Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by JG27_PapaFly

  1. And this wonderful diagram is one of the reasons I believe the FW-190 offered THE best gun convergence solution of all WWII fighters: There are two convergence settings: one is termed convergence and is the range at which the bullets are crossing the sighting line. The second is termed crossover and is the range at which the left and right bullet streams meet. As you see, a convergence of 550 m means that the bullets cross the sighting line at 150m and at 550m. Crossover is set to 400m (outer wing guns), and 600m (inner guns). This means that there is limited, but useful spread of bullets at 150 and 550m. Especially if you look at the wing root 20 mm cannons, you see that the bullets were only 1.5 m apart at 150m distance. The end result is a plane that has two optimal kill scenarios: A) Shooting at long rage (400-600m) with all guns: here, the inner guns are for precision (basically no spread), and the outer guns provide the spread that's useful in landing hits even when aiming was not perfect. This will suit rookies and aces alike. B) Shooting at close range (150 m). Here, the projectiles will cross the sighting line, which helps aiming. Depending on skill and situation, the pilot can decide to use all guns (limited spread from the inner guns, big spread from the outer guns), or only the inner guns (for aces who don't need the extra spread of the outer guns). This makes a lot of sense from a statistical point of view: because it's much easier to hit a close target, and much harder to hit a distant target, and because the projectiles are very effective, it makes more sense to use all guns at big ranges, and only the inner guns at close ranges. In-game, of course, we can't set different convergences for the different guns, or set different values for convergence and crossover. In IL-2 '46 at least we could set different convergences for the different gun groups. I used 550m for the inner guns, and 150m for the outer ones. That basically turned the principles I mentioned above around, primarily setting me up for close-range kill shots with all guns. In the 190s, getting close to the enemy was easy. For the unlikely case of a bandit running at really high speed, I only used the inner guns at long range. This was seldomly deadly, but was more than enough to damage the opponent or force him to maneuver, which allowed me the 150 m all-guns shot. In GB series, I fly the Fws without outer guns most of the time, with a convergence of 550m. It's very useful in close- and long-range scenarios. Whenever I fly a 190 with outer cannons, I set all guns to 150m, essentially giving up the long range scenario. My advice: think of your kill scenarios and set the guns accordingly.
  2. Modeling light perception on a screen with the current state of the art technology is miles away from the way we as humans perceive light. Our eyes have a dynamic range of around 1:1,000,000 around 1000 fold higher than that of our monitors. Because a monitor cannot produce light so bright that it overwhelms our visual sense and is painful and harmful to the eye, the sun slider is probably useless in-game. I never had to use it in over 15 years of IL-2.
  3. What? No warthog throttles? 😉 Just kidding, awesome work!😉
  4. On planes with swept wings, a sideslip will increase the span of the wing that is being pushed forward relative to the air flow. Accordingly, the opposite wing will loose some span. The asymmetric span leads to asymmetric lift leads to roll.
  5. Hi, I've been there as well last year. In my case it was caused by buttons of my warthog throttles constantly sending key presses. I had one axis converted to two buttons in order to simulate the FW-190 trim buttons. The result was that when I left the lever in full aft position in order to trim fully tail heavy it was constantly pressing the trim key I had assigned in-game. The solution was to include a key release action in my Warthog key map after 5 seconds or so. So, look for keys that are stuck in pressed position.
  6. The only AI I ever saw that were using energy-conserving hit-and-run tactics were in Aces Over Europe (early 90s WWII combat SIM). Some of them had names, like Novotny. He would extend a few km, then pitch-back and attack head on. Not proper energy tactic, but very deadly.
  7. Any news on this? My whole squad is affected (6 pilots). It's as EpeeNoir described: we all lose the in-cockpit sound after some time in MP. For me, it tends to happen during the second hour. The only remedy is to restart the game, which is very disruptive to our squad tactics. Most of us fly 190s, in which the only stall warning we get are increased wind noises. The sound bug robs us of that warning, which is extremely annoying and directly impacts our flying. If anything the issue got worse with the last 2 patches.
