Game version 4.005 discussion: New airframe damage model

[357th_KW]

3 hours ago, Legioneod said:

Agreed. Imo .50s are more realistic in this update and it's great. Gonna take some time to get used to though for players who are expecting it to perform like cannons or mg131.

Great work dev team.

 

One thing I would like to see in the future for American aircraft is harmonization patterns and desynchronized guns. Having the ability to do a shotgun harmonization pattern (top pattern) would be much better than the point harmonization that we currently have (bottom pattern)

 

 

It would also be awesome to have a belting option that had no tracers except in the last 50 rounds per gun, as was commonly done by US fighter groups.

[FlyingNutcase]

23 minutes ago, Han said:

Dear friends,

We did our best to fix the problems that were revealed shortly after the initial release of 4.005 ASAP. 4.005b hotfix is already published and you can update your installation. The quick fixes are as follows:
1. Missing contrails and smoke from smoke generators restored in multiplayer;
2. Explosions damage to buildings (i.e. from bombs) has been corrected;
3. Bombsight should work fine in VR;
4. Many static objects (static_*) were corrected to align with the terrain properly.

 

Fast as lightening. Happy Easter to you and the Team. Keep up the good work but I hope you and the crew get a well-deserved break too.

[peregrine7]

Now that we have an amazing damage model (blessed developers, thank you!) can we please get separate vertical and horizontal convergence options?

Very few planes flew with vertical convergences closer than 400m, but horizontal convergence was often much closer. Having a high angle-off-boresight is advantageous in most of the fighters we are flying, and was always used. We can work around this in planes with nose mounted guns but if we have wing guns we must choose - are we faithful to the historical horizontal or vertical convergence?

If you choose to have accurate horizontal convergence you can't shoot an enemy in a turn (as the bullets fall too far beneath the nose), if you are faithful to the vertical convergence then your bullets are no longer converging on the target.  

 

Individual gun harmonization, belt design etc is nice but I feel that this is more crucial.  

[Bilbo_Baggins]

29 minutes ago, Han said:

Dear friends,

We did our best to fix the problems that were revealed shortly after the initial release of 4.005 ASAP. 4.005b hotfix is already published and you can update your installation. The quick fixes are as follows:
1. Missing contrails and smoke from smoke generators restored in multiplayer;
2. Explosions damage to buildings (i.e. from bombs) has been corrected;
3. Bombsight should work fine in VR;
4. Many static objects (static_*) were corrected to align with the terrain properly.

 

Thank you, but what about the invulnerable water coolers? This a crucial problem that needs fixing as the planes can take a punctured radiator and vent coolant forever not overheating now after this patch! 

 

Cheers

[Beazil]

Thanks for those zippy fixes Han and Team!

[Bilbo_Baggins]

22 hours ago, Bilbo_Baggins said:

Not sure how this got through testing, but just a heads up that water coolers are invulnerable now. Can take a blown water radiator and stream coolant at prolonged high power with no overheat.

 

First noticed it when AI flew forever fighting with blown water coolers, then tested with 4x I-16 planes shooting my P51 and was then able to exploit it to climb up and fly on with no problem. 

 

Video: https://streamable.com/4ocl59

 

Regards

 

 

 

@Han

 

Same for Bf109 confirmed - can fly on infinitely at combat power with punctured water cooler from enemy fire.

 

Note this is not the same as closing your coolers and overheating a manually controlled machine.

 

Seems like a major bug for sure.

Edited April 9, 2020 by Bilbo_Baggins

[blitze]

13 minutes ago, Bilbo_Baggins said:

 

Thank you, but what about the invulnerable water coolers? This a crucial problem that needs fixing as the planes can take a punctured radiator and vent coolant forever not overheating now after this patch! 

 

Cheers

Not true.

 

In testing my 109G6 copped cooling system damage.  I timed 3 minutes on combat power to over heat and another 1 to 2 minutes at reduced throttle (nursing) to complete engine failure.

