Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by eastriverman

  1. 10 hours ago, TIGRE88 said:


    updated all 16 campaigns "131 missions " to readjust vehicle AI, after last TC 4.502 update.
    and improved combat phases for the Panzerdivision1 and Blitzkrieg2 campaigns.

    small supplement :

    animation of the convoy of trucks for the mission 2 of the WW2 Prokhorovka campaign,  
    it will make eastriverman happy.






    Hi Tigre,

    eastriverman IS happy😀


    BTW, I played through the rest of the Prokhorovka campaign and encountered no problems in terms of bugs or "show stoppers"  though the difficulty level is pretty high now.


    But that's OK for me, keeps the tension. The use of well-hidden AT-gun emplacements in the campaign reflects the real soviet WW2 anti-tank doctrine.


    Even tank aces like Michael Wittmann regarded AT-guns to be more dangerous than enemy tanks.


    So, with the update of all of your campaigns to 4.502 I have an excellent excuse to play through them a second time.


    best regards



    post scriptum:


    One question for a mission builder expert:


    Does the mission builder allow the creation of really big tank battles of let's say around 100+ tanks on each side without AI going amok?

    • Thanks 1

  2. 23 hours ago, TIGRE88 said:


    big Update for the campaign "Prokhorovka" which no longer exists,

    I improved everything, the navigation maps, the fights "which are more difficult", the dialogues plus programming improvements.

    this campaign is called "WW2 Prokhorovka"


    to have this update you just have to download the link on the first page




    Tiger tank skin by : Tomi_099

    HiHo Tigre,


    of course, I couldn't withstand to try the improved Prokhorovka campaign.


    Still familiar with the missions from the old version of the campaign I did not exspect major surprises.


    However, after the first mission I'm stuck in the second mission.


    Knowing from the old version that I've to turn right and blast my way through Yamki, eliminating ALL resistance there, even the crappy machine guns. Then a counterattack of 3 T-34s has to be repelled. After Yamki a SIS-3 and a machine gun near a farm house must be destroyed to clear the way to Lutovo. Then, shortly after the farm house a sursprise flank attack of 3 SUs has to be repelled and in the end there's a wild scuffle with the soviet forces in and around Lutovo.


    When the russians are defeated there's an order to wait for a supply truck with ammo needed for the attack on Prokhorovka. In the old version the truck arrived then after some time but in the new version of the campaign nothing happens (see picture).






    After waiting several minutes with 8x time compression Iost my patience and advanced alone and the other picture shows what happens then.


    Oviously, there's something missing to triggger the arrival of the truck, but what could that be?


    Best regards




    • Thanks 1
    • Upvote 1

  3. On 10/29/2020 at 11:23 AM, TIGRE88 said:

    New little campaign available, added in pack120, wich is now pack125 :) 

    the campaign takes place on the Velikie luki summer map, with Otto Carius and his friends Zwetti and Kramer.

    if you want to test this campaign, you will have to redownload the link from the first page.


    I count on my professional tester : Eastrivermann to try this campaign :) 


    TIGER tanks skins by FLOWBEE  



    image ggg.jpg

    Greetings Tigre,


    when Tigre calls, eastriverman has to step in 😀


    This new campaign really saved me from dying of boredom in this 2nd wave of Corona.......


    But back to the topic:


    After several attempts I was able to successfully complete missions 1 to 4 with a lot of dangerous steel beasts to kill.


    Liked to play cat and mouse with the russian tankers especially because it wasn't that clear who was the cat in the end.


    However, there seems to be an issue for me with mission 5:


    After having successfully ambushed two russian tank columns on the road, a little village has to be attacked. After deleting all the resistance i was ordered to "inspect the destroyed car", but there was no car.


    At some point I realized that "the car" must be that burning staff car in the picture of the mission briefing and after some more investigations I found the problem for me:


    The staff car is located at the far end of the village and there's no line of sight to kill it from long range. As soon as my attack starts, it flees and it is impossible to catch up to it with my sluggish Tiger. Therefore,  I cheated god mode and drove right through the village without caring about the enemy tanks but even then the car escapes. One can see it on the map but soon after it simply disappears from the map and cannot be found anymore.


    Thus, I cannot activate the "car inspection trigger" and the mission counts as a failure.


    Of course, in my next attempt I tried to bypass the village and attack from the rear in order to catch this little bugger by surprise, but the village is flanked by lakes and the Tiger has to stay on the road. As soon as I leave the road, the Tiger gets stuck (swampland?).


    Any idea how to complete the mission?


    best regards





    • Like 1

  4. On 5/15/2020 at 2:06 AM, PhunkaeG said:

    I just started looking into custom texturing for IL2.
    I was expecting that we would have a series of templates. (Which I found links to)
    But I was also expecting that we would be given some 3d models for painting directly onto.

    Is this something that has been requested? Or any reason why its not possible. I tried searching, but perhaps my search terms weren't correct.

