PDA

View Full Version : Pacific Fighters Too Easy?



xxcurarexx
10-30-2004, 12:11 AM
Wow, those carrier planes are easy to fly aren't they? Here's how I know something's seriously different - I went on-line tonight in PF and got several kills while flying carrier planes. Hmmm...I never get any kills. It felt very arcadey and less like a sim...I don't think I stalled once. It was fun, but some of the challenge I'm used to just wasn't there...

What do you all think?

Edit: Some of you have pointed out that I should have posted my settings, so here they are:

Full Real, except for perhaps some iconage on maps and friendlies and the speed bar.

Hunde_3.JG51
10-30-2004, 12:17 AM
Well, as I have said previously, unfortunately I agree. Planes in PF seem extremely forgiving to fly (except the Ki-61). Especially the Corsair, I couldn't wait to get my hands on this baby since I am used to FW-190 and since it is my second favorite fighter of the war. But when I fly it, I almost feel like I am cheating as stall characteristics are extremely friendly. The dreaded "arcade-like" term does come to mind http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif. PF with more demanding flight models would be incredible, as it is it is merely excellent.

WUAF_Badsight
10-30-2004, 12:25 AM
the Corsair is perfectly accurate & does not need to be patched at all

VMF214_Havok has said so

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2004, 01:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
the Corsair is perfectly accurate & does not need to be patched at all

VMF214_Havok has said so <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Corsair is notorious for having wicked stall charactaristics in real life... particularly a sharp wingover. Furthermore, AFAIK, you should be able to induce a turn stall in just about any aircraft... especially if it doesn't have automated slats or something else to compensate.

PlimPlam
10-30-2004, 02:04 AM
Hey dont look at me i stalled it. I especially stalled the wildcat. A bunch.

But then again I was going against ai zeroes so mebbe I pushed the envelope a bit to try and keep up. We'll see what we shall see in a few days.

Never had a problem downing ju's in my sb though so far. The offline bastages just want to run. So I shot them. Too bad about me missing them with the bombs though.

Sturmtrooper
10-30-2004, 02:20 AM
Arcadish ? Too easy ?
You guys are on crack !
Maybe goin online and finally gettin a few kills means that all that online flying (along with an aircraft that fits your style) is finally paying off .
Too arcadish ?
Let me open my canopy and flip you the bird as I fly past .
Just remember , as in all Maddox-sims , the patch will be delivered in a few weeks . Wait till then before you start finding fault .

FI.Snaphoo
10-30-2004, 03:03 AM
I've stalled everything I've flown in FB, AEP and PF... Haven't found the arcade yet... Maybe someday...

carguy_
10-30-2004, 03:06 AM
My impressions are somewhar similar.The Me109 late models now pretty much resemble the F model which really was the best T&B fighter amongs 109 before v3.I mean look at G6early,it is very good,Spitfire has even less of an advantage now.

FR v1.0 also was very arcadish compared to IL2 but that changed after two patches quite nicely.Hopefully next patches will bring back flight characteristics FB flyboys are used to.Back to the drawing board...

Yellonet
10-30-2004, 07:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by xxcurarexx:
Wow, those carrier planes are easy to fly aren't they? Here's how I know something's seriously different - I went on-line tonight in PF and got several kills while flying carrier planes. Hmmm...I never get any kills. It felt very arcadey and less like a sim...I don't think I stalled once. It was fun, but some of the challenge I'm used to just wasn't there...

What do you all think? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
My feeling exactly... I doubt that's the way it should be.

Stanger_361st
10-30-2004, 09:29 AM
Can somebody give me the tip how not to stall.
I can stall the planes real easy. And I use the famous Oleg stick settings.

SeaFireLIV
10-30-2004, 10:09 AM
Ah, the famous `i have Oleg`s settings, how can I fail?` routine. The best settings are your own, tried and tested.

You ask a very complex question without realising, Stanger_361st. If you have patience then my basic points will help, if not, then you`ll switch off quick....

Anyway, basic instructions:

When you turn a plane, turn gently (or pull gently). NEVER yank the joystick or it`s instant stall. Yes, I know, you want to get that bogey, or a bogey`s on your 6. STILL, NEVER YANK your joystick. You have to be cool and know your aircraft, as Tsun szu once said http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif In fact when things are at their most dangerous that`s when you must be coolest with your aircraft. When the plane`s about to stall, you should `see` and `feel` the plane shaking slightly and you`ll hear a buffeting wind sound. This is a warning that you`re going to stall, some planes warn you better than others. Yank the stick and you`ll get no warning.

Also, some planes turn better than others. If you are in a non-turning plane then you must use other manouevers like boom & zoom, scissoring, etc. This is why you need to pick one plane and LEARN it, preferably in an offline Campaign or QMB.

I don`t have time to go into details, but someone here will point you to a detailed site I`m sure.

SeaFireLIV
10-30-2004, 10:11 AM
doublepost.

LStarosta
10-30-2004, 10:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AgentBif:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
the Corsair is perfectly accurate & does not need to be patched at all

VMF214_Havok has said so <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Corsair is notorious for having wicked stall charactaristics in real life... particularly a sharp wingover. Furthermore, AFAIK, you should be able to induce a turn stall in just about any aircraft... especially if it doesn't have automated slats or something else to compensate. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Corsair was a great stall fighter IRL. It DID have wicked wingovers which is a good thing. It was controllable in stalls, due to its large control surface's surface area, especially the rudder.


