PDA

View Full Version : FB toned down?



XyZspineZyX
07-27-2003, 12:42 AM
I've been flying IL2 often and I notice that in general the game tends to be more challenging than FB. I don't attest to which is more realistic; I just prefer the challenge of touchy FM. I can understand why the developers would do this. IL2 is very challenging and I'm sure there are plenty put off by the steep learning curve.

What do you think? Is FB toned down to make it more accessible to noobs? Or do you think it's toned down for another reason? Perhaps you don't think it's toned down at all.

(I don't have the patch, I'm just commenting on the box version)
Just as a few examples of what I'm talking about:

Stall characteristic of the P-39

The ever centered ball in the 109's

Landing/takeoff physics (this may be just me, but once I went back to IL2 for the first time I crashed on takeoff and landing like a super green noob)



<center> http://www.4yourfuture.net/handshake.gif


"Altitude, speed, maneuver, fire!"-The "formula of Terror" of Aleksandr Pokryshkin, Three times awarded the rank of Hero of the Soviet Union

Message Edited on 07/26/0307:51PM by georgeo76

XyZspineZyX
07-27-2003, 12:42 AM
I've been flying IL2 often and I notice that in general the game tends to be more challenging than FB. I don't attest to which is more realistic; I just prefer the challenge of touchy FM. I can understand why the developers would do this. IL2 is very challenging and I'm sure there are plenty put off by the steep learning curve.

What do you think? Is FB toned down to make it more accessible to noobs? Or do you think it's toned down for another reason? Perhaps you don't think it's toned down at all.

(I don't have the patch, I'm just commenting on the box version)
Just as a few examples of what I'm talking about:

Stall characteristic of the P-39

The ever centered ball in the 109's

Landing/takeoff physics (this may be just me, but once I went back to IL2 for the first time I crashed on takeoff and landing like a super green noob)



<center> http://www.4yourfuture.net/handshake.gif


"Altitude, speed, maneuver, fire!"-The "formula of Terror" of Aleksandr Pokryshkin, Three times awarded the rank of Hero of the Soviet Union

Message Edited on 07/26/0307:51PM by georgeo76

XyZspineZyX
07-27-2003, 01:43 AM
Stall characteristics, energy bleed, stall/spins will be different in the patched version and more like they were in IL-2.

The release version was probably made over-easy so it would be somewhat playable until the patch showed up, ie to err on the side of caution.

Insert sig here.

XyZspineZyX
07-27-2003, 01:48 AM
Boxed FB is considerably toned down in FM's. The Rata (I-16)was a great twitchy plane in IL-2..like the real thing was, but in FB it flies like a pus5ycat.

The patch is supposed to un-dumb the flight models. Bring it on!

"If I had all the money I've spent on drink....I'd spend it on drink!"

"If I had all the money I've spent on drink....I'd spend it on drink!"

XyZspineZyX
07-27-2003, 07:57 AM
The game was dumbed down to make it more accessible to the general public. That's where the big sales are. Appeasing the fringe "hardcore" element never got anybody anywhere. But, to get a lot of people to shut up, they come out with patches.

Thus, a more challenging game is to be had by those who want it, the general (unpatched) public get a playable game, and UBI/Maddox get a reputation for supporting their product, post sales.

Not a bad scheme, if you ask me.

XyZspineZyX
07-27-2003, 08:06 AM
Yes it is toned down.

But I don't see how this is going to sell any more copies.

People buy the game and play it. There was nothing wrong with IL2. It wasn't that hard. It was just crisp.

Toned down flight model and sloth trim are, however, reasons to return it.

My first immpression? Feels like CFS3.

<img src=http://lafayettefederation.com/screenshots/repository/turo/tn-Numbaone.jpg>
"The Force is strong with this one." -What an ace said of RayBanJockey during a fight when he was still a newbie.
<a href=http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612109283>news update</a>

XyZspineZyX
07-27-2003, 08:08 AM
And all of you got something to back up those claims?

Or does it come from the obvious opinions pool of how "realism" is supposed to be synonymous to "hard"?







-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
07-27-2003, 08:10 AM
I'm of the opinion that the "toning down" of the flight models was more a semi-unintended result of modifications to the the flight model. One thing is, in FB while some aircraft are less touchy than they were in Il-2, some aircraft are considerably more dangerous to fly.

Try the P-47 for an example. That aircraft enters flat spins if you look at it wrong. I've actually been knocked into flat spins by getting hit in the middle of manuvers, and not serious wing hits either, fuselage and tail hits are sufficent. That's pretty touchy for an aircraft described as having "No tendancy to spin".

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
07-27-2003, 08:30 AM
Now when we have "Perfect" gxf setting, why we can't have a "Old Il2 FM settings" as option, it certainly won't harm sells, will it?

XyZspineZyX
07-27-2003, 09:13 AM
kweassa wrote:
-
- And all of you got something to back up those
- claims?
-
-
- Or does it come from the obvious opinions pool of
- how "realism" is supposed to be synonymous to
- "hard"?



No one has mentioned realism



The claim is that it was dumbed down to appeal to the yank and bank dogfight boys and is less challenging.

I agree it was and it is.