 

It is not as quick as pre patch but it is there and based on flow from damaged area from what I understand from Dev correspondence.

 

As for .50 Cal damage, just took 2 P51's up in Lapino Winter QMB against 2 x 109G14 and 2 x Ju52.  All aircraft went down.  The 109's were a little harder due to their evading but the first one had engine fire and the second had wing failure in high G vertical maneuver.  The Ju52's, 1- Wing fire and the second, both engines damaged and systems as 2 parachutes jumped and they took only a couple squirts on the .50cals to achieve the kills.

 

I had convergence set at 150m

 

My only issue is Blume in VR on winter maps that makes the air fields blow out and look purplish at ground level.  I disable it via the config.  Doesn't seem reproduced on the monitor mirroring.  Not sure if there are any advantages to Blume but maybe a little performance increase in fps without it.  See how the new rendering goes when it hits.?

 

Also Incendiary rounds are not yet modeled and they will also be adding to the .50cals destructive punch when included.

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

57 minutes ago, Danziger said:

I don't know about aviation M2 machine guns but I have a lot of experience with the ones for infantry and vehicles. While they are built to be exactly the same in the factory, they don't all behave the same. The firing rate is not 100% the same for every gun. Some guns get more wear than others. Some are tighter or looser. Head space and timing have to be manually set to each individual gun and they aren't always the same. I find it difficult to believe that wing guns could ever keep synchronized to each other for very long.

 

47 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

There was no synchronizes for the guns irl. What would happen is once you pull the trigger the guns would quickly go out of sinc so they would be firing at different times/rates. What we see in-game with perfect synchronization is not correct, hopefully it will be fixed in the future along with adding a shotgun harmonization pattern.

 

 

Interesting to know.   My semi-uneducated guess would be that the reason the guns didn't fire all at once would have something to do with the electrically actuated firing system and power draw management concerns.  Still, that would obviously not effect each individual gun compared to another as Danziger describes.  

[Zargos]

On 4/8/2020 at 10:13 PM, Jason_Williams said:

 

Sorry something else is wrong with your install or computer. Virtually no one here is reporting such a problem, so it's not really the update.

on

Jason

 

You're certainly right Jason.

I've updated the game on another computer and this time I hadn't any trouble.

[J2_Bidu]

On 4/8/2020 at 10:13 PM, Han said:

 

Can't reproduce. In my test Dolphin receiving damage ok. Check for screen and mission

[test]CircusDamage.zip 1.74 kB · 1 download

 

Sorry, couldn't figure out what to do with that mission. There's only an IL2 there, that I could see.

 

I attach my ram track. There is actually a very slight hint of damage, maybe 2 or 3 holes like bullets'. Not the kind of damage you might expect from a propeller directly hitting it. I would imagine the elevator and the rudder might be ripped off and fragmented.

Dr1RamsDolphin.zip

Edited April 9, 2020 by J2_Bidu

[Legioneod]

6 minutes ago, 69th_Mobile_BBQ said:

 

 

Interesting to know.   My semi-uneducated guess would be that the reason the guns didn't fire all at once would have something to do with the electrically actuated firing system and power draw management concerns.  Still, that would obviously not effect each individual gun compared to another as Danziger describes.  

They fired all at once, at least in the P-47, but due to timing differences (cause by wear and tear, tension, etc.) they would quickly fire out of sync.

Edited April 9, 2020 by Legioneod

[-332FG-Magic_Zach]

Can we get that gun harmonization for .50s?  For the 51 right now (haven't checked 47) fire off all six guns fire at once, in sync.  I suspect we might not have dispersion patterns currently either, but it's harder to notice that.

Edited April 9, 2020 by -332FG-Magic_Zach

[Zargos]

On 4/8/2020 at 10:14 PM, ShamrockOneFive said:

 

Reboot your system. A few people seem to have poor frames immediately after an update.

 

 

I did what you've suggested and it works !

