IL-2 P-40 has a chance!

[GrungyMonkey]

[golani79]

Thanks to a certain individual and certain actions I am not interested any longer in the GB IL-2 series .. uninstalled and not looking back.

Engine modeling was one thing though which was bugging me all along.

[Nocke]

always with the negative waves, Moriarty?

[Feathered_IV]

Too little and much too late. 

[DBFlyguy]

3 hours ago, Feathered_IV said:

Too little and much too late. 

This.

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

It's a step in the right direction, but I hope for a solution addressing the root cause of the complaints - that the entire "damage on a timer" concept isn't grounded in reality.

No amount of historical data can fix a fictional mechanic. If the P-40 is changed, attention will only shift to other planes with restrictive limits.

I'll admit I don't even know what the optimal solution would be. It's a tricky game design problem.

[Trooper117]

When a real pilots life is hanging in the balance, I can't imagine he would pay much attention to strictly keeping the engine running 'by the manual' ... an engine wouldn't suddenly seize up because the pilot kept it at max for a minute or two over... from what I've read, pilots often exceeded the limits in combat.

[Skelthos]

The engine timer issue is a tough one to solve, in a real engine there are so many factors that add together to dictate when that exact engine in those exact conditions would fail. Engine 1 can last twice as long as engine 2 because engine 2 has a crankshaft that was dropped at the factory and has micro fractures in it, and engine 3 has a hose that has a thin spot. 

I had contemplated some type of variable, maybe something along the lines of a minimum time based on the book + a random amount of time. With some audible or visual queue for the player to notice he is pushing it too far?   MaxT=Emin+Eran  if EMaxT- MaxT-WarnT then TempGuageSpike or something along those lines.

 

[Trooper117]

Reading some articles from RAF pilots in the past, it seems that quite a few of the squadrons had an aircraft that was the squadron 'nail'... it was the 'old hack', been pushed beyond it's normal limitations and didn't perform as well as the others... don't know how that could be implemented into a game, lol, who would want to fly the old hack eh?

[wheelsup_cavu]

56 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

who would want to fly the old hack eh?

Into combat, no, but just for something different to fly sure.

 

Wheels

[Feldgrün]

The P-40 in IL2 1946 was great.

The P-40 in IL2 Desert Wings - Tobruk was excellent.

The P-40 (and P-47) in IL2 GB was a dog. 

I'm hoping aircraft introduced in this game are good representations of what was flown in combat.

[Boom]

Gotta admit I have a real soft spot for the P-40.

Didn't mind the P-40 in 1946, not a great FM but liveable. After all it was the only one around to fly. 

As Feldgrun mentioned though, in Desert Wings it is excellent. Performs very closely to first hand accounts. A real joy to fly and fight, but always with it's limitations in mind.

[Feldgrün]

14 hours ago, Boom said:

Gotta admit I have a real soft spot for the P-40.

Didn't mind the P-40 in 1946, not a great FM but liveable. After all it was the only one around to fly. 

As Feldgrun mentioned though, in Desert Wings it is excellent. Performs very closely to first hand accounts. A real joy to fly and fight, but always with it's limitations in mind.

I just flew the P-40B & C in 1946 and they're not quite as great as I remembered. Not nearly as good as the P-40s/Tomahawks in Desert Wings, which are excellent aircraft!

[GrungyMonkey]

On 11/20/2023 at 8:11 AM, Feldgrün said:

I just flew the P-40B & C in 1946 and they're not quite as great as I remembered. Not nearly as good as the P-40s/Tomahawks in Desert Wings, which are excellent aircraft!

Back then, flight models were made more so to represent relative strengths and weaknesses. It's only recently that perfectly accurate performance has become a widespread goal. The 1946 American planes were coded with Japanese opponents in mind, so they weren't fine tuned against Germans. 

[IckyAtlas]

We should have a pilot with experience on a real P40, and then flying all these different P40 sim versions to see what his opinion is.

And it will be difficult for him to have a good judgement as the conditions of the sim version are so sensorily limited, flat visuals, and just sound. VR could help for the visual immersions but I am not sure all sims allow for VR, and finally a 6 axis stand would add to the physical stimulation, but again probably none allow for such an interface.

