Official Fulqrum Publishing forum

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)
-   IL-2 Sturmovik (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=98)
-   -   Bf 109 and Mixture (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=2798)

Rote Dreizehn 02-20-2008 08:59 PM

Bf 109 and Mixture
 
Hi Pilots,:)

have a Question about the Bf109 and Mixture. Is it realism that
the Bf109 haven´t a Mixture Lever. I fly the Bf109 with propeller
pitch and flaps, at the online gaming, to fight real. So i miss every
Time the Mixture lever in the Bf109, to control the Petrol Mixture
in 10000 feet ( 3000 Meter ) altitude.:(

Each real Engine will got in trouble, when the Plane reach a particular
altitude. The Mixture will be to rich and the Engine will be flooded and
die off.

Can it be that the original Bf109 haven´t a Mixture Lever?
I cant believe it?:confused:

So i am right, or is it a falsity?:rolleyes:

By the Way:

The older Spitfire have a gasifier , as i know. Why can you make with each Spitfire in IL2
a loop without Engine problems? One Plane in IL2 the "double decker" (dont know the name at this time)
have this gasifier, and act correctly when you make a long loop. Only the Bf109 with the DB 605 Engine
has an injection. This was the great advantage of the BF109. Please correct me, when i make a mistake!

Thanks for your response. I will be very pleased for corrections and opinions.

However, IL2 is the best Simulator which i find on the PC. Only Condor Soaring have a better Flight Dynamic.
The Microsoft FS-X is a very bad Simulator. Every Time when i try to land a Plane on a runway, i
can´t believe how unreal Simulators can be!

Greetz
Rote Dreizehn

Kurfürst 02-20-2008 10:18 PM

Modelled Bf 109 types had historically fully automated mixture settings, no need for input from pilot.

BadAim 02-20-2008 11:33 PM

By Gassifier, I assume you mean Carburator. The problem with the early spits and many other planes was negative G's; at the top of a loop, if you are still moving you still have positive g's (usually), so this is not the problem, it's when you push the nose down that the cutout happens. None of the Spits modelled in the game had this problem, but several others do. Try the Hurricane I it has the same engine ad the early spits and the same carburetor problems.

Blackdog_kt 02-21-2008 03:25 AM

I hope that in BoB we'll have even better engine management and realistic automatic systems as well.

Right now in IL-2 some planes with manual controls require minimal management (some allied planes i've tried mostly), while others that were fitted with automatic systems perform better if you do it manually (namely the A series of fw-190s, the Dora's and the 109s are good on auto but not the Antons).

Of course, these are the limitations of a 7 year old gaming engine, but i'd like to have to fly with proper settings in the next sim, like paying attention to manifold pressure and rpm instead of simply memorizing throttle positions. "Hmm, this is a Dora, i can run 100%+WEP all day long with rads closed, this is an Anton, i can run 100%+WEP with 80-90% pitch and high speed, this is a Mustang, i can ask someone what his memorized settings are, and this is a 109, i can't touch anything except the throttle or the engine will die" :grin:

bomath 02-21-2008 06:09 AM

One of the BIG problems with this kind of simulation: while it doesn't significantly add to the „realism” (short of hiking into a cockpit and putting someone fire .45 rounds at you), it's a hindrance to the people that don't want to memorize some stupid button presses. I mean... When I take off, my sequence is F2-mousepan-L-I-F8-mousepan vertical-PgDown-V-V.
Explanation: in German planes (which I'm flying the most) the pilot is supposed to be a midget, and the cockpit is exageratedly obstructing the view so... F2, to check if there's anyone else taxiing on the runway brackets; the mousepan/TrackIRpan would serve the same purpose, but here I'm explaining why I have to press F2.
Next: L for lights, because (even with the lights on) some other people don't bother to check if I'm already taxiing, and at least my navlights should tell them something.
And so on, and so forth; everybody here knows that right after you press Refly, we're starting an already too long list of keypresses, even before the plane moves a single inch.

