PDA

View Full Version : Hey Oleg, not trying to whine, I just think its pretty important



Mike8686
07-21-2004, 01:46 AM
I'm fairly new to this sim and it is by all means the best flight sim I've ever tried, and my congrats goes out to you and ur crew, I'm sure you guys went through hell to get the job done.

I've seen some rumors though, that the next patch will be the last for IL2 FB AEP. If this is so, I'd like to make one request, and that is to take a look at the flight accelerations of the different aircraft. I was playing around with them and they all have the same dive acceleration. I think this is an integral part of providing a dynamic and realistic flight sim.

The truth is that no flight sim is perfect and naturally this sim will have minor little bugs here and there that people will complain about, but nearly all of those are so minor and negligible, people can live with them and not notice, the flight sim overall is a true success.

Its just that one factor, the dive accelerations, that seem to be something that is truly missing and un-ignorable because it affects all aircraft and therefore affects the realism factor of the sim as a whole, its not just some little side bug there. Its just strange that for example a 109 or even a 190 with its low drag wings only accelerates as fast as a spitfire in a dive (those were the first aircraft I tested this with).

I know its really easy for me to just pop-up like this and say that the sim is missing this important aspect of flight, I know that it would probably be really difficult for you and your crew to patch this up and so I emphasize to you that I'm not "demanding" this of you, I'm "requesting" it and understanding the fact that it would be difficult.

If its impossible then its not possible, its just something that if possible, and if done, would truly solidify the realism level and enjoyment factor of IL2 FB AEP.

Regards,
Mike

Mike8686
07-21-2004, 01:46 AM
I'm fairly new to this sim and it is by all means the best flight sim I've ever tried, and my congrats goes out to you and ur crew, I'm sure you guys went through hell to get the job done.

I've seen some rumors though, that the next patch will be the last for IL2 FB AEP. If this is so, I'd like to make one request, and that is to take a look at the flight accelerations of the different aircraft. I was playing around with them and they all have the same dive acceleration. I think this is an integral part of providing a dynamic and realistic flight sim.

The truth is that no flight sim is perfect and naturally this sim will have minor little bugs here and there that people will complain about, but nearly all of those are so minor and negligible, people can live with them and not notice, the flight sim overall is a true success.

Its just that one factor, the dive accelerations, that seem to be something that is truly missing and un-ignorable because it affects all aircraft and therefore affects the realism factor of the sim as a whole, its not just some little side bug there. Its just strange that for example a 109 or even a 190 with its low drag wings only accelerates as fast as a spitfire in a dive (those were the first aircraft I tested this with).

I know its really easy for me to just pop-up like this and say that the sim is missing this important aspect of flight, I know that it would probably be really difficult for you and your crew to patch this up and so I emphasize to you that I'm not "demanding" this of you, I'm "requesting" it and understanding the fact that it would be difficult.

If its impossible then its not possible, its just something that if possible, and if done, would truly solidify the realism level and enjoyment factor of IL2 FB AEP.

Regards,
Mike

Hunde_3.JG51
07-21-2004, 09:34 PM
I've said/requested this 100 times so obviously I agree. Wish the patches would address these issues instead of some others. Maybe it is just a game engine limitation, if so I hope BoB will be much improved in this area.

http://www.brooksart.com/Ontheprowl.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

VulgarOne
07-21-2004, 11:39 PM
There is a lot more than accelerations that need fixing. Problem is the program has reached its limitations and needs to be laid to rest.

I hope Oleg and crew does not falter and take the easy way out on the upcoming releases. I'm a twin fan and have yet to see one CFS even get close to depicting twins correctly.

ROI vs ROR seems to be the priority now that the series is a corporate success. Therefore as long as people will buy the game they need not fix the little details that make all the differance to the real pilots.

I am afraid that Oleg has gone to the dark side and we will never see aircraft correctly depicted.

