Jump to content
SCG_ErwinP

US planes vs D-9 & K4

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

True. I'm tweaking the throttle/RPM all the time but... that's not historic. It's gaming the game mechanic. Also, It can argued that nonstop setting changes increase wear in piston engines.

 

6 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

 

This. We shouldn’t have to be forced to fly at a lower historical setting just to keep our engine running for a while longer.

 

Also, the fact the WEP eats into combat timer is rediculous and shouldn’t happen.

 

Im not sure what the devs were thinking when they decided to have multiple rulsets for different aircraft/nation instead of one rule set to cover them all.

 

I can see in this instance why some claim there is a bias involved, even if unintentional.

I suggest both of you read this thread.

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/8355-обсуждение-dm-моторов-критика-идеи-предложения/

 

Use google chrome to translate, and keep in mind translations aren't perfect. Good things are coming to the sim.

 

I keep telling people to read the russian forum, but apparently that's too much to ask. You know go read words straight from one of the head dev's hands. Again keep in mind translations are not perfect. I won't copy and paste petrovichs posts straight to here as I feel that isn't cool due to the translation errors, but if you want to get a better insight into the sim the russian forum is the place to do it. There's an far more in depth flight model and other models being discussed over there. In the native tongue.

Edited by JonRedcorn
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

I keep telling people to read the russian forum, but apparently that's too much to ask. You know go read words straight from one of the head dev's hands. Again keep in mind translations are not perfect. I won't copy and paste petrovichs posts straight to here as I feel that isn't cool due to the translation errors, but if you want to get a better insight into the sim the russian forum is the place to do it. There's an far more in depth flight model and other models being discussed over there. In the native tongue.

 

You're absolutely right. I make it a point to check over there every other day or so, since, like you said, a lot of good info is posted there by the developers. With Chrome's auto-translate feature, it makes reading the text somewhat easy.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

I keep telling people to read the russian forum, but apparently that's too much to ask. You know go read words straight from one of the head dev's hands. Again keep in mind translations are not perfect. I won't copy and paste petrovichs posts straight to here as I feel that isn't cool due to the translation errors, but if you want to get a better insight into the sim the russian forum is the place to do it. There's an far more in depth flight model and other models being discussed over there. In the native tongue.

 

I scanned that link and... depth or not end results are erroneous. I don't buy the justification that "people would fly to the metal all the time". In fact IRL at times it was exactly what was done especially for P-40s/P-39s in the eastern front. In fact in the game you can "full-bore" on certain planes no problem and it doesn't bother anyone. Why such discrepancy?

 

Pokryshkin, if he can see all this then he must be turning in his grave...

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

 

I scanned that link and... depth or not end results are erroneous. I don't buy the justification that "people would fly to the metal all the time". In fact IRL at times it was exactly what was done especially for P-40s/P-39s in the eastern front. In fact in the game you can "full-bore" on certain planes no problem and it doesn't bother anyone. Why such discrepancy?

 

Pokryshkin, if he can see all this then he must be turning in his grave...

 

Which aircraft can you "full bore" all the time.?  

 

I think you are just repeating hearsay/misunderstandings/simplifications when you say it was done all the time IRL by Soviet pilots in P-40 and P-39 especially the models we have in game. 

 

And yes online 95% of people would use WEP all the time if it was available 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

Edited by Dakpilot
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Which aircraft can you "full bore" all the time.? 

 

The La-5F, the LaGG, Yaks. No timers at all. Only limiting factors are thermals and fuel use. Actually, that's is the major difference between the La-5 and La-5F - the latter doesn't have any timer for the boost.

 

Let me cite from the article:

“If we had flown it [as] the Americans outlined in the aircraft’s specifications, they would have shot us down immediately,” said Golodnikov, a retired major general in the Soviet air force. “This fighter was a dud in its [design] regimes. But we conducted normal combat in ‘our’ regimes.”

 

And from this one:

"The first and second was the result of the lack of power. What we did was simple. First drawback we removed by holding higher RPM. We always flew it with increased RPM. Second: we took (wing-installed) guns off. That was it. Fighter became "on par". It all depended of yourself, the most important thing was not to be lazy, to work more intensive with the throttle. Truth to be told, engines were "burning away" from our unusual settings. They would last up to 50 hours, often shorter. They would usually clock up to 35 hours and then be replaced."

