F4u-4 and F8F

[pandacat]

Has there been any discussion or plans to include F4u-4 and F8F in this game? At least F4u-4 did see combats in WWII and was produced in pretty substantial quantity. If Ta-152 and some experiemental LW aircraft that weren't completely out of testing phase are included, it's perfectly legittimate to have corsair-4. F8F also entered service and just was too late to see combat. Just some thoughts.

[horseback]

Unfortunately, both aircraft are claimed as the 'intellectual property' of the US Defense Company with an overactive legal staff that Shall Not Be Named...:evil: (this is their company logo).

As far as I know, there would be an enormous can of worms involved, a great deal of money spent, and very little chance of getting anything worthwhile accomplished.

Your chances of getting a flyable Typhoon are much better.

cheers

horseback

[Laurwin]

tell me more about F4U in the game currently though?

do you feel it's historically correct in it's climb rate, power output etc...? likelihood of overheating?

you don't notice very much bad things when you fight against zero, because you can still outrun them eventually.

but against tonys (ki61) and the late war japanese monster planes hayate and shiden (ki84 and N1k2), I have BIG problems, always, with USN planes...

maybe it's historical, i dunno, i've heard though, that Ki84 is basically an uber plane of the pacific front though.

either online or offfline against AIs.

[IceFire]

tell me more about F4U in the game currently though?

do you feel it's historically correct in it's climb rate, power output etc...? likelihood of overheating?

you don't notice very much bad things when you fight against zero, because you can still outrun them eventually.

but against tonys (ki61) and the late war japanese monster planes hayate and shiden (ki84 and N1k2), I have BIG problems, always, with USN planes...

maybe it's historical, i dunno, i've heard though, that Ki84 is basically an uber plane of the pacific front though.

either online or offfline against AIs.

See the thread down a few pages about aircraft acceleration. The Corsair is a monster and quite a bit better than people think it is (good reason why not to go by "Feel" and instead do actual testing).

Fly a Corsair like it was meant to be flown and use the tactics and techniques that you'd find in the high scoring USMC squadrons in the Solomons and it'll do VERY well. Its top speed matches the published USN test reports almost dead on these days so its top speed and other attributes are accurate the last I and others checked.

The Ki-61 was one of the first Japanese fighters to challenge American aircraft on their own terms (with speed and dive capabilities) and both the Ki-84 and N1K are technically higher performing than the Corsair. I'd say the Ki-84 is modeled somewhat optimistically with a top speed and other performance levels consistent with the best maintained Ki-84s... indeed it may have even been based off of an American test using fuel that was better in quality than what Japan typically had access to. This can make a big difference. I've suggested that a 1944 year Ki-84 option be added to give a more typical level of performance while maintaining the higher performing ones as well.

Keep in mind two issues that the Japanese faced that you don't as a sim pilot:

1) Engine and other mechanical difficulties that many of their aircraft faced including the Ki-84, Ki-61, and N1K. Spare parts were hard to find in some theatres and the conditions and industrial issues that Japan faced caused many technical issues keeping these aircraft on the ground or at reduced levels of capability.

2) Pilot training issues caused by high losses of the experienced pilots in the first two years of the war. A pilot with little experience in an excellent aircraft won't be much use against a coordinated team flying Corsairs even if the Corsair is a little lower on the raw performance level.

[pandacat]

Unfortunately, both aircraft are claimed as the 'intellectual property' of the US Defense Company with an overactive legal staff that Shall Not Be Named...:evil: (this is their company logo).

As far as I know, there would be an enormous can of worms involved, a great deal of money spent, and very little chance of getting anything worthwhile accomplished.

Your chances of getting a flyable Typhoon are much better.

cheers

horseback

Interesting why they kept F4u-4, but not F4u-1 or other variants? Since we have F4u-1s in game, I assume they kept a much looser hand on those.

[TinyTim]

maybe it's historical, i dunno, i've heard though, that Ki84 is basically an uber plane of the pacific front though.


F4U: 2000 HP, 4000 kg (empty)
Ki-84: 2000 HP, 2700 kg (empty)

...

[IceFire]

Interesting why they kept F4u-4, but not F4u-1 or other variants? Since we have F4u-1s in game, I assume they kept a much looser hand on those.

Pacific Fighters shipped with the F4U-1 models. After it shipped, the legal wranglings began. The details are unclear but it was made clear to the third party development community some time after it was settled that no further aircraft from the corporation that shall not be named would be allowed.

Efforts to add the F4U-4 and other aircraft and objects such as ships were forever locked down for the original IL-2 series.

Because European companies don't have entire teams of bored and insane lawyers... those aircraft are still very much free reign. There are some popular options for both Europe and the Pacific that would be nice to have added at some point but unfortunately we'll never see the hottest of the Corsair models.

I will say, however, that as far as historical scenarios go... we have the Corsair models necessary to do every campaign. Even in 1944 and 1945 the F4U-1D was pretty much the model in use and the F4U-4 was comparatively rare. Similarly... the best of the Japanese types were rare to begin with and beset by technical and reliability issues so proper historical campaigns will have the models we have VERY much in their element.

[Laurwin]

thx for the answer icefire.

Well, true enough, good teamwork works well enough with wildcats vs zekes, I hope it would work also with corsair vs george/frank (n1k2 ki84).

Also I'm not ranting, actually as a matter of fact I just had a great evening on skies of valor server, I had personal IL-2 record sofar there. By my own calculations on yesterday's game, I had 16:1 victory/defeat ratio + 3 damaged enemy ac. My aerial defeat came when I went strafing enemy base alone, I got bounced by two p-38s. I had two kills in the bag already though. :cool:


On one hand, I understand, that the game would become quite complicated to balance, if we went with completely historically accurate "circumstances"
(lack of spare parts, poor engine quality, poor fuel quality etc...)

On the other hand, aviation fuel quality was quite important technological factor to have in WW2. After all, all engines use fuel, even the best engine is simply an overengineered paperweight, unless supplied with dinosaur-remains, petrol products. Power comes from the chemical energy of the fuel, does it not? :-P

I dunno how accurate this is but here's this web-article, Dr Peter W. Becker, University of South Carolina, for the significance of avgas quality in WW2 http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1981/jul-aug/becker.htm


Essentially, the site says, because of American high quality avgas, Allied airforces were able to field aircraft engines which had better power output. Substantial increases in aircraft speed, range, and ceiling would be made possible with high octane avgas.

These advantages Germany was unable to obtain until 1945 or so, claims the article. I would hazard a guess that the high octane fuel bottleneck prevented Luftwaffe from having properly functioning high altitude fighter aircraft, at an earlier time. Worse German fuel, compared to Allied fuel, would lead to bad compression ratio in German engines, meaning less power output.

