We would like to see the 4.09 being released next week. Please just be patient. We had to finish the job. Today Oleg has received the last file from us - 4.09 Guide PDF with 130 pages.

If Oleg agrees, we will make the PDF available for download on Monday. The patch should be coming shortly after depending on the workload/availibility of MG's programmer.

Hey Daidalus !!! great news!!
I bet a red wine bottle that the pacth is released on Thursday!!!

By the way.. could we know the list of addons planed for the 5.0? (An estimated one)
Thank you DT !

So, as il2 fans, we will have double festival "bayram" in Turkey for next week! :) Thank you...;)

Hello, not yet. We need to make final decisions on the future content first. It's the matter of priorities and time what we can commit our limited resources to.

So..............your saying maybe? ;)

Had them already ........ they are over modelled :)

It seems that I enjoy overmodelled women, then :P

+1

Maybe then you could ask Oleg to include this in SOW, if not already too late to be so:(...would be very nice to "continue" when more time is available.

Didn't read this forum for a long time and this morning found such great news, wow!
Good luck DT, wish you all the best and thanks for being so interactive with the users here on the forum!

Small suggestion: could you all members of your team put a similar signature at the end of the posts and/or modify your nickname? (if not done yet), would make it easier to go through the forum and get the answers (at least would have been easier for me this morning going over the whole thread).
One of the reasons I didn't read this forum for a long time is that the *actual* information is thinned (and camouflaged) by personal ideas, flames, speculations, speculations on the speculations...

One feature request too: the quicksave idea proposed a few post ago is great!
Besides the obvious benefit of completing long missions in several parts, there are immediate implications in training as well.
For example, in my squadron we did train in landing beaten up aircraft: you need somebody willing to shoot you up and every time it happens in a different, not-so-predictable way.

I work in software development, so I know what pain can be state restoring (of whatever application) if it wasn't engineered in the architecture in the first place... but please do not abandon the idea completely, hopefully other users here will give feedback about that.

Thanks for your reply Martin!
I´ve reread my pòst and I realise that it is a lil hasty :-P:-P
By the way..is there any new FMB feature in mind for the 4.09 plus (or 5.0) besides the triggers?
Maybe a "templates merge utility" would be posible, a tool that make possible to combine .mis.

Don't know whether this was asked before. Will 4.09 include a FM enhancement?

the new patch dont touch the FM, only maps, performance and small fixes

So, it is Monday and I think someone said there would be a handbook published today? Or was it a "olegish" remark barely resembling a real world "There is a handbook but god don't think anyone would now when it will be released"?

Give the man some breathing room, will ya? As far as I remember they needed Oleg's approval before releasing the document.

And, afterall, in my part of the World it's still 13:00hrs, so there's still plenty of Monday left to post anything ;)

Pdf, pdf, pdf, pdf, pdf, pdf, pdf, :-)

If I were Oleg, I would read every page thoroughly and test every new feature in different hardware setups 20 times or more. Just to make sure it´s the right thing.:rolleyes:

I didn't intend to be pushy, they shall take their time, really. BUT why didn't they learn to NOT give any concrete dates for a release? Honestly, if one can learn one thing from the development history of this game - it is exactly this.

I didn't read any "concrete dates" for a release. The best we got was:

Please quote those "concrete" dates if you can find them. If anything the above quote is the exact opposite of "concrete".

Wotan

Posted on Friday.
No promises, just intention if all conditions have been met.
Obviously it didn't happen today. We'll see tomorrow.

...next week
...Monday

Why?

There is no point in posting this. It only shows that, like all the previous work (4.09b is around since a year or so?), it gets stuck at the last stance and results in blame on Oleg and team.

Just release it, doesn't matter when, but don't talk about it like you would be in control.

"(4.09b is around since a year or so?)" --> 12/2007
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...highlight=beta

Yes... wouldn't want to rush anyone. 2 weeks for sure...

Which part of If Oleg agrees, you do not understand? Can't you accept the fact that people are not available all the time?
And what does 4.09b has to do with it? It was released, wasn't it?
News about 4.09 final is around for about a month and a half.
We've been toying with Release Candidates in the meantime.

MicroWave,

it is not about me not understanding, not the slightest. All this is about, is learning how to handle future affairs.

The whole point it: Stay with truth and hard facts. Never, publicly, venture of into the field of speculation. It never will do you or anyone any good.

You showed your work and got everyone excited. The next step and the only feasable in my opinion would be the release. Every question about the when should be answered: On release day. Period.

That saves all involved a lot.

You can make people very happy by having them come home and surprisingly find that the producte is released. They didn't know when to expect it and are just genuinely happy it is there.

Yet, the policy around here (Daidalos excluded for now)is to get tangled up in hints, dates, what-ifs and occasional promises that get everyone full of anticipation only to be met by dissapointment. Now, whatever is released will be met by a customer who is already in a state of "this better be good cause I have been fooled time and time again" - naturally resulting in a reception that ain't true to the actual quality of the release. So the developer can only lose.

(May I remind you of the Slovakia crew who was about to release their maps on their own because they were so fed up with the final being not released since 2007...)

This is standard kinda stuff since the first patch release for IL2 1.0.

It is the same kind of stuff that has plagued every game developer since their first mention of a patch or any kind of upgrade.

Best practice is like Oleg's responses. He responds when he feels the need and releases stuff on his schedule... regardless of how much heat is put on in the forums.

Here is a best response ---

[youtube]WL1lfSzgcAw[/youtube]

Zorin, I know where you are coming from, its even worse with Oleg and SOW, he promises stuff then it never gets mentioned again and we have to act like he never said it in the first place, because if you do happen to ask "what happened to the website?" then your a whining kid!! :grin::grin:

You gotta love it here....

I don't see a problem. Oleg has stated that he's building a cinematic Battle of Britain simulation. An engine not only for BOB but every other theater, with room to grow beyond just a combat flight sim. He's mentioned possible release dates and web sites, but he understands as do most of the community how complex and difficult this task will be. Just because a few in the community can't see how complex the task is, or are just unwilling to cut some slack, so be it. It won't effect sales whatsoever, even most of the negative vocalists will end up buying the sim. No problem.

Nope. Noone said there will be a handbook published on Monday. Martin said there might be a handbook published on Monday.

No concrete date was given, neither for the handbook or for the patch.

Again you seem to be focused on just 3 words although it is clear that Martin's statement is not offering such promises that you imply. Also Martin's full statement was quoted twice before your reply.


Truth and hard facts are that you overstretched one statement beyond limit.
Advertising and estimates of release days are part of the gaming industry.
Without it there would be no people coming home and finding the product released because they wouldn't know about it.
I don't want to comment about Slovakia crew. I've seen pictures of them and I'm scared.
FYI, Martin, the guy whose statement you massacred, is part of that 'Slovakia crew which is fed up with the final being not released since 2007...'.

