PDA

View Full Version : The Maddox love of german planes in general and the Messerschmidt in particular



zugfuhrer
03-02-2004, 10:05 AM
The Maddox team has shown its admiration of the germanbuilt aircrafts by giving them those small details that makes this game so enjoying to play.

Like the auto propitch and the dimmerglass on the sight.

As far as I know the Messerschmidt 109 is the only only plane that got a real constant speed propeller. It can be settled as automatic and you can set it manually. If you set it right it will improve your climbrate etc.

The rest of the planes has the 100% pitch as the best settings for constant speed.

The dimmerglass isnt maybe so useful but its most fun to flip up and down.

I have not seen the sun reflexion in the cockpit plexiglass surfaces in any other plane than the FW. I cant say that I have flown all planes under the same conditions but It is there in the FW190D, and it increases the realism.

Why dont give the other planes theese most usefult details too?

[This message was edited by zugfuhrer on Tue March 02 2004 at 09:29 AM.]

zugfuhrer
03-02-2004, 10:05 AM
The Maddox team has shown its admiration of the germanbuilt aircrafts by giving them those small details that makes this game so enjoying to play.

Like the auto propitch and the dimmerglass on the sight.

As far as I know the Messerschmidt 109 is the only only plane that got a real constant speed propeller. It can be settled as automatic and you can set it manually. If you set it right it will improve your climbrate etc.

The rest of the planes has the 100% pitch as the best settings for constant speed.

The dimmerglass isnt maybe so useful but its most fun to flip up and down.

I have not seen the sun reflexion in the cockpit plexiglass surfaces in any other plane than the FW. I cant say that I have flown all planes under the same conditions but It is there in the FW190D, and it increases the realism.

Why dont give the other planes theese most usefult details too?

[This message was edited by zugfuhrer on Tue March 02 2004 at 09:29 AM.]

Oleg_Maddox
03-02-2004, 10:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by zugfuhrer:
The Maddox team has shown its admiration of the germanbuilt aircrafts by giving them those small details that makes this game so enjoying to play.

Like the auto propitch and the dimmerglass on the sight.

As far as I know the Messerschmidt 109 is the only only plane that got a real constant speed propeller. It can be settled as automatic and you can set it manually. If you set it right it will improve your climbrate etc.

The rest of the planes has the 100% pitch as the best settings for constant speed.

The dimmerglass isnt maybe so useful but its most fun to flip up and down.

Why dont give the other planes theese most usefult details too?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What about K14 gunsight working acording real manual?

Constant speed propellers had a lot of aircraft of WWII and we model it. Sorry here you are wrong. Even I-16 has constant speed propeller. The other thing is differences in control of pitch. That we also try to model.

We still didn't change the control of cowling flaps for FW-190 to _only manual_ as it was historically. Simply hadn't time yet.
Maybe in add-on for AEP.

zugfuhrer
03-02-2004, 10:24 AM
I mean that you have the choose to set the propeller to automatic. Are there any other aircraft that has this oportunity?

Nothing wrong about the sight I am just amazed and glad that your team has put so much work to get the details right.

SeaFireLIV
03-02-2004, 10:30 AM
What are you up to, Zugfuhrer?

zugfuhrer
03-02-2004, 10:41 AM
I think that the Maddox team could use some credits for their good work on the details.
Most who writes here, including me, are telling them that this is not good and that is wrong, the xxx is "FUBAR" etc.
I have maid some tests with propeller settings and think that the manual pitch is most useful, and thoose who fly other planes than the Me109 could have good use for it.

Oleg_Maddox
03-02-2004, 11:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by zugfuhrer:
I think that the Maddox team could use some credits for their good work on the details.
Most who writes here, including me, are telling them that this is not good and that is wrong, the xxx is "FUBAR" etc.
I have maid some tests with propeller settings and think that the manual pitch is most useful, and thoose who fly other planes than the Me109 could have good use for it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you. Simply as more we give will more ask us users... But they some time forget how great is the work behind that sim and modeling these detials ...

zugfuhrer
03-02-2004, 11:10 AM
Thats right but is more satisfying to have the ability to give.
Many can only take.

A true artist creates because he loves it and can, not because of the big money, if you have enough to live well.

Keep up the good work, and give the planes the automatic prop pitch if they had it, please.

LuftKuhMist
03-03-2004, 12:46 AM
Hey Oleg, despite some complains I made about AI I appreciate a LOT your product.

And it runs fairly well on my dinosaur.

