1C Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official 1C Company forum > 1C Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik > Daidalos Team discussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #761  
Old 02-03-2015, 08:45 PM
stovak stovak is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 60
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pursuivant View Post
One button to open or close the radiator is a bit simplistic
I think he's not asking for a single open/close button, but an added 'radiator minus' button to close the rad/cowl in steps to go with the current 'radiator plus'. In order to close the rad by one step we have the awkward task of cycling through eight positions using the 'open' button, and it's quite easy to overshoot and have to start again. A 'close' button would be much appreciated.

There is a slider-axis option already, but of course we don't all have enough sliders
Reply With Quote
  #762  
Old 02-03-2015, 10:52 PM
IceFire IceFire is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,879
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pursuivant View Post
One button to open or close the radiator is a bit simplistic, since different planes had different radiator controls. Some had a simple open/closed option, others had detents that only allowed the radiator vanes to be opened in certain positions. Some had fully adjustable radiator controls.

The big problem with the radiator controls is that they're on a "pivot" rather than being on a "slider." That is, pressing the radiator control button once opens it to 20%, pressing it again takes it to 40%, and so forth, until you get to 100% open. But then, you press the button again and you go back to 0%! AFAIK, no airplane ever had radiator controls like that.

What needs to happen is that the default radiator control should be a "slider" where you can adjust the radiator vanes from 0-100% and back again. For planes which didn't have radiator controls, the "slider" is fixed at 100% open. For planes which had detents, pressing the radiator control button opens or closes the vents at the next level.
What you described is what he's asking about. So you're both on the same page

He said he wants a "radiator-" and a "radiator+" so you can open and close. Maybe wasn't put the clearest way but it sounds like a good idea.

I'd actually say that for compatibility sake you can still maintain the Radiator Toggle or you can have Radiator Open and Radiator Close buttons that work in a similar way to the flaps. Not sure how many aircraft had an open/closed arrangement and how many had a system where they can be finely controlled (by slider for example).

It'd be a bit more work than just adding the button presses. The mechanicals of all of the aircraft we have might need a going over to know how each should function. Not a bad thing IMHO but it would take some time.
__________________
Find my missions and much more at Mission4Today.com
Reply With Quote
  #763  
Old 02-03-2015, 11:49 PM
sniperton sniperton is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 253
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IceFire View Post
He said he wants a "radiator-" and a "radiator+" so you can open and close. Maybe wasn't put the clearest way but it sounds like a good idea.
Yep, sorry for my English. The logical way would be to go from 'closed' to 'open', and then backward, from 'open' to closed'. Plus and Minus. No cycling through.
Reply With Quote
  #764  
Old 02-06-2015, 02:44 PM
Pursuivant Pursuivant is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,439
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sniperton View Post
Yep, sorry for my English. The logical way would be to go from 'closed' to 'open', and then backward, from 'open' to closed'. Plus and Minus. No cycling through.
I'm not sure if TD wants to bother with it, but "radiator" settings are even more complex than I thought for some planes.

For example, the P-39 series didn't have preset "detents" for the radiator like I thought. Instead, it had open and shut (i.e., 0 or 100% open) shutters for the Coolant Radiator and the Oil Cooler, as well as what I believe to be a 0-100% slider-type control (in the form of a push-rod that could be elevated or depressed) for carburetor air heat, and a switch for carburetor air filtration.

Carb air heat controls were necessary to prevent engine stoppage at altitude due to carburetor icing. Filter controls allowed the pilot to choose between hot unfiltered air (presumably waste heat from the air or oil cooler systems) and cold filtered air (presumably outside air pulled in via a filter intake).

Likewise, the F6F-5 also had separate shutters for oil coolant and the intercooler.

Things also get complex for the P-51's radiator systems, as this very old thread describes:

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php...d-speed-Forums

Last edited by Pursuivant; 02-06-2015 at 02:51 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #765  
Old 02-16-2015, 10:25 AM
shelby shelby is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 336
Default

here is a small bug like the p40b/c bug

Reply With Quote
  #766  
Old 02-17-2015, 04:29 PM
Tolwyn Tolwyn is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 247
Default

That's not a bug. Just a re-using of model resources.
Reply With Quote
  #767  
Old 02-24-2015, 12:28 AM
Corvus Corax Corvus Corax is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 2
Post P-38 Airspeed Indicator wrong

Hi folks,
I have found a minor error:
The airspeed indicator on all P-38 Models shows the actual speed in knots, but the indicator itself is marked with mph (the speed limitations on the dashboard are given in mph too). This can easily be detected by comparing the speed from the indicator with the speed shown on the HUD and switching between mph an knots.

Because not beeing sure whitch unit was used on the Lightning I searched an found this nice manual:
http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/en...lightning.html

Therein all speeds are given in mph, so its much likely that the the indicator should show mph as well.
Perhaps this small bug can be corrected in a future patch.
Reply With Quote
  #768  
Old 02-24-2015, 07:19 PM
Woke Up Dead Woke Up Dead is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 209
Default

The Rogozarski IK-3 is extremely tough, it takes many many 20mm shells to bring down, sometimes even more than many many. Wikipedia says it was built out of steel tube, wood, and fabric; not carbon composites, diamonds, and spider silk like its current durability suggests. Perhaps someone at TD could take a look at the damage model?
Reply With Quote
  #769  
Old 02-24-2015, 08:10 PM
Pursuivant Pursuivant is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,439
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woke Up Dead View Post
The Rogozarski IK-3 is extremely tough, it takes many many 20mm shells to bring down, sometimes even more than many many. Wikipedia says it was built out of steel tube, wood, and fabric; not carbon composites, diamonds, and spider silk like its current durability suggests. Perhaps someone at TD could take a look at the damage model?
I can believe that the IK-3 is too tough. When it was first introduced to IL2, I recall the IK-3 as being superior to just about all contemporary planes in the game. Subsequent patches seem to have toned down its performance to make it roughly comparable to the Hurricane Mk II. Perhaps someone forgot to take a second look at its DM when they fixed the FM.

That said, fabric-covered, steel frame aircraft could be surprisingly tough, since bullets and cannon shells generally harmlessly passed through the canvas without exploding.

Even if an explosive bullet or cannon shell exploded on contact, it typically just blew away fabric, leaving the steel frame intact. Unlike a monocoque constructed plane, that meant only an increase in drag, but little or no structural damage. The IK-3 DM might be an attempt to model this effect.

Unfortunately, I don't think that IL2 can model drag increases due to damage separately from reductions in structural strength due to damage. Obviously, it can't model different sorts of damage, which leads to the odd situation on some planes where the damage textures show more holes than actual bullets which hit the plane, and which show damage different places than the bullets actually hit.
Reply With Quote
  #770  
Old 02-27-2015, 11:24 AM
shelby shelby is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 336
Default

Here is another bug in p47s

Last edited by shelby; 02-27-2015 at 02:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:11 PM.

Based on a design by: Miner Skinz.com

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 1C Company. All rights reserved.