SR-F_Winger Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 ... some known isues with planes been modeled for allied planes like they were with i.e. the derated G2 we have in BOS? Or the weak upper wing from the DR1 in ROF? Would be nice if someone had an example. Or more examples from things like that modeled for both sides. Thanks!
Feathered_IV Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) [Edited] Edited June 17, 2015 by Bearcat Uncalled for.
SR-F_Winger Posted June 17, 2015 Author Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) [Edited] ähm. I was asking a simple question. No need for sarcasm. Youre aware someone could think youre trolling here? Edited June 17, 2015 by Bearcat
Reflected Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 Mate, the Dr1 upper wing is a lot stronger than the Pup's, SE5a's or the Bristol fighter's. The Dr1 is actually one of the strongest constructions, and it can fly even after losing its upper wing. That is a bad example. But to answer your question: think about the glass rudder of the N17 or the glass engine of the SE5a - both were fixed though. The current Pup, and tripe are also "derated" This being said, I would also love to have a non-limited G-2, with 1.42 ATA.
SR-F_Winger Posted June 17, 2015 Author Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) Mate, the Dr1 upper wing is a lot stronger than the Pup's, SE5a's or the Bristol fighter's. The Dr1 is actually one of the strongest constructions, and it can fly even after losing its upper wing. That is a bad example. But to answer your question: think about the glass rudder of the N17 or the glass engine of the SE5a - both were fixed though. The current Pup, and tripe are also "derated" This being said, I would also love to have a non-limited G-2, with 1.42 ATA. So things like that are actually modeled for the allied side as well. Thanks for answering my question! [Edited] Edited June 17, 2015 by Bearcat
Reflected Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 How is having weak wings and derated engines an advantage?
SR-F_Winger Posted June 17, 2015 Author Posted June 17, 2015 How is having weak wings and derated engines an advantage? Who said so? Sorry i dont get what you mean.
No601_Swallow Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) Would the 4 50s in the P40 count as derated? Edited June 17, 2015 by No601_Swallow
Reflected Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 Aaaa never mind, I misread something! Actually in BoS I don't see any huge inaccuracies (The F-4 and the Yak-1 are both too fast, but that's not in favor of any of the sides - still to be corrected), perhaps the lift vs drag effect of the flaps that favors the allied side. When were G-2s allowed to use 1.4 ATA historically? Was it long after the battle of Stalingrad?
Finkeren Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 I'd say that as far as faulty modelling goes, the SE5a engine and the original Nieuport 17 FM were among the worst, far worse than the Albatros D. Va being a little too slow, which people complained about to no end. In BoS it's true that some of the German planes have suffered more from teething problems, but I'd also like to point out, that a great many of these issues have been solved in the months since the release of BoS. As for VVS planes in BoS having issues: I'll just mention the extremely weak structure of the Yak in the original DM. The Yak had as bad or worse of a glass-wing problem as the 109, despite being well known to be a very sturdy design. But we all know what this is about, and I just wanna point out one thing: If the devs were truly Russian nationalists with extreme bias, who just couldn't accept the nazi aircraft being better than the Soviet ones, they would've modeled a plane set from late 1944, not 1942. 1
Feathered_IV Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 Sorry Winger if I misunderstood you. Your original post is strangely worded with some odd grammar and little punctuation. I took it that you were angling towards a conclusion that there was some sneaky agenda out there, which was crippling German aircraft and boosting the allied ones. If that is not the case you have my apologies. I offer you the Camel's completely spastic stall recovery characteristics as a peace offering. 1
SR-F_Winger Posted June 17, 2015 Author Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) I was asking that question to form my own opinion. What YOU guys make of it is entirely up to you. And in fact i really only knew about the DR1 wing and the G2 derated. Back in the day i realized people were complaining about SE5A glass engine. But since this has been fixed and practically with that can not be counted as a "modeled historic acccurate issue" i didnt count that. The other things i wasnt aware of. And for my grammar. I am german. I think my english is not too shabby. I have not yet made any fun of people using odd grammar or wrong punctuation. Edited June 17, 2015 by VSG1_Winger
unreasonable Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 Mate, the Dr1 upper wing is a lot stronger than the Pup's, SE5a's or the Bristol fighter's. The Dr1 is actually one of the strongest constructions, and it can fly even after losing its upper wing. That is a bad example. Checking out Dr Zebra's RoF videos suggests nearly all the RoF planes can be flown, or at least landed more or less safely, with no wings at all. This is not meant as a criticism of the FMs: Chill's work on modeling the Dr1 suggests that RoF's FM only models one big wing for all aircraft - what you see on the screen is basically visual padding, maintaining the illusion of a match between what you see and what is being calculated. This only causes cognitive problems in extreme situations like Dr Zebra's "look, no wings" flights, otherwise the simplification works pretty well and the illusion is maintained. Fortunately no biplanes over here... yet.
