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

[ramstein]

Just in case you were unaware,
regarding fuel transfer..

we, the whole community that cares.. has asked for the ability to chnage the fuel tanlk feeds on aircraft, especially on the totally porked P51, whose wrong modelling has the center fuel tank draining last, which is totally wrong,, and should and was always drained first, due to horrible handling with a full fuselage fuel tank..

This problem has been going on for at least 5 years.. so yes, everyone has already asked for what you asked for... but the more the merrier in our quest to fix this huge problem..

FYI

Originally Posted by Sutts

Team Daidalos,

Thanks for all your amazing work, I'm hugely excited about the AI and radio navigation changes. This sim just gets better and better.

If you could give us proper mixture controls on US aircraft I'd be over the moon. If (one day) the use of Auto Lean allowed us to reduce fuel consumption and extend range then I'd be wetting myself. The ability to switch between fuel tanks with a fuel booster pump switch to avoid feed problems during switch over would also improve immersion no end.

I'm sure I can't be the only one who longs for a pilot work load approaching that of real pilots. Managing fuel consumption and watching temps and pressures was an important part of any mission and forgetting procedures really could be life threatening. This kind of thing also keeps your mind occupied on long missions.

Finally, one of the most critical things that is preventing the flying of realistic historical missions is the inability to save state mid-mission. This would allow longer missions to be flown over several sittings for those of us with limited time. I do realise that this is probably way too complex a request but if you don't ask....

Thanks again for your efforts. Whatever new features you can provide for us will be very much appreciated.

[AndyJWest]

...the totally porked P51, whose wrong modelling has the center fuel tank draining last, which is totally wrong,, and should and was always drained first, due to horrible handling with a full fuselage fuel tank..

I may be wrong about this, but I don't think that IL-2 models CoG changes with decreasing fuel load. Perhaps TD can enlighten us on this?

In any case, do you want the CoG further forward to increase stability, or further back to increase manoeuvrability? People seem to complain about both.

As for whether the P-51 is really 'totally porked', there seem to be differing opinions. I'd say in it's proper context, as a long-range escort fighter, working at high altitudes, it is fine.

[Qpassa]

Check this video, I have done it.
Theres some bugs with the "ramps" over the land & water

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlWU8LUTaqs

[rakinroll]

[ramstein]

it's not a question of what we want, it's a question of being modelled correctly, to match the real world fm/dm, as historic as it is and was in real life..

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

I may be wrong about this, but I don't think that IL-2 models CoG changes with decreasing fuel load. Perhaps TD can enlighten us on this?

In any case, do you want the CoG further forward to increase stability, or further back to increase manoeuvrability? People seem to complain about both.

As for whether the P-51 is really 'totally porked', there seem to be differing opinions. I'd say in it's proper context, as a long-range escort fighter, working at high altitudes, it is fine.

[AndyJWest]

Originally Posted by ramstein

it's not a question of what we want, it's a question of being modelled correctly, to match the real world fm/dm, as historic as it is and was in real life..

I agree, but I don't think that saying the P-51 is 'porked' without saying how is particularly constructive. You seemed to be suggesting that the aircraft was modelled with the CoG too far back. Moving it forward will increase stability, but reduce manoeuvrability Is that what you want?

As for matching the 'real world', I think IL-2 did a reasonable job when it was written, though there have been disagreements about particular aircraft. It is unlikely that TD are going to do anything fundamental to the basic flight model engine, though they have said that they may look at adjusting particular aircraft provided sufficient documentation is given. Simply saying 'it's porked, fix it' isn't likely to achieve a great deal.

What is it you think is wrong? If you can at least indicate where you think the faults are, perhaps others can chip in with their comments.

