Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Since July 4th didn't quite work out, maybe July 14th will fit? Same colours, different song, but still magnifique!

 

Should the Mustang have bazookas?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Since July 4th didn't quite work out, maybe July 14th will fit? Same colours, different song, but still magnifique!

 

 

Aux armes, citoyens! Former vos escadrille de P-51 Mustangs Cadillacs of the Sky! :)

Edited by 71st_AH_Yankee_
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/8/2019 at 12:10 PM, -332FG-Buddy said:

Fingers crossed for Thursday!!!!!!

 

It's not even in beta testing yet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, II./JG77_HankDG said:

 

It's not even in beta testing yet

Just found that out.....bummed!!!...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, [CPT]Pike*HarryM said:

It's the 51, so they have to make sure it is as perfect as possible... ;)

 

Two weeks, be sure. 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, II./JG77_HankDG said:

 

It's not even in beta testing yet


You got the source?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys should relax.

We're not allowed to talk about what we're testing, and my interpretation of this rule is that we're not allowed to talk about what we're not testing as well.

If someone else is interpreting this differently then they probably do so at the risk of their position on the test team.

 

Go enjoy the 262.  :)

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

My bet that is engine timers are being looked at, there has been a crazy amount of criticism over them in the recent months. 

The greatest thing about the IL-2 team, next to their incredible work ethics, is that they don’t listen to random people just because they cry the loudest. Have a nice day

Edited by Asgar
typo
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/8/2019 at 7:29 PM, Bremspropeller said:

Should the Mustang have bazookas?

On C.B.I. map, yes.

With only European maps, hardly...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

We're not allowed to talk about what we're testing

 

Beta testers love to talk about what they're testing 😂

 

Anyway no P-51 in the current beta, just two Flying Circus planes and a tank.

Share this post


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

 

Hmm. Been my impression that there is a fairly broad coalition of people here who would like a fresh look at the way "destruction timers" are implemented...if not clamoring for their removal altogether, at least a review of how Emergency and Combat power is consumed and recharged in the various models as well as the notifications that are provided to the pilot (only when "instrument panel" is on etc.)

 

Loud crying is why we have a usable FW 190 model, planes aren't constantly ground-looping anymore etc. So as annoying as it can be sometimes it does serve a purpose.

 

The problem with the current timers is that it doesn't at all take into account the engines' MTBO or expected service life. An engine that needs to be rebuilt after 30 flight hours with an allowed WER time of 10 minutes is thus modeled ingame as being more robust than one that was cleared for a WER time of 5 minutes at a much higher boost than we have ingame currently, but a mandatory rebuild only after some 200 flight hours.

Frankly put, IL-2's devs failed to level permitted boost against engine durability, and I see little inclination on their part to distance themselves from that fallacy.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Rekt said:

 

Hmm. Been my impression that there is a fairly broad coalition of people here who would like a fresh look at the way "destruction timers" are implemented...if not clamoring for their removal altogether, at least a review of how Emergency and Combat power is consumed and recharged in the various models as well as the notifications that are provided to the pilot (only when "instrument panel" is on etc.)

 

Loud crying is why we have a usable FW 190 model, planes aren't constantly ground-looping anymore etc. So as annoying as it can be sometimes it does serve a purpose.

no, someone provided some proper documentation in a civilized manner, that's why we have such a well modelled 190

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Asgar said:

no, someone provided some proper documentation in a civilized manner, that's why we have such a well modelled 190

 

But should the devs' pursuit of a more historically correct physics and engine model really be contingent on players providing them with proof the current way it's modeled is wrong or doesn't make sense?

Share this post


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

The greatest thing about the IL-2 team, next to their incredible work ethics, is that they don’t listen to random people just because they cry the loudest. Have a nice day

Yet it seems that the Devs have acknowledged the problem with timers and are thinking of a better solution. Sometimes crying is the only way to get people's attention, if people never complained then the devs wouldn't know what is wrong and what players like vs don't like.

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

all techchat messages exept message related to timer expired, and timers recharged show up on any realisam settings, so its clear bug that important messages as thouse dont show up. Even if its set in tips, player can turn them on any time on any realisam settings, but they dont show up. And in real ww2 if this was so important , like its in game now, pilots would have indicators like they do on gauges for max speed, rpm, ata, mp, temp and so on 

 

there is no technical documentation for recharg times as they dont exist in real ww2, so if some airplanes in game have 1:1 recharg and some u to 1:3 and there is no real reason for it, then its bug as it should be same for all airplanes, what documentation should be presented, dev is asked whats the reson for this and no answers provided, and when you look at airplanes HP, rpm, ata, mp, fuel, engine strenght in materials used has nothing to do with what recharg time is, so its bug then if there is no logical explanation for this big differance and it should be same time relations for all airplanes.