[Igo kyu]

These advantages Germany was unable to obtain until 1945 or so, claims the article. I would hazard a guess that the high octane fuel bottleneck prevented Luftwaffe from having properly functioning high altitude fighter aircraft, at an earlier time. Worse German fuel, compared to Allied fuel, would lead to bad compression ratio in German engines, meaning less power output.
The Bf 109 was known to have a higher service ceiling than the Spitfire during the BOB and afterwards.

[IceFire]

thx for the answer icefire.

Well, true enough, good teamwork works well enough with wildcats vs zekes, I hope it would work also with corsair vs george/frank (n1k2 ki84).

Also I'm not ranting, actually as a matter of fact I just had a great evening on skies of valor server, I had personal IL-2 record sofar there. By my own calculations on yesterday's game, I had 16:1 victory/defeat ratio + 3 damaged enemy ac. My aerial defeat came when I went strafing enemy base alone, I got bounced by two p-38s. I had two kills in the bag already though. :cool:


On one hand, I understand, that the game would become quite complicated to balance, if we went with completely historically accurate "circumstances"
(lack of spare parts, poor engine quality, poor fuel quality etc...)

On the other hand, aviation fuel quality was quite important technological factor to have in WW2. After all, all engines use fuel, even the best engine is simply an overengineered paperweight, unless supplied with dinosaur-remains, petrol products. Power comes from the chemical energy of the fuel, does it not? :-P

I dunno how accurate this is but here's this web-article, Dr Peter W. Becker, University of South Carolina, for the significance of avgas quality in WW2 http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1981/jul-aug/becker.htm


Essentially, the site says, because of American high quality avgas, Allied airforces were able to field aircraft engines which had better power output. Substantial increases in aircraft speed, range, and ceiling would be made possible with high octane avgas.

These advantages Germany was unable to obtain until 1945 or so, claims the article. I would hazard a guess that the high octane fuel bottleneck prevented Luftwaffe from having properly functioning high altitude fighter aircraft, at an earlier time. Worse German fuel, compared to Allied fuel, would lead to bad compression ratio in German engines, meaning less power output.
Whole other can of worms you're opening there :)

The short version is that the original flight models for these aircraft were done with various choices in place and plenty of arguments and bickering on the old Oleg's Ready Room forum (Ubisoft Forums). Most aircraft were modelled with best possible performance numbers which may not have always been the best decision in my mind (I'd rather war typical performance levels).

I'd also wager that the best known performance data on the Japanese aircraft may have come from Allied sources rather than from Japan. The Allies tested Japanese aircraft extensively and often with better gas and maintenance than front line Japanese squadrons... at least this is what I've read. Which suggests the best sources we have on the rarer Japanese types are somewhat higher performing than they probably did in the field. By how much is also open to debate of course.

Again... all of that is a totally different can of worms. I'll stop before I tempt fate and we see a 30 pager :D

[Pursuivant]

Unfortunately, both aircraft are claimed as the 'intellectual property' of the US Defense Company with an overactive legal staff that Shall Not Be Named...

Arguably, Vought products might be doable, since NG never fully owned Vought and sold their interest in it before the consent decree. But, it wouldn't surprise me if 1c/UbiSoft completely sold their souls to NG with the consent decree, agreeing to even the most specious intellectual property claims. After all, if NG can claim IP rights to the USS Arizona with a straight face, then they'll probably claim IP rights on the F4U-4 as well.

[pandacat]

I just find this IP issue ridiculous. If we are talking about F-35 or F-22, fine I am ok with it. IP on F4u-4 is more than half of century old. Also, there is no national security issue, either. For god's sake, why still having a tight grip on it. These worthless lawyers have nothing to suck on but dried bones.

[DD_crash]

I just find this IP issue ridiculous. If we are talking about F-35 or F-22, fine I am ok with it. IP on F4u-4 is more than half of century old. Also, there is no national security issue, either. For god's sake, why still having a tight grip on it. These worthless lawyers have nothing to suck on but dried bones.
I agree with you but the lawyers are trying to justify their huge pay and we are stuck with it. There was a move in the US to stop the sillyness but I dont know what happened. Apparently some Railroad companies wanted payment from modelers so we are not alone.

[Pursuivant]

I agree with you but the lawyers are trying to justify their huge pay and we are stuck with it. There was a move in the US to stop the sillyness but I dont know what happened. Apparently some Railroad companies wanted payment from modelers so we are not alone.

More to the point, 1c/Ubisoft agreed to a consent decree with NG, which might even be stricter than existing law or legal precedents. Since the consent decree is private, we'll never know.

The only way that I can see to get the properties that NG claims IP rights over into the game is for someone, preferably in Europe or certain parts of Asia, to buy the rights to IL2, but NOT agree to take on the legal restrictions placed on the franchise by the consent decree. That way, you'd get a fresh start in a legal environment where NG has a lot less power.

[IceFire]

I just find this IP issue ridiculous. If we are talking about F-35 or F-22, fine I am ok with it. IP on F4u-4 is more than half of century old. Also, there is no national security issue, either. For god's sake, why still having a tight grip on it. These worthless lawyers have nothing to suck on but dried bones.

Of course it's ridiculous... and sad.

[majorfailure]

I just find this IP issue ridiculous. If we are talking about F-35 or F-22, fine I am ok with it. IP on F4u-4 is more than half of century old. Also, there is no national security issue, either. For god's sake, why still having a tight grip on it. These worthless lawyers have nothing to suck on but dried bones.

The whole legal avalanche wouldn't have started IF Ubisoft hadn't thrown these lawyers a bone to gnaw on by using an artwork of an N-G product on the Pacific Fighters box (Beyond stoooopid IMHO).

Does anyone know if IP rights are voided after some time on any other works besides books/records(70 years after author dies)?

[Laurwin]

Yes it was perhaps oversimplification on my part, I should not have lumped together 1939 british fuel with high octane American fuel. Probably there was not so much lend-lease during battle of britain.

But as a matter of fact, bf-109 (and also fockewulf) have worse power, speed, climb and ceiling. When compared to more modern Allied fighters in 1943-45 (I consider ta152 as separate design)

matchups against spit mark9, mustangs, thunderbolts...(im unsure if corsair is better up high, vs german)

Reason for this good allied performance, compared to poorer german performanc at high altitude, lies partly in the fuel quality difference (which affects compression rate in engine)

[horseback]

I've been flying Corsairs and Hellcats a lot lately, and I should make a few points about the FMs.

First, while the performance is there with full engine power (110% throttle), it often seems a bit sluggish if not downright weak at less than full power. It sometimes seems an all or nothing proposition with these two. I've found that changing supercharger stages appropriately (stage 1 from sea level to around 4500 ft/1500m, stage 2 from 4500 to 17500 ft, and stage 3 above 17500 ft) helps, keeping your cowl gills (radiator flaps) at 30%, and your prop pitch between 90 and 80% when you want to speed up without overheating are big helps. When you're cruising, drop your rpms to about 2250 and your manifold pressure to about 30-35 inches with your radiator at 30% at any altitude (and the higher you get, the better against the Japanese fighters).

