PDA

View Full Version : reenacting vs. Il-2



Ijnpilot
04-04-2006, 04:00 PM
The reason why I became interested in Il-2 was primarily out an interest for history. I would assume that most the members of this forum community play Il-2 not only because it is the best flight sim out there, but also out an interest in history. A few years, I became interested in WWII reenacting to pursue my interest in the conflict further. I bought the all threads, all the equipment, and the weapon and threw myself into the hobby. Over time however, I found(and still do) the experience to be lacking.

Since flying Il-2 now since 2001, I have come to realize that this sim recreates the war like no other. The plans are modeled with all of their strengths and weaknesses, and feature all of the same bells and whistles as they did during that time. The experienced players in the community will use authentic tactics, and build upon the lessons learned by pilots in the war. Pilots of all skill levels however, live and die by the strengths of their plane and their flying skills. From the moment of take-off to the tense period of landing after a mission, the most accurately recreated WW2 airplanes are at their disposal.

Reenacting however, is hampered by many factors. These include the lack of available items, the lack of finances, people not taking their €œhits,€ and those that only care about the way they look. Accurate re-creation of squad tactics cannot take place because of things like lack of training, weapons, and knowledge. It quickly turns into the classic childhood game of bang-bang-you€re-dead, and leaves the simulation experience wanting. To compound matters, the lack of finances and the scarcity of items left from the war live an experience that can only be filled in with the imagination, regardless of how many stitches your tunic has.

The Il-2 series on the other hand, is not restricted by current real world conditions. Pilots are engaged in the sim to the point that all of the difficulties that would have faced the pilots are are present. Virtually any plane is available with the click of a button. The land of the time period is reproduced. The skies are filled with bomber formations. Tanks in large quantities rumble across the ground, and supporting vehicles drive after them. Anti-aircraft guns belch flak into the skies making them black with hellish smoke and deadly debris. Pilots need to bail out. Cities are turned into ruins. Wingmen die. None of this is possible in reenacting, and only Il-2 can deliver this historically accurate detail so well. Many thanks to Oleg and team, and many thanks to the community for all their wisdom, both veteran and novice.

fuser59
04-04-2006, 05:53 PM
Amen, and dont forget that since IL2 is a DYNAMIC Sim, those planes turning on each other in a dogfight are creating their own historic moment in time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Crash_Moses
04-04-2006, 07:57 PM
Roger that! Part of the fun is a little role-playing and suspension of disbelief. Just trying to imagine what it was like brings the history a little more into focus. I think history buffs probably get more out of this sim than others. I call it the "Snoopy factor."

"Here's the famous WWII ace, getting shot down...again."
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y125/Crash_Moses/snoopy.jpg

S!

Vacillator
04-05-2006, 02:26 AM
Totally agree. An interest in WW2 history has led me through various board games (mostly tank/infantry oriented), miniatures, computer games and for the last few years the best so far - Il2/FB/PF.

If only we could have a similar quality tank sim ... but only WW2 of course. Have just tried the Panzer Action Elite demo (think that's the name, it's not in front of me right now) but although it looks okay and is fun, it's not quite a sim but more an arcade game.

Crash_Moses
04-05-2006, 08:57 AM
Tank sim would be awesome...

But if you want to simulate hiding inside big metal things you should try Silent Hunter III with the difficulty maxed...Holy Wah! Awesome...I highly recommend it.

For added motivation watch the uncut version of "Das Boot" just before you play...

thefruitbat
04-05-2006, 09:58 AM
hey crash, i know this is really the wrong forum to be asking this, but how is the silent hunter3 situation now, i havent played it since patch 1.2, where the were several things that i felt stopped it from being the excellent simulation that it could be. I hear it is now 1.4, what are your thoughts??

Unknown_Target
04-05-2006, 10:05 AM
About your reenacting problems:

Have you looked into airsoft? They're model guns, made by Japanese manufacturers, that fire small plastic BBs instead of paintballs, and most operate on electric motors (no annoying compressed air tanks) and they look exactly like real guns (some even have realistic dummy rounds). There are several highly praised WWII guns around, which you can get for a good $300 or so (pretty much the standard price of most guns, although there are knockoffs that are quite good that sell for around $100, but they are limited to modern day weapons).
Here's a website that you can find all you need:
www.airsoftretreat.com (http://www.airsoftretreat.com)

Here's an image of the Tokyo Marui (pretty much the premier airsoft developer) Thompson:

http://www.tokyohobby.net/shop/images/thompson_large_th.jpg

I personally play it, and it's quite fun. People still do need to call their hits, but now you can A) actually see them get hit with the BB, and B) usually hear "OUCH!" when they get hit http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Just play with people you know and trust.