unreasonable Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 What is the De-rated G2 issue? Cheers Dakpilot I think just referring to the ata limit that BoS G2 has, that applied to some G2s for some period for safety issues and was later lifted so that it had 1.42 emergency power like the F4. Some controversy as always over when and where the limit was applied or removed and why this version was applied to the game......
6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 The DB605 in the G-2 switched from the Ball Bearings for the Camshaft as in the DB601 (Bf109F-4), to plain bearings, due to allied Bombing. In service when using 1.42 ata the lubrication failed on several machines, killing von Marseille, an expert pilot, in the resulting fire. The decrease the risk of engine fires the engines were derated until a solution could be found. This dragged on unitl mid 1943 when a new Lubrication pump was ready to be shipped to the units. Between June and October of 1943 all Bf109G-s were retrofitted, and only then were they able to deliver full power at 1.42 reliably. BoS takes place in late 1942, early 1943, thus with machines that had the old, insufficient lubrication systems and were therefore limited. Apparently the F-4s too were lmited, due to gaskets failing and Oil leaks. However the issues were resolved in February of 1942, full power was only then enabled. Imho the F-4 with limited power and no 20mm pods would be a good match for even BoM.
SR-F_Winger Posted June 17, 2015 Author Posted June 17, 2015 I know something... Marseille didnt die of the fire itself. The smoke was so dense he couldnt see anymore and ejected with the plane not inverse like they usually do. This resulted in the tailplane hitting him rendering him either instant dead or unconcious so he couldnt inflate his chute.
6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 I know something... Marseille didnt die of the fire itself. The smoke was so dense he couldnt see anymore and ejected with the plane not inverse like they usually do. This resulted in the tailplane hitting him rendering him either instant dead or unconcious so he couldnt inflate his chute. His airplane caught fire nonetheless.
Dakpilot Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 The DB605 in the G-2 switched from the Ball Bearings for the Camshaft as in the DB601 (Bf109F-4), to plain bearings, due to allied Bombing. In service when using 1.42 ata the lubrication failed on several machines, killing von Marseille, an expert pilot, in the resulting fire. The decrease the risk of engine fires the engines were derated until a solution could be found. This dragged on unitl mid 1943 when a new Lubrication pump was ready to be shipped to the units. Between June and October of 1943 all Bf109G-s were retrofitted, and only then were they able to deliver full power at 1.42 reliably. BoS takes place in late 1942, early 1943, thus with machines that had the old, insufficient lubrication systems and were therefore limited. Apparently the F-4s too were lmited, due to gaskets failing and Oil leaks. However the issues were resolved in February of 1942, full power was only then enabled. Imho the F-4 with limited power and no 20mm pods would be a good match for even BoM. So there is no 'issue' about the BoS period Bf109 G2's ATA limits Cheers Dakpilot
Sgt_Joch Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 One thing that is modeled is the pilot workload. I love flying the G2, everything is automatic, just pick the ata and fly! In the La-5, you have to juggle the inlet cowlings, oil radiator, prop pitch, mixture, supercharger stage, boost.... 1
Dakpilot Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 +1 the advantages of the Luftwaffe aircraft are negated in 'normal' servers Cheers Dakpilot
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now