Flight and damage models physics

[JG4_Moltke1871]

6 hours ago, SYN_Vander said:

Does this still happen with the latest version? I had hoped it was fixed. I have even tried to lower the speeds for these aircraft. It is definitely something that was introduced in one of the latest updates, because it was never a problem.

Just installed Version 71, much better now. Today had my first good mission with Halberstadt‘s, lead by AI with medium weather conditions. AI still have strange moments (lost 2of6 Halbie‘s by crash before reach the frontline). But much better now.

On PWCG still problems with DFW, hope for the next version.??

[Roland_HUNter]

Please fix the Tempest FM ??

 

[CountZero]

youll have to wait for Team Daidalos 2.0, considering that devs will focus on new game, ufo tempest is here to stay for long time

[Crocogator]

On 12/30/2022 at 6:34 AM, Roland_HUNter said:

Please fix the Tempest FM ??

 

This hartmann maneuver is really common with tempests going over 400 kph (but compared to the hartman in the 109 the tempest likes to keep moving very fast after the stall.) I always laugh when I see it, and then cry.

[firdimigdi]

I think no description is needed, but just to cover it according to the author this was on an MP server, no mods or anything involved, just plain ole simulated aerodynamics.

 

Edited January 13, 2023 by firdimigdi

[Real_NBD]

On 7/14/2022 at 2:02 PM, Thales said:

Brief description: The "bomb load" modification for the Fw 190 G-3 and Fw 190 G-3/R-5 seems to apply the properties of the underbelly ETC 501 bomb rack a second time.

 

Detailed description, conditions:

 

Selecting the "Fw 190 G-3" or "Fw 190 G-3/R-5" fighter bomber modification of the Fw 190 A-6 adds both underwing bomb racks and an underbelly ETC 501 bomb rack (without any bombs), leading to a corresponding reduction in top speed.

 

Combining the G-3 or G-3/R-5 with the "bomb load" modification (to actually equip bombs) seems to apply the drag and weight of the underbelly ETC 501 bomb rack a second time, leading to a further reduction in top speed even after all bombs have been dropped.

 

This can be easily verified: The difference in sea level top speed between a G-3 starting without bombs and a G-3 after equipping and dropping an SC 250 bomb is about 13 km/h even though the outward appearance of the aircraft is exactly the same in both cases.

This is still an existing issue.

 

Furthermore,  carrying 2xSC250s (1 on each wing) produces less drag than carrying 1 on the centerline rack. This could be due to the centerline "double drag" not being applied when centerline bomb is not carried. Below are my SL top speed test results for some configurations. Note that the "Clean" configuration for G3 and G3/R5 looks exactly the same as when they have dropped their bombs, no matter the configuration.

 

Standard A6:
Clean:        565 kph

 

SC250:        525 kph
250Rack:    550 kph

 

-------------------------
G3:
Clean:        558 kph

1xSC250:    518 kph         <---??
1x250Rack:    544 kph

 

2xSC250:    532 kph        <---??
2x250Rack:    544 kph

 

3xSC250:    506 kph
3x250Rack:    544 kph

--------------------------
G3/R5:
Clean:        554 kph

 

1xSC250:    515 kph    
1x250Rack:    542 kph

 

4xSD70:      526 kph     

4x70Rack    542 kph

 

1xSC250+4*SD70:    502 kph
1x250+4*70Rack:    542 kph

Edited January 14, 2023 by Real_NBD

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

On 12/29/2022 at 3:04 PM, Roland_HUNter said:

Please fix the Tempest FM ??

 

To be fair, the FW-190 is probably the worst offender of this type of negative-G stick yanking/wobble move to evade, but you're right: fix this garbage please! @Han @Wardog5711

[-DED-Rapidus]

Well, it's possible, why not?

[iflyflightsims]

Brief description: The P-51D wing damage and flight model appears to be incorrect. Unclear if this bug affects other models, but it is worth investigating.
Detailed description, conditions:  In an independent test, I was able to take off and fly around with one and a half wings. It is worth mentioning that we experienced extreme difficulty trying to detach the 2nd wing despite shooting at it with 20 - 30 rounds of sub-caliber 88mm and 20mm AP ammunition. The complete wing was severely damaged and in danger of breaking off; however, it did not break off even with 350mph wind speeds. The expected behavior is that the wing rips off at high speeds if it is severely damaged. Additionally, the plane should not be able to take off or fly due to loss of lift.
Additional assets (videos, screenshots, logs):

 

Reddit post that inspired the test and my independent test on YouTube.

