Jump to content
dkoor

So who else is looking forward to P-38 ?

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

Aircrafts like the P-47 were great divers because they were very stable and controllable in dives, even though stick forces incrased. You're not gonna dive any plane lightheartedly if it is prone to go amok at high speeds, no matter how fast it could go in theory. Same is true (even more so) for the Tempest. You can go very, very fast while still being in good control of the aircraft, such that you are both able to take aim as well as you're confident that you can pull out of the dive.

 

In the game we'll be like "oh well, meneuver kill, next time I'll use trim quicker". Plus the aircraft are allways controllable to the point where things come off. In the reall world with those aircraft, you'd be fighting to keep control much, much before "things come off".

 

In sum, I consider most aircraft in this way to benign in very fast dives. That's why it usually comest to a surprise when "things come off". And that clearly gimps the P-47 as much as the P-40 and puts the 109's as well as possibly some of the Russkies on steroids.

 

But that is how flightsims are. No wonder we fly the planes on the trims then. If you allow putting trims on an axis without speed penalty, that is like fly-by-wire at high speeds. You could NEVER do that. Yet it is ACM level 101 for any 109 driver in this sim, making the 109 what it wasn't.

 

The P-47 was not controllable throughout its whole dive envelope. What we see in-game isn't correct to what actually happens.

The P-47 lost nearly all control in a dive at around 0.73 to 0.74 Mach, currently we lose parts at around these speeds or less.

Realistically the P-47 wouldn't lose parts at these speeds or any other speed it could attain unless something goes terribly wrong in the dive or there is some pre existing stress or damage to the airframe.

 

What we should see in game is the P-47 lock up once it hits critical mach (around 0.73-0.74) once it locks up there no real control capability of the airframe, you'll basically have to just ride out the dive and follow the proper procedures to get out of it safely and without plowing into the ground.

 

What we see in game is that it does start to lock up but it losses parts shortly after, which makes it nearly impossible to survive a dive once you hit critical mach due to structural failure.

 

Currently compressibility effects arent modeled all that well imo, things like mach tuck, aileron reversals, etc are nearly non existent in-game. Even the stiffening of the controls isnt that great and trim is usable even in compressibility (which is incorrect).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

What we should see in game is the P-47 lock up once it hits critical mach (around 0.73-0.74) once it locks up there no real control capability of the airframe, you'll basically have to just ride out the dive and follow the proper procedures to get out of it safely and without plowing into the ground.

Trust me, in a real aircraft, things can get interesting before you hit critical Mach. Especially near gound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

 

The P-47 was not controllable throughout its whole dive envelope. What we see in-game isn't correct to what actually happens.

The P-47 lost nearly all control in a dive at around 0.73 to 0.74 Mach, currently we lose parts at around these speeds or less.

Realistically the P-47 wouldn't lose parts at these speeds or any other speed it could attain unless something goes terribly wrong in the dive or there is some pre existing stress or damage to the airframe.

 

What we should see in game is the P-47 lock up once it hits critical mach (around 0.73-0.74) once it locks up there no real control capability of the airframe, you'll basically have to just ride out the dive and follow the proper procedures to get out of it safely and without plowing into the ground.

 

What we see in game is that it does start to lock up but it losses parts shortly after, which makes it nearly impossible to survive a dive once you hit critical mach due to structural failure.

 

Currently compressibility effects arent modeled all that well imo, things like mach tuck, aileron reversals, etc are nearly non existent in-game. Even the stiffening of the controls isnt that great and trim is usable even in compressibility (which is incorrect).

It would be great to see online simulators get rid of the parts shedding paradigm for dive limits and move on to something based on real world aerodynamics. Don't get me wrong, parts will shed above certain speeds but dive limits based upon losing pieces of the aircraft are based upon the weakest link, (usually a door. cover or some other non-structural component) not anything like a wing or stabilizer. Those things come off well past the dive limit and generally because the radial acceleration increases to the actual structural limit.

