|
|
|
|
#2
12-13-2013, 01:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
On AI related notes: While personally I thought 4.12 AI is quite decent, Corsairs and Hellcats are still quite insistent on turn fighting with Zeros and the likes... The only AI controlled plane I know that accurately use energy/BnZ tactics is the Fw-190/ possibly P-47...
The old 4.07 AI also have a slightly better BnZ routine I believed, BnZ planes with E advantage used to be one of the toughest opponents I've faced. Whenever they have the chance, they immediately build up E and bounce you, and they always bounce with such discipline that they looses little E. Now... I recount them not fighting with as much efficiency, once the AI looses a certain amount of E, they'll not attempt to to recover that E advantage and began to very fool-hardy turn fighting against their opponent. One very big example is the Bf-109 AI which more or less insistent on turn fighting rather than captivating it's E advangate, while the 109 is a decent turn fighter, it is an even better energy fighter. Also the biggest flaw with the AI ever since 4.07 remained: AI have a habit of remaining steady and maintained a level flight path even when being shot at by someone 50 meters away... You would think that every pilot once being shot at by something so close would flip out almost immediately? There should be a check routine to determined whether or not the AI is being shot at, unless the AI have enough E to extend away from the attacker (highlighted because this is of extreme importance to BnZ only planes), it would immediately engage in defensive maneuvers in an erratic fashion. Well... That's all the complaints I have for now, it always profound me how you guys managed to think of everything...! 
|
|
#3
12-13-2013, 10:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#4
12-13-2013, 05:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#5
12-13-2013, 11:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
To return to my favorite topic of picking on the P-39 series, I suspect that there are LOT of DM errors. While I haven't actually hacked the game and taken a look at the P-39 DM, I've flown the plane enough in arcade mode and gotten shot up enough that I have some pretty shrewd guesses as to what's wrong. Comments are based on cutaway drawings of the P-39 by Aeroplane press and the P-39N and P-39Q pilot's manuals.
1) The cannon ammunition hopper wrapped around the barrels for the fuselage-mounted 0.50 caliber MG. But, in the game, hits to this area incorrectly disable both .50 caliber MG, rather than eventually causing the cannon to jam. 2) Since I don't believe that the cannon ammo was belted, hits to the cannon ammunition feed shouldn't result in an immediate jam. Instead, you should get a jam after X number of rounds of ammo have been fired (simulating ammo which won't feed properly due the damage). 3) Ammunition hoppers for the fuselage-mounted 0.50 caliber guns were mounted just behind the forward armor plate. Hits from the side or rear which penetrate the cockpit without hitting the pilot should have a chance of hitting these assemblies, resulting in a gun jam. Realistically, the fuselage 0.50 caliber MG guns (and the 37 mm cannon, but not the 20 mm cannon) could be manually charged by the pilot, so there should be some chance that he could clear a jam by recocking the guns and ejecting a dud or damaged cartridge. Wing guns were charged manually using a charging handle located on the cockpit floor, so it should be possible to recharge these guns in flight. It might have also been possible to fire the fuselage guns separately from the wing guns or cannons, of fire any two of those three combinations, rather than the two fire selection options IL2 currently offers. 4) It looks like someone has modeled the oil cooler intake vents (along the fuselage on the leading edge of the wings and extending through the wing to either side of the cockpit) as the actual coolant system. That is, hits to what was actually empty space give you a leak! 5) It seems as if the damage models for the oil radiator (i.e., oil cooling system) and engine coolant system (i.e., the coolant radiator) are combined and conflated. They were actually separate systems. 6) Hits to the small cylindrical oil coolers mounted mid-wing right next to the fuselage, and a bit ahead of it should result in an oil leak, not a coolant leak. Additionally, there was a large oil tank mounted directly behind the engine. Hits to the oil system should have the usual effects on a liquid-cooled engine - drop in oil pressure, rise in engine temperature, accompanied by the screeching sounds of a dying engine, and finally the engine seizing up. As it is, the P-39 seems to be immune to oil leaks. While there's no way for the game to model it, leaks should result in big oil stains on the underside of the fuselage behind and beneath the oil cooler and/or underneath the engine, rather than the typical black engine smoke (oil never touches the hot engine block, so it never has a chance to smoke). This could be faked using the severe damage textures for the affected areas. 