Jump to content
dkoor

So who else is looking forward to P-38 ?

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, 7.GShAP/Silas said:

 

 

I've been in combat and our accumulated set of techniques, tactics and maneuvers did not go anywhere, but came to the fore and enabled us to do what we had to do.  Why else spend years and decades building up institutional experience that then takes the form of the training and doctrine that is used by your people?  And this stuff IS documented.

 

None of the American wing commanders or their S3 or whoever wrote "this is how we have had success running our aircraft in combat" and disseminated it to their men or other wings in written form, or sent it back to the United States to be used to bring their training conditions in line with combat conditions?

 

R.S. Johnston was running a P-47D-5 at 72" of manifold pressure in 44, because his mechanic got together with a Republic engineer and jimmied the turbo charger on the plane. It wasn't until about 1945 that that power setting finally got out for the whole fleet.

 

This is not the modern US Air Force, where everything is documented with total custody chain of control over every change that goes out the door. This was a world war, with an air force that had just 10-fold in size. A lot of stuff did not get written down, and when piston engined combat aircraft were obsoleted, there wasn't any point in corralling all of it anyways.

 

The time thing just isn't going to cut it; they need to simulate the engines and how they behave. If they don't, they're going to push one of their biggest untapped markets one to other platforms.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

I've been in combat and our accumulated set of techniques, tactics and maneuvers did not go anywhere, but came to the fore and enabled us to do what we had to do.  Why else spend years and decades building up institutional experience that then takes the form of the training and doctrine that is used by your people?  And this stuff IS documented.

 

Because your training and regulations had sense. Sadly, this is not always case in the history. Pokryshkin almost got court martial because he dared to develop better tactics which were against "institutional doctrines". Lindbergh developed new range extending settings for Lightnings; something which was not in manuals. They could be both squashed by some kind of a bureaucrat but sense prevailed.

 

The nature of air combat gives nothing about exact time figures. If you used 5m WEP and you still have a bandit on your six what you would do? Throttle down and got killed (yourself or your mates) or run WEP long as needed? Engines to get acceptance must past tests of +100h runs and at least several hours at the very high WEP settings, like this. There are more variable in actual plane but still - a sudden seizure after a set time-interval is unlikely.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to expand on how the timers are costing market: do a search on YouTube for people flying US fighters in IL-2. There are a lot from 46 still being generated, but almost all of the P-47 videos are from four months ago when the plane was relased.

 

That is all I could find. Nobody has been recording videos of it since their initial look. That is a kiss of death for your market. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just realized something... Manuals do not tell what must happen when stated limits are exceeded. They only tell that keeping them prolong time between overhauls and reduce odds of complications. They do not state types of complications nor odds of them after extended use of WEP settings. Nothing is written about that.

 

In other words it is not us who have to justify that engines don't seize after a set limit. It's other way around - it is simple as that. The hard seizure we have in the sim are nothing but just an arbitrary game policy. Manuals only say "5m maximum" and that is not the same as "100% odds of seizure just after 5m".

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

I just realized something... Manuals do not tell what must happen when stated limits are exceeded. They only tell that keeping them prolong time between overhauls and reduce odds of complications. They do not state types of complications nor odds of them after extended use of WEP settings. Nothing is written about that.

 

In other words it is not us who have to justify that engines don't seize after a set limit. It's other way around - it is simple as that. The hard seizure we have in the sim are nothing but just an arbitrary game policy. Manuals only say "5m maximum" and that is not the same as "100% odds of seizure just after 5m".

 

Never thought of it that way but you are correct. These engines were tested and tested, if 5 min was the maximum limit then they never would have allowed them to be operated at these levels. When it comes to safety and engine life there has to be a very large margin of error in order to ensure the life of the engine and the pilot behind it.

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I'm sorry to (kind of) OT but I'd like to cite something and it should be my final argument.

From the P-47N manual (it has it worded best) what it says about time limits:

 

"When operating with these settings, you reduce the chance of engine trouble to a minimum. This is not to imply that maximum settings are dangerous. The engine is designed for them and should be familiar with them. However, you should not abuse your engine needlessly or thoughtlessly."

 

Note that it doesn't forbid "abusing your engine" no matter what. It just states that don't do it without a good reason(s). I think preserving mission goals and your (mates) lives are acceptable ones.