 

Properly simulated mach effects should be the first consideration in modeling late war aircraft, not an after thought. It seems no one building flight models understands the process.

 

Critical mach is reached (local supersonic airflow), the center of lift moves aft which pitch the aircraft nose down and the shortening of the elevator arm simultaneously reduces its effectiveness. The controls don't really "lock up". They are harder to move at speed and as the center of lift moves aft the same movement of the control surface does less.

 

Aileron reversal is not aileron reversal at all. It is a structural weakness issue that is not related to mach effects. Quite simply, deflecting the aileron physically twists the wing above a certain speed and the wing twist rolls the airplane in the direction opposite the intended roll.

 

The P-38 certainly suffered from mach effects, primarily because of its tremendous acceleration in a dive and relatively low critical mach number. It didn't come apart at mach .68 or even at mach .8. It came apart when the aircraft decelerated enough at low altitude for the elevator to regain effectiveness and the resultant extremely high G load ripped the tail off the aircraft. If the aircraft never slowed enough to regain elevator effectiveness, it drilled a smoking hole. This would generally hold true for any late war fighter from any country capable of terminal dives above Mach .7

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RedKestrel said:

Makes me wonder why people talk about using the flaps on the Yak or the P-47 as being an exploit, but will talk about using stab trim on a 109 to tighten a turn when the elevator locks up as just standard, normal flight behaviour.

Must be a reason, but I can't think of it.

Using trim for "basic maneuvering" is something all aircraft benefit from, just cause from control setup as we have them with the HOTAS. It is just that with some aircraft, using the trim as control device has larger impact than others.

 

And this has nothing to do with the ability to do weird things at low speed with most aircraft, flaps just augmentating that. But this is also a consequnece of game machanics for the 1GCAP. You're basically just gaming the game then when you did as you shouldn't do and wasted all your energy. But is is surely good for interesting fights, but nothing you'd see in real life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/30/2019 at 6:37 AM, Legioneod said:

 

Another option that probably wouldn't be very popular is to give a blanket limit across all aircraft anywhere from 15min, 30min, 1 hour, etc.

The main benefit of this last option is that aircraft wont be unrealistically handicapped due to manual limits and players wont fly maxed out all the time.

From logical standpoint I think it`s simpler to just limit WEP time for 109/190`s since those are the real "offenders" gameplay-wise.

 

While flying any plane I`d want to know that I have a WEP performance slot same as my enemy. So it depends who in what situation uses their`s and comes up as the winner or wastes his chance and falls prey. With this concept even the recharging of WEP would make sence.

 

Right now in sp average sortie duration is 36 mins. Over 13 mins of that I use for combat power glancing at the clock from time to time. While flying the Yak, I keep seeing LW AIs flying on combat power all-the-time.

 

IMO gameplay elements should ensure that all fighter aircraft are able to stay on their adequate performance setting (continuous, combat, emergency) to their counterparts. Not a great way to play when my emergency power is adequate to his combat power, while he can maintain that pretty much without limit.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Mac_Messer said:

 

While flying any plane I`d want to know that I have a WEP performance slot same as my enemy. So it depends who in what situation uses their`s and comes up as the winner or wastes his chance and falls prey. With this concept even the recharging of WEP

 

Sounds like a great game for my little nephew.

 

I happen to like flight sims.

Edited by Gambit21
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Mac_Messer said:

From logical standpoint I think it`s simpler to just limit WEP time for 109/190`s since those are the real "offenders" gameplay-wise.

 

While flying any plane I`d want to know that I have a WEP performance slot same as my enemy. So it depends who in what situation uses their`s and comes up as the winner or wastes his chance and falls prey. With this concept even the recharging of WEP would make sence.

 

Right now in sp average sortie duration is 36 mins. Over 13 mins of that I use for combat power glancing at the clock from time to time. While flying the Yak, I keep seeing LW AIs flying on combat power all-the-time.

