Jump to content

LColony_Red_Comet

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    655
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by LColony_Red_Comet

  1. Were not likely to see any issues from heat on most other aircraft except in extremely long (like think 30min or more) slow speed climbs at WEP or maybe from prop hanging, although I doubt from the latter that any engine damage would occur from the brief time spent in such a condition, unlike how a certain other sim chooses to model it. The Yak had a notoriously inadequate cooling system whose problems will not show up on planes like 109s and 51s, not to mention their radiators are automatic.
  2. Let me start off by saying that tank crew is really cool and has a lot of potential. The general modeling of the tank handling with the extremely well done tank interiors and exploration of the ergonomics and systems of the different tanks is really great. However now that the game is released there are some extremely frustrating aspects I really hope the developers will address as the soonest possible time. These are major quality of life problems that really take much of the steam out of game. -The inability to leave the hatch open and move seamlessly from inside the
  3. Th F3R engine is listed in that report. It is a V-1710-39 which is what we have in our Russian P-40. Moreover my point in posting that excerpt is that its absurd to assume that a an engine would fail past its time limit at a power setting if the engines were not failing when being run at 130% rated horsepower for 400% longer than the time limit for the rated power. The point is not request 1700bhp P-40s. The P-40 and other planes without MAP regulators will have to have some kind of system applied to them where the engine can be run up to some power without risk of fail
  4. Did you read my post above, I posted quite a few bits of evidence that explain the actual real world reasoning behind the time limits. As the game models them, they are indeed totally unrealistic. Time limits existed to preserve a certain desired time before overhaul.
  5. Additionally to the people who prefer timers, the most common conceit I see voiced after admitting that the current system is not realistic is that they still prefer this system because it stops people from climbing and cruising at max power. There are several reasons why this argument is not great: 1) the OP didnt suggest removing the timers, they suggested a much more lenient system where you get more WEP time and the consequences of exceeding it are less devastating and sudden. It also allowed for unlimited time for settings whose time is 15min or more right now. So really, its
  6. It is true. Your are assuming erroneously that the war emergency settings on ww2 aircraft are analogous to over-revving a a car engine. The description that the person gave you was accurate. They are only time limited for TBO purposes, or because there is a limit on how much water is available. The list of failure modes you posted have nothing to do with war emergency settings because things like detonation do not occur at war emergency settings unless the wrong fuel is used or there is a lack of water etc. I personally feel that the limiters should be removed entirely, with some kind of
  7. Recommend redoing the test with each plane having the same fuel load in liters. For example, 200 liters for every plane. This is a much fairer comparison than 50%.
  8. Please add it so that pairs of guns of the same type can be adjusted to have separate convergence ranges so that gun harmonization can be done. This would also be a request for allowing planes with cannons and MGs to be set at the same or different ranges. I cannot imagine that this would be too hard to implement, as preferably it would just be different range slider (like the ones we already have) for each pair of guns in wings or for each different weapon type. So for a 109, yak, or spitfire each pair of MGs would have their own slider and the cannon or pairs of cannon their own slider for r
  9. I have been keenly interested in tank crew but I have some concerns: -How much is there to do? How complete are the campaigns? -How realistic is the games ballistic system? Does the game model slope effects and not just LOS thickness? Cast vs RHA? Armor hardness? Capped vs uncapped shells? Face hardening? Etc. -Testing in quick battles with the tanks you get from base il2, it seems possible to zoom to whatever level I want just like in the planes. Is this how it is in full tank crew or are tanks limited to binoculars and their realistic periscopes/sights and
  10. We cannot give the manual to the plane because the plane has gainset the manual. @LukeFFThat was a joke regarding the first post and others...https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/819202-justice-might-it-is-right-that-what-is-just-should-be Justice is subject to dispute; might is easily recognised and is not disputed. So we cannot give might to justice, because might has gainsaid justice, and has declared that it is she herself who is just. And thus being unable to make what is just strong, we have made what is strong just.”