Edited by Ehret

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Ehret said:

I'm sorry to (kind of) OT but I'd like to cite something and it should be my final argument.

From the P-47N manual (it has it worded best) what it says about time limits:

 

"When operating with these settings, you reduce the chance of engine trouble to a minimum. This is not to imply that maximum settings are dangerous. The engine is designed for them and should be familiar with them. However, you should not abuse your engine needlessly or thoughtlessly."

 

Note that it doesn't forbid "abusing your engine" no matter what. It just states that don't do it without a good reason(s). I think preserving mission goals and your (mates) lives are acceptable ones.

Please post these up. We need documents to show how bad the current timers are.

Share this post


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

Please post these up. We need documents to show how bad the current timers are.

 

Here's one. You'll notice it says water (used for WEP) is available for about 15 minutes. Water Injection is not needed at combat power so the 15 min it's referring to is at War Emergency Power.

 

Also notice how it says it should be used unhesitantly when needed, the pilot should not be concerned with following time limits.

30476025_P-47WEP.PNG.9dd06cb37cfb8664212828de4ed238e7.PNG

Share this post


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

I'm going to expand on how the timers are costing market: do a search on YouTube for people flying US fighters in IL-2. There are a lot from 46 still being generated, but almost all of the P-47 videos are from four months ago when the plane was relased.

 

That is all I could find. Nobody has been recording videos of it since their initial look. That is a kiss of death for your market. 

It was predictable, before it got to game ppl were saying how it will rull the skys with its high alt performances and so on, but only thing it end up being is hangar airplane for nice skins. What you gona do with 5min limit in high alt battles vs airplanes that are faster and have longer timers, and on top of that your outnumbered, rip usaf and long live raf and vvs 😄 Tempest will save the reds

 

P-38 should be wors of them and only good thing it has going for it why i would use it is clean front view where you can see target under your nouse and aim great and good position of all guns in nouse, ppl liking this airplane should have expectations set extreamly low, as vs bigger numbers of d9s and 1.98 k4s its gona be eat alive online

Edited by 77.CountZero

Share this post


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

Also notice how it says it should be used unhesitantly when needed, the pilot should not be concerned with following time limits.

 

Yup. If the instant seizures after 5m were a thing and somehow such engines were allowed in actual combat then you can bet that manuals would state that explicitly. No such thing . Also, cockpits would have stopwatch-alarms and shortly after that manifold pressure governors would get an automatic throttle-down to guard against engine seizure. Not such things anywhere.

 

If the instant 100% guaranteed seizures after a set time were a thing and no one wrote anything about that in manuals then responsible would be insane or worse...

 

And... (sorry again) why many different types of engines and planes standardized on the same 5m/15m combat/emergency setting? If these were strictly technical then you would expect that R-2800s and V-1650s and V-1710s should have different values, right? It suggests that there were other considerations than technical when these limits were decided.

Edited by Ehret
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree that the engine limitations currently are not my favourite, I would be a very happy camper if they just got rid of the timers all together, fuel consideration alone would be a massive deterant of just "firewalling" it everywhere.

 

For certain boosts I can definately see damage occurring over time but that's between multiple flights adding to the engine wear each time. No chance these engines would blow from too much "combat power". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, -LUCKY-ThanksSkeletor said:

I have to agree that the engine limitations currently are not my favourite, I would be a very happy camper if they just got rid of the timers all together, fuel consideration alone would be a massive deterant of just "firewalling" it everywhere.

 

For certain boosts I can definately see damage occurring over time but that's between multiple flights adding to the engine wear each time. No chance these engines would blow from too much "combat power". 

 

Over a prolonged period of time without maintenance yes there would be failures, but these engines were designed to operate at WEP for a set period of time before overhaul. Usually it was around 5-7 hours at WEP between overhaul.

 

Here's a document showing a 7 1/2 hour WEP test for the R-2800. This test was conducted over a period of time but it does show that the engine can endure long periods of WEP use without damage or maintenance.

 

1386988638_2800WEPTest.thumb.jpg.7ab0f77ab2309f4ebf1c2eef443ccf55.jpg

 

The R-2800 with water injection was capable of running WEP until it ran out of water. The amount of water depends on the WEP setting but at 64" you had enough water for 15 min at WEP no problem.

