DEVELOPMENT NOTES

[=ОВЭ=SAMARA]

В 10.04.2023 в 19:29, Alcatraz SVK сказал:

La7 will be great opening for russian front. I am already sick of cutting in half spitfires and mustangs. Will be awesome to have more chill flights against russians. + I am wondering where i can cut it in half easiest. Mustangs usually tail and spitfires tail or wings. La7 i read has about 15.7 m/s climb rate while bf109 has around 24.5m/s so i will have fun against russian planes. And i tested LA5Fn i know its worse than la7 against bf109 and still easy to outturn it. LA7 will be great. more missions, maybe new map/s.

It's a pity that stupidity is incurable

[Plexus]

The following development module note contains a brief report on the progress in the field of damage modeling for the La-7 virtual aircraft.

 

It should be noted that there is a conventional wisdom that the La-7, unlike its wooden predecessor, the La-5FN, had an all-metal construction. This is a misconception. The next series aircraft, the La-9, was the one that had a metal exterior, while the seventh 'Lavochka' planes were still made of wood, with the exception of the metal elements in the internal power set. The distinctive nature of the destruction to the wooden structure is reflected in our module's damage model.

 

 

The aircraft has a curious detail: actions were taken to counter the explosion caused by a projectile hitting the fuel tanks. The internal volumes of the tanks were filled with engine exhaust gases, eliminating the risk of vapor ignition from gasoline. Before the combat sortie, the system was activated using the gas filling valve handle.

 

 

In addition to detailed visual damage modeling, the module, as is customary for each DCS module, will include a wide range of failures and operational limitations.

Edited May 25, 2023 by Plexus

[YoYo]

Nice! Thank you for the update of progress!

[zerO_crash]

Splendid stuff! Keep it going, definitely a piece of art!

Edited June 20, 2023 by zerO_crash

[MAD-MM]

Very quiet here since Mai, hopefully the La-7 is still on track?

[Rudel_chw]

28 minutes ago, MAD-MM said:

hopefully the La-7 is still on track?

 

I'm sure it is, at least its developer is not wasting time on the Forum generating progress reports.

 

Edited July 29, 2023 by Rudel_chw

[javelina1]

On 7/29/2023 at 2:14 PM, Rudel_chw said:

 

I'm sure it is, at least its developer is not wasting time on the Forum generating progress reports.

 

 

Indeed, good to keep the development going!  But it's also good to have a marketing front to keep the "juices" alive.  Hence, keep your coders doing what they do best, and the marketing folks stoking the interest.  A delicate dance, in RL I have to balance the techies and business relationship folks.   But I realize the scale of the resourcing for our 3rd party teams, and put things in perspective.  I love OctupusG and their developer is it's heart and soul, completely.  So all the best, and this bird will be a first day purchase from me!  (Love the I-16)

[Doc3908]

The latest "future of DCS" post talks about the F-4E, the F4U, the UH47 and what not, but not a word about the La-7. I'm starting to wonder if we'll see it this year at all...

 

[Plexus]

 

Dear pilots!

With this latest development update, we are pleased to announce the successful completion of the intricate flight model tuning process. To mark this achievement, we present our new video showcasing a demonstration flight of the aircraft. From this point forward, we are preparing the module for ED flightworthiness certification. This marks a significant milestone on our journey towards module release!

 

 

 

[YoYo]

Thx for the update! It seems to be at a very advanced stage, so who knows, maybe this year? 

The biggest problem is still the hopeless selection of AI planes in this case, this is still the Achilles heel of DCS and it should change so that we have a "real" battlefield simulator from the WW2 period.

[Ian Boys UK]

Looks great!

 

[Jester986]

Looking forward to it!

[zerO_crash]

Fantastic stuff! It's going to be great to see what she's capable of!

Edited September 13, 2023 by zerO_crash

[WarbossPetross]

14 часов назад, zerO_crash сказал:

Fantastic stuff! It's going to be great to see what she's capable of!