7) Hits to the rectangular engine coolant system mounted directly behind and below the cockpit, and beneath the engine, should result in a coolant leak. This should produce white smoke, which emerges from beneath the plane - out of the rear radiator vents, not from the engine as is currently modeled. There was also a large coolant expansion tank mounted behind the engine. Hits to this system should result in a coolant leak which appears to emerge from the engine compartment. Coolant leaks should have the same effects on the engine as for any other liquid cooled engine - drop in coolant pressure, more gradual rise in engine temperature, eventually resulting in rapid engine overheat and the engine seizing up. As it stands, the P-39 seems to be immune to coolant leaks. 8 ) Hits directly below the pilot's compartment should have a minimal chance of causing a fuel leak, since there were just thin fuel lines (leading to the engine and to the drop tank) and a small auxiliary fuel pump in that area. Hits to this area, especially by rifle caliber bullets, seem to be far too likely to cause leaks. The fuel selector switch was located on the floor of the pilot's compartment, so should be partially protected from hits to the front by the armor plate protecting the cockpit. 9) The P-39 had three fuel tanks (left, right and reserve), distributed between 6 fuels cells on each wing (12 total). Tanks were mounted in the middle of the leading edge of each wing and extending back to the main spar. On a detailed diagram of the P-39, you can see the filler caps for each tank as a series of circles on the leading edge of the wings. It appears as if the reserve tank was a single cell set closest to the pilot on the left wing. The origin point for "pinhole" leaks to these cells is set too far back and inward on the wing. Furthermore, there is only one origin point for fuel tank leaks on either wing, not multiple points. While it's up to TD how complex they want to get about modeling fuel loss, the existence of 12 fuel cells, not just one, and three different tanks (not two), means that it should be harder for a fuel tank leak to run you out of fuel. Even in the absence of a shut-off valve for each fuel cell, multiple tanks are going to slow the rate at which fuel leaks from the entire system. (Since the rate of fuel drain is limited by the rate of fuel drain from cell to cell, as well as the size of the hole in the tank.) The P-39 had both engine-driven and electrically-driven fuel pumps, so, like most planes of the day it had the ability to pump fuel from tank to tank. 10) The ammunition runs for the wing-mounted 0.50 caliber guns ran along the main wing spar, just outboard of the fuel cells, extending outward to with a meter or so of the wingtips. On a diagram of the P-39, you can see the ammunition run access panels as a rectangle usually in the same area as the national insignia markings. In the game, hits far inboard and to the rear of where the ammo runs and guns actually were will cause a jam to one or both wing-mounted guns! Hits to the area where the ammunition runs actually are have no special effect. 11) Hits from the front, which realistically would only hit the reduction gearbox or propeller blade controls, cause the engine to smoke. Realistically, a penetrating hit to the gearbox would result in loss of engine power without causing smoke or (less likely) will make the plane vibrate due to unbalanced gearing or make the engine seize up. 12) The reduction gear gearbox was armored and there was an armor plate directly behind the propeller, which not only protected that assembly, but also provided some protection to the gun compartment - at least against attacks from the front. This does not seem to be modeled in the game. 13) Penetrating hits to the engine compartment, even from 0.50 caliber or heavier bullets, have no chance of making the engine quickly lose oil and/or stop working. Realistically, they would crack the engine block and/or penetrate one of the engine's cylinders. Any hit to the engine, no matter how severe the damage, seems to result in little loss of power. 14) Glancing hits from rifle caliber bullets, which strike the engine at a highly oblique angle from the side and penetrate the the engine cover, are TOO effective at causing the engine to smoke or lose power, when realistically they wouldn't penetrate the engine or would ricochet. 