 

Without water you can't run WEP in the P-47 and water is not for Combat Power use. Currently we have 15 min of Water but can only use 5 min worth of it, in reality we would be able to use the full tank at War Emergency Power without any threat of damage to the engine.

 

EDIT:

Also just to reiterate that 15 min was available and allowed for WAR EMERGENCY POWER and not just for combat power I'll repost this.

Water was not used or needed for combat power.

1126064904_P-47WEP.PNG.c327920c850c5008db9da6519a1db2c6.PNG

Edited by Legioneod
  • Upvote 7

Share this post


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

Over a prolonged period of time without maintenance yes there would be failures, but these engines were designed to operate at WEP for a set period of time before overhaul. Usually it was around 5-7 hours at WEP between overhaul.

 

Yes this is what i was trying to imply, it just makes no sense that these engines would have been approved for combat use if they were so fragile.

 

I feel like this was one of the early decisions back in 2013 when they tried to make the sim like "wt" in a way with unlocks and horrid progression mechanics. I bet its not a simple fix either, otherwise we probably would have seen some change already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, -LUCKY-ThanksSkeletor said:

 

Yes this is what i was trying to imply, it just makes no sense that these engines would have been approved for combat use if they were so fragile.

 

I feel like this was one of the early decisions back in 2013 when they tried to make the sim like "wt" in a way with unlocks and horrid progression mechanics. I bet its not a simple fix either, otherwise we probably would have seen some change already.

 

The way I see it they have four options for dealing with engine timers.

 

Option 1: Just remove the timers altogether. Fuel consumption and longer flights would be enough to stop players from going full throttle all the time.

 

Option 2: Look at each aircraft individually and extend the timers for aircraft that qualify. (15 min WEP for P-47 as an example)

 

Option 3: Give a blanket timer for all aircraft. This option is basically for balance and would give everyone the same limitations when it comes to engine time.

 

Option 4: A complete engine model overhaul with a detonation model, over-revving/overboosting, heat model, improper throttle/rpm damage model, etc. along with the removal of engine timers.

 

Option 4 would be the best option by far but is unlikely to happen anytime soon.

Option 2 is the most likely, but I'd rather they just go with option 1 until a more advanced engine model can be made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

^^  I'll take 1 or 2, please.

 

I don't think the Devs will ever listen to this, which is sad, because Jason frequently asks for reference materials, says that they are a very important part of the time involved to develop these flight models.  Then when they are shown reference materials that prove their engine timer limits are nonsense, they just ignore it.  TF?

 

 So which is it, reference, or no?  At this point, the whole "not enough reference materials for Japanese planes" is starting to sound ridiculous.  If they are going to make a gamey game, just make a game. Just copy the Speeds/Climbrates/etc from Il2:1946 for all I care if you are going to add in nonsense anyways.  

 

If they are going to make more of a simulation that relies on reference materials, don't nerf the USAF and let only the Germans have the more acceptable engines. 

 

So, I did some testing with the timers because I wanted to understand them.  Maybe old information for some of you, maybe it needs it's own thread...

 

I tested the P-47, the D9, and the Mig-3.  In each case, it required twice the time spent at a lower level to "recharge" the same amount from a higher level.  A 2:1 ratio of cooldown, if you will.  So if I fly the P-47 at Wep for 5 minutes, I get the technochat "time exceeded message," then if I fly Combat for 5 minutes, I can fly WEP for another 2.5 minutes before I get the message again.  WEP timer "recharges" at the same rate whether you use Continuous or Combat, and Combat recharges at the same rate when using Cont.  If you fly long enough and manage your engine WEP timer to actually use up 15 minutes of it without damaging the engine, then what happens is that the engine overheats uncontrollably during boost ATA/RPM even with no technochat timer-exceeded message.  However, the water pressure gauge still shows pressure when depleted, so...bug?  Oversight?  So yes, there is a 15 minute tank of water, but there is also the BS 5 minute + (random 1-4 minute) timer until engine damage.  In one of my tests, I flew for 9 minutes at WEP with no engine damage, then it just died.  In another, I got a very minor engine damage at 5:30, but was basically full power until 8 minutes.

 

Main takeaway from this is:  I can punch it to WEP in a climbing turn to stay with a bogey for 20 seconds, go to combat for 40 seconds, and have full WEP timer again.  Is that what a real P-47 pilot had to deal with?  No.  But I needed to see that with my own stopwatch.

