PDA

View Full Version : Oscar spin recovery advice.



VXB77016
01-26-2010, 06:24 AM
Over the past few weeks I've put my mind to learning the Zeke and Oscar. I'm having a blast with them, what fun and pleasant aircraft they are!

I'm having some difficulty with the Oscar II and its nasty habit of snap stalling on me during flat scissors vs a similar AI Oscar II. The departure occurs almost instantly and with no clear warning that I've been able to discern. The resulting spin is a real beast, too, and seems to require the better part of 1km to gain recovery.

1) Any suggestions about how to better "read" the Oscar and identify when it's about to depart?

2) Any suggestions about spin recovery? The spin seems to be immune from the standard rudder and aileron techniques. Recovery seems to occur of its own volition regardless of pilot input, any suggestions for encouraging Oscar II to recover a bit quicker?

Thanks for your time and advice.

M_Gunz
01-26-2010, 06:59 AM
Are you keeping the ball near center during the scissors?

VXB77016
01-26-2010, 07:14 AM
Good point.

Now that you mention it, there's a good chance that I'm over working the rudder. It's a pretty light rudder compared to US rides I'm used to.

Thanks, Gunz.

BillSwagger
01-26-2010, 07:54 AM
This spin recovery technique works with every plane:

1st. cut throttle: the idea is to minimize torque and for some reason it seems to help in getting the nose pointed down in really flat spins.

2nd: full opposite rudder: this has the quickest effect in stall recovery and on some plane this alone will bring the plane out of a spin.

3rd: Aileron roll toward the direction of the spin: This seems to help with more stubborn planes particularly P-400 and P-39 which have a habit of really flat spins.


I used to do just 2 and 3, but 1 is an important step and with that should make recovery in any plane easy.

horseback
01-26-2010, 08:10 AM
This game was designed to make full use of FFB sticks. As a result, those who have FFB sticks have all the little warning signs that most of us lack. Unfortunately, the best FFB stick (MicroSoft's FFB) went out of production about the same time as Forgotten Battles was released.

One little 'cheat' I have found is to strap a 'vibrating' or 'rumble' type USB gamepad controller on or near your stick's base; the little shudders and bumps warning of a stall can be felt fairly easily this way, without afffecting your aim or control.

The only drawback for me was that the rumblepad controller I got takes up the first controller slot, so I had to reassign all my joystick axes and buttons. I consider it a good tradeoff.

cheers

horseback

M_Gunz
01-26-2010, 08:46 AM
First thing I do is let go of the stick.

A good thing to do to find out the whys and what happened is to record the online kind of track (ntrk where you
have to start and stop in game, not after exiting) and review later with different views, pause and slow-motion.

VXB77016
01-26-2010, 09:54 AM
Wow, this is great stuff.

Bill, that's the exact technique I've been using, but recovery only ever seems to happen when I place my hands in my lap and let Mr. Oscar sort things out (eventually). Good point about the P-39s. I sorta fancy myself to be a P-39 specialist and Mr. Oscar II is proving every bit as stubborn in a spin--and suprisingly flat for a front engine design.

Horseback, I wouldn't have thought of that in million years. Clever! Next time I'm at the store, I'll grab one. That makes a ton of sense.

Gunz, another great suggestion about recording. When I get a chance to fly tonight I'll do exactly that (and fully expect to see my rudder wagging like a lab's tail).

Thanks again, fellas. I appreciate it!

Ba5tard5word
01-26-2010, 09:59 AM
Yeah bad rudder use is a good way to get into a flat spin.

As Bill said the way to get out of one is to use full rudder in the direction away from the direction of the spin. I used to have a stick with a twist rudder and I had to lower the max rudder settings to avoid my plane from veering wildly, and I could never get out of a spin. I recently got some rudder pedals that give me max rudder movement and I find I can get out of spins usually with them.

Also being up around 1000m or so is good to give you room to get out of a spin, 10m up in the air is not good.

Romanator21
01-26-2010, 11:42 AM
For me, as soon as the Oscar begins to spin, I release the stick, and it quickly straightens out going in the same direction it was going before the spin occurred. Don't let the spin mature into something flat, and dangerous.

I think the tendency to spin has to do with inherent instability which allows the plane to be more maneuverable. The I-16 is also unforgiving in the spin. Even though the engine is at the front, both planes have very short noses, with the cowling coming right out of the wing root.

Ba5tard5word
01-26-2010, 12:03 PM
If you can fly an I-16 without constantly flipping over or flat-spinning then you'll do well in any other plane, it's very unstable and finicky.

On the other hand I've gotten into unrecoverable flat spins in the Bf-109 which is one of the most stable planes in the game.

Waldo.Pepper
01-26-2010, 01:28 PM
Ask Terrenceflynn. Clearly he is a God, undoubtedly the worlds leading authority re the Oscar, and not a troll.

