Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

131 Excellent

1 Follower

About Voyager

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

631 profile views
  1. Honestly, engine timers should go once they've got a good engine model. We should be able to manage the engines with the same gauges the pilots did, without requiring pop-up alerts to run core aircraft functions.
  2. At some point they will need to change them. The limits they set were per the pilot's handbooks. That worked well enough for the German and Russian fighters, and honestly, the P-40, because of it's completely manual engine controls that allow you to wildly over boost the engine required some sort of limits, but as they have moved into the Western front you are ending up with serious issues because the lay war LW, RAF and USAAF all had radically different ideas of what constituted an acceptable margin of safety. In a set of extreme examples, the late war R-2800, which was producing ludicrously higher amounts of power that the pre-war versions still had exactly the same engine limits, while the P-38 Allison engines had instructions that were just plain wrong and damaging to the engine. By contrast, the DB605's, with minimal modifications were given revised manuals that ran the engines for many multiples longer than their previous production, with no real relevant changes that would justify turning a 5m time limit into a 1h time limit. Meanwhile the RAF was giving instructions to run engines for longer than the aircraft had fuel to use. And then you run into bizzare results, like with the P-47, where if you turn on Water injection set the RPM to the cruise setting, you can run the engine indefinitely at the 15m timer limit, even after the water has completely run out. Also reducing the inlet temperature reduces the time to failure, so apparently the way to run the engine is to back off the RPMs, and run the inlet temps in the detonation zone, turn on an empty water tank and go to town. I've mostly stopped flying it, because in a real engine, that's about the best way to get severe detonation going, and I do not want the negative training. At the same time, jamming 56" into an early war Allison that was never built for it, without any ADI or sufficient charge cooling is going to do some damage. Later Allisons were built for higher horsepower, but the one in the P-40 we have, as I recall, was not.
  3. From the recent dev diaries, it sounds as though engine damage may be the next big thing on the table after the structural damage model rework gets finished.
  4. Well, the P-40 was also really a interwar plane that had been up-engined and up-armed to keep some semblance of pace with the war, but it's basic design is a 1934 aircraft. I'm not sure what the issue is you're having with the P-39, aside from its engine, which did pretty much hobble it in US service, and is very twitchy in game. I think the P-38 was the only successful high performance Allison engines fighter, and it was also the only one that was able to mount the turbos.
  5. I think it will largely depend on how much they can implement it as parallel functions. Right now because Il-2 is only lightly threaded it ends up leaving a lot of performance on the table. I'm hoping they're able to work more towards a higher limiting threat count as they add in new functions like the new damage mechanics. And yes, I am *very* looking forward to this update
  6. If the cockpit is moving with your head, then you need to make sur eto calibrate your Reverb before starting he game. Basically first turn on WMR and put on the head set. It will probably ask you to look around, and it will calibrate itself. Once you are in the WMR waiting room, you can see if the world move with your head, or if it works now. Once it works in the waiting room, then you start Il-2. If your head is hitting the cockpit windows, then you need to turn on External Views in your difficulty settings. With External Views turned on, you will simply clip through the cockpit entirely, rather than having the weird cockpit moving with your head effect. The spitfire is *extremely* small. Couldn't find the Kermit Week's one on being in the 109 ("Its like formula 1 car, you can barely move your head"), but did find this one: You can see how easily he's into the canopy frame line just by looking around. Here's another Spitfire cam: You can see how tiny the plane is: Compare it to say, the P-47: Finally, when the reflector sight is close to your eyes, it is not possible to focus so that both eyes see the overlapped reticle, because there isn't enough reflect. The P-40 has this issue too. The solution is to ignore the sight and only focus on targets. When you have a target that you are focusing at, your eyes will assemble the reticle correctly, even though there is a gap in the full reticle. The P-51 and P-47 don't have this problem because they have very big reflector sights such that most of the reticle is visible to both eyes in any position.
  7. Part of what causes the stress is uncertainty and lack of control over the outcome. I suspect flying helps with it, in part because it is one of the few areas where one is almost entirely in charge of one's own destiny.
  8. @niki_belucci @VampireNZ You do not have to buy just one thing. If you have multiple qualifying items in your cart the discount code will apply to all qualifying items.
  9. Basically when you're above 3000m change to the high gear in the supercharger: There should be a button to toggle the supercharger stage.
  10. @SYN_RequiemThank you I'm very much looking forward to it.
  11. Yeah, I'm planning on running a campaign using one of the generators so things like how to cruise become more important. I'm actually using the Reverb so don't really need the superzoom, and the tail gunner helps with SA.
  12. So I've been trying to find a reference on the proper engine settings and timers for the F.2B, of either version. Unfortunately Requiem has not done the brisfit yet, and my attempts at tracking down the old Rise of Flight aircraft manuals have only succeeded in turning up bin files I'm not able to open. Does anyone recall the engine settings for the plane, or where I might find them? Thank you, Finally got FC running in VR and it looks fantastic, and the biff is a very nice fighter for me. Very rudder focus too.
  13. Actually found the issue: It looks like in my case, the problem was that I'd hit over about 12 effective controllers attached to it and it couldn't deal with any more.
  14. Gita pair of MFG Crosswinds, set them up and have been using them in other flight sims. I tried binding the rudder axis to them in Il-2 and while the auto detect picked up the axis, and bound them, when I move the pedals, the game does not respond. Not even the control needle in the axis tuning screen does anything for it. It does respond to the Thrustmaster Warthog for ailerons, elevators and throttles, and it does respond to the CH Throttle quadrent for the various mixture and prop controls. I've also checked all of my other plugged in controllers to see if it was grabbing an errant axis, but nothing else seems to be responding. Any idea what else to check or how to fix this? Every other flight sim I've tried it on detects it, except Il-2. I'm at a complete loss here.
  15. Some of the Battle of Norm and aircraft should be solid fits for Bodenplatte too. The Spitfire XIV, Typhoon, and the P-51B and P-47D-22 all should have still been in service by then. In fact I recall one of the earlier dev interviews they'd mentioned that the Typhoon was much more active during the BoBp than the Tempest was, but they felt it was the only battle that the Tempest could have been included in, which is what led them to the Spot Mk. IX and Tempest Mk.V instead of a Typhoon, Spitfire Mk XIV combi. As for why it's more expensive than the other modules, as I understand it, this is the first time we're getting there completely new multi crew aircraft and they're trying to wedge an AI B-26 in there too, so it's going to take more development work than the previous ones have.
  • Create New...