PDA

View Full Version : American Aircraft: Il-2 vs AH



megalopsuche
03-26-2009, 11:09 AM
For the record:

I've been a fan of Dale "hitech" Addink's flight sims for many years now. I first flew his game Warbirds back in the late '90s, and I'm also a pilot in Aces High. If you don't know who I'm talking about, Hitech is a Texan who has done mock dogfights in a real P-51D, among other aircraft (he also paid for a flight in a Yak, so I hear). The flight test data he uses for his sim is American.

So, with no reason for suspicion of anti-American bias, how do the American fighters in Aces High compare to Il-2? In my opinion, they are remarkably similar in both performance and handling characteristics, with the one exception being the F4U (more on that later).

In AH, the P-51 is regarded as a fast fighter that does poorly at lower speeds or in a turning contest with...just about anything. It's still a popular aircraft because of its history, but there's a very small number of pilots who can mix it up effectively in the P-51, and they have spent many years and suffered many virtual deaths figuring out how to do that. A lot of pilots take 50-75% fuel and drop tanks in the P-51 in order not to be too full of fuel in combat because the P-51 of AH also has longitudinal instability, just like Il-2.

The P-38J/L of AH is regarded as an aircraft for experts, even more so than the P-51. Most of its use comes from people using it as an ordinance dumptruck. Being no faster than a Spitfire XVI (our most popular furballing ride), but out-turned, out-rolled, and outclimbed by it, the P-38 is mostly flown by its die-hard fans. Again, some have become very, very good in this ride and have learned to use its excellent low-speed vertical qualities to beat the pants off of Spitfires, but that is the exception and not the rule. The 38J/L of AH has a nasty spin that can start without much warning if you man-handle the elevator through a high aoa turn, and it can easily compress at high speed at altitudes as low as 2km. There is one way in which the P-38 of Il-2 might be better than the P-38 of AH, and that is in vertical maneuvers. Torque effects in AH are weaker than in Il-2, so single engine fighters have less trouble hanging in the vertical at very low ias. In Il-2 the lack of torque in the 38 can be exploited more quickly in vertical maneuvers because the single engine fighters can't hang.

The P-47 of AH is flown even less than the P-38, even though AH has the P-47N. Most of the Jug fans fly the P-47D-11 (razorback) because of the lower wingloading, a few fly the D-25 or D-40, but the N is mostly used as a long range ordinance dumptruck. As a family, they don't climb well, and they accelerate like molasses. In my experience, the P-47 family of Il-2 is superior to the P-47 family of AH. They don't roll as quickly as they do in AH, but their energy retention and sustained turn-rate seems a bit better.

Now, the F4U is of AH is better than the F4U of Il-2, and in one specific way: flaps. Whether it's correct or not, we call them "hover-flaps" in AH. It is routine for F4U pilots to drop 2-3 notches of flaps in AH in order to turn fight Spitfires. However, the F4U of AH shares the longitudinal instability of the F4U of Il-2. Nonetheless, because of its ability to BnZ and then transition to turn fighting, the F4U enjoys significant popularity in AH.

As for the F6F, it is also a rare bird in AH, though you do see a few of them off of carriers (but far less than the F4U and Seafire). Again, the F6F of Il-2 compares very well to the F6F of AH.

So what do you see in AH? Lots of Spitfire XVIs, La-7s, N1Ks, P-51Ds and Typhoons. The P-51 is the only American aircraft among the popular rides, but that's much more due to its history than its performance characteristics. Just like in Il-2, the cannon-armed aircraft rule the day.

What about the 6x.50cal armament? Like Il-2, in AH it requires a sustained burst at convergence range to do significant damage. Lucky snap shots might hit an oil cooler or radiator, but they will not take off wings or stabilizers.

