|
|
|||||||
| IL-2 Sturmovik: Birds of Prey Famous title comes to consoles. |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#11
09-17-2009, 10:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
I always thought the P-51D in this game, was not what it should be like.
now im watching this: It says the P51-D should - outrun - outmanouvre - outgun the bf109 now...im not so sure about the outmanouvre... but outrun.. hell yeah! I tried this with a friend of mine today... I was in a p51d and he in a bf109E. We flew next to each other at 8000ft... and then put full throttle.. I only gained 0.2km lead in the first 5sec... but after that...he was matching my top speed easily  And the turns in this game with the P-51 are crazy.. try doing any of the stuff you see in the 'dogfights' episode... and you WILL stall and spin. You can not even do a normal scissors at high speed :S.. neither can you pull out of a dive normally... you have to be verryyyy gentle.. there is just no way you can stay on the tail of a 109 for 5 secs in this game .. I really hope the will change its flight model... if not for me... do it for the americans! 
|
|
#12
09-17-2009, 11:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
They have to, if not the game will suck because this is THE BEST FIGHTER of ALL TIME their dealing with (Offically YES, before you complain, please look it up), and they dumbed it down to garbege. It should be the M16 or IL-2, that awesome, sexy looking gun that can do almost ANYTHING!!!!
|
|
#13
09-18-2009, 06:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 Seriously though, you should take those history channel videos with a pinch of salt. Yes, the P51D is faster than any Bf109, with the exception of the K4 model, even though any model of 109 from the F onwards will out climb and out accelerate it. It cannot out turn a 109, and as for outgunning one, yes 6 .50cal Brownings is probably a better armament overall, but these guys obviously never saw what a 30mm cannon can do with one hit. It doesn't help to be flying around on full fuel either, with the Mustang's large fuel capacity it has a greater effect than it would have on most planes, so whenever I fly this plane in Il2 1946 I use it with 25% or 50% fuel only, and carry droptanks if I need to go longer distances. Quote:
|
|
#14
09-18-2009, 06:40 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
At low altitudes the Merlin P-51 is slow and weak.
The P-51B/D are heavily optimized for extremely long range missions, at 30,000 ft, with high cruising speeds, and excusions in the transonic flight region. The Il-2 flight engine was optimized for a study sim of the Il-2, a plane which barely goes above 10,000 ft, and almost breaks 300 mph. Above 15,000 ft, many of the flight model assumptions start to break down. Additionally, in online dogfight, most fights take place in the 0-5,000 ft range, simply because climbing to 30,000 at a sustained climb rate of 2,000 fpm takes about 15 minutes, and people really aren't into spending a quarter of an hour just climbing to altitude, when they want to get some gun-fight on. In the 0-5k ft flight regime, in the limits of the Il-2 engine, the P-51B/D models have significant issues, because of the trades that were made for it's exceptional high altitude performance. The first is the 2-stage, 2-speed supercharger. It's a marvelous supercharger, with a critical altitude of something on the order of 26,000 ft. To do that, however, it pulls about 100-150 hp out of the engine, even when it wasn't delivering maximum boost. For Sea Level power at 8km, it's worth it, if you're at 8km. If you're at sea level, it's lost power. The next issue is fuel. The P-51B/D has a range of something on the order of 2,000 miles. To get this, the designers crammed fuel tanks into every possible orifice one could fit. The specific culprit here is an 85 gallion (about 500lbs) that was added being the pilot, with no counter balance at all, starting about the P-51B-7 model. If this tank is full, it destroyes the P-51's stability; try to do anything more exciting than flying in a straight line, and you'll spin. The hazards were justified by the range the tank added, and were mitigated by operation paramaters which involved 30m to an hour of flight simply spent getting to altitiude and linking up before cross the lines, in which this fuel tank is drained, and stability restored. This is where one of the Il-2 engine limitations comes in. None of the fighters originally modeled had complex multi-tank fuel systems, and none of the ones even being considered have anything like the complexity involved in the P-51's unbalanced fuel system, so, for simplicity, they built an engine that only models a single fuel tank, and if I'm understanding the way its