Jump to content

Fumes

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    252
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

169 Excellent

About Fumes

  • Rank
    Founder

Recent Profile Visitors

593 profile views
  1. Fumes

    Red out penalization

    Yes the G-Force "simulation" in this game is completely bogus. You can sustain 5.5-6.5G basically forever with not even grey out! It is for this reason that forcing overshoots is extremely difficult relative to how it should be. Enemy planes just suck in the stick and haul around at 6-7G and stay right in the saddle despite being at 90deg angle off when the turn started......
  2. Fumes

    Red out penalization

    It would be a big improvement to the game if the simulation of negative G's were improved. As it stands right now, pilots can do extremely unrealistic high negative G maneuvers with essentially no consequences. From both a realism and gameplay perspective, the worst effect this has is that it allows players to do absurd guns defense. Usually, the game does not even give a red out effect much less cause any other issues. Please fix.
  3. Fumes

    P-47 Stall characteristic

    I definitely agree that the flaps, in general, are over-performing. P-47 in particular. It has been toned down a little, but it is still almost as agile as a spit. Before it was turning at 24deg a second, which is obscene. Not really sure what is going on with flaps in il2. But none of them seem to work right. Plain flaps seem to do practically nothing, and split flaps are incredible. In reality, they should be similar in general performance. Slotted and fowler flaps should indeed be in their own ballpark but right now they are somewhere outside the stadium. Additionally, the flap behavior appears to function in an almost magical fashion. For example, plain flaps do indeed reduce stall speed in game for plane that have them, but they only degrade turn performance, essentially acting only as airbrakes. I wonder where the additional lift went all of a sudden in those circumstances. Meanwhile, split flaps might as well be filled with helium. And the P-47s slotted flaps allow it to do unusual cartwheel maneuvers.
  4. Fumes

    P-47 Stall characteristic

    Ok fair enough, I misunderstood your point. Out of curiosity though, is there any specific evidence of the issue you mentioned preventing their use in combat or is it a conjecture. Admittedly I am not super well versed in the woes of asymmetric flaps, but to my imagination, it seems like something that would not necessarily be the end of the world. Surely they still used the same flaps for landing? If the flaps deployed a little out of sync, why would this be any worse then essentially a trim issue?
  5. Fumes