Tully__
07-27-2003, 11:21 AM
I find some aspects of FB flight modelling to be easier and some harder. In terms of how it relates to reality, I think (based on nothing more than personal impression, I'm not a pilot) that FB is closer to how real aircraft perform in most aspects. Sturmovik was a little bit too crisp at the edge of the flight envelop.

<center> ================================================== ========================= </center>

<center> <img src=http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/Corsair.jpg> </center>

<center> The "under performing planes" thread (http://www.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=35;t=007540) /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </center>
<center> Forum Terms of Use (http://www.ubi.com/US/Info/TermsOfUse.htm) </center>


Salut
Tully

XyZspineZyX
07-27-2003, 11:57 AM
kweassa wrote: " And all of you got something to back up those claims?

Or does it come from the obvious opinions pool of how "realism" is supposed to be synonymous to "hard"?



Some ppl here at the forums seem to think that if a plane is eaiser to fly then its a newbie plane
& that IL2 was more real ( LOL )

XyZspineZyX
07-27-2003, 05:04 PM
D-Spade wrote:
- The game was dumbed down to make it more accessible
- to the general public. That's where the big sales
- are. Appeasing the fringe "hardcore" element never
- got anybody anywhere. But, to get a lot of people to
- shut up, they come out with patches.
-
- Thus, a more challenging game is to be had by those
- who want it, the general (unpatched) public get a
- playable game, and UBI/Maddox get a reputation for
- supporting their product, post sales.
-
- Not a bad scheme, if you ask me.


I disagree entirely, but especially with the first sentence. Toned down flight models are not going to sell more copies to the general public because the general public isn't going to know the difference. The general public buys what they see on the box, not what they see people talking about on the message boards (this is the only place where the 'fact' that the flight models were deliberately 'dumbed down' for their sake is discussed).

On the other hand, the general public will see, "Scalable difficulty for players of all levels." (quoted right off the FB box) and hopefully buy it, install it, and if they find it too hard, think, "Ok, maybe if I turn off Stalls and Spins, I won't have such a hard time." Unlike most of the people posting here, the general public is perfectly comfortable with making that compromise between realism and fun.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"When my brother and I built and flew the first man-carrying flying machine, we thought that we were introducing into the world an invention which would make further wars impossible..."

Orville Wright, 1917

XyZspineZyX
07-27-2003, 05:14 PM
The general public may or may not know the difference, but they won't like or recommend a game where the planes are difficult to fly. The planes in FB easier to fly, thus more accessible to the casual or first-time flight simmer.

Those that think that the FB flight model changes were made in order to increase "realism" are kidding themselves.

XyZspineZyX
07-27-2003, 05:18 PM
What I would like to see is FB weapons effects toned down by say 25% - accross the board. To show you what I mean create a mission with say 10 Fw190 Dora's vs an equal number of LaGG 7's. The whole air combat is over within minutes maybe seconds. Everone is shot down in no time at all (I'm talking offline here).

I know the weapons effects are for the sake of realism but what I am argueing for would improve game play.

If all of the weapons effects were toned down by an equal percent the game would be much more playable. Of course the "realismwhiners" would have a total fit.

A.H.

XyZspineZyX
07-27-2003, 05:28 PM
D-Spade wrote:

- Those that think that the FB flight model changes
- were made in order to increase "realism" are kidding
- themselves.

How do you know this?

On balance, FB "feels" more realistic to me because a/c hang on to energy better than in IL-2 and are usually more managable around the stall. IMO, this matches how I understand such a/c flew more accurately than the energy-sapping, sharp-stalling original IL-2 model. The real-life success of energy-fighters such as the Fw 190 and P-47 suggests that FB is a better approximation.

However, I don't see how we could actually know for certain which is the more realistic without very detailed comparisons with the real a/c, many of which no longer exist as flyable examples. Claims that this or that model is more realistic need evidence to back them up, otherwise it's just opinion.

Regards,

RocketDog.

XyZspineZyX
07-27-2003, 06:06 PM
Compared to IL2,FB FM is a joke IMO.Sorry,but I consider climbing at 120km/h without stall hardly believable.

I`ve never flew WWII planes,so I`ll just say I liked IL2 FM better.


If you didn`t watch out I could get in a spin which I could hardly get out of.

I fly Me109 exclusively.In IL2 times ppl were complaining that Me109 was rather hard to stall in real life.In IL2 it was a coffin for unexperienced.But MAN,when I got the hang of it I had real fun flying this aircraft.

Overall compared to IL2 controls are quicker-responding thus aircraft are easier to fly.


What messes up the picture in FB is that near stall speed I can maneuver very well.I had talked to many ppl and they said this isn`t right.


Dumbed down FM reveals it`s whole nature while flying VVS planes.For me they`re <u>very hard</u> to stall,extreme maneuvers don`t make any problems.Hurricane,I153 and La7 shows this best.

If I`d fly VVS,I`d surely pick P47 or P40 cuz they`re currently the hardest planes to learn.


All in all,I don`t like FB FM.When I first flown QMB I said "WTF?!" but got used to it.

After FM changes the words "more realistic" doesn`t exist to me.There had been so many changes in FM(few really dramatic ones) that I don`t believe in realistic FM in this game.

Well,it`s a game after all,isn`t it?I just fly.