 

if you use emergancy, timer for combat should be used also at same time on all airplanes, now some airplanes dont use combat timer when they use emergancy timer, and some do, also clear bug. What documentatio you need for that, its logical that if combat timer is 30min and emergancy 10min you can not use emergancy for 10min and then still have 30min of combat timer left, its soulld be 20min left, something is wrong there and its buged.

 

 

Edited by 77.CountZero
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 77.CountZero said:

all techchat messages exept message related to timer expired and timers recharged show up on any realisam settings, so its clear bug. Even if its set in tips, player can turn them on any time on any realisam settings. And in real ww2 if this was so important like its in game now pilots would have indicators like they do on gauges for max speed rpm ata mp temp and so on 

 

there is no technical documentation for recharg times as they dont exist in real ww2, so if some airplanes in game have 1:1 recharg and some u to 1:3 and there is no real reason for it then its bug and should be same for all airplanes, what documentation should be presented, dev is asked whats the reson for this and no answers provided, and when you look at airplanes H, rpm ata mp has nothing to do with recharg being as it is so its bug then if there is no logical explanation for this big differance.

 

if you use emergancy timer for combat should be used also on all airplanes, now some airplanes dont use cmbat timer when they use emergancy timer and some do, also clear bug, what documentatio you need for that its logical that if combat timer is 30min and emergancy 10min you can not use emergancy for 10min and then still have 30min of combat timer left something is wrong there and its buged.

 

 

 

There are two distinct versions of WER ingame. You cannot directly compare them.

 

One is by simply increasing load on the engine by means of boost pressure while the other uses higher boost pressure while injecting what is essentially a heat sink - ADI.

The former accepts higher mechanical as well as higher thermic stresses while the latter mitigates them either completely or partially.

 

Add to this the fact the current behavior of the 109K's engine is modeled according to the plane's pilot's notes.
Where this comparison completely fails to make sense from a mechanical perspective is how the P-47's engine is modeled ingame, with time spent at war emergency power while using ADI impinging on the time subsequently allowed at combat power.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, PainGod85 said:

 

There are two distinct versions of WER ingame. You cannot directly compare them.

 

One is by simply increasing load on the engine by means of boost pressure while the other uses higher boost pressure while injecting what is essentially a heat sink - ADI.

The former accepts higher mechanical as well as higher thermic stresses while the latter mitigates them either completely or partially.

 

Add to this the fact the current behavior of the 109K's engine is modeled according to the plane's pilot's notes.
Where this comparison completely fails to make sense from a mechanical perspective is how the P-47's engine is modeled ingame, with time spent at war emergency power while using ADI impinging on the time subsequently allowed at combat power.

Then one of them is wrong and its imposible that both are correct, so there is bug in system

in game 109K can have 10min of emergancy and then use 30min of combat, and recharg his 10min emergancy in 10 min combat flying

in game P-47 can use 5min of emergancy and then have only 10min of its 15min combat, and has to fly 10 min to recarg its 5min of emergancy

 

both cant be correct, there is bug with timer for recharg and timer for combat when emergancy is used

 

and this problems show on other airplanes also

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 77.CountZero said:

Then one of them is wrong and its imposible that both are correct, so there is bug in system

in game 109K can have 10min of emergancy and then use 30min of combat, and recharg his 10min emergancy in 10 min combat flying

in game P-47 can use 5min of emergancy and then have only 10min of its 15min combat, and has to fly 10 min to recarg its 5min of emergancy

 

both cant be correct, there is bug with timer for recharg and timer for combat when emergancy is used

 

and this problems show on other airplanes also


Emphasis mine.

That is exactly what I'm saying. And it's recharging 10 minutes of WEP in 5 minutes at combat power.

Share this post


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

 

Well I hope you enjoyed the coma that you were in at that time, then. Those of us who were actually conscious during the FW 190 period vividly recall the Forum Wars and torches/pitchforks that were routinely deployed by the virtual Luftwaffe, in addition to documentation. And as it turns out at the end of the day they were right to keep after the devs until something changed.

I was there, people cried for months and nothing happend, cause guess what [edited]. THEN a smart group of people actually got together and collected tangible data, after that was provided to the team and the time and resources were available the 190 was adjusted. Crying helps no one, constructive feedback does. 

 

So you can stow that "Everyone who complains about something that doesn't particularly bother me is a crybaby" bit that you're on this morning.
You made that part up yourself

 

Edited by SYN_Haashashin
Rule 7
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

 

 

If you believe that a dissatisfied customer base expressing themselves (respectfully) about a product design decision has no impact at all on what a business chooses to focus their attention on, I don't know what else to tell you.

 

Depends . . . regarding design decisions, this goes for games in general not just IL2, I think Dev's need to stay true to their vision, if they happen to agree with a good idea, only then should they think about changing things.

