4.11 overheat and engine damage test results
 

Hi,
some folks are seriously concerned that some planes might overheat too much in 4.11, while others might overheat much less.

Specifically, Whistlinggdeath feels that the TA152H, P51 and FW190D9 45 overheat too much, especially during zoomclimbs, while the I-185 M71 and SpitIX 25lbs show almost no overheat.

Us JG27 folks have tested 4.11 extensively in internal fullreal matches and found no reason to worry. However, dogfights are not objective, specific tests.

To get some reproducible numbers, i've put several planes to the ultimate overheat test on the crimea map: with the plane grounded, chocks in, pp 100% or auto (where available) i ran the engine to absolute max power, measuring the time until the overheat message appeared and until engine damage occured. Full power was applied immediately after engine ignition.
I repeated the test at least 3 times per plane, and calculated average values as well as standard deviation (displayed as error bars).
Unless stated otherwise, radiators were open.
I've also plotted engine rpm at max settings.

This test provides an estimate on how fast a plane will overheat when reaching very low speeds at full power, as happens at the top of some zoomclimbs.

For a given plane, the time to overheat is highly reproducible (small error bars, see figure below). The error bars get a little bigger for the time to engine damage, where random effects come into play.

As you see, all planes overheat pretty fast under the given circumstances, and the differences between planes are minor. In my view, there's no reason to worry.

Contradictory to Whistlinggdeath's description, SpitIX 25lbs and P51 D20 overheat at almost exactly the same time.

The TA152 H1 overheats slightly faster than the Spit with radiators on auto. With manually opened radiators, however, the TA overheats slower than the Spit! This trend is also seen for the FW190D9 models, but not for the 109K4 and P51. In summary, the automatic radiator opens a little late on the TA and D9.

The most overheat-resistant planes in this test are the FW190A6 and the I-185 M71.

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c6...Overheat_1.jpg

It seems that rpm values and overheat times correlate inversely: planes with low rpm (I-185 and FW190) are slow to overheat, while planes with high rpm (TA152) seem to overheat faster.

To test this hypothesis i plotted the reciprocal of RPM values (1/RPM) against the average time to overheat (open radiators, see figure below).

As expected, both curves are very similar, and this impression is confirmed by the calculated Pearson correlation coefficient between RPM and time to overheat. The correlation value of -0.56 indicates a fairly strong inverse correlation between engine rpm and time to overheat. In other words: high rpm results in faster overheat, across the planeset.

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c6...Overheat_2.jpg

***EDIT***
I've just tested the TA152, FW190A6, SpitIX 25lbs, LA7 3xB20, F4U-1D and I-185 M71 inflight on the same map: max performance takeoff and climb at a constant 260kph IAS.
I used manually open rads on the TA, FW190 and I-185, auto rads for the spit.

Here are the times to overheat at 260kph IAS:

Plane_________time to overheat____notes__________________
TA152-H1........3'24''......................oil temp near upper limit
SpitIX 25lbs.....2'56''......................oil at 80°C, glycol at 110°C
FW190A6.........3'48''......................oil at less than 80°C
F4U-1D............3'52''.....................oil temp 80°C, cylinder head 200°C at overheat message
LA7 3xB20........3'48''......................oil temp is above 100°C from 1'56''on; cylinder head temp above 200°C at overheat message
I-185 M71........5'08''.....................oil temp is above 100°C from 2'08'' on; cylinder head temp above 200°C at overheat message

Something seems to be wrong with the I-185. For one, it overheats on the ground just like any other plane, but much later in the air.
While most other planes overheat when the oil has 80°C, the I-185's oil temps hits the end of the dial (125°C) before the overheat occurs. At that stage, the cylinder head has well above 200°C. This behavior is very different from that of other radial engine fighters in the test (F4U, FW190A). The LA7 also shows that oil temp increase, but the overheat message comes earlier, at almost the same time with the FW190A and F4U.

Maybe someone from TD could explain why the I-185 is different?
***EDIT END***

Cheers

Well done! Thanks for the detailed information.

My question is whether aircrafts equipped with MW50 really overheated that fast in real life. According to the test it cannot even last more than 2 minutes in the game. The only radiator position that is useful for Luftwaffe pilots are full open. I can't think of any situation where other positions can be used.

And I can't persuade myself to believe those coarse Russian engines tend to has less overheat problem than German ones.

BTW, 109 K4 C3 appears to have a flawed auto radiator. You can notice the radiator flaps are not fully open even the engine has been overheated for a long time.

MW50 merely allowed higher boost pressures and the max time to run that higher boost was 10 minutes after which you needed a 5 minute break.

That restriction is totally separate from any other limitations on running the engine at takeoff/miltary power at low airspeed. If the engine had a separate restriction on for example time at takeoff power that still applied over and above the 10 minute WEP restriction.

Running MW50 did not magically give the engine the ability to disregard its normal restrictions its cooling properties were a side effect and minimal. People seem to think if MW50 was permitted for 10 minutes then the engine should last 10 minutes regardless of how you mistreat it. That is just silly.


Gratuitous MW50 operation instructions in German :

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...0_im_Bf109.jpg

1. It can not last two minutes stationary on the ground without any air flowing through the radiators to actually cool it. That is what this test established as he tries to mimic a plane at stall speed at the top of a zoom climb. If your plane is constantly in that state you are a rubbish pilot.

2. Other positions can be used during 90% of a regular pilots flight time. Prolonged combat against top brass planes and pilots are rather rare actually. Even on a dogfight server, if you know what you are doing.

3. Exactly because of their rather rough nature they are more rugged.

Let me translate that first sentence, the most important of them all, for jermin.

