Daidalos Team's Room -QUESTIONS AND REQUESTS ONLY on IL2 Authorized Addons

[Kwiatek]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

The only problem with the 50s was the non API rounds.. the Mustang's 50s issue is not caused by the 50s but by the Mustang IMO.. If you run two QMs.. one with the P-40 and one with the Mustang.. especially the stock Ds.. any one.. you will find that you can do more damage with the P-40 from a sheer gunnery standpoint.. at least that s what I have found.. and that is primarily because the stock P-40 is a more stable platform than the stock P-51D.. It seems to me that often in the P-51 it is like trying to balance the plane on a pencil.. which makes for a less stable gun platform.

LOL.. I just saw that Kwiatek said the exact same thing...

As i said that just fixing error in Il2 P-51 FM data with lenght of plane from value "9.38" to RL data - "9.83" is enought for bring back stability of these plane and rise a lot of effectivness its 0,50 cal.

[JG27CaptStubing]

Originally Posted by Kwiatek

As i said that just fixing error in Il2 P-51 FM data with lenght of plane from value "9.38" to RL data - "9.83" is enought for bring back stability of these plane and rise a lot of effectivness its 0,50 cal.

If what you stated is true I would love to see this fixed. What do you say TD?

[FC99]

Originally Posted by JG27CaptStubing

If what you stated is true I would love to see this fixed. What do you say TD?

Oleg has the last word, as far as I'm concerned this is easy fix of something that looks like typo in parameters file.

FC

[JG27CaptStubing]

Originally Posted by FC99

Oleg has the last word, as far as I'm concerned this is easy fix of something that looks like typo in parameters file.

FC

Agreed but it will be interesting what the almighty has to say in the end aye?

If not then it really shows how much he actually cares about accuracy doesn't?

[Bulgarian]

Originally Posted by Kwiatek

Why P-51 in game had these problem all time?

I find what is reson of these.

RL data for P-51 claim lenght of these plane = 9.83 m

In game all P-51 have lenght = 9.38m.

These look like "czech error".

What would happend if we correct these value to RL data without even changing CoG value ( COG for P-51 is 0)

...

I tested it and it really works for these plane.

Kwiatek,where you say you got this information from?
What do you mean by "I tested it and it really works"...You did some unauthorised game modification?

PS:Also what do you mean by "czech error"?

Sorry but a lot of unclear things I see in your post.

[hiro]

I was laughing at the "Czech error" myself.

It's what? And it could be miscontrued so many ways. Like saying KI-61 has many "German Errors" in its design. What?




About the P-51 some guys say the wobble it has is because it has 3 way trim and its needs 3 way adjustment and have no complaint about it, some said it sucked but were 'taught' how to fly it (I think Wright32 in ubizoo had some posts on this), and work it. Also online the P-51's guys usually spank me, and I see they have no trouble with their wobbles and gun me down.

Other guys say its not realistic and is the wobble master and its very difficult to play.

It flies fine for me in the Sim. However I am not a mustang expert nor have I flown in one, but the Rata and Chaika are more unstable that the mustang untrimmed . . .

The Corsair wobbles too, not like the Rata or Chaika. It's managable. The FW-190 cockpit . . .arrgh but there's experten handing ppl their azz's in them . . .





One thing I notice is the Hellcat, it just a faster version of the Wildcat . . .


So much, I'd be cool if they added a bearcat, Kyūshū J7W1 Shinden, Skyraider and Mixmaster (just cause it has a hiphop name) while fixing the 109 (I think someone in TEAM D said that), Hellcat, and other planes . . . while making all planes flyable J/K. G55 / TBF, Kate n Jill . . .


But I would like to venture and hope that BOB SOW will take this suggestion. Not just for the 109 but do involved research each of the a/c 's FM put in the sim, the detail in the post is long but really nice:

Originally Posted by Werner Molders

Hi everyone,

I know this must seem like a typical post but i'm going to try my best to phrase this.