 

Then again - so what if the 95% would WEP all the time? The Yaks, LaGG and La-5F can do boost all the time, the K4 can cycle emergency/combat to a similar effect. Why such disparities?! Mind you that the American planes have to deal with thermals too.

 

There are already players who can and are running full-bore no problem. They are in the majority considering how American fighters are unpopular. So you are right - about 95% not only would be but are flying to the metal. It bothers no one.

 

And what would you say about the "study sim"? They got it all wrong, too? You can run WEP for 20m in the P-51D and I yet have to get any seizure at 60" MP.

Edited by Ehret
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

39 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

I think you are just repeating hearsay/misunderstandings/simplifications when you say it was done all the time IRL by Soviet pilots in P-40 and P-39 especially the models we have in game. 

 

And yes online 95% of people would use WEP all the time if it was available 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

 

Some would definitely game the system. Then some more will game the system. Snowballing until those who want to fly proper historical settings are a tiny minority and utterly frustrated. Welcome to Warthunder.

 

But also you would agree, that with the current system with its variable length doom clocks, we need some better feedback as to what the state of the engine is. Some hint that disaster is about to strike so the observant player is able to counter it. I find it really bothersome that engines can walk into their death without giving any sort of clue about it. One second, full power, no hitch, not sound, no overheat, no oil pressure drop, everything fine. Next second, "first engine damaged" with creeping doom until it conks out. I don't think the real pilots gambled on their life for more plane performance and that is what the current engine modelling is to me, "gamble for more competitiveness". Who chickens out first? Who doesn't chicken out soon enough?

 

Real pilots I would assume (and I would value your feedback at this) constantly monitor their engines for oddities. Strange sounds, oil pressure drops, fuel pressure drops, etc. Something from that line of things could be used to represent the engine state in the game, even if it would mean to "counter an unrealistic system with another unrealistic system".

 

 

 

Share this post


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

Some would definitely game the system. Then some more will game the system. Snowballing until those who want to fly proper historical settings are a tiny minority and utterly frustrated. Welcome to Warthunder.

 

Only way to have a historic settings is to model plane/engine wear and make fuel/maintenance a logistic resource. Otherwise it will be broken more or less.

 

If you have very short time to engage what you do?  Climb, engage and RTB immediately is one tactic (tedious thus unpopular and I had enough). The another is just fly to a nearest fur-ball and try to score a kill(s) before a timer will doom you. The latter tactic is the very definition of air-quaking. Still, in some planes (like La-5F) you don't care - you just fly on power levels and times you wish.

 

For "a gaming a system" we are already doing that... we are using tricks to extend boost times like climbing over critical alt where timers get a huge extension and you can cruise at decent speed in the P-39L that way. Such tactic is not historic - it's just an artifact of game mechanic. In some LW's planes it's common to "game a system" by cycling between combat/emergency modes. One way to extend timers in the P-47D is to turn the water injection on but reduce the MP by 6" so it gets counted as "a combat" mode and load only 6 (or 4) guns to compensate power loss. That's another not historic nonsense.

Edited by Ehret
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allowing full throttle all the time isn’t the solution.

Because full throttle for different aircraft means different things.

But fuel performance should be looked at as it was the primary reason engines went from 1100hp in 1940 to 1600hp in 1945. And the timers should be adjusted based on fuel performance along with total compression ratio. 

It sounds from the Russian forums, that the fuel is being looked at. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Venturi said:

Allowing full throttle all the time isn’t the solution.

 

There is not need for any special solution. It's only game policy choice by Devs whatever reasons are. Full throttle all the time is allowed for the most popular planes, already. Other (and popular, too) planes have such timer regeneration scheme that limits don't apply to them in practice.

 

The real question is: why there is a very specific group of planes which are handicapped in the game so harshly? It's even more curious because the Airacobra in Russian hands was the top scoring western fighter in the WW2.

Edited by Ehret

Share this post


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

 

The La-5F, the LaGG, Yaks. No timers at all. Only limiting factors are thermals and fuel use. Actually, that's is the major difference between the La-5 and La-5F - the latter doesn't have any timer for the boost.

 

Let me cite from the article:

“If we had flown it [as] the Americans outlined in the aircraft’s specifications, they would have shot us down immediately,” said Golodnikov, a retired major general in the Soviet air force. “This fighter was a dud in its [design] regimes. But we conducted normal combat in ‘our’ regimes.”

