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

[JG27CaptStubing]

.[/QUOTE]Stick itself is certainly one critical spot which, when hit successfully, will disable elevator and both ailerons. It does not matter if cables, rods of FBW is used. I do not know how exactly are hitboxes placed and which compromises had to be done to keep computer requirements on reasonable level. We all will have to live with it until new game engine comes. Just remember that this behaviour is not unique to FW190.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. I understand it's a limitation of a game and how hit boxes work but I think you can agree it's a pretty more implementation of what a complex damage model is and can be. It's very unique to the FW. In the 8 years I've been flying this I have yet to experiece all three axis wiped out in any other plane. Why not address that issue instead of continuing to built more airplanes which potentially introduce yet more problems?

Originally Posted by LesniHU

Strange. Track. Leak starts at 2:44, sealed around 7:00. Recorded on clean 4.08m, from qmb mission, on first try.
Selfsealing works. Case closed..

Not a very complete test... Did you try it on other planes and compare the time? Also I've had it seal on occasion. There are times it never seals even with 100% fuel the plane is empty in minutes. Like 2-3 to be exact. It's not a feeling and I'm not making it up. Try it again I can assure you its there. If it doesn't show up in the QMB then try it online.

Originally Posted by LesniHU

No, it was not attempt to obfuscate it, it was just simple attempt to show flaws in your logic, which, unfortunately, missed you completely..

Flaws in my logic. Check the records... I pointed out several problems some of which have been agreed to in this very thread. So wake up a bit and look around before you cast stones about logic.

Originally Posted by LesniHU

Your theory was: low average % to hit in A2A => weapon is inaccurate and need to be improved.
I only applied this theory to another weapon with low % to hit air targets (or at least I think it has low %, I did not verify it), outcome -according to your theory- was that weapon should be more accurate. If you disagree with this, you disagree with your own theory.

Apples and Trash Cans. Try to keep on track here. Just throwing in some random large caliber gun for AA to prove your point has nothing to do with the issue I pointed out. The simple fact is and remains .50cals are very accurate inherently add it six mounted weapons and they have a poorer percentage of hitting that the 4 wing mounted counterparts. At least I'm going off of my experience at the moment. I will have to get you some real stats. I usually hit on average 10%-18% with cannons and mixed MGs like FWs. Same amount of weapons mind you. My average drops down around 6-8 percent with 50s and yes I do know how to shoot.

Originally Posted by LesniHU

Stats can't be used for these purposes, there is too much possible explanations - from reasonable like "50cals are used to spray in low probability situations because have more ammo than cannons" to improbable like "most pilots always aim behind target so accurate weapon will register less hits than something with shotgun-like pattern". I hope you understand now why I used BK3.7 as example, if not, I will try to elaborate more..

I understand you used a large caliber very low rate of fire weapon as your example which is nothing like an MG which ROF can make a tremendous difference in terms of hitting percentage. Regardless you've chosen to ignore it so be it. At least people know where you stand.

Originally Posted by LesniHU

I'm sure DT will try to fix all errors (depending on difficulty of task and time available), but you have to *prove* it. No feelings, no personal experience from past years, nothing just because it was repeated thousand times, no earlier problems. Situation now, hard proof. This paragraph is not aimed at JG27CaptStubing only, I just wanted to use this occasion to write it before number of such requests for changes explodes and this thread turns into "red vs blue" battlefield.

I agree things must be stated and then backed up with some documentation or at least some simple testing that illustrates the issue. Didn't take much for your counterpart to figure out 47s Doras Tempests can easily break the sound barrier. That was done with a simple test.

My suggestion is before you jump on the bandwagon and become defensive try being open minded. There are many many posts about the 50s alone.

At one point we were told by Oleg the Muzzle Flash problem couldn't be fixed until a new engine. They where eventually fixed so please don't use that as an excuse. He has access to the Code.

I just hope you guys focus on fixing outstanding issues instead of adding more with new planes and new things. Let the sim catch up. It will make for a better product.

