View Full Version : Oleg...it's time for new better engine sounds

06-02-2004, 03:39 PM
the sounds in AEP are awful. Warbird engines with 1000+ hp making noise like lawnmoyers now..it was better in old IL-2 !

who cares for 3D environmental sound effects if the sounds are far away from reality?

06-02-2004, 03:39 PM
the sounds in AEP are awful. Warbird engines with 1000+ hp making noise like lawnmoyers now..it was better in old IL-2 !

who cares for 3D environmental sound effects if the sounds are far away from reality?

06-02-2004, 03:43 PM

Realistic engine sound please Oleg http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

one of the main things IL-2 FB is lacking badly.



"We are not retreating, we are advancing in another direction. " ~ Gen. MacArthur

HyperLobby name : Vortex_uk

06-02-2004, 04:54 PM
As far as sound goes I`d like nice shell impact sounds and ricochets.


06-02-2004, 05:18 PM
Oleg is only going to tell you how advanced and complex the sound engine is in FB.

Perhaps instead of realistic engine sounds, if you asked for more specific engine sounds as at the moment there are a limited number of distinct sound types.

I'm fortunate in that my favourate (109's) have a sweet engine sound as is- I love the whistle the supercharger makes on flyby view when the rpm's are low http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/heart.gif

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Günther Rall


Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

06-02-2004, 10:00 PM
Sound is really poor in Il2FB/Ace, but I think it was better once - in an old, more civilized age...


06-03-2004, 02:01 PM
I think the sounds are pretty good http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Turn up the base and listen to the rumble of the LA7 at tickover - breathtaking.

It's funny that people expect studio sound quality on a silly old soundblaster. Try an audigy 2 or better with a set of surround speakers and you will be surprised by the positional quality. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BTW, i recently reinstalled the original il2 and disagree with claims that the sounds were better then. In fact, the original il2 sounds seem pretty crude in comparison.


06-03-2004, 04:45 PM
although the sound is good in FB and the engine sounds are very cool sometimes
they are far from being realistic

ive heard many real engine sounds from warbirds but in game they are very different

although some aspects are in like the whistling sound of the 109 ,it doesnt even come close how it sounded in real live and thats a shame but i can live with it

''All your Mustangs are belong to us''

Montgomery Python
06-03-2004, 04:57 PM
I'd be happy with a decent Merlin... in-game Merlins don't sound anything like real ones.

06-03-2004, 04:59 PM
Only a few of them sound really really crummy.

Like the Allison, Merlin, and the I-16.

The I-16 sounded so much cooler before.

06-03-2004, 05:18 PM
Totally agree here. A decent merlin would improve it no end!

06-03-2004, 05:58 PM
I agree - fix the Merlin sound!

06-03-2004, 06:01 PM
There is no doubt that the Sound in IL2FB while technically VERY Good could be enhanced greatly with REAL Engine sound captures.

I hope this happens for BOB -- Sound is VERY important to Immersion.

When I listened to some sound recordings of a restored BF109G I was Blown away by the sounds of the Supercharger slurping in air and the sheer raw power you could feel in the sound.

06-04-2004, 08:48 AM
Totally OT but has anyone ever heard a CAC Boomerang in flight?
It has a beautiful moaning whistle which is part supercharger, part air sighing through the flash suppressors on the muzzles of the 2 20mm cannon. It is lovely. If I knew how to attach a picture of the aircraft, I would.
Not that would enable you to hear it.
Does someone know if there is a recording?

06-04-2004, 11:39 AM
I wonder why Il-2 got an 1 for sound, and FB/AEP a 2/3 in most tests (school marks - 1=best 6=worst). There's a reason about it.

1. The sound engine seems to be very complex, and it renders sound with various techniques. That's why a single engine sound can be quite a blast. I also like it how a B-17 roars on take off, it's just amazing. And this is the part which got optimised in FB.

2. The sounds which are mixed into the engine got less different in FB. Remember the old tractor-like I-16 sound back in Il-2, sourrounded by the airflow sound? That one rocked. Or the unique sound of the Il-2? That's what we want. Everything should have it's own sound. It's just horrible that a R-2800 sounds like a BMW-132 for example. Or a DB-60x series. Or ASh-82 series. And some more http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif.