 

And from this one:

"The first and second was the result of the lack of power. What we did was simple. First drawback we removed by holding higher RPM. We always flew it with increased RPM. Second: we took (wing-installed) guns off. That was it. Fighter became "on par". It all depended of yourself, the most important thing was not to be lazy, to work more intensive with the throttle. Truth to be told, engines were "burning away" from our unusual settings. They would last up to 50 hours, often shorter. They would usually clock up to 35 hours and then be replaced."

 

Then again - so what if the 95% would WEP all the time? The Yaks, LaGG and La-5F can do boost all the time, the K4 can cycle emergency/combat to a similar effect. Why such disparities?! Mind you that the American planes have to deal with thermals too.

 

There are already players who can and are running full-bore no problem. They are in the majority considering how American fighters are unpopular. So you are right - about 95% not only would be but are flying to the metal. It bothers no one.

 

And what would you say about the "study sim"? They got it all wrong, too? You can run WEP for 20m in the P-51D and I yet have to get any seizure at 60" MP.

 

I the article you quote, Golodnikov talks about running higher rpms, if you read the context, he is talking about maintaining a much higher cruise when on patrol so the disadvantages of P-40 are partially countered, by already being in combat speed envelope when enemies are encountered, this is what most people already do in MP because real life considerations are not (needed) to be taken into account. 

 

He also goes on to say in his career that he only once used WEP on P-39... yep one single time! 

 

Yak's etc. using continuous power has been discussed to death with much disinformation/misundersting. How fair is it that other engines get to have higher HP WEP setting for emergencies? Simple, they are different engines, and it is not about fairness. 

 

Using a different sim to justify one's point of view will get you no-where in this case

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The concept of the timers is fine by me, just the implementation is wonky. I've said this several times but there needs to be in-cockpit, not technochat warnings about the state of your engine before it fails completely, or have a damaged state that isn't totally doomed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this topic is about US planes vs. D-9 & K-4. 

 

And US planes doesn't include the P-40 and P-39 here, it also doesn't include any of the Russian planes for obvious reason. A P-47 running full throttle is not comparable to the situation a non-restricted use of full throttle for the P-40 would cause.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Using a different sim to justify one's point of view will get you no-where in this case

 

I asked you and you just refused answering. There is no logical way around that - one sim must be doing it wrong. So, which one would be it? Answer, please.

 

23 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

He also goes on to say in his career that he only once used WEP on P-39... yep one single time!

 

If increasing RPM ceiling was done for the P-40 historically then something doesn't check with the game because here the engine in the Kittyhawk dies easily from over-revs. Also, you should know that increasing RPMs will boost the MP.

For the P-39 case they could modify the MP regulator in such way the WEP was something different and because he used it only once it doesn't mean it'd just blow up after 2 minutes. Probably, because it did not he was able to survive and give the interview later.

 

You also sounds like we should be grateful we have any WEP in the P-39L at all! Really? Why it feels like the Lend-Lease is something... inconvenient?! Why it was included at all, then.

Share this post


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

 

 

Real pilots I would assume (and I would value your feedback at this) constantly monitor their engines for oddities. Strange sounds, oil pressure drops, fuel pressure drops, etc. Something from that line of things could be used to represent the engine state in the game, even if it would mean to "counter an unrealistic system with another unrealistic system".

 

 

 

 

In all aircraft monitoring engine limits was a serious business, in multi crew aircraft we even did trend monitoring, paying careful attention (and keeping records) to spot any changes of engine parameters in all phases of flight, to pick up potential issues before they got critical. Losing an engine and doing a forced landing in most of the places I flew was a one way ticket. 

Generally when an engine failed it did so with little warning and was catastrophic or had to be shut down immediately. I experienced this many times with radials and also early jets. But most of the time (in my experience) if you have a failure in an engine where it is producing 1000+ hp it happens very quickly with little warning, but of course there will be exceptions. 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Well this topic is about US planes vs. D-9 & K-4.

 

All US planes are plagued the same. Actually, it's much, much worse in the BOBP because in earlier battles the P-40/P-39 actually hold some advantages which native Russian planes don't have. You can follow LW's fighters in hard dives for one. In the BOBP all pros are gone with exception of some clearly bugged FMs (like "Thunderspit's flaps") behaviors. High altitude performance doesn't matter because there are no objectives there and seldom any LW's plane flies that high.

 

9 minutes ago, Matt said:

Well this topic is about US planes vs. D-9 & K-4. 

