Jump to content

[TLC]YIPPEE

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    531
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

421 Excellent

1 Follower

About [TLC]YIPPEE

  • Rank
    Founder

Recent Profile Visitors

1171 profile views
  1. I think you need to mock yourself with your own video. The size of the plane on the screen is not equivalent to the size of the plane in the real world. This is simple to understand you see.
  2. Nope. You keep saying this but it is objectively false. For starters, size CANNOT be realistic on a monitor without scaling things up. It is IMPOSSIBLE, literally physically IMPOSSIBLE for the size of something on your screen to be as large as it should be relative to the real world without scaling or some other mechanic designed for a similar effect. When you say this sort of junk you are dealing in counterfactual statements. "inflating plane size" is done precisely because it is one of the best ways to RESTORE game vision to a level where real life tactics are doable. It almost beggars belief that you can type on here with a straight face while making claims like this that are outside even the realm of possibility. No it isnt, and I can tell you from real life experience that troops in video games are much harder to see than they are in real life. Camouflage in particular is too effective. Spotting issues exist in games outside of flight simulation, and its absolutely screws with the tactics there as well. This is because it is IMPOSSIBLE for a game to have realistic spotting without some additional effort going into mechanics to alter the image from simple rendering. This is the exact reason why in games like squad you have people crossing danger areas 300m from an enemy position without being seen. This is exactly why in these same games the person with the binoculars herds their squad around like a bunch of blind sheep because they are the only person who can reliably pick out a troop in the open past 150m. I have. Airplanes against both the sky and the ground are much easier to see relative to il2. In particular, they are much easier to REACQUIRE than they are int he game once they have been found. I have already posted several videos of planes against the deck being spotting from over 8nm, much easier to see than they would be in il2. A high aspect plane a couple of kilometers away does not look like two pixels like it does in il2. Relatively it is much easier to pick out than it is in this game.
  3. Another issue with contrast is that it would appear to be based on maps. I was flying TAW last night and as I have posted screenshots of before, the contrast against the ground on that map is so horrid that fighters have a hard time escorting bombers. I was loitering about 1-2km from a group of 3 planes and could only catch glimpses of them. I had to stay so focused on them with a extreme zoom to maintain track that I could not afford to even check my own six and was lucky I did not get bounced. Lets just go through the laundry list of tactical things that are not possible in il2 due to the crappy spotting: -Correct wing man spacing. (too easy to lose) -Correct Group spacing. (too easy to lose) -Escorting bombers (frequently completely disappear into ground, even when very close) -Defending objectives (bombers can frequently slip past entire groups of fighters and the only alert to their presence is flak or the explosion of their bombs) -Group Boom and Zoom (inadequate SA means you cant ever be sure enough of enemy or friendly geometry to do this) -Multiple passes on Boom and Zoom (Too risky as you cant have any SA confidence whatsoever) -General ACM (Extreme difficulty in AC ID, and inability to accurately assess the situation means that any attempt at this fails most of the time. It is an extremely common occurrence that only the flight lead might see a bandit and this makes it hard to coordinate anything. Offensively it means herding sheep onto target. Defensively it means nothing more complicated than turning as a group.) -Checking your own six! Even this cannot be done right now in a reasonable fashion. It is so hard to spot a plane in profile even at close ranges that I check my six in game right now every 2 seconds even out of combat. I frequently fly just staring out the back of my plane. Despite this, because of the fact that high aspect planes are absurdly hard to see until about 800m, it is routine that planes just blink into existence at extremely close ranges despite constant attention to the 6 o clock. I have watched TONS of tracks where a plane made a six approach on me from high where I should have seen him several kilometers away except for the spotting. Instead, this plane was too difficult to see until he was basically in gun range.
  4. It is not that it is not unimportant. It is that getting this kind of thing right has demonstrated itself to have a inverse relationship to getting general performance correct. In a perfect world we would have both, but ill take general performance over specific for a combat sim any day of the week. It is absolutely more important to have correct climb rates etc, than it is to mimic certain aspects of control behavior. I am speaking generally here so save me the example that is the exception of the rule, because clearly there will be some. Speaking of just controlling planes in the shape of said plane, I could care less about a combat sim if the game modeled every nuance of control behavior to the point of it being exactly like real life if the two planes in the game didnt have correct turn rates or climb rates with sufficient relative accuracy. With ww2 planes It has to be down to around 2% or extremely meaningful differences in performance occur. A relative speed difference of 10 mph on the deck matters more in most cases than failing to model plane X's adverse yaw. Especially when the most important behaviors could just be scripted. Yeah I dont disagree with this in a general sense. Ive spoken to some people with real stick time behind some of these planes as