Developer Diary, Part 57

[=FB=VikS]

seems like i was wrong about 3 min change, cause:

here is a page from handbuch on Me-201A-1 (DB601F)
 

 

here is the data from Handbuch on DB601E-G engines

 

 

differences

 

 

tables and data

 

 

 

PS: to Reflected - its about DB601N engine - its used C3 fuel (95 octane).

 

PPS: just in case - here is a page from Bf-110G2 (DB605A)

 

 

 

 

So 2700/1.42 limits will stay as its now, untill there will be any other data about DB601E.

[=FB=VikS]

Will there be a realistic engine model for the final release or do you plan to continue with the time limits?

 

it is realistic now, time limits - comes from real tech manuals and used for engine model failures.

[SR-F_Winger]

Will problems with engine oil overheating or for example performance degradation due to problems with serialproduction that were plaquing production of various planetypes on both sides be taken into account when creating plane performance for this sim? I mean surely its hard to do and i wouldnt have an idea on how to actually do it right. But maybe you devs have some plan here?

Or will every plane simply be modeled according to hard data from handbooks?

[303_Kwiatek]

 

 

So 2700/1.42 limits will stay as its now, untill there will be any other data about DB601E.

 

 

Seemed that DB had always have problem with start and notle  power settings for their engines.  It was often blocked for used and even if it was allowed it had very short time for use.

 

What about 1.3 Ata steig and kamp. power settings?  

 

Im most cases from DB601E engines it was allowed to used for 30 minutes  -  not as it is now for 15 minutes.  Most later engines e.x. 605A also got 30 minutes 1.3 power settings.

 

Longer times for used notle was with using MW 50 - casue of better colling engine and it was possible to used for peroids of 10 minutes.

 

So i what with 1.3 Ata 2500 RPms power limit in BOS?

 

BTW 109 G-2 with DB 605A which also will be in BOS should until late 1943 has  blocked 1.42 Ata but for 1.3 Ata it should be 30 minutes.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Kwiatek

[=FB=VikS]

Will problems with engine oil overheating or for example performance degradation due to problems with serialproduction that were plaquing production of various planetypes on both sides be taken into account when creating plane performance for this sim? I mean surely its hard to do and i wouldnt have an idea on how to actually do it right. But maybe you devs have some plan here?

Or will every plane simply be modeled according to hard data from handbooks?

 

everything works thru engine thermodynamic model

as about serial production differences - we use official German data for German airplanes, and official Russian tests of serial production airplanes (mostly NII VVS) for Russian airplanes.

 

Seemed that DB had always have problem with start and notle  power settings for their engines.  It was often blocked for used and even if it was allowed it had very short time for use.

 

What about 1.3 Ata steig and kamp. power settings?  

 

Im most cases from DB601E engines it was allowed to used for 30 minutes  -  not as it is now for 15 minutes.  Most later engines e.x. 605A also got 30 minutes 1.3 power settings.

 

Longer times for used notle was with using MW 50 - casue of better colling engine and it was possible to used for peroids of 10 minutes.

 

So i what with 1.3 Ata 2500 RPms power limit in BOS?

 

BTW 109 G-2 with DB 605A which also will be in BOS should until late 1943 has  blocked 1.42 Ata but for 1.3 Ata it should be 30 minutes.

its already so for 109F-4 now (2500/1.3 for 30 minutes), and yes - G2 will be modelled with 1.42 restricted (even captured around Stalingrad area G2 in Russian tests - used only 2500/1.3).

[I/JG27_Rollo]

 G2 will be modelled with 1.42 restricted

Well, if you need additional ideas for unlockable modifications to the G2 - being able to remove that restriction (at one's own risk) could be a possibility.

[SR-F_Winger]

Thanks for clearing that up!

[Marauder]

it is realistic now, time limits - comes from real tech manuals and used for engine model failures.

 

Modelling physics is realistic. Modelling tech manuals is not. If you calculate extremely high exhaust valve temperatures that cause pre-ignition and damage the engine after a minute or two in a specific way, it is realistic. If you have if timecounter > 1 minute then randomize engine damage, it is not realistic.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Marauder

[Panzerlang]

Modelling physics is realistic. Modelling tech manuals is not. If you calculate extremely high exhaust valve temperatures that cause pre-ignition and damage the engine after a minute or two in a specific way, it is realistic. If you have if timecounter > 1 minute then randomize engine damage, it is not realistic.