 

And US planes doesn't include the P-40 and P-39 here, it also doesn't include any of the Russian planes for obvious reason. A P-47 running full throttle is not comparable to the situation a non-restricted use of full throttle for the P-40 would cause.

 

Use of the full throttle in the P-40 is a bug. There is no chance the P-40 would be as fast as the P-51 at the same +70" MP but that's exactly what happens thus it's 100% bug. Devs should fix it a long ago and using it as justification for a timer is hilarious.

Share this post


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

Use of the full throttle in the P-40 is a bug. There is no chance the P-40 would be as fast as the P-51 at the same +70" MP but that's exactly what happens thus it's 100% bug. Devs should fix it a long ago and using it as justification for a timer is hilarious.

Again, not sure what the P-40 has to do with the topic, but you can currently reach around 360 mph with ~70 "hg with the P-40 at sea level. The P-51 was tested with that speed with V-1710 with just 56"hg from what i can remember (just writing from memory here). So the P-40 is not faster than the P-51 at equivalent engine power.

 

I have not seen a document with speed with ~70"hg on the P-40 which would prove that the current speed is wrong, if you have something like that, feel free to post it.

 

33 minutes ago, Ehret said:

All US planes are plagued the same. Actually, it's much, much worse in the BOBP because in earlier battles the P-40/P-39 actually hold some advantages which native Russian planes don't have.

Obviously. I can see nothing that would justify the current overly strict engine limits for the US planes (and to lesser degree, the British and German planes aswell) in BoBP and i would definately switch those limits off for BoBP

 

But that's only what i would ask for, getting an option to disable the time limits. What other people, server admins etc. do should be up to them. But i personally would enjoy BoBP a whole lot more without the time limits.

Edited by Matt
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Matt said:

Again, not sure what the P-40 has to do with the topic, but you can currently reach around 360 mph with ~70 "hg with the P-40 at sea level. The P-51 was tested with that speed with V-1710 with just 56"hg from what i can remember (just writing from memory here). So the P-40 is not faster than the P-51 at equivalent engine power.

 

Then better recheck your sources: from here the P-51B (which is somewhat faster than the D) needs 67" to reach 361.5mph at SL; 75" gives 376.5mph at SL. That's close enough.

 

No way the P-40E was that fast at sea level even if had 1800hp engine. Otherwise, we wouldn't ever see the Mustang developed.

From here the later P-40N-1CU it could only run 314mph at SL at 57". To reach the 360mph it would need 1.5x power - to pull 85"! (why it's so - link)

 

Timers should not be used as a way of fixing FMs...

Edited by Ehret

Share this post


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

But that's only what i would ask for, getting an option to disable the time limits. 

my favourite answer to all of these discussions. Can´t go wrong with more options.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

 

Then better recheck your sources: from here the P-51B (which is somewhat faster than the D) needs 67" to reach 361.5mph at SL; 75" gives 376.5mph at SL. That's close enough.

 

 

Not sure you can compare 67" MP from an Allison to a Merlin or any two different engines, I think this misunderstanding is clouding your judgements and concerns.. Things can be much more complex than they seem on first glance

Cheers, Dakpilot 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

Not sure you can compare 67" MP from an Allison to a Merlin or any two different engines, I think this misunderstanding is clouding your judgements and concerns.. Things can be much more complex than they seem on first glance

 

Instead of nitpicking (any difference between V-1710 and V-1650 will not explain how the P-40E could achieve 360mph at SL with 70") please answer my question. That's pretty simple question; nothing complex - what sim has it right? This one or the other?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No sim "has it right", (or will ever likely to be able to, and bring a product to market which A. we could afford and B. run on our equipment.) Different developers do the best they are able. 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

Instead of nitpicking (any difference between V-1710 and V-1650 will not explain how the P-40E could achieve 360mph at SL with 70") please answer my question. That's pretty simple question; nothing complex - what sim has it right? This one or the other?

lol, every single sim can only hope to model these planes to like 10% of their actual real life flight models. The fact that you are expecting 100% accurate and true to life simulation is ridiculous. We can just hope to get it about right. And even then most things aren't even close. DCS isn't close, il2 isn't close, nobody is close. Not even half way close.

 

I am curious what sim you are playing that nails every single aspect of simulation to perfection? What computer it runs on, and how much it costs. 🙄

Edited by JonRedcorn

Share this post


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

Instead of nitpicking

 

The 1650 and 1710 are two completely different engines. That's hardly nitpicking.

