PDA

View Full Version : Original Il2 or Il2FB - which one more realistic SIM ?



Michcich_303
01-26-2004, 02:47 PM
Hi,

I`ve been playing both original Il2 and Il2FB since they`ve been released and enjoy them both. However, anyone who played both these titles must have noticed that there is HUGE difference in Fligh Model and physics between them. I remember when FB was released, most IL2 players felt that plane bahaviour suddenly became more ARCADISH. It was much easier to fly in FB, planes were much harder or impossible to stall, they climbed much faster and did not bleed energy so fast.

I would like to ask for your opinions: which of these titles is to you more realistic SIMULATOR of combat plane, reflecting real behaviour of the plane with more fidelity. I would be especially interested in opinions of REAL LIFE PILOTS. Pls provide rationale behind your opinions.

This is not a whiners` thread as I will continue playing FB anyway, just wanted to know which games to play to realy sense foretaste of actually flying a plane.

Thanks.

Michcich_303
01-26-2004, 02:47 PM
Hi,

I`ve been playing both original Il2 and Il2FB since they`ve been released and enjoy them both. However, anyone who played both these titles must have noticed that there is HUGE difference in Fligh Model and physics between them. I remember when FB was released, most IL2 players felt that plane bahaviour suddenly became more ARCADISH. It was much easier to fly in FB, planes were much harder or impossible to stall, they climbed much faster and did not bleed energy so fast.

I would like to ask for your opinions: which of these titles is to you more realistic SIMULATOR of combat plane, reflecting real behaviour of the plane with more fidelity. I would be especially interested in opinions of REAL LIFE PILOTS. Pls provide rationale behind your opinions.

This is not a whiners` thread as I will continue playing FB anyway, just wanted to know which games to play to realy sense foretaste of actually flying a plane.

Thanks.

Michcich_303
01-26-2004, 02:59 PM
bump

Chuck_Older
01-26-2004, 03:27 PM
Jeez, I thought that it was the other way around. I was really really good at Il*2 and when FB came out, I thought I'd become a moron or something. I just couldn't fly to save my life. Stalling, spinning, low speed, high speed, nothing was easy and it was frustrating. The only plane I could fly at all was strangely the Bf 109 F models, which I really wasn't good with at all in Il*2. I was forced to play with CEM to even have a chance at landing, never mind flying the mission. I also found that to fly I need to concentrate fully on what I was seeing, so a HOTAS was about the only cure. I didn't need that in Il*2 at all, heck I barely used the rudder and I was good against the AI.

I never have flown a real plane but I studied aeronautics, and from just outward appearances, FB and Il*2 both convey the best sense of flight I've seen in a sim (never flew a plane but I've flown many times, from small single engine prop, ~ 6 passenger, to 737s). However, since Oleg is more than passably aquainted with aeronautics himself, I'd have to say he has a personal AND professional interest in improving flight models if possible. That said, I can only feel that, because of that and my experience with being a flipping off-line Heinz Baer in Il*2, and then a scum-sucking flight school washout in FB, that FB is generally more sophisticated and accurate. Nothing's perfect of course, and I can see how some things might have been mistakes, oversights, or just not thought very important, but to me FB is the more accurate of the two.

*****************************
do I hear the echoes of the days of '39? ~Clash

crazyivan1970
01-26-2004, 03:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Hi,

I`ve been playing both original Il2 and Il2FB since they`ve been released and enjoy them both. However, anyone who played both these titles must have noticed that there is HUGE difference in Fligh Model and physics between them. I remember when FB was released, most IL2 players felt that plane bahaviour suddenly became more ARCADISH. It was much easier to fly in FB, planes were much harder or impossible to stall, they climbed much faster and did not bleed energy so fast.

I would like to ask for your opinions: which of these titles is to you more realistic SIMULATOR of combat plane, reflecting real behaviour of the plane with more fidelity. I would be especially interested in opinions of REAL LIFE PILOTS. Pls provide rationale behind your opinions.

This is not a whiners` thread as I will continue playing FB anyway, just wanted to know which games to play to realy sense foretaste of actually flying a plane.

Thanks.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

FB is more complex IMO. If it`s harder to fly a plane it doesn`t mean it`s more realistic, what counts is...how much has to be done to fly it correctly.

So FB gets my vote http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

V!
Regards,

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

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.

[This message was edited by crazyivan1970 on Mon January 26 2004 at 02:46 PM.]

