PDA

View Full Version : ...Better Il2 Sturmovik than Il2 Forgotten Battles ?



TILLIO
02-02-2004, 11:00 AM
We are right demanding a lot of improvements in the game, but first look at the scores I find better rendering in the original game http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif :

1)about sea...
-clouds (and also smokes) shadows on the surface
-sun reflection on the surface
- water colours
2)about weather...
-high altitude clouds
-dense blind
-natural sky colour
3)about sounds
- amazing
So, reinstall the "old", play it & enjoy your fly !
Do you agree ? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

TILLIO
02-02-2004, 11:00 AM
We are right demanding a lot of improvements in the game, but first look at the scores I find better rendering in the original game http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif :

1)about sea...
-clouds (and also smokes) shadows on the surface
-sun reflection on the surface
- water colours
2)about weather...
-high altitude clouds
-dense blind
-natural sky colour
3)about sounds
- amazing
So, reinstall the "old", play it & enjoy your fly !
Do you agree ? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

crazyivan1970
02-02-2004, 11:19 AM
nope http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

V!
Regards,

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

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.

buz13
02-02-2004, 11:35 AM
I liked the sounds better in IL2....maybe because I never had any problems with them like I have in FB. Engine sounds for some planes (109s) were better.

rbstr44
02-03-2004, 09:11 PM
IMHO: IL-2:Original felt a lot more like flying a real plane on the edge of control than the current FB patch. Now, flying a high-performance simulated war plane is a piece of cake: there is no need to buy a cutting-edge, force-feedback joystick for the current version of the game, and there is no need to be bothered with details such as monitoring airspeed. It is still a lot of fun--just not as challenging.

02-04-2004, 07:17 AM
It's an old argument.

Pilots who went out to war, have less than 1/10th average flight time per week compared to us. Some of them died at their first mission, some of them survived the whole war, and a lot of others fought and died.

Flying the real thing is of course, different compared than compared to sitting in front of a monitor. But if the basic essential of flight and maneuvering remain the same in both situations(which it is, or people will then call this game 'arcade'), there's absolutely no reason to assume that being more harder and challenging is more real.

..

If you think it's so easy, then try recalling what it was like the first time you met a real, live human adversary in a multiplayer room. My bet is either you were shot down within 30 seconds, or stalled and crashed while trying desparately to escape.

I see the same thing everyday - people frantically trying to dodge my bullets, and then stalling and crashing. Should I ask them if this game's too easy to handle?

ps) There's an old saying in my country which goes; "forget ye not your days as a tadpole, frog"

rbstr44
02-04-2004, 05:49 PM
I cut my multi-player teeth on v1.02 IL-2:Original. Now, that version was hard to fly. I required a few weeks flying on "No Spins" and "No Stalls" servers ("non-real" settings) as I had to relearn everything I thought I knew about flying. There was always someone ground-looping on take off (me, initially) on those 1.02/1.03 servers with the more realistic settings. Me-109's were notorious widowmakers on takeoff and landing for the inexperienced.

WW2 pilots, at least, had trainer aircraft and flight instructors to teach them the basics, and would allow them some margin for error (to learn from small mistakes) before moving on to high-performance fighters where one could get oneself killed just taxiing off the runway.

The flight (and ground handling) model of IL-2/FB is so forgiving lately that no one need fly a "beginner aircraft" to build up skill. Just jump in any plane for a checkride, and many "tads" can get one off the ground and airborne in several tries. You can abuse the 109 (although she and others will stall in a slow turn, but not usually fatally). Gunnery and tactics still takes some skill which is the redeeming value of FB and makes it fun, nevertheless.

[This message was edited by rbstr44 on Wed February 04 2004 at 05:41 PM.]

02-04-2004, 10:31 PM
You're thinking that way because you do not perceive what it was about the FM that made IL-2 so more difficult than compared to FB.

I must point out that people tend to think that something in FB flight modelling has been artificially changed to make it easier on purpose. Without hesitation they say FB is easy mode, and IL-2 is more real: simply because they think being harder makes it more real. It's an absurd analogy devoid of logic.

Currently we're talking about compression, high Gs, black outs, absence of structural failures on planes, and how some planes seem to react to sluggish at high speeds, in ORR.

Did we ever discuss those things when we were flying IL-2? No. Everyone was discussing how VVS planes were uber.

Granted, that most of those arguments were more of a whine than formal criticism. However just compare the frequency of such complaints in the days of IL-2, to those currently in FB. You'll notice people hardly "whine" about VVS planes being uber anymore.

Why is that?

It's because planes in IL-2 were flying at fighting at speed ranges where Pacific carrier planes of 1941 would have fought. You may not remember it so, but I vividly remember the days of IL-2.