 

And yes, 360 is totally reasonable for a P-40E to reach at 70". If I extrapolate my FM, I'm getting to 365, so pretty much the same. Not surprising, giving that the laws of physics are fundamentally the same.

 

If you consider that two different engines are two different engines.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

No sim "has it right", (or will ever likely to be able to, and bring a product to market which A. we could afford and B. run on our equipment.) Different developers do the best they are able.

 

Well... but fair enough.

 

Just now, JonRedcorn said:

lol, every single sim can only hope to model these planes to like 10% of their actual real life flight models. The fact that you are expecting 100% accurate and true to life simulation is ridiculous.

 

20% is better than 10% but it's about something different here. We know that any engine to be accepted it must pass 100-150h test runs and at least 5-7h of hard WEP runs. It's inconceivable that historic planes had engine seizures at rates we have in the game. That, the in game rules wildly differs between some groups of planes doesn't help. Any justification of this is... bad and it's especially hurtful for the BOBP Allied plane-set. If it will continue there will be serious (or already is) throwback. Do you want ratios like 3/1 for blue/red to be the norm in matches? It can go worse, still. There are tricks and workarounds but they stop being a fun after while. (and why?!)

 

And you know what? It's not only thing which doesn't check. There are some serious gunnery issues - if you look at the gun harmonization manual for US planes you will see why. That's serious too because it affects hit-ratios thus inflicts another handicap to certain group of planes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, LukeFF said:

I sometimes wonder where some of you find the time to write such long-winded replies. 🤔

I sometimes wonder why the only thing you seem to do on this forum is harass people who complain about the game. Its really all you do on the other forums I've seen you on. No more than 3 seconds after anyone says anything negative about the state of a game, and LukeFF will be there to make sure you know the supposed error of your ways.

 

I will say this though: if the devs screw up the 150 grade issue, they will hardly be the first ones to do it. I have not ONCE in the last twenty years seen a simulator that had 150 grade available for American planes. 

Edited by Fumes
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, JtD said:

And yes, 360 is totally reasonable for a P-40E to reach at 70". If I extrapolate my FM, I'm getting to 365, so pretty much the same. Not surprising, giving that the laws of physics are fundamentally the same.

 

The best speed for a P-40 with V-1710 at SL I could find (from here and here) is 314mph done at 57" @ 3000rpm in P-40N-1CU. To reach 360mph it would need to pull about 86" and the rest (like rads) had to be up the task. In the game we have the E but still... that's not likely and using a timer to mask problems is ... Perhaps that's why the P-39L got an automatic MP governor when IRL most of Ls didn't have one. Otherwise we could have Cobras running well past 380mph even if briefly...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure people would fly WEP all the time if there were no limitation. And yes, this would be somewhat undesirable , mostly because no one would get the experience of trying to go from cruise to flat-out quickly in some of the more lever-happy cockpits. However, it is profoundly dishonest to throw this truism out there and then argue as if the current timer system is the ONLY possible way to limit WEP usage. It’s not, as anyone who has played more than a few of these games can tell you.

 

Every WWII flight genre game by necessity has some limitation on power settings, every system of limitation is by necessity a compromise on realism. Let’s all accept those two points, okay?

 

Flatly the BoX engine timer  system is the worst option I’ve seen out of a range of compromises. Where is the benefit? No one seriously argues that these engines were likely to actually break if you accidentally left it on WEP for 7 minutes instead of 5 in combat, so “realism” isn’t served by a mechanic that does precisely that. And breaking the engine at the end of a time period might even be acceptable, IF pilots had some practical way to monitor how much “WEP” they had left. They do not, so manageability and consistency for the virpil are also not being served.

 

 Various planes in this game have engine monitoring instruments modeled and many of these are currently half-useless eye candy from the perspective of the player, since the timer mechanism will damage/break your engine with everything sitting in the green arc. It doesn’t  have to be that way. 

 

The game already has temperature and overheat modeling, so power limitations could be built around that. Would it be realistic precisely? Nope, but neither is the current system, and watching a gauge climb towards or fall away from the danger zone is a lot more manageable for the virpil than what we have now. Would people game it to some extent? Yeah, but people game the system already. Presumably the “gaming” of a temperature based system would take the form of running that machine at lower settings in a draggier configuration, which sounds a lot like what the limitations are trying to achieve in the first place. 

