PDA

View Full Version : Patch 402/402m Bug reporting



crazyivan1970
10-18-2005, 10:48 AM
Greetings all.

You all pretty much know the drill by now, e-mail your findings to pf@1c.ru , back it up with ntrk files or screenshots if needed. If you would like sharing what you found with others, feel free to post in this thread.

Please, do not start separate bug threads, keep it all in one place, meaning HERE.

Thanks.

Grunherzjager
10-18-2005, 11:01 AM
Hi,

Me 163
Doesnt climb, the same problem from 4.01, I´ve made several reports, the problem still there, the plane is useless.

TypeClouds=0
The command only work in Single Player Missions and the Quick Mission Builder. No matter what, it dosent work in campaigns. Same thing from 4.01, I´ve made at least two reports about this.

I tried every single possibility to get rid of these new clouds, no matter what, if you start the campaign with TypeClouds=0 in conf.ini, without Clouds in realism settings, or change the clouds detail to Medium, that nightmare clouds still there ruining my day.

Please Oleg, 1C, Developer team, whatever... Dont punish your users with old video cards, there is no point in locking the new clouds in off-line campaigns, that is so frustrating. I think the possibility to use the OLD Clouds, was maded to help off-line players, mainly playing DGen campaings, so whats the point?

Thank you,

JG53Frankyboy
10-18-2005, 11:21 AM
well, again http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif (like in 4.01)

- Spitfire Mk.Vc (both versions) in cockpit view there is no engine cowling visible. the cockpit seems programmed to high in the fuselage

- Seafire LOD are "loosing" their wings at around 2000m distance ( in my perfect settings), they are flying pencils than

-ammo loadout for Ki-100 fuselage cannons are with 250rpg to high. Ki-84-Ib has 150rpg to compare with.

LEBillfish
10-18-2005, 12:18 PM
Not sure if it is a bug, yet testing I set up on the low 5 of a B-24 to go for (shoot) wing root. Instantly when I stabilized the B24 snapped it's tail roughly 30 degrees to the side and down to block my shot with its tail....

Tried it many times and in all cases the B24 would radically adjust to block the shot just as I'd get stable.....Not sure if it has always been this way or not.....Yet the B24's adjustments were instant and radical.

woofiedog
10-18-2005, 01:14 PM
There is no Skin Files for the New Aircraft.

I made a new file for the P-47D and it works ok... but the Yak 7B has the same name for two version of the Yak 7B??

Monson74
10-18-2005, 01:20 PM
The front wheels of the new Yak7b 1942 "sinks" deep into the ground/runway.

The Cr.42 still won't carry Italian markings.

Dexmeister
10-18-2005, 02:38 PM
SORRY FOR CAPS, TRYING TO GET THIS NOTICED THIS TIME.

ON MATROX PARHELIAS, THE FOV IS NOT WORKING PROPERLY. WHEN ZOOMED OUT AS FAR AS POSSIBLE, I CAN'T EVEN SEE THE COCKPIT (ie. still zoomed in too far). WHEN I ZOOM IN ALL THE WAY, THE GUNSIGHT IS 21 INCHES WIDE.

Oleg, kindly, we both know this is a really simple issue. I logged it after 4.01 and now log it again. If you don't intend to fix it, please PM me and let me know so I can uninstall and move on. Thx and hopefully it can be fixed.

Panzer_JG11
10-18-2005, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by Grunherzjager:
Hi,

Me 163
Doesnt climb, the same problem from 4.01, I´ve made several reports, the problem still there, the plane is useless.

TypeClouds=0
The command only work in Single Player Missions and the Quick Mission Builder. No matter what, it dosent work in campaigns. Same thing from 4.01, I´ve made at least two reports about this.

I tried every single possibility to get rid of these new clouds, no matter what, if you start the campaign with TypeClouds=0 in conf.ini, without Clouds in realism settings, or change the clouds detail to Medium, that nightmare clouds still there ruining my day.

Please Oleg, 1C, Developer team, whatever... Dont punish your users with old video cards, there is no point in locking the new clouds in off-line campaigns, that is so frustrating. I think the possibility to use the OLD Clouds, was maded to help off-line players, mainly playing DGen campaings, so whats the point?

Thank you,

S! Grunherzjager

It seems our posts were completely useless, just like this place...Those ridiculous clouds are still there and I can't play the campaigns.

Sorry Oleg, I have not an ATI XYZ8995600 8GB or an Nvidia FXYZ 9850000. Maybe in Russia they are cheap, but not in my country.

Panzer

Tvrdi
10-18-2005, 05:21 PM
I wish you all the best in ruining the best sim ever with every new patch...enjoy in your newly created little master peace arcade..I just hope BoB is worth of that siince nobody is left to deal with the PF patches...obviously



GOODBYE after 5 years

jamesdietz
10-18-2005, 06:12 PM
GRUNHERTDITTO CLOUDS ...CANNOT SEEM TO GET THE OLD ONES BACK IN CAMPAIGNS-WHAT TO DO?

|CoB|_Spectre
10-18-2005, 06:36 PM
Apparently a new object was added to the FMB Object library, number 202. Only thing, it's invisible. The "Show" button to preview the selected object is grayed-out and you cannot place the selected object. It would be helpful if new objects were added onto the end of the list rather than shuffling the entire catalog. Makes it unnecessarily cumbersome for mission builders to locate new objects and resort.

pegon1
10-18-2005, 09:54 PM
Using my Emagin Z800 3D visor the terrain/water is still moastly black. allso at a distance, 1 airplane shows up as 3 dots (wery bad for headons)

FltLt_HardBall
10-18-2005, 09:59 PM
I'm getting stutters during explosions and ground attack now. What's up with that?

96th_Nightshifter
10-18-2005, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by Tvrdi:
I wish you all the best in ruining the best sim ever with every new patch...enjoy in your newly created little master peace arcade..I just hope BoB is worth of that siince nobody is left to deal with the PF patches...obviously



GOODBYE after 5 years

Bug report? I think not - cya later.

AWL_Frog
10-18-2005, 11:59 PM
Hi!

I think in version 4.02m the effect of the spinning prop to the airplane is working into the wrong direction. The spinning prop should give a reverse force to the airplane, rolling the plane into a direction opposite to the direction the prop is spinning.

But in 4.02m the prop gives a force with the same direction, causing the aircraft to roll with the prop.

Best regards,

Frog

Snuff_Pidgeon
10-19-2005, 12:27 AM
Thanx Oleg & team, for the much improved FM.

HunglikePony
10-19-2005, 12:31 AM
Originally posted by |CoB|_Spectre:
Apparently a new object was added to the FMB Object library, number 202. Only thing, it's invisible. The "Show" button to preview the selected object is grayed-out and you cannot place the selected object. It would be helpful if new objects were added onto the end of the list rather than shuffling the entire catalog. Makes it unnecessarily cumbersome for mission builders to locate new objects and resort.

amasingk, did they be doing this realy? That is most stupd thing to do putting thing in middle and not at end? No logic there?? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

christopher65
10-19-2005, 01:06 AM
Have noticed that "most" (tested about 6!!) a/c seem very "TWITCHY" with 402m.Left wing seems to drop violantly about 10 degrees every 15 secs or so,is this correct??
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Oleg_Maddox
10-19-2005, 01:21 AM
Originally posted by Grunherzjager:
Hi,

1) Me 163
Doesnt climb, the same problem from 4.01, I´ve made several reports, the problem still there, the plane is useless.

2) TypeClouds=0
The command only work in Single Player Missions and the Quick Mission Builder. No matter what, it dosent work in campaigns. Same thing from 4.01, I´ve made at least two reports about this.

I tried every single possibility to get rid of these new clouds, no matter what, if you start the campaign with TypeClouds=0 in conf.ini, without Clouds in realism settings, or change the clouds detail to Medium, that nightmare clouds still there ruining my day.

Please Oleg, 1C, Developer team, whatever... Dont punish your users with old video cards, there is no point in locking the new clouds in off-line campaigns, that is so frustrating. I think the possibility to use the OLD Clouds, was maded to help off-line players, mainly playing DGen campaings, so whats the point?

Thank you,

1. Me-163 with full fuel load climbs as it should. It was wrong before 4.01

2. Clouds type:
Old and new clouds are playing different role in the gameplay of campaign. So it is done especially - impossibility to change the type of clouds during campaign. Campaign engine when starting/generating the first mission of campaign reads the cloud types from conf.ini and then rememeber this type of clouds the whole campaign, becasue it is also difficlty setting. So if you are unable to play with this, you need to restart this campaign (generate new), but before this you need to set back in conf.ini file the type of clouds.

Oleg_Maddox
10-19-2005, 01:25 AM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
well, again http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif (like in 4.01)

1. - Spitfire Mk.Vc (both versions) in cockpit view there is no engine cowling visible. the cockpit seems programmed to high in the fuselage

2. - Seafire LOD are "loosing" their wings at around 2000m distance ( in my perfect settings), they are flying pencils than

3. -ammo loadout for Ki-100 fuselage cannons are with 250rpg to high. Ki-84-Ib has 150rpg to compare with.


1. We already told it on forums that this we will keep as it is. Its becasue of a bit wrong third party models. We can't rework it due to lack of time, becasue it is global rework of cockpit or the plane model. So it will be as it is.

2. We don't get this problem we checked many times. Probably it may happens with very specific driver and settings for this driver.

3. Never received this report on PF address. We will check with the sources.

Oleg_Maddox
10-19-2005, 01:29 AM
Originally posted by woofiedog:
There is no Skin Files for the New Aircraft.

I made a new file for the P-47D and it works ok... but the Yak 7B has the same name for two version of the Yak 7B??

Make directories

P-47D
Yak-7BPF

Place in P-47D the skin/void of P-47D-27
Place in P-47DPF the skin/void of of Yak-7B

Sorry we really forgot it.

rr9
10-19-2005, 01:33 AM
a small bug here:
If you first fly a COOP mission1 that has text in Full Description (shown in briefing) and then another mission2 that does *not* have Full Description, the description of the first mission is shown.

No briefing should be shown when playing mission2, because there is no briefing text.

FritzGryphon
10-19-2005, 01:37 AM
Seafire LOD are "loosing" their wings at around 2000m distance.... 2. We don't get this problem we checked many times. Probably it may happens with very specific driver and settings for this driver.

Not driver issue. Simply, the wings are missing from some LODs on some Spitfires. Or misnamed.

Not all Spitfires, just some. maybe that's why you did not find it.

Here is a track, you can see it well. The wings are missing from LOD 4 or 5 (far).

http://members.shaw.ca/evilgryphon3/SeafireLODbug.trk

Oleg_Maddox
10-19-2005, 01:41 AM
Originally posted by Monson74:
1. The front wheels of the new Yak7b 1942 "sinks" deep into the ground/runway.

2. The Cr.42 still won't carry Italian markings.

1. Doesn't confirmed. However maybe you mix terms - please read about center of gravity of this plane in readme.

2. Use italian paintscheme and no markings switch. On some planes we use different method of markings comparing to the common system. This is neccesary.

Oleg_Maddox
10-19-2005, 01:42 AM
Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Seafire LOD are "loosing" their wings at around 2000m distance.... 2. We don't get this problem we checked many times. Probably it may happens with very specific driver and settings for this driver.

Not driver issue. Simply, the wings are missing from some LODs on some Spitfires. Or misnamed.

Not all Spitfires, just some. maybe that's why you did not find it.

Here is a track, you can see it well. The wings are missing from LOD 4 or 5 (far).

http://members.shaw.ca/evilgryphon3/SeafireLODbug.trk </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I will repeat on our computers it doesn't dissapears.

crazyivan1970
10-19-2005, 01:45 AM
Are you going to check e-mail or not mister, cause i am about to pass out http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Oleg_Maddox
10-19-2005, 01:46 AM
Originally posted by jamesdietz:
GRUNHERTDITTO CLOUDS ...CANNOT SEEM TO GET THE OLD ONES BACK IN CAMPAIGNS-WHAT TO DO?

Read the answer for the similar question

Oleg_Maddox
10-19-2005, 01:46 AM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Are you going to check e-mail or not mister, cause i am about to pass out http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I did answer all your emails today

Oleg_Maddox
10-19-2005, 01:48 AM
Originally posted by pegon1:
Using my Emagin Z800 3D visor the terrain/water is still moastly black. allso at a distance, 1 airplane shows up as 3 dots (wery bad for headons)

This is something with the driver and its settings.

crazyivan1970
10-19-2005, 01:49 AM
I made last corrections http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Oleg_Maddox
10-19-2005, 01:50 AM
Originally posted by Panzer_JG11:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grunherzjager:
Hi,

Me 163
Doesnt climb, the same problem from 4.01, I´ve made several reports, the problem still there, the plane is useless.

TypeClouds=0
The command only work in Single Player Missions and the Quick Mission Builder. No matter what, it dosent work in campaigns. Same thing from 4.01, I´ve made at least two reports about this.

I tried every single possibility to get rid of these new clouds, no matter what, if you start the campaign with TypeClouds=0 in conf.ini, without Clouds in realism settings, or change the clouds detail to Medium, that nightmare clouds still there ruining my day.

Please Oleg, 1C, Developer team, whatever... Dont punish your users with old video cards, there is no point in locking the new clouds in off-line campaigns, that is so frustrating. I think the possibility to use the OLD Clouds, was maded to help off-line players, mainly playing DGen campaings, so whats the point?

Thank you,

S! Grunherzjager

It seems our posts were completely useless, just like this place...Those ridiculous clouds are still there and I can't play the campaigns.

Sorry Oleg, I have not an ATI XYZ8995600 8GB or an Nvidia FXYZ 9850000. Maybe in Russia they are cheap, but not in my country.

Panzer </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please read the answer above

Oleg_Maddox
10-19-2005, 01:53 AM
Originally posted by FltLt_HardBall:
I'm getting stutters during explosions and ground attack now. What's up with that?

Probably not now but always. Lower you settings for graphics, especially antialiasing, etc./

Oleg_Maddox
10-19-2005, 01:55 AM
Originally posted by AWL_Frog:
Hi!

I think in version 4.02m the effect of the spinning prop to the airplane is working into the wrong direction. The spinning prop should give a reverse force to the airplane, rolling the plane into a direction opposite to the direction the prop is spinning.

But in 4.02m the prop gives a force with the same direction, causing the aircraft to roll with the prop.

Best regards,

Frog

Doesn't confirmed here.

Oleg_Maddox
10-19-2005, 01:56 AM
Originally posted by Snuff_Pidgeon:
Thanx Oleg & team, for the much improved FM.
This was the general goal of this patch/add-on

Oleg_Maddox
10-19-2005, 01:59 AM
Originally posted by HunglikePony:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by |CoB|_Spectre:
Apparently a new object was added to the FMB Object library, number 202. Only thing, it's invisible. The "Show" button to preview the selected object is grayed-out and you cannot place the selected object. It would be helpful if new objects were added onto the end of the list rather than shuffling the entire catalog. Makes it unnecessarily cumbersome for mission builders to locate new objects and resort.

amasingk, did they be doing this realy? That is most stupd thing to do putting thing in middle and not at end? No logic there?? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortunatelly and we wrote it in the past that it is impossible to put in the end becasue the system allow to put only in the class of objects... and then change the numbering. It is from original Il-2. Who knows at development of Il-2 that this sim will get so long life?
To change such system possible with new engine for BoB. I agree with you that it is "stupid", but was neccessary.

Oleg_Maddox
10-19-2005, 02:00 AM
Originally posted by christopher65:
Have noticed that "most" (tested about 6!!) a/c seem very "TWITCHY" with 402m.Left wing seems to drop violantly about 10 degrees every 15 secs or so,is this correct??
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Doesn't confirmed here. Check you Joystick please.

Wolkenbeisser
10-19-2005, 02:01 AM
Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AWL_Frog:
Hi!

I think in version 4.02m the effect of the spinning prop to the airplane is working into the wrong direction. The spinning prop should give a reverse force to the airplane, rolling the plane into a direction opposite to the direction the prop is spinning.

But in 4.02m the prop gives a force with the same direction, causing the aircraft to roll with the prop.

Best regards,

Frog

Doesn't confirmed here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, everything ok for me too. Maybe original poster trimmed plane. After that he went faster (= means rudder got more efficient) and his plane began to rotate same direction as propeller (that's the way the rudder works!)

Hetzer_II
10-19-2005, 02:26 AM
just some thoughts about the Spit lod-problem...

oleg, in our Squad we are 12 People with completely different hardware. Some have ATI, some gf... the drivers differs from computer to computer but:

On every single pc some Spits simply dissapear or are lossing one or two wings on certain distances...

This cannot be a driver related problem, not if all people with different hardware and drivers have the same porblem.. and this problem is known since a long time.. search in forum, we are discussing about that since over an year...


just my thought...

Anyway: thx Oleg for your great work on this game....

Monson74
10-19-2005, 02:28 AM
Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Monson74:
1. The front wheels of the new Yak7b 1942 "sinks" deep into the ground/runway.