"degustibus non disputandum"

<center>http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

<center>"Weder Tod noch Teufel!"</font>[/B]</center> (http://www.jzg23.de>[B]<font)

XyZspineZyX
07-27-2003, 06:12 PM
the AI are definetly harder in FB, thats for sure, geez.


http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_01.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-27-2003, 10:29 PM
D-Spade wrote:
- The general public may or may not know the
- difference, but they won't like or recommend a game
- where the planes are difficult to fly. The planes in
- FB easier to fly, thus more accessible to the casual
- or first-time flight simmer.


I'm assuming you were replying to me. If so, all I can say in reaction to the above quote is that you've missed the point of what I was trying to say.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"When my brother and I built and flew the first man-carrying flying machine, we thought that we were introducing into the world an invention which would make further wars impossible..."

Orville Wright, 1917

XyZspineZyX
07-27-2003, 10:37 PM
carguy_ wrote:

"Compared to IL2,FB FM is a joke IMO.Sorry,but I consider climbing at 120km/h without stall hardly believable."

Your confusing individual issues on certain planes, with the general agenda of the universal physics applied as a whole. One plane doing something out of the ordinary, is just that. Nothing more.

(Besides, a plane would be able to manage a nose pitch that drops the speed around to 120km/h, but then this actual rate of climb is something very different from the perception that comes from the angle of the pitch)


........


"I fly Me109 exclusively.In IL2 times ppl were complaining that Me109 was rather hard to stall in real life.In IL2 it was a coffin for unexperienced.But MAN,when I got the hang of it I had real fun flying this aircraft."

And where, have you read it was a coffin for the inexperienced? I don't recall ANY such referance. There were difficulties, and relatively higher rate of accidents reported during take off/landing runs, the narrow landing gears presenting problems.

But its flight characteristics were generally excellent. The excessive need for rudder, was probably the single largest 'personaloty quirk' this plane gave out, but it was gentle on stall characteristics, no big tendencies to snap roll(unlike the the 190), highly responsive and excellent stability at moderate speeds. Are you really sure you know what you are saying? Think about it.


.........



"What messes up the picture in FB is that near stall speed I can maneuver very well.I had talked to many ppl and they said this isn`t right."

Not right, as how? Please elaborate. Because I have also discussed with a lot of people, and they don't seem to agree that near stall conditions would suddenly make a pig of your plane, or something.


.......



"Dumbed down FM reveals it`s whole nature while flying VVS planes.For me they`re <u>very hard</u> to stall,extreme maneuvers don`t make any problems. Hurricane, I153 and La7 shows this best.

If I`d fly VVS,I`d surely pick P47 or P40 cuz they`re currently the hardest planes to learn."

There could be many reasons for this. One of them being that "they were supposed to be that way", which judging from your tone, you probably did not consider it as an explanation at all. Also, issues with individual planes are here again confused with the general FM.


.......



"All in all,I don`t like FB FM.When I first flown QMB I said "WT*?!" but got used to it.

After FM changes the words "more realistic" doesn`t exist to me.There had been so many changes in FM(few really dramatic ones) that I don`t believe in realistic FM in this game."

I'd say you judge FB by your perception of what is real, regardless of the reality itself. It's interesting to note that the so many changes in the FM, has led you to think that FB is "UNREAL", while IL-2 was "MORE REAL".... when in logic, it could just as easily have been considered IL-2 was "UNREAL", and FB is now "MORE REAL".

Why is that?

Because like you, like everyone else, just simply refuse to believe that something real can be so easy.




Message Edited on 07/28/03 06:38AM by kweassa

Message Edited on 07/28/0306:40AM by kweassa

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 01:00 AM
Both games were sold as having the most realistic FM's yet on the computer.If that is so then there should have been little change between games.The "uber" planes that everyone talks about (I-16 I53 )got demolished by the japanese army's "nate's" in 1939 (nomohan).If they were that bad against a fixed undercarriage 2 machinegun slow monoplane,I can't believe that they would put up any resistance to the 109.But I do agree that hundreds of thousands if not a million men learned to fly these planes in ww2.Some did it better than others but still it is something that a good percentage of people could do.

