Jump to content


Aircraft Fix across the board?


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

Mikula #1 Posted 02 November 2017 - 11:15 AM

    Senior Airman

  • Member
  • 85 battles
  • 10
  • Member since:
    08-06-2011
Hello everyone. I use to be with World of Warplanes for awhile. That was back in the day when it wasn't doing so well. I quit and decided to wait until they did something. I received an email regarding 2.0 and took a look. I am still bothered by what I am seeing. I can't post in the suggestion forums so I decided to bring the discussion part of what I was going to post here. Perhaps I can get a sense of direction if that makes sense.

My focus is on Tier 10, planes from the 50's, and planes around the 700 MPH speed. The current Tier 10 are planes from the 50's, that were around 700 MPH at their best.

I will start with the US. The XF-90 was a cancelled project. It was slower than the Sabre. It doesn't make sense to have it as the fastest Aircraft. If you want that, then get the Convair F-102 Delta Dart. Seeing as the game "cheated" by putting the XF-90 in, it wouldn't be that much of a stretch to put the M61 Vulcan on the F-102. It was proposed but, never put on. The F-106 did have a Vulcan in a later retrofit.

The F7U shouldn't be there as well. It flew, and retired within just a few years. It killed too many pilots. It's top speed was 697 MPH but, only with afterburners, and in the best conditions. I was thinking of either fixing it's speed (it was faster than the Sabre), or finding a replacement. I looked up a few replacements. I was hoping you all could discuss what would be the best for it.

If you all choose a replacement, I found the F4D Skyray (722 MPH), F-11 Tiger/Super Tiger (727 MPH), and the F3H Demon (716 MPH).

The Sabre and F-84 are at speeds well below at what they performed. The Sabre should not be slower than the MIG, and it's firepower should not be that far apart. The Sabre had a top speed of 687 MPH (3 MPH faster than the MIG). the .50 MG's of course could not do the structural damage of a 23mm Autocannon but, they were much easier to hit with (not that it mattered). The Sabre had excellent gun optics to help with that. I am thinking increasing the Firepower rating to 600 or 650 should fix this.

As for the F-84F.. This flew at 695 MPH (best conditions, no load). It had a bomb load of 6,000 pounds. This is more than the IL-40 prototype which could hold up to 3,100 pounds. I am not sure what would be the best fix here but, it's definately out of order.

I could not find data on the specific models of Japanese Tier 10 so I will move on to Germany now. Am I correct in thinking the Tier 10's were made up? I could not find the specific models to all but 1. The 1 I could find was an idea that never left the drawing board. The only thing I can think of to help Germany, is by replacing one of the fighters with the Canadair Sabre (CL-13). It had a top speed of 710 MPH which puts it on the Supermarine Swift level, and makes it faster than the American Sabre. I am not sure which fighter to replace it with though.

Russia seems to be ok with the MIG. I don't know what to think with it using so many prototypes though.

Moving on to the UK. What in the heck happened here? The Supermarine Swift appears to be fine but, the Javelin is not. It basically had the same top speed as the Swift. Why is there such a large gap? Some of the advantages a Javelin has, is the higher service ceiling, and radar.

That brings up another discussion. If there were more radar based aircraft added, would it be fair to let them have better "visual" then other aircraft? Give them the ability to serve as Scouts?

What would your thoughts be on adding the Hawker Hunter as Multirole (715 MPH), the Supermarine Scimitar as an Attack Aircraft (736 MPH), and the De Havilland Sea Vixen as a fighter (radar)(695 MPH)?

Regarding the Supermarine Scimitar, this is where I was going with it. " A total of 100 were ordered, although the Royal Navy had changed the specification to a low level strike aircraft with nuclear capability rather than a fighter". I guess it could be used as a replacement to the Javelin though.

The last piece of Discussion I would like to bring up is regarding premium planes. I read earlier forums. Premium Aircraft seem to be a back and forth thing. It doesn't seem like people can agree on it. I do see that people see it as a way for World of Warplanes to make money.

Assuming the making money part, would adding the CAC Sabre be too much? It was the Australian Sabre that was capable of 700 MPH, and used 2, 30mm ADEN Cannons. If it was added, it would be a Tier 10. I would imagine that it would have to be restricted somehow. Perhaps require the person to be at Tier 8 before they can purchase it?

This is the most I have. I will be sure to take notes when the responses come in. From there I will figure out a way to suggest these. Thank you if you respond

Edited by Mikula, 02 November 2017 - 11:25 AM.


