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

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover

IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover Latest instalment in the acclaimed IL-2 Sturmovik series from award-winning developer Maddox Games.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 10-05-2012, 03:35 PM
Catseye's Avatar
Catseye Catseye is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 242
Default

Whew, gotta cut down on the beer and sausage!

Good find guys. The devil certainly is in the details. 1C have indicated in the past that they model on real specs. Hopefully they will get to them before the final patch.

Cheers

Last edited by Catseye; 10-05-2012 at 03:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 10-05-2012, 03:44 PM
JtD JtD is offline
Il-2 enthusiast & Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 903
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyingblind View Post
Very interesting. One point which might be worth considering is whether the real life weight includes a pilot. If not then the game weight would need to be a little heavier to allow for this although you would be unlikely to have a 700lb guy sat in the seat!
Pilot is part of service load and included. It should still be noted that wartime tare figures and in game tare figure have little in common, what one has to look for is that fully loaded planes in game and real life have the same weight, and that usables like fuel and ammo correspond to historical figures. Empty weight historically, depending on air force and time, sometimes does not include guns, radio, armour and other things like survival gear, flares, gunsights, guncams, oxygen equipment etc., while in game it does.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 10-05-2012, 05:15 PM
zapatista's Avatar
zapatista zapatista is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,172
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JtD View Post
Pilot is part of service load and included. It should still be noted that wartime tare figures and in game tare figure have little in common, what one has to look for is that fully loaded planes in game and real life have the same weight, and that usables like fuel and ammo correspond to historical figures. Empty weight historically, depending on air force and time, sometimes does not include guns, radio, armour and other things like survival gear, flares, gunsights, guncams, oxygen equipment etc., while in game it does.
but that logic should then similarly apply to the spitfire and 109, yet neither of those has the "overweight problem" that the hurricane indicates according to Buzzsaw's OP
__________________
President Dwight D. Eisenhower 1953: Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone, it is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 10-05-2012, 05:28 PM
csThor csThor is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: somewhere in Germany
Posts: 1,213
Default

All 109s were too heavy when I last checked. Haven't noticed that this has been corrected, yet, either.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 10-05-2012, 05:49 PM
Kwiatek's Avatar
Kwiatek Kwiatek is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 367
Default

FM and performace still need a lot of correction in CLOD:

- wrong weight of planes - overweight

- wrong maximum speed - all fighters are too slow

- wrong climb rate - too slow climb rate at medium to high alts

- wrong maximum service celling - way to low service celling

I know ( beacuse i was FM modder in old Il2) that such things was possible to make in il2 1946 i wonder what stops 1C to make it correct and more acccurate in CLOD???
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 10-05-2012, 06:07 PM
zapatista's Avatar
zapatista zapatista is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,172
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by csThor View Post
All 109s were too heavy when I last checked. Haven't noticed that this has been corrected, yet, either.
but by only about less then a 1/10th the amount we are now discussing for the hurricane, so not really relevant

if buzzsaw is correct, and by all indications so far he is, then this is a massive problem for the hurricane which needs to be resolved quickly
__________________
President Dwight D. Eisenhower 1953: Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone, it is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children

Last edited by zapatista; 10-06-2012 at 07:17 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 10-05-2012, 06:18 PM
Kurfürst Kurfürst is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 705
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zapatista View Post
but by only about 1/10th the amount

if buzzsaw is correct, and by all indications so far he is, then this is a massive problem for the hurricane which needs to be resolved quickly
It doesn't matter so much because how the FM is set up. The basic performance data seems to be set in stone (speed, climb, turn), and the engine just works out the results for different speeds/angles of attack/altitudes. More weight just not effects the raw performance so much as in real life, though it may well effect the handling/behaviour.

For example, since power and max speed are set, the engine may work out the acceleration from this, for which it also takes account weight. In the end, acceleration for example may be less due to increased weight, even though the plane reaches the same speed and turns just as well. OTOH it may well dive better than it should due to increased cross sectional densitity.

In short the effects are secondary, not primary.
__________________
Il-2Bugtracker: Feature #200: Missing 100 octane subtypes of Bf 109E and Bf 110C http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/200
Il-2Bugtracker: Bug #415: Spitfire Mk I, Ia, and Mk II: Stability and Control http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/415

Kurfürst - Your resource site on Bf 109 performance! http://kurfurst.org
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 10-05-2012, 06:47 PM
*Buzzsaw* *Buzzsaw* is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Vancouver Canada
Posts: 467
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurfürst View Post
The so-called "armor plating over the tank" is in fact just a very slightly thicker aluminium plate over the fuel tank (its more like a deflector plate since it can really stop bullets unless they come in a shallow angle)
Maybe you'd like to provide some proof for this assertion?

The weight added for the cockpit bullet proof glass and over tank armour is a total of 434 lbs, seems excessive if the armour plating was simply a thin sheet of aluminum. My understanding it was actual steel plate. I will be checking further references.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 10-05-2012, 06:52 PM
JtD JtD is offline
Il-2 enthusiast & Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 903
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zapatista View Post
but that logic should then similarly apply to the spitfire and 109, yet neither of those has the "overweight problem" that the hurricane indicates according to Buzzsaw's OP
That logic indeed applies to Spitfire and 109 as well, and so it does to all other planes. If they aren't overweight or less overweight, they are simply not done as wrongly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurfürst View Post
It doesn't matter so much because how the FM is set up. The basic performance data seems to be set in stone (speed, climb, turn), and the engine just works out the results for different speeds/angles of attack/altitudes. More weight just not effects the raw performance so much as in real life, though it may well effect the handling/behaviour.
That's not quite right. Of course it is possible to reach correct performance with totally wrong input numbers in game, but once you have your parameters set, and then change weight, there'll be the associated loss in performance just like it would be in real life. But be this as it may, imo a simulation game should have both, input and output correct. Otherwise the term simulation is just an empty phrase. Proper weights are one of the foundations for this.

Like I've said before, the FM of the Hurricane as listed in that other topic is essentially the same which was used in il-2 1946. Same fundamental flaws. It's a nasty surprise it was carried over 1:1.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 10-05-2012, 06:58 PM
JtD JtD is offline
Il-2 enthusiast & Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 903
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Buzzsaw* View Post
The weight added for the cockpit bullet proof glass and over tank armour is a total of 434 lbs, seems excessive if the armour plating was simply a thin sheet of aluminum. My understanding it was actual steel plate. I will be checking further references.
Maybe you guys are talking about something different? The aircraft tested had so called fuel tank armour fitted already, and the overload condition was still on top of this.
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 09:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.