PDA

View Full Version : LAAAASSST CAAALLLLL



CornbreadPattie
07-17-2006, 06:09 PM
Note to the developers:

I am not commandeering any policies, plans, or changes with the IL-2 series; I only have this thread and it is in my best hopes that time can be made to change anything on the list. If not - we should still appreciate what we have: The most developed, most cleverly defined, most supported, and best designed World War II flight simulator ever concieved and put forwarth.

Dear fellow simmers and sim-developers,

It should have come to all of our attentions by now that devlopement will soon stop for IL-2. The series has been great because of it's unsurpassed realism and generous upgrades.

But that's what we need to concentrate on for the future: if we are getting just one more free patch then it should be as close to an 'end-all' as possible. 1C, we appreciate the effort you are putting into SOW:BOB and the time it takes to do such an update. It's not easy, but if there is a team great enough to do it, it's 1C. Both big fixes and small fixes are needed and I think it's up to the community to find the errors and come up with possible solutions - this is our last call.

I will start with this modest list and I will add your suggestions to it as the thread developes.

1. Gunsight on P-39 is of the Soviet type, I believe the US N-3 should be in it's place, IIRC.

2. Ability to assign formation types in mission builder. *

3. Abilty to put speed on carriers more then 16kts in FMB.

4. De-sync tracers in US types with nose guns.(where applicable)

5. Fix bomb loads in SBD-3 and -5. There probably shouldn't be a 3x 500 lb. loadout, IIRC. I think it some loads should be:

1x 250lb
1x 250lb 2x 100lb
3x 250lb
1x 500lb
1x 500lb 2x 100lb
1x 500lb 2x 250lb
1x 1000lb 2x 100lb

Again, just a suggestion on the loads, however I do feel strongly that the 2x/3x 500lb loadout should be eliminated.

6. Would you please add modified P-40B cockpit to the Hawk types? It's not completely realistic, and I am not trying to call the shots, but the community is mostly willing to make the compromise on total realism for this modification.

7. Make armor on IL-2 aircraft more strong, as it was in the first game.

8. Jabo Bf-109F4/B model, and drop tanks for Bf-109G10 and FW-190D-9 aircraft. -added 7-18


Once again, I really love all of the aircraft in this sim. The team has been great, and I know most of us on the English-speaking board agree. Thank you 1C for everything and please continue with a few more updates in the patch, for completion of the sim. The ' Grand ' Edition.

Community: please join me in this thread and come up with "Last Call" suggestions.


Sincerely,

Oscar from South Texas


* with he added formation button it would be possible to accurately make box formations for US bombers and appropriate formation types for all nations.

carguy_
07-17-2006, 07:11 PM
Bring back 3.01 dots!!!

Kocur_
07-17-2006, 11:38 PM
suggestions to it as the thread developes.

1. Gunsight on P-39 is of the Soviet type, I believe the US N-3 should be in it's place, IIRC.

It looks like N3 (very high column-like base) to me and definately does not look like PBP-1.

IIJG69_Kartofe
07-18-2006, 12:51 AM
And the ability to use droptanks ad bombs on the 109 F4 (Jabo F4).
Droptanks also for the G10 ad Doras.

Thanks. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

VVS-Manuc
07-18-2006, 01:39 AM
It will not happen ! Be sure !

WWMaxGunz
07-18-2006, 02:02 AM
Yes, "let's" decide what Maddox Games must do. As if that hasn't been half the posts here
since the very first.

I've tended bar before. If I had a patron get up and make announcements for the management
then I'd cut that one off since that person has had enough.

CornbreadPattie
07-18-2006, 03:34 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Yes, "let's" decide what Maddox Games must do. As if that hasn't been half the posts here
since the very first.


This is, in all fairness, an effort to make the community's voices heard. None of the statements were to patronize 1C or any part of their team. No single person can call the shots, on the boards or in 1C. I feel that this topic is within respectable lines and comments like yours are only debilitating to the goals were have put forward.

I have not been spoiled by what I have gladly recieved from 1C, through UBI. But I do know that the entire flight sim genera has a lot to gain by paying close attention to 1C Games, and in particular, Oleg Maddox.

Once again, I am not commandeering any policies, plans, or changes with the IL-2 series; I only have this thread and it is in my best hopes that time can be made to change anything on the list. If not - we should still appreciate what we have: The most developed, most cleverly defined, most supported, and best designed World War II flight simulator ever concieved and put forwarth.

-Oscar

stansdds
07-18-2006, 04:01 AM
Sorry, it ain't gonna happen. Lots of things need to be fixed, but efforts are on BoB, not IL2. Maybe there will be one more patch (free or payware?), but it will likely be to fix some minor issues and nothing else.

IBTL

IIJG69_Kartofe
07-18-2006, 05:35 AM
Originally posted by VVS-Manuc:
It will not happen ! Be sure !


BOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAA http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

monty66
07-18-2006, 07:16 AM
Imagine building a mission that has a harbour that is made of 300 objects or more,
and you just want to move the whole lot a little to the left or right...simple!
just select them all and move them..
NOPE! ...one by one..thats how we have to do it,
And sadly i dont see it about to change in IL2
it would save us mission builders many hours to be able to group objects..to move/copy/delete.

Monty http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Tusseladden
07-18-2006, 08:00 AM
Dudes, I'm wondering if IL-2 Manchuria is gonna get out before or after BoB http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

justflyin
07-18-2006, 08:08 AM
I would also like to add (since we're going for pie-in-the-sky here):

1. Spitfire Mk. VIIIs should have the same bomb loadouts as all IXs, i.e. 2x250 and 1x500.

2. Many planes will blow-up on take-off if you dip a wing, while a wheel still touches the ground and your loadout features drop tanks OR bombs. Several Spitfires to name a few. Pics and email sent to 1C.

3. Lessen the torque effect when an engine is not running. If you run out of fuel and the prop is not even turning, how the heck can there still be the same amount of engine torque?!?!

Just suggestions and as usual, I'll take what I'm given and make the most out of it, but these things would enhance the sim experience, IMHO.


Originally posted by monty66:
Imagine building a mission that has a harbour that is made of 300 objects or more,
and you just want to move the whole lot a little to the left or right...simple!
just select them all and move them..
NOPE! ...one by one..thats how we have to do it,
And sadly i dont see it about to change in IL2
it would save us mission builders many hours to be able to group objects..to move/copy/delete.

