PDA

View Full Version : Suggestion for fix to 109 manual/auto prop-pitch exploit



HayateKid
04-27-2004, 03:02 PM
How about making auto or manual choice selectable only when the engine is at idle speed (sufficiently low throttle setting). This way you will be forced to choose auto or manual on the ground, or otherwise incur a penalty on the air by having to throttle down first.

"First learn stand, then learn fly. Nature rule, Daniel San, not mine." - Mr. Miyagi

HayateKid
04-27-2004, 03:02 PM
How about making auto or manual choice selectable only when the engine is at idle speed (sufficiently low throttle setting). This way you will be forced to choose auto or manual on the ground, or otherwise incur a penalty on the air by having to throttle down first.

"First learn stand, then learn fly. Nature rule, Daniel San, not mine." - Mr. Miyagi

Fehler
04-27-2004, 03:20 PM
Or just give it the realistic power gains like it was in real life.. But oops, your CPS boys will also have to have yoru runaway props, and well, just think of all the crying then!

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/FehlerSig.gif
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html

VMF513_Sandman
04-27-2004, 03:24 PM
puttin a 109 in manual can give u more engine power, but u have to constantly adjust it. if u over-rev, u'll soon have overheat. and in a 109, some models will engine seize within 5 seconds. u have to spool down the pitch in dives and up in climbs...if u forget either, bad mojo awaits.

Korolov
04-27-2004, 03:25 PM
Yeah, but CSP's maintain the RPM they're set for, barring any damage. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

249th_Harrier
04-27-2004, 08:49 PM
See this thread as to why the representation of manual/auto switching does NOT approximate the actual function of the plane. There should be no instantaneous switch in prop pitch when switching from auto to manual.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=895105373

Bearcat99
04-27-2004, 10:33 PM
Considering the ease at which the engine can burn up it's a trade off IMO. Why not just suck it up and learn to beat it instead of crying about it. This reminds me of all the bitc#in and groaning about "trim" exploit. Its all a bunch of hooey...... and crying over nothing. I wish all the planes would have the same option...tats what I would like to see.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://tuskegeeairmen.org/airmen/who.html)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | IL2 Manager (http://www.checksix-fr.com/bibliotheque/detail_fichier.php?ID=1353) | MUDMOVERS (http://www.mudmovers.com/)

S77th-brooks
04-28-2004, 12:06 AM
NO THANKS ,WHAT A FOOLISH POST http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

HayateKid
04-28-2004, 08:30 AM
I don't think i made myself clear. I was talking about the cheat/exploit of switching prop pitch to auto and manual rapidly back and forth over and over - auto,manual,auto,manual,auto,manual,.... My suggestion is a way to prevent people from doing this.

"First learn stand, then learn fly. Nature rule, Daniel San, not mine." - Mr. Miyagi

WWMaxGunz
04-28-2004, 09:04 AM
It wouldn't do that if on switching to manual the prop kept the same pitch that it had in auto. But that might not be how it really worked either. It may head for where the manual control is set and while not instantly then pretty fast. Doing that exploit would normally load and unload the engine rapidly like running manual and running the pitch up and down crazy fast, I'd expect something to break after a while under load conditions which is beyond the scope of this or any sim.


Neal

CaptainGelo
04-28-2004, 09:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VMF513_Sandman:
puttin a 109 in manual can give u more engine power, but u have to constantly adjust it. if u over-rev, u'll soon have overheat. and in a 109, some models will engine seize within 5 seconds. u have to spool down the pitch in dives and up in climbs...if u forget either, bad mojo awaits.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

its easy to adjust it, just need to get used to it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''
http://www.danasoft.com/vipersig.jpg

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''


plane is 2slow, guns are 2weak and DM suck?...Then click here (http://www.hmp16.com/hotstuff/downloads/Justin%20Timberlake%20-%20Cry%20Me%20A%20River.mp3)

Fear british army. (http://216.144.230.195/Videos/Medium_WMP8/British_Attack.wmv)



http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v68/wolf4ever/Animation3.gif
"Big Bills suck, small Bills don't"&lt;----WRONG!!!! all Bills suck http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ajafoofoo
04-28-2004, 09:49 AM
If anyone here watched the tracks from the World Champs in China and you still think the auto-manual prop pitch thing isn't a big deal in a sim of this quality, then you obviously enjoy exploiting this bug.