 

IMO gameplay elements should ensure that all fighter aircraft are able to stay on their adequate performance setting (continuous, combat, emergency) to their counterparts. Not a great way to play when my emergency power is adequate to his combat power, while he can maintain that pretty much without limit.


Should all planes have the same turn performances too? Same top speeds? Or just nerf what's good in axis and uber what's poor in allied?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

Trust me, in a real aircraft, things can get interesting before you hit critical Mach. Especially near gound.

 

What we see in-game isn't correct is all I'm saying.

 

36 minutes ago, =475FG=DAWGER said:

It would be great to see online simulators get rid of the parts shedding paradigm for dive limits and move on to something based on real world aerodynamics. Don't get me wrong, parts will shed above certain speeds but dive limits based upon losing pieces of the aircraft are based upon the weakest link, (usually a door. cover or some other non-structural component) not anything like a wing or stabilizer. Those things come off well past the dive limit and generally because the radial acceleration increases to the actual structural limit.

 

Properly simulated mach effects should be the first consideration in modeling late war aircraft, not an after thought. It seems no one building flight models understands the process.

 

Critical mach is reached (local supersonic airflow), the center of lift moves aft which pitch the aircraft nose down and the shortening of the elevator arm simultaneously reduces its effectiveness. The controls don't really "lock up". They are harder to move at speed and as the center of lift moves aft the same movement of the control surface does less.

 

Aileron reversal is not aileron reversal at all. It is a structural weakness issue that is not related to mach effects. Quite simply, deflecting the aileron physically twists the wing above a certain speed and the wing twist rolls the airplane in the direction opposite the intended roll.

 

The P-38 certainly suffered from mach effects, primarily because of its tremendous acceleration in a dive and relatively low critical mach number. It didn't come apart at mach .68 or even at mach .8. It came apart when the aircraft decelerated enough at low altitude for the elevator to regain effectiveness and the resultant extremely high G load ripped the tail off the aircraft. If the aircraft never slowed enough to regain elevator effectiveness, it drilled a smoking hole. This would generally hold true for any late war fighter from any country capable of terminal dives above Mach .7

 

 

 

I agree. The P-47s structural limit is well above the possible speeds at which it can dive. (G forces and previous damage considering)

Maximum possible speed was around mach 0.83 well after it's critical mach of 0.73/0.74.

 

I agree about aileron reversals and I should have worded it a bit better. In the P-47 aileron reversal occurred before reaching critical mach, from what I've read it occured around 540 mph. That being said, aileron reversal (in the P-47 at least) is a good indicator that you are approaching your critical mach.

Currently aileron reversal is not modeled at all in game so this indicator is non existent.

 

In regards to controls locking up from all reports I've read once the P-47 hits critical mach the controls are pretty much solid and extremely difficult to move. This basically means that you have to ride the dive out until reaching lower altitude and the aircraft starts to respond. 

 

This doesn't really happen in-game and what we see is the ability to pull and trim out of the dive with little trouble. In the P-47 trim has no effect once you hit compressibility and it only really responds once your aircraft hits denser air.

What this means is you can trim the aircraft in compressibility but nothing will happen (this is opposite of what we see in-game, though we really don't hit compressibility in game before parts fall off) It's only once you hit denser air and the aircraft starts to respond that all the trim input you did shows up and this can lead to over g and structural failure if you aren't careful. This is why it states in the manual not to trim the aircraft much while in a dive and only trim before entering the dive.

Mach tuck is modeled to a very small degree but it's not really noticeable imo and needs some improvement.

 

Compressibility overall needs improvement and loss of structure needs to be in relation to the structural limit and not dive speed.

 

11 minutes ago, Uffz-Prien said:


Should all planes have the same turn performances too? Same top speeds? Or just nerf what's good in axis and uber what's poor in allied?

Absolutely not, but if we're being honest the Axis wouldn't have any advantage in engine time limits if thing were modeled realitically.

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mac_Messer said:

From logical standpoint I think it`s simpler to just limit WEP time for 109/190`s since those are the real "offenders" gameplay-wise.