    P-47 Stall characteristic

    This might be a good time to point out that this appears to be an issue with all of the flaps in the game. -All plans with plain flaps appear to gain no benefit from them for maneuver. -All planes with split flaps, notably the yak, get an absurd benefit for maneuver. -Given the P-47, slotted flaps seem to continue this trend toward even more bonkers flap behavior. This is not true. Flaps were used quite frequently for dogfighting purposes. Some aircraft had specific settings for this purpose. There is an entire section devoted to pilot accounts of flap use in combat in the link below. And that's just for the P-51. I do agree that the performance some flaps give in game is excessive in the extreme however. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports.html Three (3) Fw 190's destroyed. "I dropped 20 degree flap and easily out turned him." 1st Lt. Paul S. Riley, 22 April 1944, 4th FG "Letting down 20° of flaps, I could get on the inside of the turn and pull deflection." 2nd Lt. Grover C. Siems, 12 May 1944, 4th FG "Observing that I was overtaking too fast, I pulled up over the right e/a and dropped flaps." 2nd Lt. Frank E. Speer, 24 May 1944, 4th FG "I had to put down 20° flaps to keep from overrunning him, indicating above 500 m.p.h." 1st Lt. Thomas D. Shank, 19 September 1944, 55th FG "I dropped full flaps and placed myself directly astern of the e/a on the extreme right of the formation." 1st Lt. Frank E. Oiler, 14 January 1945, 78th FG "I got into a Luftberry at 1100 feet with the FW 190, and with the use of flaps I got on his tail in two turns." 1st Lt. Chris J. Hanseman, 10 June 1944, 339th FG "I cut my throttle and turned inside of him, dropping 20 degrees of flaps." 2nd Lt. Chris J. Hanseman, 24 May 1944, 339th FG "…dropped 20 degree flaps…" Harold W. Scruggs, 24 May 1944, 339th FG "I lowered about 10 degrees flaps and made two 360 degree turns in which I gained rapidly on the E/A…" Capt. Bradford V. Stevens, 12 September 1944, 339th FG "…I was able to turn inside the Me 109 after dropping 20° flaps." 2nd Lt. Myer R. Winkelman, 6 August 1944, 339th FG "I put down 20° flaps and got on his tail." 2st Lt. S. K. Moats, 29 July 1944, 352nd FG I dropped 20 degrees flaps and after 2 more turns I was closing on the tail of the E/A." Lt. Glennon T. Moran, 27 May 1944, 352nd FG "We fought for about 20 minutes and it was necessary for me to put down combat flaps three times in order to turn with him." Major George E. Preddy, 21 June 1944, 352nd FG "He turned into me and I dropped 20 degrees of flaps, out turning him." 1st Lt. Arthur C. Cundy, 14 January 1945, 353rd FG "With throttle pulled back and full flaps down, I overshot this 190." 1st Lt. William J. Cullerton, 2 November 1944, 355th FG "I started to overshoot so I dropped full flaps and gave him another long burst just as he was leveling off to land." Capt. Walter V. Gresham, 15 August 1944, 355th FG "I downed 40 degrees of flaps and got in another burst which hit him hard." Capt. Fred R. Haviland, 21 June 1944, 355th FG "At 1,000 feet, I dumped 20 degree flaps and made a turn inside him and started to get within firing range, when the E/A made an abrupt turn, snapped over and crashed into the ground, exploding as he hit the ground." 2nd Lt. Esward Moroney, 2 November 1944, 355th FG "...I put down full flaps and closed on the E/A." 1st Lt. Harold W. Spencer, 16 August 1944, 355th FG "I dropped full flaps to keep from overrunning and fired from dead astern at about 100 yards and as I went over him, the Jerry popped his stick forward and crashed." Capt. Clarence E. Anderson, 30 April 1944, 357th FG "By using 20° flaps and full throttle I pulled around on their tails in one turn and started firing…" Capt. Leonard K. Carson, 2 November 1944, 357th FG "I chopped my throttle and dropped flaps." 1st Lt. Leonard K. Carson, 30 May 1944, 357th FG "I dropped flaps and turned back behind him." Capt Robert W. Foy, 18 November 1944, 357th FG "I lowered flaps and gave E/A a short burst." Capt. Robert W. Foy, 25 July 1944, 357th FG "He suddenly pulled into a sharp right turn and I put down 20° flaps and followed giving several bursts with about two radii lead." 1st Lt. Gilbert M. O’Brien, 27 May 1944, 357th FG "I slid right up beside him with my flaps down. He bailed out as I was alongside of him, at about 12,000 ft. His chest was covered with blood and he hit the rudder." Capt Richard A. Peterson, 6 October 1944, 357th FG "I realized I was over running him and lowered flaps as I pulled along side of him." 1st Lt. James R. Sloan, 24 December 1944, 357th FG "In the ensuing combat I was unable to turn inside the E/A until I dropped 10 degrees of flaps." F/O Boyd N. Adkins, 24 October 1944, 359th FG "I dropped flaps and slid in trail with him at close range." 1st Lt. George F. Baker, 11 September 1944, 359th FG "I dropped flaps to stay astern of E/A." Capt. William C. Forehand, 30 May 1944, 359th FG "I dropped twenty degrees of flaps and cut my throttle and closed in behind him firing from approximately 100 ft.” 1st Lt. Frank O. Lux, 16 August 1944, 359th FG "I closed on him, dropped about 10 degrees of flap, and started to fire." 1st Lt. James L. McCubbin, 2 December 1944, 364th FG "The e/a then dropped his wheels and I dropped 20° flaps to stay behind." Lt Elmer A. Taylor, 24 August 1944, 364th FG "I dropped 20° Flaps and outturned him."
  6. Fumes

