4.11 overheat and engine damage test results [Archive]

JG27_PapaFly

01-26-2012, 10:51 AM

Hi,
some folks are seriously concerned that some planes might overheat too much in 4.11, while others might overheat much less.

Specifically, Whistlinggdeath feels that the TA152H, P51 and FW190D9 45 overheat too much, especially during zoomclimbs, while the I-185 M71 and SpitIX 25lbs show almost no overheat.

Us JG27 folks have tested 4.11 extensively in internal fullreal matches and found no reason to worry. However, dogfights are not objective, specific tests.

To get some reproducible numbers, i've put several planes to the ultimate overheat test on the crimea map: with the plane grounded, chocks in, pp 100% or auto (where available) i ran the engine to absolute max power, measuring the time until the overheat message appeared and until engine damage occured. Full power was applied immediately after engine ignition.
I repeated the test at least 3 times per plane, and calculated average values as well as standard deviation (displayed as error bars).
Unless stated otherwise, radiators were open.
I've also plotted engine rpm at max settings.

This test provides an estimate on how fast a plane will overheat when reaching very low speeds at full power, as happens at the top of some zoomclimbs.

For a given plane, the time to overheat is highly reproducible (small error bars, see figure below). The error bars get a little bigger for the time to engine damage, where random effects come into play.

As you see, all planes overheat pretty fast under the given circumstances, and the differences between planes are minor. In my view, there's no reason to worry.

Contradictory to Whistlinggdeath's description, SpitIX 25lbs and P51 D20 overheat at almost exactly the same time.

The TA152 H1 overheats slightly faster than the Spit with radiators on auto. With manually opened radiators, however, the TA overheats slower than the Spit! This trend is also seen for the FW190D9 models, but not for the 109K4 and P51. In summary, the automatic radiator opens a little late on the TA and D9.

The most overheat-resistant planes in this test are the FW190A6 and the I-185 M71.

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c60/PapaFly/PlaneData/Overheat_1.jpg

It seems that rpm values and overheat times correlate inversely: planes with low rpm (I-185 and FW190) are slow to overheat, while planes with high rpm (TA152) seem to overheat faster.

To test this hypothesis i plotted the reciprocal of RPM values (1/RPM) against the average time to overheat (open radiators, see figure below).

As expected, both curves are very similar, and this impression is confirmed by the calculated Pearson correlation coefficient between RPM and time to overheat. The correlation value of -0.56 indicates a fairly strong inverse correlation between engine rpm and time to overheat. In other words: high rpm results in faster overheat, across the planeset.

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c60/PapaFly/PlaneData/Overheat_2.jpg

***EDIT***
I've just tested the TA152, FW190A6, SpitIX 25lbs, LA7 3xB20, F4U-1D and I-185 M71 inflight on the same map: max performance takeoff and climb at a constant 260kph IAS.
I used manually open rads on the TA, FW190 and I-185, auto rads for the spit.

Here are the times to overheat at 260kph IAS:

Plane_________time to overheat____notes__________________
TA152-H1........3'24''......................oil temp near upper limit
SpitIX 25lbs.....2'56''......................oil at 80°C, glycol at 110°C
FW190A6.........3'48''......................oil at less than 80°C
F4U-1D............3'52''.....................oil temp 80°C, cylinder head 200°C at overheat message
LA7 3xB20........3'48''......................oil temp is above 100°C from 1'56''on; cylinder head temp above 200°C at overheat message
I-185 M71........5'08''.....................oil temp is above 100°C from 2'08'' on; cylinder head temp above 200°C at overheat message

Something seems to be wrong with the I-185. For one, it overheats on the ground just like any other plane, but much later in the air.
While most other planes overheat when the oil has 80°C, the I-185's oil temps hits the end of the dial (125°C) before the overheat occurs. At that stage, the cylinder head has well above 200°C. This behavior is very different from that of other radial engine fighters in the test (F4U, FW190A). The LA7 also shows that oil temp increase, but the overheat message comes earlier, at almost the same time with the FW190A and F4U.

Maybe someone from TD could explain why the I-185 is different?
***EDIT END***

Cheers

jermin

01-26-2012, 11:23 AM

WTE_Galway

01-26-2012, 12:27 PM

Zorin

01-26-2012, 12:28 PM

Well done! Thanks for the detailed information.

My question is whether aircrafts equipped with MW50 really overheated that fast in real life. According to the test it cannot even last more than 2 minutes in the game. The only radiator position that is useful for Luftwaffe pilots are full open. I can't think of any situation where other positions can be used.

And I can't persuade myself to believe those coarse Russian engines tend to has less overheat problem than German ones.

BTW, 109 K4 C3 appears to have a flawed auto radiator. You can notice the radiator flaps are not fully open even the engine has been overheated for a long time.

1. It can not last two minutes stationary on the ground without any air flowing through the radiators to actually cool it. That is what this test established as he tries to mimic a plane at stall speed at the top of a zoom climb. If your plane is constantly in that state you are a rubbish pilot.

2. Other positions can be used during 90% of a regular pilots flight time. Prolonged combat against top brass planes and pilots are rather rare actually. Even on a dogfight server, if you know what you are doing.

3. Exactly because of their rather rough nature they are more rugged.

Zorin

01-26-2012, 12:36 PM

MW50 merely allowed higher boost pressures and the max time to run that higher boost was 10 minutes after which you needed a 5 minute break.

That restriction is totally separate from any other limitations on running the engine at takeoff/miltary power at low airspeed. If the engine had a separate restriction on for example time at takeoff power that still applied over and above the 10 minute WEP restriction.

Running MW50 did not magically give the engine the ability to disregard its normal restrictions its cooling properties were a side effect and minimal. People seem to think if MW50 was permitted for 10 minutes then the engine should last 10 minutes regardless of how you mistreat it. That is just silly.

Gratuitous MW50 operation instructions in German :

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b102/albumonline/MW50_im_Bf109.jpg

Let me translate that first sentence, the most important of them all, for jermin.

"What is MW-50 operation?
MW-50 operation means: Temporary extraction of emergency power for the purpose of hoirzontal and climb speed increase, allowed by boost pressure increase to 1,7ata and simultaneous injection of MW-50."

So, as I told you before, it is not meant for the pilot to give him an edge in zoom climbing or general fighting, but to increase his speed to get out of trouble.

EJGr.Ost_Caspar

01-26-2012, 12:40 PM

The most overheat-resistant planes in this test are the FW190A6 and the I-185 M71.

And also the La-7 - if you look at your chart.
So whats unique on these three planes - contrary to the others? ;)

Nice testing, BTW!

jermin

01-26-2012, 01:13 PM

1. It can not last two minutes stationary on the ground without any air flowing through the radiators to actually cool it. That is what this test established as he tries to mimic a plane at stall speed at the top of a zoom climb. If your plane is constantly in that state you are a rubbish pilot.

Where's the difference? The engine still can not last over 5 minutes even during level flight.

2. Other positions can be used during 90% of a regular pilots flight time. Prolonged combat against top brass planes and pilots are rather rare actually. Even on a dogfight server, if you know what you are doing.

Have you tried it yourself? Fly some sorties in some hot servers on hyperlobby and see for yourself whether you will have a chance to fly using other radiator positions.

3. Exactly because of their rather rough nature they are more rugged.

Sorry, but I can't see your logic here.

jermin

01-26-2012, 01:19 PM

Let me translate that first sentence, the most important of them all, for jermin.

"What is MW-50 operation?
MW-50 operation means: Temporary extraction of emergency power for the purpose of hoirzontal and climb speed increase, allowed by boost pressure increase to 1,7ata and simultaneous injection of MW-50."

So, as I told you before, it is not meant for the pilot to give him an edge in zoom climbing or general fighting, but to increase his speed to get out of trouble.

Where does it say it should be used to get out of trouble?

you never climb and accelerate during combat? What if your plane can not outrun the enemy aircraft on your 6 and it is more agile than yours? So will leave MW50 disabled and wait for enemy ripping your ass off?

Don't pretend to be a WW2 veteran, will you?

jermin

01-26-2012, 01:22 PM

So whats unique on these three planes - contrary to the others? ;)

I think he is merely stating facts.

swiss

01-26-2012, 01:22 PM

There is still the unanswered question if the Komandogerät allowed the TA engine to overrev in dive at 110%+Wep+autopp.

[URU]BlackFox

01-26-2012, 01:23 PM

And also the La-7 - if you look at your chart.
So whats unique on these three planes - contrary to the others? ;)

Nice testing, BTW!

So that confirms that radial engines are more resistant to overheating?

EJGr.Ost_Caspar

01-26-2012, 01:40 PM

At least they have a bonus in cooling.

Zorin

01-26-2012, 01:41 PM

BlackFox;384672']So that confirms that radial engines are more resistant to overheating?

I'd rather put it like better ventilated and therefor less prone to overheating.

EJGr.Ost_Caspar

01-26-2012, 01:48 PM

There is still the unanswered question if the Komandogerät allowed the TA engine to overrev in dive at 110%+Wep+autopp.

The KG adjusted (beside other things) the revs by pitching the prop and so prevented from overrev.

JG27_PapaFly

01-26-2012, 01:59 PM

I've edited my first post: it now includes some inflight overheat data at 260kph IAS.

swiss

01-26-2012, 02:18 PM

The KG adjusted (beside other things) the revs by pitching the prop and so prevented from overrev.

Then the TA152 C is bugged, it overrevs in a dive ~2900rpm, independent from engine temp.

ntrk: http://www.mediafire.com/?9b4asyzzt25uyyz

The H1 seems to be ok.

jermin

01-26-2012, 02:22 PM

Would you please add the other aircrafts in the ground test into the climbing test?

It looks as if those Russian UFO fliers gotta love their monster rides more than ever.

JG27_PapaFly

01-26-2012, 02:43 PM

It looks as if those Russian UFO fliers gotta love their monster rides more than ever.

Relax m8, the tests clearly show that only the I-185 overheats a bit late inflight, whereas all other planes behave quite similarly. I see no reason to worry. Congrats TD on a great job!

Luno13

01-26-2012, 03:44 PM

Where's the difference? The engine still can not last over 5 minutes even during level flight.

Did you look at the track I sent you?

3. Exactly because of their rather rough nature they are more rugged.

Sorry, but I can't see your logic here.

Think AK-47. ;) Lower tolerances means parts can actually expand a bit with the heat before they start rubbing together in a bad way.

Thanks PapaFly, for the test.

jermin

01-26-2012, 04:02 PM

I did. But I could not reproduce it in my game, not even once.

I don't think it is wise to compare an expensive and complicated aircraft engine system to a bargain light weapon.

WhistlinggDeath

01-26-2012, 04:49 PM

Thanks Papa, for the testing.

Seems valid to me (busy since I got back to work, but will test a few of your results randomly when time permits). I do see the 185 M-71 and La7 as being relatively unaffected by overheating (what country did this patch come from again?). Although, your spit 25lbs data is enlightening.

One critical note though:

Not only is it that the engines overheat very quickly now on the late war FWs, TA and P51, but also that the flight models (FM) for the FWs and TA have changed for the worse. In attempting to replicate to finer detail the late war models, Team D altered or neutered, several of the FWs and the TA H1. With the switcher, you can see a clear level flight speed reduction in the TA 152 H1 between 4.10.1 and 4.11. So, the complexing effect now of not only the overheats but the reduced flight models means the TA 152 and to a slightly lesser extent, the FWs are to a great or medium extent reduced in lethality. It is an emergent property that comes from a complex combination of the two effects (overheat and reduced flight models).

As to your comments Zorin, disagree. Focke Wulf pilots who dive down on a tight turning spit, go for a high deflection shot and then zoom climb back up another 1800m very close to stall speed are doing exactly what the FW was built for. That is not the sign of a rubbish pilot, it is the sign of upper level player who is comfortable in the flight envelope of Boom and Zoom. And they better be too, cause the spit 25lbs can on boost climb 1300m even from low IAS and shoot you in the tail. So you have to use boost and you have to climb right to apex stall speed. In zoom climb on 4.11, I can put the TA 152 H1 in severe overheat in one pass, in three I can smoke the engine. That does not concord with the historical record of this Kurt Tank killer.

KG Alpha - I cant see a reason why you felt you needed to close the other thread. Your comments about read what is in the 4.11 patch notes make no sense if you dont agree with the accuracy of the patch.

WhistlinggDeath

01-26-2012, 05:13 PM

Also, there are only about ten people I can think of who can really put these flight models (from 4.10.1 or 4.11) right to the wall, and test things to the last one or two percent. Some dont fly now, so I will list the four or five I still seeing flying online, and perhaps gather their opinions as well.

=TRIDENT= (russian guy, full real... Master)
357th_ULTI (Swedish guy, full real .... high level Master)
FI_RAMBO (American guy, full real .... approaching Master)
JG27_Tazu (full real, ... approaching Master but often flies as a team)
somthing like CM_Shuan (English, flies usually Tempy, high level veteran)
AFJ_Panther (American, full real .... Master)

I know another five to ten guys but they dont fly any more or not enough to be truly dangerous. Check these guys for their opinions as well.

jermin

01-26-2012, 05:24 PM

As to your comments Zorin, disagree. Focke Wulf pilots who dive down on a tight turning spit, go for a high deflection shot and then zoom climb back up another 1800m very close to stall speed are doing exactly what the FW was built for. That is not the sign of a rubbish pilot, it is the sign of upper level player who is comfortable in the flight envelope of Boom and Zoom. And they better be too, cause the spit 25lbs can on boost climb 1300m even from low IAS and shoot you in the tail. So you have to use boost and you have to climb right to apex stall speed. In zoom climb on 4.11, I can put the TA 152 H1 in severe overheat in one pass, in three I can smoke the engine. That does not concord with the historical record of this Kurt Tank killer.

I guess he seldom flies BnZ online in dogfight servers, so please forgive his lacking knowledge of air combat tactics.

KG Alpha - I cant see a reason why you felt you needed to close the other thread. Your comments about read what is in the 4.11 patch notes make no sense if you dont agree with the accuracy of the patch.

+1

MicroWave

01-26-2012, 05:27 PM

...

Seems valid to me (busy since I got back to work, but will test a few of your results randomly when time permits). I do see the 185 M-71 and La7 as being relatively unaffected by overheating (what country did this patch come from again?). Although, your spit 25lbs data is enlightening.

...

We have members from all over the World, true Empire under the Sun.
Another piss into the wind comment by you.
Get your act together and someone might listen to you.

JG27_PapaFly

01-26-2012, 05:34 PM

Focke Wulf pilots who dive down on a tight turning spit, go for a high deflection shot and then zoom climb back up another 1800m very close to stall speed are doing exactly what the FW was built for.

I know exactly what you mean, WD, I've done gazzillion of zoomclmbs just the way you describe them. However, I doubt that WW2 FW, or any energy pilots for that matter, actually zoomed until very close to stall. I think they stopped their zooms earlier, probably at or even above best climb speed, because of following reasons:

1) Tactical considerations: being very slow at the very top of a zoombclimb one is extremely vulnerable. In those days, one never had the full situational awareness or controlled situations that we enjoy here. There was always the danger of a wildcard bandit doinking you at the top of your zoom. One example comes to mind: Bubi Hartmann scored one of his last kills on a Yak pilot who was part of a larger formation and was performing a looping, maybe in celebration of the nearing victory over Hitler. Bubi knocked the Yak out unseen, while it was slow and on its back, at the apex of the loop. Ingame i reserve maximum zoomclimbs to controlled situations where i am absolutely sure that nobody's going to sneak up on me. And i especially do so since the spit25lbs are around, these beasts can zoomclimb from ridiculously slow speeds and knock you out with a spray from 600m below you while you are very slow and reversing.

2) Plane controllability. A maximum zoomclimb calls for a reversal at very slow speed, this being a hammerhead or humpty-bumb. Now there are a few aerobatic maneuvers I've never ever seen a warbird do in reality: the tailslide, the hammerhead, the humpty-bump at very slow speed. All these maneuvers bear the risk of loosing control and spinning. I don't think that real warbirds have a controllability similar to our simulated planes in those conditions. FWs and mustangs had very harsh loaded power on stall characteristics. If i remember correctly, mustang pilots were advised never to slow down below 350kph when encountering FWs.

3) Engine overheat.

Most bnz attacks those days were hit and run. I've never read an account where pilots have repeatedly boomed-and-zoomed the same defensive opponent, going up and down as is often done ingame. The greatest asset of a fighter pilot was, will always be - surprize. After the first attack that advantage is gone.

JG27_PapaFly

01-26-2012, 05:38 PM

JG27_Tazu (full real, ... approaching Master but often flies as a team)

LOL glad you like JG27_Tazzu. I'm his and JG27_Tzon's teacher ;)

jermin

01-26-2012, 05:40 PM

Instead of some foul words like this, I'd like to see some real-life references from TD to proof what he said was that ridiculous.