"What is MW-50 operation?
MW-50 operation means: Temporary extraction of emergency power for the purpose of hoirzontal and climb speed increase, allowed by boost pressure increase to 1,7ata and simultaneous injection of MW-50."

So, as I told you before, it is not meant for the pilot to give him an edge in zoom climbing or general fighting, but to increase his speed to get out of trouble.

And also the La-7 - if you look at your chart.
So whats unique on these three planes - contrary to the others? ;)

Nice testing, BTW!

Where's the difference? The engine still can not last over 5 minutes even during level flight.

Have you tried it yourself? Fly some sorties in some hot servers on hyperlobby and see for yourself whether you will have a chance to fly using other radiator positions.

Sorry, but I can't see your logic here.

Where does it say it should be used to get out of trouble?

you never climb and accelerate during combat? What if your plane can not outrun the enemy aircraft on your 6 and it is more agile than yours? So will leave MW50 disabled and wait for enemy ripping your ass off?

Don't pretend to be a WW2 veteran, will you?

I think he is merely stating facts.

There is still the unanswered question if the Komandogerät allowed the TA engine to overrev in dive at 110%+Wep+autopp.

So that confirms that radial engines are more resistant to overheating?

At least they have a bonus in cooling.

I'd rather put it like better ventilated and therefor less prone to overheating.

The KG adjusted (beside other things) the revs by pitching the prop and so prevented from overrev.

Then the TA152 C is bugged, it overrevs in a dive ~2900rpm, independent from engine temp.

ntrk: http://www.mediafire.com/?9b4asyzzt25uyyz


The H1 seems to be ok.

Would you please add the other aircrafts in the ground test into the climbing test?

It looks as if those Russian UFO fliers gotta love their monster rides more than ever.

Relax m8, the tests clearly show that only the I-185 overheats a bit late inflight, whereas all other planes behave quite similarly. I see no reason to worry. Congrats TD on a great job!

Did you look at the track I sent you?

Think AK-47. ;) Lower tolerances means parts can actually expand a bit with the heat before they start rubbing together in a bad way.

Thanks PapaFly, for the test.

I did. But I could not reproduce it in my game, not even once.

I don't think it is wise to compare an expensive and complicated aircraft engine system to a bargain light weapon.

Thanks Papa, for the testing.

Seems valid to me (busy since I got back to work, but will test a few of your results randomly when time permits). I do see the 185 M-71 and La7 as being relatively unaffected by overheating (what country did this patch come from again?). Although, your spit 25lbs data is enlightening.

One critical note though:

Not only is it that the engines overheat very quickly now on the late war FWs, TA and P51, but also that the flight models (FM) for the FWs and TA have changed for the worse. In attempting to replicate to finer detail the late war models, Team D altered or neutered, several of the FWs and the TA H1. With the switcher, you can see a clear level flight speed reduction in the TA 152 H1 between 4.10.1 and 4.11. So, the complexing effect now of not only the overheats but the reduced flight models means the TA 152 and to a slightly lesser extent, the FWs are to a great or medium extent reduced in lethality. It is an emergent property that comes from a complex combination of the two effects (overheat and reduced flight models).

As to your comments Zorin, disagree. Focke Wulf pilots who dive down on a tight turning spit, go for a high deflection shot and then zoom climb back up another 1800m very close to stall speed are doing exactly what the FW was built for. That is not the sign of a rubbish pilot, it is the sign of upper level player who is comfortable in the flight envelope of Boom and Zoom. And they better be too, cause the spit 25lbs can on boost climb 1300m even from low IAS and shoot you in the tail. So you have to use boost and you have to climb right to apex stall speed. In zoom climb on 4.11, I can put the TA 152 H1 in severe overheat in one pass, in three I can smoke the engine. That does not concord with the historical record of this Kurt Tank killer.

KG Alpha - I cant see a reason why you felt you needed to close the other thread. Your comments about read what is in the 4.11 patch notes make no sense if you dont agree with the accuracy of the patch.

Also, there are only about ten people I can think of who can really put these flight models (from 4.10.1 or 4.11) right to the wall, and test things to the last one or two percent. Some dont fly now, so I will list the four or five I still seeing flying online, and perhaps gather their opinions as well.

=TRIDENT= (russian guy, full real... Master)
357th_ULTI (Swedish guy, full real .... high level Master)
FI_RAMBO (American guy, full real .... approaching Master)
JG27_Tazu (full real, ... approaching Master but often flies as a team)
somthing like CM_Shuan (English, flies usually Tempy, high level veteran)
AFJ_Panther (American, full real .... Master)

I know another five to ten guys but they dont fly any more or not enough to be truly dangerous. Check these guys for their opinions as well.

I guess he seldom flies BnZ online in dogfight servers, so please forgive his lacking knowledge of air combat tactics.

+1

We have members from all over the World, true Empire under the Sun.
Another piss into the wind comment by you.
Get your act together and someone might listen to you.

I know exactly what you mean, WD, I've done gazzillion of zoomclmbs just the way you describe them. However, I doubt that WW2 FW, or any energy pilots for that matter, actually zoomed until very close to stall. I think they stopped their zooms earlier, probably at or even above best climb speed, because of following reasons:

1) Tactical considerations: being very slow at the very top of a zoombclimb one is extremely vulnerable. In those days, one never had the full situational awareness or controlled situations that we enjoy here. There was always the danger of a wildcard bandit doinking you at the top of your zoom. One example comes to mind: Bubi Hartmann scored one of his last kills on a Yak pilot who was part of a larger formation and was performing a looping, maybe in celebration of the nearing victory over Hitler. Bubi knocked the Yak out unseen, while it was slow and on its back, at the apex of the loop. Ingame i reserve maximum zoomclimbs to controlled situations where i am absolutely sure that nobody's going to sneak up on me. And i especially do so since the spit25lbs are around, these beasts can zoomclimb from ridiculously slow speeds and knock you out with a spray from 600m below you while you are very slow and reversing.

