Balance improvements in Aircraft Realistic Battles

[Ein79 5,752]

44 minutes ago, Wankermotor said:

So with no real competition to the T2 on the horizon like Jaguar, F4, F5, Mig 21 etc. for 1.89, I guess jet battle will still be a broken mess until 1.91 at least. 

Yes, no fixes for wasted/unbalanced 1.85 and 1.87 is the biggest failure of 1.89 Update.

Huge disappointment.

[DarkAnswer 398]

I guess Top tier Air RB is going to stay a mess for the next few updates. No other top performing jet's to counter the T-2 or Mig-19S. 95% of games are mixed and knowing gaijin it'll stay that way for the next few months. This is a full on neglect on Pilots! And don't even bother flying your nice new shiny jet in combined battles, especially next update with all the wonderful 1980s Ground to Air Defense Systems, ya won't even survive for 20 seconds.

 

Good Job Lads....

Edited May 22, 2019 by DarkAnswer

[Ein79 5,752]

42 minutes ago, DarkAnswer said:

I guess Top tier Air RB is going to stay a mess for the next few updates. No other top performing jet's to counter the T-2 or Mig-19S. 95% of games are mixed and knowing gaijin it'll stay that way for the next few months. This is a full on neglect on Pilots! And don't even bother flying your nice new shiny jet in combined battles, especially next update with all the wonderful 1980s Ground to Air Defense Systems, ya won't even survive for 20 seconds.

 

Good Job Lads....

To be honest Mig19S is perfectly countered by Mig19PT - the first has marginally better performance in clean configuration, 3rd cannon and air-to-groud payload, while the latter has IR missiles and radar with lead computing ability.

Beside that they are same aircraft. In fact Mig19PT has better air-to-air combat capabilities. 

 

[DarkAnswer 398]

20 hours ago, Einherjer1979 said:

To be honest Mig19S is perfectly countered by Mig19PT - the first has marginally better performance in clean configuration, 3rd cannon and air-to-groud payload, while the latter has IR missiles and radar with lead computing ability.

Beside that they are same aircraft. In fact Mig19PT has better air-to-air combat capabilities. 

 

What about allies though, it's a mess in general...

[Ein79 5,752]

19 hours ago, DarkAnswer said:

[...] it's a mess in general...

Indeed, mess and growing neglect.

Perhaps we should write more frequent in "Constructive Criticism Corner" instead of pulling miles-long threads on discussions sections?
Maybe somebody from Gaijin reads it there? Because apparently not here.

No big hopes, but yesterday I added my "5 cents":
 

 

[Diabel_Z_Piekla 694]

Nothing will change...

[DarkAnswer 398]

5 hours ago, Einherjer1979 said:

Indeed, mess and growing neglect.

No big hopes, but yesterday I added my "5 cents":
 

 

Great post lad, couldn't have said it better. I was about to make a similar post. I've been playing War Thunder for the last 5 years, it's still my favorite game, I haven't found another game I've enjoy as much.  It's just really frustrating to open the game and being unable to play certain planes or game modes, especially Top Tier Air RB. I've been a big jet player back in the day but now there's no point playing those vehicles. 

Edited May 24, 2019 by DarkAnswer

[_Kolonel_Klink_ 390]

1.89 is here and still we have this garbage fire of symmetrical matchmaking.

 

Uptier the T-2 so it only fights itself, restore normal matchmaking, watch top tier jets become populated, enjoy.

 

There's literally no one in axis queue at this sort of time, I can't get a game.

[Yukichi 1,027]

58 minutes ago, _Kolonel_Klink_ said:

1.89 is here and still we have this garbage fire of symmetrical matchmaking.

 

Uptier the T-2 so it only fights itself, restore normal matchmaking, watch top tier jets become populated, enjoy.

 

There's literally no one in axis queue at this sort of time, I can't get a game.

And still no BR change...

[Diabel_Z_Piekla 694]

5 hours ago, Yukichi said:

And still no BR change...

+ They increased SMB2 fuel consumption. Now with afterburner it burn 36 minutes of fuel in 5...

 

With introduction of Sabre-Dog they broke only decent french jet...

Edited May 29, 2019 by Diabel_Z_Piekla

[Spindash64 1,244]

1 hour ago, Diabel_Z_Piekla said:

+ They increased SMB2 fuel consumption. Now with afterburner it burn 36 minutes of fuel in 5...

 

With introduction of Sabre-Dog they broke only decent french jet...

did its performance change at all, or just the fuel economy?

