PDA

View Full Version : Flight Models



XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 10:53 PM
OK its been beat to death but whatever - I want my 2 cents in for this one, since its the only issue that counts.

IL2 as demo - best flight model. Reason I say this is because in the early days Oleg probably just let us have the actual model, unadorned. Like an X1 in the high desert in 1947.... pioneering in flight sims.... Sort of a "here you go, try this out boys - (think you're so hot bunch a p*ssy CFS2 types, eh?)". On the auto simulator side the equivalent is GPL. No spin control or "steering help" built into the coding - just the physics and the input....

Il2 through patches - still ok but toned down somewhat. Still, a good and sensitive pilot could make real headway against the 'g for brains' stick crankers. Subtlety counted....

FB - all right, what's this now? Uber hurries and Yaks that don't stall? I remember the old Yak and this ain't it. So most Il2er's sold themselves a load by suggesting that "Well, maybe this was about how it was after all.... maybe the early ones were too tough.... surely this is the most realistic yet....." and so on and so forth until I could puke..... The old flight model had a razors edge and was sensitive to boot - the new one lands and takes off like a newbies wet dream and can be tossed around like a Frisbee. Tell me it's realistic - hah!

Come on Oleg - give us back the flight models and tell those UBI execs to p*ss up a rope........

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 10:53 PM
OK its been beat to death but whatever - I want my 2 cents in for this one, since its the only issue that counts.

IL2 as demo - best flight model. Reason I say this is because in the early days Oleg probably just let us have the actual model, unadorned. Like an X1 in the high desert in 1947.... pioneering in flight sims.... Sort of a "here you go, try this out boys - (think you're so hot bunch a p*ssy CFS2 types, eh?)". On the auto simulator side the equivalent is GPL. No spin control or "steering help" built into the coding - just the physics and the input....

Il2 through patches - still ok but toned down somewhat. Still, a good and sensitive pilot could make real headway against the 'g for brains' stick crankers. Subtlety counted....

FB - all right, what's this now? Uber hurries and Yaks that don't stall? I remember the old Yak and this ain't it. So most Il2er's sold themselves a load by suggesting that "Well, maybe this was about how it was after all.... maybe the early ones were too tough.... surely this is the most realistic yet....." and so on and so forth until I could puke..... The old flight model had a razors edge and was sensitive to boot - the new one lands and takes off like a newbies wet dream and can be tossed around like a Frisbee. Tell me it's realistic - hah!

Come on Oleg - give us back the flight models and tell those UBI execs to p*ss up a rope........

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 12:00 AM
he can't do it.. cause once he does, the forums will start up again with people posting 1000's of emails "the planes are too hard, it wasnt this way in real life!" "my plane stalls too easily, fix it!!" (as in the p39 this happened)

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 12:09 AM
i pretty much agree with you there

i loved the demo flight models

i loved the p39 when it stalled and spun if you sneezed, just like the real one did from what i have read

maybe too many people couldnt handle it and they had to make everything easier to fly

might be the same why tail draggers dont hadle correctly on the ground, if some people couldnt take off or land they would b1tch and moan instead of spending that time learning how to handle it right

----------------------------------------

http://www.microworks.net/pacific/aviation/xfl-1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 12:21 AM
Two thumbs up to this post.
Hey Oleg, where has realistic FM gone?

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 12:32 AM
The man is right.I get lotsa kills now.

"degustibus non disputandum"

<center>http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

<center>"Weder Tod noch Teufel!"</font>[/B]</center> (http://www.jzg23.de>[B]<font)

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 02:35 AM
I'd like to make a strong note of what "Rifleman" said: (not exact quote) People are too damn lazy to learn what to do about their planes, that they'd rather moan to death about it untill it's tailored to them, instead of figuring it out like everyone else. I think earlier i may have gone AWAL on the K-4, when in reality, the only REAL problem with it now, is the radiator flaps in the beta (which they're fixing).

In other words... HERE YE HERE YE!

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 06:13 AM
I agree. FM has been toned down over the course of the patches. I used to have to pay attention to my flying--my fist clenching the joystick used to sweat--but no more. Taking off takes little effort, and flying even less. I had planned to buy a better joystick with forcefeeback so I could fly on the edge of stalling--but not now. Any basic/cheap joystick will do because going over the edge is not that common. Even the venerable old, original IL-2, namesake of the sim, could be barrel-rolled in versions 1.01, 1.02, ...; but not after IL-2 patch 1.1 or 1.2.

I think it is time to propose an additional realism option for the hardcore, masochistic flyer. ULTRA REALISM. Make some of the flight related settings 3-way switches. First option "none", second "real", and third "ultra". "Ultra Realism" for Stalls/Spins, Takeoff/Landings, etc., would dial-in the older IL-2:Classic FM settings. Pilots using these settings would have to think about the flying part of dogfighting again.


<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_potter_anim.gif (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

Message Edited on 08/08/0305:13AM by rbstr44

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 06:28 AM
gkll wrote:
- OK its been beat to death but whatever - I want my 2
- cents in for this one, since its the only issue that
- counts. *snip*

You know what we need... a secret *.ini setting to enable the old flight models... Because the prob is the NOOB buy these games... and the only experance they have is XWING and jumping round in Quake... But does that stop them from selecting REALISTIC settings? NOPE! And the fragle ego's of the Cat Killing Wing Commander Kids cant handle the fact that they cant handle full REAL... Thus they start whinning.. and sense we be out numbered by the DOOM NOOBS we will have to settle for a GUI options that says FULL REAL in the game... but only enables the NOOB MODE..

But if Oleg could make one of them secret *.ini settings that *we* could enable... that might work? Prob is them NOOB's are pretty good at hacking and would figure out the setting and still whinn like they do... Oh well, I guess we are stuck with the TREND... MORE DEER on the GROUND and LESS FLIGHT MODEL!!



TAGERT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

Message Edited on 08/07/0310:31PM by tagert

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 06:36 AM
I think Oleg went in a wrong direction.He n00bified the FR FM instead of n00bifying the arcade FM.In IL2 even when you choose stalls&spins off you can`t have a good full-arcadish XWing game.

So Oleg f*cked up FR FM instead of simplifying easy FM even more.

"degustibus non disputandum"

<center>http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

<center>"Weder Tod noch Teufel!"</font>[/B]</center> (http://www.jzg23.de>[B]<font)

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 06:49 AM
carguy_ wrote:
- I think Oleg went in a wrong direction.He n00bified
- the FR FM instead of n00bifying the arcade FM.In IL2
- even when you choose stalls&spins off you can`t have
- a good full-arcadish XWing game.
-
- So Oleg f*cked up FR FM instead of simplifying easy
- FM even more.