    To be clear, it doesn't have to be the highest polycount version of their in-game planes (in case they're concerned with people sharing their models around),  if it was an export of a lower LoD model, it would still be mapped well enough to assist with lining up panels etc without having to save, load in viewer, then go back, nudge and repeat.

    It would also open up a lot of options with software like Substance Painter, with their smart materials and physics based painting etc, and creation of alternative normal maps.

    Anyway, just curious.

    HiHo PhunkaeG,


    you are asking a very justified question.


    Being a great fan of flight simulations and a dedicated modeler as well, one of my first actions in the good old days of Red Baron 3D was to create personal skins because it was quite easy and the results looked quite good for that time. And therefore, it was fun.


    In Great battles things are a bit different.


    The graphical quality of a good skin is of another world but I found creating a skin to be a complicated, error-prone,  time consuming, and annoying process.


    So, the guys & girls able to go through that and donating these pieces of art to the community are my heroes.


    However, I'm not that heroic, since creating skins with the tools at hand is not fun at all.


    So, to come back to your question, it's surprising that it wasn't asked much earlier.


    It should be possible to create a tool that can you can use like a model builder. It should work basically like a CAD program where you have already a complete 3D model of an airplane and than you can pick, move, and rotate any part or goup of parts and paint them like you want, including surface textures. 


    That's bacially what a model builder does when he paints his models.


    Actually, one could use a CAD program to do this if the 3D-models were in a common CAD-format like AutoCAD. The tricky part would then be to transfer the painted 3D model into a DDS which is ready to use.


    This completeley eliminates the annoying process of painting in 2D and with little idea how this will look in 3D.


    Having such a tool would surely give the painter's community a tremendous kick.


    And to pay for such a fantastic tool is at least for me not a problem at all.


    best regards








    • Like 1

  5. Hi Aliocha,


    thanks for your remarks which I agree to.


    Perhaps there is a little misunderstanding about why I mentioned those details.


    I've read many publications about the two biggest catastrophies of mankind in the 20th century, namely the first and second world war.


    Having lost a lot of my relatives in WW2 and truly believing in the wisdom of the ancient greek statement "if you do not learn from history you are doomed to repeat history" I always wanted to understand the failures in politics that lead to these wars and how this escalated during the wars itself.


    Unfortunately, on top of being the most horrifying war of all times, WW2 also was a propaganda war which makes the work of historians pretty diffcult. Many propaganda legends, created by any of the countries that participated in WW2, found their way into history books.


    Regarding the war between Nazi germany and soviet Russia, any publication before 1991 should be read with a critical mind and this true for russian AND german publications as well. It was russian president Gorbatchev who opened die russian WW2 military archives for researchers from foreign countries in 1991 and they turned out to be a treasure chest.


    Especially many details of the history of operation citadel turned out to be "legends" spread by russians and germans as well.


    For example the german excuses for their failure: "It was all Hitler's fault" and "the russians knew all the details of citadel from a high-ranking german traitor months before the battle" .


    In short: Bullshit.


    The reason why I like Töppels book so much is that it is to my knowledge the most recent one about this topic and because Töppel simply made a proper job by acting like a good reporter who verifies every fact in his story by at least two independent sources. This is reflected in his book by many hundred references to original sources.


    And there's another reason: I hate propaganda, it's evil lying 😬


    Though being a german, Töppel provides a neutral picture of the course of the battles with sometimes surprising insights. It turned out that the russian defenders  not only fought with great bravery but sometimes also showed excellent tactical skills while some german commanders were pretty incompetent.


    Of course, the big picture remains unchanged. Barbarossa was the brainchild of racist psychopaths suffering from megalomania and was doomed to be a failure right from the start in spite of the initial success in 1941.


    The should have learned from the failures of Napolean and the swedish king.........


    Talking about bibles: A bible about "Barbarossa" written with the some detail and  accuracy like Töppel's book will have 10.000 or more pages and that's not going to happen.


    I admit, after reading Töppel's book, my expectations for the Prokhorovka mission in the Koursk campaign were probably too high.


    Knowing that now, I managed to "loose" and to proceed in the campaign, Huraaah 😀


    Sadly, my problems with the missions in the other campaigns persist.


    best regards





  6. On 4/17/2020 at 2:42 PM, JG27_Steini said:


    The OP was very kind. It may be that you are talented designer but, in fact you did understand all wrong in OP. OP greeted you, he was kind, the said "thank you" and so on. He did nothing you blamed him. Everyone can read that, except you.


    Greetings Steini and all the tankers around,


    when I read Tigre's "answer"  I really thought I was "in the wrong movie" and found that it wasn't worth any answer.


    Fact is that I appreciate the work of mission/campaign builders as much as the other members in this forum.


    Actually, I liked his campaigns and his latest campaign "panzerdivision" shows a major impovement in mission design compared to the missions in the preceding campaigns which were already pretty good.


