N1K2 NEEDS to be at a lower BR

[PercussionCap]

@_Zekken

When was the engine change?

Happened years ago, I’d have to look through the changelogs to find it.

@_Zekken

I haven’t really felt either of them lose noticeably more speed in a turn than contemporaries

I might throw them into some test flights later, though this isn’t the topic for it.

@_Zekken

Thanks. It honestly kinda sucks that you have to do all this stuff manually and only if you have the plane unlocked and can fly it. There really needs to be some sort of actual database with this sort of info avalible - For example World of Tanks has Tanks.gg which provide detailed stats of every vehicle in that game, armour models, and ability to directly compare.

Well, there are attempts at doing it. A user in Wingaling’s Team Sim discord has made wtapc.org, but actually attempting to accurately simulate all of these things for props has proven to be extremely difficult, so only two metrics are available (power and power to weight).
There’s also statshark.net/ but they only include jets and it’s not 100% accurate.

Even putting the tests I do into a ‘database’ of sorts wouldn’t be a great idea, since there’s changes to many aircraft very often which aren’t included in the changelogs. It would be outdated VERY fast.

@_Zekken

The best way I’ve ever been able to compare is just to see how they do in an actual battle, put them in a dogfight against each other, and (average player skill permitting) Putting myself into different situations to see where I lose and where I win.

This isn’t a terrible way to go about it, but without being able to standardize your opponents it’s hard to make sense of things.
When the japanese premium 109 was mistakenly lowered to 2.3 I actually thought it got worse since you still outclimbed 99% of your enemies anyway, but now being able to dogfight them was much rarer since the lower tier planes tended to be slower and better-turning. You essentially lost half of your options despite being super OP.

@_Zekken

Was the weight nerf before or after this? If after then I played most of my games in them pre nerf, otherwise I’ve only ever flown them after the weight nerf.

Happened in patch 2.37, if I remember it right. Another 300kg or so added to their empty weights. I don’t know when they added automatic flaps, but that killed my playstyle.

@_Zekken

when I flew the N1k1, I didn’t like it too much. It definitely felt heavy and bloated a bit sluggish, and the N1K2s just did not after researching those. Night and day difference.

I think this is because your opponents changed. At 5.3 you’d see planes that are slower and will find it much easier to pull into, and stay behind you even if they don’t actually turn better.

I do quite like the N1K1-J, and I’ve been considering writing a suggestion for a version without gunpods:

Which HOPEFULLY gets a lower BR and then I’ll be able to truly enjoy a Shiden.

@_Zekken

Ki-84s are faster in almost all cases, though N1K2 turns better.

I am once again going to ruin your day. Though yes, they are much faster, and to my knowledge they didn’t get automatic flaps so you can still pull them out whenever you want.

@_Zekken

I never actually really liked the A7M2 much, its guns are placed too far out in the wings was my main issue. (which is another thing that “feelings” get that pure stats don’t really show I guess)

The A7M2 is one of my favorites. Has absolutely HUGE wings that grant it some unbelievable turn performance even well above its comfort altitudes. Also just as fast down low as the N1K2-Js. Armament is fine, though I wish there was a variant with the 4x 20mm armament the ‘new build’ A7M2s had, instead of the mixed configuration from the A7M1 conversions. Also A7M3 pls.

[_Zekken]

@PercussionCap

I am once again going to ruin your day. Though yes, they are much faster, and to my knowledge they didn’t get automatic flaps so you can still pull them out whenever you want.

I swear to god when I was playing the N1K2s they felt almost like higher BR Zeros, I was turnfighting everything and even matching Spitfires.

@PercussionCap

Happened in patch 2.37, if I remember it right. Another 300kg or so added to their empty weights. I don’t know when they added automatic flaps, but that killed my playstyle.

And this is probably why. I spaded them before this patch, at least a year before actually. Ive only played them sporadically since, and mostly in GRB to be fair.

Therefore almost all my experience is clearly outdated. I wonder what those graphs would have looked like pre nerf…

I must consider myself thoroughly defeated at this point.