Monty http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

My kingdom for a "Select ALL" feature in FMB!!! Good one, monty66! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

HayateAce
07-18-2006, 08:28 AM
Make the P51 flyable.

justflyin
07-18-2006, 09:06 AM
Also, please fix the fact that the speed check section in the conf.ini file is incomplete and missing these two lines:

checkTimeSpeedDifferense=0.03
checkTimeSpeedInterval=3

There has not been any information about speed check use in the manual since when it was introduced in a patch "Read Me" waaaaaay before PF.

New hosts and old hosts need this information desperately to learn how to protect their servers.

WWMaxGunz
07-18-2006, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by monty66:
Imagine building a mission that has a harbour that is made of 300 objects or more,
and you just want to move the whole lot a little to the left or right...simple!
just select them all and move them..
NOPE! ...one by one..thats how we have to do it,
And sadly i dont see it about to change in IL2
it would save us mission builders many hours to be able to group objects..to move/copy/delete.

Monty http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I do believe I could code that up as long as you don't mind selecting and moving the objects
'blindly'. Like by specifying a rectangle as two opposite corners by grid numbers and then
specifying the translation by N, E, S, W values. I could even set it up as circular
'selection' method by grid center and radius. I could also let users set rotation and
just perhaps save and cookie cut patterns since .mis files are text.

This late in the project the one or two guys working part time have probably got the to-do
list pretty much down so if it ain't on the remaining lines then it had better be really
important. But then who knows what they are working on? There may be a real honey of a
task that will only get done if there's time to do it so by all means it must be time for
everyone to scream for their own wants, right?

Just FYI, I've done similar enough work to know about where it's at and one aspect are the
things the workers are deadly sick of that sap all energy just thinking about. They are
the true frustrations; the impossibles, the near impossibles, the ones that yeah if you do
that then better things will have to go and clear down to the just plain wrongs. And yet
there are calls for examples of every last one of those I am sure right on this forum.

It's not enough that the job has driven Oleg and I'm not sure how many others to hospital
or doctors from overwork and stress? Or some just WON'T believe that while sitting back
thinking of how much better this or that would be or how much they have to have some change
that without their lives are ruined. Yeah, right. Any players here miss work over the
stress of whatever their PEEVE is?

Why not... and this is just a crazy idea... why not trust the people who created the thing
to spend their remaining time working on it to the best use rather than chase demands?
Because maybe they really do want to give real time to things more important than pixel
sizing blue stars in white circles which yes is on MAILMAN's just-gotta-have-fixed list.

Imagine taking a 5 year old to the toy store with $10 to pick something out and the kid
wants everything she sees.

269GA-Veltro
07-18-2006, 11:43 AM
IL2 is gone guys...stop to dream.

The only way to improve IL2 could be an open code for the third - professional party developer, at least for the 3D. They have to drop it for the BoB serie.

Manchuria? And so? You can't wait for some Ki-43 and Ki-27?!

We need this one, not a Mig-9 or other UFO jets....but they work for FS.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

http://www.shockwaveproductions.com/store/

If Oleg decide to close definitly with Il2, is better to do it ASAP, and begin the new BoB era (BoB, MED, ecc. ecc.).

joeap
07-18-2006, 12:30 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif Med Med Med. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Viper2005_
07-18-2006, 06:35 PM
3. Remove the torque effect when an engine is not running. If you run out of fuel and the prop is not even turning, how the heck can there still be engine torque?!?!

If the engine isn't running but the prop is turning then there will still be a torque effect since the engine will resist the motion of the prop, and the engine is connected to the aircraft.

If the prop is stationary and the prop isn't feathered, it will want to windmill. The torque required to prevent it from windmilling has to come from somewhere...

These things are seldom as simple as they at first appear...

96th_Nightshifter
07-18-2006, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
Make the P51 flyable.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

SlickStick
07-18-2006, 08:28 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">3. Remove the torque effect when an engine is not running. If you run out of fuel and the prop is not even turning, how the heck can there still be engine torque?!?!

If the engine isn't running but the prop is turning then there will still be a torque effect since the engine will resist the motion of the prop, and the engine is connected to the aircraft.

If the prop is stationary and the prop isn't feathered, it will want to windmill. The torque required to prevent it from windmilling has to come from somewhere...

These things are seldom as simple as they at first appear... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And things are never that simply explained, I'm afraid. You can't be serious?!?! The same amount of torque, engine on or off?!?! Excuse me while I lol. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

The torque would be nowhere near the same amount as a full power engine. It's a bogus attempt to simulate physics in the code by applying random torque to a flight model.

Quite evident when a plane just keeps twitching in a repeatable pattern over and over with no engine running or prop turning. Even resistance to windmilling would barely be felt compared to full power. Good try though.

SlickStick
07-18-2006, 08:34 PM
No, really, you were serious?!?! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WWMaxGunz
07-19-2006, 04:27 AM
Originally posted by SlickStick:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
If the engine isn't running but the prop is turning then there will still be a torque effect since the engine will resist the motion of the prop, and the engine is connected to the aircraft.

And things are never that simply explained, I'm afraid. You can't be serious?!?! The same amount of torque, engine on or off?!?! Excuse me while I lol. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

From A torque effect to The Same Torque in one easy step.

Well for sure there is some setting where they would be the same.
And another for speed and loading where there would be zero torque.

It is simple to see but not to estimate let alone calculate.

WWMaxGunz
07-19-2006, 04:31 AM
Originally posted by SlickStick:
No, really, you were serious?!?! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Geez dude, to turn the prop of a stopped engine does require pushing.

A Torque Effect. It takes torque to turn the prop.

justflyin
07-19-2006, 08:03 AM
Originally posted by justflyin:
3. Remove the torque effect when an engine is not running. If you run out of fuel and the prop is not even turning, how the heck can there still be engine torque?!?!


Originally posted by Viper2005_:
If the engine isn't running but the prop is turning then there will still be a torque effect since the engine will resist the motion of the prop, and the engine is connected to the aircraft.

I agree that some torque might still be felt if air rushing past the prop is causing it to turn. It just shouldn't be as much as an engine running at full power.

There are times when attempting to land a plane with the engine stopped, no prop turning and the plane is still torqueing so hard to the power side that it's a bit ridiculous. Not constant, but in torque spikes, if you will.

I've edited my first post to say "Lessen" instead of "Remove".


If the prop is stationary and the prop isn't feathered, it will want to windmill. The torque required to prevent it from windmilling has to come from somewhere...

I disagree with this explanation because if the prop is not moving, the engine is not running and only air is being pushed past the prop, the effect would be in the opposite direction of normal torque.

