4.101 RC - List of fixes

[daidalos.team]

Dear IL-2 fans,

First of all, thank you for your testing and bug reporting of patch 4.10. Even though we did not have enough time to respond to each individual post, we have been reading your reports and comments carefully. As we speak, we are in a process of internal testing of patch 4.101 Release Candidate which will address most of the issues you have found in 4.10.

One of the most commented features of 4.10 has been the 2s bomb arming delay. We have listened to your feedback and spent a lot of time and energy reviewing and discussing this feature inside our team. In 4.101 we have removed arming delay from ampoule loadouts only. In 4.11 - we will rework the arming delay for each individual bomb based on available historical references and within limitations of IL-2 code. Plus we will make this feature optional either via an existing or a new difficulty switch.

Now, we would like to take this opportunity and review with you publically the list of fixes which are already included in our latest 4.101 version. In case we have forgotten or overlooked a bug you have already reported, please remind us in this thread. Keep your reports 4.10 specific, please. No old bugs or "wish list" here.

Again, we want to say thank you to those who provided a constructive feedback to us on several IL-2 forums and/or our email address. We really appreciate it.

Daidalos Team.

Fixes already INCLUDED in 4.101 RC we are testing:

1. Problem with class compiling causes problems with online & check runtime.

2. Finding a free space for plane spawning on carrier deck is overloading dedicated server too much which can cause temporary warping. No problem for normal player hosting.

3. "Data corrupt" error message appearing from some QMB missions.

4. Saved Quick Mission Files from 4.09m do not work correctly anymore when they are loaded.

5. Destroyed ships are reported as bridges at the stats page.

6. Transparent runways on tracks are visible with red tint.

7. Several issues with MDS recon (blue side recon planes not recognized, no AI planes available in recon planes list, all ground units are not indentified).

8. Entries for "Countries" in the home base MDS screen are not loaded correctly when mission is opened in FMB. Saving after this erases the countries list.

9. In dogfight missions, clients are not able to ground spawn from the test runways. The old narrow transparent runway should stays as airspawn only, but the two new transparent should be ground spawnable.

10. Fulmar unable to take off from ground airfields because of wrong tail wheel rotation.

11. Bf-109 G-6 Mk 108 cannons don't work.

12. Bf-109 G-6 Finnish version cannot use the Wfr.Gr.21 rockets.

13. S-80 torpedo boat rear gun alignment is invalid.

14. "Late" Mk13 & Type91 torpedos are missing. Late variants were added to all those planes that carried the old "non-late" torp. except Swordfish torp was changed to British Mark XII.

15. Ju-88 with empty loadout causes exception.

16. AI planes on DF maps not flyable from external view.

17. Ju-88 A4-torp FM has dive brakes.

18. P.11 FM version is old.

19. Spitfire Mk.IXc 1942 - when 2x250lb bombs loadout selected, only one (left-side) bomb is shown under wings in loadout screen and in game.

20. Do-217 (both version) are missing one clip from right wing, so wingtip goes through ground.

21. Ghost landing gears on Hs 129 when it gets ripped away.

22. Wrong amount of ammo in Bf-109F-4 2xMG151 pods.

23. CW-21 cockpit warning lights not functioning. Added lights for following functions (up to down in panel):
-fuel pressure
-oil pressure
-fuel valve closed (lights when fuel is just about to ran out)
-low/poor mixture
-prop RPM low
-supercharger high
-flaps down
-gears up

24. Magnetic compass in Ju-87 pits show wrong value. Also the pits show the old black horizontal lines and red line in repeater compass.

25. Wind above 5m/s affects AI planes (fighters) spawning in a bad way.

26. Selecting the Enemy frequency from the communications menu results in the Friendly frequency being selected. That is, both the Enemy selection and the Friendly selection result in the radio being set to friendly.

27. Yak-9UT default loadout changed to 2X B-20 + NS-23. Additional 2X B-20 + NS-37 loadout added.

28. CantZ.1007 made more prone to fuel tank fire.

29. Magnetic compass in Arado jet is showing wrong indications.

30. Nav indicator (NDB) in TB-3 works opposite to red type indicators in all other soviet planes.

31. AI skins in MDS mission are not saved in NTRK.

32. Even with AI radio turned off in MDS scenarios, the ground control still uses radio during landing.

33. Java exception in DF mission when checking player's loadout. No effect on gameplay, just visible in log.

34. Hs 129 canopy doesn't close completely when jumping from external view to cockpit view just when the canopy is closing.

35. MDS aircraft limits cause problems for hosting player when homebase is out of aircrafts.

36. Yak-9B/D should not show homing instrument in realistic nav. mode.

37. Max distance to request runway lights should be bigger (increased to 10km).

38. N1K auto flaps bug, When turned On/Off/On fast switch to last position.

39. Me-163 Komet cannot take off under player's autopilot control.

40. Do 335 V13 repeater compass does not work correctly.

41. Ar-234 doesn't show anything in HUD when repeater compass heading is adjusted.

42. (Promoted to red. Basically same issues as 39.) Player with autopilot on during takeoff will causes engine fire with certain jets. Autopilot slams the throttle(s) forward too fast.

43. Hs 129 bomb loadout with 250kg & 2x50kg drops in wrong sequence.

44. Hs 129 compass rotates to wrong direction in the old nav mode.

45. Fixed Hs 129 pit disappearing engine instrument bug in certain damage conditions.

46. Players complain that hearing/understanding Morse code is too difficult. Added "learning mode" and ability to show Morse code as text & conf.ini parameters to enable it.
Client side can enable this feature with showMorseAsText=1 (under GAME) and server side can disable this online with allowMorseAsText=0 (under NET)

47. Wrong emblems for 279 & 281 squadriglia.

48. Aiming point for the Bk3.7 on the Bf 110 G-2 is below the center of Revi circle.

49. He-111 gunners change to killed 3D mesh from the first hit. Appears as if dead gunners are shooting.

50. Some textures for Solomon maps appear as too bright.

51. Small texture bug in He-111H-12, Hs-129 and Do-217 skins. Missing nav lights.

52. I-15 cockpit has few wrong materials and old texture. Appears as dark spot around the tube sight & window.

53. When Re-2000 bombs are released, they jump up a little before falling.

54. Wrong localization of He-111H-6 bombs (other languages than english).

55. No default skin folders or void skins for new spits.

56. Erg_JG26 has invalid gruppe number 5.

57. Glidepath of AAF IAS should be finetuned better to match typical runway length. Now the landing following instrument precisely falls short.

58. B-25 blind landing instrument should be much more sensitive in horizontal level. 3.5 dec for full deflection according to manual.

59. Various spelling mistakes in CW-21 cockpit.

60. No prop pitch HUD printout when changing pitch for engines. When engine #1 & #2 pitch is mapped, only #2 shows the HUD text.

61. On the Ground Control page of the communications menu there is no customary blank line between the last option and the '0.Back' option.

62. He-111 H-2 & H-6 top gunners use a part from H-12 which leaves a visible gap when zoomed out.

63. Static version of the old P-47 and new Spitfires missing.

64. "Torpedo failed to enter the water" message renamed to "Torpedo failed".

65. Typo in FMB Properties tab.

66. Solomons Aug 42 Map - wrong forrest tile in the ocean.

67. Wrong Spitfire Mk.Vc cockpit position. Also several Spit pits have bad texture mapping at canopy frame.

68. Bf-110G-2 external tail gun barrel is visible when in gunner's pit.

69. Dead R-5 gunner switching positions.

70. In french localized version, the prop pitch display is wrong. "Pas dhelice {0}%"

71. Ju-88A-17 D2 LOD bug.

72. Night is sometimes too dark and instruments cannot be seen very well.

73. Aligning GUI buttons on subsequent screens in QMB.

74. Smolensk map, QMB - "Smolenk" typo in Czech localization.

75. Slightly reduced maximum impact speed for Italian torpedo.

76. Radio communication ([TAB] commands) sometimes can also activate the key that is mapped to same numeric key that TAB command uses.

77. Bf-110G - the lights for the gear EIN/AUS are the wrong way around. (i.e. in wrong place).

78. AFN-2 gauge doesn't have a working night illumination on Stuka D and G versions.

79. D3A1 cockpit airspeed gauge shows wrong indications.

80. He-111 H-6 tail stinger changed to MG17.

81. Me-210 PaK40 changed to Bofors40.

82. Added: Ampoule loadouts have no arming delay and no safe jettison

Known issues that are fixed but didn't make it to the RC build:

- If user loads a mission in FMB which has AI planes assigned as recon planes, AI planes are not loaded into the list and next save causes them not to be saved.

- If player's side FoW spotter/radar gets destroyed, player might still see the icons on minimap as if the unit was still alive.

[swiss]

Aiming point of all guns on the Ki84 is below the center of Revi circle.

[Tempest123]

Hmm, looks pretty comprehensive. The morse code training option is nice.

[rakinroll]

Thank you guys, S!

[Majo]

:grin:
Thank you very much.
So good to be here, so long to go on...

Salutes Majo.

[Sven]

Thank you, much appreciated! I see that my bug is in there, looking good :)

[[URU]BlackFox]

Great news!

Some static small ships respawn right after they are destroyed (landing craft, pilots, for example). Maybe it's included in numer 4, but just to be sure. Thank you.

[Aviar]

Bug 1:

As reported by [URU]BlackFox on the 1C forum, there is a respawn bug in 4.10 concerning SOME Stationary Ships. The ships are respawning almost immediately after sinking. I have confirmed this on my computer.

*A bug report was sent to Daidalos on Jan. 8, 2011.


Bug 2:

This is an easy 4.10 bug to verify. It is one of the default missions that came with IL-2. The exact same mission works fine in 4.09m. However, in 4.10m it is unplayable.

Open Il-2 and click on:

-Multiplay.
-Create New Server
-Create
-Game Type ---> Dogfight
-Mission Type ---> 4
-Missions ---> DOGFIGHT 13

Pick any base and take any plane. When you spawn, your AAA will kill you instantly.

I looked at this mission in the FMB. Both 4.09 and 4.10 mission are identical. However, the AAA will shoot you on your own base in 4.10.

*A bug report was sent to Daidalos on Dec. 28, 2010.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


**Just one question. The word 'ampoule' was used twice in the first post by daidalos.team. --->

"In 4.101 we have removed arming delay from ampoule loadouts only."
"82. Added: Ampoule loadouts have no arming delay and no safe jettison."


I have never seen that word before. I looked it up online and got this definition:

--------------------
ampoule or esp ( US ) ampule (ˈæmpuːl, -pjuːl)

— n
med a small glass vessel in which liquids for injection are hermetically sealed
--------------------

Any comment?


Aviar

[mazex]

Sounds great - but for me as a non-native english speaker, what the heck is an "ampoule loadout"? Externally carried bombs?

[IceFire]

Thanks for the update! Some great fixes there... even some long standing ones!

Curious if the realistic armament options (bomb arming, torpedo drop height/speed) have been moved to a distinct difficulty setting. That's a feature that the UK-Dedicated servers I think would like to take advantage of depending on which server the player is on.

[438_Martin_591]

Nice list of found and solved bugs!

But, it have always one who rest, the Canadian squadrons who have not the right designation.
By example, the 438 is a fighter-bomber squadron, but designed like a simple fighter squadron.

If you want, you can take the mod i made with redko about the canadian squadron.

All is in attachment (this is my final and corrected version, never published). That inclued also the crests. This is my tribute to the courageous Canadian pilots who fought for us.

Sorry about my english, i am a little rusted...

[1.JaVA_Sjonnie]

TD, hats off to you. This looks quite comprehensive.

Patiently awaiting the fixes. Thanks guys!!:cool:

[ElAurens]

Well done gentlemen.

[Romanator21]

I think ampoules are the same thing as "bomblets", or the multitude of grenade-like thing that IL-2s and other planes can drop.

Very comprehensive list DT, I will be looking forward to the changes.

There are a couple other bugs I added recently - maybe they won't make it into 4.101, but here they are again, just in case:

There is a bug regarding the Re.2000 gunsight. When damaged, the iron pipper comes down as it should, but it or the player "camera" is not centered properly over the rings on the glass. As a result, all of the bullets fly far below the aiming point, never reaching it.

Another problem occurs when pressing F2, then F1. The camera position changes for some reason and the bullets fly too high. Pressing ShiftF1 once returns the view to default (not centered on the sight) and pressing it again returns the view to the sight-centered position (where again the bullets fly too low). In effect there are three sight-views possible, none of which are useful.

I don't know if this is an issue with other Italian planes that have this sight.

EDIT: I don't know how old this bug is, but my Polish pilots sometimes speak Japanese.

I was messing around some more, and I've noticed that there are a lot more aircraft with the "ghost-prop" since 4.09. It's not a big deal, but it's now impossible to prop-munch the guys in my formation

There is also clipping with the Hs-129 wheels and terrain.(not a huge problem)

- In the Bf-109 G-6 the gun blisters now obstruct my field of view. It's as if they are bigger than before, at least from the cockpit view. (Maybe this is a feature, and not a bug)
- The Ju-88 Torp (and maybe others) behaves strangely upon entering the water. If I try to ditch, it pops up like a cork and somersaults in the air at some 20-30 meters! Then it falls and sinks rapidly enough to kill my pilot instantly.

[Bearcat]

It looks like you guys covered most of what I was beefing about with 4.10.. at least that you can cover...

[smokincrater]

TD should appluded for a fix that has been done in quick time. Professional Software companies take note. the only little grip I have is the night darkness is okay. it is very chanellaging to fly on instruments with no outside ques. But hey were here to have fun.

[WTE_Galway]

Ampoules were the Soviet phosphorus/incendiary or sometimes napalm-like ordinance used in Soviet infantry grenade launchers.

In aircraft use great batches of these same ampoules were dropped in canisters in the same way that the US used napalm.

[csThor]

Nice list of found and solved bugs!

But, it have always one who rest, the Canadian squadrons who have not the right designation.
By example, the 438 is a fighter-bomber squadron, but designed like a simple fighter squadron.

If you want, you can take the mod i made with redko about the canadian squadron.

All is in attachment (this is my final and corrected version, never published). That inclued also the crests. This is my tribute to the courageous Canadian pilots who fought for us.

Sorry about my english, i am a little rusted...

I had to refer to web sources for accurate naming of the squadrons. If some are wrong please list them here and I'll try to fix them. Using other files than those already in 4.10 is not an option.

[swiss]

Ampoules were the Soviet phosphorus/incendiary or sometimes napalm-like ordinance used in Soviet infantry grenade launchers.

In aircraft use great batches of these same ampoules were dropped in canisters in the same way that the US used napalm.

That means what? The IL2 is relieved from from fusing, everything else stays the same?

[albx]

Thank you TD for your work, i think IL-2 will be better and better with you guys :)

[Romanator21]

That means what? The IL2 is relieved from from fusing, everything else stays the same?

No, ampoules are relieved from fusing. Everything else stays the same...for now.

[swiss]

I still don't get - Is there a IL2 name for these mysterious "ampoules".


But then again I dont really care anymore.

[rollnloop]

Ampoules=VAP-250

[KG26_Alpha]

TD

Firstly well done once again for attending to the IL2 1946 series so quickly with the little patch :)


Dear IL-2 fans

One of the most commented features of 4.10 has been the 2s bomb arming delay. We have listened to your feedback and spent a lot of time and energy reviewing and discussing this feature inside our team. In 4.101 we have removed arming delay from ampoule loadouts only. In 4.11 - we will rework the arming delay for each individual bomb based on available historical references and within limitations of IL-2 code. Plus we will make this feature optional either via an existing or a new difficulty switch.
.


Will you make available (transparent) the source for your new "fusing" data please, I would be interested in seeing this for my own references and compare with data I have rather than a "closed shop" procedure, it could help to have external data provided by others.

Regards

[bolox]

just a reminder about lack of new torp control box in nose gunner position on ju88 torps (post338 in bug thread)

[basola]

i've posted in bug section, i post here too.

with a multi engine throttle control (4 throttles and 4 pitchs)all work except pict for engine 1!
pitch value is not showed in game (but it work on planes).

all throttle works ok, i don't know if pitch 4 work (no planes for test it :D)

[Eldur]

Veeeeery old bug, don't know how long we have it already... maybe since Il-2 Demo 1? :D
When neither climbing nor descending, variometers always show like -1.2m/s. Best seen on the ground and with altitude AP when flying bombers.

[Azimech]

Thank you very much TD!

I'm especially waiting for the new torps for my online carrier defenders mission.

But ehm... night sometimes too dark? I usually fly mid december with a moonless night, and I feel they even could be darker. I have no problem with reading my instruments. Maybe my gamma is too high? I don't even know where to adjust it in the game if possible. Too bad the stars aren't visible though. Anyway I can imagine there were situations where the ground was indistinguishable from the sky, especially with cockpit lights on. Currently we don't have that. Too bad the game engine doesn't support HDR and I know it never will.


Flying on instruments only is VERY cool.

One small bug which probably wasn't reported: already at dusk the AI AA and ship gunners can't hit anything.
At night without enemy search lights, you can even land on an enemy airfield with navigation and/or landing lights on, and they can't find you. I did multiple landings and take offs from that field and the AA only fires roughly in my general direction.

[150GCT_Veltro]

1. Problem with class compiling causes problems with online & check runtime.

Maybe this is related also with 4.09 class files?

[438_Martin_591]

I had to refer to web sources for accurate naming of the squadrons. If some are wrong please list them here and I'll try to fix them. Using other files than those already in 4.10 is not an option. If you want it like that. The 438 to 440 are Fighter-Bomber, but they are designed like fighter in your patch.

Source:
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/v2/hst/page-eng.asp?id=658
http://www.rcaf.com/Squadrons/squadronDetail.php?No.-438-Squadron-94
http://www.manitobamilitaryaviationmuseum.com/Spotlight.htm

And for add the crest, i imagine is in the 4.11 i need to talk?

[csThor]

Actually the (FB) designation in the dropdown list is meant for squadrons who flew types like Mosquito or Beaufighter on strike missions. Units operating in the fighter-bomber role with single-engined fighters are kept under the (F) label. ;)

And squadron emblems are pointless IMO since they're also shown on the aircraft (if they're present) which is not correct. Unfortunately removing them completely is not going to work, either. :(

[438_Martin_591]

Strange logic.
The 438 fight on Typhoon, who was the fighter-bomber by excellence and a really bad fighter...

So, if i refer to your logic, the russian unit who oppered on the il-2, single engine, was fighter?
The American who oppered on SBD-5 and Helldiver was fighter?
The german who oppered on Stuka was fighter?
The japanese who oppered on B5N2 and D3A was fighter?

Yep, strange logic...

About the crest, so, i can forgot that if i have understand?
If it's true that isn't all squadron who put the crest on their plane, some made it, like the 438 or the 421.
But, please, look this: http://www.forceaerienne.forces.gc.ca/v2/equip/resrc/images/hst/l-g/spitfirea27.jpg

But for the demand of add the rest of the Canadian squadron who was forgotten, it's correct? Or maybe because they was bomber squadron?
You know, some oppered on liberator and B-25 Mitchell.
Source: http://www.forceaerienne.forces.gc.ca/v2/equip/hst/liberator-eng.asp
http://www.forceaerienne.forces.gc.ca/v2/equip/hst/mitchell-eng.asp
And the Liberator make a good fake for the Halifax also.

