Cliffs & Tobruk vs IL2 appeal

[jollyjack]

I wonder what is it what really appeals in Cliffs. Big Bombers?

I tried Cliffs again several times, but the jerkiness of the planes behavior, getting the controller hardware to work properly, especially regarding trim functions,

Missing a proper HUI showing air speed and height, and the graphics put me off a little compared to IL2 and RoF even.  

PS i am an SP-er, so maybe that's the catch LoL .....

[zzzxxxxzzz]

For me the FM, DM and graphics (it must be the lighting) plus many details present

 

I would recommend that you insist with the settings of controls, try to set the sensitivity to your liking

[Avimimus]

4 hours ago, jollyjack said:

I wonder what is it what really appeals in Cliffs. Big Bombers?

I tried Cliffs again several times, but the jerkiness of the planes behavior, getting the controller hardware to work properly, especially regarding trim functions,

Missing a proper HUI showing air speed and height, and the graphics put me off a little compared to IL2 and RoF even.  

PS i am an SP-er, so maybe that's the catch LoL .....

 

Some sources of appeal:

 

It has specific theatres - Battle of Britain and especially North Africa can't be found anywhere else. If one hasn't read pilot accounts about North Africa (or histories) it might not be interesting initially - but for those of us who have read about it, it is tremendously exciting to get to try flying a simulation of it. In many ways it is more interesting than the 8th Airforce.

 

It has specific aircraft... if you really want to fly a Bf-108, Martlet, Blenheim, Wellington, D.520 etc. there is no better simulation.

 

It allows larger formations of bombers and ships.

 

It has an easy to use mission editor.

 

In terms of flight modelling and damage models it still rivals the most modern sims. There are also differences in the approach taken which some people prefer (e.g. how g-forces are represented by head movement, anthropomorphic controls,etc.) The AI is probably harder to debug because there are so many options (i.e. sliders in the mission editor, but it does allow for more options.

 

The only significant downsides are (1) it is hard to bind and learn all of the controls (2) slightly dated graphics (i.e. there is still some work that could be done on the terrain, and the representation of aircraft damage isn't as visually spectacular as the newest sims). There are also some areas for improvements (e.g. one can't order attacks on ground targets as a flight leader etc.)

[56RAF_Stickz]

First I fly all 3 main stream sims. The only Clod "big" bomber is the wellington, that is only really same size as he111 or the br20 so its not really a big bomber more like a cumbersome medium. However it and beaufighter are a huge pull for me (plus others).

The far more realistic bomb sights (having a bombsight position even) without a perfect auto level or even an autopilot for fighters. The era 40-43 and western front is also my preference.  Gives all bombers breathing space and missions and an active role, no 30mm rocket ships for either side. Thus the two maps are more to my liking. Also pretty much agree with xzx above.

Having to use/set compass requires prep and planning and the ingame map tools for protractor and compass are a godsend especially on Tobruk - and that I do miss on BoX.

Being able to area bomb a target - especially airfield rather than just knocking down hangers and buildings is also a plus for me.

In game mission editor is a plus.

HUD dont notice. Tend to rely on instruments cos my vision is far from good - which possibly makes it easier to swap for me. Graphics its certainly far superior to RoF which I still enjoy fly sometimes (offline) - but maybe your setup is substantially different to mine. Dont really notice a lot of difference to BoX series graphically although some of the maps look better (although no-one else has done London successfully), but my main preference is having big maps. Big maps also means there is the option for big bombers able to get altitude and fly a mission.

Have no control jerkiness nor any real issues setting it all up, have trims using both analogue and rotaries and switches. Was pretty much able to match settings for both Clod and BoX. Have you tried the joystick function utility they put in? (I havent cos I didnt need to, but hear its pretty good for making it easier).

Off line perhaps is better/easier in BoX due to a lot of content catering to it, although not sure that either ai is too good.

I tend to fly them both online primarily. The third offline because its only got teeny weeny maps however nicely detailed they look (but 20minute to fly of either end) which is a killer/turn off to me and limited fighters only

3 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

It has specific aircraft... if you really want to fly a Bf-108, Martlet, Blenheim, Wellington, D.520 etc. there is no better simulation.

bloody hell you forgot the beaufighter, how remiss can you be

[OBT-Mikmak]

What is really appeals me in IL2 Cliffs Of Dover Blitz / Desert Wings Tobruk :

 

 

[343KKT_Kintaro]

5 hours ago, jollyjack said:

I wonder what is it what really appeals in Cliffs. Big Bombers?