Normal torque is always opposite prop rotation direction, as the engine is torqueing in the opposite direction of the prop. In your example, with no prop turning the air would be trying to force the prop to rotate in it's normal direction, but since it's not actually moving, if there was any torque developing, it would be with normal prop rotation direction, not opposite, as no opposing energy is being generated. It would try to twist the whole plane with the normal prop rotation direction.

Yet again, it should be much less than torque effect at full powered flight.


These things are seldom as simple as they at first appear...

Agreed 100%.

flyinmick
07-19-2006, 05:28 PM
Please describe what exactly you mean by "Engine Torque Effect", please?
Thanks

flyinmick
07-19-2006, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Yes, "let's" decide what Maddox Games must do. As if that hasn't been half the posts here
since the very first.

I've tended bar before. If I had a patron get up and make announcements for the management
then I'd cut that one off since that person has had enough.

Then why have this "Ready Room"? I always thought it was a way of getting feedback from customers.
Also, who are you, anyway? Do you have some connection with 1C? What is it that makes you so upset?

flyinmick
07-19-2006, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

This late in the project the one or two guys working part time have probably got the to-do
list pretty much down so if it ain't on the remaining lines then it had better be really
important. But then who knows what they are working on? There may be a real honey of a
task that will only get done if there's time to do it so by all means it must be time for
everyone to scream for their own wants, right?.

So, why not tell us what's coming? That way we know what will be addressed and what will not.



It's not enough that the job has driven Oleg and I'm not sure how many others to hospital
or doctors from overwork and stress? Or some just WON'T believe that while sitting back
thinking of how much better this or that would be or how much they have to have some change
that without their lives are ruined. Yeah, right. Any players here miss work over the
stress of whatever their PEEVE is?.

Let me see if I've understood this? A guy sells a game. He then, very nicely and voluntarily and, under no legal or monetary obligation to anyone that I know of, issues upgrades and fixes as and when he can. You are asking me to believe that he stressed himself out so much doing this that he ended up in hospital? And that's our fault? May I suggest some form of stress management? Maybe yoga or T.M., maybe? I' and I'm sure many others have, and have had, stressful careers but haven't ended up in a hospital! How do you know it was from stress?


Why not... and this is just a crazy idea... why not trust the people who created the thing
to spend their remaining time working on it to the best use rather than chase demands?.

Because these are the same people whose lack of attention to detail and apparent poor knowledge of the subject are causing all the complaints. We're not making this stuff up, you know!!


Because maybe they really do want to give real time to things more important than pixel
sizing blue stars in white circles which yes is on MAILMAN's just-gotta-have-fixed list..

Does this reference something about markings? If so, then I completely agree with mailman. I'm sorry, but next to the lawnmower sounding Merlins and Allisons (which are a travesty) the poor quality of the skinning in this game is a huge disappointment. With all of the excellent resources out there, this was the best they could do? People would have done the skinning for free! Or at least proofed them! Can you imagine any author with any pride allowing a work to be printed and distributed with misspellings and poor punctuation and grammer? If you bought such a book, would you not be disappointed? That is what seems to have happened here!
Please, fix the skins and markings, the rear gunner position on the Ju88 (why can I use only one gun?), provide me with an observer/gunner for the Beaufighter, fix the idiotic assymetric recoil on the F6F/F4U, give me rockets for the Mossie and fix the forward view on the FW190.
Thanks


Imagine taking a 5 year old to the toy store with $10 to pick something out and the kid
wants everything she sees.
Oh, come on now! That just insults both you and us!

WWMaxGunz
07-19-2006, 10:07 PM
yes, I will know what is worked on, all the plans, just as soon as I move to Moscow and get a
job with Maddox Games as a member of the development team. Perhaps the 10th of Never.
There is another way also. It is called waiting and politely asking while understanding
that someone may be too busy to come out and make answers on a forum where jacka$$es -will-
try and tie you up with every manner of time wasting BS including rudeness when they do not
imediately get what they want. They don't seem to realize the meaning of 'lead time' for
example. Or maybe they just don't bother thinking past "I want, I want, I want, I want!".

People did do skinning for free.
People did 3D modelling and textures for many of the planes also free.
The models do not somehow grow their own FM's unfortunately.

Oleg and others on the project being hospitalized or forced home by doctors due to stress
is a matter of record right here. That doesn't include the ramming incident btw.

Perhaps you are just entirely ignorant of what is entailed in software development or just
have some dim kind of outside view that let's you think you know what it is worth. I can't
tell which or if it's just something else. Perhaps you compare the eye-candy-heavy krap
that most gaming companies crank out to this? Sims with gunnery that has little or no drag
and ohhh, hey, look at the drop it's there folks. Damage models by hit box/bubble and RPG
style hitpoints. FM's that include maybe half the factors this one has that I won't say the
physics but you can specify very closely the major numbers which with as little else being
modelled, the term is 'on rails'. Usually, maybe in all of them departure from flight uses
a seperate section of code, the term is 'canned'. Yeah, sims like that have the extra cycles
for the AI that doesn't need much for flying and still none of them has really good AI. The
teams that make them have extra time to work on AI modes since they don't put a lot of time
into the actual modelling.

Hey, list us all a bunch of overall better combat flight sims willya?
Then work it out for everyone why so freaking many people play such a sim/game.

Why don't you crybabies go to Micro$loth and petition for CFS4?
Or maybe Microprose... they quit publishing these sims for some reason and blew off EAW after
two patches. Looks like the suits in charge got a lesson in the real cost of software.

It is the 5 year old with the $10 because the 5 year old has as much of an idea of quality
beneath the surface for price as you guys seem to. Take her to Walmart for some gaudy cheap
dolly and spend the change on ice cream till she stops whining. Considering the amount of
budget left, that only one and sometimes two people can be spared for patches that is a real
metaphor on the situtation you pushy lot want.

It is a matter of overall features just like ANY OTHER SIM. It always has been. Mailman and
whoever can go back to the versions where they must believe that the AI was 'unbroken'.

For me I will wait as I know very well I've gotten more than I paid for already. I'm not some
picky beitch concerned with every little detail. But I am tired of 5 years now of whining kids
who think they have the the right to scream just because they don't like something.

News for yuns, this forum is a public place and not your home.

Foo.bar
07-19-2006, 10:50 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif 100%

DFLion
07-20-2006, 01:01 AM
Like your work WWMaxGunz - to add onto Foo.bar 110%. Oleg has given us the best Flight Sim ever, I only wish we could help him more somehow.
DFLion http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

CornbreadPattie
07-20-2006, 01:49 AM
It's just important to remember that this small community is going to be the main base for the next sim. 1C appreciates us and Oleg has let us know by continually releasing and supporting the sim with patches and upgrades.

