PDA

View Full Version : Just one dumb question about the new FM



nearmiss
05-20-2005, 09:54 PM
What is the big deal about the newer FM. I thought Oleg already had created the most perfect flight models for us as we've progressed from Il2 1.0

Sure there have always been some scattered complaints, but the FM never was as much the issue of concern as the AI...to Offline players. There have always been a few near perfectionists on the ORR informing Oleg of issues, but most of us have been pretty content with what we've had. What's that about not missing what you haven't had. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

I recall the P-39 in IL2 was most most difficult to keep from the death stall, but that was improved sometime along the way.

I don't do the virtual thing Online, so I may be missing something. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif The new FM may just be the greatest improvement of all and I'm OK with that as well.

nearmiss
05-20-2005, 09:54 PM
What is the big deal about the newer FM. I thought Oleg already had created the most perfect flight models for us as we've progressed from Il2 1.0

Sure there have always been some scattered complaints, but the FM never was as much the issue of concern as the AI...to Offline players. There have always been a few near perfectionists on the ORR informing Oleg of issues, but most of us have been pretty content with what we've had. What's that about not missing what you haven't had. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

I recall the P-39 in IL2 was most most difficult to keep from the death stall, but that was improved sometime along the way.

I don't do the virtual thing Online, so I may be missing something. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif The new FM may just be the greatest improvement of all and I'm OK with that as well.

VW-IceFire
05-20-2005, 10:20 PM
Well yes he did create the most perfect flight models....for the time. But time marches on and Oleg is no doubt a perfectionist. He keeps saying that CPU power was never enough to do what he wants with physics and FM modeling.

Some of what FB/PF does is still sort of off when it comes to real flying. At least what I've read about. From what I've understood and seen...the upgraded FM system takes things to the next level. Some of the basics (like top speed and overall roll rate are the same) but some of the details are better. Like I hear roll rates have inertia behind them now so you don't instantly snap into maximum roll but get there slowly (relatively). And torque and all sorts of things.

There are planes, like the Spitfire, the 109, and the Yak that benefit too much from very good energy retention. They are able to retain E in ways that they shouldn't (although they are all good at retaining E, just not THIS good). The combination of an upgraded system and some additional features like more realistic torque should eliminate some of the more annoying behaviors online (like standing on ones nose to gain a shot with stunning accuracy).

I'm looking forward to it, even if it kills my piloting skills http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

AerialTarget
05-20-2005, 10:41 PM
You did not mention that the stalls are completely unrealistic, in that they don't exist except for spins.

Did you ever heard of a groundloop? In fact, not only do groundloops not exist in the game, but you can actually hit your wingtip against the ground while flying, and keep flying instead of cartwheeling like you would in real life.

Compression only affects certain planes, and these planes are display completely different effects even at the same speeds, and also are affected by compression at altitudes that they aren't in real life.

There's no roll inertia (I'm relieved to hear that it will be added - I just may buy a used copy of Pacific Fighters to see what the new flight model is like).

And there are plenty of other miscellaneous issues, not all of which I shall list here. They include no difference in dive acceleration between planes, hugely incorrect torque (no rudder input necessary except in taxiing and spin recovery, torque affects twin engined planes with contra-rotating propellers, torque present with engine off), Russian differential braking system on all Western planes (especially annoying for someone who is accustomed to the real thing), and incredibly simple "realistic" engine management (they even took out the P-40's mixture control in one of the patches; don't ask me why, because you can see the control right there in the cockpit).

This concludes my lesson on large problems with the flight model. Nearmiss, I am inclined to believe that you are a troll rather than just a fanboy. Not even the most servile of fanboys will claim that the flight model is "perfect." At least you were honest in your thread title; that was indeed a dumb question.

JunkoIfurita
05-21-2005, 12:23 AM
Aside from many changes I don't know about (and am looking foward too), one of the changes should effect you offline, Nearmiss.