 

Here is the important part pertaining to WEP timers: THE K4 IS DIFFERENT.

 

The K4 is not like other planes.  It recharges its WEP timer at a 1:1 ratio, and this is explicitly stated in the in-game Specifications tab for the plane, near the bottom under the additional information.  It explicitly says "you can run MW-50 for 10 minutes, then Combat for 10 minutes, then Mw-50 for 10 minutes."   It is the only plane I am aware of that specifically states the recharge time, and it is superior to all others.   I did some tests, the manual is correct, it is 1:1. 

 

So the sad part here for me is that the devs are clearly able to make different planes have different engine characteristics, but they refuse to listen to historical facts and instead have decided that engine timers are a big part of "game balance."  I really don't like it, and when it turns out to have gimped my favorite of all time, the P-38, I'll likely regret giving them my support.  It's unfortunate, really.

 

Option 2 from Legion, above, is the best and very, very possible to do for just BoBP.  Don't bother with the work for the Ostfront if you don't want to, but I'm tellin ya, American WWII sim enthusiasts will NOT like these nonsense timers.  BoBP is the module where you have the ability to start fresh because you don't have to worry about the VVS planes, just the Luftwaffe, USAF, and RAF. 

 

Here's another way to think of the whole thing...if these guys made a 4th Gen jet sim...would they set a timer on afterburner!?

 

EDIT: Oh yeah, P-38.  I was at the Travis AFB Air Show today, and they did not have a P-38 there.  But the booths with children's toys all had P-38 toys.  Why?  Obviously the P-38 is just one of the best looking warfighters next to the F-14 and F-16. 

 

 

Edited by II./JG1_EmerlistDavjack
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would there be anything wrong with implementing a stop-gap solution for WEP via Realism Options? Options that either enforce 'strict' engine timers, 'lenient' ones that introduce failure at a margin beyond the timer, or no enforcement at all? Considering the devs are very much for accuracy, modeling actual advanced engine physics and detonation then rolling them out throughout the existing product line would be the best, but itseems like a tremendous amount of work - one that might not have a sufficient rate of return. 

 

As far as I know, we don't even have the necessary foundations for advanced engine modeling. At least not one that would make sense. We don't even have random failures in subsystems which could potentially be required to simulate deeper cascading failures in the engine. Not to mention a lack of persistence in engines, the existence of engine parts, and their logistical resupply element throughout a campaign to even simulate the logging of WEP use and the consequence of deterioration. As much as those things would add a lot of character to the machines (I'm certain flying an abused bird would be different), investing retroactively might not make a good deal of sense. Specially if the sim is moving towards the jet age in the near term. 

 

It's the least I could ask for, to be honest. I am also incensed somewhat at these engine timers and would like to have a solution. But I'm surprised this issue has existed for more than half a decade. I have my doubts.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, MarderIV said:

Would there be anything wrong with implementing a stop-gap solution for WEP via Realism Options? Options that either enforce 'strict' engine timers, 'lenient' ones that introduce failure at a margin beyond the timer, or no enforcement at all? Considering the devs are very much for accuracy, modeling actual advanced engine physics and detonation then rolling them out throughout the existing product line would be the best, but itseems like a tremendous amount of work - one that might not have a sufficient rate of return. 

 

 

The problem with that is, who would use anything other than No-Limit online?  That seems to be more like what the community wants, so why have the strict timer? Who WANTS that? 

 

And how lenient can we be?  Maybe change all "5 minute WEP" planes to 20 minutes.  So overuse does matter, but normal combat use is okay. 

 

The main concerns with additive WEP like the MW-50/Water tank should be fuel consumption, although I understand that means less in this game since we are not flying escort missions from Britain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, II./JG1_EmerlistDavjack said:

The problem with that is, who would use anything other than No-Limit online?  That seems to be more like what the community wants, so why have the strict timer? Who WANTS that? 

 

And how lenient can we be?  Maybe change all "5 minute WEP" planes to 20 minutes.  So overuse does matter, but normal combat use is okay. 

 

Leniency could be something like you said, or an extension with a random risk of failure - but really, all I want is an option for accessibility. I get the spirit of this sim. Engines adamantly modeled to 'spec' as per their manuals, but the longer I stay here and fly the planes in question, the more I'm starting to see just how problematic these challenges are. Everything from MP concerns, balancing between certain planes, etcetera. Seems like the problems are endless and no compromises have ever been reached. 