P.S. I'm posting as part of Daidalos Team and I don't know what's the policy of any other developer regarding Il-2 or any other product you might be referring to. And they don't like me in Daidalos Team, but that's another story.
Oh, and handbook and patch are to be released, in all likelihood and if all goes well and there are no unforeseen problems or disasters, when Oleg says so.

Who doesn't like you? We all do. :cool:

Anyway Zorin, we have an internal rule in our team that whatever we decide to do, we deliver at one point. We have started working on 4.09 in the end of 2008 and the public announcement was done over 6 months later (after first beta testing that proved to be solid) in the end of July. That's only 2 months ago. We did not mention any dates on purpose in order to avoid speculations. And don't forget, it's a hobby for us, not a paid job. We are developing it, but we are also the customers.

The problem is that people can never be pleased. You either don't give enough information or you give too much information. Great, so make your choice. People have been wondering and asking how we stand with 4.09 release. I think it was normal and polite to reply to them honestly and with our best estimate. That's what we are trying to do in this thread. If it is an information overload for you and would like to be kept "in dark", well you can always just skip this thread.

And yes, I am just that Slovak guy with only "empty promises" who by the way has modelled about 100 new buildings for Slovakia map. And I am a patient person I suppose.

Diversionary Question
 

the cynicism is amazing in here, it's a free patch and people are still having fun with 4.09b1m as I see it, 4.08m is still commonly used, not to mention the 'm**' word.

what I'm curious about, is that just a few weeks ago, the next upgrade patch was going to be 4.10 .. then it changed to 5.0

4.xx would be upgrades to IL-2 1946 .. so ..

would not 5.0 be considered a major revision usually reserved for new DvD type size ?

I belive it is obvious that I have not questioned the quality or workload here. The only thing I wanted to point out is:

1. It is good to show people the work you do.
2. Answer all their subject related questions to any extend you deam sufficient.
3. NEVER give any estimates on a release as you can't guarantee them.

It is that simple and will save you from a lot of so called whinning. I never made my posts because I was expecting something, my only intention was to show that these premature estimates lead absolutely nowhere.

Do me a favour guys, will you?

Don´t piss off the developers who invest their freetime in order to ensure our favourite hobby stays a live!

Its obvious that the developers have done a terrific job, the only road block now it seems is Oleg, he has been very busy of late so we are told, so busy that even posting here or adding any updates has been out of the question, whether he can find time to read a 132 page doc is another matter, hopefully he can.

Some info if possible:

- Mk.Vc cockpit's bug has been fixed?

- Could we have officially in the next update Bf-109F4/B and may be a G-10 20mm (not a U4)?

- Could we have Zorin bombs and fuel tanks included as official update?

The Readme/Guide has been posted. I hope we can quit the discussion about it. Thank you.

The patch will be available in a reasonable period of time. I know a more precise date, but I will not inform on it since it may turn against us if it is 1 day later.

LOL, I guess the downloads put the server to the knees. Ok, links removed for a short period of time. We need to make mirrors first. Sorry.

@Veltro: If you have specific suggestions, please send them to daidalos.team@gmail.com

It is difficult to go all over boards and collecting suggestions. That's why we have setup this email account.

Thanks.

ROFLMAO!!

Oh how mankind has evolved! :grin:

I expect the patch is published and not a minute late or I shall haunt you for the rest of your natural lives! <please insert evil laughter here>

Ok, anyway, thank you guys for all the work. :cool:

A BIG thanks for Daidalus Team.... good job, guys!!!!

Can't wait for it....!

S!

Can we install it over 4.09 beta? Thanks for the work!

Sorry if I missed it but was there any mention of the dedicated server software being updated to 4.09? If will will it be released at the same time as the client release?

Wotan

It was confirmed in the interview at SimHQ (link):
guod: Will an updated dedicated server be released as well?

Oleg: Yes, an updated dedicated server will be available with the v4.09 release.

Your responses always tend to follow the below definition verbatim.

I suggest you think about what you are saying, your contributions to this forums are ?????

Cynicism

1. An attitude of scornful or jaded negativity, especially a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others: the public cynicism aroused by governmental scandals.
2. A scornfully or jadedly negative comment or act: "She arrived at a philosophy of her own, all made up of her private notations and cynicisms" (Henry James).

Forums are generaly used for debate, in order to have a debate or to discuss then all opinions and points of view have to be considered otherwise there would not be a discussion. Most of what I have posted here as turned out be true despite being flamed and called a whiner.

but do what you must if you really feel it that important.

Your logic is greatly flawed Tree

That some forums are for debate of a subject, does not mean this forum is. This forum appears to be to ask questions to TD and recieve answers .. no debate involved ..

also, a debate on a subject does not mean "all opinions and points of view have to be considered" .. almost all debates and discussion have rules and protocol to follow or they are not effective, or end up in flame war, or in real life, violence

Guide looks good !
 

got it over at SimHQ a few hours ago

S!

TD

It's great to see some interaction with the community and willingness to discuss additions and changes to the game.

Fantastic and I think it will go a long way for the community.

I have yet to comment but I've been watching the boards to see what will come of some of your efforts.

It was mentioned before… a lot of contention is brought up when discussion airplanes and changes specific to FMs and DMs. Some of which has been researched with documents yet we haven’t seen any proposed changes or discussions about them.

Instead of adding new content which I think is needed I would like to see some work done on some rather nagging issues for some time now. Now that you have Oleg's ear I'm curious as to what he thinks about the following issues.

P38s suffering compression problems 10k a below. I and others have well documented well published information regarding the compression problems with the 38s yet the plane still suffers from early onset of the problem. If you need documentation I will get you several sources on the subject.

FWs Anton series suffers a Fuel Leak Bug that doesn’t reseal and can empty a full fuel load in a couple minutes. It’s the only plane in the game that has this problem.

P51 Wing Shedding. Historically accurate for the earlier models but later corrected if you need documentation just say so.

6 gunned 50 Cal armed planes still suffering from accuracy problems. Not sure if it’s still an issue with harmonization or the recoil. Most of the platforms where very stable gun platforms. Not sure why it’s an issue with these planes.

Several Planes having the ability to break Mach in a Dive. P47, Dora and Tempest come to mind…

F6F seems to suffer engine performance. Not living up to his RL counterpart.

Cement Elevators added to the Late War 109 series that don’t have a logical explanation.

No German Ground Attack rocket capabilities

Controls Lost due to damage doesn’t range across all the planes. Anton which had push rods can suffer all three axis with a single strike. Maybe taking out one control surface might be something to consider for future DM revisions

There are plenty of leftovers from 4.08 that need to be address IMO way before new content should be addressed.

Hi,
it seems that some time ago at Sukhoi.ru forum there was a discussion about what is wanted by the gamers.

There was a good number of seemingly-reasonable and apparently-easy-to-implement suggestions, like changing motors or armament to produce the transitional plane types.

E.g.
Bf109G-4 - 3D model of G2+ motor overheating+weight 3000 - 3100 kg
FW190D-11 - D9 with 2x13 mm MG replaced by 30 mm MK
Yak-1PF/1942 (3D and DM of Yak-1/1941 + 105PF motor)
...

Did anyone by chance look through these suggestions?


----------------------------------------

My own principal wishes will include:

a) changing the Il-10 armament, at least supplying it with 4*FAB-50+4*ROFS-132 or M-13 (it is historical, AFAIK), since present Il-10 is a very seriously handicapped attack plane;

b) introducing the new (or mutating old) field airstrips into something as in the sketch attached - green is part which is exposed on a level surface, blue is a "security area" normally "submerged", red plaques are the airplane "birth" sites.

Such airstrips will totally eliminate the headache of looking for the level spaces to place three runways side-by-side as it is done now - if you want to have a decent airfield. It will breathe a new life in almost all maps.

If it could be partially damaged (to prevent take-off), say by 10 tons of bombs - it would be absolutely fantastic.

WBR, Salsero.

Other suggestions to follow.

Capt Stubbing you said:

"Several Planes having the ability to break Mach in a Dive. P47, Dora and Tempest come to mind…"

Are you saying these aircraft could exceed Mach 1 in a dive in Real life ? If so is there documentation to support this ?

With regards P38 compressibility are you saying its happening at too high an altitude and too low an airspeed or that it shouldn't be happening at all below 10,000 feet.
In reality it is a straight out Mach number issue with recovery G also being a variable.

Regarding P51 Wing shedding are you referring to Speed/aerodynamic affects (like air getting into the wing structure and ripping it apart) or Structural loss via Over G ?

One more thing.
As I have understood, 4.09 will be available for free.
Maybe you could at least set up the donations website (via PayPal would be nice).
Please consider doing so, I would rather donate 10 quid than know that there will be no more patches.

I didn't say that this is true of real life.... This is possible in the game though

Let me look it up but the bird any version shouldn't suffer any problems below 10k. This is old stuff but I know for sure all the 38s we have suffer way way too early in terms of speed. Again let me get some numbers put together for you. These are based on the copies of the manuals I have.

Regarding P51 Wing shedding are you referring to Speed/aerodynamic affects (like air getting into the wing structure and ripping it apart) or Structural loss via Over G ?[/QUOTE]

Yeah not talking about exceeding Vne but talking about pulling any sort of G at certain speeds will rip the wing off. This was a problem with some of the early versions but it shouldn't be an issue in the later D models

I don't plan to do anything. It just seems to me you might want to think about contributing more to the forums than continual cynicism.

The novelty has worn off.

The issue with Wing shedding in the P51 in IL2 under G is that you are exceeding the 13.5G global G limit that applies to all aircraft in IL2. In the case of the P51 the in game "light" elevator lets you pull 13.5g with relative ease, more so than most aircraft hence its propensity to pull wings off. Perhaps some high speed cement is required in the P51 elevator circuit.

In reality design structural G was actually lower than that in the order of 10-12g for most US fighter types.

As to P38 compressibility issues below 10,000feet. Well its still possible if TAS is above 460MPH. P38 Operating handbook Page30 illustrates this quite clearly. Exceed 460TAS at any altitude and you re in the realm of compressibility affects in the P38.

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e2...64/P38dive.jpg

Testing the P47,Tempest and D9 I get Mach 1.15 in all of them before bits start to separate. I think this could easily be fixed.

Thats fair enough, you cant please everybody. Personally I find your Oleg protection system irritating and repetative if we are going to be Frank, but I normally keep these things to myself.

have a good day.

Thank you for the read me files.
Can you give us an idea on when the patch will be available for down loading?
That will be really good

In addition to JG27CaptStubing mentionings,
guns should be corrected, Anton Fockes should have a have a historical take-off limit of 400 meters etc.

Try doing some testing and you will see the compression problems start way before 420 IAS and or 460 TAS as stated in the Manual.

I personally wish that TD would quickly release the (for me) most important additions of the triggers for the FMB and multi-engine support.....
Besides all the nice a/c and maps they are doing these two things would make the current game much more enjoyable.....
Without missions the maps and planes are useless...unless you only enjoy dogfights.... so anything like the triggers would make mission hugely more interesting.....
I believe Nearmiss has been calling for triggers like in the mission-builder of CF2 for the last six years....

In the tests I have done (And just done in 4.09RC2) the very first signs of compressibility on the P38L Late at 10,000feet are occurring at 410mph (IAS) or Mach 0.65. By the first signs I mean an ever so slight tendency for the nose to drop from the trim state. As the dive increases the first signs of buffet are detected at Mach 0.72-0.74. As Mach increases both buffet and rate of nose drop increase.

that is not that far different from the POH values and the description given in Americas 100,000 Page 158 in the Dive and recovery paragraph.

What symptons and IAS/ALT values are you seeing Capt Stubbing that indicate it is happening at lower values ?

Actually I think the triggers will be awesome to set a new pace for both online and offline gameplay. I LOVE playing online. I think the best time I had online was during VOW. But I do like offline play and I download alot of campaigns, but you have to give it a break during offline campaign play because of the AI's uberness. You really lose imersion.

I was happy beyong belief when I read that TD was going to set the AI straight. AAA and tail gunner's AI was like a death warrant. Enemy pilot's AI was omniscient, it just knew I was in it's blind spot or knew where I was inside a cloud. I used to get pissed about it.

Now I'll just wait for the patch which will correct a good deal of it (5.0, IIRC, right?) and thinking about decent AAA AI + MTO... mmmm... someone is bound to make a 1st Brazilian Fighter Squadron Campaign in Italy, otherwise I'll be forced to take "FMB 101."

Thank heaven for Daidalus Team!

Although I heard stuff about changes to tailgunner AI, I don't see anything about it in the readme etc. Are we sure they haven't left it until later?

Like you I would love it if the AI didn't magically know you were behind them and had closed to gun range! Kind of a big problem!

Fireship, by what I've read, yes, it will be work for a later patch indeed.

That's a shame if you're right.

Guys, we are planning a complex AI update and more trigger features. That's why we did not want to introduce it in 4.09. It's simply not ready yet.

mkubani, I'm far from complaining. I am actually gratefull you are addressing these issues and I know it's complex work.

