I dunno, but to me, it seems that when I'm flying in my two favorite planes these days, the Tempest and 190 (any), I have to be WAY more cautious about turns at high speed and just diving in general.
One of the oddest things I've had happen is that I was flying along in a Tempy straight and level at 500kph (not in a dive in other words) and my wing just suddenly broke off (I had been looking at the map for a second but was still flying straight when I closed the map).
Anyone else noticing the FM being less forgiving about break speed and that sort of thing?
Also I sometimes hear "cracks" in the plane but can't see any visible damage (nothing's broken off the plane) and this'll often happen at speeds of only 400-550 kph and not in ridiculously tight turns either...
Anyone else noticing this kind of thing or am I just crazy?
I lost a wing off a P-38 under almost identical circumstances to those you describe. Straight and level cruise flight, no enemy around. No idea why that happened. Only happened once, though. Since then, I've routinely pulled maximum rate (possible at that speed, that is) turns at 300 MPH that should have had the thing coming apart at the seams, and it went merrily on its way. Hard to tell.
The "cracks" you're hearing are, according to the readme for 4.10, indications of overstress of the airframe, and resultant lower tolerances for the rest of the flight. They don't mean it'll come apart right now, but if you continue to push it hard, it'll eventually break. Example: 8G load Max - "crack" sound - Max G load now reduced to 6G. As I understood it, there is no visual indication.
I haven't encountered any sudden problems, and I don't think I've broken anything at all (Except intentionally).
Could it be an effect of random failures/reliability? I was under the impression that this only affected the engine performance.
What surprised me though was that negative G causes the airframe to break at a lighter load than at positive G. One would think that it doesn't matter which way you push a cantilever spar, but maybe I'm wrong.
If the spar was symmetrical, obviously, it wouldn't. Given that the need to withstand high positive G is likely to be more important then hign negative G, it seems likely that most aircraft wings are designed to different + and - G loadings. A classic example of this is probably the de Havilland DH.103 Hornet:"Construction was of mixed balsa/plywood similar to the Mosquito, but the Hornet differed in incorporating stressed Alclad lower-wing skins bonded to the wooden upper wing structure using the then-new adhesive Redux." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DH_Hornet) Presumably Alclad is better under tension, but wooden spars and balsa/ply skins resist compressive loads better without buckling.One would think that it doesn't matter which way you push a cantilever spar, but maybe I'm wrong.
Actually, I really enjoy the new feature. I've counted at least 5 times in which players online dove on me and simply lost a wing. Me-163, Ki-84, a couple Fw-190s. It's great. (A couple were an indirect result of intentional planning on my part - they weren't careful and payed for it. To bad I don't get a kill credit for those)
@ Andy - thanks for clarification. It's easy to forget that the strength is not in spar alone, but in all the components as a whole.
IS there some kind of "random failure" feature in IL-2? I wasn't aware of that... interesting.Originally posted by Romanator21:
I haven't encountered any sudden problems, and I don't think I've broken anything at all (Except intentionally).
Could it be an effect of random failures/reliability? I was under the impression that this only affected the engine performance.
What surprised me though was that negative G causes the airframe to break at a lighter load than at positive G. One would think that it doesn't matter which way you push a cantilever spar, but maybe I'm wrong.
Can this reduced tolerance happen and you not get a crack? (i.e. no warning)Originally posted by PhantomKira:
I lost a wing off a P-38 under almost identical circumstances to those you describe. Straight and level cruise flight, no enemy around. No idea why that happened. Only happened once, though. Since then, I've routinely pulled maximum rate (possible at that speed, that is) turns at 300 MPH that should have had the thing coming apart at the seams, and it went merrily on its way. Hard to tell.
The "cracks" you're hearing are, according to the readme for 4.10, indications of overstress of the airframe, and resultant lower tolerances for the rest of the flight. They don't mean it'll come apart right now, but if you continue to push it hard, it'll eventually break. Example: 8G load Max - "crack" sound - Max G load now reduced to 6G. As I understood it, there is no visual indication.
The feature was added in 4.10, but I guess I'm wrong and it doesn't affect airframe strength.All engines have now small chance of failure at every moment of flight. Probability depends on
power generated by engine and its RPM (more power, bigger chance for an engine to fail). Not
every failure is catastrophic, some of them just reduce power, but if its not your lucky day
then you might end up with a problem. Purpose of this feature is to give a reason to be easy
on engine, not to follow historical failure rates of specific engines. This can be turned off in
difficulty settings.