Bubba_Zanetti #2 Posted 02 November 2017 - 11:23 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 399 battles
  • 1,466
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
So, how many tier 10’s do you have currently?

 


Mikula #3 Posted 02 November 2017 - 11:32 AM

    Senior Airman

  • Member
  • 85 battles
  • 10
  • Member since:
    08-06-2011
I am not sure why that matters Buba but, I will answer. I do not have any of my own. I did however fly Tier 10's when World of Tanks was present at LAN events. Some of the computers had World of Warplanes or World of Warships.

It's easy to see even in earlier tiers that there is a struggle bus when it comes to fighters. They can't catch up to some of the Heavy Fighters. At Tier 10 it's still present in some circumstances, though not as much. Even with it not happening as much, it would be nice to get a small fix.

When I was playing, all of the matches I played had more Heavy Fighters than anything else. Looking on Youtube, I saw the same thing.

Regardless of my play time, it's still fair to request things to be similar in specs based on real life performance. I understand that World of Warplanes is not going for realism but, a few things here and there would be nice

Bubba_Zanetti #4 Posted 02 November 2017 - 11:36 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 399 battles
  • 1,466
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
So you’re planning to get all tier 10’s, or just play them at events on public machines?  I’m trying to understand what your commitment is while suggesting these changes.

Edited by Bubba_Zanetti, 02 November 2017 - 11:37 AM.

 


jack_wdw #5 Posted 02 November 2017 - 11:41 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 21 battles
  • 153
  • Member since:
    09-28-2012
You are right in almost everything you say, but this game developper has a bad habit of nerfing planes.
This was already a problem in the previous builds, but this got far worse in 2.0.

In my opinion everything is nerfed now to it's main class.
More or less all LF, MF, HF and GA fly now the same as their brothers from other mothers.
Don't waste time in unlocking all these different lines anymore, just go for the lines with the best firepower.

 

Mikula #6 Posted 02 November 2017 - 11:52 AM

    Senior Airman

  • Member
  • 85 battles
  • 10
  • Member since:
    08-06-2011
If World of Warplanes can fix their game, I will work to Tier 10. Two advantages Warplanes has over War Thunder, is it's easy going/laid back, and there is variety. In War Thunder you chose one of three planes.. Mig-17, F-86 Sabre, or the Hawker Hunter. There wasn't anything besides that for the most part (at end tier).

Warplanes has the potential to provide variety at end Tier. They just need to fix things. Something like what I am working on suggesting should just do that. I can't recall of a game like this, that has something like radar, or the M61 Vulcan.

I think I will probally take another break Jack. I will wait until they decide to get it in gear (with the aircraft).

I will say that I appreciate the lower chance of "wallet warriors". In World of Tanks, it's out of control.

Bubba_Zanetti #7 Posted 02 November 2017 - 12:11 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 399 battles
  • 1,466
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

Ok.  This isn’t warthunder, even if 2.0 makes it more warthunderish.  Traditionally, tier 8 is the highest tier for premiums.  Warships broke that with the Missouri, but still consider t8 a norm for highest premium tier.  You seem focused on historical facts while for game play they need to balance and change specs and make up stuffs.  There may still be work to be done, and I haven’t played my 10’s in version 2.0 yet, but I’ve played them all in pre 2.0 and they all had uniqueness that made them fun, some more than others.

 

 I’m being critical because too often over the years we’ve had suggestions made with very little understanding of the game that really can only be understood by actually playing the game.  But that’s me, the proof’s in the pudding.


 


Mikula #8 Posted 02 November 2017 - 12:26 PM

    Senior Airman

  • Member
  • 85 battles
  • 10
  • Member since:
    08-06-2011
I am aware it isn't War Thunder. That is why my ideas were geared towards the non realistic, laid back play style. I did recognize that I should have a discussion with the forums before going forward.

I wouldn't say I am focused on historical facts. My focus is plane balance, or making it look better. History or airplane specs I think is a good reference point. I am not saying it has to be exact but, it would be nice to get close.