Hmmm, so your saying if Oleg had just dumbed down the easy mode the XWING guys could have and would have used it and been happy? I dont know if I agree... I have met a few of those Cat Killing Wing Commander want to be XWING guys at E3 and such... Even though they are overweight slobs it does not factor in that it is very hard to RUN up a hill as in DELTA FORCE, or Jump from the top of a V2 rocket to the ground in MOH... I think them fat slobs belive that one less diet coke a day and they could do that... That is to say thier EGO is so large they belive they are the BEST OF THE BEST... Thus when they get a sim like IL2.. they set everything to FULL REAL... in that they are the BEST of the BEST XWING pilots online... Why wouldnt they be able to handle a simple and slow prop plane? And when they find out how hard it trully is... Do you think they stop and think "Maybe it is me?" Heck No! Has to be a problem with the sim!!!! So... with that said.. the EASY FLIGH MODEL wouldnt have helped anyways... Them EGO BOYS wouldnt have set it to those settings anyways!



TAGERT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 06:55 AM
Yeah well,you know there`s no chance of turning back now.



Unfortunately there are more FPS sickoes than hardcore flightsim fans.

"degustibus non disputandum"

<center>http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

<center>"Weder Tod noch Teufel!"</font>[/B]</center> (http://www.jzg23.de>[B]<font)

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 07:00 AM
carguy_ wrote:
- Yeah well,you know there`s no chance of turning back
- now.

Im afraid your right! ;(

- Unfortunately there are more FPS sickoes than
- hardcore flightsim fans.

Sad but true... Sad but true!!



TAGERT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 07:14 AM
this discussion really hits a chord of sadness in me.

i remember when i first taxied down that dirt runway in the
demo in that P-39 ,picked up speed and lifted up the ground
(wich by the way it was raining and we had those rain drops hit the canopy glass, cool effect..where did that go?)

i remember thinking...my god ive been waiting for this all my life.

now all that keeps me flying IL2 is the hope im gona get that feeling again, but of course, that hope allready got old for many of us...im afraid to say..it was good while it lasted..........BUAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 08:52 AM
Oleg

Edwards airforce base in the 50's. A sliderule in the back pocket and a bird waiting, and p*ss on everything else. I've seen your posts, and I bet you get the feel of what I'm saying.... all those nerds, and all those birds, and no one got it til you. Takes a real flier and a man of the heart.... I choose to believe that for you this sim was a pointed arrow of inspiration and talent, a legacy.

And I know you've been sick, and hey man, I've been through some life and death sh*t myself recently and I know about legacy.

So listen to the man talk about that P39 he had once, and the guy p*ssed at the NOOB mob he suspects is behind this all, and carguy - "I get lotsa kills now." Perfect carguy - just so. Know that these are your guys, and think about legacy.

I suspect that ol' physics model is better than ever.... so just take the wraps off it and let us have a peek.....

...... or maybe I'm wasting my breath - I just thought that through the jumbled prism of our crazy old world I caught a glimpse of a kindred spirit (just light the candle, boys.... what did Gagarin say I wonder?) finding a touch of greatness in an unlikely corner. Men make their mark in many ways and touch others when they do. That is why we are here.

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 08:56 AM
hi,
agree..
since FB came to the market some features like the none working motormanagement are new..
but... the FM is more like arkadish...and in some points the planes are moving like this old Jonny Joystick FM of CFS3..

hope for the patch...

anyway: to many planes with a lot of FM informations.. running through the gameengine...

a nice pretest to next sim maybe...

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 11:40 AM
Hey, don't blame X-Wing /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif . X-Wing is not a flight simulation so don't compare it with IL2 or a so called noob sim. When you play X-Wing (or played), you don't wanna have the same "FM" in IL2 or any other sim. X-Wing is still the best SW simulator out there. If you guys now how a Space Fighter with the SW techology should handle realisticly in space, then go ahead and make a "realistic" FM for it /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif .

Btw, i still play X-Wing and Tie-Fighter (with updated visuals) but that doesn't make a noob. I only fly FR with my TrackIR, HOTAS Cougar, Simped F-16+ and the Fresnel Lense.

Don't what you guys have against Space Combat Sims. They were never meant to be like the NASA Space Shuttle Simulator. But IL2:FB is the "best" flight sim although games like CFS2 can still handle stalls and the high alt FM better. Go figure. And don't even think that you guys are superior to guys who fly CFS2 or CFS3. We are all armchair pilots.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<table border="0" width="100%"><tr><td width="50%"><font size=2><font size="-1"> and did those feet in ancient times
trod america's pastures of green?
and did that <font color="#FF0000">anthropocentric</font> god <font color="#FF0000">wane</font>
with their thoughts and beliefs all unseen?
I don't think so,
he's up there with the others lying low,
<font color="#FF0000">vying</font> with those who you've traded
your life to bless your soul,
and have they told you how to think,</font></font></td><td width="50%"><font size=2><font size="-1">
cleansed your mind of <font color="#FF0000">sepsis</font> and autonomy?
or have you escaped scrutiny,
and <font color="#FF0000">regaled</font> yourself with <font color="#FF0000">depravity</font>?
now we all see, "religion is just synthetic
<font color="#FF0000">frippery</font>, unnecessary in our expanding
global culture efficiency"
and don't you fear this impasse
we have built to our future?
ever so near,
and oh so <font color="#FF0000">austere</font> </font></font></td></tr></table>

"God Song" by Bad Religion

http://www.rocket-fuel.com/news/images/bad_religion.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 01:09 PM
IF I Remember Correctly (IIRC), Oleg was very sick during the pre-release of FB and had surgery since then. That means Very Sick. So don't blame Oleg for not managing development of FB.

Oleg has since recovered and a patch has been in the making, and testing, and perfecting as much as possible. Want to guess how much work there has been getting it up to acceptable by Oleg? I bet lots of work! Oleg knows how things fly for real and does not want the real settings to be puffball.

How was the beta8 leaked patch for FM? I didn't read any posts above that mentioned it as an indication of where the FM may be heading. I read many good things about the FM in that beta patch.