    BF109-G14 DB605 AS

    Personally I dont want it because they made up 1/5th of the g-14 production and came out of month later than the normal G-14. I realize mission designers can compensate to a degree, but the problem with adding the rarer versions of planes that are clearly superior to the common types is that in a video game no one will fly the default plane. I already suspect that multiplayer is going to be nothing but K-4s and D-9s. Again, I get that mission designers might be able to make this a non issue but: I dont trust them. And even if you limit AS G-14s to 1/5th of the sides allotment, for the first part of the game thats all anyone will take. Or after the K4s die thats all they will take. A good solution to this (perhaps already possible?) would be to have server limits where planes are limited in number based on the number of people currently in them. So if two guys jump in AS models (wingmen allowance) it wont allow two more until 10 people have jumped in plane jane G-14s. Same logic applied to aircraft of all sides. I dont want to see the sky full of P-38s either. Obviously, this is less of a problem on say TAW vs WoL
  7. Fumes

    P-47D Level Speed

    Again, as you agreed earlier, you can find that this does hold water simply by looking at many other aircraft...identical aircraft...compared at difference weights. Many climb rate charts even have performance at different weights.... That being said, given the significantly more massive difference in performance change....this comparison is close enough. Especially since the overwhelmingly dominant factor in climb performance is thrust to weight. As can be seen here a 24% percent difference in power to weight yields a 29% difference in climb approximate. A significantly smaller change per percent than what we see in il2.
  8. Fumes

    P-47D Level Speed

    Not really. I was not converting my numbers into percent, merely pointing out the differences in proportions since that was really all that was necessary to get the point across. But since that eluded you... The in game plane goes from a P/W of 0.18 to a power to weight of 0.21. So for a power to weigh change of 16%, we got a climb rate change of 35%. The N to M comparison as a power to weight change from .17 to .21. So for a power to weight change of 23% we get a climb rate change of 23%. These clearly do not correlate.
  9. Fumes

    P-47D Level Speed

    Its not apples to oranges. The bigger wing should if anything help the N model. They are close enough given how insanely small the difference is. But you need not rely on just that example. There are tons of example of flight tests done at different weights on the same or nearly same airplanes. The differences are never as big as this game is showing. Not even close.
  10. Fumes

    P-47D Level Speed

    That still would not buy you anywhere close to the performance we see. 500kg of weight doesnt get you from 17m/s to 23. You can look at alot of P-47 performance charts, or even other aircraft and examine the sort of improvements that come from weight or power changes. Its never this dramatic. You can see from this chart that a 1300kg difference at similar power yielded roughly 1000ft/min. In il2 were are losing 1/3rd the mass and getting 1.5 times as much climb improvement.
  11. Fumes

    P-47D Level Speed

    Nice chart. Those climb rate figures are absurd through from a realism standpoint however. The both the P-47 and G-14 are massively over-performing to essentially comical levels. It get that is not finished etc but jesus christ. And the P-47 can do sustained 24deg per second turns with its flaps out.
  12. Fumes

    Airplane FM after being damaged.

    Because the listing of the aircraft from minor damage is not and never was realistic. You can still causes a plane to act funny from enough structural damage. Key word being "enough" A dozen mg holes in your wing would not causes the airplane to list hard in the direction of the wing. personally, I think they new damage model changes are a big improvement. I have not seen any major structural damage that did not cause flight issues when it was appropriate. This is in stark contrast to the old damage model, which causes alot of tactical problems because all the shooter had to do was clip the enemy once to hamstring their airplane. The slightest damage to the airframe was essentially game over, even all the opponent was trying to do was run. The new damage model remains highly lethal, while not being as absurdly fragile as before.
  13. Im doing full vs no flaps. Havent tried 20deg. Also the stall angle was significantly worse. With flaps around 16deg instead of 20. although I suppose that is to be expected.
  14. I noticed in some turn tests I was doing that the flaps of the 109 appeared to no produce any (noticeable) difference in turn rate or radius. As per behavior in other sims and various literature available on the subject, I expected the flaps to produce a temporary increase in turn rate and permanent decrease in radius. The turn rate being worse than w/o flaps once Ps=0 again once the airplane slows down from the increased drag. This is the behavior we see on the Yak flaps for example. So I decided to test the level flight stall speed of the 109F. 50% fuel, 300m altitude. Autumn conditions. With flaps up and down (100%), the stall speed was the same. If the flaps are producing lift, shouldnt the stall speed go down? If yes, then it appears the 109 has air brakes not flaps as of now.
  15. [edited] This was supposed to be for the 5min WEP 5min combat thing, but I grabbed the wrong quote lol
×