So, does a sim from Texas modeling the American aircraft of WWII similarly to Il-2 make the flight models correct? Of course not, but I do think it completely destroys the argument of national bias in Il-2. Even if Oleg has made some questionable choices about what data to use in modeling American aircraft, the resulting flight models of Il-2 for American aircraft compare very well with those of a guy from Texas. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

megalopsuche
03-26-2009, 11:09 AM
For the record:

I've been a fan of Dale "hitech" Addink's flight sims for many years now. I first flew his game Warbirds back in the late '90s, and I'm also a pilot in Aces High. If you don't know who I'm talking about, Hitech is a Texan who has done mock dogfights in a real P-51D, among other aircraft (he also paid for a flight in a Yak, so I hear). The flight test data he uses for his sim is American.

So, with no reason for suspicion of anti-American bias, how do the American fighters in Aces High compare to Il-2? In my opinion, they are remarkably similar in both performance and handling characteristics, with the one exception being the F4U (more on that later).

In AH, the P-51 is regarded as a fast fighter that does poorly at lower speeds or in a turning contest with...just about anything. It's still a popular aircraft because of its history, but there's a very small number of pilots who can mix it up effectively in the P-51, and they have spent many years and suffered many virtual deaths figuring out how to do that. A lot of pilots take 50-75% fuel and drop tanks in the P-51 in order not to be too full of fuel in combat because the P-51 of AH also has longitudinal instability, just like Il-2.

The P-38J/L of AH is regarded as an aircraft for experts, even more so than the P-51. Most of its use comes from people using it as an ordinance dumptruck. Being no faster than a Spitfire XVI (our most popular furballing ride), but out-turned, out-rolled, and outclimbed by it, the P-38 is mostly flown by its die-hard fans. Again, some have become very, very good in this ride and have learned to use its excellent low-speed vertical qualities to beat the pants off of Spitfires, but that is the exception and not the rule. The 38J/L of AH has a nasty spin that can start without much warning if you man-handle the elevator through a high aoa turn, and it can easily compress at high speed at altitudes as low as 2km. There is one way in which the P-38 of Il-2 might be better than the P-38 of AH, and that is in vertical maneuvers. Torque effects in AH are weaker than in Il-2, so single engine fighters have less trouble hanging in the vertical at very low ias. In Il-2 the lack of torque in the 38 can be exploited more quickly in vertical maneuvers because the single engine fighters can't hang.

The P-47 of AH is flown even less than the P-38, even though AH has the P-47N. Most of the Jug fans fly the P-47D-11 (razorback) because of the lower wingloading, a few fly the D-25 or D-40, but the N is mostly used as a long range ordinance dumptruck. As a family, they don't climb well, and they accelerate like molasses. In my experience, the P-47 family of Il-2 is superior to the P-47 family of AH. They don't roll as quickly as they do in AH, but their energy retention and sustained turn-rate seems a bit better.

Now, the F4U is of AH is better than the F4U of Il-2, and in one specific way: flaps. Whether it's correct or not, we call them "hover-flaps" in AH. It is routine for F4U pilots to drop 2-3 notches of flaps in AH in order to turn fight Spitfires. However, the F4U of AH shares the longitudinal instability of the F4U of Il-2. Nonetheless, because of its ability to BnZ and then transition to turn fighting, the F4U enjoys significant popularity in AH.

As for the F6F, it is also a rare bird in AH, though you do see a few of them off of carriers (but far less than the F4U and Seafire). Again, the F6F of Il-2 compares very well to the F6F of AH.

So what do you see in AH? Lots of Spitfire XVIs, La-7s, N1Ks, P-51Ds and Typhoons. The P-51 is the only American aircraft among the popular rides, but that's much more due to its history than its performance characteristics. Just like in Il-2, the cannon-armed aircraft rule the day.

What about the 6x.50cal armament? Like Il-2, in AH it requires a sustained burst at convergence range to do significant damage. Lucky snap shots might hit an oil cooler or radiator, but they will not take off wings or stabilizers.

So, does a sim from Texas modeling the American aircraft of WWII similarly to Il-2 make the flight models correct? Of course not, but I do think it completely destroys the argument of national bias in Il-2. Even if Oleg has made some questionable choices about what data to use in modeling American aircraft, the resulting flight models of Il-2 for American aircraft compare very well with those of a guy from Texas. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

pdog1
03-26-2009, 11:22 AM
The graphics in AH are so horrible its like your flying in DOS in 1993. And you have to pay a monthly fee right? The game is pure garbage.

megalopsuche
03-26-2009, 11:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by pdog1:
The graphics in AH are so horrible its like your flying in DOS in 1993. And you have to pay a monthly fee right? The game is pure garbage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

danjama
03-26-2009, 11:29 AM
wow the first reply too

I like your post, it's an interesting comparison from your POV on a Russian made WW2 sim, to an American made WW2 sim.

HayateAce
03-26-2009, 11:35 AM
Mmmmmmmm facts.

Romanator21
03-26-2009, 11:54 AM
Thanks for the post Megalopsuche, I can feel that some p-51 complainers will start to quiet down a bit. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif It is an excellent aircraft, but it takes more skill and patience than some of us would like to apply (which is understandable, we all have to deal with real life too [school,work,family] than to be an ace virtual p-51 pilot).

The problem with AH for me is that the flight physics are sometimes "off". For instance, my friend landed half of a p-38, and I've shot at p-51s which continued to fly without wings, etc. Not to mention some minor aspects of the Corsair's behavior, as you have brought up.

That aside, the game AH II is very good. I personally don't have the funds for $ 15 a month (being a poor hungry college kid, $15 once is just great), but if you are into massive multiplayer,with hundreds of people fighting at once, where you can control boats, tanks, planes, and troops then it is phenomenal, and I would recommend it to anyone interested in more than just the aviation aspect of the war.

DKoor
03-26-2009, 12:06 PM
The problem I had with the P-51 is how to hit the target.
.50cal takes some time to get used to (used to regarding that you can inflict mortal damage on your target in most opportunities).
It's an excellent warplane.

megalopsuche
03-26-2009, 12:07 PM
Yes, in AH you can drop flaps and fly a plane home that's missing half a wing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif The MMOG aspect of it is what keeps me coming back.

Anyway, to stay on topic. You can run a search at the AH bbs and find lots of topics with people whining about the P-51. Just like Il-2, new guys show up and expect the P-51 to be the best furballer in the game. The difference is that they can't come up with wild conspiracy theories about national bias. No matter how many times Hitech explains that the P-51 flight model is spot-on to the best of his ability (and remember, he has actually flown one), they are still never satisfied.

Choctaw111
03-26-2009, 12:09 PM
I tried Aces High. To be honest, the most fun I had with AH was jumping into a PT boat and using the guns on it. I liked the fact that when you were firing any certain gun on the PT boat, the other gunners would fire on about the same aiming point as you. It was fun watching the gunfire, especially at night. I can't wait till BoB starts to evolve and we can do stuff like that...with the O.Maddox quality!

Jaws2002
03-26-2009, 12:43 PM
I played AH on and off for about four years. Since about 2007 I didn't renew my subscription but I had an up to date version of the game on my computer. Last year i joined again with a two week trail just to see how things are. Not much has changed. The game looks horibly dated, so many automatic features make the flight model feel like a console game. Automatic flaps, automatic "combat trim", heavy bombers flying whole day at full power, outruning the interceptors, some good old american bias here and there in the loadout department and few places in the FM, the stupid arena caps during day hours, etc. The only thing that kept me interested was the massive multiplayer drug http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif.
I really loved those huge missions. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

But some of the things I mentioned above kept me away from AH for a good while now.
I'd have no problem paying 15 bucks a month for a massive multiplayer, back in 2001-2004 AH was ok, but now is not good enough quality to be worth trying again.

R_Target
03-26-2009, 12:46 PM
"Automatic Combat Trim"?

Jaws2002
03-26-2009, 01:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
"Automatic Combat Trim"? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. The game is constantly keeping your plane trimmed for your curent speed.Unless you are way into compressability you don't ever "feel pressure on the stick" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

THe same way, you can't burn your engine no matter what you do. Your boost automatically disengages if your engine heats up, planes that don't have boost like Yak9U or the bombers, never overheat. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif Flaps automatically retract if the speed gets too high.

