Jump to content

YIPPEE

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    487
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by YIPPEE


  1. 8 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

     

    Too good is too good, not better? 

    It is only too good at those ranges. Without the alternate option spotting at more tactically relevant ranges becomes much worse, which is a bigger issues than not seeing people 40km away routinely. Also, I almost never see anyone 40km away with the alternate spotting. 25 is more routine.

    4 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

    Have fun playing your game with the radar-like vision offered by the Enhanced setting. 

    Thanks, I will.

    • Confused 2

  2. 1 hour ago, SeaSerpent said:

     

    LoL, you wish.

    Nope. Everyone who is claiming the expert option is more realistic on the whole is wrong in point of fact. What is truly incredible is that there is disagreement about this at all, considering we all have eyeballs. From the perspective of realism it matters alot less if you sometimes see a contact too far away than the reverse. The alternate option scaling feature helps with at medium ranges, and that is more important for realism than no being able to see someone 40km away. This is a case where too good is better than too little. Simple as that.

    • Confused 1

  3. 37 minutes ago, SCG_Wulfe said:

    Right now all the main servers are using the inflated super view setting. If I had an alternative I would use it. I don’t want to quit. The reason we are so vocal about this is we love this sim and don’t want to lose it.

    Which is exactly how all the (majority) feels about going back to the extremely unrealistic "expert" spotting. You should be happy the game is fixed now.

     

    Imagine this about twice as easy as you see it here with youtube compression.


  4. 17 hours ago, Pict said:

    However it was a side effect of the strategic bombing campaign and not the main objective

    This is not true. The entire Objective of Pointblank was to destroy the Luftwaffe. Not only were fighter tactics changed, but the industrial targets were changed to prioritize things like aircraft production. And the industrial bombing had huge effects. It greatly mitigated German industrial expansion. It obliterated 75% of German synthetic oil production which crippled every arm of the German military for the rest of the war in just a few strikes. You do realize that the "failed" ball bearing strikes in late 1943 nearly brought German industry to the brink right? This was not to be in the end, but the fact that a mere two strike were capable of potentially do this is important.

     

    17 hours ago, Pict said:

    Strategic bombers were shown to be most effective when bombing transportation infrastructure like railway marshaling yards and least effective when used against tactical targets like the beach defenses at Omaha.

    This is completely false. To say that bombing tactical targets with big bombers was ineffective is like saying artillery is ineffective because it didnt kill everything and everyone. Reference operation Cobra, the damage to German ground forces was immense.

     

    17 hours ago, Pict said:

    German arms production dispersed and literately in some instances went underground. Strategic bombers are ineffective against such targets and this was already known by the allies during the blitz on the UK when arms production dispersed in a similar fashion.

    It became dispersed after the bombers started doing massive damage. There is a reason industry is concentrated. When you are forced to disperse it, it stops being as good and making things.

     

    17 hours ago, Pict said:

    The bombing of cities and the general population was intentional, both admitted and advocated by the allied command under the auspices that it would break the German will to fight. It didn't. Same again as the blitz on the UK.

    This largely has nothing to do with the American bombing, at least in Europe. The American bombing was dedicated to precision bombing of legitimate strategic targets. With some exceptions.

     

    17 hours ago, Pict said:

    If strategic bombing was all things those who advocated it had portrayed it to be, then the Red army wouldn't have stood a chance.

    right............because the entire logic of declaring war on russia hinged on the strategic bombing force.........🙄

     

     

    Anyone who thinks the strategic bombing did not significantly affect German ability to wage war is being ridiculous. It completely ignores economics and logistical realities. Strategic bombing did not end the War in a week as some advocates thought it could. But the idea that nation can have its cities brought to ruins and just "keep on keeping on" at the same pace as before is delusional.

     

    The irony of this is virtually everyone on both sides of this issue recognizes that part of what made America capable of such enormous material production during and after the war was due to its having not been bombed.