[Tempest123]

Effects of different fuel loads are modelled, just take a few planes for a spin at 50% fuel, like the p-47, its much livelier without all the extra weight. I don't know about CoG changes, but it does affect the performance of the aircraft.
I have a request for TD, I would like to see some more information on the mission breifing maps, such as waypoint altitudes, rendevouz points, flight plans of other squadrons/aircraft involved in the mission, options to see recon photos etc. As it is now the map is pretty useless, as is the in-flight map, there is no information about targets, bearings to targets, altitudes, go/no decision points etc.

[RPS69]

Something that bothered me on this sim from time zero, is it possible to made the gunners to give you a message like: "Bandits! 8 o'clock" or else... instead of just seeing a phatom moved gun trying to aim on an enemy plane that you haven't seen before? specially on planes like il-2, or the Ju-87 where you don't even see the phantom moved gun...

It gives much more immersion offline, and it really helps a lot when flying online on dogfight servers. On coops you could allways use a human gunner, but that is not so often either.

Actually only the gunner of the il2 at least insults you a beat, but no usefull data on incoming enemies.

[ramstein]

why should I re-write everything that has been written for all these years... maybe you were nothere al these years.. in this community, I have no clue.. but it has all been said and done.. and everyone that has been here knows it,,

I am not going to write anymore.. no reason to.. I was only reminding the gentleman who asked for the fuel loadouts to be fixed and made changleable from tank to tank that this has already been brought up and asked for for many years..

I used this long ongoing discussion as an example..

now you want me to bring it all up again, 5 years of al the data put together again,
no way Jose..
it's a been said, done, and overwhelming proven as histroical fact on how a particular plane used it's fuel out of which tanks, first to last, and how the handling changes..

If you guys want to go through all the documents,, many of which were professionally packaged by engineers and pilots, were submitted for changes in code.. go do it.. you must have not been here while it was all happening.. either that or you were not paying attention..

The End..

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

I agree, but I don't think that saying the P-51 is 'porked' without saying how is particularly constructive. You seemed to be suggesting that the aircraft was modelled with the CoG too far back. Moving it forward will increase stability, but reduce manoeuvrability Is that what you want?

As for matching the 'real world', I think IL-2 did a reasonable job when it was written, though there have been disagreements about particular aircraft. It is unlikely that TD are going to do anything fundamental to the basic flight model engine, though they have said that they may look at adjusting particular aircraft provided sufficient documentation is given. Simply saying 'it's porked, fix it' isn't likely to achieve a great deal.

What is it you think is wrong? If you can at least indicate where you think the faults are, perhaps others can chip in with their comments.

[AndyJWest]

Originally Posted by ramstein

why should I re-write everything that has been written for all these years... maybe you were nothere al these years.. in this community, I have no clue.. but it has all been said and done.. and everyone that has been here knows it,,

I am not going to write anymore.. no reason to.. I was only reminding the gentleman who asked for the fuel loadouts to be fixed and made changleable from tank to tank that this has already been brought up and asked for for many years..

I used this long ongoing discussion as an example..

now you want me to bring it all up again, 5 years of al the data put together again,
no way Jose..
it's a been said, done, and overwhelming proven as histroical fact on how a particular plane used it's fuel out of which tanks, first to last, and how the handling changes..

If you guys want to go through all the documents,, many of which were professionally packaged by engineers and pilots, were submitted for changes in code.. go do it.. you must have not been here while it was all happening.. either that or you were not paying attention..

The End..

Sorry, Ramstein, I don't think TD work that way. I certainly wouldn't. If somebody requests a change to an aircraft FM, it is down to them to provide the data to explain why. Do you expect TD to be experts on 5 years of postings on half-a-dozen different forums?

As for the specific question of the P-51 handling changing due to fuel balance, I've seen no evidence that IL-2 models this. Certainly manoeuvrability increases with reducing inertia (and maximum speed increases too, though only noticeably at high altitudes, as should be expected). I can't detect any obvious stability changes with fuel load in the P-51, and if this is correct any change to the FM CoG is either going to reduce stability or manoeuvrability under all fuel loads. Which is it you want?