[csThor]

No, it's a system I devised for 4.10. I wanted to give players without the in-depth historical knowledge (in this case I'm one of them) at least a bit of hint what types these units flew in WW2. I wanted to use the term "Strike" but that proved to be too long for the drop-down list. :(

It's not meant to demonstrate what kind of operations these units flew since that goes far beyond the scope of such a system. I could easily remove all (F), (FB), (TB), (B) and (T) from the list but then a not-so-informed player doesn't know what this or that unit did in WW2. Most thoughtless of the RAF and its sister air forces not to include some kind of hint as to what a squadron did. Couldn't they have taken a hint and done it like the Luftwaffe or the VVS? ;)

EDIT: I left out the night-bomber units on purpose since there are no aircraft for them in the game so far. I had to draw a line WRT workload somewhere. Sorry.

[BadAim]

Thank you very much TD!

One small bug which probably wasn't reported: already at dusk the AI AA and ship gunners can't hit anything.
At night without enemy search lights, you can even land on an enemy airfield with navigation and/or landing lights on, and they can't find you. I did multiple landings and take offs from that field and the AA only fires roughly in my general direction.

Actually, I should think the main problem the AI AA would have in these situations would be seeing their own sights, not seeing your aircraft, so this behavior might not be so far off.

[rodger44]

Hi all!
Someone make a muddle of captions on migs landing gear signal: "опущено" mean, that landing gears down, and "поднято" - landings gears up, but signal lights show quite the contrary.

[Fenrir]

And squadron emblems are pointless IMO since they're also shown on the aircraft (if they're present) which is not correct. Unfortunately removing them completely is not going to work, either.

I used MAT Manager to sort out the squadron badges I didn't want - in the old days, however it's been a long time neglected and doesn't work for all.

Could you not make the RAF regiment TGAs plain transparent? I like the badges in the briefing but would sacrifice them to not have them present on the a/c.


No, it's a system I devised for 4.10. I wanted to give players without the in-depth historical knowledge (in this case I'm one of them) at least a bit of hint what types these units flew in WW2. I wanted to use the term "Strike" but that proved to be too long for the drop-down list. :(

It's not meant to demonstrate what kind of operations these units flew since that goes far beyond the scope of such a system. I could easily remove all (F), (FB), (TB), (B) and (T) from the list but then a not-so-informed player doesn't know what this or that unit did in WW2. Most thoughtless of the RAF and its sister air forces not to include some kind of hint as to what a squadron did. Couldn't they have taken a hint and done it like the Luftwaffe or the VVS? ;)

EDIT: I left out the night-bomber units on purpose since there are no aircraft for them in the game so far. I had to draw a line WRT workload somewhere. Sorry.

Personally, even with my knowledge of the more famous RAF squads I find this feature really helpful Thor; thanks!

A little note for correction - my 601 squadron in game still has the 602 lettering - 'LO' - and badge bug from old. The codes should be 'UF'.

[JG52Karaya]

Havent found my bug in the list so I'm posting it again:

When having B-24s in a mission (QMB, FMB,...) with Bat bomb loadouts, the following console error is logged


[7:12:14 PM] Hook '_ExternalBomb02' NOT found in mesh of class com.maddox.il2.objects.air.B_24J100
[7:12:14 PM] Hook '_ExternalBomb02' NOT found in mesh of class com.maddox.il2.objects.air.B_24J100


And another thing:

I'm getting the following stuff in the logfile as well

[7:11:40 PM] INI: HotKey 'LOG' is unknown
[7:11:40 PM] INI: HotKey 'LOGTIME' is unknown
[7:11:40 PM] INI: HotKey 'LOGFILE' is unknown
[7:11:40 PM] INI: HotKey 'LOGKEEP' is unknown
[7:11:46 PM] SectFile load failed: null
[7:11:46 PM] java.io.FileNotFoundException
[7:11:46 PM] at com.maddox.rts.SFSInputStream.<init>(SFSInputStream.java:65)
[7:11:46 PM] at com.maddox.rts.SFSReader.<init>(SFSReader.java:19)
[7:11:46 PM] at com.maddox.rts.SectFile.loadFile(SectFile.java:157 )
[7:11:46 PM] at com.maddox.rts.SectFile.loadFile(SectFile.java:136 )
[7:11:46 PM] at com.maddox.rts.SectFile.<init>(SectFile.java:108)
[7:11:46 PM] at com.maddox.rts.SectFile.<init>(SectFile.java:68)
[7:11:46 PM] at com.maddox.il2.gui.GUIQuick.checkCustomAirIni(GUIQ uick.java:1339)
[7:11:46 PM] at com.maddox.il2.gui.GUIQuick.<init>(GUIQuick.java:1477)
[7:11:46 PM] at com.maddox.il2.gui.GUI.create(GUI.java:158)
[7:11:46 PM] at com.maddox.il2.game.Main3D.beginApp(Main3D.java:70 0)
[7:11:46 PM] at com.maddox.il2.game.Main3D.beginApp(Main3D.java:35 7)
[7:11:46 PM] at com.maddox.il2.game.MainWin3D.beginApp(MainWin3D.j ava:211)
[7:11:46 PM] at com.maddox.il2.game.Main.exec(Main.java:420)
[7:11:46 PM] at com.maddox.il2.game.GameWin3D.main(GameWin3D.java: 235)


Both are with 4.10 stock!

[JG52Karaya]

Forgot to mention that I also get this in the console at the start of a stock 4.10 QMB mission


[7:28:02 PM] SectFile load failed: null
[7:28:02 PM] java.io.FileNotFoundException
[7:28:02 PM] at com.maddox.rts.SFSInputStream.<init>(SFSInputStream.java:65)
[7:28:02 PM] at com.maddox.rts.SFSReader.<init>(SFSReader.java:19)
[7:28:02 PM] at com.maddox.rts.SectFile.loadFile(SectFile.java:157 )
[7:28:02 PM] at com.maddox.rts.SectFile.loadFile(SectFile.java:136 )
[7:28:02 PM] at com.maddox.rts.SectFile.<init>(SectFile.java:108)
[7:28:02 PM] at com.maddox.rts.SectFile.<init>(SectFile.java:68)
[7:28:02 PM] at com.maddox.il2.gui.GUIQuick.checkCustomAirIni(GUIQ uick.java:1339)
[7:28:02 PM] at com.maddox.il2.gui.GUIQuick.<init>(GUIQuick.java:1477)
[7:28:02 PM] at com.maddox.il2.gui.GUI.create(GUI.java:158)
[7:28:02 PM] at com.maddox.il2.game.Main3D.beginApp(Main3D.java:70 0)
[7:28:02 PM] at com.maddox.il2.game.Main3D.beginApp(Main3D.java:35 7)
[7:28:02 PM] at com.maddox.il2.game.MainWin3D.beginApp(MainWin3D.j ava:211)
[7:28:02 PM] at com.maddox.il2.game.Main.exec(Main.java:420)
[7:28:02 PM] at com.maddox.il2.game.GameWin3D.main(GameWin3D.java: 235)

[JG53Frankyboy]

actually, im still wondering what "ampoule loadouts" are.
also a non native english speaker here , but perhaps i missed it ?!? :(

[KG26_Alpha]

actually, im still wondering what "ampoule loadouts" are.
also a non native english speaker here , but perhaps i missed it ?!? :(

"Ample loadouts"
Were what an old girlfriend of mine had :)

But seriously its a bad translation meaning "bomblets"

[JtD]

But seriously its a bad translation meaning "bomblets"

No, it's actually a perfect translation. If you don't know what an ampoule/ampule/ampulla is, try wiki. It's what the AJ-2 cassettes drop in Il-2.

[Roblex]

Thankyou for allowing a pilot to request landing lights from further out but have you extended the range at which the lights actually turn on?

I tested the B25 blind landing mission repeatedly and the lights never switched on until I was within 1000m of the threshold and by that point the threshold was invisible under the nose when performing a level descent as you must do when doing an ILS approach and unable to see the ground.

[Fenice_1965]

What about the issue of country limit missed anytime you open the mission in FMB ?

[KG26_Alpha]

No, it's actually a perfect translation. If you don't know what an ampoule/ampule/ampulla is, try wiki. It's what the AJ-2 cassettes drop in Il-2.

Bad translation in respect of what it means to its application in IL2 1946

The word to have used could have been ampoules :)

As I said above..............bomblet.

[JtD]

Bad translation in respect of what it means to its application in IL2 1946

Hardly. If you think AJ-2 drop bomblets, that's your problem. They drop ampoules.

Bomblets will still have the arming time.

Edit: I see you're into semantics now, have it your way. I can live with bombs and bomb loadouts just like I can live with ampoules and ampoule loadouts. However, ampoules are not the same as bomblets, which is what you claimed. You can thank me later for educating you.

[KG26_Alpha]

Yes ampoules is correct as I said above.

Ok you drop those and I'll drop mine :)

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Geeez, I guess, you both need some ampoules with a special brewing, hm? ;-)

[JHartikka]

....
In case we have forgotten or overlooked a bug you have already reported, please remind us in this thread.
....


Hi!

Thank you a lot for your active work for developing this extraordinarily truthfull historical flight simulator! When I was a young boy reading everything I could get in my hands about aircraft I could only dream about seeing some of these classical planes and now with this sim - a miracle! - I can set my hands on their controls right on my desk to take them to a virtual test flight myself! :o

In my life I have since my boyhood studied and collected knowledge about military history and especially from the field of aviation. Later this hobby contributed to my profession related to firearms and special ballistics product development. In this environment I met devoted old veterans and air force and army and industry weaponry experts and listened closely to their fascinating experiences. However, not until with this online IL2 sim I got personally check the old pilots' tales about how to fly a bomber or recon plane under threat of intercepting human piloted enemy planes!

Surprisingly, I ended to make very similar maneuvers with this sim as those veteran pilots frequently had told about, like making 'scissor turns' agains aggressive opponents or hiding in clouds or diving down to treetops. Only now after personally flying with and against experienced IL sim virtual pilots I have really come to understand what those old veterans exactly meant with these maneuvers! So it really appears to me that the planes and their properties as well as the environment of this IL sim closely resemble those of the originals during war!


Almost Realistic But Not Quite..!

Here are a couple of minor cases related to proper realistic IL sim bomber work I may have not remembered to lucidly enough report earlier:

1. Bomb SALVO settings.
2. Fuse settings.
3. Missing bomb damage after pilot hit.

Nr 1 means that this otherways truthful sim has a queer property of dropping bombs as pairs. I guess that we are rather unanimous that back in those days bomb effect was with all efforts maximized. It would have been unprecedentedly foolish to waste bomb effect by dropping bombs as pairs into the same spot! Luckily, there already is a fix available (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?p=209454&posted=1#post209454) for this IL sim 'idiot pairs of bombs' dilemma so it should not be very difficult to set correct with some future patch, I hope! :)

Nr 2 means of course that for every mission bombs were funished with a fuse best suited for that particular mission. Again, bombs were never carried to be wasted in those days! It was crew's choice to say the last word about fuse that would be best for the mission. Pilot select should be the case with this sim, too, if we wish to further keep the sim historically accurate instead of becoming just another fancy game?

Nr 3 is the IL sim curious feature that bombs released before but exploding after flak or enemy interceptor has hit the bomber pilot do not cause any damage. In reality, bombs of course were quite as dangerous even after the aircraft that dropped them was hit - I guess we all agree about this?



Best regards,

- J. Hartikka -

Finland


Wartime Photo Appendix: Previously unpublished pics from the 1941-1944 Finnish - Carelian front that I scanned from a Finnish artillery sergeant-major veteran's photo album. There was also a wartime finding pic in the album about unknown Soviet people gathered around a table in Karelo-Finskoi SSR.

I have put wartime photo copies about aircraft earlier to threads:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?p=210220&posted=1#post210220
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?p=213782#post213782

[IceFire]

Yes ampoules is correct as I said above.

Ok you drop those and I'll drop mine :)

Please don't. This is a family forum! :D

[MrBaato]

My cockpit position has moved forward alot in all machi's (mc202/205)
after installing 4.10m

When looking in front, only the top instruments can be read even in wide-view

[1.JaVA_Sjonnie]

My cockpit position has moved forward alot in all machi's (mc202/205)
after installing 4.10m

When looking in front, only the top instruments can be read even in wide-view

Have you tried the controls increase / decrease FOV? looks like you have, maybe the interpretaion of the resolution is different? Hadn't noticed this one yet btw.

[Romanator21]

I noticed a change as well, but it hasn't been a major problem for me.

[5AF_8FS_Doc]

Has anyone happened to mention the fact that the supercharger in the P47D does not engage?

Didn't read the whole thread, so sorry if its been mentioned. It is a huge problem for any jug driver.

[Azimech]

The P47 uses a Turbocharger.

[Tempest123]

Has anyone happened to mention the fact that the supercharger in the P47D does not engage?

Didn't read the whole thread, so sorry if its been mentioned. It is a huge problem for any jug driver.

Its turbo-supercharged, a large exhaust driven turbocharger behind the cockpit delivers air to the intake manifold, that's why the jug is shaped the way it is. Notice in the cockpit the gauge marked "turbo rpm", that is the RPM of the turbocharger turbine supplying forced air to to the engine.
The system is designed to hold a certain manifold pressure constant for a wide range of altitude, i.e you set your manifold pressure via your throttle, and the turbo-supercharger automatically adjusts the amount of forced air going into the engine to hold that pressure constant. Its a genius system, because a P-47 can hold sea level like manifold pressure at very high altitudes.

[IceFire]

Has anyone happened to mention the fact that the supercharger in the P47D does not engage?

Didn't read the whole thread, so sorry if its been mentioned. It is a huge problem for any jug driver.

Tempest has explained the details very nicely. I just wanted to ask if you've ever flown the P-47 at high altitudes? Up at 9000 meters it's like a rocket... only the Ta152H-1 has the same kind of feeling. It makes most other fighters look like they are standing still. The sim models it's turbo-supercharger reasonably well actually and there isn't anything to fix in this particular aspect.

[Blackdog_kt]

Its turbo-supercharged, a large exhaust driven turbocharger behind the cockpit delivers air to the intake manifold, that's why the jug is shaped the way it is. Notice in the cockpit the gauge marked "turbo rpm", that is the RPM of the turbocharger turbine supplying forced air to to the engine.
The system is designed to hold a certain manifold pressure constant for a wide range of altitude, i.e you set your manifold pressure via your throttle, and the turbo-supercharger automatically adjusts the amount of forced air going into the engine to hold that pressure constant. Its a genius system, because a P-47 can hold sea level like manifold pressure at very high altitudes.

Actually, this is partially correct. The Jug did have a turbo-supercharger but i think it was not automatic. In fact, there was a separate "throttle" lever for it.

The way it worked is that you didn't touch it until you reached 8000ft. From that point on you could use it to overboost the engine (it could take more than 30 inches of MP, which is around what the ambient air pressure on sea level is), but taking care not to overdo it and break the engine.

As you went higher, there came a point where the throttle alone was not sufficient to maintain useful MP. From that point onwards, the pilot would leave the throttle at full (which would only generate maybe 20-25 inches of MP due to the high altitude) and only use the turbo lever control for setting the MP. In IL2, the way it works is that a single slider/throttle control on our joysticks controls both of them, the actual throttle up to a certain MP value and the turbo lever from that point on. This is not a problem, it's just a clever interface decision.

What IL2 doesn't model which made the P-47 complicated to fly was turbo lag. The way it worked is that when pushing the turbo lever forward, a couple of waste-gates on the exhausts would gradually close, not letting the exhaust gas escape but sending it to a set of tubes that went to the turbo-supercharger. The more you closed the waste-gates, the more exhaust gas was fed to the turbo-supercharger and the higher RPM it reached. However, this was not instantaneous because the fans in a turbo take time to spool up and down due to inertia, just like a jet engine. I've spent some time with A2A simulations' P-47 payware add-on in FSX and it's almost impossible to get the exact MP value you want on the first try, it requires you to advance the lever first and then fine-tune it a couple of times, plus it's not an option not to because you can't just slam it to full and expect the engine not to break.

Also, just because the turbo can give you a certain boost and the engine can take the extra MP doesn't mean the turbo can maintain it at all altitudes. The higher you go, the harder it is for the turbo to maintain a certain amount of pressure. This translates to higher turbo RPMs for a given MP value and these RPMs come with their own limits that are not to be exceeded.

Combine this with the lack of any penalty (apart from a simplified overheat which is a resettable trigger with no engine damage if you don't stay at overheat for more than 5 minutes) for exceeding the engine's maximum MP limits, the fact that we can run any RPM we want without any issues, that the water injection is automatic (it was only semi-automatic in reality, you had to turn it on before it went to auto mode), the lack of mixture control (it was also semi-automatic and not full auto with four positions: cut-off,auto-lean,auto-rich and full rich), plus the lack of intercooler and oil cooler controls and it's obvious that the P-47 we have is way simpler to operate than it should be and gives too much "free" performance for too little workload.

In a single boom and zoom attack involving a dive of more than 5000ft you would have to:

1) Reduce power by adjusting manifold pressure and RPMs before the dive in order not to pick up excessive speed, keeping turbo lag in mind at high altitudes.
2) Close the cowl flaps in order not to damage them, while keeping an eye on your cylinder head temps. It would be ok mostly, since power has been reduced and temps would fall, so you could get away with closed cowl flaps in the dive.
3) Start diving towards the target.
4) Check your carb temps: on one hand they tend to go lower due to reduced power and increased speed, on the other hand you are descending and the air is warmer at lower altitudes. Too low a carb temp means low power due to icing, too high a carb temp rarifies the air in the carbs and it's like running at too rich a mixture, ie power loss again. Use your intercoolers to manage carb temps.
5) Check your oil temps. These are affected mostly by power settings just like the cylinder head temps, but change at a much slower rate. This would just be a momentary check, since i seem to remember that the Jug had automatic oil cooler flaps.
6) Acquire your target and make your attack.
7) Start pulling up into the zoom climb while adding power by adjusting MP and RPM again. At high altitudes turbo lag is present, plus you also need to take care not to overspeed the turbo.
8 ) Monitor oil, cylinder and carb temps again, reversing your previous actions with regards to intercoolers, cowl flaps etc.
9) Level off.

Of course, most of this is outside the scope of IL2's game engine, but i can't wait to see what happens when CoD starts modeling those late war hot-rods in a few years time.

So why do i mention it? Well, it's a pet peeve of mine that a lot of people think just because an aircraft was a top performer it was also easy to fly. This can't be further from the truth for many late war fighters and having them modeled in a simplified way makes them better than they actually were, because the pilot gets all the performance for free.

[5AF_8FS_Doc]

Good posts.

Why then does the p47 D have a supercharger lever in the throttle quadrant that never moves?

I have flown the jug at high altitude a ton... just tonight I was at 35k feet and was not able to attain anymore than 30 inches of MP. That was with a leaned pitch setting to about 80%. I even tried it at max RPM and it didnt help.

S~

[JtD]

Geeez, I guess, you both need some ampoules with a special brewing, hm? ;-)

That would be for me, he's going to have a bomblet instead. :D

[JtD]

Why then does the p47 D have a supercharger lever in the throttle quadrant that never moves?

Because not everything is animated.

[Azimech]

Good posts.