Engine timers are clearly a design decision, there have been a lot of ideas on the forum, devs may even have a few of there own, and while I think it may well get addressed sooner or later, I also think it is right not to knee jerk reaction change things, unless things are not working the way that they intended. Somethings need a bit of time to think through properly.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

My bet that is engine timers are being looked at, there has been a crazy amount of criticism over them in the recent months. 

 

I have not noticed any real change. You have had a  small group of posters constantly complaining about timers for the past 5 years. The only difference that I have seen is that the complaining used to be about German planes and it is now about U.S./U.K. planes.

 

Does that mean that the Devs have gone from a Russian to a German bias? :biggrin: (note: sarcasm)

 

The vast majority of players do not care about the issue. 58% of the "Community" is fine with the current system and 88% of the "Community" is fine with the current system as long as it is tweaked. As long as the overwhelming majority of the "Community" is fine with the current system, there is not much pressure on the Devs to do something. Jason said they would revisit the issue, we will see what they come up with. 

 

As to the constant complaining, after a while it just becomes so much background static, you just tune it out.

Edited by Sgt_Joch
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Sgt_Joch said:

U.K. planes.

 

You crazy? The RAF planes benefit hugely, we get an hour at over 2,000hp in the Tempest and with a slight bit of altitude it's as fast as anything the Germans have at that power setting without even needing WEP 😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PainGod85 said:

 

The problem with the current timers is that it doesn't at all take into account the engines' MTBO or expected service life. An engine that needs to be rebuilt after 30 flight hours with an allowed WER time of 10 minutes is thus modeled ingame as being more robust than one that was cleared for a WER time of 5 minutes at a much higher boost than we have ingame currently, but a mandatory rebuild only after some 200 flight hours.

Frankly put, IL-2's devs failed to level permitted boost against engine durability, and I see little inclination on their part to distance themselves from that fallacy.

In the mean time you can also mix super low RPM and max continuous Manifold pressure  with no ill effects:crazy:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, PainGod85 said:

 

There are two distinct versions of WER ingame. You cannot directly compare them.

 

One is by simply increasing load on the engine by means of boost pressure while the other uses higher boost pressure while injecting what is essentially a heat sink - ADI.

The former accepts higher mechanical as well as higher thermic stresses while the latter mitigates them either completely or partially.

 

Add to this the fact the current behavior of the 109K's engine is modeled according to the plane's pilot's notes.
Where this comparison completely fails to make sense from a mechanical perspective is how the P-47's engine is modeled ingame, with time spent at war emergency power while using ADI impinging on the time subsequently allowed at combat power.

This would be true if boost wasn't increased massively when water is used.

Any small benefit you get from injecting Water from a load standpoint disappears when you consequently  run 0.4 bar more boost. An engine under 1.8 ata + MW50 is going to be under more load then when running 1.42 ata.

Edited by =362nd_FS=RoflSeal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, =362nd_FS=RoflSeal said:

This would be true if boost wasn't increased massively when water is used.

Any small benefit you get from injecting Water from a load standpoint disappears when you consequently  run 0.4 bar more boost. An engine under 1.8 ata + MW50 is going to be under more load then when running 1.42 ata.

 

We know the P-47's engine was tested with and found to be able to run on 65" without water if a more knock resistant fuel was used. WER gave the engine only 5 more inches of MAP, 0.17 bar.

 

That said, I'll quote myself here:

Quote

while the latter mitigates them either completely or partially

 

That said, evaporation enthalpy of water is ~2.2 MJ/kg, its specific heat capacity (l) is 4.18 kJ/(kg * K) and its specific heat capacity (g) is 2.08 kJ/(kg * K) - I'll go with an even 4 and 2 kJ(kg * K) for this rough as sandpaper calculation - while gasoline has an approximate energy density of 30.7 MJ/L. We also know the rates of consumption for either liquid at WER:

 

9.546789 L/min (= kg/min) for water, 18.91173 L/min for gas.

However, we also know two more things pertaining to WW2 aero engines:

 

1. Some of the energy supplied as fuel gets turned into motion as opposed to heat,

2. the engine is injected with more fuel than it has oxygen to burn it with.

 

In the case of the P-47, we also know fuel consumption goes down from 4.67 gal/min to 4.16 gal/min when the water jet is engaged compared to its maximum continuous rating of 52".

 

We can assume the engine to have an efficiency of around 30%, but we have no idea how much fuel gets burned and how much is wasted.

However, we do know the engine produces 2600 bhp at 64", so let's roll with that.

 

2600 bhp calculates down to ~1939 kJ/s, which in turn calculates to a total amount of energy converted into engine power of 116.34 MJ/min. So how much energy is wasted as heat, and how much energy is injected as fuel?