Track File: https://www.dropbox.com/s/zgxf7fzve3ljs4k/P51OneWing.rar?dl=0

 

Your PC config data (OS, drivers, specific software): DXDiag attached.

DxDiag.txt

Edited January 28, 2023 by =SqSq=SignorMagnifico

[the_emperor]

Brief description: Wrong time limit for the use of Start&Notleistung for the DB605a engine (when Start&Notleistung is approved)
Detailed description, conditions:  currently the DB605a with approved Start&Notleistung (G-4/6) does have a time limit of 1min for that engine regime.

Thus far no documents have been found that supports that limit.

Documents support, that the limit for that engine regime should be 3min.
Additional assets (videos, screenshots, logs):

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/33381-db-605a-1-142-ata-wep-duration/?do=findComment&comment=1200972

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/33381-db-605a-1-142-ata-wep-duration/?do=findComment&comment=1210308

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/33381-db-605a-1-142-ata-wep-duration/?do=findComment&comment=1195260

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/33381-db-605a-1-142-ata-wep-duration/?do=findComment&comment=1193756

 

Edited January 31, 2023 by the_emperor

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

Brief description: Grouping ground attack mods together is causing drag to be applied when it shouldn't be, or not at all. They should be separated.
 

Detailed description, conditions: Looks like Real_NBD already brought this up a few posts above, but I found the cause of his issue, and it's not limited to 190's. 

Here's a copy paste of my post from the FM section I should have put here instead:

 

When a plane like the P51B chooses the "ground attack modification" it gets the same drag value applied regardless if I choose just bombs, just rockets, or both after they've been dropped/jettisoned, and in-game testing shows I get the same speed after dropping/jettisoning as well. On the P51D the bombs and rockets are chosen separately without being grouped in a "ground attack modification" and this issue doesn't occur, and I reach different speeds in-game after dropping/jettisoning.

 

 

It happens because there's only 1 global drag value applied when "ground attack modification" is chosen, and no drag is applied on the rack itself later in the code. CXaS is the variable used for drag, all people need to know is higher number = more drag.

 

The P51B benefits from this, and other planes like the P47 (it never gets a break in this game) get shafted. It gets a drag penalty for all 3 racks (left wing, right wing and belly) when "ground attack modification" is chosen (even though only wing racks get added on the model), and an additional drag value gets applied again when bombs or rockets are chosen afterwards. When bombs are added to the wing racks on the 47 additional attachments are visible on the model, so I'm assuming this double application of drag is intentional in this instance, but the drag applied on the invisible belly rack when "ground attack modification" is chosen shouldn't be there as the rack isn't there. Still it would be nice not to have the global application at all, and allow us to choose mods individually. If I wanted to take rockets only for instance, I'm stuck taking the drag penalty of all 3 wing racks (2 visible, 1 invisible) as well the drag of the rockets. 

The A6 gets screwed over by this system too as when it chooses the G3/R3 mod then adds a bomb load, it gets the drag applied from the ETC 501 rack applied twice. Once from the G3/R3 mod, and again from the "Bomb load" mod. And it's testable in game as your top speed in game will be different after dropping the bombs as well depending on if you just took G3/R3 or G3/R3 and bombs. 

 

 

 

Other planes are affected by this too. To add the Panzerblitz rockets to the A8 the player must first choose the F8/G8 option which applies the bomb rack drag that won't exist when the rocket racks are there. So the A8 now has the drag from the Panzerblitz racks and from the non-existent bomb racks as well. It would be better to separate the 190 engine upgrades and armor from the wing racks, because the current system causes drag values to be applied twice in certain circumstances. The Typhoon is a good example of how to make these mods, it has the engine upgrades, the armor and the bombs and rockets all as separate mods and there's no issue with drag values being applied multiple times or not at all. 

 

Edit:

I forgot to add mass of the racks can also be affected as well, as in the case of the A6 where it gets the 30kg of the belly rack added twice in addition to the drag being added twice.