 

Bearing in mind there's only so much the CPU can handle per second across multiple planes. Polling the engine constantly and calculating X amount of complexity, there's a sane ceiling on that.

[=FB=VikS]

Modelling physics is realistic. Modelling tech manuals is not. If you calculate extremely high exhaust valve temperatures that cause pre-ignition and damage the engine after a minute or two in a specific way, it is realistic. If you have if timecounter > 1 minute then randomize engine damage, it is not realistic.

 

manuals used as reference data, as well as airplanes tests used as reference to correct/check airplanes flight dynamics.

[303_Kwiatek]

 

everything works thru engine thermodynamic model

as about serial production differences - we use official German data for German airplanes, and official Russian tests of serial production airplanes (mostly NII VVS) for Russian airplanes.

 

 

its already so for 109F-4 now (2500/1.3 for 30 minutes), and yes - G2 will be modelled with 1.42 restricted (even captured around Stalingrad area G2 in Russian tests - used only 2500/1.3).

 

Nice to know.

 

I hope that your team would not make the same mistakes like 1C with overperformed russian planes.  Most VVS data are fairly too optimistic with performacne of russian planes. And i remember correctly that before 1C used for Il2 game  russian plane  prototypes data not serial production planes.

 

I hope your team dont follow these way.

 

BTW  i think you team made very good job with Yak-1 flight characteritstic  i like the way these plane handling in the air ( stall, turns, aerobatic) and in the ground ( take off and landing). Very immersion and close to flying real plane.  I can't say that about flight characteristic of 109 yet. I know that it was first plane relase to public and the older flight model so i wonder if it would be adjusted to Yak-1 level of realism?

 

I aks here about 109 strange big gyroscopic moment with negative pitch apply  (  with quick push stick) which casue immidetly flick roll  and also about  rudder overdone which casue also similar flick roll with rudder kick. Also slats dont work in realistic way - they are depend of speed not angle of attack function.

 

Yak -1 don't repeat these issues  - no flick roll with negative pitch and rudder kick so it fly more natural and realistic way to me.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Kwiatek

[=FB=VikS]

I aks here about 109 strange big gyroscopic moment with negative pitch apply  (  with quick push stick) which casue immidetly flick roll  and also about  rudder overdone which casue also similar flick roll with rudder kick. Also slats dont work in realistic way - they are depend of speed not angle of attack function.

 

Slats will be corrected a bit later, as about other things - i dunno, but afaik engineers used all available data for 109`s, as well - handling and manevreability tests from NII VVS.

[303_Kwiatek]

Slats will be corrected a bit later, as about other things - i dunno, but afaik engineers used all available data for 109`s, as well - handling and manevreability tests from NII VVS.

 

Good to know about slats.

 

Other things i mentioned with 109 i really doubt there is any info about these things in available data.  I read also many of them and you will not find such information about these.

 

I wonder what could case such different 109 behaviour in pitch movements ( expecially with gyroscopic effect casuing flick roll with negative pitch) and overdone rudder work casuing also similar flick roll   comparing for example to Yak or Lagg3.  All these planes have similar design  (  clasical WW2 fighter desing), similar engine power, prop size and blades.  Actually only 109 behave like it has 1300 HP rotary engine in front not  inline engine.  Also rudder should work in similar way  - with full rudder downspiral with slowy roll  ( not flick roll ).

 

Yak-1 behave much more realistic here. Lagg3 hard to say actually casue lack of trimm yet.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Kwiatek

[=FB=VikS]

I wonder what could case such different 109 behaviour in pitch movements ( expecially with gyroscopic effect casuing flick roll with negative pitch) and overdone rudder work casuing also similar flick roll   comparing for example to Yak or Lagg3.  All these planes have similar design  (  clasical WW2 fighter desing), similar engine power, prop size and blades.  Actually only 109 behave like it has 1300 HP rotary engine in front not  inline engine.  Also rudder should work in similar way  - with full rudder downspiral with slowy roll  ( not flick roll ).

 

well, i dont like 109`s "nervous behaviour" too, but all airplanes build with the same approach, so i dunno whos right and whos wrong 

maybe with G2 work - there will be some changes/additional adjustments in F4,  we'll see.

