Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

62 Excellent

About Voyager

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

399 profile views
  1. 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.
  2. Here you go. It's cheep too: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-17_Flying_Fortress:_The_Mighty_8th
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. Concept: build a battle with only the B-17 as a new aircraft, but supporting campaigns using other appropriate aircraft in the series. It would include a new map of the southern German industrial region, and links to maps of the channel and southern England and potentially the Bodeplatte region. Pricing would likely be significantly higher than for a collector's aircraft, but potentially lower than a full Battle. Collectors planes could include a pathfinder Mosquito and an Me-210 or other German bomber to night fighter conversion, or could simply go down the P-51C/Bf-109G-6 Late route Core focus of the mod would be the AI work necessary to allow larger aircraft formations, and 4 engine bombers, long duration missions, and potentially the crew management to handle managing a large multi crew bomber. Other additional features may include mechanisms for mid-mission state saving to allow breaking up longer missions between sitting. Basically, 4 engine heavy bombers are big, complex, hard to model, and a niche within a niche. Further, there are some significant game engine work that has already been said would need to be done to handle heavy bombers or the strategic bombing campaign. Yet, we're rapidly filling out the single seat fighter roster for both sides needed to cover major parts of that campaign. So, I'm thinking one possible path would be to use a famous, significant, 4-engine bomber as the focus point of the effort. The B-17 alone has enough depth to stand alone, and has done so successfully when well implemented, and in the context of the Great Battles game space, would have significant value, even for those of us who would never likely fly the plane itself.
  7. Just did a night flight in VR, and discovered that because it is very dim, ones eyes dark adapt, right up until the point that you open the map or finish the mission. That's about like someone turning on all the lights in the room in the middle of the night. I'm wondering if there could be some way to universally dim the UI elements when one is in a night mission, or add some sort of control knob for the UI brightness, so one can give oneself some time to adjust after the mission?
  8. Ok. Thinking through this, I'm probably going to want to see if I can track down a thrustmaster warthog stick without the base, and pair it up with the Virpril base, then see about identifying a couple many axis controllers to rebuild into the trim box/left bay controls, and another one for the throttle quadrant. Are there good sources for those sorts of parts? I'm thinking given the number of axis each need it might be viable to start from a pair of CH Throttle quadrants? Or maybe these guys? https://www.pjrc.com/teensy/projects.html
  9. Any thought on the VKB sticks? I'm trying to figure out who the different players are in the high end stick market and whose parts interchange with what. Do any of the interchangeable stick makers do any F-16 style sticks? That's what my CH is based off of, and I don't want to give up the pinky button before I've got a throttle built up. (I'm using it for "push to talk" coms)
  10. I did run into an interesting system someone else used to greatly extend their joystick length: https://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/content.php?2098-How-ToBuild-A-Floor-Mounted-Joystick I'm thinking something using that concept could be implemented using something like the Virpril interchangeable bases, which would also shift the high force location to the upper pivot point, rather than the main joystick.
  11. Asymetric flap deployment under high g load can cause one wing to stall and kick you into a spin. There was a pair of NACA reports on the P-47 stability, including a plot of the pilot control inputs needed to keep the plane level as the flaps dropped. It was all over the place until they stabilized. I did a series of L/D plots of the P-47 with flaps in an earlier thread. Basically the flaps give you a worse L/D ratio but a higher stall AoA than without, so you get a lower stall speed. It's only under high g loads that we get unexpected behavior, which, given the aforementioned asymmetry issue, may not have been tested. It is a big airplane yes, but it also has big wings, very large flaps and the most powerful engine with biggest airflow in the game operating in an untested flight regime. We cannot reply on pilot accounts or our own intuition for how it should behave.
  12. Itis cheaper than the real thing. I mean, the P-47 can guzzle it's way through ~300 gallons of 100ll avgas every flight. A quick Google search shoes that, while its come down, it's still ~5-6 USD a gallon. That around about $1,500 a flight. You can buy a lot of sim stuff for that kind of money
  13. The P-47D-28 is using the 135 octane settings, as I understand it. The 100 octane Thunderbolt is limited to 2300hp at 54" of manifold pressure. That said, I was given to understand the P-38 did not have major engine power increases during it's operational life due to its compression issues. Do we know if they actually did engine settings for 150 octane fuel?
  14. That's kind of what I'm thinking too; a variable centering force, and the option to have the centering force be directionally dependent, but I'm thinking, I haven't heard of situations where the stick gets knocked around in flight, aside from the stall shake. I'm wondering if that could be do a simply by varying the centering force rapidly? One of the things that I disliked about the old ffb sticks was that some games would grab them and swing them around with considerable force. Not fun on the wrist. I can see how with floor sticks, one could do i raked a hurt like that. A balanced centering moment would seem to be a safer option.
  15. I'm thinking I would like to put together a partial simpit for Il-2 GB and other flight sims, and looking for ideas and suggestions. The objective aircraft is the P-47, in a VR headset. I'm currently using a CH Fighterstick, Pro Pedals, Throttle Quadrant and Pro Throttle. Ultimately, I'd like to go to a floor mounted stick, rudder pedals with a more correct pedal spacing, and both with aircraft level maximum deflection forces (i.e. 30-60lb range for the stick, 50-100lbs range for the rudder pedals), with (optimally) some degree of force feedback control to the centering force (Basically, so the stick and rudder have low forces on the ground or at low speeds, and full forces at higher speeds). I'd also like to find some sort of trim box, sort of like what the US fighters would have for trimming, that I could use for the fine trim controls, and, eventually, a throttle quadrant that can support buttons on the throttle lever, so I can add the key commands there, while still having the turbo, prop and mixture close at hand. What I'm not sure is, what is really out there, and what the options are? Does Il-2 support Force Feedback? Are there any of the stick vendors that make bases or rudder pedals that can support very high forces? Has anyone even heard of a company that does trim wheel boxes? Thoughts? Suggestions? Thank you, Harry Voyager
  • Create New...