PDA

View Full Version : Flight Model Realism in IL2



Avivion
05-09-2009, 07:12 AM
Generally, overall just how accurate is the flight modelling in IL2?

All planes seem to fly superbly well, and has a very realistic feel. But just how close is the modelling underneath?

It's really amazing.

VW-IceFire
05-09-2009, 07:39 AM
Countless years of arguments over top speeds and climb rates being off by a few seconds or by several kilometers per hour suggest that by and large the modeling is correct. My own (albeit limited) experience in some single engined aircraft also suggests to me that the feeling is about right as well. Simulation will never be as good as reality...but this is pretty good. Much better than any of my experiences with Flight Sim 9 or Flight Sim X.

M_Gunz
05-09-2009, 07:45 AM
It's not perfect by a ways yet. So there's always something to get wrapped up about.
OTOH try and find better. You might match performance numbers better elsewhere but see how that one handles.

Insuber
05-09-2009, 08:12 AM
Originally posted by Avivion:
Generally, overall just how accurate is the flight modelling in IL2?

All planes seem to fly superbly well, and has a very realistic feel. But just how close is the modelling underneath?

It's really amazing.

Difficult to answer with figures. There are differences in every single aspect of the flight model (FM), it's inevitable given the present HW/SW limitations. We are speaking of a very complex interaction between air (think to the errors in weather forecasts, we don't yet have a reliable model for our atmosphere) and a plane/engine, with thousand of variables in space and time.
The modeling is a simplification process, which tries to reduce the physical phenomena to a simplified set of equations, manageable by calculus in real time.
In the process you gain in speed, but you loose accuracy.

The best models don't loose the essence of the phenomena, that is they predict accurately the evolution of a phenomenon if we feed them with a limited set of starting parameters. I think to the car traffic models developed in late '90s/early 2000's: the individual cars are modeled as bots obeying to 3 to 5 simple rules, yet they can reliably simulate jams.
Or the famous bird flock model, the bot-birds (boids) obey to 4 simple rules, yet the virtual flocks are displaying an impressive realistic behavior.

An excellent model look as real as reality. It's almost the case IMHO with Il-2, and this is where the genius of Oleg shines.

And apart from figures and curves, the truth is that the first criteria for a flight simulation is the subjective "feeling" that it's right, as someone pointed out recently.

regards,
Insuber

Manu-6S
05-09-2009, 08:28 AM
Lack of a proper torque and a real prop pitch management.

And lack consistency between FM and DM models (one above all the pilot protection in Ju88s).

There are more things who could be better: lets wait for SoW.

Freiwillige
05-09-2009, 08:49 AM
Oleg had an even more realistic flight model but dumbed it down a hair for the average flyers. Oddly the one thing that sold this game was its realism, but Oleg keeps bucking against absolute realism for the gamers. Still its the most realistic WWII sim out there by far and that aint bad looking at its age.

thefruitbat
05-09-2009, 09:18 AM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:
Oleg had an even more realistic flight model but dumbed it down a hair for the average flyers. Oddly the one thing that sold this game was its realism, but Oleg keeps bucking against absolute realism for the gamers. Still its the most realistic WWII sim out there by far and that aint bad looking at its age.

Got track?

I've flown il2 since the start, and have flown every incarnation of the game, when was this supposed better flight model before he dumbed it down, in your humble opinion. what patch?

fruitbat

stalkervision
05-09-2009, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:
Oleg had an even more realistic flight model but dumbed it down a hair for the average flyers. Oddly the one thing that sold this game was its realism, but Oleg keeps bucking against absolute realism for the gamers. Still its the most realistic WWII sim out there by far and that aint bad looking at its age.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

eACE
05-09-2009, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by Avivion:
But just how close is the modelling underneath?
I have been wondering the same thing. Being new to IL2 and all. As you can see in this blog you can find plenty of opinions on the subject but very little proof to support them. I have only found a few old blogs where anyone even did a formal test. So other than those I would take all unsupported opinions with a grain of salt. I have been reading up on how the formal tests were done and hope to do some testing of my own soon. Until than I think Ill keep my opinion to myself. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

stalkervision
05-09-2009, 10:27 AM
I think il-2 models sim aircraft as well as can be expected for the price. After all this isn't no multi-million dollar aircraft simulator. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Flight_boy1990
05-09-2009, 10:29 AM
My only complain in IL-2 is the unrealistical stall,it's biased.

But keeping in mind that this is a 9 years old game,i'll forgive this to the game and her creators http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif .

VW-IceFire
05-09-2009, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by eACE:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Avivion:
But just how close is the modelling underneath?
I have been wondering the same thing. Being new to IL2 and all. As you can see in this blog you can find plenty of opinions on the subject but very little proof to support them. I have only found a few old blogs where anyone even did a formal test. So other than those I would take all unsupported opinions with a grain of salt. I have been reading up on how the formal tests were done and hope to do some testing of my own soon. Until than I think Ill keep my opinion to myself. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is a forum...a blog is a different type of format.

In this thread there isn't much in the way of supporting evidence, however, you missed the chart wars over the last 7 years. Trust me...the community has hashed out every last detail and annoying bug out there. The game is very close to the sets of data dug up for most types. Its not perfect....its got some weird things that it does with speeds, climb, and roll rates for instance...but its quite close overall.

Some of it really comes down to the stuff that is much harder to quantify as well. A simulated plane can hit every point on the performance graph but if it doesn't look/sound/feel right then the point of the simulation is also lost. IL-2 does this part very well too. If you've piloted a small plane before and then come back to the game....the experience is definitely there. That comes down to a combination of the graphics, the sounds matching whats happening on the screen, and the flight model working together.

M_Gunz
05-09-2009, 11:56 AM
You can get closer. Either put it on rails hold it real close to rails and you can within about 1% to the charts.
Rails are easy to 100% match charts with, flying is not so.

csThor
05-09-2009, 11:57 AM
Quite frankly that "dumbed down" FM is nonsense and an interpretation of things that people want to believe (for whatever reasons). Fact is the Il-2 engine and the FM matrix was written for seven sub-versions of the Il-2 Sturmovik and its specific flight envelope and operational environment. Nowadays this "crude" matrix has to deal with a sh*tload of aircraft as different as day and night, with quirks and advantages as various as one can think of and we still expect everything to work out just fine? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I say our own greed for more and more aircraft types and theaters has caused these problems, not some nebulous attempt by Maddox Games to tailor the game to "Johnny Joystick". Such accusations are absolutely pointless and show how little understanding people reallyhave about origins and limitations of the Il-2 engine. Oleg once said they were simply overwhelmed by Il-2's initial success, they hadn't made any future plans for the engine, so we can hardly blame them for a development that surprised them completely (although they could have evaded a good number of issues by concentrating the game content on what the engine CAN, not on what it CAN'T).

eACE
05-09-2009, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
In this thread there isn't much in the way of supporting evidence, however, you missed the chart wars over the last 7 years. Trust me...the community has hashed out every last detail and annoying bug out there. The game is very close to the sets of data dug up for most types. Its not perfect....its got some weird things that it does with speeds, climb, and roll rates for instance...but its quite close overall.

Some of it really comes down to the stuff that is much harder to quantify as well. A simulated plane can hit every point on the performance graph but if it doesn't look/sound/feel right then the point of the simulation is also lost. IL-2 does this part very well too. If you've piloted a small plane before and then come back to the game....the experience is definitely there. That comes down to a combination of the graphics, the sounds matching whats happening on the screen, and the flight model working together.
Oh I understand, the same sort goes on with CFS and other flight sims. No flight sim was, is or ever will be perfect. My only point/observation is how many unsupported opinions there are out there. Most of which are in direct conflict with each other. As for the wars here, I have been doing some searching of all topics here and found that some formal testing has been done in the past. Very interesting stuff the way they extract the data from the game. CFS has this too but I don't think I ever saw anyone graph the results like they have for IL2.

thefruitbat
05-09-2009, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by eACE:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
In this thread there isn't much in the way of supporting evidence, however, you missed the chart wars over the last 7 years. Trust me...the community has hashed out every last detail and annoying bug out there. The game is very close to the sets of data dug up for most types. Its not perfect....its got some weird things that it does with speeds, climb, and roll rates for instance...but its quite close overall.

Some of it really comes down to the stuff that is much harder to quantify as well. A simulated plane can hit every point on the performance graph but if it doesn't look/sound/feel right then the point of the simulation is also lost. IL-2 does this part very well too. If you've piloted a small plane before and then come back to the game....the experience is definitely there. That comes down to a combination of the graphics, the sounds matching whats happening on the screen, and the flight model working together.
Oh I understand, the same sort goes on with CFS and other flight sims. No flight sim was, is or ever will be perfect. My only point/observation is how many unsupported opinions there are out there. Most of which are in direct conflict with each other. As for the wars here, I have been doing some searching of all topics here and found that some formal testing has been done in the past. Very interesting stuff the way they extract the data from the game. CFS has this too but I don't think I ever saw anyone graph the results like they have for IL2. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dig and you will find more. I doubt there's much left for you to test that hasn't been done before. The topics that generally cause most stink, are e retention, and acceleration, particualy in dives, always a banker 20 pager.