2) Plane controllability. A maximum zoomclimb calls for a reversal at very slow speed, this being a hammerhead or humpty-bumb. Now there are a few aerobatic maneuvers I've never ever seen a warbird do in reality: the tailslide, the hammerhead, the humpty-bump at very slow speed. All these maneuvers bear the risk of loosing control and spinning. I don't think that real warbirds have a controllability similar to our simulated planes in those conditions. FWs and mustangs had very harsh loaded power on stall characteristics. If i remember correctly, mustang pilots were advised never to slow down below 350kph when encountering FWs.

3) Engine overheat.

Most bnz attacks those days were hit and run. I've never read an account where pilots have repeatedly boomed-and-zoomed the same defensive opponent, going up and down as is often done ingame. The greatest asset of a fighter pilot was, will always be - surprize. After the first attack that advantage is gone.

LOL glad you like JG27_Tazzu. I'm his and JG27_Tzon's teacher ;)

Instead of some foul words like this, I'd like to see some real-life references from TD to proof what he said was that ridiculous.

Sent from my Milestone using Tapatalk

No disrespect, but if we are being honest, in the few (about six encounters) instances where I have met a development member of Team D whose name I can associate with an online callsign, while fighting online, they were flying late war spits and the 185 M-71.

There were only three 185s ever built during the whole of WWII, correct ?

I just made at least 5 Hammerheads in the h1, 5k-2k-5k-and so, on without the temp ever going over the 10 o'clock position.
Just switch wep off once in while, you'll have to reduce throttle anyway when you reach peak.

Maybe you can supply ntrk so other ppl can reproduce your findings. :confused:

As to your comments Papa, I like em. I cant verify though whether real WWII pilots actually took it to a full apex climb very often. (I suspect, they did not, because no air force sent out lone wolfs on a hunt, lol. They likely flew just as JG27 does online in Grij Dedicado. In 2 to 5 plane flights commanded by a major and using team tactics. As correct as I suspect you are, reducing the FW flight models, puts a major dent in their lethality using 4.11, unless you really do fly always as a team (where one guy can always be cooling his engine , while another dives, and so on, ...).

Great idea Swiss, give me a link where you wanted it posted ?

As to JG27 Tazu, Papa. Fought him and many of the other JG27 guys on Grij Dedicado. Hard because I always fly solo (you can tell how powerful my diplomatic skills are at winning over new friends right ? :) ) So, very tough, bc its me, and some doofus who cant fly the P51 versus two to five guys all flying the Dora or Antons as they should be flown and using Teamspeak.

Tazu is the one I see who seems to be getting the groove of what it means to really put the Dora to its limits. Ask him his opinion.

www.mediafire.com :confused:

Great Swiss, at work at the moment, but tonight I will do the simple test I have already described and you guys take a look. Post that NTRK later today.

Just like Hartmann and his "coffee break" he took after his first pass, he would pause and make sure what he was getting into before he went down for another pass.

I don't know why it is big news that patch 4.11 is different than patch 4.10? All the patches are different over the last ten+ years and sometimes your favorite aircraft gains a bit somewhere and sometimes it may lose a bit.

If someone has real WWII data, or personal experience in WWII or flying their own restored WWII fighter, then they could certainly be a big help by quietly submitting it to Team Daidalos to be incorporated into the next official patch they will patiently wait for right?

In the meantime the IL2 Aces, as usual, will quietly learn the few small things they have to about the new patch and they will get the same job done they have over the last decade.

Those incapable of this will take their usual software-based short-cuts......

Now I'm curious, who is that guy that flew I-185? :grin:

BTW what some player's plane choice on the server have to do with the game FM?

Thank you. Someone who actually knows what he is talking about.

Papa, if you or your squad can while testing 4.11, see how long it takes you to get up to 11000m in Dora, TA and P51 (or just Dora). Seems it is taking me a longer time than in 4.10.1, especially once I get to about the 7k mark.

Jumoschwanz - Most days on Xfire and HL combined, there are less than 150 guys total flying in the harder servers. It aint the end of the world if WD dont get his way. The surf is always calling just two miles down the road. I will just keep ole 4.10.1 for duels with some top guys I have run into and lab mate fights and fly 4.11 when I visit other places and fly the 185 :)

If Team D is concerned about maintaining balance between the BnZ planes and the TnB ones, then I urge a bit of consideration. And not with the silly QMB AI or some doofus who swirls the P51 into the ground.

Swiss - Will get the NTRK out, but later tonight.

I will also have the recoded 4.10.1 version of the TA 152-H1 ready to go tonight for testing in 4.11. Whoever flies this TA will quickly beat the $#@! out of the poor sap who has to fly the stock 4.11 TA 152-H1. (to be released for testing to a few guys, and Papa, send me Tazu's email and I will send him a copy).

I cannot get the -C over 2800rpm, and it doesn't get its engine killed, even in a full power +WEP 900km/h dive from 10000m.
If I put in manual propitch at 100% the engine dies in a few seconds at far over 3500rpm.

Couldn't check your track yet, though.

Ta152-H1 runs in a dive at 3300rpm with KG active.

It's a conspiracy...that's why :D

Thanks PapaFly for taking the time to do this testing! I find objective testing that is repeatable is much more useful than anything else. It does confirm my earlier (and simpler) testing and shows that generally things seem to be as they should be...or at least certainly that no one plane has any real usable advantage. The I-185 does seem a bit on the odder side but then it's an odd plane... I never really see it these days.

Just got in about 30 min over lunch with the P51 D-NT. What a mess. It went from an already fairly strong overheat model to overheat every single pass now if you push it above 90% power and pitch.

