly LaGG-3 v41 till it is fixed.

AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 05:38 PM
VO101_Mahgar wrote:

- I see you gived PLENTY of arguments here... Maybe
- read the topic, read my arguments and react to them.
- Dont just make useless and absolutely offtopic
- coments.

I was replying to the post by WWMaxGunz, not your post /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 05:50 PM
Chromatorg wrote:
-
- 1942 LaGG-3 Œ-105 N 3121855- '42 462 554/4850 9,1
-
- 1942 LaGG-3 Œ-105 N 3121232 466 539/5100 7,1
-
Found some info how Russian were testing LaGGs in 1942.
There were many complains from the Front on manufacturing defects of LaGGs.
At some point plant producing LaGG-3 clamed that they fixed the defect and plane is up to specs. They gave LaGG-3 to LII VVS for testing and tests came with same bad performance data.
LII VVS insisted on flying test LaGG in same configuration and settings as it been flown at the front -canopy open, radiator fully open, <u>rocket guide rails and rockets installed</u>!

Tell you something on how LII VVS was testing Soviet planes, right?..



AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy


Message Edited on 09/11/0301:16PM by Bogun

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 08:06 PM
imo lagg3 is at the moment most wrongly modelled game.. it can outturn F2 and F4, and while doing this she does not loose any E at all.. also DM is ridiculous, no damaged controls, no damaged engine, no big holes in wings affecting flight perfomance.. Also the Rockets in them don't slow down the perfomance for this beast..

Luckily it seems bit less agile at high altitudes, I just flew a VEF and managed to beat a Lagg on turn fight at 5000 meters.. but at low altitudes it is hell.. it seems climb is just as good as 109 F2 has, so don't count on outclimbing this.. more like get Altitude and outdive it..

I have allways read reports of this bird beeing rather sluggish, but it certainly is not in FB..

____________________________________



Official Sig:



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

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 08:35 PM
No disrespect to your findings, but the Klimov engine is a lot bigger than the DB 601. In fact it is as big as the DB 605.
It could be historically correct (to some extend) than the higher stressed DB 601 overheated more quickly than the Klimov. Or that the smaller of the two engines had less constant power than the big one. What about a comparism with Bf 109 G-2?

And about the DM: I have big holes, small holes affecting performance, I also have engine trouble. It's true though, no control wire damage exists. I flew in front of some Pe-8 beeing hit all the time without wire damage. I eventually died because of pilot kill.
A Bf 109F will still outturn the LaGG when keeping a little climb.Also, the LaGG seems to be to fast with 508 kph.

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 08:52 PM
JtD wrote:
-It could be historically correct (to some extend)
- than the higher stressed DB 601 overheated more
- quickly than the Klimov. Or that the smaller of the
- two engines had less constant power than the big
- one.

Yes overheating more quickly would be fine, but not overheating AT ALL is a bit exagerated, dont u think so?http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://membres.lycos.fr/messzer/avatar/mahgar8.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 09:07 PM
Common guys, it's a bug. Nothing more, nothing less.
Hope it will be fixed soon.

AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 12:06 AM
Climb is also way too good for Lagg3.... take a look at this chart:

http://mitglied.lycos.de/eldur190d9/bilder/steig41.jpg</a>

____________________________________



Official Sig:



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

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 02:45 AM
Bogun,

Actually, it's not right in many of the 109's because they can't reach speed unless you use CEM. They should be able to do it in auto but they are godawful slow like that now. They weren't before because I had tested them the same way (without CEM since it was giving values that were too high and was a known bug back then.) The F2 is topping out at less than 500 km/hr this way then rapidly slowing down.

Bogun wrote:
- OK, here what I have got.
-
-
- Test setup:
- Krimea map, CEM, no-cockpit, no wind and turulence,
- 10m altitude.
-
- Bg109F-2 - radiator close, prop manual pitch %50,
- engine 2500rpm
- - overheat message at about 2.5 minute
-- engine damage at about 5:30-6:00minutes
-- engine dead at about 7:00 minutes.
- Max SL speed - 512km/h TAS.
- All is perfect here.