BillSwagger
01-26-2010, 02:40 PM
Its strange you are having that kind of difficulty. I used to be puzzled as to why i could not recover from spins, but the simple act of cutting throttle seemed to fix that for me.

You shouldn't be using any elevator authority.
Only attempt rolling into the spin if the plane hasn't recovered doing steps 1 and 2.


Bill

M_Gunz
01-26-2010, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by VXB77016:
Gunz, another great suggestion about recording. When I get a chance to fly tonight I'll do exactly that (and fully expect to see my rudder wagging like a lab's tail).

Don't watch the rudder. Watch your speed and The Ball.

Watching tracks is also a great way to get feedback on your gunnery. The instant your plane begins to fire hit the
pause and then (1) check your gunsight and instruments. If the ball is much off center then that affects your shots.
(2) jump the POV over to the target plane and pan it around so you can see both the target plane up close and yours
in the background. (3) set up full 1/4 speed and run the playback to see just where the tracers go. It is very
educating to know a close miss from a wide one.

If you go into conf.ini and set

[game]
Arcade=0

to Arcade=1

then during playback your hits will show as arrows on the target. The arrows will go through the target even if
the shots do not so don't be fooled by that, they are only to show direction of hit. Shrapnel from shells will
make more arrows from the point of explosion, a good way to tell incendiary blooms from explosion bursts.

With Arcade=1 in game you will see white dots where you hit, they stay for a while but are great feedback.
Also, the part I like least is the word balloons (I'm hit! I'm RTB!) that even though they tell more it sometimes
covers things I want to see.

So yeah for practice it's track recording and Arcade until you have the gunnery down tight. And you can view
playback with Arcade on even if the track was made with Arcade off. Those IL2 features are gold, IMO.

M_Gunz
01-26-2010, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by Ba5tard5word:
If you can fly an I-16 without constantly flipping over or flat-spinning then you'll do well in any other plane, it's very unstable and finicky.

On the other hand I've gotten into unrecoverable flat spins in the Bf-109 which is one of the most stable planes in the game.

I bet you just love the Mig-3!

Ba5tard5word
01-26-2010, 04:08 PM
Why? It seems stable enough to me and has a good top speed but flies like a brick. I don't like how it breaks apart with very little damage, I dunno how realistic that is.

thefruitbat
01-26-2010, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
Ask Terrenceflynn. Clearly he is a God, undoubtedly the worlds leading authority re the Oscar, and not a troll. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

M_Gunz
01-26-2010, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by Ba5tard5word:
Why? It seems stable enough to me and has a good top speed but flies like a brick. I don't like how it breaks apart with very little damage, I dunno how realistic that is.

I don't find the I-16 to be any more trouble than the MiG-3 is all. I have a story about the I-16 in one book, how
it was officially named Hawk (in Russian) but the unofficial name was Mule because there was so much trouble with it.
And then three Russian top pilots made a tour from base to base and showed on a one-on-one basis how it should be
flown. The gave demonstrations flying I-16's in formation with colored bands attached in between their wings and did
maneuvers that way, the bands still attached and unbroken when they landed. After that, I-16 was known as Hawk again.

Find out how fast IAS you need to go in the turns and learn to know when you're about to spin by practicing edging
into them. You get into a spin by stalling while flying out of coordination. If you stay fast enough then you won't
stall in the first place.

Ba5tard5word
01-26-2010, 05:17 PM
I can fly the I-16 just fine without stalling but anyone who isn't used to it or to avoiding speed stalls will constantly flip over in it, I've done it plenty when I first flew it or when I moved to a new joystick and wasn't used to the settings. It's a good trainer to learn how to avoid speed stalls, I don't know if there's a single-engine plane that is as quick to spaz out and flip all over the place wildly if you aren't careful. And I'm pretty sure you can do a speed stall at any speed but maybe not.

And again I don't consider the MiG-3 to be anywhere near as unstable but again I haven't flown it much though it has a new cockpit in UP 2.0 which makes me more encouraged to take a look, though I wish it didn't fall apart so easily.

M_Gunz
01-26-2010, 05:34 PM
I guess that I misunderstood your other post then. Sorry about that!

Sillius_Sodus
01-26-2010, 07:23 PM
My experience in the Oscar is that when it starts to spin, I let go of everything and it starts behaving itself again. If you want to avoid stalling in the first place, try to be smooth on the stick, i.e. don't just snap it back and forth, especially the elevators.

I have a bad habit of firewalling the throttle and leaving it there when in combat. The engine torque at higher power settings can also aggravate the stall. The Oscar is easier to handle if you don't do that.

I also agree that if you can keep the I-16 under control, you will do well in other aircraft. The I-16 is a LOT of fun once you get the hang of it.