Second, keep the fight in the vertical; dive at 2400 or so rpm (80% prop pitch), with your supercharger at least one stage down and unless you only have a couple of thousand feet to go, don't put your throttles past 90%; you'll pick up speed quickly and you'll need to mash in a lot of left rudder and nose down trim as you gain speed, especially with the Hellcat. Trim is critical with both of these aircraft; being out of trim sucks away a lot of your speed and power, and speed and power are your primary advantages in these aircraft. Make sure you either have a very handy pair of trim axes for rudder and elevator, or easily reached buttons for left & right rudder and up and down elevator trims (I use the POV hat switch on my stick for trim, since I have a TrackIR).

Third, they both give you a lot better forward vision than the Army fighters, and the gunsight is great for estimating angles and distances in a diving attack. Shoot when you have a shot--don't try to follow your target through more than 70 degrees of turn or into a loop; just blow on past, change directions and gradually pull up into a zoom climb. Increase your prop pitch and throttle as you climb, but drop back down to lower pitch and throttle once you've gotten three or four thousand feet above the enemy to keep your engine temps manageable. Most of the time, you won't need to exceed 100% throttle; the real aircraft only went to war emergency if their lives were on the line (and they still got yelled at by the squadron Engineering Officer and or their crew chief when they got back).

Look around to make sure that you're clear and nobody is on your tail and then set up for your next attack. Use the Lean Forward POV to see behind and below you--you'll be glad you did.

Fourth, the in-game Zero has an UNGODLY acceleration from 200 to about 350kph IAS; in addition, its in-game weapons are much more effective than the real life performance, and as you might guess, the AI are unaffected by the limitations of little things like a standard convergence. I've been de-winged from over 600m by Rookies when I made the mistake of flying straight and level once I thought I had enough distance...

If you're flying Japanese aircraft, you will find that in general they are more manageable to fly than the USN fighters; much less trimming, no nose dropping as speed increases, don't overheat as quickly and they will go exactly where you point them if you keep the 'ball' centered--and the instruments are wonderfully clear and correct--something the Corsair and Hellcat are largely missing. But once they get to 350 kph, they lose steam and oomph quickly--in real life, the Zero and Oscar's stick forces 'heavied up' at speeds over 220 mph/365kph, and you were supposedly able to evade them fairly easily with a hard roll right and a dive--they just couldn't follow.

That doesn't seem to be part of the Il-2 '46 flight model for A6Ms or Ki-43s, but they are slower than you so keep fast and change directions slightly every couple of seconds until you have 700m or more separation with a speed in excess of 460 kph/280mph/250 knots.

IMHO, the Japanese FMs are almost all overoptimistic, period. Away from the carriers and major bases like Rabaul or Saipan, the maintenance was poor to non-existent, never mind the fact that the Allies had choked off most of their logisticis lines and by the time the Philippines were invaded in late 1944, most of the skilled manpower the IJN and IJA started the war with were dead or trapped on some jungle island, and that definitely included their aircraft ground crews. I suspect that actual factory performance figures that are published were ideals that were rarely met by production aircraft, particularly after mid-1944.

As mentioned earlier, the FMS seem to be based on US tests made with higher octane fuels and a certain amount of maintenance and repair far superior to anything apart from the original manufacturer's facilities that an IJN or IJAS aircraft would have received just to make it safe to fly by Western standards. The designs themselves were often quite good, but engines were generally less powerful than the designs needed and the actual production standards to build them properly were often beyond the abilities of the Japanese work force of the 1940s, especially as more and more able bodied men with technical backgrounds were absorbed (and often misused) by the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy.

cheers

horseback

[Pursuivant]

in addition, its in-game weapons are much more effective than the real life performance, and as you might guess, the AI are unaffected by the limitations of little things like a standard convergence.

I have to wonder if 0.30 caliber/5.62mm guns aren't overpowered in general in the game.


If you're flying Japanese aircraft, you will find that in general they are more manageable to fly than the USN fighters; much less trimming, no nose dropping as speed increases, don't overheat as quickly and they will go exactly where you point them if you keep the 'ball' centered--and the instruments are wonderfully clear and correct

Strange. I find that the engines on the Zero overheat fairly quickly, although they also cool down fairly quickly, too.

Other than that, the A6M and Ki-43 series are a joy to fly. I assumed that was because both planes were noted for their crisp handling - at least at low speeds.


IMHO, the Japanese FMs are almost all overoptimistic, period. Away from the carriers and major bases like Rabaul or Saipan, the maintenance was poor to non-existent

I can believe this, but do you have data to prove it?

I do know that once the U.S. started hitting the home islands in 1944-45, Japanese airframe and engine quality dropped badly. Likewise, fuel quality was poor. (At least per anecdotes in Saburo Sakai's autobiography)

Two of my big wishes for some future IL2 patch are:

a) The ability to specify 100 or 87 (or whatever) octane fuel for planes.

b) The ability for mission builders or server admins to degrade aircraft performance (maybe using a slider or percentage increment) to simulate battle damage, poor maintenance or overall wear.

[Fighterace]

It's a real crying shame that the "Dash 4" Corsair and Bearcats cant be added to IL-2 :(

[IceFire]

I have to wonder if 0.30 caliber/5.62mm guns aren't overpowered in general in the game.

That's interesting... most people consider them to be chronically underpowered. Why would you think that?

The reason for the feeling of them being underpowered is due to the lack of a really complex damage modeling system so weapons that do a lot of structural damage are getting most of the benefit and other weapons that do internal systems damage are not getting as much of an effect. Example... radiator cooling systems are not fully modeled so you can shoot a 109 in the radiator with little real effect.

The problem with the Japanese guns is twofold:

1) Lack of sources of detailed information on weapons and correct belting

2) The in-game guns use close approximations of whatever the Japanese were using and often use the German equivalent.

The Type 99 20mm cannon in-game is a MG-FF/M benefitting from the German weapons slightly higher fire rate, much higher muzzle velocity (although still low), and is belted with the Mine round of which I doubt the Japanese were using. There were actually two Type 99 cannons used during the war and later model Zeros had the 99-2 fitted with an even lower fire rate but much higher muzzle velocity.

Sorry for the sidetrack :)

[pandacat]

I've been flying Corsairs and Hellcats a lot lately, and I should make a few points about the FMs.

First, while the performance is there with full engine power (110% throttle), it often seems a bit sluggish if not downright weak at less than full power. It sometimes seems an all or nothing proposition with these two. I've found that changing supercharger stages appropriately (stage 1 from sea level to around 4500 ft/1500m, stage 2 from 4500 to 17500 ft, and stage 3 above 17500 ft) helps, keeping your cowl gills (radiator flaps) at 30%, and your prop pitch between 90 and 80% when you want to speed up without overheating are big helps. When you're cruising, drop your rpms to about 2250 and your manifold pressure to about 30-35 inches with your radiator at 30% at any altitude (and the higher you get, the better against the Japanese fighters).



