Jump to content

[TLC]MasterPooner

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    571
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by [TLC]MasterPooner

  1. Was doing some practice in the Pe-2 as a tail gunner. From the top gun, I noticed that the bottom ai gunner started shooting at a Bf109 about 1km astern. I switched positions to the bottom gun and discovered that the PE-2 bottom gunner position did not actually have line of sight with the target as the fuselage was in the way. Switched back to the top gunner, and once again the ai started shooting. So it would appear that the ai gunners in il2 can actually see through planes.
  2. Another related problem that I suspect has to do with this elevator authority problem is medium speed dogfights (220-350mph indicated at sea level or the equivalent at altitude) where the P-38 seems incapable of turning well. The P-38 is one of the best turning planes in the game in sustained turns with flaps down, but I have found that regardless of flap position it has immense problems generating turn rate at higher speeds. This does not seem to have to do anything with compression, since it is at speed far far below where that would be a factor. It just feels like there is not enough elevator authority and the plane feels like its flying through molasses (even with maximum pitch up trim). I have found that in private dogfights with an opponent I beat every single time in a Mustang (opponent was in a tempest), that I had severe problems with the P-38 after the initial pass and could not turn well enough until the fight got extremely slow.
  3. What are you talking about. If you dive to any of the dive speeds in game with the P-51 you get massive buffeting and the elevator controls seize up dramatically. The only exception to this is at low altitudes where the critical mach number is being substituted by the structural number and you actually compress sooner than you should.
  4. If I am reading this right is barely ever breaks double digits even with the bobweight, thanks for the post TO DEVS: Is this being looked at for 5000 feet and below? Because it seems fairly obvious that the plane is compressing based on the structural number and not the mach number.
  5. He is quoting a rather well known "test" that was done in the 80s. Have a look through it, practically nothing in it is accurate. I consider everything in that document suspect because it contradicts virtually every other report. It is far more likely their test methods sucked. The pilot in that article even quotes a completely contradictory statement from another pilot saying he could fly the mustang one handed.
  6. You appear to be correct on all altitudes except somewhere between 10-5000ft and below. Please reference my updated post. Or this: It should also be noted the main issue is below 5000ft where the placarded limit of 505 is a structural number and not a compression limit. This is why in some manuals it does not change as it lowers in height. As the game already reflects, the structural number has a safety margin and is not the real structural limit (as the dive tests also show.) The problem is that the game treats 505mph at 5000ft (and probably between 10 and 5000), as a compression onset not a structural only number. 505 mph at 5000ft would be 0.72 mach, not 0.8 which all the other speeds correspond to. The plane should not compress at low altitudes until 0.8 mach or 560mph IAS. I think people are noticing it because the plane suddenly starts to seize at low altitudes where it shouldnt because the final numbers are not compression numbers in the manual. We are also losing landing gear doors barely above the 505mph limit which cannot be right because structural damage was not taken until 0.84 mach.
  7. So I appear to wrong on the high alt speeds. The plane does not seem to compress until 0.80 mach. However the real problem is at low altitudes and this is probably why people are noticing it. The results indicate that the airplane should be restricted to a Mach number of 0.80 due to compressibility difficulties which become increasingly dangerous beyond that point. Vibration.- At a Mach number of 0.76 a true effect of compressibility becomes evident in the form of a complete vibration of the airplane. This vibration is caused by a combination of compressibility effects on the wing and the horizontal stabilizer. The condition becomes increasingly severe as the Mach number increases and could eventually cause a primary structural failure. 7. Maximum Limit of Combat.- The airplane has been dived to a maximum Mach number of 0.85 and on several occasions to 0.84. In each case the pilots reported that the vibration became extremely heavy beyond 0.80. In each dive to 0.84 or above the vibration became so severe that the airplane was damaged. The leading edge skin of the wing flap was buckled between rivets, a coolant radiator cracked and hydraulic line broken due to vibration on various dives to 0.84 and above. In extreme war emergency the airplane can be dived to a Mach number of 0.83 (400 m.p.h. Indicated Airspeed at 25,000 ft.), if a very gradual pull-out is made. Recovery Technique.- Recovery in any case must be gradual and executed with extreme caution since relatively light elevator stick forces or rapid application of trim may very easily result in the application of excessive load factors. As acceleration is applied at the beginning of the pull-out some increase in vibration may occur. This will gradually decrease as the recovery is completed. In no case is elevator trim necessary to aid recovery. The normal pull-out distance stated in Pilot’s Information File apply. The pull-out distances stated in Sec.II, Para.21, page 26 of Pilot’s Operating Instructions AN-01-60JE-1, are not correct. This should be a cut and dry issue. The manuals and tests are explicit and in the game behavior is more or less the opposite of reality. It should also be noted the main issue is below 5000ft where the placarded limit of 505 is a structural number and not a compression limit. This is why in some manuals it does not change as it lowers in height. As the game already reflects, the structural number has a safety margin and is not the real structural limit (as the dive tests also show.) The problem is that the game treats 505mph at 5000ft (and probably between 10 and 5000), as a compression onset not a structural only number. 505 mph at 5000ft would be 0.72 mach, not 0.8 which all the other speeds correspond to. The plane should not compress at low altitudes until 0.8 mach or 560mph IAS.