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 02:57 AM
Bogun wrote:
- Chromatorg wrote:
--
-- 1942 LaGG-3 Œ-105 N 3121855- '42 462 554/4850 9,1
--
-- 1942 LaGG-3 Œ-105 N 3121232 466 539/5100 7,1
--
- Found some info how Russian were testing LaGGs in
- 1942.
- There were many complains from the Front on
- manufacturing defects of LaGGs.
- At some point plant producing LaGG-3 clamed that
- they fixed the defect and plane is up to specs. They
- gave LaGG-3 to LII VVS for testing and tests came
- with same bad performance data.
- LII VVS insisted on flying test LaGG in same
- configuration and settings as it been flown at the
- front -canopy open, radiator fully open, <u>rocket
- guide rails and rockets installed</u>!
-
- Tell you something on how LII VVS was testing Soviet
- planes, right?..


Actually, the attempt to improve the speed only got it up to 490 at sea level per factory...18 km/hr less than in the sim, LOL. Top speed was supposedly 580 These claims were not verified by NII VVS tests. They did tests with rocket rails and rockets, then did them without. With all this it ran 446 at sea level, and 518 at altitude. Without rails max speed improved by 20 km/hr.

These were probably rad open tests since the machine overheated without (unlike the sim). Rad open costs about 30 km/hr.

The canopy issue is interesting. It is a recurring theme with early La-5's and made them a lot slower than what we see in the sim. There were heat and exhaust gas problems apparently.

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 03:08 AM
Yes, there was problem with exhaust gases in La-5 and it was solved by adding another small air intake for the cockpit (to have pressure in cockpit higher then in engine compartment). Later this problem reoccurred in pre-production La-7 and it was resolved same way.

AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 03:23 AM
Bogun wrote:
- Yes, there was problem with exhaust gases in La-5
- and it was solved by adding another small air intake
- for the cockpit (to have pressure in cockpit higher
- then in engine compartment). Later this problem
- reoccurred in pre-production La-7 and it was
- resolved same way.


Yes, I just wish the sim reflected some of this. The early La-5's are too fast. It only hit 535 in state tests with full boost at sea level vs. 550 in the sim. That was the true '42 version of the plane. The improved La-5F should achieve these values, not the La-5.

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 10:59 AM
Functio wrote:
- I don't think it's at all useful to claim that the
- game may be biased in favour of the VVS, becuase
- it's obvious that not all VS fighters in the game
- are at all uber. Such claims don't add anything to
- the discussion IMHO - more reasoned arguements are
- needed.

I've posted the same for over a year and a half. But I've seen too much beteween tests, RUSSIAN ACE interviews, freaking PHOTOS and the sim itself to disbelieve that there isn't a preference for Russian planes done in many small ways but not in every way.

I know where the major market for the sim is. I criticise US sim makers for bias where I SEE it, so now I should STFU?

The correctness of detail needs to be even across the choices of planes and it is not. That is of major importance.

Can you or anyone explain why the LaGG 3 1941 runs damn near top speed for one of the fastest fighters of the time, which can only hold top speed for a few minutes, while the LaGG is loafing along with engine governed down to never overheating?

Can you explain why the P-39's before the Q-10 have constant speed props when that's not how it was? Can you explain how the CSP equipped P-39's get top performance when Golodnikov stated that the CSP equipped planes lost performance enough to make a real difference? Why do all or practically all VVS planes in the sim have this CSP system? And why is the 109 auto system such a dog? The list is much longer and made not just by fight-and-whine posters but those who carefully test and check.

Perhaps you could try and sell me a big bridge in New York.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 02:40 PM
WWMaxGunz wrote:
-
- Functio wrote:
-- I don't think it's at all useful to claim that the
-- game may be biased in favour of the VVS, becuase
-- it's obvious that not all VS fighters in the game
-- are at all uber. Such claims don't add anything to
-- the discussion IMHO - more reasoned arguements are
-- needed.
-
- I've posted the same for over a year and a half.
- But I've seen too much beteween tests, RUSSIAN ACE
- interviews, freaking PHOTOS and the sim itself to
- disbelieve that there isn't a preference for Russian
- planes done in many small ways but not in every way.
-
-
-
- I know where the major market for the sim is. I
- criticise US sim makers for bias where I SEE it, so
- now I should STFU?
-
- The correctness of detail needs to be even across
- the choices of planes and it is not. That is of
- major importance.
-
- Can you or anyone explain why the LaGG 3 1941 runs
- damn near top speed for one of the fastest fighters
- of the time, which can only hold top speed for a few
- minutes, while the LaGG is loafing along with engine
- governed down to never overheating?
-
- Can you explain why the P-39's before the Q-10 have
- constant speed props when that's not how it was?
- Can you explain how the CSP equipped P-39's get top
- performance when Golodnikov stated that the CSP
- equipped planes lost performance enough to make a
- real difference? Why do all or practically all VVS
- planes in the sim have this CSP system? And why is
- the 109 auto system such a dog? The list is much
- longer and made not just by fight-and-whine posters
- but those who carefully test and check.
-
- Perhaps you could try and sell me a big bridge in
- New York.
-
-
- Neal
-
-
-
-

