Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Wasn't the A6 the first version with the MG151/20 wingguns?

Was about to write that. The A5 has exactly the same basic armament as the A3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 one minute at WEP it's 5% chance for failure. After two minutes it's now 15%, then 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!

 

+1

 

This is an awesome idea!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea, but :biggrin:

But that would only really make sense when some planes are more prone to failures than others. Take the P-40, it was known to be flown over its limits, so maybe the chance needs to be a little bit lower on this plane.. then again, can something like that be agreed on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea, but :biggrin:

But that would only really make sense when some planes are more prone to failures than others. Take the P-40, it was known to be flown over its limits, so maybe the chance needs to be a little bit lower on this plane.. then again, can something like that be agreed on?

Ideally my idea would be different for every plane and not a universal standard for the game in general and think it would be more accurate (if we had the appropriate data to follow so it's not arbitrary numbers/chance).

 

That last part is important because I can only imagine that finding reliable info on how all the engines in the game handle the stress of WEP would be difficult or at the very least there would be several conflicting reports.

 

This is the problems the devs deal with - either way they do it, some portion of the simmers will argue that the devs way is wrong. I truly appreciate the efforts they do and don't envy their jobs in trying to keep us happy! For what it's worth, I'm happy with essentially all the recent changes and glad of the direction we are heading!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

You can use it. You're just choosing not to.

 

The FW190A-3 FM is wrong and will be corrected at the same time that the A-5 model arrives for BOK. From a developer standpoint this makes sense in terms of time spend working the numbers for the fm. Seeing as the two are very similar aircraft types.

Was about to write that. The A5 has exactly the same basic armament as the A3.

Yep. I'm hoping we get to see some more of the fighter-bokber load outs used by the SG squadrons with the A-5 too.

 

I know this isn't what you we're talking about... I'm just hoping the A-5 comes with some more options though the A-3 we got did come with a pretty good selection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main difference in the A5 is the engine moving forward, artificial horizon, and possible the MW 50 boost.

 

The unlocks/loadouts look interesting, jabo versions could carry droptanks. Also possibility of stripping out the MG-FF in favour for MG151/20 pods, if you really really need that extra firepower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't count on the MW50 based upon several previous threads. Seems it is not appropriate for MOST Fw's of the timeframe, though, it was technically available.

 

Possibly the most important thing will be the moveable engine louvres giving a slight aerodynamic increase in speed over the open gills we have now.....and, of course, the revised FM's.

 

And agree with the earlier sentiment. Use the Fw within the current flight envelope. She ain't right but she ain't bad either. A light touch goes a long way.

Edited by II/JG17_HerrMurf
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can use it. You're just choosing not to

No, seriously in fact I can't. When I participate in a race, I do not take a mule, even she looks like a horse or if the organizer tells me she's a horse. Even if I bought her for a horse price too. :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, seriously in fact I can't. When I participate in a race, I do not take a mule, even she looks like a horse or if the organizer tells me she's a horse. Even if I bought her for a horse price too. :angry:

 

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I wouldn't count on the MW50 based upon several previous threads. Seems it is not appropriate for MOST Fw's of the timeframe, though, it was technically available.

Jep, in contrary to 1.65ata, which was used quite a lot in this timeframe ;)

 

 

Possibly the most important thing will be the moveable engine louvres giving a slight aerodynamic increase in speed over the open gills we have now

Wouldn't call almost 30kph difference at ground level a "slight increase" ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jep, in contrary to 1.65ata, which was used quite a lot in this timeframe ;)

 

I live in hope, is that from the C5 injectors? and do you have a source?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

I agree, yes a number of times the question has been raised, but there is a certain mass that defends at any cost that "EVERYTHING IS CORRECT", but if one day is corrected, let us look at this game with another eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wasn't 1.65 reserved for jabos though? I can see ppl taking the mod just for it and immediately dropping the bombs after take off xD

 

 

Its pretty much confirmed that 1.43 is only for 1 minute. With that in mind, I really doubt the devs would make 1.65 available to us.

 

I wish they would, though.  :)

Edited by JAGER_Staiger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its pretty much confirmed that 1.43 is only for 1 minute. With that in mind, I really doubt the devs would make 1.65 available to us.

 

I wish they would, though.  :)

 

This 1 minute has nothing to do with real operation limits. Apart from that, there are enough documents that showed that it was flown regularly at 1.42 for a lot longer, hence the in-game limit (not 1 min like the 109).

1.65ata was cleared "safe" for 15 minutes (rather due to fuel consumption, then any possible engine damage :rolleyes: ), so no problem in that regard. 