1. Doesn't confirmed. However maybe you mix terms - please read about center of gravity of this plane in readme.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, what I meant was that 1/3 of the wheels seems to be under the ground - sry for not making myself clear but thx for answering so quickly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

TheGozr
10-19-2005, 02:36 AM
Before repporting a bad comportement of a plane please check your joystic first, pedals etc... DO the best you can to re-setting them up , spend some time doing it, test the planes with it.

Beside some changes on take off for some planes like the yak's for example( more real on 401 for the yak's on take off ONLY )
I'm actually enjoying flying the 402m. Need some work on the speed effect, I pass teh details but overall it's good.
The head movement is good it give you a good effect of realisme and give you a test of what the track ir 3 could give more into this sim , just imagine the possibility with the Vector expension.

-I Wish the clouds client could be controled ( option ) in the server side.
The new maps need some serious work. The world is not that flat.

Oleg_Maddox
10-19-2005, 02:49 AM
Originally posted by Hetzer_II:
just some thoughts about the Spit lod-problem...

oleg, in our Squad we are 12 People with completely different hardware. Some have ATI, some gf... the drivers differs from computer to computer but:

On every single pc some Spits simply dissapear or are lossing one or two wings on certain distances...

This cannot be a driver related problem, not if all people with different hardware and drivers have the same porblem.. and this problem is known since a long time.. search in forum, we are discussing about that since over an year...


just my thought...

Anyway: thx Oleg for your great work on this game....

Please send on PF address the samples, names of planes and the full info about seetings with conf.ini file say from two of these 12 people with ATI and NVIDIA cards.

Hetzer_II
10-19-2005, 02:50 AM
alright.. we have the next meeting thursday.. hope to send you the tracks on friday...

thx for anwser

Oleg_Maddox
10-19-2005, 02:53 AM
Originally posted by TheGozr:
Before repporting a bad comportement of a plane please check your joystic first, pedals etc... DO the best you can to re-setting them up , spend some time doing it, test the planes with it.

Beside some changes on take off for some planes like the yak's for example( more real on 401 for the yak's on take off ONLY )
I'm actually enjoying flying the 402m. Need some work on the speed effect, I pass teh details but overall it's good.
The head movement is good it give you a good effect of realisme and give you a test of what the track ir 3 could give more into this sim , just imagine the possibility with the Vector expension.

-I Wish the clouds client could be controled ( option ) in the server side.
The new maps need some serious work. The world is not that flat.

Couds type is controlled on the server side. It is done from the beginning (including new clouds and it is present in readme when its released.

More maps coming later. Ian Boys and now several other people make them and there are mountains, etc...

Pippz__22GCT
10-19-2005, 03:03 AM
a bit ot maybe here, but guess i will not have more luck hoping in a reply in some other stand alone posts ... so carpe diem and try with this question ...


hi Oleg, one of your pity third part cockpits modellers here, (macchis and something other)

well . i wish to ask, there s any kind of new updates about how and where the sim (this one, not bob) is going to go ...if in case there are any new things since your last statements on the august sticky posts .. i mean.. a lot of water is passed beside the bridges..(hehe, pls forget this maccaroni idiom) and guess something is changed no?

clearly i m asking u some kind of new updates simply cause silly and very noisy rumors are already on the way in our usual sweet place (hyper lobb) .. and u know, surely better then me... how much a wrong rumors, many times very silly, can degenerate passing trough the mouths ...


best wishes and thanks a lot for your profesionalism , one of your humble peons .
pippz

TheGozr
10-19-2005, 03:03 AM
Oleg,
Detailed clouds versus medium clouds For server making every clients Only at detailed clouds.

A big plus.
Not the TypeClouds=1 or 0
But more like DetailedClouds=1

..
There is still many things that could do this sim even greater by teaking some weather settings.

I know about Ian and his hard work, just want to make sure that they strech up a bit the montains. One of the first il2 map with montains still is great but too small for today standard.

lets me work on this old map http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif i can.
======================================

Soon coming..
http://www.french.themotorhead.com/il2/images/screen/moskba.jpg

porkchopPC
10-19-2005, 03:12 AM
Droptanks..in planes (tried it on the P-51) with an auxillary fuel tank(i.e. droptank) and needle/instrument gauge in the cockpit. Shouldn't the needle go to zero fuel level when you let 'em go? And on the planes with only one fuel gauge needle, shouldn't the needle drop at least a third when you let loose a full droptank?

Oleg_Maddox
10-19-2005, 03:38 AM
Originally posted by Pippz__22GCT:
a bit ot maybe here, but guess i will not have more luck hoping in a reply in some other stand alone posts ... so carpe diem and try with this question ...


hi Oleg, one of your pity third part cockpits modellers here, (macchis and something other)

well . i wish to ask, there s any kind of new updates about how and where the sim (this one, not bob) is going to go ...if in case there are any new things since your last statements on the august sticky posts .. i mean.. a lot of water is passed beside the bridges..(hehe, pls forget this maccaroni idiom) and guess something is changed no?

clearly i m asking u some kind of new updates simply cause silly and very noisy rumors are already on the way in our usual sweet place (hyper lobb) .. and u know, surely better then me... how much a wrong rumors, many times very silly, can degenerate passing trough the mouths ...


best wishes and thanks a lot for your profesionalism , one of your humble peons .
pippz

There are in plan all listed by me planes (even a bit more) in august

Simply we do it when we can. With this busy two people (one of them periodically).
I can't tell excatly when. Curently we are finishing the Pe-2 series (these two guys) that is official order of 1C as a publisher in Russia
When its finished, then they may continue to finish Italian and other planes listed in august.
I would say that most italisn planes that we have (listed) are done and in tunings - corrections of misplaced names in models, etc..

But we don't plan to release them stand alone. Simply becasue to get many versions is bad. We would like to get in general one big add-on or two maximum.
And we still hope to get the Russians 1C specified add-ons as well on western market by one or other possible way. Simply because for us is too hard to support branches of sim if it is more than two as it is currently.

nakamura_kenji
10-19-2005, 03:46 AM
would be possible reduce chance windscreen cover of oil when engie hit in ki-61 v_v it happen incredible often so have bug out and run not able shoot as no see throguh gunsight. I just unlucky guess.

oh have question do ki-61-I-hei use same mg-151/20 belt ammo as german plane something always wonder

thank you for patch

Grunherzjager
10-19-2005, 04:21 AM
Hello Oleg, thank you so much for taking your time to answer my two bug questions, I will try later when I get home.

For now...


But we don't plan to release them stand alone. Simply becasue to get many versions is bad. We would like to get in general one big add-on or two maximum.

Can you please tell us if these content add-ons with the planes listed by you in August, will be free or paid add-ons?

JG53Frankyboy
10-19-2005, 04:28 AM
Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hetzer_II:
just some thoughts about the Spit lod-problem...

oleg, in our Squad we are 12 People with completely different hardware. Some have ATI, some gf... the drivers differs from computer to computer but:

On every single pc some Spits simply dissapear or are lossing one or two wings on certain distances...

This cannot be a driver related problem, not if all people with different hardware and drivers have the same porblem.. and this problem is known since a long time.. search in forum, we are discussing about that since over an year...


just my thought...

Anyway: thx Oleg for your great work on this game....

Please send on PF address the samples, names of planes and the full info about seetings with conf.ini file say from two of these 12 people with ATI and NVIDIA cards. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the planes with proplems i have are:
Seafire F.III and Seafire L.III are loosing both wings

Spitfire VIII (CW) is loosing its right wing

all other Spitfires are ok.


and @ Oleg:
sorry, i realy missed your information about the Spitfire MkVc cockpits.

Kwiatos
10-19-2005, 04:28 AM
I checked in 4.02 FM and stall characteristic of slots planes and we have:
- La5-La5F-LA7 - planes now stall at hard turn with maximum delfection of stick
- LA5FN - dont know why has more arcade stall characteristic near impossible to stall in slow speed hard turn
- Laggs and Migs with slots - the same situation like with LA5FN - near impossible to stall in slow speed hard turn with maxiumum delflection of stick
- Bf 109s - now stall at slow speed

So still La5FN, Laggs and Migs with slots near dont stall in slow speed hard turn and have more arcadish stall behavoiur.


Some question about roll rates:
P-47 was known as good roller at high speed. In game P-47 roll similar or little worse then even A6M5 at high speeds ( 500-600 km/h). Other hand Ta152 H with its long wings still roll better then P-47 at high speeds. I think high speed roll rate of A6M, P-47 and Ta 152 should be checked.

BTW good work over 4.02 Oleg M. and team.

Oleg_Maddox
10-19-2005, 04:32 AM
Originally posted by porkchopPC:
Droptanks..in planes (tried it on the P-51) with an auxillary fuel tank(i.e. droptank) and needle/instrument gauge in the cockpit. Shouldn't the needle go to zero fuel level when you let 'em go? And on the planes with only one fuel gauge needle, shouldn't the needle drop at least a third when you let loose a full droptank?

About P-51 fuel gauges is in readme for AEP.
For the second your question: we model only one mode of the fuel gauge - the whole content (usually there is switch for left, right center, etc fuel tanks and one position of switch for all. we model the last one)
So if there are more fuel in fuel tanks of plane than the scale of the indicator then the niddle will stay at maximum until the fuel in tanks will achive the same level as indicator may show in maximum - from that time the niddle will show exact fuel amount.

269GA-Veltro
10-19-2005, 04:38 AM
CR 42's taxi is perfect now, thank you very much Oleg, good work on it!

pegon1
10-19-2005, 04:43 AM
Mr. Maddox, you "must" pay special attention to my comments regarding the 3D problems i present you for the coming BOB sim, since i am an early adapter.
It is very important to see the nose of the A/C to judge distances.
Allso the reflector gunsight projects the "rings" into infinity (fresnel lens).
The cockpits in the game have a very variable quality in 3D. The corsair cockpit is so far the best.
Get yourself some 3D visors for development as i think this is the way of the future.
Flight simulator 2004 works flawlessly in 3D, and is an avsome experience.

Best regards

Monson74
10-19-2005, 06:02 AM
Originally posted by nakamura_kenji:
would be possible reduce chance windscreen cover of oil when engie hit in ki-61 v_v it happen incredible often so have bug out and run not able shoot as no see throguh gunsight. I just unlucky guess.

oh have question do ki-61-I-hei use same mg-151/20 belt ammo as german plane something always wonder

thank you for patch

I think in fact it was a 151/20 fitted to the Hei - Japan bought some 800 of these guns from Germany before switching to one of their own designs on the later Kai model (which had the 20mms in the cowling like the Ki-100).

Look here:

http://www.vectorsite.net/avhien.html

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki-61.html

Willey
10-19-2005, 06:22 AM
Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
1. Me-163 with full fuel load climbs as it should. It was wrong before 4.01

No. I can't even get it past 50m/s. AFAIK initial climb was 16kft/min which roughly is 80m/s. I might add that it doesn't get any better with almost empty tanks where the plane weighs just a bit more than half of fully "fuel-loaded". Also it's acceleration is far beyond the 262's - in the bad direction. It's outaccelerated even by a Heinkel with 4000kg of bombs on takeoff.

nakamura_kenji
10-19-2005, 06:25 AM
Originally posted by Monson74:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nakamura_kenji:
would be possible reduce chance windscreen cover of oil when engie hit in ki-61 v_v it happen incredible often so have bug out and run not able shoot as no see throguh gunsight. I just unlucky guess.

oh have question do ki-61-I-hei use same mg-151/20 belt ammo as german plane something always wonder

thank you for patch

I think in fact it was a 151/20 fitted to the Hei - Japan bought some 800 of these guns from Germany before switching to one of their own designs on the later Kai model (which had the 20mms in the cowling like the Ki-100).

Look here:

http://www.vectorsite.net/avhien.html

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki-61.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

knew had gun question ammo and if use german mg round design, as seem go bit more power when went 3.04-4.01(may just be me)

woofiedog
10-19-2005, 06:29 AM
Quote...
Oleg_Maddox
Posted Wed October 19 2005 00:29
quote:
Originally posted by woofiedog:
There is no Skin Files for the New Aircraft.

I made a new file for the P-47D and it works ok... but the Yak 7B has the same name for two version of the Yak 7B??

Make directories

P-47D
Yak-7BPF

Place in P-47D the skin/void of P-47D-27
Place in P-47DPF the skin/void of of Yak-7B

Sorry we really forgot it.


Thank's for your answer... and I'd like too say Excellent Work on the Patch.
Thank's

Grunherzjager
10-19-2005, 06:30 AM
Willey, thank you.

Please Oleg, take a careful look at this plane. In my test I put 25% of fuel, take off and ejected the landing gear, got 500 km/h TAS in level flight at an height of 100 meters, then I started a 45 degrees climb, at 4000 meters, no fuel and über slow speed, next it stall and thats it. It cannot be right. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Willey
10-19-2005, 06:41 AM
The new P-47D is strange... I tried it in a short test and couldn't get it any faster than the D-27, at 3000m and sealevel. It doesn't even climb any better, overall it feels like the same plane again. Sure it's 25lb?

Willey
10-19-2005, 06:41 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

AWL_Frog
10-19-2005, 06:49 AM
Originally posted by Wolkenbeisser:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AWL_Frog:
Hi!

I think in version 4.02m the effect of the spinning prop to the airplane is working into the wrong direction. The spinning prop should give a reverse force to the airplane, rolling the plane into a direction opposite to the direction the prop is spinning.

But in 4.02m the prop gives a force with the same direction, causing the aircraft to roll with the prop.

Best regards,

Frog

Doesn't confirmed here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, everything ok for me too. Maybe original poster trimmed plane. After that he went faster (= means rudder got more efficient) and his plane began to rotate same direction as propeller (that's the way the rudder works!) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, oops.

I tested by taking a plane in QMB and turning the engine off and on again. When you do this the plane indeed starts rolling with the prop, but of course this is because of the rudder getting more effective due to the propwash.

Sorry for being stupid...

ZG77_Farclas
10-19-2005, 07:07 AM
Thanks for all your hard work and patience Oleg.
<S>http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

tsisqua
10-19-2005, 07:23 AM
Lord, I sure do miss my high speed connection.

Thank you all for taking the time to post here, because its giving me some kind of idea about what to expect when I am finally able to make arrangements to get it.

Thanks for the info about the cloud types, Oleg. That one was giving me fits. I'm currently working on a review for a third party addon, and the new clouds were slowing my 9800 pro 256 to a crawl.

Lastly, thanks to 1c once again . . . not just for the work that goes into a patch, but for creating my favorite hobby. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

Tsisqua

Aero_Shodanjo
10-19-2005, 08:43 AM
Many thanks for the patch sir. It was a 2 hours download on a dial up but really worth it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Regarding "bug", the tailwheel bug on the Ki-100 still hasn't been corrected. It's very visible when taxiing - when the plane's turning, the wheel also moves but the strut won't.

Anyway, glad to hear from you again. Salute.

Mad_Moses
10-19-2005, 08:56 AM
EDIT:
After further thought, I realized what I posted was not a bug.

Great job on the new patch!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Thanks for your time,
MM

WWMaxGunz
10-19-2005, 09:21 AM
Surely MM the constant input of engine power accounts for more speed to some point?

jamesdietz
10-19-2005, 10:16 AM
Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grunherzjager:
Hi,

1) Me 163
Doesnt climb, the same problem from 4.01, I´ve made several reports, the problem still there, the plane is useless.

2) TypeClouds=0
The command only work in Single Player Missions and the Quick Mission Builder. No matter what, it dosent work in campaigns. Same thing from 4.01, I´ve made at least two reports about this.

I tried every single possibility to get rid of these new clouds, no matter what, if you start the campaign with TypeClouds=0 in conf.ini, without Clouds in realism settings, or change the clouds detail to Medium, that nightmare clouds still there ruining my day.

Please Oleg, 1C, Developer team, whatever... Dont punish your users with old video cards, there is no point in locking the new clouds in off-line campaigns, that is so frustrating. I think the possibility to use the OLD Clouds, was maded to help off-line players, mainly playing DGen campaings, so whats the point?

Thank you,

1. Me-163 with full fuel load climbs as it should. It was wrong before 4.01

2. Clouds type:
Old and new clouds are playing different role in the gameplay of campaign. So it is done especially - impossibility to change the type of clouds during campaign. Campaign engine when starting/generating the first mission of campaign reads the cloud types from conf.ini and then rememeber this type of clouds the whole campaign, becasue it is also difficlty setting. So if you are unable to play with this, you need to restart this campaign (generate new), but before this you need to set back in conf.ini file the type of clouds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is slightly OT but in line with Oleg's reply above on how to get rid of cute fluffy clouds in campaigns...Can someone walk me thru doing this once? Can I modify all the campaigns ( except , I gather the ones I'm already playing) at one time by going to each different campaign file ( wherever they are..dgen?) and changing the clouds back to "0"? I have drops in FPS with these cute clouds as well as with flak that seems to need to be changed in the campaign folders as well to turn it down( iis this true Oleg?Does anyone know...?) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Willey
10-19-2005, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by Mad_Moses:
Take the Dora up to maximum level speed on the deck (580kph) and pull up into a vertical climb. The plane will stall out at 1700m. Dive the plane straight down. When you reach the bottom of the dive you are now at 640kph and pull up again. Second time you stall at 2000m and reach 700kph at the bottom of the loop.