Why then does the p47 D have a supercharger lever in the throttle quadrant that never moves?

I have flown the jug at high altitude a ton... just tonight I was at 35k feet and was not able to attain anymore than 30 inches of MP. That was with a leaned pitch setting to about 80%. I even tried it at max RPM and it didnt help.

S~

That's IL2's way of simulating that the turbo has reached it's maximum RPM and therefore the aircraft's critical altitude.

[Brain32]

Speaking of P-47...AFAIK it's still the only prop plane in the game that can actually brake Mach 1 in a dive, that's a bit silly and should also be fixed.
The ThunderSabre lol

[KG26_Alpha]

Geeez, I guess, you both need some ampoules with a special brewing, hm? ;-)

That would be for me, he's going to have a bomblet instead. :D

Some of the stuff served in the pubs here can be comparable :)

[Blackdog_kt]

Good posts.

Why then does the p47 D have a supercharger lever in the throttle quadrant that never moves?

I have flown the jug at high altitude a ton... just tonight I was at 35k feet and was not able to attain anymore than 30 inches of MP. That was with a leaned pitch setting to about 80%. I even tried it at max RPM and it didnt help.

S~

That's more or less how it works actually. You were getting sea-level manifold pressure at 35k feet, so it's not bad at all ;)
I think this is the so called critical altitude, an altitude that when exceeding it the engine can't maintain sea-level pressure values anymore.

Edit: Seems Azimech beat me to it :grin:

That's IL2's way of simulating that the turbo has reached it's maximum RPM and therefore the aircraft's critical altitude.

[5AF_8FS_Doc]

Speaking of P-47...AFAIK it's still the only prop plane in the game that can actually brake Mach 1 in a dive, that's a bit silly and should also be fixed.
The ThunderSabre lol
AFAIK I have never reached over 700 MPH at sea level in a jug. Even at a 90 degree dive angle I have never reached 600 MPH w/o breaking pieces of the aircraft off... Vital pieces.

The fastest you can go in a jug in a dive is about 550 IAS, which should be around 650 or so in TAS which is still short of mach 1 at sea level. Just last night a freaking 190D-9 was able to follow me in this dive w/o breaking up. Therefore, the jug is not the only plane that can dive consistently at that speed.

[OrangeYoshi]

A question for DT:

As has been said before, pilots had the last say in what kind of bomb delay they flew with, yes? Just like the bomb delay settings we already have in our arming screen, could bomb arming time be made an option that goes right next it?

I know there's the separate thread on this topic, but I figure asking here would get a better chance of a response.

[JtD]

Pilots hardly got to say which delay they wanted. This was decided on a higher level and then the pilots were instructed how to use the bombs they got. However, they'd hardly be getting bombs with a very long arming time if they were going to do treetop level attacks.

[Nicholaiovitch]

Great to hear that you are so far advanced with the patch.

Ref. this entry below:-

9. In dogfight missions, clients are not able to ground spawn from the test runways. The old narrow transparent runway should stays as airspawn only, but the two new transparent should be ground spawnable.

Will the spawn points be one behind the other near centre of runway....or will there be individual spawn points. If the latter, could we have a diagram issued so that airfields can be built without interfering with the spawn points?

Many thanks for all your efforts.

Nicholaiovitch:)

[bf-110]

Not sure if was told,but,any idea to when this will be released?

[Brain32]

AFAIK I have never reached over 700 MPH at sea level in a jug. Even at a 90 degree dive angle I have never reached 600 MPH w/o breaking pieces of the aircraft off... Vital pieces.

The fastest you can go in a jug in a dive is about 550 IAS, which should be around 650 or so in TAS which is still short of mach 1 at sea level. Just last night a freaking 190D-9 was able to follow me in this dive w/o breaking up. Therefore, the jug is not the only plane that can dive consistently at that speed.

Well I dived a few planes on Crimea map from 10 000m strait down to see what's maximum TAS.
Now since I don't know exactly at which altitude and what speed in kmh mach is reached I took 1224kmh as that is equal to Mach 1 at SeaLevel just to be totally sure, the only plane that got over 1200kmh TAS was P-47D(I managed 1250 before brake-up) they all broke up at roughly 3000m.
I tried with P-51D, 190D9,109k4, MkIX and P-47 ofcourse, several time.

However since all of them went past 1100 it's possible all of them are very close or even over Mach 1 but P-47 was like I said the only one to pass 1200kmh.

All in all I kinda remember TD mentioned something on compression effects and max mach numbers so I'll refrase my wish to:
"Fix insane dive speed ability in game on all planes - please"

I hope that one sounds better :)

[Tempest123]

Confirmed, I just took the jug (p-47D) from 10 000m to near sea level and reached just above 1200km/h TAS before breaking up, so I think dives may be a little out of whack. I don't know if this is because there is no compressibility modeled, but AFAIK the in-game p-38 suffers from this.

[P-38L]

Hello. Perhaps I don't know how to use it but lights on airfield doesn't work for me when I request the lights on. I've using all ways, no enemy, assing lights to "red" to an airfield "red" and my airple is "red" and of course "at night"; and still doesn't turn on for me. If someone know what I am doing wrong.. please help!.

[dflion]

Just a couple of small problems that I have noticed while upgrading some of my campaigns to ver. 4.10.

1. In the FMB when altering the 'configure area' - weather conditions, date, time etc. after pressing save, then checking if it has actually saved, it hasn't. You have to put it all in again before getting a permanent save. It seems very 'flakey' here?

2. In the Fw190D-9 cockpit at certain angles the front corner fuselage (RHS), where it meets the cockpit frame, a small triangular 'clear area' appears. Will try and capture a pic of this for you.

3. This is an old problem with the Fw190D-9 - AI aircraft at certain distances develop a large hole in the back rear fuselage (you can see straight through them!).

4. While on the Fw190D-9's, I will have to throw-in this old chestnut. The D-9 requires alternative MG and bomb loadouts + a type 'D' droptank.

Thanks again for all your painstaking work.

DFLion

[DKoor]

WARNING!
This is whine/request!

Confirmed, I just took the jug (p-47D) from 10 000m to near sea level and reached just above 1200km/h TAS before breaking up, so I think dives may be a little out of whack. I don't know if this is because there is no compressibility modeled, but AFAIK the in-game p-38 suffers from this.
Conclusion is clear... finally can we have a fix for P-38, please?

Please get rid of the ridiculous compressibility for P-38, either that (which is minor fix I think) or please put all others on compress list too... as it is now it is not fair.

My only request.:cry:

[ElAurens]

Not to mention proper climb performance for P-38s.

[OrangeYoshi]

Pilots hardly got to say which delay they wanted. This was decided on a higher level and then the pilots were instructed how to use the bombs they got. However, they'd hardly be getting bombs with a very long arming time if they were going to do treetop level attacks.

Aye, but we have to abstract it for the game. Wouldn't a setting in the arming screen make sense?

[JtD]

It would.

[Masi67]

If I remeber it right, P38 suffered from this control compressibility until version with dive flaps came out. At somecase you could recover from dive with trim or by the help of denser air in lower altitude, but anyway steep dives were not prohibeted on P38. After 1943 problem was removed with dive flaps, if I recall.

WARNING!
This is whine/request!


Conclusion is clear... finally can we have a fix for P-38, please?

Please get rid of the ridiculous compressibility for P-38, either that (which is minor fix I think) or please put all others on compress list too... as it is now it is not fair.

My only request.:cry:

[Azimech]

Not sure if was told,but,any idea to when this will be released?

Ven idz reddi :-P

[Ala13_Kokakolo]

Please please please, check what's wrong with dual throttle saitex x65f and il2, the right throttle does not work correctly, whatever settings you use. It works in other games but it looks like il2 treats it like a two ways switcher instead of an axis.

[F19_Klunk]

If I remeber it right, P38 suffered from this control compressibility until version with dive flaps came out. At somecase you could recover from dive with trim or by the help of denser air in lower altitude, but anyway steep dives were not prohibeted on P38. After 1943 problem was removed with dive flaps, if I recall.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J0lEHyKInw

[swiss]

WARNING!
This is whine/request!


Conclusion is clear... finally can we have a fix for P-38, please?

Please get rid of the ridiculous compressibility for P-38, either that (which is minor fix I think) or please put all others on compress list too... as it is now it is not fair.

My only request.:cry:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fe/Compressibility010.png/800px-Compressibility010.png

Where is it ingame?

[vparez]

TD, will you please do something about the Spitfire roll trim?

I think changing the defaultailerontrim back to 0.015 will be enough.

Even when I fly according to the pilot's manual: trimmed out at IAS 170mph to 200mph, I still get a roll into right. Why?

[Oktoberfest]

No, it's a system I devised for 4.10. I wanted to give players without the in-depth historical knowledge (in this case I'm one of them) at least a bit of hint what types these units flew in WW2. I wanted to use the term "Strike" but that proved to be too long for the drop-down list. :(

It's not meant to demonstrate what kind of operations these units flew since that goes far beyond the scope of such a system. I could easily remove all (F), (FB), (TB), (B) and (T) from the list but then a not-so-informed player doesn't know what this or that unit did in WW2. Most thoughtless of the RAF and its sister air forces not to include some kind of hint as to what a squadron did. Couldn't they have taken a hint and done it like the Luftwaffe or the VVS? ;)

EDIT: I left out the night-bomber units on purpose since there are no aircraft for them in the game so far. I had to draw a line WRT workload somewhere. Sorry.


AHHH ! That's why the ZG76 crest disappeared from my 110 !

[5AF_8FS_Doc]

I just noticed something that really needs to be either added or fixed.

When you fly the 38 with the dual throttle/pitch controls and try to adjust the radiator it only opens up on engine one and not engine two. In order to get the radiator to open up on engine two you actually have to select engine two to get the setting to adjust correctly.

What this will cause is one engine with a wide open radiator while engine two will have a closed radiator causing single engine overheat status.

Either add a new radiator command for engine two or tie the radiators together somehow... it is frustrating to try and select engine two while micro managing your radiator, pitch and such with both engines.

S~

[csThor]

AHHH ! That's why the ZG76 crest disappeared from my 110 !

Come again? :confused:

[SaQSoN]

it is frustrating to try and select engine two while micro managing your radiator, pitch and such with both engines.


There is a key in standard key set called "Select all engines" for that.

[5AF_8FS_Doc]

I know that - the point is that even with "select all" used, this problem still exists because you are using two separate axis' of control to control the 38's dual engines.

Basically, the radiator does not change unless the specific engine has been selected.

Also... any word on increasing the difficulty of complex engine management? Adding manual mixture control? Allowing most planes to overrev if flown incorrectly by the pilot?

S~

[Azimech]

Not in this patch.

Maybe in 4.11? Who knows.

[Romanator21]

Currently over-revving exists, but it seems much too difficult to do, and it's practically idiot proof. You really have to TRY to break your engine. :)

Regarding radiators, I would like it a lot if DT allowed key combinations to open and close them. Right now, I have "R" set for rad flaps, and I have to tap repeatedly to cycle them. It would be nice to simply press R+ and R- to open and close them incrementally.

Secondly, it would be nice to have an option of manual mixture control. Currently pitch can be controlled by Shift+ and Shift- with Shift0 toggling auto/manual pitch. I use Ctrl+ and Ctrl- for mix, and it would be nice to be able to toggle auto/manual mix with Ctrl0. Finer mixture adjustments would be nice too, but I don't think the game will ever be able to model EGT to get a good "rich of peak" setting for cruise, etc.

[Blackdog_kt]

Not all planes had totally manual mixture control, for example most US aircraft usually had semi-automatic.
They had full rich for emergencies and start-up when the lever was all the way forward, cut-off to shut the engine down when the lever was all the way back and two intermediate settings: auto lean and auto rich.
In flight, auto lean was mainly used for cruise and fuel economy and auto rich for combat and climbing (richer mixture cools the engine, a good thing to have in prolonged climbs or when using high power settings, even if it costs a bit of performance).

However, not a lot had totally manual control, instead they would just choose between auto rich and auto lean and the engine systems would do the rest.

As for the rest of the aircraft that did have fully manual mixture, it's true that the increments of 20% we currently are not really precise. Leaning properly wouldn't be much trouble even without an exhaust gas temp gauge if the rest of the instruments gave you proper feedback.

If you watch the video in the other thread about prop pitch, you'll see that a constant speed propeller takes a little while to adjust to a new power setting: when you apply more power, the RPMs will rise a little before the prop governor adjusts the pitch to bring them back down, if you reduce power then the RPMs will momentarily drop before the governor brings them back up.

Using that knowledge one can lean the engine by simply watching the RPM gauge. You can lean until the leanest mixture that causes the RPM needle to momentarily jump up. If you go past that into too lean a mixture, power will be less and the RPM will drop a bit, you just enrich a little until it jumps back up again. Essentially, you over-lean once to see what's the peak RPM before the governor can correct it, let it stabilize, then enrich until you reach that momentary peak RPM value again. Also, with a bit of practice it's possible to do it by ear and as previously discussed in a Friday update, it's also possible to judge it from the color of exhaust flames if they are visible.

It's obvious however that for all this to work, we would need some kind of revamp in the way IL2 handles instrument feedback, its sounds and possibly the entire engine model. I don't know how much work that would be and most importantly, with CoD around the corner and the rumors about its improved engine model i'm not sure how much sense it makes to introduce "competing" features in the older series.

Don't get me wrong, i'd really like to have the features you propose, i just don't know if it's possible ;)

[Aviar]

I know that - the point is that even with "select all" used, this problem still exists because you are using two separate axis' of control to control the 38's dual engines.

Basically, the radiator does not change unless the specific engine has been selected.

I'm not sure what your issue is. There are no seperate radiator controls for each engine.

Aviar

[mmaruda]

Regarding the whole mixture and engine management discussion... Personally I don't care much for all those features since I fly almost exclusively offline and since the AI cheats in that matter I often fly with complex engine management off. However, I think that adding any new features to the sim is basically a bad idea. The main focus should be fixing what is broken at this point. I recently played the old Forgotten Battles (1.02 version I think) and it seemed like the most polished version of Il-2 I can think off. The AI does not do any dumb barrel rolls as soon as you get within firing range, the P-47 does not go supersonic (fall apart at around 850 km/h), the AI does not outrun faster planes and basically the whole experience seemed deprived of any bugs that you can encounter with 1946 version.

I get the impression that the game began to get broken with Pacific Fighters - it was an incomplete addon IMO (lack of planes and ships, boring missions etc) and started a trend for the series when adding new stuff seemed to be more important than polishing what was already there. The last patch took quite long to develop and though it has some awesome features, the bug list it introduced is quite large.

So, please Dear Developers, focus on bug fixes rather than adding new planes and options. The AI needs some serious work, especially with new bombing procedures and such. Let's face it Il-2 is an old game and CoD is coming out in 2 months time (hopefully) - the best thing to do is to bring Sturmovik to bug-free state. Sure, the game still has huge potential, but maybe exploring this potential should be left to modders and official developers would be better off with just fixing this game once and for all.

[dflion]

Attached is a jpeg showing a small triangular clear area on the RHS cockpit frame - as I reported on an earlier post.

DFLion

[Ernst]

Currently over-revving exists, but it seems much too difficult to do, and it's practically idiot proof. You really have to TRY to break your engine. :)

Regarding radiators, I would like it a lot if DT allowed key combinations to open and close them. Right now, I have "R" set for rad flaps, and I have to tap repeatedly to cycle them. It would be nice to simply press R+ and R- to open and close them incrementally.

Secondly, it would be nice to have an option of manual mixture control. Currently pitch can be controlled by Shift+ and Shift- with Shift0 toggling auto/manual pitch. I use Ctrl+ and Ctrl- for mix, and it would be nice to be able to toggle auto/manual mix with Ctrl0. Finer mixture adjustments would be nice too, but I don't think the game will ever be able to model EGT to get a good "rich of peak" setting for cruise, etc.

Not difficult at all. At least in some aircraft like the 109, use the auto prop and overrev just for few seconds (5 seconds or less) and the engine ll broke. The engine brokes very fast. Use auto prop in 190 and go for a dive in new 4.10, see what happens. When you just think to reduce pitch the engine already gone.

[PhilHL]

...

11. Bf-109 G-6 Mk 108 cannons don't work.

12. Bf-109 G-6 Finnish version cannot use the Wfr.Gr.21 rockets.
...

15. Ju-88 with empty loadout causes exception.

...

Did you realy tested your patch intensively? Months over months testing .. and this kind of bugs??! You are the "official" ?! This kind of problems never happened in "official" ic maddox patches...

maybe if you do work more with the community then you would not have such a long list of bug fixes...

maybe open beta before release of the patch..

thumbs up for you that you will learn from this.

[IceFire]

...

11. Bf-109 G-6 Mk 108 cannons don't work.

12. Bf-109 G-6 Finnish version cannot use the Wfr.Gr.21 rockets.
...

15. Ju-88 with empty loadout causes exception.

...

Did you realy tested your patch intensively? Months over months testing .. and this kind of bugs??! You are the "official" ?! This kind of problems never happened in "official" ic maddox patches...

maybe if you do work more with the community then you would not have such a long list of bug fixes...

maybe open beta before release of the patch..

thumbs up for you that you will learn from this.

These kinds of problems didn't happen? You have to be kidding me... you don't remember when one of the IL-2 patches broke the rudder on some 109 models? Or when Pacific Fighters came out and the Ki-61 flew like it had lead weights attached to it? Sometimes errors happen.

[silverliu]

Aiming point of all guns on the FW190A8 FW190A9 is below the center of Revi circle.


FW190A4 FW190A6 are OK.

By the way, if the records could provide wingtip smoke for aircraft , that would be better to review the quick records of fight.

[_1SMV_Gitano]

Did you realy tested your patch intensively? Months over months testing .. and this kind of bugs??! You are the "official" ?! This kind of problems never happened in "official" ic maddox patches...

LOL...

Maybe you were playing other games when the IL-2 946 DVD came out. It added to FB+AEP+PF 4.04 the "three russian add-ons" in one go, to version 4.07, definitely a lot of content and new features. Well, even then a hotfix (4.071) patch was needed to cure some bugs.

[Oktoberfest]

Come again? :confused:

Yep, I/ZG76 emblem was on my 110 for years. Now it's not anymore.

[csThor]

Weird. That's because the old I./ZG 76 didn't have an emblem defined to show in aircraft. Are you perhaps talking about 1./ZG 76? That emblem is still there. :)

[Oktoberfest]

Pretty sure it was I/ZG76. Flew for over 4 years with it. Emblem was a white Lion on a yellowish shield. Easy to verify, the identification letters always were : M8 + OK (number fifteen) on my aircraft, selected by : I/ZG76, squadron 2. O letter is in red. I still have those letters on the aircraft. But no more emblem. Which is fine, now I will be able to put a bigger noseart :P

Why is there a 1/ZG76 anyway ?

[76.IAP-Blackbird]

I have read the updatelist and was asking my self if there will be a 3D update for the He-111. Compared to your new Ju-88 it is an realy old model.

For the bomber pilots among us a manual Bombbay control key would be great.

Thank you in advance

best regards

76.IAP-Black

Martin

[Ala13_Kokakolo]

Hi Guys,

Sorry to be a pest but this is the third time I ask and I did not have any answer yet. There is a problem with the saitek x65f joystick. The dual throttle does not work fine with IL2. The right throttle is not recognized by the software. It reads it as a two positions switch (even if it call it a slider, it only has two positions once linked, 0% or 50%). It is not a problem with the saitek sofware (i have checked all possibilities). There is a mistake in the way IL2 communicate with it.

