Jump to content

Bert_Foster

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    239
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

114 Excellent

About Bert_Foster

  • Rank
    Founder

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Planet Earth

Recent Profile Visitors

588 profile views
  1. Trajectory Shift or velocity jump is very real IRL . Effectively it increases the lead requirement. The biggest variable is AOA. Trajectory shift and the lead required to vary it will vary directly with AOA. Of course it also occurs laterally as well if firing with slip or skid. Trajectory shift = (Angle of Gunfire) x Fighter Velocity/(Fighter Velocity + Muzzle Velocity) Angle of Gunfire the angle between the bore line and the flight path. So as AOA changes so does the Angle of Gunfire. So changing AOA will result in changing G so in a roundabout way G does affect the lead requirement. Careful choice of Gun bore angle can offset the effects of Trajectory shift but only in the one design point chosen. Whether Trajectory shift is modeled in the sim who knows.
  2. All good up and running again
  3. Great this was sorted in IL2 Classic where it was then called "Linda Blair"or exorcist neck. Limiting neck movement is a great step forward ... as would upper body movement and neck movement as a function of G.
  4. I know its being a pedant but the LA5 we have in game is not an LA5F it is the LA5 Series 8 .... a different beast air frame wise to the LA5F depicted in TSAGI/NIIVVS colour charts. The LA5 was powered by the M82A, The game specs list the engine in the LA5 series 8 as the M82. The LA5F was powered by the M82F (the M82F is not listed in game against the LA5 series 😎 The LA5 FN by the M82FN the game lists the engine in the LA5FN as the M82FN. So I still believe the LA5 we have in game is indeed the bog standard LA5 not a non bubble top F etc.
  5. A proper Aircraft structural G damage model would solve that ...over G the jet it gets bent, do it again it gets even more bent perhaps to the point of becoming operationally useless. would also solve the issue of those A20 Air Superiority types
  6. Err we don't have an LA5F in game ... an LA5 and LA5Fn yes
  7. Putting effort into Pilot fatigue seems a strange use of resources when issues like Engine timers (engine fatigue?) are the real blight in the sim at the moment imo ! Engine timers and their seemingly random application is a far bigger immersion killer than some dreamed up pilot fatigue routine. As to pilot fatigue a slippery slope I think. What is the intent of this ? To limit pilots ability to pull G after X applications etc ? Not going to be an issue for your average fit fighter pilot. We are only talking about short duration pulls to at best maybe 7-8G. Most sustained applications (in WWII types) will be in the order 4-5G. Even multiple applications is not going to bother a fit fighter pilot. Sitting on your arse for 3 Hours into and out of the target would be more fatiguing than a few G applications ! Are the devs going to include G suit as a Mod on the US types then factor that into the "fatigue" model?. Is the FW190 seating position going to be taken into account ? Is the ineffective P38 cockpit heating going to be factored in ? Is pilot pre flight activity going to be factored in. Pilot fatigue is not a simple thing imo it will be a real immersion killer. Even as moderately fit 63 year old I regularly pull 5G multiple times without any fatigue ! A big night on the turps before is more fatiguing than a few G pulls. If the devs want to work on fatigue then better imo to concentrate on structural damage to the airframe based on G/Weight. Take into account rolling G (asymmetrical G) if you really Over G the aeroplane especially rolling then bend the aeroplane in the sim have a handling/performance issue etc. TD did this quite effectively in IL2 classic.
  8. some nice stuff coming along .... be nice if the structural effects of over G was in there too
  9. I have used your updated list so is that all that is required ?
  10. The Wingmen RTB and Cover Me commands are firing flares Wingmen RTB results in the firing of a White Flare from my aircraft which are unlimited in number Wingmen Cover Me results in the firing of a Green Flare from my aircraft which are unlimited in mumber. Looking in the keybindings I also noticed that the Flare commands had multiple functions associated with Tank commands: White Flare was duplicated by Switch to 9 Th Firing point when clicking on the orange dual assignment info box in Wingmem commands. Looking in Tank Controls I dont even see a Switch to 9th Firing point. EDIT: I only have First,second and third firing point. No other firing points listed in Tank Crew controls. I don't actually have Tank Crew installed. Green Flare was duplicated with Switch to second firing point (I deleted this tank assignment) Red Flare was duplicated with Switch to First Firing point (I deleted this tank assignment) So even after Deleting the firing point assignment (First and second) in Tank controls I still get Flares going of in aeroplanes when I use the RTB and Cover me wingman commands and the flares are unlimited in number. I even tried a complete re assignment of these 2 wingmen commands but still flares are discharged. So something has crossed wires internally in the game engine imo.
  11. Great utility thank you. When you say " but the (generated) AI will stick to the plane set that is defined for the map." ... how is this defined by Mission date or some other variable. For instance the date on the Kuban map stops 30/12/1943. So is it possible to get the 262 Flying as Generated AI ?
  12. I stand corrected. Couldn't get White flares to work ... Keybinding cock up on my end now sorted.
  13. In game you only have 3 Green or 3 Red flares. Actual aircraft load out was 4 Flares of each chosen colour. So we should get a total of 8 Flares. This is evidenced by the 8 external Flare tubes.
×
×
  • Create New...