I'll agree though, that some of the PF planes do seem really overly simple and forgiving to fly. Some Corsair pilots said they were simple and forgiving, other said just the opposite. I really don't know what to believe.

HeinzBar
10-30-2004, 11:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by xxcurarexx:
Wow, those carrier planes are easy to fly aren't they? Here's how I know something's seriously different - I went on-line tonight in PF and got several kills while flying carrier planes. Hmmm...I never get any kills. It felt very arcadey and less like a sim...I don't think I stalled once. It was fun, but some of the challenge I'm used to just wasn't there...

What do you all think? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

S!,
The flight challenge has become more arcadish with each addon/installment of the original IL2. Currently, with the latest evolution of IL2, the flight model has become even easier to fly. Simply put, the challenge of flight is no longer there. Sure, the combat is fun, but one has to wonder how far the modeling has strayed from the original in terms of realism and difficulty? In the original IL2 stalls and spins were a real issue..Now, the stalls & spins are nearly non-existant.

As much as I enjoy flying the Hellcat and the Corsair, I must suspend my belief in the FM when I'm able to out turn ace level AI in a A6M5a. From what I've read on the turning issues concerning the zero vs Cats & Corsairs, the zero should have an advantage. It is my understanding that the Cats & Corsairs were strickly B & Z planes vs most japanese AC.

Just my opinion.

HB

LStarosta
10-30-2004, 11:29 AM
Has 1C: Maddox soul doubt?

Kwiatos
10-30-2004, 11:44 AM
These sim became more arcadish with every new addon. But who really cares of it? Most players are happy with these tendency. When i read many post of here i only maintain in these statement. So Oleg M. make these game like most people want it. Unfortunately people who want more realism in these game are less. And only a few write here about FM arcadish tendency in IL2 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

BuzzU
10-30-2004, 11:45 AM
I agree the planes are easy to fly. It's a T&B dream to those who are ham fisted.

bigvette
10-30-2004, 01:01 PM
I've always wondered about this myself. I've had IL2 since it was first released, and now I have all of them: FB+AEP+PF. My hobby and passion is aviation, and I even have a private pilots liscense and worked on helos in the military. Whist none of my flight time is in anything remotely resembling these types of WWII fighters, I've always thought they stall way to easy, like in the turns and such.

Perhaps I'm more fluid with modern jet combat where stalls are not so prone so long as your in your zone of energy, and modern flight computers that prevent the F-18's and F-16's from spinning out of control.

However in IL2 I often find myself havng a hard time just doing a turn in a knife fight w/o the plane going into a graveyard spin, even while riding the rudder far greater than the FAA just said the copilot of that A300 AA flight did! Am I just not using proper WWII techniques?

I almost thought IL2 was too fake, not taking into account the joystick on my end with the amount of travel I have to play with?

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
10-30-2004, 01:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by xxcurarexx:
Wow, those carrier planes are easy to fly aren't they? Here's how I know something's seriously different - I went on-line tonight in PF and got several kills while flying carrier planes. Hmmm...I never get any kills. It felt very arcadey and less like a sim...I don't think I stalled once. It was fun, but some of the challenge I'm used to just wasn't there...

What do you all think? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Would you mind clarifying exactley what settings you were using ?

complex engine management ect?

Nah on second thoughts don't bother. Its been out what about a couple of days in the states and already the 'FM's all borked' crew are out in force

sheesh

SeaFireLIV
10-30-2004, 01:15 PM
I try to steer from stall arguments (especially the PF), because I simply don`t know enough. My general knowledge is that US planes should be unable to outturn competent zeros(AI or otherwise).

When I flew the PF campaign for the 1st time, zeros were allowing me to outturn them. I changed the Campaign AI difficulty to High and things are much more realistic with the AI frequently outturning me.

Just today 4 of us in F4Fs (myself and 3 AI friends) spent 5 minutes chasing a zero all over the place. In the whole time we scored a couple of glancing blows that only started him losing fuel... at the very end I blew him up with a final blast - but it was a testament to how much of a challenge it can be to take on AI zeros in aircraft like the F4F when you have the settings correctly set.

p.s Good point, tHeBaLrOgRoCkS, many people post, forgetting to point out what settings they`re flying on.

bigvette
10-30-2004, 01:27 PM
Thats a good point - make sure your using the "realisitic" enemy AI.

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
10-30-2004, 01:29 PM
Cheers SeaFire but as I re-edited to imply I really cannot believe how quickly the 'gripes' about Fm and similar are starting to appear this time around. Its just plain fooking bizzare to me how quickly people are willing to jump on the old FM merry-go-round.

The community biatched like hell to get hold of it ASAP and have it merged with FB/AEP. So Oleg delivers the goods and what happens.

They play it for about a couple of days (in the case of those folk in the States, a little longer for our European members admittedly ) and then they are right back here banging the same old gong. When can we expect the first complaints about dispertion or the bloody 50.cals ?

Nutters!