...

That seems correct. I remember someone posting about pilot accounts that said that a P-47 could outclimb a 109G-6 by doing so which it could not if it just tried to hang on it's six. OK - not vertical, but you name it. Shallow dive to pick up speed, then zoom up and the same again.
Not to mention that the 190D-9 really excels at this BnZ moves http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
That's BTW the main reason for that I take a D-9 over an A-9 against fighters anytime, even if the latter one has 108s. Especially since the 4.x patches, those 2 20mms are just enough against fighters.

SlickStick
10-19-2005, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by jamesdietz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grunherzjager:
Hi,

1) Me 163
Doesnt climb, the same problem from 4.01, I´ve made several reports, the problem still there, the plane is useless.

2) TypeClouds=0
The command only work in Single Player Missions and the Quick Mission Builder. No matter what, it dosent work in campaigns. Same thing from 4.01, I´ve made at least two reports about this.

I tried every single possibility to get rid of these new clouds, no matter what, if you start the campaign with TypeClouds=0 in conf.ini, without Clouds in realism settings, or change the clouds detail to Medium, that nightmare clouds still there ruining my day.

Please Oleg, 1C, Developer team, whatever... Dont punish your users with old video cards, there is no point in locking the new clouds in off-line campaigns, that is so frustrating. I think the possibility to use the OLD Clouds, was maded to help off-line players, mainly playing DGen campaings, so whats the point?

Thank you,

1. Me-163 with full fuel load climbs as it should. It was wrong before 4.01

2. Clouds type:
Old and new clouds are playing different role in the gameplay of campaign. So it is done especially - impossibility to change the type of clouds during campaign. Campaign engine when starting/generating the first mission of campaign reads the cloud types from conf.ini and then rememeber this type of clouds the whole campaign, becasue it is also difficlty setting. So if you are unable to play with this, you need to restart this campaign (generate new), but before this you need to set back in conf.ini file the type of clouds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is slightly OT but in line with Oleg's reply above on how to get rid of cute fluffy clouds in campaigns...Can someone walk me thru doing this once? Can I modify all the campaigns ( except , I gather the ones I'm already playing) at one time by going to each different campaign file ( wherever they are..dgen?) and changing the clouds back to "0"? I have drops in FPS with these cute clouds as well as with flak that seems to need to be changed in the campaign folders as well to turn it down( iis this true Oleg?Does anyone know...?) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

James, for what it's worth, this is what I understand from Oleg's response:

1. Once a campaign is started with new clouds, it cannot be changed. Just like the difficulty settings, they are encrypted into the saved campaign file.

2. In order to have old clouds in a new campaign, one must set TypeClouds=0 in their conf.ini before starting a new campaign.

In your first post, you mention having TypeClouds=0 for start of campaign, however, it seems non-effective from your explanation.

I'd check to see that there are no extra typed characters in the command line for TypeClouds and also that it is definitely in the right section of the conf.ini with proper line spacing...etc.

Just some hints to try....

Padre010
10-19-2005, 10:54 AM
Posted Mon October 17 2005 19:16
quote:
Originally posted by Pteranodon:
First of all, i wanted to say "Thanks for the patch, Oleg and company".
I know already,that i and alot of other people will enjoy it.

But i encounter a little bug,i think.
I cant fly a P40, version B and C.
When i want to fly the plane,i cant get into cockpit view,only external and flyby.
In the external view,the plane is also not responding on the x45.
The other planes no problems so far.
/END QUOTE


I am seeing this same problem. Here's my description and 4.02m doesn't fix it.

I validate that all works after each patch (went to 3.03m and tried again with 3.04m)then I load 4.01m (on a merged install at the very end) and some of the PF fighters (missions and quickbuilds or full blown custom missions that include a specific set of PF planes don't work [P-40, wildcat, curtis varients, etc])
I uninstalled and reinstalled the products. Same Result right after 4.01m is installed.

I took a video of what happens and with manual cameras enabled. The mission starts like when playing the game, in the (broken)default view, but when you move the camera around a little everything seems to be okay, but joystick input isn't working. Its almost as if the pilot location for these aircraft is horked up...and that the game is playing fine.
Is anyone interested in the file?

Also, I've noticed another curiousity, in the USMC fighter campaign I only have the option for a P-39. I love the P-39 but it was NEVER a Marine Corps ride as far as I know. I think it has to do with all the USMC and USN Planes being jacked...

And finally when I install PF stand alone with all the patches everything works great.

Thanks for your help, what more can I do to troubleshoot this, or is it some kind of known issue? And let me know an anwer or where I can post this video file.

Padre

jamesdietz
10-19-2005, 11:17 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 jamesdietz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grunherzjager:
Hi,

1) Me 163
Doesnt climb, the same problem from 4.01, I´ve made several reports, the problem still there, the plane is useless.

2) TypeClouds=0
The command only work in Single Player Missions and the Quick Mission Builder. No matter what, it dosent work in campaigns. Same thing from 4.01, I´ve made at least two reports about this.

I tried every single possibility to get rid of these new clouds, no matter what, if you start the campaign with TypeClouds=0 in conf.ini, without Clouds in realism settings, or change the clouds detail to Medium, that nightmare clouds still there ruining my day.

Please Oleg, 1C, Developer team, whatever... Dont punish your users with old video cards, there is no point in locking the new clouds in off-line campaigns, that is so frustrating. I think the possibility to use the OLD Clouds, was maded to help off-line players, mainly playing DGen campaings, so whats the point?

Thank you,

1. Me-163 with full fuel load climbs as it should. It was wrong before 4.01

2. Clouds type:
Old and new clouds are playing different role in the gameplay of campaign. So it is done especially - impossibility to change the type of clouds during campaign. Campaign engine when starting/generating the first mission of campaign reads the cloud types from conf.ini and then rememeber this type of clouds the whole campaign, becasue it is also difficlty setting. So if you are unable to play with this, you need to restart this campaign (generate new), but before this you need to set back in conf.ini file the type of clouds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is slightly OT but in line with Oleg's reply above on how to get rid of cute fluffy clouds in campaigns...Can someone walk me thru doing this once? Can I modify all the campaigns ( except , I gather the ones I'm already playing) at one time by going to each different campaign file ( wherever they are..dgen?) and changing the clouds back to "0"? I have drops in FPS with these cute clouds as well as with flak that seems to need to be changed in the campaign folders as well to turn it down( iis this true Oleg?Does anyone know...?) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

James, for what it's worth, this is what I understand from Oleg's response:

1. Once a campaign is started with new clouds, it cannot be changed. Just like the difficulty settings, they are encrypted into the saved campaign file.

2. In order to have old clouds in a new campaign, one must set TypeClouds=0 in their conf.ini before starting a new campaign.

In your first post, you mention having TypeClouds=0 for start of campaign, however, it seems non-effective from your explanation.

I'd check to see that there are no extra typed characters in the command line for TypeClouds and also that it is definitely in the right section of the conf.ini with proper line spacing...etc.

Just some hints to try.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I have "TypeClouds=0" correctly typed & spaced in "Game" section( hope this is correct place...?) of Config File & have had since I changed this soon after having tried fluffy clouds in whatever patch they came with...but even in newer campaigns they keep coming up"Happy Clouds!" I hate'em! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Grunherzjager
10-19-2005, 12:01 PM
SlicStick and Jamesdietz, take a look at here:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/6611096863

Can you guys confirm that this solution works?

jamesdietz
10-19-2005, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by Grunherzjager:
SlicStick and Jamesdietz, take a look at here:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/6611096863

Can you guys confirm that this solution works?

THAT DID SEEM TO WORK- HARD TO TELL IF IT WORKS ON ENTIRE CAMPAIGN,WITH SUCH A BRIEF LOOK...NOW ABOUT THE FLAK...I'VE ALSO TURNED IT DOWN IN CONFIG FILE BUT IT SEEMS AS MUCH AS EVER IN pACIFIC CAMPAIGNS...I KNOW STILL A BIT "OT"....

nickdanger3
10-19-2005, 01:28 PM
I tried to watch ntrk's recorded under 4.01 and it caused a CTD.

Is this a typical update issue? I.E. New versions can't play tracks from previous installs?

Mad_Moses
10-19-2005, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Surely MM the constant input of engine power accounts for more speed to some point?

Yes you are correct, I don't think this is a bug after I thought about it some more.

MM

Danschnell
10-19-2005, 03:16 PM
About the Komet, one poster says the Komet's performance is now correct, but I saw some WW2 original video footage of it climbing at a continuous rate after just taking off at a near vertical angle. Probably about 80 degrees. The Komet in this game doesn't even come close a few seconds after take-off.

Kwiatos
10-19-2005, 03:47 PM
In 4.02 P-51 flying like plane hangs on gums - its nose is springing. Other planes dont have such problem or much more less.

P-47 have too slow roll rate at high speeds.

RL P-47 C/D at 370 mph (595 km/h) roll 70 deg/sec - 5 sec

PF 4.02 P-47 D at 370 mph 360 deg roll left 8s and right 9s these is ab. 45 deg/sec.

WWMaxGunz
10-19-2005, 09:07 PM
Originally posted by Danschnell:
About the Komet, one poster says the Komet's performance is now correct, but I saw some WW2 original video footage of it climbing at a continuous rate after just taking off at a near vertical angle. Probably about 80 degrees. The Komet in this game doesn't even come close a few seconds after take-off.

How does it do if you wait until you have high speed before you pitch the nose up?
And do the nose up smooth and gradual till you learn how fast without stalling is possible.

What kind of speed is 80m/s at 80 degrees climb? How about around 300kph **average**?
So try nosing up at over 500kph and see if it helps.

p1ngu666
10-19-2005, 10:24 PM
i think the climbing speed and angle of the me163 where really high

theres a nice feature/article by a test pilot somewhere, but ive no idea where... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

but yes, its surprisingly sluggish

Ironman69
10-19-2005, 10:43 PM
Oleg,
Do you use an updated JOYSTICK setting for 4.02m i.e. 10 20 30 40... for pitch roll and yaw ? what do you recommend?

MAILMAN------
10-20-2005, 12:05 AM
The fuel problems still persist with the F4U-1D Corsair and the Corsair MkIV. 100% fuel does not indicate 100% on the gage. I reported the bug to the 4.01 bug reporting email. I included cockpit screen shots at 25%, 50%,75%,100%, 100% plus 178g drop tank, 100% plus 2 x 154g drop tanks. Gage never goes higher than approximately 75%. This problem does not exist with the F4U-1 (Corsair MK1), F4U-1A and F4U-1C. I did not check the Corsair MkII.

Minor issue:
Corsair Mk I was never used in combat. The British Corsair debut in combat was with the Corsair MkII (F4U-1A with clipped wings) flying escort on the raid on the Tirpitz in Norway in April 1944, first time Corsair flown operationally from a carrier. The F4U-1 was in combat at Guadalcanal starting in Feb. 1943 followed later that year by the F4U-1A. Why would you not have a F4U-1 folder with US skins and place the New Zealand skins in there rather than a Corsair MkI?

Following should be the subject of a different thread but asking anyway:

Lastly, why was the F4U-4 left off? More of these actually were in WW2 combat than the F4U-1C. British Corsair Ace Ronnie Hay landed at Manus Island Airfield to find it chock full of combat veterans F4U-4's being rotated back to the US for overhaul and repair before going back into combat. The airframes had only 500 hours of flying each and jokingly Hay tried to trade his Corsair MkII (2000 flying hours) for one. The USN Officer in Charge offered him one stating: "Sure, bud, you can have any one you like. Any guy going up to the sharp end can take anything he wants." Corsair Aces of World War 2 by Mark Styling page 71. Plenty of color illustrations for all versions of the Corsair for skins there.

FI_Gen0sse
10-20-2005, 01:01 AM
Oleg & crew!

Thanks a lot for this patch ... I´d like to have it much more earlier though ...

Anyhow, since I´m into building missions I´m still very disappointed about the airstarts above the runways type 3 and 4. Take offs from the runway could offer mission builders a much more wider opportunity to use bigger maps as DF maps.

Already looking for the next patch to come ...

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

BSS_Vidar
10-20-2005, 01:54 AM
First off, thnx for the new patch...

But I was a bit stunned to find braking still lacking. Planes continue to creep forward during slow taxi, especialy when braking to left or right is engaged. Planes are still unable to pivot on a selected main-mount unless the aircraft is brought to a complete stops first.

This braking is unusable on the flight deck during flex-deck ops. To enjoy a carrier qualification session, all pilots have to select "Re-fly" to a land base.

We really need to get the 3.0x version of breaking back. It was still bad, but at least it was managable.

Tipo_Man
10-20-2005, 04:54 AM
Oleg, I don't think it's only 4.02 related, but I would like to hear your opinion on this:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/5921060163/p/1


Can you recommend some drivers, or video adapter to use, in order just to be able to SEE others

Willey
10-20-2005, 05:27 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
i think the climbing speed and angle of the me163 where really high

theres a nice feature/article by a test pilot somewhere, but ive no idea where... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

but yes, its surprisingly sluggish

http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/me163/me163_1.asp

Another error in FB:

"Five-position throttle: off, ground idle, flight idle, cruise, max power."

I might add that the plane isn't able to fly level with the first seeting in FB, it never was.

Here is it about the climb:

"We€d take off and try to keep the plane low, say 15 feet up, and then start to trim it for speed and then very gradually climb as we accelerated to the best climbing speed, which was about 420 miles per hour. The airplane was very short-coupled, so you didn€t want to over-control it in pitch as you took off. When we reached the best climbing speed, we€d pull back and climb at approximately 70 degrees."

420mph = 675km/h. It takes minutes to reach that alone. In a 70? climb it's a matter of seconds and I'M back at 250km/h still dropping.

Another FB issue:

"6. Stall characteristics were abrupt and severe and taxed the skills of even experienced fighter pilots.

RO: the plane was equipped with leading-edge slots that eliminated stalls and caused it to mush forward in a mode that was immediately recoverable. The plane would not spin and was intentionally designed to be docile for low-time pilots.

7. Only experienced pilots could adequately handle the airplane at slow speeds.

RO: the plane was docile and friendly at slow speeds, and it had to be for low-time pilots to successfully land it dead-stick."

In the contrary, it's one of the most b1tchy planes in FB.

Willey
10-20-2005, 05:30 AM
Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
First off, thnx for the new patch...

But I was a bit stunned to find braking still lacking. Planes continue to creep forward during slow taxi, especialy when braking to left or right is engaged. Planes are still unable to pivot on a selected main-mount unless the aircraft is brought to a complete stops first.

This braking is unusable on the flight deck during flex-deck ops. To enjoy a carrier qualification session, all pilots have to select "Re-fly" to a land base.

We really need to get the 3.0x version of breaking back. It was still bad, but at least it was managable.

One bump to that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Bearcat99
10-20-2005, 08:09 AM
Great patch O... the only thing right off that I can see as a bug is:
The R2800s do not over heat. On the Coirsairs I will get the overheat message.. but I can still go full out and not get any noticeable negative effect on engine performance. On the Jugs I didnt even get the message.... after almost 10 minutes of flying full throttle.

Also the roll rate of the Jug seems to be more like it was in some of the earlier versions of FB.

Still.... no show stoppers... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif I'm lovin it.

Col._King
10-20-2005, 08:16 AM
S!
Posted this as a direct topic to Mr. Oleg´s attention, but I think is of interest for all:
**********************************************
S!

Hi there, Oleg!

Great to see you posting here!(referring at Oleg´s post at SimHQ)

I´m very happy with what we got until now, and even happier after your post. Really great news!

In the name of constructive critics, I have a little issue to report to you.
It really not affect the sim itself, but I think it is one of those little things that are important for immersion and historical correctness.

Word is of the rotation (steering) of the P-38 nose wheel. It was rotating before patch 4.01 was released. After the patch this option was no more available. And with the newest patch 4.02 it was not fixed.
Please, can we get the P-38 nose wheel steering back? Maybe with a little correction mini patch or in the next free downloadable add-on?

Thank you very very much for your kindness and time. And please forgive me for my bad english, I´m a Spaghetti-eater http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
***********************************************
Col. Douglas King

TheGozr
10-20-2005, 01:59 PM
Oleg here the request about

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=6...451061963#5451061963 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=5451061963&r=5451061963#5451061963)

Kapt_A
10-20-2005, 03:39 PM
Help, for some reason Oleg's replies to this thread are filling my e-mail addy.

