sixstrings5859
Charter Member
Believe me, they fly as well as they look. Rene is doing a bang up job on these. We are in for a treat. Joost's model is really looking great also. Regards,Scott
Stock P-47D/M overhaul, northern Europe
- Thread starter greycap.raf
- Start date
greycap.raf
Charter Member
Only that in this case flying well means performing worse than just about any Thunderbolt you've seen for CFS3 this far. For reasons unknown to me almost all add-ons from the first 15 years or so of CFS3 modding have overperformed quite a bit, even the otherwise highly regarded AvHistory 4.00 releases. Too much power, too much top speed, seriously too much climb rate.
I had to nerf the Mustangs, I had to nerf the Lightnings, and indeed I had to nerf the Thunderbolts too. Now their performance is at a realistic level but the climb rate of these P-47Ds is down almost 1000 ft/min compared to the ones in ETO for example. They do over 4100 ft/min - more than a real P-47M was capable of - while these are around 3200 ft/min as they should.
I had to nerf the Mustangs, I had to nerf the Lightnings, and indeed I had to nerf the Thunderbolts too. Now their performance is at a realistic level but the climb rate of these P-47Ds is down almost 1000 ft/min compared to the ones in ETO for example. They do over 4100 ft/min - more than a real P-47M was capable of - while these are around 3200 ft/min as they should.
mongoose
SOH-CM-2023
Interesting. How extensive do you feel this applies to 3rd person models for CFS3?
greycap.raf
Charter Member
In the early days, and indeed for a decade or so afterwards, it was a total Wild West but the situation has improved tremendously from the mid-2010s until the current day. No more do we have in new releases anything resembling, for example, Curtiss Hawk 75s that do 450+ mph at 30.000 feet with a 1600+ bhp engine or Airacobras that climb at 4700+ ft/min. No Fw 190s with a 5700+ ft/min climb rate and a 250+ degrees/s roll rate either. All those mentioned are found in ETO too.
greycap.raf
Charter Member
Again from ETO: Bf 109G-6 climbing at 5200+ ft/min, G-10 at 6000+ ft/min, K-4 at 5400+ ft/min. There's no doubt about things being very wrong right there.
The normal G-6 should be around 3500 ft/min and the G-10 and K-4 around 4500 ft/min with the DB605DB, just barely edging close to 5000 ft/min with the DB605DC running at the full 1,98 ata boost. Somewhere in the middle is the G-14 with the MW50 injected DB605AM or -ASM doing around 4200 ft/min.
sixstrings5859
Charter Member
Just a note,When i say "fly great" i mean accurately,for better or worse. Accuracy is what keeps me interested in CFS3. Flight modeling is what makes CFS3 so enjoyable. When a model is accurate you can then use the proper tactics used by real pilots in aerial combat.With CFS3 you can model this better than most WW II air combat sims out there. Enjoy Rene's work in this often misunderstood area. Realism is why this is called a simulator and not just a "game". Regards,Scott
sixstrings5859
Charter Member
Been testing the new P-47's Rene has done and all i can say is you all are in for a treat ! They are simply fantastic in every way. Can't believe what can be done with a aircraft based on the stock model. They look and fly fantastic. Regards,Scott
Just a comment
One must be very cautious with all of these performance data. Many of the performance data fail to list weight as tested, these were done by corporate test pilots, best conditons etc. Also, a new plane with an engine with little to no time on it is very different from a worn or used engine with a bunch of flight hours on it. That being said, trying to get it right with those data is fun, but not realistic. For example, the JU88 G6 Brown tested flew at 400 mph well above the data stated a top speed of 389 or so. Point - all of the flight test data is so subjective and inaccurate due to many variables. Getting to feel right - I don't know but I am unaware of any one who flew these planes ever sitting at a computer console to fly these digital models....just saying!!!
But I do confess I spend countless hours trying to get it right (what ever that means). I have test runways with distance markers to see if I can get the plane to lift off at the claimed distances the flight test data state - try to get a Do217 E4 to alight at 800-900 meters without climbing like a Komet is a challenge.
One must be very cautious with all of these performance data. Many of the performance data fail to list weight as tested, these were done by corporate test pilots, best conditons etc. Also, a new plane with an engine with little to no time on it is very different from a worn or used engine with a bunch of flight hours on it. That being said, trying to get it right with those data is fun, but not realistic. For example, the JU88 G6 Brown tested flew at 400 mph well above the data stated a top speed of 389 or so. Point - all of the flight test data is so subjective and inaccurate due to many variables. Getting to feel right - I don't know but I am unaware of any one who flew these planes ever sitting at a computer console to fly these digital models....just saying!!!
