PDA

View Full Version : CEM: damn liars!



TeufelHund84
06-12-2006, 05:42 PM
I've read guides for the game that give tips on engine management for some planes (e.g. "on the P-40E & M, start leaning fuel mix @ such and such altitude...") but even after switching on CEM in difficulty and binding my keys, it still doesn't work! I've tried several different aircraft and only the PF ones seem to utilize it.

If it matters, I have v4.04, the complete edition DVD.

EDIT: Ok it seems there are more eastern front aircraft that can use CEM, but the P-40M still doesn't seem to be able to despite several outside indicators, the biggest of which for me is the PDF file from airwarfare.com "ND's aircraft reference"

TeufelHund84
06-12-2006, 05:42 PM
I've read guides for the game that give tips on engine management for some planes (e.g. "on the P-40E & M, start leaning fuel mix @ such and such altitude...") but even after switching on CEM in difficulty and binding my keys, it still doesn't work! I've tried several different aircraft and only the PF ones seem to utilize it.

If it matters, I have v4.04, the complete edition DVD.

EDIT: Ok it seems there are more eastern front aircraft that can use CEM, but the P-40M still doesn't seem to be able to despite several outside indicators, the biggest of which for me is the PDF file from airwarfare.com "ND's aircraft reference"

VW-IceFire
06-12-2006, 06:44 PM
The P-40 is fairly easy on the CEM...the fuel mix is automatic except on the P-40 Field Mod which may be the model they are talking about. That one is equipped with a Russian Klimov engine (a license build modification of the French Hispano-Suiza inline of the 1930s) and has no automatic systems like the Allison.

Some planes like the Hellcat and Corsair have 120% fuel mix for takeoffs. Basically you're setting either rich or auto/rich (120% or 100%).

TeufelHund84
06-12-2006, 06:57 PM
That's what I figured, but being a noob I just wanted to double check. Since this game is so much more exhaustive in attention to detail than any other I've played, a little mistake on the part of a player written guide is not terribly surprising.

WWMaxGunz
06-12-2006, 07:13 PM
Wierd, I remember having to deal with mix on the AEP P-40E.
OTOH maybe I should not have had to and that detail got changed.

TeufelHund84
06-12-2006, 07:25 PM
I can't remember as far as the E goes, the Red field mod sure does, but not the M which was what puzzled me so much at first.

LStarosta
06-12-2006, 07:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TeufelHund84:
That's what I figured, but being a noob I just wanted to double check. Since this game is so much more exhaustive in attention to detail than any other I've played, a little mistake on the part of a player written guide is not terribly surprising. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL this CEM is FAR from complex or realistic.

One of my gripes with this sim is its lack of realistic engine controls.

TeufelHund84
06-12-2006, 07:36 PM
Hearing that just boggles my mind, (that it could really be much worse than it currently is), but what I said was that it was more complex than any other game I've seen/played http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

VW-IceFire
06-12-2006, 08:46 PM
Yeah the CEM is actually very light on detail compared to what WWII pilots dealt with. But there are two problems.

1) We may not want to get into the real details as there are a ton of little commands that we probably should not try and simulate as its just too much.

2) Each plane can be so different that we really get into little bits of detail we don't want to get into.

There is a point of diminishing returns. I want to see the engine management a little more fleshed out...but not much more. Better and more accurate prop pitch control, fuel tank management, the obvious stuff. I don't think we need to prime the fuel pump or charge the guns before use.

LStarosta
06-12-2006, 09:20 PM
I understand it may be more difficult than some may want it to be, but I think if you were to call this a true sim, it should include complex engine controls. If people were to fly full-difficulty, they would learn their aircraft of choice and procedures involved. I'm thinking that checklists for each aircraft could be included in a manual to make the process of full-difficulty engine management more bearable. That said, it's becoming increasingly more difficult to call this a true simulator if all the aircraft are oversimplified and generalized to such an extent. Hitting "I" to start your motor just seems mildly arcadish.

NonWonderDog
06-12-2006, 09:45 PM
Not arcadish, survey-simmish. If we had to go through a different checklist for each plane there would have never been 200 planes. If we had to go through the same checklist for each plane that checklist would be inaccurate in many, if not all, planes.