Crash_Moses
04-05-2006, 11:58 AM
lol...yeah...but it's still an UBI product so I think they give us a little leeway (remember the huge SHIII topic while we were all waiting for PF? Heck, that's why I went out and got it!)

Anyway, yes 1.4 fixed a bunch of stuff although I can't think of specifics at the moment (I'm at work...shhhh). And there are still a bunch of user mods out there that fix individual pet peeves pretty well. My favorite is the one that lets you fire the deck gun in any kind of weather.

S!

Crash_Moses
04-05-2006, 12:10 PM
Fruitbat, here's a quick link that should answer some of your questions...

http://www.silenthunteriii.com/uk/updates.php

thefruitbat
04-05-2006, 12:12 PM
hey, thanks alot, now get back to work!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

cheers fruitbat http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Ijnpilot
04-05-2006, 04:14 PM
I've been wanting to get into airsoft. Just finding a group of guys to do it with is a big challenge. I've known about Tokyo Marui for a while. There are many, many, reenactors that feel it is less "authentic." I happen to think otherwise. You would quickly learn what works and what doesn't, and get a better understanding of the principles of WWII combat.

The Il-2 series is just extremely thorough in its experience as a way to immerse yourself in the era. All they need to come up with now is a pod that you can set up your controls with a screen that mirrors the airplanes movement. Strap in, turn left, turn right, go inverted. That would be a "full real" experience.

Stigler_9_JG52
04-05-2006, 07:30 PM
Originally posted by Ijnpilot:
The reason why I became interested in Il-2 was primarily out an interest for history. I would assume that most the members of this forum community play Il-2 not only because it is the best flight sim out there, but also out an interest in history. A few years, I became interested in WWII reenacting to pursue my interest in the conflict further. I bought the all threads, all the equipment, and the weapon and threw myself into the hobby. Over time however, I found(and still do) the experience to be lacking.

Since flying Il-2 now since 2001, I have come to realize that this sim recreates the war like no other. The plans are modeled with all of their strengths and weaknesses, and feature all of the same bells and whistles as they did during that time. The experienced players in the community will use authentic tactics, and build upon the lessons learned by pilots in the war. Pilots of all skill levels however, live and die by the strengths of their plane and their flying skills. From the moment of take-off to the tense period of landing after a mission, the most accurately recreated WW2 airplanes are at their disposal.

Reenacting however, is hampered by many factors. These include the lack of available items, the lack of finances, people not taking their €œhits,€ and those that only care about the way they look. Accurate re-creation of squad tactics cannot take place because of things like lack of training, weapons, and knowledge. It quickly turns into the classic childhood game of bang-bang-you€re-dead, and leaves the simulation experience wanting. To compound matters, the lack of finances and the scarcity of items left from the war live an experience that can only be filled in with the imagination, regardless of how many stitches your tunic has.

The Il-2 series on the other hand, is not restricted by current real world conditions. Pilots are engaged in the sim to the point that all of the difficulties that would have faced the pilots are are present. Virtually any plane is available with the click of a button. The land of the time period is reproduced. The skies are filled with bomber formations. Tanks in large quantities rumble across the ground, and supporting vehicles drive after them. Anti-aircraft guns belch flak into the skies making them black with hellish smoke and deadly debris. Pilots need to bail out. Cities are turned into ruins. Wingmen die. None of this is possible in reenacting, and only Il-2 can deliver this historically accurate detail so well. Many thanks to Oleg and team, and many thanks to the community for all their wisdom, both veteran and novice.

Have to vehemently disagree here, ijnpilot.

I will agree that IL-2 has or had the potential for all you just said, but it utterly fails in delivering any of it.