 

 

Not necessarily big bombers (the Wellington is the biggest you'll fly in this sim) but big formations of bombers yes, for sure, and that's pretty cool if compared to other sims out there.

 

 

5 hours ago, jollyjack said:

I tried Cliffs again several times, but the jerkiness of the planes behavior, getting the controller hardware to work properly, especially regarding trim functions

 

 

You need to fly several aircraft before uttering any irrevocable judgement. After flying almost all aircraft in this game, now I know what aircraft I do prefer. I'm sure you'll find that plenty of fighters are confortable to fly: Spitfires and Hurricanes, 109s and G.50s, Martlets, Tomahawks and Kittyhawks... all of these are a dream when you fly them in "Cliffs" and "Tobruk". I f you want to know the exact list of flyable aircraft in the Dover series, please have a look over there.

 

 

5 hours ago, jollyjack said:

Missing a proper HUI showing air speed and height

 

 

I guess you meant "HUD", not "HUI". Those informations you are requesting are typically displayed in what it is called a "speed bar"... In the first and third IL-2 simulators the speed bar is optional and when visible it is visible on the lower left corner on the screen. Here, on this image, you can see the speed bar in the good old IL-2 1946 simulator. In the third IL-2 game, "IL-2 Sturmovik: Great Battles Series", the speed bar is visible in its simplified version here. There's a more complete version of the Great Battles series speed bar, you can see it over there, for example. But there's no speed bar in "IL-2 Sturmovik: Dover Series" nor in DCS... because they are more ambitious simulators, their developers tend towards serious simulation rather than towards arcade-style simulation. My advice is the following: whatever simulator you use, accept the challenge of checking your altitude and speed on the instruments that are visible on your dashboard, trust me if I tell you this will be a much more rewarding experience.

 

 

5 hours ago, jollyjack said:

and the graphics put me off a little compared to IL2 and RoF even.

 

 

When you say "IL2" in fact your are referring to only one IL2... out of the three existing IL-2 simulators. Obviously, "IL-2 Sturmovik" is a Soviet ground-attack aircraft of WWII... but since 1998 it is also a name that refers to a brand of simulators. The so mentioned brand is a trademark owned in Russia by 1C Company, a brand that spawned three different series of combat flight simulators. The one you are mentioning is the third and last to date, the Great Battles series, which as you may know started in 2013 with "Battle of Stalingrad". The first sim was "IL-2 Sturmovik" in 2001 (renamed "IL-2 Sturmovik: 1946" as of 2006) and the second is the one you are asking questions about, "IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover - Blitz" and "IL-2 Sturmovik: Desert Wings - Tobruk"... the Dover series.

 

About what you said on the graphics, well, I simply hope you'll change your mind on this matter very soon. The Great Battles series is too cartoon-like when compared with the landscape and cockpits in the Dover series. One good points in the Great Battles series, if I may say, is that it inherits from Rise of Flight a way of modelling cities that show buildings that are very close to each other. At low altitude, for example when flying WWI aircraft, this is very cool, but not at middle or high altitude. As soon as you fly a WWII aircraft and you reach 2000 feet in altitude (or more), the Channel map in Cliffs of Dover simply humiliates all maps in the Great Battles series.

 

 

5 hours ago, jollyjack said:

PS i am an SP-er, so maybe that's the catch LoL .....

 

 

SP? You mean you usually play on a Game Boy Advance SP console?

 

 

 

[Eisenfaustus]

54 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

Obviously, "IL-2 Sturmovik" is a Soviet ground-attack aircraft of WWII... but since 1998 it is also a name that refers to a brand of simulators.

It was pretty clear he meant great battles

54 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

SP? You mean you usually play on a Game Boy Advance SP console?

Would have been funnier if you hadn’t been correcting every little meaningless mistake before...

 

7 hours ago, jollyjack said:

I wonder what is it what really appeals in Cliffs. Big Bombers?

I tried Cliffs again several times, but the jerkiness of the planes behavior, getting the controller hardware to work properly, especially regarding trim functions,

Missing a proper HUI showing air speed and height, and the graphics put me off a little compared to IL2 and RoF even.  

