4.12.2 de-bugging

[Pursuivant]

On the theory that Soviet inline fighters might be a bit more "durable" than their Western or Axis counterparts, I flew some missions using the LaGG-3 Series 3, against my nemesis the Ace Wellington III squadron.

As with the Yak-1 series, I was gratified by the ruggedness of the Klimov engine, which was able to absorb 5-6 times as many hits as those powering inferior planes such as the P-40, P-51, Spitfire or Bf-109, with only a slight coolant leak which didn't diminish performance at all:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1403850536

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1403850536

Additionally, you will notice that the pilot was only very slightly wounded by a clean shot to the chest at about 300 m by a rifle-caliber bullet, despite the lack of armor glass in the LaGG-3. Obviously, the copy of Das Kapital in his breast pocket saved him from more serious injury! (In fairness, I later collected a leg hit which slowed me down a small bit, and ultimately succumbed to a head shot, so LaGG pilots aren't invulnerable.)

Had I been flying a Decadent Capitalist Imperialist fighter, the results would have been very different! Truly the designs of the Revolutionary Proletarian LaGG design bureau, and the Inspired Labor of the Peasants, Workers and Soldiers, have yet again proven their worth in the Glorious Defense of the Motherland against the Fascist Butchers!

Mind you, I'm not saying that Soviet inline engined fighters are deliberately tougher than their foreign equivalents, but given that the notably delicate (at least in IL2) Bf-109 and P-40E series were modeled in the game at roughly the same time as the Yak and LaGG series, I'm thinking there are some mistakes in DM which make the Soviet fighters a bit too tough, and the Axis and Western fighters a bit delicate.

Additionally, while the screenshots don't show it, it seems to be virtually impossible to get a leak or fire in the LaGG-3's wing tanks. On a different flight, my LaGG-3 was turned into a sieve due to engine and wing hits, yet all I got was smoke from the engine (but no noticeable loss of performance). Ultimately, what got me was another head shot; the plane was flying just fine before that, and actually performed some impressive posthumous acrobatics before it finally crashed.

[Pursuivant]

And about those Ace gunners . . .

Head shot against the pilot of a maneuvering Me-262 traveling at nearly 650 kph, at over 350 m range, at the extreme edge of the Wellington's front turret arc of fire, at what had to be at least 60 degrees of deflection when the gunner began to track me, and which was still 20 degrees or so of deflection at the time of the hit. Screenshot was taken a second or so after the kill; I was slightly climbing and banking at the time.

Realistically, I'm not even sure that the Wellington's turrets can track that fast, nor would the gunner have much chance to acquire his target and aim against such a fast-moving and distant target.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1403857587

That's the sort of accuracy that aerial gunners could only dream about during WW2, but in the skies of IL2, it happens every day.

At least the damage modeling was good this time - the bullet just missed the armor glass behind the pilot's head.

[Mabroc]

P-39 and P-63 engines just got the same coat of Adamantium paint when assembled or painted on Russia that the local planes, be sure.

From a post I made several years ago:

http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php?topic=17831.0

"The DB and Jumo engines cook very quickly when damaged, if the engine is smoking it dies in 3 or 4 minutes (depends on the power setting), if you are leaking it start to overheat pretty quickly at combat power and dies in 5m top, only going to cruise power give you more time to escape, but in no way you can pull the crazy stunts the P-39/63 does at full power when leaking or even smoking.

Very few times I got a engine instantly stop with the dead prop, but it happens, sometimes I saw hits then a high pitch from the RPM controller going out of control and the engine seized. The radial engines can survive hits and still work for long times, giving less power off course (less pistons working) if you are not loosing much oil or fuel (usually the fw190 get the fuel lines leaking on the cowling and even when the engine still works you loss all your fuel in 3m). Sometimes I noticed hits on La-5 cowling (little bullet holes) and no leaking whatsoever but that could be right or error on the damage decal.

There are several DM errors on the planes, a structural weakening MOD by damage limiting the maximum G stress allowed would fix for example when you put 1 or 2 MK108 shells in a P-51 wing or P-47 mid fuselage (did that yesterday) and the damn plane keep fighting, turning, diving at full combat power. Only showing some holes on the skin instead of breaking the plane. The now very limited G stress will only allow for a escape run, if the plane keep tryng to fight, it should break right there. So the errors on the DM would now be atoned at least in a simple and broader way. No need to check and fix every f%&%ck·$ing plane DM."

and

OK guys, after 90m of searching, quick resume:

OIL (pilot manual) 9.4 gallons (35.58 Litres) for the P-39 L/K
P-39Q 8.2 US Gallons (31.04 Litres)
P-63 used the same engine (more advanced model only) and similar airframe, couldnt get the manual but from all the warbirds I found OIL tank info, they were pretty much equal size, even the P-38 had a similar sized tank for each engine to the Spit or Mustang

For comparison:
The Spitfire XIV, without a long-range tank, carries 110 gallons of fuel and 9 US gallons of oil.