 

Personally I have not set foot online due to high ping (400, that's the Philippines for you); so I won't deign have an opinion on that. I imagine it just opens up the sim to "game balancing" instead of adherence to historical accuracy and that might piss of some folk, I can't say. 

 

All I know is that these American engines really need some more breathing room. And if that could be achieved through further extended realism/accessibility options instead of what I assume are expensive simulator overhauls that take a long time, it might be worth considering. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, II./JG1_EmerlistDavjack said:

The main concerns with additive WEP like the MW-50/Water tank should be fuel consumption, although I understand that means less in this game since we are not flying escort missions from Britain.

 

Fuel loads and consumption rates do matters even here. I can say about the P-39L - if load just 50% fuel you will be able to run full WEP + 100% mixture only for (tested in QMB with unbreakable set) 15m before it's empty. In the P-47D you can take much (much) more but then your performance will be crippled badly and the ADI lasts for 15m anyway. The P-40E can take more fuel than the P-39L but you shouldn't for obvious reasons.

 

In the P-39L I have to fight with thermals too. There is only one good low drag setting (the so called "flush" with water/oil at 60/45) but to keep it I have to run fast. Try few turns in a succession? Overheat. Try step climbs? Overheat. On some summer maps even mixture at 100% and full rads don't help if you got trapped in slow fight. And switching from flush rads is the very last thing you want because performance will tank. Even on winter maps the problem doesn't go away completely.

 

2 hours ago, II./JG1_EmerlistDavjack said:

I don't think the Devs will ever listen to this, which is sad, because Jason frequently asks for reference materials, says that they are a very important part of the time involved to develop these flight models.  Then when they are shown reference materials that prove their engine timer limits are nonsense, they just ignore it.  TF?

 

Well... I have a hypothesis why it's so. Most players aren't in a multi-player but a single-player. The SP content, settings, missions are all (and will be still) made with and around current limitations. Changing them might break stuff and ruin SP balance - it would take a lot of effort to remake everything.

Sad truth is multi-players are minority and we don't have much say. SP can be balanced by mission design thus the problem isn't a big problem for the Devs at all.

Edited by Ehret

Share this post


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

The SP content, settings, missions are all (and will be still) made with and around current limitations. Changing them might break stuff and ruin SP balance - it would take a lot of effort to remake everything.

I can't think of a single reason why getting rid of time limits would have an impact on singleplayer. The AI uses a fixed speed to fly from waypoint to waypoint, the time limits have nothing to do with that.

 

I'm currently SP only and i only fly missions with the unbreakable setting activated and then bail out when i get hit (to pretend that i got damaged). Still more fun than the current time limitations.

 

There should just be an option to deactivate the time limits and that's it. If people think it will ruin MP (especially with the BoBP planeset the current time limits are ruining it more imho), then they should stick to servers with the time limits activated.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I don't wish ill on the dev team, but I kinda hope they get some pushback when Bodenplatte is fully released. They need to realize the engine timers are a detriment to the sim and to future expansions that involve Western Allies.

 

The Allies, especially the American aircraft, are at a significant disadvantage due to engine timers. This handicap didn't exist irl and needs to be removed or extended at the very least in order to get a more realistic representation of aircraft performance.

Edited by Legioneod
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Just use RAF airplanes online and offline you can fly like matt say.

 

Be calm and fly Tempest and Spitfire 9 :)

 

Spitfire 9 will at some point get 25lbs boost so it wil be even better to use, and for tempest there is nothing they can do to mess up that airplane, hispanos are greatin game now, cockpit of P-47D that is great work shows that tempest will have perfect view even back (not like in il-2 1946) and for the rest i dont care mutch on tempest, even if they go for 7 and 9lbs boost it will still be fast, and time limits by manual are unlimited, 1h, and 5min same as Spitfire 9 and thats good enought, and if they go by manual for dive speed it will be fastest prop in dive... Tempest wll be best airplane for online play in this game red will have by all that we can see how things work in game, so it will be ok even in MP, leve P-38, 47 and 51 to ppl who like to torchur them self and fly RAF to realax, i realy dont see how they can just change engine limits we have for so long, manuals show they are correct, so if they get rid of them others would complain and so on, no win for them doing any changes, we just need to adapt, as problem is mostly for MP guys.