It is useless to discuss the FB FM as the way it will be with a major patch coming out. Beat a dying horse Dostoyevsky! It will not pull the cart! (no, I forget the name of the man who beat the horse in the novel, too long ago I read that but the image sticks)


Neal

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 01:26 PM
"How was the beta8 leaked patch for FM? I didn't read any posts above that mentioned it as an indication of where the FM may be heading. I read many good things about the FM in that beta patch."

To my humble opinion, it's no more a pretty game, but now a real sim! Coding work looks huge and results are obvious!

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 09:38 PM
"i loved the p39 when it stalled and spun if you sneezed, just like the real one did from what i have read"

Where did you read that?

S!
609IAP_Recon

Forgotten Wars Virtual War
Forum: http://fogwar.luftwaffe.net/forums/index.php
Website: http://forgottenwars.dyndns.org
Visit 609IAP at http://takeoff.to/609IAP

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg

Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 03:17 AM
i believe i read it in Sport Aviation magazine, it was about a restored p39

talked about how bad the stall was

looked for the issue with that article but havent found it yet, could be anywhere in the house, lol

ill quote it when and if i find it

but i looked in USAAF Fighters of WW2, and it talks about how bad the stall was in the p39, it would even go in to a tumble that could not be recovered from sometimes

"It was thought beacuase of the unique mid-engine installation of the p-39, which had much of the weight centered around the middle of the airframe, that the high-speed stall would throw the aircraft into the end-over-end tumble." USAAF Fighters of WW2, volume 1

"Another deadly factor in the p-39 was aslo due to the short wings, and the resultant airflow. when performing aerobatics at altitude or in ship-to-ship combat that resulted in an unco-ordinated turn or too tight a turn, the plane was said to stall without warning and tumble end over end." USAAF Fighters of WW2, volume 1


"after you spent some ammunition the center gravity would slide back, and the plane could do some strange things. It could tumble, for example. That means somersault, nose and tail swapping places as it drops out of the sky. No plane ought to do that." Edwards Park recalls from his book Nanette, written on WW2 aerial warfare

i still want to find that article in that magazine tho, ill keep looking for it

also would like to see where the nosewheel could break off of the p39, the real ones had fragile nose wheels that gave trouble breaking off on hard landings or rough fields

----------------------------------------

sig removed because becuase some people might get their feelings hurt.
sorry people cant even take a joke anymore

Message Edited on 08/09/0304:10PM by Rifleman75

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 05:17 AM
Rifleman, I wish you would get rid of the frikking sig line.

The US isn't arrogant. People like you are.

And don't give me crap about being from somewhere else. I was born in the US and live in the US.

You make the good people in this country look bad with stuff like that. You should be ashamed. You make what some people say against our country partly true. I won't say more how that makes me feel, but suffice it to say I don't much like your way.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 06:16 AM
Recon_609IAP wrote:
- "i loved the p39 when it stalled and spun if you
- sneezed, just like the real one did from what i have
- read"
-
- Where did you read that?
-
- S!
- 609IAP_Recon

Recon I thought the same thing. All you guys who think harder is more realistic are misled. Sure the P-39 stalled out pretty easy and it still does if you fly it wrong. I think the FMs are more realistic now...and the new and improved Jug is a deffinite improvement over the original FB FM. You can still stall out the P-39 if you handle it wrong...get it in a flat spin low to the ground..say around 1000 or less.....if you dont think quick you may not recover. I think FB is the very best sim out ..hands down..the FMs...especially with this upcoming patch are top notch. Harder doesnt mean better or more realistic. If it was that hard why did the Soviet pilots do so well with it? Thw American pilots had a different P-39 from the one the Soviets had..the Soviets modified it somewhat..plus the fact that they used it differently. No sim is going to have 100% dead on FMs...but FB is by far going to go down in the end as the best WW2 combat sim of the first decade of the new millenium.....unless the technology changes drasticly and we can get a CGI based sim that wont need a system that costs more than a car.

<CENTER>http://www.world-wide-net.com/tuskegeeairmen/ta-1943.jpg <marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"Straighten up.......Fly right..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee> http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat

<CENTER><FONT COLOR="ORANGE">vflyer@comcast.net<FONT COLOR>
<Center><div style="width:200;color:red;font-size:18pt;filter:shadow Blur[color=red,strength=8)">99th Pursuit Squadron

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 07:17 AM
WWMaxGunz wrote:
- Rifleman, I wish you would get rid of the frikking
- sig line.
-
- The US isn't arrogant. People like you are.
-
- And don't give me crap about being from somewhere
- else. I was born in the US and live in the US.
-
- You make the good people in this country look bad
- with stuff like that. You should be ashamed. You
- make what some people say against our country partly
- true. I won't say more how that makes me feel, but
- suffice it to say I don't much like your way.
-
-
- Neal
-
-
-
-
-


my sig was a joke, and not to be taken seriously

and you didnt have to attack me, i love my country as much as anyone else

you like my new sig, it should also not be taken serious or some people might be offended, should i put a disclaimer below it?

----------------------------------------

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 07:59 AM
remember when it was a real show of skill when someone could successfully dogfight in a p39?

heres a idea how to have ultra realistic FM and keep the xwing commander noob pilots happy and thinking they are still the best. its a way to trick them, since it was said they go for the most realistic settings there are becuase they think they are the best, you just label all the realism settings backwards

so the "easy" setting would be the ultra realistic flight model, and the "realistic" setting would have the arcade flight model, that way they instantly go for the realism and think they are still the best, and the guys like us that love the realism because, well, its the closest most of all of us will ever get to flying a real warbird, would know the difference and fly with the ultra realistic FM

so what do yall think?

----------------------------------------
France, they are there when they need you.
----------------------------------------
*****Disclaimer*****
- Read the above post at your own risk!
- The above post is not official.
- If the content of the above post and or signature is found offensive, it is recommended to think of it as a joke, or to not take it seriously.
- Rifleman is not responsible for any offense taken by the reader.

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 08:26 AM
This ridiculous bullshi**ing just never ceases, does it?

The whole thing starts out with "IL-2 came out first, so that must be the real thing"... and then advances to "..since its easier in many aspects now, it must be neutered."... then finally arrives at "..Flying in a masochistic FM makes me a man.. and all that guys who like more lenient FM are n00bs".

...


I've seen countless sims coming in and out, every single one of them needs tweaking now and then. Any one of you actually ever consider IL-2 FM could have been wrong?

What makes IL-2 FM so more 'realistic' over FB FM?

All I'm hearing so far is "it's more hard, so it must be more real". I'm waiting for other original suggestions.




-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 08:51 AM
go there, read this, come back later...

http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_065a.html

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 09:22 AM
I agree with the first poster.

