Could be implemented the selection of the fuel at 10%'s

There are many things unrealistic already, just having the airfields close like that to begin with. It is a simple optional solution to rectify a problem that appeared trying to solve another problem (the long flight times).

Limiting loadouts does not really stop the single engined fighters being able to access much better performance than they had in real life, because they will still be able to loiter and engage in fights with very low fuel amounts (with the performance that goes with it). The problem will become worse when airframes will be able to be damaged from excessive G-force for the given weight of the aircraft. Being able to fly at low fuel then = hugely beneficial, while at the same time bombers are penalized even more. Their fuel carrying/range ability being even more irellevant, while suffering from their weak airframes even with low fuel.

Agree with you 100% And add to that minimal fighter escort that leave at the first sign of e/a so they can shoulder shoot their team mates in a gound level furball. No wonder bombers have to resort to non-realistic tactics!

Cheers

Please do remember that none of the aircraft in the sim can appraoch their real world range/endurance numbers as it is, even at 100% fuel load. Do you want ot give the Bf 109s only 15 min of fuel even at 100% load?

The problem is not the aircraft, or the tiny maps, it's the fact that this is not WW2, nor is it real life. This is something we do for fun, because we enjoy it. NO one is really going to fly for 4 hours to do 30 seconds of combat. Who has the time for that?

Enforcing your distored reality on everyone only will lead to an empty server.

When aircraft in the sim are exposed as being poorly modeled, eveyone goes ballistic and demands a fix, yet now you propose a totally unrelistic solution, accelerated fuel burn, to a non-problem.

You cannot re-create WW2. You can't. Nor can you enforce your ideas of what is "proper". It doesn't work. It's been tried over and over again on countless now dead servers, and by guys like me that got all caught up in uber realism at the expense of enjoyable play.

If TD is still aiming for the release schedule on the first page patch 4.10 is less than a month away. Very much looking forward to this.

This patch will potentially bring very significant improvement to the sim, and will likely be in even higher demand than 4.09m when it was released.

Given the experience last time, is there any plan to coordinate the release with several sites to handle the download demand?

The real E-series without using additional fuel could fly over an hour. The rest of them similar, without using drop tanks. How different are the numbers in the game when flying with closed radiator and crusing speed/RPM?

15 minutes would suggest running a multiplier of 0.25 on fuel consumption - without using drop tanks (and assuming it does not significantly differ from the real version). A bit too short.

There was a problem - limited time/patience etc. It was solved by altering the maps. Not bad. But that messed up another aspect of the simulation - fuel and aircraft balance was vastly distorted. In general, a simulator tends to strive to be able to provide simulation of something. This can be tweaked back to suit people who don't want simulation if it is a simulation that can cater for numerous preferences.

First of all, servers are privately owned and administered. They force nothing on anyone. Participation is voluntary. They set their rules. Secondly, is the following reality, or is it distorted reality?

Helmet Mounted Display with following projection abilities:

1. Instant, 100% accurate damage assessment system
2. Precision range-finder
3. Friend-or-Foe identification system
4. Target box
5. Aircraft System status and Instrument readings
6. Fuselage mounted array of cameras, processed and projected over the cockpit, giving the ability to see through the cockpit.
7. External, invisible ultra-maneuverability capable remote controlled UAV with live image feed transmission.

Furthermore:

• Mind control/telepathy link between crew members in aircraft.
• Any percievable mishmash of aircraft, markings and load-outs in any percievable scenario.
• The front and its airfield being 30-90km apart.

The problem exists. It is described and well defined. You do not care about this problem, just like plenty of people do not care about the list of reality/unreality I supplied above, or a 13.5g airframe tolerance to G-forces and so on. If you do not care about the problem, I would not expect you to care about an optional solution for those who consider it a problem. Just like I don't care about supplying see-through cockpits as I don't see the lack of such as a problem to begin with. But regardless of what you and I think, we can both see that other people do care about problems. Or just want to customise their experience the way they enjoy it the most.

I very clearly said I requested it as an option, not a hard-coded alteration.

