PDA

View Full Version : P40... and my unusually weak left leg!!



maverick7614
08-28-2004, 02:13 AM
Ok fellas, was playin FB the other day and i noticed somthing with the p40. In my book the P40 was said to pull right on a dive so pilots would have to use extreme left rudder, usually building more muscle in their left leg. So i was cruisin at about 8500km and decided to dive strait down to see if i had to use my left rudder. I didnt have to at all!!! So is this called a flaw or a bug in the game, or is it just a missed feature with the P40? (this is not a whine lol http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

http://aa.1asphost.com/Niklamort/06022004/Hard-day-over-berlin.JPG

maverick7614
08-28-2004, 02:13 AM
Ok fellas, was playin FB the other day and i noticed somthing with the p40. In my book the P40 was said to pull right on a dive so pilots would have to use extreme left rudder, usually building more muscle in their left leg. So i was cruisin at about 8500km and decided to dive strait down to see if i had to use my left rudder. I didnt have to at all!!! So is this called a flaw or a bug in the game, or is it just a missed feature with the P40? (this is not a whine lol http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

http://aa.1asphost.com/Niklamort/06022004/Hard-day-over-berlin.JPG

Fehler
08-28-2004, 02:34 AM
I think what you are seeing is a lack of strong torque effects in the game engine.

S 8
08-28-2004, 02:54 AM
It´s called real life vs simulated one syndrome.There is no cure for it....yet.

VFA-195 Snacky
08-28-2004, 02:55 AM
FM limitations. would be pretty tuff to model every single little quirk for each individual aircraft.
P38 did not torque roll nor require trimming the rudder to counter torque effect, but in FB the P38 does both. Just limitations of the game.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/531seawolf/b_a_presidential_first.jpg
"Navy1, Call the Ball- Roger Ball."

F19_Ob
08-28-2004, 04:44 AM
My guess is that rudderinput for many ac is left out on purpose because constant input would soon fault all but the strongest and highestquality rudderpedals or twistruddersticks. Perhaps an important portion of buyers have no rudder device, so for them it would be implayable........
just wildly guessing, because the rudder inputs on many planes are well known.


ohh... and now when I'm thinking about it, all people who have flown the spit (ray and Mark Hanna for example) say it buffet severly close to stall in hard turns.
Those who have flown the 109 claims it dont buffet, just flips mildly (easy recover)

In FB 109's buffet like crasy in hard turns but spits dont.
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

FI.Spitsfire
08-28-2004, 04:50 AM
lol my sticks broken it wont calibrate properly so it requires constant input anyway http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_10.gif

F19_Ob
08-28-2004, 04:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FI.Spitsfire:
lol my sticks broken it wont calibrate properly so it requires constant input anyway http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let me guess.....U have a Logitech....like I do? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

BennyMoore
08-28-2004, 03:55 PM
Yeah, and I'm quite sick of IL-2 Sturmovik: Forgotten Battles.

I'm switching to Lock On. I do not have any intention of buying Pacific Fighters or Battle of Britain. If there is a demo for Battle of Britain, I might download it, or borrow the full game. But there's no way I'm paying money for any more of this rubbish.

Oleg has lost a good customer. I am directly responsible for two hundred and thirty dollars' worth of purchases, between buying several copies of the games and being the sole reason that Doomsayer bought copies. I would also have been responsible for at least another one hundred of sixty dollars worth of games, if Oleg had not demonstrated to me (and Doomsayer, who shares my opinion, oddly enough) in a multitude of ways that he is not interested in realism in the least.

Does anyone want to buy IL-2 Sturmovik: Forgotten Battles, with the Aces Expansion Pack, in good condition for forty dollars total plus shipping? Manual and box is included for both.

tsisqua
08-28-2004, 04:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
Yeah, and I'm quite sick of IL-2 Sturmovik: Forgotten Battles.

I'm switching to Lock On. I do not have any intention of buying Pacific Fighters or Battle of Britain. If there is a demo for Battle of Britain, I might download it, or borrow the full game. But there's no way I'm paying money for any more of this rubbish.

Oleg has lost a good customer. I am directly responsible for two hundred and thirty dollars' worth of purchases, between buying several copies of the games and being the sole reason that Doomsayer bought copies. I would also have been responsible for at least another one hundred of sixty dollars worth of games, if Oleg had not demonstrated to me (and Doomsayer, who shares my opinion, oddly enough) in a multitude of ways that he is not interested in realism in the least.