  8. You beat me to it. I totally agree that this is completely modeled wrong. The in game behavior isnt just wrong, its practically the opposite of what all the manuals state. As you pointed out, the real concern in the P-51 should be that you have "too much" control authority available.
  9. So as many people have pointed out already, alot of this has to do with the fact that in multiplayer you are only facing the pinnacle of German piston fighters but not in a corresponding 47. A P-47M, or a D with 72inches of boost would have been more reasonable. And in reality, even in late 44 early 45, most of the German luftwaffe was A model 190s and G-14s. Only about 25% of 109s in jan45 were K models, and none of them had 1.98ata. BUT The real problem with the employment of the P-47 in the game right now is spotting. The extremely short distance of spotting, and the extreme difficulty of seeing even at close ranges basically confounds the use of the P-47. In reality, a P-47 could be between 20-30,000ft (where anything that came up to it could be outran or out turned), and still observe planes at sea level in order to dive on them. (especially since everyone was going about in formations and not by themselves) Fighter sweeps flown over the continent by thunderbolts were regularly flown at exceptionally high altitudes, around 30,000 feet. People were not buzzing around below 10,000ft if they had any choice in the matter. Il2 spotting issues make it so that high altitude stalking is basically impractical because you will very rarely see anyone below you and will be orbiting at 25,000ft for no reason. It is also exceptionally difficult to employ the sort of tactics that Thunderbolts employed in BnZ because you cannot maintain the correct level of SA compared to real life once you commit to an attack. The other big reason that the Thunderbolt is limited in the game is due to the nature of the multiplayer experience. You have a constant stream of single or double aircraft groups coming from their bases to the front line. It is also generally not allowed to target airbases, which IRL would have been the main targets. So what ends up happening is that unless you restrict yourself to a single pass, you are bound to have someone you didnt stand much change of seeing come into your fight ever 30 seconds or so. IRL you would have found an enemy group and attacked it, and while it was certainly not impossible for aircraft to enter the battle after it had started, it was far less likely than we have in game. Additionally, the 47 we have as absurd engine limits that are odd even by the standards of this game. Any use of WEP bleeds your combat power too, in a plane that desperately needs its maximum boost. We also dont have the "correct" "time" of WEP. So you end up having to spend most of your time at continuous power, while your opponents have 10min of wep and a continuous power that is much less debilitating. So in summary, in il2 you spend most of your time taking a run of the mill 47 up against the very best 109s and 190s. And you have to do this at low altitudes the 47 was not meant for, and you cant use your engine they way you should. But....you do have flaps....
  10. Max Graphics settings, gamma 1.0, sharpening on. 1440p. Widest FOV. single player. https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/159395558375686144/693819105316307004/unknown.png https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/159395558375686144/693818845982359572/unknown.png https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/159395558375686144/693818965297725520/unknown.png https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/159395558375686144/693820324642422805/unknown.png https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/159395558375686144/693820349363650661/unknown.png https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/159395558375686144/693820189443227678/unknown.png https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/159395558375686144/693820214890201100/unknown.png https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/159395558375686144/693820138314530876/unknown.png It would be great if this could be fixed.