Edited by II./JG77_Manu*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So after 3 Years ! ... Now we have the Bf 109 G2-4 for just 1 minute ?!

Edited by RAY-EU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest I did quite some dogfighting in Berloga and never ran out of boost time, often fighting 20 min in a flight. And your engine does not seize after 1 minute, maybe 1.5 minutes, sometimes even later.

 

They follow the manuals, thats how it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the consecuence on mooving the nose foward on the 190 a5? What are the changes on manouvering, speed etc.

I read that this change was made to keep the G load center with external load but if is good with load should be worse without load?

 

No idea about the 190 and C3 limits.

Edited by E69_geramos109

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest I did quite some dogfighting in Berloga and never ran out of boost time, often fighting 20 min in a flight. And your engine does not seize after 1 minute, maybe 1.5 minutes, sometimes even later.

 

They follow the manuals, thats how it is.

 

You think that manual limit full power use to 1 minute because the engine will die after this 1 minute (or be it 1m30) ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the consecuence on mooving the nose foward on the 190 a5? What are the changes on manouvering, speed etc.

I read that this change was made to keep the G load center with external load but if is good with load should be worse without load?

 

No idea about the 190 and C3 limits.

Honestly, I don't think it'll change much. Trim characteristics might change a bit, but the plane should be flying in the same slightly nose-down attitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No but there are compromises for game mechanics. That is the simple truth. The only way to fly a "real" Fw-190 is to drop a million bucks on a Flugwerk. Outside of that there are DEV decisions we have to, and can, live with. They have been pretty good, honestly, about refining their compromises but these take time and eat up design cycles better spent on revenue earning projects/releases. Adding a whole new engine mechanic from scratch will be some intensive research and design work. While I think Matt's suggestion is what we all seek, going over the top in our criticisms must be pretty demotivaring for Jason, Han and Co.

Edited by II/JG17_HerrMurf
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And please remember that most RL limitations were issued in order to keep the engine going for a number of flights. The fact that any pilot that wrecked his engine on every flight would get grounded in a hurry. That is very hard to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LoL, 1min WEP is just a number! All depends how you use WEP! Even after the "emergency power time expired message" you can still use WEP. I wonder sometimes why some fear the "emergency power time expired message" I use WEP all the time how Jason said it's random when the engine breaks after the "emergency power time expired message" I count on my luck to be lucky may the Force will be with me everytime I use WEP!!!! :big_boss:

BTW if Team Fusion do 1min WEP that's ok, right -> :rolleyes: -> :rofl: 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I think Matt's suggestion is what we all seek, going over the top in our criticisms must be pretty demotivaring for Jason, Han and Co.

What is demotivating it's those kind of rogue FMs. For many blue side guys, it's demotivating enough for no more buy any suite or something about this sim. I'm not sure that they are aware of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is demotivating it's those kind of rogue FMs. For many blue side guys, it's demotivating enough for no more buy any suite or something about this sim. I'm not sure that they are aware of this.

Blue FM's are not a problem in my opinion (except FW 190, which is going to be fixed). They just have to be flown like an energy fighter.

 

Much bigger problem are guns. Berezin UBS deals more damage than german 20mm cannon. Shvak, which was frequently reported as weak by soviet pilots during the war cuts your BF 109's tail off in one burst.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly for them real pilots did not had this choice .... And a lot of them actually stated they would like to stay on fiedrich.... I have just read an interview of Hans Stigler saying exactly this ...

 

So I will correct your sentence "stay on a F4 when it comes to 109" ... No need to add in BOX, as it was the case IRL :)

 

S !

On the contary there also has some accounts that some pilots are very excited about the G's super engine power and high climb rate, such as Hermann Graf and Alfred Grislawski.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The G4 still floats more than the G2, very bad ... I make times vacation of Il 2...

Adjust the control stick response curves in the game settings. It makes a world of difference.

 

 

Edit:

 

There are several videos around wobble or floating here is one of them.

 

Edited by 6./ZG26_Custard
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree, yes a number of times the question has been raised, but there is a certain mass that defends at any cost that "EVERYTHING IS CORRECT", but if one day is corrected, let us look at this game with another eyes.

 Most of your 41 posts are constructed in such a way that folks would tend to believe you think  "EVERYTHING IS WRONG." Seriously, why do you waste our time and yours with this? You have Clod DCS and WT that you can fly in if you ain't happy here. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, yes a number of times the question has been raised, but there is a certain mass that defends at any cost that "EVERYTHING IS CORRECT", but if one day is corrected, let us look at this game with another eyes.

