Daidalos Team's Room -QUESTIONS AND REQUESTS ONLY on IL2 Authorized Addons

[Voyager]

So, let me make sure I'm understanding this exactly. Currently the P-51 CoG is where it would be when the fuselage tank is empty?

What is making it so spin happy then?

[GF_Mastiff]

low speeads and quike inputs on the joystick will cause it to snap roll..

[FS~Hawks]

Have you thought of adding the CA-13 Boomerang to 5.0 the Australian built fighter that fort over New Guinea ?

[JG27CaptStubing]

Originally Posted by LesniHU

ok, I said I will elaborate, I will.
How to "kill" proof, shown in math to make it as simple as possible:
statement X*X=3*X
counterexample: X=2 => 2*2=3*2, not true => original statement incorrect
That is what I did in first reply.
your statement: accuracy of weapon X is too low because hit ratio is low
my counterexample: X=BK3.7 => hit ratio of X=BK3.7 is low but its accuracy is fine => logic behind original statement incorrect
It cannot be more simple. Will continue below..

Yawn.. Please define "fine"

Just because you show some silly statement in math doesn't give any documentation or prove otherwise. "am I and others supposed to take your word for it?" Hmm suspect as usual. You can't because what your stating has nothing to do with the 50 cal...

Orginal statment still stands until you provide some actual test documentation. See how what you want is a double edge sword? The simple fact is a 5 year old thread with several tests done and screen shots you just want to go with whats what.

Lets just leave the 50s alone. Get to work and fix the damed Mach problem that I pointed out earlier.

Originally Posted by LesniHU

Yes. It did not take much for me to figure out that your claim that "Antons non self-sealing fuel leaks..." are in fact common selfsealing tanks which behaves same way as other planes' tanks. That selfsealing works, contrary to your claim. Then I invested hour of my life to make actual flighttest showing selfsealing in action and post results, BTW something YOU could do too before even posting it. Then FC99 invested time of his life to make actual flighttest showing another plane leaking all fuel in matter of minutes, something YOU could do too before posting. I hope this will finally end the story and that I will not hear anything about hidden agenda or conspiracy."?

Fantastic then. You have proven me wrong. Thank you for your testing. I feel much better now knowing this isn't a problem anymore.

Originally Posted by LesniHU

You pointed several problems, ok, I did not comment them because either someone other did or I do not have all info at hand. I did not comment compressibility. I did not coment Hellcat performance. I did not comment .50 accuracy (!) (read this sentence again please) - what I did is that I killed your "proof". Before I could comment gun accuracy I would have to learn much about ballistics, rigidity of gun mounts, wings and nose and much other things. If you want .50 more accurate, you will have to do the same. Alternatively you can find historical documents and recreate test in game..

Sure sure I will get right on that. I know you can't comment on compressibility because you probably don't have the documentation to back it up as presented earlier in the thread and by others. It's okay you comment on what you can.

Originally Posted by LesniHU

When you try to base .50 accuracy claims on hit ratio, I think its clear you can't be taken seriously. You really want to read in next readme "accuracy of .50cal increased because JG27CaptStubing's hit rate with them was lower than supposed"?

I'm sure you and some others won't take me seriously because you specifically feel that you're better now that you're part of DT. What I find odd about all this is when I pointed out other problems ie the Mach issue somehow it came out to be true. So I guess I'm only partially wrong in all my emotions and other claims right? Grab a glove and join the game. I only make claims to improve the game. Oddley enough it's aligned with the betterment of the game. So relax turbo and take it out of gear.

Capt Love

[JG27CaptStubing]

Originally Posted by csThor

You're not acting like an adult, either, CaptStubing.

For example regarding the 0.50 issue you want to raise you pointed us at a 5-year old 35-page thread at the zoo. Now where is the documentation in that? Where is the exact naming the issue? Are we supposed to read your mind or should we bring out the crystal balls to ask the forefathers if they know what you mean? I - personally, not as a member of DT - do believe that the issues on the Fw 190 should be at least looked at, but regarding the 0.50s I'm simply at a loss. Apart from the seemingly missing M8 loadout (IIRC, that is) I don't know what is it exactly that puts some folks on edge. Is it dispersion (remember that was changed way back after a load of whining at the Zoo)? Or what is it? I, for sure, don't know so I don't see what the fuss is about.