Thanks

[CUJO_1970]

1 hour ago, 69th_Mobile_BBQ said:

Currently, (as best as I can observe) all guns on the wings fire together and re-chamber the next round together.  One of my squad mates has told me that they think the correct way is for the guns to fire is 1,2,3 sequential. So, gun 1 would fire and while 2 was firing, re-chamber. 2 would fire and then re-chamber while 3 was firing. 3 would fire and then re-chamber while 1 was firing, rinse and repeat.   The muzzle flashes would appear to ripple across the 3 guns in each wing.  IIRC he said the pattern was outboard to inboard. 

 

There is no way to synchronize the .50 in this way because the actual rate of fire varied by as much as 200 rounds per minute in the same airplane.

[LukeFF]

24 minutes ago, 69th_Mobile_BBQ said:

Interesting to know.   My semi-uneducated guess would be that the reason the guns didn't fire all at once would have something to do with the electrically actuated firing system and power draw management concerns.  Still, that would obviously not effect each individual gun compared to another as Danziger describes.  

 

It's the same reason why 37 mm wing-mounted cannons on the Il-2 fell out of favor with the Soviets: both cannons did not fire at the same time, so planes would experience significant yawing as they fired.

[No.23_Triggers]

RE: WWI.....Earlier on one of the guys from J5 lost his wing after taking A single 7mm bullet hit when he tried manoeuvring in the vertical.

 

Me and a squad mate are planning on getting some tracks over to you guys to show how WW1 planes have been affected. Will post here once we have them. 

Edited April 9, 2020 by US93_Larner

[Avimimus]

4 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

RE: WWI.....Earlier on one of the guys from J5 lost his wing after taking A single 7mm bullet hit when he tried manoeuvring in the vertical.

 

That sounds more like an AI error than a damage model error? I've often see AI accidentally exceed airframe limits... so, could that be it?

[US96_Wright]

Hey I have some complaints in regards to FC wings are falling off way too easy you dont even have to hit the wing for them to fall off which quite honestly is breaking the immersion factor I'm okay with them coming off but they need a significant buff on all planes. This isnt a complaint but rather a mention and I hope the devs can put this in a fix for us it would be much appreciated.

Edited April 9, 2020 by US93_Wright

[DD_Arthur]

25 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

That sounds more like an AI error than a damage model error? I've often see AI accidentally exceed airframe limits... so, could that be it?

 

No.  There is a problem with the new damage model for Flying Circus.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 9, 2020 by DD_Arthur

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

@Bilbo_Baggins As we discussed in another thread, 20 minutes is not infinitely, maybe the rate of coolant loss could be adjusted for small hits but you are portraying it as if the water cooling system didn't suffer from any damage at all which isn't correct, they do, just that maybe it is too slowly.

For example I hit a Bf 109 G-6 in the radiator with 20mm Hispano from the P-38 2 or 3 times and less than 4 minutes later the 109 went for a crash landing, he was overheating as coolant vapor was venting off the other radiator as well.

[Bilbo_Baggins]

17 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

@Bilbo_Baggins As we discussed in another thread, 20 minutes is not infinitely, maybe the rate of coolant loss could be adjusted for small hits but you are portraying it as if the water cooling system didn't suffer from any damage at all which isn't correct, they do, just that maybe it is too slowly.

For example I hit a Bf 109 G-6 in the radiator with 20mm Hispano from the P-38 2 or 3 times and less than 4 minutes later the 109 went for a crash landing, he was overheating as coolant vapor was venting off the other radiator as well.

 

And with 4x .50cal and a 20mm you are certain to have put something through his engine block too! What I am talking about is controlled testing on SP with a blown water cooler.

 

See the video, you can have a blown water cooler now and climb up to the heavens on combat power.

 

It wasn't like this before.

1 hour ago, blitze said:

Not true.

 

 

 

https://streamable.com/4ocl59

 

Looking at the footage, obviously it is true. I've got the same test recorded for the BF109 with punctured water cooler. 

