PDA

View Full Version : BF109 Super Boost with Prop Pitch. Bug or Feature?



IHI.OuTcAsT
06-24-2005, 06:56 PM
With any BF109s while you are full throttle (and MW50ed if available) and you move close to 450-500km/h you can use temporary (for 2-3 seconds) 100% prop pitch to make your RPM go crazy, but just before the engine is going to blow from the too high rpm, if you instanly switch to 0 prop pitch the plane takes a boost of 50-80 km/h in just 2-3 seconds. So if you fly with 500 after executing it just 1 time you are running just 3-4 seconds after with 580 and stable. Of coutse if you execute this thing more than 3 times the engine breaks because of overheating problems. But executing it every now and then when you need to catch someone, or you are ready to climb, it gives a big plus in the battles.

This prop pitch thing makes some sense. You take advantage of the proppeler temporary crazy RPM and instantly switch to the best proppeler pitch for "highest distance per revolution" as long as the high RPM lasts. Theoriticaly this should be a boost, But...

Why only the BFs can do this? BF is the only plane in which with 100% prop pitch the engines blows up from high RPM after 5 seconds or so. It is the way it was in real life? Did real life pilots used this manual prop pitch technique?

Generally, is it realistic thing or a forgotten bug?

IHI.OuTcAsT
06-24-2005, 06:56 PM
With any BF109s while you are full throttle (and MW50ed if available) and you move close to 450-500km/h you can use temporary (for 2-3 seconds) 100% prop pitch to make your RPM go crazy, but just before the engine is going to blow from the too high rpm, if you instanly switch to 0 prop pitch the plane takes a boost of 50-80 km/h in just 2-3 seconds. So if you fly with 500 after executing it just 1 time you are running just 3-4 seconds after with 580 and stable. Of coutse if you execute this thing more than 3 times the engine breaks because of overheating problems. But executing it every now and then when you need to catch someone, or you are ready to climb, it gives a big plus in the battles.

This prop pitch thing makes some sense. You take advantage of the proppeler temporary crazy RPM and instantly switch to the best proppeler pitch for "highest distance per revolution" as long as the high RPM lasts. Theoriticaly this should be a boost, But...

Why only the BFs can do this? BF is the only plane in which with 100% prop pitch the engines blows up from high RPM after 5 seconds or so. It is the way it was in real life? Did real life pilots used this manual prop pitch technique?

Generally, is it realistic thing or a forgotten bug?

HayateAce
06-24-2005, 08:01 PM
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/z/zundel.ernst/flying-saucers/saucers-007.gif

Badsight.
06-24-2005, 08:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by IHI.OuTcAsT:
Why only the BFs can do this? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>the messerschmitt Me-109 had a special control for its propeller pitch

in FB the ability to change from the Auto control to the Manuel control is much quicker & simpler than it was IRL , this makes it a useable feature in a DF , not realistic but accurate

(accurate in the way it allows engine RPM to go over the auto RPM limit thus giving more HP , not accurate in how fast its able to do it)

most allied fighters had CSP propellers that didnt have a manuel control like the Bf-109 has

oh & HayateAcehole , ive told you before , STFU untill your spoken too

http://img292.echo.cx/img292/4359/hayatenoob0de.jpg
^HayateAceholes last 1v1 with me^

HayateAce
06-24-2005, 10:49 PM
Why hello Badplight,

How's that pesky case of mange coming?

NonWonderDog
06-25-2005, 12:46 AM
Whether doing what you describe would result in a speed increase in real life or not is immaterial. In real life doing what you describe would cause the engine to fail. Spectacularly.

The sim is generally very lenient about doing stupid things with your engine. That's all you've shown here.


Don't forget that the Bf-109 "manual" prop pitch control is completely manual. You control the angle of the blades directly, unlike any other plane in the sim. Most planes utilize a constant speed propeller, where the desired RPM is set and the prop blades are adjusted automatically to maintain that speed.

I think the I.A.R. 80 is maybe supposed to have a variable pitch prop as well. IIRC, it was switched to a CSP in one patch or another, presumably because it was too bloody hard without a prop pitch slider. Maybe it was a different plane, but I think I remember this being done.

IHI.OuTcAsT
06-25-2005, 03:07 AM
FW190s didn't had the same prop pitch control as the BFs? The cockpit appearance of pitch meter is the same at least. You can't do that in the FWs.

kweassa
06-25-2005, 04:17 AM
It's a bug, at least in the sense that it should have never been in the game.

There are two sides to realism:

* technical realism
* situational realism

.. and sadly, those two are not always mutually supportive. In this case, it is mutually incompatible due to the fact that when playing games, people do stuff that no people in real life would ever do.