Additional assets (videos, screenshots, logs): See above

Your PC config data (OS, drivers, specific software): N/A 

[FTC_Storyteller]

63 rounds of 20mm to down one IL-2... six-ty-three. All the MG and 131 rounds not counted.

http://stats.virtualpilots.fi:8000/de/sortie/log/3351373/?tour=60

 

Guys, there is something terribly wrong with the damage model in IL-2. Some planes like the IL-2 and the P-51 can take a terrible pounding, while others like the 109 or Spitfire break just when you look at it.

 

It's my impression that the damage model has been worsened with the introduction of the more visibile damage on the planes.

[moeburn]

On 1/16/2023 at 6:04 PM, drewm3i-VR said:

To be fair, the FW-190 is probably the worst offender of this type of negative-G stick yanking/wobble move to evade, but you're right: fix this garbage please! @Han @Wardog5711

 

You guys can't just complain every time someone does something unexpected and say "that's unrealistic!" without evidence.  There is nothing unrealistic about these maneuvers.  Snap rolling, rudder kicking, crossing the controls, these are all perfectly realistic "hail mary" maneuvers to get out of a jam - they're risky because they can result in controlled spins, they bleed off all your speed, and they usually don't save you and just allow the attacker to come around for another pass. But you can't just keep whining and going "BROKEN FLIHGT MODEL!!!" every time someone beats you.  The devs know more about flight model physics than you or I or anyone else here, they made it their job.

 

This is what a 2000lb single engine monoplane  can pull off.  The planes in this game are only 3x the weight, with 5x the horsepower.  They should be able to perform MORE stunts than this. 

 

 

 

Edited February 3, 2023 by moeburn

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, ACG_Storyteller said:

63 rounds of 20mm to down one IL-2... six-ty-three. All the MG and 131 rounds not counted.

http://stats.virtualpilots.fi:8000/de/sortie/log/3351373/?tour=60

 

Guys, there is something terribly wrong with the damage model in IL-2. Some planes like the IL-2 and the P-51 can take a terrible pounding, while others like the 109 or Spitfire break just when you look at it.

 

It's my impression that the damage model has been worsened with the introduction of the more visibile damage on the planes.

 

A complaint like this is going to go nowhere without a track file showing what happened. Just listing a bunch of stats without any supporting context is, well...insufficient, to say the least.

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

7 hours ago, moeburn said:

 

You guys can't just complain every time someone does something unexpected and say "that's unrealistic!" without evidence.  There is nothing unrealistic about these maneuvers.  Snap rolling, rudder kicking, crossing the controls, these are all perfectly realistic "hail mary" maneuvers to get out of a jam - they're risky because they can result in controlled spins, they bleed off all your speed, and they usually don't save you and just allow the attacker to come around for another pass. But you can't just keep whining and going "BROKEN FLIHGT MODEL!!!" every time someone beats you.  The devs know more about flight model physics than you or I or anyone else here, they made it their job.

 

This is what a 2000lb single engine monoplane  can pull off.  The planes in this game are only 3x the weight, with 5x the horsepower.  They should be able to perform MORE stunts than this. 

 

 

 

So you're comparing a modern Extra to heavy, mid to late war fighters, fueled up and armed to the teeth with multiple heavy machine guns and/or cannons that have ~1500 HP without counter-rotating propellers=tons of torque, in a tiny airframe controlled by mechanically actuated (cable) control surfaces that are either compressible metal or relatively weak fabric pieces? Really? 

 

The strength and skill one would need to pull off maneuvers that folks routinely do in game is beyond what humans manipulating these primitive controls are capable of, even if theoretically possible.

[moeburn]

1 hour ago, drewm3i-VR said:

So you're comparing a modern Extra to heavy, mid to late war fighters, fueled up and armed to the teeth with multiple heavy machine guns and/or cannons that have ~1500 HP without counter-rotating propellers=tons of torque, in a tiny airframe controlled by mechanically actuated (cable) control surfaces that are either compressible metal or relatively weak fabric pieces? Really? 

 

The strength and skill one would need to pull off maneuvers that folks routinely do in game is beyond what humans manipulating these primitive controls are capable of, even if theoretically possible.

