4.10 Support & Bug Reporting

[bigbossmalone]

hi TD guys!
firstly, many thanks for some really innovative features with the new patch! good stuff!
my little bug report is about the Fulmar's....i haven't seen this mentioned, if it is already noted, i apologise...
in several tests, i've found that the Fulmar with a bombload and more than 70% fuel, simply cannot take off.....or, at least, in any given flight, the lead Fulmar usually manages to take off, but the second (and, subsequently, the rest) seems unable to build up any forward momentum...it just sits there, revving its motors, and maybe managing to inch forward at a snail's pace, but cannot build up any speed...
70% and less fuel is okay, they will take off, but anything over 70% and it's a no-go.
it also appears on some maps as if the tail-wheel is sitting under the ground, as if the tail is actually resting on the ground. perhaps this has something to do with the issue.
hoping this can be addressed at some point.
cheers

[Fafnir_6]

Originally Posted by bigbossmalone

hi TD guys!
firstly, many thanks for some really innovative features with the new patch! good stuff!
my little bug report is about the Fulmar's....i haven't seen this mentioned, if it is already noted, i apologise...
in several tests, i've found that the Fulmar with a bombload and more than 70% fuel, simply cannot take off.....or, at least, in any given flight, the lead Fulmar usually manages to take off, but the second (and, subsequently, the rest) seems unable to build up any forward momentum...it just sits there, revving its motors, and maybe managing to inch forward at a snail's pace, but cannot build up any speed...
70% and less fuel is okay, they will take off, but anything over 70% and it's a no-go.
it also appears on some maps as if the tail-wheel is sitting under the ground, as if the tail is actually resting on the ground. perhaps this has something to do with the issue.
hoping this can be addressed at some point.
cheers

I remember seeing this in a conflict with a certain carrier take-off mod prior to 4.10's release, using the beta Fulmar. It is interesting if the problem is also present in a 4.10 stock install. I wonder what the fix would be. In any case, I will attempt to replicate this in 4.10 stock when I get home from work.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

[Aviar]

Originally Posted by bigbossmalone

hi TD guys!
firstly, many thanks for some really innovative features with the new patch! good stuff!
my little bug report is about the Fulmar's....i haven't seen this mentioned, if it is already noted, i apologise...
in several tests, i've found that the Fulmar with a bombload and more than 70% fuel, simply cannot take off.....or, at least, in any given flight, the lead Fulmar usually manages to take off, but the second (and, subsequently, the rest) seems unable to build up any forward momentum...it just sits there, revving its motors, and maybe managing to inch forward at a snail's pace, but cannot build up any speed...
70% and less fuel is okay, they will take off, but anything over 70% and it's a no-go.
it also appears on some maps as if the tail-wheel is sitting under the ground, as if the tail is actually resting on the ground. perhaps this has something to do with the issue.
hoping this can be addressed at some point.
cheers

Can you put the mission in a zip file and post it here please?

Aviar

[Thrud]

Pic 1 is expected result, pic 2 is actual result.

a strange light texture was used under all the runway plates that's not consistant with the source textures sent, time of year, and amount of rainfall and vegetation present.

pics taken from Solomon Oct 42 map (fighter 1, Henderson)

also note Tulagi is visible in one but not the other (most likely a config.ini thing on my part)

[bigbossmalone]

Originally Posted by Aviar

Can you put the mission in a zip file and post it here please?

Aviar

Aviar, it's not just a specific mission, mate - i've tried it in several scenarios with the same result - in one of my tests, the second Fulmar actually did manage to take off, but the third not. for all other tests, the results were as my first post.
i thought it might have something to do with altitude above sea level, but i had the same result at sea level, as well as at a higher level.
nevertheless, i have been informed by TD member that the problem has already been addressed, and fixed for the upcoming patch fix.

[BadgerSmedly]

Tally Ho!

Thanks TD for a great patch!

In the FoW settings the Blue Recon AC list doesn't include the Fw-189.

Apols if this has already been raised.

Toodles

Badger

[indy]

Hey TD!
Can you please add a feature to the 4.101 or to 4.11. For the windows in advanced mission editor to remeber it sizes after they was adjusted. by defaulkt windows are too small.

[Aviar]

Originally Posted by BadgerSmedly

Tally Ho!

Thanks TD for a great patch!

In the FoW settings the Blue Recon AC list doesn't include the Fw-189.

Apols if this has already been raised.

Toodles

Badger

The Fw-189 is not a flyable plane.

*Look at all the available recon planes. They are all flyable. There are no AI-only planes.

Aviar

[Ala13_Kokakolo]

Hi guys, nice patch but i got a problem,

I got a saitek s65f with double throttle and the right throttle does not work with il2. It is not recognised as a slider, it looks like it has two positions only. This joy works fine with games like fsx. Is there any way to make it work? cheers.

[Romanator21]

Hi DT,

The engines of the Hs-129 cannot match these parameters from the engine handbook:



In Il-2 the max RPMs possible are about 2700. Setting pressure to 1.1 ATA give RPMs of only 2000 max.

According to Azimech:

Startleistung = Take Off
Steig- und Kampfflugleistung = Climb and Combat Power
Höchstzulässige Dauerleistung = Max Continious Power
Höchstsparleistung = Economy Cruise

dauernd = continious
Ladedruck = manifold pressure
Drehzahl = RPM
PS= horsepower

Full manual is here:

http://www.cockpitinstrumente.de/index-englisch.htm

Type Gnome-Rhone in the search box on the right, and the document PDF should be the first result.