PS i am an SP-er, so maybe that's the catch LoL .....

Many of the great points of Cluffs have been named already - different theatres, cool early war planes, large ai formations ect...

Graphics, fm/dm ect are surely a matter of taste with good points on both sides. 
What keeps me away is the unwillingness to miss out on vr-induced immersion, the unintuive ui, the lack of native BoB SP content and the deactivation of cool features such as custom belt composition for SP. 
 

And for the record: SP in this stands for single player...

[343KKT_Kintaro]

7 minutes ago, Eisenfaustus said:

It was pretty clear he meant great battles

 

 

No, it wasn't. And if you think it was, then my conclusion is that you belong to those fans of the Great Battles series who are permanently mentioning the "IL2" name... while shrugging the two other games off. There's some kind of arrogance in such an attitude, don't you agree my friend?

 

 

7 minutes ago, Eisenfaustus said:

Would have been funnier if you hadn’t been correcting every little meaningless mistake before...

 

 

As explained above, I wasn't correcting meaningless mistakes. There are three IL2 games, please be explicit when you refer to one of them.

 

Also, after an Internet research, I didn't find any meaningful result for that "SP" if not the name of this console. I wasn't trying to be funny, really, that was a literal question, not a joke. On the contrary, I thought the guy was referring to that console as some kind of joke he was making himself... Anyway, I got him wrong and I apologise.

 

 

7 minutes ago, Eisenfaustus said:

And for the record: SP in this stands for single player...

 

 

Some people are better adapted than others to this world full of acronyms...

 

 

[Eisenfaustus]

1 minute ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

Some people are better adapted than others to this world full of acronyms...

If it was an honest question then I apologise - thought you were making fun him. 

6 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

There's some kind of arrogance in such an attitude, don't you agree my friend?

Frankly I don’t - but I see your point. While CLOD has IL2 in its name to remind of its 1946 heritage, it doesn’t even feature the plane. You yourself ignored il2 birds of prey and il2 birds of steel - because these are not mainly associated with the il2 line. So yes - GB would would have been the better term. But I don’t think it is a sign of arrogance that GB - with 3 sturmoviks in it - is more associated with IL2 than CLOD. 

[Cub_1]

Admittingly, my specs don't allow me to run Il2 Bos etc at ultra settings, but the graphics are crap compared to CLOD. CLOD gives me the look and feel of flying a plane where as IL2 Bos reminds me every time that I'm playing a game. Il2 Bos for me is a stutter fest, and believe me when I say I have tweaked it and followed guides. I want to like Bos as I foolishly bought all the modules, but I just keep going back to CLOD - to me it seems more realistic and fun.

[343KKT_Kintaro]

1 minute ago, Eisenfaustus said:

If it was an honest question then I apologise

 

No worries...

 

1 minute ago, Eisenfaustus said:

thought you were making fun him.

 

Absolutely not...

 

 

1 minute ago, Eisenfaustus said:

While CLOD has IL2 in its name to remind of its 1946 heritage, it doesn’t even feature the plane.

 

 

I think Oleg's idea was to stick to plan and release the game as "Storm of War: The Battle of Britain"... but somebody (maybe somebody within 1C Company) wanted to take advantage of the success of the first "IL-2 Sturmovik"... and here we are...

 

 

1 minute ago, Eisenfaustus said:

You yourself ignored il2 birds of prey and il2 birds of steel - because these are not mainly associated with the il2 line.

 

 

They are nothing but ports for consoles with the very same game engine, so they are in the family of the first simulator, the "IL-2 Sturmovik" that saw the light of day in 2001.

 

 

 

1 minute ago, Eisenfaustus said:

So yes - GB would would have been the better term. But I don’t think it is a sign of arrogance that GB - with 3 sturmoviks in it - is more associated with IL2 than CLOD.

 

 

Please forget if whether or not there were Ilyushins involved in the Battle of Britain. In this context, "IL-2 Sturmovik" is a commercial brand that is officially used for three different simulators which are distinguisable because they are run by three different game engines. Please read the domain in this website. Please read the official title of this game. Please read the official title of this add-on. I understand what you mean, but it's a subjective view. For years now, Jason and 1C Game Studios talk about three different "generations" of IL2 Games, the Great Battles series being the third one.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Cub_1 said:

Admittingly, my specs don't allow me to run Il2 Bos etc at ultra settings, but the graphics are crap compared to CLOD. CLOD gives me the look and feel of flying a plane where as IL2 Bos reminds me every time that I'm playing a game. Il2 Bos for me is a stutter fest, and believe me when I say I have tweaked it and followed guides. I want to like Bos as I foolishly bought all the modules, but I just keep going back to CLOD - to me it seems more realistic and fun.

