PDA

View Full Version : Pilots' Opinions About IL-2



ZekeMan
09-14-2004, 01:32 PM
No doubt this question has been raised, but I'm curious as to what real pilots think of the authenticity of flying in IL-2/AEP. I know the fundamentals of flying and aircraft, of course, but in terms of actual realism it seems too "easy". If there are any licensed pilots out there, I would like thier opinions, especially if they've flown actual warbirds.

ZekeMan
09-14-2004, 01:32 PM
No doubt this question has been raised, but I'm curious as to what real pilots think of the authenticity of flying in IL-2/AEP. I know the fundamentals of flying and aircraft, of course, but in terms of actual realism it seems too "easy". If there are any licensed pilots out there, I would like thier opinions, especially if they've flown actual warbirds.

F19_Orheim
09-14-2004, 01:42 PM
Well I think this thread says some about what a real WWII fighterpilot feels about the game... The pilot is Capt Eric Brown.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=309109534

About Eric Brown:
----------------
Captain Eric Brown had a 31 year career in the Royal Navy, and is the most decorated Fleet Air Arm pilot and British test pilot. After a distinguished operational tour flying from Britain‚'s first escort carrier, he was selected as a test pilot in 1942 and then served at Aeroplane & Armament Establishment Experimental, Boscombe Down. Subsequently he was appointed Chief Naval Test Pilot at the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough, where he remained for six years. During that time he commanded the Enemy Aircraft Flight, High Speed Flight and was the first Naval pilot to command the prestigious Aerodynamics Flight.
In 1951, he was sent to the US Naval Air Test Center at Patuxent River to beef up the test pilot corps whose experience base had been eroded by deployments to the Korean War. There he participated in the developmental testing of the F-9F Panther, F-2H Banshee 3 and F-3D-2 Skyknight. While on this tour, he introduced the concepts of angle deck operations and the steam catapult which have become the standard for US aircraft carriers since. In 1957 he was assigned as Head of the British Naval Air Mission to Germany. From then until 1960, he was in charge of establishing and training the Naval Air Arm for the post WW II German Marine. During this time, he also divided his time with Focke-Wulf Co. as a test pilot. Following this duty in Germany, he completed his Naval career with tours in several bureaus of the Admiralty, as a Naval Air Attach√© to Germany, as Commanding Officer of RAF Lossiemouth and as Aide de Camp to Her Majesty the Queen. Captain Brown‚'s flying career spanned the history of conventional British carrier aviation, flying virtually every aircraft employed by the Royal Navy from the Fairey Seal to the Buccaneer. In his test flying career, he flew 487 basic types of aircraft including gliders, fighters, bombers, airliners, amphibians, flying boats and helicopters which have been powered by just about every imaginable means of propulsion consisting of reciprocating, jet, diesel, rocket and, of course, gravity. He has made 2,407 aircraft carrier landings in fixed wing aircraft along with 2,721 catapult launches. These statistics are all world records.

Captain Brown is an accomplished author having written and published ten books. He became an Honorary Fellow of The Society of Experimental Test Pilots in 1984, and is a Fellow and past president of the Royal Aeronautical Society, a Master Pilot of Russia and past Chief Executive Officer for the European Helicopter Association. In 1995 he was inducted into the US Navy‚'s Carrier Aviation Test Pilot Hall of Honor. He is a recipient of Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE), Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE), Member of the Order of the British Empire (MBE), Distinguished Service Cross, Air Force Cross and the King‚'s Commendation for Valuable Service in the Air.

http://216.12.202.106/~f19vs/F19bannerA.jpg
http://216.12.202.106/~f19vs/F19banner.jpg
_________________
"Sine pennis volare hau facilest: meae alea pennas non habent."

BinaryFalcon
09-14-2004, 01:45 PM
Some things are broken and not quite right. For example, engine out operations on the multiengine aircraft are far too tame.

Otherwise, I'd say it's very good. Like all sims, it has its weak points, but of all of the sims I've flown, it feels the most like actual flight.

Overall, it recreates the general experience quite well.

(It won't, however, teach you how to fly a real plane any better than any other sim).

WOLFMondo
09-14-2004, 02:33 PM
So F19_Orheim, your trying to tell me Capt Eric Brown is well qualified to tell people how good this sim is? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)

LeadSpitter_
09-14-2004, 03:36 PM
Come on for the real pilots who flown this sim, p47, b239 and others they have toned down the inputs for them to 3 6 9 15 30 not even going to 100 and turn up the filtering and put some deadzone to hide the flyby wire feel. Cfs3 has pilots who flew the game who say its realistic too.

Don't get me wrong but with the way fms dms performance change so drastically this sim is all out of wack from dive speeds, climb, accelaration.

The only aircraft that were somewhat realistic wwas the b239, p47 and the p40 in version 1.0 with the exception of the explosion bug in the p40 and the dive accelaration of the p47.

And part of that was due to the finnish wwii vet who tested the b239 but its all been changed the be able to compete with the overmodeled. Since AEP this game went from a 11 and up rating to 7 years of age and up. With trim on a slider in il2sturmovik aircraft the same aircraft in FB/AEP are turning inside them with no trim at all. It seems every plane is a great turn and burn fighter lowalt and high with the exception of the p-38 and 190.

I mean just look at the g2 and russian turn rates its pretty ridiculous I think, they can do 360s around a quarter in mid air and not stall, seems like a weightless world where planes just float even with no power engine off, glideslopes ground handling in the 190 seems like there is moon gravity in FB

Go back and try cfs2 and 3 they are suprisingly more difficult to fly, but many do have over sensative elevators, But have correct climb, dive accelaration, better feel of stickforce when in a power dive.

Let them fly with 100 100 100 100 input settings and see what they say then. I wish mark hanna was still around.

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif

F19_Orheim
09-14-2004, 03:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
So F19_Orheim, your trying to tell me Capt Eric Brown is well qualified to tell people how good this sim is? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

errrr well a lot more qualified than most people in this forum wouldn't you say? I found his input rather interesting anyway... even though I don't want to get into the old tired argument about "game" vs "simulator".,....

Leadspitter, great to see you still have interest enough in this game/sim to visit and post here... even though you think it's "ridiculous" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://216.12.202.106/~f19vs/F19bannerA.jpg
http://216.12.202.106/~f19vs/F19banner.jpg
_________________
"Sine pennis volare hau facilest: meae alea pennas non habent."

[This message was edited by F19_Orheim on Tue September 14 2004 at 02:48 PM.]

LeadSpitter_
09-14-2004, 05:17 PM
ah you know how much i enjoy this sim and there is nothing that currently compairs to it. But it definatly has the most problems and some really ridiculous things that need correcting. netcode, FMs, DMS, Scoring system I understand the sound will never be good and PF is using the same horable syth engine. I just say what i know from charts scans and hard to come by information i had to purchase, over $1000 of guncamera and $4000 in books i have been collecting since a kid. chuck yeagars flight sim on xt http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Wings of the Luftwaffe
Wings of the Navy
Duels In The Sky

I also seen a video of him and the finnish b239. The finnish video was on virtualpilots site the capt brown was on simhq they also showed the interviews and what input settings they used which makes one hell of a difference.

Slowed down controls with filtering and deadzone up a bit. I would like to see the vets online with some of us who use 100 100 100 100 input settings and get thier opinions then on how realistic it is.

The best people I've see all use 100 inputs
jimmygiro, viks, storm, goodkn1ght, pegasus and a few others

We still do have the last patch for fb coming soon, and Im hoping things get better then worse.

Thing I really miss is hard to recover from stalls spins and flatspins, along with unrecoverable stalls without rudder being shotout only. As someone who plays both online and offline, The disapearing aircraft when landing really made me mad they did that I would like to see it how it was even if 1 would collide now and then, ai improved and very important to me the ai online improved which makes me not like flying the online wars much just how they are ufoing around but you can still shoot them normally but looks really horable when an ai has the prop pointed and the ground it its climbing for everyone even if all of us have low 20 pings.

BTW thx for the j8m, its one of the best built models in the game inside and out same with the textures.


heres one of his comments something i get called a whiner for here and a troll. Note this is even with control inputs spread ot to 3-40 not even coming near to 100 inputs and along with deadzone and filtering applied which to me is very realistic then and thats why it has the ability to be be less arcadish if hosts would be able to lock the input level when hosting for all players. So everyone has even controlls, all sticks are not that different

Eric Brown:
How realistic can a PC simulator be? "The core of any simulation," said Captain Brown, "is in capturing the harmony of controls of aircraft. Of course, any simulator cannot replicate things 100% but in most of the aircraft tested, it is of the order 80% or so. I found in general the default joystick settings tended to be oversensitive. With my recommended settings it will give people a real feeling of how they actually flew. The flight models in Il-2:FB are done very well. But you need time to cope with this.


http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif

[This message was edited by LeadSpitter_ on Tue September 14 2004 at 04:37 PM.]

LEXX_Luthor
09-14-2004, 06:38 PM
The Capn's joystick settings could not get I~16 to suffer engine cut~out from negative gee.

I think the problem was the aviation magazine trying to be computer gaming magazine for one issue.


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

"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

BA31jocky
09-14-2004, 06:45 PM
For whatever my opinion is worth, having never flown warbirds http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/cry.gif, I do fly full time, have 6200 hrs and can speak for a few things regarding these 'sims' or 'flight games'. I can't speak for the realism of combat because I've never been in it of course, but the basics of flight are not difficult to grasp. Nor do they differ from flying a Cessna 150 or a 747. Basics are basics. Some things may seem 'too easy' in this game because the work load/concentration involved or level of responsibility isn't really simulated in ANY PC game no matter how good it is. I've flown the BAe-31 simulator, which is a night-time sim only, and it is harder to fly than the real aircraft because even though it 'move's' right, it doesn't 'feel' the same as the real thing. While that sim can give you things like turbulence and wind shear to certain degree, it's still limited. I did my intial training, about 17hrs of sim time before ever actually flying the real aircraft. The hardest thing to get used to was the landing but flying aircraft was easy. If I'm rambling on and on, please forgive me http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Ahem! Anyway, back to the game. This game is not realistic about visibility. Every flight sim game I've played only allows you to 'see' from a single 'fulcrum' point (when looking out from inside the aircraft), not allowing you to shift your head or lean from side-to- side, or up and down, or whatever way you would really move your head to continuously keep an 'eye' on something. You can't lean forward or back, or press your face up against the side glass. This is totally unrealistic. I once heard a British fighter pilot say "Sight is life, speed is nice". I know the importance of visibility is absolute in MY flying environment, so I expect that the importance of visibility in a combat situation is far greater than anything I've experienced. Because of this, I always fly IL2/AEP combat with only the gunsight and speed bar in view, and use external views. Another thing unrealistic about the game is the inability to truly judge distance by sight (vertically or laterally) because on a computer screen, everything is in focus! I ALWAYS fly with NO icons. The only distance is your eyeballs to the screen.

A few other things the game doesn't simulate that are in the real flying environment (I've experienced them ALL):

1. Surface wind conditions; affecting your landing with strong cross-winds, or creating low level mechinal turbulence that greatly increase the work load when trying to land on a slush covered runway with a 20 knot X-wind while landing on a short runway, at night, in the snow! I've wiped sweat off my brow after doing this.

2. How about bird strikes at low level? I've hit them without doing the speed that WW2 fighters would really be doing! I've seen what happens when aircraft hit them just on the take-off roll. Birds are small, but how about wolves, coyotes, and deer on the runway? I know people who have hit them, and the mess and damage it does to an aircraft! I do recall someones Fw-190D-9 (during operation Bodenplatte) being downed by hitting a partridge. Partridges don't even fly very high!

3. Other mechanical problems such as cracked windshields in flight (without hitting something), and engine failure with NO warning, to name a few I've been through.

4. How about reduced visibility due to low level (below 10000') haze and humidity or even smog, while looking towards the sun? The game doesn't really do this to a realistic level.

5. How about 'unpredictable' weather when going home with very limited fuel. I've done this after flying for 8 hours, it's not fun. Any IFR pilot here reading this will know what I'm talking about when landing in 1/2 mile visibility and a 200' ceiling at the end of a 14 hour duty day.

In this game, we've all flown through the clouds. How about inflight icing? It happens every day I fly. On one bad day, we had a lot of ice on the aircraft and we weren't allowed to descend out of it due to traffic under us. We were as high as we could go, so we couldn't climb above it. Honestly I think I even felt the tail buffeting a little, which is the onset of 'tail-plane stall.' Ice just ruins the flight characterstics of aircraft, especially on combat aircraft!

Sorry guys for going on and on about stuff, but it's fun passing this info onto others. I have a lot more, but I think I'm rambling on again. IL2/AEP truly rocks. It IS the best flight combat sim I've ever played, and I've tried some of the others.

How about a combat sim that only alows you to fly until you're actually KIA, (or POW) and then you have to buy a whole new game just to play again? Or if you are MIA, and maybe you don't get to play again until you are rescued or make it back home and you're game wouldn't let you play for, let's say a few hours? A few days? A few months? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

huggy87
09-14-2004, 06:54 PM
Well,
Most of my time is in jets and I have very little time in props, piston powered props that is. But, IMHO the flight model is pretty good. My biggest complaint is with high altitude sky color and performance. When you are up at 7000 meters it looks like you are up in space. Also, the size of objects does not seem quite right. It seems like objects are much smaller than they should be in real life. Oh, one last complaint, the AI gunners seem to be way to accurate. Considering that LW pilots diving through a bomber box would have up to 500 .50 cals aimed at them and they would usually make it through.
In this game when I dive through just 8-16 bombers I often end up a smoking hole. Otherwise a great sim. A lot of fun.

LEXX_Luthor
09-14-2004, 07:10 PM
Icing would be Awsum. The Whinig that would generate. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif And you could make it optional and turn it off just by turning off Icing Conditions instead of some part of the FM like turning off stalls.

Jockey:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Another thing unrealistic about the game is the inability to truly judge distance by sight (vertically or laterally) because on a computer screen, everything is in focus! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
With the exception of aircraft almost colliding, the distance of all the objects in the sky beyond your aircraft are all the same "infinite" distance as far as eyes focusing is concerned....either optical focus or binocular focus. Or are you talking about judging distance of target through gunsigt a mere 100m away? Never heard of pilots using eye focus to determine distance, just the gunsight rings. I dunno.

What do you mean by...."judge distance by sight (vertically or laterally"?

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

"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

BA31jocky
09-14-2004, 08:20 PM
I guess I meant in general, whether it be thru a gunsight, or looking out the side window at other aircraft without using icons. After I learned how to turn them off, I never turned them on again. Judging distance especially important for landing the aircraft. It's not as pressing in the game because all of the runways (that I've seen) are longer than a single engine fighter would need. I'd like to see some short runways to practice landing on, then real skill is required.

karost
09-14-2004, 09:38 PM
thanks for a real pilots friends for share your good idea about this game.

For other real pilots ,you no need to have an experience same like Captain Eric Brown just has over 200 hrs for a basic plane is good , and if you are a real pilot from air show team that is very very good.

I(we) like to read more about how you feel when you play this game just like:

- torgue effect from taxi, take off , turn left and right ,
- stall ,
- spin,
- speed lost from hard turn ,
- cross wind take off and landing ,
- landing on concreat , and on soft land ,
- stall recover
- fuel tank selection
- oil compressor
- mixture
- pull up 90 degree from low speed ( less then 275 km/h )
- etc ..etc http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

please share us what you feel from your idea, that is good for a next sim generation.

S!

Bearcat99
09-14-2004, 11:23 PM
Lead I cant believe you said this....

The only aircraft that were somewhat realistic wwas the b239, p47 and the p40 in version 1.0 with the exception of the explosion bug in the p40 and the dive accelaration of the p47.

The 1.0 P-47 was a DOG....... a mutt at that.... not to mention the 50 cals..... now I can pop an engine with a short burst at the right angle... if I get too close I actually shoot around the target.... the P-51 is still too slow..... the Ki-84 will take way too much punishment.... and as you said the dive rate on the jug is still off. From what I understand nothing could touch it in a dive.. not even a 190... Still though.. like you said it is a great sim. Id be curious to see again what real pilots think of it.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://www.tuskegeeairmen.org)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
Sturmovik Essentials (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=51910959)
IMMERSION BABY!!

Friendly_flyer
09-15-2004, 12:22 AM
Thank you for a very interesting post, BA31Jocky!

Fly friendly!

Petter B√¬łckman
Norway

LeadSpitter_
09-15-2004, 05:49 AM
Bearcat I wasnt talking about weapons but the fm in general.

The firing pattern of the .50 is still wrong, they all fire at one time in game and was the problem with dispersion. Oleg had the recoil correct but it was 4x x6 x8 when shooting the .50cal being they all fire at once.

The way the real m2 fired on wwii aircraft was 2x .50 at a time but the more guns increased the rof timing and hitting power.

I still dont see much of a difference in 4 x .50 vs 6 x 50 and 8 x .50 becuase of the way its done in game. They all seem just as effective as 8 currently.

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif

karost
09-15-2004, 06:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
I still dont see much of a difference in 4 x .50 vs 6 x 50 and 8 x .50 becuase of the way its done in game. They all seem just as effective as 8 currently.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi,LeadSpitter_
Could you please tell me more details about this "as 8 currently" do you mean p-40 and p-51 has a fire power same as p-47 ?

or may be open a new thread about this that would be good.

Thanks http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

S!

F19_Ob
09-15-2004, 06:22 AM
There are some things that simulators in general can offer and are connected in "certain" ammounts to real flying.
This state and relation with ww2 in FB leaves a lot up to the simmer, both in terms of imagination and manipulating closests settings on game, stick and other gadgets.

The physical feeling of flight is imposible to achieve, so one have to concentrate the focus on the visual aspects, wich works for me.
Possibly a more realistic "feeling" would be possible with a long "floor attached" metal stick wich have the range and forces of a real plane, but that too is difficult to buy in stores.

Personally I belive that if the stick sensitivity is set to less sensitivity it will get closer to realism and thats about all that most of us can do.
Imagination is very underrated in many fields, aswell as in FB, and many interesting historical "experiments" can be made, not with full accurasy but will sure rise some thoughts and questions wich are fun and interesting to contemplate on.

A few thoughts. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

ZekeMan
09-15-2004, 10:32 AM
Wow, great response on this! F19, thanks for the thread about Captian Brown. I especially like the control settings, I am definitely going to try them out offline. Online, I am sure pretty much everyone has the controls set to their own tastes which lessens realism and increasing the gaming quality, which is fine too. I wonder now how one's computer capability, i.e. CPU speed, vid card, memory, etc., adds/subtracts from actual realism. Any thoughts on this?

Z

Kefuddle
09-15-2004, 01:27 PM
I agree 100% with F19. These sims are just not like flying at all. There is no workload in IL2. You don't get scared or suddenly think "I hope I screwed the dipstick in properly" and "That town is Chipping-Norton, thank goodness I'm not lost anymore." There is no pressure. Therefore everything seems so very easy to accomplish. On the flip side somethings like the actual control of the aircraft are so much easier in RL.

What these sims are brilliant at is indulging yourself in an obsession with Aviation. I can only get to fly a couple of hours a month. I just need an outlet in between http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

F19_Ob
09-15-2004, 04:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kefuddle:
I agree 100% with F19. These sims are just not like flying at all. There is no workload in IL2. You don't get scared or suddenly think "I hope I screwed the dipstick in properly" and "That town is Chipping-Norton, thank goodness I'm not lost anymore." There is no pressure. Therefore everything seems so very easy to accomplish. On the flip side somethings like the actual control of the aircraft are so much easier in RL.

What these sims are brilliant at is indulging yourself in an obsession with Aviation. I can only get to fly a couple of hours a month. I just need an outlet in between http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Personally I think there is "great workload" depending on how U fly and in what plane and if the goal is to survive.
The visibility from cockpit in FB is worser than in the real planes I have been in and flown. In some FB planes tracking is really difficult.
Then there are still the instruments to know and your planes capabilities and limits.
Although the physical feeling of bumpy air and real G forces (the general effects on the body)isnt present, there are still many things that require real thought and knowledge to master, and although the flight characteristics are not the "real" thing they still are characteristics one must learn, and different for all planes.

The challanges is likely very different for all of us.
He he ......heck!....I'm scared when I fly in il-2's online, and almost nothing is easy about it(especially keeping track of enemies or evading them)....so if u enjoy hard challanges u might want to try it on GG or F16....( u are welcome to join us anytime, because we are in need of hardheads that can take a beating without giving up) http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif
The workload is generally high in this bird compared to fighters, especially if it is used in the fighter role ( a must due to the lack of escorts).
Similar challanges can be found in the stuka, he111, bf110 and Hurricane mk1 to mention a few. These require constant thinking if u want to succeed and/or survive, perhaps mainly because u cant leave the fight at will and must plan more carefully.

But then,I sincerely belive that all planes can become challenging,partly depending on the opposition.
Some planes simply dont have a chance to become interesting online because they might be pitted against too inferior ones ( although it may be historically correct).
Same results the other way around , some planes dont become interesting because they are pitted against too superior ones.

So....I think there is great possibilities and challanges in FB but its much up to us. (greater workload indeed possible).
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

[This message was edited by F19_Ob on Thu September 16 2004 at 02:14 AM.]

LEXX_Luthor
09-15-2004, 08:08 PM
F~19 can you edit and shorten that dashed line? Its corrupting the thread. Thanks.


The Capn's joystick settings can not get I~16 to suffer engine cut~out from negative gee. I know
this is a Major Pink Elephant for the FB webboard, but anyway...lala http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

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

"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

F19_Ob
09-16-2004, 03:19 AM
Is this better LEXX?

Had no clue that my lines could corrupt the thread, on my side there is no corruption more than my inadequate spelling.

Bearcat99
09-16-2004, 06:06 AM
I think he meant by making it so wide you had to scroll across Dicks hatband to read it all.

I recently went up for a demo flight.. and I came to the same conclusion. They are good mind you and IMO FB is the top dog as far as FMs and DMs go.. but it just cant compare to real flight. The noise.. the feeling in the pit of your stomach.. the radio chatter..... the turbulance.. it just cant compare. Having to turn your head around... not like with TIR where you turn your head in a 45 degree arc or so but actually crane your neckto look around.... Thats why I refuse to use the term Full Real anymore .. I prefer Full Immersion because thats what it is.. it adds to the immersion into the illusion of flight but doesnt even come close to the real deal.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://www.tuskegeeairmen.org)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
Sturmovik Essentials (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=51910959)
IMMERSION BABY!!

jurinko
09-16-2004, 06:31 AM
Jan Reznak, the top scoring Slovak WWII ace (31 confirmed kills) in the cockpit of Bf 109 G-4,. spring 1943, Anapa, Kuban:

http://www.kurita.sk/PRIVATE/pictures/1943_reznak.JPG


Jan Reznak in virtual cockpit of Bf 109 G-2, April 2003, Slovakia:

http://www.kurita.sk/PRIVATE/pictures/reznak_02.JPG

he just remarked he does not feel the movement of plane in stomach as in reality. Pche, the PC simulation http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

---------------------
Letka_13/Liptow @ HL

ZekeMan
09-16-2004, 07:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by F19_Ob:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kefuddle:
I agree 100% with F19. These sims are just not like flying at all. There is no workload in IL2. You don't get scared or suddenly think "I hope I screwed the dipstick in properly" and "That town is Chipping-Norton, thank goodness I'm not lost anymore." There is no pressure. Therefore everything seems so very easy to accomplish. On the flip side somethings like the actual control of the aircraft are so much easier in RL.

What these sims are brilliant at is indulging yourself in an obsession with Aviation. I can only get to fly a couple of hours a month. I just need an outlet in between http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Personally I think there is "great workload" depending on how U fly and in what plane and if the goal is to survive.
The visibility from cockpit in FB is worser than in the real planes I have been in and flown. In some FB planes tracking is really difficult.
Then there are still the instruments to know and your planes capabilities and limits.
Although the physical feeling of bumpy air and real G forces (the general effects on the body)isnt present, there are still many things that require real thought and knowledge to master, and although the flight characteristics are not the "real" thing they still are characteristics one must learn, and different for all planes.

The challanges is likely very different for all of us.
He he ......heck!....I'm scared when I fly in il-2's online, and almost nothing is easy about it(especially keeping track of enemies or evading them)....so if u enjoy hard challanges u might want to try it on GG or F16....( u are welcome to join us anytime, because we are in need of hardheads that can take a beating without giving up) http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif
The workload is generally high in this bird compared to fighters, especially if it is used in the fighter role ( a must due to the lack of escorts).
Similar challanges can be found in the stuka, he111, bf110 and Hurricane mk1 to mention a few. These require constant thinking if u want to succeed and/or survive, perhaps mainly because u cant leave the fight at will and must plan more carefully.

But then,I sincerely belive that all planes can become challenging,partly depending on the opposition.
Some planes simply dont have a chance to become interesting online because they might be pitted against too inferior ones ( although it may be historically correct).
Same results the other way around , some planes dont become interesting because they are pitted against too superior ones.

So....I think there is great possibilities and challanges in FB but its much up to us. (greater workload indeed possible).
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

[This message was edited by F19_Ob on Thu September 16 2004 at 02:14 AM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree, F19. I remember taking part in a night COOP with full cockpit on flying an IL-2 to attack some ships. There were like eight of us I think, no icons. There were only a couple German nightfighters to contend with. I remember turning off the lights in my office to better see the screen. It was both thrilling and daunting to navigate to the target, attack with severely limited visibility, and then fly back to base with the nightfighters "lurking" out there someplace. It turned out I was the last one in the air, the only one to survive. LOL. My palm was sweaty against my flight control stick as the guys who were flamed sort of acted as ground control, letting me know what the nightfighters were doing. It evolved into a classic chase where neither myself or the nightfighter had a fix on the other, but each pass the German made brought him closer to interception. I remember laughing at how nervous I was! Finally, after almost twenty minutes, I had gear down after finding my airfield with the nightfighter hot on my tail. Touchdown, rolling to a stop...but the German pilot nailed me on the airstrip! LOL. I was exhausted, hehehe!

Z

TX-EcoDragon
09-16-2004, 04:33 PM
"- torque effect from taxi, take off , turn left and right ,"

Very poor in the sim, there is far more torque and gyroscopic precession from the prop in the real world. Lifting and lowering the tail, the effects of side-load on the gear, CG aft of the placement of the gear, crosswinds etc are all rather unimportant considerations in the sim, while they certainly are in the real world. Ground Handling is complex, in truth more complex than flight physics. Adverse yaw in actual aircraft is significant (particularly more vintage aircraft designs) and it really doesn't exist in the sim. high power, low airspeed flight rudder requirements due to torque and proppellor effect doesn't exist in the sim either.

"- stall "
The accelerated stall is not too bad other than that no amount of rudder work can prevent a rolling moment, and subsequent spin, as it can in real aircraft.
The 1G stall doesn't really exist, in this case is behaves the same as the accelerated stall does.

"- spin"
Better than any other sim out there by far, but needs work for the most part with respect to spin avoidance. (see stall section) Spin dynamics are simplified so that aileron inputs do not lead to realistic spin dynamic changes (they don't do much at all in the sim), power increases do tend to flatten the spin as they should (opposite aileron should further flatten it), though leaving power in when flying a real aircraft will make spin recovery very difficult if not impossible in many situatuations while in the sim it doesn't have many ill-effects. Elevator movement towards the spin axis doesn't accellerate the spin as it should, and in general the order of operations for recovery isn't critical as it can be in real aircraft. (For example in the real world stick forward before opposite rudder can lead to a crossover spin from upright to inverted which is pretty dissorienting to those who don't expect it, which will make recovery pretty unlikely)

So in many regards the spins are tamer than they should be. On the other hand, proper pilot recovery inputs generally are more effective in actual aircraft than they are in the sim. . . in other words, doing a one turn spin is tough because the recovery takes multiple spins.
In many aircraft the spins enter a spiral for a few rotations before complete recovery that is a little peculiar. This spiral is not only odd in that it hapens at all, but also that an actual spiral occurs during controllable flight, however in the sim the aircraft behaves as if it is still in a spin (ie the wings, and surfaces are not "flying").

"- speed lost from hard turn"
Generally more drag should be encountered in high G maneuvers.

"- cross wind take off and landing"
This sim is the only one that models the maneuver known as the slip, and the slip is a requirement to do a proper crosswing landing. While the sim doesn't slip nearly as much as it should, it still makes an attempt at it. The in flight portion of the crosswind approach is good (but where are the Windsocks!?!) After touchdown things get a little funny when the wind is really howling. Takeoff suffers from the lack of proper flight control responses when still well below flying speed, this makes crosswind departures rather different than in real aircraft.

"- landing on concreat , and on soft land"
This really isn't modelled in the sim as far as I can tell. In the real world landing on grass is a little more forgiving of any failures of the pilot to align the aircraft with the runway for touchdown. There will also be more drag that will lengthen takeoff roll, and shorten the landing roll. In the sim takeoffs and landings all seem to be on grass, as yaw of the aircraft and the sideloading that should result doesn't seem to have any effect in the sim, whether you are on grass or asphalt. The off airport bumpy grass that launches the aircraft 50 meters in the air seems pretty darn silly to me.

"- stall recover"
see the previous stall/spin reply.

"- fuel tank selection"
not applicable in the sim, in aircraft that don't have an "All/Both" position on the fuel selctor fuel management is a critical operation in real aircraft, of course in the sim evrything is automated. Most other sims (though not combat sims) model this without trouble.

"- oil compressor"
?


"- mixture"

This is pretty poorly done in those aircraft with manual mixtures. The 120/100/80/60 etc setting increments don't permit realistic leaning procedures which are generally done more frequently than the increments in the sim. The altitudes that require leaning also are rather high. In the real world more fine adjustments are used, and the engine performance when running rich, at peak, and lean are much more detailed than in the sim.

- pull up 90 degree from low speed ( less then 275 km/h )
Not sure I understand the particular question but, I think the sim handles this pretty well other than the rudder/yaw control response in the sim which makes keeping the aircraft on an even keel difficult if you exceed the critical angle of attack (stall).

Also, aircraft generally have more stability in roll than the sim aircraft do. The attempt by the code writers to model torque, combined with the troubles of coding the effects of dihedral effect results in aircraft that roll rather quickly away from level flight even if undisturbed by the pilot or turbulence. In the real world there is more stability when at wings level, in smooth air, and hands off, even in aircraft that have no dihedral at all.


All of these remarks aren't intended to cast the sim in a negative light at all, this is an awesome sim, that raised the bar in the genre by quite a leap. In fact, most of these details would require far more computing power, perhaps decades of code writing by designers, and in truth, even better understanding of these aerodynamic principles in the real world.

S!
TX-EcoDragon
Black 1
TX Squadron XO
http://www.txsquadron.com

Stop by our OC3 (and now OC192)servers on HL at: 69.56.198.2

Member-Team Raven
http://www.waynehandley.com

Northern California Aerobatic Club
http://www.iac38.org/

First Slot Pilot Aircraft #4 of the Virtual Haute-Voltige Team
http://www.vhvt.com/

Learn to fly, learn aerobatics, learn to fly a tailwheel at LVK.
http://www.attitudeaviation.com/

http://www.txsquadron.com/uploaded/TX-EcoDragon/ravenvert.jpg

Kefuddle
09-17-2004, 01:09 AM
EcoDragon,

Your technical analysis is really excellent and you obviously know your stuff! I however think getting into the weeds bogs down the RL vs sim discussions as a ‚£20 game on a home PC simply won't deliver satisfaction for those who want a reality facsimille. No critism, just my view after spending too much time arguing the these things http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

All,

Responses have said that the workload is high in IL2 and that it is scary. Remove the combat element and just do the flying bit. The workload is non-existant compared to flying a light single without GPS. Also, you don't experience moments of real panic welling up inside from say windshere on final or flying over a long stretch of water and you are sure the engine just missed note. It just doesn't happen in a sim. Add the combat - it is unimaginable to me how those men and women coped at all. I am in awe!!

I am convinced that accomplished simmers do make, technically, very good pilots. with one caveat: So long as they attempt to forget the sim and listen to every word of their instructor. The sim is great at getting the brain to work the right way (coordination and stuff), but flyers will testify that you just don't fly sims like you fly planes.

Have fun all http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

karost
09-17-2004, 05:25 AM
Wow...
EcoDragon ,ZekeMan,Kefuddle and other Thanks a lot for share your good knowledge, experience and idea for us. ~S~

to complete simulate all FM's parameters close to the real world A/C 's characteristic in multiple players now, with only 32 data bit processor are not easy or not enough for complete this job (IMHO)

I hope the next generation's home-pc and communication network will have a batter performance to implement a batter sim for duplicate the real world A/C 's characteristic, yes they need a time to make a batter coding, just a step by step.


I believe, your (real pilot friends) idea here will be the good material to a many sim developers include Oleg & team for develop the batter next sim generation to our sim-friends community.

Any where I (we) still need more to read other real pilot friend's idea about this topic http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kefuddle, I hope a new real-pilots trainee will not make a spit-S from his first solo http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

S!

[This message was edited by karost on Fri September 17 2004 at 04:44 AM.]

Kefuddle
09-17-2004, 06:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Kefuddle, I hope a new real-pilots trainee will not make a spit-S from his first solo<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Man! I would love to a see a photo of the instructors face just aftwerward though http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

ZekeMan
09-17-2004, 06:25 AM
The response has been outstanding and has pretty much answered my original post to my satisfaction. It is going to be interesting indeed to see if the 64-bit system developers will take into account factors listed here in the next generation of sims, although I would question the sims popularity should the developers do so. I mean, there is a reason why I love aircraft but am not a real pilot, outside of the fact that I just don't have the guts for it!

Zeke

KarayaEine
09-17-2004, 08:03 AM
BA131jockey is pretty much nuts on about what is really needed in a sim. Most sims can only duplicate so much and if they could replicate all the possible conditions and flight regimes then we'd need a super computer to process everything.

I recently started flying FS2004 and I really like it but it presents different options than IL-2. Both sims are great but they will never, ever come close to the real thing. I'm a pilot myself and I agree with the others that visibility is the most important thing. When flying an aircraft SA is vitally important. The single biggest drawback with a sim is the 'view thru a soda straw' condition. Unless you are wearing VR goggles there's just no way you can replicate the SA you get from really being in the cockpit of an aircraft where you can freely move around.

Sure, the sims we fly give us supplementary SA aids and I admit I need to use these a lot to make up for what my puny 17" monitor displays. I use the maps way more often than I would in real life just to figure out where I am relative to surface features. Poor SA is why real pilots smack into the ground.

I think a sim can provide great enjoyment and education but it can only highlight and emphasize certain aspects of flight. The total experience of flying can only be gained by actually doing it. Unless you've flown a real plane you'll never feel that sensation in your body when the aircraft first leaves the ground. Or the shakes and pounding when you fly through turbulence, even on a clear day. Furthermore each sim out there represents only that portion for which it was designed; MS sims are great for general flying while IL-2 and other combat sims concentrate on just the fighting action. These narrow focus methods are unfortunately necessary otherwise you would overwhelm the user and that's probably something a casual player isn't going to want. Just imagine if not only having to deal with fighting your enemy you had to contend with icing conditions, deteriorating visibility, crappy runway conditions, turbulence and then add navigation, radio discipline, GCA, system failures (partial or whole), etc....

just my ramblings..........

Johann

Horrido!
"We need more ammo!"
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid123/pf6134ba44807ec5fa171e4f94f32e299/f81fa8b5.jpg

TX-EcoDragon
09-17-2004, 11:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KarayaEine:
These narrow focus methods are unfortunately necessary otherwise you would overwhelm the user and that's probably something a casual player isn't going to want. Just imagine if not only having to deal with fighting your enemy you had to contend with icing conditions, deteriorating visibility, crappy runway conditions, turbulence and then add navigation, radio discipline, GCA, system failures (partial or whole), etc....

just my ramblings..........



Johann

Horrido!
"We need more ammo!"
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid123/pf6134ba44807ec5fa171e4f94f32e299/f81fa8b5.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly!

That said, if sim producers were able to do such a thing with a range of realism options they just might secure a new demographic (pilots/student pilots/hardcore simmers) and still retain the PC Gamer audience as well. . . someday perhaps.

S!
TX-EcoDragon
Black 1
TX Squadron XO
http://www.txsquadron.com

Stop by our OC3 (and now OC192)servers on HL at: 69.56.198.2

Member-Team Raven
http://www.waynehandley.com

Northern California Aerobatic Club
http://www.iac38.org/

First Slot Pilot Aircraft #4 of the Virtual Haute-Voltige Team
http://www.vhvt.com/

Learn to fly, learn aerobatics, learn to fly a tailwheel at LVK.
http://www.attitudeaviation.com/

http://www.txsquadron.com/uploaded/TX-EcoDragon/ravenvert.jpg

ouston
09-18-2004, 06:01 PM
A fascinating discussion and interesting to hear from people with a good number of hours as pilots. Can I make a comment as a frustrated and mostly ground based enthusiast? Last September my wife bought me 30 minutes in a Tiger Moth for my birthday. Following a Corsair onto the runway at Duxford was pretty good for starters. After about 5 minutes at the controls I said to the man in the back seat "This is very different to a flight sim". The crux of it seemed to be that the stick was answering back. You can obviously not reproduce the feeling of motion, the noise and the breeze on your face in a flight sim but it was the response that seemed to be different. The Tiger Moth is a light aircraft with a pretty big wing area and it is receptive to a fairly slight breeze. It is a trainer and pretty docile but it needs to be flown. It is pretty flattering that Captain Brown of all people feels that the IL2 FB is up to scratch but there is a difference even to people of my very limited flying experience. I have heard of force feedback sticks but I have never tried one and am not sure if they solve my problem.

Weather conditions seem to be a big lack in IL2 and are apparent in CFS2, an underated sim in my opinion. Another point to make: I was flying a downloaded Devastator on finals in CFS2 when the engine packed up for no reason. It does happen in real life. Tricky but I got it down. Not sure if I would have for real

Regards

Ouston