My idea with the Convair F-102 is perhaps the best example. If you want to make a plane the fastest in the game then show it. I am not saying to do it exact stat wise. A different model will help. While in the process of doing that, it will provide variety. The M61 Vulcan would behave differently than the current 4 cannon planes. Hopefully that better explains my ideas or intentions
 

Bubba_Zanetti #9 Posted 02 November 2017 - 12:29 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 399 battles
  • 1,466
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostMikula, on 02 November 2017 - 07:26 AM, said:

The M61 Vulcan would behave differently than the current 4 cannon planes. Hopefully that better explains my ideas or intentions
 

 

Get the Tier 9 F-94 if you want to play with the M61 vulcan.


 


Mikula #10 Posted 02 November 2017 - 12:37 PM

    Senior Airman

  • Member
  • 85 battles
  • 10
  • Member since:
    08-06-2011
That wouldn't be the point though. That is a Tier 9, not a Tier 10. Also I am asking for the fastest plane to be better represented in the game. The F-102 was capable of 825 MPH. That would indeed be the fastest given the current models (in this post or in game)

jack_wdw #11 Posted 02 November 2017 - 12:40 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 21 battles
  • 153
  • Member since:
    09-28-2012
The tier9 Starfire was the only plane so far with the vulcan.
Also that plane was nerfed like hell (especially on altitude and speed), but I still liked it.
I really liked it in the previous build, but i didn't even bother to take it out of the hangar now, because probably its altitude will be even more nerfed and in 2.0 they will expect it to tackle ground targets.
In my in game experience, the Vulcan doesn't make that much of a difference compared to the fast firing MK12 20Mm's.

But i do get your point, i'm also an aircraft enthousiastic and this nerfing sometimes gets on my nerves.
For instance the Mig-15bis was definitly more manoevrable than the F-86A, in this game the sabre could turn circles around the mig-15.

Edited by jack_wdw, 02 November 2017 - 12:43 PM.


J311yfish #12 Posted 02 November 2017 - 12:51 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 135 battles
  • 1,036
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

Tier X's not in-game by country, estimated

 

UK:

Hawker Hunter

De Havilland Sea Vixen -- also fair to mention that Polish designers (Jakimiuk, Prauss) assisted with development of Vampire, Sea Venom, Sea Vixen; tiers VIII, IX, X

English Electric Canberra (bomber)

 

Japan:

Rikugun Ki-202-III (interceptor; IJA continuation of Mitsubishi J8M, continuation of alternate history consistent with Ki-162-III)

Nakajima Ki-201-III (heavy/attack; IJA continuation of Me 262, continuation of alternate history consistent with Ki-162-III)

Kugisho R2Y2/3 -- (multirole/attack; IJN continuation of twin-engine strike aircraft from Nakajima Kikka)

Nakajima Fugaku -- 6-engine bomber

 

USA:

some ideas

 

France:

some ideas

 

Italy:

some ideas

 

Finland:

Folland Gnat -- developed in England but used by Finland; Polish designer Dubrowski involved

 

Sweden:

Saab 32 Lansen -- Swedish-developed turbojet STAL Dovern II (see engine story at link above)

alternate -- Project 1119 -- pre-Lansen project cancelled 12/1948

alternate -- Project 1200 -- pre-Draken project ~1951

alternate -- Project 1250 -- pre-Draken project ~1951 -- double-delta

 

USSR:

no idea

 

 

 


Edited by J311yfish, 04 November 2017 - 04:26 AM.

Tech tree projects:  JAPAN  /  United Kingdom  /  Sweden  /  Finland (skins/  Italy  /  France  /  Poland  /  China  /  Brazil  /  United States  //  Roadmap

Map proposals:  Panama Canal  /  Great Wall of China  /  Cliffs of Dover  //  Clan:  343 Kokutai  //  Tutorial How to ignore forum posts and signatures


Colddawg #13 Posted 02 November 2017 - 01:04 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Alpha tester
  • 241 battles
  • 48
  • Member since:
    10-20-2011

The only argument i have for the speed reduction is because the map isn't that large compared to real life air engagement areas.  During the Korean/Vietnam war you'd see dogfights take place in areas larger than some of these maps and that's only considering flight vs flight and not wing vs wing.

 

Not having looked into it much, but I'm confident WG didn't do this, but all the jets should have a similar percentage reduction in their maximum speed.


Keep your head on the swivel.


Mikula #14 Posted 02 November 2017 - 01:21 PM

    Senior Airman

  • Member
  • 85 battles
  • 10
  • Member since:
    08-06-2011

At J311y: I was not aware you did a forum for this. Yes for UK I was thinking Hawker Hunter as Multi Role, and Sea Vixen as fighter (Tier 10). The Sea Vixen may not be worth adding unless you let it use it's radar.

