G4

[Dakpilot]

Well technically DB605's did fall apart, which was why 1.42 was forbidden until Oct 43 and in some instances Feb 44, going from official Doc's, maybe someone has info if it was de-restricted earlier?

 

Hans-Joachim Marseille is said to have died in an accident bailing out of his new 109G2 when it suffered engine failure, 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[StG2_Manfred]

...

 

Hans-Joachim Marseille is said to have died in an accident bailing out of his new 109G2 when it suffered engine failure, 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

 

And it is also said that he died exactly 1.5 min. after using WEP ?

 

If you try to read the whole thread you'll maybe realize that no one said the engine would not fall apart. The problem is WHEN. And if you read the documents of the other thread I linked, you can see that when the engine was tested it had to run twice 5 min. with WEP without suffering a damage before it was delievered.

Edited December 23, 2016 by StG2_Manfred

[BlitzPig_EL]

Manfred, all the docs in the world will not change the dev's minds on this.

 

We have tried over and over to get the utterly stupid limits on the Allison V1710 eased up some for a while now, to no effect, even though there are docs that show it running for 20 minutes at twice the max continuous manifold pressure, without failure.

 

I fear what we have here is fast becoming a cruise power simulator, which is just perfect for the Ju52, or a Super Constellation, but for combat aircraft, not so much.

Edited December 23, 2016 by BlitzPig_EL

[Dakpilot]

Dude, Manfred we are talking about an engine..ease off with the passive aggressive  "If you try to read the whole thread"

 

I did actually learn to read a while ago, chill  it's Christmas holidays

 

As a matter of fact, history suggests that Marseille suffered engine failure on a Stuka escort mission, without any combat, it is unlikely he ran at 1,42 for any length of time, if at all.

 

My only reason for mentioning it was to show that particularly, DB605 had a troubled introduction which is well documented, there WAS a reason it was restricted with boost

 

we are discussing an engine, it does not have a nationality  , I had a lot of experience with P&W R2000, they had a poor reputation, which I agree with and will happily say they were rather rubbish, when compared to the 1830 and 2800, which were great though.

 

I am in full agreement that engines do not 'blow up at a given time limit, I have destroyed a few myself and do understand the reasons why and how they give up, and or let go

 

However in game there is a "method" to stop non historic abuse of boost, even if the engine are considered 'brand new every flight', is it perfect? certainly not, but It is just my OPINION that much less stricter 'rules' will lead to more problems than they will solve, my reasons given earlier in the thread above.

 

Blitzpig, I don't think there are any 1942 P-40E1 documents showing it running twice the max cont, MP for 20 mins, especially not in Russia.

 

It would be interesting to compare the Performance numbers of 1942 P-40E1 to the contemporaries it faces in BoS when 'improved' by that level,

I love the P-40E1, but I don't want it fighting on even terms with an F4 or G2/4 and way outperforming the E7, hoping the 'rudder' FM change will make it more useable with less drag

 

if you have, the doc's please post in the P -40 thread, it will make many people happy 

 

(Christmas) Cheers, Dakpilot

[BlitzPig_EL]

Merry Christmas to you to sir.

[StG2_Manfred]

Dakpilot, I'm chilled as ice cubes, don't worry. If you try to take part in a more constructive way in the future, I'm gonna try to be less passive aggressive, ok
Because statements like this

 

Well technically DB605's did fall apart, which was why 1.42 was forbidden until Oct 43 and in some instances Feb 44, going from official Doc's, maybe someone has info if it was de-restricted earlier?

 

Hans-Joachim Marseille is said to have died in an accident bailing out of his new 109G2 when it suffered engine failure, 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

doesn't seem to me that you are interested in a better solution for the game as the current, neither to discuss in a constructive way. You already expressed your opinion that another solution would lead to more problems than the current in an earlier post. And also I don't see any contribution in mentioning Hans-Joachim Marseille's death about the engine problematic than to mislead the debate. The same applies for your mentioning of engines nationality. You seem to be a strange guy

 

Fact is that a lot of people are unhappy with the current implementation and I am absolutely sure that there is more than one solution, even if you cannot think about. Matt already made a pretty good proposal that would be better than what we have at the moment imo. If people consider the problem I'm sure there will come up more good ideas, at least better ones than mentioning the death of a pilot or mentioning the general restriction of WEP for DB605 when the DB601 engines fall apart shortly after one minute as well.