They will pay attention to us. They will read and they will weigh out the options. They have always done it and they have a very dedicated, if not small fanbase.

-HH-Quazi
07-20-2006, 02:55 AM
This sim is perfect as is. Leave it alone Oleg. These guys are just being picky. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

BrassEm
07-20-2006, 08:27 AM
IL-2 is not perfect and Oleg would be the first to admit that.

IL-2 is being improved on with BOB. IL-2 has run its course. What you see now is ALL you will ever get from it. Do not expect anything more, or less. The future is BOB.

http://www.globalbattledogs.com/gbdclan/brassemil2sig01.jpg (http://brassem.globalbattledogs.com/)

flyinmick
07-20-2006, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
yes, I will know what is worked on, all the plans, just as soon as I move to Moscow and get a
job with Maddox Games as a member of the development team. Perhaps the 10th of Never.
So, can I take it then that you don't actually have anything to do with 1C?
If you're hoping for a job with these guys, you might want to turn down the anger and the personal insults a little. Can I ask a personal question? How old are you and what part of the world are you from?



There is another way also. It is called waiting and politely asking while understanding
that someone may be too busy to come out and make answers on a forum where jacka$$es -will-
try and tie you up with every manner of time wasting BS including rudeness when they do not
imediately get what they want.

I have asked politely. I have received many replies from some who agreed with me and some who did not. I have never had a reply from anyone at 1C. How about a corporate statement saying "we plan to fix this and this but not that. Thanks for your loyal support and interest, but now it's on to BoB". That statement may have been made and if it has, then I apologise. If it has not, then maybe it should be and that would end all of these conversations. So far as I can see, on this thread at least, you are the only one being rude.


They don't seem to realize the meaning of 'lead time' for example. Or maybe they just don't bother thinking past "I want, I want, I want, I want!".

I do understand the concept of "lead-time". I spent many years as a production manager for a very large clothing manufacturer. I'm not going to bore you with the details (or give myself nightmares) but understand that I do know about complex production timelines and the high standards required. I'm sure that many others do too. We understand what can be achieved.


People did do skinning for free.
People did 3D modelling and textures for many of the planes also free.
The models do not somehow grow their own FM's unfortunately.

Well, I'm glad that was the case. I tried to help with the Japanese stuff. I sent a number of emails off to someone from the development team who posted on the PF board asking for information and resources. There are several very serious and scholarly websites which contain lots of very good information, j-aircraft.com being chief amongst them. It is obvious that none of these resources was considered. I belong to a museum which operates an origional A6M3. I offered to provide photos of the cockpit and airframe, an operating handbook, a maintenance manual, real world performance data and pilots handling notes and checklists. I never even received a reply. Nor did I receive a response when I offered the same information for the F4F, F6F and Spifire XIV that we also operate.


Oleg and others on the project being hospitalized or forced home by doctors due to stress is a matter of record right here. That doesn't include the ramming incident btw.

Well, I'm sure it's on record that he was in hospital. How do you know it was stress? I have a stressfull job now. I have several ways of dealing with that which work for me, but might not work for everyone. Wheather or not stress induces illness has more to do with the individual and how they deal with it. Coming on here and saying that we put a man in hospital is inaccurate and unfair.


Perhaps you are just entirely ignorant of what is entailed in software development or just
have some dim kind of outside view that let's you think you know what it is worth.

Well, you might be right there. So, instead of devoting so much time and effort to being rude and personnally insulting, maybe you should write a short essay on the subject and post it. If I knew that there was a technical reason for some of these problems it would help. Teach me, don't insult me!!


I can't tell which or if it's just something else.

Like what, for instance?


Perhaps you compare the eye-candy-heavy krap
that most gaming companies crank out to this? Sims with gunnery that has little or no drag
and ohhh, hey, look at the drop it's there folks.

Nope. I don't play any other games at all. I don't have the time. This is it.


Damage models by hit box/bubble and RPG
style hitpoints.

Sorry, no idea what these things are. Can you explain them to me, please?


FM's that include maybe half the factors this one has that I won't say the physics but you can specify very closely the major numbers which with as little else being modelled, the term is 'on rails'. Usually, maybe in all of them departure from flight uses a seperate section of code, the term is 'canned'.

This passage prompted my earlier question asking where you are from, Gunz, because I'm assuming from this that you do not use English as a first language. I tried to make sense of it but can't. Can you rewrite it, please?


Yeah, sims like that have the extra cycles for the AI that doesn't need much for flying and still none of them has really good AI. The
teams that make them have extra time to work on AI modes since they don't put a lot of time
into the actual modelling.

Sorry, see above.


Hey, list us all a bunch of overall better combat flight sims willya?
Then work it out for everyone why so freaking many people play such a sim/game.

Well, in the past, I have played several sims and each had features that were excellent but none were perfect. PF is the best one so far. No contest! I think it's the obvious and seemingly easily avoidable errors, such as skins, markings etc. that take the gloss off it a little. You lose patience with us because you seem to look at these issues solely from a technical, manufacturing standpoint. I'm looking at it purely as a consumer. Instead of seizing this opportunity to educate me, you decided to insult and belittle me. What a pity!


Why don't you crybabies go to Micro$loth and petition for CFS4?

See above!


Or maybe Microprose... they quit publishing these sims for some reason and blew off EAW after two patches. Looks like the suits in charge got a lesson in the real cost of software.
So, what you're saying is that a company changed it's business model. They seem to have gone under. Lots of companies go under for lots of reasons. I worked for a very profitable $85m clothing manufacturer. That company was gone six months after I had left to begin a new career. It failed for a variety of reasons, some internal, some external. But people still make money making clothes. What was your point?


It is the 5 year old with the $10 because the 5 year old has as much of an idea of quality
beneath the surface for price as you guys seem to. Take her to Walmart for some gaudy cheap
dolly and spend the change on ice cream till she stops whining. Considering the amount of
budget left, that only one and sometimes two people can be spared for patches that is a real
metaphor on the situtation you pushy lot want.

Once again, an insulting, belittling response. I've never insuted you or 1C or Mr. Maddox. I'd love to know why this makes you so angry that you feel entitled and obliged to launch personal attacks!


It is a matter of overall features just like ANY OTHER SIM. It always has been. Mailman and
whoever can go back to the versions where they must believe that the AI was 'unbroken'.

