Official Fulqrum Publishing forum - Please keep the realism!

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)

- IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=189)

- - Please keep the realism! (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=21459)

If this thread wasn't here I would have started it myself. Please, please keep as realistic as possible. I was sad when I read the dancing instrument needles were being removed. I was truly gobsmacked when they first appeared in the video clip released some months ago. Battle of Britain planes that didn't have electronic tachometers shouldn't have them in game purely because of a few peoples dislikes. I do not have any problems reading instruments in CoD and my eyesight is far from brilliant.
The same goes for Spitfire engines under negative G. If they cut out in real life they should do so in game. It is well documented that 109s were generally better aircraft than Spitfires. They were faster, dived better and had cannons and twice the amount of ammunition. It was superior tactics, radar and logistics used by the allies and crass blunders by Goering that won the battle not that Spitfires performed as well or better that 109s. I love flying the Spitfire and to have it as something it wasn't just spoils it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IvanK (Post 264927)

"What we have now is a Spitfire that can match the 109 in a dive."

BS.... go on line and prove it. See if you can hold the same distance from a 109 with both of you performing the same manoeuvre. You have the 109 Maintaining its ATA and RPM with the Hurris and Spitfire both having RPM rapidly drop to <1600RPM and Boost dropping to zero. The 109 pulling combat power and the Hurri and spit pulling stuff all !

If you don't want to go On line then replicate the manoeuvre individually as best as you can starting from the same IAS hold the push for say 15 seconds and then note the IAS ... both the same ?

In the brief tests I have done here are the results. Using the Quick Flight Over Dover as the start point.

BF109E3 Wait for prop pitch to get to the 12 O,Clock setting.
Start from 200Kmh select Max Max ATA
At 300KMH Push progressively forward until 90 degree nose down is achieved over a period of 8 secs
Increase in IAS achieved 100KMH
Av acceleration 12.5KMH per second

Spitfire IIA Prop Full Increase
Start from 100MPH
Select Max Boost
at 140MPH Push progressively forward until 90 degree nose down over a period of 8 secs
Increase in IAS 20MPH
Av acceleration 2.5MPH per Sec

So the Spit gets around 2.5MPH per second and the 109 around 15.5MPH per sec.
Or the BF109 gets a round a 50MPH gain over the Spit in the manoeuver ... hardly "staying with the 109"

You should have used 124 mph for start and initiated the dive at 186 mph with the spit to compare.
Would this give the same result???
Also i believe the prop-pitch of the 109 would never be in the 12:0clock position when diving, overspeed comes much too fast.
Further a 45° to 60° dive would be much more realistic, tough not so easy to compare.

I think to compare cut out by diving behind a 109 is not a good base for comparison as both types will have different dive behaviour, cut out or not.

I think: The g values used for cut out evaluation before patch are correct (all historic scources agree on this). They should be kept

I think the behaviour just needed a bit thweaking - the build-up of the effect should by SLIGHTLY made more inert. A small delay between time of g-factor for cut out and the realisation of cut out and a smooth transition between 0% cut out to Cough condition and between cough condition to 100% cut out would have done the trick to have a good representation of push over cut outs while still being insensitive to turbulences.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jg52uther (Post 263868)

with news in the beta patch thread that the spitfire cut out has been changed from real values,and mechanical guages have been made electric because players don't like the way they move i think going down this road would be a mistake.
Cod is shaping up to be the best ww2 flight sim ever,and it would be a real shame to introduce unrealistic elements into the game just because some people are confused.

+100

Quote:

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow (Post 264880)

So if I were dev I would have tried the following:
keep the historic g values for the different modes of cut outs. Apply the corresponding effect in full extent (100%) on engine performance with a time delay of 2secs as described in another thread to be the experienced delay in RL.

+1

This would eliminate the problem that some people have with turbolences and keep the realistic limits for cut-out and misfire.

Btw some posters say that the dev may have received new information and that is the reason they changed it ... I doubt that. The release notes clearly state that they felt it was right but they changed it because some confused people felt it was not right.

Same goes for the compass (which was changed it the previous patch).

Make complex instruments optional and bring back the cut-out limit.

+1 on keeping FULL realism.

Remember the mission statement from the developers about wanting to try and create the most realistic flight sim ever?

Go back on that, and you have lost already.

Those that can't handle realistic G cut outs or jumpy cockpit instruments, or anything else in this game because of the "Why can't I get 50 kills in a sortie" (Boofuckinghoo)syndrome, should stick to arcade mode.

Or better yet, bugger off and play Birds Of Prey on their XBox 360s.:-P

There seems to be a view from some that the swinging tacho needle pre patch may be unrealistic. I have driven quite a few cars from the 50s and 60s with mechanical rev counters. Simply reving the engine produces a smooth sweep of the needle. The internal workings however have more mass than electronic counters. When being driven the road bumps and engine vibration impart forces on this mass creating extraneous movement in the needle. I have never been in a Spitfire with mechanical guages but from my experience with cars I would think the wild swings seen pre patch are more likely in a plane experiencing the enormous stresses and strains in a combat situation than the smooth pedestrian offerings we have now. And being completely subjective - I love them.

Prove the jumpy needles are realistic. Don't forget the graphs and pie charts. Harder does not always = realism.

The jumpy needles pre patch were excessive, they did need toned down a lot. Having said that jumping needles is accurate in mechanical instruments.

Have a look at the MP guage at 5:45 in this Mustang video, it is jumping around quite a bit. Other instruments are steady but MP is jumping, so some needle shake is accurate. It needed toned donw, not eliminated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQ8Vh...eature=channel

the needles jump in turbulence, misfiring and other accidents. In my opinion the misfiring is a problem (but I don't know the cause).