Please Team Daidalos, give some light into this: Is it fixable? are you aware of it? Do you have the means (saitek support for example) to fix it? I thinking about selling the joy and getting the warthog instead... but still do not know if it will work or i will get the same problem. Please can you drop a single line to comment on this?

[MicroWave]

Hi Guys,

Sorry to be a pest but this is the third time I ask and I did not have any answer yet. There is a problem with the saitek x65f joystick. The dual throttle does not work fine with IL2. The right throttle is not recognized by the software. It reads it as a two positions switch (even if it call it a slider, it only has two positions once linked, 0% or 50%). It is not a problem with the saitek sofware (i have checked all possibilities). There is a mistake in the way IL2 communicate with it.

Please Team Daidalos, give some light into this: Is it fixable? are you aware of it? Do you have the means (saitek support for example) to fix it? I thinking about selling the joy and getting the warthog instead... but still do not know if it will work or i will get the same problem. Please can you drop a single line to comment on this?

Try this:
1) Go to Pilot and create new pilot.
2) Then go to Controls and, find the HOTAS section and try to assign the problematic throttle to any of the controls (Flaps or Power for example).
3) Report here what is displayed for the problematic throttle (X-Axis, Y-Axis, U- Axis, or something else, or nothing at all)
4) You can also try to assign the problematic throttle to non-analog control, like for example Pause Game in TIME COMPRESSION section. See how Il2 recognizes this control.

[SturmKreator]

Hi Guys,

Sorry to be a pest but this is the third time I ask and I did not have any answer yet. There is a problem with the saitek x65f joystick. The dual throttle does not work fine with IL2. The right throttle is not recognized by the software. It reads it as a two positions switch (even if it call it a slider, it only has two positions once linked, 0% or 50%). It is not a problem with the saitek sofware (i have checked all possibilities). There is a mistake in the way IL2 communicate with it.

Please Team Daidalos, give some light into this: Is it fixable? are you aware of it? Do you have the means (saitek support for example) to fix it? I thinking about selling the joy and getting the warthog instead... but still do not know if it will work or i will get the same problem. Please can you drop a single line to comment on this?

the problem is in your joystick, not in the game, desintall drivers, clean everithing (delete manually any folder or file after desintall the driver) and reinstall.

[Ala13_Kokakolo]

Try this:
1) Go to Pilot and create new pilot.
2) Then go to Controls and, find the HOTAS section and try to assign the problematic throttle to any of the controls (Flaps or Power for example).
3) Report here what is displayed for the problematic throttle (X-Axis, Y-Axis, U- Axis, or something else, or nothing at all)
4) You can also try to assign the problematic throttle to non-analog control, like for example Pause Game in TIME COMPRESSION section. See how Il2 recognizes this control.

I have already use the "problematic" throttle with other axis and the exact same result. The computer displays it with z slider axis, but as I stated before when in use it only record two positions. 0% all the way to the top and it changes to 50% once you reach the top. It does work correctly with fsx, rof and a tool called multithrottle 4.0 that uses devicelink to communicate the joy with il2 (that I can only use with the xp rig)

I try with Joycntrl and the same result. I have not use it with an analogue key yet but I will try tonight and report.

Next week I am expecting to receive the warthog and I will check with it as well.

the problem is in your joystick, not in the game, desintall drivers, clean everithing (delete manually any folder or file after desintall the driver) and reinstall.

Not at all. I had already three saitek x65f in three different computers and the same problem with the three of them. One xp, another vista and the third with windows 7. I have reinstalled the software of the joy (and even deleted registry entry) like 50 times (no joking) because another different problem I had with one of the joys and the problem persisted all of the time. Sturreaktor, there is no problem with the joy or with the joy software. Do you have a x65f? Does it work right on yours?

[SturmKreator]

many saiteks x52s have that problem, try only installing the cd drivers

[Ala13_Kokakolo]

many saiteks x52s have that problem, try only installing the cd drivers

As I explained above I have use different drivers, even one beta driver still under development. All with the same result. x65f does not communicate the right throttle with il2 right.

[Ala13_Kokakolo]

Tested with keys. It does not recognise it as a key.

[MicroWave]

Tested with keys. It does not recognise it as a key.

OK. Do you use any Saitek joystick profile when playing Il2? Check that this throttle is not altered to act as a switch there.

You can also check ingame joystick settings (Hardware Setup -> Input). Look for something unusual, like sensitivity, filtering or dead band settings.

[Ala13_Kokakolo]

OK. Do you use any Saitek joystick profile when playing Il2? Check that this throttle is not altered to act as a switch there.

You can also check ingame joystick settings (Hardware Setup -> Input). Look for something unusual, like sensitivity, filtering or dead band settings.

If you try to rule out fault on my side you can now. This issue has been bugging me for quite long time: I tried (obviously) with and without profiles,I check for unusual things in all the three saitek I had and in the three installs.

As I stated before this problem has been tested with three different joys in three different computes with three different specs. I have been flying Il2 since the original game and I also have joycntrl and I can guarantee you this problem has nothing to do with joy/computer specs but with the way il2 communicates with this particular joystick. Hey guys, can anyone back me up here? Does anyone else own an x65f that proves me right or wrong?

[MicroWave]

If you try to rule out fault on my side you can now. This issue has been bugging me for quite long time: I tried (obviously) with and without profiles,I check for unusual things in all the three saitek I had and in the three installs.

As I stated before this problem has been tested with three different joys in three different computes with three different specs. I have been flying Il2 since the original game and I also have joycntrl and I can guarantee you this problem has nothing to do with joy/computer specs but with the way il2 communicates with this particular joystick. Hey guys, can anyone back me up here? Does anyone else own an x65f that proves me right or wrong?

How many axes are there on this device?
Primary control has 3 (it's a twist joystick, right?)
2 throttle sliders.
Probably at least 2 rotaries
Is there a small mouse/joystick there too? That adds 2 more axes.

This means you have 9 axes on one device and the limit on number of axes per device is 8.

Can you confirm that you have more than 8 axes? Go to Il2 Controls settings and just assign one control after another to Flaps or something. Write down how Il2 recognizes each axis (also write down Joystick ID if there is any shown). Post here the results.

Is it possible to turn off some of the axes in driver settings or change their behavior? For example change the small joystick/mouse to 4-way hat switch, if possible.

I've seen videos of people using X65 in Il-2, but I can't tell if they used separate throttle controls or not.

[Ala13_Kokakolo]

How many axes are there on this device?
Primary control has 3 (it's a twist joystick, right?)
2 throttle sliders.
Probably at least 2 rotaries
Is there a small mouse/joystick there too? That adds 2 more axes.

This means you have 9 axes on one device and the limit on number of axes per device is 8.

Can you confirm that you have more than 8 axes? Go to Il2 Controls settings and just assign one control after another to Flaps or something. Write down how Il2 recognizes each axis (also write down Joystick ID if there is any shown). Post here the results.

Is it possible to turn off some of the axes in driver settings or change their behavior? For example change the small joystick/mouse to 4-way hat switch, if possible.

I've seen videos of people using X65 in Il-2, but I can't tell if they used separate throttle controls or not.

The small joystick works as the mouse. It is in fact recognized by the computer as a mouse. I think it cannot be assign to any axis therefore there are only 7 axis. Anyway I will confirm it this afternoon because I'm now at work and I'm not 100% sure.
I have check yesterday and the name assign to the faulty throttle is "U slider Axis ID2" while the first throttle (left one and the one which works correctly) says "z axis id2" (does not say slider).

Checked. The small joy it is the mouse therefore no possibility of assign it to any axis. Il2 recognizes "x axis id2", "y axis id2" and "z axis rotation id2" (stick, 3 axis), then on the throttle it has "y axis rotation id2" and "x axis rotation Id2" (both rotaries, 2 more axis) and on the throttle left one is called "z axis id2" and the right one is called "U slider Axis ID2". No other axis is presented on the stick. Total = 7 axis. All of them are called id2 at the end of the name because I also have saitek rudder installed. I also tested the joy without the rudder with same result. It does not work.

[Majo]

Do you have any idea when this Fixes will be available for us all?

Thank you in advance.

Salutes!!!

[PE_Tihi]

Your Spitfire FM is instable about the pitch and the yaw axes to the extent that I suspect the change a malicious one. The plane has an obnoxious nose up trim, too, but that is a smaller problem.
No other plane in game handles so badly. In a vertical stagnation climb, the nose has no intention of falling down, like all the other plane's do. The thing is so unstable that it falls like a leaf, until you forcibly push the nose down, correcting strongly the askew flight with the rudder and elevator. Someone here said something about 'greater yaw freedom...'LOL!LOL!
Either you havent got any idea what you are doing to the FM or you 're simply trying to sabotage the Spit.
In both cases, I suggest you better revert to the old Spitfire FM. And please do not touch any other FMs; this has been bad enough.

[AndyJWest]

"Your Spitfire FM is instable about the pitch and the yaw axes to the extent that I suspect the change a malicious one." Well, don't use the patch if you don't trust it. TD have to put up with enough whining without having to listen to half-baked conspiracy theories.

[PE_Tihi]

"Your Spitfire FM is instable about the pitch and the yaw axes to the extent that I suspect the change a malicious one." Well, don't use the patch if you don't trust it. TD have to put up with enough whining without having to listen to half-baked conspiracy theories.
I would be perfectly content not to use it, but most of the servers do, as you know.
As for your conspiracy theory bs, wont even comment it. I flew the Spit a lot in 4.09 so I feel in a position to observe and compare. Judging by your comment, you are not.

[JtD]

Your Spitfire FM is instable about the pitch

"The aeroplane ... tends to be a little unstable in pitch "

From Spitfire pilot handbook.

If you're not interested in real life comparison, you can go the the difficulty section and turn off "stalls and spins".

[PE_Tihi]

"The aeroplane ... tends to be a little unstable in pitch "

From Spitfire pilot handbook.

If you're not interested in real life comparison, you can go the the difficulty section and turn off "stalls and spins".

All the planes in this game have been given stronger damping factors and more pleasant flying qualities than RL. How do you want to justify making the Spitfire the only example of puritan realism in that sense? Oleg knew very well if he put that into the game, no one 'll ever obtain a hit, and the game hype would be melting like the wax on the candle. Now comes DT, and puts it into a single plane only-into the Spitfire.

Or we can consider British the idiots, content to fly an instable plane and not coming to the idea of enlarging the vertical stabilizer slightly like all others did to improve, among other things, the hit chance for their pilots?

So please, spare me your BS. The idea of turning something off can come to an offline flyer only, anyway. This is the 9th year I ve been flying this, which I do regret sometimes. When you talk about something 'I can't deal with' in this game , I dont know whether I should laugh or weep.

[[URU]BlackFox]

I can only say... Let us hope that the happenings with the spit are the beginning of the end for the UFOs in this game.

TD seems to have researched before making every change. Sure, in the case of the bombs there has been a long discussion already, but i saw papers thrown on the table, not just complaints in the wind, and they are willing to change things that are well documented.

So, with some RL data, maybe you can get them to revert the changes.

[JtD]

...I dont know whether I should laugh or weep.

Whining is pretty close to weeping, so guess that would be the best thing to do.

[mazex]

Well, I've asked this before - but if there is a way to add a conf.ini option to disable TrackIR while in external view? It get's really weird controlling the external view with TrackIR for me at least. Most other sims have it this way as default... And yes - a lot of us enjoy to fly with external views enabled.

This should be rather easy I guess?

Edit as martinstripes is correct regarding his comments and my request above may sound more like a demand than a request ;) Thanks for all your hard work! I have said it before and will say it again!

[TitusFlavius]

When arrives the patch 4.101?

[martinistripes]

Sorry to be a little off topic but...

I am just astounded by how rude and ungrateful some people can be. First of all, this is a game, that you play for 'fun'. And secondly, the amount of time and effort TD have poured into this, I for one am very grateful for every single adjustment they make. You only have to take a look at the Silent Hunter series to see just how 'different' things can be when it comes to patches and support!

For those with the red mist and steam coming out their ears, maybe a few deep breaths and a healthy dose of real life is in order.

[PE_Tihi]

Whining is pretty close to weeping, so guess that would be the best thing to do.

You wont find a single word of insult in the closed thread or in this one; so how do you justify your persistent tries to insult me in your posts?

Is that something you usually do when you don't like the other people's opinions?

[JtD]

Hm, let me check your first post in that closed topic ... insult ... insult ... insult ... insult. You know, accusing people of bias and sabotage is pretty insulting as such. In particular if you pull these accusations out of thin air, with nothing to back it up.

And you wonder why the responses weren't all nice an charming?

[PE_Tihi]

"The aeroplane ... tends to be a little unstable in pitch "

From Spitfire pilot handbook.

If you're not interested in real life comparison, you can go the the difficulty section and turn off "stalls and spins".



Fighter planes are no airliners to be designed with a stone steady stability. More stable the design, less maneuverable it gets. Moreover, ever bigger engines brought the planes more destabilizing area in front of the CG, as well as more engine torgue to burden their stabillity.
The answer to that, on the example of the yaw stability was an increase of the vertical tail area. Compare the vertical tails of the early and later variants of the WWII fighters. Now if you think this has been unknown to the Supermerine engineers, please compare the tails of the variants beginning with I, then V, VIII and IX, XIV, etc.

It is rather obvious the Spitfire couldn't have been in a quite a different world in matters of stabillity compared to its contemporaries, isn't it?
But in the 4.10 the Spitfire has a third league stabillity compared to all the rest of game planes.

In all probability the game planes behave rather more benign in this sense then their RL counterparts. Until 4.10 that went for all the planes, including the Spitfire. Even the I16. which really has been rather unstable in the RL behaves stone-steady as a gun platform in the game.
Now the 4.10 makes the Spifire the only exception to this general oscillation amnesty, giving it the dubious honor of being the only plane to wallow around in a manner the DT considers a realistic one.

Can it really be the unfairness of such a move never even crosses your mind?

It seems not to, 'cause you repeat like a gramophone about the Spit FM RL comparison. (apart from repeatedly telling me I whine and express the skepsis at my abilities to control the game planes)

I feel the oscillations on the Spit being overdone in 4.10; the guys who made the FM are probbably going to say it s reallistic, but even if it is so, it is completely beside the point.

It is totally unfair to give only this one single plane the allegedly and possibly more reallistic but certainly much more difficult type of FM.

Or is the fairness a concept you simply do not care care for?

BTW, you are right about the NACA report discussing the dynamical stability of the plane; I only swept over it with my eyes the first time.
Your insulting tone is certainly not right, on the other hand, and having tolerated it on several occasions - don't bother continuing in that manner if you expect an answer.

[Nicholaiovitch]

Well, I've asked this before - but if there is a way to add a conf.ini option to disable TrackIR while in external view? It get's really weird controlling the external view with TrackIR for me at least. Most other sims have it this way as default... And yes - a lot of us enjoy to fly with external views enabled.

This should be rather easy I guess?



You can enable the "Hotkey-Pause" from within TR/IR 5 software when in external view....I guess you have already tried that?

Nicholaiovitch

[robtek]

It seems the days of the "Luftwhiner" are gone: "RAFwhiner" is here.
Only that the spit has been a very, very stable gun-platform, close to stall,
the last years in this game, doesn't make this "written in stone" correct.

[mazex]

You can enable the "Hotkey-Pause" from within TR/IR 5 software when in external view....I guess you have already tried that?

Nicholaiovitch

Mmm - but as I understand that I have to press it every time I swap to external view? Or is there a way to automate it? Otherwise it will of course work but as I swap rather a lot being one of those that thinks that Full Switch = all options disabled is not correct as the human eye has about 180 degree peripheral vision etc so forcing a 70 degree "cone" on your head does not become full switch for me ;)

Anyway I play IL2 online for some fast dogfights/bombing runs with good and realistic plane sets and missions (like UK Dedicated 1 for example has to offer) - so swapping between internal and external views happens a lot... As it is now I even fly IL2 without trackIR as it gets so annoying with the TrackIR on in external... The servers I really like are the ones with forced cockpit on but with allowed external views to negate some of the lack of peripheral vision in a game. Sure, it get's "too good" with external padlock when the target is really obscured - but it's rather fun to me at least not spending a lot of time trying to find a bunch of pixels against the pixel ground that would have been spotted and tracked a lot easier IRL... Just my opinion and I understand that many like it as hard as it can get! I also enjoy the full switch servers that adds another dimension but somehow I often end up in more relaxed servers. Getting old?

Just adding an option to disable TrackIR externally would be a really appreciated feature for me at least! Games like RoF, the DCS series etc have it that way as the default option... I guess it would also take about the same time to do it as doing the texture for the knob of the joystick in one of the beautiful cockpits these talented fellows do!

[PE_Tihi]

Hm, let me check your first post in that closed topic ... insult ... insult ... insult ... insult. You know, accusing people of bias and sabotage is pretty insulting as such. In particular if you pull these accusations out of thin air, with nothing to back it up.

And you wonder why the responses weren't all nice an charming?

Did I insult you personally in any manner?

If any of the people who made that FM feel insulted by my comparing what they done to the Spit FM with a sabotage, let them say so; its none of your worries unless you made the FM yourself. Then we'll see whether I got arguments or not. I put enough of them in front of your closed eyes already.

You didn't seem to find any unfairness in this FM up till now. Maybe I didn't explain it well enough; a bit above in the thread is my last try.

And if nothing I may say can change your opinion, I just heard the Spit FM is going to be corrected extensively in the upcoming patch.

[Blackdog_kt]

Fighter planes are no airliners to be designed with a stone steady stability. More stable the design, less maneuverable it gets. Moreover, ever bigger engines brought the planes more destabilizing area in front of the CG, as well as more engine torgue to burden their stabillity.
The answer to that, on the example of the yaw stability was an increase of the vertical tail area. Compare the vertical tails of the early and later variants of the WWII fighters. Now if you think this has been unknown to the Supermerine engineers, please compare the tails of the variants beginning with I, then V, VIII and IX, XIV, etc.

It is rather obvious the Spitfire couldn't have been in a quite a different world in matters of stabillity compared to its contemporaries, isn't it?
But in the 4.10 the Spitfire has a third league stabillity compared to all the rest of game planes.

In all probability the game planes behave rather more benign in this sense then their RL counterparts. Until 4.10 that went for all the planes, including the Spitfire. Even the I16. which really has been rather unstable in the RL behaves stone-steady as a gun platform in the game.
Now the 4.10 makes the Spifire the only exception to this general oscillation amnesty, giving it the dubious honor of being the only plane to wallow around in a manner the DT considers a realistic one.

Can it really be the unfairness of such a move never even crosses your mind?

It seems not to, cause you repeat like a gramophone about the Spit FM RL comparison. (apart from repeatedly telling me I whine and express the skepsis at my abilities to control the game planes)

I feel the oscillations on the Spit being overdone in 4.10; the guys who made the FM are probbably going to say it s reallistic, but even if it is so, it is completely beside the point.

It is totally unfair to give only this one single plane the allegedly and possibly more reallistic but certainly much more difficult type of FM.

Or is the fairness a concept you simply do not care care for?