For me I will wait as I know very well I've gotten more than I paid for already. I'm not some picky beitch concerned with every little detail. But I am tired of 5 years now of whining kids who think they have the the right to scream just because they don't like something.
News for yuns, this forum is a public place and not your home.
Yes, it is public place. Why would you think this is news to us? It being a public place, and therefore not your livingroom either, please watch your language. I understand that English is not your primary language, but you can't go around calling people "picky beitch".

I notice that in your reply you really did not address any of my question directly. Can I hope for a more reasoned response this time? Of course, Max, it might just be that you yourself don't really know all that much either. Prove me wrong! Don't insult me. Educate me!!
My complaints were:
Poor engine sound. Is there a technical reason that these sounds are so much worse than on any other game I've ever played? I understand that it has something to do with the sound being generated by a synthesiser instead of samples, or do I have that wrong? Was there a technical advantage to this?
Beaufighter. Is there a technical reason that the gunner had to be omitted?
Ju88. Is there a technical reason that I can only access one of the rear gunner positions?
F6F & F4U. Is there a technical reason why we have assymetric recoil on these aircraft?
Mosquito. Is there a technical reason why there are no rockets on the Mossie?
Engine management. Is there a technical reason why engine manifold pressure decreases instead of increasing as it should when prop rpm is reduced?
"I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer, by the way. But please!! Show some maturity!! I know that you are writing in a language that is foreign to you but you are being very rude.
Thanks

flyinmick
07-20-2006, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by justflyin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by justflyin:
3. Remove the torque effect when an engine is not running. If you run out of fuel and the prop is not even turning, how the heck can there still be engine torque?!?!


Originally posted by Viper2005_:
If the engine isn't running but the prop is turning then there will still be a torque effect since the engine will resist the motion of the prop, and the engine is connected to the aircraft.

I agree that some torque might still be felt if air rushing past the prop is causing it to turn. It just shouldn't be as much as an engine running at full power.

There are times when attempting to land a plane with the engine stopped, no prop turning and the plane is still torqueing so hard to the power side that it's a bit ridiculous. Not constant, but in torque spikes, if you will.

I've edited my first post to say "Lessen" instead of "Remove".


If the prop is stationary and the prop isn't feathered, it will want to windmill. The torque required to prevent it from windmilling has to come from somewhere...

I disagree with this explanation because if the prop is not moving, the engine is not running and only air is being pushed past the prop, the effect would be in the opposite direction of normal torque.

Normal torque is always opposite prop rotation direction, as the engine is torqueing in the opposite direction of the prop. In your example, with no prop turning the air would be trying to force the prop to rotate in it's normal direction, but since it's not actually moving, if there was any torque developing, it would be with normal prop rotation direction, not opposite, as no opposing energy is being generated. It would try to twist the whole plane with the normal prop rotation direction.

Yet again, it should be much less than torque effect at full powered flight.


These things are seldom as simple as they at first appear...

Agreed 100%. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think we're all talking at cross-purposes here. Please describe the effects you are ascribing to engine torque. maybe we can get this cleared up!

Viper2005_
07-20-2006, 02:26 PM
Beaufighter. Is there a technical reason that the gunner had to be omitted?

The Beaufighter in game is meant to be an Australian version, many of which featured an observer rather than a rear gunner. Quite why the observer can't warn the pilot about incoming fighters is another question...


Ju88. Is there a technical reason that I can only access one of the rear gunner positions?

Yes - read the readme that came with the patch in which it was added.


F6F & F4U. Is there a technical reason why we have assymetric recoil on these aircraft?

AFAIK in order to desynch the .50s (as requested by pretty much everybody) several different browning M2 weapons were made, each with different rates of fire. They were then randomly dispersed around the .50 armed aeroplanes. It so happens that the F6F and F4U ended up with higher overall rates of fire on one side than the other, and thus assymetric recoil. C'est la vie. It may well get fixed at some point.


Mosquito. Is there a technical reason why there are no rockets on the Mossie?

We have an early Mosquito FB.VI and I suppose that we'll get the rockets if and when a late model arrives (with merlin 25s, w00t!) since AFAIK rockets were a relatively late addition to the Mossie - they came after the 500 lb bombs at any rate. The Mosquito has somewhat questionable performance at present, but that's another story.


Engine management. Is there a technical reason why engine manifold pressure decreases when prop rpm is reduced instead of increasing as it should?

Most WWII piston engines are supercharged. The pressure delivered by the supercharger varies roughly as the square of its rpm. So, if you're operating at the limits of the capability of the supercharger (ie at or above full throttle height), an rpm reduction will always lead to a reduction in manifold pressure.

High performance WWII piston engines are not like the Lycomings and Continentals most GA pilots are used to.

FoolTrottel
07-20-2006, 02:54 PM
Poor engine sound.
That's just a matter of perception, and using a good sound card, good speakers, properly setup... there's no poor engine sound... in my opinion....


Is there a technical reason that these sounds are so much worse than on any other game I've ever played?
See above, and... it seems in-cockpit an engine does not sound the same as when heard from externals, the sounds we can hear on flight-shows and videos...


I understand that it has something to do with the sound being generated by a synthesiser instead of samples, or do I have that wrong? Was there a technical advantage to this?
For immersion purposes I guess... in another combat flight sim, I could recognize an engine being hit, and predict the following sound-sequence perfectly, every time the same sample was being played. To me, that was very boring. In IL2, an engine being hit might start making very subtle sounds, like it's slowly breaking up.... making more and different sounds as time and damage progress... Pilotting long I can be surprised by this... that's fun!

As for the future: Read this Reply by Oleg Maddox (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/8371080943/r/6521073053#6521073053) about 'Sounds in BoB'

Have Fun!

flyinmick
07-20-2006, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Beaufighter. Is there a technical reason that the gunner had to be omitted?

The Beaufighter in game is meant to be an Australian version, many of which featured an observer rather than a rear gunner. Quite why the observer can't warn the pilot about incoming fighters is another question...


Ju88. Is there a technical reason that I can only access one of the rear gunner positions?

Yes - read the readme that came with the patch in which it was added.


F6F & F4U. Is there a technical reason why we have assymetric recoil on these aircraft?

AFAIK in order to desynch the .50s (as requested by pretty much everybody) several different browning M2 weapons were made, each with different rates of fire. They were then randomly dispersed around the .50 armed aeroplanes. It so happens that the F6F and F4U ended up with higher overall rates of fire on one side than the other, and thus assymetric recoil. C'est la vie. It may well get fixed at some point.