  8. I've fallen out of the sky in rough terrain at more than 400 kph and survived. This happens all the time. No loss of consciousness, no heavy injuries, no fire, no instant death, although the plane was pretty much reduced to the cockpit section. Usually such heavy crashes would transform the plane into a ball of fire. Fuel cells and fuel lies get ruptured, and the highly flammable fuel finds plenty of hot parts, so it ignites easily. When it comes to g forces, the limit would be at around 150 g, if I remember correctly. This was the result of a longer test series done in the US. However, the tests happened under controlled conditions. Many pilots who died in crashes or crash landings actually broke their neck. It's a very fragile spot. One other major hazard in crashes is contact with parts of the cockpit. WWII era cockpits were packed with blunt and sharp metal parts which could kill the pilot easily. British author Roald Dahl smashed his faced against the gunsight in his gladiator while crash landing in North Africa. He barely survived and suffered from serious sequelae for the rest of his life.
  9. It's not as if by deploying flaps to their first setting one automatically and irrevocably commits to "going all instantaneous" until the fight ends one way or another. Air combat presents us with a myriad of different situations. Great pilots don't stick to dogmas, but rely on their brains and experience. Very often when I use flaps I do it for a very brief time, in order to boost my instantaneous turn rate to a point that will allow me to immediately kill or cripple my opponent. What's the better decision: a) Deploy flaps for a very short time, bag the kill and go home, or b) Stick to the no-flaps doctrine, miss the kill opportunity, do extended turning at best sustained turn speed ( which is 300 kph IAS in the 190s, so far from high speed), and eventually die. If I were to apply any doctrine to flying the 190s it would be this: never fly alone. Yes I am free to deploy flaps if I see fit, but I always have my buddies next to me, ready to intervene at any moment.
  10. I use full flaps when reversing in the vertical and for overshoot & coptering. For turning I mostly limit their use to the first setting. That mostly depends of my speed. The slower I am, the more flaps. Full flaps are called for in a flat scissor against e.g. a P-47. I forgot to mention one additional advantage: the 190s stall sharply with essentially no warning with retracted flaps. Deploying flaps leads to pre-stall buffeting, which I feel with my MSFFB2 stick.
  11. Definitely! I don't see why some people are so dogmatic about not using them on a plane that's supposed to be fast. I fly the 190 series exclusively and make ample use of flaps. But their use is embedded in well coordinated team tactics. I never fly alone. Yes they slow me down, but they also increase lift. Here are examples of when I use them: 1) We work a bandit 2vs1 as driver & shooter. When I drive the bandit my job is to maneuver with him for as long as possible in order to keep him task-saturated, so that my wingman can kill him easily. 2) I've zoomed, a bandit has followed me, but ran out of speed and is about to drop his nose. In that situation it's essential for me to reverse as fast as possible in order to shoot him while he is still very slow. I do a Humpty-bump with full flaps, and retract the flaps as soon as my nose points at the target. 3) I'm below corner speed in e.g. a D-9 and am about to outturn e.g.an LA-5 4) I'm defensive and want to force a bandit to overshoot. I dump flaps and either barrel roll (no stall), or I copter (Post-Stall vectoring)
  12. The engine repeatedly quits and comes back on this P-51 in mid flight. No wing rocking as far as I can tell.
  13. I've always loved the P-38. IMO I think it'll be owned by the 190s and 109s. It's high instantaneous turn rate doesn't worry me. IMO these things will hurt it: - Slow at low and medium alt - Poor sustained turn rate due to poor power-to-weight ratio - Poor acceleration (see above) - Huge target It's the first red plane that I find tempting to fly. Korny and I loved to fly it in the old game. It was very rewarding for our team.
  14. If you want to maximize your learning speed: - Learn the trade by flying on servers with air starts and icons : you'll get more engagements per hour that way. Navigating a huge full real map for 20 minutes just to get bounced and killed by a guy whom you never saw won't help you on your journey. Icons will help you learn how to maneuver and position relative to your opponents. It's brutal because you can never hide, but I'll help you lay down the groundwork. Once you're proficient in that environment you can take the next step and learn the finer nuances in full real. - Train air-to-air gunnery offline in the QMB. A LOT. I can't stress this point enough. Online, you'll have very few shooting opportunities by comparison. Quite often you'll die if you miss the one shot you get. That's why being a good shot will boost your survival rate greatly. - Always warm up in the QMB before you join an online session. I find 15-30 minutes against batches of 8 unarmed AIs perfect to get my muscle memory and gunnery estimation up to speed.
