Flickering gas gauge in axis planes.

[Panzerlang]

We've noticed this in the Fw190 and Stuka, the gas gauge needle flicking around and it's tied to the fuel-tank selector knob being rotated back and forward. It seems to be simulating the pilot checking the tanks but 'he' does it every five seconds, which is a bit weird. Is it a bug?

[palker4]

No pretty sure it is working as intended. In planes with multiple fuel tanks your pilot will scroll through them in regular intervals, since you cannot control it yourself. And the interval is pretty short so you don't have to stare at the fuel gauge for too long.

[Dragon1-1]

It's pretty silly, especially since tanks already have a binding for the fuel gauge switch. So not a bug, just bad design. 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

The Devs are completely overhauling the fuel system so they might very well change this in a coming update.

[=FEW=fernando11]

2 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

It's pretty silly, especially since tanks already have a binding for the fuel gauge switch. So not a bug, just bad design. 

Actualy its not bad design. But a soon to be "legacy" feature. 

Until very recently there was no fuel gauge switch. So to chech difererent fuel tanks, the game would simulate the pilot changing fuel tanks every so ofthen.

With the upcoming fuel sistems rework, its logical to asume this function could be made redundant.

[40plus]

3 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

...... So not a bug, just bad design. 

 

Rather, it's a clever solution to a simple problem. 

[[APAF]VR_Spartan85]

Can’t wait to add a fuel selector button on my button box ?

[Dragon1-1]

3 hours ago, 40plus said:

Rather, it's a clever solution to a simple problem. 

There's nothing clever about it. The obvious and proper solution would be to add a key binding. Instead, they made this crock. The only way it would make sense is if they don't think remembering one more key binding is something Il-2 players are capable of. That there was no gauge switch until recently is bad design. 

 

It would only be clever if this was a console game and had to contend with a very button-challenged gamepad interface. It isn't.

[Panzerlang]

Thanks guys. I've run out of likes so laters on that.

Yeah, a bit weird maybe. Or not. "Bad design", I guess part of their deliberation might have been "how many buttons do our players have available?" Not everyone can afford fancy button-boxes. 
Ideally of course, for those with the deep pockets, it would be "so vereh, vereh nice" for every single in-cockpit function to be mappable. Full authentic engine starts, yeah baby. ?

[BlitzPig_EL]

The number of key bindings is becoming overwhelming.  Simply too many things to remember.  It's one of the reasons I don't fly the 262, I'll be damned if I can remember how to start the silly thing.  Of course if I put one in a multiplayer mission I make for the BlitzPigs I just start all aircraft "On Runway" in the mission builder.  Makes life easy.  I already have a real job, so making what I do for pleasure/entertainment more of a job isn't going to happen.

 

I do enjoy managing the engine/engines, but when I see my mates who just keep theirs on automatic blow by me on takeoff, I gotta kinda wonder why I am taking the hard way.

[Dragon1-1]

Realistic startups are best done with clickable cockpits. For normal flight, I find it easy enough to remember the bindings. With a decent HOTAS you should have the important stuff on the stick and throttle, anyway. As long as you don't take it all at once, learning any particular aircraft is well within the abilities of an average simmer, particularly once you figure out which functions can be bound to a single key/HOTAS button.

 

Really, this is only an issue because of another bad design decision, namely that we have one command list for every plane. Per-aircraft bindings would solve that, since few aircraft actually have enough functions to "fill up" a modern HOTAS.

[Dakpilot]

Back when GB was started things were different, there was a real chance it would never get off the ground, they had a very strict budget. 

Feature creep is a real thing, part of why Clod was two years late and way over budget and unfinished at release. 

 

Am sure it would have been an easy thing to add... But so would many other useful things. Good or bad limited 'buttons' were part of the plan to make it more accessible (and probably cheaper/easier to implement) 

 

Now that GB has established itself hopefully the new fuel system modelling will have greater depth, and a button(s) to make sense with separate fuel tanks/readings

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[69th_Panp]

I'm assuming this is not implemented yet ?

As the only key binding i'm seeing is in the tank key bindings, or am I missing it somewhere else ?

[BlitzPig_EL]

Not in the game yet.

 

I do have a full CH Hotas with their Quadrant, so I have a fair few buttons and levers to play with. Still there are a bunch of key binds that are also necessary, and this is where my personal misgivings about so much complexity lie.   I'll get it sorted one way or another, but I hope an uncomplicated solution is out there.