[PercussionCap]

@_Zekken

I wonder what those graphs would have looked like pre nerf…

They were pretty damn great pre-nerf, they quickly became one of my favorite fighters in the game. Certainly my favorite for that BR.

I wasn’t doing these graphs back then so I can’t know for sure unless I did a custom mission with a custom N1K2-J set to its old weight. But you can just imagine that it is carrying a 250kg bomb it can’t drop, it’s a pretty big penalty. I’d guess it would be superior to the N1K1-J in all those graphs without the extra weight, since that is what causes the lower climb rate and energy retention.

Also, that’s another nail in the coffin for it being at 6.0. It was nerfed pretty heavily considering it was far from the best performer at 6.0, staying there makes no sense.

[Mordillo66]

@PercussionCap

I don’t know when they added automatic flaps, but that killed my playstyle.

It was the glorious update “Alpha Strike”!
Killed my playstyle too on many planes…especially on the A7M2.

[Irregular23]

With excellent rudder, aileron effectiveness and ammo load, this thing serves very well as a platform to spary 4x992 under mouse-keyboard mode. Using snap rolls you can reverse ppl and its fun to play even at a broken BR. Performance definitely lacking, especially after weight adjustment to 4000kg when fully loaded. Would like to see it at 5.3 with more ppl play it.

Its performance is one of the most accurate compared IRL, but with problems in game include:
-N1K2 has no separate fuel tank, fuel equally spread over all fuel cells, made it flammable. (N1K1 has no such problem)
-N1K2 fuel tank hp lacking, though with fire chance of common self-sealing fuel tank, low hp value makes it vulnerable. They should swap the fuel tank DM values between ki-84 and N1K2, where it was assigned with a fuel fire chance closer to a nitrogen inerted fuel tank.
-Combat flaps should be operable up to 250Knots.

[PercussionCap]

A7M2 still has enough raw turn performance to work great, the Shidens don’t.

[RXDimA]

Shuffling BRs will not change anything regarding balance, unless the playerbase is forced to go through mandatory training before flying planes. Without that, the only factors affecting BR will be ‘ease of use’ and ‘gun burst mass’, to accommodate the average WT player.

Spoiler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W22tnmlCUQY

---

@T95 ROASTER@live

The N1K has NO strengths at it’s BR

Have you ever tried getting enemy props to a low speed fight? You will quickly see the strengths the N1Ks bring to the table. But you must create those situations first. There are ways to do so.
As for the jets, they are your jet teammate’s responsibilities. You’re in a team fight, after all.

---

Time to defend the Ki-43s.

@PercussionCap

The floppiness in rolls and generally subpar nose authority are also 99% of my issues with the Ki-43-II

Floppiness and nose authority can be dealt with using keyboard inputs. The plane is perfectly well usable, and so are other planes that have higher controllability skill floors.

@PercussionCap

It was worthy of 4.0 before, but now it plays almost like a -II if it had Ho-5s

It is still worthy of 4.0, and compared with -II it has significantly higher climb, top speed, and dive rip speed, and you already mentioned the guns. I feel right at home at 4.0 when I fly the -III. Very often I find myself higher than the rest of the enemy team after climbing, and the few that manage to outclimb me are dealt with using reversals.

[RunaDacino]

@RXDimA

Floppiness and nose authority can be dealt with using keyboard inputs. The plane is perfectly well usable, and so are other planes that have higher controllability skill floors.

On this, it is not the plane’s inherent quality, and calling it a matter of skill floor is a misnomer in my opinion.

I havn’t really flown Ki-43 in RB after flying it in SB, but I did try my Mustang Mk Ia/P-51 after using it to great effect with Full-real controls.

The way the cannon mustangs handle in RB versus sim is night and day.
F8U, while I’m not really a jet player, demonstrates a similar quality - with mouse aim instructor it flops around like some drunken dolphin while it flies like a charm with stick and rudder full real controls.
I havnt flown G.55 sottoserie 0 in RB, but I’ve seen videos and read complaints about its energy wastage in verticals that are alien to my SB experience.