SeaFireLIV
10-30-2004, 01:33 PM
It`s the old story, m8. Happens every time... it`s `Gimme, gimme, gimme ` then 2 seconds later, `whine, whine, whine!` then, `Oleg, I hate you!` etc.... Be nice if they gave it a while first.

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
10-30-2004, 01:36 PM
Bunch of Fooking Plane *****s if you ask me guv
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

IBTL
mwuahahaha

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

xxcurarexx
10-30-2004, 04:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tHeBaLrOgRoCkS:
Bunch of Fooking Plane *****s if you ask me guv
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

IBTL
mwuahahaha

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was just commenting really, I still think it's fun. All I know is in FB 2.04 on FR servers it was extremely challenging and rare for me to get a kill. Yet, last night I was yanking the stick to and fro on a FR server full of carrier planes and I never stalled. Getting on someone's tail was a cinch. It just seemed like there was less skill involved - whether that's a good or bad thing, who knows...And so far as jumping on 'the same old bandwagon', I'm relatively new to posting on these forums (last couple weeks) even though I registered a long time ago, so I wouldn't know much about that. Anyway, I'll be online tonight with PF having a good ol' time as usual.

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
10-30-2004, 04:41 PM
Hey no harm intended bud just having a poke at some of the more regular contributer's.

You just had the misfortune of raising one or two of our patrons favourite subject. Hair triggers on the subject of Flight models and performance in here mate. Happens all the time

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

You crack on and enjoy yerself. H├┬ŽLL I am only here cos I am stuck at work or I wouldn't even bother http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

horseback
10-30-2004, 06:50 PM
I just spent an hour playing the Original, One and Only Il-2 Sturmovik v1.2, and ya know what? It wasn't nearly as hard as I remembered. After a year and a half of FB, the thing I noticed was the great sound, instant response of the trim (Lord, how I missed that!) and that I had to give the 109 a LOT of right rudder to keep the ball centered.

Other than that, and the fact that my airplane didn't climb worth a dang with gunpods on it compared to FB, there wasn't all that much difference. The 109's guns seem about the same for effectiveness, and the Il-2's AI gunners still can't miss my engine (I made two landings with oil smeared all over my windshield), but there wasn't that much difference in the 'feel' of the old game and the new one.

I must have become more skilled in the last 18 months or so of virtual flying 15-20 hours a week. Is it possible you have too?

I've only spent two or three hours with the PF add-on, and one hour was spent flying a pre-existing campaign career mission, so I can't say there's no great difference between the aircraft pre and post add-on. I flew a couple of QMBs in the F4F, and I did have a heck of a time losing airspeed and landing on the runway (the trees beyond the runway? No sweat.).

Still, I plan on reserving judgement for a week or two. By that time, the patch will be available, and we can all complain about that.

cheers

horseback

Hunde_3.JG51
10-30-2004, 09:04 PM
You might want to look at this thread as well and see how much support there is on the original point.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=2691062632

No offense but I have seen many who posted in support on a regular basis and respect their opinion.

And no offense again, but if you can fly the Corsair and believe that it is accurate, then there really is nothing else to say, simply a vast difference in opinion. I know it is early in PF release but to the IL-2/FB/AEP vets it this topic really is not all that new. It has been a progression and just seems quite obvious with PF. Even the reviewer at Gamespot noticed this. So if you think it is just a bunch of people looking to b1tch, well that is your opinion. But to some of us it is quite obvious that the flight models are too forgiving and the amount of people supporting this eliminates the "few troublemakers" theory IMO. Like I said, I have heard enough from people I respect to feel very comfortable in my observation. But you are certainly entitled to feel otherwise though I think your presentation is somewhat unfair/harsh/uncalled for.

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
10-30-2004, 09:29 PM
Well too quote Old_Canuck

'The author must be a CFS fan or he would have pointed out what we all know. This is not a M$ sim -- it's 1C sim with a great track record for fixing mistakes. It'll be fixed.'

That being the case why discusss in this thread what is already being discussed in that thread ? And in fact why bother discussing it when, if its so blatently obvious, (I have still to obtain my copy of PF so will have to take your word for it) that the FM is wrong. Then surely 1C are aware of the issue and will doubtless address it in an up coming patch. A patch which I might add they would not have had to produce so soon if we as a community hadn't required that they make PF an add on instead of a stand alone game.

Bear in mind also that by making this an add on they were still tied to the 'old' engine and were therefore less enpowerd to make drastic changes to the flight model etc by the very nature that they would have to use the old engine and the restraints presented by that engine.

We were given a choice and WE made it. It seems to me that we made our bed and now we have to lie in it for now. If you wanted better flight models maybe we should not as a community have been so quick to demand the 'more flyable aircraft' (plane *****) attitude and allowed 1C to present Pacific Fighters as a unique stand alone option with a more greatly enhanced / tweaked engine. Didnt you realise that as an add on Pacific fighters would naturally require a compromise?

Hunde_3.JG51
10-30-2004, 09:39 PM
"Didnt you realise that as an add on Pacific fighters would naturally require a compromise?"

To some degree, but it is up to the creators themselves to develop flight models. They have certainly made planes less friendly to fly in the past and their is no reason they couldn't do it with PF. I am speaking of a global issue that IMO is certainly fixable to some extent. But I don't agree that because PF was made an add-on that all FM's had to be/or would result in very easy/forgiving FM's. If this was the case with one or two planes I could follow your point better, but it is much greater than that IMO.