Dexmeister
10-20-2005, 04:27 PM
Oleg, I know you're very busy and have seen you pop into this thread and respond where you can. Any word on the Matrox/triplehead bug I reported on the first page? I sent an email as well, just wondering where things are at as your time allows.

Thx
Dex

TX-EcoDragon
10-20-2005, 05:57 PM
If not reported before:

ftp://69.56.198.2/Dot%20Bug.jpg

using nVidia 6800, 78.01 Drivers, Perfect

p1ngu666
10-20-2005, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by Col._King:
S!
Posted this as a direct topic to Mr. Oleg´s attention, but I think is of interest for all:
**********************************************
S!

Hi there, Oleg!

Great to see you posting here!(referring at Oleg´s post at SimHQ)

I´m very happy with what we got until now, and even happier after your post. Really great news!

In the name of constructive critics, I have a little issue to report to you.
It really not affect the sim itself, but I think it is one of those little things that are important for immersion and historical correctness.

Word is of the rotation (steering) of the P-38 nose wheel. It was rotating before patch 4.01 was released. After the patch this option was no more available. And with the newest patch 4.02 it was not fixed.
Please, can we get the P-38 nose wheel steering back? Maybe with a little correction mini patch or in the next free downloadable add-on?

Thank you very very much for your kindness and time. And please forgive me for my bad english, I´m a Spaghetti-eater http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
***********************************************
Col. Douglas King

p38 front wheel was a free castering i think, like the wheel on a shopping trolly. it decides where it wants to go http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2005, 09:48 PM
Dgen still appears to apply incorrect national markings to aircraft.
Testing Stalingrad campaign German fighter South & encountered JU88 & ME110 in Romanian National markings. If I encounter any more I will continue to inform you

FI_Gen0sse
10-21-2005, 04:47 AM
Have the graphics changed?

4.01 - spray on water

http://www.pigyn.com/genosse/albums/20050703/26060505_brought_down.jpg


4.02 - spray on water

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/rogues/402/201005_water_spray.jpg


4.01 - oil on canopy

http://www.pigyn.com/genosse/albums/03-20-05/13030510_went_wrong.jpg


4.02 - oil on canopy

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/rogues/402/201005_canopy-oil.jpg

I´d also present you a comparisons of pictures of the bullet holes 4.01/4.02 but I haven´t got any for you ...

Is it possible that someone has missed to fix something?

FltLt_HardBall
10-21-2005, 07:20 AM
Some sea planes/flying boats still have the engine cutout problem on the last waypoint. I haven't tested it exhaustively, but so far I've noticed Catalinas shut their engines down on the landing waypoint, but A6M-Ns don't. Bug report and track on the way to 1C

Fulger1973
10-21-2005, 07:22 AM
Does anyone else have problems with selection of the engines?
The Select Right/Left Engines functions seem to have the exact opposite effect for all multi-engine aircrafts. Prior to 4.02 everything was normal. However, I reinstalled the entire game before applying 4.02 patch and I am wondering if this is a bug or just a configuration issues.

CVS_Lekk
10-21-2005, 08:01 AM
Hi Oleg...some bad feeling with cannons of Bf109 G2 and his cadence from, for example..Lagg3. Somewhere i sow notice that G2 was 810 RpM, and Lagg´s Shvak is 890 RpM..but testing this two planes looks like G2 is halfly slowly than Laggs cannons. For more disturbance in some times of flight and shooting..cannons of G2 going in same rating of fire (cadence) like Laggs...(mean twice quickly)....is this correct pls?...thx for your long time job.
CVS_Lekk

EDIT: this prob...?...is from 4.01m versione

CVS_Lekk
10-21-2005, 09:30 AM
And some feel from 4.02m ver.:
Sorry but now is germany planes totaly nonflyable in small speed fly regime and speed gain after finishing that regimes is quite poor..so on net fights now will be executable method only zooming how makes some kills. Results of that is quite separate types of armies and decreasing level of game expirience by both side. By me was ver. 4.01m mostly balance from all verziones...germany planes poorly in low speed..but still heavy opponent in skill hands...russia planes poorly in speed but dangerous on energy flight. Its a shame that correction of FM model changed all things in games.

chn06
10-21-2005, 01:12 PM
402FM Stall characteristics maybe matter..

first,an article

=============================================
The Best of the Breed
by Col. "Kit" Carson
Airpower, July 1976
Vol. 6 No. 4
Anyone who believes that he can satisfactorily demonstrate which WWII fighter was the "best" out of the whole bag that appeared from 1940 to 1945 is incredibly naive. There are so many performance variables and kinds of missions, that arguing them to all to a bedrock conclusion that would convince everyone is virtually impossible. There were a few generally acknowledged leaders, however, fighters which became household words the world over: the Spitfire, Mustang, Thunderbolt, Focke-Wulf 190 all proved themselves in the crucible of war. The Me 262 was the first operational jet fighter and a dazzling achievement, years ahead of anything we had. But another household work, the highly propagandized Me 109G, was obsolete when it was built and was aerodynamically the most inefficient fighter of its time. It was a hopeless collection of lumps, bumps, stiff controls, and placed its pilot in a cramped, squarish cockpit with poor visibility.
Putting aside the relative merits of one fighter versus another, there was a simple truth that quickly emerged from your first engagement with the enemy: whichever one of you saw the other one first had the winning advantage.
The most subjective variable is the experience and ability of the pilots. Their state of training was certainly an essential factor. Thus Clair Chennault was able to recruit experienced Army and Navy reserve pilots and civilians with a solid log book into the AVG "Flying Tigers", who flew for China in 1941, and chalked up a 12 to 1 victory loss ratio with P-40s. However, he warned new arrivals, "You've got to be good out here; when you tackle a Zero in a P-40 you are already outnumbered 3 to 1." He despaired of the P-40 as a weapon, but it was all he could get. The ultimate measure of combat effectiveness in fighter operations is the victory-to-loss ratio and there are several factors in the equation that one can juggle if necessary, but you deal yourself all the high cards that you can. Chennault's low cards were the P-40 and rotten logistic support; his high cards were experienced pilots, tactical genius, and dogged determination. That's another way of saying that unless you were willing to close with the enemy in decisive combat, using all the advantages that you have, and carve your initials on him, then your government made a mistake in pinning those wings on you.
So I must leave it to the reader to conjecture about pilots and crews while we talk about airplanes. What follows is intended to give the average aviation enthusiast some idea of how the fighters in Europe compared with each other in performance and maneuverability. The data on British and German aircraft come from the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough. Data on the American fighters come from the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics test reports and, in addition, figures on the Mustang have been verified by data from North American Aviation flight test reports where it was possible to do so.
The first German aircraft that was shot down over England and which landed intact was a Heinkel 111 brought down on 28 October 1939. Two of the four crew were dead but the airplane survived in one piece except for a few bullet holes. A Ju 88 was shot down a few days before, but it crashed into the sea, a total loss. As the war went on into 1940 and the Battle of Britain was engaged, German aircraft fell all over England. Different types were quickly recovered in various stages of disrepair and subsequently arrive at experimental stations for analysis and to be made flyable again, if possible. Those that were brought down by fighters or antiaircraft guns were usually basket cases. The more favored carcasses were those that landed because of engine failure, exhausted fuel or bad navigation. Abundantly provided by thes sources, the British soon had a "flying circus" of captured German aircraft with RAF markings that toured the air bases in Britain to allow familiarization of new crews with the armament, performance and weaknesses of the opposition.
The idea of building a fighter to meet every performance requirement is out of the question. At best, each design is a compromise with priority emphasis on one or two qualities. Thus the Spitfire was a true interceptor designed primarily for the defense of the British Isle, a sprint climber with a small turning radius. The Mustang, after its conversion to the Merlin engine in 1942, was a fast, long-range, strategic escort fighter with an easy 8-hour endurance. Like the T-bolt it would dive like a banshee, well ahead of the Spit and all German craft. However, in rate of climb the Me 109G was 200-500 feet per minute ahead of the Mustang upto 20,000 feet, then the '51 pulled ahead on up to 40,000 feet, while the Spit 14 would climb faster than any of them at any altitude from sea level up.
Generalizations in narrative form are difficult to make and by the time you get to the end, the conclusions are so fogged up the reader can't tell where he's at. We will, therefore, deal primarily in numbers of two kinds -- One group is those that are measured against time: speed, endurance, rate of climb and acceleration in a dive. The second kind is those that are measured by distance: range and turning radius. Speed, most emphatically, is not everything.
Before we get into the performance comparison competition, some acquaintance with the features of the aircraft that we're talking about is necessary for understanding of why things turned out as they did. If you're handy with a slide rule you can do your own mission profiles and performance variations.
Me 109
General Characteristics:
The characteristics of two Me-109 models are of historical interest, the "E" and the "G". The "E" formed the backbone of the German fighter strength during the Battle of Britain, its opposition being the Spitfire I and the Hurricane I. The "G" was the prevailing type in 1944 during the Battle of Europe and its main opponents were the Spit 14, the Thunderbolt, and the Mustang. So it is worthwhile to explore more fully the characteristics of the Me-109 because it was the longest-lived of the fighters produced in Germany. It was a most worthy opponent in 1939, but it was outclassed by 1942 and by 1944 was manifestly obsolete.
An intact Me-109E with wing cannon was captured by the French in the summer of 1940 and was flown to England for flight test and evaluation. There were three stages of development prior to the "G". First was an early version of 109 flying in 1938 with a 670hp Jumo 210 engine, a fixed pitch wooden prop and two synchronized guns. Second was the variable-pitch two-bladed prop model and the addition of two wing guns. Third was the "E" model, with a far more powerful engine, the DB 601, which was an inverted V-12 of 1100hp with direct fuel injection driving a 3-bladed variable-pitch prop. Its wing structure was beefed up, but in the process of "designing" in the additonal engine and structural weight, the engineers screwed up the center of gravity, and 60 pounds of permanent ballast had to be added to the rear of the fuselage to get the C.G. back. As a pilot and an engineer I can only be sympathetic with 109 pilots. Who needs that kind of milstone around his neck in a fighter? Pilots had nothing to say about the design faults of airplanes in Germany. They had **** little to say about them in England or in this country, at that time. Designers didn't have to fly their mistakes; they just produced them. Most of them didn't know how to fly and didn't want to learn, but more about that later.
In size the Me 109, all models, was the smallest fighter produced by Germany or the Allies. That gave it a high wing loading for that time, about 32 lb./sq. ft. for the "E". The Spit I and the Hurricane I were about 25 lb./sq. ft. at their normal combat weight. The 109-G was about 38 lb./sq. ft. as compared to 35 lb./sq. ft. for the P-51B.



Me-109E Me-109G
Mean weight, lbs. 5580 6450
Engine DB 601 DB 605A
Horsepower 1100/15,000 ft. 1475/22,000 ft.
Power loading, lbs./HP 5.07 4.37
Wing loading, lbs./sq. ft. 32.1 37.5
Prop. diameter, ft. 10.2 9.83
Gear Ratio 14/9 16.85/10
Wing Geometry:
Area sq. ft. 174 172
Span, ft. 32.4 32.6
Mean Chord, ft. 5.36 5.38
Aspect Ratio 6.05 6.10
Dihedral, degrees 5.75 5.75
Sweepback, degrees 1.0 1.0
Root chord, ft. 7.03 7.0
Tip chord, ft. 3.42 3.42
Root thickness, percent chord 14.8 14.2
Tip thickness, percent chord 10.5 11.3
Slat length/span, percent 46.2 Approx. same
Slat Chord/local chord, percent 11.8 Approx. same
Wing Twist, Root to tip 0 0
Speed, mph 354/12,500 ft. 387/23,000 ft.


The fastest "G" subtype was the G-10 capable of 344 mph at SL or 428 mph at 24,000 ft. with a meager range of 350 miles and an endurance of 55 minutes, but it wasn't introduced until the spring of 1944. Too little, too late, and still lacking in range and endurance.
Engine and Propellor:
In principle the DB 601 and 605 series engines were the same as the Allison or Merlin, except they were inverted and had direct fuel injection; otherwise they were 12-cylinder, 60 degree Vee, glycol-cooled engines. The prop was a 10.2 foot, 3 blade variable pitch mechanism of VDM design. Here is another major difference between their design approach and ours. The pitch on the Me-109 prop could be set at any value between 22.5 and 90 degrees, a visual pitch indicator being provided for the pilot. There was no provision for automatically governing the rpm. We did just the opposite, using a constant speed governor and flying by a constant tachometer indication of rpm. For any flight condition the rpm remained constant. We didn't know, or care, what the blade angle was.
Wings and Controls:
The wings had straight leading and trailing edge taper and no geometric twist from root to tip. The airfoil section had a 2 percent camber with the maximum thickness at the 30% chord position. The "E" thickness ratio was 14.8 percent at the root and 10.5 percent at the tip. All that was standard design practice of the mid-1930s. What was new for fighter design was the leading edge slats which ran 46% of the span. There was no damping device fitted to the slat mechanism, they'd bang open at 120 mph with the airplane clean or at 100 mph with the gear and flaps down. Each control surface was mass-balanced. Another unusual feature was that as the flaps were lowered, the ailerons automatically drooped, coming down 11 degrees for the full flap movement of 42 degrees.
There were no movable trim tab controls on the ailerons or rudder, although both had fixed tabs that could be bent on the ground. Pitch trim was affected by changing the stabilizer incidence thrugh a range of 12 degrees. The design scheme was that both the flaps and the stabilizer were coordinated mechanically from two 12-inch wheels mounted concentrically on the left side of the pilot's seat. By twirling both wheels in the same direction the pilot could automatically compensate for the change of pitch trim due to lowering or raising the flaps. Differential coordination could be set by moving one wheel relative to the other.
Performance Evaluation:
The first surprise you get in planning a test hop in the Me-109 is that you're limited to about an hour with some aerobatics at combat power, because the internal fuel capacity is only 88 gallons; with the drop tank, the "G" carried a total of 154 gallons. I'll never understand why the fuel capacity designed in Luftwaffe fighters was so limited. It was a major design deficiency that contributed to the loss of the air war, but even more puzzling is the fact that it could have been quickly changed anytime after 1940 onward, but it wasn't.
Takeoff was best done with 30 degrees of flaps. The throttle could be opened quickly without loading or choking up the engine. In fact, the Daimler-Benz engine was the best thing about that airplane. The stick had to be held hard forward to get the tail up, and it was advisable to let the airplane fly itself off. If it was pulled off at low speed the left wing would not respond and on applying aileron the wing would lift and fall again with the aileron snatching a little. If no attempt was made to pull it off quickly, the takeoff run was short and the initial climb good.
The absense of a rudder trim control in the cockpit was a bad feature at speeds above cruise or in dives. Above 300 mph the pilot needed a very heavy foot on the port rudder pedal for trimmed flight with no sideslip which is absolutely essential for gunnery. The pilot's left leg quickly tired while keeping this load on, and this affected his ability to put on more left rudder for a turn at 300 mph or above. Consequently, at high speeds the 109 could turn far more readily to the right than to the left.
Fighting Qualities:
A series of mock dogfights were conducted by the British in addition to the flight test and the following was revealed:
If the airplane was trimmed for level flight, a heavy push on the stick was needed to hold it in a dive at 400 mph. If it was trimmed into the dive, recovery was difficult unless the trim wheel was wound back, due to the excessive heaviness of the elevator forces.
Ailerons:
At low speeds, the ailerons control was good, response brisk. As speed increased the ailerons became too heavy but the response was good up to 200 mph. At 300 mph they became "unpleasant". Over 300 mph they became impossible. At 400 mph the stick felt like it was set in a bucket of cement. A pilot exerting all his strength could not apply more than one fifth aileron at 400 mph; that's 5 degrees up and 3 degrees down. The aileron situation at high combat speeds might be summarized in the following way:
(1) Due to the cramped cockpit a pilot could only apply about 40 pounds side force on the stick as compared to 60 pounds or more possible if he had more elbow room.
(2) Messerschmitt also penalized the pilot by designing in an unsually small stick top travel of plus or minus 4 inches, giving very poor mechanical advantage between pilot and aileron.
(3) At 400 mph with 40 pounds side force and only one fifth aileron displaced, it required 4 seconds to get into a 45 degree roll or bank. That immediately classifies the airplane as being unmaneuverable and unacceptable as a fighter.
Elevator:
This was a good control at slow speeds but became too heavy above 250 mph and at 400 mph it became so heavy that maneurverability became seriously restricted. When diving at 400 mph a pilot, pulling very hard could not pull enough "g" force to black himself out. The stick force per "g" was an excess of 20 pounds in a high speed dive. To black out, as a limit to the human factor in high speed maneuvers, would require over 100 pounds pull on the stick.
Rudder:
At low speeds the rudder was light, but sluggish in response. At 200 mph the sluggishness disappears, at 300 mph the absense of trim control in the cockpit became an acute problem. The pilot's leg force on the port rudder above 300 mph to prevent sideslip became excessive and unacceptable.
Control Harmony:
At low speed, below 250 mph, control harmony was good, only a little spoiled by the suggishness of the rudder. At higher speeds the aileron and elevator forces were so high that the word "harmony" is inappropriate.
Aerobatics
Not easy to do. Loops had to be started from about 280 mph when the elevator forces were getting unduly heavy; there was also a tendency for the wing slats to bang open the top of the loop, resulting in aileron snatch and loss of direction.
Below 250 mph the airplane would roll quickly, but there was a strong tendency for the nose to fall through the horizon in the last half of the roll and the stick had to be moved well back to keep the nose up.
Upward rolls were difficult, again because of elevator heaviness at the required starting speed. Due to this, only a moderate pull out from a dive to build up speed was possible and considerable speed was lost before the upward roll could be started.
The very bad maneuverability at high speed of the Me 109 quickly became known to the RAF pilots in 1940. On many occasions 109 pilots were led to self-destruction when on the tail of a Hurricane or Spitfire at moderate or low altitudes. The RAF pilot would do a snappy half roll and "split ess" pull out, from say 3,000 feet. In the heat and confusion of the moment the 109 pilot would follow, only to discover that he didn't have enough altitude to recover due to his heavy elevator forces and go straight into the ground or the Channel without a shot being fired.
Turning Radius:
At full throttle, at 12,000 feet, the minimum turning radius without loss of altitude was about 890 feet for the Me 109E with its wing loading of 32 pounds per square foot. The corresponding figure for the Spit I or Hurricane was about 690 feet with a wing loading of 25 pounds.


