New mechanics solutions for Bodenplatte aircrafts.

[303_Bies]

Reading some forum's topics i have realized many aircrafts from Bodenplatte will require lot of work, many of them will require new mechanics to simulate their unique features. 

 

P-47: turbo supercharger
Fw-190D-9: constant air flow control system
P-38: two engines with turbo superchargers and opposed torque
Me-262: jet engines and swept wings

 

Add to that fuel tanks management (changes in the center of gravity) and near mach physics annouced by Jason.

 

I would certenly prefer to wait longer for finished product which will include unique features of planes.

 

cheers and have a nice day?

[EAF19_Marsh]

Dunno about 1 - 3,  as they do not differ much from what we have, but 4 looks like the most work.

[klebor]

16 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

Dunno about 1 - 3,  as they do not differ much from what we have

I wouldn't say so?

Properly working turbocharger could be complicated to recreate in the game.

Just look at the size of turbo inside of huge Thunderbolt's fuselage. Read how it worked, what limitations it had etc.

 

Consider the developers reffered to game engine limitations in case of lack of ability to select different fuel tanks to just see the level of fuel. So.

 

But i'm optimistic. If they manage to create airplanes close to DCS, BoBodenplatte will be a sensational game.

Edited June 5, 2018 by sereme1

[RedKestrel]

20 minutes ago, bies said:

Reading some forum's topics i have realized many aircrafts from Bodenplatte will require lot of work, many of them will require new mechanics to simulate their unique features. 

 

P-47: turbo supercharger
Fw-190D-9: constant air flow control system
P-38: two engines with turbo superchargers and opposed torque
Me-262: jet engines and swept wings

 

Add to that fuel tanks management (changes in the center of gravity) and near mach physics annouced by Jason.

 

I would certenly prefer to wait longer for finished product which will include unique features of planes.

 

cheers and have a nice day?

 

8 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

Dunno about 1 - 3,  as they do not differ much from what we have, but 4 looks like the most work.

The way the turbocharger works in the P-47 is quite a bit different than the superchargers we have, as there are situations where you have to directly control the turbo lever to obtain proper turbocharger RPM (or to avoid overspeeding the turbocharger). From the manual it looks like in most cases the throttle and turbo were interlinked, but at high altitudes and WEP at least pilots had to adjust the turbo separately or risk overspeeding. 

They may end up just modeling the turbocharger as automatic/interlinked (and 90% of the time it would work as designed), but I hope they model those edge scenarios.

 I expect the P-47, P-38 and Me-262 to be the last planes we see because of the complexity.
That said I think the real hard stuff is going to be the jet engines and the mach physics, and the fuel management.

[Ehret]

26 minutes ago, bies said:

Reading some forum's topics i have realized many aircrafts from Bodenplatte will require lot of work, many of them will require new mechanics to simulate their unique features. 

 

P-47: turbo supercharger
Fw-190D-9: constant air flow control system
P-38: two engines with turbo superchargers and opposed torque
Me-262: jet engines and swept wings

 

There is more:

 

Tempest: laminar wings

P-51: laminar wings plus the ram-jet-radiator (the Meredith "effect")

[RedKestrel]

Just now, Ehret said:

 

There is more:

 

Tempest: laminar wings

P-51: laminar wings plus the ram-jet-radiator (the Meredith "effect")

TBH I'd forgotten about the laminar flow airfoil on the Tempest. 

[303_Bies]

5 minutes ago, Ehret said:

Tempest: laminar wings

P-51: laminar wings plus the ram-jet-radiator (the Meredith "effect")

Yes. It won't be just copy-paste -> new 3D model -> fine tuning performance.

It will require more work to replicate real counterparts.

[[APAF]VR_Spartan85]

Devs reading this forum....

’hmm, let’s see now....mmmm Bodenplatte a lot of work.....new mechanics....190 swept wing.... jug super turbo.....some chick named Meredith....laminar flow... over speeding....... model as dcs.... throttles linked...using rain refraction to rid of ‘the bar’.....

 

yup...didn’t really think this through... let’s hold off on this...’

 

 

lol I’m actually interested in what magic they will pull off in order to get it just right for us.   There’s a lot of technology that’s going into this expansion and I’m pumped to hear on updates and progress... maybe we’ll get some new weather systems as well!!??

[RedKestrel]

8 minutes ago, spartan85 said:

Devs reading this forum....

’hmm, let’s see now....mmmm Bodenplatte a lot of work.....new mechanics....190 swept wing.... jug super turbo.....some chick named Meredith....laminar flow... over speeding....... model as dcs.... throttles linked...using rain refraction to rid of ‘the bar’.....

