Jump to content

Lord_Flashheart

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    351
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Lord_Flashheart

  1. 190 is faster on deck. They trade blows at medium heights, with 51 gaining upper hand above 22k or so Personally I think 190d with mw50 should be a mod that is rare. D models operated initially at 1700hp, then up to 1900 in october44. Mw50 didn't show up till November. By 1945 only like 60 of the mere 180 or so d models had mw50 The first thirty production aircraft were delivered to the unit (III./JG 54) at the beginning of October 1944. [...]In September 1944 an equipment kit was installed which raised boost pressure and increased the Jumo 213 A's emergency output from 1,750 to 1,900 h.p. The installation was carried out on-site by Junker's Tecnical Field Service (TAM). This increased emergency power could be used at altitudes to 5000 meters. At the same time, use of takeoff power (1,750 h.p.) was extended to 30 min., while authorization was given to use combat power (1,620 h.p.) without restriction. The Junkers technical field service visited III./JG 54 monthly. In October the number of Fw 190 D-9s on strength with the Gruppe rose to 68. Of these, 53 had been converted to 1,900 h.p. and one was delivered by Focke-Wulf with the MW 50 system. The remaining 14 were in the process of being converted and completion was imminent. [...]In its November report, Junkers noted that all the aircraft of the three new Gruppe were being converted to 1,900 h.p. and that the work was significantly more difficult at frontline airfields where there were no hangers. By the end of December 1944 there were 183 Fw 190's in operation with the increased performance modification, and 60 more had been delivered with the MW 50 system and were at the point of entering service. *
  2. Just to add to this... The 1min on the f4 is particularly absurd. A engine with a power limit within 1 min of destruction would be useless. We're such insanely narrow margins for error operationally doable the german s would just have allowed 1.7 ata on g6's without water. That would also probabaly last about 1min
  3. Regarding the various comments about throttling back or up a P-38 engine to increase maneuverability I can only repeat that this was not practiced as far as I know. When I was overseas in 44 and 45, flying the J winter thru summer, the policy was to drop tanks and push up MP to 45 inches when German fighters were spotted in a position where an engagement was likely. When you actually went for them, throttle up to WEP, 60 inches or so, rpm all the way up too, up past 3000 rpm. And there it would stay until the engagement was over and you remembered to throttle back. You could easily be at WEP for 20 minutes or more."
  4. So your admitting you want unrealistic engines because people will fly like Mario. I can think of several other mechanical things we could screw up in game because people dont use them realistically
  5. Yes and I dont want a 1700bhp p40. The main issue of contention is time limits of aircraft with regulated MP. Not allowing higher than authorized settings. The p40 and planes like it would likely need their own solution.
  6. Completely different things are being discussed here. The P-40 is a special case of what is to be done, because it does not have a MP regulator. It is a totally different discussion between the P-40 running MORE power than was authorized for LONGER than was authorized and letting other planes run rated power for longer periods. The 1780hp P-40 moreover, proves exactly the opposite of what you contend. No 1100bhp or 1300bhp P-40 was going to die in 5min if planes were successfully run for 4 times that duration at 61% higher power. "if P-40's/Allison's could really have been operated like that for more than a few minutes don't you think Allisons would have replaced all Klimov's and featured heavily on the allies radar considering what HP axis aircraft were producing at that time? " That above quote is just gibberish. There are any number of reasons why this was not the case -Did they have the supply of allisons to replace all the Klimovs? -Power is not the only metric behind engine selection -The Allison DID feature heavily in the allies radar. It powered just about every early war non-radial american plane. It didnt feature as high on the radar in the later stages because reasonable solutions to its high altitude performance that werent a turbo didnt come about till later, such as the P-63s hydraulically coupled supercharger. The reason the allison didnt take off is well documented.
