Jump to content

SAS_Storebror

Members
  • Content Count

    983
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SAS_Storebror

  1. Kompliziertes Thema. Generell stammt der M-62/63 (oder Ash-..., wie Du das Kind nennst, spielt im Grunde keine Rolle, bis '41 = M-..., danach Ash-...) vom Wright Cyclone R1820-F3 ab (wie im Übrigen bereits der M-25). Das war eine ständig weiterentwickelte Familie. Der R1820 hatte keine bekannten Probleme mit negativen G-Kräften, hatte allerdings auch Bendix (Druck-)Vergaser, die M/Ash Motoren dagegen hatten Solex. Nun ist es aber so, dass gerade beim M/Ash-63 sowohl АК-25-4ДФ (AK-25-4DF) als auch К-25-4Д (K-25-4D) als auch АК-63 (AK-63) Vergaser zum Einsatz kamen. Die ersten beiden waren "Schwimmer"-Typen, hatten also Probleme mit negativen G-Kräften, letzterer jedoch nicht. Es ist also Sache der Entwickler, welchen genauen Untertyp des M/Ash-63 sie nun in der I-16 implementiert sehen möchten, und mit welchem Vergaser. Wenn also 777 Studios sagt "unsere I-16 haben M-62 mit АК-63 Vergaser", dann ist das eben so, und dann gibt es auch keine Probleme mit negativen G-Kräften. Viele Grüße - Mike
  2. Achtung: Nicht jeder Vergaser sorgt unmittelbar für Aussetzer in Rückenfluglage. Die Ash-62/63 Motoren wurden im Laufe ihrer Produktion ständig überarbeitet und spätere Versionen erhielten einen Membranvergaser, sodass für eine Weile (ein paar Minuten) mit negativen Beschleunigungen geflogen werden kann. Problematisch bei negativen G-Kräften wird dann eher, dass die Benzinpumpe Luft ansaugen kann, ebenso wie die Ölpumpe, was dann zu Aussetzern bzw. Beschädigungen führen kann. Das Thema der Aussetzer durch Überfettung ist aber bei Membranvergasern prinzipiell gelöst. Die "Kurbelei" des Fahrwerks ist hier eher durch die endlos lange Zeit dargestellt, die man benötigt, um das Fahrwerk bei der I-16 ein- oder auszufahren. Aber generell hast Du in dem Punkt Recht, bei IL-2 1946 war dies in der Hinsicht besser dargestellt. Viele Grüße - Mike
  3. Eventuell die normale Bremse unbeabsichtigt voll durchgetreten? So löse ich immer die Parkbremse bei VVS Flugzeugen Viele Grüße - Mike
  4. I have to say, I fully agree. In real life an engine damage event would not kick in exactly at a specific time. It would become more likely the more you extend the official's engine operation limits. Other factors like the engine's age, general maintenance status etc. will likely have an even larger effect IRL. Nevertheless, engines should become prone to "internal" damage more likely the longer you run them beyond limits, but the probability should stay reasonable, e.g. you double the emergency boost time, so you get a 50/50 chance for engine damage or the like. Problem is: All of this is a "bums feeling" discussion. I doubt there are dependable hard facts and values concerning the probability of an engine damage at certain stages/ages/conditions of such engines. Cheers! Mike
  5. SAS_Storebror