Previously, AI planes that weren't flyable (like, PE-2, etc) flew under a simplified Flight Model (i.e. NOT what the player flies under) in order to save processing power. You could see this when the execute things like nuttily tight barrel rolls - the sort of thing that would have the player stalling right out of the sky. Also, the current Take-off/Landing procedures for AI is all scripted, not under ANY flight model.

The 4.0 flight model will have all of us, AI or human, under the same flight calculations. So some of the AIs advantages will be neutralised (although I imagine they'll still be able to see perfectly through clouds).

----

Tooz_69GIAP
05-21-2005, 03:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JunkoIfurita:
Aside from many changes I don't know about (and am looking foward too), one of the changes should effect you offline, Nearmiss.

Previously, AI planes that weren't flyable (like, PE-2, etc) flew under a simplified Flight Model (i.e. NOT what the player flies under) in order to save processing power.---- </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I beg to differ on this point as Oleg has been saying for some time that the AI in the game flies with exactly the same FM as we do.

How they are still able to make some of the manoeuvres they do is beyond me, but this aspect is already present in the game.

SeaFireLIV
05-21-2005, 03:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AerialTarget:
This concludes my lesson on large problems with the flight model. Nearmiss, I am inclined to believe that you are a troll rather than just a fanboy. Not even the most servile of fanboys will claim that the flight model is "perfect." At least you were honest in your thread title; that was indeed a dumb question. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nearmiss isn`t a troll, he just asked a perfectly reasonable question. We`re not all flight experts here and some of us have faith that the IL2 makers are trying to make things as real as they can (some of us are also learning as we go along). Some of us don`t fly and don`t have the time to go over the finer details of absolutely accurate flight models (we have other things to do in our lives).

I think that you, AerialTarget, will probably not be very happy with 4.0 simply because I doubt it will provide everything you will be meticulously looking for.

I remember the shock I had when the I16 in the FB was changed to more realistic parameters - that was an eye opener. Since then I realised that Oleg`s continually working to improve FMs all the while and wait to see if my shock will be just as big with the new FMs in 4.0.

danger13
05-21-2005, 03:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AerialTarget:
You did not mention that the stalls are completely unrealistic, in that they don't exist except for spins.

Did you ever heard of a groundloop? In fact, not only do groundloops not exist in the game, but you can actually hit your wingtip aren't in real.......

This concludes my lesson on large problems with the flight model. Nearmiss, I am inclined to believe that you are a troll rather than just a fanboy. Not even the most servile of fanboys will claim that the flight model is "perfect." At least you were honest in your thread title; that was indeed a dumb question. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

here he is AGAIN with his stall thing........ mate, i have SEEN, with my own two eyes, a hurricane drag dust from the floor, with its wings.
they do cartwheel if you touch too hard, they do STALL and the water has a drag to grab effect on the wings.
NOW.
give it up........ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

carguy_
05-21-2005, 08:10 AM
A big part of FM fuss is unfair character of it in regards to planes with high wingloading such as FW190,P47.Those were HEAVY planes but they were FAST too.

New FM should provide them with dive/speed/zoom climb advantage over relatively light planes.

If everything goes ok those planes won`t any longer be hit and get the hell out of here because their ability outzoom/outdive other planes lets them go 1v1 in favorable conditions.


One of signs of possible future FM improvement - FW190 will be better and safer than any Me109.

VW-IceFire
05-21-2005, 08:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AerialTarget:
You did not mention that the stalls are completely unrealistic, in that they don't exist except for spins.

Did you ever heard of a groundloop? In fact, not only do groundloops not exist in the game, but you can actually hit your wingtip against the ground while flying, and keep flying instead of cartwheeling like you would in real life.

Compression only affects certain planes, and these planes are display completely different effects even at the same speeds, and also are affected by compression at altitudes that they aren't in real life.

There's no roll inertia (I'm relieved to hear that it will be added - I just may buy a used copy of Pacific Fighters to see what the new flight model is like).