Lol! Goldnikov said exactly opposite: P39 before q10 _had_ CSP. P39 _after_ q10 had automatic engine contol, like on german planes, and _that_ automatic control had drawback - it reduced flexibilty and gave sometimes worse acceleration in dive.

As for Lagg... most likely its overheting bug, but then again, we have saw no documents to support this or other version.
For F4 we have plenty document there are written max continues power, max take off power, how long they can be maintained and so on. F4 top speed and engine overheats modelled very good.

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 02:45 PM
Chromatorg wrote:
- As for Lagg... most likely its overheting bug, but
- then again, we have saw no documents to support this
- or other version.
- For F4 we have plenty document there are written max
- continues power, max take off power, how long they
- can be maintained and so on. F4 top speed and engine
- overheats modelled very good.

Let me guess.....VVS pilot in this game, right?

The 109s overheat too quickly. Period.

And, let's apply a little logic, shall we? I;m not gonna hand hold you through it though, I'm too tired of it. So, please, you explain to me just how exactly this could even be within the realm of possibility that the LaGG is maintaining top speed, one that is close to the 109s, and never overheats.

This should be interesting....

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 03:26 PM
Chromatorg wrote:
-
- As for Lagg... most likely its overheting bug, but
- then again, we have saw no documents to support this
- or other version.

Do you need documents to believe that an engine should overheat at max power?http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)))))

And anyway, if LaGG3 41 would be so good, why the soviet pilots referred to it as a flying coffin? And why would they need to improve the model?

http://membres.lycos.fr/messzer/avatar/mahgar8.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 03:38 PM
WWMaxGunz wrote:
-
- I've posted the same for over a year and a half.
- But I've seen too much beteween tests, RUSSIAN ACE
- interviews, freaking PHOTOS and the sim itself to
- disbelieve that there isn't a preference for Russian
- planes done in many small ways but not in every way.
-
-
-
- I know where the major market for the sim is. I
- criticise US sim makers for bias where I SEE it, so
- now I should STFU?
-
- The correctness of detail needs to be even across
- the choices of planes and it is not. That is of
- major importance.
-
- Can you or anyone explain why the LaGG 3 1941 runs
- damn near top speed for one of the fastest fighters
- of the time, which can only hold top speed for a few
- minutes, while the LaGG is loafing along with engine
- governed down to never overheating?
-
- Can you explain why the P-39's before the Q-10 have
- constant speed props when that's not how it was?
- Can you explain how the CSP equipped P-39's get top
- performance when Golodnikov stated that the CSP
- equipped planes lost performance enough to make a
- real difference? Why do all or practically all VVS
- planes in the sim have this CSP system? And why is
- the 109 auto system such a dog? The list is much
- longer and made not just by fight-and-whine posters
- but those who carefully test and check.
-
- Perhaps you could try and sell me a big bridge in
- New York.
-
-
- Neal
-


Hey WWMaxGunz,

Instead of screaming on a forum - you better do some reading first.
<u>All Russian planes in the game (may be minus TB-3) had Constant Speed Props.</u>
What late P-39 and P-63 had was engine automation a-la Fw190 Komandogerat, were all manipulation with engine-prop controls were automated automated.

So what was your complain about?




AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy


AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 09:16 PM
Chromatorg wrote:
-
- Lol! Goldnikov said exactly opposite: P39 before q10
- _had_ CSP. P39 _after_ q10 had automatic engine
- contol, like on german planes, and _that_ automatic
- control had drawback - it reduced flexibilty and
- gave sometimes worse acceleration in dive.

Maybe it is YOU who don't read so well.