Does anyone want to buy IL-2 Sturmovik: Forgotten Battles, _with_ the Aces Expansion Pack, in good condition for forty dollars total plus shipping? Manual and box is included for both.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I spent the entire day, just waiting for some semblance of good news from anywhere.

Thanks, Benny . . . You just made my day.

Tsisqua

http://server6.uploadit.org/files/tsisqua-bird1.JPG

Korolov
08-28-2004, 04:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
Blah blah, quitting this game, blah blah...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the famous words of many other fine folks in this community:

Don't let the door hit you in the ***.

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/klv_sigp38shark1a.jpg

mortoma
08-28-2004, 04:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by maverick7614:
Ok fellas, was playin FB the other day and i noticed somthing with the p40. In my book the P40 was said to pull right on a dive so pilots would have to use extreme left rudder, usually building more muscle in their left leg. So i was cruisin at about 8500km and decided to dive strait down to see if i had to use my left rudder. I didnt have to at all!!! So is this called a flaw or a bug in the game, or is it just a missed feature with the P40? (this is not a whine lol http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

http://aa.1asphost.com/Niklamort/06022004/Hard-day-over-berlin.JPG<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is nothing, I thought everyone was aware that these simulated planes usually fly almost nothing like their real life counterparts. Take the Me-109 for example, all one has to do is read up on any of the numerous articles from those that fly/flew it and one can easily ascertain that the 109 we fly in FB is nothing like the way a real one flew. As far as the landing especially, if our FB 109 was as hard to land as the real 109, there would be immediate crying and whining from thousands of FB faithful. They simply would not be able to fly her any more!! Take off in the real 109 was also a bear just to learn without killing yourself.

mortoma
08-28-2004, 04:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by F19_Ob:
My guess is that rudderinput for many ac is left out on purpose because constant input would soon fault all but the strongest and highestquality rudderpedals or twistruddersticks. Perhaps an important portion of buyers have no rudder device, so for them it would be implayable........
just wildly guessing, because the rudder inputs on many planes are well known.


ohh... and now when I'm thinking about it, all people who have flown the spit (ray and Mark Hanna for example) say it buffet severly close to stall in hard turns.
Those who have flown the 109 claims it dont buffet, just flips mildly (easy recover)

In FB 109's buffet like crasy in hard turns but spits dont.
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What are you talking about?? All planes in FB have rudder input. You'd not be able to stay in the center of the runway either landing or taking off, for one thing. For another thing, the number of manuevers one could accomplish would be severely limited. I use rudder all the time and it's present in all flyable planes.

mortoma
08-28-2004, 04:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
Yeah, and I'm quite sick of IL-2 Sturmovik: Forgotten Battles.

I'm switching to Lock On. I do not have any intention of buying Pacific Fighters or Battle of Britain. If there is a demo for Battle of Britain, I might download it, or borrow the full game. But there's no way I'm paying money for any more of this rubbish.

Oleg has lost a good customer. I am directly responsible for two hundred and thirty dollars' worth of purchases, between buying several copies of the games and being the sole reason that Doomsayer bought copies. I would also have been responsible for at least another one hundred of sixty dollars worth of games, if Oleg had not demonstrated to me (and Doomsayer, who shares my opinion, oddly enough) in a multitude of ways that he is not interested in realism in the least.

Does anyone want to buy IL-2 Sturmovik: Forgotten Battles, _with_ the Aces Expansion Pack, in good condition for forty dollars total plus shipping? Manual and box is included for both.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nobody cares if you stop playing this sim or not. Anybody that expects the planes to have flight fidelity that exactly matches the real thing is an idiot. For one thing, the amount of programming that would be required to get FM to perfect fidelity would be so much, that there would be no room left in the program code for things like AI, NICE GRAPHICS or DM, just to mention a few things. I would not want a sim that has such good FM, that they's have to leave out other good and important stuff. Until everybody has their own Cray Supercomputer at home, please be real about FMs. They have to balance this stuff out. You obviously know little about computer programming and the limitations of PCs at present.

[This message was edited by mortoma on Sat August 28 2004 at 04:20 PM.]

