Patch 4.10 - Development Updates by Daidalos Team

[Hoverbug]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

A lot of things are possible, but unless you're flying as a dedicated navigator you probably won't use most of it. It's not wrong, it's just not practical enough.

Whenever i dabble into stuff like that, i never do trigonometry. If i need to fly perpendicular to the beacon to obtain a distance fix, then it's clear i'm going off course to get a fix. Much better and faster to tune a second beacon and see where the lines intersect on the map, presto, you have a precise fix of your position.

Even if your plane doesn't have a second nav radio and a second ADF, you can tune the first beacon and draw the line, then tune the second one and do the same on your single radio. Unless you are very close to the beacon (where the bearing changes fast), it will be accurate enough.

There's lots of quick and dirty methods that give you enough accuracy without having to go all mathematical about it. For me, being able to obtain an accuracy equal to the visual range is good enough. For example, if the visibility at my current altitude and weather conditions is 10 miles, i won't mind at all if my radio navigation gives me a 5 mile error margin (it's actually lower than that most of the times, think 2-3 miles). And if flying at night, most aircraft that historically did it were better equipped to deal with it.

Tuning 2 beacons and getting the respective bearings can also help you determine wind drift. See where the bearing lines cross and that's your position, wait (the 3m 15sec rule from silent hunter is good here) and get a new fix. Connect them on the map and it you used a 3m15s interval, the amount of kms travelled times 10 will give you your ground speed in knots. For example, if you've travelled 10km then your ground speed is 100 knots. Compare the heading of the line connecting the two fixes on the map with your actuall compass readout and you can also see the amount of wind drift involved.

Some aircraft might also have specialized equipment. In B17 the mighty 8th, the navigator had a scope that looked down towards the ground. It had some continuous horizontal lines running across the scope view, as well as dotted lines that could be rotated. The idea was to rotate the dotted line lens until the view seemed to be moving without any drift (it's been a few years, don't remember it exactly), then you could read out the drift from the markings on the wheel that turned the dotted lines.

I remember my instrument instructor teaching me how to do a DME arc without a DME using a similar procedure. By flying at a standard speed (e.g. 90 kts), one could easily calculate distance by flying at 90 degrees to the VOR and by seeing how long it took between 10 degree increments of radials. Not something I ever used again though.

[lbuchele]

New title:
"SOW:BOB the trigonometry simulator"

[Skoshi Tiger]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

Some aircraft might also have specialized equipment. In B17 the mighty 8th, the navigator had a scope that looked down towards the ground. It had some continuous horizontal lines running across the scope view, as well as dotted lines that could be rotated. The idea was to rotate the dotted line lens until the view seemed to be moving without any drift (it's been a few years, don't remember it exactly), then you could read out the drift from the markings on the wheel that turned the dotted lines.

The Norden Bomb sight also allowed you to measure your ground speed as well, which is aways useful.

It has been a long time since I used trig tables to do any calculations but as it was the technology of the day yould have to make sure you had a copy on board (as well as your slide rule - though you'ld definately have a dead reconing computer on hand). I wonder if they were standard equipment?

[Viikate]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

Much better and faster to tune a second beacon and see where the lines intersect on the map, presto, you have a precise fix of your position.

Of course this is better and faster. My point was just to show that it's also posible to get a rough position fix from single beacon (in case there isn't a 2nd beacon available).

BTW: the horizontal needle of AFN-1 & AFN-2 shows the signal strength, which roughly correlates with range to beacon. I suppose an experienced pilot could interpret the range from this info. Although the signal strength varies a lot because of radio horizon, land formations and time of day.

[KWM_Rammbock]

Hello all.
I would like to ask if the 109g6 FM and armour performances have been decreased in 4.09m, and if German FMs and armour will again be decreased in 4.10m.
Indeed it appears that 109 pilots get easily killed in their cockpit, much more frequently than with the previous versions.

Yours.
KWM_Rammbock

[_1SMV_Gitano]

Originally Posted by KWM_Rammbock

Hello all.
I would like to ask if the 109g6 FM and armour performances have been decreased in 4.09m, and if German FMs and armour will again be decreased in 4.10m.
Indeed it appears that 109 pilots get easily killed in their cockpit, much more frequently than with the previous versions.

Yours.
KWM_Rammbock

Placebo effect? the FM is the same of 4.08...

[Flanker35M]

S!

Bf109 has always been the glass jawed fighter in IL-2 It was far worse in the beginning whn a single ping from even the small caliber MG's from any angle from even 1km away would spill oil on your screen. It changed, but there are still a lot of things in DM that leave things to be desired.

As a real life comparison Finns removed the pilot armor from the Curtiss 75A Hawk as it was incapable of stopping even a 7.7mm bullet from close range. The reduced weight gave some extra, not much but anyway, climb to the plane. Again on the Bf109 there were many occasions the plane came back after being hit by a Yak or LA and the pilot armor had stopped the 20mm bullet from coming through.

But the root of the problem is that we can shoot and fly better VIRTUALLY than the real pilots. Our accuracy is better, we have this idiotic zoom feature etc. In real life kills were harder to get and in most of cases bounces. So this just shows the flaws in game engine more clearly, and it can be in any game really, not just IL-2. All we do is learn to game the game to survive a tad longer, sad but true.

[ZaltysZ]

Originally Posted by _1SMV_Gitano

Placebo effect? the FM is the same of 4.08...

Or effect of misfortune.

[KWM_Rammbock]

thank you for your swift replies!
Then it seems that even if the fms are the same, the damage models have changed, pilots are more vulnerable within their cockpits. Or is there a difference in armour between the "Bf-109G-6_Erla" and the "Bf-109G-6Erla"

Eventhough i am complaining about certain details, i think daidalos team is doing some great work. can not wait for the 4.10 new features.

Yours
KWM_Rammbock

[AndyJWest]

is there a difference in armour between the "Bf-109G-6_Erla" and the "Bf-109G-6Erla"

No idea. They are mod aircraft (or at least not names from unmodded IL-2). Stock Bf 109 Gs:

Since you are talking about mods, the DM, FM and who knows what else might be different. TD are upgrading stock IL-2, not modded versions.