And there are plenty of other miscellaneous issues, not all of which I shall list here. They include no difference in dive acceleration between planes, hugely incorrect torque (no rudder input necessary except in taxiing and spin recovery, torque affects twin engined planes with contra-rotating propellers, torque present with engine off), Russian differential braking system on all Western planes (especially annoying for someone who is accustomed to the real thing), and incredibly simple "realistic" engine management (they even took out the P-40's mixture control in one of the patches; don't ask me why, because you can see the control right there in the cockpit).

This concludes my lesson on large problems with the flight model. Nearmiss, I am inclined to believe that you are a troll rather than just a fanboy. Not even the most servile of fanboys will claim that the flight model is "perfect." At least you were honest in your thread title; that was indeed a dumb question. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
We've heard from sources that stalls are much more fluid, ground loops are possible (or at least something much closer to one), etc. Most of that stuff is coming.

BTW: Dive acceleration already exists...its just not as good as it can be. I did a test with Pingu, and OldMan. I flew a Spitfire VIII, Pingu in a Bf-109G-6 Late, and OldMan flying a FW190A-8. We all lined up 0.25 from each other and dove full out. Oldman had a 1.50 separation between us at the bottom. Its probably not as pronounced as it should be but its there. It does exist...it just needs to be better no doubt. We've heard it is.

NonWonderDog
05-21-2005, 02:33 PM
I've groundlooped in game! I was taxiing a BF-109E that had lost its vertical stabilizer. It was nearly impossible to control the thing on the ground... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

There's definitely something wrong with taxi-speed aerodynamics. Hopefully that's something that's fixed in the new FM, because it's definitely something that could have been simplified to save CPU time.

nearmiss
05-21-2005, 02:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AerialTarget:
You did not mention that the stalls are completely unrealistic, in that they don't exist except for spins.

Did you ever heard of a groundloop? In fact, not only do groundloops not exist in the game, but you can actually hit your wingtip against the ground while flying, and keep flying instead of cartwheeling like you would in real life.

Compression only affects certain planes, and these planes are display completely different effects even at the same speeds, and also are affected by compression at altitudes that they aren't in real life.

There's no roll inertia (I'm relieved to hear that it will be added - I just may buy a used copy of Pacific Fighters to see what the new flight model is like).

And there are plenty of other miscellaneous issues, not all of which I shall list here. They include no difference in dive acceleration between planes, hugely incorrect torque (no rudder input necessary except in taxiing and spin recovery, torque affects twin engined planes with contra-rotating propellers, torque present with engine off), Russian differential braking system on all Western planes (especially annoying for someone who is accustomed to the real thing), and incredibly simple "realistic" engine management (they even took out the P-40's mixture control in one of the patches; don't ask me why, because you can see the control right there in the cockpit).

This concludes my lesson on large problems with the flight model. Nearmiss, I am inclined to believe that you are a troll rather than just a fanboy. Not even the most servile of fanboys will claim that the flight model is "perfect." At least you were honest in your thread title; that was indeed a dumb question. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is so predictable...

Any time you lead with a title like I did on this thread you always attract the self-assured twerps that want to abase someone further.

Gotcha! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

The content of the thread is worthwhile and interesting to me.

AerialTarget
05-21-2005, 02:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Dive acceleration already exists...its just not as good as it can be. I did a test with Pingu, and OldMan. I flew a Spitfire VIII, Pingu in a Bf-109G-6 Late, and OldMan flying a FW190A-8. We all lined up 0.25 from each other and dove full out. Oldman had a 1.50 separation between us at the bottom. Its probably not as pronounced as it should be but its there. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's very good that you tested this, but there's a problem. The reason he ended up farther from you is because of overall top speed. If the planes start at the same speed, they stay together until they the slower ones reach their top speed. Only then do the faster ones begin to pull away.

Might you redo your test with this information in mind?

Badsight.
05-21-2005, 04:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nearmiss:
It is so predictable...

Any time you lead with a title like I did on this thread you always attract the self-assured twerps that want to abase someone further.

Gotcha! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

The content of the thread is worthwhile and interesting to me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>so your just fishing ?

& what do those people get knowen as ? trolls ?

nearmiss
05-21-2005, 05:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nearmiss:
It is so predictable...