 

 

IL2GB gives me the same impression, it's great simulation... but it bares no comparison with IL2CoD, which is a top-noch simulator, same as DCS in its category (DCS is a study, not a survey). Nevertheless, I'm a happy possessor of plenty of modules and collector aircraft in the Great Battles series and I highly recommend you to reconsider your decision. There are great things to do in the Great Battles series, flying a P-47 turbo turned on and bound to the other levers, the Me 262... and plenty of other things you can't do in the Dover series. There's no reson to deprive yourself of the use of all the great sims taht you may find over there. RoF/IL2GB are a great lineage of flight sims and even if my top preference goes to other sims, they are serious simulations, which are not that abundant in the present day. Something like one year ago, I purchased all the flyables in Rise of Flight and I'm very happy with that, you can fly a S-22 Ilya Muromets or a Felixtowe F2a... things you cannot do with the Flying Circus volumes, for example. In short: there a only a few flight sims that really deserve to be described as serious gaming (four in my opinion), and there's no reason to give up on one, or two... or three of them...

 

By the way, Cub, you should do something with your specs so that you can really enjoy your Great Battles series modules, the game deserves it not because of its defaults (the Dover series has its own defaults) but because of its undeniable qualities.

 

 

 

[jollyjack]

Well, i surely opened something, but i'll give Cliffs another try .. ?

 

[palker4]

No engine timers. You can blow your engine in seconds because of realistic reasons not because the egg timer says so.

[343KKT_Kintaro]

Thank you jollyjack, everything's clearer now.

[Peachy9]

You feel success to come home with 1 or 2 victories and in one piece - I come home with 7 victories at a time in GB in single player!

[Guest deleted@7076]

 

-Deleted-

 

 

Edited September 12, 2022 by Varrattu

[Angry_Kitten]

I havent had the chance to play Dover, but here is my take on it.. 

 

In reviews its a good reminder of red baron and Rise of Flight.  Saw the game footage of tobruk where you take off in an air raid on your air field and start bomber hunting... thats a standard i really missed from Red Baron days.  

 

It doesnt LOOK like 4K skins on the planes, but not all planes in Great Battles have a 4K skin till you go custom.   

 

But the damage looks interesting in a way, cartoony on some videos where a single straffing  pass by a 109 over a british bomber has half the covering from the fueselage dissapear and show ribs of aircraft..

 

 

This sudden learning, AFTER purchase no less, that is doesnt have the speed bar is crap, im a tad dyslexic and have never had a chance figuring out what dial goes to what in Great Battles... 

[343KKT_Kintaro]

24 minutes ago, pocketshaver said:

But the damage looks interesting in a way, cartoony on some videos where a single straffing  pass by a 109 over a british bomber has half the covering from the fueselage dissapear and show ribs of aircraft

 

 

You talk about Palker's recent video... right? This is something that is specific to the Vickers Wellington inner armature (the aircraft is built following a "geodetic airframe"). So what you saw is historically accurate and not cartoony at all:

 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/Vickers_Wellington_Mark_X%2C_HE239_%27NA-Y%27%2C_of_No._428_Squadron_RCAF_%28April_1943%29.png

 

https://ww2today.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Wellington-bomber-fire-damage-595x301.jpg

 

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/wellington5-jpg.171269/

 

https://www.recoverycurios.com/site/user-assets/AIR/MODEL%20AIRCRAFT/WELLINGTON%20BOMBER/WELLINGTON-IMAGE-5.jpg

 

https://i.imgur.com/D9qdDLO.jpg

 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Vickers_Wellington_at_Ingham_-_Polish_Air_Force_in_the_air_offensive_against_Germany%2C_1942-1945_CH7350.jpg

 

 

24 minutes ago, pocketshaver said:

This sudden learning, AFTER purchase no less, that is doesnt have the speed bar is crap, im a tad dyslexic and have never had a chance figuring out what dial goes to what in Great Battles... 