 

@BlitzPig_EL: At the moment BoX seems to go in a good direction and maybe the devs agree at some point that another solution would be more plausible than the current. Good proposals can only be helpful. I've heard they said in the Q&A that they are not completely happy with the current implementation (don't know if it's true though). And maybe when there is time to reconsider it and good ideas are around... well, we will see.

Edited December 23, 2016 by StG2_Manfred

[BlitzPig_EL]

I hope you are right Manfred.  I want the best for all of us.  We all have our favorite aircraft, but I do try to fly them all and appreciate them all for their strengths and weaknesses.

[LukeFF]

Manfred, all the docs in the world will not change the dev's minds on this.

 

We have tried over and over to get the utterly stupid limits on the Allison V1710 eased up some for a while now, to no effect, even though there are docs that show it running for 20 minutes at twice the max continuous manifold pressure, without failure.

 

I fear what we have here is fast becoming a cruise power simulator, which is just perfect for the Ju52, or a Super Constellation, but for combat aircraft, not so much.

 

And posts like this will only cause the developers to dig in even more. Is that what you really want?

[BlitzPig_EL]

No Luke I do not.

 

But we seem to be at an impasse.

 

I truly hope we can come to some kind of accommodation where the devs and player base can find common ground.

 

The introduction of the P39 will be telling.

[III/JG2Gustav05]

 

Hans-Joachim Marseille is said to have died in an accident bailing out of his new 109G2 when it suffered engine failure, 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Do you have confirmed proof for this statment? I quote Askania's post about the reason of Marseille's death here from other thread.

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/19560-bf109g2-top-speed-1105/?do=findComment&comment=312909

 

Hm.. interesting.. I've never heard about it...

 

 

"The commission’s report (Aktenzeichen 52, Br.B.Nr. 270/42)[Notes 6] concluded that the crash was caused by damage to the differential gear, which caused an oil leak. Then a number of teeth broke off the spur wheel and ignited the oil. Sabotage or human error was ruled out."

 

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

If there's really a need for engine limits, it should be random element to it and it should be simple.

 

Say for G-4 for instance:

 

Screenshot (7).jpg

 

At 1.3 ATA, there should be a 1% chance that the engine will fail. This check could happen say every 5 seconds. At 1.42 ATA, there's an exponentionally higher chance that the engine will fail with 5%. This check also gets run every 5 seconds.

 

If you're very lucky, you might be able to fly around a whole sortie with 1.42 ATA. If you're very unlucky, the engine might get damaged (not necessarily completely broke) even when running 1.3 ATA for a short while.

 

Of course these numbers are just random examples.

 

This would actually make people cruise around with cruise settings (which for the German planes is currently not really the case, because you usually get 30+ minutes to fly around with combat power instead), while seriously increasing the usefulness of emergency power.

 

Currently the engine limits are strictly time limits and engine damage will result every single time guaranteed when exceeding the time limits, while at the same time it's also guaranteed that the engine will not get damaged if you stick to the time limits. Realistically, this doesn't make much sense.

This was my recommendation a couple of years ago, though somewhat less artfully. MAKE IT SO!

[216th_Jordan]

What is not considered is how shall the devs make it so that it is plausible? Are not service manuals a good way to circumvent: "Engine bla should do much better/worse according to my anecdotic reference from 1943 here" because there is no chart on when the engines will fail in average.

 

I actually love Matts idea, it would be an elegant solution to the problem mentioned above, however the time and probability when the engine dies needs to be adjusted for every engine and that needs to be based on something too. It's not unproblematic neither.

