Jump to content

widget

Members
  • Content Count

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About widget

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

341 profile views
  1. Dear Developers: Please consider reducing the gloss level of the official skins. At present, they have an unrealistic glassy/glossy look. Some example photos of museum exhibits follow. 1. https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/research/collections/supermarine-spitfire-vb/ 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ilyushin_IL-2_Sturmovik,_Central_Air_Force_Museum,_Monino.JPG 3. https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/curtiss-p-40e-warhawk-kittyhawk-ia 4. https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/messerschmitt-bf-109-g-6r3 You may be aware that restored warbirds are typically painted with more glossy paint compared to wartime paint. The reason is the harder gloss layer (compared to the matte pigment colour layer) provides a bit more protection against damage and is also easier to clean.
  2. Thank you for your reply. I wasn't able to find the DD you mentioned. But there was a discussion about this topic elsewhere on the forum in which it was mentioned the black smoke was due to the poor quality of the synthetic fuel (rather than an over-rich mixture as such) used by the Luftwaffe. So I understand the reason for the German aircraft emitting black exhaust smoke. Oddly, the La-5FN (auto mixture control) also emits a similar darkish exhaust; yet the Yak-1b (manual mixture control) does not unless you use an over-rich mixture at altitude. This seems to suggest the over-rich mixture reason assuming the VVS had better quality fuel. But AMCs are designed to set the correct stoichiometric ratio for a given density (varies due to temp and pressure altitude). If you're interested in how they work, you can check this link. http://www.flight-mechanic.com/automatic-mixture-control-amc My aircraft (Yak-50) also has a Soviet M14P engine. This radial has both an AMC and a supercharger. It doesn't emit darkish exhaust (ie over-rich mixture) at any throttle setting including 100% rpm and maximum manifold pressure. I'd be getting my LAME to adjust the AMC to stop it!
  3. Do you mean running over-rich mixtures is intended?
  4. I hadn't played IL2 BoX for a while so after firing it up again, I noticed the AI planes seem to be running their engines with over-rich mixtures (seen as dark exhaust smoke trails). I don't remember this issue with earlier versions of the code but I could be wrong.
  5. Thank you for the photo confirming it's not a bug. I hunted for a decent photo of the Yak-1b canopy online but didn't find this. I incorrectly assumed the Yak-1b had the same middle section canopy design as the later Yak-3, 9 and 50. Interestingly, even though the Yak-50 came much later in the mid-late 1970s, Sergei Yakovlev (son of Alexander Yakovlev) took similar design cues from his father's WW2 birds. eg the faceted front windscreen like the Yak-1, 7, 9, 11 (but sadly not better look of the Yak-3). The 50's rudder is just a larger version of the characteristic Yak fighter tail.
  6. Brief description: Canopy bug Detailed description, conditions: Rear edge of the sliding canopy section is mismatched with the canopy frame. Additional assets (videos, screenshots, logs): See attached screenshot. Your PC config data (OS, drivers, specific software): Win 10, Ryzen 1300X CPU, 16Gb RAM, nVidia GTX1060 3GB graphics card, ASRock mainboard
  7. In real life, preparing for a sortie (especially for a navex task) involves several distinct steps (if you're interested, see http://www.vfrg.com.au/pre-flight-planning). There really isn't an and/or relationship between map reading and following a flight plan to the letter - these two tasks are always undertaken together. A flight plan is simply what it means - a plan. It contains tracks and altitudes to fly from waypoint to waypoint. Based on the forecast winds at your chosen flight altitudes, you use the wind triangle to solve for the required headings (HDG) to fly to offset the crosswind component of the forecast wind. Your ground speed (GS) is your TAS minus the headwind component (which is also found when you solve the wind triangle). The estimated time interval (ETI) between two waypoints is simply the distance divided by the GS. You also use the ETI to recalculate your fuel burn for that leg. There are good reasons for flying to your plan and reading your map. If you have flown your plan HDG at the plan TAS and make regular GS checks (ie by visually confirming your 10nm interval positions via map reading and noting the time), then you can work out if you're off-track and off-time. If you're on-track and on-time then you know that the forecast wind was correct. If you're off-track, you eyeball the off-track distance then calculate the closing