And as to "why discuss it if it is so obvious" I can only say that this has been a growing trend, and it is possible that Maddox/1C don't see it as a problem, but rather as a solution.

When you recieve your copy of PF and fly the Corsair, B-25, etc., maybe you will more readily agree.

bweiss
10-31-2004, 06:07 AM
Flying on medium settings, I flew my first PF campaign flight in a P40E out of Port Moresby. With two planes in the flt, we took on over a dozen Zekes, two Oscars, and as many Betty's. In no time at all I downed 3 Zeke's and one Oscar, while my wing downed 3 Zeke's. Now, before in FB flying a P40E against Zero's, I'd have lasted about time enough to lite a cigerette before they lit me. Something is definately easier.

jeroen_R90S
10-31-2004, 07:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bweiss:
Flying on medium settings, I flew my first PF campaign flight in a P40E out of Port Moresby. With two planes in the flt, we took on over a dozen Zekes, two Oscars, and as many Betty's. In no time at all I downed 3 Zeke's and one Oscar, while my wing downed 3 Zeke's. Now, before in FB flying a P40E against Zero's, I'd have lasted about time enough to lite a cigerette before they lit me. Something is definately easier. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, noticed that too. Kill counts rise higher than Mount Everst in few missions.
I've got an RAAF P-40 campaign with 25 kills in 8 missions. Japanese should be veterans or ace AIs, but are as easy to kill as novice or rookies. :S
F4F USMC goes the same way so far. Maybe something is wrong with campaing generation, making all Japanese Novice or Average?

Ever tried Ki-43Ia or Ib campain? All Ki's will get wasted in no-time, even with numerical superiority or 3:1 on your side.

Jeroen

MK2aw
10-31-2004, 08:12 AM
For Pete's sake guys, does anyone read other threads anymore?

Please install DGENBETAS3.11 , your kill counts will go down as it improved Japanese AI.

Mk2aw

SeaFireLIV
10-31-2004, 11:47 AM
Yea. I have the update, but I`d already improved the difficulty with Campaign AI= High. Makes a big difference. I think the default difficulty is set too low in out-of-the-box PF.

I think 3.11 just has this difficulty upped a notch for AI fighters. Interestibg how the Readme does not mention it, but then again, it doesn`t mention that it adds the land/takeoff Tower speech for the Japanese side either.

jeroen_R90S
10-31-2004, 12:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MK2aw:
For Pete's sake guys, does anyone read other threads anymore?

Please install DGENBETAS3.11 , your kill counts will go down as it improved Japanese AI.

Mk2aw <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you read closely, you'd see I typed F4F with USMC... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

That wasn't even possible out of the box: either no USMC at all or flying P-39Ds (or P-400s) at Guadalcanal as the only other option.

I have to agree it's better now with new DGEN, (and other obvious errors like P-40Es at Midway are gone!) but I'll try SeaFire's suggestion as well.

I've got 10 kills in 2 missions with A6M5c @ Iwo Jima already...

Jeroen

MK2aw
10-31-2004, 01:42 PM
Jeroen,

You yes, but others in the thread had not

Have you tried putting this in your conf.ini file? :

[DGEN]
CampaignDifficulty=hard

Mk2aw

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
10-31-2004, 02:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
"Didnt you realise that as an add on Pacific fighters would naturally require a compromise?"

To some degree, but it is up to the creators themselves to develop flight models. They have certainly made planes less friendly to fly in the past and their is no reason they couldn't do it with PF. I am speaking of a global issue that IMO is certainly fixable to some extent. But I don't agree that because PF was made an add-on that all FM's had to be/or would result in very easy/forgiving FM's. If this was the case with one or two planes I could follow your point better, but it is much greater than that IMO.

And as to "why discuss it if it is so obvious" I can only say that this has been a growing trend, and it is possible that Maddox/1C don't see it as a problem, but rather as a solution.

When you recieve your copy of PF and fly the Corsair, B-25, etc., maybe you will more readily agree. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well I am no stranger to your particular angle of argument and for all I know and care you may be right.

I tend to look at the whole thing from a programmer/developer angle as opposed to the Historian/Enthusiast point of view.

For my part I have no real problem with anything 1C do as IMO what they have achieved is an incredible feet of programming ability and that in itself earns them my respect and patience. I admit a degree of historical accuracy is required in order to maintain credibility and worth. But I also accept that there are limitations to what can be achieved with the tools and platforms available, in this case a HOME computer.

As to the whether I will agree with you or not when I receive my copy of PF? Well I think that will be unlikely as

a) I have never flown or even been near the aircraft in question. And there fore do not feel qualified.

b) I haven't the stamina to wade through all the technical data that so many others tout about as evidence for their arguments.

c) with all the whining I have heard in the last couple of days I am starting to wonder if I can really be bothered to go out and get it if its such an awful mish mash of compromises. I have many aircraft that I have yet to master as it is anyhow.

To me IL2 is a form of escapism / entertainment and will for the most part always be that. To pull the whole thing apart to the level that some here do simply detracts from the whole point of the project which is my enjoyment. And would be pointless anyhow as in order to achieve some of the things mentioned would require a dedicated program for every single individual aircraft that is currently available in this one. Maybe that is in fact what you require (and correct me if I am wrong but was what 1c originally intended with IL2?)