Romanator21
01-26-2010, 10:58 PM
As much as I love the old Russian crates, I would probably say that the MiGs tendency to break is pretty realistic. The DM profile is pretty outdated though. I don't think the DM takes into account where the radiator is, or where the oil cooler is, where the governor is, or where a spar is. Basically, just hit the wing X times, or hit the engine block X times. The result is the same (crash and die), but I enjoy more dynamic and realistic damage calculations.

Its breakup speed is fairly realistic, even for a pristine new aircraft. In my opinion, early LaGGs and Yaks in game are too strong. Huge numbers of Soviet crates were lost due to the wing de-laminating due to poor maintenance and poor construction. It was not until later in the war that quality improved.

I wish Il-2 modeled these and other issues, but no one wants to be flying a plane with opaque yellow windows, or engines that don't develop full power, or wings that fall off in low-G situations. I don't think Oleg wanted to do that either since his initial goal was to point out that Soviets knew more than how to make Borsch and Matryoshka dolls. Likewise, no one wants to fly a Corsair MkIII or a Hurricane Mk IIC with cannons that jam if fired when making a turn.

Everything considered, the MiG is my favorite Soviet fighter in this game. It has the speed to stay competitive until 1942 scenarios, good maneuverability at high altitude, and is great against the low and slow of the online world.

TheGrunch
01-26-2010, 11:18 PM
Originally posted by Romanator21:
The DM profile is pretty outdated though.
I'd say that's true for all aircraft just due to the longevity of the sim and the number of revisions, and of course the fact that these revisions haven't always been comprehensive.
For example, Kwiatek has mentioned on the UP forums that the engine toughness of the stock P-51D is 350 to get to the next highest of the four damage levels, for the Spit IX, 70 - 1/5 of the toughness rating with the same engine. The P-51D has the same engine toughness in terms of the game's hitpoints as an FW-190A. Lots of inconsistencies around.

Erkki_M
01-26-2010, 11:41 PM
Originally posted by Romanator21:
As much as I love the old Russian crates, I would probably say that the MiGs tendency to break is pretty realistic. The DM profile is pretty outdated though. I don't think the DM takes into account where the radiator is, or where the oil cooler is, where the governor is, or where a spar is. Basically, just hit the wing X times, or hit the engine block X times. The result is the same (crash and die), but I enjoy more dynamic and realistic damage calculations.

Its breakup speed is fairly realistic, even for a pristine new aircraft. In my opinion, early LaGGs and Yaks in game are too strong. Huge numbers of Soviet crates were lost due to the wing de-laminating due to poor maintenance and poor construction. It was not until later in the war that quality improved.

I wish Il-2 modeled these and other issues, but no one wants to be flying a plane with opaque yellow windows, or engines that don't develop full power, or wings that fall off in low-G situations. I don't think Oleg wanted to do that either since his initial goal was to point out that Soviets knew more than how to make Borsch and Matryoshka dolls. Likewise, no one wants to fly a Corsair MkIII or a Hurricane Mk IIC with cannons that jam if fired when making a turn.

Everything considered, the MiG is my favorite Soviet fighter in this game. It has the speed to stay competitive until 1942 scenarios, good maneuverability at high altitude, and is great against the low and slow of the online world.

I've seen a wing of a shot-down MiG-3 in a museum...

http://www.valka.cz/galerie5/data/656/MIG-3.JPG

It has 3 thin aluminum spars that end where wing ends. Theres nothing stopping the wing from disintegrating from the hull if its hit in the root of the wing. Fuel tanks being there doesnt help any... Imagine the wing root with the fuel fumes being hit...

MiG3's dm is definately as (un)detailed as early Jaks'. You can destroy different parts of it as or almost as other planes'. I dont think the "issue" with Jaks and LaGGs is anything but simple dm though, as sometimes they take a lot of hits to down, sometimes a single hit to right spot dewings them. As a side effect once they take visible damage, it affects them a lot.

Romanator21
01-27-2010, 12:07 AM
Although you're probably right, that diagram doesn't show the wing roots too well, or that the spar ends there. Corsair wings are only attached by a single hinge (correct me if I'm wrong) yet they were remarkably tough. Still, I doubt the Russian crates were ever reputed to be tough.

<<For example, Kwiatek has mentioned on the UP forums that the engine toughness of the stock P-51D is 350 to get to the next highest of the four damage levels, for the Spit IX, 70 - 1/5 of the toughness rating with the same engine. The P-51D has the same engine toughness in terms of the game's hitpoints as an FW-190A. Lots of inconsistencies around.>>

I don't want to argue with anyone, but that seems odd. I find that Mustang engine can be disabled (stopped) with a single .50 cal hit. The Fw-190 engine runs, although roughly, for some time before seizing. Time to test!