Just to think about possible algorythms give me a headache ;)

S!

Fair Question...


Did some flying and a little bit of testing with the J model last night. It could be the designers wanted to have the elevators be "stiff" much like the 109s at high speed and then have the compression problem start prior to the actual airspeed by a few MPH.

The onset of the problem starts at around 300MPH IAS and she becomes excessively stiff from then on. She does start to tuck under around the 410 MPH IAS mark. This plane suffers much more than any other plane in the series except the 109. Not sure why that is. Spits 51s Tempest 47s FWs LAs Yaks don't have this same problem at similar airspeeds. Was it modeled to show the bird was heavier or larger or some other quality? A 3 and half ton 47 doesn't have the problem with cement elevators why does the 38 have the issue? My guess is that this was meant to show compressibility was the problem. There certainly isn't a lack of surface area on that tail so that can't be it. That was the excuse given for the 109s cement problem.

Here are some bits and pieces taken from Wiki which mirror some of the texts I have. I think it's important to note the differences from what we have in the game.

"After months of pushing NACA to provide Mach 0.75 wind tunnel speeds (and finally succeeding), the compressibility problem was revealed to be the center of lift moving back toward the tail when in high-speed airflow. The compressibility problem was solved by changing the geometry of the wing's underside when diving so as to keep lift within bounds of the top of the wing. In February 1943, quick-acting dive flaps were tried and proven by Lockheed test pilots. The dive flaps were installed outboard of the engine nacelles and in action they extended downward 35° in 1½ seconds. The flaps did not act as a speed brake, they affected the center of pressure distribution so that the wing would not lose its lift."

The flaps we have in the game are nothing more than a Speed Brake which slows the plane down and causes some sort of lifting action.


Here is another dive Chart showing slightly different speeds in which it occurs.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...ibility010.png

Another interesting note...

The final 210 J models, designated P-38J-25-LO, alleviated the compressibility problem through the addition of a set of electrically-actuated dive recovery flaps just outboard of the engines on the bottom centerline of the wings. With these improvements, a USAAF pilot reported a dive speed of almost 600 mph (970 km/h), although the indicated air speed was later corrected for compressibility error, and the actual dive speed was lower.[66]

The P-38J-25-LO production block also introduced hydraulically-boosted ailerons, one of the first times such a system was fitted to a fighter. This significantly improved the Lightning's rate of roll and reduced control forces for the pilot. With a truly satisfactory Lightning in place, Lockheed ramped up production, working with subcontractors across the country to produce hundreds of Lightnings each month.

Next questions.

1.AFAIK, some time ago Oleg has said that some 3-D engine capabilities were deliberately turned off (grass, plane self-shading) since they were overloading video cards at the time. Since IMHO it was a couple of years ago, maybe it is possible to turn these features on now, or at least to let the user decide that?

2. Is it possible to tune the Murmansk map so that it will be quite dark? To get the polar night? And maybe even to get the polar light?


Previous questions

all the findings here are compliments of 609_Kahuna, i have merely copy n pasted his posts from (the old) CWOS's "Lockheed Syndicate" forum

NACA research on critical mach/compressibility:

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4219/Chapter3.html

The general aeronautics community was suddenly awakened to the realities of the unknown flight regime in November 1941, when Lockheed test pilot Ralph Virden could not pull the new, high-performance P-38 out of a high-speed dive, and crashed. Virden was the first human fatality due to adverse compressibility effects, and the P-38, shown below, was the first airplane to Suffer from these effects. The P-38 exceeded its critical Mach number in an operational dive, and penetrated well into the regime of the compressibility burble at its terminal dive speed, as shown by the bar chart on page 80 .35 The problem encountered by Virden, and many other P-38 pilots at that time, was that beyond a certain speed in a dive, the elevator controls suddenly felt as if they were locked. And to make things worse, the tail suddenly produced more lift, pulling the P-38 into an even steeper dive. This was called the "tuck-under" problem. It is important to note that the NACA soon solved this problem, using its expertise in compressibility effects. Although Lockheed consulted various aerodynamicists, including Theodore Von Kármán at Caltech, it turned out that John Stack at NACA Langley, with his accumulated experience in compressibility effects, was the only one to properly diagnose the problem. The wing of the P-38 lost lift when it encountered the compressibility burble. As a result, the downwash angle of the flow behind the wing was reduced. This in turn increased the effective angle of attack of the flow encountered by the horizontal tail, increasing the lift on the tail, and pitching the P-38 to a progressively steepening dive totally beyond the control of the pilot. Stack's solution was to place a special flap under the wing, to be employed only when these compressibility effects were encountered. The flap was not a conventional dive flap intended to reduce the speed. Rather, Stack's idea was to use the flap to maintain lift in the face of the compressibility burble, hence eliminating the change in the downwash angle, and therefore allowing the horizontal tail to function properly. This is a graphic example of how, in the early days of high-speed flight, the NACA compressibility research was found to be vital as real airplanes began to sneak up on Mach one

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4219/4219-084.jpg

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4219/4219-084.jpg




http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m..._n9283659/pg_2

Flight testing the P-38 disclosed that whenever the airflow over the wing exceeded Mach 1.0, compressibility effects were encountered. This result was soon predictable when this slippery fighter accelerated in excess of 0.65 Mach in dive angles greater than 45 degrees at altitudes above 15,000 feet. Cockpit-installed Mach meters had yet to be invented. George W. Grey, in his history of NACA, departed from strict engineering terms when he described compressibility effects in the P-38, saying, "The behavior of the P-38 was new to pilots, terrifying, baffling. Several men putting this two-engine fighter through its diving maneuvers experienced a sudden violent buffeting of the tail accompanied by a lunging and thrashing about of the airplane, as though it was trying to free itself of invisible bonds, and then the maddening immobility of the controls, the refusal of the elevators to respond to the wheel control." The only element he left out was the most horrifying: the nose-down pitching. Even a strongly applied aft wheel force couldn't stop the problem.

The NACA High Speed Wind Tunnel team under John Stack's direction had been working on this problem and had devised a small pair of 6x40-- inch, electrically operated dive-recovery flaps to be installed on the P-38 wing's underside and outboard of the engine nacelles; they could be extended to 40 degrees. That action would rapidly pitch the aircraft up to 4G and enable the pilot to regain full control. Although Lt. Kelsey evaluated and approved this dive-recovery flap in February 1943, Lockheed did not incorporate it into production for another 14 months! By that time, 5,300 P-38s-more than half the number eventually produced-had been delivered to the USAAF.