It's a rather lame and cheap tactic/exploit/cheat to use and it needs to be fixed.

JG14_Josf
04-28-2004, 12:47 PM
The game error is complex from what I can see.

First there seems to be an error as to what constitutes maximum engine performance based upon historical documentation. Does the maximum documented performance of the 109s occur with manual or Automatic prop control and is this represented accurately in the game?

Secondly: Did the 109s actaully have additional performance over and above the historical documented performance when manual prop control was used and is this accurately represented in the game?

Thirdly: What was the cost in engine wear when manual prop control was abused and is this accurately represented in the game?


If the above answers are:

A. The game does represent accurate engine performance based upon historcial documentation while using the Automatic prop control.
B. The game does represent accurate additional manual pitch engine performance over and above the historical documented engine performance.
C. The game does represent accurate engine wear associtated with manual pitch abuse.

If the above is true: then and only then what remains is the Auto/Manual toggle exploit.

Fixing the exploit before fixing problems with the first 3 items is putting the cart before the horse in my opinion.


If the game did not jump from the Automatic prop setting to the last manual prop setting then there would be no on/off on/off on/off on/off exploit.

If the game did not allow instant or hyper-quick prop pitch changes then no exploit would exist (If the game didn't add extra engine power on manual mode then no exploit would exist either, if engine wear was excessive on manual mode at high rpm then no exploit would exist, etc.).

I think that the problem with the 109's in reality occured when the Automatic system lagged the conditions of flight and the pilot could fix this problem by manually staying ahead of the need to change pitch.

The problem was that the 109 prop drive system was slow in changing prop angle and if the Automatic system didn't know when to change until the change was needed (an obvious problem with passive automation: note: Active Suspension systems in todays automobiles) then in combat the passive automatic prop governor is behind the curve. The pilot could 'load up' the prop angle drive motor before the need for added RPM and therefore get ahead of the curve and be actively controlling the need for maximum engine performance.

Hydraulic prop angle dive motors, as far as I understand, tended to be more efficient and faster at changing prop angle under load.

One more interesting point concerning the 109 prop governing system occurs when the linked system is considered as opposed to the de-linked system. On the 109s the throttle lever controled the prop governor (the prop governor was manually controlled by a prop lever in other constant speed prop systems) so that the pilot actually changed both the prop and throttle levers simultaneously on the 109s. Of course when the Automatik ein switch was turned to manual the 109 no longer used any engine rpm sensing to govern the prop angle, when the 109 was on manual prop control the pilot controled the prop angle with a three possition switch and if the pilot did not select more or less prop angle then the blade angle didn't change (note: The 109s may have had an automatic feathering system that could overcome low battery/magneto voltage, possibly a spring)

So how did that effect maximum performance when the prop angle in the 109s changed slowly?
If the pilot closed the throttle he also selected a lower RPM much the same as a pilot with a prop lever would do if his throttle and prop lever were duct taped together into one lever.

Imagine a situation where the 109 pilot tries to force an overshoot. Is it better to remain on automatic and allow the rpm governor to adjust the prop blade angle or is it better to switch to manual so that the prop angle does not change?

In the game the prop angle does change when switching from Auto to Manual. The game remembers that last manual setting and the game will jump to that last manual setting when going from Auto to Manual.

That is the problem.

I think it is better to avoid treating symptoms and go right to the problem.