 

You must have taken damage to the engine block and other systems. Do a controlled test with just water cooler punctured and the machine will just keep flying like in the video. This needs to be fixed.

 

Regards

Edited April 9, 2020 by Bilbo_Baggins

[J5_Gamecock]

49 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

That sounds more like an AI error than a damage model error? I've often see AI accidentally exceed airframe limits... so, could that be it?

No.  It was in multiplayer, no AI.  As parser showed I took a single hit from Bristol gunner while on the SE5a, at fairly low altitude. After that a simple split-s and wings just folded up.  

 

 New update has had a definite impact on FC, not good.

Edited April 9, 2020 by J5_Gamecock
spelling

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

 

34 minutes ago, Bilbo_Baggins said:

 

And with 4x .50cal and a 20mm you are certain to have put something through his engine block too! What I am talking about is controlled testing on SP with a blown water cooler.

 

See the video, you can have a blown water cooler now and climb up to the heavens on combat power.

 

https://streamable.com/4ocl59

 

It wasn't like this before.

My test was controlled in SP and no the engine wasn't hit as I aimed specifically for the radiator.

Another example in this video, I shot at again a 109 G-6 but now with the 4x .50 cals, a couple bursts in slow mode camera, then used time compression and timed how much time it took the cooling system to fail.

After 1 minute 27 seconds (~11 seconds in 8x time compression) the system began to overheat as there was vapor venting from the other radiator, then 1 minute later (7.5 seconds in 8x time compression) the whole coolant was gone (venting stopped) and the AI pilot went in for a crash landing with no engine power.
 

The coolant system can get damaged and from big hits they fail quite quickly, maybe for small hits they should run out of coolant faster that's what I'm saying.
 

Edited April 9, 2020 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[Bilbo_Baggins]

16 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

 

My test was controlled in SP and no the engine wasn't hit as I aimed specifically for the radiator.

Another example in this video, I shot at again a 109 G-6 but now with the 4x .50 cals, a couple bursts in slow mode camera, then used time compression and timed how much time it took the cooling system to fail.

After 1 minute 27 seconds (~11 seconds in 8x time compression) the system began to overheat as there was vapor venting from the other radiator, then 1 minute later (7.5 seconds in 8x time compression) the whole coolant was gone (venting stopped) and the AI pilot went in for a crash landing with no engine power.
 

The coolant system can get damaged and from big hits they fail quite quickly, maybe for small hits they should run out of coolant faster that's what I'm saying.
 

 

There's a critical misunderstanding here. It's not about shooting another plane, it's about getting shot at yourself so you can observe the damage. There is no way to know by shooting another AI plane exactly what damage you've inflicted, you have to be shot at yourself by the AI.

 

I can't stress this enough. If you set up the AI to shoot you and wait for them to hit your cooler only without engine damage... The plane will fly on. Sure, if you shoot a plane and put 1 round through his cylinder head, he is going to go down regardless of his water cooler.

 

Needs to be fixed. Don't know how this got through testing. 

 

What this also means is that radial air cooled engines do not have their inherent advantage over water cooled vulnerability now. This is a fundamental element of simulating a pressurized water cooled machine in this game.

Edited April 9, 2020 by Bilbo_Baggins

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

1 minute ago, Bilbo_Baggins said:

 

There's a critical misunderstanding here. It's not about shooting another plane, it's about getting shot at yourself so you can observe the damage. There is no way to know by shooting another AI plane exactly what damage you've inflicted, you have to be shot at yourself by the AI.

 

I can't stress this enough. If you set up the AI to shoot you and wait for them to hit your cooler only without engine damage... The plane will fly on. 

 

Needs to be fixed. Don't know how this got through testing. 

 

What this also means is that radial air cooled engines do not have their inherent advantage over water cooled vulnerability now. This is a fundamental element of simulating a water cooled machine in this game.