 

 

Welcome to the world of serious simulations! Trust me Pocketshaver, you'll love this game when you'll learn its level of virtual pilotage. This requires a little effort from you, but I'm sure you can do it.

 

 

 

Oh, by the way, simply use your pointer (mouse cursor) on the gauges, labels will show what dial goes to what, at least for the ones you'll use in the game.

 

 

[Angry_Kitten]

yeah the mouse pointer SUCKS.....    using the mouse as the basic means to look around the plane and canopy SUCKS.. 

 

i did the joystick setup for my thrustmaster ..... the first time it reset my trigger and cannon trigger to the FULL WHEEL BRAKES when i saved it. 

 

Second time around it still doing that...  BS.....  

 

i have no joy stick controls   i move the joy stick and the plane does what it wants to do... 

 

mouse cursor couldnt even tell me the "puch to start engine"

love the way the gunsight in the E1 only stays inside the collimator screen when i bank and turn LEFT..... half a sight is fun..

[9./JG52_J-HAT]

Turn off steam cloud for the game. That should stop getting your control settings being overwritten / deleted.

 

Turns out the German sights were aligned with the right eye... if you don‘t have TrackIR to move your head (from what I wrote I assume you don‘t, you can use Shift+F1 to lean to the gunsight and get it aligned.
 

Or use the right button (or was it middle button / scroll wheel press?) of your mouse to move your head sideways and change your view point. I think this still works.

[343KKT_Kintaro]

7 minutes ago, pocketshaver said:

yeah the mouse pointer SUCKS.....    using the mouse as the basic means to look around the plane and canopy SUCKS...

 

 

You didn't get it my friend. You can use the mouse as a view system in almost all flight simulators at least since the late 1990s... but this is not what I'm talking about! (personnaly I agree with you: I never liked the mouse as a view system). I only said that in the Dover series, FOR KNOWING WHAT EACH GAUGE OR INSTRUMENT IS FOR, you can use your mouse's roll-over feature on the dashboard (and everywhere in the cockpit) so that a label appears and tells you the information you need for each gauge and/or instrument in your cockpit. After that, after having used your mouse cursor for exploring your gauges and instruments in your cockpit, your mouse pointer will automatically become invisible as long as it is not located over a gauge or over an instrument. If you don't want the mouse cursor becomesvisible in your simulation, simply deactivate it with the F10 key on your keyboard. You want it back? No problem, you press F10 and the cursor is back...

 

Otherwhise, let's go back to the view system. Since 2009 I'm using a "TrackIR 5" which is an excellent product for the Dover series. What view system are you using in your Great Battles modules? a VR headset?

 

 

7 minutes ago, pocketshaver said:

i did the joystick setup for my thrustmaster ..... the first time it reset my trigger and cannon trigger to the FULL WHEEL BRAKES when i saved it.

 

 

This is not a problem. I recently gave an explanation to another colleague in the present forums... so, I only need to copy-paste and adapt the response I gave him... which is the following:

 

Launch your game and, on the main menu, click on "Options". Then, when you are in the "Options" page, click on "Controls". Once you are in the "Controls" page (see the below images), choose, out of two, the type of controls you want to set first, if axes controls (mainly with your HOTAS, your HOTAS is your joystick and your throttle lever) or key controls (mainly with your keyboard, but plenty of buttons are in modern HOTAS).

 

My advice is you set first all the axes controls, this way:

 

 

 

And then, the key controls... this way:

 

 

 

 

In my case, examples of axes controls are the stick, the throttle and one small wheel that is located on top of the throttle lever in my HOTAS and that I use as the propeller pitch. Examples of key controls are the letter G in my keyboard, which in my case is destined to toggle the undercarriage down and up, or the War Emergency Power toggle key (WEP), which in my case is a button on the throttle lever in my HOTAS. So, in my case, the undercarriage and the WEP are one in the keyboard, the other one in my HOTAS, but both are key controls as they are not axes.

 

Now, if you want to set the specific settings for a specific aircraft, please know that there are no specific settings for specific types, variants or subvariants in this game... if not explicitly notified as such in the very same lists of controls (the lists are partially visible on the two above screenshots).

