Patch 4.10 - Development Updates by Daidalos Team

[Skoshi Tiger]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

Please do remember that none of the aircraft in the sim can appraoch their real world range/endurance numbers as it is, even at 100% fuel load. Do you want ot give the Bf 109s only 15 min of fuel even at 100% load?

The problem is not the aircraft, or the tiny maps, it's the fact that this is not WW2, nor is it real life. This is something we do for fun, because we enjoy it. NO one is really going to fly for 4 hours to do 30 seconds of combat. Who has the time for that?

Enforcing your distored reality on everyone only will lead to an empty server.

When aircraft in the sim are exposed as being poorly modeled, eveyone goes ballistic and demands a fix, yet now you propose a totally unrelistic solution, accelerated fuel burn, to a non-problem.

You cannot re-create WW2. You can't. Nor can you enforce your ideas of what is "proper". It doesn't work. It's been tried over and over again on countless now dead servers, and by guys like me that got all caught up in uber realism at the expense of enjoyable play.

Hey! Some of my most successful sorties have been on big maps with the airfield far apart. I take off and get lost and fly around going "Where the hell are those (Bule/Red Delete own side) planes! I tend to get shot down less on those maps!

I do agree that that it is a fine balancing act between realism and enjoyable game play. Which comes down to the skill of the mission designer.

As long as there is a level playing field, half the fun is knowing what you can and can't do with your plane and staying just this side of what you can do.

That's whats going to make the 4.10 patch so interesting. There's going to be a lot of re-learning going to happening one it's released.

Cheers!

[Flanker35M]

S!

MikkOwl, the difference between modern airframes and WW2 is of course quite big. The planes of WW2 were designed for less than 1000h service, like Bf109 was for about 400h and it's engine for about 120h before complete overhaul. Now the modern planes are designed for 6000h and civilian planes can fly twice or even more that amount, as their airframes are not stressed like fighters.

Materials and manufacturing techniques have evolved of course too, but for their time for example F4U was very solid build, especially the midsection where the wing was. Like a tank. Bf109 was of lighter build, but it was designed for something else than F4U for example. FW190 was a sturdy plane, but had more roles than Bf109 and of curse design philosophy was different a bit.

Have to take in account the design specs in planes because that determines quite a bit of their structure etc. But there is one commong thing for them all: to save weight where possible. Even today this is an issue so we have new materials like composite etc.

As of the performances of planes in IL-2. The debate has gone on forever, since release Bt a serious look could be taken in the fuel consumption and fuel quantities planes have, the overheating and engine damage exploits plugged and so on. One of the most accurate planes in fuel consumption is actually the Bf109. You can fly with internal fuel 407 litres roughly one hour if cruising, but the flying time reduces quite a bit in combat. But there are planes that fly longer with same fuel capacity. This makes fighting in Bf109 a challenge as you have almost always to take 100% fuel load and then you are fighting planes that fly with 25% or at most 50% fuel because they simply use less juice. Go figure the rest.

TD is making good fixes and additions for IL-2 and hopefully continue on that path. But I wish there would be a balance between bringing in a lot of new stuff and features when some of the old is still broken. Of course all can not be fixed or is not even feasible, but basic stuff like fuel quantities, fuel consumption etc. maybe are not that hard to check and fix.

[MikkOwl]

Ugh, even more discouraging things regarding the fuel/engine issues there, Flanker. But all this info on aircraft engineering is very interesting.

So movable parts/accessories of the aircraft are the ones likely to give out first, if anything goes? It would be interesting to see bombs/drop tanks get torn off. And I wonder how that would affect aircraft with interior bomb bays.. If a bomb is torn, then it would smash open the bomb bay doors.