Just one or two swipes in a FW dogfight and I am in overheat all over the place. Overheat horizontal, overheat in seconds combat climbing, overheat even in a dive. I spend all my time just taking quick swipes and then exiting to circle while I drop pitch, rpms and throttle to cool back down.

Yes, I know, myriad posters will write in to say what a shtty pilot I am, etc....

...But, this is a bit much, no ?

Got a phone interview set up for Friday with Glenn Holcomb. Went to school in Clay County, West Virginia. Entered Army Air Corps thru examination process for talented high school graduates. Attended OCS in Texas and flew B-17 bombers until late 1943. Retrained and started flying the P51 variants during the last half of 1944 and 45. Ended the war a captain, then got a college degree and flew for Delta Airlines until mandatory retirement age of 60, and currently lives just outside Medford, Oregon. His daughter tells me he is of sound mind and still golfs (although, slowly) at age 89.

Will post the interview here and the audio track at Mediafire when I finish.

If you haven't already done so... maybe it's time to see a track of this happening. Because when I do what you describe I don't have the same problems. I still love flying the Mustang as it's just such a capable fighter.

Post it... lets have a look.

You should talk to bongodriver he's an experienced interviewer - I also think most of us would love to hear more from this vet.
A video would rock. :grin:

1) Wait, so if you can't reproduce what's in the track I gave you, who's fault is that? Our games are the same, no? 4.11 stock, no?

Ok, why don't you give me your track. Maybe we can analyze it and see what you could be doing differently.

2) The mechanism is different, but the philosophy is the same: Low tolerances, simplicity in manufacture and maintenance, reliability. Don't pick nits.

I highly doubt your ntrk was recorded in 4.10m because none of squadmates could reproduce it. Check your game instead.

I don't know .. but that smiley tells me that there is a method to the madness.. care to elaborate for those who are chart challenged and just want to enjoy the product but need to have a better understanding of what they're dealing with?

All of the ones on the chart with a slightly better tolerance to dealing with heat are .... equipped with radial engines. Its conventional wisdom that radials are more robust and I guess that's what is going on here as well. So they appear to all have a slightly different profile to heat resistance from the in-line engines.

Forget in-line versus radial.

Think air-cooled versus liquid-cooled.

I should have put it that way :)

Delusional standard thinking of most conspiracy theorists.

TD has done a great job yet again and I sincerely hope that they don't deviate from their ways just because some wacko can't go full-open forever anymore. Things have been proven to function correctly now, please adopt a hard stance! Hell, I think that you've gone way to soft on the skip-bombing 'issue', where some (single-digit numbers) people raised hell about having to consider arming times now - but since it has been changed to optional and most people will of course run with that option on, that has come out okay for me.

Just please don't do it like the CoD 'devs' do... like 'listen' to some guy's cry about how the Merlin engine negative G cut-out is too much and the CoD team actually changing that, despite them being sure they were on the right track, resulting in lost realism for... well really, nothing.
The funny thing about those complaints is/was that in the CoD forums, a few posters got mad at nearly any issue and spewed posts all over the forums, giving the impression that they are somehow the most important faction - yet, whenever somebody put up a vote (I know, not the most reliable thing on earth, too), they lost every single one of them. Each. And. Every One. That somehow nicely proved the concept of "silent majority" :)

To repeat again: Please, TD, don't fall for 'loud' forum post(er)s!

Sounds reasonable. But truth is usually seized by minority. Everything has two sides, we must look at it dialectially.

Yup, +1 to that.

If you want TD to change anything, speak softly, and carry a big pile of evidence to back up your claims. And don't claim you know the 'right' answers - in a lot of cases, nobody does. There was a war on. Nobody had the opportunity to conduct the sort of tests that would be required to settle many of the arguments I've seen on forums anyway. How long can you run a Fw 190 A-6 (or whatever) in a full-throttle slow climb before the engine fails? Why would anyone want to know? Common sense says that you watch the instruments etc, and try to ensure it doesn't fail - failures aren't predictable to the extent that you should assume there is a 'safe limit', especially if you don't know the past history of the engine or airframe, or indeed whether your instruments are properly calibrated - trying to fly a plane right to the limits that the sim imposes on it is anything but realistic.

Despite a promising start and the amazing amount of effort put into the historical detail of things like airfields and cockpits unfortunately CoD has become almost totally a online point whore game. The posts about CoD seems mainly about online point whoring and online pvp seems to have precedence over historical accuracy, hence I own but never play it.

Whilst IL2 forums have traditionally also been dominated by online point whores (that sort of players seems to stalk forums more) it does have a better balance with offline players, WWII history nuts, current military pilots and even the odd real-life warbird owner/restorer chipping in to restore balance.

In IL2 you still get your regular dose of "0.50 cal could kill Tiger tanks and are porked in game" and "the P51 won the war so why can't I kill everyone online when I select it" threads but generally some sort of rationality kicks in.

Interesting you should say 'silent majority' Red, cause I have a feeling that there is a sizable Boom n Zoom crowd who is a little bit afraid to speak out, since the patch is free.

I am not saying the patch is rubbish. Let' be clear. In my book , the more I work with it, the more I like. The improved AI, true 6DOF, numerous changes are spot on and long called for (and needed). Perhaps 70% of the patch is golden in my eyes. ...... (WD bends to one knee) Thank you.

As far as the well maintained balance needed for online combat and BnZ flight models, I think reconsideration is reasonable. Planes had to be carefully watched no doubt, but then there is no doubt too, that there are many times when balls to the wall full WEP was needed for more than 20 seconds as well. As to conspiracy I dont believe that, so dont put words in my mouth. I just believe the 185 M-71 is a UFO, and guess what ?