    So, from my side I assume a major misunderstanding due to language problems. May the past rest in peace and let's look into the future without anger.


    Meanwhile I found at least a solution for the problem with the Prokhorovka mission and my findings might be interesting for those who are interested in the history of the Kursk campaign:


    Tigre's history lesson about Prokhorovka is based on myths created in several books written by russian authors during the 1960s.


    However, recent historical research based on original sources (war diaries, after-Battle reports, loss reports etc.), taken from german as well from russian archives, create a complete different picture.


    Here is a link to a talk about Prokhorovka given by a professional historian:



    The talk is in german but that guy also wrote a book of which several translations are available:






    In Short:


    Prokhorovka was a disaster for the russians. After 196 of their tanks were completely destroyed and another 200 immobilized with different degrees of damage, they had to withdraw from the battlefield. The germans lost only 5 tanks and among them was not a single Tiger.


    Prokhorovka was by no means decisive for the final outcome of operation citadel.


    It was the soviet counterattack aimed at the city of Orel (operation Kutusov) that forced the germans to disrupt their attacks and to fight a series of defensive battles.


    Found the book to be very informative, full of valuable detail info, good stuff.


    If Tigre's campaign is meant to be a historical accurate recreation of the tank actions during the Kursk campaign, can the Prokhorovka mission then be changed to end with a german victory?


    Until this happens I will do my best to loose the mission in order to proceed in the campaign 😀



    best regards




    • Like 1

  7. Greetings, tankers!


    I'd like to ask for some help with 3 of the scripted campaigns published here, namely the Causcase, the Belgorod, and the Koursk43 campaign.


    First, without looking into the campaign files, it was hard to understand the mission objectives with the german localization of the game, since there are only mission briefings in english and french.


    The *.ger mission briefings were not in german but in french.


    I made copies of the *.eng files in another folder, renaming them to *.ger and copied these files back to the campaign folder.


    In the same way I generated a "info.locale=ger.txt" file in the campaign folder.


    Though the mission objectives were now somewhat more understandable I got stuck in all of the 3 campaigns at different points.




    In mission 2 the goal is to destroy all tanks and anti-tank guns in the area of "refinery A".

    I did so and found out that there was a "hidden" trigger for a second part in the mission. The second Tiger stops in the first part and only when I drive nearby it moves further to the center of the refinery to the vicinity of the crane. This triggers the appearance of two additional ZIS-3 guns and some machine guns.

    After destroying these targets the area is "clean" but the mission does not end.

    Also, another "reunion" with the second tiger does not trigger the end of the mission.

    I searched the whole area several times for hidden stragglers but found nothing.

    So, any clue for me how to get out of this?



    In mission 5 one has to report to the commander at the crossing first who then orders us to accompain some T4s to seal a breakthrough of soviet tank forces.

    The T4s advance blindly and run into the russians at a hill crest being blasted by soviet T-34s. Next time I managed to get ahead of the T4s and blasted the soviets instead.

    Together with the remaining T4s I advance to a road crossing after wiping off the map some fleeing T-34s. The T4s stop then at the fork of the roadroad where the mission path (red line) ends. Again, the mission does not end though the whole map is empty. No enemies, no villages, no bridges, and no town of Belgorod.


    So, what I am expected to do here in order to finish successfully?


    BTW: There's another glitch in the mission. Though I'm absolutely sure that I was shooting only at soviet tanks, at some point of the battle I'm always confronted with a message saying that I get a penalty for firing at friendly units.



    In mission 3 (Prokhorovka) the goal is pretty simple. Destroy hordes of soviet tanks which attack in several waves. With a lot of training I managed to destroy ALL of the attackers with the help of the friendly AI tank force. Here, too, the mission does not end after that. And that's not due to too many losses. So, what's wrong here?


    All of the above campaigns were made by the same author, but that doesn't seem to be the problem since the newest versions of Narwa43 and Prokhorovka campaigns from the same author work fine.


    A big "thank you" in advance for any help given.


    best regards



  8. On 1/28/2019 at 3:03 AM, DetCord12B said:

    Ever wanted to fly the Bf 109 K-4 in one of the Dynamic Campaigns? Me too, so I made a mod to do just that for BoM. The mod is fully campaign compatible though you'll likely have to start a new one for it to work properly. The K-4's are relegated to 1. and 2. Sqdn. of JG52, so make sure you pick the right squadron when starting a new campaign.


    I've also included six custom (historical) liveries from JG52, seven including a default paint scheme the AI will use. All liveries will appear under the Official tab and contain proper descriptions concerning the aircraft's history and position. It should also be noted that these will also replace the default liveries for QMB as well.









      Reveal hidden contents



    Please report any bugs or issues encountered. If you would like to see aircraft added to any other dynamic campaign (K-4's over Kuban?) let me know. Thanks.


