PDA

View Full Version : The best FM of IL-2 series



majnos64
12-24-2006, 06:46 AM
I know all FMs 4.01+ but I did't try any older. Can you recommend me the most real FM of Il-2 series ? I'm not talking about DM or weapons just FM.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

"He,who has braver heart, more cold and full of foreseeing courage, which is born from believe in success and in righteousness of things, will smite his opponent." - Aleksandr Ivanovich Pokryshkin

WOLFMondo
12-24-2006, 07:14 AM
ITs hard to say which is best since they all have elements of how these planes should fly. Its also subjective and as no one here has probably flown any of these types theres no experiance to draw upon. IMHO 407 is the nicest to fly as heavier planes now seem to have more e retention.

I'd suggest reading one of Eric Browns books as your first step to drawing comparisons as he's the only guy in the world to have flown almost all the types in this sim and then details them under test conditions in a well written book or three.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Cheers!!

p-11.cAce
12-24-2006, 07:40 AM
IMHO based upon only my preconceptions and a few hundred hours of stick time in light aircraft and sailplanes - which are obviously oranges to WWII fighter apples - 4.01 "felt" best to me, mainly because of the adverse yaw modelling which seemed to lead to the immense amount of screaming and yelling about that short-lived FM. Too many sim pilots think flying a plane is like driving a car - when you would get slow in 4.01 the adverse yaw would creep up on you and when you would push the stick over to the left the nose would skate off to the right - as it should in RL. Suddenly the forum was flooded for weeks with the infamous "wobble" posts http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif and cries of how porked the FM was.

msalama
12-24-2006, 11:54 AM
Y'know, the first thing I ever did after joining this board some 1 1/2 yrs ago was to ask this exact same question (we were flying v3.04 back then IIRC). The outcome was that I was accused of being a n00b troll and troublemaker by TAGERT et. al. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

That said the v4.0X series has generally speaking roXX0r3d FM-wise IMHO.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

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

Hippies FTW!

papotex
12-24-2006, 12:12 PM
ace guess what..been flying the new 46 and the planes do that too.

the planes in 46 have that original il2 feeling
wich to me is more than welcome

vocatx
12-24-2006, 12:26 PM
Ace, that kind of reminds me of all the "experts" screaming for de-synched .50 cals. They got what they wanted, then screamed for months afterwards.

I only installed 4.07 last night, so I haven't got much time on it, but I do think the FM is an improvement, but I still think the FM in the original Il-2 was probably better in some respects. Once you bled your "E" off, it took time to get it back. A lot of these later FMs make flying a plane seem like driving a hot-rod car. If you lose your "E", just pour the power on and you get it back instantly. Not very realistic in my opinion.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

4H_V-man
The 2nd Horseman

reisen52
12-24-2006, 12:33 PM
The fact that groups of people yell & whine then get the flight model they want should tell you something very important about the IL2 flight models in general. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

p-11.cAce
12-24-2006, 12:44 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

Airmail109
12-24-2006, 03:18 PM
1.0 :P<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Megile : "Hey it's not technically spamming if its on different forums right?"

Xiolablu3
12-24-2006, 03:50 PM
I know I will get flamed for this, but if you are going to exact numbers then the Spitfire IX matches its reallife data (as in climb speed, top speed, turn etc) very well.

The 109 climbs a bit too well, but the overall 'feel' is very good.

Fw190A models are a bit too bad at turning so I have been told, but the FW190D9 feels good.

Its hard to say if they are correct because none of us have flown the real things. All we can do is go on how they are written about in flight tests and how they compare to each other by people who have flown a lot of the planes to compare them to each other such as Eric Brown or Mark Hanna.

I think I can safely say that the Il2 flight model is the most realistic flight model in a combat flight sim ever. No doubt Oleg meets real world pilots of the planes we fly, but its so hard if they have only flown one type.

For example, one guy who has flow a Me109 may say 'its an amazing plane' but he has never flown a P51 or Spitfire to compare it too, so his comments are less useful. Much better to have someone who is able to say 'XXXX plane turned much better than XXXX' for example.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

R_Target
12-24-2006, 04:21 PM
I've been flying mostly 4.01 for about seven or eight months now. When I switch to 4.04/4.05, the first things I notice are less torque and a sluggish rudder.

Desynchronized .50 cal is great on P-40, P-51, and P-47, but was badly botched on the USN planes. Apparently Maddox agreed and everyone says it's been fixed in '46.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

*+
http://img273.imageshack.us/img273/4695/shidensigao4.jpg

tsisqua
12-24-2006, 07:34 PM
What are the IL2 series fm's like in '46? (yes, feel sorry for me; I don't have it yet).

I've never flown any of the planes from the game irl, so anything I could say would be pure conjecture . . . however, remembering that this was a survey sim originaly designed to closely model only one AC, the IL2, I would imagine that it should have, over the last few years, recieved the most attention as the fm's were being tweaked.

I'd wager that most of the newcomers to the game have never tried the plane out, what with all of the planes available.

Like I said, I've never flown anything from the game irl, but I get a similarly amazing feeling of flight from the IL2 as from flying small ac as a hobby. I highly recomend that everyone give it a try.

If this is a vote, then I vote (however uninformed I am), the IL2 as of my current version.

Tsisqua<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://server6.uploadit.org/files/tsisqua-bird1.JPG

my site (http://www.thelaramieroushband.com)

Carrier Landing Post: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=400102&f=263103...191062732#1191062732 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=400102&f=26310365&m=5661031732&r=1191062732#1191062732)

NonWonderDog
12-24-2006, 09:24 PM
If going strictly by feeling, I'd have to say the Macchi has one of the better FMs (in 4.05, at least). The spins just seem right with that plane. I like the way it noses over in a spin, and I particularly like the way I can catch the left wing with a bit of rudder when it starts to dip. Most of the other planes like to do an instant flatspin a bit more easily than seems proper.

Most planes spin a bit better in 4.04/4.05 than they did in previous versions, actually, but the Macchi still stands out to me for some reason. The Macchi's maneuverability is positively wretched at high speeds, but that's supposedly addressed a bit in '46 (which I don't have yet).

Bearcat99
12-24-2006, 09:47 PM
4.07<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://star.walagata.com/w/bearcat/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://www.tuskegeeairmen.org)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE> 332nd V.F.G. (http://www.geocities.com/bearcat99th/) [/list]
<span class="ev_code_GREEN">It is easier to train a boy than to repair a man.</span>
Sturmovik Essentials (http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=51910959) | Magnum PC.Com (http://www.magnum-pc.com/) | Joint Operations (http://www.joint-ops.com/joil2fb/default.asp)

Badsight-
12-24-2006, 09:48 PM
easy

the beta's for patch v4.0 - beta 06<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/1741/shindendrawflight66os.jpg

majnos64
12-27-2006, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

I think I can safely say that the Il2 flight model is the most realistic flight model in a combat flight sim ever. No doubt Oleg meets real world pilots of the planes we fly, but its so hard if they have only flown one type.

example.

No one doubt that Oleg is a genius. 200+ flyables. Very good DM and AI. Moreover sim can be played on mainstream PC. Best FM has imho Lockon just look at those beautiful videos of black shark. However Lockon isn't mainstream ww2 sim.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

"He,who has braver heart, more cold and full of foreseeing courage, which is born from believe in success and in righteousness of things, will smite his opponent." - Aleksandr Ivanovich Pokryshkin

slipBall
12-27-2006, 12:47 PM
I don't have 4.07 yet, but the IL2 series is just a great sim...very close to real flying....my personal favorite is the first original game IL-2. But I enjoy all of the series...and never had a sim, deliver so much enjoyment. Pick up the original game if you ever see it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f394/SlipBall/orders.jpg

SeaFireLIV
12-27-2006, 12:50 PM
Sounds a good time to start a `The best AI of IL-2 series`...

DuxCorvan
12-27-2006, 01:11 PM
The best FMs? Hard to say, but in 4.07 they feel quite good. That's all I can say.

AI cheats horribly and too blatantly, as it's been since 4.04. They're better BnZs, true, but they do things too 'dishonest' to cope their limitations, and that breaks immersion.

crazyivan1970
12-27-2006, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
easy

the beta's for patch v4.0 - beta 06

Actually beta02 was the best. You probably liked beta6 because german 20mm ammunition belt was messed up...MG was every second round hehe http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Yes?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

V!
Regards,

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

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

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://i5.tinypic.com/246pdl1.jpg

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

Magnum PC (http://www.magnum-pc.com)

WWMaxGunz
12-27-2006, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
IMHO based upon only my preconceptions and a few hundred hours of stick time in light aircraft and sailplanes - which are obviously oranges to WWII fighter apples - 4.01 "felt" best to me, mainly because of the adverse yaw modelling which seemed to lead to the immense amount of screaming and yelling about that short-lived FM. Too many sim pilots think flying a plane is like driving a car - when you would get slow in 4.01 the adverse yaw would creep up on you and when you would push the stick over to the left the nose would skate off to the right - as it should in RL. Suddenly the forum was flooded for weeks with the infamous "wobble" posts http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif and cries of how porked the FM was.

I had wobbles and found ways to deal with them and posted as that. Some planes more than
others had where any change in heading could turn into a game of PIO. It only seemed to
happen when using the gunsight and was made worse when the target would maneuver as well.

The torque effects also made it difficult going on some planes more. Any shift of nose
had the 90 degree complement so just to rudder onto target was not enough. And the answer
for many seemed to be slow down to co-speed with the target in order to spend extra time
rather than find what works (why bother when previous sims showed how? yeah, I know, I know!)
and do that.

I did but I can't say if it was realistic. Again, it depends on the plane and I have wondered
if all the models were at the same level of FM detail in 4.01. Probably not. There have been
many patches where older models got changes later than other planes though mostly in DM.

But about getting slow first, I only found that would make a difference in how much and how
slow to correct. Even at 400+kph I did have to roll a bit and rudder to hold aim at all.
Well not much in some planes but by loads in others. With so many planes one person could
see no trait and another see only trait just by flying the ones they thought count depending
of course of what needs to be proved.

I remember people posting that Russian planes had no wobble so I tried some and the LaGGs
were as bad as any. I posted about that, btw.

Even since 4.01 we have loads of people come up here and prove they don't know much about
rudder. To take from pdog, he never needed rudder in any sim before so he shouldn't now!

Really though, the heavy and powerful planes should not bounce around like light GA.
But they should not drive like cars... but you ever drove one with loose steering donut?

carguy_
12-27-2006, 02:03 PM
I think it was V4 beta5.

I tested energy fighters and all were very good,much better than any we have now.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sigjzg23upgraded.jpg
Self-proclaimed dedicated Willywhiner since July 2002
: Badsight.:"increased manouverability for bf-109s was satire" :
Please bring back 3.01 dots!

Badsight-
12-27-2006, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Actually beta02 was the best. You probably liked beta6 because german 20mm ammunition belt was messed up...MG was every second round hehe http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Yes? its a FM thread . i played the 04 - 07 betas

04 was very difficult , you couldnt pull any hard moves for more than 90 degrees without having decent speed up . 07 was like v3.04 , very little different

for me 06 was the best - it was exactly what i was expecting . v4.01 sure was a surprise<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/1741/shindendrawflight66os.jpg

crazyivan1970
12-27-2006, 02:18 PM
I was just teasing ya mate http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

V!
Regards,

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

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

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://i5.tinypic.com/246pdl1.jpg

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

Magnum PC (http://www.magnum-pc.com)

msalama
12-27-2006, 03:44 PM
Hmmm... now I really don't understand all this betas r0XXoRz talk. If we are to believe you geezers 1C always ends up releasing something worse than them, don't they, because according to _you_ the public version is always somehow fecked up, p0rked and neutered?

Extremely puzzling indeed. Also reeks of bad business logic IMHO. But they're still surviving somehow, so maybe it's just me?

Or you?

PS. Tried one of the early v4.0x betas myself. Cannot remember which anymore. Wasn't markedly different from the public version AFAIR.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

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

Hippies FTW!

SeaFireLIV
12-27-2006, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
IMHO based upon only my preconceptions and a few hundred hours of stick time in light aircraft and sailplanes - which are obviously oranges to WWII fighter apples - 4.01 "felt" best to me, mainly because of the adverse yaw modelling which seemed to lead to the immense amount of screaming and yelling about that short-lived FM. Too many sim pilots think flying a plane is like driving a car - when you would get slow in 4.01 the adverse yaw would creep up on you and when you would push the stick over to the left the nose would skate off to the right - as it should in RL. Suddenly the forum was flooded for weeks with the infamous "wobble" posts http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif and cries of how porked the FM was.

The immense amount of screamingand yelling also had a negative side effect too. In his rush to please the complaints he `fixed` the wobble but then unleashed an AI that flew with almost no realistic restraint.

I actually preferred 4.01 as it simply `felt` most realistic and the perceved `wobble` simply was air turbulence to me, if that!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/LIVeyes.jpg
"If it burns, it is confirmed."

Ivan Lukich Zvyagin

Badsight-
12-27-2006, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by msalama:
PS. Tried one of the early v4.0x betas myself. Cannot remember which anymore. Wasn't markedly different from the public version AFAIR. then your reccollection is poor<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/1741/shindendrawflight66os.jpg

SeaFireLIV
12-27-2006, 04:12 PM
I also don`t go along with this great joy that this 4.07\8 is great simply because `shake` and some lateral movement is gone from aircraft. I`m not an aeronautical engineer, but logic dictates that there must be wind gusts and buffeting. Flying though air in an aircraft is like flying through a substance, not nothing and that substance moves about, ie wind turbulence.

Add gun recoil, engine torque, vibration, with no computer to adjust for the pilot and inmho no plane should fly smoothly in circa 1940s.

Once there were complaints that one day we`d whine IL2 aircraft into aircraft that flew on rails. I even remeber Oleg`s comments about giving in to `unhistorical` demands of users. I wonder if this is what we`ve done by popular demand?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/LIVeyes.jpg
"If it burns, it is confirmed."

Ivan Lukich Zvyagin

joeap
12-27-2006, 04:22 PM
Geeez Seafire, it was shown some of the US planes suffered from yawing caused by asynchronous MGs in the wings, and they really didn't match the type of firing we saw in films. Now the recoil is much better and one person posted that a vet indeed recalled the planes felt they were slowing down when fired. Second the planes don't feel they are flying on rails, haven't ever felt like that in the whole 4.x series of patches.

Last, again I don't see how the wobble (which I never suffered from, at least not the one linked to the USN planes) getting fixed, mostly a cfg problem, has anything to do with the AI.

SeaFireLIV
12-27-2006, 04:26 PM
Sorry, that I`m getting on some of your nerves as i`m well aware. But if I think something`s wrong I`ll say so. I don`t come here to be popular, I come here cos I like this sim. I `whine` or complain cos I like this sim.

If I`m that bad, petition me to be banned. No problem to me.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/LIVeyes.jpg
"If it burns, it is confirmed."

Ivan Lukich Zvyagin

joeap
12-27-2006, 04:32 PM
You banned? No way, ever. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

Just putting my two bits in and (I guess unsuccessfully) trying to politely disagree with you. I still disagree and stated why but didn't mean to make it a personal thing mate. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

slipBall
12-27-2006, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
I also don`t go along with this great joy that this 4.07\8 is great simply because `shake` and some lateral movement is gone from aircraft. I`m not an aeronautical engineer, but logic dictates that there must be wind gusts and buffeting. Flying though air in an aircraft is like flying through a substance, not nothing and that substance moves about, ie wind turbulence.

Add gun recoil, engine torque, vibration, with no computer to adjust for the pilot and inmho no plane should fly smoothly in circa 1940s.

Once there were complaints that one day we`d whine IL2 aircraft into aircraft that flew on rails. I even remeber Oleg`s comments about giving in to `unhistorical` demands of users. I wonder if this is what we`ve done by popular demand?


What you say is true....there is quite a bit of being thrown around...it is rare to not have that, on any given day<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f394/SlipBall/orders.jpg

WWMaxGunz
12-27-2006, 05:46 PM
Funny how I have spent many hours in small planes and didn't get rattled the whole time.
Some of the time we had turbulence but rare compared to the smooth motion.
However since I learned that by being there instead of reading about it, it means nothing.

Do warplanes normally have to be put into a bit of a sideslip to point the nose and hold aim?
Cause that's what it took me in some 4.01 planes while others were not that bad.

And for the guns it has been CLEARLY shown that USN planes 4.05 have all the guns on one side
empty out total ammo before the other and how (for the very slow and stupid) that causes the
planes to yaw. In those cases it was not a fix. If I replace your brake rotors but leave air
in the brake lines on one side then I haven't fixed your car, just made it more dangerous.

tagTaken2
12-27-2006, 07:08 PM
How do you mean "best"?

I'm not capable of judging realism, but I found 4.01 (never tried the betas) was the most fun.

4.07 does feel great with the new stick movement, and the US planes are now flyable again.

p-11.cAce
12-27-2006, 07:38 PM
Do warplanes normally have to be put into a bit of a sideslip to point the nose and hold aim?
Cause that's what it took me in some 4.01 planes while others were not that bad.
I know you have a lot of time in the sim so I think you can give me some feedback on a theory regarding that - I fly the Emil and I-153 more than any other aircraft in the sim (yeah I'm a cr@p plane junkie) and you DO have to hold in rudder to maintain aim anytime your airspeed is above or below the "ground" setting of the non-adjustable trim tab on the rudder. I think this was true in RL - if you bent the tab to center the ball at 400kph, for example, anytime you are flying faster or slower the trim tab force will be skating the nose off one side or the other. Does this seem reasonable?

anarchy52
12-27-2006, 07:47 PM
I'd say the 4.0 betas were the best. Lots of torque, need for coordination in turns, less effective rudder, roll rates closer to reality.
You really had a feeling of handling a powerful war machine.
Unfortunately, it was considered too realistic for casual players.

Take for example the taxiing and takeoff:
it was hard, you had to use brakes, throttle and rudder. Abrupt burst of power would lead to ground loop just like in the real thing. In post-beta 6 patches it was removed or greatly toned down.

Just try a few scenarios:

Take a Corsair, fly it at low or idle power as close to stall speed as possible. Then ram the throttle to emergency power and see what happens. Nothing!

Take a Bf-109 K-4 with the 2000HP engine and ram the throttle abruptly full forward on takeoff and see what happens. Nothing!

In most WWII fighters, especially the powerful late war variants, such behavior would get you killed. It should get you killed in this ..."sim". 4.0 betas were closest to that.

WWMaxGunz
12-27-2006, 08:30 PM
More than reasonable, Ace. That's reality. And what I believe the cause is, is propwash.
The tail is set not straight on the fuselage because of propwash which is strongest when
slowest and there must be some minimum or the pilot would have no rudder authority to one
side when trying to taxi and take off. There is also the wings are a bit twisted where
the propwash encounters those as well. And depending on the plane there are other tricks
like Macchi 202 has same wings as 200 except left wing is some 20cm longer, the lift is
to counter the torque of the DB engine and how well that fix fits depends on your speed
but it's all really covers for the non-symmetry of the propwash. There is no perfect
fix, only good pilots that don't give it a second thought after noticing! Too bad for
us because many, many things like that don't make it into memoirs as explanations.

A real sized effect I haven't looked at much is p-factor. In a move that has the prop
at an angle to the direction of flight (well it is not really incoming air is it?) like
in a slow climb or powering along near stall, the nose should yaw in those cases since
the prop blade on the down stroke will have different AOA than on the up stroke and pull
more to one side than the other with one or so possible extreme exceptions (is the blade
stalling on the side it should get more power on?) and no, I forget which side it should
pull to and don't feel up to figuring it out besides which it varies with prop rotation
direction, yadda, yadda, yah. Even the cheap sims 10+ years ago had it so I only look
when it should be and deal with the rudder.

What I wrote above, some of the planes were worse than others when bringing the nose
over to a target and try to stop even through slow change and smooth stops. I was able
to pit a slight bank against rudder (slight bit of sideslip) because without the nose
did the rubberband thing even if I loosened up on the stick, and some planes did not.

I'm not an expert pilot. Don't have a license. So I do rather ask when I can. The
only thing real I knew that was like those wobbles was dutch weaves. And funny enough
if the nose was micro-wobbling about 1 deg back and forth you could end it by dropping
the nose a few while rudder, well maybe mine was too high sliders to be much good.

slipBall
12-28-2006, 02:39 AM
Funny how I have spent many hours in small planes and didn't get rattled the whole time.
Some of the time we had turbulence but rare compared to the smooth motion.
However since I learned that by being there instead of reading about it, it means nothing
I think that the location of the flight area play's a big role in this regard. As does the time of year, time of flight, and the complexity of local terain, mixed with local weather condition's<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f394/SlipBall/orders.jpg

msalama
12-28-2006, 04:14 AM
A couple of personal and hugely debatable notions if you don't mind awfully:

1) It is true that none of the planes exhibit any strong tendencies of flipping over when you floor the throttle, which isn't right IMO either (i.e. torque modelling could be better). Some planes are better than others in this regard, however.

2) Prop effects are nevertheless there at least to an extent - you _do_ have to pay attention to your rudder use and / or trim.

3) Planes definitely don't fly on _rails_ now, even compared to those early betas everyone's so much in love with!

4) All that said I do find the current FM fun. Could be some FM abatements were made in order to not to scare the tourists away, but what we have now still isn't arcade by any stretch of the imagination.

Just my poco dineros though - feel free to shred them to pieces if you like http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

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

Hippies FTW!

NonWonderDog
12-28-2006, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by slipBall:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Funny how I have spent many hours in small planes and didn't get rattled the whole time.
Some of the time we had turbulence but rare compared to the smooth motion.
However since I learned that by being there instead of reading about it, it means nothing
I think that the location of the flight area play's a big role in this regard. As does the time of year, time of flight, and the complexity of local terain, mixed with local weather condition's </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah, it's kind of surprising that you'd say that, Max. I can say from personal experience that it is bumpy as hell if you go up between noon and 2:00 PM or so during summer in the Midwest. It actually takes a lot of attention just to keep a C-152 flying straight if you fly under a fair-weather ***ulus cloud. It's not the silly shaking we get in the sim during thunderstorms; it's just that every fifteen seconds or so one of your wings dips twenty or thirty degrees. It shouldn't be as pronounced in a big heavy WWII fighter, but that's still the kind of turbulence I want to see in BoB.

And why the **** can't I say ***ulus?

WWMaxGunz
12-28-2006, 07:08 PM
Mostly we flew over the clouds, at about 12k and maybe half that at night.
I had a bumpy ride last time up in a 172 but then we were VFR and below heavy clouds.
The closer we got to the clouds the worse it was. Less than 200 ft of the clouds and
at half that it got very bumpy indeed. The air is very stirred up close under clouds.
We went from higher to lower and there was only an occasional bump, the Garbage State
Parkway is a rougher ride (thump-thump, thump-thump, thump-thump,....) or was back when
I lived out that way.
OTOH I've kept a twin straight and +/- 50ft of alt for literal hours without much fuss
at all between S tip of Indiana and Witchita which more fits my experiences. Going up
and coming down though I can always count on a few transitions which I know from watching
the Div. Arty Meteorology section send up balloons that IRL there are many layers of air
moving in each its own direction and speed. That's how air often sorts itself out on a
clear day and no storm, and that is something so old that the birds find and use the
layers by instinct during migrations. But then, they also use vertical rising thermals!

I don't expect IL2 to cover that as completely real. We get something with storms and
what else? I have taken what is probably stutters due to massive collision checks as
pseudo wake turbulence but it is not and I don't claim it to be. I makes me wonder how
much more PC I will need to run SOW even at low graphics.

Tully__
12-28-2006, 07:14 PM
For overall behaviour most like real aicraft can be generally expected to behave, 4.07 seems as good as any.

For performance figures for a particular aicraft that most closely match the real life equivalent, it will vary considerably depending on which aicraft you choose.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

<center>
http://jennirivers.actewagl.net.au/sig.jpg
SST X-45 profile (http://jennirivers.actewagl.net.au/fb.zip) | SST X-52 Profile (http://jennirivers.actewagl.net.au/fbx52.zip) | Joysticks & IL2/FB/PF (http://www.airwarfare.com/tech/sticks.htm) | IL2Sticks Utility (http://www.airwarfare.com/Sims/FB/fb_essential_files.htm#087)
Maddox Forums Moderator</center>