Jump to content

JtD

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    3163
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by JtD

  1. I'm pretty sure they were worried about manual limits in these situations, it just wasn't their biggest concern. (The degree of indoctrination "fly in accordance with the manual" you get in a real life flying school is amazing, so by now I doubt they'd ever really forgot about that.)
  2. Finally, after months of mostly Tank Crew Circus, a BoX update. Great to see the progress - keep going!
  3. There are several performance tests with different props on the http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org site. The P-47 was tested several times with a large number of different 4-bladed props: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47.html The Spitfire IX was tested with different props, different reduction gears and 4- vs. 5-bladed prop: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-IX.html The Spitfire I was also tested with different props, 2-bladed 2 pitch vs. 3-bladed constant speed, for instance: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-I.html I recall having read several other aircraft prop test reports, but can't point you there. Might have been on the same site, feel free to keep browsing.
  4. JtD

    P47 dogfighter ?

    Prop wash imho is somewhat overdone in game, at least it has been in the early versions for as long as I tested it. Now we have an aircraft with a huge prop, an immensely powerful engines and decent flaps just inside the prop wash zone. It could be that the old issue is showing again, noticeably.
  5. The guy who can answer this question in that depth conclusively will be hired on the spot by an aeronautics company with a top salary. Sorry man, but that's advanced engineering with a complex case by case answer. In general a wider prop will lead to a shallower angle of attack of the prop bladed, given that the prop blade load goes down. This is the similar to an aircraft receiving a larger wing while maintaining the wing span. The best point of operation will shift towards lower speeds or, more importantly, towards higher loads (more power (same as higher weight in the aircraft case)). A wider prop will support a more torque (i.e. a more powerful engine or lower speed flight regimes such as climb) or more efficient operation at low rpm. Therefore, as a very general trend, you'll seed wider props increase take off and climb performance (in particular at high altitude) at the cost of top speed and you'll also see installations of wider props as more powerful engine revisions are mounted on an aircraft. Similar effects can be achieved by increasing prop diameter or number of blades. All three solutions have specific advantages and disadvantages.
  6. JtD

    Planning flaps testing test plan

    Prop (pitch) and/or engine rpm have a major impact on the results and it's not really possible to make them meaningful comparable to real life figures or among each other in game.
  7. That's why AI comes scalable, I certainly want to see differences between a rookie and a veteran. Another thing well done in 1946, where not only you can sneak up on AI from their blind spots, but also will the AI take measures to cover its blind spot. Veterans more so than rookies. Yeah, hope they keep going!
  8. By now (or better for years by now) the AI in 1946 uses the same FM as the player, including engine management. There are some shortcuts around take off and landing, but that hardly matters in a dogfight. I sure hope that when the devs find the resources to rework the AI here, they take some inspiration from there. Certainly worth it.
  9. I had a small comparison with Il-2:1946 recently. I had done a couple of 1vs1 fights against the AI, me in a LaGG-3S29 and the AI in a Bf109G-14. Basically I was curious about what the AI would do with a plane that superior. It did what it always does, same predictable and strange manoeuvres, only to be shot down in the end every time. I then had the idea to check how this setup would work out when doing the same thing in Il-2:1946. In the first run, I ended up on its six fairly quickly, only to suddenly have it go into scissors, which I couldn't follow. So I decided to hide in a cloud to prevent it taking advantage of me overshooting, and when I came out of the cloud, the 109 had used the superior climb rate to get into commanding position. So I left the fight. On the second try, after the initial merge, I looped and the 109 got into a steep climb. I tried to score a lucky hit, counting on it to spin out of control on top of the climb before I did, but instead it did a clean hammerhead turn and came down on me guns blazing, while I now struggled to keep my plane under control. I think I took a hit or two, at which point I again went for the nearest cloud, and didn't even look back to see if re-engaging was an option. These were to two best 1vs1 fights I had against AI in a long time, with a 5 year old game. Unpredictable, smart and effective manoeuvres that, after years of flying in BoX, came so surprising, that in both instances, I was happy to get away with a draw. Against AI. I'd really like to see something similar in BoX some time.
  10. I don't know, but the Sherman 'Zippos' interiors look off to me. There's no fire anywhere.
  11. I like that idea as well, should go to suggestions!
  12. JtD

    Is il-2 1946 worth it still?