Bearcat99
05-09-2009, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by thefruitbat:
Got track?
I've flown il2 since the start, and have flown every incarnation of the game, when was this supposed better flight model before he dumbed it down, in your humble opinion. what patch?
fruitbat


Don't need track... and since ORR is gone we cant find the post.. but Oleg said exactly what Freiwillige said he did. Although I disagree with the motives that Frei stated.. If my memory serves me correctly he said something like (to paraphrase) I could have made it more realistic but I had to make it enjoyable to as wide a range of folks as possible. But I still think that I have the best FMs in any sim available... I think "dumbed down" is the wrong term though. I think he was saying basically that there was a lot more to the code than we think and even after FB was introduced.. he said he could have made it as realistic as possible in a PC sim but if he did that then a lot of folks couldn't fly it... I always thought that he meant not because the FM would be so hard to fly but because to render it all would take up more PC resources than PCs at the time could handle in a multiplayer environment with all the other limitations of the engine. I do remember him saying in essence that what ever compromises they did make... they got things as realistic as they could taking all the factors into consideration.

and some of what Thor said......

thefruitbat
05-09-2009, 01:16 PM
I remember what oleg said too, and as you say, he said he could of made it more realistic.

Could, not had, and then dumbed it down, as Freiwillige would have us belive.

Sooocool
05-09-2009, 01:28 PM
I certainly have no complaints about the flight models in IL-2.
Having never flown anything with a thrust to weight ratio greater than a Ces 152, I am reasonably confident that all the R&D that went into creating this sim couldnít be much better, even at times when it makes me wonder. The one thing I do wonder about on occasion is the amount of adverse yaw due to torque, P factor, precession, etc. Even with trim it seems like Iím always using top rudder in a turn to center the ball, and in turns with auto pilot on, the ball indicates a very bad skid.
Again, not complaining, just wonder if torque is slightly exaggerated.

Buzzsaw-
05-09-2009, 02:24 PM
Salute

When compared to other Flight Simulations, Oleg did an excellent job, but that does not mean IL-2 comes close to the real thing.

For example, one element which is missing in the game, is the inertial modelling.

This is especially the case for roll behaviour.

In IL-2, aircraft have fairly accurate maximum rollrate modelled, ie. the roll that a given aircraft could accomplish at maximum deflection and acceleration is modelled quite well in the game, but what is missing, is the effect inertia has on roll behaviour, as for example, when an aircraft reverses its roll, or starts a roll from a stationary position.

In these situations, inertia slows the acceleration into maximum rollrate, that is not modelled in IL-2.

So for example, a game aircraft can be rolling at maximum rate in one direction, and then reverse the roll direction immediately, without any hesitation.

There are also issues with the way American aircraft are modelled, especially the stall behaviour and structural integrity of the P-51, and the stability of aircraft such as the Corsair and P-47.

slipBall
05-09-2009, 03:09 PM
In the original release of the game, you can plainly feel the difference with the fm. Some things were absent, like the need for rudder on takeoff. But as far as flying goes, Oleg had that perfect. It felt as close to real to me from past memories, that I could feel it in my stomach, and reminded me very much of my flying takeoff's and climbing out. Now this is just how I feel about the fm, it felt right to me as the same feeling at the controls from past experiences. I still on occashion fly the original game.

jamesblonde1979
05-09-2009, 04:19 PM
Well it isn't perfect but I have yet to see anything better in a WW2 sim.

In fact I have never seen anything that even approaches IL2 in a WW2 sim.

Holtzauge
05-09-2009, 04:33 PM
I agree that IL2 is nice but one major shortcoming is that drag rise due to compressibility is not modelled.

This means that if you dive you will accelerate faster than IRL as speed builds up and reach higher terminal velocities. I have done some dive tests and what I have found is that there is no drag rise that I can find and in IL2 drag seems to be independant of mach as in for the green line in the diagram below. The other curve is the typical IRL drag characteristics that could be expected for a WW2 prop type fighter (BTW: drag is factored by 10 on y-axis).

I guess that is why the wings fall of in IL2 if you go to fast. There has to be some limit to how fast you can go http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v210/Holtzauge/IL2Cdocomparison.jpg

stalkervision
05-09-2009, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by slipBall:
In the original release of the game, you can plainly feel the difference with the fm. Some things were absent, like the need for rudder on takeoff. But as far as flying goes, Oleg had that perfect. It felt as close to real to me from past memories, that I could feel it in my stomach, and reminded me very much of my flying takeoff's and climbing out. Now this is just how I feel about the fm, it felt right to me as the same feeling at the controls from past experiences. I still on occashion fly the original game.

Ya I have to agree with this. The fm's really felt good. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

I believe I will reload it again! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

slipBall
05-09-2009, 05:31 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by slipBall:
In the original release of the game, you can plainly feel the difference with the fm. Some things were absent, like the need for rudder on takeoff. But as far as flying goes, Oleg had that perfect. It felt as close to real to me from past memories, that I could feel it in my stomach, and reminded me very much of my flying takeoff's and climbing out. Now this is just how I feel about the fm, it felt right to me as the same feeling at the controls from past experiences. I still on occashion fly the original game.

Ya I have to agree with this. The fm's really felt good. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

I believe I will reload it again! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Yea you got to do it! I tell you it is a gas flying the original out of the box. It is really just alot of fun. Plus I really like the short distance's for takeoff and landings. The way the game is now it seems to take forever to get up in the air, and forever to come to a stop after landing. And the shake when you lower your gear, will really rattle those false teeth that you got there Stalker. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

DKoor
05-09-2009, 06:17 PM
Save yourself a bad pilot models and load FB 1.00 (or +Aces Exp).
Enjoy crappy MG151/20s, uber 109 prop pitches, good P-51s, lesser Ai energy wise, more stable airplanes...

M_Gunz
05-09-2009, 09:42 PM
Enjoy crappy MG151/20s, uber 109 prop pitches, good P-51s, lesser Ai energy wise, more stable airplanes...

Stable planes that could not ride a stall. There was a very good big thread about it with many pilot and better
types debating about a flaw in the then-3.x series FM. So we got 4.x and must do the rudder ourselves. But you
can hold a stall now without spinning.

The aerobatics guys and some others talk about IL2 being the only sim with 2nd order effects, maybe *any*, I dunno.
Oleg told us long ago, it's shortcuts. And they keep closing the gaps between shortcut and real as hardware allows.
IMO we are all lucky bosterds to be around to enjoy any of it.

Avivion
05-09-2009, 09:57 PM
Wow ! Never expect to get so many overwhelming responses to my original post, in less than 24 hours !

As I've said, the FM seems mind-boggling real, especially in all the twistings and turnings and loopings in a fight.

However, I couldn't help but wonder, at slow speed such as approach to land, how good is the FM in these regimes? In the Spit, for example, a slight touch to the throttle (up or down) is enough to rock the world, and the rolls seem rather unstable. Trying to landing the Spit well feels like a major challenge.

Incidentally, I also own MSFS RealAir Spit. Wonder which is the winner here.

Avivion
05-09-2009, 10:00 PM
On an issue not exactly related to FM --- is the AI enemy's sighting ability modelled ?

When fighting in Summer over forested terrain below, it's easy to loose sight of the AI (no label turned on), but the AI seems to be able to find me with no difficulty.

Buzzsaw-
05-09-2009, 10:38 PM
Originally posted by Avivion:
I couldn't help but wonder, at slow speed such as approach to land, how good is the FM in these regimes? In the Spit, for example, a slight touch to the throttle (up or down) is enough to rock the world

In fact at slow speed, adding throttle should have an enormous effect on aircraft stability.

Low speed torque is probably undermodelled in this game.

According to tests on the 109G6 with a standard DB605A, for example:

"...considerable rudder force is required at low speeds and high power to keep the ship trimmed."

Ie. you need to be applying nearly full rudder at low speeds and full throttle to keep the aircraft flying in a straight line.

Now what happens when you attempt to initiate a turn?

Ask yourself if this is replicated in the game? How do aircraft perform in low speed dogfights?

The above example is with a relatively low 1475hp engine. Now imagine the effects when the engine is producing in the 2000 hp area. Especially when the throttle is flipped from nearly closed to full open.

(as well of course, if you go from zero throttle to full in real life, you are signficantly increasing the risk of detonation and engine damage)

I have read a number of comments from actual WWII Mustang pilots who mention that adding maximum throttle at low speeds could throw an aircraft onto its back.

Kettenhunde
05-09-2009, 11:09 PM
Low speed torque is probably undermodelled in this game.

It generally overmodeled in most flight sims because people who have never piloted an aircraft offer such opinions.

