The quality is really starting to show...except for..

[Cybermat47]

1 minute ago, Dakpilot said:

 

but although radials can get you home when an in line would not, it is an aluminium casting for the most part and easily damaged by  .50 rounds, the advantage is that it is possible to have a 'partial failure' and still run/get home, but you would be out of the fight and vulnerable

 

 

I’ll admit, I did think that a radial engine would be able to take some rounds and keep fighting, but your summmary does make more sense, now that I think about it more.

 

The uparmoured Fw-190s you mentioned sound interesting. It’ll be interesting to fly the A-8 in BoBp, and to see how effective the engine armour is.

[Mac_Messer]

I don`t care about visual modelling more than the state it is currently. If the aircraft still flies, it is not shot down.

 

What I care about  is the actual DM, if it is detailed enough to give proper feedback, ex. hydraulics, fluids leaking and whether the plane skin acually loses lift force from damage.

[TWC_Ace]

Guys guys...dont forget this isnt a hate thread..its a praise thread with "what we would like to be better". Lets say a nitpicking topic. We can discuss that. No need to act as lawyers for anything.

cheers

Edited March 12, 2018 by blackram

[Wolfram-Harms]

All this guessing here will get us nowhere. so I wait and hope, that someone comes with better data.

Or that the Russians come in and translate that part from the video above for us.

[Hauksbee]

Detlev: Maybe you should start making your attacks on  Pe-2's from the 6 o'clock low position. Low enough that you can't see the gunner (and he can't see you).

[Dakpilot]

1 minute ago, Hauksbee said:

Detlev: Maybe you should start making your attacks on  Pe-2's from the 6 o'clock low position. Low enough that you can't see the gunner (and he can't see you).

 

There is an upper AND lower manned .50 cal in Pe-2, and one in the front for when you overshoot 

 

19 minutes ago, Wolfram-Harms said:

All this guessing here will get us nowhere. so I wait and hope, that someone comes with better data.

Or that the Russians come in and translate that part from the video above for us.

 

The cowling armour rings data is known for A-3 and A -5 (also for A-8 etc.) so is penetration for .50 etc., the cooling fan is made of some sort of magnesium alloy

 

what is left to guess about? 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

 

[Wolfram-Harms]

Hey, Hauksbee - nice to see you! Well, it also has a belly gunner, right? Even a bit closer to me.?

And anyway: my point isn't getting understood here, it seems.

I want a better forward protection for the FW, cause I read somewhere that it could take a lot more than other German fighters there.

Or the proof, that is must be correct, as it is now.

But real proof - no guesswork.

[Wolfram-Harms]

Just now, Dakpilot said:

...what is left to guess about?

 

I don't know, Dak - you carry on and on and on. Although I said several times: enough of the guess work.

You are no more of an expert there than me on that field - so what are trying to do?

How could you convince me?

 

I'll wait and hope for more data.

 

 

[Dakpilot]

2 minutes ago, Wolfram-Harms said:

 

I don't know, Dak - you carry on and on and on. Although I said several times: enough of the guess work.

You are no more of an expert there than me on that field - so what are trying to do?

How could you convince me?

 

I'll wait and hope for more data.

 

 

 

I think you must have missed my earlier post.. 3mm and 5 mm is not guessing re the armour of 'panzer ring' on A-3/A-5

 

the cooling fan is made of magnesium alloy, not steel and is not 'armoured'

 

I spent more than half my career flying big radials in War zones, sorry if I seem to be going on and on

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

 

[Rjel]

7 hours ago, Dakpilot said:

 

I think you must have missed my earlier post.. 3mm and 5 mm is not guessing re the armour of 'panzer ring' on A-3/A-5

 

the cooling fan is made of magnesium alloy, not steel and is not 'armoured'

 

I spent more than half my career flying big radials in War zones, sorry if I seem to be going on and on

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

 

I, for one, have really enjoyed your posts. You come across as knowledgeable, but not condescending like some others who've claimed to be real life pilots when answering questions from ground hugging wannabees like me. Please continue lending your knowledge to the community.

[Wolfram-Harms]

7 hours ago, Dakpilot said:

I spent more than half my career flying big radials in War zones...

 

Ah! Now, that is quite something indeed! How much more reliable are radials really, compared to inlines?

[Wolfram-Harms]

Some further research got me only so fas, that I read the Focke-Wulf 190 F variant (for ground attacks) had additional armor.
So maybe what I had read back then was about the F-type.

 

Still, it feels wrong when the sturdy FW is having an engine conk-out almost EVERY time I approach a single MG from a closer distance.

Of course it should also not be like in the movie "Dunkirk", where the British Spitfire is shooting down the He-111 without ever getting

hit by the fire of the turret gun.

 

Dakpilot - it only dawned on me now, combining your avatar with your name - that the "Dak" might stand for "Dakota", the name for the Douglas DC-3 ?

Forgive me, I'm an East Frisian. We are slow sometimes. But everything we HAVE understood, will be preserved like with elephant's memory.

 

Edited March 13, 2018 by Wolfram-Harms

[Asgar]

Hears random person on the internet say the damage modelling in IL-2 is bad. Looks at DCS. Shrugs, smiles and walks aways shaking his head in disbelief.

[Dakpilot]

9 hours ago, Wolfram-Harms said:

 

Ah! Now, that is quite something indeed! How much more reliable are radials really, compared to inlines?