Romanator21
03-26-2009, 01:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The difference is that they can't come up with wild conspiracy theories about national bias. No matter how many times Hitech explains that the P-51 flight model is spot-on to the best of his ability (and remember, he has actually flown one), they are still never satisfied. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Too much TV and propaganda? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Personally, I never fell for the "Oleg has porked the P-51 to make the Yaks look better" scenario. or the ".50 cals are modeled worse than the Russian 'lasers'" I think if someone was paying that close attention to what they were doing, for a plane this popular, in a game this popular, they wouldn't even dare to purposefully enhance or pork anything, lest they face the fury of the ravenous mustang fangs/fans.
I heard a funny story that before the P-51 was really nice. This was when Oleg still posted at these forums. The mustang had "box convergence" which did a load of damage by hitting several areas of the target simultaneously, and the guns fired at different intervals. Someone whined, and wanted a narrower convergence. Oleg reacted by making the convergence to POINT, with all the guns firing simultaneously, thus making them harder to use. (but not necessarily inaccurate or weaker)
Moral of the story: Don't whine, the chef won't always make you potato chips. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

R_Target
03-26-2009, 01:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
"Automatic Combat Trim"? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. The game is constantly keeping your plane trimmed for your curent speed.Unless you are way into compressability you don't ever "feel pressure on the stick" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

THe same way, you can't burn your engine no matter what you do. Your boost automatically disengages if your engine heats up, planes that don't have boost like Yak9U or the bombers, never overheat. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif Flaps automatically retract if the speed gets too high. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ha, that's a drag. One of my favorite things about IL2 is managing the plane while in a hairy situation.

Daiichidoku
03-26-2009, 03:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by megalopsuche:
The P-38J/L of AH is regarded as an aircraft for experts, even more so than the P-51. Most of its use comes from people using it as an ordinance dumptruck. Being no faster than a Spitfire XVI (our most popular furballing ride), but out-turned, out-rolled, and outclimbed by it, the P-38 is mostly flown by its die-hard fans. Again, some have become very, very good in this ride and have learned to use its excellent low-speed vertical qualities to beat the pants off of Spitfires, but that is the exception and not the rule. The 38J/L of AH has a nasty spin that can start without much warning if you man-handle the elevator through a high aoa turn, and it can easily compress at high speed at altitudes as low as 2km. There is one way in which the P-38 of Il-2 might be better than the P-38 of AH, and that is in vertical maneuvers. Torque effects in AH are weaker than in Il-2, so single engine fighters have less trouble hanging in the vertical at very low ias. In Il-2 the lack of torque in the 38 can be exploited more quickly in vertical maneuvers because the single engine fighters can't hang.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

you need to look into the reality of the P38 to know just how FUBAR it is in il2 and (based on your description) AH

BTW, il2 game engine makes NO allowance for lack of torque, hence the il2 P38 HAS torque

also, is critcal mach (compressability) modelled on every type in AH, or is it a case of stigma, as is the case in il2, only modelled on the P38 (and B1 rocket)?

megalopsuche
03-26-2009, 03:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by megalopsuche:
The P-38J/L of AH is regarded as an aircraft for experts, even more so than the P-51. Most of its use comes from people using it as an ordinance dumptruck. Being no faster than a Spitfire XVI (our most popular furballing ride), but out-turned, out-rolled, and outclimbed by it, the P-38 is mostly flown by its die-hard fans. Again, some have become very, very good in this ride and have learned to use its excellent low-speed vertical qualities to beat the pants off of Spitfires, but that is the exception and not the rule. The 38J/L of AH has a nasty spin that can start without much warning if you man-handle the elevator through a high aoa turn, and it can easily compress at high speed at altitudes as low as 2km. There is one way in which the P-38 of Il-2 might be better than the P-38 of AH, and that is in vertical maneuvers. Torque effects in AH are weaker than in Il-2, so single engine fighters have less trouble hanging in the vertical at very low ias. In Il-2 the lack of torque in the 38 can be exploited more quickly in vertical maneuvers because the single engine fighters can't hang.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

you need to look into the reality of the P38 to know just how FUBAR it is in il2 and (based on your description) AH

BTW, il2 game engine makes NO allowance for lack of torque, hence the il2 P38 HAS torque

also, is critcal mach (compressability) modelled on every type in AH, or is it a case of stigma, as is the case in il2, only modelled on the P38 (and B1 rocket)? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Back in the early versions of Warbirds, and Air Warrior (so I hear), the P-38L was a monster. It could turn with a Spitfire Mk V, roll with a 190, climb with a 109, etc. It was the ride of choice back in '98, and everyone said they flew it for its history. Then it had its wings clipped: they redid roll intertia, added more force points on all the wings, made some other flight model adjustments, and low and behold the P-38 was just another average fighter. That's when the herd moved on to Spits.

I don't know how the 38 should actually fly. What I can say is that multiple flight sims have it modeled in a very similar way.

Romanator21
03-26-2009, 04:35 PM
I don't know about you, but my P-38 has no torque that I can sense. Without any rudder it will takeoff in a straight line. How are your stick settings? Keep in mind that pilots had the advantage of using differential throttling to make tighter turns. Although you can select different engines, it is extremely difficult and thus almost pointless in a dogfight in IL-2 (unless you have the "throttle" program), and so we are forced to fly it with both engines fire-walled and use it like an energy fighter.

julian265
03-26-2009, 05:05 PM
If you're judging the P-38's torque based on the slip ball when changing pitch, you should ignore it!

IL2 seems to have the slip ball scripted to move one way when pitching up, and another when pitching down, whilst your plane DOES NOT YAW AT ALL as it should... (except the P-38 should not yaw or have its slip ball move)

There are some funky spins that the P-38 can get in to... I remember seeing a vid of a squad mate's 38 that started spinning vertically upward, then reversed and entered an unrecoverable spin into the ground. It didn't look right at all!

danjama
03-26-2009, 05:06 PM
My P38 has torque http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Not sure which models exactly i dont remember from memory but i know i have to trim up despite selecting all engines and same settings

megalopsuche
03-26-2009, 05:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
My P38 has torque http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Not sure which models exactly i dont remember from memory but i know i have to trim up despite selecting all engines and same settings </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

By "trim up" you mean elevator trim? If so, then that is to be expected because that has nothing to do with torque. Now, if you found yourself having to retrim your ailerons and rudder at different speeds, something would be amiss.

WOLFMondo
03-27-2009, 10:59 AM
The only time in IL2 when I've ever had to trim the P38, excluding the elevator is when one engine is switched off or i've taken some damage thats affected its flight. Which to my mind is about right for a plane with handed engines.

danjama
03-27-2009, 11:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by megalopsuche:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
My P38 has torque http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Not sure which models exactly i dont remember from memory but i know i have to trim up despite selecting all engines and same settings </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

By "trim up" you mean elevator trim? If so, then that is to be expected because that has nothing to do with torque. Now, if you found yourself having to retrim your ailerons and rudder at different speeds, something would be amiss. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yea i have to use aileron trim

Now i think there is something wrong with my stick

Urufu_Shinjiro
03-27-2009, 12:14 PM
May be, the P38 has counter rotating engines so the rotational torque is canceled out.

danjama
03-27-2009, 12:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:
May be, the P38 has counter rotating engines so the rotational torque is canceled out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yea i know that!

rnzoli
03-27-2009, 01:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by megalopsuche:
but I do think it completely destroys the argument of national bias in Il-2 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>It was destroyed in me when I saw how many patriotic Russians literally LOVE to fly various Luftwaffe aircraft in game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BigKahuna_GS
03-27-2009, 02:07 PM
S!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Romanator--I heard a funny story that before the P-51 was really nice. This was when Oleg still posted at these forums. The mustang had "box convergence" which did a load of damage by hitting several areas of the target simultaneously, and the guns fired at different intervals. Someone whined, and wanted a narrower convergence. Oleg reacted by making the convergence to POINT, with all the guns firing simultaneously, thus making them harder to use. (but not necessarily inaccurate or weaker)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


These are old stories that get recycled and spun in new directions.
All of the IL2 US A/C had synchronized .50cals for years. That meant the ROF was less than what is should be as US A/C operated with unsychronized .50cals. The same Russain versions of Lend Lease A/C all had unsynchronized .50cals which meant a higher ROF.