The effect of torque on the airframe will be the same in both planes if the thrust to weight ratio is the same.  IE a 100N force acting on a 100kg object will move the object just as much as a 1000N force if the object was 1000kg. 

Both airplanes are using cable actuated controls in a metal airframe.  I'm not sure about the Tempest's skin.  I'm not sure how much difference the skin would make.

The strength is simulated in-game - G-forces and pilot injuries both affect the pilot's ability to manipulate the flight controls.  It is true that the heavier aircraft would have heavier control surfaces, but we're still talking about 7000lb fighters here, it shouldn't be even close to outside of the pilot's control.  Maybe that is a valid argument to be made though - other sim games, like Dirt Rally, simulate how a human cannot physically turn a steering wheel as fast as your game controller will let you.  Maybe IL-2 could use some kind of input limiter based on realistic human forces? 

 

I'm not sure how much skill the maneuvers require in either game or IRL - it's just a quick rudder kick or crossing of the controls, and then going into a spin, and then praying and hoping it ends before you die.  There is no controlability and the only thing that determines whether it works or kills you is luck.  And it almost never actually helps you - if the other pilot is decent at all, they will either hang back and hit you when you're a slow spinning dumb target, or they'll overtake you and come around for another pass.  It's only in an extremely lucky scenario that you might get your guns on them during the overtake.

 

All of that is probably why these maneuvers were unheard of IRL.  Because they're high risk and low reward.  But we can do high risk low reward stupid looking stuff, cause it's a video game, and we don't actually die. 

 

 

Edited February 4, 2023 by moeburn

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

On 1/18/2023 at 5:38 AM, -DED-Rapidus said:

Well, it's possible, why not?

Because the extreme negative G-Force would force all of the pilot's blood to his brain and possibly even cause hemorrhaging/internal bleeding? At the very least, you'd expect him to "red out" and lose control so close to the deck.

[moeburn]

4 minutes ago, drewm3i-VR said:

Because the extreme negative G-Force would force all of the pilot's blood to his brain and possibly even cause hemorrhaging/internal bleeding? At the very least, you'd expect him to "red out" and lose control so close to the deck.

 

This game does simulate negative G's and redouts.  You even have a little G-meter on your hud.  But these are lateral Gs, they work different.

Edited February 4, 2023 by moeburn

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

Brief Description: The Spitfire (XIV in this case) is still "rubber banding" after taking a few hits to the tail.

 

Detailed Description: After getting hit by AA, my Spitfire XIV began pitching up and down wildly and indiscriminately. Based on the DVD hit marks, this behavior does not seem to make any sense. This behavior only happens to the Spitfires in game for whatever reason.

 

Track File: 

https://www.mediafire.com/file/g1hplvrerp93zqi/spitfire14rubberbanding.trk/file

[354thFG_Panda_]

58 minutes ago, drewm3i-VR said:

Brief Description: The Spitfire (XIV in this case) is still "rubber banding" after taking a few hits to the tail.

 

Detailed Description: After getting hit by AA, my Spitfire XIV began pitching up and down wildly and indiscriminately. Based on the DVD hit marks, this behavior does not seem to make any sense. This behavior only happens to the Spitfires in game for whatever reason.

 

Track File: 

https://www.mediafire.com/file/g1hplvrerp93zqi/spitfire14rubberbanding.trk/file

Due to its neutral static stability. Very low stability reserve

Edited February 4, 2023 by theRedPanda

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

13 hours ago, theRedPanda said:

Due to its neutral static stability. Very low stability reserve

Seriously? The motion in the video is absurd for what is being visually displayed in-game. There are many planes with similar tail designs as the Spitfire like the Yak, yet it is the only one that hobby-horses when taking light tail damage? Sure.

 

23 hours ago, moeburn said:

 

This game does simulate negative G's and redouts.  You even have a little G-meter on your hud.  But these are lateral Gs, they work different.

You think I do not know this? The problem is the effects of negative G are greatly reduced compared to positive G and that also the simultaneous gross exceeding of structural and physiological G limits does not always kill the pilot via red out or destroy the airframe except in the case of the 109, P-51, and some of the wooden Russian birds, which readily rip off wings.