     

     


  5. 2 hours ago, Panthera said:

    If you check the results for similar altitudes the difference is the same (and the windtunnel data was compared to verify as well), the conventional types are achieving a higher Clmax up until somewhere past 0.5 Mach, it's the same story over and over again.

    Except they are not compared at similar altitudes. The altitudes are all over the place. And there isnt a single chart in that report comparing them at low altitudes. Additionally, the F6F is the main one with an advantage. The P-38 wing, which is also a conventional airfoil, shows no advantage at all. And the bottom line is that at lower altitudes and lower mach numbers the CL is 1.4. And at low alts and low mach numbers the 109s was 1.4. Pointing out the relationship to certain other airfoils does nothing to change that.

     

     

     


  6. 18 minutes ago, Panthera said:

    Can't say why the British got 1.4, also at what speed?

    Its virtually the same number as the charles meudon. they got it because it had a cl of around 1.4.

     

    18 minutes ago, Panthera said:

    What I can say is that NACA consistently demonstrated that the laminar flow airfoil produces less lift than the conventional types up until somewhere past 0.5 Mach.

    You keep saying this, but those same reports show 1.4 for the mustang as well as 829 or whatever the other reports number is. Holtzauge said literally the same thing to you and you AGREED with him that a cl of 1.4 for the mustang was reasonable. Furthermore, you are missing the detail that the altitudes are not exactly the same for the tests:

     

    image.thumb.png.d9d966ecdb810fb3b3cbe2b083b05649.png

     

    Also in the same report:

     

    image.png.a8eb49de711c041cba8ba536c6980258.png

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Apparently everyone who has done the calculations on these planes is seeing the same thing because ALL of the flight sims from the year 2000 to now have shown the same turning relationship between these two planes, approximately 1 second for the K4 vs 67inch Mustang.

     

     

     

     

    image.png


  7. 1 hour ago, Panthera said:

    That was a discussion regarding the Fw190D and P-51D though, and indeed those two are quite evenly matched. But the Bf-109K-4 is in another ballpark.

     

    That was not the point. The point was about the 51s CL. Which is around 1.4 at low mach numbers.

     

    And the British tested it to 1.4. And the test you referred to lists several CL numbers. All of them around 1.4.

     

    But ill just let Holtzauge tell you:

     

    image.thumb.png.633911d2c4245167c0b5ec0408259f40.png

     

    1 hour ago, E69_geramos109 said:

    Well i guess that Not close, bleeds much more etc is too imprecise for you and you know better how the planes perform than two guys who pilot both planes and know what they are talking about. Of course you can not take the words as pure science like when the first guy that was talking about the spit but when the picture is so clear that thay can say that is faaaar behind is for something

    It does not bleed too slowly. The K4 in Il2 also bleeds speed very slowly. And the DCS P-51 behaves extremely similarly in all regards to the il2 P-51 FM considering turn. You have no basis for your opinion other than "muh 109 is lighter and uh slats"

     

     

    • Upvote 1

  8. 1 minute ago, E69_geramos109 said:

    Did you hear the part when they said that 109 was not even trying and even like that outclimbng the mustang. I  think this pilots can tell a lot better than you how the planes are compared even if they are not pushing them to the limit. You can see a lot of airshows when they pull tight turns  and you can see the slats opening on 109s, so i guess if they can not tight the turn as with the other plane they know it very well. 

    What I heard was alot of imprecise language without any serious testing. And it is not indispute that the 109 out turns the 51. There are other pilots out there and I know at least 1 I have spoken to directly who will tell you the difference is not that great.


  9. 1 hour ago, Panthera said:

    I cannot get the P-51 to match the K-4 at all in sustained turn performance using any form of estimation model, they are quite far apart in every single one.

     

    I'm sure @Holtzauge's C++ simulation will show the same, irrespective of wether the P-51 is running at 67" or 75" hg boost.

    It doesnt, he put one out ages ago. They are fairly close and his model was for different fuel loads than i am referring to.