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 01:01 AM
The FM was toned down for FB, and according to Oleg's announcement, the patch will revise the FM for many of the aircraft, including stall characteristics.
Tully, not to start an argument, but the Il-2 FM's were closer to what I expect WWII fighters to fly like. I had enough pitch authority in Il-2 to get myself into trouble just about anywhere in the envelope if I tried (and occasionally even when I didn't.) This varied from airframe to airframe, but with the possible exception of the Il-2 itself, any aircraft could be stalled. From what I've read (I've got about 1800 hrs. flight time, but none of it in an Il-2) this FM was accurate, as the Il-2 was designed like the Ercoupe, in that it didn't have enough elevator authority to stall in most of its envelope, in order to make it safer. Most other warbirds weren't designed this way, and learning where max performance was when pulling the stick aft was an aquired skill.
In FB most aircraft lack the pitch authority to stall with full aft stick, unless you "snatch" the stick to get a high enough pitch rate to "rate through" the stall AOA before the elevator looses authority. The P-39 still stalls and spins, but you've got to work to get it there, and simply releasing controls will recover the aircraft in most cases. Even a fully developed flat spin can be recovered to the left or the right. The real aircraft wasn't this benign. Most WWII fighters could bite the hands that flew them, and extracting maximum performance was a matter of skill. I guess some consessions must be made to make up for the lack of "seat of the pants" feedback that was so important in letting you know when you'd reached an aircraft's limits, but right now, the FM is too watered down. All I have to do to max turn any aircraft is roll into a bank at corner velocity, smoothly bring the stick all the way back, and hold it there. IRL, that should at the very least get me stalling out of the turn, if not spinning.
Even within aircraft families, the FB FM doesn't always make sense. I found the LaGG-3 series 4 almost impossible to stall, despite its lack of slats (and historical description as being something of a vicious staller, even in the traffic pattern.) The La-5 and -5F seem to be easier to get to stall, despite their use of LE slats. Weights and CG's may have changed between versions, but the airframe was basically the same for all of these, and the La-5 and -5F were supposedly more benign stallers. Hopefully the patch will reflect this, too.
After the patch, if the stall/spin characteristics are brought back closer to those in Il-2, no doubt the FM whining will switch to the opposite tack, that it will have become too hard. I would prefer it that way (the FM, not the whining), as I believe it would be more realistic, while still being selectable on the difficulty panel for those whose idea of fun doesn't include wrestling with a cantankerous warbird.
Higher on my list of wishes is that the AI fly with the same FM I do. I assume processor limitations prevent this, but at the very least I'd like to be able to have the choice of flying with the AI's FM (more simple than even the FB player FM though it is), if nothing else to see if I really suck as badly as I seem to, or if the AI's UFO FM give it a large advantage.

Blotto

"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter craft, no matter how technically advanced." - A. Galland

"Look, do you want the jets, or would you rather I slap the props back on?" - W. Messerschmitt

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 03:21 AM
You're forgetting one very crucial difference between IL-2 and FB, which gives out a perfect explanation on why the elevator authority seems to have been 'decreased'.

I have posted in the past, in this very forum, about inherent problems in IL-2 FM before FB was released. You should try and remember what speeds we were flying, and fighting in, when we played IL-2.

The low acceleration rates, and very high level of energy efficiency in planes, have led to very low speeds in usual cases. In that post, I have sarcastically put "High performance panes of 1944 and 45, are fighting at speeds which the Zeros and Wildcats used to fight in at 1942."

Remember, that planes in IL-2 were never as fast as what we get to fly in FB. People now talk about how fast the Yak-3s, La-7s and Bf109K-4 are. They push near/over 600km/h at deck, as they are supposed to. Remember those testing days in IL-2, where people were complaining that it takes forever to push a plane to speeds listed on records.

The real answer behind why IL-2 seems more difficult, is because none of the planes, (barring the handful few that had enough E efficiency to maneuver even with the inherently low acceleration/E retention levels - keep in mind why people whined so much about the La5FN), could keep its speed high enough to <u>NOT</u> stall. You push a 3G sustained turn for 90 degrees change of heading, and a 500km/h plane would drop its speed to under 300km/h. Heck, getting your plane up to 500km/h in the first place, and trying to keep it high throughout the engagement, was a challenge in the first place.

Unrealism? Planes too stable? Talk about forgetfulness.

Remember which speeds people tried to maneuver, barrel roll, turn, engage loops and etc, in the IL-2 days. I was duly interested in this subject in those days, and tried to take keen notice on what my average speeds of flight would be. I hate turn fights, I hate belly-scratching low alt engagements. I fly my planes very conservatively in usual cases, nothing that can ever be considered "aggressive". And yet, the average speeds of flight is like 300~400km/h. You actually have to dive to go over 400km/h, because initial acceleration would be so DAMNED low.

So what were the others doing? They were maneuvering in 200~300km/h ranges - 123mph ~ 184mph. These speeds, are something which the A6M2 Zeros and F4F-4 Wild cats would be, in circling turn fights.

Face it. It's only natural IL-2 was so hard. With such low speed and acceleration, how could it NOT be hard?

...


So what have we got in FB? People fly and fight at least average 100km/h faster than they used to in IL-2. When's the last time you've actually considered a black-out as a major factor in IL-2? I know I haven't ever, unless I dive about 3000m and try a "bat-turn". Now in FB, planes retain enough Es to give out G forces high enough for more frequent black-outs. High speed battles can, and will occur, in FB.

So then, why does the pitch authority seem so more sensitive in IL-2? Simple. Because the planes were flying near stall speeds all the time. One pull, and get ready for a stall. Why does the pitch authority, and general control of the stick seem more easier now? Because, planes are flying a lot faster than they used to. Elevator responsiveness and effectivity decreases with higher speeds in all planes, to an extent. Some, that retain high responsiveness, inevitably pushes the plane to a black out.

So, maneuver your plane at higher speeds, just about enough to avoid a black out, then there's no reason why it should stall. The AOA is never high enough to give out a stall before entering a black out, in higher speeds.

...

So it all comes down to this. The preferances towards 'selective' realism is pretty evident. The difficulty issues in IL-2 was largely a result of E-retention and acceleration modelling way lower than it should be expected. Stalls, pitch/directional instability, yawing problems, sensitive trim issues, difficulty in aiming and shooting - every single aspect which people automatically assume as "realistic feature", on the grounds that it is "harder", is in my view, something derived as a result of very unreal issues.



Try flying FB engagements with everyone else, with your throttle limited to 60%. Then you'll get to see what you saw in IL-2.



-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 03:39 AM
Well said, Kweassa. I cannnot even believe how spoiled and anal the FB community has become in demanding absolute perfection from the flight models in FB which are still leaps and bounds above anything ever created in the flight sim world. I tell all of my friends about you guys and they wonder why I would even bother to be a member in such a "hard core" flight sim community. I do appreciate that you value accuracy (and so do I) but give it rest once in a while! I cannot even imagine what you would do if you even tried to fly anything in CFS3! I am so thankful that Oleg has given us all the chance to really have the slightest taste of what WWII would have been like for so many of a forgotten theatre up until this point but let's face it folks, it's a forty dollar game! We should really quit picking such a masterpiece to pieces and just enjoy the fantastic things in FB and so many things on the horizon.

---------------------------------------
Greetings from Monterey, California, USA!

http://www.seaviewinncarmel.com/carmel.jpg


Mors Ianua Vitae (sed mori nolo!)

-Artes Latinae (L186 Anon)-



Message Edited on 07/27/0307:40PM by MackZ

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 05:44 AM
i was lucky enough to fly in and take control of a ww2 fighter plane. it was a trainer and was harder to fly than the mustangs. so said the owner of the plane we flew. i must say ww2 planes were VERY forgiving easy to fly planes. aside from the 2,000 hp versions at max throttle. some torque there . but on my first occasion flying a ww2 fighter/trainer i was able to do loops AND rolls at sub 200 mph speeds and there was ZERO stall zero wing drop . nothing. the owner said a mustang flys even easier and gentler than the plane i flew. IL-2 Flight models were made exceedingly difficult. half the pilots of ww2 would have all crashed their planes before engaging in combat if planes flew like in IL-2.or just dropped out of the sky in flat spins left and right in combat. ive also flown small civilian planes but i wont compare them to ww2 fighters.again planes in IL2 and even some planes in FB. shouldnt stall like they do. its not real. or even close.but some of the problem planes will be fixed in fb. the jug and fw stall less in the patches i hear. those that like the FM of IL2 ....HAVE NEVER PILOTED A PLANE.

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of the 11 time Champions Team AFJ. 6 Years Flying http://www.world-data-systems.com/aerofiles/albums/userpics/p47-22.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 06:22 AM
in the end its all ego

some people, particularly offline players, want a challenging flight model - realistic or not

but why can't we have a "unrealistic ludicrously difficult" setting just for these people ?? After-all how does this hurt people who want easier settings ???

I tell you why .. because certian mediocre skill ego-trippers want to be able to boast about there great flying skills when the sim is set at its "max difficulty" and they can't stand the idea they might have to suffer the ignomity of having the slider back a notch from max.

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 06:45 AM
this has been a great thread, and I respect a lot of the different approaches to the differences in FMs between IL2 and FB. however, I have to jump in here...

RedDeth wrote:
- i was lucky enough to fly in and take control of a
- ww2 fighter plane. it was a trainer and was harder
- to fly than the mustangs.

so they made the trainers harder to fly than the planes they were training to fly?

- i must say ww2 planes were VERY
- forgiving easy to fly planes.

thats a pretty general statement. I mean, seriously, pilots had a LOT of training before they jumped into a front line fighter, and those first solo flights Im sure were scary as all hell. WWII pushed piston engined fighters to their all-time peak...i have a hard time believing they would be "easy" to fly. and that a mustang would be easier to fly than a trainer....


- on my first occasion flying a ww2 fighter/trainer i
- was able to do loops AND rolls at sub 200 mph speeds
- and there was ZERO stall zero wing drop . nothing.
- the owner said a mustang flys even easier and
- gentler than the plane i flew.

so what was this mystery "fighter/trainer" that you flew on this "first occasion"? were there other occasions?
I don't mean to be a sarcastic bastard! =) but reading what you wrote, it just sounds a bit.....hard to believe...

-ron

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 07:08 AM
whitechapel wrote:
- RedDeth wrote:
-- i was lucky enough to fly in and take control of a
-- ww2 fighter plane. it was a trainer and was harder
-- to fly than the mustangs.
-
- so they made the trainers harder to fly than the
- planes they were training to fly?
-

Merely because an aircraft is billed as a trainer does not mean it is easy to fly.

In Russia Yak-1's ended up being converted into training aircraft, because they were easier aircraft to fly than the andvanced trainers pilots were supposed to train on them for. That was the root of the Yak-7 line.

From my understanding, most of the dangers of flying a full fledged fighter, was how powerful the aircraft is. According to training films I have seen for the P-47, if you tried a Spilt-S at less than 15,000f/5000m starting at over 250mph, if you did not reduce your throttle setting to idle, the aircraft would compress and hit the ground before you pulled out.