Even harder limits than 1min and 3 min respectively?

Joking aside, advocating for stricter limits on the basis of balance is a rpute we should never go down. I'm all for getting rid of the mamual timers, they hurt gameplay, but artificially restricting some aircraft even more is definetly not a solution. That's widening out the problem even further.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it be possible to have the Norden bombsight mod, the so-called Drop Snoop. Remove all forward guns and have a bombardier there with the norden, then all the rest of the p38s drop bombs on his que never even seeing the target. 

Would be a cool thing but i guess not so necessary. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Psyrion said:

Even harder limits than 1min and 3 min respectively?

Joking aside, advocating for stricter limits on the basis of balance is a rpute we should never go down. I'm all for getting rid of the mamual timers, they hurt gameplay, but artificially restricting some aircraft even more is definetly not a solution. That's widening out the problem even further.

How would you solve people on one side running entire sorties on combat power, while the other one doesnt even cave CP?

Edit: I dont see any other way than more strict engine timers.

Edited by Leon_Portier
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, Leon_Portier said:

How would you solve people on one side running entire sorties on combat power, while the other one doesnt even cave CP?

Edit: I dont see any other way than more strict engine timers.

 

You can't.

You'll never be able to guarantee they won't run full power. Imo it shouldn't even be a concern if others are pushing their engines more than you, let them do what they want.

 

One thing to remember, if they can run full power then so can you, nothing stopping you from doing the same thing as them if no one has time limits.

Remember even if they run full power or combat power all day, they can only go so fast, and they'll waste alot of fuel in the process.

 

One thing mission makers can do in order to encourage players to use lower power settings, (unless in combat) is to create longer flight times to the front and to mission objectives. This will encourage players to run lower power in order to conserve fuel, you can't fight without fuel, so it's a pretty good reason to run your engine easy.

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Leon_Portier said:

How would you solve people on one side running entire sorties on combat power, while the other one doesnt even cave CP?

Edit: I dont see any other way than more strict engine timers.

 

That's how it is already... 109s/190s combat power is long enough (30m) to last whole sorties. Also, it's quite strong - to match it in the P-39L you need intermediate emergency which lasts 6-7m. The situation of the P-47D is similar and I'm almost certain that the P-51D is going be the same way.

 

You propose more limits to handle problems caused by limits we have now?!

 

If that will stay unchanged or even worsen then I will give up. I'm not masochistic enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if I did say something dumb, its just so unmotivating to fly online when things like engine timers and such are so one sided on specivic planes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@Leon_Portier More or less what Legioneod said. I dont have a problem with players running wep for their whole flight. They'll just fly short sorties and have no fuel. I'd still fly cruise power in cruise, climb in climb, combat in combat and WEP when I need it. Just without that uneasy thought in the back of my head that tells me that I have to be carefull with the engine.

 

Even stricter timers based not even on manuals however would just make things worse imo.

 

And I'm still looking forward to cruising around with that twin engine beauty that is the lightning!

Edited by Psyrion
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody likes the timers, but nothing should be done with balance in mind. This is not a competitive game and on top of that the MP community is much smaller than the SP community, a lot of us prefer immersion to air-quake style game play.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

In all honesty the devs should at least make timers a server option that way players have a choice.

No one ever faulted a developer for giving the player more choice. Restricting choice on the other hand causes a whole lot of problems, just like we see here with engine timers.

Edited by Legioneod
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

Using trim for "basic maneuvering" is something all aircraft benefit from, just cause from control setup as we have them with the HOTAS. It is just that with some aircraft, using the trim as control device has larger impact than others.

 

And this has nothing to do with the ability to do weird things at low speed with most aircraft, flaps just augmentating that. But this is also a consequnece of game machanics for the 1GCAP. You're basically just gaming the game then when you did as you shouldn't do and wasted all your energy. But is is surely good for interesting fights, but nothing you'd see in real life.

 

Trim on a slider is back! I haven’t heard that since the good old unibrow days!  Rayban Jockey lives...