Thanks for the tips. I have question on your PP usage. I read WD's writing on PP. He said it's ideal to always keep RPM with in the power band. For corsair, it's between 2700-2600. Within that band, you get highest thrust. If you drop PP down to between 80% to 90%, you will only get 2500 in level flight. With less thrust, how would you be able to go fast?

[IceFire]

Thanks for the tips. I have question on your PP usage. I read WD's writing on PP. He said it's ideal to always keep RPM with in the power band. For corsair, it's between 2700-2600. Within that band, you get highest thrust. If you drop PP down to between 80% to 90%, you will only get 2500 in level flight. With less thrust, how would you be able to go fast?

Not to put words in horseback's mouth... but I would assume he's talking about running the aircraft efficiently. So you can run at 100% pitch/throttle but you'll generate more heat. Either short bursts of top speed and then throttling back or longer sustained periods of almost top speed is faster overall.

[pandacat]

Oh, I see your point. But in terms of pure thrust and acceleration, higher RPM the better, right?

[pandacat]

Just a quick tactical example. I started off with low speed behind a cruising Zero at the same altitude. If I want to catch up with him, I would first throttle to max and RPM to 2700 to provide max thrust and acceleration. After I attain a high speed, I would lower RPM and throttle back to maintain it? Does my way make sense?

[KG26_Alpha]

The reason for the feeling of them being underpowered is due to the lack of a really complex damage modeling system so weapons that do a lot of structural damage are getting most of the benefit and other weapons that do internal systems damage are not getting as much of an effect. Example... radiator cooling systems are not fully modeled so you can shoot a 109 in the radiator with little real effect.



Examples:
Every aircraft in IL2 1946.

:)





.

[Pursuivant]

That's interesting... most people consider them to be chronically underpowered. Why would you think that?

Perhaps it's related to gunnery accuracy, but many times I've been shot down (PK or engine fire) flying against planes equipped with single 0.30/5.62 mm flexible gun positions. Sometimes I've been stupid and have been making almost dead astern attacks without manuevering, but a few times I've gotten zapped while doing things properly and making head-on or high-side high deflection shots.

Also, it seems like light caliber guns are a bit too effective at getting control surface critical hits.

Of course, on the other hand, flying planes like the Ki-43 or Hurricane Mk I is a challenge due to their light armament. But, that's sort of realistic since it reflects a conscious armament decision by the planes' builders which didn't work out so well in reality.


The reason for the feeling of them being underpowered is due to the lack of a really complex damage modeling system so weapons that do a lot of structural damage are getting most of the benefit and other weapons that do internal systems damage are not getting as much of an effect.

Hmm. I thought that each bullet is modeled as an "arrow" which penetrates through the plane model, like in "arcade mode". If it intersects with a vital system, there's a chance for a "critical hit." If it hits armor, it gets slowed or blocked. That's about as realistic as you can get without modeling things like explosive shell/bullet bursts, bullet fragmentation, or deflection/ricochet effects.

Example... radiator cooling systems are not fully modeled so you can shoot a 109 in the radiator with little real effect.

Isn't this a problem with individual planes (especially the older ones) rather than a systemic problem? Since I haven't looked at the DM for the various planes I don't know.

The problem with the Japanese guns is twofold:


1) Lack of sources of detailed information on weapons and correct belting

Strange. You'd think that the US military would have collected this sort of information. They did pretty extensive testing of just about every weapon they captured.


2) The in-game guns use close approximations of whatever the Japanese were using and often use the German equivalent.

Strange, since it's at least possible to get ballistic data for Japanese weapons.

[horseback]

Thanks for the tips. I have question on your PP usage. I read WD's writing on PP. He said it's ideal to always keep RPM with in the power band. For corsair, it's between 2700-2600. Within that band, you get highest thrust. If you drop PP down to between 80% to 90%, you will only get 2500 in level flight. With less thrust, how would you be able to go fast?I don't know who WD is, so I cannot comment on his figures. I simply find that once I level off after a zoom climb and roll out at speeds under 130 knots that gradually (but not slowly) dropping prop pitch from 95% or so down to 80-85% has a noticeable effect on my speedometer dial without having to resort to going over 100% throttle. It may be my imagination, but in-game, the R-2800 seems to pick up speed a bit quicker while you're moving down in prop pitch through that range (hey, it might be an 'exploit' for all I know).

Obviously, there is no 'feeling' of increasing acceleration, so the best impression you can get is from watching the speed indicator unwind. It goes clockwise pretty quickly when you smoothly move your prop pitch axis back that little bit. In fact, keeping an eye on the speed dial will help you gauge how fast to move that lever/dial.

In any case, it does keep your engine much cooler and allows you to crank it up in an emergency without fear of burning it up. The main thing is to start with some altitude and use your stored energy to maintain the initiative (and trim! Stay in trim as much as possible).

cheers

horseback

[horseback]

That's interesting... most people consider them to be chronically underpowered. Why would you think that?

The reason for the feeling of them being underpowered is due to the lack of a really complex damage modeling system so weapons that do a lot of structural damage are getting most of the benefit and other weapons that do internal systems damage are not getting as much of an effect. Example... radiator cooling systems are not fully modeled so you can shoot a 109 in the radiator with little real effect.

The problem with the Japanese guns is twofold:

1) Lack of sources of detailed information on weapons and correct belting

2) The in-game guns use close approximations of whatever the Japanese were using and often use the German equivalent.

The Type 99 20mm cannon in-game is a MG-FF/M benefitting from the German weapons slightly higher fire rate, much higher muzzle velocity (although still low), and is belted with the Mine round of which I doubt the Japanese were using. There were actually two Type 99 cannons used during the war and later model Zeros had the 99-2 fitted with an even lower fire rate but much higher muzzle velocity.

Sorry for the sidetrack :)In my experience, any gun is going to be underpowered if I'm the one firing it...and if it is being fired at me, then it is undoubtedly overpowered.

I recently was re-reading Fire In the Sky, by Eric Bergerud. In it, he mentions that the Zero's cannon were originally license built MG-FFs. If they were slower firing than the German models, he doesn't say, but the LW moved exclusively to MG151/20s pretty quickly when it became possible. I seem to recall from possibly other sources that later 20mm cannon models the Japanese used were literally scaled up Browning designs, identical to the US M2, just bigger. I recall that the display at the National Air & Space Museum in Washington DC certainly reflected this.

In any event, the Japanese had issues with their cannon having very different ballistics and trajectory from their light machine guns, and found that the cannon were less effective in their favored close-in maneuvering combat; it seems that the cannon rounds often went somewhere different from the MG rounds if you fired during high-G turns (they were slower firing and <probably> started firing a fraction of a second later than the MGs).

cheers

horseback

[pandacat]

I don't know who WD is, so I cannot comment on his figures. I simply find that once I level off after a zoom climb and roll out at speeds under 130 knots that gradually (but not slowly) dropping prop pitch from 95% or so down to 80-85% has a noticeable effect on my speedometer dial without having to resort to going over 100% throttle. It may be my imagination, but in-game, the R-2800 seems to pick up speed a bit quicker while you're moving down in prop pitch through that range (hey, it might be an 'exploit' for all I know).


