PDA

View Full Version : Patch 402, Goods and Bads - I think it`s time to state your opinions :)



crazyivan1970
10-23-2005, 11:46 AM
Ok, lets hear your opinions. It`s been what... whole week of flying on this version? No flames and silly comments please http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

1) Good things about 402

2) Bad things about 402

crazyivan1970
10-23-2005, 11:46 AM
Ok, lets hear your opinions. It`s been what... whole week of flying on this version? No flames and silly comments please http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

1) Good things about 402

2) Bad things about 402

gx-warspite
10-23-2005, 11:50 AM
1
a. Easier to hit with .50s in deflections due to higher rate of fire which compensates for synched guns.
b. New planes!

2.
a. .50s too powerful from dead six or light angles due to higher rate of fire.
b. Still too much muzzle flash/recoil on all guns, IMO.

Retrofish
10-23-2005, 11:51 AM
Good: It's 'interesting' reading the forums.

Bad: It's 'interesting' reading the forums.

Not a silly comment really http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

3.JG51_BigBear
10-23-2005, 12:03 PM
1)
-Better looking clouds
-Buffeting
-Ground Handling
-AI seems better able to handle the complex flight models
-I like the bouncing, not really a problem if you let off the controls gradually, only quickly releasing results in a wild ride
-Game seems more exciting now
-Handling with flaps lowered

2)
-may have moved backwards in terms of realism to a more on rails approach
-less need for trim and rudder inputs
-low speed handling seems very easy

mortoma
10-23-2005, 12:23 PM
I concur pretty much with BigBear except I don't
like the take offs and landings, planes seem more tricky and squirrelly now. More challenging yes, but more realistic?? Maybe not. I'm only a low-powered single engined GA pilot so I'm not an expert but the planes probably should stay more stable on the landing flare while they are still above stalling speed. They seem to get a bit imprecise feeling and I don't seem to feel any ground effect cushion as much as I used to. I can still land all planes easily but it's for sure trickier and different feeling now.

D13th_Toppy
10-23-2005, 12:28 PM
1)
overall nicer FM
nicer head movement
DM tweaked
NW Europe map
new planes
better "feeling of speed" near ground

2)
strange behaviur of planes at very low speeds
handling seems overall easier compared to 4.01

sparty7200
10-23-2005, 12:44 PM
CANT COMPLAIN REALLY!..its been all good so far!..Logitech Wingman Force 3d j/stick...flies like a dream not bouncing about!..better than before really,....not an expert, but feels more together for me!...Still get bounced left, right and centre on HL...but then i'm cr@p!!!!...just my penneth worth!

dieg777
10-23-2005, 12:44 PM
Still a bit early but the three things I have noticed that have changed are

1) Me 109 seems to be more prone to engine damage.- 4.01 seemed to strengthen them but this has gone backwards

2) Stall and low speed characteristics have changed with the stall being less predictable for me

3) For the first time I have had to change my input settings for roll and yaw and so Im still getting used to these , once I have done so then 2) wont be so much of a factor

Whether these are good or bad with of course depend on the individual- but this patch has made me work harder to adjust to it than others. I was expecting big changes to the FM with the new torque in 4.01 but less with this so that could be the reason.


BTW - since going online and listning to comms- red complain about blue planes and blue complain about red planes so it looks a fairly balance patch http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

major_setback
10-23-2005, 12:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
1)
-Better looking clouds....
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you sure?
I tried (medium) clouds in both 4.01m and 4.02m (in a same mission comparison) and found them absolutely identical (I have screenhots if you want to see them).
However I only compared the 'medium' cloud setting.

Udidtoo
10-23-2005, 01:22 PM
Love= The new map. Cool to see AI actually hitting a target without haveing to make it an ace, my mission builder m8's are really pleased. Can get of a carrier loaded heavy without making the carrier a speed boat. Maybe my imagination but did more of the cockpits get a graphical face lift? Had this same Vcard for 4.01 and don't recall them looking so nice.

Hate=Stalls that should kill you are now self correcting 7 out of 10 tries so far. Still have quite a few planes to test.

Jetbuff
10-23-2005, 01:46 PM
Disclaimer: subjective thoughts follow.

Good:

1. Better dive/zoom modelling from what I can tell thus far.

2. Definitely more "active" torque/gyroscopic changes.

3. Improved 0.50's; I fly LW mainly but the whining about the 0.50's was approaching 190 bar status.

Bad:

1. Whatever happened to E-bleed? Too many planes (at least the Spitfires and 109's at this point) fail to bleed a plausible amount of E during hard/prolonged maneuvers like hard, contrail-inducing breaks or full 360? turns. Reflexes seem to have come to the fore again making it much more of a twitch-sim if there is such a thing.

2. Lack of inertia in the sense of resistance to direction change has resulted in planes perhaps being a bit too responsive? I find it hard to conceive of such heavy planes being thrown about the sky with such abandon with only 50lbs of force.

3. Stalls: easier to get into because of the responsiveness, easier to get out of due to the low E-bleed.

Taylortony
10-23-2005, 01:47 PM
I still cant figure out where we got the odd handling from on take off rolls, some require full rudder even on twins, speaking from real life I have never had that problem. in game it can be nigh on impossible to get some stuff off the ground in a straight line...


on the positive, the stupid bouncing about on grass every time a gnat farted on take off has finally gone, the aircraft finally have some weight to them.........


Oh and this has gotta be a first http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif where the hell is 4.03M whine whine cough cough........ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

|CoB|_Spectre
10-23-2005, 01:48 PM
I like it so far. I don't see the big change some people are talking about regarding less need for trim. I pay a lot of attention to maintaining coordinated flight (centering the slip/skid ball) and trimming for attitude control (constant rate climb/descent, straight and level flight) and don't see much change from 4.01. As expected, power changes, even minor ones, require rudder trim (too bad German planes lack it, but that's the way it was).

I do a lot of mission building and a new map is always appreciated. That being said, I like the new map, but am a little disappointed in the highly noticeable repetition of the ground texture tiles. The Normandy map did an outstanding job of preventing obvious replication of ground patterns, but I find it almost distracting in the northwest Germany map.

I can't say it came with the 4.02, but I noticed artillery round impact doesn't make a sound anymore...just the gun firing, not the shell exploding. All in all, I can live with 4.02, but then I could have lived with 4.01 if I'd had to. I think it's a step forward.

Dolemite-
10-23-2005, 01:54 PM
Good: SpitVc finally has a propellor http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Bad: SpitVc has no nose http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

fordfan25
10-23-2005, 01:54 PM
good: excelaration rates on the USA radial planes are now at least faster than a dump truck http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif the DW no longer over heats like a toyota truck tryn to pull a skatebord http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif . the P47 seems to have a slightly beefed up DM http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif the stang now feels like a real fighter and its wings seem to take a little more speed before thay magicly tear off http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif the FW190's DM is now actualy something other than that of a tiger2 tank http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif FW's rool rate seems better http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .50's SEEM stronger http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif iv heard the BS prop pitch cheat is gone http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif the ki-84 is now no longer a tie fighter it would seem http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif nvidea bug seems to be gonehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BAD: the DM on the hellcat,corsair are still silly weak http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif . the dive rates on the hellcat,corsair,jug is still fubar "iv had zeros dive at faster excellaration rates all the way to critcle speed" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif . the .50's are still synched http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif . the p47 boosted aint sh** and dang sure aint neer p-47 M performnce http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif . no -4 corsair http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif no bearcat http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif the wings on the p-51 are still made of particle bord http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif the torqe moddleing seems to have taken a step back triped and fell down the stairs http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif P-11 has been porked http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

thats all i can think of at the momment

han freak solo
10-23-2005, 02:08 PM
4.02 just seems like a fine tuning to me. I hardly ever stick to the same bird for long, so the differences to me are negligable.

I can't tell that the .50s are stronger until I'm within 200 meters. At that point and closer, they destroy anything. They should at that range, I'd guess.

Some planes I've shot up either smoke lightly (not fuel leaking) and keep fighting strong, then others I've shot up flame instantly. That's with any gun combo on the few I've tried.

My worst, near unrecoverable stall was with the P-47D-10. I turned too sharp at 24,000 feet. That Razorback spun left, then spun right, then spun left, then spun right, then left, then right..... I lost 8,000 feet for all that back and forth spinning before recovery. It was pretty violent.

Stalls in other planes haven't been as noticable, yet.

I've only "flown" the following after the 4.02 install: A6M2N Rufe, P-51B, P-51D, P-47D-10, Me-262, B-239, and the Cr-42.

Bottom line- The game is still fun and playable. I'm not experienced to know if things are "realistic" or not.

Badsight.
10-23-2005, 02:13 PM
we got less of this :

http://xs51.xs.to/pics/05420/cb.jpg

& thats a good thing

zzWalruszz
10-23-2005, 02:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gx-warspite:
1
a. Easier to hit with .50s in deflections due to higher rate of fire which compensates for synched guns.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Has this been confirmed by testing, or acknowledged by Oleg?

han freak solo
10-23-2005, 02:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:
we got less of this :

http://xs51.xs.to/pics/05420/cb.jpg

& thats a good thing </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, but I miss Hristos. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

HeinzBar
10-23-2005, 02:19 PM
S!,
I'll try to list m comments in order. I have to state that 95% of my testing has been offline as I'm having internet trouble.

I. Good points
a. improved trim response.
b. nice ground effect.
c. headshake makes pulling hard moves slightly harder to aim.
D. Nice new map (although I agree about the repetitive textures) and 2 extra planes.
E. Fixed the DM on the FW190 fuselage

II. Bad points
a. Lack of roll inertia.
b. slot equipped planes remain questionable, especially VVS planes.
c. lack of energy bleed in extreme turns.
d. stalls and spins extremely easy to recover..almost to the point it's hands off recovery in most situations.
e. Flight in all planes seem incredibly easy.
f. lack of flight character for individual planes. flying one plane gives nearly the same feeling as flying another. ie fw190 A4 vs fw 190 A8.
g. All MG ballistics seem exaggerated. Cannon fire ballistic seem to have changed (bad/good don't know).
h. Even after adjusting stick settings for a couple of hours, wobble effects are questionable.
i. The usual UFO suspects are back w/ their 180deg horizontal and 90 vertical turns are back.


Thanks for posting this thread Ivan. For me and my settings, 4.01m gave me a greater sense of flight and immersion than 4.02m. While 4.01m wasn't perfect, I feel it is the lesser of two evils when compared to 4.02m.

HB

jds1978
10-23-2005, 03:18 PM
1. .50 cal are now killing AC in a more believable manner.
Energy retention in P51 better.
I'm finally able to play w/ maxed out graphics setting...no stutter!
Head booble-Nice touch!
AI is acting "intelligent"
I may be in the minority but, I dig the new P47
Default paint scheme for the new P47 is sweet too.

2. it seems a few longtime members are having difficulty w/ either a corrupted patch or their joystick setting...bummer
low speed handling is perhaps a little too easy.


overall, real nice job http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Bearcat99
10-23-2005, 03:30 PM
1)Better tourque.. I now have to constantly fiddle with trim with each throttle adjustment.

Down low handling... much more complicated.. esecially in bad weather.

Flat spins now harder to recover from.. at least for me.... basic stalls though are easier...

The 50s seem to have more umph... you just have to get closer.... like Bud Anderson told me.... "Scary close!!"

I lkke the acceleration in most of the planes I like to fly.. the 51 is definitely better..


2)Not too much to dislike for me. I guess I may be naive... and since I have no experience in WW2 aircraft characteristics... and I have read many conflicting reports.. from pilots and some of the "experts" here... I just trust that whatever 1C is doing, thier proven commitment to trying to simulate WW2 combat as realisticly and accurately as possible on a comercial PC is the driving force, and each successive patch brings them closer to that goal within the limitations of current technology and the 6 year old engine they are working with.

bazzaah2
10-23-2005, 03:39 PM
Good

more constant use of trim required (i never used to botherbut feel it's essential now).

.50s feel right when fired at convergence - purely subjective.

Bad

Don't really need rudder pedals, so maybe too easy to make coordinated turns? Just a thought so maybe a pilot or someone mighht correct me.

Overall though now I've dealt with the wobbling by using Tully's settings, a nice patch and I'm much more careful with the way I fly. Hopefully a step in the right direction and issue of torque can be dealt with in the (not too distant) future.

jds1978
10-23-2005, 03:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Down low handling... much more complicated.. esecially in bad weather. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yup...i just had to land a F4U in a nasty rain squall...YIKES

"The 50s seem to have more umph... you just have to get closer.... like Bud Anderson told me.... "Scary close!!""

now thats cool, how did you get to meet Bud?

fordfan25
10-23-2005, 03:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by han freak solo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:
we got less of this :

http://xs51.xs.to/pics/05420/cb.jpg

& thats a good thing </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, but I miss Hristos. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yea i miss him to....at least with every shot so far http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

rr9
10-23-2005, 03:57 PM
One good thing not mentioned yet:
-the graphical bug in the cockpit of B-239 has been fixed. The brown thing above gauges looked like as if it was made of few triangles in some of the latest versions. Now looks smooth again, like it was originally.

DmdSeeker
10-23-2005, 04:28 PM
The only thing I've really noticed it that ground handling in the Spit VIIICW (especially) is much harder.

Other than that I can't really notice much difference.

VW-IceFire
10-23-2005, 04:34 PM
The Good
- The new NW Germany map plus free DGEN addon is fantastic and a great boon to mission designers
- P-47D with high boost, although seemingly only marginally faster, seems to be quite a hit and capable against the late war axis fighters and should regain some balance in areas that were needed
- No more prop pitch exploits
- Weapon and DM interactions seem to have been changed in some way, the result appears to be more fires, more fuel leaks, and less bashing of the opponents plane with no percieved effect (in future simulations Oleg may want to work on graphical effects that better show the perception of damage to the target plane)
- MG151/20 has survived its first patch with MG shells intact (were we really worried?)
- Clouds are modified from 4.01 and appear to reduce the FPS hit on medium level systems (i.e. mine) as well as appearing to be more detailed and even more cloud like
- FM tweaks to some important aircraft

The Bad
- Some aircraft seem to have missed the FM boat and still need some attention (i.e. the Corsairs sway while firing
- The FW190's DM may have gone too far the other way now being more like a Zero than a Thunderbolt, however, time will tell and it may be just fine in the grand scheme of things
- Seeing the return of the snap stall on some aircraft and 4.01 had effectively reduced the ultra snap

The Ugly
- The danged control issue that many have run into with the bobbing and wobbling, this has since been discovered to be a patching problem but the cause is totally unknown

jimDG
10-23-2005, 04:36 PM
unrealistic, without being easier. lower inertia might make a/c more easy to recover from stalls, but aiming with more than one ring of deflection is just annoying (doable, but a hit and miss affair). the nose of any plane oscilates whenever turn radius is changed. I just cant get the right (steady) lead on a target, instead i have to walk the bullets through the target up and down...
i kinda miss 4.01 already, to be honest..
(and no stick settings tweaks help much..)

FritzGryphon
10-23-2005, 04:38 PM
The M2 RoF did not change. It was 13rps before and is 13 rps now. Test it if you don't believe.

The belt load (apit, ap, ap, he) is also the same. The dispersion (8-9 mils) is also the same. Again, try it.

The M2s only changed once, in a FB patch, when the dispersion was changed. Other than that, it's the same since IL-2. Everything else was either DM changes (especially FW), or imagined.

ImpStarDuece
10-23-2005, 06:02 PM
Won't call this good or bad, more like what I like and what I don't. I only recently (last two days) played 4.01, so this is a fairly fresh comparison2

LIKE;

Improved DMs on some fighters
Better movement inertial (zoom, direction changes etc)
Gyroscopic effects on MOST planes.
Increased control sensitivity
Stall buffeting
Violent stall departures
Dive modelling (might be my imagination though)

DON'T LIKE;

Lack of roll inertia (4.01 was great, possibly slightly overdone?)
'Self recovering' stall characteristics
Slotted planes slow speed characteristics
Less feeling of weight in aircraft
Some aircraft (notably Spitfire and Corsair but others as well) exhibit a pronounnced swaying/pendulming effect with minimal control input. This also occurs after changes in pitch and yaw.
Take off/ landing now appreciably easier than 3.04.


GENERALLY PLEASED WITH

Torque,
turns,
climbs
zooms

jensenpark
10-23-2005, 06:10 PM
Like:
- being able to down a plane with the .50's now

Dislike:
- .50's seems a bit to strong
- stalls/spins too easy to get out of. Like Uditoo's comment on the self-correcting spin
- seems the E bleed has diminished greatly (ok massively).

Now, never having flown a WW2 era plane I am not making these comparisons based against reality - only against 4.01

Stigler_9_JG52
10-23-2005, 06:25 PM
Bearcat 99 wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...[1c's] proven commitment to trying to simulate WW2 combat as realistically and accurately as possible on a comercial PC is the driving force... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I'd say you were being very naiive.

1c gave that commitment up before PF. Thier only true commitment is to make "the best looking WWII flight sim possible" and that I think they've undoubtedly done. But accurate? Realistic? Not a chance in hell.

And this patch's removal of torque effects that were already undermodelled (due to predictable whining from the guys with the stick stuck in their guts) and now even roll inertia (!!)... with no explanation as to why they even think this results in a more realistic effect... IL-2 is moving perilously close to arcade.

It's now more like "realism by popularity contest/committee"

Jumoschwanz
10-23-2005, 06:54 PM
This sim really needs the opinion of someone who has time in a aircraft similiar to the ones in the sim.

Each new patch is certainly an experiment of sorts. I can only hope that with "X" number of changes in each succeeding patch, that more than half the changes take the sim in the direction of being more realistic a flight sim.

First-hand pilot's accounts let us know that civilian craft are totally different to fly than these wWII monsters. The only input that would reasure me about the realism of this sim would be from a pilot with actual experience in this type of craft.
With different flight model characteristics introduced, taken away, decreased and increased with each patch, you sure can't use any of them as a yardstick as to what should and shouldn't be here.

I fly the sim and enjoy it, but I will always wonder about how much of a sim it actually is, until I hear that review by a veteran unlimited air-racer, or museum pilot like Eric Brown.

What do I think of 4.02? What the Fz987ck difference does it make what I think? It is the same as any other patch in the last four years, a little different. We will all adapt to it and go on flying the sim. I or no-one else has any reference point to compare it to that is worth a da mn, and the sim doesn't offer any. If your favourite plane is easier for you to do what you want with you will be happy, if not you will cry about it. All I care about is how realistic is it? And I have not heard of anyone reveiwing each patch who I have any respect for. Give me the opinion of a real pilot of WWII craft, or I don't want to hear a thing.

Jumoschwanz

Jungmann
10-23-2005, 09:17 PM
I don't fly enough to tell the difference. So that's where I'm coming from.

But somebody tell me if this is a noob question--with all the whines, groans, flames, attaboys, hoorays that happen for weeks following every patch, why don't the devs simply tell us what they've worked on and what they've changed, instead of letting it up to our subjective opinions? They did the work--they ought to know. Instead of the UBI website or IL-2 readme saying, "we changed the FM on certain planes," which planes, and how--and which planes weren't touched? Then we could respond to what was actually modified, instead of just guessing.

Cheers,

Bearcat99
10-23-2005, 10:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jds1978:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Down low handling... much more complicated.. esecially in bad weather. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yup...i just had to land a F4U in a nasty rain squall...YIKES

"The 50s seem to have more umph... you just have to get closer.... like Bud Anderson told me.... "Scary close!!""

now thats cool, how did you get to meet Bud? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I met him at the MAAM WW2 weekend this year.... really down to Earth.... (no pun intended). The way he said it.. and he kept on emphasising that "This was real life... not like some computer game..... you knew that you could die up there.. and you knew that other guy was trying to kill you so you had to kill him first. You didnt want to start shooting too far away because you wanted every shot to count.. so you had to get close..... I mean close.. scary close..... and at the speeds we were moving one slip could mean the difference between hitting your mark and crahsing into it." That is a paraphrase... but it is the gist of part of what he told me.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jungmann:
I don't fly enough to tell the difference. So that's where I'm coming from.

But somebody tell me if this is a noob question--with all the whines, groans, flames, attaboys, hoorays that happen for weeks following every patch, why don't the devs simply tell us what they've worked on and what they've changed, instead of letting it up to our subjective opinions? They did the work--they ought to know. Instead of the UBI website or IL-2 readme saying, "we changed the FM on certain planes," which planes, and how--and which planes weren't touched? Then we could respond to what was actually modified, instead of just guessing.

Cheers, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They do it is called a readme. Not highly detailed.. but it does say what was changed... of course the ultimate way to find out is to fly the sim.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jumoschwanz:
This sim really needs the opinion of someone who has time in a aircraft similiar to the ones in the sim.

Each new patch is certainly an experiment of sorts. I can only hope that with "X" number of changes in each succeeding patch, that more than half the changes take the sim in the direction of being more realistic a flight sim.

I fly the sim and enjoy it, but I will always wonder about how much of a sim it actually is, until I hear that review by a veteran unlimited air-racer, or museum pilot like Eric Brown.

What do I think of 4.02? What the Fz987ck difference does it make what I think? It is the same as any other patch in the last four years, a little different. We will all adapt to it and go on flying the sim. I or no-one else has any reference point to compare it to that is worth a da mn, and the sim doesn't offer any. If your favourite plane is easier for you to do what you want with you will be happy, if not you will cry about it. All I care about is how realistic is it? And I have not heard of anyone reveiwing each patch who I have any respect for. Give me the opinion of a real pilot of WWII craft, or I don't want to hear a thing.
Jumoschwanz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then why come into a thread like this in the first place? I hear you though Jumo... and like you said, we dont know Jack really (at least most of us) .... but I just have to go on faith that Oleg and 1C knowing the community that they are dealing with... want to try to make the most realitic sim the can.. and I think each patch strives for that goal.

Jungmann
10-23-2005, 10:46 PM
adjusted gyro effect *
Aerodynamic focus dependency on angle of attack *
BF-109 flight model fine tuned
various small changes to other aircraft *
New Aircraft.


Due respect, Bearcat, but the read-me never tells me--or anybody else much.

what is the adjusted gyro effect. And what is its delta?

Aerodynamic focus on angle of attack? I know what AOA is--what's "aerodynamic focus"?

109 flight model tuned. How--up, down? More rudder torque, less, sharper stall, drops a wing, what?

And the kicker--"vrious small changes to other aircraft?" Which small changes to which aircraft? If they told us--and they should be able to--there wouldn't be all this grabble following every patch.

Or am I a killjoy? Is that everybody's fun?

Cheers,

ucanfly
10-23-2005, 10:53 PM
Like:

1) The new map
2) The P-47D
3) Slowed down manual prop in German planes
4) Buffalo - favorite **** plane.

Dislike:

1) Exaggerated bounce/wobble of certain planes esp. P-51D. The F4F seems more stable which is not historical. Seems much easier to get kills in the F4F (4 50s) than the P-51D (6 50 s) using historical matchups even when 51D is at 25% fuel.

2) After playing BOBII , hate not having Lean right and Lean left, esp when flying German planes. (Not particular to 4.02).

3) Hate not seeing most planes against certain maps even when tracking at less than 1 km. It seems BOBII has better visibility in this regard (when it isn't crashing to Desktop or showing a graphical glitch). Bring back 3.01 visibility and fix the LODs on those planes that disappear. Please.



Still testing...

arcadeace
10-23-2005, 11:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jungmann:
I don't fly enough to tell the difference. So that's where I'm coming from.

But somebody tell me if this is a noob question--with all the whines, groans, flames, attaboys, hoorays that happen for weeks following every patch, why don't the devs simply tell us what they've worked on and what they've changed, instead of letting it up to our subjective opinions? They did the work--they ought to know. Instead of the UBI website or IL-2 readme saying, "we changed the FM on certain planes," which planes, and how--and which planes weren't touched? Then we could respond to what was actually modified, instead of just guessing.

Cheers, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have an excellent point. With your own preconceived notions, PC and flight control setup, you may feel the stated changes in the read-me are different than the generalized explanations given and be in disagreement, not only with the designers but of course other members. Changes have to be elaborated on with much greater detail to help reduce misunderstanding and erroneous judgment.

After a while I only paid attention to very specific problems addressed as rectified. Mention of finer nuances within FM and even AI didn't mean much other than if perception and feel became better or worse according to my collective imagination.

papotex
10-23-2005, 11:24 PM
now that i have re-tweak my joystick settings and a lot of time i spend in this after every patch(to me thats a fun part of being a player of this wonderful sim) now i can begin to apreciate what they did with the flight models.

i heard people complaining soon after the patch was released about planes responces were to abrupt but thats because they were flying with the old joy settings that are just not good anymore for the new FM's.

all im saying is that for those that havent get it yet.... spend time tweaking the joy responces
and youll see how the true flight model will surface. you may be in for a surprise.

Tully__
10-24-2005, 12:37 AM
Good:
1. Addition of gyro forces (or huge increase in the effect, I'd never noticed it before)
2. Increased ground effect
3. Increase or addition of adverse yaw
4. May be psychosomatic, but it seems easier to see aircraft against terrain than it was before.


Bad:
1. Not enough aerodynamic damping for yaw (most aircraft)
2. Not enough knowledge of aerodynamics in forum users heads, leading to comments based on experience in previous versions/sims rather than real aircraft/aerodynamics http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


More to come, the little bit of flying it two or three variants is not really enough to make much more comment than that.

Hoarmurath
10-24-2005, 12:48 AM
Good
1 the MS406 cockpit
2 the hawk 75 cockpit
3 the D520
4 the Potez 630 series
5 the breguet 690 series
6 the Leo 45 series
7 the MB150 series
8 reporting bugs have been made easier, as those in 4.02m are mostly the same that were present in 4.01m

Bad
nothing

WOLFMondo
10-24-2005, 12:54 AM
190 brown fuel leak is back which is bad. .50's improved which is good. 190DM now way to weak which is bad. Torque toned down which is bad. Undercarrage now breaks easier which is good. Corsair and Hellcat engines no longer overheat and take an age too cool which is good. I can no longer fly red since red is usually stacked 2:1 online. Which is bad.

Genie-
10-24-2005, 01:05 AM
Worst Patch Ever. I'm playing IL2 from day one iz has appeared, and has been on every on line front since ever and since 4.02 is out I'm at my home dealing with my disc cataloguing in stead of flying.

I'm dead serious.

My fav plane BF 109 is just plain TERRIBLE now! You fly like on rails, and oh no what is "simulated" now is not a stall at all. Yanking stick around, Nose is humping all over the place (not talking abut head wobble). It feels like .. it feels like.. well it feels like SH*peep* (you can imagine the rest.)

Try THIS: Take Bf 109 G2 - add FULL throttle and in 6 seconds (YES in !!6 seconds!! - you will be on 190 km/h and you can take off!!)

The whole FM is porked, dumbed down to.. lets shake shake the shake feeling.

Good things? Who cares about the new map , or better ground effect when 90% of IL2 (and that is flying) is pure foobar.

AH_Gonzo
10-24-2005, 01:22 AM
The good:

Adverse yaw effect: You really have to rudder in with some of the aircraft to stay coordinated when startind steep banks.

Ground effect: It€s there now! Landings are harder and there is a sensation of waiting for the aircraft to touchdown.

Flaps: The effect of using flaps now actually provides more lift and alters the aircraft C of G due to the change in the center of lift on the wing.

Scenery: While there is a slight frame rate hit and in some cases stuttering, all of the scenery looks great.

AI pilots: Far more aggressive and better aircraft handling.

The Bad:

Over all stability of most of the aircraft: The aircraft seem to have too little inertia when in straight and level flight making them wobble in some cases. (There is a fix to this but the effect is still felt.)

AI pilots/aircraft: I€m not the only one that€s noticed this but the AI guys seem to be able to get a lot more performance from their aircraft. I€ve had Zeroes keep up with me in a dive while flying a P-38. While I lost most of my roll control and had to revert to airbrake and combat flap to pull up (While feeling the high speed buffet), the Zero drivers stayed right with me from about 3000m almost vertically right to the deck.

Aircraft performance: Were all WWII combat types so similar in handling if not performance? I fear that IL2/PF might be on its way to the MS CFS series of rock, paper, scissors style of game play. The total differences in aircraft handling, balance, and weight appears to be off in this patch. It would be a shame to lose the huge differences in aircraft handling offered by aircraft in the game.

Single engine yaw: When flying such high powered twins as featured in the game, one would expect a lot more yaw tendency when flying on only one engine. Unless you bank into the dead engine the aircraft will remain pretty well balanced in yaw.

Aircraft responsiveness: The aircraft seem to be too responsive minor stick inputs in all axis.

WTE_Ibis
10-24-2005, 02:06 AM
Well I had a little to add but I made the mistake of reading all the previous posts and agreed with most of them even though most disagreed with each other and now I'm totally confused but must eventually conclude that I like it less. I find it inconceivable that big heavy powerfull fighter aircraft can be so easely bounced and buffeted about like a tiny cessna.
But then again wtf do I know. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Capt.LoneRanger
10-24-2005, 02:25 AM
+ funny to read "Worst Patch ever" everytime a patch is released

+ nice biased comments from people mainly flying a single plane/version, blaming Oleg to be biased

+ good to have so much professional war-pilots here with 1st hand experience

+ Oleg and team still cares


- same comments every patch - sometimes even from the same people

- pitty to see how few people know about joystick adjustments, but so many people who let flip their joystick into zero-zero position

Jetbuff
10-24-2005, 02:45 AM
I generally like this patch, it's just the E-bleed seems more questionable than ever. Sadly, I don't have a degree in aeronautics or the time to test it conclusively. I hope one of the more avid fans here can come up with a good test of this to prove/disprove what I feel is the only real step backwards in an otherwise good patch.

jimDG
10-24-2005, 03:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jetbuff:
I generally like this patch, it's just the E-bleed seems more questionable than ever. Sadly, I don't have a degree in aeronautics or the time to test it conclusively. I hope one of the more avid fans here can come up with a good test of this to prove/disprove what I feel is the only real step backwards in an otherwise good patch. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yeah that too. yesterday I dove in a fw190a9, shot at another a/c, then ran away in level flight 10 meters above ground. a la7 and a yak3 chased me for about a minute, progressively lagging behind. my speed was a steady 615 km/h, and wasnt dropping. on the other hand, this does sound like the real top speed of a fw190A9, so, is the real problem that acceleration to top speed in level flight is just dead slow above (500km/h) for all a/c?

NorrisMcWhirter
10-24-2005, 04:11 AM
Good?
a. .50s now behave something like they would if unsync'd

b. Planes seem to explode more readily..Hollywood style

c. 151/20s left alone

d. 262 smoke trails still fail to cause absolutely any lag whatsoever

Bad?

a. 190DM given no thought..just appears to have been uncommented back to joke status from pre-4.01

b. Lagg DM still not upgraded even though 'thought' was obviously given to online war accuracy with addition of 'YAY' (yet another Yak)

c. .50s 'unsync' compromise perhaps now wrong when hitting a static/low deflection shot target. Explosion or structural failure guaranteed which contradicts some sources.

d. Insta-no-clue-required recovery from stalls permitting easy evasion of bnz attack.

e. Odd e-management.

f. 4.02 modifications almost entirely prove theory that if you open up enough (often baseless) threads about something, Oleg and co will change it.


Ta,
Norris

Wolfred
10-24-2005, 05:54 AM
Good things!!!
Oleg still cares for the il2 sim
nice effects "bended propeller when flying to low" new map, the p47. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Bad thing!!!
I dont get a flying experience anymore, its like most of the planes are to stable when i press my cougar left or right like a F16 falcon, my keyboard can do the same, but again if that is realistic, so be it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Bearcat99
10-24-2005, 06:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
Bearcat 99 wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...[1c's] proven commitment to trying to simulate WW2 combat as realistically and accurately as possible on a comercial PC is the driving force... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I'd say you were being very naiive.

1c gave that commitment up before PF. Thier only true commitment is to make "the best looking WWII flight sim possible" and that I think they've undoubtedly done. But accurate? Realistic? Not a chance in hell.

And this patch's removal of torque effects that were already undermodelled (due to predictable whining from the guys with the stick stuck in their guts) and now even roll inertia (!!)... with no explanation as to why they even think this results in a more realistic effect... IL-2 is moving perilously close to arcade.

It's now more like "realism by popularity contest/committee" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You are entitled to your opinion of course.... I dont think I am being naive... and I still havent found that WW2 sim with the combination of FMs, DMs, graphics and community that has all the features you mention. Stig I see you are still your usual optomistic self....

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jungmann:
adjusted gyro effect *
Aerodynamic focus dependency on angle of attack *
BF-109 flight model fine tuned
various small changes to other aircraft *
New Aircraft.


Due respect, Bearcat, but the read-me never tells me--or anybody else much.

what is the adjusted gyro effect. And what is its delta?

Aerodynamic focus on angle of attack? I know what AOA is--what's "aerodynamic focus"?

109 flight model tuned. How--up, down? More rudder torque, less, sharper stall, drops a wing, what?

And the kicker--"vrious small changes to other aircraft?" Which small changes to which aircraft? If they told us--and they should be able to--there wouldn't be all this grabble following every patch.

Or am I a killjoy? Is that everybody's fun?

Cheers, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey I never said it was extensive... but it is something... considering the manual that came with the sim do you really expect a highly detailed list of changes everytime a patch comes out?

Jetbuff
10-24-2005, 07:08 AM
I wonder, what are the chances the beta testers know the list of FM changes? I'd really like to know what was tweaked and how.

NorrisMcWhirter
10-24-2005, 07:26 AM
There is no need to release the exact changes. It's much better for business to have the community speculating on it for several months while they prepare the another patch.

That way they know that most people will still be around when BoB is released = guaranteed sales.

Ta,
Norris

voyager_663rd
10-24-2005, 08:33 AM
Its been mentioned: how the heck do we we really know whether an FM is right or not? Very few have real life experience flying these birds. If it was 100% real, we probably couldn't fly them AT ALL and so this has to be, in order to be successful, a "dumbed-down" version of real life.

Last, no one seems to have mentioned that "the curse of the mini-freeze" seems to have returned with 4.02m either.

4.01m was great for me. Smooth flight all the way. With 4.02m, the mini-freeze has returned. Online, others have complained mightily as well.

And no, I'm not using a P3 with dial up: xp2400, 9800pro 128mb, 1gb memory and dsl. Using excellent settings and in the AFJ server (most used by me) I'm pinging at 46-48 consistently.

crashmaster4000
10-24-2005, 09:31 AM
The good:
1. New Jug.
2. New Jug.
3. New Jug.
4. nicer looking clouds
5. The new Jug.
6. The Ai seems a bit smarter, especially in CAS/JABO.

The Bad.
1. Almost every aspect of FM.
2. Lost the sensation of flying that was present to a degree in every other patch before this one.
3. Ludicrous stall characteristics.. Did rookies of the good old days have it like this? I thought stalls were dangerous?
4. Could such big fighters(38, 47 etc) pitch and yaw and change axis so rapidly, so violently?
5. Individual aircraft seemed to have lost their uniqueness to me, could be imaginary.
6. Can 1:C ever get all the skin folders for their new a/c right?
7. Some a/c seem to have adverse flight characteristics(twitchiness(spit, zero, Hein))while others are smooth as before 4.02(the usual uber toy a/c(LA7, late yaks))

Final verdict....
This is and has been my favorite flight sim I've ever played, but IMO it has taken a drastic step backwards, almost to an arcadish level.
The sensation of flight is almost totally gone it seems. The FM's are almost ludicrous at times, and several aircraft are so twitchy they're not even enjoyable to fly, whereas others are rock solid and still more maneuverable. I'll still fly, and I'll still skin some planes, but this is the weakest incarnation of the game I've yet played by a considerable margin.
My two cents.
Edit. Just swapped in my old conf.ini and things seem to be a bit better now. Still quirky, but better.
Edit2. Sorry to say, but it seemed to be a placebo effect. Glad I backed up my 4.01!

Jumoschwanz
10-24-2005, 10:15 AM
The reason for posting here is this:

I don't know and am not qualified to say if any flight sim is moving toward or away from realism.

If someone qualified can tell me it is then great.

I don't know why they would not put all the really tough flight characteristics in the flight sim for those who want a sim, because those who want a game CAN TURN THEM OFF in the difficulty settings. If you make the most difficult setting on the sim easier than it should be, then what do you call the easy settings in the sim?

You can fly the original IL2 and see it is missing a lot of flight characteristics and features in the FM that we have now, so it IS moving toward reality, but slowly, over a period of years, and it seems to go forward, then back a hair, then forward more then back just a hair.

But this is OK and to be expected in patches on any computer software, as long as over the long run things are sorted out and made better as they HAVE BEEN in this sim the last four years.

After flying four years of patches, they are still interesting but just in a novelty sort of way. Over all the past patches, and flying many different types of aircraft in virtual combat, you tend to develop tactics that will not be affected by change! I can use the same tactics in the original IL2 now that I use in 4.02 and they are equally successful!

In other words, don't depend on a patch to make or break your fun or success in this sim. The historical energy tactics, and other smart tactics and methods in use by the end of WWII, are the ones that work for any plane and any patch.
It is the du mmies that whine with each patch because they THINK they are dependent on them for success. They actually are not, they are just bad virtual pilots and would get shot down no matter what they are in. If you are really a good virtual combat pilot, you are immune to what patch or plane you are flying in. Really.

This is why patches are a non-event for me as far as my perfomance goes in combat, because my methods don't depend on them.
I like to see and am curious about a new plane or object or feature as much as anyone else, but at the same time I am grateful for what I have, and for the slow and steady development of the sim.


Jumoschwanz

Stigler_9_JG52
10-24-2005, 10:51 AM
Bearcat 99 wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Hey I never said it was extensive... but it is something... considering the manual that came with the sim do you really expect a highly detailed list of changes every time a patch comes out? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fact of the matter is, Oleg *could* if he wanted to. It's very simple. The way dev teams run, there is a "to do" list of things they want to accomplish, and that's how they tell when they're done (unless "done" simply means that time ran out and the publisher makes them release something): was X bit of code changed, was y graphic modified, etc. So, a list of at least what they've tried to accomplish exists.

Fact is, over time the team has gotten so gunshy, they won't tell us any "delta" information. You can't really challenge what you don't know about. They use this confusion to basically obfuscate the issues. Combined with their "we can't release that information because it's contracted for" dodge, it's very effective. And, it leaves lots of room for us to speculate on what, how accurate or how far off "it" is.

The consensus I'm seeing is, a majority recognize this patch for the step towards arcade mode it is.

DmdSeeker
10-24-2005, 10:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jumoschwanz:
The reason for posting here is this:

I don't know and am not qualified to say if any flight sim is moving toward or away from realism.

If someone qualified can tell me it is then great.

I don't know why they would not put all the really tough flight characteristics in the flight sim for those who want a sim, because those who want a game CAN TURN THEM OFF in the difficulty settings. If you make the most difficult setting on the sim easier than it should be, then what do you call the easy settings in the sim?

You can fly the original IL2 and see it is missing a lot of flight characteristics and features in the FM that we have now, so it IS moving toward reality, but slowly, over a period of years, and it seems to go forward, then back a hair, then forward more then back just a hair.

But this is OK and to be expected in patches on any computer software, as long as over the long run things are sorted out and made better as they HAVE BEEN in this sim the last four years.

After flying four years of patches, they are still interesting but just in a novelty sort of way. Over all the past patches, and flying many different types of aircraft in virtual combat, you tend to develop tactics that will not be affected by change! I can use the same tactics in the original IL2 now that I use in 4.02 and they are equally successful!

In other words, don't depend on a patch to make or break your fun or success in this sim. The historical energy tactics, and other smart tactics and methods in use by the end of WWII, are the ones that work for any plane and any patch.
It is the du mmies that whine with each patch because they THINK they are dependent on them for success. They actually are not, they are just bad virtual pilots and would get shot down no matter what they are in. If you are really a good virtual combat pilot, you are immune to what patch or plane you are flying in. Really.

This is why patches are a non-event for me as far as my perfomance goes in combat, because my methods don't depend on them.
I like to see and am curious about a new plane or object or feature as much as anyone else, but at the same time I am grateful for what I have, and for the slow and steady development of the sim.


Jumoschwanz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Word!

Stigler_9_JG52
10-24-2005, 10:57 AM
Jumoschwanz wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The historical energy tactics, and other smart tactics and methods in use by the end of WWII, are the ones that work for any plane and any patch.
It is the du mmies that whine with each patch because they THINK they are dependent on them for success. They actually are not, they are just bad virtual pilots and would get shot down no matter what they are in. If you are really a good virtual combat pilot, you are immune to what patch or plane you are flying in. Really. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's not exactly true. If, for one example, energy bleed is way off (which it most certainly is, and has been all along!), then it is going to be much harder to use energy tactics to win, because planes you're counting on bleeding energy off of, get a big cushion or margin for error. Also, any mistakes you make in estimating their energy or trying to sap it, will be punished more severely than they should be; and all because energy bleed is just flat out wrong.

I'd say, in a basic way, energy tactics work, such that you can exploit a BIG or OBVIOUS energy advantage with confidence; it's the smaller advantages which you can't exploit with much certainty, because in many cases, what should be an advantage doesn't exist (because planes retain too much energy all the time).

crazyivan1970
10-24-2005, 11:09 AM
Interesting points, keep em coming http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

-HH-Quazi
10-24-2005, 12:14 PM
Call me easy to please, but I like it all, with one exception. No longer am I concerned about flying an ac to the edge of stall and not being able to recover. And since this is no longer a concern, it does take away from the immersiveness for me somewhat. I mean in 4.01 if you stalled, you were likely not going to recover and would end up sitting and waiting for a very long time until your other m8s finish the mission when in coops, which is basically what I fly 90% of the time. And having to be mindful of that(energy), added to the immersiveness of surving a particular mission.

Now, stalling isn't a concern or a variable, which does take away from my experience somewhat.

But besides this, I think 4.02 is a good patch, especially the tweaking on the CoG. I'm not sure about the P-47, but it seems its FM has changed dramtically. I took it to 550mph in a straight dive before it started showing any signs of taking it to far. Don't get me wrong, I am not complaining. I only hope that this is the way it was in RL, or at least close to it. I didn't have much trouble with the 50's before the patch, and this remains the same.

Besides the stall deal, I really like the patch. Mind you, I am not one to test each ac and develop opinions, so I do read everyones elses opinions with interest, especially the m8s that take their time and actually know the differences they are noticing.

Thanks for starting this thread CI. Good idea, and a good thread to this point.

JG5_UnKle
10-24-2005, 12:32 PM
Good

New Map and goodies
More new stuff on the way
Its free, who am I to complain?

Bad

Feels like some effects were reduced
Roll inertia gone
Flying on the head of a pin is back
Generally seems 'easier'

GR142-Pipper
10-24-2005, 12:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jumoschwanz:
With different flight model characteristics introduced, taken away, decreased and increased with each patch, you sure can't use any of them as a yardstick as to what should and shouldn't be here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed. I'd even settle for accurate relative differences even if the absolute differences can't be modeled correctly.

It's also interesting that the developers don't release what changes have occurred...like virtually ALL other software companies do. If a change was done to an aircraft, what EXACTLY was done to alter it's flight or damage model? Only the developers know and they don't seem willing to divulge that information...very strange.

Back to topic...

The good:
1. The squirrly overtorqued flight characteristics have been removed. I feel it's good to have them removed because they weren't even close to accurate.
2. FW's at least leak fuel now but it appears not much else has changed.

What needs improved...

1. 109G-2's still turn way too well. IMO, this is presently the strongest aircraft in the game and it shouldn't be.
2. Lose the head bobble effect. These little gimmicks that get introduced are just corny annoyances. Fix the flight/damage models and forget these trivial things.

As with the rest of the patches, just adjust to the patch's properties and press on.

GR142-Pipper

WWSensei
10-24-2005, 12:48 PM
I'd like to know exactly what they did to ground effect. It was horrible in 4.0.1 and I'm finding it only marginally better in 4.0.2....tendency to float forever is still there. Seems to be aircraft specific.

In 4.0.1 I could keep a Mark I Buffalo and a 109F-8 at about 10 feet of altitude with zero throttle and full flaps and travel 20-30 km without hitting the ground. It was like all drag went to zero... Now I can only go about 10km that way...

StellarRat
10-24-2005, 01:04 PM
Just because it is easier to recover from stalls doesn't mean the FM is wrong. From my little bit of flying experience they are easy to recover from if you're not too low to the ground.

As far as energy retention being too good, I have yet to see any statistics that prove whether or not Oleg is wrong on this. All the whining seems to be based on "feelings" not facts.

The G2 certainly isn't the "strongest" plane in the game. It's a non-threat to anyone who knows how to B and Z in a faster plane. I haven't been shot down by one (providing I saw it of course) since the patch came out.

WOLFMondo
10-24-2005, 01:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:

2. FW's at least leak fuel now but it appears not much else has changed.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fly one and get shot at in it, then fly one again, do this for several days straight. Then judge.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Stigler_9_JG52
10-24-2005, 03:42 PM
As to 109Gs turning too well...

IF the FM didn't handicap energy flying by giving so much leeway to T&B planes (by way of the nearly non-existant energy bleed), you would hardly ever need to turn in a 109. But since you can't really sap an enemy plane of energy and then gun his brains out while he wallows helplessly on the edge of a stall.... well, you pretty much have to turn at some point, don't you?

GR142-Pipper
10-24-2005, 06:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:

2. FW's at least leak fuel now but it appears not much else has changed.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fly one and get shot at in it, then fly one again, do this for several days straight. Then judge.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>One better...I've shot the living bejesus out of several and they still fly along...streaming some fuel, but continue flying right along nevertheless. I'm not so sure much of anything was done with the FW damage model.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
10-24-2005, 07:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by StellarRat:
The G2 certainly isn't the "strongest" plane in the game. It's a non-threat to anyone who knows how to B and Z in a faster plane. I haven't been shot down by one (providing I saw it of course) since the patch came out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You have to engage to fully appreciate the comment. If you're just a BnZ'er, it really doesn't matter what the other players fly because the extent of the encounter is a 2 or 3 second drive by. Try engaging a 109G-2 in an all-out "take no prisoners" fight and your view may change. It has excellent energy capabilities, it can turn well, has very good can climb and dive abilities, and can hit fairly hard. As currently modeled, there's little it can't do well. As a Yak driver, it's a very worthy opponent and great fun to mix with. Others may have a differing view but I find it the all-around toughest adversary, bar none.

GR142-Pipper

arcadeace
10-24-2005, 07:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
Bearcat 99 wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Hey I never said it was extensive... but it is something... considering the manual that came with the sim do you really expect a highly detailed list of changes every time a patch comes out? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fact of the matter is, Oleg *could* if he wanted to. It's very simple. The way dev teams run, there is a "to do" list of things they want to accomplish, and that's how they tell when they're done (unless "done" simply means that time ran out and the publisher makes them release something): was X bit of code changed, was y graphic modified, etc. So, a list of at least what they've tried to accomplish exists.

Fact is, over time the team has gotten so gunshy, they won't tell us any "delta" information. You can't really challenge what you don't know about. They use this confusion to basically obfuscate the issues. Combined with their "we can't release that information because it's contracted for" dodge, it's very effective. And, it leaves lots of room for us to speculate on what, how accurate or how far off "it" is.

The consensus I'm seeing is, a majority recognize this patch for the step towards arcade mode it is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is my second post to agree and emphasize this point. Well said, but... to say they use it to confuse and basically obfuscate the issues is your personal opinion and unfounded.

I think there is no question if such detail were given a lot of confusion and whining would be silenced here.

han freak solo
10-24-2005, 07:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
Good
1 the MS406 cockpit
2 the hawk 75 cockpit
3 the D520
4 the Potez 630 series
5 the breguet 690 series
6 the Leo 45 series
7 the MB150 series
8 reporting bugs have been made easier, as those in 4.02m are mostly the same that were present in 4.01m

Bad
nothing </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, now I'm laughin'. I had to let your comments brew for a while. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Codex1971
10-24-2005, 08:04 PM
Good
- P-47 stonger
- .50 got more punch
- FW's are faster in level flight

Bad
- FW DM is WAY to weak...it feels like 3.0X patch
- Magic fuel leak is back in FW...very disapointing
- Oscilations seem a bit extreame at times but I think I need to get used to it still.

gkll
10-24-2005, 08:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:

It's also interesting that the developers don't release what changes have occurred...like virtually ALL other software companies do. If a change was done to an aircraft, what EXACTLY was done to alter it's flight or damage model? Only the developers know and they don't seem willing to divulge that information...very strange.


GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I have wondered about this as well. One thing that came to mind was that by being vague 1c gets feedback about what is 'detectable'. They make a change, perhaps substantial, and then sit back and see if anyone can tell. They get to know what changes matter most to 'seat of the pants' reactions....

Would still prefer information on what exactly has changed however... im with you there.

Case in point is my experience with new patch. 3 hours, online only, and following a 3 or 4 week layoff from 4.01. Seemed harder to fly and more sensitive, however most think it is easier? Will have to try back to back to tell I think....

Jetbuff
10-24-2005, 09:07 PM
Another night of complete incredulity tonight. Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the return of the clown-wagons. With no concern for sides, (K-4 just as guilty as the Spit IX) the margin for error with regards to E-bleed when pulling hard, stick-in-your-gut maneuvers is wide enough now to fit a dozen clowns and a baby elephant!

Oh, and as a neat bonus, even if you go too far and stall, hands off or a tinge of opposite rudder and presto, you're back in business!

So sad to see the IL-2 franchise end on such a note if this is indeed the final patch. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

LEBillfish
10-24-2005, 09:37 PM
AI best yet by far....they obey and are demons clearing you

civildog
10-24-2005, 10:14 PM
To be fair, after I did a full-on Falcon 4.0 style delete, scrub the registry clean, full reinstall with reboots between patches....plus fiddle with the stick settings I finally have the thing more or less working. Thank God for my experiences with Falcon (and the extreme patience that created in me for sloppy coding resulting in way too many patches) or I'd have used this game for a coaster.

The Good:
It's good to see that kills can again be made with the 37mm in the Cobras. One or two hits and most planes are either going down or running for Mama.

I also approve of the toned down impact graphics for the solid slug rounds. It no longer makes every hit look like an explosion.

The .50's are spot on. They don't shoot like lasers but they don't scatter like buckshot, either.

I like the ground handling, but would actually prefer more consistent and realistic air handling perfected first since that's where I spend most of my time in a flight sim.

With respect to those experts like the LoneRanger one doesn't have to have hands-on experience with a P-40 to know how the aerodynamics work in a plane. Warbird performance is thoroughly documented and with my own flight time I can tell what the basics are enough to come to a reasonable conclusion. As a result...


The Bad:

This feels more like a survey sim from Janes than it ever did before. The planes feel way too similar, the only real differences are the different guns, and some take a little more punishment or go faster than others.

One of the 2 reasons I bought this game and have followed it since the first demo for IL2 (before that I flew Flanker from it's infancy as well) was to fly the Cobras. They are no longer the murderbirds they used to be. They are no more difficult to fly than any other plane in the game, it's easier to kill things with them than before because they are so easy now, and the fun of handling a plane well that tries so hard to kill you is gone. In 3.04...moderately realistic flight in a Cobra..4.01 realistic enough to stand your hair on end...4.02 forget it; it's just a slow plane with a big cannon.

Cobras now rarely turn-stall, I have to work really hard to get one to tumble or flatspin - and if I didn't know they did that at all I probably would never have it happen. I can put one into a negative gee roll with at least 3 or 4 rotations pushing so hard I'm in red out the whole time and it still bobs up like a cork rather than tumble. That is flat out wrong.

The other reason I bought this game was to use the IL2 line. In 3.04 they were slow (the 2-seaters) and reasonably maneuverable in a lumbering way. If you had enough speed up you could strafe, pitch up and tailslide (but you had to be on it every second at only 500m) reversing back to another gunpass. In 4.01 you couldn't do that, the plane tried to roll it's nose into the ground in a turn, and it flew like a tank....4.02 it's slow, rolls better than before, but it retains so little E that you can't take advantage of the better maneuverability.

Those two examples (and I have flown every plane in the game a lot, don't think I'm narrow-minded)) sum up my main issue: the patches have made so many changes back and forth, up and down, you can no longer trust the FM or DM on any plane. There used to be a lot of difference between planes, even between variants within a family of planes, but not that much anymore. That's what I mean when I say it's turning into just another survey sim. Always a danger when you have so many planes in one package.

The game seemed most stable in FM with 4.01 and the DM from 3.04.

I actually resent having this game used as a testbed for the future BOB. I paid for a stable program. I fully understand that today patches are part of the deal, but I didn't see anywhere on the box that at any time a patch might screw the thing up so much due to it really being a beta FM for a future release and that I should feel all warm and gooey about it. That sort of thing is better handled by providing a demo or beta test package that those interested could play with and rest of us could go on enjoying the game we paid for. I would very happily pay for any add-on CD's to get those planes and maps I'm interested in as long as it meant that any patches would be to fix the game - expanding it only after the modified FM/DM's specific to this game (not to future releases) were fully tested and enough of a change to bother with.

I already went through this kind of nonsense with Falcon, another game I played every iteration of all the way to the Holy Grail (at the time) of Falcon 4.0, only to have it patched to an unwieldy mess then have the developer lose interest, leaving me with cr@p. I am starting to wonder if the same isn't happening with FB/PF, too.

Oleg_Maddox
10-25-2005, 12:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gx-warspite:
1
a. Easier to hit with .50s in deflections due to higher rate of fire which compensates for synched guns.
b. New planes!

2.
a. .50s too powerful from dead six or light angles due to higher rate of fire.
b. Still too much muzzle flash/recoil on all guns, IMO. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry to say, but there was no changes in that item. Nothing changed in 0.50. Probably you begun simply to shoot way better for that time...

Also, no one of wing MGs are sysnchronized in the sim.

Jetbuff
10-25-2005, 12:49 AM
Yes, but the 190 fires in the DM were reactivated right?

If you don't mind sir, could you also clarify what happened to E-bleed? Planes are turning very hard with little or no penalty like the hurricane in FB 1.0.

Old_Canuck
10-25-2005, 12:56 AM
I seem to be able to miss the target with the .50s just as easy as in the last patch http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The fun quotient is still high and that's all that matters for this has-been pilot. Can't afford to fly the real planes anymore and this is still the only flight sim on the market that gives me the "feel" of flight.

Slater_51st
10-25-2005, 01:37 AM
Good:
1) Overall, still feels like a very good sense of "flying" to me
2) FW damage model has been reduced, and while the fuel leaks are insane, it doesn't feel as fragile as everyone seems to make out. I've taken a fair deal of damage in it and still returned to base. Of course, good hits to control surfaces, fuel tanks, engine, pilot or wing roots produce the correct results. Personally, I like how the 190's DM feels, and it's just about the only thing I fly.
3) Overall weapons feel is good. I've been shot down by 20mms, 30mms, .50s, 37mms and all dish out damage that feels at least somewhat relative to their caliber, historical reputation, and what's generally accepted around her.
4) Oleg actually cares about the sim, is making a progression towards BoB, is testing out the concepts for BoB here so that when BoB DOES come around, it will be good. Imagine if BoB comes out, everyone rushes out to buy it, and we get bobble-head planes like some are seeing now? Be glad we get it now, and not after another year or so of waiting.
5) FordFan's comment: "the torqe moddleing seems to have taken a step back triped and fell down the stairs"
6) New planes

Things I dislike/bad:
1) First time I flew 4.02m, I could FEEL teh control difference, it was aweful. After spending time adjusting joystick settings(first time ever, really), I got to where it feels very nice, so not a big thing.
2) The 190, at least, requires FULL right rudder to go in anything resembling a straight line on the ground. From the sound of things, it isn't just the 190.
3) Me falling out of my chair because of FordFan's comment http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Observations:
1) There are definate changes, and for the first time since Il-2, I've had to seriously tweak my settings.
2) People will always complain, and never ever be happy all at the same time.
3) Oleg always manages to get blamed as being biased when he and his crew provide us with FREE, and completely OPTIONAL patches to improve our simming experience now and in the future.

And, a final thought. I really don't like the way the La7, and later Yaks "fly" if that can be the word to describe what they do. But, remember, Oleg is trying to cater to his customers, and potential buyers of BoB. Now, MANY people love the La-7 and the Yaks as is. Add the fact that pre 4.02, there were about 10 threads on either the: Fw 190 DM, the 109 FM, the .50, the P-47 FM and DM all on the first page of ORR and the GD, and little or nothing about these other a/c. Is it hard to see why they get little attention? If Oleg went through and redid all the LAs and Yaks, he'd be here forever! And, I'm anxious for BoB!

Thanks Oleg, keep up the good work!

S! Slater

GR142-Pipper
10-25-2005, 02:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gx-warspite:
1
a. Easier to hit with .50s in deflections due to higher rate of fire which compensates for synched guns.
b. New planes!

2.
a. .50s too powerful from dead six or light angles due to higher rate of fire.
b. Still too much muzzle flash/recoil on all guns, IMO. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry to say, but there was no changes in that item. Nothing changed in 0.50. Probably you begun simply to shoot way better for that time...

Also, no one of wing MGs are sysnchronized in the sim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Mr. Maddox, I think the members of the forum would appreciate an outline of what you actually did change in this patch. Respectfully, it's standard procedure for software companies to provide their customers with a list of what actually got changed from one revision to the next. It's really not asking much.

GR142-Pipper

NorrisMcWhirter
10-25-2005, 02:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gx-warspite:
1
a. Easier to hit with .50s in deflections due to higher rate of fire which compensates for synched guns.
b. New planes!

2.
a. .50s too powerful from dead six or light angles due to higher rate of fire.
b. Still too much muzzle flash/recoil on all guns, IMO. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry to say, but there was no changes in that item. Nothing changed in 0.50. Probably you begun simply to shoot way better for that time...

Also, no one of wing MGs are sysnchronized in the sim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uh oh, this is a bit like when Oleg told me that the FMs are "no easier" than the original Il-2 but that "I became a more experienced/better pilot."

Sorry, but I didn't buy that, either.

If the .50s didn't change, the 109 and 190 DMs must have been made much weaker. If that is the case, why, particularly when we still have concrete Lagg3s flying about?

Ta,
Norris

Jetbuff
10-25-2005, 02:43 AM
The 190's, as per an earlier post by OM, had the visual effects of fire disabled at some point during the testing of 4.01 and were not turned back on. The lack of visual cues to catastrophic damage resulted in all the whining. I suspect they have just been re-enabled.

NorrisMcWhirter
10-25-2005, 03:08 AM
Yes, I'm aware of this. I found it highly amusing that people were whining about the 190 never breaking up etc when structurally it was no weaker..it was just that it didn't catch fire/leak fuel.

No, what I find amazing is that they just uncomment the code to bring us back to the 190DM of old when it was a robust aircraft and not a Zero, *especially* when no consideration is given to the, let's say, improbable DMs of certain VVS aircraft.

Also, the 109 was hardly 'tough' in 4.01 but now you can chop it in half at 450m with .50s.

When you put this together with with responses like that above, you really have to wonder what BoB is going to be like.

A simultaneous release on PC and XBOX 360 is on the cards at this rate.

Ta,
Norris

WOLFMondo
10-25-2005, 03:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jetbuff:
The 190's, as per an earlier post by OM, had the visual effects of fire disabled at some point during the testing of 4.01 and were not turned back on. The lack of visual cues to catastrophic damage resulted in all the whining. I suspect they have just been re-enabled. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The visual DM was always there. The fire wasn't, either visually or the effect, now there is fire. The brown fuel leak is definitely back as are normal fuel leaks. Something there changed and it wasn't simply turning the visual back on.

Either DM's where altered or the .50's have improved in some manner.

Stigler_9_JG52
10-25-2005, 11:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:

Sorry to say, but there was no changes in that item. Nothing changed in 0.50. Probably you begun simply to shoot way better for that time...

Also, no one of wing MGs are sysnchronized in the sim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Keep it coming, please, Oleg! We'd also like to know what the "delta" was (or wasn't) on roll inertia, energy bleed and torque.

OMK_Hand
10-25-2005, 12:36 PM
Iv'e pretty much convinced myself that engine settings have at some point become more relevant to performance, and that throttle settings as displayed in the game are maybe slightly misleading now... With prolonged use at higher throttle settings resulting in noticable stress in the percieved airflow/airframe/control departments, noteably with aircraft using manual pitch adjustment.

Anyone else noticed anything?

Of course, it's probably the ******ss kicking in...

joeap
10-25-2005, 12:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CivilDog:

The Bad:

This feels more like a survey sim from Janes than it ever did before. The planes feel way too similar, the only real differences are the different guns, and some take a little more punishment or go faster than others.

One of the 2 reasons I bought this game and have followed it since the first demo for IL2 (before that I flew Flanker from it's infancy as well) was to fly the Cobras. They are no longer the murderbirds they used to be. They are no more difficult to fly than any other plane in the game, it's easier to kill things with them than before because they are so easy now, and the fun of handling a plane well that tries so hard to kill you is gone. In 3.04...moderately realistic flight in a Cobra..4.01 realistic enough to stand your hair on end...4.02 forget it; it's just a slow plane with a big cannon.

Cobras now rarely turn-stall, I have to work really hard to get one to tumble or flatspin - and if I didn't know they did that at all I probably would never have it happen. I can put one into a negative gee roll with at least 3 or 4 rotations pushing so hard I'm in red out the whole time and it still bobs up like a cork rather than tumble. That is flat out wrong.

The other reason I bought this game was to use the IL2 line. In 3.04 they were slow (the 2-seaters) and reasonably maneuverable in a lumbering way. If you had enough speed up you could strafe, pitch up and tailslide (but you had to be on it every second at only 500m) reversing back to another gunpass. In 4.01 you couldn't do that, the plane tried to roll it's nose into the ground in a turn, and it flew like a tank....4.02 it's slow, rolls better than before, but it retains so little E that you can't take advantage of the better maneuverability.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Disagree, I find the P-39 touchy as before, stalled out yesterday in a fight with some 190s...and I find the planes still fly very differently.

Jetbuff
10-25-2005, 01:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slater_51st:
3) Oleg always manages to get blamed as being biased when he and his crew provide us with FREE, and completely OPTIONAL patches to improve our simming experience now and in the future. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Just an FYI: for onliners, patches are anything but optional.

NerdConnected
10-25-2005, 02:54 PM
Have'nt played much, but things I've noticed:

1) Good things about 402

- AI improved (e.g. formation of 8 jabo's is different. More space between them)
- FM: Flying and controlling the plane is harder and aiming is more difficult
- Some tweaks in the DM (e.g. fuel leak on FW)
- New European map ;-)
- Nvidia missing texture fix

2) Less good things about 402

- water=3 not fixed with Nvidia (hoping for 4.03 and/or new beta dll's and ATI X1800XT support ;-)

3) Unsure about 402

- A bit usure if I should do a complete re-install because of the wobbling and joystick settings since some users reported things improved after they had done a complete re-install.

I think I need time with 4.02 ;-)

Mark

bazzaah2
10-25-2005, 03:09 PM
After a good few days with it, I must say now that I really kind of like the new patch. A bit more use for my rudder pedals in flight would be nice though and hope that will come soon. Sure the rudder would have been useful in flight. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

StellarRat
10-25-2005, 08:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
You have to engage to fully appreciate the comment. If you're just a BnZ'er, it really doesn't matter what the other players fly because the extent of the encounter is a 2 or 3 second drive by. Try engaging a 109G-2 in an all-out "take no prisoners" fight and your view may change. It has excellent energy capabilities, it can turn well, has very good can climb and dive abilities, and can hit fairly hard. As currently modeled, there's little it can't do well. As a Yak driver, it's a very worthy opponent and great fun to mix with. Others may have a differing view but I find it the all-around toughest adversary, bar none.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, I wouldn't ever "engage" a G2 in a dogfight with a Allied plane, except maybe a P-40 or Spitfire. That would be total foolishness. You have play the strengths of your plane against the weaknesses of the enemy. The US planes are faster, so I don't stick around to turn with the G2. That would slow me down and play into the G2's hands.

-HH-Quazi
10-25-2005, 08:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gx-warspite:
1
a. Easier to hit with .50s in deflections due to higher rate of fire which compensates for synched guns.
b. New planes!

2.
a. .50s too powerful from dead six or light angles due to higher rate of fire.
b. Still too much muzzle flash/recoil on all guns, IMO. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry to say, but there was no changes in that item. Nothing changed in 0.50. Probably you begun simply to shoot way better for that time...

Also, no one of wing MGs are sysnchronized in the sim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You know, Oleg has got to sit back and laugh is rump off at the preceptions we have after each patch, thinking something has been tweaked, changed, etc. So far, after every patch release I have seen over the years, at some point and time, Oleg always post something similar as his post here, stating that nothing was changed referring to whatever that particular person was claiming to have noticed differences in any aspect of this sim. Think about it. Put yourself in his place and think about it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

msalama
10-25-2005, 11:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This kind of secretive behavior just doesn't make any sense. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed 100%. See my sig.

TAGERT.
10-25-2005, 11:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by -HH-Quazi:
You know, Oleg has got to sit back and laugh is rump off at the preceptions we have after each patch, thinking something has been tweaked, changed, etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>As do I, preceptions can be missleading.. That is why I use DeviceLink data and graph it.. The numbers dont lie. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Genie-
10-26-2005, 12:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slater_51st:
Good:
1) Overall, still feels like a very good sense of "flying" to me

Thanks Oleg, keep up the good work!

S! Slater </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yeah.. you just can't help yourself.. you really luuuuuv those endless loops...

TheGozr
10-26-2005, 01:50 AM
Me like 402m

Spend some time on your settings.

VVS-Manuc
10-26-2005, 05:12 PM
4.02 is made to please the whiners and arcade players. Realism and sim freaks are slapped into their faces with this patch

OldMan____
10-26-2005, 06:35 PM
At very start I liked the path, but now I must make some reassesment on it.


Is the worse path I ever installed in a game. The balance:

Good-
-The snap stall is back al the new physics effect on pushing up and down.
-Corrected DM of some planes.


Bad-
As soon as I get online (offline I don´t have this problem) I get a plane that simply doe snot keep controles even! Standing still on runway I look to sides and my ailerons are moving.. I remove the joystick cable and it continues (so clearly not a joystick problem). I get 4.01 and get into one of few servers I still find with it and everything is OK.

-Adding a second controller makes thing even worse, weird axis dead zones on end of axis course etc... (again 4.01 is OK)

- Everything I see online now is that whenever someone gets behind an enemy , this one wil force a stall flip down 2 or 3 revolutions and continue flight. This happens almost always now!! 4.01 FM provided players with capabilities that resulted in an overall more plausible combat.

Skalgrim
10-29-2005, 10:13 AM
g2 was sure good doghfighter,

russian had say she was best of her breed,
that means too better f4, because g2 has better highspeed handling as f4

germans had same thinks change at 109g to get better dive recovery as 109f



la-7 and g2 has 1550ps at 2000m but g2 has less weigh



that means at 2000m has g2 better powerload and wingloading as la-7


she should even outturn la-7 at 2000m, but la-7 outturn g2 easy at 2000m

seem g2 is undermodel in fb

heywooood
10-29-2005, 12:46 PM
does your plane slide sideways on landing roll outs...you know..you touch down and the tailwheel touches and then lets say you give a hard left or right rudder input and...it looks like the ice capades...that ever happen to you? or is it just me.

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
10-29-2005, 01:00 PM
There was a patch? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Schutze_S
10-29-2005, 04:59 PM
Nice touch for wide screens http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Pre patch

http://www.schutze.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/UBI/clip.gif

After patch

http://www.schutze.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/UBI/Post%20Patch.gif

ComradeBadinov
10-30-2005, 01:27 AM
Still ticked off with AI behavior. I fly coops mostly. AI will not join up in formation most of the time and when they do you lose em after the first turn you make. It's been this way for quite sometime now.... kind of kills the immersion.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

269GA-Veltro
10-30-2005, 02:01 AM
BAD
Another "you kid you got it" patch....i begin to be very tired of this....

- Mark Vc bug should have been solved......

GOOD
The CR 42 tail gear problem has been solved. Nothing else....
It's another 2.04, so is a bad and arcadish patch.

This is arcadish...for ex.

http://ourworld.cs.com/veltrof2/quick0000.zip

rr9
10-30-2005, 02:19 AM
Good:
Track recording and handling of non-default skins works differently now. The game records skins even if skin downloading is off and also shows them when playing a track even if skin downloading is off from IL2setup.

In some older versions (not sure if this changed in 4.02 or 4.01) if you had skin downloading off, track playing wouldn't show skins even if they were included in the track file.

jmazzo
10-30-2005, 03:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 269GA-Veltro:
...Another "you kid you got it" patch....i begin to be very tired of this...

This is arcadish...for ex...

http://ourworld.cs.com/veltrof2/quick0000.ntrk </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Impressive track http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif
Simply no energy loss...LOOOOOOOL. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Please, no more patches made for one side or the other...WE WANT REALISTIC PATCH.
As realistic as possibile anyway.

For example I can't understand why in one patch Fw190 is tough like a Panzer tiger (4.01) and in the other is a flying lighter! (4.02)...this is only an example but many planes completely change their behaviour from one patch to the other.

Keep it a simulator and it will always rule...if I wanted an arcade I could play with CFS3 or Aces High. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

my 2c http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

bazzaah2
10-30-2005, 04:19 AM
It's still easy to lose all your energy if you want to but maybe easier to maintain energy now. If someone here knows for sure that e-retention as modelled now is off then would love to hear some more about it.

I like the patch and have seen someone who has had a lot of input say that the FW190 is across the board pretty good now (apart from high speed roll rates but that seems a global issue). Purely subjective but the Dora feels like the plane I imagined it to be now. Of course more torque, work on yaw etc would all be good and hope we can see those sorted out (to the extent that the game engine allows).

There are DM issues, well documented problems with roll rates and we have to accept some limitations due to PC technology, but does anyone really know if 4.02m is a more or less accurate representation of flight than any other patch?

All I know is that this patch has rekindled my interest in this game and I'll happily spend a few hours just taking off, flying around and trying to get a perfect 3 point landing.

And shooting stuff down of course.

SUPERAEREO
10-30-2005, 04:24 AM
Somebody posted these tracks on the Italian forum - I do apologise in advance if I am posting them without permission or if they have already been posted, but I am not 100% sure where they come from - and after trying to replicate the effects on my PC I had to admit that now the 190 catches fire far too easily, at least when hit by machine gun fire:

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_files/Hurri2v190.zip

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_files/Fw190DMProblemTRKS.zip


I am not quite sure how the 190 passed from being a flying tank to a flying box of matches, but it surely does not seem correct, and in this instance at least I think the patch has gone too far in the other direction trying to correct a problem.

While FB/PF still surpasses by far any other sim on the market, I would like to see a more thorough drive towards planes with realistic performances and damage models.

As things are at the moment some planes are definitely "twitchy" (getting a target in the collimators with some of them feels like fishing rubber ducks with a wobbly rod at the fun fair), and even if real planes go far less straight than most people think I cannot help feeling that on some aircraft this effect is somewhat exaggerated, while on others it appears to be almost absent.

On the good side I think that the FM is better than in the 4.01, even if some aspects need retouching if we don't want this sim to become an arcade game: energy retention on some planes being one of them, according to some people.

Other than that I would not know what to say: I have had far too little spare time to use the sim properly in the last few months.

One little request would be to have the fasces insignia reappear on the skins of italian planes: it is only a glitch but currently neither the Fiat Cr.42 nor the G.50 can be made to display the Italian national markings, even if the G. 50 has got them on the default skin, making this fault less apparent.

S!

bazzaah2
10-30-2005, 04:35 AM
yep, the 190 DM is a bit odd for sure. Let's hope Oleg and co. take the representations that have (probably) been made to him on board.

I think the self-sealing tank issue has been ironed out though; I've seen planes stop leaking after a minute or so and carry on flying, just like Mustang come to think of it.

Personally, I'd like to see fewer planes more accurately done.

GBOF
10-30-2005, 10:59 AM
Good:
- Rudder axis more realistic (but need some improvement: ball does not react easily with rudders)
- Ground operations
- realistic landing and takeoff

BAD:

- FW190 completely ruined: It must be faster in acceleration and keep the speed longer rather than losing energy so fast. It is an energy fighter... in case you didn't know. Moreover, it turns fire like a candle (WTH!!!). FW190 was a nightmare for allied!!! and in the game Allies wish always engage with a 190. Something must be wrong???
- In a straight flight red planes are more stable then BF109 : can't understand...thought german engineers designed good aircraft at that time!!!

- Manual propitch. There is too latency in setting the pitch and observing the actual effect. Wrong implementation IMO.

Another thing: I've had a lot of time playing all AC after new patch and I thing 1C is more biased of course toward red performances. I'm not interested in a game which not respect the historical performance of aircraft.

1C, stop leastening VVS whiners. and have the game as reaslistic as possible.

VFA-195 Snacky
10-30-2005, 02:43 PM
Only one complaint.

Torque still wacky. P51 for example did not require aileron trim at cruise speed. It had trim tabs which were pre set for that power setting.

GSNei
10-30-2005, 07:23 PM
The planes that wobble are making me nuts. Even though the affect on actual flying isn't that great on my setup - I can't stop noticing it

Vike
11-01-2005, 03:45 AM
It was hard to understand what happened to the Flight Model... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Then,i did some training,some re-tuning for my Saitek X-52 and now,this is ok. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I only fly Bf109 Online,and i managed to reduce the yawiiiiiiiiiiiiing a lot thanks to re-tuning my Joystick in the conf.ini file.

So,it is near the same as it was with the 4.01m patch,with still a slight yawing which seems finally add a realistic feature to the plane behaviour.

Until i get some ease to handle my plane and the aim, & until i was able to shoot down any opponent,i did a lot of dogfights in Bf109K/G/E against ACEs AI in:

-I16 SPB24
-Spitfire MKVb/IXe
-Yak3P
-La7 (2 and 3 20mm canons)
-P-47 D

And now...It is all OK http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Thanks Oleg 1C/Maddox,keep up the good work! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

@+

Jetbuff
11-01-2005, 07:52 AM
Hmmm... am I the only one who thinks the 190's DM is quite normal now? Yes, the flopping-fish syndrome is back after even one .303 to the wing and the fuel leak/control loss frequency has gone up a bit but every plane has some DM issues, right?

fly_zo
11-01-2005, 10:00 AM
I'm just tired of learning to fly over and over and over again with every patch and retesting all my FMB missions because AI going insane after it.

It is a curse of offline players I know, I know...
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

StellarRat
11-01-2005, 10:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jetbuff:
Hmmm... am I the only one who thinks the 190's DM is quite normal now? Yes, the flopping-fish syndrome is back after even one .303 to the wing and the fuel leak/control loss frequency has gone up a bit but every plane has some DM issues, right? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>They still take a lot of ammo to bring down (compared to other planes) and they're not indestructible to .50 fire anymore, as it should be.

Jetbuff
11-01-2005, 11:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by StellarRat:
They still take a lot of ammo to bring down (compared to other planes) and they're not indestructible to .50 fire anymore, as it should be. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Exactly, this is perhaps the sanest 190DM in a long while.

StellarRat
11-01-2005, 12:03 PM
What surprises me is the number of people that have complained about the 4.02 190 DM when the 4.01 DM had a known bug, confirmed by Oleg, that made it nearly indestructible to .50 cal fire. Apparently, some people actually thought 4.01 had the correct DM for the 190. LOL! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

They believed the 4.01 model was right then complained that Oleg had "given in" to Allied whiners on the DM when all he was really doing was fixing a coding error. I guess us "bug whiners" are bunch of jerks... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Stigler_9_JG52
11-01-2005, 12:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by StellarRat:
What surprises me is the number of people that have complained about the 4.02 190 DM when the 4.01 DM had a known bug, confirmed by Oleg, that made it nearly indestructible to .50 cal fire. Apparently, some people actually thought 4.01 had the correct DM for the 190. LOL! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What gets me is that the response is not to merely "address the origiinal bug", but to make the FW190 catch fire if you hit it with a single slingshot pellet. Why do so many of the changes simply go from one wild extreme to the other? It feels as if they just sarcastically code this stuff in and say, "OK, I'll show YOU a more susceptible-to-damage plane!!"

What's missing it seems, is simply the desire to get it right.

StellarRat
11-01-2005, 01:13 PM
I shot four of them up last night and no fires. All had oil leaks, one was PK with oil and gas leak, one was oil leak and ailerons gone, one was oil leak only (let him go), and the last one was oil leak and spun into the ground (assumed the controls were damaged.) I used a considerable amount of ammo on two of them (one took about 3/4 of my .50s load) and NO FIRES. I don't think they burn any easier than other planes. The fact is that all of the planes can catch fire. They're loaded with gasoline after all. A lucky bullet can set any of them on fire.

faustnik
11-01-2005, 01:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by StellarRat:
I shot four of them up last night and no fires. All had oil leaks, one was PK with oil and gas leak, one was oil leak and ailerons gone, one was oil leak only (let him go), and the last one was oil leak and spun into the ground (assumed the controls were damaged.) I used a considerable amount of ammo on two of them (one took about 3/4 of my .50s load) and NO FIRES. I don't think they burn any easier than other planes. The fact is that all of the planes can catch fire. They're loaded with gasoline after all. A lucky bullet can set any of them on fire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Fw190 fuel cells catch fire if hit with any caliber round. If it didn't happen when you shot at it, you missed the fuel cell. Check the "Glass FWs are back" thread in ORR for tracks. There are also RAF tests in that thread on the vulnerability of the Fw190 fuel cells.

StellarRat
11-01-2005, 01:41 PM
I find it hard to believe they "always" catch fire if hit in the gas tanks. I've had plenty of non-burning leakers. Is it only certain models? I'm going to go look at the thread you recommended now.

faustnik
11-01-2005, 01:43 PM
I only tested the A models. Please check out that thread, there is some interesting info. You have to sort through a lot of garbage though. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif If you want I can PM the tracks and RAF tests to you.

StellarRat
11-01-2005, 02:08 PM
Holy! That was a long thread! Mostly worthless. But, I did read yours and Gibbage's posts (actually worthwhile.) I still saw what I saw last night. The shot the L out of a couple of those A4's and no fires. I'm talking multiple bursts on different parts of the plane from different angles. A couple were definitely leaking fuel. I'd have to have hit them in the tanks to cause fuel leaks, right? Weird. I don't need the tracks, but I will take some of my own to analyze where I'm hitting the 190s.

faustnik
11-01-2005, 02:10 PM
You have to fire from slightly low 6. The best a/c to test with have center line guns like the P-38. A lot of fire from a/c will hit the rudder and elevators. Ground fire is really good at causing fires because to the angle. It just takes a second to download and check out the tracks I made. View them in arcade mode.

StellarRat
11-01-2005, 03:16 PM
So, a low 6 hit huh? Hmm...I don't remember hitting anyone from that angle. All my hits were top down or dead six. So fires are less common from top down shots? Seems like this is less of a problem if you have to hit them from a certain angle.