Vulgar

Fehler
07-22-2004, 01:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VulgarOne:
There is a lot more than accelerations that need fixing. Problem is the program has reached its limitations and needs to be laid to rest. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And you know this because you A.) Have cracked the coding for the game, B.) Have inside information that none of us have, or C.) Are speculating?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VulgarOne: I hope Oleg and crew does not falter and take the easy way out on the upcoming releases. I'm a twin fan and have yet to see one CFS even get close to depicting twins correctly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Make a better sim.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VulgarOne: ROI vs ROR seems to be the priority now that the series is a corporate success. Therefore as long as people will buy the game they need not fix the little details that make all the differance to the real pilots. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A side affect of smoking too much marijuana is that it causes paranoia.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VulgarOne: I am afraid that Oleg has gone to the dark side and we will never see aircraft correctly depicted.
Vulgar<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Make a better sim that does all the things you want it to and will sell to the public for under $50.00. Back that up with tons of free add-ons and continuous support (Even when it will not pay for you to do so), and remember that there will always be tons of self-proclaimed experts standing in line to tell you how bad you missed the mark.

I am not picking on you, but often it is easier to sit on the sidelines and critique something than go and play the game. In other words, go make a better product. That will at least give you the right to compare Oleg to anything.

Quite frankly, I am totally surprised Oleg and 1C continues to support this product. It is not even economically feasable, but yet he continues.

If it is too much work to get dive accelerations corrected in the game because of coding and re-coding, hey I can totally understand this. I only payed $40.00 US for the software, and have had much more than forty dollars worth of enjoyment out of it.

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/FehlerSig.gif
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html

KG26_Alpha
07-22-2004, 02:56 AM
Damn forum
buggy at the moment.
needs a patch lol.

KG26_Alpha
07-22-2004, 03:03 AM
NT

http://www.freewebs.com/kg26/

VulgarOne
07-22-2004, 12:32 PM
Fehler

I have nearly 40 years of real flight experience predominantly in twins. I have 25 years experience with computers and business. The first CFS I played was in 1984 on an apple 2+ it was called F15 Strike Eagle, therefore with 20 years of experience with CFS's and nearly 40 years of real flight experience, I know a little bit about it. I have also been flying IL2 since it came out.

Fact is torque among other things are not correctly depicted in this game, more specifically concerning twins. That comes directly from Oleg himself. The game was never designed to properly depict flyable twins, as it was never intended in the beginning to have flyable twins. The demands from customers and people who modeled the twins forced Oleg to incorporate flyable twins.

Each and every CFS has anomalies that do not correctly depict actual aircraft performance. Engine controls is one of the best examples. I suggest you go to your local airfield and take a familiarization flight to better acquaint yourself with how a real aircraft operates.

Corporate bean counters can and do accurately factor ROI (rate of investment) in comparison to ROR (rate of return). A well know fact in every corporate industry is that not to worry about losing that 10% of knowing customers, because there is 10 times that amount or more, of uninformed or uncaring customers that will continue to use the service. In this case these are predominantly the 10-20 year old age group, they simply do not have the knowledge or mental capacity to know or care about actual flight dynamics. Not to mention people from all over the world that are just now getting their first look at what the rest of the world really looks like. Therefore Oleg and Ubi need not be worried about losing a few real pilots that know the difference. They simply have to worry about how good the game attracts new customers, unfortunately real flight dynamics has nothing to with this, see the above.

I personally would pay $200 to $500 or more plus a monthly fee for an accurate CFS. Most average people will not pay that much. The online and offline game industry has determined what the average customer base is willing to pay, therefore Oleg and Ubi have made a decision to be competitive concerning cost of the game itself. Which means that to keep the game within the financial constraints and also kick it out the door as fast as possible to increase ROR, many details are being half-assed. My fear is that they have no intentions of changing this fact, simply because it improves their income by doing less.

Your reference to marijuana has no place in your post what so ever. You have made a false accusation, and you are obviously of that 10-20 year old group I mentioned above. Before making false accusations I suggest you spend more time studying. Your reply has shown that you are willing to pay $40 for a faulty game, and provides proof to everything above, yet is no justification for trying to push your ignorance upon knowing customers who would like to pay more for a better product.