Takeoffs and landing also were much more dangerous in an aircraft with a 6-4lbs/hp power ratio. Even the F4F Wildcat with its relatively low 1,200hp engine had enough torque on takeoff to flatten the off hand tire. When you also consider that high windloading aircraft have a serious drag spike immediatly after take-off, and land at 50-100mph faster than low wingloading trainers, it becomes very challenging and even dangerous to fly a fighter, even if the fighter has extremely good handling characteristics in the air. You always have to take off and land a flight; you do not always have to make a 6.3 G modified inverted immelman with a damaged wing.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 07:16 AM
Thing that ticks me off in both FB and in IL2 is the I-153 and I-16. Ive been shot down 4 times offline in 45 missions, 3 were to I-153's cause of the impossible things they do. I was going about 510 KPH trying to dive away from one and he stayed right on me, I climed he stayed right with my 109 easy. I dont get how a biplane can tolerate such speeds. I dont even know how the I-16 got me I think I was trying to shoot down another plane and just got careless and wasnt paying attention. How a 153 can be on my tail when I'm at 25% I can see, then I boost the trottle to 100% with wep on and it stays with me the whole way I'll never know

adlabs6
07-28-2003, 07:19 AM
Hi there,

I've been peeking in at this thread on and off, and just tonight I decided to try IL2 again to see if I could feel a difference.

I won't beat around with this, I like IL2 v1.2 vastly more than FB in terms of FM, DM, and AI FM. I flew the 109E4, 109F2, La5FN, and Fw190A5's in the QMB and Multiplay (offline). I had no trouble flying and shooting down AI planes. Control was indeed 'crisp' as others have termed it. Whatever it is I love it. Near the stalls was a fine line between life and death, and again, I never had trouble riding it to the edge. Very fun.

I was able to get an I-16, smoking/leaking with my MG's in a 109F2, and a cannon shell tore the wing off.

I took down a Yak3 with my 190A5 twice.

I tried takeoffs in the Fw190, and the plane seemed more able to get lift off the airstrip than in FB. No 'shaky' takeoff.

During takeoff's, all planes tended to keep both wheels solidly on the ground, and felt like they were 'rolling' rather than sliding. FB has always felt like a unicycle on the ground to me. I've always been bothered by the way FB lets you yaw around wildly on one wheel during takeoff. I have a hard time imagining that undercarriage could withstand those pressures without failure.

Lastly, I witnessed something that I've not seen in so long that I was shocked. I started a QMB mission in the Fw190A5, and started off straffing some roadways, playing with the rudder and trim. I had forgotten to remove the single Yak3 enemy from the last flight, and after a low straffe, there he was, guns blazing. Amazingly, I was able to manuver the 190 to stay alive, at altitudes below 300 meters, and eventually, got behind the Yak3! When I pressed the triggers, the cannon ammo was gone from my straffing, but the MG's made quite a spray of smoke and fuel leaks. After some more wrangling around, it happened... I fired... AI jinked... Right into a stall at 200 meters. Enemy Aircraft Destroyed.

A very thrilling ride. I had nearly forgotten these things, not having played IL2 since FB came. I hope that the patch gives me these feelings back for FB.

<html>
<body>
<table cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="600" align="center">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><font color="000000">adlabs<font color="#ff9900">6</font></font>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" bgcolor="#42524e">
<div align="center"><font color="#999999">
http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/sigtemp.JPG (http://mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/fb_skins_historical_adlabs6.htm)
<small><font color="#ff6600">NEW</font> at mudmovers! Click the pic to download my skins from mudmovers.com!</small>
</font>
Skinner's Guide at mudmovers (http://mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/fb_skinnersguide.htm) | Skinner's heaven (http://www.1java.org/sh) | IL2skins (http://www.il2skins.com)
<font color="#999999">
My Forgotten Battles Webpage (http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/index.html) Current Wallpaper: <font color="#999999">P-51D Flyover</font></font>

<A HREF="http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=zhiwg" TARGET=_blank>"Whirlwind Whiner"
The first of the few</A>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 08:11 AM
Not very many things to say about a comment, but a few things to point out:


* I don't understand in which sort of term you're saying 'crisp', because generally, the reaction of planes in FB is considered more 'crisp' by many - as they accuse it of being 'arcadish' or even 'fly-byu-wire' some times... As compared to 'mushy', in the typical manner how IL2 planes would perform, were it out of trim.

* The wild wheeling around, or the notorious "bounce" on the lawn which flings you to the sky is indeed pretty funky. However, one wheel coming off the ground, before the other, is actually what is more realistic. Torque, tends to send the right wing and gear lifting up before the left side, and when pilots overcompensate, the opposite happens.

* Rookie AI still stalls out. When FB tweaked the AI levels, they weren't slacking. Every maneuver they do, is perfect - no stalls, no mistakes. Yes, the AI is in 'easy mode', but the difference you feel in the AI of FB and IL2, is not a FM related issue. It's literally the intelligence levels.



-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 08:34 AM
thats ok whitechapel. by your reply i can see youve never even been in a plane aside from a passenger plane. to a pilot your reply looks ignorant. ive been in many planes and i flew in the T6 TEXAN.and i looped it. and i rolled it. and i did it at speeds that would stall most planes in IL2. and i was told by a man who has flown prop planes and mustangs longer than ive been alive 38 years... that its flying characteristics are less forgiving than the mustang.i guess he lied too.... yes everything i said in my post is true. you find it unbelievable because youve never flown in a prop plane .