 

She? A streamlined flying choad with a massive red tip so as to remove all doubt about what awaits everyone who lets it get on his six - and you still call it "she"?!

Okay then...

[zerO_crash]

8 minutes ago, WarbossPetross said:

She? A streamlined flying choad with a massive red tip so as to remove all doubt about what awaits everyone who lets it get on his six - and you still call it "she"?!

Okay then...

A sharp tipped ICBM or Shvetsov powered Lavochkin, the sentiment is the same - she (yes) will tip over the balance. At the end, everything will be situational, however this plane beats out many of the late war german aircraft. The devil's chariot!

[Ala13_ManOWar]

On 9/14/2023 at 12:28 PM, WarbossPetross said:

She? A streamlined flying choad with a massive red tip so as to remove all doubt about what awaits everyone who lets it get on his six - and you still call it "she"?!

Okay then...

Yep, aircraft not only is it's own plural, it's also female word in English. It's not the only noun like that.

[zerO_crash]

Actually, that´s wrong. "Plane", is a gender-neutral word, just like most words in modern English. Where "she" (gender association) really stems from, is old English, in which most words as well as inanimate objects were asssigned a gender by default. Now, aviation really got the norm from navy, specifically the word "ship", which in Latin is "navis" (a feminine word). Thus, aviation borrowing this custom, accepts ship/plane/aeroplane/etc... as a "female". A further understanding even suggests that with inanimate objects, crews typically associate a love/hate relationship, which suits the object having associated a sex with it and human properties ("She´s fast!", "She´s sexy!", "She´s got it all!", etc...).

 

I guess however, that WarbossPetross was trying to voice through a male (offensive/aggressive in nature) quality about the aircraft. We're good! She´ll be quite a ride to handle, especially for Bf-109, which won´t have the upperhand, like with Spitfire (it cannot outturn it, but commands the engagement as it is faster). La-7 should both be faster than Bf-109, and outturn it quite easily. If the I-16 already creates a headache for Germany with it´s slow and highly maneuverable properties, the La-7 will really force the Germans into BnZ-arena, as it´s a force to be reckoned with!

Edited September 15, 2023 by zerO_crash

[MAD-MM]

4 hours ago, zerO_crash said:

I guess however, that WarbossPetross was trying to voice through a male (offensive/aggressive in nature) quality about the aircraft. We're good! She´ll be quite a ride to handle, especially for Bf-109, which won´t have the upperhand, like with Spitfire (it cannot outturn it, but commands the engagement as it is faster). La-7 should both be faster than Bf-109, and outturn it quite easily. If the I-16 already creates a headache for Germany with it´s slow and highly maneuverable properties, the La-7 will really force the Germans into BnZ-arena, as it´s a force to be reckoned with!

 

So far what i read from the russian forum they use well document Aircraft from the production series that will be not faster then the 109 with MW50 up to 3000m. basically the same in top speed, the 109 climbs with 25m pro Second while the La-7 is with "only" 23m per Second.

La-7 is good, but far from a instant win Button.

[zerO_crash]

3 hours ago, MAD-MM said:

So far what i read from the russian forum they use well document Aircraft from the production series that will be not faster then the 109 with MW50 up to 3000m. basically the same in top speed, the 109 climbs with 25m pro Second while the La-7 is with "only" 23m per Second.

La-7 is good, but far from a instant win Button.

 

Considering DCS and the realism aspect, there really is no aircraft which would grant you an "instant win". Even if you fly with a e.g. a FW-190D9, which is technically superior in every way to I-16 (other than low speed handling, turn rate, etc...), you still need to be experienced, skilled and careful, otherwise you'll be down pretty quick.