And this not being WW2? You cannot be serious. So it is not WW2, what does that suggest of any relevance to anything? These are not real planes either. The bullets, the cannon shells, the G-forces on the virtual pilot - it's not real. We are not pilots. Why would anyone want to fly planes that simulate the behaviour of those of WW2? Or be able to black out from the G-forces? Why have limited ammo as an option at all? I mean, come on, that is really a silly argument. I think "whatever floats your boat" applies here. Realistic simulation of aircraft and the scenarios they often found themselves in floats my boat. 4 hour flights to target and back does not float my boat, but dealing with that (in the way that we usually see) causes my boat to float less well as a consequence. And therefore, my request.

EDIT (And edited again!: The 'focused on uber realism at the lack of fun play' argument works exactly the same against your own beliefs as it does to mine. I am proposing making an aspect of aircraft engine modeling adjustable to be less realistic for the sake of fun (beacuse I feel it is more realistic/immersive in that way as a net result). Both of us already axed realistic flight times because it was very impractical and tedious. Imagine if someone told you that axing landings and take-offs is good because it's more fun and landings are boring and impractical, taking away from the dogfight action. I am guessing you don't agree with that statement, and neither do I. And then you would get accused of not knowing what fun is, yearning for realism at any cost and how that is nonsense.

I apologise if a sound i'm rushing you, its not my intention, but would like to know if you have already an aproximated list of the things you will add on the 4.10 patch?.

I remember the interview on SimHQ about you geting know to the public, and showing the bf-110 with radar, partial 6dof, and other things.

I ask you what features of that interview, and new, will be implemented on the new coming patch?

If you don't want to announce it yet, its fine for me. :)

Lancelot

Go to starter post on this thread. Also, look at the bottom of that post for link to additional items that will be included in 4.10

Hey! Some of my most successful sorties have been on big maps with the airfield far apart. I take off and get lost and fly around going "Where the hell are those (Bule/Red Delete own side) planes! I tend to get shot down less on those maps! ;)

I do agree that that it is a fine balancing act between realism and enjoyable game play. Which comes down to the skill of the mission designer.

As long as there is a level playing field, half the fun is knowing what you can and can't do with your plane and staying just this side of what you can do.

That's whats going to make the 4.10 patch so interesting. There's going to be a lot of re-learning going to happening one it's released.

Cheers!

S!

MikkOwl, the difference between modern airframes and WW2 is of course quite big. The planes of WW2 were designed for less than 1000h service, like Bf109 was for about 400h and it's engine for about 120h before complete overhaul. Now the modern planes are designed for 6000h and civilian planes can fly twice or even more that amount, as their airframes are not stressed like fighters.

Materials and manufacturing techniques have evolved of course too, but for their time for example F4U was very solid build, especially the midsection where the wing was. Like a tank. Bf109 was of lighter build, but it was designed for something else than F4U for example. FW190 was a sturdy plane, but had more roles than Bf109 and of curse design philosophy was different a bit.

Have to take in account the design specs in planes because that determines quite a bit of their structure etc. But there is one commong thing for them all: to save weight where possible. Even today this is an issue so we have new materials like composite etc.

As of the performances of planes in IL-2. The debate has gone on forever, since release ;) Bt a serious look could be taken in the fuel consumption and fuel quantities planes have, the overheating and engine damage exploits plugged and so on. One of the most accurate planes in fuel consumption is actually the Bf109. You can fly with internal fuel 407 litres roughly one hour if cruising, but the flying time reduces quite a bit in combat. But there are planes that fly longer with same fuel capacity. This makes fighting in Bf109 a challenge as you have almost always to take 100% fuel load and then you are fighting planes that fly with 25% or at most 50% fuel because they simply use less juice. Go figure the rest.

TD is making good fixes and additions for IL-2 and hopefully continue on that path. But I wish there would be a balance between bringing in a lot of new stuff and features when some of the old is still broken. Of course all can not be fixed or is not even feasible, but basic stuff like fuel quantities, fuel consumption etc. maybe are not that hard to check and fix.