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

[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

[LesniHU]

Originally Posted by JG27CaptStubing

I understand you used a large caliber very low rate of fire weapon as your example which is nothing like an MG which ROF can make a tremendous difference in terms of hitting percentage. Regardless you've chosen to ignore it so be it. At least people know where you stand.

ok, I said I will elaborate, I will.
How to "kill" proof, shown in math to make it as simple as possible:
statement X*X=3*X
counterexample: X=2 => 2*2=3*2, not true => original statement incorrect
That is what I did in first reply.
your statement: accuracy of weapon X is too low because hit ratio is low
my counterexample: X=BK3.7 => hit ratio of X=BK3.7 is low but its accuracy is fine => logic behind original statement incorrect
It cannot be more simple. Will continue below.

Originally Posted by JG27CaptStubing

I agree things must be stated and then backed up with some documentation or at least some simple testing that illustrates the issue. Didn't take much for your counterpart to figure out 47s Doras Tempests can easily break the sound barrier. That was done with a simple test.

Yes. It did not take much for me to figure out that your claim that "Antons non self-sealing fuel leaks..." are in fact common selfsealing tanks which behaves same way as other planes' tanks. That selfsealing works, contrary to your claim. Then I invested hour of my life to make actual flighttest showing selfsealing in action and post results, BTW something YOU could do too before even posting it. Then FC99 invested time of his life to make actual flighttest showing another plane leaking all fuel in matter of minutes, something YOU could do too before posting. I hope this will finally end the story and that I will not hear anything about hidden agenda or conspiracy.

You pointed several problems, ok, I did not comment them because either someone other did or I do not have all info at hand. I did not comment compressibility. I did not coment Hellcat performance. I did not comment .50 accuracy (!) (read this sentence again please) - what I did is that I killed your "proof". Before I could comment gun accuracy I would have to learn much about ballistics, rigidity of gun mounts, wings and nose and much other things. If you want .50 more accurate, you will have to do the same. Alternatively you can find historical documents and recreate test in game.

When you try to base .50 accuracy claims on hit ratio, I think its clear you can't be taken seriously. You really want to read in next readme "accuracy of .50cal increased because JG27CaptStubing's hit rate with them was lower than supposed"?

[csThor]

You're not acting like an adult, either, CaptStubing.

For example regarding the 0.50 issue you want to raise you pointed us at a 5-year old 35-page thread at the zoo. Now where is the documentation in that? Where is the exact naming the issue? Are we supposed to read your mind or should we bring out the crystal balls to ask the forefathers if they know what you mean? I - personally, not as a member of DT - do believe that the issues on the Fw 190 should be at least looked at, but regarding the 0.50s I'm simply at a loss. Apart from the seemingly missing M8 loadout (IIRC, that is) I don't know what is it exactly that puts some folks on edge. Is it dispersion (remember that was changed way back after a load of whining at the Zoo)? Or what is it? I, for sure, don't know so I don't see what the fuss is about.

[Arrow]

Originally Posted by JG27CaptStubing

You might want to go back an read what I said because what you think I'm asking for from DT is quite the opposite.

The biggest issue back in the day was syncing and hitting power. Hitting Power IMO is there. I can easily Dewing a FW if given a good profile and I hit at convergence so they hit plenty hard. Its matter of looking at the dispersion issue. It was noted in that 36 page thread on UBI that for what ever reason the 50s had one of the largest patters in the game. That includes all other MGs. Has it been corrected? The only thing that thankfully has been done is the desyncing of the weapons.

Then I don't know what you are complaining about? The dispersion pattern of .50 cals was 20 mils, after lot of demanding on ubi Oleg decided and changed it to 8-10 mils in a patch (I don't remember exactly which one was it). Now people complain that it is too tight. I hope that now the case of .50 cals is closed to you

[ivagiglie]

Dear DT, some of you have stated that the way to get a bad/erroneous behavior fixed is to provide "actual data", sounds reasonable.

But what does constitute enough "actual data" to ask for a change?
For the Macchi 202/205 the FM seems underrated (turning performance above all).
Unfortunately tabular data or nice graphs so readily available for American planes simply aren't there.

What can be found though are reports (like the classic Feb'43 Guidonia one with comparison against the FW and 109) and interviews of actual pilots that flew those planes or against them in combat.
I'm willing to start to collect this data and make it available if this can trigger some modifications on your side.
What do you think?

[ZaltysZ]

Originally Posted by EJGr.Ost_Caspar

Sidenote about existing FM, DM, weapon changings: We are thinking about such issues as well. But we will discuss such with Oleg and if he doesn't agree, partially or generally - it will not happen.

I suppose green light was given by Oleg as there are hints about possible changes in CoG modeling in the future. Or I am mistaken?

[Baron]

Originally Posted by 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

Actually, the best fly by sounds iv heard so far from all the soundmods.

[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.

[IvanK]

Voyager said:

"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?"

Precisely and at present no, IL2 doesn't vary C of G for fuel burn off.

Which is why comments like the P51 (at present) flies like crap because the C of G with the rear fuselage tank and its incorrect feed schedule are wrong shows a basic lack of understanding of the how the stock IL2 fuel system and C of G model is used. It also shows (imo) a lack of understanding of Pitch stability and the effect of C of G has on it.

One thing IL2 can do is vary C of G dynamically as a function of weapons use. If you want to get a feel for what flying with an Aft C of G in a fighter is like in IL2 then try this.

Jump in the YAK 7B set 25% fuel and 128 Ptabs. This results in a C of G way aft as the PTABS are internally stored aft of the cockpit.
Go for a fly to get a feel for it . Then do a 1 v 1 with a comparable opponent. I think you will agree its not pleasant to fly in this configuration. Drop the PTABS the C of G moves forward to a more respectable position and pitch stability improves dramatically and it becomes a comfortable old Yak again.

The P51 with fuel in the fuselage tank will behave similarly. So if modeling C of G movement as a function of Fuel usage is achieved, and manual fuel tank selection is possible in IL2 (so as was done IRL the Fuselage tank can be selected to feed first) then P51 pitch stability is going to be a whole bunch worse than what you now have in Il2 with fuel in the fuselage tank. As the fuselage tank fuel is burnt pitch stability will return to something close to what we now have in game.

The P51 with fuel in the fuselage tank was not a pleasant aeroplane to fly the various Flight manuals are full of advice like:

RAAF P51 Flight Manual AP780 :
When the fuselage tank is full, the aircraft is longitudinally unstable in all conditions of flight and tends to tighten up in turns .... no maneuvers other than gentle turns should be attempted.

USAAF AAF Manual 51-127-5 (PG 67)
Be especially careful in handling the stick when the fuselage tank contains more than 25 gallons of gas. In this case the flying characteristics of the airplane change considerably....The weight of this fuel shifts the centre of gravity back so the airplane is unsuitable for anything but straight and level flight.

....With the fuselage tank full the centre of gravity of the airplane moves back so far that it is almost impossible to trim the airplane for hands off level flight.