As far as flight models go will the Bf 109 E be the real equal of the Spitfire regarding the following issues to the Spitfire Mark IA. For all the talk modifications by "All Aircraft Arcade" on IL2 have lead to delusional flight models to support the RAF.

I will be specific on what I as a pilot and a man doing a degree in aerospace technology degree would specifically like to see. These are my concerns on what I believe might be missed in the new flight models from what i have seen so far in IL2.

1. Acceleration

Firstly, I think that we have overlooked some of the situation regarding speed. Pilots often never reached maximum speed in flight, maximum (WEP) power was often only used for short periods and this often included manoeuvring (obviously in combat).

Even though the Bf 109 E did have at times a maximum speed advantage, maybe this is not the entire picture, I have concluded that it was acceleration that was the more important factor because of the DB 601 Aa having the following characteristics:


A. A better and more developed supercharger than the Merlin III (allowing for better high altitude performance).

B. Being significantly larger in size (displacement of the huge DB 601Aa: 33.9 litres versus Merlin III's: 27 litres).

C. DB 601Aa was fuel injected and more efficient with no lack of performance based on the fact the Spitfire had a carburettor float fuel system which is highly susceptible to getting stuck, causing a reduction in performance by gravity's forces. Remember that the G forces would be changing at a very fast rate while in any manoeuvre (not just dives although this is obviously very pronounced) and this would certainly mean the engine was never performing at its tested maximum performance in any other situation except in level flight (inefficiency of around a few percent).

D. The throttle response of the Bf 109 was considered a strength of the aircraft compared with both RAF fighters and this was mentioned even in the RAE test reports. Again this owed to the easy and business like throttle control but more importantly to the fact a fuel injection engine is able to place the absolutely exact fuel to air ratio to the engine leading to better fuel efficiency as well.


To summarise, the difference in maximum speed at any altitude was minimal at best. The fact was in any battle, this was actually completely irrelevant, acceleration was more important as this allowed a plane to get away from his opponent faster, or complete a manoeuvre with greater developed power while throttling up. This was an advantage again to the Bf 109.

2. Control Harmony/Centre of Gravity/Rudder

Sounds completely pinnickity but i overlooked a key point we have all missed here. The Bf 109 E had a "long tail moment arm" which basically means it uses a very effective horizontal stabiliser and also the rudder was 50% Chord which all leads to the fact a Bf 109 could be yawed from right to left by anywhere within 45 degrees! so a pilot could spray bullets on its axis like a crazy .. ah hem... This is exactly what pilots meant by the aircraft being a stable gunnery platform.

The pilot of a Bf 109 (E) could sit behind an enemy aircraft at a reasonable range within a 45 degree angle range and adjust his aim on the enemy using a great deal of side slip (rudder) with the aircraft having an incredibly effective rudder while the aircraft was quite docile on the horizontal plane.

The Bf 109 had a lot of torque in flight (the rudder being so effective it wanted to move the plane to side slip slightly to one side while in straight flight, forcing the pilot to hold his foot on the rudder most of the time) and often the aircraft would need to be held with a little right rudder due to winds and the effect of pressure as well as the Bf 109 being such a small and very light aircraft with such a large engine being very stable yet sensitive. This has been modelled to a small degree on takeoff (you can feel the swing) but the rest i've just mentioned would be a nice addition.

Due to its otherwise great stability (having a centre of gravity that was kept throughout the development of the Bf 109 by adding the exact amount of ballast for new engines or developments, this kept the Centre of Gravity in the dead middle of the aircraft's weight which prevented spins from occurring easily in stalls and also helped stall be docile). The significance of the centre of gravity in an aircraft is well documented to any pilot who has flown a P-39, its flat spins often unrecoverable due to the engine being in the front!!

To summarise this was a great feature that has not yet been accurately modelled. Something of incredible importance if your enemy is trying to make a quick get away in a tight turn!!