Vulgar

p1ngu666
07-22-2004, 01:18 PM
for twins cem is abit dodgy, hopefully some time can be spent to clean it up a little with all the upcoming twins

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

LEXX_Luthor
07-22-2004, 02:31 PM
VulgarOne:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I have nearly 40 years of real flight experience predominantly in twins.
:
...with 20 years of experience with CFS's<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hey, good one. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

I would normally explain that the simulation of exact flight model, although of vital importance, is less important than the tactical simulation of both the air combat and battlefield environments, both of which are served by the New Twins. But rather than normally explain, I find it easier, and more Fun, to, unlike Fehler, just pick on you. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

You may be interested in a dedicated Civil flight sim for now. Or you can give up "twins flying" and/or CFS's and read Teach Yourself C++ In 21 Days here ---&gt; http://newdata.box.sk/bx/c/


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

crazyivan1970
07-22-2004, 03:49 PM
Vulgar, if you have 40 years of experiance in twin engine aircraft... then you started to fly at the age of two http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Mods do their homework too, ya know. Stop fooling people, i hate that http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/band.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

wojtek_m
07-22-2004, 04:19 PM
...ROI (rate of investment)...

ROI is in fact Return On Investment http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Hunter82
07-24-2004, 07:39 AM
Yeppers

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wojtek_m:
_...ROI (rate of investment)..._

ROI is in fact Return On Investment http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

==============================
Mudmovers (http://magnum-pc.netfirms.com/mudmovers/index.htm)
ATI Catalyst Beta Tester
Catalyst Feedback (http://apps.ati.com/driverfeedback/)
Catalyst Driver Download (http://www.ati.com/support/driver.html)
Magnum PC (http://www.magnum-pc.com)

==============================

nearmiss
07-24-2004, 08:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Vulgar, if you have 40 years of experiance in twin engine aircraft... then you started to fly at the age of two http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Mods do their homework too, ya know. Stop fooling people, i hate that http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/band.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ivan...

Most people can do more than one thing at a time. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif

http://avsims.com/portal/modules/liens/images/banner.gif (http://avsims.com/portal/)

VulgarOne
07-28-2004, 11:20 PM
Yes Crazy Ivan I have been flying by instruments since I can remember long before I was able to reach the rudder pedals or see over the dash, I have been flying in private aircraft since I was in the womb if you would like to go even further back.

My father was a commercial, instrument, multi, sea, land rated pilot since 1938'ish. He preferred twins and had a number of them over the years. My favorite was the U8, a military version of the twin beech, a very versatile aircraft that had a much higher g rating than most private aircraft even stronger than many current aerobatic trainers.

I just returned from a trip into Baja California using a Cessna 205 for a short field on the beach, hence the reason I have not replied right away. I have flown with many bush pilots in Canada and northern Wisconsin where I am from, I know a lot of pilots who own or have owned practically every variant of aircraft ever built. My experience over the years includes more aircraft types than most private pilots ever get the chance to experience, not including my military experience, though not as a military pilot but as a member of the 82nd Airborne. I have jumped out of more aircraft types fixed and rotary than most have even flown in. If my eye sight had not gone bad when I was 14 I would have joined the air force.

If you have done your home work Crazy Ivan then you know that I wrote the CEM BRIEF that is on numerous websites to help newbies with the learning curve. I also used my real name as I have nothing to hide and wanted to give it some credibility, unlike most that are afraid to use their real name. I am not fooling anyone Ivan as I have no reason to do so, though I do understand your skepticism as there are many that do deceive in the forums, the reason I rarely post.


Lexx Luther I have no desire to be a programmer. Why spend my time programming instead of living a real life? Better others spend their time to produce a product I can us when I have some free time. I am simply tired of not one CFS getting it right, despite all the information and experienced pilots available from all over the world. It is obvious that I like many would love nothing more than to fly a real ww2 aircraft, preferably a p38. Just sick and tired of software developers selling their faulty products to unknowing people who accept all the faults as being real.

Vulgar

Cajun76
07-29-2004, 12:07 AM
I wish people would stop bashing Oleg and sim makers in general with semi-informed opinions. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif They see the word "Simulation" and don't pay attention to anything else. The IL2 series, and most sims out there, are survey sims. They take a relatively large amount of planes, model them decently, give them some shared controls, like CEM, flaps and such, and let you fly. Study sims, like Flanker and Falcon, model one or two a/c as close as possible within computer limitations. LOMAC is one of the first to try to bridge these two generes. There are some common controls, but there are also many that aren't shared across the plane models.

