PDA

View Full Version : Feature Request - Option for Oleg's original flight models



IAFS_Painter
07-01-2004, 01:40 AM
I have a sense that, when initially released, the aircraft in IL2/FB have well researched flight models (FM).
Commercial and public pressure leads to changes in these FMs - usually simpler/easier to fly.


Can we please have an option to use the accuratly researched FM, rather than the 'popular' model.


Where Oleg (and team) find new research* that leads to a correction in the FM, then yes, please include that corrected data in the researched model.


Sorry if this has been requested before ...

*Academically sound research - not popular opinion.

http://www.robert-stuart.me.uk/il2/signature/paint_sig_003.jpg
il2airracing.com (http://www.il2airracing.com) Painter's Pages (http://www.robert-stuart.me.uk/il2)
I've given up correcting my own spelling
Unless I've corrected it here

IAFS_Painter
07-01-2004, 01:40 AM
I have a sense that, when initially released, the aircraft in IL2/FB have well researched flight models (FM).
Commercial and public pressure leads to changes in these FMs - usually simpler/easier to fly.


Can we please have an option to use the accuratly researched FM, rather than the 'popular' model.


Where Oleg (and team) find new research* that leads to a correction in the FM, then yes, please include that corrected data in the researched model.


Sorry if this has been requested before ...

*Academically sound research - not popular opinion.

http://www.robert-stuart.me.uk/il2/signature/paint_sig_003.jpg
il2airracing.com (http://www.il2airracing.com) Painter's Pages (http://www.robert-stuart.me.uk/il2)
I've given up correcting my own spelling
Unless I've corrected it here

rummyrum
07-01-2004, 04:47 PM
I recall really enjoying the last patch for the orginal Il2 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif ahhh there were gripes back then but not like the floods as of late.

9./JG54 Rummy

gates123
07-01-2004, 05:22 PM
I'm sure there are ALOT more people playing this game now then back in IL-2 days. Between all the FPS gamers and the "P-51 won the war" crowd it won't get any quieter.

http://www.flightjournal.com/images/index_photos/gunslinging.jpg
Did anyone see that or was it just me?

609IAP_Recon
07-01-2004, 05:32 PM
you have the best flight model right now.

Unless you think Oleg was lying in that "other" thread.

He answered this very question about FM's and how FB is more advanced FM than IL2's was.

Question: you fly WW2 aircraft sir?

Salute!

IV/JG51_Recon

http://www.forgottenskies.com/jg51sig2.jpg

lbhskier37
07-01-2004, 05:36 PM
Yeah I wish we had the useless 190 and the P39 that spins when you sneaze back. Ah those were the days of "accurate" FMs.

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/pics/Killasig6.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"

"Due to the unbelievable inadequacy of Oleg's .50s the Germans have a HUGE advantage.
All they do is dive from above and in one pass cripple your plane with three or four mk108 hits." Col_Tibbetts

Fennec_P
07-01-2004, 05:40 PM
I don't think 1C would deliberately pooch a flight model to satisfy whiners.

Sure, there are people who voice ridiculously biased complaints about the FMs, but the majority of the "whines" are made by honest, knowledageable folks who have done their research. The changes that are made generally reflect new reference information.

So far, all of the particular FM changes have been made to make the planes more realistic, not less. I challenge anyone to identify a change that verifiably made the model less accurate.

Painter, you have too high an opinion of the original IL-2 flight models. You are talking about the game in which the BF-109G6A/S could helicopter climb, and the FW-190 had a concrete elevator. Most of the changes in the subsequent patches and in FB were to correct the fundamental errors in the original IL-2 models.

WTE_Galway
07-01-2004, 06:15 PM
must say in some ways i agree with painter

and logically, given how difficult these aircraft where to fly in real life, they must be simplified a little for the average punter to fly them at all (when a WWII aircraft is described as "easy" to fly by a testpilot that is relative to aircraft that were "impossible" it does not mean your 9 year old son ould climb in the cockpit)

5% of bf109's made where destroyed in takeoff and landing accidents .. the original IL2 reflected this .. the current 109 takes off and lands like a cessna

the P39 was renowned for dangerous spin tendencies, the original IL2 P39 reflected this but the current one can recover from any spin with a kick of opposite rudder

More recently with 0.50 cal I have read stacks of documentation from the RAAF bemoaning how ineffective 0.50 cal was against armoured aircraft like the Mig 15 in Korea and the original 0.50 cal in game reflected this but not the new

and the same could be said for the mk108 it also has increased in effectiveness 10 fold

the pressure is to make more and more aircraft fly on rails with the equivalent of gatling orbital bombardment cannon .. almost evey change made to the game has made guns more effective planes better behaved with more performance or aircraft less liable to damage

basically teh game has been "dumbed down" to appeal to a mass market and cater for the online dogfight whizzkids

what harm could it do to have a realistic/dogfight switch that allows the user to select FM difficulty

Fennec_P
07-01-2004, 07:26 PM
Nothing in that last post made any sense.

The 109 is no easier to land than it was before. I suggest you install IL-2 again and try.

The P-39 death spiral was never right. If it were, 100% of P-39s would have been destroyed by them.

I'm sure it would suck to have .50 cals if you're used to packing Hizookas. Though, the point of contention with the .50 cals has usually been dispersion, which is apparently corrected in the upcoming patch.

The MK108 kills planes in as many shots as it did in IL-2 1.0. Thats besides the point, as the rate of fire and dispersion were wrong in IL-2, and were corrected in subsequent patches. Any difference in the effectiveness are more likely caused by the complex damage model, which wasn't present in IL-2 1.0.

But I'm serious, load up IL-2 and try it. It is no less "on rails" then FB, nor are the weapons any less "bombardment cannons". The only real differences are the mushy stall behavior, less control authority and the multitude of FM errors that have since been fixed. That, and no CEM.

I think, as you have gotten better at the game, you regard it as being too easy. I used to think IL-2 was harder too, until I tried it again.

heywooood
07-01-2004, 08:06 PM
Fennec ~ dont waste your fingers....(breath)

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v250/heywooood/3tbm_avenger.jpg
Goin'fishin'

VMF513_Sandman
07-01-2004, 08:21 PM
the p-40's were renowned for its vicious stall characteristics, and it would go into a deadly stall/flat spin when fb 1st came out. now the p-40 doesnt do this. the plane's speed is right, but the vicious stalls that it was known for and what was in the original fb is gone. u can recover very quick if it stalls. not so with the p-63. the p-39 would also go into a very evil stall in v1.0, now, its easily recoverable. to stall a p-38 takes alot of altitude to recover from, and the lightning in a stall was a snap to recover from...and be able to use that stall to their advantage.
seems the 190's that used to snap stall and if really fubar'd, go into a flat spin is gone also. i remember the 190's being so touchy that they'd stall if u'd even sneeze wrong.

BfHeFwMe
07-01-2004, 08:55 PM
If the P-39 was really that bad, they could never have used it as a primary fighter lead in trainer. Sure, was a bit dangerous, but any plane is a potential killer to the minimal flight hour rookies sent off to build fighter time in it all alone.

Back to Il-2, with the self auto leveling training wheel saftey flight models, no thanks.

BaldieJr
07-01-2004, 09:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VMF513_Sandman:
the p-40's were renowned for its vicious stall characteristics, and it would go into a deadly stall/flat spin when fb 1st came out. now the p-40 doesnt do this. the plane's speed is right, but the vicious stalls that it was known for and what was in the original fb is gone. u can recover very quick if it stalls. not so with the p-63. the p-39 would also go into a very evil stall in v1.0, now, its easily recoverable. to stall a p-38 takes alot of altitude to recover from, and the lightning in a stall was a snap to recover from...and be able to use that stall to their advantage.
seems the 190's that used to snap stall and if really fubar'd, go into a flat spin is gone also. i remember the 190's being so touchy that they'd stall if u'd even sneeze wrong.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Refereneces? I have it on very good authority that they P40 was as likely to stall as a healthy raven. Maybe you know something I don't?

WTE_Galway
07-01-2004, 09:44 PM
well must admit one of my mates, who has never flown IL2 before, still managed an inverted flat spin in AEP even with a FFB stick whereas i have trouble getting anything to spin at all

i actually have no idea which FM is more historical

however I still think the idea of an adjustable flight model has some merit

BennyMoore
07-01-2004, 10:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
More recently with 0.50 cal I have read stacks of documentation from the RAAF bemoaning how ineffective 0.50 cal was against armoured aircraft like the Mig 15 in Korea and the original 0.50 cal in game reflected this but not the new<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excuse me? You're talking about how effective the fifty caliber is against, in your own words, "armored aircraft like the Mig Fifteen in Korea." The "Mig Fifteen in Korea" is not in this game, nor was it in World War Two!

World War Two planes are not at all the same as "Mig Fifteens in Korea!" They carried far less armor, because they had far less power.

Sandman, whereever did you get the idea that the P-40 in real life was prone to bad spins? I have never heard anything of the sort! Perhaps you were thinking of the P-39? Now, the P-40 is my second favorite plane of the war, but I do not make the claim that it was a good plane. Quite the contrary... I've heard many things about its lack of manueverability and speed. But the two things I have heard praised are its durability and stability. You claim that it's not unstable enough in the game. What makes you say that? I think that it is far too unstable (while I no longer spin in it except for on very rare occasion, the fact remains that it is one of the very easiest planes to spin in the game) and is far too delicate (it is nearly as delicate as the Zero and is one of the very least durable fighters in the game). It is, however, too manueverable. The roll rate, especially, is wrong. I know this to be true, because I have seen a P-40 fly in real life (ah, bliss!) once, as well as many times in footage, and the real P-40 does not roll nearly as good as it does in the current version of the game. The original Forgotten Battles P-40 rolled realistically, at least at the speeds I've seen the real P-40 roll at. I have never seen a real P-40 roll at high speeds, so the original Forgotten Battles P-40 may have rolled too slow then. But I know that the normal straight and level flight roll speed was correct in the original Forgotten Battles, and is too fast now. And rememember, that's me talking about my second favorite plane of the war. I don't want my favorite planes to be overmodelled any more than I want them undermodelled.

crazyivan1970
07-02-2004, 12:16 AM
Guys, have you ever thought of the fact that you maybe a BETTER pilots now then YOU WERE 3 years ago? It`s been a long time... Go ask someone that just purchased AEP...is it easy for them? Eh?

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

CHDT
07-02-2004, 01:07 AM
About the P-40 spin:

http://www.warbirdforum.com/p40spin.htm

-40 spin characteristics
AVG vet Erik Shilling posted the following on a Usenet news group in answer to a flight simmers question about how the P-36 differed from the P-40. (They are essentially the same airplane, the 36 with a radial engine and the 40 with a liquid-cooled, in-line Allison.) Comments in brackets [] are mine. -- Dan Ford

The spin characteristic of the P-36 was entirely different from that of the P-40; the spin/ snap roll of the P-36 was quite violent. I was unable to snap or spin any of the P-40B's that I had flown although I tried without success. The difference was due to a cuff place [placed] on the wing root of the P-40, but absent on the P-36.

Spin recovery for the P-36 was the standard NACA recovery. Flat spin recovery was pro spin: full aileron into the spin, stick full back, and rudder into the spin. When the [nose] dropped and normal spin developed, [standard] NACA recovery was used. [I reckon this is the spin recovery I was taught: power off, neutralize the stick, and kick full opposite rudder to the airplane's rotation. Once the plane stops spinning, be ready to counteract if it begins to spin in the other direction. Then pull back hard to recover from the dive.--DF]

However the P-40 had a vicious tumble (end over end) if a stall was entered into at a nose high position of about 60 degrees above the horizon. To recover from the tumble you reduced power and went along for the ride with all controls in neutral. After about 12,000 feet the nose settled into a vertical dive from which recovery was normal.

The P-40K with the short fuselage had also some bad characteristics, that was corrected with the P-40N with the longer fuselage.


Btw, I fly IL-2 since day one, and yes, the aircraft general flying is much easier now.

Just try the IL-2 original demo and you will see! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cheers,

CHDT
07-02-2004, 01:11 AM
http://www.flightjournal.com/fj/store/viewissue.asp?issueid=p40w

P-40 Warhawk
Test Pilot Relates a Close Call
Corky Meyer

As a Grumman test pilot during WW II, Corky Meyer, was tasked with testing a number of other aircraft including the P-40. In this self-effacing story Corky tells us not only how the P-40 flew but how he, as a young test pilot, miraculously survived a spin that should have killed him.

If a spin in the real P-40 can kill a guy like the great Corky Meyer, why a spin in the AEP P-40 is so easy to get out for a guy like me? The answer is easy and perfectly legit: marketing. A commercial sim is a game, but it's also a business http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

CHDT
07-02-2004, 01:16 AM
Even the Curtiss rep said so:

http://members.cox.net/moorman1/Dadsflying.htm

Stalling the P-40. The factory rep for the Curtiss P-40 had told them the plane had a vicious stall. Not really believing him, dad said he took the plane up for a stall series. In a trainer, you got the stick all the way back and walked the plane to a nose down position by playing the rudders. Dad said the P-40 flipped over into a spin before you could blink. Apparently, the vertical tail was a little too small so there was no holding the plane straight in a stall.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

HuninMunin
07-02-2004, 02:50 AM
Good point, Ivan.
Exactly this conclusion came to my mind when I was
thinking about this "problem".
I recently installed the old Il-2 again and guess what: it was LESS difficult then AEP.
Exept for gunnery.

"Ist das ein Weinachtsbaum?"
"Natürlich ist das ein Weinachtsbaum, oder glaubst du damit wird die Brücke getarnt?"

LEXX_Luthor
07-02-2004, 03:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Feature Request - Option for Oleg's original flight models<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
They want Oleg to change FM again


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Ugly_Kid
07-02-2004, 04:28 AM
You can forget the original flight models. FB 1.0 was not very good at all I'm afraid (from the accuracy department - it was rushed out too fast thx to the whiners). There were lots of errors already in the performance department. These were later duly corrected, 1.1b was a huge leap forward (and note how long its release took) and I think the sim was pretty much in its prime condition with 1.22. Most of the suggested FM changes from this time were accepted quite willingly if the suggested performance was documented, the whining as before did not get you one step forward. Lots of the stuff was not how the dev. team wanted nor how the players wanted to have it.

AEP is again a new product and they added some stuff, not only the new add-on aircraft but some global changes as well. Out of the box AEP reflected the performance much more accurately than for example FB 1.0, the add-on aircraft were much more carefully done and controlled as back then. Now we have a situation where quite a few people are actually happy and don't feel to post here, which leaves only the whiners who then post en masse. Note also that in simHQ Oleg said the US aircraft are given the best known performance because he's sick and tired of whining, however, it still needs to be that best known and require a piece of documentation.

You have to note that in the game the performance is not always even as the dev. team intended. They have their ideas and they try to put them in the game but sometimes even that does not work. It's a computer program. The first thing if you think something is a miss is to ask whether this is the way they intended it before going full boo-haa, Oleg hates my pet aircraft.

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/oksennus_1.jpg

VMF513_Sandman
07-02-2004, 06:34 AM
http://www.acepilots.com/planes/p40_warhawk.html

CHDT
07-02-2004, 06:39 AM
Some K's had the shorter fuselage of the E and got later an extended fin to correct instability due to the improved power:

http://www.web-birds.com/14th/23/74-53.jpg