Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

72 Excellent

About Voyager

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

478 profile views
  1. I believe those are the continuous cruise setting. The P-47 manual, as I recall had cruise settings of 2250 rpm, at 35" and auto-lean, even for the ones with the 2800hp rated engine. So if you're looking at films of them flying on that setting, you're probably not going to see much, the way you would if someone just turned on the water and ran the throttles to the firewall.
  2. Is the 8KX the one that's running at the screen's native resolution, rather than up-scaling the way the 8K+ did?
  3. Do we have, or are we expecting a new track? I'm wondering if the way to go might be to create a scripted test mission rather than relying on a recorded track?
  4. On the original topic, has Number 6 changed with the Zen2 chips? Been trying to track down a good apples to apples comparison with the I9 and Zen2 chips for VR, but still haven't located one.
  5. So what is FFR? Haven't followed the Pimax closely yet so I'm behind on the terminology.
  6. So do we have a bead on what fraction of the load is multi-thread and how many unique threads it can support? That's going to control the point of diminishing return of threads vs clocks, and would inform trades between the 3950X,the 3800X and I9-9900K
  7. You can turn it on with any PC. It's just likely to chug unless you turn other things down. Vision limits are one of the weakness of Il-2 and is excellent that they've found ways to fix it, even if it requires hefty hardware to keep up. Time moves on, and the fact that an eight year old computer can run GB at all is a minor miracle compared to how things were when the original Il-2 and basically nuked my two year old Celeron 400. I'm just looking forward to being able to see the towns when I'm cruising over them at 15,000ft, even if does mean I can only fly non-combat flights until I've rebuilt my box.
  8. We should also try and get benchmarks once they release the multi threaded terrain handling the devs are talking about in the dev diary. Depending on how much workload that's splitting up, it may significantly impact performance and relative performance.
  9. If you want to keep the ergonomics of the CH Fighterstick, I believe you can get the Thrust master Warthog grip separately and pair it up with a Virpril base either as a desktop or floor length config. Stick extenders are a real game changer for flight sims.
  10. Did I just see multi-threading is coming to Il-2? How many threads are we looking at? As many as the processor can handle, or more of a fix 8 or 16? If Il-2 is starting to support multithreading, this changes everything...
  11. Do you really want to get into a discussion of cost estimation and level of complexity guestimates? We're talking about a four engined aircraft with the usual NACA studies and a number of flying examples. Yes, that is more complex than a single engined, single seat fighter, but do you have justification of why you deem it more than 4x the modeling level of complexity? Further it has previously been started that the dominant problem with large aircraft operations is now the aircraft models themselves, but rather the AI modelling involved. Thus the proposal to do a solo outing, that likely a less complex aircraft model than the combined plane set of a typical Great Battles game, to smoke available budget that would usually be dedicated towards aircraft R&D and focus it instead towards expanding the AI limitations. Or you can just do the crab bucket thing.
  12. Here you go. It's cheep too: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-17_Flying_Fortress:_The_Mighty_8th
  13. The point is use that as a way to rework the game engine to handle it. A B-17 doesn't take eight times as much work as a single engined fighter would, but rebuilding the parts of the engine to support strategic bombers could easily do so.
  14. I'm going to expand on how the timers are costing market: do a search on YouTube for people flying US fighters in IL-2. There are a lot from 46 still being generated, but almost all of the P-47 videos are from four months ago when the plane was relased. That is all I could find. Nobody has been recording videos of it since their initial look. That is a kiss of death for your market.
  15. R.S. Johnston was running a P-47D-5 at 72" of manifold pressure in 44, because his mechanic got together with a Republic engineer and jimmied the turbo charger on the plane. It wasn't until about 1945 that that power setting finally got out for the whole fleet. This is not the modern US Air Force, where everything is documented with total custody chain of control over every change that goes out the door. This was a world war, with an air force that had just 10-fold in size. A lot of stuff did not get written down, and when piston engined combat aircraft were obsoleted, there wasn't any point in corralling all of it anyways. The time thing just isn't going to cut it; they need to simulate the engines and how they behave. If they don't, they're going to push one of their biggest untapped markets one to other platforms.
  • Create New...