[LesniHU]

Originally Posted by JG27CaptStubing

I understand you used a large caliber very low rate of fire weapon as your example which is nothing like an MG which ROF can make a tremendous difference in terms of hitting percentage. Regardless you've chosen to ignore it so be it. At least people know where you stand.

ok, I said I will elaborate, I will.
How to "kill" proof, shown in math to make it as simple as possible:
statement X*X=3*X
counterexample: X=2 => 2*2=3*2, not true => original statement incorrect
That is what I did in first reply.
your statement: accuracy of weapon X is too low because hit ratio is low
my counterexample: X=BK3.7 => hit ratio of X=BK3.7 is low but its accuracy is fine => logic behind original statement incorrect
It cannot be more simple. Will continue below.

Originally Posted by JG27CaptStubing

I agree things must be stated and then backed up with some documentation or at least some simple testing that illustrates the issue. Didn't take much for your counterpart to figure out 47s Doras Tempests can easily break the sound barrier. That was done with a simple test.

Yes. It did not take much for me to figure out that your claim that "Antons non self-sealing fuel leaks..." are in fact common selfsealing tanks which behaves same way as other planes' tanks. That selfsealing works, contrary to your claim. Then I invested hour of my life to make actual flighttest showing selfsealing in action and post results, BTW something YOU could do too before even posting it. Then FC99 invested time of his life to make actual flighttest showing another plane leaking all fuel in matter of minutes, something YOU could do too before posting. I hope this will finally end the story and that I will not hear anything about hidden agenda or conspiracy.

You pointed several problems, ok, I did not comment them because either someone other did or I do not have all info at hand. I did not comment compressibility. I did not coment Hellcat performance. I did not comment .50 accuracy (!) (read this sentence again please) - what I did is that I killed your "proof". Before I could comment gun accuracy I would have to learn much about ballistics, rigidity of gun mounts, wings and nose and much other things. If you want .50 more accurate, you will have to do the same. Alternatively you can find historical documents and recreate test in game.

When you try to base .50 accuracy claims on hit ratio, I think its clear you can't be taken seriously. You really want to read in next readme "accuracy of .50cal increased because JG27CaptStubing's hit rate with them was lower than supposed"?

[JG27CaptStubing]

Originally Posted by LesniHU

ok, I said I will elaborate, I will.
How to "kill" proof, shown in math to make it as simple as possible:
statement X*X=3*X
counterexample: X=2 => 2*2=3*2, not true => original statement incorrect
That is what I did in first reply.
your statement: accuracy of weapon X is too low because hit ratio is low
my counterexample: X=BK3.7 => hit ratio of X=BK3.7 is low but its accuracy is fine => logic behind original statement incorrect
It cannot be more simple. Will continue below..

Yawn.. Please define "fine"

Just because you show some silly statement in math doesn't give any documentation or prove otherwise. "am I and others supposed to take your word for it?" Hmm suspect as usual. You can't because what your stating has nothing to do with the 50 cal...

Orginal statment still stands until you provide some actual test documentation. See how what you want is a double edge sword? The simple fact is a 5 year old thread with several tests done and screen shots you just want to go with whats what.

Lets just leave the 50s alone. Get to work and fix the damed Mach problem that I pointed out earlier.

Originally Posted by LesniHU

Yes. It did not take much for me to figure out that your claim that "Antons non self-sealing fuel leaks..." are in fact common selfsealing tanks which behaves same way as other planes' tanks. That selfsealing works, contrary to your claim. Then I invested hour of my life to make actual flighttest showing selfsealing in action and post results, BTW something YOU could do too before even posting it. Then FC99 invested time of his life to make actual flighttest showing another plane leaking all fuel in matter of minutes, something YOU could do too before posting. I hope this will finally end the story and that I will not hear anything about hidden agenda or conspiracy."?

Fantastic then. You have proven me wrong. Thank you for your testing. I feel much better now knowing this isn't a problem anymore.

