Friday 2010-12-17 Dev. update and Discussion

[Oleg Maddox]

Hi,

today here is the result of our discussion from last Friday.
Variois of exhausts at different RPM, etc:

[Oleg Maddox]

Second part

[Schallmoser]

Thank you Oleg!!!

first reply! :-))

looking at it now...

Incredible!
Do I rally see exhaust puffs from each cylinder of a badly running engine?
I would never have dreamt of such details! Thnks a lot Oleg and team!!!

Merry Xmas to everybody!:)
Schallmoser

[F19_lacrits]

Nice update, thanks Oleg and Co.!!! :D

The exhaust effects look really nice.. But I am wondering if it will be like this all the time or only if the engine is not running at the good fuel mix or when missfiring? I think an engine running well should not emit that much visible flames during day light.. no? The night flashes look really great! :)

[JG52Krupi]

Awesome the effects look a lot better, thanks oleg.

We really need a video to see this.

[Sturm_Williger]

I'm not really technical enough to comment, so I'll just say thanks for all your efforts, it certainly looks like SoW will be a winner.

I hope you are going to take some time off over Christmas to relax.

[Laszlo]

For me it looks good now!

[NSU]

in the Bf 110 picture, the fire look the best.
hope for a video :)

[Insuber]

Interesting. How does the flame color change? Which are the parameters? Random? Height? Mixture / throttle? Age of the motor?


Ins

[PeterPanPan]

Very nice Oleg. So, the engines smoke if the mixture is too rich, and the flames burn bluer if too lean. Brilliant!!

PPanPan

[JG52Krupi]

Could we see a video of the smoke coming from the stacks.

Please, pretty please.

[II/JG54_Emil]

Very nice!

But still a bit too bright for daylight.

How far will these be visible at night?

[JAMF]

The exhaust looks real nice, maybe just a little on the bright side... -> IMHO <- :)


Mr. Maddox, is this final?

http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/3529/dunkirkgravelinesbasin.jpg

Basin is from after WWII

[rakinroll]

Thank you Oleg.

[smink1701]

Oleg,

Very nice.

Now how about posting the video version with sound? :!:

[kestrel79]

Looking good Oleg and team!

My favorite is the all blue flame Hurricane,the 3rd pic. Just a really subtle effect I love it!

I'm glad to see it looks like they took out the bright yellow reflections of the flames on the fuselage. It looks more within all the videos that were posted this past week.

This will defintely look best in motion.

[klem]

Hi,

today here is the result of our discussion from last Friday.
Variois of exhausts at different RPM, etc:

Oleg,

Thanks for your good efforts on the exhaust flames but..... will there be a Nightfighter Hurricane with exhaust shields? Much of the late BoB/Blitz was conducted at night.

[addman]

Really nice Oleg! Cheers to you and your team for all the effort, now just give us a release date and I'll be even happier :grin:

[JG52Krupi]

Looking good Oleg and team!

My favorite is the all blue flame Hurricane,the 3rd pic. Just a really subtle effect I love it!

I'm glad to see it looks like they took out the bright yellow reflections of the flames on the fuselage. It looks more within all the videos that were posted this past week.

This will defintely look best in motion.

Yes the reflection was clearly too much thank god they removed/toned it down.

[moilami]

Impressive, I think I will begin to wait for this game soon.

[1.JaVA_Jojo]

...THIS update is the absolute WOW! moment so far!

To me at least! Great stuff :o !

[T}{OR]

Thank you for yet another update. Few questions:

Is this smoke coming from the exhaust because the rapid/sudden throttle changes? If so, massive thumbs up! :)

Am I right in presuming that various exhaust colors shown here are dependent on the mixture settings (together with RPM of course)?

Glad you removed the overdone reflections on the fuselage.


EDIT: Doh! I just spotted the 'speedbar' in the lower left parts of the screenshots.

[Foo'bar]

The 110 is looking incredible good. The exhaust flames are looking very realistic!

[ATAG_Dutch]

Hi,
today here is the result of our discussion from last Friday.
Variois of exhausts at different RPM, etc:

Thanks for the response Mr Maddox!:grin:

Shots 1-3 showing the pitch, throttle and mixture settings relative to the exhaust flame are really informative.
It's interesting to note that in shot 4, the mixture is at 125%, producing bright yellow flame.
Are the shots of the 109 and 110 also due to incorrect mixture settings?
Thanks Again!

P.S. I eat humble pie

[IbnSolmyr]

Very nice ! Again, thanks a lot for your work !
I'm not an expert so will avoid to say too much about it, but 2 things :

1) I believe there was a bit less yelow on the videos posted, but i know it depends on what exactly are the conditions, so i say this just for the generality.
2) On your screens, most of situations aren't really in the dark. Will it be such as visible in these daylights ? Is it normal ?

And 2 other things, please :
1) Could you post a vid in diferent lighting conditions ? (for instance 1 in the night, 1 in the dark, and 1 in the daylight..) And could you explain us how much you'll try to modelize the different technical parameters for that ? (as said above)
2) I know it's off-topic, but, please, could you tell us if the maps will stay based on the modern ones ? It's something very important for a lot of us, and if there is no hope to get some historical maps, we would like to know...

Great work, you and co are the best of the best, still and .. for ever ? ;-)

[easytarget3]

thank you! It looks amazing! I saw a mod that did similar effects in Sturmovik 1946, was it possible?

have a nice weekend

[Sternjaeger]

Oleg, it all looks nice, but the best way to judge it would be to see a video in action.

SJ

[katdogfizzow]

wow that is looking really good!

[TUSA/TX-Gunslinger]

Thank you for yet another update. Few questions:

Is this smoke coming from the exhaust because the rapid/sudden throttle changes? If so, massive thumbs up! :)


If that's true (and I imagine it is with all the other detail) - online dogfighting just took another great leap forward!

A-W-E-S-O-M-E!

Love the aircraft textures too! The Ju-88 canopy looks real. Sometimes it's just difficult to imagine the reality running in front of my face on the monitor. SOW looks more like a movie than something I can actually interact with!

S!

Gunny

[camundahl]

Oleg, the amount of detail you put into your work is amazing.

The fact that you listen and take community feedback seriously just makes things even better.

I have the money ready when you are ready, Oleg. :cool:

[caprera]

110s are awesome...great shot! :rolleyes:

[Dano]

Great stuff! I'm not even close to knowing enough to make any other comment on the exhaust flames but I have to say that the landscape in the shots looks bloomin luverly :)

[Old_Canuck]

Superb WIP :) Merry Christmas to the Maddox family and to the 1C team.

[Redwan]

Good job !

[kedrednael]

You guys made those flames fast! and they look great :D.
Also very nice textures and everything.

[kristorf]

Ta very much, its the little things that make you go 'wow' more

[AWL_Spinner]

Looking great!

I'll echo this cautiously:

The exhaust effects look really nice.. But I am wondering if it will be like this all the time or only if the engine is not running at the good fuel mix or when missfiring? I think an engine running well should not emit that much visible flames during day light.. no? The night flashes look really great!

And even at night. Hopefully this is a relatively rare flash of color, not an indication of constantly afterburning piston engines :)

But I'm sure that's not the case, and we're just seeing the range of color you might occasionally see when conditions are right. It should be very subtle if not invisible in direct sun?

Great to see forum feedback being used in this way, thanks Oleg!

:)

Cheers, Spinner

[McHilt]

Ah, previous thread pays off, nice...
I still think the flames should be less visible during daytime but hey,
that's just a humble opinion from holland.

I was also wondering: will we see heat haze from flames?
(obvious question that might have been asked... if so, sorry for asking again)
:mrgreen:

Ok, thanks Team at 1C!!

[baronWastelan]

Flames are Oleg's favorite subject. Remember all the muzzle flash discussions in ORR? :D

http://www.militarydesktop.com/data/media/2171/US%20Navy%20-%20Battleship%202.jpg

[Therion_Prime]

Nice, looking really good!

[Trooper117]

Loving the look of this now each week.. Great stuff!

[TheGrunch]

Looking niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice. :) Maybe too bright during the day, but that's tweakable I'm sure.

[Oldschool61]

What amazes me is how excited people are over exhaust flames that they will almost never see when they are in the cockpit. Only time you see these is if there is a plane next to you starting up or if you fly in third person view.

[Sternjaeger]

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=4100&d=1292598248

Oleg, I think that if you could reshape the flame textures into a streaky fashion instead of circular, that might help improving realism. Don't forget that these flames come out at high pressure from a tiny exhaust and get straight into the airflow, so they don't really get much chance to look like a fireball! It's incredible how things look better with the right texture!

[moilami]

What amazes me is how excited people are over exhaust flames that they will almost never see when they are in the cockpit. Only time you see these is if there is a plane next to you starting up or if you fly in third person view.

How about a new doctrine "don't shoot untill ye see the exhaust flames" :cool: If not, then recheck Bf 110 engines and cockpit ;)

[Richie]

What great work I never would have guessed you could get two colours in the flames like that. But...I think the day time flames need to be toned down. I've never seen flames coming out of a 109 like that in the day time.