 

What other damage could have been from .50 cals going in and out of the wing through the radiator, engine wasn't hit, fuel tank wasn't hit, oil radiator wasn't hit, wing structural and skin damage wasn't enough to bring the plane down as the AI pilot kept maneuvering for some time... only coolant damage over time can be attributed to the plane going down.

If you let yourself to be shot at by AI hard enough to inflict heavy damage to the radiator you are going down by other causes anyway since AI doesn't aim for specific parts, other areas of your plane will be hit... Petrovich has told us the radiator leak modelling takes into account different drain rates based on how badly hit the system was, there is a possibility this rate is too low for a couple rifle caliber hits but that's all I can say. When hit hard multiple times by big caliber weapons the radiators drain quite fast in just a couple minutes.

[Legioneod]

14 minutes ago, Bilbo_Baggins said:

 

There's a critical misunderstanding here. It's not about shooting another plane, it's about getting shot at yourself so you can observe the damage. There is no way to know by shooting another AI plane exactly what damage you've inflicted, you have to be shot at yourself by the AI.

 

I can't stress this enough. If you set up the AI to shoot you and wait for them to hit your cooler only without engine damage... The plane will fly on. Sure, if you shoot a plane and put 1 round through his cylinder head, he is going to go down regardless of his water cooler.

 

Needs to be fixed. Don't know how this got through testing. 

 

What this also means is that radial air cooled engines do not have their inherent advantage over water cooled vulnerability now. This is a fundamental element of simulating a pressurized water cooled machine in this game.

Coolant loss is very much modeled. Took a hit in my cooling system in the P-51 and my engine overheated and died within 5min. It just depends on how bad the system is hit. Maybe .50s just arent doing enough damage to the system and the leak rate is too low.

 

Seeing an increase in leak rate from machingun damage would be good imo.

 

One thing that needs to be modeled (if it's not already modeled) is the difference between the radiator/line being perforated vs severed. In one case water could still potentially get to the engine and provide some cooling (though it would still overheat eventually) a severed line would overheat the engine very quickly due to no water getting to the engine at all. All depends on how the coolant system in the aircraft is set up of course, not sure but Iirc the 109 could isolate the radiators if there was a leak so this may not have a large effect on it.

Edited April 9, 2020 by Legioneod

[310th_Diablo]

2 hours ago, blitze said:

Not true.

 

In testing my 109G6 copped cooling system damage.  I timed 3 minutes on combat power to over heat and another 1 to 2 minutes at reduced throttle (nursing) to complete engine failure.

 

It is not as quick as pre patch but it is there and based on flow from damaged area from what I understand from Dev correspondence.

 

As for .50 Cal damage, just took 2 P51's up in Lapino Winter QMB against 2 x 109G14 and 2 x Ju52.  All aircraft went down.  The 109's were a little harder due to their evading but the first one had engine fire and the second had wing failure in high G vertical maneuver.  The Ju52's, 1- Wing fire and the second, both engines damaged and systems as 2 parachutes jumped and they took only a couple squirts on the .50cals to achieve the kills.

 

I had convergence set at 150m

 

My only issue is Blume in VR on winter maps that makes the air fields blow out and look purplish at ground level.  I disable it via the config.  Doesn't seem reproduced on the monitor mirroring.  Not sure if there are any advantages to Blume but maybe a little performance increase in fps without it.  See how the new rendering goes when it hits.?

 

Also Incendiary rounds are not yet modeled and they will also be adding to the .50cals destructive punch when included.

i was told that incendiary rounds were modeled.  api and apit

[Legioneod]

1 minute ago, 310th_Diablo said:

i was told that incendiary rounds were modeled.  api and apit

They aren't. I thought they were as well but I found out from the devs that they aren't modeled as of right now.

