PDA

View Full Version : Experimental a/c like I-185 (or Ta 152H for that matter)



XyZspineZyX
11-25-2003, 04:57 PM
Although I would rather see more workhorses being added, it appears that we'll be getting more and more exotics. Well perhaps we could include one or two features which will enhance their experimental nature.

Currently we have one a/c which really models a technical weakness, the Me 262's Jumo 004 engines will catch fire if they are abused (GM 1 misuse is another beautiful example).

Why can't we put some limitations upon the more experimental parts of some types to enhance their status as not ready for production.

Of course based on the weaknesses of the relevant type, like the 262 the engines (and or cooling systems) are wonderfull prime candidates to handicap these otherwise "ueber" a/c.

Again I am not talking about artificial handicapping, but clearly emphasing the known problems to better balance experimental or pre-production versus the production a/c.

And this is not TOO complicated to model since most elements re already modeled, like engine cooling, boost etc.

No new ideas, but I think the new wave of add on a/c needs some rethinking of the "all ideal" performance concept.

Ruy "SPADES" Horta
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta
-----------------------------
Il-2 - VEF JG 77
-----------------------------
'95-02 - WB Jagdgeschwader 53
'99-00 - DoA Jagdstaffel 18
-----------------------------
The rest is history...

http:\\www.xs4all.nl\~rhorta\brother.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-25-2003, 04:57 PM
Although I would rather see more workhorses being added, it appears that we'll be getting more and more exotics. Well perhaps we could include one or two features which will enhance their experimental nature.

Currently we have one a/c which really models a technical weakness, the Me 262's Jumo 004 engines will catch fire if they are abused (GM 1 misuse is another beautiful example).

Why can't we put some limitations upon the more experimental parts of some types to enhance their status as not ready for production.

Of course based on the weaknesses of the relevant type, like the 262 the engines (and or cooling systems) are wonderfull prime candidates to handicap these otherwise "ueber" a/c.

Again I am not talking about artificial handicapping, but clearly emphasing the known problems to better balance experimental or pre-production versus the production a/c.

And this is not TOO complicated to model since most elements re already modeled, like engine cooling, boost etc.

No new ideas, but I think the new wave of add on a/c needs some rethinking of the "all ideal" performance concept.

Ruy "SPADES" Horta
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta
-----------------------------
Il-2 - VEF JG 77
-----------------------------
'95-02 - WB Jagdgeschwader 53
'99-00 - DoA Jagdstaffel 18
-----------------------------
The rest is history...

http:\\www.xs4all.nl\~rhorta\brother.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-25-2003, 06:18 PM
I concur on the I-185 matter. but the Ta-152H was a finished aircraft. It was flown after the war by Eric Brown, who AFAIK reported no unpleasant events.

While on the other side, the russian fighter suffered from overheating, engine fires and stuff. IIRC Lavotchkinn tried implementing a M-71 engine on the La5, but failed due to the stated above constant overheats, engine fires.

Some things are worth fighting for...
And most of them wear mini skirts.
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-25-2003, 09:31 PM
I'd like to see some variation on this, but with some kind of parameters where you could turn it on or off like CEM.

Be a shame to constantly fly with FM's that simulated production deficiencies 100% of the time, but on the other hand for VEF or coop's it would be extremely cool.

TX-Zen
Black 6
TX Squadron CO
http://www.txsquadron.com
clyndes@hotmail.com (IM only)


http://www.txsquadron.com/uploaded/tx-zen/Zensig2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-25-2003, 09:46 PM
It would be cool to have La pilots roasting in their overheated cockpits aswell as having them fly with cockpits open in order for them to see through the gunsight!/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


<center>


http://members.chello.se/unni/rote3.JPG



'When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!'

</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-25-2003, 10:09 PM
robban75 wrote:
- It would be cool to have La pilots roasting in their
- overheated cockpits aswell as having them fly with
- cockpits open in order for them to see through the
- gunsight!/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

It's too late for that. Their poor view was given to the 190. No take backs apparently. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-25-2003, 11:29 PM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:

-
- It's too late for that. Their poor view was given to
- the 190. No take backs apparently. -

lol

Sad but true.



