Soviet fighters and 4.12

[jermin]

My original statement is concerned with combat climb, whose objective is to kill the bandit while not to give him any firing opportunities. Climbing side by side from take-off won't prove anything for the argument.

Besides, a P-47 pilot who has even a little experience in it wouldn't engage enemies below 2000m. Below 2000m, K4 might climb a little faster, but at a smaller speed. So when you are on a higher altitude, your speed will be much more smaller than P-47, but now P-47 has enough speed and space (since it climbs at a faster speed) to do a high-speed turn and shoot you down with 8 blazing .50 cals while you are hung in the middle air.

Above 3000m, it is the kingdom of P-47s, although it is not historically correct.

I would suggest a more proper testing method. Dive both planes to 3000m until both reach the same speed of 500km/h, then start climbing. The only thing K4 can do is watch it climbing away at a relative speed which makes you feel helpless.

Some quite decent P-47 pilots have flying quite regularly on RCAF_FB server recently. Give yourself an chance and see whether you are able to bring some down. Do it with cockpit on, I should add, because I fly there with cockpit on.

[jermin]

It's beyond ridiculous.

Just spent some time doing some tests regarding the overheat on various Russian fighters, in the same manner I tested K4 (described at page 8 of this thread). All of the Russian planes I tested have a more endurable engine than K4 does.

The most ridiculous plane is, you guess it, I-185-M71. Its engine starts to overheat at about 3 and a half minutes after the quick mission starts. And the damage occurs at around 8 minutes 20 seconds into the mission, at which a thin black smoke trail comes out of the engine. But the engine sound and effective engine power doesn't reduce until over 10 minutes has passed since the test starts.

Bear in mind that Russian engines are historically unreliable and easily overheating. In no way they can achieve a higher efficiency than contemporary German engines do.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by jermin

It's beyond ridiculous.

Just spent some time doing some tests regarding the overheat on various Russian fighters, in the same manner I tested K4 (described at page 8 of this thread). All of the Russian planes I tested have a more endurable engine than K4 does.

The most ridiculous plane is, you guess it, I-185-M71. Its engine starts to overheat at about 3 and a half minutes after the quick mission starts. And the damage occurs at around 8 minutes 20 seconds into the mission, at which a thin black smoke trail comes out of the engine. But the engine sound and effective engine power doesn't reduce until over 10 minutes has passed since the test starts.

Bear in mind that Russian engines are historically unreliable and easily overheating. In no way they can achieve a higher efficiency than contemporary German engines do.

You'd make a better argument if your Russian example was a plane that actually saw some service beyond a front line field trial. I-185 is extremely optimistic as most prototypes are. If it's a Bf109K-4 uber fighters comparison then take the Yak-9U or La-5FN/La-7 as the example aircraft.

I will say that the one problem with the Yak's damage model is that the engine model does seem to be simplistic in that it doesn't have the fine levels of damage that you typically see from planes that have been given more attention. The Yak's engine is either utterly destroyed or functioning just fine with very few states in between. Bf109s, Mustangs, P-40s, Ki-61s and other types are much more subtle... this is purely subjective and I'd love it if someone could have a look at the code and let us know what's going on in there.

But as far as purely overheat is concerned it seems to overheat just like the 109 does.

Blanket statement about Russian engines overheating and being unreliable also seems unhelpful. SOME Russian engines were not very reliable but it's dependent on the model involved. The later model VK-105PF in most of the Yak's, by all accounts, gave a decent performance and operated well in harsh high and low temperatures from every account I've ever read. The upgraded VK-107 was another story.

That's not to say that German engines were entirely trouble free either either due to engineering or, later in the war, on occasion sabotage or reduced manufacturing quality. But that's neither here nor there as reliability issues such as that aren't specifically modelled for any side.

You might be right that the way it's modelled is wrong. But yelling "It's beyond ridiculous" is counter productive. Make the entirety of your argument with some data to work with... otherwise there isn't anything TD or anyone else can do.

[jermin]

Originally Posted by IceFire

Make the entirety of your argument with some data to work with... otherwise there isn't anything TD or anyone else can do.

I've seen such claim from you many times, especially when you are out of arguments. It might seem reasonable at first glance. But under careful examination, it is absolutely untenable.

First, you are not someone with the authorities to modify the codes. So it makes no sense for you to patronize me with that claim.