Watching Mosquito documentary. Seeing the assembly process made me shudder a bit. Wood.. wood all over the place. And then they made such a high performing aircraft out of it. The mosquito was heavier than the Bf 110 series (by far), but looks like it would be more aerodynamic. I'm getting sidetracked here:

1. Any idea at all how the engineering/materials of the Mosquito might set it apart from non-wood airplanes of the era?

2. It was discussed before regarding stores on the wings compared to center mounting. It was said it does not affect the load limit. But, what about having engines mounted out on the wings instead of the fuselage? 110 and Mikksquito (as well as all the bombers - who are weak as far as load resistance go) transfer a very large amount of weight from the fuselage out on the wings. I can't help to think this would assist them in causing much less stress on the wing-fuselage point during turns - both because of less weight in the middle, and maybe somehow the engines straighten the wings out a bit. Perhaps these aircraft snap their wings at the engine mounts rather than near the fuselage in some circumstances?

[ramstein]

I was chatting with a pilot that flew mosquitos (in fact he was an Flying Tigers Pilot in the P40's, flew Mosquitos, and B25,s and more..) in WWII. He told me quite a bit about his experiences. He said that he got lots of splinters in the mosquitos. He also said his wife is still picking shrapnel out of him to this day! So, I would think that when a mosquito is being fired on and takes direct hits, the pilots will get splinters if the cockpit area is hit.. I am just saying what he said.. his metal shrapnel was from the bombers..

for the P-40 he also told me that the pilots would remove the sheild behind the (60 lbs.) pilot's seat to gain more climbing speed... and how much in inches of mercury boost it would gain..

[VT-51_Razor]

Ramstein, there must have been a slight misunderstanding on your part while talking to that WWII veteran pilot. Taking weight off the plane would not gain anything in engine performance, only aircraft performance. The engine would not produce any additional boost (manifold pressure) as a result of removing 60 lbs of armor from behind the pilot's seat.

[TheGrunch]

Originally Posted by VT-51_Razor

Ramstein, there must have been a slight misunderstanding on your part while talking to that WWII veteran pilot. Taking weight off the plane would not gain anything in engine performance, only aircraft performance. The engine would not produce any additional boost (manifold pressure) as a result of removing 60 lbs of armor from behind the pilot's seat.

I think Ramstein was talking about two different things. The P-40 (and the P-47 as well) were well known for being run above their rated boost-pressures due to the confidence of pilots and ground-crews in the engines.

[Tuphlandng]

I think what U guys are doing is truly awesome I love this game and really thought that 409m was going to be the last patch I just have a small request. Would it be possible to make the"Visual Approach Slope Indicator" or VASI functional on the Japanese Carriers and maybe install one on the American Carriers?? It would sure open up some time Lines for my missions

Thanks I hope it isn’t to late for this request

Tuph

[ramstein]

Originally Posted by TheGrunch

I think Ramstein was talking about two different things. The P-40 (and the P-47 as well) were well known for being run above their rated boost-pressures due to the confidence of pilots and ground-crews in the engines.

I am paraphrasing different parts of conversations..

he could dial in the boost depending on the weight..
I am pretty sure he was saying he could squeeze out 2 more inches of hg with a 60' lbs. weight reduction.

some numbers he remembers, other numbers he could not remember.. he forgot the convergence numbers for guns.. other numbers he remember clearly, he is in his mid 90's..

He also gave me tips on tuning B25 engines..which was funny because I used the same tips he knew on old engines that used points instead of electronic ignition pickups..
he used mathbook covers (he worked with the mechanics that kept his planes running.. and praised their skills..),, and so did I used matchbook covers also, on old car engines because they just happen to be .017 of an inch which is the point gap on ignition systems that used contact points.. also the B25 leaked oil all the time and threw it all over the plane.. I am amused because I was a gear head in my earlier life..


I speak to him every few weeks, for a few hours each time..

he voluteers a lot of info (very chatty and full of life..).. he was shocked and happy I knew what the 'P-26' Peashooter plane is,, he trained in one ..

actually I know two AVG Flying Tiger Vets..(not personally), we go to the same doctors at the VA hospital (clinics) ....
but they are 40 years older than me... and they will probably outlive me..

One of them also flew bomb missions from Tripoli to the Poliesti oil fields in Romania.

[IvanK]

Wether the engines are in the wings fuselage or wherever the aircraft is designed and certifed to given structual load limit. Now if you get some bending relief from weight in the wings then the designer takes that into account to allow the structure to to be certified at the specified structural design G limit.