Let's even leave individual plane accuracy aside for a moment... the visuals in this game, pretty though they are, completely invalidate tried and true TRUTHS of real life combat. For example, a plane with a healthy "perch" and altitude advantage had a VERY BIG advantage in real life, being able to pick lower victms out and decide when and where to engage more safely, but this sim negates that advantage, and worse, actually gives it away to lower planes. You can readily see this dynamic in no-icon servers where planes are largely invisible from 3km, even for a determined careful search; the player with an altitude "advantage" usually has to dive in blind, unsure of what he's getting himself into, rather than being in control of an engagement from the outset. He "blows" his energy advantage diving in just to be able to see, and once he sees some 4 or 5 planes down low that he had NO CHANCE of spotting from up higher, now he lacks the tactical advantage to deal with them. Meanwhile, a plane silhouetted against the sky makes it easy to spot from 100 meters where the swarms of dogfighters lie in wait.

The sim also makes the boom and zoom much, MUCH harder to pull off than history dictates, because its poor energy bleed and acceleration models give the advantage, again, to turn and burn planes. You can be successful with B&Z on occasion, but only if you do it PERFECTLY, or if you can totally bounce your opponent. You would have a bit more margin for error if you could MAINTAIN an energy advantage for a longer period of time. In this sim, even planes with a historically poor rate of climb, like P-40s as one great example, can routinely pull up into an attack and not only get away with it, they can often turn the tables on an aircraft which should enjoy a significant advantage over it.

As for the historical side...it's hit and miss. Some campaigns can be done justice, like many of the Eastern Front ones. But the D-Day map (with its convenient "mystery island" in the North Sea for Allied pilots to use instead of England), the Med map (which reduces N. Africa to less than 20% of its real area and bears only the most fleeting relationship to the area it's trying to model) are real jokes. Even worse is the Pacific map set, which fails utterly in describing the vastness of the Pacific; you can't recreate, re-enact or otherwise simulate most of the action in the Pacific purely because you can't get both combatants' home fields on any one map. Fuel and endurance are non-factors, when in the real war, they often claimed more planes than the fighting did. All you can hope for are "instant action" style airstart maps.

Also, the totally open nature of the game does little to help an inquisitive player learn any of the truths of the real war. The interface, IMO, should steer players towards matching particular planesets and maps and such to more often than not suggest historical matchups, and give the OPTION for "whatever plane vs. whatever plane"... as it is now, "whatever" is your starting point, and you have very little guidance to shape things more accurately. As a result, many scenario, campaign and online server authors just "take the easy way out" and match "any plane vs. any plane" and turn the proceedings into basically an "ueberplane competition" where the players predictably just pick among the 3 or 4 "hottest rods" available, and the rest of the planeset just sits unused.

It's really discouraging to go online, find a Crimea server, and see NO Yaks, NO LaGGs flying for the Allies, but tons of P-38s and P-47s and Spitfires aloft.

zoinks_
04-05-2006, 09:15 PM
Originally posted by Vacillator:

If only we could have a similar quality tank sim ...

tank sim! whadya nuts?
try this one:
http://www.gamershell.com/download_12950.shtml
http://www.blackbeangames.com/?act=games&game=t72\

only played it a little cause i've been messing with the stalingrad demo.

FourShades
04-05-2006, 09:39 PM
Stigler,

A lot of what you say is true, especially regarding the (in)equity with height disadvantages, BnZ, etc.

However I think you might be off-track with respect to the criticism of the Pacific map set. People *are* running reasonably realistic online campaigns with these map sets (e.g. Okinawa, Midway, New Guinea etc). This is helped considerably by using carrier-based options and "long-range" flights, which is historically accurate. Perhaps you are thinking of some DF-based campaign systems. Be aware that other campaigns, Scorched Earth a case in point, permit the maintenance of a persistent online coop battle scenario using carrier task forces as well as long-range flights and island-based garrisons. Transport of replacement units is also possible, as are beach landings of army units. How much more real do you want? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Check it out!

Cheers,
4Shades

Stigler_9_JG52
04-05-2006, 10:27 PM
Well, let's look at what is NOT possible in PF:

You can't fly from Rabaul to Guadalcanal (a long distance, granted, but one the Japanese flew for quite some time).

You can't fly from Rabaul to Port Moresby. Thus you can't really recreate the Battle of the Solomons Sea.

You can't recreate any of the action at Munda, Kolombangara and the middle-Slot areas, because Rabaul, THE stronghold for the Japanese in the mid-Pacific until '44, is not on these maps.