 

With the La-7, you should have a serious edge, however definitely something you have to be skilled to exploit. What is interesting with regards to speed, is that it should beat the Bf-109 at higher altitudes in pure top speed (7km +). I''m not really sure if La-7 has any maximum time permittance with highest engine setting (akin to MW-50 (3x10 minutes) on e.g. Bf-109), or if it basically has unlimited operation timewise in that mode. Regardless of that, the main attribute of the La-7, as compared to Bf-109, is that it should have much more authority on its control surfaces (they are bigger, relatively). Whilst at low altitude, the La-7 is 20-30km/h slower than a Bf-109, it should have no problem maneuvering, as opposed to Bf-109, which simply flies straight at that point. Little control surface authority, especially in roll. Otherwise, they seem to have very similar wing loading, thrust to weight ratio (both engines are rated at 1850hp, and both aircraft are within 3300kg - 3400kg fully loaded). The La-7 has better armament for the A-A role (2x 20mm with 170 rnds. per gun) than the Bf-109 (1x 30mm with 54 rnds. (slow bullet speed - high drop), and 2x13mm guns, albeit with relatively low speed due to high weight (much explosive)). Aerodynamics-wise, I'm not quite sure how they compare, as both have good aerodynamics. Again, much unknow tbh., especially when comparing it to other aircraft. What is sure though, is that it should more than level the playfield.

 

What will however make the La-7 a low-level fighter, are the engine quirks at higher altitude, which potentially allow for the explosion of the engine, overheating the torque disc in the supercharger, and so on. Unless you BnZ with the La-7, high altitude will require certain flying patterns to be maintained.

Edited September 15, 2023 by zerO_crash

[Ala13_ManOWar]

20 hours ago, zerO_crash said:

Actually, that´s wrong. "Plane", is a gender-neutral word, …

Maybe "plane", but I carefully wrote "aircraft", and no, aircraft (I believe ship was also?) and other words like that have a gender and if you don't call it "it", which would be fine, in this case aircraft is "she". Maybe an old use of English, maybe people don't use it any more, I don't know and I'm no English native, I learnt the language, but that's why I do know it's she for aircraft while I know (from reading these forums, for instance) many people, even natives, don't know that. I don't pretend to teach their language to natives, nor I can be considered bilingual at all, but when you learn a language one becomes aware about so many rules of the language that many times are just overlooked by natives .

Edited September 16, 2023 by Ala13_ManOWar

[zerO_crash]

On 9/16/2023 at 12:58 PM, Ala13_ManOWar said:

Maybe "plane", but I carefully wrote "aircraft", and no, aircraft (I believe ship was also?) and other words like that have a gender and if you don't call it "it", which would be fine, in this case aircraft is "she". Maybe an old use of English, maybe people don't use it any more, I don't know and I'm no English native, I learnt the language, but that's why I do know it's she for aircraft while I know (from reading these forums, for instance) many people, even natives, don't know that. I don't pretend to teach their language to natives, nor I can be considered bilingual at all, but when you learn a language one becomes aware about so many rules of the language that many times are just overlooked by natives .

 

I've been off for a while, but as I stated above, words are gender-neutral in English. You don't have genders associated with words. Whoever taught you that even "some" words are prescribed a specific gender, was simply at wrong. The only words you could call "feminine", are those referring to the actual gender - lady, baroness, effete, woman, mother, aunt, girl, etc... I am multilingual (six to be exact - English is one of my of three natives), it is my business to know. Personally, I'm a perfectionist.

 

As to others, well that's their own business. Considering these forums as an example; some users don't have the time to write proper English, some have poor knowledge of grammar, others have one form or another of dyslexia, and lastly, some simply do not care. You yourself have a couple of typos and mistakes written in the post I'm referring to alone, but don't worry, you're still well above the average online (leisure purposes, not professionally of course). Back in the day, when we used to write letters by hand with a quill, there was a whole different ride with corrective writing. One misspell, and you were off to -enth attempt. Nowadays, anyone can seem semi-competent with autocorrect-features digitally.

 

Regardless, that's the case in English.

 

EDIT: Corrections.