[Feldgrün]

11 hours ago, IckyAtlas said:

We should have a pilot with experience on a real P40, and then flying all these different P40 sim versions to see what his opinion is.

I’ve thought that would be a good idea for all of the main fighters (Bf 109, FW 190, Zero, P-47, P-51, Spitfire, Yak, etc). In fact, I’ve asked on other forums which sim do real pilots of WWII aircraft feel represents reality or is closest to reality & never got an answer. 

[IckyAtlas]

10 hours ago, Feldgrün said:

I’ve thought that would be a good idea for all of the main fighters (Bf 109, FW 190, Zero, P-47, P-51, Spitfire, Yak, etc). In fact, I’ve asked on other forums which sim do real pilots of WWII aircraft feel represents reality or is closest to reality & never got an answer. 

Those still having the chance to fly these collector planes are really not many and not young. They are probably not much interested into the sim flying comparison, which may be too far from their experience. And they fly those collector very expensive planes with great care, for short demo flights, which is completely different of real combat flying were you would fly for hours, pull g's as much as you can, push the engine above limits, do wild maneuvers etc. etc. These collector planes are much lighter that when they flew in combat with all the guns and ammo, rockets, plus maybe bombs and additional drop tanks. The wing loading was much higher which impacts the performance and plane handling, and you had the added drag of all that external stuff. Again very difficult to compare.

In Reno air races they push the engines and the planes to the limits, true, but these engines are very reworked to pull much more power, and the airframes and wings have often been modified to gain speed, so it is difficult to compare. I did visit a few of these planes and discussed with some pilots in the golden unlimited, not younger than me, and not many anymore. It's a passion but keeping their old fighter planes in flying order is so expensive and finding the money becomes an issue. Many stopped altogether racing. The evolution of regulations and constraints do not help as with each accident things become more complicated.

The real test would be to have WWII fighter pilots making the comparison, but these original pilots are nearly not existent or are 100 or more years old. This kind of test was maybe possible 30 years ago but now that's over. 

The only thing we have are technical information, and specs, which means flying by the numbers. If the model matches all the information we have (values, diagrams, curves etc.) then we may say the flight model is ok, but comparing with the real thing will remain elusive. 

This will give us the possibility to speculate, discuss, and finally have a good time for ever in the future as there will never be a definitive answer.

 

[ZachariasX]

13 hours ago, IckyAtlas said:

as there will never be a definitive answer.

Once you have the measured numbers for a given aircraft at a given weight and power setting, all other assumed conditions can be calculated rather exactly. You even have tables for that in the flight manuals. When you build a new aircraft, you know the whole performane enveloppe rather well before the plane ever materializes. We couldn‘t build successful airliners otherwise.

Flight performance is thus not that much of an issue. The feel of the analog controls and how a pilot with a certain abilities can make use of these qualities is a whole different thing.

The sim pilot is just an unusual creature that finds no issue in burning an engine in a single flight, something you wouldn‘t do in the real world. The main reason being that the pilot would never seek a competitive fight in a way we do it in a game. It would just get you killed before you can gain some experience.

[IckyAtlas]

On 7/6/2024 at 11:20 PM, ZachariasX said:

We couldn‘t build successful airliners otherwise.

Ah the Comet and other planes may not completely agree. There is a big difference about what the status was in the twenties and thirties (of the last century 🙂 ) and what we can do today in terms of design of an airplane. Probably flying an airliner of today in a Sim like MFS is much more "near" to a real experience that it was flying a Mig 3. Wartime production was such that every plane could be different. The airliners built by airbus (Boeing will miss some parts here and there) will definitively be the same out of the line (except, colors and internal furniture). 

In the US wartime mass production was indeed more reliable as the production processes were already very well experienced, but there too there have been multiple changes on everything, engine, airframe etc. 

All this does make it not easy to make this comparison.