Any time you lead with a title like I did on this thread you always attract the self-assured twerps that want to abase someone further.

Gotcha! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

The content of the thread is worthwhile and interesting to me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>so your just fishing ?

& what do those people get knowen as ? trolls ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope it's just the title it this case that did the fishing it could be within the message as well. Try it...you'll see there are always posters that get off on other posters indicating by some means - they're vulnerable. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

All the responder had to do is make his posting. No, he's gotta put their little elitist twist on things usually concluding with a http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif put-down of some sort.

Not a big deal http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

My interest in the topic was genuine.

LEXX_Luthor
05-21-2005, 06:54 PM
I can see your Offline FM point nearmiss, as flight models alone do not make an Air Warfare simulation (internet "Brownie Point" dogfight game, maybe) but the New FM hopefully will make aircraft that actually were dangerous to fly under certain conditions--MiG~3 for example--treacherous to fly in the sim. The sinhq Betty Testers reported that the MiG under New FM was a real Bear. As the MiG is my top ride, after I~16, my interest in New FM is genuine. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I~16 Tubbie too may be "interesting" under New FM.

Still, as always, FMB beats FM.

AerialTarget
05-22-2005, 12:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nearmiss:
What is the big deal about the newer FM. I thought Oleg already had created the most perfect flight models for us as we've progressed from Il2 1.0 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is not an honest question. It is obvious to everyone that no one intelligent enough to install the game is unintelligent enough to believe that the flight models are perfect.

Troll!

nearmiss
05-22-2005, 09:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AerialTarget:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nearmiss:
What is the big deal about the newer FM. I thought Oleg already had created the most perfect flight models for us as we've progressed from Il2 1.0 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is not an honest question. It is obvious to everyone that no one intelligent enough to install the game is unintelligent enough to believe that the flight models are perfect.

Troll! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I've enjoyed this thread along with the responses.

You'll never get along on these boards personally attacking people. These are merely discussion boards, These forums are for sharing, not for blasting other posters if they appear to you as ignorant or lacking knowledge.

PAX

JFC_Slumped
05-22-2005, 10:04 AM
I don't think he was suggesting the flight model is perfect. I interpret his post as saying it's a near perfect compromise between accuracy and speed.

I'm sure Oleg could write a near-perfect model, but I'd guess there would be alot of players going out buying quad-processor server machines to run it on http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif.

Personally I think what we've got is ****ed good, any improvement is welcome as long as I don't have to upgrade my hardware. Imagine the communities reaction if the game went over the origional min/reccomended specs.

TooMuchCheese
05-22-2005, 11:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
AerialTarget said:

There's no roll inertia (I'm relieved to hear that it will be added - I just may buy a used copy of Pacific Fighters to see what the new flight model is like).

And there are plenty of other miscellaneous issues, not all of which I shall list here. They include no difference in dive acceleration between planes, hugely incorrect torque (no rudder input necessary except in taxiing and spin recovery, torque affects twin engined planes with contra-rotating propellers, torque present with engine off), Russian differential braking system on all Western planes (especially annoying for someone who is accustomed to the real thing), and incredibly simple "realistic" engine management (they even took out the P-40's mixture control in one of the patches; don't ask me why, because you can see the control right there in the cockpit).

This concludes my lesson on large problems with the flight model. Nearmiss, I am inclined to believe that you are a troll rather than just a fanboy. Not even the most servile of fanboys will claim that the flight model is "perfect." At least you were honest in your thread title; that was indeed a dumb question. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


So you are criticising the FMs of a sim you don't even own????
How strange......what qualifies you then to comment on the FB/PF model?

DuxCorvan
05-22-2005, 11:05 AM
Directly imported from another thread, but I think this is my main fear for 4.0 new FMs:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by a very handsome Spaniard:
FB/PF uses simplified FMs for AI, allowing them to do things human pilots just can't do. They turn better, climb better, have better acceleration and never spin -unless they're damaged.

They made this for:

1) Saving processor resources. Calculating a lot of complex FM behaviors at the same time in a single PC would make FPS drop drastically in human vs AI games. Onliners have not this problem: every FM is calculated 'at home'.

