Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4 Neutral

About Cecil

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

129 profile views
  1. Switching off the compass doesn't solve it. I tried all different combinations of disabling instruments, player chat, technochat, etc, and nothing gets rid of the microstutters except hiding the HUD entirely. And I don't think it's just a UI thing, it's a UI + multiplayer thing, because I get no stutters in singleplayer no matter how many HUD messages are being displayed. Yet when I join any multiplayer server, there's one microstutter approximately every second. You can see it real easily if you look at a frametime graph (like the one available with MSI afterburner), you'll see a spike in frametime every second.
  2. Yeah, I don't think damage from exceeding Mach numbers is modeled in the game. At least I couldn't find any evidence of it. The only time planes take damage is from exceeding their IAS limit which pretty much only happens down low. I'm still not convinced that losing gear doors that quickly is realistic. I was reading through the TOs that NZTyphoon posted and the first TO he linked says, "Due to the possibility of improper adjustment of the landing-gear uplock and the landing-gear fairing door lock which may cause loss of the fairing door during flight, all P-51B, P-51C, and P-51D airplanes will be inspected immediately and every 50-hour inspection period thereafter...". It describes jacking the plane up, removing the landing gear strut fairing and main wheels (so you can see what's going on), and doing gear swings to ensure that the gear fairing door locks were working correctly, adjusted properly, and latching securely. And I know from reading other P-51 TOs on that website that there are a bunch of different adjustments that have to be made. There are adjustable pushrods to operate the bellcranks, the gear door latch plates themselves could be shimmed to fine tune their position relative to the latch block on the gear door, the latch rollers could be adjusted vertically by shimming them with washers, the latch cable tension needed to be adjusted properly to ensure the latches firmly engaged, and even the hydraulic actuating strut itself could be adjusted to ensure that the doors closed tightly and conformed to the skin of the wing properly. Here's a quote from the P-51D Maintenance Manual talking about the gear doors, "This fairing door is designed so that, on closing, the leading edge contacts the wing first. The actuating strut forces the trailing edge closed; this imposes a preload on the leading edge, which prevents the possibility of flutter while in flight." It then goes on to say that, "When installing new doors, it may be necessary to trim and form the edges to fit wing, preferably by a sheet metal specialist." Even the strut fairings were shimmable to ensure a perfect fit to the skin of the wing when the landing gear was retracted. And then I even read where it told you to test a latched gear door by tugging on it and if the latch let go, to file the latch hook to achieve a better angle of incidence between it and the roller, until you can apply weight to the latched gear door and have it hold securely. I also saw that they retrofitted the P-51Bs and P-51Cs with front gear door latches in addition to the rear latches they already had, but that the P-51D already had both front and rear gear door latches. So it seems to me that the loss of a gear door in that real life dive test was ultimately an adjustment issue, hence the TO to check the adjustment of all P-51 gear doors. It might be the case that they're a little bit of a nightmare to get adjusted and working properly in real life, but unless I'm misunderstanding something, I'm pretty sure the problem is solved with proper adjustment. I don't think that properly set up latches would result in losing gear doors so quickly after exceeding the IAS limit in real life. Yeah, the in-game drag penalty on the P-51 for losing its gear doors is almost certainly overdone. It's way higher than any of the other comparable aircraft in the game. I mean, I remember reading how in real life the Germans would remove the Bf109K4 gear doors on purpose because they had problems with them getting stuck down, so the frontline units just eliminated them altogether. I'd be interested in seeing real life data on how much that slowed them down.
  3. It'd be great if everything was as realistic as possible, but it's not, so it bugs me when there's inconsistencies that affect combat so drastically. Also, I'm not sure how you could ever enforce historical behavior in a game, even a sim, given that if you die in the game you don't die in real life. Virtual pilots are always going to have suicidal tendencies. I actually kind of agree. The problem is that that attitude doesn't help me in the game. I take little solace in knowing that my P-51 might be more accurately modeled as a 109 chases me down and murders me with 30mm after I tried to dive away because he knows 100% that I screwed up and my airframe is now 70mph slower than it used to be and he doesn't have any of those same limits to worry about. And we're stuck here scratching our heads wondering how the devs arrived at their decisions about structural failure in a high speed dive. Also in a dive, the P-51 was supposed to become unstable and porpoise, but it doesn't do that in the game. And you weren't ever supposed to have to use trim to pull out of a dive IRL and they even warned about pulling back too hard because the stick force per G wasn't that much (I think I read ~10 lbs/G at max speed somewhere) and yet you can easily get yourself into a situation where you need trim to save yourself in the game. Yeah, I used Stalingrad Autumn quick missions for my quick tests which I figured were close to a standard day. Also you can eek out a few more MPH by dropping the prop pitch a bit and manually overriding your coolant flap positions.