[Matt]

manuals used as reference data, as well as airplanes tests used as reference to correct/check airplanes flight dynamics.

Can you or one of the engineers explain why 601E fails after 1-3 minutes at 1,42 ATA / 2700 rpm. I mean the actual effect (friction, heat, pressure?) that's causing the damage and what part(s) of the engine gets damaged in the process.

 

Also are the engines (and other parts) of the planes simulated as new parts or are they simulated in a way, that they saw some use before the player spawns in the plane or is it an average between brand new and worn out.

[303_Kwiatek]

well, i dont like 109`s "nervous behaviour" too, but all airplanes build with the same approach, so i dunno whos right and whos wrong 

maybe with G2 work - there will be some changes/additional adjustments in F4,  we'll see.

 

I hope so

 

Whatever brilant work with Yak-1. It remind my real flying with aerobatic Zlin 526. Very simiar flight behaviour.

 

I think actually BOS Yak-1 has best flight model for prop plane i have tried in any sims. I hope other planes will be made in similar level of realism and immersion from flying them.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Kwiatek

[I/JG27_Rollo]

@ =FB=VikS

If I may throw in another question: have you ever tried/planned to get in touch with actual 109 pilots e.g. people from the Messerschmitt foundation, Klaus Plasa or someone like Walter Eichhorn?

Their experience with flying the 109 might be somewhat helpful when it comes to flight characteristics.

Edited March 19, 2014 by I/JG27_Rollo

[FlatSpinMan]

Great to hear some info direct, Viks. Interesting to read your thoughts about the 109, too. Thanks for taking the time to post here, and you're always welcome back!

[StG2_Manfred]

Modelling physics is realistic. Modelling tech manuals is not. If you calculate extremely high exhaust valve temperatures that cause pre-ignition and damage the engine after a minute or two in a specific way, it is realistic. If you have if timecounter > 1 minute then randomize engine damage, it is not realistic.

 

I disagree, there is also no real air in the Sim, as well as there is no real calculation of the flow of fluids (Bernoulli) for example. Nevertheless we've got a (acceptable/good/perfect) FM. What counts is the result of the approach. Whatever 'trick' the developers use to simplify a complex subject is ok, as long as the result reflects the reality.

[Matt]

I wonder what could case such different 109 behaviour in pitch movements ( expecially with gyroscopic effect casuing flick roll with negative pitch) and overdone rudder work casuing also similar flick roll   comparing for example to Yak or Lagg3.  All these planes have similar design  (  clasical WW2 fighter desing), similar engine power, prop size and blades.  Actually only 109 behave like it has 1300 HP rotary engine in front not  inline engine.  Also rudder should work in similar way  - with full rudder downspiral with slowy roll  ( not flick roll ).

 

Maybe the CoG of the 109 has an impact on its behaviour in BoS. It should be further back in the 109 than in the LaGG or Yak, but maybe the effect of the CoG on the flight model is a bit too exaggerated or it's too far aft. It might be worth checking what effect a change of the CoG would have on its flight behaviour, maybe when modelling the G-2.

[=0v0=Frozenath]

A few footages of the Yak-1

Making Yak-1 at Saratov Aviation Plant № 292.

Only in Russian, sorry(

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmKo47oG7DI

[=FB=VikS]

Can you or one of the engineers explain why 601E fails after 1-3 minutes at 1,42 ATA / 2700 rpm. I mean the actual effect (friction, heat, pressure?) that's causing the damage and what part(s) of the engine gets damaged in the process.

 

Also are the engines (and other parts) of the planes simulated as new parts or are they simulated in a way, that they saw some use before the player spawns in the plane or is it an average between brand new and worn out.

 

if i got it correct - it happens due to mechanical limits and lubrication of engine itself (not oil or water overheat), here is some examples: 

 

http://kurfurst.org/Engine/Boostclearances/DB601_RPM_increase.html

http://kurfurst.org/Engine/Boostclearances/DB605_142ban_June1942.html

 

as on second part of question - every time you spawn - you had the same "new" airplane as always, its not a lottery.

@ =FB=VikS

If I may throw in another question: have you ever tried/planned to get in touch with actual 109 pilots e.g. people from the Messerschmitt foundation, Klaus Plasa or someone like Walter Eichhorn?

