A G4 question

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

It may have been posted elsewhere but will the G4 with increased ATA have a significant or minor performance boost over the G2. Secondly, as it is not a detuned engine, will we have to pay more attention to the boost times/emergency power as in the F4?

 

I'm flipping through various 109 sources and not getting much info on the G4 except in passing paragraphs. Am I going to use it significantly differently than the G2? The differences between the G2 and F4 can be subtle in some aspects and rather large in others.

[=WH=PangolinWranglin]

I don't know much about the 109s, but in my brief reading I believe that the main differences will be in the landing behavior (due to changed landing gear) and I believe there was a slight modification to the wings. I couldn't tell you numbers on the engine performance though. 

[Asgar]

bigger wheels (that's why you see the bump in the wings, to make room for those), but late G-2 also had these and new radio equipment. other than that they are identical. it has the same engine as the G-2 and the G-2 should get 1.42 ata unlocked in BoK as well to be historical correct

[E69_geramos109]

I supose they will not give 1.4 ata to G2 to make people to fly with the G4 because there is no improvement between both planes with the same power.

I dont know exactly te time but should be not close the F4 limit.

The weels should be better in non prepated arfields. Thats why they put low presure weels in the 109

[Geleitzug]

bigger wheels (that's why you see the bump in the wings, to make room for those), but late G-2 also had these and new radio equipment. other than that they are identical. it has the same engine as the G-2 and the G-2 should get 1.42 ata unlocked in BoK as well to be historical correct

 

Also the tailwheel was larger with the G-4 and as it consequently no longer fitted in the fuselage compartment when retracted at was kept fixed instead.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

G2 likely won't get a bump in ATA and they already stated the G4 will get the bump. So, the question remains; any additional performance with the ATA increase or do slight increases in drag even it out for the most part? Also, will engine management be more like the F4 with limitations on RPM/time?

[Finkeren]

I'll say definately back to strict limitations, but a great performance boost at maximum power, not least at altitude. This is the 109 you should be able to get to around 680km/h.

 

Even on combat power it should really be no worse than the G2 at full power.

 

I think this is a good way to "model" the evolution of the engine limitations, having the G2 with the throttle restrictions and let the G4 go full retar... full 1.42.

[Asgar]

i just hope we'll be allowed to use full power longer than on the F-4, since the additional drag of the tail wheel and wing bumps will probably cost a couple of km/h top speed compared to the G-2 when going at the same engine setting (combat)

[Finkeren]

i just hope we'll be allowed to use full power longer than on the F-4, since the additional drag of the tail wheel and wing bumps will probably cost a couple of km/h top speed compared to the G-2 when going at the same engine setting (combat)

You can pretty much count on that they will use the strictest interpretation of the time limits given by their sources. Whether that will be exactly the same as the F4 remains to be seen.

[Asgar]

yeah :/ in those moments i just like to remember what Joe Peterburs said "we didn't give a shit about the manual. if there was an enemy we would punch the throttle until the f**ker was dead"

[Dakpilot]

yeah :/ in those moments i just like to remember what Joe Peterburs said "we didn't give a shit about the manual. if there was an enemy we would punch the throttle until the f**ker was dead"

 

unfortunately anecdotes like that are so far from the reality....

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Asgar]

i wouldn't call it an anecdote, it was a first hand report by Joe in a teamspeak session. he wasn't telling stories, he was talking about the way they fought

[E69_geramos109]

Devs take some engine limitation too serious. I think the manual shows the limit where is not recomended to pass. This is to ensure the live of the engine and to prevent some futures failtures so there is some margin to keep the max power to the limits in an emergency. But in the game if you are longer than in the manual your engine dies at the moment. 

But this is not only for the 109. There are also russian reports from the P40. They manage the engine out of the limits to have some chance against the germans but of corse in a few flights they changed the engine before the suposed life time. But in the game if you dont aply the manual on the P40 your engine dies. 

Edited November 10, 2016 by E69_geramos109

[Gambit21]

"These are the numbers and all anecdotal information and first hand accounts be damned!" is a long standing tradition with this team.

It's one of my very few gripes, and in my humble opinion leads to some needless inaccuracies with a variety of aircraft, from the Lagg to the 190, to the P-40.

I still have their backs, and they will continue to get my support, and I'm profoundly grateful that they're doing what they're doing - but I'd like to see a bit

more interpretation take place.

[ShamrockOneFive]

Yep, it has been mentioned, I believe by BlackSix, that the G-4 model would have 1.42 ATA. I can't find the post at the moment.

[216th_Peterla]

Yes, it's ststed that the G4 will come with 1.42 ata. I readed in two places if I'm not wrong.

[nervenklau]

I confirm this message

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

"These are the numbers and all anecdotal information and first hand accounts be damned!" is a long standing tradition with this team.