It is a fact that the forces must be balanced in flight by the control surfaces or the design is not viable or safe. It will not leave the drawing board.

You will see these affects in real airplanes after the stall, when the aircraft is no longer in flight. When flight is reestabilished, the control surfaces go back to being able to balance the forces.



"...considerable rudder force is required at low speeds and high power to keep the ship trimmed."


This bit of opinion applies to all high performance taildraggers and many tri-gear designs.

All the best,

Crumpp

M_Gunz
05-09-2009, 11:11 PM
Propwash is worst on a taildragger before you get the tail up. Rudder is easier when flying.
Of course rudder and taking off in a 109 aren't fall off a log easy.

See how slow you can hold steady flight with any plane, level or climbing, and just how much rudder dancing it takes.
The torque and propwash along with the mushed controls make it tricky. The wash is #1 effect.

Kettenhunde
05-09-2009, 11:30 PM
Propwash is worst on a taildragger before you get the tail up. Rudder is easier when flying.
Of course rudder and taking off in a 109 aren't fall off a log easy.

Exacty. A common mistake pilots will make is lifting the tail early.

You can lift the tail in most taildraggers with throttle alone. That does not mean the rudder is at the design point to be effective. That is why aircraft have rotation speeds. Lifting off before then is pilot error and not a design fault of the aircraft.


It takes experience to learn the feel but the safest thing to do is let the airplane decide when it is ready to fly.

All the best,

Crumpp

Buzzsaw-
05-09-2009, 11:30 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Low speed torque is probably undermodelled in this game.

It generally overmodeled in most flight sims because people who have never piloted an aircraft offer such opinions.

It is a fact that the forces must be balanced in flight by the control surfaces or the design is not viable or safe. It will not leave the drawing board.

You will see these affects in real airplanes after the stall, when the aircraft is no longer in flight. When flight is reestabilished, the control surfaces go back to being able to balance the forces.


"...considerable rudder force is required at low speeds and high power to keep the ship trimmed."


This bit of opinion applies to all high performance taildraggers and many tri-gear designs.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here's another example of Crumpp/Kettenhunde's AMAZING knowledge.

The man says he doesn't fly the game.

NEVER flown it.

But yes, he can tell us all about engine torque is in IL-2.

Not only is he the most knowledgeable aeronautical engineer in the world, he is also psychic. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Since you are psychic:

Tell me exactly how much rudder is required in the IL-2 ingame 109G6 (Early, or 1475hp) to trim the aircraft at full throttle/200kph, and whether this is modelled correctly?

By the way, when was the last time you flew a 109?

Thanks for your wonderful input. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Kettenhunde
05-09-2009, 11:38 PM
It generally overmodeled in most flight sims because people who have never piloted an aircraft offer such opinions.




buzzsaw says:

Low speed torque is probably undermodelled in this game.


R.I.F.

All the best,

Crumpp

Buzzsaw-
05-10-2009, 12:31 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> It generally overmodeled in most flight sims because people who have never piloted an aircraft offer such opinions.



buzzsaw says:

Low speed torque is probably undermodelled in this game.


R.I.F.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So Crumpp admits he is clearly generalizing.

My comments were specific to IL-2, but Crumpp with his amazing depth of knowledge, feels he can pull some piece of over-generalization out of nowhere, something without any context to the discussion at hand, and try to apply it.

Never flown IL-2, but he claims he's HEARD that torque is overmodelled in flight sims... (by the way Crumpp, which flight sim was it that you said you played? Let us know that please http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) so that means IL-2 must also have overmodelled torque. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Why don't you either buy the game and play it, or keep your comments to something which you actually have some knowledge of?

Holtzauge
05-10-2009, 03:44 AM
Originally posted by Avivion:
Wow ! Never expect to get so many overwhelming responses to my original post, in less than 24 hours !

As I've said, the FM seems mind-boggling real, especially in all the twistings and turnings and loopings in a fight.

However, I couldn't help but wonder, at slow speed such as approach to land, how good is the FM in these regimes? In the Spit, for example, a slight touch to the throttle (up or down) is enough to rock the world, and the rolls seem rather unstable. Trying to landing the Spit well feels like a major challenge.

Incidentally, I also own MSFS RealAir Spit. Wonder which is the winner here.

Well happily here there is some IRL data to go on:

The NACA technical reports server has a report W-L-334 (should be downloadable) on Spitfire flying characteristics. Figure 10 in this report has measurements on required aileron and rudder angles in climb and take-off conditions and at 95 mph (approach speed according to pilots notes Spit Mk5)the angles required are small: 12-17 degrees for rudder and 7-9 degrees aileron depending on throttle setting.

So if a slight touch off the throttle in IL2 is enough to rock the world then it would indicate that this is another effect that is a bit off.

Another major shortcoming in the sim is elevator stick forces on certain aircraft where the design team for some strange reason still doggedly couples this to TAS instead of IAS which has the effect that pullouts at very moderate IAS at high altitude become impossible.

Kurfurst__
05-10-2009, 04:06 AM
Originally posted by DKoor:
Save yourself a bad pilot models and load FB 1.00 (or +Aces Exp).

Whiners (of any kind) should really try the old G-6 from the early days, which probably weighted 30 tons instead of 3... it was the most horrible aircraft to fly. You couldn't even turn it without stalling, seriously...

stalkervision
05-10-2009, 04:21 AM
Originally posted by slipBall:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by slipBall:
In the original release of the game, you can plainly feel the difference with the fm. Some things were absent, like the need for rudder on takeoff. But as far as flying goes, Oleg had that perfect. It felt as close to real to me from past memories, that I could feel it in my stomach, and reminded me very much of my flying takeoff's and climbing out. Now this is just how I feel about the fm, it felt right to me as the same feeling at the controls from past experiences. I still on occashion fly the original game.

Ya I have to agree with this. The fm's really felt good. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

I believe I will reload it again! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Yea you got to do it! I tell you it is a gas flying the original out of the box. It is really just alot of fun. Plus I really like the short distance's for takeoff and landings. The way the game is now it seems to take forever to get up in the air, and forever to come to a stop after landing. And the shake when you lower your gear, will really rattle those false teeth that you got there Stalker. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

who told you I had false teeth.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

They're real teeth just wooden is all. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kettenhunde
05-10-2009, 04:29 AM
The NACA technical reports server has a report W-L-334 (should be downloadable) on Spitfire flying characteristics. Figure 10 in this report has measurements on required aileron and rudder angles in climb and take-off conditions and at 95 mph (approach speed according to pilots notes Spit Mk5)the angles required are small:

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/5087/spitrudder.jpg (http://img140.imageshack.us/my.php?image=spitrudder.jpg)

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/n...92582_1993092582.pdf (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930092582_1993092582.pdf)

All the best,

Crumpp

DKoor
05-10-2009, 04:54 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
Save yourself a bad pilot models and load FB 1.00 (or +Aces Exp).

Whiners (of any kind) should really try the old G-6 from the early days, which probably weighted 30 tons instead of 3... it was the most horrible aircraft to fly. You couldn't even turn it without stalling, seriously... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Sometime I'll check it out... in the meantime I can remember how G6AS was a beast of a plane back then.
I'd always choose that 109 over LA-7... or even FW-190D, because it has Mk108 option http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif (it was an issue back then).

Poor old 109G6... never got any loving in this sim. But then again I can hardly think of any other sim that that modeled it to be a half decent war plane http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif .

Holtzauge
05-10-2009, 04:57 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The NACA technical reports server has a report W-L-334 (should be downloadable) on Spitfire flying characteristics. Figure 10 in this report has measurements on required aileron and rudder angles in climb and take-off conditions and at 95 mph (approach speed according to pilots notes Spit Mk5)the angles required are small:

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/5087/spitrudder.jpg (http://img140.imageshack.us/my.php?image=spitrudder.jpg)

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/n...92582_1993092582.pdf (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930092582_1993092582.pdf)

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What you underlined concerns characteristics at MINIMUM speed. Notice that MINIMUM speed is not the same as recommended APPROACH speed which I was referring to.

Kettenhunde
05-10-2009, 06:05 AM
What you underlined concerns characteristics at MINIMUM speed.

It says NEAR minimum airspeed.

It refers to the exact same figure 10 you reference and 95mph or Vref for the Spitfire is 1.3 times Vs or stall speed. That seems NEAR minimum airspeed to me.

All the best,

Crumpp

slipBall
05-10-2009, 06:52 AM
Hey Stalker, did you go back in time yet?

1. dots were a man's dot

2. sniper AI had not yet evolved

3. flak, and alot of it

4. oh the sounds!

5. colors seemed brighter back then

6. aircraft with a blast of throttle and rudder, could do a 180 or a 360 on a dime

7. the brakes worked

8. short takeoff/landing distance, like in the old newsreal's footage

9. runways were bumpy

10. the women were less easy

Holtzauge
05-10-2009, 07:26 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
95mph or Vref for the Spitfire is 1.3 times Vs or stall speed. That seems NEAR minimum airspeed to me.

OK, your opinion is noted.

Kettenhunde
05-10-2009, 08:58 AM
Holtzauge says:

OK, your opinion is noted.

It is a common viewpoint among those who actually fly airplanes and wish to avoid the dirt barrier.


If ATC tells you to reduce airspeed to your minimum speed, What speed would that be ?



If ATC ask for our minimum speed that is Vref + 5 (for the 752/762/763) in my airline, plus any gust factor. So no, we could not reduce to our Vref speed if asked. Vref + 5 kts would be the minimum if we had full flaps in steady or calm surface wind (i.e. no gust factor).


http://www.airliners.net/aviat...ops/read.main/52968/ (http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/52968/)


Minimum clean speed = minimum speed with gear/flaps/slats up and airbrakes in, usually about 1.5 x Vso.
Minimum approach speed = Vref (see above), 1.3 x Vso.


http://www.pprune.org/question...mum-clean-speed.html (http://www.pprune.org/questions/143812-minimum-clean-speed.html)

M_Gunz
05-10-2009, 09:03 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The NACA technical reports server has a report W-L-334 (should be downloadable) on Spitfire flying characteristics. Figure 10 in this report has measurements on required aileron and rudder angles in climb and take-off conditions and at 95 mph (approach speed according to pilots notes Spit Mk5)the angles required are small:

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/5087/spitrudder.jpg (http://img140.imageshack.us/my.php?image=spitrudder.jpg)

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/n...92582_1993092582.pdf (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930092582_1993092582.pdf)

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A lot hinges on that non-quantified word "Considerable".

I have to LOL at one member who will tell us exactly and brings up that another hasn't flown a Spit IRL when he hasn't either.

Fly how slow you can and make the P-40B hold flight or climb at or below 140kph IAS and tell me the torque is not enough!
Find the lowest speed the P-51D-5 can fly level and then slam throttle full and see what happens.
I've had P-51's turn turtle during rising climbs where I fixated too long on target, that was strong torque.
Ground handling of the planes is not FM so leave the "flip it over on ground" tales out of FM claims please.
Going to make claims on the basis of unqualified, unquantified anecdotes then you have your work cut out for you.

Undermodeled torque? HOW MUCH Undermodeled and which ways? What is exactly right? Where to set the point?

These are not lightweight biplanes with rotary engines.

Holtzauge
05-10-2009, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by Holtzauge:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Avivion:
Wow ! Never expect to get so many overwhelming responses to my original post, in less than 24 hours !

As I've said, the FM seems mind-boggling real, especially in all the twistings and turnings and loopings in a fight.

However, I couldn't help but wonder, at slow speed such as approach to land, how good is the FM in these regimes? In the Spit, for example, a slight touch to the throttle (up or down) is enough to rock the world, and the rolls seem rather unstable. Trying to landing the Spit well feels like a major challenge.

Incidentally, I also own MSFS RealAir Spit. Wonder which is the winner here.

Well happily here there is some IRL data to go on:

The NACA technical reports server has a report W-L-334 (should be downloadable) on Spitfire flying characteristics. Figure 10 in this report has measurements on required aileron and rudder angles in climb and take-off conditions and at 95 mph (approach speed according to pilots notes Spit Mk5)the angles required are small: 12-17 degrees for rudder and 7-9 degrees aileron depending on throttle setting.

So if a slight touch off the throttle in IL2 is enough to rock the world then it would indicate that this is another effect that is a bit off.

Another major shortcoming in the sim is elevator stick forces on certain aircraft where the design team for some strange reason still doggedly couples this to TAS instead of IAS which has the effect that pullouts at very moderate IAS at high altitude become impossible. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Err...Avivion, what approach speed are you using when "a slight touch to the throttle (up or down) is enough to rock the world" when flying the Spitfire?

I based the response above on your description of the behavior of the Spitfire at low speeds and frankly it does not map what I get:

I just tested the Spitfire Mk5b in 4.09m and I did not have any trouble whatsoever controlling the plane at IAS 140 km/h (87 mph) flaps down and 150 Km/h (93 mph) flaps up. I slammed the throttle full forward from idle in both cases and while there of course was some torque it was perfectly controllable....

But then I'm such a sh*t hot pilot... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Jokes aside, I cannot fault the sim on this point. Just what is supposed to be wrong? Maybe Crumpp can explain?

ElAurens
05-10-2009, 10:13 AM
I will refer again to BlitzPig_Tailspin, our real life aerobatics instructor and FAA employee. His aircraft is an original Stearman biplane uprated with a 450hp Pratt & Whitney engine. This is twice the original hp of the original engine. Now I will go out on a limb a say it probably has nearly twice the torque as the original as well. (If I'm wrong here accept my apologies and please give correct figures).

He says the torque in game is overmodeled, and that this is exacerbated by our inability to feel it's onset. We only know it is affecting us when we see our world move on the monitor. In a real aircraft you feel it and can instinctively (or with a lot of training) correct for it before it becomes the ugly monster it is on our little sim.

He was an early beta tester for the sim and forwarded his thoughts to Oleg many times, to no avail.

Just another facet of the "harder is more realistic" mantra pushed by so many around here.

More realistic is more realistic, harder or not.

We need to remember this.

Kettenhunde
05-10-2009, 10:44 AM
A lot hinges on that non-quantified word "Considerable".


The report actually does a very good job of quantifying that for us since documenting the flying qualities was the point of it. It shows us the Spitfire acts like a typical tail dragger. My aircraft acts very similar under the same conditions as most of them will, including the Bf-109.

Combined with its sister report on the stall characteristics it makes for a very good picture of how these planes should feel for you.

The stall speeds and engine settings come from this report. You can see that the NACA used these speeds on the flying characteristics report.

http://jsbsim.sourceforge.net/spit_stalling.pdf

Letís look at the figures presented in the report.

First cruise flight and gliding. Cruise flight our engine is at 3 3/4lbs @ 2650rpm while gliding is throttle closed. Here we have reduced power so that Pa = Pr and the airplane is happy. Notice we need very little rudder to maintain a centered ball even at stall speeds. ~1/3 of our rudder deflection is sufficient. We are flying along with engine at the very low power settings a propeller aircraft uses to stall speed in slow cruise flight. We talked about how propeller aircraft are aerodynamically limited and not thrust limited, well here it is!

edit: The arrow is pointed at force, the deflection is below it


http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/4061/spitruddercruisem.jpg (http://img154.imageshack.us/my.php?image=spitruddercruisem.jpg)

Now letís talk what happens when we put the coals to her and climb. Climbing power is set to either maximum continuous or climb power at 7lbs @ 2850rpm. Push the throttle forward and we have ample thrust to climb away even at stall speed. However, the slower we go with the throttle firewalled, the more our propeller effects come into play. At 95mph, we require ~50% of our rudder to maintain a centered ball. The closer we get to the stall, the more rudder we have to push to keep the ball centered. We donít lose our rudder until we stall. In fact, if we are at take off with our gear down, we have rudder control even after the stall.


http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/3325/spitfirerudder.png (http://img154.imageshack.us/my.php?image=spitfirerudder.png)

Now letís look at landing and approach. In landing approach, we have our throttle open in this case to Ė 4lbs @ 2300rpm. Just enough to maintain glide slope. At Vref, we donít need much rudder at all to keep a stabilized approach. However notice that in the flare we will need to add progressively more rudder. When we drop the throttle to idle on landing, our need for rudder disappears. Like all taildraggers, you need to coordinate rudder and throttle to keep the aircraft pointed straight down the runway.

http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/9694/landingapproach.jpg (http://img154.imageshack.us/my.php?image=landingapproach.jpg)

I hope this helps for you to get a better idea of how the real thing acts.

Holtzauge, I apologize as I could not resist just tugging your chain some! Forgive me, please.

All the best,

Crumpp

horseback
05-10-2009, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by Avivion:
On an issue not exactly related to FM --- is the AI enemy's sighting ability modelled ?

When fighting in Summer over forested terrain below, it's easy to loose sight of the AI (no label turned on), but the AI seems to be able to find me with no difficulty. The AI are the game, in the sense that they are routines rather than actual 'packages' of awareness. They know all, see all, and cheat remorselessly at times, and the highlighting that a real life object above the ground might sometimes exhibit is never going to be there on your screen, but you can play a bit with your video settings to make the ground darker and aircraft brighter...

Your ability to discern a 'distant' object will depend to a large degree on the resolution you have set for your video. The lower your resolution, the bigger & more visible your 'distant aircraft' dots will be on your screen. Your ai wingmen will see enemy aircraft that you cannot see because the nose of your aircraft is in the way, anbd you cannot move your 'head' around to see over the nose or around the canopy framing, much less see the distant dots against the visual ground clutter.

cheers

horseback

Brownba
05-10-2009, 10:46 AM
I would like to add a recommendation for giving the original IL-2 a go. I have it and 1946 installed, but I hardly ever fire up 1946 lately.