Basically, the maps are cut apart in ways that show that the design team sure didn't know much about the Pacific.

CVs aren't really the right answer, either, because for most of the Slot/Island Hopping campaign, both sides were repairing from Coral Sea and Midway; it wasn't until the US and her allies started really steamrolling along the islands and new guinea that the weight of all that extra shipping really became a factor. Much of the "middle" part of the Pacific War was land based for both sides.

ronison
04-06-2006, 01:03 AM
Not to mention every time you step into a new mission you in essence have a brand new aircraft. You do not have tired old engins that barely keep your plane aloft. Or shot up parts that you dont know if they are going to carry you home.

You also dont have the total emersion of fitigue, unless you put in a full days flight, but even at that your not talking about the nightly bombardments that keept them awake for days may have occured that some pilots had to put up with.

You dont have as much unknown that the real pilots did, is there a carrier out there? Is there a new aircraft the enemy has that I dont know about?

I dont care how "accurate" any sim gets it will just be a sim. You will never ever feel the fear that many of the combatants felt in reality. You can never feel that especialy with a computer sim.... you may die now on your computer but your still going to shut it down in an hr get some sleep and wake up for work the next day.

Now all that said for what is avalibe and for us history buffs that do like flight sims I think most will agree IL2 is probably the most accurate you can find. But really does it put you in full imursion? No way.... and there will be no way any sim can untill you have not only the total accuracy that will never come but also the fear of real death that could happen at any moment. Including just siting in your plane and haveing the engin come totaly aprart in you face kind of death. IL 2 does not modle this.

FourShades
04-06-2006, 01:33 AM
Well, of course, what Stigler and ronison say is true. But a lot of it is narrow minded. Clearly no sim can accurately model tropical diseases, pilot fatigue, dysentery and illness and fear of imminent death. That "sim deficiency" is so facile its not even worth mentioning. A pointless comment.

About the Solomons, sure we can't do a fully accurate simulation of the Battle of the Solomons. No sim will ever (forseeable future) be able to accurately simulate EVERY battle in a theatre. But PF can handle simulations of Pearl Harbour, Okinawa, Guam, Midway, Milne Bay, Kokoda Track, Singapore, Iwo Jima etc etc. Does that mean PF "fails utterly" in the Pacific?

I think it would be more even-handed to say that PF has missed out some critical battles that to your mind should have been included. No one could argue against that.

Perhaps if you stepped out of your comfort zone into other, supported, battle scenarios you might find enough detail and richness in PF and free add-ons to at least concede that PF does a partially OK job in some cases. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

NB: I do wish the Japanese had a flyable light torpedo bomber.

Cheers,
FourShades

Vacillator
04-06-2006, 02:08 AM
Zoinks
Thanks for the headsup on another tank sim, will give it a go.

However, I did say "but only WW2 of course". Modern stuff doesn't float my boat as much as Panthers, Tigers et al.

As for SHIII, yep I'm gonna order it - was just worried about all this protection software malarky...

Stigler_9_JG52
04-06-2006, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by FourShades:
Well, of course, what Stigler and ronison say is true. But a lot of it is narrow minded. Clearly no sim can accurately model tropical diseases, pilot fatigue, dysentery and illness and fear of imminent death. That "sim deficiency" is so facile its not even worth mentioning. A pointless comment.

About the Solomons, sure we can't do a fully accurate simulation of the Battle of the Solomons. No sim will ever (forseeable future) be able to accurately simulate EVERY battle in a theatre. But PF can handle simulations of Pearl Harbour, Okinawa, Guam, Midway, Milne Bay, Kokoda Track, Singapore, Iwo Jima etc etc. Does that mean PF "fails utterly" in the Pacific?

I think it would be more even-handed to say that PF has missed out some critical battles that to your mind should have been included. No one could argue against that.

Perhaps if you stepped out of your comfort zone into other, supported, battle scenarios you might find enough detail and richness in PF and free add-ons to at least concede that PF does a partially OK job in some cases. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

NB: I do wish the Japanese had a flyable light torpedo bomber.

Cheers,
FourShades

Well, for one, no one is asking the sim to model a pilot's "life" to the extent of whether he gets malaria, gets tired, gets shellshocked or whatever.