[Diabel_Z_Piekla 694]

24 minutes ago, Spindash64 said:

did its performance change at all, or just the fuel economy?

Just fuel, but now if you don't want to run out of it after 5 minutes you can do 2 things:

- not to use afterburner = you have crappy performance

- load 1 or 2 hours of fuel and due to weight you have crappy performance

 

Gaijin won anyway...

Edited May 29, 2019 by Diabel_Z_Piekla

[Spindash64 1,244]

4 minutes ago, Diabel_Z_Piekla said:

Just fuel, but now if you don't want to run out of it after 5 minutes you can do 2 things:

- not to use afterburner = you have crappy performance

- load 1 or 2 hours of fuel and due to weight you have crappy performance

 

Gaijin won anyway...

didn't they literally say in the update thread in the forums that they were going to fix something on it? As in, using words implying that they were going to BUFF it?

[Diabel_Z_Piekla 694]

52 minutes ago, Spindash64 said:

didn't they literally say in the update thread in the forums that they were going to fix something on it? As in, using words implying that they were going to BUFF it?

Maybe I'm stupid, but that's bs IMO. You should try it yourself.

[Spindash64 1,244]

4 hours ago, Diabel_Z_Piekla said:

Maybe I'm stupid, but that's bs IMO. You should try it yourself.

I'm not claiming what they DID or DIDN'T do, I'm claiming what they SAID or DIDN'T say they were going to do...

[xF4LC0NxPUNCHx 3,603]

So, Gaijin, we need to have a talk about your BR allocations, some of the newly added aircraft bring this into the limelight in a big way.

 

Let's talk Me 264.

 

In test flight I've flown the Me 264 and the B-17G. I would try other bombers, but my research in the bomber trees isn't far enough in some nations.

 

At sea level, I got the Me 264 to do 500kmh IAS and it was still slowly accelerating. The B-17G topped out around 375kmh IAS.

 

The Me 264 can carry a total of 4,350kg. The B-17G can carry 8,000lbs, or 3,628.7kg. 

 

At altitude I can only reference the stat cards since I am not going to climb either of these bombers to 6,000m-8,000m in test flight, but the speeds at altitude appear to be very similar.

 

In a dive, rip speed for the Me 264 appears to be about 610-615kmh IAS. The B-17G's rip speed seems to be around 510kmh IAS.

 

The Me 264 can, apparently, WEP indefinitely with the temps staying white, whereas the B-17G will have engine temps in the red by the time you've reached 500m and will stay in the yellow or orange at 100% or even less.

 

The Me 264 has 3 x 13mm and 3 x 20mm, the B-17G has 9 single or dual-50 turrets. The B-17G also has greater arcs of fire. This is the one area where the B-17G is better than the Me 264.

 

Here's the fun part: the Me 264 is currently sitting at a BR of 3.7 while the B-17G sits at 6.0. Makes you wonder how it compares to the other high-BR bombers like the Lincoln, G8N1, etc.

 

I am not saying the Me 264 needs to be 6.0, but while other similar (worse!) bombers are at 6.0-6.3, the Me 264 simply may not stay at an absurdly low BR of 3.7. The Me 264 needs to go up a lot and some of the other bombers in game need to come down. Somewhere in the 4.7-5.3 BR range would seem appropriate, depending on how much the other bombers were brought down.

 

***

 

Another new plane is the Yak-3U. What on earth is it doing at 6.3? It cannot WEP past about 3,500m, on the deck it'll do ~610kmh, and like almost all Yaks it'll snatch its wings off at a bit over 700kmh. Don't get me wrong, it's a very nice plane, but it is about on par with the Yak-3 VK-107 which is at 5.7. I would personally recommend 5.7 for the Yak-3U, as well.

[Diabel_Z_Piekla 694]

4 hours ago, Spindash64 said:

I'm not claiming what they DID or DIDN'T do, I'm claiming what they SAID or DIDN'T say they were going to do...

I didn't find any word about SMB2 in 1.89 patch notes but still Gaijin is doing something behind our back. 

[Madwolf 10,222]

7 hours ago, xF4LC0NxPUNCHx said:

So, Gaijin, we need to have a talk about your BR allocations, some of the newly added aircraft bring this into the limelight in a big way.

 

Let's talk Me 264.

 

In test flight I've flown the Me 264 and the B-17G. I would try other bombers, but my research in the bomber trees isn't far enough in some nations.