Sent from my Milestone using Tapatalk

WhistlinggDeath

01-26-2012, 05:42 PM

We have members from all over the World, true Empire under the Sun.
Another piss into the wind comment by you.
Get your act together and someone might listen to you.

No disrespect, but if we are being honest, in the few (about six encounters) instances where I have met a development member of Team D whose name I can associate with an online callsign, while fighting online, they were flying late war spits and the 185 M-71.

There were only three 185s ever built during the whole of WWII, correct ?

swiss

01-26-2012, 05:45 PM

I guess he seldom flies BnZ online in dogfight servers, so please forgive his lacking knowledge of air combat tactics.
+1

I just made at least 5 Hammerheads in the h1, 5k-2k-5k-and so, on without the temp ever going over the 10 o'clock position.
Just switch wep off once in while, you'll have to reduce throttle anyway when you reach peak.

Maybe you can supply ntrk so other ppl can reproduce your findings. :confused:

WhistlinggDeath

01-26-2012, 05:46 PM

As to your comments Papa, I like em. I cant verify though whether real WWII pilots actually took it to a full apex climb very often. (I suspect, they did not, because no air force sent out lone wolfs on a hunt, lol. They likely flew just as JG27 does online in Grij Dedicado. In 2 to 5 plane flights commanded by a major and using team tactics. As correct as I suspect you are, reducing the FW flight models, puts a major dent in their lethality using 4.11, unless you really do fly always as a team (where one guy can always be cooling his engine , while another dives, and so on, ...).

WhistlinggDeath

01-26-2012, 05:47 PM

Great idea Swiss, give me a link where you wanted it posted ?

WhistlinggDeath

01-26-2012, 05:50 PM

As to JG27 Tazu, Papa. Fought him and many of the other JG27 guys on Grij Dedicado. Hard because I always fly solo (you can tell how powerful my diplomatic skills are at winning over new friends right ? :) ) So, very tough, bc its me, and some doofus who cant fly the P51 versus two to five guys all flying the Dora or Antons as they should be flown and using Teamspeak.

Tazu is the one I see who seems to be getting the groove of what it means to really put the Dora to its limits. Ask him his opinion.

swiss

01-26-2012, 05:51 PM

Great idea Swiss, give me a link where you wanted it posted ?

www.mediafire.com :confused:

WhistlinggDeath

01-26-2012, 05:54 PM

Great Swiss, at work at the moment, but tonight I will do the simple test I have already described and you guys take a look. Post that NTRK later today.

Jumoschwanz

01-26-2012, 06:13 PM

Most bnz attacks those days were hit and run. I've never read an account where pilots have repeatedly boomed-and-zoomed the same defensive opponent, going up and down as is often done ingame. The greatest asset of a fighter pilot was, will always be - surprize. After the first attack that advantage is gone.

Just like Hartmann and his "coffee break" he took after his first pass, he would pause and make sure what he was getting into before he went down for another pass.

I don't know why it is big news that patch 4.11 is different than patch 4.10? All the patches are different over the last ten+ years and sometimes your favorite aircraft gains a bit somewhere and sometimes it may lose a bit.

If someone has real WWII data, or personal experience in WWII or flying their own restored WWII fighter, then they could certainly be a big help by quietly submitting it to Team Daidalos to be incorporated into the next official patch they will patiently wait for right?

In the meantime the IL2 Aces, as usual, will quietly learn the few small things they have to about the new patch and they will get the same job done they have over the last decade.

Those incapable of this will take their usual software-based short-cuts......

FC99

01-26-2012, 06:17 PM

No disrespect, but if we are being honest, in the few (about six encounters) instances where I have met a development member of Team D whose name I can associate with an online callsign, while fighting online, they were flying late war spits and the 185 M-71.

There were only three 185s ever built during the whole of WWII, correct ?
Now I'm curious, who is that guy that flew I-185? :grin:

BTW what some player's plane choice on the server have to do with the game FM?

Zorin

01-26-2012, 07:18 PM

I know exactly what you mean, WD, I've done gazzillion of zoomclmbs just the way you describe them. However, I doubt that WW2 FW, or any energy pilots for that matter, actually zoomed until very close to stall. I think they stopped their zooms earlier, probably at or even above best climb speed, because of following reasons:

1) Tactical considerations: being very slow at the very top of a zoombclimb one is extremely vulnerable. In those days, one never had the full situational awareness or controlled situations that we enjoy here. There was always the danger of a wildcard bandit doinking you at the top of your zoom. One example comes to mind: Bubi Hartmann scored one of his last kills on a Yak pilot who was part of a larger formation and was performing a looping, maybe in celebration of the nearing victory over Hitler. Bubi knocked the Yak out unseen, while it was slow and on its back, at the apex of the loop. Ingame i reserve maximum zoomclimbs to controlled situations where i am absolutely sure that nobody's going to sneak up on me. And i especially do so since the spit25lbs are around, these beasts can zoomclimb from ridiculously slow speeds and knock you out with a spray from 600m below you while you are very slow and reversing.

2) Plane controllability. A maximum zoomclimb calls for a reversal at very slow speed, this being a hammerhead or humpty-bumb. Now there are a few aerobatic maneuvers I've never ever seen a warbird do in reality: the tailslide, the hammerhead, the humpty-bump at very slow speed. All these maneuvers bear the risk of loosing control and spinning. I don't think that real warbirds have a controllability similar to our simulated planes in those conditions. FWs and mustangs had very harsh loaded power on stall characteristics. If i remember correctly, mustang pilots were advised never to slow down below 350kph when encountering FWs.

3) Engine overheat.

Most bnz attacks those days were hit and run. I've never read an account where pilots have repeatedly boomed-and-zoomed the same defensive opponent, going up and down as is often done ingame. The greatest asset of a fighter pilot was, will always be - surprize. After the first attack that advantage is gone.

Thank you. Someone who actually knows what he is talking about.

WhistlinggDeath

01-26-2012, 07:41 PM

Papa, if you or your squad can while testing 4.11, see how long it takes you to get up to 11000m in Dora, TA and P51 (or just Dora). Seems it is taking me a longer time than in 4.10.1, especially once I get to about the 7k mark.

Jumoschwanz - Most days on Xfire and HL combined, there are less than 150 guys total flying in the harder servers. It aint the end of the world if WD dont get his way. The surf is always calling just two miles down the road. I will just keep ole 4.10.1 for duels with some top guys I have run into and lab mate fights and fly 4.11 when I visit other places and fly the 185 :)

If Team D is concerned about maintaining balance between the BnZ planes and the TnB ones, then I urge a bit of consideration. And not with the silly QMB AI or some doofus who swirls the P51 into the ground.

Swiss - Will get the NTRK out, but later tonight.

I will also have the recoded 4.10.1 version of the TA 152-H1 ready to go tonight for testing in 4.11. Whoever flies this TA will quickly beat the $#@! out of the poor sap who has to fly the stock 4.11 TA 152-H1. (to be released for testing to a few guys, and Papa, send me Tazu's email and I will send him a copy).

EJGr.Ost_Caspar

01-26-2012, 08:11 PM

Then the TA152 C is bugged, it overrevs in a dive ~2900rpm, independent from engine temp.

ntrk: http://www.mediafire.com/?9b4asyzzt25uyyz

The H1 seems to be ok.

I cannot get the -C over 2800rpm, and it doesn't get its engine killed, even in a full power +WEP 900km/h dive from 10000m.
If I put in manual propitch at 100% the engine dies in a few seconds at far over 3500rpm.

Couldn't check your track yet, though.

Ta152-H1 runs in a dive at 3300rpm with KG active.

IceFire

01-26-2012, 09:46 PM

Now I'm curious, who is that guy that flew I-185? :grin:

BTW what some player's plane choice on the server have to do with the game FM?

It's a conspiracy...that's why :D

IceFire

01-26-2012, 09:48 PM

Thanks PapaFly for taking the time to do this testing! I find objective testing that is repeatable is much more useful than anything else. It does confirm my earlier (and simpler) testing and shows that generally things seem to be as they should be...or at least certainly that no one plane has any real usable advantage. The I-185 does seem a bit on the odder side but then it's an odd plane... I never really see it these days.

WhistlinggDeath

01-26-2012, 09:48 PM

Just got in about 30 min over lunch with the P51 D-NT. What a mess. It went from an already fairly strong overheat model to overheat every single pass now if you push it above 90% power and pitch.

Just one or two swipes in a FW dogfight and I am in overheat all over the place. Overheat horizontal, overheat in seconds combat climbing, overheat even in a dive. I spend all my time just taking quick swipes and then exiting to circle while I drop pitch, rpms and throttle to cool back down.

Yes, I know, myriad posters will write in to say what a shtty pilot I am, etc....

...But, this is a bit much, no ?

WhistlinggDeath

01-26-2012, 10:13 PM

Got a phone interview set up for Friday with Glenn Holcomb. Went to school in Clay County, West Virginia. Entered Army Air Corps thru examination process for talented high school graduates. Attended OCS in Texas and flew B-17 bombers until late 1943. Retrained and started flying the P51 variants during the last half of 1944 and 45. Ended the war a captain, then got a college degree and flew for Delta Airlines until mandatory retirement age of 60, and currently lives just outside Medford, Oregon. His daughter tells me he is of sound mind and still golfs (although, slowly) at age 89.

Will post the interview here and the audio track at Mediafire when I finish.

IceFire

01-26-2012, 10:32 PM

Just got in about 30 min over lunch with the P51 D-NT. What a mess. It went from an already fairly strong overheat model to overheat every single pass now if you push it above 90% power and pitch.

Just one or two swipes in a FW dogfight and I am in overheat all over the place. Overheat horizontal, overheat in seconds combat climbing, overheat even in a dive. I spend all my time just taking quick swipes and then exiting to circle while I drop pitch, rpms and throttle to cool back down.

Yes, I know, myriad posters will write in to say what a shtty pilot I am, etc....

...But, this is a bit much, no ?

If you haven't already done so... maybe it's time to see a track of this happening. Because when I do what you describe I don't have the same problems. I still love flying the Mustang as it's just such a capable fighter.

Post it... lets have a look.

swiss

01-26-2012, 10:36 PM

Luno13

01-27-2012, 01:33 AM

I did. But I could not reproduce it in my game, not even once.

I don't think it is wise to compare an expensive and complicated aircraft engine system to a bargain light weapon.

1) Wait, so if you can't reproduce what's in the track I gave you, who's fault is that? Our games are the same, no? 4.11 stock, no?

Ok, why don't you give me your track. Maybe we can analyze it and see what you could be doing differently.

2) The mechanism is different, but the philosophy is the same: Low tolerances, simplicity in manufacture and maintenance, reliability. Don't pick nits.

jermin

01-27-2012, 01:43 AM

I highly doubt your ntrk was recorded in 4.10m because none of squadmates could reproduce it. Check your game instead.

Bearcat

01-27-2012, 02:24 AM

And also the La-7 - if you look at your chart.
So whats unique on these three planes - contrary to the others? ;)

Nice testing, BTW!

I don't know .. but that smiley tells me that there is a method to the madness.. care to elaborate for those who are chart challenged and just want to enjoy the product but need to have a better understanding of what they're dealing with?

IceFire

01-27-2012, 02:34 AM

I don't know .. but that smiley tells me that there is a method to the madness.. care to elaborate for those who are chart challenged and just want to enjoy the product but need to have a better understanding of what they're dealing with?

All of the ones on the chart with a slightly better tolerance to dealing with heat are .... equipped with radial engines. Its conventional wisdom that radials are more robust and I guess that's what is going on here as well. So they appear to all have a slightly different profile to heat resistance from the in-line engines.

WTE_Galway

01-27-2012, 03:21 AM

All of the ones on the chart with a slightly better tolerance to dealing with heat are .... equipped with radial engines. Its conventional wisdom that radials are more robust and I guess that's what is going on here as well. So they appear to all have a slightly different profile to heat resistance from the in-line engines.

Forget in-line versus radial.

Think air-cooled versus liquid-cooled.

IceFire

01-27-2012, 03:28 AM

Forget in-line versus radial.

Think air-cooled versus liquid-cooled.

I should have put it that way :)

Redroach

01-27-2012, 04:36 AM

Now I'm curious, who is that guy that flew I-185? :grin:

BTW what some player's plane choice on the server have to do with the game FM?

Delusional standard thinking of most conspiracy theorists.

TD has done a great job yet again and I sincerely hope that they don't deviate from their ways just because some wacko can't go full-open forever anymore. Things have been proven to function correctly now, please adopt a hard stance! Hell, I think that you've gone way to soft on the skip-bombing 'issue', where some (single-digit numbers) people raised hell about having to consider arming times now - but since it has been changed to optional and most people will of course run with that option on, that has come out okay for me.

Just please don't do it like the CoD 'devs' do... like 'listen' to some guy's cry about how the Merlin engine negative G cut-out is too much and the CoD team actually changing that, despite them being sure they were on the right track, resulting in lost realism for... well really, nothing.
The funny thing about those complaints is/was that in the CoD forums, a few posters got mad at nearly any issue and spewed posts all over the forums, giving the impression that they are somehow the most important faction - yet, whenever somebody put up a vote (I know, not the most reliable thing on earth, too), they lost every single one of them. Each. And. Every One. That somehow nicely proved the concept of "silent majority" :)

To repeat again: Please, TD, don't fall for 'loud' forum post(er)s!

jermin

01-27-2012, 04:59 AM

Sounds reasonable. But truth is usually seized by minority. Everything has two sides, we must look at it dialectially.

AndyJWest

01-27-2012, 05:00 AM

To repeat again: Please, TD, don't fall for 'loud' forum post(er)s!

Yup, +1 to that.

If you want TD to change anything, speak softly, and carry a big pile of evidence to back up your claims. And don't claim you know the 'right' answers - in a lot of cases, nobody does. There was a war on. Nobody had the opportunity to conduct the sort of tests that would be required to settle many of the arguments I've seen on forums anyway. How long can you run a Fw 190 A-6 (or whatever) in a full-throttle slow climb before the engine fails? Why would anyone want to know? Common sense says that you watch the instruments etc, and try to ensure it doesn't fail - failures aren't predictable to the extent that you should assume there is a 'safe limit', especially if you don't know the past history of the engine or airframe, or indeed whether your instruments are properly calibrated - trying to fly a plane right to the limits that the sim imposes on it is anything but realistic.

WTE_Galway

01-27-2012, 05:00 AM

Delusional standard thinking of most conspiracy theorists.

TD has done a great job yet again and I sincerely hope that they don't deviate from their ways just because some wacko can't go full-open forever anymore. Things have been proven to function correctly now, please adopt a hard stance! Hell, I think that you've gone way to soft on the skip-bombing 'issue', where some (single-digit numbers) people raised hell about having to consider arming times now - but since it has been changed to optional and most people will of course run with that option on, that has come out okay for me.

Just please don't do it like the CoD 'devs' do... like 'listen' to some guy's cry about how the Merlin engine negative G cut-out is too much and the CoD team actually changing that, despite them being sure they were on the right track, resulting in lost realism for... well really, nothing.
The funny thing about those complaints is/was that in the CoD forums, a few posters got mad at nearly any issue and spewed posts all over the forums, giving the impression that they are somehow the most important faction - yet, whenever somebody put up a vote (I know, not the most reliable thing on earth, too), they lost every single one of them. Each. And. Every One. That somehow nicely proved the concept of "silent majority" :)

To repeat again: Please, TD, don't fall for 'loud' forum post(er)s!

Despite a promising start and the amazing amount of effort put into the historical detail of things like airfields and cockpits unfortunately CoD has become almost totally a online point whore game. The posts about CoD seems mainly about online point whoring and online pvp seems to have precedence over historical accuracy, hence I own but never play it.

Whilst IL2 forums have traditionally also been dominated by online point whores (that sort of players seems to stalk forums more) it does have a better balance with offline players, WWII history nuts, current military pilots and even the odd real-life warbird owner/restorer chipping in to restore balance.

In IL2 you still get your regular dose of "0.50 cal could kill Tiger tanks and are porked in game" and "the P51 won the war so why can't I kill everyone online when I select it" threads but generally some sort of rationality kicks in.

WhistlinggDeath

01-27-2012, 05:02 AM

Interesting you should say 'silent majority' Red, cause I have a feeling that there is a sizable Boom n Zoom crowd who is a little bit afraid to speak out, since the patch is free.

I am not saying the patch is rubbish. Let' be clear. In my book , the more I work with it, the more I like. The improved AI, true 6DOF, numerous changes are spot on and long called for (and needed). Perhaps 70% of the patch is golden in my eyes. ...... (WD bends to one knee) Thank you.