3. Carburettor Negative G Forces

I know this is already probably well tweaked but even the Spitfire Mk V's of 1941 with the "miss shilling orifices" negative G solution still had engine performance loss EVEN when upside down in the dive for sustained periods (inverted) longer than 5 - 6 seconds. This should be modelled for when inverted for both Hurricane and Spitfire Mk I's.

4. MG 17 Effectiveness

This is very trivial but I feel that its almost impossible to take down an aircraft with only two of these guns even at 10 metres away! which is realistically a bit too ineffective. To summarise quickly these machine guns should be slightly more powerful than the Brownings used in the RAF fighters as they had slightly larger calibre and considering they are half the Bf 109's armament I quickly noticed just how unrealistic to real life they are. They need to be tweaked ever so slightly and maybe the Brownings of the RAF fighters too.


Again, I know a lot of faff and i'm just being pinnickity, but it would be well received if these changes could be introduced.

Keep up the great work!

[TheGrunch]

Originally Posted by Bulgarian

Kwiatek,where you say you got this information from?
What do you mean by "I tested it and it really works"...You did some unauthorised game modification?

PS:Also what do you mean by "czech error"?

Sorry but a lot of unclear things I see in your post.

Kwiatek makes FMs for mods. I think Czech error is a direct translation of a figure of speech, doesn't really work as a figure of speech in English. Possibly refers to the typo that a Czech company made that caused internet outages all over the world.
Anyway, every source I can see states the length of the P-51D as 32ft 3in, which is about 9.83m, so if it's wrong in the FM data, I don't see why it shouldn't be changed.

[Panzergranate]

On the subject of night fighters, I'd like to see the Bolton-Paul Defiant, known to Luftwaffe night bomber crews as "The Steel Bat".

It would make for a good two player team mission aircraft needing one player to pilot and one player to operate the turret guns.

The Blenhiem II and Blenhiem IV night fighters with belly mounted gun packs would be another interesting aircraft to fly.

The Bristol Beaufighter was a more successful night fighter than the Mosquito.

On the subject of the few WW2 fighter aircraft that aren't in IL-2 yet, any chance of the Chinese Airforce lend-lease Republic P-43 "Lancer" and Vultee P-66 "Vanguard"??

[nearmiss]

If the P-51 is 9.83 instead of the 9.38 defined in the Il2 code. That is a very bad miss.



The difference in the P-51 = almost 18 inches. That has got to affect COG, the way fuel loading affects performance and handling of course.

[Bulgarian]

Originally Posted by TheGrunch

Kwiatek makes FMs for mods. I think Czech error is a direct translation of a figure of speech, doesn't really work as a figure of speech in English. Possibly refers to the typo that a Czech company made that caused internet outages all over the world.
Anyway, every source I can see states the length of the P-51D as 32ft 3in, which is about 9.83m, so if it's wrong in the FM data, I don't see why it shouldn't be changed.

Well,if he's taking unauthorised actions over the FM/DM files of this game,then he should know that it is not very appropriate to come over the official boards of the game developer with this type of information.
Also as such,he should know very well that the P-47 and P-51 are not the only planes who are experiencing flaws in their flight and damage models.
There are German,British,Japanese,Italian,etc planes who have such problems aswell,so this post of his does sound a bit one sided.
Also I'm very sure that Kwiatek knows,that the "hacked" version of the game is coming with unofficially reworked FM/DM's,who differ from the original ones.This is one of the hundred risks that the end user is taking when he chooses to use the broken code,and if this error is present in the P-51 FM,then it might be coming from there./I talk from myself/experience in this paragraph/

Anyway,Daidalos Team knows very well what's right and what's not in this game and be sure that we're doing whatever we can to make this game better,and that this report will be checked.

EDIT:About the "Czech error" thing,I think that it's not good idea to use something that most people will not understand and also which cannot be well translated exactly to the language you're talking.Please take in account that the bigger part of DT are Czech.