Edited October 14, 2023 by zerO_crash

[Ala13_ManOWar]

4 hours ago, zerO_crash said:

I've been off for a while, but as I stated above, words are gender-neutral in English. You don't have genders associated with words. Whoever taught you that even "some" words are prescribed a specific gender, was simply at wrong. The only words you could call "feminine", are those refering to the actual gender - lady, baroness, effete, woman, mother, aunt, girl, etc... I am multilingual (six to be exact - English is one my of three natives), it is my business to know. Personally, I'm a perfectionist.

Not like I pretend to correct such a polyglot, I'm not even close to that, though some things are said out there…

https://ielts.idp.com/prepare/article-grammar-101-feminine-and-masculine-words-in-english

And not only for ship mentioned there, which I was unsure, but even though it's not mentioned I know it's the exact same for aircraft. You know, when you learn a language those kinds of tips and tricks are usually all around. That's why I got to know it in the first place. It might be a literary, poetic, or whatever it is use so I guess a rare use, but I know aircraft is for sure no matter if people use it any more or not.

 

P.S.: and sorry for the punctuation, I guess I don't follow New York Times' manual of style nor any other and punctuation rules are different in my mother tongue  .

[zerO_crash]

1 hour ago, Ala13_ManOWar said:

Not like I pretend to correct such a polyglot, I'm not even close to that, though some things are said out there…

https://ielts.idp.com/prepare/article-grammar-101-feminine-and-masculine-words-in-english

And not only for ship mentioned there, which I was unsure, but even though it's not mentioned I know it's the exact same for aircraft. You know, when you learn a language those kinds of tips and tricks are usually all around. That's why I got to know it in the first place. It might be a literary, poetic, or whatever it is use so I guess a rare use, but I know aircraft is for sure no matter if people use it any more or not.

 

P.S.: and sorry for the punctuation, I guess I don't follow New York Times' manual of style nor any other and punctuation rules are different in my mother tongue  .

Not everything is correct on that site, in some cases, the wording allows for misunderstanding. What you are refering to, is the following:

 

"Interestingly, in Modern English, there are some word groups which are considered ‘feminine’, at least in a poetic or quaint sense. These include ships, countries and churches, for example."

 

That's exactly what I stated above. The words themselves aren't gender-unique, however they get prescribed human perks, thus the article correcting itself, after making a wrong statement (one could argue that it's inaccurate) - ".., at least in a poetic or quaint sense.".

 

Don't worry brother, we're good. You write well overall, so take that as a thumbs up . Out of respect for forum-etiquette, let's not derail this thread any further. If you wish to discuss this more, feel free to pass me a PM.

Edited October 3, 2023 by zerO_crash

[Burning Bridges]

On 10/3/2023 at 6:20 PM, zerO_crash said:

I've been off for a while, but as I stated above, words are gender-neutral in English. You don't have genders associated with words. Whoever taught you that even "some" words are prescribed a specific gender, was simply at wrong. The only words you could call "feminine", are those refering to the actual gender - lady, baroness, effete, woman, mother, aunt, girl, etc... I am multilingual (six to be exact - English is one my of three natives), it is my business to know. Personally, I'm a perfectionist.

 

As to others, well that's their own business. Considering these forums as an example; some users don't have the time to write proper English, som have poor knowledge of grammar, others have one form or another of dyslexia, and lastly, some simply do not care. You yourself have a couple of typos and mistakes written in the post I'm refering to alone, but don't worry, you're still well above the average online (leisure purposes, not professionally of course). Back in the day, when we used to write letters by hand with a quill, there was a whole different ride with corrective writing. One misspell, and you were off to -enth attempt. Nowadays, anyone can seem semi-competent with autocorrect-features digitally.

 

Regardless, that's the case in English.

 

Your post contains multiple errors:  "refering" (2x)  "one my of"  "som"

[zerO_crash]

2 hours ago, Burning Bridges said:

Your post contains multiple errors:  "refering" (2x)  "one my of"  "som"

 

Indeed, typing on a phone isn't optimal. Was going to correct those, but neither time nor place permitted.