As far as the well maintained balance needed for online combat and BnZ flight models, I think reconsideration is reasonable. Planes had to be carefully watched no doubt, but then there is no doubt too, that there are many times when balls to the wall full WEP was needed for more than 20 seconds as well. As to conspiracy I dont believe that, so dont put words in my mouth. I just believe the 185 M-71 is a UFO, and guess what ?

.... so does anyone else who flies online for more than one week and has read one air combat book about WWII. Three planes were built (some sources say four) during the entire WWII (and that is well known fact) and the Russians changed them on an almost daily basis until the project was dropped for LA development. How do you even take averages for a plane that has three prototypes and different cowlings, coolant, and tuning every day ? That is not conspiracy talk in my book.

Redroach

01-27-2012, 05:05 AM

I'd describe myself as a novice WWII history nut then :)
But yeah, those childish demands have a long history and they'll probably never die out; I just hope that rationality actually DOES kick in, as you say ^-^

Redroach

01-27-2012, 05:11 AM

As far as the well maintained balance needed for online combat and BnZ flight models, I think reconsideration is reasonable.

No, it's not! Proof and proof and proof again is right here in the forums!
And you get 'balance' over historical realism right over my cold, dead hands. Il-2 is not the game for perfect mirror-matches; just get that out of your head.

WhistlinggDeath

01-27-2012, 05:19 AM

Yeah Red, but we are to the point now in IL2 1946 development with so many patches that your 'historical realism' is someone else's incorrectly interpreted facts. Team D may have a history book somewhere that supports their version of the new TA they just neutered, while another book gives strong support to the performance given in patch 4.10.1.

Did you fly a TA 151-H1 in WWII ?

WhistlinggDeath

01-27-2012, 05:26 AM

And to Andy West and the folks who love everything about 4.11, I dont consider myself a 'loud' protestor. Until yesterday, I had never posted here at 1C in my life and my last post at Mission4Today was months ago. It is just a glaring anomaly in my book, this overheat model and reduction in the FW and TA flight models. You all enjoy it and eventually, if everyone believes it butters their bread, no sweat, ... use it on your server. If I stop on bye, I will use the 185 M-71 and continue with business as usual.

For my own server, hanging with 4.10.1 for awhile.

jermin

01-27-2012, 05:30 AM

Thousands of proofs are already there on the web. People who like warbirds don't necessarily play flight sims. Even those who do have provided tons of proofs during the 10+ years of IL2 development. Dig the old discussion threads on ubi forum and I promise you will be educated.

By the way, how many hours have you spent in this game (not only playing but also learning)?

Luno13

01-27-2012, 05:57 AM

I highly doubt your ntrk was recorded in 4.10m because none of squadmates could reproduce it. Check your game instead.

You're right, that's because it was recorded in 4.11m...

You asked for a track, and now you toss it aside as a hack? Come on, man.

And I didn't ask you to check your game, I asked you to review the track and check your technique. Our games are the same, rest assured.

Do you have to come over to my room and watch me play over my shoulder? Ask, and I can give you my address.

WhistlinggDeath

01-27-2012, 06:05 AM

Dont know if you saw Jermin, but will ask Mr Holcomb tomorrow in the interview. Also attempting to contact real surviving Dora or TA pilot in Germany (much harder go there as I dont speak much German).

My own experience is just at about the 3 year mark with perhaps an average of an hour a day with IL2 (mainly online) over say five days out of every seven. So, very roughly, maybe ~ 700 to 900 hours over 3 years.

ZaltysZ

01-27-2012, 06:27 AM

As far as the well maintained balance needed for online combat and BnZ flight models, I think reconsideration is reasonable.

If plane X fights plane Y, and plane X can repeatedly do BnZ (not just bounce once), then balance favors plane X, no matter how well plane Y can turn. If you ask for a plane, which should be able to do BnZ multiple times, you are not asking for balance.

I just believe the 185 M-71 is a UFO, and guess what ?

Well, Lerche is UFO too. :cool: Similarity between Lerche and I-185 is that they both are available mostly on airquake type servers, where history isn't important. The fact, that number of these planes are often higher on such servers than number of constructed planes in reality, says not to expect realism there. Is there really a point in fixing prototypes, which probably should not be in sim at all, given the scarce information about them? And, is it really correct to question validity of more common planes while using UFOs for comparison?

jermin

01-27-2012, 07:10 AM

Well, Lerche is UFO too. :cool: Similarity between Lerche and I-185 is that they both are available mostly on airquake type servers, where history isn't important. The fact, that number of these planes are often higher on such servers than number of constructed planes in reality, says not to expect realism there. Is there really a point in fixing prototypes, which probably should not be in sim at all, given the scarce information about them? And, is it really correct to question validity of more common planes while using UFOs for comparison?
Well said, but please, find me a decent populated stock CRT=2 server with real difficulty settings based on historical (or similar) missions. I'd be very happy to gather my long gone team mates to fly there. ;)

WhistlinggDeath

01-27-2012, 07:10 AM

Zalty - No one, including me, expects the Dora or TA to repeated BnZ a spit 25lbs. If you believe that is what I am communicating, then I am not clear. I am simply saying that in 4.10.1, with very careful energy use over ten to 20 mins, I could often (but not always) secure the upper hand. And even when I did, the low rate of fire of the cannon did not mean I always came out ahead or with the kill. And once I did set up a great pass or two, I would have to zoom away (or run, as my adversaries call it) and slowly work the ladder again.

In 4.11, that is happening no how and no way. Yeah, yeah, I know, I am a shtty pilot, who cannot use the TA correctly, and I am of low IQ, blah, blah. But, the TA has been badly neutered. As has the 44 Dora and P51 which overheats if I see an attractive lady on the ground now.

WhistlinggDeath

01-27-2012, 07:12 AM

BTW, just for fun, Jermin and I just met and we had some long, tough fights with alot of great tactics. I am seriously doubting there is anyone in Team D who can use their 4.11 TA 152 H1 to defeat his 4.10.1 TA 152 H1. :)

jermin

01-27-2012, 07:16 AM

@Luno: Why not post out your ntrk and let others judge for us?

BTW, you really got talents when it comes to dogfighting, WD. Haven't seen a good pilot like your for years. Nice flying!

swiss

01-27-2012, 07:47 AM

could you guys please supply ntrks with with overheating engines?
thx.

edit

Couldn't check your track yet, though.

Let me know when you did.

WhistlinggDeath

01-27-2012, 08:27 AM

Yes, I will Swiss, when I finish testing some of the stuff people put up in posts prior to yours. And get some sleep, lol.

This thread and the 4.11 patch are a bit like some part certified for NASCAR or Indy Cup use, where the engineer says, "Ohh yeah, this thing will take the torque right up till you get to 230 mph. It has been engineered to the highest principles and the titanium portion can take almost 2800 deg too". Then Tony Stewart or Dario Franchitti, take it out to the track and hit the first curve at 160 mph and the part blows thru the hood.

I was just told that 4.11 is all fine and dandy, by a man whose videos I go to see out of curiosity on Youtube, only to find that he is displaying his Focke Wulf skills against four AI planes in 4.11 and then spends more than half the video 100m off the ground flying in circles as he kills them in a boom and zoom aircraft. And this is the type of man criticizing me.

I rest my case.

ZaltysZ

01-27-2012, 08:31 AM

Luno13

01-27-2012, 08:34 AM

I posted this as a PM to Jermin since the other thread was closed, but since we still seem to want to discuss it:

Here you go:

http://www.mediafire.com/?x5cy6ovp89ing7u

Overheat warning appeared at about 2 minutes in.

First sign of trouble at about 10 minutes. Damage begins to set in progressively.

Complete shutdown at over 20 minutes.

Automatic P-pitch and radiator, as normal.

I hope this helps, S~

I just downloaded the track to check how it works, and it doesn't display the red "MW50!" message, but you can see the effect of it when power reaches 1.8 ATA. (Normal 110% power doesn't reach that manifold pressure).

A couple effects that appeared when I played in real time also don't appear in the Ntrk, but they look cool. I don't think I've seen them before :)

Everything else, from power settings and time-to-overheat, etc are exactly the same as when I played.

http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae325/rboiko1/IL-2%20Sturmovik/grab0008-1.jpg

Now Jermin, let's please see a track of your problem. Then maybe we can see what's wrong and help solve it.

MicroWave

01-27-2012, 10:50 AM

...

***EDIT***
I've just tested the TA152, FW190A6, SpitIX 25lbs, LA7 3xB20, F4U-1D and I-185 M71 inflight on the same map: max performance takeoff and climb at a constant 260kph IAS.
I used manually open rads on the TA, FW190 and I-185, auto rads for the spit.

Here are the times to overheat at 260kph IAS:

Plane_________time to overheat____notes__________________
TA152-H1........3'24''......................oil temp near upper limit
SpitIX 25lbs.....2'56''......................oil at 80°C, glycol at 110°C
FW190A6.........3'48''......................oil at less than 80°C
F4U-1D............3'52''.....................oil temp 80°C, cylinder head 200°C at overheat message
LA7 3xB20........3'48''......................oil temp is above 100°C from 1'56''on; cylinder head temp above 200°C at overheat message
I-185 M71........5'08''.....................oil temp is above 100°C from 2'08'' on; cylinder head temp above 200°C at overheat message

Something seems to be wrong with the I-185. For one, it overheats on the ground just like any other plane, but much later in the air.
While most other planes overheat when the oil has 80°C, the I-185's oil temps hits the end of the dial (125°C) before the overheat occurs. At that stage, the cylinder head has well above 200°C. This behavior is very different from that of other radial engine fighters in the test (F4U, FW190A). The LA7 also shows that oil temp increase, but the overheat message comes earlier, at almost the same time with the FW190A and F4U.

Maybe someone from TD could explain why the I-185 is different?
***EDIT END***

Cheers

First of all thank you for performing such tests.
Since you've already proven that RPMs are the main factor in generating heat (also stated in the manual), my guess is (without testing) that I-185 engine can maintain fairly low RPM for the target speed.
I have no idea if that is realistic, but that's probably the situation for v4.11 I-185. As already mentioned, this type (and his evil twin sister) fall into category of 'what if' planes. I was able to find the readme for 2.0x patch clearly stating so:
http://ubisoft.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/9857/~/il2-aep-v2.04-patch.
But this 'what if' adjective applies to the plane itself, from what I gathered the engine was not that special and might have been used by other, serial production planes. Maybe this unusual behavior can be replicated on those planes, too? This would be more serious problem, but hopefully there is sufficient documentation floating around which would help to rectify the problem (if indeed there is a problem).
Regarding the temperature redouts, I'm not sure which one you should actually monitor (oil_in?, oil_out? whatever) and the dials might show wrong values. It would be better to use devicelink to actually read ingame variables. Dials are individual for each plane and there is usually some small function converting actual temperatures to angles. There could easily be a bug on the dial (wrong function from T->angle), while actual temperatures are OK.

And finally a disclaimer:
I'm no engine expert and no expert on aviation history and I have never performed any serious FM tests.
If anything of what I just said makes no sense or is wrong, feel free to blame it on my ignorance.

FC99

01-27-2012, 11:57 AM

Just please don't do it like the CoD 'devs' do... like 'listen' to some guy's cry about how the Merlin engine negative G cut-out is too much and the CoD team actually changing that, despite them being sure they were on the right track, resulting in lost realism for... well really, nothing.

There is a big difference between COD and Il2, Il2 has run its course and it doesn't make much difference for 1C will they sell 100 copies or 101 copies this year.
That gives us freedom to do things we think are right without being pressed by accountants and their profit margins.

OTOH COD has to make money, lot of money went into development and they have to make compromises. All of the commercial sims make compromises, make no mistake about it. They might be advertised as realistic and hardcore but they never are, none of them. When push comes to shove every developer will do what they have to do to turn biggest possible profit and that mean, satisfy your average customer.

DT doesn't have to do that, I can't say or promise that we will not make mistakes in development but I can assure you that balance or red and blue bias are not parts of our vocabulary. We will never deliberately do the wrong for the sake of balance,never.

FC

jermin

01-27-2012, 12:16 PM

I remember Oleg has once said so before. But the truth is that right now blue is severely porked in European theater when compared to their real-life counterparts.

WTE_Galway

01-27-2012, 12:32 PM

By the way, question to DT: does MW50 (or similiar system) has additional effects on engine, or it is just a switch for higher boost/rpm in this engine management model? In other words: has MW50 any significance (like removing heat) in your temperature equations?

If DT have added engine cooling effects it would be hoped they are almost unnoticeable because real life MW50 was an antidetonation technique to allow higher boost together with some anti-corossion and the additional cooling provided was minimal.

jermin

01-27-2012, 01:08 PM

Check your source please.

GF_Mastiff

01-27-2012, 01:49 PM

Nice work PAPA!

Redroach

01-27-2012, 04:04 PM

There is a big difference between COD and Il2, Il2 has run its course and it doesn't make much difference for 1C will they sell 100 copies or 101 copies this year.
That gives us freedom to do things we think are right without being pressed by accountants and their profit margins.

OTOH COD has to make money, lot of money went into development and they have to make compromises. All of the commercial sims make compromises, make no mistake about it. They might be advertised as realistic and hardcore but they never are, none of them. When push comes to shove every developer will do what they have to do to turn biggest possible profit and that mean, satisfy your average customer.

DT doesn't have to do that, I can't say or promise that we will not make mistakes in development but I can assure you that balance or red and blue bias are not parts of our vocabulary. We will never deliberately do the wrong for the sake of balance,never.

FC

Yeah, I understand that, and that's why quite a few games I liked once are going steeply downhill because of some kids/seniors/mentally handicapped people screaming for (over-)simplification at the top of their lungs.
For me, personally, tweaking the game for people like this may win over some clients in the near-term, but will be very harmful in the longer term. But that's not the place to discuss that.
What I wanted to say is that exactly because of this, I reverted to Il-2. And what I wanted to express is that I deeply hope that TD's attitude vis-a-vis historicity stays the way it is... otherwise, the WWII combat sim genre will die out for me because I have nowhere else to go >.<

K_Freddie

01-27-2012, 04:15 PM

My own experience is just at about the 3 year mark with perhaps an average of an hour a day with IL2 (mainly online) over say five days out of every seven. So, very roughly, maybe ~ 700 to 900 hours over 3 years.
Hmmm! I'm looking at around 5000 hours over about 5 years.. and there are some here that have more than that... ;)

With all the whining going.. on does anyone ever bother to just go up and practise with the new models - just get out there and do it.. :)

Snake

01-27-2012, 07:10 PM

WhistlinggDeath

01-27-2012, 07:44 PM

K Freddie - Yes, I am flying patch 4.11 during some breaks to see its good and bad points thoroughly. The Dora 45 can be managed, but the 44 Dora, Mustangs, and poor TA overheat if I fill up my cup with hot coffee.

MaxGunz

01-27-2012, 08:31 PM

If you don't let your speed drop to near stall on climbout then you'd be able to maneuver enough to be hard to hit.

What speeds did the test pilots fly when setting time to high-alt records from ground?

And I note, as usual the B&M not backed by comparison to historic methods and data but rather contrived "what I gets".

WhistlinggDeath

01-27-2012, 11:00 PM

shauncm

01-28-2012, 01:31 AM

hi everyone, this is my first post so please dont bite my head off!

firstly i would like to say thanks to everyone involved in keeping this great game going! it is incredible that after all this time this game is still the definitive WW2 combat sim. it is testement to the hours spent by so many people who try to keep this game up to date and enjoyable for everyone :)

i wouldnt normally post, but seeing that ive been mentioned:

4.11 !

its a mixed blessing from my point of view. i like to fly the tempest. i consider it an underdog plane against some of the more popular aircraft...(la7, i-185, spit25).
it is difficult to fly. it can and does bite. sadly for all its speed and firepower it is rather heavy and with a laminar flow wing it tends to have a sharp stall.

although i dont know as much about aerodynamics as some people, i consider this realistic. since i started flying it as my favourite aircraft about a year ago i have always had to deal with overheating problems. with the previous versions it was simplified, (keep it just below overheating and when you engage the enemy you have 4 minutes of 'cooking time')...simple enough. this teaches you to use the radiator, and the prop pitch (revs) properly. combine this with the supercharger settings and a manoeverability disadvantage and you have a unique ride.

from my understanding the tempest is best used as an energy fighter, but online battles are a different kettle of fish to reality. i tend to rely on stealth and speed. i think the tempest can do in the horizontal what a fw190 can do in the vertical. as things have changed since 4.10.1 i will explain how i flew.