In reality, complexity of in-cockpit management is something that kills. There were reports and speculations among all major combatants of WW2 that a significant number of rookie pilots were killed simply because the controls were too complex to manage to get the plane under battle-readiness.

Most pilots would hardly even touch the throttle during combat maneuvering. The basic of flight was the "HOTAS", and going off from the "HOTAS" state to control levers or switches during combat was a very foolish business to do. Only the expert of experts would fool around with throttles and flaps.

Automatic engine/throttle controls meant something, and it was absolutely preferred over any other kind of manual adjustment - reducing workload for the combat pilot was very very important an issue in WW2. In that sense, the Fw190 and the Bf109 was among the first generation of aircraft that used a combined system that linked throttle, RPM control(prop pitch), and mixture control into one.

Going off from this auto control and using manual pitch adjustments were limited to emergency situations, or special sorties when a plane absolutely needed more boost(such as taking off from short runways in sub-standard fields).


The problem is, in the game, modelling this function exactly as it was is techincally correct, but since none of the hardships or difficulties of management are adequately modelled along with it, it gives rise to exploitation.

In other words, techincally and mechanically, it is realistic. But situationally, it makes people fly around unrealistically.

Opinions differ, but IMHO techincal realism should be beneath situational realism. If modelling something correctly offers an opportunity of exploit, an unrealistic limitation should be implied to enforce realistic situation.

In other words, it's basically "gaming the game" - ruining the aura and authenticity of WW2 combat. We can't really criticize the people who use it, since as long as it is in the game, people have right to use it to their needs. But in a certain sense of ethics, it's plane dweebey.

The manual prop pitch control should be removed.

Kurfurst__
06-25-2005, 06:04 AM
"The manual prop pitch control should be removed."

It should because it was there.

If people can exploit the manual prop pitch, it`s because of two things :

a, blade pitch angle changes too fast
b, overrevving the engine above limits doesn`t comes with serious consequences - true for all planes!

Fix these two factors, and bye-bye MPP exploit.
Me myself never used it btw. I don`t have the time for it dogfight. I dont need it anyway.

F19_Ob
06-25-2005, 06:32 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/4751023333

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

KG26_Alpha
06-25-2005, 08:14 AM
Although this is an exploit its no more an exploit that all aircraft have going from criuse to attack in the blip of your throttle and swinging yer wing over, an example would be P38 cruise to attack took several minutes to execute, this is not moddled in IL2 either.

Point is look at all aircraft quirks in IL2

IMHO Dogfight servers "ARE" the biggest quirk of all.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BigKahuna_GS
06-25-2005, 02:39 PM
S!


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Badsight--this makes it a useable feature in a DF , not realistic but accurate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


What ?

Badsight even your explanation does not make sense reguarding this exploit.

It is simply a bug that needs to be corrected.


__

NonWonderDog
06-25-2005, 02:53 PM
I don't know if it can really be called a bug; it's more of a "garbage in, garbage out" situation.

This is as close as it gets to a surefire way of removing a cylinder head from your engine in real life. Overrevving the engine and then pulling the RPMs down as fast as possible at full throttle... have you ever heard of "detonation"? The engine DM is just not complicated enough to deal with situations like this. Sadly, I don't think it will be changed.

Badsight.
06-25-2005, 02:54 PM
ok then let me put it this way , its not realistic in that it works so quickly (switching the auto control on & off)

but its accurate in that it gives you performance gains over an automatic control

BigKahuna_GS
06-25-2005, 03:40 PM
S!


Franz Stiegler when interviewed by WW2 magazine on this subject said he would never go to manual pitch while flying for fear of detonating the engine.

The manual prop pitch exploit sounds neither accurate or realistic.



Franz Stigler Interview:


WW2-Now, the first plane you flew in the Luftwaffe was the 109?
FS-Yeah.

WW2-Which was the first Model was it?
FS--109 F

WW2-How did you like it?
FS-I liked it a more than any other one.this is an F model.
(Franz points back to the massive painting behind me)
Cool.it has the tropical filter as well.
Yeah.and where is a G.(Franz looks around date the multitude of
painting and photographs). that is a G model here.(Franz points to
another smaller painting, again featuring a G-6 in his original colours).that's the last 109 I was flying.

WW2-The last one you flew was a G?
FS-Yeah.actually it was a K model, but uh.we used it as a G model, you know.and then I was a.a pilot for the 262 also.

WW2-But most pilots preferred, like yourself, the F models and the
earlier G's, like the G-2. What was the reason behind that?