------------------------------------------------------------
N. G. Yes. At first they had three-bladed props, later four blades. I did not detect any appreciable difference between them. These propellers were mechanical, they were controlled by hand, with a system of levers and rods. On later Cobras they installed combined throttle/pitch control. This was the case on some Q-10s, on all of the Q-25s and Q-30s. We preferred the de-linked control, where the throttle and the pitch were separate. This was on the Q-5 up to the Q-10.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Controlled by hand with a SYSTEM OF RODS AND LEVERS. Does that sound like setting a constant speed prop with one movement to you? Where is the pilot workload?

Those were modern planes, but the early MiGs, Yaks and LaGGs were all superior in pitch control?

- As for Lagg... most likely its overheting bug, but
- then again, we have saw no documents to support this
- or other version.
- For F4 we have plenty document there are written max
- continues power, max take off power, how long they
- can be maintained and so on. F4 top speed and engine
- overheats modelled very good.

No documents ... the shadow area to take advantage of.

I have no documents that MiG 15's did not exceed the speed of sound either. Or that Soviets did not land men on the moon...

If the real 41 LaGG could do 500kph at SL with no overheating then do you believe that it would have been left at that? That no means of using higher power would have been made available to gain speed for a time until overheat? If so then I have nothing to say to you, you could not understand reality of war anyway if that is so.

Why was the LaGG able to overheat in IL2? And it did so quickly, I know because I flew that model mostly and had to keep power to 86% except for short bursts. It was a challenge but the firepower made it worth it. I AM SURE that Oleg has such documents as you describe and used them in IL2.

................

There was a sim years ago from Microprose about the supposed F-19 Stealth Fighter, later made to look like an F-117. For all the things unknown it had fantastic abilities. It was made for the "home" crowd. I see parallels.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 01:52 AM
WWMaxGunz wrote:
-
- Functio wrote:
-- I don't think it's at all useful to claim that the
-- game may be biased in favour of the VVS, becuase
-- it's obvious that not all VS fighters in the game
-- are at all uber. Such claims don't add anything to
-- the discussion IMHO - more reasoned arguements are
-- needed.
-
- I've posted the same for over a year and a half.
- But I've seen too much beteween tests, RUSSIAN ACE
- interviews, freaking PHOTOS and the sim itself to
- disbelieve that there isn't a preference for Russian
- planes done in many small ways but not in every way.
-
- I know where the major market for the sim is. I
- criticise US sim makers for bias where I SEE it, so
- now I should STFU?
-
- The correctness of detail needs to be even across
- the choices of planes and it is not. That is of
- major importance.


I've had the same experience. I came into the original IL2 quite skeptical of the Luftwaffe complaints. Then I did a bit of research and found many were valid. I also learned that Oleg has some serious problems with consistency. Too many times I've heard him say all was right, then he quietly changed the part that was obviously wrong. I've had enough discussions with Oleg to figure out his objectivity is lacking.

It's a Russian product for the Russian home market. I denied that for too long, but I won't deny it any longer.

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 04:31 AM
Who do you want to fool here Harvets?
You were spiting your conspiracy theories from the very beginning.
Pathetic.



AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 07:24 AM
Bogun wrote:
- Who do you want to fool here Harvets?
- You were spiting your conspiracy theories from the
- very beginning.
- Pathetic.

Nope, I didn't believe the errors were the result of bias for the first two years and I defended Oleg. Experience has shown me I was wrong. Also, I still would like to see errors corrected if they improperly bias towards LW as well. I don't want to see bat turning 190's or 109's with the screwed up damage model of a Pe-2. I want to see the match ups work properly relative to one another, matching the historical balance of the time. (That was what I thought Oleg wanted at one time, now I don't believe that is the case.) When it does that, I'm happy, when it doesn't, I push for changes.

There is a reason for all the complaints of bias by so many folks. Oleg lacks objectivity and it shows in his product. I've noticed several mutually contradictory statements he has made and they have cost him his credibility in my eyes. These are things he has said that I know to be false. He speaks in half truths in many of his replies and I find that particularly bothersome.

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 10:22 PM
VO101_Mahgar & Bogun,

i have enjoyed your converstion very much! And of course I have lerned alot. I did not notice that my lag3 41 wasn't overheating I rarely use max power. i did notice that the Lagg3 43 overheated quite quickly when i flew it next. i hope this gets fixed.
i wanted to fly the lagg 41 to see if I could be successfull in the worst plane. Guess, there are some problems, tho do these effect AI planes.