.... so does anyone else who flies online for more than one week and has read one air combat book about WWII. Three planes were built (some sources say four) during the entire WWII (and that is well known fact) and the Russians changed them on an almost daily basis until the project was dropped for LA development. How do you even take averages for a plane that has three prototypes and different cowlings, coolant, and tuning every day ? That is not conspiracy talk in my book.

I'd describe myself as a novice WWII history nut then :)
But yeah, those childish demands have a long history and they'll probably never die out; I just hope that rationality actually DOES kick in, as you say ^-^

No, it's not! Proof and proof and proof again is right here in the forums!
And you get 'balance' over historical realism right over my cold, dead hands. Il-2 is not the game for perfect mirror-matches; just get that out of your head.

Yeah Red, but we are to the point now in IL2 1946 development with so many patches that your 'historical realism' is someone else's incorrectly interpreted facts. Team D may have a history book somewhere that supports their version of the new TA they just neutered, while another book gives strong support to the performance given in patch 4.10.1.

Did you fly a TA 151-H1 in WWII ?

And to Andy West and the folks who love everything about 4.11, I dont consider myself a 'loud' protestor. Until yesterday, I had never posted here at 1C in my life and my last post at Mission4Today was months ago. It is just a glaring anomaly in my book, this overheat model and reduction in the FW and TA flight models. You all enjoy it and eventually, if everyone believes it butters their bread, no sweat, ... use it on your server. If I stop on bye, I will use the 185 M-71 and continue with business as usual.

For my own server, hanging with 4.10.1 for awhile.

Thousands of proofs are already there on the web. People who like warbirds don't necessarily play flight sims. Even those who do have provided tons of proofs during the 10+ years of IL2 development. Dig the old discussion threads on ubi forum and I promise you will be educated.

By the way, how many hours have you spent in this game (not only playing but also learning)?

You're right, that's because it was recorded in 4.11m...

You asked for a track, and now you toss it aside as a hack? Come on, man.

And I didn't ask you to check your game, I asked you to review the track and check your technique. Our games are the same, rest assured.

Do you have to come over to my room and watch me play over my shoulder? Ask, and I can give you my address.

Dont know if you saw Jermin, but will ask Mr Holcomb tomorrow in the interview. Also attempting to contact real surviving Dora or TA pilot in Germany (much harder go there as I dont speak much German).

My own experience is just at about the 3 year mark with perhaps an average of an hour a day with IL2 (mainly online) over say five days out of every seven. So, very roughly, maybe ~ 700 to 900 hours over 3 years.

If plane X fights plane Y, and plane X can repeatedly do BnZ (not just bounce once), then balance favors plane X, no matter how well plane Y can turn. If you ask for a plane, which should be able to do BnZ multiple times, you are not asking for balance.

Well, Lerche is UFO too. :cool: Similarity between Lerche and I-185 is that they both are available mostly on airquake type servers, where history isn't important. The fact, that number of these planes are often higher on such servers than number of constructed planes in reality, says not to expect realism there. Is there really a point in fixing prototypes, which probably should not be in sim at all, given the scarce information about them? And, is it really correct to question validity of more common planes while using UFOs for comparison?

Well said, but please, find me a decent populated stock CRT=2 server with real difficulty settings based on historical (or similar) missions. I'd be very happy to gather my long gone team mates to fly there. ;)

Zalty - No one, including me, expects the Dora or TA to repeated BnZ a spit 25lbs. If you believe that is what I am communicating, then I am not clear. I am simply saying that in 4.10.1, with very careful energy use over ten to 20 mins, I could often (but not always) secure the upper hand. And even when I did, the low rate of fire of the cannon did not mean I always came out ahead or with the kill. And once I did set up a great pass or two, I would have to zoom away (or run, as my adversaries call it) and slowly work the ladder again.

In 4.11, that is happening no how and no way. Yeah, yeah, I know, I am a shtty pilot, who cannot use the TA correctly, and I am of low IQ, blah, blah. But, the TA has been badly neutered. As has the 44 Dora and P51 which overheats if I see an attractive lady on the ground now.

BTW, just for fun, Jermin and I just met and we had some long, tough fights with alot of great tactics. I am seriously doubting there is anyone in Team D who can use their 4.11 TA 152 H1 to defeat his 4.10.1 TA 152 H1. :)

@Luno: Why not post out your ntrk and let others judge for us?

BTW, you really got talents when it comes to dogfighting, WD. Haven't seen a good pilot like your for years. Nice flying!

could you guys please supply ntrks with with overheating engines?
thx.


edit
Let me know when you did.

Yes, I will Swiss, when I finish testing some of the stuff people put up in posts prior to yours. And get some sleep, lol.

This thread and the 4.11 patch are a bit like some part certified for NASCAR or Indy Cup use, where the engineer says, "Ohh yeah, this thing will take the torque right up till you get to 230 mph. It has been engineered to the highest principles and the titanium portion can take almost 2800 deg too". Then Tony Stewart or Dario Franchitti, take it out to the track and hit the first curve at 160 mph and the part blows thru the hood.

I was just told that 4.11 is all fine and dandy, by a man whose videos I go to see out of curiosity on Youtube, only to find that he is displaying his Focke Wulf skills against four AI planes in 4.11 and then spends more than half the video 100m off the ground flying in circles as he kills them in a boom and zoom aircraft. And this is the type of man criticizing me.

I rest my case.

By the way, question to DT: does MW50 (or similiar system) has additional effects on engine, or it is just a switch for higher boost/rpm in this engine management model? In other words: has MW50 any significance (like removing heat) in your temperature equations?