Weather_Man
08-28-2004, 05:06 PM
BennyMoore, you know, I've got about 20 PC games sitting in my drawer that I don't play any more for one reason or another. And about 50 PS2 games I haven't touched in over 3 years. I paid good money for every one of them. Close to $3000 probably. How come I don't I feel compelled to post on each of their forums why the game sucks and how I longer wish to play it? Oh yes, because they're games. You put your money in and play until you're bored. Then you play the next one. Am I the only one who grew up putting quarters into the arcade?

It's ridiculous put any blame on the developers because you don't like it. The game is what the game is. Take it or leave it. Don't bother to come here and tell us you got screwed, because you screwed yourself with that attitude.

Of all the games I've bought over the years, there is one game and one game only I've played for more than 3 weeks. Yep, Il2. And that's going on close to 3 years now. Obviously, there is something terribly right with this game despite it's limitations. Is it perfect? No. Is it worth my money and 3 years of my time? Absolutely. If I had only played it for 6 weeks, it would still have been twice as good as any other game I've ever played.

So go think about what you're boo-hooing about. If you ask me, if you take the extra special time to post in the forums about this crappy game you don't like over 400 times in 4 months, there is something about the game that makes it unique. Something beyond the ordinary you just might like. What other game do you own that inspires such effort?

Oh, and I'll be looking for you post on how Lomac is rubbish. That game lasted about 2 weeks.

There, I feel better now. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

http://banners.wunderground.com/banner/smalltemptr/language/www/US/TX/Dallas.gif

92SqnGCJimbo
08-28-2004, 05:12 PM
Yeah, and I'm quite sick of IL-2 Sturmovik: Forgotten Battles.

I'm switching to Lock On. I do not have any intention of buying Pacific Fighters or Battle of Britain. If there is a demo for Battle of Britain, I might download it, or borrow the full game. But there's no way I'm paying money for any more of this rubbish.

Oleg has lost a good customer. I am directly responsible for two hundred and thirty dollars' worth of purchases, between buying several copies of the games and being the sole reason that Doomsayer bought copies. I would also have been responsible for at least another one hundred of sixty dollars worth of games, if Oleg had not demonstrated to me (and Doomsayer, who shares my opinion, oddly enough) in a multitude of ways that he is not interested in realism in the least.

Does anyone want to buy IL-2 Sturmovik: Forgotten Battles, with the Aces Expansion Pack, in good condition for forty dollars total plus shipping? Manual and box is included for both.

----------------------------------------------------
LOL
benny my good man. stop trawling.. oh wait that fishing i mean stop tolling.. or are u trawling for trolls lol

either way SHUT UP nobody cares about u having a little strop (throwing dummy out of pram) there is no better flight sim on the market. unless of course u like cfs3.. in which case you are addmitting you are a loon and the ppl in white coats will be there shortly

oleg works his hardest mate a hell of a lot of ppl do to make this game what it is (which is next to perfect) dont forget this is a work in progress things will get changed.. if u leave good luck. we wont miss u. and about how much money u spent on aep... you spent that money yourself shurley u must have learned by now that games change.

just a thought for u. i wander how long it is before u start whinin about lomac when they dont get it 120% perfect

its funny how u want to sell your aep. i think u should go to sleep earlier and stop havin tantrums heheeh

and as far as im concerned anyone who can put down someone elses work when they cant do better themselves doesnt even deserve a game like this..

p.s how much was it u lost again.. i wander how much youll get back for it at the pawn shop lmfao l8er

right im finished preachin now.. ppl like benny really pee me off when they come out with *****y comments like that

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0RwAAAKYUV9WohzlTekrEej5FgrwxWyQ0S3cejYO2W5yCX7kWI qN7NAF5NXMr5DiDrxaAeMyIENpTJL8fBCRH3F0Q*37BNoLmDuO BgZw7pgA/dhm2110.jpg?dc=4675481137574892891

Obi_Kwiet
08-28-2004, 05:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
Yeah, and I'm quite sick of IL-2 Sturmovik: Forgotten Battles.

I'm switching to Lock On. I do not have any intention of buying Pacific Fighters or Battle of Britain. If there is a demo for Battle of Britain, I might download it, or borrow the full game. But there's no way I'm paying money for any more of this rubbish.

Oleg has lost a good customer. I am directly responsible for two hundred and thirty dollars' worth of purchases, between buying several copies of the games and being the sole reason that Doomsayer bought copies. I would also have been responsible for at least another one hundred of sixty dollars worth of games, if Oleg had not demonstrated to me (and Doomsayer, who shares my opinion, oddly enough) in a multitude of ways that he is not interested in realism in the least.