I do not use the Il2 engine with the intention that it leave me feeling that having flown the virtual that I can now jump straight into a Corsair or any other aircraft and fly the thing as though I had been born to it. To me that is a far too unreasonable request to make of any software house and most likely would require a budget of a military power to achieve.

Now as has been said many times 1C do have a reputation of fixing issues when they are raised. I suspect this will remain the case as they are obviously and rightly proud and passionate about their product. I think one way of looking at the current so called fm situation is that maybe 1C knew that individuals such as your self would be checking out all this finite minutia once the product was released and would be straight onto this board banging on at them about how they got this thing or that thing wrong. So that in mind maybe they thought to them selves sod the research its much easier to throw it together as best we can and see what the community says when its released. They can after all patch it later when the inevitable comments start to appear.

Now I realise I have not necessarily addressed all the points you raised and as I am working I am unlikely to find the time to fully do so but my point is simply this.

Maybe, just maybe, you the community are being employed for free by 1C to act as guinea pigs and researchers for future developments?

Now if we can both agree that we will most likely not agree I will go back to running on the spot inside my 1c sponsored hamster wheel.

Hunde_3.JG51
10-31-2004, 04:48 PM
I actually agree with some things you have said, but...

"I think one way of looking at the current so called fm situation is that maybe 1C knew that individuals such as your self would be checking out all this finite minutia once the product was released and would be straight onto this board banging on at them about how they got this thing or that thing wrong."

Again, uncalled for, I think you are making a mountain out of a mole-hill. I am not getting into, or asking for every technical aspect to be perfect. I said that globally planes simply seem too easy to fly and this has been a growing trend. I wouldn't call this screaming about "this and that", I made one simple generalization which is legitimate concern IMO. If I was on here posting a slew of complaints it would be different.

Anyway, I don't want to argue so yes, I will agree that we will likely disagree.

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
10-31-2004, 05:23 PM
Ahhh but on the contrary. I disagree with you that we will likely disagree on the grounds that we agree that we will most likely disagree and there fore we are in fact in agreement.

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

Seriously my only original beef was that the game has been out barely long enough for folk to have explored all the aspects let alone the various combinations such as stand alone combined online offline etc. And already the 'fix' this post's have started to appear. It has already been made clear that a patch is on the way and all I am really saying is GIVE IT TIME they will address the issues dare I say?

Be sure

I admit I may have gone a little over board on that last post but it was simply a generalisation about the FW view is borked , 50 cals aint right , overheat is all wrong posts.

Don't take me quite so seriously most of the time I am not and I was not intending to sound like I was picking on you specifically.

If I did I am sorry

Hunde_3.JG51
10-31-2004, 06:15 PM
I will try to remain optimistic about the patch, and I do understand your point of view and it is noted.

As for the rest, no problem.

Rock On! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
10-31-2004, 06:26 PM
KeWl aNd tHaNkS MaN

RoCkInG OuT S!

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

NorrisMcWhirter
10-31-2004, 06:27 PM
Hi,

Funny..cos I actually have the DGEN setting in my conf.ini to make the enemy AI 'hard'. Either DCG ignores it or something got simpler cos I know it's a lot easier to down AI planes now than it was in AEP.

I thought that someone said that the AI in PF could deflection shoot? I still use my tactic of a bit of rudder/stick just to keep my plane out of the firing line until the AI joker runs out of ammo before turning on him. Nothing has changed, as far as I'm concerned..for the better, that is.

Cheers,
norris

SeaFireLIV
10-31-2004, 07:17 PM
What the heck settings are you guys flying on and what planes? In PF, in an F4F there`s no way i can outturn a zero once it gets on my six. Also, they may not deflection shoot as well as us, but you stay turning with rudder AND flaps and they`ll soon correct until you`re spitting metal outta your mouth! Either that or you soon hit dirt!

I have my settings on Campaign AI=Hard. Granted on easier settings the zero allows itself to be outturned, but I suspected this. It seems like every version of IL2 as well as some other games tend to make the game `easy` so as not o scare off potential new players. It`s sad, but one of those inescapable things.

Anyway, I fly with stalls/spins/Full cockpit mode in Campaign and I most certainly can`t lose zeros unless I do some real fancy flying (barrel rolls, scissoring) or my Wingman saves me!

Let`s not forget that the AI has different AI levels for each plane. So where one plane may shoot and keep missing that`s cos it`s a Rookie, but take on a veteran or Ace and it`s a different story.

Simjock
10-31-2004, 07:28 PM
I've had an hour to run PF before work today. I didn't notice anything resembling "arcadish". The planes climb better at sea level and in warmer weather, I think the PF maps simulate that. As for stalls, I lost count of the number of hellcats I sent to Davy Jones' locker.

The zero feels the same as it did in AEP, execpt for the later modles introduced with PF which have more power. The corsair is most certainly over modeled. The F-4U is a power house zoom and boom plane, not a nibble ankle biter.

As for settings, I have never messed with that. I plug my stick in and go. If the plane buffets, I ease off the turn before it stalls. Thats what I love most about 1C: the visible shaking when a plane buffets.

