Jump to content

[TLC]60FtofBridge

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    646
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

621 Excellent

2 Followers

About [TLC]60FtofBridge

  • Rank
    Founder

Recent Profile Visitors

1772 profile views
  1. 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 associated zooms? -In general, how detailed and realistic are the nuances of different tanks? Do Sherman's have stabilizer? Are different tank steering systems modeled, such as clutch braking vs regenerative steering etc? -How good is the tank ai? Someone I know who owns the game said the last time they played tanks could spot people through trees or bushes. Is this still true (or was it ever etc). -How finished is it in general?
  2. 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.”
  3. 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.
  4. 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. Plus as for their general benefit, many modern jets automatically deploy leading or trailing edge flaps (or both) when turning. As for in game, this is just my personal experience, but based on interactions with people I have found people who are not using the flaps either do not do so because (as you said) they think it does not accomplish anything, or they dont use the correct settings. Ive run into several people who dont use the full-flaps down setting on the P-38 even when they are in a sea level rate fight on the deck and the speed is low enough to drop 100% flap. The other issue I think is related to the relationship I noted above, which is that the plain and split flaps do not maintain a rate benefit once PS drops down to 0 again from whatever speed they were deployed at. If anyone does a turn rate test with a Mustang in game, you will get a worse sustained rate in any PS=0 condition, and the same is true of every other split or plain flap design in the game (and any other game ive tested this in including DCS.) Also this is an aside and is not in response to Holtzauge, but to anyone skeptical of the use of max flaps in combat, there are multiple accounts of FULL flaps being used on the P-51 in the above combat reports. And also another note: Use of flaps provides a reduced turn radius regardless of PS. From what I can tell they are always useful in nose-to-nose radius fights such as a flat scissors.
  5. 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 turn rate at any speed greater than PS = 0 (except with fowler and slotted flaps, whose lift to drag ratios provide continued improvement at PS=0). So if a 109 or 51 drop flaps at SL at 225mph IAS, and if say the sustained turn speed with 10 degrees of flaps is 155mph, until either plane decelerates to 155mph the turn rate will be improved. Once both planes reach the new PS=0 speed, sustained turn rate will be worse than if flaps were up (you are all free to test this in any game with plain or split flaps). But if the turn fight happens at any altitude that is not SL, PS never reaches zero because both fighters will trade altitude for airspeed and PS will be negative. This is why I think most turn rate debates are always about a rate fight on the deck, since is the altitude where this really shows. Not that an advantage at 25,000ft is meaningless, just not nearly as damning as being out-rated on the deck.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. I did that several pages ago when this first came up. It was literally my first response to this.
  9. 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 that the K4 with DC engine magically lost all of its thrust. Comparing at a arbitrary speed is ridiculous if you picked any two speeds other than the peak sustained turn speeds it skews the comparison: IF you use it.
  10. 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.
  11. OH MY GOD. The entire point Panthera was that the rates JtD quoted HAD THE SAME G LOAD at the SAME SPEED.
  12. 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.
  13. 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 a mach number of .23. We are in the right ballpark here. What is more, the P-51 tested at 25% fuel as in my tests unsurprisingly has a sustained turn speed at around 0.208 mach. Sustained turn speeds are "dog fighting" speeds. They are not full span slats. This had been gone over about a billion times. And the irony of claiming the mach number is wrong on the P-51 wing tunnel tests but then pointing out the that 109 is also at wind tunnel speeds... You really have a hard time reading a document. That says 388KG not LITERS. The P-51 is carrying 524 liters of fuel compared to the 109s 400. (388/ 0.74)
  14. 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.
  15. Lol we have literally gone over this in this thread and others like a dozen times now.
×
×
  • Create New...