1. #1
    MEGILE's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    5,827
    Oleg is the new BoB flight model which we are "beta" testing really based on new code or is it just an extension of the rather aging PF flight model?

    I ask because there appears to be some very important things which are missing from the FM including correct maximum dive speeds, and realistic compressibility based on mach, ofcourse varying at different altitudes.
    These things are currently missing from the FM in 4.01.
    I realize the "new" FM is in beta stage, but will these and other flight model features eventually appear at all in BoB?


    Thanks

    Share this post

  2. #2
    MEGILE's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    5,827
    Oleg is the new BoB flight model which we are "beta" testing really based on new code or is it just an extension of the rather aging PF flight model?

    I ask because there appears to be some very important things which are missing from the FM including correct maximum dive speeds, and realistic compressibility based on mach, ofcourse varying at different altitudes.
    These things are currently missing from the FM in 4.01.
    I realize the "new" FM is in beta stage, but will these and other flight model features eventually appear at all in BoB?


    Thanks

    Share this post

  3. #3
    This FM is only "idea" of BOB will be. As Oleg said once...i maybe off in the number.... 15% of BOB`s FM Alot of game engine limitations are accounted for in the new engine that they build. So, will see when it gets here, ok?
    Share this post

  4. #4
    WWMaxGunz's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    4,792
    Megile the amount of BoB FM that can be carried into PF is limited by the amount of
    detail in the PF plane models less than detail in BoB plane models. PF lacks the
    data to carry the full amount or it seems even 1/4 of what will be there.

    How much can you fit in the trunk of a car as opposed to the back of a pickup truck?
    Don't complain about the car trunk when before that it was what you could carry on
    the back of a motorbike.
    Share this post

  5. #5
    Megile,Oleg got me in the begining of IL2 when he said that there are many modules of flight that are done yet he cant add them due to pc's not being up to the task.

    A big problem on these boards is that peeps believe that IL2 is super realistic.Its way past whats out there but its far from being WW2 planes modeled on our pc's

    Ill give two examples....first is people saying how the mustang doesnt have its bad center of gravity modeled with full fuel or it doesnt feel like its modeled.Then Oleg comes on and say that no its not modeled yet and will be in BOB(center of gravity change with fuel drop).And a week later someone says that the center of gavity of the fully fueled mustang isnt up to par

    Another is how the planes that are heavy and also have small wings should drop out of the sky if engine cuts off.The FW190 is what im talking about here as an example.It is said that if the engine died in an FW the pilot bailed asap.In FB it sails on and on and on.This is to compensate for a lacking part of the FM and it does its job.Yes you could point the plane down and generate speed but you wanna take the chance when you level out that she'll land nice for ya???

    EDIT:I hope I am not downplaying FB with above as I truly enjoy what we have now.
    Share this post

  6. #6
    Some fair comments Wolf. All except the Fw-190 thing. Were has it ever been said that a Fw will drop out of the sky with an engine failure and that bail out was the best option.

    Let me tell you that if you can dead stick land a Mig-21 or a Mirage III or even a space shuttle (not easy but has been down more than once) dead sticking a FW is far from impossible and would have happened countless times.
    Share this post

  7. #7
    You are your probably right.I read that it drops like lead on here so who knows if its true or not.I do know that a high wing loaded plane will need way more speed to glide so it has some merit.

    About the space shuttle dead stick landing.....they have all done that.Nasa says that they would requier too much fuel to come in and land on jet power so they designed the shuttle to glide in everytime.

    EDIT:...........................................
    you also have to consider that the mirage and mig-21 were most likely very close to airfield when loss of power came.I would imagine many an FW did dead stick it in if power loss came in sight of airfield.

    But if you think about it,a dead engine on a plane that requieres high speed to generate lift doesnt really give you time to scan around and look for a place to land.So the saying dead engine in an FW....its time to bail may hold some truth.

    I would love for someone to bring up some facts about this.....anyone???
    Share this post

  8. #8
    WWMaxGunz's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    4,792
    Look for accounts of pilots who deadsticked planes with shot out engines to get distance
    from certain capture, semi-crashed and then ran for it. Only need one account from an
    FW pilot to get an idea of how impossible.

    For that matter, I'd like to see less blown up on bellying in -- in general.
    Share this post