M_Gunz
01-27-2010, 12:12 AM
When IL2 set the bar and kept raising it, people all the time think of how it should be better.
The DM is outdated? What other is better? What other has set the bar higher to outdate this one?
Perhaps RoF that requires much better hardware? I don't know, I can't even run RoF.
It says much that what we do see makes us expect so much more, all the rest at the same level.

TheGrunch
01-27-2010, 12:34 AM
Originally posted by Romanator21:
I don't want to argue with anyone, but that seems odd. I find that Mustang engine can be disabled (stopped) with a single .50 cal hit. The Fw-190 engine runs, although roughly, for some time before seizing. Time to test!
I imagine that's due to the radiator being modeled on the P-51? The comparison of a liquid-cooled and air-cooled engine is likely not quite as valid as between the Spit IX and the P-51D.


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
The DM is outdated? What other is better? What other has set the bar higher to outdate this one?
How many WWII sims went into production after IL-2 was released, though? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I think it's only one, and that by the same company. Not counting WoP, of course, considering its sim-lite approach.

Erkki_M
01-27-2010, 12:39 AM
Originally posted by TheGrunch:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Romanator21:
I don't want to argue with anyone, but that seems odd. I find that Mustang engine can be disabled (stopped) with a single .50 cal hit. The Fw-190 engine runs, although roughly, for some time before seizing. Time to test!
I imagine that's due to the radiator being modeled on the P-51? The comparison of a liquid-cooled and air-cooled engine is likely not quite as valid as between the Spit IX and the P-51D. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

FW190 is liquid cooled actually. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

TheGrunch
01-27-2010, 12:47 AM
Originally posted by Erkki_M:
FW190 is liquid cooled actually. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
That rather depends on whether we're discussing the A or the D series, surely? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I'm referring to the A. The D by comparison has 250 toughness points in the game data, apparently. We'll have no crazy talk about additives here! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ("This is a local forum, for local people!")

M_Gunz
01-27-2010, 12:52 AM
Antons are water-buffalos (biker term for liquid cooled) where Doras have radials.
How about the engine armor differences between Mustang and 190-A?

TheGrunch
01-27-2010, 01:13 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Antons are water-buffalos (biker term for liquid cooled) where Doras have radials.
How about the engine armor differences between Mustang and 190-A?
Opposites day? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif Couldn't tell you about armour from Kwiatek's post, I'll delve into the files myself if you want.

Ba5tard5word
01-27-2010, 01:34 AM
MiG-3's will often set on fire or start heavily smoking and lose control with very few hits. I really don't know how realistic this is and I don't want to argue about it either. But it does fall apart in a way that looks more primitive and simple compared to other planes, sort of like the Fw-200 does. Also it must have the oldest-looking cockpit in the game, no I don't mean it looks worn in, I mean it looks like it hasn't been changed from 2001 graphics, and this makes me wonder how updated the current stock MiG-3 is compared to other planes in the game.

Romanator21
01-27-2010, 01:45 AM
The radiator in the P-51 is modeled. The problem is that the graphical representation is identical to an oil tank hit. I did I few tests already, and I noticed that I could get grey smoke coming out of the front of the engine, or out of the belly scoop.

Anyway, here are some "shots" All done with US Browning .50 cals. I used the P-63 (x2 guns) and the P-80 for a couple only(x6)

PK Engine didn't stop though.
http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae325/rboiko1/IL-2%20References/grab0001-1.jpg
ALthough no text appeared, I consider this one dead.
http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae325/rboiko1/IL-2%20References/grab0000-1.jpg
Engine stopped.
http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae325/rboiko1/IL-2%20References/grab0004.jpg
Engine stopped.
http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae325/rboiko1/IL-2%20References/grab0007.jpg
Another "dead" plane
http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae325/rboiko1/IL-2%20References/grab0030.jpg
Stopped
http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae325/rboiko1/IL-2%20References/grab0031.jpg
Engine stopped
http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae325/rboiko1/IL-2%20References/grab0032.jpg

Romanator21
01-27-2010, 01:49 AM
Compare to the Bf-109 and Fw-190

Fire. If there's engine damage, it's not apparent.
http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae325/rboiko1/IL-2%20References/grab0011.jpg
Fire
http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae325/rboiko1/IL-2%20References/grab0012.jpg
Fire, structural damage (I'm almost surprised how few shots it took)
http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae325/rboiko1/IL-2%20References/grab0013.jpg
I consider it "dead"
http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae325/rboiko1/IL-2%20References/grab0016.jpg
Stopped engine (finally)
http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae325/rboiko1/IL-2%20References/grab0017.jpg
Structural damage
http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae325/rboiko1/IL-2%20References/grab0040.jpg
practically dead
http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae325/rboiko1/IL-2%20References/grab0041.jpg
Structural damage
http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae325/rboiko1/IL-2%20References/grab0042.jpg
Structural damage
http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae325/rboiko1/IL-2%20References/grab0043.jpg
Enough damage to be unflyable.
http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae325/rboiko1/IL-2%20References/grab0044.jpg

