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

[dl-3b]

What a bunch of arrogant and disrespectfull MF-ing whiners!!!!
S... the F.... up!!!!

[FC99]

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

Im stunned at the ignorance shown here, I thought we had an opportunity to use the modders in a positive way but it looks like they have an agenda that's not as transparent as it seems.

you can't use us, be sure, but you can research and document problems."I'm right because I've been flying this sim from demo days" is not valid argument, if that is only backup people have than their request will be ignored.

We don't have any hidden agenda, our agenda is clear and transparent, we are making best possible sim out of Il2 engine, we don't work for money, we don't have to care about the balance and we don't have to care about red and blue side. Historical accuracy is the only thing that matters.

If you honestly check this thread you can see that we are dealing with issues that are proven beyond the doubt like compressibility and mach limits.

What we don't want to do is to make changes based on popular myths.

Ignoring and quite frankly ridiculing suggestions and comments made in a genuine way is quite frankly depressing, I had hoped we were getting a mature team of modders taking IL2 1946 seriously.

Polite and serious questions will get serious and polite response, I will not waste my free time on political correctness and whiners who can't backup their claims with facts.

If it looks like the most talked about problems over the last 5 years of IL2 are simply cast aside and regarded as whining then its an opportunity greatly missed by TD and will be a mistake to their future credibility.

Most talked doesn't equal real, some of the most talked things are pure myths.

Now no matter what you do with the P51 until it flies like a Spitfire has Fw190 armament and Panzer armour you will be for ever making adjustments to it.

Talkin' about agenda , same thing we can say about FW190 or any other plane in game, there are always people who can't accept reality.

Originally Posted by Brain32

FW fuel leak: It leaks like no other - period. It's not an occasional "Oh look it leaked entirely" it's consistent leaking where you loose entire fuel load in a matter of a minute or two and it happens EXTREMELY often!

There is nothing in game code that would make FW190 any different than other planes with self sealing tanks, if you don't believe LesniHU and me than take a look at game code yourself or find somebody who you trust and ask him to check code. If you find an error I'll correct it.

Perceived difference is more likely caused with the fact that FW is extremely tough plane which will fly long enough for big fuel leak to happen. You will not get it that often in Bf109 simply because you will be blown out of the sky after first burst.

Here are few screenshots with P-51D losing all fuel too. You can see that I rotated wing 90deg to make it easier to hit fuel tank, in normal wing position it is way easier to cut off whole wing than to hit tank strong enough to produce big fuel leak.



I guarantee you that every plane with self sealing tanks behave the same, main difference is that some carry more fuel so it takes more time for whole fuel to leak.

FW controls issue - it's really not an exception, I've loosed all three controls in many planes, the issue are the hitboxes and as we know it's a simple limitation, for me it's pretty much the same if you loose your elevator or all 3 controls, either way I'm hitting the silk so I don't see anything to fix here really...

Finally somebody who understand that there is no any practical difference between losing all three controls and losing elevator and ailerons.

P-51 CoG - with full fuel the thing was nearly dangerous to fly even as per the manual, I hope changes wont make a trainer class aircraft of it at 100% of fuel okay?

More dangerous with 100%, more forgiving with low fuel. Nothing "uber" just slightly different and more interesting to fly.

FC

[KG26_Alpha]

FC99 don't put words in my mouth please.

[rakinroll]

I think developers should be more kind and carefully on their answers for these expected requests/complaints. We are (at least i am) learning/reading very useful infos here. Regards...

[fuzzychickens]

I can see why Oleg stopped interacting with people on forums.

I totally respect his decision to do that.

Without him, our options are limited severely for quality WWII sims in the future.

I patiently await this patch and the next sim.

[csThor]

Can we please drop the insults? I thought there were mostly adults here.