 

yup...didn’t really think this through... let’s hold off on this...’

 

 

lol I’m actually interested in what magic they will pull off in order to get it just right for us.   There’s a lot of technology that’s going into this expansion and I’m pumped to hear on updates and progress... maybe we’ll get some new weather systems as well!!??

Oh, I'm sure they've thought all this through. But at this point all we can do is speculate and hope. Given the fidelity of how they modeled the gyro gunsight, I'm pretty confident they can bring new stuff into the game smoothly.

I'm trying not to get too hung up on how *I* expect things to go. In my experience that's a recipe for disaster. I've seen a lot of people just straight up hate perfectly good or even great games, movies or books because they had built up an entire universe of expectation in their minds. I'm really trying not to do this with Battle of Bodenplatte...but I'm a lot more emotionally invested in the P-47 than the planes they've done before so its a struggle!

[EAF19_Marsh]

The turbo essentially can modeled in a way not dissimilar to a super, the new wings are an evolution of the model that has been adapted for the different wings of most aircraft already present. Tempest and P-51 require work, but not sure an entirely new model effort.

 

Of course they require extra work, but not sure if that would extend to an effort totally new to the game, compared to a turbojet and the effect of high sub-Mach numbers

[RedKestrel]

1 minute ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

The turbo essentially can modeled in a way not dissimilar to a super, the new wings are an evolution of the model that has been adapted for the different wings of most aircraft already present. Tempest and P-51 require work, but not sure an entirely new model effort.

 

Of course they require extra work, but not sure if that would extend to an effort totally new to the game, compared to a turbojet and the effect of high sub-Mach numbers

Well, the turbo doesn't have stages or levels like a regular supercharger...its a separate unit with a separate lever that controls the turbo RPM, so you can't just got to stage 2 or whatever. The P-47 has a conventional supercharger (single speed, I believe) built into the engine, and a turbocharger. One of the reasons for the Jug's huge size. 

Honestly the modeling wouldn't be too crazy in-cockpit, just do it the same way as controlling prop pitch, either on an axis or with a button to increase/decrease turbo RPM. If they're not going to model it to a different axis or lever it makes more sense to just have it permanently interlinked to the throttle than to have buttons to go to 'stage 2' for the turbo, which wouldn't make sense at all.  In Il-2 1946 the turbocharger wasn't controllable by the player at all, it was completely automatic. 

its going to be how they model it in the engine that could be complicated.

[-TBC-AeroAce]

Btw modelling a normal wing is technically harder than a laminar wing from an aerodynamics point of view because in theory you don't have to model turbulence for a laminar wing. Turbulence modeling is one of the hardest things to calculate. 

[Legioneod]

2 hours ago, RedKestrel said:

I'm trying not to get too hung up on how *I* expect things to go. In my experience that's a recipe for disaster. I've seen a lot of people just straight up hate perfectly good or even great games, movies or books because they had built up an entire universe of expectation in their minds. I'm really trying not to do this with Battle of Bodenplatte...but I'm a lot more emotionally invested in the P-47 than the planes they've done before so its a struggle!

I'm the same way, the P-47 is my favorite aircraft of all time and I'm trying not to get too excited because I don't want to set myself up for disappointment.

 

How I hope to see the P-47 represented in-game:

 

Auto and Manual Turbo

 

Accurate engine model (The main thing that worries me)

-Auto and Manual water control

-Accurate power settings, depending on what fuel used the P-47 could reach 70" Hg (some manuals state 72")

-Accurate power times. P-47 had water for around 15 min depending on "Hg used. It had a total WEP rating of around 15min with water.

-WEP with water vs without water, WEP could be used without water but at a lower setting, I'm curious to see if this will be implemented in-game.

-Durability, the R2800 was a very durable engine, it was known for taking hits and even losing multiple cylinders and was able to keep going.

 

Accurate flight model (not really worried about this at all, I'm sure the devs will get it right)

-Good roll. Could roll well for its size, had a peak roll of 80-90 degrees a second(some sources state higher)

-Good dive. Had a really fast dive and redlined around 550mph. Had trouble with controls locking up due to compressibility, dive flaps were added to combat the issue.

-Excellent zoom climb. Could trade speed for altitude very well and will be one of the best (if not the best) zoom climber in-game.

-rather poor turn. Down low the Jug couldn't turn very well at all, above 10-15k ft it could stick with a 190 but it is not a good aircraft to get into a turn fight in.