When people refer to IL-2 as "I feel it to be more real than FB", they conveniently forget to mention the fact that the same planes in IL-2 were flying at incredibly lower speeds than compared to FB.

Pushing over 500km/h(not even TAS, but IAS(!)) in level flight acceleration, was basically impossible. There was no way your engine would allow you to accelerate over 500km/h before overheating. It'd take forever to do so.

The only instances when people ever pushed over 500 was during a steep dive - and even in so many such dives it'd rarely exceed 600km/h indicated.

When you have amassed the unlikely speed of 600km/h, a shallow 2G pull would still bleed your speed off under 400km/h within 5 seconds.

Do you remember in which speed ranges people were "dogfighting"? I do. Since the speed you've built would rarely stay with you more than 30 seconds, typically a dogfight would immediately drag you down to under 300km/h.

Every maneuver one makes, usually started at something like 300km/h. Pull two 5 second turns and you'd be facing the enemy airplane at 200~250km/h and "maneuvering" at those speeds.

Why was IL-2 so much harder? Because, the planes were flying so much slower than it was supposed to. It's no wonder there was hardly any debate on the sliggish responses of Bf109s at high speeds - no one ever got to those speeds in IL-2.

Why did people whine so much about VVS planes in IL-2?

Because the incredibly excessive E-drain rate, low acceleration, fragile and speedily overheating engines would drag down all planes under 300km/h in any type of fight be it BnZ or TnB; which as you know, is speeds where VVS planes gain some decisive advantages over LW planes, especially at low altitudes.


You may also remember how much IL-2 has changed over time with numerous patches. With every patch the planes were accelerating faster, engine becoming sturdier, and E-drain rate being altered, and still experienced pilots were complaining about the problems in the FM.


...

Yes, it's IL-2 which was definately more harder. But if we ever had a P-51D in IL-2, I can bet my left nut that the best speed a pilot would achieve with that plane at over 6000m would be something like 400km/h TAS.

That's how seriously penalizing IL-2 FM was.

Which is why IL-2 was so much harder. Every move directly scooped you off to a verge of stall. It's not because that FB has some artificial buffer at the edge of stall that it's easier to fly.

It's simply because FB planes are able to fly at the speeds they were supposed to fight and fly in, not groping around the ground at 200mph like Zeros and Wildcats. The planes can now even reach its maximum listed speed during level flight!

ps) Me-109s were notorious widow makers?

You see, for example, that's exactly the kind of exaggerated partial information which leads people to base their thoughts on what 'reality' is.

About 5% of 109s were destroyed during BOTH landings and takeoffs, which are including figures for damaged aircraft forcing a landing at airfields.

Ofcourse, nobody ever mentions that all aircraft during the war, were more or less destroyed by takeoff and landing accidents in a percentage between 2%~5%.

Nor do people mention that in the case of the Spitfire, it had even narrower ladning carriages with as much engine torque as the Messerschmitts.. and the early Spitfires didn't even have tail-wheel locking mechanisms.

Seemingly qualified as everybit as 'notorious' as the Messerschmitts, and still, nobody says that Spitfires were 'widow makers'.

Simply put, you think taking off in the 109s are too easy and it should be harder, because you mistakenly think that the 109 was a plane for some special people with incredible talent to even get it flying straight during an everyday mission sortie. Because, you base your logic on misinformed facts you perceive to be true, which of course, unfortunately, is not.

I'm not flaming you for anything. With all due respect, I'm merely pointing out that the process of 'logic' concerning 'realism' the gamers hold, are simular in the case I've described above in every part of flight.

They take one part of information and fail to perceive the overlying whole context of things, and think to themselves "hey, I've heard this planes was XXX. It's doing YYY. So, it must be wrong. It's too easy."

papote10
02-04-2004, 11:09 PM
i totally agree with IL2 being more of a sim and FB being more of arcadish.

in FB i can turn off the engine and the plane will keep going and going(verry anoying).
Also planes in FB will climb(in vertical) like they were the space shuttle.

in the original IL2 if you turn the engine off in mid flight, you could feel that what was keeping you in flight was taken away and your war bird began to lose energy in a realistic
way.(one could feel the weight of the brick with wings we were supposedlly flying)

im posting here because to me this was such a sad thing to have happened to this sim.
i wish we had that IL2 feeling of real flying in FB. In truth, FB to me looks great but as to realistic feeling of flying, its one step ahead of say...Crimsom Skies?