Their experience with flying the 109 might be somewhat helpful when it comes to flight characteristics.

negative, we haven`t have their contacts, but the main problem - is to get em to check it on PC with their own hands on it (and its the main problem - as we need someone to get em on it - as mostly real piltos far from PC flightsims), casue every pilot have his own impressions in words (lots of interviews on the net).

[Panzerlang]

If there are no accounts of real pilots getting a 109 to flick-roll with sudden pitch or yaw inputs it shouldn't happen in the sim. Especially not as the Yak and LaGG don't do it. Please don't start this release with nerf attributes to the axis planes.

[StG2_Manfred]

@Extreme: Wow, haven't seen this before, thank you. Ok, maybe there is more than I expected  But I'm sure even that (also it is impressive) is simplified somehow....

 

What I wanted to say, is, if the engine breaks down between 1-3 minutes of WEP (from experience), it doesn't matter whether the reason was from preignition, or a bad piston ring, or whatever.

[=FB=VikS]

If there are no accounts of real pilots getting a 109 to flick-roll with sudden pitch or yaw inputs it shouldn't happen in the sim. Especially not as the Yak and LaGG don't do it. Please don't start this release with nerf attributes to the axis planes.

[303_Kwiatek]

Yes i know these video with Skip Holm.  He descibe rudder effectivness in 109 as a real adventage in combat.  So 109 got good rudder effectivness but it doesnt mean that it should make flick roll with rudder use.   If you would like to do thing which Skip describe in these video in BOS 109 you would just make flick roll instead high degre  yaw movement which could help you with aiming enemy plane.

 

Only negative thing was absence of rudder trim for 109 which casue that pilots need to constantly correct skid by small rudder usage.  Only at cruise speed 109 no need rudder correction  ( rudder balance was set for cruise speed). It was also pointed by Skip when he said that 109 is need to fly with foots on rudder pedals.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Kwiatek

[303_Kwiatek]

Maybe the CoG of the 109 has an impact on its behaviour in BoS. It should be further back in the 109 than in the LaGG or Yak, but maybe the effect of the CoG on the flight model is a bit too exaggerated or it's too far aft. It might be worth checking what effect a change of the CoG would have on its flight behaviour, maybe when modelling the G-2.

 

I still dont see a connection with suden flick roll with negative pitch  ( and rudder kick also).   IRL 109 don't have too aft COG casue it would make these plane unstable in pitch and dangerous spin characteristic. All 109 flying reports claims 109 as stable in pitch.   109 just got COG behind  Center of Lift  which casue its tail heaviness. It is notiable with take off run   -  high forward stick was needed  but also after take off  ( pitch up tendency).   Lagg3 had similar characteristic  - it was tail heavy plane also.

[BraveSirRobin]

Please don't start this release with nerf attributes to the axis planes.

 

We'll know more once MP starts, but right now it looks like the 109 is going to be clubbing Yaks and Laggs like they are baby seals.  It does not look nerfed to me.

[303_Kwiatek]

 

Here is more detailed report from Skip Holm about 109 flying charactersitic:

 

http://www.skipholm.com/willy-messerschmitt.htm

 

" Once airborne and cleaned-up, the aircraft is a delight.  A classic!  And real fighter, ready to rock and roll!  And the speed it loves to roll around is 250 mph and below.  The roll rate is very good and very positive at 250 mph. Above 250 mph the ailerons get heavy and at 300 they are very similar to a P-51. Any speed after that results in the ailerons getting fairly solid and you need two hands on the stick for any meaningful roll rates.  Most of my flights have been in formation with P-51s and the Me-109 is more maneuverable than the P-51 in most conditions.  The Me-109 performs very well against the P-51 for takeoff, climb, and moderate cruise, but once the P-51 starts a dive or adds power in a level condition, the P-51 outperforms the Me-109 easily.

 

Pitch control is also delightful and very positive at 250 mph and below. As pitch and accompanying G is increased, the leading edge slats start to deploy.  I have not found either aircraft to have any problems with asymmetrical slat deployment, as we see in other aircraft such as an A-4 for instance.  The aircraft reacts very well to heavy maneuvering, and there is never any discomfort in pulling Gs, as wing separation and accompanying wing drop is mild, is easily noticed and dealt with by lightening up on the G.  Pitch force tends to get heavy at speeds above 300 mph, but is still easily managed with a little 2-hand pull or left hand re-trimming.