Chuck_Older
01-26-2004, 03:34 PM
not sure if you're agreeing with me or not, but good point

*****************************
do I hear the echoes of the days of '39? ~Clash

crazyivan1970
01-26-2004, 03:47 PM
Sorry man, i grabbbed wrong quote LOL.. my bad. It had to be original posters quote.. i edited message

V!
Regards,

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

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.

SeaFireLIV
01-26-2004, 03:50 PM
Surely, it`s FB. The complex engine management, gunnery. And absolutely with the patches. I`ve finally become used to the sound in 1.22 and it really is like the way pilots have said. No idea anything`s on them till tracer shoots past the cockpit!

SeaFireLIV...

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/Dark.jpg

Chuck_Older
01-26-2004, 03:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Sorry man, i grabbbed wrong quote LOL
Regards,

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

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.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL

*****************************
do I hear the echoes of the days of '39? ~Clash

Platypus_1.JaVA
01-26-2004, 04:09 PM
I think that FB indeed is more easy to fly. The P-39 and the MiG-3 went into a terminal spinn, in the nick of a second. Especially with the P-39, it could get into a flat-spin in just an instant. Nowadays with FB, it isn't anymore like that. The P-39 is almost a noob plane right now. Okay, we got complex engine management but, I think that Il-2 had harder flight models.

Because of the unussual engine placement, the P-39's where known for its vicious stalls. Once you can manage the stalls, and aim the cannon, it is an awesome weapon. Altough the Il-2 P-39 made you really good in preventing and (trying to) get out of a stall.

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge,
ye shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be measured
to you again.

http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php

LeadSpitter_
01-26-2004, 04:09 PM
without trim in il2sturmo the fms stalled a hell of alot easier which was great but you can outmanuever most planes with trim alone and no stick movement which was just ridiculous

In FB we have the semi complex engine management which is good but planes are not going into unrecoverable stalls even with your joystick calibrated into a smaller circle.

The trim is great in FB, but the FM without trim is just to arcadish and to easy to fly without the very difficult recovery of stalls and flat spins.

the only unrecoverable flatspin in FB is if your rudder is shot out

http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LSIG.txt
VIEW MY PAINTSCHEMES HERE (http://www.il2skins.com/?planeidfilter=all&planefamilyfilter=all&screenshotfilter=allskins&countryidfilter=all&authoridfilter=%3ALeadspitter%3A&historicalidfilter=all&Submit=+++Apply+filters++&action=list&ts=1072257400)

tsisqua
01-26-2004, 06:49 PM
I think that everyone saying that the P-39 is now a noob plane is flying the Q-10, and not the N-1. There is a definite difference in FM, and the N-1 will still spin like mad . . . flat, and next to impossible to recover from.


I've performed one spin in a real plane, and it was a doozie. We started out with normal stall recovery practice, and to do a spin, is much the same at the beginning. Gradually slow the plane, and try not to lose any altitude. The air will buffet the plane, and then you feel the nose coming down. To induce a spin, push the rudder over to one side or the other. To recover, the standard procedure is to push the rudder in the opposite direction of the spin, as well as reducing the throttle, and allowing the wings to regain their angle of attack, regaining airspeed in somewhat of a nose down attitude. (I am leaving out a lot of details here)

In the N-1, that doesn't work. Your best bet is to push the stick full-forward, and throttle wide open, rudder in the opposite direction of the spin. The N-1 has center of gravity WAY aft, and tends to flat spin because of that. Your only hope is to use the prop to pull the nose down, hence the stick forward, full throttle. You may recover, you may not. It all depends on your altitude when you enter the spin.

FB gets my vote

Tsisqua

http://www.uploadit.org/files/010903-nedChristie.jpg
Tsalagi Asgaya Galvladi

nickdanger3
01-26-2004, 07:14 PM
The most obvious thing for me that changed from IL2 to FB, speaking as a non-pilot, was the transition (that's the term right - when you go from on the ground into the air?). In FB it just FEELS right to me - you can see how the plane just get's sucked up into the air as the control surfaces start to do their job.

adlabs6
01-26-2004, 07:21 PM
FB has more complexity, but I fail to see any area that is more "real".

Complex engine controls are kind of silly, forcing you to use the pitch controls to slow down on many planes. Mags and mix, and supercharging stages have little if any use for most players. Also note that pitch, mags, and mix are all in the original IL2 as well.

Flaps seem more effective for lift, combat turning, and drag in IL2 for me.