FM are to easy/unrealistic in FB compared to old IL2.
In my option they where best in IL2 1.2 from overall view.

In my option problem in FB is that the planes loeses to less energie when they fly slow and are still controllable even at very low speed (hanging on propelor and still controlable without problem)
But this counts for all Planes.Bf109/FW190 series does the same thing.
It simple comes easier to see at extrem Planes like P39 Hurrican ect.

I would prefer if the FM would bleed energie at high speed like now but at lowspeed like it was in IL2.
But im not Pilot so my option is based on feeling not knowlegde /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/images/07-minister.jpg


"Das Spiel hat keine wirklichen Bugs, das sind alles nur Kleinigkeiten"

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 09:57 AM
OK this is how I figure it.

Original model is written. New concepts are employed, and for the first time some real enhancements to the physics model are implemented. I don't know any details about precisely what this is for Il2 (if it is) - the feedback to the stick is a clue. Perhaps previous flight sims were vector based, ie if this altitude then this is the top speed, and given speed and altitude+angle of attack then max roll rate=____, and so on. In IL2 the snippets I have heard indicate that the model is returning feedback from the controls, meaning the forces on elevators rudder etc are known. If this is true then there is likely a plane and air, rather than vectors and tables.. When this happened in auto sims everyone noticed, and we got the Indy500 to GPL series by Kaemmer, still the best.

If anyone or everyone knows all this about the model already let me know.... lets be clear I'm guessing and if its been hunted down I want to learn it .

Anyhow for IL2 this would make the response to controls direct from the stick to an actual simulated plane, doing 2 things.

First the plane would feel like a plane for the first time. Subtlety counts. Everyone notices.

Second. Plane is hard to fly. Problem is physics model is so direct, but input is only received through the eyes and sometimes stick depending on hardware. Real pilots get a lot more, and so the difficulty is harder than real life. The same conceptual issues have been beat to death over SA ( and probably the FM too).

Thing is I don't care. I want the physics model as direct as possible. Forget that its too tough. Because the solution has to be to institute some automatic recovery routines on spins, skids etc. Forget that crap it was no good on the auto sims either. People eventually figure out how to interpret the limited input from the audio visual tactile feedback and they sort it out. Sure the learning curve is too high, but when you get there you've got the real thing.

So yeah I do think that the FM was dumbed down. At the same time the realism improved as the difficulty is more realistic. So give us a switch, and give the man his P39 back.

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 10:10 AM
Hoarmurath wrote:
- go there, read this, come back later...
-

have you read the article yourself?
it is about realism of scenario, not about relistim of FM.

it has some good points, but
"put away your performance data and calculators, load up IL2 Forgotten Battles and go do what the game is intended for, having fun!"
that's thin for an article called "Reality check"



quiet_man

second foundation member of the EURO_Snoopy fan club!

I'm quiet_man, but if I post I post quiet much /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 10:26 AM
quiet_man wrote:
-
- Hoarmurath wrote:
-- go there, read this, come back later...
--
-
- have you read the article yourself?
- it is about realism of scenario, not about relistim
- of FM.
-
- it has some good points, but
- "put away your performance data and calculators,
- load up IL2 Forgotten Battles and go do what the
- game is intended for, having fun!"
- that's thin for an article called "Reality check"
-
-
-
-
- quiet_man
-
Exactly right quiet man.

gkll is not good kill.... a buddy pointed out that it is slang already in use,,,, oh well its initials and no more, but forget it I'm not changing now.

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 10:34 AM
gkll wrote:
- OK this is how I figure it.
-
*
snip
*
-
- So yeah I do think that the FM was dumbed down. At
- the same time the realism improved as the difficulty
- is more realistic. So give us a switch, and give
- the man his P39 back.
-
-

drag from wingload depends on two values: the wingload itself and the speed of the plane. Whatever wingload a plane has, the slower the speed the faster drag grows until the plane stalls

for planes with relative high wingload (late 109/190 or La5) the low speed drag should be very high even before they stall.

in IL2 this effect was much stronger, maybe to strong, but in FB every plane can glide even at very slow speed.



quiet_man

second foundation member of the EURO_Snoopy fan club!

I'm quiet_man, but if I post I post quiet much /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 10:58 AM
ok, of course i didn't expect you to quote the most interesting points of this article...

" It is often noted that many reliable and accurate sources of data for an aircraft, sources such as the manufacturer, various scientific establishments and test agencies, and of course the air forces that used the aircraft operationally, often conflict in the precise values of performance data. The simple fact is, that unless they all tested the very same aircraft, at exactly the same place and at exactly the same time, you would expect to see differences in their results. There are so many factors that contribute to those variations, it is more surprising that the numerical values for such data agrees as closely as it often does. For that reason experienced and competitive flight sim' pilots won't assume that the aircraft being modeled will compare exactly to their expectations. They do however expect the physics of the flight modeling to be sophisticated enough that real world tactics can be successfully employed against their opponents and that is certainly true in IL2 Forgotten Battles. What is most important in a competitive environment, is not how close the performance of the flight model matches that of the real aircraft, but how the performance of the aircraft in the simulation compares with each other. After all, that is what will count in your next engagement!"

is much more interesting then the sentence you quote...

also :

http://www.simhq.com/_air/images/air_065a_3t.gif


http://www.simhq.com/_air/images/air_065a_4t.gif


http://www.simhq.com/_air/images/air_065a_6t.gif


sure, it is entirely scenario oriented, and have nothing to do with a FM discussion...

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 11:30 AM
Here we go again /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Gotta add my opinion into this on too..

I tend to agree with original poster because the simple reason that the historical tactics for LW side worked better in il2 times than now in FB.

You could dive relatively easily and get away from VVS planes, spiral climbing worked much better etc.

Here I can see the comments "why does harder make it more real" well I have a counter question, what makes you say that harder is less real?

Havent seen any evidence from you guys about that.

For me the old more easily stalling P39 represented more historical P39 than what I see now in FB.

Quite simply in old versions of il2 P39 flyed like it is described in historical research documents. Now in FB, it doesnt simple as that.

And FB is full of this kinda behaviour, so I dont see any reason why it should be defended so fanatically. Clearly good product goned bad since lead developper wasnt looking after it in the end phase and now it has taken more than 3 months to get it right again. (could be even more, clearly i have waited for the patch so long that i have losed the sense of time)

If things werent wrong we would have had the patch ages ago.



