i need some complex engine management tips (spitfire and hurricane)

[FS~Phat]

Originally Posted by ramstein

i don't want to be booted, but the engines are garbage above 16,000 feet.. it's like the the developers purposely thought of screwing the Brit planes at high altitude (I can't believe it actually slipped by, and they said ooops !,, too lame, for us to believe..)... as soon as they stop screwing up the Brit planes, they really should post the patch as official... on Steam... stop screwing the pooch, stop the excuses,,, finish the last few remaining show stoppers,, then move on to BOM. I would never consider any type of expansion, with a flight sim that has a core model set that is totally fraked up...

IMHO

You guys that are making COD could accomplish so much if you tried..... but it seems you are sabotaging your own work...

The devs have acknowledged that MOST aircraft do not have correct performance above about 21k feet. This is a limitation of the current atmospheric model. I have noticed too that above about 17k feet they feel a bit sluggish.

I'll see if I can find the post for you.

Here you go.. this was from the last Alpha DX10 patch notes. As you can see its a known limitation of the current atmospheric model that requires a major rewrite, which may appear with the sequel at some point.

Originally Posted by BlackSix

We've performed a tremendous amount of work testing and improving flight models in the game, as well as improving various aircraft engines. We used actual pilot's notes and flight testing data during the process (thank you Sean!). Unfortunately some deeply-set limitations in the engine code do not allow us to minimize the margin of error at altitudes about 7 km (21,000 ft) where most aircraft begin to perform worse than their real-life counterparts. Fixing this requires more extensive code rework and will therefore only appear with the upcoming sequel. However at lower altitudes most flyables will perform much closer to real life. We also have to note that some aircraft, most notably Spitfire Mk.II, had better performance than the real thing. Others, especially their engines, had reduced performance. We've addressed these serious issues and made our planes fly much closer to the real thing.

[AKA_Tenn]

it kinda makes sense... if you go back and play the original IL2, compare it to IL2FB, then compare AEP to 1946 and you'll see they changed the FMs many times, and usually after expansions... this time is no different...

[TomcatViP]

Does "100%" not means that the prop is on full fine pitch (long time I didn't play the game)? If so, pitch HAVE to be on fine pitch at start-up.

Rads have to be closed and eng run at a stable regime (low) until the temp as raised (rad closed). It take usually 3 to 5 min to do so. Then you can apply power gradually to move the plane (no chocks).

If you don't warm up your engine, you will suffer engine damage applying power too early and won't be able to get full perf out of your engine during flight.

I hve witnessed a lot a players chocking their engine on the ground in order to get-off early. Those generally also complains that they can't get the perfs as in the manual

~S

[TomcatViP]

Originally Posted by AKA_Tenn

... if you go back and play the original IL2, compare it to IL2FB, then compare AEP to 1946 and you'll see they changed the FMs many times,...

For the worst on many occasion !!!

[Osprey]

Current Hurricane I 12lb* in 1946 with HSFX makes barely 250mph @SL. Can't get it faster than that. This is worse than COD after years and years of development. Why is it like this? Who did the FM?

[Kwiatek]

IRL Hurricane MK1 at 12lbs emergency boost reached ab. 280-285 mph at sea level. At nominal power - +6 1/4 lbs reached 260 mph at the deck. CLOD FM is also far away from these.

[Osprey]

Yes that's correct, although the test speeds show 291mph IIRC, not sure of the loadout for that though.

I don't understand how people supposedly interested in flight history can get this so wrong.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

I can not say that I am surprised by this..

Over the past 10 years of flight simming I have noticed this tread of not caring about how accurate the flight model is in simulating the aircraft performance..

Which is not surprising what with all the arcade style (xbox) types of flights simmers that have come along in the past 10 years..

Where they are more concerned with eye-candy than the flight models ability to accurately simulate the aircraft performance..

The good news is..

With time..

Some of these xbox type evolve (grow up?) into what we use to call a 'hard core flight simmer'.

Where getting the performance right is not an option but a 'basic' requirement.

The evolution of the xbox mind set typically goes like this..

They start off not caring at all about the accuracy of the flight model to simulate the aircraft performance, to caring about the 'relative' performance of the aircraft, to finally caring about the flight model being able to simulate the aircraft performance within 5% of the real world data.

Sadly some never make the full transition and are happy enough with something less than accurate..

Which is why flight sim makers always have to provide enough options to convert the accurate flight simulation into an xbox arcade type of game.

[Osprey]

But the trouble is that this is a '*' new slot aircraft. Therefore it should've been done by somebody properly, a fan. I'm left wondering if it is the mod pack which make their own changes to the new slot type because they aren't happy with it. 40mph is a lot, it's not hard to find out speed tests.

Can somebody verify the performance in UP? or another pack? Wrong forum really, just frustrating.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Osprey

But the trouble is that this is a '*' new slot aircraft. Therefore it should've been done by somebody properly, a fan. I'm left wondering if it is the mod pack which make their own changes to the new slot type because they aren't happy with it. 40mph is a lot, it's not hard to find out speed tests.

Can somebody verify the performance in UP? or another pack? Wrong forum really, just frustrating.

Well a lot of mods start off with someone who 'loves' the plane enough to create the 3D model of it..

You can find a lot of 'artiest' that love planes and know how to use 3DMAX to create a new plane, or tweak and existing one

But it is not as easy to find someone like that who also knows about flight modeling.. Which means most mods end up using a flight model from another plane with maybe a few tweaks too it.

Which is NOT a ding on mod makers!

Even the folks who should know (1C, Oleg) can make mistakes

Take the Bf109K4 vs. Spitfire 25lb in IL-2

Ask your average IL-2 fan which plane is 'uber' and you will probably find that most say the Spit 25lb is the uber plane..

Yet the Spit 25lb ROC performance is less than it should be at most alts, and only over by 11% or so at other alts..

Where as the Bf109K4's ROC performance is better than it should be at all alts, up to 25% more than it should be at some alts..

Which is a good example of why 'relative performance' concept can be such a joke at times..

For example, Pick an altitude, and you can find that one plane's ROC is 20% better than it should be, while another plane's ROC is 10% less than it should be and you end up with a 'relative performance' difference of 30%! That is a lot for the pilot to make up in skill!

So, if 1C (Oleg) can not even get it right at times, I am not surprised that some 3DMAX artiest get it wrong sometimes!