 

 

Edited by Rattlesnake
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Rattlesnake said:

Sure people would fly WEP all the time if there were no limitation. And yes, this would be somewhat undesirable , mostly because no one would get the experience of trying to go from cruise to flat-out quickly in some of the more lever-happy cockpits. However, it is profoundly dishonest to throw this truism out there and then argue as if the current timer system is the ONLY possible way to limit WEP usage. It’s not, as anyone who has played more than a few of these games can tell you.

 

Every WWII flight genre game by necessity has some limitation on power settings, every system of limitation is by necessity a compromise on realism. Let’s all accept those two points, okay?

 

Flatly the BoX engine timer  system is the worst option I’ve seen out of a range of compromises. Where is the benefit? No one seriously argues that these engines were likely to actually break if you accidentally left it on WEP for 7 minutes instead of 5 in combat, so “realism” isn’t served by a mechanic that does precisely that. And breaking the engine at the end of a time period might even be acceptable, IF pilots had some practical way to monitor how much “WEP” they had left. They do not, so manageability and consistency for the virpil are also not being served.

 

 Various planes in this game have engine monitoring instruments modeled and many of these are currently half-useless eye candy from the perspective of the player, since the timer mechanism will damage/break your engine with everything sitting in the green arc. It doesn’t  have to be that way. 

 

The game already has temperature and overheat modeling, so power limitations could be built around that. Would it be realistic precisely? Nope, but neither is the current system, and watching a gauge climb towards or fall away from the danger zone is a lot more manageable for the virpil than what we have now. Would people game it to some extent? Yeah, but people game the system already. Presumably the “gaming” of a temperature based system would take the form of running that machine at lower settings in a draggier configuration, which sounds a lot like what the limitations are trying to achieve in the first place. 

 

 

There is messages in techchat that you run out of combat/emergancy/boosted and aftere that message your at risk of braking engine, before that message youll not brake it.

And also there is message that tells you that your fantasy time limit got recharged. BUT this only works for some reson at normal difficlty, its either bug or by designe like that.

Just having this messages visable on any realisam settings would help a lot, as i would then know ok i run out of fantasy time limit and ill go to lover settings, and wait for my fantasy recharg. When it has to be dependent on time then atleast give me that info, as that info is more important to me then what % is my trottle i can see that by looking in cockpit i can not see when my fantasy time limit is recharged or expired because it was not so important in real life and there is no gauges that say here is your fantasy time limit clock, and here is your fantasy recharg clock or sand glass or what not in airplane.

Edited by 77.CountZero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this is going to absolutely break the game even though there's more people playing now then ever and there's like 4 people being major whiners about it. The devs are trying to implement more realistic stuff into the game but it takes time and right now the small team is working hard to bring us bodenplatte. 

 

Give em some time. Stuff doesn't happen overnight in flight simming. 

Share this post


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

There is messages in techchat that you run out of combat/emergancy/boosted and aftere that message your at risk of braking engine, before that message youll not brake it.

And also there is message that tells you that your fantasy time limit got recharged. BUT this only works for some reson at normal difficlty, its either bug or by designe like that.

Just having this messages visable on any realisam settings would help a lot, as i would then know ok i run out of fantasy time limit and ill go to lover settings, and wait for my fantasy recharg. When it has to be dependent on time then atleast give me that info, as that info is more important to me then what % is my trottle i can see that by looking in cockpit i can not see when my fantasy time limit is recharged or expired because it was not so important in real life and there is no gauges that say here is your fantasy time limit clock, and here is your fantasy recharg clock or sand glass or what not in airplane.

A sudden “you’re out of WEP” message is also less than ideal for management. And some players have an aesthetic hangup about using technochat at all. So again, how  about a gauge climbing towards red?

Share this post


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

The game already has temperature and overheat modeling, so power limitations could be built around that. Would it be realistic precisely? Nope, but neither is the current system, and watching a gauge climb towards or fall away from the danger zone is a lot more manageable for the virpil than what we have now. Would people game it to some extent? Yeah, but people game the system already. Presumably the “gaming” of a temperature based system would take the form of running that machine at lower settings in a cooler configuration, which sounds a lot like what the limitations are trying to achieve in the first place.

 

It would be way, way better than we have now.