  15. This also depends on the plane you fly. The Spitfire with it's neutral pitch stability benefits from higher sensitivity settings, since, for the most part, you won't use large stick deflections. The other thing is this: you gotta find a compromise between being precise near center (needed for low to zero deflection shots), and being precise at larger stick deflections (needed for deflection shooting while turning). The higher the sensitivity setting, the steeper and less precise will the response be at larger deflections.
  16. IMO AI are complete morons. During the few career missions I flew I took a position high above then and used them as Yak bait as long as they lasted.
  17. Totally agree, the radio chatter is annoying as hell. Will try the sound file removal method, thanks for sharing!
  18. Dear developers, may I kindly suggest the removal of following effects? Wing rocking when the engine is about to die. I can't imagine that a plane weighing several tons would jerk it's wings like that when the engine is about to quit. IMO the effect shows its RoF heritage and, although perhaps appropriate for a WWI rotary engine plane, looks hard-coded and arcadish in a WWII environment. I'd remove it, at least for WWII planes. Being able to predict an opponent's demise because I see his wings jerk is an immersion killer for me. The exhaust flames. IMO these orange bitmaps or JPEGs, or whatever the format is, look completely cartoonish. I've seen many warbirds up close during airshows over the years, but have never seen flames that were visible in plain daylight during normal engine operation. Whenever I see them in-game I subconsciously expect WROOOAAARRR!!!, BOOUMMM!!! and BANG!!! cartoon text bubbles to appear on the screen.
  19. Life's too short to waste time flying planes I don't like. As targets, however, I hate the LA-5 FN and LAGGs, because they are tough as tanks, much more so than the P-47. And I hate the Spit9 because it's FM is a complete joke IMO. Good thing with those is that killing them is extremely rewarding. It feels like doing a noble cause clearing the sky of cheaters.
  20. Do you believe that implementing pilot fatigue as a realism option would be a good idea? I think it would make us all fly closer to how they flew back then.
  21. Interesting read! I see you mention the same, pronounced pitch down moment that is described in the pilot manual and that is missing in-game. I had pointed that out in my video, too. If you had the chance to fire it's guns you would have noticed another effect that is missing in-game: a pronounced pitch-down due to the combination of gun recoil and neutral pitch stability. Not the kind of stuff spitfire fans wanna hear, I know... Atup to 8 lbs of boost and up to 2.5 g it better be docile. Read Rick Volker's report if you wanna know how she handles during aerobatics. It's a completely different beast, requiring A LOT of footwork. https://www.google.com/url?q=http://rickvolker.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/SPITFIRE-ARTICLE.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjbpcDM3L7iAhWOPFAKHSBsApcQFjAHegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw10mdjPpdLJcdbsN5w4ZGjD
  22. 1) Get this book: Fighter Combat, by Robert Shaw. 2) Join a squad. We'd take you on but have recruited a bunch of new sticks recently and are busy getting them up to speed.
  23. Great, any chance of a comparison with the FW190 series?
  24. Thanks for clarifying Holzauge! I remain sceptical about dismissing the wartime reports based on the fact that two simulations (i.e. yours and the game) show the P-47 to be extremely close to the Spitfire in dive performance. The wartime reports were made by combat pilots who had the reality of WWII air combat in their mind when they assessed both planes. I don't think they would have rated the P-47 as they did if it's performance was anywhere near to what we see in our simulations. In addition, we have several lines of evidence indicating that the Spitfire's dive performance is too good in-game: it's on par in diving performance not only to the P-47, but to the FW-190A series as well. Both planes were reported to perform better in dives. And we know that the Spitfire had clear aerodynamic flaws: the steep windshield alone cost it 12 mph at Mach 0.79 compared to the same plane equipped with a better windshield. And it's radiators ingested the slow boundary layer, which resulted in a sharp increase in drag. Both factors would hurt the Spit most in high speed dives. Here's a fragment of David Lednicer's "World War II Fighter Aerodynamics", a very interesting read on the topic.
  • Create New...