-Durable airframe. The most distinguishing feature of the Thunderbolt was it's durability, it was know for taking immense damage and still being able to fly home.

 

I know it may seem like I want the Jug to be some Uber aircraft but that's not the case. I just want the P-47 (as well as all other aircraft) to be modeled as accurately as possible. The flight model I think will be done well, the only thing that I think will fall short is the engine model.

 

 

Edited June 5, 2018 by Legioneod

[RedKestrel]

29 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

I'm the same way, the P-47 is my favorite aircraft of all time and I'm trying not to get too excited because I don't want to set myself up for disappointment.

 

How I hope to see the P-47 represented in-game:

 

Auto and Manual Turbo

 

Accurate engine model (The main thing that worries me)

-Auto and Manual water control

-Accurate power settings, depending on what fuel used the P-47 could reach 70" Hg (some manuals state 72")

-Accurate power times. P-47 had water for around 15 min depending on "Hg used. It had a total WEP rating of around 15min with water.

-WEP with water vs without water, WEP could be used without water but at a lower setting, I'm curious to see if this will be implemented in-game.

-Durability, the R2800 was a very durable engine, it was known for taking hits and even losing multiple cylinders and was able to keep going.

 

Accurate flight model (not really worried about this at all, I'm sure the devs will get it right)

-Good roll. Could roll well for its size, had a peak roll of 80-90 degrees a second(some sources state higher)

-Good dive. Had a really fast dive and redlined around 550mph. Had trouble with controls locking up due to compressibility, dive flaps were added to combat the issue.

-Excellent zoom climb. Could trade speed for altitude very well and will be one of the best (if not the best) zoom climber in-game.

-rather poor turn. Down low the Jug couldn't turn very well at all, above 10-15k ft it could stick with a 190 but it is not a good aircraft to get into a turn fight in.

-Durable airframe. The most distinguishing feature of the Thunderbolt was it's durability, it was know for taking immense damage and still being able to fly home.

 

I know it may seem like I want the Jug to be some Uber aircraft but that's not the case. I just want the P-47 (as well as all other aircraft) to be modeled as accurately as possible. The flight model I think will be done well, the only thing that I think will fall short is the engine model.

 

 

About the power settings...I think the highest power setting I've seen in a manual is 64" hg on WEP, (from January 1945). This was on 100/130 fuel however. Got any links to the other manuals? I'd love to have a look at them. 

I think WEP with/without water could be done, in the same way you can go into 'boosted' engine mode in the I-16 just by maxing the RPM, but without pushing the boost button. The 15 min of water thing I've read as well, though I believe the manual also said that 64" hg was limited to 5 minutes...so water injection/WEP could be used up to 3 times to max limit, but probably will need a rest in between.

[EAF19_Marsh]

Quote

Well, the turbo doesn't have stages or levels like a regular supercharger...its a separate unit with a separate lever that controls the turbo RPM, so you can't just got to stage 2 or whatever

 

Sure, I appreciate that the input may be somewhat different but what I meant was that it  remains essentially a compressor, albeit analogue like the early RPM / throttle combinations.

 

Looking forward to it ?

[Legioneod]

20 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

About the power settings...I think the highest power setting I've seen in a manual is 64" hg on WEP, (from January 1945). This was on 100/130 fuel however. Got any links to the other manuals? I'd love to have a look at them. 

I think WEP with/without water could be done, in the same way you can go into 'boosted' engine mode in the I-16 just by maxing the RPM, but without pushing the boost button. The 15 min of water thing I've read as well, though I believe the manual also said that 64" hg was limited to 5 minutes...so water injection/WEP could be used up to 3 times to max limit, but probably will need a rest in between.

http://www.avialogs.com/viewer/avialogs-documentviewer.php?id=4208 P-47 N mauals states max Hg at 72". The P-47 D was cleared for 70" in June-July of 44 when using 150 grade fuel.

 

As for the WEP times my understanding from what I've read is that its for 5 min at a time for a max of around 15min. WEP was also available without water but the chances of failure increased, I believe dry wep was restricted to a lower setting as well.

Edited June 5, 2018 by Legioneod

[RedKestrel]

Just now, Legioneod said:

http://www.avialogs.com/viewer/avialogs-documentviewer.php?id=4208 P-47 N mauals states max Hg at 72". The P-47 D was cleared for 70" in June-July of 44 when using 150 grade fuel.

 

As for the WEP times my understanding from what I've read is that its for 5 min at a time for a max of around 15min. WEP was also available without water but the chances of failure increased.

