PDA

View Full Version : The new FM going to be that much different????



EAGLE_34_WO
04-19-2005, 07:46 AM
I've heard so much talk of the new FM that is coming with the patch. Is it going to be that much different than the one we have now. From all the talk on here, it seems it will make things much more harder. What exactly are the changes? Just curious if I'm going to have to relearn to fly lol.

VW-IceFire
04-19-2005, 08:20 AM
I'm told we'll all have to relearn a bit.

Here's what I know.

Landing is more difficult because the landing gear is now more sensitive to hard landings. This is a good thing I think...some of the landings I've gotten away with were quite silly.

There is greater detail in things of flight like inertia and load factors meaning planes won't achieve best roll rate right off the bat but accelerate into a roll. I can see this influencing the way we fly quite a bit and benefitting to air combat tactics as a scissors move can now be successfully used to throw off an attacker.

Also, torque on the engines is much more prevalent apparently so ground looping may happen or at the very least, overcontrolling the throttle on landings will spin you into the ground/ocean.

But honestly, everyone who now knows howto fly the game already probably will take some time to adjust (as we have before) and everyone else who is new will just get used to it.

Art-J
04-19-2005, 08:27 AM
No one can say for sure... The beta testers cannot talk about it and the only thing we know from posts in ORR is that it will require significantly more CPU power, I've read we will need more skill to take off and land safely, so propably torque and propwash effects modelling will be much more different ---> perhaps the stall behaviour will change as well. But these are assumptions only.

I'm very curious how energy management is going to look, because it is, in my opinion of course, the weakest and most controversial part of current engine code. You can find opinions on inaccurate diving acceleration/speed/energy retention problems in many threads, and I'm not surprised about that, since it's the crucial question for BnZ fighters. I guess this drawback is caused by limitations of original engine, which, although modified extensively, was still created for low level, low speed ground-pounder flying a few years ago. Changing that would require massive re-programming effort and that's what we are supposed to see in ver. 4.0.
Well, let's wait... (and hope our CPUs will handle it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

Regards

knightflyte
04-19-2005, 09:26 AM
The load on the proc is ALSO attributed to AI having the same flight models.

THAT'S a very good thing. I'm real tired of AI doing things they couldn't do in real life. It's frustrating to be chasing a baddie. Being REAL close to him at almost stall speed and he rockets up and around you. You follow and stall.

Of course you adjust and forgive the problem because the game IS great. But still it sometimes seems unfair. So with these new models hopefully AI will stall more often and not zoom to the sky at 230kpm.

(I remember when FB was first released I recall seeing AI stall a lot more.... I RARELY see it anymore)

This isn't a whine, but a sigh of gratitude to have an even playing field with AI. I realise limitations of design and technology and am happy with what is.......but am greatful for all the effort going into this sim.

Oleg's making things BETTER even after such a long developement of IL2/FB/PF. Thanks Oleg.

regards,
Robert

Now if we can get AI wingmen to stop shooting at me or kill stealing. I'll wait for BoB on that.

VW-IceFire
04-19-2005, 09:37 AM
Actually...the "sigificantly" more processing power was laid to rest by a few beta testers who did talk a bit (maybe they were cleared to so they could stop that line of discussion in its tracks). Dont need to get everyone inflamed about that again.

We've been told that FPS loss on the average system (a mid range Pentium with Radeon 9700) with the new FMs, clouds, and a campaign full of AI aircraft was 2-5fps at the most. Results will obviously varry...if you have good performance right now then you aren't going to loose anything. For the people riding the edge of the game, it may hurt them.

crazyivan1970
04-19-2005, 10:52 AM
mmmm, speculations. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Jetbuff
04-19-2005, 11:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
mmmm, speculations. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Care to stop them Ivan? You know how right? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

LEXX_Luthor
04-19-2005, 11:14 AM
The Betty Testers (http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif) may not be testing with lots of AI planes. If you test New FM with player aircraft alone, or with one or two AI Dogfight opponents, you won't notice any FM fps loss to report.

Still, for high number AI missions, the greatest fps eaters have always been AI vs AI air combat and shooting (and ship AA), so we have always been fps limited by density of active AI gunnery and not simple AI numbers alone, so its doubtful New FM will be much worse (if at all) than what we have now when large AI groups start shooting at AI groups.

TgD Thunderbolt56
04-19-2005, 11:21 AM
It's all simply speculation and conjecture. Asking this question in this forum is akin to asking who the next Pope will be...oh wait, we already know that now...don't we.


TB

BuzzU
04-19-2005, 11:36 AM
The new expansion pack for lock on has a new more realistic FM for the SU-25/SU-25T. It took some time getting used to it, but i like it a lot. Jets don't have torque, but crosswind landing/take offs can be a challenge. You can also feel the plane change attitude when you release armament. It's less forgiving everywhere, but nothing that can't be adjusted too in short time. It does suck 10-15 fps flying those planes over the fighters though. Of course this is a different sim, so may not relate to PF at all. Just some thoughts.

darkhorizon11
04-19-2005, 11:42 AM
Im looking forward to not violently spin at the nearest hint of a stall.

Actually, I'm expecting a barrage of whines with the debut of the new FM. Hopefully we have the option of using the easy or the hard one just because I think a lot of new gamers who don't have any RL flying experience will be turned off with how hard the new FM will be...

Just an observation though...

Monty_Thrud
04-19-2005, 12:17 PM
Am i right in thinking, this new FM will be adjustable in the Config settings, in other words..you can have this present FM of IL2 or the new FM?

I've heard people saying you'll be better off with pedals aswell, as there's supposed to be more rudder input...or is this another myth?

Still!.. i welcome being a veteran n00b again http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Spitf_ACE
04-19-2005, 12:46 PM
From what I've heard, there won't be the option of new or old FM. But you can turn off thins such as spins and stalls, and takeoffs and landings, as you can now.

ytareh
04-19-2005, 01:14 PM
Well as a guy still flying (offline)zero realism settings apart from vulnerability and limited ammo I hope that I will still be able to potter around at my own pace without spiralling earthwards.I do make an odd brief(VERY brief!) foray into online in some of the 'easier' Hyperlobby servers.By the way does anyone else think the FW190 is highly unstable/spinable even when flying with no stalls and spins setting?!

BuzzU
04-19-2005, 01:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ytareh:
Well as a guy still flying (offline)zero realism settings apart from vulnerability and limited ammo I hope that I will still be able to potter around at my own pace without spiralling earthwards.I do make an odd brief(VERY brief!) foray into online in some of the 'easier' Hyperlobby servers.By the way does anyone else think the FW190 is highly unstable/spinable even when flying with no stalls and spins setting?! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unstable? No, but you need a light touch on the stick. You might want to adjust the input settings to soften it up some.

p1ngu666
04-19-2005, 01:52 PM
190 is better above 350-400kph
higher wingloading than most things, so u haveto fly it faster than say spit to get similer stability

bolillo_loco
04-19-2005, 07:11 PM
hum, I never really speculate patches nor do I speculate what new games will be like. I just wait till their release and get them and then I know. really saves on the guess work. I save the guess work for everyday life not some silly game. so to recap

everyday life/guess work
games/reason

BuzzU
04-19-2005, 08:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
hum, I never really speculate patches nor do I speculate what new games will be like. I just wait till their release and get them and then I know. really saves on the guess work. I save the guess work for everyday life not some silly game. so to recap

everyday life/guess work
games/reason <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd rather guess about a silly game than real life.

bolillo_loco
04-19-2005, 11:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BuzzU:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
hum, I never really speculate patches nor do I speculate what new games will be like. I just wait till their release and get them and then I know. really saves on the guess work. I save the guess work for everyday life not some silly game. so to recap

everyday life/guess work
games/reason <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd rather guess about a silly game than real life. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

exactly, hence the name loco

LeadSpitter_
04-19-2005, 11:37 PM
what I would like to see is change the ridiculous NDA, Let the beta testers talk about how its going if 1c and ubi will not tell us anything.

Let the modelers show their work and development of the models textures etc with a notice "may not make it into game" Something to let us know wtf is going on. This lack of knowing what is going on is fustrating, you guys take away mission transfers, the major skins site is down, netwings and il2center are dead becuase of the ridiculous NDA.

Its time to change.

This is what most other companies show to its customers before the patch is out. Same with activision EA sierra and most other major companies.

http://www.callofduty.com/uopatch/readme_patch_1.51.txt

So how about letting the community know.

papotex
04-20-2005, 12:38 AM
bolillo wrote (hence the name loco)

hello bolillo good to see you still around....

you always crack me up

send me an email: carlospapote1@aol.com and let me know whats up http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

OldMan____
04-20-2005, 07:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
what I would like to see is change the ridiculous NDA, Let the beta testers talk about how its going if 1c and ubi will not tell us anything.

Let the modelers show their work and development of the models textures etc with a notice "may not make it into game" Something to let us know wtf is going on. This lack of knowing what is going on is fustrating, you guys take away mission transfers, the major skins site is down, netwings and il2center are dead becuase of the ridiculous NDA.

Its time to change.

This is what most other companies show to its customers before the patch is out. Same with activision EA sierra and most other major companies.

http://www.callofduty.com/uopatch/readme_patch_1.51.txt

So how about letting the community know. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

due to historical leaking, users threathening company etc.. I understand this NDA and think it is reasonable on current context. Specially because it affects futhure games.


At our company our NDA is even harder.. you can't even tell anyone you are a beta tester.