If someone wants the sub-variant of the little known Bf-109G, Mk52, tail #345897 in service with Bavarian Boy Scouts modeled to the last rivet head and squeaky left main wheels' inner bearing race, this sim is not for you, you're garanteed to be dissapionted. If you want to fly a sim that models many different a/c reasonably well within realistic hardware limitations, welcome to the best dang flight sim on the market today. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Good hunting,
Cajun76

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/p47nh.jpg
What if there were no hypothetical questions?

alarmer
07-29-2004, 12:53 AM
Agreed Cajun.

But I think the poster as a new flyer finds this simulator very good as many of us but is bit confused why the dive / zoom modelling is lacking.

And I myself often too find myself wondering the same thing when that early Lagg3 follows my Bf109F into power dive without any problems http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I see no harm in discussing lackings of this sim as it hopefully will make BoB engine better. I only hope the developper would have more time to explain to us what exactly are these limitations Il2 currently has. Dive / Zoom modelling certainly is one.

LeadSpitter_
07-29-2004, 02:25 AM
check them again in 2.04 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif fixed

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif

VulgarOne
07-29-2004, 03:36 PM
Cajun perhaps you do not fully understand the concept of simulation in real life. In real life simulators are used primarily for IFR (instrument flight reference) training and emergency procedure training. They are used to familiarize the student or long time pilot refreshing their skills. The idea of the simulator is to train the pilot in how to control the aircraft when VFR (visual flight reference) is not possible or an emergency situation develops. The landing approach on instruments only is the most difficult to master, yes you can land a plane by instruments only. The idea is that the simulation depict real life as accurately as possible as what is learned in the simulator will be emulated in the air. If the training received in the simulator is incorrect or inaccurate, when applied in the air a fatality may occur. My problem is that the wording simulator is used in a manner in games that does not accurately depict the actual capabilities of the program, it is simply misleading. Far to many real feature of real aircraft are simply not included in the game at all, yet it is called a simulation.

My goal is to not to bash Oleg and crew, but to question why so much improvement is needed. My opinion is that they have no excuse for so many inaccuracies, simply because there is a wealth of data and experienced personal to draw from. The extent of the inaccuracies shows that either their programming capabilities has reached it's limit, or they have no intentions of producing a better product. I personally hope it is neither. But as long as the majority of the customers accept a faulty product, they will have no need or inclination for further development and improve the product. Seems to me that far more time is spent on graphics then real simulation, not that graphics are not important, but I would rather have a better simulation than pretty pictures. Unfortunately pretty pictures is what sells the general public.

One big deficiency with IL2 and every other CFS is that the flight statistics are not published for the aircraft. All the numbers should be included, maximum flap extension speed, never exceed speed, cruise fuel burn, maximum gear extension speed , stall speed clean and dirty, final approach speed, glide ratio power on power off ect, these are just a few as an example. Every aircraft manufacture supplies these numbers, no aircraft can safely be flown without such information. Seems to me that when game developers refuse as Oleg has done to supply this basic information, they are hiding something. Oleg and crew must be using some numbers to base each aircraft off of, what are they? I guarantee you not one aircraft is correctly modeled to actual numbers supplied by the real manufacturer. All to many times Oleg has clearly stated that such information is incorrect and that he magically holds the real data the actual aircraft manufacturer have never seen. I think the reason Oleg refuses to supply this basic information is that he and crew will then have to fine tune each aircraft to be as accurate as possible. As it sits now discussion goes back and forth with little results as there is little to reference from, simply nothing can be proven right or wrong, this is good for Oleg and crew, and bad for the customer.

My goal is to do nothing more than push Oleg towards producing a better product. I feel that IL2 is a great achievement, but seriously lacking . Hopefully the future releases will have more closely depicted realism, if one can use such verbiage concerning a game of fantasy. My biggest fear is that FM and flight controls will not be improved due to the vast majority of existing customers accepting it as it is and settling for less than what is possible.

Vulgar

Cajun76
07-31-2004, 08:58 AM
As I stated before, the things you want would have to be modeled for one, or a family of a/c, like the IL2 Sturmovik. That would be a study sim, and every feature and sticky fuel mix lever could be modeled to a high degree, within the limits of the average PC hardware. Here we can fly not only the venerable old IL2, but the P-47, Me-262, or Ta-152. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif But certain comprimises have to be made to do this. Put it another way. I'm sure you've seen many different simulators in your time, from a simple moniter in the half a cockpit dash of a Cessna with a few gauges and no force feedback, to mutil-million dollar, full motion simulators that fly just like a CH-47, with realistic, 360 degree veiws. (Been in both, that's why I happan to mention them http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif )Which one is a simulator? There are varying degrees of simulator, even for real life applications.