  11. to which editions are you referring to? and what changes were made exactly?
  12. Combat mission was closely aided by WW2 Armor Ballistics and Gunnery. One of the Authors used to post on their forum all the time. The game performs almost exactly as you would expect from the book. The CMx2 titles performing much closer to the book data than the CMx1 ones. There are a few minor differences between what you would expect from the tables in the book and the game but they are exceedingly minor.
  13. I agree that it is painful obviously, but if they fixed the spotting I would be much much more into the game the instant they did it.
  14. Hi Jason. I read your Officer Club post on spotting and I appreciate that you guys are working on the spotting. I do think there has been some miscommunication about what the problem was, based your description of events in your post. To be clear, I think that your impression of events is entirely understandable. The bubble was never the main issue. The spotting under 10km and especially under 4-6 was always the main problem. However, players knew the bubble existed and this led most people who complained over the years to blame it on the bubble. Understandably, you guys fixed the bubble, but people are still not happy because they still feel blind. (because the real problem was not the bubble.) All the reports of spotting problems post BOBP are as far as I can not bugs, but rather people losing contacts when the new system stops kicking in over 10 km, or whatever range it works at. Right now, I can sit 40km (or more) from an airbase and watch someone take off, but they become much harder to see as they get closer, so hard in fact that the only way to keep track is to zoom all the way in, and I still sometimes lose them. The real problem is and always had been the spotting system in general, not just the bubble. Only since the bubble was fixed have most people started complaining about the up close spotting, because since the bubble variable has been removed it has become more obvious to more people what the real problem was. I would also like to add that while you said this will not be a quick fix because you are dedicated to getting it right on the next revision, this bit is frustrating for many of us. This issue has a hugely negative impact on game-play, in in many peoples opinion, realism. There are also tons of solutions available, that have been implemented in many games over the years. Aces High did it was LOD adjustments and dots, there is whatever Cliffs of Dover Does (which is excellent btw), BMS's smart scaling (which is apparently done more aggressively than is done in IL2GB), and ironically War Thunders spotting system given how goofy that game is (except at super long ranges where it uses an absurdly huge dot, like 20km plus). There is also the scaling you said is already in game. Couldn't any of these options, even just more aggressively applying the scaling you said is already in game, be implemented relatively quickly as opposed to waiting until you have some super-duper perfect solution? Perfection being the enemy of good etc. At least to me, and I a large number of other people given the forum activity since 3.0, the spotting issue is the most critical or one of the most critical issues in the game. It affects all facets of game play. Almost every other feature you could add as opposed to spotting will be negatively impacted by the spotting.
  15. When I saw this threadI read it as drop "tanks" as weapons. Now I am disappointed he meant "drop tanks" So instead, can we please drop "tanks" as weapons? I would love to drop a Sherman tank right on someones ass.
  16. It should also be noted that the rate of fixations they give, and the following probability is completely arbitrary and incorrect. It is not in the original paper either. Your eyes make more fixations faster when you read this post. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Human_saccadic_eye_movements https://www.britannica.com/science/saccade "It is during these periods, which last on average about 190 milliseconds, that the eyes take in visual information. " This would equate to over 300 fixations per minute. Your eyes also make two fixations at the same time, and see everything from a slightly different angle, which increases the minute of arc that the eyes can see. It is correct however that contacts at or under 2.5 miles should be easy to locate, and that contacts further out should require more careful scanning to find. However, given a rendering system on the screen that represents contacts in some proportional manner to real life contacts (contrast, size, etc) this problem more or less solves itself since these principles apply to searching for small numbers of pixels as well. However it does not work if the contacts are unreasonably difficult to see like we currently have in game.
  17. Yeah this is definitely the single biggest problem with the game right now. Spotting is such a tactically significant thing a flight sim that much of what is otherwise a great sim is significantly diminished by the current spotting issues. If the developers would fix this issue in a patch it would instantly make this game twice as good as it already is. With the current system, I can routinely sit 20-40km from an airbase and watch people take off well enough to count them. Once these planes get to about 6-8km, the almost always vanish unless I manage to keep sight on a single pixel by going max zoom all the way to intercept. Spotting at 20km? No problem. 3km? Too close.