I have never flown any real aircraft, so I have no idea what's realistic and what isn't and I'm not trying to argue that point. For me, the fun I get is from the challenge involved. For example, just getting an aircraft on and off the ground can be more difficult in the original. If I chop the throttle and I'm a little high coming in for a landing, the aircraft will roll a wing right into the ground. Putting a couple of cannon rounds into an aircraft won't get you an instant kill.

Not everything is perfect in the original release. The AI is kind of screwy at times, especially when they are down low, near the ground and some planes never seem to stall,but with the wonderful original sounds and the HDR/bloom effects and dcg, it's kind of like having a "mini" aaa mod game. Plus you don't even have to install it from the cd that comes with 1946, you can play directly from the cd to try it out.

Maybe I'm just getting old and nostalgic, but I'm in love with IL-2 Sturmovik all over again.

Avivion
05-10-2009, 10:51 AM
[/QUOTE]

Err...Avivion, what approach speed are you using when "a slight touch to the throttle (up or down) is enough to rock the world" when flying the Spitfire?

[/QUOTE]


Any time it gets below 200 km/hr, moving the throttle would start showing quite pronounced torque effect, controls (both pitch and roll) also become quite sensitive. And touching down nearly always results in at least one bounce. Maybe I just need more practices ...

Bremspropeller
05-10-2009, 11:04 AM
I would like to add a recommendation for giving the original IL-2 a go.


UI1.1 for IL2 1.0 anyone? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

stalkervision
05-10-2009, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I would like to add a recommendation for giving the original IL-2 a go.


UI1.1 for IL2 1.0 anyone? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

Holtzauge
05-10-2009, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
It shows us the Spitfire acts like a typical tail dragger.


Imagine that! The Spitfire acts like a typical taildragger! What a surprise! When I fly IL2 I usually do not have externals enabled so I never noticed that it's a taildragger! I'm going to make a note of this and google "Spitfire" just to convince myself it does not have a nosewheel.


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
My aircraft acts very similar under the same conditions as most of them will, including the Bf-109.


ROTFL! So based on how your 200 hp private plane behaves you make judgements on how the Bf109 behaves because they are both taildraggers? What's next? Judging Spitfire dive performance based on how gliders behave with and without water ballast?


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
I hope this helps for you to get a better idea of how the real thing acts.

Holtzauge, I apologize as I could not resist just tugging your chain some! Forgive me, please.


No problem! Your lecture on handling characteristics and how to interpret data in NACA reports has been quite entertaining. I guess you missed that I was being ironic when I said that you may be able to explain!

slipBall
05-10-2009, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by Brownba:
I would like to add a recommendation for giving the original IL-2 a go. I have it and 1946 installed, but I hardly ever fire up 1946 lately.

I have never flown any real aircraft, so I have no idea what's realistic and what isn't and I'm not trying to argue that point. For me, the fun I get is from the challenge involved. For example, just getting an aircraft on and off the ground can be more difficult in the original. If I chop the throttle and I'm a little high coming in for a landing, the aircraft will roll a wing right into the ground. Putting a couple of cannon rounds into an aircraft won't get you an instant kill.

Not everything is perfect in the original release. The AI is kind of screwy at times, especially when they are down low, near the ground and some planes never seem to stall,but with the wonderful original sounds and the HDR/bloom effects and dcg, it's kind of like having a "mini" aaa mod game. Plus you don't even have to install it from the cd that comes with 1946, you can play directly from the cd to try it out.

Maybe I'm just getting old and nostalgic, but I'm in love with IL-2 Sturmovik all over again.


I agree with what you said here. I think that the complaints of the past has taken that play away. Also, AI are not the snipers of todays 46, and that makes game play much different

eACE
05-10-2009, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by thefruitbat:
Dig and you will find more. I doubt there's much left for you to test that hasn't been done before. The topics that generally cause most stink, are e retention, and acceleration, particualy in dives, always a banker 20 pager.
Well been digging and have found some of the classical tests for some of the planes but no where near all of them. So there is still a lot to do. The problem with the classical tests is finding the data to compare to, which probably explains why so few have been done. Also found a lot of links and reference to the utilities used in testing. Which is very nice to have, I only wonder why more 'opinions' minded folks here are not taking advantage of them. What I have found very little of, all most none, is the modern energy analysis of the planes. Granted you wont find any data to compare to but it would be nice to have for plane to plane comparisons. Why hasn't anyone pursued this over the past 8 years?

Kettenhunde
05-10-2009, 12:38 PM
I guess you missed that I was being ironic when I said that you may be able to explain!

I figured you needed the help interpreting the graphs after your dismal conclusions. It had to be either cannot read the chart or are just a liar.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt assuming you were not a lair. Now with that knowledge you can stop making untruthful claims.


Holtzauge says:

The NACA technical reports server has a report W-L-334 (should be downloadable) on Spitfire flying characteristics. Figure 10 in this report has measurements on required aileron and rudder angles in climb and take-off conditions and at 95 mph (approach speed according to pilots notes Spit Mk5)the angles required are small:


All the best,

Crumpp

stalkervision
05-10-2009, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by slipBall:
Hey Stalker, did you go back in time yet?

1. dots were a man's dot

2. sniper AI had not yet evolved

3. flak, and alot of it

4. oh the sounds!

5. colors seemed brighter back then

6. aircraft with a blast of throttle and rudder, could do a 180 or a 360 on a dime

7. the brakes worked

8. short takeoff/landing distance, like in the old newsreal's footage

9. runways were bumpy

10. the women were less easy

No buddy, I got busy with other things. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

from all that you mention it will be well worth it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

well got it loaded and the 109 f1 flies like a real dream but I now have to find a patch to get me the earlier e models.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

also have to set up the joystick! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Damn more "other stuff" I got to do.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

stalkervision
05-10-2009, 03:07 PM
ah got it loaded Slipball with all the patches. Joystick settings aren't done yet. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

what I can say is the 109 g isn't half the stall beast kurfy claims it is in this version. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif In fact without the wing cannon they are pretty pleasant to fly. Probably better then the original in fact. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

btw this version has some real nice fm qualities the later ones are missing IMO. I believe I will use it for a bit. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

slipBall
05-10-2009, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
ah got it loaded Slipball with all the patches. Joystick settings aren't done yet. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

what I can say is the 109 g isn't half the stall beast kurfy claims it is in this version. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif In fact without the wing cannon they are pretty pleasant to fly. Probably better then the original in fact. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif



Patches!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif...I fly it straight from the box http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

stalkervision
05-10-2009, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by slipBall:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
ah got it loaded Slipball with all the patches. Joystick settings aren't done yet. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

what I can say is the 109 g isn't half the stall beast kurfy claims it is in this version. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif In fact without the wing cannon they are pretty pleasant to fly. Probably better then the original in fact. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif



Patches!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif...I fly it straight from the box http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

actually this is really REALLY the way to go except the original doesn't have my precious e-model.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

I don't see much a difference right now in the fm's yet with or without patches. They still fly much better imo. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

stalkervision
05-10-2009, 04:14 PM
btw slipball this is how you should have said it.." Patches? We don't need no stinking patches!" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqomZQMZQCQ

VIGOR1994
05-10-2009, 04:20 PM
one thing thats not modled is when you shoot 30mm high explosive rounds at a big concrete hanger
there is no damage?!?

slipBall
05-10-2009, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
btw slipball this is how you should have said it.." Patches? We don't need no stinking patches!" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqomZQMZQCQ



http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Clint Eastwood movie quote from spagetti western. No, I remembered when I hit the utube that it was that about Gold western, great movie! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Eustachy1980
05-10-2009, 05:15 PM
Does Il-2 4.08m have better FM than stock FSX piston engine planes or BoB2 WoV aircrafts in your opinion?

Buzzsaw-
05-10-2009, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/3325/spitfirerudder.png


I want to thank Crumpp for posting the various documents which support my original assertions. Ie. that at low speeds, and full throttle, considerable rudder deflection is required to maintain stability in these highly powered aircraft.

Now if he takes the time to play the virtual game, he can compare the characteristics of the virtual aircraft in the game to the real aircraft.

ElAurens
05-10-2009, 05:31 PM
Originally posted by Eustachy1980:
Does Il-2 4.08m have better FM than stock FSX piston engine planes or BoB2 WoV aircrafts in your opinion?

FSX has a flight model?

That's news to me.

All the stock props felt pretty much the same.

Oh, nice damage modeling as well... I just love it when you "overstress" the airframe and your first clue that something is wrong is when you are dumped to a black screen.

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

Avivion
05-10-2009, 06:01 PM
On AI enemies' dogfighting ability, does it vary from version to version?

I have all the IL2 versions, and I find in FB it's almost impossible to fight the Zeros or Spits for example, while in '46 getting them is almost guaranteed in every fight (1 versus 1).