 

So, as a conclusion, first of all go to the flashcards that correspond to the planes whose engine controls you want to set. It is reading the specific flashcard of one specific aircraft that you'll learn the specific controls you need to set in the lists of controls. Start first with the axes controls: a double click on the name of one control line in the list will display the pop-up window that awaits your click or axe's use so that a control is assigned on your HOTAS or keyboard. As I said, start first with the axes controls. Then, when you are running out of axes controls in your HOTAS, start setting the key controls (again, following the flashcards as this is your first contact with the simulator and the flashcards instruct on the basic controls you need, the bare bones!). As the flashcards only give instructions for takeoff, cruise flight and landing, you'll need to learn what other controls you need to set, but this will come with time, with experience, and simply exploring the lists of controls.

 

VERY IMPORTANT NOTE 1: before you plug your HOTAS, choose carefully the USB port in your computer as you'll need the very same plug every time you'll play your Cliffs of Dover simulator.

 

VERY IMPORTANT NOTE 2: every time you set controls in your game, go to the lower right corner and click on "Apply"... you'll be immediately kicked off the Controls page so you'll need to go back to the Controls Options page and, this time, click on "Save As...", which will open a window in your PC hardrive where you'll name and save your controls file... if you do not do so, your updated controls will not be kept the next time you'll play the game.

 

VERY IMPORTANT NOTE 3: every time you save your controls file, you need to overwrite the same file with the same name.

 

VERY IMPORTANT NOTE 4: in your Steam library, go to your Cliffs of Dover Blitz section, go the parameters (the toothed weel icon) and untick two boxes, the Steam overlay and the Steam downloads.

 

 

7 minutes ago, pocketshaver said:

i have no joy stick controls   i move the joy stick and the plane does what it wants to do

 

 

Again, please follow the above instructions I gave you. This is a new simulator for you and you simply need to learn a few new procedures you can't find in other games, that's all. When you'll have learned those new procedures, you'll realise how great this combat flight simulatior is!

 

 

7 minutes ago, pocketshaver said:

mouse cursor couldnt even tell me the "puch to start engine"

 

 

There's a simple explanation for that: it's historical fact. In 90% of the aircraft back in the 1930s and 1940s, there wasn't a "start engine button" in the cockpit (90% is a figure of speech). For example, on board a German Bf 109 or an Italian C.202, the pilot activated a few controls in the cockpit (he opened the fuel cock, switched the magnetos on, activated the fuel pump...) and when his aircraft was ready he gave instructions to two mechanics who were standing on the right wing of the plane and who had already introduced a large crank handle in the starboard side of the engine, not far from the windshield but completely out of the cockpit, thus out of the pilot's reach. The mechanics are not modelled in the game, not in the Dover series, nor in the Great Battles series,you can't see them, but when you bind your "engine start key" and you use it in such an aircharft like a Bf 109 or a C.202, this simply means that two guys are, at first with difficulty, cranking up your crankshaft so that a first spark ignites your engine.

 

In the present day we have plenty of things to learn with our simulators simply because the golden era of simulation... IS NOW.

 

"DCS" (Digital Combat Simulator) goes very far in terms of pure simulation but it is a study type simulator (you purchase one module so that you have only one aircraft, though very well modelled, but no historical map). The Great Battles series is a survey type simulator (you purchase one module and you have 8/10 aircraft and at least one historical map). Because of its acceptable level of simulation and because of its arcade-style features (like the speed bar), I'd say the Great Battles series is good for quickly going to dogfight in servers. Great Battles presents simplified engine start-up procedures and simplified flight and damage models. The Dover series is a survey type simulator as well, same as the Great Battles series, but it's half way between DCS and Great Battles: indeed the Dover series presents a nice planeset... same as Great Battles, historical maps... same as Great Battles... but it does presnet a much more accurate simulation. With the Dover series you purchased an excellent simulator Pocketshaver, in my opinion the best WWII combat flight simulator ever. Now you simply need to tame the beast! But this requires the piece of an effort...

 

 

[FeuerFliegen]

On 3/8/2021 at 2:37 PM, palker4 said:

No engine timers. You can blow your engine in seconds because of realistic reasons not because the egg timer says so.

 

How exactly does it work?  Is it just based on keeping the oil/water cool and not over-revving? 

 

I've always heard this but when reading the plane manuals, they still list timers.  Is this just a recommendation because it'll typically overheat if you run it for longer than that?  

[Thundercracker]

The recommended times are just listed for safe operation, they are not fixed in stone a la box. 