[Daiichidoku]

i thought that trading 3 control axies for PK was quite teh funneh


about the fuel leak bug:

i do remember that 190s (and P47s), after one patch, would catch fire VERY easily
after an outcry, the easy-fire stopped after the next patch..funny thing was, the "fuel leak bug" appeared then, as light puffy cloud at engine area trailing light smoke...IMO, as a "feelings experten", this was the same fire from before but cosmetically changed from fire to smoke to appease/fool the whiners

the really funny thing was, i found, that 2 patches later, the exact same thing could happen to (at least) all the other US types, F4Us, P47, P51, P38

in any event, it is what it is, i dont see why any type with seal-sealing tanks could not suffer catastrophic failure and lose all fuel in short order IRL...its annoying, but live with it, and set your glide hdg towards home



about TD looking into CoG issues with P51 (or any other type for that matter), AFAIK, il2 does not model separate fuel tanks in P51, hence there is no real problem in that regards?

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by Daiichidoku

i thought that trading 3 control axies for PK was quite teh funneh
[...]

the really funny thing was, i found, that 2 patches later, the exact same thing could happen to (at least) all the other US types, F4Us, P47, P51, P38

in any event, it is what it is, i dont see why any type with seal-sealing tanks could not suffer catastrophic failure and lose all fuel in short order IRL...its annoying, but live with it, and set your glide hdg towards home



about TD looking into CoG issues with P51 (or any other type for that matter), AFAIK, il2 does not model separate fuel tanks in P51, hence there is no real problem in that regards?

On the fuel drain debate, I believe the argument is that planes with multiple discrete fuel tanks a catastrophic hit in one tank would most likely drain just that tank, rather than the entire fuel system, but with the basic limitations of the Il-2 engine, a catastrophic hit in one tank would behave as a catastrophic hit in all fuel tanks. This is true for all aircraft in the game; it shows up most often on the US aircraft, because the USAAF and USN fighters have 3-4 times the max fuel of other comparable aircraft.

The "burning planes" was the same sort of thing. When someone sprung a leak, you could light it off by firing tracers through the leak cloud, and it would burn until the plane exploded, or the fuel ran out. People just noticed more often on the 190 and P-47, because those two took a whole lot more damage to bring down than other planes, but I found you could do the same thing to 109's, and pretty much anything else that took more than two burps of 0.50 cal. Was great fun until they fixed it.

The issue with the P-51 CoG is that as I understand it, Il-2 models the plane's fuel tank system as a single larger fuel tank placed at the aggregate CoG of the entire system, and as a consequence, all tanks are treated, in effect as though they were being drained equally. On most planes that is fine, because the fuel system as a whole is balanced around the aircraft's Center of Gravity. The P-51's is not. The Mustang has two 540lb (245kg) fuel tanks placed in the wing spars, placed very close the to CoG, and in the P-51B-10, they added a 3rd 510lb (230kg) fuel tank behind the pilot, about 3-4 feet behind the CoG. Picture, if you will, a P-51 with a 500lb bomb hung off of the radiator.

The upshot of this is, during flight, the center of mass of the P-51's fuel system move forward several feet during the first third of the flight, and then for the next 1,200 miles, just wobbles right a left a bit, as the pilot juggles the wing tanks to keep some semblance of roll balance.

Actually, after reading through all of what I just wrote, I just realized, a balanced fuel system isn't going to induce large CoG shifts as it drains. Does Il-2 even have the capacity to model CoG shifts as the fuel system empties?

Harry Voyager

Addendum: If you guys are able to produce a solution for the P-51 CoG, could you flow it over to the BoP dev team? At the moment, the P-51D is about the only USAAF fighter they've got right now, it could really use that balance fix.

[JG27CaptStubing]

People tend to resort to name calling when they don't know how to properly put up an argument to the issue raised. It's easier just to sweep it under the rug and call it whinning. What I find funny about all this so called whinning some how slowly but surely we see things change. I would say for the better to be honest. Getting rid of the muzzle flash during daylight is a great example. Also when others have been presented with documentation it's often overlooked as being Propaganda. What ever...

Typical closed minded stuff we've seen from day one.

It's okay you go back to what you think is important... After all this is about you and your efforts.

Us whinners will go back to the shadows where we belong.

[Red Dragon-DK]

I will adultly and polite ask a question to the TD



Have DT any plane, to correct the the sound in the game? I feel no matter what you correct in a P51 or what aircraft you ad to the game I miss the feeling of sitting in a aircraft, simply becarse of the ingame sound we have today. As an exampel what Im aiming for, I have add 2 videos that I fell are woth listen to.

My best regards


http://vimeo.com/6667705


http://vimeo.com/6682092