PDA

View Full Version : Oleg, please bring back stalls and energy bleed as before.



Pages : [1] 2

Hunde_3.JG51
11-03-2004, 01:35 AM
Since AEP there has been a trend for planes to become more and more easy to fly.

The Dauntless has an incredible turn rate, the Corsair has little to no stall, etc.

I just took a Mig-3U (full difficulty) and was doing continuous loops pulling back hard on the stick without flaps and without loss of altitude, in fact I may have been gaining altitude. This can't be right can it?

This lack of stalling and energy/speed bleed seems to be a global problem that gives the game a very "arcade" feel to it and unfortunately has lessened my interest in the FB/AEP/PF series. Something seems very very wrong. Stalls seem way to hard to induce, and energy bleed in hard maneuvers is minimal.

I'm sure by now you have seen the numerous posts on the forum about "dumbed down" flight models and the review by Gamespot about very forgiving stall characteristics. Please consider making aircraft stall more easily and bleed more energy as thay did long ago.

I don't mean to be negative I am just concerned about what is, in my opinion, a very serious problem with the current state of flight models.

Thanks for listening.

jurinko
11-03-2004, 03:24 AM
i think if the stall and E bleed tendency should be taken from Fw 190 series and distributed wisely among remaining planes, it should be just right.

XyZspineZyX
11-03-2004, 03:52 AM
I don't understand what you are saying... I have little trouble inducing a turn stall in a Corsair... it does a wicked wingover as I understand it was reputed to do.

Kannaksen_hanu
11-03-2004, 04:34 AM
Jurinko has a good point here.

JG5_JaRa
11-03-2004, 04:55 AM
Energy bleed, especially at high AOA, always was a weak spot in this FM. But it is not only that, thrust at slow speed is also high. Just look how quick those crates accelerate after losing speed or check the high hang-on-the-prop climb rates at slow speed. Was more fun in the first IL2 demo even tho the stalls were stiffer (felt more scripted). Last but not least, even at slow speed, you can still pull quite some stunts, not to mention the low loop entry speeds. It is not only a question about losing energy, but also about re-gaining it and especially how much need there is for it.
Judging stalls is always a bit difficult but should be easy to program, after all the stall-AOAs for the profiles and specific characteristics of the wings are among the less mysterious things about WW2 a/c performance. Judging it in the game and comparing to whatever one thinks it should be IRL is difficult because pulling hard in real life always leaves a totally different impression than doing it in a sim without any force feedback on your body. Just look at the complaints about wings ripping off "easily" when pulling "a bit" at high speed - makes you wonder if people have an idea what an acceleration of 15g means. But I agree, unless you keep the stick full back all the time, you won't run into big stall problems in most planes. Impression here, impression there, after all the 190 feels rather convincing to me.
Makes me wonder why these compromises were made even though we have these pseudo FM realism options. Guess a game only sells well if Johnny Joystick turns into Richard Bong in no more than five minutes at "full real".

Kwiatos
11-03-2004, 08:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
Since AEP there has been a trend for planes to become more and more easy to fly.

The Dauntless has an incredible turn rate, the Corsair has little to no stall, etc.

I just took a Mig-3U (full difficulty) and was doing continuous loops pulling back hard on the stick without flaps and without loss of altitude, in fact I may have been gaining altitude. This can't be right can it?

This lack of stalling and energy/speed bleed seems to be a global problem that gives the game a very "arcade" feel to it and unfortunately has lessened my interest in the FB/AEP/PF series. Something seems very very wrong. Stalls seem way to hard to induce, and energy bleed in hard maneuvers is minimal.

I'm sure by now you have seen the numerous posts on the forum about "dumbed down" flight models and the review by Gamespot about very forgiving stall characteristics. Please consider making aircraft stall more easily and bleed more energy as thay did long ago.

I don't mean to be negative I am just concerned about what is, in my opinion, a very serious problem with the current state of flight models.

Thanks for listening. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I 100 % agree!!!

The same i could say about amercian navy planes - you could turn with 100% stick delfection and looping the same without stall/spin you just need be only gently in stick during maximum pull up.
All planes after instaling PF could climb with higher AOA and lower speed at about 70-80 km/h without losing climb rate. These is very important bug. Before PF when you climb with much lower speed than best climb speed you will imidielty losing climb rate. Now with PF it doesnt matter if you climb 180 km/h or 260 km/h - your climb rate is the same.

Fehler
11-03-2004, 08:53 AM
I totally agree with all that is posted here.

I honestly wonder if stalls were decreased as part of a compromise in carrier landings.

I also have no clue how the mysterious bleed/stall thing works in the sim, the two dont appear to be separable as a small tweaking here always seems to affect the other (Speaking from patches past).

In 2.04 the thing I noticed that struck me as the oddest part of the stall/bleed thing was the way planes could go into a flat stall, then when they came out of it, they instantly had their E back in no time. And believe me, I am not the only one that noticed it, a lot of people use this tactic on line to evade others, then merely zoom back up into a fight.

This is where planes like the P-39 get such an advantage. "If" you can stall them, and you have enough altitude to pull out of the stall, you can soon be back behind whomever you were fighting.

Now, in addition to this, what is the deal with planes that never bleed energy? Even my 190 seems to bleed A LOT less than it used to.

In all, something is very strange feeling, and although I will get used to it (Like I have in previous patches/add-ons) it is very, very different than it used to be.

But I do ask for less forgivable FM. It just makes flying against a human so "Crimson sky-ish."

joeap
11-03-2004, 08:55 AM
Have you thought this is a feature for carrier landings? Maybe US planes were more stable during these regimes? I don't know. I stall out frequently enough http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif How could people be reporting differently? Unless I try how you got no stalls. Please post the parameters so I could try to test your results nyself, (and I believe you guys are just wanting to make it a better sim).

JG77Von_Hess
11-03-2004, 09:37 AM
Thumbs up from me, to the original post, its the flight physics in the game that are the biggest menece at the moment, not this plane does 3 kmh too fast and how come i get get out-roled by 3 degs a sec at 500 khm..

Good inital post and some good replies. I have one fear that the whole IL2 thing has become so big that what we see now is ireversable for the better.

But i do still have faith in 1Cs abillities to create something HIFI for the Sim comunety. BOB might be the anwser to a new kind of game with much more attension to real life behavier mixed with as near correct flight performance of the planes modelled.. My fingers are crossed for that.

Regards.

VH.

LEXX_Luthor
11-03-2004, 09:37 AM
MiG~3 1940 seems just as "stally" but I have not tried the looping thing.

Anybody here ever stall D3A1 and SBD? I have not yet, and I tried everything. D3A1 has HUGE wings so maybe that's correct I dunno.

NorrisMcWhirter
11-03-2004, 09:48 AM
Hi,

I've been trying some aircraft in QMB and they feel (yep, no scientific, repeatable evidence) that they were easier to fly now (stalls/climb wise) than they were in AEP.

If the FMs have been dumbed down for carriers, then only the carrier planes should arguably be affected so these could be compartmentalised and kept away from the 'real planes' in any campaigns/online arenas.

This leads to another question; if what is being suggested is true, why have the FMs been made easier to permit carrier landings? Why not have an option for 'easy carrier landings' rather than porking the whole game?

Cheers,
Norris

Stiglr
11-03-2004, 10:29 AM
What is it about the x.0 initial releases of 1CMaddox sims and the appearance of "moon gravity"?

Every time new planes are introduced, at least one or two of the new ones exhibits an inability to stall, or an ability to hang on its nose almost at will, or the ability to loop with no energy, fresh off the deck?

Is there now NO organized quality testing of the FMs at all??

Kwiatos
11-03-2004, 01:45 PM
Bad news for everyone who prefer realistic FM for PF/FB:

ICPD wrote:
" posted recently regarding stall & spins with PF, it is currently possible for a lot of aircraft to loop & turn with full elevator delfection at low speeds. I sent my findings of this strange behaviour to Oleg but it seems that he is convinced that the B25, He111 and A20 along with the F4U-1D, F4F's, F6F's and Ki43's can loop and turn at low speeds with full elevator deflection.

So don't expect to see the dumbed down FM's get fixed in the near future (if at all). "


http://www.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=114;t=001051#000012

Big http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

3.JG51_BigBear
11-03-2004, 02:40 PM
I recently spoke with an actual Corsair pilot by the name of Alfed Rowe. He flew the Corsair in Korea in the ground attack role. Granted he flew the bird some fifty years ago, but in his recollection the plane "felt" very heavy, and although he felt secure and confident in the A/C (i.e. that the plane was going to bring him back in one piece) he always felt that he was "constanly fighting the b i t c h" (his words) for control when he got it low and slow, either when landing and or when he slowed the aircraft down to make strafing and bombing runs (he did say that the later rarely happened but when flack was light he and his compatriots didn't mind loitering over a target for a couple minutes to help the guys on the ground).

Mr. Rowe was good enough to talk with me for almost an hour, I bought him lunch http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif, and he let me ask all sorts of questions. He was obviously reluctant to talk about combat but he was more than happy to give his impressions on the bent wing bastard. He also let me take notes which I hope to have typed soon and which I plan on posting in the General Discussion.

VF-29_Sandman
11-03-2004, 02:51 PM
if the stall speeds/characteristics would be close to spot-on, the 38 would stall rings around u

Hunde_3.JG51
11-03-2004, 03:14 PM
That is disappointing. The super-turn rates and continuous looping has made the game impossible to enjoy, at least for me. As one poster said if nothing changes then I will likely go back to 2.04 and hope others follow or do seperate install. As a last resort I will just do bomber stuff as fighter vs. fighter combat just feels like X-wing vs. Tie Fighter, just change the sky to black and add some stars. Please don't flame, as I am speaking out of frustration and disappointment. I just hope the patch arrives and makes all this irrelevant, though it doesn't look promising.

Again, anyone who doesn't understand, take a Dauntless and load it with 1,500+.lbs of bombs and see how it handles (especially at high speeds), or take a Hellcat or even Mig-3U and do continuous loops without losing any altitude, or even gaining altitude.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif


Nice post btw Sandman, why don't you just say:

"ThE P-38 PoWnz JoOz!"

...and get it over with. Please don't turn this thread into something it is not.

Labienus
11-03-2004, 04:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
Bad news for everyone who prefer realistic FM for PF/FB:

ICPD wrote:
" posted recently regarding stall & spins with PF, it is currently possible for a lot of aircraft to loop & turn with full elevator delfection at low speeds. I sent my findings of this strange behaviour to Oleg but it seems that he is convinced that the B25, He111 and A20 along with the F4U-1D, F4F's, F6F's and Ki43's can loop and turn at low speeds with full elevator deflection.

So don't expect to see the dumbed down FM's get fixed in the near future (if at all). "


http://www.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=114;t=001051#000012

Big http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
LOOOOL be sure - enjoy best sim ever http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BigBear I abslotely agree with u. It's sad that Oleg try to tell everybody "it should be that way".... I only hope that some of them will simple don't believe him because it is simple... not true. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif Be sure...

VVS-Manuc
11-03-2004, 04:18 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif agree with all points said about the "forgiving" FM

but...

please don't whine in the fanboys's room http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-03-2004, 04:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
That is disappointing. The super-turn rates and continuous looping has made the game impossible to enjoy, at least for me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Super turn rates"?

Are you sure this is what is happening? The mere fact that you can't stall a plane in a low speed power turn doesn't necessarily mean that it's sustaining high G's... It could be that in the gentle pull into a sustained turn, the elevator just isn't able to crank the plane beyond the stall AOA.

The fact that the zero apparently can't sustain a similar full-stick sustained turn doesn't necessarily mean that the US plane is out-turning it, it could simply mean that the zero is able to exceed it's stall AOA while the American planes aren't.

Perhaps what we need here is an AOA and G meter on the speed bar to get a more clear idea of what is really happening aerodynamically...

3.JG51_BigBear
11-03-2004, 04:29 PM
Thanks Labienus. One other thing that may be important to consider is that many of the maneuvers that we attempt in the sim weren't even contemplated by real pilots. I described to Mr. Rowe a wing over maneuver I attempted online over the weekend while flying the Corsair. He gave me a look and said that he didn't think that would have been possible in the real thing. According to him, no pilot in his squadron would have had the strengh to "throw the airplane around like that." He recalls that he often felt fatigue in his arms after making "four or five hard evasive maneuvers" and that if at all possible running was his favorite tactic http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif.

It could very well be that these planes could get full elevator defelction or could do some of these maneuevers if you take them to the extreme hypothetical limit of their performance envelopes but the fact of the matter is that no pilot could have withstood these tremendous stresses for such an extended period of time and until these factors are at least considered in the FMs. Flying in IL2 is never going to feel like flying a real A/C.

XyZspineZyX
11-03-2004, 04:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
According to him, no pilot in his squadron would have had the strengh to "throw the airplane around like that." He recalls that he often felt fatigue in his arms after making "four or five hard evasive maneuvers" and that if at all possible running was his favorite tactic http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, interesting point... Didn't a lot of American aircraft have hydraulic assistance in the primary controls? (Later P38's did I know that...)

What sort of aircraft does this Mr. Rowe you refer to have a history in?

3.JG51_BigBear
11-03-2004, 05:59 PM
As I said earlier he flew the Corsair in Korea. He took his first flights in the Corsair in a F4U-4 model that had originally belonged to a reserve unit (he remembered that there were some sort of orang bands painted on it that they had tried to paint over blue). He went to Korea with a F4U-5, which he remembered as being significantly different from the F4U-5. After coming back from a mission with a signifcant amount of damage, the aircraft he flew was "taken" (his word) and he began flying another A/C which he thinks was a different model but he couldn't remember what it was called or even if it was a different type. I don't know much about the Corsair so I couldn't help jog his memory on that.

I don't know anything about hydraulic systems on Corsairs, whether they were there or not, I have no idea, but I think they were pretty uncommon on prop aircraft in general and the lightning only had them on the ailerons.

LEXX_Luthor
11-03-2004, 06:34 PM
Read account of Japanese pilot who looped a G4M, also one who looped fully loaded Val or Kate, or some single engine attack craft when he was NOT supposed to...and fully loaded.

So, the reports of infinite looping may be correct for some planes when empty.

Ki~43 was known to loop and loop and loop...

3.JG51_BigBear
11-03-2004, 06:45 PM
Any plane can be made to loop, provided it can structurally handle it, if enough energy is built up in a dive preceding the loop. Infinite loops are impossible even for modern stunt planes. I could be wrong, but I think eventually the plane will run out of energy unless its power to rate ratio is greater than one to one which I don't think any plane of the time could have possessed.

p1ngu666
11-03-2004, 07:13 PM
i was at duxford and saw a sukoi stunt plane. it was increadable,the thing took off in 30metres or less, and into a STEEP climb
400 degree a sec roll rate,
it could climb verticaly, and sustain 25g or something, it is a increadble machine.
i THINK the specs are 400hp, 700kg

3.JG51_BigBear
11-03-2004, 08:07 PM
I've seen that plane on ESPN and it is amazing. I would like to know if is capable of doing a sustained loop, I really don't think its possible, but I would love to see some data on it. I also would like to know how many lbs (or kg of thrust the engine produces through the prop).

XyZspineZyX
11-03-2004, 09:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
I've seen that plane on ESPN and it is amazing. I would like to know if is capable of doing a sustained loop, I really don't think its possible, but I would love to see some data on it. I also would like to know how many lbs (or kg of thrust the engine produces through the prop). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I saw the Oracle plane at the Reno Air Races a few years ago... It pulls this amazing stunt where he climbs vertically, stops, hangs for a second, and then _accelerates_ upward to continue the vertical climb.

I was stunned... I'd never imagined a prop aircraft could do such a thing.

Korolov
11-03-2004, 09:19 PM
I'm sorry to say that I don't notice a lot of this, especially the SBD. I flew it a couple times tonight with a 1600lb bomb and she handled HORRID. Stability was way off and I could barely make 1500m in 5 minutes. Could barely get it to turn at all. I don't see much stalling problems in the USN planes, a la the F4U, but they definately don't really seem to be all that.

I'm not going to step out and say there's nothing wrong, but since the majority of you who posted in here seem to be long-time 190 flyers (right?), maybe you ought to consider that not every plane will have the same onset of a wingover or stall as the 190. After you've flown the 190, you can fly anything! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

p1ngu666
11-03-2004, 09:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AgentBif:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
I've seen that plane on ESPN and it is amazing. I would like to know if is capable of doing a sustained loop, I really don't think its possible, but I would love to see some data on it. I also would like to know how many lbs (or kg of thrust the engine produces through the prop). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I saw the Oracle plane at the Reno Air Races a few years ago... It pulls this amazing stunt where he climbs vertically, stops, hangs for a second, and then _accelerates_ upward to continue the vertical climb.

I was stunned... I'd never imagined a prop aircraft could do such a thing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yeah, given what ive seen it do, constant looping would be possible.


the hanging at 45-60degrees on the prop is called a cobra irrec, the guy i saw was pretty static despite it being **** gusty, and i THINK he climbed out of it too

LEXX_Luthor
11-03-2004, 09:39 PM
No, I don' think you need 1 to 1 thrust/mass ratio for infinite looping.

If there were no drag, gravity would return all of the energy in the down part of the loop, allowing infinite looping with no engine. However, engine thrust needs only to overcome the drag...assuming no loss in overall looping altitude. Most of the drag is induced drag as the loop happens at high angles of attack and not too high air speeds--the induced drag coming from the aircraft turning through the loop, and turning takes energy. A good old style prop engine can compensate for this. -- now, the "hardness" of the loop turning, mmm not sure about this. Don't know if holding stick all the way back is correct, and if engine can compensate for hard turning like that.

Somebody at sinhq posted that extensive looping was conducted since the 1920s and eventually reached thousands of sustained loops by the 1940s, 1950s, or something.

Hunde_3.JG51
11-03-2004, 09:56 PM
Koro, I respect your opinion but there are more people agreeing than long time 190 flyers, again, lets not make this into something else http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Personally I don't understand how anybody doesn't see how off things are. I know that you are not saying everything is fine, but did you try the infinite loop (while not losing, or gaining altitude) with Hellcat and Mig-3U. I imagine it is possible with alot of different aircraft not just those two.

I'm sorry but the game just feels woeful to me. There was a global change to flight models that made them more forgiving, I don't see anyone denying that (even noticed by game reviewer who probably isn't a long-time 190 flyer http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif). And personally I thought they were too forgiving before, now they just feel arcade.

Stiglr
11-03-2004, 10:04 PM
Agent Bif wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I saw the Oracle plane at the Reno Air Races a few years ago... It pulls this amazing stunt where he climbs vertically, stops, hangs for a second, and then _accelerates_ upward to continue the vertical climb.

I was stunned... I'd never imagined a prop aircraft could do such a thing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's all well and good for a 20th/21st century stunt plane. A loaded-for-combat vintage 1940s plane is a totally different matter.

p1ngu666
11-03-2004, 10:17 PM
well warbirds arent hardly ever pushed now, i dont know how far the run them in terms of revs etc. i do remmber merlins sounding better when i was a kid tho, maybe they backed down the revs or maybe its just me.

the fms feel really simple to me of usn planes, and late zeros stall all over the place for me

i had a friend ask me why he couldnt stall f6f while he was on my server, presumably thinkin i had left stalls off by mistake or something. i hadnt...

XyZspineZyX
11-03-2004, 10:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
That's all well and good for a 20th/21st century stunt plane. A loaded-for-combat vintage 1940s plane is a totally different matter. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, yes, and circles are round too... did you realize that?

Heh.

Does anyone have engine, weight, and propeller data on that Oracle plane?

Hunde_3.JG51
11-03-2004, 11:03 PM
Just tested and with default loadout and 100% fuel starting a few meters above the water I could do infinite loops with FW-190A4 and A-20G Havoc. I didn't lose altitude and may have been able to gain. I guess those stories about pilots showing off and doing low level loops only to pancake to their death were just myths or 100% pilot error.

And to clarify, my problem is mainly with high speed stalls seemingly disappearing and to some degree sustained slow speed turns, not minimum stall speeds in level flight. And of course, energy bleed while maneuvering.

hop2002
11-03-2004, 11:47 PM
It's funny how the same arguments come up in different flight sims. AH had a spate of "endless looping" arguments some years back.

Someone put a stop to them by finding the following info:

Jan. 24, 1919. Army Air Service pilot 1st Lt. Temple M. Joyce makes 300 consecutive loops in a Morane fighter at Issoudun, France
http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/PopTopics/kitty.htm

In 1930, she performed 344 consecutive loops, setting a women's record, and she shortly broke her own record with 930.
http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/ingalls.html

The Oregon Aviation Museum has completed arrangements to acquire and restore the "Rankin Special" Great Lakes biplane, NX315Y, which crashed in the mid- sixties. After languishing for many years in a Pennsylvania junkyard, this famous aircraft was "found" by a Great Lakes enthusiast, and will be transported to Oregon when weather permits.

When NX315Y left the Great Lakes factory in 1931, it had been built with aerobatics in mind, and was registered as NC315Y. As Tex wrote later, it was not "the stock job". Late in 1931 Tex set the long-standing record of 131 consecutive outside loops in NC315Y, an amazing feat for an aircraft licensed in the standard category with a 100 h.p. engine.
http://www.visi.com/~bsimon/OregonAviationMuseum/restoration.html

There's some more at http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27313&highlight=loops+record

(And as well as the historical records, consider the arguments on AH, and wonder why the AH flight model also allows endless looping, as does WW2OL, I believe)

XyZspineZyX
11-03-2004, 11:49 PM
Trust silly me, to be ableto get the Corsair into an inverted flat spin. Mind you, it is the first one I have seen ever in 12 mths of flying.

With the ability to trim the stick and also modify/ removed FFB files, how would this affect those flyers?
I mean fying the Corsair using minor stick movement, I don't have anything out of the norm. Drop combat flaps at 130knts and you're away.One thing I don't understand in the flatspin situation with the Corsair is; The spinning will come to a stop, I'm ready to apply gentle forward stick and gentle throttle to pullout and regain normal flight but haven't yet and without moving controls or touching anything, the spinning will startup again.....bailout

How have other flyers got their sticks set up, ingame?


Endless looping?

Climb to the apex, go over the nose into the dive gaining momentum, pull into the climb, losing momentum, nose over into the dive gaining momentum..............
Basically you are "riding" the plane's released kinetic energy

As long as the ratio of climb/ dive, energy loss/ energy gain , AoA etc, isn't changed too much, you should be able to loop until you run out of gas.

LEXX_Luthor
11-04-2004, 12:43 AM
Thanks hopp for that info, I saw something like that over at the sinhq. They have been doing continous loops since forever, long before aero engines developed 1 to 1 thrust/mass ratio.

Yes Vaguout, engine only has to make up for drag, mostly induced, as gravity gives back potential energy.

Hunde_3.JG51
11-04-2004, 01:10 AM
But we are not talking about bi-planes here.

So an A-20 travelling a few feet off the water near top SL speed with full armament, armor, crew, and fuel should be able to loop, complete the loop higher than when it started, and be able to endlessly keep looping? I am not talking about hammerheading where you come down, run a bit, then go back up. I am talking about a continous loop with heavy elevator pressure constantly applied. If I am wrong then I am shocked, but I would love to find the pilot willing to try it. And as I said, what about all of those stories about pilots loopoing without enough altitude and killing themselves? And that is when loop was started much higher than ground level.

Anyway, my real concern is the lack of stalls (especially high speed stalls), and lack of energy bleed. I think most agree that a change was made that make almost all planes easier to fly, if that is the case then it must be either more or less accurate. Correct? Its just my opinion that the change has made the FM's much less accurate. In my opinion a change in the other direction (less forgiving FM's) was need prior to PF. Again, just my thoughts/opinion.

k5054
11-04-2004, 02:06 AM
No great thing about continuous looping, as Hop says it's been done since WW1. Some or all of the fighters in PF would have been able to do it. Probably not many of the bombers, they didn't usually have the control authority to pull the entry g (you have to pull it into the loop quite hard or the speed decays), however Lancs could be looped and rolled so I don't know what else might have been.
The continuous loop is not achieved by just pulling the stick back though, you have to work the stick throughout to minimize drag, to let gravity pull you over the top. PF is wrong in that respect, and in the fact that eg the Corsair can go over the top of the loop full power at 70mph and not depart. This is not right. I guess they'll fix it along with the related problem I think I've seen where some planes can hang on the prop for far longer than they should. I hope they can fix it without losing the other thing I think I've seen, better energy retention in the zoom.

anarchy52
11-04-2004, 03:18 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

First AC in PF I tried was 190A8 and MG151/20. Well, the guns still seem crappy to me, but I was happy like a little kid after taking FW-190 for a ride - finaly an aircraft that CAN FIGHT, just like the books zoom climbs, vertzical manuevers, roll rate - not the 2.04 piece of **** that stalls at 2deg AoA at 360km/h.
I thought: ThankyouThankyouThankyouThankyouThankyou Oleg for fixing the FW-190.

But then I tried other aircrafts...
Terrible, just terrible...

RocketDog
11-04-2004, 04:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
Any plane can be made to loop, provided it can structurally handle it, if enough energy is built up in a dive preceding the loop. Infinite loops are impossible even for modern stunt planes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This just isn't true.

In "Sagitarius Rising", Cecil Lewis describes how a Sopwith Pup could be made to loop continuously without losing height just by winding in some up trim. I believe the Pup had a 90 HP engine.

I have flown a number of 0.25 scale R/C model aircraft. These generally have lower power/weight ratios than a full-size aerobatic aircraft like an Extra. All are capable of continuous looping. My 1/4 scale Laser 200 can easily climb whilst doing this.

In "Fire in the Sky", Bergerud describes how the early-war Japanese figheters could perform a half-loop and roll out (Immelman turn), immediately followed by another such manouver and so climb through a series of half loops.

All of this leads me to think you may be overestimating how much energy bleed there is in looping.

Regards,

RocketDog.

Kwiatos
11-04-2004, 05:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RocketDog:

I have flown a number of 0.25 scale R/C model aircraft. These generally have lower power/weight ratios than a full-size aerobatic aircraft like an Extra. All are capable of continuous looping. My 1/4 scale Laser 200 can easily climb whilst doing this.

RocketDog. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I saw recenty how RC model of aircraft could fly. So plz dont compairing it to real aircaft. RC models could make such thing which are not possible to repeat by real aircraft (for example hang on prop in verical position for all time)

So why you all dont ask yourself why for example such easy handlig plane from old FB like Yak-3 or Lagg3 66 or others can't turn and looping with 100% deflection in stick like could do new PF planes? And whats gonig on with climb of all planes? In FB till version 2.04 when you climbing with speed lower than best climb speed and with higher AOA your climb rate was worse. IN PF every plane could climb now with much lower climb speed about 70-80 km/h less and with much higher AOA without losing climb rate. Something is not right here.

Michcich_303
11-04-2004, 06:05 AM
I`ve been with the IL-2 series since it came out in 2001 and I can only support what Hunde, Kwiatos and others are saying. This game, hm...this sim, is gradually loosing its teeth and PF seems a climax of this trend.

Simplification of FM, lack of stalls and - above all - flawed energy bleed is killing this sim, particularly online. No energy bleed means you cannot successfuly deploy WWII tactics like BnZ and this is essential for any combat sim.

Oleg, pls stop trading a masterpiece for $. I know you are heading a business with strong profit requirements but I don`t think it`s worth losing your loyal client-base (us, hard-core simmers !) for an ill-founded hope of winning some of FPS crowd (these guys have lots of better alternatives than getting themselves into a fligh-sim). There`s more to lose than gain in result of this.

I do hope simple, arcadish FMs are not what you intend to implement in BoB. I also believe that what we currently see in PF is just a result of a rushed product release and it will be revamped in the patch.

I hope you will not kill Il-2.

clint-ruin
11-04-2004, 06:22 AM
I would reserve judgement on "dumbing down for dollars" til the first couple of patches come out. Il2 1.0 and FB1.0 and AEP2.00 all had an array of small issues - some per plane, some global.

I think given the amount of missing content, the "AEP addon" function, and the release date rush it's very safe to say the "final fine tune" portion of development had to be massively accelerated.

The other thing is that Oleg has stated before that the Navy planes - particularly the Corsair - had quite forgiving handling and good performance compared to say, the FW190A comtemporary models. We haven't had several years worth of Oleg repeating himself til he's blue in the face about how these new planes performed, as we have with the Il2 originals. If there has been a global change to stall/e values, consider that this is Pacific Fighters - the PF planes are likely the ones that got the most of MGs limited tuning time, since they're whats in the standalone box. The global settings changed to permit realistic carrier ops might need to be further tuned and re-set for other kinds of aircraft. I am sure Oleg has enough reports about this behaviour now to make a judgement on what needs changing, but as always, demonstrative tests and tracks mailed to pf@1c.ru are the best way to show Oleg what you mean.

Give it a chance. Some of what happens in PF will be simple mistakes [Ki61], some will be unchangeable in the engine [even more time acceleration], some will be erroneous assumptions on the part of the community. See how it shakes down.

Michcich_303
11-04-2004, 07:05 AM
I certainly believe PF will be improved by patches but whether it will be good enough is another story. FB and AEP were good sims, but energy bleed was their serious weakness.

Also, some of the planes that were realisticaly modelled in some versions (i.e. Mustang in 2.01) were spoiled later on...Some planes were never did justice (FW 190). Some were jokes (Spit IX)

P.S. There is light in the tunnel though - most of the game`s weakneess have been finally spotted by pundits from "Gamespot" etc. who stopped marvelling at graphics alone and got to the core of this game...FM. Hope this is going to give Oleg team something to think about.

RocketDog
11-04-2004, 07:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RocketDog:

I have flown a number of 0.25 scale R/C model aircraft. These generally have lower power/weight ratios than a full-size aerobatic aircraft like an Extra. All are capable of continuous looping. My 1/4 scale Laser 200 can easily climb whilst doing this.

RocketDog. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I saw recenty how RC model of aircraft could fly. So plz dont compairing it to real aircaft. RC models could make such thing which are not possible to repeat by real aircraft (for example hang on prop in verical position for all time)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Go to an airshow and watch an Extra or Sukhoi aerobatic aircraft sometime. You might be quite suprised by what they can do.

I'm not claiming that PF has correct flight models. In fact, IL-2 clearly has some general problems with the FMs - torque, dive and stall behaviour stand out.

I am merely stating that real aircraft are quite capable of flying in ways that some PC flyers here seem to think are impossible. Many WWII fighter aircraft had very impressive power to weight ratios and very clean airframes. They were not as capable as a modern purpose-built aerobatic aircraft, but they nevertheless had considerable reserves of power and didn't bleed energy at a particularly unusual rate.

Regards,

RocketDog.

JG5_JaRa
11-04-2004, 08:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RocketDog:
I have flown a number of 0.25 scale R/C model aircraft. These generally have lower power/weight ratios than a full-size aerobatic aircraft like an Extra. All are capable of continuous looping. My 1/4 scale Laser 200 can easily climb whilst doing this.

In "Fire in the Sky", Bergerud describes how the early-war Japanese figheters could perform a half-loop and roll out (Immelman turn), immediately followed by another such manouver and so climb through a series of half loops.

All of this leads me to think you may be overestimating how much energy bleed there is in looping.

Regards,

RocketDog. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Comparing RC models with WW2 fighers is not useful at all.
The power-to-weight range of RC models varies from less than WW2 fighters to more. It is nothing special for a RC plane to have a thrust-to-weight ratio higher than one, no WW2 fighter had this.
The difference is so big because you can't simply assume similar behavior when scaling down. First of all, RC planes generally have much lower wing loadings than WW2 fighters, thus induced drag is practically a non-issue for them. Slowing an average RC plane down by increasing AOA (which is what you do in a big plane when landing) almost doesn't work, they will simply start to climb. Just like in IL2 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif By scaling an object up, its surface area grows with a power of 2 but the volume increases with a power of 3, now assume constant density this means by doubling the size, the (wing) surface increases by a factor of 2 but the volume (mass) by a factor of 8.
Furthermore, RC planes have much less parasite drag (relatively to their volume or mass or whatever you want) and are moving in a different airspeed range. A RC plane with an engine of 2 hp will normally have no big problem getting a top speed exceeding 50 km/h but of course no 2000 hp plane would travel at 50000 km/h.
So R/C planes have a big total drag advantage over WW2 planes, comparing their looping abilities is useless.
The ability of infinite loops does not help much when trying to analyze the errors in the game, after all such a loop carries you through several points where thrust, induced drag and parasite drag play a role. It must be analyzed more directly. I find it useless to endlessly discuss about endless loops when the question is actually something different. After all, there's a big difference between a max 5g looping and a max 2g looping. As long as the procedure of the looping is not described with every little detail, there's nothing to compare.
Similarly it is not useful to compare WW2 fighters with modern aerobatics planes; the optimations are much different. Comparing power-to-weight ratios is of not much use for general comparisons. A 400hp 700kg world class aerobatics plane with slow speed wings is playing a different game than a 2000hp 4000kg WW2 fighter with high speed capable wings and their sharper stall characteristics.

Thrust and drag together with the stall boundary are the most important characteristics defining the possibilities of air combat tactics and maneuvers. Their physically realistic balance is extremely important and it doesn't take much error to screw this balance and end in a science fiction game.

thompet03
11-04-2004, 09:12 AM
I justed tried it and i cant loop infinitive..
i ran out of fuel first time and second time my motor got to hot... so everything is fine...

But be shure: You are wrong!

karost
11-04-2004, 09:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michcich_303:
I`ve been with the IL-2 series since it came out in 2001 and I can only support what Hunde, Kwiatos and others are saying. This game, hm...this sim, is gradually loosing its teeth and PF seems a climax of this trend.

Simplification of FM, lack of stalls and - above all - flawed energy bleed is killing this sim, particularly online. No energy bleed means you cannot successfuly deploy WWII tactics like BnZ and this is essential for any combat sim.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree that

I believe our IL-2[original]'s friends can remembered the first day after we play FB, most of us feel bad about "stalls and energy bleed" of FM was gone.

I think that would be idea from a marketing guys who told Mr.Oleg about how to success in s/w game business.

and I accept that too, just look at our friends in HL for a sample, only 19 % play full real, 1% play full switch and 80 % play custom ( I know, people not like to call "arcade" so "custom" is feel batter) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

with out this 80% of this friends so where the profit come from ? and we are hardcore group who have minor voice http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

as I said "business is business"

and I don't think the "old" stalls and energy bleed will come back http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

S!

k5054
11-04-2004, 10:03 AM
What do you all think energy bleed ought to be? Have you measured it in-game using udpgraph or some such aid? How does it compare with calculated values? Who has any RL tests showing energy bleed?

A while ago someone posted a test of a 4g turn in a 109K, with the original graph and the speed loss over 360 degrees. My tests showed that, given a bucketful of non-historical trim, the in-game 109 matched the RL figures fairly well, in AEP.

You will never get anything changed in this game unless you can quantify the problem, so let's get some idea of how to do thst.....

p1ngu666
11-04-2004, 11:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by karost:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michcich_303:
I`ve been with the IL-2 series since it came out in 2001 and I can only support what Hunde, Kwiatos and others are saying. This game, hm...this sim, is gradually loosing its teeth and PF seems a climax of this trend.

Simplification of FM, lack of stalls and - above all - flawed energy bleed is killing this sim, particularly online. No energy bleed means you cannot successfuly deploy WWII tactics like BnZ and this is essential for any combat sim.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree that

I believe our IL-2[original]'s friends can remembered the first day after we play FB, most of us feel bad about "stalls and energy bleed" of FM was gone.

I think that would be idea from a marketing guys who told Mr.Oleg about how to success in s/w game business.

and I accept that too, just look at our friends in HL for a sample, only 19 % play full real, 1% play full switch and 80 % play custom ( I know, people not like to call "arcade" so "custom" is feel batter) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

with out this 80% of this friends so where the profit come from ? and we are hardcore group who have minor voice http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

as I said "business is business"

and I don't think the "old" stalls and energy bleed will come back http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

S! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

dont drag teh full real and stuff into this, there maybe a connection, but its pretty much the same settings but diff map and view options thats all.

and the usn planes are soo stable at low speed, that by consistancy they can take it too a zero
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

RocketDog
11-04-2004, 11:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_JaRa:
Comparing RC models with WW2 fighers is not useful at all.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The peculiar claim was made that aircraft can't loop continuously. I provided three examples using a range of different aircraft sizes to show that they can. Namely - a small R/C aircraft, a lightweight high-drag biplane and a low-drag modern aerobatic monpolane.

Do you really believe that a WWII fighter could not loop continuously?

Regards,

RocketDog.

JG5_JaRa
11-04-2004, 12:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RocketDog:
Do you really believe that a WWII fighter could not loop continuously?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I don't believe so and I never said I would.

XyZspineZyX
11-04-2004, 01:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
But we are not talking about bi-planes here.

So an A-20 travelling a few feet off the water near top SL speed with full armament, armor, crew, and fuel should be able to loop, complete the loop higher than when it started, and be able to endlessly keep looping? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heh, I'll have to try this one in the game... But this does bring up ain interesting story: Jimmy Doolittle once looped a B-26 on one engine! (He did have to build up speed in a prep dive though.) He did this as part of a series of stunts to demonstrate that the plane wasn't the killer it was rumored to be.

XyZspineZyX
11-04-2004, 01:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
RC models could make such thing which are not possible to repeat by real aircraft (for example hang on prop in verical position for all time)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like I posted earlier in this thread, I saw the Oracle plane do just this. And he pulled out of the maneuver by increasing throttle and climbing out, still vertical, until he was above stall speed again... not by hammerheading out like everyone expected he was gonna do.

XyZspineZyX
11-04-2004, 01:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by karost:
I think that would be idea from a marketing guys who told Mr.Oleg about how to success in s/w game business.

and I accept that too, just look at our friends in HL for a sample, only 19 % play full real, 1% play full switch and 80 % play custom ( I know, people not like to call "arcade" so "custom" is feel batter) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

with out this 80% of this friends so where the profit come from ? and we are hardcore group who have minor voice http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

as I said "business is business"

and I don't think the "old" stalls and energy bleed will come back http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's no reason that the game HAS to be easy. If they are truly concerned with not scaring off the casual crowd, they can make realistic drag coeficients an option that can be switched on.

My vote is for as realistic as possible and IMO Maddox would be silly not to strive for this. I also believe that this is what they intend anyway, so this whole profit motive line of concern I don't think is worth worrying about.

Kwiatos
11-04-2004, 01:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AgentBif:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
RC models could make such thing which are not possible to repeat by real aircraft (for example hang on prop in verical position for all time)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like I posted earlier in this thread, I saw the Oracle plane do just this. And he pulled out of the maneuver by increasing throttle and climbing out until he was above stall speed again... not by hammerheading out like everyone expected he was gonna do. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whats is oracle plane? Has similar weight to warbirds plane for example Corsair? Has similar wing loading? power to weight loading?

XyZspineZyX
11-04-2004, 01:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
Whats is oracle plane? Has similar weight to warbirds plane for example Corsair? Has similar wing loading? power to weight loading? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This plane is a modern aerobatic stunt aircraft sponsored by Oracle. Clearly it has far superior power loading to a Corsair. I'm sure the wing loading is much better too. But it does establish an upper boundary on what is possible with a prop aircraft.

XyZspineZyX
11-04-2004, 01:59 PM
Here's a first hand account of flying a Corsair and stalling it in a continuously increasing turn:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=26310365&m=8221033832&r=2981033832#2981033832

Since nobody can seem to turn-stall the Corsair in the game without a fairly abrupt pull of the stick, this pretty well establishes that there is a problem at least with that aircraft.

Kwiatos
11-04-2004, 02:36 PM
BTW from manual of Corsair:
Recomended Speed needed for :
- loop - 260-280 knots IAS (481-518 km/h)
- roll - 180-200 knots IAS (333-407 km/h)
- half roll of the top of loop 300 knots (555 km/h)
- climbing roll - 330 knots IAS ( 610 km/h)
- upward roll - 350-360 knots IAS (650 km/h)

Other Example from manual of Typhon:
- loop - speed at least 350 mph IAS (560 km/h) - care must be taken to avoid any HARSH BACKWARD MOVEMENT OF THE CONTROL COLUMN AS THESE MAY INDUCE A HIGH SPEED STALL
- roll - at least 250 mph IAS (400 km/h)
- half roll of loop - at least 400 mph IAS (644 km/h)
- upward roll - at least 400-450 mph

From manual of Mustang:
- loop - 300 mph IAS (480 km/h)
- roll - 220-250mph (350-402 km/h)
- half roll of loop - 350 mph
- climbing roll - 375 mph
- upward roll - 400 mph

Spitfire MK IX:
- loop - 300 mph
- roll - 340 mph
- half roll of loop - 340 mph
- climing roll - 330 mph

from manual of Spitfire MK II about making loop:
" loop should be started not less than 300 mph but throughly proficent pilot can do it at slower speed (220-250 mph) but there will be tendency to get to slow at the top with a consequent likelihood of a flick-out or spin when the AOA is brought to stalling incidence if the stick is pulled back to far"

So what we have in FB/PF????

Kwiatos
11-04-2004, 03:01 PM
These is interesting too :

Robert Allison, VC-93, CVE USS Petroff Bay 1944-1945:
Now that I had flown all three navy fighter planes I feel qualified in comparing them. The F4U was considered to be faster than the F6F but not by much if anything. Both were faster by far than the FM-2 but the FM-2 was considerably more maneuverable than either of the others. I believe, if given the choice of flying one of them in combat I would choose the
F6F. But flying from a carrier I would prefer the FM-2. An example of how dependable an FM-2 was is a situation that occurred to Walt Glista on board the USS Shamrock Bay. His FM-2 was sitting on the catapult under full power waiting for the launch mechanism to be fired when the metal ring that holds the anchor on the tail end of the plane broke. The plane in this position is about 70 feet from the leading edge of the flight deck. Without the assistance of the catapult Glista flew that plane off the deck, and literally held it in the air. It's tail wheel was dragging in the water before gathering enough speed to climb. No other combat plane in the world could have accomplished that.

On Guam there was a shortage of FMs so we had to do our flying in F6Fs and F4Us. I had quite a bit of experience in the F6F and none in the F4U so here was my chance to check out in this fancy, good looking, inverted gull winged plane that was considered one of the best fighter planes in the world. One morning Al Godfrey and I each checked out an F4U and after taking a few minutes to check out the cockpit and familiarize ourselves with the controls and instruments, we climbed in, started the engines and taxied to the end of the runway. We both pulled on to the runway with me on Godfrey's wing. Mistake number one. We should not have taken off in formation. The usual procedure for a formation take-off is for the lead pilot to hold his plane on the runway until the wing
man is airborne. This we did but Al did not look back to see if I was airborne and did not speed up his plane. I was holding my plane back at a dangerously slow air speed and concentrating intently on holding my position on Al's plane when I glanced out the opposite side of my plane only to find that the right wing was only about six inches from the ground. Scared the hell out of me. I poured the throttle to my plane and left Al literally sitting on the runway. I have to say that I was shocked to feel the tremendous burst of power that two thousand horse power engine kicked forth.

After we rendezvoused, we climbed to about 15,000 feet where we were pounced upon from above by a couple of F6Fs. A dog fight ensued and I found myself in a tail chase with one of the F6Fs. I also found, that an F4U was no match with the F6F in turns. I kept drawing my plane tighter and tighter, the next thing I knew the plane snapped on it's back and I found myself hurtling for the ocean in a spin. I rolled the Chance-Vought F4U Corsair plane upright and pulled hard back on the stick and in an instant I was on my back again in a high speed stall. This time I rolled out and very gently eased back on the stick . The plane came out of it's dive screaming. I don't think I ever traveled so fast, as a matter of fact I know I hadn't. Anyhow, that was the end of the dog fight. Al and I rendezvoused again and returned to the field. Since NAS Agana strip is located on a hill top about 500 feet above an army air force field, we were required to make right hand landing patterns. I followed Al in and as I leveled out over the end of the runway I held the plane about 15 feet in the air until it stalled. Like any other plane it should have settled down to the runway. It didn't! It stalled and the right wing dropped causing the plane to land on the right wheel, bounced, came down on the left wheel, bounced, came down on the right wheel. Finally I got the plane down
and was home free. That was as much of the F4U as I wanted or needed.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=26310365&m=8221033832&r=2981033832#2981033832

Hunde_3.JG51
11-04-2004, 10:36 PM
Whatever, I'm so disgusted. Anyone try the La-5 ('42) yet? Control stiffness is virtually gone, roll is unbelievable, turn is outrageous (remember to use flaps), and stall is nearly non-existent. If you can fly this plane and tell me that it feels anything even remotely appraoching real then I am at a loss. Try the Mig-3U also. There are probably more and more planes I just haven't tested yet.

If you haven't tried the La-5 ('42, probably La-5F and FN as well along with La-7) as an example PLEASE do so. Try not to laugh too hard. I can't imagine how this could possibly feel any more arcade. I think PF shipped without FM's, maybe they couldn't fit them on the 2 discs. Again I am speaking out of frustration, but please don't flame until you have tried some of the older planes as well like the ones mentiones above. There is no way I am leaving PF installed unless the patch drastically changes the FM's. Sorry for the whine but my favorite hobby pretty much died with installation of PF (not to mention game now randomly freezes after never having a single freeze with FB/AEP, did complete re-install and it didn't help), and I really don't anticipate patch will change FM's back to something approaching believable.

Sorry again, just very disgusted. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

thompet03
11-04-2004, 11:53 PM
Hunde, the funny thing is that many people pointing to that development since years... and nobody wanted to hear them calling them Whiners and flame them away...

What we currently see in PF is not more than a bad joke or a nightmare.. i stoped playing pf after 5 minutes of flying...

Normaly im noone copying games but this time i realy regret buying pf..

But shure: You is wrong!

VVS-Manuc
11-05-2004, 03:09 AM
BUMP !

Michcich_303
11-05-2004, 03:12 AM
Now turn all this (well justified !) whining into a business case. How many loyal users will Oleg lose due to screwed FMs ?

That seems the last means to convince both Maddox and Ubi that they should listen more carefully to what users who have been with their product for 3 years have to say.

The irony is that however weak FMs may be in FB/AEP/PF, Oleg holds us firmly by the throat as there is simply no serious alternative in the marketplace for a hard-core flight simmer (you don`t mean CFS3, do you...?http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)

WUAF_Toad
11-05-2004, 03:21 AM
You guys are testing it all wrong... what you do is airstart at 5000m... set prop pitch to 0 and turn your engine off. You'll see that even modern gliders will envy the FM we have in PF.

Blackdog5555
11-05-2004, 06:43 AM
I read that High speed full deflection on the F4U took about 40lbs of pull..these are simple approximation. But, remember, most these planes had cable, not hydraulic controls. the strain was reported to be tremendous to move these planes in high speed manouvers.... But yes, It seem we are flying with moon gravity. I watch carrier landing IRL and when throttle is cut, the F6F dropped like a rock. With full landing flaps deployed on the F4U there is negligable slowing. Jeeez. you dont have to be aeronautical engineer to know that flap drag is not modelled at all. there is none. the Thrust/ lift /drag formulas are not simple..but they are not complicated either. The correct flight data is there. Just not used and obviosly there was no beta testing

609IAP_Recon
11-05-2004, 07:14 AM
Wrong approach.

Make tracks, show evidence as presented in a more scientific manner and you might get Oleg's response.

How many years must this go on before the same people realize that coming here and saying 'this game suxors because my plane shouldn't loop' is not going to do any good.

I've noticed that one person comes up with some claim and hundreds of others hop on the band wagon over and over again.

Show some charts, examples, tracks, etc...

NorrisMcWhirter
11-05-2004, 07:17 AM
Hi,

If you want to the absolute acid test of seeing just where this game has got to, load up the original Il-2 and try a few planes out.

Try their flight performance and the guns.

You don't need tracks etc to indicate the difference - just try pulling back on the stick at the end of the runway in Il-2 and PF in the same aircraft.

As I haven't flown a real WW2 fighter, I can't say which is right for sure but PF is an arcade game more akin to Crimson Skies relative to Il-2. Logically, if Il-2 was touted as the most realistic flight sim when it first came out, how can the difference be explained away?

I just hope the patch addresses it otherwise (ammunition time for detractors coming up) I'll be very glad that Halo 2 is out next week. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cheers,
Norris

Oleg_Maddox
11-05-2004, 07:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jurinko:
i think if the stall and E bleed tendency should be taken from Fw 190 series and distributed wisely among remaining planes, it should be just right. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Ha-Ha-Ha!

Oleg_Maddox
11-05-2004, 07:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
Since AEP there has been a trend for planes to become more and more easy to fly.

The Dauntless has an incredible turn rate, the Corsair has little to no stall, etc.

I just took a Mig-3U (full difficulty) and was doing continuous loops pulling back hard on the stick without flaps and without loss of altitude, in fact I may have been gaining altitude. This can't be right can it?

This lack of stalling and energy/speed bleed seems to be a global problem that gives the game a very "arcade" feel to it and unfortunately has lessened my interest in the FB/AEP/PF series. Something seems very very wrong. Stalls seem way to hard to induce, and energy bleed in hard maneuvers is minimal.

I'm sure by now you have seen the numerous posts on the forum about "dumbed down" flight models and the review by Gamespot about very forgiving stall characteristics. Please consider making aircraft stall more easily and bleed more energy as thay did long ago.

I don't mean to be negative I am just concerned about what is, in my opinion, a very serious problem with the current state of flight models.

Thanks for listening. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>]


One clever real pilot said about other than Il-2 series sims... If the real aircraft fly so hard then I will never became a pilot.

So I think that to fly is easy doesn't means that if other sim is harder to fly then this sim is more correct.

Also When you speak about La-5, MiG3U then I'm sure you was need to read flyight manual or at least trials comparing in control and behaviour of the plane say with Bf-109. there are al ot of such documents really.

SBD really was able almost outturn FW-190 and it is described in NACA tials.
In these trials is also described behaviour of aircraft F4U comparing to captured FW-190A.....

We did receive these docs when we did already theorethical FM of Corsairs and was impressed with the performance and general maneuverability of aircraft... And these trial confirmed 90% of the just theoretical measurements for the simulation....

Enough said.

thompet03
11-05-2004, 07:45 AM
Like i Said before..

You is wrong!!!

But thx that you say something to this anyway.

609IAP_Recon
11-05-2004, 07:46 AM
Thank you Oleg - most here have never flown warbirds but act as if they have.

To post above - just because IL2 original was a certain way doesn't make it right.

thompet03
11-05-2004, 07:48 AM
and just because il2 is the only wwII sim at the moment doesnt make it right either...

Oleg_Maddox
11-05-2004, 07:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Hi,

If you want to the absolute acid test of seeing just where this game has got to, load up the original Il-2 and try a few planes out.

Try their flight performance and the guns.

You don't need tracks etc to indicate the difference - just try pulling back on the stick at the end of the runway in Il-2 and PF in the same aircraft.

As I haven't flown a real WW2 fighter, I can't say which is right for sure but PF is an arcade game more akin to Crimson Skies _relative_ to Il-2. Logically, if Il-2 was touted as the most realistic flight sim when it first came out, how can the difference be explained away?

I just hope the patch addresses it otherwise (ammunition time for detractors coming up) I'll be very glad that Halo 2 is out next week. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cheers,
Norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Interesting input of the user that know nothing and just read these than know just bit more.

I don't wan't to offend you. But PLEASE INSTALL ORIGINAL IL2 and try to climmb in Bf-109! Isn't it more right that this plane fly there as Helicopter????!!!!
Try to stall in P-39! Isn't it more right that it wasn't like it is?
The try to catch in IL-2 the AI plane? Yes it was "more right"!


So please operate the right terms before to flame something.
Just to say _something_ means to show that you know something what you don't really know.
Just repeat the word of someone that say what you just repeated doesn't means that it is right.

And sorry to say you all... The sim became more precise in measurements and calculations, but YOU DON'T LIKE IT?
The siom test more and more real pilots, BUT YOU AGAIN DON"T LIKE IT?

Why? Becasue you know more then the real pilots?

kozhe
11-05-2004, 07:51 AM
We all are wrong, since we all are trying to compare a PC game with a real ww2 warbird http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Oleg_Maddox
11-05-2004, 07:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by thompet03:
and just because il2 is the only wwII sim at the moment doesnt make it right either... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why one? TYhere is online sims and CFS3. Compare with them.

sapre
11-05-2004, 07:56 AM
wow...
I never seen Oleg this angry...

thompet03
11-05-2004, 08:00 AM
No i meant the only realy succesfull....
I enjoyd il2 for a long time... but i regret.. things are going into the wrong way in my little opinion...

"I never seen Oleg this angry" -> Noone also never saw me that angry for a looong time like after playing pf for about 5 minutes...

Oleg_Maddox
11-05-2004, 08:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kozhe:
We all are wrong, since we all are trying to compare a PC game with a real ww2 warbird http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is partially true.
Untill PC will have 10 times more power we will need compromisses. Eand even then will be compromisses that to calculate something more complex in real time, remeber at once about graphics, AI and a lot of other things that need to be calculated simultaniosly.

Most users simply don't take it in account... But PC is still far away from perfect power.

We begun our modeling of aircraft from the order of military to make sim of the modern Jet aircraft. For only FM parts used 2 Silicon Graphics. Other 2 machines use for all other purposes.

Form this experience was going Il-2 for the PC, the power of which was increadibly more small than these above...


Then if you all think that you are so clever we may post some later the REAL polars of aircraft that to check with what we did... I think these who flame here the things that they don't know even don't know what it is these polars and how they need to be used for calculations!

However we will not post for all. This info cost real money. And most flight sims even don't take in account such things for calculations. And we don't like to give it for free everyone and competitors.

NorrisMcWhirter
11-05-2004, 08:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Hi,

If you want to the absolute acid test of seeing just where this game has got to, load up the original Il-2 and try a few planes out.

Try their flight performance and the guns.

You don't need tracks etc to indicate the difference - just try pulling back on the stick at the end of the runway in Il-2 and PF in the same aircraft.

As I haven't flown a real WW2 fighter, I can't say which is right for sure but PF is an arcade game more akin to Crimson Skies _relative_ to Il-2. Logically, if Il-2 was touted as the most realistic flight sim when it first came out, how can the difference be explained away?

I just hope the patch addresses it otherwise (ammunition time for detractors coming up) I'll be very glad that Halo 2 is out next week. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cheers,
Norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Interesting input of the user that know nothing and just read these than know just bit more.

I don't wan't to offend you. But PLEASE INSTALL ORIGINAL IL2 and try to climmb in Bf-109! Isn't it more right that this plane fly there as Helicopter????!!!!
Try to stall in P-39! Isn't it more right that it wasn't like it is?
The try to catch in IL-2 the AI plane? Yes it was "more right"!


So please operate the right terms before to flame something.
Just to say _something_ means to show that you know something what you don't really know.
Just repeat the word of someone that say what you just repeated doesn't means that it is right.

And sorry to say you all... The sim became more precise in measurements and calculations, but YOU DON'T LIKE IT?
The siom test more and more real pilots, BUT YOU AGAIN DON"T LIKE IT?

Why? Becasue you know more then the real pilots? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who is flaming here? Not me.

I made the point that Il-2 was touted by 1C as being the 'most realistic flight sim about' and yet things have changed considerably between Il-2 and PF. Hence the point about it all being relative. I also made the caveat that I was not a real pilot so why attack on that?

So, my question is which one is right? Il-2? PF?

Or neither?

From what you're saying, Il-2 was nonsense and PF is by far the more accurate representation - true or false? If the former, why have you repeatedly stated that FMs are correct and that people didn't know what they were on about? Seems like a contradiction, really.

Cheers,
Norris

A.K.Davis
11-05-2004, 08:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Hi,

If you want to the absolute acid test of seeing just where this game has got to, load up the original Il-2 and try a few planes out.

Try their flight performance and the guns.

You don't need tracks etc to indicate the difference - just try pulling back on the stick at the end of the runway in Il-2 and PF in the same aircraft.

As I haven't flown a real WW2 fighter, I can't say which is right for sure but PF is an arcade game more akin to Crimson Skies _relative_ to Il-2. Logically, if Il-2 was touted as the most realistic flight sim when it first came out, how can the difference be explained away?

I just hope the patch addresses it otherwise (ammunition time for detractors coming up) I'll be very glad that Halo 2 is out next week. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cheers,
Norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Interesting input of the user that know nothing and just read these than know just bit more.

I don't wan't to offend you. But PLEASE INSTALL ORIGINAL IL2 and try to climmb in Bf-109! Isn't it more right that this plane fly there as Helicopter????!!!!
Try to stall in P-39! Isn't it more right that it wasn't like it is?
The try to catch in IL-2 the AI plane? Yes it was "more right"!


So please operate the right terms before to flame something.
Just to say _something_ means to show that you know something what you don't really know.
Just repeat the word of someone that say what you just repeated doesn't means that it is right.

And sorry to say you all... The sim became more precise in measurements and calculations, but YOU DON'T LIKE IT?
The siom test more and more real pilots, BUT YOU AGAIN DON"T LIKE IT?

Why? Becasue you know more then the real pilots? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who is flaming here? Not me.

I made the point that Il-2 was touted by 1C as being the 'most realistic flight sim about' and yet things have changed considerably between Il-2 and PF. Hence the point about it all being _relative_. I also made the caveat that I was not a real pilot so why attack on that?

So, my question is which one is right? Il-2? PF?

Or neither?

From what you're saying, Il-2 was nonsense and PF is by far the more accurate representation - true or false? If the former, why have you repeatedly stated that FMs are correct and that people didn't know what they were on about? Seems like a contradiction, really.

Cheers,
Norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh come on. You are going to debate the current flight models using the marketing for a sim released years ago as your support. Straw man, and incredibly childish rebuttal. At the time, Il-2 likely was the most realistic WWII flight sim to date, but clearly that was a relative statement, not absolute.

Demonstrate with real data that the PF flight models are wrong. Everything else is worthless.

I don't know if the PF flight models have been left unfinished due to publishing rush, but I know an unsound argument when I see it.

NorrisMcWhirter
11-05-2004, 08:20 AM
Hi,

There is no point in making charts/graphs etc - we've seen time and time again that there really isn't anything decent to compare them against nor does anyone take a blind bit of notice because there is always some excuse as to why this report/that report or how the test is flawed.

Your comment is not without it's flaws, either:

"I don't know if the PF flight models have been left unfinished due to publishing rush, but I know an unsound argument when I see it. "

So, you are saying that my comments regarding incorrect FMs is wrong yet you then back it up by saying that the PF flight models must be unfinished. Why do you make this statement? Do you think they are correct or in error. If in error, why don't you post some charts or graphs to confirm what you are saying?

I also find it interesting that I ask a question about the relative accuracy of the two sims and yet you say that it was a relative statement. Of course - that's why I asked it. So, which one is correct? Or, more precisely, which one is more correct?

It wasn't just marketing blurb, either - Oleg has been in these forums ticking people off for criticising flight models for some time when, arguably, they were not correct now by his own admission. That's particularly ironic for someone who is 'clutching at straws' and 'childish' to spot, don't you think?

Cheers,
norris

609IAP_Recon
11-05-2004, 08:21 AM
"From what you're saying, Il-2 was nonsense and PF is by far the more accurate representation?"

and then

"Of course - that's why I asked it. So, which one is correct? Or, more precisely, which one is more correct?"


Sir - why continue in this question? Go read what he posted, it was very clear, Oleg said " The sim became more precise in measurements and calculations, but YOU DON'T LIKE IT? "

That would answer your question. Simply put, FS has more precise measurements and calculations, unless the english is wrong, to say 'the sim became more...' implies that it is now better than original as far as precision.

AKDavis, I must agree when you say "Demonstrate with real data that the PF flight models are wrong."

edit - one more comment, (and this is not aimed at any one person) - don't assume that what you percieve as Oleg being upset is really him being upset - Oleg is very calm person and sometimes his translation to english might be taken to imply he is upset - but he is not. Perhaps more than the word 'upset' could be more 'tired' of explaining over and over again http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Oleg_Maddox
11-05-2004, 08:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Hi,

If you want to the absolute acid test of seeing just where this game has got to, load up the original Il-2 and try a few planes out.

Try their flight performance and the guns.

You don't need tracks etc to indicate the difference - just try pulling back on the stick at the end of the runway in Il-2 and PF in the same aircraft.

As I haven't flown a real WW2 fighter, I can't say which is right for sure but PF is an arcade game more akin to Crimson Skies _relative_ to Il-2. Logically, if Il-2 was touted as the most realistic flight sim when it first came out, how can the difference be explained away?

I just hope the patch addresses it otherwise (ammunition time for detractors coming up) I'll be very glad that Halo 2 is out next week. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cheers,
Norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Interesting input of the user that know nothing and just read these than know just bit more.

I don't wan't to offend you. But PLEASE INSTALL ORIGINAL IL2 and try to climmb in Bf-109! Isn't it more right that this plane fly there as Helicopter????!!!!
Try to stall in P-39! Isn't it more right that it wasn't like it is?
The try to catch in IL-2 the AI plane? Yes it was "more right"!


So please operate the right terms before to flame something.
Just to say _something_ means to show that you know something what you don't really know.
Just repeat the word of someone that say what you just repeated doesn't means that it is right.

And sorry to say you all... The sim became more precise in measurements and calculations, but YOU DON'T LIKE IT?
The siom test more and more real pilots, BUT YOU AGAIN DON"T LIKE IT?

Why? Becasue you know more then the real pilots? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who is flaming here? Not me.

I made the point that Il-2 was touted by 1C as being the 'most realistic flight sim about' and yet things have changed considerably between Il-2 and PF. Hence the point about it all being _relative_. I also made the caveat that I was not a real pilot so why attack on that?

So, my question is which one is right? Il-2? PF?

Or neither?

From what you're saying, Il-2 was nonsense and PF is by far the more accurate representation - true or false? If the former, why have you repeatedly stated that FMs are correct and that people didn't know what they were on about? Seems like a contradiction, really.

Cheers,
Norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


You has wrong logic.

For the moment when Il-2 released it was named as most realistic. And this definition was right for that time! And it was named not by 1C, but by the pilots, journalists, etc... And it was named not by me as such.

With each new title after origianl Il-2 we was making additions to the originally released code which became more and more complex with more precise measurements in real time.

So PF is has more precise calculations of FM then Original IL-2. Thats all.

Yes, PF isn't free from the bugs (which here already corrected - read today the news on the official page), but in calculations this sim is more precise!

To fly a real mid-light aircraft isn't more harder than to drive the car with manual selector of the speeds. Be sure it tell you the guy who fly real aircraft.

All your(not personally) problem is going from impossibility to understand that elevator sencitivity for each aircraft is way different! I don't count that the aerodymamics as it is is also way different for each aircraft.

You don't know that someone wasn't able to understand why P-51 some time was with damaged wing in a recovering curve from a dive in our sim! But it is easy to understant when you know even basic input of physics and can operate with this right! - the limits of airframe and the curve radius of the recover and why exited the limit of airframe with G-load and damaged the wing - becasue this plane has one of the most sensitivty response of the elevator - great advantage that need to be used with attention to resulted details.. Just a sample for you all!

NorrisMcWhirter
11-05-2004, 08:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

"From what you're saying, Il-2 was nonsense and PF is by far the more accurate representation "

Sir, go read what he posted, it was very clear, Oleg said " The sim became more precise in measurements and calculations, but YOU DON'T LIKE IT? "

That would answer your question. Simply put, FS has more precise measurements and calculations, unless the english is wrong, to say 'the sim became more...' implies that it is now better than original as far as precision.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I understood what was said but thanks for your reiteration.

You've now taken my point out of context, though, because the thrust of it was the question regarding why Oleg and co had asserted that people didn't know what they talking about re:dodgy FMs when, all along, it's possible that the FMs were known to be incorrect.

The other thing I was attempting to establish is how much of a balance between realism and marketing influence is PF? We know that Oleg has already bowed to pressure from these forums before, even to the point of admitting that the .50s are now historically incorrect (old hat). So, what do we conclude from that? If things are changed because of customer pressure, what is changed because of marketing pressure?

You guys are the experts on FMs and such like..you confirm to me that it's correct.

I'm just speculating at the end of the day.

I've had my say on this as I really don't want to get into nitpicking because I can't be arsed with it - it's not that important. All I asked a simple question, was flamed by the developer, then called childish by someone else when even they speculated on the FMs being incorrect.

Top forum, this http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cheers,
Norris

Kwiatos
11-05-2004, 08:43 AM
Hmm i recently tried Aces High 2.11 version and i must say that FM is there more chalenging than FB/PF. Planes need more speed to make manouvers (loop,roll etc) and needed much more carefull handling in manouevers beacuse of stall and spin than in FB/PF. In these aspect FM in AH2 seemed to be more realistic to me according to real manual of planes. For example Corsair and other planes cant loop or turn with 100% delfection stick, P-51 is not as good turner like in FB the same Corsair at slow speed isnt so good too. Corsair and P-51 need at least 250 mph (400km/h) to make loop instead 300km/h in FB.
Of course other things (graphic, cocpits etc) in AH2 are much worse than FB/PF.

If someone want try AH and compare it FB/PF use these link:
http://www.3dgamers.com/games/aceshigh/downloads/

NorrisMcWhirter
11-05-2004, 08:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Hi,

If you want to the absolute acid test of seeing just where this game has got to, load up the original Il-2 and try a few planes out.

Try their flight performance and the guns.

You don't need tracks etc to indicate the difference - just try pulling back on the stick at the end of the runway in Il-2 and PF in the same aircraft.

As I haven't flown a real WW2 fighter, I can't say which is right for sure but PF is an arcade game more akin to Crimson Skies _relative_ to Il-2. Logically, if Il-2 was touted as the most realistic flight sim when it first came out, how can the difference be explained away?

I just hope the patch addresses it otherwise (ammunition time for detractors coming up) I'll be very glad that Halo 2 is out next week. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cheers,
Norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Interesting input of the user that know nothing and just read these than know just bit more.

I don't wan't to offend you. But PLEASE INSTALL ORIGINAL IL2 and try to climmb in Bf-109! Isn't it more right that this plane fly there as Helicopter????!!!!
Try to stall in P-39! Isn't it more right that it wasn't like it is?
The try to catch in IL-2 the AI plane? Yes it was "more right"!


So please operate the right terms before to flame something.
Just to say _something_ means to show that you know something what you don't really know.
Just repeat the word of someone that say what you just repeated doesn't means that it is right.

And sorry to say you all... The sim became more precise in measurements and calculations, but YOU DON'T LIKE IT?
The siom test more and more real pilots, BUT YOU AGAIN DON"T LIKE IT?

Why? Becasue you know more then the real pilots? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who is flaming here? Not me.

I made the point that Il-2 was touted by 1C as being the 'most realistic flight sim about' and yet things have changed considerably between Il-2 and PF. Hence the point about it all being _relative_. I also made the caveat that I was not a real pilot so why attack on that?

So, my question is which one is right? Il-2? PF?

Or neither?

From what you're saying, Il-2 was nonsense and PF is by far the more accurate representation - true or false? If the former, why have you repeatedly stated that FMs are correct and that people didn't know what they were on about? Seems like a contradiction, really.

Cheers,
Norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


You has wrong logic.

For the moment when Il-2 released it was named as most realistic. And this definition was right for that time! And it was named not by 1C, but by the pilots, journalists, etc... And it was named not by me as such.

With each new title after origianl Il-2 we was making additions to the originally released code which became more and more complex with more precise measurements in real time.

So PF is has more precise calculations of FM then Original IL-2. Thats all.

Yes, PF isn't free from the bugs (which here already corrected - read today the news on the official page), but in calculations this sim is more precise!

To fly a real mid-light aircraft isn't more harder than to drive the car with manual selector of the speeds. Be sure it tell you the guy who fly real aircraft.

All your(not personally) problem is going from impossibility to understand that elevator sencitivity for each aircraft is way different! I don't count that the aerodymamics as it is is also way different for each aircraft.

You don't know that someone wasn't able to understand why P-51 some time was with damaged wing in a recovering curve from a dive in our sim! But it is easy to understant when you know even basic input of physics and can operate with this right! - the limits of airframe and the curve radius of the recover and why exited the limit of airframe with G-load and damaged the wing - becasue this plane has one of the most sensitivty response of the elevator - great advantage that need to be used with attention to resulted details.. Just a sample for you all! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, so the calcs are more precise and things have changed in the patch (!)

I'll refrain from asking you about some other items and wait for the complete product before commenting on it again (if necessary).

Ta, Oleg.

Cheers,
Norris

Oleg_Maddox
11-05-2004, 09:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Hi,

There is no point in making charts/graphs etc - we've seen time and time again that there really isn't anything decent to compare them against nor does anyone take a blind bit of notice because there is always some excuse as to why this report/that report or how the test is flawed.

Your comment is not without it's flaws, either:

"I don't know if the PF flight models have been left unfinished due to publishing rush, but I know an unsound argument when I see it. "

So, you are saying that my comments regarding incorrect FMs is wrong yet you then back it up by saying that the PF flight models must be unfinished. Why do you make this statement? Do you think they are correct or in error. If in error, why don't _you_ post some charts or graphs to confirm what _you_ are saying?

I also find it interesting that I ask a question about the relative accuracy of the two sims and yet you say that it was a relative statement. Of course - that's why I asked it. So, which one is correct? Or, more precisely, which one is _more_ correct?

It wasn't just marketing blurb, either - Oleg has been in these forums ticking people off for criticising flight models for some time when, arguably, they were not correct now by his own admission. That's particularly ironic for someone who is 'clutching at straws' and 'childish' to spot, don't you think?

Cheers,
norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Proabaly he take in account the rumor that coming in discussion between me and some advanced users that don't post on the forum but write by proper FM.

From my posts it is clear that we got some new info for SOME planes (and it isn't Corsair or SBD, etc) that need to be tuned more preciselly or which need to have right indicator instead of modelled, or we got finall new data tha allow us to make it more precise. For this these people who read readme till final line know the proper email address.

Also I don't take in account the posts that say me in example the thoughts of one or other pilot recals, where isn't persent perfect data with the digits of all items, degrees, accelerations, etc...

However we take in account the guys who are really know what they say and did right tests and know the things from real world. Then after these we may change something, if we can do it and if there is no limit for calculatiuons of such things due to power of PC, etc...

Clear, isn't it?

Most changes in tunigs of planes (But not the FM) are for Japanese planes. Becasue US data of trials in many ways is wrong. We take in account now available for us data of Manufacture and Army test in Japan. They had 100 times more data. And in most case the test data in US has worse and not precise performace than we have now Japanese.

and again I Personally wrote in readme about such things isn't it?

Carts and graphs made by user's test - they are valid if they are done in the same conditions (normal standard measuremets athmospheric conditions that we model only on Crimea map, and that used for real measurements in trials.) as in real triasl at all. And then that user may put these measurements (curves) over the real for comparison.

One was spend for this about 5 months to learn and test and was impressed with the result that he got. He was never compline after that that we did something wrong (exclude the limits of real time calculations)... especially when he did the same test with other wellknown and well distributed sim where no one curve and data wasn't in match...

Kwiatos
11-05-2004, 09:29 AM
Oleg M. said:
"...So PF is has more precise calculations of FM then Original IL-2. Thats all.

Yes, PF isn't free from the bugs (which here already corrected - read today the news on the official page), but in calculations this sim is more precise!"

So now i know why in PF 3.0 planes could climb with speed lower ab. 70-80 km/h than best climbing speed and much hihger AOA without loosing climb rate. Because PF is more precise in calculations in FM http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Oleg_Maddox
11-05-2004, 09:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Hi,

If you want to the absolute acid test of seeing just where this game has got to, load up the original Il-2 and try a few planes out.

Try their flight performance and the guns.

You don't need tracks etc to indicate the difference - just try pulling back on the stick at the end of the runway in Il-2 and PF in the same aircraft.

As I haven't flown a real WW2 fighter, I can't say which is right for sure but PF is an arcade game more akin to Crimson Skies _relative_ to Il-2. Logically, if Il-2 was touted as the most realistic flight sim when it first came out, how can the difference be explained away?

I just hope the patch addresses it otherwise (ammunition time for detractors coming up) I'll be very glad that Halo 2 is out next week. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cheers,
Norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Interesting input of the user that know nothing and just read these than know just bit more.

I don't wan't to offend you. But PLEASE INSTALL ORIGINAL IL2 and try to climmb in Bf-109! Isn't it more right that this plane fly there as Helicopter????!!!!
Try to stall in P-39! Isn't it more right that it wasn't like it is?
The try to catch in IL-2 the AI plane? Yes it was "more right"!


So please operate the right terms before to flame something.
Just to say _something_ means to show that you know something what you don't really know.
Just repeat the word of someone that say what you just repeated doesn't means that it is right.

And sorry to say you all... The sim became more precise in measurements and calculations, but YOU DON'T LIKE IT?
The siom test more and more real pilots, BUT YOU AGAIN DON"T LIKE IT?

Why? Becasue you know more then the real pilots? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who is flaming here? Not me.

I made the point that Il-2 was touted by 1C as being the 'most realistic flight sim about' and yet things have changed considerably between Il-2 and PF. Hence the point about it all being _relative_. I also made the caveat that I was not a real pilot so why attack on that?

So, my question is which one is right? Il-2? PF?

Or neither?

From what you're saying, Il-2 was nonsense and PF is by far the more accurate representation - true or false? If the former, why have you repeatedly stated that FMs are correct and that people didn't know what they were on about? Seems like a contradiction, really.

Cheers,
Norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


You has wrong logic.

For the moment when Il-2 released it was named as most realistic. And this definition was right for that time! And it was named not by 1C, but by the pilots, journalists, etc... And it was named not by me as such.

With each new title after origianl Il-2 we was making additions to the originally released code which became more and more complex with more precise measurements in real time.

So PF is has more precise calculations of FM then Original IL-2. Thats all.

Yes, PF isn't free from the bugs (which here already corrected - read today the news on the official page), but in calculations this sim is more precise!

To fly a real mid-light aircraft isn't more harder than to drive the car with manual selector of the speeds. Be sure it tell you the guy who fly real aircraft.

All your(not personally) problem is going from impossibility to understand that elevator sencitivity for each aircraft is way different! I don't count that the aerodymamics as it is is also way different for each aircraft.

You don't know that someone wasn't able to understand why P-51 some time was with damaged wing in a recovering curve from a dive in our sim! But it is easy to understant when you know even basic input of physics and can operate with this right! - the limits of airframe and the curve radius of the recover and why exited the limit of airframe with G-load and damaged the wing - becasue this plane has one of the most sensitivty response of the elevator - great advantage that need to be used with attention to resulted details.. Just a sample for you all! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, so the calcs are more precise and things have changed in the patch (!)

I'll refrain from asking you about some other items and wait for the complete product before commenting on it again (if necessary).

Ta, Oleg.

Cheers,
Norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you are far from understanding what is FM.
FM it is behaviopur of aircraft in the air. The maximal speed, dive or fuel cosumption are not FM terms. FM its PHYSICS and Aerodynamcis terms. And in this item is really more precise - the behaviour of theplane in air with the differences per aircraft type, etc... However most posts about loops ask FOR ONE THE SAME BEHAVIOR OF THE PLANE!!! Like we need to put behaviour of FW for all and then it is correct. ****! Let do it other developers!

No onece more important item for understanding of the point where is FM and were is other.
In terms of precise speed accelerations, power curves at altitudes - they may change without changes of FM. However this may have effect on the behaviour of aircraft in the air, but not so much. Say some time even very little, if these items was just tuned not so precise using other than should data.

Hope you understand where you are mistaken in definitions.

As I told changes will be done mostly for japanese aircraft and mostly for A6 early and Ki-61 series.


Damage Model is also not FM.
Weapon model is also not FM.

Wherewe have improvements - its a damage model.
You should understand that this item is way more complex than in any game in the world. So it take so resources in modeling./programming that you even can't imagine.
Its why in BoB will be only 25 aircraft! Becasue its going even more complex in development that to get it even more close to real.
The is no limit tomake everything more and more close to real except:

PC power,
time of development
human resource who will do it.

Get this point for future.

Oleg_Maddox
11-05-2004, 09:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
Oleg M. said:
"...So PF is has more precise calculations of FM then Original IL-2. Thats all.

Yes, PF isn't free from the bugs (which here already corrected - read today the news on the official page), but in calculations this sim is more precise!"

So now i know why in PF 3.0 planes could climb with speed lower ab. 70-80 km/h than best climbing speed and much hihger AOA without loosing climb rate. Because PF is more precise in calculations in FM http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You knowledge we already know well. Would be better to know more for you.

NorrisMcWhirter
11-05-2004, 09:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Hi,

There is no point in making charts/graphs etc - we've seen time and time again that there really isn't anything decent to compare them against nor does anyone take a blind bit of notice because there is always some excuse as to why this report/that report or how the test is flawed.

Your comment is not without it's flaws, either:

"I don't know if the PF flight models have been left unfinished due to publishing rush, but I know an unsound argument when I see it. "

So, you are saying that my comments regarding incorrect FMs is wrong yet you then back it up by saying that the PF flight models must be unfinished. Why do you make this statement? Do you think they are correct or in error. If in error, why don't _you_ post some charts or graphs to confirm what _you_ are saying?

I also find it interesting that I ask a question about the relative accuracy of the two sims and yet you say that it was a relative statement. Of course - that's why I asked it. So, which one is correct? Or, more precisely, which one is _more_ correct?

It wasn't just marketing blurb, either - Oleg has been in these forums ticking people off for criticising flight models for some time when, arguably, they were not correct now by his own admission. That's particularly ironic for someone who is 'clutching at straws' and 'childish' to spot, don't you think?

Cheers,
norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Proabaly he take in account the rumor that coming in discussion between me and some advanced users that don't post on the forum but write by proper FM.

From my posts it is clear that we got some new info for SOME planes (and it isn't Corsair or SBD, etc) that need to be tuned more preciselly or which need to have right indicator instead of modelled, or we got finall new data tha allow us to make it more precise. For this these people who read readme till final line know the proper email address.

Also I don't take in account the posts that say me in example the thoughts of one or other pilot recals, where isn't persent perfect data with the digits of all items, degrees, accelerations, etc...

However we take in account the guys who are really know what they say and did right tests and know the things from real world. Then after these we may change something, if we can do it and if there is no limit for calculatiuons of such things due to power of PC, etc...

Clear, isn't it?

Most changes in tunigs of planes (But not the FM) are for Japanese planes. Becasue US data of trials in many ways is wrong. We take in account now available for us data of Manufacture and Army test in Japan. They had 100 times more data. And in most case the test data in US has worse and not precise performace than we have now Japanese.

and again I Personally wrote in readme about such things isn't it?

Carts and graphs made by user's test - they are valid if they are done in the same conditions (normal standard measuremets athmospheric conditions that we model only on Crimea map, and that used for real measurements in trials.) as in real triasl at all. And then that user may put these measurements (curves) over the real for comparison.

One was spend for this about 5 months to learn and test and was impressed with the result that he got. He was never compline after that that we did something wrong (exclude the limits of real time calculations)... especially when he did the same test with other wellknown and well distributed sim where no one curve and data wasn't in match... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

NP, Oleg.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of this series and I applaud you for it, but that doesn't stop me having an opinion on matters, rightly or wrongly.

I was merely reflecting the views of many + my own in that I believed things to have become 'easier'; I may well have mistaken that for 'less accurate' but that's not really just my problem at the end of the day. It's anyone who is associated with the game's problem; take a look at the reviews coming out (IGN have one now) and they are notching up lower scores with the common complaint that they feel the sim has been dumbed down in some way (along with the bugs).

I suspect that lower review scores = uncertainty for new purchasers = they are more likely to download it rather than buy it = a risk to future developments.

- I imagine tht you feel that you just can't win.

cheers,
Norris

Kwiatos
11-05-2004, 09:44 AM
Oleg M. im wonder your opinion about behavior of planes in Aces High 2.11(latest version) expecially stall characteristic during manouvers, energy bleeding, speed needed for manouvers and comparing it to FB/PF?

Oleg_Maddox
11-05-2004, 09:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
Oleg M. im wonder your opinion about behavior of planes in Aces High 2.11(latest version) expecially stall characteristic during manouvers, energy bleeding, speed needed for manouvers and comparing it to FB/PF? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think I told here already all. You should know the real one in comparison with simulated. You don't.
Instead Ilready pointed there that you don't know polars of aircraft and I think that you don't know what it is.

Oleg_Maddox
11-05-2004, 09:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Hi,

There is no point in making charts/graphs etc - we've seen time and time again that there really isn't anything decent to compare them against nor does anyone take a blind bit of notice because there is always some excuse as to why this report/that report or how the test is flawed.

Your comment is not without it's flaws, either:

"I don't know if the PF flight models have been left unfinished due to publishing rush, but I know an unsound argument when I see it. "

So, you are saying that my comments regarding incorrect FMs is wrong yet you then back it up by saying that the PF flight models must be unfinished. Why do you make this statement? Do you think they are correct or in error. If in error, why don't _you_ post some charts or graphs to confirm what _you_ are saying?

I also find it interesting that I ask a question about the relative accuracy of the two sims and yet you say that it was a relative statement. Of course - that's why I asked it. So, which one is correct? Or, more precisely, which one is _more_ correct?

It wasn't just marketing blurb, either - Oleg has been in these forums ticking people off for criticising flight models for some time when, arguably, they were not correct now by his own admission. That's particularly ironic for someone who is 'clutching at straws' and 'childish' to spot, don't you think?

Cheers,
norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Proabaly he take in account the rumor that coming in discussion between me and some advanced users that don't post on the forum but write by proper FM.

From my posts it is clear that we got some new info for SOME planes (and it isn't Corsair or SBD, etc) that need to be tuned more preciselly or which need to have right indicator instead of modelled, or we got finall new data tha allow us to make it more precise. For this these people who read readme till final line know the proper email address.

Also I don't take in account the posts that say me in example the thoughts of one or other pilot recals, where isn't persent perfect data with the digits of all items, degrees, accelerations, etc...

However we take in account the guys who are really know what they say and did right tests and know the things from real world. Then after these we may change something, if we can do it and if there is no limit for calculatiuons of such things due to power of PC, etc...

Clear, isn't it?

Most changes in tunigs of planes (But not the FM) are for Japanese planes. Becasue US data of trials in many ways is wrong. We take in account now available for us data of Manufacture and Army test in Japan. They had 100 times more data. And in most case the test data in US has worse and not precise performace than we have now Japanese.

and again I Personally wrote in readme about such things isn't it?

Carts and graphs made by user's test - they are valid if they are done in the same conditions (normal standard measuremets athmospheric conditions that we model only on Crimea map, and that used for real measurements in trials.) as in real triasl at all. And then that user may put these measurements (curves) over the real for comparison.

One was spend for this about 5 months to learn and test and was impressed with the result that he got. He was never compline after that that we did something wrong (exclude the limits of real time calculations)... especially when he did the same test with other wellknown and well distributed sim where no one curve and data wasn't in match... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

NP, Oleg.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of this series and I applaud you for it, but that doesn't stop me having an opinion on matters, rightly or wrongly.

I was merely reflecting the views of many + my own in that I believed things to have become 'easier'; I may well have mistaken that for 'less accurate' but that's not really just my problem at the end of the day. It's anyone who is associated with the game's problem; take a look at the reviews coming out (IGN have one now) and they are notching up lower scores with the common complaint that they feel the sim has been dumbed down in some way (along with the bugs).

I suspect that lower review scores = uncertainty for new purchasers = they are more likely to download it rather than buy it = a risk to future developments.

- I imagine tht you feel that you just can't win.

cheers,
Norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isn't the fact that you begun to fly better comparing to the time when you begun with Il-2 series?
This is common thing that most don't take in account.

The same with real pilot http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif as more you fly - more you think that to fly is easy http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif You may ask any real pilot this question.
Experience play a great role, isn' it?

As for the rewiew - I think the guy has the same experience. Or know nothing about real aircraft. I saw many such guys in my life that review these things that they don't know.
Her in Russia bank won in a court 11.000.000 dollars just becasue the review was done incorrect. And court satisfied it.

Wiat review on a simhq as I think there are many real life experienced guys...

and if all is so bad... then try carrier based operations for take off and landing in other prop sim... Try to evalute the physics there...

RocketDog
11-05-2004, 09:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
You've now taken my point out of context, though, because the thrust of it was the question regarding why Oleg and co had asserted that people didn't know what they talking about re:dodgy FMs when, all along, it's possible that the FMs were known to be incorrect.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Norris, Oleg is quite right because a fair number of people here really don't know what they are talking about. Some criticisms of the FMs in these forums are spectacularly ill informed.

For instance, in the last few days I have learned from the forums that:

1. Aircraft cannot loop indefinitely.

2. The game must be fundamentally flawed because a Beaufighter can out-turn a Fw-190.

3. Various FMs *must* be wrong because aircraft are easier to fly than in previous versions of the FM (i.e., harder must = more realistic).

What gets me is the sheer brazen confidence with which idiotic ideas like these are asserted, coupled with demands that "cartoon FMs get changed". Stunning.

It's very hard to know how Oleg Maddox and colleagues are meant to respond to this sort of thing. Do they just give up posting in the forums and leave the morons to get on with complaining about things they don't understand? Or should they jump in and try to point out errors in every peculiar claim being advanced?

Regards,

RocketDog.

Kwiatos
11-05-2004, 10:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
Oleg M. im wonder your opinion about behavior of planes in Aces High 2.11(latest version) expecially stall characteristic during manouvers, energy bleeding, speed needed for manouvers and comparing it to FB/PF? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think I told here already all. You should know the real one in comparison with simulated. You don't.
Instead Ilready pointed there that you don't know polars of aircraft and I think that you don't know what it is. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know what is "polars" for planes if we speak about best climb speed. In FB/AEP planes climb sustained best with its best climb speed for example BF 109 ab 260 -270km/h which was close to real data. After instaling PF all planes could climb with much lower speed and higher AOA than best climb speed and still have the same or near the same climb rate which is incorect.
BTW im only RL glide pilot and my experince with warbirds is nothing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif But these is only my modes opinion which based my own test and little knowledge.

JG5_JaRa
11-05-2004, 11:19 AM
Recon, it is not as easy as simply posting test data for these claims. There are none, or only very few. We are talking about things like energy bleed or thrust vs airspeed here, measuring this directly is quite difficult. You will find tons of climb, turn or top speed data but they are only focused on the peak performance and even if you have a sustained climb vs airspeed curve, this alone still does not simply let you derive the full E-bleed and thrust curves from it.
All those top speed, climb and turn data which pop up over and over again in those millions of "Oleg my pet plane is not good enough, make it faster!"-posts say almost nothing. You can tune an aircraft to fit these specs and still let it be totally UFO-like in the rest of the flight envelope.
But the fact that these things are more tricky and difficult to test and verify directly does not justify any arbitrarily low energy bleed or truckloads of thrust at slow speed. Seeing planes getting sustained climb rates in 140 kmh climbs only slightly lower than at supposedly best climb speed of 260 kmh is more fishy than having an aircraft going 50 kmh too fast or slow. There are other maneuvers giving a combined overview of thrust, drag and stall and they hint that there is something wrong. Look what Kwiatos quoted above: recommended loop entry speeds. Example Spit II (a rather light and supposedly good turner!):
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>loop should be started not less than 300 mph but throughly proficent pilot can do it at slower speed (220-250 mph) but there will be tendency to get to slow at the top with a consequent likelihood of a flick-out or spin when the AOA is brought to stalling incidence if the stick is pulled back to far <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So 220mph (354 kmh) given as pretty much the lowest speed to just perform a loop - in the game, it is possible to loop many planes with an initial speed of 270 kmh or even less if you have a steady hand. That is a HUGHE difference in ACM terms! And no, looping alone won't help too much in air combat but this particular slow speed performance is also responsible for the endless Yoyo (the toy, not the ACM)-like energy free hang on-the prop circus moves some people actually consider tactics.
Why do such things make such a big difference, why do things like slow speed climb care if the best climb rate is achieved at much higher speed anyway? Because the fact that aircraft have their boundaries (most important the stall which prevents an aircraft to perform maneuvers especially when it lacks speed) is what draws the line between a space shooter and a flight sim.
Part of this are also the very weak (in fact: neglible) engine torque and gyroscopic effects which make slow high-AoA maneuvers very easy. Hang there with flat out power and 150 kmh, no problem. There is some torque when starting the engine but honestly that is pretty much the most unimportant situation I can think of. Torque and gyro in the air, that is what counts. May be a code limitation, I just do not see why, at least not when seeing that about fifty or more new planes were thrown in instead of improving this interesting feature first.

Like I already mentioned, and everyone who is really interested in seriously commenting the FM should see this instead of flaming around and trying to put the critics in the pointless whining category by only pointing out their mishaps: it does not take much of an error to totally screw the angles/energy balance (I assume it is clear what I mean here) which is so very important for interesting air combat, at least in aircraft with similar performance. "Energy fight" does not simply mean taking a 109K4 and rocketing 2000m above the enemy to BnZ him until kingdom come. There is much more behind that term.

Hunde_3.JG51
11-05-2004, 11:24 AM
I appreciate Oleg's response and his time, but I stand by what I said. There was a drastic change from AEP (notice I said AEP not Il-2), and if it was a result of new calculations then it is my opinion that they make the game less accurate. I simply cannot fly planes like the Corasir, La-5/7, Spitfire, A-20, Mig-3U, FW-190A-4, and many more, and feel that they are close to reality. This is just my opinion.

I hope Oleg is not upset, to be honest I didn't think he would even read this. He is much more knowledgable than I concerning aviation, so I obviously will not argue.

Concerning his reply to mine, I don't understand why you are telling me to look at flight manuals compared to 109. I have said several times that the changes made effect all planes, 109 included. And I realize planes like the Yak and La-5/7 were excellent handling planes, I just don't believe they were as effortless and forgiving as they are in 3.0, nor do I believe it about Corsair, 109, Spitifre, etc.. And by my posts I can see why you made comments about Corsair's aspects of flight, but as you may not know my second favorite fighter of WWII is the Corsair. And about Dauntless almost out-turniong FW-190, I believe it easily out-turns the FW-190 in game but I would have to check again and it really isn't my point.

In retrospect I wish I never posted this at all. In the end I accomplished nothing more than to upset those who disagree. I am however glad to see that there are many who do agree. Still, discussing FM's and such seem to cause more harm than good so I will refrain from posting on such things in the future. I will post occassionally for those who need help with the game (ie: shift-F1 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif), and on some of the stuff I have learned in the past, but that is about it.

Still, I will likely return PF or rarely use it as a seperate install as it holds little interest for me. The FM's no longer hold any challenge as every fighter seem to handle superbly with excellent roll, little to no high speed stall, and little results from performing harsh maneuvers. The only viable tactics seem to be hit and run if you are faster, or just yanking on the stick without penalty if you have the superior turning aircraft. Also, there are little to no differences in dive and zoom climb. Perhaps I am just realizing more the limitations of the game engine, or maybe it has something to do with no ill-effects on the pilot. Who knows. Still, the game feels too simplified for me to really enjoy. Aircraft seem to have lost their character, and many of the new ones seem to have none at all. I will stick with AEP 2.04 unless something changes in the future. To those who disagree with me, I am sorry. To those who do agree, I am sorry as well.

I will finish by thanking Oleg, his staff, and all of the 3rd-party modellers for their hard work and dedication in the past, present and future. But I also ask that even though I may be wrong, to respect my opinion to forego PF and the changes that were made.

Take care.

P.S. this has nothing to do with looping or planes out-turning FW-190 (most should as I have said already on several occassions).

Kwiatos
11-05-2004, 11:38 AM
Very good post JG5_JaRa and Hunde_3.JG51. My english isnt so good like yours but you said what i want to said http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BTW i back to FB 2.04 too beacuse i feel that it is more close to simulator than version 3.0 even with overspeed spitfire MKIX, too good turnig at low speed P-51 and many else http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


... but reading Oleg M. posts im asking myself -there is no hope for us hardcore simulator players?

WUAF_Badsight
11-05-2004, 11:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
You don't know that someone wasn't able to understand why P-51 some time was with damaged wing in a recovering curve from a dive in our sim! But it is easy to understant when you know even basic input of physics and can operate with this right! - the limits of airframe and the curve radius of the recover and why exited the limit of airframe with G-load and damaged the wing - becasue this plane has one of the most sensitivty response of the elevator - great advantage that need to be used with attention to resulted details.. Just a sample for you all! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

this should be in the read-me for mustang fans

WUAF_Badsight
11-05-2004, 11:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
Most changes in tunigs of planes (But not the FM) are for Japanese planes. Becasue US data of trials in many ways is wrong. We take in account now available for us data of Manufacture and Army test in Japan. They had 100 times more data. And in most case the test data in US has worse and not precise performace than we have now Japanese.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
this needs to be in the read-me for Hayate haters

WUAF_Badsight
11-05-2004, 12:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
Its why in BoB will be only 25 aircraft! Becasue its going even more complex in development that to get it even more close to real. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
the intent to carry on with BoB is still strong ?

plz plz plz let this be so !

Kwiatos
11-05-2004, 12:04 PM
Next interesting review of PF :
http://pc.ign.com/articles/563/563737p2.html

"Unfortunately the flight model, though seemingly complex thanks to an excess of controls, is fairly relaxed compared to IL-2. Hardcore players will still have to worry over engine overheats and the drag caused by unfeathered props, but the stall characteristics of each plane seem a bit too loose. I've turned through several arcs at top speed with nary a wing drop. In fact, the few times that my plane has stalled, the nose merely dropped to the horizon to recover."

"Though I liked IL-2 and its subsequent expansions, Pacific Fighters left me wanting more...and in a bad way. The wide variety of planes certainly have their historical performance characteristics but, overall, the flight modeling just isn't as tight as I expected. Add to that the lackluster content of the missions and some outright mistakes on the part of the artificial intelligence and you've got a game that barely scrapes by."

WUAF_Badsight
11-05-2004, 12:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
We begun our modeling of aircraft from the order of military to make sim of the modern Jet aircraft. For only FM parts used 2 Silicon Graphics. Other 2 machines use for all other purposes.

Form this experience was going Il-2 for the PC, the power of which was increadibly more small than these above.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
wow !

JG77Von_Hess
11-05-2004, 12:48 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Well this is one of the best threads for a long time, and this still has importance for me.

To Oleg Maddox, good to see you back here and posting regulary just as early IL2Sturm. Days.

I have played this game since the first IL2Demo and to be honest there is no better WW2 Game out there taken all the goods and bads into account.

I still have some things left unanwserd, like the near non eksisting E-bleed, near no planes can high speed stall and G stall, Complete lack of a plain and complete stall through power on/off flaps in or out, dacceleration is near non esitence even with engine off, near no drag penalty with flaps fully out, all planes can do fully crossed contorles without entering a hassard, most off the planes has a glide figure of a modern glider.. i have a lot more questions like this but lets leave it with these.

To me the biggest difference between a game and a sim is how it handles real life flight physiscs.. Not if the this plane is 3 kmh too slow and and this planes inital climb rate is off by 100 feet.

Regards.

VH.

Copperhead310th
11-05-2004, 02:29 PM
Well i have said this before....
and i guess i'll have to say it again.

I have given up on the topics of flight models & Damage models in this sim. In the end i have come to realise what other have said all along....it is the pilot that matters most and not the aircraft. While i would agree that the man is only as good as his equipment....the end is decided by pilot skill alone & what you as a pilot do in the 1st few minutes of any engagement determain the final outcome of a battle. that being said...

i'll take whatever Oleg Maddox puts on the disk...Fly it to the best of my ablity and not consern my self with weather or not it was this way in real life. Becuase this gentalmen is not real life. This is Simulated Air Combat. if it were real life my investment in Fuit of the Loom stock would be through the ceiling. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

To Oleg i would say this...
Sir...you are the one with the Engernering Degee..you are a real pilot....this is your sim.
you program it anyway you see fit. And don't let anyone try to talk you into compramising your principles. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif your work has provided me and my friends with more than our money's worth.
i have freinds all over the world becuse of what you and your team have created. And it has been well worth the price i have paid in cash for each new release. I've gotten my money's worth and then some.
Thanks Oleg.

in closing i'll leave you with this quote:

Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"We did receive these docs when we did already theorethical FM of Corsairs and was impressed with the performance and general maneuverability of aircraft... And these trial confirmed 90% of the just theoretical measurements for the simulation....

Enough said." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From crazyivan: Please do not turn this into flamefest or i`ll see you in my office http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Hans_Philipp
11-05-2004, 02:49 PM
Is simply amazing the lengths people will go to, to assert that something has got to be wrong with this sim. This is coming form a big critic of IL-2 in terms of terrain and sound, a private pilot, and someone with considerable interest and experience with sims.

1. There is nothing in PFs flight modelling, and by that I mean the way the aircraft behave under physics and aerodynamic laws, to indicate to me that something has been toned down.

2. I can not speak for stats, power curves, top speeds and EM diagrams because I have not flown a WWII-era fighter. And it seems neither can any of the so called "FM-critics" since they bring no factual argument to the table. They didn't bring test figures and say "here Mr. Maddox, you got it wrong". They just shoot opinions left and right, with no factual basis. Just an opinion that's usually formed by years of flightsimming-not real flying, not aerobatic flying, and not formed by an understanding of physics.

3. People claim to be purists, realist-nuts, perfectionists and hard-core flight simmers. DO us all a favour then:

USE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD AND START DEBATING AERODYNAMICS USING, FACTS, DATA, AND REAL WORLD SOURCES.

Criticism will help Il-2 advance, as it has helped it in the past. But only constructive criticism, and in this case, since we're talking physics modelling:

CRITICISM BASED ON THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

I'll be glad to see most of you talk aerodynamics with Oleg and his crew. THen we can start improving what really needs to be improved.

JG77Von_Hess
11-05-2004, 02:51 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

Michcich_303
11-05-2004, 03:03 PM
I do not have JG before my nick, Cooper and I agree with almost everything about "dumbed down" FMs that has been said in this thread.

Certianly I pay respect to Oleg for wonderful IL-2 series and the fact that he spoke in this thread. I find it rather discouraging though that Oleg simply refuses to take into account what has been said and proven here and is hammerred down in most reviews on PF that are coming out.

I don`t think it is a question of sending more data with curves to 1C e-amil address to prove some findings on FMs and "constructive criticism" - this has been done hundreds of times by my squad mates and others. I think it is purely a question of WILL, not data at this stage - a WILL to accept that errors have been made and to change it. This seems to be lacking.

Oleg, can you tell us something about "commercial rationale" for your IL-2 series ?

You said once in interview that you are now going to focus more on FPS players to attract them to flight-sims. Is that still valid ? Is PF a result of this ? And finally - are you ging to implement the same "strategy" for your BoB sim ?

Good to hear you said in other post BoB will only have 25 planes but with more comlex FMs. This is something the community has been telling you all the time - pls perfect FMs in existing planes before adding new ones. We now have thousands of planes with arcade FMs. You are today announcing cockpit for KI-100. It is beautiful cockpit indeed...but it does make little difference with FMs as they are today...

Hans_Philipp
11-05-2004, 03:09 PM
"arcade" FMs Michcich?

Kindly provide your credentials. Then, we can disect and pipoint what exactly is arcade about this sim's FMs.

DO you people realize that one of the most highly respected sims, the MSFS series,and one which has only flight to worry about (as opposed to combat), has FM's that are as accurate and dynamic as your average X Y table in Excel?

Yet ir receives far less criticism from the crowds.

The fluidity in IL-2s flight models is currently unmatched for propeller-driven aircraft. Period.

Michcich_303
11-05-2004, 03:15 PM
barely lack of stalls, flawed energy bleed - read this thread from the start, Hans_Phillip - it`s "infested" with evidence...

Hans_Philipp
11-05-2004, 03:24 PM
I'll agree with the "infested" part. Not so with the "evidence" part. Has anyone provided info of the following order:

"...In conditions XYZ, my aircraft behaves as listed below, which is contrary to what real life data srouces have listed for such conditions."

No.

But for the sake of argument, I'd like you to describe to me where exactly it is that your real-life experience, or theoretical study conflict with this sim's behaviour in flight modelling.

JG77Von_Hess
11-05-2004, 03:31 PM
Hans_Phillip what kind of proof do want?

look up and look at my tread on this page, you will see a list of quistions regarding the flight physics in this game.

Lets take an example then, the abillity to fly with fully crosed contoles.

1. From a privetpilots point?
2. From an Ex Raf pilots point of view?
3. From Various instructionmanuel on a plane?
4. From Historians?
5. Real life hazzards and near death expiriences?

Lets take number 2. I asked a freind of mine who has many operational flying houres clocked in the Jaguar: Did you ever fly with fully crossed ctrl? He lauged and said it was strictly forbidden as it would send you into non recorverbly spin.

Lets try nunmber 4.Book: Warplanes of the luftwaffe By David donald. Chapter about Me 163
Hes mentioning that this is the only warplane of WW2 that was able to fly with fully crossed contoles.

So im willing to take this discussion if the headbashing of certain people here stops and we can keep it on track.

Regards.

VH.

Michcich_303
11-05-2004, 03:33 PM
Hans_Philipp, pls look for example into Hunde and Kwiatos posts in this thread - I firmly believe you will be able to agree with the "evidence" part as well after reading them.

You may also want to look into Gamespot review if you want a pundit`s point of view.

crazyivan1970
11-05-2004, 03:47 PM
Ahem, first of all, i would like to thank participants for mature and respectfull discussion, except Cooper who`s gonna get it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

As for topic...
<span class="ev_code_RED">Isn't the fact that you begun to fly better comparing to the time when you begun with Il-2 series?</span>
<span class="ev_code_RED">This is common thing that most don't take in account.</span>

Most of your answers in that single statement. Think about it for a second. I have PF installed at work and dude in the next cube is a RL pilot. Not saying he`s flying Mustangs and Corsairs, he flies something, at least once a week http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
So, to make it short, he was stalling all over the place and kissed the ground numerious times and THAT without even getting into DF. I Could not believe it. He said that it`s too hard...while to me it`s a walk in the park.
Think about those quotes, they are true. Try to rememeber yourself flying IL2 for the first couple of month. Experiance talks, most of you are here since IL2 Demo...that`s 3 years and most of you fly every day, 3,4...5 hours.. multiply it by 3 years. There is no RL pilot in the world who flew that many hours http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Cheers!

Labienus
11-05-2004, 03:54 PM
I'm realy sorry to say that what is below but I realy hate when somebody is trying to make an idiot of me. Even if it is a guy who maked realy great IL2 Sturmovik wich gave us so realistic FM then ever before in PC sims. And I love Oleg for this http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. I understand Oleg want to sell more and more copies of his sims and I understand he try to make it more popular. And I do understand that he tries to make it by making this sim more arcadish (with full difficulties settings of cource) just to all guys who to this day avoided IL2 sersies sims just because it's so realistic that impossible to play. But he can say this strait - or, if it's not his opinion, simple do not trying to make idiots of all who are reading him. But no... "PF FM is more complex and realistic".... yeah, right. Sorry but this is making idiots of all here Oleg - with all due respect.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:

Why one? TYhere is online sims and CFS3. Compare with them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And finally u get your great sim Oleg on the level of CFS series. FM I mean http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
3 years of trying and finally u get it on CFS level. Good job Oleg! When IL2 came out eveybody were laughing about "arcadish" CFS. Now nobody does... cuz PF is the same or worse in some aspects. Off cource not in graphics! Good job http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Best regards!

609IAP_Recon
11-05-2004, 03:56 PM
I find this to be interesting quote:

"No onece more important item for understanding of the point where is FM and were is other.
In terms of precise speed accelerations, power curves at altitudes - they may change without changes of FM. However this may have effect on the behaviour of aircraft in the air, but not so much. Say some time even very little, if these items was just tuned not so precise using other than should data."

This makes me say then that perhaps the 'FM' is the wrong term to be questioning. The Flight Model of the aircraft is precise.

So, when I hear another say that loops need a minimum speed, I ponder if this is more then to do with the space in which the aircraft are in rather that the aircraft itself. I am not an engineer - but would we call this the gravity of the world is 'off' rather than the FM of the aircraft itself? The resistance?

I'm stumbling for the right words here, maybe some of you engineers can respond/explain better http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Michcich_303
11-05-2004, 03:56 PM
Can I have one request, Ivan ? Pls install original Il-2 and let your RL pilot try it (I don`t mean La-5 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif). Let him compare with PF...Thanks.

Kwiatos
11-05-2004, 03:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
I have PF installed at work and dude in the next cube is a RL pilot. Not saying he`s flying Mustangs and Corsairs, he flies something, at least once a week http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
So, to make it short, he was stalling all over the place and kissed the ground numerious times and THAT without even getting into DF. I Could not believe it. He said that it`s too hard...while to me it`s a walk in the park.
Cheers! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The is not the same flying RL plane with hold stick in hand and feel how plane fly, feel how he turn, feel when he is near stall, feel when he is close to spin. Something different is playing in game with joystick if you are no experience in joy and game you dont feel these like in RL. Im only glide pilot but i feel when my glide will stall or spin. I made many stalls, spins, loops hamerheads. I know many pilots some of them flying only straight and soft turn no aerobatics, take off and landing.
What they can say about making hard manouvers in planes?

crazyivan1970
11-05-2004, 03:59 PM
I`m sure he will stall just as much. I still have IL2 installed and i don`t find it any different, no harder, no easier. Botu the same to me in general, different for some planes. Just my honest opinion. I usually don`t participate in FM/DM discussions, i rather fly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

JG77Von_Hess
11-05-2004, 04:00 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifHe Ivan funny that you mention your freind at work, for a compare I will cick my dad out of the sky 10-0 in IL2, but he has 100 times more flight houres clocked than me in planes like the Saab MFI Army trainer. this is caused by his just not very good at computer gaming http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif But he is never and less a highly skilled pilot.

Regards.

VH.

Hans_Philipp
11-05-2004, 04:03 PM
Dear Von Hess,

Are you actually comparing a modern attack jet aircraft, and rocket powered intreceptor to high-performance props?

Besides that, even I had 2000 hours wouldn't justify me talking about out of control flight, departures in general, and aerodynamic behaviour during those states.

It is hard enough finding someone who's done it. Harder still to find someone who's done it in a WWII fighter. Add that to the fact the these programmers have to actually quantify and translate these states of flight into equations, and you begin to understand the complexity of the problem.

crazyivan1970
11-05-2004, 04:04 PM
Sorry forgot to mention that dude next cube is hardcore CFS2 jock. Missed that sentence, back off now Hess http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

JG77Von_Hess
11-05-2004, 04:08 PM
Hey Hans_phillip http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
You asked for proof and i gave you proof. The laws of physiscs counts for any plane.

If you doubt what im writing in that i cant really give you more perhaps before putting a quistain mark in front of what i wrote there do some reserch perhaps.

Regards.

VH.

3.JG51_BigBear
11-05-2004, 04:10 PM
Has anyone read IGN's review. Not pretty. Has some interesting points and focuses on both the good and the bad of the new expansion.

http://pc.ign.com/articles/563/563737p1.html

The reviewer talks about a general sort of meshing of the fligth models. For what its worth, I thought it would be good for everyone to take a look at.

crazyivan1970
11-05-2004, 04:10 PM
Guys, just back off, you slipping now

JG77Von_Hess
11-05-2004, 04:11 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gifOki Ivan

Regards.

VH.

mazexx
11-05-2004, 04:15 PM
Well - this discussion is for sure relevant as we like the planes to behave in a "belivable way", never the less this IS a game and not a full blown simulator for pilot training http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I've flown quite a many planes in my days IRL - mostly the usual Cessnas and such... The most WWII:ish in performance and feel I've flown is the Yak-52 (besides the Tiger Moth which is real WWII but not very fighter like http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif IL2 is the only simulator that has given me the feeling of really "beeing there" and it has more than enough flight model for me to enjoy it... There is no way a simulator/game can depict the feeling of pulling the stick abruptly to the groin for a loop - which by the way is not executed by keeping it there, in that case it is not a loop but some kind of ugly oval that most certainy will end in the dirt http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

At least for me, having IRL flying experience I don't want to sit there fiddling with the correct engine RPM in climb etc... I want to have fun and shot down me 109:s in my spitfire, somthing you won't do IRL (and sure as hell I'm glad of that!).

I once flew an old german 109 pilot in his own Grob as he had lost his flying licence because of his hart. He told me he never really fired a shot at something - but he was in a number of aerial battles! I was all so confusing and he just tried to stay away from crashing into his rotte leader. He entered service at the age of 18 in late 1944 and lost half of his friends at his squadron, most of them att take off or landing which was really horrific in the 109 with 30-40 hours of time in it according to him... I don't want a simulation of that - I want a game!

Thanks Oleg for giving us IL2!

By the way - here is an exellent site with a number of 20 minute long instruction videos from the the war concening among others the F4U, F6F and B25 - I really recommend it to you buffs! It has real audio previews which are good enough to watch if you are really interested!

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/main.html

Among others it states the loop entry speed for the F4U as 210 knots (and shows it) and discusses the correct startup procedures for the engine etc...

Keep it safe - fly low and slow! /mazex

Hans_Philipp
11-05-2004, 04:24 PM
Von Hess, the laws of physics counts for fighters, commerical heavies, airships, flying bricks, chairs, and withces on broomsticks as well. That does not mean they'll stall, spin, sideslip or accelerate the same. That is a moot point.

You cannot possible compare a Jaguar's flying characteristics with a Zero's. Absolutely no relation when we approach the edge of the envelope, and out of control flight.

Now, with regard to intent, since a lot of you seem to imply that 1C Maddox has purposely done this in order to attract new customers.

Why ruin their hardcore base by destroying the credibility of their perceived realism by tweaking the fm's, when they have a wealth of features to make flight models and the game in general more scalable, and could add more to attract more "Arcade" gamers.

I'm just astounded with the certainty and confidence that people with NO experience with the aircraft involved, no hours logged outside the armchair and apparently no aerodynamics knowledge post here.

Most of these opinion are based on experience gathered from...you guessed it, other flight sims, past flight sims, less evolved and less complex flight sims, and therefore NOT REALITY.

JG77Von_Hess
11-05-2004, 04:30 PM
Ok Hans_Phillip.
Im not comparing any planes here im just telling you that its big NO_NO to fly with fully Crossed controles as a common rule. I gave you a few examples to back up what im talkin about nothing more nothing less.

Regards.

VH.

XyZspineZyX
11-05-2004, 04:35 PM
Ok, a number of people have been unreasonably unkind, and Oleg has gotten pissed, but IMO overall this thread is excellent and I'm glad it is an issue that is in hot debate.

Oleg, I hope you continue paying attention because people have come up with concerns that I think warrant serious attention. Even though you spend lots of time on the physics and have actual pilots consulting for you it is quite possible that the fans might spot deviant game behavior that you guys didn't notice under the press of your hurried schedule. Please don't get in the habit of automatically dismissing the concerns of your fans just because some are unreasonably rude.

Issues that I think, from my limited qualified judgement, still need to be resolved:

1) Extreme reluctance of induced stalling. A number of aircraft seem impossible to stall in a smoothly increasing turn. The first-hand wartime account from Robert Allison regarding his experiences seems to clearly demonstrate that the Corsair at least CAN be stalled in such a manner, apparently surprisinly early. Yet in the game I can't cause the Corsair to depart at speed without an abrupt yank on the stick.

2) Ability to match best climb rate at speeds and AOA that demonstrate far superior performance in the game aircraft compared to reality. Kwaitos, can you present your objections in terms of tracks or at least game data vs real data? Apparently the Crimea map has the most ideal conditions for such testing.

3) Lack of deceleration from (parasitic?) drag during low powered landing approach... basically the aircraft hardly seem to lose airspeed while gliding. From my vague recollection of aerodynamics, I think this could be tested numerically by sampling gliding planes in order to derive coeficients of lift and drag that the game seems to use and thereby compare these numbers to reality. It may be that the superior gliding performance in the new engine is more realistic, but I do notice it is a dramatic difference with IL2 and so it's at least interesting to look into from an academic viewpoint.

4) Lack of increased drag from flaps resulting in "moon gravity effect"... Only as a hobbyist with an aged undergraduate degree in physics can I say that this seems incorrect behavior to me. I personally have a very hard time getting aircraft to slow down, even when deploying flaps. I see lots of lift but little drag effect. But basic physics dictates that lift must induce drag... The energy has to some from somewhere and with the engine at idle, that's not where it's getting it. The plane floats upwards a lot but airspeed barely drops.

<span class="ev_code_PINK">[Edit: I have personally studied this (#4) a little more carefully and it is clear that flaps ARE inducing drag, but merely at a reduced amount compared to IL2. I personally don't consider this a credible objection any more unless someone can produce some hard data demonstrating otherwise. I also consider the inherent drag issue (#3) to require hard data before becoming a truly viable gripe. But I leave these in because intuitively it DOES seem to me that it is unreasonably hard to slow these planes down in PF -- Whether or not this is realistic, I'd like to see more informed people to comment on. -bif]</span>

5) Weak torque and gyro effects at slow speed... especially for the Corsair. I do not consider myself especially qualified to judge but as far as I can tell, there seems to be little in the way of torqing of the Corsair during near-stall speed maneuvers with the engine at full power. Yet it is my understanding that the Corsair was notorious for suffering from strong torque effects.

Based on my limited play time and the various discussions on these boards, the above are objections that I personally consider to be the most credible concerns. But I applaud the call of one poster here to resort to a more rigorous scientific method in order to confirm the validity of these complaints.

One way to do this would be to come up with some quantifications. In another thread, someone mentioned that we can use a feature of the game called "devicelink" which he implied outputs aerodynamic performance data to another app which implements the appropriate API. Apparently this is a way to get acceleration, speed, and position data for example. Can anyone post a link here in this thread to information about the API for this feature so that those concerned with this discussion can test their gripes with real numbers?

Oleg is so overworked and has put so much sweat and tears into this fine product that it is perfectly understandable that he is reluctant to dump significant time into handling rudely worded gripes from a lot of underqualified gamers. Perhaps we can be more persuasive if we can back up our concerns with more carefully prepared quantifiable and repeatable tests.

carguy_
11-05-2004, 04:37 PM
Hmmm a though thread lemme say it like this:you don`t like it,don`t play it.It`s just a game and most of you expert flyboys moan like it was all your life.Do you ever do anything else than just sit in front of the PC and calculate climb rates,roll rates,ROF etc.?

Me,I never flew a real aircraft nor I`m a math person.I just fly the planes and have fun here.Yes,I confirm flying gets easier by every 1C sim release,LW planes get better and better but I can`t say it`s not realistic,although I only can say I don`t like it.

Even though FM and DM along with other issues are a good thing to rework,I`m enjoying all pieces of this sim.I cannot understand you guys.Maybe you`re so "into it" that you are unable to play the game if the Corsair has roll rate 3secs longer than in RL or maybe the exact model structure isn`t modelled..ok then just stop playing,not worth to have another big problem in life.

Me,I want realism in the sim but I also THINK realistically.FM,DM perfect?!I truly doubt if the PC will EVER be able to give you those.IMO all this we have here is very good.I admit I`m a little frustrated i a I-16 that just took a direct 20mm engine hit is rolling out and crippling me with one MG spray but do I make a soap opera out of this?

Really,do you experts think Oleg and his team have the resources to give you all this you`ve been crying out for for the last 2 years?1C:Maddox Games is not MICROSOFT for God`s sake!

Wake up and smell the roses!You just better wait maybe some 20 years and see if anything happens then.

And YES,if 1C:Maddox Games did dumb down the FM to get some new customers other than you great experts I do agree with this strategy if it brings new funds to make better and better sims.

What the h@ll do you guys think this world spins around,huh?Sun?Yes correct but I say it is also MONEY,CASH,baby!It is obvious 1C doesn`t have a bottomless pit of those to bring PERFECT ULTRA REALISTIC FM,DM for you hardcore simmers.

I see it all this way:

1.Create a nice sim and find out if it brings interest.

Profit exceeded.

2.Make a better sim for a large market to make it popular.

Make further profit.

3.Create an even better sim for even larger market to gain more profit.

More profit exceeded=CASH

4.Gain more independence in favor of creating better sims and bring new ideas into life.

Summing it up a casual sim fan which I am thinks of two things:

1.You experts love it so much that you gotta fly the real thig and not just stupid arcade sim.

2.You experts can`t or do not want to realise today`s realism of life along with marketing.

The first thing makes you dreamers,the second thing makes you ignorants.

Michcich_303
11-05-2004, 04:46 PM
AgentBif, everything you said - and quite rightly ! - comes down to stalls and energy bleed and therefore falls perfectly under this thread`s title. Test results have been provided long time ago (in FB/AEP times). In case of PF we are discussing the same issues, which simply became even more acute with this new release. Before we send any new tests, pls let Oleg comment on whether he considers any changes at all with respect to what is discussed here (so far he does not seem to agree either stalling planes or energy bleed is a problem...).

faustnik
11-05-2004, 04:47 PM
Sorry Carguy, but, I think you were way out of line with that last post. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif I have WAY too much real life going on. When I have time to fly FB, I want to get the best historical simulation possible. I'm not a "gamer" and only got into IL-2 for its historical aspect. If the posters in this thread can challenge 1C to make the sim more realistic, I support them 100%.

Hans_Philipp
11-05-2004, 04:53 PM
Good post faustnik.

Carguy, you may disaprove of experts, but in a product where hi-fidelity, accuracy and realism are its main selling points, it's comforting to know that Oleg has enough around.

While it would be nice to please everyone, and please you too, the game's direction is obvious. Realism in flight, and accuracy in history.

If players who enjoy the game, constructively provide critique to better it, we all benefit from that.

Michcich_303
11-05-2004, 05:01 PM
grave misconception in terms of competitive strategy, carguy http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Oleg has owned the NICHE of hard-core simmers with his IL2 series, but he then decided to go for "adjacent" (as he presumed) market of First Person Shooters. As a result, he seems to be underdelivering for his loyal client base while failing to attract FPS teenage crowd: "Strategic deadlock" as Michael Porter would tell ya lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Hans_Philipp
11-05-2004, 05:03 PM
Guys, I haven't been following the developments of 1CM that closely so when did they say they'd try recruiting FPS players in a hi-fidelity sim like IL-2?

Seems like a very nonsensical thing to do-I mean isn't there a reason they're called FPS players? Unless he tried to provide an FPS module in IL-2, I can't see how he would ever think to draw these crowds in, and therefore "dumb down" flight models to achieve that...!

Michcich_303
11-05-2004, 05:08 PM
that`s what he said in an interview some time ago.

Hans_Philipp
11-05-2004, 05:25 PM
Regarding crossing controls...

There are various regimes in flight when that leads to departure and these regimes are modelled very well in IL-2. In every scenario I tried, with all new planes, including the Corsair, the aircraft did depart. The physics model has superb dynamics built into it. If I try to give momentum to my aircraft to enter the spin, it will, at the moment it should.

Guys, let's get serious here. The consensus among the "FM critics" seems to be that IL-2 has a great physics model, but its data isn't correct (It will do the right stuff, but do it after having already allowed the pilot too much leeway). To prove the former, you need flight experience and aerodynamics knowledge. TO prove the latter, you need data.

XyZspineZyX
11-05-2004, 05:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hans_Philipp:
Regarding crossing controls...

There are various regimes in flight when that leads to departure and these regimes are modelled very well in IL-2.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isn't this what is referred to as a "snap roll"? I vaguely recall my (late) uncle saying that one time when cruising his P40 over N.Africa, he noticed a 109 saddling up on his tail... He said he got away by performing a "snap roll" and split-S. I think he explained snap roll as being rudder one direction, ailerons the other...

mazexx
11-05-2004, 05:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AgentBif:
Isn't this what is referred to as a "snap roll"? I vaguely recall my (late) uncle saying that one time when cruising his P40 over N.Africa, he noticed a 109 saddling up on his tail... He said he got away by performing a "snap roll" and split-S. I think he explained snap roll as being rudder one direction, ailerons the other... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well - a snap roll (or quick roll) is exactly that... apply "spin rudders" in level flight and the "inner wing" stalls while the outer continues to fly (a horizontal spin). It's really one of the easier aeurobatic manouvres IRL - the problem is getting the rotation to stop after excacly 360 degrees so get full score from the judges http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Other situations where crossed rudders are used deliberately is when you need to loose altitude quick at final aproach - without gaining too much speed. This is especially true in aircraft without flaps. Side-slipping as it's called can be very efficient IRL if used properly (with enough speed). The difference here is that you cross the rudders but don't pull the stick as much as you can which you do in a snap-roll!

Regards /Mazex

Hans_Philipp
11-05-2004, 05:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mazexx:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AgentBif:
Isn't this what is referred to as a "snap roll"? I vaguely recall my (late) uncle saying that one time when cruising his P40 over N.Africa, he noticed a 109 saddling up on his tail... He said he got away by performing a "snap roll" and split-S. I think he explained snap roll as being rudder one direction, ailerons the other... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Well - a snap roll (or quick roll) is exactly that... apply "spin rudders" in level flight and the "inner wing" stalls while the outer continues to fly (a horizontal spin). It's really one of the easier aeurobatic manouvres IRL - the problem is getting the rotation to stop after excacly 360 degrees so get full score from the judges http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Other situations where crossed rudders are used deliberately is when you need to loose altitude quick at final aproach - without gaining too much speed. This is especially true in aircraft without flaps. Side-slipping as it's called can be very efficient IRL if used properly (with enough speed). The difference here is that you cross the rudders but don't pull the stick as much as you can which you do in a snap-roll!

Regards /Mazex <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very true, although you may apply full right rudder say, you only apply some bank, and push the stick forward. All this of course is above stall speed. Try it in IL-2 as well. It's a very useful maneuver to get on the ground ASAP.

XyZspineZyX
11-05-2004, 06:01 PM
About the Corsair, there is some reasonably credible data in this thread regarding apparent discrepancies with the performance of the game's bent winged bird:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=26310365&m=8221033832

There are some contradictions too though. I would especially like Oleg to be aware of this data...

(Note: both the pilot's account of flying the Corsair and numerical data from accounts mentioned later in the thread are relevant.)

Josiv_
11-05-2004, 06:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
(...) I still have IL2 installed and i don`t find it any different, no harder, no easier. Botu the same to me in general, different for some planes. Just my honest opinion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now I find this post very strange. Or CrazyIzan is trying to offense Il2 Sturmovik FM fans and stultify them, or He have not intalled Old il2 sturmovik. Those to FM are dramaticly different.

JG77Von_Hess
11-05-2004, 06:25 PM
Hans_Phillip

I give up I said Fully crossed controles stop tweaking what i wrote to your likings, ofcause u can cross ur contoles to some degree. If u really doubt what im saying its ok np.

I would stongly recomment that u get hold of this Book: The Advanced Pilots Flightmanual by William K Kershner.

Its a book for pilots by pilots to become a better pilot.

I gives u all the math. formulars to calculate it all. it covers various wing forms and shapes
and uses a lot of comparrison and examples from ww2 fighters and covers single and twin engine props.

Regards.

VH.

ZG77_Nagual
11-05-2004, 07:17 PM
Agentbif - that account is not data - it's an anecdote by a guy who'd never flown a Corsair about his first flight.

What's more - if you check the corsair out in relation to the fm2 and hellcat in game you'll find the relative performance jibes perfectly with his account.

If you want to see conflicting stories - read up on the p38 or p39 - or take a look at the test reports for the p63 in america's 100k.

Be glad Oleg doesn't model on anecdotes

XyZspineZyX
11-05-2004, 07:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
Agentbif - that account is not data - it's an anecdote by a guy who'd never flown a Corsair about his first flight.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read the whole thread, there are some flight characteristics data later on deriving from numerical testing of the aircraft.

Secondly, the experience of the pilot in his story of dogfighting the Corsair is relevant: The plane departs sharply in a continuously increasing turn. In the game, nobody seems to be able to get the Corsair to do this. In fact, even the Vought training video demonstrates that the Corsair departs rather wickedly with almost no warning even in a slow speed level stall, yet in the game the aircraft departs quite tamely... So while these aren't aerodynamic measurements, the fact that the game cannot seem to be made to replicate what we see in reality does indicate that there is a rather significant problem in the modeling of it.

ZG77_Nagual
11-05-2004, 07:30 PM
what we don't have are control forces. For example- does anybody know what the control forces in the Corsair were like in relation to the hellcat or wildcat? Maybe they were lighter - making it easier to overcontrol.

The corsair does depart sharply in a continuously increasing turn. I've gotten it to do it - and without trying to hard - in fact I've gotten into some very nasty spins in it. It tends to roll over on it's back. It's not a 190, but it certainly won't turn with a hellcat or wildcat - and does not snap back like a 190. I think it goes more to our collective skill level. I, for one, don't use continuously increasing turns much - unless I'm in a p39 and a shallow dive.

We're all used to planes that are much less forgiving than these navy birds - which are purpose built to land on boats and have tremendous power to weight to lift.

I'll ask my uncle - he flew corsairs, wildcats, hellcats, f8f and f9f - though only the corsair and f9f in combat.
Not a simmer though.

XyZspineZyX
11-05-2004, 07:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
The corsair does depart sharply in a continuously increasing turn. I've gotten it to do it - and without trying to hard - in fact I've gotten into some very nasty spins in it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you SURE? I simply cannot get it to do this without a rapid full-deflection yank on the stick. You are talking about banking into a turn and then continuously increasing the pitch over a few seconds until it suddenly departs?

Hunde_3.JG51
11-05-2004, 07:48 PM
With all due respect Mr Crazy, I don't understand the "maybe you just got better" argument. I have been playing since IL-2, and I didn't suddenly get better since AEP to PF. I realize you are from North Jersey so....http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif! Just kidding.

Carguy, I don't see anyone here saying speeds are off by a few km/h, or about climb rates being off. We are talking about something much bigger. And I am a college graduate, full time job+ as Homeless Case Manager, buying home with beautiful girlfriend/fiance of 11 years, etc. I have/get plenty of life, FB/AEP/PF is my release. My concern is that the changes made this impossible to enjoy.

I really don't understand those who don't notice a huge difference, to be honest its hard to take this seriously. Any real time spent with this sim and it should be glaringly noticeable. It is even obvious to the game reviewers. I forget where the comment by Oleg was that there were hundreds of little changes made (I assume he meant in calculations) to the FM's.

Good post by the way AgentBif (the long one a few posts back).

XyZspineZyX
11-05-2004, 07:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Sorry forgot to mention that dude next cube is hardcore CFS2 jock. Missed that sentence, back off now Hess http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Come to think of it, being ex CFS2 throttlejockey and having a liking for both the 1% planes and the stock planes. I did notice that the stalling charateristics of both types,(stock and 1% mods) were different after DirectX 9.0a.

The stock Zero never had a port wing dip in a dive prior to DX 9.0a.

Voidable
11-05-2004, 08:04 PM
ok i dont know if this was said allready..
but this is funny about the corsair (somepeople have not been flying her) cause that is all i fly and man she loses speed fast in a turn do two full 360 turns see just how fast you slow down and yes she stalls ez just got on line with her ...lol so you people saying that stuff just go out there and get in a little dog fight http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

ZG77_Nagual
11-05-2004, 08:15 PM
Well, I do have more time into this bugger than I care to admit. Particularly in the 190a5/6. Which honestly seems the same to me. As does the 39 - the D2 is nice and fast - the p400 a bit on the slow side. Both have the nastiest spin in the simm. The 190 departs like it allways did - and recovers just as fast unless you really blow it. The corsair departs as I mention - the problem is it does it with abrupt control inputs slow - or with gradual but fastish ones at high speed. I would say above 200mph it seems spot on to me I will say that as you slow down there is a point where it does not want to let go - between about 160 - 110mph it will sustain a full deflection turn as long as you don't yank to get there. And it does bleed in a horizontal turn pretty quickly. when it goes it tends to flip right over on it's back - or keep rolling - it's like you can feel the inertia of those wings - really different than any other type. The low speed thing I just don't know about. We know these birds were designed to be manageable very slow - and dogfight accounts by survivors in the pacific are not apt to have taken place below 200mph - thats zero territory. It may be when you do your sustained turn you are slowing down gradually into this full-deflection comfort zone.
At normal speeds the corsair seems really good to me. Below 170 and above 110 I do have a question about that turn - but I have no evidence of any kind to support an opinion on that either way.

clint-ruin
11-05-2004, 08:29 PM
To be honest - if we could ditch the entire contingent of posters who feel it's sufficient to post that "things are different" and "everyone notices" without posting any example of what they're talking about .. that wouldn't be so bad at all.

It's not so much that things are perfect in the game, they're not, noone pretends as such - certainly not Oleg or we'd only ever see v1.0 of his sims. But there are posts that help move the sim closer to reality and post that .. make no attempt to connect with reality at all, really.

Alex Voicu posted an example of how to test out e-bleed with his FB1.11 examination of the La7/Bf109 bleed through turns on SimHQ some time ago. Ain't that hard, we didn't even have devicelink back then for him to use.

For example, the first thing I would do if I was going to ask about any improvement to the La5s roll or handling would be to do a simple 360 roll and turn in both and see how long it takes. If you don't even want to do that - perhaps you should reconsider posting at all.

Hunde_3.JG51
11-05-2004, 08:56 PM
I'll say again, the bottom line is that things have changed in PF, and I believe Oleg has said as much, and the changes must be more or less accurate. You will find that most agree about the change and the game reviewers all seem to notice it as well. If you don't notice a difference then, well, those who do will likely not take you seriously. I don't need to prove it, I can feel it, and obviously many others do as well. Again, it must either be more realistic, or less. I haven't spoken to one long time flyer or squadmate that doesn't notice a significant change.

I swear, I could walk up to some of you and kick you in the balls and you would just stand there. I would say, "doesn't that hurt?" And you would reply, "no you didn't prove that you kicked me in the groin or provide any substantial tests that indicate I was struck in my private area."

Contesting whether or not the changes are more accurate or not I am fine with, but to question if something or not has even changed at this point seems silly to me. Long time players, game reviewers, and the creator himself said that things have changed yet we are still questioned by the elite few as usual. I would prefer to "ditch" their entire contingent.

clint-ruin
11-05-2004, 08:57 PM
Absolutely agree. Most data-less posts are exactly as helpful as a kick in the balls.

Hunde_3.JG51
11-05-2004, 09:00 PM
As are posts by those who cannot even see the obvious, demanding proof while seemingly all others notice. I guess most of us, the game reviewers, etc. are just experiencing some mass delusion. Thank goodness you are our beacon of reason in the darkening storm.

clint-ruin
11-05-2004, 09:04 PM
Check your PM.

Labienus
11-06-2004, 01:16 AM
I love Corsair and I was preparing to flying it from more then half of the year flying in dogs on P47, cuz I was thinking Oleg will make it with same philosofy of FM called "flying brick - no advenatges" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif But when I read what u Hunde_3.JG51 wrote here:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
I swear, I could walk up to some of you and kick you in the balls and you would just stand there. I would say, "doesn't that hurt?" And you would reply, "no you didn't prove that you kicked me in the groin or provide any substantial tests that indicate I was struck in my private area." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>....my old Luftwhinner soul woke up and ask me to write:

<span class="ev_code_RED">ABSCHUSS!</span>

About making tracks, screenshots and all this "proofs" I'm realy start to think that not only Oleg tries to make an idiots of us. Everybody knows that prove something to Oleg is realy difficult and making him to fix something is maybe not miracle but.... close http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Do not undestand me wrong. I'm realy thankful to Oleg for making IL2 but I'm realist and good observer of what is happen with this sim from more then 2 years. And I'm admire all who make Oleg to fix something (Kwiatos S!) but I doubt that effort wich is given by poeple who tries to make Oleg to fix something as it should be worth it.

I only hope that Oleg will finally see how many voices are for bring back realism and FM from old IL2 or even FB and finally he will fix it. And he stop to tell everybody that PF FM is more complex wich is simply b******t with all due respect http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. If Oleg realy want to make it more popular and arcadish for more customers then let's add one more general setting "arcade" and "simulation". Then whole community will be glad - hardcore-simmers will have their realism and some guys who like only graphics, nice planes, many maps and nice water and all this COOL stuff will play on their arcade level. Of cource u can name it less negative way http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Best regards and forgive me my poor english.

WUAF_Toad
11-06-2004, 02:04 AM
Saying the FM is correct unless proven wrong with evidence is just like saying O.J. Simpsons is innocent. I'm just trying to say that proving something is a lot harder then making something up... anyway...let just say if Oleg was making a racing sim and he modeled a perfect track, replicated a real car with all the correct numbers and physic. I can guarantee that the lap time is going to be off between real life and in the sim. The FM physic we have IL2 is just an approximation, therefore tweaking by "feel" is needed. Right now it just doesn't feel right that we have aircrafts weighting close to 10,000 lbs doing the things they're doing in PF.

Hans_Philipp
11-06-2004, 03:22 AM
Regarding Oleg's stuborness on facts, data and tests in order to be persuaded, I'm glad the guy is a scientist and that he only listens to arguments with substance.

This is not like me saying the terrain is not good, or has features which could be improved. I pretty much know what the earth looks like, better still If I'm a pilot, and can obviously see the representation of that in IL-2 in criticize it.

With flight models however, I don't really know how real a/c fly, especially WWII fighters, and especially cannot know them to the detail required for a hi-fi simulator. Better still, if I am not a pilot, I can't even vouch for it "feeling right" or not, because my experience is based on other representations of real life flight physics.

If Oleg & Co were producing an EAW or WWII simulator (simulating what flying is like in these worlds), you people would do a fine job. But since we are simulating real life, you either do not have the knowledge and credentials to back up your absurd and vague accusations, or are too lazy to carry out the tests involved.

Whatever the case, YOU ARE NOT CONVINCING ENOUGH.

Michcich_303
11-06-2004, 03:54 AM
Don`t you have enough evidence on Corsair insane FM in this thread ? Look at AgentBif post for example.

As said before, it`s NOT a question of DATA anymore. There is enough stuff in this thread alone to make serious adjustments to PF FM, but if Oleg needs more - no prob, we can pour him with evidence as we did in the past.

But ultimately, is his objective to make a MORE REALISTIC sim or LESS REALISTIC one ? The key to answer this is to know his stance on "commercial strategy" for this product and whether there is a link between what he said about attracting FPS crowd to his product series and what we see in PF...

JG5_JaRa
11-06-2004, 03:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
Alex Voicu posted an example of how to test out e-bleed with his FB1.11 examination of the La7/Bf109 bleed through turns on SimHQ some time ago. Ain't that hard, we didn't even have devicelink back then for him to use. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That test was a LOT of work and yes, for sure it was one of the better ones. However it didn't get anywhere as much attention as the typical "OLEG MY 109/PONY/JUG/SPIT DOESNT RUN/DIVE/CLIMB/TURN GOOD ENUF FIX IT NOW S#@!\!!!" flame wars which is not surprising at all. That test gave a nice insight into E-bleed curves (not simply one boring number like top speed or peak climb) of the game by comparing two rather different aircraft in this respect. It was not a whine post asking to "uber up" the 109 or to "castrate" the La, for that purpose a much simpler test would have done. There was potential in it but it just got a few "Nice test, thanks for sharing. (WTF is he talking about?)" answers.
Performance parameter b!tching seems much more interesting generally because many just want to win in their pet plane, nothing else. If it equally affects all planes, it doesn't necessarily help winning so who cares. Concerns actually adressing the basic flight model are therefore rather uninteresting, oh my god they may even force you to think when flying or be careful (coordinated turns necessary, anyone?), burn the witches! Rather keep flying in a fantasy world than actually having to re-learn tactics. That's at least what I can conclude after following most FM discussions here and on SimHQ since the beginning of IL2.
You have a point clint, you'll always see people simply flaming away and especially when it is about things which are not as obvious to measure and verify as top speeds etc., errors are not unlikely. But this topic is a nice example how a lot of posters contribute nothing by endlessly looking for every little mistake the critics make, labeling them whiners or whatever instead of focusing on the good points that were actually made and trying to be a bit more constructive. IMO a good sign for a lack of interest.

Hans_Philipp
11-06-2004, 04:28 AM
JaRa,

There ARE good points, and there ARE good intentions from the crowd that's not happy with the FMs. I promote criticism when its constructive and coming from someone who knows what he's talking about.

In order for these arguments to be convincing we need data. Kindly point out ONE SINGLE post here that posted data as results of tests, compared them to actual data, and concluded that something is wrong.

Fehler
11-06-2004, 04:30 AM
Well, it is important to note that people like Hunde are not talking about the new aircraft (In general).

What is being said is that the global FM has obviously changed. It changes each and every patch, and has since the beginning of this sim.

Yet with every patch or add-on, we are told and some of the people here argue that everything is just fine. Well, if it was fine a patch ago, WHY WAS IT CHANGED?

I am not talking about tweaking one plane here or there based on additional tech data, but I AM talking about a global change to ALL planes. Is that not admitting that something was WRONG? OK, so which was wrong? Is this version wrong, or was the last one? Or was FB wrong? Or was IL2 wrong? Something has to be wrong in order to make a change to "Correct" it. Now, do I need a track for this logic? I seriously doubt it. Logic stands on it's own, without proof.

I also have a question for all the "Track babies" out there; what track can I send that shows ALL planes feel more forgiving than ever before? Great argument there... It's easy to ask for something that no one could ever provide; you will get the self-confident feeling of winning that argument every time. Someone made a racecar anology earlier. Well, since I have racecar experience, I will tell you that as a driver, a great deal of tweaking on any car I raced dealt with FEEL. I could flow a set of heads, and dial in a carb, but when I put the rubber on the asphalt, it was FEEL that allowed me to make the changes I needed to be faster; a quarter turn on the right rear, richening the primary bowls of the carb, shortening the linkage on the secondaries, etc. FEEL - get it? I used to laugh at the over-engineers that would work hours and hours on mathematically figuring out their cars to get eaten alive on race day by some redneck, backyard-mechanic hick that just drove the car.

So, I will ask this again, why does the game FEEL more forgiving? Did my piloting skills suddenly get better? If so, why do they suddenly get worse if I switch to 2.04, then get better again if I switch to 3.0? Wow, this is freaking amazing!

I agree totally with Hunde. Planes can hang on their prop far longer than they could with 2.04. All planes feel much more forgiving, and this can really be noticed in the ones that had no forgiveness (AKA FW190).
---Special note--- perhaps the ones that dont notice it flew the arcade planes in the first place!

All I am asking, as others are, is, can this be turned back the way it was, or at least give us a good reason for it being changed this way.

Unlike Hunde, however, the sim is still as enjoyable as it used to be, if not more so. The suspect global FM change just makes it a little less believable. Why you ask? Because if I am to believe it is more correct now, then what were the last 2.5 years of flying? When people came and complained about something and were chastized and told to learn to fly, they were wrong, what exactly were they supposed to learn to fly? An incorrect sim? Perhaps they were actually flying well, but everyone else wasnt, since the FM was in error - which it would have to have been if it needed correcting.

From the standpoint of a guy that has never flown a WWII plane, all I want to know is when am I actually simulating flying one? Is it this version? The last? Or perhaps the fourth one before it... How hard is that to understand?

I am also a realist. I understand computer limitations. But get this, I also understand when I am having smoke blown up my kazoo. The fact is you can believe whatever you want to believe. I am sure people argued with Christopher Columbus that the world was flat even after he sailed across the Atlantic ocean. The truly believed themselves, but that made them no less wrong.

How about this for a good idea. Set the global FM and leave it alone. Add planes and tweak them to get the desired results based off of a global FM that does not change. Wouldnt that be a novel idea...

clint-ruin
11-06-2004, 04:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_JaRa:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
Alex Voicu posted an example of how to test out e-bleed with his FB1.11 examination of the La7/Bf109 bleed through turns on SimHQ some time ago. Ain't that hard, we didn't even have devicelink back then for him to use. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That test was a LOT of work and yes, for sure it was one of the better ones. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, should have been more clear with what I was saying - what I meant to say about Alexs tests was that it was do-able back then even without devicelink, and with a spreadsheets and other visualisations of the exact measured curves from a track it's now a lot easier to put together.

I think the issue is much less whether the tests will be listened to by people on forums as it is whether they will be listened to and responded to at any length by Maddox Games. Lack of data tends to lead to these grand crusades where wild claims get made on no or exaggerated figures .. and then half the time the 'fix' to the strawman bug ends up being worse than the problem it was supposed to fix ever was. Being precise when you talk about the problem you wish to fix allows a precise fix to be made rather than a kludge.

Short version is - I've seen the ORR cheersquad bandwagon end up smashed on the cliffs of wrong headed mongness too often to place the slightest bit of faith in anything it screams. Going back and reading the Ask Oleg compilation thing, it ends up reading like a diary of a software developer slowly going mad under the effects of a concentrated beam of internet forum crazy.

Hans_Philipp
11-06-2004, 04:43 AM
Fehler, you've just set yourself up with that post;-))

Let's start...

For starters you claim that it is easy for those who are suspect of the criticism being voiced here to ask for numbers that can't be provided. THEY CAN. That's the whole point, and it's not our job to prove the FM is right, but those people who criticize to prove that it's wrong. It is the challenger of the Status Quo that has to support why the Status Quo is wrong. Otherwise, it will remain as what it is, the Status Quo, and keep improving based on the principles and guidelines it was founded. WHich brings me to my next point.

Yes, the sim you have been flying for the past 2.5 years was less accurate than the one now. Guess what: The one you flew 4 years ago was even less, and the one you flew 8 years even more so...See a pattern here? Technology, is improving, know-how is gained, and when these are based on the framework of scientific methodologies, they produce IMPROVEMENTS.

Again, I have to point out, you are comparing a sim, to previous versions of it, and earlier sims. And you forget that SIMULATION implies that of reality, not of other SIMULATIONS. Therefore, you have little gravitas in your "feel" argument, because it has been sim-developers, book publishers, movie makers, friends and associates, whatever, that has formed your opinion, NOT REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE.

If this is going to turn into an argument of simple logic and scientific truths, rather than observations, tests and copnstructive criticism of the FMs, it is as good as dead!

clint-ruin
11-06-2004, 04:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hans_Philipp:
If this is going to turn into an argument of simple logic and scientific truths, rather than observations, tests and copnstructive criticism of the FMs, it is as good as dead! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You would be surprised just how much life people can wring out of that kind of thread around here. Really :>

Hans_Philipp
11-06-2004, 04:49 AM
Good post cint-ruin.

Fehler
11-06-2004, 05:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hans_Philipp:
Fehler, you've just set yourself up with that post;-))

Let's start...

For starters you claim that it is easy for those who are suspect of the criticism being voiced here to ask for numbers that can't be provided. THEY CAN. That's the whole point, and it's not our job to prove the FM is right, but those people who criticize to prove that it's wrong. It is the challenger of the Status Quo that has to support why the Status Quo is wrong. Otherwise, it will remain as what it is, the Status Quo, and keep improving based on the principles and guidelines it was founded. WHich brings me to my next point.

Yes, the sim you have been flying for the past 2.5 years was less accurate than the one now. Guess what: The one you flew 4 years ago was even less, and the one you flew 8 years even more so...See a pattern here? Technology, is improving, know-how is gained, and when these are based on the framework of scientific methodologies, they produce IMPROVEMENTS.

Again, I have to point out, you are comparing a sim, to previous versions of it, and earlier sims. And you forget that SIMULATION implies that of reality, not of other SIMULATIONS. Therefore, you have little gravitas in your "feel" argument, because it has been sim-developers, book publishers, movie makers, friends and associates, whatever, that has formed your opinion, NOT REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE.

If this is going to turn into an argument of simple logic and scientific truths, rather than observations, tests and copnstructive criticism of the FMs, it is as good as dead! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You base your argument on fallacy here my friend.

1. The "Status Quo" IS saying that the game feels differently. If you - the minority disagrees, by your logic, it would be up to you to prove it hasnt changed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

2. My argument based on "Feel" is about comparing apples with apples, not apples and oranges. I state this version feels different than it's previous version (Of the same sim). I simply ask the question "Why?" I am not comparing this version's feel to reality, I would have no personal context to base a question of this nature on. But, since a majority of patrons agree with me that the current version feels more forgiving, the only question one would like to know is, "Why?"

I dont really think anyone - especially me - is attack ing the developer here. Just asking a simple question that has gotten muddled down in rhetoric by those that percieve themselves as experts of the sim, yet have no direct ties with the developer whatsoever.

Again, the original statement/question "Oleg, please bring back stalls and energy bleed as before" implies two things, 1.) It was directed towards OLEG, 2.) Energy bleed and stalls have changed (Globally).

However, since this personal note was sent to Oleg via a public forum, others can provide their opinion on the subject. Mine is that the game does indeed feel differently. Others agree with me. You perhaps dont. That is your opinion, not a fact, but an opinion based on whatever perception you have. Just as mine is based on whatever perception I have. I posted my perception, as have others. But instead of opinion, some here wish me and Hunde to provide a track. A track of what? A track of my opinion? How can one provide a track of a perception?

I dont wish to be redundant, so I will not post the reasons why my perception is the way it is, you can easily read my previous two posts on this subject to discover that. I, however cannot find the basis of yours or Clints perception anywhere in this topic.

In short, I will ask again, Why has the global FM changed? I have my suspicions that it had something to do with carrier landings and takeoffs, and if so, then the next natural question would be, is this FM more realistic than previous versions, or did the concessions overcome the realism? And furthermore, will the FM stay the same from here on? Simple questions, no hidden agendas, no gripes, no whines, just simple questions.

But these questions do not need to be qualified by me to other forum members. They are questions on theor own merit.

JG5_JaRa
11-06-2004, 05:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hans_Philipp:
Kindly point out ONE SINGLE post here that posted data as results of tests, compared them to actual data, and concluded that something is wrong. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

as one example for mainly high-AOA E-bleed and slow speed thrust let me repeat for the third time: ~100 kmh too low minimum loop entry speeds as compared to the flight manual quotes posted by Kwiatos. Doesn't matter if you take a plane which does it with 80 less or another with 120, we're talking about an error of the order of 100 kmh here in slow speed maneuvers, that is a very considerable amount.

CHDT
11-06-2004, 05:17 AM
Easy and short: try the P-39 in IL-2 and then try the P-39 in PF.

And only after that, write something interesting in this topic http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

P.S. As I've often said it, my most flying pleasure was with the second patch of FB, almost perfect except for the 190A's which didn't overheat at all.

JG5_JaRa
11-06-2004, 05:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
Short version is - I've seen the ORR cheersquad bandwagon end up smashed on the cliffs of wrong headed mongness too often to place the slightest bit of faith in anything it screams. Going back and reading the Ask Oleg compilation thing, it ends up reading like a diary of a software developer slowly going mad under the effects of a concentrated beam of internet forum crazy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not a big surprise, after all reading the forums daily and answering the tons of emails with "very important issues" Oleg must get every day, he'd have a full time job doing that alone. If I were a mod here and would actually have to read this every day, especially the general zoo, I would have shot myself after no more than three days.
The decision concerning priorities of the game was done long before: refine the current model (remember: initially designed as a low alt mud moving sim) or just tweak it a bit here and there and add lots of planes, eye candy and new features. And it is rather obvious, why not, after all this seems what the majority wanted. I mean come on, we're being told over and over again that the high alt FM has serious limitations but anyway they bother throwing in a Ta152?
I don't believe in a general FM change, after all this would mean re-tweaking all planes after adding/modifying modules which would be way too much work. FM changes during the last patches always just meant (peak) performance tweaking, no matter what result. Peak climb rates and top speeds may have fit but here and there you got the notorious "helicopter climbs". I also think that continuing to endlessly tweak performance to death with every new patch is useless because of this, I'd rather see all the work going into BOB, starting with a kick-a$s (man this stupid word filter su.cks big time) basic flight model. I motivate people to think about and discuss such flight model issues to show that there are at least a few people who would like to have this done nicely in future products.
However, I do not accept the argument that today's PCs are too limited in their capability. Noone is asking for a real time fluid dynamics simulation, we're talking about finished models with appropriate approximations and this can be done very well without killing the CPU, other simulations showed this. And honestly, I don't believe for a minute that the amount of resources needed for the FM is anywhere close to what graphics eat. Just look at the frame rate hit when tweaking graphics options a little bit. I know that saying an other sim could do anything better than IL2 is a capital offence here, so to avoid an excessive flood of bandwagons I won't even evaluate on Targetware or CFS3+Firepower (mind you, not the out-of-the-box Microsoft bullcr@p). But think of EAW (this is old enough not to be considered a real alternative so let's mention it): the flight model was much simpler there and in many ways much sh!ttier than IL2. However, those planes did bleed energy when you yanked on the stick with no clue. Stalls were a joke in EAW, actually there were no stalls, only spins. However, they gave you a good reason to avoid them, not those little "oops, little snappy, lost 10 kmh and one second" hick-ups like in IL2.

Hans_Philipp
11-06-2004, 05:31 AM
Fehler, I didn't mean my post to come across as an attack by you on the developer. My argument is that all of you are using subjective opinions, not objective facts, to change a simulation whose goal is REALISM, something distinctively OBJCTIVE.

1. The Status Quo is the sim itself. Let's not get bogged by simple logic here. When you challenge the status quo (IL-2) you are the first that is expected to provide facts and figures. If you're right, then he who defends the status quo (i.e. the developer) had better come up with some figures that cancel out yours or change the sim.

2. It's not a matter of comparing apples to apples or any of that.

It's just like paintings of a real life scene-say, a prairie field. Where as in order to approach the likeness of the image you're painting, you have to base it to the actual scene, and therefore have actually seen it, you are actually saying it doesn't look real enough, because if changed from previous paintings-yet you have never seen what a prairie field even looks like IRL!


Guys, this is getting down to simple logic, which is discouraging. I'd much rather see Oleg responding to more hard data. JaRas loop speeds is a good example. Let's gather all the DATA that leads you to question the validity of the FMs, and have the developers answer to that.

Hans_Philipp
11-06-2004, 05:50 AM
JaRa, have you ever stalled an aircraft? You can enter and exit stalls in fractions of seconds. In fact, if done on purpose you can lead an aircraft to a stall, stall it and immediately continue controlled flight.

It's not a point of no return. It is an absolute (if the wing has stalled or not) but it is so dynamic and fluid that it usually never means a long roller-coaster ride to the ground.

This is an example of flawed backround. Your experience tells you that a stall cannot be over in fractions of seconds, so you actively campaign for abolishing it...

Fehler
11-06-2004, 05:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CHDT:
Easy and short: try the P-39 in IL-2 and then try the P-39 in PF.

And only after that, write something interesting in this topic http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

P.S. As I've often said it, my most flying pleasure was with the second patch of FB, almost perfect except for the 190A's which didn't overheat at all. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with you opinion CHDT. I do not, however, presume that I know which P39 is correct, if either. I do assume that with all the USAAF tests on the P39 and poor reviews by them that the earlier might be more realistic than the latter. This case is a prime example of what I have been saying all along. There have been numerous arguments that the Russians took out some armor and made other various changes to the P39 to make it fly differently than the US version. With that said, the only evidence that has ever been presented to that fact was PILOT ACCOUNTS that Russian pilots liked the plane. I have never seen hard data on the performance of the P39 as re-constructed by Russia. Therefore all we have is PILOT ACCOUNTS to compare performance with. Yet, as part of the double standard, other PILOT ACCOUNTS are not as critical to the creation of FM/DM in other planes because PILOT ACCOUNTS cannot be trusted as a stead-fast, absolute account to the credibility of a particular plane's FM. Odd huh?

But again, the original post did not deal with the P39, the Corsair, the FW190, or any other plane in the game. It dealt with the global FM; energy bleed and stalls, and how the game feels more forgiving than it has ever felt.

I agree with your assessment of the second patch of FB. To me it felt the best, but I have no personal context to base this feeling on as to whether it was correct or not. It just seemed like a mixture of power versus difficulty both in FM and DM with exception of various planes. (The 190 was a tank - lack of complex DM, and A's didnt overheat, for example)

But it is funny that the same people that argued back then about the same subjects are still making the same arguments today.

But here is the funny thing. I am truly not whining. This particular version makes my favorite plane (FW 190) much easier to fly, and much more forgiving. But is it more realistic? I really dont know. But I DO KNOW it is different. How can anyone possibly refute that? And as an odd irony, I wish it were the same as it used to be - when it wasnt as good. (As well as all the planes)

You see, the problem lies with people that refuse to believe that this sim may not exactly represent what they believe it represents. In other words, if some were to admit that the global FM has changed, then that would mean that there was an error somewhere. If there is an error, all the basis of their arguments since this forum opened would not hold much water. This is why they struggle to hold on to the belief that the game is as perfect as a modern computer can represent it.

I dont subscribe to that theory. Perhaps I did 14 patches ago, but so much has changed yet the game itself has stayed relatively the same. So why did it change? Gameplay issues? Concessions? Increased amount of individual plane data? -Or- because this version is just a better educated guess at it than the last one? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Hans_Philipp
11-06-2004, 06:01 AM
Fehler you are saying something very different now, and correct. Something HAS changed, and if we're talking about the global physics engine then I would say that the engine has gotten to be more fluid, and right.

The questions you raise are noteworthy and should eventually be answered. I also believe that what you are very honestly saying without embelishing it with your own subjective opinions, i.e. merely stating the fact that FMs keep on saying and we should know WHY they change, will lead us to a positive conclusion.

It is very OK and beneficial to ask Oleg:

1. Why have FMs been constantly changing?
2. Are the always moving toward a single direction or are there changes between patches that contradict each other?



If they dont contradict each other, we can assume the game's FM is improving.If they contradict each other, how can Oleg explain it?

These are very good and honest questions to which I'm sure Oleg will have plenty to say. But it is a far cry from some of the erratic claims that some people have asserted here.

Fehler
11-06-2004, 06:05 AM
Hans, you didnt come across to me that way. I was just dismissing a perception before one could start.. paving the way to the discussion, so to speak.

But Hans, I have one question for you. Do you feel like the FM has changed from 2.04 to 3.0?

If you do feel it has changed, what possible explanations could you give for such a change. Given that you are apparantly a pilot (Assumed from your postings) and that you have a feel for the game (Both versions), if you feel that it has changed, which one feels more right?

If you dont feel it has changed, please explain why you dont have this perception.

Again, I am not really talking about the new planes. For those we have nothing to base an opinion on except hard data, which I dont possess. What I am talking about are planes that have been in the game for some time now.

Fehler
11-06-2004, 06:14 AM
Well, I see, we are posting simultaneously.. hehe

I am glad you agree that things have changed, alas I would then think one of us was crazy and my alternate bi-polar self tells me that I am sane. LOL

I think that was the context the original question was raised toward Oleg, if I read it correctly. Surely I am hoping that things are getting better and not taking a step in reverse. For me, given my limited wealth, this will probably be the closest way I will ever get to flying one of these marvelous warbirds.

CHDT
11-06-2004, 06:50 AM
"I agree with you opinion CHDT. I do not, however, presume that I know which P39 is correct, if either."


Me too, I've no idea which one is right and which one is wrong. I just noticed the change like you.

About the 190, I'm inclined to think that the easiest one is more accurate as Kurt Tank especially designed the 190 as a "noob" plane.

Cheers,

JG5_JaRa
11-06-2004, 07:01 AM
Maybe instead of endlessly arguing about arguing and philosophing about proving of the existence of something or disproving the nonexistence instead, some people should simply spend some time with the game.
Wondering about the slow-speed loop ability, it is obvious that all planes can loop from incredibly low speeds. Kwiatos gave a quote which describes pretty much the lowest loop entry speed for a Spit II, so since we don't have one I took a Seafire III-L, assuming (I'm not a Spitfire expert) that it at least is not totally different from a Spit II. 50% fuel as representative for most combat situations, I took it to the Crimea map on the deck to see how it could loop. Result: it can still loop starting from 190 kmh (!) and reach the same altitude as before or even a bit more. It was not even difficult, thanks to the (practically) absence of torque and gyro effects, it is not even necessary to use the rudder. Just a little aileron on top will do. Remember: the manual said recommended loop entry speed of 354 km/h!
And to repeat, this is not only a problem of the Spit. Take a 109G2 for example and smile and if you're still paranoid then, take a P40 and Yak-whatever for example. This should at least cancel out the national bias brainfarts.

CHDT
11-06-2004, 07:06 AM
Right. In fact, in spite of liking IL-2 for the three last years, I've always feeled that all aircrafts seem too much maniable.

609IAP_Recon
11-06-2004, 07:11 AM
(Edit: restate: agree with what was said, as above, need examples, iehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"Do you feel like the FM has changed from 2.04 to 3.0?"

Do you mean your 109G2 you've been flying for 3 years doesn't fly the same way? Describe how?

Does the 190? Describe how?

Are you speaking of new aircraft? Are you fully aware of that aircraft's characteristics? Do you mean the zero is much much different than the AEP zero? What are you comparing with on new aircraft?

Can you do endless loops in first IL2? Now you can't?

Go install IL2 and tell us what low speeds you can do loops - then do same aircraft in PF - is it same? Now, if you want to say that both are wrong and it should be something else - fine - but to blame PF?

Can we get some kind of substance in this thread - because if you can't define and describe the problem and back it up - then how would you know it's fixed if it was?

As far as changes - Many have put together data on roll rates, climb rates, etc... and when the data is presented it can be looked at - so this idea that Oleg is deaf ear on this stuff is bogus.

I want a sim more than a arcade game - but I also don't want Oleg changing things to make some of you happy just because it doesn't 'FEEL' right to you. That happened once already if I recall - and there was a tremendous outrage on how he could do such a thing...now, we are back to whining without substance.

609IAP_Recon
11-06-2004, 07:14 AM
How should they be CHDT?

609IAP_Recon
11-06-2004, 07:16 AM
Interesting JaRa - sounds like you can make track and send to Oleg...

Show same aircraft, same map, same alt, different speeds do same loop.

Fehler
11-06-2004, 07:51 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

609IAP_Recon
11-06-2004, 07:59 AM
Thanks Fehler, I must have misunderstood your previous posts.

My apologies.

I will edit above and remove where I address you personally - I typically try to not do that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I do think that after 10 pages of threads, we are finally starting to see some actual examples. With actual examples like JaRa and you just posted, this gives something that can be discussed with Oleg.

Thanks

Fehler
11-06-2004, 08:08 AM
Hey, no problem Recon.

I love this game, you know that. I am also willing to accept whatever Oleg gives us, because I never flew one of these planes in real life so I just dont know how they really flew.

I am merely curious why the FM's seem to change so much, and I am hoping that the changes are always toward realism.

I should have just called you with my comments.. I think Intercept gave me your phone number a long time ago.. or maybe it was someone elses number.. hehe.

BTW, now that the allies have some real bombers, is FS going to be incorporating them into the format? If so, I may be inclined to talking JV44 into flying FS. I know you guys will be short handed if you decide to go Pacific (Short handed on the Japanese side), and we are sort of a dedicated axis group. Let me know, PM me or something...

Michcich_303
11-06-2004, 08:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hans_Philipp:
My argument is that all of you are using subjective opinions, not objective facts, to change a simulation whose goal is REALISM, something distinctively OBJCTIVE. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How do you know the objective of the developers of this sim is REALISM ? Maybe it`s increasing sales and recruiting new users that "excessive" realism would inhibit ? Remember what Oleg said that hard-core online simmers are just about 5 % of all users ?

Maybe they oringnally wanted to do most realisitc sim ever but eventually saw that they would be much better off (in $ terms) if they conceded a little bit on realism to give more fun to teenagers ?

Have you read Oleg`s statement on sales of the IL2 and the danger BoB development is in because the whole project is on the verge of profitability ?

Don`t make me laugh you engineer crowd - it`s not only about convincing Oleg about what IS RIGHT in terms of comparing plane FM stats to real data, it`s also about pointing to what gives him better opportunity in business terms.

If you were in his shoes and you knew from feedback and research that the game you have released is too difficult for most FPS-prone teenagers and there`s good chance you will sell more copies if you made it easier, what would you do ? Stick to your principle of "most realistic sim ever" or make a few concessions here and there and cash in ?

This is why I would be really curious about what commercial future Oleg sees for his sims, particularly in light of what <span class="ev_code_RED">he said in interview some time ago that he will be trying to recruit some FPS users</span>. If that is the way for PF and BoB to go - good, I understand Oleg, he is running a business and not developing sims for fun. Let him do the sims the way he sees best for him and his company. But then I will also know there is no reason for me to stay by his sims any longer, because I look for realism.

That would be fair, wouldn`t it ?

Korolov
11-06-2004, 09:52 AM
It seems, in this topic, you have two choices:

You're in agreement with the original poster - things don't feel right and are too easy and thus should be made hard again.

OR

You're in disagreement with the original poster, but since you're disagreeing with him, your position is baseless and incorrect because you don't think something is wrong or don't notice something wrong.

How do we define this feeling? How do we prove or disprove it?

It seems you can either say theres something wrong and if you don't, you're "afraid" or "unwilling" to admit something is wrong. Wheres the middleman in all this?

RocketDog
11-06-2004, 10:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michcich_303:
If you were in his shoes and you knew from feedback and research that the game you have released is too difficult for most FPS-prone teenagers and there`s good chance you will sell more copies if you made it easier, what would you do ? Stick to your principle of "most realistic sim ever" or make a few concessions here and there and cash in ?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In my copy of PF I can turn off stalls and spins, g-effects etc. I believe this was done on purpose so that it could appeal to both audiences.

Regards,

RocketDog.

KosiMazaki
11-06-2004, 11:41 AM
Hello

It€s been a while since I last wrote something in english but will try to do my best. On startup want to say that yes im new on UBI forums but that doesn€t mean that know nothing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) I never write post on English boards because of ma poor language €" prefer polish http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Today maybe don€t have proofs how many bugs is in PF but I know it for sure that something is wrong. We all discussed long hours on ventrilo server (with Kwiatos, Laby, Michcich and other guys from our community), write many post about realism on local il2 forum and we totally agree that in this form PF is Perfectly Fu€¦ed :P has poor physics :P and in stores should stand by with products like Wings of War and other shooters. I don€t want to judge Oleg because don€t know what he is steering (I think he wants to earn money) but saying to everybody that this is €œbest sim ever€ is unfair. It€s simple lie. Don€t know if u guys remember when in discussion about FB someone said that the flames from guns are to big and this should be fixed then came Oleg and said that is to complicated and directly impossible. Look after two years this is fixed. For me this is only positive thing in this game. Hole PF for me is something like a car that looks great but under the shiny paintjob is rust . In my opinion we all don€t want to destroy this game but make it more realistic and better, don€t want to whine anymore. Besides putting in stores game that is more near a beta then final product is irrational. So in the end of my post just want to say that the cure for this sim is make it a public beta or make more beta testers then we all be filing better. And one thing, don€t want to investigate the mater of performance of the planes because Kwiatos is the best person to do that, me just want to support them.

S! all

Hunde_3.JG51
11-06-2004, 11:51 AM
Ok, let me clarify a few things on my end.

1. Whether there was a change, and whether or not it is accurate are two different issues. Please read my posts and you will see that I only disagree/argue with people who say/hint there was no change. As to whether or not it is more accurate I only offer my OPINION, and even say that "I may be wrong." I have never said that anyone was wrong who said the changes are more accurate, I disagree but I respect others opinions.

And Koro, please note that I said I find it hard to believe or take you (not you specifically) seriously if you do not notice a change, not that if you don't notice "something is wrong." They are two totally different things.

2. For those who want to paint me as a baseless whiner (actually it is only one or two):
-I was the first to post about FW-190 gunsight bug, tracks sent to Oleg.
-I was the first to mention/show Spitfire not overheating at high altitudes, and speed being too fast over 6,000m, tracks and data sent to Oleg.
-Through Faustnik, I was the first to provide Gibbage with a track that showed P-63's DM was broken.
-I sent tracks to Oleg showing La-5 too fast at altitude, and FW-190A4 too slow at altitude. Fixed.
-I have sent tracks to Oleg concenring P-47's fragile damage model to small mg's, and Lagg's resistance to them.
-I have had lengthy discussions with Oleg about radiator drag with FW-190, he told me why things are the way they are. I said thank you for your time, and made no further argument.
-I asked if P-51 speed at SL was too great when it was increased, people replied explaining that due to lower gearing or something to that effect that it was accurate. I said thanks for the info, good to know.

So to those who may try, don't make me out as someone who consistently makes claims without any basis, as my efforts are visible in-game (how many here can say the same?), or as someone who cannot admit they are wrong or see other's points of view.

Having said that in the case of this thread I am asking to sort of take things on faith (to some degree). As Fehler said I am not able to make specific tracks about every plane's lack of high speed stall or energy bleed. And to be honest I don't have the time. Furthermore, I am just bringing up a concern, an OPINION. I will let those more knowledgeable discuss what is precisely wrong, as I am not educated enough in these areas to do so effectively. I just voiced how I felt, and obviously MANY people agree. I have brought up the issue, but I will be the first to admit I don't have the capability to "prove" it. That does not mean that there is no possibility of a problem. And by looking at the support in this thread, and the mentioning of "relaxed" or "very forgiving" flight models observed in 3 of the 4 reviews I have seen, I feel justified in making my original post.

Thanks Fehler for the support and understanding, often saying what I myself couldn't express properly. And to others for support.

Again Koro, I'm not saying the changes were right or wrong, I am saying there WAS a change. And that it is my opinion that the changes are not accurate. You bring up a valid concern, as others here are trying to do, that "how do we define feeling or prove something is wrong." Unfortunately you cannot really define feeling IMHO, and like I said, I admit that I am not knowledgeable enough to prove what is specifically wrong though I do feel others here are capable of it. As I said from the beginning, I may be wrong, I am just putting the issue out there. Perhaps my disappointment/frustration influenced me to come off more absolute than I intended, or perhaps I expressed my feelings too strongly. If that is the case then I apologize. I hope everyone understands what I am trying to say.

Btw Koro, on my end you are one of the most respected members of the community so please don't take my clarification as an argument or an attack.

Korolov
11-06-2004, 12:29 PM
That helps a lot to understand what you mean, Hunde.

Still, my question stands: are we just asking to change the stalls & energy bleed back to the original state based soley on the fact we prefer the challenge? How do we know the current system is correct? How do we know the old system is correct?

What I'm afraid of is something that ends up like the old .50 cal debate - changed as a result of a bunch of folk's feelings or challenges.

Now, with that aside, I *will* say I've noticed a change in how energy bleeds and snap stalls as before, but most prominently on the new planes. Many of the old planes (P-38, for example) seem to exert the same characteristics or similar characteristics as in 2.04. Every plane that I tried, from the MiG-3 to the La-5, all the way to the F6F, seemed to be able to loop many times before running out of energy. As long as the loop was started from a good energy state and care was taken to not pull too much, looping or coming into multiple hammerheads was possible. The F4U was able to do this for a while before the left wing started stalling and dropping, which eventually led to a spin. The F6F was by far the most able of them all. The flip side is that if you tried to jerk them into a loop too harshly, they'd wingover. Most of all, none of them are going to beat a Oscar or a Zeke at these maneuvers afterall so while they can do it (which may or may not be accurate), they won't be able to take much advantage from it.

NorrisMcWhirter
11-06-2004, 01:01 PM
Hi,

This was meant to be posted yesterday but the forum went awry just about the time the announcement was made....Shame, really, I'd have liked to have carried on the discussion with the maestro himself.

Oleg:

Sorry, I disagree that I got better over time since Il-2 and that's the reason why I think PF is "easy"; I've been flying Il-2 over the last couple of nights and there are things I just can't do in Il-2, in the same aircraft, that I can pull off easily in PF. OK, that doesn't mean that Il-2 is more accurate but it does mean that it's not just my perception of things being easier. Things have changed and it's not just because 'I got better'

With respect to reviews, I'm sure that it's possible to sue for a bad review; after all, a review can make or break a title and, like you, I take reviews with a pinch of salt because there are other factors at play (like credibility, peer pressure, the author read some other reviews and cut and pasted them together cos he had a deadline to meet etc). It doesn't really make sense to sue over a review, though, unless it is deliberately incorrect cos it only serves to antagonise the 'journalistic community' and the net result is very probably a BAD review next time from everyone. That's how I'd see it, anyway.

What would be good is someone independently getting a current warbird pilot to review the game (like has been done in the past) - any chance of that happening?

As to the last point, it's not a matter of it being 'better' than something else - it's more the point of it being representative of the real thing in the first place. i.e. I think that's what everyone who buys your products (or, more correctly, all those who passionately post on these forums) is interested in - they couldn't care less if it's just better than CFS3 - they care about just how close it is to landing a carrier on a rolling deck in real life. i.e. When they tell their friends that they play this game and their friends think, 'Ah, yeah..that's just another flight sim', what they actually want to be able to tell them is that they are practically as good as a RL pilot. OK, that's not going to be the case because of the additional training required but they'd like for the 'air combat' element to be as realistic as possible.

And yes, I know we have limitations of PCs etc but I hope you can see my point.

Rocketdog:
So, you are are quite happy with everything PF and you think there is nothing wrong with anything in the game at all?

As to the latter point, I think it's entirely right for Oleg/whoever to come in here and explain why xyz is the way it is, especially at a time like this when it could be argued that there is a bit of a 'crisis of confidence' in what PF has delivered.

After all, they have the information that FMs are based upon and I think it's fair for them to say why a particular FM was chosen for that aircraft (assuming the FM is based on test data which we know varies depending on who tested it). I don't expect them to spend all day nitpicking over whether a test result is valid because it is written in blue ink rather than the Faber test standard colour of dark mauve but it would resolve a lot of problems and arguments straight away.

As I'm sure you are aware, if people don't have a decent source of information, they speculate...that's how rumours start and rumours can be damaging. A pertinent post such as :

"We based our FM on data from this test (link) because of reason X, Y and Z" - would simply nip all this aggro in the bud. No arguments over which test the FM matches then arguments over the validity of the test. We'd have it from the horses mouth and, like it or not, at least we'd have an idea where the developer is coming from.

Regards,
Norris

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2004, 01:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hans_Philipp:
My argument is that all of you are using subjective opinions, not objective facts, to change a simulation whose goal is REALISM, something distinctively OBJCTIVE. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not true. Several posts have been made pointing out clear discrepancies between the game and reality.

1) The game Corsair cannot be turn stalled without a sharp full-deflection yank on the stick. The game Corsair stalls meekly and evenly without a wingover in a gentle level speed reduction below stall speed. Yet in reality (Vought training video, account of pilot dogfighting F4U against F6F) it is clear that the Corsair would depart violently even when forced smoothly beyond it's stall AOA. These are repeatable tests that anyone can perform. The game model for this aircraft is quite clearly too forgiving compared to reality.

2) Kwiatos pointed out that many of the aircraft in the game can fly like 70-80 kph below their best climb speed and yet sustain their best climb rate with increased AoA. This is objective and repeatable claim against the reality of the game models.

3) Several have pointed out that the Corsair suffers little in the way of heavy torque or gyro effects that it was notorious for in reality. Again, though empirical, this is an objective repeatable test... This particular point may go partially toward explaining the forgiving nature of the Corsair's departure behavior in the game. In this particular case, I'm not sure how to develop a quantitative test to demonstrate deviation from reality since devicelink doesn't provide data with this kind of fidelity and finding real data quantifying this effect on the actual aircraft may be nigh impossible. However, departure behavior is one empirical way of demonstrating lack of torque I think. I suppose someone could post a track showing the game Corsair flying through the top of a loop at 70kph with no aileron and a nice gentle full-throttle wings-even rudderless pull through... But this is so repeatable by anyone owning the game that a track is really just unecessary tedium.

4) Several in this thread have pointed out specific aircraft being capable of performing full loops at speeds well below the manufacturer's recommended speeds for entry into such a maneuver.

So these are real and repeatable tests that people have posted _in this thread_ which demonstrate deviations between the game and what is known about the actual aircraft. These are not mere data-less emotional rantings. This thread is not one giant insubstantial whine but is (at least in part) a substantive debate about actual performance issues. As such, you do yourself, the developers, the fans, and this fine game a disservice by attempting to dismiss the entire thread with the wide-sweeping charge that it is simply devoid of any consequential objections.

Hunde_3.JG51
11-06-2004, 01:51 PM
I'm glad my clarification helped some Koro.

And I agree, thats the problem.What do we do? Do we do nothing and have many lose interest and feel as though they are playing a more arcade type game? Do we change things back? I would prefer this but that would be a knee-jerk reaction of sorts so that may not be justified. I can only say on my end that I have lost interest in the series since PF was released. I don't find any challenge. I usually try it for 45 minutes to an hour and lose interest becasue the FM's feel so simplified, even in older planes. But when it comes down to it I guess that is my problem, although it is a direct result of the changes made. I don't know what the answer is and I understand everyone's point of view. They all have valid points. I really don't know what the answer is but as you can see by, what is IMO, overwhelming support that the game has become too forgiving/easy/simplified/arcade and there is concern. I said earlier I may return PF, but when I thought about it I would keep PF just out of gratitude and support for what we have been given since IL-2. I was just speaking stupidly out of frustration.

I guess what it comes down to is:

-Many people feel there is a problem.
-It may be very difficult to prove.
-I don't know what the answer is.
-Some will lose interest in the series as a result.
-At the end of the day it is my problem.

I just think it is a shame, but I'll have to deal with it. I just wanted to bring the problem to light, and I feel I have at least done that. As far as the rest goes I think some good came out of it, some bad. I just hope it all works out in the end.

Fred_77
11-06-2004, 02:02 PM
Greetings all. I just flew some PF and IL2 1.2 back to back, and have to say that the planes in PF exhbit a lot less drag then the ones in PF. For a quick example I took the IL2 p39N1 for a spin and found the lowest speed at which a loop could be entered was 310kph. In PF by contrast, the lowest loop entry speed was quite a bit lower at 260kph. The IL2 FM also showed a lot more drag in the high AoA climbs. A climb in the N1 at 150 kph resulted in a climb rate of 1200fpm. The same climb speed in the N1 in PF resulted in a rate of climb of 3000fpm. Quite a difference.

It is clear after trying IL2 and PF back to back, that PF has the more complex FM, but on the issue of drag, IL2 seems the more accurate. High AoA in IL2 causes a lot more drag and it dosen't have the "moon gravity" feel that PF does. Loop entry speeds are more in line with published reports, and hitting Vy actually means something.

Just an observation.

S!
Fred.

Hans_Philipp
11-06-2004, 02:16 PM
"1) The game Corsair cannot be turn stalled without a sharp full-deflection yank on the stick."

What kind of stall are we talking here? Accelerated stall? First, aircraft don't stall just by yanking the stick hard in level flight. After a certain AOA and at certain attitudes where airflow isn't smooth over the wings and elevators, a wing may stall. If during the turn you pull or kick violently, you simply accelerate what would happen later even if you smoothly continued to reach the edge of the envelope.

"The game Corsair stalls meekly and evenly without a wingover in a gentle level speed reduction below stall speed"

Are we talking power-on/ power-off stalls here?...on a 45 degree climb for example? The Corsair in IL-2 ALWAYS stalls one wing first in all the tests I made.

Bif, all departures, which is the proper term for the phenomena we are describing here, are not created equal. There are smooth and short stalls, abrupt accelerated stalls (which can also lead to quick recovery), flat spins, inverted spins, you name it.

People here have given every single kind of departure, mythic proportions. There are all kinds of departures, and up till now, PF has the best out-of-control flight modelling I've seen in any prop sim ever.

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2004, 02:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hans_Philipp:
"1) The game Corsair cannot be turn stalled without a sharp full-deflection yank on the stick."

What kind of stall are we talking here?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, in that particular case I am referring to a turn stall, not a speed stall.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If during the turn you pull or kick violently, you simply accelerate what would happen later even if you smoothly continued to reach the edge of the envelope. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right and what I'm saying is that I and others simply cannot get the Corsair to depart in a smoothly increasing turn. Yanking on the stick, BTW, may add an additional element to the issue... that is rotational inertia that carries the plane beyond the stall AoA that it would otherwise achieve with smoothly increasing elevator deflection. With smooth full-stick, the Corsair is unrealistically reluctant to stall.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
"The game Corsair stalls meekly and evenly without a wingover in a gentle level speed reduction below stall speed" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are we talking power-on/ power-off stalls here?... on a 45 degree climb for example? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I clarified "level speed reduction", but in the tests that I did yesterday I ran with 20% to 0% power... The game plane just gently noses over wings-level while in the Vought training video there is a sudden wingover which the narrator characterises as typical behavior.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Corsair in IL-2 ALWAYS stalls one wing first in all the tests I made. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, but I have trouble believing you are performing the same tests. Either you are deliberately trying to induce the wingovers by jerking the stick or we are running different software somehow. Because in MY copy of the game, the Corsair is a very meek plane that only does a wingover when handled roughly... incongruent with reality.

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2004, 03:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AgentBif:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hans_Philipp:
"1) The game Corsair cannot be turn stalled without a sharp full-deflection yank on the stick."

What kind of stall are we talking here?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In that particular case (if you read carefully) I am referring to a turn stall (induced stall), not a level slow stall.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If during the turn you pull or kick violently, you simply accelerate what would happen later even if you smoothly continued to reach the edge of the envelope. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right and what I'm saying is that I and others simply cannot get the Corsair to depart in a smoothly increasing turn. Yanking on the stick, BTW, may add an additional element to the issue... that is rotational inertia that carries the plane beyond the stall AoA that it would otherwise achieve with smoothly increasing elevator deflection. With smooth full-stick, the Corsair is unrealistically reluctant to stall.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
"The game Corsair stalls meekly and evenly without a wingover in a gentle level speed reduction below stall speed" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are we talking power-on/ power-off stalls here?... on a 45 degree climb for example? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I clarified "level speed reduction", but in the tests that I did yesterday I ran with 20% to 0% power... The game plane just gently noses over wings-level while in the Vought training video there is a sudden wingover which the narrator characterises as typical behavior.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Corsair in IL-2 ALWAYS stalls one wing first in all the tests I made. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, but I have trouble believing you are performing the same tests. Either you are deliberately trying to induce the wingovers by jerking the stick or we are running different software somehow. Because in MY copy of the game, the Corsair is a very meek plane that only does a wingover when handled roughly... incongruent with reality. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

RocketDog
11-06-2004, 03:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
So, you are are quite happy with everything PF and you think there is nothing wrong with anything in the game at all?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. For instance, I suspect that there isn't enough drag produced with flaps set to landing because I can't reproduce the high sink-rate landings seen in film of carrier based aircraft. The stall and dive behaviour of all aircrat is also clearly simplified. A major flaw, often overlooked, is that (I suspect) real WWII aircraft needed a lot more rudder to turn smoothly than we need to use in the game.

However, these are all suspicions not backed up by any great evidence. Even if true, at least some of them are probably compromises required because of limited computer power (stall behaviour) or required to allow people to play without having to have expensive peripherals (foot pedals or twist sticks for rudder operation).

But I don't know these things for a fact so I mention them in passing aware that I might be wrong. What I don't do is post up my opinions as if they were unarguably true and claim that Oleg is selling out because he doesn't immediately change the game to reflect what I claim. If others exercised a similar discrimination between what they know to be a fact and what they suspect then FM discussions might be a bit more productive. As it is at the moment we have to wade through pages of opinion dressed up as fact. The ridiculous claim that no aircraft can loop continuously is a nice recent example.

Regards,

RocketDog.

PS - my biggest problem with PF so far has been the lack of single missions.

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2004, 03:39 PM
I've played with stalling the Corsair some more and can't seem to turn stall it any more... even with a sharp full-deflection jerk of the stick. Can anyone induce a turn stall at something over 200kph?

I'm pretty sure I was able to get it to flip out in a high speed turn before, but now I can't do it at all (full difficulty on). If someone can reproduce reliable induced moderate to high speed stalls, please indicate the procedure.

In any case, this is a kicker: It's way clear that the Corsair flight model is too forgiving if the plane can't be turn stalled! Certainly the plane seems much too reluctant to give way.

In a full-power climb stall (which I had never tried before) I am reliably able to get a limp wingover. Bravo! This is as I would expect the plane to behave... at least reasonably close. The wingover is probably too mild, but at least it's there.

Regarding level slow stall... If you watch the Vought training video, the Corsair abruptly flips into a wingover. (Procedure: drop airbrakes, flaps, cut throttle, and hold level flight until you're suddenly looking up at the ground.) But in the game the plane just noses into a gentle descent. I've looked at this more carefully and I've come to the conclusion that it isn't actually stalling! I think it is just gently entering a steady-state descent with the wings maintaining proper lift airflow. It appears that the elevator doesn't have enough authority to hold AoA above the stall threshhold.

I wonder then if this is the problem with turn stalls too? Perhaps there isn't enough oomph in the elevator?

But then if you try loops that top out around 70-80 kph while full power, you see that the plane seems to suffer no torque or prop-vortex effects... So perhaps there are multiple deficiencies that leave the game's Corsair too meek in handling.

(Incidentally, I don't know whether the problems with the Corsair are implying a systemic problem with the new flight modelling engine or not... It's just that the Corsair seems to have easy-to-spot discrepancies with reality and so that's what I've been focussing on.)

mazexx
11-06-2004, 05:25 PM
I must say I have a hard time following this discussion when a lot of intelligent people say that they are going to stop playing IL2 or even return it because of the stall/drag issues in the 3.0 version...

All you out there with no ILR flying experience - what do you really mean when you say that the XXX plane does not "feel right" when stalling? I've played almost all flight sims there since the C64 days and not one of them is even close to simulate the feeling when your plane is "loosing it"...

I've had a pilots licence since 1985 and I've flown aerobatics a lot. I can tell you this - no other flight sim is even close to IL2. Tell me one other sim that handles stalls better than IL2?

A flight sim will never ever be even close to the real thing due to the fact that you can not simulate the G forces and other inputs that affect a pilot IRL. I think of maximum deflection on the joystick as in the fly-by-wire modern jets. When flying an old prop plane IRL near Vne you would never even dream of smacking the stick back to the stop (or being physically able to do it!). Like most other PC flightsim/games I assume that when you exceed Va (manouvre speed) the joystick deflection is to some extent interpreted as "full deflection any sane pilot would have applied at that speed + a little more http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Prop sims that really apply full deflections according to joystick positions feel completely insane as you do get a hell of a lot of feedback both in stick resistance and most of all in your body getting six or seven times heavier before that high speed stall... Believe me, you DO NOT miss the signs as when you sit there with a piece of plasic in one hand and a donut in the other!

Sorry for sounding so irritated but I don't think Oleg deserves this. If it wouldn't be for him and his fellow programmers we would still be stuck with M$' ****...

I do agree that for example the Corsair feels a helluva lot to easy to fly from what I've read about the plane but i still enjoy it every second. Someone once wrote a review about a racing game where the judgement on the phisics engine was: "The cars handle like we would like to beleive that a sports car does..." When making a computer game - isn't that really better than an exact replica of the real cars behaviour?

After all, this IS a game sold for few bucks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

/Mazex

609IAP_Recon
11-06-2004, 05:31 PM
Excellent Fred! - I will email this information to Oleg and see what he thinks.

You jogged my memory - I can sharply recall where I was very much paying attention to my speeds in the P39 in IL2 when in a looping fight with a 109F4/G2 - you had to really pay attention to what you were doing.

609IAP_Recon
11-06-2004, 05:36 PM
mazexx, I think everyone will agree with you.

I think most of this is that we have some rather fond feelings toward the original IL2 and some are questioning whether PF has drifted from the original IL2 FM's. (It is not the individual aircraft that are being questioned in this particular thread but rather the aircraft as a whole)

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2004, 05:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mazexx:
Sorry for sounding so irritated but I don't think Oleg deserves this. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What do you mean by "this"? Oleg most certainly does not deserve rude challenges to his competence and integrity (selling out) by ill-informed gamers!

But he most _certainly_ deserves constructively phrased help from fans in an attempt to iron out potential problems that might cause the game to deviate significantly from realism.

Critique is a GOOD thing when employed properly!

Korolov
11-06-2004, 05:46 PM
I understand what you mean completely, Hunde - the feeling that there's no real challenge to flying aircraft and that differences from one plane to the next seem minor or unnoticable?

If so, that's what I've always felt ever since I started getting a grip on things. The only changes from plane to plane seem to be turn rate, speed, acceleration, VNE and roll rate. In a way, the P-47 could be flown in a similar fashion as the P-51 and vice versa. What keeps me coming back is basically the DM and the gunnery; that's my most favored part of the game. I like to see holes, shot up parts, gunfire, flames, etc. - almost always to the point that I don't even notice or feel how the plane is flying or how it handles.

I think thats all a combat flight sim can hope to do; anything related entirely to how a plane flies down to the last rivet in the fuselage is always left for the dedicated civil sims a la MSFS.

I'm sorry you can't fully enjoy the game as it is now, but I can understand your reasons for not enjoying it as much.

If it helps any, you might try flying around with heavy loads, like 3 drop tanks and 100% fuel and see how things fly then. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Labienus
11-06-2004, 06:10 PM
LOL.... with all due respect my friends. About what we're talking here? One side is telling that get into stall on Corsair is possible and easy and second that is very difficult to get into stall on it. On low speed of cource. And I'm realy don't know what to think of it... so I will write it this way:

PF FM is more complex.... yup http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
5.5 tons plane with more then hundred kilos of high speed 4 meter propeler wich is turning very quickly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif on less then 30m of wing area..... plz don't even try to argue that it should be less or more forgiving. The plane of this size and this weight on this wing area below 280km/h is barely keeping in the air!!!! Sorry... but what we all here talk about? FM?? What FM lol ?? Try two times lighter Bf109E7 in old IL2 of making low some quick roll below 250km/h - u will get quickly on the ground in pieces. And in PF? Corsair on this speed can with NO problems make loops ROFL. WHAT FM??

With full flaps down, landing gear down, tailhook extended :P I can get on 1000m in less then 30 secs buhaha.... What FM??

Never ever piston plane can make such thing with this configuration. And in old IL2 not a singular plane with everything up (gear, flaps, rad close) - even La5FN can't make such effort like now can for exemple Corsair. I mean on low speed climbing. Bf109 was climbing like helicopter? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif So how Oleg u can name this? The Corsair and Hellcat wich were known from their poor low speed climb rate!

The same thing is with F6F, P38, KI84 and so on. About what FM we are talking about?

Every plane flyes the same way! The only difference is on max velocity and how fast plane can turn. And there is one more - japanese planes are above some velocity limit hard to turn. Nothing more. Te stall, how plane get into stall, generaly how plane flyes in different situations... this "feeling" how u name it.... is the same for all new planes and some of old (P38, P39). Zero, Corsair, Wildcat, A20 - everything flyes the same way. No energy bleed, almost no stalls. PF FM is more complex of cource...
Between Bf109E4 and E7B in old IL2 Sturmovik is more difference in FM then between Zero and Corsair in PF. Go on and test it! Try after that some Friedrichs and Gustavs and u will be sure that only Bf109 familly have more difference between these subtypes then whole PF has now between all new planes. I'm not talking about difference between Bf109 and FW190 or maybe even some russian planes cuz it is astronomical differences comparing to PF. If u don't think that FM is only max velocity and max turn rate u will feel it greatly.

So plz don't tell me there is something more or less forgiving when 5.5 tons of steel is making loops 50km/h above stall speed when it should be barely flying. I'm sure on old Sturmovik low speed characteristics of some planes could be done a lot better and for me it isn't and ideal but what we have here it is.... CFS FM level. So comparing to old IL2 PF as CFS looks like they didn't have any FM. I know there is FM but so easy that talking about some adventages or more or less forgiving fly characteristics is simple not worth it. What we want to do? Make from the begining new FM for all planes? No plane in PF flyes as it should be in such PC sim. No plane fly even close to it. So what comparing we can made? NONE!

Sorry for writing it this way but I can understand Olegs motivation and what he want to do with this sim (Michcic wrote it well more then 2-3 times here) but I realy hate when somebody is making idiot of me and all poeple and telling them that all they know, all they feel is b*****t. Nobody can knew anything cuz everytime it is good and realistic... and as wrote Fehler before everytime another patch is changing everything completely. But of cource nobody knows anything. 5.5tons plane is flying like a kite... and he flyes the same way as less then 2 tons plane. Of cource! PF has more complex FM and finito! Enjoy best sime ever!

And u Oleg want us to believe that BoB will be realistic? Plz...

Best regards and for one more time forgive me my english plz!

ZG77_Nagual
11-06-2004, 06:13 PM
Agentbif - The Corsair definitely turn stalls at higher speeds with and without jerking the stick. You may want to check your joystick settings.

JG77Von_Hess
11-06-2004, 06:50 PM
Hello Mazexx.

I do attend to agree with you on some points in this last post.
And having people with real life flying experience is a good thing. I know at least one more who have posted here also is a pilot. But i am seriosly in for for retuning of this games FM/Flight physics.

when looking at doing arobatics in a plane with a Vne that is slower then the requierd minimum safe speed for performing a simpel role, or loop i personly dont think its so easy to say whats right or wrong, but looking at basics i find them off to such an extend that it spoils this game for me.

Here is an earlyer post of mine:
Well this is one of the best threads for a long time, and this still has importance for me.

To Oleg Maddox, good to see you back here and posting regulary just as early IL2Sturm. Days.

I have played this game since the first IL2Demo and to be honest there is no better WW2 Game out there taken all the goods and bads into account.

I still have some things left unanwserd, like the near non eksisting E-bleed, near no planes can high speed stall and G stall, Complete lack of a plain and complete stall through power on/off flaps in or out, dacceleration is near non esitence even with engine off, near no drag penalty with flaps fully out, all planes can do fully crossed contorles without entering a hassard, most off the planes has a glide figure of a modern glider.. i have a lot more questions like this but lets leave it with these.

To me the biggest difference between a game and a sim is how it handles real life flight physiscs.. Not if the this plane is 3 kmh too slow and and this planes inital climb rate is off by 100 feet.

So what can be done here? to me theres lots of things to improove and work on, and im not talking about sqirrels in the trees and and little green and red ricelamps in towns at night

Really i look at most of theese post are put here from poeple who like this game and want it to be better/realistic not trying to poo it or Oleg.

Regadrs.

VH.

WWMaxGunz
11-06-2004, 06:57 PM
Mazex, all IL2 series joystick control is not position of user joystick = position of
aircraft control stick. Not. Position of user joystick is amount of pilot strength
applied to aircraft stick and is varied by stick sensitivity settings. Take it from
there. If you have all the sliders at 100 then 10% of stick pull position makes 10%
of pilot strength, 50% = 50%, 100% = full strength modelled at 50 lbs pull.

Most people don't have that in order to be able to use more stick movement in aiming
and small moves near center for other things... fine control. Then the sliders trend
upwards which results in more and more strength used per increment the farther back
the stick is pulled which you don't feel without force feedback, maybe even then.
What does that tell you? A real stick is also harder to pull farther from trim-neutral
and this strength based system is good to go with being able to trim although I wish
the trim worked different, I can't stop the delayed action once set and just tapping
gets incremental jumps like the trimwheel has detents it clicks along. It's what we
have unless our stick or hotas has a usable dial on it.

Why can some people stall and spin from turns while others cannot and then claim
absolutely that it can't be done? I can in the F4F, going to have to try the F4U
but if the new planes all fly the same then why bother?

I can take off without flaps below 200 kph. That's as in rise upwards from the
ground. Yet I read that I should be barely staying in the air at 280 kph???

From what I've learned in the last week, the FM is not so far off as to get
hysterical about. I'll just wait for the patch when they've had the TIME to
spend tuning for margins. It was worse in the FB 1.0 release, IMHO.


Neal

sapre
11-06-2004, 07:07 PM
I just went into QMB, crimea map, 500m alt, in a F4U-1D.
At speed of 350kmh, I "jerked off the stick" and guess what?
I entered a stall quickly and I crash into the sea!
I also select Spitifire Mk.V, and I started a loop at around 250kmh as mentioned before.
Guess what?
At the top of the loop I entered a flat spin and crashed into the sea!
So seriously, I don't get what these people is talking about at all!
Are you people sure that you didn't played CFS3 accidently?

Sundowner.pl
11-06-2004, 07:25 PM
Dam n you Labi, you wrote everything I wanted to http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif to bad Oleg will not read it... and if he will - nothing gonna happen. Anyway, if anybody can tell Oleg what was wrote here, I got only one question for him: Was it worth it ?

Was it worth to do best WW2 a/c sim, and then spoil it ?


What we have in PF?
We have great graphics, we have a **** load of planes (with FB/AEP), and not really much more. Hey, wait, what do we usually seek in FPS games ? I tell you: good graphics and a **** load of cool weapons, and not really much more. And that€s what FB/AEP/PF have came to, a Shooter.
What we seek in simulations is realism, and somebody forgot this fact, when saying that PF is €œbest sim ever€.

Where are my facts, my proves you ask? I tell you €" they are at 10 previous pages of this topic!

Oh, and one more thing, I want to thank Oleg for two things:
1. Il-2 Sturmovik €" best WW2 a/c sim ever.
2. Best laugh of my live when he wrote that flying is easy, and compared flying a 5 ton WW2 warbird, to a modern mid-light aircraft. For Christ sake, flying Cesna is not flying a 5 ton, 2200hp, €œall manual€ fighter !!!

ZG77_Nagual
11-06-2004, 08:10 PM
Wasn't there some anomaly awhile back where people with amd processors were getting some variation in performance? I'm starting to wonder. I can start a loop in a cobra at 260k but it's just barely hangin on the top and needs very delecate controls. The corsair on my machine is very different from what agentbif is describing. I'm starting to wonder if maybe something is up with the installs on certain systems or something.

clint-ruin
11-06-2004, 08:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
Wasn't there some anomaly awhile back where people with amd processors were getting some variation in performance? I'm starting to wonder. I can start a loop in a cobra at 260k but it's just barely hangin on the top and needs very delecate controls. The corsair on my machine is very different from what agentbif is describing. I'm starting to wonder if maybe something is up with the installs on certain systems or something. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not only that, it's now splitting things between different DLLs depending on the users machine.

il2_coreP4.dll
mg_snd_sse.dll

etc :>

sapre
11-06-2004, 09:16 PM
Oleg Maddox: ENOUGH!! ENOUGH NOW, SHUT UP!
Sundowner.pl: Hey, Labienus, I'll give you 20 bucks if you can refute Oleg.
Labienus:Whinners, I summon you to me, banish these spoilers and mental inferior ones from my presence.
Oleg Maddox: SHUT UP!
Sundowner.pl: No, you little snotty-nosed *****.
Oleg Maddox: WHAT?!!
Sundowner.pl: Your sim got lifts, buster, I can tell.
Oleg Maddox: Eh, LIFT THIS, HAIRSPRAY!! *sound of something hitting something*
Sundowner.pl: OW, MY NOSE!!
Sundowner.pl: This cost a lot of money. I'll whine you into jail, a@@hole.
Sapre: Hit me, man. I LIKE IT!!
Sundowner.pl: Ow, my d@mn nose.
Oleg Maddox: Aww, stop crying, baby boy. Who you gonna tell, huh? Where's your Anti Maddox whinning now? You think I'm a little wimp now? You want to be rude about Pacific Fighters now, eh? You think you a tough guy from the gutter now, ah, my friend? You think you can screw with me? With Oleg Maddox? What you thinking, a$$hole?
Sundowner.pl: Ah, I'm sorry. Please don't hit me again. I...Iove your sim.

uhoh7
11-06-2004, 11:58 PM
I have to say, much as i love Oleg and all he has given us, he has always been stubborn when it comes to FMs. Not that he hasn't changed them, hehe. He has many many times.

Those of us, and there are many, who have flow this sim from the beginning, know all the metamorphosis we have gone through.

At every stage, Oleg has declared that most know nothing about FMs and that the current incarnation was based on best evidence. Yet new incarnations appeared again and again.

It's not fair to use the original il2 as reference, because there were genuine issues with some FMs. The real referance point should be the il2 which directly preceeded the release of FB, about three or four patches in. Oleg warned us before the release of that patch "all is changed, and eveyone will have a hard time adjusting", I'm paraphrasing. It was different and it was great. The FMs have never appoached that complexity since. Where is my data? Like Fred77 and many others I have thousands of hours in this sim and we feel it when things change. FB was a HUGE change in FMs and that was the first time the word "arcade" was ever used by anyone to describe an FM in il2.

Oleg defended FMs before FB and after, even though they were TOTALLY different. There is no doubt that Oleg knows more about how AC fly than all of us put together. But we know this sim **** well because we fly it all the time. Hours and hours.

So I wish Oleg would understand that. If loyal customers, who love the game, and who have played it for a long time feel the FMs are off in many AC, then OLEG should take it seriously and look hard at the FMs, as he has in the past.

I know we will have some real improvments in various FMs coming up. I hope Oleg will cool down and see that we are not all whiners. We have bought every incarnation and add-on he could throw at us. We love him and all his guys. But many veteran il2 pilots find many FMs in this current incarnation VERY UNREALISTIC, which leads to, well frankly, boredom.

We all have great respect for Oleg. I hope Oleg respects our views enough to reconsider and tune his FMs again, as he has done in the past.

uhoh7

mazexx
11-07-2004, 01:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AgentBif:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mazexx:
Sorry for sounding so irritated but I don't think Oleg deserves this. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What do you mean by "this"? Oleg most certainly does not deserve rude challenges to his competence and integrity (selling out) by ill-informed gamers!

But he most _certainly_ deserves constructively phrased help from fans in an attempt to iron out potential problems that might cause the game to deviate significantly from realism.

Critique is a GOOD thing when employed properly! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do agree with you completely - and as my post ended up after one of yours I am sorry that the impression could have been that it was an answer to your post! What I meant is exactly the same as you. Constructive critics is what will make 1C do the changes proposed here - and I do agree to most of them even though I do not agree with the solution - ie returning the game or calling Oleg things he doesn't deserve.

This is an x.0 release and it WILL be fixed in one way or another in one of the upcoming patches! Up until then lets just enjoy the multitude of aircraft that has been added in PF, and send tracks to Oleg with constructive comments. If players like you here wouldn't be around, IL2 would not be as successful as it is, so returning the game to go play what? will not be constructive!

If I would read this thread as a potential buyer (and I always go to the forums of a game before buying it) I would probably think twice about buying it, and if what Oleg says about the financial state of 1C is true then we will maybe never see BoB.

Even with all the issuses mentioned here - don't forget to take a trip around the field in CFS3 to remember what the world would be like without 1C. Talk about stall modelling in that "sim"... Planes that depart and start "falling" to the ground in some kind of a "this is a heap of pixels on the loose - whatch out!" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Regards /mazex

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2004, 01:53 AM
Mazzex

What is the point of saying "let's enjoy the multitude of planes......."
This part of the problem, m8

how about something like

it's like this;

Why have a garage full of cars and let's keep on getting more cars. Who cares about the roads being rutted and potholed, let's get more cars.

More planes is dodging the issues, covering the issues with candy, if you like.

clint-ruin
11-07-2004, 02:57 AM
If you have hundreds of aircraft, all of them with their own flight parameters, and you need to add a family of aircraft whose correct operation totally depends on changing a small part of the low alt/low speed flight model ..

And there ain't time to go through and re-examine the effects of this change on other aircraft..

What magic, exactly, would you use to make sure that you can ship by the cut-off date and not have a few side effects creeping into the final code?

Nothin' up my sleeves..

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2004, 03:32 AM
I guess that reinforces not having hundreds of planes in the first place

Turn the telly off, sit down for a minute and think about it.

Kwiatos
11-07-2004, 03:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mazexx:
I must say I have a hard time following this discussion when a lot of intelligent people say that they are going to stop playing IL2 or even return it because of the stall/drag issues in the 3.0 version...

All you out there with no ILR flying experience - what do you really mean when you say that the XXX plane does not "feel right" when stalling? I've played almost all flight sims there since the C64 days and not one of them is even close to simulate the feeling when your plane is "loosing it"...

I've had a pilots licence since 1985 and I've flown aerobatics a lot. I can tell you this - no other flight sim is even close to IL2. Tell me one other sim that handles stalls better than IL2?

/Mazex <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I suggest you try Aces High 2 latest version. Try make loop and turn. See how much speed planes need to do manouvers, and try flying Corsair. You will be wonder.

clint-ruin
11-07-2004, 03:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vagueout:
I guess that reinforces not having hundreds of planes in the first place

Turn the telly off, sit down for a minute and think about it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dunno, I'd think it would be pretty silly to keep buying a game that kept adding more planes if you don't want more planes?

ICDP
11-07-2004, 04:06 AM
Hi all,

I have been following this thread with interest and some of the points made I agree with totally (some aircraft are too easy to fly) but others have given me cause to register here and make a response (my first post).

My main reason for posting here is to refute the continuous claims (myth) that IL2 had better FM's than AEP/PF. I have tested IL2 v1.2 and PF using the same aircraft (109E4, 109E7/Z, Fw190A4 La5-FN and P39) and in most cases they are better modelled in PF. The P39 is undoubtedly harder to fly in IL2 as it is more prone to stall and spin. On the other hand it had a inadequately modelled turnrate and was closer to the Fw190 in this respect (by all accounts it should be a very close if not better turner than the 109G at low level). The FM of the 109's are very similar in both games eg. loop entry speeds are very close and the feel in flight is similar but in PF it feels more fluid. I am unable to loop either 109E effectively at less than 290kph (I don't count a flip at the top as a loop). In IL2 the Fw190A4 is able to run at 1.8 ATA with WEP and 1.52 ATA with 100% throttle, this is way to powerfull for a 190A4. Once again the feel of the Fw190A4 is similar in both games but at least in PF it runs at realisitc power levels, it is also not advisable to enter a loop at less than 340kph (both games). I would also like to point out that I fly the Fw190A4 far more than any other fighter in the whole IL2 series. I therefore feel qualified to state that since AEP 2.04 it has barely changed and in fact I felt it had degraded slightly in vertical agility (just a feeling). The differences between the IL2 1.2 La5-FN and the same aircraft in PF is massive. In IL2 the La5-FN will enter loops at 260kph, in PF it needs 290kph for a loop, it is also more prone to spin/stall in PF. So please don't try to convince people that IL2 had far superior FM's, they are both similar and in some cases quite suspect but overall PF seems more dynamic/fluid.

Some people are stating that Oleg and team can do no wrong, this is BS as they are only human (this not an attack on Oleg and his team). If it is possible to get the Ki61 Hien modelled totally wrong (by Olegs own addmission) why is it hard to believe that the other aircraft have suffered the same fate. Some aircraft were undermodelled and some overmodelled, as a result we have seen dramatic FM in the past (P51, P39, P47, P40, Fw190, La5-FN and Hurricane etc), we will see more changes in the future.

For me there is no question that PF has changed the "feel" of the series but it is not necessarily for the worse. Given time and some chances to tweak the FM I believe that we will see more realistic behaviour for all aircraft (within the contraints of home PC's). I wouldn't dare claim what is or isn't correct in FM's, I can only give an opinion when I feel something doesn't match up to real accounts, I am therefore of the opinion that the speeds required to do aerobatics in AEP/PF are too low. I feel this is as a result of inadequately modelled energy bleed (parasitic drag etc), fix the energy bleed problem and most of these "too easy handling" issues will be moot IMHO.

I have been overly critical in the past but upon reflection the IL2 series has steadily improved over the years. PF is still an outstanding sim despite its flaws, on this we can all agree or we wouldn't be posting here. There are some issues with PF (it is unfinished) but cut Oleg and his team some slack, they deserve it and they will get it right given time.

Kwiatos
11-07-2004, 06:48 AM
ICDP said"

"I can only give an opinion when I feel something doesn't match up to real accounts, I am therefore of the opinion that the speeds required to do aerobatics in AEP/PF are too low. I feel this is as a result of inadequately modelled energy bleed (parasitic drag etc), fix the energy bleed problem and most of these "too easy handling" issues will be moot IMHO"

That will be fine if energy bleed, minimum speed for doing manouvers are corrected but Oleg M. said that everything is ok. So what we should think about these?
I think Oleg M. forget that not only nice graphic, plenty of planes are important. For many of us which have played these game since old Il2 very important thing is realism and realistic FM. These things make these game special. Im not belive that its no possbile to make these things better in these game. For god sake in some terms even old games like Warbirds or Aces High 2 make it better way - games which has not more then 100mb. If its true that Oleg M. want people playing FPS to buy and play his game it is noot good that he forget about hardcore players like some of us http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

CHDT
11-07-2004, 06:50 AM
"The real referance point should be the il2 which directly preceeded the release of FB, about three or four patches in. Oleg warned us before the release of that patch "all is changed, and eveyone will have a hard time adjusting", I'm paraphrasing. It was different and it was great. The FMs have never appoached that complexity since."


Right on, it was exactly the second patch of AEP.

Now, in PF, I can fly the P-39 nose-up at 130-160 km/h and do funky things without risking anything. When I read the Pilot's book of the P-39, I doubt it's correct, but of course I never flew a real P-39 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

sapre
11-07-2004, 07:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CHDT:
"The real referance point should be the il2 which directly preceeded the release of FB, about three or four patches in. Oleg warned us before the release of that patch "all is changed, and eveyone will have a hard time adjusting", I'm paraphrasing. It was different and it was great. The FMs have never appoached that complexity since."


Right on, it was exactly the second patch of AEP.

Now, in PF, I can fly the P-39 nose-up at 130-160 km/h and do funky things without risking anything. When I read the Pilot's book of the P-39, I doubt it's correct, but of course I never flew a real P-39 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Are you sure you are not playing CFS3?
I did a nose-up at 240kmh I and I coudn't keep it!

Kwiatos
11-07-2004, 07:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sapre:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CHDT:
"The real referance point should be the il2 which directly preceeded the release of FB, about three or four patches in. Oleg warned us before the release of that patch "all is changed, and eveyone will have a hard time adjusting", I'm paraphrasing. It was different and it was great. The FMs have never appoached that complexity since."


Right on, it was exactly the second patch of AEP.

Now, in PF, I can fly the P-39 nose-up at 130-160 km/h and do funky things without risking anything. When I read the Pilot's book of the P-39, I doubt it's correct, but of course I never flew a real P-39 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Are you sure you are not playing CFS3?
I did a nose-up at 240kmh I and I coudn't keep it! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You sure you playing PF 3.0?

sapre
11-07-2004, 07:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sapre:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CHDT:
"The real referance point should be the il2 which directly preceeded the release of FB, about three or four patches in. Oleg warned us before the release of that patch "all is changed, and eveyone will have a hard time adjusting", I'm paraphrasing. It was different and it was great. The FMs have never appoached that complexity since."


Right on, it was exactly the second patch of AEP.

Now, in PF, I can fly the P-39 nose-up at 130-160 km/h and do funky things without risking anything. When I read the Pilot's book of the P-39, I doubt it's correct, but of course I never flew a real P-39 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Are you sure you are not playing CFS3?
I did a nose-up at 240kmh I and I coudn't keep it! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You sure you playing PF 3.0? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm pretty **** sure about that.
Did you fly P39N?

mazexx
11-07-2004, 07:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
I suggest you try Aces High 2 latest version. Try make loop and turn. See how much speed planes need to do manouvers, and try flying Corsair. You will be wonder. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have and I'm sorry to say that it does not give me the same feeling of flying at all - it feels very "scripted" to me compared to IL2...

What I think is the thing about PF 3.0 is not that the games FM-engine has been messed up but rather that a lot of the new planes have been made to forgiving to fly to allow people to do carrier landings (just a thought).

I messed around with a lot of the "old" planes and they do not feel at all like the F4U for example. Try the full elevator deflection loop that is possible in the F4U in the P-38 or P-51 and you'll se what I mean. The plane that feels weirdest to me i the Val which can be flown with full elevator deflection all the time going from 80 degree bank turns right into a loop at a speed of about 200km/h. At the same time the me-109 and the LA-7 feels like they "snap" easier in hig aoa situations - at least to me!

What I'm trying to say is that the FM code has not been "dumbed down" but some of the new planes (F4U, F6F, Beaufighter, Val etc) seem to be way to "easy" to fly in high AOA. This must be easy to fix in an upcoming patch...

Regards /Maze

JG77Von_Hess
11-07-2004, 07:39 AM
Ok what kind of proof is need to make it accepteble for most people that things are off here?? Look at what Kwaitos posted before in this thread Ref. from various flight manuals.

Take a look at mustang, i can do a loop at a lower entry speed POWER OFF, and yes i have tracks recorded wich i will send oleg in case.

Regards.

VH.

WWMaxGunz
11-07-2004, 08:03 AM
There is something that some of you guys should understand but you'd never take
my word for it so:

http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/content/pastissues/2001/mar/behindcurve.html

"In the realm of reverse command, less power is required for more airspeed,
more power for less airspeed. If power greater than that which is required
to sustain level flight at existing airspeed is present, an airplane will
gain altitude. When flying on the power cure's backside, airspeed increases
when you lower the nose, and less power is required for level flight. With
power constant, the airplane will rise.
If power less than that which is required to sustain level flight at existing
airspeed is present, an airplane will lose altitude. When flying on the power
curve's back side, airspeed decreases when you lift the nose, and more power
is required for level flight. With power constant, the airplane will sink."

These warbirds have a lot of power. If you keep getting slower and nosing up
then you get that situation. If you have more power to add and you don't raise
the nose, you can climb. But if you raise the nose then that power will be
sucked up by the increased induced drag noted in the article higher up. You
CAN run in level flight below power off stall down to a certain speed just by
adding power, how slow depends on how much power you got.

Have some faith about whatever tweaks really needed being made, it's always
happened before. You think it's in response to noise on the forum? If that
was true then I can think of half a dozen changes that didn't get made.

The FM changes because as Oleg has stated, more fidelity keeps getting added,
more "modes of flight" have been included. So give them some time to finish
what didn't get done in time for the release date and lose the f-ing hostility!

We have a sim that reacts better to flying conditions than anything we've
seen before. It's one thing to note what is felt is an error and another to
post like children throwing tantrums, "you don't love me!".

This part ain't for most of you even in the thread:
Keep pushing, you cretins that have the names to call and conjure up reasons
why it's not what you want like you know. It's just rude GOSSIP and POLITICS,
a form of personal pressure as in from pushy bastids. Maybe some day you can
ruin the whole thing for the rest of us when IF YOU AIN'T SO HAPPY THEN FIND
SOMETHING ELSE TO DO! Have some faith. If you haven't liked it for 2+ years
then you shoulda quit before now, shoulda known every new release has some
things to be ironed out so WTF is so different? Not the whining! SOS-DD!


Neal

JG77Von_Hess
11-07-2004, 08:23 AM
Well ok then ill try an other approch then, what happens if u kick in full rudder and aply some opposit aileron to keep u from bankin, the guy with flight experience would say i side slip and i can even crab turn just like in real life, well thats good but do it with throttle cut to idle and watch up speed indicater, the speed dosent really drop that fast does it?? NO it dont because Induced drag and deaccle. In its various forms are not representet very well.

Regards.

VH.

JG77Von_Hess
11-07-2004, 08:31 AM
Ok lets look at this way then, lets say the FW190A4 came in to IL2 sporting 4 MK108S as a standard loadout.. this forum would burn unrealistic??? well after all IL2 is just a game.

But when someone doubts the way flight physiscs are handled here in IL2 hes getting hammerd from so many people who frankly dont know zip about flying.

Ill just go fly a bit now and enjoy my game. though still having my fingers crossed for the better.

VH.

MG15120
11-07-2004, 09:13 AM
Quick question,

I dont have PF yet, cantget it till Tuesday.

I have the latest version on IL2-FB/AEP (2.04)?

If I log into an arena that allows me with the 2.04 version, are others with the PF version able to log into that same server and have the advantage of their "updated" flight models?

WWMaxGunz
11-07-2004, 09:20 AM
You losing any alt in that sideslip?
Don't go by the speedbar, it's in 10's of meters.

Yeah, I think the planes are too slippery. Saw the same or worse in CFS.

Very heavy plane, even a small drop equals a lot of energy but still if the power is
on idle there is a glide slope of alt for energy just to stay in flight.

Ask if you have faith it will get better or should rudeness be excused?

Make yourself a track then run it with devicelink collecting alt and speed, see
just how much of each really is lost. Report that if you like, compare to a
clean glide. Devicelink will also give you slip measure if you set up for it.
Showing error with numbers is better than without.

JG77Von_Hess
11-07-2004, 09:30 AM
Hello MaxG.

I asume that was aimed at me.
No all my flying is done Full real im watching my instuments, and yes im aware of the delay in the vertical speed indicator wich is common for the machanical type we see here. Im recording it on a track and watches it, if im too sloppy in my flying i refly it.

As for rudeness, i would like u to explain what u mean it might be my english writing wich might upset some, i write and speak 4 laungeges as u see here.

Regards.

VH.

Gatt59
11-07-2004, 10:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mazexx:

I have and I'm sorry to say that (AH2) does not give me the same feeling of flying at all - it feels very "scripted" to me compared to IL2...

What I think is the thing about PF 3.0 is not that the games FM-engine has been messed up but rather that a lot of the new planes have been made to forgiving to fly to allow people to do carrier landings (just a thought).

I messed around with a lot of the "old" planes and they do not feel at all like the F4U for example. Try the full elevator deflection loop that is possible in the F4U in the P-38 or P-51 and you'll se what I mean. The plane that feels weirdest to me i the Val which can be flown with full elevator deflection all the time going from 80 degree bank turns right into a loop at a speed of about 200km/h. At the same time the me-109 and the LA-7 feels like they "snap" easier in hig aoa situations - at least to me!

What I'm trying to say is that the FM code has not been "dumbed down" but some of the new planes (F4U, F6F, Beaufighter, Val etc) seem to be way to "easy" to fly in high AOA. This must be easy to fix in an upcoming patch...

Regards /Maze <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've tried continuous looping with the F4F in AcesHigh2, Target Rabaul and Pacific Fighters. Well, the only one able to do it was the PF's one. AH2 could be more scripted, I really dunno, but at least you have to learn to manage your E if you wanna dogfight.

I tried the same thing with the PF's version of the 109G-2 and it can do it but yes, you have to be very gentle on the stick or it snaps.

I really hope they will fix all this mess with the incoming two or three patch(es) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

uhoh7
11-07-2004, 10:50 AM
from ICDP

"My main reason for posting here is to refute the continuous claims (myth) that IL2 had better FM's than AEP/PF. I have tested IL2 v1.2 and PF using the same aircraft (109E4, 109E7/Z, Fw190A4 La5-FN and P39) and in most cases they are better modelled in PF. The P39 is undoubtedly harder to fly in IL2 as it is more prone to stall and spin. On the other hand it had a inadequately modelled turnrate and was closer to the Fw190 in this respect (by all accounts it should be a very close if not better turner than the 109G at low level). The FM of the 109's are very similar in both games eg. loop entry speeds are very close and the feel in flight is similar but in PF it feels more fluid. I am unable to loop either 109E effectively at less than 290kph (I don't count a flip at the top as a loop). In IL2 the Fw190A4 is able to run at 1.8 ATA with WEP and 1.52 ATA with 100% throttle, this is way to powerfull for a 190A4. Once again the feel of the Fw190A4 is similar in both games but at least in PF it runs at realisitc power levels, it is also not advisable to enter a loop at less than 340kph (both games). I would also like to point out that I fly the Fw190A4 far more than any other fighter in the whole IL2 series. I therefore feel qualified to state that since AEP 2.04 it has barely changed and in fact I felt it had degraded slightly in vertical agility (just a feeling). The differences between the IL2 1.2 La5-FN and the same aircraft in PF is massive. In IL2 the La5-FN will enter loops at 260kph, in PF it needs 290kph for a loop, it is also more prone to spin/stall in PF. So please don't try to convince people that IL2 had far superior FM's, they are both similar and in some cases quite suspect but overall PF seems more dynamic/fluid"

I appreciate your taking the time to install 1.2 and check this out. Many AC felt different after releasse of FB, but maybe this was result of increased "fluidity". Certainly the LA-5 was overmodeled at that point, I think we all remember that.

So what you are saying is that many AC in AEP+PF are reasonably modeled, better or as good as il2 1.2. It seems primarily the new AC which may need some work. I know you have posted a list and some stats at simHQ, but perhaps you could give us a summary here of which current AC are most suspicious and why.


all the best, uhoh7

Michcich_303
11-07-2004, 11:37 AM
Guys,

Pls have a look at how bautifully Lock-On team has approached the FM. Click on the links below and see how well it is explained what they have done. There is also info on comparison of in-game planes to real data. We never got something like that from Oleg. WHY ?

This proves that you can do a lot of things regarding FM even with the computing power of current PCs. What you need to do that is to WANT to make it.

Links:

http://lockon.ru/index.php?end_pos=10&lang=en&scr=list&page=2#254


There is also info that Lock-On v. 1.1 will offer even MORE COMPLEX FM:

http://lockon.ru/index.php?end_pos=9&lang=en&scr=list&page=0#324 )

Oleg, any comments ?

Hans_Philipp
11-07-2004, 12:38 PM
Michcich, although I would like to see the same level of openness from the 1CM crew, I don't think we will. The reason, IMO, is that they don't need to.

The Lock-on team are having trouble selling their product so they'll say and document everything that helps it sell more (the new add-on I mean).

They realized they could not get the mainstream crowds they wanted in, so now they're trying to recruit the h/c player who buy, didn't play, or didn't like Lock-on.

Oleg isn't in any such position so I doubt he would feel his back against the wall, and ths start releasing stuff like FM code.

Michcich_303
11-07-2004, 01:17 PM
Hans_Philip, Oleg may get into "no man`s land" fairly quickly if he continues the policies he seems to be pursuing at the moment. He will be increasingly at odds with hard-core simmers while not really able to recruit teenagers.

Some day a new, abitious and talented developer will come and do to IL2 and 1C what Oleg and 1C has done to MS and CFS series previoulsy....I think Oleg should get over his own complacency and take such scenario seriously into account...

Even in such extremely niche genre as submarine simulations (much less sales opportunity than in flight sims !) you can see fabulous things being done by new, success-hungry guys (Romanian developers for SH3).

I really hope Oleg will eventually decide to listen more to loyal users of his product. Remember these are more adult and mature users, with deeper pocket - it`s worth to retain them.

ICDP
11-07-2004, 01:25 PM
Uhoh,

I have performed tests on some aircraft that feature in both PF and IL2, these test show remarkable similarities (Bf109G2 is almost identical in most respects). The point I am making is that Il2 1.2 is not the holy grail of sim FM's that many here have proclaimed. Yes some aircraft are harder to fly in IL2 but some are a lot easier (Laf-FN and Bf109G6-AS). The acceleration during ground run on take off in IL2 is phenominal (8 seconds), the same aircraft in PF takes almost twice as long (15 seconds). I wont say the AEP/PF FM is an improvement in all areas but it certainly isn't the big step backwards a lot are claiming in to be.

I feel that for the most part PF feels good, it is no different from all other initial releases in the series in that some planes clearly need to be tweaked to make them closer to their real life counterparts. This has happened in the past (we all know the aircraft that needed fixed) and they have for the most part been fixed. In all honesty I feel that while some aircraft do need tweaked for handling the main problem is the underdone drag modelling.

A.K.Davis
11-07-2004, 01:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MG15120:
Quick question,

I dont have PF yet, cantget it till Tuesday.

I have the latest version on IL2-FB/AEP (2.04)?

If I log into an arena that allows me with the 2.04 version, are others with the PF version able to log into that same server and have the advantage of their "updated" flight models? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, of course not.

clint-ruin
11-07-2004, 01:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michcich_303:
Hans_Philip, Oleg may get into "no man`s land" fairly quickly if he continues the policies he seems to be pursuing at the moment. He will be increasingly at odds with hard-core simmers while not really able to recruit teenagers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OH NOES!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Some day a new, abitious and talented developer will come and do to IL2 and 1C what Oleg and 1C has done to MS and CFS series previoulsy....I think Oleg should get over his own complacency and take such scenario seriously into account... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you will find that those currently in the sim business are on the lookout for a way out, not a way in to the market. The fact that you can't even name a sim to compete with PF in the same area tells us rather a lot. You have to appeal, instead, to mystery-sim-we-don't-know-about - one that-is-really-really-better-despite-not-existing-yet. Uh-huh..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Even in such extremely niche genre as submarine simulations (much less sales opportunity than in flight sims !) you can see fabulous things being done by new, success-hungry guys (Romanian developers for SH3).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahh! Naturally I was keen to go and check this out. Except .. what are you comparing here? Screenshots? Wow. Are you really that desperate? Yes. That sounds like a fair comparison - we will sit and imagine how good a game Silent Hunter 3 is, with the visual aid of screenshots, compared to our experiences with the Il2 franchise since 2001. Perhaps you should start a poll.

Games like say, OFP or SH3 or Il2 are helped by depressed payroll costs. The problem is - we are already playing a sim that benefits from lowered labor costs. You can't get more people to work for less money than they already are. They're at the make or break point of profitability at all, LOMAC team couldn't even hold UBI as a publisher.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I really hope Oleg will eventually decide to listen more to loyal users of his product. Remember these are more adult and mature users, with deeper pocket - it`s worth to retain them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or you'll do what? Just how loud to you intend to make the screams of a handicapped nation of simmers go? How about trying being right - even once - about anything? You can find this out by doing actual recorded tests ... oh wait. I forgot - you have no interest of any kind in actually helping refine the sim - just screaming like a ******ed infant.

Michcich_303
11-07-2004, 03:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Or you'll do what? Just how loud to you intend to make the screams of a handicapped nation of simmers go? How about trying being right - even once - about anything? You can find this out by doing actual recorded tests ... oh wait. I forgot - you have no interest of any kind in actually _helping_ refine the sim - just screaming like a ******ed infant. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn`t want this to turn into a flame war and cursing each other, but seems like you decided to take the lead in this aspect, client-ruin. Have fun, you`re on the way to depress the level of this thread`s discussion.

How do you know I don`t want to improve this sim ? I`m not making tests ? They have been done, there are lots of exmples in this thread alone. What more do you need ?

I tried to foucs on commercial aspects of the issue, as it seems key to me. If things do not pay off, they will not get done however justified test, tracks and other data will be - this is true for any business, including game and sim business as well.

SH3 is clearly going towards highest possible realism to date. What the actual execution will be, we`ll see in a couple of months. What I`m saying is it won`t be "IL2/FB/PF or nothing" kind of choice for ever. If everybody`s on their way out of this business then I`m sure someone new will come upon they all have exited. IL2 kicked CFS out of business and the same may happen to IL2 in future. Someone more talented, demanding less money and more determind may make it happen. Like Oleg did in the old days...