BTW, you are right about the NACA report discussing the dynamical stability of the plane; I only swept over it with my eyes the first time.
Your insulting tone is certainly not right, on the other hand, and having tolerated it on several occasions - don't bother continuing in that manner if you expect an answer.

Since you bring up the fairness of accurately simulating something for one aircraft only, i can't pass this up. I haven't installed 4.10 and i don't know how bad the Spit is, but i'm not going to argue about how well or badly modeled its new FM is. I'm only going to discuss what you described as fairness in modeling each aircraft's relative advantages and drawbacks and to be absolutely fair, let's do it on the basis of 4.09 only. I don't want to comment on things i have no experience on, so let's talk about what happened before 4.10 that we all know about.

What you say has been the hidden reason behind many FM debates over the years. Some planes get a more accurate FM than others and this means not only advantages but disadvantages too.

Well, let's talk engine management for a second. Why is it that most of the German fighters have more accurate engine models while the rest can pretty much cruise at whatever power setting all day long? Not just allied ones, but a variety of other flyables on both the red and the blue planeset. See, there was probably more data available for the German birds and they were modeled closer to life than the rest. By your own definition that's should also be unfair.

Case in point, the stock 190s function better with manual pitch forcing us to not use its main advantage against the high performing allied energy fighters. Let's compare with the undisputed king of the high altitude arena, the P47. It's a well documented fact that the 190 didn't do well at high altitude, while the P47 did, no objections there whatsoever.

It's also a well documented fact that the P47 had FOUR main engine controls and 2-3 secondary ones, that with the exception of throttle, prop pitch and cowl flaps none of the rest are modeled in the game, while the 190 had ONE thanks to the kommandogerat system, with a secondary manual pitch control to be used in emergencies if the automatic system failed and the radiators, which are all modeled in the sim and stay within the real manual's operating ranges (for example, 2700RPM maximum).

In reality that performance came at the cost of increased workload for the P47 pilot, while a 190 pilot although under-performing could rely on his automatic engine management systems to even the tables by counting on the complexity of the P47 to work against the allied pilot.

Well, what happens in the game is that a P47 can cruise at 100%+WEP all day long, as well as set the pitch and cowl flaps ONCE per sortie to a value that minimizes overheat and leave it there for ever.
Not just the P47 mind you, i got nothing against it in particular and in fact i like it a lot, but most of the aircraft in the sim can take advantage of a simplified engine and overheat model to push the envelope in ways that was impossible in real life, including the Spitfire.

But wait, there's more. When 95% of the flyables can use whatever power settings with impunity and the other 5% have automatic systems that actually stick to what the real life manual states, it's obvious that the 5% are fighting at a disadvantage that's not only historically inaccurate, but is totally reversing what actually happened in real life: you either fly as the real thing did at a disadvantage to everyone else who's pushing the envelope to unrealistic values, or you exchange your main historical advantage (automation and ease of use) for the ability to go manual yourself and push the envelope as well.

In other words? In a world with simplified overheat and little else in the way of engine limitations, if you fly with a system that reduces your available power to prevent negative conditions that don't exist in the game then you're effectively shooting yourself in the foot. Either that, or you give up your historical advantage and go manual to exploit the limitations (or lack thereof) of the game engine like everyone else.

This is just one example and the reason i'm bringing it up is neither that i fly 190s a lot, which i do, nor that i expect to kill every 47 i find at 30000ft. Realistically and historically speaking i should have trouble and i do, so i only kill one in ten. The reason i'm bringing it up is just that i have enough experience with this scenario/match-up to make an informed argument and nothing more.

See, this can go both ways, but the reason we're not making a fuss about it is that it was beyond the capabilities of this 10 year old game engine and the PCs we had back then to model accurate engine operating limits. Also, with CoD around the corner we're content to see whatever improvement is possible for the older IL2 series without being too upset about how it redraws the balance.

A few people have had to live with their "by the book" aircraft for ages while everyone else could do things that would fry their engines in seconds in real life and guess what, for some it was a welcome challenge and they learned a couple of things while the rest chose a different aircraft to fly.

It's now your turn to either do the same, fly something else or fly with reduced difficulty settings if you don't want to re-learn certain things. It's not a shame to tailor the game to your taste, it's a lack of sportsmanship however to all of a sudden expect to tailor everyone else's game to what's fair because the tables are now turned on you, when they've had to content with equally unfair issues over the years.

Long story short, get creative or fly something else, it's not a big deal ;)

[PE_Tihi]

It seems the days of the "Luftwhiner" are gone: "RAFwhiner" is here.
Only that the spit has been a very, very stable gun-platform, close to stall,
the last years in this game, doesn't make this "written in stone" correct.

Oh, and your Bf is an unstable gun platform? And it behaves badly at near-stall speed?
Now, i fly the Bf's a lot, you know :)

Do you know a plane in the game being a bad gun platform?

Whiner? Rafwhiner? :) You know, I have already been called Luftwhiner, too, some years ago; while flying for the reds. Seems these among us who cannot speak very well, like using this dog's language. It s simpler. That could explain why many cannot write a post without saying 'Whine'.

[Nicholaiovitch]

Mmm - but as I understand that I have to press it every time I swap to external view? Or is there a way to automate it? Otherwise it will of course work but as I swap rather a lot being one of those that thinks that Full Switch = all options disabled is not correct as the human eye has about 180 degree peripheral vision etc so forcing a 70 degree "cone" on your head does not become full switch for me ;)

Anyway I play IL2 online for some fast dogfights/bombing runs with good and realistic plane sets and missions (like UK Dedicated 1 for example has to offer) - so swapping between internal and external views happens a lot... As it is now I even fly IL2 without trackIR as it gets so annoying with the TrackIR on in external... The servers I really like are the ones with forced cockpit on but with allowed external views to negate some of the lack of peripheral vision in a game. Sure, it get's "too good" with external padlock when the target is really obscured - but it's rather fun to me at least not spending a lot of time trying to find a bunch of pixels against the pixel ground that would have been spotted and tracked a lot easier IRL... Just my opinion and I understand that many like it as hard as it can get! I also enjoy the full switch servers that adds another dimension but somehow I often end up in more relaxed servers. Getting old?

Just adding an option to disable TrackIR externally would be a really appreciated feature for me at least! Games like RoF, the DCS series etc have it that way as the default option... I guess it would also take about the same time to do it as doing the texture for the knob of the joystick in one of the beautiful cockpits these talented fellows do!

You could try pairing your external view key (F2?) to the TR/IR "Pause" Hotkey so that whenever you select external view you would instantly get "Pause". It would mean two presses to get it back (F2 + F1).

If you have something like an X52 you could program this to one of your view controls which would give you one button selection of external view with TR/IR off and one button selection to return to normal cockpit with TR/IR "On"

I think that something like this will be your only option at present.

Nicholaiovitch:)

[robtek]

Oh, and your Bf is an unstable gun platform? And it behaves badly at near-stall speed?
Now, i fly the Bf's a lot, you know :)

Do you know a plane in the game being a bad gun platform?

Whiner? Rafwhiner? :) You know, I have already been called Luftwhiner, too, some years ago; while flying for the reds. Seems these among us who cannot speak very well, like using this dog's language. It s simpler. That could explain why many cannot write a post without saying 'Whine'.

Well, first the way you worded your complaint spelled "whine", not only for me.
Second, thats not "my Bf", i haven't mentioned a BF at all.
Third, my experience what happened often in duels Bf109F4 vs Spit Vb is that, that when the 109 climbs away after a diving attack, the 109 gets snipered by that spit hanging on its prop from 300 to 500 m away; impossible if not a very stable gun-platform.
Forth, i point to the post of Blackdog_kt

[mazex]

You could try pairing your external view key (F2?) to the TR/IR "Pause" Hotkey so that whenever you select external view you would instantly get "Pause". It would mean two presses to get it back (F2 + F1).

If you have something like an X52 you could program this to one of your view controls which would give you one button selection of external view with TR/IR off and one button selection to return to normal cockpit with TR/IR "On"

I think that something like this will be your only option at present.

Nicholaiovitch:)

Good idea! I don't understand why I didn't think of that myself? I have a G940 so I can do a lot of multiple commands naturally...

[PE_Tihi]

Well, first the way you worded your complaint spelled "whine", not only for me.
Second, thats not "my Bf", i haven't mentioned a BF at all.
Third, my experience what happened often in duels Bf109F4 vs Spit Vb is that, that when the 109 climbs away after a diving attack, the 109 gets snipered by that spit hanging on its prop from 300 to 500 m away; impossible if not a very stable gun-platform.
Forth, i point to the post of Blackdog_kt

Calling someone names is much easier than answering what he said with arguments. Your such 'arguments', against a person - never prove a thing about the subject being talked about, and make my answering you actually quite unnecessary. So keep using the dog's language with the guys you mention as sharing your aptitudes; what people say often tells more about them than about their subject.

You got a picture of a Bf, some 500 pixels long in your forum logo, together with a Luftie unit badge- and you say you didn't even mention a Bf:)

The Bf is capable of hanging on its prop at even lower speeds that the Spit, or almost any other plane in the game. Its excellent stall qualities are due to the automatic slats on it's wings. You have been using them in the situation you describe, too - climbing steeply and at a low speed from the Spit.
Slow climb is an extremely risky thing - most kills in the game are on the planes climbing steeply, because they are such an easy a target. So be sure the opponent hasn't got enough energy to point the nose at you. If he can, with the speed sitill a bit above its stall, flaps down, and if you being closer than 500 m - any cannon armed plane ll cook you, and the MG-armed ones have a good chance of smoking your engine. I shot heaps of F4 's down in exactly the situation you describe, at ranges up to and sometimes over 500m... in an I16. :)

Even if you cannot hit anything at 500 m yourself, don't make a very common mistake thinking nobody can. A friend could hit me persistently at 700 m at almost any angle.

[PE_Tihi]

Hello Blackdog,

It would 've certainly been better if you did try the 4.10, then we would both know what has been meant. Nonetheless, you can trust me in my summing the Spit 4.10 FM up as quite instable compared to the probably heavily over-modeled stability of all the rest of game planes.

If you allow my putting words into your mouth, and please correct if am wrong, I have a feeling you would like to say someting like this:
'Tihi, you are steaming here about your Spit being treated unjustly; whoever cared for the FW being treated so unfairly as it has been? Now grit your teeth and take it like we did; if we could, so can you, too; the Spit has been treated a lot more friendly from the developers then the LW types, anyway.'

You cannot know how well I understand your feelings in this post. I cannot find much I do not agree with, either. Can't say a lot about the P47 power-plant behavior, but the in-game Spit's ability to use the WEP indefinitely can be hardly called realistic. In some periods of the war the 5 minute limit has been enforced to the point of completely dismantling the engine for an inspection if pilot reported overstepping it. I wrote about it just a day or two before on another thread here (Spit sabotaged, Goering relieved)

The power-plant behavior of the FW may have been correctly modeled, as you say. You may not know, though, the FW has been seriously under-modeled on a very important point, namely, on the wing's ability to produce lift. The Coefficient of the Maximum Lift value for the whole FW190 series (A to D) has been 1.58. In the game, Anton has been given 1.38 making it even more ponderous in a turn than it really was.
The speed and climb of the plane are ok-it would be too easy to notice if they were not. Turn rate inaccuracies are much more difficult to notice or prove. I suppose you understand now why in the stories about the FM's here the word sabotage comes so naturally to my mind.

The Dora got 1.65, being a rare example of the over-modeling a LW plane in the game - someones goodwill present to the LW public, I suppose-or rather a digestive for their stomachs burdened with the heavily over-modeled La7 and the rest :)

There are many such examples, but instead of continuing, let me only say that I have been writing about such FM issues for years. It got me heaps of abuse on Ubi forum; among other (rather nastier) things, some called me a Luftie-whiner, too. (I have been flying red, still am) Now someone here names me RAF-whiner. Well... All I can conclude out of this experience, if you tell them the truth, many online fliers ll compare you to a squealing dog. Why, it beats me. The life is strange.
So you can see, I hope, I do not demand fairness only when someone slights my favorite plane. I fly a lot of planes, but 190A really seldom; it is anything but my favorite. When I saw the plane has been unfairly modeled, I said so, loud and clear, earning a heap of names for that, as ever. I almost got used to it.

I think that gives me the right to speak in the same manner about the unfairness to the Spitfire, irrespective of it being one of my favorites, and irrespective of whether you or anyone else concedes me this.
On the other hand, if the question is what did that bring, that loud and clear speaking-by no means mine only-about the FMs; the answer is almost nothing. It has been clear for years that the FM's with heavy differences to the RL values simply represent the developers constant policy.
That means that your teeth-gritting proposal cannot be that far wrong. Anyone suggesting not playing the game at all, as an option gentler to the teeth, would be quite right here, too.

BTW, my other pets are the in the climb heavily overmodeled I16, and almost the only plane in the game to have a heavily underclocked top speed, the Tempest.

If you think i cannot cope with this 410 spit, you are wrong, you know:) I ve been flying this 9 years -can fly anything. :).
But I do not want to fly just anything- anything that can come to someone's mind.

Your suggestion of reducing the difficulty settings just brought an enormous smile to my face- feels good, thank you :) I fly online exclusively, server sets the settings there, anyway.

This Spit is not that difficult to fly, but it more than halves your hits. If other planes were to receive the stability model of the same realism (or over-realism) you would see more rotten eggs and tomatoes flying around than virtual planes.

And I think you understood by now, this vengeful sentence of yours at the end, about after enjoying unfair advantages for years, the tables now being turned on me - has been addressed to the wrong man. At least, I hope so.

[ImpalerNL]

Your Spitfire FM is instable about the pitch and the yaw axes to the extent that I suspect the change a malicious one. The plane has an obnoxious nose up trim, too, but that is a smaller problem.
No other plane in game handles so badly. In a vertical stagnation climb, the nose has no intention of falling down, like all the other plane's do. The thing is so unstable that it falls like a leaf, until you forcibly push the nose down, correcting strongly the askew flight with the rudder and elevator. Someone here said something about 'greater yaw freedom...'LOL!LOL!
Either you havent got any idea what you are doing to the FM or you 're simply trying to sabotage the Spit.
In both cases, I suggest you better revert to the old Spitfire FM. And please do not touch any other FMs; this has been bad enough.


Since you havent have flown a real spitfire, talking about its FM stability is the last thing you should do. If you feel that the current spitfire is as unstable as a leaf, i strongly suggest you practice more. If you fly a 4.10 spitfire and compare it with the FM stability of a p40,p51,p39 etc., there is nothing to complain about. Flying any aircraft on the edge requires skill, and the spitfire isnt an exception.

[ImpalerNL]

Oh, and your Bf is an unstable gun platform? And it behaves badly at near-stall speed?
Now, i fly the Bf's a lot, you know :)

Do you know a plane in the game being a bad gun platform?

Whiner? Rafwhiner? :) You know, I have already been called Luftwhiner, too, some years ago; while flying for the reds. Seems these among us who cannot speak very well, like using this dog's language. It s simpler. That could explain why many cannot write a post without saying 'Whine'.

The 4.10 spitfire behaves badly at near stall speed?
All Il2 aircraft without wing slats do, so why would you want the spitfire to be an exception?

[Gadje]

Hi Tihi long time.

I agree with much that you say, the Spitfires have been dealt a tougher set of cards in 4.10 but perhaps Oleg the dealer favoured them too much in the past.

It reminds me of a class of misbehaving schoolchildren, the new teacher picks on one, a past favourite, not necessarily the worst and gives him a good thrashing. Some of the kids are pleased, others worried if they are next. Lets face it, there are plenty of aircraft candidates in IL2 that could and perhaps should be next.

I know that you fly all planes and have no side per se. The guys giving you a hard time are likely not so evenhanded. Sigs tell a lot:) Followers of Red vs Blue mentallity can't quite believe that not everyone is like them. For them it's 'Us vs the Enemy', and calls for fairness are a coverup of an agenda .
The longer I fly this sim the less it seems about a battle between red vs blue and more about pilots who fly only one side vs pilots who fly either. Red and Blue only pilots are interchangable to me. Same words, same agenda, different colour.

Lastly the next poster who suggest you're a red 'Spitwhiner' and need to learn to fly, I suggest you invite him to a 'dance' in a blue plane of his choice. I'd like to see that:)

[Blackdog_kt]

Hello Blackdog,

It would 've certainly been better if you did try the 4.10, then we would both know what has been meant. Nonetheless, you can trust me in my summing the Spit 4.10 FM up as quite instable compared to the probably heavily over-modeled stability of all the rest of game planes.

If you allow my putting words into your mouth, and please correct if am wrong, I have a feeling you would like to say someting like this:
'Tihi, you are steaming here about your Spit being treated unjustly; whoever cared for the FW being treated so unfairly as it has been? Now grit your teeth and take it like we did; if we could, so can you, too; the Spit has been treated a lot more friendly from the developers then the LW types, anyway.'

You cannot know how well I understand your feelings in this post. I cannot find much I do not agree with, either. Can't say a lot about the P47 power-plant behavior, but the in-game Spit's ability to use the WEP indefinitely can be hardly called realistic. In some periods of the war the 5 minute limit has been enforced to the point of completely dismantling the engine for an inspection if pilot reported overstepping it. I wrote about it just a day or two before on another thread here (Spit sabotaged, Goering relieved)

The power-plant behavior of the FW may have been correctly modeled, as you say. You may not know, though, the FW has been seriously under-modeled on a very important point, namely, on the wing's ability to produce lift. The Coefficient of the Maximum Lift value for the whole FW190 series (A to D) has been 1.58. In the game, Anton has been given 1.38 making it even more ponderous in a turn than it really was.
The speed and climb of the plane are ok-it would be too easy to notice if they were not. Turn rate inaccuracies are much more difficult to notice or prove. I suppose you understand now why in the stories about the FM's here the word sabotage comes so naturally to my mind.

The Dora got 1.65, being a rare example of the over-modeling a LW plane in the game - someones goodwill present to the LW public, I suppose-or rather a digestive for their stomachs burdened with the heavily over-modeled La7 and the rest :)

There are many such examples, but instead of continuing, let me only say that I have been writing about such FM issues for years. It got me heaps of abuse on Ubi forum; among other (rather nastier) things, some called me a Luftie-whiner, too. (I have been flying red, still am) Now someone here names me RAF-whiner. Well... All I can conclude out of this experience, if you tell them the truth, many online fliers ll compare you to a squealing dog. Why, it beats me. The life is strange.
So you can see, I hope, I do not demand fairness only when someone slights my favorite plane. I fly a lot of planes, but 190A really seldom; it is anything but my favorite. When I saw the plane has been unfairly modeled, I said so, loud and clear, earning a heap of names for that, as ever. I almost got used to it.

I think that gives me the right to speak in the same manner about the unfairness to the Spitfire, irrespective of it being one of my favorites, and irrespective of whether you or anyone else concedes me this.
On the other hand, if the question is what did that bring, that loud and clear speaking-by no means mine only-about the FMs; the answer is almost nothing. It has been clear for years that the FM's with heavy differences to the RL values simply represent the developers constant policy.
That means that your teeth-gritting proposal cannot be that far wrong. Anyone suggesting not playing the game at all, as an option gentler to the teeth, would be quite right here, too.

BTW, my other pets are the in the climb heavily overmodeled I16, and almost the only plane in the game to have a heavily underclocked top speed, the Tempest.