  18. I think normandy looks fantastic. Can’t wait! With these planes we can do Normandy all the way back through late 1943
  19. Irrelevant, since it is a test of the engine itself. But also because there would be no point of the Army doing a WEP test to approve the rating for use if this was not useful for the actual plane. So actually, this isnt apples to oranges. Its apples and apples on a bench. No? also no Actually they finally stated they were planning on doing something different at the end of one of the more recent threads. Which was about a year ago. And it makes perfect sense to bring this up again now that we have bodenplatte and a whole new slew of complicated caused by this mechanic. Well I guess I have to explain the patently obvious again. And also what is explicitly stated by some documents. Continuous power is just the power setting that can be used as long as you like such that the engine will last to the specified TBO. Use of higher powers wears the engine out faster and will mean more maintenance must be done on the engine. These time limits have absolutely nothing to do with the engine failing 5min and 1 second after the 5 minute mark. The engine will eventually fail even at "continuous" power. And you can have sudden engine failures at continuous power as well. Time restrictions only exists to prevent nonsensical use of the WEP that would eat into the service life of the engine. Nope. Explaining 2+2=4 to you over and over only to have you keep telling me its 5 becomes tiresome. I might add that you started your posts with such an attitude, so your just being a hypocrite. You are the one that talking down to everyone else in threads some time ago peddling an argument from authority and essentially directly implying that anyone who didnt see it your way was some ignorant fool. You are the one that came into these conversations with an attitude, I am just reacting. Weird, because you have spend such a large amount of time arguing with the supposedly willfully ignorant. Apparently you do have lots of time in fact. But I am not complaining, as I have not seen you add a single useful thing to one of these threads yet. Not only is this a counterfactual statement, but even if my evidence were scant, its better that zero evidence you have for your position.
  20. Maybe from the standpoint of anyone who buys into your nonsensical fantasy view on how this stuff works. Remember Dakpilot, "facts, science, and history" of which you have posted exactly nothing, and yet you have an absolutely curious capacity to persist in a notion that has no basis in facts. Truly, a remarkable talent.
  21. The thing about this is that it a complex system for this is completely unnecessary. The most realistic option, is to allow completely unlimited amounts of time at WEP. If we had some kind of 1:1 engine simulation in the game, the frequency of failure due to prolonged use of WEP would be so rare as to be for all intensive purposes the same result as no specific modeling whatsoever. Before the 150 octane WEP ratings were approved, the engines had to undergo 7.5 hour tests at WEP. In the case of the P-38 I posted, the plane was checked after the test and they specifically mentioned no evidence of detonation or damage. The plane was then subjected to an additional 5 hours before it failed. This was not done all at once, but the later P-51 manual states that the effect of wear on the engine at time limited setting is the same if you use it in intervals or all at once. Hence why the other P-51 manuals list 5 hours of WEP before the engine must be taken down for inspection, as this is almost certainly a buffer to the 7.5 hour standard which is itself subject to a safety margin. What should be modeled, and would not be all that hard to implement I would imagine, would be relatively simple scripted management mechanics that have nothing to do with time. It should not be possible to run WEP at lean mixture, and there should be various possible consequences of certain throttle mix ups etc. It is also unnecessary to wait for some total solution since those who want to wait for the perfect solution are in effect advocating for the horrible stopgap that exists now. Having no limits would dramatically improve the combat realism of the game. It is perfectly obvious that the ability to use long periods of wep, or at least longer than possible now, in combat is more important than preventing people from cruising at WEP in situations where IRL it would be be prudent not to. There is also no way to prevent people from doing this without intentionally making the engine function in the game less realistic in a irrational attempt to control player behavior.
  22. Yeah I'm also against the heat mechanic because it is not realistic and.... Because a heat mechanic....is just a timer
  23. This is the most absurd gripe I have ever seen. Well at least this week anyway....
  24. This is referring to limitations in general, not time specifically. Meaning temps, MAP, etc.
×
×
  • Create New...