My point: complex engine management is just something for the MS FlightSim guys, obsessed to cheat themselves into believing that they really can fly a plane, if faced with a situation. Yeah right... The bad part? Because of the CEM somebody that casually flies a Bf109-G6 A/S can be chased and hunted down by a *theoretically* slower plane, like LaGG, because the LaGG player learned the quirks of the game. So then I ask you, gentlemen: is this really simulation, or just adds to the fact that it's only a game and you can "win" by robotically typing some predefined keysets, memorized by heart and not really calculated?
It's as useless as the separate engine start... It might be realistic, but it just substracts from the fun. Do remember, it's a game and nobody pays you to memorize sequences.
Finally, the last thing that hurts everyone here, lurking to find out sooner some info about the next upcoming patch or the potential Korea sim: each and every "feature" takes time to research and program. Does anybody benefit from this delay? Maybe only the MS guys, programing the CFS4...

Feuerfalke 02-21-2008 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bomath (Post 36494)
My point: complex engine management is just something for the MS FlightSim guys, obsessed to cheat themselves into believing that they really can fly a plane, if faced with a situation. Yeah right... The bad part? Because of the CEM somebody that casually flies a Bf109-G6 A/S can be chased and hunted down by a *theoretically* slower plane, like LaGG, because the LaGG player learned the quirks of the game. So then I ask you, gentlemen: is this really simulation, or just adds to the fact that it's only a game and you can "win" by robotically typing some predefined keysets, memorized by heart and not really calculated?
It's as useless as the separate engine start... It might be realistic, but it just substracts from the fun. Do remember, it's a game and nobody pays you to memorize sequences.
Finally, the last thing that hurts everyone here, lurking to find out sooner some info about the next upcoming patch or the potential Korea sim: each and every "feature" takes time to research and program. Does anybody benefit from this delay? Maybe only the MS guys, programing the CFS4...

Is it really THAT easy? If you want less realism, you always have the option to disable CEM. For those of us who want complex engine management, to modell the flaws of some machines and the difficulties the pilots had during WW2 to use them effectively, this comment is really what you said: YOUR POINT.

If I were you, I wouldn't be so self-confident to call this personal opinion anything close to the common view of the IL2-players, though!

Crumpp 02-21-2008 08:52 AM

Quote:

while others that were fitted with automatic systems perform better if you do it manually
I wonder why this is the case?

Bobb4 02-21-2008 09:01 AM

Remembering your fuel mixture, prop pitch setting and supercharger heights is what makes this game great.
On ADw we fly ultra realistic...
I would have it no other way.

bomath 02-21-2008 09:53 AM

Well, nobody should stay between you and your happiness to click 7-8 keys :) even if that doesn't accomplish anything but making the "simulation" work as intended, ergo a game where you need to press those 7-8 keys just to make it work.
I suppose from now on it's clear that there are some strong opinions here (which came from the guys used to... press buttons), so the rest of the conversation is just for the sake of it, 'cause I agree that is OK to disagree; at least until I'm going up on a server which (e.g.) enforces the use of CEM. It's a least a nuissance, because on HL you can hardly come about a server which doesn't. I've played this game since 1.02, and it became (sorry, but that's the truth) bloated with conventions and tricks that you need to keep notes of, even if you'd take only a few weeks of pause. Does anybody remember how hard was to keep up-to-date with the whole plethora of add-on instalations? At least the smartest move was to launch an undivided (after that) DVD with 1946, which I run to get even if I had all the content on it.
Does anybody happen to have heard about a Russian guy named Pavlov? He kept around him a soul, and succeeded in making it happy just by turning on a red bulb. Problem is that I don't wanna be forced to jubilate like the pack of red-bulb lovers, but that's the norm online (and sniffed/frowned upon if one dares to say anything against that, much like the case here). And you'd be surprised, but there are a lot of guys that use CEM just because they're forced to comply to that stuck-up rule, or else be banished to precious few and unpopulated servers. It's just a tradition that prevents new players to hop onboard and this doesn't bode well for the future sales, nor for the continuation of this great sim.
The point where nobody tried to answer: why waste valuable resources in implementing a finicky thing that's a pain in the a$$ to use? I fail to see the reason, especially since the documentation about it is kinda scarce and mostly comes in the form of predefined tables obtained by experiment? The PDF docs that came with the game (I don't remember, about 5-6 years ago when it was implemented) present just a generalization, vague norms for some specific planes and not even then as an algorithm, just the info about magnetos, sketchy things about mixture richness etc.

Feuerfalke 02-21-2008 10:40 AM

Odd. Why do you think so many servers on HL have enforced CEM if nobody wants it?
Only to turn down rookies? Well, I honestly doubt that many rookies are rushed away because they do have to select their different engines for startup in while using one of the 6 or 8 multi-engined planes in 1946. And Prop-Pitch? Honestly, what rookie does care about that? If you don't fight the aces, you can very well survive without changing these settings (most aces I know have the settings 70 or 100% prop-pitch only, anyway).