Message Edited on 08/09/0306:15PM by alarmer

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 02:03 PM
Did somebody say "harder is less real?"

Because, the last time I checked, our catch-logo, "harder doesn't mean more real", came out in protest against the people who have a fetish towards "difficulties", and automatically assume "since FB is more easy, it's neutered. And since IL-2 is more hard, it's more real", without anything to back up those claims.

...

Where does this "myth" of "planes at slow speeds can't maneuver" come from, anyway? Do control surfaces suddenly disappear on the verge of stall or something?

Or maybe Mark Hanna was an idiot, when he commented;

"It feels very positve and the amount of effort on the control column needed to produce the relevant nose movement seems exactly right to me. As CL max is reached the leading edge slats deploy - together if the ball is in the middle, slightly asymmetrically if you have any slip on. The aircraft delights in being pulled into hard manuevering turns at these slower speeds. As the slats pop out you feel a slight "notching" on the stick and you can pull more until the whole airframe is buffeting quite hard. A little more and you will drop a wing, but you have to be crass to do it unintentionally."

...about maneuvering in the Bf109?

Or maybe when BoB experten commented;

"..the slats would deploy with a loud bang! noise, and it would scare the inexperienced. But to the better pilots, only after then the real maneuvering began.."


.. they didn't know what they were saying?


....


Or perhaps you people intentionally try to forget what kind of speeds the planes in IL-2 were flying in?

Try this, chaps. Fly all your FB engagements with 70% throttle only, and I guarantee you, you will feel the wonders of IL-2 come back alive right before your eyes.



Face it.

All of you, are taking for granted the under-powered and under-accelerating FM of IL-2(which many other people besides I have pointed out time and time again) as the "real thing".

For the love of God, if planes all crapped out in speed and alt like they did in IL-2, how could a side using planes that have inferior maneuverability NOT rely on "Historical tactics"?

They didn't do that because it was more 'effective'... they did that because they didn't have any other choice!

In that granging environment where the slightest turn will pull your ankles and drag your speed down to 200~300km/h range, and set you in a belly-scratching turn fight which you can never win...


Historical tactics are still effective in FB.

Only in FB, you see less of the people doing that, since they don't have to rely on only that, anymore.

Now, they have a chance to utilize various methods of more dynamic E-tactics upon various situations, instead of just going up, down, up, down, up, down, like the Old Faithful.

Just go and try recording the time it takes for IL-2 planes to go from 200km/h level to 500km/h, in a level flight. Hello? Do I hear "forever!" somewhere..?





Message Edited on 08/09/0310:07PM by kweassa

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 04:15 PM
Im not play FB for few months, its little silly for me. When i see TB3 taking 10x 37mm shells from yak9, or some chaika chaising bf109E with success im little confused. IL2 have much better online playing then FB. Ok, planes were slower, lower dynamic or so. But i can kill in my fw190 some noobs on La5 or yak, i cant this on FB. Nobody tells that FM was more realistic than in FB, nobody tells that planes had more realistic speeds, stall speeds or whatever. But in Il2 times i knew that if i had some advantage or im better pilot i could win, in FB 90% is plane, 9% is luck and 1% is pilot. Hope patch will do something, but i won't give my head for a bet...

<center>http://acn.waw.pl/jg300/Stronajg300/images/obrazki%20do%20strony/banand.jpg

Fly fast, stay high, shoot to kill.

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 04:26 PM
Radykalne opinie s' tu nie mile widziane,And./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

"degustibus non disputandum"

<center>http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

<center>"Weder Tod noch Teufel!"</font>[/B]</center> (http://www.jzg23.de>[B]<font)

Message Edited on 08/09/0310:10PM by carguy_

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 06:53 PM
Hoarmaruth - I don't care about relative performance of aircraft.

I am talking about the 'flying help' features I suspect have been introduced or strengthened in successive iterations of the FM. Whatever about P47 roll rates etc etc etc. Not the point.

The behaviour of the aircraft has been softened when you get close to a spin or otherwise push that puppy out to the edge of what it can do. Our control inputs to the simulated plane may be softened by smoothing routines as well, to make it less sensitive.

Of course the net effect may be that the simulator is more realistic because it about right for difficulty, however me and a bunch of other guys still want the raw flight model. And the frustration comes because it appears there is something much closer to a real plane behind the coding than we ever had before..... and then it got eased up on and hidden from us. Auto simulators commonly have a 'steering help' switch. I believe there is now a 'flying help' loop or loops built in to the game and I simply want a switch to turn it off or ease it off.

salut

ZG77_Nagual
08-09-2003, 07:04 PM
Most of the complaints about the p39 apply to the early models - the first one we get is the N1.
according an account I recently read by a vvs pilot who flew the 39, 40, hurri and I16 - it was an easy plane to master. most problems were associated with the earlier models.
I'd ignore usaaf accounts of this bird - they diverge to much from vvs accounts and the vvs had more combat experience in it.

Beta 08 has the best flight models I've ever seen. Much feedback was given on it - it will only be better in the full release.

Relax, and quite complaining about the p39 - read acounts by aces who flew it and flew it well not usaaf accounts by people who ever figured the plane out.

http://airforce.users.ru/lend-lease/english/articles/romanenko/index.htm

http://airforce.users.ru/lend-lease/english/articles/golodnikov/

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg


Message Edited on 08/09/03 02:06PM by ZG77_Nagual

Message Edited on 08/09/0302:22PM by ZG77_Nagual

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 07:09 PM
Hoarmurath wrote:
- " It is often noted that many reliable and accurate
- sources of data for an aircraft, sources such as the
- manufacturer, various scientific establishments and
- test agencies, and of course the air forces that
- used the aircraft operationally, often conflict in
- the precise values of performance data. The simple
- fact is, that unless they all tested the very same
- aircraft, at exactly the same place and at exactly
- the same time, you would expect to see differences
- in their results. There are so many factors that
- contribute to those variations, it is more
- surprising that the numerical values for such data
- agrees as closely as it often does. For that reason
- experienced and competitive flight sim' pilots won't
- assume that the aircraft being modeled will compare
- exactly to their expectations. They do however
- expect the physics of the flight modeling to be
- sophisticated enough that real world tactics can be
- successfully employed against their opponents and
- that is certainly true in IL2 Forgotten Battles.
- What is most important in a competitive environment,
- is not how close the performance of the flight model
- matches that of the real aircraft, but how the
- performance of the aircraft in the simulation
- compares with each other. After all, that is what
- will count in your next engagement!"