 

I find the best description of the Me-109 is to call it a “Flying Gun”.  It almost completely epitomizes the fighter pilot desires and engineering requirements for its designated mission as a 1940s era close-in self-defense fighter. "

[oneeyeddog]

Not sure if you've seen this?

I've never seen this demonstration, buts its very cool.

[Marauder]

I disagree, there is also no real air in the Sim, as well as there is no real calculation of the flow of fluids (Bernoulli) for example. Nevertheless we've got a (acceptable/good/perfect) FM. What counts is the result of the approach. Whatever 'trick' the developers use to simplify a complex subject is ok, as long as the result reflects the reality.

Right now, it doesn't reflect anything. It's just a very bad arcade gaming feature.

[BraveSirRobin]

It's all arcade if the modelling doesn't take quantum physics into consideration.

[Panzerlang]

 

If you don't get rid of the flick-rolls from sudden yaw/pitch inputs on the 109 I suggest you get ready for the inevitable accusations of bias, cheating and nerfing once the sim is released. Clearly the real 109 does not do it, so don't have the sim's 109 doing it.

[StG2_Manfred]

It's all arcade if the modelling doesn't take quantum physics into consideration.

You hit the bullseye!

Edited March 19, 2014 by StG2_Manfred

[Wolfstriked]

I noticed the 109's instability in pitch around the same time that the excessive movement of the Revi was included.109 is the only plane that has a sight that moves so far down the screen with negative G.I would think that fixing this excessive movement would alleviate a bit of the wallowing feeling the 109 instills.Also rudder in 109 is bad in feel and even when you go in and dull the sensitivity it never feels intuitive.

 

While I am here......

 

Please add in a speed loss when flying with your canopy ripped off.It will be huge advantage that many players will be taking advantage of.

 

Second is ability to set any key you choose as a shift key.This sim will have many ways to use rotaries and so ability to change a rotaries function by pressing a shift key will be a huge benefit.Take for example the 3 rotaries I have on my throttle right now I could set up as aileron,rudder and pitch trim.With a key press these rotaries could then be prop pitch,mixture and radiator.

 

Finally,why is the icons so garrish looking?No sim screams for better more immersive icons than BOS.IMO the best look would be to make icons always black.Just dots at long distance and when you get near enough to identify friend or foe the dots turn into immersive icons.

 

I am talking German cross icon for German planes

 

British planes with maybe a bit less color or black only as above.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[heinkill]

I'd rather fly the Yak than have the MP beta without it. Good call, aI'm totally fine with your decision. Time to take the Yak for a spin

A belated +1. Enjoying immensely.

Edited March 19, 2014 by heinkill

[yeikov]

Right now, it doesn't reflect anything. It's just a very bad arcade gaming feature.

 

The info given by VikS seems to point to an implementation which is far from "very bad arcade gaming", I don't know if you missed these:

 

 

everything works thru engine thermodynamic model

 

 

manuals used as reference data, as well as airplanes tests used as reference to correct/check airplanes flight dynamics.

[Marauder]

If it was realistic, even remotely so, you could run Notleistung for more than 5 minutes no problem. After all, this was a standard engine test after an overhaul. And it doesn't mean the engine will blow up a couple of seconds later. I wonder how many tests Viks has that show how the DB601E will inevitably blow up after a couple of minutes on Notleistung, no matter the circumstances be it high g, high temperatures, bad fuel mix, previous engine abuse and damage or a stationary run under ideal conditions on a test bench.

[FlatSpinMan]

Marauder - how many tests do you have that show show how the DB601E will inevitably blow up after a couple of minutes on Notleistung, no matter the circumstances be it high g, high temperatures, bad fuel mix, previous engine abuse and damage or a stationary run under ideal conditions on a test bench?

[Zak]

Just a quick note here: this is not a thread for engine modeling discussion and you might feel more comfortable in a specific topic. This one is about dev blog.

And about the DB - as long as the discussion proceeds without any substantiation presented (except the one shown by VikS), it remains only a discussion, not a suggestion thread or something that may result into any in-game changes.