If you think i cannot cope with this 410 spit, you are wrong, you know:) I ve been flying this 9 years -can fly anything. :).
But I do not want to fly just anything- anything that can come to someone's mind.

Your suggestion of reducing the difficulty settings just brought an enormous smile to my face- feels good, thank you :) I fly online exclusively, server sets the settings there, anyway.

This Spit is not that difficult to fly, but it more than halves your hits. If other planes were to receive the stability model of the same realism (or over-realism) you would see more rotten eggs and tomatoes flying around than virtual planes.

And I think you understood by now, this vengeful sentence of yours at the end, about after enjoying unfair advantages for years, the tables now being turned on me - has been addressed to the wrong man. At least, I hope so.

I'm not accusing you of bias. I'm just saying that

a) FM changes swing both ways and they've done so for years

b) it's still a game on a PC and compromises have to be made

c) there are ways you can still enjoy it, plus the problem could be fixed by adjusting the opposition's FM in a future patch instead of making the Spit as it was in 4.09 (maybe they want to make more realistic FMs for other aircraft as well) and finally

d) we'll have a new simulator pretty soon where most of these things will be reworked from the ground up and the board will be completely redrawn due to the new engine management, so everything we knew about how easy or hard it is to fly a certain match-up will have to be reevaluted to take into account the ease or difficulty of managing the aircraft's systems while flying it.

In that sense, i view the further updates of IL2 in this way: if they have references to make things more realistic let them do it, even if they do it in parts instead of all at once and that means disadvantages for certain aircraft from one patch to the next.

You are free to have your own opinion obviously, but i wouldn't expect miracles (maybe a tweak of the FM if there are obvious mistakes to be corrected but not going back to the 4.09 FM), since for most people CoD is around the corner and that's all that currently matters until we see what it can do.

[PE_Tihi]

Since you havent have flown a real spitfire, talking about its FM stability is the last thing you should do. If you feel that the current spitfire is as unstable as a leaf, i strongly suggest you practice more. If you fly a 4.10 spitfire and compare it with the FM stability of a p40,p51,p39 etc., there is nothing to complain about. Flying any aircraft on the edge requires skill, and the spitfire isnt an exception.

I would be repeating myself if I answer- please see my other posts here.

If you cant find any difference in the stability between the planes you mention and the new Spit, than you probably haven't been flying here long enough.

[ImpalerNL]

I would be repeating myself if I answer- please see my other posts here.

If you cant find any difference in the stability between the planes you mention and the new Spit, than you probably haven't been flying here long enough.

Because i dont fly enough i cant notice difference between aircraft?
Ive been flying il2 for 5 years. The spitfire already outclimbs and outturns the LW fighters, but you dont agree with a bit more lively FM?

[Hawker17]

I agree with PE_Tihi, the Spit has become a very nervous instable platform, in constant need of elevator trim.

In no way realistic. It was generally only needed to trim elevator during cruise.

I'm sure this will be solved in future. The Sputterfire will be a Spitfire again.

[PE_Tihi]

I'm not accusing you of bias. I'm just saying that

a) FM changes swing both ways and they've done so for years

b) it's still a game on a PC and compromises have to be made

c) there are ways you can still enjoy it, plus the problem could be fixed by adjusting the opposition's FM in a future patch instead of making the Spit as it was in 4.09 (maybe they want to make more realistic FMs for other aircraft as well) and finally

d) we'll have a new simulator pretty soon where most of these things will be reworked from the ground up and the board will be completely redrawn due to the new engine management, so everything we knew about how easy or hard it is to fly a certain match-up will have to be reevaluted to take into account the ease or difficulty of managing the aircraft's systems while flying it.

In that sense, i view the further updates of IL2 in this way: if they have references to make things more realistic let them do it, even if they do it in parts instead of all at once and that means disadvantages for certain aircraft from one patch to the next.

You are free to have your own opinion obviously, but i wouldn't expect miracles (maybe a tweak of the FM if there are obvious mistakes to be corrected but not going back to the 4.09 FM), since for most people CoD is around the corner and that's all that currently matters until we see what it can do.

There has certainly been a real lot of changes in FM's in all these years, and in both directions too- but they almost never crossed the neutral line, to go to the other side:)
What I mean- La7 climbed at some 33m/s, then 30, and at the end it has been 27. The RL value - this neutral line-is 22-23 m/s. has never been touched, not to speak of crossing it. No one ever seen a La7 with 19 m/s max climb, for example.

Similarily, there has once been a german bomber in the game,:) the Bf 109E4, needing 25 seconds to complete a turn at 1000m height. After receieving belatedly the info the 109 was actually a fighter:), the Russians at once enabled the thing do a circle in 23 seconds:) Real life value has been about 20s. Once again, no Emil turning a second faster than 20s has ever been seen:)

With all the swinging, the tendencies in the FM's have been stone steady. The german fighters stayed undermodelled in turn; Soviet and Lend-Lease fighters overmodeled in climb and turn, and the Japanese always kept their boosted climb. What did change was the extent only, aberrations mostly getting more moderate in time.

Compromises are always necessary; there are always things difficult or impossible to simulate. A fair aproach where all such compromises do not (by some chance:) always favorize certain groups-is nonetheless neccessary. The fairness is easy to recognize, and it 's appreciated. When there is one.

I understand the people in the DT too, in a part; this was the last chance to release something that would actually be used. Anything they would release in, say, april would've been a private release, more or less. I do not think anybody ll ever do much more on the game, let alone radicaly rework 250 plane FM's in the game. And even if he does - who ll fly it.

I would be the last one to oppose more realism in the sim. But the 4.10 creates a situation which never existed in life, where the Spit compares very badly with its contemporaries regarding stabillity. This dosesnt bring more realism into the game, on the contrary. Looking at the spit alone, only then you can say: This is, possibly, more realistic. But who flies the Spit alone?

Totaly drunken manner the plane does a Hammerhead makes me think the DT may have overdone things, but can't say for sure, of course. A pilot with experience in flying high-power single engine prop planes would be in a good position to say what feels real there, and what not.

Il2 has a couple of months only before it departs. It makes me a bit nostalgic, I confess. The game stayed with me, or rather I did stay with it, for some 9 years.. a nice chunk of life. Having said this, it would be impossible not to admit the game has been (and still is, what's more)a great one; a brilliant Flight-sim, with all the due respect and thanks to all it's creators headed by Oleg Maddox. I better don't say here what I think about the honesty of his FM's:)- said enough about that in all these years.
Ten years makes the game a part of one's life experience for it's the players, not to speak about it's creators. It is nice to see the last chapter of this book leading into the new one, too. Let me hope we all learned something from the book still in our hands, to let us write and read the coming one with more ease and less of the bad old mistakes.
The long version history of the game has had more than enough contested novelties, and more than enough things that may well have been felt as unfair. I would think it nice if the game version representing our farewell to Stormovik stays unburdened with such feelings. After all, to many of us it has been a part of life for a decade, and more than just a game.

[PE_Tihi]

Because i dont fly enough i cant notice difference between aircraft?
Ive been flying il2 for 5 years. The spitfire already outclimbs and outturns the LW fighters, but you dont agree with a bit more lively FM?

Well obviously you haven't flown it enough. Try flying some years more, maybe you ll notice it then.

Spit always outturned the LW fighters. Outclimbing LW? Stay away from 25Lbs Servers like I do.

Lively FM:)? Joker, arent you?

[JtD]

Fly 400 km/h IAS at 1000m alt. Trim the aircraft for level flight. Shortly apply rudder for 15° of slip and release. Try with a Spitfire of your choice, a Fw 190, an F6F and a P-51.

How often does each plane go back and forth before it stops oscillating?
How large is the first amplitude to the other side for each plane?
How much time is needed for each plane to settle back to a steady condition?

Do that and you'll see that the Spitfire is just as stable as other planes, it simply has more effective controls. It is possible to compensate for that with a proper joystick set-up or simply by being less ham-fisted.

[PE_Tihi]

Fly 400 km/h IAS at 1000m alt. Trim the aircraft for level flight. Shortly apply rudder for 15° of slip and release. Try with a Spitfire of your choice, a Fw 190, an F6F and a P-51.

How often does each plane go back and forth before it stops oscillating?
How large is the first amplitude to the other side for each plane?
How much time is needed for each plane to settle back to a steady condition?

Do that and you'll see that the Spitfire is just as stable as other planes, it simply has more effective controls. It is possible to compensate for that with a proper joystick set-up or simply by being less ham-fisted.

You been testing the thing a bit wrongly, my dear. Wouldn't you expect the damping to be stronger and work faster at high speeds, hmm? So why did you test at 400 km/h, ehh?:)

Point the planes nose vertically upwards, and wait till the speed drops to about 100 kmh, then and kick the rudder to help the nose start falling down. Then tell me later will it fall. Let the plane climb further (you ll have no other choice, anyway) to zero speed. Then later, if you still feel like it, tell me how did your hammerhead look like? :) Now try the same with any other plane, or the 409 spit, for a comparison.

Call me ham-fisted, huh? A good pal of mine, called ham, could hit at 700 m almost at will and any deflection:) His flying was not worse. Well, it is from him that I learned most, so i may even be a bit ham-fisted, too:), but I think you wouldnt find it that agreeable, flying for my opponents:)

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Who said, that Spitfires will stay the only types with reviewed FM?
So pls stop listing planes, 'that has this and that wrong'...! There is no connection to them.

BTW: My personnel hit counter in Spits shows better results now than before with 4.09m.

[JtD]

You been testing the thing a bit wrongly

Well, I went by what you wrote, you've repeatedly complained about stability. If you don't mean stability at all, your fault. Don't blame me. Anyway, looking at how you dodge anything that involves fact, let me sum it up for you:

- the Spitfires stability is realistic
- the Spitfires stability is in the same league as that of many other planes in game

And now it's the hammerhead which is so awfully wrong. What exactly does a vertical zoom climb with rudder input at 100 km/h in a Fw 190 look like? Or in a P-38? Or a P-39? Wait, they all go up, then out of control. And because the planes are different, they go out of control differently. Holy cow.

Which aerodynamic forces do you think should keep the plane controllable at 0 air speed?

[JtD]

BTW: My personnel hit counter in Spits shows better results now than before with 4.09m.

Mine's unchanged.

[Fafnir_6]

Who said, that Spitfires will stay the only types with reviewed FM?


Cool!

Fafnir_6

[PE_Tihi]

Hi Tihi long time.

I agree with much that you say, the Spitfires have been dealt a tougher set of cards in 4.10 but perhaps Oleg the dealer favoured them too much in the past.

It reminds me of a class of misbehaving schoolchildren, the new teacher picks on one, a past favourite, not necessarily the worst and gives him a good thrashing. Some of the kids are pleased, others worried if they are next. Lets face it, there are plenty of aircraft candidates in IL2 that could and perhaps should be next.

I know that you fly all planes and have no side per se. The guys giving you a hard time are likely not so evenhanded. Sigs tell a lot:) Followers of Red vs Blue mentallity can't quite believe that not everyone is like them. For them it's 'Us vs the Enemy', and calls for fairness are a coverup of an agenda .
The longer I fly this sim the less it seems about a battle between red vs blue and more about pilots who fly only one side vs pilots who fly either. Red and Blue only pilots are interchangable to me. Same words, same agenda, different colour.

Lastly the next poster who suggest you're a red 'Spitwhiner' and need to learn to fly, I suggest you invite him to a 'dance' in a blue plane of his choice. I'd like to see that:)

Hello Gadje; nice seing you again:);

Been really a long time, partly because am mostly on X-Fire lately. I did see your squad-pal Rambo several times; he became a real Experte on his 30 mm armed Anton (the thug..:))
Have been flying on the russian servers lately. Many good pilots there, who interestingly for the most part fly LW types - mostly G2, F4, but Antons and Mc205 are popular, too. Would fly mostly red, but blue, too, so it does'nt get boring.
Short time ago I overheard a Russian guy (I understand a bit of the language) cursing the Spit as over-clocked, etc.; and his pal answered: 'You better look at these Russian planes of ours' Indeed, their good fliers avoid the La-s and 185's like pest, considering under their dignity to fly them. I do not know whether anyone could have predicted such a development:)

The Russian guy was quite right, of course. I do not know how it has been for the Spit in the very wild very early days with really smoking overcloks, but for the last 5 years at least, it has the three main performance factors, speed, climb and turn in quite realistic numbers, I think. Being able to use 5 min WEP for hours is a small favor compared to climbs boosted 70% or turns shortened for 2-3 s.

Knowing the FM's have not been treated in the most even manner, i always used nationally mixed planesets, same for both sides on the server. Some wondered at that, but mostly would get used very quickly.

I have always been more curious how different planes compared with each other (even the one's of the same belligerent) then 'refighting' a war, and a rather nasty one at that. But people, especially younger guys jump into this good/bad, we/them trappings gladly, and game-marketing people with their role-playings and other bs, know that , of course. Feeling Great as a part of the own Great Nation/color/side is one of the vanities main modes of operation. I suspect strongly that 's the reason the vanity exists at all. You 're right, of course,; they are like mirror images of each other, these 'convinced' reds or blues :)

When I think of the Ubi forum, the 'insult hit-men' are much more benign here. The moderation on the Ubi never gave a damn, these mods here seem even to overdo it in the oposite dierction-a thread of mine has been closed in a bit more than 12 hours a couple of days ago. The good side is, people behave a lot more correct than they used to on the infamous 'Zoo'. I can imagine how some of the big mouths here fly from their comments; of course they mostly imagine the guy who they talking with to be 'ham-fisted',' needing a lower difficulty level' or just as plainly bad as they are :)

CU in HL;)

[PE_Tihi]

Originally Posted by EJGr.Ost_Caspar
BTW: My personnel hit counter in Spits shows better results now than before with 4.09m.

JtD: Mine's unchanged.

Well the thing s certainly good for spray and pray; and if you after the masses of enemy personnel.. certainly:) As for the arithmetic, it has got a number that doesn't change when halved:)

[Birdflu]

I agree!!
Spit its much better on turns if you set propally the joystick.

[PE_Tihi]

Well, I went by what you wrote, you've repeatedly complained about stability. If you don't mean stability at all, your fault. Don't blame me. Anyway, looking at how you dodge anything that involves fact, let me sum it up for you:

- the Spitfires stability is realistic
- the Spitfires stability is in the same league as that of many other planes in game

And now it's the hammerhead which is so awfully wrong. What exactly does a vertical zoom climb with rudder input at 100 km/h in a Fw 190 look like? Or in a P-38? Or a P-39? Wait, they all go up, then out of control. And because the planes are different, they go out of control differently. Holy cow.

Which aerodynamic forces do you think should keep the plane controllable at 0 air speed?
If a plane has a low 'reserve' of stabillity, it is in the very slow flight that this deficit shows in a most pronounced manner. Thats where you would ve got the best chance of noticing it; of course if you do not want or cannot, that s another matter.

All other planes including the ones you name can be helped with a kick on the rudder to drop their noses shortly before the steeply climbing plane stalls. It can be done without reducing power.
Spit enters shortly before the stall speed a zone of completely neutral stability, where there is no natural tendency to drop the nose which could be helped. Gyroscopic forces keep the nose pointing upwards, and the controls can do nothing about it. You ll have to cut power if you want the nose to drop, and lose further energy in the strong oscillations which, with the pilot helping, still do not diminish before the plane reaches 160-170 kph. By that time you ll be quite a bit underneath a P40, not to speak of a Bf which is really good at stall fight.

Even at higher speeds, in a dogfight (say 350-250 kph), if you press a pedal to move the aiming point ( do you use the rudder for aiming at all?) it causes easily noticeable oscillations, spiced with precession from the rotating prop, which are practically unnoticeable in the old Spit or any other game plane.
The effect is that you sideslipping mostly as you shoot, making the bullets go where they want.
The people flying this game longer mostly use much more rudder than newer pilots, both in maneouvres or when aiming. Even if you shoot at 400 kmh where the damping is better, as you aim, you ll still be sideslipping enough to miss.

1) I do not know whether the Spit stabillity is reallistic in 4.10- and suspect not. You know it, good for you.
2) I certainly know your second sentence is not true.

If you cannot fly a hammerhead, you have one recipe here. And if you don't want to find out something, but only to prove yourself smart, you can do that without my involvement, either.

[SEE]

........they mostly imagine the guy who they talking to to be 'ham-fisted',' needing a lower difficulty level' ...........

It is disappointing but there have been many sensible and well thought technical arguments regards 4.10. Is it confirmed that TD will tweak some aspects of the current Spit FM?

[PE_Tihi]

It is disappointing but there have been many sensible and well thought technical arguments regards 4.10. Is it confirmed that TD will tweak some aspects of the current Spit FM?
I heard from more than one, they are going to apply noticeable changes to the Spit FM.
Cannot confirm that, of course.

[IceFire]

Well, I went by what you wrote, you've repeatedly complained about stability. If you don't mean stability at all, your fault. Don't blame me. Anyway, looking at how you dodge anything that involves fact, let me sum it up for you:

- the Spitfires stability is realistic
- the Spitfires stability is in the same league as that of many other planes in game

And now it's the hammerhead which is so awfully wrong. What exactly does a vertical zoom climb with rudder input at 100 km/h in a Fw 190 look like? Or in a P-38? Or a P-39? Wait, they all go up, then out of control. And because the planes are different, they go out of control differently. Holy cow.

Which aerodynamic forces do you think should keep the plane controllable at 0 air speed?
Sorry for wading in :)

Most people don't seem to be able to articulate what they are seeing. So I'll give it a try.

It took me a while to notice but eventually I did. Now that I've noticed... I can tell that the Spitfire is definitely a slightly more challenging ride than before. Before it felt a bit like it was on rails in some cases. Now it does have some "extra character to it". I can't say if it's right, wrong or different. So far the best way for me to test to see the difference is to snap roll 90 degrees left and right and then return to level flight.

It seems the aileron movements causes the extra yaw. I'm fairly certain this is called adverse yaw. It is slightly more severe than on many other types (by my approximation) although I can also list several types that have it more extreme than the Spitfire as well.

I do know that stability changed between the different Spitfire models and the redesigned tail for the later IX models represented an attempt at correcting some stability issues introduced by the Merlin 60 series installed up front which changed the length, weight distribution and relative stability of the model. I don't have the numbers... just the general details so unfortunately I cannot be more specific.

The revised modeling does seem to be across the board but it may be worthwhile to double check Mark V versus early Mark IX versus late IX (and VIII) just to be certain that values are what they should be?

Just some thoughts.

EDIT: Those of you having more difficulties with this may want to adjust their joystick curves to slightly reduce the sensitivity. Particularly on the rudder. That should help... along with a proper rudder coordination technique to work with excess yaw. Particularly during gunnery.

[Brain32]

Which aerodynamic forces do you think should keep the plane controllable at 0 air speed?

Thrust vectoring? xD

[Tempest123]

As a P-51 flyer myself I'm also gonna weigh in, prior to 4.10 as everyone knows the P-51 had some yaw instability problems which made it kind of infamous for spinning and wagging its nose back and forth uncontrollably during banking (Applying the normal rudder during bank didn't make a coordinated turn as it should have), and this upset the aim (so everyone was bitching about the .50's instead lol). This was all rectified when the length bug was corrected and its now quite a sweet ride again.
Now the new spitfire FM does not seem as unstable as the old P-51 IMHO in terms of 'wagging' oscillations (I just took out a few la-7s and when the elevator was trimmed correctly it was a nice ride), I think it's mostly an issue of what speed the trim is set for.