Romanator21
01-27-2010, 01:54 AM
Fw-190

Fire, although damage texture for engine activated, prop still spins.
http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae325/rboiko1/IL-2%20References/grab0019.jpg
Damage texture
http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae325/rboiko1/IL-2%20References/grab0020.jpg
Structural damage
http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae325/rboiko1/IL-2%20References/grab0021.jpg
Fire. PK. What's surprising is the shots go right through the head armor.
http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae325/rboiko1/IL-2%20References/grab0023.jpg
Fire
http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae325/rboiko1/IL-2%20References/grab0024.jpg
Fire
http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae325/rboiko1/IL-2%20References/grab0025.jpg
Fire
http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae325/rboiko1/IL-2%20References/grab0026.jpg
Stopped engine (finally!)
http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae325/rboiko1/IL-2%20References/grab0027.jpg
Fire? I hope this means engine trouble.
http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae325/rboiko1/IL-2%20References/grab0029.jpg

I hope you notice a trend already.

TheGrunch
01-27-2010, 01:56 AM
Looks like each time the P-51's engine died, there was one or more bullets through the radiator...are there also on those shots where it didn't?
Notice how on the shot where the 109's engine dies there's a bullet through the oil cooler. This game really is awesome. Has its faults, but awesome. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Reckon you could try head-on passes against AI set to 'empty'? Friendly aircraft would probably simplify the task more, as well.

Romanator21
01-27-2010, 01:57 AM
Just for fun: Spits. They go down like butter! Definitely weaker than the Mustang in all respects.
Fire
http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae325/rboiko1/IL-2%20References/grab0034.jpg
Exploded
http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae325/rboiko1/IL-2%20References/grab0035.jpg
Exploded
http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae325/rboiko1/IL-2%20References/grab0036.jpg
Structural Damage
http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae325/rboiko1/IL-2%20References/grab0039.jpg

Romanator21
01-27-2010, 02:07 AM
When IL2 set the bar and kept raising it, people all the time think of how it should be better.
The DM is outdated? What other is better? What other has set the bar higher to outdate this one?

Il-2 has the DM of a sim requiring 2 GB RAM, bit that can run on a system with only 512 MB RAM. It's probably the best out there.

However, there is a disparity of the DM quality throughout the game. The Fokkers have DM bordering on the sophistication that SoW will give us. The MiGs, not so much. That's all I'm whining about.

This is all pretty far off the topic of spin recovery though, lol!

TheGrunch
01-27-2010, 02:44 AM
Originally posted by Romanator21:
This is all pretty far off the topic of spin recovery though, lol!
Tru dat. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Ubi forum, though, right?

Sounds like I need to check out the Fokker, haven't really flown it or flown against it yet.

Jumoschwanz
01-27-2010, 12:47 PM
IN a clockwise spin I put the stick full forward and to the left with full flaps and a chopped throttle, works every time.

I would do the opposite for a anti-clockwise spin.

horseback
01-27-2010, 01:16 PM
On the DM issue, I believe that the Mustang's oil cooling was co-located with the radiator. similarly, Mk VII and later Spits had their oil coolers co-located with the glycol radiator or intercooler in one of the underwing radiators.

As far as I know, there is still no provision for water or glycol coolant loss in any of the DMs. Hits in the radiators of those two aircraft apparently result in oil system failures; by contrast, the 109 has an undernose oil cooler, and hits there will result in the oil system failure (and that silly-@ssed oil smeared windshield effect).

cheers

horseback

M_Gunz
01-27-2010, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by Romanator21:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">When IL2 set the bar and kept raising it, people all the time think of how it should be better.
The DM is outdated? What other is better? What other has set the bar higher to outdate this one?

Il-2 has the DM of a sim requiring 2 GB RAM, bit that can run on a system with only 512 MB RAM. It's probably the best out there.

However, there is a disparity of the DM quality throughout the game. The Fokkers have DM bordering on the sophistication that SoW will give us. The MiGs, not so much. That's all I'm whining about.

This is all pretty far off the topic of spin recovery though, lol! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh yeah, that's been a peeve for sure. Too many planes, too many cooks, never enough time.

M_Gunz
01-27-2010, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
the 109 has an undernose oil cooler, and hits there will result in the oil system failure (and that silly-@ssed oil smeared windshield effect).

Gunther Rall being a silly @ss:

And my, what we call Kaczmarek, my wingman called: "You got smoke!" "Ach..." In other words I was hit in, from the ground, attacked from the ground, the flak, anti-aircraft, in the oil cooler. You know, right in the middle of the fuselage, underneath the engine, there's the oil cooler. And then the oil comes out and just by the wind it's blown like a film over the engine and over your windshield. You don't see anything. It's a black film coming out.