 

Il-2 '46 did not model this, you could rocketclimb a G-2 all day which was not very realistic too. The devs know that the current situation, going after aircraft manuals, is not optimal, but actually it is the easiest and most solid solution and stands on written paper. I'm all for finding a proper different solution though, so maybe we need to get a little more on the details regarding Matts suggestion.

Edited December 24, 2016 by 216th_Jordan

[Dakpilot]

As an example of how hard it is to make this work, take the example of Me109 G6 with MW/GM1

 

Excerpt of Interview with Luftwaffe Pilot/Instructor Franz Stigler 1939-45 400+ combat missions with Bf-109

 

 Did you ever have the GM-1 boost or MW-50 in any of your planes? Oh yeah, we used it quite often…in combat you know.

 

How long did it last? Uhh…you were not allowed to have it at more than 5 min., you know…if you used it 10 minutes, then motor has to come out.

 

 

 

 It makes the engine worse?  It wrecks the motor.

 

And this was for the higher altitude?  Higher…yes…

 

And at what speed could you get up to?Oh boy…I don’t remember…450 or 500 km…

 

Like you said, you could only use it for 5 min. otherwise you would burn out the engine. How many 5 min. intervals could you use?  Did you have to shut it down for a period of time to let the engine cool?

 

That’s okay…that uh…it didn’t matter.  You…but you never used it for five minutes…a minute, minute and a half and that’s it.

 

(underlined 'never' not added by me)

 

In the Manual the 5 minute limit is clearly mentioned, and it would be justified to use that, but then, it could be said it is an unreasonable forced limit and you should be allowed 10 minutes

 

Fair enough, but 10 mins in combat is a long time, people would obviously (in game) use the full ten minutes when entering a fight, ten minutes without failure/damage can be proven with evidence, but the engine would have to be changed at landing, not relevant to us with a new one available each time

 

Is that 10 minute result Historical or a bit gamey? and would the G6 with boost be representative of the real aircraft in combat, bearing how it was used IRL?

 

If you introduce a 'random' engine failure to prevent overuse, a small percentage chance of getting a failure will be ignored, the advantage in climb/maneuver would be just too good not to 'roll the dice' by 95% of users 

 

If the percentage chance of failure is loaded to the high side we pretty much back to where we are now, just without an artificially defined known time limit 

 

To achieve a decent believable in game result, which does not give similar end results to what we have now, or way laxer limits than used IRL, the amount of research needed on a per engine/type model basis would be huge, and not be able to be based on any quantifiable figures

 

not an easy task

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Otto_bann]

Hmm ... the blue hunters added seem have a dark fate on this simulator. After the Fw190, the G4 seems disappoint too. After buying the 190 I will not turn the other cheek but wait this time. I'll don't buy it and nothing else before July, the time needed to read feedbacks about the A5 and the A3 fix (available May / June if all goes well).

Edited December 24, 2016 by Kleinen

[LuftManu]

I made an small test.

Summer map, same conditions.

 

G4 (1,31 ata) IAS
500m 504 km/h
1500 501 km/h
3000 494 km/h
5000 473 km/h
————
(1,41 ata) IAS
500m 521 km/h
1500m 516 km/h
3000m 502 km/h
5000m 478 km/h

 
G2 (1,31 ata) IAS
500m 510 km/h
1500 506 km/h
3000 500 km/h
5000 480 km/h

 

So far, looks like the 1,41 ata gives you a really big advantage at low height, really usefull for the east front.

Really liking the G4, and those wheels are gonna save so much lifes!

 

Marry Xmas to you all!

Edited December 24, 2016 by Ala13_ManuV

[JAGER_Batz]

The G4 still floats more than the G2, very bad ... I make times vacation of Il 2...

 

This "floats", is present on all game aircraft, I have no hope of change, if it were easy, they would have already changed

 

We need to be patiente about this, even if i think it should have to be an high priority.