    Not what I said.
  13. JtD

    Is il-2 1946 worth it still?

    Ignorance like this kind of hurts the relationship between developers and modders. You have no idea what lenghts the folks went and still go. Despite of the huge amount of crap they got from some of the more vocal modders over the years. My opinion is that 1946 could probably have had 10 more years had all the core features braking backwards compatibility been implemented no matter what instead of leaving them out or rewriting them for the instant benefit of keeping more of the mods alive.
  14. JtD

    Hype about ME262

    Milo, where's the A-9 in these figures? There were plenty around before January 45 and they cannot all have been lost. Imho, the G-14/AS could also be rolled into standard K-4's, given the improved high altitude performance over the standard version. Thanks for the figures, couldn't find them when I wanted to post them a page ago.
  15. JtD

    Hype about ME262

    As an average over the entire time frame, I agree. In that sense, for the Allies you'd need to restrict all aircraft except for the Spitfire, given that it was by far the most common type, with P-38 and Tempest being nearly absent.
  16. JtD

    Hype about ME262

    Yes, and you're also saying that the K-4 and D-9 were rare while you threw the G-6 into the mix of aircraft that were common. All that is only true if you look at September only, and neglect 80% of the time frame covered. To me it looks as if either you're wrong, or you're selective.
  17. JtD

    Hype about ME262

    It doesn't end in September 1944. It stretches on to at least January 1945, putting November 1944 right in the middle of the time frame. If of course your Bodenplatte ends in September 1944, I can see where you're coming from. The MW50 injection.
  18. JtD

    Hype about ME262

    All aircraft were limited in real life. There were more K-4's and D-9's than there were G-6's. That aircraft is anachronistic for a large part of the battle. Given that the G-14 is mismodelled in game, the G-10 is missing as is the DB605AS engine, the K-4 is the only stand in for about 50% of the Luftwaffe fighters at the end of the war.
  19. JtD

    Hype about ME262

    Never happened in this universe.
  20. JtD

    Hype about ME262

    I don't quite agree, as attaching bombs will reduce its speed to interceptable and when that happens, it is just a Pe-2 without the rear gunner. Also flying fast reduces the accuracy of the bomb run and the MK108 is not really a ground attack cannon. Additionally the Me262 is relatively vulnerable to all sorts of small arms fire, something dedicated ground attack aircraft aren't to that degree. Also don't forget that the 500kg of bombs also have a significant impact on the CoG and dropping them causes all sorts of funny behaviour. You shouldn't trim up or pull up while releasing them... In Il-2 1946 I found Me262 fighter bombers difficult yet not impossible to deal with, but left alone they weren't much more than a nuisance. Typically they'd crash, miss their target or light up as they attacked, sometimes all of these. As a fighter, however, I found them to be extremely dangerous and that amplified with the use of proper tactics. To properly counter a well flown one coordinated team work was almost mandatory.
  21. JtD

    Hype about ME262

    No statement about operational use - as expected. No ordinary roads - as expected. Basically just parking of some newly produced aircraft along a very few selected stretches of the Autobahn - as expected, because that bit is well documented.
  22. JtD

    Hype about ME262

    I see no operational markings on these Me262 and if they were indeed flying from that road, it's not an ordinary road. Me262 required concrete runways to safely operate from, as tarmac could melt/catch fire from the exhaust and other surfaces were too rough / had too high rolling friction. The only roads Me262 could in theory operate from were thus the few Autobahnen existing in Germany, and even there the possibilities were very limited. So I'll stick with what I said, until better evidence to the contrary comes up.
  23. JtD

    Hype about ME262

    Please name Me262 squads that operated from ordinary roads, or name locations where Me262 operated from ordinary roads. I know of none.
  24. JtD

    Hype about ME262

    The Me262 might not be great for a 1vs1, but with high speed and firepower, it's great in a many vs. many environment, provided proper hit and run tactics are used in a team effort. It's not that flying tight circles and jinking the stick is the only way to shoot down another fighter.
  25. JtD

    GM-1 und MW-50 für G-Serie ?

    Die G-14 und die K-4 haben bereits Sondernotleistung auf Basis MW50.
×