Originally Posted by LesniHU

You pointed several problems, ok, I did not comment them because either someone other did or I do not have all info at hand. I did not comment compressibility. I did not coment Hellcat performance. I did not comment .50 accuracy (!) (read this sentence again please) - what I did is that I killed your "proof". Before I could comment gun accuracy I would have to learn much about ballistics, rigidity of gun mounts, wings and nose and much other things. If you want .50 more accurate, you will have to do the same. Alternatively you can find historical documents and recreate test in game..

Sure sure I will get right on that. I know you can't comment on compressibility because you probably don't have the documentation to back it up as presented earlier in the thread and by others. It's okay you comment on what you can.

Originally Posted by LesniHU

When you try to base .50 accuracy claims on hit ratio, I think its clear you can't be taken seriously. You really want to read in next readme "accuracy of .50cal increased because JG27CaptStubing's hit rate with them was lower than supposed"?

I'm sure you and some others won't take me seriously because you specifically feel that you're better now that you're part of DT. What I find odd about all this is when I pointed out other problems ie the Mach issue somehow it came out to be true. So I guess I'm only partially wrong in all my emotions and other claims right? Grab a glove and join the game. I only make claims to improve the game. Oddley enough it's aligned with the betterment of the game. So relax turbo and take it out of gear.

Capt Love

[LesniHU]

Originally Posted by JG27CaptStubing

Orginal statment still stands until you provide some actual test documentation. See how what you want is a double edge sword? The simple fact is a 5 year old thread with several tests done and screen shots you just want to go with whats what.

Lets just leave the 50s alone. Get to work and fix the damed Mach problem that I pointed out earlier.

...

Sure sure I will get right on that. I know you can't comment on compressibility because you probably don't have the documentation to back it up as presented earlier in the thread and by others. It's okay you comment on what you can.

That 5 year old thread is from time approx 14 (fourteen!) patches ago. I did some tests and IvanK did some, I looked in the code too, but will not spend my time presenting results because you are still in 2004 set not to believe anything else that you already "know".
I did not comment compressibility because IvanK already did. FYI I already had these data before 2007 when I first modeled compresibility in il2 engine and effort to implement it to DT patches was already running for some time before this thread even started.
Otherwise you are right, I should get to work, I already wasted too much time on this conversation. Thank you for your participation in this thread.

[JG27CaptStubing]

Originally Posted by LesniHU

That 5 year old thread is from time approx 14 (fourteen!) patches ago. I did some tests and IvanK did some, I looked in the code too, but will not spend my time presenting results because you are still in 2004 set not to believe anything else that you already "know".
I did not comment compressibility because IvanK already did. FYI I already had these data before 2007 when I first modeled compresibility in il2 engine and effort to implement it to DT patches was already running for some time before this thread even started.
Otherwise you are right, I should get to work, I already wasted too much time on this conversation. Thank you for your participation in this thread.

The point of talking about the old thread was to illustrate just how much of an issue it was at the time. That isn't to say it's not an issue now. It took quite a bit to get some changes implemented some of which were made public and some weren't.

I'm glad you guys are working on the compresibility portion of the sim. It's clear the sim was meant to be a tactical ground pounding sim with little in the way of coming close to Mach. I'm glad to see some attention was made to high Altitude performance and the addition of high performance aircraft. It's clear some more attention would be good. It's obvious from a testing perspective without the tools there aren't any maps with standard temps and pressures to do some actual testing. None that I know of at least. Hopefully some of these third party tools will mature and you guys will have a positive effect in this regard. Then there can be no whining.

I certainly hope you guys have the opportunity to address some of the issues raised wheather you think they are there or not. The fact is if you look you will find fault with some of the modeling of this game. It's after all a 40 dollar game not a multi million dollar study sim.

I hope that some of the built in limitations of DM FMs can be expanded and modeled so the sim reaches yet another level beyond what we have today.

Good luck in your efforts.