Official Fulqrum Publishing forum - 4-12 wish list (Merged)

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)

- Daidalos Team discussions (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=202)

- - 4-12 wish list (Merged) (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=29249)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pursuivant (Post 494336)

...
If you want more realism, though, you'd need to have some roleplaying aspects, such as keeping track of which crew have which skills. Realistic simulation of multi-crewed aircraft would be a lot of work. But, it would be cool to track things like intercom failure, frostbite, oxygen failure, etc. which plagued bombers crews. It would also be nice if you could command crew to do things like bring ammo to compatible gun stations where's run out (and keep track of ammo for flexible guns), unjam bomb bay doors, release stuck bombs, render first aid, put out fires using hand-held extinguishers, etc.
...

Me gusta, that would be really cool addition!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pursuivant (Post 494336)

Tanks full of Avgas sort of act as flotation devices since oil is less dense than water.

Even so, oil/avgas are not lighter than air.
As such, draining both tanks(which would simultaneously fill them with air) would make for more effective floatation and less weight(thus higher on the water) than leaving them full.
Reducing overall mass would also reduce the damage caused by the initial impact into the water.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Viking (Post 494108)

I'd like to see longer wakes after the ships. More realistic.

I remember seeing something about a carrier pilot who had a lightning strike take out most of his instruments.
He actually found the carrier at night because he followed the algae churned up in the wake of the ship. So presumably large ships would leave behind quite a trail(even if not exactly a wake).

Quote:

Originally Posted by RegRag1977 (Post 457289)

When two aircraft collide, the more robust in construction suffers less damage. Or at least both suffer fatal damages.

Anything than instant explosion would be an improvement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bearcat (Post 464017)

A possible workaround to that could be to try to time a mission so that when the strike group arrives the AI ships will begin a zig zag course.. I have seen this in coops before..

Having built one such mission, yeah, it indeed it a tedious task. Non the less, if we could have at least proper banking and turning simulated followed by proper curved wake texture it would add so much to those who build such missions.

Here is one idea for bomber pilots, especially since B-24 is being built now: ability to control or give some kind of input to our gunners (e.g. range at which they start firing, hold fire, scan the horizon / return to cruise mode* etc.), perhaps even have AI gunners calling out spotted bandits.

* This alone would add so much immersion to those flying bombers in formation.

for 4.1x...

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1984 (Post 463740)

1. yak-9m with vk-105pf2 engine...

about m-105 engines and these, i think, important yaks...

at first, what i found about engines (few of various pics attached)...

m-105p/pa – 1020-1050 hp at sl (nominal power, + 5 min. forzash with 1100 hp only before 200? m)...

m-105pf - 1210 hp at sl (nominal)...

m-105pf2 (vk-105pf2) - 1290 hp at sl (nominal)...

next, we know what in 44 yak-9 (m,d,t) in good condition had 525-545 kph at sl and >537-540, maybe, because new prop (like vish-105v4 for la-5fn/7)... well, anyway, 110 hp gives for yak-1,7,9 in 42-43 - only my opinion - around 15 kph (in total, confirmed in one document, later about this and yak-7b/lagg-3 in 42)... so, if pf2 really had 1290 hp, this engine can give for yak-9 with middle speed 537 around 10 kph, ie, 537+10=547 for normal yak-9m with pf-2 in autumn-winter'44 and later, or 550-555 kph for best yaks...

maybe, this simple calculation sometimes little wrong, but, anyway pf2 really gives for serial yaks better performance - well, i think, it's important like f-4 1.42? ata in early 42 - and it's reason why we need this yak in game, especially, because need do only other performance...

other reason, yak-3, la-7 and especially yak-9u were new types with some defects sometimes, and, if i'm not mistaken, not most mass fighters even in 45, so, better versions of really mass planes it's not whims or something like this (this i can say and about la-5f with metal spars)...

well, maybe, it's why even bf 109 with mw-50 and fw 190a 1.58/1.65 ata especially as F/G, besides poorer quality of german planes in 44-45, were not so dangerous for these yaks... but it's only my simple theory...

in ideal, if i'm not mistaken, need other number of shells/rounds for weapon (like 120/220 or 140/220 or 135/240 etc), some types of bombs and more correctly performances in total (for example, now wrong weight 3029 kg instead around 3050-3090 kg)...

and... just, remind and for start...

here most correctly drawings - how said at scalemodels.ru - for some series of yak-9t/m/dd (initials of the author, with same forum, in drawings)...

i hope, it's helps if DT wants change 3d model (or someone like JapanCat:)), especially, because we can see what front bulletproof for many yaks in game wrongly...

Quote:

prototype of not serial yak-9p...

hmm, maybe, all the same, these yak-9p m-105pf, yak-7p m-105pf and yak-9s and other similar, mainly, experimental yaks must wait... better do something like yak-7b or ki-44 or a-36 etc etc etc... maybe, chance have only yak-7p with 3 shvaks - together with new yak-7b - because (it's only from one source) he "returned in 1 AR (air army) and could be used in combats after elimination of defects" (for prototype, how with yak-9k, was used repaired yak-7)...

Wreckage of other airplanes can hit other airplanes, example, one airplane explodes and its wreckage could hit other airplanes.

sry for my bad translate english

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pursuivant (Post 494340)

+1

But, it depends on how fast the ship was going and how big it is.

Of course, what would be really cool is if ships could try to take evasive action against bombs and torpedoes, making the wake effects look like period pictures.

It could be nice too to be able to shoot torpedoes with your bullet to destroy them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nic727 (Post 494563)

It could be nice too to be able to shoot torpedoes with your bullet to destroy them.

I also miss the possibility of shooting down the BAT bomb. As it glides pretty slowly, it's frustrating to see bullets gone through doing no harm :/

Quote:

Originally Posted by nic727 (Post 494563)

It could be nice too to be able to shoot torpedoes with your bullet to destroy them.

Did this ever happen in real life?
Torpedoes do not generally run on the surface but at a set depth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pfeil (Post 494378)

True. Some fuel systems actually route exhaust gasses into the fuel tanks as a fire protection (the layer of CO2 and other gasses prevents a spark in the tank from igniting the fuel). In a few cases, there are fuel bladders which collapse as the fuel empties, so they wouldn't provide flotation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pfeil (Post 494378)

This is a bit of an unusual situation, since bioluminescent plankton don't appear in all waters, and they continue to glow for a while after they are agitated; possibly even after the ship's wake has subsided. (And damned lucky for the pilot!)

Even so, big ships traveling at speed leave long wakes. It would be wonderful if ships in IL2 looked like this:

http://bellsouthpwp2.net/e/a/ea_herr/Friday13th.jpg

http://bellsouthpwp2.net/e/a/ea_herr/NightFight2.gif

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/i...01/f003725.jpg

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/i...01/f004845.jpg

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/i...01/f057576.jpg

Note long wakes at high speeds and evasive action to avoid bombs and torpedoes.