I made this post on the UP forum, 30 views no reply yet:
http://ultrapack.tuttovola.org/index.php/topic,4740.msg44366.html#msg44366Hello gentlemen, I have a humble request for the DM of the in-line engines of Russian fighters and P-39/P-63 (what a coincidence! they use those too!). As all we know, in the bf-109, Spitfire, P-51, etc when you get hit on the engine and it starts to leak oil and/or glycol the engine will overheat by lack of cooling sooner or later (sooner at more high RPM´s), you have to disengage and run if possible, but you will be gliding soon enough (5-10m).
The Il-2 have the same real issue if you hit it on the big oil cooler on the belly. But the damn P-39/63 can fly all day long leaking, they don´t lost power during the fight, I have been fighting them online sometimes more than 10m after I get some hits on them, and they continue to fight without problems, climbing, running, turning hard, etc. That was applied to the LaGG´s, and Yak´s too, but I don´t usually met them online so I not so sure, I should run some offline test, so forgive me if I wrong.
By the way, the La-5 are pretty though with the delta wood construction (maybe too much?) but the Yak´s are only a little weaker, not by much. If Im not mistaken (correct me if Im wrong please) the soviets wanted to make a very light combat fighter interceptor so the Yak-1/3 (very light) and Yak 7/9 (more normal weight and endurance and range) were constructed like a zero, less possible weight so they have great performance. So a 20mm hit that a Spitfire or La-5 could withstand would make more damage and weaken the structural integrity much more on the Yak. I don´t see that on the game, which leads to my next request....
The game seems to lack structural limitation after damage (like when we now pull too much G) at almost any case. Tempest and Typhoons for example loose the tail easily with only a couple hits of 20mm, I suspect that its intended because the tail was problematic on that plane at structural level, they needed to reinforce it to withstand combat maneuvers (they usually came off on the first typhoons in dives) so when you weaken that tail section the tail just break, its not the power of your gun, its the plane weak spot so the high structural pressure there brake it when the strength is lower. So I suppose they put very little HIT POINTS there to mimic a weak structural point. But the real limitation on amount of G you can pull without breaking that wing full of holes, loose your perforated tail or elevator is not there really.
I remember fondly the ¨Red Baron II/3D¨ game, when you got some damage into the plane it would squeal and scream more easily (wood creaking, canvas tensing) and you could not make the same maneuvers than before without loosing a wing. And when you came to land, the people on the ground seeing your damaged plane coming back would send the fire truck to the ¨runway¨ in your general direction, the ambulance too when you got wounded if Im not mistaked, because IT WAS 13 YEARS AGO!!!!
Im not a modder, and the game already is a big improvement with UP 3.0, but could be it possible to add combat structural failure?? I mean, we have the damage system there, and now the G stress system too, we only need to combine those too. You have a very big hole on your wing, you try a hard pull or roll and it will came off, more easily to happen in a Fw-190 for example than in a Spit (rolling hard) because of the high roll speed. Im tired of seeing Russian and Allied planes full of big holes doing perfectly controlled tight maneuvers, like their planes were almost intact. I can barely fly straight in a damaged Fw-190 or Bf-109 (I mean with big holes on the wings, not the little MG holes)
Any input or discussion is welcome!!!
Author
Topic: Engine durability & structural integrity after combat damage (Read 4875 times)
