4.11 overheat and engine damage test results

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by WTE_Galway

Forget in-line versus radial.

Think air-cooled versus liquid-cooled.

I should have put it that way

[Redroach]

Originally Posted by FC99

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

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

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!

[jermin]

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

[AndyJWest]

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

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.

[WTE_Galway]

Originally Posted by Redroach

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!

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.

[WhistlinggDeath]

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.

[Redroach]

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 ^-^

[Redroach]

Originally Posted by WhistlinggDeath

As far as the well maintained balance needed for online combat and BnZ flight models, I think reconsideration is reasonable.

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.

[WhistlinggDeath]

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 ?

[WhistlinggDeath]

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.