VMF513_Sandman
04-28-2004, 01:54 PM
there was an fbengine sheet that would spell out the optimum settings for all birds, and would list the rpm's, alt to change fuel mix, supercharger next stage, etc. it also said that if u switched the props in the 190's to manual, the prop would lock into an intermediate setting and u couldnt go back to autopitch. from what i see here, for the 109-e series, combat engine was 2200 rpms. over that speed, u run the risk of severe engine damage. for the f-2/4 and for g6/as, g-10, g-14 and k-4, combat engine at 2500 rpm, the g-2 and g-6 at 25-2600 rpm. it also strongly advises keeping all 109-e series under 3000 rpm. since the e series under the e-7/z didnt have boost, runnin an engine at 3000 rpm could almost be considered wep...but u'll also run the extreme risk of causing ur engine to lock up. for 190's, it advises not to switch the auto pitch off or ur prop will lock into an intermediate setting that cant be reversed for the duration of the flight.
if u look at the early training tracks, in every landing, the ai is reversing pitch while on final. but it seems to me in some planes, 100% pitch slows them down. in others like the p-38, the bird runs alot faster after the engine gets warmed up. but with all the vultchers around, a 30 sec warm up that doesnt have a very good aaa defense, its tantamount to suicide. i can see rocketing the aaa and dropping a pair of bombs on the parking lot, but its very lame to strafe a strip...especially when u'll need that ammo sooner than expected. strafin a strip dont impress me.....gettin thru my aaa in 1 piece and dumpin a bomb on my wing, that will impress me. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif

WWMaxGunz
04-28-2004, 10:07 PM
IRL this practice was not done. It can't be of any benefit IRL. The exploit is just that, an exploit of code shortcuts necessary to allow the sim to run at decent framerates -- there's no way possible to simulate everything that can be done with a plane and have it just so as in reality.

What gets me is the post saying the world championships tracks show the use of this. The big why is because the winner is one of if not the lead beta tester and AFAIK, on the official team as it were. If the beta testers are using exploits then can we expect them to be reported as such???? Hello MOSCOW! Why is it to the end customer to find and report things like this and the trim exploit that your beta testers in =FB= knew and used before all releases? Do they tell 1C these things?


Neal

Jetbuff
04-29-2004, 09:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
I think it is better to avoid treating symptoms and go right to the problem.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, remember the trim "fix" - never again please...

I don't like the exploit but (a) it's so ridculously minor; (b) as Josf noted, it's more complex than many think, so this quick fix is just stupid imo.

http://members.rogers.com/teemaz/sig.jpg

NN_Tym
04-29-2004, 10:23 AM
The present system is faulty, but it is quite easy to fix it.

In a real Bf109 you have a swith to toggle between automated and manual pitch. When you toggle from auto to manual, the pitch value is the one you had in auto.

On manual, a two-ways button commands pitch. To replicate it, you just have to :

1. Have a button toggling between the two modes : we already have it.

2. Have a (repeating) key for "pitch up", a key for "pitch down".

The only problem is the fact that the pitch can be set on an axis. So when FB toggles from automated to manual, it reads the axis position. If the axis is not read, then there is no more problem nor exploit.

Anyway this MUST be fixed because it leads to another incoherence on another plane. Flaps can be set on an axis, so the Spitfire can have flaps settings that are completely irrealistic.

The axis mapping should be non-functional on some planes to be as realistic as possible.

On the other hand, we need axis mapping for some functions on some planes, such as mixture control.

WWMaxGunz
04-29-2004, 10:34 AM
One real question is "is it minor?" and to that I don't know. I'm not really sure what is done but if it was used in the world competition then be sure it was worth the effort doing so.

Ajafoofoo, Hayate -- what's up with this? Are you guys going to hand out some details?

JB, the trim thing was and still is an exploit though it's not the exploit it was and now it's a PITA to trim properly. It needed fixing and for that matter, still does.


Neal

NN_Tym
04-29-2004, 10:52 AM
One thing annoys me about the manual settings : how were found the values used in manual mode ?

All the documents I have seen give performances for the auto mode only...

249th_Harrier
04-29-2004, 11:54 AM
I agree with Tym's proposal: make prop pitch like the I-16 landing gear with an "up" button and a "down" button, and no change in pitch when switching from auto to manual. It seems like a very easy fix, and it would make the sim approximate RL much better. I agree with MaxGunz, it is odd Oleg and his beta testers allow this to go unaddressed when it was so widely used. The ICAS competition lost credibility with me when this exploit was used constantly. The way that FB approximates reality is a big part of it what makes it fun and immersive. If you need to use unrealistic exploits to be competitive, it has lost part of that appeal.

[This message was edited by Harrier-PBNA on Thu April 29 2004 at 11:27 AM.]

JG14_Josf
04-29-2004, 12:20 PM
NN_Tym wrote:

'All the documents I have seen give performances for the Auto mode only...'