Jumoschwanz
01-27-2010, 05:25 PM
I don't want to argue with anyone, but that seems odd. I find that Mustang engine can be disabled (stopped) with a single .50 cal hit. The Fw-190 engine runs, although roughly, for some time before seizing. Time to test!

Liquid cooled V- engines will never be as able to take damage as a radial engine, any mechanic can tell you that. I personally know a WWII P-51 pilot who also worked on engineering and developing and flying B-29s, he said one hit could stop the engine of a P-51.

To see the toughness of a radial engine all you have to do is look at all the photos and stories of pilots who returned with cylinders shot off.

Whining about different aircraft behaving differently when hit by gun or cannons is stupid because THEY ARE DIFFERENT AIRCRAFT. They SHOULD all behave differently.

Since WWII is 60 years ago and no one has access to the real articles to test you may as well leave what Oleg and his educated and smart crew have created alone, they have done as good a job as anyone could ever do.

That is why I am not a fan of the MOD movement, every Tom **** and Harry who has any opinion makes a "MOD" to fix it and this degrades the validity and integrity of this flight sim. When there is only one cook in the kitchen you have a lot better chance of getting a quality product.

If you were actually any good a pilot, getting your aircraft disabled by an engine hit would not be a problem becuase you would know how to avoid it, and then you would not have to whine about it either would you?

Romanator21
01-27-2010, 08:33 PM
Ouch. That was scathing and unnecessary Jumoschwanz. Let's not turn this into a personal attack/flame fest.

I perfectly understand the difference between the radial and the V type engine. I am not whining about it, but pointing out the difference. Compare the instance of engine failure in a Bf-109 and a P-51, both with V engines. One stops instantly, the other looses RPMs over a minute or two.

If you look through the thread, the only reason why I bothered to make 50 screenshots of me shooting down planes is that one poster said that the Fw-190 and the P-51 have the same numerical hit value for their engines. This contradicted my personal experience, and I sought to figure out if this was really the case. The purpose was not to cry about the P-51's Merlin, or the tendency for the Bf-109s wings and tail to fall off.

As you can see, I have no difficulties downing a Fw-190 or A Bf-109 or a Mustang. I am not whining that the Mustang has an unfair DM, or that Bf-109 are uber. In fact I prefer flying Mustangs to Fw's, and I think it is one of the best fighters in this sim. I am also not interested in Mods in their current state.

I guess I'm a bad pilot because I have actually been shot down a few times in my several years that I've played this game. I'll go home and cry now and think that my life is worthless. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

<<Oh yeah, that's been a peeve for sure.>>

When I said I was whining I was trying to be sarcastic. I'm not about to complain about the 300 + aircraft available to us in one 10$ game. I'm not going to learn how to fly a Citation and throw away the license to a Skyhawk because one is more simple. I still play CFS 1 from 1998 for crying out loud! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif I can always hope for an updated DM right? That's not wrong is it?

TheGrunch
01-28-2010, 02:15 AM
Originally posted by Jumoschwanz:
<snip>rant rant rant</snip>
Jeez, do you EVER make a post that isn't irate and paranoid? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
All I said is that the numerical damage value of the P-51D engine in game is 5 times higher than that of the Spitfire IX, the same as the FW-190A's. That is a fact. I can show you how to find out if you want, but it'll have to go to PM.
That has got nothing to do with whether the FW-190 is air-cooled or the Mustang is liquid-cooled, because the Spitfire and Mustang are both liquid-cooled and indeed both have the same engine, minor differences in tooling aside.
The reason I mentioned this was just as an example of the fact that this game has been around for a long time and has been worked on by a huge number of different people, and there are bound to be some inconsistencies around whether we like it or not.
I'm not making any judgements, this is my favourite PC game, a minor thing like that isn't exactly going to stop me from playing or even make me whine about it...I haven't reported it to Daidalos Team, for example. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
As for why I called you paranoid, guess what? NO one has changed the DM values of any of the planes, no stock planes have ever had their FM or DM edited by any of the mod groups. Obviously cheaters come into another category.
And as for the new planes, in the latest UP patch the All Aircraft Arcade planes' DM values were reset to their stock values. So if you see some kind of conspiracy going on, it is at least in the direction of Oleg's original vision.
Guess what? Even if you don't like mods, you can still play on many servers without ever using or seeing a modded aircraft. I personally have never once flown a mod plane online, and I've been using the mods since 2007. I don't think that more than a couple of them are worthy of inclusion in this game.
So just chill out. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

M_Gunz
01-28-2010, 03:39 AM
Since FB the engines have 12 and more parts, all with hit-boxes and different results of destruction.
How does that say of one destructive value guessing for engine?

VXB77016
01-28-2010, 05:39 AM
Checking back in to offer my thanks for the help.

