Just one question: Are you going to include the X-4 in the loadout as the stock plane? Please don't take that feature away :oops:
Okay, the problem in the stock pit appears to be a non-working fuel guage and an incorrectly lit fuel warning light.
There are two fuel warning lights, right next to each other, a white one for the front/main tank and a red one for the rear/secondary tank. White one goes on to tell the pilot to switch over tanks, when the red one is lit you've got 15mins flight time left. Problem is, white one is on all the time.
Anybody who can help us out with this would be a great addition. Just PM myself or EnsignRo.
With the new MkXIV Spit nearing completion I really want to get the Ta152C as historical and 'fixed' as possible. Something tells me it'll be good for the AAA dogfight server, though I'm sure the G-14/AS and G-10/C3 will make their presence felt.
But...then we'll all have the P-51H to deal with. Nice Mk103 round up the kazooba ought to fix things.
Here's an example of precisely what we're doing here, working closely with the Luftwaffe Experten site (please head there for detailed queries regarding all Luftwaffe birds) and strictly documented and otherwise soundly authoritive (eg. author of the Schiffer Ta152 book and world recognised Ta152/Fw190D experten Dietmar Hermann) sources.
Empty weight 3650kg (in game) 4010kg (historical team adjustment)
Take off weight 4900kg (in game) 5322kg (historical team adjustment)
MW50 weight 100kg (in game) 127kg (historical team adjustment)
Power output DB603LA sondernotleistung WEP 1944PS (in game) 2079PS (team adjustment)
Max WEP boost pressure 1.8ata (in game) 1.75ata (historical)
And if the performance of the Ta152C-1/R11 actually decreases from the in-game version, then we'll still have a more accurate one and that is the point. We wish to let the chips fall where they may. The figures though...beg to differ. I mean 530km/h a sea level on kampfleistung, no MW50 and better than 13.5m/s average initial climb to 0-2500m, up that 2m/s and 40km/h for sondernotleistung and those are the Focke Wulf figures and those provided by the best celebrated experts. So if we make the corrections accurate, and the figures of our model match the historical mid range (kampfleistung) figures, then we'll have done what we set out to achieve. Though again maximum level speed capabilities of Oleg's model are just fine and quite accurate, they won't be touched...well actually I'm considering reducing the sea level max speed as it is 600km/h and so far it is looking like that doesn't fit for B4/MW50 and 1.75ata, I've got 570-80 max in my figures so far, with C3 fuel required to break 600.
Plus added some historical loadout options (ETC503, Mk103M, etc.).
Looking over Oleg's weight figures he appears to have not included increased armour from early prototypes (though it is there for damage modelling), ammunition, and only one fuel tank was being used (368kg instead of 680kg, although he listed correct usable fuel weight, it was being subtracted from the a/c loaded weight incorrectly).
I'd also like to stress our FM adjustments are extremely conservative, preferring to error on the side of caution before exaggerating any performance capabilities.
It'll be funny if it turns out to be a real pig, but it'll be fast on part throttle and climb like a rocket. Just as it did in 1945.
wonderfully explained, thanks vanir.
so, and forgive my relative ignorance, would it be fair to say oleg lightened it and stuck a bit less power on the current version? kinda fudged to get similar end result, but not quite getting it on the money...
To be honest I can't say yet. Oleg has the advantage of knowing the game-engine capabilities far better and what programmers must do with it to get given figures from a model. After making the appropriate changes we'll be embarking on an extensive series of flight testing and performance mapping of the results to make sure they're working in game as they should. I am as yet unsure how much game-engine limitations could affect the accuracy of listed specifications in order to get performance maps which match documentation.
What we're hoping, and in part counting on is that for the most part totally accurate specifications will return highly accurate flight characteristics when we compare the final results with the documentation.
I have seen engine modelling achieve this before, anyone who has used Engine Analyzer Pro will know exactly what I'm talking about. I've modelled changes on that software to a virtual Mercedes 2.8 litre, 4.5 litre and 5.7 litre engines and returned almost precisely the performance mapping when those changes were done to the real thing. It saved hundreds, possibly thousands of dollars in component matching for desired results (in this case, tons more power with no loss in drivability).
So I know first hand it is possible to get highly accurate computer model representations of mechanical engines functioning in the real world.
It's just that...Il2 is a far more simplified engine where mapping fine engineering details are concerned. I mean it doesn't go as far as valve pressures and ignition curves for each engine.
We'll do the best we can.
Did you check if the wingspan is as it should be 11m or 10.60m like the 190A models?
...
:lol:
