Developer Diary, Part 123 - Discussion

[Haza]

Gents,

 

 

Although I'm new to IL2-BOS, I too have become frustrated when things don't appear to happen in the same way that I have read in an aircraft manual.  However, if you have not seen this series, could you all at least watch part 1(attached), as now having seen how much effort goes into these games and to see Oleg in part 1 appear so down with all of the issues and complainers of previous games, I can see how quickly it would get any developer down.  Therefore, I for one will no longer just complain if things are not 100% and will certainly think before I press send!!!.

 

I have great respect for both players (testers) and developers and would merely ask that before you write any complaints, please watch part 1 of the series again and then think about the way you raise your issues!  Anybody can make a difference, but it is how you go about it that matters!!!

 

 

Regards

 

Thankfully part 1 has subtitles for us non Russian speakers (The other parts you don't need to know Russian to understand what they are trying to do!!!)

 

[jaydee]

Also Lads, BOS is the only Sim that gives some kind of Update EVERY Week. They tell us what's coming next (and it usually does)!

I look forward to my Saturday (OZ) DD.

OTHER sim Forums whinge about lack of Response  from Devs....Cough, Months, Cough ! Sorry about that !.. I have a cough !...Nothing !

At least the Devs Here keep us in the Picture !

Whether we agree or disagree about FM,DM...whatever ?

Thanks Devs for (Taking time on Friday night) to update Us !

~S~

[Blooddawn1942]

It's simply the best communication between developers and their customers I've ever experienced and I'm very grateful for that. I'm not sure if I would be such a professional, considering some very disrespectful posts.

Edited March 4, 2016 by Blooddawn1942

[Elem]

It's simply the best communication between developers and their customers I've ever experienced and I'm very grateful for that. I'm not sure if I would be such a professional, considering some very disrespectful posts.

I would very much like to 2nd that! Hats off to the 777 team.

[Brano]

Have you noticed Oleg holding hunter gun on his knees when interviewed?   

[Boaty-McBoatface]

Hi Han! 

 

(new customer here) Absolutely fascinating figures- thanks for this update!! 

 

However, I am curious whether there is a mistake in the BF109-E7 and 110E models with DB601 A! I can not get 477kmh in combat (1.23ata 2400rpm) with 0-10% radiators. I can only get 477kmh@ 1.3ata with radiators on 0% on Stalingrad, Autumn, early morning conditions. Same with the BF110. They seem to be under-performing?

 

Could you please clarify these DB601 A performance figures? Or will the next update incorporate these changes and listed performances? 

 

Thanks! 

 

Boss™

Edited March 9, 2016 by BossTM

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Hi Han, 

 

(new customer here) Absolutely fascinating figures- thanks for this update!! 

 

However, I am curious whether there is a mistake in the BF109-E7 and 110E models with DB601 A! I can not get 477kmh in combat (1.23ata 2400rpm) with 0-10% radiators. I can only get 477kmh@ 1.3ata with radiators on 0% on Stalingrad, Autumn, early morning conditions. Same with the BF110. They seem to be under-performing?

 

Could you please clarify these DB601 A performance figures? Or will the next update incorporate these changes and listed performances? 

 

Thanks! 

 

Boss™

This is all based on the Datasheet given in a Manual for the DB601A (not the Aa) which lists Top Speeds for 1.23ata@2400 (water 25%, Oil 0%)

Top Speeds at low altitude are much lower, however high altitude Performance is far Superior to models powered by the DB601Aa on which the 500kph at Sea Level were achieved. 

Same for the Bf110, ingame it's powered by the DB601B, not Ba or P, which were more powerful at different altitudes. 

The correct question therefore is wether we will get more engine options, similar to RoF in the future. 

 

I asked the question wether were going to see them a couple of weeks ago and they said not this year. I hope this was helpful. 

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/Me-109e-flugzeugdatenblatt.jpg

[III/JG2Gustav05]

I have a question for Bf109G2 here, according to the DD123 "Maximum ground speed at 7000 m, engine mode - Combat: 648 km/h" As I know development team use Rechlin E'stelle Test Nr. 1586 as the reference for modeling G2. speed at 7000m on this report is 649kph. so they are correlated pretty well. However as I remember this Nr. 1586 is a report for a unretractable tailwheel version G1. but G2 in our game is obivous a retractable tailwheel version. So is it supposed that G2 in game should be faster? 
 

[Boaty-McBoatface]

This is all based on the Datasheet given in a Manual for the DB601A (not the Aa) which lists Top Speeds for 1.23ata@2400 (water 25%, Oil 0%)

Top Speeds at low altitude are much lower, however high altitude Performance is far Superior to models powered by the DB601Aa on which the 500kph at Sea Level were achieved. 

Same for the Bf110, ingame it's powered by the DB601B, not Ba or P, which were more powerful at different altitudes. 

The correct question therefore is wether we will get more engine options, similar to RoF in the future. 

 

I asked the question wether were going to see them a couple of weeks ago and they said not this year. I hope this was helpful. 

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/Me-109e-flugzeugdatenblatt.jpg

 

Hi there Klaus,

 

Yes thanks for that mate. I'm aware of the different 'emil' DB601 motor variants but this is not the problem. The problem is that my E7 in-game does not match the quoted figure given by Han of 477kmh@1.23ata (combat setting).  This is in Autumn morning air (near 15 degrees C where all other planes achieve the quoted figures no problem), trying to get near ISA standard atmosphere. If you try it yourself right now you will find that the E7 does not get near 477@ 1.23ata.

 

I don't have a problem with the other airplanes reaching these figures from Han but the 110 and 109E7 don't correlate.

 

Cheers.

Edited March 9, 2016 by BossTM

[Boaty-McBoatface]

If you fly it at 6.30am in the Autumn it will only just touch 477kmh@1.3ata with both rads fully closed. 

 

At the quoted 1.23ata@2300rpm it will only just touch 463kmh with both rads fully shut.

 

At the same settings in the 110 (1.23, 2300) I can only seem to do 442kmh, not the quoted 456kmh.

 

All other planes apart from 109E7 and 110 achieve the quoted figures no problem at this time/season/clear weather. This is what I am asking Han about. 

Edited March 9, 2016 by BossTM

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Did you trim your stabilizer fully down on the 109? Otherwise you could take a slight speed penalty.

[Boaty-McBoatface]

Hi there 5stuka,

 

Yes thanks, Klaus has just told me about the stabilizer and that I didn't check. It's closer now.

 

However the bf110 still seems far from the 456kmh@ 1.23ata figure

 

Anyone have any ideas here why the bf110 will not reach those figures but all the other planes do?

 

Thanks

Edited March 9, 2016 by BossTM

[Dutchvdm]

Hi Guys,

 

I heard that the performance data for some of the aircraft where updated. So i checked this and found out that the service ceiling and climb data for the I-16 and Mig-3 are actually the same.

 

    I-16 (24) MIG-3 (24)                 Service ceiling   11800 11800         Climb rate sea level   15,9 15,9 Climb rate at 3000 m   14,0 14,0 Climb rate at 6000 m   10,2 10,2

 

Is that correct? Or just a copy paste error?

 

Grt Martijn