  11. Super Stoked! Any way we could get a higher quality video? Either way thanks for sharing this. Cant wait to see what it looks like in game.
  12. I think it depends on the plane. Ive seen several accounts from 109 pilots claiming flaps were seldom used, although I have seen a few accounts of 109 flap usage from certain pilots. Ostensibly this is due to the highly impractical setup the 109s flaps use, requiring significant hand cranking that would prevent simultaneous use of the throttle and would probably be difficult at high speeds. On the other hand the flaps in a Mustang, 38, or 47 are all hydraulic and in the case of both the 51 and 38 they were specifically designed for combat in mind and there are numerous accounts of their use. P
  13. I think high alt does not get discussed much because it does not matter as much practically speaking. Maintaining precise level sustained turns at 20,000+ feet is rather difficult. Unless the difference is truly magnificent, like a P-40 or Yak-1 fighting a 109 or 51 at 20-35k, my observation from sims is that its not super critical to the outcome of most fights at high alt. Especially since in any high altitude fight where there is any negative PS, the use of flaps will provide a sustained rather than temporary advantage. In turns at sea level, use of flaps provides a momentary increase in tur
  14. I agree, there is something odd going on with the P-38s elevator authority. At low speeds under many conditions it flys like it is a fly-by-wire plane and you can pull the stick to max deflections without departing. I have also noticed that at higher speeds that are well below compression speeds that the plane does not like to respond, which is odd because once you get it slow it out turns everything that isn't a Spitfire.
  15. Apparently not. It was manifestly obvious that the reason that test was showing all the same numbers was due to a testing error (G not being applied), not a magical loss of power from the 1.98ata plane. We know it has more power in game, and I posted my own tests demonstrating a difference in 1.98ata turn rates before you ever responded to me.
  16. I did that several pages ago when this first came up. It was literally my first response to this.
  17. No, because we know that is performs better in climbs and in level speed. It obviously has more thrust in game. It is therefore completely illogical to assume that it is the engines fault. It it is even more obvious given the absurd methodology multiple people in this thread have been using to test turns, arbitrarily picking some random speed and then testing the planes. This will ruin the relative comparison regardless of which plane is getting the shaft due to that method. The reasonable conclusion drawn from him having the same G at the same speed is that the test was being done wrong, not
  18. No....because if they are turning at the same G at the same speed it means he was not pulling max sustained G for one or both of the planes.
  19. OH MY GOD. The entire point Panthera was that the rates JtD quoted HAD THE SAME G LOAD at the SAME SPEED.
  20. Dude, at least try to understand what is being said. If you have two 109 K-4s at the same turn speed and same g load, they will not turn better than each other regardless of the thrust. Because you are not USING THE THRUST. Look at your own chart: As Ps goes negative, either the G load or the velocity has to change to get a change in rate. In other words, you are either pulling the same or less G at a lower speed, more G at the same speed, etc.
  21. If you increase PS you get more turn rate at that speed IF you also increase G load. At this point I am starting to think the lot of you cannot read or understand and equation. My response to JtD was to him looking at the 1.8 and 1.98ata 109s at the same speed with the same G load getting the same rate. Mathematically, its impossible for them to get different turn rates if these factors are the same. Read your own EM charts, you can see this happen. You need to read documents more carefully. TN1044 shows a mach number of .2 for the CL of 1.4 The P-51 in this chart is turning at
  22. So this is just flat out false. All of the documentation we have agrees with at value of 1.4 for the mustang and 1.4ish for the 109. You mean the +1 second I've been saying this entire time? And this is exactly what we find in il2 as I have demonstrated multiple times now. Posting turn rate tests at an random arbitrary speeds is just absurd and demonstrates nothing. This is without altering fuel loads to be equivalent.
  23. Lol we have literally gone over this in this thread and others like a dozen times now.
  24. Except its Clmax is virtually the same. This is an unusual statement to make, considering that not a single person in this thread has said the P-51 should out turn the 109. The debate has been regarding by how much, with both the game and @Holtzauge simulations showing that it isn't by all the much.
×
×
  • Create New...