 

At sea level, I got the Me 264 to do 500kmh IAS and it was still slowly accelerating. The B-17G topped out around 375kmh IAS.

 

The Me 264 can carry a total of 4,350kg. The B-17G can carry 8,000lbs, or 3,628.7kg. 

 

At altitude I can only reference the stat cards since I am not going to climb either of these bombers to 6,000m-8,000m in test flight, but the speeds at altitude appear to be very similar.

 

In a dive, rip speed for the Me 264 appears to be about 610-615kmh IAS. The B-17G's rip speed seems to be around 510kmh IAS.

 

The Me 264 can, apparently, WEP indefinitely with the temps staying white, whereas the B-17G will have engine temps in the red by the time you've reached 500m and will stay in the yellow or orange at 100% or even less.

 

The Me 264 has 3 x 13mm and 3 x 20mm, the B-17G has 9 single or dual-50 turrets. The B-17G also has greater arcs of fire. This is the one area where the B-17G is better than the Me 264.

 

Here's the fun part: the Me 264 is currently sitting at a BR of 3.7 while the B-17G sits at 6.0. Makes you wonder how it compares to the other high-BR bombers like the Lincoln, G8N1, etc.

 

I am not saying the Me 264 needs to be 6.0, but while other similar (worse!) bombers are at 6.0-6.3, the Me 264 simply may not stay at an absurdly low BR of 3.7. The Me 264 needs to go up a lot and some of the other bombers in game need to come down. Somewhere in the 4.7-5.3 BR range would seem appropriate, depending on how much the other bombers were brought down.

 

***

 

Another new plane is the Yak-3U. What on earth is it doing at 6.3? It cannot WEP past about 3,500m, on the deck it'll do ~610kmh, and like almost all Yaks it'll snatch its wings off at a bit over 700kmh. Don't get me wrong, it's a very nice plane, but it is about on par with the Yak-3 VK-107 which is at 5.7. I would personally recommend 5.7 for the Yak-3U, as well.

 

Just like all of the German bombers compared to the Allies, it's fine cause German.

[Daffan 6,158]

On 30/05/2019 at 15:51, xF4LC0NxPUNCHx said:

So, Gaijin, we need to have a talk about your BR allocations, some of the newly added aircraft bring this into the limelight in a big way.

 

Let's talk Me 264.

 

In test flight I've flown the Me 264 and the B-17G. I would try other bombers, but my research in the bomber trees isn't far enough in some nations.

 

At sea level, I got the Me 264 to do 500kmh IAS and it was still slowly accelerating. The B-17G topped out around 375kmh IAS.

 

The Me 264 can carry a total of 4,350kg. The B-17G can carry 8,000lbs, or 3,628.7kg. 

 

At altitude I can only reference the stat cards since I am not going to climb either of these bombers to 6,000m-8,000m in test flight, but the speeds at altitude appear to be very similar.

 

In a dive, rip speed for the Me 264 appears to be about 610-615kmh IAS. The B-17G's rip speed seems to be around 510kmh IAS.

 

The Me 264 can, apparently, WEP indefinitely with the temps staying white, whereas the B-17G will have engine temps in the red by the time you've reached 500m and will stay in the yellow or orange at 100% or even less.

 

The Me 264 has 3 x 13mm and 3 x 20mm, the B-17G has 9 single or dual-50 turrets. The B-17G also has greater arcs of fire. This is the one area where the B-17G is better than the Me 264.

 

Here's the fun part: the Me 264 is currently sitting at a BR of 3.7 while the B-17G sits at 6.0. Makes you wonder how it compares to the other high-BR bombers like the Lincoln, G8N1, etc.

 

I am not saying the Me 264 needs to be 6.0, but while other similar (worse!) bombers are at 6.0-6.3, the Me 264 simply may not stay at an absurdly low BR of 3.7. The Me 264 needs to go up a lot and some of the other bombers in game need to come down. Somewhere in the 4.7-5.3 BR range would seem appropriate, depending on how much the other bombers were brought down.

 

***

 

 

 

 

Gaijin adds so many vehicles and their so called "statistical analysis BR machine" doesn't even exist. So old stuff like b17's get left behind. 

 

I'd love one day for Gaijin to make a dev blog on how they decide BR's, the pressure would literally crush them as they scramble to invent some sort of algorithm to prove it's not all manual. 

