Just a note about the Corsair F4U. I was chatting (for a couple hours..) to a Corsair F4U pilot (Korea) who flew them off carriers (about 30 miles off shore). He mostly did ground pounding. Anyways, he was teling me about how much power it took to pull the F4U off the deck of a carrier, and the loadouts it could lift, under what conditions, windspeed, and lots more..

Basically I wanted to say since the pacific aircraft have been included since Forgotten Battles, Pacific Fighters, I really wondered if it was that hard to get a decent load of bombs and fuel off the deck. He told me that unless the carrier was moving fast enough and/or had enough headwind for lift, it was almost impossibe to get the Corsair off the deck without going into the drink/ so it seems it is like in real life lifting off a carrier. Though, it still maybe not as perfect as it could be. Especially since in this sim, if you carrier is sitting still it will not have the lift as in real life.

The WEP power is not mdelled as wel as real lif eeither, he said you could never use 100% power as it was too much and you could not go 100% very long at all when you did.
He told me about straffing and dropping napalm. He also knew Pappy Boyington, and didn't have anything good to say about him at all! I can't repeat what he said..

Lots of info... more info about diving cpeeds, stall speeds, and lotts more. Stall speed was maybe 75mph, because he would strafe about 30 feet off the deck at about 85 mph with combat flap. You could not point the aircraft straight down in a long dive. He started flying at age 12 crop dusting and was accepted into officer training as a pilot at age 17! Of course he did not say it that way he said it was really %%%$$###%$%%% wild that he was only F%$%##g 17!

Lots more, but mostly stories, trying to think of useful info for modeliing the aircraft in this sim. And yes, flak can and does blow the engine completely off a plane! The engines in the 1943 F4U did not have an electric start and it was known that the people who started the engine by pulling the props could lose their arms if the engines spit back and spun backwards.

enough for now..
cya later..

anybody remember some of the cccp field mods of THE P40, HURRI, P39 and so?

think that all the gunnery and loadouts of the patch goes in one direction

Such as...?

S!

Dunno what game this questioning guy is playing but there is field mod P40(engine) and Hurricane(Russian cannons + guns) etc. Does he talk about ant-gravitation devices and lazors?!:-P

Well, adding six RS-82s to the Hurri IIb and FieldMod comes to mind. :cool:

Well if it was actually done IRL, why not? I'd assume it would be relatively straightforward to do. Hopefully the AI will have been sorted by then so they don't proceed to attack tanks with .303s when out of rockets, but otherwise, I'd say it would be a nice option. The hurri would make a nice ground attack plane, though cannon would be more useful, as the RAF figured out.

There was a field mod not aded to the game for the P40. The removal of the sheild behind the seat (60 lbs). it cut 60 lbs and added much needed clmbing speed.

just saying..

I'd love to have the re-geared supercharger that many P-40 users in both the Pacific and Med used. Seems the mechanics changed the ratio of the supercharger to yield 72" of manifold at low levels. This gave the V-1710 an output of around 1500~1600 BHP.

Now wouldn't that be special!

:grin:

A weakness of Il-2 has always been the visibility model of ships. I understand that this was borne out of performance considerations, still the implementation was pretty a big compromise. With more processing more available today I think it would be worth it to redesign this aspect, to increase ship visibility to a more realistic level and make a more refined scaling of LODs.

Please see here how it is currently seen in Il-2. The ships are from left to right: CV Essex, CV Shokaku, BB King Georg V, DD Fletcher.


http://public.bay.livefilestore.com/...stance_5km.jpg

http://public.bay.livefilestore.com/...stance_9km.jpg

http://public.bay.livefilestore.com/...tance_10km.jpg

http://public.bay.livefilestore.com/...tance_11km.jpg


The switch from ships, to shadow, to dots within 9 to 11 km is very abrupt and very close to the ships.


I suggest to following adjustments:

1. Increase draw distance of wakes. This should actually be one of the first features visible of a ship.
2. Increase view distance of the lowest LOD ship model.
3. Implement an additional, very low detail, generic LOD for large, medium and small ships. I think visibility out to 20-30 Km would be appropriate for the big hulls.
4. Draw distance of shadows can be cut significantly. The shadow LOD currently seems to act as a substitute to a low geometry LOD (although not very convincingly). In view of the adjustments above, this could be dropped.


Thanks for your considerations.

I don't know how well this would work in comparison to the rest of the aircraft from the same period, since it would have the same overheat/engine damage model shortcomings as the rest of the sim's planes. 72 inches is P51D class manifold pressure, but in real life you couldn't hold it for more than a minute or so.

If we get such a modified P40 in IL2, everyone will be happily cruising at 72" MAP all day long, so i doubt many servers would use it for balance reasons.

This got me thinking, are there any plans from TD to revisit some of the engine management details? I'm not expecting a complete rework of course, maybe just some tuning to overcome the most unrealistic bits. Thanks for all your work ;)