  7. Those who want timers are forgetting that the main purpose of a simulation is the tactical result. It is already unrealistic to have engines that do not fail at max continuous. Higher power settings merely increase that possibility, but as a matter of scale not quality. Simply put, things under greater stress tend to fail more often. It is stupid in a video game to model random failures. Random failures are not a simulation of anything. They are a statistic regarding deterministic failures that were not expected. So if a engine rated for 1000hp to fails during a long use, it is not because the power itself killed the engine. High power use could kill through wear, but not in a single mission if using a rated power. The reason engines fail at rated powered is because some assumed condition the rating is based on is not present. Factories sometimes put out bad parts, mechanics forget maintenance, the engine might already be super worn out, pilot error, etc. ALL of these can happen at even continous settings. They are more likely at higher settings because at higher approved ratings it takes less of a deviation from a ideal engine to cause a problem because tolerances are less. The key here is that these failures are not part of the engines design. They occur because something not planned happens. Which means they should not be part of the simulation because they are not explictly part of the engine. The same could be said of every mechanical object in this game. Yet I dont see anyone asking for factory deviations on other systems. The timers are not a discrete model of the engines function. They are a model of factors that are NOT designed into the engine. Arguing for timers to control unrealistic in game behavior is not an argument for realistic mechanical modeling. It is an attempt to smuggle secondary conditions into the engine model as if they are primary engine failure mechanisims. What this does is make all planes not perform correctly when it actually matters: in combat. What matters in this game is speeds, climb rates, turn rates, etc. When you introduce a timer to control for extraneous factors related to engine reliability, every planes combat performance on the whole is degraded because it is no longer being modeled as the plane, but as the plane plus external factors that are not explicitly modeled. The time limits, excepting water, were dictated by operational and strategic concerns, not tactical ones. All of which are beyond the scope of this game. This is why the same engines were sometimes uprated. For example, the p38 had no less than 3 different recommendations for what it's appoved settings should be. The official rating was something else entirely. This was entirely due to disagreements on what was practical for long term use. The bottom line is that flying around at wep all the time is a player behavior problem, not a discretely mechanical one. And the engine model should never be altered to enforce behavior. I typed this on my phone, please forgive all the punctuation and other errors.
  8. I sometimes wonder why the only thing you seem to do on this forum is harass people who complain about the game. Its really all you do on the other forums I've seen you on. No more than 3 seconds after anyone says anything negative about the state of a game, and LukeFF will be there to make sure you know the supposed error of your ways. I will say this though: if the devs screw up the 150 grade issue, they will hardly be the first ones to do it. I have not ONCE in the last twenty years seen a simulator that had 150 grade available for American planes.
  9. Aces high had a cool option where there was a little red line on the guage that moved independently of the actual guage, showing TAS. They should add that too
  10. I would rather have no limits at all but....... An easy compromise between the two camps that would take all of 5 seconds to put in the game: -All WEP/Emergency/Boosted timers set to 10min or water limit, whichever comes first. -Military/Combat Unlimited for all planes. -WEP recharges at a rate of 1.5x the amount used. So 5min of WEP usage takes 7.5 min to recharge. -Either throttle auto retards when the time is up, or a message comes up exactly 30 seconds before failure so the player is never confused about how much is left. This compromise solves the problems of unrealistic advantages going to some planes and not to others, and also gives every plane a reasonable and useful amount of WEP time. At the same time, it should make the limits camp happy because it prevents everyone from flying at WEP all of the time.
  11. Let us not forget the even the Yak1b could not maintain a climb without having to stop and level out to cool the engine. Yet this is nowhere to be found in the game.
  12. Your record so far: -The world is divided into supplicants and assholes. -Farmers saying something about logical fallacies seems contradictory to you. It aint lookin good for ya bud. I think you might be a farmer.
  13. No, let me help you "Personally I have no experience of flying or operating liquid cooled In line high performance aero engines so cannot really compare " Second, there is nothing in the post that demonstrates expertise on the subject we are discussing. Lots of SPECIFC documentation on the subject has been posted however. I mean there is tons of engineering and anecdotal WW2 data that tells us how these engines really operated. A person's incidental experience with equipment really means jack and shit on its own, and it certainly says nothing of how something should be modeled in general. Again this is like saying that a person who drove the crown vic as a taxi for 20 years is an expert on the engine of the crown vic, and by extension all other engines, and all contexts in which this engine could be discussed. What is evidence? Knowledge of the engineering behind the engines, documents pertaining to the testing and design of the engines, the BULK experience of people using them. You know, the stuff I and others posted. If I do need anecdotes from pilots, ill take them from people in the war flying the planes, thanks.
  14. Its rather remarkable that you see the world as "forum assholes" and "thankful supplicants"
  15. Which is like saying a taxi cab driver is an auto-engineer. -Knowledge is not exclusive to hands on experience. -Much of the counter is based on OTHER PEOPLES real world experience, so why should Dak-Pilots opinion matter more than theirs. -Pretty sure Dakpilot was never spent any of that RL time intentionally breaking his airplanes engines just to see what they could do, and I am also fairly sure neither was a Yak1 or a 109. -If I need to talk to someone who has hands on ww2 plane experience I already have direct contact with people flying those birds today. Weird how they dont agree with dakpilot when I talk about this issue to them. but anyways, nice argument from authority. Translation: I am a good little boy who is not ungrateful. Stay in your place!