Two 109s take off under full power in the day time with no flames visible


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z71gYnaGyb8

[mazex]

OK Oleg, it looks stunning... The time budget to spend on exhaust flames is now depleted - move on ;)

[The Kraken]

Great attention to detail. And makes reading last week's update thread again an interesting experience :-P Smoke trails caused by certain engine actions is also a nice feature beyond pure eye candy - will be interesting to see to what degree the AI will also abuse the engine from time to time (maybe based on skill level).

And that 110 sure is a beauty - can't wait to get my hands on it...

So thanks for another very nice update!

[Blackdog_kt]

Excellent example of how nicely things are progressing with regards to community interaction. It just goes to show that if we can self-moderate ourselves a little bit, there's a lot of feedback to be provided and it's definitely not going to waste. This is a clear example that the developers LISTEN and do their best to please as many people as possible.

Awesome update ;)

Very nice Oleg. So, the engines smoke if the mixture is too rich, and the flames burn bluer if too lean. Brilliant!!

PPanPan

Exactly. In the first two pics with the Hurricane, if you watch the engine management panel at the bottom left and compare between the two screenshots, it's obvious how the only thing that's changed is the mixture. This models closely what most people had witnessed in real life and what was printed in that period manual from the Allison engines, as it shows the flames going from red to blue when the engine is leaned.

In some of the pics with German aircraft we can see that the prop and/or mixture parameters are blank (only throttle is diplayed for the Ju88, while mixture is not displayed for the 110), since they probably have automatic systems to manage those.
What really got my eye however is the 109 picture which displays the numbers for all three parameters (mixture, prop and throttle), something that probably indicates its one of the early models that didn't have the automatic engine management systems.

The only thing i could say is that it looks a bit too bright. However, these are stills captured with the sole puprose of showing off the flames, so i am inclined to believe that they are either looking brighter on purpose to make the details of each effect easily visible, or that they were snapped with a track running at 1/4 speed, pausing on the frame that the effect is most pronounced and snapping the picture.
In motion it might look totally different, for all i know it would probably be alternating between flame and no flame depending on which cylinder is firing at the time, with time between changes depending on the amount of RPM the engine is running at, just like we saw in last week's videos.

Finally, if abrupt throttle changes produce black smoke from unburnt fuel, it will be awesome to help us judge if we are spotted. Say you are bouncing another aircraft and you suddenly see a brief trail of black smoke, you instantly know that he's going full throttle so he's probably seen you and will take evasive action.

And since the importance of the details we're seeing in this update has been questioned a few posts back, let me say that it's things like that which excite people about the little details. It's not the details per se, but what these details can tell you about the aircraft.
A knowledgeable person will be able to deduce certain things about what an aircraft is doing, just by looking for the right signs. This can be used to get better performance out of your plane, or to judge the potential performance and actions of the enemy one ;)

[Osprey]

The most interesting part is not the effect at all. The significance of these changes in exhaust if a symptom of engine management - that will put much more workload onto the pilot if he is to get the best from his machine. No more sudden, abusive, violent moves to escape .50cals - it should be like the guncam footage we see where the aircraft being struck doesn't seem to react like we regularly see in IL2. Responses and awareness should plummet :)

Oleg, are you going to answer any of the questions from the thread 2 weeks ago regarding the FMB??

[sport02]

in game , perhaps some of these flames are visible only when slowmotion ?

[Romanator21]

The exhaust flames look perfect to me - if I had to say one thing, they may be too bright/visible during the day-time, but Black-Dog has addressed this too. It's nice to see that on the Bf-109, the flames are not lighting up the side of the fuselage as they were with the Spitfire last week.

I'm sure you guys will sort everything out nicely. Thanks for the update Oleg & Co.

[TheGrunch]

What amazes me is how excited people are over exhaust flames that they will almost never see when they are in the cockpit. Only time you see these is if there is a plane next to you starting up or if you fly in third person view.

Night-fighting night-fighting night-fighting. :D

[T}{OR]

What amazes me is how excited people are over exhaust flames that they will almost never see when they are in the cockpit. Only time you see these is if there is a plane next to you starting up or if you fly in third person view.

You're missing a bigger picture here. :)

Stuff like individual cylinder modeling coupled with different exhaust (flames and smoke) dependent on the mixture, RPM and other factors - puts SoW into totally different category. And not even mentioning overall impacts this will have on dogfighting... :cool:

[JVM]

Hello Oleg!

Nice job as always...I still would like to mention something, like in image 7:

one can imagine a mix of blue and yellow in flight, with yellow on the exhaust side but it would be only in a brutal transition in mixture adjustment from OK or poor to over rich...and you really would have to push your throttle very violently to its stop, and even then, on a fuel injected 109, I do not believe it would happen...

So my idea if you would like to keep it simple would be to have three flight exhaust flame states:

1) normal/poor mixture: blue regular sized flame, and - if possible, one day! - whitish exhaust strain on paint (sure sign you are running generally too poor)

2) over rich: blue on exhaust side, with yellow end regular sized flame (the opposite of the 109 image in terms of color order), brown exhaust strain

3) much too rich: yellow flames a bit irregular, occasional misfires, again if possible, blackish exhaust strain on paint (no less sure sign you are running generally too rich)

and at startup, in a random way or on record of overprime if existing, big flames, before normal functioning.

Generally no mix of blue and yellow if yellow is on exhaut side: physically difficult to imgine in a steady state...

I would like to apologize in advance if this comment still resembles nitpicking!

JV

[C_G]

Noticing that most of the pictures seem to have been taken at dusk (or dawn), to make the flames more visible in the screenshots? Perhaps in full daylight it's more difficult to see them? The bf-109 shots are taken in full daylight however, and are equally "bright"...

Just noticed that there seem to be two options to display engine control status: by percentage and by graphical representation of control position (in the three first hurri shots)... interesting.

[Richie]

Hi Oleg.

I just loaded my cd up and I can't see any flames here and listen to Dave Southwood about always flying on maximum power settings. Thanks


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48uziQoniI0

[Biggs [CV]]

Noticing that most of the pictures seem to have been taken at dusk (or dawn), to make the flames more visible in the screenshots? Perhaps in full daylight it's more difficult to see them? The bf-109 shots are taken in full daylight however, and are equally "bright"...


Good point. No way you should be able to see exhaust flames in broad daylight, dusk and dawn yes.

[dahojds]

this game must be the most datailed game ever created! i can't wait for this game to be released! you doing a great job Oleg and thanx for the pictures

[nearmiss]

So far deleted 22 postings for off topic.

It doesn't make sense to me, that so many want more severe moderation and then we have this.

Posters need to read the starter posting to determine the topic.

Whiners and complainers, release date questions are definitely Off topic.

[nearmiss]

So far deleted many postings for off topic.

It doesn't make sense to me, that so many want more severe moderation and then we have this.

Posters need to read the starter posting to determine the topic.

Whiners and complainers, release date questions are definitely Off topic.

[Richie]

Now that I see the sliders down in the left hand corner does that mean that this is all player manageable? If that's the case then we could all do what we want with it.

[Friendly_flyer]

Wow, those exhaust flames look great!

[IceFire]

The flames look great. I remember reading quite a bit about how they would be very visible at dusk and in the dark and this seems to match up perfectly. Right on!

[NLS61]

I was In former east German where i witnesed a 109 G take of from reinsdorf airfield
when it did i was aprox 50 meters from liftoff point.
I've got to report that no exhaust flame was visible.
I also witnessed it from about 100 m in midair from my glider, wich because of the design of the hood has real good visibility, again i din't observe an smoke or exhaust flame.
The project seems to be comming along verry nice and i oe to b not to far off topic when I ask if there is a possibility to see some of the cloud formations beiing used in the sim.
Regards,
Niels

[Osprey]

Hi Oleg.

I just loaded my cd up and I can't see any flames here and listen to Dave Southwood about always flying on maximum power settings. Thanks


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48uziQoniI0

Wonderful piece.

Let's hope the SoW 109 handles exactly like described so us allied can have a chuckle as you luftlads who don't manage a 3 pointer end up smacking into the control tower lol

[Oldschool61]

you're missing a bigger picture here. :)

stuff like individual cylinder modeling coupled with different exhaust (flames and smoke) dependent on the mixture, rpm and other factors - puts sow into totally different category. And not even mentioning overall impacts this will have on dogfighting... :cool:

nerd

[T}{OR]

I was In former east German where i witnesed a 109 G take of from reinsdorf airfield
when it did i was aprox 50 meters from liftoff point.
I've got to report that no exhaust flame was visible.
I also witnessed it from about 100 m in midair from my glider, wich because of the design of the hood has real good visibility, again i din't observe an smoke or exhaust flame.
...

I agree that 109's exhaust flames should probably be a bit less visible during daylight, but video Richie posted shows that it is clearly evident that throttle changes accompanied with smoke can be visible (and this was low resolution video).