I bet you one day if they release the source code, people will make the flight models like they were back in the original IL2.

i have both IL2 and FB in the hard drive, when i want to see eye candy i play FB, but when i wana feel like really flying a sim, i hit the original IL2

By the way im a pilot in real life

HansKnappstick
02-05-2004, 03:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by papote10:
i totally agree with IL2 being more of a sim and FB being more of arcadish.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Too strong probably. There are things even such a noob as myself can judge as being better modelled in FB. For example, prop pitch (including CSP).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
in FB i can turn off the engine and the plane will keep going and going(verry anoying).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
True. I turned the engine on FW190a4 off at the alt 1000m and safely landed 7 - 10km further away.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Also planes in FB will climb(in vertical) like they were the space shuttle.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I bet you one day if they release the source code, people will make the flight models like they were back in the original IL2.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This will be the day the game dies.

Michcich_303
02-05-2004, 04:37 AM
Hello,

Sad but (probably) true papote 10.

I wish Oleg could comment on this particular topic, as this is a crucial issue for both this sim as well as BoB. Why was the FM changed so much (and was it, actually ?)? What approach is Oleg going to take to BoB - a hardcore sim or eye-candy arcade ?

And, finally - who should answer these questions - Oleg ir Ubi maybe ?

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

rbstr44
02-05-2004, 05:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kweassa1:
[elided]...
It's an absurd analogy devoid of logic.
[elided]

ps) Me-109s were notorious widow makers?

You see, for example, that's exactly the kind of exaggerated partial information which leads people to base their thoughts on what 'reality' is.
[ellided]
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are certainly right about top speeds being off in the Original, and I would never defend the Original as perfected. I just think much of the sim aircraft tinkering of the last two years has given us a Frankensteined product in FB--it has multiple inputs from different emotional constintuencies (VVS whiners/Luftwhiners/Ameri-whiners) that have created a colossal hodge-podge of flight characteristics which, when taken together, exaggerate reality in different respects. Granted, some aspects are improved in FB. Some. 1C:Maddox would have been better off not to try to over-fix the thing.

However, that you have to take my statement about 109's out of the context of the paragraph in which I wrote it to try to discredit me indicates that maybe you ran out of facts to talk about. Could it be that you are allowing emotion to take over your argument? [uh, it was from a paragraph about us noobs trying/flying/crashing the 109 back in the mean old IL-2 days, not about WW2; the paragraph following commented about WW2, but said nothing of the 109]

BTW, since this topic started out as an opinion piece, I do not feel constrained to add a bunch of data to support my claims. It never was a discussion based strictly on logic. Unlike so many other opinion threads in ORR which masquerade as fact threads, this one asks for partisan replies.

P.S. Yeah, it is still possible to ground loop the 109G2 in FB v1.22, but you really have to deflect the elevators quite a bit before reaching optimum speed on takeoff to make it happen.

02-05-2004, 06:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I just think much of the sim aircraft tinkering of the last two years has given us a Frankensteined product in FB--it has multiple inputs from different emotional constintuencies (VVS whiners/Luftwhiners/Ameri-whiners) that have created a colossal hodge-podge of flight characteristics which, when taken together, exaggerate reality in different respects.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So some say.

But the only confirmed fact is that Oleg stopped using one source, and decided to use sources which people have reasonably laid out as being more credible.

The rest is virtually all babble.

It's really no wonder Oleg rarely comes here anymore. The developers make a change, and one side claims that the developers have been wrongly influenced. They makes another change, and now the other side says so.

Basically all the 'facts' floating around about how the FM is changed by what degree in what manner, is for example, something like those stories about how 15mms were fitted in the Bf109Ks.

It's a clearly wrong fact, but it's been circulated around so long and everybody quotes each other on the fact, that correcting wrong opinions about it actually becomes hard.

That's what it's like in here. "Repeat it enough and it becomes true".

Just look at the posts after my previous reply. Is it not exactly in the way I have said?

It's really easy to say something based on a feeling. Pick a post, argue a silly fact and add a line "I don't know, it's just my feeling".

No fact, no proof, and therefore, no responsibility.

Unfortunately, no meaning whatsoever. It's an unbased claim, which someone has objected.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Granted, some aspects are improved in FB. Some. 1C:Maddox would have been better off not to try to over-fix the thing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Over-fix? Such as?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>However, that you have to take my statement about 109's out of the context of the paragraph in which I wrote it to try to discredit me indicates that maybe you ran out of facts to talk about.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what's the context? You suddenly felt an urge to mention the 109 is hard to takeoff in the old Il-2, without any intention of linking it to the well hyped pseudo-"historical fact" which people repeat amongst themselves over and over again?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>BTW, since this topic started out as an opinion piece, I do not feel constrained to add a bunch of data to support my claims.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ofcourse.

But Like I said, no fact, no proof, no responsibility. Also, no meaning. It's a very convenient way of discussion, I'm pretty sure.

I can just add in a comment "hey, I feel you're wrong" and that'd be the end of that, right?

If you do not feel any need to base your opinions on any sort of solid evidence, then why bother disagreeing in the first place?