I think Roy has a good idea/point here, but how best to implement it?

If the deficiencies were always on, you'd see people probably flying only the most reliable planes in the game (which is more like real life...soldiers generally prefer what works over what is really good but only works some of the time) but we'd lose some of the reason we play...to fly that perfect plane in a perfect dogfight without being hampered by invisible variations in performance.

Plus, can you imagine the accusations of bias with a randomly instituted system of FM variation? Whoa Nelly, the boards would be lit up for centuries http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



TX-Zen
Black 6
TX Squadron CO
http://www.txsquadron.com
clyndes@hotmail.com (IM only)


http://www.txsquadron.com/uploaded/tx-zen/Zensig2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-26-2003, 04:43 AM
I like the idea of random failure. It would make the aircraft a bit more reliable and exciting.

Though the message board would probably collapse :P

Btw.. is someone working on the He-162 ?




Winston, You're drunk!

Bessie, You're ugly. But in the morning I shall be sober.

Message Edited on 11/26/0303:50AM by Menthol_moose

XyZspineZyX
11-26-2003, 06:09 AM
This would be the biggest can of worms ever opened here.

It would make allthe flaming threads about the P51 seem pale by comparison.

How oculd it possibly be done? Have a certain percentage of spawns be defective aircraft? I would just respawn untill I got a good one, and so would everyone else....

A completely un workable idea.

<center><FONT color="red">[b]BlitzPig_EL</FONT>[B]<CENTER> http://old.jccc.net/~droberts/p40/images/p40home.gif
</img>.
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds, wake in the day that it was vanity:
but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act on their dreams with open eyes, to make them possible. "
--T.E. Lawrence

XyZspineZyX
11-26-2003, 08:11 AM
it would add to coops and campaigns, you know not everyone flys dogfights eventhough you would think that from being on here/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

"Ich bin ein Wuergerwhiner"

"The future battle on the ground will be preceded by battle in the air. This will determine which of the contestants has to suffer operational and tactical disadvantages and be forced throughout the battle into adoption compromise solutions." --Erwin Rommel

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/Mesig.jpg
--NJG26_Killa--

XyZspineZyX
11-26-2003, 09:05 AM
The game(s) formula 1 grand prix had some nice failure options... and I dont see it being a problem so long as optional





Winston, You're drunk!

Bessie, You're ugly. But in the morning I shall be sober.

XyZspineZyX
11-26-2003, 09:09 AM
A long time ago, I made the physical modeling of a P47 for SDOE. One little thing in that model, that caused some commotion, was that the engine power could differ a little bit between individual aircraft. Not a whole lot, but some, which of course gave them slightly different acceleration and top speed. This is, of course, what happens over time. There are more such things that one can alter. An obvious one, but that may be a bit difficult to manage, is the airfoils. Make them a bit dirty and increase drag, lower lift and lower stall AoA.

This, of corse, makes life very difficult for those who want that last bit of perfection in the modeling when comparing performance to graphs from factory testing ;-)
_
/Bjorn.

XyZspineZyX
11-26-2003, 09:55 AM
All that you ask is really present more or less in FB.

As for I-185. It wasn't already experimental aircraft. It was preset of production series. The problem had M-71 (But not M-82) engine that was overheating very quickly in Forsaz mode. We model both variants
The performance data that you may found for M-71 engine for I-185 is for the normally running engine without boosting for maximal performas. And we will model this. Like it is done for MiG-3 with AM-38 engine (due to small radiator of AM-39 engine) How quick it overheats? /i/smilies/16x16_robot-happy.gif

The fact is that these planes flew battle sorties in a great enough period of time on the front. So it was work horse for some time for more than 10 pilots. Just becasue it was neccessary to set up and change the production lines and becasue LaGG was more easy to replace by La-5 and because Yakovlev didn't want to have real competition to his production (and changes of his presonal position near Stalin) I-185 didn't meet the mass production series.
Comparing to such as Bf-109Z or Ho229 that we will also have, I-185 was real working plane and flew together in one squadron with such as MiG-3U and other small series production planes in a specially formed squad of test-bed pilots formed from the test pilots of diferent design bureaus, NII VVS and manufactures. That is history fact, that is wellknown in Russia. The Grandfather of my friend Mr. Loginov (owner of www.sukhoi.ru (http://www.sukhoi.ru)) flew these planes (as well as puls jet boosted I-153 biiplanes!).