  4. I skimmed it. The problem is that the real life manuals aren't going to detail all the precise speeds at which things start to fail in a dive. They just set a blanket limit and tell pilots to not exceed it, with the attitude of, "If you wanted to exceed it in real life, good luck. You'll probably get yourself killed." Given that this is the case, the devs arbitrarily set structural failure points in their game and when you hit them, bad things happen. And given that this is ultimately a game, I'm going to butt right up against those speeds. This is fine as long as they're consistent in their methods. My problem is that for some reason the P-51 is special in this game, in that it fails just 20 mph over its placard limit. While you have planes like the P-38 and the Spitfire that can exceed their dive limits by 75 mph and others like the 109 and 190 which can exceed their limits by ~50 mph. And then when those airframes start to fail, they lose control surfaces. If you lose a control surface in combat, you're probably going to want to RTB and when doing so, you will barely be slowed down. Some of these airframes don't lose any speed with control surfaces ripped off. So, you'll make it back to base just fine because the penalty for overspeeding that airframe is minimal. The P-51 is again a special case where for some reason when its airframe starts to fail, it's gear doors are the first thing to fly off and your airframe becomes so draggy that you'll probably get chased down and killed. And the P-51 is yet again special in that if you compare all these airframes with their gear doors missing, the P-51 loses ~5x the airspeed in comparison to all these other airframes. No other airframe in the game gets crippled as badly as the Mustang does from exceeding limits. It's not even close. So you have all the other planes in the game, where if you exceed their dive limits (and you have to exceed them by quite a lot), it's not the end of the world. You can still run away and survive in combat. Then you have the P-51 (where it's special in 3 different ways that stack, to cripple its airframe in a manner that no other plane in the game experiences), where if you exceed its dive limit by just 20 mph (which is really easy to do), you effectively shoot yourself in the foot and you're a dead man walking. It's like trying to RTB in a Stuka. You are not going to make it home. You're going to get chased down and killed. Seems inconsistent to me. (Edit: commas man, commas.)
  5. Do you have any other resources pertaining to gear doors? I see on page 2 of that dive test pdf where it mentions gear doors flexing at high indicated airspeeds and a gear door failure, but then it goes on to say that it resulted in a service bulletin regarding the "maintenance of up-latches" in Oct 1944, presumably to fix the problem. And then at the bottom of that page it recommends a dive limit of 505 indicated due to gear doors deflecting at high indicated airspeeds, but there's also a ton of after action reports on that website where pilots said they went way beyond the placard limit, hitting speeds upwards and in excess of 600 mph indicated in a dive or one where a pilot said he was over 525 mph multiple times in a dogfight with no mention of damage to any of their airframes. Also I realized you could deploy the landing gear at high speeds in other planes to rip their gear doors off and test how draggy those airframes got. Here are the results from some quick tests of maximum possible speeds at SL in WEP with gear doors on vs off: 109K4-DC 386/362 mph (24 mph loss) 190D9 375/365 mph (10 mph loss) Spit9 353/342 mph (11 mph loss) Tempest 386/386 mph (0 mph loss) P-38 352/310 mph (42 mph loss) P-47 351/339 mph (12 mph loss) P-51 391/306 mph (85 mph loss) (This last P-51 test has higher speed losses than the first one because when you drop the gear at high speeds you also rip the tail gear door off.) The results are that most planes barely get slowed down by it, yet the P-51 loses 85 mph of top speed. Is that right?
