Daidalos Team's Room -QUESTIONS AND REQUESTS ONLY on IL2 Authorized Addons

[JG27CaptStubing]

Originally Posted by IvanK

Capt Stubbing .

In your reply you state that you are seeing the effects start at 300mph but don't state at what altitude. Well that could be the case depending on altitude. Its not an IAS but a Mach number problem. In the chart you post note that at 30,000feet the limit is in fact 290Kias this equating to 0.68Mach. The limit of onset values (at 1G) is solely Dependant on Mach number. This is exactly what is happening in Il2. I have the luxury of real time Mach number display in the tests I perform. So far in what I see the onset of compressibility in the P38 is almost exactly on the documented numbers..

That was at 14K and below. I think your right that the "tuck under" does start at the right IAS or close to it but prior the planes elevator effectiveness is so reduced it may as well be part of the compression problem or some other mythical cement elevator. Read the statments above about how these problems were solved and they virutually had no issues 15K and below.

Originally Posted by IvanK

As to why the other aircraft don't have the same issue. Well many of them didn't in real life suffer quite the same problem as the P38. The design of the P38 resulted in a fairly low (by comparison with the other types) Critical Mach number (Mcrit). Further complicating this was the design of its tailplane, a large surface immediately behind and in the combined downwash of the inner wing cockpit cuploa area. So the P38 had an inherently lower Mcrit than the others types. There is for example documented cases of late model Spitfires achieving Mach 0.92.... a speed no P38 would ever approach.

What you're saying is all true but it also depends upon what version of the plane and if it had the changes mentioned above which supposedly got rid of some of those problems.

Originally Posted by IvanK

You also state:

"The flaps we have in the game are nothing more than a Speed Brake which slows the plane down and causes some sort of lifting action. "

I disagree, again the documentation on the P38 describes the effects of the Dive flaps resulted in up to a 4G pitch up raising the nose and assisting the pilots recovery. Sure the increase in Drag will assist in deceleration but the prime function of the P38 Dive brakes was to get the nose pitching up. It does exactly that in IL2 as well. (BTW don't forget that dive flaps of almost exactly the same design were fitted to late model P47D's and other types). To test in Il2 get yourself to Vmax at sea level and activate the Dive brakes what happens ? just a decel or decel + pitch up ?

Lets be clear... They are "Dive Recovery Flaps" not Dive Brakes. In my earlier post where I quoted they are not meant to be dive brakes is very true. It was a device meant to move the center of lift back over the wing area instead of the tail area hence the problem. Since I'm not a P-38 pilot I can't comment on what it would be like to use them in real life. By the accounts given Olegs version does seem about right after reading through it again. Though I still think the problem starts with the cement elevators very early on and continue throughout the dive.

Originally Posted by IvanK

I do agree with you that some types P47,D9 and Tempest do end up at huge Mach numbers (1.15 in my tests) which are unrealistic. Rest assured this is being looked at. The Il2 FM was never really designed to model compressibility to the nth degree. The DT team is aware of this and is discussing this and other things.

I agree you can tell the sim wasn't meant to really be a study sim about compression problems.

Since you're at it what about some of the other issues I mentioned?

Accuracy of 50 cals on wing mounted 6 gun platforms? I think their hitting power is fine by the way.

Horse Power on the F6F which seems to be anemic at best. I need to do some real testing here but I think this plane has been ignored for sometime now.

Antons losing all 3 control axis from a single shot even with pushrod accuated control surfaces. Antons non self-sealing fuel leaks or what I call a fuel leak bug which empties the plane in a matter of minutes.

[FC99]

Originally Posted by JG27CaptStubing

Since you're at it what about some of the other issues I mentioned?

Accuracy of 50 cals on wing mounted 6 gun platforms? I think their hitting power is fine by the way.

This is new one for me, what is wrong with accuracy?

Horse Power on the F6F which seems to be anemic at best. I need to do some real testing here but I think this plane has been ignored for sometime now.

There are almost 300 planes in game it is not surprising that some problems are not solved. Best way to get issues fixed is to collect reference material, make in game tests and politely ask for fix.