The most interesting part about the video for me was the comparison how inverted V12 is much quieter than the normal positioned V12 engines...

[Jimko]

So far deleted many postings for off topic.

It doesn't make sense to me, that so many want more severe moderation and then we have this.

Posters need to read the starter posting to determine the topic.

Whiners and complainers, release date questions are definitely Off topic.

Overall, I think that the update thread is very civil and respectful now, for the most part. Probably a combination of the more severe moderation as well as the 'wake-up call' to the community in general has made everyone a bit more careful and thoughtful about what they say and how they say it.

Off-topics are something everyone should easily understand, so I think you're doing a fine job, Nearmiss. Let the theme of each update be set by Oleg and followed by all...there are many other places where other topics can be discussed.

These 'imporvements' make for a much easier and useful thread IMO.

Well done, everyone!

[kimosabi]

The most interesting part about the video for me was the comparison how inverted V12 is much quieter than the normal positioned V12 engines...

Interesting indeed. Makes sense though, stacks exit low and in addition you have the flame shield covering the top of the stacks.. Didn't know about the dangers of wheel landing = loss of controls. Fiery Lady those 109's. :D

[Sutts]

Great looking effects Oleg, well done. Really appreciate you removing those big night time reflections we saw last week too...a great improvement thanks.:grin:

I too would like to see the day time effects toned down a bit if possible please. Would also be nice if some kind person could post a video of an aero engine running rich with those yellow flames (after startup that is).

The 109 and 110 look so good! Really quite stunning. Landscape colours look very nice too.

Appreciate the update as always.

[dflion]

Thanks Oleg,

It is very good to see you quickly implementing the forum members feedback into the flight sim, it makes us all feel a strong part of everything you are doing.

The exhaust flames look really good, day and night and will add immensely to the realism of the sim.

DFLion

[SlipBall]

Looking good!...thanks:grin:

[smink1701]

Looking good...blah, blah, blah.

[JimmyBlonde]

Excellent work!

I'm guessing that the daytime pics show the flames after heavy or abrupt usage of the throttle and the effects of rich mixture? It must be quite difficult to come up with a way to make these flames visible at night or under heavy throttle changes but invisible when they should be.

Impressive attention to detail.

[jamesdietz]

Pilots still look a little small to me ...but am I just used to sizes in IL-2?

[swiss]

I really hope the development of exhaust flames has no influence to the publishing date.
I mean, if we're discussing things like exhaust flames - everything else must be finished, right?

Can I please buy the game?

[Skoshi Tiger]

It would be very interesting to see a side by side comparison of a new fresh engine running next to a old, tired, badly maintained engine, to see if there are any differences modelled.

Cheers and thanks for the update!

I really hope the development of exhaust flames has no influence to the publishing date.
I mean, if we're discussing things like exhaust flames - everything else must be finished, right?



Tube-Shooters! Be Sure! ;)

[Flying_Nutcase]

Hi Oleg,

Awesome looking work. The only thing that matches your attention to detail is your willingness to engage the community for discussion and feedback when required.

Kudos and I hope you take a few days off over Xmas/New Year,


Flying Nutcase

[JimmyBlonde]

Tube-Shooters! Be Sure! ;)

:grin:

I thought I'd never see those words mentioned on an Il-2 forum again.

Please put an option for tube-shooters in SoW.

[KWM_Rammbock]

very niiice!
it seems to me that the pilots look really small compared to the aircrafts, especially in the 109!

[GF_Mastiff]

awesome Oleg brilliant work.

[XR-A]

looks pretty real to me....did you use real film footage to see what the exhaust does in real flight..?? I like the smoke effect in the last 2 pics...this is truely going to be a 1st rate flight simulation.......XR-A

[Fafnir_6]

Thanks for the pics, the update is excellent! I've noticed that the propellor blades are not visible in the first set of pictures with the Hurricane (aside from pic #2). In the second set, the propellors look more like those of IL-2. Is this a selectable effect? If so, it could be very handy for old-photo-style screenshots (it would also answer my question from last week's thread).

Cheers and thanks,

Fafnir_6

[NSU]

here a small Video from "Brutus" a special car with a Airplane engine and nice flames

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pcRRk0msas

[Splitter]

The first picture in Oleg's second post shows throttle, prop, and comp (compression I assume?).

If I am right:
I am guessing that the readouts shown are selectable to some extent. IE. you can pick what you want the read out to be.

I wonder if the number of readouts will be limited to three at a time.

If "comp" is manifold pressure, this points once again to truly complex engine management!

Since there is no value for "comp" in the picture, I am wondering what units will be used (or will it be some sort of percentage based on throttle and mix?).

OR....maybe I am wrong about what "comp" in the picture actually stands for.

Exhaust Flames: I think every other person on this board cares more about it than I do lol. They look good and I sort of look forward to trying to use the colors to figure out just how my engine is running.

Splitter

[He111]

That Emil looks sooooooooo sweet.

.

[Osprey]

That Emil looks sooooooooo sweet.

.


They look better on fire :twisted:

[robtek]

They look better on fire :twisted:

Your spelling is wrong, osprey, right is: they look better when they fire! :-D
Sorry for OT.

[Insuber]

Dear Oleg,

The pictures look gorgeous. We miss anyway a word from you on the status of the development, something like "bugs are almost eliminated", or " we see a very close release", or "the publisher will be announced before Christmas" etc. etc.

Tell us something, please.

Cheers,
Insuber

[Flanker35M]

S!

Nice pics. I would agree that the exhaust flames are more or less visible mostly at low light conditions, not in broad daylight so clearly, if at all. The DB-engines had direct fuel injection so you really could not adjust the mixture on it. Only adjustable was propellor in case of the automatic failed. Early Bf109's had manual pitch, E-4 and onwards had the automatic with manual as backup(rocker switch on throttle).

Sure the Spitfire or Hurricane is louder as you sit behind the exhaust stacks. In Bf109 they are way lower thus a bit less noise. The Bf110 looks gorgeous, can't wait to fly her! The handling qualities of the Bf109 on the other hand are partially a myth and partially true. If the pilot knows what he is doing it is not any harder to land or take-off in it. Any plane of that era with the big engines were a handful to handle ;)

Have a nice weekend!

[klem]

here a small Video from "Brutus" a special car with a Airplane engine and nice flames

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pcRRk0msas

Just about OT :)
Pretty 'Flamey', probably not a good reference.
I love the smell of 5 star in the morning, just not on my meat.

[T}{OR]

The first picture in Oleg's second post shows throttle, prop, and comp (compression I assume?).

If I am right:
I am guessing that the readouts shown are selectable to some extent. IE. you can pick what you want the read out to be.

I wonder if the number of readouts will be limited to three at a time.

If "comp" is manifold pressure, this points once again to truly complex engine management!

Since there is no value for "comp" in the picture, I am wondering what units will be used (or will it be some sort of percentage based on throttle and mix?).

OR....maybe I am wrong about what "comp" in the picture actually stands for.

Exhaust Flames: I think every other person on this board cares more about it than I do lol. They look good and I sort of look forward to trying to use the colors to figure out just how my engine is running.

Splitter

My first guess was compression (maybe something to do with different engine types and program modeling processes inside it) - but then again, we won't know for sure until Oleg tells us. :)

COMP - if MP is for Manifold Pressure, what does CO stand for?

I hardly believe that pilots could manipulate Manifold vacuum (or engine vacuum) other by different throttle settings.

nerd

Nerd: "An individual persecuted for his superior skills or intellect, most often by people who fear and envy him."

[CRO_Adriatic]

I dont understand why soo much wondering about exsaust...

Once I drived my litle Fiat 126 to repair, without exaust and with last seat bank cuted out, so workman can repair it without bringing engine out of car. (engine is back).

Whan I started it, imagine the noise inside car :), it wos nice :),
but whan I started to ride and give more power-15-30 cm flames came out from engine, I wos afraid to fire up car :)

So why wondering to se flames? Engine is explosion device, will you see it depends on 100 other things, I believe Oleg & Team will make it good as possible!

Also, we need some new kids who will buy this sim and play it as a game, some extra flame highlights are for sure welcome...

[flyingblind]

In the first three pics of the Hurrican you get a better idea of what is happening if you click next in quick succession so you get a fast slide show. You can see the engine is way over rich, perhaps with the throttle closed and as the throttle is opened the incorrectly burning gas is blown away and turns blue. Try it.
On a slightly different tack I think the landscape is looking excellent with field sizes and shapes and crop textures looking very 1940ish. No houses sitting in fields either and who can complain about colours?
Brilliant Oleg.

[T}{OR]

So why wondering to se flames? Engine is explosion device, will you see it depends on 100 other things, I believe Oleg & Team will make it good as possible!

Explosion = Knock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_knocking) (detonacije na Hrvatski) which seriously damages the engine (piston heads, piston gaskets, valves etc.). Higher the Octane rating, less chance for engine knocking.