well and the hammerhead was something I discussed once. The person I spoke to essentially said that it is doable but it would be much easier to just let the plane fall backwards and then reverse course at the apex of the climb. However, "this or that is hard" loses alot of its meaning in a sim because people routinely become proficient at doing things no one IRL would likely ever become good at due to risks and time considerations alone. They had about as much to do with flight as the current stuff does. The current stuff just has its own issues. BOTH are wrong. Sure its wrong. By 10mph. But this does nothing to explain why the plane should be able to flop about at whatever speed we want to placard it to. I seriously doubt changing the stall speed by 10mph is to going to stop the in game plane from being able to do what it does broadly speaking. Also both of you are somewhat misunderstanding my position. I am not saying that what we see in game corresponds to a real P-47. No airplane is this game does. I do not know of a single plane in this game that exhibits specific flight behaviors that remind me of what is described in flight manuals or pilot anecdotes. Not on the whole anyway. The point is that the only thing we can really judge in my opinion, is the general aircraft performance. Stall speeds, climb rates, top speeds, etc. Clearly we can know some quirks as well to the extent that they were described by pilots and that their languages was precise enough. But there are lots of things in this game that might be right, somewhat right, etc, that I dont think anyone on here regardless of their education can really know for certain where to draw the line at: short of modeling the entire plane in some kind of CFD(and even then...). I have already said that I dont think the turn rate of the plane is correct at 22deg/s. Clearly the flight model is not correct yet even in general performance. So I think it is fairly obvious @JTD that I am not arguing for a specific speed at which any of this might be possible if I dont think the turn rate is correct. What I am saying is that I dont know that general way the plane handles at slow speeds would change much if you tweaked any of the specific values. And I dont know how any of you could possibly know for certain that the plane couldnt be handled in general in this fashion with full down flaps given that no one here to my knowledge has the resources to do a sufficiently complex aerodynamic check. NOTE ALSO, that this is just one handling characteristic, and some may be provable false and others not. Nobody in the real world tested this for obvious reasons. Given that this is the second time a sim (with totally different FM methods) somehow have come to agreement on the specific handling characteristics of this plane at very low speeds with max flap, I think it is at least worth considering that there may be some truth to it.
  5. Nope. And I dont think there is a single person on this forum that could offer a precise explanation as to why its completely impossible. There are stunt planes that can certainly do this sort of thing, which certainly places it within aerodynamic plausibility. Clearly the P-47 was not a stunt plane, but that doesn't necessarily rule out some unusual behavior at very slow speeds with full flaps down. In il2 it basically just amounts to being able to pivot the plane in yaw. Most of what you saw in aces video was completely out of control with some creative camera work. Mind you I am not arguing that it is precisely correct either. To be specific, it absolutely is not. Because no planes specific flying qualities in any sim are exactly correct. Speaking in broad swaths however, I see no reason that a plane could not have some extremely impressive hammer head abilities, because that is more or less all it is in il2. The plane with flaps down has a very low stall speed, small wonder it can flop about while hanging on the prop. As for aces high, the flight modeling in that game is quite solid when it comes to the numbers. Climb rates, turn rates, etc. I could really care less about newer sims attempt to simulate relatively meaningless things like adverse yaw by wasting their time on hard to tune blade element methods of flight modeling. A certain unnamed combat sim does this and and frequently releases planes that sometimes mimic a real planes aerodynamic quirks (like odd landing characteristics) but take 5 years before they can get something as simple as climb rate correct because tuning those models is extremely difficult to control. Of note is that the fact that after years of tinkering, the final flight models in that game produced planes that have almost the exact same by the numbers performance as the aces high flight models 15 years before. And now il2 has produced planes that have the same by the numbers performance as said unnamed sim and sims from twenty years ago. And those numbers are consistent with the independent calculations from holtzhauge. Clearly the modeling wasnt that bad when it comes to general performance.
  6. This. I tend to think the sustained performance of the P-47 is too great, but I dont think there is anything wrong with the way you can do almost flip like peddle turns when it gets really slow. All it really is is a hammer head of sorts. I looks nuts but again, I dont know if we can say its wrong. I might add that this is not the first game I have seen where the P-47 be able to do crazy stunts at low speed with flaps down. It strikes me that if different sims with totally different methods of flight modeling reach the same conclusion, it becomes mathematically improbable that they are wrong in such a specific way. Aces high had, and still does, have some of the best flight modeling in a sim. I know alot of aero types that think it is pretty much the cats meow. I thought this was nuts when i first saw it, but now il2 is the second game where this sort of stuff can be done. It seem to me an awfully specific sort of behavior be wrong twice. Sustained turns with flaps down in aces high were close to what holtzhauge calculated, so less than in il2.