Summary:
Good points:
(1) Reasonable top speed and good rate of climb.
(2) Engine did not cut out under negative "g," also reliable.
(3) Good control response at low speeds.
(4) Easy stall, not precipitous.
Bad Points:
(1) Ailerons and elevator far too heavy at high speed.
(2) Poor turning radius.
(3) Absence of rudder trim control in cockpit.
(4) Aileron snatch (grabbing -- uneven airflow) when slats opened.
(5) Cockpit too cramped.
(6) Visibility poor from cockpit.
(7) Range and endurance inadequate.

While the 109 may have been a worthy opponent in the Spanish Civil War or during the Battle of France in early 1940, it became a marginal airplane against the Spits during the attack on Britain in September of that year. By 1942, even with the appearance of the "G," it was definitely obsolete. However, the Germans continued to produce it as the backbone of the Luftwaffe fighter forces. The attitude of Nazi high command was that this was going to be a quick "blitz" war and if they lost three 109s for every Spitfire shot down, that was acceptable. In fact, in 1940 the official policy was laid down that the development of all other aircraft types requiring more than 6 months for completion was prohibited. They'd turn out the existing designs like hot cakes and swamp the RAF with production.
That doesn't say much for any charitable concern they should have had for the unnecessary loss of pilots caused by going into combat with a sub-standard airplane. But, after all, no one has ever said that the Führer and G?ring had any anxiety about their pilots or troops. Quite the contrary, the record of history shows that they had none.
Furthermore, no designer in that period would pretend that he could stretch the combat effectiveness of a fighter for 7 years, 1935 to 1942, without major changes in power plant or aerodynamics, or, better yet, going to a new design. Technology in design in that era was changing too fast. The reader might well say, "The Spitfire was certainly a long line of fighters, about 10 years, how come?"
The Spitfire was an aerodynamically clean airplane to start with, having a total drag coefficient of .021 at cruise. The Me-109 had a coefficient of .036; drag coefficiency and of the horsepower required to haul 'em around. Like golf scores, the lower the better, and no fudging.
The British, in particular the staff at Vickers Supermarine, had done their homework in aerodynamics and put out a clean airplane that had the potential of longevity and increased performance. They had only to wait for Rolls-Royce to pump up the horsepower on the Merlin, which they did by going from 790 hp in 1934 to well over 2,000 by 1945. The Merlin, in my (Col. Carson's) opinion, was the best achievement in mechanical engineering in the first half of the century.
Messerschmitt practically ignored the subject of low-drag aerodynamics and one can tell that by an inspection of the 109E or G. The fact is evident even in close-up photographs. It was aerodynamically the most inefficient fighter of its time. That's a puzzling thing when one realizes that much of the original work on high speed drag and turbulent surface friction was done in Germany in the '20s and '30s. Messerschmitt was surrounded by it. Further, the work in England and the U.S. in this field was in the open literature, at least until 1938.
I also suspect, again from the record of history, that Willy Messerschmitt was too busy becoming a Direktor of Messerschmitt A.G. to concentrate on improving his status as an ingenieur.
Having gone this far, let me carry this affront to Messerschmitt's engineering reputation one step further.
An airplane factory can get things done awfully fast, in any country and in any language, once the engineers and sheet metal benders understand what is wanted. Every factory has a "development shop" or its equivalent, which is a full scale model or prototype shop with 100 or 200 old pros in every skill. Having that many coffee drinkers, pipe smokers and "yarn spinners" around on the payroll, let's clobber 'em with a bundle of shop drawings on a clean up of the Me 109. Object: to make it a 400 mph plus airplane. Time... 30 days. The information and techniques required are currently available as of 1940. It's all written up in unclassifed reports.
(1) Cancel the camouflage paint and go to smooth bare metal. Besides the weight, about 50 pounds, the grain size is too large when it dries and it causes turbulent friction over the entire airplane surface. That may take a phone call to the brass. They're emotional about paint jobs. "Image," you know.
(2) Modify the cockpit canopy. Remove the inverted bathtub that's on there now and modify as necessary to fit the Me 209V-1 canopy. That's the airplane that set the world speed record in 1939.
(3) Get rid of the wing slats. Lock them closed and hand-fit a strip, upper and lower surface, that will close the sheet metal gaps between the slat and wing structure. That gap causes the outboard 15 feet of each wing to be totally turbulent.
(4) As aerodynamic compensation for locking the slats, setup jigs and fixtures on the assembly line to put in 2 degrees of geometric twist from the root to tip, known as "washout."
(5) Modify coolant scoop inlet fairings. The square corners that are there now induce an unnecessary amount of drag. Also lower the inlet 1 to 2 inches below wing surface to get it out of the turbulence of the wing surface.
(6) Install complete wheel well farings that cover the openings after the gear is retracted.
(7) Retract tail wheel.
All of the above could have been done in 30 days but it wasn't. I don't know why. Someone would have to ask Willy...it's for him to say.
Fw 190A
General Characteristics:
A superb airplane, every inch a fighter. It could do a half roll at cruising speed in one second. Taking this in conjunction with the airplane's high top speed and rate of climb one expected its pilots to exploit its high speed qualities to the fullest without staying in there to "mix it up" in a low speed, flaps down full throttle, gut-wrenching dog fight.
They did. The 190 pilots had a good airplane and some good advice. Nearly all of my encounters with the 190 were at high speeds. On at least two occasions when I met them, my Mustang started porposing, which means I was into compressibility, probably around 550 mph. I don't know what my air speed indicator was reading, I wasn't watching it.
On another occasion, I jumped one directly over the city of Paris and fired all my ammo, but he was only smoking heavily after a long chase over the town. Assuming I was getting 10 percent hits, that airplane must have had 200 holes in it. It was a rugged machine.


Mean weight 8580
Engine BMW 801D
Horsepower 1600
Power loading, lbs./HP 5.36
Wing loading, lbs./sq.ft. 41.7
Prop diameter, ft. 10.86
Wing Geometry:
Area, sq.ft. 205
Span, ft. 34.5
Mean chord, ft. 5.95
Aspect Ratio 5.8
Dihedral, degrees 5
Sweepback, degrees 5.5
Root chord, ft. 7.45
Tip chord, ft. 4.05
Thickness Ratio, percent 12
Maximum thickness location Between 25 and 30 percent
Top speed, mph 408/20,600 ft.

Engine and Propeller:
The BMW 801D was a 14 cylinder, twin-row radial with direct fuel injection. A 10.9 foot diameter, 3-bladed VDM prop was used and was provided with hand lever or automatic pitch control. The 801D radial air-cooled engine first appeared on the Dornier Do 217 and the Fw 190. Its most novel feature was the oil cooler system which was a number of finned tubes shaped into a ring of tubes a little larger in diameter than the cooling fan. This ring was fitted into the rounded front portion of the cowling just aft of the fan.
I don't think this was a good idea. For example, my principal aiming point was always the forward portion of an enemy ship; the engine, cockpit, wing root section. If you get any hits at all, even only a few, you're bound to put one or two slugs into the engine compartment. Having a couple of bullets riccochet off the engine block and tear up some ignition harness is not too bad at all, at least not fatal. But to have all those thin-walled oil cooling tubes ahead of the engine is bad news. Any hits or riccochets in the engine section are bound to puncture the oil tubes. Then the whole engine is immersed in oil spray, and sometimes it would flash over into a fire. All of the 12 Focke-Wulfs that I shot down sent off a trail of dense, boiling oil smoke heavy enough to fog up my gun camera lens and windshield if I were so close.
Wings and Controls:
Again, as in the case of the Me 109, no trim tabs adjustable in flight from the cockpit were provided for the aileron and rudder. European designers seem to have acquired the notion that this was a nuisance or unnecessary. Not at all; when going into a dive, it's very easy for the pilot to reach down with his left hand and flick in a couple of half turns of rudder trim. It's not only desireable, but necessary to eliminate side slip for good gunnery. The Fw 190, however, did have electric trim tabs for the elevators.
Performance Evaluation:
The Fw 190's handling qualities were generally excellent. The most impressive feature was the aileron control at high speeds. Stick force per "g" was about 9 pounds upto 300 mph rising to 12 pounds at 400 mph as compared to over 20 pounds for the Me-109.
High speed stalls under "g" load were a little vicious and could be a fatal handicap in combat. If the airplane was pulled in tight and stalled at high speed at 2 "gs" or more with the power on, turning right or left, the left wing would drop violently without warning and the airplane would flick onto its back from a left turn. I scored against a 190 under such circumstances. The message was clear, don't stall it. Our own Bell P-39 Aircobra would do the same thing.
Fighting Qualities:
Excellent high speed, with exceptional maneuverability at those speeds. Range and endurance were markedly improved over the 109. The Focke-Wulf would go 3 hours plus. Visibility with the full view canopy was superb, as it was in the Mustang.

Summary:
Bad points:
(1) Oil cooling tubes at the front of the engines was a poor choice of location. A puncture due to combat damage, or to simple failure covered the engine section with an oil spray.
(2) Lack of aileron and rudder trim controls in the cockpit.
(3) Vicious high speed snap rolls if stalled under significant "g" load.
(4) Poor turning radius due to high wing loading.
Good points:
Everything else was good. In the hands of a competent pilot the 190 was a formidable opponent. The landing approach speed was high and this shakes some pilots up a bit, but I don't think it's anything it's anything to complain about.

=========================================
article end..

matter to be continue..

chn06
10-21-2005, 01:17 PM
402FM Stall characteristics maybe matter part2


"..High speed stalls under "g" load were a little vicious and could be a fatal handicap in combat. If the airplane was pulled in tight and stalled at high speed at 2 "gs" or more with the power on, turning right or left, the left wing would drop violently without warning and the airplane would flick onto its back from a left turn. I scored against a 190 under such circumstances. The message was clear, don't stall it. Our own Bell P-39 Aircobra would do the same thing."

In 402, FW190 High G stall is right wing drop violently any way.. Maybe 109 or others have same matter..

and any way.. 402 born ,it's a feast day http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

VW-IceFire
10-21-2005, 03:02 PM
I don't know if its been properly reported yet but there is some sort of serious control issue at play here for a random and unspecified number of people.

This is characterized by incredible bobbing and wobbling of the aircraft to the slightest touch of the controls.

This is not a joystick settings issue nor a hardware related issue. If that were true, going back to 4.01 or another patch edition would also show the same sort of erratic results. Software tests on the joystick hardware further shows that inputs are smooth and functioning at a nominal level.

This is also not a pilot skill related issue.

Solution or cause or any sort of reliable method of showing it has so far proven useless.

DuxCorvan
10-22-2005, 03:48 AM
On a side note, the fact that Oleg himself answers our mail bug reports and deals directly with customers, even if they make -as in my case- a wrong bug report, and that he even gives advice, is something I can never stop praising and find amazing.

It's more than simple public relations: it's pure kindness and politeness.

Thank you, Oleg. I feel like I'm cared of. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

rednine
10-22-2005, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
On a side note, the fact that Oleg himself answers our mail bug reports and deals directly with customers, even if they make -as in my case- a wrong bug report, and that he even gives advice, is something I can never stop praising and find amazing.

It's more than simple public relations: it's pure kindness and politeness.

Thank you, Oleg. I feel like I'm cared of. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
INDEED!
one thing i noticed thats very slight is that th AI gunner in the dauntless fires on aircraft infront of the dauntless but facing the oposite direction, otherwords once the enemy aircraft is near infront the AI lets loose his ammo basicly shooting at nothing!

p1ngu666
10-22-2005, 10:08 AM
thanks chn06 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Pauker
10-22-2005, 10:44 AM
Since I installed the 4.02 Patch , I´m not able to lounch any rockets - no matter, wich plane.
And over all: red whining pays, why does the blue whining work in the same way?
So the meaning is:
Noobs go on red side and fly the "cheater-planes" - skilled "Veterans" go on blue side!
But if the red side is too easy, it doesn´t make fun for both sides!
Only the AI is great now!

Pauker
10-22-2005, 10:58 AM
Sorry, I couldnot edit my former post:
Of course I want to make it clear: The patch 4.02 was made, because of red whining. But on blue side it is harder now to stay alive in fight. When does a patch is coming out to improve the planes on the blue side?
On red side u have the fastest plane ( where u can find jets on a server ???!!) and there are also the most manouverable planes also on the red side. On red side u can see at night where u are shooting, but on blue side using MKs an the whole screen just shows up with fire - no way to see the target anymore. Its a shame, that the Sim turns only that way to take place at the us-market.

edgflyer
10-22-2005, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by Pauker:
Sorry, I couldnot edit my former post:
Of course I want to make it clear: The patch 4.02 was made, because of red whining. But on blue side it is harder now to stay alive in fight. When does a patch is coming out to improve the planes on the blue side?
On red side u have the fastest plane ( where u can find jets on a server ???!!) and there are also the most manouverable planes also on the red side. On red side u can see at night where u are shooting, but on blue side using MKs an the whole screen just shows up with fire - no way to see the target anymore. Its a shame, that the Sim turns only that way to take place at the us-market.

What you smoking?????? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

p1ngu666
10-22-2005, 10:47 PM
night fighters have flash surpressers on nose guns. many had guns in the floor for that reason, so they dont blind pilot...

and, ki43 is blue http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

mole_boy
10-23-2005, 02:08 AM
Originally posted by Pauker:
Sorry, I couldnot edit my former post:
Of course I want to make it clear: The patch 4.02 was made, because of red whining. But on blue side it is harder now to stay alive in fight. When does a patch is coming out to improve the planes on the blue side?
On red side u have the fastest plane ( where u can find jets on a server ???!!) and there are also the most manouverable planes also on the red side. On red side u can see at night where u are shooting, but on blue side using MKs an the whole screen just shows up with fire - no way to see the target anymore. Its a shame, that the Sim turns only that way to take place at the us-market.

If the red whiners can get a new patch purely from whining then why doesn't red have the spitfire 14, all the whiners including me have complained for it long and hard. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Willey
10-23-2005, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by Ironman69:
Oleg,
Do you use an updated JOYSTICK setting for 4.02m i.e. 10 20 30 40... for pitch roll and yaw ? what do you recommend?

Oleg's old il2 conf has this:

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">[rts_joystick]
X=0 1 4 9 16 25 36 49 64 81 100 0
Y=0 1 4 9 16 25 36 49 64 81 100 0
Z=0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
RZ=0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0
FF=0
U=0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0
V=0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0
1X=0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0
1Y=0 5 9 15 23 31 42 54 67 79 91 0
1RZ=0 0 4 11 17 28 38 49 61 78 98 0
1U=0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0
1V=0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0
</pre>

But that may have changed since.

Willey
10-23-2005, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by Fulger1973:
Does anyone else have problems with selection of the engines?
The Select Right/Left Engines functions seem to have the exact opposite effect for all multi-engine aircrafts. Prior to 4.02 everything was normal. However, I reinstalled the entire game before applying 4.02 patch and I am wondering if this is a bug or just a configuration issues.

Sure you not used "toggle" instead of "select"? Try checking the mapping. For example, in a 4 engined plane, Toggle 3 would actually unselect #3 because at the start, all engines are selected. Select 3 instead just selects 3 alone.

