Patch 4.10 - Development Updates by Daidalos Team

[Blackdog_kt]

As for favoring the better pilot, there are a lot of different kinds of better pilots. Some shoot better, some fly better and others prepare better. The first two kinds of pilot are already able to show their skill in IL2. What will change by including realistic systems modelling is that it will enable the third kind of pilots to do the same

I don't know if SoW will include all that. However, i have a feeling it will be able to include them in the future. We didn't have perfect mode, water=3 and radio navigation in IL2 either back in 2001, but we have the first two now and we're about to get the third one thanks to team daidalos (just to gently steer the discussion back on topic )

[Flanker35M]

S!

I see what you mean, but if you compare today's piston engines to WW2 ones there is a difference Take a "lawn mower" Lycoming that powers those Cessnas/Pipers and compare to a RR Merlin/Daimler-Benz, the difference is quite huge. Today's engines are low hp without chargers etc. to give affordable flight hours and being reliable/easy to maintain and also air cooled for most part. The WW2 engines were built to deliver power at a wide range of altitudes, mostly liquid cooled and sophisticated in contrsuction, for example the DB600-series had fuel injection etc. To put it like this: Lycoming is the old Beetle engine and the RR/DB is a Formula 1 engine.

So operating these engines differs quite a bit as the margins with the "war engines" are smaller and require more attention from the pilot, tedious maintenance to dish out the HP and be somewhat reliable. With the Lycomings and similar the flying and maintenance is VERY simple, requiring less. Done some on Lycomings

So that is what SoW should bring, attention to what you do and how you manage the engine. SoW will bring more high fidelity and also wear & tear, if still in the features. You need to watch those gauges, in IL-2 they are more or less just showing something and you do not have to worry much.

The design philosophy also plays a role in a sim, if modelled. If you compare Hurricane/Spitfire vs Bf109E cockpits, there are more levers and stuff to operate in the RAF birds than in Bf109E, which increases the workload for the pilot. Compare today's HOTAS jets against the older jets and you see the same difference. Less work for the pilot = more of his resources are committed to fighting.

Oh well..the wait is nearing it's end soonish so we will see

[Auger73]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

The good thing about WWII aircraft is that they are much simpler. In a civilian/modern sim you can have all sorts of different engines, from regular pistons to turboprops to jets and they all have different principles of operation.

In IL2 and SoW all there is is the good old piston engine. It's not a mountain of knowledge, if you learn how piston engines work on one aircraft you've learned it for all aircraft. From that point on the only thing that changes is the operating limits. And if you don't want to remember them either, don't worry, they are clearly marked on the instruments with colored arcs: green=good, yellow=caution, red=bad

I seriously doubt that a bunch of seasoned flight simmers will find it hard to keep a needle within a colored arc after reading the manual once

The principles in operation of a pistone is a more complex than a turbine, whether a turbofan or turboprop. In a turbine the only thing a pilot controls is how much fuel to dump in the flame cans. In a piston engine, you have throttle, mixture, carb heat, and radiator to control.

Over the years, flying has become safer. There are more instruments on a modern aircraft, but they allow you to do things that were impossible in earlier eras (such as 0/0 landings). You may have to learn more instruments, but in the end, it becomes easier to accomplish the same tasks in a modern aircraft. Compare navigating with a hand-cranked hoop ADF vs. GPS.

[Abbeville-Boy]

very good update and good news for all, i hope for thanksgiving or holidays release, thanks oleg

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by Auger73

The principles in operation of a pistone is a more complex than a turbine, whether a turbofan or turboprop. In a turbine the only thing a pilot controls is how much fuel to dump in the flame cans. In a piston engine, you have throttle, mixture, carb heat, and radiator to control.

Over the years, flying has become safer. There are more instruments on a modern aircraft, but they allow you to do things that were impossible in earlier eras (such as 0/0 landings). You may have to learn more instruments, but in the end, it becomes easier to accomplish the same tasks in a modern aircraft. Compare navigating with a hand-cranked hoop ADF vs. GPS.

I don't disagree with this, it's just that i've been a propeller-head simmer for most of my vitrual flying carreer, so piston engines come naturally to me. The first time i tried a turboprop on a friend's FSX i constantly felt like there was something important that needed to be done and i was forgetting it

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

I don't disagree with this, it's just that i've been a propeller-head simmer for most of my vitrual flying carreer, so piston engines come naturally to me. The first time i tried a turboprop on a friend's FSX i constantly felt like there was something important that needed to be done and i was forgetting it

Truth. And turboprops feel like cheating. Too much power, hard to damage, very reliable.

Land long? No problem, just reverse the thrust and you will be going backwards in seconds. Rocks on that cloud you just flew into? No problem, just throw on some more throttle and climb over those rocks like a helicopter.

I'm being silly of course because in real life I would rather have a turboprop in most bad situations. That's assuming I could afford the fuel costs.

Splitter

[ElAurens]

The turboprop would be less expensive to operate than a Merlin, P&W, Allison, DB, etc...

[Azimech]

... but have no charm at all. Turbojets, turboprops and turbofans are like flying vacuumcleaners to me. Pulsejets, ramjets and scramjets are even worse.

[ElAurens]

I agree with you totally, but none the less there is a reason why modern piston engined aircraft are now relegated to the bottom of the pecking order.

[WTE_Galway]

Originally Posted by Azimech

... but have no charm at all. Turbojets, turboprops and turbofans are like flying vacuumcleaners to me. Pulsejets, ramjets and scramjets are even worse.

This short youtube clip explains it all (embedding disabled, go to link) ....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkcX0KGIBwk

Anybody can start a turbine, you just need to move a switch from "OFF" to "START," and then remember to move it back to "ON" after a while.

My PC is harder to start.

Cranking a round engine requires skill, finesse and style. On some planes, the pilots are not even allowed to do it.

Turbines start by whining for a while, then give a small lady-like poot then whine louder.

Round engines give a satisfying rattle-rattle, click-click BANG, more rattles, another BANG, a big macho fart or two, more clicks, a lot of smoke and finally a serious low pitched roar.

We like that. It's a guy thing.

When you start a round engine, your mind is engaged and you can concentrate on the flight ahead.

Starting a turbine is like flicking on a ceiling fan: Useful, but hardly exciting.

Turbines don't break often enough, leading to aircrew boredom, complacency and inattention.

A round engine at speed looks and sounds like it's going to blow at any minute. This helps concentrate the mind.

Turbines don't have enough control levers to keep a pilot's attention. There's nothing to fiddle with during the flight.

Turbines smell like a Boy Scout camp full of Coleman lanterns. Round engines smell like God intended flying machines to smell.