The only thing so far I can see that needs patched is an option to use the U.S. standard system, the A-20s' engine#2 porop hub, corsair FM, and lights on the carriers for night landings.

MK2aw
10-31-2004, 08:04 PM
Seafire, I completely agree , if you insert the line : CamapignDifficulty=Hard in the conf.ini file, the game is a great challenge.

DGENbeta3.11 also fixes a bunch of AI issues.

Mk2aw

LEXX_Luthor
10-31-2004, 08:36 PM
I have not yet Stalled the D3A1 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Anybody?

For the moment forget the new FP planes and what of any differences in the old FB planes.

MiG~3 still seems as Stally as before.
Not sure about I~16 though, but pretty close. mmmmm

sapre
10-31-2004, 11:24 PM
only problem with the use of
Campaign AI=Hard
is when you are flying as japanese in campaign, your wingman becomes really dumb.
So, you got a stupid zeke wingman and a ace P40 pilot.
it would be opposite if i change it to
Campaign AI=Easy
but it's quite dull changing the difficalty every time switching the campaign

AWL_Spinner
11-01-2004, 03:46 AM
So on the original topic - and this isn't a whine as I love PF - is the concensus that the CARRIER bourne fighters seem a bit too "forgiving" at low speed and in the turn as some necessary concession to being able to land on a carrier at all with the FB engine? This theory isn't bourne out of my personal experience flying WWII aircraft or from any great historical knowledge, just a "compare and contrast" with other aircraft in this sim. Although I did manage to stall and spin in a F4F yesterday trying to make the carrier after my engine died. Think I might try flying carrier-approach profile descents with some other aircraft this evening, see what it feels like.

Oh, incidentally, after seeing it in a few posts recently I've gone and reinstalled the original IL2 and it's great. But then they all are, in their different ways. The first single-mission with the FW190 where you have to defend your airbase from incoming IL2s was what got me thorougly hooked on Oleg's sims.

Cheers, Spinner

LilHorse
11-01-2004, 11:21 AM
As I don't have PF yet I can't give a personal impression. But if the FM has been "dumbed down" I hope it will be fixed in the forthcoming patch. Part of my enjoyment of this sim is the challenge of as realistic a flight model (and ballistics and damage model) as can be delivered for a home computer. If it were just a WWII fighter computer game like any other comp. game out there I wouldn't be at all interested.

I've always felt that this sim shouldn't have been developed past being a strictly Eastern Front sim. There would have been a smaller number of planes that could have been refined to greater and greater level of accuracy.

I don't see why a Western Front sim and a Pacific Theater sim could not have been developed as strictly stand alones each and developed to a similar level of accuracy.

It'd be sad if the FM became a victim of Maddox's success.

VMF-214_HaVoK
11-01-2004, 03:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
the Corsair is perfectly accurate & does not need to be patched at all

VMF214_Havok has said so <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please show me the quote where I said that. And may I ask why you are showing your 12 year old brain in action once again by attempting to flame me? I suppose Ill have to have a talk with your squad leaders again about another one of you immature attempts to start something.

Having said that. I also think the new planes Jap and US turn too sharply with full stick pressure. If you have a decent amount of speed you can turn them forever. It doesnt mean a Corsair can outturn a Zero or Ki for that matter as well as the Wildcat. To say any different...well thats just being foolish.

If the Corsair or anyplane for that matter is uber or overmodeled you can be certain that Sir n00b Badsight will be in it...ask his squad they will confirm http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Badsights plane choices:
IL-2 Original: LA5
Forgotten Battles (prepatch): Hurricane MkIIC
Forgotten Battles (postpatch): LA7
Ace Expansion pack: Ki84C

He might have improved his skills somewhat but his lame attempt to start trouble still remains the same. He would expect to come in here and be an expert on specific planes stating they are overmodeled and/or uber but he flys the ones the are considered to fall into this catagory. This is comming from a boy who called the P-47 overmodeled even in 1.0. He still lives by the once time he got credit for shooting me down. When actually it was WUAF_Bull who got me tore up pretty good and like a lamer he tried to steal his own teamates kill and rammed me. (this is why I say ask his squadmates)
I understand his frustration seeing how I downed him 4 times prior with a P-47 vs his Ki-84C. Im quite certain he will show his big screen of him getting credit for a kill. Which will help show his character. Ask yourself why he would still savor it so much? And why did he take it? And why he still holds on to it? I can tell you...because it was the first and lasttime.

Phew! Ok Im done...sorry if I offended anyone just had to show this poser for what he is. It wont happen again.

PS
If you take a look at all comments Badsight makes you will notice they consist of about 10 words. Offering nothing but the usual wisecrack, attempt to start an argument, or to get a fire started. But most of all to quickly up this thread count to make him look oooh so cool http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

=S=

Sharpe26
11-01-2004, 03:29 PM
somebody mind telling me what those lines about campaign lenght and difficulty are and where to find more info on them.

I seem to have lost that information.

Capt.LoneRanger
11-01-2004, 03:45 PM
Here's, what the first F4U-ace, 1st Lt.Kenneth A Walsh said about the first battles against Zeros:

Quote: "The F4U could outperform the Zero in every aspect except slow speed maneuverability and slow speed rate of climb. Therefore you avoided getting slow when combating a Zero..."

"There were times, however, that I tangled with a Zero in a slow speed one-on-one. In these instances I consider myself fortunate to survive the battle."

from "Aicraft of the Aces" by Tony Holmes, OspreyAviation

Chuck_Older
11-01-2004, 03:50 PM
Personally? I'm flying the early P-40s/Hawk 81. I'm getting my Derby handed to me by the IJN and loving it. Stall fighting? Fuggedaboutit. Those things flat spin like an ugly date on 12 bucks forth of cheap booze

Capt.LoneRanger
11-02-2004, 02:39 AM
Agreed, Chuck_Older http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

The ol'crappy-hawks are still more fun to fly, than those turn-on-a-dime-with-no-stall-starfighters, IMHO.

And it's so much fun to kill those proud wanna-be-aces in the best a/c around with a much slower and older plane http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

BrianGreenlee
11-02-2004, 04:09 AM
Arcade Mode No I think not I still suck

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

VVS-Manuc
11-02-2004, 06:44 AM
The former IL-2 SIM was toned down with every patch and AddOn to gain profit in the market of the average "fun shooting computer gamer". You can earn much more money there than by selling only a few copies of a real "hard core" flight sim to the "realistic fans". Even with all setting at "realistic" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif the casual gamer has no problems to handle the planes. ("Hey look, I can shoot down this Zeros with all settings ON http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif I am sooooo smart!")

LEXX_Luthor
11-02-2004, 07:58 AM
Perhaps so Manuc. If you are right, they should make "Easy" for the Newbies, normal hard or "Hard" for the Ussian simmers, and "Full Manuc" settings for the radical militant hardcore simmers. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


LilHorse:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I've always felt that this sim shouldn't have been developed past being a strictly Eastern Front sim. There would have been a smaller number of planes that could have been refined to greater and greater level of accuracy.

I don't see why a Western Front sim and a Pacific Theater sim could not have been developed as strictly stand alones each and developed to a similar level of accuracy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Contradiction. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Western Front and Pacific would require newer planes making a larger number of planes overall in all the "standalone" sims combined. Now, if the FM engine are the same, and they should be, there is no reason not to combine them into one WW2 flight sim (doh, a WW2 flight sim I never thought about that). Whether FMs are dumbed down, czech out the old FB planes. Don't know about the FMs of the newer Ussian NAVY planes.

Anybody stall the D3A1 yet?

LilHorse
11-02-2004, 08:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VVS-Manuc:
The former IL-2 SIM was toned down with every patch and AddOn to gain profit in the market of the average "fun shooting computer gamer". You can earn much more money there than by selling only a few copies of a real "hard core" flight sim to the "realistic fans". Even with all setting at "realistic" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif the casual gamer has no problems to handle the planes. ("Hey look, I can shoot down this Zeros with all settings ON http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif I am sooooo smart!") <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. Unfortunately, where things like this are concerned, they usually get diluted down to the lowest common denominator. In this case it's the fact that there are a lot more knucklehead gamer types out there willing to spend $30.00 than there are hardcore sim people. The gamers want IL2 to just be one in a bunch of games that they jump in and out of and get their little egos stroked thinking that they have "mad skillz" or some such nonsense. They want games to be easily mastered. If one actually turns out to require more study and ability than they're used to ("Wow. I'd actually do better if I learned something about WWII aviation? Man, that's boring! I just wanna fly around and shoot stuff.") then it's "stupid" or "boring".

I really hope the developers don't give in to these boneheads. But I ain't holdin' my breath.

LilHorse
11-02-2004, 08:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Perhaps so Manuc. If you are right, they should make "Easy" for the Newbies, normal hard or "Hard" for the Ussian simmers, and "Full Manuc" settings for the radical militant hardcore simmers. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


_LilHorse::_ <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I've always felt that this sim shouldn't have been developed past being a strictly Eastern Front sim. There would have been a _smaller number of planes_ that could have been refined to greater and greater level of accuracy.

I don't see why a Western Front sim and a Pacific Theater sim could not have been developed as strictly stand alones each and developed to a similar level of accuracy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Contradiction. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Western Front and Pacific would require newer planes making a larger number of planes overall in all the "standalone" sims combined. Now, if the FM engine are the same, and they should be, there is no reason not to combine them into one _WW2 flight sim_ (doh, a WW2 flight sim I never thought about that). Whether FMs are dumbed down, czech out the old FB planes. Don't know about the FMs of the newer Ussian NAVY planes.

Anybody stall the D3A1 yet? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps I didn't make myself very clear. You'll notice upon more careful reading of the above quoted post of mine that I said:"I don't see why a Western Front sim and a Pacific Theater sim could not have been developed as strictly stand alones each and developed to a similar level of accuracy."

That would mean a stand alone for Western ETO and a stand alone for the PTO.

MA_Moby
11-02-2004, 09:58 AM
Regarding this Corsair stall issue. I just tried a little experiment (full real + speedbar settings of course).

I stalled in a clean configeration. It stalled at 160kph (99mph) and dropped its right wing.

I stalled in a dirty configeration. It stalled at 130kph (80 mph) and dropped its right wing.