2) Overcome the sheer shortcomings of the AI. I doubt FB/PF AI is able to deal with too complex FMs and physics without crashing. I doubt they would be even able to take off with a simulated torque.

3) Give AI a chance to win. AI poor tactics -always turning even in fast, poorly turning mounts- would convert them into mincemeat if they played 'fair'.

So, my concern is: Patch 4.00 is supposed to introduce new FMs, and a new better FM programming that allows AI to use the same FMs than humans without a terrible drop in performance. But:

Will be able the poor 'superturning', limits-ignoring AI to manage realistic FMs without spinning and crashing at the first time they attempt to bat-turn behind our Gladiator in a Fw 190?

If realistic FMs are applied to AI, they have to overhaul all AI processes so they use every aircraft according to more demanding FM limits and every aircraft way-to-use, and still be able to pose a threat for human players. In other words: a smarter AI -maybe something they're also working for BoB.

If true, it isn't surprising the patch is dalaying so long. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

TooMuchCheese
05-22-2005, 11:07 AM
Oleg has consistently said that the AI have THE SAME FM as human flown aircraft as far as I reccollect.

AerialTarget
05-22-2005, 02:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TooMuchCheese:
So you are criticising the FMs of a sim you don't even own????
How strange......what qualifies you then to comment on the FB/PF model? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have you ever heard of IL-2 Sturmovik? Have you ever heard of IL-2 Sturmovik Forgotten Battles? Have you ever heard of Aces Expansion Pack?

Pacific Fighters isn't the first seriously flawed simulator that Oleg has put out, you know.

actionhank1786
05-22-2005, 02:46 PM
Seriously flawed is a bit of an exageration.
It may be some small flaws in the flight modelling, but i'd really love for you to give me a link to that perfect game.
If it's such a horrible flight model, why bother playing, and commenting here so much?

AerialTarget
05-22-2005, 09:53 PM
They aren't small flaws. Stalling is one of the basics of flight. In real life, I learned to stall a plane before I even learned to land it. Getting stalls completely wrong is not a small flaw, sir! It's like a shooter that models recoil as a downward jerk of the gun instead of an upward one. It's like a driving game where stepping on the brake causes the engine to quit running. I don't think anyone with half of a brain would stand behind that and call it a small flaw!

Anyway, I did quit. I played the game from the first IL-2 until the last patch for Forgotten Battles came out. I'm playing it again because, while Lock On is much more realistic, I'm not too keen on jets. I'm desperate for warbirds! And the competition for realistic World War Two simulators simply doesn't exist. That's why Oleg has a monarchy on the genre, and that is why whatever he models is hailed as realistic. Unfortunately, much of it is balogna (as anyone who has done basic research on World War Two aircraft can see), both with general and specific flight models.

Eagle Dynamics is Russian, and they modelled the United States Air Force planes fairly. Why, they even gave the French plane its due as the most manueverable of all the planes depicted in the game, just as it is in real life.

I'd say that Lock On: Modern Air Combat is eighty percent realistic. If you don't count the avionics part (which really aren't as important as the physics), I'd say that the simulator is ninety percent realistic (and that's not the advanced flight model introduced in Flaming Cliffs). IL-2 Sturmovik Forgotten Battles, on the other hand, I would say is somewhere around forty five percent realistic. I have spent my life watching and reading about these airplanes, and I know some of the problems when I see them.

JFC_Slumped
05-22-2005, 11:50 PM
Frankly I don't care what you say. I'm guessing you've never flown any 1940's warbirds so have no idea how they fly. Flying something like a modern private aircraft I imagine would be quite different.
Every car I drive seems vastly different, but do I complain when driving games don't all handle like the cars I've driven. Hell I don't have a clue how it feels to drive a Ferrari, Lamborghini, or a fast BMW, which is pretey parallel to what you are talking about.
When someone gives me the thumbs up to climb in their Spitfire and give it a whirl, then I'll moan about the flight model. Until then I'm happy with what I have. The game is great, so STFU with the moaning eh.