 

There is no 'certain mass' that says EVERYTHING IS CORRECT

 

You seem to be unable to differentiate between people having different opinions as to WHY things are incorrect

 

Just as one example, The Yak flap issue, if it had been put forward that the flaps should have a max operating speed and be 'ripped off' as demanded by many, this would have been incorrect, and most likely never had been changed

 

repeatedly saying (generalising here) It's broken,nerfed,borked and biased, and labelling anyone who disagrees with the REASONS for possible flaws as Fanbois, FM defence league, Dev sycophants, communists, and Stalinist revisionist does not help

 

Dev's do not have time to investigate every claim..there would never be any progress, they need reasons and figures, arguing the need for change for the wrong or an incorrect reason is counterproductive and goes no way to actual improvements for accuracy

 

FM errors will occur, they have in every single flight sim, there simply will never be any, EVERYTHING IS CORRECT and no-one argues this point however much you say it.

 

Defending something as mostly correct but needing adjustment in a certain area, when confronted with the many "this is total BS what a joke" posts is not saying EVERYTHING IS CORRECT and defending it at 'any cost'

 

Cheers Dakpilot

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-snip-

 

Defending something as mostly correct but needing adjustment in a certain area, when confronted with the many "this is total BS what a joke" posts is not saying EVERYTHING IS CORRECT and defending it at 'any cost'

 

-snip-

 

10/10

 

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about having a random number generator that runs when you spawn into a mission or server. For example from 1 to 5 that relates to how many engine hours have been previously flown by that aircraft. The amount of engine hours is then told to the pilot on start up (this information would be available to all pilots IRL in the engine log book). The amount of engine hours would then relate to the expected length of WEP the pilot could expect to push before failure.  Hence you can try push your luck based on some information. You would of course have to keep some random variation in the failure so that it is still not a given.

 

Also with this idea It would have to be implemented in such as way that if you re-spawned after staring up and getting a bad score it would keep the old engine time until you have flown for a certain amount of time so a new engine time can be spawned next time around.

 

The other key thing is what people have said before is that the different failure probabilities would have to be researched and defined for each aircraft type if even possible?

 

 

I know this is bit of a cooky idea so Im expecting AAA. Maybe somthing like this could be an optional hardcore setting that can be checed/unchecked by the server or SP user.

Edited by AeroAce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the contary there also has some accounts that some pilots are very excited about the G's super engine power and high climb rate, such as Hermann Graf and Alfred Grislawski.

Good to know ! Thanks for those informations :)

 

S !

Edited by LAL_Trinkof

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is demotivating it's those kind of rogue FMs. For many blue side guys, it's demotivating enough for no more buy any suite or something about this sim. I'm not sure that they are aware of this.

  1. You're making unfounded claims about the FMs
  2. It's the Axis, not the "blue side"
  3. You don't know that "rogue FMs" are keeping people from buying things any more than I know what you had for breakfast today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about having a random number generator that runs when you spawn into a mission or server. For example from 1 to 5 that relates to how many engine hours have been previously flown by that aircraft. The amount of engine hours is then told to the pilot on start up (this information would be available to all pilots IRL in the engine log book). The amount of engine hours would then relate to the expected length of WEP the pilot could expect to push before failure.  Hence you can try push your luck based on some information. You would of course have to keep some random variation in the failure so that it is still not a given.

 

Also with this idea It would have to be implemented in such as way that if you re-spawned after staring up and getting a bad score it would keep the old engine time until you have flown for a certain amount of time so a new engine time can be spawned next time around.

 

The other key thing is what people have said before is that the different failure probabilities would have to be researched and defined for each aircraft type if even possible?

 

 

I know this is bit of a cooky idea so Im expecting AAA. Maybe somthing like this could be an optional hardcore setting that can be checed/unchecked by the server or SP user.

There is already a performance variance. Not engine specific but I think Jason said 5% to account for maintenance and build quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a 5% tolerance of ingame performance compared to sources (not that the planes are actually that much off, speed and climbrate wise at least), but there's no variance between planes (it's there in Rise of Flight though).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is already a performance variance. Not engine specific but I think Jason said 5% to account for maintenance and build quality.

 

 

There's a 5% tolerance of ingame performance compared to sources (not that the planes are actually that much off, speed and climbrate wise at least), but there's no variance between planes (it's there in Rise of Flight though).

 

 

IIRC the 5% tolerance are compared to the manual specs. Ingame same planes will have the same engine performance. Jason said that they did implement engine performance variance between same plane in RoF but I guess it was not well received, so they dropped the idea for BoS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am having so much fun with the 52 that I didn't touch the G4 until today.

 

Where is our heavy MG131?? More time line stuff? ?

 

post-1330-0-67720600-1483056004_thumb.png

Edited by 6./ZG26_Gielow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...