Jump to content

=RS=TheFace

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5 Neutral

About =RS=TheFace

  • Rank
    Founder
  1. So I am going to need both the P38 throttle and yoke. And the P47 quad. and yes the right console dual engine control. Put me on the tester list if you want!
  2. Well they did state that additional work would need to be done for the 262 in the simulation, so it's surprising it's before a chunk of other AC. From many of the previous diaries the 262 is the tougest one for them. Of course any of the devs can pipe in and correct that if I am wrong. Yes it seems kind of like poor planning to have all of one side of the aircraft done and only half of the other side of the AC. I lead a production team, and this is just not how I would personally plan the manpower to work on the project. I also said "take this with a grain of salt" as it's biased because I just don't care about the 262.
  3. 262 is cool and all, but need the rest of the allied airframes more at this point IMO. This is the last German AC while the allies are missing the P51, Tempest and P38. Personally I would have prioritized at the very least the P51 to be released prior to the 262. I have basically been taking a break until we have the P51 or the P38... Take that with a grain of salt as the 262 is the least compelling AC for my personal tastes in the BoBP module. I understand many people want it and it looks to be a very good simulation of the plane.
  4. How is it extreme? One control binding setup leaves out a specific control. That is all. Why would it hurt you in any way lol. Its more realistic and its not giving anyone some kind of artificial boost.
  5. No one is debating it doesnt work right now. Also I dont use my keyboard for bindings. What the issue is that its setup for one bind scheme, single throttle / binding setup. Binding L / R engines with a split throttle doesnt allow for a L feather and a R feather binding. Binding out separately you dont use the switch engine bindings to disengage all the other engine functions because they are bound on different axis / buttons. Its clunky to have to use the switch engine function when everything else is bound to single buttons or axis. I could use software to create a macro, but that is something I would rather not have to do when adding a single pair of bindings would solve the issue.
  6. I have it working too, that isn't the issue, it's that you have to use the single binding and the engine select for single bindings to do it per engine that I have issue with. So it's a macro, or you have to select engine, feather, then reselect the next engine manually. Just clunky, and the bind is missing from separate engine controls unlike being able to basically bind each engine fully on it's own.\
  7. Like Luke FF said most of the planes here would require only a button press (or hold) on a switch IRL. The current keybinds are not designed to mimic reality for feather, though, it's for controlling both engines with only ONE set of keybinds. Hell most of the binds aren't 1:1 reality, just look at flaps or trim bindings. Since this is a survey sim and not a study sim it makes sense to have appropriate keybinds available. Even more so that the cockpits aren't clicky, as you can't bypass the keybinds like DCS (not suggesting clicky cockpits). I am talking about the fact the bind exists for one control methodology (single lever / bind for both engines) and yet doesn't exist for the separated keybinds. The main consumer flight sims like Prepar3d and XPlane have separate feather binds. Currently you can bind most of the actions like closing the water rad, shutting the individual engine down etc to separated keybinds. So the only one that is convoluded is the feather command. It again works for one control scheme (single lever throttle / binds for both) and doesn't have a bind for separate engine controls. So it's clunky unless you create a macro when you have both engines and their controls all bound separately.
  8. Since the P38 is incoming I think it would be beneficial to add prop feather to the individual engine control bindings so those of us that want to bind out separate engine controls can do so. Currently it's very clunky if you have dual engine control setup to unique axis to have to use the engine swap command then feather then back to engine control scheme your using. Macros can work, but it seems counter productive to have separate engine bindings but not feather to be included. To be honest you don't feather unless you have multiple engines anyway, it's not usually a feature of single engine planes.
  9. You would have had to drop the tanks, which the switches were tough to use with gloves on, then you had to adjust mixture, then RPM, then manifold in that particular order. Some would say 2x because it was dual engine but the controls were designed to be manipulated like it was single engine with the handles grouped together. Any way you slice it by that time you were dead or you had an engine failure because of doing the sequence wrong as the Allison was very sensitive. You can test it out in the P40. The German fighters had a unified throttle, which some P38 drivers were asking for. It was an experienced pilots plane for sure. It also had better handling under flaps than without, 8 degrees I think, which while not necessarily atypical, it was a larger difference than in other planes. Not to mention that the Allison was operating at a higher altitude than in any other application of the engine.
  10. Agreed yes. It was just dangerous to attempt a high speed dive before the flaps, and even early model 109/190 had stabilizers that you could adjust to pull out of dives easily. I think the dive flaps will be available for the 38 as an add-on no matter the block of J we get. Hopefully the hydraulic ailerons too, as the main advantage of the L is the roll rate. Acceleration was better in the 38 than the 109 / 190 in a straight line at mid-lower alts (although not as fast as the end model 109/190s). It was also faster in a dive at lower altitudes (as long as you have the flaps to pull you up). It also performs well in general at lower altitudes. Wing doesn't drop in a stall, and stall speed is lower than the 190. 190 isn't known for it's climb rate, although the D9 would be comparable. Under a bit of flap at lower speeds its really maneuverable too. The main disadvantages of the P38 won't translate to the game very well, which is fun for us. No/little heat in the cabin, defrost issues, poor engine performance / failures at higher alts (since we don't really fight there often). Pilot load was also an issue in the P38, things like the drop tank switch being tough to activate with gloves on or needing to drop tanks then adjust mixture then rpm then manifold when bounced whereas the competition had unified throttle. Which disadvantage will be an issue? The roll rate. It is easier for the enemy to exploit the poor roll rate without the hydraulic ailerons. K would have been a beast had it been produced. Yeah the conversion kits were shipped out in late 43 to MTO/Pac with spring 44 to ETO I believe so it has to be a modification at the very least. By late 44 early 45 they would have been pretty widespread I would think. I don't think the 15 block would have had different performance values outside of the slight speed loss from weight increase and better roll rate of the 25 block. Not sure if the boosted ailerons the block 25-LO J's and L's had were available as kits as well.
  11. That makes sense then, wasn't aware of the L's not getting into the north, makes sense with many of the groups transitioning to P51s
  12. This is the plane I am most interested with in BOBP. It won't be the most effective plane for everyone, but using it's strengths its a great fighter. Now some of the J's (block J-25-LO+) had the boosted ailerons, as well as a conversion kit for the dive recovery flaps as well, so hopefully they will be options at the very least. L's were shipped June 44, so unsure why we are getting the J? Other than that the L isn't really much different from the J. 190's and 109's can dive away from you. They do that against many other planes, too. Either way (J or L), the ship is good if you fly it right. It's a marksman's dream.
×
×
  • Create New...