15) While I've mentioned it before, the various armored bulkheads don't appear to be modeled in the game. Historically, there were armored bulkheads behind the oil tank and coolant expansion tank, which also protected the engine from the rear. Then there was an armor plate between the engine and the pilot (contiguous with armor glass directly behind the pilot's head), then another armor plate (contiguous with an armor glass windscreen) just ahead of the cockpit, as well as the armored reduction gear box and the armor plate behind the propeller. 16) Armor diagrams for the P-39 (from the pilot's manual) show that it provides complete protection to the pilot from directly to the front and slightly above (about a 10-15 degree arc extending forward from the top of the windscreen), yet in the game it is possible to kill the pilot from this angle. 17) Radiator and oil cooler venting was controlled by a lever mounted next to the pilot's seat, which just allowed "open" and "closed" options, rather than the standard 5 step "pivot" from fully open to fully closed and back again provided by the game. While I might be incorrect in my reading of diagrams in the pilot's manual, it also seems that the oil coolant shutters and the radiator coolant shutters were different systems. 18 ) I'm not sure if Il2 dynamically models CoG changes due to expenditure of fuel and ammunition, but it should be slightly easier to get a P-39 out of a spin if there is less fuel in the tanks and less ammunition in the wing guns. (Less mass for centripedal force at a distance from the plane's CoG.) This is mentioned in the pilot's manual. (OTOH, if you follow the suggestions in the pilot's manual you can actually get a P-39 out of a spin if you have sufficient altitude. So, I think that the P-39 Flight Model is pretty good.) Last edited by Pursuivant; 12-14-2013 at 03:00 AM.
|
|
#6
12-14-2013, 02:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
No update this week?
|
|
#7
12-14-2013, 04:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#8
12-14-2013, 07:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 Update will be posted as soon, as the thread will be unlocked.
|
|
#9
12-17-2013, 04:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 The main strength of the Zero is rapid acceleration, quick climb, and control sensitivity in said climb (perfect combination for a spiraling climb)... So as soon as Hellcats/Wildcats/Corsairs made any attempt to turn fight at ANY speed, the Zero (players and AI alike) can easily gain altitude and E advantage... This means AI Hellcats are much underprivileged because their AI patterns are not capitalizing the advantages of the in game Hellcat... This is a problem from the original game as well... It is not uncommon for Rookie AI Zeros to score a favorable kill ratio against Ace AI Corsairs, even though Zeros were supposed to be inferior in both plane and skills... In reality, against people well flown Hellcats and Corsairs preys upon Zeros. This makes it particularly tough for me as a person who enjoys offline custom missions to recreate the sense of futility of struggle of real life Zero pilots. Especially if one can kill Hellcats and Corsairs in droves... In contrast, I've once fought FW-190s in the stock Blinding Sun campaign and the experience has been exceptional, the 4.07 AI was smart enough to keep E and avoid turn-fighting my Yak... The LW creates a sense of absolute dominance in the campaign, which is exactly the kind of experience the campaign makers are trying to deliver... Unless AIs are correctly tuned to use American Navy planes correctly, many custom made campaigns for the game are not expressed to the fullest... (Note: I haven't tested to see how 4.12 AI handles the FW much... They still seem to obliterate me pretty well, but I felt the difficulty fighting them is reduced... or is that simply because my skills have improved?)
|
|
#10
12-17-2013, 02:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I've tried the slower fighting, it becomes the Zero well - BUT the AI is so darned clever in teamwork, and their wingmen/second element/flight most of the times keep their E advantage, and if I follow them, I usually get my kill at the cost of an AI in perfect position to strike. If the AI tries rolling scissors on me, I just zoom past and above them - or when there is ample seperation to the other AI I try to cut across their pattern. Quote:
Quote:
Though I must say, generally in the all AI F4F vs. A6M duels the more experienced side wins.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