Does anyone want to buy IL-2 Sturmovik: Forgotten Battles, _with_ the Aces Expansion Pack, in good condition for forty dollars total plus shipping? Manual and box is included for both.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are an idiot. Speaking as one who has no idea how difficult it is to program a sim you have no place to call it rubbish. Most of the planes in this game are very difficult to find actual info on as they were destroyed over 60 years ago. There is no way to perfectly model every little quirk of over 60 AC into the game. Many records are inaccurate, and they are hard to find, but Oleg has done the best possible job trying to make it accurate. Also, some things are just not possible to do with a 3 year old game engine. IL2 is currently the most comprehensive and accurate sim ever made.
To make this sim any more accurate the thing would take a team of hundreds of people and cost hundreds of dollars. It's also the best sim on the market, so you have nothing to compare it to. So next time you critique the best item on a market, know what your talking about.

BennyMoore
08-28-2004, 05:50 PM
Well, some of you have been correct on one account - I've given up on Lock On after a few hours. If the demo is anything like the real game, then I feel sorry for anyone who paid for it.

Yes, I stuck with IL-2 ever since it first came out. Why? Because there is nothing better (which is sad). And I love flight. But lately, especially with some of the decisions being made and with Oleg's priorities becoming clear, I have come to realize just how incredibly far it is from the real thing by pilot accounts, aircraft manuals, and my own limited real life flying experience.

There are games that have entranced me for longer than IL-2 did. However, all simulations generally have the same lifespan as IL-2 before I come across the realization that they fail miserably.

For the record, I would gladly pay five hundred dollars for a simulation that was exactly like, or even almost exactly like, the real thing. Get it good enough and I would pay a thousand. That's about a month's pay at my job, but I love flying that much. A realistic simulation would last me until the day I die.

Well, I guess I'll have to wait until I can start flying in real life again.

Red_Russian13
08-28-2004, 06:04 PM
Benny;

I agreed with you on a post a minute ago (which is rare I think), but you let me down on this thread, so I won't really address your comments other than to say, Lock On isn't that bad when it's patched.

Concerning the original poster;

Torque isn't modeled to the degree we'd like, which I think was addressed in a previous post. (But it sure kicks my butt when I take off! I am horrible at taking off.)

The only problem I have with the torque, since I've never really flown and don't know what to really expect, is the LACK of torque on the P-38. And if the Do-335 is in, I'm guessing (only a guess here) that it won't have accurate torque.

But, this is, like mentioned, a very difficult thing to do. Model specific flight characteristics for individual planes. If I recall, dive speed isn't accurate either. But I don't think these things bother most people here too much though...Benny not included.

Just my thoughts on the issue.

Red Russian

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v256/Red_Russian13/RedRussian.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
08-28-2004, 07:18 PM
Agree with Benny. We could get alot more flight sim for 500$ a box. Would be alot better investment than Paying to be ATI/Nvida Beta Tester.

Benny, the LOMAC demo stank. The fully Patched LOMAC is pretty good, but I can't really play it with my ATI 9200...nor am I interested in ever playing LOMAC cos it has no real Flyable jets. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif


http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f102/f102_04.jpg
~ http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f102/



Crapp Jets Rule! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.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

Korolov
08-28-2004, 07:21 PM
Don't forget the F-100!

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/klv_sigp38shark1a.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
08-28-2004, 07:28 PM
Didn't know anything about this... <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>some were transferred to Greece and Turkey where the F-102 fought for both sides during the 1974 invasion of Cyprus.

~ http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f102/
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If so there should be No Whining about F~102 in Oleg's 1950-1965 flight sim.

...okay...1950-1974 flight sim

__________________
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

wayno7777
08-29-2004, 01:03 AM
I want the F-101 Voodoo!!!!!!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/1072.gif OT.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/wayno77/Dux_Wreck.jpg
Any landing you can walk away from is a good one!

F19_Ob
08-29-2004, 04:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:

What are you talking about?? All planes in FB have rudder input. You'd not be able to stay in the center of the runway either landing or taking off, for one thing. For another thing, the number of manuevers one could accomplish would be severely limited. I use rudder all the time and it's present in all flyable planes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



SRY mortoma, perhaps i was a bit unclear.