The .50cal debate was all about spread (Mils) not convergence. The Russain .50cal in IL2 has very little spread. (historicly probably the best .50cal MG of the war).

The US .50cal in IL2 had a much higher spread and acted basically like big shotguns.
In an email I recieved from Anthony Williams he said there was relatively little differnce in spread between M1.50cal & M2.50cal and the 5mil spread would be fine for IL2.

You can always adjust your in game gun convergance --you can't adjust your spread that's computer code.

The 2 biggest problems with IL2 US.50cals are #1.wrong load out-no amor piercing incendiary rounds and #2. You can't see the tracer rounds from inside the cockpit to determine lead to the target---but eveyone else can see your tracers real well around you(exterior view).

If you can't where your bullet stream is going it's tough to hit the target where you want to.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is one way in which the P-38 of Il-2 might be better than the P-38 of AH, and that is in vertical maneuvers. Torque effects in AH are weaker than in Il-2, so single engine fighters have less trouble hanging in the vertical at very low ias. In Il-2 the lack of torque in the 38 can be exploited more quickly in vertical maneuvers because the single engine fighters can't hang.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The is really no advantage in IL2 when it comes to torque. The torque forces are not high enough to cause aircraft flying at slow speeds/High AoA with high power setting to snap stall away. You can fly a 109 or 190D9 at full throttle/WEP at very low speeds and high AoA without any penalty.

Hence the the P38 cannot capitolize with it's counter rotating props.

If SOW increases torque effects and programs usage for asymetrical throttle control the P38 will be very interesting to fly.

The only A/C I can think of that has absolute zero torque effects in IL2 is the '46 fantasy german flying tampon Lerche.

-

M_Gunz
03-27-2009, 05:03 PM
A lot of testing was done to show that P-51's with convergence set to 150m were getting over 20 mils dispersion at 150m.
Grounded 50 cal planes were fired single shot blips at smokestacks with config set arcade=1 to get the white dots on impact,
other screenies just left the tracer or whatever impacts to show the shots scattered widely even at 150m. Historic docs
that included tests shot into towed sleeves as well as from grounded planes gave 8 mils as the scatter.

It was fine if you could fly the P-51 right up close and hold scattergun fire for a full second or so on target. You could
not concentrate on a vulnerable spot which is crucial in IL2, advice from guess who since the start?

Another "problem/issue" was that all the .50's were synchronized in that the bullets went out in groups like packages.
When they did arrive it was all at once. Scattered, only a couple or few would hit depending on if you could get right up
someone's six and hold there or not. In a plane that turns less well than the target it is not so simple, you had to peck
at the target many times.
Once the scatter became closer to 8 mils there became a different problem that had the blue side screaming bloody murder.
Most of the .50's would hit the same spot same time at once -when- they hit at all (big gaps between groups of bullets,
fire swept across the target didn't sweep across at all) and make damage similar to 1x or 2x 20mm AP. At that point BOTH
sides were complaining between heavy damage from "one hit" and the many shots that never hit at all.

Since then the guns were de-synched but still not random. Left wing gun fires, then right, left, right. Each has recoil
in turn that guess what happens to the nose? Perhaps if the guns went off in pairs like for other planes with wing guns
but after the GREAT amount of animosity directed towards the development team and Oleg, STILL ONGOING, it is a wonder we
have what we do now.

EXCESSIVE negative criticism wears down any coders ability to come up with the best solution EVERY TIME. Those guys are
generally working on a long list of hard things to make happen when the raft of "fix this na-owww" complaints arrives.
Another very good example of whiners in action is with the trim and the first trim-fix and still the way trim works.
There was also the 2 YEARS to finally get down to and have fixed the 151/20 ammo over the howling pointing to THE WRONG
CAUSE TOTALLY getting the devs to waste so much time they really didn't want to look any more. The FACT that Oleg did
take the time to see what a few presented and the devs did find, confirm and CHANGE the ammo data should be proof enough
of good intentions and faith from that company even after long rude treatment from so many players.