So no, engine is not an explosion device. Judging on how your exhaust flames look you can adjust your mixture (especially important with altitude, as you climb higher). And the most important part (which will drastically change dogfighting as others already stated) are puffs of smoke accompanied with throttle changes.

IL2 already had simplified effect caused by this. Thus, since SoW represents the way forward - it is logical to presume we will have much more detailed engine physics modeled.

[Freycinet]

Thor, in many languages, "explosion engine" is a slightly old-fashioned way of saying internal cumbustion engine, that - I'm sure - is what Adriatic is saying.

[T}{OR]

I admit, I never heard of this expression. Adriatic and I are both from the same country - and I do not know of such (or equivalent to it) expression in my language.

Even so, the fuel inside an engine does not explode. And this is what I was trying to explain. Fuel burning inside a cylinder is a complex process determined by many factors such as cylinder/piston head shape, compression ratio (volume between top of the cylinder to TDC, and top of the cylinder to BDC), number of strokes (2T/4T), position and number of valves (or valves and fuel injectors), intake and exhaust manifold, RPM, fuel - and many many other factors...


EDIT: Call it a professional defect, but I had to reply. :)

[JG52Krupi]

Hi Oleg, will it be possible to repair your aircraft on the ground and refuel/rearm, you can do this currently in Il2 via mods and it is an excellent idea.

I thought this was already confirmed somewhere?

[Daniël]

Some people complain about the visibility of the flames, but there aren't any flames visible from the second Bf 110 in picture 10.

Are those flames only visible from very close in daylight?

[T}{OR]

What would you call what a Diesel does? ;)

Diesels are much less sensitive to knocking, although it is also an undesired effect.

Knocking in Diesel engines occurs when there are either low temperatures inside a cylinder, there is a low load on the engine (I think this is a proper translation) or with fuel that has very low cetane number. Cetane number is a measure of a fuel's ignition delay - the time period between the start of injection and start of combustion (ignition) of the fuel. If the delay is too long, the fuel will ignite when there is already too much fuel inside a cylinder - resulting in a sudden reaction accompanied with strong pressure waves and a very loud noise.

The air in Diesel engines has to be compressed below the minimum level (when compressing air its temperature rises) in order for the fuel to ignite when entering a cylinder. Before modern fuel injection, early Diesels had a combustion chamber inside a cylinder where Diesel fuel would first ignite and spread across the rest of the cylinder - this is the reason why they were so loud (very high pressures inside the cylinder and overall unbalanced/unequal burning process). In early '90-s fuel injector pumps capable of rapid dual injection in one process were introduced. This lowered the noise, and improved the burning process significantly.

Nowadays with Common rail systems (which compress the fuel up to 2000 bar) the fuel gets injected up to 5 times when the piston is at/or close to the TDC, further improving the burning process inside the cylinder. This is one of the reasons why they are so quiet and even more efficient today.

[Splitter]

My first guess was compression (maybe something to do with different engine types and program modeling processes inside it) - but then again, we won't know for sure until Oleg tells us. :)

COMP - if MP is for Manifold Pressure, what does CO stand for?

I hardly believe that pilots could manipulate Manifold vacuum (or engine vacuum) other by different throttle settings.

Well, Manifold Pressure (MP) should depend on throttle and mixture. As you rise in altitude, you have to play with the mixture to get the best MP...unless the aircraft is set up to handle mixture automatically somehow. (I know you know this so we are probably just in the middle of a language thing here)

It would be tremendous if Oleg modeled the characteristics of different engines for MP though. There are ramifications for running lean or rich at a given altitude.

Just think of trying to follow your opponent in a dogfight, changing altitudes, and having to also get your mixture right for maximum MP as you go through a 10,000 dive or climb.

Splitter

[Bloblast]

Nice pictures.

Exhausts only visible for starting and at night to make irt realistic.

[T}{OR]

KG26_Alpha - does 'Alfa' have something to do with your call-sign? :)


Well, Manifold Pressure (MP) should depend on throttle and mixture. As you rise in altitude, you have to play with the mixture to get the best MP...unless the aircraft is set up to handle mixture automatically somehow. (I know you know this so we are probably just in the middle of a language thing here)

It would be tremendous if Oleg modeled the characteristics of different engines for MP though. There are ramifications for running lean or rich at a given altitude.

Just think of trying to follow your opponent in a dogfight, changing altitudes, and having to also get your mixture right for maximum MP as you go through a 10,000 dive or climb.

Splitter

I see your point now. And you're exactly right - having different Manifold intakes affecting engine performance (MP or engine vacuum) simulated, not emulated would be simply awesome. I don't doubt that we will have different MP's for each engine, IL2 already had that.

A bullet hole rupturing your intake manifold and affecting engine performance, imagine that... But we're probably asking for too much here since programs that model this today are very complex (i.e. AVL BOOST).

Most people don't know this, but engine block in a sports car is (usually) the same as the one found in a road car. The design of intake and exhaust manifolds make all the difference (i.e. BMW). ;)

[II/JG54_Emil]

The flames are too bright, Oleg.

[Hecke]

Well done Oleg,

Looking forward to a big christmas present from you. :)

[Ploughman]

Really nice detail, quality. Thank you.

[ElAurens]

I think Oleg is just having a little joke at the expense of the nit pickers.

No WW2 aircraft that I have ever seen fly, and I've seen a lot of them, ever had visible exhaust flames while in flight in daylight.

Not one, ever.

Oleg is an engineer and pilot, and he knows this as well.

Or, this is just an NKVD psy-ops mission to keep the competition distracted.

[Insuber]

Alfa lol - says it all. ;)

I hope you skimmed the head or you'll be doing it again soon

You are OT :D ... and you probably ignore that the Common Rail was developed originally by Fiat-Magneti Marelli, and first introduced an Alfa Romeo 156 2.4 JTD in 1990 ... a great car and an innovative diesel engine. An incredible piece of engineering, my friend.

Back to topic:

Dear Oleg,

Flames look great now. I'm slightly tired of minor details. Please give us a bigger bone to gnaw at ... a Bf.109 video with the latest gun smoke and muzzle flash, or damage model, or ... you know waht I mean ...

Cheers,
Insuber

[T}{OR]

LOL, you may have a point there ElAurens. :D

I believe that this over exaggerated effects have been posted for a different reason - to show the effects what different mixture/throttle/RPM/etc. has on the exhaust. I agree, with a proper mixture setting their visibility in broad daylight should be minimum/non existent - unless when starting an engine (as shown on various videos - well documented). And this can be fine tuned after the process in the engine/cylinder has been properly modeled into the game.

[fireflyerz]

here a small Video from "Brutus" a special car with a Airplane engine and nice flames

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pcRRk0msas

superb illustration...awsome car, good find


OFF TOPIC

[Splitter]

Ok wait, before people start criticizing Oleg because we can see the flames in daylight.....

If Oleg had showed these pics at night, we couldn't see the plane. Since we can see flames in daylight in these pictures, it seems obvious (at least to me) that he has turned something "up" so that we can see the planes AND the flames at the same time.

Just a guess of course.

Splitter

[BadAim]

What would you call what a Diesel does? ;)

Waste your money at today's diesel prices! (at least here in the states)

OFF TOPIC

[NSU]

superb illustration...awsome car, good find.

not find the Video, the "Brutus" car is from the Technik Museum Sinsheim, my Town i live, so i see the Brutus live :)

OFF TOPIC

[alexei1789]

Hi,

it looks amazingly nice and in late phase, and i'm glad there's a miniature engine control, it will really help engine mgmt !

i'm wondering about "flight safety": what will happen if you fly within the gasoline trail of a damaged plane with all those nice flames coming out of exhaust pipes ? " FSHHHHHHH " ??? :o)

Alex

OFF TOPIC

[heywooood]

...so, Oleg has started a flame fest then???

where is the moderation? invisible in daylight I suppose....

Ilya - please cancel the project

OFF TOPIC

[nearmiss]

Well it seems members want the update threads open for postings, regardless of some Off Topic postings.

So be it...

Rules of the forums and prohibited content will still be enforced.

If members want responses from the developer you will either stay ON TOPIC, or let the threads run.

The developers are pressed for time, as are moderators. They will not take time to read the thread when Off Topic postings prevail.

If a posting is reported to moderators as "Off Topic" action will be taken.

Moderators do not have time to hang on the forums and read every post as it is made.

[Richie]

A 109 E up quite close in flight in day light no flames

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RdRVIm8VHQ


At 2:02 you have your head right up to the stacks for a couple of seconds..no flames.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nMc_HJO0RU

[Sutts]

My first guess was compression (maybe something to do with different engine types and program modeling processes inside it) - but then again, we won't know for sure until Oleg tells us. :)

COMP - if MP is for Manifold Pressure, what does CO stand for?

I hardly believe that pilots could manipulate Manifold vacuum (or engine vacuum) other by different throttle settings.



Nerd: "An individual persecuted for his superior skills or intellect, most often by people who fear and envy him."