If i fly Lagg & ai flies 109F will it be the same result, i think the ai cheats right?

Anyway, best wishes to you & happy flying !


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

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 11:35 PM
Saburo_0,

I don't think the AI "cheats" much anymore. When I chase down the "ace" AI 109 in a '41 LaGG I usually see that the 109 rads are open. AI used to "cheat" back in IL-2. In early FB the ace AI could use full control surface deflection, but that has been cured in the patches I've tested. They can still hang at the edge of stall better than a human and line up a shot perfectly, but a human can adapt and can use the vertical and the deck much more effectively. One thing the AI does is that it nearly stops on a dime at times and it can do some pretty drastic ultra low speed work. If I'm not careful I will collide with it. However, it often glides a long slow path into the ground at a high angle of attack (with contrails off the wing tips) after one of these crazy moves, because it lacks the airspeed to hold altitude and it won't dip its nose to recover. That is how 109's tend to go down for me. I put a few rounds into them, they roll about wildly and bleed speed off to nothing. I zip away as they drift towards the dirt.

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 11:36 AM
Is it my perception, or Oleg is quite absent from the forum? I see good posts around with data, or for instance the good topic of Kocour about ESSENTIAL need to eliminate the outside sounds from the cockpit (otherwise good ears of pilots would be more important than good eyes, lol), and so on. Oleg was participating more actively before. Or is he ill (I hope his health is ok after all problems he had).

I had another topic about FB1.0 on Pe2 DM without any coment on him, though it was clear that engine didnt catch fire and gunners were invencible. The topic is dead without a comment of him...

I hope he at least read his forum...

http://membres.lycos.fr/messzer/avatar/mahgar8.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 02:43 PM
"Oleg lacks objectivity and it shows in his product. I've noticed several mutually contradictory statements he has made and they have cost him his credibility in my eyes. These are things he has said that I know to be false. He speaks in half truths in many of his replies and I find that particularly bothersome."


While your reason for frustration is well noted and understandable, Oleg has no obligations to respond to us in whatever way.

We've got no rights to judge upon the game especially because we have no way of knowing what the 'patching' and 'correcting' process of the FM is like. We have no knowledge about the potential difficulties, we don't know how the FM handles the data, we don't know jackshi* about the game itself and we don't know what kind of research of data Oleg has done.

We're merely in a position to suggest. The openness of the boards sometimes lead us to forget what kind of position we are in. They have no obligations to answer to our posts, nor do they have to fix anything regardless of its historicity, nor do they have an obligation to make something non-biased. They can make it an arcade game and we don't have a say in it.

When they don't answer, it's fine. When they say they are not going to change something, it's the end of discussion.

Sometimes people forget that fact, and respond and demand things as if they own the game.

As long as the data remains in his hands and not ours, we don't have a say in anything that goes further than a basic 'suggestion'. Don't forget that.


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

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

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 04:27 PM
Red Harvest, thansk for the info on AI !
Happy flying.

VO101_Mahgar wrote:
- Is it my perception, or Oleg is quite absent from
- the forum?

I think he has taken a lowere profile is all. Whenever he does respond to a thread evryone jumps in with many other questions & um, comments.

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

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 05:13 PM
I would expect him reacting to REAL problems and at least telling "You is wrong", or something/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://membres.lycos.fr/messzer/avatar/mahgar8.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 10:15 AM
bump

http://membres.lycos.fr/messzer/avatar/mahgar8.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 04:19 PM
i dont think it is the time to talking about such as new planes in add on .i think oleg should firstly solve the problems luftwaffe pilot suffered now after the patch 1.11 released.

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 04:44 PM
I'm thinking that the best answer might be to release tracks showing the disputed planes making performance within acceptable percents (maybe 5%? I would be very happy with 5% as long as one side is not 5% low while the other is 5% high, but if all planes were 0 to 5% low I would be happier than 0 to 5% high!) *to 1C data, not to everyones' favorite charts*.