But I do confess I spend countless hours trying to get it right (what ever that means). I have test runways with distance markers to see if I can get the plane to lift off at the claimed distances the flight test data state - try to get a Do217 E4 to alight at 800-900 meters without climbing like a Komet is a challenge.
sixstrings5859
Charter Member
Accuracy is best for me. It is what makes CFS3 the go to sim for WW II air combat as compared to others out there. Work like Rene's is so important ,it is what keeps me still interested in the sim. It is not the "wild west" as some other sims are,such as IL-2 ,in which i have vast experience with. Regards,Scott
greycap.raf
Charter Member
The package has been sent to the upload queue. Available as soon as the process completes.
As a note, I had a lot of thoughts about drop tanks. In the end I went with the 108 gallon tank as the only option for simplicity. I could have made additional loadouts with the 75 gallon tanks used on the Mustangs, they would have been realistic too, but there's a ton of loadouts already and the practical benefit would have been near zero. If we had a proper 200 gallon belly tank I might have used it but we don't and the 108 gallon tank does the job perfectly well for the CFS3 flight distances. For the same reason there are no 150 gallon wing drop tanks, again they're not really necessary for the mission profiles the P-47 was doing by the time the bubbletop came into use and there's very little evidence about them having been used in Europe at all.
As a note, I had a lot of thoughts about drop tanks. In the end I went with the 108 gallon tank as the only option for simplicity. I could have made additional loadouts with the 75 gallon tanks used on the Mustangs, they would have been realistic too, but there's a ton of loadouts already and the practical benefit would have been near zero. If we had a proper 200 gallon belly tank I might have used it but we don't and the 108 gallon tank does the job perfectly well for the CFS3 flight distances. For the same reason there are no 150 gallon wing drop tanks, again they're not really necessary for the mission profiles the P-47 was doing by the time the bubbletop came into use and there's very little evidence about them having been used in Europe at all.
greycap.raf
Charter Member
P-47D/M upgrade, CFS3.1a and ETO
A new entry has been added to Add-Ons Library, category CFS 3 American Aircraft
Description: Upgrade of the stock P-47D.
Credits: Model by Microsoft, updated by Luca Festari and Rene Leppä.
Flight Model by gregoryp of AvHistory (P47M) modified to reflect the P-47D/M series by Rene Leppä.
Skins by Rene Leppä, guidance and several borrowed parts by Nigel Dickinson.
Pylons by Rene Leppä.
Engine sounds by Lawdog2360.
Rene Leppä, March 2022.
To check it out, rate it or add comments, visit P-47D/M upgrade, CFS3.1a and ETO
The comments you make there will appear in the posts below.
A new entry has been added to Add-Ons Library, category CFS 3 American Aircraft
Description: Upgrade of the stock P-47D.
Credits: Model by Microsoft, updated by Luca Festari and Rene Leppä.
Flight Model by gregoryp of AvHistory (P47M) modified to reflect the P-47D/M series by Rene Leppä.
Skins by Rene Leppä, guidance and several borrowed parts by Nigel Dickinson.
Pylons by Rene Leppä.
Engine sounds by Lawdog2360.
Rene Leppä, March 2022.
To check it out, rate it or add comments, visit P-47D/M upgrade, CFS3.1a and ETO
The comments you make there will appear in the posts below.
Daiwilletti
Charter Member
Fantastic, thank you for your hard work Rene. I look forward to trying these.
sixstrings5859
Charter Member
Absolutely Outstanding ! They fly and look fantastic, just as expected coming from you ! My favorite aircraft of WW II. The most accurately done P-47's to date.Amazing what can be done to a stock model ! Thank you Rene ! Regards,Scott
Led Zeppelin
Charter Member
Nice one!!
MajorMagee
SOH-CM-2022
Since these are based on the stock P-47D model, if you desire to use the UV cockpit lights to illuminate the instruments you can add these lines to the effects section of your xdp files.
<Effect Type="Track" EffectName="cockpit_light_uv" PosX="-0.275" PosZ="-1.75" PosY="0.75" Pitch="110" Heading="20" MinVel="-999999" MaxVel="999999"/>
<Effect Type="Track" EffectName="cockpit_light_uv" PosX="0.275" PosZ="-1.75" PosY="0.75" Pitch="110" Heading="-20" MinVel="-999999" MaxVel="999999"/>
and altitude dependent contrails would be
<Effect Type="Track" EffectName="fx_high_contrail" Location="emitter_eng0_exh_r" />
<Effect Type="Track" EffectName="fx_high_contrail" Location="emitter_eng0_exh_l" />
<Effect Type="Track" EffectName="cockpit_light_uv" PosX="-0.275" PosZ="-1.75" PosY="0.75" Pitch="110" Heading="20" MinVel="-999999" MaxVel="999999"/>
<Effect Type="Track" EffectName="cockpit_light_uv" PosX="0.275" PosZ="-1.75" PosY="0.75" Pitch="110" Heading="-20" MinVel="-999999" MaxVel="999999"/>
and altitude dependent contrails would be
<Effect Type="Track" EffectName="fx_high_contrail" Location="emitter_eng0_exh_r" />
<Effect Type="Track" EffectName="fx_high_contrail" Location="emitter_eng0_exh_l" />