I'm pretty sure COMP or CO stands for Compressor i.e. the Supercharger gear setting - Hi, Lo or Neutral I suppose...but I think the early Spits had single speed, single stage superchargers.

[tourmaline]

Awesome screens again. It's comming really nicely together now.

I think Oleg and team deserve a nice christmas holliday!:cool::!:

[T}{OR]

I'm pretty sure COMP or CO stands for Compressor i.e. the Supercharger gear setting - Hi, Lo or Neutral I suppose...but I think the early Spits had single speed, single stage superchargers.

The only thing is that "COMP" was on the Ju-88 screen. I have to agree, Compressor indeed sounds as it may be what it stands for.

[CRO_Adriatic]

Sory fo my english...
Maybe explosion wos wrong word, "ekspanzija" in my languge, if it is expazion in english, well, it is not my profesion to talk about it...
http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eksplozija

On race cars and motorbikes we can see it during day, also whan you squezze the engine in way it is not ment to be used, flames are normal...

[Il2Pongo]

So my post about the main wheel of the 109 not being flush with the wing was deleted because it was out of context?
Really? A comment on the picture posted by the dev is not in context
What kind of "moderation" is that?

[Insuber]

So my post about the main wheel of the 109 not being flush with the wing was deleted because it was out of context?
Really? A comment on the picture posted by the dev is not in context
What kind of "moderation" is that?


In my opinion it was due to the angle of view; to my brain it looked flush, but I admit that the perspective was weird.

[alexei1789]

effects of those flames on gas fumes is set to "off topic" ?
wierd !

A.

[tourmaline]

Otherwise we will get about 50 pages of people complaining about the fire, fumes, whatever...
It's never good enough for some...It's just a game, it doesn't need to be ultra realistic.



effects of those flames on gas fumes is set to "off topic" ?
wierd !

A.

[IbnSolmyr]

Otherwise we will get about 50 pages of people complaining about the fire, fumes, whatever...
It's never good enough for some...It's just a game, it doesn't need to be ultra realistic.

So buy a CFS3 and let us this one ;) :P
We're not complaining, just trying to answer the Oleg's questions in order to help a bit the building of the best WW2 Air Simulation ever. If Oleg and co need hundreds of hours to upgrade a bit something wich can be considered as not the most important, they will analyse that by themselves, and skip this work. But if we reasonably can upgrade something, why not ? It's Oleg's philosophy. And our too. And finally, it's not just a game. If you want "just a game", buy those which allready exist, it will be sufficient. What we want is a part of the human history, and this a really important part...

[II/JG54_Emil]

Otherwise we will get about 50 pages of people complaining about the fire, fumes, whatever...
It's never good enough for some...It's just a game, it doesn't need to be ultra realistic.

As a simulator it does have to go ultraralistic.

And therefore the flames a re to bright at daylight.

[Splitter]

The only thing is that "COMP" was on the Ju-88 screen. I have to agree, Compressor indeed sounds as it may be what it stands for.

Yep, that actually makes more sense. Good catch,
Sutts. I still hope that manifold pressure it accurately modeled as part of the better complex engine management....which effects exhaust color too I guess :).

Splitter

[Goanna1]

To Oleg and Co.
Amazing level of detail that you and your team are bringing to this new sim.
Fantastic effort - greatly appreciated

Have a happy Christmas and an even better New Year for 2011

[alexei1789]

it was not a request, but a simple question...

for realism, i would never have thought by myself about the exhaust flammes for a flight sim !

Merry Christmas Oleg, develommental team and the forum

[T}{OR]

A quick summary after watching all the videos posted here, and following the discussion.

Lets not get too carried away...

Precisely that. Like someone already stated that these flames are deliberately overdone.

There are few factors we should consider when talking about (visible) engine exhaust flames:
All videos show planes standing or taxiing on the ground.
Although visible on many videos, most of us will agree that they are barely visible - or invisible during daylight.

Thus I will point out to three videos which IMHO more accurately represent what should (can) be seen in real life and thus in the game.

"Seafire night ground run" - watch how high RPM affects engine exhaust:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs_qt4GCj4A
The thing everyone forgot to mention is a very fast stream of air which is blowing over the exhaust stacks (with higher RPM) - undoubtedly much faster and colder once the plane is airborne => further reducing the exhaust flames length because of the fast air stream and also a small portion due to forced convection (cold air cooling the exhaust pipes).

Just like Oleg said:
Please read with atention: The color of exhaust from the direct pipe and from the extended are different. The temperatue of the flame decreasing with the longer leght of pipe. More lower temperature...




"Spitfire MH 434 - Part 3/5" - this, I believe is how the flames should be represented in the game, starting from 5:30 (fast forward) first the engine start is shown and then camera shows directly into the exhaust stacks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDZmq2VrcNQ
After slightly over primed start the only visible flames are during engine start (due to some fuel left from previous unsuccessful attempts). Once the engine has been started watch how there are no flames exiting the exhaust pipes, even when RPM is increased - although they are visible under the right angle (when looking directly into the exhaust pipes like shown in the video).


And last, the most important video IMO... "Bf 109 Stack Flaming" - posted by Richie, which although doesn't feature exhaust flames, it shows exhaust smoke when changing throttle:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48uziQoniI0
If I would have to choose between the right colored exhaust flames and correctly represented puffs of smoke when changing throttle => I would without a doubt choose the latter because it impacts gameplay and is overall more important feature.

[Richie]

A picture of a 109 G-4 low on a darker day with no flames.

[SlipBall]

(quote)T}{OR
If I would have to choose between the right colored exhaust flames and correctly represented puffs of smoke when changing throttle => I would without a doubt choose the latter because it impacts gameplay and is overall more important feature.


I agree, there's something about turbo's that causes a dark smoke after a quick throttle increase...even in todays world with on road vehicles and their modern engines. So I like the idea of the 109 having that behavior:grin:

[T}{OR]

I agree, there's something about turbo's that causes a dark smoke after a quick throttle increase...even in todays world with on road vehicles and their modern engines. So I like the idea of the 109 having that behavior:grin:

Pressure-charging might indeed have a bit increased effect on the smoke puffs during throttle changes. Unless I am mistaken, WW2 planes had only superchargers, not turbochargers.

Combustion during constant RPM is totally different than one during variable RPM. The reason for this is rapidly changing and unequal ratio of fuel and air in the cylinder (variable mixture) - accompanied with black puffs of smoke coming out of the exhaust manifold. Once you set on an desired RPM it takes the engine few seconds to 'stabilize'. Fuel consumption is also much higher during these frequent throttle changes, when compared to running at constant RPM (i.e. just like city / highway driving).

Just like you said - the best example are trucks, when the driver adds power it is always accompanied with thick black smoke coming out of the exhaust. Once it is driving with a constant speed, there is barely any smoke coming out of the exhaust. As far as turbos and truck engines... sometimes it takes up to 2-3 minutes for the exhaust gases to 'stabilize' and spin the turbo for it to have a desired effect.

[SlipBall]

(quote)
WW2 planes had only superchargers, not turbochargers.



They are the same, the difference being the power source:grin:

[T}{OR]

They are the same, the difference being the power source:grin:

In basic terms, yes. :)

For a supercharger to work you have to use some of the energy produced on the crankshaft, while turbo uses energy off the exhaust gases which is "free". :)

The downside is that turbo works best on higher RPM ("turbo lag"), while superchargers can follow and adjust to engine RPM much more rapidly.


IIRC the development of turbochargers and the reason why they are so available todays happened after WW2. => See post 141. (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=205596&postcount=141)


EDIT: As a result, the latest developments led to a process called 'downsizing' where in todays engines you now have a supercharger for low RPM which disengages (usually via magnetic clutch) around 2500 RPM and then turbo takes over.

[SlipBall]

In basic terms, yes. :)

For a supercharger to work you have to use some of the energy produced on the crankshaft, while turbo uses energy off the exhaust gases which is "free". :)

The downside is that turbo works best on higher RPM ("turbo lag"), while superchargers can follow and adjust to engine RPM much more rapidly.


IIRC the development of turbochargers and the reason why they are so available todays happened after WW2.



Yes, you are correct:grin:

[Sutts]

Unless I am mistaken, WW2 planes had only superchargers, not turbochargers.

In basic terms, yes. :)

For a supercharger to work you have to use some of the energy produced on the crankshaft, while turbo uses energy off the exhaust gases which is "free". :)

The downside is that turbo works best on higher RPM ("turbo lag"), while superchargers can follow and adjust to engine RPM much more rapidly.


IIRC the development of turbochargers and the reason why they are so available todays happened after WW2.


EDIT: As a result, the latest developments led to a process called 'downsizing' where in todays engines you now have a supercharger for low RPM which disengages (usually via magnetic clutch) around 2500 RPM and then turbo takes over.


Not sure if I understand you correctly. Turbochargers were most definitely used during WWII but on aircraft such as the P-47 and P-38 and bombers such as B-17 and B-24. I don't think any BoB aircraft used them.

