Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik > Daidalos Team discussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-14-2012, 04:00 PM
sawyer692 sawyer692 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 31
Default

Any chance we could get the posts from the debugging thread moved over here??
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-14-2012, 04:04 PM
Sprsailor Sprsailor is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2
Default

My squad flies carrier based USN planes almost exclusively on a regular basis. Many people would say that the F4U and F6F have always been under modeled in IL2, and many people would argue the opposite.

Regardless of anyone's opinions, the models up to 4.101 have been acceptable, with very few (if any) major problems or arguments from either point of view.

Here is my observation from testing both the F4U and the F6F in game. These tests were not for numbers or data. I was just flying the planes as I normally would in training missions that I am completely familiar with and fly on a regular basis. I wanted to test the "feel" of the new models.

I flew the F4U and the F6F both in Pacific Islands dog fight training missions that I fly on a regular basis. There were noticeable differences in speed and maneuverability, but those can no doubt be compensated for with more training.

The biggest single problem I had was engine overheating. It was a serious problem in the F6F. The engine literally overheated within seconds of engaging 2 zeros. Maneuvering was not a problem, but the zeros just walked away from the hellcat due to engine overheating. Impossible to dogfight with 50% throttle and radiator full open.

I had the same overheat problem with the F4U. It wasn't as bad. It did not overheat as fast, but it was still enough of a problem that it was impossible to engage the enemy for more than a few seconds, and of course there is no way to outrun them while cooling your engine.

These posts are not intended to insult or take away from anything TD has done with the 4.11 patch. Once the few bugs are worked out, most of it adds significantly to the experience, and everyone is very supportive and appreciative of the long hours of hard work put into it.

Rather than arguing about performance data and who's right and who's wrong, couldn't there be a compromise and just return the USN planes to 4.101? Most of the patch involves AI actions, 6dof, and adding new flyable aircraft anyway. Why change performance on just a few Navy planes, that only affect a few squadrons?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-14-2012, 04:50 PM
F19_Klunk's Avatar
F19_Klunk F19_Klunk is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 236
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sprsailor View Post
Rather than arguing about performance data and who's right and who's wrong, couldn't there be a compromise and just return the USN planes to 4.101? Most of the patch involves AI actions, 6dof, and adding new flyable aircraft anyway. Why change performance on just a few Navy planes, that only affect a few squadrons?
What kind of an argument is that? Sorry for beeing rude but do you actually think that you are the only ones that fly these planes? This affect ALL IL2 gamers and not only "pilots" who fly them exclusively. I fly each and every plane in IL2 depending on what server I fly on, what mission, what side has the overhand in numbers etc.
We are all anxious to have planes and FM/DM as close to reality as possible and TD has made it quite clear that they will listen and discuss the issue, but please.. use relevant arguments.... and a compromise is not by defintion when one side gets exactly what they want ( my mrs would of course disagree with that )
__________________
C'thulhu's my wingman
F19 Virtual Squadron, The Squadron that gave you the J8A

Last edited by F19_Klunk; 01-14-2012 at 04:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-14-2012, 05:02 PM
sawyer692 sawyer692 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 31
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by F19_Klunk View Post
What kind of an argument is that? Sorry for beeing rude but do you actually think that you are the only ones that fly these planes? This affect ALL IL2 gamers and not only "pilots" who fly them exclusively. I fly each and every plane in IL2 depending on what server I fly on, what mission, what side has the overhand in numbers etc.
We are all anxious to have planes and FM/DM as close to reality as possible and TD has made it quite clear that they will listen and discuss the issue, but please.. use relevant arguments.
That sounds like a very relevent argument to me. This guy obviously flys the hell out of the those planes and notices the same shortcomings I have mentioned in the other thread.

Those planes could leap off the carriers in real life. Now they struggle and with any heavy ordinance they just won't do it.

And I'm sure people do fly the Corsair and Hellcat quite a bit but the Navy squads fly them exclusively and will suffer the most from this change. Besides, these planes were not king of skys to begin with.