It's one of my very few gripes, and in my humble opinion leads to some needless inaccuracies with a variety of aircraft, from the Lagg to the 190, to the P-40.

I still have their backs, and they will continue to get my support, and I'm profoundly grateful that they're doing what they're doing - but I'd like to see a bit

more interpretation take place.

I'm mostly ok with hard time limits. Otherwise one guy will argue it should be 3:45 and the next will argue it should be 4:17. For that, just take it from the manual. How hard they can be pushed (P-40) still leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

1.42 ata would add 155 HP more power to the engine, bringing it on 1455 HP from 1300 If i'm correct.

 

It would be great if the engine modes could be allowed or not according to the timeline of the mission in the server... For example a 1942 one wouldn't allow for 1.42 in the G2, but it would for the F4. A 1941 timeline wouldn't allow it for the F4, and a post mid 1943 timeline would allow it for both G2 and G4. I don't know if that's hard to implement. I remember IL-2 1946 doing a similar thing with the decals system (to determine the different RAF, USAAF, USSR, etc roundels).

 

Imho the best way to implement the limitations would be to follow the manual, but being somewhat flexible, and then not fixing the engine life within an exact time, but make it variable, some times it will last 20 seconds more... sometimes it will die 1 second after tresspassing the recommendation, sometimes it would hold for a minute longer etc. So the pilots will have to follow the recommendations... but if they are in an emergency and they choose to trust their dear engines they may get away with it.

Edited November 11, 2016 by SuperEtendard

[Finkeren]

I'm mostly ok with hard time limits. Otherwise one guy will argue it should be 3:45 and the next will argue it should be 4:17. For that, just take it from the manual. How hard they can be pushed (P-40) still leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

I don't mind the safe limits, but I think the regularity with which the engine breaks down is too harsh.

 

Going beyond the time limit should always carry a risk of breakdown, but initially it should be quite small slowly rising towards 100% over something like half an hour. That's a bit 'gamey' but would be better than the engine breaking like clockwork.

[Asgar]

e wouldn't allow for 1.42 in the G2, but it would for the F4. A 1941 timeline wouldn't allow it for the F4, and a post mid 1943 timeline would allow it for both G2 and G4. I don't know if that's hard to implement. I remember IL-2 1946 doing a similar thing with the decals system (to determine the different RAF, USAAF, USSR, etc roundels).

that's exactly what i want. just make the 1.42 ata a modification for the planes (G-2 and G-4)

I don't mind the safe limits, but I think the regularity with which the engine breaks down is too harsh.

 

Going beyond the time limit should always carry a risk of breakdown, but initially it should be quite small slowly rising towards 100% over something like half an hour. That's a bit 'gamey' but would be better than the engine breaking like clockwork.

that's my biggest problem with the way engine limits work as well.

[Dutchvdm]

Some silent hunter mods nailed this with the crush depth of the subs. Same sort off problem. As soon as you go past the save limit the should be some sort of luck/bad luck factor.

 

Grt M

Edited November 11, 2016 by I./ZG1_Martijnvdm

[Finkeren]

Some silent hunter mods nailed this with the crush depth of the subs. Same sort off problem. As soon as you go past the save limit the should be some sort of luck/bad luck factor.

 

Grt M

Indeed, but honestly isn't that how it works already? I think it's just that the probabilities are way too high, but maybe I'm wrong?

[Dutchvdm]

Indeed, but honestly isn't that how it works already? I think it's just that the probabilities are way too high, but maybe I'm wrong?

 

Really?.. I thought that is super strict. Seems that way to me. I never use boosted mode on my Bf-110, because it will blow up my engines faster than i can blink. 

 

Grt M

[BlitzPig_EL]

I have said this before, but it bears repeating.

 

No aero engine ever seized up on a clockwork timer after exceeding recommended continuous operating limits.

 

No English one.

 

No German one.

 

No  Russian one.

 

No Japanese one.

 

No American one,

 

None of them.

 

Engine limit timers are an easy way out for developers, nothing more, and do not in any way represent reality, and have no place in a simulation.

 

Real pilots in combat did not click a stopwatch every time they pushed their crates to save their lives.

 

Should I once again post the documents showing P 40s running 70 inches of manifold at low altitudes for extended periods without failure?

[Asgar]

i agree with you, but i doubt we'll see a change in the engine limitation mechanic any time soon.

[Irgendjemand]

My guts tell me it will get same restrictions as F4 and insta fried engine just like F4.
As for performance i believe they will make it slower at standard combat power due to non retractable tailwheel and bigger wheelbumps and with Notleistung it will fly a few km/h faster than the G2 with combatpower
Bottom Line i expect no improvement at all over G2.

 

Id be happy to be proven wrong.

 

And if being asked if they should add 1.42 ata to G2 in  BOK Scenarios - DEFINATELY. After all VVS gets 1B, so why not open up the G2 and let missionmakers decide?