I have been a simer since red baron 1, I have tried a lot of sims and what you made is truly the best.

http://www.ifrance.com/boussourir/MOMS.gifhttp://www.ifrance.com/boussourir/grab0004.jpg

WWMaxGunz
03-03-2004, 12:52 AM
Funny but a lot of people have a much harder time with the 109's in manual mode. In dogfights the best option is often to put them in automatic where with most others you run manual mode and choose 100%.

Only the 109's, and IIRC not all of them, and some 190's have a manual mode where you can set the actual prop pitch. You control engine speed in level flight by setting prop pitch and power. That is the way it was on the planes we have although I'm not 100% certain about the Hurricane I. The automatic mode of those planes is a complex coordination between pitch, engine speed and power that the pilot controls through the throttle mainly as power. This system is known as VSP for Variable Speed Prop.

The rest have a Constant Prop Speed (controls engine speed) except for the TB-3 and maybe the Hurricane I (but I think that also has CSP). In manual mode the pitch % is really the desired engine speed as a %. BUT THE LABEL ON THE HUD SAYS PITCH % AND IT IS NOT THAT. Get used to it. In automatic mode it is also a complex coordination controlled by the throttle.

You do know that running around with a CSP plane at 100% engine speed will use up fuel much faster? Try running long campaign flights like that with limited fuel set on. Not that it's good to run the 109's at high revs while cruising or any plane on automatic at high power for cruising very far. Not for fuel savings.

On different planes the automatic systems sometimes vary. FW190 Kommandegerat was not found on anything US or Russian, the P-47 system was not found on German and Russian planes and the P-39's had a different system between earlier and later models if you read up on a certain Russian WWII Aces site linked here quite a ways back.

You keep mixing these things up. Do some more research! If you think one thing is happening when something else is then your sim testing will come out weird to say the least. This sim is not like the ones where all props work the same. That was not the way it was. They made this sim down to how even the engines and controls worked. Some things I'm sure are a bit simplified but there's a lot less of that than any combat sim the general public can buy that I know of.

But what you ask... it's already more right than you seem to know. I don't know of any planes where you can't set manual or automatic except for the TB-3 which has fixed prop pitch, no variance at all just like WWI planes.


Neal

LEXX_Luthor
03-03-2004, 01:03 AM
Zug::
-- I have not seen the sun reflexion in the
-- cockpit plexiglass surfaces in any other
-- plane than the FW. I cant say that I have
-- flown all planes...

I~16

Its about time you try them all at least a few times. You may find a new love (granted some here would consider this as committing Adultery against FW so don't tell anybody).

Recon_609IAP
03-03-2004, 05:00 AM
Yes, what else can you fly that has such lovely tainted yellow glass that can't be seen through :)

S!
609IAP_Recon

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg
Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem
http://www.jarsofclay.com/

LLv34_Flanker
03-03-2004, 05:41 AM
S!

With the AEP around the corner, of which I am happy of, there should for sure be credits given to O.Maddox & Team and also the other guys behind it(testers, model makers etc.)

About the detail given to Bf109 is in most cases well done. Some are truly nice little details, but there are some mistakes that can be proven wrong very easily.

One brilliant example are the MG131's on G-6 and later models. Their gun barrels point out unevenly, but IRL they portruded the hood equally long. This because of the ammunition feeding system that loaded them from OUTSIDE. This also caused the bulges on G-6 and later models. For comparison the F and G-2 series had their ammo fed from BETWEEN the guns thus the guns were placed "unevenly". In game this is only a graphical detail, but IRL not accurate.

Another is the "pee-yellow" Erla Haube and these strange metallic strips on it causing the view being obstructed badly to uppper left/right and front up left/right. This "bug" has been since first ever IL-2 beta and will remain despite info/pics shown to the developer.

About the manual/auto prop. EVERY pilot I have talked to, who flew Bf109G-2/6 in WW2, said that the MANUAL was used BEFORE starting engine(blades moved to 11:30 position) and IF the automatic system broke up or pilot wanted spesific CRUISE settings to save fuel. In combat it was ALWAYS in automatic mode giving best performance. Yet in the game we gain more with the manual.

List could be continued but as a whole this game is a very good one with a lot of work put into it. Therefore I have high hopes for BoB, since I am sure a lot has been learned from IL-2 series....

zugfuhrer
03-03-2004, 06:37 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Zug::
-- I have not seen the sun reflexion in the
-- cockpit plexiglass surfaces in any other
-- plane than the FW. I cant say that I have
-- flown all planes...

I~16

Its about time you try them all at least a few times. You may find a new love (granted some here would consider this as committing Adultery against FW so don't tell anybody).