Second, like the majority of IL-2 players, I am no where near a warbird researcher. Even Oleg and Luthier aren't either. Let alone the guys in TD. I don't think it is proper for you to demand certain ability from others which you are short of yourself. But there does be some serious aircraft researchers, such as Kurfust and Crumpp, who have contributed tons of historical research data to the developers and community ever since a decade ago, which can still be easily attained from UBI forum. But their efforts were simply selectively ignored by the developers.

Third, if we players are required to supply data to justify our claims for a FM change. The same requirements should go to TD. But I failed to see a single piece of data from them on which the modifications in the recent patches depends.

I am wondering, since those skilled aircraft makers for FSX can accurately model German fighters down to every historical detail without much intervention from community, which are widely aknowledged as realistic representations of their real-life counterparts by flight sim community, why it is so hard for our developers to get them right. My guess is either they are selectively blind, or they don't have the ability to do so. But considering their non-FM-related modifications are top notched, I'm afraid the former is more likely the case.

To WokeUpDead:

Yes, I can still pwn those air quakers in their dreaming rocket-like piston planes in my109K-4 cockpit. But that doesn't justify the unrealistic representation of German and Russian fighters in the current game.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by jermin

I've seen such claim from you many times, especially when you are out of arguments. It might seem reasonable at first glance. But under careful examination, it is absolutely untenable.

Right... so...I admit I am out of arguments here because it's difficult to have one.... but I'll attempt to lay out a perspective and be proactive here (and maybe encourage that in return).

First, you are not someone with the authorities to modify the codes. So it makes no sense for you to patronize me with that claim.

My actual interest is getting to the bottom of a discussion. No I absolutely do not have the authority to make any modifications. I do like a good discussion and I like the sim to be as accurate as possible within reasonable expectations. To that point I've done research in places, submitted evidence, gotten help from people, and actually made things happen. I don't say that as any sort of gloating or self aggrandizing .. I've done very little compared to many community members. However, my point is that real change can be accomplished, with a little effort and mobilizing of some resources.

Second, like the majority of IL-2 players, I am no where near a warbird researcher. Even Oleg and Luthier aren't either. Let alone the guys in TD. I don't think it is proper for you to demand certain ability from others which you are short of yourself. But there does be some serious aircraft researchers, such as Kurfust and Crumpp, who have contributed tons of historical research data to the developers and community ever since a decade ago, which can still be easily attained from UBI forum. But their efforts were simply selectively ignored by the developers.

I'm happy you've stated as such. Neither of us are truly warbird researchers but I would disagree about folks like Oleg, Luthier, who are pretty well researched and had folks on their teams with the aeronautical degrees to back it up.

I have well above average understanding and a fair bit of knowledge to back it up... enough to realize I've scratched the surface and don't know nearly enough. That said, I can do tests, I can look up information and I can submit that information directly and actively.

Selective ignorance is one possible way to interpret but it's not the only one. Time and effort required are pretty big too. Basically if people have the time, the effort, the understanding required and so forth then stuff gets done. If those things aren't present then they simply don't. This issue seems to really matter to you... and you already have some of the data. But your arguments turn in odd directions IMHO. Utilize Kurfurst's extensive research... summarize and get something packaged together and submit it.

I personally don't think it's enough to just point and say "See, it's over there...".

Third, if we players are required to supply data to justify our claims for a FM change. The same requirements should go to TD. But I failed to see a single piece of data from them on which the modifications in the recent patches depends.

I'm not sure I fully agree. I see the argument and I wouldn't mind seeing resources made available from any source... but, and I stress this, if you state that something is wrong (which it is my interpretation that you have done so) then it's on you to make more than a blanket statement about something if you want to be proactive. Approach it differently and instead of saying "X is broken, fix it", instead ask the question: "Is X broken? Can someone look more closely at it? I have some data I can send in that suggests otherwise."

This is how I attempt to approach nearly all problems and it gets fewer backs up and more people willing to have an honest look.

I am wondering, since those skilled aircraft makers for FSX can accurately model German fighters down to every historical detail without much intervention from community, which are widely aknowledged as realistic representations of their real-life counterparts by flight sim community, why it is so hard for our developers to get them right. My guess is either they are selectively blind, or they don't have the ability to do so. But considering their non-FM-related modifications are top notched, I'm afraid the former is more likely the case.

It's been a while but FSX isn't regarded as having the most accurate flight model around. I'm not sure which sim has that distinction now but I'd bet it was the DCS series. The stuff I've seen for FSX has been fantastically detailed from what I've seen but I'm not sure if flight modeling wise or engine modeling wise it's been any better. I have no experience so I'm not sure.