La7_brook
10-24-2005, 08:22 PM
little thing of all my ai flying into the sea /need treck no because its in most my soites

jagdmailer
10-24-2005, 09:15 PM
I know it has been reported earlier but I finally managed to work the new Yak-7B/PF into a Stalingrad dynamic campaign playing a blue fighter w/ Bf 109G-2 and I have also to report that the wheels of the Yak-7B/PF are all about 1/3 sunk into the runway as they are standing and taking of from the runways. I have seen it on all 6 taking of from an hardened "earth" runway and all 6 taking off from grass runway.

I have not seen any of the new Yaks taking off from concrete runway yet, but I expect it to be the same.

JagdMailer

LEBillfish
10-25-2005, 08:46 AM
Oleg & 1c;

Hi guys, as mentioned above there seems to be an issue when patching that is causing many serious problems and in many cases including my own, a very negative impression till it is realized it is a "patching problem" not FM problem.

Essentially, the problem varies in intensity per the user ranging from a slow weaving/wobble/bobbing ... To in my case a very rapid jerking from side to side & up to down as though the inputs are moving from +10% to -10% with a frequency of est. 5/second.

Unfortunately I have no track to show you as I worked to resolve my problem instead. However, from what I have read I can report the following.

1. The problem occurs in the -20/-10 to 10/20% range of ALL axis travel......More input and it becomes steady.
2. Control surfaces can be seen to actually "flutter" as though when moving through the input range they move like (in %)
+1_-1_+2_0_+3_+1_+4_+2......+9_+7_+10_+11_+12_etc.
3. This flutter besides making aiming impossible also demonstrates itself in reduced speed/top end as though drag is occuring from the inputs.
4. Smooth level flight and anywhere between an est. -10 to +10% of travel demonstrates the condition.
5. It is independant of Joystick type or settings within IL2 & the J.S. software.
6. It is independant of where the patch was procurred.
7. It is independant of selecting the wrong patch (stand alone vs. merged) and repatching over it.
8. Repatching, even by downloading a new patch does not resolve the problem.
9. New entire reinstalls of the sim prior to 4.02 have no effect.
10. Filtering/dead zone only masks the problem.
11. Replacing various *.ini files has no effect.
12. The only resolution to date is a complete "clean" re-install of the IL2 series.
13. Additions of 3rd party programs and user specific files after the reinstall seem to have no effect.

(Not a programmer so the balance here speculation)

In that the condition seems to be varied between users, non existant in a "stock/fresh" complete re-install, independant of end user configuration "settings", and independant of control hardware type or settings...It has been suggested that perhaps some aspect of the sim that changes via player "use" over time is conflicting with the new 4.02 patch in some way.

Once again, a complete re-install resolves the problem. HOWEVER, in that it seems independant of the variables listed, there is a concern that the problem may "return" over time/use as the sim file resulting in the conflict once more progressively alters....... If this is the case then I'd expect possibly that the minor end of the spectrum of problem would first be encountered with it possibly progressing once more to the worst end of the spectrum.

Naturally that is all speculation. However, there was obviously a conflict of some sort that many users are experiencing......Unfortunately for many the attempts to resolve it via. numerous means, in some cases even insisting there is no problem simply that the new FM is bad generates even more upset with the patch.

I'll not be emailing this as previous emails have not been responded to and can only assume my email is blocked. Anyone here is welcome to relay any part of this they wish to 1c.

Kelly

p.s. Best AI yet, miles ahead of any other we have had since 1.00

crashmaster4000
10-25-2005, 10:04 AM
I can attest 100% to LEBillfish's post. Within 20% of neutral position, in any direction, the controls are jittery and unpredictable. I however did do a fresh re-install of everything and unfortunately didn't get the results she and others did; I still get the jitters in roll and pitch, and now my rudder is doing it too. So now, all three axes jitter and twitch! Adjusting the deadband, filtering etc. does little if anything to resolve this. Everytime I take to the skies I feel as if I've drank three or four pots of strong black coffee; deliberate controlling is easy, yet fine-tuning for a kill is nearly impossible, especially now that my rudder has gone awry.

Kwiatos
10-25-2005, 01:44 PM
and are you wonder?

|CoB|_Spectre
10-25-2005, 04:00 PM
Two FMB bugs confirmed by three separate mission builders:

1. Artillery explosions no longer audible. You can hear the guns fire, but the explosion from the round's impact on the ground is visual only. If round hits an object, that object's explosion produces a sound.

2. US 105mm howitzer does not appear to vary barrel pointing, results in every round fired impacting the ground within a few meter's distance.

Willey
10-25-2005, 04:02 PM
Still not fixed:

http://home.arcor.de/eldur/bilder/atibug.jpg

Tried several Catalysts including 4.2, 4.7, 5.5 and 5.10. They all produce this, SINCE 4.x

Looks like the problem is on Oleg's side.

It happens as soon as some ground explosions are in the "screen range".

Willey
10-25-2005, 04:03 PM
Cherry http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Manos1
10-25-2005, 04:23 PM
One question Willey,

IF you delete your conf.ini (save a backup somewhere else before!) and you run il2setup.exe to create a new conf.ini.

and after that you play the game, does this solve the problem?
If yes, you need to change the line TexQual= in your original conf.ini

~S~

Willey
10-25-2005, 05:18 PM
That doesn't help. Was the first one I tried, with both 4.01 and 4.02.

Tater-SW-
10-26-2005, 09:08 AM
I haven't read all these, but has anyone noticed bombers now follow the leader down if he is hit? They don;t crash, but will go right down to the deck.

tater

JG53Frankyboy
10-26-2005, 09:14 AM
Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
I haven't read all these, but has anyone noticed bombers now follow the leader down if he is hit? They don;t crash, but will go right down to the deck.

tater

thats not new http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
happend also before 4.02.
in VOW coop misisons i alwasy tell my comrades via TS :
" attack the bomberflight leaders as the last ones ! " http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Tater-SW-
10-26-2005, 10:21 AM
I didn't see it as frequently as I see it now though. There is something up with bomber formations in general I think.

tater

LEBillfish
10-26-2005, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
I haven't read all these, but has anyone noticed bombers now follow the leader down if he is hit? They don;t crash, but will go right down to the deck.

tater

Go into your Conf.ini file and scroll down making sure the following setting looks like this....

Lemmings = 0

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

Tater-SW-
10-26-2005, 12:36 PM
LOL, that musta been it!

tater

Eldon45
10-27-2005, 08:46 AM
I don't know if this is 4.02 related but I've only just noticed it...seems to be a definite glitch.

The following behavior is consistent for the P-39 Q1 on at least 2 maps (Marianas and Guadalcanal):

On AUTOPILOT, when the P-39 Q1 is set to escort low-flying (300M-1000M) planes, it does the usual circling stuff above them for a while, staying with them and never more than about 1000M above them (behaving correctly).

Then, however, after a certain point (unrelated to waypoints) it shifts its behavior. It stays with the planes it's escorting directionally, however it stops circling and starts simply fishtailing and climbing. The only thing that'll stop it from climbing is to shut the autopilot off and dive back down to the bombers' level, and turn the autopilot back on.

I've found no correspondence between this behavior and waypoints; have done a lot of mission building but have never seen it before.

All other fighters I tested (P-47D27, F4U, F6F, Bf109G, P-39 D, P-39Q10) exhibited normal behavior flying escort on autopilot. On the exact same mission, the P-39Q1 invariably flies off into heaven.

As AI, the Q1 escorts normally--this only happens on AUTOPILOT. Not helpful when you're building missions or feeling lazy on the way to the target area. And I'm always lazy.

SithLordRoY
10-28-2005, 02:38 AM
I have noticed that the problems with the He111 H-6 hasn't made it onto the forums. So here it is..

The operational altitude of the 111 has dropped about 1200m as far as I can tell. My throttle, pitch, bomb load, and fuel settings can't even get the plane onto the bombing charts speeds (270km/h). Before this patch I was able to fly with a throttle setting of 80% at 3000m and achive a speed of 300km/h, now I can't even get that with 110% power I can only get to 260km/h. The secondary supercharger has no effect on the speed of the plane either.

Was this intentional to set up the intro of the Ju-88 or was this just a mistake?

necro_v
10-28-2005, 06:56 PM
Force Feedback vibration problem ...

I have a M$ FF2. Now, with 4.02m patch, when I shoot machineguns, joystick continues shaking (machineguns vibration) after I finished shooting. After some seconds that shaking finishs.

Anyone has this problem?

Kuna15
10-29-2005, 04:27 PM
Pilots hanging under their parachutes can be only German and Russian pilots.
That's an old bug from the introduction of the PF but hasn't been fixed yet. I suspect it never will be.
Anyhow if this has already been mentioned in this thread ignore this post.

Charos
10-30-2005, 05:49 AM
Originally posted by Willey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
i think the climbing speed and angle of the me163 where really high

theres a nice feature/article by a test pilot somewhere, but ive no idea where... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

but yes, its surprisingly sluggish

http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/me163/me163_1.asp

Another error in FB:

"Five-position throttle: off, ground idle, flight idle, cruise, max power."

I might add that the plane isn't able to fly level with the first seeting in FB, it never was.

Here is it about the climb:

"We€d take off and try to keep the plane low, say 15 feet up, and then start to trim it for speed and then very gradually climb as we accelerated to the best climbing speed, which was about 420 miles per hour. The airplane was very short-coupled, so you didn€t want to over-control it in pitch as you took off. When we reached the best climbing speed, we€d pull back and climb at approximately 70 degrees."

420mph = 675km/h. It takes minutes to reach that alone. In a 70? climb it's a matter of seconds and I'M back at 250km/h still dropping.

Another FB issue:

"6. Stall characteristics were abrupt and severe and taxed the skills of even experienced fighter pilots.

RO: the plane was equipped with leading-edge slots that eliminated stalls and caused it to mush forward in a mode that was immediately recoverable. The plane would not spin and was intentionally designed to be docile for low-time pilots.

7. Only experienced pilots could adequately handle the airplane at slow speeds.

RO: the plane was docile and friendly at slow speeds, and it had to be for low-time pilots to successfully land it dead-stick."

In the contrary, it's one of the most b1tchy planes in FB. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



The Idle throttle seting according to Rudi and another Source I have for the HWK 109-509 A1 is 220lb of thrust and Im guessing the 1st stage setting would be about 600lb of thrust which is the same thrust produced by the later HWK-509C Model's seperate cruise chamber and is enough to sustain level flight at altitude.

I agree that the ME163 still has some issues - thanks Oleg for fixing the landing length as it was far too abrupt before - the ME163 took some 600M to come to a stop on dry grass and this is well reflected now.

But the main issues still outstanding now are:

#1 Climb rate far too low.

#2 Acceleration far too low.

#3 Fuel far too much.

Good first had reference = http://homepage.ntlworld.com/andrew.walker6/komet/flight/flight1.htm

From Rudy Opitz - Me 163 Test pilot.
__________

#1 As already stated by Willey, Rudy Opitz (ME163 Test Pilot has stated - I Quote again)

"We€d take off and try to keep the plane low, say 15 feet up, and then start to trim it for speed and then very gradually climb as we accelerated to the best climbing speed, which was about 420 miles per hour. The airplane was very short-coupled, so you didn€t want to over-control it in pitch as you took off. When we reached the best climbing speed, we€d pull back and climb at approximately 70 degrees."

Initial climb rate is 81M/S at 420MPH - 672KPH (the Gauge goes up to to 150M/S for good reason. Time to 6000M altitude is 2 Mins and 16 Seconds which I assume due to fuel restrictions is from a standing start.

#2 It takes far too long to accelerate to climb speed of 650-700KM/H - I have a Video of a ME163A Model which of course is lighter than the B but only has half the thrust as well - Power to weight ratio is better with the B model from memory.

In the above mentioned Video within several seconds of dropping the Dolly it is climbing at approx 70 Degrees at phenomenal speed.


#3 Currently in game the ME163 can run for 7.5 Minutes at Full thottle this is incorrect.

The Initial specification that Walter was to meet with the HWK 109-509 A1 Engine was a duration at full throttle of 12 Minutes this was NEVER achieved in fact it was WAY WAY worse in that a Fully laden ME163B with approx 4,440 Lbs of Fuel could only just break 4 Minutes at Maximum throttle setting as the Engine consumes 18.3 LBS of fuel per second.

As can be seen from the above figures after the ME163B gets to 6000M altitude it only has 1 Minute and 44 Seconds under Full power before the tanks are dry.

LEBillfish
10-30-2005, 07:52 AM
Still not seeing winter default skins in the new maps we have recently received over the past few patches......All "snow" scenario's, yet stock green default skins are what show.

RidgeR5
10-30-2005, 07:18 PM
Under conditions where graphics are set to Excellent, taking a screenshot will cause the decals for the aircraft numbers to go "bad", causing them to turn to a square with the material's base color.

Radeon 9600SE 128mb AGP, Running Omega 2.6.42

http://img437.imageshack.us/img437/9823/grab00061ze.jpg
http://img437.imageshack.us/img437/7339/grab00078yz.jpg

GT182
10-30-2005, 07:44 PM
Ridge, that's a graphics card problem. Either your card drivers are causing it or try game setting of High. I don't think the 9800s had this problem and it's common with the 9600s.

When I was looking for a new card a year ago, the Tech guys at a CompUSA store I go to said to stay away from the 9600SE as it did have problems with IL2. And they were IL2 gamers also.

I'm using a GF FX5600Ultra 256mb card with nVidia 71.89 drivers. My game setting is Excellent also and I've never seen this happen before with either the 4.01m and 4.02m patches.

HF_Raf
10-31-2005, 12:42 AM
4.02 - another diseaster.

1.Wobbling planes
2.Now all planes are stalling RIGHT
3.Russian planes still have armor like T34 tank and have UFO performance.
4..50 cal.... no comments
5.Its another step to destroy this game

IAFS_Painter
10-31-2005, 06:50 AM
Originally posted by necro_v:
Force Feedback vibration problem ...

I have a M$ FF2. Now, with 4.02m patch, when I shoot machineguns, joystick continues shaking (machineguns vibration) after I finished shooting. After some seconds that shaking finishs.

Anyone has this problem?
I've had that for a while - maybe since before PF!

Fire until guns are empty. Fire again (empty) and there's vibration. Fire yet again, and the vibration has stopped.

Never really bothered about it, after all, there's no ammo, so no chance of a hit.

hos8367
10-31-2005, 11:32 AM
This is a major problem. Has Oleg addressed it at all?


Originally posted by LEBillfish:
Oleg & 1c;

Hi guys, as mentioned above there seems to be an issue when patching that is causing many serious problems and in many cases including my own, a very negative impression till it is realized it is a "patching problem" not FM problem.

Essentially, the problem varies in intensity per the user ranging from a slow weaving/wobble/bobbing ... To in my case a very rapid jerking from side to side & up to down as though the inputs are moving from +10% to -10% with a frequency of est. 5/second.

Unfortunately I have no track to show you as I worked to resolve my problem instead. However, from what I have read I can report the following.

1. The problem occurs in the -20/-10 to 10/20% range of ALL axis travel......More input and it becomes steady.
2. Control surfaces can be seen to actually "flutter" as though when moving through the input range they move like (in %)
+1_-1_+2_0_+3_+1_+4_+2......+9_+7_+10_+11_+12_etc.
3. This flutter besides making aiming impossible also demonstrates itself in reduced speed/top end as though drag is occuring from the inputs.
4. Smooth level flight and anywhere between an est. -10 to +10% of travel demonstrates the condition.
5. It is independant of Joystick type or settings within IL2 & the J.S. software.
6. It is independant of where the patch was procurred.
7. It is independant of selecting the wrong patch (stand alone vs. merged) and repatching over it.
8. Repatching, even by downloading a new patch does not resolve the problem.
9. New entire reinstalls of the sim prior to 4.02 have no effect.
10. Filtering/dead zone only masks the problem.
11. Replacing various *.ini files has no effect.
12. The only resolution to date is a complete "clean" re-install of the IL2 series.
13. Additions of 3rd party programs and user specific files after the reinstall seem to have no effect.

(Not a programmer so the balance here speculation)

In that the condition seems to be varied between users, non existant in a "stock/fresh" complete re-install, independant of end user configuration "settings", and independant of control hardware type or settings...It has been suggested that perhaps some aspect of the sim that changes via player "use" over time is conflicting with the new 4.02 patch in some way.

Once again, a complete re-install resolves the problem. HOWEVER, in that it seems independant of the variables listed, there is a concern that the problem may "return" over time/use as the sim file resulting in the conflict once more progressively alters....... If this is the case then I'd expect possibly that the minor end of the spectrum of problem would first be encountered with it possibly progressing once more to the worst end of the spectrum.

Naturally that is all speculation. However, there was obviously a conflict of some sort that many users are experiencing......Unfortunately for many the attempts to resolve it via. numerous means, in some cases even insisting there is no problem simply that the new FM is bad generates even more upset with the patch.

I'll not be emailing this as previous emails have not been responded to and can only assume my email is blocked. Anyone here is welcome to relay any part of this they wish to 1c.