Thanks, that's very Interesting...the manuals I've looked at only reference 64", and those are dated 1945. Mind you, those are for various D models, including the D-25 which I think is the one we will get. The manuals may very well have not been up to date with what was going on at the front. We're definitely not getting the P-47N though, I think that one only ever made it to the pacific.

So 70" Hg is with 150 grade fuel...and now we're getting back into the endless debate about who had what fuel where, which I don't know enough about to stick my head into. Those threads just make my head go in circles.

One thing I do appreciate is the detailed instructions on how to bail out included in the manuals. I imagine I will be using those extensively!

[Legioneod]

1 minute ago, RedKestrel said:

Thanks, that's very Interesting...the manuals I've looked at only reference 64", and those are dated 1945. Mind you, those are for various D models, including the D-25 which I think is the one we will get. The manuals may very well have not been up to date with what was going on at the front. We're definitely not getting the P-47N though, I think that one only ever made it to the pacific.

So 70" Hg is with 150 grade fuel...and now we're getting back into the endless debate about who had what fuel where, which I don't know enough about to stick my head into. Those threads just make my head go in circles.

One thing I do appreciate is the detailed instructions on how to bail out included in the manuals. I imagine I will be using those extensively!

Yep, manuals shouldnt be the end all be all for modeling engine limits. Manuals are almost always conservative and are for preserving the life of the engine. I can guarantee that the manuals were ignored on many occasions in the heat of combat.

 

It's interesting that the manual only states 64" for the D model. Johnson and Gabreski both stated that they used 70-72" on multiple occasions. It's interesting how what the manual says and what was actually used dont line up with each other.

 

The fuel debate is just annoying and something that shouldnt even be an issue imo. We know that the fuel was used over europe so it should be added.

[Leaf]

I am in no doubt the developers will model all the necessary systems. They have highly qualified engineers in their team; they know what they're doing.

If faith in their capability wasn't enough, there's currently little evidence to suggest they will omit important aspects of an aircraft's characteristics. 

 

On a maybe somewhat cynical side-note, I can already see the P-47 complaints coming, especially in regard to its fabled durability. Someone will get shot down and they will immediately start to complain, justifying themselves with some anecdotal evidence of a P-47 once flying after being hit with 6 30mm shells, or that a P-47 should be able to fly on 7/18 cylinders or whatever. 

 

The problem with anecdotal evidence for durability is that there is so much leeway in terms of interpretation. Heavily-damaged aircraft returning home tended to be an exception, not the rule. Where shells hit is just as important as how many hit, or what shell type it is. It was certainly a very durable aircraft, but I can see a small demographic getting very upset at the fact that their plane is not strong enough, despite the subjectivity of that claim. Aircraft durability is such a complex subject, with so many interacting variables, that I really don't envy the developers when it comes to determining exactly how durable "durable" is.

 

Considering the durability claims and arguments regarding the Yak and 109, I can see this being quite a hot topic. 

 

That being said, the durability of the IL2 has been convincingly (as far as I can tell) modelled, so I'm optimistic that the developers will get things as close as possible to reality.

Edited June 5, 2018 by Leaf

[RedKestrel]

35 minutes ago, Leaf said:

I am in no doubt the developers will model all the necessary systems. They have highly qualified engineers in their team; they know what they're doing.

If faith in their capability wasn't enough, there's currently little evidence to suggest they will omit important aspects of an aircraft's characteristics. 

 

On a maybe somewhat cynical side-note, I can already see the P-47 complaints coming, especially in regard to its fabled durability. Someone will get shot down and they will immediately start to complain, justifying themselves with some anecdotal evidence of a P-47 once flying after being hit with 6 30mm shells, or that a P-47 should be able to fly on 7/18 cylinders or whatever. 

 

The problem with anecdotal evidence for durability is that there is so much leeway in terms of interpretation. Heavily-damaged aircraft returning home tended to be an exception, not the rule. Where shells hit is just as important as how many hit, or what shell type it is. It was certainly a very durable aircraft, but I can see a small demographic getting very upset at the fact that their plane is not strong enough, despite the subjectivity of that claim. Aircraft durability is such a complex subject, with so many interacting variables, that I really don't envy the developers when it comes to determining exactly how durable "durable" is.

 

Considering the durability claims and arguments regarding the Yak and 109, I can see this being quite a hot topic. 

 

That being said, the durability of the IL2 has been convincingly (as far as I can tell) modelled, so I'm optimistic that the developers will get things as close as possible to reality.