(close range enemy only icons, else full real)...grj dedicado, spits vs 109's

assuming a close in fight, i would take off and climb to 2 thousand feet. pick up speed to 250 mph, and then dive to the deck using height to gain speed up to 570 kph.
on the deck i pitched back to 60 percent prop pitch, (2800 revs), which allowed me to maintain speed and boost without overheating, (radiator closed). i would try to keep my "G's" below 2 and find a target at long range. sometimes you can tell by their flight profile. if i found someone i would climb if neccessairy using full power..(9lb boost, 3750 revs) and take a shot. by the time youve attacked an aircraft the engine is hot.

back to 4.11, although the engine runs at high rpm there are ways to deal with it. i find i have to watch the radiator and oil temperature a lot more, and depending on which is too hot my corrective actions are different. i consider 2800 revs as standard whilst using 3750 as emergency...(like for a quick acceleration or the top of a high yoyo to pick up speed again).
i dont have a problem with the way the tempest flys. i think its an incredible aircraft which works well in a team. i do worry about the superplanes though. i was hoping that to get the best out of those aircraft the pilots would have to learn to manage prop pitch, radiator, throttle and supercharger.

if i am to be completely honest i dont know what i would suggest. ive met a lot of pilots who say that 'they dont look at their instruments'. given how often i need to check mine i wonder if linking the (wep/boost engaged) and (overheat) messages to the speed bar toggle in 'difficulties' would make a difference.

thanks for mentioning me WD, im sorry to say i dont know much about the planes you are discussing. i think i need to fly 411 some more.

WhistlinggDeath

01-28-2012, 03:52 AM

I only mention those I thought could really fly and still are. I always enjoyed fights with you in the past Shaun (as have my lab mates), keep fighting and keep advancing. As to the Tempy Shaun, its FM (flight model) has not changed that much in 4.11, and it is not as badly affected by the overheating model as say the P51 or TA 152. Catch you in the skies soon (hopefully with me on your six, hehe :)

MrBaato

01-28-2012, 12:45 PM

I don't see the problem with 'overheating', it's just a warning let it overheat till you feel like cooling it down again.

I myself am starting to enjoy this engine managed more and more. You actually have to enter a fight with a cooled down engine so it doesn't overheat instantly when you power it up. Whistelingdeath, I can't tell but perhaps you are cruising on the edge of overheating.

About the prototype planes, I know TD doesn't want to model engine reliability because of the frustration it might evoke. But planes like the I-185 suffered so much from it in real life that IMO it just isn't right how it performes in game. Same for the ki84 C version. There are alot of 'all planes enabled' servers out there, with these types in a dominant role. Prototype planes remained in that fase because they had issues, model them ;)

shauncm

01-28-2012, 12:54 PM

i just spent an hour writing about the mustang and how to do bnz apex climbs with the new engine managment.

the forum 'lost' it when i had to log in again. i am a bit annoyed.

well, nm

for anyone who is interested:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/48389272/Mustang-Mk1-pilots-notes

of particular interest is the power curve graph at the end.

shauncm

01-28-2012, 01:15 PM

I myself am starting to enjoy this engine managed more and more. You actually have to enter a fight with a cooled down engine so it doesn't overheat instantly when you power it up.

you didnt fly the tempest in 4.10.1 then, :-P

IceFire

01-28-2012, 02:07 PM

MrBaato

01-28-2012, 02:43 PM

you didnt fly the tempest in 4.10.1 then, :-P

who needs full power in a tempest anyway, unless you want to take off like a helicopter :-P

Snake

01-28-2012, 04:54 PM

shauncm

01-28-2012, 09:01 PM

whistlinggdeath> i know nothing about the TA152, so i cant comment on it, but i have occaisionally flown the p51 on spits verses 109's

in the past i found that as long as i kept the engine revs in the green band...aka prop pitch at 60 percent, i could fly fast without overheating even at high manifold pressures. since 4.11 this machine seems to have become very hot at low altitudes. when i tried the mustang III it really surprised me, i mean after all its the same engine as a spit IX (i think)...

when we have flown against each other in the past it has generally been between 'down on the deck' and 15000 feet. this is where the mustang and p51 overheat most.

at 20000 feet and above it seems to stay cool a lot better. i think this is because of the air temperature being lower up there...(dry adiabatic lapse rate)... i would go as far as to say that the performance of a p51 is directly linked to the outside air temperature. (the p51D has a carb-air-temp sensor).

at ground level the OAT might be 20 degrees C. the P51 overheats at 120 giving a 100 degree difference.
at 20000 feet the OAT would be about MINUS 20 degrees C. this gives a 140 degree C difference.

if anyone here has done any overclocking they will know that hot air isnt very good for cooling!

at 20000 feet there is a lot less airflow, but the air is colder. basicly is there too much temperature influence and not enough flow influence? i dont know, ive never flown a p51...

on a slightly different note; when i was trying to figure out how to fly this P51 monster, i tried a lot of different combinations of manifold pressure and revs. i found that between about 13000 and 17000 the supercharger would keep switching between high and low mode. i think its because as the revs drop the MP drops causeing the supercharger to shift up a gear. this causes the revs and MP to increase causeing the supercharger to shift down again.

my question is; given that the p51 seems to have an auto and manual high and low speed, can this be implemented? it is starting to make a lot of difference now with the new thermal model.

this may be a sore point to some, but could it be that the p51 is just outclassed by a lot of planes? dont get me wrong it was an incredible design, but compared to a 25lb spit or a la7, is it best used as a target bouy... after all the bf109 like the spit were best used as homeland defence aircraft. incredible performance but short range. the p51 could goto berlin and back....i dont know. all im saying is maybe the servers we fly on are geared towards the superplanes that people seem to want to fly. if this is the case i hope it stays the same way. a lot of people like to fly the spits and although in a 1v1 i cant hope to beat a 25lb spit, im greatful that i am given a tempest to fly on that server :)

i really like this new patch. its made IL2 yet more realistic. having to watch the gauges and diagnose the engine problems really brings planes like the tempest to life. it would be nice to see more people migrate towards challenging aircraft that need constant adjustment to get the best out of. spits and la's seem a bit too 'plug and play for my likeing'.

as for the tempest being a helicopter.. well in previous versions of the game and mods maybe, but the stock tempest is a 5000 kilo lump of metal fitted with a cutting edge, state of the art, avgas furnace kicking out 1.6 megawatt.---"wake up and smell the oil fumes!!"

Pips

01-28-2012, 10:05 PM

So with 4.11 temperature becomes critical. Yet in the game only the radiator can be adjusted, not oil. Are the two linked? I

Is there a plan for having a seperate oil cooler rad in another patch down the track?

JtD

01-28-2012, 10:07 PM

shauncm

01-28-2012, 10:32 PM

The P-51 most certainly isn't outclassed by anything prop driven. I'm pretty sure that I've been scoring 3+ kills per sortie average, frequently 5 or more with it over the last year or even longer, and very rarely been shot down. It's a great plane.

JtD>
i am happy that you disagree with me! it may be a personal question but what tactics do you use, how do you fly it? i would be nice to hear from someone that flies it regularly!

Pips>
in cliffs of dover i seem to remember the bf110 having seperate oil and coolant radiators. also i think that the tempest oil and coolent systems both run through the nose 'scoop'. if you are asking a general question about how to manage the oil temprature, then the answer would be to manage revs and power. if you are asking about a plane where the two systems are separate, i have no idea and someone else needs to answer!

Luno13

01-28-2012, 10:40 PM

In the game they are tied together, but I think they could be controlled separately.

fruitbat

01-28-2012, 11:07 PM

Strange, i'm yet to blow up a single engine up in 4.11, despite flying co-ops in 4.11 most nights since release.

What am i doing wrong?

IceFire

01-28-2012, 11:09 PM

JtD>
i am happy that you disagree with me! it may be a personal question but what tactics do you use, how do you fly it? i would be nice to hear from someone that flies it regularly!

Pips>
in cliffs of dover i seem to remember the bf110 having seperate oil and coolant radiators. also i think that the tempest oil and coolent systems both run through the nose 'scoop'. if you are asking a general question about how to manage the oil temprature, then the answer would be to manage revs and power. if you are asking about a plane where the two systems are separate, i have no idea and someone else needs to answer!

I can't speak for JtD but we do sometimes fly together and I think our styles are similar. I fly the Mustang like I fly the Tempest but I should say that my style is a bit different for the Mustang.

1) Altitude is really important for the Mustang. Maybe more than most late war fighters. The Mustang has less power and typically greater weight (unless you really drop back the fuel load) than some of its opponents so you need to start with some sort of energy advantage. Altitude is easiest but speed is good too. Against some of the real climb monsters you want to avoid getting low and enabling them to climb up above you.

2) Fly "smoothly". This is harder to describe but it's something I learned to do playing Air Racing servers. Minimal control inputs except when desired is the key to this style of flight. I don't make sudden movements...everything is very calm and controlled whereas before I used to fly much more harshly. The Mustang benefits from this because of it's sudden stall (laminar flow wings and the weight of the aircraft tend to exacerbate this) and because it's aerodynamics matter more than anything else.

3) In combat I will often fly the lag pursuit style of maneuvering. I won't match an enemy aircraft move for move like I might in a Yak or early 109. Instead I use overhead yo-yo and lag pursuit to position myself for a shot.

4) When managing the engine I tend to use the radiator controls manually. Some aircraft I'm very content with using the automatic method but in the Mustang I'm very proactive instead. If I go into a zoom climb I close it for smallest drag profile. In level flight I may open it to halfway.

If I'm cruising or fighting at speed I'll drop the RPM (prop pitch) but in a climb and in some dive situations I'll ramp up the RPM. I did this before the 4.11 patch came out but I find that my technique has changed very little as I focus on keeping a cool engine for as long as possible... when it does overheat it's because I intentionally put the throttle through the WEP gate and that I really want that extra burst of speed.

5) Effective gunnery is really important in the Mustang. I tend to make most of my kills in a single pass. Two passes if necessary. My convergence with a Mustang is a bit closer in (if I remember) at 250 meters. I go for a high speed and angled shot rather than a dead 6 shot if I can. This is easier with human pilots as they tend to turn in evasive while the AI will sometimes fly straight with a greater degree of discipline than many human pilots.

My best sorties in a Mustang will usually net a couple of kills depending on the server and settings. My absolute best was on Warclouds more than a few years ago where I fly a P-51D-20 and scored 4 (plus one damaged) during a furball. I spent no more than a few seconds on each target and then broke away.

The Mustang is sometimes a frustrating fighter to fly. If you get used to flying other types that are more agile and more of a turn fighter that you can chuck around like the earlier 109 types or maybe the Spitfire then the Mustang can be difficult. You can't chuck it around the sky in the same way. I tend to use the rudder much less as you can really cause some bad stall situations with hard rudder use while rolling. With the FM correction to the P-51D stability in 4.10 it's gotten a bit easier but it's basically the same deal as it was before with just a little more forgiveness.

In my head it all comes down to this. The Mustang has 1500ish horsepower. Similar to a Spitfire IX. Yet the top speed of a Mustang is similar to a Spitfire XIV with 2000 hp. It doesn't have the climb rate of the later Spitfire so... what the Mustang can't achieve through engine horsepower, it achieves with some of the best aerodynamic design around. Laminar flow designed wings, lowest drag coefficient of any USAAF fighter in WWII (and certainly up there with any from any nation). So whenever I fly it, my focus is always on maintaining that aerodynamic flow and using the aerodynamics for zoom climbs and staying fast.

Sorry for the essay. I hope it helps a bit?

WhistlinggDeath

01-28-2012, 11:22 PM

Shaun, will comment on your other notes in a bit, (typing from a tablet on a boat in the harbor so a bit funny), but as to the P51, Tempy etc, ... just remember, your not downshifting or 'flying' anything. You are making responses to computer code that is written to represent someone's version of what they think the P51 flies like, and that code is discrete (in the mathematical sense of meaning phase transition endpoints). No ambiguity. When I look at the source code for the additions in 4.11 it is not that advanced as you are imagining. And as much as I like your development towards IL2 Master status, cant agree with you on the P51 being weak because it was not a 'home-defense' fighter. It was a Grade A, superlative killing machine, as long as correctly used in a boom and zoom fashion (not that many online can do that correctly). I worked a bit this morning on making some Ntrks of my P51 in action and the TA. I am in overheat all over the place, and within seconds of the actual fight starting. This just doesnt gel with what some of these WWII aviation history nuts are telling me.

More on your other comments later, when I get back to land.

BadAim

01-29-2012, 01:47 AM

Strange, i'm yet to blow up a single engine up in 4.11, despite flying co-ops in 4.11 most nights since release.

What am i doing wrong?

You're using historical flying techniques of course, you charlatan! Your kind is not welcomed here, and your common sense will not be tolerated!!!!

BURN THE WITCH!!!!

Sorry, couldn't help myself. :)

shauncm

01-29-2012, 02:29 AM

You're using historical flying techniques of course, you charlatan! Your kind is not welcomed here, and your common sense will not be tolerated!!!!

BURN THE WITCH!!!!

Sorry, couldn't help myself. :)

lol!!!

>icefire, whatever you take the time to write i will go through with a fine tooth comb. if im lucky i will find something that saves my (virtual) life one day :)

>whistlinggdeath, the same applies. maybe one day it will put me on your six!

WTE_Galway

01-29-2012, 05:04 AM

It was a Grade A, superlative killing machine, as long as correctly used in a boom and zoom fashion (not that many online can do that correctly).

Lets not start yet another "P51 won the war" versus " no it didn't that was just Hollywood" thread.

Somehow those debates always deteriorate and end up in a US versus rest of the world bun fight with no connection to historical WII facts and figures on either side.

JtD

01-29-2012, 05:53 AM

JtD>
i am happy that you disagree with me! it may be a personal question but what tactics do you use, how do you fly it? i would be nice to hear from someone that flies it regularly!

I fly on a server where you can expect to have at least semi-historical plane sets - contemporary planes, from the proper sides. So I don't have to take it up against Spitfires and La-7's, only against Bf 109's, Fw 190's or Ki-84's.

Generally, I only engage if I have the advantage. I disengage if I don't. The good thing about the P-51 is that it is fast, and allows you to disengage very easily in a shallow high speed dive.

Also, it is great at high altitude, so if someone wants to deny me the altitude advantage, he'll have to climb up into my playground. There I can defeat him even without an altitude advantage.

I usually fly the P-51 loaded with about 50% fuel at 90% pitch, 99% power, rads closed at higher speeds. I open the radiator for extended low speed climbs over friendly territory. I go all out when I need to run, no use in getting shot down with a brand new engine. Better to rtb with a wrecked one. My convergence is usually set to 150 .. 200.

I know the opposition very well, I fly all planes frequently. I for instance know which planes I can outdive, which I can outclimb, which altitudes I am faster at and so on. I also know that the 109 manoeuvrability sucks at high speed, and that there's no way it can follow me through high speed scissors. Listing details like that is a bit too much to do here. I can only recommend to look at data given in il-2 compare, memorise it and use it.

In most cases, I fly like IceFire already described - hit and run or B'n'Z or energy fighting, with gentle control input. I try to maintain a high speed and a good altitude. I don't blow my advantage in order to follow a bandit through a tight turn, in which I'd only black out anyway. I rather use repeated passes, and if the guy is just too good at dodging repeated passes, I'll just leave him where he is going to look for an easier target.

Most people that realise that you're not pushing things will get lazy with their defence. Also many folks have a single favourite evasive manoeuvre, which they will perform every time you show up on their six. So with every pass you do, they'll be an easier target.

And now the fun fact - the P-51 can dogfight fairly well. If you're low on fuel, it is absolutely possible to beat a 109 or a 190 in a dogfight, I've done so numerous times. You shouldn't take on a 109G-2, but G-6 and later usually works out OK, as do 190ies. You have to be aware that once you have slowed down to the 109 speed, it can regain speed and altitude quicker than you, so if you need to disengage, dive. If you instead of going into a zoom climb go into a lag pursuit mode as IceFire said, you can come down on his 6 fairly quickly again. Usually, this catches the bad guy off guard, but even if not, your speed is still superior and with combat flaps, you should have little trouble following him through a number of manoeuvres. Don't get too close, you may overshoot, and abort when you still have a chance.