[Blackdog_kt]

Sorry for wading in :)

Most people don't seem to be able to articulate what they are seeing. So I'll give it a try.

It took me a while to notice but eventually I did. Now that I've noticed... I can tell that the Spitfire is definitely a slightly more challenging ride than before. Before it felt a bit like it was on rails in some cases. Now it does have some "extra character to it". I can't say if it's right, wrong or different. So far the best way for me to test to see the difference is to snap roll 90 degrees left and right and then return to level flight.

It seems the aileron movements causes the extra yaw. I'm fairly certain this is called adverse yaw. It is slightly more severe than on many other types (by my approximation) although I can also list several types that have it more extreme than the Spitfire as well.

I do know that stability changed between the different Spitfire models and the redesigned tail for the later IX models represented an attempt at correcting some stability issues introduced by the Merlin 60 series installed up front which changed the length, weight distribution and relative stability of the model. I don't have the numbers... just the general details so unfortunately I cannot be more specific.

The revised modeling does seem to be across the board but it may be worthwhile to double check Mark V versus early Mark IX versus late IX (and VIII) just to be certain that values are what they should be?

Just some thoughts.

EDIT: Those of you having more difficulties with this may want to adjust their joystick curves to slightly reduce the sensitivity. Particularly on the rudder. That should help... along with a proper rudder coordination technique to work with excess yaw. Particularly during gunnery.

You might be on to something here.

Adverse yaw is encountered in all aircraft, but maybe the Spitfire's famous wing is partially to blame in this case?

From the wiki:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Adverse_yaw.png

According to the diagram, when the control column of an aircraft is moved to the right, the right aileron is deflected upwards, and the left aileron is deflected downwards, causing the aircraft to roll to the right. As the right wing descends, its lift vector, which is perpendicular to the relative motion, tilts forward and therefore has a forward component. Conversely, as the left wing moves up, its lift vector tilts back and therefore has an aft force component. The fore/aft lift force components on the right and left wings constitute the adverse yaw moment.


Why do we care? Well, because more lift means a bigger forward/backward component in the diagram, which means more adverse yaw. If the Spitfire's wing is capable of higher lift than other aircraft (for a given airspeed range, conditions, etc etc) then it will also be prone to more adverse yaw, which means you need to use the rudder more or have oscillations when it goes back to neutral behavior.

I don't know exactly how the Spit's wing compares to other aircraft, so if anyone could shed some light maybe we could track down if this is the cause of the instability. In the case that the Spit wing is better at producing lift then incurring extra instability during rolls would be accurate. There's no such thing as a free lunch in physics ;)


On a more humorous note

Thrust vectoring? xD

Good one :-P

[JtD]

The Spitfire has a CoG that's somewhat rearward. A bit more than on most other planes. This means that any force input will give you a larger effect - be it control input, adverse yaw or even gyroscopic effects. It also gives the plane a considerable nose up tendency.

That's all there is to it.

[ImpalerNL]

The spitfire was very light on the controls, especially the elevator.
Also the tail was very light when taxiing and during takeoff.

You can read it here.

http://www.paulsquires.co.uk/spitfire.html

http://www.vintagewings.ca/VintageNews/Stories/tabid/116/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/255/language/en-CA/Flying-the-Spitfire--with-Mike-Potter.aspx

I like this sentence from the vintagewings article:

And, like all fighters of this era, you need your two feet as well as your hands to fly or she will skid and slip all over the sky.

[PE_Tihi]

Sorry for wading in :)

Most people don't seem to be able to articulate what they are seeing. So I'll give it a try.

It took me a while to notice but eventually I did. Now that I've noticed... I can tell that the Spitfire is definitely a slightly more challenging ride than before. Before it felt a bit like it was on rails in some cases. Now it does have some "extra character to it". I can't say if it's right, wrong or different. So far the best way for me to test to see the difference is to snap roll 90 degrees left and right and then return to level flight.

It seems the aileron movements causes the extra yaw. I'm fairly certain this is called adverse yaw. It is slightly more severe than on many other types (by my approximation) although I can also list several types that have it more extreme than the Spitfire as well.

...


...

EDIT: Those of you having more difficulties with this may want to adjust their joystick curves to slightly reduce the sensitivity. Particularly on the rudder. That should help... along with a proper rudder coordination technique to work with excess yaw. Particularly during gunnery.

Well, at least you did notice something. I was beginning to feel like someone explaining a difference between single malt and blended whiskies at a Shariah summit. The Spit is slightly more challenging only if you ride it around; if you throw it around violently, especially at low speeds, it is much more challenging than before. You describe this earlier behavior nicely as a 'ride on the rails'. All the planes in the game still keep using similar rails, or in other words, seem to behave as if either the vertical tail surfaces, or their distance from the CG are larger. Together with the fast dissipation of the oscillation energy (damping factor), this smothers the yaw oscillations caused by any disturbance very fast.
You could look at the adverse yaw as another not-commanded disturbance of direction of the plane's axis, away from the line of flight. The vertical tail ll react to the adverse yaw with a correcting moment in the opposite direction at once, but the value of that moment depends on the 'area' and 'moment arm length/distance to CG' which are bound to have some kind of virtual representation in the planes game FM.

This 4.10 change feels similar to 4.09 spit which lost half the vertical tail area (it means the rudder, that makes this a difficult analogy)
We didn't mention here the most important stabillity axis- the pitch-axis.

Reducing the sensitivity of the controls must end somewhere, or you wont reach the full throw of the rudder in the extreme position. From this somewhere, stick output is bound to rise ever steeper, making holding the plane on the stall limit a very shaky matter; half a millimeter more and you overdrawn it.

Furthermore, exponential control output is not a simulated feature, because it exists on no plane. It is only a way of limiting the plane's twitching in level flight because of the potentiometer 'noise'.

So you do not need this very counterproductive 'pott-stick/exponential output' duo, if you get a Hall-sensor (or any other contactless) noise-less stick. It doesnt have to be expensive like Saitek X series; Thrustmaster T16000 m is quite moderately priced.

Once you get rid of the potts and their completely unnatural input curves, you ll see at once how much you suffered actually:), and never want to go back. As for the trimming-after making the output table linear (10,20,30..100) I did not feel a special need to trim any more, cause the plane could be held rather steady in a cruise, with a small stick inclination and force. Only exception I can think of right now was the Ki43, which needs a strong downward trim at lowish speeds already, and this 4.10 Spit, which behaves similar. If rather energy-conscious, you can continue using trim, of course.
I am repeating this, becasue this info still seems to be largely unknown. Making the stick output curve even more non-linear is the last thing one should do.
I am not sure if the rudder coordination ll help you so much while shooting from a less stable plane. What would help is slow and gradual applying of the controls. For that, the oponent has to be cooperative enough to fly steadily and not too fast, of course.

[AndyJWest]

...the tail was very light when taxiing and during takeoff.
I can vouch for Oleg getting that right then. I think I must have tipped a Spit onto its nose so many times that in real life I'd have been demoted to potato-peeling duties long ago. Of course, in real life you could get an erk or two to sit on the tail while you taxied - I wonder if CoD will model this...

[Fenrir]

You might be on to something here.

Adverse yaw is encountered in all aircraft, but maybe the Spitfire's famous wing is partially to blame in this case...

Why do we care? Well, because more lift means a bigger forward/backward component in the diagram, which means more adverse yaw. If the Spitfire's wing is capable of higher lift than other aircraft (for a given airspeed range, conditions, etc etc) then it will also be prone to more adverse yaw, which means you need to use the rudder more or have oscillations when it goes back to neutral behavior.

I don't know exactly how the Spit's wing compares to other aircraft, so if anyone could shed some light maybe we could track down if this is the cause of the instability. In the case that the Spit wing is better at producing lift then incurring extra instability during rolls would be accurate. There's no such thing as a free lunch in physics.



The Spitfire had Frise ailerons. These are designed so that the aileron on the lower wing in the turn pokes it's nose into the airflow and creates drag, thus to some extent compensating for adverse yaw.

How much tho is another question entirely.... ;)

[PE_Tihi]

You might be on to something here.

Adverse yaw is encountered in all aircraft, but maybe the Spitfire's famous wing is partially to blame in this case?

From the wiki:



Why do we care? Well, because more lift means a bigger forward/backward component in the diagram, which means more adverse yaw. If the Spitfire's wing is capable of higher lift than other aircraft (for a given airspeed range, conditions, etc etc) then it will also be prone to more adverse yaw, which means you need to use the rudder more or have oscillations when it goes back to neutral behavior.

I don't know exactly how the Spit's wing compares to other aircraft, so if anyone could shed some light maybe we could track down if this is the cause of the instability. In the case that the Spit wing is better at producing lift then incurring extra instability during rolls would be accurate. There's no such thing as a free lunch in physics ;)


On a more humorous note



Good one :-P

Spitfire wing produces a lift equal to the plane's weight in horizontal flight. Maximum lift is produced in sharp turns; the plane's great wing area with the accompanying lift producing capacity does not make for any increases of adverse jaw effect in low-G regimes. On the other hand, as you can see from your diagram, a plane with a bigger wingspan (and aspect ratio) does have the best chances for an increased adverse yaw because of a longer moment arm of the ailerons/wing outer panels relative to the CG/aircraft axis. Gliders and Ta 152H, for example, come into that category.

The Spitfire had differential Frise ailerons- that means most effective means available to counter the adverse jaw. Frise has a price of increasing the rolling plane's drag, but Mitchell obviously accepted this trade-off knowing that a fighter has to hit something, too.

Spitfire wings were an excellent and beautiful design, but that ellipse is not such a magic as it's fame implies. It was a quite thin profile, large area and low wing loading that did much more for the efficiency of it's wing's then their elegant elliptical planform, which probably did more for the Spit's high unit price.
Twisting the tips of a conventional tapered wing-planform brings it very near to the optimal elliptical lift-distribution*, at a fraction of the cost of a wing with an actually elliptic geometry. This goes even for the squared-off wingtip planforms, which do not spoil the lift distribution much additionaly, either (Bf109, P51).
Mitchell knew that very well, for sure, but went over to the elliptical wing after additional guns have been demanded - and he had no room for them in the original tapered wing. Moreover, the ellipse solved the structural problems of a thin profile and made his already excellent wing concept a couple of additional percent better aerodynamically; I imagine nobody asked much about the unit price at that time, anyway.

Rarely used for the reasons mentioned, the elegant ellipse of the wings made the Spit recognizably different from the other planes, and the chance to create a bit of magic around this has not been missed in a wartime, of course.
This famed ellipse of the Spitfire's wing found a way into the British hearts so deep, that redesigning the Typhoon into Tempest, Camm took the semi-elliptical planform partly to inspire confidence of his customers in the ministry, I suspect.

Nothing occurs to me as a possible cause for any increased adverse yaw in the spit's wing aerodynamic.
Like almost all fighters, Spit has had a lean stability for the sake of being more manoeuverable. Many pylon racers of the period were much more radical in that sense. Polikarpov designs, especialy the I16 had quite narrow stabillity margins, almost like racers.

Adverse yaw is only one of the disturbances (like gusts, gyroscopic effects, etc) which the stabilizing surfaces have to overcome, and the gyroscopic precession after a pedal has been kicked should be more noticeable on any prop plane than the adverse yaw.
Real Spit probably felt the adverse yaw properly only when rolling quite fast. So, you barking under a wrong tree, my lads :)


* When the lift-force distribution along the wingspan has a shape of an semi-ellipse, it s an optimal case, with the lowest induced drag, i.e highest lift-producing efficiency.

[PE_Tihi]

The Spitfire has a CoG that's somewhat rearward. A bit more than on most other planes. This means that any force input will give you a larger effect - be it control input, adverse yaw or even gyroscopic effects. It also gives the plane a considerable nose up tendency.

That's all there is to it.

The longitudinal (pitch) stability you are describing here, has nothing to do with the adverse yaw- which is a yaw problem, obviously.

It is quite clear DT, among other things moved the CG position backwards. That this brought a big change in the plane's trim is no big credit to them. The horizontal tail of any plane is designed so that it's negative angle of attack produces exact amount of downwards lift to compensate the nose down moment the main wing lift produces in the cruising flight.

Take a look at the picture below. A plane always rotates around the CG - imagine it fixed in space.

A plane with a normal load requires only a little or no pitch trim in a cruise. Much trimming is necessary at quite low or high speeds.
A strongly trimmed elevator has more trim drag, that s why no factory ever delivered such a plane DT did. The elevator AoA corresponds to a certain CG position. That is one reason why I doubt their FM.

If they changed Oleg's CG, they should 've changed the elevator AoA too, to minimize the trim drag.
Now I should trust their stability rendering, which is a more complicated issue by far?

CG position of the Spit isn't something one has to guess-am sure anyone googles it out in 5 minutes. DT discovering here something unknown to Oleg doesn't sound very probable to me.

I can well imagine stability of the Spit and all other planes having been made easier at the game's beginnings, for rather obvious reasons-everyone still being new to a game already prohibitively challenging for many, etc. I doubt Oleg touched the CG position very much; increasing the damping factor instead sounds much more logical. DT ll learn fast, I suppose, but until they have learnt, the game may be over.

And that's it.

[PE_Tihi]

Thrust vectoring? xD


In heaps of stallfights and hammerheads never really needed one. Well, if you do, approaching DT in a right manner..? A Harricane, why not?!:)

[Brain32]

In heaps of stallfights and hammerheads never really needed one.

Well TVC was automatic as a part of FBW so it's not like you needed to engage it xD

[Phil_K]

There seems to be something wrong with the unit I./KG4

If you select this in QMB or FMB, it won't allow the mission to proceed (no player in plane).

[gonk]

I have mapped my Nav Lights Key to L. If I "ALT TAB" out of the game and them back again my Nav Lights don't work anymore if hit L. I have to Hit L and K together. My mate has mapped the MAP to M and he has a similar problem... but he has to hit M and N if he ALT TABS. Very strange indeed... This is in Multiplayer Games ... I have to tested it in Single Player Mode. woops wrong thread....

[Gryphon_]

I have a Dedicated Server running 4.10 and we are experiencing problems when the player count goes above 60 players. We routinely have 75 to 80+ players in during evening Euro time. Players will start to lag and get stutters to the point where players are getting kicked by the server. Also the server will eventually crash with the following in the console:

"No stack trace available --out of memory error" or similar wording

Any Ideas ?

WildWillie

I did not see a fix for this problem with the DS in the 4.101 RC list. This is a big problem; busy servers crashing frequently, sometimes more than once per day with out of memory error.

Thanks!

[JHartikka]

...

One of the most commented features of 4.10 has been the 2s bomb arming delay... In 4.101 we have removed arming delay from ampoule loadouts only. In 4.11 ... Plus we will make this feature optional either via an existing or a new difficulty switch.



Hi Sirs!

Here are the three main cases related to improving IL sim for getting simulated bomber action authentic:

1. Bomb SALVO settings.
2. Fuse settings.
3. Missing bomb damage after pilot hit.

Nr 1: This otherways truthful sim has a queer property of dropping bombs as pairs.

Nr 2: Back in those days bombs were armed with a fuse best suited for that particular mission. Bomber pilot had the last word to say about fuse selection. I suggest that Pilot Fuse Select should be the case rather than Host Fuse Select with next patches..!

Nr 3: An IL sim curious feature is that bombs released before but exploding after flak or enemy interceptor has hit the bomber pilot do not cause any damage.


Hit A Tank?

In Hyperlobby online war campaigns we are still expected to hit an individual tank with a bomb. After 410m patch, one can hardly see a tank all the way up to 500 meters which is the minimum bomb release altitude from dive with 2 s 'safety fuse'..! Not to mention see enough to have time to aim before bomb release... :confused:



Best regards,

- J. Hartikka -

Virtual Bomber Pilot

Finland


Bomb Fuse Links: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?p=210220&posted=1#post210220
and http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?p=213782#post213782
and http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?p=216588#post216588

Bomber veteran Kusti Lehmusvuori in a newspaper article with photos of the restored motor of the ill fated JU-88 nr JK-254:
http://yle.fi/alueet/pohjois-karjala/2011/01/muistojen_junkers-moottori_esittaytyy_joensuulaisille_2322833.html?o rigin=rss

[OrangeYoshi]

I have mapped my Nav Lights Key to L. If I "ALT TAB" out of the game and them back again my Nav Lights don't work anymore if hit L. I have to Hit L and K together. My mate has mapped the MAP to M and he has a similar problem... but he has to hit M and N if he ALT TABS. Very strange indeed... This is in Multiplayer Games ... I have to tested it in Single Player Mode. woops wrong thread....

You have to hit the alt button again after alt+tabbing out. Whenever I alt tab out, I have a ritual when I bring the game back up to reset all the buttons: Hit the TAB button twice, hit shift once, hit ALT.

This will make it so other buttons don't bring up the tab menu, hitting tab or shift won't bring up the console, and your buttons will once again work as alt won't be forever pressed.

[KG26_Alpha]

...

One of the most commented features of 4.10 has been the 2s bomb arming delay... In 4.101 we have removed arming delay from ampoule loadouts only. In 4.11 ... Plus we will make this feature optional either via an existing or a new difficulty switch.



How does this affect Kamikaze bombing ?

Thanks

[Blaubaer]

Hi,

since I am using v4.10.1 in my df-missions neutral runway and other lights (lightype 1 - 4) inside the homebase radius behave as they were blue or red: they lit only, if requested.
Is it a (known) bug?
Has somebody an idea for fixing that?

Regards,
der Blaubär

[PE_Tihi]

I see no significant change in the Spit FM, which is still quite unstable.

So what happened to the much advertised change?

[IceFire]

I see no significant change in the Spit FM, which is still quite unstable.

So what happened to the much advertised change?

I only saw one person say that the Spitfire FM changed but I never heard it from anyone from the TD team. Not sure who advertised it but through 4.10 and 4.10.1 it was the same.

I thought subjectively that it was a little more stable in 4.10.1 release but maybe not.

[PE_Tihi]

I only saw one person say that the Spitfire FM changed but I never heard it from anyone from the TD team. Not sure who advertised it but through 4.10 and 4.10.1 it was the same.

I thought subjectively that it was a little more stable in 4.10.1 release but maybe not.

I started a thread ( 'Spitfire sabotaged, Goering relieved') here recently, which got closed after half a day only. Asking about the reasons, the moderator told me, among other things ' The thread has served its purpose the Spit fix is in v4.101'

[PE_Tihi]

The Spitfire's is the first of Oleg's FM's that he allowed TD to modify extensively. I wish they could' ve started with some other, and not with the most famous plane. Any plane's FM should be good enough to play with.
If 1C doesn't care, the game being more or less history already, why should we. Still, it s ugly.

[Fenrir]

Because Tihi, you don't know what you are talking about and someone threw you a bone to shut you up.

I'm a Spit flyer. So no lufty bias here.

What was fixed in 4.101 was an aileron trim issue, nothing to do with stability.