I can hardly believe that these 3 or 4 buttons turn down any rookie who is willing to learn to deal with gyro-effects, turbulences, drag, loosing control-surfaces, engine damage, fuel leaks, carrier-takeoffs, different bomb-munitions, bomb-delays and rocket-delays, etc.


On another note the very few planes that have mixture-settings-controls were in the initial release, whereas planes with "press W for unlimited afterburner" were added later on. There is even a settings for using automatic radiators on planes who didn't have such a system. (and radiators only cause light drag, which is not nearly as devastating on flight-performance as the real things, e.g. for the 109.

As I posted before: There is always the option to disable those and there are many servers without CEM. It's just a fact that if you are searching for realistic servers with realistic missions and settings, there is simply no way around getting those few keys memorized or mapped to a joystick. Maybe you should give Falcon4 a try?

Bobb4 02-21-2008 11:42 AM

[QUOTE=bomath;36505]Well, nobody should stay between you and your happiness to click 7-8 keys :) even if that doesn't accomplish anything but making the "simulation" work as intended, ergo a game where you need to press those 7-8 keys just to make it work.
QUOTE]
Pulling into a steep climb trailing black smoke with tracers flying all around is awesome... Realizing the black smoke is not some deadly hit by flak or that fighter you shot past and are about to barrel roll onto, but your failure to adjust your mixture feels real. Gives you a sense of immersion that fly arcade (easy) cannot do.
It took me between twenty and thirty attempts to land a plane when I first got Il2 (original). When I bought Pacific Fighters I took months to be able to land onto a stationary carrier.
Falcon 4 and Lock On also took their toll. I will not even talk about chopper landings in Armed Assault, not really a sim but... Each brought a sense of accomplishment.
And I would hate to lose that. Try flying BoB2 Wings of Victory and you will see what I mean. All the eye candy in the world does not change the fact that I can max my throttle and fly till I am shot down. My engine does not overheat, I hardly ever stall and I down an average of two planes a sortie.

We on the (South African SGS Server) take new pilots and train them how to fly. Planes like the 109 need little CEM and are ideal starter planes. We walk them through landing, take-off, CEM, dogfighting, deflection shooting and Situational Awareness.
We have a policy of landing lights or smoke that allows new pilots to fly on our servers and get a feel of the game without being butchered. Obviously once they enter the realms of ADW, Birds of Prey and other full real servers it is a free-for-all.

Sorry about the long winded response, but this is a sim I am passionate about and I love the total immersion of it.

BSS_Sniper 02-21-2008 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bomath (Post 36494)
One of the BIG problems with this kind of simulation: while it doesn't significantly add to the „realism” (short of hiking into a cockpit and putting someone fire .45 rounds at you), it's a hindrance to the people that don't want to memorize some stupid button presses. I mean... When I take off, my sequence is F2-mousepan-L-I-F8-mousepan vertical-PgDown-V-V.
Explanation: in German planes (which I'm flying the most) the pilot is supposed to be a midget, and the cockpit is exageratedly obstructing the view so... F2, to check if there's anyone else taxiing on the runway brackets; the mousepan/TrackIRpan would serve the same purpose, but here I'm explaining why I have to press F2.
Next: L for lights, because (even with the lights on) some other people don't bother to check if I'm already taxiing, and at least my navlights should tell them something.
And so on, and so forth; everybody here knows that right after you press Refly, we're starting an already too long list of keypresses, even before the plane moves a single inch.

My point: complex engine management is just something for the MS FlightSim guys, obsessed to cheat themselves into believing that they really can fly a plane, if faced with a situation. Yeah right... The bad part? Because of the CEM somebody that casually flies a Bf109-G6 A/S can be chased and hunted down by a *theoretically* slower plane, like LaGG, because the LaGG player learned the quirks of the game. So then I ask you, gentlemen: is this really simulation, or just adds to the fact that it's only a game and you can "win" by robotically typing some predefined keysets, memorized by heart and not really calculated?
It's as useless as the separate engine start... It might be realistic, but it just substracts from the fun. Do remember, it's a game and nobody pays you to memorize sequences.
Finally, the last thing that hurts everyone here, lurking to find out sooner some info about the next upcoming patch or the potential Korea sim: each and every "feature" takes time to research and program. Does anybody benefit from this delay? Maybe only the MS guys, programing the CFS4...