WD is whistlingDeath. Not sure if you know him. My PP control is +/- 5% increment. What about you? Btw, do you fly F4F? Does wildcat have similar powerbands?

[IceFire]

Perhaps it's related to gunnery accuracy, but many times I've been shot down (PK or engine fire) flying against planes equipped with single 0.30/5.62 mm flexible gun positions. Sometimes I've been stupid and have been making almost dead astern attacks without manuevering, but a few times I've gotten zapped while doing things properly and making head-on or high-side high deflection shots.

Also, it seems like light caliber guns are a bit too effective at getting control surface critical hits.

Of course, on the other hand, flying planes like the Ki-43 or Hurricane Mk I is a challenge due to their light armament. But, that's sort of realistic since it reflects a conscious armament decision by the planes' builders which didn't work out so well in reality.



Hmm. I thought that each bullet is modeled as an "arrow" which penetrates through the plane model, like in "arcade mode". If it intersects with a vital system, there's a chance for a "critical hit." If it hits armor, it gets slowed or blocked. That's about as realistic as you can get without modeling things like explosive shell/bullet bursts, bullet fragmentation, or deflection/ricochet effects.



Isn't this a problem with individual planes (especially the older ones) rather than a systemic problem? Since I haven't looked at the DM for the various planes I don't know.

The problem with the Japanese guns is twofold:



Strange. You'd think that the US military would have collected this sort of information. They did pretty extensive testing of just about every weapon they captured.



Strange, since it's at least possible to get ballistic data for Japanese weapons.
So you're probably talking more about turret gunners which used to badly suffer from and still have some slight issues with being oddly accurate. These days TD has made them much less accurate to the point where its much more realistic... they still make the odd shot that you can either count as lucky or impossible. But this is a different story than normal gunnery as the bullet is hitting some of the vulnerable sections of the plane... the engine, the cockpit, etc. The heavy machine guns in particularly would be devastating and control damage is just the sort of thing that you might expect from bomber firing at you as you hover near their six.

I use the 109 as an example but yes this problem is pervasive with all planes. Some systems are modelled. Others are simply not. Every single bullet fired is calculated and tracked and when they hit an aircraft it is possible for them to hit a subsystem... absolutely. The DM system for IL-2 was, in its day, very good. The problem is that some systems don't exist in the model... the radiator systems for example. So even when you put a .50cal through that sub section you aren't doing all that much damage as there's nothing to hit.

The machine guns do structural damage too but not like the explosive rounds on the cannons. So IL-2's damage model is largely biased towards heavy cannons in my experience... this is something I'd consider general knowledge amongst the veterans in particular. It has gotten better... if you only started playing 2-3 years ago then you haven't seen what we used to have to deal with :)

If the US did collect information on Japanese weaponry its not easily recovered. I haven't been able to find it on any web resources anyways. The best I've found is a site with some of the individual shell details but not enough to reconstruct the guns accurately.

[horseback]

WD is whistlingDeath. Not sure if you know him. My PP control is +/- 5% increment. What about you? Btw, do you fly F4F? Does wildcat have similar powerbands? Know of him in a vague way; the name sounds familiar, possibly from the old Ubi forums.

I use a CH Throttle Quad for prop pitch, radiator, mixture and flaps (it does not increment in small enough bits to be useful for trims in my opinion). I still have a couple of buttons assigned to 'increase PP' and 'decrease PP', but I rarely use them, except to top off my full prop pitch when the axis doesn't go all the way up to 100% (it sometimes will stop at 98% with the lever all the way forward). I doubt that 5% increments would be as effective, but give it a try and see for yourself young padawan...

All aircraft engines have a powerband and the F4F's is similar to the rpm range in the Corsair and Hellcat's, but the Wildcat in-game is sluggish and overweight (not unlike the real thing), and in it, your best protection from the Emperor's Sea Eagles is to keep your altitude advantage as selfishly as possible, develop a good wingman relationship with somebody, learn to use the Thach (not 'thatch'--it's named after a great fighter leader & tactician, not a basket) weave, maintain good comms with your wingman and work to become a good shot. Those were the actual advantages the US Navy and Marine Wildcat pilots used to nullify the Zero, and by the time the Corsair had replaced the F4F in the Solomons the Wildcat owned about a 1.2 to one kill advantage over the Zeke in fighter to fighter combat.

Oh, and don't bother with the FM-2 in-game; it's not remotely the fighter that the real life 'wilder Wildcat' was. It seems even worse to me than the F4F-4, if that is possible. On the plus side, it moves back to the 4-guns arrangement with longer firing time.

cheers

horseback

[IceFire]

In my experience, any gun is going to be underpowered if I'm the one firing it...and if it is being fired at me, then it is undoubtedly overpowered.

I recently was re-reading Fire In the Sky, by Eric Bergerud. In it, he mentions that the Zero's cannon were originally license built MG-FFs. If they were slower firing than the German models, he doesn't say, but the LW moved exclusively to MG151/20s pretty quickly when it became possible. I seem to recall from possibly other sources that later 20mm cannon models the Japanese used were literally scaled up Browning designs, identical to the US M2, just bigger. I recall that the display at the National Air & Space Museum in Washington DC certainly reflected this.

In any event, the Japanese had issues with their cannon having very different ballistics and trajectory from their light machine guns, and found that the cannon were less effective in their favored close-in maneuvering combat; it seems that the cannon rounds often went somewhere different from the MG rounds if you fired during high-G turns (they were slower firing and <probably> started firing a fraction of a second later than the MGs).

cheers

horseback

So you're actually talking about two weapons there :)

The Type 99 used by the Japanese Navy is derived from the Oerlikon FF of which the MG-FF is also derived. So they share a similar parentage but with some unique attributes of their own. The biggest difference here is that the Germans used the Mine shell ammunition whereas I don't think the Japanese did... using AP and HE rounds in some sort of combination.

The Browning .50cal scaled up into a cannon is the Japanese Army Ho-5 20mm cannon which was probably the best of the Japanese cannons used in the war. This cannon is actually modelled in IL-2. How well I'm not sure... but it is present in the game files. You'll find it on the Ki-84 and Ki-100.

The Japanese Army and Navy were highly independent structures sharing very little in the way of aircraft and aircraft armaments so there is a huge long list of machine guns and cannons... of which very few are represented in any capacity in IL-2 1946. There is even a variety of different guns used in IL-2 1946 that were chosen to represent the missing guns... the same gun is represented by the MG17 in the nose of the Zero and the Vickers K in the nose of the D3A Val and the Browning .30 in the nose of the Ki-27 and Ki-43. It's a mess!