In 1943, I experienced compressibility in a Hellcat; I wonder how many of those P-38 pilots in the pursuit of the enemy dived too steeply-well beyond the critical Mach limit and into compressibility-in the heat of combat and disappeared into oblivion. At the Joint Army/Navy Fighter Conference on October 16, 1944, I tested the P-38L dive-recovery flap well in excess of its 0.65 Mach-number limit. Upon actuation, they instantly provided a smooth, 4G recovery without pilot effort. Immediately after I evaluated these "jewels," they were installed on all Grumman 17817-1 Bearcat fighters.



http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m..._n9283648/pg_4

At about 0.65 Mach, the P-38 developed heavy buffeting with a strong negative pitch ("Mach tuck"). Ordinarily, that was enough to warn the pilot of impending control lock. If the dive persisted into the transonic regime (around 0.72 Mach), the condition could become irrecoverable. Consequently, dive flaps were installed in the last 210 J models and in all Ls, and they provided a much needed speed brake. Essentially, they returned controllability to the elevators.

William H. Allen flew with the 55th Fighter Group and recalls P-38 dive-- bombing missions. "Dive-bombing depended on the fuse setting; sometimes, they were three-second delays, which meant a higher release altitude, and they went up to 19-second delays, where we would drop from 10 feet in a level attitude and let the bomb skip up to the target. We would normally start our run at 8,000 to 10,000 feet and roll over, point at the target and drop when we got nervous. Dive speeds were no problem with the P-38 below 12,000 to 15,000 feet."







the 45 degree dive quoted by Corky Meyer, is should be noted, only refers to sustained dive...

now if we can only get the 38's climb, engine power/top speed, and low speed handling, and DM (the tail booms share ONE hitbox, meaning control surfaces can go out despite the 38's redundant control runs) correct....

more on compressibilty:

http://yarchive.net/mil/p38.html

One problem the P-38 had in dealing with the Me-109, but not the FW-190
(which was more of a low and mid-altitude fighter) was the Me's high
altitude performace superiority. Above 25,000 ft., cooling or
supercharger impeller or turbine speeds became limiting for the Lockheed,
and high speed capability started to fall off. At low altitudes, the
plane could max out at about 330-340 mph. This rose to well above 400 mph
between 25,000 to 30,000. As the plane approached 30,000 ft, speeds over
Mach 0.60 could be sustained in level flight. Thus, manuevering could
quickly give the plane compressibility problems. At Mach 0.65 (290 mph
IAS, 440 mph TAS at 30,000 ft.; 360 mph IAS, 460 mph TAS at 20,000 ft.)
drag began to soar as the plane began to encounter compressibility. At
Mach 0.67 shock waves began forming and buffeting began at Mach 0.675. At
Mach 0.74 tuck under began. Buffeting developed at a lower Mach number in
any maneuver exceeding 1 g.


In contrast, the P-51, had far fewer compressibility problems at speeds
normally encountered in combat, including dives from high altitude. The D
model was placarded at 300 mph IAS (539 mph TAS, Mach 0.81) at 35,000 ft.
In a dive, the P-51 was such an aerodynamically clean design that it could
quickly enter compressibility if the dive was continued (in reality, a
pilot could, as a rule, catch any German plane before compressibility
became a problem). But, say, in an evasive dive to escape, as the P-51's
speed in the dive increased, it started skidding beyond what the pilot
could control (this could be a problem in a dive onto a much lower-flying
plane or ground target--couldn't keep the plane tracking on the target if
speed was too high). As compressibility was entered, it would start
rolling and pitching and the whole plane would begin to vibrate. This
began about Mach 0.72. The pilot could maintain control to above Mach
0.80 (stateside tests said 0.83 (605 mph) was max safe speed--but
structural damage to the aircraft would result).
The P-51's quirk that could catch the uprepared service pilot by surprise
was that as airspeed built up over 450 mph, the plane would start to get
very nose heavy. It needed to be trimmed tail heavy before the dive if
speeds over 400 mph were anticipated. However, in high speed dives, the
plane's skidding changed to unintended snap rolls so violent that the
pilot's head was slammed against the canopy. Depending on how much fuel
was in the fuselage tank, on pull-out stick force reversal could occur, a
real thrill that could totally flummox a low-time service pilot diving
earthward at close to 1,000 ft per second trying to escape a pursuer.

I just want to say thank you for your time and efforts on this patch.
I already had FB-AEP-PF and had not touched it in about 3 years and recently became curious about IL-2 again since the all simulations/strategy war bug struck again, and after reading about the upcoming additions of your 4.09m patch I decided to buy 1946 and also got into hyperlobby and gave mp a try.

So due to your upcoming patch 1c gained a sale and hyperlobby gained a living target for your trigger finger amusement.

Now I just need to hint to my woman that "Track IR" would make an excellent Christmas gift.:eek:

Capt Stubbing .

In your reply you state that you are seeing the effects start at 300mph but don't state at what altitude. Well that could be the case depending on altitude. Its not an IAS but a Mach number problem. In the chart you post note that at 30,000feet the limit is in fact 290Kias this equating to 0.68Mach. The limit of onset values (at 1G) is solely Dependant on Mach number. This is exactly what is happening in Il2. I have the luxury of real time Mach number display in the tests I perform. So far in what I see the onset of compressibility in the P38 is almost exactly on the documented numbers.

As to why the other aircraft don't have the same issue. Well many of them didn't in real life suffer quite the same problem as the P38. The design of the P38 resulted in a fairly low (by comparison with the other types) Critical Mach number (Mcrit). Further complicating this was the design of its tailplane, a large surface immediately behind and in the combined downwash of the inner wing cockpit cuploa area. So the P38 had an inherently lower Mcrit than the others types. There is for example documented cases of late model Spitfires achieving Mach 0.92.... a speed no P38 would ever approach.

You also state:

"The flaps we have in the game are nothing more than a Speed Brake which slows the plane down and causes some sort of lifting action. "

I disagree, again the documentation on the P38 describes the effects of the Dive flaps resulted in up to a 4G pitch up raising the nose and assisting the pilots recovery. Sure the increase in Drag will assist in deceleration but the prime function of the P38 Dive brakes was to get the nose pitching up. It does exactly that in IL2 as well. (BTW don't forget that dive flaps of almost exactly the same design were fitted to late model P47D's and other types). To test in Il2 get yourself to Vmax at sea level and activate the Dive brakes what happens ? just a decel or decel + pitch up ?

I do agree with you that some types P47,D9 and Tempest do end up at huge Mach numbers (1.15 in my tests) which are unrealistic. Rest assured this is being looked at. The Il2 FM was never really designed to model compressibility to the nth degree. The DT team is aware of this and is discussing this and other things.

It's Friday!!!!!!

Yes,do we dare to hope!

Hope all you want. Just don't hold your breath. ;)

No guys, it will not be released today. The official information on the release date will be done either by Oleg or 1C.