I know there's at least one thread about how "low can you go" with the power of some peoples computer rigs around here. There are limitations and tradoffs with these things in mind, as well as putting more than one a/c in the air at a time. It would be much easier to model these a/c, if they were the only one in the air at a time. The computers could devote much more power to processing a higher fidelity FM. But this sim is not for learning how to make crosswind touchdowns in near zero visisbility. It's made for combat, with multiple, different, human controlled planes in the air at one time, as well as AAA, tanks, ships, truck convoys, artillery, AI a/c, building, roads, trains amd much more, all with DM as well.

These real life simulators we've mentioned: Can you get completely certified to fly instrument, multi-engine jet a/c by only using the simulators and never climbing in a real flightdeck? These simulators have limitations too. There're getting better all the time, but I still wouldn't want to certify someone to fly 400 passengers half way around the world with only 'sim time' in his log. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

IIRC, Oleg obtianed data from many different sources, some were classified and could only be used on condition of nondisclosure. I could be wrong on that recollection though. As far as manufacturer data, that wasn't always accurate for frontline fighters in combat. Russian P-39s were stripped of some of their armor, the pilots ran revolutions that exceeded the manufacturers recommendations and they changed a lot of engines because of that. The manual for those a/c were written by the pilots and crew chiefs, not Bell or Allison.

I don't think its fair to say this sim/game is 'faulty'. It's a compromise, as are most things in this life. I heartily agree some things could use improvement, but some of the things you're asking for are really not possible and/or practical when faced with hardware and software limitations that can make the product accessible to a wide range of people. I personally like the option to fly so many different a/c in a dynamic environment. And as far as I can tell, this is as close as we can currently get to WWII combat without strapping into a reconditioned warbird and using that laser tag system like the US ARMY or Fighter Combat International, which is not to say, FCI wouldn't be fun. I plan to do something similar someday. But for now, I'll see ya'll in HL...... HEY! I needed that wing!!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

Good hunting,
Cajun76

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/p47nh.jpg
What if there were no hypothetical questions?

HarryVoyager
07-31-2004, 10:23 AM
I'm interning doing development work on one of those real simulators you are talking about, and hoping for. While I can't list the exact costs, rest assured that true high detailed simulators cost more than the aircraft they simulate do, and the graphics on this one still look as threw someone threw up on the screen.

On a side note, landings aren't nearly as hard as people make them out to be. I put that plane down 50 knots to fast, from 100ft to high, with flaps firmly up and locked, without blowing the tires, or even damaging the plane. I did get a beautiful ground loop going though.

"That's a beautiful view of the runway. Did I just knock the front gear off?"

"No no, you're still good."

Harry Voyager

LEXX_Luthor
07-31-2004, 07:17 PM
If Oleg releaced his data to the general pubic, then Microsoft could eliminate the Research Budget for 4SFC, thus opening the possibility of Saving 4FCS instead of FC4S being Destroyed, by Maddox Games, as is the case today. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

C3SF had FM lookup tables. Microsoft Needs Oleg's data to be made pubic. I am surprised MS has not already claimed old patents on historical FM data. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

VulgarOne:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I have no desire to be a programmer. Why spend my time programming instead of living a real life? Better others spend their time to produce a product I can use when I have some free time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Would a real pilot say this, given pilots' real lives are at the Mercy of their avionics programmers? mmm

Lets cover this again for those who have piloted their Internet Explorer here, to teh ubi.com:: The simulation of exact flight model, although of vital importance, is less important than the tactical simulation of both the air combat and battlefield environments, both of which are served by the New Twins [2 engine bombers]. Now, this presumes a military combat sim, thus a Civil Flight Sim--single engine only http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif -- may be more tasteful for many who pilot teh mighty internet.



__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

HarryVoyager
08-01-2004, 09:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
VulgarOne:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I have no desire to be a programmer. Why spend my time programming instead of living a real life? Better others spend their time to produce a product I can use when I have some free time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Would a real pilot say this, given pilots' real lives are at the Mercy of their avionics programmers? mmm<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well to be horribly honest, yes they do, quite often, actually. Pilots really care amazingly little about how their flight computers work, at least, until they don't work, and even then their battle cry is "Fix it!" not "Why did it break?"