[Laurwin]

Ouch just had a bad game vs those late war Japanese monster planes (including infamous heavy cannon 30mm ki84).

What could i have done differently in corsair-d?

Well we were using " kinda " bnz tactics. More like vertical aand horizontal turnfighting to be honest.

I got couple kills and couple share-kills.

Then i died making a pass at a betty bomber g4m. I should have dropped to his low six to avoid rear gunner I think, it doesnt have a botton gunner rite?

But even those kills against japanese monster ac could still be made with bnz, and keeping energy high. Also perhaps, corsair might have advatage at higher alt? (we were low-med alt)

Gunnery is more difficult.imo, with CONGESTED NAVY GUNSIGHT. I mean you can hardly see thru it, where the.bandit actually is flying to. I always liked p-47-d-27 gunsite more.

So mainly enemy acs were ki84 30mm, and j2m raiden. I could have taken p38 L but ive heard that its quite bad vs those ki84s (i remember bigsilverhotdog made video he said p38 is outclassed - defensive choices video)

[IceFire]

Ouch just had a bad game vs those late war Japanese monster planes (including infamous heavy cannon 30mm ki84).

What could i have done differently in corsair-d?

Well we were using " kinda " bnz tactics. More like vertical aand horizontal turnfighting to be honest.

I got couple kills and couple share-kills.

Then i died making a pass at a betty bomber g4m. I should have dropped to his low six to avoid rear gunner I think, it doesnt have a botton gunner rite?

But even those kills against japanese monster ac could still be made with bnz, and keeping energy high. Also perhaps, corsair might have advatage at higher alt? (we were low-med alt)

Gunnery is more difficult.imo, with CONGESTED NAVY GUNSIGHT. I mean you can hardly see thru it, where the.bandit actually is flying to. I always liked p-47-d-27 gunsite more.

So mainly enemy acs were ki84 30mm, and j2m raiden. I could have taken p38 L but ive heard that its quite bad vs those ki84s (i remember bigsilverhotdog made video he said p38 is outclassed - defensive choices video)
The Ki-84, particularly given the modelling that it has in IL-2, holds all of the cards against the Corsair except for durability and by the amount of firepower it can carry around. The Ki-84 as modelled assumes best operating condition and so it has a higher top speed, better climb rate, better turn rate, similar roll rate, etc. The J2M3 is the same and basically holds all of the same advantages.

The Corsair can soak up a lot more damage than both of these and it can carry a hell of a lot more weaponry for ground attack but as far as fighter vs fighter it is outclassed. If the Ki-84 had an additional version modelled assuming frontline conditions the performance difference would be much less... but the Ki-84 is an exceptional fighter.

Note the Ki-84-Ic with 30mm cannons may have never even seen combat so this isn't a purely historical match either. With the 30mm cannons he goes from owning the battle to domination in a 1 v 1 situation.

Your best bet is to take additional time to climb to a position of advantage and use sweeping attacks in a coordinated fashion. With energy advantage you can force him to evade and with team tactics you can ensure that no matter what way he breaks there will always be a Corsair in firing position. One or two glancing hits near the wing roots and his fuel tanks will light on fire. The J2M3 is a smaller target and a little bit tougher but no less vulnerable so exploit their weakness in toughness and make sure you can get some rounds on target.

Also the F4U-1C is probably your best option Corsair wise against these top level Japanese fighters. The four 20mm cannons will explode them rapidly.

Also the P-38L Late with the extra boost on the engines is actually a decent option. It'll be faster than both at most or all altitudes... it suffers by being a big target and somewhat less agile but if you're very good with the P-38 then you can manage your energy well and out perform them. The P-51 would be a more solid match here as well.

[Pursuivant]

Belting info for the Atukan Zero:

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt08/zero-fighter.html

[horseback]

CONGESTED NAVY GUNSIGHT
You may now lower the brightness of the gunsight displays by assigning a key or button to increase or decrease the brightness. The USN sight does take a little getting used to, because the center dot isn't larger or more pronounced in any way, BUT it stands higher in your forward windshield above the cowl line, and once you get used to it, all those little lines and dots permit you to estimate angles and lead much more easily than that single dot hanging in the center of the circle. You can make higher deflection shots with your target still in your field of vision, which was what US Naval fighter gunnery doctrine was all about.

I find that the ai are quite good at changing direction the microsecond they disappear behind your aircraft's nose, even the stinkin' bombers; they can't do that nearly as easily against you in a Corsair or Hellcat, and it is even harder for a human pilot flying 'full real' to anticipate an opponent's firing solution that way in any case.

The only thing I have to say about the late-war IJN and IJA fighters' FMs is that they are BULLS**T, two parts imaginary and one part assuming that the 'factory figures' of the actual aircraft could ever have matched the basic production quality we assume for Allied aircraft, or had the fuels and competent maintenance available to the Allies at any point during the war. It's about 'gameplay' and symbolically sticking a thumb in the eye of that certain US defense company Who Shall Not Be Named instead of historical accuracy.

cheers

horseback

[pandacat]

Horseback, going back to PP and CEM questions. I tested it on F4F-3, going 95%to90% does get a higher speed, especially with a little nose down attitude. However, it only works on a certain altitude. I remember hearing someone say different altitude has different PP settings. The learning curve is pretty steep in the field of CEM. Wanna set up a new thread to discuss PP and throttle settings in more details?

[Laurwin]

You may now lower the brightness of the gunsight displays by assigning a key or button to increase or decrease the brightness. The USN sight does take a little getting used to, because the center dot isn't larger or more pronounced in any way, BUT it stands higher in your forward windshield above the cowl line, and once you get used to it, all those little lines and dots permit you to estimate angles and lead much more easily than that single dot hanging in the center of the circle. You can make higher deflection shots with your target still in your field of vision, which was what US Naval fighter gunnery doctrine was all about.

I find that the ai are quite good at changing direction the microsecond they disappear behind your aircraft's nose, even the stinkin' bombers; they can't do that nearly as easily against you in a Corsair or Hellcat, and it is even harder for a human pilot flying 'full real' to anticipate an opponent's firing solution that way in any case.

The only thing I have to say about the late-war IJN and IJA fighters' FMs is that they are BULLS**T, two parts imaginary and one part assuming that the 'factory figures' of the actual aircraft could ever have matched the basic production quality we assume for Allied aircraft, or had the fuels and competent maintenance available to the Allies at any point during the war. It's about 'gameplay' and symbolically sticking a thumb in the eye of that certain US defense company Who Shall Not Be Named instead of historical accuracy.

cheers

horseback

What convergence would you use with corsair/hellcat?

I've done ok at 300m with P-47 and mustang, but the gunsight is just... shall we say hard to adjust with the navy planes LOL.


I guess really close, you would blast zeke easily (and slightly tougher KI84 N1K2 etc...), with a closer convergence - like 150-200m.