Tracks would not just prove ability but they would be training aids and so add value to the sim itself.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 03:25 AM
If we get back to the *original* IL2 1C data the VVS will shoot all the LW planes out of the sky on day 1. 5% error is huge for aircraft. You are talking about 20-25 km/hr differences typically with an error that large. We have errors that large when you compare an F2 at present to a LaGG and it is not pretty, completely reverses their relative performance--all as a result of overheat modeling. Rather than focusing on error, focusing on relative performance would make more sense. As you say, if all the error is consistent it works. What is needed is precision rather than sheer accuracy. Adjusting relative overheat characteristics would largely fix the 109's (and auto pitch for those who use CEM.)

Back to the charts and relative performance. There is plenty of good information out there about relative performance and there are sufficient charts that will bear this out. In fact, the object viewer numbers seem to be taken from this data (rather than the old IL-2 original version performance.) Much of the trouble could be fixed with a few small tweaks. Much of it was fixed...then it got broken again.

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 03:57 AM
5% is yes, a very huge margin of difference.

Assuming an average speed of 650km/h for planes of this era, a 5% difference is equivalent to 32.5km/h error. That 30km/h difference will dictate, for instance, whether a K-4 catches a La-7 or not.

Generally, in-game accuracies are expected not to exceed about +/- 5mph in these sorts of games - which makes it an accuracy with an error margin of about 1.5%.







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

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

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 12:11 PM
If the range is 0% to -5% then I'd be looking at plus or minus 2.5% on average. 5 kph is like 3 mph, walking speed. This at full speed for a plane, yes in minutes you can walk a km or 3 so I guess that's closing speed.

The big deal with the 109F's and the 41 LaGG that I've seen has more to do with heat endurance than the speeds. IMHO and the way it was in IL2, the LaGG should overheat sooner at full speed.

I did say that the planes on one side should not be on the high side of the tolerance than the planes on the other, too. That is very important. I don't like the number of ways that the VVS planes overall get the benefits of any doubts while there are handicaps for others and no chance of fixes in spite of all evidence of wrong functionality. I don't fly eye candy. The pretty dials and graphics are extras for me. If I felt different then perhaps I would have bought Janes WWII Fighters when I did not. I regard that one as a pretty sim but rather arcade in the FM department. I wish that IL2 wouldn't sacrifice working features for eye candy. Other peoples' mileage may vary.

How close can a physical modelled sim get to all the charted numbers and still fly right? At some point, just to get within accepted data there becomes code introduced just to ensure compliance that is not native to the design. Either each plane becomes more and more exceptions to the rule or all the planes end up with quirks. I've seen this. I've seen a sim with great promise ruined by whining jerks over matching chart data. The planes matched the numbers close enough in the end but only at full power. And they flew wrong, you could begin to tell when gliding and there are wide, exploitable cracks in the FM itself where some planes get less drag as the wings are tilted off horizontal and like that. Online fighting became a matter of knowing all the cracks to exploit the ones your plane could do and knowing the ones the others could use against you. Both sides had enemy planes they noted as uber for different reasons and it sucked oil bigtime. I sure don't want to see FB end up that bad and reading how the code is spagettied tells me there are places where exceptions do rule.

So how wide an *average* tolerance can you live with? 1.5% of 700 kph is 10.5 kph (Red?) is less than 7 mph. 2% is still less than 10 mph. Most people fly sims with more drag from not flying test pilot clean, especially in battle, than that by far. And I sure don't trust that most sim fliers can fly clean enough to be saying the numbers they can get are the best possible in the sim either. There's a reason that not every combat pilot with 100+ hours wasn't qualified to be a test pilot. How many here running tests and making claims against the sim can say they are better?


Neal

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 01:22 PM
There are not only differences in speed according to the real datas, there are differences in turn rate, climb rate, damage resistence, weapon effectiveness etc. too, which are very important in dogfights and which should be investigate.

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 07:55 PM
It would be real cool to have a digital combination wind tunnel and testbed! Something where a plane could be inserted all conditions could be checked, even having any weapon hit from any angle and distance (would that have to include the gun moving at relative speed and direction? nahhh, too much!) on any part of the plane just to see damage effects. All with readouts.

I wouldn't bet the truck, dog, house or farm against 1C having one of those, and I don't mean the sim itself!

I Am Sure they have tools to view a plane in the sim and know all or near all that is happening.

With all these planes, to check every last detail without even making any changes would be the work of man-months. Then every time there is a general change, check again. Repeat until finished to 1% or less and I expect 2 or 3 years could go by for even a small team when the changes are not nearly so simple as adjusting tables of direct effect numbers.