Kelly

p.s. Best AI yet, miles ahead of any other we have had since 1.00

Kuna15
10-31-2005, 07:27 PM
N1K1-Ja has two nose MGs + 4x20mm displayed in game while it had only 4x20mm cannons, so that is probably a graphical bug http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.
N1K1-J model however had 4x20mm + 2x7,62mm, and that one is correctly displayed.

LEBillfish
10-31-2005, 10:59 PM
Originally posted by hos8367:
This is a major problem. Has Oleg addressed it at all?

Not that I have heard though may be if they generate a "add on" patch.

vanjast
11-01-2005, 09:19 AM
NTRK lag fixup..

Maybe Oleg and crew might consider this...

As we know there is a problem with the .ntrk's displaying a laggy player - The aircraft is not orientated to it's flight path - it shoots at fresh air and the plane 100m off to the side blows up.
From what I can work out is that the .ntrk is only recorded from the Recorders point-of-view (POV). Now if the track was recorded with every planes lag time, the track playback can use this 'Time Key' to reposition all the objects to view from the new object's POV. In this way all the objects should be repositioned and orientated to the new POV.

You essentially keep the laggy object's orientation and actions, but reposition the laggy object and the other objects by a function of time..

POV = function(Lag)

grecobd
11-02-2005, 05:53 AM
the playback don´t work right...

Kuna15
11-02-2005, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by grecobd:
the playback don´t work right...

If you mean playback of tracks, you are certainly right.
What causes this innacuracies are mostly lag and poor connection, so at one point track get desynchronised.

Offline however, .nrtk are affected by lag and time acceleration.

.trk files made on some other version that our current one wont play on our machines (we have 402 so 401 .trk won't play on our machines).

I believe that everything except the lag can't be solved.

Interminate
11-03-2005, 11:59 AM
I have this bug where bullets slam into the wing of my plane and it comes off, the wing that is, and I crash into the ground.

OldMan____
11-04-2005, 05:54 AM
I get some fake input, specially when online. Sudden fake (not makeing it with stick) Aileron input when online. Even at ground. It ALMOST does not happen offline, although once in a while I get it too offline.

Is not joystick problem since I tested with MS FFB, Evo, X45 and a logitech one.. all have same issue. Even without ANY josytick connected the issue remais. If I play offline then connect to online it keep at same error rate as offline. But if I go directly online it keeps moving the ailerons to full up down (in very very short time) every few seconds.


If I install 4.01 back it simply does not happen .

Also here planes have torque to opossite side it should.

Interminate
11-04-2005, 09:50 AM
As a matter of fact, I have a similar problem. Its as if the autopilot turns on for a split second. Without any input from me, my plane dips as if an aileron moved. Never had that problem before! Also it will read as if the throttle shifted a tiny bit.

Had noticed the wobbly, I think it was a hellcat. That was a while ago, can't remember for sure which plane.


x45 joystick

OldMan___
11-04-2005, 12:32 PM
I could tell that is the same. Never tought about the Autopilot.. but is a good description.

OldMan____
11-04-2005, 06:31 PM
Just wanna report I solved my problem. By using profiling tools I noticed game was using P4 dlls (still from new DLLs for NV cards) when launched from HL (I have an AthlonFX) ... I removed these DLLs so now it is normal!!! (srry for having used a profiler around PF.. I know it may be considered Ilegal, but just tried to find out what the hell was going on)

stathem
11-10-2005, 07:12 AM
Focke-wulf 190 A-series€¦

On occasion, when this aircraft receives a hit in the engine area, the visual effect for oil leak is turned on, but aircraft appears to drain of fuel at a somewhat excessive rate. The time taken for the fuel tank to drain completely appears to be independent of the fuel level at the point where the aircraft receives the damage.

I suspect that the routines for oil loss and fuel loss are €˜mixed up€ in some way.

If this is intentional and a feature then apologies for troubling you; however a large part of the community considers it to be a bug and so hopefully this information will provide an indicator for the dev. team to investigate the root cause, if they have time and inclination.

GADGET_101ECV
11-11-2005, 12:59 AM
I have a ATI-9800X and since 4.02 land textures, such as airports, roads, etc. dissappear when flying over 1000 feet or so.

No coming back home is a real challenge.... guess where!.

Also nationality marks, such as roundels on wings, are missing , even in the configuration screen.

buddywoof
11-13-2005, 01:37 AM
Microstutters are still not fixed in 3.02m! Nvidia 6800 GT AFTER drivers 66.93 have stuttering in low level flight. Do a ground attack mission with an IL2 and you'll see. Please, it's about time you fix this! Thanks.

Gibbage1
11-14-2005, 01:20 AM
I dont know if this is new or not, but I just discovered it. NTRK files are not recording the position of gunners correctly. I recorded a bunch of test's from the gunners point of view, and when playing the track back, the aim is off to the RIGHT of the target were I fired! The discrepency is quite a bit. The target aircraft was about 100 in front of my B-25 on the ground, and instead of hitting the engine (the target of the test), it was hitting the side. The engine stopped as if it was hit when it was not. As the track progressed, the aim got further to the right till it was not even hitting the aircraft in front of me, but still doing damage.

I have tracks if needed.

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/fw190vsp47.zip

All shots were into the engine cowel of the target aircraft, but the playback shows it to the right.

Rikupsoni
11-14-2005, 07:26 AM
I'd just like to point these still:

Way too much dust on pavemement air fields:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v112/Rikupsoni/nicea.jpg

TB-3 which carries the planes have some problems when the TB-3 gets destroyed (AI)

They just jam in the air without pilot.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v112/Rikupsoni/bugibag.png

And yeah the Spitfire, Seafires, SBD lods just to complain more. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

RED_BEAR8
11-18-2005, 06:24 AM
the damage model of the P38 have something bad. with just one hit all the tail and sometimes part of the booms goes off. this need tobe check.

Kuna15
11-25-2005, 04:44 PM
Not confirmed for sure, but it seems that German stock campaigns cannot be finished on Berlin map 1945 (end of war).
DGen produces some kind of error (accompanying "BEEP" sound and campaign crashes).

This should be really looked into as I almost lost two of my campaigns (on different computers) because of this. I lost first one but I make my way around the problem in second campaign.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/9521060083

LEBillfish
11-26-2005, 06:22 AM
Possible Bug:
Gear will not manually deploy.....5+x now I have received hits to my wings that resulted in me being unable to lower the landing gear....In kind, "Manual Lowering" would not work (though should not like say a I-16 that requires numerous cranks)....

The Ki-61 had an "Emergency Landing Gear "Uplock" release Lever" which is situated beside the seat on the right side "under" the "Emergency Hydraulic Hand Pump" lever. When pulled, it would manually release the latch holding the gear up and they would simply fall...Momentum or if required wing wagging causing them to swing to the downed position past the toggle 0 point locking.

So in all reality, they should "at least" have the manual option available.

Other issues still.....

Modeling Issues:
No venturi (double black cone on left cowling)...That was only used on 3 planes of the 244th Sentai, and is still debated if it was just a quick fix for a damaged part in the air intake to run various gauges, or used to run a prototype gyroscopic sight.

Trim tabs missing on ALL control surfaces.....This is a minor thing however something that cannot be corrected by skinning and is required for markings.

Landing gear covers are seriously wrong, shape is incorrect particularly at Oleo mark splits.

Accordion Boot overlanding gear shock rod missing (9 section boot covering the bare metal shock rod)....In kind inner cover stop/lift bar missing (arched bar that stopped cover from swinging and made contact with the tire to close)

First off, each type of gun used in the wing needed a clearance bulge, yet it was on the upper surface of the wing. Any below is so minimal it would not matter. In kind, the bulge on top for the wing varied in size and location for all 3 types of guns. Also you'll not vents above and below for the gun bays.......Vents can be resolved through skinning, the bulges however cannot. Since we have 3 different models, there is no reason why these clearance bulges cannot be corrected.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/IL2/Gunbulges.jpg

1b & 1c had retractable tail gear (though not like 1a with closing covers, radiused cutout correct)....However, this was "blocked down"....Once in the field I cannot confirm if this blocking was sometimes deliberately removed, however there are photo's of 1b & 1c with it retracted.

Counterbalance weights under Ailerons missing (believe that is what they are).

Loadout Modeling:

There is no proof and it is believed by most that the Ki-61-1a thru 1c never carried ground attack bombs. Later they however were fitted with Phosphorous "anti-bomber" bombs to be dropped into formations.....However, in that we do not have the 1d thru II series this helps make up for their loadouts....In kind, a 100kg bomb needs to be added if that is the logic.

Ki-61 OFTEN did not carry the racks for external drop tanks. This was "intended" by the factory and even sports markings stating "Install ONLY when drop tanks are to be carried". In the field they were often not mounted. Other times they were left on simply due to the constant need for them. I suggest they be removed from the plane if either a bomb or ext. fuel tank loadout is not selected.

Ki-61 bomb rack (only right side of each is marked)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/IL2/Untitled-2.jpg
(photoscan copyright R.Lane)

Ki-61 NENRYO RAKKA TANKU KENSUI-KA
RAKKA TANKU SOU-CHAKU-JI NOMI TORI-TSUKE

Ki-61 Drop Tank Suspension Mount
Install only when drop tanks are to be carried

These are some of the markings on the side of each fuel rack.

There is some evidence that sometimes only a single external fuel tank would be utilized, in those cases both fuel racks would be in place however only one droptank on the right side should be in place (compensated for torque).

The Ki-61 thru 1c had various "internal" fuel tanks during it's production run. These varied from 750 liters to 500 liters placed about wings and fuselage....Exact numbers will be given if this is something wished to be addressed and if I can get permission from my "highly qualified" source.

Damage Modeling:

Ki-61-1c had a fire extinguisher system.

Ki-61's had "selectable" tank lever (below prop pitch & Throttle unit) so if one was hit they could switch to others...This included a selector switch for fuel quantity per tank......Now that would be difficult to model in the sim, However, that should mean "All" fuel stores should not run dry if one tank is hit.

Fuel tank "leak absorbing" and "bullet proofing" rapidly improved through the Ki-61-I series. This evolved from 10mm silk felt and 3mm rubber to 9mm top & 6mm sides and bottom rubber to 12mm rubber in the 1a-1c respectively

The pilot seat armor steadily improved from 10mm plate to 16mm head, 12mm body.

Radiator in most 1b (all but 13) and all 1c models had 8mm armor plate protecting them.

Gear, flaps, radiator door were hydraulically actuated though "not sure" if they had "hydraulic fuses (correction by Cephas)" to insure if one was damaged rest would work (doubtful)......All control surfaces were via cable and bell crank.............What this would translate too is radiator opening fully, and possibly flaps lowering when lines were hit.

Windscreen due to cowling design would be doubtful to "Oil up" as it does when the engine is hit....In kind where in the Bf109 had a flat windscreen, the Ki-61 only had a tiny area as such for the optical sight. In either case I'd suspect oil could NOT reach the windscreen upon a hit............This has been discussed & examples of black oil shown by others HOWEVER the design of the engine covers would not allow it like say with radial engines (which few oil up)

Engine DM excessively fragile OR all other inline engines excessively strong.....Ki-61 in contrast to others often siezes up the first hit, always oils up, and instantly goes to a critical state......No other inline engine I have found is so fragile.

Flight Modeling:
Max. Speed...These are the generally accepted numbers form the Kawasaki data, JAFC data, U.S. captured example coded JAFC S/N 263 (real S/N 163, so a Ki-61-1-Ko).
Ki-61-1a
Max. Speed = 590 km/hr@5,000m
Cruising Speed = Unknown
Climb = Unknown
Ki-61-1b
Max. Speed = 592 km/hr@4,860m
Cruising Speed = 400 km/hr@4,000m
Climb = 5,000m/5min, 31seconds
Ki-61-1c
Max. Speed = Unknown
Cruising Speed = Unknown
Climb = Unknown
Test results as follows: Only max speed was tested and the conditions of the plane were...
Fully trimmed (no trim on rudder may help)
Radiator closed
Engine Overheat turned off
Altitude 4,860m
Tried various combinations of prop pitch and throttle with 100%pp/110% throttle achieving the highest speed
25-100% fuel had little effect
Ki-61-1b "Otsu" in sim Max. Speed at altiitude = 560km/hr T.A.S. or 32km/hr too slow

flakwagen
11-28-2005, 10:42 AM
Yesterday while flying online (4.02m) someone shot the rudder off of my FIAT G50. But the aircraft behaved as if it still had a rudder. Has anyone else experienced this phenomenon? I searched the forums for 'g50 rudder' without results.

Flak

Kuna15
11-28-2005, 01:03 PM
1. @ flakwagen I have posted a picture of Bf-109Z without tail section and part of the fuselage that was behaving normally in flight elevator has responded normally...?

That is some weird graphical bug.

2. USAAF bomber New Guinea (stock DGen campaign) 1942 listed as selectables are A-20 and B25, both of these aircraft were introduced MUCH later according to in game data (B-25 1944).
What's up with that? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

RegRag1977
12-01-2005, 05:27 AM
Originally posted by buddywoof:
Microstutters are still not fixed in 3.02m! Nvidia 6800 GT AFTER drivers 66.93 have stuttering in low level flight. Do a ground attack mission with an IL2 and you'll see. Please, it's about time you fix this! Thanks.

Hey Oleg, please listen to Buddywoof (this guy is 100% right http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif), for many Nvidia owners have this problem at low altitude. As far as i am concerned i also have it with 6600GT. It would be nice to fix it as soon as you can!

Thanks for reading that Oleg, Thank you a lot for your marvellous sim http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif!

French Fw190 Pilot

xTHRUDx
12-02-2005, 05:44 PM
When your plane is running at too rich a fuel mixture you get exhuast smoke out of the engine, this part makes sense. What doesn't make sense is, you still get this "too rich" smoke effect when your engine is off. Shouldn't there be a lack of smoke due to a dead engine?

Kuna15
12-04-2005, 09:07 AM
Didn't noticed it good find THRUD.

Chadburn
12-09-2005, 08:25 AM
The planes can still be trimmed while the pilot is blacked out. This means that planes with rudder, aileron and elevator trim can still maneouver even when the pilot is supposed to be blacked out.

JV44Rall
12-17-2005, 08:12 PM
I've noticed this several times now.

After an engine overheats and then dies on a Ta-152, and you try to dive away to safety, the control surfaces freeze up as you approach 700 kph and the plane goes straight into the ground.

Kwiatos
12-18-2005, 04:58 AM
Still there is graphic bug in ATI RADEON 9800 PRO - text corruption during ground explosion.
These bug is from patch 4.XX and with different drivers. Before 4.XX everything was ok. I know that many 9800 pro users have the same bug.

http://home.arcor.de/eldur/bilder/atibug.jpg

Pinker15
12-18-2005, 05:48 AM
P11c have tail weel lock function what is stupid because P11 have skid not weel. Throttle lever should moves backwards when we adding power. Maximum dive speed was 698 kmph. (P.Z.L. manufacture data)not 420 kmph. Feather prop. function is available which should not be. The same bug is in the Gladiator. The production date for P.11c should be: 1934 (the serial production started November 1934, most were manufactured in 1935. Please add ability to drop main fuel tank: the main fuel tank could be dropped in emergency. Please add 2 machine guns in fulselage only to loadouts: Only few P.11c were armed with 4 machine guns. Should be added rear mirror (P.11c had mirror installed).

JadehawkII
12-18-2005, 08:14 PM
Oleg and Gang,
I'm creating a template for the J2M3 Raiden and came across a problem with the cockpit glass on the CG model. Apparently, the glass in certin areas as shown in my screen shots are causing problems with skinning this airplane. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif Perhaps, a simple fix to the CG model in regards to the Cockpit glass can be made? If so, then the skins will work correctly before you release the flyable version of this airplane. Please check with the default skin as all skins for this airplane are affected.
Otherwise, all the hard work with no glass fix would be counter-productive?

Thank you for your attention! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Please follow the link to my thread in the skinning forum.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/45410763/m/7441021883

Maggi_4
01-01-2006, 01:30 PM
After head on head collisons usually just one plane get hurts, the other one fly away...

jimDG
01-13-2006, 09:14 AM
Originally posted by Kwiatos:
Still there is graphic bug in ATI RADEON 9800 PRO - text corruption during ground explosion.
These bug is from patch 4.XX and with different drivers. Before 4.XX everything was ok. I know that many 9800 pro users have the same bug.

http://home.arcor.de/eldur/bilder/atibug.jpg

I get the same with a Radeon X800

KG26_Alpha
01-13-2006, 12:31 PM
Hi

Theres a problem with some objects im unable to see in perfect mode.

oBJECT 165
oBJECT 166

These are trees winter and summer types, the problem is I sometimes crash into them especially on the Kurland maps off runway in parking areas.

After turning off stencil buffering (turns off perfect mode) the trees reappear again.

