![]() |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'm afraid both you and IceFire have missed a very important notion in my statement. Emergency power is supposed to be used only when your life is being seriously threatened. The red button on the front panel should be your last resort while you struggle desperately to save your life, at the cost of your engine longevity.
If you are climbing at 500ish km/h or you flat out at 6000 meters during a battle, your life is not threatened at all. So you should not have enabled MW50. I did use a lot of boom and zoom and E-fighting maneuvers during the dogfight, as they are how 109s are supposed to be flown, although in the current game most every allied fighters can outclimb contemporary 109s. You might ask, why don't I try running away? Although both historically and by IL2Compare, K4 is able to outrun a lot of contemporary allied fights, in the game it takes MUCH(!) longer time for German fighters to reach max level speed than allied fighters do. Because of this, K4 can hardly outrun any contemporary enemy fighters. So, sometimes it is a matter of you shooting that bandit down or you get shot down. This is where MW50 is supposed to come into play. It is in this very situation that sacrificing engine to produce additional power can be justified. You can't deny that it makes much more sense to kill an engine in one flight but save your life, than crash yourself into the ground with your million-dollar flying machine. And, I have to disagree with your interpretation of the statement regarding the usage of MW50 in K4 manual. I'm sure the 10-minute figure had been carefully calculated before coming into the manual. There should be at least 1-2 minutes' headroom for most engines which were used for testing in order to get that 10-minute conclusion. If quite a big portion of the tested engine cannot last beyond 10 minutes, the figure printed in the manual would have been smaller. Bear in mind that the engine must have the ability to bring the pilot back to base after a total 26-minute period of MW50 injection, 10 minutes max for any continuous sessions and 5 minutes in between. So, if the pilot is determined to damage his engine during a dogfight, the damage should happen at a later time, where 15-20 minutes is a reasonable guess. Now you can see how 5 minutes is ridiculous. I'd also like to post here my other requests regarding German fighters (109 and 190) include 1. Improve zoom climb ability. (Speed should drops slower in a zoom and increase faster in a boom) 2. Greatly reduce the time needed to reach maximun level speed. 3. Improve acceleration. (German fighters are renown for their powerful engines. 4. Improve energy retainability. In a corner-speed turn, current German fighters lose speed much faster that allied fighters that have significantly low wing loading. Some uber planes like 25lb spit and those Russian fights even gain speed in a corner-speed turn! 109 is a typical E-fighter, but right now its energy retention ability is even worse than contemporary spitfire, a TnB fighter. 5. Give German fighters correct high-altitude performance. Right now 109s and Antons can hardly maintain a level flight above 8000m. While allied fighters (on western front) can easily maneuver around German fighters without losing much energy. Someone would say the high altitude is not able to be correctly modeled in IL2. But since those allied fighters don't have a problem, I can't see why German ones can't be fixed.
__________________
Why do some people tend to take it for granted that others have poorer knowledge background than themselves regarding the argument while they actually don't have a clue who they are arguing with in the first place?
|
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
I shot down four Yak's while my life wasn't threatened.
I quoted from the K-4 manual. It's not an interpretation. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
If I were you, I would have shot down a few more than that.
I'm writing all these words not to complain the game is too difficult for me. Actually I am much better than you can imagine. What I want is the most viable WW2 flight sim in the world to be more and more realistic, not the other way around.
__________________
Why do some people tend to take it for granted that others have poorer knowledge background than themselves regarding the argument while they actually don't have a clue who they are arguing with in the first place?
|
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do some people tend to take it for granted that others have poorer knowledge background than them regarding what they are arguing about while they actually don't have a clue about who they are arguing with in the first place?
|
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
This is my combat stats in a Russian server called AlexServer. And I flew all sorties alone.
http://spread-wings.ru/21000/index.p...334/index.html You can see why I was so confident.
__________________
Why do some people tend to take it for granted that others have poorer knowledge background than themselves regarding the argument while they actually don't have a clue who they are arguing with in the first place?
|
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
|
Stats generated while playing a game have no relevance to any aircraft's historic performance envelope.
This is a gamer's argument, not an historian's. We have all heard these types of arguments for one's favorite aircraft for 10 years in this sim. Simply repeating it over and over does not make it any more true. 109K4 outclimbed by all Allied aircraft? Never flew a P47 in the sim have you?
__________________
![]() Personally speaking, the P-40 could contend on an equal footing with all the types of Messerschmitts, almost to the end of 1943. ~Nikolay Gerasimovitch Golodnikov |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
I would ask you the same question. Seriously, when is the last time you flew K4 against a P47 online?
__________________
Why do some people tend to take it for granted that others have poorer knowledge background than themselves regarding the argument while they actually don't have a clue who they are arguing with in the first place?
|
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
|
Methinks you are a very poor judge of your opponents energy state.
Get a friend (who has no agenda) and do a side by side take off with a P47 and a 109K4 and do a max climb to 20,000ft. and see who gets there first.
__________________
![]() Personally speaking, the P-40 could contend on an equal footing with all the types of Messerschmitts, almost to the end of 1943. ~Nikolay Gerasimovitch Golodnikov |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The problem is " only" that there are people who don't want to adjust the FM of this planes. And I add me at your whislist to see the corrrection of those uber FM soviet planes , it will give a new life at this flight sim. I Hope someone at TD Team will hear us. |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|