Oleg Maddox's Room #2 QUESTIONS & REQUESTS TO OLEG ABOUT BOB SOW

[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!

[II/JG54_Emil]

I like your ideas Mölders

[SlipBall]

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!

Some good points about the aircraft that I would like to see in SOW...something that has bothered me is the ground handling of the 109, all reports that I have read indicate the aircraft did not tend to be tippy when the brakes were applied. In the original game IL2, this seemed to have been modeled well. In game now, the aircraft is very tippy when braking

[MOH_Hirth]

Will the sistem sounds of SOW be improved? I think is possible new sound channels for turbo and "fly by view" sound or fast pass, if you understand what i mean, this can be a big step over IL-2.

[KG26_Alpha]

Originally Posted by Werner Molders

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.

Keep up the great work!

As an old Stuka pilot from when it was first introduced to IL2 series way back ....... the MG17's were very effective at strafing columns, then after a few patches correcting the Stuka as it developed exploding wings and generally it got nerfed including its strafing ability, the MG17's were reduced to pea shooters the MG15 tail gun is pretty useless too.

Hopefully SoW will give correct power to weapons and it will stay that way and not have "balancing" patches

[nearmiss]

Ok... back to square one.

Everyone knows what this thread is about, and it has turned into something else again.

I'm going to clean up the thread by scan reading postings. Postings are going to be deleted with no explanation. I post this so I won't get a bunch of PM whines about where did "my post go".

There maybe some viable posts deleted as well, because I don't have time to try to comprehend each post.

Hi Oleg, with the release of SOW being within the next year is it possible you could let us have some idea of what the system spec's might be, and are you currently beta testing with Vista or Windows 7? Or could you let us know what rig you are currently beta testing on.


Thanks

[Bobb4]

ATI cards have traditionally never performed well with IL2 games. Has this problem been addressed in SOW.

[Flyby]

Originally Posted by Bobb4

ATI cards have traditionally never performed well with IL2 games. Has this problem been addressed in SOW.

with the new ATi cards out now (the 5850 performs as well as the GTX285, costs less, is quieter, and uses less power at idle and full load) I hope Oleg will have reconciled ATi issues by now. Also, for goodness sake, where is the update?
Flyby out

[zakkandrachoff]

I need change my videocard and i ask to myself if a GTX 275 or a Radeon 4890 will be work fine for the BOB... i cant wait to next year for know it





(graphics and details very high)