 

 

[ZachariasX]

7 hours ago, drewm3i-VR said:

Seriously? The motion in the video is absurd for what is being visually displayed in-game. There are many planes with similar tail designs as the Spitfire like the Yak, yet it is the only one that hobby-horses when taking light tail damage? Sure.

The Spit, especially the early Spits, are balanced very tail heavy. This makes them neutral in pitch, meaning that little input can change pitch attitude (it just loves following the pitch input un the stick effortlessly, within reasonable flight speeds of course). In principle it can also mean that whatever damage the DM thinks it has on the elevator sturcture, it will manifest way more in actual pitch inputs than in other aircraft.

 

It is of note that the Mk14 is less tail heavy balanced than the early Spits, taking away some of the "maneuvrable feel". Surfaces were enlarged to compensate for that as well as for power, hence I'd say the Mk.14 should react way less to tail damage in such a way than the baby Spits.

 

The Mk14 we have is a terrible candidate for rubber banding as the devs seemingly used this as a way to simulate both sensitivity in pitch and "less maneuvrable than early Spits" within one dirty fix. The Mk.14 has very precise and extremely direct controls, as any Spit. She just lets you work much more on the controls. The baby Spit is an honest little aircraft that you can fly like an aerobatic trainer, they even compare it to the Chipmunk. The Mk.14 requires speed and constant work offsetting the trim changes imposed by the big engine, meaning that during loops etc, you'll alwys be working the rudder along with more force in control required to keep it in trim, while in the baby Spit you can take your foot off the rudder pedals and just let it fly about with two fingers as you would any GA plane. It really doesn't need rudder once you trimmed it for you flight configuration. Nominally however, the Mk.14 will fly as any Spit, just requiring more airspeed, especially the clipped variants. But the Griffon willl give you that. But it gets noticeable in airshow fformation flying, when in the Mk.14, you'll feel the shake on the wings in turns making you ease your turn immediately to get propper airflow again, while most other aircraft will continue turning comfortably in the same situation.

[JG4_Moltke1871]

Hi there.

The Breguet 14.B2 take demage when I give an order to my squad and a flare shots. It damage the right top wing.

Please fix before the Flying Circus Career mode comes out ?

[JG4_Moltke1871]

It seems not only the Breguet is touched by this problem. Automatic released flare after give squad command (cover me/patrol for ground target) will damage wings of Airco and Handley Page also. Other planes I saw no effect by visual (Like DFW because it also have big wings).
 

[354thFG_Rails]

Brief description: P-47-22 & 28 Mechanical Supercharger Not Correct.
 

Detailed description, conditions:

 

The mechanical supercharger on both 47 models is not correct. According to a power chart for a R-2800-43(which has the same gear ratio for the impeller 7.6:1). The chart shows that, the engine at 2700 RPM, the impeller should maintain 42" till about 8,500 feet. Currently in game it only manages to maintain 38" at 8,000 feet. Conditions of the test were Kuban on Autumn since this is known to be at or close to a standard day conditions in game and what most testing is based on for the game. Also worth noting that the RPM of the 47 fluctuates a lot during flight and it struggles to maintain full RPM. This is also accounting for M.P. loss during flight. If I put the water injection on the engine could keep the RPM constant. This only helped give it about .5-1" of manifold pressure however. The loss is still too high.

 

Edit:

from my test:

                 D22/D28

Takeoff - 49.5/49.5

1,000 - 48/48.5

2,000 - 46/46.5

3,000 - 45/45

4,000 - 43.5/43

5,000- 42/42

6,000 - 40.5/41

7,000 - 39/39

8,000 - 38/37.5

Edited March 5, 2023 by 86th_Rails

[the_emperor]

Brief description:

Please review the possible wrong time limits for Bf 109G with cleared Start&Notleistung for the DB605A engine and the La-5fn and the Ash-82fn engine boosted mode.
Detailed description, conditions:

currently the DB605a engine with cleared Start&Notleistung has a time limit of that setting for 1min.

This should probably be set to 3min. Thus far there has been no evidence that there is 1min limit with cleared Start&Notleistung but plenty for the 3min limit.

