4.13 development update discussion and feedback

[IceFire]

Interesting. I had always read about how pilots were told to fire in short bursts... not because it was better for aiming but for the barrels themselves. Maybe it was for preserving them over service use rather than in combat stoppage... I don't know.

Anyways, I think it's good and interesting stuff to think about.

[stugumby]

Primary cause of mg stoppages is failure to extract,then failure to feed. M2 50 cal is known to heat up and rip the rim off the cartridge case, bolt goes back case gets rim ripped away and fails to extract. Next cartridge is already removed from link and gets shoved into hole from previous casing stuck in chamber. Now fails to feed,you can try to recharge but not gonna work since rimless brass can't be extracted. Will need ruptured casing tool and remove barell to fix.
M2 fires from a closed not open bolt.

[KG26_Alpha]

I have asked many times for Mg's and cannon to be modeled more historically, after the bomb loadouts were messed about with the fighters weapons were never "corrected" you can currently unload all mg's with no penalty.

Cheers

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

I have asked many times for Mg's and cannon to be modeled more historically, after the bomb loadouts were messed about with the fighters weapons were never "corrected" you can currently unload all mg's with no penalty.

Cheers

Probably a lot of time spent on the bombing features that were heavily requested. Not as many people think about the gunnery.

There's still the issue of a half dozen weapons not actually having been modeled. The Japanese aircraft are the worst in this respect... the two very different Type 99 cannons (99-1 and 99-2) are both represented by the MG-FF/M in code. The Type 89 machine guns are either a Vickers K or a MG17 depending on the aircraft. It's not even consistent... for the longest time the Ki-43-II had Browning .50cals with yellow tracers instead of the very same Ho-103 machine gun that the earlier Ki-43 and other Japanese Army aircraft had.

That all blows my mind They really coded Pacific Fighters in a hurry with little research. Some Russian types were badly setup too... those have been fixed thankfully.

[przybysz86]

One item that just came to me while playing.

There is no axis control for "Left engines" and "right engines"
I can control each engine separately - that is fine in 2-engin birds but in PE-8 i cannot really trim yaw by putting slight difference in power to one side.

I can do this by mapping "select lef/right/all engines" to buttons/keys and I do so. Beacuse of this inability to control left/right power via axis multi throttle controls is useless for me and I do not plan to invest in throttle quadrant just to be used on 1-2 planes (+B24 in future).

I prefer to keep second throttle to set pitch insetad.

[Pfeil]

Originally Posted by przybysz86

One item that just came to me while playing.

There is no axis control for "Left engines" and "right engines"

Is this what you're looking for?

Originally Posted by 4.11 Guide

Smart Axis
Dual throttle has turned out to be little problematic if player has only two throttles and plane
has more than two engines. Normally if player has dual throttle, he has power 1 and power 2
mapped and old power (all) axis unmapped. If player wants to fly plane with more engines
that two, he needs to go to controls menu and map one of the throttle axis to the old power
axis which controls all engines.
When the smart axis feature is enabled and user has only power 1 & 2 mapped and plane has
four engines, the power 1 handles both left side engines and power 2 both right side engines.
With three engine planes, the center engine gets average value of both levers. Prop pitch
works similar way.
To enable this feature, add following in conf.ini under [rts] section.
[rts]
UseSmartAxis=1

[przybysz86]

Originally Posted by Pfeil

Is this what you're looking for?

Great - that is exactly what I was looking for. I must have missed it

[TinyTim]

Originally Posted by IceFire

Probably a lot of time spent on the bombing features that were heavily requested. Not as many people think about the gunnery.

There's still the issue of a half dozen weapons not actually having been modeled. The Japanese aircraft are the worst in this respect... the two very different Type 99 cannons (99-1 and 99-2) are both represented by the MG-FF/M in code. The Type 89 machine guns are either a Vickers K or a MG17 depending on the aircraft. It's not even consistent... for the longest time the Ki-43-II had Browning .50cals with yellow tracers instead of the very same Ho-103 machine gun that the earlier Ki-43 and other Japanese Army aircraft had.

That all blows my mind They really coded Pacific Fighters in a hurry with little research. Some Russian types were badly setup too... those have been fixed thankfully.

It's been and still is a mess, I concur. To mention one more glaring inaccuracy - Ki-45 historically carried a Ho-3 20mm cannon, but in the sim Ho-5 is modelled in its place. The difference between the two is something like the difference between Mk108 and 103: 20 x 94 (84.5 g) vs 20 x 125 (164 g).

Luckily a fix for this is mentioned in 4.13.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by TinyTim

It's been and still is a mess, I concur. To mention one more glaring inaccuracy - Ki-45 historically carried a Ho-3 20mm cannon, but in the sim Ho-5 is modelled in its place. The difference between the two is something like the difference between Mk108 and 103: 20 x 94 (84.5 g) vs 20 x 125 (164 g).

Luckily a fix for this is mentioned in 4.13.

Good catch. I didn't know about that one but I'm sure the guy who put together the Ki-45 clearly did but it took some extra time to get the gun sources into place I imagine.

I've been hunting for reliable information on the Type 99-1 and 99-2 but no luck.

[TinyTim]

Originally Posted by IceFire

Good catch. I didn't know about that one but I'm sure the guy who put together the Ki-45 clearly did but it took some extra time to get the gun sources into place I imagine.

Yeah, the two weapons really are like a day and night; Ho-3, shooting with lower ROF but much harder hitting being a lot better suited for ground busting or anti-bomber missions compared to Ho-5.

Originally Posted by IceFire

I've been hunting for reliable information on the Type 99-1 and 99-2 but no luck.

Generally I find airwar.ru an excellent treasure of knowledge. They have extensive article on Type-99 as well, unfortunately only in russian:

http://www.airwar.ru/weapon/guns/type99.html

Lots of numbers, lots of pics too.