Edited by 77.CountZero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, 77.CountZero said:

Just use RAF airplanes online and offline you can fly like matt say.

 

Be calm and fly Tempest and Spitfire 9 :)

 

Spitfire 9 will at some point get 25lbs boost so it wil be even better to use, and for tempest there is nothing they can do to mess up that airplane, hispanos are greatin game now, cockpit of P-47D that is great work shows that tempest will have perfect view even back (not like in il-2 1946) and for the rest i dont care mutch on tempest, even if they go for 7 and 9lbs boost it will still be fast, and time limits by manual are unlimited, 1h, and 5min same as Spitfire 9 and thats good enought, and if they go by manual for dive speed it will be fastest prop in dive... Tempest wll be best airplane for online play in this game red will have by all that we can see how things work in game, so it will be ok even in MP, leve P-38, 47 and 51 to ppl who like to torchur them self and fly RAF to realax, i realy dont see how they can just change engine limits we have for so long, manuals show they are correct, so if they get rid of them others would complain and so on, no win for them doing any changes, we just need to adapt, as problem is mostly for MP guys.

 

No thanks. RAF aint my thing, I'm American so I want to fly American aircraft. It's just a shame that the devs chose such a crap engine model. I guess I'll just have to keep complaining.

 

Alo, engine limits are nowhere near correct or even remotely realistic. You're fooling yourself if you think the engines represent any resemblance of reality.

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

only thing i see that they can change with no big fuss is recharg times, rest i dont expect to, good thing i have no problem playing online with RAF stuff then, oh man when will that Tempest finaly be done that will be great day :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tempest really won't change much online I'm afraid.

 

All that will happen is that the LW players will be up in low earth orbit where the Tempest will be at a disadvantage, just like it is now on the Ost Front.

Share this post


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

The tempest really won't change much online I'm afraid.

 

All that will happen is that the LW players will be up in low earth orbit where the Tempest will be at a disadvantage, just like it is now on the Ost Front.

 

That would be interesting, actually... The current P-47D has a rough but performance parity +23k ft against the K4. You can even squeeze some advantage by using tricks (over-rev is safe up to 3000rpm).

Today no Axis fighters fly +20k ft; they stopped once they realized there is no benefit. Still, how much better the Tempest will be than the K4? The latter is already doing 620km/h @ SL and soon we will have a freaking jet to deal with.

 

Ideally Allies could work like that: P-47Ds/P-38Ls take ordnance and climb some. P-51Ds are escorting them and Tempests/Spits wait lower to finish off pushed down bandits. It would need some serious teamwork, thought... that is not going happen. :(

Edited by Ehret

Share this post


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

The tempest really won't change much online I'm afraid.

 

All that will happen is that the LW players will be up in low earth orbit where the Tempest will be at a disadvantage, just like it is now on the Ost Front.

Im playing with lagg3 online and most of time i spend on 6km+ alts up to 8km, im 100kmh+ slower then any axis airplane up there, having tempest that is only 20-30kmh slower up high but 20kmh faster low, that has good dive, good view and great guns like lagg3 has is for me upgrade and like i have advantage on any enemy prop i never had till then.

So i belive tempest will be more dangerous then lagg3 is now for axis with its game frendly abilitys and one strong punch. I see in tempest what i have in lagg3 just on steroids :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, 77.CountZero said:

having tempest that is only 20-30kmh slower up high but 20kmh faster low, that has good dive, good view and great guns like lagg3 has is for me upgrade and like i have advantage on any enemy prop i never had till then.

 

"20kmh faster low" - from where it is? What I could find is about 620km/h @ SL. That's the same as the K4 in the game.

For diving performance... just look at what the Thunderbolt got.

Share this post


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

 

"20kmh faster low" - from where it is?

What I could find is about 620km/h @ SL. That's the same as the K4 in the game.

For diving performance... just look at what the Thunderbolt got.

 

Our ingame K-4 is a bit too fast at sea level, it does 620 km/h when it should be doing ~605-610 km/h at 1.98 ata. IIRC Tempest at +11 is around 625-630.