As it turns out, sloppy flying was at the root of my problem--no kidding, eh? The videos of my ball made for embarrassing viewing--I was allowing my right foot to "ride" the right rudder pedal which caused the nose to skid badly and induce the flat spin. Likely not something you have to think about with dedicated airplane pedals, but something you have to be mindful of when using a set of steering wheel pedals http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Thanks again for the help! I'm having a blast with the Oscar. Although infuriating at times (due to pilot not airplane deficiencies) it's an interesting and fun new flying style for this died in the wool BnZ'er to learn. Given a few more weeks I might actually become dangerous to something beside myself!

TheGrunch
01-28-2010, 07:26 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Since FB the engines have 12 and more parts, all with hit-boxes and different results of destruction.
How does that say of one destructive value guessing for engine?
Well, of course it might be a deprecated value, but I can't imagine why they would be left in every single file even post-FB if that was the case. Given that the Spitfire and P-51 first entered the sim in FB I can't see why they would need that value. I'll ask.

M_Gunz
01-28-2010, 09:16 AM
P-51 wasn't until Aces, the release after FB and a step up in the modeling. FB 2.0.

TheGrunch
01-28-2010, 09:52 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
P-51 wasn't until Aces, the release after FB and a step up in the modeling. FB 2.0.
Ahah...long time ago, that. Nevertheless, can't see why those values (Engine1, Engine2, Engine3, Engine4) would still be used if they don't mean anything anymore.

Ba5tard5word
01-28-2010, 10:04 AM
As it turns out, sloppy flying was at the root of my problem--no kidding, eh? The videos of my ball made for embarrassing viewing--I was allowing my right foot to "ride" the right rudder pedal which caused the nose to skid badly and induce the flat spin. Likely not something you have to think about with dedicated airplane pedals, but something you have to be mindful of when using a set of steering wheel pedals

Yup, using a lot of sustained rudder is the easiest way to get into a flat spin no matter how stable your plane is, especially if you're at low speed.

Also after seeing this topic I tried out the Ki-43 for the first time in ages to try it out...it's a neat plane, and very maneuverable, but it definitely is pretty prone to flat spins if you're not careful, I was surprised. Someone posted a youtube video here of a Japanese pilot talking about the Ki-43 and he kept talking about what a piece of junk it was when it first arrived at his squadron.

M_Gunz
01-28-2010, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by TheGrunch:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
P-51 wasn't until Aces, the release after FB and a step up in the modeling. FB 2.0.
Ahah...long time ago, that. Nevertheless, can't see why those values (Engine1, Engine2, Engine3, Engine4) would still be used if they don't mean anything anymore. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh no! Each engine is made of many 3D parts for the DM. Generator is a separate piece for instance. You destroy a
part of the engine and maybe it keeps running and maybe not. Two magnetos for instance, you can lose only one.
So 12 to 20 parts for each engine even then, each with it's own hits value.

M_Gunz
01-28-2010, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by Ba5tard5word:
Yup, using a lot of sustained rudder is the easiest way to get into a flat spin no matter how stable your plane is, especially if you're at low speed.

In a 4G turn the stall may come at 300kph or more. 6 G's takes almost half that speed again.

Slip is safer than skid if you've got to be off center and riding the line about 1/2 ball into slip is best.
We got that from people like EcoDragon who flies competition aerobatics and Viper and others like him.

TheGrunch
01-28-2010, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Oh no! Each engine is made of many 3D parts for the DM. Generator is a separate piece for instance. You destroy a
part of the engine and maybe it keeps running and maybe not. Two magnetos for instance, you can lose only one.
So 12 to 20 parts for each engine even then, each with it's own hits value.
Hmmm, perhaps they refer to crank-case, cylinders, magnetos and supercharger, been digging around. Surprising how much random number generation is involved.
Looks like it's getting slightly more complex in SoW given the debug text in the corner of the screenshots.

M_Gunz
01-28-2010, 06:56 PM
The part you hit is NOT random. There is a 3D model and your bullet path strikes a part and makes damage.
If the damage destroys that part then the bullet continues always straight to the next and so on.
Bullets deflecting at angles does not happen, too CPU intensive for all/most PCs that can run IL2.
What gets hit is by aim and circumstance and shots getting past what must be hit first like skin/armor.
With randoms they might as well have hit bubbles that are much quicker to detect impacts without as
IL2 having angle, speed, mass, etc, and point of impact calculations the random replaces without
precision at all -- but does give "believable" results every time because those are the chosen outcomes.
EAW used hit bubbles but then EAW ran well on a 300Mz 2nd gen 586-class PC with 16MB RAM! My obsolete
gaming PC now has over 8x the speed, twice the word length and bus, 100x the memory and more extra.