 

Although out of scope of this topic 

 

Personally I have no experience of flying or operating liquid cooled In line high performance aero engines so cannot really compare

 

as for Radials reliability, it all really depends on maintenance and operating procedures, in my personal experience rarely did any of them reach designated life cycles (even "new fully remanufactured" power units as opposed to rebuilt ones,) but generally if carefully operated they were very reliable, but if mistreated can go wrong very catastrophically very quickly

 

 

This was a serious oil leak from engine number 4 (leaking push rod cover) on a DC-4 over Somalia, it was necessary to pump oil from fuselage reserve tank to engine tank, pic taken from the open overwing escape hatch 

 

In general round engines will get you home, but not very reliable, most of my later flying was turboprops and some jets, but my passion was/is big pistons (now pretty much retired from active flying)

 

sorry for off topic

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[Hauksbee]

22 hours ago, Wolfram-Harms said:

Hey, Hauksbee - nice to see you! Well, it also has a belly gunner, right? Even a bit closer to me.?

I guess the Peshka is a bit more prickly than I thought.

[Wolfram-Harms]

2 hours ago, Hauksbee said:

I guess the Peshka is a bit more prickly than I thought.

 

Yes. Pricks EVERYwhere, so to say!

[BOO]

The low quality damage decals are annoying but not nearly as annoying as  threads being utterly derailed.

Edited March 13, 2018 by BOO

[Wolfram-Harms]

You are right - let's get back to topic.

[BOO]

There are 4 graphical "mini-mehs" for me . 

 

The Damage decals - Clod does them much better and has, I guess, the files containing the inners structure detail that bos doesn't to allow for them. They aint perfect though and often you can see the square patch of the decal transparency around the larger holes (akin to not using a gloss coat before you decal a plastic model kit)

 

The "Clicking Clouds" -  I do have to actually be focussed on these to really notice but they are annoying. I presume the "click" changes the shape of a cloud to simulate the effects of winds or perhaps just facilitates its movement across the map. Again the Clod clouds are in some ways better but in some ways worse. Whilst they look better they don't exist in a true 3D world and can move around your aircraft as you move your head. Limited flying in DCS gives me the impression that their clouds are the best compromise of the 3 combat sim main players but I could be wrong. 

 

Flames from inside the aircraft - as with the clouds they "Click" and do not look realistic. 

 

Turntable Tress - the spooky effect of the trees turning with your flyby if you look at them.

 

ALL THE ABOVE SAID - none of them truly affect my enjoyment of the game 95% of the time. The clouds and tress I can ignore most of the time, and the flames are never around long enough before the screen goes black. Given the huge improvements to the game since late 2016 I have to say that I'm more than happy (nay, astounded) with the progress this small but dedicated Dev team has made especially considering the amount of new content also introduced. 

 

If something, anything could be done to improve those bloody flat black splodges it would be great but, from what I understand this is less about the decals and more about the 3D model's internal details so isn't a quick or practicable fix at this stage. 

 

 

[ShamrockOneFive]

4 hours ago, BOO said:

There are 4 graphical "mini-mehs" for me . 

 

The Damage decals - Clod does them much better and has, I guess, the files containing the inners structure detail that bos doesn't to allow for them. They aint perfect though and often you can see the square patch of the decal transparency around the larger holes (akin to not using a gloss coat before you decal a plastic model kit)

 

The "Clicking Clouds" -  I do have to actually be focussed on these to really notice but they are annoying. I presume the "click" changes the shape of a cloud to simulate the effects of winds or perhaps just facilitates its movement across the map. Again the Clod clouds are in some ways better but in some ways worse. Whilst they look better they don't exist in a true 3D world and can move around your aircraft as you move your head. Limited flying in DCS gives me the impression that their clouds are the best compromise of the 3 combat sim main players but I could be wrong. 

 

Flames from inside the aircraft - as with the clouds they "Click" and do not look realistic. 

 

Turntable Tress - the spooky effect of the trees turning with your flyby if you look at them.

 

ALL THE ABOVE SAID - none of them truly affect my enjoyment of the game 95% of the time. The clouds and tress I can ignore most of the time, and the flames are never around long enough before the screen goes black. Given the huge improvements to the game since late 2016 I have to say that I'm more than happy (nay, astounded) with the progress this small but dedicated Dev team has made especially considering the amount of new content also introduced. 

 

If something, anything could be done to improve those bloody flat black splodges it would be great but, from what I understand this is less about the decals and more about the 3D model's internal details so isn't a quick or practicable fix at this stage. 

 

 

 

IL-2: Great Battles series aircraft also have inner structure modeled but maybe not quite as extreme as Cliffs of Dover aircraft were. I'd love to see a detailed breakdown on that.

 

About the clouds, and I realize this is subjective, but I think IL-2 has the best implementation and not DCS. DCS has blobs floating over the ground and their recent update is only a stopgap until they can bring in better technology (it's on their roadmap). Flying through clouds and fog in DCS is also very unsatisfying and there are weird lines that you see. IL-2 has much greater variety in shape and pattern and flying through the clouds is a more immersive experience. They do click around, I know what you're talking about, presumably to get the shading in relation to the sun right. That aside, IL-2 is ahead of the other combat sims. Even War Thunder does clouds better than DCS right now IMHO. I fully expect all three titles will continue to battle it out but IL-2 has the lead.