That was my point.

If IL2compare, for example, shows 'in game' data for the absolute maximum possible performance and if that data reflects manual pitch control and if this type of scenario is being used to support claims of 'overmodeling' then:
A. Did such manual pitch controlled performance actually exist?
B. Will planes be adjusted to 'less than realistic' performance based upon game exploit capabilities? or in otherwords:
Is the game going to require accessing the exploit just to get documented perfomance ability?

Here is the link for 'How to exploit the on/off on/off on/off automatic/manual pitch'

ICAS (http://www.saitek.ru/champ/icas/rec/Team%20Match/final/DEUvsRUS2/)

The on/off exploit may or may not offer more performance than a manual setting to a high RPM, however the Blue team did manage to gain more altitude before the merge. The Red player recording the track used a manual flat pitch/high RPM setting (something possible in the real 109s).

If the 109's are modeled with accurate automatic prop performance and if the only advantage the real pilots had with manual pitch is the ability to pre-load the prop pitch before a maneuver that could require more RPM instead of waiting for the Automatic pitch to catch up, then couldn't the fix be to top out the power curve at the correct RPM?

If no more power existed above the Automatic peak RPM then there would be no reason for a player to over-rev.



P.S. I do not think HayateKid's suggested fix is 'Stupid' although it does sound less than desireable based upon possible secondary conseqences.

Smokin256
04-29-2004, 02:17 PM
I Agree with josf, Guns, Tym & Harrier. I would like to add that one problem in addition to what has already been mentioned is the range of RPM that the games automatic system uses. It,s too low. The 110% throttle RPM setting is pretty close to correct in the G & K variants, A little bit too low in the F veriants, maybe 100-150rpm & a lot too low in the Emils. I don't have the figures in front of me ATM but I think it's somewhere between 200 & 250rpm low. But the main problem is the 0% throttle rpm setting. It should be about 1700 rpm instead of 900rpm as it is now. (I don't have AEP yet I,m just going on FB v1.22, but I dont think this has changed has it?) Using the G6 as an example @ 300kph, 0% throttle & 1700 rpm is about 70% prop pitch or about 10:30 on the pitch gauge. At 300kph, 110% throttle & 2800rpm is about 80% prop pitch or about 11:00 on the pitch gauge. Compare this to 300kph @ 0% throttle & 900rpm which is about 20 percent prop pitch or about 8:30 on the pitch gauge. At 450kph, 0% throttle & 1700rpm is about 45% prop pitch & 110% throttle & 2800 rpm is about 65% prop pitch. Compare this to 0% throttle & 900rpm which is 0% prop pitch or about 6:30 on the pitch gauge. This would make a huge difference in response time.

This would Bring the Automatic systems performance more in line with the manual sysems performance & help to make the exploit unnecessary.

It would also make the automatic system behave correctly in other flight modes as well. On take off when you advance the throttle above idle the prop pitch starts winding down to a more course position. This was never done historicly on any plane. Take off was & is always done at fine pitch/high rpm. Also when landing @ 225kph, the 0% throttle & 900rpm setting has us at about 30% pitch or nearly full course pitch. 0% throttle & 1700 rpm would have us at 95% prop pitch or about 12:00 on the pitch gauge. This is much more historicly correct.

Cheers........Smokin256

Jetbuff
04-29-2004, 06:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
One real question is "is it minor?" and to that I don't know. I'm not really sure what is done but if it was used in the world competition then be sure it was worth the effort doing so.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, it's still minor imo, mainly because in most of my engagements I try not to cut it that close... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>JB, the trim thing was and still is an exploit though it's not the exploit it was and now it's a PITA to trim properly. It needed fixing and for that matter, still does.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly my point, a half-assed fix is worse than no fix at all. Yes, address the issue by all means but do it with sound logic not just a stop-gap measure. E.g. I actually like NN_Tym's idea of having the thing switch to manual at the same pitch it was at before the switch - so long as it does not negatively influence the axis assignment and utility.

http://members.rogers.com/teemaz/sig.jpg

WUAF_MJ_Prop
04-30-2004, 08:01 AM
here.....read up http://www.thaitechnics.com/propeller/prop_control.html

http://grantd.darb.net/dancing.gif Patch Whiner caught on tape

ajafoofoo
04-30-2004, 12:33 PM
ANyone who hasn't watched the championship tracks and is wondering about this prop pitch thing should download and watch them.