For whatever reason, the way instructor is set up for certain aircraft fails to adequately use rudder to coordinate turns and fails to execute the proper order of operations to turn or maneuver. These planes often start their turns with excess rudder causing them to skid and slip and bleed all their speed while flopping around. In case of G.55, it experiences pretty massive left-turning tendencies when rapidly pitching so requires careful rudder in vertical fights that RB instructor does not seem to care about either.

I think the instructor for such planes should be adjusted to better approximate proper flying, after all - isn’t that the point of mouse aim?

[RXDimA]

The issue with the instructor on the Ki-43-II (specifically this variant), is that it goes into rolls so fast, that the instructor starts overcompensating for it’s own adjustments, causing aiming to be “wobbly”. By guiding the instructor with keyboard inputs, the plane becomes much more controllable, not to mention the better turn resulting from using keyboard pitch inputs.

@RunaDacino

On this, it is not the plane’s inherent quality, and calling it a matter of skill floor is a misnomer in my opinion.

It really isn’t an inherent quality, but under the context of ARB, it does become part of the plane’s qualities.
I call these controllability issues a skill floor because if you spend time learning how to deal with them, you are rewarded with better performance, whereas if you don’t, you get something not as usable as your usual plane. You have to spend a minimum amount of effort to learn how to use these kinds of planes, compared to other “regular” planes, hence the skill floor requirement being higher.
If you play fighting games, think of puppet characters vs shoto characters.

@RunaDacino

I think the instructor for such planes should be adjusted to better approximate proper flying, after all - isn’t that the point of mouse aim?

I usually think that effort expended to learn how to use something should be rewarded, like how MEC can give benefits over using AEC.
In another example, I enjoyed learning all the limits the F4D had in terms of wing ripping, ended up using the plane to great effect, but then an update made most wing ripping nigh impossible, which is sad to see. I don’t get to use the knowledge I obtained any longer.
Your view of ARB is quite simulator player centric, and is hard to find fault in, but in the view of a video game player, I would rather see effort be rewarded. Because of the instructor, I can’t help but see ARB as video gamey, compared with SB, so I tend to not treat ARB as being SB with easy controls. I view ARB as Ace Combat with realistic physics.
I think neither view is wrong, but they do set different expectations for ARB.

[PercussionCap]

@RXDimA

Have you ever tried getting enemy props to a low speed fight? You will quickly see the strengths the N1Ks bring to the table

But why would you play the N1K2s to do this when the A7M, Ki-84, J2M all do it better? And at lower BRs?

@RXDimA

Floppiness and nose authority can be dealt with using keyboard inputs.

@RXDimA

The issue with the instructor on the Ki-43-II (specifically this variant), is that it goes into rolls so fast, that the instructor starts overcompensating for it’s own adjustments, causing aiming to be “wobbly”. By guiding the instructor with keyboard inputs, the plane becomes much more controllable, not to mention the better turn resulting from using keyboard pitch inputs.

If anything, it gets worse with keyboard inputs. The -IIs handle NOTHING like the -I or -III, with those you can react very well to an enemy who is actively dodging you, while the -II will be too busy snaking around and making terrible use of its rudder.

You can see here that when I manually roll using the keyboard the reticle takes a HUGE arc around the enemy plane (and then wobbles side to side because the instructor has no idea whatsoever how to use the rudder), which I KNOW the Ki-43-I certainly doesn’t do, and the -III usually doesn’t either. The -II has very poor directional stability and it comes off in Sim as well.
Ki-44s LOVE doing it too.

Ki-43-II

@RXDimA

Very often I find myself higher than the rest of the enemy team after climbing

If people do not climb, that is their fault.

@RXDimA

and compared with -II it has significantly higher climb, top speed, and dive rip speed

IAS limit is the same, 661kph. Mach limit is the same at 0.65.

The -III is faster at sea level, but it runs much hotter. By 6km the -II isn’t reaching its statcard top speed, the -III eventually gets close enough after you burn away all your very limited ADI. Difference is within 50kph at all altitudes.

Climb rate:

Ki-44-II for reference, which was a slightly older test where I chose the runway spawn instead. It is better, but not 4.0 better. If you meet competent enemies you WILL get outclimbed and that’s not a huge upgrade over the -II in any case (which given how it fell so far below its statcard top speed it might have too much drag).

@RXDimA

It is still worthy of 4.0

You cannot argue that a plane which has lost 1/4 of its engine power shouldn’t be moved in BR at all.

[Mordillo66]

@PercussionCap

You can see here that when I manually roll using the keyboard the reticle takes a HUGE arc around the enemy plane (and then wobbles side to side because the instructor has no idea whatsoever how to use the rudder)

This isn’t a problem with the instructor. Fly a straight line and roll with keyboard. You will see the instructor doesn’t kick in, but the plane snaps over after 3/4 roll every single time. This becomes worse the slower you fly. That’s simply a bad coded roll behaviour.

[PercussionCap]

@Mordillo66

This isn’t a problem with the instructor. Fly a straight line and roll with keyboard. You will see the instructor doesn’t kick in, but the plane snaps over after 3/4 roll every single time.

The other Ki-43s don’t do it nearly as much, and after rolling don’t keep wobbling side to side as if my rudder was shot off.

[Mordillo66]

True, but all variants, and all 44 variants, have this problem more or less, but worse than every other plane in the whole game.

[RunaDacino]

Done with full-real controls, I don’t experience it. Simplifying to “Realistic” (autotrim, no instructor) it still doesn’t do that.

Mouse aim it does happen. Granted, I havn’t flown the Ki-43-II in live games and just compared in test flight. However, as I said - same behaviour exists with F8U and mustangs which I did use plenty in live games.

@RXDimA

I usually think that effort expended to learn how to use something should be rewarded, like how MEC can give benefits over using AEC.

I can respect that. Part of me wants to say that moving to “Simplified” (Autotrim, Instructor) or Realistic (Autotrim, No instructor) would cover that similarly to AEC to MEC, but joystick controls are significantly disadvantaged in 16v16 ARB due to much less accurate aiming so it’d be a dumb thing to suggest. However in 1vs1 it does pay off from what I’ve seen of people duelling (classic case being the Bf109F4). Full-real is self-defeating vs realistic with autotrim tho due to added complexity from not killing yourself in a lot of planes.

[RXDimA]

@PercussionCap

But why would you play the N1K2s to do this when the A7M, Ki-84, J2M all do it better?

The N1Ks have better snap rolls than the A7M, and turn better at high speed, making them better suited to handling reversals and creating a situation for a low speed fight. Ki-84s barely turn, they are energy fighters. J2Ms don’t turn as well as the N1Ks. They all have a niche which they excel at, but the N1Ks can take on stronger opponents than the rest.

@PercussionCap

And at lower BRs?

I may as well fly the Ki-27 right? I already do bring it to 6.0 battles for fun (you should give it a shot too).

@PercussionCap

(Youtube clip)

I have no idea how you managed to wobble that much. I guess I downplayed the problem because it doesn’t affect me as badly (I couldn’t find any enemies that would flail hard enough for me to wobble as much as you do):

[Ki-43-II] Various gunnery clips

I will admit, looking at my own footage now, it does take a bit more time to aim, compared with other planes.

@PercussionCap

IAS limit is the same, 661kph. Mach limit is the same at 0.65.

Yeah, my bad, I looked at the wrong number, and I didn’t have it memorized.

@PercussionCap

but it runs much hotter.

MEC your problems away.

@PercussionCap

Difference is within 50kph at all altitudes.

50 kmh is a lot of energy to work with, for a plane like a Ki-43. It can make the difference between life and death, and it gives less room for opponents to breathe as you fight.

@PercussionCap

(climb rate graph)

Redo your tests from the ground please. It’s unfair for the -III as the bulk of it’s climb difference is in the first 2km of alt. Include the time it takes to take off, too. Note the IAS speed you maintain during the climb tests on the graph.

@PercussionCap

You cannot argue that a plane which has lost 1/4 of its engine power shouldn’t be moved in BR at all.

Sure I can! Pre-nerf it should’ve been at a higher BR. It was comparable, or slightly exceeded, the climb of the J2M2, which is 5.0 now.

[PercussionCap]

@RXDimA

Ki-84s barely turn,

@PercussionCap

They turn just as well as N1K2s at most speeds and compress less. The flaps aren’t blocked by the automatic governor either so you can pull them out at higher speeds.

@RXDimA

I guess I downplayed the problem because it doesn’t affect me as badly (I couldn’t find any enemies that would flail hard enough for me to wobble as much as you do):

Even in your video you can see the aim point wobble a lot after a roll. Overall the instructor is very unresponsive in this plane.

@RXDimA

MEC your problems away.

You can, but it will require more radiator % which will eat away at its small speed advantage. The -II can get away with ~30% radiators, the -III cannot.

@RXDimA

Redo your tests from the ground please. It’s unfair for the -III as the bulk of it’s climb difference is in the first 2km of alt. Include the time it takes to take off, too. Note the IAS speed you maintain during the climb tests on the graph.

You can just move the starting points down about 400m, or move the Ki-44 line up. IAS was kept constant in both and MEC was used, otherwise the gap would be much narrower. A lot of maps have airspawns and few start exactly at sea level.

@RXDimA

Sure I can! Pre-nerf it should’ve been at a higher BR. It was comparable, or slightly exceeded, the climb of the J2M2, which is 5.0 now.

The J2M2 is overtiered at 5.0 (should have stayed at 4.7) and the -III was perfectly fine at 4.0 before due to its terrible speed for the BR.

At 4.0 the Ki-100 which is much faster, better armed, and will still outturn 99% of enemies is a straight upgrade.

[RXDimA]

@PercussionCap

They turn just as well as N1K2s at most speeds and compress less. The flaps aren’t blocked by the automatic governor either so you can pull them out at higher speeds.

Sorry, let me clarify. They do not turn at low speed. They simply do not have as much control at near stall speeds (the area you omitted for the Ki-84).

@PercussionCap

Even in your video you can see the aim point wobble a lot after a roll. Overall the instructor is very unresponsive in this plane.

But you do see me hit all my opponents when I get to gun solutions, right? I’m sure you can achieve the same, even with the challenging instructor on this plane.

@PercussionCap

You can, but it will require more radiator % which will eat away at its small speed advantage. The -II can get away with ~30% radiators, the -III cannot.

I have 40% with -III, 20% with -II. The speed and acceleration differences are still significant in my taste.

@PercussionCap

You can just move the starting points down about 400m

No. The -III maintains a 24.5 m/s climb at the deck, the -II maintains 21 m/s.

@PercussionCap

IAS was kept constant

State the speeds for integrity.

@PercussionCap

Ki-100

I need to revisit the plane, last time I used it was many years ago, and my opinion of it was that it’s unremarkable, yet another Ki-61 that excels at nothing. Edit: I’ve just flown it, it was impressively mediocre. If any planes deserve their BRs knocked down, it’s the Ki-100 and all of it’s siblings.

[_Zekken]

@PercussionCap

Ki-43 Video

This here is something the Ki-43-III definitely doesn’t do anywhere where near as bad. So yeah theres definitely some merit to that argument.

Slight side note, thats a very nice clip of those Ho-103s totally 1 shot obliterating that enemy plane, for the .50 cal thread lol.

[PercussionCap]

@RXDimA

They do not turn at low speed. They simply do not have as much control at near stall speeds (the area you omitted for the Ki-84).

I almost never test at such low speeds because the data there is rarely any different. You just keep tracing the line to the lower speeds and it’s well within margin of error.

@RXDimA

But you do see me hit all my opponents when I get to gun solutions, right? I’m sure you can achieve the same, even with the challenging instructor on this plane.

But why would I, when the Ki-43-1 is at the same BR, with better energy retention + maneuverability + an instructor that actually does what it is supposed to? Sure it’s slower, but if they’re outspeeding a -I they’re also VERY likely outspeeding the -II as well.

Yes, if you carefully adjust what your plane is doing while trying to shoot someone it’ll be very stable, but this is a fighter which is supposed to excel at low speeds. You shouldn’t have to babysit the instructor just because gaijin has made it utterly unresponsive.

Again, other aircraft like 109s and Ki-61s fly straight like an arrow. Why shouldn’t this one, when it was renowned for its excellent flight characteristics?

@RXDimA

I have 40% with -III, 20% with -II. The speed and acceleration differences are still significant in my taste.

40% in the -III will overheat very fast.

@RXDimA

State the speeds for integrity.

260kph for -II and 270 for -III. Within a few kph at any given point.

@RXDimA

Edit: I’ve just flown it, it was impressively mediocre. If any planes deserve their BRs knocked down, it’s the Ki-100 and all of it’s siblings.

It’s perfectly fine at 4.0 and the Ki-61-II should move down from 4.7 to match it. Unlike the -III they are both able to actually chase people and don’t throw away all their speed in a single turn.

@_Zekken

This here is something the Ki-43-III definitely doesn’t do anywhere where near as bad. So yeah theres definitely some merit to that argument.

Yeah the -III can point its nose just about anywhere when you want it to, it’s the one saving grace it has.

@_Zekken

Slight side note, thats a very nice clip of those Ho-103s totally 1 shot obliterating that enemy plane, for the .50 cal thread lol.

Feel free to post it there if you want, it’ll provide some entertainment haha

[RXDimA]

@PercussionCap

I almost never test at such low speeds because the data there is rarely any different.

No, there are significant differences and your testing methodology is flawed for not showing that.
My usual strategy with slow, maneuverable planes is to fight at those very low speeds, where a lot of aircraft can barely move, while my plane runs circles around them.

@PercussionCap

Sure it’s slower, but if they’re outspeeding a -I they’re also VERY likely outspeeding the -II as well.

Yet, the -II will be able to hold on to a fight much longer, if the speeds involved become high. You get to use more energy in a fight, because you can hold greater speeds easier. The supercharger lets you fight at greater altitudes. All of those things let you take on stronger enemies. The same applies to the -III.

@PercussionCap

You shouldn’t have to babysit the instructor

But you can! Learning is fun, try conquering the unwieldy controls of the -II. You will be rewarded with a plane that CAN take perfectly good aim (even despite the wobble), and has more performance than the -I to fight stronger opponents with.

@PercussionCap

Why shouldn’t this one, when it was renowned for its excellent flight characteristics?

An actually good argument for changing the instructor controls. I’m always against any hand holding changes for no reason, but this is a good one. Still, try learning how to handle the plane before requesting such changes.

@PercussionCap

40% in the -III will overheat very fast.

Works on my machine.
Only way you’re going to overheat with that is if you’re going to permanently stick to the ground (you’re not going to do that). Even then, if for some reason you have no option but to hug the ground for such an extended amount of time, knock a couple of % off from your prop pitch and you’re good to go.

@PercussionCap

260kph for -II and 270 for -III. Within a few kph at any given point.

Kinda fast for such draggy planes, innit? I’m also assuming you’re stating IAS.

@PercussionCap

Unlike the -III they are both able to actually chase people and don’t throw away all their speed in a single turn.

You’re part of the players that turn unnecessarily hard when you don’t need to, aren’t you? Try gentle turns, like how you need to fly the Sabre to keep your speed up.
The Ki-43-III will keep up just fine with a Ki-100 (if not outright beat it at MER) if the Ki-43 is limited to the turn circle of a Ki-100.