    the 109 G14

    "Elevator (...) Above 250 mph, however, it becomes too heavy, so that maneuvrability is seriously restricted." 250mph ~ 400km/h According to the report in question, you are right. It shouldn't happen at 500km/h but at 400km/h already. But that's just one report. Giving the 109 another 100km/h "bonus" might be a fair compromise. Cheers! Mike
  6. Open the Mission Editor, click "Tools->Resave All Missions in Folder". Navigate to the folder that holds your "critical" mission and click OK. Cheers! Mike
  7. ...writes the same man who wrote this a couple of hours ago... And thanks for calling those who don't agree with your opinion This surely highlights the importance of your stance Don't we want to get back on topic? I understand that the 109 FM was more appealing to it's virtual pilots before the latest update. I also understand that in order to raise this as an issue to the Devs, the first and foremost required thing is hard fact, numbers, evidence that there's something wrong in that particular FM update. Is there anything like that required material at hands or having been sent to the Devs yet? Happy New Year! Mike
  8. Wasn't that another thread? Anyway. Whom do you ask that question? Devs or other players? If it's the Devs: Who do you think is in charge of backing up his stance when some FM change is requested? The requester or the one he's requesting it from? If it's the Players: What gives? Cheers! Mike
  9. Believe me, many of us would love to talk hard facts instead, but there have yet to be some brought to the table. But when someone asks for hard facts and numbers, the reply is no different: "old and boring" request. But maybe you mind to tell how a Dev should pick up on the constant whining complaints otherwise? Thanks for the flowers Cheers! Mike
  10. The same setting exists for dedicated servers already. Description of that setting says: "If you hit a friendly the damage will be applied to your plane instead." Cheers! Mike
  11. Nothing wrong with that, and nothing wrong with IL-2 in that regard either, the 109 is the best fighter released so far, hands down. Doesn't safe her from flight model complaints though. I'm dreadfully sorry. Next time I'll ask you for permission before I post again, okay? lol? Yes, it's been on the 10 o'clock news. That's been a cold day in hell. Speaking of something constructive: What breaking news exactly did you plan to chip in with your post? Just wondering... Cheers and have a great start in 2018! Mike
  12. Ah... cool! Thanks for the hint. Only issue is: That minimap shows which (indeed small) part of the map there is to see in the main window currently, however it doesn't show any trace of what's going on in the current mission file - the minimap is just an empty map overview. So there's really no "large overview" of the mission's map activity? Cheers! Mike
  13. Sorry but that doesn't work for me. Pressing F3 does nothing. I've checked all menues but couldn't find any trace of a mini-map thing either. Any other ideas? How do mission makers keep an overview of what's flying across the map when you only see like 5% of it? Cheers! Mike
  14. The sheer number of correlating complaints is amusing. Complaint about the 109 FM being "too bad". Complaint about the 109 Elevators freezing "too soon". Complaint about the 109 wings being "too weak". Complaint about the Pe-2 gunners being "too tough". Yet when you visit pulbic servers, odds are easily 2:1 for blue, all wanna fly the 109F-4 and if you happen to pick a Pe-2, 109s will jump on you like a pack of wild hyenas. What does it mean? Punance? Cheers! Mike
  15. That setting is enabled, yet there's still no enemy external views.
  16. "When external views are enabled" is already part of the problem: There's no such setting, at least not that I know of Currently I'm running our dedicated test server with "custom" difficulty, and the effect is that we have external views for friendly planes, but none for enemies. Cheers! Mike
  17. Hi folks, Simple question: Is there any way to zoom out in Mission Editor so I can see the full map? Cheers! Mike
  18. Hi folks, I might just be missing the obvious: On a dedicated server, is there a way to enable/disable external views separately? So far, from what I see when you use "Normal" difficulty settings, external views are enabled for both friend and foe planes. When you use "Expert" difficulty, no external views are enabled at all, not even on ground (totally locked cockpit). When you use "custom" difficulty, it seems like friendly externals are always enabled, but enemy externals are disabled. There seems to be no separate setting for this. For instance, you can't seen to use "custom" difficulty with friendly externals disabled or enemy externals enabled. Is this correct or am I just too blind to see the simple setting for this? If this is indeed a "locked" setting, are there any plans to change it in future? Cheers! Mike
  19. Thanks for the hint. I have set my convergence to 200 meters so far (I like to come a little closer you know), but changed it to 250 meters now and things got a lot better. Funny thing. Vertical convergence (which is completely absent in IL-2 1946), as much as I understood, means that lower values for a plane with wing guns would mean that the gun's elevation would be higher the lower the convergence value is. Apparently in BoX it's vice versa? Whatever it is, 250 meters works well for me at the moment. Cheers! Mike
  20. Looking at videos like these, I´m frequently asking myself whether I´m using different difficulty settings or why it is that I need at least 2 or 3 times as much lead on my deflection shots than any of these flights shown in such videos. Not that I don´t like what´s shown here, just wondering... Some of the shots in these videos seem to go just straight and impact immediately right in the spot they have aimed at, even though the shooting plane pulls 2G, 3G or more, and the victim is running 200+ mph @45° offset (or more). Probably I´m just doing something wrong... Cheers! Mike
  21. Definitely the Jug, what else Although I must admit that I'm keen to see the 262's implementation in BoBo. Cheers! Mike
  22. A very merry Christmas to all of you, your families, relatives, friends etc. Cheers! Mike
  23. Thanks for the update. It's good to know (and doesn't come without saying these days) that business considerations don't keep you from putting hands on issues dating back a couple of years. The new map looks absolutely great, it's definitely a massive improvement and I believe it will contribute to the confidence of players who didn't follow the sequel past BoS - they might reconsider now that they know that there's nobody left behind in this game. Cheers! Mike
  24. Can't say much about AMD cards as a long-time Nvidia user (thanks to IL-2 1946 and AMD's crappy drivers 10 years ago). FWIW, my game rig is equipped with an Intel i5-2500K @4GHz + Nvidia GTX 970 4GB + Acer Predator WQHD (2560x1440) G-Sync Monitor. The GTX 970 is supposed to perform some 10-15% worse than the RX 580. My frame rates with Ultra Settings are in the range of 50-70 usually, with 144 looking up to clear skies and 40 looking down to coastlines with villages in bright sunshine. Only thing I've had to tone down was the distant landscape detail which is on 2x (maximum would be 4x), as the max setting kills another 10FPS for nearly no visual difference. As a long time 1946 player I've had to learn that BoX lives best with Nvidia Control Panel settings "all default", letting BoX deal with things like Anti Aliasing, Anisotropic Filtering etc. In 1946 it was exactly opposite. Cheers! Mike
  25. Ah great, thanks Sketch! Sorry that I didn't spot that myself. Cheers! Mike
×
×
  • Create New...