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of the 11 time Champions Team AFJ. 6 Years Flying http://www.world-data-systems.com/aerofiles/albums/userpics/p47-22.jpg

adlabs6
07-28-2003, 08:50 AM
Hello there,

kweassa wrote:

- I don't understand in which sort of term you're saying
- 'crisp', because generally, the reaction of planes in FB
- is considered more 'crisp' by many - as they accuse it
- of being 'arcadish' or even 'fly-byu-wire' some times...
- As compared to 'mushy', in the typical manner how IL2 planes
- would perform, were it out of trim.

Ok. I was speaking in terms of my not being 'surprised' by the FM behaviour. In other words, stalls are detectable and preventable, I think more than FB. At least for my methods. You are correct in saying 'mushy' as how it refers to flight motion, it does seem this way in IL2.

- The wild wheeling around, or the notorious "bounce" on
- the lawn which flings you to the sky is indeed pretty
- funky. However, one wheel coming off the ground, before
- the other, is actually what is more realistic. Torque,
- tends to send the right wing and gear lifting up before
- the left side, and when pilots overcompensate, the
- opposite happens.

Yes, this bouncing is very strange! Also, the IL2 ground behaviour seems to more 'clearly' settle on to two wheels. Torque lifting the wing is correct. But many of the takeoffs I have witnessed online in FB are very high stress, high speed turns on the apron (often with only one wheel on the ground!). I cannot imagine the gear not failing or at least deforming so as to prevent proper closure from these forces. Perhaps at minimum a tire would be thrown off the rim. If the real planes could manage this, it's fine I guess. Just seems a bit odd.

- Rookie AI still stalls out. When FB tweaked the AI
- levels, they weren't slacking. Every maneuver they do,
- is perfect - no stalls, no mistakes. Yes, the AI is in
- 'easy mode', but the difference you feel in the AI of
- FB and IL2, is not a FM related issue. It's literally
- the intelligence levels.

Ok. I've not fought the Rookie AI, so I haven't noticed this in FB. I was fighting Average and higher in IL-2 for my tests. Do the AI aircrafts suffer bad FM effects from wing damage? I had put large holes in the right wing of the plane that stalled in IL-2, I figured that those holes caused the stall. This will often happen on the players plane, as turn performance is greatly reduced as wing damage increases. I have made similar holes in Yak and Hurricane wings in FB, and the AI turn performace did not seem affected.


<html>
<body>
<table cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="600" align="center">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><font color="000000">adlabs<font color="#ff9900">6</font></font>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" bgcolor="#42524e">
<div align="center"><font color="#999999">
http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/sigtemp.JPG (http://mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/fb_skins_historical_adlabs6.htm)
<small><font color="#ff6600">NEW</font> at mudmovers! Click the pic to download my skins from mudmovers.com!</small>
</font>
Skinner's Guide at mudmovers (http://mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/fb_skinnersguide.htm) | Skinner's heaven (http://www.1java.org/sh) | IL2skins (http://www.il2skins.com)
<font color="#999999">
My Forgotten Battles Webpage (http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/index.html) Current Wallpaper: <font color="#999999">P-51D Flyover</font></font>

<A HREF="http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=zhiwg" TARGET=_blank>"Whirlwind Whiner"
The first of the few</A>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 08:54 AM
must agree on the rookie AI

they do not fly badly or make mistakes they just fly like they are technically skilled but stupid ... using minimal avoidance unless you sit right on their tail and pepper them from 10 metres and ignoring you otherwise

adlabs6
07-28-2003, 09:01 AM
Oh I forgot to mention...

I noticed in a post above, the meniton of lack of acceleraction in IL-2. When I flew IL-2 tonight, I immediately noticed that even when diving blatanly, my speed did not increase greatly. Also, I had zero trouble slowing down to landing speed, the speed was bled off very quickly with no effort. In FB this seems better, as I must actively bleed speed, and acceleration seems better also.

Takeoff's reminded me of another IL-2 issue, I was unable to surpass 190 km/h while on the strip, in FB I've rolled at over 250 kh/h once or twice.

<html>
<body>
<table cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="600" align="center">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><font color="000000">adlabs<font color="#ff9900">6</font></font>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" bgcolor="#42524e">
<div align="center"><font color="#999999">
http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/sigtemp.JPG (http://mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/fb_skins_historical_adlabs6.htm)
<small><font color="#ff6600">NEW</font> at mudmovers! Click the pic to download my skins from mudmovers.com!</small>
</font>
Skinner's Guide at mudmovers (http://mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/fb_skinnersguide.htm) | Skinner's heaven (http://www.1java.org/sh) | IL2skins (http://www.il2skins.com)
<font color="#999999">
My Forgotten Battles Webpage (http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/index.html) Current Wallpaper: <font color="#999999">P-51D Flyover</font></font>

<A HREF="http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=zhiwg" TARGET=_blank>"Whirlwind Whiner"
The first of the few</A>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 09:41 AM
whine whine whine

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 09:45 AM
adlabs6 wrote:
-
- Takeoff's reminded me of another IL-2 issue, I was
- unable to surpass 190 km/h while on the strip, in FB
- I've rolled at over 250 kh/h once or twice.
-
-


ummh .. try in excess of 300 wheels on the ground in a late 109 if you push the stick forward .. not sure how realistic that one is http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 10:19 AM
adlabs6 wrote:
- I tried takeoffs in the Fw190, and the plane seemed
- more able to get lift off the airstrip than in FB.
- No 'shaky' takeoff.
-

In part, this looks like a bug in FB that has been corrected in the patches that I have tried (07 and 08). In FB 1.0 the flaps on the Fw 190 and Bf 109 seem to produce a great deal of drag but almost no lift. Trying to land an FB Dora is an excercise in frustration. Balancing sink rate, forward speed, pitch and throttle is almost impossibly tricky. In the patched FM, the flaps let you float the a/c down onto the runway in the same way that real a/c land.