And everyone also realizes that no, we don't "feel the fear" or "actually get shot". Those are givens.

Still, in what IL-2 can simulate, it's failed at pretty much. Although it can do Midway justice, and Pearl Harbor (the latter of which isn't even a contest, it's purely a offline exercice), the other campaigns are pretty sketchily done, resorting to "placing the combatants closer" than they really were with shall we say, interesting airfield placements.

Okinawa, Guam and Iwo are pretty much throwaways, since the US had such an overwhelming superiority in numbers, aircraft types and pilot quality that the Japanese were relegated to kamikaze tactics.

Guadalcanal and the island hopping campaigns and the battles in New Guinea and New Britain and the Solomons chain were the real "fighting", and this is NOT very well handled by the current mapset.

So, no, IL-2 is not nearly "the best representation of the Pacific you can get", not by a long shot. Taken as a whole, the entire sim isn't really even a good simulation of the basics of physics and air combat, and that is the worst failing of it. I'd be much, MUCH more satisfied with it if it could just support historical tactics, and the planes were accurately modeled (instead of undergoing wild changes from patch to patch).

Ijnpilot
04-06-2006, 03:05 PM
So, no, IL-2 is not nearly "the best representation of the Pacific you can get", not by a long shot.

Then what is?

Stigler_9_JG52
04-06-2006, 04:11 PM
If I answer that, there'd be a whole slew of people accusing me of trolling, or worse. So, IJNPilot, check your Private Messages for more info.

Suffice it to say there are much better physics models, and sims with 1:1 scale maps that better incorporate the scope and flavor of the Pacific...and the Mediterranean, for that matter...

Only thing is, the graphics aren't as aestetically pleasing for some people and they can't get past that to explore all the reasons why...

ronison
04-06-2006, 06:20 PM
My comments came from these sentences from the OP:

Pilots are engaged in the sim to the point that all of the difficulties that would have faced the pilots are are present. Virtually any plane is available with the click of a button. The land of the time period is reproduced. The skies are filled with bomber formations. Tanks in large quantities rumble across the ground, and supporting vehicles drive after them. Anti-aircraft guns belch flak into the skies making them black with hellish smoke and deadly debris. Pilots need to bail out. Cities are turned into ruins. Wingmen die. None of this is possible in reenacting, and only Il-2 can deliver this historically accurate detail so well.

The OP makes it sound like your really there especialy the first scentence: Pilots are engaged in the sim to the point that all of the difficulties that would have faced the pilots are are present.

And that is what my post was aiming at. I totaly agree there is no way to put all that into any sim. And again that was the point of my post. It has nothing to do with being totaly pointless to even mention. It has to do with the fact the OP makes IL-2 out to be a total real experience.... its not unfortunetly... but again for what its worth it does give a good flavor of what reality was.

For us history buffs the rest of it comes from study of the conflict and that still doesnt put us there.

But with this post and my former post; untill a time machine comes along Im going to enjoy what I have and that is books and IL-2.

Ijnpilot
04-06-2006, 08:54 PM
Of course I understand Il-2 is not a completely real experience. The whole purpose of the topic was to show that it is a much better experience than reenacting because of the financial and realworld limitations of what things can be done. For us to have a real experience what we would need is a real war, a real airplane, and a real risk of death. Il-2 and no simulator can do that.

Granted my opinion is not in agreement with many people here, but how many of us have actually flown a WWII fighter in combat conditions? Computer programs to the best job of simulating these conditions, not conjuring up real objects.

Stigler_9_JG52
04-07-2006, 11:22 AM
Ronison wrote:

only Il-2 can deliver this historically accurate detail so well.

Again, I take issue. Almost any sim out there dealing with WWII can make something of a reasonable approximation of at least parts of WWII, and most of them simulate combat and physics much better than IL-2, which does a fairly wretched job of it.

The physics are off (namely energy bleed/retention and acceleration as two main [and crucial] examples, the systems are modelled poorly (ex: the canned "flaps" setup for all planes, the oversimplified engine management and cooling just to name a few), and the visual system is completely at odds with history wrt spotting from altitude and visuals in general.

I would stop at saying, "No other sim brings WWII to life so vividly..." It's true that IL-2 looks nice, but as a combat simulation, it's wretchedly bad.