That is about the BEST summary of flight models vs peoples preception of them I have ever seen! Great post, very VERY TRUE!


TAGERT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 07:24 PM
p39n-1 had spin problem and could not match vertical maneuver against g2,f4


that was reason 44 russian remove outerguns and armor from p39q,

for better horizental and vertical maneuver



p39n-1 right flightmodel in beta08?

seem not,

it climb better as la-5fn and turn better as la-5fn



seem p39n-1 has not so low drag how many think

f4 is faster,although p39n-1 has more power

and her power/weigh ratio is too weak

not good for vertical maneuver,accelerate and climb

but beta08 is p39n-1 verical maneuver very good and accelerate,climb very good



Message Edited on 08/10/0310:43AM by Skalgrim

ZG77_Nagual
08-09-2003, 07:39 PM
Agreed Skalgrim - though the 39 did have good aerodynamics - so would logically sustain the zoom well - but yes I think the climb problem was pointed out. Someone made an excellent graph of climbing performance in beta 08 (can't remember who - maybe you?) and all that was submitted. I just figured they gave it the P63s climb by mistake /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

As for Historical tactics - these work quite well in german vs vvs aircraft in 08 - also the 190s will outturn vvs aircraft at high speeds - which adds to the use of historical tactics - regaining the zoom climb after a pass and making corrections during passes.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 09:54 PM
i find myself flying the p47 and p40 more and more now, i just get bored with the "easy" planes, thats why i flew the p39 in IL2, it was a challenge just to fly, didnt get bored with it


i guess thats another reason why i have never flown the yaks or la's


----------------------------------------
sig removed because becuase some people might get their feelings hurt.
sorry people cant even take a joke anymore
----------------------------------------
*****Disclaimer*****
- Read the above post at your own risk!
- The above post is not official.
- If the content of the above post and or signature is found offensive, it is recommended to think of it as a joke, or to not take it seriously.
- Rifleman is not responsible for any offense taken by the reader.


Message Edited on 08/09/0304:01PM by Rifleman75

XyZspineZyX
08-09-2003, 11:38 PM
kweassa don't get so idignant. You don't get the point.

Don't argue with me about where the edge of the performance envelope is. I don't care where it is. My guess is that Oleg has built us a pretty sophisticated model, something closer to a plane than a set of vectors with tables of values. When you build a process based model like that it may not provide realistic answers (e-bleed, corner radii at a given speed etc etc) because the model is too complex and is theory based. Weird stuff happens. These kinds of simulators also tend have funny little corners and 'bugs' where combinations of theory based functions combine to create unreasonable, non-empirical results. So the work on calibrating the model is never-ending. So you pop in the plane parameters for something new (spitfire p51 etc) and just let her go. Then you tweak until it delivers the right numbers, ie model calibration.

And this is what you guys are talking about. It must be a massive headache to calibrate relative and absolute performance for a bunch of planes, when the basic flight envelope from the raw plane is at variance with published data. Take the P47 roll for instance. Maybe he modelled that bird and took it for a spin, and it rolled like a pig. So he rechecks his original models and most of them (109, yak etc) rolled a lot closer to RL, out of the bag. So since he's never had to adjust the model that much before to get it to work, he leaves it a little piggish. And then the forum heats up with P47 roll rate threads..... and so on and so forth. I suspect many earlier sims have none of these problems, because they are the flight envelope, that is all that is there. Roll rate isn't right? Just change the table. Oleg finds a bad roll rate and who knows what bizarre stuff he may have to do to get it close to RL.

Anyhow none of the above has anything to do with my point - which I started the thread with in the first place.

My point is that I believe some 'pilot aids' have been instituted (or enhanced) to control how easy it is to fly to the edge of the envelope, to protect us from the effect of large, sloppy and unco-ordinated control inputs among other things. This takes the edge off flying the plane and hides its true behaviour from us, and also makes it more realistic because real pilots get a ton of input from the plane, and they need it to fly on the edge. We don't and so without the 'aids' it is too hard.

Still I want a switch so I can turn these aids off and just fly.

PS I wish somebody who knew something about how plane models work would weigh in on this. Maybe I'm blowing smoke in left field.... but isn't the feel of this sim substantially better than any previous? Isn't that why we love the game? And I'd swear pilot aids have been added for landing, meaning pilot aids exist......

XyZspineZyX
08-10-2003, 01:19 AM
I believe now that FB has sold almost all of it's copies, it would be the time to launch the "FR no BS"patch, or simply make an arcade mode, FR FM and DM *as-real-as-it-gets*, and when someone comes whining that the plane is tuned down, that the trim is too slow, that kind of stuff, Oleg(or anyone else) justy say "go to the arcade mode", no discussion anymore /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-10-2003, 02:26 AM
FiNaZZi

sounds like a good idea to me

the only way ive been able to keep myself entertained with FB lately is to fly teh p40 in FR or almost FR servers

thats quite a challenge

----------------------------------------
people need to lighten up, dont take stuff so serious, you dont want to give your self a heart attack do you?

XyZspineZyX
08-10-2003, 09:58 AM
FiNaZZi wrote:
- I believe now that FB has sold almost all of it's
- copies, it would be the time to launch the "FR no
- BS"patch, or simply make an arcade mode, FR FM and
- DM *as-real-as-it-gets*, and when someone comes
- whining that the plane is tuned down, that the trim
- is too slow, that kind of stuff, Oleg(or anyone
- else) justy say "go to the arcade mode", no
- discussion anymore
-

LOL! Yes, perhaps a superiority selector dial even, or a whole screens worth of ini settings! Please! Not! It just seems that for some people that would let the sim match what they understand for truth.


Neal

-----------------------------------------------------------
Some people need to realize how they appear to the world, literally, in a world-public place.
Some people need to realize that all 'jokes' are not funny and some are offensive in many ways.
Some people need to be more responsible about the messages they make.
"I was kidding!" is not not an excuse for making insults.
-----------------------------------------------------------

XyZspineZyX
08-10-2003, 10:19 AM
hi,
agree..and a automatic rudder-trim button in arcade mode ..for all those who don't know how it works in real
+ in game..

perfect or higher settings in more steps as now..

OK ..IL2/FB were sold a lot and grandmother's Mr. Jonny Joystick is interest in nonproblem starts,landings and easy acrobatic flights and kills by bombastic gun-nozzles...

A problem for all developers as they are always interest in a big market penetration of the actally PC-flightsim-games ..

more hardcore or less ..or more arcade.. or something from both..that's rhe problem

OK ..the discussion of general 'bugs' is another point !