Hardware is Nvidea MSI NX 6800 Ultra

Driver 81.95

Bug fixed with fresh conf ini file

|CoB|_Spectre
01-15-2006, 06:49 AM
There has been improvement to the effectiveness of brakes in 4.02 and the handling characteristics so vital to maneuvering on a carrier deck. Still, it seems one must come to a complete stop to make especially tight turns while taxiing and even then, with throttle-up to begin moving, stopping power of the brakes is questionable which can lead to rolling off the deck or collision even with full brakes applied and moving at walking speed. The airplane's tendency to "wind vane" into the direction of the carrier's movement demands skillful coordination of power and brakes to successfully manage deck maneuvers.

I don't know if this was meant to lessen the chance of nose-over on landing rollout, but it seems there could be a gradient of braking effectiveness related to speed of movement (i.e., being able to jam on the brakes and stopping immediately when moving at, say, 10mph or less while being less effective at high speeds to avoid nose-over). Rapidly clearing the landing area on a ship is vital in managing the tempo of arrestments. IMHO, braking needs improvement.

FI_Gen0sse
01-15-2006, 10:29 PM
I don´t know if it´s been already reported nor it´s a "real bug" ...

If I fly as a Japanese pilot and I´ve to bail out why is a German pilot hanging on the chute while gliding down who strangely turns into a Japanese one again once landed in the next ocean ...

As I said it´s not a "real bug" but it definitely belongs to the "still to do" list ...

S! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

stylepolizei
01-17-2006, 12:34 PM
Hi there,

I noticed undamaged bombers break out of formation and drop their payload,
if their flightleader gets shot down.
Still the most exciting sim I came across.
Sorry for bad english.

greetz

Alfred_Flare
01-19-2006, 11:34 PM
Hi Oleg and development team.

By efforts of a development team, I think that the flight model of 4.02 became wonderful.
Thank you very much.

However, portions in which it made a mistake clearly, such as a body and 3D modeling of a cockpit, still exist.
Now, I think that a development team is very busy.
However, the item shown below is a mistake certainly.

<3D modeling, animation Issues>
1. A6M2-21.
a. The form of a seat is completely different.
Please make it the same as a A6M5a seat.

b. Mixture control is a automatic. Except for an experimental model, all of A6M series are automatic mixture control.
c. Since all the model internal organs are carried out, please remove the mass balance of an aileron.
This type of mass balance is removed by the large repair before the outbreak of war.

2. A6M3.
a. The form of a seat is completely different.
Please make it the same as a type52 seat.
b. Since all the model internal organs are carried out, please remove the mass balance of an aileron.
This type of mass balance is removed by the large repair before the outbreak of war.

3. All A6M series
a . the animation of a propeller pitch lever is wrong.
If a lever is forward, a propeller pitch will decrease.
If a lever is back, a propeller pitch will increase.

b. The form of a main wing is considerably different.
The main wing has not bent backward.
The edge of a wing should be constituted in a straight line.

c. The position of 20mm machine gun is different.
The position of the 20mm machine gun is 1950mm in position from a body center.
The position of PF is attached to the position of about 1850mm.
Please move the position of the 20mm machine gun to an about 100mm outside.

d. The length of a main gear is short about 100mm.
The position from the body center to the tire center of a main gear is 1750mm.
The position of PF is attached to the position of about 1650mm.
Please correct the length from the body center to the tire center of a main gear to be set to 1750mm.

e. The stopper of a canopy should do animation.
This part is Stoppa of a canopy.
Therefore, it slides together with a canopy.
Stoppa of PF remains in the body.
Moreover, form is also completely different.

4. All KI-61 series .
If an altitude of 8000m or more goes up, an engine will break down.
Since I think that it is probably the fault of automatic mixture control (AMC), please correct.

<Display relations Issues>
1. A6M2-21 & A6M3.
Please give a fuselage number to a vertical stabilizer like other A6M series at the time of Marking ON.

2. all A6M series.
It is different in the boost pressure display at the time of throttle full open.
sakae-12 & sakae-21 engine goes up to +250mm.
A6M2-21 and A6M3 -- please correct at least A6M5 series.

Pinker15
01-23-2006, 02:39 AM
Me 323 is an flying tank and should have corrected DM model. Sometimes it can even survive one RS rocket hit. U can set joystick sliders only for first controller . For others U need to edit conf.ini file manually. Rudder effectiveness is too small during fly I think. Left, right weel brake feature would be nice. Fw 190 has to gentle stall and no wingdrop at all. Many high powered planes like 109 has too small P-factor (esspecially at low speed during takeoff or landing) when others less powered has mutch more P-Factor. 109 G2 has better turn radius than lighter 109 F4 what is wrong I think. 109 G6/AS was not equipped in to MW/50 installation but in high alt. supercharger. Late 109's should have 20mm nose cannon avalible not only Mk108 30mm. In certain situations planes behave strange. For example we cant do correct hammerhead or tail slide. Manytime when U try do correct evasive barrell roll with rudder usage it causes somekind of wonder stall plane behaves. Planes have too small slide characteristic at low speeds ( Im not meaning Woobles what its stupid). 50 cal. effectivenes looks ok only with realistic gunnery of (mabe to strong a bit because easy wing ripping off but other stuff looks ok). Planes are to stable and easy to controll at extremally low speeds (140kmph). Its allmost no difference for climbrate if U climb at 280 kmph or 190-200 kmph (109's La5/7 etc. for example).

|CoB|_Spectre
01-29-2006, 02:40 PM
I just ran into this FMB quirk yesterday. The Peleliu airfield on the Palau map has a bug that offsets the takeoff point. I had designated end of runway "A" (see photo) as the takeoff end and it's opposite end as the landing point. On test play, the aircraft were lined-up on the runway and taking off using end "B" as the departure end. The landing end always stayed as I had assigned, it was only the takeoff end that is hosed. To get the aircraft to actually takeoff at "A", I found I had to place the takeoff point on "C". I haven't run into this before, but it's possible that it occurs on other airfields.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v231/I_B_Spectre/PeleliuRunway.jpg

JG4_StylewarzZ
01-30-2006, 09:53 AM
Videobug

When u fly a mission with ONLY COCKPIT and save the flight after it as a video, the video ll often be useless.

When u watch it with "free view and timescale" u ll notice, that when it come to the fight the playerplan ll hunting " nothing and shoot @ somewhere in the air " http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

JG4_StylewarzZ
02-01-2006, 04:38 PM
Grafic Bug

Another bug I found, is a grafic bug.

When u look from the cockpit in BF109-G14 to the left or right u ll see a green stripe.

http://www.bilder-hosting.de/img/5UCLB.jpg

http://www.bilder-hosting.de/img/5UD7N.jpg



And from external view u see the stripe as well, but this time in red.

http://www.bilder-hosting.de/img/5UEHV.jpg


My settings are all in maximum, but water = 2. I use with OpenGL with a Nvidia 6800 ultra with
latest driver, but with other driver or Nvidiacards the problem is the same.

Please fix it in the next patch, because the BF109 G14 is it worth to be fix ( and to be flown ).

Thanxx ;P

AKA_TAGERT
02-05-2006, 11:29 AM
There seems to be a bug in the 109K4 ROC. The v4.02 in-game 109K4 is a 1.80ata capable 109K4, not a 1.98ata capable. Looking at the real world data chart (posted by hop2002) shows what actual ROC values for a 1.80ata capable 109K4.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/402/109/109K4/MY/MY_109K4_100FUEL_MW50_RAD_OPEN/109K4_MW50_ON_1.80ata_and_1.98ata.JPG

Now taking the 1.80ata values and comparing them to my in-game test

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/402/109/109K4/MY/MY_109K4_100FUEL_MW50_RAD_OPEN/MY_109K4_100FUEL_MW50_RAD_OPEN_ROC_TTA_2.JPG

As you can see the in-game 109K4 @ 1.80ata far exceeds the real life 109K4 @ 1.80ata ROC values.

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
At 3000m the real life 1.80ata has a ROC of about 20.5m/s
At 3000m the in-game 1.80ata has a ROC of about 27.5m/s</pre>
That is about a <span class="ev_code_red">1,400ft/min error</span> (ie 7 meter/second = 1 377.95 foot/minute)

That is 1.80ata vs. 1.80ata!

The surprising part is the in-game 1.80ata not only far exceeds the real life 1.80ata values but it far exceeds the real life 1.98ata values.

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
At 3000m the real life 1.98ata has a ROC of about 22.5m/s
At 3000m the in-game 1.80ata has a ROC of about 27.5m/s</pre>
That is about a <span class="ev_code_yellow">1,000ft/min error</span> (ie 5 meter/second = 984.25 foot/minute)

That is 1.80ata vs. 1.98ata

Here is a link to my full report
My full report (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/402/109/109K4/MY/MY_109K4_100FUEL_MW50_RAD_OPEN/MY_109K4_100FUEL_MW50_RAD_OPEN_summary.pdf)

Here is a link to the track file
My track file (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/402/109/109K4/MY/MY_109K4_100FUEL_MW50_RAD_OPEN/MY_109K4_100FUEL_MW50_RAD_OPEN.ntrk)

JirkaF
02-06-2006, 02:53 AM
When I create mission in which Me-321 is trailed by He-111 , there is possible to fly this Heinkel off-line by me. But when I start it in coop multiplaeyr mode the Me-321 disconnects immediately after mission is started everytime. It doesn't matter if I make it as normal take-off or airstart. Now I am sure that it is bug.

AKA_TAGERT
02-06-2006, 08:51 PM
METHOD:
There are only two possible methods used, the air start or ground start.

1) The air start method is where the plane is flying at sea level at a speed near the best climb rate. The time starts once the pilot performs a fairly abrupt pull-up and attempts to stabilize on the speed at the best climb speed schedule at the lowest practical altitude (aka sea level). Once stabilized on the climb schedule the pilot will adjust speed as the airplane climbs so that the schedule of best climb speed is maintained as the altitude increases. The check climb ends when the rate of climb drops below 100 feet per minute or when a pre-established maximum altitude has been reached.

2) The ground start method begins at a stop on the runway by establishing Military Power with the brakes on. The time starts when the brakes are released. The pilot completes a normal takeoff with rapid gear and flap retraction. The airplane is allowed to accelerate at low altitude to a speed somewhat below the speed for best climb. The pilot then performs a fairly abrupt pull-up and attempts to stabilize on the best climb speed schedule at the lowest practical altitude. Once stabilized on the climb schedule the pilot will adjust speed as the airplane climbs so that the schedule of best-climb speed is maintained as the altitude increases. The check climb ends when the rate of climb drops below 100 feet per minute or when a pre-established maximum altitude has been reached.

The two methods are similar, but the air start method provides the best chance of the P38J matching the real life values in that it removes the time from when the plane is at rest to when it is flying level at the initial best climb speed. In my track file I actually do the ground start method, but, that portion of the data is ignored in this analysis. Therefore the data used in this analysis is that of an air start.

The in-game P38J is a newer model than the one used in the AAF test. The P38J in the AAF test has the smaller 300gal. fuel tanks, therefore I adjusted the fuel load to account for this. Bodie states the test was done at WEP, and the MP indicates 60"MP. Oleg has indicated that all planes are verified at 100% (MIL), but at that setting the P38J does not even get close. So, I decided to try it at 110% (WEP). The problem with that is the in-game P38 engines are damaged at ~22kft due to over heat. Therefore I start off at 110% (WEP) and slowly reduce to 100% (MIL).

IN GAME P38J CONFIGURATION:
MAP: Crimea
WEATHER: Clear
TIME: 12:00PM
FUEL: 70% (i.e. 300gal/426gal. ~ 70%)
WEAPON LOADOUT: DEFAULT
RAD: AUTO
POWER: 110% THROTTLE (0ft to ~11kft)
POWER: 105% THROTTLE (~11kft to ~15kft)
POWER: 100% THROTTLE (~15kft to ~33kft)

RESULTS

Here is the summary table
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/402/P38J/v402_P38J_70FUEL_110_105_100_PWR_01/v402_P38J_70FUEL_110_105_100_PWR_TBL.JPG


Here is the corresponding ROC
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/402/P38J/v402_P38J_70FUEL_110_105_100_PWR_01/v402_P38J_70FUEL_110_105_100_PWR_ROC.JPG

Here is the corresponding TTA
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/402/P38J/v402_P38J_70FUEL_110_105_100_PWR_01/v402_P38J_70FUEL_110_105_100_PWR_TTA.JPG

SUMMARY
Key things to remember
1) The real life test was done using the NACA ground start method, where as I used an air start. Using the air start saves you about 30 to 40 seconds, that is to the P38J should get to the real world altitudes about 30 to 40 seconds sooner.
2) I adjusted the fuel load down to 300gal.
3) I could not do the test at WEP for the whole test due to engine damage.

With all those things in mind the in-game P38J still did not get close to hitting the mark. As you can see the TTA graphs the in-game P38J took ~7min to get to 20kft where the real life P38J was able to do it in ~5min 37sec. This is to be expected when you look at the ROC graphs, note the real life P38J had a ROC of 4,000fpm at SL and the in-game P38J has a ROC of only 3,750. Also note that is the closest the in-game P38J ever gets to the real ROC values. Look at the ROC at 20kft, the in-game P38J has an ROC of ~2,000fpm and the real life P38J has a ROC of ~3,250fpm, that is a 1,250fpm error.

This next table I don€t have automated in my analysis tool yet, but I wanted to show the difference and percent error in the ROC per altitude. I had to visually get the in-game values off of my curves so keep that in mind. I will add this in later so it is automated. Here is the difference and percent error table

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/402/P38J/v402_P38J_70FUEL_110_105_100_PWR_01/v402_P38J_70FUEL_110_105_100_PERCENT_ERROR.JPG

I have also done some testing with the engine heat off, running at 110% for the whole climb does not fix the problem either. Long story short, the P38J€s climb rate is way off imho.

Here is a link to the 100% full report and track file
full report for 100% case (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/402/P38J/v402_P38J_70FUEL_100_PWR_01/V402_P38J_70FUEL_100PWR_summary.pdf)
track file for 100% case (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/402/P38J/v402_P38J_70FUEL_100_PWR_01/v.02_P38J_70FUEL_100PWR.ntrk)

Here is a link to the this (110% to 105% to 100%) full report and track file
full report for 110% to 105% to 100% case (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/402/P38J/v402_P38J_70FUEL_110_105_100_PWR_01/v402_P38J_70FUEL_110_105_100_PWR_summary.pdf)
track file for 110% to 105% to 100% case (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/402/P38J/v402_P38J_70FUEL_110_105_100_PWR_01/v402_P38J_70FUEL_110_105_100_PWR.ntrk)

Takamaka
02-07-2006, 10:37 AM
Yak-9U & Yak-9UT

Like many other basic subtypes of the Yaks, the -9U served as a kind of proving ground for developing different armament options. In on machine provision was made for replacing the ShVak-20 by more potent cannons - an NS-23, an N-37 and even an N-45; in the latter case the two synchronized weapons in the front upper decking had to be deleted to lighten the machine. Synchronized machine guns were replaced by new synchronized B-20 cannons.
The possibility of installing different engine-mounted cannon without any major redesign of the aircraft was a distinct advantage, making it possible to switch series production quickly to this or that type of armamement depending on the requirements of the Air Force.(...) A prototype fighter featuring this kind of armament (Ns-37 + 2 B-20s) (c/n 39166083, batch 39, Omsk factory (166), 83rd machine in the batch) was built under A. Yakovlev's direct guidance in Feb '45, and allocated the designation Yak-9UT.
Naturally, each armament version had it's own all-up weight, CG position and flight performances. But the speeds were identical to those of the Yak-9U. The handling qualities of the -9UT were virtually the same as those of its predecessors, except for the control stick forces from the elevator: they prooved to be too high, and that was the most serious shortcoming of the aircraft.
On the credit side was the weight of fire: with the installation comprising the NS-37 and 2 B-20s, it amounted to 6.0kg/s (13.2lb/s) as compared to the Yak-9U's 2.81kg/s (6.2lb/s). In the final stages of the war such sizeable figures commanded respect even from the Germans who also strove to increase the firepower as much as possible in order to fight the sturdy and highly survivable B-17s and B-24s.
Tests of this aircraft were conducted by engineer G.A. Sedov and pilot A. Manucharov at NII VVS in March '45. The -9UT proved to be considerably more stable under different manoeuvers compared to the Yak-9T and Yak-9K, owing primarily to lesser recoil of the cannon and greater speed envelope. The aircraft was recommended for series production, and plant 166 delivered 282 machines with the engine mounted NS-23 and two synchronised B-20s.

Red Star Volume 5, Yakovlev's Piston-Engined Fighters ISBN 1 85780 140 7

Bugs in the game:
We do have the following problem with the -9UT:
Main gun with a rate of fire that is half of what the ROF of a NS-37 is. (as compared to other Yaks with NS-37 in the game).
Secondary guns are very comparable to ShVak-20, whereas those should be -B20s.

Wish list
Possibility to choose a Yak-9U(T) either with a NS-37 or a NS-23 gun (along with the 2 B-20s).