    K-4's Over Moscow - DOWNLOAD


    LaGG's Over Moscow - DOWNLOAD



      Hide contents

    29-01-2019: Added the LaGG-3s29 to the BoM Career.


    Download links are dead (404 error) .........

  9. 26 minutes ago, Kataphrakt said:

    Otherwise one bullet-wind effect we have to consider for aircraft is the Magnus Effect which impacts a bullet in crosswind making it move up or down depending on the spin of the round and the wind speed. For anyone familiar with the backspin on an Airsoft BB (hop-up) making the BBs fly more level, its the same physics at play. the difference is that with an airsoft BB the spin axis is 90 degrees off of the flight direction, and parallel to the ground. In a bullet the spin axis is along the flight direction so only crosswinds cause the magnus effect in bullets. Alternatively, it's how pitchers in baseball throw curveballs. This effect in particular makes shooting from aircraft, especially rotary-wing aircraft difficult. If firing from the left side of a rotary wing aircraft traveling forward, you might fire and have a round move to your left from the prop wash, then after it gets out of the prop wash it may move down from the oncoming wind.



    What we learn from this is, that the more you go into detail the more complicated things become.


    For example, bullet drop due to gravity is larger at sea level than it is on top of Mount Everest (probably illegal to fire a shot there). But even on sea level bullet drop is smaller at the equator than it is at north or south pole since earth's shape is not that of an ideal sphere....


    And then earth is not made from a homogeneous material. There are regions with different density of matter. Guess what that means for the value of earth's gravity constant g. Actually, there are g-mappings giving you the exact value of g at different places.


    Do you know if this is taken into account in military ballistics, especially long range shooting like heavy artillery?


    It's a miracle that we hit anything at all 😀


    • Like 1

  10. 5 minutes ago, Kataphrakt said:

    Are you talking about the rotation of the earth?



    The Coriolis force is a so-called pseudo force present only in an accelerated reference system. For example, the centrifugal force is a pseudo force, too.


    Where Coriolis force matters is aerial navigation. If you set a straight course from a starting point to a target, the earth with your target point will rotate underneath your straight flight path and you will miss your target if you don't take this into account.


    Wonder if this is simulated in GB, too......




  11. On 2/1/2020 at 5:57 PM, ShamrockOneFive said:

    As I recall, there weren't that many P-38 fighter squadrons on the continent by late 1944 so the probability of running into them versus the more numerous P-47 groups is likely historical.


    Well, we talk here about P-38 fighter bomber squadrons and they were active in ETO until the end of the war.


    But to talk of BOBP:


    In my BOBP career it's January 28th 1945 and I never saw a single P-38 though the main map (headquarter) says that there are six P-38 squadrons (401,402,428,430, and 485) based at Florennes airbase on that very day.


    I flew there the same day and look for P-38s on the way, but none were there.


    Ariving at the airfield , there were 11 P-38s and some P-47 on the ground. With target markers on, none of them was marked as a target. Nothing on the airfield was marked as target!


    No AA, no resistance, the whole airfield appeared to be a dud.


    Infuriated about the cowardice of these P-38 jockeys I gunned the s**t out of them and flattened all of the P-38s on the ground.


    Made a movie about that, too.


    So then,  another thorough disappointment  in this career. Alone for this I hope the war will be over soon .......








  12. On 2/1/2020 at 10:47 AM, Mobile_BBQ said:

    Does firing a bullet against the wind or with the wind affect bullet drop or does it make no difference?  


    Well, for a proper ballistic calculation all the forces that affect the bullet have to be taken into account:


    1. gravity. This force is responsible for the bullet drop. On earth's surface it's almost constant. Going up it becomes smaller following a law of inverse squared distance.


    2. Drag/friction. This force slows the bullet down and therefore adds to the bullet drop. The details are described in the post of <unreasonable>. Since v is the bullet's speed relative to the medium (air), wind will change this speed and should affect the drop. Not mentioned by <unreasonable> is the effect that drag becomes smaller towards larger altitudes due to the thinner air. This can be understood easily since there's not drag at all in vacuum/space. But this not crucial for "surface ballistics".


    3. Coriolis force. This does not affect bullet drop but snipers know about its importance in long range precision shooting .


    In reality wind can be neglected if you follow the advice of Erich Hartmann, germany's  WW II top fighter ace:


    If you think you are close enough for a shot, get closer!


    He suggested to open fire at 100 meters. Here, the target is huge, making a miss almost impossible and the bullet speed is still high, resulting in higher kinetic energy and a higher destructive power.


    best regards



  13. On 1/31/2020 at 4:05 AM, Jaegermeister said:

    I encounter lots of P-38s in the BoBP singleplayer career I have been flying. I am flying out of Florennes in the P-38 and they are all around me on every mission. 😉

    Cheers Jaegermeister!


    That's nice for you but there's a bit of a misunderstanding.