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/168-developer-diary/page-4?do=findComment&comment=405724

 

Yes, this should be a priority in development, If it were improved, acceptance of the game would be greater in the WWII community

[216th_Peterla]

I like Matt solution.

Regards

[ShamrockOneFive]

I made an small test.

Summer map, same conditions.

 

G4 (1,31 ata) IAS

500m 504 km/h

1500 501 km/h

3000 494 km/h

5000 473 km/h

————

(1,41 ata) IAS

500m 521 km/h

1500m 516 km/h

3000m 502 km/h

5000m 478 km/h

 

G2 (1,31 ata) IAS

500m 510 km/h

1500 506 km/h

3000 500 km/h

5000 480 km/h

 

So far, looks like the 1,41 ata gives you a really big advantage at low height, really usefull for the east front.

Really liking the G4, and those wheels are gonna save so much lifes!

 

Marry Xmas to you all!

 

Thanks for doing some testing here! The 1.41ATA seems like a great thing that you keep in the back pocket and then when you need to run down a Russian plane you get on the boost and chase them. In theory you should be able to catch everything except a La-5 at full boost on the deck. That's pretty handy!

Hmm ... the blue hunters added seem have a dark fate on this simulator. After the Fw190, the G4 seems disappoint too. After buying the 190 I will not turn the other cheek but wait this time. I'll don't buy it and nothing else before July, the time needed to read feedbacks about the A5 and the A3 fix (available May / June if all goes well).

 

The G-4 is only a disappointment if you were expecting it to be magical.

 

It's just a G-2 with a few slight pros/cons and the G-2 is an excellent fighter.

[Otto_bann]

What it would be magic it's to pay for extra blue fighters without decreased performances. Not like our 190 coffin so few used or this g4 with is lower speed  exept a so long 1 minute before to burn the engine... My Visa will never more works for worst. Hope on (real) A3 and A5 in few months, after opinions from users only.

Edited December 24, 2016 by Kleinen

[Asgar]

The G-4 is only a disappointment if you were expecting it to be magical.

 

It's just a G-2 with a few slight pros/cons and the G-2 is an excellent fighter.

that's why i was asking for the G-6 since the beginning. G-4 is just another G-2 in terms of gameplay. even worst 99% of the time. the G-6 at least has more firepower with the MG 131s

[ShamrockOneFive]

What it would be magic it's to pay for extra blue fighters without decreased performances. Not like our 190 coffin so few used or this g4 with is lower speed  exept a so long 1 minute before to burn the engine... My Visa will never more works for worst. Hope on (real) A3 and A5 in few months, after opinions from users only.

 

The G-4's biggest crime is that it isn't appreciably better than the G-2 before it which is unsurprisingly part of the history of the situation. What were you wanting specifically? The G-6? It has even more performance robbing features than the G-4 does. It'd be more interesting certainly but lower performing.

 

that's why i was asking for the G-6 since the beginning. G-4 is just another G-2 in terms of gameplay. even worst 99% of the time. the G-6 at least has more firepower with the MG 131s

 

I agree with you that the G-4 is pretty much the same in terms of gameplay. As an aviation enthusiast I find the G-4 really interesting as its an interim model between the more definitive G-2 and G-6 variants... so to see and experience the transition between the two in an aircraft that has a few features of both is really interesting. In terms of gameplay, its pretty much the same aircraft with a few quirks pro and con.

 

The G-6 is a complicated decision... if they went with it then people who only own BoK would be able to use it in the final couple of months of the conflict and they wouldn't be able to use the G-2 during the rest of it. I think that's problematic for new players and a non-issue for the rest of us who own everything. I still think the G-6 would be cool and Jason has said that it is possible as a future Collector Plane (no promises) if there is room between BoK and Midway. And I very much hope that it gets done. But the complaints won't stop... will they?

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

A nice increase would be to have the 1.42 ata for the G2, depending on the time the campaign/server mission is set in. This would also work for the 109 F4, making it able to be used in 1941 scenarios with only 1.3 ata allowed.

