PDA

View Full Version : IL2 Sim or Arcade



Cucaking
04-03-2004, 04:05 AM
Hello everybody:

I put here this message because i have a doubt with the properties of some planes in IL2. ¿In what type of documents are based the modeling of planes of IL2? ¿You use real pilots to modeling the planes or only are the Beta testers who say this plane are good modelated or not?

Why i say that, because i heard by some pilots that the IL2 have a very low torque motor in the game, that some planes are very bad modelated as P51.

I allways know as the P51 as the best combustion fighter in the WW2 but the 109 F4 have best properties than this. I allways read in books that the germans air forces are in inferiority before the introducction of Fw190, but this plane have low features than other teorically planes.

The Buffalo has a very good manubrability compare with the zero but the pilots of ww2 don't say that. The germans pilots in ww2 admit that the Spitfire have best feautures than the 109 Emil. But all of this i think that don't are be fulfilled in this game.

What are wrong the books that i have read and the people that i have spoke or the game IL2, i don't say that this plane run very slow, or turn to fast, i only compare some planes with others. And finally i want to know if it is possible how the features are being stablish to modeling the planes. Can i be wrong but i'm not a professional pilot i only know that i read and i heard by other pilots is only that. Some planes in this game are not so good modelated as Fw190, P47, P51, Me109, Spitfire one for thier good feautures and others by their lack of feautures.
Thank you

Pedro H. M.
http://www.iespana.es/cucaking/flanker/cklogo.jpg

Cucaking
04-03-2004, 04:05 AM
Hello everybody:

I put here this message because i have a doubt with the properties of some planes in IL2. ¿In what type of documents are based the modeling of planes of IL2? ¿You use real pilots to modeling the planes or only are the Beta testers who say this plane are good modelated or not?

Why i say that, because i heard by some pilots that the IL2 have a very low torque motor in the game, that some planes are very bad modelated as P51.

I allways know as the P51 as the best combustion fighter in the WW2 but the 109 F4 have best properties than this. I allways read in books that the germans air forces are in inferiority before the introducction of Fw190, but this plane have low features than other teorically planes.

The Buffalo has a very good manubrability compare with the zero but the pilots of ww2 don't say that. The germans pilots in ww2 admit that the Spitfire have best feautures than the 109 Emil. But all of this i think that don't are be fulfilled in this game.

What are wrong the books that i have read and the people that i have spoke or the game IL2, i don't say that this plane run very slow, or turn to fast, i only compare some planes with others. And finally i want to know if it is possible how the features are being stablish to modeling the planes. Can i be wrong but i'm not a professional pilot i only know that i read and i heard by other pilots is only that. Some planes in this game are not so good modelated as Fw190, P47, P51, Me109, Spitfire one for thier good feautures and others by their lack of feautures.
Thank you

Pedro H. M.
http://www.iespana.es/cucaking/flanker/cklogo.jpg

pacettid
04-03-2004, 05:04 AM
Hello Pedro,
Welcome to the forum.

The questions you are asking have been asked many times on this forum, have created a great deal of "chest beating" and technical controversy, and I can tell you that there really is no "right" answer when it comes to this subject. When you see some of the responses you receive to your questions, you will see what I mean, and you can judge for yourself. You can also search back through the archives and watch the "technocrats" battling it out with rate of climb and roll-rate graphs, and reams of other FM test data, ad-nauseum. I actually watched two highly qualified aeronautical engineers fight it out on one forum for 5 straight days over wing loading issues, all to no avail. There are a few things I would like to point out though.

First of all, keep in mind that the flight models (FM) for the planes in this simulation are somewhat simplified, due to the prohibitive amount of computer resources it would take to fully and accurately model the dynamic characteristics of an aircraft.

The FMs also do not take into account what I would refer to as operational (non-combat related) failures of key components due to poor design. A good example of this is the 30mm cannon installed in the P-39. This weapon looks really good "on paper", operates flawlessly in the sim, but was absolutely notorious for jamming after firing only a few rounds. Other example of this are the poor fuel used by many of the nations in WWII that contributed to operational failures. At one point the game designers tried to model plugs fouling in the Lagg-3 (how many of you IL2 buffs remember that one) and eventually had to get rid of this feature due customer complaints.

Another factor that many fail to consider is the artificial nature of the combats we normally participate in while flying on-line. During WWII many of the engagements occured at relatively high altitudes. In the sim most guys just fly around on the deck looking for opponents to engage in a twisting, turning dogfight. In this type of battle planes like the P-47 are at a severe disadvantage, just like they would have been in a real-world engagement. Put the P-47 up at 20,000 plus feet, fly it correctly, and its turbosupercharger allows it to shine against most of its adversaries. I have also seen players who are completely unfamiliar with an aircraft's flight characteristics complain about its FM after flying it incorrectly in a simulated combat situation.

I could go on, but suffice to say that no sim is truly accurate, but the developers who made IL2 FB work very hard to try and get it right. I will say that I used to fly-'em for real, and I would have loved to have had a sim this good to practice with in my spare time.

All the best, Don

tsisqua
04-03-2004, 09:22 AM
Oleg said it was possible to model perfectly FM, but that it would take up all of IL2's resources, would only be one plane, and that the terrain would have to be flat. He added that he did not think that anyone would want to play with it.


Welcome.
Tsisqua

http://server5.uploadit.org/files/tsisqua-nedChristie.jpg
Tsalagi Asgaya Galvladi

LW_lcarp
04-03-2004, 09:30 AM
Depends on which plane you fly if it sim or arcade. If you fly the LA seriers, yak series ,or KI series then ARCADE. And pretty much anything else would be Simulation

"If winning isnt everything why do they keep score"
Vince Lombardi

Covino
04-03-2004, 09:56 AM
I think IL-2 is the most realistic flight sim out yet although some FM's are questionable. It's the only sim where you can't blast 10 fighters out of the sky in a mission.

What would really be cool in the future would be an FM that is dynamically generated from the physical shape of the plane. I think it's called dynamic fluido modelling or something. There would be no need to write FM's, you would just have to model the plane and assign weights to parts of the plane (the engine component would be heavier than the tail structure) and give it a power rating. Give it 10 years. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Aaron_GT
04-03-2004, 10:31 AM
" I think it's called dynamic fluido modelling or something."

Xplane does this in a
very simplified form. To
do it fully, in real time,
would require maybe 1000
times current desktop PC
power, based on my knowledge
of Fluent.

VMF-214_HaVoK
04-03-2004, 11:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LW_lcarp:
Depends on which plane you fly if it sim or arcade. If you fly the LA seriers, yak series ,or KI series then ARCADE. And pretty much anything else would be Simulation

"If winning isnt everything why do they keep score"
Vince Lombardi<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would throw the BF-109G2 in there as well

http://www.aviation-history.com/vought/98027.jpg