Bf-109G2 One light-metal oil tank, type NKF. Oil capacity 8.1 gallons (30.66 Litres) with an additional air space of 1.3 gallons.

The Mustang III with maximum fuel load has between 1.5 and 1.75 the range of a Spitfire IX with maximum fuel load. The fuel and oil capacities are 154 gallons and 11.2 gallons respectively, as opposed to 85 gallons 7.5 gallons of the Spitfire IX, both without long-range tanks
NOTE: PROBABLY IMPERIAL GALLONS BECAUSE 7.5 Imperial gallons = 9.00712816 US gallons

SOURCES:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/tec...nfo-10838.html
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/oth...ons-20503.html
http://www.kurfurst.org/Tactical_tri..._WdimPerf.html
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...-tactical.html

So.....can we get a ending to the "Highlander" Allison engines now??? By the way, the oil tank on the P-39 is behind the engine, close to the tail, so when you get a 6 o clock shot at them that is the first thing to get screwed.

AND REMEMBER GUYS THAT BESIDES THAT "BUG" I WAS WONDERING ABOUT A "COMBAT DAMAGE REDUCING G STRESS ENVELOPE LIMIT" MOD

[ElAurens]

"Highlander" Allison?

You have obviously never flown a P 40 in this sim.

It's the king of the rifle caliber one shot insta stop.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Mabroc

The radial engines can survive hits and still work for long times, giving less power off course (less pistons working) if you are not loosing much oil or fuel (usually the fw190 get the fuel lines leaking on the cowling and even when the engine still works you loss all your fuel in 3m).

On small correction to your otherwise excellent post - the FW-190D was powered by an inline engine. The other versions were radial-powered.

Another issue that doesn't seem to be modeled in the game is that radial engines are not immortal. It is possible for a radial engine to seize up due to oil leaks, although it takes time. Also, a serious hit to the camshaft can make the engine fail instantly.

Two types of engine damage which the game doesn't model are throttle damage and runaway propellers.

Throttle damage either means that your throttle speed is stuck at the current level, or stuck within a limited range.

Runaway propellers can occur when the constant propeller speed mechanism fails, or where the prop on a failed engine can't be feathered (usually due to hydraulic failure). Unless oil is still pumping through the engine, the "windmilling" effect can heat the prop shaft up to the point that the shaft fails, possibly sending the propeller flying into the plane if the failure occurs to an inboard engine on a multi-engined plane. This takes a bit of time (minutes) and also creates drag.

[ElAurens]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

runaway propellers.

Happens to the Spitfire and P 40 with some regularity, more so in the P40s.

The props never come off, but they will seize the engine fairly quickly.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

Happens to the Spitfire and P 40 with some regularity, more so in the P40s.

The props never come off, but they will seize the engine fairly quickly.

I assumed that was just a "special effect" of critical damage to the crankcase, since realistically it takes more than just a few seconds for the crankshaft to heat to the point that it fails. But, yeah, the "whine of death" is one of my least favorite sounds to hear when flying a P-40 or a Spit.

At least you get a warning with those planes. With the Bf-109, the first warning you get that your engine is dead is a shut-down propeller blade in front of you.

[Pursuivant]

Tonight's fighter abuse features the Hurricane Mk I vs. the Ace Wellington III squadron.

Notable features of craptastic damage modeling include both elevator and rudder control hits despite the fact that none of the bullets got anywhere near any part of the elevator and/or rudder controls! To hit any part of the elevator or rudder controls, the four bullets which hit the leading edges of the horizontal stabilizer assembly would have had to punch through several layers of aluminum and then wipe out the cables and pulleys for both elevators and the control rods and pulleys for the rudder. The only problem is that those assemblies are directly below the vertical stabilizer, where none of the bullets hit, and that the control rods for the rudder and the cables and pulleys for the elevators are in different places!

Just to clarify, we're talking about hits by .303 bullets at 150-250 m ranges; so no explosive effects, and a bullet that's not particularly likely to shatter or tumble.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1404019896

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1404020213

The serious oil and coolant leaks from just one bullet to the radiator and 3 bullets to to the engine are just bonuses.

In general, it seems to be far too easy to get control surface hits against just about any plane in IL2. Given that most early WW2 planes used metal cables to control the surfaces and only a close hit by explosives or a direct hit by a bullet could knock them out, it seems like sloppy damage modeling that they occur so often.

I also seems strange that direct damage to control surfaces doesn't reduce control authority, and that direct hits to control surface hinges don't have the ability to make individual control surfaces lock, move in just one direction, or flutter randomly.

There also doesn't seem to be any progressive loss of control authority due to hydraulic system damage to planes with hydraulic or hydraulic assisted controls.

Finally, AI crew seem far too ready to bail out of planes with any sort of control damage, despite the fact that losing rudder authority, and possibly even elevator authority, doesn't make a plane unflyable. At the very least, AI crews which lose rudder control, and possibly horizontal stabilizer control, should try to fly back to friendly territory before they bail out.