Give a tip of what plane that has this graphical extension of reflexion exept the FW?

JG14_Josf
03-03-2004, 09:09 AM
http://www.airforce.users.ru/lend-lease/english/articles/golodnikov/part1.htm


A.S. Did the I-16 have a variable-pitch propeller?

N.G. On type-28s and type-29s. But, you know, we were somewhat skeptical regarding it. The VlSh [variable-pitch propeller] was good for heavier aircraft. On the I-16, either because of the opinions of the airmen or for still other reasons, the capabilities fo this system were rarely employed. It was controlled by rods, by a special hand lever. Before we began an aerial engagement we reduced pitch and subesequently worked only the throttle. That is all there was to it.

(Hurricane)

A.S. What about propeller?

N.G. It was interesting. We had a variable pitch propeller, but with wooden blades. We changed the pitch manually with levers and rods It was not difficult. We had on propeller technician for every four aircraft in the squadrons.

(P-40)

A.S. What about the propeller?

N.G. The P-40 had two types of propeller. With the electric propeller, the pitch was regulated by an electric motor, and with the mechanical propeller, conventionally with levers and rods. The electric propeller was automatic, with combined control by throttle and pitch. The throttle quadrant had a rheostat and the movement of the lever automatically regulated the pitch. The Tomahawk had the electric propeller, while the latest Kittyhawks had mechanical propellers. Both types of propellers were reliable.

I did not fly with the mechanical propeller because by this time I had transitioned to the Cobra. Regarding the linked control I can say the following: sometimes the linked conrol was a hindrance.

A.S. Strange. German fighters had a system of linked control of throttle and pitch. In fact, this system was considered a great advantage of German fighters. The pilot was less distracted in combat.

N.G. So they say. Normally, pitch and throttle are coordinated in the following manner: more RPMs - reduce pitch. This is how the linked system worked. However, when we were trying to overtake the enemy in a dive or conversely to break away, for maximum acceleration we needed to increase RPMs sharply. Initially the propeller was loaded up and only later was pitch reduced. If in a dive, with the increase of RPMs the propeller pitch was reduced immediately, the propeller would begin to function as a brake. German aircraft were good in the dive. In a fighter with a linked throttle-pitch system in a dive we either fell back or he caught up to us. Therefore we always preferred a separated or de-linked system.

(P-39)

A.S. You said that various propeller were mounted?

N.G. Yes. At first they had three-bladed props, later four blades. I did not detect any appreciable difference between them. These propellers were mechanical, they were controlled by hand, with a system of levers and rods. On later Cobras they installed combined throttle/pitch control. This was the case on some Q-10s, on all of the Q-25s and Q-30s. We preferred the de-linked control, where the throttle and the pitch were separate. This was on the Q-5 up to the Q-10.

WWMaxGunz
03-03-2004, 09:47 AM
You think maybe all these planes should have the direct control of pitch? It reads like maybe that or maybe like exactly what we have. When he says pitch controlled manually he mentions that as an alternative to throttle and pitch linked but I don't see for sure in all these cases that the rods and levers were not for setting desired rpms for a CSP system, esp with the P-39's. For the early I-16's and the early Hurricanes I'm less sure about the prop systems being right but the others I am not so sure, esp the P-39. If he says the same words for different things then maybe it's partly from using english or from a translation of his words to english? Between facts and the words, things are not adding up to the same as an initial impression and I suggest that the initial impression is what is not right and at least needs to be checked.

I think anyone wants to prove anything, they need documents on the actual mechanics and those do exist for the P-40's and P-39's AFAIK. Oleg claims to have these documents. Other people have some here and there, even sent copies to Oleg. Impressions from anecdotes recalled 40+ years after the events do not hold up to original documents.

Rods and levers. How many things did the pilot pull or push and how much was internal? For certain the sim has some simplification but to what degree and what other combat flight sim has these at all?


Neal

JG14_Josf
03-03-2004, 11:29 AM
Neal,

You can draw whatever you want from the reference.

It does not describe the game.

If the person was a WWII fighter pilot and if he did fly those planes in combat, then his opinion has some value, certainly at least as much value as yours.

WWMaxGunz
03-03-2004, 05:21 PM
Then what do you think he said without only repeating his words? What do they mean to you? Otherwise, why post them?


Neal

WWMaxGunz
03-03-2004, 05:22 PM
nt -- hit wrong button to edit above and add the word only. The forum does not allow posts deleted.

JG14_Josf
03-03-2004, 08:05 PM
Neal,

My opinion is not often shared, it is therefore a good idea for me to simply report what I've read.