Anyway, all of the above may sound as if the P-51 was a killing machine for the lone wolf, but it is not. Most of my kills I achieve when cooperating with team mates, may they want that or not. A bandit focussed on turning with someone else, easy meat. A bandit zooming up in a fight with someone else, easy meat again. A bandit recovering from an evasive manoeuvre flown to dodge someone else's attack, easy meat. A guy flying straight while chasing a team mate, easy meat. You get the picture - fast planes all are OK on their own, but _extremely_ good when flown even loosely in some sort of team work. The P-51 is no exception. And in that kind of combat, it leaves the performances of Spitfires and La-7's far behind. Dive speed, high speed manoeuvring, high speeds - that's what counts and what the P-51 is clearly better at than the other two.

shauncm

01-29-2012, 12:38 PM

JtD > thanks for taking the time to write all that! i think im starting to see where the difference in flying styles is here.

it seems that both [icefire] and [jtd] fly significantly more horizontal than what whistlinggdeath describes. although you use energy tactics you stay fast. i get the impression that you keep your high yoyo's in a 45 to 60 degree plane of motion, whilst whistlinggdeath makes me think of vertical hammerhead turns when he talks about apex climbs.

icefire and jtd, you seem to fly team versus team.
whistlinggdeath, you seem to duel more.

if you know that there is only one enemy about you can afford to win the fight by holding in the vertical until the last possible moment. on a server with imperfect situational awareness this is risky.

apex climbs and hammerheads seem to be about the worst possible thing to do with an engine. your really slow for a very long time, whilst using high power levels. in a way you are stall fighting. the spitty needed very big radiators to be able to do that.

i also get the impression that you are working different height bands. the air at 20000 feet is 40 degrees celsius colder than at ground level. from what i have read IL2 models outside air temperature effects.

since 4.11 every plane is a little bit slower. there is a greater difference between peak speed and max sustained speed. from playing about offline it seems like both the tempest and spit25 are about 30 to 40 kph slower. speed is life, height is life-insurance but temperature is offensive capability.

i remember a quote;
"The engine is overheating, and so am I. Either we stand down or blow up"
i think that was from a bunch of p51's sitting on the runway waiting to take off. if the p51 overheated at idle on the runway, a power-on minimum speed apex turn is going to get hot real quick.

in a fair match any of you guys could beat me. i win online because im sneaky. i either use stealth or fool people into thinking i pose less of a threat than i actually do. i consider you all far more knowledgeable about the p51 than i am. my personal interest in this thread is because i think il2 is an incredible simulator and i want to see it keep developing. there are some modern 'simulators' that still cant model stalls, spins and sideslips properly.

i guess the questions are;
what changes are we asking for?
what suggestions do we have for the developers with regard to engine temperature?

WhistlinggDeath

01-29-2012, 01:00 PM

JtD

01-29-2012, 01:25 PM

It's true, shauncm, I usually do not go up into hammerhead turns. Sometimes I do, but that is supposed to be the exception. Like you say, going that slow on a dogfight server is quite risky.

I'm not necessarily fighting team vs. team, I duel, too. But I don't duel until one side is dead, I usually duel as long as I am comfortable doing so. I try to stay alive, and only thereafter to achieve a kill.

Regarding the air temperature at high altitude, yes, it is colder, but it also is thinner. This about evens out for water cooled planes. If you look at cooling data, you'll find the differences between high and low altitude are not that big.

Being sneaky is a valuable skill, it's never good to offer the enemy a fair fight, he might win that one. ;)

WhistlinggDeath

01-29-2012, 01:29 PM

Btw JtD, your notes above on P51 use are pretty much dead on. Post that in a thread over at Mission4Today.com in the tactics and gameplay section to help out all the other North Americans wondering why the vaunted P51 does poorly in IL2.

schnorchel

01-29-2012, 01:35 PM

I remember Oleg has once said so before. But the truth is that right now blue is severely porked in European theater when compared to their real-life counterparts.
no need to follow their rule. it is just game and made by russian, just quit, no one plays german side anymore. let this game's online play die out.

Snake

01-29-2012, 01:51 PM

I think your track doesn't show anything! :(

WhistlinggDeath

01-29-2012, 01:56 PM

Works just for me. I even downloaded it to make sure manually.

Snake

01-29-2012, 01:58 PM

I do play German side and there are a lot of guys playing quite professional on the German side!

fruitbat

01-29-2012, 01:59 PM

Hahahahaha, I remember Oleg getting it from all angles, the russians saying the blue planes were to good, the blue fliers saying red was to good.

everyones an expert.

Snake

01-29-2012, 02:00 PM

Works just for me. I even downloaded it to make sure manually.

I meant it doesn't prove anything! I never dive in a Ta at full throttle!

shauncm

01-29-2012, 02:03 PM

the following is wrong. please disregard. there was an error in the manual, it confuses the oil and coolant gauges...

ok, i had a look at the track and im starting to see what you mean.

the overheat message is triggerded by the oil temperature being too hot, the coolant is fine.

for most planes you can reduce this problem by lowering the revs, but the 190 d9 and ta152 seem to have some major problems here.

you have to take the engine off auto prop pitch and fly with prop pitch set to zero! this seems dumb.

swiss

01-29-2012, 02:04 PM

rad is closed too. :confused:

Snake

01-29-2012, 02:09 PM

I think all the guys complaining here just need to do some reading on how to implement tactics in this simulator and find a person to form up a team. One thing is for sure: the lone wolf era is gone!!

WhistlinggDeath

01-29-2012, 02:11 PM

I'm going back to bed Swiss, but you dont need the rad open for only one dive. Set PP to manual and then to zero ?!!! ? Wth ?

No TA 152 ever overheated a brand new engine in 15 seconds !!!

What this amounts to is plane and simple (lets put all the little distractions to the side),

THE OVERHEAT MODEL IS MESSED UP, ..... BADLY.

MrBaato

01-29-2012, 02:18 PM

Did you just smash your keyboard? How old are you lol

If you don't like the patch, don't install it. If you are trying to get something improved, be reasonable :???:

Snake

01-29-2012, 02:19 PM

WD, you didn't answer two questions: what's your nickname on grijdedicado and where is your WD famous server?

WhistlinggDeath

01-29-2012, 02:24 PM

Baato, - Okay, just to for your sake, I will again ask nicely then;

Kindly, dear sirs, what 'engineer' (s) made this patch ?

Snake - My server is up from roughly 7 PM to 12 AM PST (Pacific Time -US), Monday thru Friday and sometimes weekends. It is not famous and many dont like it because it is full real, some very hard opponents and most people get their azz shot clean off when they show up (and that includes me as well :) ). My callsign on Grij is of course WhistlinggDeath, and some special ones I use when I am testing something out.

More folks will likely follow with their historical manuals in tow, but for me, it is bed time gents. GN

swiss

01-29-2012, 02:26 PM

Just tried the Yak9U, it overheats just as fast.
Now reminding the Ta is easy to fly while the 9 is one mean SOB, I think is fair enough.

With every patch this game gets a lot more difficult, in the beginning it's always a pita, but once you adapt you'll love it.
It also requires you to constantly change your style. Trust me, you have no idea how p.o. i was when they introduced the 2sec fuses.
Made me switch to BK, today I'm an export on it. Guess I should say; thank you TD.

jermin

01-29-2012, 02:27 PM

WD does have a point. MW50 should be able to be running for 10 minutes continuously. After that the engine should rest for at least 5 minutes to prevent potential damage. Then the MW50 can be engaged for another 10 minutes.

All aircrafts equipped with MW50 have the same overheating problem as the TA.

shauncm

01-29-2012, 03:08 PM

ok, sorry, i didnt realise that the manual is actually wrong. it seems that in the aircraft guide the coolant and oil temperature gauges are labeled back to front. the left gauge is actually coolant, not oil...sorry!

once i realised that it was the coolant overheating rather than oil, i opened the radiator and backed off on power.

whoops!

when i said fly at zero prop pitch i was talking about the H model with the variable pitch propellor, the C model is different.

FC99

01-29-2012, 03:18 PM

WD does have a point. MW50 should be able to be running for 10 minutes continuously.
Unless you exceed max RPM allowed. 10 minutes MW50 limit doesn't mean that some of the other limitations will not kick in first( engine or coolant temperature, revs).

For those who judge people by their nationality I can only say that there is more Germans than Russians in DT, ratio is something like 4:1.

FC

jermin

01-29-2012, 03:33 PM

IceFire

01-29-2012, 04:09 PM

IceFire

01-29-2012, 04:29 PM

The link below is for Swiss and Icefire (and others interested). The methodology is simple; I load up 4.11, start the QMB on the Okinawa map, start in the TA 152 H1 at 1000m of height, and fly for exactly one minute (so that the random number generator of 4.11 does not start my engine hot or cold), and then slowly ramp up power from 90% to 110% (all this on auto prop pitch) and put it into a combat dive and then semi-steep climb. I achieve overheat on a brand new fresh engine in ~15 seconds. And I am no where close to the apex of the climb or stalling.

Sorry, WTF !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Did I just say 15 seconds. Wow !

Load it for yourself:

http://www.mediafire.com/?sy2wk0y2b2d71ca

Now Team A can quote their esoteric figures from historical manual C, while Team B quotes their figures from manual D, but in no manner, shape or form did the TA 152 (or the P51, or the FW or the, etc...) overheat a brand new engine in 15 seconds in a dive.

Now, repeat this simple test for yourselves with the Spits 25lbs. Ya know it is coming right..........

....wait for it.....

NO OVERHEAT in the apex climb portion. NONE. In fact I can do several loops in the Spit 25lbs with nada, nothing happening, while the P51 engine or TA engine is long gone. (they even removed the need in the spits to engage boost, you simply just push your throttle up past 100 percent, ... could it get any simpler for the open pit newbers ?)

And the P51 and late Spits have the same engine right ? The Merlin Rolls Royce thingy, correct? That is why, despite his sound testing in the very first post of this thread, JG27 Papa, did not capture the essential point, I am making: The combat climb portion of the overheat model, which is so essential to BnZ planes (but not to TnB ones) widens an already noticeable gap in favor of the UFO fliers and is by far inaccurately modeled (and incorrectly applied to two planes that use the same engine). Not only that, but the source code changes to the flight models of several FWs, and the TA show several reductions. In particular, the TA 152 has been downgraded, point blank. ...........Who did this patch once again ?

I watched your track and I repeated the same experiment. Basically the same overheat in the Ta152H-1. Mine took longer every time by several seconds but that may be random variability. I repeated the same experiment on some of the colder maps (i.e. Moscow) and it takes quite a bit longer to overheat... I also noticed that the Spitfire's auto radiator opened sooner than the Ta152H. Both overheated but the Spitfire did take longer and was at a much lower speed when it did overheat.

The Spitfire WEP modeling is now correct. It was incorrect before. There is no WEP button in a Spitfire...instead you push the throttle to 100%. After 100% you can engage WEP but it requires breaking a wire on the throttle to push it past that point. The Mustang throttle in IL-2 behaves the same way and always has...the inaccuracy was the Spitfire. It doesn't make it a UFO or a "noob machine". You need to stop talking like this as it reflects poorly on any legitimate points you're bringing up.

You are wrong that the Spitfire (I tested a few different models) does overheat in a climb just like the others. It takes a fair bit longer... that said...repeating the same test in a Ta152H-1 without MW50 boost (so normal WEP) and the Ta152H-1 was able to climb and maneuver without the overheat message much in the same way that the Spitfire did. I did some loops in a Ta152H-1 at 110% (non MW50) and it behaved just like the Spitfire did.

Only when pushing to the maximum and injecting MW50 does it increase the overheat. I also notice that the ATA is quite a bit higher and I wonder if going to 110% WEP in a Spitfire is really equivalent to 110% with MW50 boost. Someone else may know? Certainly on the speed charts the MW50 gives a bigger speed increase from 100% than 110% WEP on a Spitfire or Mustang.

EJGr.Ost_Caspar

01-29-2012, 05:57 PM

Does anyone here ever been thinking about ... the Fokker DXXI ... for example? :rolleyes:

MrBaato

01-29-2012, 06:09 PM

Does anyone here ever been thinking about ... the Fokker DXXI ... for example? :rolleyes:

As a Dutchman I fly it all the time and am very grateful for it. I noticed it hasn't been affected at all by the new patch.

In 4.09 it had some weird overrev/overheat charactistics, but it pretty hard to overheat at all since 4.10 (and lets keep it that way ;) )

Luno13

01-29-2012, 06:29 PM

No matter what other limitations might be, engines equipped with MW50 should not be damaged within 10 minutes. But try yourself in game, every engine with MW50 enabled will be damaged within 5 minutes, no matter how you fly.

Once again, you seem to be conveniently disregarding that track I posted. I went 10 minutes with MW50 and full WEP without any ill effects.

Also, MW50 can be engaged without having to go to maximum boost. I'm not sure that the manuals factor in slow turning and apex-climbs and hammerheads at 110% power. Remember, they say "maximum" of 10 minutes (assuming everything else with the plane is in tip-top shape), not "at least" 10 minutes.

Luno13

01-29-2012, 06:31 PM

Does anyone here ever been thinking about ... the Fokker DXXI ... for example? :rolleyes:

Thanks for the campaign, and the plane guys ;) It's one of my favorites.

EJGr.Ost_Caspar

01-29-2012, 07:11 PM

Ah.. a 'flying dutchman'! :D Very well then. It should by default have the same treatment regarding the overheat issue as every other plane, since its a global change. If its not hard to handle, fine. Must be because of its radial engine.

WhistlinggDeath

01-29-2012, 07:16 PM

Paarthurnax has awoken from a long slumber atop Throat of the World to look down on the realm of mortal man as they sully along, historical aviation manuals in hand, and shout out to Joor' avi:

You are missing the forest for the tree. Download my track and you will see the Ta 152 H1 with a brand new engine overheat in 15 seconds (and I did not even use boost). No plane overheated in 15 seconds, except maybe something from World War 1, with a gas tank that a war horse nearby accidentally pizzed in. Furthermore, I can ride around in the UFO clown wagons for several climbs without overheat coming on. This patch mun is a gift to UFO fliers.

WhistlinggDeath

01-29-2012, 07:40 PM

I meant it doesn't prove anything! I never dive in a Ta at full throttle!

You what ?

Say again, you what?

Not even to dive down on a fighter below you, or to escape a Spit who might have come into the theater above you ?

I know this does not happen much with the AI of the QMB. Are you aware of how BnZ planes are to be used ?

Luno13

01-29-2012, 07:55 PM

Believe it or don't WD, it's actually faster to dive with retarded throttle and p-pitch. ;)

fruitbat

01-29-2012, 08:55 PM

Believe it or don't WD, it's actually faster to dive with retarded throttle and p-pitch. ;)

+1

KG26_Alpha

01-29-2012, 08:56 PM

Before I do this, need to ask (KG Alpha or others); Am I allowed to publish source code here from the 4.10.1 and 4.11 patches ?

The difference in the TA 152 is large.

Working on your ntrks now Swiss.

You don't need to publish source code,
you only need to post the differences here to support your opinions.

.

WhistlinggDeath

01-29-2012, 09:16 PM

Believe it or don't WD, it's actually faster to dive with retarded throttle and p-pitch. ;)

Gents, I am the guy who published a well read (and correct article) about the use of PP in IL2. Yes, I know that, thank you, but I just wanted the simplest test possible, and for most situations, the TA does better on auto than manual prop pitch.

And it does not negate my main point,

THE OVERHEAT MODEL IN 4.11 IS MESSED UP, .... BADLY

Sure, KG26 Alpha, no problem. However, if I could just put the source code out, you could see the very large way in which the TA 152 has been neutered.

IceFire

01-29-2012, 09:19 PM

I think this has turned into a comedy. I should probably stop caring about now for my own mental health :)

It's not about overheat... it's about clown wagons! :D :cool: :evil:

If we're not careful they will haunt us in our sleep!

BadAim

01-29-2012, 11:47 PM

WD, if I knew nothing whatsoever about aircraft, I would discount everything you have to say, based solely on your obviously swollen head. You have given not a shred of evidence beyond your own expertise.

My only interest in this thread is that DT does not listen to you. I'm sure at this point that they are not that stupid (they can't possibly be).

WhistlinggDeath

01-30-2012, 01:45 AM

You didnt see the Ntrk ?

Swollen head indeed, ... and filled with astute observations.

WhistlinggDeath

01-30-2012, 02:17 AM

JG27 Papa, - Snake pointed out a good point, it is Tzon I am talking about in the earlier posts, not Tazzu (no disrespect to him). I always get em confused but it was Tzon I am talking about.

WTE_Galway

01-30-2012, 02:48 AM

Page 82 of this seems relevant:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34811808/North-American-P-51-Mustang-Pilot-Training-Manual

ElAurens

01-30-2012, 03:23 AM

This is why I don't fly late war planes, and really why I almost never fly at all anymore.

This thread is a perfect example of one of the reasons why combat flight sims are a dying breed.

In our quest for ever greater realism, counting every rivet, hitting the exact half a degree of temp to obtain overheat, pretending to be "Masters" and "experten" you have taken all the fun out of the experience.

In short, you have made it a job.

I hope you are all happy.