[LukeFF]

 

 

But the complaints won't stop... will they?

 

They never, ever will. 

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

They never, ever will.

A'course not!

 

Also, you need MORE "evers" in your quote

Edited December 24, 2016 by II/JG17_HerrMurf

[Lusekofte]

i wonder if the only trigger for engine failure is time ? Are there no parameters other than time that could be used for this

[Ropalcz]

The G-4's biggest crime is that it isn't appreciably better than the G-2 

 

Nope. Its "biggest crime" is the fact that it is slightly nerfed reskin of G-2, thats why so many people complain.

 

G-4 had only better radio (with longer range) and bigger wheels, 1.42 ATA engine was rare and came into production at almost the same time as first G-6´s did.

 

Now flame me.

[Trinkof]

See interview of Hans Stigler (LW ace who let a b17 go home ... )

 

He has the same advice on gustav than the majority here : dispointing and worst planes than the fiedrich in all aspect exept high altitude perf which were considered critical priority for the western front.

 

It is, in my humble opinion, the main error made by german engeneering , (at least regarding air forces) they designed a lot of their equipement based western front need.... And were ultimately defeated by the eastern one... They developed things with wrong strategical view.

[ShamrockOneFive]

Nope. Its "biggest crime" is the fact that it is slightly nerfed reskin of G-2, thats why so many people complain.

 

G-4 had only better radio (with longer range) and bigger wheels, 1.42 ATA engine was rare and came into production at almost the same time as first G-6´s did.

 

Now flame me.

 

It's not nerfed. It has pros and cons.

[216th_Jordan]

Nope. Its "biggest crime" is the fact that it is slightly nerfed reskin of G-2, thats why so many people complain.

 

G-4 had only better radio (with longer range) and bigger wheels, 1.42 ATA engine was rare and came into production at almost the same time as first G-6´s did.

 

Now flame me.

You flamed yourself. Sadly there are a lot of people unable to see devopment and planning realities. The customer is king eh? You shall get all you wish Ludwig.

[Ropalcz]

I see both sides.

 

DX 11 and other improvements (too many of them to name), are good.

 

On the other hand, not working Minengeschoss and overperforming Shvak (irl Soviet pilots often complained about its low damage impact, but here it tears planes into pieces on few hits).

[Irgendjemand]

Manfred, all the docs in the world will not change the dev's minds on this.

 

We have tried over and over to get the utterly stupid limits on the Allison V1710 eased up some for a while now, to no effect, even though there are docs that show it running for 20 minutes at twice the max continuous manifold pressure, without failure.

 

I fear what we have here is fast becoming a cruise power simulator, which is just perfect for the Ju52, or a Super Constellation, but for combat aircraft, not so much.

but they should. Since docs is what they ask for right? There are docs. So now act. 1 min limit is just riddiculous imho.

If you change it so the engine might take damage when in WEP over 1 min then the use behavior would only change in the way that pilots in danger would use it longer. Definately not during normal combatsitualtion.

I mean who would risk loosing their engine when their sortie just begun. On the other hand whats the answer on the question "would a pilot in RL push his engine to the limit when his life depends on it?" Surely the answer would be yes. And he would not care for any engine damage. That is what the notleistung was ment for "Notfälle". Without knowing it i would bet money on it that there is no single document or source that pilots were told to look on the watch when in emergency situation. I am sure they were told to punch it as long as its neede if its absolutely needed.

They never, ever will. 

And thats why the devs are pushed to always improve. And thats a good thing!

Edited December 24, 2016 by Irgendjemand

[Otto_bann]

What were you wanting specifically? The G-6? It has even more performance robbing features than the G-4 does. It'd be more interesting certainly but lower performing.

Rather than always offering new planes, repairing the ones we already have would be more interesting and a more logical way IMO.

 

I would preferred (like many) a real A3 with corrected speed & maniability. That would offered me 1 more usable plane, not 2 less like now, because they don't represent any interest, I don't use them.

