4.12.2 de-bugging

[stovak]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

One button to open or close the radiator is a bit simplistic

I think he's not asking for a single open/close button, but an added 'radiator minus' button to close the rad/cowl in steps to go with the current 'radiator plus'. In order to close the rad by one step we have the awkward task of cycling through eight positions using the 'open' button, and it's quite easy to overshoot and have to start again. A 'close' button would be much appreciated.

There is a slider-axis option already, but of course we don't all have enough sliders

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

One button to open or close the radiator is a bit simplistic, since different planes had different radiator controls. Some had a simple open/closed option, others had detents that only allowed the radiator vanes to be opened in certain positions. Some had fully adjustable radiator controls.

The big problem with the radiator controls is that they're on a "pivot" rather than being on a "slider." That is, pressing the radiator control button once opens it to 20%, pressing it again takes it to 40%, and so forth, until you get to 100% open. But then, you press the button again and you go back to 0%! AFAIK, no airplane ever had radiator controls like that.

What needs to happen is that the default radiator control should be a "slider" where you can adjust the radiator vanes from 0-100% and back again. For planes which didn't have radiator controls, the "slider" is fixed at 100% open. For planes which had detents, pressing the radiator control button opens or closes the vents at the next level.

What you described is what he's asking about. So you're both on the same page

He said he wants a "radiator-" and a "radiator+" so you can open and close. Maybe wasn't put the clearest way but it sounds like a good idea.

I'd actually say that for compatibility sake you can still maintain the Radiator Toggle or you can have Radiator Open and Radiator Close buttons that work in a similar way to the flaps. Not sure how many aircraft had an open/closed arrangement and how many had a system where they can be finely controlled (by slider for example).

It'd be a bit more work than just adding the button presses. The mechanicals of all of the aircraft we have might need a going over to know how each should function. Not a bad thing IMHO but it would take some time.

[sniperton]

Originally Posted by IceFire

He said he wants a "radiator-" and a "radiator+" so you can open and close. Maybe wasn't put the clearest way but it sounds like a good idea.

Yep, sorry for my English. The logical way would be to go from 'closed' to 'open', and then backward, from 'open' to closed'. Plus and Minus. No cycling through.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by sniperton

Yep, sorry for my English. The logical way would be to go from 'closed' to 'open', and then backward, from 'open' to closed'. Plus and Minus. No cycling through.

I'm not sure if TD wants to bother with it, but "radiator" settings are even more complex than I thought for some planes.

For example, the P-39 series didn't have preset "detents" for the radiator like I thought. Instead, it had open and shut (i.e., 0 or 100% open) shutters for the Coolant Radiator and the Oil Cooler, as well as what I believe to be a 0-100% slider-type control (in the form of a push-rod that could be elevated or depressed) for carburetor air heat, and a switch for carburetor air filtration.

Carb air heat controls were necessary to prevent engine stoppage at altitude due to carburetor icing. Filter controls allowed the pilot to choose between hot unfiltered air (presumably waste heat from the air or oil cooler systems) and cold filtered air (presumably outside air pulled in via a filter intake).

Likewise, the F6F-5 also had separate shutters for oil coolant and the intercooler.

Things also get complex for the P-51's radiator systems, as this very old thread describes:

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php...d-speed-Forums

[shelby]

here is a small bug like the p40b/c bug

[Tolwyn]

That's not a bug. Just a re-using of model resources.

[Corvus Corax]

Hi folks,
I have found a minor error:
The airspeed indicator on all P-38 Models shows the actual speed in knots, but the indicator itself is marked with mph (the speed limitations on the dashboard are given in mph too). This can easily be detected by comparing the speed from the indicator with the speed shown on the HUD and switching between mph an knots.

Because not beeing sure whitch unit was used on the Lightning I searched an found this nice manual:
http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/en...lightning.html

Therein all speeds are given in mph, so its much likely that the the indicator should show mph as well.
Perhaps this small bug can be corrected in a future patch.

[Woke Up Dead]

The Rogozarski IK-3 is extremely tough, it takes many many 20mm shells to bring down, sometimes even more than many many. Wikipedia says it was built out of steel tube, wood, and fabric; not carbon composites, diamonds, and spider silk like its current durability suggests. Perhaps someone at TD could take a look at the damage model?

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Woke Up Dead

The Rogozarski IK-3 is extremely tough, it takes many many 20mm shells to bring down, sometimes even more than many many. Wikipedia says it was built out of steel tube, wood, and fabric; not carbon composites, diamonds, and spider silk like its current durability suggests. Perhaps someone at TD could take a look at the damage model?

I can believe that the IK-3 is too tough. When it was first introduced to IL2, I recall the IK-3 as being superior to just about all contemporary planes in the game. Subsequent patches seem to have toned down its performance to make it roughly comparable to the Hurricane Mk II. Perhaps someone forgot to take a second look at its DM when they fixed the FM.

That said, fabric-covered, steel frame aircraft could be surprisingly tough, since bullets and cannon shells generally harmlessly passed through the canvas without exploding.

Even if an explosive bullet or cannon shell exploded on contact, it typically just blew away fabric, leaving the steel frame intact. Unlike a monocoque constructed plane, that meant only an increase in drag, but little or no structural damage. The IK-3 DM might be an attempt to model this effect.

Unfortunately, I don't think that IL2 can model drag increases due to damage separately from reductions in structural strength due to damage. Obviously, it can't model different sorts of damage, which leads to the odd situation on some planes where the damage textures show more holes than actual bullets which hit the plane, and which show damage different places than the bullets actually hit.

[shelby]

Here is another bug in p47s