[horseback]

Horseback, going back to PP and CEM questions. I tested it on F4F-3, going 95%to90% does get a higher speed, especially with a little nose down attitude. However, it only works on a certain altitude. I remember hearing someone say different altitude has different PP settings. The learning curve is pretty steep in the field of CEM. Wanna set up a new thread to discuss PP and throttle settings in more details?Try taking it all the way down to 80%; the F4F is generally sluggish unless you're getting salt spray on your windscreen (at which point 120%/Full Rich Mixture will help keep your engine cooler), but many aircraft benefit from starting in low gear and gradually shifting to a higher gear for sustained speed and run still keep temps below overheat.

I had a thread that centered on acceleration tests the last three or four months; a lot of useful information can be found there, and if you can find the Pilot's Notes for the Martlet or F4F somewhere, there will be some Good Stuff there too. Simply put, though, the Wildcat was a classic case of the underpowered fighter. It's too heavy for the horsepower it has (and the FM-2, which was over 500 lbs lighter and had an extra 200 horses below 20K ft PLUS being that little bit aerodynamically cleaner simply doesn't have an FM that reflects that). According to America's Hundred Thousand, the Wildcat was pretty low drag but that little R-1830 wasn't enough for serious performance (and an R-2800 was almost two years off).

The Bearcat, which was the ultimate expression of the R-2800 powered fighter, looks a lot more like an FM-2 with a cut down rear fuselage and a bubbletop than it does like a refined Hellcat to me.

cheers

horseback

[horseback]

What convergence would you use with corsair/hellcat?

I've done ok at 300m with P-47 and mustang, but the gunsight is just... shall we say hard to adjust with the navy planes LOL.


I guess really close, you would blast zeke easily (and slightly tougher KI84 N1K2 etc...), with a closer convergence - like 150-200m. 305 meters is the standard range all USN and USMC fighters' guns were harmonized at (except night fighters, which were set for around 200m--but don't hold me to that).

That's the range I use (and it is very effective between 200 and 400m) for US fighters. I like the Navy sight more than the Army sight, but it took me a while to come to a full appreciation of its virtues.

cheers

horseback

[IceFire]

You may now lower the brightness of the gunsight displays by assigning a key or button to increase or decrease the brightness. The USN sight does take a little getting used to, because the center dot isn't larger or more pronounced in any way, BUT it stands higher in your forward windshield above the cowl line, and once you get used to it, all those little lines and dots permit you to estimate angles and lead much more easily than that single dot hanging in the center of the circle. You can make higher deflection shots with your target still in your field of vision, which was what US Naval fighter gunnery doctrine was all about.

I find that the ai are quite good at changing direction the microsecond they disappear behind your aircraft's nose, even the stinkin' bombers; they can't do that nearly as easily against you in a Corsair or Hellcat, and it is even harder for a human pilot flying 'full real' to anticipate an opponent's firing solution that way in any case.

The only thing I have to say about the late-war IJN and IJA fighters' FMs is that they are BULLS**T, two parts imaginary and one part assuming that the 'factory figures' of the actual aircraft could ever have matched the basic production quality we assume for Allied aircraft, or had the fuels and competent maintenance available to the Allies at any point during the war. It's about 'gameplay' and symbolically sticking a thumb in the eye of that certain US defense company Who Shall Not Be Named instead of historical accuracy.

cheers

horseback

I agree that many of the Japanese fighters could use a solid going over by Team Daidalos. References are hard to come by with these aircraft too... so I suspect from the Pacific Fighters days that the FM's were created as is maybe with some of the stuff that you mention but also created in extreme haste, without a lot of care, and maybe even some laziness... I'm not sure. They don't appear to have gotten the kind of attention that some of the earlier aircraft did.

[pandacat]

Try taking it all the way down to 80%; the F4F is generally sluggish unless you're getting salt spray on your windscreen (at which point 120%/Full Rich Mixture will help keep your engine cooler), but many aircraft benefit from starting in low gear and gradually shifting to a higher gear for sustained speed and run still keep temps below overheat.

I had a thread that centered on acceleration tests the last three or four months; a lot of useful information can be found there, and if you can find the Pilot's Notes for the Martlet or F4F somewhere, there will be some Good Stuff there too.

Yeah, hellcat is a bit uglier than wildcat. But out of all navy fighters, corsair is my favorite. Just hate the fact that we don't have -4 in this game.

[pandacat]

horseback. I went back to re-read your thread on acceleration tests. In there, you noted that 310+mph, 2700 accelerates better than 3000 for P51. I just wonder that from your experience if that's the case for all other US planes, such as F4u, F6F and P-47. Because you mentioned 3000 works for all speeds for spitfire, that makes me wonder if acceleration physics are modelled differently for different planes. Also, when you reduced your RPM down to 2700, did you simotanously chop throttle or you just maintain the max power all time?

[horseback]

horseback. I went back to re-read your thread on acceleration tests. In there, you noted that 310+mph, 2700 accelerates better than 3000 for P51. I just wonder that from your experience if that's the case for all other US planes, such as F4u, F6F and P-47. Because you mentioned 3000 works for all speeds for spitfire, that makes me wonder if acceleration physics are modelled differently for different planes. Also, when you reduced your RPM down to 2700, did you simotanously chop throttle or you just maintain the max power all time?Actually, there are a few variables for the Mustang; there's a point in the 10,000 ft tests where the acceleration at 2700 rpm catches up with and passes the acceleration rate at 3000rpm. At 500 ft and at 5000 ft (which I haven't gotten around to recording and posting yet), this didn't happen. I suspect that it will happen at 15,000 ft and higher alts, where the air is thinner.

The Mustang's throttle control is kind of unique though (it controls manifold pressure directly, if I understand the manual correctly where most other aircraft's throttles just control how much fuel goes into the engine), and when testing the Spitfire Mk IX, which had essentially the same engine (and was lighter, but with a good bit more drag), I didn't get the same results at 2700 vs 3000 rpms.

The same is true with the P-38 and the American R-2800 powered fighters--they just don't react like a stick-shift car's transmission where you can put it in low gear (highest RPM) and gradually move up to higher gears (and progressively lower RPM) while accelerating at the same pace. Greatest constant state acceleration was obtained by shoving the throttle and prop pitch levers all the way forward and going all out until the engine overheated and then going for another 30 to 60 seconds or so, depending upon the aircraft (all the while mashing the nose down trim and adding rudder trim as required, and then in some cases, having to add nose up trim over certain higher speed ranges).

You CAN reach a desired speed and then lower prop pitch and get a temporary 'pop' in speed, but you can't keep the extra acceleration going by lowering your prop pitch some more--it's like putting too much strain on your engine, and making it work harder than it was designed to (like a bicyclist going uphill in too high a gear). What you want to do is get close to the speed you desire and then smoothly lower your prop pitch, allowing the engine to take advantage of the momentum you've built to reach that last bit and maintain your speed without overheating.