I'm not expecting it to be all that durable tbh - certainly not a 'flying tank'. Durability is pretty relative, even beefy aircraft like the P-47 were pretty fragile really, when you compare it to say an armored vehicle. Its still mostly made of duralumin and filled with flammable material. The pilot protection was pretty good though, so I expect it to be pretty good for avoiding pilot kills.

The P-47, being fairly rugged, should hold up better than the average 109, but its pretty obvious that the luftwaffe in general had no problem shooting them down. A 30 mm cannon shell in the engine or one of the wings is going to wreck your day no matter what you're flying. And the durability of the P-47 is somewhat offset by the fact that its going to be the biggest target in the sky (aside from bombers), so it will be easier to land hits. 

Anyway, I'm sure it will be fodder for endless debates. The difference between sim pilots and real pilots is that we can go and complain about being shot down and killed after the fact...USAAF pilots didn't have that luxury, so we have a little bit of survivor bias going on.

[Legioneod]

21 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

I'm not expecting it to be all that durable tbh - certainly not a 'flying tank'. Durability is pretty relative, even beefy aircraft like the P-47 were pretty fragile really, when you compare it to say an armored vehicle. Its still mostly made of duralumin and filled with flammable material. The pilot protection was pretty good though, so I expect it to be pretty good for avoiding pilot kills.

The P-47, being fairly rugged, should hold up better than the average 109, but its pretty obvious that the luftwaffe in general had no problem shooting them down. A 30 mm cannon shell in the engine or one of the wings is going to wreck your day no matter what you're flying. And the durability of the P-47 is somewhat offset by the fact that its going to be the biggest target in the sky (aside from bombers), so it will be easier to land hits. 

Anyway, I'm sure it will be fodder for endless debates. The difference between sim pilots and real pilots is that we can go and complain about being shot down and killed after the fact...USAAF pilots didn't have that luxury, so we have a little bit of survivor bias going on.

 

I'm expecting something akin to the Il2 in regards to durability. I completely agree that it all depends on what and where you hit. The "legendary" durability is the one thing I see most talked about by the pilots who flew these aircraft.

 

On a side note most P-47 combat losses were due to ground fire not enemy aircraft. The 56th for example, lost only around 128 aircraft to combat causes (43 by enemy air and 85 to ground fire) and yet shot down over 600+ aircraft.

Edited June 5, 2018 by Legioneod

[imaca]

On 6/6/2018 at 2:36 AM, AeroAce said:

Btw modelling a normal wing is technically harder than a laminar wing from an aerodynamics point of view because in theory you don't have to model turbulence for a laminar wing. Turbulence modeling is one of the hardest things to calculate. 

Not really, no wing has a perfect laminar flow, the sections used on P51 and Tempest just delay separation until further back on the aerofoil.

[-TBC-AeroAce]

@imaca "in theory"

[Gambit21]

On 6/5/2018 at 1:04 PM, Legioneod said:

 

I'm expecting something akin to the Il2 in regards to durability. I completely agree that it all depends on what and where you hit. The "legendary" durability is the one thing I see most talked about by the pilots who flew these aircraft.

 

On a side note most P-47 combat losses were due to ground fire not enemy aircraft. The 56th for example, lost only around 128 aircraft to combat causes (43 by enemy air and 85 to ground fire) and yet shot down over 600+ aircraft.

 

“Take a picture for your girlfriend standing with a Mustang, come home to her in a Jug”

 

Durability is relative of course.

As far as aircraft went, hard to beat a Jug.

Really, hard to beat it at anything aside from a knife fight on the deck.

[BlitzPig_EL]

I don't see the turbo being any more difficult than the hydraulic coupling of the supercharger on the Bf 109.  It allows the single speed mechanical supercharger to have a variable range of boost, just as the turbosupercharger (what they were originally called) can with it's automatic control.

Edited June 8, 2018 by BlitzPig_EL

[Legioneod]

2 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

“Take a picture for your girlfriend standing with a Mustang, come home to her in a Jug”

 

Durability is relative of course.

As far as aircraft went, hard to beat a Jug.

Really, hard to beat it at anything aside from a knife fight on the deck.

Agreed. As long as the durability is similar to the Il2 or Pe2 I'll be ok with it, I just don't want to see the P-47 have the durability of a Spitfire or 109.

 

Jug is gonna be so fun to fly,  if the enemy dives away you just follow him and if he tries to zoom away well you have a better zoom climb so you can get some shots off while he's running. We're gonna be able to outroll every german aircraft except the 190, a quick reversal could help us get out of some trouble. Just have to remember not to get too when doing fighter sweeps.

 

Just thinking about flying this thing is getting me so excited, I can't wait to see what block we get and what modifications we'll have. Can't wait to get some news on it's progress.