     

    And as I recall you use the erroneous 1.2 CL or something. But I could have mis-recalled that.

    1 hour ago, Panthera said:

    The slats on low wing centerline propeller driven  aircraft are rarely full span as propwash would prevent their proper operation

    I didnt say othewise.

     

    1 hour ago, Panthera said:

    The effect of this is that during powered flight you raise the overall lift of the wing as a whole, as the inboard section is being energized by the propwash whilst the outboard is kept from stalling by the slats

    I never said it didnt create a net benefit. What it does not do is yield some absurd CL of 1.7 like some people try to claim.

     

    1 hour ago, Panthera said:

     

    On top of this the more conventional airfoil shape of the 109 provided more lift at the normal dogfighting speeds (350-450 km/h) than did the laminar flow airfoil of the Mustang

    No, both wings have CLmax of about 1.4. Which is the same position Holtzauge and YoYo have.

     

    Every developer since the early 2000's keeps getting the same numbers and the same relative performance. Over and Over and Over.

    3 minutes ago, E69_geramos109 said:

    Notice that he is talking about a G4. Now put like 500hp more on the 109 to see how K4 will do...

    On the other hand there is a video about a P51 Ace talking about theyr mustangs out turning 109s. That is because they were fighting at high alt against G6s where the 109s without AS engine had not power compete against the P51s or other american planes. 

    These planes are not flown at max power anymore. This is also an anecdote.


  10. 32 minutes ago, -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter said:

    ....Slats...still..slats...

    " During World War II, German aircraft commonly fitted a more advanced version of the slat that reduced drag by being pushed back flush against the leading edge of the wing by air pressure, popping out when the angle of attack increased to a critical angle. "-->Translate it, into the game: It should lower the "brick" effect on the 109.
    Nothing happening in the game.

     

    Slats dont do what you think they do.

     

    Firstly, they are not magic devices which once fitted to a plane make it turn better than everything else. The La-5 for example, turns worse than a yak.

     

    Secondly, the slats on the 109 are not full span, and their effect is correspondingly reduced.

     

    Thirdly, wing efficiency is not the only metric which determines turn. There is wing loading, drag, thrust, etc. The 109 is a heavily wing loaded aircraft. It is also rather draggy.


  11. 22 minutes ago, Pict said:

    Has still got a divided advocacy...those who think it was useful in ending WW2 in Europe and those who don't . It was not clear cut then as it's not clear cut now and it is still as massively controversial as it was at the time.

    It has divided advocacy because there has been a major effort to downplay its role due to certain groups not agreeing with it ethically. That is with regards to the industrial aspects of it. German war production only increased because it had not been fully mobilized at the start of the campaign. Analysis of the bombing campaigns that does not take into account its role in reducing industry that might have been, and its other effects are intellectually dishonest or uninformed. The oil industry damage alone was crippling.

     

    Bottom line is this: anyone who tells you have obliterating entire cities (or their industrial areas) has no effect on the war waging capacity of a state is outright lying or is extremely ignorant. (I am not referring to you here, but who you might have read)

     

    However my comments had nothing to do with the strategic effects regarding heavy industry. The 70-80% of the German single engine fighter force was deployed in the west. Of that, the largest chunk by far was in Germany to defend against the bombers. That does not include units in France doing the same thing. What has not ever been contentious is that said operation is what ruined the Luftwaffe. The massive resource commitment to defending against the bombers massively depleted luftwaffe fighters from operations on all other fronts. Even units stationed in France and Italy had to spend alot of their time intercepting bombers. Destruction of German airfields on the ground, fighters in the air, and oil and aircraft production facilities did more damage to the German air arm than any other effort BY FAR.

    • Confused 1
    • Upvote 3

  12. Nothing (that can be measured ) has changed in these planes flight models between hot fixes. At least regarding turn anyhow.