Sorry if the tone of the writeup sounds to intense and emotional, but when a certain bunch of people repeat the same problematic opinions again and again, despite the countless times others have rose to point out the errors, just because they "feel" that something is more real than others, one does get a little hot under the collar.


ps) Basically, if you agree that the plane speeds were practically bunk in IL-2, then you should understand the difference in IL-2 and FB FM.

You think FB isn't like IL-2? Try flying and fighting with 60% throttle with radiators closed all the time. You'll suddenly realize the old IL-2 FM is back in town. That's the truth behind the 'realistic' FM of old IL-2.

rbstr44
02-05-2004, 06:39 AM
Well, to be blunt, I don't feel any need to explain how I formulated my opinions to YOU, particularly with someone who cannot fathom the simple written construct of--THE PARAGRAPH. You seem to have to divine some hidden meaning in what I say beyond: the 109 was tough on us noobs in IL-2:Original. If you need to create some Byzantine framework around the meaning of my saying, "IL-2:Original was hard, but better in many ways--a better simulation of real flying", then have at it. I will just check back later for your opinionated rant that happens to have a convenient fact thrown in here and there. Now, time to grab a rocket ship (not the BI-1 this time http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) and fly off to FB land where gravity and drag don't matter.

Siggi, is that you?

[This message was edited by rbstr44 on Thu February 05 2004 at 06:21 AM.]

LeadSpitter_
02-05-2004, 08:00 AM
I like that the trim was fixed in FB, but i really miss the stalls of sturmo that actually took less then a second to recover from. You cant even get in an unrecoverable stall now unless your rudder is shot out. Seems FB was made purposely easier for the kid market who do not care about realism.

How bout a 18 and over for BOB oleg, fb says ages 7+ no pit, external views on, and padlock http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

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)

bazzaah2
02-05-2004, 08:18 AM
The only way in which I think the old Il2 was 'better' was that landings 'seemed' tougher and, therefore, more 'realistic'.

But then I'm not a pilot so I don't know which version (if any) was better or more realistic than the other. I'm inclined to think that comparison is unlikely to yield any meaningful conclusion.

But from a customer perspective, I prefer FB.

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_05.gif

Crashing online as :FI:SpinyNorman

A.K.Davis
02-05-2004, 09:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michcich_303:
Hello,

Sad but (probably) true papote 10.

I wish Oleg could comment on this particular topic, as this is a crucial issue for both this sim as well as BoB. Why was the FM changed so much (and was it, actually ?)? What approach is Oleg going to take to BoB - a hardcore sim or eye-candy arcade ?

And, finally - who should answer these questions - Oleg ir Ubi maybe ?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oleg has answered this BS question before. I recall he was kinda pissed off the last time he responded to this (not surprising, the question is inherently insulting). He said, definitively, that the flight models in FB are many more times complex than they were in Il-2, and that those who suggest that Il-2 was more realistic have no idea what they are talking about. He also specifically said that "harder" does not automatically mean "more realistic."

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
02-05-2004, 10:28 AM
I absolutely think IL-2 is better overall than FB.

The FM was better. As I recall there was only ONE badly overmodelled plane, the La5FN. Just about everything else was within a small margin of accepetable error. With FB, there was a virtual spasm of FM problems, changes and corrections. In fact, when FB 1.0 hit the street, it must've been modeling the physics of some other planet, but it wasn't Earth. The lack of energy bleed overall, the "turn-in-place" AI, and the sniper-HO tracking were abominable. I stopped flying altogether until the first patch came out; there was no point in flying FB 1.0 if your standards were above arcade.

Most of the planes we've added have only expanded the planeset, but not really expanded the sim. Diluted and diffracted it is more accurate. In fact, the only truly positive addition to FB has been the addition of pilotable bombers. The rest, with a few exceptions, just catering to certain western-centric whiners, many of whom would play the sim anyway if "certain" planes weren't included (grudgingly, but they'd play).

Zen--
02-05-2004, 11:06 AM
Stiglr, I suppose you have forgotten the FM of the 190A5. Or the ballistics of the Yak9K's 45mm cannon? There was definately more than one FM that was badly done in IL2.

Just an observation on my part anyway.

-Zen-
Formerly TX-Zen

p1ngu666
02-05-2004, 11:12 AM
thought planes where easy to fly for the most part
to fly well, now thats a different matter http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
02-05-2004, 11:17 AM
Well, I won't argue the A5 FM. I didn't and don't fly FW190s often enough to notice the difference. I found I could use those planes like I'd expect a Focke Wulf to fly, but that's just me.

The ballistics issues are still with us. We still have laser ShVaks, while every single bit of bullet drop and ballistic effect is heaped onto the German guns, especially the two really big ones.