Could be interest to notice the coming LockOn buttons and features to this problem..

FiNaZZi wrote:
- I believe now that FB has sold almost all of it's
- copies, it would be the time to launch the "FR no
- BS"patch, or simply make an arcade mode, FR FM and
- DM *as-real-as-it-gets*, and when someone comes
- whining that the plane is tuned down, that the trim
- is too slow, that kind of stuff, Oleg(or anyone
- else) justy say "go to the arcade mode", no
- discussion anymore <img
-

XyZspineZyX
08-10-2003, 10:59 AM
re,
a setting-tweak management tool by download from the developer could be helpful in this case (like IL2/FB Manager 3.0)...just a idea..

XyZspineZyX
08-10-2003, 03:45 PM
gkll wrote:
[snip]
- My guess is that Oleg has built us a pretty
- sophisticated model, something closer to a plane
- than a set of vectors with tables of values. When
[snip]
- My point is that I believe some 'pilot aids' have
- been instituted (or enhanced) to control how easy
- it is to fly to the edge of the envelope, to protect
- us from the effect of large, sloppy and
- unco-ordinated control inputs among other things.
- This takes the edge off flying the plane and hides
- its true behaviour from us, and also makes it more
- realistic because real pilots get a ton of input
- from the plane, and they need it to fly on the edge.
- We don't and so without the 'aids' it is too hard.
[snip]

I think your comparison between simple flight parameter look-up table simulations that has characteristics, which when plotted on a graph, appears to be a discontinuous/step function, and a more complex approach which follows the continuous curves of real world aircraft physics is valid. That is, the 1C:Maddox flight model attempts to model flight dynamics over a complete range of typical flight conditions--for example, the curves plotted on the graph below. Still, unreasonable, or out of bounds conditions may not be modeled (or just not shown in the graph), for example, turns above 6g's.

"Forgotten Battles: A Reality Check" (http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_065a.html)

http://www.simhq.com/_air/images/air_065a_4t.gif (http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_065d.html)

Contrast that behavior with a lookup table simulation which may only include a few of the flight model values represented, but only select points; for example, if the simulation included the values at the locations on the graph where the arrows are pointing, with no change in FM performance for in-between conditions; or, at best, a linear interpolation between a few finite data points in the table.

I think you are right about the FM being padded to protect us from our limited I/O (Human Machine Interface:HMI) device technology. Absolutely, a digital joystick and 19" monitor is a poor substitute for sitting in a real cockpit with a real control stick, rudder pedals, etc., with sometimes significant effort required to move these controls when flying "at the edge"; likewise, reality has wider views that include the windscreens and instrument console together, but focusing on what needs to be seen at the moment (not to mention the contribution by peripheral vision). And then there is simple "flying by the seat of the pants" that we cannot have. Sadly, we are exposed only to a tiny viewport on the world of the WWII flyer by this sim. At least, when we turn off our computers, we get to survive the experience every time unlike many of brave men who lived it.

Someone brought up "arcade" games earlier. Interestingly, if you try to play some of the old 80's arcade games on your computer with a typical digital joystick or gamepad, some of them do not work quite as well. Why? Because many of those original arcade consoles hosted analog joysticks, and analog spinners that had better fine movement control than many of the digital ones we have today. So, in some instances, analog is better...like the analog controls which WWII pilots used.

So, I understand why Oleg & Co. had to protect us from our own limited (almost crude) digital HMI to some extent. I just think the "balance", this time, has shifted too far in favor of sheltering us.


<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_potter_anim.gif (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 03:47 AM
There was a good discussion on stalls (in particular), and other FM issues that occurred back in the Spring (2003) in ORR; these particular posts (below) are from guys who have flown a bit. Excerpts and links follow:


<blockquote>"As for experts, yeah. You'd be surprised how many simmers have been around real airplanes. I've flown the T-37, the USAF trainer. The tweet is a nice straight wing jet trainer with speeds that are very similar to WW2 fighters. Root airfoil is NACA 2418, thinning to a NACA 2412 at the tip." IV_JG51_Theo
http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zvwzf


"None of these aircraft ( in FB) in RL had real benign behavior, these are high performance high powered machines." BPO5_Jinx
http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zvxpk


"The general sentiment amongst the few actual pilots that post here is that *most* of the aircraft in FB are far more stall/spin resistant than actual aircraft, and most certainly thin airfoiled, heavily loaded fighters." TX-EcoDragon
http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zvxpm


"Before you curse the FM of your favorite ride as screwed, go do some reading (both general aeronautics and information on specific airframes) and/or get some experience with real aircraft. You may find that the programmers at Maddox Games (many of them aeronautical engineers themselves) have actually done a pretty good job. If you do find data to the contrary, it makes your comments a little more substantive and constructive than just saying 'this thing sux'." Blottogg
http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zvwrb
</blockquote>


The thread that I linked to above did not quite start off on a positive note, but knowlegeable simmers like the gents who I quoted made it an educating read (for me).

--rbstr44

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_potter_anim.gif (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 06:24 AM
rbstr44 wrote:
- There was a good discussion on stalls (in
- particular), and other FM issues that occurred back
- in the Spring (2003) in ORR; these particular posts
- (below) are from guys who have flown a bit.
- Excerpts and links follow:
-



Thanks rbstr44.

The posts look spot on topic. I will read with great interest.

If my intuition concerning the degree of process structure built into Il2 is wrong I will send a final post requesting the thread be locked as an example to those who would waste others time with long-winded posts down dixie and wrong....

On the other hand I could be wrong about the model structure and still right about the 'pilot aids' switch I want provided to me free of charge at great work in programming....

Anyhow its nice to see that the people weighing generally agreed with the original post

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 07:06 AM
I'll quit clogging up the forums if somebody can point me to source to let me understand the models..

I code ecosystems for a living and am top flight, the 2 minutes to point me to a source will go to a good place and I will understand what I am reading.

Posts were good rbstr and confirm the judgement that we have got a dumbed down model. Just more looking for info on model structure not behaviour.....

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 07:26 PM
Found an article on combatsim - I'll try and post the link below

http://www.combatsim.com/htm/oct99/flight1.htm

Seems flight sims have moved beyond tables vs physics some time ago. Probably IL2 is just more sophisticated than most. If anyone knows how IL2 would fit into the general model types described in the article I would be interested in hearing.

As to the original thread purpose -"get the 'pilot aids' turned off" I finally flew the patched version the other night and in my opinion we still have the 'help' turned on. Comments?

