4.11 overheat and engine damage test results

[ZaltysZ]

By the way, question to DT: does MW50 (or similiar system) has additional effects on engine, or it is just a switch for higher boost/rpm in this engine management model? In other words: has MW50 any significance (like removing heat) in your temperature equations?

[Luno13]

I posted this as a PM to Jermin since the other thread was closed, but since we still seem to want to discuss it:

Here you go:

http://www.mediafire.com/?x5cy6ovp89ing7u

Overheat warning appeared at about 2 minutes in.

First sign of trouble at about 10 minutes. Damage begins to set in progressively.

Complete shutdown at over 20 minutes.

Automatic P-pitch and radiator, as normal.

I hope this helps, S~

I just downloaded the track to check how it works, and it doesn't display the red "MW50!" message, but you can see the effect of it when power reaches 1.8 ATA. (Normal 110% power doesn't reach that manifold pressure).

A couple effects that appeared when I played in real time also don't appear in the Ntrk, but they look cool. I don't think I've seen them before

Everything else, from power settings and time-to-overheat, etc are exactly the same as when I played.



Now Jermin, let's please see a track of your problem. Then maybe we can see what's wrong and help solve it.

[MicroWave]

Originally Posted by JG27_PapaFly

...

***EDIT***
I've just tested the TA152, FW190A6, SpitIX 25lbs, LA7 3xB20, F4U-1D and I-185 M71 inflight on the same map: max performance takeoff and climb at a constant 260kph IAS.
I used manually open rads on the TA, FW190 and I-185, auto rads for the spit.

Here are the times to overheat at 260kph IAS:

Plane_________time to overheat____notes__________________
TA152-H1........3'24''......................oil temp near upper limit
SpitIX 25lbs.....2'56''......................oil at 80°C, glycol at 110°C
FW190A6.........3'48''......................oil at less than 80°C
F4U-1D............3'52''.....................oil temp 80°C, cylinder head 200°C at overheat message
LA7 3xB20........3'48''......................oil temp is above 100°C from 1'56''on; cylinder head temp above 200°C at overheat message
I-185 M71........5'08''.....................oil temp is above 100°C from 2'08'' on; cylinder head temp above 200°C at overheat message

Something seems to be wrong with the I-185. For one, it overheats on the ground just like any other plane, but much later in the air.
While most other planes overheat when the oil has 80°C, the I-185's oil temps hits the end of the dial (125°C) before the overheat occurs. At that stage, the cylinder head has well above 200°C. This behavior is very different from that of other radial engine fighters in the test (F4U, FW190A). The LA7 also shows that oil temp increase, but the overheat message comes earlier, at almost the same time with the FW190A and F4U.

Maybe someone from TD could explain why the I-185 is different?
***EDIT END***

Cheers

First of all thank you for performing such tests.
Since you've already proven that RPMs are the main factor in generating heat (also stated in the manual), my guess is (without testing) that I-185 engine can maintain fairly low RPM for the target speed.
I have no idea if that is realistic, but that's probably the situation for v4.11 I-185. As already mentioned, this type (and his evil twin sister) fall into category of 'what if' planes. I was able to find the readme for 2.0x patch clearly stating so:
http://ubisoft.custhelp.com/app/answ...ep-v2.04-patch.
But this 'what if' adjective applies to the plane itself, from what I gathered the engine was not that special and might have been used by other, serial production planes. Maybe this unusual behavior can be replicated on those planes, too? This would be more serious problem, but hopefully there is sufficient documentation floating around which would help to rectify the problem (if indeed there is a problem).
Regarding the temperature redouts, I'm not sure which one you should actually monitor (oil_in?, oil_out? whatever) and the dials might show wrong values. It would be better to use devicelink to actually read ingame variables. Dials are individual for each plane and there is usually some small function converting actual temperatures to angles. There could easily be a bug on the dial (wrong function from T->angle), while actual temperatures are OK.

And finally a disclaimer:
I'm no engine expert and no expert on aviation history and I have never performed any serious FM tests.
If anything of what I just said makes no sense or is wrong, feel free to blame it on my ignorance.

[FC99]

Originally Posted by Redroach

Just please don't do it like the CoD 'devs' do... like 'listen' to some guy's cry about how the Merlin engine negative G cut-out is too much and the CoD team actually changing that, despite them being sure they were on the right track, resulting in lost realism for... well really, nothing.

There is a big difference between COD and Il2, Il2 has run its course and it doesn't make much difference for 1C will they sell 100 copies or 101 copies this year.
That gives us freedom to do things we think are right without being pressed by accountants and their profit margins.

OTOH COD has to make money, lot of money went into development and they have to make compromises. All of the commercial sims make compromises, make no mistake about it. They might be advertised as realistic and hardcore but they never are, none of them. When push comes to shove every developer will do what they have to do to turn biggest possible profit and that mean, satisfy your average customer.

DT doesn't have to do that, I can't say or promise that we will not make mistakes in development but I can assure you that balance or red and blue bias are not parts of our vocabulary. We will never deliberately do the wrong for the sake of balance,never.

FC

[jermin]

I remember Oleg has once said so before. But the truth is that right now blue is severely porked in European theater when compared to their real-life counterparts.

[WTE_Galway]

Originally Posted by ZaltysZ

By the way, question to DT: does MW50 (or similiar system) has additional effects on engine, or it is just a switch for higher boost/rpm in this engine management model? In other words: has MW50 any significance (like removing heat) in your temperature equations?

If DT have added engine cooling effects it would be hoped they are almost unnoticeable because real life MW50 was an antidetonation technique to allow higher boost together with some anti-corossion and the additional cooling provided was minimal.

[jermin]

Check your source please.

[GF_Mastiff]

Nice work PAPA!

[Redroach]

Originally Posted by FC99

There is a big difference between COD and Il2, Il2 has run its course and it doesn't make much difference for 1C will they sell 100 copies or 101 copies this year.
That gives us freedom to do things we think are right without being pressed by accountants and their profit margins.

OTOH COD has to make money, lot of money went into development and they have to make compromises. All of the commercial sims make compromises, make no mistake about it. They might be advertised as realistic and hardcore but they never are, none of them. When push comes to shove every developer will do what they have to do to turn biggest possible profit and that mean, satisfy your average customer.

DT doesn't have to do that, I can't say or promise that we will not make mistakes in development but I can assure you that balance or red and blue bias are not parts of our vocabulary. We will never deliberately do the wrong for the sake of balance,never.

FC

Yeah, I understand that, and that's why quite a few games I liked once are going steeply downhill because of some kids/seniors/mentally handicapped people screaming for (over-)simplification at the top of their lungs.
For me, personally, tweaking the game for people like this may win over some clients in the near-term, but will be very harmful in the longer term. But that's not the place to discuss that.
What I wanted to say is that exactly because of this, I reverted to Il-2. And what I wanted to express is that I deeply hope that TD's attitude vis-a-vis historicity stays the way it is... otherwise, the WWII combat sim genre will die out for me because I have nowhere else to go >.<

[K_Freddie]

Originally Posted by WhistlinggDeath

My own experience is just at about the 3 year mark with perhaps an average of an hour a day with IL2 (mainly online) over say five days out of every seven. So, very roughly, maybe ~ 700 to 900 hours over 3 years.

Hmmm! I'm looking at around 5000 hours over about 5 years.. and there are some here that have more than that...

With all the whining going.. on does anyone ever bother to just go up and practise with the new models - just get out there and do it..