Also I noted when fighting over mountain terrains, AI enemies almost always ram themselves right into the mountain. Something wrong with the modelling?

stalkervision
05-10-2009, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by Avivion:
On AI enemies' dogfighting ability, does it vary from version to version?

I have all the IL2 versions, and I find in FB it's almost impossible to fight the Zeros or Spits for example, while in '46 getting them is almost guaranteed in every fight (1 versus 1).

Also I noted when fighting over mountain terrains, AI enemies almost always ram themselves right into the mountain. Something wrong with the modelling?

yes IMO it does to an extent. i believe the first's were the best. The new aaa mods are considered the best. They are very similar to the first fm models I believe.

Avivion
05-11-2009, 12:59 AM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Avivion:
On AI enemies' dogfighting ability, does it vary from version to version?

I have all the IL2 versions, and I find in FB it's almost impossible to fight the Zeros or Spits for example, while in '46 getting them is almost guaranteed in every fight (1 versus 1).

Also I noted when fighting over mountain terrains, AI enemies almost always ram themselves right into the mountain. Something wrong with the modelling?

yes IMO it does to an extent. i believe the first's were the best. The new aaa mods are considered the best. They are very similar to the first fm models I believe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm a little confused ... In FB 1v1, Spit IXc against A6M5 and Bf109F4, is practically impossible to win at say, 5000 m altitude. I have to bring the fight down to tree-top level (flat terrain) and use tactic of bleeding off bandit's energy and only then am I able to win the fight. At higher altitude, both A6M5 and Bf109F easily stick by my six o'clock almost permanently.

In IL2 '46, however, they are piece-of-cake at whatever altitude.

Now, either the Spit in FB is under-modelled and A6M5/Bf109F are over-modelled, or Spit in '46 over-modelled and A6M5/Bf109F under-modelled. Or is it just that in FB, both A6M5 and Bf109F had been programmed to dogfight at its best? Also, in FB the Spit seems to stall more easily.

Now, really, which version has a more "correct" FM (for all the three)?

stalkervision
05-11-2009, 04:56 AM
Originally posted by Avivion:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Avivion:
On AI enemies' dogfighting ability, does it vary from version to version?

I have all the IL2 versions, and I find in FB it's almost impossible to fight the Zeros or Spits for example, while in '46 getting them is almost guaranteed in every fight (1 versus 1).

Also I noted when fighting over mountain terrains, AI enemies almost always ram themselves right into the mountain. Something wrong with the modelling?

yes IMO it does to an extent. i believe the first's were the best. The new aaa mods are considered the best. They are very similar to the first fm models I believe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm a little confused ... In FB 1v1, Spit IXc against A6M5 and Bf109F4, is practically impossible to win at say, 5000 m altitude. I have to bring the fight down to tree-top level (flat terrain) and use tactic of bleeding off bandit's energy and only then am I able to win the fight. At higher altitude, both A6M5 and Bf109F easily stick by my six o'clock almost permanently.

In IL2 '46, however, they are piece-of-cake at whatever altitude.

Now, either the Spit in FB is under-modelled and A6M5/Bf109F are over-modelled, or Spit in '46 over-modelled and A6M5/Bf109F under-modelled. Or is it just that in FB, both A6M5 and Bf109F had been programmed to dogfight at its best? Also, in FB the Spit seems to stall more easily.

Now, really, which version has a more "correct" FM (for all the three)? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not sure about F.B really. I am talking about the original Il-2.

The ai there so far seems far better then 46.

The 109 e's fm seems way Way too touchy to stall though and stall really bad. Really pretty awful. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif The other 109's are far FAR better. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

UnknownTarget
05-11-2009, 01:42 PM
The stall modeling n IL2 always seemed weird to me - aircraft seem to pin around their CoG like tops, with no regard to actual inertia, mass, air resistance, etc. Stalls in IL-2 seem to act as if the only thing that you were flying is a 20,000 lb ball.

slipBall
05-11-2009, 02:22 PM
I really can't remember my last stall. There is no reason to stall if you watch your wings angle of attack closely. There are no difference's in any version of the game, or any other game, or real aircraft as far as that angle goes. Best to have a light touch, and watch your airspeed as well. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

M_Gunz
05-11-2009, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by UnknownTarget:
The stall modeling n IL2 always seemed weird to me - aircraft seem to pin around their CoG like tops, with no regard to actual inertia, mass, air resistance, etc. Stalls in IL-2 seem to act as if the only thing that you were flying is a 20,000 lb ball.

Go play EAW then come back and say.

UnknownTarget
05-11-2009, 03:03 PM
Having never played EAW but gotten my pilot's license, I still say that the feel of flying breaks down once you hit the stall - especially in the F4U. That plane just spins around it's CG like mad, tumbling in every direction. It feels like I'm being hung from a string.

Now, light stalls are fine, they feel realistic - a nice shudder and your wing drops. I'm talking about hard stalls - get to 300 knots in a F4U and pull straight back, watch as the plane snap rolls (fine) then starts spinning forwards in every direction (what?). Then you try and level it and it just swings back and forth and up and down (what the hell?).

slipBall
05-11-2009, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by UnknownTarget:
Having never played EAW but gotten my pilot's license, I still say that the feel of flying breaks down once you hit the stall - especially in the F4U. That plane just spins around it's CG like mad, tumbling in every direction. It feels like I'm being hung from a string.

Now, light stalls are fine, they feel realistic - a nice shudder and your wing drops. I'm talking about hard stalls - get to 300 knots in a F4U and pull straight back, watch as the plane snap rolls (fine) then starts spinning forwards in every direction (what?). Then you try and level it and it just swings back and forth and up and down (what the hell?).


I think 300 is not enough. Try mid 300's or better. If happens again, give opposite rudder to direction of spin, full power, stick slight forward to recover. That aircraft was known to be prone to spins http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

UnknownTarget
05-11-2009, 04:22 PM
I know how to recover from spins http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif My point is that the aircraft don't seem realistic at all once they reach a hard stall because they just start to go insane and pivot around as if they're being held on a string, as opposed to having any form of mass or inertia.

crucislancer
05-11-2009, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by slipBall:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by UnknownTarget:
get to 300 knots in a F4U and pull straight back, watch as the plane snap rolls (fine) then starts spinning forwards in every direction (what?). Then you try and level it and it just swings back and forth and up and down (what the hell?).


I think 300 is not enough. Try mid 300's or better. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not enough airspeed? UnknownTarget gave his figures in Knots, not kph. 300 knots and the Corsair is moving right along.

I think UnknownTarget is on to something. There are times that it seems that planes behave like they don't have any mass, or certain laws of physics weren't programed into the game.

But, in the end I really don't care. Until another game comes along that models it better, I'll stick with IL-2, warts and all.

Bremspropeller
05-11-2009, 05:32 PM
To me, it seems more like there is no *air* modelled, or the air modelled is not dense enough.

There are a couple of aircraft in the game that will tumble and do funny stuff that won't happen with a 4-ton aircraft IRL.

It looks as if there's no dampening-effct from stabilizers (pitch/ yaw inertia and dampening) and wings (no roll-inertia/ dampening, as Buzzaw already pointed out).

slipBall
05-12-2009, 02:01 AM
Originally posted by crucislancer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by slipBall:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by UnknownTarget:
get to 300 knots in a F4U and pull straight back, watch as the plane snap rolls (fine) then starts spinning forwards in every direction (what?). Then you try and level it and it just swings back and forth and up and down (what the hell?).


I think 300 is not enough. Try mid 300's or better. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not enough airspeed? UnknownTarget gave his figures in Knots, not kph. 300 knots and the Corsair is moving right along.

I think UnknownTarget is on to something. There are times that it seems that planes behave like they don't have any mass, or certain laws of physics weren't programed into the game.

But, in the end I really don't care. Until another game comes along that models it better, I'll stick with IL-2, warts and all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



knots, ooops.

still I think any problems are pilot error, and a light touch and practise are required here for this aircraft

AllorNothing117
05-12-2009, 05:30 AM
Not reading this entire thread as I should be revising http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif I'll just drop me "2 cents"

I think it's Incredably realistic and I've heard you won't find a more realistic sim, eveyone rates it. But remember that so long as there are a couple of things off then there will be people talking about it.If you take the big picture overall it's incredable, don't get to caught up in the little details... But stay away from the P-38. It's the best plane in the whole game by a long way and I love it! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif But it isn't the best modeled which is a tad depressing after 1,000 hours of flying, knowing the real P-38 was capable of more.