     

    What I can say for certain however is that your average 109K4 pilot in multiplayer flies like he is having muscle spasms. Ive won several sea level turn fights in the P-51 because:

     

    -The 109 pilot dumps all his speed and get slow, while I slowly bleed speed and sustain a higher G while coming around at an unsustainable rate.

    -The 109 snap roles because he is trying too hard.

    -The 109 climbs during the turn

    -Use of flaps.

     

    I think is what contributes the most to misinterpretations of performance. If people would fly smoother it would be alot harder on the Pony guys.

     

    unknown.png

    unknown.png

     

    Another thing worth mentioning is that alot of people most likely do not know the difference between 1 circle and 2 circle geometry, and the Mustang has a very good chance in radius fight due to its flaps. Or in a rolling scissors.

    • Upvote 1

  13. While were on it, ill just go right at it.

     

    We all acknowledge that the Mustang didn't "win the war." Which would be like saying any particular soldier, even a significant one, won the war. But the Mustang gets alot of hate today because the real meaning of this statement when it is used in books gets completely misinterpreted.

     

    While the Mustang did not "win the war" in some kind of general sense, "won the war" in the sense that the Mustang was the decisive newcomer to Operation Pointblank in late 1943. For all the fighting that was done on all front and all time periods of the war, it was the 8AF the did the real manual labor of finally destroying the Luftwaffe as any serious threat. The Mustang showed up when it was needed and rapidly replaced other types in fighter groups doing the business. P-47s did significant work but they could not go to the target. P-38s were not as fast and were needed everywhere else and there were never enough of them in any theatre. The Mustang filled the gap, and then some.

     

    Alot of the derision sent the Mustangs way comes from people thinking that pointing out the Mustangs extremely important role and general superiority somehow robs other planes of their significance at other stages of the war and theatres. It doesnt.

     

    Another source is people who suddenly discover that the Mustang is not a Spitfire in the turn department, and suddenly decide it was always over-rated.

     

    The bottom line is that the Mustangs legend somewhat exceeds its reality, (although its reality was fantastic enough by far), and when people realize this it suddenly becomes a long train of second opinion bias where the Mustang is a junk heap that only succeeded at anything because it was there in large numbers....which is total rubbish.

    • Upvote 9

  14. 5 hours ago, 56RAF_Roblex said:

    As for which was better,  there is no doubt that the spit was no good for escorting bombers to Germany but I am not sure that the P51 was as good a dogfighter.   

    The P-51 was slightly less agile than the 109 when slow and slightly more agile than a 190 when slow. It was MUCH faster than either when it first came out (much faster than a spitfire too), and remained faster even than late model 109s. At all altitudes.

     

    Was it spitfire class turner? No. But neither was really anything else during ww2 in Europe. And turn performance was not what mattered. Top Speed and high altitude performance were what mattered. If turn performance was the most important thing the Japanese would have done alot better.

    48 minutes ago, 56RAF_Roblex said:

    was a very good all rounder even if it was not quite top of the charts in any one category. 

    This is just nonsense. The P-51 had decent agility and climb.

     

    And it had Top of the Charts Speed and Range.


  15. 13 hours ago, SCG_Sinerox said:

    This spotting discussion shouldn't even be a thing. IL2 is supposed to be a simulator, trying in its best capacity to recreate what pilots went through in the air war. The touching up the dev team made to fix up-scaling was the right call if you value realism. I know several pilots who have told me that spotting in RL is  difficult even when ATC gives you a heading of a contact and essentially what direction to look for said contact it can be extremely difficult to see it still. Being able to see 15-20km is realistic, and that is the name of the game for IL2. Realism. So shall we become closer to War Thunder or be what Il2 is meant to be... Thats really the question.

    You do realize that because the devs call it the less realistic option doesnt actually mean it is right? Also using alternate spotting for me it least is about getting more realistic spotting in closer, and i dont care if that causes some too far contacts to be in view to easy. Realisim wise, too much spotting is better than too little.

    • Like 2
    • Upvote 1
×
×
  • Create New...