I see on SimHQ where 2 former USAF pilots have discussed the correctness of the P-40's as compared to the 1943 manuals and were able to get very close indeed through careful flying and trimming. Both are long time sim fliers as well and note that a person testing has to consider the sim and how they do setup to get the true possiblities.
Some who cannot get the same speed or roll time don't believe, they think they are doing right no matter that others with the same sim can do better. So they insult and lose respect.
One of those thinks that anyone who can get within -5% is doing very well and in time may get closer. It is a matter of trimming and hands off the joystick for one part, so unless you fight that way don't expect to reach full speed in a fight!
These guys love the P-40's so they took the time. If others as talented took the care and time then I might believe some of the claims I see. There are too many variables to just wind it up, fly it and announce your results as absolute. Even framerate may be of importance, when mine drops the controls are not so good so I don't know what else changes.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
09-17-2003, 10:10 AM
Bump.


Oleg, would you say something about this matter?

http://membres.lycos.fr/messzer/avatar/mahgar8.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-17-2003, 10:16 AM
not only LaGG 4th series does not overheat, so does La-5. I dogfighted 13min with well-flown finnish G2 all the time with rad closed and 100% and no ovht message... while in reality, I have a book about Soviet WWII fighters written by Russian and Czech authors, and there is an interesting part about a committee investigating in early 1943 why the new La-5 (maybe La-5F) do not reach the factory performance numbers. Pilots complained that:

- the constant engine overheating makes them to fly with the cooling slots open fully all the time
- bad quality of plexiglass and fear of it being jammed when bailing out makes them to fly with the canopy open (40kph speed loss)
- horrible factory work together with field repairs causes the plane surfaces to be rough and aerodynamically ineffective
- the landing flaps tend to protrude without pilots intention at high speeds, causing additional drag
- the rear wheel must be fixed in open position as it does not eject sometimes and the plane get damaged at landing.

Well, most probably the factory numbers of polished prototypes which we can see in the IL2Compare were not real in the real war. Easy example is La-7, which prototype (and that "serial" one in IL2FB) flew 680/597kph at high/zero alt, but real serial planes did about 25/5 kph less. FB insist on 680kph for serial La-7. The same can be said about early LaGG, where theoretical SL speed of 500kph is in sharp contrast with the real serial data with barely 460kph. I would dare to say, if some VVS planes are slowed down 5-10% plus added overheating plus added poor quality plexiglass (why just some of 109s are such?) plus added their poor reliability, we can get much closer picture about the real situation.
I read a book from Helmut Lipfert, who achieved some 200+ victories at East, and he wrote that when they were in troubles, they always outflew any opponents in level flight. (Do not try this at home)
I am not saying that Russian designs were bad. Polikarpov, Ciolkovskij or Korolov were great engineers in the world´s top ten for sure. But the moved factories running at 110% production in terrible conditions with poorly qualified workers working 16 hours per day 7 days in a week were not able to produce the quality which was tested in aerodynamical tunnels of TSAGI. At the end, the quality of Soviet products even from peace times was, err...




<center>http://www.kurita.sk/PRIVATE/pictures/sig_il2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-17-2003, 10:30 AM
I agree completely about REALTIVE performance to be over CHARTS performance. This would reflect the real situation present in the eastern front. Not only charts...

Of course, if charts contradict pilots' comments (from both sides) then comes the question if Oleg prefers pure charts, or he takes in count all info, and tries to make a compromise between prototype-new test datas, and the faulty flying coffin which served in the front with lots of problems.

But anyway in this case I think its a pure mistake, as noone plane could hold 110% wit rad. closed. Thats it.

http://membres.lycos.fr/messzer/avatar/mahgar8.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-17-2003, 02:03 PM
ahoj jurinko, i totally agree with you on this.

it is unbelievable how some planes in the game are favored...

some have incredible climb data, no overheat whatsoever..

pfff

plébános



"Der ganze Revierkreis muss total schwarz sein"

Erich Hartmann

XyZspineZyX
09-17-2003, 08:22 PM
I don't know Mahgar why are you pushing this thread?
It is a bug. Report it.
What's the big deal?
Bored?

AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 05:42 PM
Bogun wrote:
- I don't know Mahgar why are you pushing this thread?

Because it is important IMHO to fix the problems I mention. And many think so.


