HR_Zunzun

That is intrinsically a false assumption. You can simulate reliability the same way that the developers simulate, for instance, the DM. The don´t simulate materials composition, strength or fatigue after being hit in any real fashion way. I am sure hey simulate failures that depend on a given situation (hit to some key component), with some factors included and then they add some randomness to the effect as it is impossible to simulate all the possible variations that can affect the structures of, for example, the wings. Some randomness makes it plausible instead of expecting the same effect all the time. The more I read about this topic the more I think that simply lifting all the limits to wep is wrong. I agree with you that a plane won´t lose its engine in one mission for exceeding the wep limit. Even if abusing it badly. But with the current situation of receiving a factory fresh example in every mission, the addition of the "WEP free" approach would result in an unrealistic model. The pilot manuals did limit the boost time mainly because of wearing reasons. Fuel wasn´t the main limit. If it was then the P-51 manual would factor the boost limits by range and not by time (I used Mustang example because it has a huge range). Even a Spitfire that is relatively short ranged wouldn´t have a problem with 10 or 15 min WEP (fuel related). If wearing simulation is technically not possible currently (or would take too many time&resources), then another approach needs to be taken. Giving free WEP for everyone is a very wrong option in my opinion. Please note that I am not saying that the current model is better or the way to go. I am all for changing it to something better but don´t think is free WEP.

It would be somehow tricky for the K4 anyway unless intercepting the Tempest before releasing its bombs or with a good amount of height advantage. The Tempest has a very high-speed cruise (quite near wep speed) that last for 1 hour. In a flat-out pursuit, the k4 would have to make good use of the extra 5 minutes of wep (no small help) or lose its prey (in combat mode the K4 is much slower than the tempest).

The way I interpret what he said is that the random factor would be predictable as will be incremental. Yes, you can be extremely unlucky and have a total failure after the first few seconds exceeding the timer but logically it won´t happen in the vast majority of times. It would let you choose to press on the wep at the risk of an increased chance of losing the engine. It is something you can factor in your tactic. And depending of the % of increase risk introduced, it would practically give you a few free extra minutes of wep unless you were very unlucky. To be honest, 5 minutes is more than enough to decide any engagement and the way I fly, unless I am in a flat out pursuit I am not using wep 100% of the time; diving, avoiding overshot etc... extend the initial 5 minutes a bit longer. Finally, tactic situation and skill are the deciding factors in most occasions. I am not saying that would be the best system but is another option to consider together with the other options proposed. To me, without changing the engine simulation, extending mainly the combat power (I consider this tactically more important), reducing the recharge timer and maybe this increased chance of losing the engine could be a good combination.

Sounds reasonable. Others mentioned raising the combat time instead. Or reducing the recharging time. Any of those (or a combination of them) should be easy to implement without drastically changing the current system and/or introducing a more complex engine simulation system.

My wish, of all I explained, was for the future. Right now, with a mix of VR, Trackir and snap views players in the same servers it is only logical that some sort of help to the first ones can be implemented (On my part, I am happy VR changes the way I fly and how I have to rely more on my wingman to clear my six). In essence, to me, the more the options the better.

That is true but not the way you imply. If you read carefully my first post you will find that I said that doing a simple test looking behind my shoulder I could see way behind into the other shoulder. But equating this to the way you look behind with trackir (or snap view) is truly false: - First, "seeing" is not focusing. I "see" things with my peripheral vision. That is a big difference than when I use trackir that I only have to move my eyes a bit to look almost straight into the screen. You can do a simple test. Move the head to one side (as far as you would be doing when looking behind in the game) and try to read this forum on the screen. I can do it without much difficulty. I may miss a bit of the screen but I can read clearly the text. Then turn around 180º and look behind your shoulder. Try to read. Good luck. - Second, I can and I have been looking behind my virtual shoulder with trackir all day long. I only have to flick my neck a bit. At the end of a long session no doubt I will be sore but nothing dramatic (at least in my case) In VR (like in reality) looking behind your shoulder pose a strain to your neck and back muscles the same as your extraorbital muscles. It can be done and is not a major problem for a bit time but this is way less than with trackir. -Third, in VR and reality, you look behind your shoulder. In Trackir you look behind your back. You swivel your head over a fixed point. That is why, in the game, when you look behind you can see your backrest perfectly. That is not possible in reality/vr. You look behind turning your head and shoulder. That's why track ir it´s being referred as owl neck. -Four, looking behind your shoulder in vr and reality, the ergonomy of your joystick, throttle and pedals changes a lot. Even here using VR in your desktop you have advantages compared to the real cockpit (swivelling chair, no straps, hotas disposition of controls....). Looking over your left shoulder is not the same than over right one. The ergonomy change. In trackir and the like again, the position of your hands and feet doesn´t change at all (at the most negligible). FOV is not a huge problem. I can overcome those for the most part with my chair. I can look behind in my p47 more or least with the same limitations as in reality (using some not realistic tricks) but way worse than trackir users for the reasons I have exposed. It is not my intention deprecating or vilifying trackir users. Far from it. It is my opinion that limiting views is a step that will be taken in the future when the technology is available to everyone. When I express my wish of lockable option neither I am implying is a priority for the developers. It is only a wish I had because VR approximate more to the real thing than Trackir. A bonus, good reading. It is a translation from Russian (original) into Spanish of a Soviet manual for fighter pilots during ww2. It explained marvellously human eye limitations and more specifically vision limitations for the real pilots strap in their cockpits during a patrol. http://www.rkka.es/Manuales/003_manuales_tacticas/002_manual_tacticas_caza/002_busqueda_enemigo.htm *By the way, the whole webpage is a gem if you are interested in Soviet aviation during ww2. The only problem is only in Spanish.