Fortunatly most pilots have realised that these things are importaint to the proper operation of their aircraft, and are now quite happy to particpate in the design programs aimed at stomping out avionics bugs, before they find themselves at 30,000ft wondering why their engine just blew itself out of the back of their plane.

Can we say runon? Yes we can. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Harry Voyager

XyZspineZyX
08-04-2004, 06:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cajun76:

I know there's at least one thread about how "low can you go" with the power of some peoples computer rigs around here. There are limitations and tradoffs with these things in mind, as well as putting more than one a/c in the air at a time. It would be much easier to model these a/c, if they were the only one in the air at a time. The computers could devote much more power to processing a higher fidelity FM. But this sim is not for learning how to make crosswind touchdowns in near zero visisbility. It's made for combat, with multiple, different, human controlled planes in the air at one time, as well as AAA, tanks, ships, truck convoys, artillery, AI a/c, building, roads, trains amd much more, all with DM as well.

[Yes, the game I believe, was made for groundpounding]

These real life simulators we've mentioned: Can you get completely certified to fly instrument, multi-engine jet a/c by only using the simulators and never climbing in a real flightdeck? These simulators have limitations too. There're getting better all the time, but I still wouldn't want to certify someone to fly 400 passengers half way around the world with only 'sim time' in his log. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

[they give one a training in what to do, in all aspects of flight...straight forward to emergency]

IIRC, Oleg obtianed data from many different sources, some were classified and could only be used on condition of nondisclosure. I could be wrong on that recollection though. As far as manufacturer data, that wasn't always accurate for frontline fighters in combat. Russian P-39s were stripped of some of their armor, the pilots ran revolutions that exceeded the manufacturers recommendations and they changed a lot of engines because of that. The manual for those a/c were written by the pilots and crew chiefs, not Bell or Allison.

[Which is why we keep on asking for less planes with more accurate flight modelling.

*You yourself said;
"If someone wants the sub-variant of the little known Bf-109G, Mk52, tail #345897 in service with Bavarian Boy Scouts modeled to the last rivet head and squeaky left main wheels' inner bearing race, this sim is not for you, you're garanteed to be dissapionted"]

I don't think its fair to say this sim/game is 'faulty'. It's a compromise, as are most things in this life. I heartily agree some things could use improvement, but some of the things you're asking for are really not possible and/or practical when faced with hardware and software limitations that can make the product accessible to a wide range of people. I personally like the option to fly so many different a/c in a dynamic environment. And as far as I can tell, this is as close as we can currently get to WWII combat without strapping into a reconditioned warbird and using that laser tag system like the US ARMY or Fighter Combat International, which is not to say, FCI wouldn't be fun. I plan to do something similar someday. But for now, I'll see ya'll in HL...... HEY! I _needed_ that wing!!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

[It is not a 'compromise at all, and no not faulty and for what it is, man 'o' man. BUT -expertise has been put into areas that don't need it, to keep the kids happy and as long as the kids keep on with 'This is great, how fantastic, how real...the basics will never be addressed]


Good hunting,
Cajun76

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/p47nh.jpg
What if there were no hypothetical questions?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would really hate to think that a sim/ game as fine as this is being 'dumbed down' to allow for "The Next Generation" sim/ game for the sake of a few bucks.

What is the point of Pacific fighters, if the same lackings are not addressed ?

Oh... CFS2 for one published all the flight data necessary for each plane it included.
AVHistory have no quarms about publishing flight data and spend a lot of time perfecting the dynamics for their published aircraft.

[This message was edited by Vagueout on Wed August 04 2004 at 06:07 AM.]

darkhorizon11
08-04-2004, 09:24 AM
You guys need to relax and take it as it comes. As cool as the IL2 series may be its still far from the real thing. I doubt many pilots even the ones who have hundreds of hours in the sim would be able fly the real plane very well. I played flight sims religiously as a kid, then I came to college (where I am now) to be a pilot and well here I am. They helped, but I still couldn't even land, takeoff, or even hold altitude without my instructors help at first. Vulgar is right. Normally FTDs and simulators used by the airliners are not toys like this. They simulate real emergencies and situations where the pilot must use all his skills and crew synergy to solve problems. They are 99% accurate to the real aircrafts performance inside out with full motion. However they also cost tens of millions of dollars and run for about 600-1200 bucks an hour. Thats not practical for IL2.