As for the sound engines, we arrived quite some cool techniques today. I bet BoB will be top notch again, with pretty cool effect alteration depending on airframe form, engine placement, distance and other parameters. I just played the Thief 3 Demo this weekend and it was awesome sound-wise. I stood in a corridor, looking though a slim window, observing a guard in a room. To my right the corridor leads to the room. As the guy said something, I actually heard it from the right, and not from the front. The trick is that the engine renders sound realistically, with reflections on each surface, and not just through the wall. That's really immersive. With such high tech sound, BoB could be a winner, also with more different sounds.

06-04-2004, 12:51 PM
I'm amazed about flight sim engine sound. I can't ever recall a complete happiness from everyone about any sound pak.

Who thinks the IL2-FB Spit sounds like a spit. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif Get a copy of Rowan's battle of Britain, load the latest patch and do a flyby of the spit. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Then you'll hear a SPIT.


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

06-04-2004, 05:56 PM
I can think of at least half a dozen other things that are more important than changing the sound effects.


- Future

Commanding Officer of the 530th Bomb Squad
380th Bomb Group 5th AF USAAF


Visit us at http://www.310thvfs.com , home of the 310th FS and the 380th BG

06-05-2004, 02:25 AM
absolutley worst sound engine of any game I owned within the last 10 years.

Time to fire the synth engine guy. Even if it is more complicated it is absolutley horable sounding, We need real gun and engine sounds.

For BOB please use real engine sounds.


06-05-2004, 05:13 AM
Here org. Start -Up from Me 109 G2


Gruß NSU http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

06-05-2004, 03:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Future-:
I can think of at least half a dozen other things that are more important than changing the sound effects.


- Future

Commanding Officer of the 530th Bomb Squad
380th Bomb Group 5th AF USAAF


Visit us at http://www.310thvfs.com , home of the 310th FS and the 380th BG

Let me guess-more bombers?

"Son, never ask a man if he is a fighter pilot. If he is, he'll let you know. If he isn't, don't embarrass him."
Badges!? We don't needs no stinkin' badges!

06-05-2004, 05:50 PM
FB sound is unrealistic and is full of technical plagues.

I've said.

- Dux Corvan -
Ten thousand years of Cantabrian skinning.

06-06-2004, 07:29 PM

Give us a more representive rendition of the Allison/Merlin engine, instead of a generic 2 stoke.

06-07-2004, 06:47 AM
It seems to me that there are some engine sounds that are used for many different aircraft. In particular, the 'broken engine' squeaking noise is slightly overused. If a couple more were recorded or made and used randomly across all piston engines, it would improve the game.


"Nietzsche is dead." - God.

View Cpt. Eric Brown's review of FB here. (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=309109534&r=875101634#875101634)

06-07-2004, 06:57 AM
I could not agree more. The last thing I want is to be rude as this is a really great sim and in most respects the development team are way in front of everything else. BUT for a team that insists on realism, this is a let down. The aircraft engine sounds especially are not even close to sounding real. The old MS CFS2 was way way way in fornt in this department. Add to this mediacre sound effects and you haev something that drags the sim down from being unsurpassed to being merely very good.

06-07-2004, 03:14 PM
If we are talking about introducing 'real', and distinctive, engine noises there are big problems. I suspect the engine effects in other games owe more to Hollywood than reality.

There are several issues;
In theory it would be quite possible to analyse and record the spectrum of sound frequencies produced by a specific aero engine/propellor combination- at different rpm, fuel mixtures and pitches- but that's only part of the story. A bigger problem might be negotiating all the consents to do this first. Someone's got to run up their Merlin engine for you to record it for soundwave analysis. And you would have to do this at different distances and from different aspects ie from the side, head- on, from the rear- and under different atmospheric conditions. You would have to measure the sound with the aircraft on the ground (where there are reflective effects) and flying overhead at different heights (where there is less reflection but more slipstream sonic effect and propellor tip resonance)- and in the cockpit. You would have to deduce from that what the aircraft would sound like from the perspective of a silent flying cameraman, as we have in FB.
You might then arrive at an overall profile of sounds which could be programmed into your sophisticated sound engine to allow you to dynamically synthesize authentic engine noise as the in- game view of the aircraft changes. This is assuming your sound engine has already been written to cope with the range of frequencies required, occlusion effects, sound reflections, non- synchronous sound effects, doppler effects etc, and that the end user's CPU/soundcard can cope with all of this.
Of course it would have to be done for all of the main fighters of the main combatant nations, at least one twin, and one multi-engined aircraft (if we want to approach reality). I make that about 15 different engine types (makes) at the bare minimum.
The point I'm trying to get across is that a few seconds of fly- by sound obtained from a website just won't hack it for this kind of work- if you're serious. In practice, some simplification will always be required ie some deviance from 'real' sound and a best approximation used (for which read 'artistic licence').
I'm sure the sheer complexity of all of this prevents Oleg modelling sound to the same degree of fidelity as the flight models. There is no raw data for 'engine- sound' which you can extract from a wartime document- as you can with flight envelope statistics. Maddox Games would have to analyse the sounds of these engines themselves- which is a little beyond the remit of a cottage industry computer games developer. Think of the logistics involved in sending out an audio team to aircraft collections around the world in order to analyse sound characteristics in accordance with strict data- recording criteria which can then be used in the game's sound engine. Think of the cost and the time involved- where's the payback?