Wrong! If you want/can use F2 to view outside the cockpit, those very same servers will probably have complex CEM (when it's available in BOB) turned off so you'll be just fine. I DO fly IRL and will/do enjoy having to go through all the proper procedures to do things correctly. If you want arcade play Pacman. :)

bomath 02-21-2008 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BSS_Sniper (Post 36513)
Wrong! [blah-blah...] If you want arcade play Pacman. :)

That's simply typical; The Great Beholder of The Absolute Truth has speaketh!
Well, in your case the game misses an essential feature: the pilot miraculously appears right in the cockpit. What a shame, there is no stair simulator in preflight!
I'd still enjoy a rational answer(of course, not from people full of BS). Especially for the CEM research/programming part.

robtek 02-21-2008 05:01 PM

@bomath
did you have to learn to be offensive or are you a natural?
It was quite clear stated that not only a few of the gamers here feel that the "dumb button pushing"
adds to the immersion into the game.
Obviously you can´t accept that. Fine.
Go play on servers with cem turned off and, voila.... no more problems!
Or play offline the way you love it -> nobody cares.
But please don´t try to tell the rest of the world what fun is.
That does everybody decide for himself.(or herself)

Rote Dreizehn 02-21-2008 06:49 PM

Hi Pilots,

your replys are really Interesting! Thanks a lot to all People who replys.:grin:

@Kurfurst
Interesting. Can´t believe that the Engines in the WW II have
an Auto Mixture. Thanks for your Update! Do you know any
Site where this Function is elaborate on?

@BadAim
ah - I see. Sorry for my bad English. Haven´t find another Word for
"Vergaser". Now I learned "Carburator" ;-) Thanks! I will try the
Hurricane.

@bomath
I understand your Opinion. But when you start a Plane, you have to do a
preflight Check which is not other as a sequence of switches and checks.
E.G. (When I take off, my sequence is F2-mousepan-L-I-F8-mousepan....).
My Opinion about disabled CEM: You play a better ego shooter. Be cool,
dont take me this bad.

@Blackdog_kt
I hope it too. I can´t await the release of BoB.

@ Feuerfalke
Correct. Every Player who wants to play Arcade on IL2 or later BoB, can
disable CEM and choose a spezial Online Server.

Greetz to all
Rote Dreizehn

Bobb4 02-22-2008 06:29 AM

welcome

bomath 02-22-2008 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robtek (Post 36530)
@bomath
did you have to learn to be offensive or are you a natural?
[...]
But please don´t try to tell the rest of the world what fun is.
That does everybody decide for himself.(or herself)

True, I'm being aggresive and I'm sorry, but I'm replying to people that wouldn't have it any other way; really, am I supposed to go light on the ones that jump the gun and say „Wrong”, without a moment of pause? I guess these are the ones that play in Spitfires and La5...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rote Dreizehn (Post 36546)
[...]
@bomath
I understand your Opinion.
[...]
My Opinion about disabled CEM: You play a better ego shooter. Be cool,
dont take me this bad.
[...]

Trying to stay cool, and definately I don't want just another arcade flying game. Let's say that I should try to cope better with CEM; where can I find the instructions for (let's say) a Fw-190D? There are none, and I'm supposed to fly at least three hours to test the possible uses, all the way from take-off to about 6000m. There isn't any documentation on that, and as long as it means that it's compulsory (because not using CEM would mean to be shot down in a '44 plane by a '41 one) one can recognize that something is amiss...

Bobb4 02-22-2008 10:35 AM

There are planes, the 109's that require very little CEM for those that want the quick combat fix
But yes spending a little time working out how a 190 works best is not really a bad thing.
Just as you have to learn combat tactics such as lead attacks, barrel rolls etc...
This is just my opinion and not an attack on yours bomath.
Planes flying on arcade settins online tend to end up as airquake matches where the quickest trigger finger wins...

Baghr 02-23-2008 02:27 AM

Hello all, interesting post and responses.

Im a noob to this sim, coming from years of MS Flightsims. I enjoy realism in sims, and is the main reason I really enjoy this one. I tried the CFS lines, but hey didnt hold my interest very long. I like the fact the P-38j's control surfaces lock when in a steep dive (will remember that one for sure) and the Hurricane's stumble with negative G's, its what makes it interesting to me.