Good test. Thank you for taking your time doing it. My impression is that the DM is going in the right direction but still need tweaking.

Limiting views is not weakening all players, It would be making the sim more realistic. Limited views are what pilots in real life have. But in any case in my post, I suggested it as a lockable option so players looking for less realistic options would always have a server to suit their needs.

Well, I don't think we have been having rants about this subject (at least I personally didn't intend to) if anything, I have kept bringing up this NACA test to sustain my reasoning and, at the same time, I tried to make clear that (proper) ingame testing was necessary to confirm or deny the point.

I agree. I always had the feeling that wing damaged planes could put too good of a fight. Nice research.

The tests I mentioned didn't specify the speeds. But in any case that's why i added the specific test done by NACA about manoeuvrability of a P-47D-30. Is this one: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/Naca_TN_2899__F-47D-30_Flight_Test.pdf It indicates that the force per G depend on Cog. But, for instance, 6g (avg for black out) at 6250ft at 350mph it could achieve 6g (avg for black out) with a total force in pound ranging from 39 to 66lb of force (for the 6g). That is something that an average pilot could do even if needed to be two handed. In the test they even mentioned that in specific conditions were dangerously low: "At the rearward center-of-gravity position tested} 29 percent of the mean aerodynamic chord} the stick-force gradient varied from 2 to 7 pounds per g (fig. 23(a)). At 200 mph, elevator-force reversal occurred in both left and right turns. At high altitude, push forces were required with increaning acceleration at 200 mph in both left and right turns and in left turns at 250 mph. (See fig. 23(b).) At the higher speeds at high altitude, the curves of force against acceleration show that pull forces were required but that these forces were dangerously low." There is no way to compare this in the game but we mentioned this because at least there is one thing you can achieve and is blacking out. In the game I can't black out at those speeds unless using heavy tail trim and some degree of flaps. I can't say how it should be because we lack that type of information in the sim (Gs meter and stick force meteter). But, although will require some testing to confirm (we could be missing something or interpreting this information wrongly), it seems that the plane can't achieve part of its flight envelope. I am not complaining about slower speed manoeuvrability, if anything, it seems too good with flaps deployed (or at least it was in the previous version). At

I will. Please PM to see when could be done.

First of all, thank you for doing the test. For what I see, the caveat of your test is that you rely in the pilot bailing out to count as a destroyed plane. In online game that is not always the case. Repeating your test but with an online pilot on the controls in the 47 and trying to land the p-47 after it would be much better.

Are you sure that"lethal structurally & aerodynamically" equals to wing coming off? Because it could also means that the combination is lethal for the airplane (will go down) not that the wing will come off every time. It is nonetheless one of the effects expected (depending on how and where is hit). Obviously I will expect the wing to come off after 4 hits in the same wing. It seems the logic effect. But if we talk about the DM in the game and if 2 hits are still "lethal"although not in a spectacularly way, then 4 hits not snapping the wing off is an annoying anomaly that will require tuning but doesn't invalidate the DM or makes it worse than the previous DM version.

Depending where you read. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47c-afdu.html "Flying Characteristics 13. All pilots have commented on the ease with which the P-47 can be flown and its well-balance crisp controls. In particular, the ailerons are so good the pilots found it very manoeuvrable and were not conscious of flying a heavy aircraft with a comparatively high wing loading". http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47c-8thaf-tactical.html 3. Flying Characteristics. a. The airplane is easy to fly so far as landings and take-offs are concerned. It has beautiful aileron control, good elevator control, but very stiff rudder. There is an specific test done by NACA about forces per G at different speeds and CoG. What it says is that 6g (avg for blacking out) can be achievable without super strength. Also reading from pilots experiences, blacking out when coming out of a bombing run dive was relatively common if not careful. In the game, currently, only specific combination of trim (and sometimes flap) can take you to this (in the NACA test doesn't mention special trim, if anything I think is trim for the speed but jut talking off of my head now). Obviously, some test need to be done to confirm or deny this feeling but is not easy to perform as we don't have G meters in the sim (at least not that I am aware of. Tacview being unreliable on this in the sim).