 

That being said, the ingame K-4 is a bit too slow at high alts by a similar margin. While this kinda screws the Tempest at the same time it benefits a P-51 or Spit Mk XIV at high alt. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

That being said, the ingame K-4 is a bit too slow at high alts by a similar margin. While this kinda screws the Tempest at the same time it benefits a P-51 or Spit Mk XIV at high alt. 

 

Well, thanks for info. I see the problem more clearly, now.

 

There is no benefit for P-51s/P-38s/Jugs/Spits at all if no enemies fly that high. It only benefits the LW because all missions objectives are on the ground.

Share this post


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

 

Well, thanks for info. I see the problem more clearly, now.

 

There is no benefit for P-51s/P-38s/Jugs/Spits at all if no enemies fly that high. It only benefits the LW because all missions objectives are on the ground.

Now when you see the light take Tempest for the win 😄

 

lets just hope they dont get RP-3 rockets or bombs so GA guys dont take them, they can fly other 4 and leve Tempest for fighters :)

1 hour ago, Ehret said:

 

"20kmh faster low" - from where it is? What I could find is about 620km/h @ SL. That's the same as the K4 in the game.

For diving performance... just look at what the Thunderbolt got.

yes but for tunderbolt they used usaf manuals, even raf manual for tunderbolt say it can dive 20mph faster, and for tempest they should use raf manual and then it will have faster dive speed (10kft 540mph =870kmh+ 100kmh all airplanes get its 970kmh, even if they give it only 50kmh + its faster then any in game ) :) RAF push harder so its great for game then

Edited by 77.CountZero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, 77.CountZero said:

Now when you see the light take Tempest for the win 😄

 

Thanks but no. Getting run-down by 262s and then gang-banged by a horde of K4s is not in my definition of a "win". I will just change a hobby or something.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

 

Thanks but no. Getting run-down by 262s and then gang-banged by a horde of K4s is not in my definition of a "win". I will just change a hobby or something.

Well theres that option also, but you can just wait for next PTO dlc and all thouse german lovers will abondon axis side like a tornado and you can fly F4F3 F6F3 F4U and so on with usaf engine limits but on outnumbered side with number advantage for change vs outnumbered and slow Oscars, Zeros and Tonys :) PTO for the win then :)

Edited by 77.CountZero
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Legioneod said:

I don't wish ill on the dev team, but I kinda hope they get some pushback when Bodenplatte is fully released. They need to realize the engine timers are a detriment to the sim and to future expansions that involve Western Allies.

 

This is the pushback, though. 

 

This is the carefully-worded, measured and considered pushback from people who don’t want to see the game fail, but are concerned about this particular serious issue which is holding the whole series back. 

If the devs were switched on they’d see this as honest feedback and act on it, especially as we’re still in early access. 

 

If if it gets left until after a final release then it’ll be too late; there will be a proper bit of pushback against it and that’ll result in negative coverage and lost sales, and then the people who don’t want any European theatres will claim it’s because the setting is unpopular and the series will be stuck in the east until it dies from inertia. 

 

I had had a brief skim of youtube and you’re right, most of the P-47 content isn’t recent.

As for P-39... you seldom see people flying the Airacobra online and the only time it gets discussed on here is in the context of engine timers.

Remember the pages and pages of enthusiastic discussion before it was released, and how eagerly anticipated it was?

 

Hopefully this gets some attention before the serious pushback happens. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

This is the pushback, though. 

 

This is the carefully-worded, measured and considered pushback from people who don’t want to see the game fail, but are concerned about this particular serious issue which is holding the whole series back. 

If the devs were switched on they’d see this as honest feedback and act on it, especially as we’re still in early access. 

 

If if it gets left until after a final release then it’ll be too late; there will be a proper bit of pushback against it and that’ll result in negative coverage and lost sales, and then the people who don’t want any European theatres will claim it’s because the setting is unpopular and the series will be stuck in the east until it dies from inertia. 

 

I had had a brief skim of youtube and you’re right, most of the P-47 content isn’t recent.

As for P-39... you seldom see people flying the Airacobra online and the only time it gets discussed on here is in the context of engine timers.

Remember the pages and pages of enthusiastic discussion before it was released, and how eagerly anticipated it was?

 

Hopefully this gets some attention before the serious pushback happens. 