  16. Incidently, the Yak1B with the PF engine could not maintain a climb without overheating. In il2 you can just open up the rads and keep going, something I imagine they would have done if they could have. You can also close the Yak rads COMPLETELY in game for over 4min even in the summer. IRL it was only 2 min.
  17. Yes it has be discussed. And it was not us who was wrong. And run a DB engine at WEP and it will run forever as well, at least during the first mission. It is a feature that should be mandatory so that it functions in multiplayer.
  18. The other thing they should do, if not remove all limits at all, it as least make it so all limits are the same. At least then we wont have X plane being faster than Y plane because once country gave less [edited] about engine life. Because "max continuous" is just a word in some sense. The max continuous on a yak is a much higher relative power setting for the Yak's engine than for the 109s "max continuous". The yak at max continuous is already being push more or less to the limit. Max cont on a DB605 is very much below full power.
  19. Target profile is running. Stick movement in the key config menu causes il2 to recognize the axis and map it. However, the axis does not move after mapped in the curvature and deadzone adjustment screen, nor does the plane respond to input. ?
  20. There is always the option of mandatory subscription models, where you sub or you don't play. I am not saying we need a sub model, but the point is that the sim genre, in general, has an issue where the absurd expectations of their communities lead to less than ideal situations. When a certain other sim released several new maps for 50-90 dollars a piece, I would have been a rich man if I got a penny for every person whining about how X amount of dollars for a "mere map" is too much. Nevermind that the cost of the map subsidizes the general operation of the company. There are many ways to solve this issue. A certain dev I know you are aware of charges 10 dollars for patches to each successive major version of the game. No one loses access to the older versions, they just have to pay for the major patches. You keep what you already paid for. The community of that game hates that method, with much whining about it on their forum. Yet funnily enough, they all still fork out the cash. The current system that most major sims are using is one where there is a defacto subscription, where new content is released, that happens to usually also hold major adjustments to the game. Or those adjustments come between the releases but are paid for by the expected return down the line. The disadvantage of this is that it creates problems as it solves them, and generally unfriendly to truly major fixes. And back to what I said earlier, it is probably in the interest of both parties to make major fixes. Fixes to things like radiators, flaps, engine management, spotting. Changes that require (probably) more than a small patch now and then. New content will stop making sense if the value of that new content is tainted by existing issues. A P-51 is going to be alot less fun it its flaps dont work. Fixing engine heat modeling (radiators), spotting, etc. Or the major UI changes that DID happen, are examples of changes that make EVERY piece of content added better. And if its ALL better, we are all more likely to keep shelling out for new modules. Back to radiators: if it is any consolation, I have never seen this overheating message kill my engine. I have seen it many times and I just ignore it. I think its a text bug.
  21. I have no doubt it won't happen, but it is definitely because the sim community is full of people who want everything for free or at too low a cost. Broadly speaking gamers at large really. Subscription models for games made certain things possible that are not anymore. People stopped wanting to pay for it. Subscription models were replaced by the FTP model, which once again, people don't want to pay for. To your bit about financial disaster: What do you think BOBP and the Pacific are? They are partially new content, and partially a way of paying for all the other excellent work the dev team has to do for this game. You don't explicitly pay for the patches. What do you think the purpose of pre-ordering is? So while the content added in the last few weeks has been good, I am of the opinion that it is not enough. Few of a really major gripes people have been solved. Although many have been acknowledged. And since BOBP amounts to more than just the price of new content, I think its completely reasonable to express the direction people would like to see more time devoted to.
  22. Ok...they should do it more often then. As was obvious and you were well aware (or should have been), Legioneod's post was merely expressing a general statement. It was obviously unnecessary of him to caveat his statement with what was already taken for granted: that the devs clearly deliver improvements to the existing game that are not totally novel in their nature. It is a major issue within the simulation gaming world that developers spend too much time on new releases than on fixing what already exists. I would be willing to bet that this stems from the fact that it is harder to sell patches than it is to sell new content because the average sim player is a baboon who generally feels entitled to patches and does not want to pay for them. Given this rational fear, and the fact this is ultimately a business where monetary concerns come first, I think sim developers, in general, can be empathized with. Assuming my guess is true, of course. Endless new content stops being appealing when glaring mistakes are never solved. That new flashy P-XXX or Bf-XXX or Yak-XXX is not something I want to spend money on when I know that there are issues that will screw up the appeal regardless of how well done the specific work is on new content. I'd pay 100 dollars for a patch that improved spotting, engine management issues, flaps issues, and a litany of other things that have been complained about on these forums. Including some that the devs have either stated outright (or implied), they intend to get to when they have the time.
  23. i just ignore it. iver never seen the engine break because of it. i think its a glitch
  24. 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......
  25. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...