It consists of pilots going "auto-prop" to manual rapidly over and over again.

The tracks look and sound ridiculous after watching this for awhile. Hardly anything that resembles a "sim" is left after watching a one on one battle.

NN_Tym
04-30-2004, 12:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jetbuff:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
One real question is "is it minor?" and to that I don't know. I'm not really sure what is done but if it was used in the world competition then be sure it was worth the effort doing so.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, it's still minor imo, mainly because in most of my engagements I try not to cut it that close... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
My main concern about all this topic is a methodology one. As far as I know, Oleg Maddox chose a very wise line : only use reliable technical sources and no guestimate, be it educated guess or wild one.

If there are values used on manual mode that are not documented ones, then we open a can of worms. Then any "logical" value can be used and we shall play a fantasy game, not a simulator.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>JB, the trim thing was and still is an exploit though it's not the exploit it was and now it's a PITA to trim properly. It needed fixing and for that matter, still does.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly my point, a half-assed fix is worse than no fix at all. Yes, address the issue by all means but do it with sound logic not just a stop-gap measure. E.g. I actually like NN_Tym's idea of having the thing switch to manual at the same pitch it was at before the switch - so long as it does not negatively influence the axis assignment and utility.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
There is a problem with that : if you want to map the pitch to an axis, then there is no way that you can have the last value used by the automatic mode when you switch to manual. You are forced to use the axis value, whatever it is , just like what we have now.

Then again, it was not an "axis" in the Bf109... One may be led to believe that it was because of the auto system somehow. Moreover, one may wonder why you want an axis, as it is not the best way to portray the real system. Most people, including me, want the most accurate modelisation of each and every sub-system of a plane. If the Bf109 used buttons, then give us buttons !

WWMaxGunz
05-01-2004, 02:45 AM
Exploitation of the sim code may be and is probably not about just pitch changes else they'd stay in manual and vary the pitch rapidly.

IF the exploit works out like or similar to this:

--- switching into auto causes re-initialization of some engine states like heat or time at high rpm before engine damage (any buildup or timing out no longer exists)... this kind of thing is a small oversight, btw.

THEN a true fix may be to not re-initialize those values and treat them the same way that backing off pitch or throttle is done in manual.


Neal

VMF513_Sandman
05-01-2004, 10:02 AM
this is where engine failures from over-rev could come into play. if u were to over-rev any engine for too long, ur plane would become a glider after u threw a rod thru the block, or u wind up damaging the internal propeller pitch control from slammin it from low rev to high rev. 1940's engines wouldnt have been able to tolerate the abuse like a more modern engine. they didnt have tolerances anywhere close to todays engines.

NN_Tym
05-01-2004, 11:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VMF513_Sandman:
this is where engine failures from over-rev could come into play. if u were to over-rev any engine for too long, ur plane would become a glider after u threw a rod thru the block, or u wind up damaging the internal propeller pitch control from slammin it from low rev to high rev. 1940's engines wouldnt have been able to tolerate the abuse like a more modern engine. they didnt have tolerances anywhere close to todays engines.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I guess the two-way electrical button of the Bf109 made it impossible to switch too quickly from one setting to another, while an axis can do it.

Once again, an axis is not the good way to model this sub-system.

ElAurens
05-01-2004, 12:05 PM
Prop pitch is globally incorrect in this sim. Part of the problem is due to how energy retention is off as well.

Talk ot someone how has flown or flown in a P51. When you pull back on the throttle they decelerate immediately. You will be forced forward into your belts. you will not coast on forever like in the sim.

IRL you don't have to pull prop pitch down to get your engine to decelerate.

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

Ugly_Kid
05-01-2004, 12:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ElAurens:
IRL you don't have to pull prop pitch down to get your engine to decelerate.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually the way I see it, IRL, if you cut down the throttle but leave the pitch to high rpm the engine will brake more powerfully than turning the pitch also back to low rpm. Why? Because the engine won't provide the high rpm in the first case anymore, the prop rpm is pumped up by the airstream -&gt; drag, negative thrust. Pull the pitch back to low rpm and engine is again running the prop -&gt; positive or small thrust, no drag.