Edit: After some more thought, I guess I wouldn't be opposed to the Scimitar as a replacement to the Javelin. Or as a 2nd choice for end of the line Heavy Fighter. If Radar is used, you could keep the Javelin as a tougher scout than the Vixen. "Although the Scimitar could operate as a fighter, the interceptor role was covered by the De Havilland Sea Venom and then the de Havilland Sea Vixen". The problem with those 2 is they are slow (in comparison).


I was able to find the Japanese aircraft you mention fairly fast. They are really slow so I am unsure as to where they would fit.


For France.. I guess you could use the Br.1001 Taon (742 MPH) for a Tier 10 Fighter

The Dassault Super Mystère (743 MPH) could be used for a multi role, Tier 10. It had a bomb load of 5,000 pounds. It also had access to SNEB rocket pods. I did see the Sud Aviation Vautour but, it is slower.

Italy does not have much to choose from. I can only see the Fiat G.91 as a Tier 10 atm. It could serve as a Ground Attack Aircraft. Why do that though? There is already other Aircraft of that category on the board (with research trees in game).

In my quick search I did not see Finnish aircraft so I will work on Sweden. I think the Saab 32 could be a Multirole (745 MPH). It was certainly heavier than the dedicated fighters.

Cold: I wasn't thinking of that. Perhaps they could increase the map size then. Between that and some of the aircraft mention, it should bring something new to the game


Edited by Mikula, 02 November 2017 - 01:41 PM.


Einssniper #15 Posted 04 November 2017 - 11:44 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 622 battles
  • 281
  • [-WS-] -WS-
  • Member since:
    09-11-2015

View PostMikula, on 02 November 2017 - 08:21 AM, said:

At J311y: I was not aware you did a forum for this. Yes for UK I was thinking Hawker Hunter as Multi Role, and Sea Vixen as fighter (Tier 10). The Sea Vixen may not be worth adding unless you let it use it's radar.

Edit: After some more thought, I guess I wouldn't be opposed to the Scimitar as a replacement to the Javelin. Or as a 2nd choice for end of the line Heavy Fighter. If Radar is used, you could keep the Javelin as a tougher scout than the Vixen. "Although the Scimitar could operate as a fighter, the interceptor role was covered by the De Havilland Sea Venom and then the de Havilland Sea Vixen". The problem with those 2 is they are slow (in comparison).


I was able to find the Japanese aircraft you mention fairly fast. They are really slow so I am unsure as to where they would fit.


For France.. I guess you could use the Br.1001 Taon (742 MPH) for a Tier 10 Fighter

The Dassault Super Mystère (743 MPH) could be used for a multi role, Tier 10. It had a bomb load of 5,000 pounds. It also had access to SNEB rocket pods. I did see the Sud Aviation Vautour but, it is slower.

Italy does not have much to choose from. I can only see the Fiat G.91 as a Tier 10 atm. It could serve as a Ground Attack Aircraft. Why do that though? There is already other Aircraft of that category on the board (with research trees in game).

In my quick search I did not see Finnish aircraft so I will work on Sweden. I think the Saab 32 could be a Multirole (745 MPH). It was certainly heavier than the dedicated fighters.

Cold: I wasn't thinking of that. Perhaps they could increase the map size then. Between that and some of the aircraft mention, it should bring something new to the game

 

They have not yet prepared anything supersonic or anything beyond 1951 (first flight)

J311yfish #16 Posted 05 November 2017 - 01:33 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 135 battles
  • 1,036
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

View PostEinssniper, on 04 November 2017 - 06:44 PM, said:

They have not yet prepared anything supersonic or anything beyond 1951 (first flight)

 

^ That is not exactly correct.

 

Tier IX -- Gloster P.228

-- there is not much detail about this design except that it was a descendant of the Meteor

-- one of many design projects developed during 1947, ultimately superseded by specification leading to Javelin

Tier X -- Gloster Javelin

-- the Javelin was a continuation of incremental developments from the Meteor, by way of the P.228

-- supersonic in a dive, along with De Havilland Sea Vixen, Hawker Hunter, Supermarine Swift

​-- though the prototype first flight was 11/26/1951, the version in game with Sapphire Sa.7 engines did not actually fly until 09/30/1955.

-- specification issued 06/10/1948, construction began04/1949, first flight 11/26/1951, ordered in quantity 06/07/1952, 2nd prototype first flight 08/20/1952, 3rd prototype first flight 03/07/1953 (armed), 4th prototype first flight 01/14/1954, last prototype first flight 07/20/1954, 1st production first flight 07/22/1954, XA560, the first Javelin to have reheated Sapphire Sa.7 engines [Sa.7R 12,300 lb thrust above 20,000 ft altitude] which flew for the first time on [09/30/1955], 1st delivery to the RAF 12/30/1955; intensive 8-week flying program began 02/29/1956.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Tier IX -- Ilyushin IL-40

-- design study 1950-1951, prototype complete 02/1953, first flight 03/07/1953, acceptance trial 03/1954.

Tier X -- Ilyushin IL-40P

-- (second prototype of IL-40) officially endorsed 10/16/1954, completed early 1955, first flight 02/15/1955, acceptance trials 10/12/1955, five produced by spring 1956, canceled 04/13/1956.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Based on the above, the guidelines for Tier X appear to be:

1) not supersonic in level flight (<1234.8 km/h)

2) first flight before end of Korean War (07/27/1953)

3) exceptions made for design continuity from Tier IX

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sources:

-- OKB Ilyushin - A History of the Design Bureau and its Aircraft, by Yefim Gordon, Dmitriy Komissarov, Sergey Komissarov (Midland 2004)

-- Gloster Aircraft Company, by Derek James (2014 Fonthill Media)

​-- Gloster Javelin, by Tony Buttler (Hall Park 1996)


Edited by J311yfish, 05 November 2017 - 01:34 PM.

Tech tree projects:  JAPAN  /  United Kingdom  /  Sweden  /  Finland (skins/  Italy  /  France  /  Poland  /  China  /  Brazil  /  United States  //  Roadmap

Map proposals:  Panama Canal  /  Great Wall of China  /  Cliffs of Dover  //  Clan:  343 Kokutai  //  Tutorial How to ignore forum posts and signatures


Mikula #17 Posted 11 November 2017 - 09:09 PM

    Senior Airman

  • Member
  • 85 battles
  • 10
  • Member since:
    08-06-2011
I was late to notice. There was defintately Super Sonic planes in the 50's. That is not the point of my post though.

I was using historical data to give me a reference point, and to ensure that I was comparing the planes fairly.

How does it apply to World of Warplanes? Because some planes like the Sabre should be at a higher speed. I think the Mig is 1,053 Airspeed rating correct? Then the Sabre should be 1,056. It was 3 MPH faster than the Mig. Some of the differences between the two are: The Mig could climb better than the Sabre but, the Sabre had much better guns for a dog fight. Mig's found it difficult to hit a fighter with their cannons. Sabre's found it easy to take down Migs because they used .50 cal machine guns, and had amazing Gun Sights. 

The F-102 (should it replace the XF-90).. That should easily be at the games current speed cap.

The F7U should be at a higher speed. It's climb rate was better than the Sabre. Thats if they keep it. If they replace it with one of the Naval Fighters I listed, then those would have an even higher climb rate

Make sense?

Edited by Mikula, 11 November 2017 - 09:12 PM.


Bubba_Zanetti #18 Posted Today, 04:22 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 399 battles
  • 1,466
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
How’s that grind to tier X coming along? :sceptic:

 


pyantoryng #19 Posted Today, 04:53 PM

    Major

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 515 battles
  • 6,728
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

The F7U is there because it's from Vought...yes, before the F-94D existed the line went from F2G to F6U to F7U.

F4D = Douglas / F-11 = Grumman / F3H = McDonnell | Therefore, all are DQ'd.

 

Giving a pair of 1600lb bombs to F-84F is probably overkill. The Me 609 and its SC1000 bomb was removed after Beta ended with its return nowhere in sight, and now the heaviest bomb in the game goes to the F2G's 1600lb bombs...what can a full 6000lb load on it possibly look like, or are those provisions for drop tanks along with heavier ordnances?

 

All the prototypes leading to MiG-9 and 15? They are all from the MiG OKB.

 

Germany will stay Messerschmitt all the way through save for the multiroles...

 

In WoWP the firm/bureau producing the stuff plays a role in arranging the tech tree...so they had been all this time. Thus the full Grumman line never arrived...



WoWP makes a great jousting game...especially with the 262 and people busy in furballs...
I am deaf, silent, and fly with unrealistic controls. Do not count on me to carry - my back's already broken from overweight.




3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users