Let's assume for the sake of argument that Maddox Games have staff with the expertise and the equipment (by no means certain); the time (unlikely); the cooperation of various aircraft owners; and are prepared to stand the expense of actually doing this (interesting) project. They would still come up against insuperable problems.
There are only a handful of flight- worthy Daimler Benz engines left in the world (about five). No BMW 801Ds. No Jumo 211s or 213s. Very few Shvetsovs, Klimovs and Mikulins. One Nakajima Sakae (to my knowledge). So, in other words, guesswork is inevitable. That, and generic engine sounds. If you haven't recorded and analysed their sounds how can you know what the difference in sound characteristics was between a Sakae and a BMW801? (I suppose you could always make it up- like other games have done).
Very few engine sound signatures could be closely modelled, but even the ones that could would require a great deal of effort to the point where it's just not a tenable proposition- I'm talking about authentic sounds for a specific engine under many different conditions of flight.
People think you could just record an aircraft in flight from a high platform and that would be it (there are mods for EAW and Janes WW2 Fighters which are just simple recordings) but FB has complex sound modelling ie sound effects linked to the damage model, fuel flow (related to throttle and G), the boost level, the constant speed unit etc and these are modulated according to view angle and approach speed to the camera. How are you going to do all this and still have it sound like a Merlin, for instance?
I think Oleg has chosen the pragmatic path where sound is concerned and has given his audio team carte blanche to make up appropriate sounds. They haven't based their sounds on any kind of real world analysis. They've made it up, done it by ear, plucked sounds from a sound library. But, say some, their artistic choices are no good. They haven't approximated 'reality' well enough- but it's hard to quantify isn't it?. The minute you accept that 'real' sound cannot be achieved the whole thing degenerates into a subjective discussion about 'roars','rumbles' and 'crackles'.
Unfortunately, when you have a dynamic sound engine like FB's, and the spectrum of sounds put out isn't based on an analysis of real engine noise (and it's based on just a limited set of sounds for technical reasons) it's always going to sound phoney, or weak, to some degree IMO. Other games have taken a different route ie a simpler sound engine which puts out a loud, rasping, blanket of noise which doesn't change much no matter what the orientation of the aircraft or the throttle setting. It's quite effective because the main impression on a bystander when listening to a large aero engine is one of unnatural, frightening power and we subconciously want to experience that sensory overload when we fly our virtual machines. So maybe where sound is concerned Maddox have been too clever for their own good?
I don't know the answer but I do feel the engine noises in FB could benefit from a wider spectrum of sounds in their blend ie more low frequency sound- to give a greater impression of power (and sound resonance within the airframe from the pilot's point of view) and more effort given to exhaust noise externally. Most of what people call 'crackle' comes from resonance within the exhaust pipes and expanding exhaust gases interacting with the slipstream. This is not modelled at all. Then there is propellor tip resonance which creates a migraine- inducing reverberation effect, even a howl. Not modelled.
Oleg is aware of the sound engine's limitations and explained about a year ago why he can't extend the range of frequencies covered- it's related to 'lensing', how sounds are modulated as you draw away from or nearer towards a sound source and the limitations imposed by current soundcards.
So I think FB (and Pacific Fighters) is dead in the water as far as sound improvements are concerned. Wait for Battle of Britain.

06-07-2004, 03:53 PM
BUMP! Need real MERLIN sounds now! Ugh!

Rick http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif