Jump to content

JG4_Retnek

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    704
  • Joined

Community Reputation

296 Excellent

About JG4_Retnek

  • Rank
    Founder

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Old Europe
  • Interests
    Strategic Air War WW2

Recent Profile Visitors

1180 profile views
  1. Separate from the clear rejection by Jason above: compared to the complex task of simulating several human gunners per plane it shouldn't be such a problem to establish an airborne WW2-radar-system within the sim. The gunners we have now are somewhat special, but do the job. There's constant complaining about them, too - I doubt that has been a reason to drop that feature. Asking for air-borne radar presents a technical problem the studio has solved already. Anyhow - an airborne-radar-feature would add some serious workload. If there's no hope for a proper return of investment it's reasonable not to start it.
  2. All we need is virtual radar operators calling out the data they read from their screens. As it has been. Ground controllers and / or radar operators in the plane. Per radio or intercom - that's it. No need for fancy 3D-radar-instruments, tubes and stuff, no need for a multiplayer-setup to manage the radar. Just the basics per voice: "contact 2 km ahead, heading XXX, slower, left, below" Not to mention further enhanced realism for pilots of multi-crew planes: navigators tracking the flight path, radio-operators getting a position fix, engineers switching fuel tanks aso. All those features scaled down to realism by technical errors, fog of war, different crew training. Would be great.
  3. Very well, thx! Distilled keywords and fed Google with something like "Mosquito de Havilland Hydromatic Paddle Blade Propellers". Now the topic gets contours, but becomes a bit more bulky: http://www.rafcommands.com/forum/showthread.php?13454-Paddle-Blade-Propellers-on-the-Lancaster-when-were-they-introduced&s=92f8db17b7b082595fa01d275bbf66a9&p=79303#post79303 First sentence: "I think that the linking of Packard Merlins with paddle blade props is a red herring. ..."
  4. Thx again, Unreasonable! Let me point on this remarkable depot of (rare) wisdom and (late) insight: https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/research/default/raf-historical-society-journals.aspx
  5. Looking at the B XVI the broad paddel-props are prominent, too. Haven't found any trustworthy details on this in my incomplete Mossie-literature. Were those broad blades a general feature of the later versions until the introduction of the 4-blades? Or just a feature of the high-alt-version?
  6. As soon as the developers add the dams we're in business with Il2-GB, too! A-20 will do until the Lancaster is ready ... Today there's a tower east of the Moehne-Dam, somewhat middle of the lake. That's pretty near the path the Dambusters had to go. I made a photo from that tower pointing to the west. If you look over the left part of the bridge you'll see a grey line two little headlands behind - that's the dam. One can see the two towers (the one to the right hand partly obscured by trees) and a light grey area between them - that's the repaired masonry where the dam broke.
  7. Situation for 4.003b by some testing: - spawning and de-spawning a NDB is possible. That NDB won't send a signal, I found no way to activate it. - a NDB placed at the beginning is doing fine, one can activate and de-activate it at will
  8. Confirmed for 4.003b on Kuban-map with Me-262
  9. I very much hope you re-consider the choice D-22. That's "just" the model we know already. Except the the look it won't add that much to the sim. Any model below D-22 would allow us to experience the limits of the P-47 without large paddel-props. The challenges P-47-pilots had to deal with where much more demanding from the beginning in Europe until the first D-22s went into service. Looking at realism and immersion any P-47 below variant 22 would be the better choice for the IL-series to cover all the aspects of P-47-sorties.
  10. Sad and true - in IL2-GB any light aaa with AI better than "low" imho is desperate mission design. Drop above 3000 m or enjoy a funny suicide. It might be ok to use such wonders-guns in special cases of mission design. To punish folk for vulching rear airfields f.e. But else?
  11. All you need to know is here: https://www.cdvandt.org/fubl-ebl-project.htm It might add to your mind brain twist, but if you go down to Fig. 13 it offers some answers. Same stuff, in german: https://www.deutscheluftwaffe.com/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/f/Funk/bordfunkgereate/Bordfunkgereate.html Go down to Abb. 44 (= Fig. 44) and there's the translation: - plane is right of the center line = dash-zone = AFN points to the right "R" - plane is left of the center line = dot-zone = AFN points to the left "L"
  12. Usually 3500 to 4500 m, if there was time 5000 m. If you're checking some values - I've done some flying with Rhineland-map and allied AI-bombing-sorties. Afaik (I'm not very deep into that topic) the 9th-AF bombers went for targets like bridges or rail-road-stations from 3000 - 5000 to avoid the light AAA. If there was heavy AAA and no fighter-bombers suppressing those during the attack they preferred 5000 m plus. Looks like the allied AI-bombers by your mission-builder came in much lower, something like 1700 m or so. And felt victim to the light AAA en gros. (your tool is great!)
  13. I enjoy that server every time - The Spirit Carries On
×
×
  • Create New...