WhistlinggDeath

01-30-2012, 08:53 AM

Talked to Mr Holcomb (actually, Captain Holcomb) on the phone and it was very interesting and informative. Found out he did not get credited with any kills but did have several run ins with the Luftwaffe fighters. My secretary Maria will get this typed up and I will print it here for all the history buffs.

I got bad news for Team D though, he indicated that the P51 D with the Packard V 1650, took several minutes under WEP to get to a dangerous situation. The way he describes the P51 is very different from the model we have in 4.11 (or even 4.10.1).

Let us wait for Maria to finish it, you guys will find it interesting.

MaxGunz

01-30-2012, 09:14 AM

Be sure to include the exact questions you asked including how often he flew a P-51 the same way that you do. Perhaps he says the state of his cooling system before he started to run on WEP, a detail I have yet to see you make. He may be talking apples but I think you are making apple sauce.

You've been calling yourself expert since almost you hit the forums years ago and started your publishing yet I see you advocate a lot of very non-expert things... still.

Try telling how long to go from engine temp to engine temp while in a steady flight regimin and what that is, not this "hit WEP in stall climb or level flight and start counting". You leave too much out for direct comparison.

Added: in fact it would be much better information from Mr. Holcomb to find out all the flying practices that can affect engine temperature of a P-51D and how they do so. Be sure to ask about rookie mistakes and assumptions.

JG27_PapaFly

01-30-2012, 10:19 AM

I load up 4.11, start the QMB on the Okinawa map, start in the TA 152 H1 at 1000m of height, and fly for exactly one minute (so that the random number generator of 4.11 does not start my engine hot or cold), and then slowly ramp up power from 90% to 110% (all this on auto prop pitch) and put it into a combat dive and then semi-steep climb.

Your test method is severley flawed. The charts I've posted on page 1 of this thread prove that there is no "random number generator" starting your engine hot or cold. Engines have exactly the same temp at mission startup, and that's why the time-to-overheat is so reproducible in my experiment.

My tests unmisakably show that the TA's only problem is the auto rad being a little sluggish. Flown with manually opened radiators, it overheats after the spit25lbs during a full power climb at slow speed (260IAS). In fact, the TA152-H1 can maintain a constant 260kph IAS climb at 95% power above 4000m on the crimea map, without ever overheating. That's very very good IMO.

I achieve overheat on a brand new fresh engine in ~15 seconds. And I am no where close to the apex of the climb or stalling.

No wonder, you're on an extremely hot map. That proves nothing.
What were the oil and coolant temps of all tested planes the moment you applied full power?
Given the relation between time-to-overheat and speed, what is the speedprofile for every plane tested?
I'm sorry WD, but your methodology is no good. One track proves nothing, you need to deliver a thorough test if you want to be taken seriously. You're not helping your case at all. All i see are politics, allegations with no proof. Only fools will nod, everyone knowledgeable will shake their heads at your "data".
As I've stated in your other post, you must design an experiment in such way that everyone can reproduce it. We have no idea whatsoever what speeds, flight attitudes, oil and coolant entry temps you had in your one experiment. There are no average values, no error bars, but strong allegations.

The combat climb portion of the overheat model, which is so essential to BnZ planes (but not to TnB ones) widens an already noticeable gap in favor of the UFO fliers and is by far inaccurately modeled (and incorrectly applied to two planes that use the same engine).

Look at my data at the bottom of my first post: the spit overheats considerably faster than the TA during a combat climb (260 kph IAS) on the crimea map.

I've clearly shown you how such test are to be done in order to be taken seriously. Feel free to test several planes the way i did at different constant speeds, and we might have a complete profile showing the relation between time-to-overheat and speed for those planes. Yes, that would be a lot of work. It's much easier to throw a flawed "test" into the discussion, flown on a different, much hotter map, to support your case.

Redroach

01-30-2012, 11:59 AM

BadAim

01-30-2012, 12:01 PM

BTW, Thank you for your tests PapaFly. Lots of valuable, verifiable information, with not a shed of ego stroking.

T}{OR

01-30-2012, 01:03 PM

Kindly, dear sirs, what 'engineer' (s) made this patch ?

See post #148. That is how a proper testing should be performed.

Luno13

01-30-2012, 03:26 PM

Gents, I am the guy who published a well read (and correct article) about the use of PP in IL2. Yes, I know that, thank you, but I just wanted the simplest test possible, and for most situations, the TA does better on auto than manual prop pitch.

And it does not negate my main point,

THE OVERHEAT MODEL IN 4.11 IS MESSED UP, .... BADLY

Then you ought to know that a full-power dive in any plane even with kommandogerat is going to over-rev it and shorten the time to an overheat condition.

It's hardly a "Simple" test because you can't make any reasonable comparisons with a full-power dive and then apex-climb with different aircraft unless you can reproduce the flight path exactly. Otherwise, it's just "feelings" which are useless in a scientific comparison.

So yes, it completely negates your main point.

The overheat model in 4.11 is fine...what's bad are your flying habits and attitude.

WhistlinggDeath

01-30-2012, 04:08 PM

Papa - Here is another test (and the last one I will be doing), with the TA 152 H1 on the Crimea map, with rad set full open, auto pitch, from 1000m full dive on WEP, and then semi-steep combat climb. Reached overheat condition by the apex (in one climb):

http://www.mediafire.com/?dzxqgfh1gbducwd

I do not reach overheat in one climb on this map with those conditions with the Spit 25lbs or M185 71. Not even close.

WhistlinggDeath

01-30-2012, 04:16 PM

As to the rest of you (or the majority), it reminds me of debating an ardent Democrat or Republican here in the States. You strike them down on one topic or prove how silly it is, and they change topic and attack from a different direction. Your need for an exact reproducible experiment is something I strongly support (I am a university educated engineer in real life, and I cherish the scientific method above almost all else except for good sex or great surf). And I have done so, twice now. And under very easy to reproduce conditions.

Dont wanna listen to me cause you cant see past your personal animosity because I blow up people online without being apologetic about it.

That's cool.

As I said, there are like 150 guys a week flying online at any of the decent servers. The online portion of the game is all but dead. I will fly 4.10.1 on my own rig and use the 185 M-71 when I visit the clownwagon contests that are predominately left today (and using 4.11).

Planes with brand new engines did not in WWII come out of a dive and then overheat on boost in one climb.

Period.

No how. No way.

The interview with Capt Holcomb, will be put up at Mission4Today.com in a few days. If interested, make your way there and enjoy. His comments about so many things that deal nothing with P51 engine performance are entertaining in their own right.

End of this thread for me. Good luck Team D, however you decide to guide future patches. S! Gents.

fruitbat

01-30-2012, 06:39 PM

As I said, there are like 150 guys a week flying online at any of the decent servers. The online portion of the game is all but dead.

Online game is not dead at all, its just most people who do fly, don't fly on airquake servers that you seem to think is all il2 is.

Most will instead like myself fly with there squad and do historical stuff instead.

I can't think of anything more dull than going on a airquake sever, and yes just cause its locked pit and no icons etc, its still airquake, if your just racing around in la7's fw 190d9's spit25lbs etc.... Yawn.....

Currently i'm flying in a internal online squad event set in N.Africa 1940 flying Gladiators and bleinhems vs the other half flying cr42's and sm79's. Guess you've never even been in any of those planes since there not late war uber planes, oh expert.

see post #148. That is how a proper testing should be performed.

+10000

jameson

01-30-2012, 06:54 PM

Wonder what the good Captain said when WD told him he nosed over his p51 into a dive at full throttle plus WEP? The sound of silence or laughter must have been something to behold. Some of our experten are gonna have to learn to fly, at last.

Redroach

01-30-2012, 07:11 PM

Planes with brand new engines did not in WWII come out of a dive and then overheat on boost in one climb.

Period.

No how. No way.

If you really are an 'university-educated engineer', then you should know that you have to back up each and every claim with hard facts. Also, academics strive to stay as objective as possible. Bending reality in order to stay superior in one's own favourite mount doesn't fit the picture in a way.
Looking forward to that interview, too :-P

BadAim

01-30-2012, 07:26 PM

Dont wanna listen to me cause you cant see past your personal animosity because I blow people online without being apologetic about it.

Hey that's entirely a personal thing, dude. Your love life is none of our business.

Snake

01-30-2012, 08:01 PM

Good one, BadAim!!!!
:grin::grin::grin::grin::grin::grin::grin:

Jumoschwanz

01-30-2012, 08:12 PM

I blow people online without being apologetic about it.

This is one video I am not interested in looking at.......and this is going to be a legendary quote for many years in the IL2 community and will be echoed as much or more than "slider on a stick"....

Jumoschwanz

01-30-2012, 09:48 PM

Just got in about 30 min over lunch with the P51 D-NT. What a mess. It went from an already fairly strong overheat model to overheat every single pass now if you push it above 90% power and pitch.

And you learned more about the IL2 patch 4.11 in a 30 minute lunch than the guys who worked on it for many months? you are a genius.

Why would you use above 90% pitch when in the 4.11 readme there is a long text on the new overheat models and sentences specifically talking about how pitch management and engine rpm is important?

You don't seem to understand that IL2 4.11 is a different flight sim than IL2 4.10.

JG27 and Team Daidalos post solid facts and test results that not only show you do not know what you are doing with testing, but show every single one of your claims to be in error.

I remember on Hyperlobby there was a nice online pilot named VSO that quit flying when IL2 Forgotten Battles came out because he said it was far worse than the original IL2. He could not adapt to the new features and flight models etc..
Anyone can see that over the last ten years Oleg and Team Daidalos and everyone else that worked on IL2 made incredible and vast improvements in it over the years, they have done a stunning job. It may not be apparent from patch to patch, but if you load up the original IL2, or an early patch of Forgotten Battles etc. you will absolutely not want to go backwards.

I have seen other pilots actually quit flying IL2 simply because they were not good at it and could not stand being shot down over and over again, they just did not have the aptitude for it.

As IL2 continues to improve and it offers more historical and complicated features, and flying a WWII aircraft WAS a complicated task and took a lot of intelligence to do well, I think we will see more and more people either not able to grasp all the concepts and methods needed to use all of it's Hard Settings, or complicated features just as in real life, not everyone has the aptitude to fly a real WWII aircraft or any aircraft at all.

If someone does not like the new features that IL2 4.11 offers, like WhistlingDeath, then they can simply turn them off in the control panel, or start their own server flying the version of the sim they are most comfortable with, or also like WD, simply hack the flight sim and make aircraft to suit his individual wet-dreams of WWII aviation history.

I was never the best or smartest IL2 pilot and I never will be, but I have always really enjoyed IL2 and was always thrilled with the gift of new free and paid for patches.

When a patch has changed the way IL2 or my favorite aircraft has worked, in ever single patch over the last ten years I have been able to practice and figure out a way to get the same job as always, shooting down opponents, done.
I and a long, long list of others always welcomed new features that took IL2 on hard settings further from being a Game and deeper into Flight Sim territory. There are a LOT of real pilots that fly IL2 that have praise for it.

I am sure that this long list of IL2 faithfuls are very glad for 4.11 and welcome it's changes, and also know that in any future patches that minor flaws and bugs will be worked out.....

ElAurens

01-30-2012, 10:01 PM

Well said.

T}{OR

01-30-2012, 10:41 PM

As to the rest of you (or the majority), it reminds me of debating an ardent Democrat or Republican here in the States. You strike them down on one topic or prove how silly it is, and they change topic and attack from a different direction. Your need for an exact reproducible experiment is something I strongly support (I am a university educated engineer in real life, and I cherish the scientific method above almost all else except for good sex or great surf). And I have done so, twice now. And under very easy to reproduce conditions.

Do you realize that you are contradicting yourself in your posts? I had to read this paragraph twice just to be sure you actually wrote this.

University educated engineer? Everything you posted screams otherwise. An engineer backs up his statements with solid facts, instead you started by throwing out insults (especially with the first post over at SimHQ) and as a reply to all the data and testing provided here you did what? Posted two miserable tracks that show absolutely nothing.

Even the dumbest pilot can realize TD will further refine and polish the overheating introduced in 4.11. Nothing can be done perfectly out of first attempt. Had you chosen the engineer's approach you might have influenced TD them "fixing the problem" and further help this patch become ever better. But that would require providing solid data and info. Yeah...

Even the math is all against you. When 100 people say one thing and you are the only one saying otherwise, it is logical to conclude that you are doing something wrong or should start over. Thats how engineers do it.

And last, about the dying online community. Lately, ever since 4.11 came out I see people crawling out from nowhere just to test the 4.11 because they heard it is great. If indeed it is dying, than its your breed mate. Somehow don't feel bad about it at all.

jameson

01-30-2012, 10:52 PM

Found this for WD, "How to Fly the P-47: High Altitude Flight and Aerobatics", USAAF training film:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=db0mEXgySeU&feature=related

Take note of throttle settings when diving.

and this, you need to register to download this:-

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/other-mechanical-systems-tech/p-51d-k-pilot-training-manual-22715.html

Contains diagrams of high speed diving and speed limits.

Manual states WEP under 5000ft has no effect and should not be used.

WhistlinggDeath

01-30-2012, 11:21 PM

Final comment then:

I am quite unliked (usually) online for being one hard charging aggressive person, and I think that has turned off many who cannot see past that dominating (but artificial) facade I use online to the deeper mechanics of possible flaws in 4.11. Hence, I represent an obstacle to deeper debate from the many aerospace engineers who dwell here, so I will leave you to it. Many of you seem to love 4.11 and feel it represents your version of what you wish IL2 to be (or become). As no one (including the members of the development team or IL2 original programmers) is a certified WWII warbird pilot with time in unrestored warbird frames, the rest boils down to a particular interpretation of historical data. And that is just it, ... it is an interpretation. Many seem to voice strongly for the 4.11 interpretation. I dont agree with ya, but I am happy to remain in the minority and continue using 4.10.1 for online use for our lab server. For those that enjoy 4.11 greatly, more power to you then, and I wish you guys well as you continue flying with the new patch you clearly enjoy. S! Gents

BadAim

01-30-2012, 11:52 PM

You're disliked for being boastful, arrogant, and FULL OF YOURSELF. Most people around here appreciate an aggressive pilot, and most will overlook any number of character flaws in someone who has something to say, but we've seen nothing but mental masturbation from you here, buddy.

As the old saying goes, "it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and prove it."

-=MadCat=-

01-31-2012, 12:15 AM

Well, I certainly am not the most active poster here in this forum, rather a silent reader. and maybe in a few days I'll wish I hadn't posted this.
But I have an honest question to you, WD, no offence intended.

University's offsprings are a broad variety of engineers.
The fact you presumably know quite well to read and handle source code lets me think software engineer.
The way you judge others and yourself here makes me think, maybe rather social engineer.
What kind of engineer are you and maybe you even reveal what your major was ?

As said, it's an honest question and I think many are interested in the answer.
Please clarify.

WhistlinggDeath

01-31-2012, 12:16 AM

And yet Bad Aim, I would be surprised if you could win one in seven combat sorties versus me, in a same plane, same fuel load, co-altitude starting duel (in full real). I have a feeling I could masturbate with one hand, drink coffee with the other, and blow you out of the sky with my left foot (the bad one) on the keyboard :) (joystick use , much, much too powerful for you)

$25 bucks says you cant or wont show up for a fair co-altitude duel and win a best of seven. You do, and you win fair and square, I'll publicly kiss your azz in this forum and give you the 25 bucks (thru Paypal). You will talk trash behind others' backs and spout hate, but when the bullets start flying, you will turn tail and crash into the sea. Prove me wrong patsy.

WD Fights, (full real), Jan 30th, at 7 PM PST, Xfire. (and we will use 4.11, since you are clearly a master of its CEM) Server is crt=2. I will make an Ntrk track, whether you show up or dont. Mediafire will be happy to host an ntrk of your absence out of fear. Bring Thor with you too. You need a witness.

Show or no show, I will be posting that Ntrk here for all to see. :)

Any excuses you spout in this forum = cowardice. (even one tiny one). Time to man up and let us see your awesome 4.11 CEM. I cant wait.

ElAurens

01-31-2012, 12:32 AM

:rolleyes:

AndyJWest

01-31-2012, 12:40 AM

Infantile....

WhistlinggDeath

01-31-2012, 12:44 AM

That is not going to delay the posting of the ntrk showing that backstabber not showing up to an honest fight (or getting blown from the sky if he does).

AndyJWest

01-31-2012, 12:51 AM

Infantile squared...

jermin

01-31-2012, 12:54 AM

BadAim

01-31-2012, 01:54 AM

CWMV

01-31-2012, 02:01 AM

...The online playing is dying. It is definitely true. ...

Woah what are you doing wrong?
Spits V 109's always has someone on it, and there were around 40 on the last ghost skies test mission last night.

