|
|
|||||||
| IL-2 Sturmovik The famous combat flight simulator. |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
09-26-2009, 06:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
FC99 don't put words in my mouth please.
|
|
#3
09-26-2009, 07:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I can see why Oleg stopped interacting with people on forums.
I totally respect his decision to do that. Without him, our options are limited severely for quality WWII sims in the future. I patiently await this patch and the next sim. |
|
#5
09-26-2009, 08:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
i thought that trading 3 control axies for PK was quite teh funneh
 about the fuel leak bug: i do remember that 190s (and P47s), after one patch, would catch fire VERY easily after an outcry, the easy-fire stopped after the next patch..funny thing was, the "fuel leak bug" appeared then, as light puffy cloud at engine area trailing light smoke...IMO, as a "feelings experten", this was the same fire from before but cosmetically changed from fire to smoke to appease/fool the whiners the really funny thing was, i found, that 2 patches later, the exact same thing could happen to (at least) all the other US types, F4Us, P47, P51, P38 in any event, it is what it is, i dont see why any type with seal-sealing tanks could not suffer catastrophic failure and lose all fuel in short order IRL...its annoying, but live with it, and set your glide hdg towards home about TD looking into CoG issues with P51 (or any other type for that matter), AFAIK, il2 does not model separate fuel tanks in P51, hence there is no real problem in that regards? |
|
#6
09-27-2009, 12:12 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
The "burning planes" was the same sort of thing. When someone sprung a leak, you could light it off by firing tracers through the leak cloud, and it would burn until the plane exploded, or the fuel ran out. People just noticed more often on the 190 and P-47, because those two took a whole lot more damage to bring down than other planes, but I found you could do the same thing to 109's, and pretty much anything else that took more than two burps of 0.50 cal. Was great fun until they fixed it. The issue with the P-51 CoG is that as I understand it, Il-2 models the plane's fuel tank system as a single larger fuel tank placed at the aggregate CoG of the entire system, and as a consequence, all tanks are treated, in effect as though they were being drained equally. On most planes that is fine, because the fuel system as a whole is balanced around the aircraft's Center of Gravity. The P-51's is not. The Mustang has two 540lb (245kg) fuel tanks placed in the wing spars, placed very close the to CoG, and in the P-51B-10, they added a 3rd 510lb (230kg) fuel tank behind the pilot, about 3-4 feet behind the CoG. Picture, if you will, a P-51 with a 500lb bomb hung off of the radiator. The upshot of this is, during flight, the center of mass of the P-51's fuel system move forward several feet during the first third of the flight, and then for the next 1,200 miles, just wobbles right a left a bit, as the pilot juggles the wing tanks to keep some semblance of roll balance. Actually, after reading through all of what I just wrote, I just realized, a balanced fuel system isn't going to induce large CoG shifts as it drains. Does Il-2 even have the capacity to model CoG shifts as the fuel system empties? Harry Voyager Addendum: If you guys are able to produce a solution for the P-51 CoG, could you flow it over to the BoP dev team? At the moment, the P-51D is about the only USAAF fighter they've got right now, it could really use that balance fix. Last edited by Voyager; 09-27-2009 at 12:15 AM. |
|
#7
09-27-2009, 04:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Voyager said:
"Actually, after reading through all of what I just wrote, I just realized, a balanced fuel system isn't going to induce large CoG shifts as it drains. Does Il-2 even have the capacity to model CoG shifts as the fuel system empties?" Precisely and at present no, IL2 doesn't vary C of G for fuel burn off. Which is why comments like the P51 (at present) flies like crap because the C of G with the rear fuselage tank and its incorrect feed schedule are wrong shows a basic lack of understanding of the how the stock IL2 fuel system and C of G model is used. It also shows (imo) a lack of understanding of Pitch stability and the effect of C of G has on it. One thing IL2 can do is vary C of G dynamically as a function of weapons use. If you want to get a feel for what flying with an Aft C of G in a fighter is like in IL2 then try this. Jump in the YAK 7B set 25% fuel and 128 Ptabs. This results in a C of G way aft as the PTABS are internally stored aft of the cockpit. Go for a fly to get a feel for it . Then do a 1 v 1 with a comparable opponent. I think you will agree its not pleasant to fly in this configuration. Drop the PTABS the C of G moves forward to a more respectable position and pitch stability improves dramatically and it becomes a comfortable old Yak again. The P51 with fuel in the fuselage tank will behave similarly. So if modeling C of G movement as a function of Fuel usage is achieved, and manual fuel tank selection is possible in IL2 (so as was done IRL the Fuselage tank can be selected to feed first) then P51 pitch stability is going to be a whole bunch worse than what you now have in Il2 with fuel in the fuselage tank. As the fuselage tank fuel is burnt pitch stability will return to something close to what we now have in game. The P51 with fuel in the fuselage tank was not a pleasant aeroplane to fly the various Flight manuals are full of advice like: RAAF P51 Flight Manual AP780 : When the fuselage tank is full, the aircraft is longitudinally unstable in all conditions of flight and tends to tighten up in turns .... no maneuvers other than gentle turns should be attempted. USAAF AAF Manual 51-127-5 (PG 67) Be especially careful in handling the stick when the fuselage tank contains more than 25 gallons of gas. In this case the flying characteristics of the airplane change considerably....The weight of this fuel shifts the centre of gravity back so the airplane is unsuitable for anything but straight and level flight. ....With the fuselage tank full the centre of gravity of the airplane moves back so far that it is almost impossible to trim the airplane for hands off level flight. Last edited by IvanK; 09-27-2009 at 04:13 AM. |
|
#9
09-26-2009, 08:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
People tend to resort to name calling when they don't know how to properly put up an argument to the issue raised. It's easier just to sweep it under the rug and call it whinning. What I find funny about all this so called whinning some how slowly but surely we see things change. I would say for the better to be honest. Getting rid of the muzzle flash during daylight is a great example. Also when others have been presented with documentation it's often overlooked as being Propaganda. What ever...
Typical closed minded stuff we've seen from day one. It's okay you go back to what you think is important... After all this is about you and your efforts. Us whinners will go back to the shadows where we belong. Last edited by JG27CaptStubing; 09-26-2009 at 08:33 PM. |
|
#10
09-26-2009, 08:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I will adultly and polite ask a question to the TD
Have DT any plane, to correct the the sound in the game? I feel no matter what you correct in a P51 or what aircraft you ad to the game I miss the feeling of sitting in a aircraft, simply becarse of the ingame sound we have today. As an exampel what Im aiming for, I have add 2 videos that I fell are woth listen to. My best regards http://vimeo.com/6667705 http://vimeo.com/6682092 |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