To avoid any speculations, everything is ok with the patch. It is finished, it will be published. It is in the hands of Maddox Games and they are preparing to distribute it to everyone. There is no need to put pressur on 1C/MG or our team.

This is the last Friday in the month of September :grin:

Thank you Mkubani.

There is a chance to fly gliders in the future that has actualmete the simulator.

It would be a welcome satifaccion to fly such missions.

Thank you.

Tradutions Google:-P




Existe la posibilidad de poder volar en un futuro los Planeadores que actualmete tiene el simulador .

Seria una grata satifaccion poder volar misiones de este tipo.

Gracias.


http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/l...orldWar2-5.jpg
DFS 230

Mission :grin:

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/l...20WW2/MAPA.jpg

That was at 14K and below. I think your right that the "tuck under" does start at the right IAS or close to it but prior the planes elevator effectiveness is so reduced it may as well be part of the compression problem or some other mythical cement elevator. Read the statments above about how these problems were solved and they virutually had no issues 15K and below.

What you're saying is all true but it also depends upon what version of the plane and if it had the changes mentioned above which supposedly got rid of some of those problems.

Lets be clear... They are "Dive Recovery Flaps" not Dive Brakes. In my earlier post where I quoted they are not meant to be dive brakes is very true. It was a device meant to move the center of lift back over the wing area instead of the tail area hence the problem. Since I'm not a P-38 pilot I can't comment on what it would be like to use them in real life. By the accounts given Olegs version does seem about right after reading through it again. Though I still think the problem starts with the cement elevators very early on and continue throughout the dive.

I agree you can tell the sim wasn't meant to really be a study sim about compression problems.

Since you're at it what about some of the other issues I mentioned?

Accuracy of 50 cals on wing mounted 6 gun platforms? I think their hitting power is fine by the way.

Horse Power on the F6F which seems to be anemic at best. I need to do some real testing here but I think this plane has been ignored for sometime now.

Antons losing all 3 control axis from a single shot even with pushrod accuated control surfaces. Antons non self-sealing fuel leaks or what I call a fuel leak bug which empties the plane in a matter of minutes.

This is new one for me, what is wrong with accuracy?
There are almost 300 planes in game it is not surprising that some problems are not solved. Best way to get issues fixed is to collect reference material, make in game tests and politely ask for fix.

No problem, we will replace it with PK.

I don't see a problem there, FW have self sealing tanks which stops some fuel leaks just like in any other plane with self sealing tanks. Completely realistic IMO.

FC

Quote:
Antons losing all 3 control axis from a single shot even with pushrod accuated control surfaces.

No problem, we will replace it with PK.

Quote:
Antons non self-sealing fuel leaks or what I call a fuel leak bug which empties the plane in a matter of minutes.

I don't see a problem there, FW have self sealing tanks which stops some fuel leaks just like in any other plane with self sealing tanks. Completely realistic IMO.

FC

.................................................. ..............

Lets hope your not doing FM & DM just AI on your team then.

+1

Does this really need an explanation? Nothing new. This all started with syncronizing the 50s then desyncing the 50s and their hitting power. Very well covered territory.

The current six wing mounted 50s have an accuracy problem. Look on any active server and look at the hit rates for planes that have them and you will see an over all trend that can't be ignored.

That's why at the beginning of this thread I mentioned it would be nice not to keep reintroducing new aircraft and fix some of the problems with the current set.


Then make it across all the planes with self sealing tanks. The Anton series is the only plane out of the entire 300 plane series that has this particular problem.

I will ignore your comment about replacing 3 Axis damange with a PK.

Can we get a real G6AS the one with high Alt Peformance?

Spitfire can lose all controls with one hit too. No surprise for me, why couldn't one hit through cockpit area do this.
Fuel leak: I never had feeling it leaked faster than other fighters. Certainly there is nothing nonstandard in DM, selfsealing is same as other planes have and works.

Irrelevant. I'm sure that if you look at Stuka BK3.7's antiair hit rates, you will find them really low. Does it mean we should improve them?

So what you're telling me is there is one critical spot on plane where all the controls can be knocked out? I would like to see your diagram that supports this theory especially one planes that had built in Redundancy. Shooting out the right Aileron doesn't mean the left one doesn't work any more. The FWs used PushRods not cables.

Let me be clear about the Anton fuel leak... It doesn't leak any faster than any other plane... The leak will not seal and the plane will run out of fuel. No other plane suffers from this problem. If there is I haven't run across it in the 8 years I've been flying this sim.

It's very relavant because 50s are Inherently accurate. It also sounds as if you never experience the earlier problems with the 50cals. Syncing and finally getting desynced weapons in 4.08. Do you remember the Wobbles or are you just forgetting that part?

Actually you need to do some research before making statments about the BK3.7s accuracy. Oberstleutant Hans-Ulrich Rudel is a guy who comes to mind. Your just using this excuse to obfuscate the subject.

Stick itself is certainly one critical spot which, when hit successfully, will disable elevator and both ailerons. It does not matter if cables, rods of FBW is used. I do not know how exactly are hitboxes placed and which compromises had to be done to keep computer requirements on reasonable level. We all will have to live with it until new game engine comes. Just remember that this behaviour is not unique to FW190.

Strange. Track. Leak starts at 2:44, sealed around 7:00. Recorded on clean 4.08m, from qmb mission, on first try.
Selfsealing works. Case closed.


No, it was not attempt to obfuscate it, it was just simple attempt to show flaws in your logic, which, unfortunately, missed you completely.

Your theory was: low average % to hit in A2A => weapon is inaccurate and need to be improved.
I only applied this theory to another weapon with low % to hit air targets (or at least I think it has low %, I did not verify it), outcome -according to your theory- was that weapon should be more accurate. If you disagree with this, you disagree with your own theory.

Stats can't be used for these purposes, there is too much possible explanations - from reasonable like "50cals are used to spray in low probability situations because have more ammo than cannons" to improbable like "most pilots always aim behind target so accurate weapon will register less hits than something with shotgun-like pattern". I hope you understand now why I used BK3.7 as example, if not, I will try to elaborate more.



I'm sure DT will try to fix all errors (depending on difficulty of task and time available), but you have to *prove* it. No feelings, no personal experience from past years, nothing just because it was repeated thousand times, no earlier problems. Situation now, hard proof. This paragraph is not aimed at JG27CaptStubing only, I just wanted to use this occasion to write it before number of such requests for changes explodes and this thread turns into "red vs blue" battlefield.