Mosquito. Is there a technical reason why there are no rockets on the Mossie?

We have an early Mosquito FB.VI and I suppose that we'll get the rockets if and when a late model arrives (with merlin 25s, w00t!) since AFAIK rockets were a relatively late addition to the Mossie - they came after the 500 lb bombs at any rate. The Mosquito has somewhat questionable performance at present, but that's another story.


Engine management. Is there a technical reason why engine manifold pressure decreases when prop rpm is reduced instead of increasing as it should?

Most WWII piston engines are supercharged. The pressure delivered by the supercharger varies roughly as the square of its rpm. So, if you're operating at the limits of the capability of the supercharger (ie at or above full throttle height), an rpm reduction will always lead to a reduction in manifold pressure.

High performance WWII piston engines are not like the Lycomings and Continentals most GA pilots are used to. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Finally!! Civil answers to civil questions!!
Thank you for your explanations. And you obviously know your engines. I operate Pratt & Whitney R1340 and R2800 engines and I understand your answer. I meant during run-up and at low altitude. This query was really nit-picking on my part.
Thanks.

flyinmick
07-20-2006, 04:13 PM
Thanks for your answer, FoolTrottle. I suppose it is a matter of perception, beauty being in the ear of the beholder (belistener?)
The Merlins and Allisons don't even come close to resembling the real thing, whereas the DB's do. I've had the priveledge of riding in a Mustang. It sounds waaaaay different to what we get in the game. Hopefully, BoB will be better.
The closest thing I've heard to what a Mustang sounds like in the cockpit when underway can be heard in this clip from Rowans BoB2. http://files.filefront.com/bob2+interceptwmv/;4062292;/fileinfo.html
The graphics are awful. The external sound effects are awful. The sound of the engine as you're flying along is pretty damn close and doesn't sound too boring to me!!
Naturally, you can't hear other aircraft unless they are REALLY close!! Sometimes in formation with another T-6 I can hear the prop but on one particular photo shoot I've had a Zero, Sea Fury, P-51 and a Bearcat all on my wing at the same time and never heard one of them!! How come I can hear aircraft miles away in this game?

WWMaxGunz
07-20-2006, 11:47 PM
Originally posted by justflyin:
Normal torque is always opposite prop rotation direction, as the engine is torqueing in the opposite direction of the prop. In your example, with no prop turning the air would be trying to force the prop to rotate in it's normal direction, but since it's not actually moving, if there was any torque developing, it would be with normal prop rotation direction, not opposite, as no opposing energy is being generated. It would try to twist the whole plane with the normal prop rotation direction.

Yet again, it should be much less than torque effect at full powered flight.



I can't answer about the direction you perceive and you may be right which means send a
track etc to the PF bug email address from the sticky thread.

As to how much and sources of perceived torque it's not a simple yet...

The real planes are not built completely straight because of prop effects more even than
torque which is not always the big one. So the tail and the wings are just a bit twisted
to allow the plane to run trim-neutral at some indicated speed and power and maybe that's
it and maybe not. Mostly the real planes were set for whatever cruise fit the job they
were designed for.

Viper? Corrections/additions?

So anywho when you run beyond the settings/conditions the plane is set is going to get
flight twisted one way and below those it's the other. And it's a long way from the
settings/conditions at trim neutral to no power and plane driving the prop. And I had
checked these things out back when the Spits were first intro'd and there was wailing
and the differences looked right as I had checked with my buddy and squadmate Oryx not
long before he got his PhD in aero engineering and went off to South Africa. Or at
least they were basically correct, he couldn't say about how much there should be just
that the way it worked and directions were correct -- since when you don't have the
full data, some kind of software wind tunnel and loads of time as well as knwoledge you
just can't know even closely on the how much.

How the plane will feel in twist prop stopped still has to account for the speed you
are at even, get slow enough and an engine out prop with spin still makes propwash.
You can hold speed steady in a dive but then you are gliding at less than 1G which
changes things to some extent.

So not simple at all. In fact, the very kinds of things that one would either build a
plane or... a detailed computer model that accounts for all the forces. Just too bad that
such a model can't run in real time even without graphics so no matter who makes the FM
for a combat flight sim it is going to have to use many shortcuts and will only be a
certain amount true depending on circumstances of 'flight' which leaves holes to be
picked at No Matter What PC Sim You Look At.

The big deal is who is doing the looking and how much they know or have experience with,
we have people who will raise a ruckus even over effects that are true, like torque they
perceive even when it is a matter of how the plane is rigged.

Cheers!

LEBillfish
07-21-2006, 12:14 AM
It hurts me so much to see some of you suffering so terribly especially since for a year plus now what will be done to finish off this sim has been stated yet exceeded by Maddox Games. The asking or wanting of certain things fine, hopefully realizing they most likely will not materialize more then understandable and acceptable.........Yet it's the angst, distress, upset, and great pains many are going through over a sim well past what we were promised that is causing many and others the problems we're seeing in many threads.....

Hopefully all having difficulty "reasonably" dealing with any want or issue they may have can sort it out....For those that just can't seem to, please take 2 of these and eat some chocolate http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
http://www.midol.com/Products/MenstrualFormula/Gelcaps/images/package.gif

justflyin
07-21-2006, 10:45 AM
First thing, it's the engine that is applying the main torque to an aircraft in flight. As the prop turns one way, the engine is "trying" to twist the plane in the opposite direction, yes or no?

MaxGunz, try this:

Fly a Spitfire Mk. VIII CW. While cruising at say, 2,000m, shut off the engine. Now, glide around in the plane for awhile and tell me what you see happening as:

A. The prop is being turned by the wind at some extremely small amount of revolutions.

B. The prop is stopped.

My testing shows:

In A, the amount of torque being generated should be at bare minimum due to the lack of power being generated through the engine.

The plane is being twisted violently in some cases and at not-so-random intervals, although I have yet to time them, in normal torque direction (to the left, opposite normal prop rotation to the right).

With this minimal amount of prop rotation, how can the torque be so forceful?

In B, with no turning prop, how can the same direction torque be generated when, as I wrote earlier, air pushing past the prop would try to turn the prop to the right and since no prop is moving, it would try to twist the entire plane to the right, not to the left? In either case, the torque generated should be nowhere near the force of torque from an engine at full power.

Granted, we are at the end of the cycle for this series, but food for thought for the next series is being generated. Plus, I've always been a firm believer that when a significant case is presented, it somehow DOES find it's way into a future patch.