 

[JV69badatflyski]

2 hours ago, SCG_FeuerFliegen said:

 

How exactly does it work?  Is it just based on keeping the oil/water cool and not over-revving? 

 

I've always heard this but when reading the plane manuals, they still list timers.  Is this just a recommendation because it'll typically overheat if you run it for longer than that?  

that's few parameters of the whole equation, you may add the cylinders temp and  overhead temp. each cylinder has it's own calculations. so in cod, you can actually push your engine more than the recommended settings if you keep your engine temps within the limits. there is no egg timer in cod. the pilot has to look after his engine so, the necessity to know your instruments, being able to read them with a glance and interpret the data depending on the situation.
i can't even count the number of engines i blew up just because of overrev, it's much more than the ones i blew up because of bad rad's management.

[9./JG52_J-HAT]

 

The time limits were there in real life also because they wanted to preserve the engines. Not only prevent failures in flight.
 

Maintenance would be burning through engines in no time, having to replace them after few hours if everyone started pushing the engines too far too often with no regard to physical wear, just looking at the temperature. Or risk the engine failing in the next mission, for example.  
For some types the pilot had to note after the flight for the crew that he had gone over a certain boost limit, so they could inspect the engine, transmission etc.. Think about the wire in the Mustang iirc that breaks when you push the throttle past a certain point.

And keep push it too far for too long and you will probably also see immediate effects.
Imagine going too far with the engine, even if it is still working ok way past the allowable time per manual, just to have the engine fail at some point and you can’t get home. Say you lose power over the North Sea...

 

So, the reason for the time limits is real life logistical, maintenance, not dying etc. concerns. 

 

In CloD you could initially simulate wear and tear of the airframe and engine (weather slider in the skin screen) for a mission and keep a progression from mission to mission iirc. Don‘t know if it is still active in the game but this is a situation in which going over the time limits and pushing your engine too much would make you notice what that does.

Bit this is bot the case anymore afaik. So no problem going through an engine a flight.
BoS sort of tries to simulate / force the real life behavior.
 

Something interesting that happened to me in CloD: flying the F-4 derated on full throttle for almost 2,5 hours straight (drop tank and 100% fuel). It can theoretically do that... At some, even though the temps had been fine, the engine started acting weird and losing power. Had to head home and land.

[Angry_Kitten]

love the way the gunsight in the E1 only stays inside the collimator screen when i bank and turn LEFT..... half a sight is fun..

 

I did manage to figure out the basic joy stick controls last night using the ingame controls, things felt sluggish in an E1 over calais...    

                    i did the english bombers on calais sortee, i made contact, it felt sluggish like red baron did when you hit system capacity for RAM,  but after i made my first pass i could not find the bombers after i swung around for another go. 

 

Did a spitfire over channel free flight, joystick controls still worked, but NOTHING for guns either joy or key board made any "boom boom".. 

 

ill have to adjust better tonight, guess im going to have to print out flash cards this weekend. 

 

     I KNOW i saw in a thread on here someone mention a simplified engine control system,, how do i get that?

 

 

doesnt take my throttle yet, but i dont feel any love for the built in keyboard "10% value buttons" like red baron used, run out of buttons fast.

 

this todays soirtee, out of a total 73 minutes of game time, the spitfire flew like a plane response wise the SE5A in flying circus compared to the DR1 at stall speed 

 

But speed bar WOULD be good

Edited April 22, 2021 by pocketshaver

[Dagwoodyt]

I'm trying to reconcile the technological superiority of Blitz with the Steam stats I'm seeing. What's up?

[palker4]

13 minutes ago, Dagwoodyt said:

I'm trying to reconcile the technological superiority of Blitz with the Steam stats I'm seeing. What's up?

idk people are ignorant? You get few people with an axe to grind that go on and shit on CloD everywhere at every opportunity, while rest of us play happily. We are aware of the limitations of the sim but it has the goods where it counts and the damage and piston engine modelling are those goods.

Edited April 22, 2021 by palker4

[unlikely_spider]

16 minutes ago, Dagwoodyt said:

I'm trying to reconcile the technological superiority of Blitz with the Steam stats I'm seeing. What's up?

I don't have Tobruk yet (awaiting VR) but I would not conflate popularity with "technological superiority" or even how good a game actually is. Would you compare GB's popularity vs War Thunder and come to the same conclusion?