I also find that the better your power to weight ratio, the better your acceleration BUT drag is the ultimate limiter, and it increases on a steadily rising curve relative to speed. The Zero has a pretty good power to weight ratio and a spectacular acceleration at lower speeds, but it is larger than the Bf 109 and it has a really draggy high-lift wing, so the drag overpowers the engine fairly quickly once it reaches 370 to 400 kph or thereabouts.

At least that is what I found at 10,000ft/3000m and below.

I find that for the R-2800 powered fighters that the manual warns you not to keep high rpms during a dive; in fact, the recommended rpm for an extended dive is 2250, or close to 75% prop pitch. That will give you a pretty fast dive if you do it properly; you won't need much more than 60% throttle if you're taking it down over 3000 ft from your starting altitude.

The Corsair and even more, the Hellcat in this game exhibit an increasing nose-down attitude as the speed goes up. It seems to be a steady decrease in nose angle semi-proportional to speed, unlike the FW 190A, which has a sudden nose drop of a few degrees at (this is from memory, so don't bank on this) around 220 mph/ 360 kph and then stabilizes. These two USN birds just keep gradually tipping forwards, although the rate is greatest around 300-400 kph (160-220 knots) IAS. If you don't keep track of this, you can mess up your firing solution in a diving pass.

Your gunsight's center will not stay in the same spot if you maintain a straight line course even in a dive if your speed increases significantly; you have to 'aim' for a spot a bit farther ahead of your target than you would normally expect, and your diving gunnery pass will need to become shallower as you reach firing range.

Hope this helps.

cheers

horseback

[pandacat]

The last few sentences are very true. I always add a bit of up trim to maintain sight ahead of target. Btw. I don't know what hotas you use. I am using x52pro. I find using rotary for elevator trim is whole lot better than POV hat. Rotary helps you get to your desired trim quicker. Just a suggestion, you may want to try it. For rudder trim, I am still using POV hat. Thinking about moving that one also to the other rotary.

[horseback]

The last few sentences are very true. I always add a bit of up trim to maintain sight ahead of target. Btw. I don't know what hotas you use. I am using x52pro. I find using rotary for elevator trim is whole lot better than POV hat. Rotary helps you get to your desired trim quicker. Just a suggestion, you may want to try it. For rudder trim, I am still using POV hat. Thinking about moving that one also to the other rotary.
I use a CH Fighterstick/Pro Throttle/Pro Pedals/Throttle Quad plus a Saitek Pro Gamer Command Unit (for a button bay), and I just recently added an old Logitech Wingman Formula Force Grand Prix steering wheel with the AC power disconnected to disable the FFB (and automatic centering) in order to use it for an elevator trim wheel (and once I figure out what they'd be best for, I get six more buttons and a split axis (from the brake and gas pedals). The steering wheel uses the full 360 degrees of motion and is large enough diameter that it inputs small enough increments to be suseful in Il-2 '46 and is becoming automatic to me, since I mounted it beside my seat so that the wheel's rotation is perpendicular to the floor (it is in juuust the right place, I think, but it is a bit precarious/unstable using the 'stock' clamps with it angled down like that).

The CH Products gear can be combined into one 8 axis, 32+ button unit and another 4 axis, 12 button unit using the CH Manager software, and I find it invaluable for Il-2 Sturmovik '46 (not so much for FSX or DCS P-51D, which are far more flexible about the number of controllers). I've had my stick and pedals for over eleven years, and they work as well as they did the day I got them. The throttle came about a year later, and the Quad about six years ago (and except for the CH Control Manager software advantages, the Quad could be more cheaply replaced with two Saitek throttle quads in most cases). These are both as reliable as the stick and pedals, and show little evidence of their ages and heavy use.

I have an old 'vanilla' X52, but the stick is IMHO execrable both aesthetically and in terms of button locations and overall feel. It is waaaay too busy, even for monodexturous right-handed dweebs like me. My right hand should be dedicated to controlling the airplane, not pushing buttons (the act of reaching for some stick buttons with it during combat has thrown me into stalls and worse). My CH Fighterstick is more precise in its axes and more balanced button-wise (and it looks more businesslike for my non-flight sim nutjob friends and acquaintances when they visit).

The X52 throttle, on the other hand, is nice but grossly under buttoned in contrast to the stick; I like the weight and feel of the main axis, the dial pots and the slider, but everything else...ick! The centering of the pots on my X52 was a bit hard to locate by feel; I had to use a finepoint brush and some of my old Polly S acrylic modeling paints to mark out the centerpoints on the two rotary pots --looking at the red lines on the rotary dial and the body of the throttle tells you at a glance where you are trim wise. To keep the paint from wearing away with heavy use, cover your lines with clear varnish (fingernail polish is ideal, if you have a friendly source) once the original painted lines fully cure (about two or three days, depending upon local humidity). My younger son still uses it occasionally in tandem with a TM 1600, and we're trying to convert the stick into a button bay (without that comic book handle), but it is currently unused and in pieces at the moment.

If I were to design a HOTAS type throttle controller, I'd replace the attempts to put a 'mouse' capability with a four-way switch or a slider/dial pot combination and there would be no buttons at all on the base; in fact, it would be a hybrid of the X52 throttle and the CH Pro Throttle with the buttons of the CH Pro and the slider and dial pots of the X52. I prefer the feel of the X52's throttle axis and its heavier base, but the shape (and color) of the handle would be more CH-like. I'd also like to give the player a means of anchoring the average flight sim controller so that they aren't sliding around the desk, or in the case of pedals, across the floor. Hartmann and Bong never had to worry about their sticks coming up off the cockpit floor, or their seats suddenly being too far from their pedals. Having everything in exactly the same spot every time you fire up your favorite sim shouldn't be so hard.

cheers

horseback

[TexasJG]

Efforts to add the F4U-4 and other aircraft and objects such as ships were forever locked down for the original IL-2 series.



Thanks to mods, such as HSFX, this is really no longer as big an issue, Many such "unavailable" aircraft, ships and such for iL-2 are now available. And with amazing quality.

[IceFire]

Thanks to mods, such as HSFX, this is really no longer as big an issue, Many such "unavailable" aircraft, ships and such for iL-2 are now available. And with amazing quality.

SOME with good quality... others not so much from what I've seen.

But yes... this is true.

[J9Masano]

As far as I know, there would be an enormous can of worms involved, a great deal of money spent, and very little chance of getting anything worthwhile accomplished.http://nexlson.wissensde.com/1.jpghttp://nexlson.wissensde.com/2.jpghttp://nexlson.wissensde.com/3.jpghttp://nexlson.wissensde.com/4.jpghttp://nexlson.wissensde.com/5.jpg

[pandacat]

Btw, did NG or any forerunning companies patented those old bi-planes? They might as well, so they can extend their tenticles farther.