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 08:29 PM
This was interesting, and if true we may never get a flyable Pe~8... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif


- I'm hesitant to say this, but based on the above
- statements simulation developers are faced with a
- dilemma. Obviously older technologies like simple "data- lookup"
- tables are far easier to use to convey specific
- flight-performance specifications.

- But simulation consumers are demanding higher fidelity
- flight models, which by their very nature require vast
- amounts of "specific" data and specifications, many of
- which are extremely scarce if available at all.

The thing I notice is....

(1) The more "detail" the FM, the more Whining.

(2) Notice how some ace Noobs whine that the more difficult flying aircraft are the more desirable to fly into combat based soley upon the difficulty of flying. If these Noobs were to be involved in World War 2, they would be the ones that thought up the botched missions that sent young pilots to their needless deaths.

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 09:45 AM
I am a pilot, I love flying and I really love aerobatics, and only have so much money for flying and so sims are another way in which I enjoy aviation. Before I was a pilot I was a simmer. . .I used to take what I could get in the way of the FM and graphics etc. I was always dissapointed that the aircraft never had very complex physics, aerobatics that where anything other than a loop, roll, or cuban eight were all but impossible. . no spins, no knife edge, no snap rolls, no tail slides, no hammerheads, no slips, etc. Then one day I found a combat sim, something that I did not expect to be that revolutionary, but since it was a sim, I bought it. Well, it was revolutionary. . it was by far the best dang FM I had found in a few of the airplanes.


I have hung around for my squad, and with hopes that the FM is improved, but I have to say, beyond any shadow of a doubt that the FM of IL-2 Ver 1.04 was the best. With the current FMs being a few giant leaps backwards. Some of the current aircraft seem to have some of the old FM hiding deep within them. In the case of the 190, they do appear to be improving in certain respects (a few odd issues not withstanding) My P-39 however only looks like my old steed. . . and is tamer than a C-150 Aerobat!!

Anyone who thinks the FM on any of these planes is/was overly difficult to fly effectively probably has not done much in the way of high performance flight. Many pilots with thousands of hours have never flown with their airplane on the very edge of the envelope, and many, despite all their training and experience, die when they delve into it. In a dogfight your at the edge, aircraft are not tame then, none of them are. People here need to acknowledge that what a video game player deems difficult, and a person who spends years and thousands of dollars training to do are two very different things. When a pilot comments on an aircraft's characteristics, they are speaking to other pilots, who have a certain baseline for comparison. If a non-pilot, or a new pilot (or heck. . most GA pilots) were to read something like "the 109 liked to be pulled hard when slow, and would only drop a wing when you are hamfisted" he would have a very different interpretaion than a pilot with some understanding of similar aircraft types, and with a familiarity of the particular characteristics of that airplane, and might actually be able to get some picture of the aircraft's handling. . .in short, take someone who simply reads this statement and takes it at face value, and then an experienced pilot, and you have two very different conclusions.

I think that we all know that the 109 would be a more difficult plane to fly than today's most stable and forgiving trainers. . . and the FM that exists in these sim aircraft is in fact tamer than that which exists in these docile trainers!

I have flown hundreds of aircraft types, including WWI and WWII vintage fighters and trainers, and all have their quirks. None of these planes can a pilot hop into and never get into a situation that is over their head, pilots who fly these things train, and train hard. . . and they are always learning.

Despite all my ranting above, it also seems that there are a few aircraft that have certain aspects of their performance that are a little extreme. For whatever reason neither IL-2 nor FB models stalls, instead a wing drops quickly into a spin in what resembles a snap roll mroe than anything else, whereas in the real world a person who is good at dancing on the rudder can typically maintai a wings level attitude, and if a spin develops, can usually recover rather assuredly, while the current version of FB seems to have spins that appear quite tame, but are simply unrecoverable. Of course the P-40 was a little over done, and the P-47 was as well. I am not complaining, I am just stating the oppinions that I have. . . I really was blown away by this sim, and like many of you I find that I am quite passionate about it, and as such I guess I want it to be perfect. While it isn't perfect, it is still quite fun, and while I want the 109, P39, forward and side slips, hammerheads and torque from the old days I still play lots of FB. But because its not perfect in my eyes, and because I love this sim so much, I am going to make my voice heard.

In short. . . I agree!


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

Reserve Pilot Aircraft #2 of Gruppo 313
Pattuglia Acrobatica Virtuale
http://www.pav-amvi.it

http://www.calaggieflyers.com/



http://www.txsquadron.com/images/txsquadron_main.gif



Message Edited on 08/27/0310:34PM by TX-EcoDragon

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 12:10 PM
To TX-EcoDragon....
Now this is an anwser i like....http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-27-2003, 09:12 AM
When I first started FB, I also thought, wow, they made the flying considerably easier than IL2-1.04. Felt like dumbed down FM to me, as compared to IL2.

However, in many years of playing different sims, I've learnt that 'harder' isn't always 'more realistic'. Sometimes 'easier' is indeed more like the real thing.

So, I've decided to simply accept FB's FM as they are. They're fun to fly, they create a sufficiently immersive environment for me, so I've decided to not complain about details, if they don't seriously distract from the overall enjoyment.

XyZspineZyX
08-27-2003, 11:40 AM
At least in one case I know of, the P-47, 1.1b is still 'harsher' than real life. The real P-47 had incredibly tame accelerated stall characteristics and had NO tendency to drop a wing or snap roll.

The P-40s and P-39s all behave exactly as I'd expect them to based on pilot accounts. If you're sloppy or on an adrenaline rush and ham fist the controls on the edge of a stall, they will spin out on you. Just like they did in real life.

Something many die-hard simmers don't realize is that they have many more 'hours' experience flying these things than the actual pilots did. Out of the three US fighter groups sent to Australia/New Guinea at the beginning of 1942, something like 80 percent or more of the pilots had not logged a SINGLE hour in a fighter prior to their arrival. They had all just finished basic pilot training in the T-6. Even fewer had actually fired a gun from an airplane in training.

I've seen nothing in this patch that gives any indication of a dumbed-down, over-simplified flight model.

I DO see indications of corrections made. In the pre-patch FB, the only way you could get a P-40M out of a fully-developed spin was to extend a notch of flaps in addition to the normal spin recovery procedure. That was BS. These planes were farily easy to get into a spin, but they were also pretty easy to get out of one.

Easy, difficult - I don't care. I just want it REAL.

-Bill