A source I googled (a page from an original Pilots Operating Handbook) suggests the Corsair stalled at between 81 and 87 mph depending on fuel loadout.

So that suggests that the flight model in FB is pretty close.

I managed to induce a dynamic stall no problem at all, just yank the stick abruptly and there you go. But it is terrific in the turn, not sure how realistically modelled or otherwise this is. The dihedral nature of the outer part of the the gull-wing design would give it terrific stability in the roll, which should, in theory at least, make the plane not so manouvrable. But the aerodynamic world is a strange one once you start to read up on it. Perhaps the large anhedral angle on the inner part of the wing is more than enough to counter that stability?

Aeronautico
11-02-2004, 10:04 AM
Maybe Oleg's strategy is to tone down FM in the first release to appeal newcomers, then to "spice'em up" with upcoming patches, to reward simmers...

Hopefully this will happen again.

SeaFireLIV
11-02-2004, 10:14 AM
Actually, Aeronautico, that`s a possibility. There are similar examples with FB and AEP.

I had the original IL2, but I wasn`t so fussy about aircraft FMs (I still try not to be), etc at the time. So I`m not sure if IL2 was harder then FB. Saying that IL2 may have appeared harder to my memory, but only because I was new to it.

On another note, I recently had a run on EAW. I never used to fly with stalls/spins on because it was way too hard for me. But this time round, flying EAW with Stalls/spins was a breeze. I couldn`t believe how easy it was compared to how it used to be... It felt as IF I was flying with stall/spins off!

So maybe the pilots among us are just getting BETTER?

sunflower1
11-02-2004, 11:06 AM
PF's 128 player feature would be great for having some very, very experienced virtual pilots play out some what ifs.

I would like to see Pearl Harbor gamed as if the radar warning had been taken seriously and the whole island had gone on alert as soon as that contact was made.

Hunde_3.JG51
11-02-2004, 03:48 PM
"Maybe Oleg's strategy is to tone down FM in the first release to appeal newcomers, then to "spice'em up" with upcoming patches, to reward simmers...

Hopefully this will happen again."


I really hope you are right, the current state of the FM's has really dulled my interest in FB/AEP/PF. It has been a growing trend since AEP, I just hope it reverses.....and soon.

LEXX_Luthor
11-02-2004, 05:03 PM
LilHorse:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I've always felt that this sim shouldn't have been developed past being a strictly Eastern Front sim. There would have been a smaller number of planes that could have been refined to greater and greater level of accuracy.

I don't see why a Western Front sim and a Pacific Theater sim could not have been developed as strictly stand alones each and developed to a similar level of accuracy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Contradiction. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif Western Front and Pacific would require newer planes making a larger number of planes overall in all the "standalone" sims combined.

We shall go over this again if needed. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

p1ngu666
11-02-2004, 05:45 PM
i kinda feel usn planes have ai fm, cos they so easy at low speed

Chuck_Older
11-02-2004, 06:25 PM
Well, in many ways, they should, really. they were designed like that.

Now, they might be TOO good at low speed, but don't forget these are Naval Aviation aircraft. they need good low speed handling to avoid landing in the water instead of the carrier http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Hans_Philipp
11-02-2004, 11:32 PM
Did I miss something? 128 players in MP? SInce when?

wojtek_m
11-03-2004, 03:06 AM
I agree the new US planes seem too good at low speed, but I remember reading somewhere that Oleg was quite surprised how stable the US navy planes were on the basis of the flight data he had. I suppose they tried to reproduce it in PF and they 'overshoot' a bit... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-03-2004, 03:43 AM
I don't know why people are complaining about the lack of stalling... I have little trouble inducing a turn stall with any of the US navy aircraft... 300-350 kph, yank hard, inside wing falls out, plane flips over.

The corsair should have reasonable slow speed lift because it has such huge wings, flaps, and massive engine power. It shouldn't out-turn a zero in a stall fight, and in the game it doesn't.

To me, the flight models seem reasonable.

Kwiatos
11-03-2004, 08:36 AM
Just get Corsair or Wildcat and try smothly maxiumum pull up in turn (100% deflection stick without flaps) you will be turning like these all time without stall. The same looping but you must be more smotlhy when maximum pull up and you could looping all time with 100% delfection stick. Than get A6M or some old planes like yak3 or lagg3 and try the same. You will see whats going on.

LilHorse
11-03-2004, 09:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
LilHorse:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I've always felt that this sim shouldn't have been developed past being a strictly Eastern Front sim. There would have been a _smaller number of planes_ that could have been refined to greater and greater level of accuracy.

I don't see why a Western Front sim and a Pacific Theater sim could not have been developed as strictly stand alones each and developed to a similar level of accuracy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Contradiction. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif Western Front and Pacific would require newer planes making a larger number of planes overall in all the "standalone" sims combined.

We shall go over this again if needed. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I guess we will. Still no contradiction. What I mean is you have a limited number of a/c per sim. Get the Eastern Front down accurately with it's limited number of a/c. Now you have about half the a/c figured out for a stand alone Western Front, because now all you have to do is work out the Western Ally's planes. Get that done accurately. Now you have a good number of planes worked out for a PTO stand alone and what's left to develope is U.S.N. and Japanese planes.

One sim done at a time, accurately, in succession. Fewer issues.