[Finkeren]

Rather than always offering new planes, repairing the ones we already have would be more interesting and a more logical way IMO.

 

I would preferred (like many) a real A3 with corrected speed & maniability. That would offered me 1 more usable plane, not 2 less like now, because they don't represent any interest, I don't use them.

Fw 190 FM changes are coming for the A3 with the new A5.

 

The devs need to sell new content to improve what we have.

 

Go buy BoK, that will help fund improvements to the existing planes as well.

[Otto_bann]

That's what I've always done so far, buy pre-order and wait with confidence. But not this time, I will not turn the other cheek, too disappointed. I'll wait June / july and the advices from others.

[GP*]

This "floats", is present on all game aircraft, I have no hope of change, if it were easy, they would have already changed

 

 

Yes, this should be a priority in development, If it were improved, acceptance of the game would be greater in the WWII community

At least it's finally recognized as an issue. To be fair, it's been an exceptionally hard error to prove, but it was frustrating to raise the issue numerous times over the last few years only to be told by many (the usual suspects who defend the sim at any cost, and those who mistake lateral and longitudinal instability with realism) that nothing was wrong.

 

I look forward to giving this sim another shot when this has been fixed, at least to some degree.

[ShamrockOneFive]

Rather than always offering new planes, repairing the ones we already have would be more interesting and a more logical way IMO.

I would preferred (like many) a real A3 with corrected speed & maniability. That would offered me 1 more usable plane, not 2 less like now, because they don't represent any interest, I don't use them.

You're aware of the planned changes to the A-3 model yes?

[Original_Uwe]

That's what I've always done so far, buy pre-order and wait with confidence. But not this time, I will not turn the other cheek, too disappointed. I'll wait June / july and the advices from others.

I felt much the same way, except I'm a diehard 109 guy, so I love the new 109 models. I was very troubled by the decision to go to the pacific and I will NEVER fly over it.

That said, I'll buy everything they make.

This team and 1C have shown their commitment to the flight sim genre, particularly with giving TF the source code for CoD. If they prosper we prosper, if they fail we're left with warblunder.

[Otto_bann]

You're aware of the planned changes to the A-3 model yes?

FM I hope. With the new A5 I will wait for the corrected A3 FM, this plane bought since long time which in fact I can't use...

Edited December 25, 2016 by Kleinen

[Medicated]

As many have already hinted at, it is very, very hard for a dev team to not be criticized for a gameplay decision, regardless of which one they take.

 

For engine time limits, I think it is important to have a specified "after x minutes, you are in trouble". But I think it should be a hybrid of what is mentioned above and what we have. It should be that after "x" minutes at WEP, you then start a random chance generator for engine failure. Then for each specified time period thereafter (we can just use one minute for simplicity sake, but could be 30 seconds or whatever), there should be a random chance for engine failure And it should be logarithmic in nature, so the longer time spent in WEP, the higher proportional chance for engine failure. So let's say after "x" + one minute at WEP it's 5% chance for failure. After x + two minutes it's now 15%, then x + three minutes it's 50%, etc. These numbers are just examples I threw on here while typing, so they certainly could be adjusted accordingly.

 

I feel like this would more accurately represent reality as it is not something as strict as 100% failure after one minute. And it's critical to have a logarithmic increase in engine failure chance so people don't abuse having a bit more time at WEP as after a certain time period it would be 100% chance for failure, but there is still a small chance of failure even after one minute.

 

Hopefully that makes sense, I'm typing quickly before a holiday dinner.... Cheers!

Edited December 25, 2016 by Medicated

[RAY-EU]

The new FW190 A5 will be with the FW190 A3 corrected ! or ? A new FW190 A4 for the € $

So the exact matematic equation could be :

 

Bf 109 G2 xBOS=~ Bf109 G4 + X 80$ x BOK } Fw190 A5

FW190 A3 xBOS=~ FW190 A4 + Y 80€ x BOH } FW190 A4

Edited December 25, 2016 by RAY-EU