The only ones that are dying are the stock servers, as no one wants to play a 10 year old game in its pure (obsolete) form.

WTE_Galway

01-31-2012, 02:02 AM

Yes, I doubt few of you self-proclaimed experts can match up against WD in a duel.

And I wouldn't call a private online match or coop a part of online community.

The online playing is dying. It is definitely true. Back in 2005, I wouldn't have to search Xfire for hours but failed to find a decent server to play in.

Sent from my Milestone using Tapatalk

You miss the point.

If anything, being good online means you must be prioritizing gaming over historical reality.

Hence having good skills online means either nothing at all, or worse that you are biased towards the gaming aspects of the sim and hence LESS qualified to make comments on the historical correctness of flight models.

ElAurens

01-31-2012, 02:08 AM

So many broad brush statements now.

So, all online virtual flying is just "gaming" because it's online?

You know better.

WhistlinggDeath

01-31-2012, 02:17 AM

LOL! You should have taken my advice! I'm quite sure that you will beat me in your silly little contest. You will have proven nothing of your expertise in WWII airplanes though. How 'bout we have a go in my area of expertise? Pistols at 25'.

That is not going to prevent me from posting the link to the Ntrk, that has you as a no show for a formal duel. I previously served in the Marines after college NROTC (in fact the Marines helped me make it thru college), and I am not sure you would win the pistol competition either.

You want to banter with someone good naturedly, or poke a bit of fun, I'm all for it (even if I am the target). But the personal attacks have no place. I'm glad you like 4.11 and think everything associated with it is gravy on your tators, but just bc someone else does not agree with you, is not a reason to start a personal attack. Stick to the facts, use data like Papa or put up your own ntrk showing where I went wrong, and you will see I am actually pretty humble at times, and more than willing to admit if I feel I am wrong.

BadAim

01-31-2012, 02:29 AM

That is not going to prevent me from posting the link to the Ntrk, that has you as a no show for a formal duel. I previously served in the Marines after college NROTC (in fact the Marines helped me make it thru college), and I am not sure you would win the pistol competition either.

You want to banter with someone good naturedly, or poke a bit of fun, I'm all for it (even if I am the target). But the personal attacks have no place. I'm glad you like 4.11 and think everything associated with it is gravy on your tators, but just bc someone else does not agree with you, is not a reason to start a personal attack. Stick to the facts, use data like Papa or put up your own ntrk showing where I went wrong, and you will see I am actually pretty humble at times, and more than willing to admit if I feel I am wrong.

I'm trying to get onto Xfire, but I'm having trouble, as I don't usually use it. As far as you being a Marine I have a hard time believing it as I have several close friends who are Marines and they would be deeply embarrassed by your behavior in this forum.

Again I reiterate, your expertise in playing a video game has no bearing on your expertise in anything else.

Edit: Oh, and by the way, I don't give a flying F**k what you or any one that cares about you opinion thinks about me.

Redroach

01-31-2012, 02:46 AM

<bleh>
As no one (including the members of the development team or IL2 original programmers) is a certified WWII warbird pilot with time in unrestored warbird frames,
<blah>

As far as I remember, Oleg and team indeed had ex-WWII pilots for flight testing their stuff. But that's just off the back of my head, so I hope that scheme (and the marine thingy :cool: ) doesn't fail like your "university-educated engineer" one did :rolleyes: .

Still looking forward to that interview with hallowed Capt. Whatshisface! :grin:

WhistlinggDeath

01-31-2012, 02:47 AM

BadAim

01-31-2012, 02:58 AM

Save the Xfire excuses for your Mama's breast. If you can tell others how CEM in 4.11 should be used, installing Xfire should be a cake walk.

Ntrk coming tomorrow evening. I suggest you show up and fight with honor.

I guess you've found your ultimate excuse. I reiterate that I don't care what you or your followers think of me. I am quite willing to face you in whatever you call a fair fight. Retarded software aside. I maintain that the outcome of the fight is entirely irrelevant to the argument at hand. I'm not sure what you intend to prove, besides penis length.

WhistlinggDeath

01-31-2012, 03:00 AM

As far as I remember, Oleg and team indeed had ex-WWII pilots for flight testing their stuff. But that's just off the back of my head, so I hope that scheme (and the marine thingy :cool: ) doesn't fail like your "university-educated engineer" one did :rolleyes: .

Still looking forward to that interview with hallowed Capt. Whatshisface! :grin:

You remember ? Sorry, say that again?

Provide a definitive link backing up your facts please. No remembering, ... just the facts.

As to engineering, what is it with the personal attacks in this forum ? You disagree with someone, simply state your idea or data and let it ride. This must be about the tenth personal attack I have taken in this thread. And for what, bc I dont agree that 4.11 is the best thing since sliced bread.

Since you are obviously an engineering whiz, I am more than happy to entertain you. Here is a simple one which any engineer learns at the end of year one in multi-variable calculus;

The partial derivative for some function f(x,y) that is shaped like an inverted bowl at the apex of the bowl is:

(go ahead, you answer, ... we will wait for your wisdom....

Luno13

01-31-2012, 03:04 AM

This is too funny :)

WhistlinggDeath

01-31-2012, 03:06 AM

BadAim

01-31-2012, 03:12 AM

Well, I've been unable to get on the indicated server through xfire, so I'm sure that that proves whatever you wish to prove. I doubt that there will be any other chances, so I bow before your greatness Oh great Whistling Death, and I acknowledge your superiority in that which means nothing.

WhistlinggDeath

01-31-2012, 03:16 AM

TY, now kindly just debate the argument with data as Papa is doing. If you have good data, I will look at it closely, despite the past personal attacks.

swiss

01-31-2012, 03:19 AM

Here is another great one Red, and one which truly any engineer must know in year two:

The simple equation F=ma is a difference equation of what type ? Its order is what ? Its simple solution is ? Do you use integration by parts here or another method ? If so, what method ?

In YEAR 2?!
This ist stuff we learn in high school, in 11th class, that means your still 2-3 years away from any university stuff.

:eek:

AndyJWest

01-31-2012, 03:22 AM

Yes, let's agree once and for all that WhistlingDeath is the perpetual all-time eternal supreme champion of vacuous egotism, and we must all grovel in his presence - and then ignore him entirely, as a waste of time, space, effort, and bandwidth...

(And before you respond WD, I'm quite sure you could beat me in an online dogfight. Hell, if they cloned six of me you'd probably beat the lot. So what? I've not wasted the best part of a decade establishing bragging-rights over something that 99.9% of humanity hasn't heard of...)

WhistlinggDeath

01-31-2012, 03:22 AM

Trying to think of some great classics that all disciplines of engineering must use. Here is another great one that we (electrical engineers) have in common with mechanical, chemical, systems, etc...,

The heat equation is what type of equation? Its 3D solution is ? It is linear or non-linear when used to solve an anisotropic material ?

WhistlinggDeath

01-31-2012, 03:23 AM

In YEAR 2?!
This ist stuff we learn in high school, in 11th class, that means your still 2-3 years away from any university stuff.

:eek:

Excellent, provide the answers then. The UK is more advanced in maths than is common in the USA.

Luno13

01-31-2012, 03:23 AM

WD, how do you expect us to join you if you're using 4.101? ;)

swiss

01-31-2012, 03:26 AM

lol

WhistlinggDeath

01-31-2012, 03:26 AM

I reset server one hour ago to 4.11 with crt =2. Server is full real with full CEM enabled. Your welcome to come join us for our weekly fights. We get some very tough opponents though (including many good Russians that I can never find thru Hyperlobby).

WhistlinggDeath

01-31-2012, 03:27 AM

Swiss, ...

... answers please. Take the load off poor Red.

BadAim

01-31-2012, 03:30 AM

Holt crap! I've never met a more egotistical example of a classical engineer in my life! As it is written "You are out of your mind, WD! Your great learning is driving you insane."

Luno13

01-31-2012, 03:30 AM

I tried to join not too long ago and got 4.101 + UP...

WhistlinggDeath

01-31-2012, 03:33 AM

Here is a great one that ALL electrical engineers must know:

Resistance in series is: (for any given R1, R2, .... Rn)

A capacitor in parallel to the resistors, gives ?

WhistlinggDeath

01-31-2012, 03:34 AM

I tried to join not too long ago and got 4.101 + UP...

No, you didnt, it is not up on Xfire (as can be seen publicly) for tonight. And my server name is not WB Flight Ops.

AndyJWest

01-31-2012, 03:37 AM

A capacitor in parallel to the resistors, gives ?

A bright blue flash, and a smell of burnt insulation. Not because of anything to do with the circuit layout, but because it has lost the will to live... ;)

Luno13

01-31-2012, 03:40 AM

Hm, so how do you expect anyone to join/watch? ;)

WhistlinggDeath

01-31-2012, 03:46 AM

You need to look a few posts back Luno. The duel was set to go for 7 PM but Bad already capitulated.

Do you see, why a few pages back I tried nicely to exit gracefully. Your hatred is against me and is diverting attention from possible real flaws in 4.11. I am happy to speak on engineering topics all day, but that is not the point of the thread. Let us let some other voices chime in, and I will return to my research papers. Those of you who really enjoy tough combat though, can stop bye WD Fights later this week (full real) and see for yourselves if I can manage an engine and only fly spit 25lbs or whether I can really fly with the difficult P51s and TAs.

WTE_Galway

01-31-2012, 03:50 AM

Here is a great one that ALL electrical engineers must know:

Resistance in series is: (for any given R1, R2, .... Rn)

A capacitor in parallel to the resistors, gives ?

Basic Electronics now ? Its just ohms law but using impedance's . Not rocket science.

Here is one from my first year Electrical bachelor degree. They handed this out as a problem to students BEFORE teaching them Star-Delta conversion :D Can be a real mind bender without Star-Delta ...

Given a cube where every side is 10 ohm what is the resistance between diagonally opposite corners of the cube.

jermin

01-31-2012, 03:50 AM

Spits V 109's always has someone on it, and there were around 40 on the last ghost skies test mission last night.

The only ones that are dying are the stock servers, as no one wants to play a 10 year old game in its pure (obsolete) form.

I've said it many times before that I prefer consistent content managed by TD.

Besides, you don't have a clue about how many populated full-real (or near full-real) servers there are back in 2007.

WhistlinggDeath

01-31-2012, 03:53 AM

Sorry, Luno, I see your confusion. WD Fights was up till about 7:21 PST but that is when Bad could not get Xfire installed. We just went to private server from that point on.

Apologize for confusion. Did not understand your question.

WhistlinggDeath

01-31-2012, 04:02 AM

Galway, ssssssssssssssssshhhhh. Dont give away simple answers.

Hehe :)

Got to get back to work tonight guys. Signing off for today. Lets try to move this thread to a more productive plane tomorrow. I already suggested several other good fliers and one chimed in. Lets await others and learn more.

Jumoschwanz

01-31-2012, 06:57 AM

With a quick search on the internet, I was able to read or download original flight manuals for the P-51D Mustang, bf109g2, and flight instructions for the P-47 and other allied aircraft.

In the flight manual for the P-51D I noticed that 100% throttle was 61" manifold pressure, and 67" was only obtainable by breaking what they called a "safety wire".

The Bf109 manual also came with warnings not to use 1.42ata.

Another thing I noticed in these real flight manuals and data was that how similar the rpm operating ranges for all types of engines under all flight conditions was between 2000-3000 rpm, but that recommended operating ranges were all below 3000 rpm. I did not have the manual for any aircraft with the Jumo engine like the Ta152.

This all goes right along with what my friend Pete Amsler, a WWII fighter AND bomber pilot, also development engineer on the B-29, said about how using WEP was not something that was a regular part of flying WWII aircraft and that if used that ended the service life of that particular engine, if it made it back to base.

Flying IL2 also backs this up, even with the radiator wide open, if you fly around using WEP on a BF109 or Mustang non-stop like they do dogfighting on common fast dogfight servers like Grij, Perwach etc. your engine overheats and blows. This unrealistic and un-historic style of fun soon ruins the engines in IL2 aircraft using realistic engine settings and CEM, as it should.

IL2 patch 4.11 seems to be a leap forwards for flight simmers who want a more accurate simulation of WWII aviation.

If you fly around in a Mustang or BF109 fighting at 110% throttle, which is the 67" of manifold pressure or the German 1.42ata that the original operating manual says is past the SAFETY wire or not safe, then you are going to likely overstress your engine. If you fly smart like a real WWII pilot using Energy, surprise and position to do the job, then also like in WWII you will save your engine and it will get you back home.

The unrealistic flying methods and aircraft use in past patches on "dueling" and fast dogfight servers have been relegated to "gamer" status with this latest patch. That use of the IL2 flight sim is now only available to those flying on easier settings by turning off realistic features.

We can still have fast dogfight and dueling with Realistic settings, but the pilots will have to grow up and become simmers and figure out how preserving the engines of their aircraft fits into combat.

As soon as 4.11 came out I jumped into a fast duel server with an old acquaintance and had oil spurting all over the Bf109 windshield very quickly just by overheating it, flying it like patch 4.10 and earlier. The new 4.11 features brings an entire new experience, a welcomed one to the IL2 flight sim.

IL2 will never be perfect, as it has a limited set of features to replicate hundreds of WWII aircraft, many of which had different mechanisms for controlling prop-pitch and engine rpm, but it does a better job of it than any other flight sim has ever done on so many different aircraft types. The 0% through 100% pitch that is allowed in IL2 will not work the same on every aircraft and it should not, as they were all different machines in WWII. The hydraulic mechanism on the P-51 Mustang for controlling prop pitch was surely much different than that on aircraft from different countries and from different periods of WWII.

If you have a favorite aircraft, get your hands on the original flight manual and papers for it and read it, and read several books that are first hand accounts of WWII pilots in that type of aircraft. It seems that the people working on IL2 Sturmovik have done at least that.......

shauncm

01-31-2012, 07:13 AM

Great summary Jumoschwanz. i think youve summed most things up in that one post :)

shauncm

01-31-2012, 07:43 AM

i know this is only a minor point, but i feel there is a bit of an innacuracy with the tempest. its nothing severe or game crippleing, more of a nuisance.

in game the oil is considered to be overheating at about 82 degrees and above.

in the tempest pilots notes, (air publication 2458c), section 3 'operating data'

you have a 1 hour climb limit at [3700 rpm, +7 boost, 125*C coolant, 90*C oil]
you also have a 5 minute WEP limit of 3700 rpm, +9 boost, 130*C coolant, 95*oil]

i would ask can the 'engine:overheat' message caused by an oil overheat switch on if you exceed the 90*C level?

i know its low priority but seeing that message for an hour gets tiresome, and can mask more severe problems. if anyone is willing to cross varify for me i would appreciate it. i included the engine limitations page as an attatchment.

on a slightly different point, for ultimate realism i think that the engine overheat and wep messages should be able to be turned off like the speed bar can be. does anyone else feel sadistic enough to want pilots to actually look at their gauges, or is it just me !

CWMV

01-31-2012, 07:50 AM

Quick post from phone, but which 109?
1.42ata was cleared for DB605 in something Luke august '43 iirc.
http://www.kurfurst.org/Engine/Boostclearances/DB605A_clearance_Aug-Oct43_G2FzgHB-T0-Full.JPG

WhistlinggDeath

01-31-2012, 07:54 AM

Actually, I agree with your post two above Jumo.

(as a side note though, earlier, about 5 pages back, you said, "You don't seem to understand that IL2 4.11 is a different flight sim than IL2 4.10.1". I understand it alright, I just dont agree with the 4.11 interpretation of the data. Just like one guy looks at Macchu Picchu and sees ancient aliens helping man, I just see man being ingenious. 4.11 needs further tweaking. And I dont make my own aircraft. I simply take the FM from 4.10.1 and put it in 4.11 and then adjust the speed/drag specifics and overheat parameters to function as it did in 4.10.1. The TA still overheats, it just does not do so in one combat climb now.)

Believe me, if I had the free time, I would love to 'make' my own planes. Starting with a correctly done F4U-D and the missing F4U-4.

Trust me when I say, if there is one guy flying online who is hoping for more advanced CEM, it is WD (with the caveat it is applied in an accurate model, or as best can be hoped for).

Yes, Shaun, I am that sadistic. Full real... should mean, just that. No aids, ... nada. You and your instruments.

EJGr.Ost_Caspar

01-31-2012, 07:57 AM

Better game:

http://www.hackedfreegames.com/game/1701/cowboy-duel

(And its already hacked! Yay!)

Redroach

01-31-2012, 09:15 AM

@WD:
a) zero, in any direction
b) a = x''; Newton 2; mass is mostly assumed constant.

