How does that make sense? 🤔
They are slow at sea level but magically faster than others at higher altitudes, even though they their engine power doesn’t increase?
I‘ve checked drag related items as well as “MaxSpeedNearGround”, they were unchanged. Currently there’s no explanation on these changes. Furthermore, the F2G seems to be affected too with its sea level speed drops to 630kph.
Maybe all planes are affected? 🤔
No, most of props are unchanged.
Gaijin’s spaghetti coding aside - air is thicker at sea level so getting higher speeds on the deck will require more power than say, 10,000ft. That of course is offset by less oxygen the higher you go so engine performance begins to take a dip unless you start supercharging. Jets are less impacted by this latter bit, but the lesser drag up higher is still a factor.
However, if this is a change for FMs it should be universal - not whacking only a select few aircraft.
This is a bug, ever since the update both the weight and drag that are defined in the weapon file have been added to plane FMs.
For weight this makes no sense as it was definitely already included in the empty mass calculation, for the drag I would assume it was already included in the fuselage or wing drag for internal guns too. But since the m2_late has a "dragCx": 0.013, x6 you get a significant increase in drag.
Not all guns have a drag or weight modifier defined, which explains why only some planes are affected.
The F104S for example can take out its internal m61 in order to launch sparrows, however if you fly the plane with a gun now your top speed is significantly reduced since the drag defined in the gun file as "dragCx": 0.15, is now added on top of the total drag, which is nonsense for an internal gun of course.
In the same vein the A10s are now overweight by 860kg and can only turn at 5.5g max.
I’ve made a bug report about this issue in particular here:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/EFTQg0I1FuW8
11 Likes
That is because the drag that was introduced comes from the gun files, not the plane. I’ve explained above.
1 Like
Okay, thanks - seems a bit daft but hey, there you go.
Any update on this bug?
if gaijin is to introduce gun drag to the FM, all aircrafts should be affected. Now only part of them are involved, which is not understandable.
1 Like
Not all guns are assigned with mass and drag, furthermore, the drag from the weapon installation (blasting tube) is already included in the aircraft drag. There’s no reason to include those drag in the FM calculation. The mass too was assigned during the aircraft mass definition(mass distribution with advanced mass = yes). Thus it is a bug.
2 Likes
Well, it’s Gaijins way of implementing changes.
One after another to break as many vehicles at a time as possible and piss off as many players as possible.
Remember how they implemented realShatter one gun at a time, making them useless compared to guns who didn’t have it yet?
Turret baskets?
Now it’s time for gun drag.
But how does that even make sense?
Yeah the drag should increase, if you mount additional guns but it shouldn’t effect planes with default armament.
2 Likes
Ironically the Cannon Mustangs’ 20mm has no weight or drag, so 3.7 Mustang can outrun P-51D-30 at sea level now.
They closed the previous ticket as duplicate of an unrelated issue, opening another one: Community Bug Reporting System
3 Likes
Drag decreases at higher altitudes becasue the air becomes thinner
Yeah but they are supposed to be faster than other aircraft.
But it seems to be a bug with added drag from .50cals.
It seems like Gaijin got bit by inconsistently modeling/coding weapons and drag… and with something like 1200 aircraft in the game, it might take a moment to fix that if they’re trying to change the way weight/drag are calculated and handled in game.
They just need to revert the change that’s causing this bug first.
1 Like
I have experience with coding Mods for IL2-1946 and I would say the bug might came from the FM-data calculation module, inside the program of the game ( not the blkx). And that module was for all 1200 types of aircrafts in the game. It may be a matter of commenting a few lines of code to get the problem fixed.
The problem is that the developer has to be informed with the issue and be aware the location of the code.
2 Likes
It’s not just sea level… I just did a test of the P-51D-10. I repeated a test I made just before the patch dropped. I did a simple climb to 6000 meter. WEP, MEC - 100 pitch, 80/80 rads.
You can see speed and alt on the graph, time on the x-axis. The pre-bug (pre-nerf?) P-51D-10 needed ~314 seconds to reach 6000 m and the P-51D-10 today needed ~342 seconds. That’s not an insignificant difference in climb performance. The ~10% difference in total time is manifested in climb rate throughout.
For the interested… this was from a test I goofed. Ran the “old” FM at ~4300 meters, the new one at ~4500 meters. This is level acceleration from 300 kph to 400 kph. The old D-10 needed 30 seconds, the new D-10 needed 32 seconds. The old D-10 pulled out of its 20 deg dive in 30 seconds, doing ~705 kph. The new D-10 pulled out of its 20 degree dive in 32 seconds… doing ~705 kph. I accidentally experimentally determined that you need an additional 2 seconds and 200 meters of altitude to reach 705 kph from 400 kph in 20 degree dive.
A Mustang pilot (at least a D-10) will now need to trade more time/distance/altitude for the same speed while also needing longer to climb. Bad deal all around.
1 Like