 

2 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

I don't see the turbo being any more difficult than the hydraulic coupling of the supercharger on the Bf 109.  It allows the single speed mechanical supercharger to have a variable range of boost, just as the turbosupercharger (what they were originally called) can with it's automatic control.

 

I just hope they model both the automatic control and manual control of the turbo. I don't want it to be just automatic, I like to do everything myself.

Another thing to worry about with the turbo is overspeed and potentially killing the turbo which is something you don't really worry about in the 109 (I think).

 

Will killing the turbo give an "engine damaged" or will we still be able to operate the engine noramly but at lower power settings the higher we go? Hopefully it's the later as you can still fly without the turbo. Gonna need a new notification when the turbo is damaged since it's separate from the engine.

 

Are they gonna model ductwork damage? If the ductwork is damage the turbo would run at a lower efficiency an maybe wouldn't work much at all (just an assumption, i'd have to read up on it more)

[Quinte]

Talk about setting yourself up for disappointment. The P-47 is certainly not an IL-2, it's not armored the way an IL-2 is at all.

The P-47 has a good zoom climb, but I'm almost sure the tempest, the mustang, the D-9 all zoom climb a lot better, probably can't escape a K-4 either. Same for the dives. Turns... well it doesn't turn that well, does it. And the rate of climb at low altitudes is sub-par.

 

I don't see why you shouldn't expect the P-47 to be the weakest fighter of the bunch, just like the A-8 on the german side.

[Legioneod]

13 minutes ago, Quinte said:

Talk about setting yourself up for disappointment. The P-47 is certainly not an IL-2, it's not armored the way an IL-2 is at all.

The P-47 has a good zoom climb, but I'm almost sure the tempest, the mustang, the D-9 all zoom climb a lot better, probably can't escape a K-4 either. Same for the dives. Turns... well it doesn't turn that well, does it. And the rate of climb at low altitudes is sub-par.

 

I don't see why you shouldn't expect the P-47 to be the weakest fighter of the bunch, just like the A-8 on the german side.

 

German pilots reported the P-47 as having a superior zoom climb. Out of all the aircraft in the bodenplatte lineup the P-47 is indeed the most durable and should be represented that way in-game.

 

The P-47 is a good fighter if you use it's strengths (good dive, good roll, good zoom) It can certainly outdive every German fighter in the lineup except the 262, German pilots even said they couldnt outdive the Jug.

 

Down low the Jug will be on the lower end of things but it is by far one of the best high alt fighters in the lineup, it's also one of the fastest at alt.

Edited June 10, 2018 by Legioneod

[dkoor]

On 6/5/2018 at 1:52 PM, bies said:

Reading some forum's topics i have realized many aircrafts from Bodenplatte will require lot of work, many of them will require new mechanics to simulate their unique features. 

P-38: two engines with turbo superchargers and opposed torque
?

 

Will actually enjoy seeing how Lightning will react with one prop feathered...

 

3 hours ago, Quinte said:

Talk about setting yourself up for disappointment. The P-47 is certainly not an IL-2, it's not armored the way an IL-2 is at all.

The P-47 has a good zoom climb, but I'm almost sure the tempest, the mustang, the D-9 all zoom climb a lot better, probably can't escape a K-4 either. Same for the dives. Turns... well it doesn't turn that well, does it. And the rate of climb at low altitudes is sub-par.

 

I don't see why you shouldn't expect the P-47 to be the weakest fighter of the bunch, just like the A-8 on the german side.

Unfortunately, I can see where you come from, and in the perspective of our game setup, online especially, this may happen to be true.

3 hours ago, Legioneod said:

 

German pilots reported the P-47 as having a superior zoom climb. Out of all the aircraft in the bodenplatte lineup the P-47 is indeed the most durable and should be represented that way in-game.

 

The P-47 is a good fighter if you use it's strengths (good dive, good roll, good zoom) It can certainly outdive every German fighter in the lineup except the 262, German pilots even said they couldnt outdive the Jug.

 

Down low the Jug will be on the lower end of things but it is by far one of the best high alt fighters in the lineup, it's also one of the fastest at alt.

Depending on the type, for the scale that matters most to most guys I actually expect P-47 to be the second worst dogfighter , only topped by Lightning as being the worst (also no.1 on ground moving scale ? ).

Also, I would not really bet on that zoom climb or excellent dive, things that T-Bolt excels at, precisely because things will roll up to 5000m - if that.

 

FW-190A8 also will be the weakest on German side, also dogfighter wise.

