Patch 4.10 - Development Updates by Daidalos Team

[RAF74_Winger]

Originally Posted by daidalos.team

How does this work in game ? You take your stock standard Fighter MK 1 with Default armament +100% Fuel your limits are +8G/+12G. You add 2 x 500lbs bombs. your limits now reduce to 5G/8G.

This works for fuselage mounted bomb racks, what about the bending relief that you get with wing-mounted bomb racks? You now have two masses attached to either wing which act to reduce the total bending moment at the wing root - i.e. the acceleration x mass forces act in the opposite direction to the applied aerodynamic load. Do you intend to increase the G-limit for those cases or just leave them the same? Just asking.

I'm going to ignore the CofG movement with the added mass - that's different for each plane and probably much more than you intended to consider.

W.

[jermin]

Thanks for the updates, TD. I have to say that I'm really impressed by the new feature of structural G limit. Your incoming patches will surely make IL2 a brand-new game! You guys are making history!

My question:

Is there any chance for you talented guys to incorporate jager Fw-190As in one of the incoming patches? All the Antons we have now are jabos, which are supposed to do ground pounding works and only have good performance below 1000 meters.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by jermin

Thanks for the updates, TD. I have to say that I'm really impressed by the new feature of structural G limit. Your incoming patches will surely make IL2 a brand-new game! You guys are making history!

My question:

Is there any chance for you talented guys to incorporate jager Fw-190As in one of the incoming patches? All the Antons we have now are jabos, which are supposed to do ground pounding works and only have good performance below 1000 meters.

Where did you hear that?

[BadAim]

Very nice DT! Keep up the good work and do not grow weary, I'm looking forward to this, as are many others. Your work is appreciated!

А планируется ли добавление ранних Bf-109 , Ju-87 ,Bf-110 в последующих обновлениях ???

[csThor]

@ DiO

Not at this moment. As you have seen in the current update there are fundamental issues to be sorted out, so that further sub-types of already existing planes aren't exactly high on the priority list.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Interesting this G-factor. Are the G-limits differentiated in planes? For example Fw190 had stronger wings in later versions etc. And for me when looking at the video..the bombrack would break before the plane would. A 500kg bomb would rip itself from the hooks.

Another interesting thing is this g-limit lowering. Modern planes have strain gages measuring the level of strain on critical components of the plane. These planes pull over-G etc. but their G-limit does not drop because of this. It takes some time to build fractures and cracks etc. that would hamper the plane. The over-G causing critical failure would need to be very sharp.

But nevertheless, a very interesting feature. I really am interested in this and how it is implemented. Will there be documentation of this with patch release?

[IvanK]

Originally Posted by RAF74_Winger

This works for fuselage mounted bomb racks, what about the bending relief that you get with wing-mounted bomb racks? You now have two masses attached to either wing which act to reduce the total bending moment at the wing root - i.e. the acceleration x mass forces act in the opposite direction to the applied aerodynamic load. Do you intend to increase the G-limit for those cases or just leave them the same? Just asking.

I'm going to ignore the CofG movement with the added mass - that's different for each plane and probably much more than you intended to consider.

W.

Thats a good point on Wing Bending relief. Its not a factor in the DT revised G module. Wing Bending relief is something very important in long term Fatigue management in large aeroplanes. Most current large transports for instance keep fuel in the outer wing tanks for as long as possible to take advantage of this relief. In military fighter circles its not such a big player. Even in modern flight control systems with active G limiters I don't believe any increase in G is available because a store is on the wing station. The Flight control computers are aware of whats where and that obviously affects some parameters (like rolling G limits AOA etc). In most cases any store means an increase in weight if that weight results in a value over the design (Nzw thingy) then a reduction in g limit applies. In the case of WWII fighters the documentation shows no bending relief credit for wing mounted stores, you put something on the aeroplane (anywhere) the G limit is reduced.

As to C of G shift with external stores. Thats already there in native IL2. Try the Yak9B with 128 Ptabs in the back. Its longitudinal stability is pretty average, drop the PTABS and you are back to a normal aeroplane. Why we dont see a lot of this in IL2 is that just about every aeroplane in Il2 has its stores close to the C of G.

Flanker35M ... you keep resetting those 811 codes the pilots will keep generating them for you

[Flanker35M]

S!

IvanK, I am now in the higher level maintenance than flight line anymore But yes, those codes were familiar and all that work that went into checking it all..Sometimes the pilot overstressing the plane was ordered to help us strip the plane etc. so he would appreciate the amount of work it takes to measure and check a plane after Over-G...

[MikkOwl]

Any tips on how to perform wing-snapping maneuvers? Of course an above corner speed super tight turn, with flaps getting deployed, is one. But any other? Like rocking the plane up and down vertically with the elevators or going from a max inverted G turn to max positive G turn (kind of like a pendulum swing/scandinavian flick in rally racing - it brings more weight than usual come flying which is enough to break traction and stability, and oversteer one gets).