Edited by Jaegermeister

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Legioneod said:

 

You can't.

You'll never be able to guarantee they won't run full power. Imo it shouldn't even be a concern if others are pushing their engines more than you, let them do what they want.

 

One thing to remember, if they can run full power then so can you, nothing stopping you from doing the same thing as them if no one has time limits.

Remember even if they run full power or combat power all day, they can only go so fast, and they'll waste alot of fuel in the process.

 

One thing mission makers can do in order to encourage players to use lower power settings, (unless in combat) is to create longer flight times to the front and to mission objectives. This will encourage players to run lower power in order to conserve fuel, you can't fight without fuel, so it's a pretty good reason to run your engine easy.

 

 

Maybe this is correct.  Fuel would be even more of a concern on the Bodenplatte map because it's larger than any map before it(and would make the fuel capacity of the American aircraft the advantage it was) .

 

 

Now I can't help but really wonder what the effect of total elimination of timers(except for water, etc) would be online.

Edited by 7.GShAP/Silas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, 7.GShAP/Silas said:

 

Now I can't help but really wonder what the effect of total elimination of timers(except for water, etc) would be online.

 

Warthunder style airquake with no historical relevance. But at least everyone could "slam the throttle to the firewall" (I read it in a book/comic and it sounded cool) and not worry about the engine again. 

 

P-40's would be the new uber aircraft and Yak's Laggs etc would be seal clubbed to death. The entire dynamic would change to fantasy performance, only about 2% would worry about the increased fuel consumption. But at least 10 people would be happy for a short time 😉

 

Luckily game developers get to make these decisions

😎😎

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

P-40's would be the new uber aircraft and Yak's Laggs etc would be seal clubbed to death. The entire dynamic would change to fantasy performance, only about 2% would worry about the increased fuel consumption. But at least 10 people would be happy for a short time 😉

 

This is the equivalent of seeing what would happen if you set up a separate Olympics that only accepts roided-up competitors. 😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, 7.GShAP/Silas said:

Now I can't help but really wonder what the effect of total elimination of timers(except for water, etc) would be online.

 

Then check PvP videos from the "study sim". There are no timers at least they are unlike we have here. I could fly 60" as long I had fuel and pulled WEP for 20m with mismanaged engine before it seized. (in the P-51D)

 

In the IL-2 you can check the La-5F - no timer whatsoever; you can run at maximum power as thermals are allowing. The K4 can cycle between emergency/combat and in practice it acts like unlimited. Earlier LW fighters have 30m of strong combat power - often enough for a whole sortie. Yaks? No timers. LaGG? No timers, too.

 

It's the P-40E, the P-39L and the P-47D which have timers and they are short. Soon, this "infamous club" will be joined by the Mustang and the Lighting...

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

 

Warthunder style airquake with no historical relevance. But at least everyone could "slam the throttle to the firewall" (I read it in a book/comic and it sounded cool) and not worry about the engine again. 

 

P-40's would be the new uber aircraft and Yak's Laggs etc would be seal clubbed to death. The entire dynamic would change to fantasy performance, only about 2% would worry about the increased fuel consumption. But at least 10 people would be happy for a short time 😉

 

Luckily game developers get to make these decisions

😎😎

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

 

 

 

 

Fair enough.  You have plenty of experience working on aircraft and their engines in rugged environments, what would you prefer?

Edited by 7.GShAP/Silas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

Warthunder style airquake with no historical relevance. But at least everyone could "slam the throttle to the firewall" (I read it in a book/comic and it sounded cool) and not worry about the engine again.

 

No true. In the WT is gradual degradation of cooling/oil capability if you run engine at full power and marginal thermals for too long.

 

The study sim doesn't use timers, too.

 

edit:

And for the sake of ****** - in no "sacred" manual you will find any warning telling you that an engine will seize with 100% probability (like we have in the game) after a set time interval. At best , you can find that prolonged boost may damage it - maybe even results in seizure but take note - may is not 100%.

