Patch 4.10 - Development Updates by Daidalos Team

[Ernst]

I believe this ll be a major issue to spitfire with good elevator autority at high speeds. Most planes enter acellerated stall or not deflect the elevators before maximun g-loadings, its really hard to go beyond its limits. Second p-51 picture shows that.

[MikkOwl]

Here is some interesting stuff. Training docs for the A-20G say:

• Acrobatics are forbidden
• Power-on stalls are forbidden, high-speed stalls at over 200 mph IAS (320 kph) will pull the plane apart.
• Turns of over 75 degrees of bank will damage the plane's wings, turns of 70 degrees stall the plane at 200 mph IAS
• The plane isn't designed to go into sharp angle dives or pull out from a steep angle dives

http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php?topic=2122.0

Originally Posted by Flanker35M

Interesting read As of modern jets[...]

Thanks for that information. Very enjoyable and interesting (my very first and longest keen interest was regarding mid-coldwar onwards jets, when I was a kid in the mid 1980's - and I never heard about this). Do you think the WW2 metallurgy, no titanium alloys, lack of carbon fiber composites, lack of engine power but with a rough vibrating powerplant, no robotic CNC precision manufacturing etc might make them behave differently from the modern jets in any way to being over-stressed?

Originally Posted by Ernst

I believe this ll be a major issue to spitfire with good elevator autority at high speeds. Most planes enter acellerated stall or not deflect the elevators before maximun g-loadings, its really hard to go beyond its limits. Second p-51 picture shows that.

I do not follow. "Most planes enter acellerated stall or not deflect the elevators" makes my mind run never ending barrell rolls especially. Could you rephrase/elaborate?

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger

According to il2 compare (I've got V4.07 at the moment) the FBMkVI in the game out turns a Bf-110G-2 from about 285kph up (by a conciderable margin) so it's not too shabby.

Comparing the 110 C-4 and G-2 to the Mosquito models, they come out pretty much exactly the same, but with 'in general' the 110 having slightly better average than the Mosquitos. The wing loadings are also similar, with the 110 having slightly lower in the C-4.

Indeed they were great aircraft. Been watching a documentary of the Mosquito since last night due to this (biased and Brit-promoting, leaving out almost any bad word of how the Mosquitos performed in various missions, but great modern footage of mosquitos flying, from outside as well as long in-cockpit views facing forward. Strange seating arrangement and entry hatch).

[MikkOwl]

I have a request for Team Daidalos for a multiplayer server option: Accelerated fuel consumption. Just a multiplier equal for all planes.

For the sake of not spending an hour to fly to a target, multiplayer servers very, very often place airfields very close to the border between the teams. But this significantly benefits single engined fighters who can with no penalty grab a big bomb load (if they have the option), forgo drop tanks and still be able to loiter if they need to. Meanwhile, twin engined aircraft give almost no benefit at all (their fuel capacity being wasted). Grabbing 25% to 50% fuel in even short range single engined fighters is common, even when carrying big bombs.

This also leads to performance beyond what was achievable in reality in most circumstances, range being completely irellevant and a tendency to see single engined fighters doing the bombing.

I am sure some servers would see this as a big improvement and finally giving a more varied use of aircraft (and thus, tactics) to mix things up and make them more realistic.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Originally Posted by MikkOwl

I have a request for Team Daidalos for a multiplayer server option: Accelerated fuel consumption. Just a multiplier equal for all planes.

For the sake of not spending an hour to fly to a target, multiplayer servers very, very often place airfields very close to the border between the teams. But this significantly benefits single engined fighters who can with no penalty grab a big bomb load (if they have the option), forgo drop tanks and still be able to loiter if they need to. Meanwhile, twin engined aircraft give almost no benefit at all (their fuel capacity being wasted). Grabbing 25% to 50% fuel in even short range single engined fighters is common, even when carrying big bombs.

This also leads to performance beyond what was achievable in reality in most circumstances, range being completely irellevant and a tendency to see single engined fighters doing the bombing.

I am sure some servers would see this as a big improvement and finally giving a more varied use of aircraft (and thus, tactics) to mix things up and make them more realistic.

Agreed, but when you think about it, it's fairly unrealistic to have the pilot choose his loadouts (or planes for that matter) at all. Maybe if you were a famous ace or squadron leader you could have made a request, but in general those sorts of decisions were made at a higher level and a pilot flew what he was given.

I'm fairly sure the server and mission designer can restrict aircraft and their loadout at the moment.

When BoB is released I'ld love to see a mission where all the planes are worn out and damaged from the start of the mission!

Originally Posted by MikkOwl

Comparing the 110 C-4 and G-2 to the Mosquito models, they come out pretty much exactly the same, but with 'in general' the 110 having slightly better average than the Mosquitos.

Some things you just can't average out. You have your aircrafts flight performance and your opponents. Part of being a good combat pilot (And I'm nowhere close to being one of those) is looking at your stengths and your opponents weaknesses and flying appropriately


Cheers

[Qpassa]

Could be implemented the selection of the fuel at 10%'s

[MikkOwl]

There are many things unrealistic already, just having the airfields close like that to begin with. It is a simple optional solution to rectify a problem that appeared trying to solve another problem (the long flight times).

Limiting loadouts does not really stop the single engined fighters being able to access much better performance than they had in real life, because they will still be able to loiter and engage in fights with very low fuel amounts (with the performance that goes with it). The problem will become worse when airframes will be able to be damaged from excessive G-force for the given weight of the aircraft. Being able to fly at low fuel then = hugely beneficial, while at the same time bombers are penalized even more. Their fuel carrying/range ability being even more irellevant, while suffering from their weak airframes even with low fuel.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Originally Posted by MikkOwl

There are many things unrealistic already, just having the airfields close like that to begin with. It is a simple optional solution to rectify a problem that appeared trying to solve another problem (the long flight times).

Limiting loadouts does not really stop the single engined fighters being able to access much better performance than they had in real life, because they will still be able to loiter and engage in fights with very low fuel amounts (with the performance that goes with it). The problem will become worse when airframes will be able to be damaged from excessive G-force for the given weight of the aircraft. Being able to fly at low fuel then = hugely beneficial, while at the same time bombers are penalized even more. Their fuel carrying/range ability being even more irellevant, while suffering from their weak airframes even with low fuel.

Agree with you 100% And add to that minimal fighter escort that leave at the first sign of e/a so they can shoulder shoot their team mates in a gound level furball. No wonder bombers have to resort to non-realistic tactics!

Cheers

[ElAurens]

Please do remember that none of the aircraft in the sim can appraoch their real world range/endurance numbers as it is, even at 100% fuel load. Do you want ot give the Bf 109s only 15 min of fuel even at 100% load?

The problem is not the aircraft, or the tiny maps, it's the fact that this is not WW2, nor is it real life. This is something we do for fun, because we enjoy it. NO one is really going to fly for 4 hours to do 30 seconds of combat. Who has the time for that?

Enforcing your distored reality on everyone only will lead to an empty server.

When aircraft in the sim are exposed as being poorly modeled, eveyone goes ballistic and demands a fix, yet now you propose a totally unrelistic solution, accelerated fuel burn, to a non-problem.

You cannot re-create WW2. You can't. Nor can you enforce your ideas of what is "proper". It doesn't work. It's been tried over and over again on countless now dead servers, and by guys like me that got all caught up in uber realism at the expense of enjoyable play.