I don't even know why I'm bothering with this... I think the thread is deteriorating rapidly now (actually, it has been since after Post # 1) :rolleyes:

T}{OR

01-31-2012, 11:04 AM

DD_crash

01-31-2012, 11:14 AM

I was going to put WD on my ignore list but he is very entertaining (in a silly sort of way.)

Jumoschwanz

01-31-2012, 02:45 PM

This page from the FW190A5 flight manual gives interesting facts about the recommended use of the aircraft's engine under all conditions.

Emergency power, 1.42 ata manifold pressure, is recommended for 3 minutes. In the P-51d this is the same as using 67" manifold pressure.

Steig- und Kampfleistung, Climb and Combat power is the 1.32 ata manifold pressure has an endurance of 30 minutes. In the P-51 Combat power is 61" manifold pressure.

This shows again how in patches prior to 4.11 how even with CEM engaged, the way we used the engines power on duel and fast dogfight servers was not historical or realistic at all.

According to the FW190 flight manual and data from other WWII aircraft, a flight sim like IL2 might let you:

Use emergency power in a FW190 for 3 minutes, or until the engine is actually overheated, if you continue to use it without reducing throttle you are going to damage it.

Use Climb and Combat power for 30 minutes before the engine has to be throttled back.

If you use Emergency power for as long as the engine can stand it, then until the engine cools down, you probably will not even be able to use regular Combat and Climb power for several minutes until your engine cools enough, leaving you vulnerable to those around you who fought only with Combat power and kept their engines cool!

So that is your gamble. If you fly as if you were in pre 4.11 patches of IL2 using full emergency power in your FW or P-51, then you had better be able to defeat your enemy and get to safety in the time span of a few minutes, because you could be left largely without engine power for a period of time!

If on the other hand you cultivate tactics and techniques that allow you to run actual Combat power then you will be able to fight and stay in combat for a very long time, maybe until you have to leave because either the job is done or you are out of fuel....

4.11 has handed IL2 pilots more realism. Those IL2 pilots who can't hack it or adapt and either stick with older patches or manufacture MODS and hacks to switch 4.11 aircraft back to 4.10 style CEM and power, are labeling themselves as gamers, and not WWII flight simmers.

It is interesting that finally the IL2 sim gets a non-crippled 1.42 190-a4 right at the same time the extra power becomes unavailable for use except for a more limited amount of time. Oh well...

S!

http://htmlimg4.scribdassets.com/2tguzjlwxs1ujsg/images/10-2d018ccbb5.jpg

Lastly, in many theaters and periods of WWII aircraft parts and supplies were very scarce for one reason or another. Engines and parts were used past their recommended service lives, or with the threat of no future supplies squadrons used strategies that would let them get the most use and inflict the most damage before their equipment was used up. It is easy to find WWII pilot accounts where they are flying fighter aircraft that are past their prime and/or patched together with parts cannibalized from damaged aircraft etc..

So not only might a WWII fighter pilot be even more apt to try to preserve his engine with the threat of short supplies, he may not even have been ABLE to use it's full performance as it was built because of lack of parts, poor fuel or an amount of hours on the engine and airframe that meant it could break even below combat power and stresses.

P.S. In this video I attack ace p-38 lates with a 44' Dora and I never use the "erhohte notleistung" or "increases emergency power". Instead of creating an E advantage with the engine and WEP as most of us have always done in the past, I make sure I start out with a 2000 meter altitude advantage and do not abuse the engine for combat. I have limited and old equipment to fly with, and in the heat of battle I have two settings available for prop pitch, so I set them to the two most useful settings I want to try. Here I try auto and 0% prop pitch. Other settings may have worked, and switching from auto may not even be necessary at all when WEP is not used, we will all just have to test our favorite aircraft and find out what we like and what will let us do what we need to do....

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=Jumoschwanz#p/u/6/LiUWt3jR47A

WhistlinggDeath

01-31-2012, 03:56 PM

Posting equations to prove your point? I guess you see something new every day. :)

These personal assaults you mention stared from you, no one else WD. Had you started your discussion as an academic you claim to be - people would definitely listen. This way you and only you are responsible for this thread deviating from the original subject / problem and people insulting you back.

Right now when someone looks at your posts sees a 5 year old kid looking for attention. Calling out for "duels" and honor"?! Saying that you a better pilot than any of us here? Why is this even important to the discussion? How can a sane person not question your credibility? Please tell me...

(quite hilarious I am afraid)

Not a cool way to start the new day. Since it is early here WCT, I will overlook the remarks. You got data Thor (like Papa or Jumo are trying to present), post it. If not, kindly keep it to yourself.

Red - Answer A is right. B is incorrect for all three. F=ma is an ODE (ordinary differential equation). a=x'' simply indicates that acceleration is the second derivative of position, and is not the type of equation F=ma represents. It has order two (not Newton 2), and is a second order ODE with linear outcome. Its simple solution (assume non-harmonic) is the integration of the force/mass with relation to position X plus a constant. The chain rule is used. Mass is not 'mostly' assumed. It remains constant unless you indicate a variable mass problem (which we didnt).

WhistlinggDeath

01-31-2012, 04:04 PM

Jumo and Papa - Quite busy since I have to host a visiting PI around La Jolla today. Beyond the limited scope at hand, I will kindly ask you this; Whose interpretation is the 'right one' ?

Whenever I pop into these type of forums, I am always greeted by the aviation book nuts. And they will pull up all types of esoteric diagrams and plots trying to argue that their view is the only and 'right' view, about how fast an airframe could fly, or how long, its boost could last, etc... Unlike engineering though (my profession), where the scientific method holds sway, there is no exact repeatable test (in 99.9999% of cases) since we dont have the unrestored warbird to give us the exact answer. In engineering we dont base our answers on what some shear test gave in 1944 gave for a certain sheet of metal, or hold that to be the one true answer. More deeply though, how certain are you that you have the definitive source when German aviation manual A says X and German aviation manual B says Y.

I am no aviation historian but I am always struck by the various accounts which often mutually disagree. One of the most interesting things (at least to me) in speaking with Capt. Holcomb on the phone, was when he indicated that the manuals they were required to know, should sometimes be disregarded, and that is something he learned later only as he got to his operational squadron. Further, I am not qualified to judge (to be honest, as I mentioned before, no developer for IL2 was a real WWII warbird pilot) who has the definitive 'right' flight model for a specific airframe. After looking at your (Papa's and Jumo's) data, I see strong points of overall historical accuracy, but also small differences. And this for me, is the wiggle room we appear to disagree over. While in broad strokes, I support new overheat models for IL2 (anything which adds realism to all the UFO planes, which for the past years I have had to duel is welcome), I do feel it is difficult to apply one or two simple algorithms to dozens of flyable airframes, and I still cannot find any evidence that planes on boost went into overheat in one combat climb.

So, to you Papa and Jumo, can you find direct evidence supporting the reduced flight model of the TA 152 H1 in 4.11 ?

When I do the quick flights on the Crimea map with auto pitch, I get:

Ta 152 H1 in 4.10.1

Top speed at sea level on full WEP at 110% = 570 kph

Ta 152 H1 in 4.11

Top speed " " " = 530 (and you cannot maintain that for long due to the overheat model)

You have resources (or know of) a great many aviation manuals (or so it would seem). Does the historical documentation support 4.11 or 4.10.1 ?

T}{OR

01-31-2012, 04:30 PM

When I do the quick flights on the Crimea map with auto pitch, I get:

Ta 152 H1 in 4.10.1

Top speed at sea level on full WEP at 110% = 570 kph

Ta 152 H1 in 4.11

Top speed " " " = 530 (and you cannot maintain that for long due to the overheat model)

You have resources (or know of) a great many aviation manuals (or so it would seem). Does the historical documentation support 4.11 or 4.10.1 ?

Now this is a base for discussion. You might want to add a couple of tracks while you are at it.

JtD

01-31-2012, 04:30 PM

I did not have the manual for any aircraft with the Jumo engine like the Ta152.
The rpm limits of the Ta 152H-1 are 3250 rpm at WEP. In dives, it had to be throttled back and the short term limit of 3300 rpm was not to be exceeded.

shauncm

01-31-2012, 04:45 PM

So, to you Papa and Jumo, can you find direct evidence supporting the reduced flight model of the TA 152 H1 in 4.11 ?

When I do the quick flights on the Crimea map with auto pitch, I get:

Ta 152 H1 in 4.10.1

Top speed at sea level on full WEP at 110% = 570 kph

Ta 152 H1 in 4.11

Top speed " " " = 530 (and you cannot maintain that for long due to the overheat model)

i did say earlier that all planes are a bit slower now. the 570kph (which was more or less what i could get out of the tempest in 4.10.1 has now dropped to 530 (ish)

spitfire 25 has dropped by about the same amount.

the LA7 doesnt seem to have been so heavily effected.

basicly i think we were all flying at peak speed before and we could abuse it because of the lack of accurate thermal moddeling. now max sustained speed is a lot slower than peak speed. i can still manage 570 for a short time, but i will overheat and have to back off again.

on the upside ive allready won a battle or two with the spit by blowing up his engine as he tried to chase me :)

WhistlinggDeath

01-31-2012, 05:01 PM

The La7 and 185s are not that affected Shawn. And, that is my point about unfairly applied overheat algorithms. If the clown wagons keep going while I must continually break off with my P51 to drop pitch, rpms and throttle, is there evidence to support the super Russian planes in this aspect? So my simple question to the aviation history folks is:

Do the historical manuals support 4.10.1 or 4.11 ? And if so, please show us the goods.

Edit - I did see a reference a few days back that the TA 152 could indeed reach 570/580 kph at sea level but forgot to flag it. Anyone finds any documentation,one way or the other, post it.

WhistlinggDeath

01-31-2012, 05:33 PM

The TA example above is also why balance is so important if the actual historical record is sketchy. Here is an example:

4.10.1 - I come up from making a boom pass on some guy and see a 185 M-71 approaching at my 10 o'clock with me in my Ta 152-H1. I put in a little coordinated turn, take an angled shot, and lets say I miss. So I continue flying past and move out of theater at about 570 kph. The 185 after he passes me, pulls to a quick hammerhead and reverses 180 degress to give chase, but he is already 1.8 km back by that time and though he can reach 580 kph level flight speed, I can reach ~ 570 or 575, it will be many minutes before he can catch me, and by that time , even in 4.10.1 he is in serious overheat, or I have made it back under my side's friendlies above, and he must break off or be shot down.

4.11 - Now the 185 M-71 can give chase, and do so at 570 kph for quite a bit before he reaches overheat. I continue to stay straight and run from him, but my speed gradually deteriorates to ~ 530 kph (to push any harder and my engine blows) and he catches me before I reach friendly lines or before his engine goes. I have no option, I must cool my engine, and I can do nothing to increase the separation distance faster than about 530 kph. I will be caught.

That is a game changer. It is a patch which hits BnZ planes hard (like the FW, the P51, the TA and Tempy) but leaves little restriction on the La7, 185s and to a lesser extent the Spits. Sure, I know... I know. Someone will say, come in 2000m even higher, or make sure you leave 2000m to dive away from, etc.... And usually I do, but that is why the overheat model must be corrected IMHO. Many will berate me for being of low IQ, ... a poor pilot, etc... but when you look past the venom, ... in actuality, I am a full real guy who prefers the P51 and TA above the other planes. Unless someone can produce authentic historical information indicating these large overheating effects for the TA and P51, but not for the La7 and 185, I have no option but to assume the overheat model is applied incorrectly. ... And should therefore be fixed.

Aviation history guys, ... is there any evidence out there to support the special overheat resistant abilities of the La7 and 185 that we have in 4.11 ? Or that show the quick overheat effects to the TA and P51 ?

Jumoschwanz

01-31-2012, 05:34 PM

Do the historical manuals support 4.10.1 or 4.11 ? And if so, please show us the goods.

So it is okay for you to take 4.11 to court without any of the things you demand?
You are the one in the community who is having the big problem fighting "clown wagons" on yours and other clown wagon servers and you started crying about it immediately after you saw you could not the way you were used to in the older patch with the throttle nailed.

If you have a problem with the official version of the sim, then get something to back up your allegations, YOU come up with data and manuals.

And if you can not figure out how to fly the IL2 flight sim in the wake of others who always have and are now then maybe you should take your name off that ridiculous self-aggrandizing "masters" list you are always bringing up?

WhistlinggDeath

01-31-2012, 05:53 PM

I am no aviation historian, so I am asking you (or others) who appear to have done alot of reading, to verify for me if this proof exists or not. In what little I have read, I can see no firm evidence for the severe overheat model applied in 4.11.

To be honest, I am not having trouble. In 4.11, when I fight the clown wagons, I stay about 1000m higher in any BnZ attack than I did in 4.10.1 and I dive away if an La7 or 185 gets above me. With correct pitch, and just as Shaun noted, I usually get them to burn up their engine before I run into real trouble. I just dont agree with the overheat model.

Please for the love of God, drop the Masters List Jumo. That was two years back. Its been dead (thank the good lord) for a long time. Lets leave it dead. Your simply pissed because the Advisory Board evaluated you and none of the seven voted for you to ascend. Drop it.... for all our sakes. It is the real reason you are still pissed at me after all this time.

Jumoschwanz

01-31-2012, 06:09 PM

IPlease for the love of God, drop the Masters List Jumo. That was two years back. Its been dead (thank the good lord) for a long time. Your simply pissed because the Advisory Board evaluated you and none of the seven voted for you at ascend. Drop it.... for all our sakes. It is the real reason you are still pissed at me after all this time.

Really? you can't remember from page 3 of this thread? Who brought up what?

Also, there are only about ten people I can think of who can really put these flight models (from 4.10.1 or 4.11) right to the wall, and test things to the last one or two percent. Some dont fly now, so I will list the four or five I still seeing flying online, and perhaps gather their opinions as well.

=TRIDENT= (russian guy, full real... Master)
357th_ULTI (Swedish guy, full real .... high level Master)
FI_RAMBO (American guy, full real .... approaching Master)
JG27_Tazu (full real, ... approaching Master but often flies as a team)
somthing like CM_Shuan (English, flies usually Tempy, high level veteran)
AFJ_Panther (American, full real .... Master)

I know another five to ten guys but they dont fly any more or not enough to be truly dangerous. Check these guys for their opinions as well.

Sorry, I never heard of any masters list of yours at all until less than a week ago, that is an egotistic assumption of yours as usual, I certainly don't care what self-appointed authorities have to say about me or WWII aviation. The reason I never liked you is the same reason no one else does, which you will never be able to see for the same reason any mentally challenged person is not aware of themselves.....

WhistlinggDeath

01-31-2012, 06:17 PM

Sighhhhh

If you would quit making silly little videos of you fighting AI controlled planes which any IQ 120 seven year old with two days training could defeat:

http://www.youtube.com/user/Jumoschwanz

(btw, you spend one half the video flying the FW less than 300m off the ground, this is not how a BnZ plane is to be used)

while you collect unemployment insurance at our benefit, you would realize that all the pilots I listed above (it is Tzon instead of TaZzu though) for potential feedback could.....

beat the living $%^! out of you.

I rest my case.

WhistlinggDeath

01-31-2012, 06:30 PM

Gents, I attempted to start this day in this forum in a good mood with some actual data I have noticed about the Ta 152 H1 in patch 4.11. I can see it is going to be another day of personal attacks, so, I am signing off.

Take a look at the overheat algorithm Team D. It needs some work. As does the TA.

S! Gents.

Jumoschwanz

01-31-2012, 08:40 PM

In summary:

1:44 A.M

That is not going to delay the posting of the ntrk showing that backstabber not showing up to an honest fight (or getting blown from the sky if he does).

3:17 A.M.

I previously served in the Marines after college NROTC (in fact the Marines helped me make it thru college), and I am not sure you would win the pistol competition either.Y

3:47 A.M

Save the Xfire excuses for your Mama's breast.

5:02 A.M.

Signing off for today.

8:54 A.M.

4.11 needs further tweaking.

4:56p.m.

You got data Thor (like Papa or Jumo are trying to present), post it. If not, kindly keep it to yourself.

(Good advice WD! ever hold it up to a mirror?)

5:04 p.m.

I am no aviation historian ?

6:01p.m.

The La7 and 185s are not that affected Shawn.

6:33pm

That is a game changer.

6:53 p.m

I am no aviation historian,

7:17 p.m

while you collect unemployment insurance at our benefit, you would realize that all the pilots I listed above (it is Tzon instead of TaZzu though) for potential feedback could.....beat the living $%^! out of you. I rest my case.

7:30pm

Gents, I attempted to start this day in this forum in a good mood with some actual data I have noticed about the Ta 152 H1 in patch 4.11. I can see it is going to be another day of personal attacks, so, I am signing off.S! Gents.

Pure comic gold......