I can't count them all, but many things were fixed with the V4.0x series of patches and who knows what might make it in later. As my first post in this thread indicated, (since we're going for pie-in-the-sky), why not discuss some issues?

NAFP_supah
07-21-2006, 05:51 PM
While we are at it could oleg please put in a Su-15 Flagon? To balance the west's F-104G I also want him to put in http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

RCAF_Irish_403
07-21-2006, 06:32 PM
Last Call?...make mine a whiskey on the rocks

WWMaxGunz
07-21-2006, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by justflyin:
First thing, it's the engine that is applying the main torque to an aircraft in flight. As the prop turns one way, the engine is "trying" to twist the plane in the opposite direction, yes or no?

MaxGunz, try this:

Fly a Spitfire Mk. VIII CW. While cruising at say, 2,000m, shut off the engine. Now, glide around in the plane for awhile and tell me what you see happening as:

A. The prop is being turned by the wind at some extremely small amount of revolutions.

B. The prop is stopped.

My testing shows:

In A, the amount of torque being generated should be at bare minimum due to the lack of power being generated through the engine.

The plane is being twisted violently in some cases and at not-so-random intervals, although I have yet to time them, in normal torque direction (to the left, opposite normal prop rotation to the right).

With this minimal amount of prop rotation, how can the torque be so forceful?

In B, with no turning prop, how can the same direction torque be generated when, as I wrote earlier, air pushing past the prop would try to turn the prop to the right and since no prop is moving, it would try to twist the entire plane to the right, not to the left? In either case, the torque generated should be nowhere near the force of torque from an engine at full power.

Granted, we are at the end of the cycle for this series, but food for thought for the next series is being generated. Plus, I've always been a firm believer that when a significant case is presented, it somehow DOES find it's way into a future patch.

I can't count them all, but many things were fixed with the V4.0x series of patches and who knows what might make it in later. As my first post in this thread indicated, (since we're going for pie-in-the-sky), why not discuss some issues?

Well I used the IXe since I just got home and didn't reload your post before checking.
Right off the top, the thing is very hard to get and keep flying wings level and slip
coordinated. It's a balancing act. I do this by flying with front view panned one
click down so I can watch the slip and turn indicators. Not as easy as most others I
have tried while watching the ball. Pretty twitchy with my stick settings that work
very nicely with most other planes... I guess if it's a noob plane then the noobs must
ignore slip and just power through moves?

So I get it cranking along at 100% power and there's a bit of left rudder needed that
varies as the twisty stick and hand torque do which anyway I have rudder starting at a
high value and progressing in a straight line to 100, like 3 points difference per slider
so 70-some to 100 which is great for so many planes but not the Spits.

100% power and auto-prop and then I turn the engine off. The plane wants to roll over
to the right massively compared to how it was, but then the thing was twitchy before.
Try spinning a wheel on a fixed axle fast to the right and suddenly stopping it btw...
you don't get a sudden twist to the left as the inertia of the wheel remains going
right. So that first hard twist is something I should expect and it does pass quickly.

After that I still have to rudder right to eliminate slip, correct? At least before
the plane slows down into the stall range?

I can't say exactly what the auto-prop did to the prop pitch... guessing it should have
flattened the pitch to the low stops. And the prop blades are now at deep negative AOA
so call it a windmill. Try holding a windmill shaft against the wind when it normally
turns right, the twist will be to the right. But unlike a windmill the plane has wings
and tail that are twisted to counter torque and wash in normal flight conditions which
is not with the engine off. So you got wind on the prop but you also have differently
tweaked wings and slightly angled tail that work great at about cruise speed, opposite
to the effects of torque and wash and whatever at that speed.

Get it? What you see as torque is the airframe in an unpowered glide condition far more
than what the air over the prop blades (which only adds to that) makes.

WWII prop fighters do not have symmetric wings because they would be very difficult to
fly power on if they did. The tails are not centerline straight for the same reason.
These are not unpowered gliders with motors in the noses and won't behave the same.

Look at the power to weight of the IXe. Look at the large wing area that the propwash
flows over. The tail is less so affected, it is farther back in the wind. Perhaps
those are some reasons why the thing is affected so much by the change.

It's people who can't or won't understand or don't take the time to work these things
through even after the basic information has been posted but still just know they have
it right that makes me think they shouldn't bother with sims but just stick to some kind
of "Magic: The Gathering" card game except with airplane pictures, very few factors on
each card and always the same easy to work out answers.

Whatever is "off", it's not the direction of the 'torque'. It's that torque is not only
not the only factor but it's not the biggest one when the engine is off.

I posted about this above in a shorter version, btw.

Viper2005_
07-22-2006, 01:27 AM
Having conducted some tests, the only questionable "torque" (for it may not be torque) issue that I can find is that if you stop the prop the aeroplane will try to roll in the same direction in which it would try to roll at full power.

Try as I might, I can't construct a logical reason for this behaviour due to the strength of the rolling tendency.

For example, in the case of the Spitfire, it is quite easy to run out of aileron in a glide with the prop stationary.

I suppose that the ideal test subjects for this are the Spitfire IX and +25 Spitfire since they have identical aerodynamics, and differ only in their engine power/torque.

P-51C/Mustang III would be another good pair, as would P-47D-27/P47D.

Anyway, as long as the prop is turning, performance is reasonable.

Novoroso
07-22-2006, 12:45 PM
Amongst artists, there's a saying that a painting is never finished, you just stop working on it.

This reflects the realisation that any work, be it great or small, can never be quite good enough; the artist strives to create the perfect example of the vision he has, but never achieves perfection - we are all mere mortals, after all. The more complex a work, the greater the ranger of dynamics within it, then the more frequently will the law of diminshing returns kick in, alongside the risk that attempted improvements can have unintended consequences.

I'd wager that Oleg never expected to be still working on IL-2 this year. The fact that they're still release patches and fixes, when they are so clearly fully engaged upon their next masterpiece, shows an incredible kindness to the community playing IL-2 today. The programmers want to work on Bob guys - they've moved on. The fact that they still go back to that old code INSTEAD of working on their primary concern showsa great love for this community that rarely ever seems returned.