[T}{OR]

Not sure if I understand you correctly. Turbochargers were most definitely used during WWII but on aircraft such as the P-47 and P-38 and bombers such as B-17 and B-24. I don't think any BoB aircraft used them.

The function of both is the same - i.e. to compress the air before it enters a cylinder. Either to produce the same atmosphere as if you were flying on sea level or to increase engine power. The difference is how they are driven. Supercharger is linked to the crankshaft usually with a belt pulley or set of gears. Turbocharger is driven by exhaust gases and thus for it to operate efficiently requires certain speed out of those gases - i.e. works best when on mid or high RPM. Early turbochargers were massive in comparison what we have today.

Although they were available before WW2, rapid development of turbochargers started after WW2, IIRC when F1 started using them (they were banned in F1 shortly afterwards due to excessive power these engines produced).



EDIT: You are correct:

Aircraft such as the Fw 190D, B-17 Flying Fortress, and P-47 Thunderbolt all used turbochargers to increase high altitude engine power.

So says Wikipedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbocharger#Aviation)

I presume that you could only mount them in larger (e.g. radial engines), because even in 70's they were massive compared to today. And it makes sense - especially with P-38 which has those long pylons behind engines.

[swiss]

edit: cleaned this thread and removed my OT posts

[T}{OR]

EDIT: same as swiss

[ElAurens]

The P38 was powered by a pair of V12 Allisons that were turbocharged.

[T}{OR]

The P38 was powered by a pair of V12 Allisons that were turbocharged.

And that is why its exhaust is different than the one found on planes equipped with Merlin engines (single engined fighters).


Back to the flames etc. Here is a nice example of modification done to prevent visible exhaust flames during night fighting:

http://www.military-aircraft.org.uk/ww2-fighter-planes/messerschmitt-bf-110g-fighter.jpg

[peterwoods@supanet.com]

Re turbochargers: According to Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Merlin)

In 1940 Rolls-Royce considered adapting the Merlin to use an exhaust-driven turbocharger to increase the power of the Merlin. Although a lower fuel consumption was an advantage, the turbocharger was rejected in favour of a two-stage supercharger.
[Lovesey 1946, p. 220]

Most of the Merlin's technical improvements resulted from more efficient superchargers, designed by Stanley Hooker, and the introduction of aviation spirits with increased octane ratings. Numerous detail changes were made internally and externally to the engine to withstand increased power ratings and to incorporate advances in engineering practices.
[Lovesey 1946, pp. 224-226]


On the subject of Ejector Exhausts: I’m surprised that no one has commented on what today we would probably call a “Value Added” feature of Ejector Exhausts. The following is an extract from the same Wiki article:

The Merlin consumed an enormous volume of air at full power (equivalent to the volume of a single-decker bus per minute), and with the exhaust gases exiting at 1,300 mph (2,100 km/h) it was realised that useful thrust could be gained simply by angling the gases backwards instead of venting sideways.

During tests, 70 pounds-force (310 N; 32 kgf) thrust at 300 miles per hour (480 km/h), or roughly 70 horsepower (52 kW) was obtained which increased the level maximum speed of the Spitfire by 10 mph (16 km/h) to 360 mph (580 km/h). The first versions of the ejector exhausts featured round outlets, while subsequent versions of the system used "fishtail" style outlets which marginally increased thrust and reduced exhaust glare for night flying.

In September 1937 the Spitfire prototype, K5054, was fitted with ejector type exhausts. Later marks of the Spitfire used a variation of this exhaust system fitted with forward-facing intake ducts to distribute hot air out to the wing-mounted guns to prevent freezing and stoppages at high altitudes, replacing an earlier system that used heated air from the engine coolant radiator. The latter system had become ineffective due to improvements to the Merlin itself which allowed higher operating altitudes where air temperatures are lower.[23] Ejector exhausts were also fitted to other Merlin-powered aircraft.
[Price 1982, p. 51]

Hope I haven’t wandered too far OT.

Pete

[swiss]

The FW190 Turbo

http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/fw190v18.htm


http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/v18.jpg

[T}{OR]

Very nice link, thank you for posting.

Please correct me if I am wrong:

The strange protuberance on the underside of the aircraft is the Hirth 9-2281 turbocharger. Note the nearly unchanged rear fuselage and canopy.

...but to me, the spiral thing next to the engine looks more like a turbocharger. "The strange protuberance" looks more like an inter-cooler or a radiator. In any case, a heat exchanger.

- - -

EDIT:

Discussion moved to a new thread, here:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=17720

Strictly OT posts were deleted/edited.

[Azimech]

Small remark on the gasses that drive the turbo: the driving force is pressure, not speed. Turbo's work due to a pressure differential with the outside air, while a turbo-compound uses the kinetic energy of the exhaust gasses. That's why the P47's critical altitude is a function of turbocompressor speed (roughly 20K rpm) because due to the lower pressure outside, the turbine was spinning faster, until it's constructional limit was reached (and the pilot warned).

Turbo-compounds use a "blow-down" turbine and as a result do not produce parasitical back pressure on the engine. In theory a blow-down turbine can be added sequentially to a turbocompressor, adding even more efficiency to a system, maybe by driving a generator or coolant pump or as in case of the Wright R-3350 the crankshaft via hydraulic clutches.

Interesting document by Curtiss-Wright Co. on the Wright R-3350 Turbo-Compound:
http://www.enginehistory.org/Wright/TC%20Facts.pdf

[Azimech]

Very nice link, thank you for posting.

Please correct me if I am wrong:



...but to me, the spiral thing next to the engine looks more like a turbocharger. "The strange protuberance" looks more like an inter-cooler or a radiator. In any case, a heat exchanger.

If you look carefully you'll see thin lines, a pipe, attached the exhaust pipes, running through the fuselage, into that thing behind the intercooler. That's the turbocharger. You'll see a pipe go through the intercooler and from the intercooler back to the engine. It seems they had it right to keep the supercharger attached to the engine, since the turbo takes load of from it, decreasing the load on the engine to drive the supercharger, and being able to boost even more. It was probably even coupled with the barometric device that regulated the variable hydraulic clutch. Anyway I would've chosen that spot due to the CoG.

I wish Flugwerk would build a 190C, just to see how it performs.

[T}{OR]

Small remark on the gasses that drive the turbo: the driving force is pressure, not speed. Turbo's work due to a pressure differential with the outside air, while a turbo-compound uses the kinetic energy of the exhaust gasses. That's why the P47's critical altitude is a function of turbocompressor speed (roughly 20K rpm) because due to the lower pressure outside, the turbine was spinning faster, until it's constructional limit was reached (and the pilot warned).

Turbo-compounds use a "blow-down" turbine and as a result do not produce parasitical back pressure on the engine. In theory a blow-down turbine can be added sequentially to a turbocompressor, adding even more efficiency to a system, maybe by driving a generator or coolant pump or as in case of the Wright R-3350 the crankshaft via hydraulic clutches.

Interesting document by Curtiss-Wright Co. on the Wright R-3350 Turbo-Compound:
http://www.enginehistory.org/Wright/TC%20Facts.pdf

Absolutely correct.

[giovanni the ace]

The detail put in to this is amazing and will make Storm of War a great game, thank you for all the effort.

[Richie]

A couple of things I do know about the 109 supercharger is that it is run by a clutch system not gearing to save energy. Also when an axillary fuel tank is carried it is pressurized by the supercharger. All of the fuel is sent into the main tank as fuel is used, no fuel line goes into the axillary tank. You can tell when the tank is empty by that glass tube next to your right forearm. When the tank is empty the tube will be clear.

[zapatista]

Oleg,

the colors of the flames look much better now, but they shouldnt be so visible during the daytime !! (much to visible right now in the most recent daytime screenshots posted)

on certain engine start conditions during the daytime they might be visible (and some significant flames/smoke maybe) , but not in flight like that unless something is seriously wrong with the engine. normally you should only be able to see them so clearly at night.

for night flying the current visual effects are great, and historically some pilots would even use the color of exhaust flames to fine tune their engines and trim the mixture

[tourmaline]

It's a game, if you want realism, fly the real thing.:cool:

By the way, every fryday there is something new to whine about, i am quite sure Oleg and team will do their best to make it as realistic as possible but not losing to much fps ingame. You want to be able to fly the darn thing, are you? Ultrarealistic will also mean huge hit on pc!
Oleg allready said that ultrarealistic is not for the moment, otherwise no current pc is able to run this game!

So buy a CFS3 and let us this one ;) :P
We're not complaining, just trying to answer the Oleg's questions in order to help a bit the building of the best WW2 Air Simulation ever. If Oleg and co need hundreds of hours to upgrade a bit something wich can be considered as not the most important, they will analyse that by themselves, and skip this work. But if we reasonably can upgrade something, why not ? It's Oleg's philosophy. And our too. And finally, it's not just a game. If you want "just a game", buy those which allready exist, it will be sufficient. What we want is a part of the human history, and this a really important part...