- It is a bug. Report it.
- What's the big deal?
- Bored?

This forum is made to REPORT BUGS (between others). Or isnt it?

I would like not only to have some explenation from Oleg (and not other players) to the non-overheat bug you mention, but answers to the questions I posed. And this includes the huge difference you have between VVS and LW CEM. The VVS have not a single matter in this area (except for engine stopping in Ratas & Chaikas), while the LW's superior Komandogerat is very slow compared to MANUAL prop. pitch flying. To my knowledge all WW2 LW-plane pilots flew auto prop pitch in a fight. I doubt they would do so if the plane would become quite slower. And VVS had the hard time with engine overheats, bad quality engines, fuselage finishing and others. That at least is unquestionable in the early years of the war.

And no, Im not bored at all, but nobody forces you (I hope) to read and react to topics that bore youhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Mahgar

http://membres.lycos.fr/messzer/avatar/mahgar8.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 09:00 PM
In the ReadMe that came with 1.1b there is instructions for how to report bugs directly to Oleg, including what may be considered reportable (not opinions, etc, must be backed by data).

If you expect 1C to glean everything from this and all the other forums then seperate information from whinig noise then I have a company to sell you cheap! (how much ya got?)

It really is best to gather your data and tracks, then send them in an email to Oleg at that email address in the ReadMe. Leave any emotions out or you will end up like the people who lose in those TV pseudo-courts, I am sure.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 09:36 PM
Then what for serves ORR?

http://membres.lycos.fr/messzer/avatar/mahgar8.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 09:45 PM
I think that the purpose for it as a dialog space has all but completely broken down for many, many reasons.

Your points here may reach 1C but you stand a much better chance if you email da man himself. It don't mean you should shut up here but if you wanted to get through then... just letting ya know there is another line of tack.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 10:27 PM
My observations, something wacky about the way overheat is implemented into CEM. CEM is kind of misleading to start with, not very complex in some areas. One is in heat transfer, there's no way you can transfer heat through that much mass of metal and fluids that quickly, you can get instant overheat messages by hitting the boost once your motor is warm, doesn't even take a second to get the message in some planes. Beyond physics and common sense.

More two cents, if overheat were really as critical and fast occurring as it plays in game, there would have had to be much better and finite readable temp guages in the planes. As they sit now they aren't useable, you end up relying on the game text for indications. The guage isn't good enough to accurately tell you engine condition or when you tripped the overheat condition flag on. Thats not right at all. Take away the text messages via switch on line and than see how bad it plays./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 06:42 PM
UH i just did a little test i drove 15min rad closed and wep on.. no overheat of anykind.. and i was easily able to kill 8 heinkels.. did not even have to B&Z, since lagg3 can take unlimited amount of german MG fire.. im shocked... Lagg3 best plane in 41 in fb..

____________________________________



Official Sig:



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

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 04:58 AM
Vipez- wrote:
- UH i just did a little test i drove 15min rad closed
- and wep on.. no overheat of anykind.. and i was
- easily able to kill 8 heinkels.. did not even have
- to B&Z, since lagg3 can take unlimited amount of
- german MG fire.. im shocked... Lagg3 best plane in
- 41 in fb..


What plane? The LaGG, that would be no surprise and match what I've seen in auto with rad closed.

He-111's are easy to down with LMG unlike Pe-2's/Pe-3's that are nearly bullet proof.

I believe you are mistaken about the LaGG '41's. They now are killable with LMG. I've killed a number of pilots with LMG from 6 o'clock. Bullets through the head rest. The plane itself seems to hold up but the pilot dies.

It's not the best by far, but it is not nearly as bad as it was in real life. It should be in a pretty bad way vs. F2's and F4's, but it is not.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 10:16 AM
WWMaxGunz wrote:
- I think that the purpose for it as a dialog space
- has all but completely broken down for many, many
- reasons.
-
- Your points here may reach 1C but you stand a much
- better chance if you email da man himself. It don't
- mean you should shut up here but if you wanted to
- get through then... just letting ya know there is
- another line of tack.
-
-
- Neal
-
-
-
-

Rgr that. I had email correspondence with Oleg some time ago about Hungarian scenario, missions, weather and so on...(when FB was developing).

I will contact him again and try to get some kind of answer(s).

http://membres.lycos.fr/messzer/avatar/mahgar8.jpg