Apart from that, it is probably the ultimate bomber killer on par with Me-262 in this regard. Also great for JABO stuff, things that matter to me.

 

As much as I like A2A stuff, I grow to like mud moving even more, so I don't look at fighters the same way I used to, dogfighter scale isn't the one I judge aircraft by anymore...

[Quinte]

49 minutes ago, dkoor said:

Unfortunately, I can see where you come from, and in the perspective of our game setup, online especially, this may happen to be true. 

To be fair, this is not an issue for me. I can certainly picture myself having fun attacking ground targets in the P-47 or the A-8 (which I guess, will get some mods to make it a F or G 190).

And even trying to dogfight things with those two.

 

But those are clearly the underdogs, and by quite the margin, when it comes to A2A. And as we already see people expecting to out zoom stuff, or have Pe-2-like durability, well... as I said, setting up for disappointment.

 

[Legioneod]

2 hours ago, dkoor said:

 

Will actually enjoy seeing how Lightning will react with one prop feathered...

 

Unfortunately, I can see where you come from, and in the perspective of our game setup, online especially, this may happen to be true.

Depending on the type, for the scale that matters most to most guys I actually expect P-47 to be the second worst dogfighter , only topped by Lightning as being the worst (also no.1 on ground moving scale ? ).

Also, I would not really bet on that zoom climb or excellent dive, things that T-Bolt excels at, precisely because things will roll up to 5000m - if that.

 

FW-190A8 also will be the weakest on German side, also dogfighter wise.

Apart from that, it is probably the ultimate bomber killer on par with Me-262 in this regard. Also great for JABO stuff, things that matter to me.

 

As much as I like A2A stuff, I grow to like mud moving even more, so I don't look at fighters the same way I used to, dogfighter scale isn't the one I judge aircraft by anymore...

 

What makes you say it's a weak dogfighter? If by dogfighter you mean turn and burn then you are correct but there is more to dogfighting than just turning.

Above 3000 meters the Jug will do well, it can also handle itself down low but it is at a disadvantage.

 

1 hour ago, Quinte said:

To be fair, this is not an issue for me. I can certainly picture myself having fun attacking ground targets in the P-47 or the A-8 (which I guess, will get some mods to make it a F or G 190).

And even trying to dogfight things with those two.

 

But those are clearly the underdogs, and by quite the margin, when it comes to A2A. And as we already see people expecting to out zoom stuff, or have Pe-2-like durability, well... as I said, setting up for disappointment.

 

 

Same as above, why do you think it's such a poor fighter? It's A2A ratio is rather good, the 56th shot down over 600 aircraft to a loss of only 43 to enemy aircraft.

 

i;m not sure where the myth came from that the P-47 is a poor fighter, if you look at the capabilities of the aircraft you'll see that it is more than a capable fighter and is even superior in some ways.

Edited June 10, 2018 by Legioneod

[dkoor]

I can't speak for others, but bear in mind that I as a rule speak for the game experience.

We can't exactly replicate what happened there and then, therefore game and IRL aren't really comparable.

 

I can only assume what will happen in our BoBP... considering my past IL-2 experiences, without even looking at charts.

 

From roughly 3:30

 

 

 

He surely squeezed that throttle to max, me too, however I have been able to chase him all the way to his base. My 109 was G14 type.

Simply in our common dogfight environment where majority of people dogfight at lower altitudes you can't expect to take historical performance advantages out of 47...

Long story short, Gustav will outturn 47, outaccelerate 47 in everything but steep dives and outclimb it with no probs. Also wouldn't recommend lower altitude energy fight of any kind, especially hang on the prop type, as Gustav is champion of that...

Shallow dive is great way for 47 to clear danger, however for it to happen you gotta have some separation until effect kicks in, else Gustav will negate your faster dive with faster acceleration initially so you wont be able to separate quickly enough.

Edited June 10, 2018 by dkoor

[Legioneod]

10 minutes ago, dkoor said:

I can't speak for others, but bear in mind that I as a rule speak for the game experience.

We can't exactly replicate what happened there and then, therefore game and IRL aren't really comparable.

 

I can only assume what will happen in our BoBP... considering my past IL-2 experiences, without even looking at charts.

 

From roughly 3:30

 

 

 

He surely squeezed that throttle to max, me too, however I have been able to chase him all the way to his base. My 109 was G14 type.

Simply in our common dogfight environment where majority of people dogfight at lower altitudes you can't expect to take historical performance advantages out of 47...