 

[ShamrockOneFive]

5 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

There's nothing clever about it. The obvious and proper solution would be to add a key binding. Instead, they made this crock. The only way it would make sense is if they don't think remembering one more key binding is something Il-2 players are capable of. That there was no gauge switch until recently is bad design. 

 

It would only be clever if this was a console game and had to contend with a very button-challenged gamepad interface. It isn't.

 

It's important to remember that, at the start of the project, the design decision was to build a complex sim underneath and a slightly more casual one on top. This was a good enough solution.

 

Since it's obvious that the team are working their way through core features (campaign system, draw distance and visibility, pilot physiology) and that fuel management, a feature that is still somewhat simplified, is coming soon, it seems needless to worry about it.

[[APAF]VR_Spartan85]

Custom button box is your friend if you’re running out of space… they are very easy to make and are pretty much plug and play… especially if flying in vr…

I would really like the key map to switch fuel gauges instead of having to wait for the “pilot” to do it…. Saves from keeping my head in the pit…. 
with dcs, I have not enough buttons sometimes and with il2 I have too many left over

[LukeFF]

6 hours ago, [APAF]VR_Spartan85 said:

Custom button box is your friend if you’re running out of space… they are very easy to make and are pretty much plug and play… especially if flying in vr…

 

Aye, I had my switch box from @GVL224 made with manual fuel tank selection / readings in mind, so hopefully this feature is added to the game's aircraft at some point.

 

 

[Hastati]

I'll go one further. Custom button boxes are neat and more authentic, but for memory, especially if you are a VR user, nothing beats a Voice Attack profile.

[BlitzPig_EL]

How many different control devices will the sim support?

 

As I said earlier I am running the full CH HOTAS set with rudder pedals, and their Throttle Quadrant.  Would adding yet another device even work?

[ubik_2008]

yeah I recently got the 190 D9 and that feature made me really laugh!

It's like having a co-pilot on board who is obsessed with the fuel levels of the front and rear tank?

[Zippy-do-dar]

4 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

How many different control devices will the sim support?

 

As I said earlier I am running the full CH HOTAS set with rudder pedals, and their Throttle Quadrant.  Would adding yet another device even work?

It will I have joystick /rudder pedals / Quadrant /track ir and button box all work without any problem just make sure you have enough USB Ports

And if you get a Button box get one with 3 or 4 rotary switches as these are great for trim.

 

[BlitzPig_EL]

Thanks!

[grcurmudgeon]

1 hour ago, Zippy-do-dar said:

And if you get a Button box get one with 3 or 4 rotary switches as these are great for trim.

 

More info please - how do the rotary switches work for trim? I had tried button presses and had a real difficult time setting any kind of trim, because the button presses did not seem to give reliable results. So I've been thinking about a trim wheel on an axis. But if I can set up rotary switches instead, that might push me over the edge on building my own button box.

[Charon]

14 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

How many different control devices will the sim support?

 

As I said earlier I am running the full CH HOTAS set with rudder pedals, and their Throttle Quadrant.  Would adding yet another device even work?

 

It supports up to 8, and I've written a guide that may help if you find that isn't enough.

 

CloD supports 6, and 1946 supports 4, but they're also limited to 32 buttons per device.

[Zippy-do-dar]

22 hours ago, grcurmudgeon said:

More info please - how do the rotary switches work for trim? I had tried button presses and had a real difficult time setting any kind of trim, because the button presses did not seem to give reliable results. So I've been thinking about a trim wheel on an axis. But if I can set up rotary switches instead, that might push me over the edge on building my own button box.

The box i have has 2-way rotary switches in the setup it just acts like two different buttons. So i turn one way to increase and the other to decrease and each click works out as button press  

If you are building a box there are many different types of rotary switches so you'll need to do a lot of research about switches and controllers

In the end i purchased one like this https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/27-Function-USB-Push-Button-Toggle-Rotary-Box-for-PC-racing-flight-sim-/255005403665?hash=item3b5f81aa11

Edited July 8, 2021 by Zippy-do-dar

[Charon]

On 7/7/2021 at 10:54 AM, grcurmudgeon said:

More info please - how do the rotary switches work for trim? I had tried button presses and had a real difficult time setting any kind of trim, because the button presses did not seem to give reliable results. So I've been thinking about a trim wheel on an axis. But if I can set up rotary switches instead, that might push me over the edge on building my own button box.

 

Il-2 doesn't deal well with mapping rotary encoders to axes, in my experience. The game basically sees it as if you're tapping the +/- buttons rapidly. The result you get depends on how long the device holds the button press. If it's too short, you barely get any movement of the axis at all.

 

You can do better if you're willing to do some work outside the game. Some devices let you configure the length of these button presses, and I think if you use long presses it might work better. Alternatively, you could use a joystick gremlin plugin to translate the rotary +/- presses into simulated axis motion. As a third option, if you're building your own button box, you could do that in the device's software, rather than in joystick gremlin.

 

If I were going to do either of the simulated axis options, I would probably have some way to switch between coarse and fine motion. For example, you might code it so that twisting the encoder while pushing down moves the axis in steps of 1/20 or 1/40 (fast mode), but twisting it without pushing down moves in steps of 1/100 or 1/200.

 

If you're willing to build, one interesting option is the Gear Falcon wheels (singly, or as a 3-pack). They're just wheels geared to potentometers, giving 3 rotations between the stops. I've only had mine up and running for about a day, but so far I'm pretty happy with them. Just remember that you'll still need trim buttons for the Pe-2 and Hs-129.

Edited July 9, 2021 by Charon
clarity

[grcurmudgeon]

Thank-you Charon, those Gear Falcon Wheels are exactly the sort of thing I've been looking for. I have looked into building my own trim setup, but I'm not sufficiently mechanically inclined to figure out how to get the big wheels geared correctly to a tiny potentiometer. I had been looking into a 3-rotation pot with a simple knob on it (like a stereo volume knob), but unsure how the small knob would translate to fine trim adjustments. The rotary encoder sounded interesting, but my attempts to use a button for this matched yours.

[Voyager]

On 7/5/2021 at 1:17 PM, Dragon1-1 said:

There's nothing clever about it. The obvious and proper solution would be to add a key binding. Instead, they made this crock. The only way it would make sense is if they don't think remembering one more key binding is something Il-2 players are capable of. That there was no gauge switch until recently is bad design. 

 

It would only be clever if this was a console game and had to contend with a very button-challenged gamepad interface. It isn't.

 

How many of the Battle of Stalingrad planes had multiple fuel tanks on a single guage? The Ju-87, and Fw-190 and maybe the bombers, but the 190 was a premium package plane only, and the Ju-87 is not widely flown. 

 

So why go to the added time and cost to implement a switch just so two planes can directly control which fuel tank you're looking at? What does it add to the game?

 

These days, when we have aircraft defined by their fuel tank configuration, and a desire for drop tanks, it makes sense to build up compete fuel systems, and even there, they're going to have to keep the ticket for people who don't want to manually control the tanks. But when Battle of Stalingrad launched? It would have been foolish to do it any other way than they did. 

[Panzerlang]

I can think of other things of far more importance, like titanium rear gunners (who are also able to Daniel Boone under whatever G loads they're subject to). But that's a whole new thread (to be added to how many others? lol).

[Dragon1-1]

1 hour ago, Voyager said:

...and the Ju-87 is not widely flown. 

You mean the most infamous ground attack plane in history, so much that its sound is practically synonymous with something coming down hard, and one that, together with Il-2, informed the design of every dedicated attacker up to the A-10. No way it'd be widely flown, right?

 

Now, I don't know about now, because multiplayer is what it is, but I'm pretty sure the devs could have expected the Stuka to be a very popular plane. The bombers have been handed the short end of the stick (just look at the bombsight), but the Stuka isn't something I'd consider a secondary priority.

 

Also, if you're gonna charge premium for something, you'd better not cut corners on it. So for the Fw-190 the argument doesn't work, either. Also an iconic plane, and would be flown by those who paid extra. I really don't think the financial argument is at play, I'd rather expect it sounded like a good idea in someone's head.

[BlitzPig_EL]

The Stuka influenced exactly one aircraft, the Aichi D3A "Val".  Certainly it is an iconic aircraft, but it's existence is owed to the German's fascination with American dive bombing aircraft of the interwar period.  Dive bombing as a concept, and dedicated dive bombers themselves, became obsolete by the late war period.  The fate of the Stuka itself was sealed during the Battle of Britain, when it became perfectly clear that when faced with modern, high performance fighters, the Stuka was a death trap.

 

The USAAF gave up on dive bombing very early on in the war, as their less than successful experience with the Douglas A24 (Army version of the Dauntless) proved that the concept just didn't work in a protracted campaign.  The thing was just to vulnerable.  The Navy got away with it because their "campaigns"  were 3 or 4 day battles, then it was time to run back to Pearl and refit.  The North American A36 "Apache", the dive bomber version of the early Allison powered Mustang was the final nail in the coffin for dive bombing by the Army.  There are better ways to put ordnance on target than plunging vertically out of the sky.

 

Saying that the Stuka influenced the A 10 is at best wishful, fanboy thinking.  The IL2 has more in common with the A 10, and it should be noted that neither the IL2 or the A 10 are dive bombers.  

[Voyager]

@BlitzPig_EL Was the Apache actually a dive bomber though? I always thought it was a scam the USAAF pulled on the appropriations committee? 

[BlitzPig_EL]

True, but it did have dive brakes, very poor ones at that, and they were tried in that roll in North Africa, but usually the were used more like true "attack" aircraft.  It's telling that the USAAF did not use dive bombers in Western Europe.

[LukeFF]

19 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

It's telling that the USAAF did not use dive bombers in Western Europe.

 

Technically so, but it's also telling that both the USAAF and RAF used their fighters as dive-bombers in NW Europe. 

[Lusekofte]

This setup is not enough to cover GB 115 different ways to open /close radiators/ cowlings

Hotas controlled or button controlled pitch.

The control interface is out of control. Remembering it all is impossible for a on /off flyer like me. 

DCS is easier to get back into. 

 

Edited July 10, 2021 by LuseKofte

[Mtnbiker1998]

10 hours ago, LuseKofte said:

This setup is not enough to cover GB 115 different ways to open /close radiators/ cowlings

Hotas controlled or button controlled pitch.

The control interface is out of control. Remembering it all is impossible for a on /off flyer like me. 

DCS is easier to get back into. 

 

If you can't pack all the controls you need into a rig like that, you're doing something wrong. I have a warthog hotas with a saitek throttle for an additional three axes and I have everything engine related mapped for every aircraft with no overlaps, and still have switches to spare.

 

I'll agree IL-2's control mapping needs a lot of work, especially compared to DCS (one of the few areas I'll give DCS credit) but where it excels is accessibility, not having to remember a million different controls for a dozen different aircraft. I can hop in any plane I want at any time and with a quick look at the specifications tab be ready to go without needing to check my mappings for a specific plane. 

[Dragon1-1]

22 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Saying that the Stuka influenced the A 10 is at best wishful, fanboy thinking.  The IL2 has more in common with the A 10, and it should be noted that neither the IL2 or the A 10 are dive bombers.  

The A-10 was strongly influenced by the experiences of Hans-Ulrich Rudel, who flew the Stuka. His biography was a required reading for anyone working on the A-10's project team, so it's hardly "wishful thinking", but a documented fact. The final design did end up resembling Il-2 more, but the armor scheme is actually pretty similar to Stuka's. Oh, and while not a dedicated dive bomber, the A-10A was pretty good at dive bombing.

 

EDIT: You know, "haha" is a funny reaction to being proven wrong, but whatever floats you boat. Either way, it's a fairly well known story. Maybe I should be laughing at your assertion dive bombing was obsolete by the late war, seeing as it's very commonly done even today (not by dedicated dive bombers, but that's another thing)...

Edited July 10, 2021 by Dragon1-1

[Lusekofte]

1 hour ago, Mtnbiker1998 said:

you're doing something wrong

I fly Typhoon now. So I bought this to my pit. I can't see anything wrong

Edited July 11, 2021 by LuseKofte

[BlitzPig_EL]

 

I have the real thing.

[Lusekofte]

4 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

 

I have the real thing.

I had the real thing years ago. But not in that shape. It was traced to a airdrop.

Later some suggested maybe from downed Halifax bombercrew. Passed a generation or two I bought it. Not knowing its history. Anyway, Someone traced me. And I was forced in a friendly way to donate it to Museum down south. 

I bought this airgun replica as a novelty, because it is really well made and will only have a scenic role in my pit.

I always looked at it as the coolest revolver I seen. I no longer active in shooting range.

But your gun looks marvelous