Antons losing all 3 control axis from a single shot even with pushrod accuated control surfaces.

No problem, we will replace it with PK.

Antons non self-sealing fuel leaks or what I call a fuel leak bug which empties the plane in a matter of minutes.

I don't see a problem there, FW have self sealing tanks which stops some fuel leaks just like in any other plane with self sealing tanks. Completely realistic IMO.

FC

[KG26_Alpha]

Quote:
Antons losing all 3 control axis from a single shot even with pushrod accuated control surfaces.

No problem, we will replace it with PK.

Quote:
Antons non self-sealing fuel leaks or what I call a fuel leak bug which empties the plane in a matter of minutes.

I don't see a problem there, FW have self sealing tanks which stops some fuel leaks just like in any other plane with self sealing tanks. Completely realistic IMO.

FC

.................................................. ..............

Lets hope your not doing FM & DM just AI on your team then.

[JG27CaptStubing]

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

Quote:
Antons losing all 3 control axis from a single shot even with pushrod accuated control surfaces.

No problem, we will replace it with PK.

Quote:
Antons non self-sealing fuel leaks or what I call a fuel leak bug which empties the plane in a matter of minutes.

I don't see a problem there, FW have self sealing tanks which stops some fuel leaks just like in any other plane with self sealing tanks. Completely realistic IMO.

FC

.................................................. ..............

Lets hope your not doing FM & DM just AI on your team then.

+1

[rakinroll]

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

.................................................. ..............

Lets hope your not doing FM & DM just AI on your team then.

Amen!

[MicroWave]

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

Quote:
Antons losing all 3 control axis from a single shot even with pushrod accuated control surfaces.

No problem, we will replace it with PK.

Quote:
Antons non self-sealing fuel leaks or what I call a fuel leak bug which empties the plane in a matter of minutes.

I don't see a problem there, FW have self sealing tanks which stops some fuel leaks just like in any other plane with self sealing tanks. Completely realistic IMO.

FC

.................................................. ..............

Lets hope your not doing FM & DM just AI on your team then.

Sorry to disappoint you.
FC's comments although harsh, are spot on from what I've seen.

@all
Please, when you would like to make a suggestion or ask for a fix, add some documentation. It is impossible for us to follow every discussion in all forums.
Il2 world is 'object rich' with all the benefits and problems this 'richness' brings. You can use Daidalos Team e-mail to do that (we would also prefer comprehensible subject title).
I need to state that we can't add/fix everything. Some things will take precedence over the others based on complexity of the issue, new quality this issue can bring into the sim, available time and personal preference.

Now, I would like to add some comments of my own about accuracy issue raised by JG27CaptStubing.
I haven't investigated all the possibilities and some of it comes from my bad memory.
Each gun type is represented by it's own class. In each of them there is just a type of bullet(s) (weight, initial velocity, explosive power if any, RoF, visual effects, etc). IIRC, trajectory of all these is calculated in one (1) piece of code for all guns without discrimination towards 0.50s or any other gun. From this point of view, I find it very hard to believe that 0.50 have accuracy problems.
Proper testing environment to prove that there is an accuracy problem might be difficult to achieve. I don't think that it is possible to compare different guns in combat due to different bullet characteristics, the fact that different planes require different firing solutions, etc.
For example (disclaimer: I fly like a brick) when I fly FW190s I prefer to take larger lead and let the target fly through the bullet stream (that doesn't happen as frequently as I would like to). There is plenty of ammo in those birds and I try to use B&Z (badly). As a result, my hit rate with FW190s is smaller than with, say Bf109s. Therefore, I'm inclined to believe that online statistics is not the proper testing environment.

So, is there a problem with bullet trajectories of 0.50s in Il2 that you can document? Is there a problem with planes or their flying characteristics with this armament that would lead to accuracy problems (I think you mentioned some wobbling)?

[ramstein]

Does this mean, the P51 balance from the center, behind the seat fuel tank, can be corrected by having the center (fuselage) fuel tank drain first? The plane is horribly out of balance. It flies like crap until somone cares to fix this problem. Over the years everyone else refused to fix it.