FS-The G6 basically had a heavier motor and could fly higher.not more
speed, but that's it.it starts getting heavier every time they put
something new in.

WW2-Did you ever have the GM-1 boost or MW-50 in any of your planes?
FS-Oh yeah, we used it quite often.in combat you know.

WW2-How long did it last?
FS-Uhh.you were not allowed to have it at more than 5 min., you
know.if you used it 10 minutes, then motor has to come out.

WW2-It makes the engine worse?
FS-It wrecks the motor.

WW2-And this was for the higher altitude?
FS-Higher.yes.

WW2-And at what speed could you get up to?
FS-Oh boy.I don't remember.450 or 500 km.

WW2-Like you said, you could only use it for 5 min. otherwise you
would burn out the engine. How many 5 min. intervals could you use? Did you have to shut it down for a period of time to let the engine cool?

FS-That's okay.that uh.it didn't matter. You.but you never used it
for more than five minutes. A minute, minute and a half and that's it.

WW2-The armament, you used on the Messerschmitt.you used the Mk108
cannon?
FS-Yeah we had it in the middle.we had two centimetre.or later a
three centimetre Cannon.and then a thirty millimetre on top.two of them.

WW2-Was there a fairly big muzzle flash from the cannon?
FS-Oh yeah.oh yeah.(Franz pints to a picture of his Me262). Up there
we had four, three centimetre cannons.I shot a wing off a B-17 once...

WW2-Did the aircraft move quite a bit when you fired the weapon?
FS-No, no, not at all.

WW2-Really? I assumed that because of the large calibre cannon, the
plane would move quite a bit.
FS- No, no.only very small.but that's all.

WW2-What about the gun pods.a lot of pilots had the option of
these ?
FS-Oh, I never. I hated them!! I never had them on my airplane. As
soon as I got a new airplane. I say, "That's a **** part, off with
them!"...Made it sluggish, you know.

WW2-Yeah, I heard a lot of pilots hated them.so, if most pilots didn't
like them, as it made the airplane sluggish, poor manoeuvrability, why do
you suppose they kept trying to incorporate them?
FS--Just more firepower...

WW2-Now, in the F model, you had the automatic Prop Pitch control. I
know the early Emils it was all manual. Did you ever switch to manual
settings?

FS-You could.have uh, have it not automatic, but uh, as soon as we were off the ground we would put in automatic.

WW2---So it just handles the engine better?
FS--Because uh...in the air. you might overrev it, and the motor will start to burn

WW2--Okay.so you would only switch it to manual for take off and

FS--Yeah.



______

Badsight.
06-25-2005, 04:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The manual prop pitch exploit sounds neither accurate or realistic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

well the pilot of "Black 2" also burned out the DB motor during a show flight & had to emergency land because of fiddling with the pitch control

but that doesnt mean that it wasnt possible to control the pitch manually

in-game right now there are people who fly under manuel control constantly even tho its a higher work-load

the part of manuel pitch control that is wrong in the Bf-109 right now is the ease & speed that you can swop from auto to manuel & back again

this was a long debate at the german forum last year , what i was told from that thread is that IRL you had to power down set the pitch & then turn off auto , all of which took time

in FB we just hit a button , there should be some kind of delay built in asfar as im concerned

BigKahuna_GS
06-25-2005, 07:15 PM
S!


If the real Luftwaffe fighter pilots did not fly into combat with manual pitch and did not at any time switch to manual pitch during combat manuevers for fear of burning up the engine.

Why should manual pitch be modeled in the incorrect and inaccurate way it is now ?

From what I have heard, manual pitch can give as much as a 30% increase in climb on the 109K4. Whether that is true or not I dont know, but Robbin's climb test results already show the 109K4 having to good a climb as it is in automatic mode.

I would think you 109 jocks would want this exploit corrected.


__

Badsight.
06-25-2005, 07:29 PM
it is being exploited , but what needs fixing is the time needed for auto to manuel shift

and for engine wear from running over 3000 rpm to be looked at more closely (seperate yet connected issue)

to take it away completely would be more inaccurate than it is now

it would be like giving the Spitfires manuel supercharger control

the manuel pitch control in the 109 cockpit was right in front of the pilots hand & abel to be used at any time he wanted

F0_Dark_P
06-25-2005, 07:34 PM
aint the prop pitch removed in the new patch?! i couse i cant engage it in the 109 no more?, not that i use it i never have

so it looks like it is corrected by madox now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Jaws2002
06-25-2005, 08:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NonWonderDog:

I think the I.A.R. 80 is maybe supposed to have a variable pitch prop as well. IIRC, it was switched to a CSP in one patch or another, presumably because it was too bloody hard without a prop pitch slider. Maybe it was a different plane, but I think I remember this being done. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's corect.IAR-80/81 had manual variable pitch prop.
You can see in this reference http://www.partizanska-eskadrila.com/reference/images/iar80.jpg
that are two gauges: one for rpm and one for pitch.(1 and 9)
I sent some info to Oleg right after he changed it to CSP. Hes answer was that is too late in game to model another P/P system. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif or to change it back with a system similar with the one on Bf-109. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

kweassa
06-26-2005, 04:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">to take it away completely would be more inaccurate than it is now

it would be like giving the Spitfires manuel supercharger control

the manuel pitch control in the 109 cockpit was right in front of the pilots hand & abel to be used at any time he wanted </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This obsession with technical aspect of 'realism' is basically arguing semantics.

There are many more various stuff that is currently not modelled into the game. Obviously nobody playing this game would want to go through an 18-step checklist just to take off. So, if technical realism is so important, why not ask for total control of every switch and lever and function aboard the plane as opposed to the basic/essentials we have right now?

Because, the essentially simplified controls we have currently are enough to help us fly and fight in this game. Our purpose is to experience the fun and exciting aspect WW2 aerial combat. The darker aspects and consequences of combat are left out, and that makes this a game.

We're fooling ourselves if we keep consider IL2/FB a 'realistic' experience, because it never was and never will be close to the real thing. What we experience is only a part of the real life conflict, and the essence and merit of the simulation genre lies in the best parts of second-hand experiences of real life events.

Thus, every "realism" in a game, no matter how well it simulates the real thing, is essentially a case of SELECTIVE REALISM where only some parts of reality are selected to be modelled, in order to enhance the resemblance to real life, not deterr it.

Hours of flights, being grounded, check-lists to take off, minute technical details, and death, is not one of those things we'd like to experience.


Modelling a certain real life aspect in the game is to be determined by how well it serves its purpose as a game. A feature, no matter how realistic it is, has no place in the game if it provides an exploit.

Realism is justified only when it helps the game. In realistic terms, the manual override of auto-control has no place in this game. Where we ever gonna use it? If it goes away, what have we got to lose?

...

Think about that - what we lose and what we gain, from giving up petty realism that hurts situational realism.

When does anyone really use the prop-pitch control? When SHOULD they use it? How often are those 'emergency situations' which require manual override ever confronted in the game?

Compare that to the frequentness of gameing-the-game we meet in MP sessions.

If this small piece of 'unrealism(by removing a real device)' will actually help the game become more realistic by making people stick to the most represantative attitudes of combat flight - then I consider that a "realism", not the amateuer obsessions to petty details.

bolillo_loco
06-26-2005, 05:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
Whether doing what you describe would result in a speed increase in real life or not is immaterial. In real life doing what you describe would cause the engine to fail. Spectacularly.

The sim is generally very lenient about doing stupid things with your engine. That's all you've shown here.


Don't forget that the Bf-109 "manual" prop pitch control is completely manual. You control the angle of the blades directly, unlike any other plane in the sim. Most planes utilize a constant speed propeller, where the desired RPM is set and the prop blades are adjusted automatically to maintain that speed.

I think the I.A.R. 80 is maybe supposed to have a variable pitch prop as well. IIRC, it was switched to a CSP in one patch or another, presumably because it was too bloody hard without a prop pitch slider. Maybe it was a different plane, but I think I remember this being done. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the real bf 109 also had a constant speed prop, it had a manual control for back up. it would be impossible for any human person to maintain the max rpm of a propeller at full throttle, any additional boost, while at the sametime climbing and diving with out having the prop go wild and over rev the engine.

the P-38, 47, and 51 also had a manual over ride for prop pitch. I know in ethels recent "roaring glory" videos he tests the manual prop pitch of the P-38 before take off to make sure it works. he turns off the constant speed prop and moves the manual prop pitch lever back and forth and you can hear the engines rev up and slow down.

the manual prop pitch exploit of daimler benz equipped aircraft in this game is bogus for two reasons. #1 it is totally arcade and #2 only the daimler benz equipped a/c significantly benifit from this exploit.

kweassa
06-26-2005, 05:06 AM
You know what... modelling in the 'PILOT' is going to make this game a heckuvah lot more realistic.

For instance, you engage manual prop pitch control during combat and the "pilot" responds; "sorry friend, too busy to control that right now" or "I'm not gonna risk detonation!".. and he refuses your 'command'

Buwahahaha that'd be the ultimate realism.