12.04.2010, 16:54
Hello All,
First off, a big thank you to ACE OF ACES for the work on performance data. I appreciate this attention to detail, even though I have to admit that for the most part, I don't even know how to read all these charts. When it comes to comparing flight data, I am rather sceptical to begin with. In another thread with a similar discussion topic, somebody mentioned that the stock flight models for IL-2 were designed in such a way that their in-game performance is balanced to that of other aircraft. Sometimes, compromises in regard to the representation of actual flight data had to be made, so that aircraft would still retain a semblance of their actual, historical traits compared to each other, while still fitting into the performance parameters that the game engine allows.
With all these discussions about flight data, the first thing that comes to my mind is how and for whom these data were obtained. I don't think that any particular set of performance data can be taken at face value. It matters under what circumstances they were obtained and who the audience was. For example, if a particular manufacturer wanted to push a particular prototype, they might have "adjusted" the data accordingly. On the other hand, evaluations of captured enemy aircraft were usually much more critical and unfavourable than those coming from the manufacturer; perhaps to some extent for propaganda reasons. Finally, there must have been great discrepancies between the performance of brand-new machines and those that had been used under combat conditions for a while. Some aircraft may have been damaged, resulting in a somewhat lower performance, while others may have been "tuned-up" in the field for higher output. There would also have been differences between individual machines of the same type, depending on usage and differences in wear and tear. So, unless there is a wide range of data for any particular type and model of aircraft, it would be extremely difficult to make an assessment that would accurately reflect the performance characteristics and capabilities of each individual plane of a certain make.
Please don't get me wrong; I appreciate the acribic work that is done in regard to perfrmance data and evaluation. However, I believe that there needs to be some room for variation, though I don't know how this can be accurately modeled in IL-2. Apparently, SOW is supposed to have it. To me, and this may well reflect my skill level, or lack thereof, it's always my opponent's plane that I feel is the "Ueber-Plane," no matter what we're flying at the moment. If I am in La-7, I still get shot down by Bf-109Fs, if I am in a FW-190D-11, the P-51Ds still get me. If I switch to the Allied side, it's similar in reverse. Perhaps, any of this would be more apparent in online-play, which I don't do.
So, if the flight model of the Bf-109K will be adjusted in a new slot, does that then mean, that all sorts of other aircraft need to be adjusted, too?
Anyway, end of rant for now.
Regards,
RB
First off, a big thank you to ACE OF ACES for the work on performance data. I appreciate this attention to detail, even though I have to admit that for the most part, I don't even know how to read all these charts. When it comes to comparing flight data, I am rather sceptical to begin with. In another thread with a similar discussion topic, somebody mentioned that the stock flight models for IL-2 were designed in such a way that their in-game performance is balanced to that of other aircraft. Sometimes, compromises in regard to the representation of actual flight data had to be made, so that aircraft would still retain a semblance of their actual, historical traits compared to each other, while still fitting into the performance parameters that the game engine allows.
With all these discussions about flight data, the first thing that comes to my mind is how and for whom these data were obtained. I don't think that any particular set of performance data can be taken at face value. It matters under what circumstances they were obtained and who the audience was. For example, if a particular manufacturer wanted to push a particular prototype, they might have "adjusted" the data accordingly. On the other hand, evaluations of captured enemy aircraft were usually much more critical and unfavourable than those coming from the manufacturer; perhaps to some extent for propaganda reasons. Finally, there must have been great discrepancies between the performance of brand-new machines and those that had been used under combat conditions for a while. Some aircraft may have been damaged, resulting in a somewhat lower performance, while others may have been "tuned-up" in the field for higher output. There would also have been differences between individual machines of the same type, depending on usage and differences in wear and tear. So, unless there is a wide range of data for any particular type and model of aircraft, it would be extremely difficult to make an assessment that would accurately reflect the performance characteristics and capabilities of each individual plane of a certain make.
Please don't get me wrong; I appreciate the acribic work that is done in regard to perfrmance data and evaluation. However, I believe that there needs to be some room for variation, though I don't know how this can be accurately modeled in IL-2. Apparently, SOW is supposed to have it. To me, and this may well reflect my skill level, or lack thereof, it's always my opponent's plane that I feel is the "Ueber-Plane," no matter what we're flying at the moment. If I am in La-7, I still get shot down by Bf-109Fs, if I am in a FW-190D-11, the P-51Ds still get me. If I switch to the Allied side, it's similar in reverse. Perhaps, any of this would be more apparent in online-play, which I don't do.
So, if the flight model of the Bf-109K will be adjusted in a new slot, does that then mean, that all sorts of other aircraft need to be adjusted, too?
Anyway, end of rant for now.
Regards,
RB