  7. This isnt about legioneod specifically but I think all round the performance of alot of these planes surprises people for the following reasons: -Anecdotal evidence that gives a different impression (ex: P-38 sometimes has a poor reputation due to its combat record, which in actuality had more to do with it being the plane the US cut its teeth on then being a bad performer) -Il2 1946 An extremely popular sim that alot of people think had good flight modeling but was in actuality pretty terrible from a simulation point of view. Its a bit like the browning automatic rifle, people swear by it but its actually trash. -Assumptions made about performance made on overly general aerodynamic observations, such as not noting the P-38 and P-47 Fowler flaps, or assuming that partial span slats make a significant difference in turning (which they dont).
  8. The flaps speeds on the airplanes are not necessarily going to break the flaps linkages. Some planes simply didnt have that sort of thing listed, and instead only have the range of speeds the flaps are meant to be used for landing. The actually speed they break it would be much higher. For example, max flaps speeds on a 109 are listed as being similarly low, but you can open them well above this. Take note that for neither the 47 or 109 are there are indications of what amount of flaps can be opened at the speed limit. This is because it is just a generic indicator of when to put the flaps down.
  9. It wont sustain over 217kph. Above that pulling enough G to exceed the turn rate at lower speeds results in losing energy and you wind up at 217kph
  10. With 50% fuel P-47 in game 65inches with max flap manages 22.1deg/s sustained at 217kph.
  11. Because you cant tell the difference in game right now of 0.1G. Also look at a EM chart and tell me a fraction of a G matter in most cases. I am not opposed to modeling it, but complaining about it not being there is like complaining about not modeling pilot blood loss from a paper cut.
  12. 46 was complete trash when it came to flight models. It was popular because it looked pretty for the time and felt less on rails than sim of the era. It was also extensively modded. It had wildly different performance values to other sims at the time and sims that exist today for the same aircraft. Holtzauge has already done independent calculations to verify that il2gb does indeed have correct modeling on the 38 and other aircraft. Additionally the P-38 we have in il2gb performs like P-38s did in every past sim except 46. I am not saying a P-38 could turn with a ki-43, but mcguire died because he failed to jettison his tanks. "This extremely dangerous maneuver, performed at an altitude of only 300 ft (90 m) (contrary to McGuire's own dictates never to engage at a low altitude[12]), caused McGuire's P-38 to stall. It snap rolled inverted and nosed down into the ground. Despite the low altitude, McGuire nearly pulled out successfully; had he jettisoned his drop tanks at the start of the dogfight, he might have managed it " And since were quoting anecdotes.... "During the late winter of 1944 ocurred the famous dual between aGriffon-engined Spitfire XV and a P-38H of the 364FG. Col. Lowell few theP-38, engaging the Spitfire at 5,000 ft. in a head-on pass. Lowell wasable to get on the Spitfire's tail and stay there no matter what theSpitfire pilot did. Although the Spitfire could execute a tighter turningcircle than the P-38, Lowell was able to use the P-38's excellent stallcharacteristics to repeatedly pull inside the Spit's turn radius and ridethe stall, then back off outside the Spit's turn, pick up speed and cutback in again in what he called a "cloverleaf" maneuver. After 20 minutesof this, at 1,000 ft. altitude, the Spit tried a Spit-S (at a 30-degreeangle, not vertically down). Lowell stayed with the Spit through themaneuver, although his P-38 almost hit the ground. After that theSpitfire pilot broke off the engagement and flew home. This contest waswitnessed by 75 pilots on the ground."
  13. What we need is much better spotting out to 6km. That is currently the problem zone, 1-6km. Planes in that region absurdly hard to see
  14. You can fly a speed, but it wont give you the best rate. Best sustained rate on all ww2 planes is whatever you get when you ride the edge of a stall until thrust = drag. ww2 props cannot maintain a corner speed. There is corner data in some of the IRL flight manuals, feel free to google it. By guesstimating base on blackout amount. 4.5-5G is about the most you can sustain in il2 IIRC You dont want to arbitrarily hold on to speed. You want to be as close to corner until you run out of excess power due to altitude. Once your on the deck you want to crank the turn till you are on the edge of a stall and hold it. If you ease off the stick in a low speed turn fight you will be doing nothing but retarding your turn rate. The guy at 160mph will be around on you very fast.
  15. Best turn speed in a P-38 is not 200mph. You dont fly to a speed for sustained turns in ww2 prop planes. This is possible in jets because they have enough thrust to sustain best turn speed at or near corner speed. Props cant do this. All you need to do to max perform a P-38 or any other ww2 prop is pull the stick as hard as you can without stalling the plane. You will automatically drop in speed to whatever the best sustained turn speed is. For the 38 with is like 180-150mph depending on how much flap is down. Actual corner speed on ww2 props only matters in situations where you have excess specific power in the form altitude to keep your speed up with a higher G. Corner speed for ww2 props tends to be around 6-7G at 270mph indicated. This will vary based on altitude and fuel weight. If you are in a descending nose to tail turn fight, attempt to maintain a high G load between 250-270mph by lowering the nose. If you intentionally sustain 200mph in a P-38 you are going to be turning much worse than possible.
×
×
  • Create New...