[=RS=Stix_09]

18 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

One thing that needs to be modeled (if it's not already modeled) is the difference between the radiator/line being perforated vs severed. In one case water could still potentially get to the engine and provide some cooling (though it would still overheat eventually) a severed line would overheat the engine very quickly due to no water getting to the engine at all. All depends on how the coolant system in the aircraft is set up of course, not sure but Iirc the 109 could isolate the radiators if there was a leak so this may not have a large effect on it.

Quote

Fighters with liquid-cooled engines were vulnerable to hits in the cooling system. For this reason, on later Bf 109 F, G, and K models, the two coolant radiators were equipped with a cut-off system. If one radiator leaked, it was possible to fly on the second, or to fly for at least five minutes with both closed

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Bf_109

 

[II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson]

21 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

Coolant loss is very much modeled. Took a hit in my cooling system in the P-51 and my engine overheated and died within 5min. It just depends on how bad the system is hit. Maybe .50s just arent doing enough damage to the system and the leak rate is too low.

 

Seeing an increase in leak rate from machingun damage would be good imo.

 

One thing that needs to be modeled (if it's not already modeled) is the difference between the radiator/line being perforated vs severed. In one case water could still potentially get to the engine and provide some cooling (though it would still overheat eventually) a severed line would overheat the engine very quickly due to no water getting to the engine at all. All depends on how the coolant system in the aircraft is set up of course, not sure but Iirc the 109 could isolate the radiators if there was a leak so this may not have a large effect on it.

iThe engine should start running hot immediately after the cooling system is perforated irrespective of whether its a fast or slow leak. One of the major factors that influence the cooling capability of a pressurized system is just that; pressure. Once it's gone the coolant will boil at a much lower temperature and turn to steam inside the system. After this happens, catastrophic overheat will occured VERY quickly.

[=RS=Stix_09]

 

42 minutes ago, III./JG7-MarkWilhelmsson said:

iThe engine should start running hot immediately after the cooling system is perforated irrespective of whether its a fast or slow leak. One of the major factors that influence the cooling capability of a pressurized system is just that; pressure. Once it's gone the coolant will boil at a much lower temperature and turn to steam inside the system. After this happens, catastrophic overheat will occured VERY quickly.

Only because a cut off system is not modeled in current game in the b109 F/G's(ive not played for a bit , so not sure if that has been changed in any patches in last 12 months. Not sure about other planes.
Also depends on what part of cooling system is hit and how bad as to how long engine will last.
(vids  a bit dated but still process to get home is same)

Like many things in il-2 simplifications are made around stuff like this. (its modeled in dcs as show in spoiler pics)
 

Spoiler

 

(From DCS bf109K4 manual, showing left and right cut off valve handles)

 

 

Edited April 10, 2020 by =RS=Stix_09
picture uploaded

[Bilbo_Baggins]

1 hour ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

 

If you let yourself to be shot at by AI hard enough to inflict heavy damage to the radiator you are going down by other causes anyway since AI doesn't aim for specific parts, other areas of your plane will be hit... Petrovich has told us the radiator leak modelling takes into account different drain rates based on how badly hit the system was, there is a possibility this rate is too low for a couple rifle caliber hits but that's all I can say.

 

When hit hard multiple times by big caliber weapons the radiators drain quite fast in just a couple minutes.

 

If you hit something with big caliber rounds then a lot of damage is going to happen to various systems, however, if you do a controlled test and use i16 AI planes and wait for them to burst your water cooler only (without other engine system damage) , then the plane will just fly forever streaming white coolant like I showed in the video. 

 

How should one of these planes climb hard at stall speed continuously unaffected with a hit to the pressurized cooling system like that? That's surely not right. 

 

And also, why doesn't the coolant ever run out streaming?

 

Video of 21 minutes combat power on the blown water cooler: 

 

https://streamable.com/wvzdli

Edited April 10, 2020 by Bilbo_Baggins

[Jason_Williams]

Take the radiator discussion elsewhere please. If not, I'll move it. It's become too large for this thread.