I posted this as a PM to Jermin since the other thread was closed, but since we still seem to want to discuss it:

I just downloaded the track to check how it works, and it doesn't display the red "MW50!" message, but you can see the effect of it when power reaches 1.8 ATA. (Normal 110% power doesn't reach that manifold pressure).

A couple effects that appeared when I played in real time also don't appear in the Ntrk, but they look cool. I don't think I've seen them before :)

Everything else, from power settings and time-to-overheat, etc are exactly the same as when I played.

http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/a...grab0008-1.jpg

Now Jermin, let's please see a track of your problem. Then maybe we can see what's wrong and help solve it.

First of all thank you for performing such tests.
Since you've already proven that RPMs are the main factor in generating heat (also stated in the manual), my guess is (without testing) that I-185 engine can maintain fairly low RPM for the target speed.
I have no idea if that is realistic, but that's probably the situation for v4.11 I-185. As already mentioned, this type (and his evil twin sister) fall into category of 'what if' planes. I was able to find the readme for 2.0x patch clearly stating so:
http://ubisoft.custhelp.com/app/answ...ep-v2.04-patch.
But this 'what if' adjective applies to the plane itself, from what I gathered the engine was not that special and might have been used by other, serial production planes. Maybe this unusual behavior can be replicated on those planes, too? This would be more serious problem, but hopefully there is sufficient documentation floating around which would help to rectify the problem (if indeed there is a problem).
Regarding the temperature redouts, I'm not sure which one you should actually monitor (oil_in?, oil_out? whatever) and the dials might show wrong values. It would be better to use devicelink to actually read ingame variables. Dials are individual for each plane and there is usually some small function converting actual temperatures to angles. There could easily be a bug on the dial (wrong function from T->angle), while actual temperatures are OK.

And finally a disclaimer:
I'm no engine expert and no expert on aviation history and I have never performed any serious FM tests.
If anything of what I just said makes no sense or is wrong, feel free to blame it on my ignorance.

There is a big difference between COD and Il2, Il2 has run its course and it doesn't make much difference for 1C will they sell 100 copies or 101 copies this year.
That gives us freedom to do things we think are right without being pressed by accountants and their profit margins.

OTOH COD has to make money, lot of money went into development and they have to make compromises. All of the commercial sims make compromises, make no mistake about it. They might be advertised as realistic and hardcore but they never are, none of them. When push comes to shove every developer will do what they have to do to turn biggest possible profit and that mean, satisfy your average customer.

DT doesn't have to do that, I can't say or promise that we will not make mistakes in development but I can assure you that balance or red and blue bias are not parts of our vocabulary. We will never deliberately do the wrong for the sake of balance,never.

FC

I remember Oleg has once said so before. But the truth is that right now blue is severely porked in European theater when compared to their real-life counterparts.

If DT have added engine cooling effects it would be hoped they are almost unnoticeable because real life MW50 was an antidetonation technique to allow higher boost together with some anti-corossion and the additional cooling provided was minimal.

Check your source please.

Nice work PAPA!

Yeah, I understand that, and that's why quite a few games I liked once are going steeply downhill because of some kids/seniors/mentally handicapped people screaming for (over-)simplification at the top of their lungs.
For me, personally, tweaking the game for people like this may win over some clients in the near-term, but will be very harmful in the longer term. But that's not the place to discuss that.
What I wanted to say is that exactly because of this, I reverted to Il-2. And what I wanted to express is that I deeply hope that TD's attitude vis-a-vis historicity stays the way it is... otherwise, the WWII combat sim genre will die out for me because I have nowhere else to go >.<

Hmmm! I'm looking at around 5000 hours over about 5 years.. and there are some here that have more than that... ;)

With all the whining going.. on does anyone ever bother to just go up and practise with the new models - just get out there and do it.. :)

I'm wondering, what's your callsign on grijdedicado?

K Freddie - Yes, I am flying patch 4.11 during some breaks to see its good and bad points thoroughly. The Dora 45 can be managed, but the 44 Dora, Mustangs, and poor TA overheat if I fill up my cup with hot coffee.

If you don't let your speed drop to near stall on climbout then you'd be able to maneuver enough to be hard to hit.

What speeds did the test pilots fly when setting time to high-alt records from ground?

And I note, as usual the B&M not backed by comparison to historic methods and data but rather contrived "what I gets".

Before I do this, need to ask (KG Alpha or others); Am I allowed to publish source code here from the 4.10.1 and 4.11 patches ?

The difference in the TA 152 is large.

Working on your ntrks now Swiss.

hi everyone, this is my first post so please dont bite my head off!

firstly i would like to say thanks to everyone involved in keeping this great game going! it is incredible that after all this time this game is still the definitive WW2 combat sim. it is testement to the hours spent by so many people who try to keep this game up to date and enjoyable for everyone :)

i wouldnt normally post, but seeing that ive been mentioned:

4.11 !

its a mixed blessing from my point of view. i like to fly the tempest. i consider it an underdog plane against some of the more popular aircraft...(la7, i-185, spit25).
it is difficult to fly. it can and does bite. sadly for all its speed and firepower it is rather heavy and with a laminar flow wing it tends to have a sharp stall.

although i dont know as much about aerodynamics as some people, i consider this realistic. since i started flying it as my favourite aircraft about a year ago i have always had to deal with overheating problems. with the previous versions it was simplified, (keep it just below overheating and when you engage the enemy you have 4 minutes of 'cooking time')...simple enough. this teaches you to use the radiator, and the prop pitch (revs) properly. combine this with the supercharger settings and a manoeverability disadvantage and you have a unique ride.

from my understanding the tempest is best used as an energy fighter, but online battles are a different kettle of fish to reality. i tend to rely on stealth and speed. i think the tempest can do in the horizontal what a fw190 can do in the vertical. as things have changed since 4.10.1 i will explain how i flew.