Pressing "I" to start the engine doesn't bother me, what bothers me is the seemingly ineffectual mixture control (your engine is either starved, flooded, or running perfectly) and a few subtleties that seem to be missing from the RPM/Throttle/MAP interplay. Things seem a bit too static and artificial on the engine side of things.

neural_dream
06-13-2006, 04:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TeufelHund84:
Ok it seems there are more eastern front aircraft that can use CEM, but the P-40M still doesn't seem to be able to despite several outside indicators, the biggest of which for me is the PDF file from airwarfare.com "ND's aircraft reference" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thanks for spotting the mistake TeufelHund. For the record, it used to be like that, but was historically incorrect and was fixed in patch 1.22.

joeap
06-13-2006, 05:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neural_dream:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TeufelHund84:
Ok it seems there are more eastern front aircraft that can use CEM, but the P-40M still doesn't seem to be able to despite several outside indicators, the biggest of which for me is the PDF file from airwarfare.com "ND's aircraft reference" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thanks for spotting the mistake TeufelHund. For the record, it used to be like that, but was historically incorrect and was fixed in patch 1.22. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi amigo. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

TeufelHund84
06-13-2006, 05:34 AM
Gotcha Neural, it's not a big deal until it results in me doing a noseplant into the ground everytime hehe (which it hasn't). The rest of the guide is topnotch anyway, I use it alot.

Blutarski2004
06-13-2006, 08:05 AM
Hmmmmm ..... CEM.

Why don't they let us specify spark plug gap and valve timing while they are at it? Or filter the gas as it is pumped into the tank?

IMO, the whole CEM thing takes away from the core aspect of the flight sim, which is to fly and fight.

It's like doing a WW1 flight sim and forcing the pilot to prime the oil pump twenty times every ten minutes or punching the landing gear key 31 times to raise the wheels of your Rata (oh, wait. Thast IS in IL2) Yes, it is historical, but including such stuff is (a) a distraction from the goal of the sim, and (b) a waste of processing power.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
06-13-2006, 08:31 AM
neural_dream, welcome home mate! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LStarosta
06-13-2006, 08:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Hmmmmm ..... CEM.

Why don't they let us specify spark plug gap and valve timing while they are at it? Or filter the gas as it is pumped into the tank?

IMO, the whole CEM thing takes away from the core aspect of the flight sim, which is to fly and fight.

It's like doing a WW1 flight sim and forcing the pilot to prime the oil pump twenty times every ten minutes or punching the landing gear key 31 times to raise the wheels of your Rata (oh, wait. Thast IS in IL2) Yes, it is historical, but including such stuff is (a) a distraction from the goal of the sim, and (b) a waste of processing power. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With all due respect, then you shouldn't ever complain about any other aspects of the sim you find unrealistic.

As I said, make it a difficulty setting. If you don't like it, simply fly with easier settings. Then everyone is happy.

IMO, it would make it more realistic in the sense that aircraft that were more user-friendly will have their advantages realized in the simulator over aircraft that were less user-friendly. P-51 and Bf-109 come to mind.

R988z
06-13-2006, 10:04 AM
I think CFS3 has more complex engine management, stuff like magnetos and battery turned on, right mixture and throttle settings to turn the engine on that sort of thing, makes starting the engine a bit more of an event, especially in a scramble, add that and maybe a small pop up checklist (like the pop up map) to help remind people until they get used to it. Things like that make it more fun even just to fly by itself with no other planes, of course the ability to turn it off or to simple for some dogfight servers or whatever would be welcome for some people as it is already, one of the beauties of the sim is it's flexibility on this regard. I started off simple and slowly worked my way up the engine management getting comfortable at each level before moving on to the next, helps extend the life/interest of the sim as well.

Blutarski2004
06-13-2006, 02:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:

With all due respect, then you shouldn't ever complain about any other aspects of the sim you find unrealistic.

As I said, make it a difficulty setting. If you don't like it, simply fly with easier settings. Then everyone is happy.

IMO, it would make it more realistic in the sense that aircraft that were more user-friendly will have their advantages realized in the simulator over aircraft that were less user-friendly. P-51 and Bf-109 come to mind. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Fair comment, Starosta. But I still have two philosophical problems with this kind of approach -

(1) The minute focus on one particular aspect of the piloting experience, while others are glossed over or ignored. Latching/unlatching the cockpit? High-G gun jams? Adjustable seat heights? Proper modelling of lateral head movement to exploit superior bubble canopy vision arcs? Field over-boost of engines? Why CEM and not the others?


(2) If such detail is to be included in the sim, then they ought to get it right. It galls me that this sort of stuff is added in the name of "realism" when, by all accounts, its effects within the game are so bogus. How well does the IL2 automatic setting for the FW190 emulate historical Kommandgerat performance?


This is, of course, mostly just a rant born of frustration on my part .....

Taylortony
06-13-2006, 03:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
LOL this CEM is FAR from complex or realistic.
One of my gripes with this sim is its lack of realistic engine controls. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Your missing the point a bit............. it is a game and it's played on a pc with a keyboard and a stick with several buttons on it...... I have run day in day out Aircraft engines, from the lowly puddle jumpers to the larger more complex stuff...... both piston and jet, from the mundane to the exotica, from the trainer to the military warbirds......... what you forget is it's easy to say i want full complex or realistic.......... well you simply can't have them so there http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif....... the tweaks and little adjustment i do all the time in running these things are immense, it's not like a car you press a pedal and it's there, you are constantly adjusting things that become second nature. sh*t it becomes boring sitting there running the damn things..............even though you never stop tweaking this tweaking that, things like balancing engines you do on the ear.... oh yes there is an indicator but you don't need it, you can hear when they are on song..... this you can never never never simulate in a game.......... you would simply never get off the ground...... did I mention never? as in all GAMES, you have to come to a point where it's accurate up to a point, that point being it's technically nearly there, BUT too appeal to all those that will buy the GAME that want to be able to feel like they are in full control, of which they can never be, as a lowly pc can get that close to a realism feeling with in limits............. the Game used to be what i would have called quite accurate in it's original form but over the years wingers and gripes from people that have flown a book or too have sanitised this feeling down and will continually do so........ Oleg has to in his way respond to these critisms as sales will suffer and UBI will no doubt add some force to make it more user friendly................ the full real servers cockpits and all are a joke too, I tell you, sit in a warbird cockpit for real and screw your head around........ I can tell you from real life in several warbirds that this game contains............ I see more in real life than you ever will in game... period.

sorry to pop your bubble........

LStarosta
06-13-2006, 04:50 PM
I'm not saying I want to maintain my aircraft and be a mechanic.

I'm saying I want certain REASONABLE things done, such as proper start-up procedure, manual mixture and propeller controls for airplanes that had them, proper radiator settings and effects, etc etc etc.

OBVIOUSLY you can't have every little fault or detail modelled, but there are many details which can be. FS2004, which a lot of hardcore "pilots" here like to rip on, does a fairly good job with modelling engine controls, though often the tolerance and performance margins are a little off-cue.

Obviously Oleg won't be adding any new features because this game is on its last dying breath development-wise, but it's difficult to call Il-2 a sim when it's so simplified. It's like an arcade game where you just hit a button, balls to the wall straight ahead of you (usually without the aid of a runway) and off you go.

Granted it is a neat game, and the air combat is challenging, and the FM is impressive, but it falls a step short of being a high-fidelity simulator. Then again, as you implied TT, if anything required reading a manual and learning procedure, the hypothetical simulator probably wouldn't find a large sales base.

joeap
06-13-2006, 08:05 PM
Come on even as it stands it ain't exactly Crimson Tide. But hi fidelity no not that either. Neither is MSFS but it is friendly to addons that are sims in sims if you get my drift. Had a DC3 I got for FS2000 a few years back that just rocked. Had to flip each switch in the right order to start up. I got it going pretty fast too so it would not be a big deal in this sim. As NonWonderDog this is more of a survey sim than something like Falcon which only does one plane in insane detail. There has to be a compromise for BoB I hope.