Question about the performance of the La-11 fighter under different fuel loads

[ZYSS]

Hello developers

We know that the long-range La-11 fighter can carry a very large amount of fuel, and the impact of different fuel loads on flight performance is significantly greater than that of short-range fighters like the La-7. After researching some Soviet and Chinese sources, I found that the La-11's performance parameters were measured under near-full fuel conditions (for example, a maximum speed of 674 km/h). The literature mentions that under these conditions, its longitudinal stability was somewhat affected. Obviously, historically it would not have entered combat with a full fuel load. The literature also states that with a fuel load of about 75% (close to the full fuel load of the La-9), the maximum speed can reach 680 km/h. At 50% fuel, the performance parameters (maximum speed, climb rate, turning performance, etc.) are consistent with those of the La-9 (at full fuel load). At 30% fuel, the maximum speed can even reach around 700 km/h.

 My questions are: 

1. Are these performance differences reflected in the game? For example, with 50% fuel, does the La-11 achieve the same flight performance parameters as a fully fueled La-9? 

2. In the interface that displays performance parameters, could the changes in flight performance under different fuel loads be shown? This would help players more accurately determine how much fuel to carry based on different mission requirements. 

3. By the way, is there any consideration for adding a clickable cockpit similar to DCS in future development, in order to better cater to the needs of hardcore sim players?

Regards!

[AEthelraedUnraed]

9 hours ago, ZYSS said:

1. Are these performance differences reflected in the game? For example, with 50% fuel, does the La-11 achieve the same flight performance parameters as a fully fueled La-9? 

It is already the case in the current iteration of IL2 that fuel load affects performance. Since Korea purports to improve upon almost all aspects, I think there's a near-100% chance that such differences will also be reflected in the new game.

9 hours ago, ZYSS said:

2. In the interface that displays performance parameters, could the changes in flight performance under different fuel loads be shown? This would help players more accurately determine how much fuel to carry based on different mission requirements. 

Isn't it clear how much fuel to carry? Enough to fly to the target, do whatever you want to do for how long you want to do it (be it dogfighting or something else), and fly back again. Possibly a bit in reserve. If you care about the performance aspects enough that you consider taking less fuel, your fuel load should only depend on the flight path and mission, not on the performance increase that it might bring. If you take more fuel than the mission requires, you're going to have decreased performance in any case. If you take less fuel, you won't make it back to base.

9 hours ago, ZYSS said:

3. By the way, is there any consideration for adding a clickable cockpit similar to DCS in future development, in order to better cater to the needs of hardcore sim players?

No, at least not in "the current iteration", which I understand to be Korea and subsequent titles on the same engine (source: https://www.reddit.com/r/IL2Series/comments/1qpk9kq/producer_responding_another_qa_session_hard/)

Quote

Answer: First, it should be noted that clickable cockpits significantly increase development costs and, therefore, the price. We are certainly looking in this direction, and perhaps in the next iteration, we will get there. Still, for now, we have decided to focus on the affordability of our simulator for a broad audience. Secondly, it is important to note that clickable cockpits are not always convenient; they often don't address the issue of ease of control. Frequently, cockpit controls are located in hard-to-reach places (to the side of the seat, on the floor behind the seat, etc.), and reaching them in clickable mode is extremely difficult. Clickable cockpits are also very poorly compatible with displaying the pilot's body in first-person view, as the 3D pilot's hands and knees often obstruct the controls.

 

Edited Saturday at 11:43 PM by AEthelraedUnraed

[ZYSS]

15 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

It is already the case in the current iteration of IL2 that fuel load affects performance. Since Korea purports to improve upon almost all aspects, I think there's a near-100% chance that such differences will also be reflected in the new game.

Different countries, and even different periods within the same country, have different testing standards. Currently in the game, there is no clear indication of the conditions under which an aircraft meets or exceeds the standard parameters stated in the manual. Therefore, I would like to verify the actual performance of the La-11 under different fuel loads during the game.

15 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Isn't it clear how much fuel to carry? Enough to fly to the target, do whatever you want to do for how long you want to do it (be it dogfighting or something else), and fly back again. Possibly a bit in reserve. If you care about the performance aspects enough that you consider taking less fuel, your fuel load should only depend on the flight path and mission, not on the performance increase that it might bring. If you take more fuel than the mission requires, you're going to have decreased performance in any case. If you take less fuel, you won't make it back to base.

As mentioned above, there is currently no clear data table indicating flight performance under different fuel loads. People tend to prefer better performance while maximizing range, but due to different performance testing standards and the lack of detailed data tables, it is difficult to evaluate the performance advantages and disadvantages of different aircraft models under varying fuel loads. This obviously causes trouble for players who seek to achieve more extreme performance in combat.

15 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

No, at least not in "the current iteration", which I understand to be Korea and subsequent titles on the same engine (source: https://www.reddit.com/r/IL2Series/comments/1qpk9kq/producer_responding_another_qa_session_hard/)

Thanks for your link.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

3 hours ago, ZYSS said:

Different countries, and even different periods within the same country, have different testing standards. Currently in the game, there is no clear indication of the conditions under which an aircraft meets or exceeds the standard parameters stated in the manual. Therefore, I would like to verify the actual performance of the La-11 under different fuel loads during the game.

There is nothing that keeps you from verifying a plane's performance. Find some historical reference document, as you seem to have done for the La-11, and test it in-game under the same circumstances. You can do it right now. You don't need in-game information to verify the in-game performance, and in fact in-game data would be useless or even counter-productive here since it's likely taken from the flight model itself.

3 hours ago, ZYSS said:

it is difficult to evaluate the performance advantages and disadvantages of different aircraft models under varying fuel loads.

No, it is not. Less fuel = better turns and faster, more fuel = more range. There are no performance advantages to taking more fuel than absolutely necessary. If a player is singularly focused on optimal performance, he should always take the minimum amount of fuel that the mission parameters allow.

One should choose the amount of fuel based on the mission, with a certain performance as result. Not choose it based on a desired performance level, with a (too short) range as result.