[Spindash64 1,244]

On 30/05/2019 at 00:51, xF4LC0NxPUNCHx said:

So, Gaijin, we need to have a talk about your BR allocations, some of the newly added aircraft bring this into the limelight in a big way

...

in test flight I've flown the Me 264 and the B-17G. I would try other bombers, but my research in the bomber trees isn't far enough in some nations.

...

At sea level, I got the Me 264 to do 500kmh IAS and it was still slowly accelerating. The B-17G topped out around 375kmh IAS.

Another new plane is the Yak-3U. What on earth is it doing at 6.3? It cannot WEP past about 3,500m, on the deck it'll do ~610kmh, and like almost all Yaks it'll snatch its wings off at a bit over 700kmh. Don't get me wrong, it's a very nice plane, but it is about on par with the Yak-3 VK-107 which is at 5.7. I would personally recommend 5.7 for the Yak-3U, as well.

 

(tried to crunch post down a bit)

I've gotten to saying lately that if the B-17E were a German built plane, it'd have a BR of 4.3. based on this, I was wrong: it would have been 3.0.  You may as well throw the BV 238 in these comparisons as well

 

 

 

as for the Yak 3U, i'd say 6.0 might work. 6.0 CAN fight 7.0 jets, but it fights props more than it fights jets, which feels about right for it, to me at least. The dive speed is a problem, but other than that and the... "quirky" Russian 20mm, it's one of the best climbing props in the game: iirc, the current world record time to climb is held by a modified Yak 3U. 1,850hp in a plane weighing less than 3 tons dry is scary stuff

[Diabel_Z_Piekla 694]

3 hours ago, Spindash64 said:

it's one of the best climbing props in the game: iirc, the current world record time to climb is held by a modified Yak 3U. 1,850hp in a plane weighing less than 3 tons dry is scary stuff

 

And isn't that record held by modified Bearcat "Rare Bear"?

[_Kolonel_Klink_ 390]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcMyRshq_qE&t=0s

Edited June 2, 2019 by _Kolonel_Klink_

[Spindash64 1,244]

19 hours ago, Diabel_Z_Piekla said:

 

And isn't that record held by modified Bearcat "Rare Bear"?

you may be right, actually. A Yak-3UPW (which, given context, I presume stands for "Pratt and Whitney"), does hold a record for highest top speed in the "less than 3 metric tons dry weight" category, and I believe it also has it in climb, too. I mean, yes, it's using an R-2800, which can put out far more power than the lightweight M-82FN, but the principle still more or less stands that it has a good deal of power for such a tiny plane: it can hit over 630kph at sea level. If the guns were just a bit more effective, it'd be the high rank equivalent to the zero.

[SuperDuperOtter 655]

On 30/05/2019 at 07:51, xF4LC0NxPUNCHx said:

Let's talk Me 264.

 

About the Me 264.

 

I've tryed to escort 3 of those on Norway in a Me-410.

 

With a Me 410, i usually reach bombers alt either before they drop their load for enemy bombers, or before they got intercepted if they are teammates (though, i'm generaly 6-8k away when i get to their alt if they didn't dive to get faster).

 

Here, when i reached the highest Me-264 alt, he was dropping his load and turning back 11k away from me... at over 7K alt.

 

That thing climbs better than most prop medium bombers ... I mean ... what the heck ?

[xF4LC0NxPUNCHx 3,603]

39 minutes ago, SuperDuperOtter said:

 

About the Me 264.

 

I've tryed to escort 3 of those on Norway in a Me-410.

 

With a Me 410, i usually reach bombers alt either before they drop their load for enemy bombers, or before they got intercepted if they are teammates (though, i'm generaly 6-8k away when i get to their alt if they didn't dive to get faster).

 

Here, when i reached the highest Me-264 alt, he was dropping his load and turning back 11k away from me... at over 7K alt.

 

That thing climbs better than most prop medium bombers ... I mean ... what the heck ?

 

The other night I was purposely trying to reach the Me 264's before they dropped their bombloads. Clean P-61 basically has to stall climb (with airspawn) on most maps to even try to get a shot on them, Bf 109 F-4 (USA Premium) can't reach them, P-38G with airspawn can't really reach them, etc. 

 

It's not that they're unkillable, though they are quite tanky, but you can't even get to them. On many maps the Allies simply don't have much of anything that can climb to altitude fast enough, and like you said, after dropping their bombload those Me 264's are up at 6-7km.

 

I still much prefer to engage Me 264's over Ju 288C's, but man, I'm getting sick of having most matches against Germany ending in hunting down a hiding bomber.