Let's also remember none of the bodenplatte planes have anywhere to fly that's historical in singleplayer besides quick missions and user made campaigns, and even more so on the multiplayer end where you get to fly one of these planes rarely. I'll hold me complete judgement till the entire package is delivered. Regardless I still think the things going to be a hit. The planes are very popular, the setting is as well. I'd also like to post some stuff petrovichs stated on the russian forum, but it would be translated and I am not sure that's the right thing to do without his permission.

 

Also let's not forget there are a lot of people playing this game that just don't post here, or anywhere else for that matter. We are a vocal minority in my opinion.

Edited by JonRedcorn
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, 77.CountZero said:

Now when you see the light take Tempest for the win 😄

 

lets just hope they dont get RP-3 rockets or bombs so GA guys dont take them, they can fly other 4 and leve Tempest for fighters :)

yes but for tunderbolt they used usaf manuals, even raf manual for tunderbolt say it can dive 20mph faster, and for tempest they should use raf manual and then it will have faster dive speed (10kft 540mph =870kmh+ 100kmh all airplanes get its 970kmh, even if they give it only 50kmh + its faster then any in game ) :) RAF push harder so its great for game then

 

Dive speeds aren't correct in this game. Each aircraft has a maximum speed it can possibly go yet it's impossible to get there in-game.

 

Also, whats more important is dive acceleration and not maximum speed in a dive.

The Spitfire has one of the fastest possible dive speeds yet it was never considered a good diver, the reason for this is that it took a long time for it to reach high speeds in a dive. 

 

Aircraft like the P-47 were known as great divers due to their acceleration in a dive and the very short time it took to reach high speeds in a dive. P-47 max dive aint nothing to laugh at either at around Mach 0.83 (around 630 mph / 1013 kmh).

 

Tempest should be a great diver as well but I can guarantee it will be limited by game mechanics instead of being able to reach it's maximum speeds.

 

Sidenote: When I refer to maximum mach I do not mean the speed at which the aircraft becomes basically uncontrollable but the maximum possible speed attainable in a dive. Critical mach is quite a bit lower on most aircraft including the P-47.

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


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

 

Dive speeds aren't correct in this game. Each aircraft has a maximum speed it can possibly go yet it's impossible to get there in-game.

 

Also, whats more important is dive acceleration and not maximum speed in a dive.

The Spitfire has one of the fastest possible dive speeds yet it was never considered a good diver, the reason for this is that it took a long time for it to reach high speeds in a dive. 

 

Aircraft like the P-47 were known as great divers due to their acceleration in a dive and the very short time it took to reach high speeds in a dive. P-47 max dive aint nothing to laugh at either at around Mach 0.83 (around 630 mph / 1013 kmh).

 

Tempest should be a great diver as well but I can guarantee it will be limited by game mechanics instead of being able to reach it's maximum speeds.

 

Sidenote: When I refer to maximum mach I do not mean the speed at which the aircraft becomes basically uncontrollable but the maximum possible speed attainable in a dive. Critical mach is quite a bit lower on most aircraft including the P-47.

The way i understand how they get to speed at witch any airplane will lose its parts is they look at what manual say, for P-47d that was 500mph and add 100kmh to it, so then you have in game P-47D 800+100=900kmh losing parts, so by game logic tempest will be just fine as british pilot manual say it can do 540mph :) so by game logic thats 100+ = 970kmh , i just look how game do it, so that way its logical that P-47 fells apart and tempest should not in game, what happends in real realy dosent mather mutch in game its just how game looks at thouse numbers is what mathers when i play game 😄

Edited by 77.CountZero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, 77.CountZero said:

The way i understand how they get to speed at witch any airplane will lose its parts is they look at what manual say, for P-47d that was 500mph and add 100kmh to it, so then you have in game P-47D 800+100=900kmh losing parts, so by game logic tempest will be just fine as british pilot manual say it can do 540mph :) so by game logic thats 100+ = 970kmh , i just look how game do it, so that way its logical that P-47 fells apart and tempest should not in game, what happends in real realy dosent mather mutch in game its just how game looks at thouse numbers is what mathers when i play game 😄

 

For a game that totes realism it's not very realistic. To be fair many other sims don't get dives correct either, including DCS.

 

Hopefully they'll look into adding a more realistic model for dives, and model correct structural durability of each aircraft in the dive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Legioneod said:

Aircraft like the P-47 were known as great divers due to their acceleration in a dive and the very short time it took to reach high speeds in a dive.

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.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 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.

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.

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...