As for your perceived instability - I've been flying the 4.10 & 4.101 spits for a month now, I see a very low trim elevator neutral trim speed, which I find questionable (but having been shown the source of that by TD I cannot argue because I have no data with which to counter) but there is NO behavior AT ALL which indicates pitch instability. The a/c does NOT tighten up in turns, does NOT hunt whilst flying straight and level and can be trimmed quite easily to fly hands off.

As the aerodynamically understood principles of instability go the 4.10/4.101 Spits are paragons of stable aircraft.

If however you are referring to the adverse yaw, this has been discussed. Try applying a little rudder with the direction of aileron - this is called a coordinated turn - and your problem should go away; after some practice, naturally.

[PE_Tihi]

Because Tihi, you don't know what you are talking about and someone threw you a bone to shut you up.

I'm a Spit flyer. So no lufty bias here.

What was fixed in 4.101 was an aileron trim issue, nothing to do with stability.

As for your perceived instability - I've been flying the 4.10 & 4.101 spits for a month now, I see a very low trim elevator neutral trim speed, which I find questionable (but having been shown the source of that by TD I cannot argue because I have no data with which to counter) but there is NO behavior AT ALL which indicates pitch instability. The a/c does NOT tighten up in turns, does NOT hunt whilst flying straight and level and can be trimmed quite easily to fly hands off.

As the aerodynamically understood principles of instability go the 4.10/4.101 Spits are paragons of stable aircraft.

If however you are referring to the adverse yaw, this has been discussed. Try applying a little rudder with the direction of aileron - this is called a coordinated turn - and your problem should go away; after some practice, naturally.

And you seem very sure you know what you are talking about? I studied aerodynamics, you know. Did you, or did the guy who threw me a bone, as you say?

I really wrote more then enough here, but let me recapitulate shortly:

If the rudder or some other control is moved energetically to push the nose down in a stall climb, this causes slow ( ~ 0,7 Hz) and very strong pitch oscillations, (amplitude like 45 deg or more relative to the flightpath direction). They do not get damped to sufferable level before plane reaches something like 200 kmh in the dive. No other plane in the game behaves nearly so wild.

As for the reasons why your Spit pitches up the nose wildly, almost certainly the reason is TD moving the CG backwards. CG position is the MAIN pitch stability factor. That s why the above happens. And I wrote that already here, a page or so back. Take a look at the picture there.

The effects are most obvious in slow flight, near stall; and still strong enough at combat speeds to spoil the aim. And the plane is instable laterally, too.
If you cannot see anything of the above in flight, I cannot help you further.

What they sold you as a reason for the planes bad pitch trim, I do not know. After seeing their FM work here, I do not care, either.

[JtD]

From last three pages:
I do not know...
I do not know...
I do not know...
I do not know...
I do not know...
That's exactly the message I'm getting. I think you should follow your own advice.
am sure anyone googles it out in 5 minutes

[PE_Tihi]

From last three pages:





That's exactly the message I'm getting. I think you should follow your own advice.

That may not be your case, but there are things I do not know, you know:)
Fenrir above knows, just like you do, I do not even know what a coordinated turn is:)
What should I do after flying the game 9 years, some 3-4 of them with pedals, but laugh:) LOL!

Sorry, guys, but I am really wasting my time here on some of you, am I not:)?

[MD_Titus]

Because Tihi, you don't know what you are talking about and someone threw you a bone to shut you up.

I'm a Spit flyer. So no lufty bias here.

What was fixed in 4.101 was an aileron trim issue, nothing to do with stability.

As for your perceived instability - I've been flying the 4.10 & 4.101 spits for a month now, I see a very low trim elevator neutral trim speed, which I find questionable (but having been shown the source of that by TD I cannot argue because I have no data with which to counter) but there is NO behavior AT ALL which indicates pitch instability. The a/c does NOT tighten up in turns, does NOT hunt whilst flying straight and level and can be trimmed quite easily to fly hands off.

As the aerodynamically understood principles of instability go the 4.10/4.101 Spits are paragons of stable aircraft.

If however you are referring to the adverse yaw, this has been discussed. Try applying a little rudder with the direction of aileron - this is called a coordinated turn - and your problem should go away; after some practice, naturally.

the nose up tendency does seem rather exaggerated, wasn't it something to do with maximum cruise economy rather than combat cruise speed being used as the elevator trim neutral point?

[JtD]

No, that was aileron trim, and it has been changed.

[PE_Tihi]

no, that was aileron trim, and it has been changed.

loll!:)

[PE_Tihi]

the nose up tendency does seem rather exaggerated, wasn't it something to do with maximum cruise economy rather than combat cruise speed being used as the elevator trim neutral point?
In all probability it has to do with TD moving the CG back to reduce the plane's longitudinal stability, without adjusting the elevator angle to the long. axis (elevator trim neutral point as you put it)

The picture has been explained with more detail some two pages back, this thread.

[Fenrir]

And you seem very sure you know what you are talking about? I studied aerodynamics, you know. Did you, or did the guy who threw me a bone, as you say?

Well then you surely must understand the principles of gyroscopic precession; the reason why when you push or pull the nose up or down in pitch you get a reaction in the yawing plane. The reverse is true too, you know, which is why:


If the rudder or some other control is moved energetically to push the nose down in a stall climb, this causes slow ( ~ 0,7 Hz) and very strong pitch oscillations, (amplitude like 45 deg or more relative to the flightpath direction). They do not get damped to sufferable level before plane reaches something like 200 kmh in the dive. No other plane in the game behaves nearly so wild.

Ah, so now you talking about longitudinal stability, which has nothing to do with elevators; for what it's worth the later Spit marks were always somewhat behind the curve when dealing in vertical tail surface area with each progressive increase in power - so at low speed you don't have enough airflow going over the fin/rudder to provide adequate compensation for your power setting - no surprise, and until we get a pilot in here who can authoritatively comment on the planes behavioural characteristics under such flight conditions, we are gonna have to trust TDs judgement.


As for the reasons why your Spit pitches up the nose wildly, almost certainly the reason is TD moving the CG backwards. CG position is the MAIN pitch stability factor. That s why the above happens. And I wrote that already here, a page or so back. Take a look at the picture there.

There are many reasons not just CofG for trim change, and if you'd studied aerodynamics as thoroughly as you claim, you'd know this. Trim change can be accomplished through airframe/fixed surface/moving surface design and even by the manner of mass balance - to accuse TD of moving the CofG position, well, you assume too much. Especially as the spits do not exhibit any of the other criteria to warrant an accusation of pitch instability.


The effects are most obvious in slow flight, near stall; and still strong enough at combat speeds to spoil the aim. And the plane is instable laterally, too.

Wow, a 1600hp aircraft at slow speed tricky to handle? With little air moving over flight surfaces and a massive torque reaction?


If you cannot see anything of the above in flight, I cannot help you further.


I see a little more longitudinal reaction to aileron input, but not catastrophic, I see a low elevator trim speed with no pitch instability, and bugger all instability laterally unless i'm flying with the rudder badly trimmed. Personally, I think you have controller issues, or you need practice to get the best out of the spit.


What they sold you as a reason for the planes bad pitch trim, I do not know. After seeing their FM work here, I do not care, either.

They showed us all a pic of a modern day restored Spitfire flying in formation with a photo a/c at low airspeed with significant down elevator deflection.

Tihi, I suggest if you want people to listen to your issues then you provide quantifiable data or a series of pilot reports - and much more than one - that backup your arguments or that at least point to a common extrapolated outcome.

Currently you come here with nothing more than opinions delivered with a exasperating sense of melodrama and an irritatingly belittling attitude towards the guys at Team Diadalos - you win no friends and thusly make any chance that your grievances might be even investigated, let alone fixed, marginal at best.

[MD_Titus]

No, that was aileron trim, and it has been changed.

ah right, but what about the change to the elevator trim, it does seem to take a lot more trim to maintain a level attitude at about 280-300kmh

the rest of the spit characteristics are fine imo, the aileron fix is appreciated and it seems... well, it seems to give more warning of a stall, and require flying properly. as this is the case, will "spitnoob" become a phrase of the past?!

[PE_Tihi]

Ah, so now you talking about longitudinal stability, which has nothing to do with elevators;
You confuse the lateral and longitudinal stability; longitudinal certainly has to do with the elevators.

"...almost certainly the reason is TD moving the CG backwards...
...."

There are many reasons not just CofG for trim change, and if you'd studied aerodynamics as thoroughly as you claim, you'd know this. Trim change can be accomplished through airframe/fixed surface/moving surface design and even by the manner of mass balance - to accuse TD of moving the CofG position, well, you assume too much. Especially as the spits do not exhibit any of the other criteria to warrant an accusation of pitch instability.

'Almost certainly' is an acknowledgement they may be other reasons. That is improbable because the much reduced longitudinal stabillity of the plane compared to 4.09. indicates the CG has been moved backwards relative to its 4.09 position.

You say in a previous post 'there is NO behavior AT ALL which indicates pitch instability. The a/c does NOT tighten up in turns..'
For the 'turn tightening' to appear, CG has to be BEHIND the plane AC, which would make the plane completely uncontrollable- ie. instable in the absolute sense. If that s your criterion for where the bad stability and handling begins, please better avoid flying your designs yourself:)

And if you see 'no pitch instabillity at all' here, then am not going to waste any more time explaining. I wrote enough in the thread.

"They showed us all a pic of a modern day restored Spitfire flying in formation with a photo a/c at low airspeed with significant down elevator deflection."
How on earth do you find this a proof of anything else, but the Spit having the movable elevators? Next second the elevators could 've been in another position. Or do you beleive formating pilots have orders against moving their controls?

Regarding the belittling attitudes, etc, please refer to your posts here. As for the TD, their job are not anyone's grievances; they took over modifying an FM in an acceptable manner.

[JtD]

ah right, but what about the change to the elevator trim, it does seem to take a lot more trim to maintain a level attitude at about 280-300kmh

the rest of the spit characteristics are fine imo, the aileron fix is appreciated and it seems... well, it seems to give more warning of a stall, and require flying properly. as this is the case, will "spitnoob" become a phrase of the past?!

A Spitfire V as tested by NACA went practically into stall with the elevator still depressed at about 4° (~25% of travel). It did a 3g turn at 170 mph with the elevator at about neutral. Think about that when you check in game behaviour. ;)

The neutral trim point of the elevator trim can be set by the pilot in game, so I don't think it matters much. I just trim it down a lot on take off and then have more fun flying the thing than I ever had before.

[PE_Tihi]

A Spitfire V as tested by NACA went practically into stall with the elevator still depressed at about 4° (~25% of travel). It did a 3g turn at 170 mph with the elevator at about neutral. Think about that when you check in game behaviour. ;)

The neutral trim point of the elevator trim can be set by the pilot in game, so I don't think it matters much. I just trim it down a lot on take off and then have more fun flying the thing than I ever had before.

I could not visit the only site I could find reporting on this NACA Spit test you quote-the browser forbids the site as unsafe.(ww2aircraft.net)

Could you find any such data on the heavy trimming necessary on the Spitfire, from a British source? Like the spitfireperformance site, for example?

Engineers have been known of mounting the things upside down on unfamiliar foreign equipment, you know.:)

Any trimming increases drag, reducing speed. Not irrelevent to a transport, you see. :)

Ahm, what's this:

' "It happened that Wright Field had the only Spitfire in America-a Mark V. Unfortunately almost every pilot in the Air Corps had had a go on her and like a car that had too many drivers, she was the worse for wear...'She was very tired, very sloppy-she'd had the guts caned out of her all right."


NACA got it for testing after that.'

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=91603&start=15


Hmm? How about looking at the sources that say the things you may not like , too :)?

[MD_Titus]

I could not visit the only site I could find reporting on this NACA Spit test you quote-the browser forbids the site as unsafe.(ww2aircraft.net)

Could you find any such data on the heavy trimming necessary on the Spitfire, from a British source? Like the spitfireperformance site, for example?

Engineers have been known of mounting the things upside down on unfamiliar foreign equipment, you know.:)

Any trimming increases drag, reducing speed. Not irrelevent to a transport, you see. :)

this is incorrect. you use trim as it has a lesser drag penalty than using stick controls. a correctly trimmed plane should fly faster than the same plane being kept level using pilot input, no?

JtD - as for neutral trim point being settable in game, how would i go about doing this, or do you just mean dialing in trim for straight and level and that is the neutral point?

[PE_Tihi]

this is incorrect. you use trim as it has a lesser drag penalty than using stick controls. a correctly trimmed plane should fly faster than the same plane being kept level using pilot input, no?

JtD - as for neutral trim point being settable in game, how would i go about doing this, or do you just mean dialing in trim for straight and level and that is the neutral point?

If you 'turn' the whole horizontal stabilizer plane to get the plane in trim for its 'most important' flight regime (certain airspeed), you get less drag at that speed than by deflecting the elevator by a trim tab, increasing the elevator airfoil chamber.

This is one reason for 'flying tails', too.

Accordingly, it would have been quite sloppy from Supermarine to deliver such a plane NACA is talking about. It would mean the drag in order to neutralize the wing-lift moment (trim drag) is higher than neccessary.

[Fafnir_6]

will "spitnoob" become a phrase of the past?!

Yes.

Having seen some of the comments from TD since 4.10 came out, my understanding is that the other n00b uberwarbirds in the game will be served with the same/similar treatment in 4.11 or future releases. I think they would have liked to fix these others as well but TD has limited resources, so it may wind up being only one uberwarbird at a time getting fixed (the spitfire just had the bad/good luck to be the first to get fixed). I also know that DT is painstaking in their compliance to the available references and will not make a change unless new reference material becomes available. To those of you who are complaining about the spits in 4.10/4.10.1, your best, only hope is to find a verifiable document from a relevant authority that outlines any change you think should be applied. Submit these respectfully to DT and I'm sure you will see something come of it. I personally think (as do many here) that the 4.09 spit needed to be fixed (hence the "spitnoob" name-calling) and that DT has done a masterful job of it. It still sucks to get owned by LA-7 drivers and such online but I have a feeling they are about to get a short drop back to reality as well :).

Cheers DT and thanks for another masterpiece,

Fafnir_6

P.S. Much about the content of upcoming DT patches can be revealed when a DT member posts here. I'd advise anyone with an interest in such things to PAY ATTENTION when someone like Viikate, FC99 or Caspar posts in these forums, the future will reveal itself (it also helps to be respectful and friendly towards our patchmakers). Il-2 4.11 is gonna rule :).

[PE_Tihi]

To those of you who are complaining about the spits in 4.10/4.10.1, your best, only hope is to find a verifiable document from a relevant authority ... Submit these respectfully to DT and I'm sure you will see something come of it.
LOL! Our only hope?:) I am simply not going to fly the TD Spit anymore, neither the whole game soon, you see. A new one is coming out, don't you know? :) If you implying TD cancelled the revised Spit FM cause some of us here haven't submitted respectfully:) - well, then it s their work they have been doing harm to.
Should we, after collecting and sieving the data, respectfully make the FM for them, too?


I personally think (as do many here) that the 4.09 spit needed to be fixed (hence the "spitnoob" name-calling) and that DT has done a masterful job of it.
...

Cheers DT and thanks for another masterpiece,

Exactly what I have been talking about. A common one around, that s the attitude you obviously share with the TD; you both have no idea what may be wrong in the plane FM, but know it is too good to be true, and needs to be 'fixed'.

Who seeks, finds; so the NACA test of a Wright-Field hack has been found...In all probability the plane had a bent fuselage from a hard landing.

If your TD idols share the high and mighty stance of yours:), they 're heading for a hard landing, too. Even without them 'fixing' the FM's the game' s days are counted. Quite soon FB is going to become a private occasion flown by TD for the most part. That s why they have been given the FM's to play with.

P.S. Much about the content of upcoming DT patches can be revealed when a DT member posts here. I'd advise anyone with an interest in such things to PAY ATTENTION when someone like Viikate, FC99 or Caspar posts in these forums, the future will reveal itself (it also helps to be respectful and friendly towards our patchmakers). Il-2 4.11 is gonna rule .
..PAY ATTENTION .. someone like.. and the future will reveal itself.. Well, this needs no comment :) LOL!

[KG26_Alpha]

Ok everyone.

Enough is enough regarding the Spit whining.

Its been going on for too long you need to move on.

Thanks.

[PE_Tihi]

Ok everyone.

Enough is enough regarding the Spit whining.

Its been going on for too long you need to move on.

Thanks.

If you too calling me a whiner, take care about the language you are using with me, because I do the same for you. Dogs whine, you 'll surely know. And if you find it boring, you do not have to read it.

[Tempest123]

...opinions delivered with a exasperating sense of melodrama and an irritatingly belittling attitude towards the guys at Team Diadalos - you win no friends and thusly make any chance that your grievances might be even investigated, let alone fixed, marginal at best.

+1

...these silly arrogant posts aren't doing anything except annoying the c**p out of everyone. No one wants to join a discussion where their opinion will be belittled. I like FM debates, I even started one! But not ones with pointless pissing contests, I don't need to feel like I'm back in junior high.

Rant over!

[JtD]

JtD - as for neutral trim point being settable in game, how would i go about doing this, or do you just mean dialing in trim for straight and level and that is the neutral point?

Yes, that's what I just mean. It was poor wording on my part, sorry.

[Qpassa]

If you too calling me a whiner, take care about the language you are using with me, because I do the same for you. Dogs whine, you 'll surely know. And if you find it boring, you do not have to read it.

He has to do it, he is a moderator :grin:

[PE_Tihi]

He has to do it, he is a moderator :grin:

Exactly a moderator should not allow himself to address people in that manner.

[robtek]

Exactly a moderator should not allow himself to address people in that manner.

The only problem is that YOU associate whining with calling you a dog.
Nobody else does!
Whining in online foren is associated with demanding changes because of a percieved disadvantages without proven facts.
That happens pretty often and calling your posting "whining" is just a description and no personal slight.

[PE_Tihi]

The only problem is that YOU associate whining with calling you a dog.
Nobody else does!
Whining in online foren is associated with demanding changes because of a percieved disadvantages without proven facts.
That happens pretty often and calling your posting "whining" is just a description and no personal slight.


I do not write very often in the forums, and may lack the habits of expression here. In this case I really do not regret it; the constant usage has made people forget the really quite insulting meaning of this expression. Moreover, the people tend to forget restraint when writing online in many other cases, too.
This forum here is certainly far from being a bad example of the said, but you ll probably find much less restraint on a forum, than in an eye to eye conversation.

[Blaubaer]

Hi,

since I am using v4.10.1 in my df-missions neutral runway and other lights (lightype 1 - 4) inside the homebase radius behave as they were blue or red: they lit only, if requested.
Is it a (known) bug?
Has somebody an idea for fixing that?

Regards,
der Blaubär

Nobody can confirm that or can give a hint for a workaround?

Inbetween I can to state more precisely: all lightypes 1 - 4 with the color blue, red or none inside a home base radius act as they had the color of the home base. So they don't light up until the lightening is requested. - Permanently lit runway lights are no longer passible.
The docs say, that this behavior requires an identity of lighttype and home base color.

Regards,
der Blaubaer

[JtD]

I think this is a side effect of having neutral objects take the home base colour in general - as it was before 4.10. With 4.10 there was a problem with neutral AAA firing at anyone spawning because it did not take home base colour. The only workaround I know is placing the airfield fires, which will always burn.

[KG26_Alpha]

Yes neutral doesn't mean they are passive but active, so they react to all sides.



.