Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About MaxTurn

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

374 profile views
  1. Modeling the radar would be the most basic need. However, ship or sub based radar was available in Silent Hunter. Modern focused flight sims use radar. Neither Germany or G.B. had night fighters with the radar being read by the pilot. There was always a radar operator. Bill Gunston wrote a good introduction to the subject. The Hellcat (of course) had a radar screen read by the pilot. The Germans never developed (or a least never deployed) a radar with a standard PPI. The German ground based radar was (I think) just as good as what the British developed, but the German AI radar developed by the British (because of the cavity magnetron) which U.S. engineering greatly improved (in terms of production and reliability) was always a step behind the British. I would certainly buy a sim that included radar interception by night fighters and intruders over Western Europe. You would not need many planes in the air at a single time. The bombers flew in a "steam" and many nights did not see another bomber except maybe over the fires of the target. Visual identification was usually made based on the exhaust pattern. Of course, the Germans only had to know that it was a 4 engine plane. Reading the radar and being able to intercept were very difficult tasks in WW2. I also doubt that this will be developed.
  2. If you want to learn more about G and jerk. Jerk is not explained very well. But it is the killer. That was a big problem with early ejection seats using spring, explosives, and compressed air. To get to an acceptable G (enough to clear the aircraft) involved unacceptable jerk. Anyway some references for those you are interested in learning. Nice demonstration of a centrifuge: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMKcO-T5Y4o Note that Jerk is mentioned as being the killer. http://code7700.com/aero_turn_performance.htm https://www.faa.gov/pilots/safety/pilotsafetybrochures/media/acceleration.pdf https://www.intechopen.com/books/aircraft-technology/physiologic-challenges-to-pilots-of-modern-high-performance-aircraft
  3. I don't play online and have never seen or performed an UFO maneuver. What I can't believe is the climb rate for 109's. I know it was comparatively excellent until the 44 or 45 but man can those guys go. However, I think if you adjust your stick settings then you can avoid some of the effects. But a barrel roll does not appear to be a high g maneuver. Think about things in terms of vectors. I think to do a good barrel roll is hard. But what was forbidden for most planes was snap rolls and flying inverted for more than just a few seconds. Fuel injection solved the problem with getting fuel while inverted but how about oil?
  4. An interesting read. Section 3, may me think of things differently. https://www.intechopen.com/books/aircraft-technology/physiologic-challenges-to-pilots-of-modern-high-performance-aircraft Another older publication at NASA: https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4201/ch2-4.htm
  5. “The Barrel roll is a combination between a loop and a roll. You complete one loop while completing one roll at the same time. The flight path during a barrel roll has the shape of a horizontal cork screw. Imagine a big barrel, with the airplanes wheels rolling along the inside of the barrel in a cork screw path. During a barrel roll, the pilot always experiences positive Gs. The maximum is about 2.5 to 3 G. The minimum about 0.5 G.” https://www.iac.org/ WIKI has a nice diagram of a barrel roll. The point made earlier about the rate of the rate of change (jerk or the third derivative) is valid. The above is from the International Aerobatic Club but if one just throws the aircraft through the roll then you would increase the jerk which would increase the stress on the aircraft and the pilot. I think this is an argument that will not be resolved anytime soon. 20 plus years ago there was an aerobatic flight sim that I used to fly. I thought it was very realistic. But if you exceeded the velocity to never exceed (by much) then the plane would fall apart. You would also hear a short scream from the pilot. I screamed a lot.