    I'm on the side of evil Darth Vader and I'm looking for P-38s to shoot down.😀


    In my career, only P-47s appear as fighter bombers and in rare cases Spitfires, too.


    I never ever saw a single P-38 on the whole map though I searched for them thoroughly!!


    I agree with you that there should be swarms of fork tailed devils everywhere because ground attack was their prime task in tactical air war in ETO.


    But there are so many bugs in BOBP that I shouldn't be too suprised about that.


    I want those cowards to come out and play :hunter:





    On 1/30/2020 at 2:26 PM, migmadmarine said:

    It is strange how aircraft are selected to spawn against you. I'm maybe 2/3rds of the way through a Kuban career, and have never encountered a Spitfire, and only started encountering the P-39 some months before. 

    Yep, that's exactly what experienced also.


    Probably you are a collector, too. Not only collecting medals and promotions but also a complete set of kills including every type of enemy plane which s on the map :hunter:

  14. On 1/30/2020 at 4:29 PM, ACG_Alexmarine said:


    This is particularly puzzling to me as RoF (which as far as I know was built on the same engine) clearly had in the mission generator more AI getting spawned and running their own missions, often having an impact on the mission generated for the player unit (random fighter sweep/ recon flight) or responding to it (fighter spawning on the airfields to intercept player flight). At the same time on both sides there were always truck convoys/trains/tanks assaults going on the ground...


    More than the game engine itself (which surely also had some initial problems compared in the transition from RoF, remember the 10km fog?) I still think that the AI-demanded resources are what are bogging down the missions so easily...

    I'm with you!


    Things have become worse which is pretty obvious when comparing Great Battles with another spawn within the Sturmovik universe, let's say RoF.


    In RoF, the planes of any squadron present on the map, no matter if AI or player's squadron, have skins with historically correct makings of these squadrons. There are even aces present which you can duel with and their planes have individual markings. Cool!


    In GB none of that. All planes only have a a single dull camouflage paint job (winter/summer in BoS, BoM, Bok; bare metal in BoBP) and national insignia,  no squadron markings, no aces no individual markings. Dull and boring...


    In RoF, all ground objects present in the quick missions are also present in career mode and they are "attackable". This especially incudes moving trains AND ships! In GB some ground objects are missing, especially ships and trains.


    Though, that's not completely correct: In BoM, BoS, BoK trains and ships are completely missing, but in BOBP you have some fighter bomber missions against stationary trains in urban areas (german side, don't know about allied side).


    In RoF, as a commanding officer you are allowed to fly a "lone wolf mission" at your own will after the duty missions of that day are completed and on that mission you can act as you like. Adds a little bit of freedom. In GB...........guess what.


    In RoF, the AI occaisonally showed a glimpse of intelligence. For example, sometimes just after lifting off the airfield for a mission, I found myself in the middle of an attack on my airfield.

    That evolved into a thrilling encounter in which I had to fight hard to keep my digital pilot avatar alive. Never saw something even close to that in GB.


    May it be helpful to ask the people who made RoF how they did it and put it into GB? Maybe....


    I also noticed a fading quality in the GB careers.


     In BoS and BoM the phases of the battles were introduced by animated cutscenes with underlying audio text. Not groundbraking, but ok for me


    In BoK only bad animations, no audio, only some dull lines of text displayed.


    Finally, in BOPB there are no cutscenes at all but a lot of bugs which are known since months but still not fixed. You remember this bug where AI pilots stand upright in the canopies instead of sitting in them? It's still there, just saw it yesterday.


    There are more serious bug, real show stoppers, that can ruin your pilot career. I found one myself but did not report it. Why should I when it's not fixed anyway?


    Though, don't ask me why, I'm still a faithful fan. I even bought the Normandy content without having seen even a single piece of artwork.


    However, believe me this, I'm afraid asking myself what I can expect from Normandy Battles.


    All of the above is not big news.


    It's pretty much identical to the verdict of game testers from numerous computer game magazines who made reviews of the first IL-2 and it's reincarnations.


    All of them were highly impressed by the graphics and and the realism of any technical detail but they were much less impressed by the singleplayer experience offered by the game.


    It's all about presentation and longterm motivation. That's what makes an outstanding game.The recipes to reach that goal are simple and well-known, but not realised here.


    On the other hand,  there are always two sides and, strangely enough, I can understand the developers, too.


    They are passionate, engaged, hard working  and very talented people which created an amazingly complex piece of software.


    Unfortunately, compared to the blockbuster games from the big studios like electronic arts or UBIsoft, selling in the millions, there is only a small market for flightsims.


    Bugfixing is then a tedious but also a neccessary task. However, it makes only those people happy who already bought the game but it does not generate income.


    Therefore, since the develeopers have to make a living from what they are doing, they have to publish new content. New content introduces new bugs.


    With limited manpower this creates conflicts. There's simply no time at all to fix the new bugs and the known ones as well and to improve the singleplayer part of the game and, and,.....


    So, what now? Game over?


    As a single buyer I can cannot do much more to financially support the developers because I already bought pretty much every content ever offered since the first IL-2.


    But what about the community?


    It's fantastic!


    So many helpful and talented people which put a lot of time and effort into the improvement of the game and they are faithful fans.


    I suppose they are willing and capable to support the developers in many ways with the improvements.


    There are skinners , mission builders, tool makers, content testers.........


    Only a very stupid thought: What about teaming up?














    • Upvote 3

  15. On 1/29/2020 at 11:32 PM, Feathered_IV said:

    I don’t have the Bodenplatte chapter, but does the allied offensive against rail traffic feature there?   

    Cannot answer THAT question since I'm on the german side but while being commanding officer of the KG51 equipped with the fighter bomber version of the Me 252 there were railway attack missions.


    However, the trains were stationary within urban areas with some trucks and tanks araound them, probably to simulate unloading troops.


    In other words: trains yes, moving no.


    So, probably there are "stationary" missions also available on the allied side in BOBP.






  16. On 1/30/2020 at 7:48 AM, VO101Kurfurst said:

    The throttle limit issue is interesting because the DB 605 D  , unlike all the other 601s and 605s before, had an automatic supercharger bleed system, so throttling back to avod over pressure was probably unneccessary.



    to add to the topic I tested the performance of the Bf-109 K-4 with the DB 605 DC engine in clean configuration (no gunpods etc.) and with 100% fuel at 7000 meters.


    Pushing the throttle to 100&% in level fligth gives you 483 kph IAS which is a 40 kph IAS speed advantage over the Spitfire IXe.


    After 9:35 Minutes you get a warning "duration of emergency power exceeded" but the speed stays at 483 kph IAS.


    Continuing with100% gives you after 11:41 a warning "engine damaged"  and from then on the speed slowly decreases.


    After 13:50 minutes the warning "engine overheated" is diplayed and at that time the speed has decreased to 434 kph IAS.


    At 14:37 the engine stops working. No fire, no explosion, the propeller just stops spinning.


    So, being on the safe side, you can go with 100% emergency power approximately 10 Minutes at that altitude before throttling back to keep the engine healthy.


    That will be the time window in which one has to get rid off the Spit.


    But it's still diffcult to do so since sharp turns and abrupt maneouvers to get a  quick lead for shot, which work fine at low altitude, will cause an immediate stall and a significant loss of altitude due to the thinner air and the reduced lift of the wings.  Moreover, the Spit can do tighter turns at 7000 meters without stalling than the K-4 can.


    The recipe that worked out for me in the end was to employ a zoom and boom tactic:


    Start the fight with an altitude advantage.


    Dive down when the Spit approaches, do a careful turn to get the proper lead for a shot and pull up again.


    If you are a good shot, the fight will be over already, otherwise turn back and try again.


    Did 6 of these intercept missions in the meantime and it worked well every time.







  17. HiHo!


    Having fought my way through these battles as a german fighter pilot, I got aware of a strange fact:


    In none of these battles a ever saw one of these ground objects:


    # Katyusha rocket launchers

    # KV-1s heavy tanks

    # Trains

    # Ships


    OK, there are no ships in BoM, but I searched the whole Volga in BoS and all the Sea in BoK and THERE ARE NO SHIPS.


    All of that is present in Quick missions but not in the careers and I really cannot understand why it has to be.


    To be honest: After becoming a skillfull pilot all the careers become a bit boring over time and I hoped I could beef them up by spending the rest of my ammo on a supply train on my way back from the main mission or put my bomb not onto a puny artillery piece but onto an enemy ship instead or flatten out some nasty Katyushas with gunfire an so on.


    The load screens shown when a new career mission is set up are a bit misleading, too. On one screen you can see a pair of Bf-109Fs doing a bomb run on a russian gunboat on the Volga at Stalingrad.


    But sadly, in fighter units you only have frequent fighter bomber missions agains ground targets, never against ships which are nonexistent anyway .


    So, question to all players who are/where active in the careers: Do you have the same experience?


    And, yes in the options menu I've activated all types of ground targets 😀


    best regards




    • Upvote 5

  18. HiHo!


    I'd like to ask other players playing this career as german fighter pilots if they ever had encounters with P-38 fighter/fighter bombers.


    I'm still alive in January 1945 and ran through numerous transfers between different german units to get early access to the best german fighters and to test my skills not anly against the Brits but also against the "Amis".


    Strangely,  I never saw a single P-38 in the whole time.


    The P-38 should fit perfectly into the tactical air war scenario of BoBP since the P-38 was used intensively as fighter bomber for ground attacks in reality.


    When the P-38s refused to come out for a play I located their bases on the map and went there, but no P-38s there, too.


    So, where is their secret nest? Where can I get them?


    Any clue is highly welcome


    best regards




  19. 16 hours ago, sevenless said:


    Simple answer. For test purposes I set the plane to unbreakable.


    Edit for further tests:


    Rechecked with vulnerability and breakability and that doesn´t blow the engine, at least not after 5min. Didn´t test longer in QMG. See the screenies:




    With throttle auto limit activated you will max out at 450 IAS at 7000 metres and it will limit you to 80% throttle. So you can gain 30 km/h IAS by deactivating that auto throttle feature and the K4 runs up to 480 km/h IAS at 7k. Spit IX with Merlin 70 will max out at 445 km/h IAS at 7k btw.

    That's it!!


    Explains pretty much everything that I've described formerly.


    With auto throttle limit active on the K-4 the SpitIXe has a 12 kph IAS speed avantage allowing it to gain distance during the chase...


    I think I don't need the throttle auto limit anymore since I learned on my very first K-4 mission the hard way that it is a very stupid idea to go into a dive with full throttle, ending up hanging from a parachute watching my formerly so shiny K-4 going on an oil drilling mission  :o:


    So, time to rejoin my mates for another chase and check out how long I can go how fast after a Spit without ruining my engine. Will check my K-4 against other allied fighters at the weekend for scientific reasons.....


    Could be useful if there once will be another great battle: BoR = battle of Reichsverteidigung (defense of the "Reich")  ....... well, only kidding.


    Thanx a lot for the crucial info on this topic!





  20. 1 hour ago, RedKestrel said:

    I mean, most combat in the sim in MP does take place below 6000 m. But people fly K4s at full throttle above 6k all the time. Trust me, people kill me with them quite frequently

    Maybe test your throttle device to make sure that you are actually reaching 100%? my throttle, for example, only reaches 99% when I push it all the way forward, I have to give a smal dead zone at either end to make it read 100%


    Well, as I noted, pushing my throttle "pedal to the metal" at 5900 meters it shows 100% , emergency power kicks but doing the same at 6100 meters it shows 80% which is even % below the maximum combat power an


    3 hours ago, sevenless said:

    Should be easy to reproduce if this is a bug.


    a) Fly above 7.000 metres and set throttle to 100% (emergency power) using no auto motor mangement and measure IAS

    b) Fly above 7.000 metres and set throttle to 100% (emergency power) using auto motor management and measure IAS


    If there is a big difference then, there is a bug. Propably in auto motor management which needs fixing


    Greetings to all!


    Thanx a lot again for your interest in this topic.


    First I can confirm that I use the advanced automatic engine control system of the K-4 and this is the single reason why I chose to be a german fighter pilot in the BoM-, BoS-, BoK-, and BoBP-singleplayer careers since it allows me to concentrate on what these machines where made for: air combat.


    Switching off the automatic motor management and fiddle with the engine manually would then be counterproductive for me.


    To make things easier without musing about the known differences between IAS and TAS, my problem is the following:


    Refering to the TAS vs. altitude diagram in this topic kindly provided by  Kataphrakt, the K-4 should be considerably faster than the Spit IXe at almost any altitude though I don't know what the designations 100% and MAX mean in this diagram.


    So, if this diagram reflects the flight models of the K-4 and the IXe in Great Battles I should have no problem at all to close on a Spit IXe while chasing it with a K-4.


    But  what's happening is that the IXe runs faster than the K-4 and gains distance during the chase even if I push my throttle "pedal to the metal" which then gives me 80% power.


    Below 6000 meters the world is OK again and I can outrun any allied fighter with the K-4s emergency power and I can still hold my ground using "only" combat power (84%) during the MW50 breaks.


    So, is either the diagram wrong or the are the flight models wrong? Who knows.....


    Until this issue is sorted out somehow I have decided to go the practical way and send my squadron mates on those chases which then fail also while I stay in the idyllic world of low altitude air combat and collect my kills 😀


    best regards

  21. 22 hours ago, Yogiflight said:

    It works the same way in the K4. Additionally, as FeuerFliegen also mentioned, the use of the MW50 boost was forbidden above 6k. You can read these two things in the Specifications.

    Reading educates:P

    HiHo again!


    First, let me thank you all for spending some thoughts upon my problem.


    I investigated that issue further and now I'm even more convinced that this is a bug.


    Outing myself as a german, I read through the german version of the K-4 technical data as presented by the game itself of which I made a screenshot.


    Here, "Notleistung" is emergency power (between 85% and 100%) and "Kampfleistung" is combat power (between 64% and 84%).


    Regarding the use of emergency power at altitudes of 6000 meters and above the correct translation into englisch language is as follows:


    The plane is equipped with a water-methanol mixture ("MW50") injection system which prevents a destruction of the engine at emergency power. It's automatically activated when
    the throttle is set to maximum (i.e.100%). The mixture lasts for 25 to 30 minutes. However, the engine can only work in this mode for 10 minutes an after that one has to wait
    for 10 minutes at combat power before emergency power can be used again.


    Attention: Operating the engine at emergency power without the water-methanol mixture is forbidden in altitudes above 6 kilometers.

    <skipped rest of text>




    This means emergency power is very well allowed and possible at altitudes above 6 km as long as there is MW50 in the tank !!!


    So, I tested that and indeed, at 5900 meters everything was fine and I could go to 100% and emergency power.


    Climbing to 6100 meters, no emergency power anymore. Power is limited to 80% and with level auto pilot switched on, the K-4 has a maximmum speed of 434 kph, which is shockingly low.


    I then was, let's say, somewhat surprised that the K-4s emergency power system was properly described in the german localization of the game but improperly implemented in the game itself....


    This makes the K-4  completely useless in high altitude combat situations like those recon intercept missions which it was meant for (ceiling > 13.000 meters!).


    From the above decription, having a full tank of water-methanol mixture ("MW50"), one should be able to use emergency power 3 times for 10 minutes each under optimal conditions with a 10 minutes break between subsequent uses. This would then be the correct modelling of the K-4s emergency power system.


    Probably the described bug was overseen because Great Battles up to now is a low altitude flight simulator. Free hunt and bomber intercept missions take place at around 2000 meters, while ground attacker intercept missions are at 500 meters and in this range of altitudes everything works fine.


    Even with additional underwing gun pods the K-4 can outrun, outclimb, outturn and outgun the P-47, the P-51 and the Tempest as well with emergency power. The same is true for the Spit IXe, except you cannot outturn it. Cannot say anything about the P-38, since I never saw one in der BoBP career.


    Could be worthwile to check the high altitude performance of the other german fighters, too.........


    I can only hope for that this will be fixed as soon as possible because correctly modelled the K-4 will be the ultimate killer machine among all piston engine fighters in GB.


    Again, thanx a lot for all answers which inspired me to investigate this issue thoroughly.


    best regards



    Bf-109K-4 MW50.jpg

  22. HiHo!


    I stumbled over a weird effect while playing die Bodenplatte single player career.


    On missions regarding the interception of an allied recon plane, always a Spit IXe, there's a problem with the high altitude performance of the Bf-109 K-4.


    While on the way to the mission point everything is fine and I can use the throttle in a normal way. In particular, I can employ any power from 0% to 100% (emergency)


    To conserve combat und emergency power I make my approach with permanent power around 60% throttle and do a shallow climb to approx. 7000 meters to have an initial altitude advantage.

    But when the target is sighted and I push the throttle to 100% to make a fast approach and dispose the Spit with a short squirt, nothing happens.


    Even with full throttle I get only 80% power, emergency power would only be engaged above 85% throttle.


    From the technical data, the K-4 should go like stink at that altitude.


    More detailed: With the DB605C engine combat power gives 684 kph between 6200 and 8000 meters end emergency adds another 20 kph to this.


    But I end stumbling around with 450 kph.....not amused.


    My K-4 wingman obviously don't have this problem and so they overtake me and munch up the Spit.


    So, for me it looks like a bug or is it a feature to make this type of mission more difficult?


    If so: It's not a good idea to fiddle with the original technical data of planes.


    Can anybody explain what's happening here?


    As far, I noticed this strange power loss only in Bodenplatte and only with this type of mission.


    Any help is strongly appreciated.


    best regards



  23. HiHo  all you flyers,

    some people complain about the numerous bugs in the BoBP career and state that they won't play BoBP any longer before they are sorted out.


    [Humor on]

    I strongly disagree to that, because BoBP is so full of unintentional humor that I feel brilliantly entertained.

    And, there are secrets to discover, too.

    Let me give you two examples:

    First, as a star wars hommage the developers added a new secret fighter to the allied arsenal, called the X-Wing Spitfire:



    Sadly, this powerful fighter can't be flown by the player.



    Flying for evil Darth Vader, I noticed that the P-47 ground attacker got an AI upgrade allowing for extreme low level attacks at an altitude of exact 0.0 meters:


    Unfortunately, there still seems to be some bug in it, since the plane becomes somehow static in that mode. Perhaps some relativistic time anomaly.

    So, there's a lot to discover in BoBP.

     I'm now seriously determined to find the counterpart to the X-Wing, the Bf109 TIE fighter.

    [Humor off]


    The first example is due to some weird doubling effect, since both Spits in the X-Wing are flown by the same pilot.

    The second example showed up twice upon flying ground attacker intercept missions on the german side. One of the P-47s was nailed to the ground with spinning prop right from the beginning.


    But let's get serious again:

    There's a lot to do for the developers in BoBP and TC as well on the one hand.

    On the other hand, knowing IL-2 since it's very first "incarnation", it was at any time way ahead of all the competitors on the market, giving me the justifiable hope that all of that will be fixed over time.

    In this spirit:


    best regards





  • Create New...