4.11 overheat and engine damage test results

[WhistlinggDeath]

Interesting you should say 'silent majority' Red, cause I have a feeling that there is a sizable Boom n Zoom crowd who is a little bit afraid to speak out, since the patch is free.

I am not saying the patch is rubbish. Let' be clear. In my book , the more I work with it, the more I like. The improved AI, true 6DOF, numerous changes are spot on and long called for (and needed). Perhaps 70% of the patch is golden in my eyes. ...... (WD bends to one knee) Thank you.

As far as the well maintained balance needed for online combat and BnZ flight models, I think reconsideration is reasonable. Planes had to be carefully watched no doubt, but then there is no doubt too, that there are many times when balls to the wall full WEP was needed for more than 20 seconds as well. As to conspiracy I dont believe that, so dont put words in my mouth. I just believe the 185 M-71 is a UFO, and guess what ?

.... so does anyone else who flies online for more than one week and has read one air combat book about WWII. Three planes were built (some sources say four) during the entire WWII (and that is well known fact) and the Russians changed them on an almost daily basis until the project was dropped for LA development. How do you even take averages for a plane that has three prototypes and different cowlings, coolant, and tuning every day ? That is not conspiracy talk in my book.

[Redroach]

Originally Posted by WhistlinggDeath

As far as the well maintained balance needed for online combat and BnZ flight models, I think reconsideration is reasonable.

No, it's not! Proof and proof and proof again is right here in the forums!
And you get 'balance' over historical realism right over my cold, dead hands. Il-2 is not the game for perfect mirror-matches; just get that out of your head.

[WhistlinggDeath]

Yeah Red, but we are to the point now in IL2 1946 development with so many patches that your 'historical realism' is someone else's incorrectly interpreted facts. Team D may have a history book somewhere that supports their version of the new TA they just neutered, while another book gives strong support to the performance given in patch 4.10.1.

Did you fly a TA 151-H1 in WWII ?

[WhistlinggDeath]

And to Andy West and the folks who love everything about 4.11, I dont consider myself a 'loud' protestor. Until yesterday, I had never posted here at 1C in my life and my last post at Mission4Today was months ago. It is just a glaring anomaly in my book, this overheat model and reduction in the FW and TA flight models. You all enjoy it and eventually, if everyone believes it butters their bread, no sweat, ... use it on your server. If I stop on bye, I will use the 185 M-71 and continue with business as usual.

For my own server, hanging with 4.10.1 for awhile.

[jermin]

Thousands of proofs are already there on the web. People who like warbirds don't necessarily play flight sims. Even those who do have provided tons of proofs during the 10+ years of IL2 development. Dig the old discussion threads on ubi forum and I promise you will be educated.

By the way, how many hours have you spent in this game (not only playing but also learning)?

[Luno13]

I highly doubt your ntrk was recorded in 4.10m because none of squadmates could reproduce it. Check your game instead.

You're right, that's because it was recorded in 4.11m...

You asked for a track, and now you toss it aside as a hack? Come on, man.

And I didn't ask you to check your game, I asked you to review the track and check your technique. Our games are the same, rest assured.

Do you have to come over to my room and watch me play over my shoulder? Ask, and I can give you my address.

[WhistlinggDeath]

Dont know if you saw Jermin, but will ask Mr Holcomb tomorrow in the interview. Also attempting to contact real surviving Dora or TA pilot in Germany (much harder go there as I dont speak much German).

My own experience is just at about the 3 year mark with perhaps an average of an hour a day with IL2 (mainly online) over say five days out of every seven. So, very roughly, maybe ~ 700 to 900 hours over 3 years.

[K_Freddie]

Originally Posted by WhistlinggDeath

My own experience is just at about the 3 year mark with perhaps an average of an hour a day with IL2 (mainly online) over say five days out of every seven. So, very roughly, maybe ~ 700 to 900 hours over 3 years.

Hmmm! I'm looking at around 5000 hours over about 5 years.. and there are some here that have more than that...

With all the whining going.. on does anyone ever bother to just go up and practise with the new models - just get out there and do it..

[WhistlinggDeath]

K Freddie - Yes, I am flying patch 4.11 during some breaks to see its good and bad points thoroughly. The Dora 45 can be managed, but the 44 Dora, Mustangs, and poor TA overheat if I fill up my cup with hot coffee.

[ZaltysZ]

Originally Posted by WhistlinggDeath

As far as the well maintained balance needed for online combat and BnZ flight models, I think reconsideration is reasonable.

If plane X fights plane Y, and plane X can repeatedly do BnZ (not just bounce once), then balance favors plane X, no matter how well plane Y can turn. If you ask for a plane, which should be able to do BnZ multiple times, you are not asking for balance.

Originally Posted by WhistlinggDeath

I just believe the 185 M-71 is a UFO, and guess what ?

Well, Lerche is UFO too. Similarity between Lerche and I-185 is that they both are available mostly on airquake type servers, where history isn't important. The fact, that number of these planes are often higher on such servers than number of constructed planes in reality, says not to expect realism there. Is there really a point in fixing prototypes, which probably should not be in sim at all, given the scarce information about them? And, is it really correct to question validity of more common planes while using UFOs for comparison?