said to be set up, we're talking about a linear slider on the CoG that moves depending on how full the tank is. The game engine just doesn't have the hooks to model the screwy P-51 tank layout, without either draining all tanks evenly, or deleting the 85 gallon tank from the plane, cutting the total fuel load by about a third. Neither was very palatable. The final limitation is the laminar flow wing. Laminar flow wings are very good in the 350-500 mph range, and, as I understand it, help delay the onset of shock wave drag. I don't believe we have shock wave drag in Il-2, or any of the funky transonic effect you have when you get above 500mph, or the way those fun effects seem to occur at low IAS the higher you get, which is, I believe part of the reason the flight model starts getting odd at high altitudes. So the big advange of laminar flow can't really be modeled in this game. However, the main draw back of the laminar flow wing is very much a subsonic phenomina: they have a high stall speed, and poor lift. This mean lower over all turn rates, and a tendacy to snap stall. Combine that with an engine that's spending a large chunk of its power on something you aren't using, and a fuel tank that's disrupting the CoG, and you're going to have some real manuver problems. One other aspect that limits its instant dogfight potential is the 0.50's. 4-6 0.50 caliber machines guns just don't pack the stopping power of quad 20mm or 30mm cannon. This was another ConOps driven trade, primarly by the need of USAAF aircraft to be in enemy airspace for 5-8 hours at a time. 60 rounds of MK108 will ruin somebody's day; one somebody, and then you get spend the next four hours hoping nobody notices you. 600 rounds of MK 108 will ruin a lot of people's days. It also weighs 600lbs. For that much mass you can put nearly 2,600 0.50's on you plane and shoot all day. They won't turn targets into the collection of confetti that the 108 will, but they're effective against the armour that most fighters of the time were limited to, and the lightly armoured ones got chewed. That being said, I suspect the USAAF wouldn't have been to upset with a 1xMK108 version that did come with 600 rounds, though I would have loved to see how NAA would have fit that keg-o-ammo in. Given the wall of text above, I'm of the opinion that the only Mustangs that would perform well in the current engine are the Mustang I/IA that the British used in the 1942 time frame. They were Allison engined, low altitude oriented aircraft. They didn't have the 85 gallon fuselage tank, and the MK IA was armed with 4x20mm Hispano cannons, so they had high alpha that quick action requires. On the other hand, right now Maddox is currently fully engaged in developing Storm of War: Battle of Britain and any time spent on adding new planes to the old engine is time not being spent making the new engine, which is intended to fix most of the issues that high speed, high altitude aircraft have in the current Il-2 engine. So yeah. Welcome to the Il-2 flight model debates. Check your life at the door. Last edited by Voyager; 09-18-2009 at 07:14 AM.
|
|
#15
09-18-2009, 09:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thanx for the reply and explanation...
Since online al fights are normally at 0-5000 ft... and the flight model in the game gets odd at high altitudes (where the P-51 has its strength).. I would suggest to take give the P-51 the performance as if it was at high altitides. What I mean is... Take the historical performance of the P-51 at 20.000ft.. and give that performance to the P-51 in game.. at 0-5000ft. (at least make it competative to the 109's) Yes I know this would not be completely accurate... but I hope you will agree...that it wont make it an overpowered plane... nor even the best plane online. And I think...that this would be more accurate... to give the real performance to the wrong altitude range.. than... whatever the P-51 is doing ingame right now :S. We were promissed 40+ planes... but the P-51 make it -2.. because you just cant use them (hope you agree on that one) plz... give me some feedback on this ^^ (dont flame )
Last edited by MorgothNL; 09-18-2009 at 09:39 AM.
|
|
#16
09-18-2009, 11:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#17
09-18-2009, 11:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
What would be fair is that you should have a choice at which altitude you spawn at...simple and it works...
|
|
#18
09-18-2009, 11:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
David..I really like your idea! it keeps the realism in the P-51  .. hope they will do something like that
|
|
#19
09-18-2009, 02:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#20
09-18-2009, 03:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
