|
|
|||||||
| IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover Latest instalment in the acclaimed IL-2 Sturmovik series from award-winning developer Maddox Games. |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
06-09-2012, 07:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
S!
Better keep the ammo belt thing as it is now to prevent yet another whinefest and nitpicking of words by afficiandos and their funny sidekicks  Historical or not but at least something that works in everyones' taste.
|
|
#2
06-09-2012, 10:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
1 AP every 6 a tracer
2 AP 3 dewild 4 dewild 5 dewild 6 dewild 7 AP 8 AP every 6 a tracer both conv is 100, i like to fill the gunsight before opening fire, this lets you aim for the fuel tanks/cockpit/engine far more easily 
|
|
#3
06-09-2012, 02:14 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
The default is the most historically accurate belting. 109's will start to fall down more when the FM's are corrected and the damage has knock on effects. No amount of extra DeWilde will help that.
|
|
#4
06-09-2012, 05:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The trick here is to know what to expect. A damaged radiator doesn't immediately shut down engine cooling, instead it leaks coolant fluid. The amount of coolant evaporating from a damaged radiator would probably depend on the amount of damage to the radiator and how much you are pushing the engine (higher power settings result in higher coolant temperatures and pressures, which means more leaking for a given amount of damage). Once your cooling system is emptied, it is then that engine damage occurs. I tried this in a quick mission some time ago and it works pretty much like that. I was in a 110 and got a perforated radiator at the start of the fight. I kept flying normally for the duration of the fight, chased retreating Hurricanes all the way to Dover and then started on my way back to home base. I had almost made it across the Channel, when the engine started overheating rapidly and seized. If my home base was near Calais or any other airfield at the narrow point of the Channel, i would have probably made it just fine. However, i specifically decided to test the radiator DM once i got that kind of damage so i decided to fly the long way back to my designated field just to see what would happen. I don't know how realistic it is or how complex is the modeling behind it, but overall it seems fine to me after doing the test and i like how the DM is not restricted to instantaneous effects. Radiators seem to be one of those progressive aspects of the DM that you can cautiously ignore for some time depending on the situation, but one which can have very important consequences if you don't plan for it. In my example case, the prudent thing to do if i wasn't testing specifically with the aim of causing an engine failure, would have been to divert to an alternate field. If i had decided to set it down near Calais, i would have enough coolant for the trip plus a couple of go-arounds/missed approaches. You could easily test it out yourself, without even having to engage enemy AI and hope they hit your radiators. Just push the engine over the limits for a while to cause some intentional radiator damage. The easiest way to do it would be to go maximum power with the radiators closed at slow speed (that is, a full power climb at a steep angle). The coolant temperature will go way up and the resulting increase in pressure will break your coolant system. From that point on you can just fly around and see how long it takes for the engine to seize, probably using a bit of time compression too. Cheers 
|
|
#5
06-10-2012, 06:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Water at high temperatures in a pressurized cooling system is going to spurt out with fury if there is damage induced by a bullet. If there is the a leak the system loses it's ability to pressurize the coolant and then no amount of water will help as without pressurization it will start to boil within seconds. Immediate overheating will ensue. Last edited by trademe900; 06-10-2012 at 09:58 AM.
|
|
#6
06-10-2012, 06:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Another point to this is, that if you damage your engine with a closed radiator (let it overheat), it stopps withhin seconds... This difference in damage (due to overheating vs. damage because of beeing shot) isn´t realistic in my eyes. All that happens when i overheat, is the cooling system losing liquid because of overpressure... I once read here on the forums that Spit & Hurri had overpressure valves right in front of the cockpit so the pilot would see the steam coming out of the valve and realise that temperatures are too high... Question to Trademe900: Was the water in all the engines pressurized due to cooling?
__________________
AMD Penom ll 6x 1055T Processor 2.8 GHz // 8GB Ram // XFX Radeon HD 7870 Black Edition DD (2048 MB Memory DDR5, GPU 1055MHz) // Windows 7 Professional 64 Bit Version Saitek x52 // Saitek Throttle Quadrant // Saitek Pro Flight Rudder Pedals // Track IR 5
|
|
#7
06-10-2012, 08:37 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
It seems, as the coolant temperatures, at least for the DB601, had to be always well below the boiling point, that the cooling system was unpressured under normal conditions, but able to hold pressure until the overpressure valve released.
__________________
Win 7/64 Ult.; Phenom II X6 1100T; ASUS Crosshair IV; 16 GB DDR3/1600 Corsair; ASUS EAH6950/2GB; Logitech G940 & the usual suspects 
|
|
#8
06-10-2012, 09:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'm with blackdog on this one.
Done plenty of country mile in shitty old cars with leaky radiators, stopping every thirty or fourty k's to top up the radiator water. On the open road at speed it's mostly fine, just when you get to the city limits, slow speeds and thing's go to pot. It all comes down to the type of location of the damage. Even unpressurised as long as the fluids circulating there is some cooling happening. Cheers! Quote:
|
|
#9
06-10-2012, 02:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
If its pressurized like you say (and now that you mention it, it sounds reasonable for it to be pressurized) then of course it will empty fast. I know for a fact that the Spit had such a system, i have flown the A2A accusim Spit for FSX on a friend's PC and the over-pressure valve in front of the cockpit is clearly mentioned in its manuals. On the other hand, there are a handful of aircraft in the sim that have non-pressurized systems. The Stuka is definitely one of them. The 110 could be another and, by extension, maybe the 109 too. About the Stuka, it's stated in the manual of the sim: because the system is unpressurized, the allowable max temp decreases the higher you go. I guess this is because liquids evaporate easier when the ambient pressure is lower. So, to keep the coolant in liquid form at high altitudes you need to have lower temps, maybe because the steam isn't effective at cooling. As for the 110, it has allowed temp zones depending on altitude marked on its temp instruments, just like the Stuka, which probably indicates a similar system. In such a case the discussion broadens a bit and we have a set of pros and cons for each system: pressurized ones are more efficient in cooling but empty faster, while non-pressurized ones take longer to empty when damaged but limit your max temps at higher altitudes. I'm not stating definite facts here, just making a series of what to me seem reasonable assumptions, so if anyone with more knowledge can chip in that would be great. Maybe we should form the whole thing up into a CEM-related suggestion/improvement request?
|
|
#10
06-10-2012, 07:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
S!
Every book I have read from WW2 have one thing in common regardless country they flew for: puncture/leak/damage in cooling system and they started looking for shortest route to a safe landing. Those engines did not like overheating and seizure of them could cause fire or worse. Current CEM in CoD needs some overhaul as does many other things. But liquid cooling system is a fragile thing, especially in high performance aircraft engines.
|
|
|
|
Hybrid Mode