The nice thing about those planes and those developers is they spend lots of time on one aircraft. A couple of variations of FW190 for example. Lots of effort on one plane. IL-2 1946 as TD has inherited is... what... 200 flyables? Probably more. Some of them, like the I-185, aren't really going to be something that has a high degree of priority so I think it's weird that you included that in your comparison. It's not very representative of Russian fighters in-game. Late war we should compare 109K-4, G-10, G-14, FW190A and D, etc. versus Yak-9U, Yak-9M, Yak-3, La-5FN, La-7, as the more typical Russian fighters of the era.

As a sidenote, I do still find it odd that there are always discussions about the last of the fighter series (all 1945 stuff) and never having a debate about a Yak-9 1942 model versus a Bf109F-4 for example.

Anyways... "Getting them right" is definitely subjective to a degree as there are nearly always conflicting data points. You think it's right or wrong and someone else thinks the opposite. There may even be data out there to support both perspectives. There may be no information at all...which I've run into many a time.

Bottom line, my perspective is that anything can be changed but the onus of the debate is on those wanting the change. There just isn't the time for it to be any other way.

[1984]

Originally Posted by IceFire

Yak-9 1942 model versus a Bf109F-4 for example

yak-9 1942 have strange perfomance...

in 4.12 compare - weight 2870 kg (ok), turn time - 19 sec (17.5 in RL), like heavy yak-7b with 3030 kg, climb - 17.16 m/s (16.34 m/s in RL), speed in 4.12 little high...

why and for what yak-9 have this turn and climb, i don't know... Yak-9D have similar errors in perfomance and in weapon...


plus in game need "yak-9 1943" -

Як-9 М-105ПФ выпускали два завода: N153 - с октября 1942 г. по февраль 1943 г. (с 1-й по 3-ю серию, последний самолет - N03-51), всего 195 самолетов; и N 166-с января по август 1943 г. (с 1-й по 6-ю серию), всего 264 самолета.

because in 43 yak-9 can have better perfomance from yak-9d... yak-9d can't be "yak-9 1943", because more heavy with 320 kg of fuel...


about "overmodelled" yak-9t...


really need do correct weight - 2850-2870 kg of early yak-9 + 150 kg of weapon differences (weight give another climb), but do little better turn (18.5 sec), and this is normal yak-9t'43 of main production...

and of course, need more series=perfomances... look here -

Самолет Як-9Т N 13036 производства завода N 166 выпуска декабря 1943

Максимальная скорость у земли - 544 км/час

Максимальная скорость на 2-й границе высотности (Н=3650 м) - 603 км/час

not bad for serial yak-9t and this is not a prototype...


so, in game needed something like 3 yak-9t with 530 (first aircrafts), 537 (main production) and 544 (good quality) km/h at SL and etc...

(yak-9K, in fact=yak-9T and no any serious differences in perfomance, but in game K worse than T... maybe, i heard something like this, basis for K were planes after repair... if no, it's wrong)...

[1984]

oh, i remembered where read about repaired yak-9k - http://vadimvswar.narod.ru/ALL_OUT/T...z/FlAPz057.htm...

С пушками НС-45 была выпущена лишь небольшая войсковая серия истребителя Як-9К в количестве 53 единиц. Опытный экземпляр самолета этого типа — Як-9Т (зав. №01-21) с НС-45 (боекомплект 29 снарядов) в период с 23 января по 29 марта 1944 г. успешно отлетал государственные испытания в НИИ ВВС. Акт по испытаниям был утвержден 9 апреля.

По сравнению с Як-9Т (с НС-37) летные данные нового варианта «Яка» снизились, что в отчете объяснялось плохим восстановительным ремонтом самолета перед установкой на него 45-мм пушки.

well, i think, we need corrected 9K performance - if only first prototype was repaired yak...

maybe, because in weight not so much difference (5-10 kg or something like this), just give to yak-9k FM of yak-9t...

[X-Raptor]

jermin you have all my substain here at 1c. Keep on this very difficult battle, hope someone at TD will start to think in the right way and correct at least the most evident "mistakes" in URSS FM/DM planes. However also in other forum like SAS people are arguing about this residual/original "mistakes" on URSS planes.

We all want only a more possible realistic FM and DM for ALL planes, assuming that this is the stuff contained into every patch but this is applied only for German-USA-Great Britain-Italian planes... why should have been leave immune the Soviet ones at this process of correction since the release by "team Oleg"?? Is a fact or not that there is no more the "Oleg monarchy" on the back of this game now? then...please- [B]Team Daidalos: start to CORRECT FM & DM also into SOVIET planes right now.
thank you for the attention.