Jump to content

Jaegermeister

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    328
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Jaegermeister


  1. I just upgraded from an i5 @ 3.5 ghz to an i7 3770k oc’ed to 4.10 ghz. My specs are listed below. I am on a 2012 mb so I can’t upgrade any further without changing everything. I went from 100% cpu usage in vr and not really utilizing GPU at all to 70% CPU and 50% GPU usage under heavy load. I was running a steady 44 FPS which is now at 96 FPS and drops to about 50 under heavy load. In certain missions, I was getting severe tearing and slowdown which is now gone. I also upgraded from 16gb of DDR3 1600mhz ram at 9-9-9-24 to 32 gb and that had no effect at all. It is running a steady 30% usage with no fluctuations.

     

    it is not ideal, but it was roughly a $400 upgrade which took me from can’t play mode to not too bad and I’m happy with it for now mode. 

     

    👍


  2. 10 hours ago, Jaegermeister said:

    I’m gonna go with this....

     

    6877-BE7-D-8-DE5-4-B1-C-9699-9819290761-

     

    everybody knows what that is, how can we omit it? 😎

     

    Since everyone is so curious... 🙄 I’ll spill the beans. It’s a P40-Q with a Packard Merlin and a 2 Stage Supercharger. Since the Mustang was already in production, they never got a contract for it. It would be fun to see it modeled though. (There might have been other reasons too)

     

    I guess the B-25 is the obvious one since the internal modeling is all that’s left.

     

    I would be happy if the other one was the Li-2/C-47/Dakota since we really need that aircraft for Allied paratrooper and transport duties.

    • Like 1

  3. 6 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

    ... It holds not true however with the unleaded high performance fuels for cars.

     

    Yes, that would have been a bad idea in my supercharged Mustang Cobra running 8 lbs of boost pressure. Good way to blow the hood off with various random pieces of scrap metal. Not worth trying to increase the 12 mpg it achieved. 😳

     

    4 hours ago, unreasonable said:

     

    Take a look at this handy toy for calculating temperature and pressure etc at altitude.  https://www.digitaldutch.com/atmoscalc/

     

     

    Yes, that is handy, so -65 degrees F at 35,000 feet on a chilly day in Northern Europe. No wonder they had problems with carburetor intake air temperatures and frozen controls. Pioneering high altitude technology had its challenges.


  4. 11 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

     

    Isn't the temperature at 35k  around  -50 degrees even on a North American summers day?

     

    I don't know, which is why I said "or whatever it was". I don't claim to be an expert on high altitude temperatures. I just know its awful darn cold up there and everything froze up until they sorted out the cockpit heating issue. 

     

    11 hours ago, PainGod85 said:

     

    It's funny you should quote the one part of my post that poked fun at how the different engine turn directions across two airframes came to be. Everything else I said is nothing but stating facts.

     

    Funny, maybe. If you consider it poking fun, that's OK. This is a speculation thread on what might or might not be represented and modeled anyway, right? We can all speculate whatever we want.

     

    @ZachariasX  thanks for clearing that up. Back when my Uncle was an engineer at NASA he tried to explain to me why you would get better mileage in a car with lower octane fuel than high octane, and it made just as much sense to me as your logical and detailed explanation of lead scavenging. I'm just going to revert back to my original statement that they didn't work right at high altitude until they fixed the cockpit heater and call it a day. I do appreciate the education though. 😉

     


  5. Well, I’m going to go ahead and partially correct my previous statement made from memory.

     

    This is from Aviation History Online Museum website history of the P-38 Lightning

     

    Engine Problems:

     

        The Lightning would become one of the best fighters of World War II, but the early gestation period was one of complete frustration. Early on in the 8th Air Force, engine failures were frequent and flight training for flying on one engine was inadequate. The most serious situation for a new pilot was losing an engine on takeoff with a full load. Many crashes could have been avoided if correct procedures were followed, but the technique for surviving an engine out on takeoff wasn’t developed until years after the P-38 was in service. Many pilots crashed as a result and didn’t survive unless they were lucky. The technique that was finally developed was to pull back power on the good engine, feather the dead engine, trim the aircraft, and gradually advance power on the good engine.