 

 

Edited July 8 by IckyAtlas

[Skelthos]

On 7/6/2024 at 1:03 AM, IckyAtlas said:

The real test would be to have WWII fighter pilots making the comparison, but these original pilots are nearly not existent or are 100 or more years old. This kind of test was maybe possible 30 years ago but now that's over. 

The only thing we have are technical information, and specs, which means flying by the numbers. If the model matches all the information we have (values, diagrams, curves etc.) then we may say the flight model is ok, but comparing with the real thing will remain elusive. 

You are correct, we only have the tech manuals left. Even if you could find combat pilots from the back in the day, I think the feedback would be that some prefer Sim A and some Sim B and yet others Sim C.  If you jump over to the civilian flight sims you can see it happening right now, endless forum posts from real pilots arguing if MSFS or Xplane has a more realistic feeling Cessan 152, with no real consensus. 

[Sea Serpent]

Pilots who flew planes long ago might not remember the quirks anyway.  But today, every person has more computing power on their phone than NASA had at the time of the moon landings.  So, smart people do the math, and then you read several anecdotal reports from the time, and if the model and anecdote match, great.  If not, then why isn’t the simulated plane doing what they said it did?  Everybody knows that you don’t firewall a Mustang on the go around, or that the Bf-109 is tricky on takeoff.  I think there is enough info and technique these days to do a very good job.  There will always be some 80 hour pilot extraordinaire forum guy in a Cessna 172 that claims expertise (while preferring a sim aircraft that flies on rails so finely you’d think it was FBW) but they never flew a Zero, and neither did most of us simmers, so we wouldn’t know anyway.

[Skelthos]

On 7/8/2024 at 7:39 AM, Sea Serpent said:

So, smart people do the math, and then you read several anecdotal reports from the time, and if the model and anecdote match, great.  If not, then why isn’t the simulated plane doing what they said it did?

In my opinion, the model worked out by experts is likely closer to the truth than anecdotal accounts from the day. In other words, there is a high likelihood that in the case that the model and anecdotal performance do not line up it is the anecdotal evidence that is wrong.  

Absolutely agree there is enough info for devs to do a good job, and for the most part, I think they do.  

[Feldgrün]

18 hours ago, Skelthos said:

Absolutely agree there is enough info for devs to do a good job, and for the most part, I think they do.  

But which devs?  IL2 Desert Wings-Trobruk is my favorite P-40 to fly, so I'd pick their version over GB if the P-40 (Kittyhawk) enters this game in Guadalcanal at Kukum Field (RNZAF, June - October 1943). 

[Trooper117]

Boffins and pencil pushers are fine, but for me, if a pilot who had to risk his neck flying and fighting in these planes on a daily basis, tells us something different, then that has to be considered as well... pilots didn't always stick to 'the rules', they had to push things beyond those limits very often just to survive.

[Skelthos]

4 hours ago, Feldgrün said:

But which devs? 

This will always be an area of contention among simmers. There likely is no 'right' answer.  Dev 1 might get wing loading closer to reality Dev 2 might get turn radius at X airspeed closer to reality, and Dev 3 might get engine power curves closer to reality. 

 

1 hour ago, Trooper117 said:

if a pilot who had to risk his neck flying and fighting in these planes on a daily basis, tells us something different, then that has to be considered as well.

Considered for sure, but with the understanding that human memory is faulty, and that what a pilot felt in the heat of a moment during a battle might not even be close to what actually was happening. The pilot in the scuffle was not likely paying attention to his gauges, that 15 seconds with the throttle firewalled felt like minutes, that turn was not as tight, and the speed was not as high as they thought it was.  This is not meant to take away anything from the pilots at all, they did a tremendous job under very trying circumstances.

If you follow accident investigations, racing, etc this type of thing is seen all the time. What the pilots and drivers said they did or were feeling or what their vehicle did is often not backed up by the actual data recorded during the event. The human mind is highly fallible, much more so under stress, the data is much tighter, although we must understand that when we move back beyond a certain point the technology to record the telemetry in real-time did not exist.    

**I will put a huge disclaimer here, I am a data-driven person, I work with data daily, and years of experience have taught me to trust the data over people's claims.  My point of view is certainly not everyone's and not necessarily the correct one either. **