  6. Good, you must be very efficient. I have both volumes but just use them occasionally for reference.
  7. I did another mission (Airfield Mayhem by Jade Monkey) and the effects seemed more realistic (to me).
  8. I can give you a list based for GB and the Commonwealth based on Aces High by Shores and Williams. How far down do you want to go? Actually, I am going to have to withdraw my offer. Aces High does not seem to have a list of the top aces and it is over 500 pages long. However, WIKI has a list for both GB and Germany. Of course the whole number of claims and the accuracy of the claims is a huge discussion on the net. While the list on WIKI may not be exact, I will be happy to check the top 50 British against Shores and Williams. One thing to not is that the names with hyperlinks are going to those who were the best known. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_aces_from_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_aces_from_Germany
  9. Based on my recollection, IL-2 had more red out black out effects than IL-2 BOX until this update. I thought the physiological effects of pulling excessive g forces were under-modeled in BOX until the update. I have done aerobatics once as a passenger and have performed maybe 50 auto-rotations (in training) and have little experience with excessive g forces. However, based on my reading of pilots recounting missions and also test pilot accounts (and I have read a lot) then I think the update may over-model the effect. Unless, you are in a military simulator then you do not have the vestibular and other physiological input to know how hard you are turning. Also without hydraulic systems, a pilot can only pull so many g because of the required muscle strength -- I still have a couple of MS force feedback sticks but with my current stick (Virpil base/Warthog grip) I not have any control feedback. How about an optional g meter? That would help in learning one's limits.
  10. Alonzo, thanks for your post. I am going to also use your template as a starting point. Also, can anyone answer a question about the mode switch? Can you set it up to have the same buttons from different operations in different modes? Is there an Manual in English? I have my T-50 (second version) ready to go on an extension but haven't started to program it or my stick.
  11. One of the early combat sims (Aces of/over the Pacific/Europe) had the ability to tell your wingman to break right or left (and maybe up or down?). Or that is how I remember it. That was so long ago, you had to write a batch file to get the sims to boot.
  12. Thanks, I missed that entirely when I went to the the setup page. I looked forward to trying the campaign.
  13. In Mission 1, I have Soviet Stars not SAAF Roundels. Anybody else have this issue?
  14. I bought ROF (actually additional planes) when it was really cheap but I think the BOX market model needs to be reassessed. I am not going to buy the Flying Circus or whatever it is being called. I have purchased BOS, BOM, BOK, and the BOD early release. I am not going to purchase anything else. Combat FS is evidently a small community but it isn't going to expand at the current price being charged for what are essentially new maps and planes with some incremental improvements. Combine the price with the need to upgrade GPU's and eventually computers. For me, it isn't the money but the cost/benefit ratio. The new WW1 sim uses the same flight model as ROF -- why should it cost $69 (or in my case maybe $64). The inability to buy good HOSTA's easily also contributes to the problem. I purchased Crosswind Pedals but buying a Virpil or a VKB stick is a very difficult. I am using a Gladiator but have a couple of MS FFB sticks that I am going to go back to if possible. (CH Throttle and Quadrant). I am getting ready to build a new box (probably with a 1080TI) which will probably cost around $1200. And I hate to say it, but I am building it to fly jets (guess what game?). Jets have hydraulics or fly by wire - and FFB is not so important. My criticisms of BOX: BOX has far too little going on on the ground (how hard is to build in randomly generated ground activity -- I know there is some ground activity but it is very little) and it has far too little in the way of campaigns and missions. I am too lazy to learn to build my own missions. I know or have available most of the books on the Great Patriotic War in the air but I want a mission editor where I enter a type of mission, opposition (with variables like altitude and time), details of my flight, etc. into something like an EXCEL spreadsheet. Basically a SQL type interface. I admit that I am lazy but even though I am retired, I only have a couple of hours a day to fly simulators. A mission building interface that allows one to enter a dozen or two variables and select random events (2 109's instead of 4) should not be very difficult. I don't have anything to criticize about the flight models except the Soviet planes are modeled (I think) to official performance specifications which were almost never reached by operational units (think 10 to 20% slower for example). That is my impression and that could be easily fixed by programming in random deficits in performance -- Some for the Germans as well since their planes were not perfect. I have almost exclusively flown early Soviet fighters and the successes I have had against the Luftwaffe is not realistic (mostly I have just messed around in quick missions but I have tried a few other things). Finally, why can we not communicate "break right" and "break left" to our wing men or flight or squadron. Once, the game moves to the West, I hope it allows the use of realistic tactical formations. If you are flying Soviet Planes then the lack of communication is realistic.
  • Create New...