Again on the issue of slowing down, when the throttle is chopped on many planes in FB, the plane doesn't bleed lose appreciable energy unless you waste it yourself. Thrust should be very, very low at idle throttle, and if, IF the thrust is at idle in FB when the throttle is cut, then many planes in FB have glide ratios that would do glider pilots proud.

You can drag your wings on the ground, and water even while flying with no damage up to a certain point in either I believe.

Both sims suffer from the same bizarre collision issues. Often you can fly away unharmed from a midair head on impact with another plane.

Crosswinds are a simple sliding ground effect in both sims. The "Crosswinds" disappear as soon as you leave the ground, and you get the "shakie plane" effect to replace it. Your plane will also spin in place in bad weather!

Both IL2 and FB force you to use autocoordinated turns. No slips, no skids.

Like I said, FB has "more" of this and that, but I'd rank it as even with IL2 in terms of "realism". They are essentially the same game. If the big name issues like roll rate, climb rate, max speed, and weapons/damage data from FB 1.22 were patched into the original IL2 it would all turn out the same I think.

http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/sigUBI.GIF
My FB/FS2004 Pages (http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/) | IL2skins (http://www.il2skins.com) | OMEGASQUADRON (http://777avg.com/omegasquad/)

Bearcat99
01-26-2004, 09:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Platypus_1.JaVA:
I think that FB indeed is more easy to fly. The P-39 and the MiG-3 went into a terminal spinn, in the nick of a second. Especially with the P-39, it could get into a flat-spin in just an instant. Nowadays with FB, it isn't anymore like that. The P-39 is almost a noob plane right now. Okay, we got complex engine management but, I think that Il-2 had harder flight models.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with you there... IL2 had the harder FMs....but FBs are more realistic IMO.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://tuskegeeairmen.org/airmen/who.html)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | IL2 Manager (http://www.checksix-fr.com/bibliotheque/detail_fichier.php?ID=1353) | MUDMOVERS (http://www.mudmovers.com/)

Michcich_303
01-27-2004, 05:34 AM
Thanks for your opinions http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I think for the purpose of this discussion we can easily skip CEM as it does very little in fact to increase realism of the simulation - as it is, it seems to be merely a bunch of gimmicks - you can`t really overrev the prop or spoil your engine through improper use of pitch and mixture.

What I`m trying to focus on now, is the plane handling and behaviour in air. I`ve been talking to a couple of guys here in Poland who are glider or plane pilots and they all say original IL2 (despite all its numerous deficiencies) is WAY better at doing the real thing. If planes in FB climb too fast, do not stall and bleed energy, then it`s not right. And CEM does not make it any better.

Also, in FB the B&Z tactics seem to be less effective as alt and energy advantage is not that important (again, planes climb too fast and bleed E too slowly). Perhaps the truth is that Oleg SIMPLIFIED the FM (yes, I`m provocative here) making it more ARCADISH to afford BETTER GRAPHICS in terms of PC power ? Or perhaps majority of the players just do not want realism but simply fun in semi-real, semi-historic environment ("customer is always right", UBI http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)?

Any more comments on that, real life pilots ? If you compare just the raw FM - which one is more realistic ?

[This message was edited by Michcich_303 on Tue January 27 2004 at 04:54 AM.]

Tully__
01-27-2004, 05:45 AM
The flight model in FB has more fidelity, which means that transitions from controlled to uncontrolled flight are more gradual and realistic. This is the primary reason that FB is generally perceived to be "easier" to fly than the original. Aside from that and CEM, in terms of flight realism they're essentially the same.

Some things like drag profiles ("energy bleed") have been fine tuned, changing the behaviour of some aircraft, but not having flown the originals I can't say whether that makes them closer to or further from the "real" flight model. This has changed from patch to patch within each game as well as from one game to the other.

=================================================

http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/Corsair.jpg (http://www.mudmovers.com/sturmovik_101/FAQ.htm)

IL2 Forums Moderator
Forum Terms of Use (http://www.ubi.com/US/Info/TermsOfUse.htm)


Salut
Tully

Michcich_303
01-27-2004, 06:01 AM
Thanks for your opinions http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I think for the purpose of this discussion we can easily skip CEM as it does very little in fact to increase realism of the simulation - as it is, it seems to be merely a bunch of gimmicks - you can`t really overrev the prop or spoil your engine through improper use of pitch and mixture.

What I`m trying to focus on now, is the plane handling and behaviour in air. I`ve been talking to a couple of guys here in Poland who are glider or plane pilots and they all say original IL2 (despite all its numerous deficiencies) is WAY better at doing the real thing. If planes in FB climb too fast, do not stall and bleed energy, then it`s not right. And CEM does not make it any better.