Kurfurst__
05-01-2004, 01:11 PM
The trouble really is that the engine doesn`t break if overrevved, realistically it should break rather soon after being overreved by 100-200 rpm, which is not the case. Probably because the prop pitch can only be increased in rather large increments only, so it`s built-in a safety factor for virtual pilots, which unfurtunately can be exploited for unfair gain in power.

The solution would be make the engine break if overreved, but at the same time allow the prop pitch to be adjust in a much more precise way..

Apart from the manual pitch cheat, there`s also another problem, the impossibility to overrev the engine. IRL, there was a minimum RPM line for a given boost, if that was not followed, ie. too high Boost w. low RPM combination, engine failie soon followed. So on non-automated sytems, there was a strict rule to always lower boost first, and then RPM, or increase RPM and then boost. This ain`t modelled at all, but in real life, this slower response time was the main advantage of German single lever automated sytems.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

JG14_Josf
05-01-2004, 02:03 PM
More from AVweb (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/186778-1.html)

20thFG-PirAnha
05-01-2004, 02:59 PM
Yea, i've seen many people and squads do this to make their planes climb almost vertically like the K-4 and to go very fast in level. By puttin pitch at like 95-100% and switching back and forth between auto and manual u can definately get going fast. I've seen people doing this i know its here for a fact. I know how it works because anyone can do it. Which leads to the exploitation of it because they don't have superior flying ability.

Col.PirAnha CO of the 77thFS "Gamblers"

"Terror of the Skies"

WWMaxGunz
05-01-2004, 03:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

Apart from the manual pitch cheat, there`s also another problem, the impossibility to overrev the engine. IRL, there was a minimum RPM line for a given boost, if that was not followed, ie. too high Boost w. low RPM combination, engine failie soon followed. So on non-automated sytems, there was a strict rule to always lower boost first, and then RPM, or increase RPM and then boost. This ain`t modelled at all, but in real life, this slower response time was the main advantage of German single lever automated sytems.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is what the good pilots I know were talking about. Too much RPM is overspeed but too low for the engine pressure and you get overboost and maybe a bigger bang! Monte was saying that overboost does not seem to be part of the sim. There is also that the prop drive gearings and bearings are made out of some super material that won't break... I've done 740kph dive in a P-47, cut throttle and rammed the pitch to 100 and all it did was slow the plane down a bit when the amount of force back through the prop to keep that engine turning so fast, oh well maybe the parts are made of Delta-Wood (tm) only weakness is kryptonite, humidity and mold. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Even if it was possible to switch systems back and forth so fast while the prop pitch, rpm, etc, jumped back and forth the same speed then the shock strain to the engine would be bad for it. Very bad. This action should not be a way to get the most out of the sim, that's for sure.


Neal

NN_Tym
05-02-2004, 02:19 AM
One simple question to the ones that are in the know...

Was it possible to over rev a Spitfire engine ? How ? Can this be replicated in FB ?

Thanks.

WWMaxGunz
05-02-2004, 11:30 AM
CSP planes seem impossible to overrev even in steep full power dives. I do not think this should be true. Articles I have read on constant speed props tell that the pitch range of the blades falls far short of full feather at the coarse end. (to get one to feather takes special circumstances or a control which bombers had) If that is so then once the prop hits the stops the pitch can't get coarser so the engine will end up overspeeding. In the sim it seems the props can coarsen as far as needed.


Neal

JG5_UnKle
05-03-2004, 05:54 AM
Interesting discussion. I wasn't even aware of this Lame exploit http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif but IIRC didn't we have a different system for Prop Pitch in the past?

Before I'm sure that when you switched from Auto to Manual you had the Manual pitch of whatever you had on Auto (hope that makes sense?) so why can't we have that back?

I'm pretty sure it changed to the current system (PP "remembers" previous manual state) from one like NN_Tym describes.

Oh and WWMaxGunz - I agree, seems impossible to over-rev anything in game unless its a manual PP system. The CSP's just don't seem to ever over-rev, the aircraft brakes apart first.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg
JG5 Main Site (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer)
Public Forum (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer/forum)