.[/QUOTE]Stick itself is certainly one critical spot which, when hit successfully, will disable elevator and both ailerons. It does not matter if cables, rods of FBW is used. I do not know how exactly are hitboxes placed and which compromises had to be done to keep computer requirements on reasonable level. We all will have to live with it until new game engine comes. Just remember that this behaviour is not unique to FW190.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. I understand it's a limitation of a game and how hit boxes work but I think you can agree it's a pretty more implementation of what a complex damage model is and can be. It's very unique to the FW. In the 8 years I've been flying this I have yet to experiece all three axis wiped out in any other plane. Why not address that issue instead of continuing to built more airplanes which potentially introduce yet more problems?

Not a very complete test... Did you try it on other planes and compare the time? Also I've had it seal on occasion. There are times it never seals even with 100% fuel the plane is empty in minutes. Like 2-3 to be exact. It's not a feeling and I'm not making it up. Try it again I can assure you its there. If it doesn't show up in the QMB then try it online.


Flaws in my logic. Check the records... I pointed out several problems some of which have been agreed to in this very thread. So wake up a bit and look around before you cast stones about logic.

Apples and Trash Cans. Try to keep on track here. Just throwing in some random large caliber gun for AA to prove your point has nothing to do with the issue I pointed out. The simple fact is and remains .50cals are very accurate inherently add it six mounted weapons and they have a poorer percentage of hitting that the 4 wing mounted counterparts. At least I'm going off of my experience at the moment. I will have to get you some real stats. I usually hit on average 10%-18% with cannons and mixed MGs like FWs. Same amount of weapons mind you. My average drops down around 6-8 percent with 50s and yes I do know how to shoot.

I understand you used a large caliber very low rate of fire weapon as your example which is nothing like an MG which ROF can make a tremendous difference in terms of hitting percentage. Regardless you've chosen to ignore it so be it. At least people know where you stand.



I agree things must be stated and then backed up with some documentation or at least some simple testing that illustrates the issue. Didn't take much for your counterpart to figure out 47s Doras Tempests can easily break the sound barrier. That was done with a simple test.

My suggestion is before you jump on the bandwagon and become defensive try being open minded. There are many many posts about the 50s alone.

At one point we were told by Oleg the Muzzle Flash problem couldn't be fixed until a new engine. They where eventually fixed so please don't use that as an excuse. He has access to the Code.

I just hope you guys focus on fixing outstanding issues instead of adding more with new planes and new things. Let the sim catch up. It will make for a better product.

Sorry to disappoint you.
FC's comments although harsh, are spot on from what I've seen.

@all
Please, when you would like to make a suggestion or ask for a fix, add some documentation. It is impossible for us to follow every discussion in all forums.
Il2 world is 'object rich' with all the benefits and problems this 'richness' brings. You can use Daidalos Team e-mail to do that (we would also prefer comprehensible subject title).
I need to state that we can't add/fix everything. Some things will take precedence over the others based on complexity of the issue, new quality this issue can bring into the sim, available time and personal preference.

Now, I would like to add some comments of my own about accuracy issue raised by JG27CaptStubing.
I haven't investigated all the possibilities and some of it comes from my bad memory.
Each gun type is represented by it's own class. In each of them there is just a type of bullet(s) (weight, initial velocity, explosive power if any, RoF, visual effects, etc). IIRC, trajectory of all these is calculated in one (1) piece of code for all guns without discrimination towards 0.50s or any other gun. From this point of view, I find it very hard to believe that 0.50 have accuracy problems.
Proper testing environment to prove that there is an accuracy problem might be difficult to achieve. I don't think that it is possible to compare different guns in combat due to different bullet characteristics, the fact that different planes require different firing solutions, etc.
For example (disclaimer: I fly like a brick) when I fly FW190s I prefer to take larger lead and let the target fly through the bullet stream (that doesn't happen as frequently as I would like to). There is plenty of ammo in those birds and I try to use B&Z (badly). As a result, my hit rate with FW190s is smaller than with, say Bf109s. Therefore, I'm inclined to believe that online statistics is not the proper testing environment.

So, is there a problem with bullet trajectories of 0.50s in Il2 that you can document? Is there a problem with planes or their flying characteristics with this armament that would lead to accuracy problems (I think you mentioned some wobbling)?

Does this mean, the P51 balance from the center, behind the seat fuel tank, can be corrected by having the center (fuselage) fuel tank drain first? The plane is horribly out of balance. It flies like crap until somone cares to fix this problem. Over the years everyone else refused to fix it.

Along with crappy guns that need corrected. They don't have the punch they should.

The P47 roll rate is one more problem that needs fixed, it needs to roll faster as it did in real life.

Those are the two most important items for most of the pilots for American planes.

If there is going to be work done, can we asked these items please be addressed?

is this true more work wil be done on IL-2?

Or are late comers asking for the things that data was supplied for for many years, yet Olegs team never fixed.. all of the data was supplied over these past years...

thanx..

Please elaborate. In what way?

You can just sit there an ignore it all you want but anyone who has flown the Anton series over the years can tell you first hand it has a fuel leak bug. It's your choice if you want to investigate it. I could care less about the lack of professionalism.



Clearly you have your own agenda.


Testing aye?

Here is an old 35 page thread on Ubi that talks about the tests and some of the findings. It was ignored as usual.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/t.../979109092/p/1

Gibbage did quite a bit of testing and it does show out of all the guns the 50s have had an issue with dispersion. It's still present today.

It's one of many threads brought up about the 50 cal.

Now, Capt, there is no need to go the "sour grapes" way already. You're obviously passionate about the P-38 and everything pertaining to it, but that doesn't mean DT has to and is going to jump just at your request. You see there are thousands of people with thousands of ideas what can and should be corrected in which way - which translates into thousands of folks pulling DT's attention into thousands of directions. And we @ DT are damned already because we can't please them all. Does that mean we're ignorant or that we don't care about accuracy? No, most certainly not.

I, for example, am glad that I can't code worth a damn so I do not envy the FM and coding guys one bit. :rolleyes:

And now what - Oleg listened to threads complaining about .50 cals (aka .50s are porked), at first people complained that dispersion was too much and wanted to remove the shotgun effect, now I've seen threads where people (like you) complain that there is no shotgun effect with .50 cals and now they are less accurate and have less hit rate. So what do you want now? Daidalos team will change dispersion of .50 cals to higher level and people will start to complain that they have not enough hitting power, in next patch lower the dispersion and people will complain they are not accurate and again again changing things just because you think that it should be changed based on your experience and hit percentage. This is no criteria of changing things in this game. DT has to take a side in this and there will always be people not happy with current state. If you want a change, do some serious testing and please make a new thread and don't make 36 pages .50 cals flamewar thread out of DT ready room.

Random thought
 

Don't know if this has been proposed before, but would it be possible to make the P-51 fuselage fuel tank a Weapon Loadout option? Sort of as a stop-gap for the P-51 CoG issues, until the SoW engine is done.