Please review the following sources:

 

 

 

the La-5fn has a time limit of 10min for its boosted mode, but most Sources (but one for the La-7) give it a 5min limit on that setting.

please review the following sources:

 

 

 

Edited June 28, 2023 by the_emperor

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

The 109 F2 recharges it's WEP timer in 10 minutes when it should be 5 like the rest. The 110 G2 recharges its combat timer in 20 minutes when it should be 15 like the rest.

[357th_KW]

Brief description: All P-51's overheat at high altitude

Detailed description, conditions: P-51B and D, with or without engine and fuel mods overheat at high altitudes (11km or greater).  The auto radiator stops actuating the radiator doors to keep the engine cool, and even if you switch them to manual and open them, the engines overheat.  The aircraft can't climb to their service ceiling without overheating and blowing up their engines, and speed and climb in this high altitude ranger are far lower then reported in historical tests.

Additional assets (videos, screenshots, logs):  Thread discussing this, with links to historical tests that have climb and speed tests at these altitudes with coolant shutter position data: https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/84195-p-51-will-overheat-at-extreme-high-altitudes-on-auto-radiator/

Your PC config data (OS, drivers, specific software): Tested in the most recent version (5.101b)

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

JU-88 - either model.     Information card in-game lists maximum dive speed as 670kph.   Aileron rip speed is 730kph and tail control surface rip speed is even higher.  This is consistent in the multiple times I tested it. 

 

Please update infocard or FM rip speed.

[the_emperor]

Brief description: time on higher/all out/WEP/Notleistung can be increased by reducing rpms

Detailed description, conditions: 

currently the  time on higher/all out/WEP/Notleistung can be increased by reducing rpms over the time limit given in the info cards (and found in manuals)

some examples:

Spitfire IX 18lbs@2600rpm (instead of 3000) from 5min to 15min

La-5fn 1180m@ 2400rpm (instead of  2500) from 10min to 20min

Bf 109 G-14 1.7ata@2600rpm (instead of 2800) from 10 min to ~20min

 

Reducing rpm on those higher boost setting should not increase the time. as manuals do not allow using all out MAP without full rpm as you would other wise run the risk of damage to the engine.

This also gives some planes an advantage over others, which cannot exploit this game mechanic (eg. P-51 and Tempest).
Additional assets (videos, screenshots, logs):  

Please review and fix this issue. You may find all main sources here:

 

Many thanks

Edited July 11, 2023 by the_emperor

[354thFG_Rails]

On 3/5/2023 at 11:04 AM, 86th_Rails said:

Brief description: P-47-22 & 28 Mechanical Supercharger Not Correct.
 

Detailed description, conditions:

 

The mechanical supercharger on both 47 models is not correct. According to a power chart for a R-2800-43(which has the same gear ratio for the impeller 7.6:1). The chart shows that, the engine at 2700 RPM, the impeller should maintain 42" till about 8,500 feet. Currently in game it only manages to maintain 38" at 8,000 feet. Conditions of the test were Kuban on Autumn since this is known to be at or close to a standard day conditions in game and what most testing is based on for the game. Also worth noting that the RPM of the 47 fluctuates a lot during flight and it struggles to maintain full RPM. This is also accounting for M.P. loss during flight. If I put the water injection on the engine could keep the RPM constant. This only helped give it about .5-1" of manifold pressure however. The loss is still too high.

 

Edit:

from my test:

                 D22/D28

Takeoff - 49.5/49.5

1,000 - 48/48.5

2,000 - 46/46.5

3,000 - 45/45

4,000 - 43.5/43

5,000- 42/42

6,000 - 40.5/41

7,000 - 39/39

8,000 - 38/37.5

Is none of this going to get addressed?

[Regingrave-]

27 минут назад, 86th_Rails сказал:

Is none of this going to get addressed?

It will be adressed when we'll have time for that in our schedule.

[the_emperor]

Brief description:

time on high/all out MAP settings can currently be increased by reducing rpm
Detailed description, conditions:

currently time on MAP setting (especially on high/allout MAP settings) can be increased by reducing rpms on same planes e.g.

 Spitfire IX 18lbs@2600rpm (instead of 3000) from 5min to 15min

La-5fn 1180m@ 2400rpm (instead of  2500) from 10min to 20min

Bf 109 G-14 1.7ata@2600rpm (instead of 2800) from 10 min to ~20min
and on some not

e.g. Typhoon/Tempest & P-51.