     

        Detonation was a major problem at high altitude. Engines detonated without warning and occurred so quickly that the engine would tear itself apart. Detonation was detrimental to the pistons, rods and crankshafts. High carburetor air temperatures using excessive manifold pressure were one cause of detonation. 45 degrees Celsius was the maximum carburetor air temperature that the engine could withstand. For war considerations, 91 octane was used in training and if more than 44 inches of manifold pressure was used, it would cause engine detonation. 

     

        At 30,000 ft. (9,144 m), the intercoolers separated the lead from the fuel lowering octane and resulted in fouled plugs, thrown rods, and swallowed valves. 150 octane fuels were tried in Europe, but the leaded fuel fouled the plugs, because of the cold operating temperatures and supercharger regulators froze at high altitude.

        

        Due to the high rate of engine failures, Jimmy Doolittle, then commander of the 8th Air Force, decided to pull the P-38 out of Europe. After P-51 Mustangs replaced the Lightning, the kill ratio went from 1.5: 1 to 7:1. However, other war theaters were clamoring for the P-38 and this is where the Lightning would finally shine. Although the Lightning faired much better in warmer climates, when introduced in the Pacific, there were an unusual number of engine failures due to engine bearings wearing prematurely during the first six months of 1944. Pratt & Whitney had a similar problem with bearing surfaces eroding away due to acid buildup in the lubricating oil. The oil formulation was changed and the problem was finally eliminated. Wright Aeronautical also used reformulated oil to correct problems with its R-2600 engine.

     

     


  6. 1 hour ago, DD_Arthur said:

     

    Wha?:unsure:

     

    I’m not an airplane mechanic or an aeronautical engineer (although I did study it at Georgia Tech) but my understanding of the high altitude problem is that the turbosupercharger control modules located in the cockpit froze up at -20 degrees or whatever it was at 35,000 feet in Northern Europe during the winter. The pilots’ feet and hands had the same problem. When that happened the engine or engines either got no boost or full boost without moderated control. This caused fouled spark plugs from running too rich or burned valves from being too lean and led to engine failures from improper air fuel mixture.

     

    A simple problem that was hard to fix until they installed better cockpit heaters with the J and L models. With the cockpit being in a separate gondola, it was not right next to the heat of the engines like all the other fighters of the time, and it was not well insulated. It was also difficult to pipe in hot air with the limited space involved. What we are getting in game would not have had those problems encountered in ‘43 and early ‘44. They also fixed the dive compressibility problem by then and the cockpit oxygen supply, so what major flaws are we left with again? 

     

    Oh wait, I remember, it has twice as many engines to get shot up... or get you home. It was also easy to identify which could get you attacked by the dwindling Luftwaffe... or keep you from getting shot up by the bombers you were escorting or the “friendly” AA over the airfields back across the bomb line.

    • Like 1

  7. 3 hours ago, PainGod85 said:

    A part of me wonders if any test engineers may have elected to find out whether hats can be eaten and subsequently digested. Another part of me prefers relative uncertainty on the topic.

     

    Considering how well the P38 performed during its time in the real world, I’d say you will never be certain that it was the mess you suggest.

     

    Far from perfect, it was the best tool available to get a job done at the time, and fortunately for the free world, it was flown by people a lot more optimistic than some here. It’s only real down sides we’re being a big target, freezing up at extremely high altitude (like most fighters on the cutting edge at the time) and being easy to recognize. The last point was both good and bad at different times. 

     

    It it pretty much excelled at everything else it was assigned to. Bomber escort, ground attack, reconnaissance, and air superiority in every theatre from 1943 through 1945. There are only a very few other aircraft that can compare to that record.

    • Upvote 3

  8. Is it possible to fly the Spitfire IXe in a US campaign? There were a couple of groups that flew them into early 1944. 31st and 52nd I think?