It seems clear that N.G. Golodnikov prefered the manual system over the automatic system.

He flew Allied planes.

The game has only one system for the Allied planes.

Notice the title of this topic.

I agree with the poster.

The Messerschmitts appear to have had extra attention to detail in modeling.

The pilot can de-link the controls and get that extra performance with manual control, much like what Golodnikov reports.

When I read N.G. Golodnikov's report on prop controls I thought he was playing IL2 flying Messerschmitts.

WWMaxGunz
03-04-2004, 12:45 PM
http://rwebs.net/avhistory/opsman/pursuit/section3.htm

Note that the Curtiss Electric Prop used by all P-39's has choices of ON:automatic and OFF:fixed pitch. Those are it. Same prop is used on the P-47's or at least some. Coordinated controls
are noted for the P-39-Q10 and later.

http://rwebs.net/avhistory/opsman/pursuit/section4.htm

Can be gotten to through the P39 tab on the lst link.

Not in the Landing Procedure step 6:

f. Prop in 2500 RPM position, throttle to maintain 150 MPH in pattern.

I see nowhere in any of these steps a way to select pitch except the Fixed Pitch choice of turning the prop system off. Guess what? That's full fine, what you get as a safe position if the system fails as in fail-safe. You can take off or land at full fine. It's also good for dogfighting as long as you're not trying for too much speed.

Now what do you make of those notes you posted?
Same as what we get in the IL2/FB 109's? Funny,
but with those on manual you can select pitch and
not just one position. You still think those are
all the same or perhaps some things not said in
full detail and a language gap?

But then what we have in IL2/FB is with automatic it acts like coordinated controls regardless of
if the plane had them and in manual it acts like
without coordinated controls.

There are also WWII P-39 training videos available
at Zenos www.zenoswarbirds.com including two on
the P-39, a detailed intro and a how to fly.
I won't have Realplayer on my PC so I'll have to
send for the CDs sometimes.


Neal

JG14_Josf
03-04-2004, 08:58 PM
Neal,

If your opinion is that the game models the Allied planes correctly then that is OK by me.

I tend to put at least some weight in what is reported by the real combat pilots.

Joe

WWMaxGunz
03-04-2004, 10:50 PM
I put more faith in operations manuals and tech books myself. Esp over accounts that are not nearly as exact or clear.

P-39 props were all Curtiss Electric. The early ones had seperate control for rpms through pitch and the throttle while the later ones had the linked controls.

P-40 props? Here, go to the OFFICIAL CURTISS SITE
www.curtisswright.com/history/1934-1941.asp (http://www.curtisswright.com/history/1934-1941.asp)

What do they say? "The Curtiss electric propeller was standard for the P-40
throughout its life."

N.G. says not. Early had the electric prop and later had mechanical.

No, I guess Curtiss-Wright doesn't know what they were building, not if a
highly respected ace like Nikolai Golodkin remembers different even if he
also says he never flew one. C-W only made the planes and the props so
what do they know?

I'm not saying the sim has it right in every case. Sorry. Just a different
not right than you seem to think. Oh, pardon, you only make quotes so how to
know what you think? For me, some CSP planes should have auto pitch and the
alternative where we have manual should be fixed pitch set to fine. I can't
say for all Hurricane I's but very early had fixed pitch or 2 speed props.
Some other planes had 2 or 3 speed props, not continuously variable.

The question about the sim is where do the details stop without whining?
We have more and closer to real than ever before yet there's always another
small step to go. Perhaps, just perhaps there isn't room to code for more
ways to control propellers and still have the rest of the sim? Possible?


Neal

clint-ruin
03-04-2004, 11:38 PM
Hi Neal,

I don't think Josf is trying to annoy you, he's just providing a perspective from an interview that is quoted to support all kinds of things around here.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

JG14_Josf
03-05-2004, 01:02 AM
Clint-ruin,

Simply put, I agree with the topic title.

It seems obvious to me too.

Joe

WWMaxGunz
03-05-2004, 02:03 AM
I know Clint. I've mainly posted for others anyway. And I've made the mistake of using those quotes myself before. It took me a while to realize, but I had made a mistake when I did. They're too indefinite to prove much anything when the wording is examined against itself.

Let the chips fall. At least I can explain how I get my points and I can take being wrong.


Neal

Franzen
03-08-2004, 07:35 AM
Hi guyz,
Sorry, I don't know much about this stuff but it seems you have conlicting evidence. Is it possible, since planes were delivered unassembled, at least in part, that the Russians might have done their own modifications? That could explain the differences in reports. Just an idea.

Fritz