the P47 "the Unbreakable"no more

[[URU]Amraam]

This video shows the dive restrictions of the P-47, I think it´s a good source to compare.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NWaH...eature=channel

[KG26_Alpha]

Originally Posted by [URU]Amraam

This video shows the dive restriccions of the P-47, I think it´s a good source to compare.

No snap rolling and no inverted flying !!!

Dive speeds from the video max 500mph IAS under 5000ft

[Bricks]

The real problem is not the damage-model as it is now, but that it simply wasn't there before.

This allowed a lot of people to grow some habbits, especially with BnZ that allowed them to rule the skys and defy the laws of physics. Now somebody flipped the switch and those who mastered using the gameflaws before, now have a hard time to adapt.

It's not the modelling, that's porked. It's the habbits some people nursed for 10 years.

[robtek]

Originally Posted by Bricks

The real problem is not the damage-model as it is now, but that it simply wasn't there before.

This allowed a lot of people to grow some habbits, especially with BnZ that allowed them to rule the skys and defy the laws of physics. Now somebody flipped the switch and those who mastered using the gameflaws before, now have a hard time to adapt.

It's not the modelling, that's porked. It's the habbits some people nursed for 10 years.

QFT
should be posted in the bomb fuzing thread also!

[JG52Uther]

And the 'my Spitfire is porked' thread...

[Kittle]

LOL, +1 to both of the above. Thats the problem with a realistic game that has been around for 10 years. People get set in their way early, and then sice they don't often have anything else to compare to, think this is realistic. And then when a patch comes around that changes some fundamental thing to make the game better, or maybe closer to real life, they are upset cause they think it's not realistic since it's different from what their used to. It will just take time, and any new folks wont be put off since they don't know what the difference is anyway.

[DrJet]

Well, it's the matter between playability and historical accuracy, isn't it? I was flying 190 with 500 kgs bomb and got bounced by p51. In a gentle turn with speed less than 350 km, I heard air frame wracking sound yet again, which forced me dropping my bomb and started one on one fighting with p51. I managed to survive and get a kill but I had to fly back to base to bring another bomb that wasted 20 minutes. I would greatly appreciate if anyone can provide any historical proof that this could happen in real plane and why Oleg had not introduced this feature for the last 9 years!
Salute,
DrJet

[Bricks]

Originally Posted by DrJet

Well, it's the matter between playability and historical accuracy, isn't it? I was flying 190 with 500 kgs bomb and got bounced by p51. In a gentle turn with speed less than 350 km, I heard air frame wracking sound yet again, which forced me dropping my bomb and started one on one fighting with p51. I managed to survive and get a kill but I had to fly back to base to bring another bomb that wasted 20 minutes. I would greatly appreciate if anyone can provide any historical proof that this could happen in real plane and why Oleg had not introduced this feature for the last 9 years!
Salute,
DrJet

If I may remind you: There are many things that were introduced with numerous patches and addons. The IL2-1946 was by far more than the original IL2 was!
We always begged for more realism, Luftwaffe and Allied pilots the same. Just remember the numerous Spitfire-complains about unrealistic maneuvers and stuff like that. The same way FW190 was claimed to be uber.
Now both are more realistic and you still whine? What's the point?

And about that example you made: Sorry, but the FW-190 is not an A-10. If you don't think a simply 500kg-Bomb would make that much of a difference, maybe you should read some books. The FW empty weight was only 3 tons!
That means you added 1/6th of it's total weight + a lot of drag and wonder why you can't dogfight with it any longer? Are you kidding?

The more I read about these complains, the more I'm remembered to this (slightly changed) famous quote:
Crowd: "I want the truth!"
OM: "You can't handle the truth!"

Seems some people really can't. IMHO it's alright, but they shouldn't come here and tell people IL2 was more realistic without taking weight and structural integrity into account.

[DrJet]

Originally Posted by Bricks

If I may remind you: There are many things that were introduced with numerous patches and addons. The IL2-1946 was by far more than the original IL2 was!
We always begged for more realism, Luftwaffe and Allied pilots the same. Just remember the numerous Spitfire-complains about unrealistic maneuvers and stuff like that. The same way FW190 was claimed to be uber.
Now both are more realistic and you still whine? What's the point?

And about that example you made: Sorry, but the FW-190 is not an A-10. If you don't think a simply 500kg-Bomb would make that much of a difference, maybe you should read some books. The FW empty weight was only 3 tons!
That means you added 1/6th of it's total weight + a lot of drag and wonder why you can't dogfight with it any longer? Are you kidding?

The more I read about these complains, the more I'm remembered to this (slightly changed) famous quote:
Crowd: "I want the truth!"
OM: "You can't handle the truth!"

Seems some people really can't. IMHO it's alright, but they shouldn't come here and tell people IL2 was more realistic without taking weight and structural integrity into account.

Please tell me your definition of realism. Based on your argument, 190 in 4.09 was not realistic and now it is realistic? I don't understand your attitude also. In my argument, I mentioned that I did a gentle turn and still heard frame wracking sound. Does it sound that I want to dog fight with p51 with my bomb on? Don't assume that everyone would be the same as you are.

[Bricks]

Originally Posted by DrJet

Please tell me your definition of realism. Based on your argument, 190 in 4.09 was not realistic and now it is realistic? I don't understand your attitude also. In my argument, I mentioned that I did a gentle turn and still heard frame wracking sound. Does it sound that I want to dog fight with p51 with my bomb on? Don't assume that everyone would be the same as you are.

Yes, it was less realistic before. That has nothing to do with my attitude. An airframe is not a solid construction. Its designed to move and bent under pressure. Thats what makes the noise. Thats realistic. Unrealistic was the behaviour before 4.10: the aircraft under pressure just suddenly broke up or exploded.

Imho you misunderstood the sound. The sound does not mean you aircraft was destroyed. It means that the aircraft is under a lot of pressure and in danger to ne damaged or destroyed, if you stay in this maneuver or increase stress.