Edited by Ehret
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 minutes ago, 7.GShAP/Silas said:

 

 

Fair enough.  You have plenty of experience working on aircraft and their engines in rugged environments, what would you prefer?

 

To wait for the more detailed engine limits and detonation that is being worked on and has been planned for a long time

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The P-40 engine and FM is bugged at full throttle... Even if it pulls +70" then in no way this air-frame would be able to run as fast as the Mustang @ 70". However, it's exactly what happens in the game. The very short timer helps to mask it, thought. Probably that's why the P-39L got automatic MP governor, too. IRL most Ls didn't have it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
42 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

 

Warthunder style airquake with no historical relevance. But at least everyone could "slam the throttle to the firewall" (I read it in a book/comic and it sounded cool) and not worry about the engine again. 

 

P-40's would be the new uber aircraft and Yak's Laggs etc would be seal clubbed to death. The entire dynamic would change to fantasy performance, only about 2% would worry about the increased fuel consumption. But at least 10 people would be happy for a short time 😉

 

Luckily game developers get to make these decisions

😎😎

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

 

 

 

Absolutely nothing will change. Aircraft will be able to run more power for longer but that's it. Maximum performance remains the same and German aircraft remain top dog in the east because that's how it was historically.

 

27 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

 

 

To wait for the more detailed engine limits and detonation that is being worked on and has been planned for a long time

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

 

What happens when that advanced model allows for more time at power than the limits? Because that is exactly what will happen if model correctly and depending on the aircraft.

 

Aircraft like the P-51 and P-47 will be running a lot longer than 5 min if they ever release an accurate detonation model.

 

Let the devs make it a server option at the least, what's the harm in that? Afraid it won't be balanced?

 

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Legioneod said:

What happens when that advanced model allows for more time at power than the limits? Because that is exactly what will happen if model correctly and depending on the aircraft.

 

Aircraft like the P-51 and P-47 will be running a lot longer than 5 min if they ever release an accurate detonation model.

 

 

 

I assume the idea is that timers are a stopgap that would no longer be necessary since the real negative effects of abusing your engine would be represented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jaegermeister said:

 

Trim on a slider is back! I haven’t heard that since the good old unibrow days!  Rayban Jockey lives...

At least they limited how fast you can crank that wheel.

 

In a real aircraft however, you‘re not gonna do much cranking if you are pulling past, say, 3 G. I couldn‘t. (Yes you could. Sure.) In ANY aircraft. As long as I can operate the trim at near blackout turns, people will do silly things in this sim and make aircraft (especially the ones that require trim for good control at high speed) what they are not.

 

So for Bodenplatte, it would be paramount to limit trim use in such a way, else it is really a contest of gimped Allied planes (gimped water injection, gimped engine timers) while you boost Lufties (run all you want at supermax power, fly-by-trim). Offline, it is no issue. Online, that will distort the picture significantly.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, 7.GShAP/Silas said:

 

 

I assume the idea is that timers are a stopgap that would no longer be necessary since the real negative effects of abusing your engine would be represented.

 

Absolutely true, but on the same token you can run higher settings for longer before damage occurs irl. This varies with engine of course and how well the player manages it, but for the most part you'll be able to experience higher settings for longer without fear of damage, especially in aircraft with water (for the most part)

 

The idea that removing timers is somehow less realistic than having them is kinda backwards thinking imo.

 

If the devs don't want to give players an option to turn off timers, then there need to have some improvements across the board. (below is from another post I made)

 

There needs to be rules.

-Aircraft all recharge timers at the same rate (1:1 eems to be the most logical)

-WEP and Combat power shouldn't eat into each others timers.

-WEP should recharge in Combat and lower power settings.

-Combat should only recharge in lower settings not WEP. (No more WEP/COMBAT cycle)

 

-Water injection is a special case and should be considered. With aircraft that have water injection WEP should be allowed for the whole time the aircraft has water (if this was possible in the real aircraft (P-47 as an example). Once water runs out WEP isn't available anymore at the same power if at all, so the short advantage of having WEP longer is short lived due to a finite amount of water.