Ofcourse there is "some" rudder input needed in FB.( I should have been clearer on this).
But by reading numerous books by ww2 pilots and articles by pilots who have the luck to fly warbirds regulary today (Mark and Ray Hanna as exampled), where they describe many of the events in detail from start to landing, I feel that a tradeoff have been made in FB,
So u dont have to use much or constant rudder during many stages of flight like some real planes had to.
I dont mean that this nescessarily is a bad thing (as I mentioned). It although means less difficulty and at same time that many more can join this community. I also doubt that It would be fair to do such a difficulty level because of the simplicity and relative lightness of todays sticks...very few have one thats comes even close to a real one.
And as I stated that many cheaper pedals and twistrudders wouldnt hold the wear and tear of continuos applyance of rudder. So now U dont have to have top gear to run FB and flight isnt too complicated so more ppl can enjoy it.IMO (my guess)

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

[This message was edited by F19_Ob on Sun August 29 2004 at 06:47 AM.]

Obi_Kwiet
08-29-2004, 04:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
Well, some of you have been correct on one account - I've given up on Lock On after a few hours. If the demo is anything like the real game, then I feel sorry for anyone who paid for it.

Yes, I stuck with IL-2 ever since it first came out. Why? Because there is nothing better (which is sad). And I love flight. But lately, especially with some of the decisions being made and with Oleg's priorities becoming clear, I have come to realize just how incredibly far it is from the real thing by pilot accounts, aircraft manuals, and my own limited real life flying experience.

There are games that have entranced me for longer than IL-2 did. However, all simulations generally have the same lifespan as IL-2 before I come across the realization that they fail miserably.

For the record, I would gladly pay five hundred dollars for a simulation that was exactly like, or even almost exactly like, the real thing. Get it good enough and I would pay a thousand. That's about a month's pay at my job, but I love flying that much. A realistic simulation would last me until the day I die.

Well, I guess I'll have to wait until I can start flying in real life again.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You could create such a sim... but it would cost billions. You'd have to restore 10 of every AC, and gun in the game. Then you would have to test them and find the efects of shooting every gun at every AC for perfect DM. Then you would have to log hunderds of flight hours on each on expirimenting with diffrent load outs, ect. Then only a hand full of people would buy it at a 500$ price tag.

Kartveli
08-30-2004, 12:21 AM
I want a REAL jet....a CF-105 avro Arrow....and make it the one with the Orenda Iroquois engines, pleeeeeeeeese!....It'll bury any other air sucker out there...even with a crappy FCS<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wayno7777:
I want the F-101 Voodoo!!!!!!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/1072.gif OT.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/wayno77/Dux_Wreck.jpg
Any landing you can walk away from is a good one!



<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IL2-chuter
08-30-2004, 03:39 AM
Actually . . . the P-40 issue is caused by the fin being offset (turned) to the left a bit, like the corsair. This would work with the spiralling slipstream from the prop to zero the trim at cruise speed, and way overcompensate at high diving speeds. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

As far as rudder inputs in general: I still can't ground loop properly . . . and thats something I would have been really good at, too. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

"I fly only Full Real in Il2 Forgotten Battles." -Mark Donohue

BennyMoore
09-03-2004, 03:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
The game has little realism in the flight model department. Sure, they fly fairly realistically - if you fly Cessnas. I know. I've done it. Playing just the demo for Lock On has brought to my attention several huge things missing in IL-2. Accelerated stalls come to mind, as do realistic spin behavior and momentary continuation of roll after control neutralization. Torque is irrelevant to Lock On, but I'm sure that it would be far better than IL-2's if it were. Why, Red Baron 3D has torque that is dozens of times better than IL-2s. Also, there's this neat little page I found (http://www.taildraggers.com/Documentation.aspx) that reminded me of the way taildraggers are supposed to act on the ground. I notice that none of the described phenomena are in any way modelled in IL-2. Again, laughable...

You see, one day I just got fed up with all of the balogna. I think the clincher was finding out that the grossly overmodelled Russian planes were going to be in Pacific Fighters. Or maybe when he got all petty about the fifties and made them tighter than even Gibbage asked, so that no one could possibly imagine that they were realistic (although, come to think of it, the Russian guns were like that all along). Or maybe it was when he then insisted that the shotgun spread that the fifties had before was realistic and that we should have been content with it. Anyway, I have plenty of good reasons for not wanting the, as I have called it, shoddy thing. I regret putting so much money and faith into 1C, and I will not make the mistake again.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>