     

    I saw a post somewhere about adding aircraft to campaigns but I can’t find it and I’m not sure if it was referring to PWCG or the official IL2 campaign.


  9. 8 hours ago, danjama said:

    Just to piggy back on this topic, is it not possible to contact tower for a heading?

     

    The best you can do there is have the radio direction finder installed and enabled and it will point you in the right direction. It's available in the Mission Editor, not in the campaign

    • Like 1

  10. In some of the histories I've read, the Luftwaffe fighter pilots were notorious for lots of energetic radio calls during combat encounters, to the point of confusion and not being able to determine who was calling out what.

     

    The allied pilots generally kept good radio discipline all the way up to encountering enemy fire and then tended to forget to identify themselves so others knew who was in trouble.

     

    As busdriver mentioned, I believe Allied missions generally had separate frequencies for bombers, fighters, ground control and emergency vector home. Yes it could get very hectic if you had 2 or 3 squadrons on the same frequency, but that's why they called it "radio discipline". It wasn't always very disciplined by some accounts.   

     

    In game, since installing an English version of radio traffic I find them useful to a point, but would prefer to know who the ground controller is talking to when they say "objective complete, return to base" or which flight is calling out they are "attacking fighters to the south". We get none of that now. I'm hoping the new voices will help that as there are some new lines which identify who is speaking to which flight. That would actually make flight call signs useful to know.  

     


  11. Radio calls are not always be referenced to where the player is. You do have to know who is calling and where they are. It could be another flight making the call. 

     

    Also if you were paying attention to the career assistance forum, you would see that new radio calls have been recorded for the British and American careers.

     

    It appears that ground control will be vectoring you to some intercepts. When the recordings are chopped up and recombined, you will still have

    Aircraft spotted... clock direction, range

    Engaging... compass heading, range.

     

    There are also voice clips for low and high, hard to say how those will be incorporated at this point though.


  12. I’m in on this one for sure. Thanks for all the hard work Haash & company! I guess everyone knows I’m a Spitfire fan already. 😎

     

    7 hours ago, blitze said:

    She is a fun plane to throw around but I find her a difficult gun platform as she lofts on the elevator control and gun placement is very spread... At the moment I dial nose down when I am about to engage in a fight to keep her from bobbing up over my intended target when I don't want her to.

     

    A light touch on the controls is all it takes. If you use that to outfly your quarry first, you can get in close and a couple of cannon rounds to the cockpit will end the hunt. Even .303 is effective at close range when well placed. 😉


  13. 18 hours ago, DFLion said:

    Where are you Jason?

     

    He’s in Las Vegas, or maybe Moscow, or possibly in England looking at Tempests. Some people hope he is in Japan, leafing through old Mitsubishi aeronautical engineering books with a translator...

     

    The directions were clear, you are in the wrong thread, and if you want to contribute, read the original post and go ahead and do some writing following the stated format. They may use your submissions or maybe not. No one has said it is done yet so there’s only one way to find out.

     

    Lots of us want to help, but if you don’t pass the “follow directions” test first, your efforts will be overlooked.

     

    Welcome to the forum. 👍


  14. 4 hours ago, sevenless said:

    Seems like 1CGS has it spot on with the exception of the damage model.

     

    And the flaps lift needs a bit of work but I think they are aware of that already. I think we can expect to see that addressed in September.

    • Upvote 4

  15. 6 hours ago, pfrances said:

     

    Didn't it tend to flip over when it lost an engine? Maybe that was just during take-off and landing but I remember reading about it.

     

    No, if one engine lost power on take off it tended to yaw into the reduced power engine due to uneven thrust. The full power engine oppose to the non feathered, drag inducing, unpowered engine pulled the aircraft to one side. The side with drag and no thrust lost lift, snapping the aircraft into an uneven stall frequently resulting in a crash.