As for Go229 we will try to model the weakness of that scheme and trust me it will fly not like in MS CFS3. That will be hard to control with one engine and hard to fly on low speeds and landing. This one will have problems in stability of course line, etc... Like it is present in well detailed trial docs. But even without trial docs that scheme will do what I tell here just becasue of aerodynamics of such scheme.

In contradiction suich as Bf-109Z is easy to model. And probaly will be absent real weakness.


Anyway I would say you thanks for your posting, becasue you really see the problem in that item.... Many projects of Germans (or other nations) that now clame as uber and revolution, etc... was just projects that will never fly in reality as supposed to be in _proposal_ tech docs.

Sample with Ta-183 test in the aerodynamic tunnel of TsZAGI tell it at all: This plane would have more problems than advantages. And these that say that MiG-15 or F-80 are sons or even copy of Ta-183 - are wrong totally.

Yes in some ways Germans had way ahead working ideas, but they was born too early. Say like technologies were not ready or wasn't invented the board computer that will control the stability of aircraft in flight /i/smilies/16x16_robot-happy.gif


rhorta wrote:
- Although I would rather see more workhorses being
- added, it appears that we'll be getting more and
- more exotics. Well perhaps we could include one or
- two features which will enhance their experimental
- nature.
-
- Currently we have one a/c which really models a
- technical weakness, the Me 262's Jumo 004 engines
- will catch fire if they are abused (GM 1 misuse is
- another beautiful example).
-
- Why can't we put some limitations upon the more
- experimental parts of some types to enhance their
- status as not ready for production.
-
- Of course based on the weaknesses of the relevant
- type, like the 262 the engines (and or cooling
- systems) are wonderfull prime candidates to handicap
- these otherwise "ueber" a/c.
-
- Again I am not talking about artificial
- handicapping, but clearly emphasing the known
- problems to better balance experimental or
- pre-production versus the production a/c.
-
- And this is not TOO complicated to model since most
- elements re already modeled, like engine cooling,
- boost etc.
-
- No new ideas, but I think the new wave of add on a/c
- needs some rethinking of the "all ideal" performance
- concept.
-
- Ruy "SPADES" Horta
- http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta
-
------------------------------
- Il-2 - VEF JG 77
------------------------------
- '95-02 - WB Jagdgeschwader 53
- '99-00 - DoA Jagdstaffel 18
------------------------------
- The rest is history...
-
- http:\\www.xs4all.nl\~rhorta\brother.jpg



Oleg Maddox
1C:Maddox Games

XyZspineZyX
11-26-2003, 10:57 AM
Mr Maddox, thank you for joining us. Just one more question. Could you comment on the Ta-152H? Yes, it was thoroughly examined by Eric Brown&Co. but they had neither wather-methanol for the MW-50 nor gas for the GM-1 and they achieved some 685 kph as max while when both systems were used it was some 750 at 9000 m.

Some things are worth fighting for...
And most of them wear mini skirts.
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Message Edited on 11/26/0311:00AM by Ankanor

XyZspineZyX
11-29-2003, 01:06 PM
Oleg_Maddox wrote:
- All that you ask is really present more or less in
- FB.

Yes, I agree and have mentioned so in the original post.

Although I would enjoy an extra "technical failure" modifier in the missionbuilder (a la orginal Flanker game), the main ingredient is the present modeling of the mechanical systems (time to overheat, time to failure etc).

A random modifier would probably lead to massive resistance and unending heated debate. The pains would not outweigh the small gains in realism. (Far from it, since a simulation requires simulation, not random modifiers).