Do some testing, mainly off carriers, and I think you'll see a huge difference.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-14-2012, 05:47 PM
Sprsailor Sprsailor is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by F19_Klunk View Post
What kind of an argument is that? Sorry for beeing rude but do you actually think that you are the only ones that fly these planes? This affect ALL IL2 gamers and not only "pilots" who fly them exclusively. I fly each and every plane in IL2 depending on what server I fly on, what mission, what side has the overhand in numbers etc.
We are all anxious to have planes and FM/DM as close to reality as possible and TD has made it quite clear that they will listen and discuss the issue, but please.. use relevant arguments.... and a compromise is not by defintion when one side gets exactly what they want ( my mrs would of course disagree with that )
Look dude, I don't mean to be rude either, but it is obvious to me that you guys have no interest in listening to any negative feedback. Almost every response from you guys has been arrogant and condescending. When you are presented with real world data, you ignore it in favor of what you did in game "at sea level mid-morning in the Crimea.", or else you make pompous statements without providing one shred of real world data to back it up.

I didn't ask for the Navy planes to be 100% realistic. That really would be unfair. All I asked is could they be changed back to 4.101, which is still under powered and under modeled. Can't see how that is "one side getting exactly what it wants."
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-14-2012, 07:01 PM
F19_Klunk's Avatar
F19_Klunk F19_Klunk is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 236
Default

I asked for relevant arguments...that's all. Many guys have come up with loads in hard facts which is swell..you can't say that you presented "real world dara".. you just went by I qoute ""feel" of the new models and comparison how the FM was in 4.101. That does not say much about real performance.

Regarding people having hard time to take off... I have always suspected that the carriers have the wrong dimensions e.g too small, maybe as much as 10-15%... this could be a reason to the difficulties if correct

compare Enterprise CV6







couldn't find a picture on carriers from the game but think and compare yourselves
__________________
C'thulhu's my wingman
F19 Virtual Squadron, The Squadron that gave you the J8A

Last edited by F19_Klunk; 01-14-2012 at 07:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-14-2012, 05:07 PM
SturmKreator SturmKreator is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 95
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sprsailor View Post
My squad flies carrier based USN planes almost exclusively on a regular basis. Many people would say that the F4U and F6F have always been under modeled in IL2, and many people would argue the opposite.

Regardless of anyone's opinions, the models up to 4.101 have been acceptable, with very few (if any) major problems or arguments from either point of view.

Here is my observation from testing both the F4U and the F6F in game. These tests were not for numbers or data. I was just flying the planes as I normally would in training missions that I am completely familiar with and fly on a regular basis. I wanted to test the "feel" of the new models.

I flew the F4U and the F6F both in Pacific Islands dog fight training missions that I fly on a regular basis. There were noticeable differences in speed and maneuverability, but those can no doubt be compensated for with more training.

The biggest single problem I had was engine overheating. It was a serious problem in the F6F. The engine literally overheated within seconds of engaging 2 zeros. Maneuvering was not a problem, but the zeros just walked away from the hellcat due to engine overheating. Impossible to dogfight with 50% throttle and radiator full open.

I had the same overheat problem with the F4U. It wasn't as bad. It did not overheat as fast, but it was still enough of a problem that it was impossible to engage the enemy for more than a few seconds, and of course there is no way to outrun them while cooling your engine.

These posts are not intended to insult or take away from anything TD has done with the 4.11 patch. Once the few bugs are worked out, most of it adds significantly to the experience, and everyone is very supportive and appreciative of the long hours of hard work put into it.

Rather than arguing about performance data and who's right and who's wrong, couldn't there be a compromise and just return the USN planes to 4.101? Most of the patch involves AI actions, 6dof, and adding new flyable aircraft anyway. Why change performance on just a few Navy planes, that only affect a few squadrons?
Do you know the powerband of this engine? Do you know how to use the PP correctly? In 4.10.1 If you know all of this things, easily you could reach high velocities km/h without overheat, now is a little more difficult but not impossible, you only have to know the plane, come of this is a simulator, you cant think in two days you can dominate a plane.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-14-2012, 04:52 PM
KG26_Alpha KG26_Alpha is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Posts: 2,805
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IvanK View Post
Discuss the F4U performance here please rather than in the General Debug thread.
I've moved the relevant posts here .

Last edited by KG26_Alpha; 01-14-2012 at 05:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-14-2012, 05:19 PM
JtD JtD is offline
Il-2 enthusiast & Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 903
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha View Post
I've moved the relevant posts here .
Thanks.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.