Lewicide
07-23-2006, 01:19 AM
The 190 pit/sight issue

The Spit pit issue (cant see the nose)

The gun wobble in the Corsairs and Wildcats (maybe the 4 cannon spit)

A/G rocket loadout for the Fw's

Rocket loadout for the Wildcats and Mossie

possibly improve the power of the German torpedos.

just wishing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

NonWonderDog
07-23-2006, 10:21 PM
Oh, the stopped-prop torque bug is still there? I'd really hoped that had been fixed, and I still really hope it gets fixed soon. I want to say the bug was introduced in 4.00, but it may be that it was just never noticable before they cranked the torque effects up. It affects every plane in the game, and it even changes with propeller rotation direction (i.e. stopped props cause right rolling motion in Russian planes).

The ONLY reason the described effect would ever happen is a divide-by-zero or other error in the code. It is not a physical phenomenon. The model works just fine as long as the propeller is windmilling, but a stopped propeller in the sim generates what seems to be exactly as much fuselage torque (in the same direction!) as the engine does at max power. That is a bug.

Combined with the propeller's propensity to stop windmilling at low speeds (I know it's geared down and the engine is at very high compression, but should it really stop so easily?), dead-stick landings in the sim are often quite a bit more difficult than they should be. You can trim the plane out for a dead engine, but as soon as you slow down to the prop-stopping point, you can go into an uncontrollable roll in the direction you just trimmed!

Max, if you'd let the prop start and stop with the engine off (just dive and climb a bit), you would have seen the issue, and you wouldn't have argued. It's not subtle at all. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VT-51_Razor
07-24-2006, 03:06 AM
"3. Abilty to put speed on carriers more then 16kts in FMB."

Odd, I can get the Lex and Sara up to 33Kts and the Illustrious and both Essex class carriers up to 31Kts. Even the Jeeps go 19Kts. I wonder what you're missing in the FMB??

Additionally, you should know that you can go into the .Mis file after you make a mission with carriers in it, and adjust their speeds to just about anything you want. The Jeep carrier are really quite fun if you get them up to about 34-5 Kts. It feels like you're actually flying off a carrier that is pointed into the wind LOL!

flyinmick
07-25-2006, 12:40 AM
I'm still wondering what effect you guys are attributing to torque. Is it roll, pitch or yaw?

NonWonderDog
07-25-2006, 11:55 AM
Torque => roll.

Really, it's not hard to see the bug. Just trim any plane out for max engine power and shut the engine off. In the absence of engine torque the plane will roll the the right (assuming it was trimmed before and has a clockwise-spinning propeller) -- this part is correct. When the prop stops, however, the plane will abruptly begin to roll the the left. Dive to pick up speed, and as soon as the prop windmills again the plane will go back to rolling right. Pull up, slow down until the prop stops, and the plane rolls left again.

That shouldn't happen.

It's not as noticable in the Corsair as it is in Russian planes, for some reason. Try the I.A.R. 80 for a *real* shocker. If you trim it for a windmilling prop, you need about 80% left aileron (it's a CCW prop) just to keep it flying straight once the prop stops spinning.

WWMaxGunz
07-25-2006, 01:18 PM
The planes should be different as even with Russian planes the prop may turn one way or
the other. In the interview with the Yak pilot, he related that but I forget which one
had the prop turn CW as seen from cockpit.

Are they ALL the same?

Different fighters should have wings with differential wash and at low power or power
off the effect of the wings should be more than what the prop gives. Even more there
is vert stab offset. From some reading at one forum a member had mentioned that at
least one Spit and one FW had 2 degrees washout and they were very torquey machines!

From Don Stackhouse at www.djaerotech.com/dj_askjd/dj_questions/propeffects.html, (http://www.djaerotech.com/dj_askjd/dj_questions/propeffects.html,)

For example, the fin on the Aeronca 7AC "Champion" I used to fly was welded to the
fuselage with the leading edge offset to the left (i.e.: so it acted like right rudder),
about 1/2" if I remember correctly. The P-factor and slipstream effects were greater than
this offset could counteract when the airplane was taking off and climbing, so some right
rudder was necessary in that flight mode. The offset was just about right in cruise (the
mode where the plane would supposedly spend most of its time), and the airplane would fly
coordinated with essentially zero rudder.
In a power-off glide, the P-factor and slipstream effects were much less, but the fin was
still offset, so LEFT rudder was required to keep the airplane in a coordinated glide.

The warbirds with the high power to weight ratios and 30's-40's designs will have more of
that than modern GA, yah?

NonWonderDog
07-25-2006, 01:28 PM
Yes, yes, yes, that's all correct, and that's the way it works in the sim... as long as the propeller is windmilling. As soon as the propeller stops spinning the aircraft behaves as if it's got all the torque of the engine at full power acting on it. If you have a plane with a CW propeller (American, British, German) a stopped prop will cause you to bank left; if you have a plane with a CCW propeller (most Russian, Romanian) a stopped prop will cause you to bank right.

Again, try it. There's really no explaining the behavior in the sim. It's a bug.

WWMaxGunz
07-26-2006, 02:11 AM
I did try it on two planes. I just wanted to be sure the direction is right and I guess
that in Mr. Stackhouse's example the prop must have been turning as there are still the
P-factor and propwash effects.

But it did not seem to me as if Spit with stopped prop was full left torque. Guess I
goofed on that!

Maybe it will get changed. It's not a big problem unless your engine goes out and you
want to glide to a landing, which while that's not much of the time isn't exactly too
rare either.

NWD, can you write it up clearly and email to... what is the bug report address?

R_Target
08-01-2006, 11:04 AM
Before they turn the lights out, correct speeds on the Hellcat would be nice.

http://img485.imageshack.us/img485/5820/f6frealspeedau4.jpg

F6_Ace
08-01-2006, 02:02 PM
Never mind all that cobblers.

Oleg: this has to be a no-brainer. Can you add a switch, even if it just a server switch so you maybe don't have to change the GUI, so you can have externals on online without padlock (F6, F7 etc) being enabled?

No doubt the mods will threaten to ban me for such a reasonable suggestion (as they did with someone else before) but it's something that could be implemented while you are waiting for the 4.06 SFS files to be encrypted http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Scen
08-01-2006, 03:25 PM
While we are at it. Fix the P38 dive characteristics especially below 12,000 ft. Give it the proper elevator authority according to the real dive charts.

reverendkrv1972
08-02-2006, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by F6_Ace:
Never mind all that cobblers.

Oleg: this has to be a no-brainer. Can you add a switch, even if it just a server switch so you maybe don't have to change the GUI, so you can have externals on online without padlock (F6, F7 etc) being enabled?

No doubt the mods will threaten to ban me for such a reasonable suggestion (as they did with someone else before) but it's something that could be implemented while you are waiting for the 4.06 SFS files to be encrypted http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

indeed,this IS a good idea