It would not be constructive...

- As for I-185. It wasn't already experimental
- aircraft. It was preset of production series. The
- problem had M-71 (But not M-82) engine that was
- overheating very quickly in Forsaz mode. We model
- both variants
- The performance data that you may found for M-71
- engine for I-185 is for the normally running engine
- without boosting for maximal performas. And we will
- model this. Like it is done for MiG-3 with AM-38
- engine (due to small radiator of AM-39 engine) How
- quick it overheats!

Good to hear that you'll keep an eye on that sort of detail, which gives real hope that FB will retain a focus on realism. Also since the new Lavochkins became flyable, I noticed the same kind of visibilty "defects" as the late 109s, and it is clear there is no bias. Probably the main reason why these cockpits differ is the time they were built (early or late in IL2/FB development).

- As for Go229 we will try to model the weakness of
- that scheme and trust me it will fly not like in MS
- CFS3. That will be hard to control with one engine
- and hard to fly on low speeds and landing. This one
- will have problems in stability of course line,
- etc... Like it is present in well detailed trial
- docs. But even without trial docs that scheme will
- do what I tell here just becasue of aerodynamics of
- such scheme.

You took away one of my main fears for future FB development. Although it might appear different sometimes, I really have no use for bias either way (playing the game I like a challenge whatever side I fly on, while on the other side I simply love realism - or better perhaps the aim to try and model these a/c as accurately as possible within the restraints of the general gaming engine).

- Anyway I would say you thanks for your posting,
- becasue you really see the problem in that item....

Glad to be seen trying to be critically constructive and in a positive sense.

For that matter the latter was no attempt at critizing the I-185, since that bird is indeed one of the great "what ifs" of WW2.

BTW.

The reason I was thinking of engine abuse, wrt technology that isn't mass production ready, was the way I setup my Cougar's throttle. I made the mistake of putting WEP as the final detente and that way full throttle would activate MW 50 or methanol boost. Eight out of ten times this would have no impact, however sometimes it would lead to the destruction of the engine (GM1 was always a problem). The main thing is that this setting would deal harsly with rash trottle action. Combine this with the inbuilt JUMO 004 defects and you get a feel for what a tech modifier could be like. Not a random punishment, not a modifier accross the board, but one that is strictly aimed at "immature technology", that which is still not ready for mass production.

OTOH, it is indeed clear that these pre-production a/c apart from being handicapped in the manner described above, did benefit from the extra technical and high quality service attention, often directly from the factory. In that sense these a/c were like today's F1 cars, getting the best service that can be bestowed. The Russian experimental (pre-production) combat unit described by Maddox is a good example.

Maybe it is a can of worms, but judging by the Ki-84s performance and the subsequent reaction there is always a can of worms either way you turn.

But again, the statements made by Oleg make me very optimistic for the future develoment of FB.

Ruy "SPADES" Horta
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta
-----------------------------
Il-2 - VEF JG 77
-----------------------------
'95-02 - WB Jagdgeschwader 53
'99-00 - DoA Jagdstaffel 18
-----------------------------
The rest is history...

http:\\www.xs4all.nl\~rhorta\brother.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-29-2003, 02:19 PM
Adding more random engine failure modifiers would certainly be a cataclysmic event for the FB community (though I do like the idea of same model aircraft putting out slightly different amounts of power).


Menthol_moose wrote:

- Btw.. is someone working on the He-162 ?


Yes /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



I/JG54^Lukas
He 162 A-2 Cockpit Modeler

XyZspineZyX
11-30-2003, 06:34 PM
In one of the patch readme files it said random sparkplug failures in cold weather had been removed. If things like this are to be modelled then we really need a thorough explanation of how they work in the game. Certainly it is good for off-line realism ! But on-line as mentioned everyone would just be upset & complain.

I was very happy to read this post & Oleg's response. the attention to detail in FB is absolutely impressive.
Real quality work.



:FI:Up-N-at'em

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_02.gif