This is ONLY FOR THOSE IT FITS:
Thanks, you lot. Maybe some day you will still be able to put an end to yet another developer from making Flight Sims.
You certainly try hard enough, you privileged band of TW@TS.

DKoor
03-27-2009, 06:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
S!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Romanator--I heard a funny story that before the P-51 was really nice. This was when Oleg still posted at these forums. The mustang had "box convergence" which did a load of damage by hitting several areas of the target simultaneously, and the guns fired at different intervals. Someone whined, and wanted a narrower convergence. Oleg reacted by making the convergence to POINT, with all the guns firing simultaneously, thus making them harder to use. (but not necessarily inaccurate or weaker)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


These are old stories that get recycled and spun in new directions.
All of the IL2 US A/C had synchronized .50cals for years. That meant the ROF was less than what is should be as US A/C operated with unsychronized .50cals. The same Russain versions of Lend Lease A/C all had unsynchronized .50cals which meant a higher ROF.

The .50cal debate was all about spread (Mils) not convergence. The Russain .50cal in IL2 has very little spread. (historicly probably the best .50cal MG of the war).

The US .50cal in IL2 had a much higher spread and acted basically like big shotguns.
In an email I recieved from Anthony Williams he said there was relatively little differnce in spread between M1.50cal & M2.50cal and the 5mil spread would be fine for IL2.

You can always adjust your in game gun convergance --you can't adjust your spread that's computer code.

The 2 biggest problems with IL2 US.50cals are #1.wrong load out-no amor piercing incendiary rounds and #2. You can't see the tracer rounds from inside the cockpit to determine lead to the target---but eveyone else can see your tracers real well around you(exterior view).

If you can't where your bullet stream is going it's tough to hit the target where you want to.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is one way in which the P-38 of Il-2 might be better than the P-38 of AH, and that is in vertical maneuvers. Torque effects in AH are weaker than in Il-2, so single engine fighters have less trouble hanging in the vertical at very low ias. In Il-2 the lack of torque in the 38 can be exploited more quickly in vertical maneuvers because the single engine fighters can't hang.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The is really no advantage in IL2 when it comes to torque. The torque forces are not high enough to cause aircraft flying at slow speeds/High AoA with high power setting to snap stall away. You can fly a 109 or 190D9 at full throttle/WEP at very low speeds and high AoA without any penalty.

Hence the the P38 cannot capitolize with it's counter rotating props.

If SOW increases torque effects and programs usage for asymetrical throttle control the P38 will be very interesting to fly.

The only A/C I can think of that has absolute zero torque effects in IL2 is the '46 fantasy german flying tampon Lerche.

- </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Good post... the only thing I really wouldn't want to see is the wobble behaviour such was in patches 4.02-4.03 where for example I couldn't hit Ki-84 with P-51 guns from 200m, plane nose was all over the place at the tiny rudder input, ridiculous was the only word to describe it.

VW-IceFire
03-28-2009, 07:54 AM
This is not surprising. I went over to the Aces High forums years ago and ended up reading threads that were exactly the same complaints as the ones on these forums. Thats when I knew that most of the arguments were bull****...

Its also hardly surprising that complicated aircraft with relatively complicated handling characteristics like the P-38 are the one that have the most problems.

BTW: The P-38, Do-335, and the jets do not have torque. Not since the new 4.01 flight model. If you experience yaw when advancing the throttle something isn't right.

TS_Sancho
03-28-2009, 03:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
This is not surprising. I went over to the Aces High forums years ago and ended up reading threads that were exactly the same complaints as the ones on these forums. Thats when I knew that most of the arguments were bull****...

Its also hardly surprising that complicated aircraft with relatively complicated handling characteristics like the P-38 are the one that have the most problems.