There are plenty of screen shots and tests done to prove just that. It took an army to get some positive changes. Just like the nonsense about the muzzle flashes not be able to be addressed until a new game engine. Funny stuff aye?

It's pretty simple. I raised an issue and RC just want to sweep it under the rug.

Again I raised and issue with the the 38 and it's great to have an actual dialogue instead of being met with insults and name calling. Who is behaving like a child? I have yet to call anyone anything.

Again I mentioned certain planes breaking the sound barrier... Someone looked into it and low an behold 3 planes do it regularly so what gives? Does everyone need some sort of documentation to point out flaws with this sim? No I think not. The list is on going.

COG for the 51 is a great example. It's a well known issue that the plane models only one tank and all three tanks drain from that in order to determine COG. Funny enough that plane flies like garbage because the center tank doesn't drain first.

Is the sim perfect no but now that some effort is being put towards some new releases... Let's fix some of the most nagging problems of the sim before introducing more issues with other planes.

[WWFlybert]

TD, 97% of active IL-2 players will appreciate whatever you do to improve the sim .. no user can insist on anything .. you aren't getting paid for this

what I'm curious about, is that just a few weeks ago, the next upgrade patch was going to be 4.10 .. then it changed to 5.0

4.xx would be upgrades to IL-2 1946 .. so ..

would not 5.0 be considered a major revision usually reserved for new DvD release ?

[csThor]

Originally Posted by JG27CaptStubing

There are plenty of screen shots and tests done to prove just that.

Ah so you go to a doctor, give him a phone number and say "Call my family. They know the symptoms I've been showing." ? That sounds silly, doesn't it? But this is exactly what you're doing right now. You still haven't said upfront what you think the issue here is. No airy pointing at ancient threads, no vague statements as "There are plenty of screen shots and tests done to prove just that." Why is it so hard to say this and this may be a problem and I suspect that and that may be the reason?

And regarding adult behavior ... No, you haven't resorted to namecalling, but when reading your posts I couldn't help but "see" the major pout on your face.

[dl-3b]

Hey Capt. stubing, you arrogant b@stard, STFU!!!!

[LesniHU]

Originally Posted by JG27CaptStubing

Orginal statment still stands until you provide some actual test documentation. See how what you want is a double edge sword? The simple fact is a 5 year old thread with several tests done and screen shots you just want to go with whats what.

Lets just leave the 50s alone. Get to work and fix the damed Mach problem that I pointed out earlier.

...

Sure sure I will get right on that. I know you can't comment on compressibility because you probably don't have the documentation to back it up as presented earlier in the thread and by others. It's okay you comment on what you can.

That 5 year old thread is from time approx 14 (fourteen!) patches ago. I did some tests and IvanK did some, I looked in the code too, but will not spend my time presenting results because you are still in 2004 set not to believe anything else that you already "know".
I did not comment compressibility because IvanK already did. FYI I already had these data before 2007 when I first modeled compresibility in il2 engine and effort to implement it to DT patches was already running for some time before this thread even started.
Otherwise you are right, I should get to work, I already wasted too much time on this conversation. Thank you for your participation in this thread.

[LesniHU]

Originally Posted by ivagiglie

Dear DT, some of you have stated that the way to get a bad/erroneous behavior fixed is to provide "actual data", sounds reasonable.

But what does constitute enough "actual data" to ask for a change?
For the Macchi 202/205 the FM seems underrated (turning performance above all).
Unfortunately tabular data or nice graphs so readily available for American planes simply aren't there.

What can be found though are reports (like the classic Feb'43 Guidonia one with comparison against the FW and 109) and interviews of actual pilots that flew those planes or against them in combat.
I'm willing to start to collect this data and make it available if this can trigger some modifications on your side.
What do you think?

Its hard question what is enough and what not. Combat reports have no value when comparing turn performance, you never know enough about the adversary. Performance can be estimated from airframe geometry and engine power but that usually does not take details into account, so every report from test done under controlled conditions helps. We welcome your effort, but please be prepared that it can end in conclusion "not enough data to support such change" or "we think explanation is different" or other dead end. Please use DT email for further communication.