Regards,

RocketDog.



EDIT & PS - the AI in the patches now seems able to stall and spin. A great improvement over the faultless flying we see in FB 1.0 and most of the time in IL-2.


Message Edited on 07/28/0309:29AM by RocketDog

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 11:58 AM
Tough one. I felt that Il2 was too sensitive for flying with several quirks that drove me mad. For example, doing loops with Fw190 was really strange, like I was flying a transport plane. If I remember correctly, some British WWII pilots said that Fw190 were "flying circles" aound their Spitfire Vs. Further, diving as an evasive manouver simply did not exist. Not to mention "uber" PZL P-11 that drove me nuts.

However, I really liked Bf109F2 in Il2. Man, that was a machine to fly, true bird. What I liked the most in Il-2 was the difference of characters of different airplanes. In FB, they seem pretty same, with only few differences between them.

I am not a pilot, but I have lots of freinds who are. They liked Il-2 but all of them have said that planes fall into accelerated stall too easily.

Best,
Kursula

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 12:09 PM
This is off topic, but look at this:



Author: RayBanJockey
Rank: Over 3000 Postings
Date: 07/27/03 07:06AM




Yes it is toned down.

But I don't see how this is going to sell any more copies.

People buy the game and play it. There was nothing wrong with IL2. It wasn't that hard. It was just crisp.

*****************************************8
Now read thispost by Tully...



Author: Tully__
Rank: Moderator
Date: 07/27/03 10:21AM



I find some aspects of FB flight modelling to be easier and some harder. In terms of how it relates to reality, I think (based on nothing more than personal impression, I'm not a pilot) that FB is closer to how real aircraft perform in most aspects. Sturmovik was a little bit too crisp at the edge of the flight envelop.

**********************************************8

Is there a similarity between these two here? Especially with the use of the word CRISP in this post? Just a gut feeling... Be careful Mods /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif we`re watching...

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 01:07 PM
Good one SeaFireLIV/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


"degustibus non disputandum"

<center>http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

<center>"Weder Tod noch Teufel!"</font>[/B]</center> (http://www.jzg23.de>[B]<font)

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 01:14 PM
RBJ wrote:"Toned down flight model and sloth trim are, however, reasons to return it."

I didn't know they made the sloth flyable in the patch.



You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye
Who cheer when soldier lads march by,
Sneak home and pray you'll never know
The hell where youth and laughter go.
-Sigfreid Sassoon- Suicide in the Trenches

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 08:24 PM
HarryVoyager wrote:

-- so they made the trainers harder to fly than the
-- planes they were training to fly?
--
-
- Merely because an aircraft is billed as a trainer
- does not mean it is easy to fly.

i agree that wing loading and HP have the most impact on low speed performance (what training aircraft are designed to be good at). i know a 51 has a great power/weight ratio, but with it comes a higher speed (less wing area than a typical trainer, higher power). so a trainer will typically have a slower stall speed, landings happen slower, they are easier to achieve. and really, when it comes down to it, take-off and landing are really what flying is all about. obviously extreme maneuvering, stall recovery, etc. are important too. but to cut your teeth on an aircraft...you really just need to be able to say you can comfortably take-off and land with it. those are the sketchy times, and they happen every flight. (hopefully!)
what im saying is that anybody can pull around on a joystick at safe altitude with an instructor in the cockpit, and a mustang 2 seater (which they have) would fly much better than a trainer at speed. take take-off and landing, and low speed stall and handling characteristics, marging for error, etc....thats where the skill makes a difference. and thats why they can have those ritch guy flight-sim t-34 lazer tag places and nobody gets killed.
but seriously, im curious...what aircraft are you talking about having flown? did you take it off, and land it? or just pull some maneuvers once airborne?

-ron

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 10:28 PM
IR0NCR0SS wrote:
- Thing that ticks me off in both FB and in IL2 is the
- I-153 and I-16. Ive been shot down 4 times offline
- in 45 missions, 3 were to I-153's cause of the
- impossible things they do. I was going about 510 KPH
- trying to dive away from one and he stayed right on
- me, I climed he stayed right with my 109 easy. I
- dont get how a biplane can tolerate such speeds.

I don't see why not. The Gloster Gladiator could
do about 420kph in level flight, and the I-153 about
440kph in level flight. I think there would
be _some_ safety margin above it. 510kph is about
320mph. The Gladiator has fixed undercarriage,
and the I-153 retractable. Mind you - I wouldn't want
to go much above that in a biplane!