WOODY01
05-12-2009, 05:49 AM
As to how real is the FM in IL2, I was pretty interested in this when I took the plunge recently and went for a spin in New Zealands resident P51D 30 NA 'NZ2415' or Mustang 15 as it is known in the local traffic comms. I was overall shocked as to how accurate at least the P51D is. I went through the flight when I got home and flew it over similar terain, to exact times and speeds and it was bang on. Even the feel is there. The things that were missing are, bumpyness in taxiing over grass, G's are a little off for me at least, in the real P51D we were pushing around 4-5G in the BFM manouvers and in the sim grey out came on alot faster than for real, I had no greying out at all but I was expecting it and was breathing and tencing my body to compensate for it ( I did get a wicked neck strain out of it though that only showed up after the flight from trying to check my '6' under 'G' which is easy at the time but catches up with you later http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )
The other thing that was differant was the way the engine temps came up, but I would expect this to be differant from aircraft to aircraft of 60 years + vintage.

The other thing to consider is the Pilot I was lucky enough to have flying me, the owner of the P51D 'NZ2415' is an ex RNZAF fighter Pilot and a commercial pilot. And thats the thing, if you fly your aircraft in the sim like a irriplaceable 60+ year old warbird the sim measures up basiclly exactly - in the case of the P51D at least, if you fly it like your on an Air Quake server you will always be dissapointed.

In my opinion from that one flight that showed me sooo much, Oleg has really done his homework.

M_Gunz
05-12-2009, 06:48 AM
I've gotten into slow, gentle spins checking things at slow, gentle speeds and what I do at the controls makes a difference.
I can stop or slow the spin, depending on how developed I got it, just by loosening up on what's holding the spin.
I can make it worse, like there's a rope tied somewhere just by holding the stick back or pulling harder.
I can use other controls to influence the spin to some degree, like opposite rudder or same direction rudder or trying "things"
with aileron and they all affect the spin. However if I've pulled into and wound up a real blender then who to tell what is
doing what?

And then I come read how none of what I experience is true at all, IL2 spins are not that way at all.

1946 does not have weight distributed in the 3D model. Weight yes, distributed no. Will be in SOW.
From the same time, same source (Oleg) the flying will be pretty much the same.

The man has been a test pilot for Sukhoi and is an aero-engineer who has other AE's working with him.
How many "I know better"s here have done or are even one of those things?
How many have read books and know what they said and that's enough?

You guys take me back to the 60's, standing on the sidewalk and listening to 9 year olds decide if the US could beat Russia.

Eustachy1980
05-12-2009, 09:53 AM
I am sure that stock Il-2 4.08m game FM cannot be perfect. Some guys are now in process of introduction very significant and realistic FM changes for Allied and German fighters in one mod-pack. On the other hand second most acclaimed mod-pack includes new planes with even more simplified FM.

Of course I cannot give you details for obvious reasons... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

UnknownTarget
05-12-2009, 09:58 AM
It seems to me that whenever a debate comes up on these forums, there's three types of people that pop up:

1) I'm an aero-enthusiast and I know everything: here, have some charts to munch on for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

2) I have no real clue about flying outside of sims and war stories, but I like it a lot and I think I know what's best. Here, have some opinions.

3) You all are wrong because you're not Oleg - you cannot possibly be right because you are not him and therefore have invalid opinions.


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

crucislancer
05-12-2009, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by UnknownTarget:
It seems to me that whenever a debate comes up on these forums, there's three types of people that pop up:

1) I'm an aero-enthusiast and I know everything: here, have some charts to munch on for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

2) I have no real clue about flying outside of sims and war stories, but I like it a lot and I think I know what's best. Here, have some opinions.

3) You all are wrong because you're not Oleg - you cannot possibly be right because you are not him and therefore have invalid opinions.


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

4) Accept it for what it is, warts and all, and watch the other 3 beat themselves silly with charts and surly attitudes. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Eustachy1980
05-12-2009, 10:19 AM
However you cannot negate Fw 190A flight model dynamics is screwed-up because its prop pitch adjustment scale is significantly cut and this fighter flies like a bomber.

In fact playing 4.08m version you cannot steer prop pitch directly because all planes have fixed pitch or constant-speed props modeled. Only German Bf 109 and Fw 190 have more complicated Komandogeraten to carry out this task. So using "prop-pitch" you really steer engine's RPM between min (0%) and max (100%) allowable values for given engine, for instance in 1800-3000 RPM range for Merlins. Also all in-game planes have four-blade propellers which is not historically correct.

rnzoli
05-12-2009, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by Eustachy1980:
I am sure that stock Il-2 4.08m game FM cannot be perfect. Some guys are now in process of introduction very significant and realistic FM changes for Allied and German fighters in one mod-pack.
Sure enough, that will be THE PERFECT FM I guess? Totally unbiased and wholeheartedly agreed unanimously? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

Unknowntarget, you forgot also the 5th type:
5) I don't care whether the FM is wrong or right - I can mod them now, I make them the way I like them! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Eustachy1980
05-12-2009, 10:38 AM
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 Eustachy1980:
I am sure that stock Il-2 4.08m game FM cannot be perfect. Some guys are now in process of introduction very significant and realistic FM changes for Allied and German fighters in one mod-pack.
Sure enough, that will be THE PERFECT FM I guess? Totally unbiased and wholeheartedly agreed unanimously? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Be sure - as far as game engine permits! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

crucislancer
05-12-2009, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by Eustachy1980:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 Eustachy1980:
I am sure that stock Il-2 4.08m game FM cannot be perfect. Some guys are now in process of introduction very significant and realistic FM changes for Allied and German fighters in one mod-pack.
Sure enough, that will be THE PERFECT FM I guess? Totally unbiased and wholeheartedly agreed unanimously? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Be sure - as far as game engine permits! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL! What a bunch of hooey!

ElAurens
05-12-2009, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by slipBall:

still I think any problems are pilot error, and a light touch and practise are required here for this aircraft

slipBall, I don't think we are addressing the same thing.

Certainly flying correctly will indeed keep you from spinning. No argument there. The problem arises if and when you do enter a spin.

The "slip on a banana peel" spin/stall model in the sim is just flat out wrong.

The hand of a god does not grab your craft by the wing tip and flip it across the sky like a frisbee when you spin and or stall in the real world.

Clearly inertia and mass modeling are out of whack in the game engine. But what do you want for a game first designed to run on a 1 gig processor with 512 of ram and a Voodoo card?

Eustachy1980
05-12-2009, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by crucislancer:

LOL! What a bunch of hooey!

LOL! Perfectly certain if you mean four-blade props in all planes! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

waffen-79
05-12-2009, 10:56 AM
All in all, whatever reason you guys can come by:

being, air modeled or not, propeller pitch, absoulte damage to few parts, flying in rails, etc.

IL-2 1946 is by far the best WWII combat flight simulator

and I've tryed other products

waffen-79
05-12-2009, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by crucislancer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Eustachy1980:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 Eustachy1980:
I am sure that stock Il-2 4.08m game FM cannot be perfect. Some guys are now in process of introduction very significant and realistic FM changes for Allied and German fighters in one mod-pack.
Sure enough, that will be THE PERFECT FM I guess? Totally unbiased and wholeheartedly agreed unanimously? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Be sure - as far as game engine permits! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL! What a bunch of hooey! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm a MOD enthusiast and I say

THAT MOD-PACK should NEVER se the light of day http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

want your mustang/spit/lag/109 to pwn the skies, make it a new slot and go offline

UnknownTarget
05-12-2009, 11:03 AM
Heh, don't get me wrong, I think IL-2 is the best out there and definitely replicates the feel of flying with the most authority, it's just that when you start to push past the envelope (and that envelope being high speed and/or unusual AoA stalls) it's age and simulation roots start to show. Otherwise it's an excellent sim and is still the most realistic out there http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Eustachy1980
05-12-2009, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by waffen-79:

I'm a MOD enthusiast and I say

THAT MOD-PACK should NEVER se the light of day http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

want your mustang/spit/lag/109 to pwn the skies, make it a new slot and go offline

I do not get your point. THIS MOD-PACK does not change stock planes FM. It only adds copies (if this is right word here) of existing planes with new FM into new slots exactly as you described it above. Of course these planes can be flown on-line but it is not mandatory...

Eustachy1980
05-12-2009, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by UnknownTarget:
...it's age and simulation roots start to show.

However note there is no more modern combat flight sim about that era of aviation as I know.

UnknownTarget
05-12-2009, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by Eustachy1980:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by UnknownTarget:
...it's age and simulation roots start to show.

However note there is no more modern combat flight sim about that era of aviation as I know. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which is why I said it's the best one out there at the moment http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

DKoor
05-12-2009, 12:21 PM
I remember devs saying that what we got after 4.xx is experimental (or was it alpha or something) BoB models... and still, models in 4.01/4.02/4.04 were quite different... in BoB we will have some of this "wire" stuff fixed be sure.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

leiker06
05-12-2009, 01:32 PM
my only beef about this game is lack of engine management. not just managing manual pitch airplanes. but the engine as a whole. i shouldnt be able to run the P-40 and 110% with radiators wide open, all day long and my engine to be fine through-out the time. or a spit for that matter with rads. wide open 100% throttle and WEP/boost on.

also the lack of cooling on air cooled planes. for example the F6F. i should be able to close the cowl flaps when operating and it not overheat, and also when it is overheating it doesnt really cool off for a long time. the design of the cowl flaps is only at low speed to where the airflow over the engine is not as much as at high speed. it all has to do with high/low pressures within the cowling to make the air flow over the cylinders.

other than that, i have flown EAW and CFS and other flight sims, and this hands down to me is the best ww2 flight sim.