[IbnSolmyr]

It's a game, if you want realism, fly the real thing.:cool:

I would like so ! Maybe you can, me no.. ;) And i couldn't defend the England against the luftwaffe, it seems... :confused: :!:


By the way, every fryday there is something new to whine about, i am quite sure Oleg and team will do their best to make it as realistic as possible but not losing to much fps ingame. You want to be able to fly the darn thing, are you? Ultrarealistic will also mean huge hit on pc!

Oh yes ! We know that it will be very hard about fps, but we know that since 5 or 6 years (for me)


Oleg allready said that ultrarealistic is not for the moment, otherwise no current pc is able to run this game!

Looking at the work done, and what we're sure to get with, i believe Oleg became a bit more optimistic on this subject (for instance, SSD wasn't expected at the time..) : He said that the whole realism would be shared in one part that the PC could looking for (upgrading the options, like we upgraded IL-2 with conf.ini) and the rest later, when the technology has improved. But i think, now, he really wants to give us the best potential since the start of the series. And it's a normal thing as like any applications, it needs to think all we want for the future before or at least during the developpement of the thing.

[Sutts]

It's a game, if you want realism, fly the real thing.:cool:

By the way, every fryday there is something new to whine about, i am quite sure Oleg and team will do their best to make it as realistic as possible but not losing to much fps ingame. You want to be able to fly the darn thing, are you? Ultrarealistic will also mean huge hit on pc!
Oleg allready said that ultrarealistic is not for the moment, otherwise no current pc is able to run this game!

I wish you lot would stop referring to SoW as a simple game...it's not. It's a simulation of a very important piece of history (certainly to us British). Many of us grew up on wartime stories and the accounts of our grandparents of this particular period. I for one have always longed to experience what it must have been like to be there (from the ground and the air).

Historical accuracy is really important to many of us and fictional effects however well intentioned will spoil the overall impact of the title.

[IbnSolmyr]

I wish you lot would stop referring to SoW as a simple game...it's not. It's a simulation of a very important piece of history (certainly to us British). Many of us grew up on wartime stories and the accounts of our grandparents of this particular period. I for one have always longed to experience what it must have been like to be there (from the ground and the air).

Historical accuracy is really important to many of us and fictional effects however well intentioned will spoil the overall impact of the title.

As i said yet, i totally agree with this. I'm french and my father and his family were on the road from the north to the south-west of the country in June 40. He was almost 11 and saw the Stukas' machine gunning. He almost became a fighter pilot at the end of the war, as he was near 16. Hopefully he just became civilian pilot.
... Not just a game ... :rolleyes:

[=WF=RAW]

Think they will not be so clearly visible during action. they can be visible only in screenshot state. They flashes in a short time moment and disappears in smoke puffs... so in action we will not see anything. maybe only in night time the overall glow.

[nearmiss]

Think they will not be so clearly visible during action. they can be visible only in screenshot state. They flashes in a short time moment and disappears in smoke puffs... so in action we will not see anything. maybe only in night time the overall glow.

Good points

When you are sitting in cockpit are you going to see little fire and smoke?

When you engage the enemy are you going to see little fire and smoke?

You will see little fire and smoke when you do outside closeup views.

That is fine with me, because I do enjoy flicking around seeing the aircraft during missions and such. Often I just turn on autopilot and use my mouse to enjoy the action.

So there is value

[Redwan]

I wish you lot would stop referring to SoW as a simple game...it's not. It's a simulation of a very important piece of history (certainly to us British).

BoB is just a game and not a simulator (in a real flight simulator, the complexity of dynamics would make BoB look like a mario bros on PS1 ...

Difference between a game and a flight simulator:

Real Flight Simulator – How Realistic Is It?

http://www.realflightsimulator.net/

- So just how realistic is a real flight simulator? Here are 5 examples of how the lines between a real flight simulator and a real aircraft have become blurred thanks to modern computer software technology:
- The flight instrument panel in a typical flight simulator program is programmed to look and operate exactly like the instrumentation panel in the flight simulation’s real world aircraft counterpart. Every button, every dial, every knob, every instrument looks, behaves, and responds exactly the same way as its real world counterpart does.
- The simulated aircraft’s control surfaces can be manipulated in exactly the same way that a real aircraft’s control surfaces can be manipulated by using the control yoke, wing flaps, rudder pedals, throttle, and trim controls.
- The aircraft in a real flight simulator responds to simulated weather phenomena such as winds, precipitation, temperature variations, and icing, in exactly the same way that its real life aircraft counterpart would.
- In a real flight simulator, the aircraft is also programmed to respond to and be subject to external and internal forces, such as weight and balance considerations, center of gravity, and G-forces.
- Anything that could damage the aircraft in real life can also “damage” the virtual aircraft in a real flight simulator.
- The computer software engineering technology behind the development of simulation programs has evolved, and continues to evolve, over the years to become more and more real. Flight simulator technology is widely used as a means to supplement real-world flight training.

[6S.Manu]

BoB is just a game and not a simulator (in a real flight simulator, the complexity of dynamics would make BoB look like a mario bros on PS1 ...

Difference between a game and a flight simulator:

Real Flight Simulator – How Realistic Is It?

http://www.realflightsimulator.net/

- So just how realistic is a real flight simulator? Here are 5 examples of how the lines between a real flight simulator and a real aircraft have become blurred thanks to modern computer software technology:

- The flight instrument panel in a typical flight simulator program is programmed to look and operate exactly like the instrumentation panel in the flight simulation’s real world aircraft counterpart. Every button, every dial, every knob, every instrument looks, behaves, and responds exactly the same way as its real world counterpart does. CHECK (most in il2 already)

- The simulated aircraft’s control surfaces can be manipulated in exactly the same way that a real aircraft’s control surfaces can be manipulated by using the control yoke, wing flaps, rudder pedals, throttle, and trim controls. CHECK (most in il2 already)

- The aircraft in a real flight simulator responds to simulated weather phenomena such as winds, precipitation, temperature variations, and icing, in exactly the same way that its real life aircraft counterpart would. CHECK(few in il2... SoW?)

- In a real flight simulator, the aircraft is also programmed to respond to and be subject to external and internal forces, such as weight and balance considerations, center of gravity, and G-forces. CHECK (most in il2 already... 4.10 adds structural damage too)

- Anything that could damage the aircraft in real life can also “damage” the virtual aircraft in a real flight simulator. (how many variables here? Neither in expensive simulators you can expect all types of damages)

- The computer software engineering technology behind the development of simulation programs has evolved, and continues to evolve, over the years to become more and more real. Flight simulator technology is widely used as a means to supplement real-world flight training. BoB > Il2


From most I've read in the site that you've provided... yes, SoW will be a simulator, not a game.

[speculum jockey]

It's a game, if you want realism, fly the real thing.:cool:

By the way, every fryday there is something new to whine about, i am quite sure Oleg and team will do their best to make it as realistic as possible but not losing to much fps ingame. You want to be able to fly the darn thing, are you? Ultrarealistic will also mean huge hit on pc!
Oleg allready said that ultrarealistic is not for the moment, otherwise no current pc is able to run this game!

Exactly! There is a reason why actual flight simulators (military and commercial) use what are essentially supercomputers (20 core+ systems).

One reason is rendering the sim onto a few displays (sometimes almost 360 degrees) and another is the colossal number crunching dedicated to ultra-realistic flight modeling, flight systems, damage modeling, and a host of other things that you don't have the time or resources to put into a game, which is what SOW is.

They might call this a flight sim, but no matter which way you cut it, it's sill a game meant to generate sales and revenue. Real sims are designed to do neither, they are commissioned by a government body or a commercial sector and made with little thought put towards hardware requirement, money, or fun-factor. The only thing they really have in common with SOW and other flight sims with regards to development might be "development time" but in a lot of cases they're being made at the same time the actual aircraft is being developed so it's not that much of a race.

[The Kraken]

BoB is just a game and not a simulator (in a real flight simulator, the complexity of dynamics would make BoB look like a mario bros on PS1 ...

Difference between a game and a flight simulator:

Real Flight Simulator – How Realistic Is It?

http://www.realflightsimulator.net/

You realize that you're linking to a poor rip-off that repackages FlightGear, which in itself is a nice open-source project but hardly the pinnacle of professional flight sim development, spiced up with some shallow marketing hogwash to make people spend money on something they could download for free? Not sure that's such a good source for information on "real flight simulation" :-)

Most professional flight simulators anyway focus on specific aspects and are pretty poor in others, depending on the type of training they're meant for. They rarely require the combined level of detail in graphics, flight/ballistics/damage modeling, AI or WAN network connectivity that a PC flight sim like SoW needs.

[Sutts]

>>Originally Posted by Redwan View Post
>>BoB is just a game and not a simulator (in a real flight simulator, the complexity of dynamics would make BoB look like a mario bros on PS1 ...


I think we're all agreed that compromises in fidelity have to be made to allow SoW to run on current home PCs and allow for the extra environmental modelling that military sims generally lack.