My point is to just enjoy the game. Stop whining because the turning capabilities aren't quite what you "think" is real. Especially if you've never flown the real plane. If a real Flight training device costs 10 million bucks and is like I previously said is 99% the real plane with full motion and everything, and the gold pack with Pacific Fighters in it will be 50-70 bucks? Well don't you think were lucky for getting the details and realism we get? Think about it.

Take it for what its worth.

[This message was edited by darkhorizon11 on Wed August 04 2004 at 09:29 AM.]

XyZspineZyX
08-04-2004, 09:28 AM
Hence the game not having the lackings addressed.

Where the bucks go into with training simulators is:
Into cockpit recreation (about $2mil) before Fitting gauges
Hydrauic systems
Real flight panels
Interface units to the computer
Staff training procedures.
Maintenance
Fitters and Technicians

With great respect I ask you,
If i'm climbing, banking to port and 'riding the edge" of stall and finally do stall....
from the pilot's point of view....what should happen ?

Should I drop to port ?
Should I flick to starboard ?
Should I drop nose down and flat spin ?

[This message was edited by Vagueout on Wed August 04 2004 at 08:41 AM.]

HarryVoyager
08-04-2004, 08:24 PM
Well, um, no.

Nearly all of the "expensive" stuff you listed for trainers is actually the easy and relatively cheap part of the trainer developement. Most of those parts we can simply yank off of the production line and dissarm. Where we can do that, it just works perfectly (or at least, as well as it does on the plane) 95%+ of the time.

The real developement costs are in making the things that we cannot simply pull off of the real aircraft.

You get the kookiest bugs there. Things like, you'll be looking over something on the trainer with the plane on the tarmack, engine off, and the nose will start bobbing up and down, in ever increasing bobs, until the plane knocks itself over and the sim decides you have crashed.

I'm told that one took many highly skilled manhours to solve.

But anyways, it is just so much cheaper to pull stuff off of the real aircraft, than it is to model it physically, electronically, or any other method.

Harry Voyager

Vagueout <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> If i'm climbing, banking to port and 'riding the edge" of stall and finally do stall....
from the pilot's point of view....what should happen ?

Should I drop to port ?
Should I flick to starboard ?
Should I drop nose down and flat spin ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Depends on the plane.

From what I have read about the 190, if you were pulling under 4 'G's at the time, it would probably drop to port. However, if you were pulling over 4'G's it would more likely flick to starboard.

The F-16, if you manage to outwit the flight control computer, your nose will be pointing up, and your tail down, at least until aerodynamic forces try to turn you the other way, which will almost certainly throw you into a very nasty spin.

XyZspineZyX
08-04-2004, 10:32 PM
Thanx m8, now we're starting to get somewhere.
I don't fly many Luftwaffe, mainly US and UK

Under 300 on the speedbar. I know I am under speed, I know I am about to stall.....With the descrpition put forward.
The target is below me on my port,,I flick starboard, if the target is above me on my port, I flick to port.
It is the same if I bank right, climb or dive.
It is consistent to stall away from the target.
I had one instance where in a climb and slight port bank...Target on the port, target on the starboard and a target ahead. I got bounced to starboard, then bounced to port, then flicked to nose up and hung there. All targets were approx. the same distance away from me.

If I could remember to snap a quicktrack I would do so


What should I do? Trim the top end of the (FFB) stick down so the flight controls never reach max position ?

And yes a fair whack of costs do go into fitters and technicians - Development costs - and they address the problem. Most of which is tax effective ?

Itto_Okami
08-07-2004, 10:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
If Oleg releaced his data to the general pubic, then Microsoft could eliminate the Research Budget for 4SFC, thus opening the possibility of Saving 4FCS instead of FC4S being Destroyed, by Maddox Games, as is the case today.
C3SF had FM lookup tables. Microsoft _Needs_ Oleg's data to be made pubic. I am surprised MS has not already claimed old patents on historical FM data.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uhm... Looks like the story I heard some years ago, about a modeler who contacted an aircraft manifacture asking for data about a fighter of the 1936 just to have as reply this one: "Sorry but there is still military secret on the project"

S!

Itto