BTW: The P-38, Do-335, and the jets do not have torque. Not since the new 4.01 flight model. If you experience yaw when advancing the throttle something isn't right. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have had the same experience. The representitive aircraft all the way from Fighter Ace, Warbirds and Aces High through Combat Flight Simulator and IL2 all share the same fundamental quirks ( the flap modelling on the F4U is an exception and varies sim to sim, as stated above). You will hear the same complaints about P51 no matter where you go leading me to believe from my own laymans perspective that while an exceptional long distance escort in its element the P51 was not the pinnacle of pure dogfighting design.

M_Gunz
03-28-2009, 06:53 PM
How much is due to Flight Sim being flown with a toy joystick and limited view screen from an unaccelerated chair?

Daiichidoku
03-28-2009, 07:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
BTW: The P-38, Do-335, and the jets do not have torque. Not since the new 4.01 flight model. If you experience yaw when advancing the throttle something isn't right. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://jamesreese.org/hangarflying/Issue2.htm

The '38 is a pilot's dream-come-true when it comes to the stall characteristics. They are unusually good and-although not generally used-are worthwhile investigating so that in an emergency you will know what performance to expect from your ship. We have discovered that the power stall occurs at about 70 M.P.H. with about a 50-foot loss of altitude. The counter rotating propellers eliminate torque and there is no tendency for either wing to dip or fall away.

The '38 is designed to take the buffeting of the stall and has no tendency to fall off on either wing at any altitude. If combat necessitates, you can hold it in the accelerated stall as long as you can take the buffeting -- the ship will take it much longer. To get out of an accelerated stall immediately, ease up on the stick, permitting the airflow to reestablish normal lift.


try this in game on the P38 with "no torque" sir....just dont get caught by the "somersault" first

TS_Sancho
03-28-2009, 09:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
How much is due to Flight Sim being flown with a toy joystick and limited view screen from an unaccelerated chair? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've tried to rally for development of a computer periphreal geared towards the total immersion types that interacts with the flight sim engine damage model by spraying boiling oil in the armchair pilots face from a small resovoir that mounts under the trakir receiver but I've gotten a lukewarm reception at best.

VW-IceFire
03-28-2009, 10:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
BTW: The P-38, Do-335, and the jets do not have torque. Not since the new 4.01 flight model. If you experience yaw when advancing the throttle something isn't right. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://jamesreese.org/hangarflying/Issue2.htm

The '38 is a pilot's dream-come-true when it comes to the stall characteristics. They are unusually good and-although not generally used-are worthwhile investigating so that in an emergency you will know what performance to expect from your ship. We have discovered that the power stall occurs at about 70 M.P.H. with about a 50-foot loss of altitude. The counter rotating propellers eliminate torque and there is no tendency for either wing to dip or fall away.

The '38 is designed to take the buffeting of the stall and has no tendency to fall off on either wing at any altitude. If combat necessitates, you can hold it in the accelerated stall as long as you can take the buffeting -- the ship will take it much longer. To get out of an accelerated stall immediately, ease up on the stick, permitting the airflow to reestablish normal lift.


try this in game on the P38 with "no torque" sir....just dont get caught by the "somersault" first </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You're right...it does sumersault. I don't think this is torque modeling. This is stall modeling thats the issue there...and its probably the assumption that most planes will stall on one wing before the other. I'm somewhat surprised that the P-38 is somewhat immune to this but if thats what the report says...

Still...no rudder trim needed no matter how much you play with the rudder. And compared to everything else I can hold the P-38 in a stall for longer than any other plane. But... it will do the tumble eventually.

M_Gunz
03-28-2009, 10:27 PM
I was thinking more in terms of useful feedback.
IRL you're in a moving plane, you can feel being in slip or skid or how your turn is progressing, things like that.
IRL when you're holding the stick you can feel the forces against it whereas without FFB you don't.

The view... affordable goggles need to get better. Still 640x480 for under $300 is not terribly bad.
I-Theater is getting affordable. They look better than the numbers would suggest. (http://www.vrealities.com/i-theaterhr.html)
The picture is about the same as a 20" 4:3 screen at about 2.5 feet.
At least it wouldn't be that hard to run a lot of A-A and trilinear filter at 640x480.
And a modified version of TrackIR would be needed.