TS_Sancho
05-12-2009, 01:38 PM
The "slip on a banana peel" spin/stall model in the sim is just flat out wrong.

The hand of a god does not grab your craft by the wing tip and flip it across the sky like a frisbee when you spin and or stall in the real world.


I respectfully disagree ElAurens. I am not a liscenced pilot or engineer, I have begged a few rides over the years and have real life held the controls through stalls in a couple of different aircraft on opposite ends of the general aviation prop performance spectrum( a Cessna 150 and a Mooney Statesman).

In the Cessna you feel the controls getting mushy, the stall horn sounds and then if you really really try (the whole time the plane wants to keep flying) the plane bucks a little, the nose drops a few degrees and the plane starts flying again. I've ridden through 3 stalls in succession (nose goes up, plane stalls nose goes down plane flies) as the pilot was making a point about the stability of the Cessna regarding stall recovery.

The Mooney was entirely different. The stall warning goes off and a split second later the plane VIOLENTLY stopped flying, fell off on the right wing and did its best to start to spin which is a bad thing in this type of aircraft as according to the owner spins are discouraged as Mooney's want to spin flat. Obviously the pilot recovered the plane and we flew on but I didnt volunteer to explore the low speed flight envelope of that plane again!!

Based on what I have experienced in general aviation the tradeoff in mannerism in the higher performance plane was huge. I can easily believe that an accellerated stall in a 1500 hp aircraft meant to carry 1 man and a lot guns 300 mph through the sky would be somewhat akin to the hand of god smashing the plane from flight.

Ask Crumpp, he flies a high performance aircraft and he's often mentioned that it would bite him hard in a second if he let it.

My opinion is that Oleg did a world class job on an affordable piece of software TEN YEARS ago. It boggles the imagination that we have so many aircraft to fly( in some cases aircraft that dont exist anymore only as data) to such a high fidelity.

I think the compressibility modeling at low alt on the P38 and maybe the belting sequence on the US 50's have proven incorrect. The engine management complexity is admitted to be purposley simlplified to aid playability. Every other topic which we all hash out over and over to everyones enjoyment remains in endless conjecture. Every so often somebody somebody produces a fact which contradicts the conjecture and that gets buried in another dozen pages of opinion (just as I'm sharing here) That tells me that Oleg must have gotten it as right as affordable consumer technology and existing historical engineering documents allowed.

I look eagerly forward to Oleg's next project. While waiting I am very content with enjoying IL2 for the technical masterpiece it is (warts and all).

p-11.cAce
05-12-2009, 03:41 PM
I look eagerly forward to the next Oleg's next project. While waiting I am very content with enjoying IL2 for the technical masterpiece it is (warts and all).

I could not agree more---hopefully many of the old timers like myself will be back at it in full servers again soon http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

M_Gunz
05-12-2009, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by UnknownTarget:
3) You all are wrong because you're not Oleg - you cannot possibly be right because you are not him and therefore have invalid opinions.

How about only the f-heads with little or no education deciding that they know better than trained professionals being wrong?
Maybe you can understand that?

R_Target
05-12-2009, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by leiker06:
also the lack of cooling on air cooled planes. for example the F6F. i should be able to close the cowl flaps when operating and it not overheat, and also when it is overheating it doesnt really cool off for a long time. the design of the cowl flaps is only at low speed to where the airflow over the engine is not as much as at high speed. it all has to do with high/low pressures within the cowling to make the air flow over the cylinders.

Correct, but R-2800 powered planes in IL2 have ten minutes before they take overheat damage, so it's really not bad at all as long as you keep track of it. If the MAP gauge is accurate in the F6F, which it appears to be, 92% Power should equal the 30-minute "Military Power" rating on the Double Wasp. At 92% and flaps closed, I have a difficult time getting it to overheat even at sea level.

M_Gunz
05-12-2009, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
I remember devs saying that what we got after 4.xx is experimental (or was it alpha or something) BoB models... and still, models in 4.01/4.02/4.04 were quite different... in BoB we will have some of this "wire" stuff fixed be sure.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Very little FM changed as we were told. Only the new planes.

What did change and since 2002 has fooled a lot of people into thinking it is FM has been the control handling code.
When the original IL2 got that first in early-summer (1.03 IIRC) it was like this place was going to melt down with
the FM-whining.
Once Oleg posted about what had changed and gave out his stick settings the whining went down 98%, only the hard-core
never-can-be-happy types kept it up and some are still with us today trying to blame anything and everything possible
for whatever they're estatic-to-be-unhappy with.

These things were explained more than once.

M_Gunz
05-12-2009, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leiker06:
also the lack of cooling on air cooled planes. for example the F6F. i should be able to close the cowl flaps when operating and it not overheat, and also when it is overheating it doesnt really cool off for a long time. the design of the cowl flaps is only at low speed to where the airflow over the engine is not as much as at high speed. it all has to do with high/low pressures within the cowling to make the air flow over the cylinders.

Correct, but R-2800 powered planes in IL2 have ten minutes before they take overheat damage, so it's really not bad at all as long as you keep track of it. If the MAP gauge is accurate in the F6F, which it appears to be, 92% Power should equal the 30-minute "Military Power" rating on the Double Wasp. At 92% and flaps closed, I have a difficult time getting it to overheat even at sea level. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Try running at 90%-100% throttle and 90%-95% rpms and see what that does for cooling.

slipBall
05-12-2009, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by slipBall:

still I think any problems are pilot error, and a light touch and practise are required here for this aircraft

slipBall, I don't think we are addressing the same thing.

Certainly flying correctly will indeed keep you from spinning. No argument there. The problem arises if and when you do enter a spin.

The "slip on a banana peel" spin/stall model in the sim is just flat out wrong.

The hand of a god does not grab your craft by the wing tip and flip it across the sky like a frisbee when you spin and or stall in the real world.

Clearly inertia and mass modeling are out of whack in the game engine. But what do you want for a game first designed to run on a 1 gig processor with 512 of ram and a Voodoo card? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



(quote)
The hand of a god does not grab your craft by the wing tip and flip it across the sky like a frisbee when you spin and or stall in the real world.

What view are you using that lets you see this is happening?



Yes, I'm not sure what you mean, but I will induce some stalls, and try to understand what you feel. Again let me say that these aircraft were flown in the greatest respectfull way. By pilots who did not want to abuse their airframe, and who wanted to come home. I'm sure that a spin or stall was on top of their minds at all times. The aircraft in this sim should also be flown that same way, or it will only spell trouble. In game, if a stall or spin occurs, it is the pilots fault. There are laws of flight, and if they are not followed by the pilot, then a spin/stall is forth coming. If you are spin/stall everytime you fly. Or if you spin/stall one out of 20 sorties, that should tell you that you have messed up on that flight. Hand out of the window in a moving car is a good teacher, angle of attack/speed, its the name of the game for winged flight. The corsair was known for its handeling problems, I think Oleg tried to reproduce that in game. I like that aircraft, and it was the first one that I chose to fly when it was available to us.

waffen-79
05-12-2009, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by Eustachy1980:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by waffen-79:

I'm a MOD enthusiast and I say

THAT MOD-PACK should NEVER se the light of day http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

want your mustang/spit/lag/109 to pwn the skies, make it a new slot and go offline

I do not get your point. THIS MOD-PACK does not change stock planes FM. It only adds copies (if this is right word here) of existing planes with new FM into new slots exactly as you described it above. Of course these planes can be flown on-line but it is not mandatory... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I stand corrected, my mistake

I didn't know all the facts about that pack

M_Gunz
05-12-2009, 06:14 PM
If you don't like the stock model, fly the mod. They look the same, don't they?

rnzoli
05-13-2009, 03:21 AM
Yeah, but the whole point of having a different slot is that server operators can decide which version is available on their server. It would make no sense to have the same looking aircraft with 2 totaly different FMs flying on the same server... How would the opponents be able to chose the correct counter-tactics then? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

rnzoli
05-13-2009, 03:24 AM
Originally posted by leiker06:
my only beef about this game is lack of engine management. not just managing manual pitch airplanes.
Some people who have seen the *broken* code say that actually there is a bit more stuff coded into this area, but it was disabled in the final product. E.g., throttling up under min oil temperatures or flying inverted too long could also damage your engine. Just needs activation.

GH_Klingstroem
05-13-2009, 05:56 AM
execept for WAY TOO LIITLE torque the planes handle pretty well in game.

Take it from someone who has flown 20 different types IRL and fly 2-3h every day for a living...