(probably a side effect of the timer mechanic itself)

But reducing the dedicated rpms on the dedicated MAP setting increases stress on the engine leading to detonation and failure.

Reducing should therefore decrease time on MAP settings.

On all out MAP reducing rpms it is strictly forbidden by the manuals

Please review and fix this issue
Additional assets (videos, screenshots, logs):

 

Your PC config data (OS, drivers, specific software):

Edited July 19, 2023 by the_emperor

[ZachariasX]

5 minutes ago, the_emperor said:

time on high/all out MAP settings can currently increased by reducing rpm

Working as intended, as just rpm and MAP are factored into the timer setting. There is no engine strss as such modelled. High rpm, low MAP and windmilling the engine (especially radials) don‘t do damage either.

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

20 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

Working as intended, as just rpm and MAP are factored into the timer setting. There is no engine strss as such modelled. High rpm, low MAP and windmilling the engine (especially radials) don‘t do damage either.

Theres more to it than just the fact that lowering RPM increases the timer. There's a glitch in how the games calculations uses MAP and RPM that causes extreme timer increases on some planes and not on others. So even if the devs dont intend to model engine stress beyond MAP/RPM, the timers calculations are still producing unintended consequences. The details are in the linked thread.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

There is a bug with damage model of FC Albatros DII modification - gunsight. Only one bullet near the engine always make it disappear. This is always the case.

 

 

besides these should be transparent

 

Edited October 10, 2023 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[the_emperor]

Brief description:

Wrong time limit for the Bf109 DB605A(s) engine for Start&Notleistung and the La-5fn with Ash-M82fn engine
Detailed description, conditions:

currently the DB605a engine with cleared Start&Notleistung has a time limit of that setting for 1min.

This should probably be set to 3min. Thus far there has been no evidence that there is 1min limit with cleared Start&Notleistung but plenty for the 3min limit.

Plenty documentation has been done by the community here since 2018:

 

 

 

the La-5fn has a time limit of 10min for its boosted mode, but most Sources (but one for the La-7 which according to @=FB=VikS qualifies as a typo) give it a 5min limit on that setting.

please review the following sources:

 

 

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

Brief description: 

It looks like the the raw HE powder weight in the bullets weren't converted to TNT equivalent like they're noted that they should have been in the code.

 

Detailed description, conditions:
I'll use the ShVAK 20mm round as an example, it's noted in 2 places in the code that you used a TNT equivalent of 2.6g, but 2.6g is the raw powder weight of A-IX-2 in the round. If the A-IX-2 is converted to TNT equivalent the value should be 2.6g x 1.54 = 4.004g. I used wiki to get the 1.54 conversion value, so maybe it's something other than 1.54, but it shouldn't have a 1.00 conversion factor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-IX-2
I noticed the same thing with the hispano and 151 20mm rounds, and it's likely something that was done game wide with all the HE rounds, and they could use a double check.

 

Additional assets (videos, screenshots, logs):

This came from the discussion here, with lots of sources within: 

 

 

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

Brief description: 

Nothing was added to HEI rounds to compensate for not modeling the I component of the round.

 

Detailed description, conditions:
I'll use the ShVAK 20mm round again as an example, it contains 2.6g of explosive filler, but also 2.8g of incendiary that's not modeled. Since the mine shell rounds got both an increase to the amount of shrapnel shards, and to the velocity of those shards, then something should also be given to HEI rounds to make up for not having any incendiary component. One idea for compensation while remaining realistic could be to just choose a different version of the round with more HE in it, like the one I'm attaching labeled ShVAK alternate.

 

Additional assets (videos, screenshots, logs):

This came from the discussion here, with lots of sources within:

 

 

[the_emperor]

Brief description:

Time on WEP/Combat Map Settings can be increased (on some engines, and on some not due to timer mechanic), by decreasing rpm
Detailed description, conditions:

reducing rpms while on high/combat/WEP MAP setting should not be rewarded with increased time, as it does increase strain on the engine, and can lead to detonation and killing the engine

 

 

Edited May 7, 2024 by the_emperor