 

Jason

[Bilbo_Baggins]

39 minutes ago, Jason_Williams said:

Take the radiator discussion elsewhere please. If not, I'll move it. It's become too large for this thread.

 

Jason

 

With respect, you yourself in the other thread said to bring it to this thread Jason. Where should it go?

 

Fact is the coolers stream coolant forever after this update (other damage aside). They overheated just fine before. 21 minutes (and longer) of combat power on a blown water-cooler is just not right. 

 

The Update is honestly fantastic, and I have been so looking forward to it, but this is an important issue. 

 

Cheers

Edited April 10, 2020 by Bilbo_Baggins

[FeuerFliegen]

Not sure if this has been posted in this thread yet, but I immediately found a big problem with the update regarding the P47

 

I interconnected my RPM lever to my throttle lever, and it's as if they are only connected on the bottom connector of the throttle- basically once you select to connect them, the RPM will move up with the throttle, but when you move the throttle back down, it will not bring the RPM lever with it.  Now with the RPM lever above the throttle, you can move the RPM lever independently, but it stops at the throttle's position and you can not move it below it.  If you don't understand what I mean, just try it for yourself and you'll see.

 

I have no idea why the update would have affected this, but it has.

 

 

Also, the Turbocharger's lever being interconnected is not affected; it still works and stays connected to the throttle as it should.

[Beazil]

35 minutes ago, Bilbo_Baggins said:

 

With respect, you yourself in the other thread said to bring it to this thread Jason. Where should it go?

 

Cheers

Bug reports Bilbo.

 

I just wanted to comment how much I'm enjoying the various new and exciting ways I've seen planes go down,  and gone down myself.  Some shots are insta-flambe, which are unexpected and welcome when they do, and others are  more... Diverse.

I just had an opportunity to take an exciting quick mission and took a single 20 mm in the tail of a 202 from a spit 5, and had to fight the plane for control in a way I never had before.  Really cool stuff!  Thank you.

Edited April 10, 2020 by JG51_Beazil

[RedKestrel]

4 minutes ago, SCG_FeuerFliegen said:

Not sure if this has been posted in this thread yet, but I immediately found a big problem with the update regarding the P47

 

I interconnected my RPM lever to my throttle lever, and it's as if they are only connected on the bottom connector of the throttle- basically once you select to connect them, the RPM will move up with the throttle, but when you move the throttle back down, it will not bring the RPM lever with it.  Now with the RPM lever above the throttle, you can move the RPM lever independently, but it stops at the throttle's position and you can not move it below it.  If you don't understand what I mean, just try it for yourself and you'll see.

 

I have no idea why the update would have affected this, but it has.

 

 

Also, the Turbocharger's lever being interconnected is not affected; it still works and stays connected to the throttle as it should.

That is how the lever functioned IRL. 

[=621=Samikatz]

1 hour ago, Bilbo_Baggins said:

 

With respect, you yourself in the other thread said to bring it to this thread Jason. Where should it go?

 

Fact is the coolers stream coolant forever after this update (other damage aside). They overheated just fine before. 21 minutes (and longer) of combat power on a blown water-cooler is just not right. 

 

The Update is honestly fantastic, and I have been so looking forward to it, but this is an important issue. 

 

Cheers

 

Sounds like an unintended thing that should get a formal bug report, honestly

[=RS=Stix_09]

 

9 minutes ago, =621=Samikatz said:

 

Sounds like an unintended thing that should get a formal bug report, honestly

Of course, like most major patches , this happens. That's the nature of updates. My short testing so far shows there is potential problem with this(more testing would be required to flesh it out). However in  my case, I've no interesting in being a bug tester, better things to do with my time right now.

 

In general I like this patch, and I appreciate the effort put in. keep it up.

Edited April 10, 2020 by =RS=Stix_09

[Pikestance]

 

My impression of Jason's comment is not that the topic was inappropriate for the thread just that it was becoming too large. I guess he feels that other issues will be 'drowned out" by the discussion and be missed.