[343KKT_Kintaro]

1 hour ago, pocketshaver said:

love the way the gunsight in the E1 only stays inside the collimator screen when i bank and turn LEFT..... half a sight is fun..

 

Go to the "Controls Options" page and:

 

1 - Click on "Keys"

 

2 - Select "Views"

 

3 - Scroll down the list till the bottom of the page.

 

4 - Double click on the "Command" space that corresponds to the binding "Lean to Gunsight" and then assign one button on the top of your joystick (close to your thumb).

 

This will center the view on the gunsight's reticule, allowing an easier aiming. After you've shot, click again on the same button because if not, you simply will not recover the normal view around the cockpit and around the aircraft.

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, pocketshaver said:

I KNOW i saw in a thread on here someone mention a simplified engine control system,, how do i get that?

 

 

Go the main menu, click on "Options", click on "Realism"... and then, here you have it:

 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, pocketshaver said:

But speed bar WOULD be good

 

 

Apparently, after a few players asked that feature, this hasn't been accepted by the development team. But, trust me, you'll love to fly in "full realism" once you'll be confortable with the game 

 

 

[Angry_Kitten]

the flight manners is alot different from Great Battles, its interesting, in a way a tad more realistic as stalls are not as easy to recover from. But yeah, im going off complex engine management for a while. 

[Buzzsaw]

2 hours ago, pocketshaver said:

the flight manners is alot different from Great Battles, its interesting, in a way a tad more realistic as stalls are not as easy to recover from. But yeah, im going off complex engine management for a while. 

Please check the Flight Manuals/Aircraft Flashcards.

 

A lot can be learned from them regarding advisable settings that allow you to fly the aircraft in complex mode without difficulty.

[Koziolek]

On 4/22/2021 at 8:59 AM, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

 

You talk about Palker's recent video... right? This is something that is specific to the Vickers Wellington inner armature (the aircraft is built following a "geodetic airframe"). So what you saw is historically accurate and not cartoony at all:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't agree with that. What have you shown us is the result of a fire, with the canvas burned out over a time and not an instant effect of bullets hit. It would be like a WWI plane, just a smattering of small holes in a fabric  

[343KKT_Kintaro]

45 minutes ago, Koziolek said:

 

I don't agree with that. What have you shown us is the result of a fire

 

 

No, my friend, not a fire.

 

 

45 minutes ago, Koziolek said:

 

not an instant effect of bullets hit. It would be like a WWI plane, just a smattering of small holes in a fabric  

 

 

Palker didn't use bullets only. He also simultaneously shot his THREE 20mm MG 151/20 autocannons. The historical photographs I posted show the effects of cannonshell, not the effects of bullets, nor the effects of a fire.

 

 

[Koziolek]

On 4/27/2021 at 7:09 PM, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

Palker didn't use bullets only. He also simultaneously shot his THREE 20mm MG 151/20 autocannons. The historical photographs I posted show the effects of cannonshell, not the effects of bullets, nor the effects of a fire.

 

 

Not so sure about this. Even cannon fire wouldn't remove the fabric from all around the fuselage. From one side maybe. Depends which side the attack came from. See cannon damage on picture No4

And look at one of the picture titles

Wellington-bomber-fire-damage-595x301.jpg

I agree that a rudder damage on picture 1 is from the cannon, but the rest could be fire

 

and look at the tail in picture 2, totally black and covered in soot

 

 

Edited April 29, 2021 by Koziolek

[343KKT_Kintaro]

This is picture 2, as you named it. You're right! It seems this was mainly caused by fire.

 

1) The source is here : https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/raf-2-engined-bombers.35512/page-2

 

2) It reads: "Vickers Wellington Mark IV, Z1407 ‘BH-Z’, “ZoÅka”, of No. 300 Polish Bomber Squadron RAF on the ground at Ingham, Lincolnshire, having lost most of its rear fuselage fabric through battle damage sustained on 4/5 September 1942 when raiding Bremen, Germany. In spite of a damaged wireless set, a badly working rudder, damaged flaps and no navigational instruments, the pilot, Pilot Officer Stanislaw Machej, with the cooperation of his whole crew, brought the aircraft safely home."

 

We cannot be sure of the type of projectile that was used by the Germans in this instance, if cannonshell or incendiary bullets.

 

At any rate, thank you for your input.