  6. I'm wondering what the justification is for having the Mustang's gear door covers rip off in a high speed dive? None of the other planes lose their gear doors. Instead they lose control surfaces which don't penalize top speed nearly as much. Here's an example of a 190D9 vs a 109K4DC vs P-51 (150 octane) top speeds after taking damage from overspeeding a dive. The 190D9 loses a ton of control surfaces readily in an oversped dive. A new airframe tops out at 339/349/375 mph in continuous, combat, and WEP at SL. In a high speed dive at ~560 mph indicated, I was able to get both ailerons and an elevator to rip off. Which meant that during the subsequent top speed run at SL, I had to use rudder to stabilize roll, which induced sideslip. But it was still able to go 337/346/375 mph in continuous, combat, and WEP. An average speed loss of just a couple mph for 3 missing control surfaces. Then I tested the 109K4DC. I ripped both ailerons off at ~580 mph indicated which didn't slow it down at all as far as I could tell. It still went 321/346/386 mph in continuous, combat, and WEP at SL, even with a bit of sideslip due to me not having ailerons anymore and having to use rudder to stabilize roll. Now on to the P-51. It tops out at 349/363/390 mph in continuous, combat, and WEP (150 octane) at SL. But after a high speed dive up to just ~525 mph indicated, the gear doors rip off and afterwards the airframe becomes so draggy that your speed is limited to 284/299/319 in continuous, combat, and WEP at SL. That's a speed reduction of 60-70 mph depending on power setting. The P-51's top speed gets severely reduced from damage sustained during high speed dives and the damage occurs just 20 mph over the placard dive limit. No other plane I've tested gets penalized as badly as the Mustang for exceeding its maximum dive speed. I did some quick tests on some other Bodenplatte planes and the results were similar to the 109/190. None of them lost their gear doors in a dive. All of them lose control surfaces and the drag penalty seems minimal We could have a discussion as to whether or not the drag on the airframe is overblown when the gear doors are gone or if the drag penalty isn't high enough when control surfaces are missing, but I'm more interested in the reason why the P-51 is the only plane in the game, as far as I can tell, that has its gear doors flake off in a dive. I can't find any real life stories or data to indicate that this was an actual worry for the real life airframe.
  7. Yeah, I suppose I'm grateful it's populated at all. It just seems that the inclusion of a map vote would solve the problem and let people choose a map that's well situated to the number of players currently in the server.
  8. Aw, does that mean none of the older missions will be brought back? Also, I played some of those old missions and I don't think they were Berloga-like, unless you count anything at distances closer than the current mission rotation "Berloga-like". There's a whole continuum there. It's not like you're spawning people in the air with 10-15km separation in the old missions. Is there a way to vote on what mission comes next? When I play later in the day and there's only 40 people in the server, the new maps can be a bit of a ghost town.
  9. Whatever happened to all the missions listed here? http://combatbox.net/en/maps/ Why aren't they in rotation any more? I miss playing Kalinin and the two Kuban maps, and I haven't played the D-Day map in forever. It's just the same 4 missions (now with Y-29) over and over again. And the new maps are getting too large in my opinion.
  10. I have some suggestions for alternate visibility. Scaling of planes should be solely based on distance away from you and not be affected by zoom level. As of right now, it's easier to see planes when zoomed out vs zoomed in with alternate visibility on, which seems backwards to me. You'll see a scaled-up plane 10-15km away when zoomed out, just to zoom in on it and have it practically disappear as it gets scaled back down. It's jarring and unintuitive to zoom in on something and have it appear smaller. If the scaling was based solely on the range between you and the target, this wouldn't happen anymore. Then whatever formula you use to define the scaling, linear, logarithmic, sigmoid, idk what the best one is, but it should have changeable coefficients (maybe in the config file) so that you can customize the magnitude and maybe the starting and stopping distances for the scaling. Then people playing single player could personalize the alternate visibility to their liking, and multiplayer servers should be able to force the coefficients, so server owners would also be able to customize alternate spotting to their liking as well. For instance, if someone thinks regular spotting is a bit too hard, but alternate spotting is too easy, so they only want maybe 30% of the scaling effect, then they should be able to do that. Or, if they want the scaling to start at 1km and cap out at 10km, then they should be able to do that too. This brings me to the other effects. I know player aircraft used to not be rendered at all beyond 10km, and now they're visible waaay further than that, even though they might just be a pixel or two, you can still see that something's out there if you have good eyes. I love that change. It's great, but other major effects still pop into existence at around the same 10km distance. You can't see tracers further than 7-8km away. You can't see nav lights or bomb explosions further than ~9.5km away. The smoke cloud from even the giant 2500kg bomb from the He-111 doesn't show up if you're more than 9.5km away. You just see a crater appear where it impacted. But the big one in my opinion is flak. Flak poofs cannot be seen after ~10km. You can be tracking a plane that might be 12-15km away and they could be in the heaviest flak cloud of their life and you'd never see any of it because you're too far away for flak to render. It would be absolutely wonderful if the rest of these effects could be brought up to the new standard of plane spotting. I understand that drawing these effects at an increased range can be taxing on computers, but some of these things, especially the effects involving other aircraft, are too important to not render.
  • Create New...