Along with crappy guns that need corrected. They don't have the punch they should.

The P47 roll rate is one more problem that needs fixed, it needs to roll faster as it did in real life.

Those are the two most important items for most of the pilots for American planes.

If there is going to be work done, can we asked these items please be addressed?

is this true more work wil be done on IL-2?

Or are late comers asking for the things that data was supplied for for many years, yet Olegs team never fixed.. all of the data was supplied over these past years...

thanx..

[JG27CaptStubing]

Originally Posted by MicroWave

Sorry to disappoint you.
FC's comments although harsh, are spot on from what I've seen.)

Please elaborate. In what way?

You can just sit there an ignore it all you want but anyone who has flown the Anton series over the years can tell you first hand it has a fuel leak bug. It's your choice if you want to investigate it. I could care less about the lack of professionalism.

Originally Posted by MicroWave

@all
Please, when you would like to make a suggestion or ask for a fix, add some documentation. It is impossible for us to follow every discussion in all forums.
Il2 world is 'object rich' with all the benefits and problems this 'richness' brings. You can use Daidalos Team e-mail to do that (we would also prefer comprehensible subject title).
I need to state that we can't add/fix everything. Some things will take precedence over the others based on complexity of the issue, new quality this issue can bring into the sim, available time and personal preference..)

Clearly you have your own agenda.

Originally Posted by MicroWave

@Now, I would like to add some comments of my own about accuracy issue raised by JG27CaptStubing.
I haven't investigated all the possibilities and some of it comes from my bad memory.
Each gun type is represented by it's own class. In each of them there is just a type of bullet(s) (weight, initial velocity, explosive power if any, RoF, visual effects, etc). IIRC, trajectory of all these is calculated in one (1) piece of code for all guns without discrimination towards 0.50s or any other gun. From this point of view, I find it very hard to believe that 0.50 have accuracy problems.
Proper testing environment to prove that there is an accuracy problem might be difficult to achieve. I don't think that it is possible to compare different guns in combat due to different bullet characteristics, the fact that different planes require different firing solutions, etc...)

Testing aye?

Here is an old 35 page thread on Ubi that talks about the tests and some of the findings. It was ignored as usual.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/t.../979109092/p/1

Gibbage did quite a bit of testing and it does show out of all the guns the 50s have had an issue with dispersion. It's still present today.

It's one of many threads brought up about the 50 cal.

[csThor]

Now, Capt, there is no need to go the "sour grapes" way already. You're obviously passionate about the P-38 and everything pertaining to it, but that doesn't mean DT has to and is going to jump just at your request. You see there are thousands of people with thousands of ideas what can and should be corrected in which way - which translates into thousands of folks pulling DT's attention into thousands of directions. And we @ DT are damned already because we can't please them all. Does that mean we're ignorant or that we don't care about accuracy? No, most certainly not.

I, for example, am glad that I can't code worth a damn so I do not envy the FM and coding guys one bit.

[JG27CaptStubing]

Originally Posted by csThor

Now, Capt, there is no need to go the "sour grapes" way already. You're obviously passionate about the P-38 and everything pertaining to it, but that doesn't mean DT has to and is going to jump just at your request. You see there are thousands of people with thousands of ideas what can and should be corrected in which way - which translates into thousands of folks pulling DT's attention into thousands of directions. And we @ DT are damned already because we can't please them all. Does that mean we're ignorant or that we don't care about accuracy? No, most certainly not.

I, for example, am glad that I can't code worth a damn so I do not envy the FM and coding guys one bit.

There are No Sour Grapes here... Just a natural response to FCs blunt we will switch losing all three Axis in the FW to a PK. Lame response and shows very little respect for those that are aware of the problems.

I really doubt there are 1000s of people pulling DTs time at the moment. This is a very tiny community. There is a reason why some of them are in here looking at comments and responding.

In terms of the 38 you can look at the earlier posts and I'm glad some testing was done. At least it shows a willingness to look at issues that were raised some time ago and were blown off. I doubt we will see anything change per the norm even with documentation.