(close range enemy only icons, else full real)...grj dedicado, spits vs 109's

assuming a close in fight, i would take off and climb to 2 thousand feet. pick up speed to 250 mph, and then dive to the deck using height to gain speed up to 570 kph.
on the deck i pitched back to 60 percent prop pitch, (2800 revs), which allowed me to maintain speed and boost without overheating, (radiator closed). i would try to keep my "G's" below 2 and find a target at long range. sometimes you can tell by their flight profile. if i found someone i would climb if neccessairy using full power..(9lb boost, 3750 revs) and take a shot. by the time youve attacked an aircraft the engine is hot.

back to 4.11, although the engine runs at high rpm there are ways to deal with it. i find i have to watch the radiator and oil temperature a lot more, and depending on which is too hot my corrective actions are different. i consider 2800 revs as standard whilst using 3750 as emergency...(like for a quick acceleration or the top of a high yoyo to pick up speed again).
i dont have a problem with the way the tempest flys. i think its an incredible aircraft which works well in a team. i do worry about the superplanes though. i was hoping that to get the best out of those aircraft the pilots would have to learn to manage prop pitch, radiator, throttle and supercharger.

if i am to be completely honest i dont know what i would suggest. ive met a lot of pilots who say that 'they dont look at their instruments'. given how often i need to check mine i wonder if linking the (wep/boost engaged) and (overheat) messages to the speed bar toggle in 'difficulties' would make a difference.

thanks for mentioning me WD, im sorry to say i dont know much about the planes you are discussing. i think i need to fly 411 some more.

I only mention those I thought could really fly and still are. I always enjoyed fights with you in the past Shaun (as have my lab mates), keep fighting and keep advancing. As to the Tempy Shaun, its FM (flight model) has not changed that much in 4.11, and it is not as badly affected by the overheating model as say the P51 or TA 152. Catch you in the skies soon (hopefully with me on your six, hehe :)

I don't see the problem with 'overheating', it's just a warning let it overheat till you feel like cooling it down again.

I myself am starting to enjoy this engine managed more and more. You actually have to enter a fight with a cooled down engine so it doesn't overheat instantly when you power it up. Whistelingdeath, I can't tell but perhaps you are cruising on the edge of overheating.

About the prototype planes, I know TD doesn't want to model engine reliability because of the frustration it might evoke. But planes like the I-185 suffered so much from it in real life that IMO it just isn't right how it performes in game. Same for the ki84 C version. There are alot of 'all planes enabled' servers out there, with these types in a dominant role. Prototype planes remained in that fase because they had issues, model them ;)

i just spent an hour writing about the mustang and how to do bnz apex climbs with the new engine managment.

the forum 'lost' it when i had to log in again. i am a bit annoyed.

well, nm

for anyone who is interested:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/48389272/M...1-pilots-notes

of particular interest is the power curve graph at the end.

you didnt fly the tempest in 4.10.1 then, :-P

Have you posted a NTRK recording yet? I'd like to see how this is affecting you.

who needs full power in a tempest anyway, unless you want to take off like a helicopter :-P

Great reading Shaun. Thx for the link!

whistlinggdeath> i know nothing about the TA152, so i cant comment on it, but i have occaisionally flown the p51 on spits verses 109's

in the past i found that as long as i kept the engine revs in the green band...aka prop pitch at 60 percent, i could fly fast without overheating even at high manifold pressures. since 4.11 this machine seems to have become very hot at low altitudes. when i tried the mustang III it really surprised me, i mean after all its the same engine as a spit IX (i think)...

when we have flown against each other in the past it has generally been between 'down on the deck' and 15000 feet. this is where the mustang and p51 overheat most.

at 20000 feet and above it seems to stay cool a lot better. i think this is because of the air temperature being lower up there...(dry adiabatic lapse rate)... i would go as far as to say that the performance of a p51 is directly linked to the outside air temperature. (the p51D has a carb-air-temp sensor).

at ground level the OAT might be 20 degrees C. the P51 overheats at 120 giving a 100 degree difference.
at 20000 feet the OAT would be about MINUS 20 degrees C. this gives a 140 degree C difference.

if anyone here has done any overclocking they will know that hot air isnt very good for cooling!

at 20000 feet there is a lot less airflow, but the air is colder. basicly is there too much temperature influence and not enough flow influence? i dont know, ive never flown a p51...


on a slightly different note; when i was trying to figure out how to fly this P51 monster, i tried a lot of different combinations of manifold pressure and revs. i found that between about 13000 and 17000 the supercharger would keep switching between high and low mode. i think its because as the revs drop the MP drops causeing the supercharger to shift up a gear. this causes the revs and MP to increase causeing the supercharger to shift down again.

my question is; given that the p51 seems to have an auto and manual high and low speed, can this be implemented? it is starting to make a lot of difference now with the new thermal model.


this may be a sore point to some, but could it be that the p51 is just outclassed by a lot of planes? dont get me wrong it was an incredible design, but compared to a 25lb spit or a la7, is it best used as a target bouy... after all the bf109 like the spit were best used as homeland defence aircraft. incredible performance but short range. the p51 could goto berlin and back....i dont know. all im saying is maybe the servers we fly on are geared towards the superplanes that people seem to want to fly. if this is the case i hope it stays the same way. a lot of people like to fly the spits and although in a 1v1 i cant hope to beat a 25lb spit, im greatful that i am given a tempest to fly on that server :)

i really like this new patch. its made IL2 yet more realistic. having to watch the gauges and diagnose the engine problems really brings planes like the tempest to life. it would be nice to see more people migrate towards challenging aircraft that need constant adjustment to get the best out of. spits and la's seem a bit too 'plug and play for my likeing'.

as for the tempest being a helicopter.. well in previous versions of the game and mods maybe, but the stock tempest is a 5000 kilo lump of metal fitted with a cutting edge, state of the art, avgas furnace kicking out 1.6 megawatt.---"wake up and smell the oil fumes!!"