As I understand it, one of the reasons the P-51 is spiny is because the 85 gallon fuselage tank was installed without any counter balance to it, and adversely impacted the loaded CoG because of it. Typically pilots would drain it before moving on to the drop tanks, but limitations in the Il-2 engine prevent fuel tanks from having independent CoG effects or complex CoG effects.

The idea is have one CoG mapping for the P-51 with the 85 gallon tank starting full, and have a second CoG mapping for when the 85 gallon tank starts empty, on control which one is in use the same way the 109 field mod kits are currently handled. You do start to run into the exponential loadout issue the late war German, but the P-51's only have four loadouts apiece currently.

The real question is, how hard a fix is it? Is this something that's deeply buried in the flight model, and can a loadout flag even change something like that? Is this a five-lines-of-code sort of change, or a suicide-watch-on-the-dev-team sort of change?

Harry Voyager

I almost hesitate to even propose this: it just feels like something that is far less simple than it seems on the surface.

We are doing something about CoG/fuel issue.

For the rest of the crowd, whining doesn't help, only well documented and researched problems will be taken into consideration for fix.

FC

Something that REALLY bothers me from IL2 is the score system. It doesn't really encourage teamplay when playing in multiplayer. Is there a way to fix that?. By this I mean allowing, for example, to get the kill points to all the players that hit a shot down plane during the last minute before crashing or something like that... just to keep it fair. It's so annoying to be hitting a bomber having it almost done, and watch another guy come put the last 2 bullets on him and you end up screwed, after you did all the work, and of course, the kill stealers... who just put the 1 single bullet on a plane that's already falling down in flames.

Hopefully there is a solution to all this. :confused:

Yes! for the first time, since iL-2 and the P51 hit the computer hard drive... I have been jazzed about someone actually saying it's even being looked at..

Holy frakking cow! I am very happy! and you guys have really made lots and lots of pilots very very happy giving them hope!

(actually Oleg did do some work, but came up short...) he abondonded us on these issues, after he mostly fixed the wings breaking at 425 mph.. and a small bit of 50 cal sync changing....

Before I start.

Im very grateful to TD for getting v409m finished and appreciate all the hard work done by its members

But.

Im stunned at the ignorance shown here, I thought we had an opportunity to use the modders in a positive way but it looks like they have an agenda that's not as transparent as it seems.

Ignoring and quite frankly ridiculing suggestions and comments made in a genuine way is quite frankly depressing, I had hoped we were getting a mature team of modders taking IL2 1946 seriously.

If it looks like the most talked about problems over the last 5 years of IL2 are simply cast aside and regarded as whining then its an opportunity greatly missed by TD and will be a mistake to their future credibility.

I'm finished with this thread and totally disappointed with the attitude shown here.

Edit below

Now no matter what you do with the P51 until it flies like a Spitfire has Fw190 armament and Panzer armour you will be for ever making adjustments to it.

Alpha - With all due respect but I have read no "genuine" suggestions but rather general statements about feelings, experiences and "things long known" ... So what is exactly the problem? Giving the "disease" a name and listing its symptoms is preliminary to finding a "cure". But seriously - pointing at a five-year old 35-page thread with just "All you need is in there" is about as genuine and productive as folding a paper plane and trying to sell it to your country's air force as new multi-role combat aircraft. :rolleyes:

Bottom line is DT isn't Maddox Games, we didn't write this engine. If you didn't expect miracles from Oleg's team then don't expect them from us. If you perceive something as broken then prepare your request thoroughly: name the problem, describe it as thoroughly as possible, add serious documentation on the issue. And no 5-year old 35-page threads form the Zoo don't count here. ;)

FW fuel leak: It leaks like no other - period. It's not an occasional "Oh look it leaked entirely" it's consistent leaking where you loose entire fuel load in a matter of a minute or two and it happens EXTREMELY often!

FW controls issue - it's really not an exception, I've loosed all three controls in many planes, the issue are the hitboxes and as we know it's a simple limitation, for me it's pretty much the same if you loose your elevator or all 3 controls, either way I'm hitting the silk so I don't see anything to fix here really...

50cal weapon accuracy - it's hard to for me to understand what exactly people want with this - guided bullets?
Let's look at history, the 50cal's were probably changed more often than anything in the game, I saw all those threads and I also remember they were changed several times by popular demand, and even changed back to previous state by using the same reason - inaccuracy, after so much BS surrounding this matter one can't really say what is accurate and what is not ;)

P-51 CoG - with full fuel the thing was nearly dangerous to fly even as per the manual, I hope changes wont make a trainer class aircraft of it at 100% of fuel okay?

A few thoughts for requests and patches
 

I think everyone is excited about the possibilities of competent developers taking a turn with IL2 and fixing,fixing,fixing.

It maybe frustrating to you after you vent your frustrations,etc. and the developer seems to be giving you the brush off. This is just the beginning of the improvements to Il2, which are forthcoming.

Facts are, historically the Ubi boards were constantly in a flux over all manner of things people wanted fixed and were very vocal about those fixes. Builidng a CFS is no small task, and with all the aircraft and graphic additions to preserve interest in the sim the developer just looked away on many issues.

People want more stuff, and that is the real issue. If users would just back off all the constant barrage of requests for a new aircraft, object,etc. and let the developer work steadily work through issues with what we have... that would be a best course of action.

My gosh, we are a spoiled lot. Go over to BOB II WOV and there are only a handful of flyable planes and they are constantly tweaking those few aircraft FM and DM. In IL2 we have how many flyable aircraft, and how much time and human resources are available to spend on all the various aircarft models?

I've so often thought why doesn't Oleg stop with all the new stuff and work with what he's got. Don't get me wrong, I think Oleg and his team have done alot with FM and DM issues. Yet, they haven't worked through all the fixes a myriad of users continue to turn up.

As I recall, I built missions and campaigns on the Kuban map for appx 2years and that was all I did. That was back in the Forgotten Battles days, and I never left the Kuban for over 2 years of IL2 enjoyment. There has always been so much in this sim to keep renewing interest.

Arguing with the DT about a zillion fixes you think necessary maybe early, afterall we don't even have their first patch release. Incremental changes in the IL2 will be the way to go, fixing stuff that has priority should be the way to go at it.

I always hated the big frame bars in the 190 and my thoughts were shared by many at Ubizoo, but Oleg was set on those bars. LOL

I'm for talking about things that DT can do, but I sure think at this point we should give them the latitude to work on the issues we bring up they are interested to fix. IMO, arguing with the DT, not a good thing. We need to give them encouragement. Afterall, most of users have written off the IL2 and had no hopes for it, at least on an approved basis.