Long story short, Gustav will outturn 47, outaccelerate 47 in everything but steep dives and outclimb it with no probs. Also wouldn't recommend lower altitude energy fight of any kind, especially hang on the prop type, as Gustav is champion of that...

Shallow dive is great way for 47 to clear danger, however for it to happen you gotta have some separation until effect kicks in, else Gustav will negate your faster dive with faster acceleration initially so you wont be able to separate quickly enough.

 

The G-14 and P-47 have pretty similar speeds until they reach higher altitude, the G-14 reaches its top speed at around the same alt as the Jug by which time the Jug is quite a bit faster.

 

The P-47 is indeed slow at acceleration and I have no doubt that almost every other fighter will be much better in this regard. Every other fighter can also outclimb the Jug in a sustained climb but I wouldnt make the mistake of trying to outzoom a P-47.

 

My comparison of the G14 vs P-47 (just based off of quick look at performance charts, nothing in depth)

 

G-14 advantages:

-Sustained climb

-Better Turn

-Better acceleration

-Better energy retention (just an assumption)

 

P-47 advantages

-Faster Dive

-Better Roll

-Faster

-Better zoom climb (from german first hand accounts)

 

This is just a quick little comparison of what I see as the advantages of each aircraft. I don't use 46 as a reference because the flight models now are superior and can't really be compared.

 

If anyone has better charts for the G-14 I'd like to see them so I can make a better comparison. I referenced some charts real quick but I'm not sure how accurate they are.

[MiloMorai]

A P-47 chased a 109 (G-10 iirc) around the slag heaps during Bodenplatte and shot it down.

[GridiroN]

The game uses many shortcuts. Not necessarily a bad thing, but you should not be expecting complex turbocharger physics or anything like that.

 

I don't know why the P38 would be complicated...it will just require a counter-spinning engine to negate torque. Things like the P51's ramjet speedboost effect however, Jason said will not be done (as of time of announcement) so instead of having the ramjet decrease drag when it's working properly, they'll probably just decrease the drag variable of the entire plane. Or we'll just have to accept that the P51 is slower in the sim than it was in real life. Or, ya know...something like that.

 

I mean, almost all the planes in Bodenplatte era had self-sealing tanks. Even some planes in the sim now are supposed to have self-sealing tanks and we just deal with not having that, so it won't be much different. 

Edited June 10, 2018 by GridiroN

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

Counter rotating engines are already ingame, Hs-129 which kinda shows has very good slow speed handling characteristics which I expect on the P-38J as well (power on stall of 65mph IRL)

Edited June 10, 2018 by RoflSeal

[GridiroN]

2 minutes ago, RoflSeal said:

Counter rotating engines are already ingame, Hs-129 which kinda shows has very good slow speed handling characteristics which I expect on the P-38J as well (power on stall of 65mph) IRL

 

Yes, i'm unsure why that is being considered a difficult mechanical hurdle to adding the plane to the sim.

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

I think slow speed manoeuvrability should be one of the things that will catch people out regarding the P-38, it is one of its strengths and does it extremely well, Tommy McGuire, the 2nd highest scoring US ace was known to drop flaps and dogfight with Japanese aircraft, and got him killed eventually when he either forgot or decided not to jettison his drop tanks as he got into a fight with an Oscar.

[Ehret]

58 minutes ago, GridiroN said:

Things like the P51's ramjet speedboost effect however, Jason said will not be done (as of time of announcement) so instead of having the ramjet decrease drag when it's working properly, they'll probably just decrease the drag variable of the entire plane. Or we'll just have to accept that the P51 is slower in the sim than it was in real life. Or, ya know...something like that.

 

To the contrary... modeling the P-51' radiator by lowering the drag variable for the whole plane will strengthen the Mustang in the game. IRL to get the effect Mustang had to fly +450km/h - otherwise the efficiency of the ram-jet was poor. And developers will have to tune the drag to match historic performance graphs.

 

Not that this will make me particularly happy...

 

Edited June 10, 2018 by Ehret

[GridiroN]

8 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

To the contrary... modeling the P-51' radiator by lowering the drag variable for the whole plane will strengthen the Mustang in the game. IRL to get the effect Mustang had to fly +450km/h - otherwise the efficiency of the ram-jet was poor. And developers will have to tune the drag to match historic performance graphs.

 

Not that this will make me particularly happy...

 

 

You misunderstand. I'm saying they'll either make the plane unrealistically less draggy OR they'll ignore the fact entirely and just leave the P51 slower than it was in real life.

 

I imagine they will do as you say, tune the aircraft to match the performance graphs, but as if the radiator had nothing to do with it.