So with 4.11 temperature becomes critical. Yet in the game only the radiator can be adjusted, not oil. Are the two linked? I

Is there a plan for having a seperate oil cooler rad in another patch down the track?

The P-51 most certainly isn't outclassed by anything prop driven. I'm pretty sure that I've been scoring 3+ kills per sortie average, frequently 5 or more with it over the last year or even longer, and very rarely been shot down. It's a great plane.

JtD>
i am happy that you disagree with me! it may be a personal question but what tactics do you use, how do you fly it? i would be nice to hear from someone that flies it regularly!

Pips>
in cliffs of dover i seem to remember the bf110 having seperate oil and coolant radiators. also i think that the tempest oil and coolent systems both run through the nose 'scoop'. if you are asking a general question about how to manage the oil temprature, then the answer would be to manage revs and power. if you are asking about a plane where the two systems are separate, i have no idea and someone else needs to answer!

In the game they are tied together, but I think they could be controlled separately.

Strange, i'm yet to blow up a single engine up in 4.11, despite flying co-ops in 4.11 most nights since release.

What am i doing wrong?

I can't speak for JtD but we do sometimes fly together and I think our styles are similar. I fly the Mustang like I fly the Tempest but I should say that my style is a bit different for the Mustang.

1) Altitude is really important for the Mustang. Maybe more than most late war fighters. The Mustang has less power and typically greater weight (unless you really drop back the fuel load) than some of its opponents so you need to start with some sort of energy advantage. Altitude is easiest but speed is good too. Against some of the real climb monsters you want to avoid getting low and enabling them to climb up above you.

2) Fly "smoothly". This is harder to describe but it's something I learned to do playing Air Racing servers. Minimal control inputs except when desired is the key to this style of flight. I don't make sudden movements...everything is very calm and controlled whereas before I used to fly much more harshly. The Mustang benefits from this because of it's sudden stall (laminar flow wings and the weight of the aircraft tend to exacerbate this) and because it's aerodynamics matter more than anything else.

3) In combat I will often fly the lag pursuit style of maneuvering. I won't match an enemy aircraft move for move like I might in a Yak or early 109. Instead I use overhead yo-yo and lag pursuit to position myself for a shot.

4) When managing the engine I tend to use the radiator controls manually. Some aircraft I'm very content with using the automatic method but in the Mustang I'm very proactive instead. If I go into a zoom climb I close it for smallest drag profile. In level flight I may open it to halfway.

If I'm cruising or fighting at speed I'll drop the RPM (prop pitch) but in a climb and in some dive situations I'll ramp up the RPM. I did this before the 4.11 patch came out but I find that my technique has changed very little as I focus on keeping a cool engine for as long as possible... when it does overheat it's because I intentionally put the throttle through the WEP gate and that I really want that extra burst of speed.

5) Effective gunnery is really important in the Mustang. I tend to make most of my kills in a single pass. Two passes if necessary. My convergence with a Mustang is a bit closer in (if I remember) at 250 meters. I go for a high speed and angled shot rather than a dead 6 shot if I can. This is easier with human pilots as they tend to turn in evasive while the AI will sometimes fly straight with a greater degree of discipline than many human pilots.

My best sorties in a Mustang will usually net a couple of kills depending on the server and settings. My absolute best was on Warclouds more than a few years ago where I fly a P-51D-20 and scored 4 (plus one damaged) during a furball. I spent no more than a few seconds on each target and then broke away.

The Mustang is sometimes a frustrating fighter to fly. If you get used to flying other types that are more agile and more of a turn fighter that you can chuck around like the earlier 109 types or maybe the Spitfire then the Mustang can be difficult. You can't chuck it around the sky in the same way. I tend to use the rudder much less as you can really cause some bad stall situations with hard rudder use while rolling. With the FM correction to the P-51D stability in 4.10 it's gotten a bit easier but it's basically the same deal as it was before with just a little more forgiveness.

In my head it all comes down to this. The Mustang has 1500ish horsepower. Similar to a Spitfire IX. Yet the top speed of a Mustang is similar to a Spitfire XIV with 2000 hp. It doesn't have the climb rate of the later Spitfire so... what the Mustang can't achieve through engine horsepower, it achieves with some of the best aerodynamic design around. Laminar flow designed wings, lowest drag coefficient of any USAAF fighter in WWII (and certainly up there with any from any nation). So whenever I fly it, my focus is always on maintaining that aerodynamic flow and using the aerodynamics for zoom climbs and staying fast.

Sorry for the essay. I hope it helps a bit?

Shaun, will comment on your other notes in a bit, (typing from a tablet on a boat in the harbor so a bit funny), but as to the P51, Tempy etc, ... just remember, your not downshifting or 'flying' anything. You are making responses to computer code that is written to represent someone's version of what they think the P51 flies like, and that code is discrete (in the mathematical sense of meaning phase transition endpoints). No ambiguity. When I look at the source code for the additions in 4.11 it is not that advanced as you are imagining. And as much as I like your development towards IL2 Master status, cant agree with you on the P51 being weak because it was not a 'home-defense' fighter. It was a Grade A, superlative killing machine, as long as correctly used in a boom and zoom fashion (not that many online can do that correctly). I worked a bit this morning on making some Ntrks of my P51 in action and the TA. I am in overheat all over the place, and within seconds of the actual fight starting. This just doesnt gel with what some of these WWII aviation history nuts are telling me.

More on your other comments later, when I get back to land.