 

Having these standard rules would go a long way in improving a poor game mechanic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Legioneod

They'd have to look at each plane individually. Those "rules" dont apply for all planes equally.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Psyrion said:

@Legioneod

They'd have to look at each plane individually. Those "rules" dont apply for all planes equally.

 

 

Yes they would, and they should.

The problem we have is that there is no ruleset and it gives some aircraft an advantage while handicapping others.

If all aircraft had the same rules to follow yet different timers to represent the manuals then it will remove any advantage.handicap that aircraft currently have.

The only "advantage" an aircraft should have is it's time at power, and not the fact that it doesn't have to follow the same rules as other aircraft.

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about a time-out at respawn (of varying lengths) to simulate an engine 'overhaul' penalty? Remove the egg-timers but make players wait longer for a new plane according to how long they ran WEP past the official limits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Uffz-Prien said:

How about a time-out at respawn (of varying lengths) to simulate an engine 'overhaul' penalty? Remove the egg-timers but make players wait longer for a new plane according to how long they ran WEP past the official limits.

Sounds horrible to me.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with a respawn time penalty is twofold, really;

 To a lesser extent, it's an annoyance when you're wanting to get back into the fight, although of course it could be argued that's the whole point;

 To a much greater extent, it really punishes new players more than experienced players. MP is not a forgiving environment for new players in any case, but for a new player who just wants to get into the scrap so they can learn what to do, it both punishes them for engine management mistakes in combat (in this case leaving the engine at full emergency power for too long) and delays their re-entry into combat immediately after they inevitably get shot down. 

 

 I'll be straight with you, I've not got any better ideas either, but there's my two penn'orth!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd guess most newbs would be in the non-complex management servers but no, it's not ideal for more reasons than that. Neither are the egg-timers though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dakpilot said:

 

Warthunder style airquake with no historical relevance. But at least everyone could "slam the throttle to the firewall" (I read it in a book/comic and it sounded cool) and not worry about the engine again. 

 

P-40's would be the new uber aircraft and Yak's Laggs etc would be seal clubbed to death. The entire dynamic would change to fantasy performance, only about 2% would worry about the increased fuel consumption. But at least 10 people would be happy for a short time 😉

 

 

You see, here I find problematic the question of manual "ethics" of modelling an virtual aircraft.

 

First off, I don`t fly competitively and I prefer the 109s, so the current plane performance dynamic should suit me just fine.

Second, when entering combat area I set throttle to 73%/82% which is just below emergency power. As you probably know, combat in sp takes about 10-12 mins, the rest is doing waypoints. So in fact I do what you wrote, travel at top power through enemy engagements without risk.

 

Now we know that VVS planes could not go beyond factory specs as 100% throttle for VVS plane is not 100% throttle for LW/US plane.

US planes however could go on combat power for extended time, and have the option to switch to emergency power just like LW planes.

 

We know US planes had a pretty significant engine durability margin compared to manual specs. We know that pilots on average did breach the manual restrictions in combat with good results. So why should virtual pilots not have the same historic option? 

 

In light of that it is quite hard to give US planes` current restrictions a logical justification. And the more USAF people visit the world of Great Battles, the more of them will notice and point out the very same mistake.

 

All I`m saying is just that there are better ways to keep people from flying full throttle most of the time. And with all respect, we can`t just ignore the confines of IL2 being a video game.

 

 

2 hours ago, Psyrion said:

Sounds horrible to me.

It is an idea. Let us hear yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I already wrote down what I think.

Spending my free time waiting for no reason other than even more ariticial game mechanics isnt part of that.

Edited by Psyrion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Dakpilot said:

 

Warthunder style airquake with no historical relevance. But at least everyone could "slam the throttle to the firewall" (I read it in a book/comic and it sounded cool) and not worry about the engine again. 