Also, in FB the B&Z tactics seem to be less effective as alt and energy advantage is not that important (again, planes climb too fast and bleed E too slowly). Perhaps the truth is that Oleg SIMPLIFIED the FM (yes, I`m provocative here) making it more ARCADISH to afford BETTER GRAPHICS in terms of PC power ? Or perhaps majority of the players just do not want realism but simply fun in semi-real, semi-historic environment ("customer is always right", UBIhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)?

Any more comments on that, real life pilots ? If you compare just the raw FM - which one is more realistic ?

Bearcat99
01-27-2004, 07:06 AM
I dunno about CEM just being a gimmick...... I can slow my plane down with pitch...... I hate the automix...but on planes that still have mix...if you dont lean it out at high alt you loose power and smoke....... I cool my engine down with the radiator... I( like CEM...I hate that they dumbed it down for the Jug & the P-51...

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://tuskegeeairmen.org/airmen/who.html)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | IL2 Manager (http://www.checksix-fr.com/bibliotheque/detail_fichier.php?ID=1353) | MUDMOVERS (http://www.mudmovers.com/)

carguy_
01-27-2004, 07:48 AM
This discussion raised 2 days after FB release day.Nothing new can be taken from this one.

http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

Michcich_303
01-27-2004, 08:06 AM
This one will be valuable if there are RL pilots comping up and having their say.

I haven`t launched this thread to whine to Oleg - just want to know which SIM to fly to be closer to flying real thing (in terms of FM and physics).

I am also counting on disturbing the complacency of FB "aces", who would quickly find to be easy prey in original IL2.

http://212.160.164.234/~apacz/phpBB2/images/photos/d54c698c3f19b121b9889.jpg

[This message was edited by Michcich_303 on Tue January 27 2004 at 08:10 AM.]

[This message was edited by Michcich_303 on Tue January 27 2004 at 08:12 AM.]

adlabs6
01-27-2004, 09:35 AM
Usually a string of real pilot will show up an give an opinion or two, but for a lot of issues they can't say anything meaningful since they have never flown the planes in question. Flying a C172 and a Me109 are quite different from my reading. Trying to compare how a P51 "feels right" based on a ride in a Cessna isn't really well grounded.

The reality is that both IL2 and FB are just games. The gameplay we experience is completely subjective to the developers designs. Look at how many different ways the 109 has flown since FB was released, often hated, often loved. Remember the first days of FB when the K4 and its death ray cannon were all that were flown online? Drawing a conclusion of "realism" from such widely changing flight models is more based on faith, and personal opinion for me.

Pointing out realisms in sims is also based heavily on sim preferences. I know some members here who say that a 109 in FB is vastly more realistic than a Cessna in FS2004. I know a large number of civilian pilots who say that a Cessna in FS2004 is vastly more realistic than a 109 in FB.

My opinion? I like IL2 better. But my liking it doesn't mean it's more realistic.

http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/sigUBI.GIF
My FB/FS2004 Pages (http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/) | IL2skins (http://www.il2skins.com) | OMEGASQUADRON (http://777avg.com/omegasquad/)

Michcich_303
01-27-2004, 09:48 AM
well, I get your point that planes` characteristics have been changing a lot. Still, I think a pilot who flew a smal prop plane would be able to say which game "feels" more like handling real plane.

Just think of it as a car simulator - wouldn`t you be able to say which game feels like handling the real thing ?

http://212.160.164.234/~apacz/phpBB2/images/photos/d54c698c3f19b121b9889.jpg

Black Sheep
01-27-2004, 02:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

Just think of it as a car simulator - wouldn`t you be able to say which game feels like handling the real thing ?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm, not really - it'd be like saying that having experience of driving an average family car gives you an insight into how realistically a Formula One car handles in one of Geoff Crammond's Grand Prix sims. The gulf in perforamnce between the two is just too much to realistically comment.

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

Michcich_303
01-28-2004, 08:31 AM
bump

http://212.160.164.234/~apacz/phpBB2/images/photos/d54c698c3f19b121b9889.jpg

HawaiifiveO
01-28-2004, 09:13 AM
Hey Adlabs6, for the sake of discussion, how does the FM in FS2004 compare to either IL-2 or IL-2 FB?

(Nice web page BTW and thanks for the x45 settings although I still can't decide if I prefer mouse view to snap. Some times my mouse moves fast but other times it is dead slow.)

HawaiifiveO
01-30-2004, 08:40 PM
Bump