I'm nowhare close to be ready for combat at this point, as Im still learning the basics of these wonderful unstable machines (remember, I coming from Cessna's and Pipers) I have nice rudder pedals and HOTAS, and have ordered a tracker for the panning. These help with immersion, which is what I enjoy. What that means to me is realistic. So, yes its frustrating for me right now, but in the long run I'll be a better pilot for it. I have flown aircraft in real life, and enjoy a sim that its just that a simulation of flight, not an arcade game.

So, I'll see you on the servers someday, but until then Ive got some flying to do, getting some hours under my belt. An I wouldnt have it any other way.

Blackdog_kt 02-23-2008 07:08 PM

I tend to agree, the best FM and DM in the world alone, or the best graphics alone won't do much for a sim. The reason is because they need to be combined to give you the all important feeling of an immersive experience. There's nothing better than feeling you are really there. Well, short of a 20mm shell exploding behind your chair :grin:

How many here remember European Air War? It's a very old game and certainly not up to par with IL-2 in the technical aspect, but i would find myself reinstalling it from time to time because of immersion alone.

I had seen HUGE battles with about 200 planes in the air at the same time and the AI wingmen radio chatter was so realistic i almost fell sorry about them when they would get shot down. Certainly one of the best sims ever made as far as immersion goes.

Profiler 02-24-2008 02:59 PM

Beyond the tone of this thread, I think all contributors have a point...

While I see a challenge in flying full real, I tend to agree on one technical issue mentioned by Bomath: there seems to be very little information on how manage the various types of engines (variable pitch, constant speed, or airscrew).

My research led me to: http://mplayer.ethz.ch/~chapman/il2g...uide/intro.htm . However great this site is, it fails to provide practical information of how to best take-off, cruise, combat, land with for instance a P-38 or a IL2 (for instance in performance tables).

In the spirit of the initial contribution of Dreizehn, I would be greatly interested if anyone could (constructively) point out where such information can be found on the net.

Sincerely,
Profiler

Blackdog_kt 02-25-2008 12:52 PM

I think that the IL-2 engine is not exactly correct in the CEM department. I think it's not possible to dive in a real plane with full throttle and low prop pitch without causing some kind of damage. I remember an old game, B17 The mighty 8th (the sequel, not the "ancient" original) where you had to be very careful with your engines, especially during the climb out.

That game didn't use a logic of % throttle positions. Since it focused on a single (and well documented) aircraft, the manual stated exactly what kind of manifold pressure and RPM you should aim for in climbs, level flight, cruise speed and descends and you had to monitor the instruments to get this right.

If i'm not mistaken ,there was also a rule about how to increase or decrease engine power. If you wanted to climb for example, you had to increase throttle first and RPM second (pitch), so that the engines would be producing enough power to support the increased RPM. On the other hand, if you wanted to dive you had to lower your RPM first and then decrease throttle to prevent over-revving the engines.

There was all sorts of different other options as well, for example you needed to mess with heating equipment. At low alts it should be shut down, but higher up the engines needed to be heated. Oil needs to be in a certain temperature range and not simply in low temp. In fact, if your oil temperature was getting too low it couldn't dissipate heat effectively and your engines would overheat, you actually had to make sure your engines were warmed up before take off. Of course that was a strictly offline game with time compression and varying autopilot levels, the engines would be warmed up by the time you had taxied from your parking spot to the runway.

I don't know if something like this would be desirable in a dogfight server, maybe the engines could be set to "pre-warmed" for some online modes. However, i believe it would be nice to have realism options that would force us to run the engine according to instruments and official parameters instead of experimenting with throttle positions and overtheat in QMB before going online.

Al Schlageter 02-25-2008 07:54 PM

Quote:

In fact, if your oil temperature was getting too low it couldn't dissipate heat effectively and your engines would overheat, you actually had to make sure your engines were warmed up before take off.
I think you have that wrong. Oil not warmed did not flow freely and the engine components requiring oil would not be lubed properly.

Blackdog_kt 02-26-2008 08:55 PM

Ah yes, i think that was the case. Anyway, it was very interesting to take these things into consideration while flying a bomber. Imagine what kind of a workload it would be to do something like this (even for a single engine) while fighting in a fighter.

I think it would discourage furballs and require that we think and plan a little bit before attacking.


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:48 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.