 

Going with the 30% figure gives us around 271.46 MJ/min of waste heat, compared to fuel injected equivalent to 580.59 MJ/min. <- we actually don't need that last number

 

However, we have nothing to compare that to. So, we need to find out how much heat is generated at combat power. Since the amount of total fuel converted to energy scales linearly with the oxygen available to burn it with, we'll just calculate from there.

 

1 atm is 29.92 inHg (let's call it ~30 inHg).

 

52 + 30 = 82

64 + 30 = 94

94 / 82 = 1.15

 

So of those 271.46 MJ/min, we have 236.05 MJ/min, leaving us with 35.41 MJ/min of 'surplus' heat.
 

Now let's see how much energy we can actually sink into the water. Let's assume the water tank is heated to ~60 °C during flight as it's sitting right behind the engine, and the water injected into the cylinder evaporates at 115 °C as MAP is 2.5 times above normal, making for a 55 K temperature increase before evaporation.

Let's also assume a cylinder head temperature of 250 °C is representative of the exhaust's temperature. That's another 135 K temperature increase.

Let's throw it all together now:

9.546789 kg/min * [2.2 MJ/kg + 55 K * 0.004 MJ/(kg * K) + 135 K * 0.002 MJ/(kg * K)] = 25.68 MJ/min

This is 72.5% of the additional heat sunk into ADI, and that's assuming an abysmal 30% efficiency on just the fuel that gets burned. Granted, I did not account for the lowered heat capacity of the water/alcohol mixture that was used back in the day, so in that way, the effectiveness of ADI is somewhat overrepresented here. Then again, I was rounding down heat capacities left and right for the sake of convenience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, PainGod85 said:

 

 

Yet pretty much the same engine achieved an increase of 12 "Hg using 130 Octane + Water. When using 150 Octane, only a 5 "Hg increase was allowed with water injection. I wonder if that is because the engine was much closer to its stress limit rather then its detonation limit.

Also you are confusing stress on the engine with thermal efficiency.

More boost > more cylinder pressure > more engine stress. Water injection doesn't decrease stress on an engine.

 

Edited by =362nd_FS=RoflSeal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wich loadouts should we see for the P-51D-15?

 

Anybody else generally missing cluster-munitions?

I'd like them in the german AB canisters/ SD bomblets, as well as the american cluster M41 fragmentation bombs that were bundled with GP bombs ore bundled together in larger quantities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope the recognition lights will burn the plastic lens around it when operated for longer than 10 sec on the ground, as it does on the real one.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

Wich loadouts should we see for the P-51D-15?

 

Anybody else generally missing cluster-munitions?

I'd like them in the german AB canisters/ SD bomblets, as well as the american cluster M41 fragmentation bombs that were bundled with GP bombs ore bundled together in larger quantities.


My guess...

250lb and 500lb GP bombs

2 X 3 pack Bazooka rounds

HVAR rockets weren't available on the P-51 until zero length launchers were introducted in the D-25/D-30 (can't remember exactly which one)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, 357th_Dog said:

2 X 3 pack Bazooka rounds

HVAR rockets weren't available on the P-51 until zero length launchers were introducted in the D-25/D-30 (can't remember exactly which one)

 

In contrast to the P-47 I never saw any pictorical evidence for Mustangs using rockets of any kind in the ETO. Are you sure?

Share this post


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

 

In contrast to the P-47 I never saw any pictorical evidence for Mustangs using rockets of any kind in the ETO. Are you sure?


I've seen it referenced in books, however the only photo I've ever found is a RAF Mustang Mk III and a P-51B with both RAF style rockets and the P-51B with the M-8 triple tubes. 

payload.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, LongDongSilver said:


You got the source?

No source, I was going off of they usually tell us when an aircraft is going into testing on the dds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, II./JG77_HankDG said:

No source, I was going off of they usually tell us when an aircraft is going into testing on the dds

 

Ah, I see. Hopefully no news is good news then! (as doubtful as it is)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Loosely pertaining to the engine timers debate, this Spitfire pilot tells an interesting story of engine malfunction after running on emergency power for longer than 1 minute followed by a botched attempt at a new bail out procedure.

 

https://youtu.be/DoAgIlNLcM8

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

Loosely pertaining to the engine timers debate, this Spitfire pilot tells an interesting story of engine malfunction after running on emergency power for longer than 1 minute followed by a botched attempt at a new bail out procedure.

 

https://youtu.be/DoAgIlNLcM8

 

Considering his unit was deployed to the Mediterranean front, it sounds like this occurred during the Siege of Malta. If so, it's not applicable to the Spitfire Mk IX ingame as it has a different engine.

Edited by PainGod85

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only it has a different engine, it certainly does not have the service of a Spitfire sitting in cozy Kent.

  • Upvote 1

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...