     

    a little research tells me that if you reduced power on the good engine and kept even lift under the wings by feathering the prop on the bad one quickly, you could continue the takeoff and proceed on one engine.  No one was bold enough to continue a mission like that, but once they learned how to do it, it was not really life threatening.

     

    landing on one engine just meant a slightly increased landing speed to avoid the unpowered side stalling in fist and allow the possibility of going around if the approach was off. The danger there was overrunning the end of runway.

     

    i will try to find Tony Levier’s description, I know I have it somewhere.

     

    EDIT...

     

    Tony Levier on his first day in Europe to demo the P-38 capabilities 1944...

    from The Fork Tailed Devil by Martin Caiden 

     

    “At twenty-nine thousand feet the right engine blew up and fell apart. As I had already had ten Allison engines blow up on me in the last two years, this was nothing new; usually I could feel it coming, but this time it just went wham and that was it. I switched from my drop tanks to regular wing tanks. My drop tanks were not yet empty so I kept them with me, although I was pretty heavy and on one engine it was sort of cutting it close. However, we had done this quite often in California and I didn’t figure I would be in any sweat. “I had been flying due north toward Scotland, figuring this would keep me over land. Being on top of a heavy overcast, I did not know my position, so when I turned south toward my base I asked for a radio fix. They immediately came back with my exact position and distance from home so fast I thought this was going to be wonderful; you couldn’t get lost over here with this kind of service. I flew the heading they gave me and figured out I should be there in about fifteen minutes. “About ten minutes passed when they came back on the air with landing instructions; if I was west of the perimeter I should turn hard left and land on runway 29, into the wind which was blowing about thirty miles an hour. At once I looked down and there was the field right below me. I thought to myself this was peculiar, as I hadn’t figured on being there yet, but everything was just like I left it and the tower had a green light on me. I swung around left but as I looked at runway 29 the wind was across it, so I called the tower and asked them again what runway to use. “Getting no answer this time, I picked an alternate runway with a headwind, which was the logical thing to do under the circumstances. I turned left into my good engine and with my landing gear down I entered the base leg for runway 24. I was still extremely busy with drop tanks on, and as I turned the airplane started to buffet. I had partial flaps down at the time, but even so I realized I was making too tight a base leg. I opened the throttle and pulled the gear and flaps up and made a wide circle to the right, and this time I came in and landed with room to spare. “Again I called the tower on the radio, requesting taxi instructions, and again there was only a deep silence. Then I looked around to see if anyone was waving at me, and for the first time I realized this was not the field I had taken off from. I could see now it was a B-26 bomber base, laid out identically to the fighter base I had just left. There was nothing to do now but roll to a stop off the side of the runway and get out of the airplane. A jeep came out on the field to get me and I was driven to base operations, where I identified myself. The boys said they sure were sweating me out. They saw me with a dead engine, and the idea was general in the Air Corps over there at that time that a pilot with one engine out on a P-38 was a sad sack.

     

    apparently even with drop tanks and most of a fuel load it was practical to go around and land successfully on one engine. I will see what I can find about single engine take off...

     

     


  16. If you download a free scripted campaign, you can edit whether you see all of the missions listed in the campaign or not.

    Open Data/Campaigns/campaign Name xx/info.txt

    On the lines;

     

    &showfutureMissionsNames=1

    &showfutureMissionDescriptions=1

     

    if it is =0, mission names and descriptions will not be displayed.

    if it is =1, they will be displayed

     

    you still have to complete the mission to progress to the next one, unless you open them in the Mission Editor and save them in a different file as single missions. If you do that, you can fly them in any order you like. If you complete a scripted campaign, the only difference is that it will track your kill count /score.

     

    I also use safely landing at the home or designated airbase as primary mission success goal. I also put in a random goal that if you get shot down and crash land you have an xx% chance of successful mission completion. To me surviving and hopefully returning immediately to base is the most important thing. Depending on what area pilots were in, they may have been able to return to base fairly quickly. 

     

    At at this point, bailing out always results in mission failure.

×
×
  • Create New...