Edited November 11, 2016 by Irgendjemand

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Mod, not unlock please. That term is now very misleading as unlocks no longer exsist.

[Asgar]

unlocks do exist in the russian starter edition

[Livai]

The G-4 is boring because G-2 = G-4 same plane everything same........

Who is for a custom F-4 that has the DB605 Engine with 1.42 ATA and MG131!

[Jason_Williams]

Let me be clear. No engine dies at the very moment you exceed operational restrictions. It's random. We CAN NEVER simulate how it happened in real life so whatever we do is a guess. Only option is to make engine overuse damage optional for all, but then you'll complain it divides the community. So we lose either way. I love this job.

 

Jason

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Let me be clear. No engine dies at the very moment you exceed operational restrictions. It's random. We CAN NEVER simulate how it happened in real life so whatever we do is a guess. Only option is to make engine overuse damage optional for all, but then you'll complain it divides the community. So we lose either way. I love this job.

 

Jason

 

I think the issue many of us have is regardless of what the development/programming back-end looks like, complete engine failure still seems to correspond unrealistically closely to suggested operational restrictions.

 

I haven't had anything that seemed like a random failure ever. If I exceed the time, even if but for a few seconds, it seems invariable that my engine will halt within 1-2 minutes.

[Finkeren]

Let me be clear. No engine dies at the very moment you exceed operational restrictions. It's random. We CAN NEVER simulate how it happened in real life so whatever we do is a guess. Only option is to make engine overuse damage optional for all, but then you'll complain it divides the community. So we lose either way. I love this job.

 

Jason

I'd humbly suggest to the team, that you at some point, when it can fit your schedule (doesn't have to this side of BoK release), consider tweaking the probabilities of random engine breakdown to allow people to go beyond the limits as a calculated risk. At the moment the probability of breakdown is so high, that going beyond the time limit is almost guaranteed to kill your engine in a very short time (seconds to a couple of minutes). If probabilities could be tweaked to allow (for instance) a very low risk for the first two minutes, relatively safe running up to five minutes, around 50/50 chance up to ten minutes and approaching 100% risk at 30mins, that would not only reflect how the engines were pressed in combat IRL but also make the sim more enjoyable, since you add a risk/benefit element for those who dare to use it.

 

I don't write this as a "luftwhiner" or claim that the modeling you use now is necessarily "wrong" and I certainly don't demand a "fix" right here and now. Personally I won't even really benefit from this, since the planes I fly the most won't benefit from the change that much. I simply think that this would improve the experience for a lot of players and be a better representation of real life combat.

[III/JG2Gustav05]

I'd humbly suggest to the team, that you at some point, when it can fit your schedule (doesn't have to this side of BoK release), consider tweaking the probabilities of random engine breakdown to allow people to go beyond the limits as a calculated risk. At the moment the probability of breakdown is so high, that going beyond the time limit is almost guaranteed to kill your engine in a very short time (seconds to a couple of minutes). If probabilities could be tweaked to allow (for instance) a very low risk for the first two minutes, relatively safe running up to five minutes, around 50/50 chance up to ten minutes and approaching 100% risk at 30mins, that would not only reflect how the engines were pressed in combat IRL but also make the sim more enjoyable, since you add a risk/benefit element for those who dare to use it.

 

I don't write this as a "luftwhiner" or claim that the modeling you use now is necessarily "wrong" and I certainly don't demand a "fix" right here and now. Personally I won't even really benefit from this, since the planes I fly the most won't benefit from the change that much. I simply think that this would improve the experience for a lot of players and be a better representation of real life combat.

Finkeren, obviously you are not a luftwhinner, American A/C are being suffered same problem, such P40.

[Finkeren]

Finkeren, obviously you are not a luftwhinner, American A/C are being suffered same problem, such P40.

Yes, arguably more so than the German planes, but that has nothing to do with it. I simply think adding a real calculated risk rather than guaranteed breakdown would make gameplay much more enjoyable as well as being closer to reality, even though I'll be flying Klimov engined planes most of the time and gain nothing from the change.

[Gambit21]

I agree Fink

[Asgar]

i agree

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

I don't mind the safe limits, but I think the regularity with which the engine breaks down is too harsh.

 

Going beyond the time limit should always carry a risk of breakdown, but initially it should be quite small slowly rising towards 100% over something like half an hour. That's a bit 'gamey' but would be better than the engine breaking like clockwork.

I agree a bit of randomness should exsist. Maybe up to 5% quicker and 25% later along with the rising possiblilty of critical failure the longer you use it. I argued for that in EA but I don't see it being changed at this late date. 

[LukeFF]

Who is for a custom F-4 that has the DB605 Engine with 1.42 ATA and MG131!

No

[BlitzPig_EL]

What Luke said.