PDA

View Full Version : What is the opinion of real Pilots about this sim...???



MB_Avro_UK
03-16-2007, 05:21 PM
Hi all,

I'm not asking for the opinions of WW2 Vets but am interested in the opinions of guys here who fly real aircraft.

You don't have to be Mr Top Gun to contribute... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

I appreaciate that today's pilots will not be flying everyday a Yak-9 or a B-25 but an observation would perhaps be useful both to ourselves and the developers.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

DHC2Pilot
03-16-2007, 06:09 PM
If I could have just ONE thing fixed in this sim it would be the sound. I want to hear MERLINS, not weedwackers. That's one of the biggest gripes in the community, and hopefully will be addressed in BoB. Otherwise, by far the best flight sim I've ever toyed with, and I've got dozens of the most popular ones.

Woof603
03-16-2007, 06:41 PM
Well, I'd like to make one little comment here.
Regarding the many threads about various aircraft not handling as they should, in the writer's view, and how unrealistic this or that feature in IL2 may be: This is how it is in real life. Nothing flies "right" as if it were straight out of the box. Every airplane I flew had some little quirk; some were dinged and twisted, flew tail heavy or nose heavy, took more trim or less, wallowed like pigs, twitched and shook when they shouldn't have, tried to bite with the torque, had mechanical problems or just personalities like living creatures. No two of the same make ever flew alike. Add to this the vagaries of the weather, time of day, and my own state of affairs on any particular day, and the result was that no flight was ever the same as any other. Don't misunderstand me: every flight was as safe as I could possibly make it. I'm talking here of the many variables contributing to how an airplane flies.
This is what I like most about IL2...all the variables. I feel it's been as realistic as possible from the very first release through 4.08. Each new version of the FMs have brought challenges, just as they should have.
What do I think of this great simulator? It's the closest thing to real life flying I know.
My credentials: 35 years. 25K+ hours. Fighters.
Transports.

p-11.cAce
03-16-2007, 07:13 PM
My credentials: Microlights (powered) - 11 years, 300+ hours; Microlights (unpowered HG) - 5 years, 250+ hours; Various GA aircraft (Cessna, Diamond, Piper including Pawnee)3 years, 184 hours; Sailplane (Pw-5 & L-23) 3 years, 113 hours.
I like the "feel" of this sim more than any other - it feels much more like flying to me. Having all my experience in light and very light aircraft I have nothing to measure aircraft in game against but imho the torque and adverse yaw modeling we had in 4.01 were MUCH more realistic. The Pawnee rocks and slews all over the place with throttle changes that in the sim with way bigger engines cause no movement at all. Adverse yaw modeling has all but disappeared - which is a real shame as it is an integral part of flying ANY aircraft properly. Those are my two cents http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

joeap
03-16-2007, 08:14 PM
Check out this thread too: aerobatics (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/3881098535)

Not a real pilot myself sadly.

PBNA-Boosher
03-16-2007, 08:18 PM
I have about 60 or so hours in Pipers and Cessnas, not that much experience, but I do fly. This game, hands down, is the closest to real flight I've ever gotten from a computer simulation. There are, of course, things that cannot be modeled in with this engine: fatigue, temperature, wind correction, etc... but these things can only be expected to improve as time passes. Right now, this sim is THE BEST out there.

carguy_
03-16-2007, 08:31 PM
All those years I`ve been here,I`ve seen only few positive opinions about aircraft visibility.

Most real life pilots,particulary airlines pilots,opinioned the dot/LOD modelling as highly unrealistic.Visibility is very bad at close distances and bad at distances of 4-10km.

timholt
03-16-2007, 10:58 PM
I fly aerobatics as a hobby and this game is the closest I can get to flying without actually flying. It wipes the floor with other flight simulator games I have tried and tired of in a short space of time.
But, even with TIR4 I still find flying aeros in the game harder than real life. Its an all round visual awareness shortfall that cannot be replicated on a PC.
However, that little quirk aside,I have been playing since the release of the original IL2 and still get a (BIG) buzz out of it.

papotex
03-17-2007, 02:41 AM
when you guys say this is the best sim out there
you guys mean best PROP sim out there right?
THAT IT IS.... but theres also lomac wich is also a flight sim.

Both flight sims sterile in the single player gaming department though

slipBall
03-17-2007, 03:59 AM
While certainly not perfect,I think it is the best one out there...Bob should deliver some of what's missing in il2..I am really looking forward to cross wind landings, and better engine sounds

RxMan
03-17-2007, 07:09 AM
About the sound. The sound 'engine' of this sim is synthetically generated by the sound system of the user's computer. It is not a simple, or complex, playback of recorded sounds. That would require more use of system resources than now and still not have the variety/complexity of the current system. Because of this your sound card, drivers, settings, speakers, and the sound settings in Windows, and the settings in the game sound engine and how they relate to your hard/soft ware are the determining factors as to your listening experience. I didn't believe it either until:
On my original IL2 comp, which was a W98 with Aureal sound card everything was fine until about AEP when I lost my HD and reinstalled, then I had lawnmowers after a reinstall of new HD. Never could resolve it, well I did improve it over a period of months but never back to the earlier sounds. Enter a completely new 'game system', I designed and had it built and settup for me. Windows XP, Soundblaster Live Gamer, 5.1 surround speaker system (not expensive one). Sounds OK, but that's all, very disappointing. I decided to upgrade my HD to much larger size for video work. I did a complete reinstall myself, of all hardware and software from ground up. LOW AND BEHOLD, glorious sound!!!! I just wish now I had bought a better speaker system. So, what I am saying is I now am convinced that Oleg & Co were right when they said the game sound engine is as good as it can be and they wouldn't be going to a sample system. If you can not stand the sound you are getting, but you do have a decent sound capability, may I suggest a complete removal of all sound hardware and software from system and a complete rebuild from default, and be sure any motherboard sound system is completely disabled. That's my 2 cents worth (well maybe 3)....
I've never been off the ground in my life but been flying WW2 sims seriously since the C64 days and this one just 'feels' right. I've been an aviation nut since a 5 year old in WW2 and seeing those marvelous cadillacs of the sky.

Chris0382
03-17-2007, 07:13 AM
After watching my brother play Secret Weapons over Normandy on his PS/2, a game that has an intro video were an actual pilot endorses it a close to realism simulator, I dont know if I can believe any of you pilots or trust a pilot again J/K LOL.

The first mission my brother flew, he was hit over 25 times, was engulfed in a ball of flames, and still managed to sink 5 U-boats each with just one torpedo/sub. Not to mention all he has for views is a chase view.

Who was that pilot that endorsed that game.

By the way, this IL-2 flight sim is the best Ive ever played and keeps getting better.

VFS-214_Hawk
03-17-2007, 07:26 AM
The F4U flies worse (wobble) than a V-tail Bonanza in a gusty winds! Not comparing the tow airplanes, just the wobble...hehehehehe

Also on sounds, remember these things sound so much different while in the cockpit. There are plenty of videos not to show such differences.

p-11.cAce
03-17-2007, 10:29 AM
I hope that the atmospheric modelling in BoB is better - but boy get ready for the WHINING!! If prop wash, turbulence, wind gusts, etc. are modelled this thread will be choked with threads about- wobbles, stick settings, porked this, uber that, yadayadyadyaydayada. I for one would love to get a good bounce whipping through the wash coming off a box formation of B-17's, or squeaking a landing after rocking and bouncing down through a short final in the middle of the day on a desert map. THAT would add immensly to the "real" feel of the sim.

Skycat_2
03-17-2007, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by Chris0382:
After watching my brother play Secret Weapons over Normandy on his PS/2, a game that has an intro video were an actual pilot endorses it a close to realism simulator, I dont know if I can believe any of you pilots or trust a pilot again J/K LOL.

Who was that pilot that endorsed that game.

That would be Steve Hinton (http://www.moviepilots.com/members/hinton.html), my friend. President of the Planes of Fame museum in California, and widely known as the demonstration pilot for the restored "Glacier Girl" P-38. Yeah, his glowing endorsement at the beginning of SWON made me laugh also ... but give the guy a break, he was helping with a LucasArts project and maybe he even thought he was helping bring enthusiasm of WWII planes to a new audience/generation. I kind of think that a sizeable donation to the Planes of Fame museum -- perhaps by George Lucas himself? -- greased the wheels a little though. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I seriously doubt that Hinton spent any real time playing the final version of the game. Maybe the developers brought their vision to him and they seemed to want to get the FM data and engine sounds right, and that was good enough for him.

As a game, SWON was good fun. It had variety and the story was, mmmm, interesting.

Chris0382
03-17-2007, 05:09 PM
im sure no one bought the game based on his endorsement as it was on the disc and the cover of the game had type too small and blurry to read. Good for a laugh though as you mentioned; and I would would do it for money myself as it its all in gaming fun.

LEXX_Luthor
03-17-2007, 05:58 PM
Chris::
I would would do it for money myself as it its all in gaming fun.
If its taking other peoples' money, it may not be so funny. Hey, it rhymes.

We had some "real life" pilots here. When Oleg Maddox disabled functioning elevator trim in FB 1.0, to stop Online Dogfight players accusing each other of Online cheating with elevator trim mapped to sliders, the larger customer base of Offline players and some Online players asked Oleg to return working elevator trim to the WW2 flight models, at least as an Offline play and Online server option. We had a number of "real life" commercial pilots here who became hostile and accused Oleg's customers of "wanting to cheat Online with slider trim." When these snotty gamers were called out on their behavior, they then tried to hide behind their Pilot Status -- these "real life" pilots told this community that...

"real life" pilots::
Elevator trim is used only for straight and level flight.
I was amazed these pilots would go that far -- lying to the general community about aircraft, just to protect their hyper competitive Online Dogfight sport. Although, I assume that after a long day, or night in instrument flying conditions, a good Online Dogfight game without accusations of cheating is where many pilots appear to find relaxation. But its still bizzare and fascinating webboard behavior to observe.

The only pilot of that time I recall as being honest with the community about aircraft was aerobatic pilot TX_Ecodragon. He/She was never willing to lie about aircraft to protect Online Dogfight gameplay from accusations of cheating, and fully supported Oleg's customers. I'm sure there were others, but TX was the one I recall.

Old_Canuck
03-17-2007, 06:08 PM
My credentials are light and stale having flown a variety of light aircraft including low wing pipers, C 152, C 172, Piper Cub on floats, Aeronca Sedan on floats and most of the time on a C 172 on floats. I let my ppl expire about 30 years ago and discovered flight sims around the year 2000 starting with the CFS line and the MS civy sims. But the only one that consistently recreates the sensation of real flight for me is this IL2 series. Yes it would be great to hear more of the throaty grumbles and pops from a big radial engine and it would be good to see more convincing landscapes but this sim is still the best for the "feel of flight" IMO.

LEXX_Luthor
03-17-2007, 06:38 PM
Floats is cool -- and it sounds heavy stuff.

Lite is only getting up to solo-ing twice before I got the itch to goto college, although the second solo was a really neat fully planned route about the city and country (within the distance limits). The one thing I do recall is how responsive the elevator trim was in C152, and my instructor demonstrating flying purely by trim controls, along with diving on high school where his corvette's (what else?) headlights were being replaced at the school auto shop, and later diving on gf's house. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif In a flight sim that is heavily proclaimed (by some players) to have "realistic" flight models, I fully expected to be able to pull or push on the joystick, easily trim for climb or descent (not just "straight and level") but found I could not with this sim until Oleg finally returned elevator trim to the flight models with FB 4.0 New FM. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif Hence my rant above. Most players want trim just to be able to fly realistically, and not to "cheat" as we were accused.

BM357_Sniper
03-17-2007, 06:56 PM
I won't mention sounds.....I find that you have to adjust rudder trim entirely TOO MUCH as compared to anything I've flown. That would be from a C152, Malibu, T6 to a C310 and Cheyenne III.

I see manaeuvers, especially negative G maneauvers performed in here that would kill a Rhino and tear the wings off anything.

The fact that you can adjust the curves on your stick is unrealistic to me. They should be set per aircraft according to its design as best as possible, not to an individuals taste. It starts making this sim too "game like".

I won't get in to CEM since it was never really modeled in the first place.

You can see aircraft at an entirely unrelistic range. A heat blur or something would help.

After all those negatives lol I will admit this is the best thing going. I just hope that it gets better and less arcadish. The more I fly this the more arcadish it feels to me as compared to when I was still in awe when it first came out.

Edit: I forgot to post my cred, Multiengine Commercial Certificate

LStarosta
03-17-2007, 07:05 PM
It's good but not as good as Targetware.

BuzzU
03-17-2007, 07:06 PM
This forum has been saying the FM is the best there is 6 patches ago.
All the patches couldn't have been right. Is this one, or maybe the next one?

JG14_Josf
03-17-2007, 07:21 PM
The F4U flies worse (wobble) than a V-tail Bonanza in a gusty winds!

That bad!

I don't have a lot of time flying but enough to offer an opinion.

The game simulates flight well.

The next step will be Force Feedback in a chair/control set up with roll, yaw, pitch, elevator, aileron, and rudder.

The visual shaking helps, the stall sounds help, and the inertia movements help make the simulation seem like flight.

More of the same feedback 'feelings' would help greatly.

It won't ever be flying cause there ain't no refly button in reality.

Xiolablu3
03-17-2007, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by BuzzU:
This forum has been saying the FM is the best there is 6 patches ago.
All the patches couldn't have been right. Is this one, or maybe the next one?

NO patch will ever be 'right'.

As more info is gained and developers are allowed more processing power, so things get added. SOme things work well, others dont and are removed or tweaked.

Creating 'a flight model' is an on going process, it will never be 'perfect'. Developers can keep striving to make it 'more correct' however.

The flight model will keep getting better as the developers continue to work at it and try adding new things, gaining more info and tweaking. SOme things will work and some wont. It will keep getting closer to the real thing with time.

Snow_Wolf_
03-18-2007, 12:21 AM
I flown so far C-150 , 152 , 172R, 172RG (bloody fast compare to the normal 172P nice plane with the Fuel injection engine and variable pitch prop also retractable gear), 172P, 185 with Edo Floats, Beechcraft C-45F, Beechcraft 18G, DC-3 and DC-3 basler (aka DC-3 with Pt-6 engines) . Not going go into the big stuff as it got no propellers on it lol ..

one thing i would have to complain about is the DOT size... overall the sim is good (would like to see some more realistic engine sound cough the P&W engines sound horrible in this game cough) would like to see more engine managment controls such as blower settings ... fuel cut off ... selectable tanks ... also the weather side of things need to be improve, i hope in upcoming BOB there would be variable wind, unpredictable weather and also some CAT (clear air turbulence and other turbulence effect (such as day time heating .. mechanical turbulence down drafts etc )

and that my rant on the il-2 series lol

VFS-214_Hawk
03-18-2007, 07:23 AM
Originally posted by Old_Canuck:
My credentials are light and stale having flown a variety of light aircraft including low wing pipers, C 152, C 172, Piper Cub on floats, Aeronca Sedan on floats and most of the time on a C 172 on floats. I let my ppl expire about 30 years ago and discovered flight sims around the year 2000 starting with the CFS line and the MS civy sims. But the only one that consistently recreates the sensation of real flight for me is this IL2 series. Yes it would be great to hear more of the throaty grumbles and pops from a big radial engine and it would be good to see more convincing landscapes but this sim is still the best for the "feel of flight" IMO.

PPL Private Pilots License? USA?

If so, it is not a license, its a certificate and never expires!

msalama
03-18-2007, 10:20 AM
Nice try Luke http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Old_Canuck
03-18-2007, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by VFS-214_Hawk:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Old_Canuck:
My credentials are light and stale having flown a variety of light aircraft including low wing pipers, C 152, C 172, Piper Cub on floats, Aeronca Sedan on floats and most of the time on a C 172 on floats. I let my ppl expire about 30 years ago and discovered flight sims around the year 2000 starting with the CFS line and the MS civy sims. But the only one that consistently recreates the sensation of real flight for me is this IL2 series. Yes it would be great to hear more of the throaty grumbles and pops from a big radial engine and it would be good to see more convincing landscapes but this sim is still the best for the "feel of flight" IMO.

PPL Private Pilots License? USA?

If so, it is not a license, its a certificate and never expires! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In Canada you must have a current Ministry of Transport medical or your licence is invalid. I let mine go about 30 years back. Even if I got the medical now I would have to take a proficiency test or would probably have to re-do the training from scratch. Haven't checked into this in detail because there's no need. Sims are cheaper. Flying real planes was a good experience but I don't miss it. On the other hand it's good to know that if I'm in the right bucket some day and the pilot has a heart attack there's a fighting chance of getting home safe ... or not http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

MB_Avro_UK
03-18-2007, 03:13 PM
Hi all,

Many thanks for your replies http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Too many years ago I gained a UK Private Pilot's Licence but it lapsed due the financial demands of marriage,mortgage and a family...probably this has happened to others here?

One thing that I enjoyed whilst gaining my Licence was performing a simulated engine failure at 1,500 feet over the airfield. Closing the throttle and making a landing 'deadstick' was very satisfying.

I do the same with this sim and when it works ok it has a similar resonance from my past.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

And it amazes me as to how the FM between different aircraft is so varied. It indicates to me a LOT of work by the developers.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

M_Gunz
03-19-2007, 01:56 AM
Originally posted by BM357_Sniper:
You can see aircraft at an entirely unrelistic range. A heat blur or something would help.


So when Chuck Yeager wrote that most veteran pilots could see and identify other planes at
20 miles and he was able to see groups out to 40 miles, that was just what? Pilots with
less than veteran experience OTOH were not good at finding other AC. Read his bio or the
words of other WWII vet pilots, I guess it is a conspiracy.

From air the hardest thing for me to do was to find the other plane ATC told us about.
Once found it was easy to keep them in sight or look away and find them again.

joeap
03-19-2007, 05:38 AM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

Many thanks for your replies http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Too many years ago I gained a UK Private Pilot's Licence but it lapsed due the financial demands of marriage,mortgage and a family...probably this has happened to others here?

One thing that I enjoyed whilst gaining my Licence was performing a simulated engine failure at 1,500 feet over the airfield. Closing the throttle and making a landing 'deadstick' was very satisfying.

I do the same with this sim and when it works ok it has a similar resonance from my past.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

And it amazes me as to how the FM between different aircraft is so varied. It indicates to me a LOT of work by the developers.
Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Oh oh, you have not read other threads here, the devs have not put a lot of work into the sim, they are possibly incompetent or have purposely porked "certain" planes to piss random people off. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

*Note above comment was sarcastic and may not reflect the views of the poster, UBI, or NASA*

Old_Canuck
03-19-2007, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
....
One thing that I enjoyed whilst gaining my Licence was performing a simulated engine failure at 1,500 feet over the airfield. Closing the throttle and making a landing 'deadstick' was very satisfying.

I do the same with this sim and when it works ok it has a similar resonance from my past.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

...

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

This story of yours reminded me of one of my flight instructors Harry Warman. The man had nerves of steel. Once in a (low wing) Piper Cherokee he chopped power and watched silently as I set up a dead stick landing on farmer's field. It was obvious I was going to overshoot the field coming in way too high over the fence so I sideslipped the Piper. Never tried sideslipping a low winged aircraft before but it was an impulse decision and it seemed to be going ok so I stayed in that attitude until just over the fence and Harry calmly advanced the throttle .. like I said "nerves of steel." On my final flight test for the licence Harry did it again. At that time Langley was an uncontrolled airfield (no tower) with a newly paved runway and a grass strip running East/West. Harry chopped the power while I was on downwind for the grass strip .. again not saying a word. He probably did it because my altitude was a bit low on downwind. There was just enough time to call out a warning on the radio and cut across for a curving deadstick landing on runway 25. I never thought it was possible to have so much fun during a test and to this day I have an undying admiration for that man.

LStarosta
03-19-2007, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by msalama:
Nice try Luke http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

AWL_Spinner
03-19-2007, 01:25 PM
I have a couple of hundred hours in the same sort of area as Old_Canuck, mostly light singles, and this sim is undoubtedly the best one I've flown in terms of the sensation of flight (LOMAC is great, but so far out of the realm of my own experience I couldn't really comment).

Even with no shooting I'd still fly this one in preference to most others.

ploughman
03-19-2007, 01:31 PM
Spinner, you got MS flight simulator? How's that rate?

Old_Canuck
03-19-2007, 01:58 PM
One more post in this thread and I'll stop telling stories like an old man. Googled "Harry Warman" and turned up this article (hyperlink below) on Dave Hammel where Harry Warman is rightly mentioned as a figure in aviatiion history. Dave checked me out in a Piper Cub at Skyways float base and that was one the last times I piloted a real plane. On that flight my wife-to-be was in the back of the tandem seat Piper Cub. Flying over Mission I spotted my Dad mowing the front lawn http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Without too much warning the Cub went into a dive and attempted to blow the toupee off my old man's head. During the subsequent zoom climb my stick suddenly froze. I looked back for some reason and noticed that my soon-to-be-wife of 37 years was holding onto the co-pilot's stick for dear life. I shouted at her to "let go" and when she did we returned to level flight. She told me later that it was the nearest thing to hold onto so she grabbed it.

http://www.muledog.com/magazine/Spring2002/pappy.html

slipBall
03-19-2007, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by Old_Canuck:
One more post in this thread and I'll stop telling stories like an old man. Googled "Harry Warman" and turned up this article (hyperlink below) on Dave Hammel where Harry Warman is rightly mentioned as a figure in aviatiion history. Dave checked me out in a Piper Cub at Skyways float base and that was one the last times I piloted a real plane. On that flight my wife-to-be was in the back of the tandem seat Piper Cub. Flying over Mission I spotted my Dad mowing the front lawn http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Without too much warning the Cub went into a dive and attempted to blow the toupee off my old man's head. During the subsequent zoom climb my stick suddenly froze. I looked back for some reason and noticed that my soon-to-be-wife of 37 years was holding onto the co-pilot's stick for dear life. I shouted at her to "let go" and when she did we returned to level flight. She told me later that it was the nearest thing to hold onto so she grabbed it.

http://www.muledog.com/magazine/Spring2002/pappy.html



http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gifGreat story! feel free to post more...I quess we all have a couple of close calls. I remember in training, I was told to "up flaps" during a touch and go practice. I raised them all the way, and the aircraft fell like a rock, was very close to a hit...I think the instructor ment to say a degree of flaps...but he did'nt, I will never forget the look on his face http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif.....this sim is extreamly close to real flying, I think SOW should be great, and deliver more as far as the weather goes, better sound, hopefully complex engine managment, better ground damage model...really the only things missing in IL2

venny1962
03-19-2007, 03:18 PM
<S> all! i'm not a real pilot so i can't comment on the FMs but my only beef is the views. even though the cockpit art may be fairly accurate they don't model head movement & the abitlty to see through the bars. (2 eye effect) other than that it's a great sim! i just love it!!

K_Freddie
03-19-2007, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
From air the hardest thing for me to do was to find the other plane ATC told us about.
Once found it was easy to keep them in sight or look away and find them again.

Never had a problem with this, it's brain/visual conditioning, as in nature. You look for a movement against a stationary background. It's a neat trick that works.

Have you ever watched nature at work.. The way creatures move with jerky or sudden movements. you cannot see them when they're still, but as soon as they move, bingo!!
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

M2morris
03-19-2007, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by K_Freddie:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
From air the hardest thing for me to do was to find the other plane ATC told us about.
Once found it was easy to keep them in sight or look away and find them again.

Never had a problem with this, it's brain/visual conditioning, as in nature. You look for a movement against a stationary background. It's a neat trick that works.

Have you ever watched nature at work.. The way creatures move with jerky or sudden movements. you cannot see them when they're still, but as soon as they move, bingo!!
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorta related: About 12 years ago I was in a Shwiezer 2-33 on a right down-wind at about 1500 ft AGL and I saw a guy in a Shwiezer 1-35 coming right at me about 100 feet lower. I climbed a little as he went by directly below and he never even saw me. I did a 360 and followed him in. I had caught site of him moving with the terrain in his background, but I did'nt see him look up at me at all, I talked to him afterward and he was a little shocked, he really had no excuse for wanting to do a down-wind landing, jeeeze.

M2morris
03-19-2007, 04:19 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by M2morris:
I did a 360 and followed him in. QUOTE]
oops, I meant 180 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

ElAurens
03-19-2007, 05:37 PM
Well, we have a few real world pilots in the BlitzPigs. they mostly won't post here anymore because of the armchair experts here telling them that they (the real pilots) are wrong.

BlitzPig Tailspin is a real world aerobatics instructor using a 450hp Stearman.

In a nutshell his thoughts are thus:

Torque is overmodeled, across the board.

The ground handling of the Spitfire and He111 are laughable, at best. The Bf109's is too easy.

The stall/spin/flatspin characteristics are not correct.

The characteristics of the P51 are not well repressented.

It is still the best prop sim available.

He is going to have one of his buddies who races a real P51A fly the sim and get his thoughts.

Flame away.

Old_Canuck
03-20-2007, 12:29 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Well, we have a few real world pilots in the BlitzPigs. they mostly won't post here anymore because of the armchair experts here telling them that they (the real pilots) are wrong.

BlitzPig Tailspin is a real world aerobatics instructor using a 450hp Stearman.

In a nutshell his thoughts are thus:

Torque is overmodeled, across the board.

The ground handling of the Spitfire and He111 are laughable, at best. The Bf109's is too easy.

The stall/spin/flatspin characteristics are not correct.

The characteristics of the P51 are not well repressented.

It is still the best prop sim available.

He is going to have one of his buddies who races a real P51A fly the sim and get his thoughts.

Flame away.


"still the best prop sim available."

So glad he inserted this line after the brutally honest critiques. Considering the limitations of our viewing angles, lack of other sensory input and restrictions imposed by the computers themselves, it's remarkable that flight sims have even evolved to the state they're in now.

If I saw this kind of thing 20 years ago I wouldn't have believed it.

msalama
03-20-2007, 03:30 AM
Flame away.

Not me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


BlitzPig Tailspin is a real world aerobatics instructor using a 450hp Stearman.

OK, his RL flying experience is of a biplane taildragger with far less HP than what the WWII warbirds generally have...


Torque is overmodeled, across the board.

See above http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Also, what controller(s) does he use, and how are they adjusted?


The ground handling of the Spitfire and He111 are laughable, at best. The Bf109's is too easy.

This might very well be. Does he have any RL experience of the types mentioned?


The stall/spin/flatspin characteristics are not correct.

Across the board, or as regards some individual AC?


The characteristics of the P51 are not well repressented.

Might again very well be. It'll be interesting to see what his buddy says about the matter.


It is still the best prop sim available.

Some however say that Targetware's flight modelling washes the floor w/ IL-2's http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

NOTE: the questions above were by no means aired in order to denigrate your friend and / or his RL flying experience. It's just that real pilots, too, disagree HUGELY about matters aviational, be they simulated or real! So I just decided to get a bit more specific here... S!

Steven190
03-20-2007, 06:28 AM
My question to this thread is why does the flight model change with every update?

Why can't the Flight Models be what they really were in real life, instead of being changed to fix what the whinnes or designers like or complain about. This would be aceptable to most, then you would have to learn your own plane, it strenghts and weekness.


This is the best of the flight sims, but needs in my option to be more real life as they were.

My qualifications, Multi-engine, IFR rated pilot with 1300+ hours flight time.

LStarosta
03-20-2007, 06:37 AM
Some however say that Targetware's flight modelling washes the floor w/ IL-2's :Wink:

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

Bearcat99
03-20-2007, 07:01 AM
Originally posted by Steven190:
My question to this thread is why does the flight model change with every update?
Why can't the Flight Models be what they really were in real life, instead of being changed to fix what the whinnes or designers like or complain about. This would be aceptable to most, then you would have to learn your own plane, it strenghts and weekness.
This is the best of the flight sims, but needs in my option to be more real life as they were.
My qualifications, Multi-engine, IFR rated pilot with 1300+ hours flight time.

It probably has something to do with the what... 10- 11 year old engine... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif besides.. it is like that.... FMs being what they are you still have to learn each planes strengths and weaknesses... you cant fly and fight in a 190 like a Yak... or a P-51 like an La.. or a 109 like a Zero.... etc... Since I have been around here I have heard about how FMs are determined and "....being changed to fix what the whinnes or designers like or complain about.".... IMO that is just such nonsense... I think that 1C is striving for as close to accurate as they can get.. and I think working on BoB has opened up options for the original code that they might not have considered 2-3 years ago.... I really dont think 1C has the time or wherewithall to listen to much of the griping that comes from around here.. much less make adjustments for every whine... but in many cases where things are pointed out and proven... they get corrected.. some don't.... but that isn't my call.... I just know that as the life of the sim progresses I am still being challenged... by this now 5 year old sim on a 10+ year old engine... Thats pretty darned impressive IMO.

Keep in mind that even in 46.... the basic engine is the tweaked IL2 engine... I cant think of another one that has been around for that long and is still viable.. I personally think that although the FMs do change they continue in the same direction.. they improve.... if you can compare FB1.0s FMs to FB 4.08... which is what 46 is... there is no comparison and flaws and all.... it is still IMO pound for pound the best combat flight sim available... others may do some things better.. granted.. but as an overall package.. this sim is King and will remain so at least for the near future.

Aurens I will be curious to know what the P-51 pilot thinks of the Ponies FMs.... make sure Tailspin lets us know.

F0_Dark_P
03-20-2007, 07:51 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
Spinner, you got MS flight simulator? How's that rate?

I was thinking of this to...

I have been flying the Piper Cub in fs04 for some time now (love that airplane btw http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif ) , and IMHO i must say that i feel more like a "pilot" flying the MS game then i do in IL2, the engine management, weather and navigation is so much better in that game, but IL2 might have better physics http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

can some one comment on this?...

msalama
03-20-2007, 08:08 AM
can some one comment on this?...

Well AFAIK FS2004's physics modelling is somewhat lacking when it comes to reproduction of out-of-envelope conditions like spins and general hi-perf prop AC behaviour (gyro and prop effects are largely missing and / or weird etc). But it's still a brilliant overall sim package IMHO!

The Cub is your fave you said? Mine too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Hey, do yourself a favor and try A. Metzger's Cub config files (http://www.metzgergva.de/default_e.htm) out... mucho goodness there http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

Steven190
03-20-2007, 08:32 AM
What is fustrating is that you do learn the plane under one set of models, than it is changed in the next set. Also there are planes that change too much form set to set.

I am not alone in my thinking on this. There now are planes that are way too over modeled from what they were in real life.

I quest my piont is why all the changes? It does not seem that there is any common flight rules from plane to plane. If things were set for a certain aircraft they should stay the same through out the updated. There has been no explaination as to what the changes are in flight models from series to series. Why is it that it seems that one aircraft is changed drasticaly over the rest? Then changed on the next series. Each plane did have it's developedmantal changes during the war, going from an advantage to a dis-advantage through the it's life course.

I guess that I am just ranting on deaf ears here.

BOA_Allmenroder
03-20-2007, 09:09 AM
As a real world pilot myself, my thoughts on this sim is that it is flawed: except when you compare it to all the others available. It's the best of what's available.

The below comparisons are not slams since I recognize that many are due to the limiations of programming, game engine, pc etc etc.

Visually, I believe this program has the 'feel' of what it's like to fly in close formation with other a/c: it 'looks' right.

I believe 'dot' ID is way off both horizontally and vertically. Having an altitude advantage in this game is really limited by 'dot' distinguishment. In real life you can spot 'the dot' at much greater vertical/horizontal distances than the limitations this game has.

Weather effects: there really is none: turbulence is laughable, no winds aloft effects etc. However, the effects of going through clouds in close formation, again, 'looks' right.

General/Overall Flight modelling? Well, I do believe that in the game, WITH THE RIGHT PC SETTINGS, FLIGHT CONTROLLER ETC, aircraft are able to perform maneuvers that are near impossible in real life. However, I attribute this to programming/engine limitations rather than conscious design. Complex engine management/'taking care of your equipment' is not modelled effectively.

Country Specific Flight Modelling? I do think some countries a/c are overmodelled compared to others. Personnally I belive this is due to marketing decisions rather than 'ethnocentric' decisions, and I'll leave it at that.

The above being said, however, this game has given me countless hours of enjoyment, frustration, anger, disbelief and, above all, fun. If it hadn't, I would not have purchased it and it's follow on modules. It's one of only two PC games I have played on a continual basis for the past several years.

slipBall
03-20-2007, 09:16 AM
I think that the original question was how do pilot's compare this sim to their experience's with real aircraft. Meaning the flight model in general. Non of us have any experience with these birds in real life. With so many individual aircraft to model, I'm sure that they are not correct in all ways. But as a basic flight sim, meaning plane X will stall at X speed...well we have that. The flight controls cause these aircraft to behave as real aircraft do, and again, that is the basic's. I don't think that many of us would be happy with a hand full of aircraft, tuned to perfection...although some would. I said that I find this sim very close to real, in a basic way. If in SOW, the aircraft will drift with a cross wind, or be buffeted by up-drafts, then so much the better. IL2 is old and limited, but it still is a very good flight sim.

rnzoli
03-20-2007, 09:23 AM
If things were set for a certain aircraft they should stay the same through out the updated.
I agree with you that consistency is important, if we should believe that a flight model is correct. Radically different versions can't be all correct. However, your questions revolve around a lot of related problems, most importantly: difficult to know how to configure an aircraft to represent the real life variant properly, and from then, it is difficult to make continuous improvements, if a proven faulty setting cannot be corrected in upcoming patches. The negative G cutout on the Zeros and the asymmetric recoil on USN aircraft come to my mind.

Maybe you should simplify the question for yourself to "What is your opinion about this 4.08m version of the sim?"

Also, the inclusion of the little Sukhoi airplane in SoW: BoB is addressing a lot of these questions. At least there will be a straight comparison possible between RL and in-game performance.

msalama
03-20-2007, 09:24 AM
Hmmm... well, a bit of an aside truth be telt, but still:

I sincerely do think that this mass hysteria of planes X/Y/Z now being overmodelled/porked/screwed/whatever surrounding every single patch those poor buggers ever release is an overmodelled phenomenon in _itself_ IMHO. That and worse: there have been many occasions where Oleg has said that the FMs are unchanged but people _still_ get their pants in a bunch about the alleged HUGE changes there... Mass hysteria anyone? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

msalama
03-20-2007, 09:30 AM
And oh yeah! The 4.xx series is actually a FM _BETA_ for SoW, too. A fact many people fail to either remember or understand...

arrowtalon
03-20-2007, 10:37 AM
I've never "really" flown for any considerable length of time, but I have a sense for what an aircraft should feel like upon landing, takeoff, etc.

I was wondering what those with more experience think about the ground modelling/landing/torque modelling. As far as I can tell, this is the biggest point of contention among the experts. I'm referring specifically to propeller torque at takeoff and the oscillating drift we all get. I also find the bouncing tail effect when landing to be a bit arcadish... Is this a tire-modelling issue?

Could it be that a fundamental part of basic flying is poorly modelled when the more complicated stuff is done well?

arrowtalon
03-20-2007, 10:43 AM
Country Specific Flight Modelling? I do think some countries a/c are overmodelled compared to others. Personnally I belive this is due to marketing decisions rather than 'ethnocentric' decisions, and I'll leave it at that.

Based on various historical sources and veteran accounts, I'd agree with that. (Look at how the Pony was modelled in CFS3 if you're skeptical). I won't bog down this thread with naming certain planes, (I'll do it somewhere else, inevitably) but those of us that play online know there is one plane in particular that was, ahem, given preferential treatment.

That said, I find the evolution of the flight model to be intriguing and I think Maddox is simply trying to improve the simulation with each version--sometimes they make mistakes, most of the time they get it right (or at least more-right).

Okay...so what do you real pilots think?

BOA_Allmenroder
03-20-2007, 11:40 AM
One of the things that is not modelled correctly compared to real life is control inputs. For example, in real life in order to roll a plane you input right aileron, then, upon reaching the appropriate bank angle, you neutralize the aileron input (ie go back to 'center' aileron.

In this sim, you have to hold/keep the input in. You can look at your aileron and see the aileron remain deflected...in real life you'd just keep rolling if the airleron remained deflected.

The other annoyance I find, is that if the game a/c is out of trim, the game a/c keeps turning in flight (watch the compass). If real life, if the a/c is out of coordinated flight (ie ball not centered) it just flys uncoordinated, it does not keep turning (ie flys in a skid).

Landing seems pretty realistic to me; the feel is about right. And this brings up another annoyance. While landing, firewalling the throttle seems to cause a definate torque rolling effect on the a/c (which it should, btw) the same doesn't occur on the ground, or seems to for me. In other words, I find the application of full throttle on the ground not to be as pronounced as the same when on short final.

IMO, all these high powered fighter should roll over uncontrollably on their backs if you cobb the throttle on the ground. Take off should be a gradual, smooth increase in the throttle, not some of the obvious 'firewall and go' we observe on line.

slipBall
03-20-2007, 01:40 PM
One of the things that is not modelled correctly compared to real life is control inputs. For example, in real life in order to roll a plane you input right aileron, then, upon reaching the appropriate bank angle, you neutralize the aileron input (ie go back to 'center' aileron.

In this sim, you have to hold/keep the input in. You can look at your aileron and see the aileron remain deflected...in real life you'd just keep rolling if the airleron remained deflected



When I bank for a turn in the 109, upon reaching the appropriate bank angle, I return the control to neutral position and she will maintain the turn....looking out the window the ailerons are in neutral position. It may be that your controller is sticking, or needs to be calibrated http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif...or it could be a bug in the aircraft, which plane do you see this with

msalama
03-20-2007, 02:04 PM
Well, what SlipBall said. The planes do stay banked after returning the stick to neutral here as well, so maybe there's something wrong with your controller(s)?

JG14_Josf
03-20-2007, 03:05 PM
I guess that I am just ranting on deaf ears here.

I'd like to try to address a few loose ends:

The game started out with fighter planes that had exactly the same dive and zoom acceleration performance.

That is no longer the case.

One of the first changes in the flight model was a terminal velocity limit charged to planes in an effort to change acceleration rates.

I'm speculating in the absense of 'offical' data. The facts can be proven by loading the un-patched original CD for testing.

Two planes can be tested for any changes.

Example:

The lightest Spitfire with the lowest thrust can be tested against the heaviest P-47 with the highest thrust with the first (un-patched) version of the game where the Spitfire and P-47 appeared in the line-up. Those results can be compared to the latest version of the game with the new P-47D and the new lightest Spitfire.

The changes in rates of acceleration in vertical dives and rates of deceleration in vertical climbs (pure vertical to eliminate any changes in ˜induced drag' calculation) will be significant from the original version of the game to the latest patch in my opinion based upon my understanding at this time.

I've flown Hang Gliders as diverse as a single surface large wing to a double surface small wing and my weight has remained the same. The single surface large wing is accelerated by air speed greatly compared to the double surface small wing. One accelerates better than the other in a dive.

I have very little time in my brother Cessna 150 and his Beech Bonanza; however – one plane can be pointed down in a dive and the engine must be running at full power to get the thing to accelerate in the dive compared to the other plane that must be watched in a dive even if the power is off because the other plane will accelerate in a dive very quickly – relatively speaking.

The game has come a long way from a game engine that might model a single surface large winged hang glider, a double surface small winged hang glider, a Cessna 150, and a Beech Bonanza all with he same (power off) vertical dive acceleration rate (and vertical climb deceleration rate) to what it is now which is a game engine that has a significant difference in the rate of acceleration between the early Spitfire and the late P-47 (especially at higher speeds when the Spitfire is obviously suffering a reduction in the rate of acceleration for some reason near its terminal velocity).

The odd and exaggerated climb rate for the early Spitfire and the odd sustained turn rate (not quantified by me other than a few test flights) for the new P-47D indicates to me that the method of modeling differences in rates of acceleration in the game is a compromise that may not be physically accurate.

My guess is that the game does not model density and/or inertia accurately and the fudge involves aircraft size (surface area) and thrust.

An increase in size (scale) may increase the games Drag force measure and increase wing area at the same time which would decrease top speed and increase climb rate and increase glide angle (the Fw190A having an engine off glider-like best glide angle is odd too).

A perfect game may come along at the same time when everyone has a perfect opinion. Perfect opinions are like perfect orifices. No one has one but many people think they do.

Blame me.

Old_Canuck
03-20-2007, 04:59 PM
Sorry to butt in again but I just had a great time online with a commercial pilot who just bought IL2 recently. In a previous email, he asked why he was getting shot down so much online: "are they using cheats?" I informed him about Oleg and Team's dedication to limiting cheating. "Fact is a lot of the players have been playing for years," I told him. I asked another player on comms. who is from Czech Republic how long he's been playing this game and the answer was "6 years." This impressed our pilot friend and he made repeated comments (positive comments) about the graphics and feel of the game. One comment stuck in my mind: "you have to know something about flying with this sim." I guess that about sums it up.

ElAurens
03-20-2007, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by msalama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Flame away.

Not me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


BlitzPig Tailspin is a real world aerobatics instructor using a 450hp Stearman.

OK, his RL flying experience is of a biplane taildragger with far less HP than what the WWII warbirds generally have...


Torque is overmodeled, across the board.

See above http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Also, what controller(s) does he use, and how are they adjusted?


The ground handling of the Spitfire and He111 are laughable, at best. The Bf109's is too easy.

This might very well be. Does he have any RL experience of the types mentioned?


The stall/spin/flatspin characteristics are not correct.

Across the board, or as regards some individual AC?


The characteristics of the P51 are not well repressented.

Might again very well be. It'll be interesting to see what his buddy says about the matter.


It is still the best prop sim available.

Some however say that Targetware's flight modelling washes the floor w/ IL-2's http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

NOTE: the questions above were by no means aired in order to denigrate your friend and / or his RL flying experience. It's just that real pilots, too, disagree HUGELY about matters aviational, be they simulated or real! So I just decided to get a bit more specific here... S! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And you see why they won't bother here.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Ok, I'll try to paraphrase his thought on your questions. Give me some wiggle room though.

On torque:

His argument is basically that in a real plane you can feel the onset of torque and can compensate instinctually, where in the sim there is no "feel" for anything really, the first you realize that there is the onset of a torque induced problem is when the visual starts spinning, by which time it is too late. This is a limitation of PC power and controller feedback at this time.

The same holds true for the spin/stall/departure from controlled flight scripted routine we have in the game. Again, real airplanes do not just slip out from under you with no warning like they do in the game, controls get soft/mushy, there is vibration on the edge, lots of cues that we don't have in the game. And all aircraft in real life have different stall characteristics. Some just gently wash out, some drop a wing etc... But no real aircraft slip on a patch of ice and go wildly tumbling out of control like they do in our little world.

As for the 109 and Spit ground handling, TS is very connected to the West Coast war bird and WW2 pilot community. He speaks regularly with pilots who do indeed fly these aircraft.
Their observations are that the Spitfire is better overall in any taxi situation, but especially on concrete runways. The Bf109 is better suited to sod or dirt fields, and is much closer to the Spitfire under those conditions.

In game what do we have? The 109 is a total Clown Car on the ground, any n00b can drive it without trouble, but the Spit is like a one legged man on crutches trying to walk on an ice rink.

As for his buddy with teh P51, he also flys a modern built Yak 9, and has flown earlier versions of the game (pre P51), and say the in game Yak 9 is very accurately modeled.

Just trying to relay what I have understood him to say on our comms while discussing these things.

Hopefully I will get out to California one day and go for a hop in the Stearman.

M_Gunz
03-20-2007, 07:19 PM
And yet by history they say that accelerated stalls and snap stalls can catch you by surprise.

msalama
03-20-2007, 11:32 PM
Cheers Aurens. What he says actually stands to reason for the most part... S!

Hkuusela
03-22-2007, 02:24 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
In game what do we have? The 109 is a total Clown Car on the ground, any n00b can drive it without trouble, but the Spit is like a one legged man on crutches trying to walk on an ice rink.
I tried taking off with the 109 yesterday in order to test the ground handling. I went from 0% power straight to 100% power. What happened? Not much, I'm sorry to say. There was some tendency to turn, but easily compensated with rudder. In reality the 109 was terrible to take off (as well as to land). It had small rudder surface, narrow undercarriage and large propeller. So if you power up too fast, the rudder surface is too small to compensate the torque and the torque will take you straight off your wheels. This can be experienced in the Wings of Power 109 and I think it was better modeled in the early FB.

msalama
03-22-2007, 04:17 AM
Well, what Hkuusela said - or, if you don't mind & Mr. Kuusela really is a Finn, aivan täsmälleen juuri näin http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But then again the torque effects are a bit inconsistent across the board, aren't they? Some AC have a lot, others almost none...

Hkuusela
03-22-2007, 04:51 AM
That is probably so (although I tried the Spit, F4U, P51 and P47 too with similar effect). I remember taking off the first times in the FB about a year ago flying the Brewster (of course... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) and later on the 109. I had a hard time at first getting of the ground because of the torque. Maybe this is something that is lost in the later patches (or maybe I've just evolved into some kind of an über pilot http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif )? I think the inconsistent torque effect thing (in the air) might be due to the fact that the flyable A/C have been added during such a long period of time.

Hopefully taking off with the 109 will never get as hard as it was in R/L though!!

tomtheyak
03-22-2007, 05:05 AM
Originally posted by msalama :
But then again the torque effects are a bit inconsistent across the board, aren't they? Some AC have a lot, others almost none...



The torque effects seem to my limited experience more consistent than before: remember that torque is primarily a weight Vs HP equation (though other factors are there). That is if two a/c have the same HP the heavier will be less affected by the engines torque. The Spitfire IX demonstrates this well; try taking off empty at full power and then with the full bomb load (1x 500lb + 2x 250lb). With ordinance the effect of torque is less noticable.

Bearcat99
03-22-2007, 06:52 AM
I think torque is undermodelled.... Keep in mind that in a Merlined P-51 if you slammed the throttle forward on the ground many many times the plane would flip over from the torque... that isnt modelled... many, most in fact of the TA I know said that to take off in a P-40 they had to applyu almost full right rudder... not so in the sim either.

Still a great piece of work though.

tigertalon
03-22-2007, 07:02 AM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
I think torque is undermodelled.... Keep in mind that in a Merlined P-51 if you slammed the throttle forward on the ground many many times the plane would flip over from the torque... that isnt modelled...

Wasn't this due to the airflow from the prop over the elevators, so the pilot had to keep stick pulled back during throttling up?

p-11.cAce
03-22-2007, 08:22 AM
We HAD great torque modeling and adverse yaw modeling back with 4.01 - then the great wobble wars began and soon we were back to planes that fly like driving a car - little torque, almost no adverse yaw http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

horseback
03-22-2007, 08:54 AM
Let's not go there, please. I had gross differences in the handling of certain aircraft from a certain period built by a certain country, and almost unchanged handling in aircraft from a certain other country (on two different rigs with Athlon and Intel processors respectively), yet all of these aircraft were known to be subject to tremendous torque...and the ones that changed the most were supposed to be the less subject to torque issues both in the air and on the ground.

The torque modeling on your favorite ride might have been just fine in your eyes, but the torque modeling was very inconsistant from aircraft to aircraft, and some important aircraft were very badly treated in the early 4.0X patches.

cheers

horseback

BM357_Sniper
03-22-2007, 09:21 AM
I love how the guys that aren't real pilots are defending this sim to the death! lol I hate to say this because this is the best thing out, however the more I fly IL2 the more arcade it feels to me.

Like I mentioned before, I see things in here that would tear a plane apart or kill the pilot if they did it in real life. That just aggrevates me to the point of wanting to put it down until there's something better.

JG14_Josf
03-22-2007, 09:21 AM
Wasn't this due to the airflow from the prop over the elevators, so the pilot had to keep stick pulled back during throttling up?

At least three things at once (http://wiki.flightgear.org/flightgear_wiki/index.php?title=Understanding_Propeller_Torque_and _P-Factor) are involved in what can be misunderstood as only 'torque reaction'.

The power in the cylinders forces the pistons down and ˜at the same time' the power in the cylinders forces the heads on the opposite vector. The light weight prop is forced at high speed against accelerating counter forces including air force or drag or induced drag or whatever one wishes to call the forces that oppose the rotation of the prop; at the same time the whole airplane is being forced around the prop axis slowly, or abruptly, depending upon how fast the forces are pushing, pulling, resisting and counter-forcing. An engine will rotate within the motor mounts and an engine will wind-up the suspension springs when the engine is rapped up quickly as the power forces both piston and cylinder in opposite directions. The path of least resistance may be an engine block rotating around the crank shaft as well as the accumulation of massive pistons, rods, wrist pins, and counter-weights being forced on vectors at amazing rates of acceleration.

To say that a massive aircraft will roll over at the blip of the throttle is, perhaps, an over simplification of what actually happens.

If the prop is pitched flat, then, the engine will rev up to the set rpm without much effort.

How much mass is turned, how fast, which way?

If the prop is pitched course, then, the engine will have to move a lot of air.

The air goes somewhere.

Anyone have an accurate description of a WWII Fighter ground looping due to engine torque alone?

Please link sources.

BM357_Sniper
03-22-2007, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
I think torque is undermodelled.... Keep in mind that in a Merlined P-51 if you slammed the throttle forward on the ground many many times the plane would flip over from the torque... that isnt modelled...

Wasn't this due to the airflow from the prop over the elevators, so the pilot had to keep stick pulled back during throttling up? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I'm not mistaken, thats how they locked the tailwheel. I believe thats the reason for pulling back on the stick slightly.

BM357_Sniper
03-22-2007, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The F4U flies worse (wobble) than a V-tail Bonanza in a gusty winds!

That bad!

I don't have a lot of time flying but enough to offer an opinion.

The game simulates flight well.

The next step will be Force Feedback in a chair/control set up with roll, yaw, pitch, elevator, aileron, and rudder.

The visual shaking helps, the stall sounds help, and the inertia movements help make the simulation seem like flight.

More of the same feedback 'feelings' would help greatly.

It won't ever be flying cause there ain't no refly button in reality.

To say that a massive aircraft will roll over at the blip of the throttle is, perhaps, an over simplification of what actually happens.

If the prop is pitched flat, then, the engine will rev up to the set rpm without much effort.

How much mass is turned, how fast, which way?

If the prop is pitched course, then, the engine will have to move a lot of air.

The air goes somewhere.

Anyone have an accurate description of a WWII Fighter ground looping due to engine torque alone?

Please link sources. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is what gets me here. Most people here have never flown anything and if they did, its been nothing more than a glider or very small GA plane. This is probably my biggest reason for not commenting in here that much. Unless you're a real pilot or an aeronautical engineer, (and I don't put much emphasis on the latter) all your graphs and references don't really mean much.

I mean, from the way some people act in here, you'd have me believe I should go to you when you get off your 9-5 to take my recurrent training. lol

Now, please let me clarify, I'm NOT trying to flame, but make a point. It seems like no matter what someone says, someone that IS a professional pilot, it seems like there are a lot of people here that know better.

You CAN torque a plane right off the runway, some you can ground loop as well. They don't have to have a 2000 hp engine to do it either.

JG14_Josf
03-22-2007, 09:54 AM
You CAN torque a plane right off the runway, some you can ground loop as well. They don't have to have a 2000 hp engine to do it either.

No flame,

Innuendo is a fine thing. Go ahead and use it. Suggesting that my flight time is meaningless is OK by me. That is fine. No big deal. Meaningless drivel in fact; from my viewpoint – since it is customary to spout out anything that comes to mind.

The point I tried to make was a need to quote sources when expressing some measure of ˜authority' on the topic.

Example (imaginary):


I set the prop control to manual flat and quickly moved the throttle lever forward as the engine torque turned the plane up side down. This embarrassing situation was heightened by the fact that I soiled my pants.

So the story above is a complete fabrication of reality. So is the game. I get that part. You can certainly prove me wrong as you fabricate your version of my perspective.

Go ahead and quote me on that or make something up and attribute it to me.

How about a video example of a torque induced ground loop?

Something substantial, real, tangible, or believable would be nice – to prove a point.

Consider this a request. No demand. No intent to flame. If torque reaction causes ground loops, then, I'd like to see some evidence. I do not pretend to know it all. Please lower the level of innuendo directed at me and you may find less to criticize.

WWSpinDry
03-22-2007, 10:19 AM
I did a very quick and dirty Google search, here are a few of the hits on the first page. I expect real research (not web-based) would turn up better examples.

"The next most probable cause of ground looping is that the engine is installed with more right thrust than needed to counteract the engine's torque, and the plane is actually being pulled into the ground loop."

http://www.rmfm.org/ground_loop.htm

"The unexpected ground loop is still one of the Wildcat's weak points. The combination of the narrow gear, marginal brakes, and high wing can be seen on many takeoff and landing roll outs "” one wing or the other comes up or goes down due to engine torque and/or crosswinds."

http://rwebs.net/dispatch/output.asp?ArticleID=32

"the right brake failed and the engine torque pulled the airplane to the left into a ground loop"

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001208X08641&key=1

BOA_Allmenroder
03-22-2007, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by msalama:
Well, what SlipBall said. The planes do stay banked after returning the stick to neutral here as well, so maybe there's something wrong with your controller(s)?

Hey, recalibrated my controller based upon the two remarks and presto chango, issue went away!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

msalama
03-23-2007, 01:24 AM
...and presto chango, issue went away!

Cheers m8 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

But a few more words still concerning the torque and propeller effects in this game if you don't mind awfully: now of course - and as stated already - many factors affect how strong of a sideways pull / rolling motion an individual AC is subject to, both IRL and in the game. The engine HP, the weight of the AC in question, possible offset angle of the vertical tail, the layout of the landing gear etc. all are factors AFAIK in how severe - or mild - are the physical effects. And those indeed do vary between the in-game AC too, so the modelling at least _seems_ to be somewhat more complex than what some older sims had if any.

That said every possible scrap of information I've seen so far has mentioned how severe were the effects IRL, and that's something we're not seeing here. But then again, how about the strength of the _perceived_ power train-related effects an individual virtual IL-2 pilot experiences when taking off? I f.ex. just got a set of rudder pedals recently, and after going back and forth with the settings for a while have now settled with a set of values that seem to work very well - and let me tell you, with some birds I just _have_ to give them almost all the deflection I have at my disposal in order to keep them straight! Which then of course presents us with yet another problem here, i.e. one between the as-modelled and the _subjective_ strength of the in-game effects as perceived by an individual IL-2 pilot...

So it's all, again, a bit more complex than what first meets the cognition I'm afraid http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

And yet we're not seeing any (many?) torque-related ground loop accidents etc. so the overall effect indeed seems a bit mild, whereas the in-air effects at least _feel_ quite believable (says he hopefully with his 0 hours of experience in flying the real birds). So maybe it's the ground modelling that's a bit off after all, but not the power train effects stuff?

What do you think guys? Or am I just rambling here?

M_Gunz
03-23-2007, 06:28 AM
When your prop is changing rpms, however fast that change occurs will affect both strength
and direction of the gyroscopic force. So when they say slam the throttle to full it is
not the same as bringing the prop up to speed smooth and slow though just what that makes
from one plane to the next... I've read that a standing still Plane X or Y could not be
brought to full power without problems first. It wasn't all of them. You fly one as if
it is another then maybe you get a surprise before takeoff.
Bringing rpms down fast in flight should cause a reverse gyro effect without reversing
wash or p-factor.
In both cases the length, width and weight of prop blades has to matter.
AFAICT we have differences like that in IL2, check them when you are about dead slow.

I remember trying P-51 first day I had Aces running and didn't pay good attention as I
came out of a pass on a bomber during seeing where my shots were going practice. I brought
the thing up and around while half rolling and got about 3/4 the way up and the plane spun
upside down so fast I didn't know what happened until after I was upside down. Since I
let off the stick at the start before even thinking that's all that happened, no spin out.
I dropped the nose and got speed back feeling foolish, exhilarated, and remembering the
times I had read the Mustang (and some others) would do that just the way I had just done.
I don't think that is canned/scripted at all and it is something that older sims either
had not or had as canned/scripted departure.
Somehow I don't think I'd like to do that for real even in a 2 seater with instructor.
For one the snap was so fast I'd either concuss against the canopy or strain my neck!

Ain't that torque enough? To judge the Flight Model by how well it does wheels on ground
interaction is maybe stretching it a bit, ain't it?

p-11.cAce
03-23-2007, 06:36 AM
IMHO many of the FM "problems" result from armchair pilots hamfisting their planes rather than software issues. I've had no problems taking off with any of the aircraft since I started doing it properly (after getting a tailwheel endorsement for my PPL) - Once lined up on runway, lock the tailwheel, set flaps, release brakes, smoothly throttle up while feeding in right rudder to maintain heading & don't go to full throttle until tail is up, allow speed to build while reducing rudder input as needed to maintain centerline, allow plane to fly off without forcing early liftoff. I see guys online all the time breaking every one of these rules then crying because they cannot get airborne http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

msalama
03-23-2007, 06:57 AM
Yah, well, what both U guys said. Another example: I was landing a Pe-2 during last Xmas or so, and found myself badly behind the power curve on late finals... so I of course just floored it in my idiocy, and what then happened was me & the bird corkscrewing ourselves to the ground pretty effin' sharpish http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif So yep, there's torque enuff persay I'd say too now that you mention it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif S!

Has to do with the ground modelling being somewhat funny then, eh?

capt_frank
03-23-2007, 07:14 AM
Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
IMHO many of the FM "problems" result from armchair pilots hamfisting their planes rather than software issues. I've had no problems taking off with any of the aircraft since I started doing it properly (after getting a tailwheel endorsement for my PPL) - Once lined up on runway, lock the tailwheel, set flaps, release brakes, smoothly throttle up while feeding in right rudder to maintain heading & don't go to full throttle until tail is up, allow speed to build while reducing rudder input as needed to maintain centerline, allow plane to fly off without forcing early liftoff. I see guys online all the time breaking every one of these rules then crying because they cannot get airborne http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

I get the plane lined up on the runway and just firewall the throttle. I never lock the tail wheel and have never had a problem getting airborne, even with no flaps. True the plane yaws somewhat but I correct that as I'm barreling down the runway.

Never have been able to understand how folks have probs with this.

msalama
03-23-2007, 08:15 AM
Never have been able to understand how folks have probs with this.

One word: controller settings. OK, make that two words.

rnzoli
03-23-2007, 08:43 AM
I get the plane lined up on the runway and just firewall the throttle. I never lock the tail wheel and have never had a problem getting airborne, even with no flaps. True the plane yaws somewhat but I correct that as I'm barreling down the runway.

This statement and the aircraft in your sig speaks volumes about the lack of reality in this game. Bf-109s should slam into the nearest hangar. Norbert Hannig was so glad to be able to change his 109 for a 190 (Anton) for this reason. And he was a real pilot, who nearly smashed his 109 due to throttling up in a hurry.

What I don't understand, why the torque effects are diluted for public consumption, even though there is a difficulty switch for this purpose as well? I guess another marketing decision: let's impress noobs how nicely they can fly the famous Bf-109, so they ask their mates to buy the game, too... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

knightflyte
03-23-2007, 09:16 AM
Other than the possibility that we're dealing with a 6ish year old engine with added FMs, could it be that we have rather tame torque because the game has to be accessible to a wide range of players and wider control options?

The sim still needs to be somewhat playable...thus enjoyable... to the newb, and proficient alike.

I don't think Oleg would create a switch for harcore realistic torque verses torque or even no torque because it would fragment online play.

msalama
03-23-2007, 09:40 AM
Well, my words Zoli. I refrained from mentioning those same points myself, however, because I didn't want to come across as yet another Red whiner http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Not that YOU did, mind you - I didn't mean that by any means!

But then again some planes seem to be more realistic in this regard, whereas others feel pretty arcadish... so I'm wondering what exactly gives here... Uneven ground behaviour modelling perhaps? More attention paid to recent AC? What?

Suggestions gents?

msalama
03-23-2007, 09:41 AM
Yep Knightflyte, could be a so-called commercial decision as well, that's true...

rnzoli
03-23-2007, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by knightflyte:
I don't think Oleg would create a switch for harcore realistic torque verses torque or even no torque because it would fragment online play.
Don't think so? Well, that switch ALREADY exists. It's called "Torque & Gyro effects" on the 1st page of the difficulty setting screen.

I am not so worried about fragment online play, as I don't even want to play with 6 year old kids. I am worried about something potentially taken away from the immersive power of this sim/game, for absolutely no reason - it could have been configurable by that difficulty switch I mentioned above.

horseback
03-23-2007, 09:53 AM
The 'more attention paid to later flyables' theory seems to me the most reasonable; the 109 has been in the game from Day One, and it seems to me to have changed least from patch to patch overall since I first powered it up in the original Il-2 Sturmovik almost 5 years ago.

At that time, it was considered pretty hard to take off and land compared to the M$CF$ and Red Baron sims it was competing against. Expectations have evolved a bit since then.

Takeoff and landing behaviors in all the flyable aircraft are generally pretty benign compared to the real things, though. It just annoys me that the ones that were reputed to be the hardest to take off and land in are more benign in that respect than the ones that were supposed to be easy to take off and land in...

cheers

horseback

AWL_Spinner
03-23-2007, 10:11 AM
Better late than never http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



Originally posted by Ploughman:
Spinner, you got MS flight simulator? How's that rate?

Yes, as a GA pilot I enjoy MS flight sim immensely (not that I have the time at the moment).

It's brilliant at creating an immersive environment, you can use your real world charts, all the frequencies and navaids work, the scenery is familiar and recognisable (most of the time) and the weather and traffic can be really impressive.

So I play that for those things, and they're enough to keep me happy with it.

As far as FMs go however, it's always felt very sterile. The aircraft I DO know from the real world don't really feel like the aircraft in the simulator, no matter how much their performance statistics match up.

It's not all about charts and figures correlating, it's more about what flying feels like in terms of airflow sensation, (especially) inertia - sims in general seem to have great trouble with that one, turbulence, etc.

As others have mentioned, IL2 is lousy on the ground but it's got by far the best "feel" (impossible to quantify that one, really) of flying out there on a PC.

The first thing I try out in any new sim is a spin: departure from controlled flight has always been rubbish or impossible in MSFS, and although it's mostly scripted in IL2 it's by far the closest any PC sim has come, for me, to this hard-to-reproduce facet of flight.

Oh, and IL2 rocks the online world.

Apples and oranges, really.

blindpugh
03-23-2007, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
I hope that the atmospheric modelling in BoB is better - but boy get ready for the WHINING!! If prop wash, turbulence, wind gusts, etc. are modelled this thread will be choked with threads about- wobbles, stick settings, porked this, uber that, yadayadyadyaydayada. I for one would love to get a good bounce whipping through the wash coming off a box formation of B-17's, or squeaking a landing after rocking and bouncing down through a short final in the middle of the day on a desert map. THAT would add immensly to the "real" feel of the sim. 4.01 patch had all of the above but we heard nothing but whining about it -

knightflyte
03-23-2007, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by knightflyte:
I don't think Oleg would create a switch for harcore realistic torque verses torque or even no torque because it would fragment online play.
Don't think so? Well, that switch ALREADY exists. It's called "Torque & Gyro effects" on the 1st page of the difficulty setting screen.

I am not so worried about fragment online play, as I don't even want to play with 6 year old kids. I am worried about something potentially taken away from the immersive power of this sim/game, for absolutely no reason - it could have been configurable by that difficulty switch I mentioned above. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You missunderstood or I didn't explain it right. I'm aware there is a torque gyro option ingame. I'm just saying he wouldn't ADD ANOTHER level of torque effect in game to reflect a more realistic effect because it would fragment the online community more.

Can you imagine Hyperlobby?

AND the game still has to be accessible to the greatest amount of simmers with the most widely used joystick configuration. The sim is still a game, and while you or I may enjoy the challenge, I'm not sure the casual gamer would.

msalama
03-23-2007, 01:48 PM
4.01 patch had all of the above but we heard nothing but whining about it -

Propwash f.ex? No it bloody well didn't! Or maybe I had one of my thicker moments back then - they're pretty common I can assure you - and just didn't notice http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

No but really?

msalama
03-23-2007, 01:50 PM
Well, cynical as it might sound Knightflyte might be right actually... there's always the biznes to think about isn't there http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

ViktorViktor
03-23-2007, 01:56 PM
Taking off in the rain in IL2 - now is that realistic ?

msalama
03-23-2007, 01:58 PM
Taking off in the rain in IL2 - now is that realistic ?

No. Some weatherwaning is to be expected, sure, but...

ploughman
03-23-2007, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by AWL_Spinner:
Better late than never http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Originally posted by Ploughman:
Spinner, you got MS flight simulator? How's that rate?

Yes, as a GA pilot I enjoy MS flight sim immensely (not that I have the time at the moment).
[snip]
Oh, and IL2 rocks the online world.

Apples and oranges, really. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cheers. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

capt_frank
03-23-2007, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by msalama:
Well, my words Zoli. I refrained from mentioning those same points myself, however, because I didn't want to come across as yet another Red whiner http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Red plane, blue plane, it doesn't make any difference, they are all really easy to get airborne in this game. That was my point, regardless of any thought given to "reality".

And as to the BF109 in my sig, it's a great looking plane, that's why it's there.

p-11.cAce
03-23-2007, 02:54 PM
4.01 patch had all of the above but we heard nothing but whining about it -

Which is exactly my point with the FM in SoW - if weather effects are modeled (I don't believe they were in 4.01 but torque and adverse yaw certainly were!) this forum will be wall to wall whining http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif Just wait till enough people get slow on final approach and catch a good tailwind gust and stall in -"this weather model is so porked! the average gust differential on a standard day in July in Dover is 5kph not 8kph! What is Oleg thinking??!!" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

slipBall
03-23-2007, 04:07 PM
Would be nice to somehow have switche's for this...many people don't understand that a plane ride can jolt you around alot, and they would surely not like it in their sim http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

OMK_Hand
03-23-2007, 05:27 PM
I wonder if the blind panel instruments in SoW will 'topple', as a result of hard manoeuvring?
That would be something - screaming into cloud to evade a bounce with no working attitude or climb gauges...

p-11.cAce
03-23-2007, 07:33 PM
Oh man...that would suck. Not such a big deal now because you know that if you go into the cloud right side up you will come out right side up..but if gusts and turbulence are modeled it could get VERY interesting. You can successfully fly IFR without gyro instruments but you've got to be on your game.

M_Gunz
03-23-2007, 08:55 PM
Originally posted by msalama:
Has to do with the ground modelling being somewhat funny then, eh?

I doubt they have room for it. Suddenly you have tires and friction elements on differing
surfaces not just rolling but side vectors and differing force on each wheel changes the
friction, when friction is static or sliding and how all those moments work between wings,
struts and shocks, then wheels. There's interaction of wash on the ground and what was a
COG-CL balance has now 2 or more contact points and interactions.... how much loss of DM
or gunnery or external objects realism would be needed to make the same quality ground
handling as is the modeling in flight?
I can say ditto for engines or any other part, the whole simulation engine is a matter of
balance of hardware and software resources which is as much a matter of art as technology.

I know that despite the many flaws it has, that EAW on balance and accounting for what all
it does have was #1 in my book from end of 99 until I got the IL2 demo. Long before then
I had already been grading sims by quality, features +and+ feature balance.

Any pilot can tell me that no sim matches to the real thing in fundamental ways, I won't
argue that one! What I like most is when they tell where they do and where they don't.
But when I see a whole thing like torque trashed over what amounts to how it behaves in
a technical niche like ground handling then I have to ask please disconsider that and tell
me hwo the torque stacks up when the sim is doing what it was modeled best to do and not
in what amounts to a less well modeled exception to actual modeled flight.
That's the best I can say it.