However, in no way does this make SoW default automatically to game status. In my opinion saying that is an insult to the skills and vision of Oleg and team. This is as close to real as Oleg is able to get us based on current hardware limitations. Knowing how Oleg operates, if PCs were more capable we would have proper airflow dynamics modelled by now. It just isn't possible yet on a home PC.

SoW will give us a pretty accurate flight experience. It may lack some of the subtle control inputs and response to airflow that a military simulator can offer but a comparison to mario bros on PS1 is way out of order.

[major_setback]

BoB is just a game and not a simulator (in a real flight simulator, the complexity of dynamics would make BoB look like a mario bros on PS1 ...

Difference between a game and a flight simulator:

Real Flight Simulator – How Realistic Is It?

http://www.realflightsimulator.net/

- So just how realistic is a real flight simulator? Here are 5 examples of how the lines between a real flight simulator and a real aircraft have become blurred thanks to modern computer software technology:
- The flight instrument panel in a typical flight simulator program is programmed to look and operate exactly like the instrumentation panel in the flight simulation’s real world aircraft counterpart. Every button, every dial, every knob, every instrument looks, behaves, and responds exactly the same way as its real world counterpart does.
- The simulated aircraft’s control surfaces can be manipulated in exactly the same way that a real aircraft’s control surfaces can be manipulated by using the control yoke, wing flaps, rudder pedals, throttle, and trim controls.
- The aircraft in a real flight simulator responds to simulated weather phenomena such as winds, precipitation, temperature variations, and icing, in exactly the same way that its real life aircraft counterpart would.
- In a real flight simulator, the aircraft is also programmed to respond to and be subject to external and internal forces, such as weight and balance considerations, center of gravity, and G-forces.
- Anything that could damage the aircraft in real life can also “damage” the virtual aircraft in a real flight simulator.
- The computer software engineering technology behind the development of simulation programs has evolved, and continues to evolve, over the years to become more and more real. Flight simulator technology is widely used as a means to supplement real-world flight training.

Seeing as you can download it for free I can't see how you can even think of comparing it to SoW:BoB.
The screenshots are terrible.
That list of requirements looks like just sales garb, and as far as I can tell SoW will fulfil most of them, if not all.

Screenhots from Real Flight Simulator

http://www.flightprosim.com/screenshots1/SNAG-0009.jpg

http://flightprosim.com/images/diff_view.jpg

User endorsement: "This is indeed a wonderful game that has the extreme quality that a expensive flight simulator would have. Trust me, I have played it for hours and hours a day, and I never get tired of it! Its kid friendly and great for any age."

[Abbeville-Boy]

nudge to back on topic
i would think that the flames should not be visible in bright conditions

[Splitter]

nudge to back on topic
i would think that the flames should not be visible in bright conditions

My guess is that Oleg turned up the visibility of the flames in the screen shots so we could see the flames and the planes at the same time.

Splitter

[erco]

Exactly! There is a reason why actual flight simulators (military and commercial) use what are essentially supercomputers (20 core+ systems).

One reason is rendering the sim onto a few displays (sometimes almost 360 degrees) and another is the colossal number crunching dedicated to ultra-realistic flight modeling, flight systems, damage modeling, and a host of other things that you don't have the time or resources to put into a game, which is what SOW is.

They might call this a flight sim, but no matter which way you cut it, it's sill a game meant to generate sales and revenue. Real sims are designed to do neither, they are commissioned by a government body or a commercial sector and made with little thought put towards hardware requirement, money, or fun-factor. The only thing they really have in common with SOW and other flight sims with regards to development might be "development time" but in a lot of cases they're being made at the same time the actual aircraft is being developed so it's not that much of a race.

The last time I was at FlightSafety for recurrent training, I spent some time with the sim techs, asking questions and looking at the hardware. I was surprised to learn that today's multi-core desktops have more than enough computing and graphics power to run a Level D full motion simulator. What the desktop can't do is properly synchronize everything so that everything that's supposed to happen NOW happens NOW. Thus you need a multi-board/multi-processor thing that lives in a server rack. But, relatively speaking, powerful it ain't.

[Trumper]

:) You also don't get the physical effects,the g forces,the positive and negative,the being thrown around,the force of acceleration and deceleration.
I have to go on a simulator at work [not a pilot one, a train driving one every year ] and the biggest complaint we have is the lack of movement [the seat of the pants driving].You can see the simulated scenery going past but there's no "feeling" of moving.

[speculum jockey]

Another thing you don't get in a commercial sim is the rendering of every little subsystem that an aircraft has. Throttle, Pitch, Mixture, compression, etc are pretty good for a flight sim game, but the ones they use for the big Boeings, Airbusses, and the military jets and choppers simulate the hydraulic and electrical systems, the in-cabin PA system, the backups, the bypass circuits, and a thousand other things. Plus most of them require outside operators to input different variables and such that the pilot and copilot are going to have to deal with. We're probably 10 years away from flight sim games simulating airframe expansion, how icing affects airflow over the wings. . . . and all those other things you find in real Simulators.

I'm not Knocking SOW, but it's not possible given time, money, and hardware constraints. The fact that we are being given variable flames from the exhaust is a milestone, and I'm sure there are other milestones Oleg's keeping for release and future patches.

[IceFire]

The last time I was at FlightSafety for recurrent training, I spent some time with the sim techs, asking questions and looking at the hardware. I was surprised to learn that today's multi-core desktops have more than enough computing and graphics power to run a Level D full motion simulator. What the desktop can't do is properly synchronize everything so that everything that's supposed to happen NOW happens NOW. Thus you need a multi-board/multi-processor thing that lives in a server rack. But, relatively speaking, powerful it ain't.

Makes sense. The days of the 8 and 16 core processors aren't too far away. Once we get to that point we'll be able to do the same sorts of things on a home PC that they do with server racks. Of course it just means that there will be server racks with the equivalent multi core CPU's to match :)

[Azimech]

And we may see the development of interchangeable modules like A2A has with Accusim, at least that's what they claim, that in the future their modules will be able to interface with a number of 3D flight engines. Imagine SoW becoming hugely successful, and top of the line third part developers joining forces thereby increasing the level of technology. Who knows, maybe russo-american cooperation might even lower the threshold for products from a certain american defense corporation. I'm dreaming again.

[Trumper]

:) The sim should always be overdeveloped as computers in time will catch up and you need to keep the sim on the front edge able to use the technology as it comes in.

[louisv]

I was talking to some CAE engineers (by far the largest company in the field) and they said the difference is you are in a real cockpit that moves, with real instruments, a true panoramic view, and that costs millions all by itself.

The cockpit is bought from the manufacturer of the aircraft...a cousin of mine is an engineer there and he went to buy a A380 cockpit in Toulouse for CAE's A380 simulator...

The computing power is less than some workstations since they don't upgrade everything all the time. And the software is still mostly 'cheat sheet', table based...no real inertial calculations...To be fair that was 5 years ago, but still the differences are less than you might think, other than the physical cockpit of course. The graphics, while updated all the time are not that great but they are full surround !

Louisv

PS: "Real Flight Simulator" is a repackaging of a free software: by today's standard it's a piece of crap. Enough said.

[speculum jockey]

:) The sim should always be overdeveloped as computers in time will catch up and you need to keep the sim on the front edge able to use the technology as it comes in.

I think Oleg has been working with that philosophy in mind since it too years for IL-2 to be playable at MAX settings on a mid-range system. (although IL-2 was very scalable as well)

[Skyflier]

Louisv

PS: "Real Flight Simulator" is a repackaging of a free software: by today's standard it's a piece of crap. Enough said.

Louisv I just wanted to concur. I'm not sure I'd ever mention "FlightProSim" as a credible source for anything! Flightgear(.org) might not be the hottest peice of software out there, but somone slapping their logo on a GNU (freeware) release and marketing it with a "money back guarrantee" is pretty sick. I feel sorry for anybody that fell for their scam.

[klem]

The last time I was at FlightSafety for recurrent training, I spent some time with the sim techs, asking questions and looking at the hardware. I was surprised to learn that today's multi-core desktops have more than enough computing and graphics power to run a Level D full motion simulator. What the desktop can't do is properly synchronize everything so that everything that's supposed to happen NOW happens NOW. Thus you need a multi-board/multi-processor thing that lives in a server rack. But, relatively speaking, powerful it ain't.

Well, "powerful it ain't" may be true at the single board/processor level but combined into that multi-board multi-processor supercomputer it is a fair bit more powerful than the new i7 multicore PC about to arrive on my doorstep. But it's true that things have moved enormously over the 20+ years I spent in the flight simulation business. The Visual computers for a certain VSTOL aircraft back in 1987 occupied a portacabin-like structure about 30 feet by 30 feet, completely full up, unique PC boards about 2 feet square and generating enough heat to warm a factory. All to enable low level graphics rendering at high speed. It was later replaced by a system in a cabinet about the size of a small single wardrobe. The later ones were about half that size and some are now down to super PC/rack size.

We've come a long way and we haven't finished yet.