 

P-40's would be the new uber aircraft and Yak's Laggs etc would be seal clubbed to death. The entire dynamic would change to fantasy performance, only about 2% would worry about the increased fuel consumption. But at least 10 people would be happy for a short time 😉

 

Luckily game developers get to make these decisions

😎😎

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

 

 

It is interesting that you bring up War Thunder.

 

In fact, War Thunder Simulator Battles has modeled engine thermodynamics in a way the actually resembles the real world. It is far from perfect but it works pretty well.

 

I can use the WT P-38 series as an example.

 

There are two modes, automatic engine controls and manual engine controls. In automatic, the mixture, prop, throttle, oil and water radiators are automatically controlled. In WEP, the radiators slam closed and you will quickly hit the overheat conditions. Out of WEP the radiator flaps will modulate in an attempt maintain temperature. There are significant drag penalties with the flaps open.

 

In manual mode, the player can control mixture, prop RPM, throttle, oil and water radiator flap position. Flying in manual provides definite advantages. The developers have stated that for most aircraft, radiator flap positions above about 40% open really don't add much cooling but do add lots of drag. This tracks with real world operation of cooling devices that rely on Bernoulli to create a suction to create airflow through the radiator.

 

The maps are tiny in War Thunder so one can fly around at combat power in some aircraft and some require cruise setting to stay cool. The map matters. Flying in a Battle of the Bulge map requires much less cooling than Sicily.

 

In the P-38's we can fly around Sicily at 40% radiators and combat MP/3000 rpm. In cooler maps, 25% radiator will do. Slam into WEP and the engines begin to heat above normal temperatures. There are basically three stages or temperature ranges.

 

The first range is essentially "Stay in this range for 5 minutes and engine damage will START to occur" , next is the "2 minutes and damage STARTS" and the final range is "you have 1 minute and damage will START to occur". 

 

The temperatures have inertia so trying to ride the timers may still result in a damage causing overheat.

 

Also, the engines seem to have an overheat "memory". Once you get them into the upper temperatures they will quickly reheat even after cooling them back down to normal.

 

Once you damage them, you can halt the damage progress most of the time by backing off the throttle. Get them too hot and the damage will continue to progress and may or may not stop before engine failure.

 

Players are punished for not respecting the limits but not with instantly seizing engines. Sometimes one will seize on the way home at partial power. Sometimes both if you really push them hard trying to live.

 

Aircraft with fluid injection lose WEP as a selectable power level once the tank is empty.

 

Each aircraft has its own particular temperatures and varying rates of thermodynamic inertia so it isn't one size fits all. What works in a P-38 will cause a Spitfire to heat up very quickly. Some aircraft have manual oil and water radiators, others only one or the other and others no manual radiators. 

 

This isn't the perfect system nor has WT correctly modeled all facets of engine operation. Mixture controls are very basic although on the P-38 pulling the mixture, throttle, and propeller back will reduce fuel consumption accordingly and above 17,000 feet you cannot run in full rich. The engine loses power and runs rough.

 

My point is that the "arcade game" has managed to come up with an engine management system that mimics how real world pilots operate without using egg timers.

 

In the real world, run an engine too hot for too long and damage from minor to major will eventually occur based upon the severity of the excursion outside of the limits.

 

It would seem the code is not nearly as complex as we might be led to believe and the reasons for not making it happen in IL2:BOX a bit mysterious.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I think in the short-term, a reasonable solution can be achieved by adjusting the likelihood of engine failure. If i remember correctly, when you exceed the timer, there is a randomness factor which determines when the engine will fail. This factor changes and eventually reaches 100%. Actually to me this seems a perfectly reasonable way to handle engine limits in lieu of proper detonation modeling (which I look forward too). But the devil is in the details, and deciding the randomness factor for different engines is a major grey area. 

 

Basically, I think this system could work fine for US engines, but it would require a pretty extreme reduction in the likely-hood of failure for exceeding the time limits.

 

Edited by Cpt_Cool

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...