AerialTarget
05-23-2005, 01:25 AM
Well, I not only believe what I've felt, I also believe what I've seen. I see real warbirds doing things that are simply impossible in the game (stalling without spinning, of course).

actionhank1786
05-23-2005, 01:56 AM
But it's not as exagerated as the complete opposite of a stall.
The thing is, stalls always turn to spins, that isn't something so ****ed terrible, it's a small flaw.
now if every time you went to stall, your plane rocketed up in speed, and then backflipped, that'd be a horrible flaw, but as it is now, it's close enough to real flight, and i'm sure it'll be fixed in this FM improvement we're getting.
Just enjoy the game, and wait for the patch, then give it a go, and see what you think of the stalls

AerialTarget
05-23-2005, 03:32 AM
I don't have Pacific Fighters. And there is no playable demonstration.

Bearcat99
05-23-2005, 05:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AerialTarget:
I don't have Pacific Fighters. And there is no playable demonstration. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then get Pacific Fighters... at least to have a leg to stand on in this discussion. Im just sayin......

This FM although the best there is for the moment is still not as good as Oleg would like it.. he has said it and many folks here have noticed it.... I believe he has continually said tha the FMs of BoB will be more realistic than these.. he said that the handling of inertia will be different... (That alone can produce a whole new aspect to the FM) and a few other things.. Simply put, this is a testbed for the new, even more accurate FMs for BoB.

Equilizer
05-23-2005, 06:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
This FM although the best there is for the moment </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For this series... *maybe*.

Actually I think the FM has gotten worse since Forgotten Battles, especially after the stalls were lowered to allow planes loaded up to take off unrealistically from stationary carriers.

nearmiss
05-23-2005, 12:43 PM
Someone mentioned LockOn as closer to real.

There are significant differences between a jet sim and a prop sim.

In the actual "real world" aircraft you take off, fly and land jets primarily with trim. So, if you can tweak the trim adequately in a jet sim, you might appear to fly more "full real". The momentum to some degree can be modeled, but G forces are totally non-existent. You can only model G forces to a certain point, because the human being has so much to do with flying at higher G levels.

In a prop sim the stick is the big wazoo. A prop pilot has to stick everything and trim is incidental to stick control. The G forces can be modeled better in a prop sim, because the aircraft just don't have the speed and momentum of a "fast mover".

All the IL2 series is great fun and appeals enough to my full real needs. Since I'm not doing any navigating, landing in congested airspace, and dealing with approach plates, flight plans and the issues a modern pilot has to deal with I'm perfectly satisfied. I use a Forcefeedback stick, because of the immersive feel I get from the experience in Il2 series.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif on the current flight models, and I'll take Oleg's word for it he's improving them. The best part is...no one asked Oleg to do it. It's his idea and it will be a contribution to better enjoy the iL2 series, I'm betting.

AerialTarget
05-24-2005, 04:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Equilizer:
Actually I think the FM has gotten worse since Forgotten Battles, especially after the stalls were lowered to allow planes loaded up to take off unrealistically from stationary carriers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know about Pacific Fighters, but the stall speeds for some, if not all, of the United States planes in Forgotten Battles are way too high. Look in the pilot's handbooks, man!

Equilizer
05-24-2005, 07:14 AM
Considering Pacific Fighters introduced Carriers, it would be safe to assume that's what I was talking about.

AerialTarget
05-24-2005, 01:35 PM
I think you misunderstand me. You said that the stall speeds were unrealistically lowered. However, they were unrealistically high before that. I don't know if they are actually lower than they should be in Pacific Fighters, but at least some American planes have stall speeds that are as much as forty miles per hour too high.

I'm telling you, Oleg doesn't like American airplanes.

nearmiss
05-24-2005, 02:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AerialTarget:
I think you misunderstand me. You said that the stall speeds were unrealistically lowered. However, they were unrealistically high before that. I don't know if they are actually lower than they should be in Pacific Fighters, but at least some American planes have stall speeds that are as much as forty miles per hour too high.