BillSwagger
01-28-2010, 09:22 PM
I wasn't aware of the complexities of the engine damage model. Good to know.
I was shown some things about damage values, and from what i was shown there are numbers that represent different hit boxes.

What I've observed, with out naming specific planes, is that some plane's engines are easier to kill than others despite having the same exact damage values. It actually has nothing to do with the hit values themselves. What happens is you fire from astern and on some planes the bullets pass through the airframe, while others meet an obstruction that shields the pilot or engine. Otherwise hitting the engine head on or at decent deflection usually causes similar problems for most planes. I'm not sure why one well armored plane has bullets pass through it to the engine, while the other doesn't but that appears to be where the flaw is.


And to not spin in a turn, I trim rudder so the slip ball is to the center in level flight. It will shift around in turns but trimming up rudder alone can really help for plane stability, not to mention speed.

Bill

M_Gunz
01-28-2010, 09:50 PM
Firing from deflection is the best way to get through, especially nose and cockpit. No tailwheel or frame in
the way, no seat armor or behind the seat bits either. Even with small caliber ammo the deflection hits are
potential killers.
If you know about how long the shots will take to cross then it's not hard to match the apparent movement of
the target to a point not far ahead. It takes practice to know that timing, watching playbacks really helps.
Just remember that you don't have to be a sniper with automatic weapons -- close is a good enough starting
point and often just a little extra time on the trigger (but not too much) is all it takes. A full second is
to me a long time on the trigger for deflection but then I'm not trying to power through a whole fuselage
full of parts while also trying to stay on the tail of the target. I'm just working at making my path
intersect his here and there while never running past his nose.


And to not spin in a turn, I trim rudder so the slip ball is to the center in level flight. It will shift around in turns but trimming up rudder alone can really help for plane stability, not to mention speed.

At least you won't skid that way but you will waste energy.

TheGrunch
01-29-2010, 03:50 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
The part you hit is NOT random. There is a 3D model and your bullet path strikes a part and makes damage.

That's not what I'm saying...ONCE the component is hit (given the functions called, it has to pass a check that it penetrates the armour and to calculate the amount of energy that passes the armour), the derived hit-power is divided by a constant and then compared against a random floating-point value between 0 and 1. The more heinous the result of the damage the lower the probability of the heavier damage occurring since the constant is bigger for heavier damage, producing a lower hit power to compare against the random number. Obviously if hit power is large enough there is always a chance of the worst result of the hit being achieved.
It's a good system, I think. The result is slightly randomised but is still most strongly affected by hit power. The reason for the initial confusion is that the terms in the flight model and in the java class files are not immediately interchangeable. I was just trying to work out what the meaning of Engine1/Engine2/Engine3/Engine4 is given that they differ so much between seemingly similar aircraft.
Kwiatek doesn't really know, so it is reassuring that he is returning these values to their stock DM values when he remakes the FMs of AAA planes that represent variations on stock planes.
Further to what Bill says and having actually spent a bit of time reading the code (I'm not a Java expert by any means), I believe that these values may refer to armour, and the reason that they're usually the same is that the values refer to seperate engines as a contingency in case a heavy had less armour on outboard engines. This is absolute conjecture, of course. Either way, no one is editing them so there's no reason to worry about it.
Either way looking through the innards of this game is a humbling experience. It just reveals the sheer amount of time and hard work that went into making this game as believable as it was possible to make at the time.

In fact, it astonishes me that it HAS been possible to make the game's modeling this detailed on such an old engine.

Oh, yeah, the other thing to add to what M_Gunz says about firing from deflection is that of course, the higher the deflection angle the closer to perpendicular your shots will hit the armour, lending them a greater chance to penetrate. Can't think of any other reason for the trigonometric calculations in the armour-related functions. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif This game is just awesome.

M_Gunz
01-29-2010, 04:29 AM
Are you sure about the randoms? This is the first I've heard, the explanations before were all
very deterministic.

TheGrunch
01-29-2010, 04:38 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Are you sure about the randoms? This is the first I've heard, the explanations before were all
very deterministic.
Well, the outcome is only slightly randomised...the main determinant is hit-power. The value has to pass a check to see whether it's high enough to make each damage level, highest damage first. I think it's just because the MG guys weren't happy with the idea of "a .50 cal always does this...a 20mm always does this...etc.", up to a certain point.
I think it's just to emulate the "golden BB" effect. There's always most infinitesimally tiny chance that your round will do a little bit more or a little bit less damage than you expected, nothing extreme, since they haven't literally made a complete simulation of an internal combustion engine, I think this is a reasonable precaution.
The area that it hits still has a very well defined effect - if the crank case is hit, the engine can stop entirely, power can be reduced or less cylinders will be operable. If the cylinders are hit, a number of them can be rendered inoperable, or the engine can be set on fire. If the prop governor is hit, it fails, if the supercharger is hit, it fails, etc.