angle to the next waypoint and also update the ETI if needed. In addition to the closing angle, the wind triangle calculation also gives you the actual in-flight wind at your cruise altitude. On the other hand, if you didn't fly the plan HDG but instead flew whatever HDGs you decided was appropriate for landmarks you thought you identified correctly, a number of additional difficulties are injected into the situation. You cannot solve the wind triangle to find the closing angle to the next waypoint, the actual in-flight wind to revise your next leg's GS and ETI. Now, what if you incorrectly identified your landmarks? If you didn't follow your plan HDGs but altered them as needed along the way, you would pile change on change; making it very difficult to backtrack to your last known position. So the best way to navigate is to start from a known position (launch base) fly a constant plan HDG for a plan ETI to hopefully arrive close to the next waypoint. Check your progress every 10nm or so to visually fix your position, update your GS and ETI to the next waypoint. Decide when to make a closing angle correction (halfway point of a leg is convenient) to arrive at the next waypoint on-track.
  8. Thank you everyone for kindly replying to my question. It would be nice if IL2 BoX had an in-cockpit map display similar in style to IL2 1946. Sambot88, my reply to your comments about realism are in the context of my background... 1. I have a current CPL (Australian) with low-level aerobatics, tailwheel, CSU and RG endorsements. 2. All of my instructors were ex-military pilots; a Hawker Hunter pilot (PPL), a Buccaneer pilot (CPL) and a Sabre pilot (aerobatics rating). 3. I was trained in DR nav (including low level in-valley nav) by each of these pilots and undergo biennial flight reviews which include DR nav. 4. I own a Yak-50 (since 2007) to help keep me de-stressed https://yak50.blogspot.com.au https://youtu.be/D0twGVPPk5M) When I fly a navex sortie, I usually do it DR rather than rely on a GPS. I can assure you, one never ever relies on memory for such a task. We prepare a flight plan and mark up the map accordingly with 10nm ticks on each leg for in-flight log checks. The in-flight log is actually an extract of the formal flight plan with extra columns for among other things (eg fuel checks), distance off-track to assist with making a 1-in-60 calc for the closing angle to arrive at the next waypoint on-track. None of these pieces of info are ever committed to memory for obvious reasons. That is the fastest way to get lost and if on a test, fail. My first instructor (Hawker Hunter pilot who served in Germany during the Cold War), failed you on a waypoint if your ETA and ATA differed by more than 30 secs. My second instructor (Buccaneer pilot) failed you if you didn't know exactly where you were on a 500' low level leg. My third instructor (Sabre pilot) failed you if you lost situational awareness and/or mismanaged your energy (very critical for low-level aerobatics) during an aerobatic sequence. When I map read, it's done in brief snatches. Sometimes, the map is in shadow, so I have to take it off the kneepad and bring it into the sunlight and closer to my face (akin to zooming in). At all times, the map is rotated to whatever angle is required to maintain track up orientation. At times, the map has to be refolded to expose another leg drawn on the map (akin to panning). In this context, the in-cockpit map in IL2 BoX seems unrealistic than realistic. In contrast, IL2 1946 - or more correctly, the representation in IL2 BAT, is more realistic if you switch off the icons leaving just the planned flight displayed. At least one can zoom and pan as required to best simulate what is done in a real cockpit. On a separate note, the Yak-50 is very similar to the Soviet fighters in IL2 BoX and of course IL2 1946. It does have supercharger but the mixture control is full automatic. Otherwise, the pneumatic system for starting, landing gear, hand lever actuated brakes and not forgetting the castoring tailwheel are identical to the VVS WW2 fighters. Sizewise, the Yak-50 is the same size as the Yak-3. ie 8.5m length, 9.5m span for the Yak-50 and 8.5m length, 9.2m span for the Yak-3. The Yak-50 was designed by Sergei Yakovlev, son of the Yak-3's designer Alexander Yakovlev. While its level speed is much lower than the Yak-3, the Yak-50's ISA climb rate is 3,400 ft/min vs 4000 ft/min for the Yak-3 (1240hp VK-105PF engine) and 3200 ft/min for the P-51D! I invite anyone to contact me with any questions about flying the Soviet single-engine birds.
  9. Can anyone tell me how to zoom in/out and pan the in-cockpit map? I've gone over the key map in settings but can't seem to find the obvious key commands for this.
  10. Thank you, Zargos. Very generous of you to share your excellent template and skins with the community.
×
×
  • Create New...