I'm telling you, Oleg doesn't like American airplanes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

-------------------------------
Now let's make sure we understand what your saying:

You think Oleg doesn't like http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif American airplanes, because you think he's misapplied Stall speeds to the airplanes.

Is that about right? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Let's change the subject http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif I'm bored

SeaFireLIV
05-24-2005, 03:01 PM
Nearmiss, you and I have seen this thing from new posters over and over in the past. There`s a particular type of player who simply cannot get out of the `He`s Russian, so he must be bad` mentality.

It permeates through nearly all of AerialTarget`s posts sometimes between the lines, other times more obvious.

Hopefully, he`ll finally realise that Oleg isn`t some secret KGB spy in the Western World working for a secret Communist Russian Empire (which is really not defunct but just hiding underground), so it can suddenly re-emerge invading the West and use Oleg`s Flight Sim`s to brainwash us all at the critical attack moment! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Fennec_P
05-24-2005, 03:18 PM
A quick test, F4U1-D level stall speed is ~165km/h in PF. The historical value I find is 162km/h.

It's almost spot on, which means that when PF came out, it was way too high. It was not dumbed down to make it easier to take off, it was corrected because it was wrong.

Exactly which American plane stalls 40mph too high, hm? I tried a few, and they're all +/- 10km/h to the values I find online (P-39Q, P-51, F6F).

AerialTarget
05-24-2005, 03:49 PM
I'm talking about Forgotten Battles, not Pacific Fighters. The plane in question is the P-38.

One more thing - I meant twenty five miles per hour; it was forty kilometers that I was thinking of. My test was several years ago, so my memory is probably off, and I'll admit that there may be some exaggeration involved!

Remember when making tests that load drastically changes stall speeds. Here is that data for all versions of the P-38, right out of the pilot's handbook. Note that these are power off stalls.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">With power OFF, the airplane stalls at the following indicated airspeeds at the gross weight noted:
15,000 lb 17,000 lb. 19,000 lb.

Flaps and landing
gear UP 94 mph 100 mph 105 mph

Flaps and landing
gear DOWN 69 mph 74 mph 78 mph </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tvrdi
05-24-2005, 03:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AerialTarget:
I think you misunderstand me. You said that the stall speeds were unrealistically lowered. However, they were unrealistically high before that. I don't know if they are actually lower than they should be in Pacific Fighters, but at least some American planes have stall speeds that are as much as forty miles per hour too high.

I'm telling you, Oleg doesn't like American airplanes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


too many "Pearl harbour" lookalike movies and stories for good night from ur dad (glorifying Mustang)....hey man, grow up..US planes were great but dont make uber pictures in ur head

TX-EcoDragon
05-25-2005, 02:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by actionhank1786:

now if every time you went to stall, your plane rocketed up in speed, and then backflipped, that'd be a horrible flaw, but as it is now, it's close enough to real flight, and i'm sure it'll be fixed in this FM improvement we're getting. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Hehehehe. . that's just what happens in Microsoft sims if you do an accelerated entry and maintain it!! Even the $39.00 Real air models. When a sim comes out with better stall spin fidelity, I'll be teh first to move to that one. . .I'd say that crown still goes to AEP, and I have high hopes that the developers will continue to improve the spin dynamic, in particular with respect to the lack of post stall nose drop oscillation, adverse yaw (and associated aileron reversal phenomena when near the critical angle of attack), a distinction between coordinated, slipping and skidding flight, and adequate rudder authority to effect a decrease in the rate of wing drop, if not to keep the wings level altogether. I'd really love to see the developed spin include the basic spin variants (accelerated, flat, left vs. right)which will require them to incorporate more comprehensive gyroscopic effects of the prop, acceleration of the spin with forward elevator pressure (in upright spins), yaw and roll rate changes with aileron etc. But that's clearly a lot of work to appeal to what's probably a small fraction of sim users, so I can be patient.

JFC_Slumped
05-25-2005, 06:11 PM
Alot of work for your processor too mate. I struggle with PF as it is.