 

I explained earlier why from my perspective the current timers are bad for planes like the P-39L but will reiterate. For a single 1vs1 it's (usually) enough but after that it reduces your choices greatly. If you are interested in survival then you are forced to extend and RTB just after hitting 50% of emergency left. That's is a short time - it can be just 3-4 merges or so. Otherwise you are flying on a ticking bomb and it feels horribly to lose that way. It's not like you were bested but predestined to lose. There is not much of the combat time left either because the emergency depletes it. Another sad thing is that odds decrease dramatically if you are patrolling over 50km from nearest friendly AF. That's is a nonsense.

 

The P-39s were among best scoring western fighter planes in Russians hands. The P-47D had best survival ratios of any fighter. In the sim to approach anything remotely close to that you have play weird tricks and use not historic and tedious tactics. No wonder why not many are flying them.

Edited by Ehret
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/1/2019 at 12:51 AM, SCG_ErwinP said:

Hello guys!

 

Today I was flying at KOTA on a D9 2900RPM 50% cowl flaps when, at 6K, I saw a MK IX closing in my six, so I pushed throttle foward and enable the boost. All he got was the smell from my engine black smoke lol 

 

So, my question is: will the US planes (P-38, P51, P47) catch me up at this altitude in similar situation?

 

Thank you all!

 

Smells like... Volkswagen TDI!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JonRedcorn said:

So this is going to absolutely break the game even though there's more people playing now then ever and there's like 4 people being major whiners about it. The devs are trying to implement more realistic stuff into the game but it takes time and right now the small team is working hard to bring us bodenplatte. 

 

Give em some time. Stuff doesn't happen overnight in flight simming. 

There’s more than 4 people addressing concerns about the various modeling anomalies in BoBp in this *thread*.

 

From what I’ve seen I’d no longer bet heavily on BoBp being the biggest BoX hit yet. Giving people the opportunity to fly the American planes of fame is an unprecedented opportunity for sales...but not if you saddle said planes with dubious handicaps, while seeming to be as charitable as possible in modeling the planes they have to fight at the same time.

 

 

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Rattlesnake said:

A sudden “you’re out of WEP” message is also less than ideal for management. And some players have an aesthetic hangup about using technochat at all. So again, how  about a gauge climbing towards red?

instaled in all airplanes cockpits ? why then bather making cockpits all historical when youll add 1-2 fantasy gauges, it has to be some hud thing, countdown clock or messages that are visable on all realisam settings are more easy for them to do then to redo all cockpits and add some gauges that didnt exist as there is no real reson to worry about thouse limits in real airplanes.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JonRedcorn said:

So this is going to absolutely break the game even though there's more people playing now then ever and there's like 4 people being major whiners about it. The devs are trying to implement more realistic stuff into the game but it takes time and right now the small team is working hard to bring us bodenplatte.

 

Yes - it's breaking the game - I could fly the unlimited Yak, LaGG or La-5F but I wanted the P-39L. That's why I bought the BoK. I don't understand why one of the best scoring fighter planes in the eastern front can not do things it was supposed to do. To contrast the LaGG considered by Russians to be a flying coffin can do these things. Things like running 500km/h @ SL through whole map where in the P-39L you will be doing about 480km/h. A plane from the BoS offers better average performance than a premier fighter from BoK... In the BOBP 3/5 of the Allied plane-set is going to be like that if the current P-47D is any indication.

 

But you know what? I can stop "whining" no problem. I just don't have nor need to play it anymore. Perhaps the Berloga sometimes where you don't have to worry about RTB.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

V-1710-39/73 at 70 "Hg does 1780 hp at SL according to Allison.

Mustang Mk I with the same engine at 56 "Hg (1470 hp) does 355 mph at SL

 

Also there is a general rule that gets good results on the relation of different powers on the effect of speed

v = v0*(hp1/hp2)^(1/3)

in this case I will take AL.229 which does 305 mph at SL with 42 "Hg. That powersetting produces 1050hp at SL

 

305 * (1780/1050)^(1/3) = 363 mph

 

Edited by =362nd_FS=RoflSeal

Share this post


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

instaled in all airplanes cockpits ? why then bather making cockpits all historical when youll add 1-2 fantasy gauges, it has to be some hud thing, countdown clock or messages that are visable on all realisam settings are more easy for them to do then to redo all cockpits and add some gauges that didnt exist as there is no real reson to worry about thouse limits in real airplanes.

Well the various temp gauges currently  in the Jug are hardly a fantasy instruments, yet currently they are basically useless, serving littkr real function in helping manage your engine because the timer can and does break it with everything sitting on green.

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...